Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Sep 15 13:21:01 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Nuclear propulsion
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Aug 13 18:29:57
Lol russia.

Check out the troy2c us nuclear ramjet engine from the 60s. That thing looks legit... ran at 500MW for 5 mins in a ground test. Its a shame humanity started wasting our rocket and nuclear engineer level minds after the 70s or so. I blame hippies. We could be cruising around in mach 10 nuclear business jets.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Aug 13 18:44:37
According to my math... its the most badass jet engine ever made. Its thrust to weight ratio blows away anything i have ever seen. Like a380 level thrust(all 4 engines and then some) from a core the mass of an auto engine.
Hrothgar
Member
Tue Aug 13 20:55:54
The "Fallout" (from the video games Fallout, pre war) version of Earth wasn't so far away from reality if people had decided to just tolerate the radiation risks/exposures as part of every day life.
obaminated
Member
Tue Aug 13 22:05:32
maybe regarding have nuclear powered modern day vehicles, dunno about the advanced AI robotics
hood
Member
Tue Aug 13 22:11:23
You don't think we'll have advanced AI robotics in 2070?
obaminated
Member
Tue Aug 13 22:39:16
my bad, id forgotten despite the 1950s aesthetic, it is meant to be in 2070 and beyond
hood
Member
Tue Aug 13 22:52:37
Yeah, it's an easy mistake to make.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 01:20:29
With the small downside of killing anyone who flew in it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 14 01:56:54
Jergul
>>A generalized tendency towards violence and general high risk behavior. You just made a thread about it expounding on your driving skillz.

That was always my argument. Your reframing it is blatantly dishonest, trumptard.<<

No. The thread and my posts were about violent crimes. Your personal opinions about what the ”optimal” amount of risk taking in general is and your unhealthy relationship with ”violence” broadly are utterly uninteresting - they certainly don’t form a basis for ”rational decisions” in general. Explained this for you in the thread. Taking risks is a good thing in general, needed to survive and for progress.

You are welcome to live your pacified existence a stones thrown from the hut your grandfather skinned seals in. Never take risks and live to be a 100. I will not judge you.

jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 02:11:45
Nimi
Wow. The thread title is nuclear propulsion, not nuclear family.

The closer we come to clinical immortality, the higher the premium paid for risk behavior and premature death.

From a parental perspective: If best medical practices allow for the choice between an offspring prone to risk behavior and premature death or an offspring not prone to risk behavior and premature death...

Well, what is the rational choice and how will chosing rationally impact on gender ratios?
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 03:59:26
Jergul:

That nuclear family line made me snigger.

But seriously - the sodium would be a needless complication. By definition, it can only cool the reactor before it's combusted, but the reactor can't do much useful until the sodium is combusted. You also introduce a bunch more engineering challenges and two more mode transitions which are where things tend to go wrong.

You just don't need sodium to run a fast reactor if you have an open cooling cycle.

Plus liquid sodium is a pain to handle, especially when H20 is a combustion product of other stages.

It would be far simpler just to remove the control elements from the fast reactor a few minutes before transition to supersonic. It'll heat up really fast. No need for the coolant. Then open the intake for the scram jet (maybe use the scram jet with conventional fuel for a couple of minutes).

As for boiling kerosene being a problem - it's going to be combusted!

Hot liquid sodium isn't really using any of that nuclear power - the thermal energy isn't released until the working fluid expands. All you'd be doing is slowing down the reactor reaching the temperature need to heat the airstream and adding a really crap intermediate stage rocket. Meanwhile you've put a horribly corrosive, explosive, difficult to handle substance around your nuclear reactor which is going to complicate fuelling and maintenance.

NaK isn't needed here - the coolant is the working fluid.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 14 05:35:49
>>The closer we come to clinical immortality, the higher the premium paid for risk behavior and premature death.<<

We will cross that bridge when we get there. In the mean time, mortality related to risky behavior is on the decline. It declines with age, technological progress etc.

>>From a parental perspective<<

From your* perspective.

>>If best medical practices allow for the choice between an offspring prone to risk behavior and premature death or an offspring not prone to risk behavior and premature death...<<

You have a very flat understanding of "risk" or what the spectrum of risky behavior entails. Risk is what every pioneer and entrepenuer engages in. The astronauts that burned to death in the Apollo capsule, they took risks. When Colombus sailed across the Atlantic, he and his crew took risks. When Gallileo told to pope to suck it, he took a risk. There is no future scenario where taking risks isn't part of the equation. Normally people take these risks when they are young. Some lose, but enough win to spread the risky genes. We all gain for those men taking those risks. Your welcome BTW.

>>Well, what is the rational choice and how will chosing rationally impact on gender ratios?<<

To have many sons, taking calculated risks and procreating with the help of artificial wombs.

From a societal perspective, what have women achieved that the rest of society has gained from?

You have to face it, once we have artificial wombs and sex dolls, there really are no rational reasons to keep women around.

The is nothing "nuclear" about men and artificial sex dolls, unless these sex dolls are powered by nuclear isotopes. Which is probably a bad idea.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 06:35:00
Nim:

"From a societal perspective, what have women achieved that the rest of society has gained from?"

Nim, you are going full incel.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 14 06:55:37
seb
I think it is telling (and predictable) that you take issue with my question, but not the advocacy for selective abortions.

You failed to give an answer btw

The point here being that if we both go full retard and assuming future inventions (which btw we are very close to artificial wombs), my kind of retard will kill you all and win. Don't go full retard and we can all get to live, solve criminal behavior and raise everyones intelligence. It is a very straight forward vision.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 14 07:09:29
Nazis:
We will kill all the jews.

Jews:
Then we will declare our own Jewish tate.

The Sebs:
Wow, you Jews are going full ethno-nationalist.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 08:01:46
Nim:

I don't think Jergul was actually advocating for selective abortions so much as mocking you.

Answer about what? I suspect my answer at this point would be "Because I'll get dirty bit the pig will enjoy it".

In pretty sure you're kind of retard won't win at all. My people will have >50% of the population, and a disproportionate share of societies wealth and capital, and won't need complex and expensive medical procedures to breed.


jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 08:06:40
Nimi
Best medical practices will never involve selective abortions.

With technology we can project now, it would involve eggs harvested and frozen when women are 28 or so and gender sorted semen. Also stored for invitero placement at a later date.

"my kind of retard will kill you all and win"

Yah, full incel.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 08:43:53
Seb
"Remove the control elements from the fast reactor a few minutes before transition to supersonic. It'll heat up really fast."

If that is the timeline, then sure. The coolant is only needed if the nuclear reactor needs to be activate before launch.

"As for boiling kerosene being a problem - it's going to be combusted"

I was envisioning explosive expansion. Which would be a problem as well explosions. But that too would be an issue only if the reactor needed to start up pre-launch.

"the thermal energy isn't released until the working fluid expands"

NAK does burn nicely. So expansion would occur.

But as I said, if you are correct that the fast breeding nuclear reactor can go from cold start to working temperatures within a few minutes, then cooling is redundant.

I assumed that the reactor would have to start up before launch. And would for operational reasons need to be shut down capable before launch too.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 08:57:01
Jergul:

Oh I see. Well I think the reactor can't be on until it's some distance down range.

There's no mass or space for shielding, so it's going to give a massive dose of radiation to the launch vehicle and, if a fast reactor, irradiate it too.

Not ideal.

It should heat up pretty quickly, and assuming it's going from standstill, it'll need time to accelerate to scram jet speeds before the nuclear reactor is even useful.


Sure, the combusted Na will expand, but the heat of the reactor won't be meaningfully contributing to that. It'll go into the phase change of the sodium from solid to liquid and raising its temperature. I'm not sure hot liquid sodium Vs solid sodium will produce meaningfully different volume/temperature combustion products.

I'd use hydrogen.

Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 09:02:08
Incidentally, I recall a decade or so ago reading that stone Russian agency was still into nuclear thermal space launch.

If I were to bet money on this, I think there's probably a couple of Russian Verner Von Braun's (Samsov Adamski perhaps) that have been trying to get their pet project funded and have convinced Putin to fund it as a weapon project when what they really want to do is go to orbit.

I'm not convinced this is a sensible weapon, and it's a bit of a nightmare to test for exactly the reasons we see.

I wonder what will happen when Putin realises this is a bit of liability?
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 10:19:14
It definitely has a pet project vibe.

The project does give Russia something to abandon in nuclear arms race discussions. It also does provide the basis for undermining nuclear shield impunity.

