Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 688

I also made this the last go around about the reactor well location. More pics and info www.houseoffoust.com
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:34:31 PM

@Edano madrat sort of did the same thing with CAD and had the same error regarding the #1 blueprint and the larger #3 and #4 buildings
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:35:20 PM

I think part of the confusion is that we have three different reactor types (BWR-3, BWR-4, BWR-5) all designed bt the same company, but built by GE (3... one of each), Toshiba (2) and Hitachi (1). We may be comparing BWR-3 containments with BWR 4's. (The BWR-5 is R6, shutdown.)
by RadioGuy 4/13/2011 11:37:48 PM

I think people are making some larger leaps with that blueprint. A number of people looked at it and told ME it was #1 and IIRC it is marked up that way on it somewhere. If people go look at the blueprint vs. the buildings vs. the CNIC image of 4 it is pretty obvious.
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:40:13 PM

Nancy: was going out... but...
this pic (from you) is great: I can clearly see the "stairs" shape on which the concrete plug plates should be:
www.houseoffoust.com
This is the same exact location of what I call the "drywell concrete structure".
Won't annoy you more with this... Need to sleep...
by Jo Lindien via Houseoffoust 4/13/2011 11:41:42 PM

@Jo Lindien two different angles, slight perspective. It is slightly off that midline, not against the wall is a square well.
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:42:40 PM

Jo.. good detail on the photos..
by dean 4/13/2011 11:44:08 PM

@Nancy: did not say it was against the wall; and don't blame me: my drawings are far from exact; and there are lots of perspective artefacts on those pics. If you look the original picture (especially the aerial-2011-3-30-1-11-12) you will figure the concrete structure is a few meters away from the wall.
by Jo Lindien 4/13/2011 11:46:12 PM

@Jo Lindien There were some images going around claiming the rectangular well right next to the wall was the containment well. That is what your images looked like they were showing.
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:47:24 PM

@Nancy: on your picture, the external shape of the concrete structure seems square too... Internal shape is round. Same place, same shape, no ?
by Jo Lindien 4/13/2011 11:47:33 PM

earthquake.usgs.gov Ikimap... www.ikimap.com
by Rob in SF via Earthquake.usgs.gov 4/13/2011 11:49:42 PM

@Jo Lindien There is no square structure around the round well. I don't see one and have not seen one. There are two places you can get a peek at the reactor well one on 3 and one on 4. The prob w/ 4 is the RPV cap is there also and people were mistaking that for the well, both black-ish and round. I will try to grab some blown up images of the sections you have marked up. Please make sure you go through the images I posted on my site, more detail there than I can cram into posts here along with pics.
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:50:01 PM

@Jo Lindien we should explore everything but I also get tired of doing repeats. Need a better solution for sharing and documenting or something. There was a really off image posted on Physics forum last week showing a diff structure as the reactor well with no info how they came to the conclusion then people were running with it with no data.
by Nancy 4/13/2011 11:53:04 PM

@fitter. Was your opinion of those blueprints that they were of reactor 1?
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:06:32 AM

Here's an incomplete fact sheet: Some quick facts about the Fukushima Family of Japannese nuclear power reactors. (NPR)

* All currently constructed reactors at Fukushima I (Dai-ichi) and Fukushima II (Dai-ini) use the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design. en.wikipedia.org

* Reactors at Dai-ichi Units 1-5 use Mark 1 (MK-1) containment system, Unit 6 at Dai-ichi and all four units at Dai-ini use the Mark II (MK-2) containment system.

* Years in which the units were licensed is as follows:

Dai-ichi
Unit 1 1971
Unit 2 1974
Unit 3 1976
Unit 4 1978
Unit 5 1978
Unit 6 1979

Dai-ini
Unit 1 1982
Unit 2 1984
Unit 3 1985
Unit 4 1987

* Units 4-6 at Dai-ichi were shutdown for maintenence at the time of the accident. Unit 4 had it’s fuel rods removed and were placed in the Spent Fuel Pool. (SFP)

* The total amount of ‘live’ fuel at the time of the accident at Dai-ichi was 440 MT including ??? new fuel

* The total amount of fuel stored in SFP’s at Dai-ichi was 1 760 MT

* The total amount of radioactive materials at Dai-ichi is likely greater than 2200 MT

* Unit 1 of Dai-ichi was scheduled for shutdown on Mar. 26, 2011, about 2 weeks after the accident.

MT = Metric Tons = 1000 Kg
These numbers are probably conservative
by Jim Carver 4/14/2011 12:06:42 AM

www.pictureupload.de @Nancy : from all of your sources there isn't one that tells the right position of the elements in #3,4,5. it would be good to have a schematic for every reactor. if you say, the blueprint is only #1, okay. then i have made here a transparent overlay for #1, no matter it's helpful or not. if anyone knows the dimensions of the other reactors, he may be so kind as to post a scheme for those. i did what i can in this respect.
by Edano via Pictureupload.de 4/14/2011 12:07:06 AM

Sneak peak... Another long workday for me at GMT+8, out in the field. Gonna miss everybody.
Thanks, @Nancy. Might I reiterate an idea that I posted a couple of days or sa back... That it might be advantageous to explore the suitability of an askSam solution to this. If one of us with appropriate web space can set up a freeform online database a-la askSam
www.asksam.com/brochure.asp
then this might be a possible option. But then there is the learning curve to consider...

> @Jo Lindien we should explore everything but I also get tired of doing repeats.
> Need a better solution for sharing and documenting or something.
> There was a really off image posted on Physics forum last week showing a diff
> structure as the reactor well with no info how they came to the conclusion then
> people were running with it with no data.
.
by ALBLEE 4/14/2011 12:07:36 AM

@ALBLEE I think the problem is that you need people to read whatever we have first and I don't think people have been reading any of the info first. Jo I think was/is a different case but a number of people making the same conclusion without looking at anything in past discusions or images.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:09:07 AM

@nancy Yes IMOP and I think it may say it on the title block in japanase..... I usually go by thre columms and plant north to locate what i know is correct, then weed out from there..... building #1 is plant north vs building #4
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:10:27 AM

@fitter IIRC it also matches the foot print of #1 being a narrower building in the blueprint and #1 being narrower in all images.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:11:20 AM

@Nancy yes and the last two columm lines have a much lower roof elevation..... the other buildings look like the extended the roof to top of build
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:13:01 AM

@fitter I also noticed a few oddities in the grid panel configuration. On the blueprint there are end panels of the grid walls that are not square. More rectangle on the blueprint but the grid walls on #3 and #4 are squared.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:16:12 AM

@Edano You will thank me more when I have to weed out all the crap from these pages and whittle it down to something useful.
by Jim Carver 4/14/2011 12:16:30 AM

@Nancy all so that elevation drawing is a "general Equipment Section" that has had changes 25 years after the construction, the actual steel/concrete would be built of a strucual drawing, that would start with S-XXXXXXXXX for the drawing number
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:20:04 AM

there's really no news at all this night/day/afternoon/whatever.
by Edano 4/14/2011 12:21:31 AM

@fitter I have been trying to find a way to translate the rest of the text but it is an image so no dice without someone who reads japanese. I get what your saying about the drawings. for a change like that would they only do 2 elevations if that covered the work in question? I remember most build drawings would have all 4 elevations.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:23:11 AM

Diffusion of radioactive substances predicted, www3.nhk.or.jp
by Markfm 4/14/2011 12:23:52 AM

@Nancy that is sheet eleven of a set of plans, there are probably over two hundred drawings to that building, I would love to know where it came from and if there are any more, Ive been looking but can not find that plant...the others wwere way different,,,
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:26:11 AM

@fitter getting our hands on the total blueprints for the entire complex would be an incredible find. Does Japan have freedom of info or public records laws like the US? I wonder if CNIC might have something?
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:30:15 AM

@fitter even a complete set for 1 would be a massive help.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:31:21 AM

@Nancy for security reason i was surprised to see that one,, but even five or ten would be great.... do you know who got that one and were......
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:32:42 AM

@fitter : nuke reactors are always national security blabla.
by Edano 4/14/2011 12:34:21 AM

@Nancy i have been studing the equipment layout and the piping sytem is quite complex. I think they have more problems than we are hearing about
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:34:39 AM

@Nancy : IAEA should have blueprints ......
by Edano 4/14/2011 12:35:29 AM

@Edano agree I am surprised to see that one..... you can't even get a system schmatic for decaffinating coffee, it a company property.... (you decainatte coffee using the same/similar process as you do to take nicltine out of cigerates.... the labels on some produces are codes, so people do not know what runs in them.... they actualy use chocale to make smokes...son't know what flavor...
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:38:38 AM

i found some good schmatics but they are Mark 111,
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:39:32 AM

Didn't someone notice the #4 SFP temp rise ?
More signs of fuel rod damage at Japan nuke plant sns.mx
by VeenOui 4/14/2011 12:40:49 AM

@fitter how far off or newer are they?
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:42:17 AM

I think nuclear plant blueprints would come under national security
by elainekirk 4/14/2011 12:42:40 AM

@Edano from what i hear they really did have coke in it years ago...
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:43:20 AM

@VeenOui I saw that and thought it was a repeat from this morning. looks like new.
by Nancy 4/14/2011 12:43:31 AM

@elainekirk do you know who posted the one we have
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:43:50 AM

Pretty sure it is just repeating info we had in the jt article on the wiki. 194F is 90C
by Markfm 4/14/2011 12:46:57 AM

@Nancy the mark 111 are the piping scematics, and they are very different... that were i saw the dryer pool as a secondary water source... it eight books.. i tryed to contact them, its either german of french--- counld not translate the web sit
by fitter 4/14/2011 12:47:36 AM