| Friday, September 26, 2008 - 01:27 pm |
Archangel1: "And why should Israel take down a wall located on ITS OWN LAND?"
Because it is not entirely on ITS OWN LAND. Here is a ruling from the International Court of Justice and a map of the route of the barrier. Note the long incursions into the West Bank.
Andreja:"As for Chernobyl, I will not doubt your wiki-knowledge. You are right, and my father and the rest of his faculty in Belgrade, who warned their families to start to drink powdered milk in mid-april '86, are wrong. What could they know?"
That is due to the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere following the Chernobyl disaster. It is completely separate from the issue of what caused the release.
"#2) The physics are very simple. 1/2 life is 1/2 life. Operational neurton capture MUST be close to 1 for the reaction to maintain, otherwise it will shut down, or run away."
Yes, close to, not necessarily exact. By varying the portion of control rods inserted into the core you can regulate the reaction so that the amount of heat produced is reduced. Although you are right that one out of the 2 or 3 neutrons released must go on to trigger another decay for the reaction to be continuous, by varying the amount of the neutron moderator (control rod) you can slow down the rate of reaction. I'm not sure what the full range is, but it is likely to have a minimum that would be due to the natural decay of the fissile material (which would be minimal as the 1/2 life of the isotopes used is pretty long).
All that talk of speed is confusing. It is the rate of reaction that matters. The speed of the neutrons is too high to cause fission and the control material is there in part to slow them down sufficiently to trigger fission in another atom.
Incidentally, on a side note, modern reactors are designed with control rods that will fall into the reactor if it overheats. The fixings that hold the control rods above the reactor core are designed to melt if the temperature threshold is exceeded and gravity does the rest effectively killing the reaction.
Capacitors as electrical storage devices
I didn't realise they were being used to store electricity. I thought they were used in power stations primarily to counteract the inductive elements in the generation process to correct the power factor. I would worry about locating large capacitors in an urban environment as they tend to fail catastrophically at the end of their live producing are rather large explosion. Much safer, if perhaps less efficient, to pump water up to a higher reservoir above a hydroelectric station during low demand periods and use that to generate more electricity during high demand periods (this is the case with one station in Wales).
Archangel1: "I guess I should have understood you are too stupid to change between concepts."
Frankly, your hysterical ranting over this matter is uncalled for. I couldn't understand your initial description with the 1000% increase. Even reading it back now with your much clearer explanation, it still seems to suggest that a power plant producing at 100% of its capacity should be able to reach 1000% of its maximum. It was unclear and the insults you followed it up with are unwarranted.
Nix: "Anyway, do you know about the molecules they have found on the moon?. When used in a Nuclear Reactor they have been found to be something like 300% more efficient than the molecules used at present and because it is a much less violent reaction, the wall's of the reactor will not need changing as often."
You're talking about heavy water (D2O with two Deuterium atoms in place of the Hydrogen). This can't be used in any reaction in a nuclear plant. It is used as a more effective coolant, I believe, but I think you are talking more about nuclear fusion which does require heavy water. That is still a pipe dream and we are unlikely to see a commercial fusion reactor for 20 years.