__Yossarian0815[jby]
-
Posts
824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by __Yossarian0815[jby]
-
-
I have the wierd blotchy audio in both CMA and CMSF sometimes, but it always dissappears after restarting the game.
-
Re-processing waste can take the dangerous life of it down to 50 years apparently
So why isn´t anbody doing it?
and LFTRs don’t produce any.
So why isn´t anbody building any?
-
Spoiler Warning
I finished the original version of this scenario by PBEM playing the Mujahedeen.
I was solidly trounced. Now to dish out the blame
)The thick haze setting meant that i was completely blind down to below 100m. The soviet tanks OTOH , presumeably due to their IR sights, could often see my troops that were hidden in the woods. Unlike the expectation from the briefing the soviet tanks had no problem with maneuvering in the snow.
Taking out the surrounded soviet airborne in the first 10 minutes was easy but after that all i could do was try to stop the invisible soviet tank army. my worst moment was after the soviets took out my forward units: I gave all my units in the trench on "dushman point" a hide command. despite lying in the trench practically all my men were killed by an unspotted Shilka area firing on them. After this and seeing that my trenches were simply attracting systematic artillery and tank fire i moved most of my troops into the woods. That didn´t help much either, but at least occasionally a RPG units was overlooked by the passing armored juggernaught and I was able to get a few BMP kills (one of them a blind area fire shot), 2 tanks and that shilka. I also tried to get arty strikes on where I expected my opponent to have his infantry concentrated. Judging from the end game screen that was at least partially effective. I tried to flank the armored column with my pickups but they were all spotted and destroyed despite trying to weave through the trees.
Historically I guess it makes sense that a dedicated attack by soviet forces would massacre a guerilla force, so i didn´t feel that it was an "unfair" or unlikely game. Still maybe having a slightly more wrinkly map to give the Muj better hiding opportunities would be nice. Also putting more constraints on the movement of the soviet armored column, i.e having some choke points would make this scenario more fun.
I hope that didn´t sound too negative
) Even though I felt that the game wasn´t going to end well for my forces from quite early on, it was still good fun when I did manage to pick off an enemy vehicle. -
you can read about the design of the chernobyl reactor here:
http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf
The core is constructed from closely packed graphite blocks. They are stacked into columns with vertical
cylindrical openings into which channels for fuel (pressure tubes) as well as channels for absorbing rods
are inserted.
At the time of loading the core with fresh fuel, one part of fuel channels (230-240) is loaded with
special additional absorbing rods (AAR) because the control rods can not compensate the large reactivity
surplus of the core [7]. The geometrical parameters of the AAR rods do not differ from those of fuel
assemblies. Therefore, the additional absorbing rods can be inserted at any channel of the core. With
increase of the fuel burnup the AAR rods are withdrawn gradually one after the other. The fuel assemblies
are inserted then in the channels that were occupied previously by additional absorbing rods. Thus, the
weight of uranium in the core increases with increase of fuel burnup. At the beginning of operation it is
about 165 t and reaches 192 t by achieving the stationary operation
Control and protection system
The control and protection system (CPS) of the RBMK reactor has absorbing rods and different
measuring devices for a control of a number of parameters. There are 211 absorbing rods in case of the
RBMK reactors of the second generation [3,4]. According to their functions they are divided in 4 groups
[7]:
- shortened absorbing rods (SAR) for regulation of the axial neutron distribution;
- absorbing rods for a manual regulating of the radial neutron distribution (MR);
- absorbing rods for an auto control of the reactor power (AC);
- emergency rods (ER).
The total numbers of the SAR, AC, MR and ER absorbers are 24, 24, 139 and 24, respectively [4].
The absorbing rods used for control and protection systems of the RBMK reactor are assembled from the
identical absorbing elements made of carbide boron [7]. These elements have the same length equal to
967.5 mm. The absorbers of the type SAR have only three absorbing elements. Their length is 3,050 mm
[7]. Other absorbing rods are assembled from 5 absorbing elements. Their length is 5,120 mm [7]. There
are another feature in absorbing rods of the RBMK reactor. The absorbing rods of the type SAR, MR and
ER have special graphite displacers that are assembled from 5 graphite elements. These displacers remain
in the core by full withdrawal of absorbing fractions of rods. The use of graphite displacers improves
significantly the neutron economy of the RBMK reactor because graphite absorbs neutrons much less than
the light water.
To sum it up: Chernobly was permanently moderated by graphite and controlled by moveable neutron absorber rods. These rods had graphite at their tip to make up for the missing moderation at those points at full load, that is with the rods retracted. So Bigduke was right in the sense that the reactor is permanently "out of control" unless dampened, only the dampening is not moderation, but neutron capture.
-
Surely putting each rod into some kind of moderator (like Boron) sleeve would have done nicely - wouldn't have needed to be open to the elements.
.
The reaction that generates heat in the spent fuel is within the rod. I think putting boron on the outside wouldn´t change a thing.
Boron is not a moderator.
-
The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was "moderated" by graphite control rods, meaning the deeper you shoved the rods into the core, the more damping on the nuclear reaction.
Since the nuclear reaction produces heat which is usually used to produce steam to drive turbines, the control rods will reduce heat produced by the nuclear reaction, thereby eventually causing the reactor to cool.
