A German court has ordered the shutdown of the German-language version of Wikipedia, the multilingual open-access encyclopedia available on the Internet, after the family of a deceased hacker filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Deutschland eV for using the young man"s full name in an entry.
Earlier this week, a judge at the Berlin-Charlottenburg administrative court sided with the family of the hacker known as Tron and ruled that the Web site http://www.wikipedia.de be taken down until the offending content is removed.
Tron, who spent many of his teen years hacking, developed working clones of German phone cards, among other things. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for theft of a public phone, but the sentence was later suspended on probation, according to the Wikipedia entry. In 1998, he died under mysterious circumstances.
Read more... (Computerworld.com.au)
Wouldn"t it be easier to remove one page instead of shutting down the whole site?
yesinschnouzen
I think that is illegal under european law...human rights legislation and freedom of expression...
The only grounds for site closure would be National defence...
The only grounds for site closure would be National defence...
QUOTE (Neutron+Jan 23 2006, 05:04 PM)
A German court has ordered the shutdown of the German-language version of Wikipedia, the multilingual open-access encyclopedia available on the Internet, after the family of a deceased hacker filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Deutschland eV for using the young man"s full name in an entry.
Earlier this week, a judge at the Berlin-Charlottenburg administrative court sided with the family of the hacker known as Tron and ruled that the Web site http://www.wikipedia.de be taken down until the offending content is removed.
Tron, who spent many of his teen years hacking, developed working clones of German phone cards, among other things. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for theft of a public phone, but the sentence was later suspended on probation, according to the Wikipedia entry. In 1998, he died under mysterious circumstances.
Read more... (Computerworld.com.au)
Wouldn"t it be easier to remove one page instead of shutting down the whole site?
Well a judge can't actually physically "shut it down", he can issue a "ruling" and a ruling would have to give them SOME TIME to comply with it. So theoretically the people at Wiki would simply delete the page and be "in compliance" without ever actually taking down the site.
Arthur
Earlier this week, a judge at the Berlin-Charlottenburg administrative court sided with the family of the hacker known as Tron and ruled that the Web site http://www.wikipedia.de be taken down until the offending content is removed.
Tron, who spent many of his teen years hacking, developed working clones of German phone cards, among other things. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for theft of a public phone, but the sentence was later suspended on probation, according to the Wikipedia entry. In 1998, he died under mysterious circumstances.
Read more... (Computerworld.com.au)
Wouldn"t it be easier to remove one page instead of shutting down the whole site?
Well a judge can't actually physically "shut it down", he can issue a "ruling" and a ruling would have to give them SOME TIME to comply with it. So theoretically the people at Wiki would simply delete the page and be "in compliance" without ever actually taking down the site.
Arthur
adoucette's right...if the page was edited to remove the name, the court would have no grounds for the ruling.
Wikipedia; this site is just trouble. The idea that anybody can add their opinions and that there is no real way to know if it is right or wrong, is just scary. They should do the same thing in U.S.:
This is a good example why this kind of webpage are nothing but trouble in making:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...edia-edit_x.htm
but then on the other hand, Wikipedia is an awesome idea that could bring knowledge to millions of children worldwide with no access to fine printed books and etc, but at what price? I think the thing that worries most people is the potential for rumors to become facts and for facts to turn into rumors. Some pages in Wikipedia are spammed so frequently that they are permanently locked at times.
Still like the article by Neutorn a few weeks ago said Wikipedia is turning into a true crisis where you want to shut it down, but you dont know if you should; the ambivalence is truely bothersome.
This is a good example why this kind of webpage are nothing but trouble in making:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...edia-edit_x.htm
but then on the other hand, Wikipedia is an awesome idea that could bring knowledge to millions of children worldwide with no access to fine printed books and etc, but at what price? I think the thing that worries most people is the potential for rumors to become facts and for facts to turn into rumors. Some pages in Wikipedia are spammed so frequently that they are permanently locked at times.
Still like the article by Neutorn a few weeks ago said Wikipedia is turning into a true crisis where you want to shut it down, but you dont know if you should; the ambivalence is truely bothersome.
I think wikipedia is very useful for technologists, like us, however there will be areas where facts are supplanted by opinion, or hearsay, or may come into conflict with legal ruling. So there should always be some controls and now, as my astro-dodging friend says, we only have to antagonise over our censorship.
