General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Plainly Difficult
comments

Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Plainly Difficult" channel.

Fast, cheap and well done. You can have only two.
155
NBC suits actually do nothing to protect against gamma rays. They are useful to not inhale radioactive isothopes, or to not have the skin contaminated by touching them, but cobalt-60 is a very hard ferromagnetic metal. It's only real danger are gamma rays and the only thing that protects from gamma rays is mass, and a lot of it. That said, a lead apron would have been better than nothing.
44
Moreover, according to Dyatlov, the RBMK reactros were already working, unknowingly for their operators, in conditions that the same RBMK Chief Designer, N A Dollezha, considered incontrollable. Infact, with 2% enrichment of the fuel, special absorbers should have been inserted into the channels to contrast positive void coefficient at low power levels. In reality the commercial RBMK worked with 2% fuel enrichment, no special absorbers, and none of the operators even knew that those absorbers should have been present. It's typically Soviet. The chief designer states that, if made in a certain way, the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level. The designers of the plant remove safety measures (maybe simply implying that low enrichment fuel would not have been used), but mantain the statement that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level. The operators only know that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level.
30
It has to be said that the upper shell falling on the lower one during assembly was not completely unpredictable, and the presence of a supervisor and the proper filling of papers would not have prevented it. A proper safety procedure would have been to keep the lower shell protected until all the pieces were properly assembled or, better, to add the fissile core only when ALL the other pieces were already in place.
27
Goiânia's court before: "Yeah, we know there is a potentially lethal piece of equipment in a unwatched building open to thieves. You can't remove it nor enter into the building to check its condition." Goiânia's court after: "you are charged to have negligently left a potentially lethal piece of equipment unwatched."
25
Unfortunately Cesium-137 has a very long half-life for a powerful gamma emitter. The main substitute, the Cobalt-60, has an half-life of only 5.27 years other than being not soluble in water, not easily oxydated, and ferromagnetic (so it's far easier to trace and recover).
16
There's a reason ships' portholes are not square, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint.
14
@Mister Flibble That is believed to be his motivation infact. Arthur Conan Doyle, even before the Cottingley Fairies, had already been ridiculed for his belief in occultism and mediums that had been later found to be scammers. It's said he wanted to demonstrate scientists could be scammed just as easily. Making them believe even in a prehistoric cricket bat was the final insult. Infact there seems to be no other explanation to that finding, than to laugh at how gullible the scientists that could believe in it were.
14
The upper shell falling on the lower one during assembly was not completely unpredictable, and the presence of a supervisor and the proper filling of papers would not have prevented it. A proper safety procedure would have been: 1) to build the upper shell holder so that it was physically impossible for the shell to fall trough it (not difficult, since the shell was round. Any manhole is built this way); 2) to keep the lower shell protected until all the pieces were properly assembled; 3) to add the fissile core only when ALL the other pieces were already in place;
13
Visor bows are still used, especially in railway ferries. In new designs however the bow is inverted, so that the waves tend to keep it closed, instead of opening it. That's the modern railway ferry "Messina". https://www.ferrovie.it/portale/images/articoli/07754101.jpg
7
@spicywolf6718 Yeah. Only one RBMK exploded, and two others had partial meltdowns, out of 17 operative. It's not even 18%. They are very safe. What a great idea to build high positive void coefficient nuclear reactors, and tip the control rods with a moderator.
6
@numeristatech No, that software was made by Bosch by request of VW and specifically for them (another thing is that the software would have obviously used for cheating, and the advice to not use it on production models was only a precaution of Bosch to avoid responsability), and, despite other manufacturers' cars already on the market had been throughly researched, only Opel had been found using a similar device.
6
Even better to add the fissile material only when all the other pieces were already in place.
6
The main problem at Lucens had been the use of magnesium along with CO2 and water in a high temperature environment. Since those charateristics were not present in the RBMK reactors, the Soviets would have considered them to be safe anyway. It has to be said that the problems of Lucens were even easier to predict than those of the RBMK reactors, since it was well known that the Magnox alloys were rapidly corroded by water (it was for that reason the "magnox" British reactors had no water in the core, and that had not completely saved them anyway) even more since in a CO2 atmosphere water forms carbonic acid. In the original design, the magnesium was not directly in contact with water, but it needed only a small leakage.
6
4:38 "to avoid a chemical reaction in the solution, compressed air was used to stop it from separating out" me: "oh, that will be the problem".
5
In the Comet it was a obliged choice, sinche the engines of the Comet I, Ghost 50 Mk 1, were a little underpowered for the aircraft, so De Havilland used the same "trick" of the Mosquito, that had the radiators in the wings to reduce drag.
5
@allangibson2408 On the recovered aircraft it was the antenna mounting (squared holes as well). In the tested one it were the windows. Another problem were the rivets' holes. Punched instead of drilled, they were already microfractured.
5
One of the fields Fermi was a precursor of is statistics of not-repeatable events, the ones that seems there are to few datas to predict them. "keep on doing this and you'll be dead in a year", said by him, was a verdict.
4
None silenced it. Simply people prefer to think about sport or celebrities, in Italy like everywere else.
3
@G1NZOU Not to say that the thing would have had a faux tower and faux struts, all of them unnecessarily exposed to wind.
3
It could have been much worse (a hydrogen explosion in the core wessel, that would have exposed the core in a "Fukushima fashion" had been avoided by pure luck, since there was nothing the operators could do about it). It killed nuclear simply because the new safety measures introduced after TMI to avoid similar incidents made so that the nuclear plants are no more economically viable. Nuclear energy simply costs too much. Various kinds of renevables reached grid parity with fossil fuels, nuclear never managed to do so. I have to add that 40 years of safe operations in any non-nuclear power plant is nothing to write home about, and none of them requires 6 years of shut down for manteinance.
3
The bridge had not been built like that for the look. That kind of structure allowed to spare a lot of steel, when the price of steel was an important part of the total costs.
3
Nothing to say on the concrete? Because last time I saw that kind of cement, full of enclosure of different materials, was on 100 years old structures.
2
Any uranium reactor is a plutonium generator. The advantage of RBMK for plutonium generation was that it allowed the fast change of single fuel rods while the reactor remained operative, and that is impossible in PWR reactors, that have to be shut down for refuelling.
2
Even not remotely. It would have been enough to add the fissile material, even manually, only when all the other pieces of the apparatus were already in place and the lower shell was lowered to the maximum.
2
@LinasVepstas It never reached enough temperature, because the shells were not completely closed. Ironically, the technichan obtained a stable reaction.
2
IF, (it's the most accepted theory) the scram button acted as the detonator, not using the scram button, but reinserting the rods a few at a time, they would probably had a partial meltdown, and even a release of radioactive material in the atmosphere, more severe than at Leningrad, but not an explosion.
2
The engineering was top notch. The dam withstood energy levels far beyond what it was designed to do, and it still stands.
2
Uhhh no. None of them (bar Opel, another German manufacturer) had a software that changed the car's settings if it was tested on a test-bench instead of driven IRL. All of them had their cars performing much better in the specific test conditions (regardless if the test was performed on a bench or on a road) than in other, altough similar, conditions. Because, obviously, those conditions were known before, so they engineered the cars to be particularly clean when driven at those specific conditions of speed, RPMs, etc. But that's expected. It happens in every field.
2
Indian Autorities: "Are you sure you know how to handle dangerous chemicals?" Union Carbide: "Don't worry, that's not my first ride."
2
The estimate was given due to the estimated mass of the landslide and time for it to fall, that depended on the shape of the sliding plane. Of all the various studies obviously the SADE chose the most favourable one. In reality the landslide had 8 times the estimated mass, and 3 times the estimated speed.
2
Reactor 3, that was in the same building of Reactor 4, was shut down by order of Dyatlov right after the explosions, despite the protest of the shift supervisor that he needed the order of an higer autority to do so.
2
@bigbossimmotal So you couldn't disagree with what? Your textwall has nothing to do with Piltdown's scam.
2
@bigbossimmotal I repeat. You didn't counter ANYTHING. NOTHING you said disproves his eventual participation in the scam. Listing some of the things he had done doesn't mean listing ALL he had done.
2
They knew how the reactor worked, but they didn't know the xenon poisoning could pose any threat. In operative procedures the RBMK was considered safe to rise power from any power level, the only limit being that of at least 15 control rods inserted (a thing the operators couldn't even directly control). That's because the chief designer stated that, but he also stated that, using 2% enriched uranium, special absorbers should have been also used to contrast positive void coefficient. Otherwise the reactor would have been incontrollable. Obviously commercial RBMK reactors worked with 2% enriched uranium, obviously no special absorbers were used, nor anyone told the operators that they should have been used.
