Meltdown at Fukushima

[Enthalpy]

Strange, what are you doing together with the infernal trio?

[John Cuthber]

I know someone else can make the same proposals. But I feel my suggestions less immediate than that.

 

Radio-controlling excavators and cranes isn't done usually, and I had not heard about it before. A crane driver would improbably have suggested that one.

 

The interpretation of the ³⁸Cl didn't exist on the Internet before I told it. Quite the opposite, several academics tried to model how much ³⁸Cl would be produced depending on the fuel's condition and position, to inconclusive results.

 

Other proposals were accepted, less spectacular than these.

 

It took the reaction time (by people in a hurry!) before my suggestions were applied on site. The time to commission the Antonov after I proposed the concrete pump, the time to adapt the excavators, and just the time to read my intepretation about radiochlorine. Other people can (and often do) have the same ideas as I, but improbably at the same time.

" But I feel my suggestions less immediate than that."

Do you have any idea how little ice "I feel" cuts on a science site?

"Radio-controlling excavators and cranes isn't done usually, and I had not heard about it before. A crane driver would improbably have suggested that one."

Somewhere between the official secrets act and client confidentiality, there's a reason why I can't explain why.

But a large nuclear site in the UK was (at my suggestion) seriously considering getting a remote controlled concrete mixer truck and putting it in a barricaded enclosure for some other purpose some years before Fukushima went bang.

However, I'm not daft enough to think that: was the first one to imagine that you can remote-operate a truck.

 

This ". A crane driver would improbably have suggested that one." seems to be nothing more than intellectual snobbery.

 

"Other people can (and often do) have the same ideas as I, but improbably at the same time."

Do you really not understand that "at the same time- i.e. shortly after the incident- is exactly when you would expect lots of people to think of this?

[swansont]

However, I'm not daft enough to think that: was the first one to imagine that you can remote-operate a truck.

 

 

Indeed. Considering that they have been using robotics at Chernobyl for some time (not just the cement pumper I mentioned above), and probably to some extent at TMI, I suspect this was an immediate reaction from many in the industry. I expect there were a number of calls in both incoming and outgoing, on the topic of remotely-operated equipment, almost immediately afterwards.

[Strange]

No doubt Enthalpy will be suggesting the use of robots for bomb disposal next. Or perhaps even in manufacturing. I''m sure there is no end of novel uses for them that the world is just waiting for him to disclose.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Indeed. Considering that they have been using robotics at Chernobyl for some time (not just the cement pumper I mentioned above), and probably to some extent at TMI, I suspect this was an immediate reaction from many in the industry. I expect there were a number of calls in both incoming and outgoing, on the topic of remotely-operated equipment, almost immediately afterwards.

I would have thought remote-control everything was the de facto method of dealing with most things nuclear.

[Moontanman]

I would have thought remote-control everything was the de facto method of dealing with most things nuclear.

 

 

If only, Chernobyl was, at least at the beginning, manned by people. Some of the accounts of such radical radiation exposure reads like science fiction...

[StringJunky]

 

 

If only, Chernobyl was, at least at the beginning, manned by people. Some of the accounts of such radical radiation exposure reads like science fiction...

I know, there were some real heroes in that disaster and they knew they were going to die doing it.

[Sensei]

I know, there were some real heroes in that disaster and they knew they were going to die doing it.

Unfortunately majority of them did not know..

Government officials misinformed them that chemical protective clothing is sufficient for radioactive isotopes..

 

Now such job would be done by remote (radio and wire) controlled robots and drones.

So better prepare them just in case, prior accident.

They should be available immediately to use, in couple places around every nuclear power plant.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

"Now such job would be done by remote (radio and wire) controlled robots and drones.

So better prepare them just in case, prior accident.
They should be available immediately to use, in couple places around every nuclear power plant. "
Probably, but I still can't help thinking that we are like generals working out how to win the previous battle.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on how to stop the next disaster?

[swansont]

 

Probably, but I still can't help thinking that we are like generals working out how to win the previous battle.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on how to stop the next disaster?

 

 

 

We have to do both things: better design and engineering, and response to accidents. One has to recognize that there will unanticipated problems. The "unknown unknowns". So there will always be the potential for a "surprise" that will require an emergency response.

[Enthalpy]

Wow, half a dozen people scouring the Internet and spending their time here, just to claim that I brought nothing.

This attempt defeats itself.

Chernobyl used remote/radio-controlled concrete pumps.

http://www.putzmeistermedia.com/Other/Chernobyl_Site%20Report2.pdf

 

I read happily that you spent your time searching for radio-controlled cranes and excavators and only found a pump truck used for concrete.

Just like you didnt' find any mention of a concrete pump used to dump water on the spent fuel pool.

 

Just as I'm equally happy to read that of course, other people thought at it before, but are not allowed to tell it. Just like my grandfather invented Crispr-cas9 in 1930, but the government decided to keep it secret.

 

Conclusion: I did invent the radio-controlled cranes and excavators used at Fukushima. Just like I invented the concrete pump dousing water on the spent fuel pool there. And if not, bring evidence against.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Enthalpy

[Sensei]

Still waiting for your Chlorine-38 interpretation..

(post #22)

Edited August 3, 2016 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

Wow, half a dozen people scouring the Internet and spending their time here, just to claim that I brought nothing.

This attempt defeats itself.

 

I read happily that you spent your time searching for radio-controlled cranes and excavators and only found a pump truck used for concrete.

Just like you didnt' find any mention of a concrete pump used to dump water on the spent fuel pool.

 

Just as I'm equally happy to read that of course, other people thought at it before, but are not allowed to tell it. Just like my grandfather invented Crispr-cas9 in 1930, but the government decided to keep it secret.

 

Conclusion: I did invent the radio-controlled cranes and excavators used at Fukushima. Just like I invented the concrete pump dousing water on the spent fuel pool there. And if not, bring evidence against.

NonCreative.png

So, still no reason to think they read and acted on your suggestions rather than, for example, ones that they wouldn't have needed to translate.

[Enthalpy]

Still waiting for your Chlorine-38 interpretation..

(post #22)

Link provided.

So, still no reason to think they read and acted on your suggestions rather than, for example, ones that they wouldn't have needed to translate.

I have provided timestamped evidence that I proposed the ideas.

Nobody has provided evidence that someone else did.

For any patent office, I'd be the inventor.

[John Cuthber]

 

I have provided timestamped evidence that I proposed the ideas.

Nobody has provided evidence that someone else did.

For any patent office, I'd be the inventor.

Nobody questions that you made the suggestion.

Since we probably accept that you didn't copy the idea we accept that you are an inventor.

What we question is whether you were the only inventor, the first inventor or- most importantly- the relevant inventor.

 

You have provided no evidence of that.

 

Given the evidence, a patent examiner might form the opinion that perhaps someone else- perhaps the truck driver- might be the inventor.

He would ask the driver.

The driver might very well say "My boss told me..."

Someone would actually check.

Most importantly- they would start checking at the right end of the chain.

[StringJunky]

Link provided.

I have provided timestamped evidence that I proposed the ideas.

Nobody has provided evidence that someone else did.

For any patent office, I'd be the inventor.

Your narcissism is rather blatant and just a bit irritating.

[John Cuthber]

Come to think of it, a patent examiner looking at your suggestion that people might use a robot to clean stuff up would probably be aware of this "Prior art".

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba

[Sensei]

Chlorine-38

 

Link provided.

 

According to rules of this forum, that you agreed upon signing in,

you should provide everything to discuss, without requiring users to click anything.

That has sense: if you link to your own website, or your own post on other forum, you can change whatever is there any time.

While discussion on forum will be about old version of text, rendering whole discussion senseless, if change is significant.

 

So, why don't you just copy and paste whatever you wrote on another forum, if you really don't want to repeat yourself.. ?

 

Are you afraid of perhaps pointing errors in interpretation.. ?

 

ps. Unlike what you think, I didn't neg your post #36, so there was no reason for revenge neg my post #37.

[Enthalpy]

Obviously no-one can prove whether anybody else had the same idea within the same timeframe but didn't submit or publish it. The rules of patent offices hence base on evidence: who has described what at what time. To this rules, I'm the inventor because my evidence tell it, unless someone comes with better evidence. No snobbery nor narcissism in that, just the rule of the proof.

 

Many people here would like inventions to be obvious, and similar ideas to be identical. This is not the case. Have a look at what patent offices accept as "new" idea: the changes are tiny. One example:

• At a symposium about micro and mini satellites, I described an aerodynamic fin for satellites on low Earth orbit, taking advantage of the very faint atmosphere. I even loudly supposed it was already done.
• A year later, a guy from the French space agency got a patent that tells "static aerodynamic fins for satellites are well known, but I have invented the tiltable aerodynamic fin for satellites and apply for a patent".
• The patent office granted him a patent. Having described the fin before (without telling it to be fixed), I found said invention to be thinny.

While the decisions by patent offices are always discussable, they take into account that ideas are rare, and inventing anything is difficult. That's why, while robots are not new at a nulear power plant, and remote control neither, and a concrete pump had already been remote controlled, I do claim that remote-controlled cranes at Fukushima were a full invention, and so too was pouring water at Fukushima using a concrete pump.

 

One example of innovation (not exactly an invention, but it illustrates how small progress always is):

• Electric cars had existed for over a century ("la jamais contente") and were in use.
• Lithium batteries existed for over a decade, including the very same chemistry.
• Elon Musk realized that an electric car with that lithium battery could have some useable range and imagined that some customers would be interested. He invested big money in it. As things happen, customers indeed want to buy the cars.
• Feel free to say "existed already" and "anyone could have done it". Fact is that other people didn't, or at least not properly. It is a significant innovation that relies on a tiiiiiny change.

One other example is my contactless chipcard.

• Nikola Tesla had already tinkered around it, over a century ago.
• Contactless cards existed for decades, by radio and by induction, but without a battery the range was like 5mm.
• I put a resonant circuit and chose the proper operation frequency to obtain 10cm range (plus some datacomms).
• With that range, billions of RFID (or NFC) cards are in use. Previously, it was a tiny market.
• Again, feel free to say "existed already": yes, but not as I did it, and with the tiny change mine is better. And say "just a resonant circuit, anyone could have invented it" if you wish: fact is that the science and components were available for a century, but before me the other people did it worse despite the existing need. And I put 7 months of hard work to succeed with a resonant circuit at 13.56MHz (trying other very different solutions too).

Inventors realize after few years how difficult innovation is and how tiny any progress is, and rarely say "it was obvious". Inventing is never obvious, quite the opposite. Only describing an existing invention may be obvious. And the inventions easiest to describe are often the most difficult to make.

[John Cuthber]

Patents have sod all squared to do with the issue.

 

Do you really believe that the guys who drive concrete-pump trucks are too dumb to see that they could pump water?

How do you think they wash them at the end of the day?

 

Do you really think that they (and those who work with them) wouldn't have made that point?

Do you not realise that the people working on nuclear power station problems are the same people who built those stations- often using pumped concrete?

 

You are making an extraordinary claim- that of all the people who thought of the idea- you were the only one who was heeded- so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary claim.

 

The reason why patent decisions have nothing to do with it is that patents can be (and often are) challenged.

If you tried to patent the idea- citing your web post- others could (and probably would) point out that there was prior art.

But those people arernot likely to read this so they won't challenge you.

That doesn't mean you are right. It just means you are obscure.

[Strange]

That doesn't mean you are right. It just means you are obscure.

 

 

I wonder if there is a word for this sort of delusion. It is kind of the opposite of apophenia (seeing meaning in external things where there is none).

[Enthalpy]

You are deeply underestimating the difficulty of making inventions. This is the usual case of non-creative people.

 

And here I even feel the usual aggressivity of non-creative people who tell "anybody could have invented it" after I did. In this case, I have even proofs that I proposed the ideas before they were adopted, and you failed to show any other source for the ideas, but you still try to denigrate. If it was so obvious, why didn't you propose the solutions?

 

[swansont]

You are deeply underestimating the difficulty of making inventions. This is the usual case of non-creative people.

 

And here I even feel the usual aggressivity of non-creative people who tell "anybody could have invented it" after I did. In this case, I have even proofs that I proposed the ideas before they were adopted, and you failed to show any other source for the ideas, but you still try to denigrate. If it was so obvious, why didn't you propose the solutions?

 

NonCreative.png

 

 

 

OTOH, there are many cases of people over-estimating the uniqueness of generic ideas. It's not unusual for people to complain that their literary/artistic idea has been stolen, when it was just a case of someone independently coming up with a similar idea. (This is why a lot of TV/movie shops will not accept unsolicited scripts, and will return them unopened. Too much of a headache defending yourself when a vaguely similar idea is used by the staff.) I've had cartoon ideas occur to me, and see someone else use a similar premise in another context. They didn't read my mind. They came up with it on their own. It happens.

 

Specific ideas are more likely to be unique. But ideas, especially ones already in place elsewhere (like the use of remotely-controlled robotics) are much more prone to occur to multiple people.

[John Cuthber]

 

And here I even feel the usual aggressivity of non-creative people who tell "anybody could have invented it" after I did.

Your problem is not that I say "anyone could have invented that".

Your problem is that I, and others have pointed out that your "inventions" like remote controlled kit for dealing with nuclear material were invented a long time ago.

Here's an picture from 1957 of people building such a system.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/id0444.photos.224041p/

[Endy0816]

 

The Idea

The initial idea to use truck-mounted concrete boom pumps to cool the reactor was spearheaded by Hiroshi Suzuki, the head of the Putzmeister subsidiary in Japan. On March 15, Suzuki submitted vital information to Japan’s prime minister’s office about the boom pump’s capabilities and how they could help cool down the reactors. Two days later, an emergency order was given to bring ashore a Putzmeister 58-Meter boom pump that had been en route to a customer in Vietnam.

 

http://www.putzmeisteramerica.com/news/press-releases/Putzmeister-Boom-Pumps-Help-Cool-Fukushima-Daiichi-Plant-Reactors

 

Lots of brains on this planet.