×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

New Nukes?
3

New Nukes?

New Nukes?

(OP)
What is the latest news on building new nuke plants in the US? Last I heard there were several licences issued mostly for the mid atlantic area.

I was a navy nuke but went into the HV power system testing field and have been considering entering back into the nuke world. I am also considering a move to the mid atlantic area.

RE: New Nukes?

No licenses have been issued for new plants.  There have been a few early site permits issued.  Late 2007 and in 2008, several companies are expected to submit their construction/operating license applications (COL) to the NRC.  If that happens, those companies should get their license issued around 2010.

Almost half the existing plants have been issued license extensions, many of those being on the East coast.  If you are looking to get into the commercial nuclear industry, this is a good time to start looking.  

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
Thanks jpankask! Yes, site permits sounds like what I read about, from what I understand that is step 0.5 and dosent mean that there will be a plant built there.

Any ideas what companies will be submitting construction licenses?

RE: New Nukes?

Dominion Virginia Power (Used to be Virginia Electric Power - VEPCO) has two sites that were originally designed for 4 reactors each, Surry and North Anna, currently have two each, they're exploring adding another one to one or both sites.  Also I think Duke in North Carolna is looking. Go to http://pepei.pennnet.com/, this site has regular update on the power industry, including nukes.

RE: New Nukes?

Even submitting an application for a construction license doesn't mean a plant will be built there, although I believe that anybody at that point is pretty serious about a new plant.  The American Nuclear Society publishes a monthly update on where people are at in the process, in their magazine "Nuclear News."  I don't have one here but I believe the parent company for South Texas Project is expected to submit a COL later this year.  AmerenUE in Missouri I believe expects to submit an application in the next year as well as AEHI in Idaho.  There were two initial consortiums of owner/operators and reactor manufacturers (Unistar I believe and I forget the other one Duke was involved with) that are expected to submit one or more COL applications in early 2008 for unnamed sites.  If you can get ahold of a "Nuclear News" magazine, it will list the known announcements and the expected dates.

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
Thank you all for some good info.

RE: New Nukes?

South Txas Nuclear will start work on Two new units in 2010. These will be built next to the exsisting units.

RE: New Nukes?

Per the 9/25 Energy Daily lead article:

Quote:

NRG Energy Inc. Monday filed the first full application in nearly three decades to build a new U.S. nuclear plant, asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license for two new boiling water reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear facility near Bay City, Texas.

Didn't see anything on the NRC site today, but there's often a delay before things become publically available.

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

Want to post an image? Look at the FAQ's in forum559: SolidWorks 3D CAD products

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
Thanks for all of your encouraging posts. Well I am making the move to N.C. to manage a new power circuit breaker shop that will cater to the nuclear industry. I will post details towards the 1st of the year when an official announcement can be made.

RE: New Nukes?

Bechtel just got a $1Big award to start on a new unit for TVA Power somewhere on their system.

RE: New Nukes?

I hear a new construction and operating license has been applied for for a new North Anna unit.

RE: New Nukes?

Here is the list from 12/31/07 COLs filed with the NRC

Site Name                               Location
Bellefonte Nuclear Site Units 3 and 4     TVA's Bellefonte
Calvert Cliffs Unit 3                     Lusby, MD
North Anna Unit 3                     Existing site
South Texas Project Units 3 and 4     Existing site
William States Lee III Units 1 and 2     Duke's Lee site

It isn't really new, but we just got the order for the condenser tubing for Watts Barr 2, the unit that never went into service.  It is supposed to be generating in 2010.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
Thanks for the updates, here is my update, new shop in Charlotte,NC. Certified for IE safety related breakers

www.cbsnuclear.com

RE: New Nukes?

Ed - About how much tubing is there in one of them condensors?  Seems that I heard once an astounding number (like miles and miles and miles) but I can't remember.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

There seems to be a mismatch between expectations and reality. According to the latest issue of Power magazine, there is a demand for approx 10,000 more engineers to address the increase in demand for nuclear reactors , but the  US graduates a grand total of only 350 nuclear engineers per year.

They also discussed the declining influence of US legislators that promote nuclear power-their no 1 advocate  Pete D. is retiring this year due to illness, and the no 2 advocate Larry Craig 's reputation is now "in the toilet".

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
Arent many of the "Engineers" actually ex navy nukes? I would guess that is the only place the industry can find experienced people.

RE: New Nukes?

