- #4,271
TCups
- 486
- 0
|Fred said:That's the spirit! they used i-robot http://www.irobot.com/
domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
Last edited by a moderator:
|Fred said:That's the spirit! they used i-robot http://www.irobot.com/
clancy688 said:I think there's the problem. 33% is multiply by 0.33, not divide. Or divide by 3.
But I'm not sure as to what those 33% efficiency apply to in the calculations.
Edit: Screw that - you're right... ^^;
33% = the 760 MWe, 100% = total MWt
Hm, I also get your results...
But I think there are more factors contributing. First, it has not been 6 but 5 months or less since shutdown. And second, the pool is totally full AND there's probably debris inside, plus it's probably not filled up to the top. So if I double your 24 Bq/cm³ three times (three half times, less then one month) I get ~200 Bq/cm³. And because of the fill status /debris / water height there's probably not 900 billion cm³ water inside, but less.
TCups said:domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
TCups said:domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
Strongly agreed. Even if there's some circulation, there has to be a lot of circulation to avoid geyser effect. I was sceptical but now I am convinced that your hypothesis is plausible. I still doubt it's the full picture, but it can happen, and if we're to discuss criticality in SPF we need to also think of geyser effect.cphoenix said:I disagree that "they didn't think of it ahead of time" means "it's likely impossible." Very simple mechanics and arithmetic says it is possible.
StrangeBeauty said:The original video from the BBC without sound that I first viewed:
This is the explosion at Unit 1, StrangeBeatuy
The same video from Sky News without sound:
...and this is the explosion at Unit 3 -- hardly the same video, SB
Same video from Japanese TV again, without sound:
... and this is the explosion at Unit 3
The oztvwatcher version (who's that?) with sound:
...ah ha! Now you have it. The video and audio from the explosion at Bldg 3
Another video from Indian TV (?guessing here) with completely different sound:
Yes, indeed, the explosion at Bldg 1 does have a completely different sound than the explosion at Bldg 3! Amazing. I had probably missed that.
Which ones have been faked? They can't all be the original.
TCups, you may continue on your puzzle hunt, which has often been interesting -- but I'm just trying to keep you from wasting time on bad information. Yes, I'm suggesting fakery/fraud to gain viewers. It was obvious to me from the first time I heard it that was concocted since I've concocted such things myself for various purposes (e.g. foley work). Not only did I think this was concocted, but it was badly done - an obvious fake for the reasons I listed above. An actual, large explosion at that distance sounds nothing like that track. If a real soundtrack for the explosion became available why wouldn't the more reputable news organizations cover that? The bottom line, as an investigator, you need to prove your source is legitimate and that has not been done.
TCups said:Speaking of fact checking and posting the correct references
Last I heard they were considering it. Also last I heard they were offered this stuff in first few days. But by Areva and KHG rather than by Sarkozy and Merkel.WhoWee said:That was over 2 weeks ago - didn't they accept?
Dmytry said:on topic of chemistry... in what form would the Cs exist? Wouldn't it take away O from UO2 becoming Cs2O ? Then in water, CsOH ?
Cs is far more reactive than U. I'd expect any Cs to immediately grab the oxygen from UO2
StrangeBeauty said:I sincerely apologize to the members for inadvertently including two videos of the #1 explosion.
Interestingly enough, one has sound and the other doesn't. Gee, I wonder how that could have possibly happened just like with the #3 videos...?
That said, my error does nothing to help you prove that the video of the #3 explosion with sound is legitimate. MiceAndMen asked good questions.
StrangeBeauty said:I sincerely apologize to the members for inadvertently including two videos of the #1 explosion.
Interestingly enough, one has sound and the other doesn't. Gee, I wonder how that could have possibly happened just like with the #3 videos...?
That said, my error does nothing to help you prove that the video of the #3 explosion with sound is legitimate. MiceAndMen asked good questions.
NUCENG said:In a previous post (#4111) I calculated the concentration of a 5% gap release of Iodine-131 into the pool from just the last core offloaded. Unfortunately I only accounted for a 30 day decay. Mr. Gunderson correctly indicated that the unit was shutdown 4 months before the accident. It has been a month since. So I repeated my calculation accounting for 180 days (6 months) of decay.
From an ORIGEN2 calculation of a BWR the core inventory of I-131 at 6months after shutdown is 5.03E-3 Ci per MW. Assuming 760 MW Electric and a 33% efficiency for Unit 4 leaves a total I-131 at the time of the accident of 5.23E5 Ci. In Taking 5% (gap release) and converting to Bq leaves 9.67E14 Bq.
I assumed a Fuel Pool of 40' by 20' by 40' deep. That converts to 1.81E9 cm^3.
Possible concentratiion of I-131 after 6 months in the fuel pool with only 5% of the source term released is up to 5.34E5 Bq/cm^3.
Personally I think Mr. Gunderson is absolutely correct when he ridicules TEPCO's explanation of Iodine deposition. But you do not need criticality to explain the concentration of I-131 they reported.
