Large Hardon Collider

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, those articles always start out by talking about "earth-like planets" and end in giant behemoth 2000 degree monstrosities.

It's fucking bullshit is what it is.

[Kryssan]

See, this is where the real deal will come forth.


Fakers put on their white smocks and pocket protectors and take a sample to develop information and regardless of whether or not the outcome of their sample makes sense or would be accepted by anyone else, they immediately publish it; for the publicity and attention whoring if nothing else.


The rest of us require a wealth of information and testing and even then after we have an overwhelming array of data pointing to a singular conclusion we're still not sure.








The G-Spot thing is a prime example. While you're arguing over some 'scientists' supposed findings, the real scientists are currently still gathering 'data' in the backseat.






Anyway, back to promoting nuclear news:

Initiative for Small Fast Reactors, World Nuclear News

Crosspost:

Initiative for small fast reactors
04 January 2010

A new joint venture aims to commercialize Russian technology for small lead-cooled fast reactors.

The 50/50 venture was established on 25 December 2009 by state nuclear corporation Rosatom and En+, the energy arm of the Basic Element Group set up to manage its companies in aluminium, electric power, oil and ore processing.

A joint statement said they will "design and produce a prototype 100 MWe lead-bismuth fast reactor with a view to commercialize the technology." The SVBR-100 design favoured by the joint venture has been under slow development for many years, based on a reactor already used to power seven military submarines.

Small reactors are seen as a major gap in nuclear technology, which generally can now only be deployed at a large scale - and usually by major power companies only. Small reactors with long operational periods between refuelling could support remote communities or be sited to directly provide heat and power to industrial facilities. They can also be used in groups to create a larger power plant step by step. Russia is already building two 'floating nuclear power plants' each featuring two reactors based on icebreaker models.

The companies' statement said their initial estimates show that large-scale production of SVBR-100s could bring down costs to the same level as for coal-fired generation. En+ Group CEO Vladislav Soloviev said "We believe that the development of the nuclear power industry is one of the most promising ways to meet the rising demand for energy with the lowest environmental impact."

Deputy director of Rosatom Petr Schedrovitsky said, "We expect the government to provide strong support... It will be put on the list of projects under the aegis of the President's Commission for Long-Term Development."

[Mizango]

Hot jupiters makes me rages.

Every time I see "new planet discoveries", I get all excited only to be let down by expected finds.

Glad im not the only one lol.

[Woozie]

Hot jupiters makes me rages.

Every time I see "new planet discoveries", I get all excited only to be let down by expected finds.

My thoughts exactly lol. I saw the title and was all like *gasp!* but then I read the article and was like -_-

[Woozie]

See, this is where the real deal will come forth.


Fakers put on their white smocks and pocket protectors and take a sample to develop information and regardless of whether or not the outcome of their sample makes sense or would be accepted by anyone else, they immediately publish it; for the publicity and attention whoring if nothing else.


The rest of us require a wealth of information and testing and even then after we have an overwhelming array of data pointing to a singular conclusion we're still not sure.








The G-Spot thing is a prime example. While you're arguing over some 'scientists' supposed findings, the real scientists are currently still gathering 'data' in the backseat.






Anyway, back to promoting nuclear news:

Initiative for Small Fast Reactors, World Nuclear News

Crosspost:

We really need to hurry up and get to using more nuclear technology. I don't understand why we still use fossil fuels at all for electricity.

If I'm understanding this article correctly, this technology will make us able to build smaller nuclear power plants? So that way, the building of a nuclear power plant isn't an extremely huge project, but something that can be done on smaller scales? Sorry if I'm way off lol

[Kryssan]

If I'm understanding this article correctly, this technology will make us able to build smaller nuclear power plants? So that way, the building of a nuclear power plant isn't an extremely huge project, but something that can be done on smaller scales? Sorry if I'm way off lol

Yes, one of the newer goals of the nuclear power community is that of modular construction. The big companies like GE and Westinghouse in America and similar companies like En+ in Russia want to start making 'modular' reactor plants, where the reactor facility itself is a self contained unit and utilities don't necessarily build a massive power plant. They order one or two smaller units, and then as power demand increases you 'plug and play' new modular reactor facilities into your plant to increase production of power to meet the new demand. Instead of having to build your plant from the ground up with a certain setup in mind, you build your plant with these self-contained reactor 'modules', with each module being the primary/secondary plant. The actual 'plant' in this model is really just the power production side (so turbines and such).


