Sharing photos, videos, vintage images I've discovered, and -- occasionally -- commentary and thoughts from retired life and travels.

science

Atomic powered bomber

September 13, 2010

and

the answer to “Shades of Mad Max.”

shadesofMadMax[1] 
The image use here was actual cropped from a larger photo of HTRE-2, reproduced below

2010 07 24 a 056
Heat Transfer Reactor No.1 (HTRE-1 or “Heater One”) went to full power in January 1956 and demonstrated the principle of nuclear-powered turbojet engines.  It was converted to HTRE-2 (“Heater Two”) and became the world’s largest materials teat reactor.  HTRE-2 subjected test fuels to neutron flux and 2800°F temperatures, advancing the state-of-art for materials.

2010 07 24 a 057
  HTRE-3 or “Heater Three” was built more like an aircraft with the reactor, engine, shielding, and heat transfer systems in a horizontal configuration.  Eventually the reactor could start and run two turbojet engines at a time.  “The engine itself, including the reactor, was less than ten feet long.  What you see is the framework that was needed to make sure the reactor did not take off across the desert.  But the framework also contained many instruments to measure the performance of the reactor and jet engine.” Jay Kurze, Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion physicist and engineer.

Just yesterday, I posted a picture of a remnant of cold war technology and asked, “What is it?”

Three people responded and third person, someone I’ve known for a long, long time – since before the internet –  got it right.

These giant metal structures are test stands containing atomic jet engines.  They are remnants of a joint US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission program to build a nuclear powered airplane.

When the program began in the early 1950s, no one knew for sure whether a nuclear reactor could power an airplane engine.  Engineers designed a series of three Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments to prove the principle. 

The experiments took place on these test stands. HTRE-1 was later converted to HTRE-2.

The next step would have been tests using an actual aircraft.  But many leading scientist and officials opposed it.

image

 “Heater 3” components included reactor shield, single chemical combustor mounted behind the reactor shield assembly, two modified J-47 turbojet engines and interconnecting ducting.

On March 28, 1961, President John F. Kennedy cancelled the entire nuclear bomber program “effective immediately.” The development of intercontinental ballistic missiles had made the bomber obsolete before it was developed and reports that the Soviets had an operating nuclear aircraft proved to be false.

2010 07 24 a 069ed

The atom-powered bomber was expensive, impractical, and obsolete almost before it was conceived.  Missiles and conventional jet bombers would soon be able to do the same job – long-distance delivery of nuclear weapons – more cheap;y and efficiently.  Despite the fact the plane was never built, the research done advanced the state-of-the-art in many respects.  For example, the experiments tested the behavior of metals and materials at very high levels.

“Most of today’s high temperature metals and materials technology we learned from the work on aircraft engines.” Richard Meservey, Nuclear physicist.

Heater 1 / 2 and Heater 3 are on display at the EBR1 National Historic Landmark east of Arco, Idaho at the Idaho National Laboratory.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Another awesome video from the volcano. (video from ITN)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

In this video of the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajokull, shock waves can be seen emanating with each explosive  pulse of lava, clearly causing displacement of the cloud of smoke, ash, and steam.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Meeting in closed sessions in Bali, Environment and Climate ministers from several countries are insisting on a review of the performance of the IPCC and it’s head, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.  According to a UK Telegraph article,  the minister’s main concern is over Dr. Pachauri’s response to errors discovered in the 2007 IPCC assessment report on climate.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.

Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detailed scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC’s work.

The ministers – led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda – refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC.

Read the full Telegraph article: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Global Warming: Meltdown

February 21, 2010

From KUSI News, San Diego, a special report:

Part one:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

A report in Newsweek, Iceberg Ahead, looks at the current state of climate science and politics… and how things got to this point.

Iceberg Ahead – Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit. Part of the blame also falls on the climate scientists themselves. Many of them—including perhaps Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC head—may have stepped too far over the line from science to advocacy, undermining their own credibility. Some scientists, as a result, are now calling for a change in tone from antagonism to reconciliation. Climate science, they say, needs to open its books and be more tolerant of scrutiny from the outside. Its institutions—notably the IPCC—need to go about their business with greater transparency. "The circle-the-wagons mentality has backfired," says Judith Curry, head of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Read more: Iceberg Ahead – Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }