What would happen if an energy storage device failed?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Skipjack wrote:
This is 7.2 megatonnes. This is not a small amount of explosive, unless a vast majority of the energy disappears. Still say "small one"?


It is utter nonsense.
For explosives we are talking the release of the energy at once in microseconds, or at least milliseconds. That is orders of magnitude less than 5 seconds.
Then do the math from there...
I am totally siding with Joseph here. He is the only one who gets it.
Thanks.
Explosion duration from nano to micro seconds. You are absolutely right 7.2 Megatons is nonsense. Even 100-300 kt is rather massive mass destruction warhead installed e.g. on the newest Russian ballistic missile "Topol". Mr. Kiteman is too far from reality.
Old generation TOKAMAKs had major radius 1 m order and even less. There are a lot of countries not having the weapon of mass destruction but they would like to have. Superconductive cables are commercially available. So, Iran, Saddam when he was alive, etc. might get the desired weapon very easily. Who believes in it? Why Iran builds and exploit large enrichment facilities if a few tons of superconductive cable costing a few millions USD would make the same job.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Why Iran builds and exploit large enrichment facilities if a few tons of superconductive cable costing a few millions USD would make the same job.
Exactly, even a 1kt explosion would be gigantic and devastating. If all you needed for this was a truckload full of superconducting cable, I think a lot of places would be craters in the landscape by now.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:Arguing that this can not happen is just plain silly.
Arguing that it can be managed, is not silly, and in fact the core point to high energy electrical systems design. For example, High Voltage Heavy Duty Breakers without Arc Chutes would be useless and dangerous.
Arguing that tomorrow brick will not fall on my head is silly too. As some foolish can throw that from ninth floor. But self induction current flowing in bypass matrix of superconductive cable can not make arc and, so, can not make plasma if superconductive filaments are pressed or deposited in that. But oscilating that current will simply heat the matrix.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Skipjack wrote:
Why Iran builds and exploit large enrichment facilities if a few tons of superconductive cable costing a few millions USD would make the same job.
Exactly, even a 1kt explosion would be gigantic and devastating. If all you needed for this was a truckload full of superconducting cable, I think a lot of places would be craters in the landscape by now.
Even 8 kg of composition B of 155 mm artillery shell provides rather massive explosion. But here I see the myth and people repeteating that myth thoughtlessly adding and exaggerating then accordingly to their imagination. I think that explosion of pressure vessel of steam turbine is more likely and really occured e.g. in my country several years ago on 200 MW power plant running on natural gas.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »


Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well, I guess if you guys are right, we should ask for the non proliferation of superconductors. I mean, there will be cities leveled by those if they were used as improvized explosive devices, right?
LOL

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/magnet_files ... -660-8.pdf
During the LHC incident, both bus connection and helium pipes were vaporized by energy from the magnets. As part of this study, amount of energy needed to melt stainless steel and copper have been investigated, and compared with the amount of magnetic energy may be released from RHIC.
Page 3

and
RHIC
Cryogenic Module - Sextant
~ 600 m
(~ 24 D + 24 Q) + IR magnets
Stored energy ~ 8.9 Mega-joule per sextant (excluding IR)

LHC
Cryogenic Module - Cell
~ 110 m
(2 Q + 6 D)
Stored energy ~ 44 Mega-joule per cell
Page 5

Edit: fixed formatting

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

OK, I just realized that I skipped over to much of the discussion. We have now moved on to hypothetical energy storage superconductors, where a single one stores several TWh worth of energy...

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

ladajo wrote:http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/magnet_files ... -660-8.pdf
During the LHC incident, both bus connection and helium pipes were vaporized by energy from the magnets. As part of this study, amount of energy needed to melt stainless steel and copper have been investigated, and compared with the amount of magnetic energy may be released from RHIC.
Page 3

and
RHIC
Cryogenic Module - Sextant
~ 600 m
(~ 24 D + 24 Q) + IR magnets
Stored energy ~ 8.9 Mega-joule per sextant (excluding IR)

LHC
Cryogenic Module - Cell
~ 110 m
(2 Q + 6 D)
Stored energy ~ 44 Mega-joule per cell
Page 5

Edit: fixed formatting
Ladajo,
first link is simple explosion of pressure vessele. Not a big vessel and not a big pressure. As hydrocracking reactors operate with mach more pressure (up to 250 bar) much more temperature (up to 550 deg C) and have bigger mass (up to 700 t). Pressure is not limitation too. As liqufication of coal process (so called Berguinization) operated with 700 bar hydrogen pressure. And people have refused from Berguinization not because of danger of process, but owing to low economic indicators.

Second link (page 2):
RHIC has had more than 10 years of proven safety record. The probability of having an electrical arc in RHIC is essentially nonexistent due to reliable hardware construction and a conservatively engineered quench protection system. If an arc does not occur, there will be no subsequent failure.
So, I am right saying about proper design. I think that opinion of guy from Brookhaven National Laboratory is more credible than pole conducted Mr. Kiteman. All the more mention about multimegaton equivalent explosion is absolutely nonsense. I am repeating once again: proper design.

