>>65077880
energy conversion loss?

>>65077880
If the prop/shaft stops for any reason you get a turbine trip and will probably need to scram the reactor and vent the secondary loop
By using a turboelectric drive you can just disengage the clutch and keep operating the reactor as normal

File: 1724104021811.gif (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB GIF

>>65077880
Where can I buy a Toz-34 in the United States?

>>65077880
The kind of machinery required for full high-speed turboelectric drive (>30 kt) is big and heavy. Plus there are conversion losses, as anon >>65077916 mentioned.

>>65077975
>is big and heavy.
Was. Was. Especially generators because now they can be direct drive operating at turbine RPM without down gear.

>>65077880
Complexity can be a factor. You end up replacing teh reduction gearing/gearbox with bigger generators and motors.

It allows for better compartmentalization, but I guess that is not much of factor today.

>>65077999
>Was
Yes, which is why the latest SS-something-N designs from pretty much everybody are now turboelectric. This was not the case 20 years ago.

>>65077880
Direct drive is more efficient. Noise is very important for submarines but not so important for surface vessels.

>>65077880
>Why do most American and Russian nuclear ships directly drive the propeller instead of using turbo-electric drives if the latter is supposedly quieter and more responsive?
b-but they don't???

all Russian icebreakers have nuclear Turbo electric powertrains (which is the only relevant / working vessel Russia makes today)
new Columbia-class will be turbo electric as well

the major argument for the old US GE reactors + turbines was passive circulation
which was incredible quite for a nuclear propulsion at the time
and they just reused the same design everywhere...

also electric propulsion only got good in like the last ~20y
before that big electric motors were pretty shit in literally any metric (due to under investments and no use cases)

>>65077880
You get more maximum power with mechanical linkages. Electrical motors have a max torque before the wiring starts to melt.

>>65078215
>before that big electric motors were pretty shit in literally any metric (due to under investments and no use cases)
I think some industrial electric motors have been quite efficient for a very long time, but those could typically only run efficiently at one speed dictated by the load, the AC frequency, their internal construction and stuff like that. Not ideal for a vehicle, especially since the vehicle would somehow have to generate that exact AC supply, too.
Modern power electronics have gotten very good. Not surprised to see them finding more applications.

>>65078258
>I think some industrial electric motors have been quite efficient for a very long time, but those could typically only run efficiently at one speed dictated by the load
Correct. That kind of setup was pretty common for cargo ships going back to the 1970's, same with diesel-electric locomotives, and the colossal scale earthmoving machinery like the big draglines and mining shovels. It works well running at constant speed, it's not good for much of anything else.

>>65078258
>I think some industrial electric motors have been quite efficient for a very long time
it's not the motor efficiency directly but everything around
e.g. ABB Azipod was a pretty big revolution in the 90s and it only got actually good around the early 2000s (thus my ~20y)
added like ~10-15% cargo capacity

and like you said, better power electronic got way more efficient as well

modern maritime AIM or PMVM motors also got extremely small, light and robust
and most of the development happened in the last 2 decades

for the future
HTS Motors are like 2-5y away from the first commercial model
and bigger fully battery electric ships with tiny, effectively maintenance free DC motors also started to hit the market in the last year

Electric generators, motors and circuits are much better just in the last few years, but they're at car scale and not ship scale. Supercritical CO2 turbines are slowly becoming a reality too.

Upgrades take time and military tech needs some reliability testing before they cancel the project and continue to use the same 60 year old equipment.

>>65078344
Ironically, if civvie nuke propulsion becomes a thing, it would make military nuke propulsion (for smaller surface ships) more attractive. Yes, there were attempts in the past, but only as limited series.

Should I get my mp5 receiver flat from rtg or hkparts?

Are Armslist or Tacswap worth it for private sales?

