Internet Video Thread
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
MaxBuzz
Well-known member
Too many electronics in US trucks, shorted out by water during hurricane relief
The USA sold the Studebaker US6 truck to the USSR there is no electronics (I recently learned that they were not seen in the USA)
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Thats social media nonsense. Even the USA don't use standard trucks for the hard disaster relief in flooded areas (Like what FEMA and the national guard units do), and in Europe, only a nuclear explosion on top stops a Unimog.
Of course, the comparison looks less fun, if you compare by car class, like allroad vs allroad, SUV vs SUV....how many in Russia drive a Lada Niva, how would the more popular car models like the Lada Granta or Lada Venta survive?
Last edited:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
And? West German concrete pumps had been involved in the construction of the Chernobyl sarcophagus and played even a vital role there. Now, we both wouldn't go so far to claim, that the USSR didn't have such pumps, right? But the west German ones had higher power and had already been able to be remote controlled.
Piorun
Well-known member
It reminds me a bit of the movie "Twister"
MaxBuzz
Well-known member
By the way, the joker robot and again problems with electronics (Soviet robots were controlled through a wire)
Piorun
Well-known member
The PZL P.11c was the most advanced fighter of the world in 1934 - as well as the very first allied fighter that managed to shot down Nazi German and Soviet aircraft in the Second World War. Its victims included such machines as Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, Junkers Ju 87, Heinkel He 111, Dornier Do 17, Tupolev SB-2, Polikarpov R-5 and many others. During the 1939 Defensive War, the German and Soviet aggressors lost jointly over 120 aircraft due to activities of Polish military aviation. This particular P.11c is the sole survivor and it served in the 121st Fighter Squadron.
steph
Well-known member
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Actually. it had been three robots. All failed, but no all by radiation. Too often, the Soviet operators had simply not read the manual. The heavy "Joker" one simply got stuck after molten tar got in the drivetrain, and might have been recoverable, if they followed the instructions. There had been a smaller robot, which took measurements inside the building, until its electronics fried. A third one was supposed to clear the roof with a shovel, but this robot disappeared during transport and was never seen again.
There is the urban myth, that this "Joker" was a Bundesgrenzschutz robot, but that is wrong. It was especially developed for reactor accidents had the nuclear research center of Jülich, like the other two. But never for a accident like this.
MaxBuzz
Well-known member
yes, there were two extremes - this is an accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant where they studied the instructions until everything went away by itself
and accidents on US railroads where there are no manuals (by the way, in Russia it is forbidden to transport chemicals by rail, only components that are mixed upon arrival of all trains are allowed)
Last edited:
TheShuttleExperience
Well-known member
Not by itself but by plate tectonics/act of nature.
It's very different to Tschernobyl by the way, which was a combination of human error and the design of the reactor.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Not quite. We had the same safety discussion about the BWRs in Germany before. The (second generation) safety concept was terribly flawed and not adequate. Also that the mobile generators did not fit to the frequency needed in the plant and the fire fighters not being able to fit their hoses to the plant, until special gear was brought in....
Piorun
Well-known member
Last year when I talked with my Japanese teacher briefly on the issue of Fukushima, he made a comment, in a general manner however, that the design of the Fukushima No. 1 Power Plant at the time of the disaster appeared to be already obsolete (and, that was an "American technology of the 1960s", as he highlighted), whereby the nearby Fukushima No. 2 Power Plant had been built with a more recent, and indigenous Japanese technology (hinting that this difference of technical levels was the reason why the Power Plant No. 2 managed to survive, in contrast to the Power Plant No. 1, in the situation when the two power plants were exposed to comparable conditions of the tsunami strike). In my opinion, the seawall protecting the Power Plant No. 1 should have been built higher - the power plant survived the earthquake itself, but was helpless against the wave produced by the earthquake beneath the ocean...
, Spanish 
and Portuguese
:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Note that it was no harmless situation in Fukushima Daini ("#2") as well, the difference was only that in that powerplant, one external powerline still worked and the safety systems thus as well. It was also terribly flooded and out of diesel generators, but with the power of the remaining power line, they managed to cool the reactor with the RCIC first and then installed an makeshift emergency cooling line there, since the RCIC was not capable of sustained operation. The other safety system, ECCS, was damaged by earthquake and tsunami.
I don't think that higher sea-walls could prevent the next accident, because there will always be a higher wave (Don't make me recite "Trutz blanke Hans" there). I think more important is that the critical gear has to stay intact even when their building is flooded. Also all new powerplants planned should consider the effects of climate change, for example making sure that their primary heat sink is always available and can last through heat waves. Warmer water in reserviors of rivers means always that the efficiency of the powerplant drops.
Piorun
Well-known member
Higher walls of course will not guarantee prevention of every next flooding, still they might absorb a part of increased impetus of such larger waves and decrease them. They are the first "line of defence" against flooding, not the only one, therefore further protective solutions are inevitable - and just like as you said, they should be constantly being improved to keep the critical equipment intact. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and this universal rule applies to nuclear power as well. From what I know, higher temperatures have already become a noticeable concern when it comes to reactor coolant - the problem exists now and it will be only becoming stronger.
Similar threads
