On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to
prevent meltdown.

 

If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM
understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is
going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the
quiescence, which is a physics problem.

 

If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or
if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have
2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'.  When it begins
to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while
shutting down the quiescent one.  This is a brainless kind of solution, and
wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make
it 'ignite' again.  If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it
with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be
automated and done while in-situ.  These are engineering problems, not
scientific ones.

 

-m

Reply via email to