News Article | February 20, 2017
This report studies Nano Satellite in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with capacity, production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman Planet Labs Surrey Satellite Technologies Spire Global Dauria Aerospace Tyvak CubeSat NANOSATELLITE COMPANIES AEC-Able Engineering AeroAstro Aeroflex Aerojet Airbus Defence and Space Aitech Alenia Spazio APCO Technologies Ardé ATK Austrian Aerospace Boeing Space Systems CAEN Aerospace Raytheon PCI Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Nano Satellite in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Communications Satellite Positioning Satellite Others Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Nano Satellite in each application, can be divided into Government Military Others Global Nano Satellite Market Research Report 2017 1 Nano Satellite Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Nano Satellite 1.2 Nano Satellite Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Nano Satellite by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Communications Satellite 1.2.3 Positioning Satellite 1.2.4 Others 1.3 Nano Satellite Segment by Application 1.3.1 Nano Satellite Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Government 1.3.3 Military 1.3.4 Others 1.4 Nano Satellite Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Nano Satellite (2012-2022) 2 Global Nano Satellite Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global Nano Satellite Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global Nano Satellite Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global Nano Satellite Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers Nano Satellite Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 Nano Satellite Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Nano Satellite Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Nano Satellite Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers …………. 7 Global Nano Satellite Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Lockheed Martin 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Communications Satellite 184.108.40.206 Positioning Satellite 7.1.3 Lockheed Martin Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Northrop Grumman 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Communications Satellite 18.104.22.168 Positioning Satellite 7.2.3 Northrop Grumman Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Planet Labs 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Communications Satellite 126.96.36.199 Positioning Satellite 7.3.3 Planet Labs Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Surrey Satellite Technologies 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Communications Satellite 184.108.40.206 Positioning Satellite ..…..Continued Any Query?, Ask Here @ https://www.wiseguyreports.com/enquiry/975255-global-nano-satellite-market-research-report-2017 For more information, please visit http://www.wiseguyreports.com
News Article | February 17, 2017
This report studies Nano Satellite in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia and India, focuses on top manufacturers in global market, with capacity, production, price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer, covering Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate of Nano Satellite in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like Split by product type, with production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Split by application, this report focuses on consumption, market share and growth rate of Nano Satellite in each application, can be divided into Global Nano Satellite Market Research Report 2017 1 Nano Satellite Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Nano Satellite 1.2 Nano Satellite Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of Nano Satellite by Type in 2015 1.2.2 Communications Satellite 1.2.3 Positioning Satellite 1.2.4 Others 1.3 Nano Satellite Segment by Application 1.3.1 Nano Satellite Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Government 1.3.3 Military 1.3.4 Others 1.4 Nano Satellite Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Nano Satellite (2012-2022) 2 Global Nano Satellite Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global Nano Satellite Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global Nano Satellite Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global Nano Satellite Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers Nano Satellite Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 Nano Satellite Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Nano Satellite Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Nano Satellite Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global Nano Satellite Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2012-2017) 3.1 Global Nano Satellite Production by Region (2012-2017) 3.2 Global Nano Satellite Production Market Share by Region (2012-2017) 3.3 Global Nano Satellite Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2012-2017) 3.4 Global Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.5 North America Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.6 Europe Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.7 China Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.8 Japan Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.9 Southeast Asia Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 3.10 India Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 5 Global Nano Satellite Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type 5.1 Global Nano Satellite Production and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 5.2 Global Nano Satellite Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 5.3 Global Nano Satellite Price by Type (2012-2017) 5.4 Global Nano Satellite Production Growth by Type (2012-2017) 6 Global Nano Satellite Market Analysis by Application 6.1 Global Nano Satellite Consumption and Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 6.2 Global Nano Satellite Consumption Growth Rate by Application (2012-2017) 6.3 Market Drivers and Opportunities 6.3.1 Potential Applications 6.3.2 Emerging Markets/Countries 7 Global Nano Satellite Manufacturers Profiles/Analysis 7.1 Lockheed Martin 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.1.