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
Mar 2026
Jan 2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
April 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Going Nuclear: Notes from the officially unofficial book tour
I work in the analytical labs at one of Europe’s oldest and largest nuclear sites: Sellafield, in northwestern England. I spend my days at the fume hood front, pipette in one hand and radiation probe in the other (and dosimeter pinned to my chest, of course). Outside the lab, I have a second job: I moonlight as a writer and public speaker. My new popular science book—Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World—came out last summer, and it feels like my life has been running at full power ever since.
J. J. Yugo, D. E. Williamson
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 21 | Number 3 | May 1992 | Pages 1909-1913
Magnetic | doi.org/10.13182/FST92-A29998
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Electromagnetic forces due to eddy currents strongly influence the design of components for the next generation of fusion devices. An effort has been made to benchmark two computer programs used to generate transient electromagnetic loads: SPARK and EddyCuFF. Two simple transient field problems were analyzed, both of which had been previously analyzed by the SPARK code with results recorded in the literature. A third problem that uses an ITER inboard blanket benchmark model was analyzed as well. This problem was driven with a self-consistent, distributed multifilament plasma model generated by an axisymmetric physics code. The benchmark problems showed good agreement between the two shell-element codes. Variations in calculated eddy currents of 1–3% have been found for similar, finely meshed models. A difference of 8% was found in induced current and 20% in force for a coarse mesh and complex, multifilament field driver. Because comparisons were made to results obtained from literature, model preparation and code execution times were not evaluated.