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
Feb 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
January 2026
Latest News
Fusion energy: Progress, partnerships, and the path to deployment
Over the past decade, fusion energy has moved decisively from scientific aspiration toward a credible pathway to a new energy technology. Thanks to long-term federal support, we have significantly advanced our fundamental understanding of plasma physics—the behavior of the superheated gases at the heart of fusion devices. This knowledge will enable the creation and control of fusion fuel under conditions required for future power plants. Our progress is exemplified by breakthroughs at the National Ignition Facility and the Joint European Torus.
William H. Hedley, Dennis J. Gault, Robert L. Mielke
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 21 | Number 2 | March 1992 | Pages 452-456
Safety; Measurement and Accountability; Operation and Maintenance; Application | doi.org/10.13182/FST92-A29787
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Three types of moisture monitors: MCM Model Dewluxe-20, Panametrics Model System One, and Shaw Model SHA-TRS were tested for accuracy and speed of response over low (10–50 ppm H2O), medium (100–500 ppm H2O), and high (500–4,000 ppm H2O) concentration ranges. The results for the three instruments tested (one of each kind) showed that the MCM instrument was generally more accurate and responded more quickly than the other two instruments, with the Panametrics instrument being less accurate (except at low concentration) and slower to respond, and the Shaw instrument was the least accurate and least responsive of the three instruments during the tests made.
