- #6,441
|Fred
- 312
- 0
This non sense has been ruled out in march.GJBRKS said:Has the idea that the full top of the unit 3 RPV was blown off already been debunked ?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread693571/pg2#pid11221435
This non sense has been ruled out in march.GJBRKS said:Has the idea that the full top of the unit 3 RPV was blown off already been debunked ?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread693571/pg2#pid11221435
StrangeBeauty said:Isn't another problem with the superheating scenario the fact that the site was experiencing almost constant aftershocks of varying degrees throughout this time period which would have created disturbances in the water...?
Samy24 said:Interresting is that the radiation in the SFP should come from the reactor core of unit 3 and not from the fuel in the pool.
How is it possible that the explosion at unit 3 could "extract" fuel from the core to the pool?
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_30.html"
Dmytry said:I'm not saying it proves criticality in sfp4, they might have used contaminated seawater for cooling (but if so, why did not TEPCO give it as explanation?).
It said the radioactive materials detected in the latest check could have come from seawater sprayed into the pool to cool the reactor.
zapperzero said:http://www.youtube.com/user/Anjiin#p/u/15/1Dcg2_YGtZ0
Sorry to go even further off topic, but... I see stuff in that third video that would never fly on a regular construction site.
GJBRKS said:http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/705/containment.jpg
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Containment%20Structures.pdf
"Steam being quenched from the primary vessel into the torus under high pressure would act as a rocket and could cause vessel displacement"
Has the idea that the full top of the unit 3 RPV was blown off already been debunked ?
It would be consistent with the 1 atm pressure reading
[URL]http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww51/Moshpet/Exploded-veiw.jpg[/URL]
source : http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread693571/pg2#pid11221435
jlduh said:The analysis this guy is giving is wrong based on the picture on which he is drawing the supposed reactor, simply because he places it at the wrong place! The reactor is normally centered in the middle of the North/South axis (it's normally offset towards the East on the East/West axis) , but the part of the picture where he is drawing the circle is completely offset to the North side.
See there is no metallic structure over the place where he is drawing the circle, while this remaining structure from the roof is present in the middle of the building after the explosion.
http://www.netimago.com/image_198661.html
I'm not saying anything about the actual condition of the reactor (but at least it seems that some sensors for temps are still working!) but for sure the stuff the guy is showing is NOT the remains of the reacto because it's clearly at the wrong place!
GJBRKS said:Has the idea that the full top of the unit 3 RPV was blown off already been debunked ?
GJBRKS said:Things are at the wrong place in a lot of places ...
Thought so allready , good to have that cleared up
quark42 said:Here's the link to the PDF at the NRC's site: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/prv.pdf"
First post here. I've been reading this thread since around the #350th post and I'd like to thank all the contributors. I've learned an incredible amount about nuclear physics and the engineering of nuclear reactors.
Keep up the good work. Back to lurking...
jpquantin said:Wouldn't it also happen in BWR cores then? Boiling water, high radiation would generate lot of hydrogen, which would not recombine (boiling + steam environment). This means cores would generate a lot of hydrogen, a lot more than observed, don't you think?
GJBRKS said:
mrcurious said:You're referencing information from a ufo-magiccrystals-NWO-aliens conspiracy site. There may be some useful info posted there but I wouldn't trust the dialogue.
SteveElbows said:Just for the sake of completeness I'll say that what is actually seen within the blue circle on this picture, is quite likely a device that has received attention on this thread many times before, because it can be seen from a few different angles and early on some people may have confused it with the missing refuelling bridge.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/tour/R3_equipment.jpg
Possibly some people have been calling this 'the spanner' of late, but I prefer to use its real name. I had not realized that the house of faust website had already named it, and wasted an hour of my time finding out what it was called independently, doh.
Its a stud tensioner.
http://www.siempelkamp-tensioning.c...ure-vessels-rpv/what-is-a-stud-tensioner.html
Samy24 said:Interresting is that the radiation in the SFP should come from the reactor core of unit 3 and not from the fuel in the pool.
How is it possible that the explosion at unit 3 could "extract" fuel from the core to the pool?
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_30.html"
None of these substances were detected during an inspection on March 2nd, before the accident triggered by the March 11th disaster.
