According to this study, these interpolations may be inaccurate or lacking of additional variables such as people's TEE limited by their poor fitness. In other words, it seems you increase your energy expenditure only if you used to be a lazy slob. Otherwise, the major source of calorie burning comes from the direct cost of energy from the specific workout itself.
I think this makes sense in an evolutionary sense, otherwise individuals that had to sweat to hunt would have eventually had to hunt more to satisfy their growing need for energy. Instead, the body got stronger and more efficient at handling the current caloric input.
what precludes PWR's from being anything but thermal reactors is the slowing down length of water, thermalizing neutrons in a relatively short distance. however, PWR's use a fuel that doesn't readily absorb fast neutrons. the water atom is too small to readily absorb neutros, which is why PWR's have a very small concentration of heavy water.
DI water still has a very low level of chlorides. Chemicals are added to the coolant to keep its ph slightly basic and less corrosive, but the neutron flux still breaks these down into hydrogen (explosive) and oxygen (corrosive), gammas tend to glue these back together but the effect is never fully efficient. In effect, corrosion overall is VERY low in the coolant loops, especially considering the thin oxide layer that is allowed to form on the inside walls of the stainless steel pipes and pumps.
What articles? TFA mentions nothing of these technical specs.
Liquid sodium may sound safer than water, but I believe it is not. Liquid sodium is activated by a neutron flux and it makes the plant highly radioactive outside of the reactor core itself, not to mention its chemical reactivity. Which would you rather have, a problem of keeping the reactor pressurized, or a problem of having any leak a major radiation breach? Keeping a core pressurized is just a matter of using heaters and relatively cold water spraydown. I've personally worked in PWR's and I'd much rather worry about reactor pressure and a small yet containable steam plume from an RTD in the primary loop.
Passive cooling has everything to do with power history and decay heat. Even a shutdown reactor, even when shut down by its own coolant, could have enough heat generation capacity to reach any number of thermal limits. Convective cooling is designed for certain parameters, and exceeding these will render it useless. Then again, these safety margins are often quite ridiculous (and rightfully so)
As far as the fuel rods, we all agree, the more conductive the better.
It may be antiquated, but it's a hell of a lot safer. Pressurized water reactors with a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity are inherently safe and self-regulating. The only way you can risk the core's integrity is to completely depressurize the water loops or empty the core of water, and even that can be mitigated by a fail-safe reactor fill/emergency injection system.
Newer reactors have some crazy ideas that are neither inherently safe or properly tested. The only real advantage I agree with is their ability to stay online while being refueled, since a PWR usually has to be emptied to swap fuel. Every other advantage (cost, thermal efficiency, etc) is not so important to me in terms of the worst-case-scenario.
Before I post my opinion, I want to disclose that I am no expert in licensing or open source for that matter, but I currently have a dual booting system with Windows XP and Kubuntu Hardy Heron 8.04 and I spend 99% of my time on the latter, and I have deeply set intellectual and emotional opinions about both operating systems.
Open source wouldn't be a feasible marketing strategy without any hand-in-hand efforts to monetize from it. If the GPL forced free stuff to be abolished from stuff that costs money open source would still thrive, but would never become the norm.
I believe that (a small) part of the spirit of the GPL is not to "trojanize" free code with costly code, but to "trojanize" costly code with free code. That way no one is forced to pay when they don't need to. Righw now, almost everybody in the world can get a Linux distro that is both very usable and hardware compatible. If it needs to eat a golden hamburger to stay alive, so be it!
If anyone has any words of wisdom on this matter I'll be happy to listen. I still feel like I misinterpret the GPL, even though I spent a long time reading the GPL-3 doc in my Hardy install:-)
Slashdot Mirror
It is unplanned, if you're shit drunk.
say what you like about Dubya, but those bad guys are scared pissly of him because he's a cowboy that'll bomb the crap out them without blinking
They WANT us to bomb them. Their goal is not their survival, but our destruction.
According to this study, these interpolations may be inaccurate or lacking of additional variables such as people's TEE limited by their poor fitness. In other words, it seems you increase your energy expenditure only if you used to be a lazy slob. Otherwise, the major source of calorie burning comes from the direct cost of energy from the specific workout itself.
I think this makes sense in an evolutionary sense, otherwise individuals that had to sweat to hunt would have eventually had to hunt more to satisfy their growing need for energy. Instead, the body got stronger and more efficient at handling the current caloric input.
It'll make a great salad bowl for a BBQ with your friends.
It's not like we rely on RSS and server databases. cough slashdot cough.
what precludes PWR's from being anything but thermal reactors is the slowing down length of water, thermalizing neutrons in a relatively short distance. however, PWR's use a fuel that doesn't readily absorb fast neutrons. the water atom is too small to readily absorb neutros, which is why PWR's have a very small concentration of heavy water.
I stick with KISS. Water is good enough, easily available, and the simplest of implementations.
DI water still has a very low level of chlorides. Chemicals are added to the coolant to keep its ph slightly basic and less corrosive, but the neutron flux still breaks these down into hydrogen (explosive) and oxygen (corrosive), gammas tend to glue these back together but the effect is never fully efficient. In effect, corrosion overall is VERY low in the coolant loops, especially considering the thin oxide layer that is allowed to form on the inside walls of the stainless steel pipes and pumps.
What articles? TFA mentions nothing of these technical specs. Liquid sodium may sound safer than water, but I believe it is not. Liquid sodium is activated by a neutron flux and it makes the plant highly radioactive outside of the reactor core itself, not to mention its chemical reactivity. Which would you rather have, a problem of keeping the reactor pressurized, or a problem of having any leak a major radiation breach? Keeping a core pressurized is just a matter of using heaters and relatively cold water spraydown. I've personally worked in PWR's and I'd much rather worry about reactor pressure and a small yet containable steam plume from an RTD in the primary loop. Passive cooling has everything to do with power history and decay heat. Even a shutdown reactor, even when shut down by its own coolant, could have enough heat generation capacity to reach any number of thermal limits. Convective cooling is designed for certain parameters, and exceeding these will render it useless. Then again, these safety margins are often quite ridiculous (and rightfully so) As far as the fuel rods, we all agree, the more conductive the better.
It may be antiquated, but it's a hell of a lot safer. Pressurized water reactors with a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity are inherently safe and self-regulating. The only way you can risk the core's integrity is to completely depressurize the water loops or empty the core of water, and even that can be mitigated by a fail-safe reactor fill/emergency injection system.
Newer reactors have some crazy ideas that are neither inherently safe or properly tested. The only real advantage I agree with is their ability to stay online while being refueled, since a PWR usually has to be emptied to swap fuel. Every other advantage (cost, thermal efficiency, etc) is not so important to me in terms of the worst-case-scenario.
Before I post my opinion, I want to disclose that I am no expert in licensing or open source for that matter, but I currently have a dual booting system with Windows XP and Kubuntu Hardy Heron 8.04 and I spend 99% of my time on the latter, and I have deeply set intellectual and emotional opinions about both operating systems.
:-)
Open source wouldn't be a feasible marketing strategy without any hand-in-hand efforts to monetize from it. If the GPL forced free stuff to be abolished from stuff that costs money open source would still thrive, but would never become the norm.
I believe that (a small) part of the spirit of the GPL is not to "trojanize" free code with costly code, but to "trojanize" costly code with free code. That way no one is forced to pay when they don't need to. Righw now, almost everybody in the world can get a Linux distro that is both very usable and hardware compatible. If it needs to eat a golden hamburger to stay alive, so be it! If anyone has any words of wisdom on this matter I'll be happy to listen. I still feel like I misinterpret the GPL, even though I spent a long time reading the GPL-3 doc in my Hardy install