So the kind of gambits Putin quite likes.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Aug 14 10:55:17
Not to mention it will make the russians feel good to finally advance their aerospace to 1970 levels.
smart dude
Member
Wed Aug 14 11:09:45
"I wonder what will happen when Putin realises this is a bit of liability?"

Probably about the same time that he realizes that the Russian state in his supreme rule is a bit of a liability. Which, is never while he is in power.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 11:47:42
Jergul:

If I was the US, I'd just ignore it until the Russians have tested it and provided verifiable telemetry. Either they'll need to breach international rules on nuclear pollution and get themselves excluded from IAEA, with the EU nations having more reasons to sanction them, or irradiate more bits of Russia.

NMD isn't aimed at Russia, Russia can defeat it without resorting to these cruise missiles, which can't be used conventionally.

So why should the US give up any capability to get them off the table?

Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 11:53:52
Also if they do eventually get it working and deploy, it'll force them to think about whether their conventional hypersonic missiles will provoke use it or lose it responses.

I think Russia is highly likely to quietly get rid of this project itself.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 17:08:52
Seb
hah, if you were the US, you would be far too occupied with the nightmare of the current administration to have a rational plan for anything.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 14 17:13:28
heh, not hah*
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 17:14:05
If you knew what I'd been up to the last two weeks, you'd understand why I'm laughing hollowly.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 14 17:17:14
Still, as one of these very expensive revolving door consultants, at least it's paid better than being a CS.

Granted not as much as my employer charges me out at.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 16 10:45:00
Ooh

Norway has detected iodene - jergul, do any of the primary Norwegian sources state which isotope?

May be unrelated but could be fission products.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 16 11:14:26
Probably on of those iodine rtgs right jergul?
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 11:18:28
Hush sammy. If you can't keep up, then don't play.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 16 11:35:12
So you have admitted you were wrong?
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 13:30:00
I abandoned the hypothesis if that is what you are asking.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 15:09:14
Seb
"I don't think Jergul was actually advocating for selective abortions so much as mocking you."

Ah I see, Jergul is "mocking" me, but I am "serious". Ask him.

>>Answer about what? I suspect my answer at this point would be "Because I'll get dirty bit the pig will enjoy it".<<

Nothing is the answer, that is what would make you dirty.

>>In pretty sure you're kind of retard won't win at all. My people will have >50% of the population, and a disproportionate share of societies wealth and capital, and won't need complex and expensive medical procedures to breed.<<

I think the process you country is going through, shows how quickly and badly retards can fuck things up.

Jergul
The method is irrelevant. Passive aggressive is still aggressive.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Aug 16 15:10:31
We need nuclear propulsion in NASCAR. That way they can go faster and turn left more.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 15:20:38
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/co6mxp/i_dont_want_a_baby_boy/

Know that the most heinous comments were deleted. Years of fostering hatred towards men, the radicalization is real.

"Yah, full incel."

Flavor of the month insult.
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 16:58:39
Its ultimately not your problem. When you die, there will be no less than 98 men per 100 women on the planet.

It does not really even matter:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/

"Men's risk of unintentional and violence-related injury overall is at least 2 and 3 times, respectively, that of women during each year of the last generation"

And you do realize that even full equality (1 fertilized male egg per female egg) would in itself dramatically change the gender balance as excess male mortality begins in the womb.

A 1:1 invitero placement ratio would give between 0.95 and 0.98 male per females at birth. Compared to today's 1.05.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 17:22:56
I already explained it for you, predictions based on assumptions of linearity are always going to fail in a world full of significant events that have non linear consequences. 12.5% by 2020. And all the bullshit about Russian air defense over Syria and how Israel would lose air assets with jergulmath calculations. Israel keeps bombing and their losses are virtually zero. Again perfectly rational for someone that thinks a 95+% error rate as correlation.
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 17:31:36
hehe, you seem flustered (I will just ignore your trumptard re-imaginations :-).

You are correct in non-linearity. Men dies 10 times more often than women to violent injury in the +65 bracket for example.

Or the catagory that we expect to grow as lifespans extend.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 17:43:14
That all men need to live to be some arbitrary age is an arbitrary subjective opinion you hold, not the basis for rational decisions on parenting. This is jergulological success metrics.

You are the same guy who said contemporary human evolutionary success resides in number of offspring. Poor soul.

jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 17:52:58
I thought I was arguing that all men do not need to live at all.

But its otherwise just statistics. If group A dies faster than group B, then group A will become proportionately smaller as time passes.

It seems a rational decision for a parent to want their offspring to live as long as possible.

But even if we assume parents choose boy and girl fertilized egg implantation in equal measure, it would still cause a dramatic change in the gender ratios.

Because excess male mortality begins in the womb.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 18:06:03
>>I thought I was arguing that all men do not need to live at all.<<

Focus. You have set an arbitrary metric for success, whereby you argue the above as rational approach.

>>If group A dies faster than group B, then group A will become proportionately smaller as time passes.<<

Assumptions of linearity ad infinitum eh?

"At the rate that people are dying from the plague there will be no people left in 5 years"
-Medieval Jergulological prediction

I am as long as we are fabricating the future here. In this future no one needs to die from trauma. Why have you arbitrarily limited medical advances?

>>Because excess male mortality begins in the womb.<<

So does male excess birth. In the womb. After every war many more boys are born. What surprises does the world have in store for people who assume linear progression? Only Jesus knows.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 18:26:22
So, presumably the male excess death that starts in the womb can be solved by "advances in medicine".

Advances in behavioral genetics can solve detrimental violent behavior.

Advances in intelligence research can foster a new generation of strong, intelligently risk taking men and their lovely trophy wives.

etc.

As long as we don't make up arbitrary limits for advances in science and technology to fit a wacky ideological narrative, we're all good.

Stop standing in the way of progress jergul!
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 16 19:14:54
Nimi
Wishing that our children live for as long as possible seems to be a rational decision point.

When were you thinking men would adapt women's risk behavior? And if they did, would that not mean you lose no matter the chromosone composition? Men would for all practical purposes be women.

If risk behavior does not change, then men will always die quicker than women. Which means that there will be more women than men.

I am sure that there will always be natural births following natural conceptions. But as lifetimes expand, it will make more and more sense to delay childbirth by using eggs and semen gathered earlier in life.

Even an "I don't care" what gender approach would give an equal number of male and female egg implants.

I am actually suggesting an organic "advance in behavioural genetics to solve detrimental violent behavior" You seemed to have missed that.

Any change that modifies risk behavior to decrease male mortality is fine with me. Though virtual women sort of seems to defeat your argument.

You are a bit late in democracies at least:

Excess women voters US presidential elections

2000 7.8 million
2004 8.8
2008 9.7
2012 9.8
2016 9.9
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 16 20:16:57
>>Wishing that our children live for as long as possible seems to be a rational decision point.<<

I wish my children to live happy and be prosperous and not live in 1 dimension. There are trade offs, risks and rewards.

>>When were you thinking men would adapt women's risk behavior?<<

I make no predictions I just know the direction we need to go.

>>If risk behavior does not change<<

I certainly hope not, stagnation of the species would follow. Can you make omelettes without breaking an egg? Taking intelligent risks is a good thing, right now we can't have the cake and eat it too. Female level risk taking is stagnation.

>>then men will always die quicker than women. Which means that there will be more women than men.<<

There will always be more old women then old men. Arbitrary metric, insignificance etc. Besides no one needs to die in the future at all, I refuse your arbitrary limit to medical progress. In the future every man will have an IQ of 150 and take very intelligent risks.

>>Even an "I don't care" what gender approach would give an equal number of male and female egg implants.<<

Incorrect, it produces more males. More males are born than females. Even without third world goat herders aborting their females as they do. "The natural state".

>>I am actually suggesting an organic "advance in behavioural genetics to solve detrimental violent behavior" You seemed to have missed that.<<

With a 95+% error rate. We have talked about this already.

>>Though virtual women sort of seems to defeat your argument.<<

My version of the future has many possibilities. Plan A, Plan B, Plan C etc. You only have 1 straight line and that straight line is ruined by a fart in the wrong direction.

>>Excess women voters US presidential elections<<

More linearity. We get it bro, your brain has 1 gear, you drive on one gauge, the future is like the past, tomorrow will be like today, everything moves along 1 dimension.
Dukhat
Member
Sat Aug 17 01:30:42
American lifespan has been stagnant or decreasing under Republicans which is good I guess. Rugian and Obaminated are basically going to end up like Hot Rod in diapers by their mid-50's given how much they distrust science and real knowledge. Best that their misery end early for all our sakes.
Seb
Member
Sat Aug 17 06:07:26
Nim:
Watching your gradual radicalisation is one of the more depressing aspects of this place.