The plant I was at had about 10% of its' engineering staff as ex navy nukes.  Some where also not degreed engineers but just people who've accumulated a lot of technical knowledge over the years.  Probably about 50% of the engineering staff were licensed engineers.

RE: New Nukes?

That is a boatload of nukes.

Along with the tremendous increase in number of jobs, there is also an anticipated loss of a fairly large number of experienced folks within the next five years due to retirement.

All in all, one would think it should be a favorable situation for engineers at nuke plants or people who want to work in nuke plants in engineer or other capacities.

Among people titled as engineers at our plant, I think somewhere around 10% are licensed, maybe 50% have a full engineering degree and perhaps 70% have some kind of 4-year degree.  In a lot of the areas it doesn't make much difference - experience and knowledge and the ability to get the job done right are what counts.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

When I said "licensed", I was referring to PE license, not RO or SRO license.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

At our plant, Navy Nukes typically go to operations.  Almost all of our engineering department is made up of degreed engineers or engineering technologists.  A few are Navy Nukes with an engineering degree.  About 20% of engineers are licensed professional engineers.

We have already lost several to new construction projects.  I expect it won't really pick up until a few sites commit to actually building a plant, which probably won't happen until the first COL's are issued around 2009-2010.  I do see a lot of advertisements for Westinghouse and GE engineers and even a few for Areva.  They are snatching up a lot of new graduates, I understand.  The next couple of years will be a great time to be graduating with an engineering degree if all the proposed new plants actually get built, even if only half are started.  The biggest problem is that many of the nuclear plants are sited far from a major metropolitan area and a lot of the younger people (and some older) don't want to live that far from the all-night life.

RE: New Nukes?

Pete, sorry I missed your question.
The condenser for a 1000-1500 MW Nuc will depend on the cooling water available.  Generally they go 3-5 million feet of tubing.  Today the most common size would be about 1" od x 0.025" wall.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

RE: New Nukes?

Yowza.  I knew it was an amazing number.  5 million feet would be close to 1,000 miles.  Incredible.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Ed,

I've been wondering where you were.  I did a quick calculation without the benefit of records from my former life that are now in storage and from memory (trying to scale up GG Unit 1) came up with about 1000 miles and thoght I'd look like a fool if I had slipped a decimal somewhere so I just decided to wait until you weighed in.

rmw

RE: New Nukes?

and not just any tubing. We're talking about titanium or Sea-Cure or other primo alloy.

The nuke steam cycle might be 28% efficient and an LMTD of 20F might be available at the condenser, so one can estimate the ft2 and linear ft of 7/8" OD tubes .

RE: New Nukes?

The "new" unit at TVA Watts Barr 2 has purchased 3.3 million feet of 1" x 0.028" SEA-CURE tubing.
The tubes are each 115' long!  

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

RE: New Nukes?

in oct 30 2007 NuStart Energy submitted an application for a nuclear reactor

average plant takes approx 3-4 years to start production of the plant

RE: New Nukes?

Nuke steam cycles are closer to 40% with a modernized MSR and cascading feedwater heaters.

RE: New Nukes?

The 1980's era unit that I was at had 33% efficiency.  I'm kind of surprised more progress has not been made.

RE: New Nukes?

The limitations are not necessarily due to technology but initial capital investment and plant location.

The near 40% cycle efficiency was for the Stone and Webster designed Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, which never operated above 5% power.

For a rankine reheat cycle you are still limited by the heat source and sink temperatures.

Many early nuke plants didn't get the efficency promised by an elaborate feedwater heater train. Infact, the plant I worked at lost cycle efficiency when both stages of the moisture separator reheaters were placed in operation.

Technology has greatly improved in the design of the new MSR.  Mostly due to greater computing power to analyze two phase heat transfer.  MSR replacement have been included in several power up-rates of the older nuke plants.

RE: New Nukes?

Wow.
4 applications for total of 7 units in 2007.
Expect 15 applications for total of 22 units in 2008.



 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Keep in mind you have been discussing only domestic plants. China and South Africa are just some of the international locations also building nukes. It is a long line to get in with the limited forging capability in the world.

RE: New Nukes?

It will be interesting to see how the competition for various resources pans out.  People, components, NRC review time etc.

Senator McCain (sp?) wants to have 30 new nukes operating in US by 2030.  Since the first will come on-line around 2015, that would be about 3 per year.

Seems pretty agressive considering the constraints as mentioned.  But I guess that back in the day when the first round of nukes was coming on-line in the US , it was aT A similar rate.  Was it something like 100 nukes in 25 years?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Ooops. Must be Friday (thank goodness!)
45 new nukes in 15 years -> 3 per year.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

The competition for people resources is already playing out.  We have lost several engineers at our plant recently to engineering contract companies and also to the uranium enrichment facilities.  Some companies in the Southeast are offering out-of-this-world bonuses to licensed operators to stay for a few years.  On the order of $60,000-$100,000 for a 3-year commitment.

McCain seems to have a bigger vision for the nuclear industry than Obama does.  While Obama is not anti-nuclear, his language is not nearly as strong for the building of new nuclear plants.   

RE: New Nukes?

Even ALGORE (whose Bravo Sierra I don't put much stock in-but I recognize that the gullible masses do) stated yesterday in his 10 year challenge to put a man on the moon, oh excuse me, challenge to have a fossil free electrical system alluded to wind, solar and other "carbon free" technologies to accomplish the goal.  Since most of us who have any sense realize that wind and solar will add some capacity at the margins but never replace the bulk of what is now done with coal, oil and NG, it can only be assumed that he must be referring to Nuclear.  If that is true and he does beat that drum, will the gullible masses buy it?  If so, this industry might need after burners.

rmw

RE: New Nukes?

I saw an interview with a Texas Rancher on a recent weekly news show.

The landscape certainly has changed with all of the wind turbines.  He said that he was afraid that the landscape will be "polluted" with abandoned wind turbines once the government subsidy runs out and it is no longer economical to produce electricity.

I hope ALGORE has addressed "decommissioning costs" and who is responsible for taking down the wind turbines on leased land when the GENCO has gone bankrupt!

mh

RE: New Nukes?

NRC has posted on their website that a license has been applied for 2 new Advanced PWR nukes at Comanche Peak site.

RE: New Nukes?

It looks like the Unistar effort to build Alstom plants at Constellation sites has taken a setback with MidAmerica buying Const.
That is tough luck for the French.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
From the debate this week it looks like alot of these depend on Obama or McCain. McCain mentioned 45 new plants (I think he said 45), Obama skipped nuclear when listing his energy policy, seems anti nuke but wont come out and say it.  

RE: New Nukes?

There is no doubt that McCain expresses stronger support for nuclear power.

But I don't think what either candidate thinks on this particular issue will make a big difference in what happens.  For one thing, they are not in a position to do anything on their own.  To change laws or budget they need congress.  And most of the factors that affect the next round of reactors have very little to do with executive government... more to do wtih finanacing, availablility of parts and people, navigating through all the wickets, etc etc.  Neither one is going to change that.

So I think in general we shouldn't put so much importance on the specific views of a candidate because those rarely translate into reality.  If you were hiring someone to make important decisions and provide leadership, you would look at which one seems more intelligent, competent, deliberate etc.  


 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

I guess I should say our decision as voters should consider not only the opinions/positions of the candidates, but how capable they appear to be an effective and competent leader and decision maker.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Here is my position

During the democratic debates Obama said he is against Yucca Mountain and doesn't want it to open.  Obama did acknowledge that you need nuclear power and that there are several plants in his home state.

Conclusion about Obama's position:

Without Yucca Mountain the nuclear industry will come to a grinding halt - no one will want to store 40 years of fuel on site in their neighborhood. Obama only wants nuclear during the transition to solar, wind, or other "free" energy.

As for McCain, he wants to re-process nuclear fuel like the French.  I believe President Carter, an ex-Navy nuke, signed the law to prohibit commercial reprocessing of fuel and the building breeder reactors.  Can anyone confirm this law?

 

RE: New Nukes?

I believe mauner's correct, that there is a federal law that would require revision before we could reprocess.

At the risk of this descending to a political debate (and that usually means people who have already made up their minds espousing their opinions, with no hope of changing anyone else's opinion):

Although I cannot speak for the federal agency for which I work, it is highly unlikely that that unnamed federal agency would complete licensing of even four-to-five nuclear power plants within the first four years of either candidate's presidency. Especially if there was an across-the-board freeze on government programs, as espoused by one candidate.

I recognize that the same candidate actually repeated, several times, that he was looking to build "forty-five" plants which would create "millions of jobs" (and, wow, those plants are going to have to have HUGE staffs) but I will be kind and assume that was hyperbole.

Additionally, even with a pro-nuclear president, if there is an anti-nuclear congress, the nuclear option will go nowhere.  (I hope everyone realizes that Pete Domenici of New Mexico is not running for re-election; he's been a major pro-nuclear Senator; even though I've not always agreed with him.)

As someone who lived (and worked for a short time) through the previous nuclear boom and bust, I feel that the economy will have a far greater impact on nuclear's future than either candidate.

And as an end-note, Illinois has the most nuclear plants of any state, but the Senator from Illinois had nothing to do with their being built.  He wasn't even in the State government at the time they were built.  Actually, umm, some of them were licensed when he was a little kid and even the "newest" plant is over 20 years old.

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: New Nukes?

vpl,

You make some good points, but even an anti-nuclear congress will want to reduce CO2 emissions, especially, since both candidates want CO2 limits.

Any legislation on pollutants such as CO2 will drive up the per kW cost.  Previously, nuclear power could never compete with "dirt burners", but given the cost of CO2 scrubbers, the nuke industry actually has a good chance for revival.  You simply can't base load the grid with wind and solar power.

Just out of curosity, do you know if dry cask storage is included in any of the new license applications?


 

RE: New Nukes?

mauner

Dry cask storage is a Part 72 license and needs to be applied for separately from a Part 50 or Part 52 license (which means "no").

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: New Nukes?

The issue with wind and solar that gets overlooked is that regardless how much you build it does not decrease the amount of conventional power that you need.  Unless you stick with solar/thermal which has some coast capability or you use the wind/solar power to drive pumped storage for hydro you have no way to assure supply on demand.

I'll be surprised if more than just a few Nucs get built.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

RE: New Nukes?

I found this video with Obama describing his position on nuclear power in fairly good detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw

The questioner stated that there is no no independent review required for plant life extension and that most extension requests are approved.

Obama stated "I would reverse that position"

Obama further stated "The NRC has become a morebund agency that needs to be revamped, and has become captive of the industry that it regulates"

"NRC similar to FCC, EPA, FDA....  federal agencies that over the last 7 years have been filled with cronies and lost their sense of mission."

He supports a central location for fuel storage, but no  Yucca mountain since it is "built on a fault line".

He describes himself as an agnostic on nuclear power. It is not off the table, because there is no perfect energy source.  It should be in the mix IF safe, know how to store it, not vulnerable to terrorist attack.

"I don't think there is anyone that dislikes nuclear power, we just dislike the fact that it may blow up and radiate and kill us"  (??)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

(OP)
I am giddy awaiting Patricia's response :)

RE: New Nukes?

It was not my intention to put anyone on the spot to respond.   Just wanted to present the position of the candidate in his own words.

It seems self-evident to me that these are policitcally-motivated comments, not comments based on first-hand observation or reliable sources.   

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

As a member of a "moribund agency" and someone who used to be the lead license-renewal inspector for the midwest, in my personal opinion, which does NOT represent an Agency view, there is more than a bit of truth to the comments that electricpete quoted Obama as making.  [Realize that I do need to be careful in criticizing my employer, which is the reason for the round-about language and caveats.]

As with any federal agency, the political mood has a large impact on how the agency does business.  For the last 8 years, there has been a decided pro-industry focus that might very well shift, dependent upon the election results.  That would not necessarily be bad.

I started to write further providing my opinion of some of the demands for "independent" reviews as well as the "rubberstamping" accusation, but decided this thread has already veered well off anything nuclear work-related.  So I will refrain.


 

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: New Nukes?

"...we just dislike the fact that it may blow up..."

just plain ignorant

RE: New Nukes?

Wecos,
Most of the time when I hear about the possibility of a Nuclear Plant exploding they show a picture of Chernobyl. Not quite the same.

RE: New Nukes?


Chernobyl is what happens without healthy checks and balances.

RE: New Nukes?

Chernobyl had a graphite moderated reactor design that relied on operational procedures to prevent a reactivity addition accident.

All of the new nuke plants use water (light water) as the moderator.

I am concerned because McCain wants to re-process fuel.

I'm not sure how the French do it, but eventually the commercial industry will want to use breeder reactors. Why re-process? When you can make fuel as you go!

Unfortunately, breeder reators use fast fuels which can not be moderated or controlled with water.

These reactors can blow up and are illegal in the US!


