Reports of NUCLEAR submarine on fire at Russian shipyard

a reply to: johnwick

Which is why you set a "Fire Watch" when any kind of welding is going on.

That means having people standing by with fire extinguishers until the work is done and the metal has cooled.

I stood MANY of these while in the ship yard......DUH.

originally posted by: hotel1
Keep an eye out for a US/UK/NATO sub turning up damaged somewhere. As we seem to be returning Cold War conditions this might be the first episode in a new series of what is known among the Sub-Surface fraternity as a "Crazy Ivan".

It would be a neat trick, since the sub that is on fire has been in dry dock for a few YEARS.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

My question is directed mostly at you and zaphod, but anyone's input is welcomed.

Doesn't the reactors of a sub run like a standard reactor?

Can't they just Insert the cooling rods and absorb all the neutrons thus stopping all the nuclear reactions making a meltdown under let's say worst case scenario where the cooling system and it backups were compromised?

I don't see it as such a huge deal.

But then I thought that about Fukushima as well.

If the fail sfae fail safe of inserting the cooling rods didn't work at Fukushima why not?

I thought this was basic nuclear science.

The rods were inserted shortly after the quake regarding Fukushima. The trouble is that even when the rods are fully inserted, it still generates heat.

Thanks for the Info.

So you are saying that the cooling rods only slow the reaction down not stop it?

Wow, scary.

I suppose though to totally shut one down you would have to remove fuel rods as well.

But damn, I would think an absolute fail safe like automatically removing fuel rods and inserting cooling rods by a mechanical system triggered by a safety vavle if the heat goes past a certain point is a must.

And a manual release outside the reactor that works off gravity, just pull the pin let a weight fall or a preloaded spring etc do it thing.

Guess there is a reason this is not used though.

a reply to: johnwick

Well actually Radioactive material is ALWAYS radiating heat.. All you can do is separate the rods from each other so that an ongoing uncontrollable reaction doesn't take place..

The heat will always be coming off the rods though.
They don't have an off button.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: johnwick

Which is why you set a "Fire Watch" when any kind of welding is going on.

That means having people standing by with fire extinguishers until the work is done and the metal has cooled.

I stood MANY of these while in the ship yard......DUH.

I worked in automotive and construction.

There is a reason for the fire watch.

The 6 PS

Prudent
Planning
Prevents
Piss
Poor
Performance.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

My question is directed mostly at you and zaphod, but anyone's input is welcomed.

Doesn't the reactors of a sub run like a standard reactor?

Can't they just Insert the cooling rods and absorb all the neutrons thus stopping all the nuclear reactions making a meltdown under let's say worst case scenario where the cooling system and it backups were compromised?

I don't see it as such a huge deal.

But then I thought that about Fukushima as well.

If the fail sfae fail safe of inserting the cooling rods didn't work at Fukushima why not?

I thought this was basic nuclear science.

The rods were inserted shortly after the quake regarding Fukushima. The trouble is that even when the rods are fully inserted, it still generates heat.

Thanks for the Info.

So you are saying that the cooling rods only slow the reaction down not stop it?

Wow, scary.

I suppose though to totally shut one down you would have to remove fuel rods as well.

But damn, I would think an absolute fail safe like automatically removing fuel rods and inserting cooling rods by a mechanical system triggered by a safety vavle if the heat goes past a certain point is a must.

And a manual release outside the reactor that works off gravity, just pull the pin let a weight fall or a preloaded spring etc do it thing.

Guess there is a reason this is not used though.

The way they designed reactors in the late 60's early 70's is completely retarded by today's standards. New reactor designs could experience a full-blown catastrophic meltdown and you could sip coffee in the shop across the street as it happened without any consequence.

a reply to: johnwick

Right, which is why when I hear that a fire started because of someone welding, I always shake my head.

Any welder worth their salt knows to look around where they are welding, and knows if something needs to be moved or if they're going to cause a fire. You don't work in that field for a long time and not know these things.

It's also important to have others standing by incase something was over looked and something does catch on fire. Better to catch it early and quickly before it spreads out of control.

It's just so basic common sense. I used to hate having to stand the fire watch, as I'd have other things that needed to be done, but even at a young age I understood how important it was, and how quickly a fire can spread.

originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: johnwick

Well actually Radioactive material is ALWAYS radiating heat.. All you can do is separate the rods from each other so that an ongoing uncontrollable reaction doesn't take place..

The heat will always be coming off the rods though.
They don't have an off button.

Yes.

That is why the earths core is molten.

All that uranium that has sunk to the core and meangles with itself.

It just seems haphazard to create a system where runaway nuclear melt down is without question.

Unless you keep it cooled.

Why can't they design it so a melt down is the unlikely result instead of the guarantee?

I suppose it is probably about efficiency though.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

My question is directed mostly at you and zaphod, but anyone's input is welcomed.

