|
Cars are stupid, nuclear powered hypersonic ramjets are where it's at.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Cars are stupid, nuclear powered hypersonic ramjets are where it's at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto Bomb the enemy, and salt their corpses with radiation 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto If you're ever in the middle of nowhere in Idaho, I recommend visiting EBR-1 (first electricity generating nuclear power yay):  The big metal things in the lower left are the two test reactors from the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program. They're pretty cool to walk around.  You can also see the giant concrete hanger they built for the nuclear planes in the distance and they have a radiation shielded tractor there too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, I know. I won't rest till I get a nuclear tank powered by the reactor under my crotch~
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
So roughly how big a hunk of Plutonium would I need to get a decent amount of horsepower out of an RTG?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:So roughly how big a hunk of Plutonium would I need to get a decent amount of horsepower out of an RTG? So according to wikipedia "one gram of plutonium-238 generates approximately 0.5 watts of thermal power." so at 750 watts and ~20% thermoelectric efficiency it's ~7.5 kg/HP. Also you need a heatsink that can dissipate the 3.5 kW, so if you want to heat something at the same time it's just dandy. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So according to wikipedia "one gram of plutonium-238 generates approximately 0.5 watts of thermal power." so at 750 watts and ~20% thermoelectric efficiency it's ~7.5 kg/HP. Also you need a heatsink that can dissipate the 3.5 kW, so if you want to heat something at the same time it's just dandy. Get on it American auto industry. Edit: And the heater would be fantastic!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I sort of like the idea of a 9,000lb, 500HP, nuclear powered muscle car. The soviets made a bunch of RTG-powered weather stations and lighthouses and then forgot about them or lost them, you can probably grab some still-functioning RTG's from bumfuck nowhere Siberia and make one yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:The soviets made a bunch of RTG-powered weather stations and lighthouses and then forgot about them or lost them, you can probably grab some still-functioning RTG's from bumfuck nowhere Siberia and make one yourself. You'd need quite a few of them to power more than a golf cart, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You'd need quite a few of them to power more than a golf cart, honestly. This is true, the best the Soviets made was the IEU-1M, 120 Watts at 1050 kg. http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/N...m_paper_Eng.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Any details on the US/Indian nuclear deal? Seems like India might be willing to give manufacturers unlimited liability protection, which has been a sticking point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is true, the best the Soviets made was the IEU-1M, 120 Watts at 1050 kg. Who the hell wrote that and why do they still say "plumbum" and "wolfram"  VV I kinda figured it was weirdly translated... VV Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Who the hell wrote that and why do they still say "plumbum" and "wolfram" Russian researchers, and its still a word in Russia, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Who the hell wrote that and why do they still say "plumbum" and "wolfram" The Russian word for "Tungsten" is вольфра́м (Wolfram) so it's just a direct translation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Who the hell wrote that and why do they still say "plumbum" and "wolfram" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niobium#Naming_of_the_element
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Who the hell wrote that and why do they still say "plumbum" and "wolfram" Who the hell says tungsten instead of Wolfram outside America?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Who the hell says tungsten instead of Wolfram outside America? English is the international language of science and engineering, so... pretty much everybody with a technical background?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:English is the international language of science and engineering, so... pretty much everybody with a technical background? how about most of the world that's not the USA? http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=wolfram%2C%20tungsten&cmpt=q&tz=
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
double nine posted:how about most of the world that's not the USA? Half of that is Wolfram Alpha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
double nine posted:how about most of the world that's not the USA? Uhhh
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Half of that is Wolfram Alpha. Almost all of it is. Scroll to the bottom, you see the searches. code:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
well butts. Didn't consider WA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
When I learned German, we were taught those names for the elements. Carbon was Kohlenstoff, Hydrogen was Wasserstoff, Oxygen was Sauerstoff, Lead was Plumbum, Tungsten was Wolfram, Potassium was Kalium, and so on (although the IUPAC symbols were used regardless). Perhaps conventions have changed in the decades since then, but I assumed every language had its own common names for the elements that differed from the English versions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Minor nitpick: "plumbum" is Latin for lead, the German word is "Blei". But yeah, those elements which have been known for some centuries tend to have their own names in different languages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Tungsten is the IUPAC name for the element, so far as I know it's the scientifically standard one? For the longest time I didn't know wolfram was a thing, I think I looked up some of the elements to figure out where they got their chemical symbols from. Hence W for tungsten. Also Hg for mercury, best name for an element.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
I mean I knew what they were because I had a rad chemistry teacher who made sure to explain why the heck Tungsten was W or Lead was Pb, and I get other languages using Wolfram (or whatever the language's analogue is), I just didn't realize that it was still somewhat commonly used in English since I've always mentally filed it with other disused or antiquated terms for elements like "dephlogisticated air"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:"dephlogisticated air" Err, guessing that's nitrogen? Assuming "phlogisticated" in the sense of phlogiston, the pseudoscientific "essence of fire" element which is responsible for all combustible materials? Edit: Ok no it's exactly the opposite, because obviously phlogiston theory doesn't work in an obvious manner...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Err, guessing that's nitrogen? Yeah, phloigston is anti-oxygen, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Err, guessing that's nitrogen? I had to look it up too 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Err, guessing that's nitrogen? "Dephlogisticated air" was Joseph Priestley's original term for what was later determined to be oxygen. It implied air that had all the phlogiston removed from it so that it essentially sucked the phlogiston out of materials, making them burn fiercely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Are there any good articles about what the recent drop in gas prices have affected electric vehicle development/sales?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
International scientist here, I can confirm that international collaborations use tungsten, not wolfram
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Solar eclipse on Friday could cause some big problems in Europe: http://news.yahoo.com/europe-braces-unprecedented-power-issues-solar-eclipse-141647002.html;_ylt=AwrBEiK_VwhVxxAAH4XQtDMD quote:If the morning of March 20 turns out to be very sunny -- before the eclipse hides the sun -- the sudden drop-off in production could reach 34,000 Megawatts, the equivalent of 80 medium-sized conventional power plants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Solar eclipse on Friday could cause some big problems in Europe: Solar problems.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Clearly the nuclear power plant that's 1 AU away is undependable.(and deadly) We should burn more coal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Solar problems.txt At least an eclipse is the most foreseeable interruption imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Clearly the nuclear power plant that's 1 AU away is undependable.(and deadly) not in my back yard
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:not in my back yard Luckily most larger electricity utilities don't have to build in backyards. How could you even fit a 3 month pile of coal in one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Clearly the nuclear power plant that's 1 AU away is undependable.(and deadly) Still causes more cancer than any coal plant I've worked at...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Luckily most larger electricity utilities don't have to build in backyards. I'm not sure if you're serious, but I was making a joke. "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) is a common complain for people who don't want a nuclear power plant anywhere near them, not even in the same state
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 16:48
|
|