 

RE: New Nukes?

mauner

Breeders require reprocessing,
The manufactured fuel (Plutonium or Thorium), is from the edge of the core and require the removal of the fission products from the atoms that fission-ed instead of absorbing the neutrons.  The fission products poison the core just like the do in all other reactors and requires new fuel on a regular basis from the reprocessing plant.

If we reprocessed fuel, like the rest of the world, all the long lived stuff (trans-Uranium elements) are sent back to the reactors for use as fuel, all the short lived stuff have half lives less than 30 years, turn that into glass and in 300 years you have got a interesting piece of glass.  Why do we need 10,000 year storage then?  All spent fuel can be reprocessed; heavy water, light water, graphite moderated, gas cooled, sodium cooled breeders, even submarine and aircraft carrier cores.

No reactor can blow up like an atom bomb, bombs are made from 99.9% +/- fission grade material, typical reactors use up to 5% fission grade material, breeders use up to 20% fission grade material in the central core.  that is still a far cry from 99

As for blowing up; accident scenarios are from pressure, steam and chemical reactions with the complications of radiological contamination, not from short order prompt supercriticality events which is what atom-bombs do.

I will step down from my soapbox now

Hydrae

RE: New Nukes?

Mauner has some of the terminology wrong; however, that doesn't make him entirely incorrect.  The only breeder reactor ever licensed for construction (Clinch River) was designed to use fast [u]neutrons[\u] to bombard a core of reprocessed fuel(as stated by hydrae.)  If I am remembering correctly, the reactor design had a positive coefficient of reactivity.  This meant that, if the moderator went away, the reactor would increase in power, rather than decrease --unfortunately, somewhat similar (but not identical!) to the Chernobyl design.  This would not cause the reactor to blow up, but could make a meltdown more likely.  I would also like to mention that Chernobyl had safety systems to prevent a reactivity excursion, but that the operators bypassed them to run an experiment.

However, reactor design has come a long way since the 1960's, and if one were to be built in the US today, it would need to meet the NRC's requirements (which, despite being a moribound agency, does not do rubber-stamping, no matter what anti-nuclear activists claim).

I would like to point out to Mauner, that reprocessing was not always "illegal" in the US and, just a one President decided to not permit it, another President could allow it.

However, is any of this really work-related?

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: New Nukes?

Fermi unit I was also a breeder

Hydrae

RE: New Nukes?

Clinch river and Fermi were "fast water breeder reactors".  These were the only two of that type and the Clinch river never completed.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-fast-breeder-react

Quote:

The U.S. constructed two experimental breeder reactors, neither of which produced power commercially. The Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan was the first American fast breeder reactor but operated only from 1963 until 1972 before engineering problems led to a failed license renewal and subsequent decommissioning. Construction of the only other commercial fast breeder reactor in the U.S., the Clinch River plant in Tennessee, was halted in 1983 when Congress cut funding. Elsewhere in the world, only India, Russia, Japan and China currently have operational fast breeder reactor programs; the U.K., France and Germany have effectively shut down theirs

Shippingsport PA had the first "light water breeder reactor".  I assume if it was not one of the fast water breeder reactors, then it must have been a slow (thermal neutron) reactor.
http://www.asme.org/Communities/History/Landmarks/Shippingport_Nuclear_Power.cfm

Quote:

The design effort had been redirected to peace-time power generation from a large-scale light water reactor for a proposed aircraft carrier. Constructed to advance nuclear fission technology in general, the plant was flexible in accommodating cores of different types. Various manufacturers with different designs and materials for components were used. Water in the primary system, heated by nuclear fission, flows to the heat exchanging system, which absorbs the heat. This heat turns water in the secondary system, a relatively low pressure system, to steam. This steam is sent to the turbine generator to drive the turbine.


The first power at Shippingport was produced on December 18, 1957, and was fed into the grid for the Pittsburgh area. On December 2, 1977, the first U.S. light water breeder reactor went to full power at Shippingport.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Correction: "These were the only two of that type in the US"

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

Wish I had an edit button.  The paragraph about aircraft carrier core was not relevant to breeder reactors.  I read somewhere that the Shippingsport reactor was originally intended as an easy backfit for existing reactors.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: New Nukes?

The French have two significant reprocessing plants, but I was unaware that they are using any breeder reactors.  Can someone clarify, I was under the impression they were reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from their LWR's  

RE: New Nukes?

In the first quoted text of mmy 31 Oct 08 9:38, it states the French have shut down (terminated) their breeder program.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close