| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Chris" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2006 04:22:42 PM |
| Object: |
RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
following:
There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
neutron aborbing water was displaced.
That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
That most of the safety systems were disabled.
That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
reactivity.
However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
outputs.
Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
student and a mechanical engineer?!
Thanks in advance
Chris.
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
26 Aug 2006 05:13:16 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
|
| I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
| Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
| following:
|
| There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
|
| At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
| their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
| neutron aborbing water was displaced.
|
| That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
| because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
|
| That most of the safety systems were disabled.
|
| That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
| reactivity.
|
| However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
| described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
| explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
| outputs.
|
| Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
| student and a mechanical engineer?!
|
| Thanks in advance
| Chris.
Yes.
As an analogy, think of a puncture in a bus tyre. One tiny hole
can cause the tyre to deflate, the bus becomes unstable, the
driver loses control and the occupants are killed. The reason
for the puncture was the tyre was under inflated and that
caused the tyre wall to flex more than usual.
Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
26 Aug 2006 05:35:22 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:0I3Ig.63846$fV1.63824@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
|
| I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
| Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
| following:
|
| There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
|
| At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
| their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
| neutron aborbing water was displaced.
|
| That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
| because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
|
| That most of the safety systems were disabled.
|
| That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
| reactivity.
|
| However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
| described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
| explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
| outputs.
|
| Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
| student and a mechanical engineer?!
|
| Thanks in advance
| Chris.
Yes.
As an analogy, think of a puncture in a bus tyre. One tiny hole
can cause the tyre to deflate, the bus becomes unstable, the
driver loses control and the occupants are killed. The reason
for the puncture was the tyre was under inflated and that
caused the tyre wall to flex more than usual.
Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
Androcles
Sorcerer/Androcles is a well known crackpot in this group.
Ignore him.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
27 Aug 2006 01:19:07 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:kI6dndJc29pnVm3ZRVnyqQ@bt.com...
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:0I3Ig.63846$fV1.63824@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
|
| I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk
reactor at
| Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope)
the
| following:
|
| There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
|
| At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far
and
| their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because
the
| neutron aborbing water was displaced.
|
| That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far
was
| because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power
levels
|
| That most of the safety systems were disabled.
|
| That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing
the
| reactivity.
|
| However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
| described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
| explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at
high
| outputs.
|
| Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics
(school)
| student and a mechanical engineer?!
|
| Thanks in advance
| Chris.
Yes.
As an analogy, think of a puncture in a bus tyre. One tiny hole
can cause the tyre to deflate, the bus becomes unstable, the
driver loses control and the occupants are killed. The reason
for the puncture was the tyre was under inflated and that
caused the tyre wall to flex more than usual.
Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
Androcles
Sorcerer/Androcles is a well known crackpot in this group.
Ignore him.
He doesn't really even rate the description "crackpot". He is simply
and currently our most obnoxious "hardly ever right" foul mouth troll.
A true slime-dog belly-crawler if I have ever seen one. ;-) And a
totally un-interesting handle-stealing person.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
26 Aug 2006 05:44:17 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:kI6dndJc29pnVm3ZRVnyqQ@bt.com...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:0I3Ig.63846$fV1.63824@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
| > |
| > | I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
| > | Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
| > | following:
| > |
| > | There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
| > |
| > | At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
| > | their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
| > | neutron aborbing water was displaced.
| > |
| > | That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
| > | because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
| > |
| > | That most of the safety systems were disabled.
| > |
| > | That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
| > | reactivity.
| > |
| > | However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
| > | described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
| > | explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
| > | outputs.
| > |
| > | Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics
(school)
| > | student and a mechanical engineer?!
| > |
| > | Thanks in advance
| > | Chris.
| >
| > Yes.
| > As an analogy, think of a puncture in a bus tyre. One tiny hole
| > can cause the tyre to deflate, the bus becomes unstable, the
| > driver loses control and the occupants are killed. The reason
| > for the puncture was the tyre was under inflated and that
| > caused the tyre wall to flex more than usual.
| >
| > Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
| > Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
| > in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
| > While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
| > but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
| > thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
| > the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
| > Androcles
|
| Sorcerer/Androcles is a well known crackpot in this group.
| Ignore him.
|
| Martin Hogbin
Pigbin is a well known one-sentence troll in this newsgroup
who does not know how to measure the speed of a train.
