Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 12:48 On 27 Oct 2006 07:23:13 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >[....] >> What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, >> blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) > >You are showing a bit of a lack of imagination here. The guys a >Chernobyl were do an "experiment" where they were attempting to control >the reactor in the "no mans land" of the low output end of the range. You are making this up. The experiment was to see how much steam they could generate from the latent/isotope heat of a totally shutdown reactor. >The carbon moderated reactors are dynamically unstable at the level. >The output oscillates wildly and the controllers were trying to >manually force it to be stable. When the large overshoot happened, >they would have closed the throttle If Chernobyl had been done on >purpose, the fire would have been much harder to put out. When Chernobyl blew, *all* the control rods were out of the core, and seconds later it was such a mess that no rods could be re-inserted. It couldn't have been any worse. And the nuclear energy thump didn't vaporize anything nearby, much less disappear things "50 miles away." The real mess was the uncontained mountain of graphite catching fire. Water-moderated reactors can't fail this way. The controllers weren't trying to "stabilize" it, they were trying to restart it. Their experiment had killed the reaction and pushed the reactor into the isotope poisoning zone, and they feared, correctly, that if they didn't get it restarted right away, it would be days before it could be brought back online. So they pulled all the rods in a desperate attempt to get it going again. It *was* the dynamic instability of a graphite reactor that made it go boom, instead of politely melting down. Read "The Truth About Chernobyl" by Grigori Medvedev; way scarier than anything Steven King ever wrote. John
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 12:52 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:37:19 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >MooseFET wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >> [....] >> > What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, >> > blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) >> >> You are showing a bit of a lack of imagination here. The guys a >> Chernobyl were do an "experiment" where they were attempting to control >> the reactor in the "no mans land" of the low output end of the range. >> The carbon moderated reactors are dynamically unstable at the level. >> The output oscillates wildly and the controllers were trying to >> manually force it to be stable. When the large overshoot happened, >> they would have closed the throttle If Chernobyl had been done on >> purpose, the fire would have been much harder to put out. > >" the control rods were designed with graphite tips, which when initially >inserted into the reactor, speed up the reaction, instead of slowing or >stopping it. This design flaw caused the first explosion of the Chernobyl >accident, when the emergency button was pressed to stop the reactor. " > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK And that situation resulted from all the rods being withdrawn, which isn't supposed to happen. John
From: lucasea on 27 Oct 2006 12:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehsmvn$8qk_001(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>school. > > OK. I've thought about this one and cannot deduce why. I have > a disadvantage because I have no idea what kind of work is required > to be an aerial gunner. > > Did it have to do with following the recipe in the properly ordered > steps? You think *that's* what good cooking is about??? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 27 Oct 2006 13:24 <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1161960094.588360.237970(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1161875084.170162.34890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> In article <453F5C31.F7940689(a)hotmail.com>, >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have >> >> >> blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. >> > >> >You are seriously dellusional. Bush organized? >> >He can't even string a coherent sentence together. > > Glad to see you agree with this statement! There is hope for you > yet.... In general, I agree that the guy's administration is a bunch of idiots as regards national security and foreign policy. But don't for a minute think that the "golly-gee-guys" routine and Bushisms aren't just an act to ingratiate him to the, shall we say, intelligence-challenged among his electorate. As evidence, you just need to see a videotape of him when he doesn't think he's being recorded. The transition is remarkable...he's articlute, and doesn't make any of the oh-so-practiced Bushisms that he trots out for Joe Sixpak. And it's a sad statement about our nation that it worked to get him elected. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 27 Oct 2006 13:25
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehsnps$8qk_006(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>Only bin Laden has attacked us. > > I see. Your approach is to fix the pimple on the skin and > not the disease that caused the pimple. I don't work that > way. No, your approach is to cut off the head, to make sure the acne is cured. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas |