yeah, the reason they wanted to use that stuff in nuclear reactors is because it doesn't boil very easily. Since sodium doesn't boil until about 890 C, it doesn't need to be pressurized, and therefore there would be no explosive pressure leaks in the reactor. As far as specific heats do go, however, while it seems bad to use a low specific heat fluid since it doesn't suck out as much heat from your source per degree C, it is true, on the other hand, that it is easier to "dump" the heat from the sodium to the environment.
I'm glad you indicate your own realization that mercury is a dangerous choice for cooling system, or I'd say you've been drinking all that mercury you say you own.
Interestingly enough, back when fast breeder reactors were still being considered as viable nuclear power sources in the US, there were proposed designs involving mercury cooling. Talk about unpolitical.
I'm not too sure liquid sodium is the best choice to cool your computer, since sodium melts at 208 degrees F (98 C). Even if the chip was alright at that temperature, you'd need the temperature margin to be a little higher just to ensure that the sodium didn't re-solidify somewhere in the circulation lines. If it did, circulation stops while your pump dies, and your already hot chip is toast!
Besides, when you first boot up the computer, you'd have to have special heaters installed just to melt the sodium and get it moving!
But, you know, in the end, I know you were being facetious. Nice job.
...because a project involving the real danger of electrocution and fire hazard will certainly separate the real engineers from the "network/information systems" engineers!
Well, as I said in another post, computer science and IT aren't really engineering, though a lot of the people in those fields have the word 'engineer' in the title (though I'm not undervaluing the importance of those fields, I recognize that they are very important). Computers are just a tool to do engineering, and I do agree that 4 year computing degrees do become obsolete if the holders of those degrees don't grow and evolve. However, real engineering, where you have to know something about all of these: physics, mechanics, shear and linear stress, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, hydrodynamics, vibrations, material properties, electronics, and, yes, computers...well, that isn't something you can just pick up unless you focus on one little job at a plant somewhere for the rest of your life. These companies who don't realize this and hire two year associates to do R&D are going to screw themselves pretty quick. There's just so much 'out there' that most compys and IT's don't know about and it scares me.
There are people posting here who consider themselves programmers, but who haven't had the word 'programmer' in their job titles 'for years' (in their own words). So, just because you aren't called 'programmer' doesn't mean you aren't just that. A true statement. Now, as a corollary to that, I would have to say that putting the word 'engineer' in your title doesn't make you an engineer in the 'old school' sense if you are merely a programmer writing application programs, maintaining servers, doing NP-hard math calculations, etc. All you're doing is computer 'science' or, more trendily, IT. To me, engineering means you design new (touchable) technology, do actual physical experiments, or write programs that model physical systems (on that last one, you have to do the actual physics, not just the memory management). Granted, my definition blurs between traditional engineering and hard science, but those two are in a common league very separate from the computer geek professions. Now, I'm not undermining the importance of what most of you guys and gals do, but I read Slashdot all the time and I get very tired of the discussions on 'engineering' having their scope limited to computer science and IT professionals (even worse, I hate the credulous embrace of 'New Scientist' articles). But what can I expect? That's what most of you do, and everyone's world tends to revolve around what they do. As for the slashdotter who posted about starting salaries and said that PhD's didn't get you more money, here's a tip. You must not be talking about the same 'engineering' I am, because an MS in aerospace, nuclear engineering, or experimental physics will only start you around 50 grand or so at a national lab, but a PhD in those things (if you get with the right lab) will start you at around 90 grand. Of course, those jobs may involve code writing, but also they include a lot of physics and mechanical intuition that IT, computer science, or pure math training won't get you. That's my rant.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, the reason they wanted to use that stuff in nuclear reactors is because it doesn't boil very easily. Since sodium doesn't boil until about 890 C, it doesn't need to be pressurized, and therefore there would be no explosive pressure leaks in the reactor. As far as specific heats do go, however, while it seems bad to use a low specific heat fluid since it doesn't suck out as much heat from your source per degree C, it is true, on the other hand, that it is easier to "dump" the heat from the sodium to the environment.
Vegetable oil
I don't really know offhand if that would work very well, though.
oh I hate not checking to see if my post is going to get "redundant-ized." Blast me for my stupidity. Blast me, I say (whatever it means)
I'm glad you indicate your own realization that mercury is a dangerous choice for cooling system, or I'd say you've been drinking all that mercury you say you own. Interestingly enough, back when fast breeder reactors were still being considered as viable nuclear power sources in the US, there were proposed designs involving mercury cooling. Talk about unpolitical.
I'm not too sure liquid sodium is the best choice to cool your computer, since sodium melts at 208 degrees F (98 C). Even if the chip was alright at that temperature, you'd need the temperature margin to be a little higher just to ensure that the sodium didn't re-solidify somewhere in the circulation lines. If it did, circulation stops while your pump dies, and your already hot chip is toast! Besides, when you first boot up the computer, you'd have to have special heaters installed just to melt the sodium and get it moving! But, you know, in the end, I know you were being facetious. Nice job.
...because a project involving the real danger of electrocution and fire hazard will certainly separate the real engineers from the "network/information systems" engineers!
'Much unwanted' because it is true and unsettling to said 'pansies.'
Well, as I said in another post, computer science and IT aren't really engineering, though a lot of the people in those fields have the word 'engineer' in the title (though I'm not undervaluing the importance of those fields, I recognize that they are very important). Computers are just a tool to do engineering, and I do agree that 4 year computing degrees do become obsolete if the holders of those degrees don't grow and evolve. However, real engineering, where you have to know something about all of these: physics, mechanics, shear and linear stress, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, hydrodynamics, vibrations, material properties, electronics, and, yes, computers...well, that isn't something you can just pick up unless you focus on one little job at a plant somewhere for the rest of your life. These companies who don't realize this and hire two year associates to do R&D are going to screw themselves pretty quick. There's just so much 'out there' that most compys and IT's don't know about and it scares me.
There are people posting here who consider themselves programmers, but who haven't had the word 'programmer' in their job titles 'for years' (in their own words). So, just because you aren't called 'programmer' doesn't mean you aren't just that. A true statement. Now, as a corollary to that, I would have to say that putting the word 'engineer' in your title doesn't make you an engineer in the 'old school' sense if you are merely a programmer writing application programs, maintaining servers, doing NP-hard math calculations, etc. All you're doing is computer 'science' or, more trendily, IT. To me, engineering means you design new (touchable) technology, do actual physical experiments, or write programs that model physical systems (on that last one, you have to do the actual physics, not just the memory management). Granted, my definition blurs between traditional engineering and hard science, but those two are in a common league very separate from the computer geek professions. Now, I'm not undermining the importance of what most of you guys and gals do, but I read Slashdot all the time and I get very tired of the discussions on 'engineering' having their scope limited to computer science and IT professionals (even worse, I hate the credulous embrace of 'New Scientist' articles). But what can I expect? That's what most of you do, and everyone's world tends to revolve around what they do. As for the slashdotter who posted about starting salaries and said that PhD's didn't get you more money, here's a tip. You must not be talking about the same 'engineering' I am, because an MS in aerospace, nuclear engineering, or experimental physics will only start you around 50 grand or so at a national lab, but a PhD in those things (if you get with the right lab) will start you at around 90 grand. Of course, those jobs may involve code writing, but also they include a lot of physics and mechanical intuition that IT, computer science, or pure math training won't get you. That's my rant.