Talk:Void coefficient

message: Does Magnox have full containment or it is more like in RBMK type reactor?
:Looks like it doesn't have a secondary containment building:    (but note that at least two are anti-nuclear activist sites).  But comparing them to RBMK is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.  This is not to say that they're safe, of course!  But they have rather different failure modes.  (Besides, the later RBMK, like the Chernobyl reactor actually did have partial secondary containment...)  Anyway, I'm still looking for some authoritative technical descriptions of a Magnox reactor, to see if they actually do have some analogous backup containment system. But I'm not too hopeful.
:This should maybe go on Talk:Magnox reactor and ultimately on Magnox reactor itself. --Andrew 05:00, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, there's a discussion at Talk:Magnox#Lack of secondary containment, and no, there's no secondary containment. Andrewa 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnox containment

message: I've started modifying this page some by expanding, and changing in one relatively important way, the basic definition.  The "important" change is to get rid of the idea that void coefficient has to do with the rate of power change.  It really has to do with the amount of power change.  The rate of power change is related to the rate of change in void content, the magnitude of total reactivity change cause by the change in voids, and whether the total reactivity change is less than or greater than the reactivity tied up in the delayed neutron fraction.  (I'm working from memory on this last statement, so my terminology may not be quite correct; but the issue is whether or not the amount of reactivity change is enough to cause the reactor to become prompt critical.  I'll try to fix the terminology -- if incorrect -- later.)  If you feel that I am getting too technical here, let me know and I will try to use simpler terminology.  My goal is to try to get roughly the right idea communicated to an average high school science student.--BoHawk 17:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The negative void coefficient of some of the reactors designed in the United States, such as the reactor in Three Mile Island and (if I'm not mistaken)  SL-1, is taken by many people as something that makes both reactors inherently better, safer and "more stable" then Sovietic RBMK used in Chernobyl. But, obviously, this stability can't mean much, as the three reactors suffered serious incidents. 
What good is this "stability" given by the negative void coefficient when the reactor can suffer meltdown anyway in the case of a LOCA? This is (if I'm not mistaken) what happened in TMI. What is the point of stressing this difference between the designs of these two USA reactors and the Sovietic one, when in the end they can all blow up anyway? This doesn't look like "stability" to me. -- NIC1138 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: This Page's introduction and explanation sections are grossly verbose and talk about  topics such as reactivity in depth. 
This page should stay in scope by only taking directly about the coefficient and it's effects. 
The following excerpt, for example, can be found on the reactivity page and is absolutely not needed to describe void coefficient
"Reactivity, in the nuclear engineering sense (not to be confused with chemical reactivity), measures the degree of change in neutron multiplication in a reactor core. Reactivity is directly related to the tendency of the reactor core to change power level: if reactivity is positive, the core power tends to increase; if it is negative, the core power tends to decrease; if it is zero, the core power tends to remain stable. The reactivity of the core may be adjusted by the reactor control system in order to obtain a desired power level change (or to keep the same power level). It can be compared to the reaction of an automobile as conditions around it change (for instance, wind intensity and direction or road slope), and therefore the corresponding counter-measure that the driver applies to maintain road speed or execute a desired maneuver." Angelmarauder (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope