• Nuclear Technology Development and Discussion
    61 replies, posted
I am a first year Nuclear Engineering student at [URL="http://majorsandcareers.ncsu.edu/major/nuclear-engineering"]North Carolina State University[/URL]. I can answer most questions about Nuclear Science or history, and if I can't I will ask professors for you. My only Nuclear related course this year is Reactor Operator training. This thread is for the discussion, admiration, or criticism of any Nuclear Technology. Energy, Weapons, Medicine, Space Travel, all of it. For those studying Nuclear Engineering, Plasma Physics, or Nuclear Physics, please share with the rest of us your experience! [B]Recommended Media for Nuclear Stuff [/B][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRzl1wHc43I&feature=player_detailpage"]Walt Disney's Our Friend the Atom[/URL] This was the first type of information many Baby Boomers were given regarding nuclear science. [URL="http://pandoraspromise.com/"]Pandora's Promise[/URL] Recent documentary that gives a [B]wonderful[/B] introduction for the modern age audience to Nuclear Power. Details the history, accidents, and future of Nuclear Energy with renowned Environmentalists. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Radiance-Dramatic-Atomic/dp/145166043X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1405470892&sr=8-4&keywords=radiance"]The Age of Radiance[/URL] I would dare say that this book is the definitive resource for every major nuclear development in history, save for the actual primary resources. It goes into incredible detail about the scientific discoveries and findings of the atom, the Atomic Bomb Projects during WWII (USA, Germany, Russia), the Cold War, and the incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Thread Music: [video=youtube;8qrriKcwvlY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY[/video] [B]THREAD HIGHLIGHTS! ASK QUESTIONS OR POST COOL STUFF TO GET POSTED HERE![/B] On Thorium: [QUOTE][QUOTE=AcidGravy;45419836]What I want to know is when cold fusion will become possible/feasible on a mass scale. Also, do thorium reactors hold as much promise as everyone is making out? And if so could it replace uranium reactors in the near future? [video=youtube;uK367T7h6ZY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/video][/QUOTE] "Cold Fusion" implies that you can lower the temperature required to incur nuclear fusion. It does not exist. The most common Fusion reactor is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak"]Tokamak[/URL] reactor which uses magnets to heat plasma in a loop. It is in a donut shape. The other type of reactor you may have heard of is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion"]Inertial confinement reactor[/URL] which uses lasers to condense matter to initiate fusion. This design is unlikely to be used for energy purposes since it takes about ~10hours to set up a target for a reaction. Thorium is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor"]Gen IV[/URL] reactor, more specifically a liquid metal reactor. Honestly a fleet of any Gen II or greater reactors has the potential to lead to immense energy, though the Gen IV reactors solve many safety and efficiency issues from the previous generations. [URL="http://www.nrc.gov/"]Don't expect to see them in America soon though,[/URL] since it is required to build a fully functional reactor and test it before an actual power plant that uses that reactor must be built. So that's nearly twice the cost and time for one next-gen plant to arise. On a side note, Breeder reactors burn the radioactive waste from the last generations so that they don't last millions of years, only around 500. I suggest watching Pandora's Promise if you are interested in Breeder reactors.[/QUOTE] On Nuclear Medicine: [QUOTE=Polonium9;45425653]Thank god for this thread, I am absolutely enthralled about this. I've met with William Kolb, the man who wrote [I]Living With Radiation[/I] and I sold him some radioactive minerals. :v: If any of you have any questions about radioactive minerals and whatnot, just ask me. I'd be happy to oblige with sample pictures from my collection. For more songs, CivilDefenseSpot on youtube has A LOT of songs pertaining to nuclear stuff from the 40's to the 60s. Also, I owe my life to nuclear medicine. After having massive pain in my abdomen on many occasions, I got the Technetium-99m isotope injected into me with a tracer to get my gallbladder checked. Thanks to that, I am pain free and happy to be alive! I know it's stupid, but it really did