‘Design Basis’
Design Basis and Actual Redundancy
The severity of the consequences following a nuclear reactor failure is extreme, as indicated by Chernobyl Unit-4, TMI, FDU-1, FDU-2, FDU-3, *FDU-4*, SL-1, USS Thresher (SSN-593), USS Scorpion (SSN-589), USSR K-431, USSR K-141 Kursk … and in a planned USA nuclear reactor experimental explosion, whose name presently eludes my recollection. It has been blogged on this BRAWM website.
The extensive and growing number of nuclear power failures, including the recent Oi-3 outage, gives rise to some basic design basis and redundancy questions. The 16’ tsunami ‘design-basis’ did not appear sufficient in the face of a precedented and actual 50’wave of 311. Some time ago, I took a quick glance at the commercial NPP ‘Design Basis’ failure requirements. The general notion, if memory serves, is that breaking a 4” pipe is a ‘Design Basis’ failure. First, that seems like a kinda limited (officially-sanctioned) ‘Design Basis’, given the rather extensive number of nuclear reactor catastrophic failures and the cataclysmic-hemispheric level consequences of NPP failures.
Mechanical Design Redundancy appears to be somewhat lacking. Let’s discuss some very basic, ACTUAL mechanical strength and redundancy design REQUIREMENTS. This would be as opposed to the fraudulent, fantasy, happyhorseshit designs presently allowed in NPP construction. This is merely off-the-cuff, informal discussion; rather than a detailed failure mode analysis.
1) Are there two (2) completely separate mechanisms to SCRAM a commercial NPP?
2) Do commercial nuclear power plants have serviceable check-valves to prevent loss of coolant following a pipe rupture?
3) Will commercial nuclear reactor vessels & containment vessels withstand a detonation (supersonic explosion)?
4) Do commercial NPP have a redundant, filtered vent system?
5) Do commercial NPP have a premixed boron slurry, or rapid-mix capability on site?
6) Is there a ‘fuel-catch-mechanism’ for a NPP meltdown?
7) The list continues … but why belabor the obvious …
Actually, the answers to such basic questions do not appear to be particularly reassuring.
IMHO
Bill Duff
Redundant Standpipes?
Repeating the questions, whereof the regrettable answers are ... 'NO'
Are commercial NPP fitted with MULTIPLE externally accessible standpipes for rapid connection to emergency fire engine pumper trucks?
Can these standpipes be accessed and deployed, to cool the nuclear reactor, AND spent fuel pools, without sending a ‘Kamikaze-Squad’ inside to open the valves?
Will the firemen have credible protection from radiation exposure, and decontamination stations, while providing emergency cooling pump services?
Is there a redundant supply of de-ionized water at the ready?
Are there redundant, sealed water storage containers, with redundant filtration systems to catch the ‘HOT’ water?
That helicopter spray publicity stunt; just won’t cut it, IMHO!
SOD Architecture & SODbuster Events
“Oh, I can't think about that now. I'll go crazy if I do.”
The consequences of a nuclear reactor containment failure were too awful to dwell upon. Thus, reactor failure was not a design consideration the GE Mark-1 ‘containment system’. To refer to this as an ‘Ostrich Design’ is to unfairly and inaccurately characterize the actual behavior of the flightless bird, a false accusation reportedly dating to Pliny the Elder. Thus we shall refer to the GE Mark-1 nuclear reactor ‘containment’ design as the Scarlett O'Hara Design (SOD).
http://www.clasicosdelcine.net/guiones/guion_loqueelvientosellevo.pdf
STEW: Don't you want us to have a war? BRENT: Wait a minute, Scarlett... We'll talk about this... BRENT: No please, we'll do anything you say... SCARLETT: Well-but remember I warned you. BRENT: I've got an idea. We'll talk about the barbecue the Wilkes are giving over at Twelve Oaks tomorrow. STEW: That's a good idea. You're eating barbecue with us, aren't you, Scarlett? SCARLETT: Well, I hadn't thought about that yet, I'll...I'll think about that tomorrow. STEW: And we want all your waltzes, there's first Brent, then me, then Brent, then me again, then Saul. Promise? SCARLETT: I' just love to.
…
RHETT: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. SCARLETT: I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh, I can't think about that now. I'll go crazy if I do, I...I'll think about it tomorrow. I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? What is there that matters?
Well ‘tomorrow’ arrived on March 11, 2011 (311) and again on 312 as well as 315. FDU units #1 and #2 erupted in massive hydrogen deflagrations (sub-sonic explosions). The MOX hot-loaded FDU-3 erupted in an atomic detonation (supersonic explosion).
