Talk:Nuclear technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] fusion chain reaction

This explains why there is no possibility of a FUSION chain reaction. This is almost certainly wrong. A hydrogen bomb is a fusion chain reaction. The Sun is powered by a fusion chain reaction (H -> He). You don't need particles to be sel

[edit] I agree, suggested outline

Yep, I wondered the same thing. I have worked on it because it was on the community page so I guess someone likes it. In the same category as this we have Computing_technology which is like the list you suggest. I would imagine we can make this more like Biotechnology - an introduction and general guide with lots of links.
How about this for a rough layout (taken from other tech pages):
Introduction and definition, major subfields, related fields, nuclear tech development timeline, related topics. Mat-C 19:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A related project would be to tidy Category:Nuclear technology (although it's not very clear how that page should differ from this one...) --Andrew 23:10, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"In both cases this process cannot continue beyond the production of iron."

This leaves one wondering where the higher elements came from. Also, later on the page, I changed "Hydrogen nuclei" to "Helium nuclei". Is there a physicist out there who can proof this page?

I hope you find my recent small edit helpful with regards to this bit. AWeishaupt (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old version

I'm going to take a stab at rewriting this article. Here's the old version. --Andrew 06:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear technology is the manipulation of atomic particles and energy to produce a desired result or effect. Often the desired effect is the production of energetic particles and energetic photons. Another desired effect is the detection of energetic particles.
Energy is released when the nucleus of a very heavy atom splits during nuclear fission. Energy is also liberated when two very light nucleii are made to combine into one heavier nucleus (fusion).
Fission typically occurs when a fissile neutron is absorbed in heavy nucleii such as uranium-235 but fusion requires extreme pressure and temperature. This is why fission reactors are much easier to create than fusion reactors. Fission events liberate neutrons, which can induce an excited state in other nucleii, resulting in further fission events. By using the correct concentrations of materials and environment where at least one subsequent fission event will result from each initial fission event (on average), one creates a fission chain reaction. The energy released by this process is vastly greater than that resulting from any chemical reaction (including burning and explosion).
Energetic particles such as protons, neutrons, electrons and alpha particles (helium nuclei without any electrons) are detected in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes. Radiac meters are used to determine the strength of radiation and to enhance safety. Some other more esoteric uses include determining a material's thickness or internal composition by measuring the level of radiation that passes through a target of known material.
Photons (massless energy packages that include light and X-rays), are liberated during both fusion and fission.

[edit] wew

swkjwpifwpikiupkmpjferv Well' for me its a matter of fact, that all things here in our present destination planet, had granted normally and focused for all of what happened today. I supposed to ignore all of this but I have seen and all of us familiarized of what we have all the past days and years. And now I conclude it's possible from your topic that no things of this word that have no changes and great generations/... Even us a human.. SCYNTJOE_BATCH

[edit] This Entry Needs a LOT of Work

I hope to start fleshing this out a little. I propose to deemphasize the history and include it in context of the specific technologies.

[edit] My accurate information was removed from this article.

Right wingers should leave this information alone immieadately. I will not tolerate any further harassment.--Layla27 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

\a "pstudier" has added some ridiculas nonsense about "citation needed" i would remind this right wing cabal that sources are not needed for well known facts. --Layla27 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "fact" is so well known, then you should be able to find a reputable source. Paul Studier (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Im back. Quit screwing with my scientific data. creating all these accounts is getting kind of annoying....--Trinity 720 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)(im Layla27)


You got no chance of stopping me. GIVE UP . NOW!!!! the right wing fring e should leave my accurate data alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity 720 (talk • contribs)

Please WP:CITE your information -- see WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise, as per those policies, the information can and will be removed from the article. Thanks! Gscshoyru 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


My dadt is perfectly accurate. Citations are not needed for well known facts.Right wing extremists should leave my accurate commentary alone. Im citing IRA in defense of my edits--Trinity 720 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you misspelled the policy, it really doesn't apply here. Facts, especially statistics with numbers, must be cited. No matter how "well known" they are. Gscshoyru 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced paragraph removed

I removed the following paragraph from the "Food Processing and Agriculture" section. Whatever your views on the subject, something this declarative has got to have some pretty serious sourcing to be part of a Wikipedia article:

A Parliamentary committee recommended against the use of food irradiation without further study. Irradiation creates new chemical substances (radiolytic products) in the food, some of which are carcinogenic. Children fed irradiated wheat have shown chromosome damage. As well, irradiating food reduces the vitamin content.

I would have thought that the need for citation would go without saying... then I read the discussion above. So let me enumerate the problems:

  • What "Parliamentary committee"? Date, place, country (well, the whole section is Canada-specific, which is another issue entirely)?
  • Precisely what "chemical substances" are generated? What studies show that those substances are "carcinogenic"?
  • Children with chromosome damage? There must be a vast right-wing conspiracy to suppress something like that.
  • "Reduces the vitamin content" sounds like something that can be easily verified.

My personal views aren't the issue -- I'm with my fellow Green Party members against irradiation. We and others have strong opinions, and express them in the appropriate fora. Wikipedia isn't the appropriate forum for uncited opinion, even if "everyone knows" it's true. In fact, those who would post something inflammatory and defend it by saying "You have no chance of stopping me" do nothing to advance the cause, and could even be accused of false flag astroturfing. --Robertb-dc (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactor history

"The first commercial reactors were heavily based on either research reactors, or military reactors"

In the US this is not true; the first commercial reactors were based on naval propulsion reactors (nuclear submarine reactors). Don't know about other countries. Most military reactors are not very useful for power generation—they don't generate enough heat. --Fastfission (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't naval propulsion reactors be classed as military reactors? Joeking16 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)