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Communications Satellite 18.104.22.168 Positioning Satellite 7.1.3 Lockheed Martin Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 Northrop Grumman 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.2.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Communications Satellite 126.96.36.199 Positioning Satellite 7.2.3 Northrop Grumman Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 Planet Labs 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.3.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Communications Satellite 184.108.40.206 Positioning Satellite 7.3.3 Planet Labs Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Surrey Satellite Technologies 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.4.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Communications Satellite 18.104.22.168 Positioning Satellite 7.4.3 Surrey Satellite Technologies Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Spire Global 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.5.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Communications Satellite 126.96.36.199 Positioning Satellite 7.5.3 Spire Global Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Dauria Aerospace 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.6.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Communications Satellite 184.108.40.206 Positioning Satellite 7.6.3 Dauria Aerospace Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 Tyvak 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.7.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Communications Satellite 18.104.22.168 Positioning Satellite 7.7.3 Tyvak Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 CubeSat 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.8.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Communications Satellite 126.96.36.199 Positioning Satellite 7.8.3 CubeSat Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 NANOSATELLITE COMPANIES 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.9.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Communications Satellite 184.108.40.206 Positioning Satellite 7.9.3 NANOSATELLITE COMPANIES Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 AEC-Able Engineering 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Its Competitors 7.10.2 Nano Satellite Product Type, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Communications Satellite 18.104.22.168 Positioning Satellite 7.10.3 AEC-Able Engineering Nano Satellite Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2015 and 2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 AeroAstro 7.12 Aeroflex 7.13 Aerojet 7.14 Airbus Defence and Space 7.15 Aitech 7.16 Alenia Spazio 7.17 APCO Technologies 7.18 Ardé 7.19 ATK 7.20 Austrian Aerospace 7.21 Boeing Space Systems 7.22 CAEN Aerospace 7.23 Raytheon 7.24 PCI For more information, please visit http://www.wiseguyreports.com
News Article | February 28, 2017
Advanced nuclear technology development is such a hot topic these days that the hashtag #AdvancingNuclear took over Twitter on Tuesday, Feb 22 while Third Way, several national labs and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation sponsored the second annual Advanced Nuclear Summit. At least five entities in the United States or Canada (TerraPower, ARC, GE Prism, LeadCold and Westinghouse) are expending significant sums of corporate or venture capital to pursue an elusive technical achievement; commercially viable nuclear power systems that achieve substantially greater fuel economy than conventional reactors. Though nuclear fuel is "cheap," substantially better fuel use provides improved longevity and produces less waste material. Efforts to achieve fuel economy objectives has reopened a discussion whose roots extend back more than 50 years into the middle of the 1960s. Given that there are United States entities that believe there is a need for advanced nuclear technology with fuel consumption characteristics that surpass those available from conventional reactors, those entities need a facility that can provide conditions for the fuel and materials testing required to support design, development and licensing. Currently available facilities that can provide the necessary conditions are located in Russia and China. For obvious reasons, those choices are not optimal. Conventional commercial nuclear reactors operate with slow [thermal] neutrons. They use light materials like water or graphite to moderate [slow] the high speed, high energy [fast] neutrons that are liberated when uranium or plutonium atoms are broken apart. Thermal neutrons have a higher probability of being absorbed and causing fission, thus they can work with fuel that is only slightly purified [aka enriched] to have a little more fissile material than natural uranium. The disadvantage of thermal spectrum reactors is that commercially proven configurations fission only 3-5% of the uranium in the fuel elements. Though technical specialists can quibble with this statement, thermal reactors only obtain heat from the 0.7% of natural uranium that is fissile U-235. The U-238 atoms that make up 99.3% of natural uranium are treated as if they were useless waste materials. In commercial fuel elements, natural uranium has been purified so that 3-5% of the uranium is fissile U-235. As a result, conventional reactors consume 3-5% of the loaded fuel, leaving 95-97% of the potential energy behind as waste if not recycled. Many nuclear advocates or nuclear technology observers claim there is no immediate need to spend money to improve fuel cycle efficiency. Uranium is cheaper now in nominal dollars than it was in 1973 ($24/lb versus $40/lb). The market is oversupplied to the point where mines are being