1995.04.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:46:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3lhi1b$ekb@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
>>(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>> In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>>> Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>>> 
>>> Year: 2062 *(see note below)
>>> 
>[many deletions of Art Carlson's excellent points]
>>> >    What type will it be?
>>> 
>>Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
>>the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
>>terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).
>
>I think beta=40-80% is very tough, but it is needed to use an advanced
>fuel. The reason is that advanced fuels burn hotter, and if beta is
>is low (<10%) then heat loss from Synchrotron radiation will cool the
>power plant too much. Since I think advanced fuels will be required to
>solve the neutron damage problem, then very high beta is required.

There is another way around the synchrotron (cyclotron) radiation, and
that is to reflect it.  In the PLASMAK(tm) generator, the low initial
BETA at quit low fields is replaced by significant BETA and high fields,
so it is an important consideration here too.  The solution we are
relying on is reflection by the hyperdense electron blanket at inner
wall of the compressed plasma Mantle.  This should reflect through the
10th harmonic.  Fortunately, the Mantle doesn't have "holes" such
as beam or vacuum pump ports or RF antennae which are sinks for such
radiation.  

>>Control of density, temperature, and current profiles, as well.

>yes

It should be controlled in the manner of a diesel engine burn.  To
split function pressure into temp and density is silly.  

>The reason I included both was because they can act differently, and
>both might be needed in order to have enough ability to control profiles.
>If we can get enough flexibility with just one, then lets just use one.
>This is particularly important because RF antennas and especially neutral
>beams are very expensive add-ons. The fewer, the better. That is why I
>stressed a high level of internal heating and current drive.

yes, if necessary

>>I can't see the first generation of power plants running on D-He3.

>I think that they have to. The 14 MeV neutron fluence in a DT machine
>is just HUGE. I think it will be necessary to develop reduced neutron
>fuel cycles before commercial power becomes a possibility. This is a
>tough issue that we really won't have the answer to until AFTER we get 
>results from the materials experiment. Thus we may develop a DT reactor
>that works, but has a short lifespan because of neutron embrittlement
>and might not be economical. Solving this particular problem is the biggest
>reason (IMO) to consider you're conjecture of a need of something between DEMO
>and the first commercial plant.

Good thinking. 

>>time: You need to wait 10 or 20 years before a reactor can feed
>>itself, much less provide a surplus to start up the next one.

>Yes, this is a tough problem. But military programs have already
>proved that we can build tritium production facilities. So it is
>in principle already solved, and I would hope that if we had a
>tritium program as an adjunct to a DT or D-3He fusion program that
>we could avoid the (sometimes really stupid) mistakes that led to
>environmental problems in the past.

As I say, it is ridiculous to even seriously consider D-T.  

>>> 	Advanced materials utilization including materials able to
>>> 	  withstand high thermal and mechanical stresses as well as
>>> 	  low neutron activiation. Ideally the materials will also
>>> 	  have high thermal conductivity. First wall components will
>>> 	  be low Z and low sputtering.





>>plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
>>soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).

>Both are very important. Most ideas I have seen make allowances for
>plasma facing components to be replaced every 1-2 years. So we have to
>get designs where the structural components and coils last 20-30 years
>and the plasma facing items last 1-2 years. The structure has less heat load
>and somewhat less neutron flux, but it must last 10 times longer. Both
>problems are vry tough. Gee I'm glad that there are so many new and exciting
>results coming in from materials science research. We are going to need
>them.

But another consideration with "high thermal conductivity" materials is
the effective conductivity within a 15-20 Tesla field 

>>I would favor building a separate facility for materials testing,
>>although there is no alternative which is either cheap or quick.

>I agree, but I don't see any really serious effort to build funding
>momentum by any of the national programs. Both the FMTF and the
>divertor simulator experiments have consistently been designed and
>redesigned only to be shelved. Maybe I'm wrong here. I would welcome
>a correction by anyone in the nose.

Materials for what???  If you are talking about the first wall, that
should be a plasma.  Now does the affect your materials selection??

>> I
>>also fear that another step may be needed, call it a prototype, built
>>after DEMO demonstrates tritium breeding and electricity production,
>>but still covering so much new ground that it will not in itself be
>>economical.

>Right, this could very possibly be a necessity.

No kidding, and the next one and the next one ... how many since T-3???
How many designs have been proposed as the TFTR follow on?? 

There is no limit.  

>>Given unlimited money, it would still be hard to compress the time
>>scale by much. Doubling the money would certainly not halve the time.

>I think unlimited funding could reduce things by a factor of 2 or 3.
>Just look at manned moon missions. I think the presidential initiative and
>the space race prestige compressed that effort by a factor of 5, but the
>cost went up very dramatically.

Unlimited money is an oxymoron.  You have had unlimited money..  where
did it go???    Print some up and find out how much more that will cause
you to need!   We have some serious global financial situations looming,
and you dreamers are discussing "unlimited money"???  I can't believe
this.  Mexico, Canada, Japan, UK, US, Russia, Deuscher Republic etc. 

>My real point in putting that statement in all caps was that the current
>funding path of fusion, at least in the U.S. is nowhere near the level
>to sustain the progress I outlined. The 50% cut (in real dollars) in the
>program in the last 15 years has taken its toll. Funding must be increased
>significantly to pursue this plan. 

