
Duct Tape 302
CandyMan writes: "The incredible story of the 15-year-old kid who built a nuclear reactor in his mother's toolshed, using common household objects, aluminium foil and duct tape. Sample quote: 'When David's Geiger counter began picking up radiation five doors from his mom's house, he decided that he had "too much radioactive stuff in one place", and began to dissasemble the reactor'." Well, I tried to check this out and see if it was for real, and I found a much longer version of the same article which appears legit, if still rather unbelievable. If any of you irradiate yourselves, you didn't read about it here, okay?
You only need 10lbs of Plutonium (Score:2)
Lots of articles on how to "aquire" the uranium, and refine it to plutonium. Besides, getting a hold of uranium is not as hard as you would think. You can order quantities of 10-20lbs of unrefined ore online, for around $3-4.50/lb.
Make two 5lbs shells of plutonium, put a seperator between them. Remeber 10lbs can create critical mass, wrap with high yeild explosive ignite all at the same time. Big boom.
Just remeber that while uranium isn't too toxic, plutonium is...nasty stuff it is. Ahh the wonders of university physics.
I do not support nuclear weapons, or nuclear poliferation. Too bad we can't put the genie back in the bottle hmm?
This is a complete hoax and here's why... (Score:3)
So, in my attempt to explain this away:
Americium Oxide was originally sold by the Atomic Energy Commision (now under responsibility of the Department of Energy) of the US for about US$1000 a GRAM. A gram is enough to supply 5,000 smoke detectors with Americium.
Just think about how much fissionable material you need to run a reactor. A uranium fuel pellet is as big as a pencil eraser. Also, these are HEAVY elements, heavier than lead. So one would need a lot more than a gram of Americium, supposing one could collect 5,000 smoke detectors to get it.
If you want to know more, here's the US government information on how to procure various elements:
http://www.ornl.gov/isotopes/
In particular, Americium 241:
http://www.ornl.gov/isotopes/r_am241.html
Here's the link to the sales staff at Los Alamos National Labs:
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/isotopes/order_informati
If you need more info on how much Americium is needed for a smoke detector, check out the Uranium Information Centre of Australia:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip35.htm
Check out the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia to find out sheer quantities of fuel needed to fuel a reactor for a year:
http://www.anawa.org.au/chain/index.html
Now get your heads out of the clouds and get back to work.
moc.liamtoh@ihsoyotamah
http://www.rushmagazine.com
Re:I know dave (Score:2)
I think he plans on going to college when he gets out.
--
Re:I know dave (Score:2)
I do know that he was extremely worried for a while that he would have to pay for the cleanup.
--
Re:does he give out autographs? (Score:2)
--
Re:smoke detectors (Score:2)
He got the detectors from a surplus catalog - some place was selling lots of non-working electronics that had been stored out in the rain, and one of the items for sale was several cases of wrecked smoke detectors.
--
I know dave (Score:5)
We were in the same circle of (sometimes self proclaimed) weirdos who were all obsessive about one thing or another, and hung out together.
I remember when he brought in a giger counter, and we checked the food in the east center caf to see if it was radioactive. We had a good laugh when we got a blip from the soft serve ice cream.
Later, when he started carrying around radioactive material in his pockets at school, and showing me what looked like radiation burns, I tried to not hang out with him as much, and switched seats in Anthropology so that I wasn't right next to him.
It was a weird time - I was at MSU when I got the paniced call from him saying that the EPA was currently raiding his house, and wanting to know what catalog he had ordered the smoke detectors from.
The author who did the Harper's article was working on a book late last year - he asked me a few questions about Dave. I wonder when it will come out...
If anyone has any questions about Dave, just reply to this, and I'll answer what I remember...
--
Re:Old News (Score:4)
Re:Golf Manor, Michigan doesn't exist (Score:2)
Well now that we know where it is, we can consult Map-a-Blast! [vicinity.com]
sad, but nhecessary (Score:2)
>square reserved for a monument, the University of >Chicago is building a new undergraduate dorm. Now
>that seems a bit amusing.
hey, we've already tried everything else to cut down on undergraduate pregnancy. If this works out, we'll use a similar method in the boy's gyms in high schools . . .
hawk
Re:Homegrown reactors are evil. (Score:2)
No no, that was a controlled reaction. The first uncontrolled reaction was at the top of a tower in the middle of the desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico.
The second uncontrolled reaction was a few thousand feet over Hiroshima, Japan.
Schwab
Re:short search on google. (Score:2)
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/standar
It's the Online Approved DOE Technical Standards -- including
* Licensed Reactor Nuclear Safety Criteria Applicable to DOE Reactors,
* DOE Fundamentals Handbook, Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory,
and
* Criteria for Packaging and Storing Uranium-233-Bearing Materials
Wonderful stuff!
--
Re:Functional != unprotected (Score:2)
Yet the printout of the DeCSS source code is considered a "device" under current judicial rulings.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:I want to be a space cowboy too!! (Score:2)
Uhhh, then why was radium used for luminous watch dials and such? And if I remember right, cesium-137 has a lovely luminous blue glow (not that you'd want to play with it). Not all radioisotopes emit visible light, but some certainly do.
Re:I want to be a space cowboy too!! (Score:2)
Re:Moron.. (Score:2)
A bit of the wrong heavy metal contamination makes nitroglycerin very, very sensitive.
is he a Chief now? (Score:2)
http://goatlocker.exis.net/fy01e7.txt
(search for Hahn).
Same person?
Re:Unusual math... (Score:2)
which seems like a fairly conservative assumption.
3350/5 = 670 hours.
assuming he worked 20 hrs. a week . . . .
670/20 = 33.5 weeks, or about 8 months.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Other than the part about working at minimum wage that long.
And, of course, he could have cleared a lot more dough mowing lawns or from tips as a waiter.
no reactor was built (Score:4)
What really tells are his own words:
"Even though there was no critical pile, I know that some of the reactions that go on in a breeder reactor went on to a minute extent."(page 11 of the Harper's article)
And he was talking about a device he built like this:
"David took the highly radioactive radium and americium out of their respective lead casings and, after another round of filing and pulverizing, mixed those isotopes with beryllium and aluminum shavings, all of which he wrapped in aluminum foil. What were once the neutron sources for his guns became a makeshift "core" for his reactor. He surrounded this radioactive ball with a "blanket" composed of tiny foil-wrapped cubes of thorium ash and uranium powder, which were stacked in an alternating pattern with carbon cubes and tenuously held together with duct tape."
This doesn't approach "building a nuclear reactor" by a long shot.
Re:Practical problems (Score:2)
My actual tinker project for this summer is an electric motorcycle that can be recycled in the field by a retractable solar panel. Someone from the solar car team mentioned people who've built models that worked well and that sounds awesome to me. Hehe I can handle solar panels much easier than radioactive materials.
Any alternative powered vehicle is interesting to me though.
Homemade nucleur powered cars? (Score:3)
Re:Why Not Build Your Own Atomic Bomb!! (Score:2)
Interestingly, Marc Laidlaw would later become a writer for another project with a nuclear theme--a little first-person shooter by the name of Half-Life [planethalflife.com]. (As a little in-joke, some of his books can be seen in one of the lockers in the locker room in the early part of the game.)
--
Re:Unless bathroom tiles can get pregnant... (Score:2)
--
Re:Homemade nucleur powered cars? (Score:2)
If you're going to seriously think about nuclear powered cars, I suggest looking up some of the historical data on the nuclear powered airplane project:
Re:Harper's (Nov 98) (Score:2)
Re:I know dave (Score:2)
--
Don't people read the articles? (Score:3)
Jeez, all you have to do around here is spout a few "facts" (5000 units per gram blah blah blah) and you get put up to +5 informative.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
David Minnaar, Donald Erb, sci.physics, etc. (Score:4)
One of the people mentioned in the story is David Minnaar, who works for the Michigan DEP. He's certainly a real person; see Antique crock turns out to be radioactive [detnews.com] and Michigan DEP site [state.mi.us] with his e-mail address (minnaard@state.mi.us) and phone number (517-335-8197).
