It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To all Mathmeticians/Physicist's (Even wannabe's )

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Calculating present rates of radioactive release,(A ?) atmoshperic (B ?)as well as enviomentaly. (C ?)
Given the est. time frame of stopping said release ( X ?) and of course assuming an expotential rise within said time frame ( Tx ?)

Can a mathematical formula be constructed to give time frame levels say in the manner of a color coded chart?

Just curious.




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Unfortunately I don't think there's a real "accurate" way to measure the radiation escaping from Fukushima, especially since both the Japanese government and the US government are being tight lipped about the real amount of radiation that is actually being expent into the air and water per hour/day/week/etc.

Plus this level will continue to rise until they bury that place in concrete. Which is what will have to be done. Looking at the damage of the plant I'd wager that they never get it under control and will ultimately have to abandon the site, but until they realize this or atleat give into this truth, the radiation will continue to rise and spread at an unknown (classified) rate.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


Want too stay on topic as much as possible, but is "Can a mathematical formula be constructed" the real question i was asking.
Probably not worded correctly.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
i would think it would be quite tricky as there is not a constant unchanging wind travelling in any one direction



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Yes i can see where variables of course would have too be on a mean basis, extrapolating data as best as possible, from as reliable a sourse as possible and approximation will at best be limited too the actual known variables,, but from a pure mathematitical equation??



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I suspect the math for a visualization is quite possible.

However, the data you require may not be available from a source that people will accept.

Also, there are questions regarding the nature of the radioactivity particulate or radiant... these are two completely different models.

Not that I have any notable mathematical skills. Just opining.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You know what they say if you can visualize it ,it can be done! (well in the mathematical field anyway

Cause if you can do it mathematically i'm pretty sure their are lots of script kiddies who can make it nice and pretty

Now if we had the resourses available to a important person ie lots of cash,,, well i'm sure the graph would be made within the hour.
Cause remember if you can put a man on the moon with a computer with the processing power of todays, you know i can even think off anything that weak in processor/computing size on todays market,,,damn feeling old again,, damn you progress!! shakes fist,, drops too knees,,lol



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Well in mathematics, while you don't need the value of each variable to construct a formula, you do need the values of each of these variables to find the "answer" to this formula.

For instance if:

windspeed = A
wind direction = B
the amount of radiation leaked per hour = C
the amount of hours = D
the amount of radioactive water being dumped back into the ocean = E
the direction of the oceanic currents = F
the amount of radiation accumulated in the clouds and dispersed as rain = G
the seasonal wind change = H
the season oceanic flow = I

While you can calculate wind direction and speed, ocean current, precipitation amounts, and even the length of time the radiation leak has been going on, without the variables for C & E, you can't have an answer to the equation. You'll be left with an answer looking something like:

= CE per mi²



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


If we have actual facts as to what amount of radiation is leaking then there should be a formula to base fairly accurate predictions on. I think the Jetstream and Current graphs currently available are fair guesswork at what is going on.

From what I have been reading some people believe that 2,000 (500MT) nuclear bomb worth of material has escaped and already irradiated the planet 70x over.

finance.bnet.com...

This article is on many websites and blogs now.

The Pacific Ocean is one very concerning vector of the radioactive waste, as it supports a lot of food-chain distribution that could help it exceed dilution levels as food migrates.

The other problem is the cover-up of all the other radioactive isotopes such as plutonium. Yet a thread on ATS says the EPA is detecting plutonium-239 in North America related to Japan.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What concerns me on the authenticity of these readings is the the numbers seem static and not increasing even with cesium which tells me they may not be reporting accurately on purpose. There is a cover-up. That makes any true data collection and predictions impossible.

When Reactor-3 blew and everyone was talking about the spent-fuel pools on the roofs being blown off with as much as 6 reactor worth of spent fuel, I was quite convinced that this disaster so we can look at what info is out there with regard to the spent fuel rods

energyfromthorium.com...

The cooling tanks at the compromised Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant collectively house around 11,000 SNF rods with a portion of those housed in the cooling tanks above reactors 1-4.


Each "rod" is 12 feet long housing pellets of Uranium with a radius of ~ 1 cm so that should give us the ability to calculate volume. mathcentral.uregina.ca...


Volume = 0.0011491 cubic meters = 1149.1 cubic centimeters = 0.0015029 cubic yards = 0.040579 cubic feet = 70.12 cubic inches = 0.30355 U.S. gallons = 1.1491 liters


We should be able to calculate the mass based on Volume but I am running out of time and have to go to work.

I'll let some one else pick up from here on.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


See thats why i failed triginometry??
Once you start with,,,,,,, well if x +(y3-2)+3y-5= no matter what answer you give me
i have too say YES lol
You could say the answer was fluff bunnies again YES.. cause not a clue when it comes to that stuff.

Thats why will leave it too the matha nd physic people and once in a while get an ahhh from my brain, instead of blah,blah



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


quote "What concerns me on the authenticity of these readings is the the numbers seem
static and not increasing
even with cesium which tells me they may not be reporting accurately on purpose. There is a cover-up. That makes any true data collection and predictions impossible. "


static and not increasing not possible as the variable "E" enviroment is still for a fact being dosed. "E" being ocean

Here brain go ,,,not possible, therefore bull#.
edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: easier



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Look at the earth, something around 5000F about the size of a pellet i guess,, thats just a guess,,but why the iron??rods?? they are holding? curious,,and curiouser,,said the cat too the hat?? lol

edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


But C and E had too be known before march 10 2011,, so as TEPCO releases updates , remember this is going too take up too six months before they anticipate stopping radioactive release,, it would just be a matter of inputing C and E then , right?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 

And once they stop the radiation release (which will likely happen when they bury that place under concrete, because they aren't going to be able to get that place up and running again), you'll have to get these numbers from TEPCO, and that's if the Japanese Government allows it, and if they do, you'll have to wager they're telling the truth. The same goes for our own government.
I'm not saying numbers will never be given. The public will force an answer, but the question is, will you be able to trust the "C & E" values you're given. If they're off by a fraction you'll not get a real answer, and if it isn't a "real" and accurate answer then whats the difference between that and a guess?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


quote "and if it isn't a "real" and accurate answer then whats the difference between that and a guess? "
unquote,,
forgive me, but in my old line of work, in a lot of case's the difference was physical injury or death,,
the diference between a guess and fact that is.
and no i'm not being melodramatic, in some field's of work ie elec/heat etc,, you can't guess,, and when you have too guess,,,and it happens,,believe you me it is a feeling that you don't wish too experience.


edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: sp

edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: more sp



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
If the question is, can we predict the total radiation being emitted by the fuel at fukushima, the answer is yes. They process of decay is well understood.

To predict distribution is not so easy. We have to take what are general, local measurements of air and sea currents, ground water movements and a host of other relatively imprecise pieces of data and give a best guess.

You can do it, how exact it would be would vary greatly across global distances.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Agreed, but if the difference between the "truth" and the "Government's version of the truth" varies between lethal and nonlethal amounts of radiation reaching well beyond the alleged dispersion range, then the truth is all the relevance in the world. The best thing to do would be to go ahead and assume its not good, buy some kelp, and bring an umbrella with you everywhere you go. An NBC filter on a gas mask couldn't hurt either. Luckily I'm an East Coaster, so I have that American Buffer to let me know if its getting too close to home. Unlucky for me, the Eastern half of the country is where a lot of our domestic nuclear plants are located so....
no earthquakes for me please.
edit on 25-4-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


Actually was more concerned, for now, with the fact that radiation will destroy rubber/seals/hydralics.
Airplanes flying in this soup of newly created atoms, is not good. Expect more incidents. I sure hope our "experts" thought of that.
edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: sp



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 

I would count on them thinking of it. As for acting on this information? I wouldn't bet on it.

edit on 25-4-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


I never bet i always lose,, i know statistacly impossible
but lets say i'm at the point of the scale where statistically i should always "never bet!" lol
edit on 25-4-2011 by BobAthome because: don't know



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join