Is the Correct Way to Write Reactivity in Dollars $0.43?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Smed
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Smed
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
When writing a reactivity in dollars, what is the proper notation?

Would it be 0.43$ or $0.43? or is it just 0.43?

Thanks,
Smed
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Smed said:
When writing a reactivity in dollars, what is the proper notation?

Would it be 0.43$ or $0.43? or is it just 0.43?

Thanks,
Smed
I've seen it written as $0.43, which is the way I was taught. This example indicates 43 cents, of course.

This more a term used in nuclear engineering, where "one dollar of reactivity is equivalent to the effective delayed neutron fraction, ßeff". If the reactivity of the core is one dollar, the reactor is prompt critical.

More often I see the unity pcm.

But then this book - Nuclear engineering: theory and technology of commercial nuclear power By Ronald Allen Knief has reactivity written as n$, where n is the value.

Slide 9 of this presentation - http://documents.epfl.ch/groups/l/lr/lrs-unit/www/Neutronics/Lesson%2013/NeutronicsCR-13Lectures.pdf
has units 1$.

I'd say go with 0.43$, but check with the instructor/professor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top