Large Hardon Collider

[Eliseos]

Why does all this awesome stuff have to be on the same night shark week starts?

For the same reason my physics professor scheduled an exam tomorrow and I have to study for it instead of watch this stuff. Yay for DVR.

[Muffins]

Meh, pay no attention to him, he's been spamming up posts in every thread just to take opposition to what's being discussed with pointless one-liners.

In related news: Stephen Hawking is going to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Pretty big change from recipients Bush chose. <.<

Stephen Hawking to receive Medal of Freedom from President Obama - Times Online

[Abandon]

Is there a black holes for dummies I can pick up somewhere? This shit is confusing, yet interesting.

[oldoldman]

Chernobyl 4 experienced a steam explosion as a result of a prompt criticality accident due to operator stupidity and poor design practice accompanied by pathetic engineering ideology compounded by improper planning. Chernobyl 1, 2, and 3 continued to operate for several years after the accident. Chernobyl 5 and 6 were cancelled on order.


How does that correlate to your question? In short, the answer to your question, yes, the public would know, and no, that wouldn't stop us from doing it anyway. In addition to the Chernobyl accident, there was also SL-1, HEAT-2, HEAT-3, TMI-2; those are just reactors that have failed catastrophically. If we were to cover the number of incidents/accidents outside of that, the list is quite substantial. Danger has never stopped us from moving forwards, and it shouldn't stop us now. Knowledge without experience is the deadliest type of information; without experiencing the pains of the bad, you cannot properly respect the power with which you are playing.

I feel the need to clear this up, Chernobyl did not fail. Chernobyl had a safety backup that would kick in if the plant lost external power to cool the reactor. This required multiple large diesel engines to pump water which took about a minute to come on line. A soviet engineer had the idea that they could use the turbines rotational energy as it slowed down to power the pumps and cooled the reactor, a plan that could never actually work in practice as was proven by the first test they did of the plan which caused the plant to have to be SCRAMed because of all the safety features and failsafes in place. But because it was the Soviet Union that test was covered up and the plan was brought into operation anyways. Another test was planned to make sure it worked and this time the engineers made sure that the plant would not shut itself down, they turned off all the failsafes, cut power to the deisel engines and nearly all of the control rods were removed. In short, the Chernobyl reactor did not fail, they blew it up.

Sorry, I just hate to see people say nuclear power isn't safe, hell more people have died in coal mines.

[Kryssan]

I feel the need to clear this up, Chernobyl did not fail. Chernobyl had a safety backup that would kick in if the plant lost external power to cool the reactor. This required multiple large diesel engines to pump water which took about a minute to come on line. A soviet engineer had the idea that they could use the turbines rotational energy as it slowed down to power the pumps and cooled the reactor, a plan that could never actually work in practice as was proven by the first test they did of the plan which caused the plant to have to be SCRAMed because of all the safety features and failsafes in place. But because it was the Soviet Union that test was covered up and the plan was brought into operation anyways. Another test was planned to make sure it worked and this time the engineers made sure that the plant would not shut itself down, they turned off all the failsafes, cut power to the deisel engines and nearly all of the control rods were removed. In short, the Chernobyl reactor did not fail, they blew it up.

Sorry, I just hate to see people say nuclear power isn't safe, hell more people have died in coal mines.

I'm a nuclear engineer; did research at civvy and have been operating military plants since 2001 now (*cough*Should have stayed civvy too*cough*). Trust me, not saying it isn't safe, or that it shouldn't be pursued. I'd rather all of our power be nuclear. Just saying that such power should be respected. Coal is still a ridiculously large source of energy production in the US, and compared to the crap that even the heavily filtered plants are producing, at their much lower power levels, nuclear power plants always come out smelling like roses. The newer modular gas turbine/pebblebed/liquid metal reactors that operate on the fast fuel/breeder concept are so much better on top of the typical thermal PWR/BWR plants we're currently using, I cannot even begin to fathom why we're still cockblocking their production. That and the Brayton cycle is sooo much more efficient than the Rankine cycle. Well, actually that's not true, I know why they're being blocked, but I despise the reason.



