Do you seriously think that everything was a conspiracy? War IS a terrible and ugly thing, but despite the horror, it has always been and will always continue. Because of that, it is necessary to develop weapons that will ensure that you can hold out against the aggressors in the world. To try to be "utopian" and abolish nuclear weapons, as well as biological and chemical weapons, is insane and naive. True, they are HORRIBLE if used, but it is not the use of these weapons that gives them their power, it is the NON-USE. If you decide that we need no weapons of mass destruction, yet allow other nations to continue to develop them, you lose any cold war by default, and essentially belly-up to any serious threats in the future.
The truly useful accomplishments nuclear, such as filling out the Periodic Table, working out how stars glow, and MRI imaging would have been discovered without the Manhattan Project. Isotope separation and bulk transmutation have given us little more than a huge pile of insanely dangerous radioactive waste and a lot of dead bodies.
You seem to be forgetting all about nuclear power. True, most of the technology developed in the Manhattan Project, other than isotope separation and development of sub-atomic theory, had nothing to do with power production, the isotope production and separation were the largest hurdles to overcome. There is NO WAY that private industry could have ever been able to develop (in less than 200 years) nuclear power without the huge investments that the government made.
If you are so against isotope separation, then turn your lights off and watch your beliefs change. Nuclear power IS NOT nuclear weaponry. It is a shame that people still equate nuclear power production with nuclear bombs.
Remember, isotope separation does not create "radioactivity" nor does it directly lead to any weapons grade material (no, U-235 is NOT used in any current weapons. The package size is MUCH too large for the yield achievable, and don't go citing from the FAS)
I don't think you understand the statement about the screwdriver. All it was used for was to turn a fastener 1/4 turn to open a panel. It is just a "doorknob". It had nothing to do with performing work or taking anyone's job. Some overzealous electrician sees this and recognizes a way for him to stand around for half a day doing nothing but holding a screwdriver, so he files a grievance. How would you feel if you had to call and schedule a locksmith to open every door that you need a key to open? It is the same idea.
I have to disagree with your post and agree with the parent post. Current day unions really don't help the workers out much. They may help you get that 1% raise every year and that 15 minute cofee break every hour, but they really hurt those who want to excell. Unions WERE a necessity back during the first half of the 1900's, but the battles were won. What were the unions supposed to do after that?
I work in a union, and I work with a few other craft unions. Some of the practices today are just plain ludicrous. For example - let's say I am an engineer that wants to examine some electrical switchgear using thermography. All I will be doing is taking a few images without touching any of the wires. But in order for me to be able to see the wires, I must use a screw driver (or quarter) to turn a fastener 90 degrees to open the door. I get seen HOLDING a screwdriver, and the electricians union goes crazy and files a grievance. Now, whenever I need to do thermography, I have to arrange for an electrician to come hold a screwdriver for a few hours. Worse, most of the time there are no available electricians, so I can't do anything. Hold on, it gets better. Every hour while I am taking pictures, I have to stop so the electrician can go take a 15 minute cofee break. It is terrible.
I will admit, there are many guys who work in unions that work their butts off just because they care. Unfortunately, there are more guys that know that they get their $20/hour, no matter how hard they work or how good their work is. And if management tries to take a hard line to ensure quality, if the contract does not specifically state that quality control is grounds for reprimand, then the laborers go on strike or file grievances.
Re:FAS is AGAINST nuclear weapons
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
Fast fissile material is not a correct term. U-235 is NOT common. Only a handful of nations have any uranium reserves, and of those reserves, less than 0.1% is U-235. As a matter of fact, there is much more gold in the world than U-235. I would hardly call that "common."
Furthermore, YOUR arguments hold little merit. By claiming that everyone (whoever that is) hates nukes, you lose this "debate". My argument is simple. There is no conspiracy to make nuclear weapons look better than they actually are. Nuclear weapons are horrifying. They are meant for killing and massive death and destruction, but since one nation has them, at least one other nation must have them. You learned this concept in grade school.
If you really need so much help finding good references, might I direct you to Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia, DOE,... By the way, you won't find any information concerning nuclear weapon design on their pages. I wonder why?
NORAD is not interested in stopping or continuing the arms race. Their current duties have little to do with nuclear weapons anyway. They are quite busy monitoring all of the other air/space traffic. Actually, the "arms race" doesn't even exist anymore.
How can you say that Dubya hates the arms race? I would argue that he in fact supports it. If he were against an arms race, why would he be pushing Star Wars II so aggressively? Yeah... He hates it... By the way, about half of congress supports this program as well.
As for you personally knowing a "senior officer in the USAF", who cares? Just because you claim that he does not like them doesn't mean that EVERYONE hates them too. I know MANY people who worked in nuclear ballistic submarines. Most of them are GLAD we have nuclear weapons. I am glad we have nuclear weapons. It actually brings peace. I DON'T like certain nations having these weapons, but they don't use them because WE have them too.
As for FAS, there is obvious bias in their FAQ and webpages. They are known for opposing all things nuclear. Their FAQ implies that most hydrogen bombs are laden with extra uranium just for nastiness or a small addition to yield. I can't believe that anyone who can work out a few energy equations and criticality equations can say that a 1 megaton or larger device can be made purely with fission (or 90% fission 10% fusion). True, using a D-T reaction can give an increase in yield, it is not a HUGE increase. It is only a few percent. It is obvious that you are not a nuclear physicist or engineer. Please don't get into a debate unless you personally know something technical about the subject matter. It appears to me that you are just a conspiracy theorist.
Yes I am flaming.
Re:You do not have the slightest clue
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
Yes. What I was saying is that none of the current operating reactors in the US are graphite moderated. Many of the reactors in the UK are, but they are still fairly safe. Personally, I like the idea of a graphite moderated, high temperature gas-cooled reactor for its secondary side efficiency, plus the secondary is exactly the same as is used in fossil fuel plants. The biggest problem with a graphite moderated reactor is that you periodically must "anneal" the graphite, which -could- result in fires, but with CO2 or He as a coolant, it would not burn readily.
Wrong. Some of you are SO naive. Yes, U-238 is quite common, but U-235 is NOT. Furthermore, you MUST separate the U-235 from the U-238, which was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT! Do you even understand the difference?
And what are you calling "fast-fissile material"? Uranium does not fission from fast neutrons, but from thermal (slow) neutrons.
If the US did not want someone to release scientific material, do you really think that they would sue them? In matters of national security, the people would be arrested or worse...
When you are citing "proof" of your arguments, you should not use biased sources, or if you do, you should include a source from each side of the argument. The American Federation of American (Atomic) Scientists is a non-profit organization devoted to ENDING the arms race and is AGAINST nuclear weapons. The following paragraph is from their mission page. Bold face emphasis mine.
"FAS was founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists in 1945 by members of the Manhattan Project who produced the first atomic bomb, to address the implications and dangers of the nuclear age. FAS is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race, achieving complete nuclear disarmament, and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons, and much of its work has been in nuclear arms control and disarmament."
Re:You do not have the slightest clue
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
Yes. H-bombs include more uranium to increase their yield, but it doesn't increase it much.
Most of the power in an H-bomb IS due to fusion. There are many things, all of which pretty much unkown to civilians, done to increase the yield while decreasing the package size. One must remember that there are just a handfull of nations that posses H-bomb (or A-bomb) technology, and the instructions and schematics available in print or on the internet are NOT valid, nor do they come from actual weapons designers. Most of these "designs" are purely speculation of what a bomb may look like from the minds of physicists. You can rest assured that the governments of the world would NOT allow real plans or schematics to become public knowledge. Remember that even China has trouble getting plans from the US's weapons labs (maybe not THAT much trouble, but they at least know where to look for valid designs.)
Furthermore, a deuterium-tritium reaction only produces ONE neutron per interaction. You MUST have more than one neutron per interaction to sustain a chain reaction. This is as true in weapons as it is in nuclear reactors. Most of the neutrons produced in an explosion will escape the weapon and not be absorbed or result in further fissioning, especially if the U-238 casing is beyond the neutron source. Although U-238 is fissionable, it has an extremely low cross-section for fission. Its cross-section for neutron absorption is much higher. The most likely reaction is simply neutron absorption, which creates plutonium. Fast breader reactors take advantage of this, and breed plutonium in this way.
It is naive of anyone to believe that nuclear weapons design is common knowledge, and that the only impediment for weapons manufacturing is materials production and handling. In the Manhattan Project days, it was VERY difficult to obtain large amount (mere pounds) of weapons grade U-235 and plutonium. Gasseous effusion is probably the WORST and most innefficient way to separate uranium, but it was the only possible way at the time. Now, ionizing laser techniques are thousands of times more efficient and less expensive. The main reason most nations cannot produce nuclear weapons (specifically hydrogen-based nuclear weapons) is because they don't know how to arrange the materials, and they do not have the resources necessary to research them. There is a reason that many of the planet's most powerful computers are used in weapons design.
I am constantly annoyed by the number of "experts" in nuclear technology that exist. Many of these people are convinced that all things nuclear are shrouded in secrecy and lies. Yes, when it comes to weapons design, there are MANY secrets and quite a few lies, and I AM GLAD that there are secrets and lies. Possessing nuclear weapons and the technology necessary to produce them requires a maturity that most countries in the world do not posses. It scares me to see places like India and Pakistan threatening to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, knowing that they actually may do it. The US and Russia almost started a few wars, but each side was responsible, even with high tensions in the war room. (Fidel Castro urged Russia to attack, and US generals urged the US to attack during the Cuban missile crisis)
When it comes to commercial nuclear power, there are no secrets in the reactor or other systems, no super-secret scandals to make the public "think" that it is safer than it "really" is. I am amazed at the number of people that believe that any nuclear power plant can produce a mushroom cloud or even explode like Chernobyl. Yes, there were MANY mistakes and accidents in the early days when the technologies were being developed, but by the '70s, it was pretty well ironed out. The accident at Three Mile Island DID produce a nuclear meltdown. This type of accident was actually not incorporated into the design bases of the plant. The only reason the accident happened in the first place was because the operators DISABLED all of the automatic safety systems. They made all of the wrong decisions (although it appeared that they were doing the right thing according to the instrumentation) The worst possible accident occurred, yet there was no detectable release of radation outside the plant's perimeter, and NO ONE was injured or even over-exposed. TMI was actually a GOOD thing for the nuclear industry. It made it MUCH safer, and the training that nuclear operators go through now is most likely the most intense and the best of any industry. An airline pilot goes to the simulator once or twice a year. A nuclear reactor operator spends half a year in the simulator each year. TMI didn't kill the nuclear industry. Super high interest rates, banning of reprocessing and transportation, and the high cost of plant construction coupled with the expansive changes in regulations and safety modifications stopped all power plant orders. The accident in Chernobyl was caused by defeating all of the safety systems and "simulating" a disaster. That was a very successful simulation if you asked me. Furthermore, the reactors at Chernobyl were very old, graphite moderated reactors with a positive void coefficient and vertually no containment. The graphite became too hot, exploded, and took all of the fuel with it. Since no reactors in the US use graphite and since we do all of our simulations in simulators, this type of accident is impossible in US reactors.
Another myth I would like to put to rest is "China Syndrome." This is just plain impossible. Suppose the molten fuel in TMI did happen to puddle in the bottom of the pressure vessel and melt through, it would fall to the containment floor. As it poured from the bottom of the vessel, it would spread out on the concrete floor and become a thin puddle. As it spread out just a little, it would no longer be in a critical configuration, and the reaction would stop. The molten fuel would likely remain molten for a day or two, but its temperature would not increase, rather decrease, and would not be even close to the temperatures required to ablate concrete. Furthermore, the containment spray system would be constantly removing the decay heat, most likey causing the molten metal to solidify. Any of the hydrogen formed by metal-water reactions would either be purged, recombined, or prevented by chemical TSP baskets.
I'll get off of my soapbox now. BTW, I AM a nuclear engineer.
Re:You do not have the slightest clue
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
Ohhhh.... I didn't realize you had such a reliable source. The arrangement you describe would be IMPOSSIBLE to detonate. There have only been a couple uranium bombs ever produced, and they were nearly 100% enriched U-235. YOU CANNOT MAKE A BOMB WITH U-238 IN ANY WAY!!! It wouldn't detonate. The "depleated" uranium would only absorb a few neutrons and increase the fallout. It would TAKE AWAY from the yield.
Yes, flame.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. More than 90% of the energy released in a hydrogen bomb is due to fusion. The fusion reaction itself is initiated by an A-bomb, much in the same way that conventional explosives trigger A-bombs. H-bombs are much more destructive due to the temperatures produced by fusion. Fission bombs are limited because the fission core reaches a size where it is no longer possible to get to completely react before being blown apart. No, H-bombs are not clean; however, when comparing the fallout levels of a large A-bomb to those of a very small H-bomb, the H-bomb produces magnitudes less fallout.
Uh, no. Most visible meteorites are about the size of a grain of sand, and the really bright ones are usually no bigger than a pebble. I think a several ton fragment will be QUITE visible over toward Japan and Australia.
The problem with Linux is it is free, and there are few companies that will mess with it. The good thing about Linux is that it is free, and anyone who wants to develop for it can, for free. Since there are still few BIG companies willing to jump into Linux and throw their weight around, then it will be harder for someone to shove a standard down our throats. Standard bullying is bad because many times, we are forced to accept a standard that is flawed just because a big company, or group of companies, decided that their way was the best. However, they picked for us, and we then had a standard to use, and sometimes improve.
Most of the potential standards for multimedia in Linux out there are good, or on their way to good, but who is going to agree on which one is for everyone? Theoretically, the best would evolve and emerge as the leader. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. I guess in a few (very few) instances, big companies can help us.
FYI, I am a Linux advocate, and I tend to hate big companies, but they do help (although inadvertantly) consumers from time to time.
No serious engineering in there. It is just a valve, a cantilevered float, a chain, a handle, and a flapper (no, not the slut kind). As for ceramics, they can be a pain to work by hand, but are quite easy to manipulate in mass quantities. I would hardly call it "precision ceramics.":)
I think this conversation was centered around 12V fans used on individual components. I have to admit that I have only replaced a couple power supply fans, but the point I was trying to make is the same.
First of all, how much metal is used in a small fan? About a tenth of a gram of simple copper conductor. How much lubrication is used in a small fan? Less than a drop of LPS-1. How efficient does a 12V fan have to be? It doesn't. I continue to see Yugos driving down the road, but does that mean that they are well built? I have several machines here, and some of them date back to the 80's, and they still have some working, original fans.
All I am saying is that it is ridiculous to call a 12V fan an engineering marvel which requires exquisite design. As a matter of fact, I work every day at a generating station that uses these little fans which cost hundreds (yes, I mean hundreds) of dollars each, are built into multi-million dollar electronics cabinets, operate 24/7, and still fail, even with regular oiling and filters on the air intakes.
Face it. How many parts manufacturers are really going to spend many $$$ to design a tiny fan? Don't you think they would put their resources to better use? You can buy nicer, more expensive fans, with aluminum blades and mutliple ball bearings, just like you can buy nicer, more expensive, better built cars, but who cares about a sub-$1 fan (or a $300 one really)?
Re:This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever he
on
Suing Over... Fans?
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, these fan designs do NOT require innovation. Having something that you can't live without doesn't make it innovative. Take for instance the toilet. I couldn't live without it, yet its design has been around since ancient Rome. (The Japanese may not agree. I have seen toilets from Japan that wipe for you, play a little music, and spray your behind with perfume so your rear does in fact smell like roses. By the way, I believe that these toilets are patented. http://www.theimageworks.com/toilet/toiltftur.htm:)
Take two fans in your system of the same size but different manufacturers - they are identical. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if the design isn't public domain. If you want to see a fan that takes some real engineering, take a look at a 480VAC variable pitch axial blade design which we use to recirculate the air in our reactor containment building. Better yet, take a look at a helecopter blade. Axial design with collective pitch control AND individual pitch control, not to mention attitude control, etc...
I'm sorry, but I have to agree. They are just simple fans.
I'm sorry, but you can hardly call the speeds at which these fans rotate as "high speed." (Now if they only would make a turbine fan for a processor, that would be cool.:) ) Any 7 year old with a miniature motor kit could build one of these fans. Also, what is the most unreliable component in your system? The hard drive... The monitor... The processor or memory... No. The numerous fans throughout your system. I don't know how many fans I have replaced, but I can assure you it is more than the combined totals of the hard drives and memory. Do you work for these guys?
Sorry. Your comment makes a small fan sound like an engineering feat, when it isn't.
It amazes me how California, and the rest of the nation for that matter, are dealing with the energy crisis.
First of all, most of the general public, except those living in CA, are unaware of any imepending energy crisis. By the time the rest of the US realizes that there is not enough generating capacity, it will be too late.
Secondly, most utilities are building new generating plants, but they are natural gas fired peaking plants. I see a couple of problems with this. They are building these plants because they are cheap (about 1/3 to 1/4 what a new coal or nuclear plant costs), are quick and easy to build (they can many times be brought in on semi-trailers and usually only need ~20 people to operate a 700MW plant), and all you have to do to site them is build transmission lines and a couple gas lines to supply the plant. The problem is that natural gas plants are enormously expensive to operate because of the price of natural gas. There is a natural gas shortage, yet the power industry keeps building these natural gas-fired plants. Hmmm... Does this not sound illogical to anyone else but me?
Thirdly, ALL fossil plants produce HUGE amounts of pollution. Coal plants produce almost every type of air pollution you can think of. True, they filter and scrub much of it out of the exhaust, but the stuff that they filter is still pollution, it just isn't in the air anymore. Also, coal and natural gas plants produce ALOT of CO2 and NOx's. Has anyone kept up with the Kyoto Protocols? We have to REDUCE our CO2 production in order to comply with them if they ever become ratified.
Finally, it is time we became a little more educated and a little less afraid of things that we don't quite understand. Nuclear power is virtually pollution free (nuclear fuel stays onsite, as does all of the detectable radiation), it is safe (much more so now due to Three Mile Island, amazingly stringent training and regulations, and new advanced-yet-much-simpler designs from GE, CE, and other makers of nuclear systems), and much easier-cheaper to build. The new designs are pre-licensed by the NRC, are modular (all the plants would be exactly the same and built using modules constructed off-site in tightly regulated QA facilities), and simpler (they employ passive, rather than active, emergency cooling using natural forces such as gravity and natural convection which allows the reactor to cool with no electricity available to power safety related components. These new plants have less than 25% piping, valves, and pumps found in current generation nuclear plants.
EEI news reported on Thursday that it now costs less to operate a nuclear power plant than it does to operate a coal-fired or natural gas-fired plant. This is the first time that nuclear power costs have been less expensive than coal since before the mid-80's, when new safety systems and regulations more than doubled its cost.
I have always said that the only way to convince people that nuclear power is still a viable (and ecologically attractive) power source was to cut off their power and cause them to think about where there power comes from. CA, and many other states in the US, want electricity, but they don't want any new power plants (of any type) built (at least not near them), they don't want the pollution (what about nuclear?), they don't want to pay more (forget buying from out of state generators), and want low prices and high reliability. Sorry, but everyone has to make sacrifices. Either you produce your own power, live in the dark with that beautiful skyline outside your city, or build new generating capability outside of town, get good reliable power, and pay less. I can't speak for everyone, but I know what I would do.
Oh, and for the comments about fuel cells - fuel cells need hydrogen. What is our hydrogen source? Natural gas. Where are you going to get your natural gas and how much are you going to pay? It is 4x last year's cost now, and fuel cells are NOT cheap. I would like to have one, but I couldn't afford the gas bill, no matter how much electricity I could produce and sell.
