Large Hardon Collider

**Lhyet** · 2009-11-30 09:13

Originally Posted by Khamsin

I know it's exciting and all, but I wouldn't say it's THAT exciting.

'I'm just glad nothing's gone wrong yet *touch wood*'
I was just adding innuendo~

**Khamsin** · 2009-11-30 17:21

Originally Posted by Lhyet

'I'm just glad nothing's gone wrong yet *touch wood*'
I was just adding innuendo~

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some wood touching, depending on what the LHC finds or doesn't find.

**Max™** · 2009-11-30 17:44

I'm fapping over the proton structure experiments too.

**Eliseos** · 2009-11-30 19:37

I'm nearly done with my presentation on superconductivity. There is almost no math at all, and it feels like a lab report in a powerpoint. If anyone could take a look at it and possibly offer advice, that would be most appreciative. Even if you could just give potential questions that students in my class will be giving, that will be a huge help, since some of our grade is based on how we answer the questions asked of us. If you want to take a look, just let me know.

EDIT: Also, I'm running out of images to use for my phonon explanation. Should I use this one to break up the monotony? http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/pgs...-06/phonon.gif

**Woozie** · 2009-11-30 23:14

lol, that is awesome. You should use that.

**Max™** · 2009-12-01 01:59

I laughed, use it.

**Kryssan** · 2009-12-01 02:04

It's amusing. I have to admit though my first thought upon seeing it was crystal lattice structure + interstitial point defects caused by neutron embrittlement.

Put me out now, I'm nuking out on off time.

Edit: Added thoughts, extrapolation on something I said in a post in the Mars thread. Nuclear power related, thought I'd get back to science discussion here. Did you guys know there is currently a prototype nuclear reactor that is undergoing some interesting design basis trends? Basically, it has the field community in hysterics because the reactor is not behaving as it should. The design basis models show outcome a) where the actual real-life example is extremely different, and there is a possibility that some of the reactivity trends could dip outside of allowable bands if they continue in their current trends.

The actual interesting thing about this, if you couldn't glean it from above, is that this reactor might just disprove over 50 years of design basis thermal-neutron-reactor-physics models. And that could be quite a fun day indeed. They're going to be conducting some massive physics testing in a year or so from now, maybe I'll get to inform you of their findings when that happens.

**Woozie** · 2009-12-01 11:38

Sounds interesting, but obviously our knowledge of nuclear physics isn't as great as yours. Can you elaborate more on exactly what's going on (with lots of details since I don't know as much nuclear physics) or find an article that explains it?

**Max™** · 2009-12-01 20:32

If it is what I think it is, that is VERY interesting, do elaborate please.

**Eliseos** · 2009-12-01 20:42

Here's the link for my presentation, if anyone is interested.

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/pdepratt...nductivity.ppt

I still have to touch up a few things, but that's pretty much it. If anyone wants to give comments or suggestions, or just ask general questions on the subject, I would be most appreciative. Also, if for some reason that link doesn't work, let me know.

**dudeguy** · 2009-12-02 14:24

**Lhyet** · 2009-12-02 14:38

It really is such an amazing machine... looks spectacular and doing spectacular work.

Thanks for those pictures. The amount of wires in some of them makes me feel good about the mess behind my work desk.

**Mizango** · 2009-12-02 15:01

Yeah they showed the aftermath of that leak on the Science channel a few months back, that shit was crazy.

**dudeguy** · 2009-12-02 18:12

Originally Posted by Lhyet

It really is such an amazing machine... looks spectacular and doing spectacular work.

Thanks for those pictures. The amount of wires in some of them makes me feel good about the mess behind my work desk.

Agreed, I just cannot imagine the amount of planning that went into designing this project... there's just so much going on its hard to think of it as one big machine.

It's like the decided to gather all the coolest pieces of technology they could find to see if they could connect all of it to make something happen.

**Kaylia** · 2009-12-02 18:24

I've trouble pluging 10 electronic components...I can't even begin to imagine how imposible it must be to build that kind of stuff.

**Eliseos** · 2009-12-02 20:13

Originally Posted by Kaylia

I've trouble pluging 10 electronic components...I can't even begin to imagine how imposible it must be to build that kind of stuff.

Seriously. That shit makes my circuits labs look like a lego setup.

**Kryssan** · 2009-12-03 09:11

Well, the basic thing behind this reactor is its current reactivity. In order to achieve criticality you only need so much fuel. However, in order to make a reactor run for a usable lifetime, you'll obviously need to load more than the basic amount of reactivity in order to achieve criticality.