Another person mentioned is Donald Erb, mentioned on International Isotope Society Membership List [intl-isotope-soc.org], and can be reached at
U.S. Department of Energy
22404 Goshen School Road
Gaithersburg , MD , 20882-9801
Phone: (301) 253-5530
Fax: (301) 903-5434
So at the minimum they're real people, and can certainly easily confirm or deny the story or its details, unless they refuse to talk about it, which would be a bit silly.
There was a long cross-posted thread in alt.folklore.urban, sci.physics, and sci.skeptic [google.com] at the beginning of last year about this, Some good posts:
Remember, this is 19th century chemistry that he was doing, and had the advantage of extracting radioactive materials from already purified sources.
--
eh? (Score:2)
It's used inside small fluorescent tubes, as it's a pure low-energy beta emitter. No radiation escapes the tube, end the beta (electron) emission causes the tube to fluoresce (like any other fluorescent light).
My watch has tritium gas-lights on it. Sometimes, these are called Traser(tm) lights.
I believe it's also the most expensive substance by weight known to man.
Re:at least one technical detail definitely wrong: (Score:2)
No Doubt (Score:2)
Two more things. I work with small amounts of radioactivity on a daily basis and I find it incredibly hard to believe the radium story. He was supposedly "driving by" a antiques store when he picked up the vial of radium paint with the geiger counter. C'mon. The ability to detect radiation is proportional to the inverse of the distance from the source squared. I can't imagine how hot that clock would have been if he could detect it in his car while driving by.
And. With quotes like, "I'll pay any some [sic] of money..." it is not possible that he could have carried on a conversation by mail, posing as a teacher or a professor.
Blech... this is pure crap!
Deadly gas smuggled in Valentine's day balloons!!! (Score:2)
Do you buy this? I'm not sure if I do. Even if the principal was completely clueless about science, which he probably is or he'd be a real teacher rather than an administrator, I have a hard time believing that anyone with a triple digit IQ and a lick of common sense would fear that someone's girlfriend was using baloons to smuggle strange chemicals around. Is this the kind of person we should have running a school?
Ultimately I do believe he was exactly that clueless. Until I'd read this story I'd almost forgotten just how clueless the adults around me seemed to be when I was younger. Their absolute ignorance of anything technical or scientific combined with the strange assumption that I was doing something dangerous made for some very bizzare behavior on their part. I'm sure that many others here know exactly what I mean. To me it was always highly annoying to be treated with awe or fear by someone older simply because I demonstrated the smallest modicum of understanding of something like how a television worked.
The other possibility is that the principal was simply being an utter jerk. He wanted to show that he didn't need an excuse to be a jerk and so came up with the most outlandish and unsubstantiated "reason" he could think of. I've seen that happen a lot too. It would kind of explain why he's a principal and not a teacher.
Lee Reynolds
Re:smoke detectors (Score:2)
Re:Duct Tape Reactor (Score:2)
So the neighbors saw this kid's shed glowing? Hmmm.... good urban legend.
Dosage limits (Score:4)
Sorry for the confusion, LionKimbro. I really should have been more specific. I should have said "lifetime allowable dosage of radiation for a person working in a US Navy nuclear specialty." I'm sure there's a "government recommended maximum civillian dosage," and it's set at a very harmless and generally un-reached number.
Here's a little background on the Navy nuclear field:
The enlisted and officer personnel that actually work on the naval reactor systems (ratings of MM, EM and ET, plus officer billets) go through a special school at Naval Weapons Station Charleston in South Carolina.
As far as exposure goes, I'm not going to get into the exact specifics & numbers. (I'm not sure exactly where 'common knowledge' stops and 'confidential information' starts.) Numbers don't matter in any case, as I don't have exposure readings for Petty Officer Hahn.
The point is: The Navy has chosen a number for the amount of exposure you're allowed. David Hahn exceeded this number before he enlisted. Therefore the Navy will not allow him to work in a situation where he will receive artificial additional exposure. The Navy is not interested in medically retiring him and handing him a disability check because something turned cancerous, all because he went near a reactor... again.
The Navy does understand the risks involved -- and they certainly minimize their exposure as much as they can, both to radiation risks and litigation risks!
Petty Officer Hahn is quite famous here around NWS Charleston. Every Power School class hears about the 'Radioactive Boyscout.' Curious about what he's doing now? He's an 'airdale' -- he works on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
Current status of David Hahn (Score:5)
Oops.
So, just you remember that kids -- choices you make in your youth can limit your career options further down the road.
I sure think he didn't want quite that result, though.
His reaction to it is interesting. (To paraphrase Reader's Digest):
Re:I know dave (Score:4)
Obviously he didn't face any jail time, but did the Feds give him any noise about persecuting him? I'm kind of surprised they didn't, what with their persistent spreading of FUD about weapons of mass destruction.
- Rev.Reader's Digest (Score:2)
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Duct Tape Reactor (Score:2)
In fact, it almost certainly would. Although the Supreme Court decided U.S. v Progressive in favor of the government, it lifted the injunction later.
Wanna build a bomb? Look at the FAQ!! (Score:2)
The DoD conducted a trial in 1967 by getting 3 physics grads to design a device. They succeeded in less than a year!! Now, with the internet, a 15 year old can probably design one themselves.
Basically, as mentioned before, the easy bit is finding the raw materials and refining them to weapons grade munitions. The difficult bits (in what I see as order of difficulty) are:
i) Shaping the charge exactly right to form a perfectly spherical shock wave around the fissile material.
ii) Shaping the material properly to implode spherically.
iii) Doing all this in such a manner as not to arouse suspicion - you need some fairly specialised tools to accomplish it - a pocket knife and a home lathe probably aren't enough.
As soon as you order the materials in a non-secure manner, the CIA are probably going to have your number on a 'watch' list. If it comes up a couple of times then expect a visit at some stage. Hell - I'm probably flagged from mentioning all this in a public forum.
Re:Wanna build a bomb? Look at the FAQ!! (Score:2)
Re:I know dave (Score:3)
What is he doing now?
Building warp drives?
Re:"Duct Tape"?!? (Score:2)
When the neighbours are partying all night long... (Score:3)
Hey, gimme an EMP device! That's ll nuke those pesky boom boxes going on all night at maximum volume, robbing you of an honest man's sleep. EMP's are far more practical than old fashioned methods such as water buckets, or manually going down to the basement to switch off their power supply!
Re:Unusual math... (Score:2)
short search on google. (Score:4)
Half way down the page it says this story appeared in:
November 1998 issue of Harpers Magazine.
CBS "Morning News"
CBS "Evening News" on October 14, 1998
Reader's Digest March 1999
The Sunday Times January 17, 1999.
I looked in the Sunday times back-issue and couldn't find the article, maybe someone else can....
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/cgi-bin/BackIssue
CBC news archives seem to not go back farther than Dec 98.
Re:Functional != unprotected (Score:2)
You know, you can study your physics book all you want, but no matter how hard you try, a breeder reactor will not assemble itself in front of you. You need to obtain actual, and very very rare (and immediately physically dangerous) materials.
Software is a peculiar sort of speech in that it can also be considered a "device" (I don't know who started that terminology). But a physics books (speech) and breeder reactor (device) do *NOT* overlap like software does (I think this is the point the poster was trying to get accross when he described a non-empty set containing DeCSS, but NOT a physics book).
No, a bomb isn't so easy (Score:2)
nah (Score:2)
Re:Imagine the tech support call from this kid? (Score:2)
"Oh my God! My son took apart the smoke detector, and, and, oh my God! I think he ate parts of it! Some parts are radioactive, right? Which ones? Which ones??!!?"
... and the person on the other end gladly tells which parts.
- - - - -
Re:Functional != unprotected (Score:2)
Wrong. They describe an action which can activate a specific device's intended function, they do not work together with another device to produce a new behavior not envisioned by the other device's creator
What is a padlock's intended function? To lock, and unlock when the right combination is applied. Wow, that's just what CSS does. Or are you claiming that CSS's creator didn't envision that CSS encoded movies would be descrambled?
DeCSS is an implementation of the CSS unlocking algorithm. It operates as intended. Your argument is not clear.
Regardless, your argument is a tar baby. I can use a newspaper to light a fire that burns down someone's house. You don't (can't) outlaw newspaper publishing because someone can use it to start a fire, whether intended by the publisher or not. Even if the newspaper contained a How-To on arson. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not. Actions are illegal, not data. It's in the constitution.
Like most information, combinations serve a purpose, but do not perform a function.
Like all information, DeCSS does not perform a function. People who use it do. Padlocks don't unlock themselves, and neither do DVDs. All functional speech has an intention behind it. 'rm -rf /' is functional, but it only functions in a certain context--some unlawful, others not. In either case, somone (read: a legal entity) caused the function to occur. The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.
The constitution does not require fair use, only that IP restrictions be temporary.
Wrong. The copyright clause is self-limiting in duration, but the first amendment is the reason fair use exists. The First Amendment is why copyrights are limited in scope (to distribution, public performance) as well as in time. The first amendment controls the copyright clause. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this stuff, but you should probably read about it before spouting off.
I don't agree with banning DeCSS, but I don't like to blow it out of proportion or talk about it in unrelated stories. I certainly don't like weaselly claims that it's not primarily a device for decrypting DVDs.
Well, it is bad etiquette to post offtopic commentary, but it wasn't really off topic to begin with. Your glib, imprecise response didn't help, though.
I never said DeCSS isn't primarily for decrypting DVDs, I don't think anyone on this thread did. I am saying that all speech can be functional, and that calling such functional speech a device does not exempt it from first amendment protections (which is what the studios are attempting to do). Congress has the power to control distribution of physical devices--but speech is right out. Functional or not.
The use of information is prohibitable, the distribution of information is not.
Functional != unprotected (Score:3)
DeCSS is as much as device as the launch codes for a nuclear missle, or the combo to my gym locker.
In the right context they can perform a function, but they are speech nonetheless. If you want to prohibit the function they perform, make "speech-devices" illegal to use, not to distribute--and realize that making DeCSS illegal to use would lay bare the decimation of constitutionally required fair use that this ban on dissemination disguises.
It's that easy. And that hard.
Re:No, a bomb isn't so easy (Score:2)
Plutonium bombs are not as easy to make, and you are almost guaranteed to kill yourself while machining it unless you have pretty good safety equipment -- even a small filing of plutonium can kill you if taken internally.
Both can be acheived by someone with enough money and expetise but they aren't "easy."
Re:Duct Tape Reactor (Score:2)
What do you mean? It's not like Harper's published anything really dangerous... like DeCSS [cmu.edu].
Re:Golf Manor, Michigan doesn't exist (Score:2)
Golf Manor, according to the article, is a subdivision of Commerce, MI, which does exist. It has postal codes 48382 and 48390, and appears to be a suburb of Detroit. Pinto Drive, also mentioned in the article, doesn't show up on Yahoo! maps, but this is hardly surprising, considering.
Re:"Duct Tape"?!? (Score:2)
And to further confuse the matter, the first time I saw it in print, when I bought some all those years ago, it was spelled Duck Tape: Duck-brand Duct Tape.
Re:An atomic bomb in a toolbox? (Score:2)
Moron.. (Score:2)
Re:No Doubt (Score:2)
And yes, you can detect radium at a decent distance with a consumer Geiger tube. That didn't bother me so much.
Re:Moron.. (Score:2)
I checked. I have a half gallon under the sink in the kitchen. Because, as well as being a good source of concentrated nitric acid, is also a very, very good drain cleaner.
Re:Moron.. (Score:2)
Re:smoke detectors (Score:2)
Me, I did it right, from a 1930's Department of War publication, and I still lost 30 square feet of carpet when my dry ice gave early..
[soapbox]
NOTE TO SLASHDOT: If you want to make explosives, start with something simple. Gunpowder will probably do what you need. If it won't, for God's sake don't go beyond that! It's too easy to social engineer nitrogel or purchase nitrocellulose at any gun shop.
[/soapbox}
Re:You only need 10lbs of Plutonium (Score:2)
Re:This can't be for real (Score:2)
And there are several designs that don't involve implosion of subcritical material to reach activation, nor the impolsive mirrors that design entails. That's right kiddies, no more adding 200kg of machined trinitrotoluene mirrors to your 10kg of wepons grade uranium!
Fat Man, the first nuclear device? Using plutonium, in the stead of the low-grade uranium, is plausible to fit in a suitcase with a little know-how.
Re:This can't be for real....me too (Score:2)
I just thank deity they didn't know for certain till 1957, when the first Little Boy went live in Siberia.
Re:An atomic bomb in a toolbox? (Score:2)
Don't ask me about the nuclear anti-aircraft missiles with a range 3 miles less than blast..
Calm Down Kids... (Score:2)
I'd put the odds of that scenario at 5% -- tops.
And even if he did emerge from society's human resource management as some sort of Unabomber from Hell with Nothing Left to Live For, it is always possible to simply humiliate him for being one of those guys who are full-grown adults who haven't yet accepted their place in the world as "pay up you punk ass". These guys who are living in their "picked on" school-boy past are just such a joke. Why would anyone take them seriously when you can just put them in prison and rape them again and again and...
People Don't Listen to Their Kids (Score:2)
If people paid more (or any) attention to their kids, we'd have less problems like this. Amazing what a kid can do with a little ingenuity and a Jr Dr Evil lab kit.
Re:This is a complete hoax and here's why... (Score:2)
To further clarify, the amount of Americium in a smoke detector is minute - thousandths of a gramme. If you swallowed the source of Americium found in smoke detectors, it probably wouldn't take a single year off your lifespan (don't do it though. Please).
Re:Totally bolonious (Score:2)
-Steve
Why Not Build Your Own Atomic Bomb!! (Score:4)
Yes, once you've built your own atomic device, we at ACME Atomic Products promise no more being picked on!
Really (Score:2)
Jesus...
Re:at least one technical detail definitely wrong: (Score:2)
12.5 years, IIRC.
Re:Practical problems (Score:2)
That's simply for generating electricity, not propulsion, and the EE's at NASA can design some very efficient circuits, I'm sure. To actually move the probes takes some very reactive materials, hydrazine and such.
Further, in "Mars Direct" (I think that is what the book was called) the author talks about sending powerful reactors to Mars. He seems to know what he is talking about.
I mean, keep in mind that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are big, in part, because they need to be big! Likewise powerplants.
A turbine big enough to power a car would have to be pretty big as well. I'm not sure how it would work out if you used the reactor to simply generate electricity for an electric motor.
Re:at least one technical detail definitely wrong: (Score:4)
Re:Why Not Build Your Own Atomic Bomb!! (Score:2)
kid: Mom!!! Billy has the bomb. I need to have the bomb too.
mother: What kind of a delivery system does he have?
kid: I don't know. But I know he has the bomb because he tested it last week and Smithtown mall is a crater now.
mother: Well, when he has a verified intrasuburban ballistic missile capability I'll consider it.
kid: But Mommmm!!!
mother: No buts! Now get to bed.
Old News (Score:2)
News?! (Score:2)
So, rather than debate the validity of this crap any further, could anyone explain the above interrogative statement to me?
Re:This can't be for real (Score:3)
Now, if I remember rigt, it proposed a underground cellar filled with concrete, one hemisphere at the bottom of a shaft, the other at the top if the same shaft. A small explosive forces the sphere's together, which provides the now critical mass and if you've got everything right, a yeild of 25 kilotons.
The point of the article was to show that yes, it is possible. But also the risks as well. You need not to understand the maths, just be careful understand what your doing.
I think the article is in a cira 1979 Electronic Australia. Thence, although I doubt this story is more thanan urban legend, it is still quite possible to build a home nuke if your detirmined enough. Suitcase nukes are definantly not possible.
Information wants to be radioactive. (Score:3)
So once again: Irradiating 40,000 people is OK. Fair Use copies of DVDs are bad.
And we wonder why the world thinks America is fucking nuts.
Re also in the same line of 'Very Weird Things'... (Score:5)
great "hacker" story (Score:5)
--
smoke detectors (Score:2)
Re:This is a complete hoax and here's why... (Score:2)
No one said that he built a "reactor" (To wit: Wordnet: "2: (physics) any of several devices that maintain and control a nuclear reaction for the production of energy or artificial elements [syn: nuclear reactor]") but that he had in fact stimulated a nuclear reaction. It was not self-sustaining, nor externally sustained.
As for the sources of fissionable (and convertable) material...
and
and
(I can only assume by "hack of the clock" they mean "back of the clock - nice proofreading there)
and
and
Interesting that it doesn't say what the filter was made of. Anyone know what material you'd use?
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
Forget electricity (Score:2)
Still does turn out to be a pretty heavy unit, though, and even your fat ass isn't masive enough to justify that kind of power. Now, heavy rail, on the other hand...
A modern nuke-powered train could be practical, with a little work.
Re:wouldn't it be more practical to use power grid (Score:2)
Re:Moron.. (Score:2)
Drain cleaner is a strong base, not an acid.
Nitric acid is nasty stuff and not suitable for cleaning pipes.
Re:Moron.. (Score:2)
I looked that stuff up online and it seems to be sulfuric, not nitric acid. I'm still surprised that it's an acid product, never seen that kind of drain cleaner in my neck o' the woods. Must be damn hard on the pipes.
Re:Duct Tape Reactor (Score:2)
Unless bathroom tiles can get pregnant... (Score:2)
8)
Re:Duct Tape Reactor (Score:3)
Actually, you are quite wrong, because the type of nuclear reactor he made was a subcritical reactor. A subcritical reactor does not need to be of critical mass in order to produce fission. Instead, it relies on the nuclear particles already being emmited from radioactive materials to sustain a low-level rate of fission.
Fission does not require alot of energy at all. In fact, if you understand nuclear physics, you know that the macroscopic cross section for absorbtion in a thermal (low-energy) neutron is much higher than that of a fast (high-energy) neutron.
Many colleges have subcritical reactors. You may want to read up on the concept.
This story is a hoax. (Score:5)
This seems to be fiction invented by a writer who is well-educated in nuclear physics, and who is depending on the fact that his readers aren't.
For example, this paragraph from the story cannot be right:
"It was slow going until one day, driving through Clinton Township to visit his girlfriend, Heather, he noticed that his Geiger counter went wild as he passed Gloria's Resale Boutique/Antique. The proprietor, Gloria Genette, still recalls the day when she was called at home by a store employee who said that a polite young man was anxious to buy an old table clock with a tinted green dial but wondered if she'd come down in price."
This doesn't make sense. Geiger counters are not very sensitive because they depend on the ability of an energetic particle or photon to ionize gas molecules. This takes a lot of energy.
