I mean really that's about the equivalent of turning an electron gas into your antenna. Still will need signal conditioning and demodulation though unless it's very linear.
But I have such a tremendous dislike of the people that support Musk I think I'll put aside my distaste for people tried to exterminate my relatives and take a serious look at their product for the first time in 50 years.
One the abusive nature of Reddit's management is legendary. No surprise the WANNABEES are getting shat upon by the people they fancy as their victims.
Anyway I'll just observe as long as you want to create a bubble of insanity, you better be prepared to take a lot of abuse doing it, or find true believers stupid enough to take the abuse for you. (Reddit's management strategy)
Just after 6 AM local time on Tuesday in Japan, a sound like an explosion was heard near the suppression pool of reactor No. 2 at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This followed an explosion March 11 that ripped the roof off reactor No. 1 and another at reactor No. 3 on March 14 that injured 11 workers. The culprit in all three cases is likely a build-up of explosive hydrogen gas—as occurred at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979 as a result of the meltdown there—caused by nuclear fuel rods experiencing extremely high temperatures stripping the hydrogen out of the plant's steam.
dissociation : Chemistry the splitting of a molecule into smaller molecules, atoms, or ions, especially by a reversible process.
Seems to mean what I think it means. Why are you mentioning "human liveable conditions" in the core of a nuclear reactor that's melting down ?
Would *you* like to learn about the ~60-70% magnetron efficiency?:D I bet this trumps whatever imaginary issue you have with resistive heating.
It would if you weren't heating an entire kettle instead of just a 350 ml of water.
But here lets go empirical, you are arguing the tea kettle is faster, it takes my microwave 90 seconds to heat a cup of water to boil. How long does it take your tea kettle ?
I expect you are going to lie again https://slashdot.org/comments.... so try for something that's not quite so obvious or better yet. Go out and learn a little about this subject.
Yeah, it originally was, and there is indeed no question that the barge *is* going to have a large impact on the grid-connected Russian harbor it's going to be anchored in, but regarding this particular issue, I was simply reacting to the nonsensical suggestion as to what makes for the increased warming of arctic water. That heat exchangers work better with higher temperature differentials (and also that nuclear plants with fixed operating conditions in the primary circuit have to limit their heat output when the hot end in the tertiary get hotter in any case) is not surprising.
The actual issue is that nuclear ships generally dump heat into (relatively) flowing water. Also, the more heat they have to dump, the faster the water flows around them. Dumping a much larger amount of heat into almost stationary water is most likely going to be a bit more problematic.
Now do yourself a favor and learn a little something about topics before you mouth off on them.
I see you are still hurt because you didn't know nearly as much as you thought you did.
Would you like to learn about the heat capacity of steel heating elements versus a microwave tube ? Or perhaps power transfer functions for a 240 volt circuit vs a 3KV + system ?
I'd be willing to teach but it seems you already know everything.
So cooler inlet temperature of the tertiary in no way affects the performance of the plant. Not a little bit. Understood.
Well done, go away in a huff and don't bother to learn anything. Of course nowhere in this conversation was the performance of the power plant in question. The question was what effect rejecting the heat into the ocean would have on the environment. Nothing like seeing someone do everything they can to make certain they won't learn anything new.
Conduction takes place through the heat exchanger walls. All the heat from the secondary to the tertiary circuit goes through the heat exchanger, it's not "minor". Most of the heat of the secondary circuit is not lost through any other way. Do you get off on being pig ignorant?
Except for the "minor" fact how heat moves through a heat exchanger has nothing to do with how it travels through the ocean or the atmosphere. You do understand a power plants heat exchanger isn't the same thing ? Or maybe you don't seeing as you just proved you don't understand what an absorption spectra is.
Really, do yourself a favor go to the library or a used book store and pick up a college text book on transport mechanics. I am pretty certain there's a good chance you can't do the math at this point but the explanations of examples will do you a lot of good.
No as opposed to a resistive element that heats the air and the pot as well as water.
I realize in the other subthread you are bound and determined to prove you don't understand heat transport but you should at least read a little before branching out to make a bigger fool of yourself.
Please enlighten me, O accomplished power plant engineer.:-p
I really can't do much with someone who doesn't even read properly
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature as they would be in a linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship.
vs your
Of course they would, they're cooler to begin with. The properties of conductive heating in heat exchangers are *much* more important here than your "linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship".
