Nuclear... what?

[Mack]

Just mentally replace "nuclear power source" with "really cool power source that hasn't been invented yet" and you'll be alright.

[Oberoth]

Precisely what sort of 'nuclear power source' do Rifts vehicles, PAs, and giant robots use? Fission? Fusion? Something more exotic? Fission seems most likely to me given the multi-year lifespan of the power plants and lack of massive fuel tanks, but fusion seems to yield far more energy despite needing massive amounts of fuel that nothing in the game ever has a big enough fuel tank for.

My guess would be an advanced Thermionic nuclear reactor.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992snpw....2..441G

[Steeler49er]

Precisely what sort of 'nuclear power source' do Rifts vehicles, PAs, and giant robots use? Fission? Fusion? Something more exotic? Fission seems most likely to me given the multi-year lifespan of the power plants and lack of massive fuel tanks, but fusion seems to yield far more energy despite needing massive amounts of fuel that nothing in the game ever has a big enough fuel tank for.

According to the original Rifts books it was Therm Nuke. Fusion was Still generally considered "High tech" and would alway require a start up power Boost from another energy source.
In contrast, Thermal Fission can be Cold started which, in the low tech world of Rifts, is perferable to have. Plus, low tech Nukes are easier to Make, Repair and Build AND can easily be micronized at minimal to Ø-Zero power loss. Also is the fact that Nuke Fission does the Job just fine and dandy <Read that it easily supplies the requested amounts of power) and in the Rifts tech enviro can be Very safe and Non-pollutiion causing.

In Juxtaposition, Fusion is all the opposset of that... At least at present!
I hope that this is of some help to yah "Daniels"

[Nekira Sudacne]

We always played it as fusion, because fission would build up too much long term radiation exposure, regardless of how sheilded the suit is, when on your power armor you are about an inch and a half away from the reactor.

[Library Ogre]

I tend to view them somewhat like the Mr. Fusion from "Back to the Future."

[tobefrnk]

I never put much thought into it but always just assumed it was fusion for many of the reasons others declare them as fusion. Plus, if for no other reason than fusion is so "scifi" and fission is passe. haHA

[Nekira Sudacne]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

[Qev]

They could always be using nuclear isomer batteries, employing a rare metastable state of an isotope of that endlessly useful element, handwavium.

Besides, 'nuclear isomer battery' sounds cooler than either 'fission' and 'fusion'.

[Nekira Sudacne]

The method depends on the fissionable material and what state it's in. Right now we only can produce enough energy to induce very very light elements to fuse, Hydrogen mainly, but keeping a large amount is difficult. really we would have to find some way to cold fuse much heavier atoms for it to work, but regardless of WHAT elements you are fusing the basics are unchnaged: If you shoot the reactor in progress, all that hydrogen is released outwards in a superhot cloud of gas (dangerous in and of itself) but quickly dissapates and the chain reaction shuts down.

Shoot a fission reactor and you scatter the atoms which then very neatly stops the chain reaction, which requires that the atoms be VERY close and unblocked from each-other to work. Which is why an act as simple as inserting control rods will stop a reaction.

But even if you stop control rods from being inserted, it won't go boom, all that will happen is that the water tank used to cool the reactor will explode from being turned into superheated steam, which is bad but hardly a nuclear bomb and is only dangerous to a very short area. It is enough to break the containment walls, usually, which releases radiation to the surrounding area, but the uranium itself dosn't chain react, rather the water tank explosion scatters it making it a dirty bomb but not a nuclear one.

To actually induce a fission BOMB to explode is insanly difficult. it requires the entire mass be simultaniously compressed so tightly and precicely the chain reaction induces fission in virtually all of the atoms within a second before the force of those very same reactions scatters the remaining material (Which results in classic fallout).

As you can see, simply shooting the reaction in progress may somewhat compress one end, but you have to "shoot' ALL ends from ALL angles SIMULTANIOUSLY and in exsact, perfect timing to get a nuclear bomb.

And I will ALSO point out that only certains KINDS of fissionable material can make a bomb. Uranium in most of it's forms can undergo fusion, for exsample, but only one exsact kind, 235, is even physically possible to make a bomb out of because it's the most unstable and thus most prone to it all going off at once.

You can make fission REACTORS that provide electricity that are made out of material that isn't "weapons grade", that is, you can make power form it but not a bomb. IN which case it litterally dosn't matter WHAT you do, it's completely, physically impossible to make it go boom.

[sHaka]

Just mentally replace "nuclear power source" with "really cool power source that hasn't been invented yet" and you'll be alright.

Thread winner

[Wise_Owl]

Well... there are question, I mean we can look at the qualities of a 'Nuclear' Power Plant in Rifts, and than try to figure out it's nature form those;

1)They possess a finite lifespan in the 8-20 year range.
2)They don't appear to need refueling, they apparently have to be replaced.
3)They expose dangerous ammounts of radiation when destroyed.

Alright, that makes lilfe difficult. If it wasn't for number 3 than it would be easy to say 'Some form of Micro-fusion that burns out all its' components over time'. But Fusion doesn't produce dangerous radiation... it isn't that dangerous really. You de-active the safties on Fission reaction, you get melt-down... on a fusion reaction, the whole thing just stops.

I think the best possibiity is that it's some kind of really advanced engine operating off of Nuclear Fuel Cells, like they use in satellites and far-flung space probes, but with a much greater life-expentancy and efficiency. Though Fisison has always been my assumption up till now.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Well... there are question, I mean we can look at the qualities of a 'Nuclear' Power Plant in Rifts, and than try to figure out it's nature form those;

1)They possess a finite lifespan in the 8-20 year range.
2)They don't appear to need refueling, they apparently have to be replaced.
3)They expose dangerous ammounts of radiation when destroyed.

Alright, that makes lilfe difficult. If it wasn't for number 3 than it would be easy to say 'Some form of Micro-fusion that burns out all its' components over time'. But Fusion doesn't produce dangerous radiation... it isn't that dangerous really. You de-active the safties on Fission reaction, you get melt-down... on a fusion reaction, the whole thing just stops.

I think the best possibiity is that it's some kind of really advanced engine operating off of Nuclear Fuel Cells, like they use in satellites and far-flung space probes, but with a much greater life-expentancy and efficiency. Though Fisison has always been my assumption up till now.

I actually have the guess that Kevin Seimbedia dons't actually understand the finer points of nuclear physics.

[glitterboy2098]

Well... there are question, I mean we can look at the qualities of a 'Nuclear' Power Plant in Rifts, and than try to figure out it's nature form those;

1)They possess a finite lifespan in the 8-20 year range.
2)They don't appear to need refueling, they apparently have to be replaced.
3)They expose dangerous ammounts of radiation when destroyed.

Alright, that makes lilfe difficult. If it wasn't for number 3 than it would be easy to say 'Some form of Micro-fusion that burns out all its' components over time'. But Fusion doesn't produce dangerous radiation... it isn't that dangerous really. You de-active the safties on Fission reaction, you get melt-down... on a fusion reaction, the whole thing just stops.

I think the best possibiity is that it's some kind of really advanced engine operating off of Nuclear Fuel Cells, like they use in satellites and far-flung space probes, but with a much greater life-expentancy and efficiency. Though Fisison has always been my assumption up till now.

actually, fission fits all three perfectly, fusion does not.

2.) a fission powerplant with the required fuel to get the reaction going will last decades at normal use. longer if used sparingly and the rewactions damped down when not needed to produce power. Fusion is a major fuel hog. to supply it with fuel for years of operation would require a fuel tank the size of a small building. Hydroogen is not very dense, even when liquid. and if it's liquid, you have to deal with cryogenic storage, which is also very bulky. not would stabilized mettallic hydrogen help much. while 9x denser than regular hydrogen, you'd still need to carry a huge supply of it.

2.) a fission powerplant cannot be "refueled" in the traditional sense. even on the currrent reactors using fuel rods, you have to swap out a sizable portion of the inner reactor to put new fissile materials in place of expended ones. most future designs still have the problem, even without rods. this is mainly containment and safety issues. they're designed that way so you don't have exposed fuel elements during the process. Fusion you can just top off the tanks...and don't have to replace any part of the core.

3.) a fission plant, when destroyed, will scatter radioactive material around. even if it doesn't 'melt down" (many modern designs are incapable of doing so), the fuel elements themselves will be exposed, which can cause contamination issues. a fusion reactor doesn't have this problem. it's fuel is generally not radioactive, and is lighter than air, which means it quickly leaves the area and dilutes itself into the upper atmosphere.


the nuclear power supplies of rifts robots and power armor are certainly fission, though a few more advanced syuits (naruni comes to mind) might be otherwise. more than likely, they use a liquid core system, Thorium-hydride in all probability. liquid core systems are "nuclear batteries". they don't have a chain-reaction involved. they're also self-regulating. stop the nuetron source, and the reaction stops. thus it is safe. once it runs out of thorium to fission, it shuts off, requiring a new core with fresh thorium-hydride to be swapped in. it generates no particularly dangerous radiation (only alpha and beta particles, easily stopped by skin or paper, much less armor), but if breached the material is very toxic...

why thorium? because thorium generates Uranium 235 as a byproduct. which is an ideal material for making atomic bombs (or U-rounds.) a nice side effect of choosing to use thorium is that thorium is one of the most common fissile materials on earth, and can be found just about everywhere. it's also safer than uranium in that it will not chain react on it's own. so you can stock pile large amounts of it with less worry.

larger vehicles, like ships, more than likely use a hybrid thorium/uranium system, likely based on a pebble bed design.

[Colt47]

In the case of power armor with nuclear power replace all instances of "at least minimal radiation shielding" with "the best freaking radiation shielding that god placed on sweet mother earth".

[Oberoth]

It is likely that it would be fission based technology. I read an article recently about Small nuclear reactors for the proposed moon base after 2020. They were about the size of an average garbage can. Given the advanced level of tech in the pre Rifts future, they could probably be made smaller.

[cornholioprime]

Let's face it: Rifts Nuclear Power Designs are so "magical" that even the Old Ones are jealous of how they work.

[J_Danger]

Mr. Fusion!

that explains it!

[Dog_O_War]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

[Dog_O_War]

Also, it says "nuclear power-source" right? That's pretty generic and vague. That leaves open alot of designs and theories within the next 150+ years to be worked out. If we can't "imagine" such things now, it certainly doesn't mean that we can imagine them 150 years or even 10 years from now.

That said, I always pictured the power-source as a big battery-looking device, about the size of a thermos with a glowing green rod of plutonium like straight from The Simpsons.

Am I right? Probably not, but again "nuclear power-source" is pretty vague.

[Natasha]

Just mentally replace "nuclear power source" with "really cool power source that hasn't been invented yet" and you'll be alright.

This topic was done in the first reply as far as I'm concerned.

Mack has summarised what has been said every time this topic of nuclear power sources comes up.

[Natasha]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

There's no reason to submit this counterarguement because she is 100% correct, unless Rifts isn't a place we'd physically recognise of course.

[Dog_O_War]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

There's no reason to submit this counterarguement because she is 100% correct, unless Rifts isn't a place we'd physically recognise of course.

A FIREBALL! is a physical impossibility too. That they exist in Rifts means that if one physical impossibility is, infact - possible, then others may be as well.

I mean, we don't know what ambient lay-line energy does in the atmosphere when a nuclear fusion/fission power-source is exposed; for all you or I know, it will go "BOOM!" So without actual knowledge of this worlds' actual physics, I choose to instead believe movie-physics. That is, if it looks cool, makes you out to be an action-hero, or otherwise "fits" a percieved notion of how something might work, then it does. That is; in Terminator 3, Ahnald! threw out a nuclear-battery, and it blew up; why not "generic nuclear power-source X"?

[Natasha]

Accepting fireballs is a matter of suspension of disbelief.
Accepting that unknown nuclear power source exploding is stretching it and some won't.
Fission reactors exploding is definitely not.

[Dog_O_War]

Accepting fireballs is a matter of suspension of disbelief.
Accepting that unknown nuclear power source exploding is stretching it and some won't.
Fission reactors exploding is definitely not.

Your statement does not follow any logic I'm familiar with, or even aware of.

That is, you are arbitrarily giving one physical impossibility a pass for an arbitrary reason.
But the other one you aren't for (yet again) an arbitrary reason.

Or, "I believe in griffins, but dragons don't exist!"

Suspend your belief for everything, or nothing. If a guy in funny robes can lob balls of fire from his hands, then I'm sure I could shoot a generic nuclear power-source and make it explode.

[Natasha]

Suspend your belief for everything, or nothing.

I don't accept this.

[Dog_O_War]

Suspend your belief for everything, or nothing.

I don't accept this.

That's okay - we all have our reservations when it comes to these games.
Mine just isn't focused on the arbitrary; where I have to use opinion to justify something I'm not qualified on doing such. Where no one is, infact. I mean - it's fluff-text; for all we know, the reason these power-sources are portable is because they are using some new type of nuclear material, that might explode when subjected to oxygen and force.

But again, that's arbitrary.

[glitterboy2098]

suspension of disbeleif is not binary. it's not "on/off"

its a spectrum. some people are willing to accept magic, but not dragons. others are willing to accept dragons, but not magic. and so on.

one has a hard time argueing whether the properties of a magic fireball are verisimilar, since we have no real world comparison. but with nuclear power, it's not hard to find out what would happen if a fission or fusion powerplant was shot up. anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

[Natasha]

Mine just isn't focused on the arbitrary;

Mine isn't either.

[Dog_O_War]

Mine just isn't focused on the arbitrary;

Mine isn't either.

Accepting fireballs is a matter of suspension of disbelief.

Fission reactors exploding is definitely not.

Well, it seems here that if the rate in which the neutrons are bombarded is increased for any reason, the chance of explosion becomes possible.

Are you sure that your focus isn't instead arbitrary? (in this case, accepting the word of one poster over another, for no other reason than personal preference).

I mean, (and don't get me wrong here) - I post alot of stuff people don't like, don't want to hear, and will make them mad, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong (I might not be right either, but with game-related stuff I tend only to post pertenant and logical information).

I did post a very logical and valid arguement against her statement; that the rules of physics cannot be applied as litany within the game due to numerous physical impossibilities (re: FIREBALL!) being completely possible; that her fact becomes opinion, and is thus not 100% true. It's likely, but flat-out telling someone else that one type of reaction based on our real-world physics will thus not explode in a world where our real-world physics do not fully apply - is inherently a flawed statement.

[Natasha]

Mine just isn't focused on the arbitrary;

Mine isn't either.

Accepting fireballs is a matter of suspension of disbelief.

Fission reactors exploding is definitely not.

Well, it seems here that if the rate in which the neutrons are bombarded is increased for any reason, the chance of explosion becomes possible.

Are you sure that your focus isn't instead arbitrary? (in this case, accepting the word of one poster over another, for no other reason than personal preference).

Nuclear fission power plants has been covered in a fair amount of detail in these forums by people that know what they're talking about. If you break the chain reaction, you don't get a nuclear explosion.

I did post a very logical and valid arguement against her statement;.

Not against nuclear fission you didn't.

[Dog_O_War]

suspension of disbeleif is not binary. it's not "on/off"

I present myself as a counter-arguement My suspension of disbelief works this way. But not as you might think.

its a spectrum. some people are willing to accept magic, but not dragons. others are willing to accept dragons, but not magic. and so on.

