Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 12/12/24 4:01 PM, rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:33:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

Nuclear ships were in fact tried, but the economics and regulations made
them not cost effective. At the time. The rather larger number of
expensive 'nuclear engineers'  required was a dominant factor.

 Nuclear subs had advantages and war toys aren't subject to economics. A
friend served on a nuke. His comment on the experience was Holy Loch,
Scotland was the only place in the world that could make being submerged
for up to three months look good.

>
 Armies have almost unlimited budgets/resources. If
 they want nuke ships/subs they can GET 'em.
>
 But COMMERCIAL operations - nope.
>
 Good, large, diesel/oil engines are still the
 solution for large commercial carriers.

Subtract taxes, and compare only the raw cost, and the economics look even better! On gasoline at least 50% is tax, so remove that, and we can happily continue for at least a generation or two. =)

 Saw an engine on some TV show ... it had a
 people-sized door at the base of each cylinder
 so you could climb in there and check/fix stuff.
 I *think* individual cylinders could be detached
 from the crank so, in theory, you could work on
 one while the engine kept running. That sounds
 very unpleasant though ....
>