Talk:A1B reactor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A1B reactor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Technology / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Ships

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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

More information:
/
	This article lacks a ship infobox. You can help by adding {{Infobox ship begin}} to the article and filling in the information. A usage guide is available. Do not place a blank infobox template into the article.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Untitled

This article needs work. My edit took out a lot of supposition and fluff. Obviously there sin't a lot of public domain information about this plant, so let's keep it simple until actual sources exist. Tigah Dude (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design?

I could be wrong, but even though this is Betchel's first design, should it be the A5W? Or have I just gotten so used to Westinghouse plants that I've mistaken how it goes with other developers in the mix? Izuko 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 'W' designated Westinghouse, but Bechtel bought out the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory (BAPL) a few years ago. The 'B' actually stands for Bechtel and not Bettis. While it's essentially the same folks, the parent company is different. 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, sorry... so used to dealing with their Bettis Labs division that I kind of forgot the rest of the company existed. Izuko 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've added a cite-needed here as part of the Short article clean-up project. I believe that the relevant cite is to Jane's International Defense Review, probably October 2006. Unfortunately I don't happen to have that periodical. If anyone out there does and can verify the citation, please drop it in. -- Courier 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a cite needed is needed, although it does require reading between the lines a little. The text in the Bechtel reference already linked states "Earlier this year, the Navy announced that the reactor plant for its new class of aircraft carriers would be known as the A1B. The “B” stands for Bechtel—which operates the lead laboratory for the design of the plant—and the “1” denotes that this is Bechtel’s first design of a reactor plant for an aircraft carrier (represented by the “A”)." Since there is only one new class of carriers in development, it stands to reason that the Gerald R. Ford class is the class they are talking about. I could also just have someone take a picture of me wearing my spiffy golf jacket with the CVN78 and A1B logos to prove it, but that would be both original research and a COI, wouldn't it? :) 155.104.37.18 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Department of Energy Strategic Plan (May 2011)

Targeted Outcomes: • Provide the United States Navy with an A1B reactor plant by 2015 for nextgeneration aircraft carrier that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability, and requires half the number of reactor department sailors as compared to today’s aircraft carriers. • Provide the United States Navy by 2026 with a reactor plant that will extend core lifetime for the next-generation ballistic missile submarine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power?

The Stub lists that the reactor has 300MW of power. Is this electric or thermal power?--153.100.131.12 (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is electrical power, nowhere close to the output power or the core power. A4W was listed at 550 MW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigah Dude (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The electric power number seems to be for one reactor, but the mechanical power number for the two reactors together. However, this is not clearly shown in the text. --Hkultala (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL

WP:WEASEL clearly states that passive terms like "is it estimated" should be avoided without a proper source. In this case however, the source does not state the increase, but simply claims that it is "reported". This clearly leaves the source of the figure very much unclear. - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited states 25%. We have to cite all our sources, but we do not require the same from all the sources we cite. Unless you have a reason to doubt that 25%, don't flag it as dubious. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is on a par with saying the New York Times is wrong just because it doesn't name its sources for every single fact it publishes. The paper might, indeed, be wrong, but it's incumbent on you to demonstrate it if you disbelieve it; for WP, the Times is reliable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]