Talk:Ford Nucleon

Electronic torque converter

Electronic torque converter? Is this a fancy name for an electric motor? If not, how does it work? — Soupisgoodfood 23:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? FoMoCo's own words from the cars blurb at the time --DV8 2XL 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, "electronic" could mean anything which involved electricity. It could have been a generator/motor combination, or it could have meant a transmission which used electricity (whether for automatic or push-button shifting, or an electric heater to keep it warm). (SEWilco 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Concept Car?

I doubt whether the Nucleon ever made it even to concept car stage; at least the pictures look like they were taken of a scale model. Maikel 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a full-scale mock-up, that made the rounds at the time. --DV8 2XL 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard, it never made it past the 3" model stage. BioTube 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ford web site says "a 3/8-scale model". The pictures all have what looks like overly thick radio antenna on the back of the cab, and the shadows resemble those for a model. Despite the bright lights the glass is totally opaque, and there are no seams around the hood and doors. There also are no descriptions of the interior of the vehicle, such as lacking a fuel gauge. As when front wheel drive vehicles appeared, it also would have been expected to mention the lack of a driveshaft hump down the middle of the floor due to all the drivetrain being in the rear. Those were the days of rear wheel drive; if the vehicle used front wheel drive that would also have been featured, but would have been made more difficult to accomplish because the front wheels are beside the passenger compartment. (SEWilco 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Here it is 5 years later, and the article still describes a "concept car developed by Ford" Just to be clear, a "concept car" is a prototype built for demonstration. And I think the word "developed" implies too strongly that the engineering went beyond the basic idea. Neither of those is true. It was less a "concept car" then a "concept for a car." --Bridgecross (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Blimey!

Am I an addicted gambler or does that car have a casino wheel on its back??

Don't know but that thing on the rear is the nuclear fusion reactor. Installed at a safe distance from the passenger compartment, you see. Maikel 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant to say a [nuclear fission] reactor. An affordable car-sized fusion reactor would be quite a feat!

Plagiarism

This page contains an almost unedited ripoff from the Ford media page - http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=3359.

The page needs to be rewritten to contain the same facts, but written properly as an encyclopedia entry. Octothorn 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to still be an issue 3 1/2 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleaned it up and added decent citations. SQGibbon (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it sound too real?

The text states: " ... was a nuclear-powered concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958. The car did not have an internal-combustion engine, rather, it was powered by a small nuclear reactor in the trunk of the car."

I think this should be rewritten because it gives the impression that the nuclear reactor actually existed and that the concept version actually had one. This impression is not dispelled by the rest of the article.

Marzolian 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. Fix it up further if my phrasing ain't so hot. (SEWilco 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shielding

Would it be possible to build such a car with a nuclear reactor in such way that there is no danger for people on board? What is the minimum thickness of the required shielding, when best absorber materials woulld be used? With an isotopic generator this would be no problem as radiation of Plutonium 238 can be shielded easily as it is a pure Alpha-emitter, but a reactor emits neutrons, which are difficultly to absorb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.229.115 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please find a secondary source for the entirety of the shielding problems section? Remember our policy on no original research. Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article on RTGs for spacecraft, Pu-238 based stuff doesn't put out enough peak watts for a car. The shielding would depend on the gamma energy of its decay products (or bremstrahlung if a beta emitter) but the stuff on RTGs isn't terribly thick. There was a very small reactor developed for satwllitea but it is still too large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.5.130 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to know what the fuss was all about, here's the historical linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Nucleon&oldid=384918270 94.29.10.104 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

citation

Since I added a reference that was missing, does this means the "refimprove" can be removed from the article? Sekkuar (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that template. --188.67.147.121 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout

The section about fallout should be completely removed. Not only is in not significant or encyclopedia worthy but it's citations make no reference to the Ford Nucleon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamouse (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Pop-culture references have their place on wikipedia, and I reckon the majority of people that hear of this thing will have bumped into a Corvega before and wondered if it was really real. It's also no secret that the Fallout devs based the nuclear fission powered vehicles of 2077 America on the Nucleon. The reference fits nicely, I say we leave it. 74.240.230.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, should be removed. "Fallout 3, however, showing the safety problems this would likely cause by having the cars explode into a mushroom cloud and release radiation when shot at.[3]"? What the hell? Cars don't explode into a firey explosion and shooting a nuclear reactor wouldn't create a mushroom cloud. Wikipedia wasn't created to collect assumptions RomanK79 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims are dropped, it might be worthwhile as a cultural reference since the cars in the game are obviously based upon the Nucleon. Finding sources has been tough in the past however. But yes, it didn't demonstrate anything about safety, it was a game and the explosions were designed to be humorous, not instructive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear powered cars in Fallout series were from beginning (Fallout 1), but I didn't see any evidence they blow up upon shooting. I presume this was a new feature developed from Betheseda in Fallout 3 to increase the value of "fan"/"gameplay"/interactivity. Still, Fallout reference may be worth mentioning, because Fallout universe is built on nuclear fusion popularization and I don't know of any more popular symbol regarding this technology.

Every car in 3 blows up if it has an engine and is hit multiple times with light weapons or hit once directly with heavy stuff like a 50mm rifle. Even the models that look nothing like the Nucleon are assumed to be nuclear powered, thus produce a rather impressive mushroom cloud when you breach that threshold. In 3, there are a number locations with multiple cars, which of course will all explode at the same time, a half dozen or more, so it is best done at night for the visual effect. Occasionally, is a moderately effective way to deal with some enemies who hide behind them. They dialed it back in New Vegas and it is hard to find one with an intact engine, although they do dot the landscape. The problem is finding sufficient sources, but I haven't looked in a while, so this can't be included due to being original research. I'm still waiting for Fallout 4, which will probably bring out more sources talking about the prior versions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the popculture refs because they're original research sourced to an open wiki SPS. Identifying inspirations for designs in video games is almost always confined to fansites and wikis. You almost never see a true reliable source asserting these popculture references. And anyway, what does it mean? We really have to have a source telling us that the fact that X looks like Y in this or that game was significant, influential, or meaningful in some way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout stuff is now properly sourced, two years later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]