louis wu

36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The Pressure Vessel Regulations are regulations under the health + safety at work etc act 1974.

Since that act  only applies to people at work ( or those affected by such work) and the people blowing stuff up are not "at work" as defined in the act, the regulations don't apply.

So, what you are saying is that balloons wouldn't be a pressure vessel if they were part of someone's occupation.

 

Well, nobody said they were.

So, not only were your comments irrelevant, they were also technically wrong.

HSE also does not regulate children playing conkers.

So the official EU wide definition of pressure vessels is irrelevant  as to discounting a balloon as a pressure vessel. Well I disagree. Balloons are not pressure vessels, either when utilised in work environments or otherwise.

BTW the official HSE position on conkers appears to be http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm. 

On 10/27/2018 at 4:15 PM, dimreepr said:

A balloon is a pressure vessel...

Not according to the HSE Pressure vessel regulations (UK Pressure Equipment Directive (Directive 97/23/EC) (PED)).  Only a contained pressure of 0.5 Bar or greater satisfies the requirements for a pressure vessel.

The actual paper is here.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878.pdf

The authors do not claim in any way to have proven any holographic principle.

They do claim that some holographic models are consistent with the Planck satellite data and may be competitive with ΛCDM.

Well the EPA is to be terminated according to a bill presented to congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+861%22%5D%7D&r=1

US uncut link.

http://usuncut.com/climate/epa-terminate/

This cannot be a good idea.

It is not how I envisioned draining the swamp.

The actual paper can be found here

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.0880.pdf

A video is an important component of the paper and is found

http://irfu.cea.fr/laniakea or http://vimeo.com/pomarede/laniakea

I found the video mind blowing and beautiful.

The method is the Cosmicflows-2 catalog of galaxy positions and velocities together with standard cosmology are used as prior distribution for variational Bayesian analysis. Wiener noisy signal processing is heavily used, in deriving the velocity and density flow data.

The analysis used H₀ = 75.2 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ : The Planck team found H⁰ = 67.3 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, I find the difference a little disturbing, but I am not really competent to criticise the paper.

The paper claims that the difference should not affect the derived velocities.

I read the paper (superficially). Why was this not achieved ages ago? I could not see what they did which was novel and the reason that it had not been done before.

Why was it not achieved years ago? i think that is kind of unfair.

The fig.1 phase diagram is the result of ongoing research by several competing teams.

The production of metallic hydrogen is novel as far as I can tell, and may be a great leap forwards.

Before this last weekend I had assumed that metallic hydrogen would be confined to the centre of gas giant planets, if found anywhere.

A BBC news article on the discovery is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38768683

The paper is here

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.01634.pdf

As described in the paper, the work should be easy to replicate and confirm. If the metallic hydrogen is metastable. and can be a RT superconductor that would be wonderful for many applications. There would be obvious difficulties in mass production of metallic hydrogen.

That weird phase diagram (fig. 1) does imply the possibility of RT stability..

If you have have not already found the answers for yourself I will supply some.

Interstitial C in both FCC and BCC steel does produce local lattice strains and distortions. Too much carbon will produce a very brittle and essentially undesirable steel.

I calculate the interstitial hole to be ~104 pm diameter in FCC iron.

Interstitials and other lattice defects such as vacancies, edge and screw dislocations are not fixed in place permanently. Your blacksmithing is influencing, moving, concentrating, sometimes creating or eliminating these defects.

Putin's detractors often come to unfortunate ends. Of course the esteemed statesman has no connection to these events.

Well Geothermal Energy, as Captain Panic alludes above, is very much a good idea for a geology career. In many ways Geothermal is the free lunch of energy production.

Ensuring the geological stability of radioactive waste repositories is another worthwhile goal. As is working out methods of disposing of radioactive waste into subduction zones.

http://www.science20.com/tuff_guy/nuclear_waste_geologists_perspective

NNC report on subduction

For a geologist, finding fresh reserves of Uranium and possibly Thorium would be worthwhile.

John,

 

All I said was when you say "any water", that includes water in lakes, water in ponds, water in oceans, water in a swimming pool. I was not the one that made the statement. Louis did. Thats all, My situation was a pond, yes, it has "any" water. It also happens to have fish (had). It also has algae. It also has frogs. It also has nitrates, phosphate, etc etc etc. I take you as a scientist, based on your competent and respectable posts here, no doubt about it. Not to mention the gracious replies you have given me in the past that were v helpful.

 

Any water is any water. There is no natural body of water that is pure DI- right? Loius was the one who stated "any" water.

 

I know what ppm is, and usually means by the applied science community. it usually means ppm in w/v. Besides, I was not the one who first used the ppm term- louis chose to use that- I was only responding to his term in the most usual acceptable way- was never disputing that ppm should not be the unit of measure. Even had he used the term microgram/milliliter or even another would not have changes the issue at all, so lets not waste our time on this trivial point . To focus on that is irrelevant, basically.