However, the Chernobyl reactor system did catastropically fail. Yes, this was foremost a result of human stupidity. That doesn't change that it failed; it had several inherent design flaws that led to worsening the casualty. Would the reactor have been safe otherwise? I can't answer that question; but perhaps the casualty wouldn't have been as severe. Most notable of these design flaws were the boron control rods and the rod followers, the positive temperature reactivity coefficient (also called a void coefficient), the excessive steam piping and design complexity of said piping, and the design at-power refueling pressure housing. Yes, Chernobyl was one of the safest reactor plants at the time, until the operators decided to go all rogue on the safeties; but that didn't make it a good design. In fact, one could say it was because of that false sense of security that they proceeded as they did. However, you also have a few inaccuracies in what you posted. I wasn't trying to be detailed because I don't want to derail the mathematical discussion, but meh, time to go now. The operators at Chernobyl-4 believed the reactor to be so safe, and had so much faith in it, that they did not believe a major accident could occur. Wanting to proceed with the experiment (because said engineers had noted the massive deficiency of the diesel generator backup system not providing DHR flow for upwards of about 90 seconds after complete loss of power), they disabled all of the safety interlocks. Also, I don't know where you came up with two experiments; they had only one. They planned for the experiment to occur on April 25th, during the day shift, and like all nuclear things, it got massively delayed and didn't start until the early morning of the 26th, with an extremely junior crew. They set themselves up into a bad condition where they wound up with extremely low reactor powers concentrated in the core. The reactor test was performed when Chernobyl-4 was scheduled to be transferred offline for a maintenance shutdown and the test was proposed to occur in tandem with that, maximizing power production. However, the shutdown was delayed due to wanting to maintain power grid production for peak-hours.

The test called for them to be at a power level less than a third of the typical operating power level (low power levels being extremely dangerous areas of operation for the RBMK reactor type), the relatively junior operator inserted rods too far and dropped reactor power levels to near shutdown, and concentrated the neutron flux in the bottom of the core. To compensate for the xenon preclusion they experienced as a result, they overrode the safety interlocks of the computer system for rod control (Chernobyl actually had a very advanced rod control system (actually two independent systems, an automatic and a manual one) involving rods that were pulled out of the top of the core and pushed into the bottom of the core allowing for severe flux distribution changes in order to allow for refueling at power), and then yanked them out, trying to get power restored. The junior operators did not understand the condition they were in nor why reactor power didn't restore as a result of their actions manually overriding the rod control systems. In addition, they fired up more pumps to raise the flow rate, setting up what in essence was the precondition for a massive cold water casualty - one of the worse casualties that can occur to a PWR/BWR plant. When they attempted the test, water flow was severely reduced as the turbines sped down off their regulators, causing the formation of steam voids inside the core; that combined with their positive coefficient of reactivity led to a runaway reaction rate that eventually overwhelmed the xenon preclusion (via burnout) they were experiencing as a result of initially driving power down too low.

Noone really knows why the operators decided to scram when they did, reports go both ways of operators noticing the massive power transient or simply having concluded the experiment, they attempted to shut it down. However, one of the design flaws mentioned earlier also came into play here, further compounding the casualty. The scram that should have shutdown the core actually increased the reaction rate, leading to core meltdown. The core meltdown and subsequent violation of critical heat flux led to a massive steam void formation that blew off the lid of the core; since the lid was rated for a meager pressure transient as it had to be in order to allow for the at-power refueling of this particular type of reactor. The 90 degree turn also of the piping and the fact that water likes to take the easiest path further led to complication and expounded the casualty. Then the real explosion occurred, that being from the hydrogen buildup as a result of fission product release and fuel element failures.



Granted, the stupid humans shouldn't have removed all of the engineered safeguards, but still. Same thing with all of the other reactors. All of them had wonderful safety features, just human beings decided they knew better and wound up breaking the plants. No matter which reports you read, that of SL-1, HTRE-2, HTRE-3, TMI-2, or Chernobyl-4, or the multitude of mishaps/accidents involving nuclear fuel (such as the INES level 4 incident in the Ibaraki Prefecture), they all share one thing in common: the stupidity and ignorance of humans who lack the proper respect for what they're playing with.

[Pirian]

Is there a black holes for dummies I can pick up somewhere? This shit is confusing, yet interesting.

NDT's Death by Black Hole

[Abandon]

I'm a nuclear engineer; did research at civvy and have been operating military plants since 2001 now (*cough*Should have stayed civvy too*cough*). Trust me, not saying it isn't safe, or that it shouldn't be pursued. I'd rather all of our power be nuclear. Just saying that such power should be respected. Coal is still a ridiculously large source of energy production in the US, and compared to the crap that even the heavily filtered plants are producing, at their much lower power levels, nuclear power plants always come out smelling like roses. The newer modular gas turbine/pebblebed/liquid metal reactors that operate on the fast fuel/breeder concept are so much better on top of the typical thermal PWR/BWR plants we're currently using, I cannot even begin to fathom why we're still cockblocking their production. That and the Brayton cycle is sooo much more efficient than the Rankine cycle. Well, actually that's not true, I know why they're being blocked, but I despise the reason.



However, the Chernobyl reactor system did catastropically fail. Yes, this was foremost a result of human stupidity. That doesn't change that it failed; it had several inherent design flaws that led to worsening the casualty. Would the reactor have been safe otherwise? I can't answer that question; but perhaps the casualty wouldn't have been as severe. Most notable of these design flaws were the boron control rods and the rod followers, the positive temperature reactivity coefficient (also called a void coefficient), the excessive steam piping and design complexity of said piping, and the design at-power refueling pressure housing. Yes, Chernobyl was one of the safest reactor plants at the time, until the operators decided to go all rogue on the safeties; but that didn't make it a good design. In fact, one could say it was because of that false sense of security that they proceeded as they did. However, you also have a few inaccuracies in what you posted. I wasn't trying to be detailed because I don't want to derail the mathematical discussion, but meh, time to go now. The operators at Chernobyl-4 believed the reactor to be so safe, and had so much faith in it, that they did not believe a major accident could occur. Wanting to proceed with the experiment (because said engineers had noted the massive deficiency of the diesel generator backup system not providing DHR flow for upwards of about 90 seconds after complete loss of power), they disabled all of the safety interlocks. Also, I don't know where you came up with two experiments; they had only one. They planned for the experiment to occur on April 25th, during the day shift, and like all nuclear things, it got massively delayed and didn't start until the early morning of the 26th, with an extremely junior crew. They set themselves up into a bad condition where they wound up with extremely low reactor powers concentrated in the core. The reactor test was performed when Chernobyl-4 was scheduled to be transferred offline for a maintenance shutdown and the test was proposed to occur in tandem with that, maximizing power production. However, the shutdown was delayed due to wanting to maintain power grid production for peak-hours.

The test called for them to be at a power level less than a third of the typical operating power level (low power levels being extremely dangerous areas of operation for the RBMK reactor type), the relatively junior operator inserted rods too far and dropped reactor power levels to near shutdown, and concentrated the neutron flux in the bottom of the core. To compensate for the xenon preclusion they experienced as a result, they overrode the safety interlocks of the computer system for rod control (Chernobyl actually had a very advanced rod control system (actually two independent systems, an automatic and a manual one) involving rods that were pulled out of the top of the core and pushed into the bottom of the core allowing for severe flux distribution changes in order to allow for refueling at power), and then yanked them out, trying to get power restored. The junior operators did not understand the condition they were in nor why reactor power didn't restore as a result of their actions manually overriding the rod control systems. In addition, they fired up more pumps to raise the flow rate, setting up what in essence was the precondition for a massive cold water casualty - one of the worse casualties that can occur to a PWR/BWR plant. When they attempted the test, water flow was severely reduced as the turbines sped down off their regulators, causing the formation of steam voids inside the core; that combined with their positive coefficient of reactivity led to a runaway reaction rate that eventually overwhelmed the xenon preclusion (via burnout) they were experiencing as a result of initially driving power down too low.

Noone really knows why the operators decided to scram when they did, reports go both ways of operators noticing the massive power transient or simply having concluded the experiment, they attempted to shut it down. However, one of the design flaws mentioned earlier also came into play here, further compounding the casualty. The scram that should have shutdown the core actually increased the reaction rate, leading to core meltdown. The core meltdown and subsequent violation of critical heat flux led to a massive steam void formation that blew off the lid of the core; since the lid was rated for a meager pressure transient as it had to be in order to allow for the at-power refueling of this particular type of reactor. The 90 degree turn also of the piping and the fact that water likes to take the easiest path further led to complication and expounded the casualty. Then the real explosion occurred, that being from the hydrogen buildup as a result of fission product release and fuel element failures.



