If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done. No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown. The dead Soviets are well documented. Who cares about dead Soviets? The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 26, 6:35*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote: On Sep 26, 12:41*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity. They are used to produce heat. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". *If it kills the humans, it can't be done. No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown. The dead Soviets are well documented. Who cares about dead Soviets? Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral on this project. The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone. Shadow shielding was never perfected, remained a problem and if testing had continued, someone would've died. This is one of the three reasons atomic planes cannot be flown under current (undeveloped) technology. The other 2 reasons a 1) It could crash anywhere and the reactor would in effect become a dirty bomb. This is unacceptable. 3) Radioactive fallout spewing out the tail due to the direct cycle system. The indirect cycle (liquid metal) technology was never achieved. It could be today. *note- the reactor weight of 80 tons would be much less today. --- Mark Jim Pennino |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:35Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity. They are used to produce heat. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done. No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown. The dead Soviets are well documented. Who cares about dead Soviets? Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral on this project. Babbling nonsense. Both the USA and the Soviet Union realized that the only value of a nuclear aircraft, i.e. staying aloft for long periods, was actually of little value as the same could be done for far less cost with conventional aircraft operating in shifts, which is exactly what both sides did. Also the ICBM was put in service, further reducing the need for fleets of strategic bombers. And since keeping an aircraft aloft for long periods has no use other than for a bomber fleet, no one has bothered with the idea since then. delete rest unread -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote:
snip entire babbling post You wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as opposed to batteries. It cannot be done, for ALL THE REASONS I've stated. Period. End of Story. Mark |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:09Â*pm, wrote: snip entire babbling post You wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as opposed to batteries. Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written. Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Electric airplanes with batteries are toys. Electric trains with batteries are toys. Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't carrying their energy source. Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge the batteries. Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels. Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels. Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels in the civilian world. And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote: On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote: snip entire babbling post You wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as opposed to batteries. Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written. Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Electric airplanes with batteries are toys. Electric trains with batteries are toys. Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't carrying their energy source. Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge the batteries. Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels. Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels. Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels in the civilian world. And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. smile --- Mark |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:
Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Only 2 simple questions he The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered? And... How exactly does electricity get extracted and utilized on a nuclear powered airplane? --- Mark |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:46Â*pm, wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. Only 2 simple questions he The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered? Idiot. The on board energy source for a Toyota Prius is a gasoline engine. snip babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AV gas prices | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Home Built | 54 | June 5th 08 03:58 PM |
AV gas prices | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | May 7th 08 05:41 AM |
AV gas prices | BradGuth | Home Built | 0 | May 6th 08 02:29 AM |
Ford Tri-Motor ground handling in FS2004 is ridiculous. | Bass | Simulators | 3 | December 19th 04 08:37 PM |
soaring high w/ ridiculous knowledge | The Admiral | Soaring | 0 | December 3rd 04 07:34 PM |