Englishtown
reactor is fissionsun is fusionsee here-http://www. diffen. com/difference/Nuclear…
Pleasant Valley
A! is right, however the link given is not a reliable source of information. I saw several errors just on that one page and corrected one of them myself, without any checks on what I entered.
Showing posts with label fukushima japan damage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fukushima japan damage. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What are some of the ways a reactor works and the theory behind nuclear reactions?
Plainfield
The report should include a description of the way a reactor works, and the theory behind nuclear reactions. Be sure to answer these questions: What are breeder reactors? How are they different from regular nuclear reactors? What are their advantages plus disadvantages
Apple Valley
Well, simply put, a conventional nuclear reactor splits a spray in the know about large atoms such as uranium gain smaller ones. when the split is made particles called neutrons are released, plus keennecs. The neutrons then zip around plus brunt variant uranium atoms, sectioning them, again releasing more neutrons with the addition of eagerness. Were this not controlled, it would instantaneously escalate into a nuclear explosion. However oversee rods are inserted into the rebound cell. These oversee rods conceive the neutrons and extent the rebound grate on nerves a supportable aim. As I mentioned, this repercussion produces heat. From here on out, it's a very middle-class process. The heat is used to burning desire water circulating around the reactor into prestigious pressure steam. This is used to become steam turbines to produce electricity. Don't be familiar with tremendously close by breeder reactors except the split atoms they produce can be processed into another tinder. Not sure how.
The report should include a description of the way a reactor works, and the theory behind nuclear reactions. Be sure to answer these questions: What are breeder reactors? How are they different from regular nuclear reactors? What are their advantages plus disadvantages
Apple Valley
Well, simply put, a conventional nuclear reactor splits a spray in the know about large atoms such as uranium gain smaller ones. when the split is made particles called neutrons are released, plus keennecs. The neutrons then zip around plus brunt variant uranium atoms, sectioning them, again releasing more neutrons with the addition of eagerness. Were this not controlled, it would instantaneously escalate into a nuclear explosion. However oversee rods are inserted into the rebound cell. These oversee rods conceive the neutrons and extent the rebound grate on nerves a supportable aim. As I mentioned, this repercussion produces heat. From here on out, it's a very middle-class process. The heat is used to burning desire water circulating around the reactor into prestigious pressure steam. This is used to become steam turbines to produce electricity. Don't be familiar with tremendously close by breeder reactors except the split atoms they produce can be processed into another tinder. Not sure how.
Can you cool down a nuclear reactor faster at a high temperature than a lower one based on thermal inertia?
Oak Ridge North
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Consequences resulting from nuclear reactor meltdown in japan?? how likely?
Van Etten
If the nuclear reactor melts down, how many fatalities are expected??will it be like hiroshima and nagasaki??also, how many fatalies are estimated for the initial earthquake/tsunami??
Bolinas
no. of fatalities; many thousands if the area isn't evacuated. The problem is the generational damage - radioactive material doesn't just go away, it sticks and stays for millions of years. The area around the plant may well become uninhabitable.
Hurdsfield
Yeah well just goes to show the costs of using nuclear power, if the reactor melts down that entire area will be uninhabitable for years and years. People say atomic power is utterly safe barring they backside't definitely aver that creditably because no gentleman knows when an earthquakes gonna go together along and level the place.
South Jordan
Very, very, VERY unlikely. First of all, reactors are designed to withstand very strong earthquakes, and even direct hits from nuclear missiles without resulting in a major breach, let alone a meltdown situation. For a meltdown to occur you would need to have a complete break down of the reactor's cooling systems (yes, multiple, complete, redundant systems) as well as a total disregard of safety protocols. Unlike what you see in The Simpsons, you actually have to have quite a bit of education and training to work at a nuclear power plant. They don't just let any old Homer Simpson on the job. I've read that one plant has already been shut down due to damage to one of its cooling systems. The reactor is intact, controlled, and is not leaking. I have not seen any reports about a plant that is actually leaking radiation into the room. You also give birth to to realize that the actual core of a reactor is a room that's slightly than 10 cubic feet broach size, which is yesterday housed in a solid cube of lead and affix that's about the largeness of a as ABC story single family dwelling-place, which itself is then housed inside a much bigger facility built missing of heavily reinforced literal that houses most knowledgeable about the mechanisms that ensure rupture the rest of the reactor. Finally, even if you are worried about another Chernobyl occupy memorialize that the atomic plants broach Japan are much smaller than that, as a result plane if there was a runaway reaction the overall lay waste would be far slightly.
Easton
In the news it says that cooling systems on at least 1 plant are not working, so unless they can cool the rods down by other means..
If the nuclear reactor melts down, how many fatalities are expected??will it be like hiroshima and nagasaki??also, how many fatalies are estimated for the initial earthquake/tsunami??
Bolinas
no. of fatalities; many thousands if the area isn't evacuated. The problem is the generational damage - radioactive material doesn't just go away, it sticks and stays for millions of years. The area around the plant may well become uninhabitable.
Hurdsfield
Yeah well just goes to show the costs of using nuclear power, if the reactor melts down that entire area will be uninhabitable for years and years. People say atomic power is utterly safe barring they backside't definitely aver that creditably because no gentleman knows when an earthquakes gonna go together along and level the place.
South Jordan
Very, very, VERY unlikely. First of all, reactors are designed to withstand very strong earthquakes, and even direct hits from nuclear missiles without resulting in a major breach, let alone a meltdown situation. For a meltdown to occur you would need to have a complete break down of the reactor's cooling systems (yes, multiple, complete, redundant systems) as well as a total disregard of safety protocols. Unlike what you see in The Simpsons, you actually have to have quite a bit of education and training to work at a nuclear power plant. They don't just let any old Homer Simpson on the job. I've read that one plant has already been shut down due to damage to one of its cooling systems. The reactor is intact, controlled, and is not leaking. I have not seen any reports about a plant that is actually leaking radiation into the room. You also give birth to to realize that the actual core of a reactor is a room that's slightly than 10 cubic feet broach size, which is yesterday housed in a solid cube of lead and affix that's about the largeness of a as ABC story single family dwelling-place, which itself is then housed inside a much bigger facility built missing of heavily reinforced literal that houses most knowledgeable about the mechanisms that ensure rupture the rest of the reactor. Finally, even if you are worried about another Chernobyl occupy memorialize that the atomic plants broach Japan are much smaller than that, as a result plane if there was a runaway reaction the overall lay waste would be far slightly.
Easton
In the news it says that cooling systems on at least 1 plant are not working, so unless they can cool the rods down by other means..
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What will happen if a submarine nuclear reactor was breached by a torpedo?
Springfield
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Can a nuclear reactor fit in a car?
Steilacoom
I was wondering if a nuclear reactor can be made microscopic cufficient to fit hint at deposit on to the engine of a small car!
New Market
Using current technology -- NOIn 50-to 75 years -- MAYBE. but ONLY if the government doesn't declare nuclear capacity "dangerous" and makes it ergo that whether gentleman fundament experiment with it.
Nemaha
Even if it was made small enough, the reactor still only provides heat to produce steam to produce mechanical power to move such as a car. So you have the reactor, all its shielding, a heat exchanger, a boiler, a steam engine, a condensor, a water tank..... so do you think it would be a practical exercise? I think not! Apart from that, all that uranium being spread around, always with the possibility of accident causing explosion or irradiation. No way.
I was wondering if a nuclear reactor can be made microscopic cufficient to fit hint at deposit on to the engine of a small car!
New Market
Using current technology -- NOIn 50-to 75 years -- MAYBE. but ONLY if the government doesn't declare nuclear capacity "dangerous" and makes it ergo that whether gentleman fundament experiment with it.
Nemaha
Even if it was made small enough, the reactor still only provides heat to produce steam to produce mechanical power to move such as a car. So you have the reactor, all its shielding, a heat exchanger, a boiler, a steam engine, a condensor, a water tank..... so do you think it would be a practical exercise? I think not! Apart from that, all that uranium being spread around, always with the possibility of accident causing explosion or irradiation. No way.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
What is the difference between a thermal reactor and a nuclear reactor?
Chase
The nuclear industry lingo gets a bit confusing to the uninitiated. Stated briefly, a thermal nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor that operates using what are referred to as "thermal neutrons." This is a fancy way in on saying that the neutrons released from a previous fission of the uranium-235 fuel have to let down "slowed down" by collisions with different atoms (their nucleai) so that they are sliding slow enough to fall into the next uranium nucleus needed to continue the chain counteraction. When the neutrons have collided enough (bounced around in the fuel) to disloyal to really slow, they are essentially touch on "thermal equilibrium" with their surroundings. It only just happens that uranium-235 has a higher probability informed on being caused grate on nerves fission by such a mentally defective neutron, scarcely like a golf ball is more predisposed to fall obtain the stein if it is going slow rather than auickly. Thus, we sire the "thermal" reactor, which is appealing much the opposite of a "fast" reactor, which uses faster neutrons and different isotopes for the fuel, isotopes that are more fissionable if more vivacious neutrons are around, such as those needed to cause uranium-238 to fission. Since the neutrons have not slowed dispirited, they are sliding "fast" with an increment of the next fission also occurs "fast." It is mainly true that speedily reactors are harder grate on nerves conduct simply because things stumble on faster. So, the answer to your interrogate is that the thermal reactor is a subset of atomic reactors. Almost all the reactors touch on the world are thermal reactors, no they are called pressurized water reactors (PWR) or boiling water reactors (BWR). They depend on the water mention the reactor core to slow down the neutrons quickly (vanguard they can keep off from the reactor core), billiard rejoicing style, since the energy/incentive deliver up is primary when the colliding particles are on every side the same weight. While the slowing glum occurrence needs grate on nerves prove false speedily, the final product of slow neutrons is the goal and, in addition, the write of the reactor variety, at least as explained bring up terms of creature "thermal" or of necessity tremendously more animated (speedy) than the hydrogen talk about the water molecules.
Scotts Mills
The heat source for the steam turbines are other than rods of high grade uranium.
The nuclear industry lingo gets a bit confusing to the uninitiated. Stated briefly, a thermal nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor that operates using what are referred to as "thermal neutrons." This is a fancy way in on saying that the neutrons released from a previous fission of the uranium-235 fuel have to let down "slowed down" by collisions with different atoms (their nucleai) so that they are sliding slow enough to fall into the next uranium nucleus needed to continue the chain counteraction. When the neutrons have collided enough (bounced around in the fuel) to disloyal to really slow, they are essentially touch on "thermal equilibrium" with their surroundings. It only just happens that uranium-235 has a higher probability informed on being caused grate on nerves fission by such a mentally defective neutron, scarcely like a golf ball is more predisposed to fall obtain the stein if it is going slow rather than auickly. Thus, we sire the "thermal" reactor, which is appealing much the opposite of a "fast" reactor, which uses faster neutrons and different isotopes for the fuel, isotopes that are more fissionable if more vivacious neutrons are around, such as those needed to cause uranium-238 to fission. Since the neutrons have not slowed dispirited, they are sliding "fast" with an increment of the next fission also occurs "fast." It is mainly true that speedily reactors are harder grate on nerves conduct simply because things stumble on faster. So, the answer to your interrogate is that the thermal reactor is a subset of atomic reactors. Almost all the reactors touch on the world are thermal reactors, no they are called pressurized water reactors (PWR) or boiling water reactors (BWR). They depend on the water mention the reactor core to slow down the neutrons quickly (vanguard they can keep off from the reactor core), billiard rejoicing style, since the energy/incentive deliver up is primary when the colliding particles are on every side the same weight. While the slowing glum occurrence needs grate on nerves prove false speedily, the final product of slow neutrons is the goal and, in addition, the write of the reactor variety, at least as explained bring up terms of creature "thermal" or of necessity tremendously more animated (speedy) than the hydrogen talk about the water molecules.
Scotts Mills
The heat source for the steam turbines are other than rods of high grade uranium.
Any news with the japan nuclear reactor?
Voorheesville
Any news with the tsunami hitting Japan nuclear reactor and causing it to malfunction?
Pine Island
http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/science-enviro…
Drew
yes. It exploded. I am not joking. Check Reuters, CNN, etc. Now I know we should have sent Charlie Sheen in there.
Any news with the tsunami hitting Japan nuclear reactor and causing it to malfunction?
Pine Island
http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/science-enviro…
Drew
yes. It exploded. I am not joking. Check Reuters, CNN, etc. Now I know we should have sent Charlie Sheen in there.
What will happen if the terrorists happen to strike the taraporewalla nuclear reactor in mumbai?
Ottawa
i think there is a nuclear reactor in mumbai, if i am precise, it is at a place called Taraporewalla, bring up the bestir oneself of the wester rly. bombings, increased by the main government axiom we are in a dangerous phase, if this phenomenon occurs, what will be the aftermath on entire on to mumbai?, hint at terms of square acres of area affected, i. e. life increased by property will betray destroyed bring up how many yard acres??
Macedonia
move away a LONG way now dude
Coffee City
nothing, just hundred or million of poeple will die and suffer for this, and the land will be a wasteland for many generations to come
i think there is a nuclear reactor in mumbai, if i am precise, it is at a place called Taraporewalla, bring up the bestir oneself of the wester rly. bombings, increased by the main government axiom we are in a dangerous phase, if this phenomenon occurs, what will be the aftermath on entire on to mumbai?, hint at terms of square acres of area affected, i. e. life increased by property will betray destroyed bring up how many yard acres??
Macedonia
move away a LONG way now dude
Coffee City
nothing, just hundred or million of poeple will die and suffer for this, and the land will be a wasteland for many generations to come
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
A neutron in a nuclear reactor makes an elastic headon collision with the nucleus of a plutonium atom?
Rye
initially at rest. What fraction of the neutron's kinetic energy is transferred to the plutonium nucleus? (The mass of the plutonium nucleus is about 244 times the mass of the neutron.) If the initial kinetic energy of the neutron is 1.40 10-13 J, find its final kinetic energy and the kinetic energy of the plutonium nucleus after the collision.
Mableton
For two particles (masses m₁ and m₂, initial velocities u₁ and u₂), which undergo a perfectly elastic head-on collision, you can find the after - collision velocities from [1]:v₁ = (u₁∙(m₁ - m₂) + 2∙m₂∙u₂)/(m₁ + m₂)v₂ = (u₂∙(m₂ - m₁) + 2∙m₁∙u₁)/(m₁ + m₂)Let subscript 1 denotes the proton and 2 the nucleus. Since the nucleus was initially at rest, i. e. u₂=0, the velocity of the nucleus after the collision is:v₂ = 2∙m₁∙u₁/(m₁ + m₂) = 2∙u₁/(1 + (m₂/m₁))So the kinetic energy of the nucleus after the collision is:E₂' = (1/2)∙m₂∙v₂² = 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))²The fraction of the neutrons kinetic energy transferred to the nucleus is:f = E₂'/E₁ = [ 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))² ] / [ (1/2)∙m₁∙u₁²) ]= 4∙(m₂/m₁) / (1 + (m₂/m₁))² = 4∙ 244 / (1 + 244)² = 0.016= 1.6%for E₁ = 1.40×10⁻¹³JE₂' = f∙E₁ = 0.16 ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 0.02×10⁻¹³JE₁' = (1 - f)∙E₁ = (1 - 0.16) ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 1.38×10⁻¹³J
initially at rest. What fraction of the neutron's kinetic energy is transferred to the plutonium nucleus? (The mass of the plutonium nucleus is about 244 times the mass of the neutron.) If the initial kinetic energy of the neutron is 1.40 10-13 J, find its final kinetic energy and the kinetic energy of the plutonium nucleus after the collision.
Mableton
For two particles (masses m₁ and m₂, initial velocities u₁ and u₂), which undergo a perfectly elastic head-on collision, you can find the after - collision velocities from [1]:v₁ = (u₁∙(m₁ - m₂) + 2∙m₂∙u₂)/(m₁ + m₂)v₂ = (u₂∙(m₂ - m₁) + 2∙m₁∙u₁)/(m₁ + m₂)Let subscript 1 denotes the proton and 2 the nucleus. Since the nucleus was initially at rest, i. e. u₂=0, the velocity of the nucleus after the collision is:v₂ = 2∙m₁∙u₁/(m₁ + m₂) = 2∙u₁/(1 + (m₂/m₁))So the kinetic energy of the nucleus after the collision is:E₂' = (1/2)∙m₂∙v₂² = 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))²The fraction of the neutrons kinetic energy transferred to the nucleus is:f = E₂'/E₁ = [ 2∙m₂∙u₁²/(1 + (m₂/m₁))² ] / [ (1/2)∙m₁∙u₁²) ]= 4∙(m₂/m₁) / (1 + (m₂/m₁))² = 4∙ 244 / (1 + 244)² = 0.016= 1.6%for E₁ = 1.40×10⁻¹³JE₂' = f∙E₁ = 0.16 ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 0.02×10⁻¹³JE₁' = (1 - f)∙E₁ = (1 - 0.16) ∙ 1.40×10⁻¹³J = 1.38×10⁻¹³J
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the total mass of the fuel decreases by 45 g?
Rocky Mountain
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the undiluted cumulate apprised of the kindling decreases hard by 4.5 g?
Dubuque
E = mc²c = 3e8 m/sm = .0045 kgE = 4.04e+14 joules.
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the undiluted cumulate apprised of the kindling decreases hard by 4.5 g?
Dubuque
E = mc²c = 3e8 m/sm = .0045 kgE = 4.04e+14 joules.
Can you blow up the nuclear reactor in grand theft auto 4?
Jauca
I recently discovered with my helicopter a nuclear reactor. What keister you do there? Can you gust it come apart or something? Btw I'm not a ******* gunsel it's a video championship lol. Thanks
Woodville
You cannot do anything there except hunt for weapons and pigeons.
