Index
Abbadessa, John P., 211 Anders, William, 212 Abelson, Philip H., 114 Anderson, Clinton, 72 Abelson committee Artsimovich, Lev A. conclusions of , 114 - 115 and Culham-team visit, 167 stellarator criticism by, 131 on erroneousUS mirror success, 110-111 Adams , john , 180 Genevareport by, 92 Adiabatic Toroidal Compressor (A TC), 205 MIT trip by, 161-162, 163 design of, 169, 170-171 on 1958 state of the art, 93, 255 and neutral beam heating , 205,212 Novosibirsk report by, 151, 161 as Princeton success , 232 pseudoclassicalscaling law by, 209 proposal for, 169 tokamak researchunder, 135 Age of Optimism , in fusion research, 7, 8, Ashworth, Clinton P., 238 33 - 34 Astron, 119-122 Alcator design of, 120-122 conception of, 164 in 1963 budget, 118 and confinement time , 245 promise and fulfillment of, 201-202, 203 development of , 230 proposal for, 143 Foster committee on , 240 termination of, 119, 122, 123, 201-204, and Hirsch , 188 219, 222 nr in , 246 ATC, SeeAdiabatic Toroidal Compressor Alexeff , Igor , 157, 162 Atomic Energy Act (1954), and declassifica- ALICE (adiabatic low -energy injection and tion, 38 confinement experiment ) Atomic Energy Commission(AEC). Seealso in Post five-year plan, 109, 113 Strauss, Lewis L revision $ of , 115 - 116 abolition of, 227 stability experiments with, 113 AUCE II and breeder program, 6 in choice of Genevaconference exhibit, DCX - 4 similar to , 155 71- 72 in Post five-year plan, 109, 113 proposal for, 143 decision-making role of, 2 Allis , William P . , 31 , 98 , 99 and declassification, 30- 31, 39, 72-73 Allis - Chalmers , in fusion research , 102 , 103 environmentalists' criticism of, 196 Allison , Samuel K . , 138 fusion support by, 29-30, 31 Allison - Herb Committee membershipof, 62- 63, 76-77, 89, on program management , 142 122-123, 196,212 report by , 138- 139, 140, 156 and Model C, 46, 48, 60-61 Alvarez , Luis W ., 18 1965 attitude toward fusion, 136, 140 American PhysicalSociety, fusion meetings 1965 program review by, 115, 138-141 of , 96 - 97 , 110 and Nixon funding policy, 195 326 Index
on centralization, 3, 253 Atomic Energy Commission ( continued ) as CTR head, 139, 140 Schlesinger ' s intentions for , 196
status of thennonuclear research in , 89 on declassification, 69, 72, 73
and transition to development , 198 in expansion effort, 41 and General Atomic, 149 Atomic Energy Research Establishment , and Hirsch, 188 United Kingdom , 20 , 67 leavesCTR Branch, 80 Atoms for Peace policy , and declassification ,
38 leavesfusion-energy program, 189 and multipole duplication, 152, 154
Baker , Don A . , 230 and 1965 report, 139, 140
Baker , Robert A . , 190 ProjectSherwood, 275nl0
Baker , William R . , 42 , 68 , 69 and reactors, 180, 181
Balzhiser , Richard E . " 192 and Standing Committee, 200, 216
Banana orbit on threat of Russiansuccess, 164
definition of , 313n28 and tokamak, 9, 164, 165, 168, 188
and tokamak , 206 Bitter, Francis, 162 Blackman, Moses, 19, 20 Barber , Richard J . , Politics of Research ,
295n38 Bohm, David, 66
Barnett , Clarence F . , 125 Bohm diffusion, 66, 257
Barr , William L , 124 and banana orbits, 206
Baseball device in pumpout, 132, 133
as Al1CE revision , 125 and toroidal systems, 151 B-1 stellarator. SeeModel B stellarator in mirror - development competition ,
219 - 220 Bostick, Winston H., 31, 55
vs . 2XIIB , 229 Boyer, Keith, 84, 185
Baseball Y , DCX - 3 similar to , 155 Bradbury, Norris E., 33, 41
Baseball II and declassification, 284nll
DCX - 4 similar to , 155 and Fields, 38
instabilities in , 219 on fusion and military, 33
Beckerley , James G . , 39 , 69 , 12 , 119 on SteeringCommittee, 94 and Taschek, 145 Bekefi , George , 99
Bell , Persa R . , 18 , 126 , 121 and Tuck, 25 Braun, Ernest, and MacDonald, Stuart, Rev- Bell Laboratories , superconductivity re -
search at , 132 olutionin Miniature, 322n3
Benedict , Manson , 99 Breeder reactors. SeeFission energy
Berkeley Radiation Laboratory , University Bre~ trahlungradiation, 15, 255
of California Brobeck, William N., 40
administrative change for fusion project , Br?okhaven National Laboratory 42 high-energy physicsat, 252
expenditures by , 296n59 Johnson from, 30 Brown, Allen. SeeTeller, Edward, and fast - pinch tests by , 69 Brown, Allen fusion fw1ding to , 37
neutral - beam work at , 221 Brown, Sanborn C., 98, 99 Brueckner, Keith A., 173, 185, 186, 202 Berry , Lee A . , 232
Beta ( B ) , 47 , 257 B-3 stellarator. SeeModel B stellarator
and Doublet machines , 165 Buchsbaum, SolomonJ., 164, 173,211
in Model D study , 47 Bumpy torus, definition of, 242
in Post plamling , 109 Bupp, Irving C., Prioritiesin NuclearTechnol-
in stellarator , 61 , 64 , 131 ogy, 289n14
Bhabha , Homi , 67 Bupp, Irving C., and Derian, Jean-Claude,
Bishop , Amasa S . , 40 , 139 , 140 , 197 , 225 , Light Water, 299n27
253 Burkhardt, Louis, 229-230
and Astron panel , 202 Burning plasmas, uncertainty about, 255.
and budget battle , 141 , 142 Seealso DT experiment lnaex .J,':'/
Bussard , Robert W ., 200 , 216 nopes lor , 0,) Computer analysis California , University of . See also Berkeley early lack of , 55, 65 Radiation Laboratory ; Livermore Radia- for Symmetric Tokamak, 169 tion Laboratory for I pinch, 230 Confinement , necessity for , 14 fusion funding to , 37, 81, 123 fusion-program amalgamation, 42 Confinement, quality of. SeeQuality of con- finement World War II research at , 22 - 23 Confinement time . See also Instabilities Campbell, Joseph, 37, 63 Carter administration, energy policies of, as crucial issue , 88 , 245 in mirror reactor , 52 12 , 235 Castle tests , 38 , 41 and quality of confinement, 85-86 Chandrasekhar , S., 94 and temperature , 232 , 245 , 256 Charge exchange , 79, 258 Congress. Seealso Joint Committee on in DCX , 126 Atomic Energy in Soviet tokamak results , 162 , 304n33 fusion apathy of, 251-252 Cherwell , Lord (Frederick A . Lindemann ) 2~ and fusion lobbying , 177 Christonlos , Nicholas Constantine , 119 , 122 fusion support in , 212 and Los Alamos , 145 , 234 180 , 201 - 204 , 295n46 , 296n51 . See also resistance from , 117 - 119 Astron Clarendon Laboratory , Oxford University , Conn , Robert W ., 182 , 237 Containment time . See Confinement time Tuck at , 18- 19, 20 Controlled thermonuclear research . See Fu - Clarke, John F., 157 and Artsimovich , 162 Sion energy program Controlled Thermonuclear Research , Divi - on diffusion temperature , 209 sion of . See Division of Controlled Therm ( and DT experiment, 206-207, 208, 212, nuclear Research 215 Cook committee , for GE evaluation , on mirror , 233 as Oak Ridge division head, 124 137 - 138 , 249 on Ormak , 159 , 232 Cop pi, Bruno , 149, 163, 230 and tokamak , 158 , 213 Cornell University , fusion funding to, 190 Classification . See Declassincation Cornog , Robert, 18 Coal energy, GE optimism over, 137 Costs. Seealso Funding Cockcroft, Sir John, 73, 83 for AUCE development , 116 of Astron , 119 Coensgen, Frederic H . of Model C stellarator , 60 , 74 and instability , 116 overall , 33 and Toy Top , 107- 108, 109, 110, 112 ofPLT , 193 and 2X , 114 , 219 and 2XIIB , 228 scientific -feasibility estimates, 204, 213 Colgate, Stirling A. of Scyllac, 193 stellarator estimates , 30 , 47 on neutron production, 84, 85 ofTFTR , 218 and pinch, 69, 70, 71 of tokamak , 153 , 193 on quality of connnement, 86 visit to Britain by , 74, 81 of tokamak DT experiment , 210- 211, 2~ on lET A results , 82 Courant , Richard , 36 Columbus device Cousins, Stanley W., 20 in Geneva exhibit , 87 Crane , H . B ., 173 Creutz , Edward C., 44 , 71 , 103 , 104 , 211 and instability , 68, 69 C - Steliarator Associates , 103 spurious neutrons from, 86, 87 CTR (controlled thermonuclear research ). Columbus S- 4 hopes for, 83 See Fusion energy program neutron production by, Culham Laboratory , Great Britain Columbus II magnetic coil design from, 125 1965 conference at , 133 , 151 developmentof, 76 328 Index
