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
Aug 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2026
Nuclear Technology
September 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2026
Latest News
Second round of Launch Pad selections includes eight newcomers
The National Reactor Innovation Center at Idaho National Laboratory has announced 13 project selections across 12 companies for the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad, a Department of Energy–led program that integrates reactor and fuel facility authorization, testing, and deployment support for private nuclear developers.
The Launch Pad emerged from the Reactor Pilot Program and Fuel Line Pilot Program.
According to INL, projects selected include reactor development and nuclear fuel cycle advancements, including fabrication, enrichment, and conversion technologies.
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.
