DOCSLIB.ORG

Biographies of Evaluators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BIOGRAPHIES OF EVALUATORS Dr. Edward C. Creutz Dr. Arthur R. Kantrowitz, Chairman Dr. Joseph E. Lannutti Dr. Hans J. Schneider-Muntau Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg Dr. Frederick Seitz Dr. William B. Thompson EDWARD CHESTER CREUTZ Edward Chester Creutz: Education: B.S. Mathematics and Physics, University of Wisconsin, 1936; Ph.D. Physics, U. of Wisconsin, 1939; Thesis: Resonance Scattering of Protons by Lithium. Professional Experience: 1977-1984, Director, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI; 197frI977, Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC; 1975--1977, Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Engineering, National Science Foundation; 1970-1975, Assistant Director for Research, National Sci­ ence Foundation (Presidential appointee); 1955-1970, Vice President, Research and De­ velopment, General Atomic, San Diego, CA; 1955-1956, Scientist at large, Controlled Thermonuclear Program, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC; 1948-1955, Pro­ fessor and Head, Department of Physics, and Director, Nuclear Research Center, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, PA; 194fr1948, Associate Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology; 1944-1946, Group Leader, Los Alamos, NM; 1942-1944, Group Leader, Manhattan Project, Chicago, IL; 1939-1942, Instructor of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. 1945 ff, Consultant to AEC, NASA, Industry. 1960 ff, Editorial Advisory Board: American Nuclear Society, Annual Reviews, Handbuch der Physik, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Publications: 65 in fields of Physics, Metallurgy, Mathematics, Botany, and Science Pol­ icy. Patents: 18 Nuclear Energy Applications. 577 578 Biographies of Evaluaton Honors: Phi Beta Kappa; Tau Beta Pi; Sigma Xi; National Science Foundation Distin­ guished Service Award; University of Wisconsin, College of Engineering, Distinguished Service Citation; American Nuclear Society, Pioneer Award. Memberships: National Academy of Sciences; AAAS, Fellow; American Physical Society, Fellow; American Association of Physics Teachers; American Nuclear Society. ARTHUR R. KANTROWITZ Arthur R. Kantrowitz, Professor of Engineering at the Thayer School of Engineer­ ing of Dartmouth College, earned his B. S., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in physics at Colum­ bia University. He taught aeronautical engineering and engineering physics at Cornell for ten years, and then founded and was CEO of the Avco Everett Research Laboratory. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineer­ ing, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Associa­ tion for the Advancement of Sciences, and the American Astronautical Society. He was a Fulbright and Guggenheim Fellow, and recipient of the Roosevelt Medal of Honour for Distinguished Service in Science. He is an honorary trustee of the University of Roches­ ter, an honorary life member of the Board of Governors of the Technion, and an honorary professor of the Hauzhong Institute of Technology in Wuhan, China. He holds 21 patents, and has published extensively. He is a director of the Hertz Foundation, and a member of the advisory board to television's popular "Nova" program. He has served our government on advisory boards to the Ford White House, the Department of Commerce, NASA, the General Accounting Office, and the National Science Foundation. JOSEPH E. LANNUTTI Joseph E. Lannuttl: Born May 4, 1926, Malvern, PA; married with three children. High Energy Experimental Particle Physicist, Ph.D. 1957, University of California at Berkeley. Served in the U.S. Army, 28th Infantry Division, European Theatre, in WWII 1944-46; Worked in Motive Power Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company 1943-44 and 1946-47. Worked as a theoretical physicist designing guided missile autonavigation systems, at the North American Aviation, Inc., Downey, CA 1952···53; and as a research assistant at the University of California Radiation Laboratory 1953-57.. Came to Florida State University (FSU) as Assistant Professor in September 1957; promoted to Professor of Physics in 1965; appointed Associate Vice President for Aca­ demic Affairs in 1984. Established laboratory for High Energy Particle Physics research at FSU and has been principal investigator since 1957. Continuous research funding from U.S. Depart­ ment of Energy with FY93 budget over $IM; present personnel approximately 30. Published more than 150 scientific articles and abstracts. Established F AMUlFSU College of Engineering in 1982 and co-directed it until September 1984. Enrollment in 1992-93 approximately 2,000 students. Established Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (SCRI) in 1984 and was Director 1984-1993. SCRI is the first federal/state/industry computations research in- Biographies of Evaluators 579 stitute of its kind in the United States and has a FY93 budget of approximately $lOM; pre­ sent personnel approximately 70. Appointed Associate