Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. oceangate has Nothing in common with experimental aviation. in aviation carbon fiber is used properly, and modern experimental aircraft are as good or better than certified aircraft if built per the design. Most experimental aircraft have much higher structural and load limits than their certified counterparts.
    5
  2. SMR nuclear is the future
    2
  3.  @vladyslavkarpenko9372  Speaking as a combat engineer who specialized in finding and destorying such things in actual combat..... "not specialized vehicles would be and practically are destroyed with the first antitank mine that they found." ......this is false. yes, a bad design will get destroyed, but a good design will not. A good design uses sacrificial elements extended off the front of the demining vehicle with a blast shield. We have used many experimental solutions in combat, and modified them, and even made our own in the field with success. don't underestimate a mechanically inclined farmer. Just becasue some people have died, doesn't mean it can't be done. How many of those farmers weren't trying to demine and were actually just trying to farm and hit a mine? those don't count as failed demining attempts.
    2
  4. when I was in Afghanistan, I saw tons of marked minefields as a result of the Russian invasion decades earlier.
    2
  5.  @LastGoatKnight  the coolant water carries heat, not radiation.
    2
  6. comparing private efforts of just a few years to a decade of gov effort and billions invested is disingenuous.
    2
  7. the only reason nuclear wont succeed is due to gov barriers. in the long run nuclear is cost effective, but requires long-term buiness planning.
    2
  8. SMR nuclear energy would be easier and probably much cheaper
    1
  9. war
    1
  10. If you don't support Nuclear Energy, you're not an environmentalist. If you claim to care about the environment, but oppose nuclear energy, you're a hypocrite and a liar (about caring about the environment).
    1
  11. self destruct feature?
    1
  12. skipped the foam layer due to cost? I can afford foam, it's not THAT expensive!
    1
  13. SMR nuclear is the future
    1
  14. Virgin Galactic's failure is not even comparable. the pilot was experienced, a test pilot, knew the risks. They screwed up. that's on teh test pilot. Could they have done better in teh design? yes, but hindsight is 20/20. there is no regulation that would have prevented that. Regulation is NOT the answer to every failure. You CANNOT anticipate every possible failure. OceanGate took senseless shortcuts that even amateur YouTubers don't take, ignored expert advice repeatedly, and were taking paying passengers. that's a LOT different.
    1
  15. what a terrible video. you clearly have no clue how they work.
    1
  16. If you want to know how to live in moon dust, just ask Iraq veterans. There are solutions.
    1
  17. NASA got us started. But now it's time for private industry to take over.
    1
  18. SMR nuclear, paired with those vertical weight lifting grid storage, little solar on homes where applicable, and a mix of other tech where viable could probably get us pretty far. If we focus on less overall usage (higher efficiencies), then focus on SMR nuclear and the weight towers/shafts for grid storage as the core power grid.
    1
  19.  @bronzedivision  SMRs will have more limited output per reactor, with less buffer for a surge in demand. they also likely wont power Everything on the grid either. So a little grid storage is not a bad thing to help with surges while additional systems are ramping up and coming online to meet the additional demand. I'm just taking a more realistic approach that is not a "silver bullet" and acknowledges that we can't rebuild the entire power infrastructure overnight like leftists think we can do with their Magical Green New Deal.
    1
  20. need to Google "Albion Bowers" and his research into Prandtl's wing twist theory from the 1920s. Can get faster turning blades, with higher efficiency and Significant reductions in noise.
    1
  21. SMR nuclear is the answer
    1
  22. farm fields will be the easiest. rollers and flails to essentially add a pre-plowing/disking/planting operation. just have to go over teh field one extra time with a demining attachment. still risky, but they have to cover every square inch of land anyways, and they are going to plow/plant teh land afterwards anyways so who care if you brute force it a bit. They can demine a large area relatively quickly. But this still leaves tree lines, foot paths, yards, playgrounds, dirt roads, forests, etc.
    1
  23. you're making up baseless nonsense without justification. you just hate nuclear and will make up any lies to perpetuate your hate. SMRs can use nuclear waste
    1
  24. SMR nuclear is the future
    1
  25. I will gladly rent my property to house an SMR reactor.
    1
  26. SMR nuclear is the answer
    1
  27.  @RubyRhod  The US has enough nuclear waste to fuel the nation for 100yrs on SMR. It uses far less resources (though you claimed endless) than solar, wind, etc. Has no storage issues. is safe, can't melt down, uses very little fuel per reactor, and the nuclear material isn't able to be weaponized.
