- Email: [email protected]
A reply to Halsall
Ann. nucL Energy, Vol. 10, No. 11, p. 625, 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
A REPLY
TO
HALSALL
(Received 30 June 1983) I would like to offer some countercomments to the letter by Halsall (1983, this issue, p. 623) regarding our note "Tight multilattices calculated by the extended-cell cylindrization" (Segev and Carmona, 1983). To facilitate m y writing I shall be utilizing the following abbreviations :
and M C with (relatively) accurate U C results. The comparisons were carried out for lattices of sufficient width to be modelled either as unit cells or as multicells. These comparisons then showed the EC method to be more accurate than the M C method. But all this is in the note. In fact we could have offered the note itself as a countercomment. To summarize, our note presents a method which is rapid in execution and validated on the basis of accurate unit-cell (not the inaccurate multicell!) results.
U C - - a regular unit-cell (pin cell) method ; M C - - t h e WlMS multicell m e t h o d ; EC - o u r extended-ceU cylindrization method. First of all the cylindrization, as used in the contested note, is new in enabling the calculation of cells of annular fuel by the c o m m o n equivalence methods of regular cells. (In WIMS, if a pin-cell contains annular fuel, then the calculation of resonance integrals for that fuel will be based on fuel homogenization throughout the pin.) We are in complete agreement with the remark that the M C method is "not an adequate standard against which to compare a very approximate method". Indeed, the very fact of having found fault with the M C method in the course of our research had us turn away to other avenues. Needless to say we do not compare the EC method with the M C method. W h a t we have compared in the note are the performances of both EC
M. SEGEV
Department of Nuclear Engineering Ben Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva Israel REFERENCES
Halsall M. J. (1983) Ann. nucl. Energy 10, 623. Segev M. and C a r m o n a S. (1983) Ann. nucl. Energy 10, 271.
625
A REPLY
TO
HALSALL
(Received 30 June 1983) I would like to offer some countercomments to the letter by Halsall (1983, this issue, p. 623) regarding our note "Tight multilattices calculated by the extended-cell cylindrization" (Segev and Carmona, 1983). To facilitate m y writing I shall be utilizing the following abbreviations :
and M C with (relatively) accurate U C results. The comparisons were carried out for lattices of sufficient width to be modelled either as unit cells or as multicells. These comparisons then showed the EC method to be more accurate than the M C method. But all this is in the note. In fact we could have offered the note itself as a countercomment. To summarize, our note presents a method which is rapid in execution and validated on the basis of accurate unit-cell (not the inaccurate multicell!) results.
U C - - a regular unit-cell (pin cell) method ; M C - - t h e WlMS multicell m e t h o d ; EC - o u r extended-ceU cylindrization method. First of all the cylindrization, as used in the contested note, is new in enabling the calculation of cells of annular fuel by the c o m m o n equivalence methods of regular cells. (In WIMS, if a pin-cell contains annular fuel, then the calculation of resonance integrals for that fuel will be based on fuel homogenization throughout the pin.) We are in complete agreement with the remark that the M C method is "not an adequate standard against which to compare a very approximate method". Indeed, the very fact of having found fault with the M C method in the course of our research had us turn away to other avenues. Needless to say we do not compare the EC method with the M C method. W h a t we have compared in the note are the performances of both EC
M. SEGEV
Department of Nuclear Engineering Ben Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva Israel REFERENCES
Halsall M. J. (1983) Ann. nucl. Energy 10, 623. Segev M. and C a r m o n a S. (1983) Ann. nucl. Energy 10, 271.
625