LOL, Hey Lucey, Mark Laris wasn't able to "find" that forensic evidence from Fukushima, that supposedly would prove "No moderated prompt criticality". How about you? You are on record as stating there is forensic evidence to prove "no moderated prompt criticality" so can you send that to me or send a link?
You have it backwards. Forensic evidence would prove there was a ceit. Neutron doses. Absence of neutron means absence of criticality. He isnt an expert in crit. I am and you know that.
He is going to say "i don't have to prove that unicorns don't exist..." To which we say "Then prove you have never seen a unicorn".. then the argument goes you said blah, i said blah, your argument is blah, my argument is blah.. reading his (Loose's) words are like scraping my eyes with straightened out staples...Moderated Prompt Criticality is just something he will always agree to disagree on.
Its my lifes work to protect people from this type of industrial mishap. Ive spent decades in this area and am an international expert. What do you do for a living? Spend the amt of time in this pursuit and youll come to the same conclusion. Dont trust Gundersen on this specific topic. He doesnt speak from a position of knowledge or authority. He isnt in the community of experts, about a dozen people worldwide. He really has no clue.
Yet the difference is I actually have spent years studying the kinetics and consequences of a prompt moderated criticality at the professional level. Its something one can not understand just by looking at the Borax photo as Gundersen did, then make the connection to Fukushima. Here it is in a nutshell: Fission energy and fission rate in terms of energy deposited/sec about 1e19 and 1e22 fis/sec can easily be converted to joules and watts respectvely. The energy content from joules can be converted to TNT-equivalent. Ask yourself, the Fukushima U3 "explosion" looks like xxx TNT equivalent (say 100 lbs or more) youll find the fission energy of 1e19 fissions, a very large moderated crit had maybe a fraction of that. So it doesnt add up. Not only was the absense of a very large neutron dose (2.5 neutrons/fission on ave) not there, but the energy content of the promt moderated criticality was too low for the observed effect. Read the references in LA13638 in the Borax report, then look at 57 Godiva, a metal accident, where 1e17 fissions was a fraction of a pound of TNT eqivalent. It doesnt add up. Ill bet in Gundersens 1.5 page treatise to you he doesnt do the calcs for total fissions, fission rate, and TNT equivalent. You saw a very large mushroom cloud, but not as big as Hiroshima, which was about 18,000 tons TNT equivalent. We are talking about lbs or fractions of lbs from a large moderated crit. So where is the source of the destructive energy? It surely wasnt fission energy as I have explained. The more plausible exolaination, the one I have long maintained, is that it was a hydrogen explosion. In fact when you look at the zirconium reaction with water at high temp you will find that h2 in large amounts is produced.
Here is an experiment for you: Get a glass beer bottle. Get some aluminum strips. Put the strips in the bottle. Put some Drano crystals in the bottle. Add warm water. Put a small party baloon on the bottle neck. The baloon expands because the Drano reduces the aluminum and creates h2 gas. Capture the gas in tbe baloon, tie it off. It rises to tbe ceiling. Put a flame on a stick, about 12 inches in length. Light the baloon. Observe the effect. Its HS chemistry. Its the same principle to explain F3.
Its a very reasonable explaination.
The bottom line is that simple HS chemistry can really explain the most plausible reason for the F3 explosion.
Remember, the TNT equivalent of a large prompt moderated crit and associated energy in joules, and power in watts is insufficient to explain the effect observed.
That, and the absense of about 1e22 neutrons/sec converted to a dose rate and integrated dose to the workforce, makes the argument for a prompt moderated crit juzt very weak. Gundersen didnt tell you rhat. He was blinded by gis own arrogance and axe,to grind. So Sk yourself, who do you believe, a world wide expert in criticaliry excursion kinetics and consequences, or a guy albeit with a nuclear eng background, but no crit background with an agenda.
I told you my only aim was to educate. Im a professional at what I do. I did criticality studies for decades. What did Gundersen do in this field soecialty, and specifically, what was his contribution to the literature in this field?
I know you were taken in by him and his message, but at the end of the day, he hasnt fulfilled the first principle of proving his position.
I on the otherhand, have given you a coherrent argument and eplaination why the prompt moderated criticality does not match with the observed result.
You are an engineer by training, as am I. Doesnt it raise doubt in tour mind that the actual physics and energy deposition at very small timescale (im assuming a millisec FWHM spike which is conservative. A shorter FWHM would have a larger total energy content. This is verified in Ch 3 of LA 1e638. Also the French prompt moderated experiments in the 60s and early 70s gives us clues to energy deposition and power in watts for up to 100 l of solution. So scale about 1e15 fissions/liter.
Sorry for the misspellings. Im on my phone. Look you deserve a professional explaination from the best experts in this subject matter. Im not here to troll, but to educate. It does bother me that the general public would be swayed by an aging antinuclear media darling, than someone with the creds and pedigree to refute his claims. The difference is that i desire annonymity. Gundersens paycheck is provided by antinuclear sources. So his message will be antinuclear. Do you think he would be able to enjoy prestige and influence if someone proves him wrong?
I dont know him from Adam. But I also know he isnt an expert in prompt mod crit. Its like saying the GP is on par with the neurosurgeon. And I know from first hand experience, its not true. While they both received medical training, their knowledge in specific niche areas are disparate. Gundersen might have a good generalist knowledge, but hes way out of his league with respect to crit excursions kinetics. I have conducted finite element multiphysics simulations of this comolex phenomena. What has he done? Antinuclear people get their info from antinuclear sources. I get my info from doing the professional technical work. Tou deserve the best answer from the best people.
Let me say this, You have certainly done some homework and provided some references from which we (I) will glean many important facts, however you have also committed a basic argumentative fallacy.. You keep implying that you don't have an agenda as well. In the best circumstances I could take your Word for it... however this is not the best of circumstances and you have a (very) vested interest in making sure that people take YOUR side and believe in you (your authority). I guess you can have anonymity but it hurts your argument. Dude, just come out of the closet if you are a proud and loud Nuker, put your face on your posts. The world should be allowed to dissect your pedigree and make sure YOU didn't actually have a bone to pick. Why go to the lengths of writing this and expressing a bunch of "facts" that apparently only 12 people in the world are expert enough to understand while also trying to make sure we "know" gundersen isn't an expert. Look I am NEVER going to be sure there was or wasn't a PMC, (have you been to unit 3 an taken fuel samples to check for more or less neutron activation products?) there were plenty of neutron alarms going off during this event and we will never know if the safety equip was even working. Last week my local NPP tested all their alarms and guess what.. 100% fail rate, NOTHING worked. So all your words are just that until we have a SOURCE to judge.
Still no evidence of criticality.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Hey Lucey, Mark Laris wasn't able to "find" that forensic evidence from Fukushima, that supposedly would prove "No moderated prompt criticality". How about you? You are on record as stating there is forensic evidence to prove "no moderated prompt criticality" so can you send that to me or send a link?
DeleteYou have it backwards. Forensic evidence would prove there was a ceit. Neutron doses. Absence of neutron means absence of criticality. He isnt an expert in crit. I am and you know that.
DeleteYou have to write me directly.
send your email and I will write you directly
Deletestock@hawaii.rr.com
He is going to say "i don't have to prove that unicorns don't exist..." To which we say "Then prove you have never seen a unicorn".. then the argument goes you said blah, i said blah, your argument is blah, my argument is blah.. reading his (Loose's) words are like scraping my eyes with straightened out staples...Moderated Prompt Criticality is just something he will always agree to disagree on.
ReplyDeletetroll is as troll does
DeleteThe onus is always on those that make the claim. Hitchens Razor.
DeleteI never said there were no unicorns. There have been criticality accidents. Even one at Tokai in 97. There are definite tell tale signs. Learn
Its my lifes work to protect people from this type of industrial mishap. Ive spent decades in this area and am an international expert. What do you do for a living? Spend the amt of time in this pursuit and youll come to the same conclusion. Dont trust Gundersen on this specific topic. He doesnt speak from a position of knowledge or authority. He isnt in the community of experts, about a dozen people worldwide. He really has no clue.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYet the difference is I actually have spent years studying the kinetics and consequences of a prompt moderated criticality at the professional level. Its something one can not understand just by looking at the Borax photo as Gundersen did, then make the connection to Fukushima. Here it is in a nutshell: Fission energy and fission rate in terms of energy deposited/sec about 1e19 and 1e22 fis/sec can easily be converted to joules and watts respectvely. The energy content from joules can be converted to TNT-equivalent. Ask yourself, the Fukushima U3 "explosion" looks like xxx TNT equivalent (say 100 lbs or more) youll find the fission energy of 1e19 fissions, a very large moderated crit had maybe a fraction of that. So it doesnt add up. Not only was the absense of a very large neutron dose (2.5 neutrons/fission on ave) not there, but the energy content of the promt moderated criticality was too low for the observed effect. Read the references in LA13638 in the Borax report, then look at 57 Godiva, a metal accident, where 1e17 fissions was a fraction of a pound of TNT eqivalent. It doesnt add up. Ill bet in Gundersens 1.5 page treatise to you he doesnt do the calcs for total fissions, fission rate, and TNT equivalent. You saw a very large mushroom cloud, but not as big as Hiroshima, which was about 18,000 tons TNT equivalent. We are talking about lbs or fractions of lbs from a large moderated crit. So where is the source of the destructive energy? It surely wasnt fission energy as I have explained. The more plausible exolaination, the one I have long maintained, is that it was a hydrogen explosion. In fact when you look at the zirconium reaction with water at high temp you will find that h2 in large amounts is produced.