2
@yodaiam1000 I don't think that elevating the walkaway of a total of 1m would have complicated the stair or the elevator system at all. Once you have to build a stair, or an elevator, one meter more or less doesn't make ANY difference. The truss is more complicated than the beam, especially the variable pace truss they chose to build.
2
@indahooddererste That was not the first nor the last time that pieces of radioactive radiological equipment ended up in a scrapyard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_scrap_metal
2
In reality, if you google "de havilland comet windows" you'll see that htey were not really square. They had rounded corners, even if less rounded than modern ones. A successful aircraft as the DC3 had perfectly squared windows, but was not a pressurised aircraft. It's perhaps revealing however that the DC4 (where pressurization was offered as an option) had perfectly round windows.
2
It seemed like a good idea to use dirt to build a dam.
2
Add that the bow was designed in a way that waves tended to force it open. Visor bows are still used, especially in railway ferries, but new designs have an inverted bow, so that the waves tend to keep them closed. https://www.ferrovie.it/portale/images/articoli/07754101.jpg
2
It was a small plant, as you can guess by the low quantity of chemicals involved. Those don't typically run 24/7, and it's commn to leave the chemicals where they are when the plant shuts down.
2
@scorpio6587 government can't prosecute anyone in Italy. There's an indipendent judiciary system.
2
Actually only the water could made it unstable, by melting the binding material. Not even a nuclear bomb could have made the mountain fall otherwise. .
1
@matthewgaines10 All the complicated truss structure was actually completely useless and a waste of money. The span of the longest section of the bridge was just 53m. Pre-tensioned concrete beams of that lenght are normally available on the market. It only needed do put one, or two, of them on the pillars, and a metallic walkway bolted on it. Many less chances to screw up both the design and the installation.
1
Not really the first. The Coalite incident in UK in 1968 had been even worse, but the company managed to sweep it under the carpet for several years, and UK ws not into EEC in 1968.
1
The difference is that, after having cleared the rubble, the land is usable again, and you don't need a special equipment to do so.
1
@petemaly8950 Since the point of failure had been found to be exactly the corners of the passenger windows and the automatic-direction-finding window t's evident the radiusing was not enough. "just add enough material to make it work" is not a great solution when there are weight constraints, and the material you are working with has not a fatigue limit.
1
@petemaly8950 Since both the real-scale tests performed at Farnborough and the analysis of the wrecks shown the points of failures being exactly the corners of the passengers' windows and the automatic-direction-finding window, its' quite evident they didn't test enough before the first flight.
1
@petemaly8950 Any time something had not been tested enough, who should have tested it enough was absolutely certain to have tested it enough. It's not like the manufacturer of anything wants to kill some hundred people as a prank. But it's self evident that not enough tests had been performed before the first flight. Unfortunately on aircrafts weight tends to be a factor.
1
@petemaly8950 The radiused corners were evidently not radiused enough, since both the real-scale tests performed at Farnborough and the analysis of the wrecks shown the points of failures being exactly the corners of the passengers' windows and the automatic-direction-finding window. "How would De Havilland's have known" is completely immaterial here. What they knew, or didn't, doesn't change where the point of failure was. They would have known had they tested enough or, not testing enough, they could have taken a hint from similar openings that are not square for that very same reason. When the Comet first flew, there already were airliners with oval shaped windows. It's not like the designers chosen that shape due to aesthetic considerations. You know nothing about "my approach". You shouldn't made statement about things you know nothing about.
1
@petemaly8950 The radiused corners were evidently not radiused enough, since both the real-scale tests performed at Farnborough and the analysis of the wrecks shown the points of failures being exactly the corners of the passengers' windows and the automatic-direction-finding window, so they didn't "knew" shit. What they thought they knew was wrong. It's fairly simple. Lots of people out there doesn't know what they are talking about. It happens to someone into here as well. When the Comet first flew, there already were airliners with oval shaped windows. It's not like the designers chosen that shape due to aesthetic considerations. So the designers didn't use "all the current, up to date knowledge for the design". Not even close. Fairly straightforward really In real life the Comet G-ALYP was lost due to a fracture starting from the corner of the automatic-direction-finding window. Not enough of the wreckage of the G-ALYY was recovered to establish the cause, of the failure, and the wreckage of the G-ALYV was not investigated enough, even if eyewitness testimony already pointed to a structural failure. In the first test on the G-ALYU the fracture started from the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows. In the second test, the fracture started from the corner of the passenger window N.7. The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the passenger window is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. So you are wrong again, sorry.
1
@petemaly8950 Before conveniently cancelling your post, you stated that no Comet passenger window failed, IRL or in test. Reality is that you don't know enough of two RL incidents out of three to know what failed, and the passenger window failed in one post incident stress test out of two performed (the other time it had been the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows). So 50% of the times. Fact is that the redesigned Comet had the oval shaped windows. Like other airliners already had before the Comet's first flight. Had they done what others already did (and they did because it was known that rounded openings are more resistant to fatigue than squared oned), the windows wouldn't had failed. In reality the inquiry suggested that the designers would have found the design to be defective already with the tests they performed, had they tested real production parts. But they tested instead prototype parts, treated differently than the production ones, and so more resistant to fatigue. Who would have known that tests should be performed on the parts that really end up in the finished product? It's still fairly simple & it's still not difficult to understand, it's a shame you still doesn't seem to be able to activate at least a braincell to grasp it. Your 4 year old grand daughter would have surely been able to give you lessons at this point.
1
@petemaly8950 That's your fixation, not mine. "There's a reason ships' portholes are not square, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint." And they should. There is a reason other airliners had oval shaped windows, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint. And they should. There is a reason production parts should be tested instead of parts that simply have the same shape. The designers should have know it. And they should. The designers chose the risk. And the airplanes crashed. Stating that "what failed first was in fact irrelevant" is pretty ridiculous. Your 4 year old granddaughter would surely explain it to you. If you don't like forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows, the passenger window still failed in 50% of the tests performed, confirming you are wrong again. Your 4 year old granddaughter would surely explain it to you. Provided her existence. Because, having seen your mental ability, at this point, I wouldn't bet on you really knowing the age of your granddaughter, or her existence IRL.
1
@petemaly8950 Yet ships almost always have not square portholes, for exactly the same reason. Because ships' hulls are stressed, and there's no reason to build complex reinforces to have square portholes if you can do them round. The designers of the Comet, should have taken the hint.
1
@petemaly8950 Because that's your fixation, not mine. "There's a reason ships' portholes are not square, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint." And they should. There is a reason other airliners had oval shaped windows, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint. And they should. There is a reason production parts should be tested instead of parts that simply have the same shape. The designers should have know it. And they should. The designers chose the risk. And the airplanes crashed. That the designers didn't made enough tests is a fact. That the windows of the Comet had been designed wrong is a fact. That the windows of the Comet had problems is a fact. That those problems had been eliminated making them oval is a fact. That they wouldn't have had the problem had them being oval from the start is a fact. So: "There's a reason ships' portholes are not square, and it's exactly the same reason. The designers should have taken the hint." And they should.
1
@petemaly8950 And here you are lying. I already told you that you don't know enough of two RL incidents out of three to know what failed, AND THE PASSENGER WINDOW FAILED IN ONE POST-INCIDENT STRESS TEAT OUT OF TWO PERFORMED (the other time it had been the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows). SO 50% OF THE TIMES. Fact is that the redesigned Comet had the oval shaped windows. Like other airliners already had before the Comet's first flight. The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. With a big arrow pointing to the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW N.7 that says "ORIGIN OF THE FAILURE". Stop lying please. To say that "failure start points are irrelevant" is ridiculous. The failure start points are what made the aircrafts crash, as it would be simple & very easily understood by anyone with a functioning brain . To say that "De Havilland proved through extensive testing that the aircraft design was good" is hilarious, since the design was faulty and caused the crashes, and you can't "prove" what's false. Something your'daughter's dog would surely be able to lecture you about at this point. Not only, but the "extensive testing" had been made on the wrong pieces. Yeah "There's been lots of serious failures that would have been prevented with more testing". So? Had anyone said that the case of the Comet was unique? Keep in mind however (yeah... like you could..) that you talked about tests. I talked about taking a hint.