Listen to him and decide for yourself.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
27 Aug 2006 09:40:14 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
Androcles
How does that work? For local hot spots to depend on power level, I'd
think natural convection would have to be important. But reactors have
pumps to keep the coolant flowing. There can be a situation where a
surface film of bubbles form, reducing heat transfer. But that's not a
matter of too little power, except maybe in a boiling water reactor.
They're a little weird because they're designed to run with a void fraction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
27 Aug 2006 12:26:35 PM |
|
|
"Greg Hansen" <glhansen@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:ecsaq101a1a@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Chris" <chrisvine9@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:1156627361.972820.284270@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| > Nuclear reactors are designed to produce energy in quantity.
| > Running such a system below it's minimum rated output results
| > in the core not having sufficient cooling, hot spots develop.
| > While the reactor as a whole is at a common temperature all is fine,
| > but when it is too cool a hotspot causes local distortion from
| > thermal expansion because (perhaps) one control rod was not all
| > the way in. Once one spot has melted it's all over, out of control.
| > Androcles
|
| How does that work? For local hot spots to depend on power level, I'd
| think natural convection would have to be important. But reactors have
| pumps to keep the coolant flowing. There can be a situation where a
| surface film of bubbles form, reducing heat transfer. But that's not a
| matter of too little power, except maybe in a boiling water reactor.
| They're a little weird because they're designed to run with a void
fraction.
I'll bow to your greater knowledge, it is history now and we'll never
know the full story. I do seem to recall that control rods were
individually operated and fuel cells could be individually replaced
when I visited Dungeness many years ago, but I have little idea
of technology on the other side of the iron curtain.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
26 Aug 2006 04:51:06 PM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
following:
There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
neutron aborbing water was displaced.
That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
That most of the safety systems were disabled.
That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
reactivity.
However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
outputs.
Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
student and a mechanical engineer?!
Thanks in advance
Chris.
The positive void coefficient is a graphite tip on the control rods.
When the controls rods are inserted, the graphite displaces water. And
graphite doesn't absorb nearly as many neutrons as water does. So
suddenly there's a lot more neutrons in the core before the absorbing
material is inserted. After Chernobyl, the design was changed so the
tips are always extended into the core even when the control rods are
all the way up, and some of the fuel rods were removed.
The instability is a xenon thing. Normally the xenon-135, which poisons
the reaction, is burned off. When a reactor is shut down, it starts to
build up from decay processes, and the reactor must be restarted in a
few hours or there'll be so much xenon that it can't be started again at
all until it has decayed away over the course of a few days.
If you're operating at low power the Xe builds up. If you try to
increase power, nothing much will happen at first until the Xe burns
away. As it burns away, the power increases, which makes it burn away
faster, which makes the power increase faster. The power increase
significantly lags an adjustment of the control rods, but then it
catches up fast. At the same time, if you try to adjust the power too
slowly, you could wind up with too much Xe building up and shutting it
all down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
27 Aug 2006 05:33:51 PM |
|
|
Hi Greg and thank you for that help.
Have I got this right? The Xenon only builds up at low power outputs,
and if the power rises, it burns off, adding reactivity, so with
positive feedback the power can surge.
Does this mean that at low outputs, the Xenon is produced more compared
to the burn off (to what?) and at higher outputs the Xenon is burned
off more than it is produced?
If I have got this last bit right, why?
If the Xenon poisoning is the main cause of the instability at low
output, does this mean that the extreme position (out) of the control
rods at Chernobyl, to overcome the Xenon, with their added reactivity
on insertion, was a side show or was it the final nail in the coffin?
Thanks Chris.
Greg Hansen wrote:
Chris wrote:
Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
following:
There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
neutron aborbing water was displaced.
That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
That most of the safety systems were disabled.
That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
reactivity.
However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
outputs.
Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
student and a mechanical engineer?!
Thanks in advance
Chris.
The positive void coefficient is a graphite tip on the control rods.
When the controls rods are inserted, the graphite displaces water. And
graphite doesn't absorb nearly as many neutrons as water does. So
suddenly there's a lot more neutrons in the core before the absorbing
material is inserted. After Chernobyl, the design was changed so the
tips are always extended into the core even when the control rods are
all the way up, and some of the fuel rods were removed.
The instability is a xenon thing. Normally the xenon-135, which poisons
the reaction, is burned off. When a reactor is shut down, it starts to
build up from decay processes, and the reactor must be restarted in a
few hours or there'll be so much xenon that it can't be started again at
all until it has decayed away over the course of a few days.
If you're operating at low power the Xe builds up. If you try to
increase power, nothing much will happen at first until the Xe burns
away. As it burns away, the power increases, which makes it burn away
faster, which makes the power increase faster. The power increase
significantly lags an adjustment of the control rods, but then it
catches up fast. At the same time, if you try to adjust the power too
slowly, you could wind up with too much Xe building up and shutting it
all down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
27 Aug 2006 09:21:07 PM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
Hi Greg and thank you for that help.
Have I got this right? The Xenon only builds up at low power outputs,
and if the power rises, it burns off, adding reactivity, so with
positive feedback the power can surge.
Does this mean that at low outputs, the Xenon is produced more compared
to the burn off (to what?) and at higher outputs the Xenon is burned
off more than it is produced?
If I have got this last bit right, why?
It's not that more xenon is produced at low power. It's just that the
elimination of the xenon by neutron absorption is reduced.
If the Xenon poisoning is the main cause of the instability at low
output, does this mean that the extreme position (out) of the control
rods at Chernobyl, to overcome the Xenon, with their added reactivity
on insertion, was a side show or was it the final nail in the coffin?
They were both important. After disconnecting the safety systems (in
violation of their own rules), and running down into the xenon well,
they tried to boost power rather than shutting down (in violation of
their own rules). The resulting jump in power, beyond the safe
operating range, caused the water to boil. In a graphite moderated
reactor that's bad, because the neutrons are sufficiently moderated by
the graphite, so voids in the water did nothing except to reduce
absorption, increasing the reactivity, which increased the boiling rate.
When they recognized that condition they SCRAMed the reactor. That's
when the graphite tips of the control rods entered the core, increasing
the reactivity further still, until the heat warped the assembly so that
the control rods became stuck in a partially inserted position. Water
reacted with hot metal to form hydrogen gas, which pooled until it
exploded, causing much damage including bursting the coolant lines. And
at that point, it was beyond human control.
The operators knew what they should have done. But they were bullied by
their administrator, and the general policy of secrecy regarding nuclear
accidents in the USSR made it hard for operators to learn of, and from,
accidents that had happened elsewhere. Such an accident was regarded as
impossible.
Thanks Chris.
Greg Hansen wrote:
Chris wrote:
Hi, New to this group so hope not to go over previous ground.
I am interested in the power surge which destroyed the rbmk reactor at
Chernobyl. Have read up a lot on the web and understand (I hope) the
following:
There was a strong positive void coefficient in the reactor design
At the time of the test the control rods were pulled out too far and
their design increased the reactivity as they were lowered because the
neutron aborbing water was displaced.
That the reason that the control rods had to be pulled out so far was
because of Xenon poisoning following the previous higher power levels
That most of the safety systems were disabled.
That there are something like 6 concurrent equations describing the
reactivity.
However on almost every description of the accident the reactor is
described as unstable at low power outputs. What I have not seen
explained is why the instability is worse at low outputs than at high
outputs.
Is there an explanation which can make sense to a good physics (school)
student and a mechanical engineer?!
Thanks in advance
Chris.
The positive void coefficient is a graphite tip on the control rods.
When the controls rods are inserted, the graphite displaces water. And
graphite doesn't absorb nearly as many neutrons as water does. So
suddenly there's a lot more neutrons in the core before the absorbing
material is inserted. After Chernobyl, the design was changed so the
tips are always extended into the core even when the control rods are
all the way up, and some of the fuel rods were removed.
The instability is a xenon thing. Normally the xenon-135, which poisons
the reaction, is burned off. When a reactor is shut down, it starts to
build up from decay processes, and the reactor must be restarted in a
few hours or there'll be so much xenon that it can't be started again at
all until it has decayed away over the course of a few days.
If you're operating at low power the Xe builds up. If you try to
increase power, nothing much will happen at first until the Xe burns
away. As it burns away, the power increases, which makes it burn away
faster, which makes the power increase faster. The power increase
significantly lags an adjustment of the control rods, but then it
catches up fast. At the same time, if you try to adjust the power too
slowly, you could wind up with too much Xe building up and shutting it
all down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
28 Aug 2006 12:38:18 PM |
|
|
Hi Greg,
Thank you again for that.
Yes I understand that when they ran down into the Xenon poisoning they
should have just shut down the reactor, whereas pulling out the rods
made it all more unstabel
But I am still struggling for the underlying reason why this type of
reactor was known to be unstable at LOW power outputs, not just when
they were doing crazy tests and dissabling all the safety systems and
pulling the rods out further than normal!!
I used to be good at Physics at school and did engineering thereafter
and maybe the answer lies in the result of 6 simultaneous equations??
Often thought there is still a good qualitative reason which I could
understand without doing the maths (which I couldn't!!!!!!)
Cheers
Chris.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
29 Aug 2006 11:47:05 AM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you again for that.
Yes I understand that when they ran down into the Xenon poisoning they
should have just shut down the reactor, whereas pulling out the rods
made it all more unstabel
But I am still struggling for the underlying reason why this type of
reactor was known to be unstable at LOW power outputs, not just when
they were doing crazy tests and dissabling all the safety systems and
pulling the rods out further than normal!!
I used to be good at Physics at school and did engineering thereafter
and maybe the answer lies in the result of 6 simultaneous equations??
Often thought there is still a good qualitative reason which I could
understand without doing the maths (which I couldn't!!!!!!)
Cheers
Chris.
All reactors are difficult to control at low power because of the xenon
poisoning. That sort of assumes, though, that they've been run at
higher power for the Xe-135 precursor to build up. It takes hours for
the xenon to build up from its precursor, days for it to decay away.
What makes the reactor difficult to control, then, is the lag between a
change in control rod positions and the change in power level. And
because the control of the reactor depends on its history, making it
quite non-linear.
All reactors have that problem. But the RBMK suffers from being a
graphite moderated reactor. Contrast that with water moderated reactors
that are used pretty much everywhere else. The water acts as both
coolant and moderator. It also absorbs neutrons, but the thousand-fold
gain in efficiency due to the moderation beats the absorption. Now,
when the water in a water moderated reactor heats up it expands,
reducing the moderation and slowing the reaction. When bubbles form the
moderation is reduced even further. In a boiling water reactor, the
power level is even fine-tuned by changing the coolant flow rate-- more
coolant flowing means less bubbles and more power. When coolant is lost
the reaction stops-- there is still enough residual and decay heat to
damage the core, as at Three Mile Island, but it's at 7% and falling
rather than going through the roof.
In a graphite moderated reactor like the RBMK design, the graphite
provides all the moderation that is needed. The water, besides being
the coolant, just absorbs neutrons and slows the reaction. When the
water gets hot the reaction goes faster. When bubbles form the reaction
goes faster. When coolant is lost the reaction goes faster. Combine
that with the non-linear control at low power and it's a problem. It's
not that the RBMK is less stable at low power levels-- it's less stable
at all power levels, low included.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: RBMK reactor low power instability. Chernobyl |
28 Aug 2006 07:07:30 PM |
|
|
Your all so wrong HA HA HEHE HA eh..
Thats why it blew its top !!
hay irann HA HA ,
you wanted the cheep rushian 1960 route and you got it.
Ha Ha .. we wount nead to bomb yer ***** cuz you'll get it done for us .
IC your having some problems .
You knew not to go for 80 % and its unstable at low power the pumps
work and you turned it off and sat the cr down and stopped.
The problem is your fucked.
that thing wount run its too big or the rods are too small . Your
melting one rod and one is not hot at all. You cant just pick them all
up idiots.
some rods are in the center and some are at the edge so some rods get
more nuertons then others and if you manage to get 1kg too hot
evrything melts and the cr wount go up or down because they got burnt
off .
after that the meltdown blows the roof off and whats left digs its own
hole and you can just dump C-ment and stay the ***** away from it.
Ha Ha Ha ..they biult the old mistakes into a new reactor because no
one else would have ask !!!!!!!!!!!
You ask befor and you were told you were idiots and would melt it down
..
trying to biuld a nuke does in no fucking way garrentee you wount melt
down instead.
Your rods are too small and all go up and down flat but flat is for
idiots .
flat is hot rods in the middle and then cold on the edges and befor you
know the c rods at the center got burt off and you can no longer
controle CR rods that are not there .
Ill tell you how fucked you allready are ..
pices of fuel rod now sit at the bottom of your hole and it wount shut
all the way off.
you get it down to about 0.4 % power and cant turn the pumps off at all
or it climbs by its self.
Your pulling up one cr rod at a time and chunks are gone where eve
they got hit by the fuel rod pices and the pices sit at the bottom.
Pull one fuel rod out at a time and then fill the hole in and start
over.
When enouph small fuel rod pices get to the bottom it will hit the ends
of the fuel rods like the reason you cant quite turn it off now.
Tell me the temp of evry rod ..if they are all the same the top ends
will stick up in a shape of the back of ienstiens head.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
