| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the S6G reactor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Reactor plant
editS6G technically refers to the Reactor Plant configuration and not specifically the reactor core installed. This page should be considered renaming to S6G Reactor Plant or similar to help differintiate between various reactor cores intalled on the same plant configuration. For instance the first flight 688 class submarines with the SG6 plant had the D1G core 2 reactor intstalled while the rest or any that were refueled upgraded to the D2W reactor core.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean697 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 April 2006
- Typically, the use of "reactor" encompasses the actual pressure vessel, the pressurizer (PWR), feedwater loops, etc. So I think that part is probably OK, although if the design also encompasses turbines as well then I guess it may need to be changed. My bigger issue is with your claim about having a different "core" (my guess is that they have a whole new pressure vessel... "changing the core" is accomplished every time the reactor is refueled) is that you have no source for this claim. This claim needs a source. --nbach 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is probably a dead conversation but he means a different TYPE of core. Some had different pressure vessels, some were backfits. There aren't likely to be too many sources as a lot of it is vigorously classified. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
130 MW
editThe 130 MW rating is incorrect and can probrably be attributed to one of the outdated and incorrect sources for this article listing nuclear submarin reactors and outputs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean697 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 April 2006
- What an ... interesting ... claim. ➥the Epopt 14:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for this claim? Becuase we had a source for the 130 MWt number, which seemed credible. -- nbach 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Janes Fighting Ships uses the "official" numbers. Any other numbers are either wrong or are classified. Patris Magnus (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)