DeleteHere is an experiment for you: Get a glass beer bottle. Get some aluminum strips. Put the strips in the bottle. Put some Drano crystals in the bottle. Add warm water. Put a small party baloon on the bottle neck. The baloon expands because the Drano reduces the aluminum and creates h2 gas. Capture the gas in tbe baloon, tie it off. It rises to tbe ceiling. Put a flame on a stick, about 12 inches in length. Light the baloon. Observe the effect. Its HS chemistry. Its the same principle to explain F3.
Its a very reasonable explaination.
The bottom line is that simple HS chemistry can really explain the most plausible reason for the F3 explosion.
Remember, the TNT equivalent of a large prompt moderated crit and associated energy in joules, and power in watts is insufficient to explain the effect observed.
That, and the absense of about 1e22 neutrons/sec converted to a dose rate and integrated dose to the workforce, makes the argument for a prompt moderated crit juzt very weak. Gundersen didnt tell you rhat. He was blinded by gis own arrogance and axe,to grind. So Sk yourself, who do you believe, a world wide expert in criticaliry excursion kinetics and consequences, or a guy albeit with a nuclear eng background, but no crit background with an agenda.
I told you my only aim was to educate. Im a professional at what I do. I did criticality studies for decades. What did Gundersen do in this field soecialty, and specifically, what was his contribution to the literature in this field?
I know you were taken in by him and his message, but at the end of the day, he hasnt fulfilled the first principle of proving his position.
I on the otherhand, have given you a coherrent argument and eplaination why the prompt moderated criticality does not match with the observed result.
You are an engineer by training, as am I. Doesnt it raise doubt in tour mind that the actual physics and energy deposition at very small timescale (im assuming a millisec FWHM spike which is conservative. A shorter FWHM would have a larger total energy content. This is verified in Ch 3 of LA 1e638. Also the French prompt moderated experiments in the 60s and early 70s gives us clues to energy deposition and power in watts for up to 100 l of solution. So scale about 1e15 fissions/liter.
Sorry for the misspellings. Im on my phone. Look you deserve a professional explaination from the best experts in this subject matter. Im not here to troll, but to educate. It does bother me that the general public would be swayed by an aging antinuclear media darling, than someone with the creds and pedigree to refute his claims. The difference is that i desire annonymity. Gundersens paycheck is provided by antinuclear sources. So his message will be antinuclear. Do you think he would be able to enjoy prestige and influence if someone proves him wrong?
ReplyDeleteI dont know him from Adam. But I also know he isnt an expert in prompt mod crit. Its like saying the GP is on par with the neurosurgeon. And I know from first hand experience, its not true. While they both received medical training, their knowledge in specific niche areas are disparate. Gundersen might have a good generalist knowledge, but hes way out of his league with respect to crit excursions kinetics. I have conducted finite element multiphysics simulations of this comolex phenomena. What has he done? Antinuclear people get their info from antinuclear sources. I get my info from doing the professional technical work. Tou deserve the best answer from the best people.
Let me say this, You have certainly done some homework and provided some references from which we (I) will glean many important facts, however you have also committed a basic argumentative fallacy.. You keep implying that you don't have an agenda as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the best circumstances I could take your Word for it... however this is not the best of circumstances and you have a (very) vested interest in making sure that people take YOUR side and believe in you (your authority). I guess you can have anonymity but it hurts your argument. Dude, just come out of the closet if you are a proud and loud Nuker, put your face on your posts. The world should be allowed to dissect your pedigree and make sure YOU didn't actually have a bone to pick. Why go to the lengths of writing this and expressing a bunch of "facts" that apparently only 12 people in the world are expert enough to understand while also trying to make sure we "know" gundersen isn't an expert.
Look I am NEVER going to be sure there was or wasn't a PMC, (have you been to unit 3 an taken fuel samples to check for more or less neutron activation products?) there were plenty of neutron alarms going off during this event and we will never know if the safety equip was even working. Last week my local NPP tested all their alarms and guess what.. 100% fail rate, NOTHING worked. So all your words are just that until we have a SOURCE to judge.
Well said Geeraham, an appeal to authority with no proof of authority. Weak as a nukist's lies.
DeleteAnnyeong!Thanks for sharing your interesting article, please do visit my site too imarksweb.net. God Bless :)
ReplyDelete