DOCSLIB.ORG

New Advances Promise Third-Generation Fusion Devices the World Will Have Widespread Fusion Power by the Year 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Advances Promise Third-Generation Fusion Devices the World Will Have Widespread Fusion Power by the Year 2000 SCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS • POLITICS July-August 1983 New Advances Promise Third-Generation Fusion Devices The world will have widespread fusion power by the year 2000. The only question is whether it will be delivered by an ICBM or a tokamak. It's up to you! With your help, the Fusion Energy Foundation can • put Fusion magazine into the hands of 200,000 progrowth Americans • educate America on the benefits—economic, military, and scientific—of developing directed energy beam technologies • send speakers nationwide to debate nuclear freeze advocates on campuses and at commun­ ity meetings • promote science and technology—specifically the development of nuclear fusion and fission and space explor­ ation—as the most important tools for continuing human progress. Join the Fusion Energy Foundation and give gift subscriptions to Fusion magazine. Yes, I want to support the Fusion Energy Foundation. Enclosed is: • Sustaining membership $250 • Individual membership $75 • Corporate membership $1,000 (All memberships include 10 issues of Fusion) • 1-year subscription to Fusion $20 (6 issues) • 2-year subscription to Fusion $38 (12 issues) Make checks payable to Fusion Energy Foundation, Box 1438, Radio City Station, New York, N.Y. 10101 EDITORIAL STAFF Editor-in-Chief Dr. Steven Bardwell Managing Editor Marjorie Mazel Hecht FUSION Assistant Managing Editor Lydia Dirtier Schulrnan Vol. 5, No. 9 Fusion Technology Editor Charles B. Stevens Washington Editor Marsha Freeman Energy Editor William Engdahl Features Books Editor David Cherry Art Director Alan Yue 16 Thomas Alva Edison: The Scientist Who Created Advertising Manager The Electric Light and Power Industry Joseph Cohen Circulation and Subscription Manager Michael Tobin Denise Ham The suppressed history of Thomas Alva Edison, who waged a successful (212) 247-8820 10-year battle to build efficient, centralized electric power stations to FUSION (ISSN 0148-0537) is published 4 times light the world and power its industries. a year by the Fusion Energy Foundation, 304 West 58th Street, Fifth Floor. New York, N.Y. 10019, Tel. (212) 247-8439. Dedicated to providing accurate and comprehensive information on advanced en­ ergy technologies and policies, FUSION is com­ mitted to restoring American scientific and tech­ 34 The X-Ray Laser by 1986! nological leadership. FUSION coverage of the frontiers of science focuses on the self-developing Dr. Steven Bardwell qualities of the physical universe in such areas as An adequate defense against nuclear weapons is possible only when the plasma physics—the basis for fusion power—as well as biology and microphysics, and includes boost phase intercept problem is solved. The X-ray laser gives us this ground-breaking studies of the historical devel­ capability—and estimates are that its first deployment is possible within opment of science and technology. The views of the FEF are stated in the editorials. two or three years. Opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the FEF directors or advisory board. Subscriptions by mail are $20 for 6 issues or $38 for 12 issues in the USA; $25 for 6 issues in Canada. Airmail subscriptions to other countries are $40 for 6 issues. 38 New Los Alamos Breakthroughs Point to Address all correspondence to FUSION, Fusion Compact, High Density Magnetic Fusion Devices Energy Foundation, P.O. Box 1438, Radio City Station, New York, N.Y. 10101. Charles B. Stevens Second class postage paid at New York, N.Y. Experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratory indicate that magnetic Postmaster: Send address changes to FUSION, P.O. Eox 1438, Radio City Station, New York, N.Y. fusion devices can become self-sustaining at high densities, thus making 10101. possible an ideal fusion reactor that burns advanced fusion fuels efficiently at an extremely low capital cost. Note to Libraries and Subscribers We apologize for irregularity in our print­ ing schedule this year, but we assure read­ ers that the only pronuclear science maga­ zine in the country intends to continue pub­ lishing! Because of financial difficulties, the News FEF published only 4 issues of FUSION in 1983, and this issue is being mailed late to FUSION REPORT subscribers. The FEF will publish 4 