EPT[Movie][Spoilers] Pacific Rim / Pacific Rim 2 / & 3!! - Pa…
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Tosster
Poland299 Posts
| ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
| ||
|
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
On July 14 2013 10:12 Milkis wrote: all that it needed was a JAM Project insert song If JAM Project started playing in that Hong Kong fight, then I don't know what I would have done, haha | ||
|
Nvmz
34 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 09:20 renoB wrote: Haha I have a few questions to add to this as well. It was an excellent movie, but the nerd in me had to question some things. + Show Spoiler + Why would people still live on the coast lines? I think after the second one, I would have gotten the fuck out of there. Wouldn't there also be like crazy waves when you drop tons of metal into the ocean? Yet another reason to evacuate the pacific coast.... When they surface in their capsules after being at the bottom of the ocean, wouldn't they need to decompress since they were under so much pressure? They just stand up like its no big deal. Why was there a button to turn the reactor in the gypsy into a bomb? In one of the fights he shoots out all the coolant on one side of the jaeger. Wouldn't they need that to cool down their nuclear reactor? Why did the kaiju's keep attacking one at a time? At the end we see that they can just stay and guard, so why didn't the first few just stay and guard and wait for more to come through? Also, do you think Paul Krugman came up with the idea to build the wall?  + Show Spoiler + There's plenty of areas nowadays that undergo regular natural disasters that people still live in. 15 years is almost certainly too small of a time scale for everyone on the coast to simply pack up and move, barring at bayonet point. Especially considering that humanity was curbstomping the monsters for most of that time. Same reason why people in submarines don't suffer from decompression sickness. The bends are caused by external pressure on the body; you don't get dissolved nitrogen if external pressure equals atmospheric pressure. Your inner nerd credentials are lacking. It's built to kill giant monsters, why wouldn't you weaponize the reactor? He shoots some of the left-side coolant out, watch the movie again and listen for his exact words. The link between the two worlds is stated to be narrow and gradually-widening. Why give the humans years to build extra defenses or plan an offensive? More importantly, the last ones stayed to guard after they read the offensive plan from the scientists...they had no clue that their weakness was discovered before that. Sounds more like a McConnell idea. Out of sight, out of mind. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On July 14 2013 10:19 acker wrote: + Show Spoiler + It's built to kill giant monsters, why wouldn't you weaponize the reactor? + Show Spoiler + physically impossible | ||
|
alypse
2771 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Unless you use weapons-grade uranium for the fuel. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On July 14 2013 10:58 acker wrote: + Show Spoiler + Unless you use weapons-grade uranium for the fuel. + Show Spoiler + no, reactors cannot explode like a bomb no matter what happens. The geometry makes it physically impossible. just having weapons grade material doesn't set off a nuclear bomb. It requires very specific design and has to be assembled in a single mass http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can't_a_nuclear_power_reactor_explode_like_a_fission_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design | ||
|
nanospartan
649 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 11:11 N.geNuity wrote: + Show Spoiler + just having weapons grade material doesn't set off a nuclear bomb. It requires very specific design and has to be assembled in a single mass http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can't_a_nuclear_power_reactor_explode_like_a_fission_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design + Show Spoiler + Current reactors are designed specifically to prevent nuclear incidents, that's why they go through the small rods and failsafes business. There's absolutely no reason why nuclear reactors cannot be built to achieve an uncontrolled nuclear reaction via a gun-type bomb (or even implosion), if that is considered a design feature rather than a bug. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On July 14 2013 11:51 acker wrote: + Show Spoiler + Current reactors are designed specifically to prevent nuclear incidents, that's why they go through the small rods and failsafes business. There's absolutely no reason why nuclear reactors cannot be built to achieve an uncontrolled nuclear reaction via a gun-type bomb (or even implosion), if that is considered a design feature rather than a bug. edit: I should say the movie is fun lol. I enjoyed it. + Show Spoiler + I don't mean to detract the thread too much but nuclear reactors are physically impossible to be a bomb you cannot have a reactor and a bomb mechanism in the same place; nuclear reactors cannot just stick in pure U-235 for the reactor. The fuel is in a geometry that includes spacing, cladding, etc etc etc (or even more simply, the fuel itself is uranium oxide, TRISO pellets, etc; the fuel is not just a chunk of single uranium mass). you cannot get a bomb from the geometry. going supercritical also does not make a bomb. a good example is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core which was Pu-239 pit (weapons grade plutonium) that went supercritical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_(nuclear_weapon) this is of interest to me because I am a nuclear engineer student** *not quite finished yet, should clarify that | ||
