I missed this last one

[deowll]

Himself said: "By the way, I've been thinking about that "typo" about the
endurance of the Shrike between reactor recorings. At the time it appeared
in the book, I couldn't understand -- or reconstruct -- how it had gotten
there. I think I concluded that I'd probably made the change inadvertently,
when I was so tired from pushing the deadline on the book that it just
slipped past me. The more I thought about that 18-month endurance, though,
the more I've come to wonder if perhaps I made the change from the value
stipulated in the tech bible deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I
did it that I don't now remember doing so. Given the endurance on
present-day the fission reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of
the question for technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've
indicated the shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else
in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to
stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think it's
likely that I will. "

[Don Sample]

Post by deowll
Himself said: "By the way, I've been thinking about that "typo" about the
endurance of the Shrike between reactor recorings. At the time it appeared
in the book, I couldn't understand -- or reconstruct -- how it had gotten
there. I think I concluded that I'd probably made the change inadvertently,
when I was so tired from pushing the deadline on the book that it just
slipped past me. The more I thought about that 18-month endurance, though,
the more I've come to wonder if perhaps I made the change from the value
stipulated in the tech bible deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I
did it that I don't now remember doing so. Given the endurance on
present-day the fission reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of
the question for technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've
indicated the shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else
in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to
stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think it's
likely that I will. "

His reasoning doesn't really work, there. I don't care what sort of
magic technology you've got, you can only get so much energy out of so
much fissile material. If you improve your tech so you get it out more
quickly, you're going to burn up your fuel more quickly. To have a
reactor core that needs to be refuelled at the same sort of intervals as
current reactors, you need to have a reactor that is no better at
getting the energy out of its fuel than a modern reactor.

[deowll]

Post by Don Sample

Post by deowll
Himself said: "By the way, I've been thinking about that "typo" about the
endurance of the Shrike between reactor recorings. At the time it appeared
in the book, I couldn't understand -- or reconstruct -- how it had gotten
there. I think I concluded that I'd probably made the change
inadvertently,
when I was so tired from pushing the deadline on the book that it just
slipped past me. The more I thought about that 18-month endurance, though,
the more I've come to wonder if perhaps I made the change from the value
stipulated in the tech bible deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I
did it that I don't now remember doing so. Given the endurance on
present-day the fission reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of
the question for technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've
indicated the shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else
in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to
stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think it's
likely that I will. "

His reasoning doesn't really work, there. I don't care what sort of
magic technology you've got, you can only get so much energy out of so
much fissile material. If you improve your tech so you get it out more
quickly, you're going to burn up your fuel more quickly. To have a
reactor core that needs to be refuelled at the same sort of intervals as
current reactors, you need to have a reactor that is no better at
getting the energy out of its fuel than a modern reactor.

I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

Post by Don Sample
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

[Terry FitzSimons]

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample

Post by deowll
Himself said: "By the way, I've been thinking about that "typo" about
the endurance of the Shrike between reactor recorings. At the time it
appeared in the book, I couldn't understand -- or reconstruct -- how
it had gotten there. I think I concluded that I'd probably made the
change inadvertently, when I was so tired from pushing the deadline
on the book that it just slipped past me. The more I thought about
that 18-month endurance, though, the more I've come to wonder if
perhaps I made the change from the value stipulated in the tech bible
deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I did it that I don't
now remember doing so. Given the endurance on present-day the fission
reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of the question for
technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've indicated the
shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else
in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to
stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think
it's likely that I will. "

His reasoning doesn't really work, there. I don't care what sort of
magic technology you've got, you can only get so much energy out of so
much fissile material. If you improve your tech so you get it out more
quickly, you're going to burn up your fuel more quickly. To have a
reactor core that needs to be refuelled at the same sort of intervals as
current reactors, you need to have a reactor that is no better at
getting the energy out of its fuel than a modern reactor.

I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

Probably forgot its the difference between the peace-time power useage and
the war-time useage. It may not be there in reality but there is a chance
as the fuel is used, there is a loss of efficiency. So you get 18 years of
peace-time use out of the fuel, but in war-time you only get 18 months due
to the massive draws of power to run everything at the same time.
--

Terry FitzSimons
***@mintel.net

[deowll]

Post by Terry FitzSimons

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample

Post by deowll
Himself said: "By the way, I've been thinking about that "typo" about
the endurance of the Shrike between reactor recorings. At the time it
appeared in the book, I couldn't understand -- or reconstruct -- how
it had gotten there. I think I concluded that I'd probably made the
change inadvertently, when I was so tired from pushing the deadline
on the book that it just slipped past me. The more I thought about
that 18-month endurance, though, the more I've come to wonder if
perhaps I made the change from the value stipulated in the tech bible
deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I did it that I don't
now remember doing so. Given the endurance on present-day the fission
reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of the question for
technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've indicated the
shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else
in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to
stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think
it's likely that I will. "

His reasoning doesn't really work, there. I don't care what sort of
magic technology you've got, you can only get so much energy out of so
much fissile material. If you improve your tech so you get it out more
quickly, you're going to burn up your fuel more quickly. To have a
reactor core that needs to be refuelled at the same sort of intervals as
current reactors, you need to have a reactor that is no better at
getting the energy out of its fuel than a modern reactor.

I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

Probably forgot its the difference between the peace-time power useage and
the war-time useage. It may not be there in reality but there is a chance
as the fuel is used, there is a loss of efficiency. So you get 18 years of
peace-time use out of the fuel, but in war-time you only get 18 months due
to the massive draws of power to run everything at the same time.
--

Actually according to DW the 18 years was a mistake made by him and he meant
to use 18 months according to his notes but then he got to thinking about it
and decided maybe he'd meant to change it 18 years and he'd forgotten about
it. Now he thinks the 18 years may be the better choice especially since it
is in print already but he hasn't made up his mind yet.

Post by Terry FitzSimons
Terry FitzSimons

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by deowll
I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

The basic problem with rods isn't the burning up of the fuel--90% of
it is left when the rods are pulled. Rather, it's the buildup of
fission products. Some of those are neutron absorbers. When enough
of them have built up you can't use the reactor anymore because you
can't get it critical because too many neutrons are being absorbed.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Loren Pechtel
<***@hotmail.invalid.com> on or about Wed, 10 Mar 2010
16:21:40 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by Loren Pechtel

Post by deowll
I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

The basic problem with rods isn't the burning up of the fuel--90% of
it is left when the rods are pulled. Rather, it's the buildup of
fission products. Some of those are neutron absorbers. When enough
of them have built up you can't use the reactor anymore because you
can't get it critical because too many neutrons are being absorbed.

Me thinks as well, that the "improvements" that Grayson came up
with are as much in the "using efficiently" the power generated. As
in getting more of the heat of the reaction out of the reactor and
into electricity generating systems. It might be a case of running the
reactors "hotter" - it might also be a matter of using a different
fissile material. I recall a blurb somewhere which implied that
Thorium seems to have a lot of advantages over Uranium for "power"
production.
And it could be a design element thing. Pebble bed technology?
Maybe large beds - a sort of Pebble Beach Technology?
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

[deowll]

Post by Loren Pechtel

Post by deowll
I don't know for sure but there is an awful lot of uranium left when they
pull those rods. I think the rods from modern breeder reactors have to
refined before they can be reused or some such?

The basic problem with rods isn't the burning up of the fuel--90% of
it is left when the rods are pulled. Rather, it's the buildup of
fission products. Some of those are neutron absorbers. When enough
of them have built up you can't use the reactor anymore because you
can't get it critical because too many neutrons are being absorbed.

Let's try this:

You let the fuel become molton in the fission chamber. We don't run a
reactor that hot but I think it could be done. You then put a few thousand
gravities on it which should cause the lighter breakdown products to float
to the surface allowing the heavier uranium to continue to fission. Problem
solved.