DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 TCA South Texas State Scholastic Championships: MS Championship -- Standings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 TCA South Texas State Scholastic Championships: MS Championship -- Standings 2017 TCA South Texas State Scholastic Championships: MS Championship -- Standings # Place Name ID Rtng Post Team Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Rd 6 Rd 7 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[C] 1 1 Adolf Balderas Jr 14480460 1865 1891 RSA W81 W78 W45 W10 W8 W12 D2 6.5 29 23 32 29 27.5 2 2-6 William Ho McNutt 14715106 1898 1900 HRCOAKLEW68 W34 W20 W30 D3 W7 D1 6.0 32 25.5 35.5 29.25 26 3 Ve Pullabhotla Jr 15472194 1752 1776 W97 W53 W11 W17 D2 D4 W18 6.0 31.5 25.5 34.5 28.5 25.5 4 Carlos Deleon 14987180 1842 1839 HRCOAKLEW62 W47 W31 D7 W9 D3 W16 6.0 30.5 24.5 34 28.75 25 5 Benjamin Romo 14714240 1894 1885 BRHOMEW48 W44 W14 W6 L12 W25 W15 6.0 30 24 34 29 25 6 Nitin Srin Akella 15004804 1519 1603 ATCANYONW90 W70 W33 L5 W19 W21 W12 6.0 29 23 32 26 24 7 7-11 Simona Y Kao 14484133 1487 1553 W85 W58 W24 D4 W29 L2 W31 5.5 30 24 33 24 24 8 Ray Zhang 15495930 1680 1678 W112 W46 W52 W13 L1 W14 D11 5.5 30 23.5 32 22.75 24.5 9 Ethan Hunte Perez 14830707 1561 1572 BROLIVEIW102 W26 W59 W15 L4 D31 W32 5.5 29 23 32 23.75 24 10 Cedillo Bocanegra 14898746 1505 1513 SHBLGRAYW80 W41 W39 L1 D33 W37 W29 5.5 27 20.5 30 21.75 22.5 11 Eli Elorza Jr 14757178 1292 1407 SBRMS W114 W106 L3 W40 W77 W13 D8 5.5 26 20 28 19.25 22.5 12 12-28 Diego Costa 14298081 1757 1753 RSA W131 W72 W19 W16 W5 L1 L6 5.0 32 25.5 34 21 25 13 Luis E Gonzalez 14086171 1478 1472 RSA W61 W56 W32 L8 W44 L11 W50 5.0 27.5 22 31.5 20.5 22 14 Anthony L Acevedo 14780813 1366 1404 BROLIVEIW118 W54 L5 W23 W71 L8 W42 5.0 27.5 21.5 29.5 18.5 21 15 Nicholas Oliveira 14317171 1460 1469 BRMANZANW86 W23 W40 L9 W78 W42 L5 5.0 27 21 30 19 23 16 Siddhar Vadlamani 14621165 1425 1474 ATCANYONW94 W74 W37 L12 W47 W30 L4 5.0 26.5 20.5 29.5 19 23 17 Isaiah Reyes 14120995 1464 1457 BRATHLOSW100 W105 W42 L3 W24 L18 W46 5.0 26.5 20.5 29 18.5 22 18 Emily Alex Garcia 14273535 1319 1347 EDBLGARZW99 L37 W57 W58 W79 W17 L3 5.0 26 20 29 19 21 19 Noah Ibarra 14500794 1259 1310 BROLIVEIW76 W87 L12 W64 L6 W39 W48 5.0 26 20 28.5 18.5 20 20 Julio Ledezma 14490932 1317 1338 BRPERKINW73 W83 L2 W39 L37 W41 W38 5.0 25 19 28 18.5 20 21 Noel Aguilar 14032970 1402 1387 STSTPAW69 L39 W97 W51 W41 L6 W56 5.0 24.5 18.5 27.5 18.5 20 22 Jacob Fox 14735706 1460 1425 HRCOAKLEW75 W101 L79 W26 D32 D38 W53 5.0 24 19 27 19.75 20.5 23 Jorge Santa Maria 14500375 1097 1231 EDBLGARZW132 L15 W99 L14 W94 W59 W60 5.0 24 19 25.5 15.5 18 24 Christopher Nieto 14741297 1206 1241 BRMANZANW95 W116 L7 W80 L17 W79 W61 5.0 23.5 18 25.5 15 20 25 Thiago Aa Almeida 15026605 1332 1334 RSA W93 L40 W112 W70 W89 L5 W37 5.0 23.5 17.5 25.5 15.5 20 26 Abel Babuji 15494811 1129 1223 STSTPAW117 L9 W115 L22 W86 W77 W43 5.0 22.5 17 24.5 14 18 27 Dante A Guillen 13948672 1236 1229 BRVMS D113 W108 L67 W55 H--- W89 W40 5.0 19 17 19 14.5 17.5 28 Pedro F Limas 15010311 1185 1165 BRFAULKL84 W98 L85 W128 W90 W81 W49 5.0 19 15 20.5 14.5 16 29 29-36 Nathan Hernandez 16274698 unr. 1376 KICHARLED38 W55 W50 W67 L7 W33 L10 4.5 27.5 22 31 18 20.5 30 Riya Manohar 15144924 1525 1504 STSTPAW57 W51 W82 L2 W38 L16 D34 4.5 27.5 21.5 30.5 17.25 21.5 31 Evan Davis 14989688 1318 1356 W88 W89 L4 W54 W68 D9 L7 4.5 27.5 21.5 30.5 16.25 21 32 Jesus Cruz 14323503 1211 1290 SHBLGRAYW77 W84 L13 W91 D22 W36 L9 4.5 26 20.5 29 16 20.5 33 Alvaro Da Mayorga 15875278 1230 1253 STSTPAW122 W135 L6 W83 D10 L29 W68 4.5 24.5 18.5 25.5 12.25 19.5 Page 1 3/13/2017 1:29 PM 2017 TCA South Texas State Scholastic Championships: MS Championship -- Standings # Place Name ID Rtng Post Team Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Rd 6 Rd 7 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[C] 34 29-36 Jose A Rodriguez 15009210 1186 1209 BRPERKINW96 L2 L80 W118 W57 W83 D30 4.5 23.5 17.5 25.5 14.25 16.5 35 Jonathan Medrano 15877982 901 1149 EDBLGARZL45 W65 W101 L42 D105 W72 W67 4.5 21.5 17.5 24 15.25 15.5 36 Brianna C Salinas 14263303 1305 1268 BRSTILLMW140 D67 L38 W120 W106 L32 W75 4.5 21 16.5 23 9.75 18 37 37-66 Keith Biteng 15342436 1057 1213 STSTPAW111 W18 L16 W52 W20 L10 L25 4.0 29.5 24 31.5 16.5 20 38 Elian Gonzalez 15102351 1040 1244 SHBLGRAYD29 W43 W36 W79 L30 D22 L20 4.0 27.5 22.5 30.5 16.25 19.5 39 Ana Luis Balderas 14480475 1103 1159 BRSTILLMX--- W21 L10 L20 W88 L19 W96 4.0 26.5 21.5 26.5 11 16 40 Ty Anderson 15115452 1057 1153 W109 W25 L15 L11 W96 W82 L27 4.0 26.5 21 28.5 13.5 18 41 Oscar D Rodriguez 15939858 1113 1160 OLS W133 L10 W93 W45 L21 L20 W87 4.0 25 19.5 26 11 17 42 Matthew J De Leon 15335430 1162 1210 EDSMS W135 B--- L17 W35 W60 L15 L14 4.0 24.5 22 24.5 9.5 19 43 Nathaniel Morales 14017334 1346 1290 EDSMS D55 L38 W113 W75 D50 W51 L26 4.0 24.5 19.5 26.5 13.5 16 44 Ryan E Montoya 14736825 1191 1190 SHSNJHW121 L5 W90 W85 L13 D68 D55 4.0 24.5 18.5 26.5 11.75 17.5 45 Samuel Arias 15632323 1289 1262 SHBLGRAYW35 W91 L1 L41 L67 W94 W102 4.0 24.5 18 27.5 13.5 16 46 Major Alex Pulido 15280307 1126 1158 W141 L8 W69 L60 W80 W73 L17 4.0 24 18.5 27 10 17 47 Xavier J Sanchez 15830426 1166 1165 CCGARZAGX--- L4 W100 W88 L16 L49 W91 4.0 24 18.5 24 9 16 48 Jesus Cavazos 15086103 1028 1121 SHBLGRAYL5 W107 L63 W76 W84 W78 L19 4.0 24 18 26.5 12 15 49 Aiden Gomez 14845015 943 1099 STSTPAW65 L82 L51 W119 W58 W47 L28 4.0 23.5 18.5 25.5 14 16 50 Alex E Reyes 14263152 1172 1181 BRSMS D108 W113 L29 W72 D43 W62 L13 4.0 23.5 18.5 25.5 12.75 17 51 Connor Eric Loop 15798494 1125 1149 BRATHLOSW127 L30 W49 L21 W69 L43 W85 4.0 23.5 18.5 25 12 16 52 Nathaniel Deleon 14706008 1240 1210 PSLBJ W98 W123 L8 L37 W102 L56 W80 4.0 22.5 17 24 11 17 53 Alison Wu 15513566 1153 1148 W126 L3 W86 L77 W85 W87 L22 4.0 22.5 16.5 24 10.5 17 54 Javier Ramos 14495766 1064 1062 LFRESACAW142 L14 W87 L31 L73 W99 W104 4.0 22 17 24.5 9 15 55 Diego Sauceda 15032656 924 1048 EDBARRIED43 L29 W111 L27 W131 W106 D44 4.0 22 17 24 10.5 14 56 Juan A Borrego 14739282 1105 1112 BROLIVEIW129 L13 L88 W114 W93 W52 L21 4.0 22 17 23.5 10.5 16 57 Sebastian T Garza 15036980 991 1069 BRFAULKL30 W117 L18 W126 L34 W84 W78 4.0 22 17 23.5 9.5 13 58 Diego Pelayo 15067846 1112 1107 BROLIVEIW134 L7 W128 L18 L49 W93 W92 4.0 22 16.5 23 8.5 15 59 Joel Barnard 15674160 1287 1248 BRATHLOSW92 W115 L9 L89 W112 L23 W81 4.0 21.5 16 23.5 10 17 60 Juan C Perez Jr 14261197 1412 1339 BROLIVEIL115 W114 W81 W46 L42 W67 L23 4.0 21 16 23 12.5 17 61 Swade Chakraborty 15568105 960 1031 STSTPAL13 W133 L78 W136 W70 W71 L24 4.0 21 16 21.5 9 15 62 Ashlyn Miller 15625127 1010 1095 KLRANCIEL4 L77 W127 W123 W63 L50 W82 4.0 21 15 22.5 10.5 13 63 Julia Zhou 14776267 1539 1448 IDEABRL91 X140 W48 L71 L62 W86 W89 4.0 20.5 16.5 20.5 10 13 64 Isabella Castillo 14577401 1064 1031 HRMOISESL138 W92 W126 L19 L87 W114 W77 4.0 19.5 14.5 21 9.5 14 65 Jaime Santana Jr 15016882 1398 1313 RSA L49 L35 W117 L93 W113 W115 W83 4.0 18.5 14 20.5 9 11 66 Aimee Ma Gonzalez 15077320 504 799 PSLBJ L74 L69 L95 W134 W98 W131 W79 4.0 17.5 14 18.5 8.5 10 Page 2 3/13/2017 1:29 PM 2017 TCA South Texas State Scholastic Championships: MS Championship -- Standings # Place Name ID Rtng Post Team Rd 1 Rd 2 Rd 3 Rd 4 Rd 5 Rd 6 Rd 7 Tot TBrk[M] TBrk[M] TBrk[S] TBrk[R] TBrk[C] 67 67-76 Mauric Villarreal 15255916 1045 1133 STSTPAW119 D36 W27 L29 W45 L60 L35 3.5 21.5 21.5 28.5 13.25 18 68 Diego Anto Medina 14976085 1038 1099 EDBLGARZL2 W122 W116 W82 L31 D44 L33 3.5 18 18 