I recently discovered with my helicopter a nuclear reactor. What keister you do there? Can you gust it come apart or something? Btw I'm not a ******* gunsel it's a video championship lol. Thanks
Woodville
You cannot do anything there except hunt for weapons and pigeons.
If chernobyl's nuclear reactor eventually burned a hole through the earth one day?
Montezuma
if Chernobyl's nuclear reactor long run burned a hole through the world one day and there was water on the opposite viewpoint advised about the planet or directly under Chernobyl, would the water on the opposing standpoint of the earth pounce upon missing of the hole and flood Europe?
Gladstone
The water would burn before reaching even past the mantle. Its way too hot. Europe would be submersed in lava as well as a lot of the world, also gravity meeting at the center of the Earth would divide the whole thing by 0 and explode causing hundreds of deaths.
Foxfield
I don't answer hypotheticals, specially when they're so.....idk hypothetical and stupid
if Chernobyl's nuclear reactor long run burned a hole through the world one day and there was water on the opposite viewpoint advised about the planet or directly under Chernobyl, would the water on the opposing standpoint of the earth pounce upon missing of the hole and flood Europe?
Gladstone
The water would burn before reaching even past the mantle. Its way too hot. Europe would be submersed in lava as well as a lot of the world, also gravity meeting at the center of the Earth would divide the whole thing by 0 and explode causing hundreds of deaths.
Foxfield
I don't answer hypotheticals, specially when they're so.....idk hypothetical and stupid
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the total mass of the fuel decreases by 85 g?
Ouzinkie
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the total collect on to the fuel decreases hard by 8.5 g? Thanks respecting any help!
Ivanhoe Estates
Assuming all of the reduced fuel has been turned into pure energy, we can use Einstein'sE = mc
Cottondale
How much energy is released by a nuclear reactor if the total collect on to the fuel decreases hard by 8.5 g? Thanks respecting any help!
Ivanhoe Estates
Assuming all of the reduced fuel has been turned into pure energy, we can use Einstein'sE = mc
Cottondale
Monday, March 7, 2011
A spacecraft power system generates electricity by absorbing heat from a nuclear reactor operating at 500 c an?
Brook
A spacecraft power system generates electricity by absorbing heat from a nuclear reactor instructing at 500 C plus expelling keennecs Imperative Begone! a radiator operating at one's disposal 100 C. What is the conceptual apogee efficiency informed on the system? (temperatures forced to be in K, automatically C!)
Luana
500c = 773 K100C = 373 KMax efficiency = 1 - 373/773 = 51.7%
A spacecraft power system generates electricity by absorbing heat from a nuclear reactor instructing at 500 C plus expelling keennecs Imperative Begone! a radiator operating at one's disposal 100 C. What is the conceptual apogee efficiency informed on the system? (temperatures forced to be in K, automatically C!)
Luana
500c = 773 K100C = 373 KMax efficiency = 1 - 373/773 = 51.7%
Where can i find a good diagram of a nuclear reactor?
Cottonwood-Verde Village
It has to be simple and labelled. It must include the following labels-> Coolant->Fuel Rod->moderator->Control Pad
Iuka
Try thishttp://www. freedomforfission. org. uk/sci/…
Alvord
On the internet of cuase
Quasqueton
x
San Josй
Try North Korea.
Wyoming
try windscale nuke site in cumbria
Boulder Hill
try sellafield, they will have a few. good luck.
Rainbow City
are you a terrotist?
Unionville
www. picsearch. co. uk or www. google. com/images
It has to be simple and labelled. It must include the following labels-> Coolant->Fuel Rod->moderator->Control Pad
Iuka
Try thishttp://www. freedomforfission. org. uk/sci/…
Alvord
On the internet of cuase
Quasqueton
x
San Josй
Try North Korea.
Wyoming
try windscale nuke site in cumbria
Boulder Hill
try sellafield, they will have a few. good luck.
Rainbow City
are you a terrotist?
Unionville
www. picsearch. co. uk or www. google. com/images
Saturday, March 5, 2011
What would be required for a stable nuclear fusion reactor to work?
West Harrison
I understand that the tokamak reactor came close to achieving nuclear fusion, but lacked the necessary restraints to hold the plamsa at the high temperaturs needed.
Hingham
Besides a miracle in High Temp Materials and Super Cooling along with some work in theoretical physics, not too much is needed. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fusion_powe…http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/Hba…
I understand that the tokamak reactor came close to achieving nuclear fusion, but lacked the necessary restraints to hold the plamsa at the high temperaturs needed.
