Talk:A2W reactor

Concerns

As a former babysitter of A2W octuplets, I was tickled pink to see the site but I think the following errors may at some point in the future be addressed (perhaps by myself in a couple months):

I'll check the ship's site for information on ship's speed, but the number used currently isn't the familiar number I am used to seeing and for a rough number seems a bit 'unfamiliar'. It may be the latest value, but tonight it is late and I don't feel like looking it up right now.

Twice there is a reference to the R.O. controlling power. This is not how a PWR works. Usually a guy with a big set of valve handwheels standing next to the R.O. will change steam demand, as RX power will follow automatically. Rod shims are used to adjust coolant temperature and do not affect power while steaming.

While there are numerous numerical references based on plant parameters included as well, they are no doubt taken from a design standpoint, and therefore not terribly accurate in their age. I would considerate them overkill, and would like to change the values to less specific rough numbers.

There is a bit of confusion on plant layout. I would like to change the 4 large electric pumps per RX to "One per S/G". Perhaps mention seperately that there are 4 S/G's per RX.

Along with Rx power ops, perhaps a brief segway of catapult operations should be included, as we did still use the damn things, and technically it was an aircraft carrier.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm pretty much writing to myself at some future date, so, me good luck and hopefully I won't break any ambiguous boundaries set forth by the atomic energy act of 1954 when I change the layout. Perhaps I will read other plant design pages prior to changing this one. Not tonight.

P.S. wow I didn't see all the characters at the bottom off the edit page earlier. That's really cool.

Phil 15:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. RO doesn't control reactor power above the POAH--that's the throttleman's (throttleperson now) job.

I think that the list of reactors in the article should be rearranged to reflect the actual placement on the ship: 1A-1B, 4A-4B, 2A-2B, 3A-3B.

Also, though it's been amost 10 years since I've sat panel, wasn't Tave somewhere in the 507 range (504-510) during normal ops? Correct me if I'm wrong, but above that, we had to refer to some tables in the RPM for Tave values during cat ops.

Phil

Agreed to the throttleman controlling reactor power, this is a fact. Maximum speed of USS Enterprise (CVN - 65) was in excess of 40 knots. The actual value is classified information.

192.104.67.121 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Casey (CVN-65 1996-2002)

electrical generation capacity

Could the Enterprise be used as a floating power plant now that it is out of service, or did it not generate electricity to drive electric motors to drive propellers? Any idea on how much power it could generate? ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

I believe speculation like this constitutes WP:OR and is inappropriate for the article. To answer your question, the article accurately states that steam turbines and reduction gears drove the shafts, though there were also electrical Ship's Service Turbine Generators (SSTG's) that generated electricity for the ship's use. NoiseDeath (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is possible for the Enterprise (or any other Naval ship, for that matter) to supplement shore power at a port in a situation such as a natural disaster that reduces the ability of a port or base to supply electrical power. However, the capacity is not significant in comparison to an electric utility company. Enterprise is a warship. It's purpose was to put military fighter jets within range of military targets. The operating costs would outweigh any potential benefit. 192.104.67.121 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Casey