Discussion History Main / ArmouredClosetGay

No, we\\\'re not. We\\\'re talking about it being shown as inevitable that every reactor will go Chernobyl at a hint of a problem; your \\\"worst case scenario\\\" for a modern reactor would involve levelling the containment building and a localised failure of \\\'\\\'gravity\\\'\\\' preventing control rod drop. This is getting into the kind of scenario where \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' industrial structure would blow the hell up (and refineries scatter numerous hideous chemicals for miles downwind), so it\\\'s hardly reasonable to single out nuclear power as the problem.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, I feel so safe considering that protesters have only caught piddling little mistakes, like installing parts the wrong way around. Sometimes it\\\'s valves, sometimes it\\\'s entire reactors, who cares about that? Oh, right.\\\'\\\'

And I feel safe when they screw around with outflow valves and try to derail trains carrying nuclear waste. Funny old world.

->\\\'\\\'Fusion is ALWAYS a chain reaction, otherwise h-bombs wouldn\\\'t work. The reason why tokamaks are incapable of catastrophic chain reactions is because the fuel is stored away from the reactor, injected into it in microscopic quantities, as opposed to fission reactors where it\\\'s all in a big pile.\\\'\\\'

Wrong, entirely so. \\\'\\\'Fission\\\'\\\' is a chain reaction; as each atom is split, the split atoms fly off and split \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' atoms, and so on; it\\\'s self-sustaining until it gets to the point where reactants are spaced too thinly for additional collisions to occur (nuclear test \\\"fizzles\\\" are where the chain reaction doesn\\\'t achieve a \\\"supercritical\\\" state where the rate is constantly accelerating). Fusion\\\'s products do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' themselves initiate further fusion reactions; it fuses atoms together, which does \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' make more unfused atoms to fuse together in turn. Fusion has to be actively maintained; you pull the plug on whatever\\\'s maintaining the pressure and temperature necessary, it just stops. In a hydrogen bomb, you have to start things off by detonating a fission weapon; the fusion stage only proceeds as long as the temperature and pressure of the initial detonation sustain it. Three-stage weapons might use the products of fusion to themselves start \\\'\\\'fission\\\'\\\' reactions, but they \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' start additional fusion reactions.

This is why a meltdown isn\\\'t possible in a fusion reactor regardless of design; there is no possible way it could achieve a runaway chain reaction that couldn\\\'t be halted. Sure, it could still breach and vent superheated gas (though presumably a practical design would include a containment building), but we\\\'re not saying it can\\\'t blow up here, we\\\'re saying fusion is not a TheSameButMore version of fission.

->\\\'\\\'I\\\'ve never seen it outside stock footage. Still, I guess there were so many old movies that did use stock footage, it might be worth having.\\\'\\\'

Quick google got me [[http://img411.imageshack.us/i/crysisspdemoplus3gh7.jpg/ this]].

->\\\'\\\'Of course, if a car fails or gets blown up, it can\\\'t instantly render swathes of countryside practically uninhabitable for centuries, and gasoline isn\\\'t capable of wiping humanity from the planet with a single button press.\\\'\\\'

Yeah, but if a refinery or, in current news, an oil rig goes up, it can have very much that effect. In addition, there\\\'s everything \\\'\\\'powered\\\'\\\' by combustion; like, say, the \\\'\\\'Enola Gay\\\'\\\'. And global warming. And tar sands. And leaded gasoline. Indeed, you might say the combustion engine is by far and away the most dangerous invention mankind has ever concieved of.

->\\\'\\\'You misunderstand. What I meant by “writers” wasn\\\'t “tropers reading this page, who may choose to edit it,” but “writers of fiction contemplating nuclear subject matter.” I\\\'m saying that the menacing nature of “the atom” grants it a degree of sensationalism which clouds the minds of those writing about it, and tempts them to exaggerate that quality. Mundane topics tend to be treated differently than exciting ones.\\\'\\\'

Yes, but it\\\'s still the technical nature of the subject that causes errors, while that wording is grammatically weird; it rather suggests Hollywood doesn\\\'t make errors about things that are potentially dangerous, and only does here because they\\\'re technical.

->\\\'\\\'Because we (the atomic powers) hand out nukes and fuel like candy, then act surprised when our estranged clients whip up bombs from them.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s an issue with politics, though, not technology. We had the same problem with handing out famine aid to Africa that ended up being spent on guns by warlords, but that doesn\\\'t mean it had anything to do with food.

