- #8,296
SteveElbows
- 637
- 9
havemercy said:resulted in a low blast that everybody has interpreted as a replica of 5.6 on Richter scale ?
When do you think this may have happened?
havemercy said:resulted in a low blast that everybody has interpreted as a replica of 5.6 on Richter scale ?
biffvernon said:What's all this >200Sv/hr in the #1 dry-well about?
http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1
According to RBC, the epicenter of the earthquake was located at a depth of 35.8 km at a distance of 74 km from the city of Fukushima, and only 22 km from the nuclear power plant "Fukushima-1. According to the US Geological Survey, tremors were recorded at 19:25 MSK.
tsutsuji said:The Incinerator building basement, where the contaminated water from unit 3 had been moved, was suspected of leaking :
The missing water has finally been found in a tunnel joining two buildings. There has been no leak into the ground water, according to http://mainichi.jp/select/science/news/20110527k0000m040110000c.html
havemercy said:blast that everybody has interpreted as a replica of 5.6 on Richter scale ?
havemercy said:On April 22 : According to RBC, the epicenter of the earthquake was located at a depth of 35.8 km at a distance of 74 km from the city of Fukushima, and only 22 km from the nuclear power plant "Fukushima-1. According to the US Geological Survey, tremors were recorded at 19:25 MSK.
havemercy said:Because it is the nearest of the plant.
jim hardy said:be patient guys my first try at photo well maybe second
Has this been posted?
found it at Cryptome..was taken March 16, and the deck looks a lot worse in later photos.
it's in the zipped file of full size photos and has this name: aerial-2011-3-18-14-50-0.jpg
(editing mine, with MS-Paint, which clobbers the resolution)
you can see the concrete cap not there but i can't tell for sure about the yellow thing on right. In the hi-res it's a maybe.
Would one who knew how to lighten be able to see down into that black hole and tell if yellow containment cap is there?
havemercy said:Because it is the nearest of the plant.
elektrownik said:If there would be explosion which would generate 5.6 quake then you wouldn't see reactor buikdings anymore...
jim hardy said:That is where I am too. It's an open but doubtful question and the absence of good photos does lend to conspiracy theory. I don't like conspiracy theory and have been looking to dispel it.
To that end i put a couple early photos over on scribd, not wanting to clutter this board with a long essay.
If you have fifteen minutes to kill, and promise to not accuse me here of fearmongering , i welcome your comment at this link, or about it here:
http://www.scribd.com/jim_hardy_9
It's an honest question. I want to rule some things out but the "optical illusions" keep on cropping up.
jim hardy said:here's a generic refueling photo, shows top of vessel open with head bolts installed. Note circled walkway - vessel protrudes above refueling cavity floor and walkway presumably crosses vessel to containment flange. I think the outer green ring is the bolt circle for containment cap, perhaps NucEng or somebody with BWR experience can correct me.
never mind deck loop it's just a hose..
four white spots must be reflections of ceiling lights.
pls excuse if a repeat.
jim hardy said:Note circled walkway - vessel protrudes above refueling cavity floor and walkway presumably crosses vessel to containment flange.
jim hardy said:<..>It's an open but doubtful question and the absence of good photos does lend to conspiracy theory. I don't like conspiracy theory and have been looking to dispel it.
MadderDoc said:I think it is fair to say that the access to photos and videos have left some of us with unanswered questions now for months about the happenings at unit 3 during the last half of March 2011, questions which Tepco reasonably should be well-positioned to answer. Conspiracy may not be the right word, but it is an awkward situation indeed.
Bodge said:Does anyone know how many terabecquerels of I-131 could have been released if all fission stopped 11th March, but 90% of all 3 cores melted?
Bodge said:wow
Between 6 and 81 exa-becquerels of I-131 released.
jim hardy said:""Big suckers - wonder how many foot-pounds?? ""
looks like the reactor head is pretty thick, too...
as a non - MechE i confuse the terms bolt and stud. I guess a stud is just a bolt without a head, may be other differences.
Mechanical engineers (i'm not one but used to drink beer with some) want a certain amount of tension in a bolt. Tension tells them how tightly the bolt is pulling the pieces together .
We non-mechanical folks think of a bolt as solid, but actually it's a real stout spring that you stretch ever so slightly by torquing the nut.
For big ones they measure the stretch instead of torque because it's a more precise indicator of tension.
Torque can fool you, for if there's a lot of friction in the threads from rust or dirt then the torque is being wasted in twisting the bolt instead of stretching it.
Those big fellas probably have a small hole down the center for a measuring rod to measure how much they're stretched.
Here's a table of strengths of various steels for various grades of bolts
http://www.americanfastener.com/technical/grade_markings_steel.asp
There's about a 3 fold range of strength.
i'd bet these are an exotic alloy like ASTM A490, about halfway down.
old jim
Having inadvertent withdraw of a control rod, or rod drop accident, is a design basis accident, and it is a concern. Having a lot of control rods dropping out at the same time would be a really big deal.clancy688 said:Apparently, japanese reactors have a habit of "losing" their control rods. Is that of any concern for the current accident? Just wondering...
jim hardy said:snip >
you can see the concrete cap not there but i can't tell for sure about the yellow thing on right. In the hi-res it's a maybe.
< snip