Talk:Iodine pit

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

‹See TfM› Physics Low‑importance 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Chernobyl disaster#Conditions prior to the accident|Chernobyl disaster]] The anchor (#Conditions prior to the accident) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iodine pit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109194948/http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/handbook/h1019v2.pdf to http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/handbook/h1019v2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says operators were "unaware of the poisoned condition of the reactor", a frankly incredible claim. All reactor operators are intimately familiar with xenon poisoning, which is a fundamental aspect of reactor operation, especially startup. Even more so with large reactors which (as the article already notes) are subject to oscillations due to non-uniform poisoning.

The problem was that they were trying to restore the reactor to operation despite the (known) poisoning. Reading the INSAG-7 report, poisoning is mentioned in passing (e.g pp. 63–64 "it proved necessary for some of the ORM rods to be withdrawn in order to compensate for the additional negative reactivity caused by xenon poisoning of the core at low power"), but it appears to be so understood by the writers and their intended audience that it's not described in detail; the analysis focuses on the unstable state engendered by the recovery efforts. INSAG mostly talks about the core state in terms of delayed neutron fraction, β, and reactivity margin.

Unless someone objects, I'm going to rewrite the section to say something like "struggling to recover from a poisoned condition".

FWIW, the source of the disputed claim appears to be http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/xenon.html which says "They apparently did not have the understanding that the failure to increase was due to the absorption of neutrons by the xenon". If we don't delete the claim, a citation is needed, and that's the best I've found for it, but as mentioned above, I don't believe it. 167.88.12.231 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperphysics seems to be a reliable source. The source you have given doesn't contradict the claim made. Why don't you believe it? Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Iodine Pit Behavior": I don't understand the following sentence: "As the core reactivity reserve is usually limited to 10% of Dk/k, ..." What is Dk/k? -- Wassermaus (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An abbreviation for "delta-k divided by k." The k factor is the number of additional fissions caused by one fission. At one, exactly, you have a reactor in a steady state. Less than one, the reactor power is falling, more than one, reactor power is increasing. Delta (Δ) is the fourth letter of the Greek alphabet, commonly used to indicate change. So Δk/k is the rate of change of the reactor's power level. If less than one, the reactor is shutting down, if more than one the reactor is building up power.

The "core reactivity reserve" is the amount of extra reactivity the operator has available to increase fissions in the reactor when he/she wants to increase power generation.

That help?Saintonge235 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]