Safety Requirements For Secondary Batteries And Battery Installations: Fill & Download for Free

That’s an interesting question. From a modern standpoint I don’t know that it’s particularly answerable. There are so many things we don’t know about Star Wars technology that would influence ship design that it seems kind of unfair to criticize it from a “real world” point of view. For instance, to my eye it seems awfully big for only housing about 57,000 souls, but that’s hard to judge without understanding things like what their life support, power plant, and weapons require in terms of a ship’s layout. Are the shield generator domes exposed? I don’t see any particular reason to think that. Sure, Executor’s domes were ultimately destroyed, but we know that the ship was the focus of the entire Rebel armada at Endor, so there’s no telling how much punishment her shields had taken before the domes themselves were destroyed. And even an Imperial I had a greater overall shield strength than an MC80, so there may well have been perfectly sound design reasons to house them the way they were housed rather than the way almost every other ship in the GFFA housed its shield generators.As for the weapon distribution in general, sure it’s uneven, but are there reasons for that? What does it take to place a turbolaser on a given place in the hull? We have no real idea.I will say that I think some of the common objections seem unfounded even from an in-universe point of view. For instance, I see no reason to believe that a Star Destroyer can’t fire into its aft aspect. The main battery installations are laid out broadside, but can fire forward into the dorsal aspect. It follows that the same capability would hold for the aft (dorsal) aspect. Likewise, the ventral aspect may be inaccessible to the main battery, but presumably not to the various guns installed on the midline.From an in-universe standpoint, I think it’s only possible to conclude that they are well-designed. The basic arrowhead shape is apparently in use for at least 50 years across multiple ship classes, naval philosophies, and even entire governments. Cf. the Acclamator class, a good twenty years before the first Imperial I hit space:and the Resurgent class, a good thirty years after the Imperial Is:These are two ships separated by half a century, two wars, and three governments. They have very different mission profiles. Yet they still both use the same basic arrowhead hull. If that shape wasn’t fit for purpose, it would have been dropped.The Imperial Is are also pretty impressive from a design standpoint. Compare one to the Victory I class that the Republic was using at the end of the Clone Wars in the battleship role:The Imperial I is faster and more heavily armed, along with carrying an air wing that’s three times as large and a garrison that’s nearly five times as large. It’s an improvement in essentially all areas of performance - and sure, it costs more, but you get a lot more out of it, too.What about its mission profile? We might criticize the Imperial class for trying to do too many things at once, for instance - most notably, is this thing trying to be a transport or a dreadnought (I’m using the term in its real-world sense)? But I don’t really think that’s a flaw in the context of the mission of the Imperial Navy. Unlike the Republic Navy, the Imperial Navy was never asked to fight a major rival state. It was essentially a peacekeeping navy, or a counterinsurgency one, and for that, I think its design makes a lot of sense. Even its secondary batteries are very heavy, and it’s got a lot of them (the decision to discard small- and medium-sized ship-to-ship guns in favor of an all-heavy turbolaser armament might be criticized if not for the fact that the things have so many of them - another engineering feat that I suspect is actually quite impressive in-universe). An Imperial Star Destroyer can eat smaller ships for breakfast all day, and smaller ships are all it’s ever likely to face in a counterinsurgency situation. And because it makes room for a comparatively massive and well-equipped garrison, it can transport a powerful ground force in safety rather than needing to ride herd on vulnerable troop transports.Doesn’t the focus on heavy turbolasers and a fairly small air wing (at least, compared to a real carrier like the old Venators) make it vulnerable to Rebel fighters? I don’t think so. For one thing, we know that destroying even a single Star Destroyer with starfighter attacks was something the Rebellion considered an entire campaign in its own right. Compared to the firepower that a Rebel raiding force could muster, Star Destroyers were apparently almost indestructibly tough. Star Wars naval combat is not a World War II-type situation where carrier-launched bombers can just make mincemeat of a battleship. And don’t forget also that those big guns gave it the luxury of focusing its air wing almost exclusively on interceptors - and when it comes to dogfighting, I think we have every reason to believe that TIE fighters are actually much better than the hybrid raider designs that the Rebels relied upon (Eric Lowe's answer to Have there ever been any notable engagements where TIE fighters defeated X-wing fighters?). The fact that TIE/LNs were cheap and didn’t have shields and Rebel fighters did does not mean that they were inferior craft (Eric Lowe's answer to What would happen if the Galactic Empire equipped their TIE fighters with shields?). Sixty TIE starfighters is a formidable fighter screen.So yeah, I’d say there’s every reason to believe that the Imperial classes were well designed.

“Was the Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan on a covert mission to the Falklands when it was lost? Why or why not?”Simple answer so that you don’t have to read the rest: there is reason to believe that the ARA San Juan may have been involved in illegal activity in violation of international conventions.————————The Argentine military are famous for inventing imaginary bellicose scenarios in attempts to make training or other routine exercises more interesting. Lower ranking personnel are quite often taken in by these simulations, and believe that they are somehow real. And some of the most common imaginary scenarios involve their superior rivals in the Chilean armed forces, particularly the Chilean navy. But evidently the Falklands has been added to the dreamy world of imaginary taskings. Later reports from the Argentine government suggested that the boat was supposed to be looking out for illegal fishing activities, with a “secondary role” in unlawfully monitoring activity near the Falklands.Some of the reports of the path taken by the submarine would have put it in a location in which it was operating contrary to its international obligations. So there may have been a bit of poetic justice in its disappearance.Understand this: the ARA was only marginally seaworthy. It had known maintenance deficiencies. And the crew was aware of some of those.But the Argentine military spends the bulk of its budget on “personnel” —- in retirement pensions, benefits, and payments to a bloated and unnecessary active duty component. The national government has almost no money and the country is perpetually in default even when it thinks it isn’t, so getting the funds to keep its antiquated submarine seaworthy is…. unlikely. And that would come out quite publicly AFTER the loss of the boat.The submarine had been given a “life extension” by the Argentines themselves, another sure predictor of dubious outcomes. The Argentines were unwilling to pay the submarine builder for the necessary work and required parts, so the Argentines tried to do it the low-budget way, with inexperienced personnel and substandard local materials, with suspicions of the usual sort of bribes and corruption along the way. To build new batteries, the Argentine navy found somebody who built automobile batteries and gave them the work. What could possibly go wrong?Apparently, faults associated with the batteries are believed to have been among the factors that led to the implosion, destruction, and loss of the boat.That this submarine failed to survive this simple voyage after its rework and subsequent maintenance failures surprises no one.Map of the general northbound path and area of search after the contact with the boat was lost.Edit:Sea trials were conducted in 2014. There was no reported indication that the cause of the loss in November of 2017 was the direct result of deficiencies related to oversights during the sea trials. The congressional investigating committee indicated also that there was no evidence of attack or other damage from other nations or that the work done during the life extension was directly responsible. The committee did blame the Macri government and the navy itself for “political, administrative, and organisational” faults, and more specifically the failure of those responsible to assure sufficient allocation of budget, the lack of certain technological upgrades, and lack of attention to maintenance in the face of known material deficiencies. Prior to undertaking the final (fateful) voyage, there were known snorkel problems which apparently allowed seawater to enter, which combined with battery shortcomings, are believed to have caused a sufficiently explosive atmosphere, leading to the loss.Recent history supports the contention that the argentine navy has characteristically failed to consider safety as a high priority aspect of resource allocation. The investigation into the loss of the cruiser Belgrano in 1982 revealed a failure to install adequate emergency lighting and life safety communications equipment.

Actually, what you need is a car audio capacitor and not a secondary battery.In car audio applications, a capacitor can be used to “feed” your hungry amp. The issue at hand is that an especially powerful amp may outstrip the power-generation capabilities of your car’s electrical system. When that occurs, you will typically see your headlights or dash lights dim during powerful bass notes.Installing a car audio capacitor isn’t especially difficult, although it can be dangerous. Since large caps are capable of storing and discharging a great deal of energy, they require a little more care in handling than other car audio components. When you buy a cap, it should come with detailed safety instructions, installation instructions, and either a light bulb or resistor that can be used to safely discharge it. If you’ve never installed a stiffening cap before, it’s vital to read and understand the safety and installation instructions before you get started.:Info for answer was found here: Car Audio Capacitors, Explained