Well surprise surprise surprise!
GJBRKS said:I'm aware of the reputation , but I liked the graphic enough to illustrate the idea.
Most counterarguments so far have been circumstantial :
- ' People would have died'
- ' It's not because we said so'
- 'The presented evidence doesn't fit'
- ' Something else would have broken'
But none of these are saying that it would have been impossible a priori ...
And considering the force and direction of the destruction I'm still not convinced that it wasn't the vessel itself that ruptured , perhaps by fuel entering the torus and starting a steam explosion , exiting back through the torus upwards into the drywell and reactor.
That's not to say that I do not value your counterarguments , I see more reason there than in this of mine ...
So thanks for your ideas , I'll go back to studying now ...
jim hardy said:i've been trying to follow the posts so excuse me if i missed discussion of this one, linked yestarday i think.
http://i.imgur.com/IqCPH.jpg
wold imbed picture if knew how.
Anybody know source of the photo? Is it credible?
rmattila said:If you mean BWR plants under normal operation, they do have recombiners in the condenser vacuum/off gas system in order to recombine the hydrogen and oxygen back to water prior to transferring the gases to the actual off-gas treatment.
SteveElbows said:Can we bring the reactor 3 talk down to earth?
Specifically, since the talk of a crack in containment appears to have been confirmed in an IAEA presentation some days back, are we entirely sure that these people have seen images we havent?
jim hardy said:Re: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants
...My self i think Arnie is not on right track, but i could be wrong.
Take a look at 2:06 in that #3 pool video, Do i see rebar blown into pool and concrete rubble on top of prettty complacent fuel elements? Like a wall blown into pool?
and at 2:12 are we looking back through a hole in a pool wall? Maybe somebody will sharpen up that video.
apply your same logic to reactor.
SteveElbows said:Its taken from this video, where this scene shows up briefly at around 3 mins 8 seconds, and again at approx 3 mins 23 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/user/modchannel#p/a/u/0/ZKFGavZ_rf4
MiceAndMen said:Where is that IAEA presentation, please? I must have missed it.
jim hardy said:62.4 lbs cubic foot for water versus maybe 1/40th lb for steam is a ratio of maybe 2500 to 1 ?
jim hardy said:apply your same logic to reactor.
MiceAndMen said:The odds are pretty good that they have imagery we have not seen.
MiceAndMen said:They almost certainly have imagery we have not seen.
SteveElbows said:Specifically, there was that Japanese defence force video taken in March, and one area where stuff was billowing out always caught my eye ...
Im talking about the attached image, which as best I can tell from watching the video several times, shows stuff emerging from the area where containment could be said to begin. I am pretty sure we are looking at the steam dryer separator storage pool, and the area where the large concrete 'gate' is located which connects it to the upper part of reactor containment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/modchannel#p/a/u/0/ZKFGavZ_rf4
jim hardy said:i've been trying to follow the posts so excuse me if i missed discussion of this one, linked yestarday i think.
http://i.imgur.com/IqCPH.jpg
wold imbed picture if knew how.
Anybody know source of the photo? Is it credible?
Can you photo capable guys offer an opinion on the snaggletooth round looking shape in the red rectangle connected by red line to reactor vessel head? It's way down in the shadows.
SteveElbows said:Can we bring the reactor 3 talk down to earth?
Specifically, since the talk of a crack in containment appears to have been confirmed in an IAEA presentation some days back, are we entirely sure that these people have seen images we havent?
Specifically, there was that Japanese defence force video taken in March, and one area where stuff was billowing out always caught my eye. I was not on this forum back then and although I did wade through many of the early pages, I do not recall whether this avenue of enquiry was picked up on at the time.
Im talking about the attached image, which as best I can tell from watching the video several times, shows stuff emerging from the area where containment could be said to begin. I am pretty sure we are looking at the steam dryer separator storage pool, and the area where the large concrete 'gate' is located which connects it to the upper part of reactor containment. Could this count as the crack that has been described, is it reasonable evidence of containment damage, or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Its taken from this video, where this scene shows up briefly at around 3 mins 8 seconds, and again at approx 3 mins 23 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/user/modchannel#p/a/u/0/ZKFGavZ_rf4