idris Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Does anyone know where I can find the dimensions of the nuclear flask tested at Dalby in 1984? It dosnn't need to be exact (and the overall W x H x D will do) but I'm scratching my heaad trying to get the proportions right.(I think this qualifies as a "prototype" question, but if the mods think it would be better elsewhere that's absolutely spiffing.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Before or after the test??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdlcs Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Before or after the test??? Don't think there was much, if any, difference from memory. It was the 46 and Mk1s that changed dimensions somewhat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted September 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 4, 2016 Don't think there was much, if any, difference from memory. It was the 46 and Mk1s that changed dimensions somewhat. Just a few bent fins on the flask Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted September 4, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 4, 2016 Not much visible damage https://flic.kr/p/9v1RAP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nightstar.train Posted September 4, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 4, 2016 Some useful info here http://www.old-dalby.com/Crash.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idris Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 Some useful info here http://www.old-dalby.com/Crash.htm Unfortunately there's nothing about the dimensions. Nor on the article it links to. (I've seen them already, but thanks anyway.) I know quite a lot about the test as my father was (I believe) one of the radiation protection consultant monitoring the test. I may even still have his own photographs and papers on it, but I don't have access to them at the moment. I've found a load of photos already, but am struggling to get a model looking right in Sketchup. Knowing the overall dimensions would make the process a lot easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 If you go to the Visitor Centre at Heysham Power Station you can see and measure the actual flask used in the test. https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=25199 Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idris Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 If you go to the Visitor Centre at Heysham Power Station you can see and measure the actual flask used in the test. https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=25199 Cheers David Awesome.Thanks. Didn't know it still existed! Not exacly local, and worth a road trip, so the question stands in the meantime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamperman36 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 When I visited Heysham many years ago the flask wagon was also on display outside along with the flask, it looked in a much worse state than the flask but it had done its job and protected the contents of the flask. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 5, 2016 Awesome.Thanks. Didn't know it still existed! Not exacly local, and worth a road trip, so the question stands in the meantime. Any chance of the paving slabs surrounding it being a standard size from which the rest could be worked out from the photograph? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Was it just an ordinary flask, not a special one-off used for test? Dimensions are approx 2.5m cubed according to this http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/1679.PDF cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I understand it was just a normal (new and unused) flask they used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2016 I understand it was just a normal (new and unused) flask they used. If it was to demonstrate the safety of the flask, anything else would seem a bit disingenuous, not to say pointless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium pete_mcfarlane Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 5, 2016 I understand it was just a normal (new and unused) flask they used. IIRC it was internally pressurised to above atmospheric pressure, and the lack of a significant pressure drop after the crash confirmed the flask's integrity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium pete_mcfarlane Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 5, 2016 If it was to demonstrate the safety of the flask, anything else would seem a bit disingenuous, not to say pointless. Especially as the point of the test was largely political rather than scientific. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2016 Not much visible damage https://flic.kr/p/9v1RAP As I said, just a few bent fins https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan1960/5579201615/in/photostream/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2016 Especially as the point of the test was largely political rather than scientific. Exactly - and BR could hardly mention the fact that they knew the flasks were perfectly secure from practical experience because one had been involved in a 60mph derailment and had come into contact with a very solid bridge abutment without any damage to the integrity of the flask. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 There's a model of the flask in the NRM warehouse (along with flame-cut number panel and buffers from 46 009!) if that's any easier to get to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 There was at one time a flask on display at Oldbury power station And you can still buy flask kits off Genesis for £6 http://www.genesiskits.co.uk/shop/nuclear-flask-kits/nuclear-flask-kit/ I have a couple somewhere, will try to hunt them out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Was it just an ordinary flask, not a special one-off used for test? Dimensions are approx 2.5m cubed according to this http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/1679.PDF cheers There seems to be something suspect about these dimensions. The outer dimension is allegedly a 2.5m cube, yet one of the internal dimensions is 2.6m for the magnox flask and 2.7m for the AGR flask. How you can add two wall thicknesses of 370 mm (magnox) or 90 mm (AGR) and fit within a 2.5m cube is a mystery to me! Maybe they are like the Tardis, larger on the inside than the outside!! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted September 5, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2016 There's a big difference between a 2.5m cube and 2.5 cubic meters. Would that make sense of the flask dimensions? Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 There's a big difference between a 2.5m cube and 2.5 cubic meters. Would that make sense of the flask dimensions? Andi No not really - if the magnox flask has internal dimensions of 2.6 m * 2.2 m * 1.9 m, then the internal volume would be 10.868 cubic metres. I'm therefore not sure how the external dimensions can be a cube with sides approximately 2.5 m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idris Posted September 6, 2016 Author Share Posted September 6, 2016 Thanks all. The flask used was standard. It was layed across the line diagonally so the impact would be at the most vulnerable point - where the lid was at most risk of being dislodged. As mentioned above, it was preasurised internally and whilst there was a tiny loss of pressure, it did not represent a significant radiological hazard. I didn't know NRM had a model. (I obviously wasn't looking for it the last time I went.) Useful to know, and easier to get to. The Genesis kits are the correct design for the test, (unlike the Bachman models) but with significant differences. The photo Dagworth linked to has extra panels (painted blue and red for the test) which don't appear in all the photos I've found of flasks not used in the test. They don't look to have been added for the test, so I'm wondering whether they were on two sides but not on all four. Interesting nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 6, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 6, 2016 Thanks all. The flask used was standard. It was layed across the line diagonally so the impact would be at the most vulnerable point - where the lid was at most risk of being dislodged. As mentioned above, it was preasurised internally and whilst there was a tiny loss of pressure, it did not represent a significant radiological hazard. Wouldn't a square box be strongest diagonally? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.