Editing ML-1 (section)

==Analysis==

Rodney Adams, in a 1996 Atomic Insights article, argues that the ML-1 design and implementation was flawed due to the decision to build an advanced, highly efficient, easily transportable closed-cycle nitrogen gas turbine before any other functional version of the design had been created.<ref name="AdamsML1PostMortem">{{cite web|url=http://www.atomicinsights.com/nov95/ML-1.html|title=ML-1 Mobile Power System: Reactor in a Box|last=Adams|first=Rodney (Rod) M.|date=November 1995|work=Atomic Insights|publisher=Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.|access-date=2009-10-27|location=USA}}</ref>

Adams opines that the designers of ML-1 made several incorrect decisions, including adding an unnecessary recuperator to enhance efficiency, using a calandria-based water-tube fission heat source unproven in the "real world", using nine atmospheres of pressure at the compressor inlet that saved space but required a custom-built turbine rather than one designed for atmospheric pressures, placing insulating foil within the gas piping to improve efficiency (the foil later broke off and contaminated the closed loop with its flecks, causing deflaking problems for engineers), and using custom-built, first-of-a-kind components instead of using commercially proven aircraft or power generation derived turbines.<ref name="AdamsML1PostMortem" />