I have been reading Wiki's scientific articles...if they can even be called that...I notice a consistant pattern of obscuring and omitting information of any functional nature. In addition to this, most of the articles relating to material on nuclear physics, is nothing more than complete waffle, over-complicating even the simplist of processes...
For example, try to find an explanation as to why heat is produced, or what exactly is boiling the water, you will quickly see that this aspect is completely overlooked...it just states that it is...
With information of such LOW quality, is it any wonder that fundementalism is on the rise in the west?
For those who feel that the efforts to defeat terrorism warrant such actions, may I remind them that terrorists already have this information...it is the general public that is being manipulated...
For example, try to find an explanation as to why heat is produced, or what exactly is boiling the water, you will quickly see that this aspect is completely overlooked...it just states that it is...
With information of such LOW quality, is it any wonder that fundementalism is on the rise in the west?
For those who feel that the efforts to defeat terrorism warrant such actions, may I remind them that terrorists already have this information...it is the general public that is being manipulated...
If you don't like something on Wiki change it. That is the whole point. If you write a very good article it will stay. No one is going to delete your entire article. Yes there are some who vandalize it, but when you have 99.99% of the people really trying to make it better and citing references, it becomes better and better everyday. I would ask anyone who thinks they have a more accurate understanding of any subject than the current posting on Wiki, to add it to the site, and cite your references. Give the public more accurate information. Sure that is a little bit of work, but Wiki is such a great thing. Don't take everything you read as fact, but what source is always true? Wikipedia has been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britanica.
Yeah MMC,
Add a neat section on how you think EXPLOSIVES work.
Make sure you describe how they SUCK the oxygen into them during their initial CHEMICAL DECOMPOSITION creating an IMPLOSION.
Glad Wiki's got editors now.
Arthur
Add a neat section on how you think EXPLOSIVES work.
Make sure you describe how they SUCK the oxygen into them during their initial CHEMICAL DECOMPOSITION creating an IMPLOSION.
Glad Wiki's got editors now.
Arthur
I don't know how people would react to technical material of a highly specific nature to the operation of nuclear power plant...boron decay, plus the formulas that go behind it are not available on any site I have seen...
References could prove difficult.
References could prove difficult.
Why is boron decay so important to the operation of a nuclear power plant anyway? Are you talking about boron poisoning? That would be neutron absorption not decay. Fission product decay is important and that could be referenced many places. Besides Wiki is not for highly technical information, it is for general overview. It is an encyclopedia not a nuclear power plant operation manual.
QUOTE
Add a neat section on how you think EXPLOSIVES work.
Make sure you describe how they SUCK the oxygen into them during their initial CHEMICAL DECOMPOSITION creating an IMPLOSION.
Apparently, adoucette can make explosives function without oxygen and he knows better than Red Adair...
hahahahahahahahaha...
QUOTE
Why is boron decay so important to the operation of a nuclear power plant anyway?
Boron decays to Lithium...which reacts with water...heating it...a boiling water reactor...its a balance of sort between absorbing neutrons and decay rate...
Take the RBMK design at Chernobyl, they had only 8 control rods (boron) in the system...so it was flooded with neutrons, as they lowered the rods into the water (scram), the boron decayed to Lithium in vast quantities. It then underwent an exothermic reaction in the water and generated steam...which blew the lid off...
If they had kept in more rods, or inserted them at a slower rate, then there would not have been a single incidence of high pressure...
Oh... ok. Sorry I'm unfamiliar with boiling water reactors. I'm a pressurized water reactor guy. But your explanation would imply that all boiling water reactors that use boron control rods would have a positive void coefficient of reactivity, this I know to be untrue. Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient because it used graphite as a moderator, a much more effective moderator with a slight drawback. I also know that Chernobyl had many more than 8 control rods, though if I remember right they had about 8 scram banks. Besides how does the heat generated by a lithium/water reaction of a decay product of boron significantly add to the heat generation of an operating nuclear reactor?
QUOTE (MMC+Feb 2 2006, 05:59 PM)
QUOTE
Add a neat section on how you think EXPLOSIVES work.
Make sure you describe how they SUCK the oxygen into them during their initial CHEMICAL DECOMPOSITION creating an IMPLOSION.
Apparently, adoucette can make explosives function without oxygen and he knows better than Red Adair...
hahahahahahahahaha...
I can make them function without ATMOSPHERIC oxygen.
No problem, as in KNO3 (75%) + C (12.5%) + S(12.5%). When ignited, the KNO3 provides ALL the oxygen needed for the EXPLOSIVE reaction.
The CHINESE discovered this thousands of years ago.
You should catch up on your reading.
Arthur
QUOTE
Oh... ok. Sorry I'm unfamiliar with boiling water reactors. I'm a pressurized water reactor guy.
The RBMK is a pressurised water reactor...it shares many characteristics with a boiling water reactor...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Oh... ok. Sorry I'm unfamiliar with boiling water reactors. I'm a pressurized water reactor guy. |
The RBMK is a pressurised water reactor...it shares many characteristics with a boiling water reactor...
But your explanation would imply that all boiling water reactors that use boron control rods would have a positive void coefficient of reactivity, this I know to be untrue.
It depends on how it is balanced and what other mechanisms are in place...also, the main factor was the experiment that was being run at the time.
QUOTE
Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient because it used graphite as a moderator, a much more effective moderator with a slight drawback.
The graphite has a greater effect as a moderator sustaining the reaction. Once exposed to air it will produce carbon monoxide, which will burn...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient because it used graphite as a moderator, a much more effective moderator with a slight drawback. |
The graphite has a greater effect as a moderator sustaining the reaction. Once exposed to air it will produce carbon monoxide, which will burn...
I also know that Chernobyl had many more than 8 control rods, though if I remember right they had about 8 scram banks.
At the time of the explosion they were running experiments, they only had 8 or so of the rods inserted...so you had a large amount of neutrons present.
QUOTE
Besides how does the heat generated by a lithium/water reaction of a decay product of boron significantly add to the heat generation of an operating nuclear reactor?
Its not the heat that I am really looking at per se...
Lithium in water or even air is slightly explosive. Picture a scenario were during the scram, lithium is produced, the temperature of the water goes from around 620°F to over 1400°F within a matter of seconds, across the entire bed of the reactor, in a pretty much even fashion.
I'm sure you can see where I am going with this...
I think you are slightly confused. You are asserting a theory other than either official theory, which I could get past if you had a reasonable explanation for it. I am not saying I am a complete expert here, but your terminology reflects a very superficial knowledge.
The amount of neutrons in the core never significantly changes. The amount of thermal or fast neutron flux does. Besides rod position does not necessarily imply a higher neutron flux, to imply so suggests that the reactor was already prompt critical. It was the neutron flux in the core that caused the accident, not a chemical reaction. Yes, the graphite fire was very bad also, but did not cause the meltdown. The meltdown was caused by a step insertion of reactivity caused by the scram. This step insertion was not due to the boron, but due to the hollow leads on the rods that displaced the water. This allowed the graphite moderator to become more effective (water acts as a neutron reflector, as well as a moderator), causing a step insertion of reactivity greater than the effective delayed neutron coefficient... i.e. prompt criticality and a steam explosion causing yet another step insertion of reactivity due to the positive void coefficient.
But you prove my point. Those how have a superior knowledge should change Wiki. Your familiarity suggests that you shouldn’t.
QUOTE
...so you had a large amount of neutrons present.
The amount of neutrons in the core never significantly changes. The amount of thermal or fast neutron flux does. Besides rod position does not necessarily imply a higher neutron flux, to imply so suggests that the reactor was already prompt critical. It was the neutron flux in the core that caused the accident, not a chemical reaction. Yes, the graphite fire was very bad also, but did not cause the meltdown. The meltdown was caused by a step insertion of reactivity caused by the scram. This step insertion was not due to the boron, but due to the hollow leads on the rods that displaced the water. This allowed the graphite moderator to become more effective (water acts as a neutron reflector, as well as a moderator), causing a step insertion of reactivity greater than the effective delayed neutron coefficient... i.e. prompt criticality and a steam explosion causing yet another step insertion of reactivity due to the positive void coefficient.
But you prove my point. Those how have a superior knowledge should change Wiki. Your familiarity suggests that you shouldn’t.
QUOTE
I think you are slightly confused. You are asserting a theory other than either official theory, which I could get past if you had a reasonable explanation for it. I am not saying I am a complete expert here, but your terminology reflects a very superficial knowledge.
I'm just not getting specific...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I think you are slightly confused. You are asserting a theory other than either official theory, which I could get past if you had a reasonable explanation for it. I am not saying I am a complete expert here, but your terminology reflects a very superficial knowledge. |
I'm just not getting specific...
The amount of neutrons in the core never significantly changes.
If you remove neutron absorbers, then of course it will change...as will the entire dynamics of concentration and energy levels of neutrons.
QUOTE
The amount of thermal or fast neutron flux does.
...and higher energies mean a greater ability to transmute material....one of the primary functions of the RBMK reactor was to produce plutonium...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The amount of thermal or fast neutron flux does. |
...and higher energies mean a greater ability to transmute material....one of the primary functions of the RBMK reactor was to produce plutonium...
Besides rod position does not necessarily imply a higher neutron flux, to imply so suggests that the reactor was already prompt critical. It was the neutron flux in the core that caused the accident, not a chemical reaction.
How exactly did you come to that conclusion???
The reason why the official explanation is only a theory is because the fire destroyed the majority of the evidence.
There is NO way to determine if such an event occured.
QUOTE
Yes, the graphite fire was very bad also, but did not cause the meltdown. The meltdown was caused by a step insertion of reactivity caused by the scram. This step insertion was not due to the boron, but due to the hollow leads on the rods that displaced the water.
Again, that is ONLY a theory, it is NOT even fully accepted. There is also more than one official theory. If the boron was transmuted then we have displacement of water via a different physical mechanism...
Same result, but different cause.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Yes, the graphite fire was very bad also, but did not cause the meltdown. The meltdown was caused by a step insertion of reactivity caused by the scram. This step insertion was not due to the boron, but due to the hollow leads on the rods that displaced the water. |
Again, that is ONLY a theory, it is NOT even fully accepted. There is also more than one official theory. If the boron was transmuted then we have displacement of water via a different physical mechanism...
Same result, but different cause.
This allowed the graphite moderator to become more effective (water acts as a neutron reflector, as well as a moderator), causing a step insertion of reactivity greater than the effective delayed neutron coefficient... i.e. prompt criticality and a steam explosion causing yet another step insertion of reactivity due to the positive void coefficient.
I'm agreed on this part.
QUOTE
But you prove my point. Those how have a superior knowledge should change Wiki. Your familiarity suggests that you shouldn’t.
I'm not very impressed with your understanding either...I just hope someone with your inability to examine possibilities is not in charge of anything real. That's usually why accidents happen in the first place...arrogance.
QUOTE (MMC+)
I'm not very impressed with your understanding either...I just hope someone with your inability to examine possibilities is not in charge of anything real. That's usually why accidents happen in the first place...arrogance.
Oh man, the IRONY of this statement is OFF THE CHARTS.
Arthur
Oh man, the IRONY of this statement is OFF THE CHARTS.
Arthur
QUOTE
How exactly did you come to that conclusion???
6+ years as a reactor operator. I know my rod positions. I know by first hand experience what happens when I move my rods. A reactor operates in only one of 4 states subcritical, critical, supercritical, and prompt critical. To say that the reactor had "extra neutrons" seems to be a way of saying super or prompt critical without "getting specific," other than being generally incorrect way of viewing things; it also implies that the reactor was already in an exponential power growth in the power range.
So, you know so much about how a reactor works... what's the value of beta? Beta is at the core of how every thermal nuclear reaction works. It is by no means an obscure reference, like macroscopic cross section of absorption. It is a specific value of reactivity that every reactor has, and it is always the same. Come on prove you know something, don't worry about getting "too specific" with me I can handle it.
Thomas,
This should have been your clue.
For instance, MMC thinks grenades implode before they explode and that explosives consume the oxygen in the surrounding air when they go off.
Oxygen-deficient explosives will...an explosive is an explosive because of the bond structure, not combustion...which will automatically happen in a REAL scenario.
You asked for this:
Oxygen-deficient explosives will...an explosive is an explosive because of the bond structure, not combustion...which will automatically happen in a REAL scenario.
You asked for this:
So, you know so much about how a reactor works... what's the value of beta?
Most of my posts here have been regarding fusion. I assumed you were asking for the beta value, you did not specify what reactor type. A fission reactor does not use this process, so really, what other answer were you ever going to get?
I said
I said Beta is at the core of how every thermal nuclear reaction works.
But of course you knew that when I say beta, I am talking about a thermal absorption right? And of course you already know what types of reactors work with thermal absorptions right? Let’s see… What types of fuel are thermal fuels? This is not rocket science, it’s only nuclear science.