save me. (I'm being honest about this, thank you for making this thread. I will be checking back regularly)[/QUOTE] On Everyday Nuclear Objects: [QUOTE=Polonium9;45490574]you'd be amazed at what you can find in a scrap yard. I found some of my hottest minerals in a guys back yard in rock dump! The other amazing thing is, besides his, those are still in use to this day. In the older dentists office that I've been to, they have these kick ass old x-ray machines. I've brought a geiger counter in there and tested it. Pretty interesting how fast it is. edit: Content [t]http://i.imgur.com/klVhV1K.png[/t] This is a Nicotine Alkaloid Control Plate. It was said to remove all that nicotine and tar from cigarettes. It was radioactive due to a small dusting of Monazite sands (thorium, rare earth metals). Needless to say, it didn't work. :v: [t]http://i.imgur.com/Dl176xw.png[/t] This is a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4. It was common place to put Thorium in lenses as it helped with diffraction, I believe. Highly radioactive, and considered one of the best lenses to ever. And boy, it is. (the radioactivity would get stopped by the metal camera backdoor/panel) [t]http://i.imgur.com/HfH4xga.png[/t] This little vial is Uranium ore from Wyoming. I collected it myself at a mine there. comprising mostly of Andersonite and Carnotite. Very little Novacekite. (I got tons more) It's not strong at all, and that's why I would carry it with me. It's fun to show someone that you carry uranium ore and show how little radioactive it is. obligatory Bert the Turtle [video=youtube;Inh6h3r_Eik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inh6h3r_Eik[/video][/QUOTE]
This is really stupid but finally my chance is here. Could a disaster cause mutations like in the movies? Like big ass incects or super mutants like from fallout? :v:
for the whole of last year i was engrossed in the world of nuclear engineering and i spent a lot of time reading about reactors and i even made a scale model of chernobyl for a science project recently i realized that being a reactor operator is not exactly what i plan to do with my life but it's still very interesting to me
[QUOTE=Sub-Zero;45402988]This is really stupid but finally my chance is here. Could a disaster cause mutations like in the movies? Like big ass incects or super mutants like from fallout? :v:[/QUOTE] Unfortunately not :v: Its much more probable that mutations like that would occur from retroviruses or genetic engineering. Ionizing radiation doesn't cause widespan mutations due to its psuedo-random behaviour. That's not to say significant mutations can't occur, its just that fallout/movies exaggerate the mutations: [video=youtube;dK99dvJO5PY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK99dvJO5PY[/video]
[QUOTE=Sub-Zero;45402988]This is really stupid but finally my chance is here. Could a disaster cause mutations like in the movies? Like big ass incects or super mutants like from fallout? :v:[/QUOTE] Could it? Yeah, anything could happen. Would it? Most things are more likely to die or be weakened by radiation sickness first, but lack of human intervention in irradiated areas means that nature springs back rather quickly. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Pripyat_panorama_2009-001.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Sub-Zero;45402988]This is really stupid but finally my chance is here. Could a disaster cause mutations like in the movies? Like big ass incects or super mutants like from fallout? :v:[/QUOTE] No one has ever been born with mutations like youve seen in the movies. Radiation can cause breaks in the DNA which break off and then replicate. This can cause a lot of issues, but its random. If you want fallout-tier mutants you will more likely get them from intentionally genetically engineering the DNA to have the genes you want. [editline]15th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45403014]for the whole of last year i was engrossed in the world of nuclear engineering and i spent a lot of time reading about reactors and i even made a scale model of chernobyl for a science project recently i realized that being a reactor operator is not exactly what i plan to do with my life but it's still very interesting to me[/QUOTE] Yeah reactor operation is a lot of training and standardized actions and behavior. Its kinda like being a high-paid technician. Gotta practice all the disaster situations as well.
I'd recommend reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes if you haven't already.