That's so bad it's not even wrong. Conduction is minor heat transport in this setup would occur primarily from physical transport (exit velocity) and convection, conduction is going to be a low order effect.
None of which is comparable to the heat of evaporation.
You know I pointed out the base information on enthalpy. Do you get off on being pig ignorant ?
Yes, evaporation is nice, but you have to build cooling towers with forced water circulation to make it happen at reasonable temperatures for multi-100MW heat flux.
Really ? I'd love to see the heat transport calculations you used to justify that statement ?
Anyway in general cooling towers are used only when there is insufficient area to reject the heat such as lakes or small rivers
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature as they would be in a linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship.
You aren't actually an engineer or a scientist are you ? Well at least not an actual engineer, as opposed to what schools these days refer to as software engineers.
No more or less relevant than taking more heat/ unit area out of the ocean the way OTEC does. Especially since adding heat will speed evaporation which will limit the net temperature increase. Water does this neat little thing where it changes phases, and going from one phase to another involves a relatively large exchange of heat with the environment.
A 1kw oven will boil a cup of water in roughly a minute. It's perfect because water is what absorbs microwave radiation and turns it into heat when you cook with one. So the transfer efficiency is very high.
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that? . Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate I showed 1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down 2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime 3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time 4. Between extremes of gun control regimes across countries there is no correlation.
Your response is DURRR People that know more than you say otherwise despite the evidence to the contrary. This while referring to a science well known for being driven by politics.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean really that's about the equivalent of turning an electron gas into your antenna. Still will need signal conditioning and demodulation though unless it's very linear.
But I have such a tremendous dislike of the people that support Musk I think I'll put aside my distaste for people tried to exterminate my relatives and take a serious look at their product for the first time in 50 years.
And now you try to move the goalposts.
Pathetic!
Oh my you must be really specially abled, to say quoting my initial comment is moving the goal posts.
One the abusive nature of Reddit's management is legendary. No surprise the WANNABEES are getting shat upon by the people they fancy as their victims.
Anyway I'll just observe as long as you want to create a bubble of insanity, you better be prepared to take a lot of abuse doing it, or find true believers stupid enough to take the abuse for you. (Reddit's management strategy)
Actually it is
You have never used a microwave oven to heat water ?
It's very nearly the perfect solution.
Seeing as the tea kettle is using more power to do the job. ~=180 KJ as opposed to the microwaves ~108 KJ to do the same job.
But then again that really shouldn't come as a surprise when every molecule of water acts as an antenna to absorb the microwave the radiation
https://www.scientificamerican...
Just after 6 AM local time on Tuesday in Japan, a sound like an explosion was heard near the suppression pool of reactor No. 2 at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This followed an explosion March 11 that ripped the roof off reactor No. 1 and another at reactor No. 3 on March 14 that injured 11 workers. The culprit in all three cases is likely a build-up of explosive hydrogen gas—as occurred at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979 as a result of the meltdown there—caused by nuclear fuel rods experiencing extremely high temperatures stripping the hydrogen out of the plant's steam.
dissociation : Chemistry
the splitting of a molecule into smaller molecules, atoms, or ions, especially by a reversible process.
Seems to mean what I think it means. Why are you mentioning "human liveable conditions" in the core of a nuclear reactor that's melting down ?
So your claim is that boiling water with a 1kW (input power) microwave is faster than a 3kW electric kettle. LOL.
You do realize that you don't have to fill an electric kettle to use it, right?
No my claim is it takes a 1.2 kw microwave oven 90 seconds to do it. You can check this yourself
How long are you claiming it takes your tea kettle ?
Would *you* like to learn about the ~60-70% magnetron efficiency? :D I bet this trumps whatever imaginary issue you have with resistive heating.
It would if you weren't heating an entire kettle instead of just a 350 ml of water.
But here lets go empirical, you are arguing the tea kettle is faster, it takes my microwave 90 seconds to heat a cup of water to boil. How long does it take your tea kettle ?
I expect you are going to lie again https://slashdot.org/comments.... so try for something that's not quite so obvious or better yet. Go out and learn a little about this subject.
Yeah, it originally was, and there is indeed no question that the barge *is* going to have a large impact on the grid-connected Russian harbor it's going to be anchored in, but regarding this particular issue, I was simply reacting to the nonsensical suggestion as to what makes for the increased warming of arctic water. That heat exchangers work better with higher temperature differentials (and also that nuclear plants with fixed operating conditions in the primary circuit have to limit their heat output when the hot end in the tertiary get hotter in any case) is not surprising.
Liar your words
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The actual issue is that nuclear ships generally dump heat into (relatively) flowing water. Also, the more heat they have to dump, the faster the water flows around them. Dumping a much larger amount of heat into almost stationary water is most likely going to be a bit more problematic.
Now do yourself a favor and learn a little something about topics before you mouth off on them.
I see you are still hurt because you didn't know nearly as much as you thought you did.
Would you like to learn about the heat capacity of steel heating elements versus a microwave tube ? Or perhaps power transfer functions for a 240 volt circuit vs a 3KV + system ?
I'd be willing to teach but it seems you already know everything.
So cooler inlet temperature of the tertiary in no way affects the performance of the plant. Not a little bit. Understood.
Well done, go away in a huff and don't bother to learn anything. Of course nowhere in this conversation was the performance of the power plant in question. The question was what effect rejecting the heat into the ocean would have on the environment. Nothing like seeing someone do everything they can to make certain they won't learn anything new.
Because it's not submerged in the water ?
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-...
You are thinking of an immersion heater.
Conduction takes place through the heat exchanger walls. All the heat from the secondary to the tertiary circuit goes through the heat exchanger, it's not "minor". Most of the heat of the secondary circuit is not lost through any other way. Do you get off on being pig ignorant?
Except for the "minor" fact how heat moves through a heat exchanger has nothing to do with how it travels through the ocean or the atmosphere. You do understand a power plants heat exchanger isn't the same thing ? Or maybe you don't seeing as you just proved you don't understand what an absorption spectra is.
Really, do yourself a favor go to the library or a used book store and pick up a college text book on transport mechanics. I am pretty certain there's a good chance you can't do the math at this point but the explanations of examples will do you a lot of good.
No as opposed to a resistive element that heats the air and the pot as well as water.
I realize in the other subthread you are bound and determined to prove you don't understand heat transport but you should at least read a little before branching out to make a bigger fool of yourself.
Please enlighten me, O accomplished power plant engineer. :-p
I really can't do much with someone who doesn't even read properly
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature as they would be in a linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship.
vs your
Of course they would, they're cooler to begin with. The properties of conductive heating in heat exchangers are *much* more important here than your "linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship".
That's so bad it's not even wrong. Conduction is minor heat transport in this setup would occur primarily from physical transport (exit velocity) and convection, conduction is going to be a low order effect.
None of which is comparable to the heat of evaporation.
You know I pointed out the base information on enthalpy. Do you get off on being pig ignorant ?
Yes, evaporation is nice, but you have to build cooling towers with forced water circulation to make it happen at reasonable temperatures for multi-100MW heat flux.
Really ? I'd love to see the heat transport calculations you used to justify that statement ?
Anyway in general cooling towers are used only when there is insufficient area to reject the heat such as lakes or small rivers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature as they would be in a linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship.
You aren't actually an engineer or a scientist are you ? Well at least not an actual engineer, as opposed to what schools these days refer to as software engineers.
No more or less relevant than taking more heat/ unit area out of the ocean the way OTEC does. Especially since adding heat will speed evaporation which will limit the net temperature increase. Water does this neat little thing where it changes phases, and going from one phase to another involves a relatively large exchange of heat with the environment.
Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that will let you start to understand the themodynamics involved.
If you actually make the calculation you'll what you are talking is a large amount of energy by human standards, but by the oceans it's barely there.
It's irrelevant. Matter of fact surface discharge will have less impact.
Have you ever tried it ?
A 1kw oven will boil a cup of water in roughly a minute. It's perfect because water is what absorbs microwave radiation and turns it into heat when you cook with one. So the transfer efficiency is very high.
You have never used a microwave oven to heat water ?
It's very nearly the perfect solution.
The hardware on your typical windows laptop blows the typical chromebook away.
You seem to be completely unable to comprehend that the counter examples are too numerous to list.
Nice try at ignoring the fact that over the time period it became easier to own guns legally in NYC yet the crime rate went down.
Oh I am pretty certain you actually don't think.
ure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
Running for your own life
More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.
http://www.ushistory.org/decla...
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate
I showed
1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down
2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime
3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time
4. Between extremes of gun control regimes across countries there is no correlation.
Your response is DURRR People that know more than you say otherwise despite the evidence to the contrary. This while referring to a science well known for being driven by politics.
https://www.scientificamerican...
You're either a liar or an idiot either way my points stand on their own.