    1
  28.  @RubyRhod  No, SMR is being used to describe a specific type of scaled down reactor that uses the latest technologies. They are all meltdown-proof, secure, use little radioactive material, fit in approximately the size of a 40ft connex or smaller. etc. This category of reactors is the future, as much as nuclear naysayers deny it. It is the only viable large scale solution. Solar and wind have all sorts of issues, and SMR nuclear can be used to convert existing coal and natural gas power plants, bring more decentralized power to more targeted areas, etc. They are safe, can be mass produced, don't take years to make, and can be installed anywhere, and can run on existing piles of radioactive waste, thus reducing the already miniscule stockpiles of waste we've created even more. I'd volunteer to have one installed in my backyard to power my community if they would let me.
    1
  29.  @RubyRhod  Multiple companies in multiple countries have developed teh tech. US, Canada, countries in Europe, China... But most countries require gov permission to implement. The green thumbs and the gov are standing in the way, have been for decades. So we make our case, work to gain public support to overpower the gov and make it happen. But the green thumbs prefer disrupting weather patterns with massive wind farms that need to be replaced every 20yrs and get put into massive landfills when they are torn down. Or solar that consumes massive amounts of land and requires ridicuolous levels of maintenance agaisnt weather, damage, etc, and doesn't even work without wind or sun.
    1
  30.  @RubyRhod  you can believe what you want. but I can't/won't post a video worth of stuff in the comments. and my time is better spent talking to people who are more intelligent, able to research on their own, and who actually have an open mind. I don't need to convince everyone, just enough people. You're clearly not one of those people. A side note though...why do you believe Scott Manley? He's as random a person to trust on this as anyone. He's not a nuclear scientist after all. Also, there are tons of videos already on YouTube that cover the topic in great detail. but that requires you to lift a finger.
    1
  31.  @RubyRhod  If you expect people to spoon feed you everything, and explain complex physics in the comments section of YouTube, you're none to bright. This is not a place for physics essays.
    1
  32. if you think 150MW is a lot, look at how much energy a Supercomputer consumes.
    1
  33. "grew-man"? Grum-an
    1
  34. people: "Carbon fiber is the answer to everything!" people: "3D printing is the answer to everything!" it's always so easy to spot the people who have no clue
    1
  35. yet how many people died? modern SMR can't melt down.
    1
  36. SMR nuclear is far easier and simpler. SMR nuclear is the only viable answer. SMR nuclear is the future.
    1
  37.  @93hothead  SMR nuclear are impervious to mach 2 fighter jets, head on train crashes, etc. SMR nuclear doesn't melt down, doesn't use weapons grade material.
    1
  38.  @alexii911  you didn't try very hard. tons of videos of destructive tests. plenty of science channels talking about SMR nuclear. and you misunderstood the bit about weapons grade fuel.
    1
  39. P-47N is the only variant of the P-47 that is a contender for the list of best fighters of WW2 in my opinion. The P-51, F4U, Ta 152, Sea Fury (maybe?) and others were far superior overall and most outlasted the P-47 in service. P-47 was tough (many stories demonstrating legendary toughness), and good at high altitude, good in a dive.....but there were too many airplanes that were better overall for me to even put it on the top 10 list if judged objectively. Objectively, the F4U seems to be the all-around best fighter, and it took me some time to accept that myself. The F4U was a great dive bomber, fast, maneuverable, tough, had a 4,000 lb bomb load, could fly off carriers, outlasted many other fighters such as the P-47, P-38, F8F Bearcat, F6F Hellcat, etc.
    1
  40. basically, they never should have used carbon fiber at all
    1
  41. SMR nuclear is the future
    1
  42. Can't solve a problem you didn't know you had. Know that you know you have a problem, you solve it. We will solve it. Even if part of teh solution is mandatory cleaning time baked into the missions and EVAs.
    1
  43. SMR can reuse the Nuclear waste of traditional nuclear reactors, dramatically reducing the amount of waste. It's estimated SMR reactors could power 100% of US energy for 100yrs just on existing nuclear waste fuel alone. Recycling spent fuel reduces its radioactivity and massively reduces its decade period. It also reduces the amount of waste that is highly dangerous. SMRs cannot melt down. Not only that, each one contains very little fuel. The fuel used cannot cause a nuclear explosion. SMRs significantly reduce teh amount of storage needed for waste. And all the nuclear waste in the world today takes up very little space as it is.
