Outrider

Here is the link for the quote 2 posts up.

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

I forgot to add it earlier, sorry.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

That a MSR with molten fuel can't melt down is a semantic game. A meltdown is a concern because it represents a loss of containment. (and not all MSRs have molten fuel)

The claim here is that there is emergency cooling. Well, why wouldn't that protect other reactors? That's not something inherently safe about this design, it's a safety feature that's added.

Any reactor has to have decay heat removed. If you don't remove it, the reactor heats up. Whether that's a problem, or how much of a problem, depends on details.

The bit about "the fuel will solidify if there's a leak" glosses over multiple issues. Some fission products are gases, and decay heat means things might not solidify quickly.

I thought it sounded to good to be true. Thank you for your comments. Hopefully more later if I have the time.

12 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

Well, if all your family are of a particular ethnic group and you marry someone from another ethnic group, in-laws may not be able to get along with each other or not as well as if the person was from a similar background.

In-laws of the same ethnicity often don't get along either.

12 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

If you have any children and they are mixed race it will be harder for them to find a compatible donor should they require a bone marrow transplant or possibly other transplants I don't know about.

I'll need a cite for that.

12 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

The children may also not completely belong to either paternal or maternal families through lack of cultural awareness and language abilities in either language to communicate well enough with either sides of the family.

Or they may have a wonderful time learning each others culture. Do you not find that plain vanilla gets bland after awhile?

12 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

third culture kids

What the heck is a "third culture kid"?

On 3/29/2018 at 4:53 AM, swansont said:

That makes them high impact, rather than high risk. Risk tells you the chance something will go wrong. For every X number of hours of operation, you will get a major incident. The impact of a wind turbine failing, or even a dozen failures, is a lot smaller than the impact of a nuclear power plant failure like we've seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Yes you are right nuclear power is actually low risk due to the safeguards put in place. 

On 3/29/2018 at 1:29 PM, Moontanman said:

Are thorium molten salt reactors part of this thread or are they a different animal? 

Yes MSR's are considered fast breeders. 

Quote

 

MSRs are walk-away safe. They cannot melt down as can conventional reactors because they are molten by design. An operator cannot even force an MSR to overheat. If for some reason an MSR were to overheat, the heat would melt a freeze-plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel and the liquid fuel salts would drain into the emergency cooling tanks where it would cool and solidify. No operator interaction nor even emergency backup power is needed for this to happen.

Even a human engineered breach (such as a terrorist attack) of an MSR cannot cause any significant release of radioactivity. The fuel salts for MSRs work at normal atmospheric pressure, so a breach of the reactor containment vessel would simply leak out the liquid fuel which would then solidify in as it cooled. 

 

Can anyone comment on the authenticity of the quote above?

Yeah it wasn't worded great but we do agree this idea can trivially be put to bed.

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Taxation without representation is a well worn slogan familiar to most in the western world. 

And its just a slogan. If I cross state lines and buy a candy bar and pay the sales tax should I be allowed to vote in that state? I think not. China pays tariffs on their imports do they get to vote?

If you want to talk about specific classes of people we might find some agreement but not much on your two examples so far.

I didn't read your link but the sentence seemed unduly harsh to me. But I am ok with certain convictions disqualifying the perpetrator from voting. 

As far as non citizens voting yeah I would be against that. We need to fix our immigration policies in the worst way and .make the path to citizenship more straightforward so immigrants who live and work here can rightfully participate in our society. I think you have the cart before the horse on this example.

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Physics was working just fine long before there were any minds observing it.

If physics had not been consciousness would have never emerged. So I guess there went that idea.

So the topic now is why wind turbines won't work?

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

I think that at the present and near future level of technology solar and wind power can be regarded only as a supplemental type of power generation only.

No one is proposing that we use only one type of power source. These technologies are working and will work better in the future.

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

And each of this monsters requires tons of copper and neodymium for electric motors, hundreds of tons of aluminum and high grade stainless steel, etc. Some of this materials aren't particularly common. The price of this enterprise will unavoidably start to grow exponentially when all the World will start to build them on mass scale. 

This is just propaganda. Enercon's E-126 in Germany runs entirely without neodymium and has been running that way since 2011. As far as copper, aluminum and stainless steel  I'm willing to wager that nuclear power sources use more per kilowatt. See with the turbines (once construction is complete) there is nothing to mine, refine, transport or dispose. If your going to compare the two systems you have to take in account the whole apparatus. 

While it is true that China as well as those that do business with them should be ashamed of their mining operation. The fact is that China's stranglehold on rare earth production will end sooner than later. Rare earths are not particularly rare and can be found all over the world. In 2015 the only U.S. company in the rare earth business went bankrupt not due to lack of supply but rather demand. 

https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/rare-earth-investing/rare-earth-producing-countries/

Quote

 

2016 was not an easy year for the rare earths sector. Prices were hit hard due to excess supply, and rare earths producers outside China continued to face challenges.

 

 

So now can I see the solid state reactor or maybe you know we could get back to fast breeders.

On 3/14/2018 at 3:54 AM, beecee said:

A giant amongst men: Given 2 years to live at the age of 21 years, he instead reached out into the Universe, with his knowledge, humour and example. I'm drinking a can of Fosters to  his memory.

Wow he beat his doctors to the tune of 55 years! Much respect for a fallen giant. I read quite a few of his books and enjoyed the small parts I could understand. 

On 3/16/2018 at 6:44 AM, iNow said:

Making more of the general public interested in and educated about physics and cosmology.

Yes! Depite having published 100's of scholarly articles and was still publishing last summer. Despite having a major role in furthering our understanding of black holes, inflation and the orgins of our universe.  Despite having continually coming up with new and clever ways to communicate to the outside world. 

I agree his biggest accomplishment was bridging the gap between physics and laypersons.

Carl Sagan laid down the banner Stephen Hawking picked it up. Who will step up now?

On 3/27/2018 at 4:53 AM, swansont said:

Not having to clean up after a solar or wind spill, perhaps?

Yes or close enough at least. I was thinking along the lines of Chernobyl with its 1,000 or so square miles that can't be cleaned up at least by us.

Thank you!

On 3/19/2018 at 7:43 PM, Outrider said:

Really guys I am much more comfortable with windmills and solar panels but with things the way they are all options need to be on the table.

On 3/26/2018 at 5:13 PM, Moreno said:

Why exactly? 

Nuclear reactors are high reward/high risk operations. High reward because the energy generated is very clean (disregarding spent fuel*) and practically "free" for us and I mean free in the renewable sense. That is if everything works properly. High risk because if something does go wrong you will almost certainly have killed most of the people in the plant and possibly many persons, plants and animals in the surrounding area. Also in worse case scenario you might have made 100's of miles of viable land uninhabitable by us and most other organisms. 

*This is why I was interested in your thread. Fast breeders promise to use up that spent fuel and leave very little behind. That is if I am understanding what I have read and it is true. I am not exactly trusting of power companies. 

BTW I am sitting within 50 miles of a conventional nuclear plant right now. So my concerns are very personal. 

10 hours ago, Moreno said:

Do you think all possible nuclear reactor concepts are that much inherently unsafe?

So what level of saftey are you comfortable with? You cannot mitigate all the danger away  which is why I would prefer to do without entirely but now the whole globe is in danger so we need to find what is best and do it quickly.

Look I'm a bit on the fence regarding the consequences of climate change (but not of AGW itself) but we have run out of time we need to work out solutions now. Besides there are many upsides to clean energy and only one downside I can think of and that is we have to invest in new infrastructure. 

Also I think all your talk of theoretical reactors is muddying the waters. We need something now.

10 hours ago, Moreno said:

Can there be an all-solid state reactors?

1. Can you show me one?

2. Isn't this a bit off topic in a thread titled "Fast breeder reactors"?

Turns out Russia has what is described by Wiki as a sodium cooled fast breeder reactor know as the BN-800. It has been producing commercial power since November of 2016. It runs on a plutonium and uranium mix. Weapons grade if the article is accurate and I'm not missing something. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

Quote

The reactor core is, in size and mechanical properties, very similar to the BN-600 reactorcore, but the fuel composition is very different. While BN-600 uses medium-enriched uranium dioxide, this plant burns mixed uranium-plutonium fuel,[2] helping to reduce the weapon-grade plutonium stockpile and provide information about the functioning of the closed uranium-plutonium fuel cycle. It was highlighted that the closed cycle will not require plutonium separation or other chemical processing.

I have been hearing thorium quite a bit lately and what little bit I have read about it seems very promising. Inda seems poised to make it a reality. 

http://www.indrastra.com/2017/09/India-s-Tryst-with-Next-Gen-Nuclear-Energy-Systems-003-09-2017-0008.html?m=1

Quote

The Indian nuclear establishment is reportedlyin the final throes of developing a (conceptual)design for Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), a Technology Demonstrator Reactor of 300 MW, as the stepping stone to the third stage of India’s three-stage nuclear energy program. In December 2016, Government of India is known to have accorded in-principle approval for the Tarapur Maharashtra Site (TMS) for locating the 300MW AHWR. Meanwhile, the 500MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, under construction for several years, is now scheduled to be commissionedtowards the end of this year. These two developments (PFBR and AHWR) as they mature would herald the era of next-generation reactor systems in India. More importantly, India would be the first country, after Russia, to bring online a commercial fast-breeder reactor.

Really guys I am much more comfortable with windmills and solar panels but with things the way they are all options need to be on the table.

Yes according to François Hammer Et Al. it is very possible that Andromeda (as we know it) formed over a billion years after our own solar system did. A French and Chinese collaboration  of scientists made deep observations between 2008 and 2014 and came up with a numerical model. They fed the model into some of the most powerful computers in France and got back a simulation that produces a galaxy that is a dead ringer for Andromeda. 

Their hypothesis is that between 7 and 10 billion years ago a much larger galaxy collided with a smaller one. The merger finally settled into the configuration we know (and love) between 1.8 and 3 billion years ago.

https://www.obspm.fr/the-formation-of-the.html?lang=en

Quote

 

7 to 10 billion years ago, instead of Andromeda, there were two galaxies on an encountering orbit. The astronomers optimized by simulations the trajectories of both galaxies. They discovered that they had finally merged 1.8 to 3 billion years ago. This collision gave birth to Andromeda, as we know it. "We showed that the biggest of both parent galaxies was approximately four times as massive as the smallest ", specifies François Hammer, astronomer of the Paris Observatory - PSL, first co-author of the study.

Snip

Thanks to intensive numerical calculations, the astrophysicists succeed for the first time in reproducing in detail all the numerous structures that compose the Andromeda galaxy: the bulge, the bar and the huge disk. The latter includes a gigantic ring of young stars, which stability with time remained unexplained, which has then been solved.

Snip

Collaboration
The team includes François Hammer (Observatoire de Paris – PSL), Yanbin Yang (Observatoire de Paris – PSL), Jianling Wang (National Astronomical Observatory of China), Rodrigo Ibata (Observatoire astronomique de l’Université de Strasbourg), Hector Flores (Observatoire de Paris – PSL) and Mathieu Puech (Observatoire de Paris – PSL).

 

BTW there are clips of the simulation at the link. I didn't watch them there instead I watched them on Anton Petrov's Youtube channel "What Da Math".

Thanks Anton.

And yes. It is popsci but IMO it is very well done. Also PBS has some entertaining and informative channels (again my opinion) out there. Sci show and Eons being 2 of them.

Heres the vid if you would like to watch.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I am not familiar with that item. Why is it so expensive if it costs 5K to make? Why do people sell them for 6K for example?

It is a prestige item but it is also a production item kinda like you can pay 15$ or 50$ for the same ribeye steak some people just prefer to pay more. This is why cost isolated from all other considerations is not a good way to judge what you are getting. But nevermind I withdraw my example and provide another one. 50,000$ Ram 1500 vs 70,000$ Lexus GS 450h F sport.

3 hours ago, NortonH said:

How do we measure the energy that has gone into all these processes do you think?

If we just do it by cost we are going to miss alot. For instance do I get to factor in the fact that if I go to the river and catch a fish and eat that fish I will be ingesting mercury spewed out by Alabama's coal burners?

BTW do you wonder who built and maintains these plants? The state owned corporation know as Alabama Power. The federal corporation know as Tennessee Valley Authority owns our two operating nuclear plants. We a bunch of sneaky socialist down here in the south shh don't tell the liberals. If I have time later I will tell you about the scandal know as Bellefonte the nuclear plant that was never finished. 

So by your definition are all these plants fully subsidized?

Also I wanted to acknowledge that you do understand the main challenge for renewables is low energy density.  Thats the hurdle technology must make. But its nothing new we also have 18 hydroelectric dams also owned by those dagnabit TVA socialists.

One more question the most important one. When I see projections we always run out of gas first and coal last. These projections run from 80 years to 384 years before the coal runs out. (Of course the wars over who gets to keep the lights on will start before then)

What do we do? When we run out of coal?

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I was not intending to present 'evidence' in the form of a link to some authority, I was planning to use logic and commonly known facts.

Ok I was thinking of posting some links myself but lets just do this your way. BTW I worked in a coal fired steam turbine plant for a number of years and thats how I know that one day wind will beat the pants off coal in efficiency. 

You all know how we generate electricity, a few magnets, a shaft and a coil and one more thing some way to spin that wheel. You can spin with your finger or a bicycle it doesn't matter its just got to spin.

The coal plant does this by burning refined coal to heat the water converting it into steam and shooting the steam through massive turbines that spin the wheel. All this takes a humongous apparatus (my plant was 17 stories tall and covered over 2 acres) that has to be rebuilt constantly. Every few months the plant fills up with hundreds of workers doing 7 day 12 hour shifts to rebuild a turbine or a furnace as fast as possible to get that wheel spining again.

All of this ignores mining, refining (ever hear of an acid bath) and transportation of the coal and all the good land that is laid to waste in the process.

All the wind turbine has to do is spin in the wind. Trust me my friend we have been refining our use of coal fired steam turbines for a long time we are just getting started with wind.

When the technology catches up coal will be dead and the only question there will be is why did we wait so long.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

Hi Outrider.
Thank you for your response.

Hello NortonH.

Your welcome thank you for yours.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

The energy needed to create and maintain the wind mills as well as the infrastructure needed to transmit the power they produce is not insignificant and I will argue that the combination of start-up cost (energy) and maintenance outweighs the energy they produce in their lifetime. The maintenance cost IS something that we have to pay for.

Ok I am anxious to see the evidence for this seeing how the method we use to gain electricity from coal involves numerous, numerous processes. The method we use to gain electricity from wind turbines uses, laughably, one.

Common sense, or logic if you prefer, would indicate the simpler method would prove to be the more efficient one.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I disagree. Can you give me an example and I will explain why I disagree

Ok the Mp 05 Laferrari 50 Days Power Reserve Men's Watch coming in at just under 250,000$. Costs nothing to operate and manufactured for less than 5,000$.

VS

2018 RAM 1500 loaded for slighly less than 50,000$. Gets a nice 14 mpg and don't forget the oil changes.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I have some reason to doubt this which I will explain in a moment once I get some more details together

Ok I'll wait for the details.

The documentary was IMO really well done. I enjoyed and highly recommend it. Thanks again Alex.

You did a much better job of explaining yourself this time NortonH so I hope the mods will leave this open and lock the other thread. 

16 minutes ago, NortonH said:

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them. Currently we have a lot of wind farms being subsidized.

 

This is true.

17 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes.

This is not true in the case of wind turbines. The source of energy is the wind and obviously it exists with or without the turbines. Also the turbines don't consume any energy that we have to realistically "pay for" other than construction and maintenance. Thats the whole point.

21 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I will also add that as a corollary to this the Cost of something is a very good measure of the Energy that went into creating and running it.

This is also trivaly false. You can buy a watch these days that cost more than some cars the watch used less energy to "create" and uses less to run. If you want to try to defend this concept further I suggest you divorce create and run because it really is two different things. 

26 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If wind farms cost more to build and maintain than they produce in a free market then they are not net producers or energy, they are absorbers.

