Nuclear belt scales require almost no maintenance due to their simple structure. They can generally be used with just minor modifications to the existing conveyor belt. As a result, they were widely used domestically for a period of time, but similar to digital weighing sensors, their period of widespread use was not very long, and they are now rarely used.

  The so-called nuclear belt scale is essentially a type of solid flow meter. Its measurement results are obtained by measuring the volume of material transported on the belt. Earlier nuclear belt scales were equipped with a material density measurement device. In fact, its accuracy in measuring the dynamic density of materials was not very high. Furthermore, if the material being measured is coal, the moisture content of the coal significantly affects the measurement results. In practical terms, adding a density measurement device not only increases costs but also does little to improve actual measurement accuracy. Therefore, subsequent nuclear belt scales used in China were no longer equipped with density measurement devices.

The measurement principle of a nuclear belt scale is to measure the volume of material on a conveyor belt by the amount of radiation absorbed from a radioactive source by the material. Because different materials have significant differences in radiation absorption, a nuclear belt scale, like an ordinary belt scale, can only be calibrated using actual materials.

Nuclear belt scales use radioactive materials. Due to exposure to radiation, especially long-term exposure, there are strict regulations to protect the health of users, which also increases the cost for users. Because people have different understandings of radiation protection and harm, in practice, these differences in perception often hinder the normal use of nuclear belt scales. In addition, occasional cases of stolen radioactive sources in the country, which raise the risk of radiation spreading and causing harm, are also one of the reasons why nuclear belt scales are difficult to use.

Comparing the weighing done by a nuclear belt scale with that of a conveyor belt scale is not entirely valid. From my perspective, because the two measuring instruments measure different targets—one by volume and the other by weight—any conclusions drawn from such comparative measurements are questionable and, strictly speaking, of little practical significance. However, in certain special situations, the nuclear belt scale can still be very convenient and effective as a 'weight/mass' monitoring instrument.

  In fact, the basic weighing principle of the belt scale is to accumulate the load weight signal on the weighing idler over time to obtain the total, that is, the sum of the weight signals over this period, regardless of the way the weight signal is applied. Therefore, whether it is a cyclic chain code or a rolling chain code, there is no difference in the effect of the load on the weighing idler; the effect is the same.

  Essentially, chain links are not a traceable calibration standard for belt scales, so the 'calibrated value' of the chain link weight (weight per unit length) must be back-calculated based on the results of physical tests of the belt scale, and the back-calculated value must be corrected periodically. Additionally, for circulating chain links, if there is relative movement between the chain and the belt during use, extra errors will be generated, which is a factor often overlooked in practical applications.