circular saw armature resistance

And a lot of better educated people as well. You seem determined to place yourself in the 'poorly educated' camp.

In which case, I'm tempted to question how you can live with yourself.

At least for those with the wit to consult wikipedia and other sources.

That's not really true. Many have attempted to explain and even provided links to more detailed information on this subject. As for being 'able to do it economically', you need to compare the costs involved in the current four decades old reactors to regain some perspective.

If you think LFTR is going to be expensive, look at the massive expenditure that was required to set up the current fast breeder reactors.

That was a project that could only be funded by government budgetry expenditure levels and was only ever justified by the military's requirements at the start of the Cold War period.

The military would have been quite happy to simply dissipate the 'waste heat' to atmosphere if they could have got away with it. Adding steam turbine driven generators and calling the whole package a "Nuclear Power Station" rather trying to hide a "Weapons grade Plutonium manufacturing plant" out of sight meant they could then be hidden in plain sight (if in rather remote and heavily secured locations).

The problem of trying to hide the 'heat signature' disappeared as a consequence of this neat bit of 'lateral thinking' and the electrical energy production not only helped to subsidise the operation, it also made such facilities an "Easier Sell" to their electorate (at least until the naive anti-war, anti-nuclear, eco-warrior, greenies got wise in sufficient enough numbers to make their very real, if exagerated, concerns heard in the media).

If that is true, it behoves you to provide links to these sources. There's no point in making such unsubstantiated claims if you wish to have any chance whatsoever of winning people over to your point of view.

That statement alone shows that you have no concept of 'The Real World' and it's political modus operandi in regard to such large scale undertakings.

The German's response to the Fukushima 'incident' is very reminiscent of a bunch of headless chickens running around in a blind panic. Their response to shut down their nuclear power generation facilities was an unconsidered knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate combination of a natural disaster and lack of foresight in the design and siting of the reactor - a situation that didn't really apply to any of the german nuclear reactors afaik.

You have to keep in mind that it was the American military who funded the early MSR research up to the point where they were running a couple of test reactors before the need to power a fleet of nuclear powered nuclear bombers for weeks long patrols was rendered redundent by the development of ICBMs at which point they swiftly closed this secret project down to concentrate on the development of their other, equally secretive at the time, weapons grade plutonium manufacturing plants (aka, nuclear power stations).

Unlike the nuclear power station technology, the MSR research remained a secret until about a decade ago (I'm not sure exactly when _this_ particular cat was let out of the bag since I haven't been able to unearth a timeline for the recent interest in MSR and its renaming to LFTR).

At the time, it certainly wouldn't have been in the military's best interest to admit of the possibility of a potentially cheaper and safer way to generate vast quantities of electical energy from nuclear power when their priority was to build up weapons grade Plutonium stocks to make their 'Nuclear Deterent" policy a credible reality.

Here's yet another example of 'real world politics' shaping the technological development of our 'modern' societies.

You might think we'd have cause to complain about the "suppression of a safe nuclear power technology" by the military but anyone with half a brain would realise that world events dictated that this should be so.

Now that the military have all the plutonium they could ever use in anger (and then some!), the need to keep running all those Plutonium manufacturing plants has disappeared. Indeed, the existance of those nuclear reactors has long since become an embarrassment and the military are more than happy to have let the cat out of the bag in regard of their MSR research, especially as the priority has switched from making Plutonium to finding alternative sources of energy that can't so readily be held to ransom by hostile foreign powers.

In particular, the heading off of a third World War due to a mad scramble to acquire ownership of rapidly dwindling fossil fuel resources in 'foreign lands'. Even the military can see the futility of 'defending' a 'Way of Life' that's destined to not be worth defending in the event of an all out Nuclear Holocaust.

As things stand, if anything, the need to develop LFTR is now at a much higher priority than the Cold War inspired nuclear reactor development program ever was. If anything, this is one bit of nuclear technology the military would like to see proliferated wordwide since it takes the pressure off in regard to making a final suicidal dash for resources.

Reply to
Johny B Good
Loading thread data ...

Yes, if you know where to look and what your looking for but that still doesn't stop anyone putting their own colour of spin on it does it ?..

Bury it, bury it deep in stable rock formations until we find or develop something better!..

Are you really going the have your head stuck where the sun don't shine all your life?. Of course there aren't as yet tried and working versions if you look back over history this has been happening since Christ knows when or whoever was around before him.

There will always be people around saying it can't be done whilst thankfully there are those who just get on with it and DO IT!..

Your starting to sound like that prat Dionysius Lardner who plagued Brunel whilst he got on with it and did it, he came up with crap like this.

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."

Don't take all you read on the net as gospel truth now will you;!...

What lies exactly?.

Who said anything is that easy?, we just have to look forward and keep trying and not "try" others doing so!...

Like the "Green" movement...

Reply to
tony sayer

You are a bloody half wit. Unused fuel is removed from the material being reprocessed, leaving behind unwanted/ unusable material. It not magically returned to its previous state.

Reply to
harryagain

You are a bloody half wit. The used fuel is processed to extract the remaining fuel leaving behind a residue of unwanted/unusable material that is the waste. I'ts not magically returned to it's previous state.

And much nuclear weapons material is unsuitabe for use in a reactor.

Reply to
harryagain

He's an idiot because he thinks that because he connects his starter motor to a DC supply , it works on DC. It's like saying that because your petrol engine works on cold petrol, it is not a heat engine.

Reply to
harryagain

And there were always people around happy to kill/shorten people'sl ives to make money. Eg the tobacco industry who found "experts" to prove that tobacco was harmless.

And there are people out there think "Star Trek" is for real. There have been plenty of false trails. There has been several failed expensive attempts to bury nuclear waste.

formatting link

And don't you either.

The first lie was that nuclar electricity would be too cheap to meter.

Also, various nuclear cockups hae been hidden from the public for years.

formatting link

You shouldn't start down any path when you don't know the outcome. Especially when the possible consequences are so dangerous.

Expecting your children to bail you out is not on.

Reply to
harryagain

Unless that reactor is designed to use it. It is mixed with unenriched uranium to make reactor fuel.

Reply to
John Williamson

With that attitude, we'd all still be existing in caves or sleeping in trees dotted round the African savannah, eating raw meat and starving because there aren't enough berries on the bushes. Nobody would have dared dig up those nice nutritious tubers or gone near a fire to find out that cooked meat was safer to eat and tasted better.

So what's *your* excuse for doing it?

Reply to
John Williamson

Harry already knows we have been using plutonium as fuel in reactors for many years. He just hopes everyone else doesn't know so he can lie about things.

Reply to
dennis
8<

That would be you harry! in star trek they have radioactive waste so dangerous it can poison space itself and they can't even dump it in a star. Must have been sponsored by FoE or have dim wits like you.

Reply to
dennis

He isn't expecting his kids to bail him out, he expects everyone else's kids to bail him out.

Reply to
dennis

You're an idiot to be in denial that a DC motor runs on DC. What happens inside the motor are various techniques to create rotary motion. Yet it is a DC motor.

To take your stand. You must be an idiot if you think there is any such thing as a petrol engine. The first thing that happens is that petrol is creates heat. There is no such thing as a petrol engine, just heat engines.

Given your previous posts I presume you would concur with the above statement?

Reply to
Fredxxx

In article , harryagain scribeth thus

I do suppose they did like Ford did once it does happen..

Bit like all human endeavour theres the good and the not so good and the bad..

Nuclear weapons = Bad!..

Nuclear power = Good..

Yes and who believe in "Corrie"

Yes..

Hardly worth reading that..

That was a reasonable belief held at that time..

Like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, most see that as a very bad thing. I once had a discussion with a Japanese girl about that she was descended from a survivor and has had no real effects inherited from her parents. She even agreed that it was "necessary" to end a war that would have gone on much longer and in the end would have killed many more on Both belligerent and other side's. She said that if her country had the A bomb then they'd have used it too..

Course accidents happen, they have been happening for many years in all endeavours. Over time mining and road traffic accidents have killed far far more. The nuclear industry is one of the safest and most highly regulated in the world..

In the UK, government stats, 1713 last year killed and 21,657 seriously injured mind you its getting better 3172 were killed in 2006!...

If we did that we'd still be up in the trees Harry, all endeavour carries risk all of it . Flying was dangerous at one time nowadays how many passenger fatalities are there a year . For example how many passenger deaths have Ryanair and Easyjet had since their inception?..

Look that up..

As above its all dangerous expect nuclear is less so..

Bail me out mate!, I bloody well bail them out!...

>
Reply to
tony sayer

You're assuming that the information has got past his built in ignore it filter. "La, la, la, I can't hear you."

Reply to
John Williamson

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.