To detect the radiation on the street using a geiger counter, the radiation near where the source was stored would have to be so intense that the workers in the store would become sick.
Read message #173 above, by Kierthos (Kierthos@aol.com):
"And as I recall, the radioactive particles emitted by Uranium are alpha (okay, it's been a long time, so I'm guessing), which can be stopped by a stout pair of pants."
That's true. Beta radiation (fast electrons) doesn't travel far either. Another kind of radiation emitted by radioactive substances is gamma rays. Gamma rays are photons more energetic than X-rays. Gamma rays can penetrate easily. However, consider that the article quote implies that the distance over which the radiation was detected was from inside the store to the street. I'm guessing that would be at least 6 meters, or 20 feet.
Gamma radiation from a radioactive substance is omni-directional. The energy radiates the same way in all directions. As radiation spreads into a volume, its intensity is divided proportional to the square of the distance. This means that someone working in the store would be exposed to a far higher intensity of radiation than would be detectable in the street.
Also, the amount of radium (radioactive material) in luminous clock dials was extremely small. Radium was, and is, extremely expensive, so there never would have been very much in one place. Radium-226, the most common isotope, decays to half its original intensity in 1600 years. So there would never have been a reason to include an extra sample of radium with a clock.
Conclusion: This story is, at least partly, a hoax.
Re:great "hacker" story (Score:4)
That sounds more like the core plot of just about every other MacGyver episode, the only thing else you need is a bamboo hang glider.
Duct Tape Reactor (Score:4)
Pure evidence. (Score:3)
Homegrown reactors are evil. (Score:3)
The first nuclear reactor. [anl.gov] Oddly, it looks like a toolshed.
History likes repeating itself.
Here is a look at the early Chicago reactors. [anl.gov]
And in a completely unrelated story... (Score:3)
We now return to our regularly scheduled drivel.
--
"Duct Tape"?!? (Score:3)
Boy do I feel stupid.
Practical problems (Score:3)
There are other problems as well. For example, do you intend to power your car just with the energy generated from radioactive decay? If so, I hate to break it to you, but there's not a whole lot to use. It's doubtful that you could use that power to move a car, expecially the large one you would need.
In fact, the only way you could do this would be if you converted an 18-wheeler with trailer. Put a true fission reactor in the trailer, complete with boilers and cooling system, and run wires from the trailer to the truck itself, where you would have a large electric motor. Sinmply converting an old jalopy as a "tinkering project" would not work. Not to mention, for this nuclear-powered 18-wheeler, you'd need a commercial driver's licence.
Of course, the fact that you'd essentiall have a whole 18-wheeler trailer filled with radioactive metals and contaminated water means a couple things. First, you would have to have thick lead wall all over the thing - how a top speed of 30mph sound. The fact you'd have a huge amount of power is irrelevent - the other problems involved with moving that much mass at that much speed (brakes, transmission, etc) are formidable. And frankly, I wouldn't want you driving fast in this behemoth anyway.
Remember what I said about your entire trailer being filled with radioactive-contaminated water? Let me ask you this: How often does your car radiator spring a leak? Not often, true, but it has happened to you, hasn't it? In a nuclear power plant, there are hundreds of people checking every valve and in constant control. Your reactor will have one controller - yourself -and you will be driving while trying to control the reactor.
If you want a bad$%# truck, get a SmarTruck with missile launchers and whatnot.
How do you think "real science" is done? (Score:5)
While you can't do everything on a budget, you generally don't need a lot of equipment in order to do science, even cutting edge science. Policymakers should remember that when they consider trying to restrict the availability of technology or bet that it won't proliferate. You may be able to track and restrict nuclear materials, with occasional problems, but you can't restrict biotech or computers.
The situation is really not unlike software. You may have big companies going out and spending billions on "enterprise software", while nimble smaller players do a better job with open source.