The " I always wondered" thread

[Winston]

I've wondered lately about the sinking of the Russian sub Kursk.

What if it'd been sunk on greater depth than the actual 300 ft. or so. Say if it were 2 or 3 miles down and couldn't be salvaged, what would happen to the on-board strategic nuclear missiles over time? Would they be in danger of going off due to erosion and high water pressure, and how about leaks from the warheads and the sub's reactors.

Also, what are the safeguards to prevent accidental launch or detonation of missiles in case of a strategic nuclear sub's collision in general. It seems the hazard is much greater from sub based nuclear weapons than land based ones.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by TheStinger
A 200Ilb Chimp could rip a mans arms off. They could kill you no problem

You've seen that happen have you? Amazing!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
You've seen that happen have you? Amazing!

Here's what Cecil Adams wrote on the subject. Apes appear to be much stronger than humans.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by SpencerH


You've seen that happen have you? Amazing!

Not personnally but i've seen it on news type programmes and no i haven't got a link. However I would personally wnat to go up against an enraged Mike Tyson then an enraged male chimp

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Winston
What if it'd been sunk on greater depth than the actual 300 ft. or so. Say if it were 2 or 3 miles down and couldn't be salvaged, what would happen to the on-board strategic nuclear missiles over time? Would they be in danger of going off due to erosion and high water pressure, and how about leaks from the warheads and the sub's reactors.

They could probably retrieve the missiles with remote controlled submersibles if that's the case, though I doubt anything could be done about the reactors.

Originally posted by Winston
Also, what are the safeguards to prevent accidental launch or detonation of missiles in case of a strategic nuclear sub's collision in general. It seems the hazard is much greater from sub based nuclear weapons than land based ones.

You still need two people (the captain and the political officer) to launch nuclear missiles from a sub.

[TheStinger]

Do they still have political officers in the russian navy

[Urban Ranger]

Not sure. In this case, it's probably the XO then, similar to the arrangements for US boomers.

[TheStinger]

I assume in the UK its the captain and 1st officer

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Here's what Cecil Adams wrote on the subject. Apes appear to be much stronger than humans.

Complete heresay, virtually the first words "most of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific. In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924", and that was the only file you could google.

I assure you that a 165lb man could pull a dynamometer to more than 210 lbs with one hand while using his legs 'as leverage'.

[PLATO]

Stinger: Federation ships align to the galactic plane.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Stinger: Federation ships align to the galactic plane.

Cheers, I once spent an entire afternoon arguing this.( I was stoned bu there you go)

[Japher]

Maybe you can answer my "I always wondered". In the long run, what will be the best way of supplying the hydrogen to our homes and vehicles if fuel cell technology becomes standard? Will the hydrogen be piped after it's been seperated, or will that be done in the home or refilling station by some device?

Know idea. I think the goal, however, is to have the fuel be a very stable structure, at least more stable than H alone. A fuel cell would contain the catalyst by which the H is removed, burned, and then recombined with the carrier substance and released as waste.

The trick now, I believe, is defining that carrier substance so that it does not pollute and hopefully would be beneficial to the reaction of creating the primary fuel. Also something that would not corrode (or least reduce the deactivation of) the fuel cell itself.

Whatever the case, I know that current H ran vehicles use a solid form that the get at "gas" stations. As for powering homes, this wouldbe done much like it is done to day; at a power plant.

If we are luck/good one (normal person) will never have to actually buy or handle the fuel itself, but be able to reap the benefits from having it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Japher
As for powering homes, this wouldbe done much like it is done to day; at a power plant.

Not necessarily. I've come across a company that's selling stand alone units with enough power output for a modest home, something like a 1000 watts IIRC. It's about the same size as a high effeciency gas furnace, though I don't recall any of the specs. A bit pricey at the moment, I think it was something like $3000 for one, but that's bound to come down in time. I'm not entirely positve, but I think it's Ballard Industries that's making them.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Willem


Not necessarily. I've come across a company that's selling stand alone units with enough power output for a modest home, something like a 1000 watts IIRC. It's about the same size as a high effeciency gas furnace, though I don't recall any of the specs. A bit pricey at the moment, I think it was something like $3000 for one, but that's bound to come down in time. I'm not entirely positve, but I think it's Ballard Industries that's making them.

Does this unit create the Hydrogen out of water on site or do you have to obtain fuel to resupply it? I think that the key to having on-site power production is having on-site fuel production. Until then, it would probably be safer to have the power produced centrally then distributed through the current grid

[Japher]

You'd still have generators though, of course.