The Melt Enthalpy of Pu6Fe

Joshua D. Coe; William W. Anderson; Paul H. Tobash

doi:10.3390/app112210800

The Melt Enthalpy of Pu6Fe

Applied Sciences ◽

10.3390/app112210800 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (22) ◽

pp. 10800

Author(s):

Joshua D. Coe ◽

William W. Anderson ◽

Paul H. Tobash

Keyword(s):

Heat Flow ◽

Liquid Mixture ◽

Subsequent Heating ◽

Original Report

Schwartz, et al., previously reported calorimetry measurements conducted on a Pu-Pu6Fe mixture, from which they derived a melt enthalpy of 31.2 J/g (46.6 kJ/mol) for Pu6Fe. This was the first—and remains the only—such value to appear in the literature. We reanalyze those results in light of two contributions to the measured heat flow not considered in the original report: the melt enthalpy of the excess Pu and the subsequent heating of the liquid mixture. These corrections yield a revised value of 24.4 J/g (36.3 kJ/mol), which we show to be consistent with the melt enthalpy of U6Fe.

Download Full-text

Evaluating the Cognitive Interviewing Reporting Framework (CIRF) by Rewriting a Dutch Pretesting Report of a European Health Survey Questionnaire *The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Statistics Netherlands.

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-2241/a000072 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 104-112 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Rachel Vis-Visschers ◽

Vivian Meertens

Keyword(s):

Health Survey ◽

Cognitive Interviewing ◽

Survey Questionnaire ◽

Reporting Framework ◽

Research Designs ◽

European Health ◽

Original Report ◽

Minimal Standard ◽

Exhaustive List

We used the Cognitive Interviewing Reporting Framework (CIRF) to restructure the report of a pretest on a European health survey questionnaire. This pretest was conducted by the Questionnaire Laboratory of Statistics Netherlands, and the original report was written according to a standard Statistics Netherlands format for pretesting reports. This article contains the rewritten report with highlights from the case study. The authors reflect on the process of rewriting and the usefulness of the CIRF. We conclude that expanded use of the CIRF as a reporting format for articles on cognitive pretests would enhance international comparability, completeness, and uniformity of research designs, terminology, and reporting. A limitation of the CIRF is that it does not provide an exhaustive list of items that could be included in a report, but it is more a “minimal standard”: that is a report on how a cognitive pretest was conducted should at least contain a description of the CIRF items.

Download Full-text