In fact the impact speed would be lower for a 747 than your quoted 998km/h. It can only do that high where the air is much less dense. At sea level the drag would be too high. On top of that keeping that speed from altitude in a dive at max thrust would likely put the airframe well beyond its limits and structural damage is probable (ie the wings would fall off). At this point you not be able to aim it even if in a vertical dive. Of course this is assuming the flight control software lets you do any of this.
I can't find the reference, but at least is was commonly accepted that the containment builds should be able to withstand a hit from a aircraft (even big ones). However *perhaps* the situation considered was one of a accident not a deliberate attack buy airliner. There should be something around (ie at the IAEA) about this. But my internet foo is off today.
You can practically eat the spent fuel from a fast-breeder, as all the nasty stuff is no longer in there.
Totally untrue, even just holding the stuff would expose you to a lethal does in a fairly short time period.
Reprocessed waste will still have fission products that are very radioactive in the short term (days and weeks) and still rather radioactive in the mid term (half life ~25 years or so) with some nasty gamma emitters. Unprocessed is less concentrated but also contains actinides. Fully processed waste (aka the waste stream from breeders) does have much less volume (60x less) per unit energy and much shorter time to be "safer" (100-300 years) however.
Not quite. The decay chains include fairly high energy gammas etc. Sure its not glowing. But its not safe either. Compared to MOX fuel which is almost 100% alpha with not so bad decay chains, it is quite a bit worse. It is the part that make waste unsafe for many centuries.
Spent rods have actinides in them. Basically stuff that absorbs neutrons without fission so elements higher than U on the periodic table. These are the hard parts of waste to deal with in terms of longevity.
Personally i think once through cycles are pretty stupid really. Reprocessing reduces U mining impact as well as the waste burden. However does anyone really reprocess successfully, as in produce a significant proportion of the countries fuel? (not bomb grade material). Even in France its a token effort really IIRC.
When working for a major teleco. Every single machine on our floor was using windows to just run a X11 client. They where used simple netclients or whatever. Everything was run on big iron. Even the email etc.
Just because you don't use it in your bubble is not the same as everyone else doesn't.
Unfortunately it mostly wouldn't work. For the inside and perhaps engine it could kinda work. But even then they would have to have the same weight and weight distribution. Airframes need to be fairly well balanced for decent performance. That means the wings need to provide lift at the same place as all the weight is effectively distributed. Thus there is not much you could change without needing to change everything.
My first RC plane was a similar size. Mostly made by hand from balsa wood and foam, with a plywood firewall for the gas engine and fiberglass matt for the wing root. It took me about 3 months to first flight to build. But then i was working, at school and had parties to go to. I would estimate perhaps 100 to 200 hours build time total.
These days the electric engines look a lot easier to deal with while still having nice performance. The Gas engine was messy with methanol+ 20% oil mix. But then it did give 1HP!
People often miss that part of things. There is always an agenda. Need a publication for that PhD or Tenure? Need something interesting for that next grant proposal.
In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data. Data from these studies are typically poor and often just very very sloppy analysis has been done. Often straight out incorrect statistics has been done or the stats doesn't support the claims.
In this particular instance (cell phones and cancer), we have the problem that if there is such an effect we would see much more cases in the heavy users* category. Just like we did with smoking. So at the very least we can be confident that the effect must be very very small. Like diet soda small.
* and for EM fields in general we have microwave engineers, power station engineers etc. Many people are exposed to orders of magnitude larger RF and we see no deviation from normal.
More towers means each run at much lower powers. This is to avoid interference. I was working for a Teleco back before the femto/micro cell sites where around. Back then a cell site was a full room full of equipment. Already the density of sites was high enough to set power levels at below 8watts which the hardware could not directly do. We have to add attenuators on the TX side. Consider also the area this is transmitted over.
Because of the 1/r^2 power scaling with distance, its easy to show all the RF power you are exposed to is from your own phone by a massive margin.
Along with everything else that is not carcinogenic.. Seriously, they are not paid to be correct. Most things are either carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic in these quite useless lists. Its hard to prove something didn't have a role to play. Even that diet soda you just had....
And you're not solving it with ideal gas laws (need non-ideal gas laws/tables).
No you don't. At low pressures the ideal gas laws get more accurate, not less. Consider than H2 gas is a molecule and He is mono atomic. Now also consider that the gas will almost certainly not be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Its is easy to see that there *could* be a difference. Also fully explainable by the ideal gas laws.
Rest of the world has *always* had first to file and changes almost nothing other than it is easier and cheaper to prove you where first. First to file has *nothing* to do with prior art or obviousness or patentablity. Every single US firm has had the leagal right to use the first to file system in the rest of the world. It really changes nothing.
This is not really surprising. Before it was a spreadsheet on a computer it was done by people on a accounting ledgers... that well look a lot like a spreadsheet.
However that is not the same as the number of people that own at least one gun. IIRC its pretty low in the US, which implies that the people that do own a gun, own a lot. I can't find the statistic right now however.
Perhaps a better metric would be how many illegal firearms are in circulation.
Not quite. 238U is fissile with fast neutrons. This was the reason castle bravo had a much higher than expected yield when the 238U tamper was fissioned by the fast fusion neutrons. In a fast reactor 238U fission is a significant contribution to the total power output.
Only if compared a reprocessing cycle (Th) with a once thorough cycle. Once you reprocess both. Waste streams are very similar.
* Cannot build a bomb from the waste.
You can. It is harder but can be done. It was done.
* Half-life is very short.
Fission produces are the same as for 235U and similar to 239Pt and hence have the same half life. Since you are burning 233U this is not surprising. You only save on actinides compared to Uranium which are dealt with in a proper reprocessing cycle anyway.
* Relatively abundant, domestically.
* Occurs with rare-earth metals, so both can be produced.
In fact there is about 5x more Th land reserves than U.
* Current reactors can be modified to use it.
No they can't. You can't really get a breading ratio of one without pulling out the 233Pa intermediary. Th is currently supplementing, not replacing, uranium. Th breading ratio of 1 or more has not been shown. Simulations for special designs are even marginal.
You can't really get a breading ratio of 1 without continuously reprocessing all the fuel with Th. The 233Pa is a neutron poison. Current reactors use Th to supplement, not replace normal uranium cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
And you of course develop on these 128M RAM VMs right, and don't run them headless or anything... No.. Right. Its a stupid comparison.
The old ones yes. Not so much the upgraded ones.
In fact the impact speed would be lower for a 747 than your quoted 998km/h. It can only do that high where the air is much less dense. At sea level the drag would be too high. On top of that keeping that speed from altitude in a dive at max thrust would likely put the airframe well beyond its limits and structural damage is probable (ie the wings would fall off). At this point you not be able to aim it even if in a vertical dive. Of course this is assuming the flight control software lets you do any of this.
I can't find the reference, but at least is was commonly accepted that the containment builds should be able to withstand a hit from a aircraft (even big ones). However *perhaps* the situation considered was one of a accident not a deliberate attack buy airliner. There should be something around (ie at the IAEA) about this. But my internet foo is off today.
You can practically eat the spent fuel from a fast-breeder, as all the nasty stuff is no longer in there.
Totally untrue, even just holding the stuff would expose you to a lethal does in a fairly short time period.
Reprocessed waste will still have fission products that are very radioactive in the short term (days and weeks) and still rather radioactive in the mid term (half life ~25 years or so) with some nasty gamma emitters. Unprocessed is less concentrated but also contains actinides. Fully processed waste (aka the waste stream from breeders) does have much less volume (60x less) per unit energy and much shorter time to be "safer" (100-300 years) however.
Code free players are common and no illegal in Europe. Well at least not in Austria.
Not quite. The decay chains include fairly high energy gammas etc. Sure its not glowing. But its not safe either. Compared to MOX fuel which is almost 100% alpha with not so bad decay chains, it is quite a bit worse. It is the part that make waste unsafe for many centuries.
Spent rods have actinides in them. Basically stuff that absorbs neutrons without fission so elements higher than U on the periodic table. These are the hard parts of waste to deal with in terms of longevity.
Personally i think once through cycles are pretty stupid really. Reprocessing reduces U mining impact as well as the waste burden. However does anyone really reprocess successfully, as in produce a significant proportion of the countries fuel? (not bomb grade material). Even in France its a token effort really IIRC.
When working for a major teleco. Every single machine on our floor was using windows to just run a X11 client. They where used simple netclients or whatever. Everything was run on big iron. Even the email etc.
Just because you don't use it in your bubble is not the same as everyone else doesn't.
I use it all the time over LAN and yes even the internet. I don't find it slow. But then i am not trying to play quake or anything like that.
Yes, the cost was factored in. All US nuclear operators pay 0.1c per kWh generated to the US government to deal with spent nuclear fuel.
Which is stupid since there is no incentive to reduce waste. You pay the same per kWh no matter how much waste that kWh produces.
Unfortunately it mostly wouldn't work. For the inside and perhaps engine it could kinda work. But even then they would have to have the same weight and weight distribution. Airframes need to be fairly well balanced for decent performance. That means the wings need to provide lift at the same place as all the weight is effectively distributed. Thus there is not much you could change without needing to change everything.
My first RC plane was a similar size. Mostly made by hand from balsa wood and foam, with a plywood firewall for the gas engine and fiberglass matt for the wing root. It took me about 3 months to first flight to build. But then i was working, at school and had parties to go to. I would estimate perhaps 100 to 200 hours build time total.
These days the electric engines look a lot easier to deal with while still having nice performance. The Gas engine was messy with methanol+ 20% oil mix. But then it did give 1HP!
People often miss that part of things. There is always an agenda. Need a publication for that PhD or Tenure? Need something interesting for that next grant proposal.
In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data. Data from these studies are typically poor and often just very very sloppy analysis has been done. Often straight out incorrect statistics has been done or the stats doesn't support the claims.
In this particular instance (cell phones and cancer), we have the problem that if there is such an effect we would see much more cases in the heavy users* category. Just like we did with smoking. So at the very least we can be confident that the effect must be very very small. Like diet soda small.
* and for EM fields in general we have microwave engineers, power station engineers etc. Many people are exposed to orders of magnitude larger RF and we see no deviation from normal.
More towers means each run at much lower powers. This is to avoid interference. I was working for a Teleco back before the femto/micro cell sites where around. Back then a cell site was a full room full of equipment. Already the density of sites was high enough to set power levels at below 8watts which the hardware could not directly do. We have to add attenuators on the TX side. Consider also the area this is transmitted over.
Because of the 1/r^2 power scaling with distance, its easy to show all the RF power you are exposed to is from your own phone by a massive margin.
Along with everything else that is not carcinogenic.. Seriously, they are not paid to be correct. Most things are either carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic in these quite useless lists. Its hard to prove something didn't have a role to play. Even that diet soda you just had....
He did pass out in a previous jump. So no its not fatal.
And you're not solving it with ideal gas laws (need non-ideal gas laws/tables).
No you don't. At low pressures the ideal gas laws get more accurate, not less. Consider than H2 gas is a molecule and He is mono atomic. Now also consider that the gas will almost certainly not be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Its is easy to see that there *could* be a difference. Also fully explainable by the ideal gas laws.
Rest of the world has *always* had first to file and changes almost nothing other than it is easier and cheaper to prove you where first. First to file has *nothing* to do with prior art or obviousness or patentablity. Every single US firm has had the leagal right to use the first to file system in the rest of the world. It really changes nothing.
This is not really surprising. Before it was a spreadsheet on a computer it was done by people on a accounting ledgers... that well look a lot like a spreadsheet.
However that is not the same as the number of people that own at least one gun. IIRC its pretty low in the US, which implies that the people that do own a gun, own a lot. I can't find the statistic right now however.
Perhaps a better metric would be how many illegal firearms are in circulation.
The most effective way of killing each other. Cars. And still not good at it. Old age and complications of that get most of us in the end.
Not quite. 238U is fissile with fast neutrons. This was the reason castle bravo had a much higher than expected yield when the 238U tamper was fissioned by the fast fusion neutrons. In a fast reactor 238U fission is a significant contribution to the total power output.
* Order-of-magnitude less radioactive waste.
Only if compared a reprocessing cycle (Th) with a once thorough cycle. Once you reprocess both. Waste streams are very similar.
* Cannot build a bomb from the waste.
You can. It is harder but can be done. It was done.
* Half-life is very short.
Fission produces are the same as for 235U and similar to 239Pt and hence have the same half life. Since you are burning 233U this is not surprising. You only save on actinides compared to Uranium which are dealt with in a proper reprocessing cycle anyway.
* Relatively abundant, domestically.
* Occurs with rare-earth metals, so both can be produced.
In fact there is about 5x more Th land reserves than U.
* Current reactors can be modified to use it.
No they can't. You can't really get a breading ratio of one without pulling out the 233Pa intermediary. Th is currently supplementing, not replacing, uranium. Th breading ratio of 1 or more has not been shown. Simulations for special designs are even marginal.
You can't really get a breading ratio of 1 without continuously reprocessing all the fuel with Th. The 233Pa is a neutron poison. Current reactors use Th to supplement, not replace normal uranium cycles.