Page 24 of 24 [ 376 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Oct 2011, 12:56 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Oh, cum now. We all know very well that if President Bush had similarly released petroleum from the Strategic Oil Reserves, then you guys would be gushing with adulation.

You guys are just too obsessed with attacking President Obama.

No, I didn't give Bush a free pass just for being a Republican. I've had critical words about him, but it all is trivial now compared to the antics of the Obama administration.


And for what did you criticise the Mighty Boosh?


The fact he should have kept the pressure on the Democrats concerning Freddie Mac, back in 2003 and used the bully pulpit to get the American people behind him to put a stop to the bubble.

However, your attempt to imply Bush's expanding the Strategic Oil Reserve due to the disruptions was somehow stupid, doesn't make any sense...


:roll:

I made no attempt to imply that anything Bush did regarding toe Strategic Oil Reserve was stupid. I merely asked what criticisms you had of President Bush. Your only criticism is that he wasn't hard enough on Democrats. That pretty much amounts to a free pass for being Republican.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

23 Oct 2011, 5:58 pm

Since the energy to run a nuclear powered car is essentially free there are no weight limitations that impact fuel economy. A nuclear powered car could be built like a tank and be virtually indestructible.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Oct 2011, 6:46 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Since the energy to run a nuclear powered car is essentially free there are no weight limitations that impact fuel economy. A nuclear powered car could be built like a tank and be virtually indestructible.


Nonsense. It isn't even wrong. The only moving vehicles that can bear the weight of a nuclear reactor are large ships and large submarines. Nuclear airplanes are out of the question. The power to weight ratio makes it impossible. And autos and trucks must be far too small to fit on the roads. Possible a nuclear powered locomotive on a railway might be feasible, but that is stretch.

Static nuclear facilities are the most practical. They can generate electricity which can run cars and trucks far away. And do it safely too.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

24 Oct 2011, 3:26 pm

In the 1950's and 1960's nuclear powered airplanes were on their way to becoming a reality but the research funding was cut.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Oct 2011, 3:44 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
In the 1950's and 1960's nuclear powered airplanes were on their way to becoming a reality but the research funding was cut.


Do you know why funding was cut? Because studies showed the unworkability of nuclear powered aircraft. The shielding weighed too much. And there was the safety issue. Do you want a nuke plane crashing into a crowded area spewing all kinds of hot radioactive crap all over the place?

It was a losing idea and it was rightfully defunded.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

24 Oct 2011, 4:11 pm

Shielding is accomplished in a nuclear powered airplane by using a long boom that separates the reactor hundreds of feet from the passenger compartment. Unfortunately engineers try to design the nuclear powered airplane to look like a conventional airplane. Also explosive bolts are installed at the reactor so that in the event of a crash the reactor is separated from the fuselage and parachuted safely to Earth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Oct 2011, 5:09 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Shielding is accomplished in a nuclear powered airplane by using a long boom that separates the reactor hundreds of feet from the passenger compartment. Unfortunately engineers try to design the nuclear powered airplane to look like a conventional airplane. Also explosive bolts are installed at the reactor so that in the event of a crash the reactor is separated from the fuselage and parachuted safely to Earth.


Good god! That is virtually unflyable and certainly uneconomic for commercial flights.

Nuke airplanes are just a bad idea. The only vessels on which nuclear power has worked are large ocean going ships ( both warships and civilian ships, and submarines). That is because the boyancy of the ship can offset the weight of the shielding.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

24 Oct 2011, 8:09 pm

Is the long boom such a radical idea ? I guess nobody saw 2001 a Space Odyssey. With robotic technology the boom can telescope in for take offs and landings not to mention the robotic actuators can be used as shock absorbers for the nuclear pulse propulsion.