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
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
January 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
DOE, General Matter team up for new fuel mission at Hanford
The Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (EM) on Tuesday announced a partnership with California-based nuclear fuel company General Matter for the potential use of the long-idle Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) at the Hanford Site in Washington state.
According to the announcement, the DOE and General Matter have signed a lease to explore the FMEF's potential to be used for advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies and materials, in part to help satisfy the predicted future requirements of artificial intelligence.
O. C. Baldonado, R. C. Erdmann
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 37 | Number 1 | July 1969 | Pages 59-65
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE69-A20898
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The theory of neutron wave propagation through an interface is investigated with the following models: Model A—One-Speed Diffusion Theory, Model B—One-Speed Transport Theory, Model C—Energy-Dependent Diffusion Theory, and Model D—Energy-Dependent Transport Theory. Numerical results for these four models are given. The wave propagation constants α and β, where k = α + iβ, together with α2 - β2 and 2αβ are compared. In addition, the energy-dependent phase shift θ(E, ω) and amplitude ρ(E, ω) are also computed for Models C, D. The propagation constants compare well with one another. The differences between the four theories, although minor, are enhanced by comparing α2 - β2 as a function of frequency. θ(E, ω) and ρ(E, ω) are identical for Models C and D when plotted. A comparison of the discrete waves written in terms of incident, reflected, and transmitted components is also made. It is concluded that the continuum has a sizeable effect close to the interface. Energy and interface effects were seen to be separable from each other for the models studied. A comparison of the discrete amplitudes was made after neglecting continuum terms. The numerical results show that at the interface, the wave amplitude and phase shifts are almost identical for the two diffusion models but differ substantially from the transport models.