Nuclear weapons have close to 90% Uranium 235. Nuclear reactors are typically between 2 and 5% U-235. So divide the fuel mass by at least 20. If I remember correctly, typical burns are about 20% of the U235 before the waste products kill the reaction by neutron absorption.
Now what I do not know is which has more heat load: a brand new fuel rod running full bore for a few days, or an old fuel rod full of radio isotopes, but only running at half capacity due to the waste products. I'd guess the new one will at first, but it will cool off faster as it has fewer waste products.
nuclear power designs that can't melt down to matter what. Plenty of them.
Such as? No sarcasm there - I'm interested. MSR's have always seemed great, but unfortunately we've lost 40 years of time in which they could have been developed. Pebble beds have proven to be troublesome for other reasons.
MSR: Molten salt reactor? The one with the fuel chemically mixed with the salt? While interesting, I was never really a fan of that one. If you mean molten sodium, interesting, but kind of reactive.
One I liked was a molten lead reactor. Easy to use coolent (if you can imagine using lead as a coolent). Self shielding (Its lead). High boiling point (compared to water), so low pressure primary system.
Use of thorium as a fuel instead of uranium. Because it emits 1.3 neutrons as opposed to uranium's 2, its almost impossible to use it in a nuclear weapon. And its much more plentiful then uranium. I don't recall if it has to be enriched or not.
If you are going with upgraded pressurized water reactors, you can change the cladding from zirconium (which reacts with water at high temperature) to a ceramic. The ceramic can have a melting point higher than the uranium can attain, so it can never melt.
In addition I would go with passive cooling of the primary loop using systems that depend on gravity instead of pumps. Fewer moving parts and no chance that gravity is going to fail.
HTGR: high temperature gas cooled: Use of helium as a coolent. No water reactivity problems, more efficient. Some designs even include direct drive to the turbines instead of going through an intermediary loop.
For some interesting designs, check out traveling wave reactors. They are much more efficient at uranium usage. They can go something like 20 years without refueling.
And if you want to see a really radical concept, google "thorium laser".
From what I remember, there were at least 2 tests at that facility, they were successful. By MSR, do you mean molten salt? Personally I've always been a fan of the HTGR design. What I don't understand is why the NRC has not approved any design beyond the BWR and PWR designs. These designs are more than 40 years old. Think of using a computer or a car from 40 years ago. Instead of zircronium we can encase the fuel in ceramics whose melting point exceeds the maximum thermal output of the fuel. We have passive heat exchangers which depend on gravity instead of pumps. We have thorium designs that make nuclear proliferation almost impossible (or at least a heck of a lot harder). We have traveling wave designs that mean no refueling for 30 years. But instead we are stuck with designs from the 1960's.
They so called China syndrome (gee, I wonder what they call it in Japan?) was a guess as to what would happen in a worse case accident. I think it dates from the 60's or 70s, way before computer modeling was common. From the TMI accident, the presidential commission projected that if the containment building was breached, the radioactive material would penetrate 30-60 feet into the soil before coming to a rest. It would mix with the non heat generating material until the heat could be dispersed by radiation, at which time it would harden. Note: this is from memory. My copy of that report is in one of the boxes in my basement, which resembles the warehouse in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Chernobyl also had a few design issues. One of the big ones is that the reactors were close to prompt neutron critical and had a positive reactivity thermal coefficient.
English translation: prompt neutron critical. Reactors need neutrons to keep going. There are two kinds, prompt and thermal (slow). Reactors are controlled by taking neutrons out of the mix using mechanical means (control rods, slow) or chemical means (boron in the water,slower). Both assume that the reaction is dependent on thermal neutrons.to continue. Once it is prompt neutron critical, there is no way in the world to stop it from exploding.
English translation: positive reactivity thermal coefficient. Neutron absorption and fissioning is dependent on temperature for different materials. Reactors (at least in the US) are designed so that once you go over a certain temperature, the neutrons are not as effective and the reaction slows down. This is negative thermal coefficient. Chernobyl was designed with a positive thermal coefficient, and they relied on the control mechanisms to keep it under control. The control mechanisms that they disabled for the test. The reaction started, the reactor heated up, made the reaction go faster, made the reactor heat up, it went prompt neutron critical, boom.
Actually the US did conduct such tests back in the 70's and 80's. Look up the LOCA (Loss Of Coolent Accident) test program done by the NRC. If memory serves, they scaled it up to 10% reactor capacity.
Note: I believe these were what was assumed to be worse case accidents: reactor going full power and suffering a double gullotine cooling pipe failure.
I don't know if they ever tested a reactor that has been SCRAM'ed, but still generating heat from short lived isotopes.
That is what happened in Japan.
