Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Please stay on topic rather than attempting to redesign Transatomic's reactor. I'm sure you can start another thread for that.
Yes, of course, that is why I started and ended my last post with the comment that such topics are worthy of their own thread. If someone starts such a thread then I'll certainly read it and contribute what I can.
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
But no one from Transatomic reads this forum, so your time is wasted in such an effort.
I'm not trying to redesign TAP reactors, or solicit a response from them. What I am soliciting is an insight from the members of this forum on aspects of TAP reactor design that I may have missed. I do not recall reading anything from TAP that would indicate that they propose doing any actinide extraction from the fuel for the purposes of neutron savings and/or milking off valuable isotopes. If someone has seen that proposed in any of the papers from TAP then I'd appreciate someone highlighting that for me.
If someone would like to discuss the why and how of actinide extraction in a WAMSR or WAMSR-like reactor then that is absolutely something for another thread, and something I'd like to discuss sometime on this forum. I have my own theories why TAP does not have actinide extraction, which I'd like to discuss further in another thread at some point.
Kiteman,
You've brought up your LFTR derived reactor proposal several times now in different threads, if you really want to have it discussed and critiqued by the members of this forum then please create a thread for it under the appropriate heading. It is helpful to compare and contrast different reactor designs such as those from yourself and TAP but this can get off topic quickly as Mr. Sorensen has reminded us.