See, this is where it's binary for me. If I'm told that dragons and magic exist within the game, then they exist. Belief suspended. I'm not going to be all, "magic! awesome! But dragons? that's so unrealistic." The logical flaw is inherently visible.

one has a hard time argueing whether the properties of a magic fireball are verisimilar, since we have no real world comparison. but with nuclear power, it's not hard to find out what would happen if a fission or fusion powerplant was shot up.

That's just it; we don't have a comparison in this regard. We have a "portable nuclear power-source that typically lasts 8-20 years". In what realm do we have that offers a similar comparison? I mean really; just because we have (for example) desiel cars that only get a maximum possible 80 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that in the future we won't have cars that get 3000 miles to the gallon of desiel. Or that in-game, if such a vehicle existed, that we'd cry "fake!" just because we got a primative version now that doesn't.

That said; look at the cannon; 200 years ago it was physically impossible to shoot a round 11 miles and have it go through 2 feet of steel. Now, it is physically possible.

Now try to imagine in 200 years what will be physically possible, that is currently impossible.

anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

And yet, if I take weapon X; a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, or some such weapon, and shoot that same source - can you really make this same claim?

[Dog_O_War]

But even a magic fireball can only explode things that were prone to exploding to begin with.

Sure. Like I said previously; movie-physics. If it looks cool, makes some semblance of sense to the layman, or turns you into a badass action hero, then it works.

[Dog_O_War]

Well, it seems here that if the rate in which the neutrons are bombarded is increased for any reason, the chance of explosion becomes possible.

Are you sure that your focus isn't instead arbitrary? (in this case, accepting the word of one poster over another, for no other reason than personal preference).

Nuclear fission power plants has been covered in a fair amount of detail in these forums by people that know what they're talking about. If you break the chain reaction, you don't get a nuclear explosion.

I never stated anything about breaking the chain-reaction. Please re-read my post more thoroughly.

I did post a very logical and valid arguement against her statement;.

Not against nuclear fission you didn't.

Again; please re-read my post more thoroughly. You seemed to have arbitrarily ignored my very careful wording.

[Natasha]

anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

And yet, if I take weapon X; a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, or some such weapon, and shoot that same source - can you really make this same claim?

Yes. If you're a human and I bludgeon you with a claw hammer you're going to die. If you step off a tall building you're going to plummet to the street below. If you break the chain reaction, it's not going to explode.

If you make the power source as Mack suggested you can have it do anything you want - including explode - and I don't care.
However, if you don't ignore gravity or claw hammers to the skull, then don't ignore the nature of nuclear fission power plants either.

[Natasha]

Well, it seems here that if the rate in which the neutrons are bombarded is increased for any reason, the chance of explosion becomes possible.

Are you sure that your focus isn't instead arbitrary? (in this case, accepting the word of one poster over another, for no other reason than personal preference).

Nuclear fission power plants has been covered in a fair amount of detail in these forums by people that know what they're talking about. If you break the chain reaction, you don't get a nuclear explosion.

I never stated anything about breaking the chain-reaction. Please re-read my post more thoroughly.

I did post a very logical and valid arguement against her statement;.

Not against nuclear fission you didn't.

Again; please re-read my post more thoroughly. You seemed to have arbitrarily ignored my very careful wording.

This is what you said to Nekira speaking about shooting a fission power plant, which would break the chain reaction:

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

[Dog_O_War]

anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

And yet, if I take weapon X; a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, or some such weapon, and shoot that same source - can you really make this same claim?

Yes. If you're a human and I bludgeon you with a claw hammer you're going to die. If you step off a tall building you're going to plummet to the street below. If you break the chain reaction, it's not going to explode.

*please view the picture in my sig.
The chain-reaction isn't disrupted; it's increased to an uncontrolled rate; this is what is required for a nuclear explosion to happen.

