23 17 46 11
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Thread already has beaten this to death.....totally not practical. Green Goat technology (hybrid) is the current technology under examination.
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea.
USAF TSgt C-17 Aircraft Maintenance Flying Crew Chief & Flightline Avionics Craftsman
Originally posted by easter [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:42 AM And the same goes for Hydrogen. Nobody seems to remember the Von Hindenburg disaster. (A dirigible using Hydrogen instead of Helium carries four times the load. So the Germans built one for trans-Atlantic passage. Whatever set it on fire nobody ever found out definitely, possibly just exhaust gas from the propeller gasoline engines heated enough of the Hydrogen to explode. It crashed in Lakewood, NJ in the middle of the 30's. I agree. Green Goat for non-electrified stop and go, improvements on today's high-efficiency diesels for non-electrified long distance freight and passengers, and electrification wherever possible. Reply M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:48 AM I have an old technical paper from the 1950s describing nuclear powered locomotive proposals, and indeed they had eight axles to carry the load of the reactor and shielding. I would expect that they would be steam turbine units (like submarines) possibly with direct geared drive. I understand that current submarine reactors are cooled by natural convection to reduce the risk of cooling pump failure causing a problem. It is almost impossible for a reactor to explode like a bomb, even if two were forced together. The design of a nuclear bomb involves bringing together a critical mass and retaining it in a compact mass until the chain reaction develops. Reactors, for very good reasons, don't have the fissile material physically arranged to allow an explosion to occur. It is always possible to get a release of radiation, as occurred at Chernobyl, if enough things go wrong, and this can be dangerous to people close to the reactor. However, the danger is not significantly greater than the effects of dangerous goods currently hauled on US railroads, not that the recent record in that area would encourage adding anything else dangerous to the system. Power reactors and bombs are quite different devices, and the main problem is that using a power reactor in a particular way does allow the production of high grade radioactive material that can be removed and made into a bomb. This is what North Korea say they are doing, and what Iran says they are not doing, but, of course, they could.... Peter Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:31 AM I saw one about a train that actually blews up Denver [:(] Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:33 AM Yes Hydrogen would not be so good either but still not as powerful as the atom! [:o)][:D] Originally posted by daveklepper Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:24 AM That train that blew up Denver... could we send one to New Jersey?[}:)] More seriously, I'm still holding out for the time when the price of diesel fuel makes a new coal burning steam locomotive a realistic possibility. I know it's just a dream, but it's MY dream and I'm sticking with it. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:30 AM H'mm why NJ? My sons were born their & 1 son graduated Rutgers. I also lived nearby to U at one time GSP exit 117[:D][:p][:o)][:I] Originally posted by tpatrick [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:32 AM Super that gave me a good chuckle! [:D][:D][:D] Originally posted by mudchicken Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. The following is copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/physics/43446.shtml Question Please can you explain Nuclear Fission, Chain Reactions and Nuclear reactors because i really dont understand it at all! Thanx. Answer The centre of the atom is made up of the nucleus. Nuclei contain around the same number of protons and neutrons, but some very large nuclei in certain isotopes have an imbalance. They often have too many neutrons, and this imbalance causes the nucleus to be unstable. These are radioactive substances, the nuclei of which often break up into two or more smaller fragments. Part of the split-up nucleus will become one or more smaller elements, while neutrons are also often released. These travel away from the split nucleus and can find their way into the nucleus of other heavy elements. This can again cause an imbalance with too many neutrons and this next nucleus will also break itself up. This again releases neutrons, which causes further nucleus-splits, and so on . If left alone in a lump of large enough fissile material, this fission process gets out of control very rapidly. This is a nuclear fission explosion, as in nuclear bombs. If controlled, the rate of the nuclear chain reaction can be kept at a rate producing high temperatures without explosion. This heat can be used to turn water into steam that then turns a turbine and generator, producing electricity. Another really good link for bombs: http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm I was being facetious when I suggested an explosion, as the concept was absurd. Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 AM Regarding the comments on hydrogen: Modern hydrogen power has nothing whatever to do with the sort of risks that led to the Hindenburg explosion. The Hindenburg (and other similar accidents) involved the combustion of Hydrogen gas contained in bags. Modern hydrogen fuelling of internal-combustion engines involves the storage of hydrogen in a solid state (usually in a fuel cell), with the hydrogen only changing state on demand as it is transferred to the combustion chamber. This change of state has been the point of fuel cell technology - storing hydrogen in a state where unintended combustion simply cannot occur. B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:34 AM Hey, if locos go atomic.........it will bring back ALCO. ALCO Atomic Locomotive Corpatation [C):-)][4:-)] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM Land based power plants cover hundreds of acres ad take dozens of operators and engineers to run. There is technology on the distant horizon that could significantly reduce both numbers, namely the Pebble Bed Reactor, but to ever get one small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and easy enough to maintain that a couple of locomotive engineers could operate and troubleshoot it is extremely unlikely within the next couple centuries. More convential methods of reducing the amount of fuel used by locomotives is a more logical answer. BTW, I work at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and even with all the zoomies still floating around it is one of the safest places you could work, and definately the most secure! Dave M Reply underworld Member sinceFebruary 2005 1,821 posts Posted by underworld on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:36 PM A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] currently on Tour with Sleeper Cell myspace.com/sleepercellrock Sleeper Cell is @ Checkers in Bowling Green Ohio 12/31/2009 come on out to the party!!! we will be shooting more video for MTVs The Making of a Metal Band Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:44 PM From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly -- -- The disappointing condition in which a nuclear reactor has so much reactivity in it that its chain reaction can be sustained on prompt neutrons alone, which means that it is highly supercritical and its power level will escalate severely to the point that the coolant will be unable to accept the high levels of thermal energy transfer from the core, and the result is the coolant “flashing” from liquid to vapor with consequent rapid pressure rise, and the pressure rises much higher than the mechanical strength of the core and piping systems, and the system rapidly comes apart (disassembles). The above description is by definition an “explosion,” but nuclear engineers hate that word because the media keeps trying to say that nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons, so the disassembly term is used. While most civilian nuclear reactors cannot achieve a prompt critical rapid disassembly but would merely melt down, naval reactors with their bomb-grade uranium can go prompt critical. The disassembly would be a simple steam explosion 999 times out of 1000, but there is a small chance that a naval reactor undergoing a prompt critical condition could experience a nuclear weapon-type detonation, although it would be many orders of magnitude weaker than a Hiroshima bomb. A Russian submarine being refueled on the Kamchatka Peninsula experienced a prompt critical rapid disassembly that blew enough radiation to the environment that it required the permanent abandonment of a six mile stretch of land and the refueling pier. They can indeed explode. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Originally posted by csxengineer98 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:33 AM Yes Hydrogen would not be so good either but still not as powerful as the atom! [:o)][:D] Originally posted by daveklepper Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:24 AM That train that blew up Denver... could we send one to New Jersey?[}:)] More seriously, I'm still holding out for the time when the price of diesel fuel makes a new coal burning steam locomotive a realistic possibility. I know it's just a dream, but it's MY dream and I'm sticking with it. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:30 AM H'mm why NJ? My sons were born their & 1 son graduated Rutgers. I also lived nearby to U at one time GSP exit 117[:D][:p][:o)][:I] Originally posted by tpatrick [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:32 AM Super that gave me a good chuckle! [:D][:D][:D] Originally posted by mudchicken Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. The following is copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/physics/43446.shtml Question Please can you explain Nuclear Fission, Chain Reactions and Nuclear reactors because i really dont understand it at all! Thanx. Answer The centre of the atom is made up of the nucleus. Nuclei contain around the same number of protons and neutrons, but some very large nuclei in certain isotopes have an imbalance. They often have too many neutrons, and this imbalance causes the nucleus to be unstable. These are radioactive substances, the nuclei of which often break up into two or more smaller fragments. Part of the split-up nucleus will become one or more smaller elements, while neutrons are also often released. These travel away from the split nucleus and can find their way into the nucleus of other heavy elements. This can again cause an imbalance with too many neutrons and this next nucleus will also break itself up. This again releases neutrons, which causes further nucleus-splits, and so on . If left alone in a lump of large enough fissile material, this fission process gets out of control very rapidly. This is a nuclear fission explosion, as in nuclear bombs. If controlled, the rate of the nuclear chain reaction can be kept at a rate producing high temperatures without explosion. This heat can be used to turn water into steam that then turns a turbine and generator, producing electricity. Another really good link for bombs: http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm I was being facetious when I suggested an explosion, as the concept was absurd. Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 AM Regarding the comments on hydrogen: Modern hydrogen power has nothing whatever to do with the sort of risks that led to the Hindenburg explosion. The Hindenburg (and other similar accidents) involved the combustion of Hydrogen gas contained in bags. Modern hydrogen fuelling of internal-combustion engines involves the storage of hydrogen in a solid state (usually in a fuel cell), with the hydrogen only changing state on demand as it is transferred to the combustion chamber. This change of state has been the point of fuel cell technology - storing hydrogen in a state where unintended combustion simply cannot occur. B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:34 AM Hey, if locos go atomic.........it will bring back ALCO. ALCO Atomic Locomotive Corpatation [C):-)][4:-)] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM Land based power plants cover hundreds of acres ad take dozens of operators and engineers to run. There is technology on the distant horizon that could significantly reduce both numbers, namely the Pebble Bed Reactor, but to ever get one small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and easy enough to maintain that a couple of locomotive engineers could operate and troubleshoot it is extremely unlikely within the next couple centuries. More convential methods of reducing the amount of fuel used by locomotives is a more logical answer. BTW, I work at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and even with all the zoomies still floating around it is one of the safest places you could work, and definately the most secure! Dave M Reply underworld Member sinceFebruary 2005 1,821 posts Posted by underworld on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:36 PM A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] currently on Tour with Sleeper Cell myspace.com/sleepercellrock Sleeper Cell is @ Checkers in Bowling Green Ohio 12/31/2009 come on out to the party!!! we will be shooting more video for MTVs The Making of a Metal Band Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:44 PM From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly -- -- The disappointing condition in which a nuclear reactor has so much reactivity in it that its chain reaction can be sustained on prompt neutrons alone, which means that it is highly supercritical and its power level will escalate severely to the point that the coolant will be unable to accept the high levels of thermal energy transfer from the core, and the result is the coolant “flashing” from liquid to vapor with consequent rapid pressure rise, and the pressure rises much higher than the mechanical strength of the core and piping systems, and the system rapidly comes apart (disassembles). The above description is by definition an “explosion,” but nuclear engineers hate that word because the media keeps trying to say that nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons, so the disassembly term is used. While most civilian nuclear reactors cannot achieve a prompt critical rapid disassembly but would merely melt down, naval reactors with their bomb-grade uranium can go prompt critical. The disassembly would be a simple steam explosion 999 times out of 1000, but there is a small chance that a naval reactor undergoing a prompt critical condition could experience a nuclear weapon-type detonation, although it would be many orders of magnitude weaker than a Hiroshima bomb. A Russian submarine being refueled on the Kamchatka Peninsula experienced a prompt critical rapid disassembly that blew enough radiation to the environment that it required the permanent abandonment of a six mile stretch of land and the refueling pier. They can indeed explode. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by daveklepper Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:24 AM That train that blew up Denver... could we send one to New Jersey?[}:)] More seriously, I'm still holding out for the time when the price of diesel fuel makes a new coal burning steam locomotive a realistic possibility. I know it's just a dream, but it's MY dream and I'm sticking with it. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:30 AM H'mm why NJ? My sons were born their & 1 son graduated Rutgers. I also lived nearby to U at one time GSP exit 117[:D][:p][:o)][:I] Originally posted by tpatrick [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:32 AM Super that gave me a good chuckle! [:D][:D][:D] Originally posted by mudchicken Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. The following is copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/physics/43446.shtml Question Please can you explain Nuclear Fission, Chain Reactions and Nuclear reactors because i really dont understand it at all! Thanx. Answer The centre of the atom is made up of the nucleus. Nuclei contain around the same number of protons and neutrons, but some very large nuclei in certain isotopes have an imbalance. They often have too many neutrons, and this imbalance causes the nucleus to be unstable. These are radioactive substances, the nuclei of which often break up into two or more smaller fragments. Part of the split-up nucleus will become one or more smaller elements, while neutrons are also often released. These travel away from the split nucleus and can find their way into the nucleus of other heavy elements. This can again cause an imbalance with too many neutrons and this next nucleus will also break itself up. This again releases neutrons, which causes further nucleus-splits, and so on . If left alone in a lump of large enough fissile material, this fission process gets out of control very rapidly. This is a nuclear fission explosion, as in nuclear bombs. If controlled, the rate of the nuclear chain reaction can be kept at a rate producing high temperatures without explosion. This heat can be used to turn water into steam that then turns a turbine and generator, producing electricity. Another really good link for bombs: http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm I was being facetious when I suggested an explosion, as the concept was absurd. Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 AM Regarding the comments on hydrogen: Modern hydrogen power has nothing whatever to do with the sort of risks that led to the Hindenburg explosion. The Hindenburg (and other similar accidents) involved the combustion of Hydrogen gas contained in bags. Modern hydrogen fuelling of internal-combustion engines involves the storage of hydrogen in a solid state (usually in a fuel cell), with the hydrogen only changing state on demand as it is transferred to the combustion chamber. This change of state has been the point of fuel cell technology - storing hydrogen in a state where unintended combustion simply cannot occur. B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:34 AM Hey, if locos go atomic.........it will bring back ALCO. ALCO Atomic Locomotive Corpatation [C):-)][4:-)] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM Land based power plants cover hundreds of acres ad take dozens of operators and engineers to run. There is technology on the distant horizon that could significantly reduce both numbers, namely the Pebble Bed Reactor, but to ever get one small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and easy enough to maintain that a couple of locomotive engineers could operate and troubleshoot it is extremely unlikely within the next couple centuries. More convential methods of reducing the amount of fuel used by locomotives is a more logical answer. BTW, I work at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and even with all the zoomies still floating around it is one of the safest places you could work, and definately the most secure! Dave M Reply underworld Member sinceFebruary 2005 1,821 posts Posted by underworld on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:36 PM A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] currently on Tour with Sleeper Cell myspace.com/sleepercellrock Sleeper Cell is @ Checkers in Bowling Green Ohio 12/31/2009 come on out to the party!!! we will be shooting more video for MTVs The Making of a Metal Band Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:44 PM From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly -- -- The disappointing condition in which a nuclear reactor has so much reactivity in it that its chain reaction can be sustained on prompt neutrons alone, which means that it is highly supercritical and its power level will escalate severely to the point that the coolant will be unable to accept the high levels of thermal energy transfer from the core, and the result is the coolant “flashing” from liquid to vapor with consequent rapid pressure rise, and the pressure rises much higher than the mechanical strength of the core and piping systems, and the system rapidly comes apart (disassembles). The above description is by definition an “explosion,” but nuclear engineers hate that word because the media keeps trying to say that nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons, so the disassembly term is used. While most civilian nuclear reactors cannot achieve a prompt critical rapid disassembly but would merely melt down, naval reactors with their bomb-grade uranium can go prompt critical. The disassembly would be a simple steam explosion 999 times out of 1000, but there is a small chance that a naval reactor undergoing a prompt critical condition could experience a nuclear weapon-type detonation, although it would be many orders of magnitude weaker than a Hiroshima bomb. A Russian submarine being refueled on the Kamchatka Peninsula experienced a prompt critical rapid disassembly that blew enough radiation to the environment that it required the permanent abandonment of a six mile stretch of land and the refueling pier. They can indeed explode. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by tpatrick [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:32 AM Super that gave me a good chuckle! [:D][:D][:D] Originally posted by mudchicken Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. The following is copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/physics/43446.shtml Question Please can you explain Nuclear Fission, Chain Reactions and Nuclear reactors because i really dont understand it at all! Thanx. Answer The centre of the atom is made up of the nucleus. Nuclei contain around the same number of protons and neutrons, but some very large nuclei in certain isotopes have an imbalance. They often have too many neutrons, and this imbalance causes the nucleus to be unstable. These are radioactive substances, the nuclei of which often break up into two or more smaller fragments. Part of the split-up nucleus will become one or more smaller elements, while neutrons are also often released. These travel away from the split nucleus and can find their way into the nucleus of other heavy elements. This can again cause an imbalance with too many neutrons and this next nucleus will also break itself up. This again releases neutrons, which causes further nucleus-splits, and so on . If left alone in a lump of large enough fissile material, this fission process gets out of control very rapidly. This is a nuclear fission explosion, as in nuclear bombs. If controlled, the rate of the nuclear chain reaction can be kept at a rate producing high temperatures without explosion. This heat can be used to turn water into steam that then turns a turbine and generator, producing electricity. Another really good link for bombs: http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm I was being facetious when I suggested an explosion, as the concept was absurd. Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 AM Regarding the comments on hydrogen: Modern hydrogen power has nothing whatever to do with the sort of risks that led to the Hindenburg explosion. The Hindenburg (and other similar accidents) involved the combustion of Hydrogen gas contained in bags. Modern hydrogen fuelling of internal-combustion engines involves the storage of hydrogen in a solid state (usually in a fuel cell), with the hydrogen only changing state on demand as it is transferred to the combustion chamber. This change of state has been the point of fuel cell technology - storing hydrogen in a state where unintended combustion simply cannot occur. B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:34 AM Hey, if locos go atomic.........it will bring back ALCO. ALCO Atomic Locomotive Corpatation [C):-)][4:-)] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM Land based power plants cover hundreds of acres ad take dozens of operators and engineers to run. There is technology on the distant horizon that could significantly reduce both numbers, namely the Pebble Bed Reactor, but to ever get one small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and easy enough to maintain that a couple of locomotive engineers could operate and troubleshoot it is extremely unlikely within the next couple centuries. More convential methods of reducing the amount of fuel used by locomotives is a more logical answer. BTW, I work at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and even with all the zoomies still floating around it is one of the safest places you could work, and definately the most secure! Dave M Reply underworld Member sinceFebruary 2005 1,821 posts Posted by underworld on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:36 PM A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] currently on Tour with Sleeper Cell myspace.com/sleepercellrock Sleeper Cell is @ Checkers in Bowling Green Ohio 12/31/2009 come on out to the party!!! we will be shooting more video for MTVs The Making of a Metal Band Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:44 PM From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly -- -- The disappointing condition in which a nuclear reactor has so much reactivity in it that its chain reaction can be sustained on prompt neutrons alone, which means that it is highly supercritical and its power level will escalate severely to the point that the coolant will be unable to accept the high levels of thermal energy transfer from the core, and the result is the coolant “flashing” from liquid to vapor with consequent rapid pressure rise, and the pressure rises much higher than the mechanical strength of the core and piping systems, and the system rapidly comes apart (disassembles). The above description is by definition an “explosion,” but nuclear engineers hate that word because the media keeps trying to say that nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons, so the disassembly term is used. While most civilian nuclear reactors cannot achieve a prompt critical rapid disassembly but would merely melt down, naval reactors with their bomb-grade uranium can go prompt critical. The disassembly would be a simple steam explosion 999 times out of 1000, but there is a small chance that a naval reactor undergoing a prompt critical condition could experience a nuclear weapon-type detonation, although it would be many orders of magnitude weaker than a Hiroshima bomb. A Russian submarine being refueled on the Kamchatka Peninsula experienced a prompt critical rapid disassembly that blew enough radiation to the environment that it required the permanent abandonment of a six mile stretch of land and the refueling pier. They can indeed explode. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by mudchicken Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. The following is copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/sosteacher/physics/43446.shtml Question Please can you explain Nuclear Fission, Chain Reactions and Nuclear reactors because i really dont understand it at all! Thanx. Answer The centre of the atom is made up of the nucleus. Nuclei contain around the same number of protons and neutrons, but some very large nuclei in certain isotopes have an imbalance. They often have too many neutrons, and this imbalance causes the nucleus to be unstable. These are radioactive substances, the nuclei of which often break up into two or more smaller fragments. Part of the split-up nucleus will become one or more smaller elements, while neutrons are also often released. These travel away from the split nucleus and can find their way into the nucleus of other heavy elements. This can again cause an imbalance with too many neutrons and this next nucleus will also break itself up. This again releases neutrons, which causes further nucleus-splits, and so on . If left alone in a lump of large enough fissile material, this fission process gets out of control very rapidly. This is a nuclear fission explosion, as in nuclear bombs. If controlled, the rate of the nuclear chain reaction can be kept at a rate producing high temperatures without explosion. This heat can be used to turn water into steam that then turns a turbine and generator, producing electricity. Another really good link for bombs: http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm I was being facetious when I suggested an explosion, as the concept was absurd. Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 AM Regarding the comments on hydrogen: Modern hydrogen power has nothing whatever to do with the sort of risks that led to the Hindenburg explosion. The Hindenburg (and other similar accidents) involved the combustion of Hydrogen gas contained in bags. Modern hydrogen fuelling of internal-combustion engines involves the storage of hydrogen in a solid state (usually in a fuel cell), with the hydrogen only changing state on demand as it is transferred to the combustion chamber. This change of state has been the point of fuel cell technology - storing hydrogen in a state where unintended combustion simply cannot occur. B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:34 AM Hey, if locos go atomic.........it will bring back ALCO. ALCO Atomic Locomotive Corpatation [C):-)][4:-)] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM Land based power plants cover hundreds of acres ad take dozens of operators and engineers to run. There is technology on the distant horizon that could significantly reduce both numbers, namely the Pebble Bed Reactor, but to ever get one small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and easy enough to maintain that a couple of locomotive engineers could operate and troubleshoot it is extremely unlikely within the next couple centuries. More convential methods of reducing the amount of fuel used by locomotives is a more logical answer. BTW, I work at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and even with all the zoomies still floating around it is one of the safest places you could work, and definately the most secure! Dave M Reply underworld Member sinceFebruary 2005 1,821 posts Posted by underworld on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:36 PM A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] currently on Tour with Sleeper Cell myspace.com/sleepercellrock Sleeper Cell is @ Checkers in Bowling Green Ohio 12/31/2009 come on out to the party!!! we will be shooting more video for MTVs The Making of a Metal Band Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:44 PM From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly -- -- The disappointing condition in which a nuclear reactor has so much reactivity in it that its chain reaction can be sustained on prompt neutrons alone, which means that it is highly supercritical and its power level will escalate severely to the point that the coolant will be unable to accept the high levels of thermal energy transfer from the core, and the result is the coolant “flashing” from liquid to vapor with consequent rapid pressure rise, and the pressure rises much higher than the mechanical strength of the core and piping systems, and the system rapidly comes apart (disassembles). The above description is by definition an “explosion,” but nuclear engineers hate that word because the media keeps trying to say that nuclear reactors can explode like nuclear weapons, so the disassembly term is used. While most civilian nuclear reactors cannot achieve a prompt critical rapid disassembly but would merely melt down, naval reactors with their bomb-grade uranium can go prompt critical. The disassembly would be a simple steam explosion 999 times out of 1000, but there is a small chance that a naval reactor undergoing a prompt critical condition could experience a nuclear weapon-type detonation, although it would be many orders of magnitude weaker than a Hiroshima bomb. A Russian submarine being refueled on the Kamchatka Peninsula experienced a prompt critical rapid disassembly that blew enough radiation to the environment that it required the permanent abandonment of a six mile stretch of land and the refueling pier. They can indeed explode. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by zardoz Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So, if two nuclear-powered-loaded coal trains (wouldn't that be ironic) were to hit head-on at 60mph, would there be sufficient force to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction?[8D] Reason #9 as to why this is a bad idea. In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity. Jamie Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:05 AM Didnt we beat this topic to death with a railroad tie about a year ago, something about a renegade ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a nuclear (new-que-lear as the Prez sayz) powerplant roaming the backwood of India ? ? ? I also remember relating the actual planned atomic engine from back in the 1950's but the dam thing would have been so heavy that most of it power output would go into just moving itself, and of course theirs the legendary "Big Joe" atomic articulated Joe Stalin commissioned which supposedly sank into the perma-frost shortly after completion. Have fun with your trains Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:10 AM quoted from jchnhtfd: In one word: no. While a nuclear reactor on board a train (or bus, or airplane (it's been tried)) is a rather poor idea, as several of our knowledgeable posters have pointed out, it's not because it might blow up. One needs to be rather careful with the terms; an 'uncontrolled fission reaction' could refer to a reactor 'melt down'. Whether this could happen as a result of a collision involving a reactor depends a great deal on the exact design of the reactor, it's (in my humble opinion) well off the low end of the risk scale, if only because if a reactor were damaged in a collision, it is much more likely that would be seriously disrupted by a collision, which would lower the fuel density to the point that you'd wind up with no reaction at all. However, most folks, egged on by the media and by scientists blathering outside their areas of knowledge, picture a reactor literally detonating, as in an explosion, as in mushroom cloud. And even the oldest, most obsolete reactor designs (e.g. Chernobyl) don't and can't do that. Make a terrific mess, yes. Do a lot of damage, yes. Blow up? No. But as Overmod particularly noted, the way to go for nuclear power for railroads is via electricity.
Have fun with your trains
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.