Re: fission question (Why no China Syndrome with Daghlian and Slotin??)

From: Steve Harris sbharris_at_ROMAN9.netcom.com (sbharris_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: 8 Jul 2004 18:42:25 -0700

Norman Yarvin <norman.yarvin@snet.net> wrote in message news:<cchosl010h7@news2.newsguy.com>...
> In article <79cf0a8.0407071059.1390bf5d@posting.google.com>,
> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Norman Yarvin <norman.yarvin@snet.net> wrote in message news:<ccfg6102e3u@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >> In article <79cf0a8.0407041402.163437c7@posting.google.com>,
> >> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now, having said that, the second interesting thing about the Slotin
> >> >and Daghlian incidents is what DIDN'T happen. The cores didn't melt
> >> >and give a mini-China syndrome, burning globs of liquid plutonium into
> >> >the floor. I've seen a picture of the core after the Daghlian
> >> >accident, and it's perfectly intact.
> >> >
> >> >So why should it have been? IF you do the simple math with no
> >> >assumptions, once you get over critical surface/volume/reflection
> >> >configuration, then the reaction should increase exponentially at the
> >> >intrinsic reaction doubling rate, which time is on the order of
> >> >dimension/fast neutron velocity. There is no intrinsically stable
> >> >region. It goes up and up, very fast, until energy production is so
> >> >large the mass melts and/or blows apart.
> >> >
> >> >Now, obviously, that didn't happen in either of these accidents. From
> >> >discriptions, it sounds as though the reaction went up to some ungodly
> >> >high power output very fast, but then quit increasing. And didn't go
> >> >past the limit where things melted or vaporized. So where was the
> >> >brake. Was it a TRIGA type thing where neutrons coming back from
> >> >heated tungsten-hydride moderator/reflectors were now so hot that they
> >> >weren't doing their job?
> >>
> >> One candidate for the "brake" is thermal expansion. Just as implosion
> >> can make a subcritical mass critical, thermal expansion can make a
> >> barely-critical mass subcritical.
> >
> >
> >COMMENT:
> >
> >If that happened, the reaction could have been a "huff and puff" sort,
> >with blast of prompt-criticality followed by thermal shut-off,
> >followed by cooling and then criticality again. That does happen in
> >TRIGA type reactors.
>
> I'm pretty sure it would have just heated up and stayed hot, on the edge
> of criticality. The heating mechanism is very fast; cooling is not at
> all fast. Very little heat would need to be generated on an ongoing
> basis, to keep it hot. (That is, very little heat compared to what would
> be required to heat it up in the first place.)
>
> To get oscillations, there needs to be delay of some sort in the feedback
> loop -- inertia, if you will. It needs to smell like a second-order (or
> higher) differential equation, and this smells to me like a first-order
> one. That's because the cooling is so slow that it doesn't really enter
> into the dynamics. In a TRIGA reactor, the neutrons are much slower, and
> the cooling is much faster (since it's water doing the cooling, whereas
> this is just a sphere of plutonium in the open air.)

COMMENT:

You're right, of course. Assuming the Pu heated up right to melting
point at around 900 K the biggest cooling factor is of course IR
radiation, not air convection, but it's still not enough. Giving us
the benefit of all doubts on IR cooling and assuming 100% viewfactor
(off I'm sure by 75%, since only the top of this gismo was open), you
get less than 700 watts of IR cooling from this little 8.4 cm diameter
sphere. And since that much Pu has a heat capacity of around 800 J/K,
that gives you less than 1 C/sec cooling rate max, which isn't enough
to do squat (you have to use the entire heat capacity of the sphere,
because with Pu's diffusivity of 0.026 cm^2/sec and only a 4.2 cm
radius sphere, you don't get big enough thermal internal thermal
gradients to affect the cooling time scale range, even with very high
heat removal rates in the hundreds to thousands of watt range).

Even if you assume the Pu liquified and went up to the melting temp of
the nickel plating, radiation cooling goes up only by a factor of 15
or so, and 15 C/sec is still no big deal when you're at 1500 K.

But I don't have a good alternative. The bricks were actually 4 inch
thick (radial to the reaction) WC, tungsten carbide, with the C used
as the moderator. There wasn't time enough for more than their
surfaces to warm, and the fast neutrons from the fission would have
been penetrating and bouncing back from much deeper regions of the
bricks, that hadn't warmed at all. No no change there. Neutrons inside
the sphere that scattered off Pu atoms would have encountered hotter
atoms, but since Pu is so massive it doesn't provide significant
moderation anyway, so no effect THERE.

So my best present guess is that in both accidents the mini-reactor
just went up so some really high power level, and stuck there, for
reasons I have yet to figure out. Maybe there exist a whole succession
of shorter and shorter neutron-producing isotopes produced by fission,
and in both cases the opperators were "lucky" enough NOT to go into a
prompt critical range so high as to no longer depended on ANY of
these. So perhaps they were still in the rate-doubling regime measured
in seconds or fractions of a second, rather than the natural <
microsecond range that characterizes a fission bomb fizzle.

But I don't believe it. There's some really basic negative feedback
mechanism here that I'm still missing.

Come on, you real physicists reading this. Any ideas?

SBH

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 24" iMacs run hot!
    ... extremely indicative of the cooling design. ... a heat sink that dissipates enough heat to keep things cool. ... temperature away with the result that exiting air would be near the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: fission question (Why no China Syndrome with Daghlian and Slotin??)
    ... >>followed by cooling and then criticality again. ... The heating mechanism is very fast; cooling is not at ... Very little heat would need to be generated on an ongoing ... > this is just a sphere of plutonium in the open air.) ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A/C window unit: compressor or not?
    ... the adjustable thermostat setting should cause the unit to run continuously unless it is icing the cooling coil and cycling off on a freeze stat. ... When the cooling coil is matted with lint the squirrel cage blower wheel blades will also be loaded with lint and it will not deliver sufficient airflow! ... I could live through 80s for a day with no AC, but I'd like to have it done and running right before the heat comes back this next weekend. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: 20" iMac G5 overheating?
    ... liquid cooling radiators and fans on both processors ... ... The idea of any cooling system is to displace the heat - in other words, move the heat from one undesirable place to another more desirable place. ... produces a lower frequency of noise than the hard drives so the sound ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: will water cooling help lower ambient room temps? good systems for a newbie?
    ... what effect would 4 100W light bulbs have on the temperature ... therms regardless of what cooling you use to remove the heat (the better ... cooling is to help remove the heat faster from the device). ... The device is still supposed to work within that operating range ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
Loading