The dollar has lost 50% never mind you want a funding increase.  That's
it, stop funding tokamak now.  We are losing reality here.  Let's have
the government fund CF.  At least there it will take a while to 
exponentiate.   Help me here... this is an April 1 joke ..  right???
John???  big joke  ein witz???    

>>Fortunately, even if an alternate concept manages an end run around
>>the tokamak/stellarator, much of what we are learning--from the
>>physics of turbulence and of alpha heating to feedback control and
>>remote maintenance--will be applicable to any concept.
>
>Absolutely. This is why we must pursue ITER as a tokamak in a timely
>fashion. This is a tricky point to understand. It is real easy to say
>that the Tokamak will never be economically feasible (a debatable 
>position) and then conclude that we should not build ITER. However, it 
>is clear that Tokamaks can be quickly made into ignition devices. This 
>will allow exploration of plasma burning and some materials issues quickly
>So even if one thinks that Tokamaks will ultimately not be commercially
>viable, it does not diminish the need to build ITER in a timely fashion.

I hardly see where plasma "burning" in an essential vacuum will relate 
whatsoever to any type of commercial fusion generator device.  
                               Milliwatts / cc 
                                     ---  
                                  ludicrous.   
                             What a boondoggle   :-(  
                                 What a waste
                              of borrowed money.  

Oh! did that belong to you?? tough kid.  
>-john .w cobb
>-- 
>John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
>		-Jimmy Buffett
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion timetable
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 08:33:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

john .w cobb writes:
[snip]
>been chided and spanked for "over-promising" the arrival of fusion. Now from
>a sociological point of view how does this occur? Well, you have just seen it.
>Responsible people give responsible estimates that are a long way off. Then
>unrelated fringe elements promise the sky. No-one who is responsible
>endorses those estimates, and many actively repudiate them. Nevertheless,
>people tend to remember the one or two people who are loudly shouting "I can
>do it cheap, in a few months, in my garage" and transfer that unrealism as a
>stain that tarnishes those who acted responsibly. This is why you have seen
>many posters who have expressed no small amount of consternation at Paul, or
>in previous times, Brussard because they know what comes next. Their wild
>promises become the Albatrosses that hang from the fusion program's neck
>for years to come.
>
>Just note that DOE has but estimates for DEMO at around 2035. I gave you my
>personal estimate of 2062 for commercial power and it was PAUL KOLOC who
>promised it to you in 12 years. If he does it, more power to him [sorry for
>the pun]. but if he fails, don't blame me, or Tokamaks, or FRC's, or
>DOE, or anyone else for overpromising because I did not do it.
>
>-john .w cobb

So perhaps the DOE funded programs should just surrender 1 years 
funding, and distribute it evenly over the various alternate 
concepts. If Paul is right, and workable solutions really are cheap 
just because they work, then the funding that this would produce, 
should be sufficient to decide which of the alternate schemes are the 
most promising, and would have the benefit for the main stream 
researchers, that it would get rid of a lot of the "unrealistic" 
expectations generated by the proponents of alternate concepts.
It might even end up leading to a complete change in direction.
The above is based on my guess that there are about half a dozen 
alternate concepts worth investigating. $350 million spread evenly 
would be about $50-60 million each.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:50:32 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Cameron Randale Bass wrote:

> In article <D65vGv.Ez2@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>,
> Scott Hazen Mueller <scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> wrote:
> >In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>,
> > <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
> >>We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
> >>those who contributed to the contribution pot?
> >
[...]
> >Choices expressed thus far:
> >
> >  (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
> >      children of CNF researchers]?
> >
> >  (2) Fund another trip.
> >
> >  (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
> >
> >  (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.
>

You have apparently forgotten that I have suggested giving it to charity, and
I am a contributor, so it seems there are now two who are for this,... 

>       Give it to charity, I think the prize is pointless, and returning
>       the money is likely more pointless.  And the trip..  Well, perhaps
>       Tom should take a vacation somewhere more pleasant than the last
>       place we sent him.
> 
>                                 dale bass
> 

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Robert Blazek /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
     
Originally-From: blazek@uwindsor.ca (Robert Blazek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? 2062  Tell me you joking? Help
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 05:22:20 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor

Hi, I've been following this thread for some time.

On a related subject check out the www page

Idea Futures  http://skyler.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml

which is essentially a betting forum on the future possibilities of
technology, politics, natural events, business etc.  It follows roughly
as I understand the delphi techniques developed by forcasters and
futurologists in the 1960's.  Essentially just like a stock market
reflects the true value of the securities traded on it (efficient
market hypothesis is involved) so a idea future market will reflect
the general consensus on the future event being traded fairly accurately.


Not that this is a perfect technique, nothing ever is.  Big honking
prediction doosies have been laid by even the most capable forcasters.
But it has some application to the discussion at hand.  Take a look at it
and it might be enlightening.

BTW the current prediction for cold fusion actually being successful
is approximately 18%.
-- 
----
Kids dream they can fly.  Adults dream they can fly first class.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblazek cudfnRobert cudlnBlazek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 10:23:45 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Scott Hazen Mueller wrote:

> In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>,
>  <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
> >We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
> >those who contributed to the contribution pot?
> 
> I hardly think we have a consenus.  There were about 40 people who chipped
> in to the original fund, and we've heard from perhaps 1/4 of those.
> 
> I haven't heard Dieter express an opinion on the disposition, and he was a
> contributor.  Perhaps he would collect a tally?  I'd prefer to have someone
> publically neutral do so even though I don't really think anyone here would
> do anything underhanded.  It's just that I'd like to avoid even the possible
> implication of that.
> 
> Choices expressed thus far:
> 
>   (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
>       children of CNF researchers]?
> 
>   (2) Fund another trip.
> 
>   (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
> 
>   (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.
> 
>            \scott

OK, I again add, as already posted but forgotten,

    (5) give to some charity of Tom's choice.

I am willing to do the counting. Before that, though, let's give the 40-odd
contributors about a fortnight to add to that list. I'll announce the closing
of additions to it, and then I'll ask all who want to to email me with their
vote.
Tentatively, the closing date could be the end of April, say 30-Apr ?

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Ali Eulaers /  light ion beam ineretial confinement
     
Originally-From: aeulaers@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be (Ali Eulaers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: light ion beam ineretial confinement
Date: 4 Apr 1995 20:47:37 GMT
Organization: RUCA , Universiteit Antwerpen

Hi,

Is there anybody outthere who could help me out on recent rsults
produced by the light ion beam facilities at Sandia, Albaquerque
in the PBFA2 and the Kalif at Karlsruhe in GErmany ?

Your help and information would be very welcome as I'm preparing
a thesis on Nuclear Fusion

Thanx in advance
Ali Eulaers
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenaeulaers cudfnAli cudlnEulaers cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 02:51:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>Thanks to John Cobb for a level headed and well explained discussion
>of the path to commercial fusion. I basically agree with his time
>scale and his concepts, but I might make a few comments.
>
>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
>(John W. Cobb) writes:

>> In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>> Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?

>> Year: 2062 *(see note below)
>> >    What type will it be?

>> An advanced magnetic confinement device. Features:
>> 	basically toroidal confinement field
>> .. .

>Maybe, but I don't find the need for steady state to be compelling. An
>ignited reactor will have a pulse length of many hours, and the hour
>or less to recharge the current drive flux can be bridged over with
>thermal storage. The cycle fatigue of the structure will be determined
>by the rare occasions that the reactor has to be brought down to room
>temperature rather than the few degrees swing during recharging.

Art, that seems to give the device a duty cycle of 2/3 or maybe 3/4,
which means the "off power" loss time for power production should be 
made up from that thermal reservoir as well as needed recharge energy.  
Although, thermal reservoir temperatures near fusion burn could be 
converted to efficient electrical power, I doubt your hot reservoir would
exceed 1000K.  So it's Carnot efficiency will require crudely a factor
or 2 power-need-to-be-made-up  to-delivered-to-the-reservoir.  Also, 
there are other fatigue modes that you might have missed. 

>> 	high beta, 40-80%
>> .. .
>Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
>the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
>terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).

Good point, IF the the applied pressures must come down (due to design
or whatever), then we still aren't getting very far with the desire to
increase fuel density, as in the Doublet experiment.  Of course, if you 
have Spheromak/PLASMAK(tm), then indeed, you have a big win for higher 
beta (and pressure too).  

>> 	active control of plasma position, mhd stability, and
>> 	  even turbulent fluctuations

>Control of density, temperature, and current profiles, as well.

Ah!  feed back control for MHD stability would have to be humongously
fast, and for a system that large, I don't think you would have a pray.
They tried stuff like that on SYLLAC.  It's much better to just
dump in the fuel and control the burn rate through compression heating
and relaxation .  Of course if your range of compression control is less 
than a few orders and your fuel burn times are longer than a natural 
compressive oscillation, then there are problems.  

>> 	external heating via neutral beams and RF antennas, but
>> 	  a high level of internal heating (ignition) and 
>>           self-sustained current (mostly from diamagnetic current,
>>           but also including bootstrap current)

>Do we really need two heating systems? Good, neutral beams and rf can
>both drive current, which is a good thing whether or not you have
>steady state. And their different characteristics can be used to
>achieve the profile control mentioned above.

But neutral beams and rf also heat the plasma, and that raises the BETA
so it can put you into a faster loss transport mode.  With a PLASMAK
magnetoplasmoid under compression heating the confining field is 
increased, which helps offset BETA pumping.  Unfortunately "B-Fields" 
don't increase with either neutral, particle beam or rf heating on a 
tokamak.    

>> 	3He breeder by using a neutron multiplication blanket to
>> 	  breed tritium and then waiting for it to decay into 3He

>This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
>securely stored off-site.  It also gives you a depressing doubling
>time: You need to wait 10 or 20 years before a reactor can feed
>itself, much less provide a surplus to start up the next one.

If you can get it off site.  Hydrogen diffuses and embrittles, and
tritium is likely worse over a period due to addtional activation 
damage.  It also can be "seen" easily, so it could be a real head 
ache for a money strapped program that finds itself facing "greenies"
with blinking Gieger counters.  