But of course you knew that when I say beta, I am talking about a thermal absorption right? And of course you already know what types of reactors work with thermal absorptions right? Let’s see… What types of fuel are thermal fuels? This is not rocket science, it’s only nuclear science.
I'm assuming that you are refering to this. There are two forms, average delayed neutron fraction (beta-bar) and effective (beta eff) (neutrons produced and the neutrons absorbed). Heat generation continues creating voids of steam, more steam means more heat (less moderation, faster reaction rate), a runaway positive gain scenerio can develop. So the Beta value would indicate how much impact the delayed neutron fraction has on a positive feedback loop.
From what I'm aware of the RBMK at the time it was rated +4.5Beta. Most modern reactors operate with a negative coefficient, which is different from saying that positive void coefficient cannot be induced or that this means core temperature and pressure cannot increase rapidly upon certain failures.
This should have been your clue.
QUOTE (MMC+)
Boron decays to Lithium...which reacts with water...heating it...a boiling water reactor...its a balance of sort between absorbing neutrons and decay rate...
MMC says things which ARE TRUE, they just AREN'T related (except in his twisted logic).
There is no inherent difference in a BWR and a PWR. The PWR uses a water loop to heat a secondary loop that drives the turbines. The BWR uses ONE water loop.
Thus a fuel leak is more of an issue as the moderator/steam source are the same.
The BS about Boron decays to Lithium ... which reacts with water ... heating it....
is absurd. If so then BORON would be your FUEL.
You and I both know its not.
So even though all three statements are correct.
Boron does decay to Lithium.
Lithium does react with water.
The Lithium reaction with water is exothermic.
These THREE facts do not explain the fundamental operation of a BWR.
MMC has a screw loose.
Worse, he apparently can't tell that it is.
Expect a JUVENILE RANT when he reads this.
Arthur
PS For a good laugh you can catch the MMC late show at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=60435
MMC says things which ARE TRUE, they just AREN'T related (except in his twisted logic).
There is no inherent difference in a BWR and a PWR. The PWR uses a water loop to heat a secondary loop that drives the turbines. The BWR uses ONE water loop.
Thus a fuel leak is more of an issue as the moderator/steam source are the same.
The BS about Boron decays to Lithium ... which reacts with water ... heating it....
is absurd. If so then BORON would be your FUEL.
You and I both know its not.
So even though all three statements are correct.
Boron does decay to Lithium.
Lithium does react with water.
The Lithium reaction with water is exothermic.
These THREE facts do not explain the fundamental operation of a BWR.
MMC has a screw loose.
Worse, he apparently can't tell that it is.
Expect a JUVENILE RANT when he reads this.
Arthur
PS For a good laugh you can catch the MMC late show at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=60435
Typical values of 5% are given for the minimum beta value. In operational tests, normally, this can would vary anywhere between 2% and 30%, with the goal of getting as high as possible.
It is the ratio between the kinetic pressure of plasma and pressure of the magnetic-field, proportional to their respective energy densities. It is usually measured against the beta toroidal, beta poloidal or the max field at the coils. The higher the beta, the greater the output.
Basic economics of slapping things together...
It is the ratio between the kinetic pressure of plasma and pressure of the magnetic-field, proportional to their respective energy densities. It is usually measured against the beta toroidal, beta poloidal or the max field at the coils. The higher the beta, the greater the output.
Basic economics of slapping things together...
MMC,
Here's a hint, you were discussing BWR and PWRs, not FUSION reactors.
Arthur
Here's a hint, you were discussing BWR and PWRs, not FUSION reactors.
Arthur
This is proving pointless. You're an MMC right? You're qualified EWS right? You discredit the naval nuclear program. But then again I've always had a vendetta against MMCs, they always lacked any real knowledge of what was before the steam stops, and they always gave me a hard time for not shaving after being up all night on my duty days. What was it? the T-6 that had Chernoby? Which ever one it was, I have many years in my belt standing SRO so bored I read it front to back many times.
I have taught many mechanics nuclear theory. All where far less presumptive of what they new than you.
I have taught many mechanics nuclear theory. All where far less presumptive of what they new than you.
Thomas,
Could you translate?
Thanks
Arthur
Could you translate?
QUOTE
You're an MMC right? You're qualified EWS right?
Thanks
Arthur
I am assuming that by MMC he is saying that he is a Machinist Mate Chief (E-7). A fairly senior enlisted rank in the US navy. By his superficial knowledge of nuclear power plants I assume that he is a Nuclear MMC. Machinist Mates are normally referred to as mechanics. Mechanics operate the steam plant of nuclear subs and carriers. Very rarely are they involved with the operation of the primary plant, and never the operation of the reactor. The only time that a mechanic has any say in the operation of the reactor is when he qualifies EWS (Engineering Watch Supervisor), this qualification is all but necessary to make E-7. In order to qualify EWS a mechanic must have a fairly good knowledge of the operation of the reactor, which this MMC has displayed a lack of. I have taught many prospective mechanic EWSs nuclear theory, it's like teaching calculus to a third grader. They are normally very good at their job in the steam plant, much better than I could do, but the reactor is foreign territory.
MMC claims to be from Northern Ireland.
I can't see him holding down any job that doesn't include the phrase "Would you like fries with that?", let alone the Machinist Mate Chief job you describe.
He knows FACTS but obviously doesn't understand how they relate. Like in the Boron => Lithium => Boiling Water BS.
I particularly can't see anyone with such an obvious lack of knowledge of how explosives work being in the military.
For instance, MMC thinks grenades implode before they explode and that explosives consume the oxygen in the surrounding air when they go off.
I think we are dealing with a juvenile or someone whose elevator don't quite make it to the top floors.
Arthur
I can't see him holding down any job that doesn't include the phrase "Would you like fries with that?", let alone the Machinist Mate Chief job you describe.
He knows FACTS but obviously doesn't understand how they relate. Like in the Boron => Lithium => Boiling Water BS.
I particularly can't see anyone with such an obvious lack of knowledge of how explosives work being in the military.
For instance, MMC thinks grenades implode before they explode and that explosives consume the oxygen in the surrounding air when they go off.
I think we are dealing with a juvenile or someone whose elevator don't quite make it to the top floors.
Arthur
I sure hope you're right. They've been lowering the bar for who can operate a nuclear power plant for years. I'm sure you've heard the joke: Military intelligence=oxymoron. I've got some stories for how stupid some people are in the navy, even the nuclear program. But you're right about the Northern Ireland part. Unless, as some one who reads the Anarchist Cookbook, he is too afraid to say where he really is because the government is tracking him. 
QUOTE
For instance, MMC thinks grenades implode before they explode and that explosives consume the oxygen in the surrounding air when they go off.
Oxygen-deficient explosives will...an explosive is an explosive because of the bond structure, not combustion...which will automatically happen in a REAL scenario.
You asked for this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
For instance, MMC thinks grenades implode before they explode and that explosives consume the oxygen in the surrounding air when they go off. |
Oxygen-deficient explosives will...an explosive is an explosive because of the bond structure, not combustion...which will automatically happen in a REAL scenario.
You asked for this:
So, you know so much about how a reactor works... what's the value of beta?
Most of my posts here have been regarding fusion. I assumed you were asking for the beta value, you did not specify what reactor type. A fission reactor does not use this process, so really, what other answer were you ever going to get?
QUOTE
I assumed you were asking for the beta value, you did not specify what reactor type
I said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I assumed you were asking for the beta value, you did not specify what reactor type |
I said Beta is at the core of how every thermal nuclear reaction works.
But of course you knew that when I say beta, I am talking about a thermal absorption right? And of course you already know what types of reactors work with thermal absorptions right? Let’s see… What types of fuel are thermal fuels? This is not rocket science, it’s only nuclear science.
QUOTE
But of course you knew that when I say beta, I am talking about a thermal absorption right? And of course you already know what types of reactors work with thermal absorptions right? Let’s see… What types of fuel are thermal fuels? This is not rocket science, it’s only nuclear science.
I'm assuming that you are refering to this. There are two forms, average delayed neutron fraction (beta-bar) and effective (beta eff) (neutrons produced and the neutrons absorbed). Heat generation continues creating voids of steam, more steam means more heat (less moderation, faster reaction rate), a runaway positive gain scenerio can develop. So the Beta value would indicate how much impact the delayed neutron fraction has on a positive feedback loop.
From what I'm aware of the RBMK at the time it was rated +4.5Beta. Most modern reactors operate with a negative coefficient, which is different from saying that positive void coefficient cannot be induced or that this means core temperature and pressure cannot increase rapidly upon certain failures.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.