1
@petemaly8950 It's sad to see you have resorted to lying. I already told you that you don't know enough of two RL incidents out of three to know what failed, AND THE PASSENGER WINDOW FAILED IN ONE POST-INCIDENT STRESS TEST OUT OF TWO PERFORMED (the other time it had been the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows). SO 50% OF THE TIMES. Fact is that the redesigned Comet had the oval shaped windows. Like other airliners already had before the Comet's first flight. The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. With a big arrow pointing to the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW N.7 that says "ORIGIN OF THE FAILURE". The window of the front escape hatches, that failed in the the first post-incident stress test had the same shape, structure and dimension than the passenger window. the rear one was bigger. To say that "failure start points are irrelevant" is ridiculous. The failure start points are what made the aircrafts crash, as it would be simple & very easily understood by anyone with a functioning brain. To say that "De Havilland proved through extensive testing that the aircraft design was good" is hilarious, since the design was faulty and caused the crashes, and you can't "prove" what's false. Something even teh fleas on your'daughter's hamster would surely be able to lecture you about at this point. And here you are lying again, since the testing having been made on the wrong pieces is one of the conclusions of the inquiry. Yeah "There's been lots of serious failures that would have been prevented with more testing". So? Had anyone said that the case of the Comet was unique? Keep in mind however (yeah... like you could..) that you talked about tests. I talked about taking a hint.
1
@petemaly8950 Wrong again. Simple stuff, for anyone but you. You can't "prove" what's false. "as far as they were concerned" count for any testing ever mande on anything that proved to be defective introduced on the market "as far as they were concerned it was safe". But it wasn't. Very very basic stuff, not at all difficult, for anyone but you. Any of your family's pet and various insect around the house could lecture you on the matter at this point. And you keep on lying. I already told you that you don't know enough of two RL incidents out of three to know what failed, AND THE PASSENGER WINDOW FAILED IN ONE POST-INCIDENT STRESS TEST OUT OF TWO PERFORMED (the other time it had been the forward escape hatch window, that's identical in shape and structure to the passenger windows). SO 50% OF THE TIMES. Fact is that the redesigned Comet had the oval shaped windows. Like other airliners already had before the Comet's first flight. The section of the fuselage with the crack starting from the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW is currently on display in the RAF museum at Cosford. With a big arrow pointing to the corner of the PASSENGER WINDOW N.7 that says "ORIGIN OF THE FAILURE". The window of the front escape hatches, that failed in the the first post-incident stress test had the same shape, structure and dimension than the passenger window. the rear one was bigger. To say that "failure start points are irrelevant" is ridiculous. The failure start points are what made the aircrafts crash, as it would be simple & very easily understood by anyone with a functioning brain. To say that "De Havilland proved through extensive testing that the aircraft design was good" is hilarious, since the design was faulty and caused the crashes, and you can't "prove" what's false. Something even teh fleas on your'daughter's dog would surely be able to lecture you about at this point. Not only, but the "extensive testing" had been made on the wrong pieces. Yeah "There's been lots of serious failures that would have been prevented with more testing". So? Had anyone said that the case of the Comet was unique? Keep in mind however (yeah... like you could..) that you talked about tests. I talked about taking a hint.
1
@petemaly8950 Evidently they didn't, since the planes crashed due to design flaws that other designers avoided.
1
@petemaly8950 They evidently didn't, since their products crashed due to the faulty design, while other aircrafts of the era didn't. Unless you are insinuating they did that on purpose.
1
It's called "pre-tensioned" or "pre-stressed" concrete, and it's a now well known building method. The stress induced by the cables is designed to contrast the one induced by the gravity.
1
It's quite fampus among WWII aircrafts aficionados, since it built the "Mosquito" light bomber. One of the most successful aircrafts of the conflict.
1
The alleged motivation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was that he had been ridiculed for his belief in occultism and mediums that had been later found to be scammers. He wanted to demonstrate scientists could be scammed just as easily. Making them believe even in a prehistoric cricket bat was the final insult. The Piltdown man was believed not only for national pride, but also because it fitted into one of the scientific quarrels of the time. If the brain evolved before the habits (so it led the evolution), or the contrary. A man with a developed brain but still a frugivore jaw was a demonstration of the first hypotesis.
1
@sandervanderkammen9230 We don't know. Only one of the three fuselages had been recovered and studied.