closed for economic reasons, not because they have exhausted the known deposits. Storing used fuel [which some people insist on calling "nuclear waste"] is technically simple and not a major cost item, even though it can lead to heated political controversies. Those objections do not prevent others from pursuing improvements because they seek other measures of effectiveness or have discovered ways to position their technology to compete in unique ways. LWR "waste" material is capable of being broken apart and releasing just as much energy for each fission as splitting U-235. Uranium-238 can fission either directly if impacted by a neutron moving fast enough to carry substantial momentum [about 1 MeV of energy] or it can fission after absorbing a neutron, undergoing two beta decays to become Pu-239 and then being split by a second neutron. In a reactor that has no or little moderation [either zero or a small portion of light materials like graphite or water in the core] neutrons retain high enough energy to either directly fission or to convert U-238 to fissile Pu-239. Doing so improves fuel economy by a factor that might approach 140. With fast neutrons, a fuel resource expected to last for a century with thermal reactors could conceivably last 14,000 years. One of the primary technological rainbows that might lead to this pot of gold is to use reactors that are cooled by liquid metal, with the common choices being limited to sodium, lead, or a eutectic mixture of sodium and potassium called NaK. Using liquid metals and fast neutron spectra requires materials and fuels whose characteristics are considerably different from those in conventional reactors. Doing this safely – and within the bounds of regulations – requires adequately testing and computer model validation. In the mid 1960s, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission shifted most of its nuclear technology investment expenditures away from projects that would improve on light water reactors. The general consensus was that those reactors had been commercialized to the point where private industry would invest the resources required for improvements. In 1965, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), the President and the AEC determined that the time was right to apply available resources to serious research and development of liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors. That effort included the recognized need for a large-capacity, highly capable testing reactor. A group of scientists, technologists, economic boosters and elected officials in the state of Washington joined forces and put together a proposal for a fast neutron test facility. Similar people associated with the Idaho National Reactor Testing station and the closely aligned Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois assumed that their site was the logical location for such a facility. After all, they had already hosted so many experimental, test and demonstration reactors. Their site was the National Reactor Testing Station before it was renamed as the Idaho National Laboratory. Those loosely aligned individuals and corporate entities did not take into account the well-organized group in Washington. They did not understand the national government's desire to soften the economic blow that had been dealt to eastern Washington with the winding down of the plutonium production reactors. They also failed to recognize the importance of Milton Shaw's personal animosity towards Albert Crewe, then serving as the director of Argonne National Laboratory. Shaw was then serving as the director of AEC-Headquarters’ Division of Reactor Development and Technology; his opinion carried a great deal of weight in the AEC decision process. The reactor that the Atomic Energy Commission designed, sited, built and operated at the Hanford Site in Eastern Washington to provide the proper environment for testing fast reactor fuels and materials operated from 1982-1992. That shutdown happened about 15 years after Presidents Ford and Carter had determined that the US would not pursue liquid metal breeder reactors. The AEC took from 1967-1982 to move from conception to an operating test facility. Some of the delay was caused by the annual budget battles that questioned the need for the facility after the cancellation of the fast breeder reactor program. The design was reviewed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), though regulation of the facilities construction and operation was retained by DOE. That facility – the 400 MWth Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) – remains the highest capacity, most modern and least used test reactor in the U.S. DOE's possession. It is still intact with its internals filled with an inert argon gas purge. Though final environmental impact assessments have been conducted and a decision has been made to entomb the facility, budgets and preparation of detailed engineering plans move slowly at DOE; no destruction has begun yet. There is a pervasive myth floating around the DOE that actions taken during the George W. Bush administration to more completely remove the sodium coolant from the system has made it impossible for the system to be restored. According to a 2007 detailed study funded by DOE as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) the action taken was to drill a 3/4" carefully engineered hole in a non pressure barrier. The study determined that adequate recovery from that action would add a little less than $1 M to the $500 M facility restoration cost estimate. (See pages 56-57 of the linked PDF) What Kind Of Reputation Did The FFTF Earn? During the 15 years following the 1976-77 turn away from developing fast breeder reactors as a national priority, the FFTF was completed, put through an extensive start-up testing program and used operationally for the next 10 years. Because FFTF's primary mission of supporting an expansive breeder reactor program had been cancelled before the facility ever started up, its supporters were put into the position of existence justification before they even opened for business. The facility was used for materials testing, medical isotope production, and was proposed for use as a plutonium burner, a source for Pu-238 for space missions and as a prototype liquid metal power reactor. One of the test series conducted at the FFTF validated the system's passive safety claims. The unvalidated nature of those claims was a major objection raised by the project's more vocal opponents, including Arthur Tamplin and Thomas Cochrane, both of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). During its operational life, the FFTF demonstrated the value of having been built with a view towards longevity and reliable operation. At times, it could run for many months without reducing power. That is valuable when operating to "burn up" fuel or highly irradiate materials with neutrons. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of Energy, James Watkins determined that the FFTF was no longer needed and could be sacrificed in the name of budget cutting. They justified the decision by claiming that the US was no longer pursuing fast reactor technology. Apparently, the staff people who supplied this budget cutting recommendation and justification ignored the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project in Idaho, which was then in its 18th year and still going strong. In 1992, the FFTF was ordered to be placed in standby by President Clinton and Hazel O'Leary, his first Secretary of Energy. On Jan 19, 2001, the last day of the Clinton Administration, Bill Richardson, then serving as the Secretary of Energy, signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for closing and decommissioning the facility. In December 2001, President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham ordered that the facility be permanently shutdown by completing the sodium removal. In 2007, as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Department of Energy funded a study to determine if the facility could be economically restored on a usefully short schedule. With a 20% contingency and conservative schedule assumptions, that study indicated that restoration would take about 5-6 years and cost $500 million. The study ended up in a room known to insiders as the abandoned room, a place where all of the GNEP Environmental Impact Statement paperwork accumulated with no consideration given to reviewing the documents and making a final decision. At the end of the Obama Administration, DOE began identifying the mission need and requirements for a new fast reactor testing facility. Though the documents produced as part of that effort only mention the FFTF in passing, it now appears that the process for meeting user demands for fast neutron testing capability will include evaluating the option of restoring the FFTF. With a more diverse and less politically vulnerable user base compared to the 1970s vintage fast breeder reactor program, the FFTF should finally get the chance to perform its primary mission for a lengthy period of time. As the US DOE has found with the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), a 50 year-old facility initially built to serve a single customer, there is a wide range of potential customers and a sustainable demand for a well run neutron irradiation user facility that might last for numerous decades. It's time to move from repeated bipartisan efforts to permanently kill the FFTF to a broad-based effort to recognize value and restore the facility that our parents built and carefully put away in case we might need it.
News Article | February 15, 2017
Vector Solutions, the leader in eLearning and performance support solutions for the architecture, engineering, construction (AEC), industrial, public safety and IT infrastructure/security segments, is pleased to announce the promotion of Nancy D. Allen to Senior Vice President of Sales for RedVector. Allen will lead the Enterprise Sales teams for RedVector’s AEC and industrial segments, and for Vector Solutions’ newest brand, LearnSmart, which supports project management, IT and network security professionals. Allen’s leadership skills, detailed sales process and motivation helped lead her division to an impressive 64% year-over-year growth, making it the top division in the company in 2016. “Nancy is a high energy, customer-first sales leader with a tenacity that is second to none,” said Dave Brown, Vector Solutions Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing. “Her commitment to excellence will continue to positively impact the RedVector team and our clients. We congratulate her on her promotion and we are looking forward to future success under her direction.” Allen came to RedVector in 2015 after a long career with Konica Minolta, where she was the National Vice President of Vertical Markets. Nancy has a BA in business from Ole Miss, an MBA from the University of South Florida and is Lean Six Sigma certified from Villanova University. She lives in Tampa Bay with her husband Jason and has 6 children. She also serves many local charitable organizations and is a member of the Northeast Exchange club and a board member for the Tampa Bay Council of the Navy League. About Vector Solutions Vector Solutions sets the standard for excellence in delivering online continuing education, training and performance support solutions to the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industries, as well as industrial, public safety and IT fields. Through its brands RedVector, TargetSolutions and LearnSmart, Vector Solutions offers individual courses as well as and large-scale corporate training solutions via a state-of-the-art Learning Management System. With an online library exceeding 5,000 courses authored by more than 200 subject matter experts, Vector Solutions serves professionals and firms across the globe. The recipient of numerous community honors and industry awards, Vector Solutions was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. For more information, call 1-866-546-1212 or visit http://www.Vector-Solutions.com.