A nuclear explosion, or moderated prompt criticality, of a nuclear reactor was another event that was too awful to contemplate, given the immense mass of radioactive fuel involved. So the commercial NPP industry, and their captive national and international agencies, ‘wished it away’. They chant to this day, “It cannot happen”.
But, of course it did happen, because ot the Scarlett O’Hara Design (SOD) architecture. The explosions and hemispheric fallout and oceanic washout, of 311, 312 and 315 may perhaps be fairly referred to as SODbuster Events.
SOD Architectural Flaws
Scarlett O’Hara Design (SOD) Flaws (AKA School of Denial)
Willful Refusal to consider reactor explosion; unfortunately lead to a number, of VERY BAD architectural features. Let us examine the REALITY of the so-called, General Electric Mark-1 'Containment Building'.
The GE Mark-1 containment system positions the Spent Fuel Pool above and close by the side of the nuclear reactor. Explosions tend to vent upward and out. Plus, the containment building will momentarily withstand the SHOCK of an explosion and focus pressure wave s amplitude. This will bring intense heat and mechanical shock to bear on the Spent Fuel Pool and the contents therein. Leaking the water out, sloshing the water out, steam flasing the water … none of these are good things.
We would expect, based on wave frequency and orientation a complex pattern of peaks and troughs in the standing and traveling waves. The solid/liquid interface beween the Spend Fuel Pool wall and the liquid will generate waves propagating at several thousand feet per second. The reflected waves, from the containment roof will propagate through the air to the air-liquid interface at the top of the Spent Fuel Pool at much lower velocities.
Where would all the wave peaks and troughs appear, within the Spent Fuel Pool, during a large blast? Wave mechanics and wave propagation problems, where are you Dr. Richard Phillips Feynman, PhD, (R.I.P.) now that we really need you?
It is CLEARLY an UNSOUND engineering practice to POSITION the Spent Fuel Pool, above and near the reactor, in the GE Mark-1 'containment building'.
Placing TONS of HOT nuclear waste, proximal to an explosion-prone nuclear reactor, in the GE Mark-1 Containment System, may be reasonably characterized as the MOST DANGEROUS DESIGN in human history.
IMHO
"You can grab quotes, off the
"You can grab quotes, off the internet; but you have no more understanding of the questions and/or answers, than a Rhesus monkey. "
"We are merely aware that you are misrepresenting yourself, and poorly. "
"There is no shortage of evidence that you are a pisspore liar.
You are still laughably jumping subject to subject.
Tough work that lying. No end to it."
"No amount of 'faking-it' will ever make the story convincing. Nothing rings true. The arrogance is fraudulent and hollow."
"Even the general readers can spot you in a paragraph now. Soon they will be able to identify you in a sentence, maybe a word."
"Very stupid indeed. Quite ill-advised. We shall let you 'run with it' ... GO! Keep it up!"
"Scream some more! We are enjoying the spectacle."
Wow, that's a very accurate appraisal of yourself, Bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Diemos
U-233
Diemos,
Does this invective mean that you have personally conceded that U-233 is fissionable and fissile; readily available; AND that you are angry about that rather well known physical reality?
Perhaps you and the Rude Dog should run along and sniff each others backsides. That's what the dogs do.
TTFN
INVECTIVES are a poor substitute for rational discourse
Once again, the reality that it is the fissile property of U-233 and not its fissionable property that determines whether U-233 can sustain a chain reaction, has escaped the forum's resident fool.
Instead of dealing with that reality, the resident fool persists in his childish analogies to the habits of canines.
Will somebody get this child the brain of a mature adult?
Multiple MYTHS of Nuclear Safety
You'se guys are in full, panic-mode retreat.
There are a NUMBER of nuclear fantasies. Numbered among these nuclear safety myths are:
It is difficult:
1) To construct a nuclear reactor
2) Toconstruct an explosive nuclear device (atomic bomb)
3) For a commercial nuclear reactor to undergo an atomic explosion
4) For a spent fuel pool to undergo an atomic explosion
5) To obtain fissionable and/or fissile material
Diemos AND Rude Dog spend a lot of time jumping from lie to lie, on the list above.
Nuclear containment strategy must deal with REALITY and not FANTASY
TTFN
DOCUMENTED MYTHS
Here follow ...
The DOCUMENTED MYTHS of Nuclear Safety
TTFN
NO PROOF as always.
Evidently the above poster doesn't realize that you don't get points for mere assertions.
Anybody can post anything; so mere assertions really aren't worth anything.
The above poster doesn't back up anything; because he CAN NOT
First; he's just plain WRONG and you can't prove you are correct when you are wrong.
Secondly; the poster is not a good scholar. The poster doesn't have the intellect, education, or just plain old good sense to admit when he's WRONG.
So we get these VAPID claims that have ZERO WORTH.
This is an academic forum; for Heaven's sake; put some lead in your pencil.
Broad General Statements
Insistence that there has been ‘no proof’ are rather carefully worded, to the point of being disingenuous. Let us use the better defined terms: ‘evidence’ and ‘examples’.
Rude Dog and Diemos are making some very broad general statements here; liberally punctuated, as always, with logical fallacies. They shall be allowed a reasonable time to reduce their exposure.
If you wish to LIMIT the discussion to very narrowly specified: circumstances, designs, definitions, operating mechanisms and assumptions; then please do so now.
Examples,
It can't happen, IF the reactor is full of cold water, because
It can't happen, IF the fuel is defined as ... because ...
It can't happen, in a particular design, such as the GE Mark-1 containment system because ...
It can't happen, in the absence of intentional sabotage ... because ...
And so on and so forth,
Say so now!
Because it can DAMNSURE happen!
WRONG - you can't VIOLATE the Laws of Physics
The forum's resident IDIOTstates:
Because it can DAMNSURE happen!
This is more clear evidence that this person is not technically trained.
The arguments against exploding reactors are invoking the Laws of Physics; and the Laws of Physics ALWAYS WORK. The non-technical, non-scientists don't like to accept this because they don't like to deal in absolutes.
It's as if I say, "A rock can NOT fall upwards, due to the presence of GRAVITY".
The forum's resident MORON retorts:
"A rock falling upwards can DAMNSURE happen!"
Sigh! Einstein was correct when he said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits, while stupidity is boundless."
Did AE say that?
Really?
Do you have a citation, that AE said that?
More invective and no qualifying statements yet?
Do you intend to state that a dual reactor/bomb could not be constructed?
TTFN
Einstein Quote
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins148851.html
Still waiting
Rude Dog,
Your unverified statement, concluded with, "while stupidity is boundless".
Where did AE use the ENTIRE statement, which you attributed to him?
Word by word, is not going to get it.
Still waiting.
Change of plan
Diemos and Rude Dog cannot make up their mind.
1st they say ...
Ooops,
Didn't you just say?
INVECTIVES are a poor substitute for rational discourse
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/%E2%80%98design-basis%E2%80%99.201...
Then they pour on the invective.
I take a broader view. "War is diplomacy by other means." The Reformation and the Enlightened Age occured in the presence of invective and personal attacks. These historic periods predated Robert's Rules of Order and the whiney, (politically correct) cry babies. Comity is overrated.
From UC-Berkeley's own Professor Richard Muller
UC-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller is the author of "Physics for Future Presidents" and teaches the Physics for non-Physics majors course at UC-Berkeley.
The above poster needs to learn what Professor Muller teaches his non-technical students:
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20%...
Can a reactor turn into an atomic bomb?
No. The real reason is that a reactor depends on slow neutrons. If the chain reaction begins to run away (because the number of absorbed neutrons in each generation becomes greater than 1) then the fuel heats up. Pretty soon it is hot enough to explode. This will happen as soon as the fuel is a few thousand degrees. That will blow up the reactor, but the energy released will be about the same that you would get from TNT. It's an explosion, but it is a million times smaller than an nuclear bomb.
In the atomic bomb, they had to use fast neutrons (not moderated) in order to have the entire 80 generations over with before the bomb blew itself apart. After 80 generations, the temperature was many millions of degrees. The only reason is hasn't yet blown apart is that there wasn't enough time! With moderated neutrons, the chain reaction is much slower, since the neutrons are slower.
Q.E.D.
1-Once upon a time
ALL the children love fary tales. Nuclear Safety is a fairy tale, not reality.
Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away; there lived a wise and benevolent King Usa. King Usa captured and tamed all the fiery dragons in the land. His favorites were Urania and Plutonea. King Usa sent Urania and Plutonea to the Kingdom Nipponia to fight a ferocious battle with an evil warlord. Urania and Plutonea triumphed. They freed all the children of Nipponia and restored peace, harmony and beauty to the land. King Usa then sent his sorcerer GeeWhiz to Nipponia so that their dragons could also be tamed and put to work, lighting the darkness and keeping all the children warm and happy.
Nuclear Reactors, the China Syndrome, and Waste Storage © 2001 Richard A. Muller
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20%...
“Incidentally, the Chernobyl power plant had a terrible design. It didn't even have a containment building, like we have in the US. If it did, there may very well have been virtually no deaths. So is it fair to think of US Nuclear Power plants in terms of Chernobyl?”
And they lived happily ever after, because the Wizards of Nipponia, built warm and safe dens for their dragons. Oops! But one of the Wizards, named Tepico, became lazy and began to mistreat the dragons in a hamlet near the sea. Tepico did not give the dragons enough cool water to drink, and even gave Dragon F3DU food that was too spicy for dragons. A wild dragon, in the sea, by the name of Neptunia heard their cries of distress. Neptunia rose up and freed three of the dragons. The dragons were named F3DO, F1DO and F2DO. The three dragons were very angry, because of their mistreatment, by the foolish and evil Tepico.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+nuclear+explosion+photo&hl=en&t...
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news-img/maximum/4874.jpg
And all the children of Nipponia were very sad! Their schools were closed. The little boys and girls could not go outside and play. Their food became poisonous and their water became too dangerous to drink. Many were sick and had to leave their homes. The air became foul. The birds were too weak to fly or even finish their songs. The angry dragon F3DU and his sisters F1DU and F2DU scorched all the land. It was all very, very sad.
The END
Cowardly
BRAWM needs to purchase some Scotch Tape.
The posted 'Faerie Tale' comments keep falling off the webpage.
It is kinda obvious what is going on here; and it is NOT Q.E.D. It is fear, that Dr. Muller will be angry. The Rude Dog and Diemos have shattered the Myth of Nuclear Safety.
Can you hear the laughter?
TTFN
Do not triple-post
Bill Duff,
I don't care about Dr. Muller's feelings -- your original posts remain on the thread entitled "Once upon a time." But I do care that this forum not be cluttered and abused.
You started a new thread with these two posts this morning, and then you posted each one on this thread twice. That is why I have been deleting them today.
Please do not post duplicates or you run the risk of these posts being deleted without warning.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Mark
It is evident that this thread is a debate or perhaps brawl.
The Faerie Tale was written in response, again which is evident, on its face.
It was nested way down deep, which was the SOLE reason for the free-standing new thread. The new thread provides no context and concerns the (long-ago) written works of a 3rd party. The new thread provides direct notice, of an ongoing discussion, otherwise buried. It is a courtesy notice, by my lights. The annotated Faerie Tale (AFT) serves the same purpose. The AFT is DIRECTL relevant to the titled topic of this thread. Design Basis is a timely discussion presently going on at the NRC in the USA and counterpart agencies globally.
This is your blog. Delete if you wish. Your castle, your rules.
Sincerely,
Bill Duff
The above poster is the one that needs to face REALITY
For points 3 and 4 above; the following is from Pennsylvania State University:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jdd5053/blogs/the.../nuclear%20fission.pdf
gives a good summary why it's the above poster that is harboring a fantasy
Conclusion
Even during the worst accident in the history of nuclear reactors, an explosion like an atomic bomb did not occur. This is because the fuel and design of a nuclear reactor do not allow the fission reaction to become uncontrolled making it impossible for an explosion like an atomic bomb to occur.
The above poster has offered ZERO evidence for his ill-informed, ill-considered delusions.
Response
If the reader would care to read a response to this entry, it may perchance be located elsewhere on this blog, to wit at the following URL,
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/once-upon-time.2013-02-14#comment-...
TTFN
Redundant Standpipes
Are commercial NPP fitted with MULTIPLE externally accessible standpipes for rapid connection to emergency fire engine pumper trucks?
Can these standpipes be accessed and deployed, to cool the nuclear reactor, AND spent fuel pools, without sending a ‘Kamikaze-Squad’ inside to open the valves?
Will the firemen have credible protection from radiation exposure, and decontamination stations, while providing emergency cooling pump services?
Is there a redundant supply of de-ionized water at the ready?
Are there redundant, sealed water storage containers, with redundant filtration systems to catch the ‘HOT’ water?
That helicopter spray publicity stunt; just won’t cut it, IMHO!
Bill Duff
Note to DHS - FBI
The ghastly fellow often addressed as 'Rude Dog' ofter posen (inconvincingly) as a retired physics professor from MIT.
He then generally tries to obtain detailed instructions on (improvised) nuclear weapons design. Perhaps, it is remotely possible, that this 'Rude Dog' has somehow gotten into possession of some weapon grade radioactive material or a substantial amount of lesser refined product. The 'Radioactive Boy Scout' was apparently able to construct a crude, but functional breeder-reactor, from cadged materials.
Perhaps someone from the DHS should 'take a look at' this 'Rude Dog'. Probably just a harmless troll, however ... the RBS was 'for real'. Some of the neighbors and their pets may have received a concerning dose.
Just Saying
Exponential Increase
The radioactive device(s) constructed by the RBS exhibited an exponential increase in radioactivity over time. His materials included various sources including a container of radium paint from the defunct American Radium Company.
The RBS gradually increased his distance and shielding, to survive. Each week the RBS measured more and more radiation, when visiting his non-custodial parent. He became increasingly nervous about the GROWING radioactive hazard in the neighborhood.
Eventually the RBS contacted the authorities. The hottest material was quickly hauled off and buried. The backyard and neighborhood was decontaminated. The RBS was allowed to join the Navy in lieu of criminal charges.
That EXPONENTIAL INCREASE in radioactivity is the Dead Giveaway.
STFU with the sillyness and STUPID lying.
WE know what EXPONENTIAL means.
Exponential Increase in Radioactivity
Response above
Exponential Increase in Radioactivity
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/%E2%80%98design-basis%E2%80%99.201...
Rude Dog misrepresentations notwithstanding, the RBS teenager constructed a dangerously functional breeder reactor. If memory serves, the RBS tried to use cobalt bits … Yeah here it is, this book review phrasing roughly matches my recollection of the moderator attempt.
http://health.phys.iit.edu/extended_archive/0407/msg00027.html
To speed up the process, David read in Modern Chemistry that neutrons multiply when they hit carbon (page 161) so he packaged his Th with C (having read about the CP-1 reactor) surrounding the neutron source, bound it with duct tape and ended up with a ball about the "...size of a shoe box and weighed two pounds." After a few weeks David could detect above background levels thru 1.5 inch concrete blocks. At this point David realizes that he doesn't have an off switch and things could run away on him. A friend said that real reactors have control rods and suggested David make some from cobalt (pg 162). David buys cobalt drill bits from the hardware store and inserts them into his "reactor". There was no effect and David started to really worry now.
Words have meanings
Definition of CHAIN REACTION
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chain%20reaction
chain reaction noun
Definition of CHAIN REACTION
1a : a series of events so related to each other that each one initiates the next b : a number of events triggered by the same initial event
2: a self-sustaining chemical or nuclear reaction yielding energy or products that cause further reactions of the same kind
— chain–re•act \ˈchān-rē-ˈakt\ intransitive verb
(Note to Diemos)
[See chain reaction defined for English-language learners »
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/chain%20reaction
See chain reaction defined for kids »
http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=chain reaction
Examples of CHAIN REACTION
Increased oil prices could trigger a chain reaction in the economy.
First Known Use of CHAIN REACTION
circa 1902
chain reaction noun (Medical Dictionary)
Medical Definition of CHAIN REACTION
: a self-sustaining chemical or nuclear reaction yielding energy or products that cause further reactions of the same kind
chain reactionnoun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Process yielding products that initiate further processes of the same kind. Nuclear chain reactions are a series of nuclear fissions initiated by neutrons produced in a preceding fission. A critical mass, large enough to allow more than one fission-produced neutron to be captured, is necessary for the chain reaction to be self-sustaining. Uncontrolled chain reactions, as in an atomic bomb, occur when large numbers of neutrons are present and the reactions multiply very quickly. Nuclear reactors control their reactions through the careful distribution of the fissionable material and insertion of neutron-absorbing materials.
Go for it
Sure guys, let’s continue this discussion regarding Thorium.
Thorium is a plentiful material according to the USGS.
http://energy.usgs.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pl-xWanDV3c%3D&tabid=489
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/thorium/myb1-2010-thori...
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/thorium/mcs-2012-thori.pdf
http://www.lemhi-shoshone.com/thorium_rare_earth_salmon_idaho.html
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of98-478/of98-478.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/tei/207/report.pdf
You brought it up. Run with it.
Is U-233 a fissionable material?
Let's continue the discussion to see if U-233 is a fissionable material. Oops, it appears to be.
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/9_1kang.pdf
Science & Global Security, Volume 9 pp 1-32, © 2001 Taylor and Francis
U-232 and the Proliferation- Resistance of U-233 in Spent Fuel
Jungmin Kanga and Frank N. von Hippelb
INTRODUCTION
“Uranium-233 is, like plutonium-239, a long-lived fissile isotope produced in reactors by single-neutron capture in a naturally-occurring abundant fertile isotope (see Figure 1). The fast critical mass of U-233 is almost identical to that for Pu-239 and the spontaneous fission rate is much lower, reducing to negligible levels the problem of a spontaneous fission neutron prematurely initiating the chain reaction -- even in a “gun-type” design such as used for the U-235 Hiroshima bomb (see Table 1). Why then has plutonium been used as the standard fissile material in the “pits” of modern nuclear weapons while U-233 has not? This question is not just of historical interest, since there is increasing interest in U-233-thorium fuel cycles.”
The proof is evident
The proof is evident
The Scientific Community is founded upon certain principles, conventions and assumptions. These are often unspoken; ingrained from the crib. These are NOT adhered to, or even known to fraudulent imposters, such as the Rude Dog. Some effort has been exerted to avoid improving the pitiful efforts of this evident poseur.
We know how an engineer would explain a concept, prove a point or lose a technical argument. The Rude Dog is clueless on such matters. It seems best to leave it that way. The engineering discipline and informed public policy would not benefit from a trained imposter. Specifics may, or may not be challenged. The misrepresentations of the Rude Dog, such as being a retired physics professor, are pointed out. The proof of those lies, are generally left up to the Rude Dog, and he seldom disappoints.
The instant recognition that, ‘there is something ‘ishy’ about that fellow, is considered a useful tool. Thus, the Rude Dog is permitted to SCREAM unchallenged, when his arguments CLEARLY demonstrate that he is NOT, ‘a member of the scientific community’.
TTFN
WRONG AGAIN!!
U-233 is NOT a "fissionable" material - it is a "fissile" material.
For Heaven's sake, it's that reading comprehension thing again; you can't even quote your own source properly, which says:
Uranium-233 is, like plutonium-239, a long-lived fissile isotope
When a nuclide is "fissionable", it means that the nuclide will fission; but only with neutrons with an energy above a certain threshold. For example, U-238 is "fissionable", but the threshold energy is about 1 MeV. Therefore, U-238 will fission, but only with very fast neutrons, and thus one can't make a reactor fueled only with U-238.
If the threshold is precisely ZERO; that is the nuclide will fission with neutrons of ANY energy; then the nuclide is called "fissile". It takes "fissile" material to make a self-sustaining reactor.
Is U-233 fissionable?
Is U-233 a fissionable material? Oops, looks like it is.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/12/shipments-of-super-hot-fissile....
Department of Energy contractors could begin shipping stocks of uranium-233 to the Nevada National Security Site early next year, although DOE said the agency would not -- because of security concerns -- discuss when the shipments from Oak Ridge National Laboratory begin or address the status of shipments as they are being conducted.
The Nevada-bound material is old reactor fuel, which contains fissionable U-233 and U-235, as well as a significant presence of super-hot U-232, and it is collectively known as the CEUSP (Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project) materials. DOE confirmed there are 403 canisters, with about 2.6 kilograms of uranium in each.
This is a SCIENTIFIC forum
This is a scientific forum, and we use the scientific terminology.
The forum's resident dullard cites a KNOX news report.
Evidently, this dimwit doesn't realize that newspapers and TV news reports are pitched with terminology appropriate for about the 8-th grade level. That way they get the most people understanding the material.
However, this is a scientific forum, where we have mostly intelligent people, ( with a few obvious exceptions ) and we use the more scientifically accurate terminology, instead of terminology that has been "dumbed down" for the masses.
Hey dummy; what are you going to cite next? A comic book?
Company Town Rag
Rude Dog,
Bad Dog, Down Dog, Heel!
Generally speaking, 'Company Town' newspapers get the jargon down, particularly in press release material. Fully written press releases and special access for friendly coverage are routine. Knoxville is no exception.
A few little favors, back and forth, may come in handy, in a clutch. Even the bad news can be 'softened' a bit, without a significant compromise of the story. Personal embarrassments are sometimes avoided and often 'kept for a rainy day'.
The DOE and DHS had a hand in writing this story. Any inaccuracies were deliberate, and approved at several levels.
TTFN
New Fissionable Isotope
U-233 was considered a ‘New’ fissionable material … in 1947.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i6/p378_2
PROLA » Phys. Rev. » Volume 71 » Issue 6
Phys. Rev. 71, 378–378 (1947)
Nuclear Properties of U233: A New Fissionable Isotope of Uranium
G. T. Seaborg, J. W. Gofman, and R. W. Stoughton
Department of Chemistry and Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California April 13, 1942
Received 11 February 1947; published in the issue dated March 1947
© 1947 The American Physical Society
URL:http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.71.378.2DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.71.378.2
TTFN
Before we get too lost in
Before we get too lost in semantics.
According to the dictionary definitions fissile is a subset of fissionable.
Everything that is fissile is also fissionable.
Not everything that is fissionable is fissile.
U-233 is both fissile and fissionable.
Diemos
Yes - fissile is a subset of fissionable
Yes - fissile is a subset of fissionable.
However, when we are attempting to determine if someone built a critical reactor; the property that you want is the "fissile" property.
U-238 is "fissionable". However, a big block of U-238 isn't going to go critical.
In fact, proving that is actually a homework problem in a well known reactory physics textbook.
Thank You
Thank you Diemos,
There were SO Many Rude Dog errors, that this particular non sequitar did not make it to the top of the reply list.
You are correct.
TTFN
This is what happens when you
This is what happens when you have a Journalist, who has no idea what he's talking about, write a book which is then read by a layman, who has no idea what he's talking about.
Here's what the RBS did:
He made himself a homemade AmBe neutron source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source#Small_devices , http://www.qsa-global.com/sources/industrial-isotopes/americium-241-bery...). Americium puts out alpha particles. Beryllium absorbs alpha particles and puts out neutrons. Mix them together and you have a neutron source. He extracted americium from smoke detectors and mixed it with beryllium shavings and got himself a source of 4 MeV neutrons.
He then chemically extracted thorium-232 from gas mantles and put his neutron source up against the thorium-232. The neutrons were occasionally captured on thorium-232 converting it to thorium-233 which then went through its decay chain to become uranium-233. The neutrons would also occasionally fission a thorium-232 atom leading to a build up of fission products. Many of the decay products are gamma emitters which would have more easily penetrated his shielding.
There was never a chain reaction, nor could there ever be one with the materials he had. Thorium-232 is not fissile. It cannot sustain a chain reaction.
The conversion of Thorium-232 into more radioactive isotopes stopped the minute he removed his neutron source. But only after he had made quite a radioactive mess.
Bottom line, like it says at the bottom of every commercial in the fine print, "Trained professional. Closed course. Do not try this at home."
Diemos
This is what happens
Diemos,
This is what happens when you are committed to a lie. You must continue to change your story. It is a 'Sisyphean Task'. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/sisyphean-task.2012-12-27 You call attention to the very matter that you wish to obscure. Thus instead of an offhanded, ACCURATE statement about the RBS among peers; we are proceding to a DETAILED ANALYSIS of the simplicity and inherent control challenge of Breeder Reactor design. That very possibly makes you stupid.
Words have meanings, your elaborate obfuscations, notwithstanding.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chain+reaction
chain reaction
noun
1. Physics. a self-sustaining reaction in which the fission of nuclei of one generation of nuclei produces particles that cause the fission of at least an equal number of nuclei of the succeeding generation.
2. Chemistry . a reaction that results in a product necessary for the continuance of the reaction.
3. a series of events in which each event is the result of the one preceding and the cause of the one following.
Origin:
1925–30
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
CollinsWorld English Dictionary
chain reaction
— n
1. a process in which a neutron colliding with an atomic nucleus causes fission and the ejection of one or more other neutrons, which induce other nuclei to split
2. a chemical reaction in which the product of one step is a reactant in the following step
3. a series of rapidly occurring events, each of which precipitates the next
Poor READING COMPEHENSION
The forum's resident DOLT shows a lack of reading comprehension in interpreting the definition he gives:
1. Physics. a self-sustaining reaction in which the fission of nuclei of one generation of nuclei produces particles that cause the fission of at least an equal number of nuclei of the succeeding generation.
The RBS didn't accomplish the at least an equal number part.
For every 100 neutrons the RBS sent into the system from his homemade neutron source; he may have gotten a few fissions and a handful of neutrons.
However, in order for there to be a chain reaction under the above definition, which contains the at least equal in number provision; the RBS would have needed to get 100 or greater number of neutrons from his system in order to have a chain reaction. He didn't get that. He got a handful of neutrons at most.
The mostly Thorium-232 system the RBS was driving with his source was sub-critical; it was not a multiplying medium. That's because Thorium-232 is NOT a fissile material.
Evidently, our resident CHOWDERHEAD doesn't understand that the criticality of a nuclear system is totally a function of the materials and geometry. In particular, it is INDEPENDENT of the source or whether you have any neutrons at all.
For example, nuclear weapons assemble a super-prompt critical system without the presence of neutrons. Then a neutron generator is used to "seed" the multiplying system with neutrons; and away it goes. However, for that brief instant before the neutron generator fires; you can have a super-prompt critical system without any neutrons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Once the critical mass is assembled, at maximum density, a burst of neutrons is supplied to start as many chain reactions as possible.
As the above passage indicates, the self-multiplying configuration is assembled, and THEN the neutrons are introduced.
It's like cranking up the amplifier on your stereo even though you aren't putting a signal through from your CD player. The amplifier is still in an amplifying state, whether or not it actually has a signal to amplify.
This important distinction will go "over the head" of our resident DOLT or "over the whatever he / she has in lieu of an operable head"
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
There's no inconsistencies in the story Diemos tells. All the facts are consistent with the laws of Physics, and all the terms well defined without need to change.
It is YOUR "understanding", or more accurately, your LACK of understanding that leaves you in a quandary.
Rule 1
Rule 1
When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
You guy(s) are getting kinda shrill and are still furiously digging.
Keep it up, or learn from Rule 1. It is of no particular concern to me.
The RPS constructed a functional, and as per usual, inadequately controlled, BREEDER REACTOR.
The materials employed and exponential increase in radiation are probative.
TTFN
Comic Book Mentality
The above poster asserts:
The RPS constructed a functional, and as per usual, inadequately controlled, BREEDER REACTOR.
As always, the above poster never offers any evidence to backup what is otherwise only vacuous assertions.
The above poster probably read the above assertion in the newspaper or some other non-technical literature that is no better than a comic book for getting at the technical truth.
Find us a legitimate scientific source that says the RBS made a breeder reactor. Everything in the technical literature, and most papers, only say he compiled a bunch of radioactive material.
Compiling a bunch of radioactive material is not the same as making a critical reactor, let alone a breeder.
The little dimwit doesn't even know what to look for to indicate a criticality. He claims the exponential increase in radiation is probative.
Far from it, dummy. When Fermi built the first nuclear reactor, the indication that the reactor went critical is when the line went vertically asymptotic.
Instead of looking for an infinite asymptote as Fermi did, one now usually plots the inverse of the multiplication factor 1/M and extrapolates 1/M to zero, which is infinite multiplication. See the last page ( page 18 ) of this series of lecture viewgraphs, courtesy of MIT:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/74136/22-05-fall-2006/cont...
So the hallmark of criticality is an infinite multiplication factor; not an exponential. The above poster was looking for the WRONG characteristic.
This dullard is like someone attempting to pass himself off as a medical doctor and claiming to have diagnosed someone with a rare disease. However, the symptom he cites is NOT the symptom of the rare disease.
We know and you don't
Rude Dog,
WE understand how these two math functions address this matter. We know how to do the math, fit the curves and interpret the results. We studied the subject in school. We took lab sections, ran the experiments, wrote the reports and passed the quizes.
That leaves you out in the cold. You can grab quotes, off the internet; but you have no more understanding of the questions and/or answers, than a Rhesus monkey.
That is ONE of the MANY differences between the real deal and a poseur like the Rude Dog. The Rude Dog is a fake, and it is obvious, to ALL of us. We are not 'Lording' it over anybody. We are merely aware that you are misrepresenting yourself, and poorly.
Engineers often invite WORTHY individuals to the table, sans formal academic credentials. Again, that leaves you out in the cold, with the rest of the weakly, sick, nuclear-wolves.
TTFN
What experiments did you do?
The above poster claims:
WE understand how these two math functions address this matter. We know how to do the math, fit the curves and interpret the results. We studied the subject in school. We took lab sections, ran the experiments, wrote the reports and passed the quizes.
What did you study? What experiments did you do?
Did you ever take a real nuclear reactor from cold shutdown to full power?
Evidently, you haven't.
Nuclear
Rude Dog
Your question is impertinent and betrays YET ANOTHER VAST RANGE, of your ignorance.
Actual engineers have fields and specialties, both academic and work related.
We ALL know what we ALL know. And you don't. We'll just leave it at that.
TTFN
Infantile
Rude Dog infantile questions are about on par for a 4 Y/O.
Oooh you're an engineer! Can I blow the horn on your train? Who is the conductor?
Yes, when you're bigger, Mho Ohm
TTFN
In other words...
In other words, you haven't done the actual experiment.
In other words, you haven't taken a nuclear reactor from cold shutdown to full power.
In other words, you don't know how the instrumentation indicates that the reactor has gone into operation.
In other words, you did an experiment in another field, and you are now projecting that experience as giving you competence in a field that is totally different.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are doing.
It shows.
Dealing with Pests
The Rude Dogs endless, neeeedy questions,
Bring to mind an old joke about a kid at the train station, pestering the ticket agent.
What time does the train get in? How deep is that mud puddle? How much do bananas cost?
4:09, uptoyerass and twoferadime.
TTFN