C
Clive Arthur
Guest
On 20/08/2019 21:18, Rick C wrote:
Cheers
--
Clive
Cheers
--
Clive
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:18:48 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Most of the decisions we make are made quickly. Even if we then take the time to rethink them slowly it takes a conscious effort to over-ride the quick and dirty decision-making system.
Not-invented-here is a very pervasive vice, because it's the easy way out.
"Rushing stuff into utilisation" is what happens when it has a clear and obvious advantage. There are always bugs to be worked out, but that's what engineers are for. Early adopters usually know what they are letting themselves in for, but balance the advantages of the new technology against the risk that the bugs may be serious.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 7:21:55 AM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 20/08/2019 05:49, Rick C wrote:
snip
Heck, if it is a good technology, we will be able to use it for centuries or even millennia. Is there really a need to rush it into utilization before it is proven and the bugs worked out?
Isn't that what always happens?
Only when the stupid and emotional are involved in making the decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Most of the decisions we make are made quickly. Even if we then take the time to rethink them slowly it takes a conscious effort to over-ride the quick and dirty decision-making system.
Not-invented-here is a very pervasive vice, because it's the easy way out.
"Rushing stuff into utilisation" is what happens when it has a clear and obvious advantage. There are always bugs to be worked out, but that's what engineers are for. Early adopters usually know what they are letting themselves in for, but balance the advantages of the new technology against the risk that the bugs may be serious.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:52:34 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, where? I don't recall hearing about any. In fact, I see references to the "only" MSR being the two the US built. Can you point me to a reference of any MSR actually built other than these two?
I see you snipped my point about the possibility that you might actually read about the topic.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design.
You say you disagree with me, then you again say what I am saying. These reactors have design requirements that need to be studied and resolved without rushing into solutions that are only half thought out.
"Boiler plate" refers to design aspects that have been resolved and can be implemented without study or significant risk. "Changes to boiler plate" means exactly what I am saying, there may be solutions or these solutions may end up being difficult.
"Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products"
No reactor has been designed like this before, so it is entirely new territory and needs to be researched.
"Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features"
That means we don't know enough about these reactors to know exactly how to regulate them, so further study into how to keep them safe.
Prototypes of this reactor have been built and are in the process of being built. The people working these solutions know this reactor technology very well. There's no need for a bunch of mindless discussion of generic topics by non-experts.
Oh, where? I don't recall hearing about any. In fact, I see references to the "only" MSR being the two the US built. Can you point me to a reference of any MSR actually built other than these two?
I see you snipped my point about the possibility that you might actually read about the topic.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:40:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
You're inability to discover information is not our problem.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:52:34 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design.
You say you disagree with me, then you again say what I am saying. These reactors have design requirements that need to be studied and resolved without rushing into solutions that are only half thought out.
"Boiler plate" refers to design aspects that have been resolved and can be implemented without study or significant risk. "Changes to boiler plate" means exactly what I am saying, there may be solutions or these solutions may end up being difficult.
"Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products"
No reactor has been designed like this before, so it is entirely new territory and needs to be researched.
"Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features"
That means we don't know enough about these reactors to know exactly how to regulate them, so further study into how to keep them safe.
Prototypes of this reactor have been built and are in the process of being built. The people working these solutions know this reactor technology very well. There's no need for a bunch of mindless discussion of generic topics by non-experts.
Oh, where? I don't recall hearing about any. In fact, I see references to the "only" MSR being the two the US built. Can you point me to a reference of any MSR actually built other than these two?
I see you snipped my point about the possibility that you might actually read about the topic.
You're inability to discover information is not our problem.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
Uh, the word is "your", not "you're" and the inability to discover information isn't mine, it's YOURs.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:40:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:52:34 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's not what that means. The statement refers to the necessity of changes to boiler plate subsystems of conventional water based reactor design.
You say you disagree with me, then you again say what I am saying. These reactors have design requirements that need to be studied and resolved without rushing into solutions that are only half thought out.
"Boiler plate" refers to design aspects that have been resolved and can be implemented without study or significant risk. "Changes to boiler plate" means exactly what I am saying, there may be solutions or these solutions may end up being difficult.
"Required onsite chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products"
No reactor has been designed like this before, so it is entirely new territory and needs to be researched.
"Required regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features"
That means we don't know enough about these reactors to know exactly how to regulate them, so further study into how to keep them safe.
Prototypes of this reactor have been built and are in the process of being built. The people working these solutions know this reactor technology very well. There's no need for a bunch of mindless discussion of generic topics by non-experts.
Oh, where? I don't recall hearing about any. In fact, I see references to the "only" MSR being the two the US built. Can you point me to a reference of any MSR actually built other than these two?
I see you snipped my point about the possibility that you might actually read about the topic.
You're inability to discover information is not our problem.
Uh, the word is "your", not "you're" and the inability to discover information isn't mine, it's YOURs.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209