Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
25,016
Posts
490,949
Members
27,639
Latest Member
christopherenberg101
What's New?

NavyChief, Gates Agrees With You on Going Nuclear!!!

R

Restart

VIP Member
Jan 3, 2019
163
133
That top link will give a break down instead of brother Marcus's comments
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
I'm the worst example of a Christian but we're talking about looking towards Bill Gates for solutions? He's a major cause OF them.

https://banned.video/channel/bill-gates-is-evil- pick a vid

Nobody is a good example, my iron bro!...Only Christ was the perfect example!...

I should've titled this thread in the area of Nuclear Reactors...I only posted that vid because of that particular aspect...Micky Mouse could have said that about nuclear reactors and I would have posted it...I don't look to Gates as an solution...I'm like LG on it, he's just a software designer to me...I didn't even pay attention to the other stuff he was talking about...Went in one ear, and out the other....Again, the nuclear reactor part is what caught my attention....Hope this helps in clearing up my view of Gates...
.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
690
568
Pardon my ignorance, NC.....I've got to study this subject in depth...All I've done is read blotches of articles on it...Thanks for the clarification....:)

Gates made it sound like the water was the issue in that vid...How can he not be called out on that?... water is the issue in that it has to be under intense high pressure to be super heated enough to heat the water that turns to steam.
Changing that is fine to what they want to do.
Issue is they said the water cools the rods and that is bullshitvlike I said, as the water is what needs heated under pressure to super heat the secondary loop for steam.



So, what actually causes the meltdown?...Does the neutrons fail or rods fail in some way?... keep up and read that link :)
Control rods with hafnium absorb neutrons and keep the heat low. When rods are removed, more heat is produced. To much heat equals to much pressure equals huge explosion.

Chernobyl over heated because of many errors but ultimately could not push the rods into the reactor and thus boom.



I've read a few articles on this as well...But don't trust them now...*LOL*...I can see tho where this would be an good idea!

NC, can u direct me to a site that will give me a good understanding of how nuclear reactors work?...Thanks in advance!....:)
.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
water is the issue in that it has to be under intense high pressure to be super heated enough to heat the water that turns to steam.
Changing that is fine to what they want to do.
Issue is they said the water cools the rods and that is bullshitvlike I said, as the water is what needs heated under pressure to super heat the secondary loop for steam.
Gotcha!...That was still an brutal mislead of info....So, would we have to replace the secondary loop of water with liquid sodium as well or leave it as is?....

So, what actually causes the meltdown?...Does the neutrons fail or rods fail in some way?... keep up and read that link :)
Control rods with hafnium absorb neutrons and keep the heat low. When rods are removed, more heat is produced. To much heat equals to much pressure equals huge explosion.
Chernobyl over heated because of many errors but ultimately could not push the rods into the reactor and thus boom.
Ok...So why mess with the rods to begin with?...Do they need replacing due to, too much neutron absorption?...So what u are saying is, we don't have a way of controlling the heat level absolute?...Like a crap shoot?...We're rolling the dice and hoping the heat doesn't get out of control?...Not good, brah if right?....

I did a google on liquid sodium and it came back saying Russia is already using this tech in two of it' reactors...WTF?....Is Gates that out of date or did i post an vid that is ancient?...

I'm in the process of reading the link, but got sidetracked with wikipedia in regards to how the reaction works (neutron and uranium)...

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to work with me on this, my iron bro.....Extremely intriguing to say the least!...
.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
NC, u wouldn't happen to know a fella by the name of Frank Myers, would ya?...He is/was a lawyer in Tallahassee, fl...My step-father was friends with him and I became acquainted via a civil matter...He and I would chat off-record occasionally and I remember him showing me a pic of a nuclear sub that he was stationed on during his naval career...
.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
So, I've read the link briefly...I'm a little confused at the moment...From what I'm comprehending in regards to the navy's system for ships and subs, it appears that u don't have to maintenance this system, where as on commercial systems they do...How are they able to not change the rods in the naval system, yet they do for commercial systems?...Why don't they build commercial systems the same way?...wouldn't that alleviate the chance of melt down?...
.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
Last comment for the day on this...Finished looking at the 2nd schematic...What an awesome design!...The water in the reactor is never dissapated... it *should* heat (in the reactor section) to a temp that will boil the water in the steam generator, therefore generating steam which is then piped to the turbine to turn it...Then, the steam is circulated back into the steam genrarator by condensing it back to water!...Continuous self-sustaining loop, in both cases...Brilliant design, man!....
.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,599
406
So NC, I've been researching reactors a tad, shad of a bit...I didn't realize there are so many "kinds"...The reactor that the Russians were using when the meltdown occurred in regards to Chernobyl seems like was one that could have been avoided...Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but from the way I'm understanding it, the operators were in the process of performing an "safety" check on the reactors system(s)....The reactor however was in a state of low energy and didn't have enough power to run the safety check....So, they decided to manipulate the control rods and perhaps a few other things to get the reactor up to speed so to speak...It appears that they broke some rules in doing so....Hence, the disaster ....

After further investigation (research) it seem like the Russians knew this was not the BEST CHOICE (design) for an commercial reactor?....However, I also found out that this reactor was good at producing a by-product (plutonium)....Turns out, supposedly this was the sole reason that they chose to use this "kind" of reactor...It was basically being used to produce plutonium for future weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons)....From what I gather, the Russians were using this type of reactor as a "front" to make the plutonium....In other words, they could have chose a better design to use for the supposed application (to produce power for their citizens)....

That my friend is a sad display of lack of care for human life!....Is this the way u see it as to what happened at Chernobyl?....

.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
690
568
The short version of events and why the same thing will/can not happen to our reactors.

1st - They fucked with and overrode safety systems, stupid and a no-no.
2nd - The reactor design was flawed. Control rods were designed to be electro-hydraulically pushed into the reactor from below, for cooling and fission control. when all heated up, rods could not be pushed into the reactor core to gain control of fission. Overheated and blew the fukk up.


Our reactors are designed with control rods on top of the core. They are held up by electro-hydraulics. When everything fails and goes to hell, the rods fail-safe is to be released (because they have nothing to hold them up in position) and they fall into the reactor instead of having to be pushed upwards. Simple design difference that makes all the difference in the world.

So, if our operators had cut safety systems like the Russians had, our rods would have dropped before this process started. In their case, the systems were offline to do this on their own (push the rods up) and when they tried manually, it was too little too late, too many systems offline and they couldn't get it done. Sucks for them, cool for the new 3 headed deer that live there.
 
rawdeal

rawdeal

TID Board Of Directors
Nov 29, 2013
2,887
1,714
BackAtIt, please ask NC to distinguish between what happened at Russia's Chernobyl and our Three Mile Island, cause I'd really like to bag a 24 point Buck here instead of having to go over there and if Sonny Bono's Ex was originally Cher Ignoble before changing her name to please the record industry. Thank you.
 
NavyChief

NavyChief

VIP Member
Sep 26, 2013
690
568
I like short versions RD.
Here is the short version of 3 mile Island.

Valve stuck open and steam from the loop blew out the top. That steam (water once condensed) is considered radio-active. Shit sprayed around a little as steam and made a puddle on the floor, before it was all caught and shut down.

That amount of liquid was barely enough after cleaned up with chem-wipes, to fill a 5 gallon bucket.

Differences; cherynobl was a complete meltdown and blew up. People died.
3 mile Island was a steam leak and was contained right where the water was sprayed. No one even got as much radiation as you would with 1 hour at the beach or 1 xray.
 
Top