Talk:Nuclear reactor physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] New page from nuclear fission

I just entered all of this material into nuclear fission as part of an overhaul of that article, then realized that there was enough material here to (A) bloat that article and (B) form a nicely-sized overview of reactor physics. While most of this material is covered in some measure in other articles such as nuclear reactor, uranium, plutonium, critical mass, delayed neutron, chernobyl accident, and oklo, there was and remains a need to see it all grouped into a single accessible place as an overview of reactor physics. So, er, here it is. zowie 21:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] element style

Isn't it wikipedia style to write U-235, rather than ²³⁵U? It makes for more intuitive linking, since the article is at Uranium-235. Night Gyr 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! No response for over a year. ²³⁵U is the nomenclature that nuclear physicists normally use. U-235 has the same meaning, but isn't as good when it comes to writing nuclear reaction equations such as: ²³⁵U + ¹n -> (²³⁶U)* -> FF's + n's + energy What is Wikipedia style? User: TodKarlson 6/11/07

I don't know of a Wikipedia style for this, and it's probably not worth either of our time searching for one. I'd say the best solution is to use your best judgment. In my edits, I've used the Uranium-235 style because it's quicker to type, but I would definitely use the superscripts in anything that is borderline an equation. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've used both, as both are used in the real world and readers should be exposed to both. Beware of ambiguity, I-129 is a freeway, and U-234 is a submarine. --JWB 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty cool; I never heard about the U-234 before, and I agree with the previous point that people should be aware of all the various nomenclature that one might come across. I've also seen "₉₂U²³⁵" used because on a computer it's difficult to precede the "U" with BOTH "₉₂" and "²³⁵", the way you would if you were hand-writing a nuclear reaction equation. While I was in the Navy we also used "U²³⁵".