Talk:S6G reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the S6G reactor article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force WikiProject Energy     (Rated Start-Class) Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy. Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Reactor plant

SG6 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)

[edit] 130 MW

The 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)