Doesn't the reactors of a sub run like a standard reactor?

Can't they just Insert the cooling rods and absorb all the neutrons thus stopping all the nuclear reactions making a meltdown under let's say worst case scenario where the cooling system and it backups were compromised?

I don't see it as such a huge deal.

But then I thought that about Fukushima as well.

If the fail sfae fail safe of inserting the cooling rods didn't work at Fukushima why not?

I thought this was basic nuclear science.

The rods were inserted shortly after the quake regarding Fukushima. The trouble is that even when the rods are fully inserted, it still generates heat.

Thanks for the Info.

So you are saying that the cooling rods only slow the reaction down not stop it?

Wow, scary.

I suppose though to totally shut one down you would have to remove fuel rods as well.

But damn, I would think an absolute fail safe like automatically removing fuel rods and inserting cooling rods by a mechanical system triggered by a safety vavle if the heat goes past a certain point is a must.

And a manual release outside the reactor that works off gravity, just pull the pin let a weight fall or a preloaded spring etc do it thing.

Guess there is a reason this is not used though.

The way they designed reactors in the late 60's early 70's is completely retarded by today's standards. New reactor designs could experience a full-blown catastrophic meltdown and you could sip coffee in the shop across the street as it happened without any consequence.

Thanks.

I do feel better now.

I just never really thought it through until this thread.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: hotel1
Keep an eye out for a US/UK/NATO sub turning up damaged somewhere. As we seem to be returning Cold War conditions this might be the first episode in a new series of what is known among the Sub-Surface fraternity as a "Crazy Ivan".

It would be a neat trick, since the sub that is on fire has been in dry dock for a few YEARS.

That would probably rule it out then. It might only be a matter of time before we start seeing C Is again, after all the post cold war sub surface command might not be quite so alert to the tactic.

originally posted by: hotel1

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: hotel1
Keep an eye out for a US/UK/NATO sub turning up damaged somewhere. As we seem to be returning Cold War conditions this might be the first episode in a new series of what is known among the Sub-Surface fraternity as a "Crazy Ivan".

It would be a neat trick, since the sub that is on fire has been in dry dock for a few YEARS.

That would probably rule it out then. It might only be a matter of time before we start seeing C Is again, after all the post cold war sub surface command might not be quite so alert to the tactic.

The "crazy Ivan".

I am the only one that misses how a cold war spy could make anything happen in movies back in the 80s?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Although who will they blame this time?

A Ukrainian SU-25.

I'm waiting for the finger pointing to commence.

"The U.S. did it!"
"The Ukranians did it!"
"False Flag!"

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: hotel1

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: hotel1
Keep an eye out for a US/UK/NATO sub turning up damaged somewhere. As we seem to be returning Cold War conditions this might be the first episode in a new series of what is known among the Sub-Surface fraternity as a "Crazy Ivan".

It would be a neat trick, since the sub that is on fire has been in dry dock for a few YEARS.

That would probably rule it out then. It might only be a matter of time before we start seeing C Is again, after all the post cold war sub surface command might not be quite so alert to the tactic.

The "crazy Ivan".

I am the only one that misses how a cold war spy could make anything happen in movies back in the 80s?

I think it was eventually discovered long after the event that it was a "Crazy Ivan" manoeuvre that sent the USS Scorpion to the sea bed.

a reply to: hotel1

Funny I thought that it was a thermal runaway on a torpedo battery that did it.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: hotel1

Funny I thought that it was a thermal runaway on a torpedo battery that did it.

If you say so

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: hotel1

Funny I thought that it was a thermal runaway on a torpedo battery that did it.

Why would those be mutually exclusive exactly?
Same with a welding accident.. Who knows who exactly are the welders??

There are many Russians working in and around sensitive areas in America I am sure.

a reply to: hotel1

Maybe I spoke too soon.

Bang goes the no claims! Royal Navy nuclear submarine suffers £500,000 damage after 'hitting floating ice' while tracking Russian vessels

a reply to: Hellas

Why is that tweet 16 Nov 2013. Wrong picture or wrong date? Just curios if it is in fact that sub which could explain why it's still in dry dock and the one burning actually might not be one in dry dock.

Ok edit to add that picture was not it.
News article here on the current one probably already posted.
Fire Erupts on Russian Nuclear Submarine

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: hotel1

Maybe I spoke too soon.

Bang goes the no claims! Royal Navy nuclear submarine suffers £500,000 damage after 'hitting floating ice' while tracking Russian vessels

No worries Jack me old mate. I don't even know what questions to ask, never mind looking for an answer. I'm just glad we are on the same side. Two very powerful Navies that are old friends and cousins. if I was up against our two Navies, Your national might and the strength of the combined UK Commonwealth lead by the Royal Navy, then I would be very scared.

Kind regards
Your from British Cousins and Allies.