Thank your favourite deity that it didn't caught fire. Setting it on fire is a pain in the ass, but trying to put it out is a nightmare. And for the record, the temperature under the rubble of reactor #4 reached over 6000 centigrade, and graphite burned, because it reacted with extremely hot steam.
strixeh: yes, chernobyl's graphite burnt, which caused the wide spread of atomic particles. the graphite fire threw all the stuff into the atmosphere. btw: if this thing would have started to burn, you'd have a hole in your house now. a deep one :D
I've been wondering about this...as far as I can tell it's pretty much impossible to get graphite--particularly graphite as pure as reactor grade--to burn. I'd be really curious to know what happened at chernobyl.
@spadamon my friend, a nuclear bomb is something completly different from a nuclear reactor. the temperautre on a reactor is in the reaches of a few 100°C, while the core temperature in a uncontrolled nuclear explosion (-> atomic bomb) can reach up to 15 million °C. so, do your homework next time :)
@CalderaXII I'm sure we're all smart enough to understand the difference's between fission and fusion but i thought there was still a similarity in temperature's between a reactor and a bomb, maybe not to the extent of millions of degree's but i thought it was certainly a lot hotter then mere hundreds of degrees. I think it's also clear i thought i was knowledgeable enough to comment thanks for correcting me, you learn something knew every day !
@spadamon wasnt trying to troll or insult you here, btw^^ you are of course right about the temperature, it would be a lot higher then 1500°C without all the water cooling. but when it comes to that temperatures a disaster is inevitable or rather has already occured.
@CalderaXII Your trying to tell me there's more then one civilized human being on here ? Now i know your making things up ! Also something i'm fairly sure about is they only use water as coolant incase of emergency as when water gets into the system something in the system reacts with the water and cant be used again which is why they use the cooling rods to absorb some of the neutrons to decrease the rate of fission. But knowing my luck you already knew this... xD
@spadamon isnt easy to find non-trolling people on the internet^^ boiling-water reactors and pressurised water reactors both use water as main coolant. while boiling-water reactors use the same water as coolant and steam source, the pressurised water reactors use it as coolant only.
if im wrong here (my knowledge is only like physics 101^^) someone please correct me, but im pretty sure thats how it basically works.
@JustineBieberxoxo i'd like to see some evidence for that claim. still, as i said, my knowledge in this field is far from beeing an expert :) but until i see the source for a non-catastrophic reactor, that safely went a few thousand degrees, i'll stick with my version. simply cause i know its true for older reactors.
@JustineBieberxoxo just did some research myself. the hottest i could find was 1600°C, which i would not call a few thousand, but definitely more then a few hundred. but the reactor type is banned in most states due to is instability.
The main danger which could cause the reactor grade graphite to explode would be contact with water. Which is what almost happened in Chernobyl. The graphite can heat up and melt but when it makes contact with water that, from my understanding anyway, is what causes the explosion.
@57thEvilSquirrel That IS what happened at Chernobyl. The Graphite tipped reactor rods dropped into the cooling tank too quickly. What results from that is a Neutron Surge, which is essentially a giant ass explosion caused be a sudden burst of Neutrons blasting apart some atoms.
@bestshowontheweb actually the rods where pure graphite, the graphite is used as a "control" rod to stabablize the plutonium-234 and uranium fuel rods, if the actuall hot burning graphite were to touch the water to quick, it would have caused a geo-thermo-nuclear explosion and it would have leveled 2 miles of land and done 10x the damage it did
@blackwolfkodi Acctually, according to the official records from Chernobyl released after the break up of the Soviet Union. The graphite tipped the rods to help stabilize the Plutonium in the rods and help neutralize some of the Uranium radiation. The same thing happened at another Nuclear Reactor in the Soviet Union. The small concentrations weren't being dropped into regular water, it was already radiated by the Graphite from the previous drops into the tank.
In fact, the graphite in Chernobyl is still burning below the concrete sarcophagus. It will do this for thousands of years. As it is now, it is still very much a possibility that it might explode again.
If I may, you are correct that some portions of the graphite are still MOLTEN, however, it most likely won't "explode," what will probably happen, it the hastily constructed sarcophagus will collapse, sending radioactive dust into the atmosphere.
sure it did, one problem, you can not split an carbon atom easily. especially not with a torch. (graphite is carbon in case you would want to ask).
something cool and glowing isn't necessarily a nuclear reaction. the only thing you did here is energize electrons so the graphite emits light... this is no more than a uneconomical light bulb...without the bulb
im not sure you understand the concept of burning, yes you are heating the graphite but u also need to have oxygen too. Also the amount of heat generated by a nuclear reactor is 10 fold atleast to that of the chemical reaction of burning propane gas or any gas simmilar
The graphite is used in nuclear reactors because it does not melt and is one of the most thermodynamic stable element and because of its neutron moderation properties.
