Talk:Nuclear engineering

Error

The article states that the U.S. gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear power. The WIKIPEDIA article "Nuclear Power in the U.S." says that it is 19.2 %. Significant discrepancy. One of the smart guys who really knows something about this area should make the correction. LAWinans (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like a brochure, and excessively uses first-person pronouns to refer to nuclear engineers. Needs a major overhaul. Cleanup template added. - Forteblast 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup process

I have begun a major cleanup of this article. I added a few parts to the introduction that were hanging in the middle of the article. I also broke a chunk of the mass of central text to make a section concerning university training. I am not finished with the university training section yet.

I made the remaining mass of central text invisible to readers but not to editors. I will later organize this text if no one else gets to it first.

I will also add a listing of premier undergraduate and graduate programs throughout the U.S. and the world. Help with adding programs outside of the U.S. would be great since i am not familiar with these (except for Canada). — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Great start Alex, and long overdue. DV8 2XL 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've put in a list format for US colleges, links to their departments, and degrees offered. It might take some time before I have enough of it to complete this list, so if any one wants to add to it, go for it. Also, I'm not sure lists will work better than tables would for this information. Any ideas on a better way of presenting this info? Lcolson

Someone reverted this saying it was linkspam, any thoughts? I'll wait to get some consensus before reverting, I don't think it was inappropriate. Below is what I had. Lcolson

• I think it should go back in, sans the empty columns. DV8 2XL 00:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, I have no problem with it back in the article in its current form below. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I completed the list and put it back in the article. It should be mentioned that I took a liberal definition of nuclear engineering for the degrees offered list. Several schools offered BS degrees in other departments with a nuclear engineering option. Also, sometimes the degrees were titled somewhat differently, like instead of MS, they would be titled MSNE (master of science of nuclear engineering) or MSNRE (master of science of nuclear and radiological engineering) etc... I f I didn't find any information saying the department had a particular degree, I didn't put it in, so some degrees may have been missed inadvertantly.Lcolson 01:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Krich added in Electrician's Mates to the NNPS section. While they are, indeed, trained at NNPS, they shouldn't have been addes after ETs, since the length of their training falls between that of MMs and ETs. Since I'm currently on dialup, I won't try to find out just how long that was (I was an MM, so that part I remember well, and ETs were easy to remember - six months at each bend in the pipeline) until I get back. I'll leave it there until then, since EMs at least should be mentioned. Izuko 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason that NNPTC is mentioned in an article for "nuclear engineering"? It is not, and is akin to listing drivers ed and auto repair as "automotive engineering". I'm a grad from NNPTC, (0005 class) and in a BS program for N.E. While there is some carry-over, this really needs to be changed and removed from the article. Engineering programs refer to design and construction, NNPTC is program that specializes in training for operation and maintenance of a naval nuclear power plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblanton (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chunk of information

Below is the big chunk of information that i removed from the main page. I don't see how giving a mini lecture on basic nuclear physics is of any help to the article but if anyone can find a place for this information give it a shot. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 03:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The nucleus is the center of the atom and can consist of neutrons and protons. The strong nuclear force is what keeps the nucleus bound together, while the weak nuclear force is responsible for certain types of radioactive decay. Just like the electrons in the atomic shell model, the nucleus exhibits quanta which also result in a nuclear shell model. That is, there are specific energy levels in the nucleus where certain reactions are likely to occur.

Radiation is anything which "radiates" away from the atom. We commonly classify the most common types as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Alpha radiation consists of alpha particles which are basically just fully ionized helium nuclei. They contain 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Beta radiation consists of beta particles which are either an electron or a positron (the anti-matter equivalent of an electron). Gamma radiation is a very high energy photon.

Neutrons are most important in fission-based nuclear reactions since they are neutral and will not lose their energy except through collisions. The cross-section of the target nucleus is also vitally important.

Radiation existed long before nuclear engineers. We are surrounded by it owing to the fact that the solar system itself is the remnants of a much earlier star. The fusion reactions inside the star created all the elements in the periodic table (in nuclear engineering we use the Chart Of The Nuclides which takes into account all the isotopes) and most of these were radioactive. It is estimated that life took as long as it took to appear because the Earth had to 'cool off' radioactively. Also, our part of the galaxy is far enough away from the turbulent galactic center to avoid the frequent gamma ray bursts which would destroy life.

Phrasing on navel nuclear power school

"While some officers have undergraduate backgrounds in nuclear engineering, most have earned their undergraduate degrees in other engineering disciplines. Also, most of the enlisted students hold no college degrees at all."

How can most people both have degrees and not have degrees? Are officers not enlisted students? If there is a difference between enlisted men and officers, I think this needs to be pointed out. Lcolson 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, officers are not enlisted students, just like black isn't white. It's kind of in the very definition of officers and enlisted. Izuko 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't know the difference. I think the now linked words clarify this well.Lcolson 22:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on Aneutronic fusion

I am locked in a revert war with Elerner on Aneutronic_fusion#Residual_radiation_from_a_p-11B_reactor. See Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Radiation_dose and Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#End of the road (bullet point Radioactivity). There are personality issues between us, but I think there is a substantial question of content as well. The issue is essentially whether the radiation problems of a p-B11 reactor are actually negligible or merely manageable. (Aren't edit wars silly?) Both of us have experience in plasma physics and fusion reactors, but have only dabbled in radiation assessment. (Although Lerner might characterize himself as an expert.) If someone from this page feels competent (and is interested in taking on a thankless and likely fruitless task), I would appreciate your input. --Art Carlson 09:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the nuclear engineering graduate program at the University of Utah.

Add it yourself.-Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of colleges offering degrees

While I agree in part with the removal of the list of colleges, I feel that they still have some value and have put them back in.

Technically, the outside links account for just less than half the links in the section... I think the lists would best be put in another article and linked to in this one however, cause as its currently included it takes up too much space of the article.

But just deleting them seems a little harsh, since I think that a large proportion of people interested in nuclear engineering may be interested in seeing which institutions offer the degree. Also, the lists and links are technically accurate, and verifiable.Lcolson (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't really meant to be harsh. It's just that such a list is not really of encyclopedic interest and so finds itself outside our scope. If someone is looking for colleges that have nuclear engineering programs we can point them to a list in the external links. As for the claim that only half the links are external links...that's literally true but most of the entries in the tables have external links associated with them. Protonk (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't know anymore... The more I look at it the more I think this article looked better without the lists of colleges tagged on the end. Just checked other engineering degrees for similar lists, none have them. Go ahead and redelete or revert my undo if you want.Lcolson (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia policy WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK indicates that lists of institutions are promotional and not appropriate. A link to a list might be allowed. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed per Wikipedia policy. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• I certainly benefited from them being them there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.151.37 (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at it now and apparently someone designed it was worthwhile. Hell the only reason I came to this article was because I was hoping it'd have such a list but with one more piece of crucial information. Which one of these colleges actually has a nuclear reactor on campus? I know NCSU does but that's only because I've been there. Most of the students here have no idea. 64.134.145.51 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

MIT has — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.70.228 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As useful as the list is, it's out of date. Several Universities, such as Virginia Tech in my case, offer Nuclear Engineering now and the list hasn't been updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.93.25 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Fusion Engineers?

Is there a consensus as to whether or not current fusion research/design teams, scientists, and engineers should be considered nuclear engineers, or an entirely separate field? A discussion of nuclear fusion is conspicuously absent from this page, neither is there a page for fusion scientists, that I can find anyway. I5-X600K (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these would typically fall under the nuclear engineering umbrella. Fusion researchers and faculty are typically part of the nuclear engineering department at universities. Mmdk22 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Professional areas incomplete

This section includes only a few subfields in nuclear engineering, but neglects other major fields such as fuel cycle management, reactor design, operations design and support, and fusion R&D. Mmdk22 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead is hard to edit

After long experience, mostly editing leads, I've come to dislike opening paragraphs that define their topic either in a dictionary mode, or by direct quotation of cited authorities.

Since its birth as a discipline in the twentieth century, the definition of nuclear engineering has evolved from its initial focus of "getting power from nuclear fission" to the broader concept of "nuclear engineering as any application of nuclear and atomic interactions:

• "Nuclear engineering is an endeavor that makes use of radiation and radioactive material for the benefit of mankind."
• Nuclear engineering "deals with the science and application of nuclear and radiation processes."

References

I think this lead rather delays matters unnecessarily. What happens when the lead is filled with quotes is that few editors are willing to wade in to make small changes. You can't edit a quote without breaking the quote, and if you break the quote, you might break the citation, and is this all really worth the bother? And so it sits there in a mediocre state with little editorial participation for long spans of time.

That's my perception anyway. — MaxEnt 01:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a alternative? Dennisraymeier (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)