US scientist shown 'vast new nuclear facility' in recent visit to North Korea
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Foogooman;26206713]There's no way that NK is doing that just for power plants. Those motherfuckers are pure evil, as soon as they're ready they are going to start fucking shit up.[/QUOTE]
I can't see them using it for more than leverage to remove sanctions. As soon as they start threatening, almost every other country with nukes will get them ready - just incase.
nuclear power plants don't put food on the table
[QUOTE=Kalibos;26206803]nuclear power plants don't put food on the table[/QUOTE]
Yes they do, NPPs need a large labor force to maintain and monitor the plant. Many people are needed to build the facility, even more so to procure the required materials.
[QUOTE=|FlapJack|;26206589]How do you plan to provide sufficient energy to prevent it from making contact with matter for not only as long as it takes to get to the target, but while in motion? And that's after the problem of not being able to make enough particles.
So far, CERN has made around 2000 particles of antimatter in a single burst. This is 3.3e-21 times the number of antihydrogen particles required for a 42kT bomb.[/QUOTE]
i'm not gonna hide that i don't know any of that stuff, but like i said, technology changing faster than ever; "accelerating" exponentially. imo it would be naive to think that we wouldn't get efficient enough ways to provide enough energy until at least 2000 years into the future
[QUOTE=Chrille;26206871]i'm not gonna hide that i don't know any of that stuff, but like i said, technology changing faster than ever; "accelerating" exponentially. imo it would be naive to think that we wouldn't get efficient enough ways to provide enough energy until at least 2000 years into the future[/QUOTE]
WrongWrongWrong.
[QUOTE=Chrille;26206871]i'm not gonna hide that i don't know any of that stuff, but like i said, technology changing faster than ever; "accelerating" exponentially. imo it would be naive to think that we wouldn't get efficient enough ways to provide enough energy until at least 2000 years into the future[/QUOTE]
[quote]According to CERN, only one part in ten billion (10−10) of the energy invested in the production of antimatter particles can be subsequently retrieved.[34][/quote]
For a 42kT bomb, you would need to input 4.2e14 J of energy - roughly. And that's just to produce the antimatter - it's even more to store it without it coming into contact with matter.
It will be possible eventually, but it's not going to be for a very long time - there's far too much to improve on.
you win this time mr flapjack, but i'll be back
IIRC nuclear bombs have roughly a 500 mile radius, 50-70 is usually the main blast radius with the other 400+ being wind and fallout.
Don't hold me to that though.
I'm looking at you jaanus :v:
as I just said, don't hold me to it: wikipedia.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Abombdamage1945.svg/800px-Abombdamage1945.svg.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Dazza;26206209]You are wrong and don't understand how particles work. Sorry![/QUOTE]
Stop trying to look like you know you're talking about.
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chrille;26206339]explain why i'm wrong?[/QUOTE]
Oh just disregard him entirely, he has proven to be completely physics illiterate in other threads and just continues.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;26200042]A thousand Uranium gas centrifuges? A thousand centrifuges "all neatly aligned and plumbed"? Does that mean they are working in tandem?
Holy fuck. That's a nuke factory.
Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
Well it doesn't produce as much uranium 235 as you probably think.
i say we slap north korea with america's throbbing cock of justice
[QUOTE=Maucer;26208749]Well it doesn't produce as much uranium 235 as you probably think.[/QUOTE]
Actually when the gas centrifuges are working in tandem they have multiplied efficiency, that's why I'm scared. A thousand individual centrifuges would do nothing harmful, but this guy said "all neatly aligned", so I'm guessing they are working as a waterfall, increasing the rate at which they produce enriched Uranium.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but this doesn't sound like your typical fission plant supplier.
[editline]22nd November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chrille;26207508]you win this time mr flapjack, but i'll be back[/QUOTE]
Actually, one of Charles Pellegrino's co-workers said orbital antimatter factories with photovoltaic cells 300 kilometers in width could produce a kilogram of antimatter per month, with efficiencies of 0.1%. Of course these numbers can be improved with superconductors and molecular nanotechnology, these estimates are made with present-day stuff.
And while a solar panel 300km wide sounds far off, it could be built with self-replicating factories that make factories that make factories ad infinitum on the Moon using the local resources, to built the thing. It could be used to either make antimatter for fast interplanetary spacecraft (Or even fast interstellar ones!) or to use antimatter bombs. Or you could just beam the huge amounts of power to Earth using microwave lasers.
[QUOTE=Nifae;26199678]I'd laugh if they built just a clean and modern hallway with windows, but everything outside the hallway/presentation area was falling apart and nuclear waste was flowing all over and people were growing limbs.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of
[img]http://www.redstaplerchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/springfield%20power%20plant.gif[/img]
So glad I live in Australia right now. We didn't piss off the glorious leader, did we?
[QUOTE=Atokniro;26220699]So glad I live in Australia right now. We didn't piss off the glorious leader, did we?[/QUOTE]
Nope,you guys are safe :v:
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;26211737]Actually when the gas centrifuges are working in tandem they have multiplied efficiency, that's why I'm scared. A thousand individual centrifuges would do nothing harmful, but this guy said "all neatly aligned", so I'm guessing they are working as a waterfall, increasing the rate at which they produce enriched Uranium.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but this doesn't sound like your typical fission plant supplier.
[editline]22nd November 2010[/editline]
Actually, one of Charles Pellegrino's co-workers said orbital antimatter factories with photovoltaic cells 300 kilometers in width could produce a kilogram of antimatter per month, with efficiencies of 0.1%. Of course these numbers can be improved with superconductors and molecular nanotechnology, these estimates are made with present-day stuff.
And while a solar panel 300km wide sounds far off, it could be built with self-replicating factories that make factories that make factories ad infinitum on the Moon using the local resources, to built the thing. It could be used to either make antimatter for fast interplanetary spacecraft (Or even fast interstellar ones!) or to use antimatter bombs. Or you could just beam the huge amounts of power to Earth using microwave lasers.[/QUOTE]
Anti matter is in theory the most effective way of creating energy, but also the most impractical, right?
End is nigh, ect.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26220756]Anti matter is in theory the most effective way of creating energy, but also the most impractical, right?[/QUOTE]
Only cost-effective way to use antimatter for energy is to harvest it from space somehow.
Anti-matter being used in space is currently a cost prohibitive idea. The alternative is to use solar panels in space so that energy maybe refelected back to earth via energy lasers.
I just meant that it costs way more to produce antimatter than it would yield in energy production. Best method would just to gather it like we do with fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=ZapDing;26207513]IIRC nuclear bombs have roughly a 500 mile radius, 50-70 is usually the main blast radius with the other 400+ being wind and fallout.
Don't hold me to that though.
I'm looking at you jaanus :v:
as I just said, don't hold me to it: wikipedia.
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Abombdamage1945.svg/800px-Abombdamage1945.svg.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
That's an image for the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki, a modern bomb would be far stronger.
[QUOTE=Jessesmith1;26201323]if the plant is 'ultra modern' then im sure the failure rate has significantly decreased[/QUOTE]
9/10 Failure rate is the Human Percentage
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;26203265]Like what?[/QUOTE]
Starting a war, for one.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26220756]Anti matter is in theory the most effective way of creating energy, but also the most impractical, right?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean with impractical? Storage and transport? Production? And antimatter is not a way of creating energy, it's more of a way to transport energy, since nothing is created or destroyed, when antimatter is created it's not created out of nothing, it's an energy-to-matter conversion (Take two lasers, fire them at each other, observe photons fluttering out as protons and antiprotons).
Consider antimatter as a much more unstable but much more efficient oil. Don't expect it to become some sort of Oil 2.0 in this century or the next, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.