[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 73 KB, 500x500, Nuclear Power Yes Please (500x500).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3086808 No.3086808 [Reply] [Original]

daily nuclear thread. don't forget your respirators, Geiger counters, bunny suits, and beer.

LFTRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

traveling wave reactors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfMmqKYC6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieX88nBFVS4&feature=grec_index

what else is everyone excited about?
*and this time, i'll try not to take up most of thread

>> No.3086834

>>3086808
cogeneration fuck yeah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Cogeneration

suck on these nutz solar/wind fags

>> No.3086845

this thread is now about cold fusion

>> No.3086849

>>3086845
god damnit

>> No.3086855

Thats so nice of you to post the same shit:
So nice:

>> No.3086866

>>3086845
well, scientific misconduct would be right up /sci/'s alley

>> No.3086873

pebblebed reactors are cool too

>> No.3086874

>>3086845
There's already a thread for that.

>>3086853

>> No.3086882

>>3086874
check the times on those post bro....

>> No.3086901

>>3086882
No.

>> No.3086908

>>3086873
yeah they are. pebble peds are probably the next step for solid fuel reactors, so long as they can find some way to make the pebbles sink as they age, automatically sifting out the old ones as they put in new ones

>> No.3086971

>>3086908
I believe current designs remove pellets at the bottom and add them at the top, so they should progress through the reactor as a result of that motion.

No source for that, however. Just something I remember reading somewhere.

>> No.3086979

>>3086971
i'm kind of curious what the mechanism would be for the pellets to descent as they fission.

>> No.3087018

>>3086873
berkeley is working on a fancy one
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/pb-ahtr/

>> No.3087056

oh and, if you are interested in LFTRs, me and another anon made a generic congressional letter thing outlining the concept.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLMBWV-pCk77mbfVESmIVFk62h25HjnW-WcRX8XEA84/edit?hl=en#

it's open to edit by anyone, toss in any information you believe pertinent

>> No.3087063

>>3087056
is that every going to be mailed to anyone?

>> No.3087090

>>3087063
when it's deemed sufficient, yes. it'll be made available to everyone that wishes to mail a copy to their representative

>> No.3087117
File: 47 KB, 386x500, chernobyl_reactor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3087117

you are all heartless monsters and playing with powers you cannot control

>> No.3087149

>>3087117
And you are a paranoid ape who fears what he do not understand.

How did that make you feel?

>> No.3087159

>>3087117
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>> No.3087161

>>3087117
looks like my nuclear energy for dummies video series will need a Chernobyl video

>> No.3087198

I'm a huge faggot, please rape my face.

>> No.3087280

>>3087198
jokes on you i'm just pretending to be retarded

>> No.3087356

How long have you been working as a nuclear engineer?

>> No.3087361

>>3087356
believe it or not i am a computer science major, but my passion has always been in nuclear power.
i wonder if there are any honest-to-goodness nuclear engineers on here?

>> No.3087437

>>3087361

if you're doing computer science how to you have the time to know so much nuclear engineering? I thought for a second that you were one of the speakers on the youtube videos because you seem to be pretty well versed in nuclear engineering.

>> No.3087609

>>3087437
multitasking
also it's summer and i don't have a computer science internship yet

>> No.3088341

in other news
my cool trip is back
see? it's got LFTR in it

>> No.3088436

so heres a question: why can't you just take all that weapons grade uranium in our ICBMs and use them to create nuclear power plants?

I mean, aside from politics, is their any reason, scientifically, why this wouldn't work?

>> No.3088444

also, are breeder reacters a total fabrication? I heard they produce plutonium, not uranium, which has yet to be implemented in a nuclear power plant, but has utility in making 2nd stage hydrogen bombs

>> No.3088473

bump, cause i wanna know

>> No.3088489

You could use uranium from weapons to fuel a reactor.
Since a bomb only contains a few kg, it won't be much fuel for a reactor though.

Breeder reactors are real. They are also more dangerous than normal reactors.

>> No.3088498

>>3088436
not sure actually. might have to do with most bombs being plutonium based? i'm not well versed on current US bomb design.

>>3088444
most "fast" reactors use plutonium as fuel, so yes, dismantled plutonium core bombs can be recycled into fast reactors

Traveling wave reactors seem like a better option for plutonium recycling since it only breeds a small volume of fuel before immediately consuming it.

>> No.3088512

>>3088444
not what i meant. I meant was the principle that breeder reactors can create more fuel for other nuclear reactors a myth. i know the breeder reactors are real.

What i heard is that plutonium is wrapped around a core of uranium and used to achieve the second stage fusion reaction.

>> No.3088603
File: 57 KB, 280x360, freehuey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088603

honkey-ass scientist better answer my mutha-fuckin question!

>> No.3088632
File: 12 KB, 176x286, ceaserchaves.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088632

Hydroponics put us out of business... now we hang out by home depot and sell oranges by the freeway...

>> No.3088635

>>3088603
what question is that

>> No.3088690

you know, i was having so much fun looking up old posters from the 60's, i completely forgot.

1) how much uranium do you need to power a reactor? Does it depend on the MegaWatt output of the reactor?
2) how long does the fuel last? Does that depend on the MegaWatt output of the reactor?
3) How pure does the uranium fuel have to be to be used in a reactor? Is the uranium used in nuclear bombs to pure a sample (e.g. have to be diluted) to be used in a reactor?
4) How many power plants/nuclear reactors could you produce with the current stockpile of nuclear weapons? What would be its MegaWatt output?
5) I have heard that it is possible to recycle nuclear waste into nuclear fuel over a period of decades or centuries instead of millenniums. Is this true? I've also heard that the process of recycling nuclear waste into usable fuel causes more radioactive pollution that the waste would normally produce. Is this also true?

>> No.3088726

Darn! I would have thought for sure the best place to find a nuclear physicist would be on 4chan!

>> No.3088751

>>3088690
all that is calculations. which i'm not well versed in

but, for 5)
"waste" in most cases is depleted uranium (U238) mixed with plutonium and lots of weird fission products.
with something like a traveling wave reactor, you can just stuff a bunch of depleted uranium, plutonium, and long life fission products in there and the resulting waste is much less dangerous (14 billion year half life = negligible radioactivity)

>> No.3088783

>>3088690
also megawatt hours doesn't really apply to "how much energy you can get from X volume of material". megawatt hours refers to the output of a power plant per unit hour. most nuclear power put out 1000+ megawatts hours (or 1 gigawatt)

>> No.3088789

>>3088690
1) Slightly under 207kg and no, it doesn't depend on the power output. That's enough for any amount of power.

2) About 7 years and 4 months, and no it doesn't depend on the power output. It lasts the same amount of time regardless of the total energy output.

3) The uranium has to be at least 13% pure. It doesn't matter what the impurities are. Yes, nuclear bomb material needs to be diluted under 86% pure. Water is fine for this.

4) The size of the current nuclear stockpile is a closely guarded secret. However, we could make exactly 1,289 nuclear reactors from it, of any power output desired.

5) Yes. Nuclear waste is all the same and can be turned into nuclear fuel at will. Remember to put your nuclear waste in the recycling bin, not the garbage pail.

>> No.3088809

>>3088751
>all that is calculations. which i'm not well versed in
Instead of hanging around 4chan cheerleading for thorium reactors you've heard people tell you are good (but which most fully-trained nuclear engineers aren't very enthusiastic about, for reasons that are mysterious to you), why don't you spend some time actually studying the subject yourself?

Just imagine it: you could talk about this stuff without continually embarassing yourself.

>> No.3088812
File: 8 KB, 225x225, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088812

>>3088783

uh...no. power plants are rated according to how much power they generate while running at full capacity. for example, a 200 megawatt power plant provides 200 megawatts, so a 200 megawatt power plant that is operational for one hour provides 200 megawatts/hours of power.

>> No.3088832

>>3088789
So we can produce an infinite supply of power from a handful of nuclear reactors, eh? Tell me something... we have a few hundred reactors online in the US at this time. Why do we not have an infinite amount of power already?

>> No.3088841

>>3088812
>200 megawatts/hours of power
The watt-hour is a unit of energy, not power. That's 1 watt * 1 hour, not 1 watt / 1 hour. Watts are units of power.

1 watt = 1 joule / 1 second
So a watt-hour is 3600 joules.

>> No.3088845

>>3088832
Because the man is keeping us down!

>> No.3088846

>>3088812
but that's exactly what i said
>>3088809
you sound like mr "any power plant will result in a nuclear bomb and regulatory bodies do not exist" so anything you say i take with a grain of salt, even if it's perfectly rational.

>> No.3088861

>>3088841
bzzzzzzt! I'm sorry, that answer is incorrect.

A watt is not a time dependent unit of measurement. what you are describing would a Watt/second.
A * V = P.

Do your fucking homework, and take your limpdicked science out of my fucking classroom, or you will receive another paddling!!

>> No.3088867

>>3088861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
>The unit, defined as one joule per second
>per second

>> No.3088876

>>3088846
Sorry no, it's Mr. "any breeder reactor can be easily used to make nuclear bombs, and regulatory bodies exist to keep the numbers of things like that down".

>> No.3088889

>>3088876
i think the problem he has is that you equate all breeder reactors not as potential bomb sources, but as almost guaranteed bomb sources, and thus any technology using them must never be used instead of just regulated

>> No.3088944

>>3088889
I've never said that they must never be used, but that it isn't politically feasible in this era to publicly showcase a device which is perfect for bomb-making as a limitless source of cheap, clean, safe power.

Since we must ask most of the world's nations to forgo such a resource, to partake of it ourselves smacks of tyranny. Hence, "not politically feasible".

And this is generously granting the assumption that the LFTR would be cheaper, cleaner, and safer in practice than conventional nuclear reactors or other proposed late-generation designs, ignoring for example the dangers inherent in high-temperature operation, the fact that fluorine salts form hydrofluoric acid if exposed to moist air, the high price of thorium, the need to produce the initial fuel seed in a conventional nuclear reactor, the need to constantly process radioactive gasses out of the reactor, and the very limited engineering experience with this class of reactor.

>> No.3088958

breeder reactors can ONLY PRODUCE PLUTONIUM
Plutonium CAN NOT BE USED in reactors!

>> No.3088967 [DELETED] 

>>3088958

END ALL NUCLEAR POWER IN AMERICA!

The rest of the world can have cheap electricity.

>> No.3088978

>>3088958
tell that to the fast breeder reactor guys

>> No.3088979

>>3088944
>>3088876
>doesn't understand U-232 contamination
Yeah, I'm thinking you're an idiot.

>> No.3088981

>>3088841
One joule can also be defined as:
The work required to produce one watt of power for one second, or one "watt second" (W·s)

>> No.3088983

>>3088944
this is why i'm kind of suspicious of your opinions, since everything in your second paragraph is either wrong or already addressed in LFTR designs.

>> No.3088982 [DELETED] 

>>3088967
We should pay Mexicans to ride bicycle generators.

That's GOTTA be cheaper than ANYTHING!

>> No.3088989 [DELETED] 

ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS MAKE BOMBS!

>> No.3088995 [DELETED] 

>>3088983
Seconded.

>> No.3089006

>>30888411 watt * 1 hour, not 1 watt / 1 hour

1W*1H = 1W*1H
(1W*1H)/1H = (1W*1H)/1H
1W = 1W
1W/1H = 1W/1H
1W/1H =1W/1H

>> No.3089011

>>3088983
The reprocessing and experience are valid points, but of the 'problems that need to be carefully considered' variety rather than the death knell of LFTRs.

>> No.3089029

Alright, say i'm wrong. Say you can get some usable fissile material out of a breeder reactor. prove it.

>> No.3089040 [DELETED] 

>>3089011
If we don't build them to learn to get past those problems, then we'll need help from China to get past them.

Why do you want a weak America?

>> No.3089048

>>3088846

The thing is though, and not samefag here, I'm pretty sure you actually can calculate the power output, in Mwh, of a given amount of fissible material.

Will post a relevant problem in a second.

>> No.3089050

>>3088989
No, just breeder reactors make bombs. But these two guys aren't listening. Do they know something we don't? Cause i don't think they do.
Ahem
>>3088958

>> No.3089051

>>3088958
>breeder reactors can ONLY PRODUCE PLUTONIUM
There are two types of breeder reactors: plutonium-239 breeders, which use uranium-238 as the fertile material, and uranium-233 breeders, which use thorium-232 as the fertile material.

Plutonium breeders require fast neutrons, but can use uranium-235 for fuel while uranium-238 is used for fertile material, both of which are available in natural uranium.

Thorium breeders can use thermal neutrons, but can not be bootstrapped with thorium alone. They must at least be started with uranium-235 or plutonium-239 fuels.

(too long)

>> No.3089052

>>3089048

1. In a nuclear reactor, fission is produced in 1 gm of U235 (235.0439 amu) in 24 hours by a slow
neutron (1.0087 amu). Assuming that 36Kr92 (91.8973 amu) and 56Ba141 (140.9139 amu) are
produced in all reactions and no energy is lost, write the complete reaction and calculate the total
energy produced in MeV and in killowatt-hour. Given 1 amu = 931.5 MeV.
Solution: The nuclear fission reaction is
92U235 + on1 ® 56Ba141 + 36Kr92 + 3 on1.
The sum of the masses before reaction is
235.0439 + 1.0087 = 236.0526 amu.
The sum of the masses after the reaction is
140.9139 + 91. 8973 + 3 (l.0087) = 235.8373 amu.
The mass loss in the fission is
D m = 236.0526 _ 235.8373 = 0.2153 amu.
The energy equivalent of 1 amu is 931.5 MeV. Therefore, the energy released in the fission of a U235
nucleus
= 0.2153 × 931.5 = 200 MeV.

>> No.3089054

>>3089040
Yeah, that wasn't what I was advocating.

>> No.3089058

>>3089052
cont'd

The number of atoms in 235 gm of U235 is 6.02 ×1023 (Avogadro number). Therefore, the number of
atoms in 1 gm
= = 2.56 × 1021.
Hence the energy released in the fission of 1 gm of U235 i.e, in 2.56 × l021 fissions is
E = 200 × 2.56 × 1021 = 5.12 × 1023 MeV.
Now, 1 MeV = 1.6 × l0_13 joule.
\ E = 5.12 × l023 × (l.6 × l0_13)
= 8.2 × l010 joule.
Radioactive Split
Now, 1 kilowatt-hour= 1000 watt x 3600 sec
= 1000 × 3600sec
= 3.6 × l06 joules.
\ E = = 2.28 × 104 kW-H.

The format didn't copy pasta very well so it may be incomplete but you get the picture.

>> No.3089060

cont. from >>3089051
>Plutonium CAN NOT BE USED in reactors!
Plutonium-239, uranium-235, and uranium-233 are all fissile materials capable of sustaining a chain reaction with either fast or thermal neutrons, and are thus suitable for use in either reactors or nuclear weapons.

Plutonium-239 and uranium-233, being bred fuels, have the unfortunate advantage of being chemically dissimilar from the fertile material they are bred from, which means they are easy to chemically process into weapons grade materials.

Uranium-235 is the only fissile material that occurs naturally in useful quantities, but it is intermixed with uranium-238, and therefore enriching it to weapons-grade material requires slow and expensive isotopic separation methods. All nuclear reactors considered proliferation-resistant therefore run on uranium-235 fuel (either natural uranium or low-enriched fuel).

All uranium-based nuclear reactors make some amount of plutonium-239, although non-breeders make less plutonium than the amount of u-235 they use up, and some of the plutonium also gets used up, so you need to run a large conventional non-breeder uranium reactor for a long time before it can produce enough plutonium to make a nuclear weapon.

International monitoring of these nuclear reactors to ensure that this slowly-produced plutonium is not being accumulated to make nuclear weapons is the basis of regulatory anti-proliferation efforts.

>> No.3089067 [DELETED] 

>>3089050
No, you're wrong.

WE MUST DESTROY ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS ON EARTH TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM IT'S ENEMIES.

>> No.3089075

>>3088979
>doesn't understand that U-232 is only a minor problem for people wishing to make bombs out of U-233 -- the U-232 is not present in large enough concentrations to interfere with the nuclear chain reaction and only presents an inconvenience for handling and detection, both of which are resolved by adequate shielding
right back at ya

>> No.3089084

>>3089051

i would love to see the end of your post, but i don't see anything.

To reaffirm what i said earlier

I start with uranium and/or thorium, and i Git what?

If you said plutonium, i am in agreement with you. If you said something other than plutonium, please explain. If there are reactors that can use plutonium as fuel, please explain. Otherwise, STFU

>> No.3089082 [DELETED] 

>>3089054

Yes you were. You're a fucking scumbag, and you want to destroy America.

BEW BEW BEW, NOOKOOLAR IS TEH DANGER, WE CAN ONLY LET THE PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT AMERICA HAVE CHEAP AND SAFE ELECTRICITY, BEW BEW BEW.

>> No.3089096

>>3088983
>everything in your second paragraph is either wrong or already addressed in LFTR designs.
>or so I assume
>because I really don't know shit about nuclear reactor design
>but some people told me the LFTR is totally awesome and has no possible downsides
>and they totally SOUNDED like they knew what they were talking about
>and they told me THE MAN is keeping the LFTR down!

>> No.3089099 [DELETED] 

>>3089075

GREAT! SO ONLY OUR ENEMIES CAN HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.

DIE IN A FIRE, YOU TREMENDOUS FAGGOT!

>> No.3089106

>>3089084
>I start with uranium and/or thorium, and i Git what?
If you start with U-238, you get Pu-239. If you start with Th-232, you get U-233.

And the follow-up post was: >>3089060

>> No.3089111 [DELETED] 

>>3089096
Oh sweet. Implications!

Why do you want our enemies to benefit from something we should build ourselves? they ARE going to build them anyway, you fucking Chinese faggot.

