Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Where life imitates science.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                   

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

nuclear power plant

 nuclear plant protection from the air
  (-1)
(-1) 		  [vote for,
against]

Instead of missle systems, or fighter jet to engage in- coming plane the gov. could build series of flag pole like structures around and above reactors. It would be like a big, relatively cheap, cage made out of eyebeams. The in-coming plane would break up before it had a chance to penetrate walls of reactor.
—izzard, Aug 02 2003

Obstructions with altitude http://www.bbrclub....aragecardington.jpg
A cable will do the trick [lurch, Oct 04 2004]

Maybe something like this, but more... http://www.airports...mages/laxpylons.jpg
[reensures] comment about eyebeams of light made me think of this. [bungston, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       "eyebeams"?
—lurch, Aug 02 2003
   

       yep, eyebeams
—dickity, Aug 02 2003
   

       Okay, I think I've figured it out. This is a defensive means to shield nuclear power plants from attack by aircraft. It consists of a giant, impenetrable cage around the power plant.   

       Author, no offense meant, but you need to work on your writing skills.
—snarfyguy, Aug 02 2003
   

       They're called eyebeams because their cross section looks like an eye, you know between aych and jay.   

       That link shows that they had really big cubicles in the old days [lurch].
—FarmerJohn, Aug 02 2003
   

       This is actually not a bad idea. It would be cheap and look kind of cool. It would definitely take a lot of the wallop out of incoming planes. It would be an especially good idea on the water facing side of nuclear reactors, where planes could fly low along the water when incoming. Cables could be strung between them for smaller planes. When you consider the phenomenal amounts of money being spent to research this problem, this becomes economical to boot. I am not sure individual eyebeams would do; either a spiderlike cluster of eyebeams for strength or just plain old fair-o-concrete columns as are used in freeway overpasses. All in all - a low tech solution for a low tech problem: something big is coming... put something strong in the way.   

       There is a nuke near NYC I know folks are extra concerned about. I wonder if they are taking ideas for protection schemes.
—bungston, Aug 02 2003
   

       The WTC towers were made of steel beams. As we all know, the beams were no match for the massive impact of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.   

       Or are these some other kind of beams?
—snarfyguy, Aug 02 2003
   

       <Arnold Horshak/>Ooh, ooh, ooh! Mr. Kotter! Tractor beams!</Arnold Horshak>
—thumbwax, Aug 02 2003
   

       To clarify: the beam breaks the plane appart. That's it, really. They might melt similar to WTC. It doesn't really matter though, because the force of the plane's impact has already been reduced.   

       Lets post some crossiants people!
—izzard, Aug 02 2003
   

       Thou shall not covet thy baker's croissant.
—Cedar Park, Aug 02 2003
   

       Aye! they're beams!
—X2Entendre, Aug 03 2003
   

       I thought it was I-beams, not eyebeams (poor font to write it in though).   

       And if the beams melt and fall on the nuclear power plant, what happens then?
—suctionpad, Aug 03 2003
   

       Yeah, it is I beams - if this font had serifs, the capital I would resemble the cross section of the beam.   

       I should hope indian Point can withstand melted beams. I think the dangerous stuff is pretty deep inside.
—snarfyguy, Aug 03 2003
   

       //if the beams melt and fall on the nuclear power plant, what happens then?//   

       The WTC episode involved igniting a large quantity of kerosene *inside* of an already flammable building.   

       If you were to produce a fireball large enough to melt *free-standing* I-beams, you will have also developed a rather largish hole with no recognizable remnants of a nuclear reactor in it.
—lurch, Aug 03 2003
   

       Eye was pulling your legs, but eye guess it's good you cleared up any confusion.
—FarmerJohn, Aug 03 2003
   

       I saw a test film from when the US was starting it's nuclear power program- It involved attaching some crap old jetfighter, the name of which escapes me (it has square intakes, twin engined, tail overhangs exhausts on a boom, anhedral (downward sloping) tailplanes), to a rail, sticking a rocket on it and firing it at just over the speed of sound into a section of the reactor outer wall (3'ish thick concrete). It disappeared in a cloud of grey dust, leaving a plane shaped crater in the concrete less than a foot deep or thereabouts.   

       I might have the numbers wrong, my brain screws that up a lot.
—squigbobble, Jan 16 2004
   

       That reminds me of those specialised 20 ton casks used for nuclear waste transport:   

       "Type B packages have survived some extreme tests, the most spectacular being a British demonstration in which a diesel locomotive pulling three carriages was smashed into a nuclear fuel cask at 165 kilometres an hour. The cask suffered only minor damage and no significant leakage. The locomotive was destroyed."
—Detly, Jan 16 2004
   

       squigbobble - I think the plane you are talking about is an F4 Phantam (Vietnam-era).
—gastronaut, Feb 20 2004
   

       It's like the stop-the-mosquitos-invading-your-Venezuelan- hotel-bed-by-using-mesh-nets theory. Only on a much larger scale. And there would be less missles than mosquitos, too. I like it.
—UrineForATreat, Feb 20 2004
   

       (-) As I understand it, a jet could not penetrate the cage of concrete and steal that surround a reactor. I did some searching online and found this:   

       "He cited a recent national study conducted by five independent engineering firms that found that a nuclear power plant would not suffer catastrophic damage even if a plane as large as a 757 were flown at top speed directly into the plant."   

       (For the full article):   

       http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/07-26-02-news/pilgrim.html
—neradt, Feb 22 2004
   

       So it's like a car bomb stopper for jets? OK, what if the jet just flew in, and dropped into it? Plus I'm not sure it's possible to build "eyebeams" that tall.   

       What, would they park the jet in the air over the plant then let it fall down on top? As regards tall eye beams, this would be better than bare ugly beams - this should be concrete menhirs sticking up from the earth like teeth.   

       I am reminded of the evil stones in Ursula LeGuin's _Tombs of Atuan_. Like that, but bigger. And no evil spirits either.
—bungston, Feb 23 2004
   

       Maybe the whole globe should be covered in H-beams (sorry, I's don't really have the right shape in this font), except for around airports. That'll keep those planes in line. If only there was some sort of natural structure that was tall and strong, and could build themselves automatically.
—Worldgineer, Feb 23 2004
   

       Magic crystal trees!
—Detly, Feb 23 2004
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle