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
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jul 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
August 2026
Nuclear Technology
July 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
The deadline arrives: Checking in on the Reactor Pilot Program
On May 23, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the DOE,” which instructed the Department of Energy to create a Reactor Pilot Program (RPP)—a new system in which companies could pursue DOE authorization to build and test their first-of-a-kind nuclear technologies. EO 14301 set an ambitious goal for that program: three reactors achieving criticality by July 4, 2026.
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.