->\\\'\\\'Precisely zero nukes (tactical or otherwise) have been fired in combat by NATO powers. That speaks volumes on real doctrine.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s because there were precisely zero massive Soviet armoured assaults on Western Europe. NATO \\\'\\\'dreaded\\\'\\\' Soviet tanks during the early Cold War; they were genuinely superior to anything the West had, and the Soviets had thousands of them. American thinking was that the Soviets would not escalate (their strategic capability not being that great at the time anyway) and would keep a war in Europe \\\'\\\'in\\\'\\\' Europe if nuclear use remained tactical. Instant escalation scenarios only started cropping up later when Western tank technology improved and NATO felt they wouldn\\\'t require battlefield nukes to fight a limited war in Europe. Remember, the tacnuke scenarios were not about \\\'\\\'winning the Cold War\\\'\\\', they were about dealing with a scenario where Russia was trying to annex Western Europe.

->\\\'\\\'Reading up on this I admit I was unaware that it\\\'s pushed as a desirable trait, instead imagining it as a liability of exotic designs like the F-117 with more important goals at best.\\\'\\\'

Well, HAVE BLUE was about trying to make a perfectly stealthy aircraft; in that instance, they found that the perfect stealthy aircraft (a thing they called the \\\"Hopeless Diamond\\\") lacks many things a plane requires to fly, such as wings. The F-117 was the closest shape to it that they could force to actually fly consistantly, so in that instance it was just odd design goals. The Stinkbug is very much a one-off, though.

Also, since you seem to use Word to type up posts: turn off smartquotes, \\\"...\\\" to ellipsis character, and slanted apostrophe substitutions. There seem to be no end of people on the site whose browsers can\\\'t parse them, and you end up with things like \\\"it?s\\\" in articles.

No, we\\\'re not. We\\\'re talking about it being shown as inevitable that every reactor will go Chernobyl at a hint of a problem; your \\\"worst case scenario\\\" for a modern reactor would involve levelling the containment building and a localised failure of \\\'\\\'gravity\\\'\\\' preventing control rod drop. This is getting into the kind of scenario where \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' industrial structure would blow the hell up (and refineries scatter numerous hideous chemicals for miles downwind), so it\\\'s hardly reasonable to single out nuclear power as the problem.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, I feel so safe considering that protesters have only caught piddling little mistakes, like installing parts the wrong way around. Sometimes it\\\'s valves, sometimes it\\\'s entire reactors, who cares about that? Oh, right.\\\'\\\'

And I feel safe when they screw around with outflow valves and try to derail trains carrying nuclear waste. Funny old world.

->\\\'\\\'Fusion is ALWAYS a chain reaction, otherwise h-bombs wouldn\\\'t work. The reason why tokamaks are incapable of catastrophic chain reactions is because the fuel is stored away from the reactor, injected into it in microscopic quantities, as opposed to fission reactors where it\\\'s all in a big pile.\\\'\\\'

Wrong, entirely so. \\\'\\\'Fission\\\'\\\' is a chain reaction; as each atom is split, the split atoms fly off and split \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' atoms, and so on; it\\\'s self-sustaining until it gets to the point where reactants are spaced too thinly for additional collisions to occur (nuclear test \\\"fizzles\\\" are where the chain reaction doesn\\\'t achieve a \\\"supercritical\\\" state where the rate is constantly accelerating). Fusion\\\'s products do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' themselves initiate further fusion reactions; it fuses atoms together, which does \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' make more unfused atoms to fuse together in turn. Fusion has to be actively maintained; you pull the plug on whatever\\\'s maintaining the pressure and temperature necessary, it just stops. In a hydrogen bomb, you have to start things off by detonating a fission weapon; the fusion stage only proceeds as long as the temperature and pressure of the initial detonation sustain it. Three-stage weapons might use the products of fusion to themselves start \\\'\\\'fission\\\'\\\' reactions, but they \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' start additional fusion reactions.

This is why a meltdown isn\\\'t possible in a fusion reactor regardless of design; there is no possible way it could achieve a runaway chain reaction that couldn\\\'t be halted. Sure, it could still breach and vent superheated gas (though presumably a practical design would include a containment building), but we\\\'re not saying it can\\\'t blow up here, we\\\'re saying fusion is not a TheSameButMore version of fission.

->\\\'\\\'I\\\'ve never seen it outside stock footage. Still, I guess there were so many old movies that did use stock footage, it might be worth having.\\\'\\\'

Quick google got me [[http://img411.imageshack.us/i/crysisspdemoplus3gh7.jpg/ this]].

