Nuclear Sub erroneously thought to be on fire in Scotland
Discussion
DaveyBoyWonder said:
Slow news day in Scotland?
No, just the almost daily effect of utterly stupid people having access to 'social media' when they really shouldn't be allowed outside without close adult supervision......and equally stupid journalists (not really an appropriate terms these days) using said social media as fact rather than actually doing the job they should do.It was most definitely not a fire! When the reactor and all that is shut down they run on an auxiliary power system, which has seawater sprayed in the exhaust to reduce noise and heat signature. This produces the huge plumes of water vapour and mist.
You don't see this when they just go to sea or come back as obviously the nuclear stuff is still running.
This was a cold move so that was all shut down. Instead of using it's own propulsion it was being towed.
And there were 3 tugs in that picture not 6!
Bloody journalists...
You don't see this when they just go to sea or come back as obviously the nuclear stuff is still running.
This was a cold move so that was all shut down. Instead of using it's own propulsion it was being towed.
And there were 3 tugs in that picture not 6!
Bloody journalists...
andymadmak said:
article said:
Each submarine is equipped with Trident nuclear missiles and is steam-powered
ermSame as coal fired steam train really. You just dont need to stoke the boiler so often.
sherman said:
Nuclear reactor boils water, which makes steam, which spins a tubine, which spins the propellor.
Same as coal fired steam train really. You just don't need to stoke the boiler so often.
Presumably there's also a condensing system. I went on a tour of HMS Trafalgar once, I wish I'd asked a few more questions about the power-plant but found the whole experience was quite overwhelming, so many questions. It was like a steam-punk's dream mash-up of high tech and traction engine. And Laura Ashley soft furnishings.Same as coal fired steam train really. You just don't need to stoke the boiler so often.
sherman said:
Nuclear reactor boils water, which makes steam, which spins a tubine, which spins the propellor.
Same as coal fired steam train really. You just dont need to stoke the boiler so often.
Yeah, I know. But the article makes it sound like the Flying Scotsman with fins and a conning towerSame as coal fired steam train really. You just dont need to stoke the boiler so often.
andymadmak said:
sherman said:
Nuclear reactor boils water, which makes steam, which spins a tubine, which spins the propellor.
Same as coal fired steam train really. You just dont need to stoke the boiler so often.
Yeah, I know. But the article makes it sound like the Flying Scotsman with fins and a conning towerSame as coal fired steam train really. You just dont need to stoke the boiler so often.
andymadmak said:
sherman said:
You think the victorians wouldnt have tried a nuclear train if they had the tech?
Actually, I think they would have tried, and they probably would have made it work! The Victorian era engineers certainly made things happen!Also, not sure if this caption is entirely accurate either. God the Express is a crap paper...
Yertis said:
One of my personal favourite alternative history imaginings is what the world would have been like if oil had failed to exist, and we just had coal. Would we have leapt to nuclear-everything by now? Would powered flight have happened by now?
Dr Lippisch thought that coal powered jet was perfectly feasible - 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff