Advertisement
| htre: Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment No. 3 F. C. Linn, 1962 |
| htre: APEX , 1962 |
| htre: 630A Maritime Nuclear Steam Generator Status Report No. 1 , 1963 |
| htre: 630A Maritime Nuclear Steam Generator Scoping Study , 1962 |
| htre: Laboratory Studies for HTRE Fuel Reprocessing R. D. Cannon, 1961 |
| htre: Nuclear Science Abstracts , 1962 |
| htre: Atomic Accidents James Maheffey, 2021-08-31 From the moment radiation was discovered in the late nineteenth century, nuclear science has had a rich history of innovative scientific exploration and discovery, coupled with mistakes, accidents, and downright disasters. Mahaffey, a long-time advocate of continued nuclear research and nuclear energy, looks at each incident in turn and analyzes what happened and why, often discovering where scientists went wrong when analyzing past meltdowns.Every incident has lead to new facets in understanding about the mighty atom—and Mahaffey puts forth what the future should be for this final frontier of science that still holds so much promise. |
| htre: Atomic America Todd Tucker, 2009-03-03 On January 3, 1961, nuclear reactor SL-1 exploded in rural Idaho, spreading radioactive contamination over thousands of acres and killing three men: John Byrnes, Richard McKinley, and Richard Legg. The Army blamed human error and a sordid love triangle. Though it has been overshadowed by the accident at Three Mile Island, SL-1 is the only fatal nuclear reactor incident in American history, and it holds serious lessons for a nation poised to embrace nuclear energy once again. Historian Todd Tucker, who first heard the rumors about the Idaho Falls explosion as a trainee in the Navy's nuclear program, suspected there was more to the accident than the rumors suggested. Poring over hundreds of pages of primary sources and interviewing the surviving players led him to a tale of shocking negligence and subterfuge. The Army and its contractors had deliberately obscured the true causes of this terrible accident, the result of poor engineering as much as uncontrolled passions. A bigger story opened up before him about the frantic race for nuclear power among the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force -- a race that started almost the moment the nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS), where the meltdown occurred, had been a proving ground where engineers, generals, and admirals attempted to make real the Atomic Age dream of unlimited power. Some of their most ambitious plans bore fruit -- like that of the nation's unofficial nuclear patriarch, Admiral Rickover, whose true submarine, the USS Nautilus, would forever change naval warfare. Others, like the Air Force's billion dollar quest for a nuclear-powered airplane, never came close. The Army's ultimate goal was to construct small, portable reactors to power the Arctic bases that functioned as sentinels against a Soviet sneak attack. At the height of its program, the Army actually constructed a nuclear powered city inside a glacier in Greenland. But with the meltdown in Idaho came the end of the Army's program and the beginning of the Navy's longstanding monopoly on military nuclear power. The dream of miniaturized, portable nuclear plants died with McKinley, Legg, and Byrnes. The demand for clean energy has revived the American nuclear power industry. Chronic instability in the Middle East and fears of global warming have united an unlikely coalition of conservative isolationists and fretful environmentalists, all of whom are fighting for a buildup of the emission-free power source that is already quietly responsible for nearly 20 percent of the American energy supply. More than a hundred nuclear plants generate electricity in the United States today. Thirty-two new reactors are planned. All are descendants of SL-1. With so many plants in operation, and so many more on the way, it is vitally important to examine the dangers of poor design, poor management, and the idea that a nuclear power plant can be inherently safe. Tucker sets the record straight in this fast-paced narrative history, advocating caution and accountability in harnessing this feared power source. |
| htre: Remote Handling of Mobile Nuclear Systems Douglas C. Layman, Gunnar Thorton, 1966 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1971 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1970 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1969 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1968 pt.1: Considers S. 2880 and companion H.R. 14905, to authorize appropriations for AEC. Focuses on general budget and reactor development program; pt.2: Continuation of hearings on AEC FY69 authorization. Appendix includes reports. a. National Accelerator Laboratory, Design Report 1968, Universities Research Associates, prepared by AEC 1968 (p. 1223-1456). b. Report of Ad Hoc Panel on Low-Beta Toroidal Plasma Research, Sept. 1967 (p. 1459-1583). c. Bronco Oil Shale Study, prepared by AEC, Interior Dept, CER Geonuclear Corp., and Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Oct. 13, 1967 (p. 1743-1813). |
| htre: Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, Or Planned in the United States as of ... , 19?? |
| htre: Hearings and Reports on Atomic Energy United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1946 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1968: Reactor development program, March 14 and 15, 1967 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1967 |
| htre: Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, Or Planned in the United States as of June 30, 1967 , 1967 |
| htre: Advanced Exercise Endocrinology Katarina T. Borer, 2013 Advanced Exercise Endocrinology provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between physical activity and hormone function. It is an essential reference for exercise physiologists and physiotherapists researching the connections between exercise, hormone function, and health. |
| htre: Annual Report to Congress of the Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1959 |
| htre: Annual Report to Congress of the Atomic Energy Commission for ... U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1959 |
| htre: Radiation Safety and Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1960 |
| htre: Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, Or Planned in the United States as of June 30, 1968 , 1967 |
| htre: Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1960 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1970 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1969 |
| htre: Thermal Insulation Designs for Gas-cooled Reactors T. D. McLay, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1961 |
| htre: Nuclear Safety , 1959 |
| htre: Photographs, Written Historical and Descriptive Data , 2005 |
| htre: Air University Quarterly Review , 1959 |
| htre: Convair B-36 Peacemaker Graham M Simons, 2024-07-25 The story of the Consolidated B-36 is unique in American aviation history. The aircraft was an interesting blend of concepts proven during the Second World War combined with budding 1950s high-tech systems. The program survived near-cancellation on six separate occasions during an extremely protracted development process. It was also the symbol of a bitter inter-service rivalry between the newly-formed US Air Force and the well-established US Navy over which of which of the two organizations would control the delivery of atomic weapons during the early years of the Cold War. Entering service in 1948, the B-36 was a remarkable design. It was the largest mass-produced piston-engine aircraft ever built, having the longest wingspan of any combat aircraft in history. Importantly, in terms of the developing Cold War at least, the B-36 was the first bomber capable of delivering any of the weapons in America’s nuclear arsenal without modification. To achieve this part of its role, the Peacemaker had an operational range of 10,000 miles, being capable of intercontinental flight without refueling. It is difficult to imagine a modern aircraft remaining airborne for two days without refueling – but such missions were relatively routine for the B-36 crews. while there were, at the time of its service, questions around its flight speed, the Peacemaker flew so high that this was considered of little concern – few fighters of its era could reach the same altitudes, and operational surface-to-air missiles were still in the future. The B-36, despite its seemingly conventional appearance, pushed the state-of-the-art technology further than any other aircraft of its era. Its sheer size brought with it structural challenges, while its high-altitude capabilities led to engine cooling and associated problems. However, all of these were finally overcome, and the B-36 served well as the first ‘Big Stick’ of the Cold War. |
| htre: Radioactive Waste Management , 1989 |
| htre: TID. , 1973 |
| htre: Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Technical Information Center, 1973 |
| htre: Keywords Index to U.S. Government Technical Reports United States. Department of Commerce. Office of Technical Services, 1962 |
| htre: Spectacular Flops Michael Brian Schiffer, 2018-12-31 Many technologies begin life as someone's vision of an ambitious, perhaps audacious, technology that is expected to have a revolutionary impact on consumers-whether families, companies, or societies. However, if this highly touted technology fails prematurely at some point in its life history, it becomes a spectacular flop. Employing a behavioral perspective, this book presents a sample of twelve spectacular flops encompassing the past three centuries-ranging from the world's first automobile to the nuclear-powered bomber. Because technologies may fail from many different causes, spectacular flops pose a special challenge to the author's long-term project of furnishing generalizations about technological change. Instead of constructing generalizations that apply to all spectacular flops, this book provides limited generalizations that pertain to particular groups of technologies bounded by parameters such as long-term development projects and one-off projects. The reader need have no prior familiarity with the technologies because basic principles are introduced as needed. |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, FY74 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1973 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1975 |
