Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Curufinwe_wins

  • Title
    ipsa scientia potestas est
  • Birthday June 14

Profile Information

  • Location
    Midwest, United States
  • Gender
  • Interests
    Etymology: High Power Computing; Literature; Nuclear Engineering; High Temperature Materials/Corrosion; Physical Chemistry; Water Skiing
  • Occupation
    Nuclear Engineer


Recent Profile Visitors

9,016 profile views
  1. Java/flash based ads and applets came out and were dominant long long before google got to it. I was playing RS in 2002, and plenty of other 'addicting games' (or math4kids) style pages existed and were ad/malware ridden years before google took over. Now if you mean ads on sites that normal people visited, in an era of barely functional webpages by businesses that were incompetent, sure I guess it's fair to say that the reach expanded substantially under google, but the problem existed long before. Your average gradeschooler ran into it in 2003 onwards, so I don't think using the demarcation
  2. Trying to pretend that adblock started with google is disingenuous and falsifiable. Google bought doubleclick in 2008, ABP as we know it today came out 6 years earlier, for firefox as it happens. In fact, that was one of the reasons I first moved to FF was the much earlier adblock support back in the mid to late 2000s, and the arrival of similar quality adblockers on chrome was actually one of the final reasons I left FF back in the day (FF changes and arbitrarily breaking things randomly over the years has been truly a nightmare). Plus these days Google doesn't even ha
  3. Hey, sorry for the really awful advice previous here. Have you checked the output you are using, iirc our early gsync modules only worked via displayport? Additionally I would check the resolution and colorspace of the monitor setting in control panel. I'm currently running the same situation (used to be 980ti SLI, now just 980ti), using driver 471.41 and my g-sync monitor is working (PG348Q) at the moment. Confirmed in a few games (F1 2021, Witcher 3, Heroes of the Storm) and none are acting odd atm. I don't own Fallout 76 unfortunately to check if it is a game issue.
  4. Yeah, they are playing heavy catchup just trying to mitigate losses in the short/moderate term.
  5. Yeah, so while this isn't the best idea ever regardless.... spent fuel containers have some pretty insanely rigorous testing requirements. A missile being launched at a dry cask: Old 1980s tests of fuel casks Including you know classic things like rocket locomotives into concrete barriers Shorter version using the same raw video: These days FEA is generally used instead of physical testing, but the standards have only gotten tougher than what was expected in those videos. After 9/11 every single rea
  6. Waste dispersion also is not actually a threat to the world. It has happened before actually. https://apnews.com/article/ee05042362ae448a9b7393fb7fe64df6. Note 4 actual nuclear bombs in 1966 were scattered around the landscape, and yet life didn't end everywhere (original report was from 2015).
  7. Okay so lets go through these point by point: (added numbers in yours for reference) 1. Honest truth is that history of nuclear power in the west was that military use came first and U-233 cycles are not as easy to make work for weapons etc. Not that current commerical reactors can be used as such, but it provided such a huge inertia that it has taken forever to get over it. Secondly the U-235 cycle is easier to design around for conventional reactors. Of course, conventional reactors were the result of the first point (on sheer inertia), so it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing.
  8. To a certain extent. Another issue is that honestly it's just cheaper to buy new ore than to go through the effort of separating old stuff (if you are not doing it as part of a continuous process ala open fuel cycle reactors plan to). When I mention other fuel systems being much more effective at reducing transuranic wastes (aka elements to the right of Uranium on a periodic table), the main reason that is true is because our current commercial fleet runs on low enriched U-235 (pay attention to the number). This means that most of the uranium we insert is U-238 and does not signifi
  9. You completely misunderstand what I'm saying. But you tried quoting the article at 1million+ years as if that estimate is anything other than factually wrong, because it is. The estimate for thousands of years is based on LWR production cycles using U-238, which again is dominated by the transuranic wastes at those timescales. The 50 year stuff is with different fuel cycles, from the large number of fission products that decay extremely rapidly. For example Zr-95 with a halflife of 65 days (having then something like 300 half lives by the time 50 years goes around). The basis of th
  10. Hahaha, well thankfully the current regulations do not require registration or similar, and if they tried to lock down consumer-end modification in the same way I would be extremely upset. This isn't like rolling coal after all.
  11. It seems that the higher power consumption of AMD's chipset makes this regulation far harder for them to meet than for Intel's 6W chipset standard from the last decade, since normal expandability scores seem to permit roughly 20W on the non-dgpu systems and around 40W idle for d-gpu carrying systems. Though crazy high end stuff like my example on a previous page seems to premit up to around 60W idle. I don't agree though that it fails to make sense that customers can bypass things. A customer could overvolt a lightbulb if they want and get a bit more lighting (sometimes), but the d
  12. The key is "according to some" and is factually wrong. The longer radiation takes to decay, the less radiological health risk it is (because it is decaying slower). The most dangerous waste is that which decays rapidly (largest contribution to dose), but the largest contribution to long term waste (that which still needs to be stored, and would need to be stored even if it wasn't radioactive because it is chemically toxic as well) is from what is called 'trans-uranic wastes'. We have many reactor designs both in operation (generally research, TRIGA, or military) that are specially designed to
  13. The main reason why continuous refueling salt reactors haven't taken off (you can do the exact same thing with the U--238 cycle and Pu-239 btw), is that the very premise of continuous chemical separation is seen as an unacceptable proliferation risk (rightly or wrongly, I disagree with it personally, but still), for civilian reactors. The idea being that as you are breeding material and chemically separating it anyways, you could potentially divert highly enriched fissile material for weapons use. Now the Th-232/U-233 cycle produces small amounts of U-232 ( a strong gamma emitter)
  14. Okay, so I actually am a nuclear engineer. The truth is people have no sense of scale. Scope insensitivity. EVERYONE talks about the waste and resource requirements as if they are anything. Wind per unit energy installed (not produced) uses 1000x the concrete of nuclear, for example. Chemical wastes need trapping literally forever (mercury, cadmium etc are poisonous indefinitely). Those few tons a year are probably less waste than a single apartment building generates, and despite it being a solved problem for decades (we know how to store safely, we know how to reprocess safely),