Granted, the stupid humans shouldn't have removed all of the engineered safeguards, but still. Same thing with all of the other reactors. All of them had wonderful safety features, just human beings decided they knew better and wound up breaking the plants. No matter which reports you read, that of SL-1, HEAT-2, HEAT-3, TMI-2, or Chernobyl-4, or the multitude of mishaps/accidents involving nuclear fuel (such as the INES level 4 incident in the Ibaraki Prefecture), they all share one thing in common: the stupidity and ignorance of humans who lack the proper respect for what they're playing with.

Having myself gone through the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion school, I can vouch for this. *slow clap*

[Mizango]

I'm a nuclear engineer; did research at civvy and have been operating military plants since 2001 now (*cough*Should have stayed civvy too*cough*). Trust me, not saying it isn't safe, or that it shouldn't be pursued. I'd rather all of our power be nuclear. Just saying that such power should be respected. Coal is still a ridiculously large source of energy production in the US, and compared to the crap that even the heavily filtered plants are producing, at their much lower power levels, nuclear power plants always come out smelling like roses. The newer modular gas turbine/pebblebed/liquid metal reactors that operate on the fast fuel/breeder concept are so much better on top of the typical thermal PWR/BWR plants we're currently using, I cannot even begin to fathom why we're still cockblocking their production. That and the Brayton cycle is sooo much more efficient than the Rankine cycle. Well, actually that's not true, I know why they're being blocked, but I despise the reason.



However, the Chernobyl reactor system did catastropically fail. Yes, this was foremost a result of human stupidity. That doesn't change that it failed; it had several inherent design flaws that led to worsening the casualty. Would the reactor have been safe otherwise? I can't answer that question; but perhaps the casualty wouldn't have been as severe. Most notable of these design flaws were the boron control rods and the rod followers, the positive temperature reactivity coefficient (also called a void coefficient), the excessive steam piping and design complexity of said piping, and the design at-power refueling pressure housing. Yes, Chernobyl was one of the safest reactor plants at the time, until the operators decided to go all rogue on the safeties; but that didn't make it a good design. In fact, one could say it was because of that false sense of security that they proceeded as they did. However, you also have a few inaccuracies in what you posted. I wasn't trying to be detailed because I don't want to derail the mathematical discussion, but meh, time to go now. The operators at Chernobyl-4 believed the reactor to be so safe, and had so much faith in it, that they did not believe a major accident could occur. Wanting to proceed with the experiment (because said engineers had noted the massive deficiency of the diesel generator backup system not providing DHR flow for upwards of about 90 seconds after complete loss of power), they disabled all of the safety interlocks. Also, I don't know where you came up with two experiments; they had only one. They planned for the experiment to occur on April 25th, during the day shift, and like all nuclear things, it got massively delayed and didn't start until the early morning of the 26th, with an extremely junior crew. They set themselves up into a bad condition where they wound up with extremely low reactor powers concentrated in the core. The reactor test was performed when Chernobyl-4 was scheduled to be transferred offline for a maintenance shutdown and the test was proposed to occur in tandem with that, maximizing power production. However, the shutdown was delayed due to wanting to maintain power grid production for peak-hours.

The test called for them to be at a power level less than a third of the typical operating power level (low power levels being extremely dangerous areas of operation for the RBMK reactor type), the relatively junior operator inserted rods too far and dropped reactor power levels to near shutdown, and concentrated the neutron flux in the bottom of the core. To compensate for the xenon preclusion they experienced as a result, they overrode the safety interlocks of the computer system for rod control (Chernobyl actually had a very advanced rod control system (actually two independent systems, an automatic and a manual one) involving rods that were pulled out of the top of the core and pushed into the bottom of the core allowing for severe flux distribution changes in order to allow for refueling at power), and then yanked them out, trying to get power restored. The junior operators did not understand the condition they were in nor why reactor power didn't restore as a result of their actions manually overriding the rod control systems. In addition, they fired up more pumps to raise the flow rate, setting up what in essence was the precondition for a massive cold water casualty - one of the worse casualties that can occur to a PWR/BWR plant. When they attempted the test, water flow was severely reduced as the turbines sped down off their regulators, causing the formation of steam voids inside the core; that combined with their positive coefficient of reactivity led to a runaway reaction rate that eventually overwhelmed the xenon preclusion (via burnout) they were experiencing as a result of initially driving power down too low.