26 9 16 69 Diego Miguel Diaz 14037117 931 972 EDSMS L21 W66 L46 X137 L51 D70 W105 3.5 18 18 23 8.25 11 70 Ivan A Sosa 14729840 1115 1084 BROLIVEIW143 L6 W118 L25 L61 D69 W107 3.5 17.5 17.5 25.5 6.25 14 71 Dawson Tsay 14815791 1143 1116 MCCATHEYL116 W76 W94 W63 L14 L61 D73 3.5 17.5 17.5 24.5 12.25 15.5 72 Gaayathri Binoj 16162723 1161 1134 W110 L12 D75 L50 W120 L35 W106 3.5 17 17 24 8.75 13.5 73 Samuel R Castillo 15321026 907 1004 MCMORRISL20 W130 W105 L78 W54 L46 D71 3.5 17 17 23.5 9.75 14.5 74 Samue De La Garza 14719561 1097 1050 BRATHLOSW66 L16 L77 L87 W121 W88 D76 3.5 16 16 23 10.75 12.5 75 Jaziel Gonzalez 15830411 955 1016 CCGARZAGL22 W129 D72 L43 W128 W105 L36 3.5 16 16 22.5 7.25 13.5 76 Olivia M Gonzalez 15678335 871 931 OLS L19 L71 W129 L48 W119 W112 D74 3.5 15 15 21.5 7.25 10.5 77 77-104 Brandon Garcia 15877872 856 1005 EDBLGARZL32 W62 W74 W53 L11 L26 L64 3.0 25 21.5 30.5 11.5 15 78 Edward Jones Jr 15824836 1177 1143 BROLIVEIW103 L1 W61 W73 L15 L48 L57 3.0 23.5 20.5 30 10.5 16 79 Tristan De Anda 14592571 1057 1065 SHSNJHW125 W137 W22 L38 L18 L24 L66 3.0 22.5 21 27.5 8 18 80 Sankirth Tippur 14909450 975 996 STSTPAL10 W127 W34 L24 L46 W117 L52 3.0 21 19.5 26.5 8 13 81 Sergio Gael Lopez 15919154 1015 1021 CCGARZAGL1 W95 L60 W98 W116 L28 L59 3.0 21 19 27.5 8 13 82 Juan A Martinez 14344055 1258 1189 BROLIVEIW107 W49 L30 L68 W91 L40 L62 3.0 21 18.5 25.5 9.5 16 83 Alejandro Guzman 14986997 1048 1042 SBBCMSW130 L20 W84 L33 W92 L34 L65 3.0 20.5 19 25.5 7.5 15 84 Rolando T Ledesma 15868444 824 938 HRMOISESW28 L32 L83 W97 L48 L57 W118 3.0 20.5 18.5 25.5 10 12 85 Manuel Villanueva 16145893 962 976 SBRMS L7 W134 W28 L44 L53 W116 L51 3.0 20 19 25.5 8 13 86 Christian I Garza 14816458 951 954 BRATHLOSL15 W139 L53 W103 L26 L63 W116 3.0 20 18 25 5 11 87 Joram Cuanang 14113763 906 942 SHSNJHX--- L19 L54 W74 W64 L53 L41 3.0 19.5 19.5 24.5 7.5 13 88 Fernando Ramirez 14484724 919 954 LFRESACAL31 W104 W56 L47 L39 L74 W119 3.0 19.5 17.5 24 9 12 89 Elijah Araiza 14830797 1052 1063 SBBCMSW136 L31 W123 W59 L25 L27 L63 3.0 19 18.5 24 7 16 90 David Valdez 15316032 976 965 PRESCALAL6 W110 L44 W95 L28 L96 W123 3.0 19 17.5 25 7.5 11 91 Josiah N Mendoza 14521021 993 1077 EDBLGARZW63 L45 W137 L32 L82 W122 L47 3.0 19 17 23.5 7 14 92 Ulises Rodriguez 13762554 899 917 BRFAULKL59 L64 W132 W101 L83 W97 L58 3.0 18.5 17 22.5 7.5 11 93 Angellin Martinez 15283423 924 930 EDMMSL25 W136 L41 W65 L56 L58 W125 3.0 18 17.5 23 7 11 94 Isaiah
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).