issues 9 The Secret of Laser Fusion: The Japanese Have It! in 1984, beginning with Vol. 6, No. 1, May- June 1984. Dr. Steven Bardwell Subscribers who purchased a 10-issue THE YOUNG SCIENTIST subscription and those who purchased a 6- 52 Looking Deep into Space with NASA's Space Telescope issue subscription will receive the number of issues they paid for. Marsha Freeman Contributions to the FEF are welcome (and 54 Tales of Science: Marie and Pierre Curie tax deductible). And the Discovery of Radioactivity Copyright S 1983 Fusion Energy Foundation Jon Cilbertson Printed in the USA All Rights Reserved ISSN 0148-0537 USPS 437-370 On the cover: The ZT-40 reversed field pinch magnetic fusion device at Los Alamos Na­ Departments tional Laboratory has provided a series of spectacular and unexpected results in the 2 EDITORIAL 56 BIOTECHNOLOGY past year, opening new engineering and 6 LETTERS 58 BOOKS theoretical possibilities for the achievement of nuclear fusion. Photograph courtesy of 6 VIEWPOINT Los Alamos National Laboratory; cover de­ sign by Virginia Baier. Editorial WE CALL IT 'METASTABLE TENSION' AND FIND n WOKftS QUITE WELL! Dr. Strangelove This guest editorial was written by Paul Gallagher, exec­ utive director of the Fusion Energy Foundation. Those who have considered the real "Dr. Strangelove" to be Henry Kissinger have not looked deeply enough into the •history of the antinuclear policy doctrine known as MAD— mutually assured destruction—and its corollaries. Kissin­ ger's conscious acts against the strategic security interests of the United States, including his deliberate disinforma­ tion to U.S. presidents concerning potential weapons tech­ nologies and Soviet policies, have continued for 25 years. But since his 1957 book, Nuclear Weapons and National Security, behind Kissinger's nuclear weapons policies has been a far more evil man—Lord Bertrand Russell, and his associates. The documentation is absolutely clear (only a highlight of it is presented here) that the Dr. Strangelove of Stanley Kubrick's "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," was Dr. Leo Szilard, Russell's close collaborator among the pan-European emigre scientist circles. 2 FUSION July-August 1983 Founded the Nuclear Freeze In 1957, Russell and his elite circle of neo-Malthusians tors wrote articles stating that fear and guilt fantasies about founded the Pugwash Conference, the "peace and disar­ the atomic bomb, among scientists and populations, could mament" network that has since that time, in fact, formu­ be used to force one empire, an Anglo-American world lated all U.S.-NATO nuclear doctrines and all U.S.-Soviet government, on the nations of the world. In their view, arms agreements. In addition, the Pugwash group has nuclear science and technology would be driven complete­ founded or controlled all "nuclear freeze" institutions then ly into the jealous and secretive control of a world agency or since, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the that would have a monopoly of uranium and nuclear arms. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and the In 1946, Russell and Szilard demanded that the Soviet Council for a Livable World, as well as today's "nuclear Union be blackmailed out of its attempts to become an freeze" and "green" peace movements. independent nuclear power by threatening it with a nuclear attack! Pugwash's 'Two Empires' By 1953-1956, when this "preventive war" scheme had Since 1957, the Pugwash doctrine has specified world irreversibly failed and it was clear that the Soviets had de­ government by "two empires," the Eastern (Russian) and veloped thermonuclear bombs, the great men of peace Western (American) divisions. Such a world government around Russell stopped threatening Russia and instead would destroy the sovereignty and the rights to nuclear started courting the "Eastern Empire." technology development of all other nations in the name That decision marks the start of the public celebrity of of "peace" and "metastable tension," to use the words of Henry Kissinger as a sucker for the Soviet Union, a liar to Leo Szilard. U.S. presidents, and an advocate of decline in U.S. world From 1946 to 1952, Russell, Szilard, and their collabora­ influence to "25 percent of its postwar level." While Kissin- July-August 1983 FUSION 3 ger has styled himself as the agent of Lord Carrington and Schlesinger, Robert Strange McNamara, and the Rand Cor­ the British intelligence factional tradition of Bertrand Rus­ poration, were fully elaborated by Szilard in 1958. As he laid sell, he has continuously acted on behalf of the Soviet Union it out, the two imperial superpowers would pursue wars of in arms policy debate and direct arms negotiations for 20 conquest with nuclear-armed rapid deployment forces, years. destabilizing and destroying the nations of the Mideast and Africa in particular, and conducting periodic limited nucle­ Kissinger's Treachery ar wars to maintain the level of "metastable tension. "Szilard It is the direct responsibility of Henry Kissinger that the wrote out Henry Kissinger's entire career in advance. Soviet Union today has a nationwide infrastructure for anti­ Here is Szilard's 1958 "Strangelove" update of Lord Rus­ missile defense, which is being prepared for operation and sell's 1946 doctrine of "preventive war": upgrading to laser and particle beam defense, while the United States has no such infrastructure and is years behind Let us now assume, for the sake of argument, that in in the drive to develop directed energy beam weapons. This the long-range rocket stage there may occur some ma­ is the result of what Kissinger admitted to Congress in 1982 jor disturbance affecting the Arabian Peninsula which were his own unilateral interpretations of the SALT I (ABM) threatens to cut off Western Europe from its Mideast- and SALT II Treaties—interpretations never agreed to but ern oil supply.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Engineering Physics
    oml ORNL-6868 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Engineering Physics LOCK H * M D NJA Jt rim Or" and Mathematics Division ^ Progress Report for Period Ending December 31,1994 R. F. Sincovec, Director MANAGED BY LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UCI*13673 {36 W5) This report has been reproduced directly from the ilabie copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Scientific and Techni- cal Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37> s available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401. Available to the public from the National Teci rmation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd.,; d, VA 22161. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com• pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process dis• closed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily consti• tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ORNL-6868 Engineering Physics and Mathematics Division ENGINEERING PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS DIVISION PROGRESS REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1994 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Thermonuclear Bomb 5 7 12
    1 Inexpensive Mini Thermonuclear Reactor By Alexander Bolonkin [email protected] New York, April 2012 2 Article Thermonuclear Reactor 1 26 13 Inexpensive Mini Thermonuclear Reactor By Alexander Bolonkin C&R Co., [email protected] Abstract This proposed design for a mini thermonuclear reactor uses a method based upon a series of important innovations. A cumulative explosion presses a capsule with nuclear fuel up to 100 thousands of atmospheres, the explosive electric generator heats the capsule/pellet up to 100 million degrees and a special capsule and a special cover which keeps these pressure and temperature in capsule up to 0.001 sec. which is sufficient for Lawson criteria for ignition of thermonuclear fuel. Major advantages of these reactors/bombs is its very low cost, dimension, weight and easy production, which does not require a complex industry. The mini thermonuclear bomb can be delivered as a shell by conventional gun (from 155 mm), small civil aircraft, boat or even by an individual. The same method may be used for thermonuclear engine for electric energy plants, ships, aircrafts, tracks and rockets. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Key words: Thermonuclear mini bomb, thermonuclear reactor, nuclear energy, nuclear engine, nuclear space propulsion. Introduction It is common knowledge that thermonuclear bombs are extremely powerful but very expensive and difficult to produce as it requires a conventional nuclear bomb for ignition. In stark contrast, the Mini Thermonuclear Bomb is very inexpensive. Moreover, in contrast to conventional dangerous radioactive or neutron bombs which generates enormous power, the Mini Thermonuclear Bomb does not have gamma or neutron radiation which, in effect, makes it a ―clean‖ bomb having only the flash and shock wave of a conventional explosive but much more powerful (from 1 ton of TNT and more, for example 100 tons).