[Dog_O_War]

This is what you said to Nekira speaking about shooting a fission power plant, which would break the chain reaction:

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

Yes, because she stated that it was physically impossible to make a fission power-source explode.

FIREBALL! is a metaphor for "physics and arguements based on physics not not valid in a world where the laws of physics are regularily broken." It's just easier to go, FIREBALL! When someone goes (and this is in my sig)

That can't happen, it's not realistic!

[Natasha]

anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

And yet, if I take weapon X; a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, or some such weapon, and shoot that same source - can you really make this same claim?

Yes. If you're a human and I bludgeon you with a claw hammer you're going to die. If you step off a tall building you're going to plummet to the street below. If you break the chain reaction, it's not going to explode.

*please view the picture in my sig.
The chain-reaction isn't disrupted; it's increased to an uncontrolled rate; this is what is required for a nuclear explosion to happen.

If you break the power plant, the chain reaction is disrupted by the mere fact that the chain reaction can no longer be sustained.

This is what you said to Nekira speaking about shooting a fission power plant, which would break the chain reaction:

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

Yes, because she stated that it was physically impossible to make a fission power-source explode.

What she actually said it was impossible to make it explode by shooting it. Because it is.
In order to sustain the chain reaction, the neutrons that escape must be properly contained - break the container, break the chain reaction; break the chain reaction, no explosion whatsoever.

FIREBALL! is a metaphor for "physics and arguements based on physics not not valid in a world where the laws of physics are regularily broken." It's just easier to go, FIREBALL! When someone goes (and this is in my sig)

That can't happen, it's not realistic!

Magic doesn't break the laws of physics, it just doesn't abide by them.
Nuclear fission power plants are not magic. The laws of physics still apply.

[The Galactus Kid]

anybody with google could find the answer in minutes. we know that nuclear powerplants won't blow up, and settings where they do actually make it harder to sustain a suspension of disbeleif, not easier.

And yet, if I take weapon X; a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, or some such weapon, and shoot that same source - can you really make this same claim?

Yes. If you're a human and I bludgeon you with a claw hammer you're going to die. If you step off a tall building you're going to plummet to the street below. If you break the chain reaction, it's not going to explode.

*please view the picture in my sig.
The chain-reaction isn't disrupted; it's increased to an uncontrolled rate; this is what is required for a nuclear explosion to happen.

If you break the power plant, the chain reaction is disrupted by the mere fact that the chain reaction can no longer be sustained.

This is what you said to Nekira speaking about shooting a fission power plant, which would break the chain reaction:

I submit FIREBALL! as a counter-arguement.

Yes, because she stated that it was physically impossible to make a fission power-source explode.

What she actually said it was impossible to make it explode by shooting it. Because it is.
In order to sustain the chain reaction, the neutrons that escape must be properly contained - break the container, break the chain reaction; break the chain reaction, no explosion whatsoever.

FIREBALL! is a metaphor for "physics and arguements based on physics not not valid in a world where the laws of physics are regularily broken." It's just easier to go, FIREBALL! When someone goes (and this is in my sig)

That can't happen, it's not realistic!

Magic doesn't break the laws of physics, it just doesn't abide by them.
Nuclear fission power plants are not magic. The laws of physics still apply.

What She said.

[glitterboy2098]

and ultimately, magic just doesn't abide by the laws of physics as we understand them. the existance of magic just points to the exsistance of aspects and levels of physics we hadn't figured out. after all, if something exists in our universe, it means it's following the laws of said universe. sometimes we just discover that there is more to things than we originally percieved.

and in any case, the principle of limiting the damage applies. to paraphrase the page over at project Rho:

In some cases you have no choice but to violate a theory of physics. For instance, if you are going to have FTL travel, you are going to have to violate either relativity or causality; one of them has got to go.

