1. Discuss the chemical constituency of the seminal plasma and the role each component plays in supporting successful fertilization.

2. What barriers are faced by sperm in the female reproductive tract?

3. Describe the process of capacitation – what changes are made to the sperm during this period and what substances contribute to these changes?

4. During fertilization, changes are made to the sperm and to the oocyte; describe these changes and their consequences

Calculate uK

Tax reform has been discussed by Congress for many years. A number of changes were implemented for the 2018 tax year. There are several areas of changes that affected individual taxpayers and businesses. What were some of the changes?

the changes made by the tax cut and jobs act, 2017 to the tax provisions have changed tax rate for 2018 and people are getting a first hand experience of what it means to them. go over the act and address the question s below
1 what are the major changes made to the tax provisions by the act?
2 what impact is it likely to have on our GDP and government's budget?
3 how have the changes in taxes affected you personally?
4 does everyone benefit from the changes in tax provisions or does it favor one group over other?
5 what changes do you agree and disagree with?
6 if you had the power to revise the act, what changes would you make?

Discussion Questions:

1. What impact will Brisson’s decision to manufacture MS-7 have on the cost structure of Stimgro for Carmichael?
2. Should Amanda Tellford do anything at this stage?
3. What alternatives are open to Amanda Tellford?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative?
5. What is the cost structure for Stimgro and the margin?
6. Since Stimgro is very profitable, with a good margin, why does it matter if the cost of MS-7 increases?

Main Question:

7. As Amanda Tellford, what alternatives would you consider regarding MS-7? Which alternative would you pursue and how would you go about it?

Carmichael Corporation

Amanda Tellford, purchasing manager for Carmichael Corporation, became increasingly concerned about the purchase of MS-7, a special ingredient used in Stimgro, one of her company’s new products. It appeared that a major cost increase might threaten the product’s profitability, and Amanda was anxious to explore any alternatives that promised at least some cost relief.

CARMICHAEL CORPORATION

Carmichael Corporation was the U.S. subsidiary of Carmichael International, a UK-based producer of veterinary products and feed additives. Total U.S. sales were expected to be about $20 million with profits before taxes of about $1.2 million. Carmichael occupied a special niche in the market, offering small-volume specialty products that the bigger producers considered uneconomical. However, if sales of these products grew, the possibility existed that a larger producer might become interested. Carmichael had an exclusive distribution agreement with three distributors who covered all parts of the United States. Each distributor sold Carmichael products to feed stores, cooperatives, and farm supply stores, which, in turn, sold to the farmer. For Stimgro, the pricing structure through the distribution chain was approximately as follows:

The Carmichael plant located in Chicago employed about 70 hourly rated people. The premises were leased, and primary activities involved the mixing of ingredients and the bottling and packing of finished products. About half of the $8 million worth of ingredients was imported from the UK parent; the remainder and all packaging were purchased in the United States. The executive team consisted of Tim Paterson, president and treasurer; Charles Godfrey, sales manager; Amanda Tellford, manager of accounting and purchasing; and Andrew Hartwick, plant manager.

Carmichael Corporation concentrated on poultry medicines and feed additives. Three years earlier, Carmichael had introduced Stimgro, a feed additive for young turkeys, which had shown unusual promise in promoting rapid, healthy development in birds less than one month old. Shortly thereafter, a competitor, Brisson, introduced a similar product. Because Brisson, like Carmichael, had its own exclusive distributors, Brisson’s entry into the market did not result in lower Stimgro sales for Carmichael. Small specialty producers like Carmichael and Brisson did not compete on price or manufacturing cost. Their big concern was finding new products to sell and making sufficient profit before the product was taken over by a larger company or lost its market appeal. Carmichael and Brisson had about equal shares in the Stimgro market with annual sales of about $1.4 million each.

Carmichael imported the two primary ingredients for Stimgro from its UK parent and mixed and packaged them in the Chicago plant. The manufacturing cost for Stimgro is shown in Exhibit 1. Carmichael’s selling price of Stimgro was $360 per kilogram. Amanda Tellford had tried to find a North American source for MS-7 over the past few years but had found that all potential sources, pharmaceutical, and specialty chemical firms had declined serious interest. They claimed the volume was far too low, and the price would have to be at least $800 per kilogram before they could be persuaded to manufacture MS-7.