they were recruiting for los alamos and oakridge positions at my school last year, i wish i'd ever have the GPA to get in there we really need to be building out nuclear in this country, we have the technology and the room and the logistics and infastructure, we just have shitty politicians who don't want anything to do with nuclear and too many crazy baby boomers who think chernobyl [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] i was thinking about this yesterday though, with the U.S. stockpile (and most of the world's stockpile) of Pu-238 almost gone, i'm very supprised nobody's revisited small nuclear reactors yet. i mean we just launched the juno probe to jupiter with the largest solar array ever launched for a probe but its still only generating a few hundred watts by the time it gets there, and RTGs are great but they are plagued with very poor preformance, nobody's taken the time to investigate nuclear reactors for space probes since the late 50s, im sure we could come up with a very reliable system, that could couple with various forms of electric propulsion to make one very powerful space probe [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] for reference, the SNAP-10A the last U.S. launched reactor had a peak performance of 590 watts the juno probe which has 560 ft^2 of solar arrays, only generates about 486 watts of power at jupiter we could have launched a heavier probe with a smaller power source, the only downside to nuclear powered probes is heat dispersant, which we haven't had enough development in the reactor to really have to worry about [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] apparently NASA has done some work on this and the results are impressive but they're not even funding it with a research program [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine[/url]
I hope this doesn't end up like all the STALKER threads with people asking for UrbEx photos of Pripyat or talking about how cool it would be to be there. I did a report two years ago on the efforts to clean up the CNPP, there was work being done on building what amounted to a movable US Football stadium that would be rolled over the entire complex, as the older concrete structure will eventually fail. The radiation's fallen off from incredibly dangerous to disconcerting in the area surrounding it, but you still need protective gear to enter the facility. And there's that old Elephant's Foot at the bottom, which hasn't been checked on for a long while.
My knowledge of radiation is essentially limited to Wikipedia articles, but I'd consider it a damn good knowledge base seeing as how I've never had a single science class on it. Anyway, there is one question I've been pondering for a while, seeing as how I've never seen anything about it: Does ionizing radiation interfere with computers and robotics? I haven't heard anything about robotically exploring the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and there's a lot of mythic bullshit about these sort of things on the Internet, which hampers things somewhat.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45404385]My knowledge of radiation is essentially limited to Wikipedia articles, but I'd consider it a damn good knowledge base seeing as how I've never had a single science class on it. Anyway, there is one question I've been pondering for a while, seeing as how I've never seen anything about it: Does ionizing radiation interfere with computers and robotics? I haven't heard anything about robotically exploring the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and there's a lot of mythic bullshit about these sort of things on the Internet, which hampers things somewhat.[/QUOTE] Ionizing radiation can completely destroy computers and electronics. There's serious issues with solar radiation gradually degrading microchips in satellites through atomic crystalline disruption(is that even a term? hopefully you understand what i mean). In space, radiation levels are tiny compared to inside a reactor or even at chernobyl. Unless they sent everything in with a lead box on it, they won't be sending anything any time soon.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45404385]My knowledge of radiation is essentially limited to Wikipedia articles, but I'd consider it a damn good knowledge base seeing as how I've never had a single science class on it. Anyway, there is one question I've been pondering for a while, seeing as how I've never seen anything about it: Does ionizing radiation interfere with computers and robotics? I haven't heard anything about robotically exploring the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and there's a lot of mythic bullshit about these sort of things on the Internet, which hampers things somewhat.[/QUOTE] i remember watching a few documentaries on the soviet scientists' efforts to study chernobyl after the disaster, and at one point they attached a camera to a electronic toy tank and drove it to capture footage of the elephant's foot and the camera was fried very quickly
some kid in my school built a nuclear fusion reactor Everyone made a massive deal about it, but aren't there instructions on the internet to do the same?
What instructions arent on the internet^^ ? [QUOTE=fishyfish777;45403031]Could it? Yeah, anything could happen. Would it? Most things are more likely to die or be weakened by radiation sickness first, but lack of human intervention in irradiated areas means that nature springs back rather quickly. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Pripyat_panorama_2009-001.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Where is that?
[QUOTE=-z-e-m-i-;45407704] Where is that?[/QUOTE] Pripyat, a town built for the workers in the Chernobyl NPP
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;45403031]Could it? Yeah, anything could happen. Would it? Most things are more likely to die or be weakened by radiation sickness first, but lack of human intervention in irradiated areas means that nature springs back rather quickly.[/QUOTE] And since every generation is probably a bit more suited to its environment, nature will find a way. Most of the time. You can only roll so many ones before you get a six and end up with something that gives you and your progeny an edge.
[QUOTE=ironman17;45407992]And since every generation is probably a bit more suited to its environment, nature will find a way. Most of the time. You can only roll so many ones before you get a six and end up with something that gives you and your progeny an edge.[/QUOTE] Sure, but that's true for any environment.
