AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

In 1979, when I was visiting Fudan University in Shanghai, China, I remember seeing large, hardwired computers in the Computer Science Department.
,

Just to be clear, I'm talking about hardwired logic, which is a different thing than a hardwired computer.

Examples:

Breaker trips -> ABT (automatic bus transfer) shifts to a different bus and restores power

Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off.

Reactor power increase alarm -> reactor SCRAM

Such logic chains can go 3 or 4 steps deep and get fairly complex, and they don't require software, any sort of digital logic or IC, or even a transistor. People tend to forget how we humans built very complex systems well before any computers came on the scene. The Germans built working ballistic missiles without using transistors. The logic of a working nuclear plant is easy in comparison to that.

You may have not noticed, when I responded to "Numans" Chinese "hard wired computer" I kept putting it in quotes or said "what you called a hardwired computer" because there is no such thing as hardwired logic in a microprocessor. They are all programmable.
Hardwired logic is when you hard wire logic gates so that they carry out a specific function a programmable chip could do.
A normally open or normally closed relay is not "hard wired logic" no more than a power source + an on/off switch and a load is "hardwired logic".
These ATB`s you are talking about are not used in any power plants, let alone a nuclear power plant. There are way too many circuits that can`t afford to be without power, not even for the fraction of a second it takes for a normal relay switch.
These control circuits are on their own U.P.S. and the rest of the load runs through high speed pneumatic switches which are always armed.
In the event of a necessary bus transfer the control system software fires the switch with millisecond accuracy. Even a small Navy nuclear power generator never runs on one single generator. There are at a minimum 2 electrical generators spun up at the precise same rpm and phase angle.
One carries the current load while the other one has the exciter voltage set so that the main coils don`t add power to the bus. Any time the bus voltage drops below the set point the software ramps up the exciter voltage in the second generator. The only time the switch opens for the other generator is if there was a failure.
I should know because it was my job to re-write Westinghouse Genesis software for land based systems. As if the U.S. Navy which is second to none would use pre world war 2 technology for naval reactors when you "used to run them"
In case you did not know, the electrical generators run on their own APU steam turbine. They are certainly not driven with the main turbine and the same drive shaft that turns the ship`s screws.
Like I said I never was in the Navy, but I know Westinghouse systems and their engineers would not be that dumb to design anything less for the U.S. Navy...nor would the U.S. Navy accept a piece of crap the way you figured it works.

Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off.

You just called my sump pump and my septic tank pump and a float switch a "hard wired logic"
In case you did not know multiple tank systems do a :
Tank low- switch on tank feed pump...not "pump tripping off"
Imagine what would happen to an airliner with your "hard wired logic"
They have computer controlled cross feed pumps that take care of that problem and keep the CG where it`s supposed to be.. not create a situation with catastrophic consequences with "Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off" Siamese Cat hard wired logic.
Even a Navy as primitive as you would have it runs the steam turbine condensate from the inter coolers back to a tank.
Should the level sensor in that tank signal a low and you do your "Tank low alarm -> pump tripping off" instead off turning on the pump which feeds soft water from the make up tank you would get the reactor SCRAM you said you have been trained to respond to.
No way would the US Navy let an idiot like that pass through their exams
I wasn`t in the US Navy but I know many air force pilots who admit that they would never qualify as a Navy Aviator...I`m pretty sure the US Navy has the highest standards of any armed forces in the entire world,...which is depending on that being so, well let`s say the free world...the rest would prefer you run nuclear reactors with your "hard wired logic" on the US Navy aircraft carriers or submarines !

P.S.
People like you that have a huge ego problem are soooo predictable.
I know already what you are going to do next.
Maybe you get lucky and find a home brew DIY internet web site that shows the "hard wired logic" which could disable the starter motor when you car ran out of gas so that you quit cranking it till either the starter goes up in smoke or the battery is dead...because you didn`t know where the fuel gauge is...you know that thingy that is "hardwired logic"..."tank low-> (fuel) pump trip off" and start walking with a gas can to the next gas station.
Fuck my wife would be walking home almost every day. When she brings my car back its running on fumes.
You would never make it into the US Navy today, but you may be qualified for team Obama..they need some "hard wired logic" that prevents them from fueling up Obama`s diesel Limo with gas:

Obamas Präsidenten-Limousine in Israel falsch betankt - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Obamas Limousine falsch betankt: Das Biest hat sich verschluckt

And they got another Limo stuck in a ditch in Ireland

Shit...let go of it already..
It`s okay by me if you have these "I used to be a Naval Nuclear Engineer" delusions.
This thread is about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS
Live goes on even though spring isn`t happening in Manitoba AGAIN this year:

And another "Manitoba Mauler" is on it`s way to Minnesota and the Dakotas
Must be all that "Chinese aerosol" you were talking about "dimming the sun"..or could it be that Climate Scientists have invented some "hardwired logic" and installed it in China, releasing "Chinese aerosols" so that we don`t overheat the planet ?
Like in "+T anomaly -> increase smog" and if "T=normal print forecasts with lava red colors"

 

[Saigon]

Exactly that.

I hadn't expected that SSDD was ever going to have the cojones to admit that he'd been completely conned by his sources when it comes to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I had thought the discussion might come back to something of substance.

Still waiting for you to point out anything that I have said that results in a violation of the second law...or any law of thermodynamics for that matter. We all know that you won't because you can't. You google till you find something that you think is applicable, post it, and are then completely unable to discuss it. You aren't fooling anyone.

What have I said that violates any law of physics...name one thing...or as many as you believe apply but be prepared to explain. Good luck with that.

You are not waiting, because I pointed it out before, provided links and gave real world examples that you could check yourself.

You ignored the material provided and kept posting the same nonsensical claim.

At that point I figured that you understood that you were wrong, understood why you were wrong, and would then go through your usual ritual of telling everyone how smart you are and how it is not at all so that you were simply wrong. Again. Just as you do on every thread. Just as you will do again now in an attempt to save face. At the end of the day you know you were wrong, and so do I.

For the record, here (again) is where you misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics:

For Greenhouse Effect to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certain conditions must be met:

1) the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;

2) the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

 

[SSDD]

You are not waiting, because I pointed it out before, provided links and gave real world examples that you could check yourself.

Claiming that there is a greenhouse effect, and posting an article that describes your claimed greenhouse effect isn't proof that a greenhouse effect exists, or that I have said anything that violates any law of thermodynamics. In fact, your claim that a greenhouse effect exists is a violation of the second law.

You ignored the material provided and kept posting the same nonsensical claim.

The material isn't evidence that I have said anything that violates a law of physics. If you believe it is, then point to the particular passage or passages that you believe constitutes proof.

You post malarky that you don't understand and sit back believing that you have posted proof of somthing that you havent.

At that point I figured that you understood that you were wrong, understood why you were wrong, and would then go through your usual ritual of telling everyone how smart you are and how it is not at all so that you were simply wrong. Again. Just as you do on every thread. Just as you will do again now in an attempt to save face. At the end of the day you know you were wrong, and so do I.

Pretending that you have proved me wrong does not make me wrong. Neuman proved me wrong (to my satisfaction) with regard to the fact that it is theoretically possible to raise the atmospheric pressure 90 times on earth if all the carbon stored in the earth could be converted to CO2 and released into the atmosphere. He provided, if not hard evidence, evidence that was strong enough to convince me and as a result, my position on the theoretical possibility of raising the atmospheric pressure of the earth has changed.

I can be convinced by srtong evidence. So far, you have posted nothing on anything that raises to the status of convincing evidence.

1) the atmosphere would need to be a discrete body in order to qualify as a “body of lower temperature” and clearly it is not when considering electromagnetic transmission from sun to earth to space and;

Sorry, but that is quite wrong. Do feel free to provide proof that energy will move from cool areas of an object to warm areas of an object. Your author pretends that "deniers" are claiming that energy can't transfer from a gas to a non gaseous material. That is a strawman since that isn't the claim being made. The argument is that energy from a cooler atmosphere won't transfer to the warmer surface of the earth. Since lightning is as hot as the surface of the sun, clearly we aren't discussing lightning. What we are talking about is CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses radiating from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

The laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of systems.

Provide actual observable proof to support your statement.

2) the 2nd Law would have to preclude any feedback (return of energy in any form from atmosphere to non-gaseous surface) that could slow the cooling of the “body of higher temperature”.

The second law states that heat will not move from a cold temperature region to a high temperature region and energy will not move from a low energy state to a high energy state. There is nothing there regarding whether the radiator or receiver is liquid, gas, or solid...the second law is about energy and heat transfer, not the materials doing the transfer. Again, feel free to provide actual observable proof to support your claim.

Simply posting claims is not the same as posting proof. You post claims that you don't understand and pretend that they are proof. They aren't.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The material is there for you, should you at some stage wish to get up to speed.

The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand.

If you would rather keep your head in the sand on this topic, that option is available to you as well.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand.

Again, you have not posted proof of anything. The article makes some claims but offers nothing like proof of a greenhouse effect. It doesn't offer evidence of any direct measurements ever taken of a greenhouse effect or measurements ever taken at ambient temperature of backradiation happening. It makes claims and offers up some strawman examples that sidestep the issue of backradiation altogether.

The material is there for you, should you at some stage wish to get up to speed.

I am up to speed which is what prompts my challenge to the material that you posted. The fact that you are not up to speed is evidenced by the fact that you are completely unable to actually discuss the material you posted. You read it and due to your own lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, you simply assume it is correct and the same lack of understanding prevented you from questioning the material yourself. I have questions and challenges and the fact that you can't address either other than via the circular reasoning fallacy of referring me back to the material is the best you can do.

The article is very complete, and provides both detailed analysis and real world examples that I am sure most posters would be able to understand.

If you had any knowledge of thermodynamics at all, you would know that the material is far from complete and offers no real world examples of backradiation, and in fact, the words backradiation and or downdwelling are not even mentioned. No discussion of the greenhouse effect can possibly be even adequate, much less complete without discussion of backradiation or downdwelling radiation which is the backbone of the AGW hypothesis. Without backradiation, there is no climate alarmism.

Your materials are not even adequate, much less complete and your own lack of knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics are evident in your failure to even see such a basic failure of your article.

If you would rather keep your head in the sand on this topic, that option is available to you as well.

I am afraid that it is you who has your head buried deep in the sand...or perhaps your ass. Your materials don't address backradiation...or downdwelling radiation and certainly don't prove that I have said anything that violates the laws of thermodynamics or any other physical laws. They provide no proof of the very process required for there to be a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

You obviously don't understand the topic and have your head buried so far in the sand, or your ass that you can't hear questions that challenge materials that you don't know whether are true or not. You simply assume them to be true and are absolutely unable to discuss the topic in your own words as you have no understanding of the topic at all.

So yes, I am still waiting for you to point out anything that i have said that violates any law of thermodynamics or any physical law whatsoever. Feel free to bring forward any statement that I have made that meets either of those challenges...and be prepared to explain how they violate a physical law.

 

[gslack]

It never ceases to amaze me how they claimed "global warming" and when it showed it wasn't always warming, they called it "climate change". All the while they screamed"science" and now that the science is against them, they scream "it's still true" and keep right on going...Like a cult, a religion..

 

[Oddball]

The Warmist conspiracy has reached a critical point, with doubters in the establishment speaking out. One of Sweden's top climatologists now admit global temperatures have barely changed (translated from Swedish): "The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observation is the only way to go."

In March, a scientific study "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" found that global warming is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky. Earth's orbit varies over the centuries. Changing distance to the sun affects temperature. Furthermore, Russian scientists have determined that the global temperature will cool by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. (Reported in German in Bild.)

The conspirators had banked on panic to help expand government control over the world's economies. But momentum in public opinion has swung against the doomsayers. As an example of the depth of opposition to the Warmists, consider some of the well-informed commenters on American Thinker who have made valuable points of their own commenting on three recent articles.

Read more: Articles: The Warmist Crisis
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[mamooth]

Hardwired logic is when you hard wire logic gates so that they carry out a specific function a programmable chip could do.
A normally open or normally closed relay is not "hard wired logic" no more than a power source + an on/off switch and a load is "hardwired logic".

Nope. A power switch is simple hardwired logic. You not liking the term doesn't make it not so. A series of relays that perform a "If this happens, then do this, and if this also happens, then do this" function is certainly hardwired logic.

These ATB`s you are talking about are not used in any power plants, let alone a nuclear power plant.

As usual, you're totally wrong. There were several ABT's in the plant.

Here's a quiz. If the Roving Electrician opens the EOS door and tells you charlie ABT didn't transfer, what should you do? I'll give you a hint. Denying that the ABT exists would not be a correct response.

There are way too many circuits that can`t afford to be without power, not even for the fraction of a second it takes for a normal relay switch.

No. If you don't have any computers, most of your controls can handle short power dropouts without a problem. That would be one of the points of not using computers.

These control circuits are on their own U.P.S. and the rest of the load runs through high speed pneumatic switches which are always armed.

Nope. No UPS's. If the reactor controls themselves lost power, the rods dropped and the reactor shut down. That's much safer than relying on flaky computers.

In the event of a necessary bus transfer the control system software fires the switch with millisecond accuracy.

As usual, no. There was no control system. The Electrical Operator, a human being, would do it manually.

Even a small Navy nuclear power generator never runs on one single generator. There are at a minimum 2 electrical generators spun up at the precise same rpm and phase angle.

Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS. Since the frequencies are always slightly different, phase angle between separate energized buses always varies, and it's not possible to instantly parallel buses. The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.

I should know because it was my job to re-write Westinghouse Genesis software for land based systems.

Oh, land-based non-nuclear power system, you say? So why are you pretending to know jack about ship-based naval reactors?

Again, you seem to be the only human on the planet saying that Navy Reactors were software controlled. Why is that?

And again, just what kind of computers do you think were running this mysterious magical control software in 1960?

I've even showed you some docs that tell you you're full of crap, but it doesn't help. You're just too stubborn to admit how stupid your claims have been. That's why everyone is laughing at you now.

People like you that have a huge ego problem are soooo predictable.
I know already what you are going to do next.

Mock you for being stupid and crazy?

Oh look, you didn't predict that. You fail yet again.

This thread is about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS

And as you've demonstrated, you get every single thing about that topic wrong as well, hence your desperate attempt to deflect by questioning my credentials.

Must be all that "Chinese aerosol"

Which you claimed came from paint sprayers. That was was one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet from anyone. You're like an artiste of stupid, the way you keep taking stupid to new heights.

 

[SSDD]

And as you've demonstrated, you get every single thing about that topic wrong as well, hence your desperate attempt to deflect by questioning my credentials.

I don't believe you can point to anything regarding atmospheric physics that he has got wrong, but would be interested in seeing what you think he has got wrong and why.

 

[polarbear]

Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them

me? I used to run nuclear reactors

and it has become abundantly clear that you have not. All you keep posting is Smithsonian museum pictures from "My Littler Sisters Jokes"
and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950 like the SS Savannah,

and claim at the same time:

Nope. No UPS's. If the reactor controls themselves lost power, the rods dropped and the reactor shut down. That's much safer than relying on flaky computers

That`s called passive safety and that did not exist in W2 reactors.

Passive nuclear safety is a safety feature of a nuclear reactor that does not require operator actions or electronic feedback in order to shut down safely in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow). Such reactors tend to rely more on the engineering of components such that their predicted behaviour according to known laws of physics would slow, rather than accelerate, the nuclear reaction in such circumstances.



This is in contrast to some older reactor designs, where the natural tendency for the reaction was to accelerate rapidly from increased temperatures, such that either electronic feedback or operator triggered intervention was necessary to prevent damage to the reactor.

You don`t know which is what,:

And again, just what kind of computers do you think were running this mysterious magical control software in 1960?

Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS.

Even the most primitive civilian power plants run more than one INDEPENDENT turbine and they are all at the EXACTLY the same frequency and the same phase angle..

The only time we "fine tune" the modulator control circuitry is when a frequency driven electric clock is off by more than 1 second after 24 hours.

Electrical loads seldom increase so slow that a manual operator could keep up modulating the turbine as the generator calls for more torque while having to spin at EXACTLY the same rpm.
That`s why it`s all done electronically...and is software controlled.
As if there were no electrical surge loads on an huge aircraft carrier.
You have absolutely no idea what`s involved with a power on demand system.

By the time you sit there and wait till the vintage phase angle meter you are yapping about is near the top center it`s way too late.
Load surges are absorbed by the other standby generator(s) in less than the few milliseconds it takes for the system to ramp up the exciter coils of a spun up standby generator which was kept at the exact same rpm and the exact same phase angle....that`s the way it`s done...else you would have to have a crystal ball being able to fore cast if it`s just a transient load surge or if the increased demand is going to persist longer.
Did you ever see how fast you can smoke the field coils in a generator when the load exceeds the maximum rating?...By the time you sit there waiting for

The Electrical Operator has to look at the phase difference meter, and manually close the breaker when he sees it hit eleven o'clock.

That generator is toast !!
Even the most primitive Diesel power plants in remote areas are way more sophisticated than what you say how the US Navy is generating electrical power on an aircraft carrier which is using 4th generation Westinghouse reactors/turbines and generators.
I showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:

SG9 nuclear reactor core drives the ship to nearly 32 mph when it's submerged

There is no way to call for more electrical power without modulating the secondary loop unless the electronics which these 2 guys are monitoring lets you have the steam for it....and I`m pretty sure the sub commander would get pretty pissed off it the prop screw turns faster because of it. Like I said I never been in the Navy but I`m pretty sure that a Navy reactor control room doesn`t look like the picture you dug up from "My Little Sisters Jokes.com":

Now _this_ is a reproduction of a navy reactor control room. (The teletype and TV have been added, and do not exist in an actual EOS.)Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,

And that picture was a practical joke that somebody posted on "My Little Sisters Jokes" and the hoaxter generated with photo-shop from a picture taken at the Smithsonian Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960:

Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS.

