Timeline for Is it plausible for self-destruct button to trigger a countdown?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2017 at 7:59 | comment | added | Joseph Rogers | @Joshua true, I considered mentioning prompt criticallity before but decided against it for fear of further confusing matters. For the uninitiated, prompt criticallity is when a large amount of fissile material is brought together suddenly to form a "critical mass", which is simply enough material close enough together that natural decay processes give off enough neutrons to start a chain reaction and "go critical" in the nuclear physics sense. Look up the Demon Core for real world (unintentional) prompt criticallity incidents. | |
| Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 | comment | added | Joshua | @Joseph Rogers: Well if you add all your unused fuel rods into the reactor quickly you should be able to reach prompt critical, at which point no reasonable amount of cooling can contend anymore. | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 19:12 | comment | added | Joseph Rogers | @Shane I felt a bit pedantic saying it tbh because of course it's commonly used and understood the way you used it, it just really grates with anyone who knows much about nuclear reactors if characters who should have an understanding of nuclear physics use it that way | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 17:28 | history | edited | Shane | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed ambiguous term
|
| Sep 26, 2017 at 17:27 | comment | added | Shane | @JosephRogers Good point about terminology. I was using the term critical to mean 'in a bad state' IE: After you have a heart attack, you are in critical condition. When talking about a nuclear reactor this is obviously confusing with the nuclear physics term. I'll edit. | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 17:06 | comment | added | Nathan Smith | on your point about traditional gunpowder bombs: if you have a reactor that works like conventional rocket's combustion chamber but w/ some kind of nuclear reaction instead of chemical combustion ('plausible' only w/ semi-indestructible unobtanium lining or a radically new way to use magnets, but hey..) you could have it able to constrict flow more for higher exhaust velocity at hi speed cruise, so self destruct could just cut power, pinch all the way shut, then full power. Which would be precisely timable | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 16:58 | comment | added | Joseph Rogers | point of language - wrt fission reactors "critical" is the normal state of affairs, it simply means the reaction is producing the same number of neutrons it is consuming. A super-critical reactor is ramping up, a sub-critical one is backing off. | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 14:06 | comment | added | Shane | Also, yes, some sort of nuclear reactor that can create a steady amount of power per unit of fuel consumption and that can consume any amount of fuel thrown at it isn't very likely considering what we know of them now. | |
| Sep 26, 2017 at 13:59 | comment | added | Shane |
@MichaelKjörling a properly functioning device won't suddenly start drawing more power than it needs Generally speaking, a 'properly functioning' device is one that is designed not to self destruct. That's not the kind of device we're talking about here :)
|
|
| Sep 26, 2017 at 7:17 | comment | added | user | "when it reaches zero the computer sets your rector from 100% power output to 100,000% in a nanosecond" That's not really how it tends to work, though; it's the same as when people ask "is it safe to use my 15-volt 3-amp power supply for this device which needs 15 volts 1 amp?" -- a properly functioning device won't suddenly start drawing more power than it needs. (A fixed current power supply is a somewhat different matter, but those would present... hurdles in a situation like this.) Also note that contemporary fission reactors are slow to adjust; hence used primarily for base power. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 22:37 | history | answered | Shane | CC BY-SA 3.0 |