Culham Laboratory (continued ) Foster committee on, 241 1969 reactor conference at , 181 , 183 on Genevaconference exhibit, 78 reactor studies by , 180 under Hirsch reorganization, 200, 201, tokamak substantiationby, 167, 173 204, 210, 215, 216 Cusp geometry , 258 initial, 2- 3, 31 and multipoles , 64, 147 and public concerns, 249 in "picket fence" reactor, 59- 60 strugglesover, 153-154 Declassification
Damm , Charles C ., 113 , 219 AEC refusal on, 30- 31 Dandl , Ray A ., 155- 156, 158, 208, 242, 254 British-American guide for, 75, 81 David , Edward E., Jr ., 175, 192 and expectedpinch success, 69 Davies , N . Anne , 245 and Genevaconference, 73, 75 Davis, Nuel Pharr , Lawrence and oppenhei- impact of, 4, 7- 8, 100, 105 mer , 278nl and institutional motivation, 100, 105 Dawson, John M., 213 and scientific openness, 4, 90, 91, 96, 97, DCLC . See Drift -cyclotron loss-cone mode 100, 252 DCX (DCX - l ) device steps toward, 67, 72-73, 89- 90 conception of, 79 Straussopposition to, 39- 40 difficulties with , 154 Denver, Colorado, 1952conference at, 31 functioning of, 125 Department of Defense, Astron financing in Geneva exhibit , 86 by, 122. Seealso Military applications hopes for, 76, 81 Department of Energy microinstabilities in , 125 - 126 formation of, 235 and neutron goal, 76, 253 fusion programs by, 3 in 1963 budget, 118 fusion review by, 12, 246 DCX - 2 industry financing by, 248 design of, 126-128 Derian, jean-Claude, 299n27 difficulties with , 154 , 157 Deutch,john M., 236-237, 244, 246, 247 on ETF, 244 microinstabilities in , 128
DCX - 3 , 155 , 157 and Foster panel, 236, 240 on fusion, 246 DCX - 4, AUCE II si : milar to , 155 and Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Dean , Gordon E ., 29 , 31 , 36 Act, 251 Dean, StephenO. as Office of Energy Researchhead, 236 as assistant director , 200 program planning by, 12, 241, 243, 244, on Baseball , 220 247 on DT experiment , 214 on tokamaks, 241-242, 243 and Livennore mirrors , 221 Deuterium, 258, 274n12. Seealso DT experi- on Los Alamos role , 234 ment on mirror , 233 as fuel, 5, 32 and neutral beams , 245 reactionswith, 16, 79, 204 and 1965 report , 139 , 140 in stellarator reaction, 16- 17 program plans of, 235 Development. SeeNuclear engineering, fu- on ScyIlac, 230 sion Dean committee , 209 " Developmentconsciousness," beginning of, mirror recommendationsby, 220 217 on tokamaks , 233 Diagnostictechniques, 258 Decision making. Seealso Program planning; improvements in, 8, 173 Strategy lasersin, 153 under Bishop reorganization, 142-143, 146 Diffusion centralization in , 2 , 4 - 5 , 173 - 174 formula determined for, 66 and Deutch , 236 in tokamak, 206 first Washington-decided project termina- DiMarco, Joseph, 229 tion , 204 Direct conversion, in mirror reactors, 181, Foster on Astron , 123 258, 308n28 Index 329
Direct conversion reactor , Wilson scheme Eastlund , Bernard I ., 167 , 176
for , 39 EBT. See Elmo Bumpy Torus Direct Current Experiment . See DCX Economic considerations , in fusion pro - Division of Controlled Thermonuclear Re - gram , 249 - 250 search (CTR ) Edge, David 0 ., and Mulkay, MichaelJ., As- formation of , 196 - 197 , 198 tronomy Transformed, 323nl0 growth of, 4- 5 Edison Electric Institute , fusion funding by , Division of Magnetic Fusion Energy 190 budgets of , 235 Eisenhower, Dwight David and decision making , 3, 11 AEC appointmentsby, 36, 76-77 Washington office becomes, 234 and peacefuluses of atomic energy, 95 Division of Military Application (DMA) and space program , 251 fusion funding by , 37 (seealso Military ap- Eisenhower administration , and second Ge - plications) neva conference , 71 and inertial confinement fusion , 252 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI ),
and lasers , 185 227 , 238 Division of Plasma Physics, APS (American Electric Research Council , 190 PhysicalSociety), multi pole results pre- Eliassen , Rolf , 177 sented to , 148 - 149 Elmo , construction of , 156 Division of Reactor Development, AEC Elmo Bumpy Torus (EBT) in fusion -fission rivalry , 187 conception of, 242- 243 fusion funding by , 37 in Deutch strategy , 243 Division of Research , AEC Energy Conservation Task Group , utility in fusion -fission rivalry , 187 group panel, 191 fusion funding by, 37 Energy crisis on Geneva conference exhibit , 77 - 78 and fission demand , 175 and inertial confinement fusion , 252 and fusion need , 5 , 32 , 198 , 209 in Model C role , 61 Energy Researchand DevelopmentAdmin- istration (ERDA ), 3 in 1965 program review , 139 stellarator review by , 24 abolition of , 235 Dobrokhotov , E. I ., 92 AEC absorbed by , 227 Doublet device , 165 English, Spofford G., 197 Doublet II , 165 , 188 Environmentalism Drew , Howard R., 191 , 238 and attack on fission , 5 Drift-cyclotron loss-cone (DCLC) mode, 219, and fusion program , 5- 6, 175 , 176 - 177 220 , 228 , 259 EPA device , 156 Drummond , William , 149 , 162 Equivalent-energy break-even DT burning . See DT experiment Hirsch on goal of, 205 DT (deuterium-tritium) experiment as program milestone , 194 benefits of , 204 - 205 ETF. SeeExperimental test facility cost of , 210 - 211 , 222 Experiment. Seealso Plasma research; specific fusion -community objection to, 205, 206, devices 208 , 211 scientific feasibility , 9, 194, 204 Germantown meeting on , 214- 215 vs. theory , 10- 11, 49, 56- 57, 231 Hirsch advocacy of, 10, 199, 204- 205 Experimental power reactor (EPR), in Hirsch Key Biscayne meeting on , 210- 211 planning, 243 political advantageof, 209 Experimental test facility (ETF) Princeton-Oak Ridge rivalry over, in Deutch planning, 243, 244 206 - 209 , 212 - 215 , 316n68 and Fusion Engineering Device, 251 program planning for, 210 TFTR decided on , 215 Farnsworth, Philo T., 188 Washington meeting on , 213- 214 Fast-pinch device Dubna , USSR , fusion conference at , 168 development of, 68- 69 Dunlap, Julian L., 125, 126 failure of, 69- 70 330 Index
Fast-pinch device {continued} and DCX - 3 , 155
Russians' knowledge of, 70, 72 in DT - experiment meeting , 211 , 213
F/BX. SeeFusion/Burning Experiment and uvermore mirrors , 221
Feasibility experiments . See also Scientific and mirror , 233
feasibility on 2XIIB , 229
Hirsch DT plan for, 10, 204-205, 210 (see Fowler " William A . , 94 , 173
also Tokamak , DT experiment with ) Fraas , Art , 179 , 180 , 182
in 1971 program plan, 193 Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory , in 1972 program plan, 201, 204, 211 162 - 163
Federal Council on Scienceand Technology, Frenkiel , Franc ; : ois N . , 97
review request by , 200 Frieman , Edward A . , 54 , 63
Feedback stabilization , and Scyllac, Fuel . See also Deuterium ; Plasma ; Tritium
223 - 224 , 225 - 226 , 259 advanced , 176 , 238 - 239 Feld , Bernard , 161 forms of, 1, 5, 32 Ferguson, john , 82 for stellarator, 16- 17 Fermi , Enrico , 18 Funding. Seealso Costs Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory , AEC projections for, 195 high-energy physicsat, 252 and Astron, 123
Fields , Kenneth E ., 38 for California program , 37 , 81 , 123
First International Conference on the Peace - for General Atomic , 149
ful Uses of Atomic Energy {1955}, 67, 71 and Geneva conference , 76
Fission energy government - lab predominance in , 252 - 253
and energy crisis , 175 for livermore , 44
environmentalists ' attack on , 176 , 190 loosening of in early 1970s , 4 , 195 - 196
vs . fusion , 101 , 186 - 187 for Los Alamos , 37 , 44 , 81
optimism over , 137 McCone ' s principle of , 94
troubles of , 212 during 1960s , 117 , 118 , 140 - 142 , 153 , 156
Fleischmann , Hans H ., 202 during 1970s , 195 , 196 - 197 , 209 - 210 , 212 ,
Floberg, john F., 77 216 , 235 , 241
Flute instability, 259, 282n13. Seealso Macro- for Oak Ridge , 44 , 78 , 81
instabilty for Princeton , 37 , 44 , 81
finite - orbit stabilization , 129 for reactor studies , 180 , 181
and Ioffe bars , Ill , 113 , 124 before Strauss , 37
and line -tying , 106- 107, 282n16 under Strauss , 48 - 49 , 88 , 105 , 279n13
and microinstabilities , 124 - 125 utilities projections for , 195
and mirror reactor , 56 - 58 , 110 Furth , Harold P .
and Table Top experiments , 106- 107 and Colgate , 82
FM-l multipole on diffusion and temperature , 209
Levitron duplicates, 201 and instabilities , 116 , 133
and stellarator , 254 and magnetic well , 115 , 125
Ford , Kenneth W ., 21 on neutral - beam heating , 213
Ford Foundation, funding by, 98 at Princeton , 152
Forsen , Harold , 181 , 182 on reactor studies , 178
Foster, john 5., 123, 237 on Soviet tokamak results , 152 , 153
Foster committee and tokamak , 167
Deutch expectations for , 236, 240 on " wet - wood burner , " 214
on ETF , 243 Fusion / Burning Experiment ( F / BX ) , 214 ,
evaluations by , 240- 241 215
and reactor design studies, 237 Fusion community
recommendations of , 239 - 240 , 243 - 244 birth of , 2 , 31
selection of , 236 , 237 cementing of , 104 - 105
Fowler , T . Kenneth , 154 early lack of , 34
and Astron , 203 Fusion - device research . See Plasma research
and Baseball II vs . 2XII , 219 Fusion devices . See spedfic devices Index JJI
Fusion energy and 2XIIB, 228-229 clean-power hopes for, 176-177 Futureof fusionenergy, 12 vs . fission , 186 - 187 future of , 12 Galloway, Jonathan F., SatelliteCommunica- lasers in , 183 - 186 tions , 322n5 Fusion energy program . See also Funding; Gamma device , 82 plasma research Garching Laboratory , Germany , ISAR at, accomplishmentsof, 254-255 230 Bishop's reorganizationof, 142-143, 146 Gardner , Edward R., 71 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 87 as crash program , 46 , 49 , 94 Garwin , Richard , 68 demands on , 5- 6 General Advisory Committee economic considerations in , 249 - 250 on Astron , 203
future prospects for , I , 248 , 255 , 256 Bishop briefs, 141-142 government -lab role in , 252 - 253 program review by, 114-115 General Atomic government as sole support of , 248 Hirsch reorganization of , 200, 215, 216 AEC funding by , 149 international aspects of , 5, 6, 32 (see also fusion program by , 103- 104 International aspects of fusion research ) government financing to, 248 motivation in , 32 - 33 research by , Ill , 134, 147, 158 1958 discontinuities in , 89 General Dynamics, and Princeton funding, 1965 apathy toward, 135-136, 140 98 optimism in, 7, 8, 33-34, 67- 69, 101, General Electric , 100 , 101 - 102 118 - 119 , 172 - 173 fusion efforts of , 100 , 101 - 102 , 104 overall history of , 2- 12, 265- 266 fusion phase-out of, 137-138, 248 planned performance vs. unpredictable re- and model D stellarator study , 46, search in , 192 - 194 248 - 249 political considerationsin, 249, 250 General Electric Research Laboratory , fu- " Project Sherwood " name given , 4, 44 sion report by , 136- 138 public apathy toward, 251-252 Geneva conference " quantum jump " by , 38, 40- 45, 48- 49 and declassification , 73, 75 reactor-relevant phaseof, 199 increased freedom resulting from , 89 research vs. development in , 199, 216- 217, Geneva conference exhibit , 4 , 71 , 86 - 87 , 250 288n70
strategy of , 7, 65 , 88 , 116 - 117 , 250 , 253 outcomes of , 87 (seealso Strategy) planning for, 71, 72, 83 Strauss advocacy of , 36- 38, 41, 44 purposes of , 71 , 72 " Fusion Engineering Device," and Magnetic success of , 86 - 87 Fusion Energy EngineeringAct, 251 thermoneutron goal for, 77-78, 83 Fusion-fission hybrid, utilities' call for, 239 Germantown, Maryland, DT-experiment Fusion physics, low regard for, 136. Seealso meeting at, 214- 215 Plasmaphysics Glennan , T . Keith , 29 , 37 Fusion Power Coordinating Committee Goldberg , Steven, " Controlling Basic Sci- (FPCC ) ence ," 273nl mirror-experiment approval by, 233 Gottlieb , Melvin , 154 , 234 Standing Committee replaced by, 214-215 and plasma Physics Division , 96 Fusion reactors . See also Nuclear engineer - and PLT , 232 ing , fusion as Princeton Laboratory head, 130 design studies on , 178- 182, 183, 237- 238 on radioactivity , 211 funding for, 180, 181 recruiting by , 152 future difficulties for , 254 - 255 , 256 and Symmetric Tokamak , 173 mirrors as , 181 , 221 - 222 and tokamak , 166 - 167 , 174 and nuclear engineering, 179- 180, 182 Gough, William C., 176, 180, 181 Oak Ridge lead in, 180 Gould , Roy W ., 189, 192, 200, 225 and Scyllac, 226-227 Astron plan of, 203 332 Index
Gould, Roy W. (continued) FPCC constituted by , 215
as CTR head, 9, 189, 197 and funding , 210 , 216
and DT experiment for Oak Ridge, 212 fusion - community unification by , 236
and Standing Committee, 216 and IMP , 201 , 204 , 207 , 208 Grad, Harold, 43, 99 and independent CfR Division , 196
on cusp geometries, 59- 60 and Kintner , 227 - 228
on scienceand technology, 65 leaves fusion division , 232 - 233
and Scyllacevaluation, 145, 222-223 leaves government , 235
Graduate education and Livermore mirrors , 221
in fusion-reactor engineering, 183 on mirror reactor , 222
in fusion research, 97- 100 opposition to , 199 , 205 , 206 , 208
Grad-Weitzner equilibrium, 223 and CST review , 192
Graham, John S., 77 and Princton - Oak Ridge decision , 215 Gravel, Mike, 177, 196 program planning by , 9 , 11 , 200 - 201 , 210 ,
Green, Harold P., and Rosenthal, Alan, G0v- 216 - 217 , 243 , 316n73
ernmentof theAtom, 322n6 and reactors , 11 , 222
Greenberg, Daniel S., Politicsof PureScience, reorganization by , 4 - 5 , 198 - 199 , 199 - 200 ,
295n38 216 Greer, Merwin C., 235 on research vs . development , 217
Gribble, Robin F., 225 and Rickover vs . Shaw , 228 Griem, Hans R., 145 on scientific feasibility , 10 , 204 - 205 , 210
Grove, DonaldJ., 46- 47, 102, 130, 133, 166 and Scyllac , 227 , 230
Guest, Gareth E., 156, 158, 207, 242 and Teem , 228
Gyroradius, 259 and TFTR , 24 1
in mirror plasma, 57 and tokamak , 9 , 11 , 188 , 222 , 236
and stability, III on 2XIIB , 229
and utilities , 190 - 191
Hall, R. Cargill, Lunar Impact, 274n5 at Washington DT - experiment meeting ,
Hartman, Charles, 154 213 - 214
Harwell Laboratory, Great Britain on " wet - wood burner , " 214
Russianspeech at, 70, 72 Historical periodization of fusion research ,
US physicistsvisit, 81, 82 6 , 250
ZETA experiments at, 75 Hoffman , Frederic de , 103 , 104
HeckstaII-Smith, R. M., "The Zeta Episode," Holifield , Chet , 168 , 177 , 186 , 307n13 286n40 Hollingsworth , Robert E . , 140 , 197
Herb, Raymond G., 138, 140 Hopkins , John Jay , 103 Herb-Allison committee Hornig , Donald F . , 141 on Astron, 202 Hosmer , Craig , 141 , 192 and cost considerations, 249 House Appropriations Committee , fusion -
Joint Committee on, 141 budget cutback by , 117 Hewlett, Richard G., and Duncan, Francis Hurwitz , Henry , Jr . , 102 , 136 , 137 - 138 AtomicShield, 275n4 Huse , Raymond A . , 191 , 238 , 239
NuclearNavy, 274n11 Hydrogen , isotopes of , 275n9 High-energy physics, support for, 252 Hinshaw, Carl, 72 IAEA. SeeInternational Atomic Energy Hirsch, Robert Louis, 5, 10, 188-192, Agency 196-198, 200, 201, 210, 211, 216-218, Idealignition temperature, 15, 259 221, 225, 245 Ignition(self-sustaining burning) mode, 215, on Alcator, 231 260 and Astron, 201, 203 Robertsand Clarkeplan for, 206 on Baseball, 220 andTFrR, 215 becomesCTR Division head, 3, 197 Thomson's ideafor, 19 and DT experiment, 199, 204-206, 208, IMP 210, 212 in mirror competition, 220 muiy rbe 8 , problem Impurity nuty. e as Uiiis industry Utilities also See . Industry nril ofnmn fusion confinement Inertial ntblte Se lo ofnmn tm ; time Confinement also See . Instabilities nttt o Aoi Eeg Mso and , Moscow , Energy Atomic of Institute nttt o Eetia ad lcrnc Eg - Engi Electronics and Electrical of Institute nttt o Mteaia Sine New , Sciences Mathematical of Institute ntttoa ifatutr Se lo Decision also See . infrastructure Institutional emnto o 21, 0 27, 208 , 207 , 204 , 201 , of termination n oaa 25-206 - 205 , 245 tokamak , in PLT and fusion programs of , 100 - 1 04 1 - 100 , of 248 , of programs fusion commitment fusion NEE ad C lo obnto , combination instability Elmo - Flute See . DCX and , instability INTEREM Interchange n mre cniin 28-249 - 104 248 , , of goal conditions research market and nentoa apcs f uin research fusion of aspects International n tlaao poet, 6-47 - 46 , project stellarator in n mgei fso 273n2 , fusion magnetic and iiay neet n, 252 , in interest military n AC 15-16, 124 , 219 , 116 II - 115 , Baseball in AUCE and n ET, 242 , EBT and n mro 5 2, 6-5 16-18, 0 , 109 , 108 - 106 , 58 - 56 , 52 - 50 , mirror and n pnh, 0, 6, 8, 0-71 - 70 , 68 60 , - 56 59 , " 50 , , fence pinch and picket " and n Sylc, 4 22-24, 2 226 - 225 , . 224 - 222 , 144 , 132 , Scyllac and pumpout and elr n, 5 4, 4-65 - 64 , 54 - 63 52 , , 8 55 - , 52 on , on Teller conferences Sherwood n tlaao 5 1, 6, 1, 2, 116 , 62 , 61 , 56 , 51 - 50 , 135 , stellarator on in Spitzer n XI 228 , 219 2XIIB , in 2XII in t einn o Srus himnhp, 37 , 4 - 3 , chairmanship within Strauss of competition beginning at n Hrc rognzto 20, 216 , 200 , 105 - 104 , reorganization Hirsch community and fusion as teghnn 4 45 - 40 , 49 , strengthening strategy and rsmvc vst o I 11-12, 163 , 162 - 161 , MIT to visit Artsimovich n Gnv 7 9 93 - 91 , 78 , Geneva and rsie s pr, 6, 0, 2, 1 14, 164 , 112 , 32 , 30 , 6 , 5 , spur as prestige lt isaiiis; arisaiiis, Macroinstabilities ; instabilities Flute Microinstabilities 1 1 1 114 , 113 - 112 , 110 er (IE , uin-egneig symposia engineering - fusion ), IEEE ( neers y, 183 , by oaa 134 , tokamak ok nvriy, 2-43 - 42 , University York aig; uin community Fusion ; making 224 156 jCAE. See jCAE. Committee Atomic on joint johnson, Lyndon B.Lyndon johnson, 102 , L johnson, john johnson, Thomas,johnson, 34, 37, 38, 45, 81, 93 on Committee Energy Atomic on joint gCAE) Woodrow E.,johnson, 47 on Services,99 joint funding by, MIT Kadomtsev-pogutse Kadomtsev,prediction, B. and B.,toka-206, 209 Katz, James Everett, Pre.sidential Politic,S, Kelley, George G. budget 141,opposition 153,from, 180 and space program,251 on declassification,on 39, 69,72, 73, 96 on concurrent vs.sequential planning,62 on fusion on research,31 on Model on C,48 expansion in 40,effort, 41, 42 and "project Sherwood"and "project naming,44 success/time estimate 33,by, 35 34- and stellarator, 30 29- and Sherwood conferences,41 and Wilson proposal,39 pressure 172- 173 by, review promised 138, to, 141 review demand 119 by, fusion involvement 251 of, and Soviet-preeminence 164 threat, and Ormak,159, 161, and 170,DCX-2, 171, 127, 172 157
- - - 5' C '" VI Energy mak dispute, 206, 209
VI ~ ~306n3 c. OOVl --OZS ~ (') .... C --o ~ .... O >- ~ ~ (b ~ ~ ~ C 0 (b ~ C (b VI VI ~ n ~ <: ~ c. c. <: (b !II N ~ <: (b c. s: 3 ~ ~ Q e: .... r;' (b 0" 0" - , 0 .... - , ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. (b .... ~ S ~ '6" ~ ~ =: Q ~, S' ~ ~ t;:. c. c. ~ <: fi;: ~ ,~. . -=i . ~... --S0 Y"'\ VI. aq .o...' 0:::"j' aq'" ~n OJn 0~ ~ ~ 2 (Sb ~ n8 ~ Q S' (b ~ ,; 8 ~ ~ .!:{ 0 g ~ ~. ~' ~ 9 B S ~,., Y..'. . '.~.".. g0 0 .0... (~b '0-<" n0 ~.. 0 2(-b. , ,"~'.\ ..... ('..b".. ~s' n~ "..'.. .-." . ""-~", -o ~ g ~ g"'\ ~.. o ~ .... g"'\ (~b 03 ~.. o ~"" ~... ~S. ~ '~" ~ - ' .... v. "'\ n n - . .... ""' ~ OJ 3 .... -:< .... ~ (b (b (b n ~ ~ I:; ~ (b ~ ~ .... ~ O" t't1 ..o "" ~. ",\ ~ ""' .... '-0<" (nb .":"?: '~-< .".'. vI. ~v. 0'" ("'b ~...... ~ 0" ~ "" ("'b\ ..0 ...... ,~. .... ~ ... '-< ~ ~ aq9 ' ~ 8 ~ 9 .... 0.... ~ ~""' ~... . ,-..<.. "" "" ...0... n~ .... (>' ...... "" v ~ ~ v. (>' aq "" (b VI ~ 333 Index .... (>' ~ ~ ~ 0 "" ...... <: (>' n .... o' - . ""' '~-< ~ ~~ ~ ..I.. > ~ ~ (>' ~ ~ ~ ~ 334 Index
Kelley, GeorgeG. (continued) and weaponry , 185 and tokamaks, 158 LASL SeeLos Alamos Scientific Laboratory Kennedy, John F. Lawrence , Ernest 0 ., 58 , 202 AECunder, 122-123 at AEC meeting , 38 and spaceprogram, 112, 251 and Livermore site , 26 Kerst, DonaldW., 18, 104, 146, 147-149, on program acceleration , 41 159 and Strauss , 36 Kevles, DanielJ., ThePhysicists, 300n35 Lawrence , William L , 67 KeyBiscayne, Florida, StandingCommittee Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. meeting at, 210-211 SeeLivermore Laboratory Khrushchev " Nikita S., 95 Lawson , John D., 85, 255 Killeen , John , 133 Lax , Benjamin , 162- 163
King , L D . P . , 77 Lazar , Norman , 127
Kingdon , Kenneth H . , 101 , 249 Levitron
Kink instability , 23 , 24 , 260 . See also Micro - creation of , 115 instabilities and instabilities , 134 Kintner , Edwin E . , 234 , 235 , 241 pumpout in , 133
becomes CfR deputy director , 227 termination of , 201 , 204 , 219 , 222 becomes CfR director , 12 , 232 - 233 Libby, Willard F., 62, 70, 73, 77, 78, 93
and budget , 235 Lilienthal , David E ., 29 on ETF , 243 Linear -approximation assumption , in and Foster committee , 241 plasma theory, 55 and mirror program , 233 Line -tying , 260 and neutral beams , 245 and flute instability , 106- 107, 282n16 with Rickover and Shaw , 228 and Table Top experiments , 106- 107 and Rickover strategy , 243 in Toy Top experiments , 112
Kistiakowsky , George B . , Scientist at the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR ), White Howe , 289n14 136
KMS Industries Lithium
government financing to , 248 as limiting substance, 5, 32 and laser fusion , 185 - 186 in stellarator reaction , 17 Kolb , Alan C . , 84 in tritium manufacture , 32 , 274n12
Kondryatsev , V . 5 . , 92 , 134 Livermore , California , as MTA site , 26 - 27
Konopinski , Emil , 18 Livermore Laboratory. Seealso California, Krakowski , Robert , 182 University of , Krall , Nicholas , III administrative change for, 42 Kruskal , Martin , 23 , 26 , 51 Astron project at, 122 Kruskal - Shafranov current density , 163 , competition between Baseballand 2X at, 230 , 260 219- 220, 221
Kueppers , Guenter expendituresby, 296n59 " Fusionsforschung , " 274n5 experimental spirit of, 57- 58 theory of , 199 , 250 funding for, 44 Kulcinski , Gerald L , 182 , 237 as interest group, 3- 4 Kurchatov , Ivor V . , 70 , 72 military involvement of, 38 Kurchatov Institute , Moscow , 110 , Ill . See in second-place rivalry, 218, 221, 233
also Institute of Atomic Energy , Moscow staff of, 79 2X developmentat, 220- 222 Lambricht , W . Henry , Governing Science and York plans for, 27 Technology , 274nll Livingstone, M. Stanley, 100 Landshoff , Rolf , 18 Logic III , budgets in, 235 Larson , Clarence E. , 42 , 187 Logsdon, John M., TheDecision to Goto the Laser fusion , 183 - 186 Moon, 322n5
KMS Industries proposal for , 185 - 186 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) vs . magnetic fusion , 185 CTR expansion at, 41 Index JJ5 demotion of, 234 MassachusettsInstitute of Technology expendituresby, 296n59 Alcator developedat, 162-164 funding for, 37, 44, 81 Artsimovich visit to , 161 - 162 , 163 as interest group, 3- 4 plasma-physicsprogram at, 98- 100 military involvement of, 38 superconductivityresearch at, 132 and Scyllac, 253 Materials , reactor in second-place rivalry, 218, 229- 230 Ruark interest in , 179 staffing of, 42, 79, 144-145 search for , 255 Lotker, Michael, 238, 239 in UWMAK design studies, 237 Luce, John S., 79, 220 Materials Testing Accelerator Project (MT A), 26 - 27 , 42 McCone, John A., 89, 93, 94, 211 Metz , William D ., 239 , 321n73 McCormack, Mike, 212, 251 Meyer-Schmidt configuration, and Scyllac, McDaniel. Paul W., 114, 136, 145, 191 144 , 146 , 222 , 223 on Astron, 119, 122 MHD. SeeMagnetohydrodynamics as divisionacting director, 81, 93 Microinstabilities , 261 and fear of Britishbreakthrough, 78 control of , 128 - 129 and fusionvs. fission, 187 discovery of, 8 in 1965report, 139 and mirrors , 113 , 124 - 125 , 126 , 128 and "ProjectSherwood" naming, 44 Milestones , for fusion program , 192 , and Spitzerfunding, 21 194- 195. Seealso Program planning visit to Britainby, 74 Military applications MacMillan, EdwinM., 18, 34 and Astron , 122 Macroinstabilities. Seealso Flute instability as fusion - research motivation , 17 - 18 , control of, 124, 128 32 - 33 and microinstabilities, 113 and interest in inertial confinement fusion , Magnetic confinement, 1, 273n2 252 Magnetic field, reasonsfor, 14-15 of laser fusion , 185 Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act Mills , Robert G ., 178 , 181 , 182 , 237 (1980), 251 Minimum B. See Magnetic well Magnetic fusion reactors, 1. SeeaLIa Fusion Mirror device. See also specificdevices reactors competition between Baseball and 2X, Magnetic fusion research. SeeFusion 219 - 220 research conception of , 27- 29 Magnetic pumping, in stellarator, 45, 91, containment time of , 52 261 in early experimental phase, 6- 7 Magnetic shear, 132, 133, 261 Foster committee on , 240 Magnetic well, 261 and Hirsch plans, 211 in AUCE, 115-116, 124, 125, 295n35 and instabilities , 50 - 52 , 56 - 68 , 106 - 108 , Furth's coil conception for, 115-116, 124, 109 , 110 , 112 - 113 , 114 125 in 1963budget, 118 importance of, 124 Post five -year prospectus for , 108 - 109 Ioffe bars as, III as reactor , 221 - 222 and mirror group, 111-112 secondplace aimed for, 218 Post's pros and cons on, 113-114 secondplace awarded to, 233 and Scyllac, 144 Soviet experiments with , 110- 111 Magnetohydrodynamics(MHD), 261 Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF), 233 ignorance of, 8 Model A stellarator , 25 , 45 in instability calculations, 54, 56- 57 Model B stellarator , 25 , 45 and mirror reactor, 57 B - 1, 51 - 52 , 90 , 132 in plasma-model assumption, 54 B - 1' built , 90 Major, John, Theoppenheimer Hearing, 275n4 B - 2 , 51 - 52 Marshall, Charles, 69 B - 3 , 63 , 90 - 91 , 130 , 132 Marshall, John, Jr., 254 difficulties with , 61 , 64 336 Index
Model B stellarator (continued ) in PLT , 244 - 245
in Geneva exhibit , 86 in 2XII ( 2XIIB ), 220 - 221 , 228
and instability , 51 Neutral - beam heating
pumpout in , 90 - 91 , 130 , 132 , 133 in DT experiment , 213
Model C stellarator , 25 , 45 - 46 , 47 - 48 , 130 in Hirsch planning , 210
and Bohm diffusion , 151 in Oak Ridge tokamak work , 171
cost of , 60 , 74 on Ormak , 210
criticism of , 131 Princeton accomplishes , 212
development decisions on , 61 - 62 , 63 - 64 testing of , 205
dismemberment of , 169 New York University . See Institute of Math - function of , 52 , 62 , 64 ematical Sciences , New York University
in Geneva exhibit , 86 Nixon , Richard
and Symmetric Tokamak , 167 , 169 Anders appointment by , 212
vs . lET A pinch , 75 and EPA , 175 Model D stellarator and funding , 168 , 195 , 209 function of , 52 Nonlinear plasma theory , 55 , 65 , 261
and industrial scientists , 46 - 47 Novosibirsk , USSR , fusion conference at ,
and market considerations , 248 - 249 151 , 157
size of , 47 nr . See Quality of confinement
study on , 47 Nuclear engineering , fusion , 4 , 10 , 182 ,
tentative design of , 48 274nl0
Models , plasma and plasma physics , 178 - 179 , 233
cooperative (collective ), 22 , 258 and reactors , 179 - 180 , 182 , 254 - 255
cooperative variants , 54 university programs in , 97 - 98
individual - particle , 22 , 260 utilities ' concern with , 238
and linear - approximation assumption , 55 Nuclear Fusion , 95 , 105
magnetohydrodynamic , 54 , 55
uniting of , 64 - 65 Oak Ridge National Laboratory , Thenno -
Montgomery , D . Bruce , 163 , 230 nuclear Group
Morgan , O . B . , 171 , 172 , 232 Bureau of Budget threat to , 156
Motor (M ) theory , 68 - 69 and DCX , 79 - 81 , 154 - 155
MT A . See Materials Testing Accelerator diffusion study at , 66
Project and DT experiment , 206 - 208 , 212 - 215
Mulkay , Michael J . , " Sociology of the Scien - expenditures by , 296n59
tific Research Community , " 274n9 funding for , 44 , 78 , 81
Multipole fusion research at , 42
conception of , 146 - 147 , 148 Hirsch view of , 212
duplication of efforts on , 152 , 154 increased importance of , 78 - 79
experiments with , 147 - 14 9 as interest group , 3 - 4 FM - l , 201 , 254 and neutral - beam heating , 171 - 172 at General Atomic , 134 Onnak development by , 154 - 161 , 165 ,
optimism over , 172 168
plasma current (PCM ), 164 Onnak redesign by , 169 - 171
as research machine , 147 and Onnak success , 232
Murray , Thomas E . , 29 , 30 , 37 , 63 , 73 , 76 reorients around DCX , 253
resources of , 81
National Science Foundation staff of , 79 , 81
MIT funding by , 99 strategic split within , 207
and Nixon funding policy , 195 in tokamak competition , 169 - 170 ,
Nature , data reported in , 83 253 - 254
Naval Research Laboratory , and 8 - pinch de - Octopoles , 148 - 149
velopment, 84 Office of Energy Research , creation of , 236
Neutral beam, 261, 318n27 Office of Management and Budget , fusion
emphasison, 245 report by , 228 Index JJ 7