 

Captain,

 

Like I said above- I did not state "any water", loius did. Im not sure whats the confusion. When one says any water, that is a strong point, and a specific point. Thats the only issue I had with the statement. You cant say any water. Any water includes my pond, your pond, John's pond, Obama's pond. My pond contained at a high about 4-5ppm,, and a dangerous low of about 2. Thats all folks.

Well, the actual quote was 'water in direct contact with atmosphere', a condition that your pond fails to meet.

To be specific, the algae and other organisms form an organic chemical layer on top of the pond. So the oxygen in air must pass through a barrier layer before reaching the water. This slows down the rate at which oxygen can penetrate into the water to a level where the lifeforms consume oxygen faster than it can be replenished. As the organisms die and decompose, the oxygen levels fall further. Stagnant fresh water is particularly prone to decomposing algae removing the oxygen.

Algal blooms can act even on the open sea, by producing large amounts of toxins that kill any lifeforms present; resulting decomposition reduces oxygen levels over large dead areas.

wiki

lake scientist

In the case of a clean garden pond, of shallow depth, the fish will not consume oxygen faster than it can be replenished. Obviously there will be a concentration gradient in replenishment, so the fish will reduce the oxygen level slightly. In water without any organic film the reduction will be trivial.

Of more relevance to the actual opening post: I have designed and carried out many experiments in which exact dissolved oxygen levels had to be controlled and measured. The popular Orbisphere electrochemical sensors for measuring dissolved oxygen rely for their calibration on a beaker of water exposed to atmosphere. The dissolved oxygen at 25°C is 8.x ppm on a wt per Kg or litre basis, as I have verified all too often.

http://shop.hach-lange.com/shop/action_q/highlights/highlight_id/1454/lkz/II/spkz/en/TOKEN/vAtZzeQkkE8dqTzPdOCaHtzmbhs/M/t1Dyvw

Even large concentrations of dissolved ions do not affect oxygen solubility greatly. Full on seawater at 35000 ppm has only a fall in oxygen levels of 20%.

Here is data, John Cuthber posted the link earlier. This information is accurate, mg/l is equivalent to ppm as commonly used by workers in this field.

some oxygen solubility data

I concur with other posters that the is an information shortage on the set-up from the opening post. Is the system some kind of bio-reactor? What has Mercury to do with the project? What exactly is depleting the oxygen?

Without mains power I could generate oxygen using car batteries, though I would also be generating hydrogen. With some design work the hydrogen could be generated in a separate vessel, but I would still have to be monitored and stores or safely vented (to a flame trap?)

Even knowledgeable people cannot solve a problem without sufficient information.

Are the cracks embedded or surface breaking?

Any water that is direct contact with atmosphere will contain dissolved oxygen at ~8ppm. The exact amount will vary with atmospheric pressure and the temperature.

To obtain higher levels of dissolved oxygen: the oxygen content of the local environment can be raised, or compressed air can be used to pressurise a sealed vessel to a higher pressure than atmospheric. Indeed pure oxygen can be used to pressurise a sealed vessel (use of high oxygen gases requires special consideration to the vessel and piping materials, and pressure vessels themselves are the subject of safety legislation.

Induction heating units are in theory tuned to match the application desired. When a unit is ordered the coils are claimed to have been designed to match the material to be heated (both its composition and size / shape). The power supply and water chiller will be standard off the shelf units, of capacity to match the intended application. In practice any conductive material will be heated by the equipment; some materials will heat better than others. Austenitic stainless steels and nickel alloys are relatively poor at heating whilst ferromagnetic steels are easily heated. Some power supplies are frequency tun-able and some are not.

NMR states do not affect the process as far as I know: Rather it is the resistivity and magnetic properties of the material.

View Postlouis wu, on 24 September 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

Well I did the the calculation. Taking the GPS distance as 730km, the Earth's circumference as 40070km, and the Earth's radius as 4378km.

The shortened chord distance I get is 729.677km, which is 323m shorter, not the 20m claimed. Another bright idea bites the dust, probably.

 

Anyone care to check my calc.

Based on a geode.. oblique spheroid?

Based on the GPS distance of 730km from the paper being a great circle upon a sphere of the dimensions quoted, which are equatorial dimensions from the internet. The oblate spheroid nature of the Earth should not introduce any great error as the polar radius is 7357km so the chord calculated assuming the polar radius would actually be shorter.

It's 60 ± 10 nanoseconds. Could be between 50 and 70 (with some level of confidence).

 

One of the comments at Nature points out that the GPS distance would be the distance along the geoid. The straight-line distance would be a chord, about 20 m shorter. Which would take light 60 ns to travel. AFAICT it's not yet clear if they corrected for this, so there has to be confirmation that the correct distance was used. It would be kinda funny if it was that simple.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html (comment #26965 and following)

Well I did the the calculation. Taking the GPS distance as 730km, the Earth's circumference as 40070km, and the Earth's radius as 4378km.

The shortened chord distance I get is 729.677km, which is 323m shorter, not the 20m claimed. Another bright idea bites the dust, probably.

Anyone care to check my calc.

That's interesting. Link?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1987ApJ...319..136A&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

Here is a paper from soon after 1987a, which confirms that the neutrino burst arrived 3 hours before the visible light detection. That is good synchronisation after a travel time of ~165000 years.

