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
U.K. vision for fusion
The U.K. government has announced a series of initiatives to progress fusion to commercialization, laid out in a fusion strategy policy paper published March 16. A New Energy Revolution: The UK’s Plan for Delivering Fusion Energy begins to describe how the government’s £2.5 billion (about $3.4 billion) investment in fusion research and development over five years will be allocated.
L. Green, J. T. Kriese, M. Natelson
Nuclear Technology | Volume 32 | Number 2 | February 1977 | Pages 186-204
Technical Paper | Fuel | doi.org/10.13182/NT77-A31723
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The reactivity perturbation method has been investigated as a possible technique for the assay of spent fuel rods from a 233UO2-ThO2-fueled core. A hard interrogating spectrum was provided at the center of the ARMF-1 core by two B4C filters of different thickness. Rods up to 267 cm (2.67 m) long were pulled through the core at speeds up to 25 cm/min (4.17 × 10−2 m/s), and the time-integrated reactivity worth was measured. The fuel response of both filters was found to be linear over a wide fuel density range, with good fuel sensitivity. Fission product sensitivities for the two filters, obtained both experimentally and calculationally, were very low and in good agreement with one another. Single-measurement uncertainty was 0.6 g at the 25 cm/min (4.17 × 10−3 m/s) pulling speed. Total estimated assay precision, including both systematic and random errors, for a hypothetical assay of 500 rods was ∼0.5%.