Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [emsnews] Japan: TEPCO predicts possible "china syndrome".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[emsnews] Japan: TEPCO predicts possible "china syndrome". - Page 19

post #181 of 242
THIS EVENT IS A CONSTANT PROCESS.
Heat is being continually applied.
If it was only one short burst then yes I would be wrong, the concrete would absorb the heat energy and dissipate it.
That is not the case here.
Heat has been applied to the concrete for months now allowing the concrete to absorb as much heat energy as it needed to reach its heat capacity, at which point it will then be at equilibrium with the source.
The only outlet for this energy will be through contact with the ground.
Just as I described thermal inertia, or if you even bothered to read the article, the concrete will retain this heat.

I mentioned all relevant thermodynamic theories here to describe the situation.
Look up the meanings to all of the thermodynamics I referred to and you will understand what I mean.

SgtSpike
If you have never taken a class in thermodynamics then you are absolutely not qualified to make any criticism of thermodynamics.
If you don't understand the theories, go read up on wikipedia, and then I will have a discussion with you.
XPS+
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K Asus z68 v-pro MSI N580GTX TF II/OC G. Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD Caviar Black Hyper 212+ Windows 7 64 Corsair TX 750 
Case
CM HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
XPS+
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K Asus z68 v-pro MSI N580GTX TF II/OC G. Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD Caviar Black Hyper 212+ Windows 7 64 Corsair TX 750 
Case
CM HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
post #182 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbarrage View Post

THIS EVENT IS A CONSTANT PROCESS.
Heat is being continually applied.
If it was only one short burst then yes I would be wrong, the concrete would absorb the heat energy and dissipate it.
That is not the case here.
Heat has been applied to the concrete for months now allowing the concrete to absorb as much heat energy as it needed to reach its heat capacity, at which point it will then be at equilibrium with the source.
The only outlet for this energy will be through contact with the ground.
Just as I described thermal inertia, or if you even bothered to read the article, the concrete will retain this heat.
I mentioned all relevant thermodynamic theories here to describe the situation.
Look up the meanings to all of the thermodynamics I referred to and you will understand what I mean.
SgtSpike
If you have never taken a class in thermodynamics then you are absolutely not qualified to make any criticism of thermodynamics.
If you don't understand the theories, go read up on wikipedia, and then I will have a discussion with you.
So you're saying that the concrete has dissipated zero heat in the last few months, but now is suddenly able to dissipate a concentrated amount of heat, in a large enough quatity to remain hot enough to boil water?

Come on man, get real. It doesn't require any theories to figure out that that doesn't work.

- If the concrete releases enough heat to boil water, it would never retain enough heat to reach "equilibrium" with the source.
- If the concrete doesn't release ANY heat, yes, it could eventually reach equilibrium with the source. But without it releasing heat, it couldn't boil water.

Pretty simple really. I don't care what thermodynamic theories you throw at me (unless you actually bother to do some calculations this time), you're not going to convince me that you can boil water through 10 feet of concrete with a 105c heatsource. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Heck, it'd be hard enough to boil water with a stove if it was only 105c!

EDIT: Oh, I missed this little gem!
Quote:
The only outlet for this energy will be through contact with the ground.
Oh really? So how does your radiant floor work? Because, as far as I can tell, it heats your home through THE AIR. rolleyes.gif
post #183 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post

So you're saying that the concrete has dissipated zero heat in the last few months, but now is suddenly able to dissipate a concentrated amount of heat, in a large enough quatity to remain hot enough to boil water?
Come on man, get real. It doesn't require any theories to figure out that that doesn't work.
- If the concrete releases enough heat to boil water, it would never retain enough heat to reach "equilibrium" with the source.
- If the concrete doesn't release ANY heat, yes, it could eventually reach equilibrium with the source. But without it releasing heat, it couldn't boil water.
Pretty simple really. I don't care what thermodynamic theories you throw at me (unless you actually bother to do some calculations this time), you're not going to convince me that you can boil water through 10 feet of concrete with a 105c heatsource. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Heck, it'd be hard enough to boil water with a stove if it was only 105c!
EDIT: Oh, I missed this little gem!
Quote:
The only outlet for this energy will be through contact with the ground.
Oh really? So how does your radiant floor work? Because, as far as I can tell, it heats your home through THE AIR. rolleyes.gif

Just a technicality,
When talking about heat sources, you should use "joules per unit of time" or "watts per unit of time", not "degrees celsius".

Think of it this way:
A passively cooled 8400GS can reach 80c. An actively cooled 8800GTX can reach 80c too.
Are they giving out the same amount of heat?
Edited by sLowEnd - 12/6/11 at 10:55am
GE60
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
Intel Core i5 4200M Geforce GTX760M 750GB WD Scorpio Black Windows 7 Home Premium 
MonitorKeyboardMouseMouse Pad
15.6" CM Quickfire Rapid CM Xornet Steelseries QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
GE60
(13 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
Intel Core i5 4200M Geforce GTX760M 750GB WD Scorpio Black Windows 7 Home Premium 
MonitorKeyboardMouseMouse Pad
15.6" CM Quickfire Rapid CM Xornet Steelseries QcK+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #184 of 242
330
Project X
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3960X Asus Rampage IV Evga Titan in SLI G.Skill |2400 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair Force GT SSD Swiftech MCP655 with TFC MONSTA Swiftech MCP350 with TFC X-Changer 480 Windows 7 
MonitorPowerCase
27' Asus PB278Q 1500 Watt PSU Mountain Mod Ascension 
  hide details  
Reply
Project X
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3960X Asus Rampage IV Evga Titan in SLI G.Skill |2400 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair Force GT SSD Swiftech MCP655 with TFC MONSTA Swiftech MCP350 with TFC X-Changer 480 Windows 7 
MonitorPowerCase
27' Asus PB278Q 1500 Watt PSU Mountain Mod Ascension 
  hide details  
Reply
post #185 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sLowEnd View Post

Just a technicality,
When talking about heat sources, you should use "joules per unit of time" or "watts per unit of time", not "degrees celsius".
Think of it this way:
A passively cooled 8400GS can reach 80c. An actively cooled 8800GTX can reach 80c too.
However, are they giving out the same amount of heat?
Understood, but I don't really know what a nuclear core kept to 105c would be producing. If someone would like to figure that out though, it'd be a welcome additional bit of information.
post #186 of 242
SgtSpike
Do you know what a reactor housing looks like?
The closest source of heat loss will be to the ground if the material is on the reactor floor.

This is from the second link I posted.

"Supposing under ideal conditions that the temperature gradient in the concrete floor is uniform and is therefore equal to a temperature difference between top and bottom of 1800 degrees divided by the thickness of 300 cm, or about 6 deg/cm. For a floor slab area of 1,250 m2 (140 foot diameter), the rate of heat transfer from top to bottom of the slab would be 600,000 Joules/sec."

"Regardless of the geometry of the melting of the concrete, heat would spread downward and sideways through the concrete floor. Eventually, it would begin to heat up the earth below. This would produce first superheated water (under pressure) eventually vaporizing the moisture in the earth into steam above its critical temperature."

The second quote is assuming the material is molten.
HEAT WILL TRAVEL THROUGH CONCRETE.

If you put water in an enclosed chamber and set it on a heat source at 105 C it will boil.
If you try that at home in a pot and come back 3 hours later all that water will be gone.

Concrete will not transfer heat fast enough that it will all dissipate in the time it takes the concrete to reach its heat capacity.
Realize that this process will take weeks if not months.
As long as you have that source of heat energy supplied indefinitely and a good insulator, which concrete is, the heat loss will be minimal.

This picture is the thermal gradient for a copper strip.

452

Copper is very conductive so heat will rush away from the point of application.
Concrete is not very conductive so that heat will flow out much farther but very slowly.
The effect of heat loss will be minimal until the heat has soaked into the material far enough to actually be affected by surrounding temperatures.
That means that the concrete will have much more thermal inertia than how much heat can be ridden through heat loss.

Edit: I understand the need to use energy per unit time but that is a rather ambiguous number here that many will have no basis for.
Edited by Steelbarrage - 12/6/11 at 11:02am
XPS+
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K Asus z68 v-pro MSI N580GTX TF II/OC G. Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD Caviar Black Hyper 212+ Windows 7 64 Corsair TX 750 
Case
CM HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
XPS+
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500K Asus z68 v-pro MSI N580GTX TF II/OC G. Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD Caviar Black Hyper 212+ Windows 7 64 Corsair TX 750 
Case
CM HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
post #187 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sLowEnd View Post

Just a technicality,
When talking about heat sources, you should use "joules per unit of time" or "watts per unit of time", not "degrees celsius".
Think of it this way:
A passively cooled 8400GS can reach 80c. An actively cooled 8800GTX can reach 80c too.
Are they giving out the same amount of heat?

Isn't the question how long does it take said items to meet that level heat, not if they are the same amount of heat?

80c is still 80c. it will still burn the same, but the actively cooled item reaches that thermal limit quicker.
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
post #188 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweex View Post

Or like he said, If you took any college level chemistry class you would know this number.

i am absolutely sure no one in college chemistry would need to refer to an aci committee report or testing lab for R values on concrete, several different kinds of them with different aggregate and cementitious compositions. that's something a civil engineer would do
post #189 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbarrage View Post

SgtSpike
Do you know what a reactor housing looks like?
The closest source of heat loss will be to the ground if the material is on the reactor floor.
This is from the second link I posted.
"Supposing under ideal conditions that the temperature gradient in the concrete floor is uniform and is therefore equal to a temperature difference between top and bottom of 1800 degrees divided by the thickness of 300 cm, or about 6 deg/cm. For a floor slab area of 1,250 m2 (140 foot diameter), the rate of heat transfer from top to bottom of the slab would be 600,000 Joules/sec."
"Regardless of the geometry of the melting of the concrete, heat would spread downward and sideways through the concrete floor. Eventually, it would begin to heat up the earth below. This would produce first superheated water (under pressure) eventually vaporizing the moisture in the earth into steam above its critical temperature."
The second quote is assuming the material is molten.
HEAT WILL TRAVEL THROUGH CONCRETE.
If you put water in an enclosed chamber and set it on a heat source at 105 C it will boil.
If you try that at home in a pot and come back 3 hours later all that water will be gone.
Concrete will not transfer heat fast enough that it will all dissipate in the time it takes the concrete to reach its heat capacity.
Realize that this process will take weeks if not months.
As long as you have that source of heat energy supplied indefinitely and a good insulator, which concrete is, the heat loss will be minimal.
This picture is the thermal gradient for a copper strip.
452
Copper is very conductive so heat will rush away from the point of application.
Concrete is not very conductive so that heat will flow out much farther but very slowly.
The effect of heat loss will be minimal until the heat has soaked into the material far enough to actually be affected by surrounding temperatures.
That means that the concrete will have much more thermal inertia than how much heat can be ridden through heat loss.
Edit: I understand the need to use energy per unit time but that is a rather ambiguous number here that many will have no basis for.
I never said heat would not travel through concrete.

You seem to be ignoring what I said, so I'll say it again.

- If the concrete releases enough heat to boil water, it would never retain enough heat to reach "equilibrium" with the source.
- If the concrete doesn't release ANY heat, yes, it could eventually reach equilibrium with the source. But without it releasing heat, it couldn't boil water.
Quote:
The closest source of heat loss will be to the ground if the material is on the reactor floor.
Why does it matter what is closest and what is furthest if (according to you) the whole concrete slab will reach the same temperature, equal to the source?
Quote:
Supposing under ideal conditions that the temperature gradient in the concrete floor is uniform and is therefore equal to a temperature difference between top and bottom of 1800 degrees divided by the thickness of 300 cm, or about 6 deg/cm. For a floor slab area of 1,250 m2 (140 foot diameter), the rate of heat transfer from top to bottom of the slab would be 600,000 Joules/sec.
I'm not sure why you posted this, because it tears apart your whole argument. This quote says that there would be a temperature difference between the top of the slab (the source) and the bottom of the slab (the ground) of 1800 degrees. That means it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the top of the slab and the bottom of the slab to have the same temperature. Which means, the bottom of the slab could not boil water if the top of the slab was 105C.
Quote:
"Regardless of the geometry of the melting of the concrete, heat would spread downward and sideways through the concrete floor. Eventually, it would begin to heat up the earth below. This would produce first superheated water (under pressure) eventually vaporizing the moisture in the earth into steam above its critical temperature."
The second quote is assuming the material is molten.
Also, I'm not sure why you posted this either, as it is again contradictory to your claims. You even state that this is assuming the material is molten! Molten != 105C. You've been saying all along that a 105C heatsource could boil water on the other end of a concrete slab, which simply isn't possible.

So, according to this quote and your comment afterward, only molten material can produce superheated water (aka, steam). THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. So, thanks for agreeing with me?
post #190 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post

Does concrete store heat, or give off heat? rolleyes.gif

lol. this is pretty funny. im going to leave now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [emsnews] Japan: TEPCO predicts possible "china syndrome".