Currently with thermal reactors this isn't really economically plausible. In order to get the proper ratio of power produced to money spent, you need to build massive facilities. Fast reactors are different in that aspect however. It is easier to build these facilities in a small form factor, and the fact that they don't need to refuel for long periods of time (years compared to months) grants them quite a nice bonus. However, the concerns over the 'breeder' aspect of fast reactors as well as the cost of research into designing materials that can withstand the much higher operational temperatures of these reactors have delayed their production and development. As I've said before, it's a great study of long term gains vs short term losses. It was cheaper in the past to build the massive thermal plants with large quantities of power production, but fast reactors are more efficient in both power production and length of time between refuels, as well as the added bonus of being much more inherently safe. On the same form factor as one large reactor facility with one or two thermal plants, you could install 8 or more modular fast reactors, yielding a higher power production overall on the same footprint as the thermal plant, and you don't have to build it all at the same time. You scale up as needs increase. As stated in the article, this could also allow nuclear plants to become a veritable power source for a massive construction/production manufacturing complex, where the plant would provide local power and state/coop energy utilities would then become their 'backup' power source.


Even if we achieve fusion power, which I believe we shall within the next 4-5 decades, you will most likely not see fission laid to the wayside. The fusion plants are all very massive constructs - the modular capability derived from the smaller sizes introduced by the new fast reactor designs is going to be hard to beat.






Edit: I guess I should clarify one other thing brought up by the article that tends to throw people for a loop with nuclear power. A simple miscommunication that is similar to the arguement of how contrast is calculated for your TV. There are two classifications for power production at a nuclear facility, they are MWe and MWt. MWe is MegaWatt electric power produced, MWt is MegaWatt thermal power produced. Thermal power being the heat output of the reactor, and electric being what the plant's generator side is capable of making from said thermal power source. This is something that tends to trip people up with they hear the rating systems of nuclear plants, when they're given this rather large MW generation number. If it doesn't say e or t after the MW, I would probably approach it from the aspect of them meaning thermal, not electric. If you notice in the article, this Russian model is capable of 280 MWt, but only 100MWe.

[Eliseos]

Oh wow that's nuts. Hopefully people can get over their (unwarranted) fears of nuclear power. This could be huge for cheaper electricity across the board (especially to rural areas far away from the city).

[kuronosan]

I have a question. I watched a special that claimed that if we had technology to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) that even if it took twenty years for someone to fly back and forth to a nearby galaxy, two thousand years would have passed here.

Why is that?

[Kryssan]

I have a question. I watched a special that claimed that if we had technology to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) that even if it took twenty years for someone to fly back and forth to a nearby galaxy, two thousand years would have passed here.

Why is that?

Politics and religion.



Oh yeah, I went there.

[Sol-Blackguy]

You guys are nerds! Nerds! First God, now the G-spot. You will never disprove the G-spot you virgin nerds! Nerds!!

Nerds!

http://www.imagebeast.net/images/15o...kt8dl82bwe.jpg

[Cadsuane]

I have a question. I watched a special that claimed that if we had technology to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) that even if it took twenty years for someone to fly back and forth to a nearby galaxy, two thousand years would have passed here.

Why is that?

Relativity. Time and space dilates due to the constancy of the speed of light the closer you get to the speed of light (relative to some frame of reference). You can probably find a nice youtube that explains relativity well, it can be pretty difficult to explain in text or words.

[Kryssan]

You can probably find a nice youtube that explains relativity well, it can be pretty difficult to explain in text or words.

Well, in that case, all we need to do is ask Max.








Yep, looks like I'm still an asshole.