PS: I like mentined here proposal :nonproliferation of superconductors. :)

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:Arguing that this can not happen is just plain silly.
Arguing that it can be managed, is not silly, and in fact the core point to high energy electrical systems design.
For example, High Voltage Heavy Duty Breakers without Arc Chutes would be useless and dangerous.
Arguing that tomorrow brick will not fall on my head is silly too. As some foolish can throw that from ninth floor. But self induction current flowing in bypass matrix of superconductive cable can not make arc and, so, can not make plasma if superconductive filaments are pressed or deposited in that. But oscilating that current will simply heat the matrix.

My point all along. And for the record, LHC was not properly designed to contain the failure.
My bottom line is that we can design and design, and build, but inevitably nothing is absolute, and a failure will eventually exceed design.

So in regard to the discussion at hand:
SC Magnets have high energy and associated risk: Yes
Energy can cause "explosive" type damage on failure: Yes (LHC)
Design can mitigate risk of "explosive" type damage: Yes (RHIC)
Can high energy risk be completely mitigated: No, but it can be acceptable.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:OK, I just realized that I skipped over to much of the discussion. We have now moved on to hypothetical energy storage superconductors, where a single one stores several TWh worth of energy...
Good, cuz I was going to hit you with:
Skipjack wrote:
This is 7.2 megatonnes. This is not a small amount of explosive, unless a vast majority of the energy disappears. Still say "small one"?
It is utter nonsense.
For explosives we are talking the release of the energy at once in microseconds, or at least milliseconds. That is orders of magnitude less than 5 seconds.
Then do the math from there...
I am totally siding with Joseph here. He is the only one who gets it.
Are you familiar with det cord? A high explosive (PETN frequently) is stuffed in a plastic tube at about 10g/m. 3.5Mtonnes (Tg) results in a length of ~.35Tm. One strand would take ~.35Tm/8km/sec heck, lets assume 10km/sec) which gives about .35Gsec to explode. this is about 11 YEARS. A bit longer than 5 seconds.

A HALF SPHERE of TNT:
0.35Tg/~1.7g/cc = .2Tcm^3 = .2 Mm^3 ~45m radius. This would take ~11msec. So, time to explode .35Tg of HE, somewhere between 11msec and 11 years with commercially available HE. You are both wrong.

Now, returning to mdeminico's assumption of 5 seconds, 3.5Tg in 5 seconds would be a HECK of a thick det cord going off for ~5 seconds. Boom?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

[/quote]
Joseph Chikva wrote: Explosion duration from nano to micro seconds.
Explosive duration is a function on the explosive shape. See above.
Joseph Chikva wrote:You are absolutely right 7.2 Megatons is nonsense.
Did I do my math wrong or are you just being idiotic again?
Joseph Chikva wrote:Even 100-300 kt is rather massive mass destruction warhead installed e.g. on the newest Russian ballistic missile "Topol". Mr. Kiteman is too far from reality.
Did I do my math wrong or are you just being idiotic again?
Joseph Chikva wrote: Old generation TOKAMAKs had major radius 1 m order and even less. There are a lot of countries not having the weapon of mass destruction but they would like to have. Superconductive cables are commercially available. So, Iran, Saddam when he was alive, etc. might get the desired weapon very easily. Who believes in it? Why Iran builds and exploit large enrichment facilities if a few tons of superconductive cable costing a few millions USD would make the same job.
Joe, yet again you have fallen behind and are sounding foolish. The statements here are predicated on storing 10 TERAWATT HOURS of energy, not your silly old tokamak. Do you think you would be able to deliver by bomber or missile a superconductor large enough to store 10TWhr to Tehran? Don't be idiotic.
Please, keep up or shut up.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Joseph Chikva wrote: Second link (page 2):
RHIC has had more than 10 years of proven safety record. The probability of having an electrical arc in RHIC is essentially nonexistent due to reliable hardware construction and a conservatively engineered quench protection system. If an arc does not occur, there will be no subsequent failure.
So, I am right saying about proper design. I think that opinion of guy from Brookhaven National Laboratory is more credible than pole conducted Mr. Kiteman. All the more mention about multimegaton equivalent explosion is absolutely nonsense. I am repeating once again: proper design.
Ask your Brookhaven fellow what would happen with the 10TWHr of energy if a terrorist circumvented the proper design.

I suspect he would say BIG BOOM!!!

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:Did I do my math wrong or are you just being idiotic again?

Please, keep up or shut up.
You do math wrong and are idiotic again.
Please, keep up or shut up.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

10TWHr of energy if a terrorist circumvented the
There is no such thing as a 10 TWHr energy storage superconductor, or capacitor....

Post Reply