PELATIHAN MICROSOFT OFFICE 2010 PADA K3TK DAN GUGUS PAUD NAGA DI KOTA BATAM

The material provided in this training is divided into 3 groups, namely Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2013, and Microsoft Paint groups. The briefing material given to the Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 group was the introduction of spreadsheets, starting from worksheets, to the use of functions and formulas to solve problems. Activities are carried out based on the division of the ability/skill level of each teacher. Teachers who have been proficient are grouped separately from teachers who are still new to computers so that coaching is more intensive. Teachers who are still laymen are guided and accompanied by instructors starting from the procedure for turning on the computer, opening files, saving files, using the mouse, basic typing, introduction to computer parts to the procedure for turning off the computer. The introduction to the spread sheet material begins with explaining worksheets, menu functions, and how to create borders, introducing cell alignment, and introducing Microsoft Excel formulas and functions to solve a particular problem/case. So far we have known more or less about Microsoft Office, including Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Office 2003, Microsoft Office 2007, and the latest we know is Microsoft Office 2010.

Enabling Multi-Robot Cooperative Additive Manufacturing: Centralized vs. Decentralized Approaches

This paper presents a decentralized approach based on a simple set of rules to carry out multi-robot cooperative 3D printing. Cooperative 3D printing is a novel approach to 3D printing that uses multiple mobile 3D printing robots to print a large part by dividing and assigning the part to multiple robots in parallel using the concept of chunk-based printing. The results obtained using the decentralized approach are then compared with those obtained from the centralized approach. Two case studies were performed to evaluate the performance of both approaches using makespan as the evaluation criterion. The first case is a small-scale problem with four printing robots and 20 chunks, whereas the second case study is a large-scale problem with ten printing robots and 200 chunks. The result shows that the centralized approach provides a better solution compared to the decentralized approach in both cases in terms of makespan. However, the gap between the solutions seems to shrink with the scale of the problem. While further study is required to verify this conclusion, the decrease in this gap indicates that the decentralized approach might compare favorably over the centralized approach for a large-scale problem in manufacturing using multiple mobile 3D printing robots. Additionally, the runtime for the large-scale problem (Case II) increases by 27-fold compared to the small-scale problem (Case I) for the centralized approach, whereas it only increased by less than 2-fold for the decentralized approach.