I think it would be alot slower than that. You are assuming that light is traveling at the same speed it would in a vacuum, but how fast would it travel through this new fiber?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you seriously think that everything was a conspiracy? War IS a terrible and ugly thing, but despite the horror, it has always been and will always continue. Because of that, it is necessary to develop weapons that will ensure that you can hold out against the aggressors in the world. To try to be "utopian" and abolish nuclear weapons, as well as biological and chemical weapons, is insane and naive. True, they are HORRIBLE if used, but it is not the use of these weapons that gives them their power, it is the NON-USE. If you decide that we need no weapons of mass destruction, yet allow other nations to continue to develop them, you lose any cold war by default, and essentially belly-up to any serious threats in the future.
The truly useful accomplishments nuclear, such as filling out the Periodic Table, working out how stars glow, and MRI imaging would have been discovered without the Manhattan Project. Isotope separation and bulk transmutation have given us little more than a huge pile of insanely dangerous radioactive waste and a lot of dead bodies.
You seem to be forgetting all about nuclear power. True, most of the technology developed in the Manhattan Project, other than isotope separation and development of sub-atomic theory, had nothing to do with power production, the isotope production and separation were the largest hurdles to overcome. There is NO WAY that private industry could have ever been able to develop (in less than 200 years) nuclear power without the huge investments that the government made.
If you are so against isotope separation, then turn your lights off and watch your beliefs change. Nuclear power IS NOT nuclear weaponry. It is a shame that people still equate nuclear power production with nuclear bombs.
Remember, isotope separation does not create "radioactivity" nor does it directly lead to any weapons grade material (no, U-235 is NOT used in any current weapons. The package size is MUCH too large for the yield achievable, and don't go citing from the FAS)
I don't think you understand the statement about the screwdriver. All it was used for was to turn a fastener 1/4 turn to open a panel. It is just a "doorknob". It had nothing to do with performing work or taking anyone's job. Some overzealous electrician sees this and recognizes a way for him to stand around for half a day doing nothing but holding a screwdriver, so he files a grievance. How would you feel if you had to call and schedule a locksmith to open every door that you need a key to open? It is the same idea.
I have to disagree with your post and agree with the parent post. Current day unions really don't help the workers out much. They may help you get that 1% raise every year and that 15 minute cofee break every hour, but they really hurt those who want to excell. Unions WERE a necessity back during the first half of the 1900's, but the battles were won. What were the unions supposed to do after that?
I work in a union, and I work with a few other craft unions. Some of the practices today are just plain ludicrous. For example - let's say I am an engineer that wants to examine some electrical switchgear using thermography. All I will be doing is taking a few images without touching any of the wires. But in order for me to be able to see the wires, I must use a screw driver (or quarter) to turn a fastener 90 degrees to open the door. I get seen HOLDING a screwdriver, and the electricians union goes crazy and files a grievance. Now, whenever I need to do thermography, I have to arrange for an electrician to come hold a screwdriver for a few hours. Worse, most of the time there are no available electricians, so I can't do anything. Hold on, it gets better. Every hour while I am taking pictures, I have to stop so the electrician can go take a 15 minute cofee break. It is terrible.
I will admit, there are many guys who work in unions that work their butts off just because they care. Unfortunately, there are more guys that know that they get their $20/hour, no matter how hard they work or how good their work is. And if management tries to take a hard line to ensure quality, if the contract does not specifically state that quality control is grounds for reprimand, then the laborers go on strike or file grievances.
Fast fissile material is not a correct term. U-235 is NOT common. Only a handful of nations have any uranium reserves, and of those reserves, less than 0.1% is U-235. As a matter of fact, there is much more gold in the world than U-235. I would hardly call that "common."
... By the way, you won't find any information concerning nuclear weapon design on their pages. I wonder why?
Furthermore, YOUR arguments hold little merit. By claiming that everyone (whoever that is) hates nukes, you lose this "debate". My argument is simple. There is no conspiracy to make nuclear weapons look better than they actually are. Nuclear weapons are horrifying. They are meant for killing and massive death and destruction, but since one nation has them, at least one other nation must have them. You learned this concept in grade school.
If you really need so much help finding good references, might I direct you to Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia, DOE,
NORAD is not interested in stopping or continuing the arms race. Their current duties have little to do with nuclear weapons anyway. They are quite busy monitoring all of the other air/space traffic. Actually, the "arms race" doesn't even exist anymore.
How can you say that Dubya hates the arms race? I would argue that he in fact supports it. If he were against an arms race, why would he be pushing Star Wars II so aggressively? Yeah... He hates it... By the way, about half of congress supports this program as well.
As for you personally knowing a "senior officer in the USAF", who cares? Just because you claim that he does not like them doesn't mean that EVERYONE hates them too. I know MANY people who worked in nuclear ballistic submarines. Most of them are GLAD we have nuclear weapons. I am glad we have nuclear weapons. It actually brings peace. I DON'T like certain nations having these weapons, but they don't use them because WE have them too.
As for FAS, there is obvious bias in their FAQ and webpages. They are known for opposing all things nuclear. Their FAQ implies that most hydrogen bombs are laden with extra uranium just for nastiness or a small addition to yield. I can't believe that anyone who can work out a few energy equations and criticality equations can say that a 1 megaton or larger device can be made purely with fission (or 90% fission 10% fusion). True, using a D-T reaction can give an increase in yield, it is not a HUGE increase. It is only a few percent. It is obvious that you are not a nuclear physicist or engineer. Please don't get into a debate unless you personally know something technical about the subject matter. It appears to me that you are just a conspiracy theorist.
Yes I am flaming.
Yes. What I was saying is that none of the current operating reactors in the US are graphite moderated. Many of the reactors in the UK are, but they are still fairly safe. Personally, I like the idea of a graphite moderated, high temperature gas-cooled reactor for its secondary side efficiency, plus the secondary is exactly the same as is used in fossil fuel plants. The biggest problem with a graphite moderated reactor is that you periodically must "anneal" the graphite, which -could- result in fires, but with CO2 or He as a coolant, it would not burn readily.
Wrong. Some of you are SO naive. Yes, U-238 is quite common, but U-235 is NOT. Furthermore, you MUST separate the U-235 from the U-238, which was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT! Do you even understand the difference?
And what are you calling "fast-fissile material"? Uranium does not fission from fast neutrons, but from thermal (slow) neutrons.
If the US did not want someone to release scientific material, do you really think that they would sue them? In matters of national security, the people would be arrested or worse...
When you are citing "proof" of your arguments, you should not use biased sources, or if you do, you should include a source from each side of the argument. The American Federation of American (Atomic) Scientists is a non-profit organization devoted to ENDING the arms race and is AGAINST nuclear weapons. The following paragraph is from their mission page. Bold face emphasis mine.
"FAS was founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists in 1945 by members of the Manhattan Project who produced the first atomic bomb, to address the implications and dangers of the nuclear age. FAS is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race, achieving complete nuclear disarmament, and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons, and much of its work has been in nuclear arms control and disarmament."
Yes. H-bombs include more uranium to increase their yield, but it doesn't increase it much.
Most of the power in an H-bomb IS due to fusion. There are many things, all of which pretty much unkown to civilians, done to increase the yield while decreasing the package size. One must remember that there are just a handfull of nations that posses H-bomb (or A-bomb) technology, and the instructions and schematics available in print or on the internet are NOT valid, nor do they come from actual weapons designers. Most of these "designs" are purely speculation of what a bomb may look like from the minds of physicists. You can rest assured that the governments of the world would NOT allow real plans or schematics to become public knowledge. Remember that even China has trouble getting plans from the US's weapons labs (maybe not THAT much trouble, but they at least know where to look for valid designs.)
Furthermore, a deuterium-tritium reaction only produces ONE neutron per interaction. You MUST have more than one neutron per interaction to sustain a chain reaction. This is as true in weapons as it is in nuclear reactors. Most of the neutrons produced in an explosion will escape the weapon and not be absorbed or result in further fissioning, especially if the U-238 casing is beyond the neutron source. Although U-238 is fissionable, it has an extremely low cross-section for fission. Its cross-section for neutron absorption is much higher. The most likely reaction is simply neutron absorption, which creates plutonium. Fast breader reactors take advantage of this, and breed plutonium in this way.
It is naive of anyone to believe that nuclear weapons design is common knowledge, and that the only impediment for weapons manufacturing is materials production and handling. In the Manhattan Project days, it was VERY difficult to obtain large amount (mere pounds) of weapons grade U-235 and plutonium. Gasseous effusion is probably the WORST and most innefficient way to separate uranium, but it was the only possible way at the time. Now, ionizing laser techniques are thousands of times more efficient and less expensive. The main reason most nations cannot produce nuclear weapons (specifically hydrogen-based nuclear weapons) is because they don't know how to arrange the materials, and they do not have the resources necessary to research them. There is a reason that many of the planet's most powerful computers are used in weapons design.
I am constantly annoyed by the number of "experts" in nuclear technology that exist. Many of these people are convinced that all things nuclear are shrouded in secrecy and lies. Yes, when it comes to weapons design, there are MANY secrets and quite a few lies, and I AM GLAD that there are secrets and lies. Possessing nuclear weapons and the technology necessary to produce them requires a maturity that most countries in the world do not posses. It scares me to see places like India and Pakistan threatening to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, knowing that they actually may do it. The US and Russia almost started a few wars, but each side was responsible, even with high tensions in the war room. (Fidel Castro urged Russia to attack, and US generals urged the US to attack during the Cuban missile crisis)
When it comes to commercial nuclear power, there are no secrets in the reactor or other systems, no super-secret scandals to make the public "think" that it is safer than it "really" is. I am amazed at the number of people that believe that any nuclear power plant can produce a mushroom cloud or even explode like Chernobyl. Yes, there were MANY mistakes and accidents in the early days when the technologies were being developed, but by the '70s, it was pretty well ironed out. The accident at Three Mile Island DID produce a nuclear meltdown. This type of accident was actually not incorporated into the design bases of the plant. The only reason the accident happened in the first place was because the operators DISABLED all of the automatic safety systems. They made all of the wrong decisions (although it appeared that they were doing the right thing according to the instrumentation) The worst possible accident occurred, yet there was no detectable release of radation outside the plant's perimeter, and NO ONE was injured or even over-exposed. TMI was actually a GOOD thing for the nuclear industry. It made it MUCH safer, and the training that nuclear operators go through now is most likely the most intense and the best of any industry. An airline pilot goes to the simulator once or twice a year. A nuclear reactor operator spends half a year in the simulator each year. TMI didn't kill the nuclear industry. Super high interest rates, banning of reprocessing and transportation, and the high cost of plant construction coupled with the expansive changes in regulations and safety modifications stopped all power plant orders. The accident in Chernobyl was caused by defeating all of the safety systems and "simulating" a disaster. That was a very successful simulation if you asked me. Furthermore, the reactors at Chernobyl were very old, graphite moderated reactors with a positive void coefficient and vertually no containment. The graphite became too hot, exploded, and took all of the fuel with it. Since no reactors in the US use graphite and since we do all of our simulations in simulators, this type of accident is impossible in US reactors.
Another myth I would like to put to rest is "China Syndrome." This is just plain impossible. Suppose the molten fuel in TMI did happen to puddle in the bottom of the pressure vessel and melt through, it would fall to the containment floor. As it poured from the bottom of the vessel, it would spread out on the concrete floor and become a thin puddle. As it spread out just a little, it would no longer be in a critical configuration, and the reaction would stop. The molten fuel would likely remain molten for a day or two, but its temperature would not increase, rather decrease, and would not be even close to the temperatures required to ablate concrete. Furthermore, the containment spray system would be constantly removing the decay heat, most likey causing the molten metal to solidify. Any of the hydrogen formed by metal-water reactions would either be purged, recombined, or prevented by chemical TSP baskets.
I'll get off of my soapbox now. BTW, I AM a nuclear engineer.
Ohhhh.... I didn't realize you had such a reliable source. The arrangement you describe would be IMPOSSIBLE to detonate. There have only been a couple uranium bombs ever produced, and they were nearly 100% enriched U-235. YOU CANNOT MAKE A BOMB WITH U-238 IN ANY WAY!!! It wouldn't detonate. The "depleated" uranium would only absorb a few neutrons and increase the fallout. It would TAKE AWAY from the yield. Yes, flame.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. More than 90% of the energy released in a hydrogen bomb is due to fusion. The fusion reaction itself is initiated by an A-bomb, much in the same way that conventional explosives trigger A-bombs. H-bombs are much more destructive due to the temperatures produced by fusion. Fission bombs are limited because the fission core reaches a size where it is no longer possible to get to completely react before being blown apart. No, H-bombs are not clean; however, when comparing the fallout levels of a large A-bomb to those of a very small H-bomb, the H-bomb produces magnitudes less fallout.
Uh, no. Most visible meteorites are about the size of a grain of sand, and the really bright ones are usually no bigger than a pebble. I think a several ton fragment will be QUITE visible over toward Japan and Australia.
The problem with Linux is it is free, and there are few companies that will mess with it. The good thing about Linux is that it is free, and anyone who wants to develop for it can, for free. Since there are still few BIG companies willing to jump into Linux and throw their weight around, then it will be harder for someone to shove a standard down our throats. Standard bullying is bad because many times, we are forced to accept a standard that is flawed just because a big company, or group of companies, decided that their way was the best. However, they picked for us, and we then had a standard to use, and sometimes improve.
Most of the potential standards for multimedia in Linux out there are good, or on their way to good, but who is going to agree on which one is for everyone? Theoretically, the best would evolve and emerge as the leader. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. I guess in a few (very few) instances, big companies can help us.
FYI, I am a Linux advocate, and I tend to hate big companies, but they do help (although inadvertantly) consumers from time to time.
Anyone have an idea how this will play out?
No serious engineering in there. It is just a valve, a cantilevered float, a chain, a handle, and a flapper (no, not the slut kind). As for ceramics, they can be a pain to work by hand, but are quite easy to manipulate in mass quantities. I would hardly call it "precision ceramics." :)
Riigghhtt. Everyone has a stepper motor in their cases. Suuurrree. Do you know how much a stepper and driver normally cost? About $100.
I think this conversation was centered around 12V fans used on individual components. I have to admit that I have only replaced a couple power supply fans, but the point I was trying to make is the same.
First of all, how much metal is used in a small fan? About a tenth of a gram of simple copper conductor. How much lubrication is used in a small fan? Less than a drop of LPS-1. How efficient does a 12V fan have to be? It doesn't. I continue to see Yugos driving down the road, but does that mean that they are well built? I have several machines here, and some of them date back to the 80's, and they still have some working, original fans.
All I am saying is that it is ridiculous to call a 12V fan an engineering marvel which requires exquisite design. As a matter of fact, I work every day at a generating station that uses these little fans which cost hundreds (yes, I mean hundreds) of dollars each, are built into multi-million dollar electronics cabinets, operate 24/7, and still fail, even with regular oiling and filters on the air intakes.