So it's often quite hard to tell when you are simply trolling. Going full incel would just be the logical endpoint of internalising the fake science BS you've been hoovering up.

But I'm mildly heartened if that's not the case.

"I think the process you country is going through, shows how quickly and badly retards can fuck things up."

Yup, but what you don't appreciate is you are turning into one of them.

The question here though is at what point the guys manipulating populism to try and get rid of the rules they don't like realise that as respect for rules drops and clamour for revolution rises, they risk being the ones literally lined up against the wall. When you start normalising the unthinkable, you need to think more broadly than the happy path.

jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 06:33:01
Dukhat
That is the opiod crisis.

Nimi
Of course we want our children to be happy and all that. And live for as long as possible. Self-harm is a significant reason for why men succumb to injury at much higher rates than women. Not exactly an indicator of happiness to end yourself would you not agree?

"Female level risk taking is stagnation"

I disagree. In fact, is not your worry that a society formed by women would change significantly?

"Incorrect, it produces more males. More males are born than females."

Incorrect. One male egg inserted for every female would give fewer males at birth. Excess male mortality begins in the womb. The "natural state" is actually compensating for a genetic mix that simply is less viable at every point.

"More linearity"
It is not linear. More women than men vote. Voting habits are probably fundamentally linked to aspects of male risk taking.

Your gender war perspective is incompatible with democracy. I think you knew that. You just don't care.

Seb
Fake science BS? You don't say :D.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 06:39:47
Seb
You flavor of the month insult notwithstanding, there are no metrics where I qualify. I am relatively successful, married and have procreated. *yaaaaawn*

The truth of the prevailing form of retardation should worry you as it worries me. For this reason you should talk to you friend and de-radicalize him. Don't shoot the messenger of bad news.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 06:59:38
Nimi
The "truth of the prevailing form of retardation" is arguably just a function of there being more women of voting age and those women tend to vote.

So their voices matter and their voices do influence the public debate.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:04:34
Jergul
>>Of course we want our children to be happy and all that. And live for as long as possible. Self-harm is a significant reason for why men succumb to injury at much higher rates than women. Not exactly an indicator of happiness to end yourself would you not agree?<<

Would be foolish to use a stick of dynamite when one can use a scalpel. Figuratively.

>>I disagree. In fact, is not your worry that a society formed by women would change significantly?<<

If I play along with your one dimensional prediction, it most likely would. Women would becomes more like man in their behavior. Thereby rendering it all pointless. The answer resides in the question I asked "what have women achieved..." nothing. They are far too balanced in their approach, and they can afford this, because men willingly and unwittingly take all the risks.

>>Incorrect.<<

In-incorrect, without any medling. Not caring about gender. What you do in a tube does not qualify as not caring for me. I have no data on what happens in this process and outright reject your results as jergulological.

>>More women than men vote.<<

Not linear, so you put in another assumption of linearity. Nice. So the US population has gone up over this period. The percentages are the same, actually no, data indicates that liberals are more likely to not vote. Women are more liberal as you know. Specially after Trump, women take defeats much harder than men. Another inherent weakness associated with risk taking. Losers.

Or you are seeing precisely what I am talking about. If these loser men give up in enough numbers on the democratic process, sooner rather than later those chickens will come back and burn down the roost. I think we are already seeing the chickens trickle in and starting small fires. Stop taking democracy for granted in a linear fashion. The US is boiling over, the safety valve in the UK has gone off, keep a close eye on Sweden the next 20 years, that now thanks to migration has a significant surplus of "loser men".