    [Show full text]
  • Starpower: the US and the International Quest for Fusion Energy
    Appendix B Other Approaches to Fusion The main body of this report has discussed magnetic The issues addressed by inertial confinement fusion confinement fusion, the approach to controlled fusion research in the United States concern the individual that the worldwide programs emphasize most heav- targets containing the fusion fuel; the input energy ily. However, two other approaches to fusion are also sources, called drivers, that heat and compress these being investigated. All three approaches are based on targets; and the mechanism by which energy from the the same fundamental physical process, in which the driver is delivered–or coupled–into the target. Due nuclei of light isotopes, typically deuterium and tri- to the close relationship between inertial confinement tium, release energy by fusing together to form heav- fusion target design and thermonuclear weapon de- ier isotopes. Some of the technical issues are similar sign, inertial confinement fusion research is funded among all the fusion approaches, such as mechanisms by the nuclear weapons activities portion of the De- for recovering energy and breeding tritium fuel. How- partment of Energy’s (DOE’s) budget. Inertial confine- ever, compared to magnetic confinement, the two ap- ment research is conducted largely at nuclear weap- proaches discussed below create the conditions nec- ons laboratories; its near-term goals are dedicated essary for fusion to occur in very different ways, and largely to military, rather than energy applications, and some substantially different science and technology a substantial portion of this research is classified. issues emerge in each case. There are two near-term military applications of in- ertial confinement fusion—one actual and one not yet Inertial Confinement Fusion1 realized.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Distant Nuclear Fusion 1. Introduction 2. ITER
    Distant Nuclear Fusion By John Benson January 2021 1. Introduction When we look up at night and view the stars, everything we see is shining because of distant nuclear fusion. — Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980, p. 238) I have been posting papers to Energy Central since 2017, and weekly posts since 2018. During this time, I have occasionally come across a subject and considered writing a post on it. The reason I haven’t is because, even though it is an advanced technology for producing energy, it will not produce any usable electric power for decades. There are currently two experiments that are designed to reach “break-even” fusion within the next several years, but this means that the experiment will inject as much energy into the inner, or core process as comes out in the form of high energy neutrons. Forget any energy-conversion efficiencies outside of the core – no electric energy will come out of these initial facilities in spite of huge amounts going in. One of these two projects, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France. The other, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is here in my home town of Livermore, California. ITER is scheduled to turn on in 2025, and reach full power by 2035. NEF has been running for over a decade. ITER cost $25 billion. The cost of NIF is a bit difficult to parse. The official cost is $3.5 billion, but there were several earlier experiments that led up to NIF, and NIF has been expanded and modified since it was commissioned in 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • R:\TEMP\Bobbi\RDD-8 3-16-04 Reprint.Wpd
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO THE PRESENT (RDD-8) January 1, 2002 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Classification Contains information which may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), exemption number(s) 2. Approval by the Department of Energy prior to public release is required. Reviewed by: Richard J. Lyons Date: 3/20/2002 NOTICE This document provides historical perspective on the sequence of declassification actions performed by the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. It is meant to convey the amount and types of information declassified over the years. Although the language of the original declassification authorities is cited verbatim as much as possible to preserve the historical intent of the declassification, THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DECLASSIFYING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS without specific authorization from the Director, Information Classification and Control Policy. Classification guides designed for that specific purpose must be used. OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page intentionally left blank OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOREWORD This document supersedes Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - 1946 To The Present (RDD-7), January 1, 2001. This is the eighth edition of a document first published in June 1994. This latest edition includes editorial corrections to RDD-7, all declassification actions that have been made since the January 1, 2001, publication date of RDD-7 and any additional declassification actions which were subsequently discovered or confirmed. Note that the terms “declassification” or “declassification action,” as used in this document, refer to changes in classification policy which result in a specific fact or concept that was classified in the past being now unclassified.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest: the Potential of Explosive Fusion Research for the Development of Pure Fusion Weapons
    Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest: The Potential of Explosive Fusion Research for the Development of Pure Fusion Weapons Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Hisham Zerriffi July 1998 Minor editing revisions made in 2003. Table of Contents Preface i Summary and Recommendations v Summary of Findings vi Recommendations vii Chapter 1: Varieties of Nuclear Weapons 1 A. Historical Background 1 B. Converting Matter into Energy 4 C. Fission energy 5 D. Fusion energy 8 E. Fission-fusion weapons 16 Chapter 2: Inertial Confinement Fusion Basics 19 A. Deposition of driver energy 24 B. Driver requirements 25 C. Fuel pellet compression 27 D. Thermonuclear ignition 29 Chapter 3: Various ECF Schemes 31 A. Laser Drivers 32 B. Ion Beam Drivers 34 1. Heavy Ion Beams 35 a. Induction Accelerators 36 b. Radio-Frequency Accelerators 36 2. Light Ion Beams 37 C. Z-pinch 39 D. Chemical Explosives 40 E. Advanced materials manufacturing 42 1. Nanotechnology 42 2. Metallic Hydrogen 45 Chapter 4: The Prospects for Pure Fusion Weapons 47 A. Requirements for pure fusion weapons 47 B. Overall assessment of non-fission-triggered nuclear weapons 48 1. Ignition 48 2. Drivers 53 C. Overall technical prognosis for non-fission triggered nuclear weapons 54 D. Fusion power and fusion weapons - comparative requirements 56 Chapter 5: Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Issues Related to Explosive Confinement Fusion 59 A. The Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program 62 1. Reliability 62 a. Reliability definition 63 b. Future reliability problems 64 c. Relevance of NIF to reliability of the current stockpile 65 2. The US laser fusion program as a weapons development program 65 3.
    [Show full text]
  • NRDC Comments on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Issue of Nonproliferation (August 23, 1995 Draft Study)
    NRDC Comments on The National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Issue of Nonproliferation (August 23, 1995 Draft Study) Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1350 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel (main): (202) 783-7800 Cochran (direct dial): (202) 624-9329 Fax: (202) 783-5917 INTERNET: [email protected] "The National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the Issue of Nonproliferation" draft study prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nonproliferation, August 23, 1995 [hereafter "Draft NIF Report"] is inadequate in its treatment of the nonproliferation issues raised by the proposed construction and operation of the NIF facility. Major deficiencies are identified below. 1. The NIF May Fail to Ignite. The Draft NIF Report is written as if there were no unresolved technical issues that could affect whether NIF meets its performance goals. For example, under 'Background," the report states that NIF "is expected to reach the goal of ICF capsule ignition." (p. 3; see also p. 10) However, there are still unresolved issues regarding whether time dependent asymmetries of the energy absorbed by the DT capsules, within the proposed gas-filled hohlraum targets, will be too large to obtain ignition with NIF. 2. The Draft NIF Report fails to explain fully the primary objectives of NIF and the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The "Background" section states that As part of a broader Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program, a primary interest of the Department of Energy in NIF is to preserve the core intellectual and technical competencies of the U.S. in nuclear weapons scientists as directed by the President during a nuclear test ban regime and without new weapons development and production.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Four Making Light of the Light Elements
    Chapter Four Making Light of the Light Elements Although itself a significant technical obstacle to the H-bomb project, Los Alamos found computing as only one of several critical problems. Other problems arose, as well, and weapons scientists acknowledged them at various times. Von Neumann, Teller, Wheeler and others early on established computing as a technical problem that stood in the way of understanding the Super configuration’s feasibility. Nuclear materials were also a bottleneck to the hydrogen weapon program, yet Los Alamos’s scientists recognized this problem later than they had the computing obstacle. Tritium in particular, from the time Konopinski had suggested incorporating this isotope into the Super theory, was a latent obstacle to the H-bomb program. After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic weapon in 1949 tritium scientists began to view tritium as a serious critical problem facing the American thermonuclear project. Although the Russian A-bomb test represented in the United States a political event outside of the AEC technological system -- this event nevertheless forced both scientists and policymakers to reconsider the AEC’s pace and the intensity of nuclear weapons research. Only then the Commission called its materials production facilities into question. After President Truman instructed the AEC to explore further the hydrogen weapon in 1950, and when Ulam and his colleague’s calculations began to 174 show the ignition problems facing the Super, the tritium problem became blatant. Consequently, the Committee for Weapon Development demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the 1945-1946 ENIAC calculations were wrong. In 1949 the AEC found itself unprepared to begin a program of large- scale tritium production in part because its predecessor, the MED, had not constructed any facilities specifically for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • January/February 2002
    University of California Nonprofit Org. January/ Science & Technology Review U. S. Postage February 2002 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory PAID P.O. Box 808, L-664 Albuquerque, NM Livermore, California 94551 Permit No. 853 National Nuclear Security Administration’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Also in this issue: • Simulations Advance Magnetic Fusion Energy Development • Collaboration Synthesizes Two New Elements • Portable Detection Systems Combat Bioterrorism Printed on recycled paper. About the Cover In September 2002, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory turns 50. As part of a year- long celebration, S&TR will publish a series of short articles on the development and evolution of the Laboratory’s research and development activities in support of our core national security mission and other programs that take advantage of Livermore’s special capabilities. This series of 50th anniversary highlights kicks off on p. 4 with an account of the Laboratory’s origins and early successes in developing nuclear weapon designs that laid the foundation for the present-day stockpile. Pictured on the cover, along with photos of what the Laboratory looked like back in 1952, are the three men most responsible for establishing Lawrence Livermore—(left to right) Ernest O. Lawrence, Edward Teller, and Herbert York, the Laboratory’s first director. Cover design: Amy Henke About the Review Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. At Livermore, we focus science and technology on assuring our nation’s security. We also apply that expertise to solve other important national problems in energy, bioscience, and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetic Fusion Technology 1St Edition Pdf Free Download