The important point is to keep the fracture under control. Hack writers will assume that "if we have to break a few theories of physics for FTL, why not just throw all the theories out the window?" Don't give in. Omitting physics will degrade your [setting] to a pathetic lack of accuracy worse than an average Space Ghost cartoon.

[Dog_O_War]

If you break the power plant, the chain reaction is disrupted by the mere fact that the chain reaction can no longer be sustained.

Proof?
Or more pointedly; proof that this is true with a "portable nuclear power-source"?

What she actually said it was impossible to make it explode by shooting it. Because it is.
In order to sustain the chain reaction, the neutrons that escape must be properly contained - break the container, break the chain reaction; break the chain reaction, no explosion whatsoever.

I know. But what I said was that she (and anyone, for that matter) do not infact know the physics of a portable plasma cannon, or a particlebeam gun, because they do not yet exist; that she and others do not know the physics of a portable nuclear power-supply (in the context of Rifts; leave the worthless "A sub is nuclear and thus portable! comments out of it).
Therefore, her answer is only speculation, and should not have litany applied to it.

Basically, without proof, a FIREBALL! is just as likely.

Sure, we can theorize about what might happen, but theories exist in numbers far out-weighing facts; to trust one theory simply because it follows some semblance of logic in a logical world does not make it right, true, or logical in an illogical world.

Magic doesn't break the laws of physics, it just doesn't abide by them.

Seriously?
"I don't follow the law, but that doesn't mean I break it!"
That doesn't lend a whole lot of credibility to your arguement here.

Nuclear fission power plants are not magic. The laws of physics still apply.

Portable nuclear power-plants (again, in the context of Rifts) are not real. Physics do not apply. I mean think about it; what if it's physically impossible to create a nuclear power-plant that size? The possiblity of that alone discredits the arguement.

[Natasha]

If you break the power plant, the chain reaction is disrupted by the mere fact that the chain reaction can no longer be sustained.

Proof?
Or more pointedly; proof that this is true with a "portable nuclear power-source"?

It's true of how nuclear fission works. As such, if your power source is going to be nuclear fission, then the same rules should apply. If your power source is going to be something else, then you can say whatever you want about it, and nobody's really going to give a hoot. This is where you're getting hung up it would seem.

It doesn't matter how you break the container, you just have to break it - whether with a plasma cannon or a stick of TNT or a bullet. The moment that happens, the chain reaction ends. It's the container that determines critical mass of the fuel for to sustain the chain reaction. That's it. Godzilla could step on it and it won't explode.

Magic doesn't break the laws of physics, it just doesn't abide by them.

Seriously?
"I don't follow the law, but that doesn't mean I break it!"
That doesn't lend a whole lot of credibility to your arguement here.

Except that's not my arguement.

Nuclear fission power plants are not magic. The laws of physics still apply.

Portable nuclear power-plants (again, in the context of Rifts) are not real.

Nuclear fission, however, is real.

Physics do not apply. I mean think about it; what if it's physically impossible to create a nuclear power-plant that size?

Then you probably shouldn't be calling a nuclear fission power plant in the first place.

[glitterboy2098]

BTW, there are portable nuclear powerplants. look up RTG's for example, or Hyperion power.

[thedrunk]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

isnt a fission using the substance that requires uranium ( IE. triax rail gun rounds) to go BOOM or is it fussion ?
idk which it is but one of them when shot with either a depleated uranium or uneraiunum round will go boom, causing a old school nuke blast leavign the pilot going " WTH OVER ! " at ground zero ......

[sasha]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

isnt a fission using the substance that requires uranium ( IE. triax rail gun rounds) to go BOOM or is it fussion ?
idk which it is but one of them when shot with either a depleated uranium or uneraiunum round will go boom, causing a old school nuke blast leavign the pilot going " WTH OVER ! " at ground zero ......

Fission isn't a substance, it a process. But a fission power plant and a fission bomb are constructed in fundamentally different ways such that a power plant doesn't explode whereas a bomb does by design.

[thedrunk]

nuclear fission. the tank gets shot it goes boom

.........No...that's not what happens at all.

Both go fizzle. Simply shooting a nuclear fission reactor cannot make it go boom, it's physically impossible.

isnt a fission using the substance that requires uranium ( IE. triax rail gun rounds) to go BOOM or is it fussion ?
idk which it is but one of them when shot with either a depleated uranium or uneraiunum round will go boom, causing a old school nuke blast leavign the pilot going " WTH OVER ! " at ground zero ......

Fission isn't a substance, it a process. But a fission power plant and a fission bomb are constructed in fundamentally different ways such that a power plant doesn't explode whereas a bomb does by design.

I was thinking of the high impact of uranium hitting platonium both = weapons grade with the force = to splitting atoms would cause the same effect of a nuclear explosion as what is created with in a thermal nuke. if you take a look in to the physics behind both and speeds that the rounds travel at to create a MD dam then I would assume there would be a 1 or 2% chance that if the round hit the nuke there woudl be a explosion. but the armor would have to be defind on the encasing of the power plant say 10% of main body then the only class I could see being able to make a nuke out of a lets say GB would be a headhunter technophile, and put a penality on thier special skill at say a -10% to any mech body armor or what not they dont have a elite pilot skill in.

[Natasha]

I don't think using DU rounds will split atoms, even if it does, if the container of the power plant is broken, then the chain reaction is shut down - because it's all about the container. Shooting a fission bomb is probably going to cause it not to explode (at least not very much), although engineered entirely differently from power plants, the goal is to generate as much energy as possible as fast as possible which causes the weapon to explode. So destroying the weapon in flight would preclude the chain reaction from ever triggering and it seems to me would shut the entire weapon down with minimal explosiveness.

[glitterboy2098]

Depleted uranium is U238, which is not a isotope that can be employed in nuclear reactors or weapons. it's just not as fissile as U235 or U236.

shooting a DU round into a working nuclear plant would likely cause a breach of containment and a contamination problem, but it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.

shooting a uranium round (which could be anything from 99% U238-1%U236 to 100% U236 or U235) likely also would not cause an explosion. reactors rarely store their fissile fuel in a manner that allows for a bomb style critical mass, nor does it usually have the neutron shielding needed to generate a runaway chain reaction that results in an explosion.
it is more likely you would generate just a breach of containment. at worst, if your slug was mostly enriched uranium (U235 or U236), you might start a melt down, which is just a really hot breach of containment in that situation.

and this assumes that RIFTS nuclear power supplies employ uranium or plutonium as fissile fuels. they are just as likely to employ Thorium, which is a fertile material. not fissile in its normal state, but when bombarded by high energy particle like protons, will fission just like uranium. which makes it safer, since damaging the reactor means no more proton bombardment, which means the nuclear fuel goes non-fissile. hitting a thorium powerplant would just result in a breach of containment, but even a U-round wouldn't cause a meltdown. (it is literally meltdown proof..)

[Dog_O_War]

I don't think using DU rounds will split atoms, even if it does, if the container of the power plant is broken, then the chain reaction is shut down - because it's all about the container.

In your opinion it is, but I'd require actual proof. It may seem obstinant to you for me to keep on this point; but it is the crux of the arguement.

How can you (or anyone) claim that the physics of theoretical device X will react in fashion A when an outside theoretical device is applied?

That is; how can you offer proof of an assured physical (non)reaction when the devices presented are theoretical only, in a world shown to be logic and physics-lite?

[Dog_O_War]

Depleted uranium is U238, which is not a isotope that can be employed in nuclear reactors or weapons. it's just not as fissile as U235 or U236.

shooting a DU round into a working nuclear plant would likely cause a breach of containment and a contamination problem, but it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.

Whoa, bud. Words+bat poop = explosion in Rifts. For all you know, ALE (ambient ley-line energy) might react violently with U238 when put within an already reacting chamber, thus resulting in explosion.