how can one explain, that TEPCO does not *know* what the operators did?
this draws a picture in my head: panicing people running around pushing random buttons...
i am pretty sure, that it has not been like this, there should not be more than one or two people, that could have pushed that...
there is more data here (until 4/24): http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/syusei_level_pr_data_1u.pdf (download as csv as well from this page: http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/)
i have attached a diagram of the D/W CAMS values (x is hours after scram, y is Sv/h).
EDIT...
i have played a little bit with the new data.
no big conclusions yet (except that the CAMS data of #1 was definitely invalid after that 100Sv peak in early april)
but maybe it's a starting point for someone else (i have converted the date to hours after scram and the exponential [text]values...
and many not so interesting as well ;-)
what is new to me, are the documents, that seem to contain *all* data (or at least much more, than i have seen before), that they have for the early days:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/syusei_level_pr_data_1u.pdf...
this looks orange:
this one as well:
one more: http://www1.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?album_id=&title=Combustion_of_Hydrogen&video_id=77053&vpkey=
i don't know anything about chemistry, but i claim: hydrogen explosions on video look orange ;-)
i know that. i am the guy, that lives next to some cooling towers.
only fog on the webcam right now, but the picture before was 'supicious'. let's assume everything is ok. we will know soon, if its not.
i still don't buy that. there were more than 24 hours between the explosions of #3 and #4...
and we have this information ('tepco says...') only second hand. the same quality of information as we had before for a contradictory explanation (explosion in #4 blowed away a gate and reflooded the...
obviously, they are using a different data set:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e10.pdf
water level at bottom of fuel at 19:30 on 3/11
i am not sure, where the other data set, that stolfi et al are using originates from.
'On the other hand, as the...
if tepco would not have considered the possibility of criticality, why would they have added boron to the cooling water?
PF quidelines: 'Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted'
if this guideline would be applied consequently, this thread would be dead as a dodo^^
just a personal...
you can cite, whatever you want ;-)
but citing 'bytepirate' (not a physicist, but an 'universal dilettante') will not give you more credibility :D
rather cite this: 'The committee could probably design configurations in which fuel might be deformed or relocated to enable its re-criticality...
i wonder, if anyone said 'impossible'. there is an undisputed chance for re-criticality in SFPs, but it's a small chance.
currently, evidence (at least that, that is available to the public) neither proofs nor disproofs a criticality in one of the pools.
for the maths and more information...
agreed for the big one, that also caused a short blackout + evacuation.
the 4.8 might be only coincidence.
list of all quakes in radius 25 km:
CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE IEM DTSVNWG DIST
PDE-Q...