Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (FreeloaderUK) — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:16:48 GMT

im 7ft 3" & I REALLY hate submarines, in an emergency they make me wear goggles & use me as a periscope!

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (nickthefuzz) — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:53:51 GMT

You may be a Nuke engineer but you were not involved in the design of the Astute class. So no, you are not qualified as someone who knows the facts

The folowing is fact not supposition based on nuclear engineering first principles.

Astute started as the Batch 2 Trafalgar class. It was decided to use the same reactor as Vanguard class but stick with the remaining aspects of the Trafalgar class. They looked at what it would cost to reduce the diamer of the RC but...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (SubsRUs) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:31:35 GMT

Mike/Fermi2,

First, my hat is off to all submariners - everywhere. I've known more than a few and they are a special breed.

My mid January message was a response to taschoene about Astute's hull diameter, which no one has contradicted. At the time, I didn't have time to address what you had posted about...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:52:59 GMT

You are qualified to disagree with a Nuclear Engineer and EX EOOW because you are qualified to a similar standard?

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (SubsRUs) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:21:44 GMT

Fermi2 wrote a bunch of stuff about submarine reactors about which I disagree. However, the facts in question really have no bearing on the discussion started when taschoene wrote:

I have it from someone who worked on the Astute design team that the diameter...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (pascaly) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:28:58 GMT
Perfect, thanks taschoene, cheers.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (taschoene) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:23:45 GMT
I'm not arguing that the PWR-2 is larger to produce more power -- I don't know why it is, though I have read that taller reactor vessel configurations are better for natural circulation.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (taschoene) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:13:04 GMT
First character indicates the intended application (A=aircraft carrier, S=submarine, D=destroyer/surface combatant)
Second is a series number, which is the generation of design by a given company
Third is the name of the design company (W=Westinghouse, G=General Electric, C=Combustion Engineering, B=Bechtel)

So A4W is the fourth aircraft carrier reactor designed by Westinghouse, and D2G was the second destroyer reactor developed by GE.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (pascaly) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:47:13 GMT

Slightly OT,

can someone explain the reactor designations? A4W, S6G etc, thanks.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:24:41 GMT

SubsRUs wrote:
There are many factors that affect reactor size besides its power -- type of reactor, core life, reactor materials, etc.

However, all other factors being equal, higher power requires greater size.

The reactors in the SEAWOLF, OHIO, and VIRGINIA Classes cannot be stuffed into a LOS ANGELES Class hull.

Given the S6G Plant is actually bigger than an S8G plant?...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (SubsRUs) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:46:56 GMT
There are many factors that affect reactor size besides its power -- type of reactor, core life, reactor materials, etc.

However, all other factors being equal, higher power requires greater size.

The reactors in the SEAWOLF, OHIO, and VIRGINIA Classes cannot be stuffed into a LOS ANGELES Class hull.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:59:13 GMT

taschoene wrote:
I have it from someone who worked on the Astute design team that the diameter was originally driven by the size of the PWR-2 reactor, which was originally developed for a larger diameter SSBN (the Vanguard class). It probably doesn't hurt that the resulting larger diameter hull is more...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (taschoene) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:40:10 GMT
I have it from someone who worked on the Astute design team that the diameter was originally driven by the size of the PWR-2 reactor, which was originally developed for a larger diameter SSBN (the Vanguard class). It probably doesn't hurt that the resulting larger diameter hull is more hydrodynamically efficient and allows a larger torpedo room, but it was definitely...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:33:35 GMT

Alexius55 wrote:
Smoking and habitability in the RN: Her Majesty's Submarines are specifically exempt from the new laws banning smoking in enclosed workplaces, so I'd assume smoking is still allowed in some compartments. Surface warships are not exempt as the crew can smoke on deck.

As for space: the Astute class are apparently the first submarines in any navy to have one bunk per crew member- i.e. no...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Alexius55) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:11:01 GMT
Smoking and habitability in the RN: Her Majesty's Submarines are specifically exempt from the new laws banning smoking in enclosed workplaces, so I'd assume smoking is still allowed in some compartments. Surface warships are not exempt as the crew can smoke on deck.

As for space: the Astute class are apparently the first submarines in any navy to have one bunk per crew member- i.e. no hot-racking. Previous classes have only been built with enough for the off-watch. However,...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:37:07 GMT
My one tour of a modern USN warship (one of the Perry's, the Boone) didn't quite give me feelings of claustrophobia, but it was close. I could be paid enough to serve on one (and, barring 20/400 vision, I would have done so). From what I've heard of living conditions on USN submarines (my brother-in-law is a plank-owner of one of the LA class boats, and I've worked with people who have ridden on both USN and RN submarines; one of them said RN submarines have better...

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (seasick) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:12:03 GMT

I'm 6'3" tall and have very broad shoulders. I would have hated being on a submarine. I became infected with hepatitis B in my freshman year of college. Did I get a better deal?

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Pengolodh) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:16:35 GMT
The name of the image-file used for the 8) emoticon is "Cool.gif" on many messageboard systems, I think.

Re: Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (taschoene) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:07:59 GMT
Amusing. Whatever OCR was done on it seems to have turned most of the ""s into "Cool"s.

Why McDonalds Is Better Than A Submarine

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:03:03 GMT
1) No McORSE

2) If you have to take a piss, you can go take a piss. No questions asked.

3) You'll never have to go port and starboard on the fryer.

4) Better pay.

5) The sun.

6) Air.

7) The boxes of food at McDonald's aren't stamped "Rejected by Hardee's" or "Not fit for human consumption".

Cool The ability to call in sick.

9) The ability to quit.

10) McDonald's...