>> 	Advanced materials utilization including materials able to
>> 	  withstand high thermal and mechanical stresses as well as
>> 	  low neutron activiation. Ideally the materials will also
>> 	  have high thermal conductivity. First wall components will
>> 	  be low Z and low sputtering.

>I'd put my money on plasma facing components (or at least divertor
>plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).

Tungsten (Wolfram) nuclei also absorb edge runaways and becomes 
radioactive.   Even small portions of eroded tungsten also contains a 
bevy of electrons for inducing edge cooling.  
So, I agree with John.  

>> 1) 2062. By "power plant" I mean the first plant built to produce
>> commercial power on a for profit basis ...

>"When will we have fusion?" can mean anything from scientific breakeven
>to enough plants to make a significant contribution to our supply of
>energy. It's important to state the question clearly.

>           . . ..       ..  .  . .      .. .             . .      I
>also fear that another step may be needed, call it a prototype, built
>after DEMO demonstrates tritium breeding and electricity production,
>but still covering so much new ground that it will not in itself be
>economical. It could still fit into John Cobb's timetable if you eat
>up some of his 15 years contingency and start the DEMO design before
>materials testing and concept improvement experiments are completed.

But Art, that roof shingling action (starting "y" before finishing and
fully analysing "X")  is what has put us in this predicament, with loads 
of tokamaks   (now only tokamaks!) that have learned (or at least have 
incorporated) LITTLE or NOTHING from each of their respective previous 
versions.  

>> THAT IS, THE FIRST PRODUCTION OF COMMERIIAL
>> FUSION POWER IS QUESTION NOT OF TIME, BUT OF MONEY.

>Given unlimited money, it would still be hard to compress the time
>scale by much. Doubling the money would certainly not halve the time.

Exactly, "What's half of forever?".  Just at the end of the rainbow.   
That " `No-Gain' with-more-effort" understanding in itself is an 
ominous sign to an operations engineer.   

>>           .    .          ..   .       .     These improvements are
>> possible with alternate concepts, but they have questions of their own to
>> address (especially confinement).

>Fortunately, even if an alternate concept manages an end run around
>the tokamak/stellarator, much of what we are learning--from the
>physics of turbulence and of alpha heating to feedback control and
>remote maintenance--will be applicable to any concept.

Oh?  I think the end run, won't be around the tokamak/stellarator, 
rather around the "issues (problems)" which relate to these concepts.  
The "solution" is that the AC just evolves so as to eliminate the 
problem.  They can do this by assuming topology and embodiment 
improvements or simplifications.  Consequently, structures or 
functions may not even exist in a particular alternative concept to 
which a tokamak improvement feedback algorithm could be applied. 
So ACs can go beyond direct confrontational solution.  

>> In terms of Japan. I think the answer to this question is very unknown. I
>>  .. .

>In broad terms, I would agree, although Europe is able to maintain
>long term research programs and build big projects, and America could
>decide to sprint on the home stretch.
>And that's the way I see it.

I hope the cited European advantages have little to do with it.  
Wouldn't you want your fusion thingy whatever it is to be capable
of driving manned planetary missions???

>--Art Carlson--
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Richard Schultz /  More recent references always a plus!
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More recent references always a plus!
Date: 5 Apr 1995 11:18:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D6JL0A.CFM@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  "Pure H2O2 is a pale blue, sirupy liquid, boiling at 152.1 ....."
>F. Albert Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 
>Interscience (1972),  414

"Pure H2O2 is a colorless liquid (b. 150.2 [deg], m. -0.43 [deg]) that
resembles water in many of its physical properties, although it is
denser (1.44 at 25 C)."
--F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry,
Fourth Edition ("completely revised from the original literature"), 
New York:  Wiley, 1980, p. 495.

Anyone care to look it up in the most recent edition?  (Ignoring for
the moment that a "pale blue" liquid will probably look colorless if
it's dilute enough or in a small enough container.)

Just for completeness, on the page following the above quotation, they
say that "decomposition of hydrogen peroxide according to reaction 15-3
[i.e. to water and oxygen], which may be considered a self-oxidation,
occurs most rapidly in basic solution; hence an excess of H2O2 may best
be destroyed by heating in basic solution."  For whatever that's worth.
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / I Johnston /  Re: Thermocouple positioning
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocouple positioning
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 11:21:55 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: I have no role in the project, I am an independent, outside observer.
:  

who stands to make a lot of money if gullible investors can be
persuaded, however briefly, that there is something in cold fusion and
therefore buy stock in your patent-holding company.

Ian

PS This was typed on an Opus PC386SX with Depca Ethernet card and Elonex
VGA monitor. It therefore cannot be false ...

PPS (for those who don't get it) ... any more than a power reading from
a GEC memter can be false.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 05 Apr 1995 11:41:40 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <3lhi1b$ekb@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:

> In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
> Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
> >In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
> >(John W. Cobb) writes:
> >> In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> >> Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:

> >> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
> >> >    What type will it be?

> >> 	high beta, 40-80%

> >Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
> >the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
> >terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).
> 
> I think beta=40-80% is very tough, but it is needed to use an advanced
> fuel. The reason is that advanced fuels burn hotter, and if beta is
> is low (<10%) then heat loss from Synchrotron radiation will cool the
> power plant too much. Since I think advanced fuels will be required to
> solve the neutron damage problem, then very high beta is required.
> 
> Now the question is whether 40-80% is practical. I think it is. FRC's
> routinely operate in the high end of this range naturally. People are
> doing (th) studies on very low aspect ratio tokamaks that get beta-toroidal
> several hundred percent and still maintain stability to large classes
> of mhd modes. The trick is to use shaping to the max to improve stability,
> to the point that the toroidal field is less and less important for
> stability (toroidal field, we don't need no stinking toroidal field).
> Now beta-poloidal is kind of naturally max'ed out at about 100%, so
> beta of 40-80% seems in the realm of conceivability in terms of MHD
> stability. Transport is another issue that I won't hazard a guess. My
> point is that I believe we have to go this route and that I don't see a
> fundamental barrier to getting there.

> >> 	main burn phase using advanced D-3He fuel. Path to high
> >>           operating temps giving by a startup D-T burning phase.
> >I can't see the first generation of power plants running on D-He3.
> 
> I think that they have to. The 14 MeV neutron fluence in a DT machine
> is just HUGE. I think it will be necessary to develop reduced neutron
> fuel cycles before commercial power becomes a possibility. This is a
> tough issue that we really won't have the answer to until AFTER we get 
> results from the materials experiment. Thus we may develop a DT reactor
> that works, but has a short lifespan because of neutron embrittlement
> and might not be economical. Solving this particular problem is the biggest
> reason (IMO) to consider you're conjecture of a need of something between DEMO
> and the first commercial plant.


It's interesting how all these questions hang together. If John Cobb
is right that we can't live with copious 14 MeV neutrons, then we will
have to go to D-He3, which ignites at higher temperatures, which will
force us to go to high beta to avoid synchrotron radiation, which may
only be possible with a very low aspect ratio. If you burn D-T, there
is a lower limit on the aspect ratio due to the shielding needed, so
it may be possible to go to lower aspect ratios with D-He. Also, a
high-beta, low aspect ratio machine may need to be steady state, since
you don't have any room for a transformer in the core, but the high
beta may increase the diamagnetic currents and the low aspect ratio
may increase the bootstrap current so that steady state becomes
possible. It's important to think of each suggestion as a package
which is a local optimum, either or neither of which may be a global
optimum. My arguments against the possibility of high beta and the
need for steady state do not apply with the same force or in the same
way to John Cobb's D-He3 concept as to the standard D-T concept.

Now down to business. Second stability has been a buzz word for over a
decade. For the uninitiated, tokamaks have a fairly clear-cut maximum
on their pressure. If you try to heat them or push in particles when
the pressure is already equal a particular value in the range of 5 to
10% of the magnetic field pressure (B^2/2mu_0), they refuse (sometimes
graciously, sometimes vehemently). The particular upper limit can be
improved by decreasing the aspect ratio or increasing the ellipticity
and triangularity. Second stability refers to the theoretical
prediction that, while a beta of 11 or 12% may not be possible, a beta
of 20% could be. This is one of the most important ideas running under
the catch-all of "advanced tokamaks". So now my first question:

(1) It was my understanding that machines like PBX were built
explicitly to access and demonstrate second stability. If they have
done it, I missed the news. If they haven't been able to, can anyone
tell me why not?

The second thing I'd like to know about is low aspect ratio
tokamaks. Almost all tokamaks have an aspect ratio (major radius
divided by minor radius) around 3. (Smaller is hard to build because
there's no room in the hole, and bigger costs you money on
circumference that you would rather spend on cross section.) This
makes the scaling with aspect ratio, for example of confinement time,
very uncertain. As with second stability, people have been talking
about the potential benefits of small aspect ratio for a long time,
and at least a few machines have been built and operated. On the other
hand, for reasons I haven't been able to comprehend, our stellarator
experts claim that their large aspect ratio is a virtue. So,

(2) What has been the experience with small aspect ratio tokamaks? Do
they confirm the (any) theory? What would be required in a reactor to
get dramatic benefits (40-80%)? Giving up neutron shielding and ohmic
current drive?

Two more small points. First, let's just agree that FRC's are better
than tokamaks. :)  (Actually, they are predicted to be MHD
unstable. The fact that they are experimentally stable could be
related to the small size of current experiments.) Second, the size of
a tokamak is determined ultimately be transport. If we increase beta
without improving transport, a reactor (or an ignition experiment)
won't get cheaper, just more powerful. Raise beta from 10% to 60% and
your 3 GW ITER becomes a 100 GW ITER. I know, I know, use a shitty
fuel and the value drops again, although even with 3 GW D-He3 fusion
power, the divertor problem becomes 5 times harder since those
friendly neutrons are no longer carrying away 80% of your power.

-- Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 05 Apr 1995 12:25:16 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <3lpc6n$9i6@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:

> In article <D6EHuv.1zq@prometheus.UUCP>,
> Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
> >In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.ed
 (John W. Cobb) writes:
> >>In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> >>Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >>>    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
> >>
> >>Year: 2062 *(see note below)
> 
> ... In fact I've done some work on just such a type of fusion
> scheme that allows one to evade the Virial theorem restrictions on
> equilibrium.
Now you've pulled my string. What do you mean by this?

> However, the difficulties of maintaining a transition
> from plasma to gas to liquid are mind-bogglingly complex.
Here, here!
[Discussion of Rayleigh-Taylor modes and plasma condensation cut.]

> Now I've been ripping on Paul's plasmak idea, but not really to
> demean it.
OK, but you woke him up, you deal with him.

> Now this brings up an interesting point. I guessed 2062. Paul guesses
> 40005 (or more). What's the difference? That is, in terms of planning
> our actions today and in the near future, how should they be governed if the
> answer to Michael Brumm's question is 20602, 40005, or never? IMO very little.
> I will likely not be around in any of the cases. In terms of financial
> analysis, the difference between repaying a loan on a 100 year term and
> servicing the debt on a perpetual mortgage are very, very small. What is the
> value of the development of fusion in the year 2062? Let's guess it is
> worth 10 Billion dollars. What is the present value of that future innovation?
> well, using a 5% discount rate for 67 years in the future, that comes out to
> around 350 million dollars, or about 1 years funding at the current levels.
> Now consider, is 10 G$ a proper value for a complete technology for how to
> build a fusion power plant with a cost of electricity comparable to current
> rates? Well, it is my best guess, but others may differ. However, if you think
> it is worth more, try to think of an example of an invention whose PATENT
> RIGHTS, BY THEMSELVES, were worth over 10G$.
The present value of the research costs depend little on when or
whether the technology matures, but the present value of the benefits
depends rather sensitively on it. Considering that energy is a
trillion dollar industry, I think your estimate of the value of a
successful fusion program is woefully low. On the other hand, you
haven't factored in the chance of failure. On the whole, I think we
are moving in realms where such analyses have almost no value, and
even many critics of fusion research would agree with this.

As to the role of government, the scale of the benefits justifies the
scale of the effort, but the scale of the effort is simply too large
for industry to deal with (money, time, and risk). If the effort is
successful, it would be practically impossible and morally wrong to
let a hypothetical industry reap the full benefits of the technology. 
Many problems/policies/technologies, have characteristics that let
them function best with free enterprise. Fusion research does not have
these characteristics and is best handled by governments. (This
analysis depends, of course, on my technical judgement that fusion is
possible but difficult. In a fairy tale land where commercial fusion
could be achieved in the 90's, the conclusion would be different.)

-- Art Carlson --

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / John White /  color of H2O2
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: color of H2O2
Date: 5 Apr 1995 11:04:03 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  "Pure H2O2 is a pale blue, sirupy liquid, boiling at 152.1 ....."
> F. Albert Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 
> Interscience (1972),  414

Looking in Cotton and Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 4th ed. 1980:
"Pure H2O2 is a colorless liquid (b. 150.2 deg, m. -0.43 deg) that resembles
water in many of its physical properties, although it is denser (1.44 at 25
deg C)."

The 71st CRC (1990) says essentially the same thing, as does the Kirk-Othmer
Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (1985). the Merck Index (11th
ed, 1989) also says colorless, but gives a 152C boiling point.

It is not uncommon for a substance that is thought to have a slight color
to turn out to be colorless when a more pure sample is prepared.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 5 Apr 1995 16:46:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950405101924.11112B-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> says:
>
>On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Scott Hazen Mueller wrote:
>
>> In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>,
>>  <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
>> >We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
>> >those who contributed to the contribution pot?
>> 
>> I hardly think we have a consenus.  There were about 40 people who chipped
>> in to the original fund, and we've heard from perhaps 1/4 of those.
>> 
>> I haven't heard Dieter express an opinion on the disposition, and he was a
>> contributor.  Perhaps he would collect a tally?  I'd prefer to have someone
>> publically neutral do so even though I don't really think anyone here would
>> do anything underhanded.  It's just that I'd like to avoid even the possible
>> implication of that.
>> 
>> Choices expressed thus far:
>> 
>>   (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
>>       children of CNF researchers]?
>> 
>>   (2) Fund another trip.
>> 
>>   (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
>> 
>>   (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.
>> 
>>            \scott
>
>OK, I again add, as already posted but forgotten,
>
>    (5) give to some charity of Tom's choice.
>
>I am willing to do the counting. Before that, though, let's give the 40-odd
>contributors about a fortnight to add to that list. I'll announce the closing
>of additions to it, and then I'll ask all who want to to email me with their
>vote.
>Tentatively, the closing date could be the end of April, say 30-Apr ?
>
>-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk
>

OK,  I will add one.  Give to Dieter Britz and/or Bruce Lewenstein for
file cabinets to keep the archive.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Doug Shade /  Quenching the reaction...
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quenching the reaction...
Date: 5 Apr 1995 17:06:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Tom's report, for better or worse, has had at least one significant
effect....   It seems like the Grigg's 'reaction' has been halted...
there doesn't seem to be much to argue about.

Maybe after Marshall and crew go for a working visit...

Maybe if Jim Griggs hooks up...

