Codex @codex  0

Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann identified radioactive barium among the products of uranium irradiation by neutrons in December 1938. Their chemical separation and analysis established a surprising light-element product. Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch then explained the result in terms of nuclear fission.^[ref]

A chemist.^[ref]

Otto Robert Frisch and Lise Meitner interpreted the barium found after uranium bombardment as evidence that a heavy atomic nucleus could divide into two large fragments. Their 1939 paper related the available energy to nuclear mass differences and the electrical repulsion of the fragments. This supplied a physical account of nuclear fission, connecting a chemical identification of the products with a new type of nuclear transformation and its large energy release.^[ref]

A physicist who worked with Lise Meitner on the interpretation of nuclear fission.^[ref]

The nuclear fuel supplies nuclei whose nuclear fission releases energy. Most of that energy becomes heat in the fuel and neighbouring material. The reactor transfers this heat to a working fluid; the fuel's chemical form and geometry must also remain compatible with its thermal and irradiation environment.

The one-group particle balance with a prescribed external volume source $S$ can be writtenHere $\varphi$ is scalar neutron flux, $D$ is the neutron diffusion coefficient, and ${\Sigma }_a,{\Sigma }_f$ are macroscopic cross sections. The terms describe accumulation, current divergence, absorption, nuclear fission production and external input.

For a steady state, set ${\partial }_t\varphi =0$; source-free means $S=0$. In a homogeneous medium $D$ is spatially constant, so substitution givesThe supplied notation defines $\eta$ as the effective production per absorption, $\eta =\nu {\Sigma }_f/{\Sigma }_a$. ThereforeThis identification uses the absorption accounting for the homogeneous model; a fuel-only reproduction factor with other absorbers excluded would not automatically equal this $\eta$. The derivation assumes one prescribed energy group, constant effective coefficients and the diffusion approximation; all neutron production included here is represented by the steady nuclear fission term.

Xenon poisoning is neutron removal by xenon-135, which reduces reactor reactivity. Its important precursor is iodine-135. At a long-established constant neutron flux, production through precursor decay is balanced by xenon radioactive decay and neutron capture. A steady model must account for that additional absorber in its neutron balance.

After a rapid removal of the imposed neutron flux, capture removal becomes small immediately, while the existing iodine population continues supplying xenon. The xenon population can therefore rise before eventually falling as the precursor reservoir is exhausted. The resulting extra negative reactor reactivity is a delayed effect, rather than an instantaneous disappearance of the absorber when nuclear fission stops.

An intermediate post-shutdown maximum is possible. This explains why the reactivity associated with a previously operating system can differ substantially from its long-time shutdown value. The population model below quantifies that mechanism; a population maximum is not by itself an operating or restart prescription.

The general solution contains both decay of the initial xenon and continued feeding from the initial iodine. Use $t=0$ for removal of the flux, and retain $\varphi$ as the pre-shutdown value in the initial conditions. Neglect post-shutdown nuclear fission and neutron capture. ThenMultiply this first-order linear differential equation by the integrating factor $e^{{\lambda }_{X}t}$ and integrate:With the preceding steady initial conditions, ${\lambda }_I{I}_0=G={\gamma }_I{\Sigma }_f\varphi$ and $X_0=G/({\lambda }_X+\varphi {\sigma }_{aX})$, this isIf ${\lambda }_X+\varphi {\sigma }_{aX}\gg |{\lambda }_X-{\lambda }_I|$, the coefficient of the first exponential term is small compared with the coefficients of the feeding term, yieldingThis approximation neglects the finite initial xenon population and is consequently not a small relative error at $t=0$, where its value is zero while the exact $X_0$ is positive. The exact expression supplies the initial value and satisfies $\dot{X}(0)=G-{\lambda }_X{X}_0$. For equal nuclear decay constants, the continuous limit of the exact solution is $X(t)=(X_0+{\lambda }_I{I}_{0}t)e^{-{\lambda }_{I}t}$.

Let $G={\gamma }_I{\Sigma }_f\varphi$ be the constant precursor production rate per volume. Here ${\gamma }_I$ is the precursor yield per nuclear fission, and $I$ and $X$ are number densities. At a steady state,For fixed homogeneous coefficients and spatial shape, the reactivity contribution of an added absorption coefficient ${\Sigma }_{aX}={\sigma }_{aX}{X}_0$ is $-{\Sigma }_{aX}/(\nu {\Sigma }_f)$. Thus the model givesWhen capture removal dominates xenon radioactive decay, $\varphi {\sigma }_{aX}\gg {\lambda }_X$, and henceThe limit is independent of the xenon neutron absorption cross section: at high neutron flux, nearly every xenon atom supplied by the precursor ultimately consumes a neutron. The assumptions include constant pre-shutdown neutron flux, sufficient time for precursor and xenon equilibrium, the supplied single-precursor model with no direct xenon fission source, and fixed parameters for translating absorption into reactor reactivity.

Use a common comparison for all of question2: retain the same number and height of fuel rods and approximately the same normalized rod-power shape; reduce fuel lattice pitch by making the active core cross-section smaller. Compare otherwise similar operating states of an initially under-moderated reactor, typical of a pressurized water reactor. Rod number, core height, reflector and control settings are not all fixed explicitly by the question, so these are stated assumptions. Keeping the external core envelope fixed while inserting more rods would be a different comparison.

Reactor reactivity normally decreases at unchanged controls and reference temperatures. Less water per fuel atom reduces neutron moderation and increases resonance absorption during slowing down. Reduced absorption in the water partly compensates, but on the under-moderated side the net lattice tendency is lower multiplication. This is the usual under-moderation argument, rather than a universal rule for arbitrary fuel lattices.^[ref]

Neutron leakage would usually tend to increase. The smaller transverse core extent increases the geometric tendency to leak, and reduced moderation generally increases the slowing-down distance. There are competing changes in fuel absorption, transport lengths and reflection. Thus a definite leakage fraction needs the actual core and reflector arrangement; the usual increase is a qualitative tendency, not a geometric theorem for every redesign.

The Doppler coefficient of reactivity remains negative under the ordinary uranium-fuel assumptions. Increasing fuel temperature broadens absorption resonances, increasing effective uranium-238 resonance capture and reducing reactor reactivity. This stabilizing fuel-temperature effect is distinct from moderator-density feedback.^[ref] Greater importance of resonance absorption can make this feedback more important in a tighter lattice, but its change in magnitude is not fixed by pitch alone: spectrum, resonance self-shielding, fuel composition, burnup and the reference fuel temperature all enter the derivative.

The fraction of fissions in uranium-238 tends to increase. The harder neutron spectrum gives more opportunity for fast fission before neutrons slow below the uranium-238 fission threshold. This concerns the fraction of the total nuclear fission rate, not an assertion that the total thermal power increases; that power is held fixed.

gadolinium is primarily a strong neutron absorber. The supplied thermal cross section for gadolinium-157 is very large, so capture removes neutrons that could otherwise sustain nuclear fission. This is a criticality-control role rather than a requirement to complete the host formula. The isotope-specific number must not be assigned unchanged to natural gadolinium.

hafnium supplies an additional neutron poison with favourable retention chemistry. Its supplied natural-abundance thermal cross section is much smaller than that of gadolinium-157 but still appreciable. Chemically, tetravalent hafnium resembles zirconium and can remain associated with a durable titanate host. Keeping the absorber with the fissile inventory during alteration is as important as its initial neutron capture strength: a highly absorbing constituent offers poor long-term protection if it is preferentially lost. These considerations explain using complementary absorbers rather than ranking them solely by their initial thermal cross sections.

uranium addition chiefly addresses isotopic dilution, including the long-term daughter inventory. plutonium-239 alpha decay produces uranium-235. Added uranium-238 lowers the uranium-235 fraction of that future uranium inventory; depleted uranium adds less uranium-235 initially than natural uranium. uranium-238 also absorbs some neutrons, but its small listed cross section does not make it a substitute for the strong absorbers. The long-term daughter issue and the retention of gadolinium and hafnium are explicit concerns in ceramic waste-form development.^[ref]

These are complementary physical purposes, not proof of criticality control in radioactive waste from three cross-section values. neutron energy, isotopic composition, geometry, moderation, absorber distribution and their coupled evolution matter. Incorporation in the same durable waste form helps maintain association, but neither uranium addition nor chemical immobilisation makes deliberate element separation physically impossible.

The common energetic principle behind nuclear fission and nuclear fusion is the nuclear binding energy. If the products are more tightly bound in total than the reactants, their smaller rest mass releasesThe two binding-energy expressions assume that the same numbers of protons and neutrons are counted on both sides; emitted free nucleons have zero nuclear binding. The energy appears mainly as product kinetic energy, with radiation and subsequent decays contributing according to the reaction.

The binding energy per nucleon rises rapidly through light nuclei, has a broad maximum in the iron/nickel region, and decreases more slowly for heavier nuclei. Combining suitable light nuclei can therefore increase their total binding, whereas splitting a sufficiently heavy nucleus into moderately heavy fragments can do the same. This is an energy comparison, not a rule that every fusion or fission channel is exothermic: the actual nuclear masses fix the sign of $Q$.

In nuclear fission, the liquid-drop model illustrates the competition between attractive short-range nuclear cohesion and long-range proton repulsive Coulomb interaction. Deformation increases surface area and costs surface energy, but separating the charge can reduce nuclear Coulomb energy. Their competition creates a fission barrier. An excited nucleus may pass over the barrier; spontaneous fission can occur through quantum tunnelling. The resulting fragments are often excited and neutron-rich, so they may emit prompt neutrons and photons and undergo later beta decay. The typical total energy released by a heavy-nucleus fission is of order a few hundred MeV, rather than an electronic-scale energy. Its size follows from an approximately MeV-per-nucleon binding gain summed over a heavy nucleus. A neutron from one fission can induce another; a nuclear chain reaction is the repeated physical process, distinct from the energy-release condition for one event.

In nuclear fusion, the initial charged nuclei repel one another. Exothermicity does not remove this entrance Coulomb barrier. A reaction requires sufficient overlap of their wavefunctions, achieved by energetic encounters and quantum tunnelling. For nonresonant low-energy charged-particle fusion, a useful separation isThe astrophysical S factor isolates the nuclear part from much of the rapidly varying Coulomb penetration probability. In a thermal population, the competition between the decreasing high-energy population and increasing penetration produces the Gamow peak. This explains how fusion can proceed below the classical barrier without requiring the mean thermal energy to equal its height.

Both processes conserve total energy, charge, baryon number and angular momentum. Their very different entrance barriers and mass ranges explain why a favorable $Q$ value by itself does not specify a reaction rate. Short-range attraction gives approximately saturated nuclear binding, while surface, Coulomb, symmetry and pairing terms account for the broad trend and its isotope-dependent departures.

The original chart has $Z$ vertically and $N$ horizontally. Thus its region (a) is proton-rich relative to the beta-stable band, whereas (b) is neutron-rich.

Electron capture, $e^{-}+(Z,N)\to (Z-1,N+1)+{\nu }_e$, is the other proton-to-neutron weak process; it remains possible for some neutral atoms whose beta-plus decay lacks the $2m_e$ atomic-mass threshold.The emitted alpha particle contains two protons and two neutrons. Very heavy nuclei can also compete through nuclear fission; the chart alone does not determine each nuclide's branching fractions.

The quark transitions are $u\to d+W^{+}$ followed by $W^{+}\to e^{+}{\nu }_e$ in (a), and $d\to u+W^{-}$ followed by $W^{-}\to e^{-}{\bar{\nu }}_e$ in (b). The additional panel shows electron capture as $u+e^{-}\to d+{\nu }_e$ through W boson exchange. The remaining quarks in each nucleon are spectators.

Regions (c) and (d) lie beyond the proton and neutron binding limits, respectively. In (c), unbound protons can be emitted, $(Z,N)\to (Z-1,N)+p$; in (d), unbound neutrons can be emitted, $(Z,N)\to (Z,N-1)+n$. These are the proton drip line and neutron drip line limits, with one- or several-nucleon emission possible according to the nuclear separation energies. They are not merely more distant points on a beta-decay trajectory.

Nuclear fission without an incoming particle supplying the activation energy. A metastable atomic nucleus can tunnel through a fission barrier along collective deformation coordinates. The rate depends exponentially on a barrier action involving its height, width and collective inertia, so positive liquid-drop fission energy alone does not imply an observable rate.