ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
September 8–11, 2025
Atlanta, GA|Atlanta Marriott Marquis
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2025
Latest News
Startup looks to commercialize inertial fusion energy
Another startup hoping to capitalize on progress the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has made in realizing inertial fusion energy has been launched. On August 27, San Francisco–based Inertia Enterprises, a private fusion power start-up, announced the formation of the company with the goal of commercializing fusion energy.
N. V. Kornilov, S. M. Grimes, A. Voinov
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 172 | Number 3 | November 2012 | Pages 278-286
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE11-61
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The variations of ˜14-MeV (n, p), (n, ), and (n, 2n) reaction cross sections with A and Z have been analyzed. We tried to answer a rather interesting question: Can a simple parameterization be useful in comparing with nuclear reaction model calculations? In addition, we checked several approaches for parameterization. Simple systematics gave a better prediction than model calculation for the (n, 2n) reaction at A > 120. At a low mass number, the difference between experimental data and calculated or fitted results may be connected with the structure of levels for residual nuclei. We saw better agreement between experimental and fitted data in comparison with results of model calculation in particular for the (n, ) reaction for A < 110. Both approaches failed to predict (n, p) cross sections inside experimental uncertainties for A < 110 and the (n, ) cross section for A > 110. This failure may be connected with low accuracy of experimental data or with some unknown physical effect that provides an additional splitting of experimental data.