>>Your gender war<<

Is defensive in nature and imposed on my noble brotherhood. Put down your arms, dismantle your radical ideology and together we can solve crime, raise our intelligence and colonize mars. I will stand my ground. I have extended this olive branch to you numerous times, you have slapped it out of my hand. So be it, you reap what you sow.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:10:10
>>The "truth of the prevailing form of retardation" is arguably just a function of there being more women of voting age and those women tend to vote.<<

There have always been more women than men, this has been much worse historically as the genetic archives show. You keep pretending this is a new phenomena and assume it is linear because you looked at 100 years of data and didn't even understand what that says. You talk about evolutionary functions as the ant on the ass of an elephant.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:16:59
>>So their voices matter and their voices do influence the public debate.<<

And we assume their opinions does not change and follows a straight line.. If we assume democracy does not unravel, if we assume abc about the y-chromosome in a linear fashion, if we assume xyz in a linear fashion of cultural and social trends, if we assume 123 about technical progress in a linear fashion etc. ad absurdum. Then yes. But we would need to be retarded to do that. Now, if we view what you say within that retard frame of mind, then the things you say are rational and make sense, 100%. I have already conceded this point to you, it is a compliment. You can think in a straight line with half a dozen variabels. Not bad for a goat herder :)

jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:17:31
Nimi
If women really cannot achieve anything, then you really do not have anything to worry about.

Loser men is arguably just a function of biology.

Your brotherhood could not even win when it mixed in religion and tried to form a califate. I am not worried and feel our security forces can deal with domestic terrorism in any form.

All it does is re-enforce the thought that having male offspring may not be a particularly good idea.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:19:44
"There have always been more women than men"

Blatantly untrue. I already documented that the current trend began more than a century ago (in 1906 there were 105 men per 100 women alive in the USA).

Try not to trumptard too much. Its a waste of time.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:22:58
>>If women really cannot achieve anything, then you really do not have anything to worry about.<<

I don't as I explained in the other thread, I worry about the reaction should this cancer you are propagating take root. Focus.

>>Loser men is arguably just a function of biology.<<

Arguably a function of biology and environment, just like 97% of noble prize winners and anything and everything you take for granted to day, the computer you type on the democracy you live in, all men.

>>feel our security forces can deal with<<

Men, men, men :) I feel so safe knowing men are keeping me safe. If there is a fire I make a phone call and men show up to put it out. Taking those risks for all our prosperity. Thanks men.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:27:07
1962 was the first presidential election more women than men voted btw. Who won then?

And do you realize how far back you have to set the clock to turn current momentum?

Gender balance is all about incremental steps that take a long time to play out.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:30:32
>>alive in the USA<<

Perhaps the world is a bigger place than the US? Remember that men move more and migrate, the pioneers. What was going on in the US in 1906? If you read a bit more you will find that this skewed ratio didn't balance out until decades later. You know when it was safer, because women really only want equality when men have made it safer for them :)

As always, out of your depth goat herder.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:30:44
1 death of 500 is workplace related (most of them in construction). I already provided that data.

I disagree on your thoughts that men are inherently more valuable to society.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:31:50
*skewed ration of the gender of US immigrants.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 17 07:35:15
>>I disagree<<

You disagree with lived reality, historical data etc. not my thoughts. Which correlates near perfectly with what I said in the other thread to seb:

"We have to assume that he also thinks being wrong 95% of the time is a good enough debating style. His view of reality correlates "good enough" with actual reality."

Anyway I don't have more time to school you and there are so many times one can point out flawed linear assumptions. We should let it rest so you can go dig up more stats and linear assumptions for next time.

Have a nice week end.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:41:13
Nimi
God, what is wrong with your mind? I also posted that gender balance shifts by about 0,003 a year. So yes, it took a while for 1,05 to decrease to parity.

The longer the life expectancy, the greater proportion of women. Men are simply less viable over time.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 07:42:02
You have pretty clearly lost this discussion. But I think you know that :).
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 08:05:58
Anyways:


Tiny amounts of radioactive iodine in air measured in Finnmark
Back

Published 15.08.2019

Keywords: Preparedness
Tiny amounts of radioactive iodine has been measured in air at our air filter station in Svanhovd in Northern Norway. The level detected is very low and poses no harm to people nor the environment.

The sample was taken in the period 9-12 August 2019. The measurement result is comparable to earlier measurements. Norwegian monitoring stations detect radioactive iodine about 6-8 times a year and the source is usually unknown. When no other radioactive substances than iodine is detected, the source is most likely releases from production facilities for radioactive pharmaceuticals containing iodine.

At present it is not possible to determine if the last iodine detection is linked to the accident in Arkhangelsk last week. DSA continues more frequent sampling and analysis.