Noone really knows why the operators decided to scram when they did, reports go both ways of operators noticing the massive power transient or simply having concluded the experiment, they attempted to shut it down. However, one of the design flaws mentioned earlier also came into play here, further compounding the casualty. The scram that should have shutdown the core actually increased the reaction rate, leading to core meltdown. The core meltdown and subsequent violation of critical heat flux led to a massive steam void formation that blew off the lid of the core; since the lid was rated for a meager pressure transient as it had to be in order to allow for the at-power refueling of this particular type of reactor. The 90 degree turn also of the piping and the fact that water likes to take the easiest path further led to complication and expounded the casualty. Then the real explosion occurred, that being from the hydrogen buildup as a result of fission product release and fuel element failures.



Granted, the stupid humans shouldn't have removed all of the engineered safeguards, but still. Same thing with all of the other reactors. All of them had wonderful safety features, just human beings decided they knew better and wound up breaking the plants. No matter which reports you read, that of SL-1, HEAT-2, HEAT-3, TMI-2, or Chernobyl-4, or the multitude of mishaps/accidents involving nuclear fuel (such as the INES level 4 incident in the Ibaraki Prefecture), they all share one thing in common: the stupidity and ignorance of humans who lack the proper respect for what they're playing with.

Wow that was pretty neat man. Hope you stick around and post more, that's side of the coin we could use more of.

[Max™]

What side is that? The one with nuclear experiments gone wrong and us all getting superpowers?

I want alter physical structure: metal, and sonic flight!

[Mizango]

What side is that? The one with nuclear experiments gone wrong and us all getting superpowers?

I want alter physical structure: metal, and sonic flight!

Sounds good to me!

[zoobernut]

If I could have any super power it would be to be able to create magnetic fields. If I could create a magnetic field strong enough I could effect anything not just ferromagnetic metals.

[Mizango]

I'd give myself an event horizon. That way I'd go to a bar and wouldnt have to spit any game, I'd just by a bitch a drink and she couldn't say no... or scream...or escape. Hmm

[zoobernut]

Your cock is the infinitely dense singularity. Or your cock appear infinitely long and massive as it would stretch from the event horizon to the center where your body is.

Either way is a win win.

[Mizango]

Exactly lol.

SMBC?

[Max™]

If anything, simply the ability to survive unaided in space, and convert into tachyonic particles so I could follow spacelike trajectories would be my pick.

"Ok Max, you've got super powers, time to go save the world!"
'Fuck that shit, I'm gonna go look at... *looks up, and points* that star. Have a nice life, bitches.'

[Mizango]

I wish they could shoot my corpse through space towards some distant Galaxy after I died. I'd totally do that in a heartbeat, not only would it provide a human specimen for other civilizations but I would be jettisoned though a place in which I truly love... forever.

Imagine my corpse being in some weird elliptical orbit around some random quasar. That was be awesome.

[Khamsin]

How much would you care about Earth if you could simply go anywhere and survive anything?

Think humans will be able to at least travel to the next solar system (and colonize something) by the time our sun goes nova?

On a side note, what effect has our ability to use technology had on evolution as it affects modern humans (versus it's effect on prior human species and other forms of life)?

Will humans continue to evolve or will they devolve as technology advances over the next few million years?

[Eliseos]

I doubt very much that humans will be around by the time our sun dies, since that's billions of years from now? Earth will be enveloped by the sun before it runs out of fuel.

[Seraph]

How much would you care about Earth if you could simply go anywhere and survive anything?

Think humans will be able to at least travel to the next solar system (and colonize something) by the time our sun goes nova?

On a side note, what effect has our ability to use technology had on evolution as it affects modern humans (versus it's effect on prior human species and other forms of life)?

Will humans continue to evolve or will they devolve as technology advances over the next few million years?

I'd say humanity would continue to evolve, but in no real meaningful way as it was viewed traditionally. If science and technology eliminate most of the risk in human existence there will be no focus on survival traits, so at best evolution would be more of a mental evolution than a physical one.

A good followup question would be if society behaviors will overshadow any future evolutionary advantages humans ever gain.

[Pirian]

We would probably have to harness the sun's power in order to even make it to another galaxy. People will probably eventually leave earth, but I doubt it'll be at near-light speed. Maybe half the speed of light, but I think that just because of the way time reacts as you speed up would prevent any real use of such a technology unless we were leaving the earth for good.