|
LambtrOn
United States671 Posts
On July 14 2013 10:53 alypse wrote: I suppose you guys watched it in 3D right? Should I watch the movie in 3D or not? You should just not see it. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 12:05 N.geNuity wrote: + Show Spoiler + I don't mean to detract the thread too much but nuclear reactors are physically impossible to be a bomb you cannot have a reactor and a bomb mechanism in the same place; nuclear reactors cannot just stick in pure U-235 for the reactor. The fuel is in a geometry that includes spacing, cladding, etc etc etc (or even more simply, the fuel itself is uranium oxide, TRISO pellets, etc; the fuel is not just a chunk of single uranium mass). you cannot get a bomb from the geometry. going supercritical also does not make a bomb. a good example is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core which was Pu-239 pit (weapons grade plutonium) that went supercritical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_(nuclear_weapon) this is of interest to me because I am a nuclear engineer + Show Spoiler + I defer to your field experience. That said, why can't the fuel simply be pure uranium? Is it impossible to maintain a controlled chain reaction? | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On July 14 2013 10:53 alypse wrote: I suppose you guys watched it in 3D right? Should I watch the movie in 3D or not? The 3D was well done for this movie. There were ample scenes where the 3D was really cool such as the HUD popping up, the fights, the water effects, etc. One of the better 3D movies that didn't feel half assed in order to have a "in 3D" marketing ploy. | ||
|
epicanthic
Hong Kong295 Posts
It's robots beating the shit out of giant beasts. That's what you go in expecting, and that's exactly what you get, with mindblowing visuals. It's one of those movies where you go in to be entertained and wowed, and it completely does just that. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On July 14 2013 12:24 acker wrote: + Show Spoiler + I defer to your field experience. That said, why can't the fuel simply be pure uranium? Is it impossible to maintain a controlled chain reaction? + Show Spoiler + well its less about the criticality stuff and more about what a reactor actually needs to do. Uranium metal won't have the properties good for a reactor or as a fuel form since it can oxidize readily and burn/melt, plus uranium is mined in the form of uranium oxides anyways (in the near future, maybe 15-20 years, japan and US should be good at uranyl extraction from seawater, which basically will mean infinite uranium supply). And briefly googling myself uranium metal isn't a good waste form. Having all the fuel chunked together in 1 place isn't going to be a good way to heat up a shitton of water as it flows by, at least in my mind. All a reactor does is heat up water in a fancy way, so it's most important on how to heat up the water the best---having the UO2 pellets in easily assembled fuel arrays spaced apart just makes the heat distribution across the reactor not all concentrated in one place, which is good for the water and good to not melt your reactor core and have a good temperature profile. The fuel assemblies in a reactor is going to expand and have a lot of thermal stress on it because it's going to be in a very hot environment, and you don't want to have the fuel experience an actual meltdown instead of what a "Pacific Rim" meltdown is I suppose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown uranium metal melts at lower temperatures than the oxide forms; reactor's aren't really about criticality conerns, it's about heat removal from the system (which hopefully get turned into electric generation!). Of course, the heat will be determined by the power level the plant is working at, so you control the power level by controlling criticality (i.e. number of fissions going on) as far as being able to control solid materials, criticality goes though the first nuclear "reactors" or criticality tests are just various chunks of material afaik like chicago pile 1 was a bunch of uranium sitting around or the other stuff I linked to [demon core plutonium], but those aren't actually "reactors" for electric generation. i should clarify I am a student in nuclear engineering, really only know the "basics". Of course, people who have worked 40 years in engineering still feel like they only know the "basics" then there is proliferation concerns always. | ||
|
Phtes
United States370 Posts
| ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
| ||