However, the graphite in the Chernobyl reactors didn't burn but the heat from the graphite was enough to ignite surrounding materials.
Actually, yes. Graphite is a compound containing carbon, which burns if it gets too hot. Although a blowtorch is not hot enough to get it to burn, the incredible heat generated by nuclear fission is enough to make the graphite fail, which is why newer reactors use water to control the rate of reaction.
comment to Mr2ndAmendment lower down the page stop talking out your ass there was some thousdands of "biorobots" that helped clean up and the total death toll to date is only like 60 people dumb fuck haha
@RespectMyHate ahhahahha, yet America believed it. Just like free-falling aircraft proof skyscrapers actually collapsed due to jet fuel and 1hr of burning.
@AZIlluminati08 Not only do they have enough latent heat to melt steel, they also do a right proper job of melting Inconel, Waspalloy, Hastalloy, and several other jet engine materials I'm sure you have never heard of. And 'cough cough', save the enuendo for when your doctor shoves his finger up your ass. There was more than enough Jet-A in the tanks of that 767 to bring down the WTC. Maybe you should concentrate more on your classes than propagating your bullshit conspiracy theories,
Yeah, I use propane in my furnace to melt bronze and steel (the adiabatic flame temperature for propane is 1977°C and Kerosine is 2093°C). Sure propane and kerosine don't burn nearly hot enough to melt these metals, but the magic pixie reactor does the rest of the work. Don't you know? Magic pixie reactors are on all aircraft, so there you go.
@snedie69er Oh ok it even weakened the steel at the mid section level of the building allowing the entire structure to collapse at free fall speed, I'm just saying though.
@RespectMyHate Get a clue. A building is not a mountain, it is mostly empty space. It holds up its own weight and load, with a reasonable safety factor. Once it starts falling, the extra load of the collapsing floors overloads the other floors immediately as it falls.
Expecting it to fall at less than free fall speed once it starts into a full collapse is moronic.
@RespectMyHate yea these guys that keep saying this stuff its like they never saw a building fall on its own, hello cuz they dont just do that. unless rigged with explosives. If TWC fell like they say from just a fire, there would be streets full of mangled mess all over NY after that, not just a pile of rubble and metal.
@y0utUBeH8r yes because you need to reach melting temperatures for a metal to degrade....
I guess if you threw a soda can on a campfire afterwards you would say "Oh that soda can is gone! The fire must have been hot enough to melt aluminum!"
Basically what I'm saying is that you're everything that's wrong with the world right now.
@spike0804 youre just some clone gamer who cant think for himself and just believes everything on fox news, sorry other way around buddy. I guess one of the floors of building 7 must have been on fire too, but when did it get hit with jet fuel, enough to melt all of its supports too?
@y0utUBeH8r yea...fox news isn't the one saying that there wasn't a conspiracy....all the major news networks say that you nut-job.
and yes, Building 7 was on fire. And once again you do not need to melt supports for a building to collapse. You simply need to degrade them. I like how you didn't respond to anything in my actual post because you're too ignorant to refute anything I said.
@spike0804 because it is pointless and repetitive nonsense, i dont care about your degrading metal, but nice story. now please take my dick out of your mouth you faggot
@spike0804 The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire, a 520 floor hotel unfinished (so still supports bare etc), was burning for 3 hours on all floors....did not fall. There goes your 'degrading metals' theory...
@MentalPenguin67 yep You got me. Of course it's lucky that all building are built the same way with the same materials or else you would just come out looking like an idiot
And I like how you put degrading metals in quotations...like metals don't degrade
@RespectMyHate if your refering to 9/11 the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the metal but was hot enough to weaken it so it collapsed under it's own weight
@RespectMyHate No, jet fuel didn't melt steel. It softened it! You don't have to melt steel to weaken it's structural capabilities. You only have to soften it. If you don't believe me,ask a blakcksmith!
@lsteer100 as long as the graphite has not been anywhere near neutron radiation. even then as long as their is no boron in the graphite it would be safe.
@lsteer100 For a nuclear reaction to work the atomic bonds between the atoms has to be broken, the energy release from neutrons leaving the atom is what gives the nuke its boom
@letsgetverydrunk they are seperate. the chernobyl reactor type RBMK used fuel rods tipped with graphite. this would prove fatal bacause the graphite tip caused an energy spike, which resulted in the initial explosion.
@MucusFelidae yes and no everything in your house would burn up in a fire but the graphite frame (i guess that you are asking) would still be intact. (it would be very expensive)
The graphite at Chernobyl actually didn't burn. It was just superheated and ejected from the core by a steam/hydrogen explosion. As you can see it's virtually impossible to burn highly pure graphite.
People thought it was on fire as it caused several fires in the surrounding buildings and such, but just being superheated will do that.
On recovered fragments there is no visible evidence of oxidation of the graphite itself.