If you have a large place, go with WPA2-Enterprise instead of WPA2-PSK. In enterprise mode, there is no PSK. Every client gets their own PMK when they authenticate. Granted, it assumes all users have ids and passwords, but that should be the case for any large installation. Some clients will have problems when the user password changes. You may need to delete the WLAN entry and then let it be discovered again.
From what I remember, PMK is all that is needed for WPA2. I don't have my SANS617 books handy, but from what recall, the PMK is built from the SSID, length SSID, AP MAC, Client MAC and PSK and then hashed 4096 times to deter dictionary attacks. On connection request, the PTK is built from the PMK, AP nonce and client nonce.
I remember someone saying that MS does not store the PSK, but stores the PMK. Assuming neither NIC gets changed, that should be enough. Note: I have not had an opportunity to check this.
Um, not quite. assuming your taking about WPA or WPA2, the PSK is only needed to build the PMK (Pairwise Master Key). After that is no longer needed. But, if you change the access point or the NIC, you need to build it again. If your worried, go to enterprise mode.
WPA2 with enterprise mode and AES transport is pretty secure, assuming the NSA hasn't FUBAR'ed AES. WEP and TKIP I would definitely put out to pasture.
If you are using the WPA with PSK (Pre Shared Key), you need the plain text pre shared key to generate the PMK (Pairwise Master Key). Once you have the PMK, you really don't need the pre shared key. But if you change the access point or change the NIC on your machine you will need it to generate the PMK over again. If you are concerned, go to WPA enterprise mode with the Radius challenge response.
Speaking of PSK security, you are using the mimimal PSK length of 20 (or was it 22?) characters to ensure security, right?
Gee, if we could put permanent police in every home in the USA we would reduce crime, but I think there is something unconstitutional about that.
There are many options:
You have a list of suspects, tap those. And those around them, And maybe those around them. A heck of a lot less intrusive than taping the planet.
Pay the telecom people to store the data, and only get the data with a court order.
This is similar to how the armed forces pay the airlines to have planes capable of being used by the military in a surge role, but normally run by the airlines.
Establish an outside entity. Outside entity will take real phone numbers and give back a unique hash.
Telephone companies will send meta data to NSA, but will substitute these hash values for all telephone numbers.
On court order, the outside entity will say "john terrorist has has 3141592".
NSA will then do the proper searches, and say "we need the user for hash 12345, the outside firm will say its King Roland (spaceballs)". In this way, no single entity is able to abuse the system.
They could collude, but it sets the bar higher.
Now, will any of these solve the problem? No. Will it make everyone happy? No. Like always, security, like liberty. is a compromise.
From memory, all the satellites are in the same orbital inclination, so shifting the apparent constellation in time could work. However, I am not a GPS expert, so there may be other factors at stake.
Also, there is a simple counter measure, at least for planes and missiles: shield the antenna from receiving from the ground.
What they don't say is whether he is spoofing the CA signal, which is publically known and documented, the P signal, which is encrypted, and best I can recall, is not publically known, or the WAIS signal, which I have no bleeping idea.
You don't actually have any business skills, do you?
To be honest, no, my expertise is technical, computer and information security.
So what you are suggesting is that as business owner, I should spend thousands of dollars training people (during which time they generate no income) in the hopes that a few of them will stay with me long enough to recoup the cost of training
Thousands of dollars?
Lets take the examples I gave. If you are an expert with Oracle, you can probably pick up MSSQL without too much trouble.
If you are an expert with one version of Exchange, you can probably pick up another version without too much difficulty.
As a perspective employee, t would be dishonest to say I had the experience.
If there were a human with a technical background, they should know this.
But if it is someone in HR using a pattern matching program, how are they supposed to know this?
-- When the reality is that many of them will take the training and leave, and many of them will turn out to be poor employees anyway.
And I'm sure you are dead set against me passing those higher costs on to YOU, upon which time you'll declare me evil and greedy....
I hope your not lumping me into those Occupy people who believe the world owes them everything on a plate.
Actually I *DO* pass the cost to myself. *I* paid for my CISSP certification. *I* paid for several high end technical training courses.
And I still had problems getting call backs.
I rank free will as being able to determine individual particle outcomes. Quantum is taking a poll of many particles and saying that X percentage will do Y. Which of us is right, who knows? My guess is neither of us.
You know, in this economy, with the job market so bad, I really find it hard to believe that its that hard to find workers who don't have a similar enough background that they cannot be trained to do the various tasks. Although I think that is part of the problem, excess specificity. They won't want a database admin, they want SQLSERVER 2007 enterprise edition. And they need Symantec AV version 12 admin. And they expect to pay minimum wage. So they code those parameters into the resume filter, feed through 50 thousand resume, no hits. Gee I wonder why.
Deterministic? Have you see quantum physics? Yes galaxies and planets are deterministic, but until they prove string theory or m-brane theory I still say there is free choice. And even then I would say, "what is causing the strings to vibrate the way they do?"
I sort of like a variation, ALL laws except the constitution come up for review, 10-30 years. If it can't be voted positive by simple majority, then it gets repealed. If you want to fix the constitution, then go through the amendment process.
I would say that if they miss more than one prior art they risk losing the patent. That will light a fire for them to be more accurate.
I think copyrights need to be dramatically shortened. I mean come on, 75 years after the DEATH of the of the author? And corporate ownership is FOREVER
I would mandate that copyrights need to be registered. Even if it is something like a dollar a year.. In that way we can identify orphan works that should be made free.
Slashdot Mirror
Now what I do not know is which has more heat load: a brand new fuel rod running full bore for a few days, or an old fuel rod full of radio isotopes, but only running at half capacity due to the waste products. I'd guess the new one will at first, but it will cool off faster as it has fewer waste products.
nuclear power designs that can't melt down to matter what. Plenty of them.
Such as? No sarcasm there - I'm interested. MSR's have always seemed great, but unfortunately we've lost 40 years of time in which they could have been developed. Pebble beds have proven to be troublesome for other reasons.
MSR: Molten salt reactor? The one with the fuel chemically mixed with the salt? While interesting, I was never really a fan of that one. If you mean molten sodium, interesting, but kind of reactive. One I liked was a molten lead reactor. Easy to use coolent (if you can imagine using lead as a coolent). Self shielding (Its lead). High boiling point (compared to water), so low pressure primary system.
Use of thorium as a fuel instead of uranium. Because it emits 1.3 neutrons as opposed to uranium's 2, its almost impossible to use it in a nuclear weapon. And its much more plentiful then uranium. I don't recall if it has to be enriched or not.
If you are going with upgraded pressurized water reactors, you can change the cladding from zirconium (which reacts with water at high temperature) to a ceramic. The ceramic can have a melting point higher than the uranium can attain, so it can never melt. In addition I would go with passive cooling of the primary loop using systems that depend on gravity instead of pumps. Fewer moving parts and no chance that gravity is going to fail.
HTGR: high temperature gas cooled: Use of helium as a coolent. No water reactivity problems, more efficient. Some designs even include direct drive to the turbines instead of going through an intermediary loop.
For some interesting designs, check out traveling wave reactors. They are much more efficient at uranium usage. They can go something like 20 years without refueling.
And if you want to see a really radical concept, google "thorium laser".
From what I remember, there were at least 2 tests at that facility, they were successful. By MSR, do you mean molten salt? Personally I've always been a fan of the HTGR design. What I don't understand is why the NRC has not approved any design beyond the BWR and PWR designs. These designs are more than 40 years old. Think of using a computer or a car from 40 years ago. Instead of zircronium we can encase the fuel in ceramics whose melting point exceeds the maximum thermal output of the fuel. We have passive heat exchangers which depend on gravity instead of pumps. We have thorium designs that make nuclear proliferation almost impossible (or at least a heck of a lot harder). We have traveling wave designs that mean no refueling for 30 years. But instead we are stuck with designs from the 1960's.
They so called China syndrome (gee, I wonder what they call it in Japan?) was a guess as to what would happen in a worse case accident. I think it dates from the 60's or 70s, way before computer modeling was common. From the TMI accident, the presidential commission projected that if the containment building was breached, the radioactive material would penetrate 30-60 feet into the soil before coming to a rest. It would mix with the non heat generating material until the heat could be dispersed by radiation, at which time it would harden. Note: this is from memory. My copy of that report is in one of the boxes in my basement, which resembles the warehouse in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
English translation: prompt neutron critical. Reactors need neutrons to keep going. There are two kinds, prompt and thermal (slow). Reactors are controlled by taking neutrons out of the mix using mechanical means (control rods, slow) or chemical means (boron in the water,slower). Both assume that the reaction is dependent on thermal neutrons.to continue. Once it is prompt neutron critical, there is no way in the world to stop it from exploding.
English translation: positive reactivity thermal coefficient. Neutron absorption and fissioning is dependent on temperature for different materials. Reactors (at least in the US) are designed so that once you go over a certain temperature, the neutrons are not as effective and the reaction slows down. This is negative thermal coefficient. Chernobyl was designed with a positive thermal coefficient, and they relied on the control mechanisms to keep it under control. The control mechanisms that they disabled for the test. The reaction started, the reactor heated up, made the reaction go faster, made the reactor heat up, it went prompt neutron critical, boom.
Actually the US did conduct such tests back in the 70's and 80's. Look up the LOCA (Loss Of Coolent Accident) test program done by the NRC. If memory serves, they scaled it up to 10% reactor capacity. Note: I believe these were what was assumed to be worse case accidents: reactor going full power and suffering a double gullotine cooling pipe failure. I don't know if they ever tested a reactor that has been SCRAM'ed, but still generating heat from short lived isotopes. That is what happened in Japan.
If you have a large place, go with WPA2-Enterprise instead of WPA2-PSK. In enterprise mode, there is no PSK. Every client gets their own PMK when they authenticate. Granted, it assumes all users have ids and passwords, but that should be the case for any large installation. Some clients will have problems when the user password changes. You may need to delete the WLAN entry and then let it be discovered again.
From what I remember, PMK is all that is needed for WPA2. I don't have my SANS617 books handy, but from what recall, the PMK is built from the SSID, length SSID, AP MAC, Client MAC and PSK and then hashed 4096 times to deter dictionary attacks. On connection request, the PTK is built from the PMK, AP nonce and client nonce.
I remember someone saying that MS does not store the PSK, but stores the PMK. Assuming neither NIC gets changed, that should be enough. Note: I have not had an opportunity to check this.
Um, not quite. assuming your taking about WPA or WPA2, the PSK is only needed to build the PMK (Pairwise Master Key). After that is no longer needed. But, if you change the access point or the NIC, you need to build it again. If your worried, go to enterprise mode.
WPA2 with enterprise mode and AES transport is pretty secure, assuming the NSA hasn't FUBAR'ed AES. WEP and TKIP I would definitely put out to pasture.
Speaking of PSK security, you are using the mimimal PSK length of 20 (or was it 22?) characters to ensure security, right?
Now, will any of these solve the problem? No. Will it make everyone happy? No. Like always, security, like liberty. is a compromise.
That is, ....interesting. Great way to wake everyone up monday morning :-).
From memory, all the satellites are in the same orbital inclination, so shifting the apparent constellation in time could work. However, I am not a GPS expert, so there may be other factors at stake. Also, there is a simple counter measure, at least for planes and missiles: shield the antenna from receiving from the ground.
What they don't say is whether he is spoofing the CA signal, which is publically known and documented, the P signal, which is encrypted, and best I can recall, is not publically known, or the WAIS signal, which I have no bleeping idea.
To decrypt, don't they just need the private key for the CA? From there I believe its all down hill to eventually get the session keys.
You don't actually have any business skills, do you?
To be honest, no, my expertise is technical, computer and information security.
So what you are suggesting is that as business owner, I should spend thousands of dollars training people (during which time they generate no income) in the hopes that a few of them will stay with me long enough to recoup the cost of training
Thousands of dollars? Lets take the examples I gave. If you are an expert with Oracle, you can probably pick up MSSQL without too much trouble. If you are an expert with one version of Exchange, you can probably pick up another version without too much difficulty. As a perspective employee, t would be dishonest to say I had the experience. If there were a human with a technical background, they should know this. But if it is someone in HR using a pattern matching program, how are they supposed to know this?
-- When the reality is that many of them will take the training and leave, and many of them will turn out to be poor employees anyway. And I'm sure you are dead set against me passing those higher costs on to YOU, upon which time you'll declare me evil and greedy....
I hope your not lumping me into those Occupy people who believe the world owes them everything on a plate. Actually I *DO* pass the cost to myself. *I* paid for my CISSP certification. *I* paid for several high end technical training courses. And I still had problems getting call backs.
I rank free will as being able to determine individual particle outcomes. Quantum is taking a poll of many particles and saying that X percentage will do Y. Which of us is right, who knows? My guess is neither of us.
Inserting Babylon 5 Reference: What do you want?
Third parties have a good function. They often choose to focus on issues that both the main parties want to avoid talking about.
You know, in this economy, with the job market so bad, I really find it hard to believe that its that hard to find workers who don't have a similar enough background that they cannot be trained to do the various tasks. Although I think that is part of the problem, excess specificity. They won't want a database admin, they want SQLSERVER 2007 enterprise edition. And they need Symantec AV version 12 admin. And they expect to pay minimum wage. So they code those parameters into the resume filter, feed through 50 thousand resume, no hits. Gee I wonder why.
Deterministic? Have you see quantum physics? Yes galaxies and planets are deterministic, but until they prove string theory or m-brane theory I still say there is free choice. And even then I would say, "what is causing the strings to vibrate the way they do?"
I sort of like a variation, ALL laws except the constitution come up for review, 10-30 years. If it can't be voted positive by simple majority, then it gets repealed. If you want to fix the constitution, then go through the amendment process.
I would say that if they miss more than one prior art they risk losing the patent. That will light a fire for them to be more accurate.
I think copyrights need to be dramatically shortened. I mean come on, 75 years after the DEATH of the of the author? And corporate ownership is FOREVER
I would mandate that copyrights need to be registered. Even if it is something like a dollar a year.. In that way we can identify orphan works that should be made free.