I get it. No idea if its true but for the purpose of this discussion I'll take your word for it. Our technology will get better as we use it and renewables are a much better long term plan than the status quo.

So I'm ok with the subsidies.

Really nice catch Alex. Thank you!

There will be a tv show in just two days on the National Geographic channel. I surely would have missed it if not for this thread but now my DVR is set. Also NatGeo has an online app and some may be able to watch that way.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180201006278/en/Lost-Treasures-Maya-Snake-Kings-Rewrites-History

Quote

This complete re-write of long-held beliefs about the Maya is told for the very first time in National Geographic’s Lost Treasures of the Maya Snake Kings, premiering Tuesday, Feb. 6 at 9/8c.

Also from the same link.

Quote

As archaeologists piece together details about the complexity and extent of the Maya civilization, they are also looking closely at who was responsible for ruling such a vast society. Lost Treasures of the Maya Snake Kings reveals how an obscure royal dynasty known as the Snake Kings rose to dominate the Maya world through conquest, marriage and puppet kings. Until experts had deciphered Mayan inscriptions, the Snake Kings were completely unknown. Now, the evidence points to their power extending from Mexico and Belize, down through Guatemala. In 562, they even conquered Tikal, the greatest Maya city of all.

Mayan history as we know it is apparently going to be completely rewritten in the next few years. Very exciting stuff.

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Do either of you have citations? Not saying you are wrong but I've not seen evidence one way or the other.

Quote

 

Vote by Income

Total

 Obama

 McCain

 Other/No Answer

 

 

Under $15,000 (6%)	73%	25%	2%
$15-30,000 (12%)	60%	37%	3%
$30-50,000 (19%)	55%	43%	2%
$50-75,000 (21%)	48%	49%	3%
$75-100,000 (15%)	51%	48%	1%
$100-150,000 (14%)	48%	51%	1%
$150-200,000 (6%)	48%	50%	2%
$200,000 or More (6%)	52%	46%	2%

 

We may now have an orgin for Oumuamua and its not as far away as first thought. Postdoctoral fellow Fabo Feng of the University of Hertfordshire claims that Oumuamua comes from a loose Stellar Association  known as the Local Association which is part of Pleiades. 

https://theconversation.com/how-i-discovered-the-origins-of-the-cigar-shaped-alien-asteroid-oumuamua-89577

Quote

We also have evidence for 'Oumuamua’s relatively young age from the colour of its surface. Outside of the protection of a star’s magnetic field, objects in space are bombarded with cosmic rays and interstellar dust and gas that gradually alter their surfaces and turn them very red in colour. But 'Oumuamua has a more neutral colour, suggesting it has only been impacted by cosmic rays for, at most, hundreds of million years rather than for the billions of years that our solar system has existed.

Also consensus has been building that Oumuamua is a comet with a cosmic ray baked on shell of hard rock with an icy core.

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Makes you think, if we can do that what could aliens do if they were a few thousand years ahead of us!

Which makes some people like me and Fermi wonder where they are at. Maybe it will turn out that the UFO nuts were right all along.

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I envy the young people today, they will get to see things we only dreamed of! 

Yes I do as well. If Breakthrough Starshot stays on schedule (they won't) I will be 96 when the data starts coming in. I doubt I will make it.

OTOH I am very grateful for what I have got to see. The Voyager spacecraft forever changed our views of the moons of gas and ice giants. I got to see Shoemaker-Levy slam into Jupiter. Recently we had a vistor from another star system Oumuamua. And its been confirmed that black holes do merger and neutron star mergers are the source of much (probaly all) of our heaviest elements. 

Its been a fine ride and I can't complain but sometimes I still do.

I guess of all the upcoming things that I probably will see JWST excites me the most.

On 1/5/2018 at 7:25 PM, Airbrush said:

Maybe you don't need to use the laser for 20+ years because I suspect the author proposes that from Earth, a laser could push the Sprite to a speed of 0.2c, and maybe that speed can be reached in just a few years or even months from Earth?

