Talk:Nuclear graphite
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
This page is in the process of development, I have copied a lot of source text which i am rewriting to form a coherent articel. After this i will include references to the original source text. Mark 18:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Strength
[edit]Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages. I'm not sure which meaning of strength is most interesting for Nuclear Graphite, and would appreciate it if you re-directed the link appropriately. Link possibilities: Strength_of_materials, Compressive_strength, Tensile_strength, Shear_strength. Sanguinity 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Updated, thanks. Mark 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks much! Sanguinity 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Chernobyl
[edit]Hi there!
On this page, there is a text cited that states that the graphite did not burn at Chernobyl, and yet, in the Chernobyl article itself, it states that it did. The citation itself does not address Chernobyl, and as such, is an unsuitable and unclear citation. The temperatures at the site of the Chernobyl accident were certainly high enough to ignite the graphite (as corium was formed), and I see not evidence for the statement. Awils1 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Windscale fire
[edit]While it is true that the uranium was what burnt in this case, it should really be noted that Wigner energy was one of the major contributing factor to the disaster. Certainly the fire would not have occurred the way it did if the reactor hadn't been graphite moderated, due to the need for frequent annealing (sp?) processes.
At least that's my understanding of it... could someone more familiar with the topics involved check and update the article properly.
77.75.106.60 (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Prompt Criticality & Explosions
[edit]This article mentions prompt critically just before mentioning explosions, which may be a bit ambiguous. It appears the article is implying a nuclear explosion took place, which is not the widely accepted hypothesis. It may be good to mention the explosions were related to steam and possibly hydrogen. There is an alternative hypothesis that there was a fizzled nuclear explosion involved, but this isn't really the place for that. All of this is mentioned in the main Chernobyl disaster article. 2604:2D80:9A81:9000:15EA:3905:2261:D705 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)