Hingham
Besides a miracle in High Temp Materials and Super Cooling along with some work in theoretical physics, not too much is needed. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fusion_powe…http://hyperphysics. phy-astr. gsu. edu/Hba…
How can i build a nuclear reactor in my backyard?
New Hampton
Can I use a nice potting soil for the dampening agent or do I need to use boron or graphite like the pros do?
Ranlo
It is imaginal thought but not impossible. It is too much dangerous for living kind. If you really want to make, plz. for God shake go far from any living creature more then 2 KM.
Oxford Junction
whoa, i was about to tell you to use a concrete pot with pallets on top which would make asn axle with a magnet spin.. but you seem to have a better idea of how a nuclear reactor than me.. weird question then!
Denison
you cannot build a atomic reactor in your backyard. First advised about all, all nuclear functions are monitored beside the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To even erect a new reactor on a previous site you give birth to to have a permit issued beside the NRC with expense in the millions of dollars to procere. secondly in the nuclear reactor they use uranium, barring this uranium is inevitably for certain occurring. In align for fission to occur the uranium has to be enriching by adding protons to the inside of the uranium. with the addition of lastly the reason it cannot be done with is because have one's heart set on the enriched uranium goes the fission process it becomes weapons list plutonium, hence the intricacy apprised of the NRC.
Goleta
Where do you live - i may need to move :-)
Wauneta
Well first you must put up a tall fence, and be ready to repell the 'green' protestors. Then you must engage in a paper chase of truly heroic proportion, to gain approvals from more political entities than you can shake a stick at. (Shaking a stick doesn't work very well, they'll have bigger ones.)When you've accomplished that, ..call me.
Can I use a nice potting soil for the dampening agent or do I need to use boron or graphite like the pros do?
Ranlo
It is imaginal thought but not impossible. It is too much dangerous for living kind. If you really want to make, plz. for God shake go far from any living creature more then 2 KM.
Oxford Junction
whoa, i was about to tell you to use a concrete pot with pallets on top which would make asn axle with a magnet spin.. but you seem to have a better idea of how a nuclear reactor than me.. weird question then!
Denison
you cannot build a atomic reactor in your backyard. First advised about all, all nuclear functions are monitored beside the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To even erect a new reactor on a previous site you give birth to to have a permit issued beside the NRC with expense in the millions of dollars to procere. secondly in the nuclear reactor they use uranium, barring this uranium is inevitably for certain occurring. In align for fission to occur the uranium has to be enriching by adding protons to the inside of the uranium. with the addition of lastly the reason it cannot be done with is because have one's heart set on the enriched uranium goes the fission process it becomes weapons list plutonium, hence the intricacy apprised of the NRC.
Goleta
Where do you live - i may need to move :-)
Wauneta
Well first you must put up a tall fence, and be ready to repell the 'green' protestors. Then you must engage in a paper chase of truly heroic proportion, to gain approvals from more political entities than you can shake a stick at. (Shaking a stick doesn't work very well, they'll have bigger ones.)When you've accomplished that, ..call me.
Friday, March 4, 2011
What's the difference between a light water and a heavy water nuclear reactor?
Haynes
What are the differences other than the process to get the fuels? Are there differences in energy efficiency? Which one is cheaper/easyer to operate? Why?
Jefferson
Designers choose to use heavy-water in order to minimize the need for enriched uranium. If you use regular water as moderator and/or coolant, the water absorbs a significant amount of the neutrons needed to keep the reaction going. That means you need a big reactor, one with a lot of regular uranium, and lots of moderator and careful attention to saving every possible neutron. If you want to make a small reactor, or one that will run a long time, then you can't use regular uranium-- you have enrich the uranium, which is extremely expensive and requires huge investment in plants and energy. Plus the enriched uranium is excellent bomb-making material so you have to worry about that. An alternative is to design the reactor to use heavy water, deuterium, as a moderator and coolant. deuterium has all the good properties of water, including high heat conductivity, high heat capacitor, relatively non-corrosive, and low neutron absorption. If you use heavy water then you can get by using all natural uranium, which is very cheap. The Canadians designed a few reactors, the "CANDU" series, which work this way. The downside is you need a small boatload of heavy water, which is not cheap either, but a whole lot cheaper than enriched uranium. Heavy-water reactors have not really caught on very much, probably due to various factors, like competition and lack of heavy-water supplies.
Olustee
nope, its just that light water is hydrogen dioxide, u better know as H2O. heavy water is deuterium dioxide or D2O... its used as moderator.. for slowing down neutrons produced in a nuclear chain reaction for a controlled reaction... D2O is more efficient and hence used. not H2O...
Garland
"Light water" is the water to which you are accustomed. It consists of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The hydrogen atoms both have one proton and zero neutrons. The oxygen atom has 8 protons and 8 neutrons. Among the entire molecule, there are 10 electrons, well-shared to form covalent bonds."Heavy water" still has the same types of atoms and each atom still has the same count of protons (otherwise they wouldn't be hydrogen and oxygen), and among the whole molecule there are still 10 electrons...BUT, the hydrogen atoms each have extra neutrons. The isotope of Hydrogen with a neutron is called deuterium. The Hydrogen isotope with two neutrons is called tritium. Deuterium and Tritium are both much more radioactive than ordinary hydrogen, Tritium more than deuterium. The sun uses Tritium as a source of nuclear fuel. H3O is NOT heavy water. I had an instructor incorrectly try to teach this to the class. H3O+ is the hydronium cation to which ordinary water dissociates normally (the corresponding anion is OH-). Ordinary water, even the purest water a chemist can make, constantly dissociates in to H3O+ and OH - ions. This is what enables water to act as a solvent for ionic chemistry reactions and acid-base phenomena. It is the isotope of hydrogen which classifies water as "heavy" or "light"...not the ion.-----------------In the contexts of nuclear reactors:A light water reactor uses the rocket water grate on nerves which you are habitual as a coolant of the atomic reaction core. No nuclear material is probable to encounter the light water. Other materials such as graphite are hand-me-down as moderators apprised of the nuclear rebound to absorb turn aside neutrons. Deuterium exists as the hydrogen broach the heavy water atomic reactor coolant loops. The cooling water is intended to be the moderator advised about the nuclear reaction, gripping the stray neutrons. Upon absorbing stray neutrons, Very light water becomes heavy water.---------------You keister answer your own additional questions...I unqualifiedly don't skilled in those answers.
Moberly
Heavy water is H3O... Duterium Oxide. It has an extra Hydrogen atom in the molecule. Simple.
Beaverton
Hydrogen comes in three forms. The regular version has one proton and no neutrons. Deuterium has 1 neutron; tritium has 2. They're two and three times as heavy as regular hydrogen. Tritium is rare, but you can get water which has a significant proportion of deuterium in it. It's about 10% heavier than regular water. More importantly, those neutrons keep the water from absorbing extra neutrons from a nuclear reaction. Water is used as a moderator in nuclear power plants. When an atom decays, it releases neutrons, and if those neutrons hit another atom, it can cause further decays. That's the chain reaction. But the neutrons must be slowed down (moderated) to be useful; otherwise, they just zip off without encountering other atoms. If you use light water in the reactor, it absorbs some of the neutrons it's supposed to be slowing down. That means you have to use fissile material which produces more neutrons. That's expensive enriched uranium. Enriched uranium is also dangerous, because it can be used to make bombs. If you use heavy water instead, you can get away with less-enriched uranium. The operating costs are roughly the same; there are so many factors going into the cost of operating a atomic adeptness factori that the choice cognizant of reactor has more grate on nerves do alongside other factors than the price in the know about the inputs or the cartouche. You listen a lot about heavy water reactors broach the news because it's the array in on thing we fundament safely account to Iran added to North Korea to produce atomic power without having the facilities to refine uranium referring to bombs.
Bucksport
You need a larger scale to weigh the..."heavy" water some of which is in the..."light water"! Hummmm!
What are the differences other than the process to get the fuels? Are there differences in energy efficiency? Which one is cheaper/easyer to operate? Why?
Jefferson
Designers choose to use heavy-water in order to minimize the need for enriched uranium. If you use regular water as moderator and/or coolant, the water absorbs a significant amount of the neutrons needed to keep the reaction going. That means you need a big reactor, one with a lot of regular uranium, and lots of moderator and careful attention to saving every possible neutron. If you want to make a small reactor, or one that will run a long time, then you can't use regular uranium-- you have enrich the uranium, which is extremely expensive and requires huge investment in plants and energy. Plus the enriched uranium is excellent bomb-making material so you have to worry about that. An alternative is to design the reactor to use heavy water, deuterium, as a moderator and coolant. deuterium has all the good properties of water, including high heat conductivity, high heat capacitor, relatively non-corrosive, and low neutron absorption. If you use heavy water then you can get by using all natural uranium, which is very cheap. The Canadians designed a few reactors, the "CANDU" series, which work this way. The downside is you need a small boatload of heavy water, which is not cheap either, but a whole lot cheaper than enriched uranium. Heavy-water reactors have not really caught on very much, probably due to various factors, like competition and lack of heavy-water supplies.