EXHIBIT 1Stimgro manufacturing

page 329

BRISSON

Brisson Corporation was a U.S.-owned manufacturer of products similar to those marketed by Carmichael. Brisson’s range of products was greater than Carmichael’s, and its annual sales volume was about $24 million. Brisson had originally obtained its MS-7 from a UK competitor of Carmichael International, but in the spring of the current year it had placed orders for equipment to manufacture its own MS-7. This action had surprised Amanda Tellford because, like Carmichael, Brisson had been relatively poorly prepared to take this step. For example, the North American market demand for MS-7 was limited to its use by Carmichael and Brisson. Although future growth might show a healthy increase, total current market demand certainly did not warrant the $1 million investment Brisson had to make.

Moreover, MS-7 was tricky to produce, requiring very careful temperature, pressure, and timing control. The main equipment item was a large glass-lined autoclave ingeniously instrumented and constructed to deal with the unusual demands of MS-7 production. The autoclave was normally a fairly general-purpose type of equipment in the chemical industry. However, the special conditions required for the manufacture of MS-7 made this reactor a special-purpose tool, certainly overdesigned and overengineered for the other uses to which Brisson might apply it. MS-7 manufacture was a batch production process, and the expected capacity of the equipment was about 40,000 kilograms per year based on two-shift operation.

In Amanda Tellford’s eyes, Brisson’s action affected her own purchases of MS-7, which up to this point had been at an advantageous transfer price from the UK parent. Although the exact impact was still not entirely clear, she expected at least a 40 percent increase in her laid-down cost. Amanda had no doubt that Brisson would aggressively seek customs protection from undervalued MS-7 imports and that at least a 20 percent duty would be applied on the American selling price.

Amanda Tellford, therefore, requested information from the parent company concerning manufacturing costs of MS-7. She added several other data from her own knowledge and prepared the following summary:

Amanda Tellford went to see Charles Godfrey, Carmichael’s sales manager, to discuss possible sales requirements for the future. Charles said, “It’s really anybody’s guess. First, it depends on the popularity of turkeys. We are banking on continued growth there. Second, as soon as the feed companies can develop a suitable substitute for our product, they will go for it. We appear to be very expensive on a weight basis, although research and actual results show we represent excellent value. It takes such tiny quantities of Stimgro to improve the overall quality of a mix that it is difficult to believe it could have any impact. More competition can enter this market any day. We are just not large enough in the U.S. market to have any strong promotional impact. Each of our product lines is specialized, of relatively small volume, in an area where the big firms choose not to operate. Should a larger firm enter this market, they could flatten us. Now you tell me how to turn this into a reasonable forecast.”

Amanda Tellford replied, “I’m glad that’s your problem and not mine, Charles. Anytime you feel you’re ready to put some figures down, please let me know, because it may become very important for us in the near future.”

In looking over past figures, Amanda estimated that the second half of this year’s requirements would total about 1,000 kilograms of MS-7. Amanda decided that she had better think out the effect that Brisson’s decision to make MS-7 might have on her future purchasing strategy.

Case 11–3 Carmichael Corporation

Amanda Tellford, purchasing manager for Carmichael Corporation, became increasingly concerned about the purchase of MS-7, a special ingredient used in Stimgro, one of her company’s new products. It appeared that a major cost increase might threaten the product’s profit- ability, and Amanda was anxious to explore any alternatives that promised at least some cost relief.

