Table of Contents
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592
Technical Data Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592 Topic Page Description 2 Heater Element Selection Procedure 2 Index to Heater Element Selection Tables 5 Heater Element Selection Tables 6 Additional Resources These documents contain additional information concerning related products from Rockwell Automation. Resource Description Industrial Automation Wiring and Grounding Guidelines, publication 1770-4.1 Provides general guidelines for installing a Rockwell Automation industrial system. Product Certifications website, http://www.ab.com Provides declarations of conformity, certificates, and other certification details. You can view or download publications at http://www.rockwellautomation.com/literature/. To order paper copies of technical documentation, contact your local Allen-Bradley distributor or Rockwell Automation sales representative. For Application on Bulletin 100/500/609/1200 Line Starters Heater Element Specifications Eutectic Alloy Overload Relay Heater Elements Type J — CLASS 10 Type P — CLASS 20 (Bul. 600 ONLY) Type W — CLASS 20 Type WL — CLASS 30 Note: Heater Element Type W/WL does not currently meet the material Type W Heater Elements restrictions related to EU ROHS Description The following is for motors rated for Continuous Duty: For motors with marked service factor of not less than 1.15, or Overload Relay Class Designation motors with a marked temperature rise not over +40 °C United States Industry Standards (NEMA ICS 2 Part 4) designate an (+104 °F), apply application rules 1 through 3. Apply application overload relay by a class number indicating the maximum time in rules 2 and 3 when the temperature difference does not exceed seconds at which it will trip when carrying a current equal to 600 +10 °C (+18 °F). -
The Maintenance of a Capable, Credible
he maintenance of a capable, size of the deployed strategic arsenal B61 nuclear gravity bomb, carried by credible nuclear deterrent shrinks and the US reviews its nuclear the B-52 and B-2 bomber fleets. seems to have consensus gov- requirements. In the near future, officials want to Ternmental support. Defense and Energy Department lead- consolidate the number of warheads to Despite heavy investment in the nu- ers want to streamline and standardize the curb costs and accommodate an evolving clear mission over the last few years, Air maintenance of the nation’s warheads—a concept of nuclear deterrence, which Force and senior defense officials say process that has long been unpredictable may be far different from the policies much work lies ahead for the nation’s and irregular, according to a senior USAF and assumptions that dominated the Cold stockpile of nuclear warheads. official working in the Air Staff’s nuclear War. The task is to bring the nuclear Not long ago, ambitious plans were deterrence shop. weapons complex—the nation’s nuclear on the books for a new nuclear earth- warheads and the laboratories and facili- penetrating weapon and the first new- Consolidation ties charged with their care, testing, and build warhead since the Cold War. Then, “We are in a period of transition,” said maintenance—into the 21st century. Administrations changed and the budget Billy W. Mullins, the associate assistant As a result, over the coming decade- crunch hit. chief of staff for strategic deterrence plus, the National Nuclear Security In the aftermath of the New START and nuclear integration on the Air Staff. -
The Benefits of Moving to an All-W87 ICBM Force the NNSA Is Proposing
The Benefits of Moving to an All-W87 ICBM Force The NNSA is proposing to replace the W78 ICBM warhead with a new W87-1 warhead using a “W87- like” pit. A better alternative Replacing the 200 deployed W78s with the some of the 340 W87s in storage would bring several benefits: 1. Enhanced safety—much sooner: A major feature of the W87-1 is that it would use insensitive high explosives (IHE). As NNSA states in its report W78 Replacement Program (W87-1): Cost Estimates and Insensitive High Explosives: “Replacing the conventional high explosives (CHE) in the current W78 warhead with IHE is the single most significant weapon system change that improves the warhead’s safety and security.” But the W87 also uses IHE and could be deployed now, not in several decades. 2. Less demanding pit production schedule: The W87-1 would use new plutonium pits, which requires the NNSA to start up and then quickly ramp up its pit production from the current zero (and none since 2013) to 80 per year by 2030. As the NNSA states, this will be “challenging.” The alternative would obviate or significantly delay the need to produce 80 pits by 2030. 3. More realistic schedule overall: The NNSA faces significant schedule challenges in producing the W87-1, as it states in the FY19 Stockpile Stewardship & Management Plan: “Production is predicated on all newly manufactured components and a nuclear material manufacturing modernization strategy that relies on large, multi-year investments in component and material capabilities.” 4. Reduced NNSA workload: The NNSA and the weapons complex are already struggling to manage five simultaneous major work programs on weapons in the stockpile while also building the UPF and trying to establish a pit production capacity. -
