Take a look at how RFID chips have worked since day one - they use the incident RF to power the chip that then back-modulates the transmitted signal. In other words, the RFID tag actively modulates the load impedance it places on the antenna causing changes in the radar cross-section of the tag. The tag transceiver sees these variations in cross section as data from the tag.
Urging moving to an even more accident prone and unstable technology is irresponsible.
Remember, we've had 40+ years of experience with PWR reactors - of course there are gotchas in any new (or revived, in the case of MSRs) technology. Those 40 years of operation have, I think, made safety officers complacent, much like the managers at NASA wrt to the shuttle. They're blind to the inherent design issues in PWRs that make them less resistant to faults (much less room for errors - fewer passive safety features, too many manual safety features required).
You also have to take into account the severity of the aftermath of an accident. A primary loop leak in a PWR - disaster. You have to scram the reactor, hope the aux pumps work, deal with the steam blowoff, cool the core until the daughter products cool off, etc, and then deal with fixing a pipe made to withstand 3000+ psi. MUCH more room for a ecological and/or economic disaster.
A primary loop leak in a LFTR - turn off the pumps, dump the coolant/fuel in 'the pit' or let it freeze, get the 'bots in there and fix a pipe made to withstand 100 psi or less.
Given the passive safety features of molten salt/molten fuel reactors such as the LFTR (large negative void coefficient, no phase changes so no need for a huge containment structure, fuel/coolant will 'freeze' on shutdown and remain subcritical, etc) along with their operation at essentially zero primary loop pressure, I'd say their safety record could be much better than any of the existing PWR/BWR designs by an order of magnitude. All we have to do to get there is build a few small ones, work out the kinks, and get going!
The Hamm-Uentrop accident was the result of a stuck fuel 'pebble', not something related to it being a breeder reactor or even a gas-cooled reactor.
Which failed molten salt experiment are you referring to, this one? I would not characterize it as a failure at all - if fact it was a rousing success, even if there were a few lessons learned along the way that influenced the MSR design going forward. "Much of the high cost [of decommissioning] was caused by the unpleasant surprise of fluorine and uranium hexafluoride evolution from cold fuel salt in storage that ORNL did not defuel and store correctly, but this has now been taken into consideration in MSR design." [emphasis mine]
The only downside to switching over to LED-filled fake fluorescent tubes is the cost of producing fake tubes that have to handle different input voltages. With the old ballast system the input voltage was handled by the ballast the the tube got the correct strike/run voltage/current regardless. Lots of SOHO fluorescent ballasts are designed to run off 120V and many that are installed in businesses are designed to run off 208V (high leg delta), 240V (phase to phase), 277V (phase to neutral in a 480V wye), etc.
If the LED tube power supply is intelligently designed, they should be able to accept 120V-277V much like modern wall warts do - the challenge will be making them efficient at the same time.
Same as on Earth -- Zero. You're not terminal until you smack into the planet. Do you mean "Maximum screaming for your life velocity"? You hit that just before hitting terminal velocity.
For all intents and purposes, the objects are the same distance from Earth. They're 450 light-years from each other and both are approximately 4.3 BILLION light-years from Earth. The maximum difference in distance between object A and Earth and object B and Earth is 0.000010465116% (450 / 4.3x10^9 * 100). Close enough to the same distance. For reference, the same delta applied to 1 AU (93,000,000 mile Earth-Sun distance) yields 9.73 miles.
I love laws that are written that way. The state of Virginia automobile inspection laws are equally as circumspect. They say things like 'Door handles must be operable from inside the car.' That does not mean that there have to be door handles installed, just that they have to be operable from inside if they exist.
A solution already exists. My people have been using them for eons to eke out an existence on an arid planet. Of course constant exposure to the spice helps.
... a hammer to undo the dog on a vacuum chamber had better be a very special hammer.
$30 wooden** baseball bat. Problem solved.
** Yes, aluminum would work, but I bet the eddy currents generated when you swing it in a 5T magnetic field would either slow it down immensely or make it too hot to hold.
I'm also curious about your anecdote, was this gentleman aware of his odor? If so, how was he made aware? You mentioned a second opinion from an unbiased source, can you be more specific?
It depends on your definition of 'aware' - had he been told, yes. Could he sense it? I don't think so. I don't think he believes it when told there was a problem because I truly believe he couldn't smell it himself. It would be like trying to convince a pre-19th century person that disease was caused by tiny critters he couldn't see and not bad air that he could clearly smell.
As for the unbiased second opinion, I was suggesting to the OP that he ask someone who's not a friend or family (his words). Perhaps a doctor or nurse at his next checkup, or some other person who has no vested interest in telling him what they think he wants to hear; no one wants to delivery the news that "you stink".
Using soap in general isn't something I feel is needed since a regular rinsing leaves me non smelly.
According to your nose you may be non-smelly. Perhaps you're like a coworker of mine that could not smell BO. He didn't think he needed to wash regularly or use deodorant since he couldn't smell himself. Being an avid runner, he STANK most of the time; I mean he reeked to the point of making people's eyes water.
You really don't want to be 'that guy'. You might want to get a second opinion from an unbiased source (not "friends and family").
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at how RFID chips have worked since day one - they use the incident RF to power the chip that then back-modulates the transmitted signal. In other words, the RFID tag actively modulates the load impedance it places on the antenna causing changes in the radar cross-section of the tag. The tag transceiver sees these variations in cross section as data from the tag.
Urging moving to an even more accident prone and unstable technology is irresponsible.
Remember, we've had 40+ years of experience with PWR reactors - of course there are gotchas in any new (or revived, in the case of MSRs) technology. Those 40 years of operation have, I think, made safety officers complacent, much like the managers at NASA wrt to the shuttle. They're blind to the inherent design issues in PWRs that make them less resistant to faults (much less room for errors - fewer passive safety features, too many manual safety features required).
You also have to take into account the severity of the aftermath of an accident. A primary loop leak in a PWR - disaster. You have to scram the reactor, hope the aux pumps work, deal with the steam blowoff, cool the core until the daughter products cool off, etc, and then deal with fixing a pipe made to withstand 3000+ psi. MUCH more room for a ecological and/or economic disaster.
A primary loop leak in a LFTR - turn off the pumps, dump the coolant/fuel in 'the pit' or let it freeze, get the 'bots in there and fix a pipe made to withstand 100 psi or less.
Given the passive safety features of molten salt/molten fuel reactors such as the LFTR (large negative void coefficient, no phase changes so no need for a huge containment structure, fuel/coolant will 'freeze' on shutdown and remain subcritical, etc) along with their operation at essentially zero primary loop pressure, I'd say their safety record could be much better than any of the existing PWR/BWR designs by an order of magnitude. All we have to do to get there is build a few small ones, work out the kinks, and get going!
The Hamm-Uentrop accident was the result of a stuck fuel 'pebble', not something related to it being a breeder reactor or even a gas-cooled reactor.
Which failed molten salt experiment are you referring to, this one? I would not characterize it as a failure at all - if fact it was a rousing success, even if there were a few lessons learned along the way that influenced the MSR design going forward. "Much of the high cost [of decommissioning] was caused by the unpleasant surprise of fluorine and uranium hexafluoride evolution from cold fuel salt in storage that ORNL did not defuel and store correctly, but this has now been taken into consideration in MSR design." [emphasis mine]
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
FTFY
You realize that breeder reactors do not have to be based on molten sodium, right? Molten salt fast reactors and Gas-cooled fast reactors have similar neutron energy profiles without the danger of sodium as a coolant. The molten salt reactor can even leverage molten fuel, simplifying the design.
Paper production?
There's a big ass fan at a local BBQ joint - Buz & Ned's. The thing is monstrous.
How about Sent-oes to rhyme with Mentos? Maybe CentOS will fizz if you drop it in diet Coke...