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPE RECEPTION T: +1 905-338-0000/ +1 888-901-3090 E: [email protected] CANADIAN DEALERSHIP PRICE 2020 Gvainteriors.Com PRICES ARE in CANADIAN DOLLARS
    GVA Interiors, Inc. PRICELIST 2771 Bristol Circle, Oakville, Ontario L6H 6X5 Canada EUROPE RECEPTION T: +1 905-338-0000/ +1 888-901-3090 E: [email protected] CANADIAN DEALERSHIP PRICE 2020 gvainteriors.com PRICES ARE IN CANADIAN DOLLARS CONFIDENTIAL E: [email protected] gvainteriors.com EUROPE RECEPTION *** RECEPTION HEIGHT 1162 MM / 45.7" *** LASEREDGE BANDING TECHNOLOGY *** STRAIGHT LINE INTERMEDIATE RECEPTION DIMENSIONS, INCHES DIMENSIONS, MM PART NUMBER PROJECT PRICE TOP COVER WITHOUT CUT W47.2"D29.6"H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193900 $ 1,151.13 a TOP CUTOUT COVER W47.2"D29.6"H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193904 $ 1,170.84 a ANGULAR INTERMEDIATE RECEPTION DIMENSIONS, INCHES DIMENSIONS, MM PART NUMBER PROJECT PRICE W47.2"D29.6"H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193970 $ 1,025.91 W55.1" D29.6" H45.7" W1400 D752 H1162 193972 $ 1,214.63 a TOP COVER WITHOUT CUT W47.2"D29.6"H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193971 $ 1,025.94 W55.1" D29.6" H45.7" W1400 D752 H1162 193973 $ 1,214.63 a DIMENSIONS, INCHES DIMENSIONS, MM PART NUMBER PROJECT PRICE W47.2" D29.6" H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193974 $ 1,041.79 W55.1" D29.6" H45.7" W1400 D752 H1162 193976 $ 1,232.69 a TOP CUTOUT COVER W47.2" D29.6" H45.7" W1200 D752 H1162 193975 $ 1,041.79 W55.1" D29.6" H45.7" W1400 D752 H1162 193977 $ 1,232.69 a STRAIGHT LINE END PART RECEPTION DIMENSIONS, INCHES DIMENSIONS, MM PART NUMBER PROJECT PRICE W63" D29.6" H45.7" W1600 D752 H1162 193910 $ 1,457.05 W71" D29.6" H45.7" W1800 D752 H1162 193912 $ 1,614.87 a TOP COVER WITHOUT CUT W63" D29.6" H45.7" W1600 D752 H1162 193911 $ 1,457.05 W71" D29.6" H45.7" W1800 D752 H1162 193913 $ 1,614.87 a DIMENSIONS, INCHES DIMENSIONS, MM PART NUMBER PROJECT PRICE W63" D29.6" H45.7" W1600 D752 H1162 193914 $ 1,477.80 a W71" D29.6" H45.7" W1800 D752 H1162 193916 $ 1,638.04 TOP CUTOUT COVER W63" D29.6" H45.7" W1600 D752 H1162 193915 $ 1,477.80 W71" D29.6" H45.7" W1800 D752 H1162 193917 $ 1,638.04 a GVA Interiors, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • K-12 Individual No. Name Team Gr Rate Pts Tbrk1 Tbrk2 Tbrk3 Tbrk4
    K-12 Individual No. Name Team Gr Rate Pts TBrk1 TBrk2 TBrk3 TBrk4 Rnd1 Rnd2 Rnd3 Rnd4 Rnd5 Rnd6 1 Chakraborty, Dipro 11 2299 5.5 21 24 43 20.5 W27 W12 W5 W32 W8 D3 State Champion, AZ Denker Representative 2 Yim, Tony Sung BASISS 8 2135 5 20.5 23.5 38.5 17.5 W24 W10 D3 D16 W11 W9 3 Aletheia-Zomlefer, Soren CHANPR 11 1961 5 20 23 35.5 18.5 W25 W26 D2 W40 W15 D1 4 Desmarais, Nicholas Eduard NOTRED 10 1917 5 18 20 33 18 W39 W23 W18 L15 W10 W8 5 Wong, Kinsleigh Phillip CFHS 10 1992 4.5 20 20 24.5 15 -X- W17 L1 W26 D7 W15 6 Todd, Bryce BASISC 10 1923 4.5 17 19 26.5 14.5 W38 D18 L9 W23 W21 W16 7 Chaliki, Kalyan DSMTHS 9 1726 4.5 17 18.5 26 15 W46 L16 W28 W22 D5 W17 8 Li, Bohan UHS 9 2048 4 22 25 29 18 W30 W11 W45 W9 L1 L4 9 Mittal, Rohan CFHS 9 1916 4 19.5 20.5 23 17 W47 W22 W6 L8 W20 L2 10 Pennock, Joshua CFHS 10 1682 4 19 22 24 14 W31 L2 W25 W21 L4 W29 11 Aradhyula, Sumhith CFHS 9 1631 4 18 20 22 14 W41 L8 W38 W13 L2 W19 12 Johnston, Nicolas Godfrey CFHS 9 1803 4 18 19.5 21 13 W43 L1 W29 L17 W24 W20 13 Martis, Tyler BRHS 12 1787 4 17 18 21 13 W42 L15 W24 L11 W18 W22 14 Plumb, Justin Rodney GCLACA 10 1700 4 16 17 20 13 W51 L32 W19 L20 W28 W27 15 Martinez, Isaac GLPREP 10 2159 3.5 21.5 24.5 27.5 16 W28 W13 D16 W4 L3 L5 16 Chen, Derek H CFHS 10 1965 3.5 21 23.5 26 15.5 W35 W7 D15 D2 D17 L6 17 Woodson, Tyler GILBHS 1640 3.5 19 19 17.5 14 W50 L5 W30 W12 D16 L7 18 Cancio, Aiya CFHS 9 1469 3.5 18.5 20 17.5 12.5 W36 D6 L4 W46 L13 W25 AZ Girls' Invitational Representative 19 Folden, Kurt CHANPR 10 1207 3 14 18 12 10 L32 W50 L14 W31 W23 L11 20 Thornton,
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity / Change: Rethinking Options for Trident Replacement
    CONTINUITY / CHANGE: RETHINKING OPTIONS FOR TRIDENT REPLACEMENT DR. NICK RITCHIE Dr. Nick Ritchie Department of Peace Studies BRADFORD DISARMAMENT RESEARCH CENTRE University of Bradford April 2009 DEPARTMENT OF PEACE STUDIES : UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD : JUNE 2010 About this report This report is part of a series of publications under the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre’s programme on Nuclear-Armed Britain: A Critical Examination of Trident Modernisation, Implications and Accountability. To find out more please visit www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/trident.html. Briefing 1: Trident: The Deal Isn’t Done – Serious Questions Remain Unanswered, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing1.html Briefing 2: Trident: What is it For? – Challenging the Relevance of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing2.html. Briefing 3: Trident and British Identity: Letting go of British Nuclear Weapons, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing3.html. Briefing 4: A Regime on the Edge? How Replacing Trident Undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing4.html. Briefing 5: Stepping Down the Nuclear Ladder: Options for Trident on a Path to Zero, at www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/briefing5.html. About the author Dr. Nick Ritchie is a Research Fellow at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. He is lead researcher on the Nuclear-Armed Britain programme. He previously worked for six years as a researcher at the Oxford Research Group on global security issues, in particular nuclear proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience a Lower Total Cost of Ownership
