Boy invents new nuclear reactor

Comments

Cahu's picture

It didn't work.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey's picture
Beta Tester

how the fuck does steam turn a turban?

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000's picture
Master Mind

as a joke. getting the turban to spin is the easy part. its holding down the guy wearing the turban while trying to get the steam in him is the hard part.

for real. pressure. just like a tea kettle wistling. if you boil water in a closed system. then let that compressed steam out thru a controlled exit. like a small tube, the smaller the diameter the stronger the exit pressurel. at the exit of the tube you have your turbines with slopped blades.

https://media.giphy.com/media/d0ghGYtnGOopy/giphy.gifhttps://i.makeagif.com/media/11-04-2015/x2L34G.gif

+1
+4
-1
Vote comment up/down
Cahu's picture

Variable radius of the turbine is because steam goes losing pressure, so to ensure torque is same along the shaft.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Who would have thought all you needed to get your own TED talk was a very shitty version of Kirk Sorensen's lecture on LFTR reactors tweaked with the unnecessary addition of placing it far underground.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Expect this isn't about thorium and has the added bonus of using nuclear waste as the fuel. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Except he actually mentions MOLTEN SALT (a.k.a) Thorium in his video, in addition to it being literally listed on his Wikipedia page as part of "his plan".  Of course nuclear waste CAN BE USED AS FUEL since that has been part of the LFTR reactor since the beginning.  He's not a genius, he just took a good idea, made it retarded.

So, you're wrong.  Just be wrong.  Stand there in your wrongness, be wrong and get use to it.   ; )

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Yeah, didn't know the Thorium reactors Sorensen's talks about were also using nuclear waste. Seems this is just a more compact version that is easier to produce in bigger quantities and put them where ever needed. Thats why you would put them under ground for added safety.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

LFTR does not require nuclear waste to run, but if you mix in plutonium from warheads it will fission along with the Uranium that is bread from the Thorium just fine.

LFTR has always been scalable, and we can already produce small light water reactors, we've been using them to power subs and aircraft carriers for decades.

I said his plan is retarded because there is ZERO need to place a LFTR under ground for "safety".  LFTR's do not use high pressure steam, as their name implies they use LIQUID SALTS (a mixture of lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2).  If there is a leak, the salt simply drains out and the reaction stops.  All of these as been part of it's design since the beginning.

The only reason he has "underground" included in his plans is because until 2013 he advcoating placing traditional nuclear reactors underground, which makes since, high pressure steam and the need to protect it from going boom if steam were to leak out.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Gotcha.

Still don't see why you wouldn't want to put it underground. It's just one more layer of protection. After all, It's  still a nuclear plant that gives off radiation and it's impossible to predict all the things that could go wrong. If it runs 30 years without refueling, you don't really need to worry about digging it up anytime soon. Also as he mentioned, it's a security measure. Anyone would be less likely to tamper with it if it's underground.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down