Talk:Neutron capture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Light vs Heavy Elements and Neutron Capture[edit]

Concerning the capture of neutrons by heavier as compared to the lightest elements, the "Chart of nuclides showing thermal neutron capture cross section values" visually depicts this matter (I believe), but I think it would be valuable to expound on this in the narrative more so than it is. A geologist with a background in nuclear physics told me that it is only the heavier elements beginning with Na that readily capture neutrons. He worked in private industry bombarding various elements with neutrons and had much experience in this. The "Capture cross section" section states that, "the effective cross sectional area that an atom of that isotope presents to absorption... is a measure of the probability of neutron capture." It seems that it would help less technical readers if this article would explain this phenomenon in the narrative, in terms of which of the lightest elements are unlikely to capture neutrons. That geologist told me that they used carbon extensively, but only to slow down the neutrons. Thoughts? --Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl[edit]

I have only heard of neutron absorbers being used in reference to Chernobyl, perhaps a brief overview of how neutron absorbers might mitigate a nuclear disaster would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.255.5 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC) The first thrown though the hole at the roof of chernobyl plant have been 40t borone carbide B4C to stopp or slowing nuclear chain reaction using helicopters but B4C is just swimming upon UO2 better are more heavy absorbers like better absorbing HfB2 or HfC. Next was lead Pb against gamma rays but melting away not neccessary just adding sand is enough with 2-3m near gamma dense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.83.201 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comments[edit]

I would like a brief, relatively non-technical description of why there is no need for a moderator in fission nuclear weapons and there is in reactors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldgeek (talkcontribs) 01:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this sentence rather confusing. "For example when natural gold (197Au) is irradiated by neutrons the isotope 198Au is formed in a highly excited state which then quickly decays to the ground state of 198Au by the emission of γ rays." As a general, non-specialist reader, this seems to me to be saying that 198Au decays to itself. Dawright12 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to the comment above me, I believe it's saying that 198Au in it's highly excited state decays to itself, only in the ground state of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.16.35 (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

in response to the comment by Dawright12: A nucleus in an excited state means a nucleus that has an energylevel that is too high. It will radiate this energy (by gamma radiation) so that it may become stable. 198Au ineeds decays to itself, but to itself in a stable state.

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)