Jan 25, 2014 Industrial Controls
This manual applies to systems which are compliant to RTCA DO185A MOPS Change 7.0 and RTCA “DO185” MOPS Change 6.04a. These systems are referred to as TCAS II (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) in the United States and ACAS II (Airborne Collision Avoidance System) internationally.
The terminology is used interchangeably and, for the purpose of discussion, TCAS II will be the terminology used in this manual. TCAS II is a system used for detecting and tracking aircraft in the vicinity of your own aircraft.By interrogating their transponders it analyzes the replies to determine range,bearing,and if reporting altitude,the relative altitude of the intruder.
Should the TCAS II processor determine that a possible collision hazard exists,it issues visual and audio advisories to the crew for appropriate vertical avoidance maneuvers. TCAS is unable to detect any intruding aircraft without an operating transponder. There are two types of cockpit displays for TCAS II, the Resolution Advisory (RA) display and the Traffic Advisory (TA) display.The RA display is incorporated into the vertical speed indicator (VSI).By illuminating red and green areas around the dial it displays the required rate,or limitation of climb or descent,to avoid a possible collision.
The TA display shows the intruding aircraft’s relative position and altitude with a trend arrow to indicate if it is climbing or descending at greater than 500 feet per minute.This TA display may be provided on the weather radar indicator, on a dedicated TCAS display or a TA/VSI display. The TA display identifies the relative threat of each intruder by using various symbols and colors.
Nov 10, 2013 Energy Talks
Some commentary is so well organized and on point it deserves a wide hearing. At this blog we tend to look down the road at what might be coming, but. We have to get down the road in the meantime. John C. Felmy of the API has thought this through and managed to compress the main concepts with language that anyone can use to good effect. More surprising is the text that follows is an edited version of an answer given as Mr. Felmy was interviewed. The youTube video is included below. Its not a long read, but a good wake up call to getting on with the important matters for our economy. Now if just 200 million or so American’s would catch on. BW.
There’s a lot of discussion in Washington these days about energy policy, and unfortunately a significant amount of it is divorced from the facts. Today’s discussion tends to focus on immature and expensive technologies that hold promise for the future but do not measure up to the expectations of the American public today.
Here in the United States, consumers expect to have a reliable and affordable supply of energy that helps them heat their homes and fuel their transportation needs. Consumers today also are grappling with a serious economic environment. Job losses and uncertainty make it difficult to plan for the future. Having a stable source of energy can help. In fact, expanding energy exploration and production can have a positive impact on the U.S. economy and the lives of all Americans.
We have a vast amount of undiscovered oil and natural gas in the United States. If the energy industry were allowed to develop it, it would generate jobs, revenue for the government, and reduce the trade deficit. And that’s a win-win-win proposition for the American people. But energy discussions tend to focus on just one narrow segment of the energy industry such as renewables. In general, policymakers are talking more about solar, wind and geothermal than they are talking about oil development.
Yes, we are going to need those resources going forward, but solar, wind and geothermal energy are used to generate electricity. Here in the United States, we have 250 million cars that don’t plug in. They’re going to need oil products into the coming decades. We should produce the oil here in the United States where expanded oil development can generate jobs and revenue, and improve the deficit.
This nation needs a rational energy policy. Yes, we’ll need energy efficiency. Yes, we’ll need alternatives, but we’re going to need more oil and natural gas as well. We’re going to need oil for the cars, we’re going to need natural gas for power generation, and we’re going to need coal and nuclear. Nuclear power has a role to play. It’s encouraging to see that our elected officials are reexamining nuclear policy, and we hope that moves forward.
As a nation, we also need to be mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For example, we think it’s important to consider new ways to power vehicles. Advances in battery technology also are likely to help the development and utility of affordable electric vehicles. But the electricity for these vehicles must be generated by power plants that in all likelihood are burning coal. Furthermore, the new batteries contain raw materials, including rare earth minerals from China or lithium from Bolivia, that have to be imported.
It’s quite possible that the United States could find itself trading one import system for another. This means that our policymakers will need to consider whether it’s preferable for U.S. energy security and the trade deficit to import oil or other materials.
Likewise, consideration should be given to nuclear power’s impact on our energy security. Today 80 percent of our nuclear fuel is imported – much of it from former Soviet Union countries.
A well-conceived energy policy also should take care to do no harm to the energy industry, but rather encourage it to make the investments needed to find and develop fuels for the future. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposed 2011 budget contains provisions that would drain $80 billion from the oil and natural gas industry, which would have the perverse impact of reducing investments. This approach was tried back in the 1970s and ‘80s, and it was a colossal failure. It led to a reduction in domestic oil and natural gas production and an increase in imports. The United States should not repeat that mistake.
Likewise, the nation should carefully examine the ramifications of climate policy. Studies show that the Waxman-Markey bill, which narrowly passed the House of Representatives last year, would uniformly hurt everyone who drives a car, travels by plane, and moves goods and services in a truck by raising energy costs. It also would destroy more than 2 million U.S. jobs and encourage businesses to relocate overseas where stringent environmental regulations do not exist. In this weak economy with the unemployment rate just below 10 percent, this nation should not adopt a policy that exports jobs and increases emissions.
The United States has fueled its economy on affordable and reliable energy for many decades. It can continue to thrive and provide a much needed boost to the economy by expanding the development of traditional energy resources,including oil and natural gas, while investing in energy resources for tomorrow.
John Felmy is the chief economist and manager of statistics at the American Petroleum Institute (API) in Washington, D.C.
Jane Van Ryan
Senior Manager, Communications
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Check out our blog at http://blog.energytomorrow.org/
The original post: New Energy and Fuel
Nov 4, 2013 Energy Talks
- This title is suitable for the children of ages 7 to 12 years. The need for safe sources of renewable energy has sent scientists underground to tap the natural heat produced by the Earth.
- This book describes the three different ways electricity is produced from geothermal energy. Young readers will discover how this clean, safe energy is currently being used in twenty countries including the United States, the largest producer of geothermal energy.
Aug 25, 2013 Refrigeration
January 1st is just around the corner. Now is the time to start preparing for the R-22 refrigeration phase out. Starting in 2010, manufacturers can only produce R-22 refrigerant to service existing equipment. All newly manufactured units will use an alternate refrigerant.
Important Things to know about the R-22 Phase Out
The phase out of the ubiquitous R22 refrigerant gas changes many things for the consumer. If you need to know more about the phase-out, you should read the following pointers.
1) In the United States, there are regulatory bodies like the EPA that have laid down strict guidelines with regards to the regulation and maintenance of refrigerant leaks. The Montreal protocol and the Kyoto protocols have been initiated on an international level to regulate similar parameters. These protocols are being put into place to regulate the repair of refrigerant leaks and the disposal of older machines that use such refrigerants.
2) The refrigerants used in most refrigeration and climate control systems internationally are known as HCFC. Most of them have varying levels of ODPs, better known as ozone depletion potential.
3) R22, also known as HCFC22, was initially introduced as a substitute to CFC 11 and CFC 12. These two gases could cause a very high level of damage to the ozone layer.
4) R22 has an ODP of 0.055, which is significantly lower than both CFC 11 and CFC 12. However R22 is being phased out amongst concerns about the effects that even it can have on the environment.
5) The replacement for systems that use R22 will be other systems using R410A and R409A. These refrigerants are known to have a lower potential for ozone depletion.
Source: Air Options LTD
Source: Cooler Connection