Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 23:00 John Larkin wrote: > On 27 Oct 2006 07:23:13 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > [...] > >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. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html It largely confirms my memory of what was reported shortly there after: ***** The immediate cause of the Chernobyl accident was a mismanaged electrical-engineering experiment. Engineers with no knowledge of reactor physics were interested to see if they could draw electricity from the turbine generator of the Number 4 reactor unit to run water pumps during an emergency when the turbine was no longer being driven by the reactor but was still spinning inertially. The engineers needed the reactor to wind up the turbine; then they planned to idle it to 2.5 percent power. Unexpected electrical demand on the afternoon of April 29 delayed the experiment until eleven o'clock that night. When the experimenters finally started, they felt pressed to make up for lost time, so they reduced the reactor's power level too rapidly. That mistake caused a rapid buildup of neutron-absorbing fission by products in the reactor core, which poisoned the reaction. To compensate, the operators withdrew a majority of the reactor's control rods, but even with the rods withdrawn, they were unable to increase the power level to more than 30 megawatts, a low level of operation at which the reactor's instability potential is at its worst and that the Chernobyl plant's own safety rules forbade. At that point, writes Russian nuclear engineer Grigori Medvedev, "there were two options: increasing the power immediately, or waiting twenty-four hours for the poisons to dissipate. [Deputy chief engineer Dyatlov] should have waited...But he [had an experiment to conduct and he] was unwilling to stop...He ordered an immediate increase in the power of the reactor." Reluctantly the operators complied. By 1 a.m. on April 26, they stabilized the reactor at 200 megawatts. It was still poisoned and increasingly difficult to control. More control rods came out. A minimum reserve for an RBMK reactor is supposed to be 30 control rods. At the end, the Number 4 unit was down to only six control rods, with 205 rods withdrawn. The experimenters allowed this dangerous condition to develop even though they had deliberately bypassed and disconnected every important safety system, including the emergency core-cooling system. They had also disconnected every backup electrical system, down to and including diesel generators, that would have allowed them to operate the reactor controls in the event of an emergency. ******** > The experiment was to see how much steam they > could generate from the latent/isotope heat of a totally shutdown > reactor. Not according to what I've read. > > >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, Not according to the above. But I won't argue that since 6 is close to zero and the others that had been returned were not very far in. >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." It was an almost purely chemical and steam explosion anyway. There really wasn't much nuclear to this other than providing a lot of heat to get the things going. > The real mess was the uncontained mountain of graphite catching fire. > Water-moderated reactors can't fail this way. The reaction slows down if the water leaves. This doesn't make them completely safe however because the water can be a grat deal above boiling when this happens. You can still get the steam explosion. The containment vessel would hold the contents in but a flawed reactor vessel can still rupture. > The controllers weren't trying to "stabilize" it, they were trying to > restart it. No, they had restarted it and were getting 200MW out.
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 05:48 In article <2ez0h.8$e06.383(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <ehso6p$8qk_008(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: <snip> >>>>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>> >>>Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >>>physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >>>than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) >> >>Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the >>contrast. :-) I thought about my choice of this word some more. I made my choice based on my experimental experience. Man...what I wouldn't have given to have been able to measure to one lousy decimal point. I don't think I've ever measured anything to 8 decimal points. Is that a Wow! moment in physics when you do that for the first time? >>> >>>>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>>>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. >>> >>>It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous >>>twittery. >> >><GRIN> >> ><BIG GRIN> > >>> You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all >>>you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would >>>think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some >>>people never do. >> >>I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas >>it was never a permanent cure. >> >Well, it is not permanent but still useful. Doesn't it say in the >instructions "apply as often as needed"?:-) Instructions? What instructions?! I didn't know these things came with instructions. > >>> >>>Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a >>>damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it >>>"wrong" is stupid. >> >>Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, >>I think they're raining down. >> >So I noticed. I'm untwining myself from the thread. It's still got my ankles. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 05:59 In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >[....] >> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? > >This is simply false. Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. > >Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: > >(A) >The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? > >(B) >Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems in most of them; no funding was allowed. > >(C) >Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >I remember because it was a near perfect failure. I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand of religion an effective action. That's spitting into a gale force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk a hundred miles away. > The Saudi government >had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's stump speeches would have one believe. I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not doing it? Everybody swallows what this man says without any critical thinking. I guess that's what JMF called charisma. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:01 In article <yir0h.17056$TV3.1877(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><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. If the cause of the pimple is so virulent that cutting the head off will prevent tranmission of the disease, yes. I'm not talking about an annoying skin bump. /BAH > >Eric Lucas > >Eric Lucas > >
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:13
In article <4540C493.2EE94A81(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" >> do you not understand? > >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / business. >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to continue >living in ignorance of the facts ? > >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. However, it seems that you are making the assumption you accuse me of making; namely, that all Muslims deem capitalism as an unIslamic condition. The threat comes from Muslims who believe that *all* Western civilization activities are bad. /BAH |