Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. The Soviets only built about 55 thousand T34s during the war. The difference is that the Soviets kept building them into the 1950s.
    1
  2. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  3. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  4. He’s Irish.
    1
  5. There’s lots of work to be done, but it’s going very quickly.
    1
  6. It didn’t have any real problems in the flight envelope it was designed for, and all planes have problems outside of the envelope they’re designed for.
    1
  7. The Web telescope cost so much because it’s complex and the construction was badly managed.
    1
  8. Wind and solar don’t work, and their unreliability causes massive price increases to the whole system. Nuclear, when built in a regulatory system that isn’t actively hostile, doesn’t suffer massive delays.
    1
  9. Sullying a lifeless rock? Do you understand what the words you’re using mean?
    1
  10. Spent fuel isn’t anything near that toxic. You’ve been watching too much Greenpeace propaganda.
    1
  11. French and British tanks had some major deficiencies. The only thing reason the Germans had a problem with them was German tanks weren’t armed well enough.
    1
  12. You’re government band the only thing that can get us off of fossil fuels, nuclear decades ago, so no amount of effort is going to be enough.
    1
  13. The “too cheap to meter” was made up by marketers, not engineers.
    1
  14. The Beaufighter might be more underrated.
    1
  15. I always find people who argue that the Germans could have done it hilariously ill informed.
    1
  16. The fatality rate for infantry was 18% the fatality rate for tankers was 3% in the US army. I personally would care all that much if the other guy has a bigger meaner armored box if I have the choice of no armored box and armored box. The US designed their armored box so they could get as many made and kept running as possible.
    1
  17. That’s not terraforming. By definition every climate on Earth is earth-like.
    1
  18. Solar is a terrible idea on the moon, so it doesn’t really matter.
    1
  19. The best solution is to get rid of the problem all together, and just use nuclear power.
    1
  20.  @thomaspriewasser6660  why would you need fuel? An electric climber on a tether to the ground is by far the easiest and most efficient way of getting to the ring. The ring itself is likely to be proving the power with solar panels. Also, you underestimate the difficulty of operating a hypersonic plane or the discomfort of a 20 hour flight.
    1
  21. WW2 was a war of numbers. There were 1,500 Tigers built. There were 50,000 Shermans built. The Sherman was also designed to not have a mechanical problems for 2,000 miles, and when there was a problem, it was quick and easy to fix. All the German tanks were over engineered, which caused they a lot maintenance and repairs when they needed every tank they could produce.
    1
  22. The only viable option, particularly with the 2 week long day night cycle.
    1
  23. There are a lot of stupid and unnecessary build regulations, but there are some very important safety regulations, many of which are written in blood.
    1
  24. You can only reduce demand by about 20% before it starts making people poorer
    1
  25. Ken Smith, we’re talking about a lot more than just houses. Car factories, server farms, etc., that make and run the cars, smartphones, game consoles, etc, we use can use a small city’s worth electricity, and they all do the best at optimizing their efficiency to stay competitive. There’s a huge amount of electricity being used in the background people don’t see, and no matter how efficient, living a modern 1st world lifestyle requires huge amounts of energy.
    1
  26. It was designed for air combat, and ground attack planes were common for the larger air forces.
    1
  27. gurnug, the US stop building Shermans a couple months after the war was over, while the Soviets kept building T34s until 1958. Those aren’t comparable.
    1
  28. Drop the unreliable renewables and just use the nuclear 24/7/365.
    1
  29. If it’s spent fuel, 97% unused uranium, from PWR/BWR, we store it until something like IFR or MSR can burn it. The waste from MSRs and other advanced reactors, we remove the useful isotopes then encase what’s in concrete and drop it in a hole for a couple hundred years until it’s inert.
    1
  30. If you’re asking if the fuel system is pressurized, yes, all liquid fueled rockets have pressurized systems. If you’re asking about a cabin area, no, the superheavy is the booster, so it won’t have people in it.
    1
  31. Pressurization isn’t critical to structural integrity.
    1
  32. The terminology of the time was trubo-super charger.
    1
  33.  @4literv6  nuclear is blocked at every turn, while renewables have complete government support, and yet, renewables are only equal to 50 year old reactors. If we actually supported nuclear, it would blow everything out of the water.
    1
  34. At the time it was called a turo-super charger
    1
  35.  @clarkkent9080  if any other power source had to go through even half of what nuclear does, they would be more expensive then nuclear. Also, that’s only in the west. South Korea has built multiple plants for a fraction of the cost.
    1
  36.  @clarkkent9080  you’re half right. Delays are the main reason for cost overruns, but it has nothing to do with building to high standards. Nuclear in the US has massive regulatory and legal challenges
    1
  37. He was trying to make the nomenclature less confusing, but probably cause more in the process
    1
  38. Wind doesn’t kill anyone when it fails because it’s already done killing people while the minerals are being minded and the turbines are being installed. Also, look how many people were killed by Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
    1
  39. Capitalist democracies and communism are fundamentally apposed to each other. Also, the Soviets did a lot more spying on the West than the other way around.
    1
  40. Batteries are about their limit. They’re already at energy densities comparable to high explosives.
    1
  41. Nuclear as a technology fits your criteria better than anything else. The problem nuclear has is purely political.
    1
  42. Only about 20% of the time were Shermans fighting other tanks, and only a fraction of that was fighting the big cats that needed the 17 pounder.
    1
  43. The light from the fires is being refracted through the water.
    1
  44. Said every socialists before their country’s economy imploded.
    1
  45. Passively safe designs. Battery storage is the most expensive energy source on earth
    1
  46.  @grantdawson767  thanks for taking care of that for me.
    1
  47. That’s why SpaceX are planning to go beyond LEO.
    1
  48. After the first couple test models have been through testing, SpaceX are planning on sending missions to the moon, Mars, and possibly further out into the solar system.
    1
  49. Or we can just dig the batteries nature has already made that do all of that.
    1
  50. The future isn’t making storage, but using the natural storage of nuclear fuel.
    1