Another large leak at Fukushima

[suityou01]

Not quite GCSE maths then.

Not by today's standards, no. But when I were a lad we had it tough.

I have posted a far simpler solution ^^^^^^^^

[Dactylion]

Not sure if the tank is even cylindrical (it is almost certainly a pretty regular shape).

In any case the lost capacity due to the tilt could be approximated as something close to 1/2 of the volume calculated by the area of the top (circle/square or whatever) x the height lost due to the tilt (Pythagoras would help here - or a length of string wrapped horizontally round the tank plus a tape measure).

But I honestly thought Doog was implying that Suity was as thick as tulip and couldn't work it out.

Having re-read the thread I am coming to the conclusion that it is Doog who is thick as tulip and he really couldn't work out how to do it!

So sincere apologies Suity you may be as thick as tulip but you are apparenty brighter than Doog - and/or the guys who made the original error.

[Freamon]

Mate, seriously, to be off by 100 gallons means you didn't even consider it. I'm sure you could include a margin for error to include internal anomalies.

This really isn't rocket science

The tank is probably about 1 million gallons, or that order of magnitude. I suspect they weren't 100 gallons off, it just took them long enough to notice that they spilt 100 gallons in that time.

The incline in the ground now is likely to be quite subtle.

[EternalOptimist]

Its simple enough if two of the bottom corners are at the same level and the other two corners have the same but different from the first two. like a swimming pool with a deep end.
not quite so easy when all four corners are different levels and the walls are bulging.

[bless 'em all]

Yes, but the volume of the angled bit you've chopped off?

Mmm, bit trickier that one

I assume they have google in Japan?

Linky

How about this for a totally crazy idea.

Take one identical container. Fill to the brim on a level surface with clean water. Tilt to the same angle as the one in situ. Water gets spilled. Straighten up and measure what's left. Then only fill the one in situ with that amount?

Oh the youth of today .....

Consider the problem as TWO cylinders. One, the lower cylinder, is full. Volume is PI * r * r * h.

The upper cylinders measurements are also PI*r*r*r*h. (where the height of the cylinder is derived from the top of the cylinder to the lowest point of the level of the liquid)

Add the two products to get the total volume

The total volume of liquid can then be derived using the calculation: C1 Volume + (C2 volume/2)

That's maffs that is.

[d000hg]

Mate, seriously, to be off by 100 gallons means you didn't even consider it. I'm sure you could include a margin for error to include internal anomalies.

This really isn't rocket science

How would you possibly know the size of the container to comment on their error margin? You do realise that 100 gallons is less than one cubic metre of water, i.e. only twice what my bath holds? That's a drop in the ocean!

How about this for a totally crazy idea.

Take one identical container. Fill to the brim on a level surface with clean water. Tilt to the same angle as the one in situ. Water gets spilled. Straighten up and measure what's left. Then only fill the one in situ with that amount?

OK Suity, you find a gigantic concrete water tank weighing hundreds of tons, built to exactly the same specification of the existing one, and then tilt it.

No wonder you're crap as a PM/BA, you jump in with totally unrealistic expectations of how easy something is without taking any time to consider the problem properly. A man with a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it makes them think they know what they're doing.

[stek]

Linky



The bozos are about to start extracting spent rods, normally shifted around by robotic devices with millimetre precision so they don't touch. These rods are damaged, bent and about to be removed manually. By these people. That can't measure a pot and fill it with water.

If these rods touch, we are looking at a major fission level event.

I've seen fuel rods pulled out by people!

in UK too!

I'm no expert but them touching (or bursting) won't do anything, when I was at the Nuclear Power Station we had a dozen fall down the discharge channel and I'm still here....

[Freamon]

How would you possibly know the size of the container to comment on their error margin?

There's a pic of it on the bbc news article.

[EternalOptimist]

How would you possibly know the size of the container to comment on their error margin? You do realise that 100 gallons is less than one cubic metre of water, i.e. only twice what my bath holds? That's a drop in the ocean!
OK Suity, you find a gigantic concrete water tank weighing hundreds of tons, built to exactly the same specification of the existing one, and then tilt it.

No wonder you're crap as a PM/BA, you jump in with totally unrealistic expectations of how easy something is without taking any time to consider the problem properly. A man with a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it makes them think they know what they're doing.

I think suity has a trial and error approach. It can work if there is nothing much at stake, like trying to find the way into a petrol station where you can afford to circle around a bit.
It's suicide when when accuracy is crucial, or when people are relying on you to get something right.
I have worked with people like that before. You end up doing half their job, and they never realise it

[d000hg]

There's a pic of it on the bbc news article.

So there is, thanks.

So anyone care to guess the capacity of that tank? I'd guess it's about 10m tall and 8m diameter which gives a volume of ~500 cubic meters. So 100 gallons is .1% of that capacity.

.1% could easily be the error you get using SY's crude maths, treating it as a perfect cylinder.