If all you load is fuel, you wind up with some poor physics profiles due to the flux distribution changes over core life. Your goal is to keep the flux profile as flat as possible towards the center of the core, axially and radially, to maintain an even fuel burnout so that you wind up with the least amount of wastage. So then, to counteract the effects of this, designers load poisons into the core, mainly concentrated towards the bottom and center. Done correctly, this maintains the most reactive sections of the core towards the 30~40% height level, which gives you a much more even fuel burnout profile. This in turn maximizes the life of the core.

The issue is, this one prototype reactor has several different fuel cladding materials in it for testing values. Two things have recently come to the attention of the physicists: a) the core is extremely underreactive; b) the core has a near out of tolerance condition for its void coefficient.

This in turn draws two direct conclusions: a) reactor safety parameters for this core could be violated if the void coefficient falls outside of its allowable tolerances; b) the core is going to burn out long before it should.

This leads much credence to the idea that the design and physics equations that the models are based off of are incorrect, or at least flawed in their assumptions of reactivity changes over core life. It should also be noted that this is the first reactor that has not behaved according to the design models. At this current junction the physicists are just observing the changes. Its interesting to see their graphs, because physics testing on a core is a rather regular event that happens every few years or so. Then you notice their data becoming much more proactive and now its taken at least once a month, as they've started paying a great deal more attention. This is not a new reactor - its been in operation for decades. So this leads to the question of whether or not sampling frequency for physics data has been often enough as well in other reactors.

Like I said next year they're supposed to be doing some crazy physics testing on the core, it should be very interesting to observe regardless of what results are yielded from it. At the very least the results should shakeup the materials/design community, and on the other side of the coin we could see a much more fundamental design/theory shakeup as well.

BTW, as an offside, here's the NRCs basic guide for initial testing of a nuclear power plant, just to give you an idea of what all is involved in this process. These processes get repeated over core life, and specific to this discussion are the testing evolutions performed starting on page A-16 and continuing to A-21. This is just a listing, nothing indepth, but it gives you an idea at least of what all is involved here.

**Max™** · 2009-12-03 17:21

I was thinking it was someone realizing an issue with the control rod type reaction reduction systems.

Do you know what specifically they changed that might be causing the underreactive core?

I always thought nuclear reactors were kinda silly myself, like warming your hands by holding them near hot coals. Yeah, it works, and yeah nuclear "coal" will "burn" in a much more useful way... but I couldn't fight that it seemed a little silly that this extremely advanced sounding device is more or less a heap of radioactive materials with stuff crammed into it to keep it in a fairly controlled state.

**Kryssan** · 2009-12-03 21:45

Originally Posted by Max™

I was thinking it was someone realizing an issue with the control rod type reaction reduction systems.

Do you know what specifically they changed that might be causing the underreactive core?

I always thought nuclear reactors were kinda silly myself, like warming your hands by holding them near hot coals. Yeah, it works, and yeah nuclear "coal" will "burn" in a much more useful way... but I couldn't fight that it seemed a little silly that this extremely advanced sounding device is more or less a heap of radioactive materials with stuff crammed into it to keep it in a fairly controlled state.

What exactly is a control rod type reaction reduction system? Are you referring to the neutron absorbers? We just call those control rods, lol. Whatever material they're made out of control rods; scientists remember don't come up with cool names unless they're biologists, and even then they're just trying to combine as much as possible to make a really long word that sounds cool/is hard to pronounce so they can seem uppity.

No Max, if we knew that, it wouldn't be such a question, now would it? If we knew why it was underreactive it wouldn't be disturbing the design models. Reactors hardly ever follow the actual design curve, real life vs ideal after all, but most of them never deviate by more than single digits of reactivity. This one is double digits approaching triple.

**Tristam** · 2009-12-03 22:11

Originally Posted by Kryssan

What exactly is a control rod type reaction reduction system? Are you referring to the neutron absorbers? We just call those control rods, lol. Whatever material they're made out of control rods; scientists remember don't come up with cool names unless they're biologists, and even then they're just trying to combine as much as possible to make a really long word that sounds cool/is hard to pronounce so they can seem uppity.

Lol so true, actually I guarantee what any bio-anything is trying to do is come up with a gigantic name that can be condensed into a "cool" acronym.

Thread: Large Hardon Collider

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Two Nuclear Submarines Collide in Atlantic Ocean

The Large Hadron Collider goes online tonight...

Large Hadron Collider...

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads