@@tannenfelsruplesen9870 True. I think only the fuel could melt through and out of the reactor. That would certainly lead to a horrific accident if it melted through the hull. Or if it gathered in a mass and went critical releasing enormous amounts of radiation. But no explosions would be happening here.
@@Mawyou If the fuel melted through and out of the reactor, it would have certainly caused a steam explosion when it finally hit the sea water. Chernobyl was also a steam explosion, NOT a nuclear explosion, the US had a similar explosion of an experimental reactor, no where near as deadly because it was just a small experimental reactor, look up SL-1 for more details.
@@derpinbird1180 He worked at one of the top secret naval bases where they installed the reactors into their nuclear subs. These are all VVERs (the Russian variant of a PWR) without exception. When compared with the big grumpy RBMK, they are very stable, safe and mild tempered reactors. And Dyatlov still managed to piss one off to the point it lost its temper and spilled its radioactive guts all over the dock. Anyone else see a pattern here? He got some 200 roentgen for his trouble, which later killed his son through secondhand exposure.
There is a glaring mistake in this movie. The reactor type used is the Russian version of a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). It's water cooled and water moderated. Water moderates, or slows down the neutrons enough so they can trigger another fission event. Without moderation the neutrons go too fast and won't trigger the next fission event. Which means that when the water goes away, the reactor cannot sustain an on-going chain reaction and will shut down on its own due to a lack of moderation. The Control Rods will be absolutely capable of shutting down the reactor in case of an emergency. And they are not for cooling the reactor. That's what the water is for. So, the reactor is shut down. However, after the chain reaction stops there is a thing called "decay heat", and that's why you need to keep water on the fuel rods. Without water they will overheat and melt. That's where the term "meltdown" comes from.
@UCLxesyfRSuBT9TlfehV__bg "no, they can't control the reaction by themselves...they need coolant." There is the glaring mistake. If they meant the decay heat, they should have said so. In my book, "control the reaction by themselves" sounds very much like they're talking about the actual chain reaction. The Control Rods are very much capable of handling/ controlling and stopping the chain reaction if need be. That's what they're there for. And the Control Rods do not need coolant to function, they will function regardless. If not, you would end up with Chernobyl Unit 4 where the Control Rods were unable to stop the chain reaction, but then on a submarine (yes, I know that Unit 4 was a completely different reactor type (RBMK-1000) in a completely different scenario). It is the Fuel Rods themselves that need the coolant to keep the aforementioned decay heat at bay. Which is what I clearly stated. And decay heat is simply the on-going decay from one element into the next, which also produces some heat, but not as much as the actual fissioning itself. And yes, I know this can be as much as 10% from rated thermal power, depending on the reactor type/ size. The control rods do not "eventually take the reactor subcritical". This happens within 2-3 seconds in case of an emergency scram. There is nothing "eventually" about it, because any type of dawdling would be very bad. In case of an emergency, you want your reactor to "stop on a dime", which is what the emergency scram is designed to do.
@@swokatsamsiyu3590It’s a movie not a physics lesson. The average person doesn’t have a clue how a nuclear reactor works. They’ve seen Chernobyl and think they are one big nuclear bomb on the verge of blowing up every second. Nuclear energy production is incredibly safe as long as you follow strict protocols. The worst nuclear accident in the US is Three Mile Island which is hardly more then an incident. It’s a shame Americans are so mislead in their thinking about nuclear energy production. Not to mention the body count in fossil fuel energy production is astronomically high compared to nuclear.
@@Youre_Right Yes, I understand it's a movie and not a physics lesson. However, if they film a historical event, they can at least try to get the basics right. Despite what people think, even the reactor at Chernobyl didn't just cook off because "it felt like it". They had to do some rather despicable things to it in order to make that happen. Sure, there were things the designers could have done better to make it more safe *cough* give it proper containment *cough* and stable. But intentionally disabling/cancelling Safety Systems, forcing the reactor to do things it cannot (running at very low power for prolonged periods of time, something an RBMK is incapable of doing) because you insist on doing an ill-designed test, is courting danger to say the least. Even with all its flaws and instabilities, the reactor fought for almost an hour to shut itself down before it finally gave up. TMI 2 was as good as it gets when it comes to a nuclear mishap. Yes, there was a partial meltdown, but the safety systems and containment worked. Nothing of any significance got out to the world. TMI 1 made safe, clean power for decades after the incident. If we want to reduce our emissions, we simply have make nuclear power a staple, there's nothing for it. Today's reactors are incredibly stable and safe. They're light-years removed from the reactors of yesteryear. Wind and solar alone are not going to cut it. They will never be able to provide base-load power. We need nuclear for that, whether people like it or not. Fossils fuels have killed literally untold millions, but no one seems to bat an eye over that.
You seem to in the same passage explain that the movie is inaccurate...and then explain why the movie is actually in fact accurate? They begin loosing pressure on the aft Reactor's primary circuit, check back ups to confirm and SCRAM, by then they attempt to start up of the auxiliary pumps which of course also don't work either after they check the back up gauges at which point the Reactor technician says the line "No they can't control the reaction by themselves they need coolant" by which he means the control rods don't control the decay heat reactions in the core and need the coolant to remove that heat from the system?
@@southernbear736 Uhm, no. Read my replies again. To my ears , what they say definitely refers to the chain reaction. Like I said before, if they meant the decay heat, they should have said so. Now people hearing what they say, will think that Control Rods are incapable of stopping a reactor in case of an emergency. And Control Rods are not meant to control/stop the on-going decay heat. That is simply impossible, it will have to run its natural course. The Control Rods' job is to keep the reactor subcritical after a SCRAM, indefinitely if need be. It's the Fuel Rods that need the water to keep cool enough while the decay heat does its thing.
fun fact, the design called for one. They had controls for one. It.... never got installed. There was SUPPOSED to be an independent backup to the coolant system.
Part of the issue at Three Mile Island is some of the employees working in the control room had US Navy experience on reactors - which have a lot less risk of a meltdown if something goes wrong - just the nature of how smaller reactor piles work vs. a full scale 1000 MegaWatt reactor. Too many assumptions about best practices and not enough written instructions. Billions of dollars later - we'll figure it out.
Three Mile island's issue was heavily explored and it basically all came down to control room design. Sensors and controls that needed to be ready and operated at the same time were put on opposite sides of the control room instead of together. The result, was a catastrophic inability for human beings to control the reactor.
@@Darthquackius The biggest problem were the indicators for the feed water valves. The operators were under the assumption that those indicators showed if a valve was open or closed, while in reality they only indicated if a valve was SUPPOSED to be open/closed! There were no sensors on those valves that actually indicated the status of them. Hence they thought a valve was closed, because its indicator light was off, while in reality it was stuck open.
I'm curious if they could have just drowned the reactor. Its a sealed chamber, they could have flooded it and the ambient temperature of the north atlantic might have been enough to cool it down. But then I'm not a nuclear physicist so theres probably a reason that would nkt work or make things worse.
@@Batou3 I don't mean pumping sea water into the reactor, but flooding the compartment or at least the reactor chamber, the corrosion rate of sea water is 0.002-0.02mm/yr pretty sure they didn't have to worry about it eating its way into the reactor anytime soon. The whole problem they faced was that the residual heat would result in uranium melting through the reactor and the containment vessel it was in. If the exterior of the containment vessel could be kept cool enough to not let it melt, then perhaps the residual heat could have slowly dissipated. The north Atlantic's waters are practically freezing, surely with a constant ambient temperature it would keep the containment vessel's exterior from reaching its melting point for a while at least.
It may cause instabilities due to the water containing salt; but since the reactor is subcritical this may work since all they needed to do was control the decay heat. Chances of it corroding the core and making it unusable for re-criticality are pretty high so it's not a good idea and hence it probably wouldn't be a function, especially on a soviet vessel where they could've cared less for safety
I find it amusing that the leak was caused by a microscopic crack caused by someone welding too close to the pipe. Because protecting everything will cost too much money
not sensors, but controls. It's supposed to be the controls for backup pumps. The design specs for K19's reactor called for full backup on the coolant. But hey hey, real history, the backup wasn't actually installed before she was put into service. So those switches.... did nothing.
The question they are underwater? At this point, if your in grave danger wouldn't it be smart of the engineers to put a system which just floods the room/reactor with the seawater?
Possibly a lot of submarines use sea water for oxygen but I'd imagine the risk of contamination is to great and you've essentially got gallons of irradiated water you have to keep a hold of also in war context leaving a trail of radiation isn't the best idea lol but tbh I think the actual reason is it isn't normal water used in reactors it's something special I forgot the name off but it does the job better then normal water and would be needed in a smaller more efficient reactor hope this helped mate
The coolant water used for nuclear reactor are distilled water since they do not have any impurities but when the. Seawater floods in the reactor (just an example) the salt water the garbage etc etc are all impuritys puting the crew at an risk and possibly to cause reactor to f up even worse so they had to use the fresh water on board which is drinking water and they had to do it very carefully since distilled water is not same as fresh water in the end 22 sailors died and finally Soviet union decided to give permission to properly finish an boat or submarine and put an backup system too.
@@MyulMang im not actually sure i know you can technically do both now but yeah military probably use distilled possibly because you couldn't get radiation out of sea water at least not on the cramped interior of a sub probs easier have a tank of water rather an enormous machine to decontaminate it
@@dun0790 honestly I think sea water would make things worse as like it can leak radiation or it can mess up thing real bad because of too much salt and waste minerals in water
They should have used an RMBK reactor, they don't explode
Lol. Underrated comment.
Goddamn the soviets had a lot of accidents.
Jokes aside, neither that installed at K-19 (VM-A) could explode. In fact, they successfully scrammed the reactor.
@@tannenfelsruplesen9870 True. I think only the fuel could melt through and out of the reactor. That would certainly lead to a horrific accident if it melted through the hull. Or if it gathered in a mass and went critical releasing enormous amounts of radiation.
But no explosions would be happening here.
@@Mawyou If the fuel melted through and out of the reactor, it would have certainly caused a steam explosion when it finally hit the sea water. Chernobyl was also a steam explosion, NOT a nuclear explosion, the US had a similar explosion of an experimental reactor, no where near as deadly because it was just a small experimental reactor, look up SL-1 for more details.
Comment of the year
“We have a leak!”
Dyatlov somewhere: “Not great, not terrible.”
"you didn't see a leak because it's not there"
Funny he actually worked on, and also had accidents with marine reactors
@@derpinbird1180
He worked at one of the top secret naval bases where they installed the reactors into their nuclear subs. These are all VVERs (the Russian variant of a PWR) without exception. When compared with the big grumpy RBMK, they are very stable, safe and mild tempered reactors. And Dyatlov still managed to piss one off to the point it lost its temper and spilled its radioactive guts all over the dock. Anyone else see a pattern here? He got some 200 roentgen for his trouble, which later killed his son through secondhand exposure.
3.6
@@dragongtr1553 Rate new nuclear submarine
Akimov: 3.6
We have a leak
Dyatlov: not grate, not terrible
That alarm sound still gives me chills
Any idea what this type of siren is called?
Chills? It gives me creeps..
@@vanillavassal1991 unfortunately I don’t
@@tamasvegvari4627 well, emotional reactions are subjective. And when something gives you chills, it means it makes you extremely uneasy.
@@Mayakran Well im not english, i didnt know that.. 😅
There is a glaring mistake in this movie. The reactor type used is the Russian version of a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). It's water cooled and water moderated. Water moderates, or slows down the neutrons enough so they can trigger another fission event. Without moderation the neutrons go too fast and won't trigger the next fission event. Which means that when the water goes away, the reactor cannot sustain an on-going chain reaction and will shut down on its own due to a lack of moderation. The Control Rods will be absolutely capable of shutting down the reactor in case of an emergency. And they are not for cooling the reactor. That's what the water is for. So, the reactor is shut down. However, after the chain reaction stops there is a thing called "decay heat", and that's why you need to keep water on the fuel rods. Without water they will overheat and melt. That's where the term "meltdown" comes from.
@UCLxesyfRSuBT9TlfehV__bg
"no, they can't control the reaction by themselves...they need coolant."
There is the glaring mistake. If they meant the decay heat, they should have said so. In my book, "control the reaction by themselves" sounds very much like they're talking about the actual chain reaction. The Control Rods are very much capable of handling/ controlling and stopping the chain reaction if need be. That's what they're there for. And the Control Rods do not need coolant to function, they will function regardless. If not, you would end up with Chernobyl Unit 4 where the Control Rods were unable to stop the chain reaction, but then on a submarine (yes, I know that Unit 4 was a completely different reactor type (RBMK-1000) in a completely different scenario).
It is the Fuel Rods themselves that need the coolant to keep the aforementioned decay heat at bay. Which is what I clearly stated. And decay heat is simply the on-going decay from one element into the next, which also produces some heat, but not as much as the actual fissioning itself. And yes, I know this can be as much as 10% from rated thermal power, depending on the reactor type/ size.
The control rods do not "eventually take the reactor subcritical". This happens within 2-3 seconds in case of an emergency scram. There is nothing "eventually" about it, because any type of dawdling would be very bad. In case of an emergency, you want your reactor to "stop on a dime", which is what the emergency scram is designed to do.
@@swokatsamsiyu3590It’s a movie not a physics lesson. The average person doesn’t have a clue how a nuclear reactor works. They’ve seen Chernobyl and think they are one big nuclear bomb on the verge of blowing up every second. Nuclear energy production is incredibly safe as long as you follow strict protocols. The worst nuclear accident in the US is Three Mile Island which is hardly more then an incident. It’s a shame Americans are so mislead in their thinking about nuclear energy production. Not to mention the body count in fossil fuel energy production is astronomically high compared to nuclear.
@@Youre_Right
Yes, I understand it's a movie and not a physics lesson. However, if they film a historical event, they can at least try to get the basics right.
Despite what people think, even the reactor at Chernobyl didn't just cook off because "it felt like it". They had to do some rather despicable things to it in order to make that happen. Sure, there were things the designers could have done better to make it more safe *cough* give it proper containment *cough* and stable. But intentionally disabling/cancelling Safety Systems, forcing the reactor to do things it cannot (running at very low power for prolonged periods of time, something an RBMK is incapable of doing) because you insist on doing an ill-designed test, is courting danger to say the least. Even with all its flaws and instabilities, the reactor fought for almost an hour to shut itself down before it finally gave up.
TMI 2 was as good as it gets when it comes to a nuclear mishap. Yes, there was a partial meltdown, but the safety systems and containment worked. Nothing of any significance got out to the world. TMI 1 made safe, clean power for decades after the incident.
If we want to reduce our emissions, we simply have make nuclear power a staple, there's nothing for it. Today's reactors are incredibly stable and safe. They're light-years removed from the reactors of yesteryear. Wind and solar alone are not going to cut it. They will never be able to provide base-load power. We need nuclear for that, whether people like it or not. Fossils fuels have killed literally untold millions, but no one seems to bat an eye over that.
You seem to in the same passage explain that the movie is inaccurate...and then explain why the movie is actually in fact accurate? They begin loosing pressure on the aft Reactor's primary circuit, check back ups to confirm and SCRAM, by then they attempt to start up of the auxiliary pumps which of course also don't work either after they check the back up gauges at which point the Reactor technician says the line "No they can't control the reaction by themselves they need coolant" by which he means the control rods don't control the decay heat reactions in the core and need the coolant to remove that heat from the system?
@@southernbear736
Uhm, no. Read my replies again. To my ears , what they say definitely refers to the chain reaction. Like I said before, if they meant the decay heat, they should have said so. Now people hearing what they say, will think that Control Rods are incapable of stopping a reactor in case of an emergency.
And Control Rods are not meant to control/stop the on-going decay heat. That is simply impossible, it will have to run its natural course. The Control Rods' job is to keep the reactor subcritical after a SCRAM, indefinitely if need be. It's the Fuel Rods that need the water to keep cool enough while the decay heat does its thing.
WE'RE LOSING PRESSURE.
Deatlov-Give it some water its fine
@Demirsahan172 yes but this is the russian water-cooling reactor so it doesn't need water and no hate.
@@Stunka-E-11"I don't need a bloody technical explanation, I need water in my reactor!' 😂
One coolant system. No independent backup. In Soviet Union, backup is your irradiated arms and face.
After the incedent they have istalled b-ups.
@@ДмитрийМачулин-ч3т perfect time to do it. Except late. I mean, most safety engineering is prioritized via tombstones so
@@ДмитрийМачулин-ч3т Well they only got smart after the fact, Soviet Union saved on everything and was corrupt to the core.
In motherland the backup system don't help instead the human go and repair
fun fact, the design called for one. They had controls for one. It.... never got installed. There was SUPPOSED to be an independent backup to the coolant system.
Make that the alarm for the check engine light on vehicles you’ll get people‘s attention
Nah imagine a submariner is sleeping peacefully in his home and he heard that shit
Dyatlov probably designed the coolant pump and the safety systems. Hence why they're a joke.
I like the...no, wait, there is no graphite.
I like the cherenkov radiation
me too and that's what a controlled nuclear fission reaction looks like. look up nuclear reactor pulse
Part of the issue at Three Mile Island is some of the employees working in the control room had US Navy experience on reactors - which have a lot less risk of a meltdown if something goes wrong - just the nature of how smaller reactor piles work vs. a full scale 1000 MegaWatt reactor. Too many assumptions about best practices and not enough written instructions. Billions of dollars later - we'll figure it out.
tfw something the military uses is actually safer for once than the civilian version
Lol you know nothing about navy reactors
Three Mile island's issue was heavily explored and it basically all came down to control room design. Sensors and controls that needed to be ready and operated at the same time were put on opposite sides of the control room instead of together. The result, was a catastrophic inability for human beings to control the reactor.
@@Darthquackius The biggest problem were the indicators for the feed water valves. The operators were under the assumption that those indicators showed if a valve was open or closed, while in reality they only indicated if a valve was SUPPOSED to be open/closed! There were no sensors on those valves that actually indicated the status of them. Hence they thought a valve was closed, because its indicator light was off, while in reality it was stuck open.
I like the auxiliary pumps
i like alarm sound :)
I like this coolant
I like the flashing lights
I like the pipes
The pipes are my fifth favorite character behind the reactor, the leak, the radiation, and the water
I like the water.
The water is my fourth favorite character behind the reactor, the leak, and the radiation
I like the movie
I like the music
0:34 Alarm turns on
0:35 they look at the alarms
0:38 gauge goes down
0:45 gauge still going down
0:46 They click on random buttons
I like the reactor
Boss Ghost423 it doesn’t like you much
The reactor is my favorite character
I like the rods
I like the radiation
The radiation is my third favorite character behind the reactor and the leak
I'm curious if they could have just drowned the reactor. Its a sealed chamber, they could have flooded it and the ambient temperature of the north atlantic might have been enough to cool it down. But then I'm not a nuclear physicist so theres probably a reason that would nkt work or make things worse.
They can’t use salt water. The chloritic compounds would be corrosive. And to monitor for any impurities would be painstakingly difficult.
@@Batou3 I don't mean pumping sea water into the reactor, but flooding the compartment or at least the reactor chamber, the corrosion rate of sea water is 0.002-0.02mm/yr pretty sure they didn't have to worry about it eating its way into the reactor anytime soon. The whole problem they faced was that the residual heat would result in uranium melting through the reactor and the containment vessel it was in. If the exterior of the containment vessel could be kept cool enough to not let it melt, then perhaps the residual heat could have slowly dissipated. The north Atlantic's waters are practically freezing, surely with a constant ambient temperature it would keep the containment vessel's exterior from reaching its melting point for a while at least.
It may cause instabilities due to the water containing salt; but since the reactor is subcritical this may work since all they needed to do was control the decay heat. Chances of it corroding the core and making it unusable for re-criticality are pretty high so it's not a good idea and hence it probably wouldn't be a function, especially on a soviet vessel where they could've cared less for safety
I like the leak.
I find it amusing that the leak was caused by a microscopic crack caused by someone welding too close to the pipe. Because protecting everything will cost too much money
The leak is my second favorite character behind the reactor
I like the pressure
Omg I forgot Liam Neeson is in this
Boom-di-atta-Boom-di-atta-Boom-di-atta-Boom-di-atta-Boom-di-atta
Gotta doll baby, I love her so.
Nothing else like her anywhere you go.
Man she's anything but calm, a regular pint sized atom bomb.
Reactor Coolant Pipe Explosion 0:30
Funny enough, guess who worked on fitting reactors to subs? Dyatlov
When reactor have failed to start:
Lt. Dan, Ice creaaaam
How did the camera survive the close-up?
Это была лютая ошибка сбросить аварийную защиту. Понимаю, что это голливудская выдумка, но таким решением он заранее приговорил экипаж к гибели
I like the video
Isn’t that Baron Zemo?
A what ?
They were due for a checkup
0:32 incident begins
I like the gas mask
Fun fact on the k-19 incident they didn't even have chemical suits all they had was quite literally raincoats
@@Theoldcontemptible it's not raincoats, it's NBS suit
Is there a video only vontaining the alarm sound?
Did the Russians steal the alarm klaxon from a Star Destroyer. That blue glow gives me the heebie jeebies.
Call the fire brigade
What are the 2 sensors he switched at the end?
not sensors, but controls. It's supposed to be the controls for backup pumps. The design specs for K19's reactor called for full backup on the coolant. But hey hey, real history, the backup wasn't actually installed before she was put into service. So those switches.... did nothing.
Coolant leak: 0:30
Pipe explosion: 0:32
At the night dark
We got a leak!
The reactor had a stroke
Ahwell.... Engineering 😁
In Soviet Russia, nuclear reactors control you!
Bruh soviet had many nuclear accident they too fast to test the k-19 and forgot to install backup pump but there still a backup a "man"
You didn’t see Graphite!
@Demir Sahan thanks doctor. It’s a Chernobyl reference.
You didn’t see granite.
oh my God
RBMK reactor can't explode
classic russian quality control as usual
You’ve never heard of USS Thresher and USS Scorpion?
man just engage A3-5
looks like the reactor from pandora
We understand that this leak might be happen after lunching test missal due to high vibration in base during missal leaving compartment !!!!!!!!!!!!
They ate the test missile??
0:34 OH SHIT!!!!!!
Brian moser
They should have ejected the core.
RMBK reactors explode
This was a PWR, which uses water as both a moderator and a coolant.
I dont see any graphite - there's no problem.
I like this warning alaram I want alaram sound name
The question they are underwater? At this point, if your in grave danger wouldn't it be smart of the engineers to put a system which just floods the room/reactor with the seawater?
Possibly a lot of submarines use sea water for oxygen but I'd imagine the risk of contamination is to great and you've essentially got gallons of irradiated water you have to keep a hold of also in war context leaving a trail of radiation isn't the best idea lol but tbh I think the actual reason is it isn't normal water used in reactors it's something special I forgot the name off but it does the job better then normal water and would be needed in a smaller more efficient reactor hope this helped mate
The coolant water used for nuclear reactor are distilled water since they do not have any impurities but when the. Seawater floods in the reactor (just an example) the salt water the garbage etc etc are all impuritys puting the crew at an risk and possibly to cause reactor to f up even worse so they had to use the fresh water on board which is drinking water and they had to do it very carefully since distilled water is not same as fresh water in the end 22 sailors died and finally Soviet union decided to give permission to properly finish an boat or submarine and put an backup system too.
@@dun0790distilled water isn't it mate
@@MyulMang im not actually sure i know you can technically do both now but yeah military probably use distilled possibly because you couldn't get radiation out of sea water at least not on the cramped interior of a sub probs easier have a tank of water rather an enormous machine to decontaminate it
@@dun0790 honestly I think sea water would make things worse as like it can leak radiation or it can mess up thing real bad because of too much salt and waste minerals in water
in fact RMBK exploded in Chernobyl
الله اكبر
Alarm 0:33
人類の愚かしさには呆れるばかりだ。
こんな欠陥原子力潜水艦を30年も服役させてたなんて。
K-19's reactor didn't have vital backups installed like those on her American counterparts.
险些核爆
Boiling water reactors suck.
This is a pressurized water reactor.
Why everything russian has problems ?!?
Everything has problems, including russian.
I suppose you think that USS Thresher and USS Scorpion were problem-free?
Are submarines are way better than russian crappy submarines
I take it you never heard of USS Thesher and USS Scorpion.
Do some research and educate yourself.
@@calvinnickel9995 I said american submarines are the best dude.
Bruh This Is Not Roblox
LOL, what he frweak dude
go help your mommy
Bruh fix your future
Esto equivale cuando se enciende el check engine del auto
I like the reactor