I try to keep reminding people that just because an isotope has a short half life does not mean it disappears in a few half lives. Half of a big number is still a big number. I-131 will likely be detectable beyond a year after shutdown.
dh87 said:1. The boiling point of I2 is 184 °C. It's hard to boil it out of water.
and as far as I know, most iodine compounds are unstable, i.e., they tend to readily decompose in favor of other compounds + I2.Borek said:Boiling is not that important - iodine easily sublimes, so it doesn't have to go through liquid phase to become airborne.
clancy688 said:Well, you could zip and upload them to a sharehoster... ^^
This would be very nice. :)
hmm mmm. Iodine is a strong oxidizer and tends to readily react with a lot of compounds, oxidizing them or even replacing something.Astronuc said:and as far as I know, most iodine compounds are unstable, i.e., they tend to readily decompose in favor of other compounds + I2.
TCups said:HAPPY EYES WILL FOOL YOU EVERY TIME.
No hints. You have to find it yourself.
TCups said:HAPPY EYES WILL FOOL YOU EVERY TIME.
Well, once again, I fear my eyes are happy when they see what I expect them to see. But if I go brain dead and start from scratch, it is a lot easier to discover the obvious!
Take another look at the "undamaged" shot of Bldg 4 after the Bldg 3 explosion. . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34633&d=1303253626
Now take a look at the attached hi-res photo "after" Bldg 4 has been damaged . . .
Does anyone else see what I now see??!
No hints. You have to find it yourself.
ian_scotland said:Come on, just a small hint, the suspense is killing me here. Its way past my bed time and I can't wait another 6 hours!
TCups said:
No hints. You have to find it yourself.
TCups said:Building 4 has already exploded. Two panels have blasted out of the east side and impacted on the west facade of the turbine building for Unit 4, and smoke is pouring out of the east side of Building 4. Your eyes aren't looking for it because you know this is "before" the explosion. But the impacts on the turbine building are real. They weren't there before the explosion.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34633&d=1303253626
TCups said:Building 4 has already exploded. Two panels have blasted out of the east side and impacted on the west facade of the turbine building for Unit 4, and smoke is pouring out of the east side of Building 4. Your eyes aren't looking for it because you know this is "before" the explosion. But the impacts on the turbine building are real. They weren't there before the explosion.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34633&d=1303253626
ascot317 said:Might as well just be debris from #3 I've looked at different perspectives, sometimes it looks like dents, sometimes like pieces that are covering the roof's edge (debris of #3's roof maybe).
I can't come to a conclusion just by looking at this sat photo. The resolution is just too low (even with the original on flickr), and the perspective is the exact opposite of what you'd need.
I'm not even sure if I can see the wall piece on the two pipes on that photo.
It doesn't help to have clouds/smoke/vapor overhead. If you look closely, you can identify something that looks like vapor comming from the edge of #4 (similar to the hole in #2 sometimes), but that could be comming from the chimney too. However, in the west of the chimney, there's a "cloud", too. Hm.
Borek said:Boiling is not that important - iodine easily sublimes, so it doesn't have to go through liquid phase to become airborne.
Astronuc said:and as far as I know, most iodine compounds are unstable, i.e., they tend to readily decompose in favor of other compounds + I2."
TCups said:Building 4 has already exploded. Two panels have blasted out of the east side and impacted on the west facade of the turbine building for Unit 4, and smoke is pouring out of the east side of Building 4. Your eyes aren't looking for it because you know this is "before" the explosion. But the impacts on the turbine building are real. They weren't there before the explosion.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34633&d=1303253626
TCups said:HAPPY EYES WILL FOOL YOU EVERY TIME.
Well, once again, I fear my eyes are happy when they see what I expect them to see. But if I go brain dead and start from scratch, it is a lot easier to discover the obvious!
Take another look at the "undamaged" shot of Bldg 4 after the Bldg 3 explosion. . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34633&d=1303253626
Now take a look at the attached hi-res photo "after" Bldg 4 has been damaged . . .
Does anyone else see what I now see??!
No hints. You have to find it yourself.
OnlyOneTruth said:http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/intro/outline/outline-j.html" from TEPCO after you pipe it through a translator.
MiceAndMen said:Thanks, Fred. I replied above before seeing your post. It's a start. I, too, remember hearing initially that a helicopter recorded the video, but I don't remember where I heard that.
it is impossible to predict anything there imo. I would of never thought they'd be using 2 robots, one with radiation monitor strapped to it, other to look at the monitor, 38 days in, versus some KHG robot.etudiant said:The expertise deployed on this forum to understand the processes which reduced four multi billion dollar reactors to steaming scrap is laudable.
For an outside observer, it would be wonderful if this expertise were also employed looking forward, to help evaluate and understand the challenges and risks posed by the clean up plan.
For instance, Areva is scheduled to have a water processing plant built by the end of June that will process 1200 tons of water/day. There are nearly 70,000 tons currently in the facility, increasing at 500tons/day, so there will be 100,000 tons by the time the plant is operational.
The plant will start to whittle down the flood at about 700 tons/day net once it starts, so it will take 150 days to drain the facility, if all goes well.
That says the cleanup will not begin until very late this year at the earliest.
Is this a plausible schedule? How does it tie into the TEPCO indication that the immediate crisis should be stabilized within 9 months? What are the risks that should be of most concern?