| htre: Hearings United States. Congress. Joint Committee ..., 1968 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1974 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1973 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation Fiscal Year 1975 United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1974 |
| htre: AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1975: Reactor research and development; reactor safety research; and applied energy technology United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 1974 |
| htre: Atomic Accidents Jim Mahaffey, 2014-02-04 A “delightfully astute” and “entertaining” history of the mishaps and meltdowns that have marked the path of scientific progress (Kirkus Reviews, starred review). Radiation: What could go wrong? In short, plenty. From Marie Curie carrying around a vial of radium salt because she liked the pretty blue glow to the large-scale disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, dating back to the late nineteenth century, nuclear science has had a rich history of innovative exploration and discovery, coupled with mistakes, accidents, and downright disasters. In this lively book, long-time advocate of continued nuclear research and nuclear energy James Mahaffey looks at each incident in turn and analyzes what happened and why, often discovering where scientists went wrong when analyzing past meltdowns. Every incident, while taking its toll, has led to new understanding of the mighty atom—and the fascinating frontier of science that still holds both incredible risk and great promise. |
| htre: Keywords Index to U.S. Government Technical Reports (permuted Title Index). United States. Department of Commerce. Office of Technical Services, 1962 |
Question: a change in optimal pH can cha…
a change in optimal pH can change the htre dimensiaom shape of aj enzyme Your solution’s ready to go! …
Solved QUESTION 23 Which of the followi…
QUESTION 23 Which of the following is a measure of the balanced Scorecard's customer perspective? O …
Solved a. You are the coordinator of a no…
Business; Operations Management; Operations Management questions and answers; a. You are the …
Solved a. (2pts) Which of the followi…
Question: a. (2pts) Which of the following is a measure of center? 1 Range …
Solved You are the coordinator of a no…
You are the coordinator of a nonprofit that distributes donated items to three local homeless shelters. What …
Question: a change in optimal pH can change the htre …
a change in optimal pH can change the htre dimensiaom shape of aj enzyme Your solution’s ready to go! Enhanced with AI, our expert help has broken down your problem into an easy-to …
Solved QUESTION 23 Which of the following is a measure of - Chegg
QUESTION 23 Which of the following is a measure of the balanced Scorecard's customer perspective? O Defect rates Revenue growth Number of process improvements Number of …
Solved a. You are the coordinator of a nonprofit that - Chegg
Business; Operations Management; Operations Management questions and answers; a. You are the coordinator of a nonprofit that distributes donated items to three local homeless …
Solved a. (2pts) Which of the following is a measure of - Chegg
Question: a. (2pts) Which of the following is a measure of center? 1 Range Correlation Skipped Median Standard Deviation b.
Solved You are the coordinator of a nonprofit that | Chegg.com
You are the coordinator of a nonprofit that distributes donated items to three local homeless shelters. What is the most efficient way to allocate your supplies to meet demand at different …
Solved A colony of ants has an unlimited supply of food and - Chegg
Math; Calculus; Calculus questions and answers; A colony of ants has an unlimited supply of food and resources. If there are initially 10100 ants and there are 2100000 ants after 3 years, write …
Solved When using skinfold calipers to assess body - Chegg
Science; Anatomy and Physiology; Anatomy and Physiology questions and answers; When using skinfold calipers to assess body composition, how should the skin of the suprailiac region be …
Solved Two objects of mass 4 g and 3 g , respectively,move - Chegg
Answer to Two objects of mass 4 g and 3 g , respectively,move. Science; Physics; Physics questions and answers; Two objects of mass 4 g and 3 g , respectively,move parallel to the x …
Solved Two objects of mass 4 g and 2 g, respectively, move - Chegg
Two objects of mass 4 g and 2 g, respectively, move parallel to the x-axis, as shown. The 4 g object overtakes and collides with the 2 g object.
Solved Discrimination by a manager in the hiring process a
Business; Economics; Economics questions and answers; Discrimination by a manager in the hiring process a. decreases the firm's costs b. is evident if a white manager refuses to hire a …
