Nuclear... what?

[Natasha]

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?

You keep getting hung up on this. I'm not talking about theoretical devices. If it's a nuclear fission power plant, then you are talking about nuclear fission. If you are talking about theoretical device X, then you can have it to do anything you like when it's shot.

All that was ever said was that a nuclear fission plant doesn't explode when hit.

[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.

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.

and yet, no such thing is said in any of the books, and one would expect such an important situation and result would at least get a sentance somewhere.

so it is just as likely that PPE has no such effect in the game.

the physics of nuclear power don't allow powerplants to turn into nuclear bombs. since there is nothing in the game to state otherwise, special circumstances or no, it is generally going to be true in game that nuclear powerplants can't explode.

the existance of magic in the game doesn't invalidate physics. it just proves there are different ways to manipulate them. the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't invalidate physics on the macro-scale, it just showed that when you got down to the particle level and below, additional factors were involved beyond classical physics.

in game, the existance of magic just shows that there is an energy (PPE), that can be employed to create various effects. it doesn't invalidate physics, since those continue to function in the setting. the places where magic deviates from the understood perceptions of how reality works are well detailed in the game. heck, magic even conforms to conservation of energy. (PPE has to be used to acheive everything in magic. you can't have magic without PPE, and too little PPE prevents you from creating many complex effects..."energy cannot be made or destroyed, only change forms" PPE is energy, and casting spells is just changing that energy into new forms. in the game PPE can't be created or destroyed, it just is moved around or converted)


and frankly, if you have to resort to pulling absurd "special circumstances" out your ears to justify something as unbalancing as giving everyone with a powered armor access to a potential nuclear detonation....the game isn't fun any more.

[Dog_O_War]

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?

You keep getting hung up on this. I'm not talking about theoretical devices. If it's a nuclear fission power plant, then you are talking about nuclear fission. If you are talking about theoretical device X, then you can have it to do anything you like when it's shot.

All that was ever said was that a nuclear fission plant doesn't explode when hit.

I know.
But I have been saying that you can't claim 100% truth on this when I can shoot it with magic, particle beam guns, and plasma-cannons.

Or rather; the original question was in the context of Rifts - as was the scenario of shooting one (or, at the very least - the context of shooting one that I had mentioned). Also, it wasn't a power-plant that was called into question; it was a portable nuclear power-source.

[glitterboy2098]

a portable nuclear power source is a powerplant.
powerplant just means a system for generating energy

a nuclear reactor is a vessel by which nuclear isotopes generate heat via nuclear fission. sometimes via natural fission, other times via a controlled chain reaction.

this heat is then used to run a generator of some type. this can be anything from seebeck effect thermocouples to thermophotovoltaic panels to steam turbines connected to a generator to a stirling engine connected to a generator.

the portable nuclear powerplants of RIFTS is just very compact nuclear reactors connected ot very efficent and very compact generators.

[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.

and yet, no such thing is said in any of the books, and one would expect such an important situation and result would at least get a sentance somewhere.

so it is just as likely that PPE has no such effect in the game.

Ley-line energy has in-game effects. Maybe not the ambient stuff in low concentrations, but again, how can you claim that physics example "A" will work, when physics themselves are proven not to work as intended within the game? And believe me, besides the usage of FIREBALL! there are plenty "mudane" examples of physics-breaks that completely discredit the the faith I have in them pertaining to Rifts.
Like an SDC human being able to punch an SDC tank into scrap as long as they "roll high enough" (an example of the rules breaking the physics of the game). Only an arbitrary ruling prevents this from happening.

the physics of nuclear power don't allow powerplants to turn into nuclear bombs. since there is nothing in the game to state otherwise, special circumstances or no, it is generally going to be true in game that nuclear powerplants can't explode.

The "physics" of the game allow me to punch an Abrams into scrap; this is an example of physics not working as intended. This serves as a direct discredit to having the physics of this power-plant working as you state (that is; your proof is proven to be suspect).

the existance of magic in the game doesn't invalidate physics. it just proves there are different ways to manipulate them. the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't invalidate physics on the macro-scale, it just showed that when you got down to the particle level and below, additional factors were involved beyond classical physics.

You may be correct about the whole "magic doesn't invalidate physics" thing, that is why I will supply only mudane examples of physics being violated now. As presented above, humans can punch to death tanks in the world of Rifts without the aid of any special device, spell, or chemical. This is primary example B.

and frankly, if you have to resort to pulling absurd "special circumstances" out your ears to justify something as unbalancing as giving everyone with a powered armor access to a potential nuclear detonation....the game isn't fun any more.

Games being fun, and someone claiming that something will work in the world of Rifts because "physics said so!" are two completely different things. I've cited examples that directly discredit physics as suspect information when it is used in the context of Rifts. Honestly, I wouldn't argue about this at all if it were opinion offered instead of this false "fact."

[glitterboy2098]

you seem to have trouble with the concept of "limiting the damage". because one or two things have been changed doesn't mean you toss out everything.

ley lines do effect things, but you'll notice that they mainly effect magical and psionic stuff. they do generate some interferance with radio, but so will sufficent levels of electrical energy being close by. for non-magical or psionic stuff, they might as well just be pretty lights.

at no point are ley lines given anything that might effect nuclear powerplants. and if the games writers didn't decide to give them such abilities, it is safe to say that they don't have them.

in regards to "punching an abrams to scrap", physics isn't being ignored there so much as being exploited absurdly any strong blow could defeat the armor of a tank and leave it a shattered or twisted wreck. its just that few living things have sufficent strength to do so due to the issues of known biological structures

but supernatural creatures have a different biology, and thus aren't limited by the issues of our muscle and bone structures.

and if your refferring to using a succession of normal punches to do the job...remember that tanks are listed as being invulnerable to damage from pistols and rifles. a normal human punch would also fall under things a tank is invulnerable


i would also like to see your proof that being able to "punch an abrams to scrap" has any bearing on nuclear physics. last i checked, they were two totally different fields. a flaw in game mechanics for one part of a game does not nessicarily mean that all other parts are flawed.


in regards to the "games are fun" comment...i wasn't saying that. i was saying that allowing players to have access to nuclear weapons so readily is unbalancing, which leads to games being less fun. people complain about weapons like the ATL-7, but they'd let their players have a device that could be turned into a city killing explosion?

conventional physics say that nuclear powerplants can't explode. since to ignore that means the players have easy access to the most destructive weapons mankind can make, game balance demands that in RIFTS, nuclear powerplants shouldn't explode.


the argument isn't "physics says this can't happen", it's common sense says this SHOULDN'T happen in the game. sadly common sense seems to be something few people have any more.

[Natasha]

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?

You keep getting hung up on this. I'm not talking about theoretical devices. If it's a nuclear fission power plant, then you are talking about nuclear fission. If you are talking about theoretical device X, then you can have it to do anything you like when it's shot.

All that was ever said was that a nuclear fission plant doesn't explode when hit.

I know.
But I have been saying that you can't claim 100% truth on this when I can shoot it with magic, particle beam guns, and plasma-cannons.

