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 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
June 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
North American construction is back—smaller and faster—at OPG’s Darlington
“The nuclear renaissance is real here,” said Ontario Power Generation’s Subo Sinnathamby on May 8, one year to the day after OPG secured a final investment decision to build the first of four planned BWRX-300 reactors at its Darlington nuclear power plant, and shortly after the new reactor’s foundation was lifted into place. “We got our license to construct in April and our [final investment decision] in May, and we’ve been off to the races since.”
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.