There are turbines/generators spinning in Canada at EXACTLY the same rpm and phase angle as the turbines/generators in the USA...we are on the same grid.

If they were not in phase on the same frequency there would be the hugest cascading power failure ever...and you figure that`s being avoided by an army of people who continuously turn knobs as in:

that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS.

This is getting even more ridiculous than I thought it could possibly get

 

[mamooth]

Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them

Yet you cite your credentials constantly, thus demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.

and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950

No, a second gen reactor built in 1970. One you claimed relied on software for control, a claim which you have still given zero evidence to back up. In contrast, I linked to multiple documents backing my claims.

You initially made an incorrect claim, based on your mistaken assumption that a ship's reactor had to work exactly like the land-based generator plant you were familiar with. You should have just said "oops, I got that wrong". Not a big deal. But instead, you kept digging deeper, and now you've backed yourself into a corner. At this stage, you can't admit to being wrong, because that would be admitting how fundamentally irrational you've been.

I know that's what happened, you know it, and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're fooling?

The only time we "fine tune" the modulator control circuitry is when a frequency driven electric clock is off by more than 1 second after 24 hours.

That's nice. You weren't on a nuclear-powered ship, so your experience means jack. The nuclear-powered ship didn't have a frequency driven electric clock. It had an analog regulator, one with some beefy power transistors in it. It's one of the few things that did use transistors.

Electrical loads seldom increase so slow that a manual operator could keep up modulating the turbine as the generator calls for more torque while having to spin at EXACTLY the same rpm.

Which would be why the turbine generator had an analog regulator that controlled the steam flow valve and field voltage, like I said. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of what your voices told you I said.

By the time you sit there and wait till the vintage phase angle meter you are yapping about is near the top center it`s way too late.

No. If the different is 0.1Hz, that meter takes 10 seconds for a revolution. The delay is accounted for by hitting the breaker control when the meter arm hits the 11 o'clock position, instead of 12 o'clock. We'd listen for how much much of CHUNK the breaker made. Too loud, and we'd cheerfully mock the Electrical Operator for not matching phase well. Puts wear on the breaker, so one tries to avoid it.

Load surges are absorbed by the other standby generator(s) in less than the few milliseconds it takes for the system to ramp up the exciter coils of a spun up standby generator which was kept at the exact same rpm and the exact same phase angle....that`s the way it`s done...

Not on a ship. One generator per bus. If generators are run in parallel, they can start oscillating, one generator grabbing all the load and driving the other generator, very bad news. Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.

I showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:

For the third time, that's not the EOS or the reactor area. Reactors are classified. Photographers from Business Week do not get invited inside to take photographs. It's also why I can't give you a picture of anything besides a museum display.

That appears to be some sort of main engine monitoring room. Given that the Virginia-class pump-jet engines are electrically driven instead of steam-driven, they can be separate from the reactor spaces.

Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960

First you claimed it wasn't a control room. Then when I showed the Navy said it was, you backpedaled to your current position of claiming it doesn't count because it's too old. You've flipflopped too often to have any credibility.

You also claimed software was running such control rooms by 1960. But despite me asking over and over, you won't tell us what computers were running that software. According to you, that old photo shows a plant that was run by computers. Can you point out the computer in the photo?

 

[polarbear]

Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them

Yet you cite your credentials constantly, thus demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.

and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950

No, a second gen reactor built in 1970. One you claimed relied on software for control, a claim which you have still given zero evidence to back up. In contrast, I linked to multiple documents backing my claims.

You initially made an incorrect claim, based on your mistaken assumption that a ship's reactor had to work exactly like the land-based generator plant you were familiar with. You should have just said "oops, I got that wrong". Not a big deal. But instead, you kept digging deeper, and now you've backed yourself into a corner. At this stage, you can't admit to being wrong, because that would be admitting how fundamentally irrational you've been.

I know that's what happened, you know it, and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're fooling?



That's nice. You weren't on a nuclear-powered ship, so your experience means jack. The nuclear-powered ship didn't have a frequency driven electric clock. It had an analog regulator, one with some beefy power transistors in it. It's one of the few things that did use transistors.



Which would be why the turbine generator had an analog regulator that controlled the steam flow valve and field voltage, like I said. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of what your voices told you I said.



No. If the different is 0.1Hz, that meter takes 10 seconds for a revolution. The delay is accounted for by hitting the breaker control when the meter arm hits the 11 o'clock position, instead of 12 o'clock. We'd listen for how much much of CHUNK the breaker made. Too loud, and we'd cheerfully mock the Electrical Operator for not matching phase well. Puts wear on the breaker, so one tries to avoid it.



Not on a ship. One generator per bus. If generators are run in parallel, they can start oscillating, one generator grabbing all the load and driving the other generator, very bad news. Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.

I showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:

For the third time, that's not the EOS or the reactor area. Reactors are classified. Photographers from Business Week do not get invited inside to take photographs. It's also why I can't give you a picture of anything besides a museum display.

That appears to be some sort of main engine monitoring room. Given that the Virginia-class pump-jet engines are electrically driven instead of steam-driven, they can be separate from the reactor spaces.

Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960

First you claimed it wasn't a control room. Then when I showed the Navy said it was, you backpedaled to your current position of claiming it doesn't count because it's too old. You've flipflopped too often to have any credibility.

You also claimed software was running such control rooms by 1960. But despite me asking over and over, you won't tell us what computers were running that software. According to you, that old photo shows a plant that was run by computers. Can you point out the computer in the photo?

You keep posting the same crap over and over again.
Why don`t you start your own thread...till you do I just post again and again how full of shit you are:

Nope. There's no way to keep 2 separate turbine generators at the same relative phase angle, given that generator frequency is controlled by separate analog circuits, with fine tuning being done from the Electrical Control Panel in EOS.

There are turbines/generators spinning in Canada at EXACTLY the same rpm and phase angle as the turbines/generators in the USA...we are on the same grid.

If they were not in phase on the same frequency there would be the hugest cascading power failure ever...and you figure that`s being avoided by an army of people who continuously turn knobs as in:


This is getting even more ridiculous than I thought it could possibly get

Show me something real to back up your claim

Meow I used to run nuclear power plants

 

[mamooth]

You can keep running, but I'll keep coming back with the same questions.

Which computers were running this mysterious control software in 1960, as you claimed?

Why is it you're essentially the only human on the planet claiming navy nuclear reactors were run by software?

I find it humerous that you don't understand the basics of shipboard power, such as separate buses for each generator. That's why cascading failures may affect a whole power grid, but they won't affect a whole ship. Worst case, you just lose the one bus. When you have to consider taking battle damage, that setup is a necessity.

 

[gslack]

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..

 

[polarbear]

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..

Amazing isn`t it. I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".
I kept reminding her that this thread is about atmospheric physics...and that the "Spring what Spring" is not about Siamese cats running nuclear reactors...no matter which thread that psycho sits there 24/7 refreshing the screen to see if I logged in.
On one occasion I did`nt bother answering the psychotic cat which followed me in every enviro forum.
I could not care less but that psych persisted, so I asked where is your "question"
The cat screeched "where do you think it is it`s not in the cooking section"
So I found it and all it was stuff like, that I`m a cat hater, I`m stalking her + assorted insults.
This psycho lurks here 24/7,l ike right now..

Meeow alias ex-Navy "Nuclear watch officer" :
Navy requirements are that you must be a college graduate and attend their ODS ~ 5years
1960 - 5 years ODS = 1955
Lets say you were a college graduate 1955
That means if you were at college studying engineering for say 4 or 5 years
after you came out of high school in 1950. which means you were 18 then
If you came out of high school or a college with a degree in engineering `round that time they would have drafted you for Vietnam
Unless you were a female.
And the navy did not have any females on aircraft carriers that time
being 18 in 1950 means you should be over male, over 80 years old and senile now if you were telling the truth.
No wonder you have no idea what`s going on and have nothing better to do.
The sole purpose of this exercise is to bury posts that AGW freaks like her, "Saigon" the fake from Finland etc don`t like with a ton of garbage and insults.

 

[polarbear]

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..

The point is to bury anything and anyone who disagrees with their crap with more crap and by whatever method.
For example if you confront the "Numan" freak who fancies using S.Hawking`s face as an avatar..he insists that our atmosphere is an egg membrane about to blow up because we are inflating it with CO2:
"Explain how a 200ppm CO2 & 120 km atmosphere path length that absorbs all 15 µm IR could radiate more IR into space than an atmosphere with 380 ppm".
It`s a simple question...but as soon as you ask they come up with stuff like "you are ignorant...me I used to run nuclear reactor" stuff.
Then there were the "Chinese aerosols"
[*] that are supposedly reflecting enough sunlight to account for the missing heat the over 3000 Argus buoys cant find in the oceans, nor can it be found anywhere else for over a decade now.
If you ask why it`s hotter in cities they tell you it`s because city areas absorb more sunlight...and call you "ignorant".
As soon as you show then that pavement and concrete has a better albedo than a forest they take turns starting up arguments with either Westwall or SSDD about something totally different.
and so on and on and on..
What exactly are they trying to sell?
AGW.Inc doomsday prepper supplies?

[*] Nobody not even the EPA calls smog "aerosol" everyone who measures smog refers to it as airborne particulate matter...only enviro blogs and forum idiots call it "aerosol" . I even showed the instruments that measure the "smoke spot#" and how that is converted into mg per cubic meter airborne particulate matter...and then the cat started up again "Meow I used to run nuclear reactors in Fraggle Rock"

You can`t even post any more that the IPCC has given up on their outlandish "greenhouse effect" wattage:
It`s been (down) revised to :
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

An update is provided on the Earth's global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2. Revised estimates of surface turbulent fluxes are made based on various sources. The partitioning of solar radiation in the atmosphere is based in part on the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) FD computations that utilize the global ISCCP cloud data every 3 h

and just as soon as you post it...it gets buried by the forum AGW freaks.
Okay by me...nobody but them reads their crap anyway and I`m not obliged to respond to these freaks either.
But it is funnier than the lame comic sections in today`s news papers

 

[gslack]

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..

Amazing isn`t it. I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".
I kept reminding her that this thread is about atmospheric physics...and that the "Spring what Spring" is not about Siamese cats running nuclear reactors...no matter which thread that psycho sits there 24/7 refreshing the screen to see if I logged in.
On one occasion I did`nt bother answering the psychotic cat which followed me in every enviro forum.
I could not care less but that psych persisted, so I asked where is your "question"
The cat screeched "where do you think it is it`s not in the cooking section"
So I found it and all it was stuff like, that I`m a cat hater, I`m stalking her + assorted insults.
This psycho lurks here 24/7,l ike right now..

Meeow alias ex-Navy "Nuclear watch officer" :
Navy requirements are that you must be a college graduate and attend their ODS ~ 5years
1960 - 5 years ODS = 1955
Lets say you were a college graduate 1955
That means if you were at college studying engineering for say 4 or 5 years
after you came out of high school in 1950. which means you were 18 then
If you came out of high school or a college with a degree in engineering `round that time they would have drafted you for Vietnam
Unless you were a female.
And the navy did not have any females on aircraft carriers that time
being 18 in 1950 means you should be over male, over 80 years old and senile now if you were telling the truth.
No wonder you have no idea what`s going on and have nothing better to do.
The sole purpose of this exercise is to bury posts that AGW freaks like her, "Saigon" the fake from Finland etc don`t like with a ton of garbage and insults.

LOL, yeah meet all kinds on a web forum.

Not many navy nukes would even talk about what it was like to work on those old school reactors. Pretty hush, hush, and all who work on them even indirectly sign disclosure agreements with the DON and DOD. Usually last anywhere from 30 to 40 even 50 years or more.

I'm no naval-nukes expert, I'm just a data dink. But pretty sure no former "nuke" has broken the disclosure agreement yet. It's tied into their veterans benefits, and those older reactors were hard on those who worked closely with them. Not many would risk the benefits..

Those mock-ups for museums are just that "mock-ups". Usually come from training vessels, and not an actual working ship. But hey I could be wrong..

 

[westwall]

Yes I am questioning your credentials because you attempted to use them

Yet you cite your credentials constantly, thus demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.

and then talk about a first generation reactor which was on ships built in 1950

No, a second gen reactor built in 1970. One you claimed relied on software for control, a claim which you have still given zero evidence to back up. In contrast, I linked to multiple documents backing my claims.

You initially made an incorrect claim, based on your mistaken assumption that a ship's reactor had to work exactly like the land-based generator plant you were familiar with. You should have just said "oops, I got that wrong". Not a big deal. But instead, you kept digging deeper, and now you've backed yourself into a corner. At this stage, you can't admit to being wrong, because that would be admitting how fundamentally irrational you've been.

I know that's what happened, you know it, and everyone knows it. Who do you think you're fooling?



That's nice. You weren't on a nuclear-powered ship, so your experience means jack. The nuclear-powered ship didn't have a frequency driven electric clock. It had an analog regulator, one with some beefy power transistors in it. It's one of the few things that did use transistors.



Which would be why the turbine generator had an analog regulator that controlled the steam flow valve and field voltage, like I said. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of what your voices told you I said.



No. If the different is 0.1Hz, that meter takes 10 seconds for a revolution. The delay is accounted for by hitting the breaker control when the meter arm hits the 11 o'clock position, instead of 12 o'clock. We'd listen for how much much of CHUNK the breaker made. Too loud, and we'd cheerfully mock the Electrical Operator for not matching phase well. Puts wear on the breaker, so one tries to avoid it.



Not on a ship. One generator per bus. If generators are run in parallel, they can start oscillating, one generator grabbing all the load and driving the other generator, very bad news. Humans aren't fast enough to compensate for that, you need computers. Since there were no computers, generators were not run in parallel.

I showed you a picture of an SG9 reactor:

For the third time, that's not the EOS or the reactor area. Reactors are classified. Photographers from Business Week do not get invited inside to take photographs. It's also why I can't give you a picture of anything besides a museum display.

That appears to be some sort of main engine monitoring room. Given that the Virginia-class pump-jet engines are electrically driven instead of steam-driven, they can be separate from the reactor spaces.

Museum of a vintage reactor control room that depicts the first Naval Reactors built and which had been de-commissioned since 1960

First you claimed it wasn't a control room. Then when I showed the Navy said it was, you backpedaled to your current position of claiming it doesn't count because it's too old. You've flipflopped too often to have any credibility.

You also claimed software was running such control rooms by 1960. But despite me asking over and over, you won't tell us what computers were running that software. According to you, that old photo shows a plant that was run by computers. Can you point out the computer in the photo?

Uhhhhh.....no. You have made unsubstantiated claims and been proven wrong on most of them. PB has stated who and what he is and unlike you has the credentials to back up his claims.

HUUUUUGE difference.

He's real......you're a figment of some basement dweller's imagination.

 

[westwall]

Fascinating... However unless pre-microprocessor, nuclear reactor control systems are either able to prove or disprove AGW, I fail tosee it's importance in this matter.. But hey, it's all good anyway..

Amazing isn`t it. I got tired of this a long time ago and tried ignoring this psychotic cat. But the Siamese cat followed me around in every other thread and when I did not respond the cat started screeeeeeaching all kinds of accusations...and said I was "running away squealing".
I kept reminding her that this thread is about atmospheric physics...and that the "Spring what Spring" is not about Siamese cats running nuclear reactors...no matter which thread that psycho sits there 24/7 refreshing the screen to see if I logged in.
On one occasion I did`nt bother answering the psychotic cat which followed me in every enviro forum.
I could not care less but that psych persisted, so I asked where is your "question"
The cat screeched "where do you think it is it`s not in the cooking section"
So I found it and all it was stuff like, that I`m a cat hater, I`m stalking her + assorted insults.
This psycho lurks here 24/7,l ike right now..

Meeow alias ex-Navy "Nuclear watch officer" :
Navy requirements are that you must be a college graduate and attend their ODS ~ 5years
1960 - 5 years ODS = 1955
Lets say you were a college graduate 1955
That means if you were at college studying engineering for say 4 or 5 years
after you came out of high school in 1950. which means you were 18 then
If you came out of high school or a college with a degree in engineering `round that time they would have drafted you for Vietnam
Unless you were a female.
And the navy did not have any females on aircraft carriers that time
being 18 in 1950 means you should be over male, over 80 years old and senile now if you were telling the truth.
No wonder you have no idea what`s going on and have nothing better to do.
The sole purpose of this exercise is to bury posts that AGW freaks like her, "Saigon" the fake from Finland etc don`t like with a ton of garbage and insults.

I calculated his age at 77 in a best case scenario....

 

[SSDD]

LOL, yeah meet all kinds on a web forum.

Not many navy nukes would even talk about what it was like to work on those old school reactors. Pretty hush, hush, and all who work on them even indirectly sign disclosure agreements with the DON and DOD. Usually last anywhere from 30 to 40 even 50 years or more.

Not to mention the cancer clusters associated with them killing off operators at an even faster pace than agent orange exposure is killing off vietnam vets.