    MAGNETIC FUSION TECHNOLOGY 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Thomas J Dolan | 9781447169277 | | | | | Magnetic Fusion Technology 1st edition PDF Book Design concept of LHD However, due to transit disruptions in some geographies, deliveries may be delayed. Connect with:. Magnetic confinement is one of two major branches of fusion energy research , along with inertial confinement fusion. GA's applied computer science programs are aimed at improving data acquisition, management, analysis, visualization, and collaboration for scientific research at large scales. Boundary physics Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal. Injecting frozen pellets of deuterium into the fuel mixture can cause enough turbulence to disrupt the islands. Mathematical models can determine the likelihood of a rogue wave and to calculate the exact angle of a counter-wave to cancel it out. Transport V. The next chapters deal with the principles, configuration, and application of high-beta stellarator, fast-linear-compression fusion systems, and ELMO Bumpy torus, as well as the magnetic confinement of high-temperature plasmas. Conclusions and perspectives Power exhaust 5. The mega amp spherical tokamak Equilibrium and Stability IV. This would require the pinch current to be reduced and the external stabilizing magnets to be made much stronger. Stellarators have seen renewed interest since the turn of the millennium as they avoid several problems subsequently found in the tokamak. Thermonuclear weapon Pure fusion weapon. Summary and conclusion Summary Part Four. First built in the UK in , and followed by a series of increasingly large and powerful machines in the UK and US, all early machines proved subject to powerful instabilities in the plasma.
    [Show full text]
  • Y-12 and the Hydrogen Bomb
    Y-12 and the Hydrogen Bomb A major increase in nuclear weapons work came to Y-12 directly after the first Soviet Union nuclear test on August 29, 1949. Y-12 was already the main source of machining and manufacture of the necessary nuclear parts for the weapons being stockpiled and for the tests being conducted. By the time the Soviet Union exploded its first test, the United States had already exploded six. The soviet test, learned by US intelligence to have been a replica of Fat Man, hastened the investigation into espionage. The summer of 1950 saw Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Harry Gold and David Greenglass arrested as spies. Klaus Fuchs, the person who gave the plans for Fat Man to the soviets, was also arrested early in 1950 in Great Britain and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He served nine years. Discussion of the need for a thermonuclear weapon began anew in 1949 when Edward Teller returned to Los Alamos at about the same time as the Soviet Union’s first test. Teller had earlier argued for the more potentially powerful weapon, but Robert Oppenheimer had refused to depart from the agreed upon atomic bomb designs using uranium for Little Boy and plutonium for Fat Man. After the Soviet test, Teller immediately began to push for the greater yields of explosive energy possible with the fusion of hydrogen. Oppenheimer was among those who continued to oppose the development of the hydrogen bomb. An increase in the production of uranium and plutonium was approved leading to additional increased workload for Y-12.
    [Show full text]
  • North Korea's
    North Korea’s “Thermonuclear” Test: The Paradox of Small, developing Nuclear Forces Anthony H. Cordesman The reports on North Korea’s latest nuclear test are now more an exercise in uncertainty than a clear demonstration of North Korea’s actual nuclear capabilities. North Korea may or may not have been able to demonstrate its ability to use a fission weapon to produce some form of fusion or thermonuclear yield. It is still equally possible that it has simply lied, tried some form of fission-fusion design and failed, or has some uncertain degree of success in “boosting” a fission weapon and claimed this made it a thermonuclear weapon. It is also important to understand that North Korea’s success in developing any given nuclear weapon will interact with its missile design reliability, and capability. This, in turn, presents the paradox that small nuclear forces with limited effectiveness can push a given power – particularly one with extreme authoritarian leadership – into nuclear postures that present far more risks than the far larger and more capable nuclear forces of major powers. Thermonuclear Options: Single Stage In the worst case, going from its past fission to a real thermonuclear design, the difference could be dramatic. It is possible, however, that North Korea has tested a crude single stage nuclear weapon more to celebrate its erratic leader than achieve major military effects, and it might well be difficult to determine its success in doing so. There are obvious risks in any public discussion of nuclear weapons design, but there are highly public sources that do seem accurate enough to illustrate the issues involved.
    [Show full text]