[Ranb]

You haven't given any detailed facts or figures on performance.

Here are some details on a 637 class submarine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon_class_submarine I cannot supply all of the details I know as much of it is classified. What do you need that is not supplied in this link?

You haven't stated whether you've observed or maintained or decommissioned nuclear engines.

I have maintained and decommissioned submarine nuclear propulsion plants; if this is what you mean by "nuclear engines".

You haven't addressed the issue of remote recharging of batteries.

The ship's battery is re-charged by the electrical grid powered by the ship's turbine generators or shore power cables. They are not equipped to charge them in any other manner.

You haven't addressed the issue of how it can be possible to prevent a catastrophic fission.

I described how the reactor is inherently stable. While there is enough uranium to build a bomb in the average sub reactor, the fuel density is far too low for it to undergo a nuclear explosion as bombs do. The fuel is formed in uranium oxide pellets and they are encased in metal to protect them. Even if cooling was lost and decay activity melted the entire core into a ball, it would not undergo a nuclear explosion, but it would be very hot and emit radioactive gases.

Or - if you did - why it is that nuclear bombs wouldn't get hot, presumably to melting point, since for such huge amounts of energy this would be easily achieved). All you do is quote something you've read.

Nuclear bombs do not get hot because there is nothing going on to make them hot. What do you think is going to make them hot anyway? Have you determined the spontaneous fission rate of a block of fissionable material that was less than critical mass? If you have not, then why in the world would you think it would get hot?

Ranb

[rerevisionist]

Thanks ranb. I know all about nuclear submarines, and I've designed and built them.

[Ranb]

Based on the claims and suggestions you have made in this forum, I find your claim to be completely unbelievable. You have no idea how air is replenished and purified on a sub or anything remotely resembling how they work at sea. You cannot even give a direct answer to a simple question.

Ranb

[rerevisionist]

Lol. You've missed my irony. I'm mimicking your style of question.

This thread is about nuclear power, and nuclear subs are a subset of the power issue. There's no question that nuclear bombs have not been demonstrated satisfactorily. Maybe they're still trying to get them to work. However, it raises the question whether nuclear power is a fake, and this forum presents some facts suggesting it may be. If you're genuinely interested, feel free to comment.

[Ranb]

Here are some comments. You are making claims about sub design that anyone stationed on a nuclear submarine would find hilarious.

You have suggested that a sub battery can be charged by induction, but offer no evidence that this is ever done. Going to man up and offer some?

Ranb

[FirstClassSkeptic]

You have suggested that a sub battery can be charged by induction, but offer no evidence that this is ever done. Going to man up and offer some?

Ranb

It was just offered as a possibility. I never said I knew how it was done. All I know is what they tell me. The rest is intuition.

Take a break, Ran, and read a little on this site. Some interesting stuff here.

[Lark]

I am a painter at the Puget shipyard in Washington. There are submarines there that are supposed to be nuclear powered, but they look more like they are electric powered. They have huge electric cables running through the hull and across the inside to large machines.

A few times I have asked one of the guys walking around with radiation meters how much radiation I am getting, but they all say the same thing, "not much". They say I get more from the environment than the sub. There are lots of areas roped off that I am not allowed in to because I am not qualified to enter them. I am supposed to qualify to wear a radiation dose meter, but I am not sure that I want to since I can not get a straight answer from them. Anyone else ever seee these ships?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Anyone else ever seee these ships?

Just a glimpse once at Norfolk. I was on a tour. They had a destroyer open to the public. If I remember right, I asked about going onto the subs, and they said, no, never. They aren't open to public tours. It's been twenty years, and I can't recall exactly.

The thing that impressed me about the subs was they seem so small. Maybe it's just because they look small beside of big ships.

[Lark]

I heard subs sometimes let family members on. I was not able to get on one until after I started working in the shipyard and got a clearance. They even have sepecial clearances for the nuclear areas. I think they look small because most of it is underwater. The ones that go into drydock have a ring of seagrowth on the outside that is most of the way up the hull. They look much bigger on the inside but are crowded too.

[Lark]

I had to qualify as a radiation worker and went into my first reactor compartment today. It was cramped and hot. Using a resperator in a room that is 90 degrees sucks. I watched a guy do radiation surveys for a little bit. A few times his meter went nuts when he put it near some equipment. When I asked him about it, I was warned to keep out of the area unless I was briefed and wore more dosimeters.

[Heiwa]

I had to qualify as a radiation worker and went into my first reactor compartment today. It was cramped and hot. Using a resperator in a room that is 90 degrees sucks. I watched a guy do radiation surveys for a little bit. A few times his meter went nuts when he put it near some equipment. When I asked him about it, I was warned to keep out of the area unless I was briefed and wore more dosimeters.

Why wasn't the air-con or ventilation working in the reactor compartment?

[Lark]

When I complained about the heat, they said the AC units were down for maintenance. There were some fans running, but most of my painting was not under a vent duct.