Aw shit, nuclear thread. Now I can post mushroom cloud pics again. [i]Castle Bravo[/i] [t]http://puu.sh/ae294/cacef991b7.jpg[/t] [i]Fat Man[/i] [t]http://puu.sh/ae2bl/816d09bea1.jpeg[/t] [i]Ivy Mike[/i] [t]http://puu.sh/ae2cr/790af23b85.jpg[/t] [t]http://puu.sh/ae2er/43a53ef24a.jpg[/t] [i]Tsar Bomba[/i] [t]http://puu.sh/ae2fS/c3c004dfe2.jpg[/t] [i]Greenhouse George[/i] [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Greenhouse_George.jpg[/t] [t]http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/George3.jpg[/t]
That's true. However, in a radioactive zone like, well, the Zone, there's also the factor of higher levels of radiation messing with the code, so there are probably more tiny "inconsequential" changes here and there, even though it's (maybe) mostly in parts of the body that don't cause the alterations to carry over into other generations. A mutation of the code in one part of the body doesn't mean a complete rewrite of every cell in the body, which is probably why we don't see as many obvious mutations in the indigenous population.
[t]http://artplusphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/HEE-NC-52006.L.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg[/t] [t]http://d1xcqlxj49e9dd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/fireball1.jpg?5352ea[/t] mushroom clouds are cool but the actual nuclear fireball is cooler [editline]16th July 2014[/editline] they had to invent a camera shutter that would work at the speed of light to record these
[img]http://puu.sh/ae3B8/f3bf06291d.gif[/img] I forgot this too.
Kind of sad that when the average person hears "nuclear" they can only think of some person detonating a nuclear bomb and the radiation of the Chernobyl accident. So many relatively clean power sources snuffed out by hearsay and the media.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45408165] they had to invent a camera shutter that would work at the speed of light to record these[/QUOTE] That doesn't make sense. I think what you meant to say is that they were fast.
[QUOTE=Falubii;45409633]That doesn't make sense. I think what you meant to say is that they were fast.[/QUOTE] no litterally it works at the speed of light... it shifts polarity of a specially coated lense instead of physically moving a shutter any mechanical design would miss the blast [url]http://io9.com/5985857/the-camera-that-captured-the-first-millisecond-of-a-nuclear-bomb-blast[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapatronic_camera[/url]
[QUOTE=Sableye;45409831]no litterally it works at the speed of light... it shifts polarity of a specially coated lense instead of physically moving a shutter any mechanical design would miss the blast [URL]http://io9.com/5985857/the-camera-that-captured-the-first-millisecond-of-a-nuclear-bomb-blast[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapatronic_camera[/URL][/QUOTE] Applying a magnetic field and changing the polarization of the film does not happen at the speed of light. The time it takes for the actual atomic structure in the film to rearrange itself is slower than the speed of light, as it must be according to Special Relativity.
[QUOTE=007JamesBond007;45407195]some kid in my school built a nuclear fusion reactor Everyone made a massive deal about it, but aren't there instructions on the internet to do the same?[/QUOTE] um what i don't think that's possible unless your friend has some kind of secret government funding coming in
[QUOTE=ZeFruitNazi;45411094]um what i don't think that's possible unless your friend has some kind of secret government funding coming in[/QUOTE] He probably means fission reactor. And he probably means he fused a few atoms.
[QUOTE=007JamesBond007;45407195]some kid in my school built a nuclear fusion reactor Everyone made a massive deal about it, but aren't there instructions on the internet to do the same?[/QUOTE] If he did build a fusion reactor, then it would probably just be a small construction that consumes more energy than it produces. Still an accomplishment for a schoolkid, but it wouldn't require an obscene amount of money or radioactive materials acquired from murderous Libyans.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;45413997]If he did build a fusion reactor, then it would probably just be a small construction that consumes more energy than it produces. Still an accomplishment for a schoolkid, but it wouldn't require an obscene amount of money or radioactive materials acquired from murderous Libyans.[/QUOTE] The issue typically isn't design. You can find the resources to know how to build a reactor. The hard psrt is finding proper materials, and getting NRC approval if you plan to use it. The Nuclear Boy Scout tried getting radioactive Americium from smoke detectors.
What I want to know is when cold fusion will become possible/feasible on a mass scale. Also, do thorium reactors hold as much promise as everyone is making out? And if so could it replace uranium reactors in the near future? [video=youtube;uK367T7h6ZY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/video]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.