CARMICHAEL CORPORATION

Carmichael Corporation was the U.S. subsidiary of Carmichael International, a UK-based producer of veterinary products and feed additives. Total U.S. sales were expected to be about $20 million with profits before taxes of about $1.2 million. Carmichael occupied a special niche in the market, offering small-volume specialty products that the bigger producers considered uneconomical. However, if sales of these products grew, the possibility existed that a larger producer might become interested. Carmichael had an exclusive distribution agreement with three distributors who covered all parts of the United States. Each distributor sold Carmichael products to feed stores, cooperatives,

and farm supply stores, which, in turn, sold to the farmer. For Stimgro the pricing structure through the distribution chain was approximately as follows:

(Stimgro) Carmichael ->$360 -> Distributor -> $520 -> Feed Store - >$780 - > Farmer

The Carmichael plant located in Chicago employed about 70 hourly rated people. The premises were leased and primary activities involved the mixing of ingredients and the bottling and packing of finished products. About half of the $8 million worth of ingredients was imported from the UK parent; the remainder and all packaging were purchased in the United States. The executive team consisted of Tim Paterson, president and treasurer; Charles Godfrey, sales manager; Amanda Tellford, manager of accounting and purchasing; and Andrew Hartwick, plant manager.

Carmichael Corporation concentrated on poultry medicines and feed additives. Three years earlier, Carmichael had introduced Stimgro, a feed additive for young turkeys, which had shown unusual promise in promoting rapid, healthy development in birds less than one month old. Shortly there

after, a competitor, Brisson, introduced a similar product. Because Brisson, like Carmichael, had its own exclusive distributors, Brisson’s entry into the market did not result in lower Stimgro sales for Carmichael. Small specialty producers like Carmichael and Brisson did not compete on price or manufacturing cost. Their big concern was finding new products to sell and making sufficient profit before the prod- uct was taken over by a larger company or lost its market appeal. Carmichael and Brisson had about equal shares in the Stimgro market with annual sales of about $1.4 million each.

Carmichael imported the two primary ingredients for Stimgro from its UK parent and mixed and packaged them in the Chicago plant. The manufacturing cost for Stimgro is shown in Exhibit 1. Carmichael’s selling price of Stimgro was $360 per kilogram. Amanda Tellford had tried to find a North American source for MS-7 over the past few years but had found that all potential sources, pharmaceutical, and specialty chemical firms had declined serious interest. They claimed the volume was far too low, and the price would have to be at least $800 per kilogram before they could be persuaded to manufacture MS-7.

Exhibit 1

(cost/kg)

MS-7 (500 grams) - $100

Other ingrediants (500 grams) - $48

Packaging – 4

Labor – 8

Overhead – 20

Total - $180

BRISSON

Brisson Corporation was a U.S.-owned manufacturer of products similar to those marketed by Carmichael. Brisson’s range of products was greater than Carmichael’s, and its annual sales volume was about $24 million. Brisson had originally obtained its MS-7 from a UK competitor of Carmichael International, but in the spring of the current year it had placed orders for equipment to manufacture its own MS-7. This action had surprised Amanda Tellford because, like Carmichael, Brisson had been relatively poorly prepared to take this step. For example, the North American market demand for MS-7 was limited to its use by Carmichael and Brisson. Although future growth might show a healthy increase, total current market demand certainly did not warrant the $1 million investment Brisson had to make.

Moreover, MS-7 was tricky to produce, requiring very careful temperature, pressure, and timing control. The main equipment item was a large glass-lined autoclave ingeniously instrumented and constructed to deal with the unusual demands of MS-7 production. The autoclave was normally a fairly general-purpose type of equipment in the chemical industry. However, the special conditions required for the manufacture of MS-7 made this reactor a special-purpose tool, certainly overdesigned and overengineered for the other uses to which Brisson might apply it. MS-7 manufacture was a batch production process, and the expected capacity of the equipment was about 40,000 kilograms per year based on two-shift operation.

In Amanda Tellford’s eyes, Brisson’s action affected her own purchases of MS-7, which up to this point had been at an advantageous transfer price from the UK parent. Although the exact impact was still not entirely clear, she expected at least a 40 percent increase in her laid-down cost. Amanda had no doubt that Brisson would aggressively seek customs protection from undervalued MS-7 imports and that at least a 20 percent duty would be applied on the American selling price.

Amanda Tellford, therefore, requested information from the parent company concerning manufacturing costs of MS-7. She added several other data from her own knowledge and prepared the following summary:

Summary of MS-7 cost and price data :

Minimum equipment outlay installed; $1 million

Delivery on equipment : 9–12 months

UK normal market price : $224/kg

Our laid-down current cost from Carmichael, UK : $200/kg

Carmichael (UK) out-of-pocket cost (material, labor, and variable overhead) : $160/kg

Estimated minimum laid-down cost in Chicago after Brisson starts production : $280/kg

Amanda Tellford went to see Charles Godfrey, Carmichael’s sales manager, to discuss possible sales requirements for the future. Charles said, “It’s really anybody’s guess. First, it depends on the popularity of turkeys. We are banking on continued growth there. Second, as soon as the feed compa- nies can develop a suitable substitute for our product, they will go for it. We appear to be very expensive on a weight basis, although research and actual results show we represent excellent value. It takes such tiny quantities of Stimgro to improve the overall quality of a mix that it is difficult to believe it could have any impact. More competition can enter this market any day. We are just not large enough in the U.S. market to have any strong promotional impact. Each of our product lines is specialized, of relatively small volume, in an area where the big firms choose not to operate. Should a larger firm enter this market, they could flat- ten us. Now you tell me how to turn this into a reasonable forecast.”

Amanda Tellford replied, “I’m glad that’s your problem and not mine, Charles. Anytime you feel you’re ready to put some figures down, please let me know, because it may become very important for us in the near future.”

In looking over past figures, Amanda estimated that the second half of this year’s requirements would total about 1,000 kilograms of MS-7. Amanda decided that she had better think out the effect that Brisson’s decision to make MS-7 might have on her future purchasing strategy.

Case 11-3: Carmichael Corporation

Discussion Questions:

1. What impact will Brisson’s decision to manufacture MS-7 have on the cost structure of Stimgro for Carmichael?
2. Should Amanda Tellford do anything at this stage?
3. What alternatives are open to Amanda Tellford?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative?
5. What is the cost structure for Stimgro and the margin?
6. Since Stimgro is very profitable, with a good margin, why does it matter if the cost of MS-7 increases?

Main Question:

7. As Amanda Tellford, what alternatives would you consider regarding MS-7? Which alternative would you pursue and how would you go about it?

Gd and T
Circle T if the statement is true. Circle F if the statement is false.
1.      The MMB and LMB symbols are only used if the datum feature has size RMB is implied if the datum feature has size and no boundary symbol is used. No material boundary symbol can be used if a feature does not have size.
2.      Unit straightness can be used if the part must be controlled per unit of measure as well as over the total length.
3.      Specific area flatness should be avoided on very large parts
4.      Circularity is a profile tolerance.
5.      Cylindricity is identified by a radius tolerance zone that establishes two perfect concentric cylinders.
6.      A parallelism tolerance zone must be smaller than the size tolerance of feature.
7.      The perpendicularity of a shaft, such as a stud or pin, to a datum feature establishes a cylindrical tolerance zone.
8.      The note EACH ELEMENT must be applied to a perpendicularity feature control frame.
9.      An angularity tolerance must have a basic angular relationship to a datum.
10. The tolerance zone descriptor of a concentricity tolerance is R.
11. Concentricity is used to establish the relationship between the axis of or more cylindrical features of an object.
12. Surface straightness can violate perfect form at MMC.
13. Geometric tolerances imply RFS unless otherwise specified.
14. A concentricity tolerance should be used if there is a need to control the axis, as in a dynamically balanced shaft. Otherwise, it is recommended that a runout or positional tolerance be used.
15. 69. A coaxial relationship can be controlled by a positional tolerance at M with the datum reference at MMB, LMB, or RMB.
16. LMC is often used to control minimum edge distance or wall thickness.
17. True position is the theoretically exact location of a feature.
18. The datum reference frame exists in theory. The theoretical reference frame is simulated by positioning the part on datum features to adequately relate the part to the datum reference frame and to restrict motion of the part relative to the reference frame.
19. When reference is made to the datum reference frame, the primary datum should be given first, followed by the secondary and tertiary datums. This is referred to as datum precedence.

Q1. This year, the standard deviation of revenues is higher in our industry. This indicates competitors’ revenues has become more similar to each other. True or False?

Q2.

68% of these firms have ROAs that range between .23 – .04 and .23 + .04

Where is the number .23 coming from? It’s just the mean ROA in our example. Why am I subtracting .04 from or adding .04 to the mean? It is because the first rule says “1 standard deviation”. Therefore, I translate the above information as follows:

Approximately (      ) firms have ROAs between ( ) and (   ).

Q3.  95% of these firms have ROAs that range between .23 – .08 and .23 + .08

Where is the number .23 coming from? It’s just the mean ROA in our example. Why am I subtracting .08 from or adding .8 to the mean? It is because the first rule says “2 standard deviations”. Since one standard deviation is .04, two standard deviations will be .04+.04 = .08. Therefore, I translate the above information as follows:

Approximately, (       ) firms have ROAs between (   ) and ( ).

Q4. 99.7% of these firms have ROAs that range between .23 – .12 and .23 + .12

Where is the number .23 coming from? It’s just the mean ROA in our example. Why am I subtracting .12 from or adding .12 to the mean? It is because the first rule says “3 standard deviations”. Since one standard deviation is .04, three standard deviations will be .04+.04+.04 = .12 Therefore, I translate the above information as follows:

Approximately, (     ) firms have ROAs between ( ) and (   ).

Q5.

In a sample of firms, 1^st quartile of their ROAs is 0.05 and 3^rd quartile is 0.37. Which of the following is(are) outlier(s)?

                                                -1.44      -0.88       -0.15       0.09        0.37       0.59     1.28      1.78      2.95

Answer:

Q1 = (   )          Q3=(    )       IQR = ( ) - (   )= ( )

Lower boundary = ( ) – 3 x ( )= (   )

Upper boundary = ( ) + 3 x (   )=   ( )

Therefore, any number below (   ) or above ( ) will be considered as outliers. In the above case, outlier(s) is(are) (            )

finite element problem

Tapered bar subjected to variable axial distributed load A Titanium tapered bar of 25 in. length has a variable cross-sectional area that decreases linearly from 20 in2 to 10 in2 . It is fixed at one end and subjected to an axial concentrated force F = 100 kip at the free end, as shown in the following figure. It’s also subjected to a linearly axial distributed load of variable intensity ?(?) = 0.1 (1 − ? ? ) kip/in. The problem is considered as one dimensional, and the aim of this project is to find, using Finite Element Method, the displacement ?(?) at any position on the x-axis.

The differential equation governing this elastic bars problem is given by: − ? ?? (??(?) ?? ??) − ?(?) = 0 ; 0 < ? < ? Where ? is the Titanium’s Young Modulus of 16. 106 ???; ?(?) is the variable cross-sectional area; and ?(?) is the intensity of the axial distributed load.

Part A: a) Give the expression of the differential equation governing this problem as a function of ?;

b) Give the approximate functions for a quadtratic element;

c) Give the elementary stifness matrix for a quadtratic element;

d) Give the elementary load vector for a quadtratic element;

Part B: We’ll calculate the displacement using a Finite Element Model of one quadratic element.

a) Give the elementary stiffness matrix of the element representing the whole bar

b) Give the elementary load vector of the element representing the whole bar;

c) Give the global matrix form of the Finite Element Model;

d) Give the boundary conditions on the nodal variables (primary as well as secondary variables)

e) Give the condensed equations of the Finite Element Model;

f) Calculate the displacements at ? = ? and ? = ? /2

g) Using the approximation functions, calculate the displacements at ? = ?/ 4 and ? = 3?/ 4

Part C: We’ll calculate the displacement using a Finite Element Model of two quadratic elements.

a) Give the elementary stiffness matrix of each element;

b) Give the elementary load vector of each element;

c) Give the global Matrix Form of the Finite Element Model;

d) Give the boundary conditions on the nodal variables (primary as well as secondary variables);

e) Give the condensed equations of the Finite Element Model;

f) Calculate the displacement at ? = ? /4 ; ? = ? /2 ; ? = 3? /4 and ? = ?..