    EXPERIENCE A LOWER TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP Timken® Spherical Roller Bearings are engineered to give you more of what you need. Lower Operating Temperatures Rollers are guided by cage pockets—not a center guide ring—eliminating a friction point and resulting in 4–10% less rotational torque and 5ºC lower operating temperatures.* Less rotational torque leads to improved efficiency, lower energy consumption and more savings. Lower temperatures reduce the oil oxidation rate by 50% to extend lubricant life. Tougher Protection Hardened steel cages deliver greater fatigue strength, increased wear resistance and tougher protection against shock and acceleration. Optimized Uptime Unique slots in the cage face improve oil flow and purge more contaminants from the bearing to help extend equipment uptime. Minimized Wear Improved profiles reduce internal stresses and optimize load distribution to minimize wear. Improved Lube Film Enhanced surface finishes avoid metal-to-metal contact to reduce friction and result in improved lube film. Higher Loads Longer rollers result in 4–8% higher load ratings or 14–29% longer predicted bearing life. Higher load ratings enable you to carry heavier loads. Brass Cages Available in all sizes; ready when you need extra strength and durability in the most unrelenting conditions, including extreme shock and vibration, high acceleration forces, and minimal lubrication. Increase your operational efficiencies and extend maintenance intervals. Starting now. Visit Timken.com/spherical to find out more. *All results are from head-to-head
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • L-Reactor Operation Savannah River Plant
    DOE/EIS-0108 Volume 3 of 3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT L-Reactor Operation Savannah River Plant Aiken, S.C. Volume 3 May 1984 U.S. Department of Energy APPENDIX M COMMENTS AND DOE RESPONSES ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT L-REACTOR OPERATION During the 45-day public comment period from October 1 through November 14, 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) received 140 comment letters and statements on the draft version of this environmental impact statement (EIS) . In addition, four comment letters were received after November 14, 1983. Of the total of 144 letters afld statements, 7 were from Federal agencies and 7 were from agencies and off ices of the States of Georgia and South Carolina. Forty- eight statements were presented at public meetings conducted by DOE at Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, and at Aiken and Beau fort, South Carolina, during the week of October 31, 1983. DOE has prepared a public comment/hearing report (DOE /SR - 5009) that includes transcripts of these public meetings, written statements received at the meetings , and all comment letters received by DOE through the mail . This report has been placed in the DOE public documents rooms in Washington, D.C. , and Aiken, South Carolina, and 19 local libraries in South Carolina and Georgia. This appendix presents the individual comment letters and statements and DOE’ s responses to them. If a comment or statement has led to a revision to the text of this EIS, the revision is identified by a vertical line in the margin and a comment letter-number designation.