Office of Scienceand Technology (OST) PhysicalReview Letters, 97 energy review by, 192 Physicsoj FluidJ, 97, 105 review request by, 200 Picket - fence device Office of SpecialProjects, and Geneva, 71 conception of , 58- 59 OGRA device, 92 leakagefrom, 60 Ohkawa, Tihiro, 146, 147-148, 158, 159, and stability, 59- 60 164, 165 Pinch device Ohmic heating, 261 design of, 19-20, 27 in Model B stellarator, 45 in early phase, 6- 7 for Ormak, 161 and fast-pinch concept, 68 and pumpout, 132 high point of, 82 Oliphant, Thomas A., ] r., 143 and instability, 50, 56, 68, 70- 71 Oppenheimer,] . Robert, 202 M theory applied in, 68 Optimism in 1963 budget, 118 and Congressionaldisillusionment, " Perhapsatron" initiated, 25- 26 118-119 Soviet work on , 134 - 135 over fission, 137 vs . stellarator , 21 initial ("Age of Optimism"), 7, 8, 33- 34, temperature in , 71 67- 69, 101 Planning. SeeProgram planning rebirth of, 172-173 Plasma (s} warrant for future, 256 burning, 255 Orlans, Harold, "Contracting for Atoms," cooperative (collective ) model of, 22 295n40 definition of , 14, 261 Ormak device differences among , 142 - 143 design of, 159- 161 early ignorance on, 3 Foster committee on, 240 individual-particle model of, 22 Hirsch for, 188 meaning of, 274n7 and neutral beam heating, 205, 232 and reactor conditions , 172 Oak Ridge proposal of, 165, 169 structure of , 57 redesignof, 169- 171 tokamak , 166 revival of, 207 Plasmacurrent multipole (PCM), 164 Standing Committee choice of, 167, 168 Plasma gun , 254 Ormak I, 159, 169 Plasma physics Ormak II, 159, 161, 169 emergence of , 104 - 105 low regard for , 136 ORNL. SeeOak Ridge National Laboratory, university programs in , 97 - 100 Thermonuclear Group Plasma research . See also Fusion energy pro - gram; Theory, fusion Palfrey, John G., 123 Parker, Ronald R., 230, 231 basic principles of, 6, 14- 15 concurrent vs. sequentialordering of, 46, Pastore, John, 117 62 Patents conductivity problem in, 131-132 on pinch design, 19 vs. development, 216-217 planned for stellarator, 21 and Hirsch on practicality , 204 PCM. SeePlasma current multipole 1958 state of art in , 89 , 92 - 93 , 255 Pease, R. Sebastian, 167, 171 and reactor engineering , 178- 179, 233 Perhapsatron. Seealso Pinch device Soviet achievements in , 70, 92 , Ill , 112 , conception of, 25- 26 135 , 151 - 152 , 167 in Genevaexhibit, 87 unpredictability of, 193-194 spurious neutrons from, 86, 87 PLT. See Princeton Large Torus PerhapsatronS-3, neutrons from, 82, 83 Pogutse, o . P., 206, 209 Perkins, Walton A., 112, 124 Political considerations Peron, Juan, fusion program of, 13 as dominating fusion program, 249, Phillips, James, 83, 191, 229-230 250- 251 (seealso Strategy, and internal ThePhysical Review, 97 politics) JJ8 Index
Political considerations(continued) staffing of, 42, 79 problems from, 250 theoretical emphasisof, 63 in spaceprogram, 251 and tokamak, 158, 165-166, 166-167, 169, Post, Richard F., 31, 33, 57, 58, 124 238, 253-254 AEC briefing by, 38 and toroidal leadership, 152 and AUCE, 113, 116 Princeton University and confinement scheme, 6 classified-researchopposition at, 30 at Denver meeting, 31 fusion funding to, 190 and direct conversion, 181 plasma-physicscurriculum at, 97-98 enters fusion program, 28 "Problemsof a Stellarator as a Useful five-year plan by, 108-109 Power Source, The" (Model D study), 47 as initiator, 3 Program planning. Seealso Decision making; and instability, 56, 58, 106, 107, 112, 116 Strategy on magnetic-well question, 113-114, conflicts in, 192-194 115-116 by Deutch, 12, 241, 243, 244, 247 on microinstabilities 113, 128 and funding, 195 and mirror , 42, 178, 180- 181, 221 under Hirsch, 9, 11, 200- 201, 210, 1965 policy report prepared by, 139, 140 216-217, 243, 316n73 and radiofrequency fields, 29 and Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering and Teller instability, 53- 54 Act, 251 and 2XII, 219 milestonesin, 192, 194-195 and 2XIIB, 228 need for, 191-192 Postma, Herman, 253 for CST review, 192-195 becomesOak Ridge division director, 157 Project Matterhorn. Seealso Princeton becomesORNL director, 214 PlasmaPhysics Laboratory and DCX, 125, 126 as code name, 14 in DT-experiment meeting, 213 fusion funding to, 37 on DT tokamak, 208, 211 postdoctoral appointmentsby, 97 and IMP, 208 renaming of, 98 and neutral beams, 171 Project Sherwood, 4, 44. Seealso Fusion en- and Ormak, 161 ergy program and Princeton tokamak, 169 Proto-Large Torus. SeePrinceton Large and reactors, 179, 180 Torus and tokamaks, 158, 169, 173 Pseudoclassicalscaling law, and tokamak, Power balance ratio. SeeQ. 209 President's ScienceAdvisory Committee PTF device, 156 (PSAC), Bishop meets with, 141 Pumpout, 262 Princeton Large Torus causesof, 132, 133 cost of, 193 in stellarator, 90, 130, 132, 133 final approval for, 208 and Oak Ridge, 232 Q. (power balanceratio), 262 proposal for, 169 and ignition temperature, 15 successof, 232, 244-246 for mirror reactor, 221-222, 229, 233 temperature in, 245 Post estimateof, 108-109 Princeton Large Torus (PLT)-II, in Princeton in Spitzercalculations, 15 feasibility plans, 208 for 2XIIB, 229 Princeton PlasmaPhysics Laboratory Quality of confinement, 262 DT experiment awarded to, 212-215 in Alcator, 231, 240, 246 DT-experiment opposition by, 208-209 Lawson criterion for, 85-86, 255, 260 expenditures by, 296n59 for tokamak, 151 funding for, 37, 44, 81 "Quantum jump," by fusion program, 38, as interest group, 3- 4 40- 45, 48- 49 naming of, 98 Quarles, John, CleaningUp America, 306nl radioactive experiments opposed by, 208 Quiru1, Warren E., 143 Index JJ9
Rabi, I. I., 38 on ORNL reactor lead , 180 Radiation pressuredams, in mirror design, on reactors , 178 , 179 28, 29 and " reference " designs, 237 Radioactivity Rosenbluth , Marshall N ., 67 - 68 , 104 in fusion reactors, 238 and DT burning , 206, 208- 209 and opposition at Princeton, 208 at General Atomic , 103 , 149 and scientific feasibility, M theory of , 68 Ramey, James T., 123, 187 on plasma physics, 136 and accelerationproposal, 140, 142 at Princeton Institute , 152 and Brueckner, 186 and stability , 70, 106, 107, Ill , 128, 133 leavesAEC, 212 and 2XII , 219 Ray, Dixy Lee, 209, 210, 211, 216 and 2XIIB , 228 , 229 RCA, fusion engineering by, 103 Rostoker , Nonnan , Ill , 149 Reachingignition, in pinch reactor, 19, 20 Ruark , Arthur E ., 3 , 108 , 140 Reactions as CfR head , 3 , 80 deuterium-deuterium, 16 on electron-temperature problem, 85 deuterium-tritium , 16, 204 and laser fusion , 184 hydrogen-ion dissociation, 7~ in 1965 review , 138 , 139 Reactor-relevant phaseof fusion research, and plasma physics, 136 199 on reactor studies , 178 - 179 Reactors. SeeFusion reactors and superconductivity, 131 " Reciprocatingengine," design, 39 visit to Britain by, 81 Reid, Constance, Courant, 280n30 visit to USSR by, 95 Relativisticelectron beams, and Astron, 202 RelativisticElectron Coil Experiment Salzburg conference (1961), 110 (RECE), 202 Sapolsky, Harvey M., PolarisSystem Develop- ResearchDivision ment , 274nll CTR taken from, 196 Sawyer, George A ., 230 and SteeringCommittee, 40 Sceptre device, 82 ResearchLaboratory for Electronics(RLE), Schlesinger, James R., Jr . MIT, 98 becomes AEC head , 4 , 196 Ribe, Fred L on CTR budget , 236 and development group, 181 and Deutch strategy , 241 on DT tokamak, 211 and fusion review , 246 and Scyllac, 222-223, 224-226, 230, 234 and Hirsch , 197 and Scylla reactor, 143 leaves AEC , 209 and 8-pinch reactor, 144 policy of, 235 on tokamak, 166, 188 Schultze , Charles L , 141 Richter, Ronald, 13 Schwarzschild , Martin , 23 , 26 Rickover, Hyman, 93, 228, 243 Science , Metz article in , 239 Riesenfield, Werner B., 144 Scientific feasibility , 9 Roberts, Michael vs. commercial development, 238 and Artsimovich, 162 Hirsch DT criterion of , 10, 204 - 205 , 210 and DT experiment, 206-207, 208, 212, (seealso DT experiment ) 213 in 1971 program plan, 194 and F/BX, 214, 215 in 1972 program plan, 201, 204, 211 in Ormak effort, 157, 158, 159 Scientists ' Institute for Public Information and Princeton tokamak success, 169 (SIPI ), and breeder reactor , 176 Roderick, Hilliard, 120, 179 Scott , F . Robert , 84 Rose, Basil, 86 Scylla Rose, David J., 99 design of , 84 fusion-reactor conferenceorganized by, in Geneva exhibit , 87 181 hopes for , 86, 87 MIT course by, 114 Scylla IV , 226 340 Index
Scyllac at discussionof Genevaexhibit, 77 as backboneproject, 253 experimentsproposed by, 24-25, 34-35, competitors of, 224, 226 48 conception of, 143-144 graduate-training efforts by, 97 cost of, 193 at IAEA meeting, 127 development of, 224-227, 229- 230 as initiator, 3 evaluation of, 145-146 and instability, 51, 53-54, 61, 116 organization required for, 145 and military research, 33 as reactor, 226-227 and Model D study, 46- 48 as researchmachine, 146 plasma researchby, 23- 24 stabilization problems of, 222-224, researchaward to, 21 225-226 researchinitiation by, 32 tennination of, 234 on revelation of Russianpinch, 72 Seaborg, Glenn T., 122, 123, 140, 185, 186, role of, 130 192, 196 as SteeringCommittee member, 40 Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 228 and stellarator, 15-18, 21, 23, 45- 48, 64, SecondInternational Conferenceon the 67 (leealso Stellarator) PeacefulUses of Atomic Energy, Geneva and Teller on instability, 53-54 (1958). SeeGeneva conference on theory, 63 Shafranov, V. D., 135 on time span, 63, 64 Shaw, Milton, 136, 210, 212, 228 on tokamak, 135, 152 Sherwoodconferences on toroidal devices, 133 June 1952: Denver, 31 and Tuck, 21 April 1953: Berkeley, and pinch, 50 and York, 27 October 1954: Princeton gun club, Teller on ZETA reactor, 82 addresses, 52- 54, 64- 65 Sputnik satellite, and Genevaexhibit, 77, 78 February 1955: uvennore , stability sym- Stability, SeeInstabilities posium, 54- 55 Staffing, 37, 42, 48- 49 June 1955: Los Alamos, on Princeton insta- for California program, 42 bility results, 63 Hirsch increasesin, 5, 200 October 1955: Colgate criticizespinch ex- at Livermore, 79 periments, 69 at Los Alamos, 42, 79 June 1956: Gatlinburg, Tennessee, on at Oak Ridge, 79, 81 pinch stabilization, 70, 71 at Princeton, 42, 79 and Steering Committee, 41 Standing Committee supplanting of, 96-97 creation of, 3, 142 Shipley, Elwood D., 42, 77, 78, 80, 81 General Atomic funding by, 149 Siegel, KeeveM., 185, 186 under Hirsch, 200, 215, 216 Siepert, Albert F., "ManagementClimate and Hirsch program plan, 201 for Effective Research, " 274n8 Key BiscayneDT -experiment meeting, Simon, Albert, 79- 80 210-211 Smullin, Louis D., 99, 203 replacementof, 215 Smullin panel, on Astron, 203 in Scyllacdecision, 145 Smyth, Henry D., 29, 30, 37, 39, 62, 94 tokamak decisionsby, 164, 165, 166, 167, Snell, Arthur , 155, 156, 157, 158 168 Spaceprogram SteeringCommittee politicization of, 251 creation of, 2, 40 and US prestige, 112 on cutting back, 94 Spitzer, Lyman, Jr., 13- 14, 21, 31, 33, 103 and discussionof Genevaexhibit, 77 AEC briefing by, 38 leadershipon, 3 on Bohm diffusion, 132 and Model C, 48, 61- 62 on British trip, 81 and 1958 reconstitution, 93-94 and confinement scheme, 6, 14-16 role of, 40 at Denver meeting, 31 and Sherwoodconferences, 41 Index 341
visit to Britain by , 74 and Genevaexhibit, 73-74, 76, 77, 78, 83, Steiner , Don , 179 , 182 , 237 87 Stellarator "Men and Decisions." 278nl achievement of , 280n40 role of, 88, 105 de facto termination of , 9, 169 andTeller, 40 design of, 15- 17, 27 Superconductivity, 262 in early experimental phase, 6- 7 in ALICEII and BaseballII, 155, 303n14 as experiment , 24- 25, 34- 35, 48, 64 laboratoryachievement of, 132 figure-8 design of, 15- 16, 45 and multi poles, 147 fuel for , 16- 17 need for, 131 instability in , 50- 51, 56, 61, 62, 116 Symmetric Tokamak models of , 25 , 45 - 48 , 64 (see also Model aspectratio of, 170 A / B / C/ D stellarator ) experiments with, 169 naming of , 17, 21 Princeton 's success with , 232 in 1963 budget, 118 Standing Committee choice of , 167 . 168 vs. pinch reactor, 21 power needs of , 131 - 132 T, 225 reactions in , 16 - 17 " loss of collective memory " on , 226 redesign of, 66 for Scyllac , 225 reemergence of , 256 Table Top , stability experiments with , and Spitzer research, 21, 23 106 - 107 , 109 , 112 - 113 , 124 vs . tokamak , 165 Tactics . See Strategy Stiefel , Michael D ., " U .S. Breeder Reactor Tanner , Earl C. Program ," 299n24 Model C Decade, 297nl Stix , Thomas , 152 , 254 Project Matterhorn , 27 5n6 Stodiek, Wolfgang, 133, 152, 153, 166 Tape , Gerald F., 123 , 140 , 142 , 180 Strategy, 2, 7. Seealso Decision making; Pro- Taschek , Richard , 14.5, 173 , 186 , 191 , 224 gram planning Taylor , Robert , 230 , 231 alternations in , 250 Technical Group for Controlled Nuclear Fu - of concurrent vs. sequentialordering of re- sion , 183 search , 46 , 49 , 62 Teem , john M ., 228 , 233 of Deutch , 236 - 241 , 243 flexibility in, 144-145 Teich , Albert H ., " Bureaucracy and Politics in Big Science ," 274n9 Foster committee ' s, 239 - 240 Hirsch 's , 204 - 205 Teich , Albert H ., and Lambricht , W . Henry , and instability, 50, 56, 58, 116 " Redirection of a Large National Labora - and internal politics, 49, 174, 253-254 tory ," 274n9 Teller , Edward for mirror , 58 1958 consensus on , 88 AEC briefing by , 38 and declassification , 284nll as of 1978 , 246 - 247 shift to basic plasma physics, 116-117, on funding , 94 118 - 119 and hydrogen bomb , 18
and Strauss build - up , 49 instability argument of , 8, 52 - 54 , 64 - 65 and theory , 65, 250 and Model C, 48 , 61 Zeta-episode effect on , 87 recruitment by , 20 - 21 , 43 Strauss , Lewis H ., 73 on revelation of Russian pinch , 72 Strauss , Lewis L , 3 , 63 , 249 and Rosenbluth , 67 appointment recommendations by , 76- 77 for second weapons laboratory , 26 and British claims , 75 - 76 as Steering Committee chairman , 40 and declassification , 39 - 40 , 67 , 72 , 73 , 75 , Teller , Edward , and Brown , Allen , " Legacy 81 , 89 of Hiroshima ," 277n38 fusion advocacyby, 7, 36- 38, 41, 44, 95, Teller instability . See Flute instability 252 Temperature , 262 fusion expansion under , 4, 5, 48- 49, 88, and confinement time , 232 , 245 , 256 105 ideal ignition , 6, 15, 255 342 Index
Temperature (continued ) and five approved approaches, 168-169 in pinch design, 71 Foster panel on, 239-240 in PLT , 245 Hirsch for, 9, 11, 188, 222, 236 Spitzer's projections of , 24- 25 impurities in, 205-206 Tenney , Fred H ., 213 and Oak Ridge Ormak, 158-159, 161 (see Texas Atomic Energy Research Foundation alsoOrmak) (T AERF ) optimism causedby, 172 funding by, 190, 248 origin of, 134 funding withdrawal by, 149 Princeton disregard for, 158, 165-166 support by, 103-104 Princeton plans for, 169 (seealso Adiabatic Texas Turbulent Tokamak , 162 , 288 Toroidal Compressor; Symmetric Toka- TFTR . See Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor mak Theory, fusion quality of confmement for, 256 Astron project lack in , 202, 203 reactor design studieson, 237 backwardness of , 8, 65 as reactor hope, 198 vs. " brute -force " experiment , 7, 10- 11, 49, as Scyllaccompetitor, 224, 226 65 Soviet reports on, 151-152, 152-153, vs. experimental results, 56- 57, 231 161-162, 166, 167 (seealso TM-3 toka- fragmentation or, 33-34 mak; T -3 tokamak; T -10 tokamak) magnetohydrodynamic(MHD), 8, 54, stability of, 135 56 - 57 , 133 Standing Committee endorsementof, nonlinear , 55 , 65 165-167 of plasma, 22- 23, 55 stragegyconcerning, 10-12 Princeton emphasison, 63 Symmetric, 167, 168, 169, 170,232 and strategy , 65 , 250 Texas Turbulent, 162, 188 Thermonuclear Group, Oak Ridge National uncertainty over, 173, 233 Laboratory. SeeOak Ridge National Lab- and US-USSRrivalry, 164 oratory , Thermonuclear Group utility industry on, 238 Theta- ((J-) pinch device, 84 Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor(TFTR) Grad - Weitzner on , 222 , 223 cost of, 218 and Hirsch plans, 211 in Deutch's strategy, 241 hopes for, 86 Foster committee on, 241, 244 as mirror rival , 218 in Hirsch strategy, 10-11 1965 pessimism on , 135 Princeton to build, 215 NRL development or, 84, 86 in Princeton-Oak Ridge rivalry, 232 as reactor , 143 - 144 , 226 - 227 promise of, 256 Scylla as, 84 as Scyllaccompetitor, 226 Thomassen , Keith , 182 , 225 Tonks, Lewi, 46 Thompson, William P., 75 Totempole device, 84 Thomson , Sir George P., 19, 20, 34 Toy Top, usesof, 107 Thonemann , Peter Clive , 20 , 75 , 86 Toy Top 2-X. See2X Thome , Robert D ., 236 Toy Top III , stability experiments with, TM - 3 tokamak , 151 , 153 , 167 107-108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 292n8 Tokamak , 9 , 151 - 154 Tritium , 263 and Coppi-Montgomery design (Alcator), in DT experiment, 204 163 - 164 as fuel, 5, 32 cost or , 153 , 193 hazard from, 176, 177 Culham tests on , 167 , 173 manufacture of, 32, 274n12 Deutch on , 241 - 242 , 243 and original conception of scientific feasi- and development vs. research, 217 bility, 194 diffusion loss through, 206 in stellarator reaction, 16- 17 Doublet , 164 - 165 Trivelpiece, Alvin W., 199 DT experiment with , 205- 209, 210- 211, Trubnikov, B. A., 92, 134 213 - 214 , 215 T-3 tokamak, 151, 159, 164, 167, 170, 173 Index 343
T- I0 tokamak, 164, 232 Fusion Advisory Committee established Tuck,James Leslie, 25, 31, 34, 58, 84, 145 by, 238 AEC briefing by, 38 fusion interest of, 190, 191 on British trip, 81 fusion task force of, 190-191, 195 and confinement scheme, 6 Mea articles on views of, 239 on declassification, 70 recommendationsfrom, 238-239 at Denver conference, 31 and Scyllacdifficulties, 227 and discussionat Genevaexhibit, 77 on tokamaks, 238, 239 on fission, 186 UWMAK-I/II /III , and Foster committee, as initiator, 3 237 and military research, 33 on mirror prospects, 129 Van Atta, ChesterM., 42, 81, 154, 173, " Perhapsatron" christened by, 25 180, 203 and " picket-fence" concept, 59, 60, 147 Vance, Harold, 73, 77 and pinch, 20, 50, 68-69, 71, 83, 84, 134 Venice, international conferenceat, 91 on plasma properties, 23 Versator device, 231 on program expansion, 41 Von Neumann, John, 18, 38, 62-63, 76 researchinitiation by, 32 and Rosenbluth, 68 Ware , Alan A ., 20, 162 on Russianfast-pinch revelation, 72 Warm -plasma stabilization on Steering Committee, 40 in EBT, 242 on stellarator prospects, 21 and mirror success, 246 in Teller seminar, 18 in 2XIIB , 228- 229 on 8 pinch, 143 Weart , Spencer, Scientistsin Power, 274n5 on threshold temperature, 255 Weinberg , Alvin M ., 42, 94, 154, 155, 157 and York, 27 Weinhold , J. Frederick , 192 Turbulent heating, and tokamak, 162 Weitzner , Harold , 223 Two-Component Torus-Fusion Test Reactor " Wendelstein " device, 133 (TCT-FTR), proposal for, 214 Werner , Richard W ., 180, 182, 222 2X device Westendorp , Willem , 46, 101, 249 in competition with tokamak, 224 Westinghouse opposition to, 114-115 and fusion research, 102- 103 2XII and Model C stellarator , 61 development of, 220-222 in Model D study , 46 difficulties in, 219-220, 221 in TCT -FTR design , 214 2XIIB " Wet -wood burner ," 213- 214 development of, 228 Wheeler , John A ., 14, 17 naming of, 221 Wiesner , Jerome , 161 as reactor, 229 Wigner , Eugene, 72 Williams , James M ., 227 Ulam, Stanislaus Williams , John Harry , 93 Adventure.sof a Mathematician, 280n34 Wilson , Robert R., 18, 34, 39, 94, 123 and Tuck, 18, 25 Wilson , Robert W ., Ashton , Peter K., and United Aircraft, mirror project at, 220 Egan, Thomas P., Semiconductorlndwtry, Universities, fusion involvement of, 97-100, 322n3 183, 252 University of California. SeeCalifornia, Uni- Yarmolinsky, Adam, Military Establz:shment, versity of 274n8 University of Texas, fusion funding to, 190 Yemelyanov, Vasily S., 95 University of Wisconsin Yin-yang coils, in 2XII, 219 fusion funding to, 190 York, Herbert F., 33, 253 Kerst moves to, 147 TheAdvZ:Sors, 277n38 tokamak-reactor studies from, 237 and discussionat Genevaexhibit, 77 Utilities industry as initiator, 3 344 Index
York, Herbert F. (continued) and military, 33, 38 in mirror design, 27- 28 on program expansion, 41 researchinitiation by, 32 Yoshikawa, Shoichi, 152, 254
ZETA (Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assem- bly) pinch, 286n27 accomplishmentsof, 75 and declassification, 73, 81 design of, 75 disappointment in, 86 instabilities in, 133-134 lessonsfrom, 87 optimism over, 7 UK defenseof, 83 US doubts on, 83, 87 I-pinch devices vs. Scyllac, 229-230 US abandonment of, 134 ZT- 1, 230 lucken , EugeneM., 29, 37, 38, 62