>> No.3089117 [DELETED] 

>>3089106
CHING CHONG NIP NONG FONG.

>> No.3089142

>>3089075
>implying gamma radiation shielding is trivial to handle
>implying gamma radiation won't interfere with the detonator
>implying a nuclear bomb which can detonate unpredictably is desirable
>implications, implications everywhere
This thread is getting close to a critical mass of trolls.

>> No.3089171 [DELETED] 

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF CHINA BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

>> No.3089181 [DELETED] 

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF SAUDI-ARABIA BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

>> No.3089193

>>3089142
This is wishful thinking. People are only saying this stuff because they WANT thorium technology to not be useful for making nuclear weapons. They are looking for excuses, not applying critical thinking.

There is equally energetic gamma radiation from any weapons-grade material. It is only somewhat more intense in thorium-bred material.

If you're not capable of running the numbers, you can't just assume that they say what you want them to say.

>> No.3089187 [DELETED] 

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF NORTH-KOREA BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

>> No.3089192 [DELETED] 

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF IRAN BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

>> No.3089197 [DELETED] 

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF RUSSIA BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

>> No.3089218

>>3089193

Not trying to be a dick but could you provide said numbers?

We're all interested.

>> No.3089220 [DELETED] 
File: 30 KB, 255x301, ZOG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089220

HEY!

HEY GUIS!

LOL!

IF PALESTINE BUILDS A BREEDER REACTOR, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IT, RIGHT?

RIGHT?!

ZOG: "Right."

Me: "Oh."

>> No.3089226

>>3089220

Enough.

>> No.3089260

>>3089218
Which numbers do you want, why do you think they're important, and how did you come to have a full understanding of the significance of these numbers without being able to look up / calculate them?

>> No.3089268

Hey bitches. LFT reactors.

>> No.3089276 [DELETED] 

>>3089226
What, you WANT me to keep on shitposting?

I won't stop if you don't

>> No.3089287

>>3089075
>U232
>adequate shielding

lolno, you can detect that shit from orbit. Anything thick enough to shield against all that gamma would be completely immobile.

>> No.3089304 [DELETED] 

>>3089287
Like a secret underground refinery military base of EVIL!

THAT'S WHY AMERICA CAN'T BUILD THORIUM REACTORS!

>> No.3089316

>>3089287
So tell me, what is the intensity of this gamma radiation, what thickness of what material would be required to shield it, with what intensity would it continue to radiate through this shielding you consider adequate, and what vehicles are you considering as possible transportation options such that it is "immobile" when adequately shielded?

>> No.3089323

>>3089260

You alluded to some crunched "numbers" that show that the gamma radiation coming from weapons grade fissle material is very close the that coming from U232. Either show these magical numbers or fuck off. Stop making excuses.

>> No.3089358
File: 103 KB, 1000x744, 1800 gamma counts per second.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089358

It's pretty clear none of you have had to work with or handled radioactive materials before.

We can pick up our yellowcake samples (RNG entropy source, long story) sealed in their lead pigs from a couple rooms over using shitty dosimeters.

"shielding" against ionizing EM radiation is a mitigation strategy to limit human dose. It is not a way to enable clandestine transport.

You cannot hide a strong gamma emitter. It doesn't matter how much lead you have, a detectable quantity above background is still going to make it all the way through.

Only alpha and beta particles can be effectively shielded against... and even then only for a time. Eventually nuclear capture will lead to detectable decay products within the containment material.

>> No.3089362

>>3089323
The burden of proof is with you, and the fact that you can't even specify which numbers you have to substantiate your claims just shows how little you know of nuclear engineering and are just regurgitating bullshit you've read on this board and youtube clips. Please do some actual research.

>> No.3089369

Why not just combine alpha and beta particles to make a battery?

>> No.3089373

>>3089358
This thread is full of underageb& and science fans. What did you expect?

>> No.3089381

>>3089362

Holy fuck. Your initial point was that the argument that U232 was too strong a source of gamma radiation to be used as weapons material was incorrect and that actually there wasn't that big a difference. You then alluded to crunched numbers that proved your contention.

You don't get to bitch about the prevailing sentiment in a thread being wrong and then switch the burden of proof from the person making the claim (you) to the people subscribing to the conventional wisdom.

Either provide these numbers or go fuck yourself.

>> No.3089425

>>3089381
I'm not that guy, and what the majority in one thread on /sci/ believes is not "conventional wisdom". The burden of proof is still on you, even if you decide to evade the point and not specify or even the figures you want. But you can act like a child if you want, insulting those who disagree with you without making any substantiated claims. I

>> No.3089433

How about this point?

Nothing is going to stop OTHER people, people who don't like us, from building these reactors?

America won't build them. That doesn't stop other people from building them.

Not one bit.

I don't understand this "U233=bad" argument at all.

How does America stop China from building them if thorium reactors are so bad?

>> No.3089445

>>3089425

Jesus Christ. The experts in OP's VERY FIRST LINK are of the opinion that Thorium reactors are not suitable for the generation of weapons grade fissle material. I trust them over a retard sage'ing a legitimate thread in the hope that it won't get bumped so he can have the last word and sleep tonight.

Your move, moron.

>> No.3089448

>Japan was trying to build "Fuji" LFTR
>After march tsunami and coal company led hysteria fuck fest/derp fest on nuclear...
>"Fuji" LFuckingTR project on hold.

Fuck my life
*throws desk*

>> No.3089455

Anti-thorium guy was a Modfaggot.

>> No.3089458

>>3089448

Lol @ these fucking tards.

If the plants at Fukushima had been LFTR's they be up and running and providing power to the damaged areas as we speak.

I've also seen nothing reported about the fact that the plants at Fukushima were run by people who repeatedly attempted to skirt regulations and were warned in 2008 by the IAEA that this would happen if there was an EQ above 7.0 in magnitude.

>> No.3089460

>>3089445
"of the opinion". In other words, not a fact. And that's a nice appeal to authority there. Again, specify what numbers you have to specify you initial claims. Or is the extent of your knowledge the youtube videos and /sci/ posts?