Ok that makes more sense than what I said. From wiki (I'll post a link later) "A phased array of ground-based lasers would then focus a light beam on the crafts' sails to accelerate them one by one to the target speed within 10 minutes, with an average acceleration on the order of 100 km/s2, and an illumination energy on the order of 1 TJ delivered to each sail"

Thats gonna be about 100 gigawatt for 10 minutes for each of 1,000 craft or the average output of a nuclear plant for seven days. Wiki says one by one but I have read other articles stating they might have 10 or more probes per sail.

On 1/5/2018 at 7:25 PM, Airbrush said:

How small is a Sprite?

3.5 x 3.5 cm and weighs 4 grams. But the Sprite is the prototype. The probe that actually makes the journey will be named StarChip and be 1 centimeter square and weigh 1 gram. The Sprite is solar powered and uses radio to communicate. StarChip will have a battery and use laser to communicate. 

On 1/5/2018 at 7:25 PM, Airbrush said:

How capable of a payload? 

4 cameras, 4 processors, 4 thrusters, battery, navigation equipment and a laser for communication are planned.

Launch is scheduled for 2036.

I got most of that information from here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

On 1/5/2018 at 7:25 PM, Airbrush said:

How much info can it send from a tiny transmitter?

I don't know and I don't know how they plan to direct the cameras from over 4 ly away. I suspect the probes are on their own once they are accelerated. 

On 1/5/2018 at 7:43 PM, Raider5678 said:

Better question, what's its battery life?

A 150 mg atomic battery, powered by plutonium-238 or americium-241, is planned.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

This explanation could be very confusing, unless you explain why the light 'signal' travels vertically in the first clock and diagonally in the second.

Because the resting clock is moving through time only while the moving clock is moving through time and space?

X-posted with geordief

Happy New Year!

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

There must be a next generation after the James Webb, larger scale like maybe 10 times as large as the Webb? 

Yeah, there are plans on the table but nothing AFAIK green lighted so far.

http://www.space.com/37952-hunting-second-earth-next-generation-telescopes.html

Quote

One of the strongest contenders in the fight to follow JWST is the Large UV/Optical/Infrared Survey (LUVOIR). LUVOIR is a proposed multi-wavelength observatory with the ability to characterize exoplanets, study galaxy formation and evolution, and examine the early universe. With a primary mirror of 30 to 45 feet (9 to 14 meters), LUVOIR can reach the size Grunsfeld is calling for.

 Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 meters in diameter and JWST's is 6.5 meters. So not quite 10 times as big but still a big step up. I wonder will I still be around to see it.

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Eventually propulsion methods may allow us to send probes at such high speeds, like about 1/10 light speed.  These probes could flyby nearby stars with Earth-like planets in habitable zones, and send info back to Earth which would take decades for us to receive their transmissions.

Well the Breakthrough Starshot team is looking for one fifth the speed of light using nanoprobes called Sprites. Funded by billionaire Yuri Milner and guided by Facebook guru Marc Zuckerberg and Stephen Hawking. The team have 5 or 6 sprites in orbit right now testing the telemetry and electronics.

At 1/5 the speed of light they could reach Proxima Centauri in 20 years. We could start receiving data in 24 years. Not bad!

The Sprites will utilize solar sails driven by a high power laser. This is the biggest problem. How do you power this laser for 20+ years? One of the other big problems is the Sprites have no brakes. How do you image planets as you fly by at 100 million MPH?

https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3

Quote

In the last decade and a half, rapid technological advances have opened up the possibility of light-powered space travel at a significant fraction of light speed. This involves a ground-based light beamerpushing ultra-light nanocrafts – miniature space probes attached to lightsails – to speeds of up to 100 million miles an hour. Such a system would allow a flyby mission to reach Alpha Centauri in just over 20 years from launch, beaming home images of its recently-discovered planet Proxima b, and any other planets that may lie in the system, as well as collecting other scientific data such as analysis of magnetic fields.

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

What I found hard to accept was that both parties saw the others' clocks (and general movements) as slower than each others'  .

Yep that too but the first thing I had to loose was the notion that there was something special about the clocks.

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

So no "optical illusion" ,but a stark reality born out by experimental observation.

Exactly!