rikko 20 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 FAO Rikko: I have a few questions for you. I read up on how a nuclear powered submarine works as in propulsion and was surprised to see that some have 2 Nuclear reactors. Now I know how I'm led to believe how they work, yet I have a few problems with it. I was wondering if you could shed any light onto it using basic speak that is understandable to myself and not scientific terms used to baffle. I'd appreciate if you could use your own words and not any copy and paste from sites as they can sometimes leave more questions than what they answer. If you don't want to, that's fair enough but here goes. 1....What is the purpose of having TWO nuclear reactors on one submarine , why not just one as they apparently produce an enormous amount of electricity from the steam they generate which I would have thought would easily power something like a submarine. 2...When a submarine comes into port, how do they turn off the nuclear reactors in terms of them not producing any steam as I'm led to believe they take a lot of shutting down and cannot be shut down fully. 3..In nuclear power stations, you see steam stacks that they say are used from the process of condensing , I was wondering how a submerged submarine manages this. Cheers. 1. Some Russian subs have 2 reactors. The UK ones don't. I am fairly certain the USA and French ones don't either. I could guess why the Russians went for two but I can't say definitively as I don't know. Its probably down to redundancy or if they have multiple propellers/propulsors it may be for more speed. There are a number of reasons why you may want 2 over 1. On a side note US air craft carriers have 2 reactors on them and that's done as one core doesn't produce enough power for such a large boat. The US carriers are basically floating cities though, so it may be as simple as that for the russian subs. 2. When a sub comes into port it will still generate steam which is used to turn the electric generators to power the lights, air, computers etc etc The reactor on a submarine powers everything from the toilets to moving the whole boat. To shut the core down for repair work or refuelling you insert the control rods all the way in which stops all the nuclear fissions. You then have the decay heat to deal with which is initially pretty high at about 7% of full power but drops down to under 1% full power in a few days. When you want to refuel you have to wait until the decay heat is less then the natural heat losses from the reactor, this can take 3-6 months to occur. The steam generators are used to do this if the boat is in the water. If its in dry dock they have an alternative cooling supply attached instead. 3. They use the sea as a heat sink instead of a cooling tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm going guess the answers because it doesn't seem like i couldn't have a decent guess!, wouldn't mind seeing Rikko's explanation (not because i doubt shit like wolfy but because the explation on how the fuel worked in the other thread was interesting) 1....What is the purpose of having TWO nuclear reactors on one submarine , why not just one as they apparently produce an enormous amount of electricity from the steam they generate which I would have thought would easily power something like a submarine. I'm guessing it's the size of the reactors and the length of time they're "in service", they can stay out longer and use one when the other needs refueled without exposing where they are/were/have been, or they power different elements/work as a failover so a problem with one doesn't compromise the running of the systems. A nuclear sub can go 25 years+ without needing refuelled. Having a back up reactor is probably the real reason. 2...When a submarine comes into port, how do they turn off the nuclear reactors in terms of them not producing any steam as I'm led to believe they take a lot of shutting down and cannot be shut down fully. lobbed into some sort of standby mode because it's drawing less power? think stop/start for modern cars but on a complicated scale? Broadly right. The sub reactor has a feature called 'load following'. When you want to go faster you draw more steam out of the core so the temperature drops. When the temperature drops the water coolant and moderator gets denser causing the fissions to increase and more power is taken from the core. When you want to slow down or take less energy out of the core the reactor temperature increases causing the water coolant and moderator to expand which decreases the number of fissions. This is quite a complex idea to get your head around. 3..In nuclear power stations, you see steam stacks that they say are used from the process of condensing , I was wondering how a submerged submarine manages this. Maybe they don't need to get rid of the steam though, are subs not like a "steam engine" in the sense the produced steam is used to drive the propeller, so when it drives the engine that works the propeller it could equally get cooled, turned back into water and then go through the process again in a loop? That's broadly correct also. They use sea water to do final bit of condensing after the steam has lost its pressure turning the propeller and turning the electric turbines etc edit > re did the post to tag rikko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmaxSteve 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Explain how Steve found this forum then wolfy. Bearing in mind this is by some distance primarily a forum for Newcastle United fans, not conspiracy theorists. I found this forum- this thread actually when I "googled" "red bull stratos hoax" because I saw the event and was astounded on the poor quality of the video show as a "Live" fall from 20 miles altitude. I was wondering of other people felt as I did that it must have been a hoax because for two plus hours every shot is crystal clear HighDef clear blue sky until the "jump" when suddenly Felix turns into a tumbling dot of light against a grey background only to suddenly reappear back in HighDef when he approaches a "normal" jumping altitude. I know that I have been asked to leave this forum because my views that 9-11 videos were all faked are not tolerated, but perhaps if we return to the subject at hand - Red Bull Stratos- an event where there were no victims either real or faked, I won't be offending anyone when I say that I believe the video of the free fall portion of the jump was a horrible phony undecipherable piece of crap video and even if it was real I feel that it was a huge waste of time and money. I would just as well have read about the successful jump in the newspaper the following day. If the goal was to simply jump and beat the record, that"s awesome. But if the goal was to do it on live TV in a way that anyone watching it could actually be convinced that it was real, it was a horrible failure. for the record I don"t know Wolfy from Adam, and there is no one who uses that name that has ever posted on the September Clues forum site. If he posts there using another screen name I am not aware of it. No one at the clues forum even felt that the footage of the "jump" was even worthy of discussing or scrutinizing as it was of such poor quality that it would be difficult to accept as visual proof of anything, even if were authentic . The fact is that whether you believed the jump was "feasible" or not , nothing shown on the Telly that day would go a far way to changing anyone's opinion. regards, Steve O. Edited October 17, 2012 by OmaxSteve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I can't think for the life of me why videoing a guy would be difficult as he plummets at over 700mph... Yet it's easy once he's closer and slower? It MUST be faked... jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6432 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 They've faked this so they can get away with introducing a new drink, don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I can't think for the life of me why videoing a guy would be difficult as he plummets at over 700mph... Yet it's easy once he's closer and slower? It MUST be faked... jesus wept. Don't you think the nice perfect footage of him at 120, 000 feet , as clear as day is suspect and I'm not talking about the supposed camera's on board which are pathetic in themselves, I'm on about the supposed GROUND shots of it as the balloon inflated more and more to what looked like breaking point. Why do people buy into this? I honestly hand on heart cannot understand how people think this shit is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 You and steveoxo fell for it. I know who fell for stuff and in isn't me but each to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Not fake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17741 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Wolfy And Steve have already shown that no video evidence is good enough if it contradicts their preformed views. No evidence in any form in fact. I can't even see why this jump could be considered as controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Saudi money is behind half the terrorism on the planet which the americans know full well. Who really knows. Who actually knows what and who's money is behind what is actually going on...we know that plenty of things are going on, yet the jigsaw is in tens of thousands of pieces and we still have to figure out what pieces of the sky fit because we have done the easy bit with the objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Don't you think the nice perfect footage of him at 120, 000 feet , as clear as day is suspect and I'm not talking about the supposed camera's on board which are pathetic in themselves, I'm on about the supposed GROUND shots of it as the balloon inflated more and more to what looked like breaking point. Why do people buy into this? I honestly hand on heart cannot understand how people think this shit is real. Which footage of him at 120k feet are you specifically saying is faked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. Some Russian subs have 2 reactors. The UK ones don't. I am fairly certain the USA and French ones don't either. I could guess why the Russians went for two but I can't say definitively as I don't know. Its probably down to redundancy or if they have multiple propellers/propulsors it may be for more speed. There are a number of reasons why you may want 2 over 1. On a side note US air craft carriers have 2 reactors on them and that's done as one core doesn't produce enough power for such a large boat. The US carriers are basically floating cities though, so it may be as simple as that for the russian subs. 2. When a sub comes into port it will still generate steam which is used to turn the electric generators to power the lights, air, computers etc etc The reactor on a submarine powers everything from the toilets to moving the whole boat. To shut the core down for repair work or refuelling you insert the control rods all the way in which stops all the nuclear fissions. You then have the decay heat to deal with which is initially pretty high at about 7% of full power but drops down to under 1% full power in a few days. When you want to refuel you have to wait until the decay heat is less then the natural heat losses from the reactor, this can take 3-6 months to occur. The steam generators are used to do this if the boat is in the water. If its in dry dock they have an alternative cooling supply attached instead. 3. They use the sea as a heat sink instead of a cooling tower. Ok.Can you tell me how they take out the spent fuel rods, that are obviously (so we are told) killer radioactive..from the submarines when they need to refuel. Can you also tell me how a nuclear sub can stay at sea for 25 years on the same fuel when nuclear reactors on land have to refuel ( supposedly every 6 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which footage of him at 120k feet are you specifically saying is faked? The ground footage and the zoom in that is perfect. Can you explain that to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The ground footage and the zoom in that is perfect. Can you explain that to me . Jesus Christ, you really need to be walked through stuff don't you. Show me the photo taken from the ground of the Balloon that is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Jesus Christ, you really need to be walked through stuff don't you. Show me the photo taken from the ground of the Balloon that is perfect. Ok. Well here's one at 106,594 feet. What camera took this shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Ok. Well here's one at 106,594 feet. What camera took this shot? So that grainy blurred photo that could have been taken from any number of positions, that is perfect is it? You're standards are slipping Wolfster, you're not even sure where that photo is from man! Find me this photo of him in perfect focus from the ground, that "proves" the endeavor was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 So that grainy blurred photo that could have been taken from any number of positions, that is perfect is it? You're standards are slipping Wolfster, you're not even sure where that photo is from man! Find me this photo of him in perfect focus from the ground, that "proves" the endeavor was faked. Oh it's not exactly perfect. like if we got our photos took at a party but it's one hell of a clearish shot form that height from ground level don;t you think? Do you think it was from a helicopter, nimble balloon..., maybe a U2 spy plane ? Super focus ground 2012 technology camera/video? http://www.space.com/17959-red-bull-stratos-skydive-photos.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17741 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) I found this forum- this thread actually when I "googled" "red bull stratos hoax" because I saw the event and was astounded on the poor quality of the video show as a "Live" fall from 20 miles altitude. I was wondering of other people felt as I did that it must have been a hoax because for two plus hours every shot is crystal clear HighDef clear blue sky until the "jump" when suddenly Felix turns into a tumbling dot of light against a grey background only to suddenly reappear back in HighDef when he approaches a "normal" jumping altitude. I know that I have been asked to leave this forum because my views that 9-11 videos were all faked are not tolerated, but perhaps if we return to the subject at hand - Red Bull Stratos- an event where there were no victims either real or faked, I won't be offending anyone when I say that I believe the video of the free fall portion of the jump was a horrible phony undecipherable piece of crap video and even if it was real I feel that it was a huge waste of time and money. I would just as well have read about the successful jump in the newspaper the following day. If the goal was to simply jump and beat the record, that"s awesome. But if the goal was to do it on live TV in a way that anyone watching it could actually be convinced that it was real, it was a horrible failure. for the record I don"t know Wolfy from Adam, and there is no one who uses that name that has ever posted on the September Clues forum site. If he posts there using another screen name I am not aware of it. No one at the clues forum even felt that the footage of the "jump" was even worthy of discussing or scrutinizing as it was of such poor quality that it would be difficult to accept as visual proof of anything, even if were authentic . The fact is that whether you believed the jump was "feasible" or not , nothing shown on the Telly that day would go a far way to changing anyone's opinion. regards, Steve O. No thread on the cluesforum? http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1451&sid=4c38a86ce7f79da8b07fdf59b0f9cd7b Edit: meant to say you have 7 pages of discussion of it. Of course as always on there there's an a priori assumption it's fake. If you don't accept that you're not allowed to post. Edited October 18, 2012 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 fuck me, that looks perfect but the concept that a picture becomes more distorted when they zoom in to capture the tiny man who is inside the tiny dot at the bottom of that giant fucking balloon who at that point is traveling at over 700mph is lost on him ffs the balloon itself is 55 stories high in size, from the tip of the balloon to the capsule is 700ft of course they can get a reasonable picture of a 700 foot tall object as opposed to a 6ft one traveling at 700mph you utter utter moron. honestly i hope when you die some witty fecker thinks, "ya know what we should do for the craic, hoy his ashes in a rocket like that scotty fella and send him to the moon" edit> that's my last post to this mong, only replied earlier because i was interested in rikko's info, thank fuck i got an education. Aye, silly me. just 20,000 more feet and it's the pitch black of space eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I can see the Craters on the moon with a fair degree of clarity, but when a fly buzzes past me, I can't focus on it... They must be fake. Jesus Wolfy, You're terrible at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Steve basically saying he'd believe the jump happened if he'd read it in the paper, but because we saw a live stream where there was no crystal clear footage of the guy hurtling faster than the speed of sound it was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Aye, silly me. just 20,000 more feet and it's the pitch black of space eh. When Felix is falling from 126,000 feet , even though the footage is supposedly infra red ...can anyone tell me what took the footage of this at that height, looking at him sideways on and not from the ground.... I'd be interested if anyone can shed some light on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYL0tVOpu2Q Edited October 17, 2012 by wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 eh no the "lower limit" is considered to be 50miles for astronautical status (fuck knows if thats how it's phrased) which is over 250k feet, ya know twice as high as he was... i'd actually love to know what you're qualified for as a day job, if it's not some form of mind numbing data entry that involves no thinking/comprehension/decision making i'd be amazed You just think what you want to think. I'm happy with what I do and I don;t need to know what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 You couldn't grasp what i do, it involves technology http://boards.footym...16381914&page=1 wonder what you got banned for on here then eh? Why don't you tell me what I got banned for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34379 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Was it cos you're a stupid cunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now