I think I can claim it. If we accept as fact that a nuclear fission power plant requires an intact container to function properly, that nuclear power plants when malfunctioning don't create a nuclear detonation, then it's pretty easy to accept as fact that breaking the container - no matter how you do it - or causing a malfunction doesn't create a nuclear detonation. If there is something in the game that suggests magic or plasma would somehow create the same conditions as an intact and functioning power plant would, then you might have something to go on.

Perhaps I'm just appealing to common sense, but what's wrong with that?

I'll further appeal to common sense when I say that a human can't kill a tank with his bare hands. Material A being softer than Material B can't damage Material B. That's common sense, which is a good thing to use when things get weird in Rifts. There are situations perhaps where common sense won't help, but that doesn't mean common sense doesn't work where it actually works. Right?

[Oberoth]

I agree with the 'comon sense' rule. I think I should mention that this thread is straying from it's original intent. With that said, perhapse these nuclear devices utilize an as yet undiscovered nuclear reaction. It is future/Sci-Fi tech that we are speaking of here. I would rule out fission just on the basis of weight(from shielding) and fusion(because of fuel supply). Having radio active devices supplied to the masses would spell doom for living things, Vast dead zones would score the countryside. Although the original poster posed a good question, it is a question that has no defineable answer.

[glitterboy2098]

i wouldn't rule out fission based merely on shielding or contamination.

most fission powerplants being worked on today use designs that produce little more than heat and alpha particles. alpha particles, as in protons. something any sheet of tissue paper will stop cold. most others make beta particles, or high energy electrons. which can be stopped by cardboard or soup can lids. this is because the plants based on radio-thermal systems. they don't have a controlled chain reaction, they just exploit the natural fission of the material. these systems are compact, clean, and use a minimum of nuclear fuel.

there has laso been great leaps in the science of metamaterials, where the structure of a material can provide properties that normally it would not have. if we can make materials to bend light and radio around themselves, the creation of a lightwieght material that reflects X-rays and gamma rays shouldn't be too hard. their all just EM radiation, and what works for one frequency should work for others. (actually, the fact that enviromental body armor is immune to radiation prettym uch shows that such materials are commonly available. line the inside of the reactor casing with that and you not only contain any radiation, but ultimately bost the efficency of the reactor, since all that radiation (just high strength light) will heat up the system more, which in turn will generate more power.

in terms of contamination, most of these compact plants aren't a signifigant threat. they don't carry much fuel, and what they have is usually encased in several inches of nuetron moderators like beryllium and tough cermaic shells. a breach in the plant would be a localized contamination hazard, not a regional one. mainly from irradiated materials in the reactor casing. which are fairly shortlived isotopes.

heck, the ash falls from the great cataclysm would have been not only more radioactive, but much more widespread. and humanity survived that

[Greyaxe]

Clearly no one in this thread has any clue what they are talking about. It is clear to any smart person like myself that Nuclear is really a code word for 2 magnets a paper clip and bubble gum. This provides unlimited power to any device within 20’ of it; which means of course you can charge clips with your remote control.



Its fiction. There is no evidence....Dog of War.

[Rathorc Lemenger]

I'm gonna put my 2 Credits in here (since it seems to be a general monster melee here). As to real-world physics (and if I thought this out right) it'd be a veeeeerrry (and I mean a VERY) slim chance of a of a Nuclear power plant exploding, something like 1 in 3 BILLION percent chance of it happening. You'd more than likely be struck by lightning 3 times than a power plant exploding. I'm pretty sure that we can at LEAST agree on this.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

[Greyaxe]

I'm gonna put my 2 Credits in here (since it seems to be a general monster melee here). As to real-world physics (and if I thought this out right) it'd be a veeeeerrry (and I mean a VERY) slim chance of a of a Nuclear power plant exploding, something like 1 in 3 BILLION percent chance of it happening. You'd more than likely be struck by lightning 3 times than a power plant exploding. I'm pretty sure that we can at LEAST agree on this.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

Magnets don't explode I keep telling people this but the argument rages on.....

[Rathorc Lemenger]

I understand (somewhat) what your saying, Greyaxe. Oh, and if Dog_O_War tries to fry me with a Fireball for my comments (since I'm not REALLY agreeing with everone), I got a Absolute Zero Cannon here that says otherwise. I also agree with el magico -- darklorddc (to a point).

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

[Natasha]

I'm gonna put my 2 Credits in here (since it seems to be a general monster melee here). As to real-world physics (and if I thought this out right) it'd be a veeeeerrry (and I mean a VERY) slim chance of a of a Nuclear power plant exploding, something like 1 in 3 BILLION percent chance of it happening. You'd more than likely be struck by lightning 3 times than a power plant exploding. I'm pretty sure that we can at LEAST agree on this.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

Magnets don't explode I keep telling people this but the argument rages on.....

Even if I hit them with a magic fireball?

[glitterboy2098]

I'm gonna put my 2 Credits in here (since it seems to be a general monster melee here). As to real-world physics (and if I thought this out right) it'd be a veeeeerrry (and I mean a VERY) slim chance of a of a Nuclear power plant exploding, something like 1 in 3 BILLION percent chance of it happening. You'd more than likely be struck by lightning 3 times than a power plant exploding. I'm pretty sure that we can at LEAST agree on this.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

actually, slim as in = ~0.

a nuclear powerplant can't explode. a nuclear plant that is malfunctioning can, depending on design, cause some secondary results that might be rather energetic, but the plant itself can't explode.

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.

the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.


but a RIFTS nuclear powerplant wouldn't even have that problem. they're so small that water can't be used as a modirator or coolant. they are almost certainly built with a design that helps prevent meltdowns. their supply of nuclear fuel is going ot be tiny.

destroy the system, and all you get is a small area contaminated with weak radiation and some mildly hazardous heavy metals.

[Greyaxe]

I'm gonna put my 2 Credits in here (since it seems to be a general monster melee here). As to real-world physics (and if I thought this out right) it'd be a veeeeerrry (and I mean a VERY) slim chance of a of a Nuclear power plant exploding, something like 1 in 3 BILLION percent chance of it happening. You'd more than likely be struck by lightning 3 times than a power plant exploding. I'm pretty sure that we can at LEAST agree on this.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

Magnets don't explode I keep telling people this but the argument rages on.....

Even if I hit them with a magic fireball?

Actually, in all seriousness. Every player in my game looks for gyger counters. raidoactive pockets/winds are everywhere. I dont know about explosions. But for sure there are leaks, and raidoactive materials strewn all over the Ultra modern battlefield of Rifts earth. Not a safe place to salvage and definatly not safe for kids to play, thus the mutants on Rifts as well.

[Natasha]

It's a good bit of kit to have, as are EBAs or at least environment suits.

[Rathorc Lemenger]

Hmmm, all good points, but I still think that there is a percentage chance that a reactor COULD explode. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to work on some more ATB mutants *Turns and climbs up Godzilla's back up to his head and sits down on the thrown that's up there and rides off into the roaring sunset*.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

[Natasha]

Hmmm, all good points, but I still think that there is a percentage chance that a reactor COULD explode.

