| Revision as of 17:12, 7 July 2006 editA. B. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,783 edits →Further confusion: mere Brit?← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:43, 11 July 2006 edit undoBrian.Burnell (talk | contribs)522 edits ChevalineNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :"mere" Brit? How about "mighty" Brit? You guys pretty much invented the carrier anyway. And good point about the JFK.--] 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | :"mere" Brit? How about "mighty" Brit? You guys pretty much invented the carrier anyway. And good point about the JFK.--] 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Brits are usually more modest. Though often find Ameriacan usage charming. But I have a request, knowing you are an ex-missile-submariner. | |||
| ::I've uploaded a greatly rewritten text on the Chevaline article. Some suitable pics will follow later when I'm certain about copyright status. Meanwhile I'd be grateful if you would cast an eye over the text. The earlier text was both very inaccurate and POV. In the UK the Chevaline project is still v.politically contentious, in part because in its later period it was not cancelled by Margaret Thatcher, who unfairly IMHO got much of the blame for something begun by three earlier administrations. Whether they love her or hate her few people here regard the saintly Margaret as uncontroversial, and the Chevaline thing is so bound up by folk memories of her, and is still rarely mentioned here free from emotional partisan political associations, that I was determined to be especially careful to avoid POV or alienating people; or inciting them to have a pop at it. | |||
| ::I'd be grateful for a fresh pair of eyes, free of UK associations, bearing in mind the broader non-Wiki community who come to Wiki for non-POV source material. Feel free to ask others to do likewise, and to criticise. | |||
| ::The Royal Aeronautical Society Historical Symposium on Chevaline where much of the recent data originates from has published the papers in hardcopy only as ISBN 1-85768-109-6. However there is a free OCR scanned abridged copy available from me as a download for those interested. Its a bit big but can be zipped up. | |||
| ::Regards. ] 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton. | |||
Revision as of 11:43, 11 July 2006
Erm, isn't the title for this a little bit off? Shouldn't it be "United States Naval Reactors"? Elde 08:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies between the vessels listed under each reactor type and the reactors named in the articles describing the individual reactors and vessels (e.g. S3G reactor, USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659), USS Gato (SSN-615) and USS Triton (SSN-586). This will have to be sorted out by somebody with accurate knowledge! EdH 16:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Here's the cause of the confusion: most U.S. nuclear submarines built in the 1960s and 1970s used S5W reactor plants with S3G reactor cores. The S5W design was used for the reactor pressure vessel, the steam generators, piping, pumps, turbines, and all other components outside the actual reactor vessel. Early S5W reactors used the original S5W cores designed for the S5W reactor. Later, however, the Navy began using the core originally designed for the S3G reactor. The S3G reactor was not widely used, but the 3rd version of the S3G core (the assembly of nuclear fuel elements and control rods that fits inside the pressure vessel) became the standard reactor core for most submarines until the introduction of the S6G and S8G reactors to power the much larger Los Angeles class and Ohio class submarines. --A. B. 03:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Further confusion
Why the inclusion of USS JFK (CV67) in this article? As a mere Brit, even I am aware that that ship is conventionally fuelled. Brian.Burnell 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.
- "mere" Brit? How about "mighty" Brit? You guys pretty much invented the carrier anyway. And good point about the JFK.--A. B. 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Brits are usually more modest. Though often find Ameriacan usage charming. But I have a request, knowing you are an ex-missile-submariner.
- I've uploaded a greatly rewritten text on the Chevaline article. Some suitable pics will follow later when I'm certain about copyright status. Meanwhile I'd be grateful if you would cast an eye over the text. The earlier text was both very inaccurate and POV. In the UK the Chevaline project is still v.politically contentious, in part because in its later period it was not cancelled by Margaret Thatcher, who unfairly IMHO got much of the blame for something begun by three earlier administrations. Whether they love her or hate her few people here regard the saintly Margaret as uncontroversial, and the Chevaline thing is so bound up by folk memories of her, and is still rarely mentioned here free from emotional partisan political associations, that I was determined to be especially careful to avoid POV or alienating people; or inciting them to have a pop at it.
- I'd be grateful for a fresh pair of eyes, free of UK associations, bearing in mind the broader non-Wiki community who come to Wiki for non-POV source material. Feel free to ask others to do likewise, and to criticise.
- The Royal Aeronautical Society Historical Symposium on Chevaline where much of the recent data originates from has published the papers in hardcopy only as ISBN 1-85768-109-6. However there is a free OCR scanned abridged copy available from me as a download for those interested. Its a bit big but can be zipped up.
- Regards. Brian.Burnell 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.