Eagle July Wine Editable
august 2021 WINE BY THE GLASS WHITES REDS Flirty & Sparky Gls/Btl Alluring & Spicy Gls/Btl MIONETTO Prosecco (Italy) 7/28 CARICATURE Zinfandel ‘18 (Lodi, CA) *S-G 8/32 VIETTI Moscato d’Asti ‘20 (IT) Half btl 10/20 AMAVI by Pepper Bridge Syrah ‘18 (WA) 14/56 LARCHARGO Reserva Tempranillo ‘12 (SP) 9/36 Sumptously Fruity ALTOS ‘Las Hormigas’ Malbec ‘19 (ARG) 8/32 Ste. CHAPELLE Soft Huckleberry (ID) 5/20 Pinot Noir & Light-bodied Red Dr. LOOSEN Qba Riesling ‘20 (GER) 6/24 MEIOMI ‘19 (CA) 10/40 Refreshing & Satisfying PATTON VALLEY Estate ‘18 (OR) 10/40 LAVENDETTE Rose ‘20 (FR) 8/32 GULP/HABLO TINTO Red ‘19 (SP) *S-G 7/28 McMANIS Pinot Grigio ‘20 (CA) 6/24 As the name implies, this blend is delish and easy-drinking! ELK COVE Pinot Gris ‘20 (OR) 9/36 Handsome Blends Perky & Crisp PASSIONATE ‘Tinto’ Malbec blend ‘19 (AR) 9/36 MARIETTA ‘Lot 72’ Zin blend (CA) 6/24 TELAYA Viognier ‘20 (Yakima, WA) 9/36 SPLIT RAIL GSM ‘17 Rhone style (ID) By draft! 9 Gls LANZOS Sauvignon Blanc blend ‘19 (SP) *S-G 8/32 NAUTILUS Sauvignon Blanc ‘20 (NZ) *S-G 8/32 Merlot CROW CANYON ‘18 (CA) 5/20 Chardonnay DECOY by Duckhorn ‘19 (Sonoma) 12/48 LOST ANGEL ‘18 (CA) 6/24 Cabernet Sauvignon & Cab Blends LA CREMA ‘18 (Sonoma Coast, CA) 9/36 SALMON CREEK ‘17 (CA) 5/20 ROMBAUER ‘20 (Carneros, CA) 17/68 LOUIS MARTINI ‘18 (Sonoma) 9/36 SLEIGHT OF HAND ‘Spellbinder’ ‘18 (WA) 10/40 BODEGAS LANZOS Blanco 8/Gls J. -
Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support
Wave 56 Influencer Poll Update January 2018 Public Release Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support 1 Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service 80% 71% 70% 71% 70% 66% 66% 66% 67% 63% 63% 63% 64% 61% 63% 60% 50% 46% 47% 47% 45% 44% 42% 43% 42% 39% 38% 40% 35% 32% 33% 34% 34% 30% 20% 10% Likely to Recommend: % Likely/Very Likely Likely to Support: % Agree/Strongly Agree Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Likely to Recommend Military Service Likely to Support Decision to Join § Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military increased significantly from 67% in 2015 to 70% in 2016. § However, Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military remained stable in January–March 2017. = Significantly change from previous poll Source: Military Ad Tracking Study (Influencer Market) Wave 56 2 Questions: q1a–c: “Suppose [relation] came to you for advice about various post-high school options. How likely is it that you would recommend joining a Military Service such as the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard?” q2ff: “If [relation] told me they were planning to join the Military, I would support their decision.” Likelihood to Recommend Military Service By Influencer Type Likelihood to Recommend Military Service 80% 70% 63% 59% 59% 60% 58% 60% 57% 56% 57% 55% 54% 53% 48% 55% 50% 54% 47% 52% 51% 44% 51% 47% 42% 42% 42% 49% 41% 43% 42% 45% 45% 46% 40% 42% 37% 41% 39% 41% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 39% 34% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 32% 33% 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 20% 25% 25% 24% 31% 29% 10% % Likely/Very Likely Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Fathers Mothers Grandparents Other Influencers § Influencers’ likelihood to recommend military service remained stable in January–March 2017 for all influencer groups. -
Nuclear Weapons
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees November 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Has Taken Steps to Prepare to Restart a Program to Replace the W78 Warhead Capability GAO-19-84 November 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Has Taken Steps to Prepare to Restart a Program to Replace the W78 Warhead Capability Highlights of GAO-19-84, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Department of Defense and NNSA The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have sought for nearly a decade to has taken steps to prepare to restart a life extension program (LEP) to replace replace the capabilities of the aging the capabilities of the Air Force’s W78 nuclear warhead—a program which was W78 nuclear warhead used by the U.S. previously suspended. According to NNSA officials, these steps are typically Air Force. NNSA undertakes LEPs to needed to conduct any LEP. Therefore, they can be undertaken despite the refurbish or replace the capabilities of current uncertainty about whether the final program will develop the warhead for nuclear weapons components. In fiscal the Air Force only or for both the Air Force and the Navy. Specifically, NNSA has year 2014, NNSA was directed to taken the steps described below: suspend a program that was evaluating a capability that could • Program management. NNSA has begun to establish the program replace the W78 and also be used by management functions needed to execute a W78 replacement program, as the U.S. Navy. NNSA’s most recent required by NNSA’s program execution instruction. -
Gao-20-703, Nuclear Weapons
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program GAO-20-703 September 2020 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program Highlights of GAO-20-703, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) did not consider cost and NNSA restarted a program in fiscal estimates in early major design decisions for the W87-1 warhead because it was year 2019 to replace the capabilities of not required to do so, but NNSA has since changed its guidance to require that the aging W78 nuclear warhead with cost be considered, according to a May 2019 NNSA review of program the W87-1. NNSA made key design documentation. The design decisions that remain for features that would achieve decisions for this weapon from 2010 either minimum or enhanced requirements for the W87-1 could affect cost, until the program was paused in 2014. according to NNSA officials (see table). We found, however, that NNSA did not NNSA estimated in December 2018 yet have study plans for assessing the costs and benefits of the remaining that the W87-1 would cost $8.6 billion decisions consistent with best practices as detailed in NNSA’s analysis of to $14.8 billion, which could make it the alternatives business procedure. NNSA does not require and only recommends most expensive warhead modernization program to date. -
Sgs01fenstermacher.Pdf
- ! ,:. Sciena & Global Security, 1990, Volume I, ppo187-223 Pbotooopying permitt£d by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C>1990 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SoA. Printed in the United States of America The Effects of Nuclear Test-ban Regimes on Th ird -generation-wea pon I n novation Dan L. Fenstermache~ The primary reason that we are pursuing nuclear directed energy weapons is to understand the Soviets' capability to design and deploy similar weapons,which would put the US strategic deterrent force or a future defensivesystem at risk. Former US Energy Secretary John S. Herrington' It is by no means certain that a Comprehensive Test Ban would prevent the Soviets from developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, although that would assuredly be the effect of a total testing ban on the US. Former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Donald Kerrt Under the rationale of assessing potential Soviet threats, several third-generation- weapon concepts are being actively studied in the US. This paper presents a technical analysis of the physical principles and likely capabilities of three nuclear directed-energy concepts (x-my lasers, nuclear kinetic-energy weapons, and micro- wave devices) and describes the implications for their development of threshold test bans at thresholds above and below 1 kiloton, Inertial Confinement Fusion, special- ized non-nuclear weapon effects simulation, and seismically quiet containment a. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Princeton University. Princeton. NJ 08544 Some of ftJ/s research was undertaken while on feUol,I,Shlpat ftJe Center for Science and International Affairs. Kennedy School of Government. -
The Weird Nukes of Yesteryear
The Cold War produced some oddball weapons. Here are three of them. The “Davy Crockett,” shown here mounted on a tripod at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, was the smallest nuclear warhead ever developed by the US. The Weird Nukes DOD photo end of a series of thermonuclear bombs initiated in 1950. This followed the Soviet detonation of an atomic bomb of Yesteryear in 1949, several years before Western By Norman Polmar and Robert S. Norris intelligence agencies expected such an event. y the time the Cold War reached some concern about whether they could It was the era of “bigger is better.” its height in the late 1960s, the be carried in aircraft, due to size. The The zenith of “big bombs” would be American nuclear arsenal had “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima seen on Oct. 30, 1961, when the Soviet grown to more than 31,000 tipped the scales at 9,700 pounds, and Union detonated (at Novaya Zemlya in Bweapons. The Army, Navy, Air Force, the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki the Arctic) a thermonuclear bomb that and even the Marine Corps worked weighed 10,300 pounds. The immediate produced an explosion equivalent to to acquire weapons for the “nuclear follow-on bombs were about the same 58 megatons—the largest man-made battlefield,” whether in the air, on the size or smaller. explosion ever achieved. Soviet Premier ground, on water, or underwater. However, the development of ther- Nikita Khrushchev would later write Three of the more unusual—and in monuclear or hydrogen bombs led to in his memoirs: “It was colossal, just the end impractical—of these weapons much larger weapons, with the largest incredible! Our experts later explained were the enormous Mk 17 hydrogen US nuclear weapon being the Mk 17 to me that if you took into account the bomb, the Navy’s drone anti-submarine hydrogen bomb. -
Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I 3 Stockpile
3 Stockpile Chapter Three USNuclear Stockpile This section describes the 24 types of warheads cur- enriched uranium (oralloy) as its nuclear fissile material rently in the U.S. nuclear stockpile. As of 1983, the total and is considered volatile and unsafe. As a result, its number of warheads was an estimated 26,000. They are nuclear materials and fuzes are kept separately from the made in a wide variety of configurations with over 50 artillery projectile. The W33 can be used in two differ- different modifications and yields. The smallest war- ent yield configurations and requires the assembly and head is the man-portable nuclear land mine, known as insertion of distinct "pits" (nuclear materials cores) with the "Special Atomic Demolition Munition" (SADM). the amount of materials determining a "low" or '4high'' The SADM weighs only 58.5 pounds and has an explo- yield. sive yield (W54) equivalent to as little as 10 tons of TNT, In contrast, the newest of the nuclear warheads is the The largest yield is found in the 165 ton TITAN I1 mis- W80,5 a thermonuclear warhead built for the long-range sile, which carries a four ton nuclear warhead (W53) Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and first deployed equal in explosive capability to 9 million tons of TNT, in late 1981. The W80 warhead has a yield equivalent to The nuclear weapons stockpile officially includes 200 kilotons of TNT (more than 20 times greater than the only those nuclear missile reentry vehicles, bombs, artil- W33), weighs about the same as the W33, utilizes the lery projectiles, and atomic demolition munitions that same material (oralloy), and, through improvements in are in "active service."l Active service means those electronics such as fuzing and miniaturization, repre- which are in the custody of the Department of Defense sents close to the limits of technology in building a high and considered "war reserve weapons." Excluded are yield, safe, small warhead. -
PC Cake Pump
PC Cake Pump 60 Hz 1339-00 en Installation, Operating and Maintenance Instructions 310190010011 US 03.2020 310190010011 www.sulzer.com 4 Installation, Operating and Maintenance Instructions (Original Instructions) PC Cake Pump PC Cake Pump Table of contents 1. Installation .............................................................................................................................................6 1.1 Installation and safety recommendations ............................................................................................... 6 1.1.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................6 1.1.2 System design & installation .................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Handling ..................................................................................................................................................6 1.3 Storage and infrequent operation ........................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Short term storage ..................................................................................................................................7 1.3.2 Long term storage ...................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Electrical .................................................................................................................................................7 -
Draft Project List 2017-04-24
Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC) Project List Total Non- Growth City SDC Eligible Project # Project Name Project Location Estimated Growth Cost Responsibility Cost Cost Cost Share Share Driving Solutions (Intersections, Extensions & Expansions) Molalla Avenue from Washington Street to Molalla Avenue/ Beavercreek Road Adaptive D1 Gaffney Lane; Beavercreek Road from Molalla $1,565,000 75% 25% 100% $391,250 Signal Timing Avenue to Maple Lane Road D2 Beavercreek Road Traffic Surveillance Molalla Avenue to Maple Lane Road $605,000 75% 25% 100% $151,250 D3 Washington Street Traffic Surveillance 7th Street to OR 213 $480,000 75% 25% 100% $120,000 D4 7th Street/Molalla Avenue Traffic Surveillance Washington Street to OR 213 $800,000 75% 25% 100% $200,000 OR 213/ 7th Street-Molalla Avenue/ D5 Washington Street Integrated Corridor I-205 to Henrici Road $1,760,000 75% 25% 30% $132,000 Management D6 OR 99E Integrated Corridor Management OR 224 (in Milwaukie) to 10th Street $720,000 75% 25% 30% $54,000 D7 14th Street Restriping OR 99E to John Adams Street $845,000 74% 26% 100% $216,536 D8 15th Street Restriping OR 99E to John Adams Street $960,000 80% 20% 100% $192,000 OR 213/Beavercreek Road Weather D9 OR 213/Beavercreek Road $120,000 100% 0% 30% $0 Information Station Warner Milne Road/Linn Avenue Road Weather D10 Warner Milne Road/Linn Avenue $120,000 100% 0% 100% $0 Information Station D11 Optimize existing traffic signals Citywide $50,000 75% 25% 100% $12,500 D12 Protected/permitted signal phasing Citywide $65,000 75% 25% 100%