'Death by snu snu' is the obvious choice.

I wish Christopher Reeve was still here to give it a try.

Despite the release of a long form certificate, some amongst the Birthers still have serious concerns.

Playing with numbers: these are human lives.

 

Earth population is about 6,917,375,600, roughly 7 billions.

With a life expectancy of 80 years for all (that is unlikely), we can estimate that 7 billions people will die in the next 80 years, that makes an average of 87,500,000 deaths/year for mathematical reasons. Mathematics are killing more people than Chernobyl, about 3000 times more.

 

The question is that 30000 deaths is not to be allowed for an accident.

I am tired of being reassured by technocrats who got it wrong, I understand plently Jamies concerns, and IMHO the price to pay being warned by moderators here is very small in regard with deaths of innocent people.

I don't understand the point of vue of defending TEPCO and the Japanese policy. To build a nuclear power plant in a seismic region is criminal. The power plant did NOT stand, the accident happened, people will die, there are responsibilties, responsables exist, they have names and address. I don't want to be their advocate.

 

There are plans for building a nuclear power plant in Turkey, in another well known seismic region. It is criminal too.

michel123456 

You seem to be prone to the lack of rational consideration of risks that I was alluding to.

30000 people is one possible death toll from Chernobyl. This is spread out over many decades. This death toll is unacceptable to you, from an accident that occurs with a frequency of ~ 25 years: assuming that Fukushima releases about the same total radiation as Chernobyl (something that seems very unlikely).

That fossil fuel power systems cause 10 times that number of preventable deaths each and every year seems OK by you.

A simple, rational, risk assessment approach says that fossil fuels are far more risky; that getting the fossil fuel set-up to clean up their act will save far more lives than irrational concentration on nuclear power.

A consideration of the numbers shows where the most human lives are to be saved.

There seems to be some unwarranted hysteria on this thread about radiation releases in Japan.

Chernobyl was by far the worst Civil Nuclear Power incident so far.

The WHO estimated 4000-9000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This is a low side estimate by the UN-led Chernobyl Forum back in 2006.

The Greenpeace sponsored TORCH report estimated 30000-60000 deaths would be caused by Chernobyl. This would be a high end figure.

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf

In contrast the fossil fuel industry kills 300000 every year from particulate pollution, as outlined in an OECD 2008 report.

http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500113001.pdf

http://m.economist.com/democracy-in-america-21016879.php

So if you accept the Greenpeace figures of Chernobyl eventually killing between 30000 to 60000 people: we would need at least 5 Chernobyls a year to match the fatalities currently being caused by fossil fuels.

Most of the radiation debates do not seem to include any rational consideration of the actual risks involved.

Could someone explain where the Hydrogen that exploded comes from? I guess something is splitting the water - but what? Is something oxidising and freeing up Hydrogen from water? The fuel is already an oxide so it's not that - and I cannot see that it could be electrolysis

Zircaloy will steam oxidise if it becomes hot enough, producing hydrogen.

I'm wondering why Michio Kaku today stated on Good Morning America that there is a chance that this reactor could create a Chernobyl-like incident. When asked point blank if the scientists that were saying that the reactor wasn't going to blow up or anything, he said that they were wrong. Has anything changed or is he speaking of some "danger" that I'm currently unaware of.

 

I tried to find a link to it, but I couldn't.

Kaku is an opponent of nuclear fission power. He has been doing some scaremongering because if you dislike nuclear power then this is a great time to give the nuclear industry a kicking. This article for example is blatant scaremongering.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31595

I think he has a new book out as well, so he needs to increase his public profile by any means possible.

The main coolant pump for the AP1000 system (warning: pdf. it's what I could find, so not necessarily the one in use but should be representative) is rated at 7000 HP, which is a little over 5MW. That's just one pump; the BWR drawings show three feedwater pumps, though I imagine only one would need to be running in shutdown, and not at full speed. This doesn't count other systems that would need to run.

 

So we're talking about MW-capacity generators. And a system designed to run in a specific voltage range.

 

A problem, as has been explained a few times, is where you hook them up. If the switchgear was destroyed or submerged, this is a problem. You don't just plug in a ~10 kV line carrying ~100 Amps with an extension cord.

Well Swansont

Without wishing to be too argumentative I think you are wrong. The information you have posted is for the main circulation system on the AP1000. This system would be powered from the grid in a reactor SCRAM. BWR emergency systems based on diesel generators do not run the main circulation pump, They are on totally different lines. See this diagram.

The main circulation pump is not needed in a SCRAM because in the same second that the rods go in; the heat output from the fuel is reduced to 10% and drops quickly thereafter. The diesel generators will be hefty beasts, and sized so that a single one of them can cope with the job; however I think that they will be commercially available items rather than specials.

I entirely agree with you emphasising the flooded switchroom. I believe that this was the single most important factor in changing the situation from an entirely controlled shut-down into a disaster. If 1 replacement diesel had been plumbed in during the 12 hours of battery power TEPCO would be telling us all about a vindication of the defence in depth strategy.