|
Post by The Astronomer on May 1, 2017 3:00:14 GMT
Following the 12248 Deimos meltdown incident, we decided to investigate the problem of the current generation of thermoelectric fission reactors. Apparently, Apophys Electrics and Jasonvance Industries reactors are running at the edge, using unrealistically enriched fuel (rl: >10%) running 1 K to meltdown, and using neutron flux much greater than real life thermoelectric fission reactors (rl: 3.5e19). I am concerned that without management from a superturing AI, these reactors could easily face the problem of meltdown. This is why I'm here. Please build thermoelectric fission reactors of these size:<1 MW 1 MW 10 MW ( by Argopeilacos ) 100 MW ( by hyno111 ) (at the brink of the meltdown!)1 GWRunning at least 10 K* from meltdown temperature (radiator temperature preferably at 2300-2400 K, using <10% enriched fuel (preferably 5%)), and neutron flux at 3.5e19. Please keep the mass of the new reactors between 0-5 times the original AE/JI designs, and volume not much larger than the original AE/JI designs.
Other designs:Rocket Witch - 25 MW reactor (modded!) Looking forward to see your designs, J. Starmaker AttachmentsSolar System Organization of Standardization-=o=- *It is hard to tell the reactor's temperature. This can be solved by looking at the coolant T, which is available instead. Increase the coolant pump's rotational speed until it is at the meltdown temperature, then reduce the T until it is at least 10 K away from the meltdown temperature. > For example, hyno111 's first 100 MW reactor submission is at the brink of the meltdown. In this case, the meltdown occurs when the inner coolant's T is at 2880 K. Reduce the inner coolant's T to 2870 K and the design will pass this challenge. T = temperature
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on May 1, 2017 3:26:36 GMT
10 K from meltdown=Safe from meltdown... What a good standard...
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on May 1, 2017 3:28:22 GMT
10 K from meltdown=Safe from meltdown... What a good standard... It is orders of magnitude safer than my current reactors lol
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on May 1, 2017 3:32:23 GMT
10 K from meltdown=Safe from meltdown... What a good standard... You know the technological advance, right? That's it. I just don't want to take the risk playing with a glass filled to the brim with acid.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on May 1, 2017 3:44:53 GMT
Consider adding a 100kw (maybe even 10kw) division as well. I have a 3kw soda-can reactor mainly made of graphene and it's terrifying. I only put that thing on single-use drones...
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on May 1, 2017 3:50:46 GMT
Would you consider putting restrictions on radiation hazard as well? There was a very nasty incident with a loose ice block and an unshielded reactor around Ganymede a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on May 1, 2017 3:59:48 GMT
Would you consider putting restrictions on radiation hazard as well? There was a very nasty incident with a loose ice block and an unshielded reactor around Ganymede a few weeks ago. Actually I think I'd apply radiation shield by myself, but I do appreciate if you know material that is good at blocking radiation at working temperature. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by xenophon13 on May 1, 2017 4:06:24 GMT
What role does the level of enrichment play in a reactor's safety? Not having bomb-level enrichment makes sense, but how much safer is, say, 10% enrichment vs. 20% enrichment?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 1, 2017 4:09:31 GMT
Would you consider putting restrictions on radiation hazard as well? There was a very nasty incident with a loose ice block and an unshielded reactor around Ganymede a few weeks ago. Actually I think I'd apply radiation shield by myself, but I do appreciate if you know material that is good at blocking radiation at working temperature. Thanks. Boron, then Boron Nitride
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on May 1, 2017 4:15:19 GMT
Actually I think I'd apply radiation shield by myself, but I do appreciate if you know material that is good at blocking radiation at working temperature. Thanks. Boron, then Boron Nitride o-oh, okay thanks Boron melts, and boron nitride just perform worse than diamond...
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 1, 2017 4:34:29 GMT
I heard it on the standards thread
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on May 1, 2017 6:39:52 GMT
Boron melts, and boron nitride just perform worse than diamond... How about boron carbide then?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on May 1, 2017 7:03:39 GMT
Boron Carbide is my go-to solution for any type of radiation, short of Lithium-6. Of course Lithium melts incredibly easily.
When in doubt, any type of Boron will fix what ails ya.
I'd also suggest adding a rule for the control rods. Those things can, and often do have barely any margin for error when we min max it hard as we do.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on May 1, 2017 8:34:12 GMT
Anyways, now I need the reactors, not just radiation shield...
Boron Carbide's melting point is too low for current reactors...
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on May 1, 2017 10:03:27 GMT
Anyways, now I need the reactors, not just radiation shield... Boron Carbide's melting point is too low for current reactors... What do you mean by current reactors? It seems this thread is about improving on some kind of reactor design, made by apophys it seems. But that design are never linked here. It seems you also expect to see some specific operating temperature, but that is never mentioned in the requirements either.
|
|