>> No.3089461

>>3089075
>minor problem
it's fucking 2000 microsieverts per hour for a critical core, even with really good refinement during breeding. that;s not minor

>> No.3089471

>>3089096
this is why i'm having trouble taking what you say seriously

>> No.3089476

>>3089171
>>3089181
>>3089187
>>3089192
>>3089197
no, israel will
and they'll do it like a boss

>> No.3089481

>>3089460
They know better than you do, asshole.

Hey, we got a sticky for the fucking homework threads, you summerfags. Check yourself there.

>> No.3089505

So, if America doesn't build thorium reactors, no-one else will, right?

India and China are giving up on their Thorium reactor programs, yes?

Because I can't see any other reason to stop building thorium reactors.

>> No.3089509

>>3089460

Fine, take issue with my unfortunate choice of the term "of the opinion." They're of that opinion in the same way physicists are of the opinion that the ideal gas equation is the best way to demonstrate the relationship between temperature, pressure and volume of a given number of moles of gas.

I mean listen you "not a fact." How about you just watch the lecture and see for yourself? It's 16 minute of your life, for god's sake.

>> No.3089530

>>3089323
>You alluded to some crunched "numbers" that show that the gamma radiation coming from weapons grade fissle material is very close the that coming from U232.
Excuse me? No, I said: "There is equally energetic gamma radiation from any weapons-grade material. It is only somewhat more intense in thorium-bred material."

"Somewhat more intense" is not "very close the that". It is somewhat more intense.

There is no single set of numbers. U-233 varies widely in U-232 content, by factors of over 1000. People operating a reactor can produce U-233 with very low U-233 content (measured in ppm), while processes for breeding fuel U-233 are normally optimized to produce large amounts (1% or even higher) of U-232 to discourage use in bombs (one of the major design features of LFTRs is that by chemical processes they greatly REDUCE production of U-232).

However, even with 1% or 2% U-232 content, U-233 is usable in bombs, although I would not recommend the use of a beryllium reflector (as it tends to give off neutrons when irradiated with energetic gammas). Otherwise, the gamma radiation presents only handling difficulties easily overcome by waldos.

(too long)

>> No.3089540

cont. from >>3089530

The half-value of lead shielding for 2.6 MeV gamma rays is under 2 cm. 10 cm would block 99% of gamma emissions, 20 cm 99.99%, and so forth. For any degree of attenuation needed, a relatively modest thickness of shielding can be found, for handling safety and concealment purposes. Any gamma-sensitive electronics can easily be protected by directional shielding, without adding significantly to the weight of the device (the shield only needs to shadow the electronics). This is not to mention the shielding provided by the tamper, which can be counted on for a 100-1000-fold attenuation.

This is problematic for conventional strategic or tactical nuclear weapons, but not for terroristic uses, or for the insidious strategy of smuggling nuclear weapons into major cities during peacetime to ensure MAD through hostage cities.

And, again, this is assuming the worst case of deliberately adulterated U-233 with the most severe gamma radiation intensity, not U-233 intentionally produced for weapons with 1/1000th gamma intensity.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that "being able to run the numbers" is a very different thing from merely "knowing some numbers". I can't just tell you some numbers and you'll instantly understand the considerations at play.

>> No.3089546

>>3089509
It's a law, based on three important laws in thermodynamics. That's not in any way a good comparison. And are you going to specify the numbers you have to substantiate your claims? Or will you keep cherrypicking points?

>> No.3089553

>>3089530
>>3089540
Yeah, some asshole posting on 4chan knows better than someone who actually works in the field.

Go fuck yourself, faggot. It's what you're good at.

>> No.3089569

>>3089553
See what I get? I just start to scratch the surface of the nitty-gritty, and I get "tl;dr ur on 4chan".

>> No.3089580

>>3089460
here are your numbers
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html
in a thorium reactor, where U232 isn't removed but amplified with each pass through the filtration units, the end percentage of U232 is something like 1% of your U233.....that's a lot.
and that adds up to 2000-3000 microsieverts per hour of pure cell-raping gamma coming from the solid core of your hypothetical weapon. the guys working on the plant in fukushima were dealing with 500 per hour and they had to take breaks every 5 or so just to keep up. this core would be lethal to anyone working on it if they didn't have any shielding

if they DID have shielding and remote manipulation robots and all the equipment therein, they could indeed build their bomb. except they would need to then shield their bomb very very very heavily. i'd guess a foot or two of lead. and even THEN the gamma wouldn't be totally marginalized, and easy to detect by people looking for it (who would be alerted to its existence by the fact that people were buying lots of shielding and remote manipulation robots and hiring bomb experts)
it's just all around a hot mess for anyone trying to build a bomb, and there's no way they would get all the way to launching one without being detected by SOMEBODY.

it's easier just to build a plutonium weapon, honestly. and if LFTRs go mainstream you can bet regulatory bodies will be watching that U233 very closely, and thus plutonium might even become easier than it already is

>> No.3089581

>>3089569
If you're Thorium fearmonger, what's to stop other countries from building reactors?

>> No.3089620

>>3089530
>by chemical processes they greatly REDUCE production of U-232

They do no such thing. Both U233 and U232 exclusively transmute between Th and Pa isotopes as intermediates, which means there is no point in the decay chain that allows for chemical separation of the atoms that will become one or the other final isotope.

High U232 contamination of a LFTR's fuel core is inevitable. This is not a problem for power generation, only for proliferation.

>> No.3089631

>>3089581
That's what I thought. Nothing. ONLY America can't have thorium reactors.

WHY IS IT ONLY AMERICA CAN'T HAVE THORIUM REACTORS?

>> No.3089634
File: 2 KB, 209x187, 1271571950821.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089634

>>3089581
this here is the issue lurking in the background.

say we don't build one, say the proliferation risk is too high. say we agree with the EU and russia not to build one.

...well...uh..china's well on it's way to booting one up. once they get one going...sucks for us, the proliferation potential is here anyway (and might be more since the chinese probably don't care as much) and we screwed ourselves out of a fantastic energy source.
At this point it's a fight against inevitability. better to build some and have a very clear understanding of how to find those trying to misuse it, then sit on the sidelines and watch it happen anyway

>> No.3089637

>>3089569

No, what you get is this: What you said doesn't make sense and stop making assumptions about the people you're talking to.

The logistical problems are not such that any random arab rabble can smuggle a nuclear weapon into your country.

The logisitical problems surrounding the creation and maintenance of a U233 nuclear weapon, I think evidenced by what you just said, are such that Thorium reactors are not significant threats with respect to proliferation.

Thanks for the assumption that you can't just "tell me some numbers" and sufficiently illustrate to me the "considerations at play." However, forgetting that your last sentence sounds like it was structured by a 19 year old kid who has no idea what he's talking about, it ironically sounds as if your understanding itself doesn't go much deeper than just a piddling possession of a few numbers.

Do you have a PhD in nuclear physics? No? Well then you're really in a position to be shooting down the statements of several people who do.

>> No.3089651

>>3089634

Yup. I'm certainly not one to buy into the vilification of another country by the colluding efforts of the goverment and the main stream media but I certainly don't want China being ahead of the curve on anything.

Fuck those facist scumbags.

>> No.3089655

>>3089637

then you're not really***

>> No.3089656

>>3089580
The problem with all of this reasoning is that you're acting like "anti-proliferation" means "keeping sneak-thieves from grabbing some stuff on the sly and then making a bomb in their basement". The primary meaning of anti-proliferation is preventing additional state-level entities from gaining nuclear weapons capability, and about 99% of the anti-proliferation effort is just plain discouraging the use of nuclear technology.

Any operating LFTR would contain enough easily-extracted U-233 to make a nuclear weapon. It might not be the best quality nuclear weapon or the safest thing to work on, but it could be done, and quite easily.

On top of that, the excellent neutron economy means that it could easily be modified to produce top quality weapons material.

This is not a reactor that requires occasional inspections to prevent its operators from being able to make nuclear weapons, like a conventional LWR. This is a reactor that needs to be kept physically secure at all times from anyone you don't want building nukes.

It is a huge proliferation threat.

>> No.3089660
File: 102 KB, 1161x436, Thor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089660

>>3089631
Explain why America can't have thorium reactors, and other countries can.

>> No.3089668

>>3089530
>one of the major design features of LFTRs is that by chemical processes they greatly REDUCE production of U-232

Where did you get that nonsense? Do you know how U-232 is created in the reactor?

Th-232 -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233
Th-232 -> Th-231 -> Pa-231 -> Pa-232 -> U-232

So which element can we pull out chemically to stop that U-232 from being made without losing our U-233?

SPOILER: The answer is none of them.

>> No.3089670

>>3089651
hey, i like the chinese people as a whole.
i just do not like their government, at all, for various reasons.

but you didn't address the issue, it's going to happen anyway, and standing still isn't going to help

>> No.3089671

>>3089660

Um, I think his argument is that we should be using Thorium too because other countries are working on LFTR's as we speak and will use them anyway.

>> No.3089673
File: 28 KB, 732x858, thor2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089673

Well?

>> No.3089676

>>3089671
No, Thorium Fearmonger is AGAINST America building thorium reactors.

>> No.3089677

>>3089670

I agree it's just the government.

And that's my point exactly. IMO we should be going full steam ahead with Thorium this fucking second.

>> No.3089682

>>3089677
oh, i thought you were being sarcastic
>or are you still being so?
>subtle~

>> No.3089684

>>3089668
Also the Th230 contamination in your fuel turns into U232 pretty much the same way by first becoming Th231 through neutron capture

>> No.3089686

>>3089676

Are you out of your fucking gourd? Nuka's not a fear-monger. He's building a reactor in his fucking backyard.

He JUST SAID we should be building LFTR's. You'd know that if you could fucking READ.

>> No.3089695

>>3089686
>He's building a reactor in his fucking backyard.
noooooooot anymore. i mean, i COULD build the structure, but getting the fuel is essentially impossible without getting arrested by the FBI, interrogated by the CIA, and fined millions of dollars by the NRC

>> No.3089696

>>3089682

Nope. No sarcasm.

Canadafag here. Will be volounteering for a political party here soon and will advocate for LFTR's.

Canada's electricity is already 65% hydro, 15% nuclear and 20% combustible but I think that 20 can be replaced with LFTR's and the primary and secondary benefits are such that it would stupid not to start converting right bloody now.

>> No.3089701
File: 26 KB, 630x742, thor3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089701

>>3089686
I wasn't talking about Nuka, I was talking about Thorium Frearmonger the Anonymous.

>> No.3089702

>>3089695

That's too bad, I'm sorry to hear that. Good luck with any other projects.

>> No.3089703

>>3089620
>Both U233 and U232 exclusively transmute between Th and Pa isotopes as intermediates, which means there is no point in the decay chain that allows for chemical separation of the atoms that will become one or the other final isotope.
The chemical process I was referring to was removing any protactinium from the neutron flux, a basic part of the LFTR design that both increases its breeding yield and greatly reduced U-232 production.

Most U-232 contamination is a result of neutron irradiation of protactinium 231.

The LFTR chemically removes any protactinium from the neutron flux of the reactor core, so that protactinium 233 (the decay intermediate between thorium-233, from neutron capture of thorium-233, and uranium-233), which has a large neutron capture cross-section, can decay to useful uranium-233 fuel rather than be transmuted into useless waste.

The prevention of neutron capture in protactinium 231 is a side-effect.

Moreover, it would be a simple matter to modify the reactor to include an isolated fluoride salt loop from which both protactinium AND uranium would be chemically prevented from lingering in the core and absorbing neutrons, thus largely eliminating the second (and far lesser) mechanism of u-232 production: (n,2n) reactions on U-233 itself.

>> No.3089708

>>3089702
my other project right now is some introduction to nuclear chemistry videos (hopefully i can compress it into one video) with a few satellite videos explaining different reactor designs, misconceptions surrounding fukushima, myths about nuclear power, ect.
i will then attempt to viral this hardcore, educating the public from the ground up since it's pretty damn apparent the school system is doing nothing

>> No.3089713

>>3089703
except all these modifications would be very easy to spot by an international regulatory body who knew what it was looking for. even if it was a very establish state, things like these.....get around....if you will

>> No.3089725
File: 87 KB, 679x787, thor4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089725

Thorium Fearmonger the Anonymous REALLY pisses me the fuck off.

>> No.3089732

>>3089725

Whatever, he's an idiot.

>> No.3089733

>>3089725
he's not fearmongering, just floating his issue far far far further than it needs to

>> No.3089742

If China builds LFTRs, PATENTS THEM, and trades them...

I am willing to have that future than 0 commercial LFTRs.

At this point, I'm giving up on us, [this country]. If Asia is the only place that is willing to dev and get them ready for commercial us... Tough Shit America.

>> No.3089746

>>3089725
I'm going to start posting this pic in other boards and just say

"pic unrelated"

>> No.3089750

>>3089733
I found out why:

By DARREN GOODE | 5/10/11 2:09 PM EDT

Senate Democrats announced a proposal Tuesday to repeal $21 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for the five biggest oil and gas companies and use that money to reduce the deficit.

The plan goes after some of the same industry tax incentives that Democrats and President Barack Obama have been targeting for years. The message is also largely the same as when gas prices hit $4 per gallon three years ago: Taxpayers don’t need to foot the bill to help companies earning tens of billions of dollars in profits annually.

“This bill … presents some pretty simple questions for policymakers: Do you think working class families should be the only people sacrificing to lower the deficit?” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) told reporters. “It’s time that the big five do the right thing for a change and pay their fair share."

Democrats are able to point to big profits earned by the five companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Texaco — during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011.

They are also banking on having a more salient message that the money going to the companies would help reduce the deficit — instead of Obama’s idea of putting it toward clean energy programs that would address gas prices by reducing oil dependence.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she would not have supported the measure if it went to any type of spending.

>> No.3089761

>>3089750
continued:

“There is more hot air surrounding this building about deficit reduction than any other topic right now,” said McCaskill, who joined Menendez and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) at a press conference in the Capitol Building. “And if we cannot end subsidies to the five biggest, most profitable corporations in the history of the planet … then I don’t think anyone should take us seriously about deficit reduction.”

“This should be the easiest step to reduce the deficit,” Brown echoed.

Democrats will still have to answer the question of what they are proposing to do to address gas prices — despite the general consensus that there is little, if anything, lawmakers can do at least in the short term.

“It is dishonest for any of us to say that there’s some magic wand that can be waved and bring down gas prices, unless of course we want to have government price fixing, which I don’t think any of us are interested in doing,” McCaskill said.

Menendez and Brown touted the idea of tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, while Brown also mentioned efforts to clamp down on oil market speculation and Democratic legislation allowing the Justice Department to take action against oil cartels, like OPEC, on antitrust grounds.

Republicans have emphasized expanding domestic oil and gas and other energy production. The House on Tuesday is primed to give approval to the second of three GOP bills on the calendar this month that would expedite and expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

>> No.3089766

>>3089761
continued:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Democrats and the White House over gasoline prices Tuesday morning, labeling them as little more than Jimmy Carter groupies.

“Democrats need to stop deflecting attention from their own complicity in our nation’s overdependence on foreign oil,” McConnell said at the Nuclear Energy Assembly conference in Washington, D.C. “They need to end an approach that hasn’t changed since the Jimmy Carter administration.

“Just like Carter, they’re more interested in using this crisis [of gas prices] as an excuse to push for higher taxes than they are at solving the problem itself,” McConnell said. “And just like Carter, they’re underestimating the frustration of the American people.”

The Democrats’ bill would repeal the Section 199 domestic manufacturing tax deduction for the companies, which Menendez said would amount to about $13 billion over a decade.

It also modifies “dual capacity” foreign tax credit rules that hit the companies for another $6.5 billion, he said.

Other tax incentives repealed in the bill include the tax deduction companies can earn on intangible drilling and development costs, including wages, fuel, repairs, hauling and supplies needed for the drilling of wells.

A deduction regarding capital investment — including the actual costs of discovering, purchasing and developing the well — is also limited, and royalty relief granted in 2005 energy legislation is repealed for some deepwater oil and gas production.

Industry officials say going after the tax incentives will be bad for jobs and the economy.

“More taxes would do nothing to lower prices," said Brian Johnson, senior tax adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. “They would, however, hurt the economy by reducing energy investment and the new jobs that would flow from that investment."

>> No.3089775

Thorium Fearmonger the Anonymous is a fucking stooge.

>> No.3089777

>>3089750
>>3089761
>>3089766
what does this have to do with anything?

>> No.3089779

http://www.miningnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=2391419&sectionsource=/premiumarea.asp

If there is anything 4chan can do...

Talk to miners, get them up to speed on thorium and it's applications.
Talk to physics, get them up to speed on thorium and it's applications.
Talk to your rep, get them up to speed on thorium and it's applications.

The key is getting attention of miners and mining corporations that fear a gold, silver bubble. They love new markets.

>> No.3089780

>>3089775
i've dealt with stooges, he isn't a stooge, just over-inflating an issue and making erroneous assumptions around it.

>> No.3089786
File: 61 KB, 200x200, george10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089786

>>3089779
>not using robots to mine for you
>2011

>> No.3089787 [DELETED] 
File: 47 KB, 960x720, 1268868935601.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3089787

>mfw Japan secretly developed LFTR powered gundams.

>> No.3089788

>>3089779

Use the letter that Nuka and I made.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLMBWV-pCk77mbfVESmIVFk62h25HjnW-WcRX8XEA84/edit?hl=en&pli=1
#

>> No.3089796

>>3089779
Before you make breeders you need a thorium mining supply chain.

1 step at a time.

>> No.3089843

i guess that anon left
i'll need to develop a point by point copypasta for when he returns

>> No.3089848

America doesn't need to get fancy about breeding fuel.

America has a plethora of weapons-grade material, and has got isotopic uranium enrichment down to a (literal) science.

America can fuel molten salt reactors or any advanced high-temperature reactor it wants to with highly pure U-235 or Pu-239.

America's actual nuclear technology is generations beyond the LFTR, with nuclear scientists and engineers champing at the bit to build fantastically efficient, clean, and safe reactors.

America's chief concern in nuclear policy is to avoid having the fucking world blown up. Consequently, it doesn't want to make nuclear power look too attractive and end up having a reactor on every corner and an international community and general population that regards the freedom to build reactors basic to sovereignty and essential to the economic progress of developing nations.

Think harder about where this road leads. Every little shithole country on the planet ending up with nuclear weapons is not something you just shrug off and try not to think about.

>> No.3089857

>>3089848
that is a concern, but this is why nuclear regulatory bodies exist, to prevent every little shithole country from getting this technology or using it maliciously

>> No.3089901

>>3089857
It's not a matter of regulation, it's a matter of political momentum.

If you use nuclear power and it's a thousand times cheaper and cleaner than anything else, so you use it for all of your power and have an industrial boom, you CAN'T tell poor countries they can't have it anymore just because they might use it to make nuclear weapons. Not as a community of compassionate egalitarian democracies.

Either everyone gets it, or no one gets it... So we go on treating it as dangerous and dirty and expensive and never quite as good as it sounds, maintaining the plausibility of that by tying down any really ambitious nuclear research with red tape, so nobody really wants it, and we get to go on with our peaceful lives.

Ever since the A-bomb was invented, nuclear policy has been, "So far, so good... how do we not all get blown up THIS decade?"

We're getting good at it. Not making the button look too big, red, shiny, and candy-like is part of being good at it.

I say thank god we're not all geeks, because if it was all geeks in charge, we wouldn't have lasted into the 60s.

>> No.3089909

>>3089901
Um, dirty, polluting, and expensive isn't exactly compassionate, bro.

>> No.3089910

>>3089901
well, that plan has already been thoroughly messed up by china. they'll probably have a working commercial LFTR within the decade, and then it's out of our hands either way.

>> No.3089911

>>3089901

We don't have to deny access to everyone forever. We simply set up a system in which an international body of inspectors makes sure that the technology is being used properly.

If a country doesn't agree to 100% transparency and openess they don't get to use it.

If they try they die.

>> No.3089915

>>3089857
Once the world is secure and prosperous we can let rip with the thorium and the most feasible method of doing so is to stop fucking around and make that one last leap in the direction of unfettered global ultracapitalism. I'm speaking in pragmatic terms here, presumably you are not secret ruler of the world so you can't create some fruity utopia where everything is done perfectly, you only have control over your own actions which means you have to work with what you can get. After assessing probabilities something along the lines of swaying public opinion in favor of a global capitalist system is the most feasible option to speed up the advance of technology, to do otherwise is just irresponsible.

>> No.3089916

>>3089911
or they try to fire off a missile, the missile gets shot down by a Boeing airborne laser, and the country in question pisses themselves because their hail mary just got star wars'd

>> No.3089924

>>3089910
Don't assume that China isn't doing it to yank our chain and get concessions.

The nuclear game was always about brinksmanship. The brink has just become a little more abstract.

>> No.3089926

>>3089916
I prefer the giant orbital "nailgun". Shoot a 50lb rod at the earth at mach 30 at the moving target you want to ruin. No countermeasures possible.

>> No.3089936

>>3089926
good old kinectic kill weapons
i wonder if one of those could penetrate Cheyenne mountain?

>> No.3089940

>>3089936
Honestly, I doubt it. I seem to remember that it's granite. But it's do the job against those carrier killer missiles the Chinese got.

>> No.3089951

>>3089926

Lol, sounds hilarious but is it more feasible right now than the traditional boeing laser method.

>> No.3089970

>>3089926
It will burn up or slow down excessively in the atmosphere making it less trouble to just throw conventional explosives at the target.

>> No.3089989

>>3089951
Each nail would be a 200 lb payload, with booster and accelerator, targeted by the "nailgun", a satellite that can adjust the targeting of the nail as it accelerates to it's target. Before it hits atmo, the accelerator portion ejects the nail. Gravity does the rest. We have targeting systems that would allow the satellite to target something huge like Chinese inertia missile on it's way up. It would have to be sent ahead of any fleet sent to the area.

Those planes are limited by the horizon. Distant by the curvature of the earth when the plane is in the air, but still a possible bitch.

>> No.3089997

>>3089970
Naw, we have plenty of materials to coat the tip with for heat shield. Besides, at Mach 30, the nail never actually touches it's target, the pressure wave does.

>> No.3090019

>>3089997
Terminal velocity may not depend on air resistance but it does depend on the amount of heat generated, the hardness of the material (at varying temperatures during descent) and the melting point of the material.

>> No.3090025

>>3089951
>more feasible right now than the traditional boeing laser method.
they just did several tests with an operation ABL, it shot down a launching cruise missile within 2 minutes.
shit works

>> No.3090028

>>3089970
If you worry about it slowing down, into the tip you build a... uh, what are those subs called? The ones that can 300 mph underwater?

Anyway, it'd only have to last 5 seconds. It should penetrate the atmosphere and hit it's target within that time.

>> No.3090035

>>3090025
From how far away?

>> No.3090073

>>3090028
Ah, found it. "Supercavitation" You build something similar into the tip, but for atmosphere.

>> No.3090075

>>3090035
not sure on range. hold on i'll look it up

>> No.3090097

>>3090035
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1075
it doesn't mention range, sadly.
although i wouldn't be surprised if the military discouraged them from releasing that information

>> No.3090149

>>3090097
Hmm, true.

For the atmo-supercavitator, i guess a pressure cylinder that shoots air to the back? Something that started working after it got hot?

Naa, if it's going to go through the air fast enough to only spend 5 seconds on re-entry, it needs to be going at mach 45 -before- it hits atmo. hmm...

>> No.3090459
File: 265 KB, 938x1200, trueperiment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3090459

Oh this thread has just turned out to be fantastic.

>good work guys

>> No.3091466

bump