Why do you think so?

[Rathorc Lemenger]

Easy answer, there, Natasha. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it won't. Besides, everyone seems to forget the Breeder reactors that are used to create nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons. The way I see it, it's bound to happen somewhere in the world at large.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

[Colt47]

Has everyone here decided what explodes and what doesn't now?

[Natasha]

Easy answer, there, Natasha. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it won't. Besides, everyone seems to forget the Breeder reactors that are used to create nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons. The way I see it, it's bound to happen somewhere in the world at large.

Signed,
Rathorc Lemenger.

Well that's fine, to each his own, but I hope that (in real life) you understand that while nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs both use nuclear fission the design and construction of the devices couldn't more different; one will not explode while the other will. Guess which is which.

[glitterboy2098]

no need to dump it. recycling (removing still useful isotopes), and destruction would be the order of the day.

RIFTS has very power efficent particle beam technology. the technology exists today to use irradiation to break down isotopes into less harmful and shorter lived ones. it's just expensive. in RIFTS, it would be dirt cheap.

[Qev]

Magnets don't explode I keep telling people this but the argument rages on.....

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

As for the exploding fission reactor debate, perhaps Rifts nuke plants are using a sort of advanced gas core fission system. Breaching that would lead to a prompt release of radioactive gases at around 15000 K, which would look an awful lot like an explosion (and scatter radioactive nastiness about). You'd also need stupendously-powerful magnets to confine something like that (see above ).

[Greyaxe]

Magnets don't explode I keep telling people this but the argument rages on.....

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

While scientists usually try to avoid destroying their equipment, they are sometimes willing to do just that, in exchange for a phenomenal magnetic field. In fact, in destructive magnets, scientists actually detonate explosives around the pulsed magnet at the same time they turn it on. This compresses and boosts the magnetic field to as high as 1,000 tesla – for the few microseconds before the whole shebang explodes. Now that’s what you call a temporary magnet!

It appears the Coalition doesnt like its soilders and uses them as explosives to frighten the enemy. "See what we do to our own soilders, just think what we would do to our enimies...!"


Really its the explosives that detonate the magnet to achieve a greater magnetic field, not the magnets themselves. Good find though Qev.

[glitterboy2098]

obviously you skipped some of the first few pages. we've already covered much of this.

the oversea's incident your referring to was Chernobyl, which i already detailed above.


i don't think we should assume that RIFTS powerplants use some unknown system. the depictions in the game fit known Fission technology perfectly, and we have technology today to pull off much of the same stuff RIFTS powerplants can do. the only thing different is miniturization, which we have been making great strides in as well.

[Mechanurgist]

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.
the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.

That's a bit of a semantic cop-out, wouldn't you say? When people say "Chernobyl went boom" they're referring to the whole installation, not just the reactor core. To say the reactor core didn't explode and hence fission power plants are completely safe and don't explode is to define away the problem. Thanks for the explanation, though.

[Natasha]

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.
the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.

That's a bit of a semantic cop-out, wouldn't you say? When people say "Chernobyl went boom" they're referring to the whole installation, not just the reactor core. To say the reactor core didn't explode and hence fission power plants are completely safe and don't explode is to define away the problem. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Not too much of a problem since modern nuclear power plants have a lot of redundancy and failsafes, to say nothing of the fact that the accident there was the result of human error, the likes of which isn't going to happen with a vehicle's power plant. A miniture power plant's explosion of this variety could easily be contained in a hardened M.D.C. compartment anyway. Of course, if the power plant is destroyed by being shot, the Chernobyl scenario isn't even a possibility.

[Natasha]

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.
the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.

That's a bit of a semantic cop-out, wouldn't you say? When people say "Chernobyl went boom" they're referring to the whole installation, not just the reactor core. To say the reactor core didn't explode and hence fission power plants are completely safe and don't explode is to define away the problem. Thanks for the explanation, though.

Not too much of a problem since modern nuclear power plants have a lot of redundancy and failsafes, to say nothing of the fact that the accident there was the result of human error, the likes of which isn't going to happen with a vehicle's power plant. A miniture power plant's explosion of this variety could easily be contained in a hardened M.D.C. compartment anyway. Of course, if the power plant is destroyed by being shot, the Chernobyl scenario isn't even a possibility.

Actually, most plants don't. American plants do only because of Three Mile Island but it's not the same around the world. Considering the general lack of quality all throughout the world of Rifts it's actually pretty likely that bad things will happen if you hit a reactor. Not A-bomb level problems, but certainly no "eh, nothing bad's going to happen."

Perhaps; it's all subjective, I suppose. As technologically advanced as Rifts earth is I don't see a common source of vehicular and robotic power as suffering a lack of quality.

[Natasha]

Uh-huh....yeah you might want to think on that for a while. Rifts HAS technologically advanced stuff...and oftentimes it's sitting right next to a mule-drawn plow. Let's look at the Operator OCC and his jury-rigging skills.

Doesn't mean all engineers are jury-riggers and all engineering is jury-rigging. That seems more than obvious to me, since they're not.

but if you're bringing reality to the table

No, just the way I think things would be.

At what point in time do you think everyone gathered around to draw a "let's make it safe" deal on something like nuclear power?

I feel that the evolution of basics like power plants and energy weapons had naturally progressed, which made this a more or less foregone conclusion. Could crappy ones exist? Certainly. Would adventurers (i.e., the PCs) have them? Probably not, although that would depend on the complexion of the campaign.

That's just my take though.

[Natasha]

When I said bringing reality to the table I was referring to the whole concept of magic vs technology that has not been developed at all and remains solely in the theoretical realm.

All this yakking about the nuclear power plants in Rifts is largely theoretical, since they're not explained. But since a lot of technology has been developed - or saved from the Golden Age of high technology - and is readily available to PCs expressed by starting equipment lists, I don't find a good reason to say the nuclear power plants inside the vehicles and robots are held together with duct tape and inherently unsafe to the rigours of the adventurer's lifestyle. Might be interesting for a story but I'm guessing the PCs wouldn't be impressed if they drive over a boulder and the GM describes their eyes melting out of their heads, claps his hands, and has everybody roll up new characters.

Still, I feel PC's would only get bad gear not so much because of game complexity but more with how much the GM wants to glaze over stuff for the sake of his story.

Well going by the standard starting equipment lists, PCs rarely start with bad gear. That would be altered according to the complexion of the campaign the GM is running. Certainly the availability after the game starts is entirely up to the GM. Perhaps the good equipment they start with is the results of scrounging they've already done.

Such is my take on the subject.

Cool; I can dig it.

[glitterboy2098]

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.
the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.

That's a bit of a semantic cop-out, wouldn't you say? When people say "Chernobyl went boom" they're referring to the whole installation, not just the reactor core. To say the reactor core didn't explode and hence fission power plants are completely safe and don't explode is to define away the problem. Thanks for the explanation, though.

its not a "semantic cop out"

Chernobyl had it's disaster because of the design of the coolant and power system. a design which, by dint of sheer size differance, RIFTS powerplants won't share. not to mention that chernobyl is an old design for a reactor. modern designs are physically incapable of melting down like chernobyl or three mile island.
especially the ones which employ thorium as the main nuclear fuel. (which is pretty much the ideal fuel to match the details from RIFTS. a reactor that doesn't meltdown when breached, just spreads contamination and stops producing power. a reactor fuel that produces weapons grade uranium as part of it's natural fuel cycle. a reactor fuel that is so common everywhere that anyone with the required knowhow can produce nuclear powered vehicles.)



and in regards to the "when did everyone decide to ;make it safe'" arguement......the moment anyone in RIFTs decided "hey, lets build a nuclear powered [insert item here]"

they didn't have to get together and set standards. the only people able to build nuclear plants are groups like northern gun, the coalition, NGR, ect. all of these organizations produce nuclear powerplants for their own use (which means they are usually very interested in protecting their own skin as well. which tends to increase quality control, not decrease it)
these same technological powers also sell the very products they make for their own use on the open market, including nuclear power systems. which means the items available on the market were subjected to the same quality control as the internally used products.

not to mention that market forces would play a part. if customers hear that "company X's" power systems tended to malfunction and hurt people, they don't buy company X's products. which eventually means company X either improves the quality of their products, or goes out of business.

so there wasn't some big conferance to set standards, it was an organic process driven by market forces and the need for the producers of the products to produce a product won't bite them in the ass when they themselves use it.

why do you think chipwell is still around? sure their products are junk, but it's well produced junk that won't break down easily or uses any parts liable to cause problems if it does break.

[Oberoth]

for example, Chernobyl. the core had a meltdown. this generated tons and tons of excess heat. this caused the water used as a moderator to super-heat and break into hydrogen and oxygen. which collected in the top of the building. eventually this mixture got so hot is combusted, resulting in a massive blast that scattered irradiated bits of the reactor building all around.
the reactor itself didn't explode. it grew so hot it basically turned the reactor building into the worlds largest fuel air bomb. the reactor was ultimately just a bystander to the event by that point.

That's a bit of a semantic cop-out, wouldn't you say? When people say "Chernobyl went boom" they're referring to the whole installation, not just the reactor core. To say the reactor core didn't explode and hence fission power plants are completely safe and don't explode is to define away the problem. Thanks for the explanation, though.

its not a "semantic cop out"

Chernobyl had it's disaster because of the design of the coolant and power system. a design which, by dint of sheer size differance, RIFTS powerplants won't share. not to mention that chernobyl is an old design for a reactor. modern designs are physically incapable of melting down like chernobyl or three mile island.
especially the ones which employ thorium as the main nuclear fuel. (which is pretty much the ideal fuel to match the details from RIFTS. a reactor that doesn't meltdown when breached, just spreads contamination and stops producing power. a reactor fuel that produces weapons grade uranium as part of it's natural fuel cycle. a reactor fuel that is so common everywhere that anyone with the required knowhow can produce nuclear powered vehicles.)



and in regards to the "when did everyone decide to ;make it safe'" arguement......the moment anyone in RIFTs decided "hey, lets build a nuclear powered [insert item here]"

they didn't have to get together and set standards. the only people able to build nuclear plants are groups like northern gun, the coalition, NGR, ect. all of these organizations produce nuclear powerplants for their own use (which means they are usually very interested in protecting their own skin as well. which tends to increase quality control, not decrease it)
these same technological powers also sell the very products they make for their own use on the open market, including nuclear power systems. which means the items available on the market were subjected to the same quality control as the internally used products.

not to mention that market forces would play a part. if customers hear that "company X's" power systems tended to malfunction and hurt people, they don't buy company X's products. which eventually means company X either improves the quality of their products, or goes out of business.

so there wasn't some big conferance to set standards, it was an organic process driven by market forces and the need for the producers of the products to produce a product won't bite them in the ass when they themselves use it.

why do you think chipwell is still around? sure their products are junk, but it's well produced junk that won't break down easily or uses any parts liable to cause problems if it does break.

Well said.

[sasha]

A reactor won't go bad for nearly 2 decades. It's obviously a durable and quality bit of kit.

[sasha]

A reactor won't go bad for nearly 2 decades. It's obviously a durable and quality bit of kit.

If properly maintained. It's the same thing as saying a car is good for 100,000 miles. It's only good if you take it in for regular maintenance, otherwise you'll crack your engine block if you go 10,000 miles without an oil change.

Same thing with nuke plants on ships and on land supplying power. Don't maintain your stuff, stuff goes bad. That lifespan part is only if the equipment is maintained properly.

And I have no problems assuming routine maintenance of one's vehicle and gear comes so easily to PCs that it's not even an issue.

[glitterboy2098]

if places like merctown can circulate magazines and newspapers around the continent, word of mouth can get around too.

not to mention that the adventurer and mercenary market isn't eactly a large one. small markets tend to speed up word of mouth.


A.) getting resources doesn't seem to be a problem for manufacturers in rifts. Between recycling old ruins and the sources described in Rifter 0, there really isn't much of a shortage, and the threat of bandits and monsters is greatly overestimated by everyone here on the boards.

B.) attrition alone will keep people buying your products. there is no need to build items with planned obsolecence when you target audence is usually engaging in activities which result in the products being used up or damaged. not to mention the fortune you can make on service plans. if you build a nuclear powerplant, you'll make more money off of it by building it super-durable and charging a slightly reduced fee for nuclear fuel replacement than you would building a peice of crap that has to be replaced every few years.

c.) part of that is why Operators exist. and that also factors into the business plans. repairs made by technicians not holding a company liscense would void warrenties, and cost the user more money. if they go to the company techs, they usually get hit with "additional maintence fees" to cover "potential problems" as "preventative maintence". but it comes with paperwork to say it was all legit.


in rifts, consumerism doesn't work. they isn't the supply lines needed for it. so for companies to survive, they have to compete to build the most durable and long lasting products they can, while keeping them affordable.

[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.

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 ......

That's my point: NEITHER goes boom, it's a hollywood/anime myth with absolutely no basis in reality.

Fission is a chemical process when the nuclii of two atoms fuse into one new atom that's super large and quckly decays into smaller atoms by emiting particles like nutrons. UUranium is an element that, when fused, emits Nurtrons going fast enough that, when it hits another uraium atom, it causes that atom to break apart, emiting more nutrons that split up still more. This is how nuclear power plants operate

Now, In theory, if you have enough uranium packed togeather, this forms a self-sustaining chain reaction wherein each atom that splits emits enough nutrons to split a few more. This process generates a tremendous amount of heat, and the lighter byprocuts of the process cause a great deal of radiation. Gone out of control it becomes very hazardous as the radiation can quickly become fatal, and this is why control rods are used to control the reaction and stop it from getting too much.

However, by itself, this will NEVER form what your thinking of, a block of uraium by itself going "overload" isn't going to become a nuclear blast all by itself like in a missle.

Think about it, if a few atoms splitting caused that, you'd never get a chain reaction for nuclear power plants because they'd destroy the plant in a few seconds, and if you insert the control rods to stop it from blowing up then you stop the reaction and arn't genearting any power.

So how do we have nuclear bombs? Simple.

ONE isotope of Uranium U-235, is already very unstable and radioactive, and if you smash a chunk INTO ITSELF just right, it becomes so extremely compressed that a significant fraction of the material undergos fission in less than a second. THIS is what your thinking of, because so much went off in essentially the same instant all that energy and heat is released at once and causes the big mushroom-cloud effect, and the other byproducts. Now: this ALSO has the effect of then stopping the chain reaction: all the remainium uranium was blasted in all directions too far apart for the chain reaction to continue.

So why will shooting it never cause that? because it lacks the compression.

Nuclear bombs are detonated by surrounding a ball of U-235 (Plutonium and a few other elements are also useable) with a shell of what is essentially a slightly modified variant of TNT. A very tricky timing system sets off all the TNT around the uraium so that all sides of the sphere are forced inwards, compression so great that it at once creates enough impact to split the first few atoms in the reaction. Because the initial blast of TNT continues to press the outer layers of Uranium twords the center of the reaction, while the emiting Nutrons are splitting nearby atoms, you can, depending on the power and sophistication, split a large amount of uranium in less than a second causing our classic nuke.

However, if you just SHOOT a ball of urnaium, even one already undergoing reaction in a power plant, you'll actually break the uranium UP, spreading it outwards, and essentially you'll actually SLOW DOWN the reaction rather than speed it up.

Now, if your shot damages and cracks the control rods, then yes, the cracks in the control rods will allow more nutrons to pass though and hypothetically cause an uncontroled chain reaction.

However, without the COMPRESSION of the explsoive shell completely enveloping the uranium, getting a nuclear bomb is physically impossible for the simple reason that, as the energy is released, it will break the uranium apart, which slows down the process and will inheretly, eventually, end the reaction.

Also: it was a nuclear meltdown at Chernoble, not a nulcear explosion, and it's called a meltdown because eventually an uncontrolled reaction will generate enough heat to melt the uranium causing it.

The Explosion at Chernoble wasn't nuclear in nature, rather the cooling tanks of water became superheated steam and exploded, which is as dangerous as any other kind of explosive of the same power, and it was powerful enough to blast the uranium and other radioactive materials Up into the sky causing fallout. in short, it was a 'ditry bomb" but not a true nuke.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Fission, to keep one post from becoming too long, is probablly the "one makes the other" thing you were talking about.

Fission is the process by which two atoms, rather than splitting apart, fuse to become a larger atom with some energy being released by the process. it is fundamentally different than fission because rather than emmiting Nutrons, protons, electrons and raw energy (the radiation we associate), it pretty much just releases heat and a few other things.

Fusion is nice because it dosn't actually release radiation: if you have a pure fusion bomb, the radioactive fallout is negliable and has no long-term effect on life in the area.

Now the problem: to make two atoms fuse requires an insane amount of energy.

In the Sun, this occurs naturally, the sun is so massive that the matter in the center fuses simply by the pressure of the outer layers pressing in.

In matters of technology, the only way we have presently to create fusion is simple.

remember the uranium/plutonium sphere in a nuclear bomb I told you about? Hollow that out, put some Hydrogen in the middle, put the explosive shell around it and presto, when the Plutonium underos fission, it releases enough energy to cause the hydrogen to fuse, creating an even BIGGER boom. This is a hydrogen bomb.

Right now we have no fusion power plants because we don't know how to do this WITHOUT a nuclear bomb to trigger it, whcih has the same problems I already mentioned: you can't have a power plant if you blow up the plant with the first reaction.

[sasha]

And I have no problems assuming routine maintenance of one's vehicle and gear comes so easily to PCs that it's not even an issue.

You're comparing basic automotive knowledge to be in the same category as nuclear power?

No. I'm saying making sure the nuclear power plant is in proper working order is little different from changing the oil - in fact, changing the oil might be the more involved process. It could be a visual inspection of a Geiger counter or simple digital self-diagnostic readout with perhaps audio alerts when things need to be checked out by somebody who knows what's going on. I have read nothing in the rules that suggest routine maintenance is even required on a nuclear power plant in a vehicle, let alone the complexity and regular scheduled maintenance involved is nowhere defined. For all I know it's totally not needed.

How many groups have you played in where every character in the group has the Mechanical Engineer skill?

Probably just 1 but I'm not sure how it's a relevant question.

[sasha]

1) If nuclear power was as prevalent as you're thinking it is, then why are there so many combustion engine vehicles around? If it's so commonplace then it would have long replaced petroleum as a power source due to convenience. Thing is, it hasn't which obviously indicates it's nowhere near as simple as you're thinking.

You're making a leap that I didn't make. You're assuming I think working on nuclear equipment is simple when I have never said or implied as much. Perhaps it's a difference of understanding what maintaing stuff means. I said it's simple enough to maintain a power plant - check the readout, check the mounts and tighten them down, check and maybe replace a hose, check this, check that (a lot of routine maintenance is merely checking things, doing simple operations like tightening a bolt, swapping out a hose, and then taking it to a repairman if it requires anything more than that, and taking it to shop on a regular schedule if you can't handle changing brake pads and so forth yourself). None of this amounts to working on the equipment; just like checking dipsticks and changing engine oil and filter isn't working on the engine and doesn't even require knowing a lick about mechanics, engines, oil, or gravity.

If I logged every kilometer the PCs drove and required them to replace belts and all that jazz, then I feel that's too much micromanagement for anybody's good, or at least my own. I handle routine maintenance with a broader stroke and get nit picky if they've been driving for a month in the desolate wastelands and nothing is around then if they're smart they will have brought spare parts and somebody that knows what those parts are for and how to install them.

You're making assumptions about how prevalent I think they are. All I know about them is that they're available in most things that PCs have access to. Since PCs are generally a cut above the rest, nuclear power plants might be a cut above as well - but they might not; it's not spelled out anywhere. But that still doesn't say anything about the degree of complexity of routine maintenance.

I don't think there's just one way to interpret the dichotomy of nuke/gas, and I certainly don't think you've nailed it.

2) That you can't see how the Mechanical Engineer skill is relevant shows you have no idea what that skill does. Read up on it, because it's the only skill that gives you the know-how to maintain nuclear equipment. Basic mechanics sure doesn't.

Pardon me. When did I say Mechanical Engineer skill is irrelevant to working on nuclear equipment? Most likely you're just making assumptions, as 1 above.

Your question about PC group composition remains irrelevant.

[Qev]

Fission is the process by which two atoms, rather than splitting apart, fuse to become a larger atom with some energy being released by the process. it is fundamentally different than fission because rather than emmiting Nutrons, protons, electrons and raw energy (the radiation we associate), it pretty much just releases heat and a few other things.

Fusion is nice because it dosn't actually release radiation: if you have a pure fusion bomb, the radioactive fallout is negliable and has no long-term effect on life in the area.

Most of the fusion reactions we humans have access to (at least the useful ones) aren't quite as clean as all that, since they produce copious amounts of neutron radiation, which is arguably the worst sort of nuclear radiation as it is highly penetrating, dangerous, and (unlike other typical forms of nuclear radiation) actually causes other materials to become radioactive. All the nice, clean aneutronic fusion reactions require helium-3, which we don't have down here on Earth.

Right now we have no fusion power plants because we don't know how to do this WITHOUT a nuclear bomb to trigger it, whcih has the same problems I already mentioned: you can't have a power plant if you blow up the plant with the first reaction.

It's not really that we can't do fusion without a bomb. It's just not yet efficient enough to become self-sustaining and productive. One fusion power process practically does use fusion bombs, though... inertial confinement fusion, which uses powerful lasers to trigger H-bombs... really tiny ones.

[Natasha]

Of course you don't understand any of my points. After all you've glazed over everything else in the world for the sake of your personal convenience, so why start thinking into things now?

I think you let him off the hook too easy.

[sasha]

Let's go back to your points that brought me into this part of the conversation.

It's not that I have glazed over everything else in the world and it's not even that I entirely disagree with you. I'm not a micromanager. Cleaning guns, changing engine oil, and other "routine" rather than the "more involved" maintenance is something I almost always have taken for granted. Sometimes cleaning guns can be an interesting thing to detail but typically it isn't. Not to me anyway.

A) Resources may not be limited...but GETTING them certainly is problematic when you look at the indigenous flora, fauna, and various human/D-bee forces that roam throughout the globe.

I wasn't responding to this so it's Irrelevant to my point. Nonetheless, I agree it's problematic and may even be impossible depending on the campaign.

B) If your product lasts a long time then people don't need to buy more of it which means higher initial sales but very little repeat business which hurts your long-term income. That's why your average car actually only is reliable for 100,000 miles and after that the company washes its hands of you. Sure you can keep a car going far longer...but your average driver knows very little about auto maintenance and your average Rifts Earth denizen knows waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less.

I wasn't responding to this either so it's irrelevant to my point. Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that the producers of nuclear power are specialised to the point where they extinguish their own existance.

C) Nothing lasts without maintenance. As I pointed out in B, if you don't know how to do the more involved maintenance you can bet your gear won't last. In order to properly maintain something for any period of time you need new parts and given the rather limited sales areas of places like Northern Gun and Chipwell there is a terribly low likelihood of modular parts, just like today.

And the difference between our points of view is fairly simple: determining the intervals at which "more involved" maintenance required, and what precisely that means. The difference is not whether or not you need an engineer to preform this more involved maintenance. And it certainly is not whetherhe gear can last unmaintained forever.

After your C) point I said that nuclear power plants are of quality and are durable. You said only if "properly maintained". Proper maintenance beings with routine maintenance. And I said I have no problem assuming "routine maintenance" was something the owner of the equipment is capable of doing. To which you essentially asked me if I'm comparing routine maintenance to the more involved maintenance. To which I answered I wasn't making this comparision, rather I was saying that "making sure [it] is in proper working order is little different from changing the oil". And from that you - quite oddly - assumed that I think nuclear power is so prevalent as to be ubiquituous. And to this assumption I clarified that I don't know how prevalent nuclear power is, and added that I don't think your interpretation of the dichotomy is necessarily the best interpretation.

Actually, I should now admit to not understanding one of your points. How PC composition leads to me not understanding Mechanical Engineer skill totally escapes me. But I think it's related to the previous assumption you made when you decided that I for some reason think that routine maintenance is the same thing as more involved maintenance. Although I can't be sure; it's hard to keep up with you when you're leaping around to conclusions that don't make a lick of sense.

But it doesn't sound to me like you're interested in a non-adversarial conversation, so it's fine with me if you don't bother responding.

[sasha]

But it doesn't sound to me like you're interested in a non-adversarial conversation, so it's fine with me if you don't bother responding.

Ah yes, the "I'm being perfectly civil but you're just looking for an argument...despite my constant snide posts" line of passive-aggression. Cute, but tired.

You should look up the word snide.

[R Ditto]

If anything is going to be exploding, it is going to be my eyes after trying to read all of the posts in this thread in a single sitting.

I have a few things I don't think were really mentioned.

1: Pebble Bed reactors.
Using nuclear fuel in layers of special materials, it blocks the majority of radiation, converting it into extra heat. The size of the pellets, and being 'self contained', means that they seem to be technically impossible of generating any sort of reaction that could cause a melt down.
On a side note, it gives me images of people replacing fuel pellets using oven mits and metal tongs...
Such things would be excellent for portable nuclear power sources, as even if containment was breached, the shells around the fuel pellets would add an additional layer of radiation protection. In such cases, only the 'cheap' nuclear power sources are likely to be vulnerable to rather dangerous radiation leaks if damaged/breached.
Such things would be very helpful for PA, since it means less shielding would be needed, since the fuel itself is effectively shielded.

2: Iridium clad plutonium fuel pellet.
Upwards of a 30 year half-life, in a package roughly 4x4x2in and only about 3 pounds. (iirc)
And that is today's stuff, so in 9 decades, compact fission based power should be easily compact just in terms of the heat pile.
Perhaps MDC materials (50 times stronger than modern steel) used to make equally small steam turbines (rated in thousands of PSI?), in a system basically impervious to normal wear and tear (polymer based lubricants fused to materials make motor oil look like molasses in winter), and generate power much better and more efficiently than a solid state system or Stirling Engine could hope to achieve in an equally sized space with an equal amount of heat.

3: Particle Beam Weapons, etc, vs. fissionable materials.
Okay, so fission reactors cannot go boom, but can cause explosions through secondary events (water turned to steam that 'explodes' due to the pressure, or water superheated and broken down into Oxygen and Hydrogen, which combusts, etc)
What would happen if some sort of high energy particle beam were to strike a chunk of fissile material?
What if a very high velocity rail gun were to slam a U-round into uranium heat pile of a nuclear fission power source? Would it have any chance to create a reaction similar to one of the earliest nuclear bombs, which basically slammed a chunk of fissionable material into a larger chunk of fissionable material of larger size?



I have also been thinking about some apparent small bit of comparing nuclear power sources to stuff like combustion engines.

Four basic things come to mind.
Availability, reliability, ease of use, and costs.

In terms of availability and cost, combustion engines (and electrical vehicles) have the advantage. Heck, fuel for combustion vehicles (and electric generators), can technically and literally be grown on trees... (veggie/nut type oil, stuff distilled to alcohol, etc)
Ease of use, just need to know how to use whatever vehicle is being powered by the power source, be it combustion engine or nuke power plant.

In terms of reliability...
A nuke power source will have to be a self contained system, for protection of proprietary technologies, and keeping the nuclear fuel safe (and keep people safe from the nuclear fuel).
Toss in high grade SDC or even cheap MDC materials, and modern day polymer based lubricants, and chances are, even a steam turbine running 24/7 will have minimal signs of wear and tear after 20 years of regular use.

Also, natural selection.
Lack of EPA and means to take legal actions against a maker of shoddy nuclear power plants means 'wilderness justice' comes into play if shoddy nuke power sources cause problems.
Be it an ill person, their next of kin, an entire settlement/town, a merc company they work for/with, or a merc company they hired... well, it is in the best interest of a company to make high quality, durable, safe, reliable and otherwise idiot proof nuclear power sources, to prevent disgruntled customers (or their next of kin, or 'hired mercenary representatives') from literally putting the makers 6ft under via any numbers of methods. Heck, giving a bad rap to nuclear power could cause other makers of nuke power sources, even the big users of nuke powered stuff, to take action against a maker of a shoddy maker of nuke power sources, in order to protect their own assets and customer base.

And now my little boredom induced rant about that stuff is done...

And now, something relating to the basic subject... exploding nuke power sources...

I can think of one surefire way to get a nuclear fission power source to explode...
it requires a long range weapon, such as a sniper rifle, using a special bullet housing 1 milligram of anti-matter. The equivilent of 41 tons of TNT going off on top of whatever energy and radiation is released by the blast, should have some sort of effect on the nuclear fuel of the nuclear fission power source... or maybe not... either way, there won't be a nuclear power source (or vehicle/PA) left, due to a really big explosion...

[Oberoth]

Backyard nuclear reactor:
Not every home is right for a backyard nuclear reactor. If you live in an apartment or condo, you might not have adequate facilities for this style of reactor. You might consider investing in a newer-style pebble bed reactor or manufacturing biodiesel in the bathtub. You should also consult your local zoning ordinances to ensure home nuclear activity isn't prohibited by your municipality.

Supplies:

You will need the following supplies to build your backyard nuclear reactor:

* 1 30 gallon plastic trash can with locking lid (to keep out children and other pests)
* 8 4 foot lengths of 2.5" diameter PVC pipe
* 12 4 foot lengths of 3" diameter PVC pipe
* 2 garden hoses
* a meat thermometer
* 8 U-235 fuel rods, available from your local hobby shop or al Qaeda sleeper cell

Construction:

According to David Hahn

1. Using a utility knife, cut 20 holes in the lid of the trash can to accommodate the 2.5" and 3" PVC pipes. Arrange the holes so that all the pipes will be evenly distributed. Cut two smaller holes to accommodate the garden hoses. Put the lid on the garbage can and lock it and insert the pipes and garden hoses through the holes.
2. Connect one of the garden hoses to a supply of heavy water and fill the garbage can. Note: if you live near a nuclear power plant, you may already be getting heavy water in the tap. If not, regular water will probably work just as well.
3. Insert the 8 U-235 fuel rods into the 2.5" PVC pipes. Safety first!!! Always use rubber gloves when handling the U-235!
4. WARNING: Before completing step #3, be sure to fill the 3" PVC control rods with an appropriate dampening material to avoid a run-away reaction and catastrophic overheating! The "pros" use graphite or boron in their control rods, but a good potting soil will work nicely too.
5. Insert the meat thermometer through the lid of the garbage can, making sure it contacts the heavy water below.

See. anyone can build and maintain their own nuclear power plant.

Full article: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Back ... ar_reactor

[green.nova343]

Relying on warranties, company-provided "service agreements", & having relatively cheap/easy access to maintenance of any kind, whether you're talking about a dinky 2-stroke lawnmower engine or the heavy-duty multi-decade nuclear power source in the New Navy's Ticonderoga, only works when you're in a civilized area -- like, say, the arcology at Chi-Town, or Phase World's Center (or other major CCW/TGE/UWW) worlds, Atlantis, etc.

For the rest of the people on Rifts Earth, there's no Meineke/Jiffy Lube/Nukes 'R Us stores just a few blocks down the road they can rely on. Small villages will be lucky to have their own Operator or 2 -- or maybe be on a "circuit" (a la the old-style "circuit courts"), where the Operator travels from village to village to catch up on any repairs. Same with small-time adventurer groups -- maybe they're lucky & have an Operator or 2 along, but more often than not major repairs have to be done when they get back to down, & they hope their "field repairs" will hold together in the meantime.

That drives the consumers to try to get the most bang for their buck, so to speak. Lemons may be inconveniences for us in the real world, but in Rifts Earth they can spell the difference between life & death for the average person. And buying the high-tech vehicles isn't cheap at all. A couple of million credits to replace your vehicle? Sorry, you might have to save your cash for 10 years or more to afford that... so you want to make sure that it lasts at least that long, if not longer. And I don't mean "well, I only use it for a couple of hours on Saturdays", I mean, "this is my livelihood, so I can make do if it only works 5 days out of the week, but I really need it work all 7 days". So, they'll balance reliability with cost (which explains why Chipwell is in business) on their purchases.

Choosing nuclear over liquid-fuel or electric can also enter into that equation. Liquid-fuel is fine...provided you have a steady and reliable supply of it (whether "old-style" petroleum-based, or "biofuel"), preferably made on-site. Barring that, electricity is another cheaper alternative...provided again you have a steady source (i.e. solar rechargers in a sunny location, working hydroelectric dam, etc.), & that the generating equipment isn't so complex & labor/maintenance intensive either. Hence, the higher cost of the nuclear power source has to be balanced out by its lower refueling needs, & possibly also by lower maintenance. Modular designs, standalone replacement modules (kind of like modern-day military fighters, where the "black boxes" for the radar & other electronics/engines can be removed & replaced as entire modules, allowing maintenance to work on the balky part without downing the vehicle.

On the other side, then, you have the manufacturers. They don't have the luxury of our consumer-driven economy -- not even the temporarily reduced one the world is running on now, let alone the one from just 2 years ago -- where people would replace their cars every 3 years (even though they were still in good shape), or their PCs & TVs every year. They know their big-ticket items will only have so many units sold at any given time... and that if something happens to them (i.e. battle damage), the majority of the consumers will have an easier time affording repairs than they will complete replacement. So, part of their marketing plan has to be about the performance of their products -- not just how well they do their job, but the level of quality, how long they'll keep working, how easy they are to maintain. Better to spend just a little extra to make a higher-quality product that will bring the customer back when it does need replaced (or in case they decide they need one of your other products), than cut corners to increase short-term profits & risk being known for crappy products that no one wants to buy. 80% profit margins may sound great, but 80% of zero is less than even 1% of one. Hence, Chipwell has the reputation for cut-rate, low-quality equipment... but people buy their equipment because it's also dirt-cheap. If Chipwell were to try & price their equipment in line with the competition, they'd never have lasted a year.

Now, unless we really want to rely on a lot of handwavium & unobtainium, I think it's safe to say that fusion reactors in Rifts are going to be restricted to the really big uses -- like, for example, the USS Ticonderoga of Nemo-2, or the CS Navy's new ships. They've got both the big space for a more traditional reactor-style design & the need for massive amounts of power (i.e. the 2 A4W reactors on the Nimitz-class supercarriers each generate 140,000shp/104MW, or as much power as generated by the engines of 94 M1 Abrams MBTs). Fission reactors could be worked into smaller vessels, as well, but I'm not so sure that they'd necessarily be able to be compact enough to safely use inside a giant robot vehicles.

That doesn, OTOH, leave [url"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_battery"]nuclear batteries[/url]. They use the natural decay of radioactive isotopes to generate electricity, either through heat (i.e. thermionic converters, radioisotope thermoelectric generators/RTGs, etc.) or without (i.e. direct-charging generators, betavoltaics, etc.). There are a number of features which stand out as being compatible with our current description of Rifts "nuclear" power sources (particularly for robot vehicles & PA suits):

• Long life-span without needing refueling. Life-spans tend to be limited primarily by the half-life of the isotopes. They gave Voyager 1 & 2 as good examples of the RTGs: after 14 years, their power supplies (3 separate RTGs) had degraded, but were still reaching about 80% of their original power output. They also give the general example of an RTG using Plutonium-238; the isotope has a half-life of 87.7 years, & after 23 years the RTG would have only lost 16.6% of its power output. In fact, after 87.7 years, the same RTG would still only have dropped to half its original power.
• Small size. Voyager 1 & 2 are very small, relatively speaking -- at 1,592 lbs/721.9kg, they're smaller than even most sub-compacts (maybe the mass of the old Renault 5/Le Car). In contrast, each RTG only massed 84.9lbs/38.5kg, or about 16% of each probe's total mass. As an additional comparison, the more recent Cassini probe massed 770lbs/350 kg, plus 4,739lbs/2,150kg for the orbiter portion -- just under the limit for it to qualify for complete write-off as a tax deduction with the IRS for business-use SUVs & trucks. Its 3 RTGs were more powerful (300W each) than those on Voyager 1/2 (160W each), but each one weighed only 126lbs/57kg (of which 17.2lbs/7.8kg was the plutonium fuel). In other words, only about 7% of the mass was used for the RTGs...& a single RTG's mass, IIRC, is pretty close to the listed size for the C-40R railgun's nuclear power supply -- the one you need to have if you're an infantry grunt using it in place of the old M2 HMG.
• Danger from leaking isotopes. The primary drawback listed for them, particularly the non-thermal ones (& the main reason they've so far primarily seen use only in space probes) is that breaking containment lets loose the radioactive material into the environment. In fact, the main drawback of the opto-electric nuclear battery (beta particles from an isotope "excite" a mixture to produce light, similar to neon & fluorescent lights; the light then hits a photoelectric cell & generates light, just like a solar cell) is that, because of the high pressure needed, breaking the tube releases the isotope as a high-pressure jet. The effect is compared to the so-called "dirty bomb" concept, where a conventional bomb is used to disperse radioactive material over a large area, the purpose being to inflict radiation sickness on people (as opposed to vaporizing them with the plasma from a nuclear blast).

Now, granted, their efficiency isn't too great. Cassini's RTGs, for example, have a thermal output of 4,400W, but generate only 300W of electricity. That's only about 6.8% efficiency... & about the equivalent power output of a 0.5hp engine. In order to replace the gas turbine on an M1 Abrams, you'd have to hook up 3,730 of the RTG units, which would more than quadruple the M1's mass. However, it seems at least more within the realm of possibilities for this technology to improve enough to use in Rifts Earth, as opposed to miniaturized nuclear fusion (or even fission) reactors safe enough to use within 2 feet of a human body.

[green.nova343]

I have readed ( ) most of this topic & it seems to come down to:- Real world physics says so!

As for shooting the power source & it not exploding debate:-

What happens when that Nuclear feul is hit with gigwatt lasers; Particle beam; & Ion weaponry?

Simply, we do not know because we (real world we) do not possess these types of weapons in the power output range that they exsist upon Rifts Earth.

Hit a pure unstable mass with the high energy & it is entirely possible for them to go boom!

Real world Atomic weapons did not contain 52Kg of Uranium, instead using focused charges to not only provide the energy for detonation, but also to evenly compress the U into the required mass.

U can chain react naturally aswell, there is a site in South Africa where this has happened (though not boom!) hypothetically via cosmic rays & geo-thermals (if I am remembering correctly).
A FOCUSED high energy strike, which breaches the power source, will provide oodles of energy to a single point, which would be bad for Uranium.

Therefore, it is logical to surmise that the Rifts nuclear Power source is not a reactor as we understand them, their feul lasts for decades with out needing replenishment during that time.

I can not remember wether the power sources are replaced or recharged.

In conclusion:- the Nuclear Power source of Rifts is magic!
Any technology so advanced that it can not presently be concieved, may as well be called magic (I think it was Asimov or Bradbury who said that, probably was not)

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reactor"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reactor[/url]

The uranium deposits apparently hit the same enrichment level of U-235 that modern reactors use, which was enough to sustain the reactions for a few hundred thousand years. However, that's all they were: reactor-style reactions. No "big badda-boom", no "China Syndrome", no Chernobyl/Three Mile Island, just a naturally occurring version of how fully functional fission reactors work today.

As for how the high-tech weapons of Rifts might affect the uranium, no, we don't know. However, because the canon descriptions don't single out those exotic energy beams (i.e. whether it's a p-beam strike or a conventional HE missile, breaching the nuclear power system in both cases leaves radioactive material in the area), Palladium is effectively saying that they won't cause that kind of reaction. Which either means a) they're not really weapons in the gigawatt range, or b) the energy blasts are so powerful that there's no time for the isotopes to compress, heat up & start a fusion process before they're vaporized. Note that it only takes 1.82MJ of thermal energy to take a full kilogram of Uranium all the way from 25 C/77 F all the way to boiling point and convert it into a gas (4131 C/7468 F). A 1GW laser would provide that much energy in a single 2 millisecond pulse. That may not be enough time for the uranium to initiate a fusion reaction...which would make it more likely to simply blow a hole through the uranium.

Also, wattage isn't the problem. The Lawrence Livermore National Laaboratory's National Ignition Facility already has a 700 terawatt laser in place & operational. It's just no one's been able to handle the energy issue: in April this year, their laser was the first to have a pulse energy output exceeding 1 MJ (the equivalent kinetic energy of sixty .50cal BMG rounds). At that power setting, it means their pulse only lasted for about 1.6 nanoseconds (enough time for a 3.2GHz CPU to run through 5 clock cycles). The same lab has already had a 1.3 PW laser (nearly twice the power output) for some time, but apparently it couldn't pump out as much energy.

The problem, then, is can we really assume that Rifts energy weapons have just enough juice to initiate the fusion reaction in a nuclear power source or not. Too little energy, & you're just talking about shooting a bigger hole in the material; too much energy, & you'll vaporize the material before it can start the reaction. And while it may sound like a great idea to be able to do that (especially to your PC group), I'm sure the last thing the arms dealers want is for every yahoo on Rifts Earth to have their own portable fusion reaction initiator in the form of their laser/ion/p-beam rifle. No one wants to deal with the cleanup & aftermath... & if they did, it'd be just easier to lob a conventional nuke into the target area.