Therefore, provided you are not being a strict nuclear geek, it is more or less correct to say the RBMK is graphite cooled. But moderated is the preferred term, as the nuclear reactor scientists prefer to use "moderation" to describe what you use to control the actual nuclear reaction. Moderation is what keeps the nuclear materials in the reactor from going critical and melting down.
I´m not a nuclear geek, but this is all wrong. The moderator (slows down neutrons) is what enables the chain reaction. Water is also a moderator, hence the need to add boric acid (captures neutrons) to the cooling water in Fukoshima, because water is restarting the chain reaction. Meltdown is simply the failure to remove the heat produced in the chain reaction.
-
There are some significant risks to nuke power, sure. But coal/oil is ultimately unsustainable and has shown to be far more dangerous in any case.
How is nuclear sustainable? Neither Uranium nor Thorium exist in endless amounts. The more you expand nuclear the shorte it´ll be around.
And the renewables have so far fallen woefully short in capacity and costs. (In The Netherlands it is joked that windfarms are more dependant on subsidies then wind)
Nothing can compete with fossil fuels on a cost basis.
Nuke power is the best of a bad bunch. We certainly have not got the option to get rid of it all together. Alternative techs sufficient for our needs are just too far off. And we best get building new reactors soon because in most countries I know off age is creeping up on the existing ones.
I think we agree. If nuclear is to have a chance, the 1970s plants have to be replaced first, especially the russian models without containments.
-
A lie is a lie. You can´t have thousands of people working without protection under extreme radiation conditions without most of them dying as a result. Please spare me any weaselly lawyer definitions of how those thousand deaths don´t count because of some arbitrary definition somebody thought up.
An example: Recently I read an article saying that it´s not that terrible that thousands of children got thyroid cancer post chernobyl because thyroid cancer can be treated well.
-
Graphite is not a coolant but a moderator in nuclear reactors.
That only 56 people were killed in Chernobyl is a soviet propaganda lie.
Let´s see how old the workers at Fukoshima get.
I´m not necessarilly against nuclear power, but as long as the pro side displays shocking ignorance and plays down actual problems that occur and have occured I think it would be better to do without.
-
I´m 8 minutes from finishing (the first version of this) in PBEM. Will report back.
-
Hardly surpising since IgA are the class of antibody predominant on mucosal interfaces.
-
The First World War by John Keegan. Good overview, but not as good as his book on WWII.
Pity of War by Nial Ferguson. Interesting, but true?
Myth of the Great War by Mosier. Contrarianism may be fun to read, but it´s still junk.
The White War by Mark Thompson. Really interesting book on the Italian/Austrian alpine front.
The Eastern Front by Norman Stone. What I like best about this book is his sober analysis of attrition warfare. It wasn´t pointless and made absolute sense given the technological constraints (no mobile radios, no trucks) of the early 20th century.
-
The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 (Essential Histories) [Paperback]
Efraim Karsh (Author)
I think this one is a good place to start.
The cold war plays into the conflict but it is really largely about regional interests.
-
Curious how the "warming trend" crowd explains away ..let's see,for example..
2.Their Own assertions, in the mid 1990s, that we were entering into a new ice age.
The first IPCC asessment report (FAR) was in 1990. Whoever thought an ice age was imminent in the mid 1990s wasn´t well informed.
The only ice age scare I know of was in the 1970s which (BTW) wasn´t in the scientific literature but in Newsweek ;O)
-
Do you mean "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"?
Oh and...
Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) – The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998.
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data. These statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."
I haven't got a horse in this race, other than to say that there certainly isn't the concensus amongst the scientific community many would have you believe...
For an alternative viewpoint you could read
as a supplement read
The global temperature signal is of course very noisy. If the question is whether there is a statistical trend from say 1998 to 2005, the answer is of course no. You need at least 20 years to see the (upward) trend.
On the other hand you can say that 2010 is one of the hottest years. Doesn´t prove anything by itself of course, but it adds to the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
-
I think fire and forget means just that in the case of the Gill.
-
In the CMSF PBEMs I've played about half the results have been of the WTF! variety. These have all been scenarios that have come with the game too. I've not read anything on here that indicates that CMBN will be any different.
Which is why I keep petitioning, please dear scenario designers, indicate the number of points you assign to which objective in the briefing or map! As far as I can tell the points are indicated on the map Elvis and Jon are playing. This bodes well for CMBN.
-
Pfff, stealth tanks exist in CMA. Just lost an entire Muj sqaud to an cloaked Shilka
-
Joined. Steam name is jby. CMSF, CMA and
) CMBN -
FormerDropshipperCMBNing sounds great!
) -
Why is it the most quoted book ever? Is there a quote on the dollar or sumfink?) Maybe not that much. But it is regularly quoted in any article that touches on the topic of American exceptionalism, being an analysis of the early (1830s) United States by a european outsider.
-
My Gutenberg favorites so far:
Alexis de Toqueville-Democracy in America (the most quoted book ever)
Beatrix Potter stories (for the kids) (with pictures)
-
Zeb, Ive just started a PBEM game of this. Feedback will be forthcoming (sooner or later
) ) -
*sigh of relief*
)
WeGo questions
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
In campaigns you can switch RT/WEGO before starting each map.