1
The problem with Soviet facilities was that there was no need to forge. Controlled and controllers shared a common goal, to ensure that there was no problem and all worked to the schedule, so it was much easier to hide problems under the carpet.
1
There had been a lot of infrastructures made in italy that didn't fall, you know? Not even this one infact.
1
It greatly speed up the unload of the cars. By alternatively dock bow-first or stern-first, the cars enter and exit the ship always going forward.
1
@awolslaboratory1388 Tarmac doesn't contaminate water sources. Oil does.
1
@someusername1 Human BSE cases couldn't be hidden. If there had been over four times more in the UK than in the rest of Europe all toghether... Simply, wherever it was made, British farmers used that feed more than anyone else. IE in Italy, and much of Europe, the norm is for the farm to grow corn to feed their cattle, as silage. Self-gorwn silage is cheaper than bought feed. You can use feed as a temporary solution but, if ou use it regularly, you are working at a loss.
1
The first bridge had not been "rushed toghether". It used a design that allowed to spare steel when steel was an important part of the construction cost. The second bridge had not been "rushed tohether". Three years for a bridge of that kind is fast, but far from "very fast". Simply to design and build bridges of that dimension is now far easier than it was in the '60s.
1
It seems that the Comet had a particular liking for the Ciampino airport. Three out of five incidents (and two explosive decompressions out of three) happened to aircrafts that took off (or attempted to) from there.
1
Not that shortly. The 737 IE, introduced in 1968, used very slim low bypass turbo fans until the second generation was introduced in 1979.
1
There are commercially used natural uranium reactors (the CANDU being the most well known).
1
The engineering was top notch. It withstood energy levels far beyond what it was designed to do, and it still stands.
1
@fabianpascalabt6353 https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurehow-it-was-an-operator-s-perspective/
1
The long time spent between the early studies and the realization of the dam played a big part in the disaster. In the '30s none in the world took in serious consideration the geological charateristics of the basin in building a dam. What counted were the geological charateristics of the bedrock where the dam had to be linked, and those were perfect (infact, the dam itself withstood the impossible, contrary, IE, to the Malpasset Dam, in France, that collapsed in 1959 due to the faulty charateristics of the bedrock). The construction of the dam was approved in 1943 so, when the construction of the dam really begun, in the '50s, the studies on the basin were lacking, and were still lacking when the further rising had been approved. Serious studies had been done in the '60s, but at that point too much money had been already spent and, of the various studies available, the SADE obviously chose to believe to the ones that described the possible landslide to be only superficial. Curiously, of all the geologists consulted by the SADE in the '60s, the one that made the almost perfect prediction of the charateristics of the landslide was the son of the chief designer of the dam.
1
You don't know what you are talking about. Communists were not governing Italy anytime during the construction of the dam, and the "local newspaper" that foreshadowed the disaster was actually "L'Unità", the official newspaper of the Communist Party.
1
@slimjim2584 Tensile structures are actually more resistant to winds and earthquakes. Aircrafts are not made out of concrete.
1
A concrete bridge could have been a good solution actually, but all the complicated project was completely useless and a waste of money. The span of the longest section of the bridge was just 53m. Pre-tensioned concrete beams of that lenght are normally available on the market. It only needed do put one, or two, of them on the pillars, and a metallic walkway bolted on it.
1
@artruisjoew5473 I was talking of exposition of the core. The way that happens may vary. In Fukushima there had been an exposition of the core and fuel is now lying on the floor of the second unit reactor's room as well as hanging from the reactor's vessel. Please do more thorough research before posting, or childlishly trying to correct people that knows better.
1
Imagine there are cheaper and safer alternatives to commercial flight to go anywere in the same time. How much commercial flights will survive?
1
It would have been enough to add the fissile material core only when ALL the other components were already in place. In any reactor the fissile material is the LAST thing that's added.
1
The upper shell falling on the lower one during assembly was not completely unpredictable. The biggest problem here was the fissile material being already in place during the assembly of the other parts. In any reactor, the fissile material is the LAST thing to be added. Remove it, and, for how bad you can screw it during the assembly, you remove any chance of a criticality incident.
1
Use Hollywood physics and solve the problem with an explosion.
1
It seemed like a safe working environment.
1
Water acts both as a moderator and a neutron absorber. In a RBMK reactor, the neutron absorbing effect is prevalent, so it has a positive void coefficient. Less water, more neutrons.
1