->\\\'\\\'Of course, if a car fails or gets blown up, it can\\\'t instantly render swathes of countryside practically uninhabitable for centuries, and gasoline isn\\\'t capable of wiping humanity from the planet with a single button press.\\\'\\\'

Yeah, but if a refinery or, in current news, an oil rig goes up, it can have very much that effect. In addition, there\\\'s everything \\\'\\\'powered\\\'\\\' by combustion; like, say, the \\\'\\\'Enola Gay\\\'\\\'. And global warming. And tar sands. And leaded gasoline. Indeed, you might say the combustion engine is by far and away the most dangerous invention mankind has ever concieved of.

->\\\'\\\'You misunderstand. What I meant by “writers” wasn\\\'t “tropers reading this page, who may choose to edit it,” but “writers of fiction contemplating nuclear subject matter.” I\\\'m saying that the menacing nature of “the atom” grants it a degree of sensationalism which clouds the minds of those writing about it, and tempts them to exaggerate that quality. Mundane topics tend to be treated differently than exciting ones.\\\'\\\'

Yes, but it\\\'s still the technical nature of the subject that causes errors, while that wording is grammatically weird; it rather suggests Hollywood doesn\\\'t make errors about things that are potentially dangerous, and only does here because they\\\'re technical.

->\\\'\\\'Because we (the atomic powers) hand out nukes and fuel like candy, then act surprised when our estranged clients whip up bombs from them.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s an issue with politics, though, not technology. We had the same problem with handing out famine aid to Africa that ended up being spent on guns by warlords, but that doesn\\\'t mean it had anything to do with food.

->\\\'\\\'Precisely zero nukes (tactical or otherwise) have been fired in combat by NATO powers. That speaks volumes on real doctrine.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s because there were precisely zero massive Soviet armoured assaults on Western Europe. NATO \\\'\\\'dreaded\\\'\\\' Soviet tanks during the early Cold War; they were genuinely superior to anything the West had, and the Soviets had thousands of them. American thinking was that the Soviets would not escalate (their strategic capability not being that great at the time anyway) and would keep a war in Europe \\\'\\\'in\\\'\\\' Europe if nuclear use remained tactical. Bilateral MAD only came into play later when Western tank technology improved and NATO felt they wouldn\\\'t require battlefield nukes to fight a limited war in Europe.

->\\\'\\\'Reading up on this I admit I was unaware that it\\\'s pushed as a desirable trait, instead imagining it as a liability of exotic designs like the F-117 with more important goals at best.\\\'\\\'

Well, HAVE BLUE was about trying to make a perfectly stealthy aircraft; in that instance, they found that the perfect stealthy aircraft (a thing they called the \\\"Hopeless Diamond\\\") lacks many things a plane requires to fly, such as wings. The F-117 was the closest shape to it that they could force to actually fly consistantly, so in that instance it was just odd design goals. The Stinkbug is very much a one-off, though.

Also, since you seem to use Word to type up posts: turn off smartquotes, \\\"...\\\" to ellipsis character, and slanted apostrophe substitutions. There seem to be no end of people on the site whose browsers can\\\'t parse them, and you end up with things like \\\"it?s\\\" in articles.

No, we\\\'re not. We\\\'re talking about it being shown as inevitable that every reactor will go Chernobyl at a hint of a problem; your \\\"worst case scenario\\\" for a modern reactor would involve levelling the containment building and a localised failure of \\\'\\\'gravity\\\'\\\' preventing control rod drop. This is getting into the kind of scenario where \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' industrial structure would blow the hell up (and refineries scatter numerous hideous chemicals for miles downwind), so it\\\'s hardly reasonable to single out nuclear power as the problem.

->\\\'\\\'Wow, I feel so safe considering that protesters have only caught piddling little mistakes, like installing parts the wrong way around. Sometimes it\\\'s valves, sometimes it\\\'s entire reactors, who cares about that? Oh, right.\\\'\\\'

And I feel safe when they screw around with outflow valves and try to derail trains carrying nuclear waste. Funny old world.

->\\\'\\\'Fusion is ALWAYS a chain reaction, otherwise h-bombs wouldn\\\'t work. The reason why tokamaks are incapable of catastrophic chain reactions is because the fuel is stored away from the reactor, injected into it in microscopic quantities, as opposed to fission reactors where it\\\'s all in a big pile.\\\'\\\'

Wrong, entirely so. \\\'\\\'Fission\\\'\\\' is a chain reaction; as each atom is split, the split atoms fly off and split \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' atoms, and so on; it\\\'s self-sustaining until it gets to the point where reactants are spaced too thinly for additional collisions to occur (nuclear test \\\"fizzles\\\" are where the chain reaction doesn\\\'t achieve a \\\"supercritical\\\" state where the rate is constantly accelerating). Fusion\\\'s products do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' themselves initiate further fusion reactions; it fuses atoms together, which does \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' make more unfused atoms to fuse together in turn. Fusion has to be actively maintained; you pull the plug on whatever\\\'s maintaining the pressure and temperature necessary, it just stops. In a hydrogen bomb, you have to start things off by detonating a fission weapon; the fusion stage only proceeds as long as the temperature and pressure of the initial detonation sustain it. Three-stage weapons might use the products of fusion to themselves start \\\'\\\'fission\\\'\\\' reactions, but they \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' start additional fusion reactions.

->\\\'\\\'I\\\'ve never seen it outside stock footage. Still, I guess there were so many old movies that did use stock footage, it might be worth having.\\\'\\\'

Quick google got me [[http://img411.imageshack.us/i/crysisspdemoplus3gh7.jpg/ this]].

->\\\'\\\'Of course, if a car fails or gets blown up, it can\\\'t instantly render swathes of countryside practically uninhabitable for centuries, and gasoline isn\\\'t capable of wiping humanity from the planet with a single button press.\\\'\\\'

Yeah, but if a refinery or, in current news, an oil rig goes up, it can have very much that effect. In addition, there\\\'s everything \\\'\\\'powered\\\'\\\' by combustion; like, say, the \\\'\\\'Enola Gay\\\'\\\'. And global warming. And tar sands. And leaded gasoline. Indeed, you might say the combustion engine is by far and away the most dangerous invention mankind has ever concieved of.

->\\\'\\\'You misunderstand. What I meant by “writers” wasn\\\'t “tropers reading this page, who may choose to edit it,” but “writers of fiction contemplating nuclear subject matter.” I\\\'m saying that the menacing nature of “the atom” grants it a degree of sensationalism which clouds the minds of those writing about it, and tempts them to exaggerate that quality. Mundane topics tend to be treated differently than exciting ones.\\\'\\\'

Yes, but it\\\'s still the technical nature of the subject that causes errors, while that wording is grammatically weird; it rather suggests Hollywood doesn\\\'t make errors about things that are potentially dangerous, and only does here because they\\\'re technical.

->\\\'\\\'Because we (the atomic powers) hand out nukes and fuel like candy, then act surprised when our estranged clients whip up bombs from them.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s an issue with politics, though, not technology. We had the same problem with handing out famine aid to Africa that ended up being spent on guns by warlords, but that doesn\\\'t mean it had anything to do with food.

->\\\'\\\'Precisely zero nukes (tactical or otherwise) have been fired in combat by NATO powers. That speaks volumes on real doctrine.\\\'\\\'

That\\\'s because there were precisely zero massive Soviet armoured assaults on Western Europe. NATO \\\'\\\'dreaded\\\'\\\' Soviet tanks during the early Cold War; they were genuinely superior to anything the West had, and the Soviets had thousands of them. American thinking was that the Soviets would not escalate (their strategic capability not being that great at the time anyway) and would keep a war in Europe \\\'\\\'in\\\'\\\' Europe if nuclear use remained tactical. Bilateral MAD only came into play later when Western tank technology improved and NATO felt they wouldn\\\'t require battlefield nukes to fight a limited war in Europe.

->\\\'\\\'Reading up on this I admit I was unaware that it\\\'s pushed as a desirable trait, instead imagining it as a liability of exotic designs like the F-117 with more important goals at best.\\\'\\\'

Well, HAVE BLUE was about trying to make a perfectly stealthy aircraft; in that instance, they found that the perfect stealthy aircraft (a thing they called the \\\"Hopeless Diamond\\\") lacks many things a plane requires to fly, such as wings. The F-117 was the closest shape to it that they could force to actually fly consistantly, so in that instance it was just odd design goals. The Stinkbug is very much a one-off, though.

Also, since you seem to use Word to type up posts: turn off smartquotes, \\\"...\\\" to ellipsis character, and slanted apostrophe substitutions. There seem to be no end of people on the site whose browsers can\\\'t parse them, and you end up with things like \\\"it?s\\\" in articles.

That would be an \\\'\\\'event\\\'\\\'. By activating the mixer, he caused the plutonium (200 times purer than it should have been) to seperate and achieve criticality. It wasn\\\'t just a normal source of decay radiation, it was a 200 microsecond \\\'\\\'burst\\\'\\\' of high-intensity radiation.