Hi, This is my second post. I couldn't resist posting on the Odin center channel thread. I'm curious as to the replies to my suggestion.
I've been reading this forum for about two weeks now. I listen to a lot of music and am looking to replace my old JBL 100's from 1976. A couple of years ago I bought a B & W HT setup using CDM 1's and now I'm not satisified with my JBLs. It seems to be a viscious circle. I have listened to Revel F30s and they are very nice but EXPENSIVE! Then I thought, why not build your own. . .
So here I am. I will probably start with a kit (Thor??) and then give a shot at designing and building my own. I'll start small and work up. I have rooms with no stereo, so I can try a lot. Then I'll start with amps.
I was an ET in the navy and currently am a reactor operator at the local nuclear plant.
Expect lots of questions (yes, I'll search first).
I've been reading this forum for about two weeks now. I listen to a lot of music and am looking to replace my old JBL 100's from 1976. A couple of years ago I bought a B & W HT setup using CDM 1's and now I'm not satisified with my JBLs. It seems to be a viscious circle. I have listened to Revel F30s and they are very nice but EXPENSIVE! Then I thought, why not build your own. . .
So here I am. I will probably start with a kit (Thor??) and then give a shot at designing and building my own. I'll start small and work up. I have rooms with no stereo, so I can try a lot. Then I'll start with amps.
I was an ET in the navy and currently am a reactor operator at the local nuclear plant.
Expect lots of questions (yes, I'll search first).
Reactor
Hi Dave,
Unit 1 came only in '91 and unit 2 in '93. The license is 40 years for each unit. I've been working at this plant since '93.
By the way, I've been to your website; lots of good info. I have noticed in the loudspeaker threads you think the Thor needs more work. How would you go about optimizing something like that? Lots of experimentation and testing, then trying to fit your numbers into existing equations to see if they make sense? Or just trust your ears? I would think it would take a lot of specialized equipment.
Hi Dave,
Unit 1 came only in '91 and unit 2 in '93. The license is 40 years for each unit. I've been working at this plant since '93.
By the way, I've been to your website; lots of good info. I have noticed in the loudspeaker threads you think the Thor needs more work. How would you go about optimizing something like that? Lots of experimentation and testing, then trying to fit your numbers into existing equations to see if they make sense? Or just trust your ears? I would think it would take a lot of specialized equipment.
Re: Reactor
So these are pretty modern reactors. How do they work?
I'm guessing that the drivers in Thor could have more rung out of them. All you need is a copy of Martin King's model, something to run it on (MathCAD Explorer is free -- doesn't save thou), and then you start playing (the TS numbers are in the Thor article). The models have been shown to be pretty accurate.
dave
TonyW said:
So these are pretty modern reactors. How do they work?
I'm guessing that the drivers in Thor could have more rung out of them. All you need is a copy of Martin King's model, something to run it on (MathCAD Explorer is free -- doesn't save thou), and then you start playing (the TS numbers are in the Thor article). The models have been shown to be pretty accurate.
dave
Reactor design.
Actually, they are a fairly old design. They are a Westinghouse 4 loop pressurized water plant. About 100 tons of low enriched uranium. Each plant produces around 1160 megawatts of electricity. There are several very new designs that use passive safety measures all ready to go, but I don't think any US company has the guts to go ahead with one. The political opposition would be prohibitive, and the general populace seems to be afraid of anything with the word "nuclear" on it. Granted, there is a problem with the waste. My philosophy is to reprocess it. The US has a law that says we cannot do that. My feeling is anything we do to produce energy is going to have some sort of consequences, we just have to weigh the evidence and choose the best course.
I guess I'll find Mathcad explorer and play with the numbers. Do you have any idea whether the Thor design, for the dollars, would outperform Revel F30s? My listening preferences are fairly eclectic, but the majority is Jazz, then classical, then rock.
Actually, they are a fairly old design. They are a Westinghouse 4 loop pressurized water plant. About 100 tons of low enriched uranium. Each plant produces around 1160 megawatts of electricity. There are several very new designs that use passive safety measures all ready to go, but I don't think any US company has the guts to go ahead with one. The political opposition would be prohibitive, and the general populace seems to be afraid of anything with the word "nuclear" on it. Granted, there is a problem with the waste. My philosophy is to reprocess it. The US has a law that says we cannot do that. My feeling is anything we do to produce energy is going to have some sort of consequences, we just have to weigh the evidence and choose the best course.
I guess I'll find Mathcad explorer and play with the numbers. Do you have any idea whether the Thor design, for the dollars, would outperform Revel F30s? My listening preferences are fairly eclectic, but the majority is Jazz, then classical, then rock.
Re: Reactor design.
There is so much mis-information being tossed around raising fear. Nuclear energy is concentrated and a single accident can cause a big event -- like when an airplane goes down. Flying thou is still safer than driving your car to the corner store. I just think of all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere -- and there is way more radioactivity being spewed out by the coal plants than even Chernobyl (which was just human stupidity). The safest thing to do with waste is to reprocess it and think of all the scientific advances that would have been made had it continued. I have seen some stuff on the safe reactors and they look very good. It is stupid that they are not being given a chance to save us from all the waste of carbon based fuels -- just think of the cost of causing the big glacier in Antartica to float, not to mention all the new sea front properties is the icecaps melt.
I'm not familiar with either the F30s or the Excel drivers, but i am sure that a DIY system can be fabricated for a fraction of the price that conveys at least as much musical enjoyment.
dave
TonyW said:
There is so much mis-information being tossed around raising fear. Nuclear energy is concentrated and a single accident can cause a big event -- like when an airplane goes down. Flying thou is still safer than driving your car to the corner store. I just think of all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere -- and there is way more radioactivity being spewed out by the coal plants than even Chernobyl (which was just human stupidity). The safest thing to do with waste is to reprocess it and think of all the scientific advances that would have been made had it continued. I have seen some stuff on the safe reactors and they look very good. It is stupid that they are not being given a chance to save us from all the waste of carbon based fuels -- just think of the cost of causing the big glacier in Antartica to float, not to mention all the new sea front properties is the icecaps melt.
I'm not familiar with either the F30s or the Excel drivers, but i am sure that a DIY system can be fabricated for a fraction of the price that conveys at least as much musical enjoyment.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.