>>65077880
Because they are inferior
/Thread

>>65078815
There aren't a ton of alternatives. If you have patience for dealing with Craigslist tier bullshit and about 3/4 of all people you deal with on those platforms being scammers then good deals can be had.
>>65077972
They were imported briefly by Remington as the "Spartan" series. I don't recall what their model designation for the O/U was or if it was specifically a TOZ-34 but all of those were made by TOZ. They also had SxS and combination guns (rifle over shotgun O/U in different calibers/gauges). Neat stuff, not super well known or sought after, but not cheap either.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1167319639
Looks like the SPR310 is pretty close, although it is a single trigger design rather than double.

Is it possible:
A landmine that explodes and throws an accordion joined circle of blades like that one AA SAM made to saw plane wings off.

Looking to buy a G36 clone and I see companies called S5 Tactical and Tracks and Armaments have them. Anyone here have experience with either? I've seen reviews on YouTube about S5 products but none about TaA

Is the site bugging out again (test)

I want to get my brother a crossbow as a birthday gift. He has plenty of experience with handguns and rifles, has a larger build(6'2" 220lbs), but no experience with bows/crossbows. He would use it for deer hunting, possibly some birds.

I don't know much about them either. What's good? What sucks?

>>65079180
I got a G36 from S5 and only have a little bit of time but it's okay so far. The receiver had a lot of overmolding on the seams that I had to file down and the bolt seems to chew on the follower of the pmag it comes with, but it's running and shoooting fine besides that.
My digging into TaA suggested they simply build guns off the S5 receivers and US parts kits. It also seems to be run by an old /k/fag if that matters to you.

>>65079095
Invent it and try to sell it

>>65078708
>Ironically, if civvie nuke propulsion becomes a thing,
Never.
>let's civilians handle enriched uranium

>>65079747
>implying
just use heavy water brah

>>65077880
Mainly the weight and size required for 4 87,500HP motors is not insignificant and you still need a reduction gearbox on each.

>>65077999
Please provide a source, I'm an industrial electrician and would be amazed if weights have fallen by more than 10% in the megawatt class, these aren't permanent magnet motors like brushless drone motors that have improved a lot.

>>65079747
Both the Koreans and the Chinese are doing R&D on nuclear-powered container ships.

>>65077959
How the fuck do you know all this? I usually fuck up a cup of coffee let alone k owing something like this

>>65080070
He doesn't know it, he's talking out his ass. In fact he's too stupid to interpret the OP diagram. Notice the clutch between the output gearing and the prop shaft.

With a turbo-electric drive there is no clutch, you would simply switch off the motor instead.

>>65078948
Inferior how?

>>65080016
>Please provide a source, I'm an industrial electrician and would be amazed if weights have fallen by more than 10% in the megawatt class
https://prod-edam.honeywell.com/content/dam/honeywell-edam/aero/en-us/products/power-and-propulsion/electric-power/honeywell-1-megawatt-mw-turbogenerator/documents/hon-aero-n61-2229-000-000-1mw-generator-brochure-en.pdf
And it's 19000 rpm so its direct drive to gas turbine no need for reduction gears (and for these rpms gears suck a lot).

>>65080294
I said motors not generators and you need 190 of these to power a Nimitz.

>>65080307
My post >>65077999 was specifically about generators that they improved the most because of the solid state power electronics progress (at these RPM generator produces 1267hz nobody wants, but thanks to modern thyristors rectifier turning that into DC weights only 60lbs).

>>65080317
Fare enough, that is still 29 metric tons of generators for a carrier.

File: __original_drawn_by_arbor_spirit__741a7f69ea5c5342eb457a5b0106b5df~2.jpg (599.4 KB)

599.4 KB JPG

>>65077972
>>65079004
Well does anyone know the import name of the TOZ 34?

>>65077880
This is now a nuclear propulsion thread.

>>65080812
Can we build a nuclear-powered putt-putt boat? It ought to work, I think.

>>65080851
How about a nuclear jet-ski. Divide the nuclear plant into two loops. One small loop powers the feedwater pumps & a general service generator. The main (open) loop simply boils the feedwater and shoots it out the back in a steerable nozzle.