See radiation levels in air here: http://radnett.dsa.no/
The Children
Member
Sat Aug 17 08:42:29
"Check out the troy2c us nuclear ramjet engine from the 60s. That thing looks legit... ran at 500MW for 5 mins in a ground test. Its a shame humanity started wasting our rocket and nuclear engineer level minds after the 70s or so. I blame hippies. We could be cruising around in mach 10 nuclear business jets. "

>> let me take a wild guess.

german tech?

LOL KAPOWNED

KAPOWNED HARD!!! yanks pretendin they can innovate that be a bad joke , UP suckers.
Seb
Member
Sat Aug 17 10:05:49
Jergul:

It matters which isotope though.
Seb
Member
Sat Aug 17 10:06:41
That's potentially way more interesting than the radiation reading.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 17 10:09:02
iodine
Seb
Member
Sat Aug 17 10:34:02
Yes, iodene, but which isotope of iodene?
LazyCommunist
Member
Tue Aug 20 13:55:50
Can't spy on Russia any longer! Capitalists owned!

http://www...als-says-11566232680?mod=rsswn


More Russian Nuclear Monitoring Stations Went Silent Days After Blast, Test-Ban Official Says
Michael R. Gordon


The number of Russian nuclear-monitoring stations that have gone silent has doubled to four, an international arms-control official said, heightening concerns among observers that Russia is attempting to conceal evidence from an explosion at a missile-test site this month.

Russia monitoring stations designed to detect nuclear radiation at the towns of Bilibino and Zalesovo stopped transmitting data on Aug. 13, Lassina Zerbo, the executive director of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Organization, told The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

Those data disruptions occurred three days after two other monitoring stations, at Dubna and Kirov, which were closer to the site of the Aug. 8 accident, went silent, as the Journal reported on Sunday.

“Experts continue to reach out to our collaborators in Russia to resume operations as expediently as possible,” Mr. Zerbo wrote in an email.


The U.S. and other world powers have a variety of means to monitor military tests in Russia as well as Moscow’s compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits nuclear tests globally.

In addition to American spy satellites and the ability to intercept communications, there are hundreds of monitoring stations around the world that measure seismic shifts, sound waves and radioactive particles.

But nuclear experts widely see the interruption in the data from the four monitoring stations as the Kremlin’s attempt to minimize information about the weapon that was being tested, which President Trump has said is a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Experts said they don’t believe the device was carrying a nuclear warhead or that Russia’s aim in suspending the data transmissions was to hide any clandestine nuclear-weapons test.

Russia may also be trying to minimize publicity about the extent of the plume from the missile-test explosion and the radioactive elements it contains.

Mr. Zerbo’s organization, which receives data from monitoring stations around the world, has projected the potential path of the plume, which it depicts as moving toward western Russia before shifting south and then spreading to the east.

Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted on Monday that there has been no spike in radiation following the incident and that experts are monitoring the situation. “There is no threat and no rise in the radiation level there,” Mr. Putin said during a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron in France. “Preventive measures are taken so nothing unexpected happens.”

Following the blast, Russian authorities were slow in releasing information about it. A local authority briefly reported a spike in radiation levels before removing the information from its website.

Residents of the city of Severodvinsk near the blast site rushed to pharmacies after news of the incident to stock up on iodine, which protects the thyroid gland against absorbing radiation. A Russian news outlet, Baza, published a video showing ambulances said to be transporting victims to Moscow, with the vehicles’ doors sealed in film and drivers wearing hazmat suits.

The four Russian monitoring stations that have stopped transmitting data are what Mr. Zerbo’s organization calls radionuclide sites that detect radioactive particles. They extend from Dubna, which is north of Moscow, to Zalesovo in Siberia to Bilibino in the Russian northeastern region of Chukotka, near Alaska.

Russian officials initially told the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization that the sites that stopped transmitting were hampered by “communication and network issues.” They haven’t told the group when they expect them to be operational again.

Officials at the Russian Embassy in Washington referred questions to authorities in Moscow, who didn’t respond.

A Russian monitoring station that detects radiation at Ussuriysk—located in Russia’s Far East near Vladivostok—still transmits data, said Mr. Zerbo, who has declined to speculate on the reasons for the interruption.

The loss of data comes as the future of arms control agreements is in flux, including that of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

That accord has been signed by 184 nations. It has yet to formally take effect because the required number of nations haven’t ratified it.

Russia, which has signed and ratified the accord, insists it is rigorously adhering to the treaty. The U.S. signed the treaty during the Clinton administration. The accord was never approved by the Senate, but the U.S. hasn’t conducted a nuclear test since 1992.

While the accord isn’t legally in force, the global network of monitoring stations, which would be used to verify compliance, is functioning and funneling data to Mr. Zerbo’s organization, which shares it with signatories to the treaty.

Steve Andreasen, who was the top National Security Council official on arms control during the Clinton administration, said that the system for monitoring adherence consisted of four different technologies, was international in scope and didn’t depend on the “good faith” of an individual country to continuously provide data.

“In the case of the Russia nuclear accident in August, two of these four technologies—seismic and infrasound—reportedly detected the explosion and reported it promptly,” he said.

Opponents of the treaty complained that the loss of data meant that Russia had simply switched off the monitoring stations. They noted that U.S. intelligence has previously alleged Moscow had violated its commitment by conducting nuclear tests with very low explosive power.

“The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty doesn’t serve U.S. national interests,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said. “President Trump should unsign the treaty and end this charade.”
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 22 06:29:01
So apparently the doctors treating three of the victims were contaminated with caesium 137 - that's a fission product. So the reactor might have been active or at least have previously been active.

This is why I would generally expect these missiles to fly down range before activating in real circumstances.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Aug 22 09:33:43
The commies are telling their peasants not to fish or go swimming in that water.

Lol
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 23 00:54:33
It seems to indicate that the current reactor does have an on-off function.

Over to something completely different:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/harmony
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 23 03:59:51
Jergul:

On/off would be pretty easy - just control rod - and makes sense for a test unit.

The real one you'd only need to turn on. Preferably at some distance :-)

Seb
Member
Fri Aug 23 04:01:37
I guess from this we can conclude it's actually very similar to the American design.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 23 04:03:31
If I was going totally blue skies, I'd use a molten salt reactor which you could arrange to go critical only when operating at high speed and temp.

But then I guess building an entirely new reactor concept is longer than making a solid state fast reactor but small.
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 23 09:23:44
Seb
Well, you would need shielding for on-off. It make sense if the heat-up time is longer than the booster burn-off time.

The US design was Raver type (Serenity reference).

A totally new reactor fits the pet project theory. But we may not be seeing a new reactor right now as the design is in testing and could be using a placeholder reactor.
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 29 15:35:30
Jergul:

Not necessarily - and a fast reactor wouldn't have a time much longer than fossil fuel world keep it aloft.

I think the pet project is nuclear engine for space launch. The fallout becomes less of an issue then as if you can get the time to orbit below the degradation time of the fuel elements you might keep leakage to acceptable levels.

Any cruise missile will be a reaver type weapon just because there's no military value in increasing design constraints, cost and complexity to get safety features for the enemy population you are targeting with nukes.


Anyway, this is interesting:

http://www...lear-powered-missile-test.html

jergul
large member
Fri Aug 30 00:34:40
Seb
Do physics allow? An airbreathing engine of any type would need a lot of momentum to push through to leo.

I am firmly convinced its a pet project. I am just not sure what kind of pet project it is.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Aug 30 01:08:54
A fission core carrying shielding and propelant only has an Isp a little better than chemical i think. Using it for only early boost phase helps... but not decisively.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 30 04:46:38
Jergul:

Get up up high speed and altitude (that's where most energy is lost), then use onboard reaction mass, either rocket or maybe you can use chemically inert reaction mass heated by the nuclear engine.

Seb
Member
Fri Aug 30 04:54:53
Sam:

No shielding at all. At least unless it's humongous. This would be unmanned until the technology matured (if it ever did).

The benefit of a nuclear air breathing first stage is that for the hardest part (launch to upper atmosphere) where air resistance is greatest, you don't need to carry all that fuel. The gearing on the rocket equation is brutal, so if you look at an rocket destined for LEO, something like 50-70% (I forget the exact figure but in sure it can be googled) of the fuel and weight on the launchpad is consumed just there to get the thing to the kinds of speeds and altitudes you might reach with an air breathing scram jet.

Hence things like skylon/sabre engine.

You get much better payload fraction than the rocket equation would normally allow.

Even better if you can use the nuclear core plus reaction mass instead of a chemical rocket as you don't need to carry oxidant and the extra hardware another engine entails.

It's a compelling idea, were it not for the fact it is pretty lethal and vet hard to build safely.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share