News Article | February 15, 2017
Qualified to AEC-Q200, the new Automotive Grade Accu-P Series SMD capacitors deliver the industry's tightest capacitive tolerances, in addition to exceptionally repeatable performance, extremely high stability, & remarkably low ESR & high Q at high frequencies FOUNTAIN INN, SC--(Marketwired - February 09, 2017) - AVX Corporation ( : AVX), a leading manufacturer and supplier of passive components and interconnect solutions, has released a new series of SMD thin film chip capacitors especially designed to meet demanding performance specifications in automotive signal and power applications. Qualified to AEC-Q200, AVX's new Automotive Grade Accu-P® Series capacitors deliver the tightest tolerances of any capacitor available on today's market (down to ±0.01pF), in addition to exceptionally repeatable performance, remarkably low ESR and high Q at high frequencies (including VHF, UHF, and RF bands), and extremely high stability with respect to temperature, time, frequency, and voltage variation when compared to ceramic capacitor technologies. Based on well-established thin film technology and materials, the new Automotive Grade Accu-P Series capacitors are also subjected to a litany of test and quality control procedures in accordance with ISO 9001, CECC, IECQ, and USA MIL -- including on-line process control procedures, accelerated life, dampness, and heat testing, and final quality inspections for capacitance, proof voltage, IR and breakdown voltage distribution, temperature coefficient, solderability, and dimensional, mechanical, and temperature stability -- which makes them ideal for use in automotive signal and power applications that require extremely high accuracy, such as: in-vehicle and vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems, vehicle location and alarm systems, GPS, in-cabin wireless LANs, and mobile communications including navigation, traffic information, and connected security systems. "Designed to exhibit ideal performance characteristics in high frequency signal and power applications, Accu-P Series capacitors virtually eliminate the variances in dielectric quality, electrode conductivity, and physical size that are inherent to ceramic capacitor technologies," said Larry Eisenberger, principal technical marketing engineer, AVX. "Named for the extreme accuracy they deliver in even demanding applications, Automotive Grade Accu-P Series SMD thin film chip capacitors feature high-purity electrodes for very low and repeatable ESR; high-purity, low-K dielectric for a high breakdown field, high IR, and low losses to frequencies above 40GHz; and very tight dimensional control for uniform unit-to-unit inductance." Automotive Grade Accu-P Series capacitors are currently available in three standard case sizes (0402, 0603, and 0805), six rated voltages (10V, 16V, 25V, 50V, 100V, and 200V), and two dielectric temperature coefficients (0±30ppm/°C and 0±60ppm/°C) with capacitance values spanning 0.05pF to 68pF, and capacitive tolerances from ±0.01pF to ±5%. Rated for use in operating temperatures spanning -55°C to +125°C, the ruggedly constructed series also offers four termination compositions, including RoHS compliant and lead-free compatible options, and nickel/solder-coated terminations that provide excellent solderability and leach resistance. Designed for soldering onto flexible or alumina circuit boards, Automotive Grade Accu-P Series capacitors can withstand the time and temperature profiles used in both wave and reflow soldering methods. Shipped on 7" or 13" reels, the components should be handled with plastic-tipped tweezers, vacuum pick-ups, or other pick-and-place machinery. Lead-time for the series is currently 10 weeks. For more information about AVX's new Automotive Grade Accu-P Series SMD thin film chip capacitors for automotive signal and power applications, please visit http://www.avx.com/products/rfmicrowave/capacitors/automotive-grade-accu-p/ to access the product datasheet, catalog, part number information, and design tools. For all other inquiries, please visit www.avx.com, call 864-967-2150, or write to One AVX Boulevard, Fountain Inn, S.C. 29644. AVX Corporation is a leading international manufacturer and supplier of electronic passive components and interconnect solutions with 20 manufacturing and warehouse facilities in 11 countries around the world. AVX offers a broad range of devices including capacitors, resistors, filters, timing and circuit protection devices, and connectors. The company is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange ( : AVX). A member of the Kyocera Group since 1990, AVX is also the only company authorized to supply Kyocera's electronic devices to the Americas and Europe. Established in 1959 and based in Kyoto, Japan, Kyocera Corporation is a leading international supplier of connectors, capacitors, ceramic resonators, surface acoustic wave (SAW) filters and duplexers, and crystal oscillators and timing devices.
News Article | February 15, 2017
On 21 November, CERN signed an agreement with Sekhar Basu, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) of the government of India, to admit India as an associate Member State. India has been a partner of CERN for more than 50 years, during which it has made substantial contributions to the construction of the LHC and to the ALICE and CMS experiments, as well as Tier-2 centres for the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid. A co-operation agreement was signed in 1991, but India’s relationship with CERN goes back much further, with Indian institutes having provided components for the LEP collider and one of its four detectors, L3, in addition to the WA93 and WA89 detectors. The success of the DAE–CERN partnership regarding the LHC has also led to co-operation on novel accelerator technologies through DAE’s participation in CERN’s Linac4, SPL and CTF3 projects. India also participates in the COMPASS, ISOLDE and nTOF experiments at CERN. In recognition of these substantial contributions, India was granted observer status at CERN Council in 2002. When it enters into force, associate membership will allow India to take part in CERN Council meetings and its committees, and will make Indian scientists eligible for staff appointments. “Becoming associate member of CERN will enhance participation of young scientists and engineers in various CERN projects and bring back knowledge for deployment in the domestic programmes,” says Basu. “It will also provide opportunities to Indian industries to participate directly in CERN projects.”
News Article | February 20, 2017
Malcolm Turnbull has hit back at suggestions that his house’s large personal rooftop solar and battery system sends a message contrary to the government’s endorsement of “clean coal”. He rejected the idea that he had ever been critical of the renewables sector and dismissed his treasurer’s brandishing of a lump of coal in question time as “theatrics”. “It’s not a question of beliefs, saying ‘Do you believe in renewables?’,” the prime minister said. “It’s like saying ‘Do you believe in tables?’ Renewables are there, they are doing well, they have got certain characteristics and you have to design your grid to take account of that.” As his energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, raised the prospect of changing the mandate of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to accommodate coal, the prime minister said he had always been objective about energy. Asked whether his solar panels were enough to provide power to three average homes, Turnbull agreed that his personal 14.5kW system on the roof of his Point Piper home, with battery storage, was a “large array”. Turnbull went on to explain his position on climate change and his government’s energy policy. “I believe that climate change is a threat that we have to deal with,” Turnbull told ABC Perth. “I believe that we have to reduce our emissions. I believe that we need to ensure that we use all technologies to generate energy.” A week ago, when blackouts were occurring in South Australia and were threatening other states, Renew Economy reported that Turnbull could rest easy, knowing his solar storage system would cover any energy usage in his own house. “I have never disparaged the renewables sector,” he said on Monday. “This is where, with great respect, journalists sometimes hear what they want to hear rather than what people are saying. “When I spoke at the press club, I made the point of the importance of renewables, I made the point of how the cost of renewables is coming down. The cost per watt of solar panels is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. “However, the issue with variable renewables – by which I mean principally solar and wind – is that they don’t generate electricity all the time.” Turnbull said he was the first political leader in Australia to talk about the importance of storage, including pumped hydro and batteries. Last week the CEFC granted a $54m loan to a large-scale solar development which it says has the potential for pumped hydro storage. He also said more gas needed to become available as a back-up. But his finance minister, Mathias Cormann, who has dual responsibility for appointing members of the CEFC board, rejected outright the opinion of the CEFC chief executive, Oliver Yates, that coal investments were very risky for the taxpayer. Yates told a Senate committee that the CEFC would not likely invest in coal technology. Yates is due to step down within weeks, a position to be filled by Cormann and Frydenberg. “We don’t agree with [Yates], obviously,” Cormann told the ABC. “I mean what is risky right now, and the experience in South Australia, of course, has shown that, is the reckless and ideological pursuit of state-based 50% renewable energy targets, which have put the stability of our energy system at risk.” Cormann blamed previous Labor policy for the lack of investment appetite for coal-fired power. “The reason why there’s been, you know, obviously no appetite for private-sector investment is because of the policy settings that have been progressively put in place by Labor and Green governments,” Cormann said. “If you look at other parts around the world, high-energy, high energy-efficient and low-emission technologies when it comes to coal have been deployed, are being deployed, are being considered and, you know, we think that that needs to be considered in Australia too.” The Australian Energy Council, representing 21 major electricity and natural gas businesses, has said there is no appetite for new coal-fired power in Australia. “While lower-emissions coal-fired power stations could be considered theoretically, in practice there is no current investment appetite to develop new coal-fired power in Australia,” the AEC chief executive, Matthew Warren, has stated. “The industry’s investment focus has shifted to a combination of … lower-emissions gas generation, renewables and enabling technologies like storage.”
News Article | February 27, 2017
The threat of nuclear warfare has long plagued this world. In July of 1962, Dot Clayton went to work for a company involved in the underground testing of nuclear weapons. Years later, when her co-workers began dying, Dot started searching for answers. In “Dying for Answers: Expendable Workers of the Cold War Nuclear Testing,” Clayton exposes the critical decisions made by agencies involved in the nuclear testing during the Cold War. “This is a true story about the Nevada Test Site (NTS), government cover-ups, denials and disinformation by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), later known as the Department of Energy,” Clayton said. “The information contained regards radiation exposure to employees, obtained from previously classified employment records.” Clayton’s husband, Glenn, an NTS employee, died in 1999. After months of refusal by the Department of Energy to release Glenn’s employment records, Clayton was finally able to obtain them, through the Freedom of Information Act, exactly a year after his death. The previously classified government records detail Glenn’s excessive, deadly exposure to radiation through his employment at NTS and his involvement in the underground testing of nuclear bombs. “These people were dedicated to their country and to their employer,” Clayton said. “Both of whom failed to protect them.” “Dying for Answers” By Dot Clayton ISBN: 978-1-4897-1052-9 Available at the LifeRich Publishing and Amazon About the author In the early years of the nuclear bomb testing, Dot Clayton went to work at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), located sixty-nine miles north of Las Vegas. She was employed by an engineering company responsible for the survey work in preparation for nuclear bomb tests. She witnessed, first-hand, the devastation of those tests, as workers began dying from all types of cancer.
News Article | February 20, 2017
ATLANTA, Feb. 20, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Applied Software®, a leading systems integrator in the AEC, construction and manufacturing industries, announced today its partnership with Xinaps, developer of a suite of plug-ins that ensures data quality validation and compliance with local...
News Article | February 23, 2017
Car Wars is pleased to announce, along with PCG Companies, the Automotive Engagement Conference (AEC) Tour will be hosting seven events in seven major cities across the nation. The tour will kickoff in Atlanta, Georgia on March 23, 2017 at the Marriott Century City Hotel. The AEC, national tour is geared toward teaching automotive dealers how to leverage Google Analytics, measure online consumer engagement and upgrade attribution models to sell more cars in a digital age. Car Wars is partnering with AEC to educate dealers on how to get smart with their marketing spend, maximize customer opportunities and improve phone processes. Car Wars’ call tracking and marketing analytics software actively helps more than 9,000 dealerships to Own the Phone. Cassie Broemmer, Vice President of Business Development, will be representing Car Wars by leading workshops at each event. Broemmer is regarded as one of the foremost experts in the fields of automotive marketing and customer communication. She is a frequent speaker at industry events and is constantly sought after as a progressive thought leader. Broemmer’s sessions will enlighten dealers on how to utilize their most important conversion channel: the phone. Attendees will walk away knowing how to transform their team into phone experts, re-evaluate their marketing investments and, immediately, start driving more booked appointments at their dealerships. "I am ready to get this tour on the road. Dealerships need to Own the Phone. I love getting to show dealers how they can get smart with their marketing spend, maximize customer opportunities and improve phone processes,” said Broemmer. The AEC Tour is structured to empower dealers to hold all marketing agencies, website providers, third-party website tools and OEM approved vendors to a single set of metrics that are easily inspected and actionable. Following the tour’s opening event in Atlanta, the AEC will make stops in Detroit, Tysons Corner, Dallas, Teaneck, New Jersey, Los Angeles and Chicago through June (with additional date requests being considered). Tickets to attend cost $50 per person. Attendees will leave with over $300 worth of educational resources, featuring two new books from PCG Companies along with access to online training courses in Google Analytics and Online Marketing for Managers. To learn more and register to the event closest to you, please visit https://goo.gl/Pb4uwh. Car Wars, based in Dallas, Texas, is the premier call tracking provider for more than 9,000 automotive dealerships. Their team of 90,000 human reviewers track and record every inbound and outbound call at a dealership. The platform provides insight into how every call is handled, alerts dealers when a missed opportunity needs attention and, ultimately, helps stores improve phone performance. Dealers turn to Car Wars when they’re overwhelmed by the phone. Car Wars fosters a thriving phone culture centered around accountability and converts more phone calls into booked appointments. PCG Companies is composed of an award-winning digital marketing agency, consulting firm, and online training platform located in Monmouth County, NJ. PCG’s roots began in digital marketing for the automotive industry, and their mission, Advocate-Educate-Elevate, embodies their core ideals; to advocate for transparency, educate the public on the ever-changing digital landscape, and elevate their clients’ to success. PCG has also expanded to automotive product research, as well as data reporting for automotive dealers with their tool, VistaDash. For more information, please visit http://www.pcgcompanies.com.