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / Phil Fair /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: psf@bevo.shell.com (Phil S. Fair)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:30:47 GMT
Organization: Shell Oil Company

In article <vergonD691Gq.I13@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>> In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>,
>> Bryan Wallace <wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> MUCH DELETED
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
>> >objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
>> >resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
>> >retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
>> >president of the American Physical Society:
>> >
>> >    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
>> >  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
>> >  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
>> >  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
>> >  children, their children and their children's children all having this
>> >  same beautiful experience.
>> >    All that would end.
>> >    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
>> >  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
>> >  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
>> >  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
>> >  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
>> 
>> At first I thought you were too hard on him. I thought he was speaking
>> humorously. But then I realized, the system REALLY works that way.
>> 
>> So I guess the final conclusion is that "truth is oft' spoken in jest".
>> 
>>
          [deleted a lot more verbage...] 
>> 
Gee whiz... Haven't you ever heard of sarcasm and cynicism?  Just because
one sees a situation and comments with satire, it doesn't mean that he
believes the system should work that way.  I suspect that if he had 
posted his retirement speech on the internet, you would see those little
smiley faces...8-)  I hope that everything I ever write or say with
sarcasm doesn't get taken literally by the humor impaired.  (But then 
again, who cares)?
__
These opinions are solely mine and not my employer's opinions.

Phil S. Fair
Shell E&P Technology Co.      
Bellaire Technology Center           Room: BTC 1192A                
Telephone (713) 245-7766             psf@shell.com


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpsf cudfnPhil cudlnFair cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950405
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19950405
Date: 5 APR 95 21:41:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    April 3, 1995

Plasma operations are continuing on Alcator C-MOD. Four runs were
scheduled and completed last week, including a full run carried out
from the remote experimental site (RES) in Livermore. The principal
experiments were concerned with dissipative divertor physics,
mitigation of vertical disruption events (VDEs), high beta_p operation
with current rampdown, and the effects of lithium (Li)
wall-conditioning on H-modes. A total of 127 plasmas were produced
over the four run days.

On Tuesday, following a brief morning session in which a new plasma
shape-control technique was tested, control of the run was transferred
to a team of MIT and Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) scientists
operating from the RES in Livermore, Ca.  A full physics run,
addressing issues of divertor detachment in ion cyclotron radio
frequency (ICRF)-heated L- and H-mode plasmas, was then conducted from
the RES. Twenty-one shots were run remotely on Tuesday, and another
seven shots during an additional two-hour remote session on Wednesday
to wrap up the physics program.  MIT participants at Livermore were
Steve Horne, who served as Physics Operator, Brian LaBombard, who
acted as Session Leader and controlled the Fast Scanning Probe
diagnostic, Yuichi Takase, who operated the ICRF heating, and Josh
Stillerman, who dealt with computer and network issues.  Livermore
personnel included Tom Casper, Bill Meyer, Jeff Moller,Joe Borrachio,
Tony Hain, John Perkins (ITER), Gary Porter, Ray Jong, and a number of
others who came by to observe during the day. The PCS Plasma Control
Software, SCOPE data displays and IDL data analysis and display tools
were used over the ESNET link successfully. Communications tools
included video and audio links (MBONE and NV) over the INTERNET; the
video information included a real-time plasma TV display. Several IRC
(Internet Relay Chat) channels provided additional communication
links: between Physics Operator (at LLNL) and Engineering Operator (at
MIT); between the remote RF operator and local RF engineering and
Physics staff; an open channel between the remote crew and
participants in the MIT Control Room; and additional remote
collaborators at U. of Md. and Johns Hopkins University. The
demonstration of remote operation was quite successful, with many
important issues addressed and lessons learned.  A full report is in
preparation.

The physics results from the Tuesday and Wednesday remote operation
were significant in their own right. Density and RF power scans were
carried out to investigate divertor detachment and re-attachment
phenomena. Divertor detachment was retained under RF heating at the
0.7 MW power level with no impurity puffing. At higher RF power (up to
1.3 MW) partial detachment, with divertor temperatures in the 3-6 eV
range, was observed during H-mode.

After control had been transferred back to MIT on Wednesday, an
experiment to investigate the possibility of mitigating the effects of
VDE disruptions by intentionally inducing a rapid thermal quench was
carried out. This experiment, which was inspired by an ITER request,
employed lithium pellets doped with up to 300 micrograms of gold (Au)
to rapidly radiate the thermal energy of a plasma in which a VDE had
been artificially produced (by turning off the fast vertical position
feedback). The idea is to cause an abnormally fast thermal and current
quench, hopefully terminating the plasma before it can move very far
off the midplane. The Au doped pellets were successful in radiating
away the thermal energy while the plasma was still within a few cm of
the midplane, but the plasma continued to drift down and the current
quench and halo currents were not significantly affected. Additional
experiments with larger quantities of high-Z dopant are being planned.

Current rampdown experiments to achieve high-beta_p discharges
(MP#089) were carried out on Thursday. This proposal was inspired by
TFTR results, which indicated that confinement in the post-rampdown
phase remained high for a period of order the skin time, permitting
high-beta_p, high-q operation. The C-MOD experiments were proposed in
collaboration with Jay Kesner (MIT Theory Group) and Mike Mauel
(Columbia University), both of whom were also involved in the TFTR
work. The current was ramped from an initial 800kA down to a second
plateau at 400kA in less than 100msec, holding the shape approximately
constant (standard lower single null). ICRF (up to 1.5MW) was injected
both before and after the rampdown. Beta_p was observed to peak
shortly after the completion of the ramp, and decay thereafter. The
highest beta_p values were obtained with the fastest rampdown time,
with ICRF heating before, during and after the ramp. Confinement
immediately following the ramp was apparently enhanced relative to
steady-state L-mode values, but was not as high as in the high-current
phase. Maximum beta_p obtained was ~0.85. Detailed analysis of these
experiments is proceeding.

On Friday we conducted a test of the role of lithium-pellet wall
conditioning in determining H-mode thresholds and performance. These
experiments were motivated by previous indications on C-MOD that Li
pellets might have had a beneficial effect in achieving H-modes, and
by experience on TFTR indicating lithium wall conditioning had
important effects. Multiple lithium pellets were injected into a
series of about 20 discharges over the first half of the run.  Li
levels in the plasma were monitored spectroscopically. The second half
of the run was used to look for improvements in ohmic and RF H-mode
behavior at various densities and currents up to 1.0 MA. No such
improvements, in either threshold, performance, or ELM behavior, was
observed, apparently indicating that Li conditioning is of less
importance in a metal wall machine than for carbon walls.

C-MOD is about to begin a brief campaign with reversed toroidal field
and plasma current, such that the ion grad-B drift is away from the
closed divertor structure. Bus reconfiguration for these runs was
completed on Saturday, and power tests carried out on Monday, April 3.

We have taken delivery of 5 new DEC alpha computers.  One of these is
an AlphaServer 1000 4/200 which couples a fast cpu to fast I/O
busses. This machine will become our primary data acquisition engine
and support SCSI based serial highway drivers as well as an array of
fast disks.  (The data will be "striped" onto multiple platters to
increase throughput.) Three new AlphaStation 200 4/233's will be used
for compute intensive data analysis, running the EFIT MHD equilibrium
code; the density profile reconstruction code; and edge probe
analysis.  (Rapid completion of these codes are essential for
efficient machine operation.)  The final new Alpha, a somewhat slower
model 200 4/166, will be used for porting of the MDSplus code to unix
(and possibly to NT), and for importing and maintaining new versions
of the TRANSP code.

Prof. Miklos Porkolab took part in the "Fusion Forum" in Washington DC
on Tuesday, March 28. Prof. Ian Hutchinson, Prof. Porkolab, and
Dr. Earl Marmar attended the Field Work Proposal Presentations at
D.o.E. in Germantown, Md., on Wednesday, where Prof. Hutchinson
presented the Alcator C-MOD plans for the next two years.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennachtrieb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / James Stolin /  Re: CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Bologna
Date: 5 Apr 1995 21:41:36 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

>Sounds like a perfect candidate for Steve Jones' neutron detector. 
>
>Personally, I a very^2 skeptical of any energy production using
>H, since the usual H + H fusion cross section is infinitesimally
>small. Also, note that since their experiment produces postive
>results with H, it makes it impossible to do blank runs (in
>most hydrogen fusion experiments, you can use H for the blank runs,
>and Dand/or T for real runs), and thus it makes it more difficult
>to debug the experiment.

Barry,

   Neutrons and other "ash" have been the missing wild cards for what I 
have observed from the sceptic side of the CF "debate".  I am a fence 
sitter and am undecided at this point.  I own a computer business and 
physics is a hobby or pastime for me.  However, I do believe that I can 
make a small contribution now and then.

  Your mention of cross section brought a glimmer to my mind.  Perhaps 
the problem can be approached from another angle.  What could alter the 
apparent cross section for H-H, D-T, etc fusion?  Perhaps it may not be 
as much a "tunneling" effect as a "funneling" effect.  On the macroscopic 
scale, the cross section of a coke bottle is fixed but rain fills it much 
faster when the apparent cross section is changed by the insertion of a 
funnel.  Likewise, a metal lattice restricts H movement along certain 
paths.  There may also be a "pinch" effect from Brownian movement as the 
lattice fills more completely.
  
-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / James Stolin /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 5 Apr 1995 22:34:28 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
> <duty cycle post snipped>

Paul,

   All you need is more than one fusion reactor if you have less than 
100% duty cycle.  If the duty cycle is 50%, you build two reactors.  If 
duty cycle is 33%, you use three reactors.  Better yet, have a "spare" so 
you can provide downtime for maintenance.  Use a "cookie cutter" approach 
to keep design costs the same for one or one thousand reactors.  Size 
and/or cost will be the limiting factor with this approach.  However, the 
redundancy of multiple reactors should be readily apparent. 

-
Jim Stolin, owner  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / James Stolin /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 5 Apr 1995 22:01:50 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

   I'm really not responding to anything Marshall said.  It's just a 
convenient place to post regarding Griggs.  I was going to mail him 
startup kits from both AOL and  Prodigy so he could get on the net.  I 
don't know how Marshall's offer of free EMAIL turned out as I have been 
in a serious auto accident in which a nephew was killed.  Another nephew 
and I were injured and are on the mend.  Could someone EMAIL me Griggs 
address?  I printed out the article with his address but it was lost in 
the confusion.  BTW, the kits are both from magazines and I get no free 
time, credit or other compensation from either.  Someone might also 
suggest to Griggs that he could get the kits with many Internet magazines.
  I plan to be in Atlanta for Comdex around the end of April and can 
assist him getting online if necessary.  Many thanks.
-
Jim Stolin, owner  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr  6 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