    [Show full text]
  • Iow Imtx Dpa Ndv Eab Eon Rbs Mzv Bdf Mzv Imdw
    (MDWAY6.MDW) 08157 CHICAGO MIDWAY INTL (MDW) MIDWAY SIX DEPARTURE SL-81 (FAA) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ATIS TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: BADGER 132.75 PETTY 116.4 BAE B Rwys 4L/R, 13C/L, A N42 49.64' CLNC DEL E Chan 111 W87 38.04' 121.85 22L/R, 31C/R, STANDARD. L-28 GND CON Rwys 13R, 31L, NA, ATC. N43^ 07.01' - W88^17.06' 121.65 L-28, H-5 GIPPER MIDWAY TOWER SIMMN DUPAGE 115.4 GIJ G 118.7 226.3 N41 58.84' JI MIDWAY DEP CON W88 52.71' 108.4 DPA APD Chan 101 118.4 388.0 L-28 Chan 21 N41^ 46.12' - W86^ 19.11' N41^ 53.42' - W88^ 21.01' POLO L-28, H-5-10 L-28 LEWKE 111.2 PLL M VZ N41^ 45.72' Chan 49 W87^ 03.80' R-096 N41^ 57.94' 1500 L-28 W89^ 31.45' 315^ 100 L-28 2400 LOCALIZER 109.9 I-MXT IM TX LOCALIZER 109.9 Chan 36 IOWA CITY I-MDW DMI 116.2 IOW I W WO Chan 36 Chan 109 NOTE: Radar required. 135^ N41^ 31.14' NOTE: Chart not to scale. W91^ 36.80' 224^ EC-3, 03 JUL 2008 to 31 L-28, H-5 1400 1300 4 D M E EARND N41^ 25.52' W87^ 34.33' DENNT MOLINE L-28, H-5 N41^ 25.15' 114.4 MZV ZM V CMSKY W87^ 43.48' Chan 91 BACEN N41^ 19.26' N41^ 24.78' L-28, H-5 ACITO N41^ 24.40' W90^ 38.28' W87^ 52.63' N41^23.92' W88^ 01.78' L-27, H-5 L-28, H-5 W88^11.0' L-28, H-5 PEOTONE L-28, H-5 113.2 EON NEO Chan 79 N41^ 16.18' - W87^ 47.46' NEWTT L-28 N41 03.54' BRADFORD W88 04.60' DANVILLE 114.7 BDF B ROBERTS L-27 111.0 DNV D FD N EC-3, 03 JUL 2008 to 31 Chan 94 V 116.8 RBS R Chan 47 B GUIDO N41^ 09.58' S Chan 115 N40^ 17.42' N40 17.63' W89^ 35.27' N40^ 34.90' - W88^ 09.86' W87^ 51.81' W87 33.43' L-27, H-5 L-27, H-5 H-5 L-27, H-5 T DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION TAKE-OFF RWYS 4L/R: Northbound departures assigned headings 360^ (CW) thru 080^, Climbing right turn to 2400 heading 100^ before proceeding on course, thence.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEPLOYMENTS 1998
    Taking Stock WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEPLOYMENTS 1998 BY William M. Arkin Robert S. Norris Joshua Handler NRDC Nuclear Program MARCH 1998 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/289-6868 VOICE 802-457-3426 (Arkin) 202-289-2369 (Norris) FAX 202-289-1060 INTERNET [email protected] [email protected] Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 i © Copyright, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1998 ii TAKING STOCK Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Methodology . 4 Arms Control and Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 6 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) . 6 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) . 7 The Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty . 8 Unilateral Initiatives . 8 Future Nuclear Deployments . 11 The United States . 14 Nuclear History . 16 Nuclear Organization . 19 Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 24 Russia . 26 Nuclear Organization . 29 Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 33 Britain . 39 France . 42 China . 45 Appendix A: Locations of U.S. Nuclear Weapons, by Type . 53 Appendix B: U.S. Nuclear Weapons by Location . 55 Appendix C: U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Location Profiles . 56 By State California . 56 Colorado . 57 Georgia. 58 Louisiana . 59 Missouri . 60 Montana . 61 Nebraska . 61 Nevada . 62 New Mexico. 63 North Dakota . 65 Texas . 68 Virginia . 70 Washington . 70 Wyoming . 72 Overseas by Country Belgium . 72 Germany . 73 Greece . 76 Italy . 77 The Netherlands . 78 Turkey . 78 United Kingdom . 79 Appendix D: Location of Russian Nuclear Weapons, by Type . 81 Appendix E: Russian Nuclear Weapons by Location . 84 Appendix F: British Nuclear Weapons by Type and Location . 88 Appendix G: French Nuclear Weapons by Type and Location .
    [Show full text]