Yes, the graphite at Chernobyl did burn. What was left of it landed around the area and most especially on the roof of the building, which had to be hand-removed by the "Biorobots" of Chernobyl. It was so radioactive that almost none of the Biorobots survived the experience, only being able to work on the roof at intervals as short as 40 seconds at a time.
graphite can't burn... it's a hard melting tihng... and the word "melt" in it sais it melts not burns. also graphite starts to melt at about 3400C i think.
@ROLLsixsixsix@ROLLsixsixsix rofl graphite is a allotrope of carbon(if you don't know what an allotrope is look it up) thus graphite does most certainly burn. The standard enthalpy of cumbustion (heat of combustion) for graphite is C(graphite, solid) + O2(g) ---> CO2(g) DHq = -393 kJ mol-1 (reference: ww.webchem.net/notes/how_far/enthalpy/enthalpy_of_combustion.htm) .
@ROLLsixsixsix Graphite does burn, it has a molar enthalpy of combustion of -393 500 joules per mole. The negative sign means that the reaction is exothermic (gives off heat). The auto ignition temperature of graphite is 730 degrees celcius, this is the temperature at which graphite will spontaneously ignite (burn) in a normal atmosphere, ie the air we breathe. Lol graphite is an allotrope of carbon, the same element coal is made from. If you still don't believe me look it :P
actually the graphite in cernobil was vaporized and that is why the disaster had a so deep impact. vaporized graphite was the perfect vector for cesius 137 and sodium isotops as well as stronzium and few more radioactive material. reaching the higer atmosphere they could reach my young ass in italy in les than ten days...
The NHL this season has decided that the players haven't been playing at full effort, so this year we'll be replacing the puck with a magma hot piece of graphite :D
@Vylvan That is so funny. I can just imagine what the golies would be thinking when they see that puck glowing before it hits the ice. That would be priceless!
Yes, but not under its own power. The graphite maintained the reactivity of the fuel via moderation, which produced heat, which allowed the carbon to slowly oxidize in air. Once enough of it had oxidized away, reactivity fell and the initial disaster was over. Took days, if I'm not wrong.
Under Chernobyl accident the reactor graphite where on fire however it melted to liquid lava duo to intense heat. The heat was so high that some of the firemen that arrived at the scene got some serious vision damage and many pilots have had problems later with vision
How is this a nuclear reactor? you do not even know what goes on inside a nuclear reactor, i do and i can confidently tell you that they do not heat a puck of graphite with a plasma cutter
@Xu53r1X That would be "graphite nuclear reactor" or "Nuclear Reactor: (or -) Graphite". "Nuclear reactor graphite" means its graphite from, or the same type used in, a nuclear reactor. Sorry, but this has made me even more curious of something: is English your first language?
Just grab it with your hands. Lol
ChristianHentze 1 month ago
Thank your favourite deity that it didn't caught fire. Setting it on fire is a pain in the ass, but trying to put it out is a nightmare. And for the record, the temperature under the rubble of reactor #4 reached over 6000 centigrade, and graphite burned, because it reacted with extremely hot steam.
soberek 2 months ago 2
strixeh: yes, chernobyl's graphite burnt, which caused the wide spread of atomic particles. the graphite fire threw all the stuff into the atmosphere. btw: if this thing would have started to burn, you'd have a hole in your house now. a deep one :D
HuhnK0t 2 months ago 5
I've been wondering about this...as far as I can tell it's pretty much impossible to get graphite--particularly graphite as pure as reactor grade--to burn. I'd be really curious to know what happened at chernobyl.
themuffinman12345 3 months ago
A Nuclear bomb can turn rock into ash that's how it it gets, so 1500 Celsius is alot but no where near the heat from a nuclear reactor.
spadamon 3 months ago
@spadamon my friend, a nuclear bomb is something completly different from a nuclear reactor. the temperautre on a reactor is in the reaches of a few 100°C, while the core temperature in a uncontrolled nuclear explosion (-> atomic bomb) can reach up to 15 million °C. so, do your homework next time :)
CalderaXII 3 months ago
@CalderaXII I'm sure we're all smart enough to understand the difference's between fission and fusion but i thought there was still a similarity in temperature's between a reactor and a bomb, maybe not to the extent of millions of degree's but i thought it was certainly a lot hotter then mere hundreds of degrees. I think it's also clear i thought i was knowledgeable enough to comment thanks for correcting me, you learn something knew every day !
spadamon 3 months ago
@spadamon wasnt trying to troll or insult you here, btw^^ you are of course right about the temperature, it would be a lot higher then 1500°C without all the water cooling. but when it comes to that temperatures a disaster is inevitable or rather has already occured.
CalderaXII 3 months ago
@CalderaXII Your trying to tell me there's more then one civilized human being on here ? Now i know your making things up ! Also something i'm fairly sure about is they only use water as coolant incase of emergency as when water gets into the system something in the system reacts with the water and cant be used again which is why they use the cooling rods to absorb some of the neutrons to decrease the rate of fission. But knowing my luck you already knew this... xD
spadamon 3 months ago
@spadamon isnt easy to find non-trolling people on the internet^^ boiling-water reactors and pressurised water reactors both use water as main coolant. while boiling-water reactors use the same water as coolant and steam source, the pressurised water reactors use it as coolant only.
if im wrong here (my knowledge is only like physics 101^^) someone please correct me, but im pretty sure thats how it basically works.
CalderaXII 3 months ago
@CalderaXII I think i may message you the next time i have coursework given to me from physic's xD
spadamon 3 months ago
@CalderaXII Few hundred Celsius? The hotter the more efficient, and some newer go few thousand.
JustineBieberxoxo 2 months ago
@JustineBieberxoxo i'd like to see some evidence for that claim. still, as i said, my knowledge in this field is far from beeing an expert :) but until i see the source for a non-catastrophic reactor, that safely went a few thousand degrees, i'll stick with my version. simply cause i know its true for older reactors.
CalderaXII 2 months ago
@JustineBieberxoxo just did some research myself. the hottest i could find was 1600°C, which i would not call a few thousand, but definitely more then a few hundred. but the reactor type is banned in most states due to is instability.
CalderaXII 2 months ago
@CalderaXII Generation 1 and 2 yes, generation 3 and 4, not so. They are mostly prototypes, not production reactors, that is true.
I also believed Germany had national nuclear rules, not by state?
Ik ben geen Canadees trouwens als je dat soms dacht, ik woon naast de deur.
JustineBieberxoxo 2 months ago
YAY! Conspiracy theories!
BrotherPrimus 4 months ago
The main danger which could cause the reactor grade graphite to explode would be contact with water. Which is what almost happened in Chernobyl. The graphite can heat up and melt but when it makes contact with water that, from my understanding anyway, is what causes the explosion.
57thEvilSquirrel 5 months ago
@57thEvilSquirrel That IS what happened at Chernobyl. The Graphite tipped reactor rods dropped into the cooling tank too quickly. What results from that is a Neutron Surge, which is essentially a giant ass explosion caused be a sudden burst of Neutrons blasting apart some atoms.
bestshowontheweb 4 months ago
@bestshowontheweb actually the rods where pure graphite, the graphite is used as a "control" rod to stabablize the plutonium-234 and uranium fuel rods, if the actuall hot burning graphite were to touch the water to quick, it would have caused a geo-thermo-nuclear explosion and it would have leveled 2 miles of land and done 10x the damage it did
blackwolfkodi 3 months ago
@blackwolfkodi Acctually, according to the official records from Chernobyl released after the break up of the Soviet Union. The graphite tipped the rods to help stabilize the Plutonium in the rods and help neutralize some of the Uranium radiation. The same thing happened at another Nuclear Reactor in the Soviet Union. The small concentrations weren't being dropped into regular water, it was already radiated by the Graphite from the previous drops into the tank.
bestshowontheweb 3 months ago
Ummm my name is not stewie griffin and he would not like to ask how you got that?
madmace125 5 months ago
In fact, the graphite in Chernobyl is still burning below the concrete sarcophagus. It will do this for thousands of years. As it is now, it is still very much a possibility that it might explode again.
ShamblerDK 5 months ago
@ShamblerDK
If I may, you are correct that some portions of the graphite are still MOLTEN, however, it most likely won't "explode," what will probably happen, it the hastily constructed sarcophagus will collapse, sending radioactive dust into the atmosphere.
Jayskater001 5 months ago
@Jayskater001 But how will it send anything into the atmosphere without some kind of explosive effect? This is a rather curious subject.
ShamblerDK 5 months ago
Jakobus has a point o do not see the significance of this
everettwa425 5 months ago
did u felt ok after this experiment?
dspicked 5 months ago
""Did the graphite in Chernobyl burn?""
HAHAHAHAHA
sure it did, one problem, you can not split an carbon atom easily. especially not with a torch. (graphite is carbon in case you would want to ask).
something cool and glowing isn't necessarily a nuclear reaction. the only thing you did here is energize electrons so the graphite emits light... this is no more than a uneconomical light bulb...without the bulb
Jakobus999 5 months ago
im not sure you understand the concept of burning, yes you are heating the graphite but u also need to have oxygen too. Also the amount of heat generated by a nuclear reactor is 10 fold atleast to that of the chemical reaction of burning propane gas or any gas simmilar
Like56ppl 5 months ago
Make some diamonds
TheLophius 6 months ago
Try it with high pressure o2?
relativisticvel 6 months ago
jet fuel melted steel (nods)
badboybilzer 6 months ago
that looks like a warm little egg...aww how cute
now take off your protection sleeves and hug it as strong as you can
then go look in the mirror you will see how much that egg loves ya
MsKevin400 6 months ago
That torch is oxidizing. You likely are going to die before you perform any act with that torch.
