Frankly, it seems to me that you're the one trying to make it a semantics game, by trying to define what is and is not a nuclear reactor based on how you collec

Frankly, it seems to me that you're the one trying to make it a semantics game, by trying to define what is and is not a nuclear reactor based on how you collect power from the device. According to that Wikipedia article, SNAP 10A was centered on a device that created and maintained a controlled, sustained nuclear fission reaction. I would call that a "nuclear reactor" even if no attempt were made to harvest the power. I think that the rest of the world is probably with me on this. The Chicago Pile 1 is widely regarded as the first nuclear reactor, and nobody particularly cares how it generated electricity. What they care about is that it demonstrated a controlled, sustained nuclear fission reaction.