ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Human Factors, Instrumentation & Controls
Improving task performance, system reliability, system and personnel safety, efficiency, and effectiveness are the division's main objectives. Its major areas of interest include task design, procedures, training, instrument and control layout and placement, stress control, anthropometrics, psychological input, and motivation.
Meeting Spotlight
Conference on Nuclear Training and Education: A Biennial International Forum (CONTE 2025)
February 3–6, 2025
Amelia Island, FL|Omni Amelia Island Resort
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
How to talk about nuclear
In your career as a professional in the nuclear community, chances are you will, at some point, be asked (or volunteer) to talk to at least one layperson about the technology you know and love. You might even be asked to present to a whole group of nonnuclear folks, perhaps as a pitch to some company tangential to your company’s business. So, without further ado, let me give you some pointers on the best way to approach this important and surprisingly complicated task.
R. A. Karam, W. Y. Kato
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 52 | Number 2 | October 1973 | Pages 201-208
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE73-A28189
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Systematic errors responsible for the large discrepancy between the measured and calculated central reactivity coefficients were examined. These errors were narrowed to two sources: the normalization integral (or perturbation denominator) and the conversion factor of inhour, or dollars, to Δk/k units. The magnitude of both sources of error is uniquely determined by the ratio of the measured-to-calculated normalization integral when the measurement is carried out using the 252 Cf source-reactivity method. The measured-to-calculated normalization integral ratios for ZPR-6 Assemblies 6A and 7, two typical demo-plant-size Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor criticals, were 1.19 and 1.21, respectively. The magnitude of this discrepancy is essentially the same as that found for the central reactivity coefficient. Analysis of the available fission rate distribution in both assemblies indicates that the calculated normalization integral may be underestimated by 6 to 8% and that the remainder of 10 to 14% must come from the conversion factor. The delayed-neutron data of Krick and Evans, when used with the appropriate average number of neutrons per fission in each assembly, yield conversion factors 9 to 13% higher than the delayed-neutron data of Keepin. This would provide the explanation of the central reactivity discrepancy. Unfortunately, the method of calculating βeff could also produce errors of this magnitude even if one has an absolutely correct set of delayed-neutron fractions. More definitive measurements of the delayed-neutron fractions of pertinent isotopes, as a function of the incident neutron energy, are needed. In addition, measurements of βeff in various assemblies by different methods are required.
