• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nuclear car with 5,000-mile range

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does it come with Radiation Poisoning as standard? Or is that an optional extra?

How about 'glow in the dark' accessories? :awe:
 
5000 miles is pretty shitty.

Besides nuclear power is measured in years not range. Range is unlimited for the service life of the reactor.
 
Kaido said:
...from the 50's:

http://io9.com/nuclear-powered-vehicle-concepts-from-the-mid-20th-cent-1154385972

Interesting read about nuclear power in vehicles. Interesting power comparison:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18x798585fvdqjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

Car accidents would be amazing. POOF :awe:
Click to expand...


If you want to stay safe in your nuclear car, you might want to pick up a personal nuclear weapon -- such as the Davy Crockett above.

Davy Crockett was a lightweight battlefield system using a recoiless rifle to fire a M388 nuclear projectile. The actual projectile weighed about 75 pounds and contained the W54 fission warhead, the smallest ever employed by the US with a reported “dial-a-yield” of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT. The projectile could be fired from a man-portable tripod (pictured) or from a vehicle-mounted launcher. The reported range varied from 1.5 to 3 miles.

The US manufactured 2,100 of the units ...
Click to expand...

Test Video

Longer Video

Don't know if the courts would view this as an appropriate application of the 'stand your ground' laws though...

Uno
 
Honestly, if people weren't complete idiots about maintaining their cars, this wouldn't be a bad idea. Think tiny nuclear reactors the size of a cooler... could be enough to drive the car for years without issue. I'd be game for having one.
 
BassBomb said:
Not only maintenance, but what about accidents..
Click to expand...

Reactor vessel could be made to be indestructible from external collisions. The problem is the cooling system. Shut down time is what kills it. Even in a full instant off state, the secondary spontaneous decay of active random fission waste byproducts in the fuel continue to produce 5-10% of the reactors total output for several days after the reactor is shut down and secure. No way to just turn it off instantly = most serious problem involving loss of coolant in accidents.

Would just be a meltdown contamination incident, power generator reactors don't contain enough fuel nor the right configuration to cause a nuclear explosion.
 
Last edited:
Vault_Boy.png
 
it's hard to bash this bullshit science hard enough, but i'll try. maybe rcpratt can offer corrections.

ku-xlarge.jpg


1. uranium fuel is considered poisoned (and therefore useless as fuel) in most reactors at around 5% burnup, so the useful energy level is overstated by about 95%

2. that amount is nowhere close to a critical mass necessary for a chain reaction.

ku-xlarge.jpg


mechanically coupled power and drive? the illustrator knew as little about trains as he did about nuclear power.

ku-xlarge.jpg


the xb-36h was never powered by the on-board reactor - it was simply an experiment to keep the crew alive. the russian experiment got around the pesky shielding problem by not using shielding.

the entire concept of a civilian fission power plant being smaller than an office building will never be more than an uneducated fantasy. military units are not subject to the same laws, and are usually immersed in the oceans.
 
The Nucleon was an interesting concept car but grossly impractical. I think safety was a big concern when they were developing nuclear land vehicles. The car probably wouldn't blow up in an impact but it would effectively be like a dirty bomb, releasing radiation.

It is very cool that they were trying to innovate the car of the future. Same goes with the Chrysler Turbine. It's an amazing piece of engineering. When people in the 50s and early 60s looked at the future, everything was either going to be nuclear or jet powered. Yet here we are still burning dinosaur goo in the same piston engines they were using back then. Sure they've gotten vastly more efficient but the fundamental technology hasn't changed.


unokitty said:


If you want to stay safe in your nuclear car, you might want to pick up a personal nuclear weapon -- such as the Davy Crockett above.
Click to expand...

The only right way to dispatch Super Mutants. :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top