ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
The top 10 states of nuclear
The past few years have seen a concerted effort from many U.S. states to encourage nuclear development. The momentum behind nuclear-friendly policies has grown considerably, with many states repealing moratoriums, courting nuclear developers and suppliers, and in some cases creating advisory groups and road maps to push deployment of new nuclear reactors.
J. Martin Taccetti, Thomas P. Intrator, Frederick J. Wysocki, Katherine C. Forman, Donald G. Gale, Sean K. Coffey, James H. Degnan
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 41 | Number 1 | January 2002 | Pages 13-23
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/FST02-A196
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Two experiments showing continuous, real-time measurements of the radial convergence of a high-aspect-ratio aluminum flux conserver are presented. These results were obtained by measuring the compression of both axial and radial components of an internal low-intensity magnetic field. Repeatable flux conserver compressions of this type, uniform to 10:1 compression ratio, form a step toward achieving magnetized target fusion, where a plasma of appropriate temperature and density would be introduced into the flux conserver for compression to fusion conditions. While X radiographs show this compression ratio was achieved, the magnetic field probe signals were cut off earlier. Axial component measurements resulted in compression ratios of 7:1 and 6.3:1, for the first and second compressions, before the magnetic probe signals were lost. Radial component measurements disagree with the axial probe results. Although the discrepancy between axial and radial probe measurements is not completely understood, possible explanations are presented.