Welder W - Cutting/Brazing certification ( Acetylene, propany, natural gas, ETC)
metalcody25 6 months ago
put ur dick on it
Maximalnoob 6 months ago
Your experiment is not correct. Where´s the hidrogen? Where´s the reaction of water and graphite?
Yes, it burned!
History says they looked for north american help but the cold war didin´t let US help, so they asked Germany...
But that´s History or speculation...
jgaleote 6 months ago
Congratulations! You just took 10 years of your life!
lavaicecube22 6 months ago
Comment removed
Rockid9040 6 months ago
Comment removed
Rockid9040 6 months ago
Now put that on your crotch so you won't have kids
lonesoldier33 6 months ago
☢ your probably dead
Milesprower1100 6 months ago
me and my friend trying to set a nuclear reactor on fire
sounds legit to me!
deadsailors 6 months ago
That looks warm
tidydannyboy 6 months ago
We drink beer and go fishing for fun.
Melting nuclear graphite with blow torches, not so much.
CoachG1000 7 months ago
/watch?v=_xAn4tuYnFA THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HUMANITY MUST SEE AND FIGHT RIGHT NOW!!! SPREAD THIS AS MUCH AS YOU CAN !!!
aaalexccc 7 months ago
3 cheers for the inanimate carbon rod!
medexamtoolsdotcom 7 months ago 3
Wow my only q is where did you kids find graphite from a nuclear reactor ? Unless you live in chernoble?
patsyd80 8 months ago
I dare you to lick it :D
nazolon 8 months ago 2
where the fuck did u get nuclear reactor graphite in the first place O_O!!!!!
reznov1996 8 months ago
The graphite is used in nuclear reactors because it does not melt and is one of the most thermodynamic stable element and because of its neutron moderation properties.
However, the graphite in the Chernobyl reactors didn't burn but the heat from the graphite was enough to ignite surrounding materials.
ErtyDaSwe 8 months ago
I dare you to touch it!
I ll give you 10$?
19102101830 8 months ago 22
@19102101830 money first. touch after
RYANSCHLESINGER 4 months ago
@19102101830 can i dip my fingers in water first?
CPTownage567 3 months ago
"Did the graphite in Chernobyl burn?"
Actually, yes. Graphite is a compound containing carbon, which burns if it gets too hot. Although a blowtorch is not hot enough to get it to burn, the incredible heat generated by nuclear fission is enough to make the graphite fail, which is why newer reactors use water to control the rate of reaction.
Genswitch 8 months ago 4
can i lick it? :p
angelcleff80 8 months ago 2
how did it end?playing hockey with it?where can i buy that puck?
MegaTobbert 8 months ago
how did it end?playing hockey with it?where can i buy that puck?
MegaTobbert 8 months ago
this is the brand... and it guna suck
usmc11able 9 months ago
wow, this is funny. Trying to torch something made to withstand millions of degrees in a reactor's core. Must've gotten really hot though.
Insignia96 9 months ago
comment to Mr2ndAmendment lower down the page stop talking out your ass there was some thousdands of "biorobots" that helped clean up and the total death toll to date is only like 60 people dumb fuck haha
Dillon1919 9 months ago
@Dillon1919
Those biorobots broke down, and about 2000 people needed to clean it up, most of wich, died.
Please do some research before you comment such a thing, however i am not, some people could be seriously offended by it.
mees462 9 months ago
OH and jet fuel melted steel.
RespectMyHate 9 months ago 43
@RespectMyHate ahhahahha, yet America believed it. Just like free-falling aircraft proof skyscrapers actually collapsed due to jet fuel and 1hr of burning.
blaknoizee 8 months ago
@blaknoizee Bin laden, kill him, throw him into the sea not even 24 hours later, and don't realease a pic.
RespectMyHate 8 months ago
@RespectMyHate kerosine based fuels should always burn hot enough to melt steel cough cough
AZIlluminati08 7 months ago
@AZIlluminati08 LMAO.
RespectMyHate 7 months ago
@AZIlluminati08 Not only do they have enough latent heat to melt steel, they also do a right proper job of melting Inconel, Waspalloy, Hastalloy, and several other jet engine materials I'm sure you have never heard of. And 'cough cough', save the enuendo for when your doctor shoves his finger up your ass. There was more than enough Jet-A in the tanks of that 767 to bring down the WTC. Maybe you should concentrate more on your classes than propagating your bullshit conspiracy theories,
sakoshooter48 7 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Yeah, I use propane in my furnace to melt bronze and steel (the adiabatic flame temperature for propane is 1977°C and Kerosine is 2093°C). Sure propane and kerosine don't burn nearly hot enough to melt these metals, but the magic pixie reactor does the rest of the work. Don't you know? Magic pixie reactors are on all aircraft, so there you go.
You're a moron.
bayouboyy 7 months ago
@RespectMyHate that isn't steel, stupid
NumberNile 7 months ago
@RespectMyHate LMAO!!!
sickasso72 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate
It never melted, simply weakened: There is a huge difference, and only moronic idiots believe otherwise.
snedie69er 5 months ago
@snedie69er Oh ok it even weakened the steel at the mid section level of the building allowing the entire structure to collapse at free fall speed, I'm just saying though.
RespectMyHate 5 months ago
@RespectMyHate Get a clue. A building is not a mountain, it is mostly empty space. It holds up its own weight and load, with a reasonable safety factor. Once it starts falling, the extra load of the collapsing floors overloads the other floors immediately as it falls.
Expecting it to fall at less than free fall speed once it starts into a full collapse is moronic.
ModelLights 5 months ago
@ModelLights Let me guess, you failed physics?
RespectMyHate 5 months ago
@RespectMyHate yea these guys that keep saying this stuff its like they never saw a building fall on its own, hello cuz they dont just do that. unless rigged with explosives. If TWC fell like they say from just a fire, there would be streets full of mangled mess all over NY after that, not just a pile of rubble and metal.
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r Exactly.
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r yes because you need to reach melting temperatures for a metal to degrade....
I guess if you threw a soda can on a campfire afterwards you would say "Oh that soda can is gone! The fire must have been hot enough to melt aluminum!"
Basically what I'm saying is that you're everything that's wrong with the world right now.
spike0804 4 months ago
@spike0804 youre just some clone gamer who cant think for himself and just believes everything on fox news, sorry other way around buddy. I guess one of the floors of building 7 must have been on fire too, but when did it get hit with jet fuel, enough to melt all of its supports too?
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r yea...fox news isn't the one saying that there wasn't a conspiracy....all the major news networks say that you nut-job.
and yes, Building 7 was on fire. And once again you do not need to melt supports for a building to collapse. You simply need to degrade them. I like how you didn't respond to anything in my actual post because you're too ignorant to refute anything I said.
spike0804 4 months ago
@spike0804 because it is pointless and repetitive nonsense, i dont care about your degrading metal, but nice story. now please take my dick out of your mouth you faggot
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r that seems like a reasonable response by a person with a solid opinion
spike0804 4 months ago
@spike0804 how much time u wasting on this comment section that i dont give a shit about, umad?
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r says the guy who replies to me every time
spike0804 4 months ago
@spike0804 at lease i got more thumbs up than you, thumbs up if you think spike is a douche
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
@y0utUBeH8r
I just gave you a thumbs down because you are a begging loser.
simpsoncheat 4 months ago
@simpsoncheat youre like what, 7 years old?
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@y0utUBeH8r
It seems that you are the 7 year old because you are begging thumbs up so you would feel smarter.
simpsoncheat 4 months ago
@spike0804 The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire, a 520 floor hotel unfinished (so still supports bare etc), was burning for 3 hours on all floors....did not fall. There goes your 'degrading metals' theory...
MentalPenguin67 4 months ago
@MentalPenguin67 yep You got me. Of course it's lucky that all building are built the same way with the same materials or else you would just come out looking like an idiot
And I like how you put degrading metals in quotations...like metals don't degrade
spike0804 4 months ago
@ModelLights
You're implying that mountains are hollow and buildings are not. *facepalm*
simpsoncheat 4 months ago
@RespectMyHate if your refering to 9/11 the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the metal but was hot enough to weaken it so it collapsed under it's own weight
RYANSCHLESINGER 5 months ago
@RYANSCHLESINGER whatever.
RespectMyHate 5 months ago
@RespectMyHate No, jet fuel didn't melt steel. It softened it! You don't have to melt steel to weaken it's structural capabilities. You only have to soften it. If you don't believe me,ask a blakcksmith!
Jemalacane 4 months ago
Comment removed
zombieX111222333 3 months ago
Comment removed
lsteer100 10 months ago 28
@lsteer100 as long as the graphite has not been anywhere near neutron radiation. even then as long as their is no boron in the graphite it would be safe.
a5marksman 9 months ago
@lsteer100 For a nuclear reaction to work the atomic bonds between the atoms has to be broken, the energy release from neutrons leaving the atom is what gives the nuke its boom
weyandt123 8 months ago
Comment removed
lsteer100 8 months ago
@lsteer100 Probably just a waste of time and money.
weyandt123 8 months ago
@weyandt123 No, bonds between atoms breaking is just a chemical reaction.
9hello123 7 months ago
@lsteer100 theyll find out soon enough
ALLERTORLOVER69 6 months ago
@lsteer100 why everybody so paranoid about burning some graphite? i thought the graphite and fuel were separate.
letsgetverydrunk 6 months ago
@letsgetverydrunk they are seperate. the chernobyl reactor type RBMK used fuel rods tipped with graphite. this would prove fatal bacause the graphite tip caused an energy spike, which resulted in the initial explosion.
lsteer100 6 months ago
@lsteer100 its not wise, but its not unsafe either
SirDude456 5 months ago
@lsteer100 Regardless of the grade a.k.a the purity of the graphite, it is still just carbon.
m1leswilliams 5 months ago
Would it be safe to build my house with graphite bricks?
MucusFelidae 10 months ago
@MucusFelidae yes and no everything in your house would burn up in a fire but the graphite frame (i guess that you are asking) would still be intact. (it would be very expensive)
a5marksman 9 months ago
The graphite at Chernobyl actually didn't burn. It was just superheated and ejected from the core by a steam/hydrogen explosion. As you can see it's virtually impossible to burn highly pure graphite.
People thought it was on fire as it caused several fires in the surrounding buildings and such, but just being superheated will do that.
On recovered fragments there is no visible evidence of oxidation of the graphite itself.
Koshy2 10 months ago 3
dumd ass
carricrl 10 months ago
Yes, the graphite at Chernobyl did burn. What was left of it landed around the area and most especially on the roof of the building, which had to be hand-removed by the "Biorobots" of Chernobyl. It was so radioactive that almost none of the Biorobots survived the experience, only being able to work on the roof at intervals as short as 40 seconds at a time.
Mr2ndAmendment 10 months ago
The Reactor in Chernobyl was 2000C hot^^ :)
PenguinzHD 10 months ago
@PenguinzHD Much hotter than just 2000C.
Koshy2 10 months ago
What if I touch it? :D
Latvietis96 10 months ago
@Latvietis96 beautiful flowers will pop out of your hand, while dozens of birds dance in joy and happiness around you plus a 3rd degree burn :D
kukovrein 10 months ago
@kukovrein lol ;D
Latvietis96 10 months ago
if you touch it. will it melt your finger?
xXxKadenxXx 10 months ago
yea burn all graffitis and people who paints them lol
ZZombyWooff 10 months ago
didn't think a blow torch could get as hot as chernobyl got. Why not just use blow torches since there safer and get as hot to produce the steam XD.
Azsunes 10 months ago
don't they use graphite in pencils
gazzersnipe 10 months ago
@gazzersnipe they do.
they used to use lead as well, like in leaded petrol but was banned because it caused health problems.
lsteer100 9 months ago
graphite can't burn... it's a hard melting tihng... and the word "melt" in it sais it melts not burns. also graphite starts to melt at about 3400C i think.
TehMagis 10 months ago
@TehMagis Graphite can only melt at pressures above ~10 MPa; otherwise it sublimates directly to a gas.
soylentgreenb 10 months ago
@soylentgreenb
yeah i looked more about graphite and i learnt that thanks anyways :)
TehMagis 10 months ago
graphite does not burn it melts u dimwitts!
ROLLsixsixsix 10 months ago
@ROLLsixsixsix Graphite doesn't melt unless it is under enormous pressure, it sublimes.
soylentgreenb 10 months ago
@ROLLsixsixsix @ROLLsixsixsix rofl graphite is a allotrope of carbon(if you don't know what an allotrope is look it up) thus graphite does most certainly burn. The standard enthalpy of cumbustion (heat of combustion) for graphite is C(graphite, solid) + O2(g) ---> CO2(g) DHq = -393 kJ mol-1 (reference: ww.webchem.net/notes/how_far/enthalpy/enthalpy_of_combustion.htm) .
lelouchv05 10 months ago
@ROLLsixsixsix Graphite does burn, it has a molar enthalpy of combustion of -393 500 joules per mole. The negative sign means that the reaction is exothermic (gives off heat). The auto ignition temperature of graphite is 730 degrees celcius, this is the temperature at which graphite will spontaneously ignite (burn) in a normal atmosphere, ie the air we breathe. Lol graphite is an allotrope of carbon, the same element coal is made from. If you still don't believe me look it :P
lelouchv05 10 months ago
actually the graphite in cernobil was vaporized and that is why the disaster had a so deep impact. vaporized graphite was the perfect vector for cesius 137 and sodium isotops as well as stronzium and few more radioactive material. reaching the higer atmosphere they could reach my young ass in italy in les than ten days...
pnp23npn 10 months ago
The NHL this season has decided that the players haven't been playing at full effort, so this year we'll be replacing the puck with a magma hot piece of graphite :D
Vylvan 10 months ago 2
@Vylvan That is so funny. I can just imagine what the golies would be thinking when they see that puck glowing before it hits the ice. That would be priceless!
coquitlam30 10 months ago
looks like one of those toilet mints!
scottyBoland 10 months ago
the melting point of graphite is between 3652 - 3697C so... not gonna melt with that puny torch XP
Flyingwigs 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its a rock....
ogarcia80 10 months ago
Cool, how well it distributed the heat.
michalchik 10 months ago
how can i get one of those
rkshirey 10 months ago
It lost mass due to oxidation most likely. It may not rapidly burn but slow oxidation or a "slow burn"
TammyandTiny 10 months ago
What an dumbass!
unpayable 11 months ago
is it radioaktive??
Mosfetman97 11 months ago
@Mosfetman97 its graphite the stuff in your pencil, is your pencil radioactive?
lobitas3399 11 months ago
@lobitas3399 No.
Xen8 10 months ago
@lobitas3399 lol
asdfvcf34 10 months ago
Hey look! a souvenir from Chernobyl!
HedgehogStudios1 11 months ago
try thermite
CornishMorgan 11 months ago
Comment removed
sprogdiklis 11 months ago
Comment removed
sprogdiklis 11 months ago
Is it hot? ;)
bengacris 11 months ago
@HugoReitveldz i know, im just playing...
mothman258 11 months ago
I dare you to put THAT in your toilet.
Drakinus1988 1 year ago 2
blowing fire at something nuclear is like asking for your cock to get choped off....
mothman258 1 year ago
Unless graphite is put under extreme pressure and heat it will not melt but it will
sublimate (turn from solid to gas) at a temperature of about 6,560 F (3,627 C).
shadesilverwing0 1 year ago
"Did the graphite in Chernobyl burn?"
Yes, but not under its own power. The graphite maintained the reactivity of the fuel via moderation, which produced heat, which allowed the carbon to slowly oxidize in air. Once enough of it had oxidized away, reactivity fell and the initial disaster was over. Took days, if I'm not wrong.
Fordi 1 year ago
Looks like the sun surface.
raulox71 1 year ago
the nuclear moderator of chernobyl cool!
kathodenstrahl45 1 year ago
it looks cool! can i eat it?
1sgtpjwinkels 1 year ago
whats carbon 3?
209ToDa916 1 year ago
if this is carbon 3 you are seriously fucked.
allenpinhead 1 year ago
@allenpinhead Carbon 3 doesn't exist
shadesilverwing0 1 year ago
this stuff must be able to withstand extremely high temperatures if its used to encase uranium rods..
Fleetfox10 1 year ago
@Fleetfox10 carbon has the highest melting point of any element...
omfgbobsaget 1 year ago
Graphite burns (oxidation) at 700°C. Why do you think that glowing graphite is not burning?
MillyVanillification 1 year ago 2
I think that the all core of the 4th reactor of tchernobyl has melt !
transslucide 1 year ago
@K10sh1r0 Yes, he is a cartoon from: The simpsons. Homer is the main charecter of this show and he is yellow. I do not watch the show
Xu53r1X 1 year ago
yes i think the the graphite burn in chernobyl. dont know why
tecnopro90000 1 year ago
is it radiactive?
mystyc9 1 year ago
@jambed2010 waht company u work for... oh thats right you dont work for a nuclear facility.
Xu53r1X 1 year ago
Under Chernobyl accident the reactor graphite where on fire however it melted to liquid lava duo to intense heat. The heat was so high that some of the firemen that arrived at the scene got some serious vision damage and many pilots have had problems later with vision
SMGJohn 1 year ago
@SMGJohn lol that was probably due to the incredibly lethal radiation levels.... good one
willcomentforfood 1 year ago
@willcomentforfood nooo because the had to stop the fire with graphite just learned thins in school
SilentRevolver25 1 year ago
@SilentRevolver25 STFU, what do they teach you in school? Tell your teacher I say they are fucking retarded
willcomentforfood 1 year ago
@willcomentforfood when you say STFU. that means you automatically lost a battle..
comanche119 1 year ago
@comanche119 yup i win
SilentRevolver25 1 year ago
How is this a nuclear reactor? you do not even know what goes on inside a nuclear reactor, i do and i can confidently tell you that they do not heat a puck of graphite with a plasma cutter
Xu53r1X 1 year ago
@Xu53r1X lol dont come over a smart arse lol do u work in the nuclear industry didnt think so lol guess who does!! me!!
jambed2010 1 year ago
@Xu53r1X do you know Homer Simpson?
k10sh1r0 1 year ago 30
@Xu53r1X It doesn't say this is in a nuclear reactor. Where did you get that idea?
ZechsMerquise73 1 year ago
@ZechsMerquise73 i did not say that i said this its self is not a nuclear reactor
Xu53r1X 1 year ago
@Xu53r1X The title is "nuclear reactor graphite". Not "nuclear reactor".
ZechsMerquise73 1 year ago
@ZechsMerquise73 it is still implying that it is a nuclear reactor, just from garphite
Xu53r1X 1 year ago
@Xu53r1X That would be "graphite nuclear reactor" or "Nuclear Reactor: (or -) Graphite". "Nuclear reactor graphite" means its graphite from, or the same type used in, a nuclear reactor. Sorry, but this has made me even more curious of something: is English your first language?
ZechsMerquise73 1 year ago 2