[Cadsuane]

Well, in that case, all we need to do is ask Max.








Yep, looks like I'm still an asshole.

har har har

[Kaylia]

What the fuck.

I'm not even done with last semester lab reports and homeworks, and I scored a 30 minutes oral presentation for next week in my first class. Second classes rewarded me with a traditional 5 questions homeworks.

I'm still burnt out from last semester (didnt even have time to take a break), and I'm in a deeper shit than I usally am during my finals exam week.


I'm about to drop physics and move to marketing. Their department look more relaxing than our if you can spend 3h every morning to dress up with pretty clothes and overcomplicated hairstyle.

Glad im not the only one lol.

Yet, you posted it. Jerk!

It's ok, I still love you (just less).

I have a question. I watched a special that claimed that if we had technology to travel at the speed of light (or close to it) that even if it took twenty years for someone to fly back and forth to a nearby galaxy, two thousand years would have passed here.

Why is that?

Time and space is relative to your frame of reference, I'm sure you heard about that before (relativity).

I'm going to spare you the details, but light is like that monster in your nightmare that always catch up on you at the same speed, no matter how fast you run. The speed of light is 300 000km/s if you stand still, if you run at 1m/s, if you ride a car at 20m/s or you're inside a shuttle at 299 999m/s.

If you want to avoid paradoxes (preserve energy conservation, simultaneous events..etc), one of the implication of this is that time and space isn't the same for everyone. It will feel "normal" for everyone, but you will notice huge difference when you observe the other the other person.

The closest galaxy is 2000 light years away. A ship that fly at a speed close to the speed of light would take 2000 years to reach the galaxy, but the clock on board would show a time divided by a factor equal to 1/(sqrt(1-v²/c²) where v is the velocity and c the speed of light. In other world, the faster you go, the slower its time is compared to your.

If you were onboard the ship, everything would feel normal, and the clock would tick every seconds, the only difference is that everything in the universe would look closer. Like the distance were closer

[Woozie]

Deja vue...someone makes a post about exoplanets, then the topic of SR comes up...

[Max™]

Odd, just as I'm getting over what wikipedia tells me is a cold, it also tells me I should check this thread to see what's happening.


Keep in mind, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.


I'm assuming an explanation revolving around the Universe behaving like a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (1,3), with (-+++) signature won't help, so I'll skip that.


Points in spacetime are labeled with 4 coordinates, (x,y,z,t), and as you perceive movement from place to place within the (x,y,z) portion, you're also moving to new (t) positions as well.

Much as you can't move completely to the left, and completely forwards at once, you can't move entirely along an (x,y,z) axis without sacrificing your interaction along the (t) axis.

Right now you're hauling ass through time, actually, and your motion through space is relatively minimal. The path between two sets of (x,y,z,t) coordinates actually has something known as an invariant interval, which you could think of as the actual displacement between them. You get to choose how you divvy that displacement up though, if you keep hauling ass through time, then your motion through space is limited, and it takes a loooooooong ass time to get from point A to point B.

If you haul ass through space, your motion through time is limited, for ease of picturing it, think of it like moving more diagonally across a grid. Instead of following the lines exactly, you cut across from one point to another point.

So as you travel more rapidly through the space coordinates (picture it as left/right, or the x axis on a graph), you end up missing some of the time coordinates. The angle at which that line is tilted over at makes it seem to miss some of the time between your origin and destination, so while you might "see" three or four seconds pass, you actually "skipped" past many more points in time.


This is extremely watered down, as it actually involves something more like a rotation than simply tilting a line across a grid can represent easily, and it helps to understand the math... so I hear, but I wouldn't know for sure.

[Kaylia]

Deja vue...someone makes a post about exoplanets, then the topic of SR comes up...

Nostradawoozie.
You saw the future...


(or you predicted it from the past like physicist)

[Eliseos]

Oh boy!

[Araelus]

Wait, there were no Happy Birthday posts for Stephen Hawking?
(born 8 January 1942)

[Woozie]

Wow, he's older than my grandmother.