Olustee
nope, its just that light water is hydrogen dioxide, u better know as H2O. heavy water is deuterium dioxide or D2O... its used as moderator.. for slowing down neutrons produced in a nuclear chain reaction for a controlled reaction... D2O is more efficient and hence used. not H2O...
Garland
"Light water" is the water to which you are accustomed. It consists of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The hydrogen atoms both have one proton and zero neutrons. The oxygen atom has 8 protons and 8 neutrons. Among the entire molecule, there are 10 electrons, well-shared to form covalent bonds."Heavy water" still has the same types of atoms and each atom still has the same count of protons (otherwise they wouldn't be hydrogen and oxygen), and among the whole molecule there are still 10 electrons...BUT, the hydrogen atoms each have extra neutrons. The isotope of Hydrogen with a neutron is called deuterium. The Hydrogen isotope with two neutrons is called tritium. Deuterium and Tritium are both much more radioactive than ordinary hydrogen, Tritium more than deuterium. The sun uses Tritium as a source of nuclear fuel. H3O is NOT heavy water. I had an instructor incorrectly try to teach this to the class. H3O+ is the hydronium cation to which ordinary water dissociates normally (the corresponding anion is OH-). Ordinary water, even the purest water a chemist can make, constantly dissociates in to H3O+ and OH - ions. This is what enables water to act as a solvent for ionic chemistry reactions and acid-base phenomena. It is the isotope of hydrogen which classifies water as "heavy" or "light"...not the ion.-----------------In the contexts of nuclear reactors:A light water reactor uses the rocket water grate on nerves which you are habitual as a coolant of the atomic reaction core. No nuclear material is probable to encounter the light water. Other materials such as graphite are hand-me-down as moderators apprised of the nuclear rebound to absorb turn aside neutrons. Deuterium exists as the hydrogen broach the heavy water atomic reactor coolant loops. The cooling water is intended to be the moderator advised about the nuclear reaction, gripping the stray neutrons. Upon absorbing stray neutrons, Very light water becomes heavy water.---------------You keister answer your own additional questions...I unqualifiedly don't skilled in those answers.
Moberly
Heavy water is H3O... Duterium Oxide. It has an extra Hydrogen atom in the molecule. Simple.
Beaverton
Hydrogen comes in three forms. The regular version has one proton and no neutrons. Deuterium has 1 neutron; tritium has 2. They're two and three times as heavy as regular hydrogen. Tritium is rare, but you can get water which has a significant proportion of deuterium in it. It's about 10% heavier than regular water. More importantly, those neutrons keep the water from absorbing extra neutrons from a nuclear reaction. Water is used as a moderator in nuclear power plants. When an atom decays, it releases neutrons, and if those neutrons hit another atom, it can cause further decays. That's the chain reaction. But the neutrons must be slowed down (moderated) to be useful; otherwise, they just zip off without encountering other atoms. If you use light water in the reactor, it absorbs some of the neutrons it's supposed to be slowing down. That means you have to use fissile material which produces more neutrons. That's expensive enriched uranium. Enriched uranium is also dangerous, because it can be used to make bombs. If you use heavy water instead, you can get away with less-enriched uranium. The operating costs are roughly the same; there are so many factors going into the cost of operating a atomic adeptness factori that the choice cognizant of reactor has more grate on nerves do alongside other factors than the price in the know about the inputs or the cartouche. You listen a lot about heavy water reactors broach the news because it's the array in on thing we fundament safely account to Iran added to North Korea to produce atomic power without having the facilities to refine uranium referring to bombs.
Bucksport
You need a larger scale to weigh the..."heavy" water some of which is in the..."light water"! Hummmm!
Can someone explain to me specifically what a nuclear reactor is?
White Plains
I'm doing a current event for world geography, and this is the article i would like to do. My grandparents, and parents have no idea what it is...easy ten points. Please help. :)
Glasgow
A nuclear rector is a complex system which uses the heat of the radioactive fuel to heat water and create steam. The steam is used to drive electric turbine generators which provide power to the electric grid.
I'm doing a current event for world geography, and this is the article i would like to do. My grandparents, and parents have no idea what it is...easy ten points. Please help. :)
Glasgow
A nuclear rector is a complex system which uses the heat of the radioactive fuel to heat water and create steam. The steam is used to drive electric turbine generators which provide power to the electric grid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)