The only downside to switching over to LED-filled fake fluorescent tubes is the cost of producing fake tubes that have to handle different input voltages. With the old ballast system the input voltage was handled by the ballast the the tube got the correct strike/run voltage/current regardless. Lots of SOHO fluorescent ballasts are designed to run off 120V and many that are installed in businesses are designed to run off 208V (high leg delta), 240V (phase to phase), 277V (phase to neutral in a 480V wye), etc.
If the LED tube power supply is intelligently designed, they should be able to accept 120V-277V much like modern wall warts do - the challenge will be making them efficient at the same time.
https://www.crmagnetics.com/Po...
Oh, come on! That pic is clearly 'shopped. You can tell by the shading of the nano-pillars!
~joke
You sound like the "Grumpy Old Man" character on "The John Boy and Billy Big Show".
Wow. My 11 year old Mini only has 82,000 miles on it, and it's my daily driver.
What's the terminal velocity on Mars?
Same as on Earth -- Zero. You're not terminal until you smack into the planet. Do you mean "Maximum screaming for your life velocity"? You hit that just before hitting terminal velocity.
It's a joke, Son.
For all intents and purposes, the objects are the same distance from Earth. They're 450 light-years from each other and both are approximately 4.3 BILLION light-years from Earth. The maximum difference in distance between object A and Earth and object B and Earth is 0.000010465116% (450 / 4.3x10^9 * 100). Close enough to the same distance. For reference, the same delta applied to 1 AU (93,000,000 mile Earth-Sun distance) yields 9.73 miles.
Phlogiston Paradise!!! Ruuuuby Rod!
"Cocaine esterase? It's a helluva drug!"
I love laws that are written that way. The state of Virginia automobile inspection laws are equally as circumspect. They say things like 'Door handles must be operable from inside the car.' That does not mean that there have to be door handles installed, just that they have to be operable from inside if they exist.
Since it does not have a motor with _any_ displacement, wouldn't it be closer to a motorized bicycle? At least that mentions electric drive.
A solution already exists. My people have been using them for eons to eke out an existence on an arid planet. Of course constant exposure to the spice helps.
All I got out of the Illiad was that soldiers liked to grill and eat sausages and do weird stuff with thighbones.
Here you go, although she's already famous. You'll have to seek fame on your own merit somehow.
Wasn't there a bad Sci-fi film called Re-Animator with some wild-eyed doctor on the cover wielding a gigantic syringe?
... a hammer to undo the dog on a vacuum chamber had better be a very special hammer.
$30 wooden** baseball bat. Problem solved.
** Yes, aluminum would work, but I bet the eddy currents generated when you swing it in a 5T magnetic field would either slow it down immensely or make it too hot to hold.
Yes, I'm kidding.
I'm also curious about your anecdote, was this gentleman aware of his odor? If so, how was he made aware? You mentioned a second opinion from an unbiased source, can you be more specific?
It depends on your definition of 'aware' - had he been told, yes. Could he sense it? I don't think so. I don't think he believes it when told there was a problem because I truly believe he couldn't smell it himself. It would be like trying to convince a pre-19th century person that disease was caused by tiny critters he couldn't see and not bad air that he could clearly smell.
As for the unbiased second opinion, I was suggesting to the OP that he ask someone who's not a friend or family (his words). Perhaps a doctor or nurse at his next checkup, or some other person who has no vested interest in telling him what they think he wants to hear; no one wants to delivery the news that "you stink".
Using soap in general isn't something I feel is needed since a regular rinsing leaves me non smelly.
According to your nose you may be non-smelly. Perhaps you're like a coworker of mine that could not smell BO. He didn't think he needed to wash regularly or use deodorant since he couldn't smell himself. Being an avid runner, he STANK most of the time; I mean he reeked to the point of making people's eyes water.
You really don't want to be 'that guy'. You might want to get a second opinion from an unbiased source (not "friends and family").