4 ms·

Also cool: uses passive heat pipes rather than coolant, further reducing the number of moving parts (making it that much more reliable).

• namibj 8y ago
  I still wouldn't want that much U-235 in a critical configuration in my home. If something goes wrong, I'm not a superfund site, I'm the reason why someone started WW3/why my neighbourhood is no more.
  • nitrogen 8y ago
    Why would it explode? Don't you need high purity and high compression with perfect timing for that? Wouldn't it just get really hot in a reactor design?
    • bronson 8y ago
      It's not easy to contain really hot things. If it gets out, it won't be a nuclear explosion but, if water or combustibles are around, there will be some sort of explosion.
    • yongjik 8y ago
      Frankly I'd be more worried about "passive heat pipes filled with liquid sodium" (read: "pipes filled with substance that transmutes water to fire"). Not in my backyard.
    • azernik 8y ago
      In order to get a full-yield nuclear detonation, yes, but even a "fizzle" still has the power of a good-size conventional bomb.
    • namibj 8y ago
      A criticality event is _bad_. If you are near it, you get cancer. And there are many ways a small nuclear reactor can malfunction without that much yield, and still ruin my neighbourhood. I have to agree, the crater is the worst case.
  • larkeith 8y ago
    Not to mention the whole no radiation shielding thing.