    1
  44. F4U is arguably the better ground attacker overall, due to its added usefulness as a dive bomber, larger payload, long range, could out maneuver teh P-47, very fast, could be operated from carriers, carried almost 2x the bombs/rockets of the P-47 and was also tough (though never quite as legendarily tough as the P-47, the one characteristic where the P-47 might have an edge).
    1
  45. F-8 had a variable incidence wing, and they flew for many decades.
    1
  46. nuclear power is continuous...
    1
  47.  @atafakheri8659  I know they hate nuclear, but with continuous output day and night, the battery problem is trivial. But even so, there is a cheap and easy grid battery storage technology that is something like 98% efficient. Lifting and dropping weights in shaft/holes in the ground. Use the motor to winch the weight up during the day, drop the weight to get the energy back at night. No rare metals like lithium needed, no new technology needed, can start building tomorrow. No recycling issues, fire hazards, etc. This tech works perfectly for grid storage.
    1
  48.  @atafakheri8659  you may be right. We see lobbies do this in so many other industries, why not lithium and other markets as well.
    1
  49. the heat signature of an M1 is HUGE. worked with them in OIF and got to se them under thermals plenty.
    1
  50. and the safest
    1
  51. Out turning 3+ faster fighters is far from insurmountable. Saburo Sakai evaded a ridiculous number of F6F Hellcats on his first flight back after injury (Werner Voss did similar in WW1, but rather than escape on one of the many chances he had, he chose to press his luck and ended up fighting to the death). Many other stories from pilots on all sides in similar situations surviving being swarmed and outnumbered. Whether it was Boom and Zoom swarming someone more maneuverable, or the other way around (of course faster planes just run away, so easier in that direction, but there is a story of a P-47 that got caught beneath a bunch of Me109s and managed to survive even when not playing to the P-47 strengths).
    1
  52. SMR nuclear is just so much easier and simpler.
    1
  53. SMR Nuclear is the answer
    1
  54. This is what I teach people. First reduce consumption, then you wont need as big a solar system for your home. Same for the grid. Better yet, SMR nuclear.
    1
  55.  @hirokoai3013  Climate change is not the emergency that is claimed. I have proven this to many alarmists effectively. That being said, there are ways to reduce pollution and such. One is NOT focusing on electric vehicles. the vast majority of all energy produced/consumed is by Buildings of all types. The only way to power all buildings reliably and cleanly is SMR Nuclear power. Massed wind farms change the climate, cause droughts, etc. They last about 20yrs and can't be recycled, and have significant maintenance and upkeep that constantly needs to be done. Not to mention the massive number of birds killed if what we have now were scaled up massively. Wind turbines are bad for the environment and a re not sustainable. Solar has geo-political issues. People and nations have repeatedly tried to make solar work, yet everyone so far has failed for legit reasons. Agriculture is undergoing change already as we speak, regardless of energy changes. the greatest impediment to that change though is corporatism (big corporate farming operators lobbying the gov, and gov regulations preventing innovation, gov farming subsidies to these big operators etc.). Central planning cannot solve any of these issues in a real and meaningful manner that addresses the needs of everyone. Energy generation/use, regardless of source (solar, wind, nuclear, coal, oil, etc) all generate heat. The greatest centers of heat generation globally are large cities with their pavement, concrete, glass, and all the energy needed for heating, AC, lights, cooking, etc. Regardless if it is all electric or not, it all generates the same amount of heat as if powered by gas, wood, etc. You cannot violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.
    1
  56.  @hirokoai3013  You seem well up on things. I agree largely with everything you said. Yes, Fusion would be better, but it's far from ready, but SMR is ready now. Yes, some places like islands will not be so negatively affected by wind, but there are places in the US you can see the side effects downwind of large wind farms already. Same as you can see the large downwind effects of large cities. I don't believe in silver bullet solutions, and know there are exceptions to everything (even when I make blanket statements for the sake of argument). But I don't see solar and wind working as their large proponents claim or wish it would. Reality is simply not as simple as their idealism requires.
    1
  57. such as? Russia being stupid and reckless has nothing to do with modern nuclear energy technology.
    1
  58.  @VictorLarsen-fy9ls  And Russia dumps spent nuclear fuel in the ocean, builds a reactor in Chernobyl in the stupidest way possible, threatens to nuke everyone every couple years, threatened to turn a Ukrainian reactor into a dirty bomb, has a nuclear submarine disaster almost every 10yrs, etc. " the United States enriches about 30% of its fuel there." recent development, and only because they were CHEAP.
    1