Face it. How many parts manufacturers are really going to spend many $$$ to design a tiny fan? Don't you think they would put their resources to better use? You can buy nicer, more expensive fans, with aluminum blades and mutliple ball bearings, just like you can buy nicer, more expensive, better built cars, but who cares about a sub-$1 fan (or a $300 one really)?
Seriously, these fan designs do NOT require innovation. Having something that you can't live without doesn't make it innovative. Take for instance the toilet. I couldn't live without it, yet its design has been around since ancient Rome. (The Japanese may not agree. I have seen toilets from Japan that wipe for you, play a little music, and spray your behind with perfume so your rear does in fact smell like roses. By the way, I believe that these toilets are patented. http://www.theimageworks.com/toilet/toiltftur.htm :)
Take two fans in your system of the same size but different manufacturers - they are identical. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if the design isn't public domain. If you want to see a fan that takes some real engineering, take a look at a 480VAC variable pitch axial blade design which we use to recirculate the air in our reactor containment building. Better yet, take a look at a helecopter blade. Axial design with collective pitch control AND individual pitch control, not to mention attitude control, etc...
I'm sorry, but I have to agree. They are just simple fans.
I'm sorry, but you can hardly call the speeds at which these fans rotate as "high speed." (Now if they only would make a turbine fan for a processor, that would be cool. :) ) Any 7 year old with a miniature motor kit could build one of these fans. Also, what is the most unreliable component in your system? The hard drive... The monitor... The processor or memory... No. The numerous fans throughout your system. I don't know how many fans I have replaced, but I can assure you it is more than the combined totals of the hard drives and memory. Do you work for these guys?
Sorry. Your comment makes a small fan sound like an engineering feat, when it isn't.
First of all, most of the general public, except those living in CA, are unaware of any imepending energy crisis. By the time the rest of the US realizes that there is not enough generating capacity, it will be too late.
Secondly, most utilities are building new generating plants, but they are natural gas fired peaking plants. I see a couple of problems with this. They are building these plants because they are cheap (about 1/3 to 1/4 what a new coal or nuclear plant costs), are quick and easy to build (they can many times be brought in on semi-trailers and usually only need ~20 people to operate a 700MW plant), and all you have to do to site them is build transmission lines and a couple gas lines to supply the plant. The problem is that natural gas plants are enormously expensive to operate because of the price of natural gas. There is a natural gas shortage, yet the power industry keeps building these natural gas-fired plants. Hmmm... Does this not sound illogical to anyone else but me?
Thirdly, ALL fossil plants produce HUGE amounts of pollution. Coal plants produce almost every type of air pollution you can think of. True, they filter and scrub much of it out of the exhaust, but the stuff that they filter is still pollution, it just isn't in the air anymore. Also, coal and natural gas plants produce ALOT of CO2 and NOx's. Has anyone kept up with the Kyoto Protocols? We have to REDUCE our CO2 production in order to comply with them if they ever become ratified.
Finally, it is time we became a little more educated and a little less afraid of things that we don't quite understand. Nuclear power is virtually pollution free (nuclear fuel stays onsite, as does all of the detectable radiation), it is safe (much more so now due to Three Mile Island, amazingly stringent training and regulations, and new advanced-yet-much-simpler designs from GE, CE, and other makers of nuclear systems), and much easier-cheaper to build. The new designs are pre-licensed by the NRC, are modular (all the plants would be exactly the same and built using modules constructed off-site in tightly regulated QA facilities), and simpler (they employ passive, rather than active, emergency cooling using natural forces such as gravity and natural convection which allows the reactor to cool with no electricity available to power safety related components. These new plants have less than 25% piping, valves, and pumps found in current generation nuclear plants.
EEI news reported on Thursday that it now costs less to operate a nuclear power plant than it does to operate a coal-fired or natural gas-fired plant. This is the first time that nuclear power costs have been less expensive than coal since before the mid-80's, when new safety systems and regulations more than doubled its cost.
I have always said that the only way to convince people that nuclear power is still a viable (and ecologically attractive) power source was to cut off their power and cause them to think about where there power comes from. CA, and many other states in the US, want electricity, but they don't want any new power plants (of any type) built (at least not near them), they don't want the pollution (what about nuclear?), they don't want to pay more (forget buying from out of state generators), and want low prices and high reliability. Sorry, but everyone has to make sacrifices. Either you produce your own power, live in the dark with that beautiful skyline outside your city, or build new generating capability outside of town, get good reliable power, and pay less. I can't speak for everyone, but I know what I would do.
Oh, and for the comments about fuel cells - fuel cells need hydrogen. What is our hydrogen source? Natural gas. Where are you going to get your natural gas and how much are you going to pay? It is 4x last year's cost now, and fuel cells are NOT cheap. I would like to have one, but I couldn't afford the gas bill, no matter how much electricity I could produce and sell.
I think it would be alot slower than that. You are assuming that light is traveling at the same speed it would in a vacuum, but how fast would it travel through this new fiber?