Why Are Certain Nuclei Fissionable with Slow Neutrons?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the fissionability of certain isotopes, specifically U233, U235, and Pu239, which have an even number of protons and an odd number of neutrons, attributed to the pairing force that affects their binding energy. U235 can fission with a zero kinetic energy neutron due to this pairing force, while U238, though fissionable, cannot. The conversation also touches on Np-237, which has an odd number of protons and an even number of neutrons yet is still fissile, prompting curiosity about its behavior. Participants express interest in understanding binding energy and nucleon interactions, with references to external resources for further reading. The thread highlights the complexities of nuclear physics and the nuances of fission processes.
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
Can anyone explain this to me? It piqued my interest, especially since I nominally work with radioactive materials (though admittedly, not fissile material) and didn't know where this came from.

"It is not a coincidence, for example, that the three nuclei which are fissionable with slow neutrons, U233, U235, and Pu239, all contain an even number of protons and an odd number of neutrons."
- Shanks, Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory (5th ed.), p. 137
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
As far as I know, the reason for this is the pairing force. For example when a U235 nucleus absorbs a neutron , it forms (as an intermediate stage before fission) U236. Now U326 is excited by an amount of energy equal to the binding energy of the neutron and its kinetic energy. But since U236 has even number of neutrons , the pairing force will lower its ground state so much which in turn renders the excitation energy due to the nuetron binding energy (without the kinetic energy part) high eneough to exceed the fission activation energy. So this nucleus can fission ,in principle, by absorping a zero kinetic energy neutron. This is actually why U235, U233 ,.. are called fissile.

On the other hand U238 is fissionable but non fissile. This because it cannot fission by a zero kinetic energy neutron. An explation based on the paring force is valid here also
 
Useful nucleus said:
As far as I know, the reason for this is the pairing force.
Useful nucleus,

You are correct. Anyone can look up the semi-empirical mass formula - which actually gives
the binding energy

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Class_560/lec560_5/node2.html

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy300w/np/ch1/node22.html

The pairing forces influence the binding energy.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's rather surprising then that Np-237 is fissile.

It has it exactly opposite: odd number of protons (93) and an even number of neutrons (144). And yet...
 
i'm by no means well versed, so mentor kindly erase this one if it's utterly out to lunch.

i am still working to digest the thoughts in section 2 of this paper
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
about binding energy and nucleons and just what holds them together.
"Cradle of nuclides" in fig 3 looks a lot like the black line of stable nuclides that runs up the middle of "chart of nuclides"

His concept of neutron repulsion peaked my interest, it seems counter-intuitive being as they have no electric charge, but the guy works more from observations in nature than from computer studies.

maybe you know of some introductory (low level) writings on the subject? I'm in over my head.

old jim
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top