Vice President for Research 1992. National Organization Memberships Past • High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of Energy • Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Board of Directors, Chairman of Council • University Research Association, Board of Trustees, Chairman of Physics Com­ mittee • Southeastern University Research Association, Board of Trustees • Users Executive Committee, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Present Member of User Organizations at • Brookhaven National Accelerator Laboratory, Long Island, NY • Fermi National Laboratory, Batavia, IL • Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA • Center for Nuclear Research for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland • University of Research Association Fermilab Review Committee HANS J. SCHNEIDER-MUNTAU Professional Interests: Advancement of magnet technology, development of state-of­ the-art magnet systems, laboratory management Education: Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, University of Munich, 1967 M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Stuttgart, 1962 B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Stuttgart, 1958 Professional Experience: 1991 - Present Deputy Director, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. Director, Magnet Development and Technology Group, NHMFL. Professor of Mechanical Engineering. 1972-1991 Chief Engineer, High-Field Magnet-Laboratory, Grenoble, of the Max-Planck-Institute f'lir Festkorperforschung, Stuttgart. Responsible for magnet development and administration, worked on development of resistive, pulsed and hybrid magnets and facility improvements. 1967-1972 Head of the Development Laboratory, European Space Research Institute, Frascati. Worked on space simulation experiments, development of high-voltage ns discharges, capacitor banks and pulsed laser sources. 1962-1967 Scientist, Institut rur Plasmaphysik, Garching, of the Max­ Planck- Gesellschaft, Munich. Worked on fusion technology, developed pulsed neutron sources, and fast high voltage discharges. 580 Biographies of Evaluators GLENN T. SEABORG Glenn T. Seaborg is currently University Professor of Chemistry (the most distin­ guished titled bestowed by the Regents), Associate Director-at-Large of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Chairman of the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He received his A. B. in Chemistry from UCLA in 1934 and his Ph.D. in Chemistry from Berkeley in 1937. He has served on the faculty of the Berkeley campus since 1939 and was Chancellor of that campus 1958-1961. In 1961 Dr. Seaborg was appointed Chair­ man of the Atomic Energy Commission by President John F. Kennedy. He was sub­ sequently reappointed by both Presidents Johnson and Nixon, serving in that position until 1971. Winner of the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (with E. M. McMillan) for his work on the chemistry of the transuranium elements, Glenn Seaborg is one of the discoverers of plutonium (element 94). During World War II he headed the group at the University of Chicago's Metallurgical Laboratory which devised the chemical extraction processes used in the production of plutonium for the Manhattan Project. He and his coworkers have since discovered none more transuranium elements: americium (element 95), curium (96), berkelium (97), californium (98), einsteinium (99), fermium (100), mendelevium (101), nobelium (102), and Element 106. He has been honoured by the recommendation by the co-discoverers of Element 106 that it be named "seaborgium," with the symbol Sc. He holds over 40 patents, including those on elements americium and curium (making him the only person ever to hold a patent on a chemical element). In 1944, Dr. Seaborg formulated the actinide concept of heavy element electronic structure which accurately predicted that the heaviest naturally occurring elements to­ gether with synthetic transuranium elements would form a transition series of actinide ele­ ments in a manner analogous to the rare earth series of lanthanide elements. This concept, one of the most significant changes in the periodic table since Mendeleev's 19th century design, shows how the transuranium elements fit into the periodic table and thus demon­ strates their relationships to other elements. His co-discoveries include many isotopes which have practical applications in re­ search medicine and industry (such as iodine-131, technetium-99m, cobalt-57, cobalt-60, iron-55, iron-59, zink-65, cesium-137, manganese-54, antimony-124, californium-252, americium-241, plutonium-238),
Recommended publications
  • Magneto-Inertial Fusion

    Magneto-Inertial Fusion

    Magneto‐Inertial Fusion LA‐UR‐14‐23844 G. Wurden, S. Hsu, T. Intrator (LANL), C. Grabowski, J. Degnan, M. Domonkos, P. Turchi (AFRL), M. Herrmann, D. Sinars, M. Campbell (Sandia), R. Betti (U Rochester), D. Ryutov (LLNL), B. Bauer, I. Lindemuth, R. Siemon (UNV, Reno), R. Miller (Decysive Systems), M. Laberge, M. Delage (General Fusion) Description Magneto-inertial fusion (MIF) (aka, magnetized target fusion, or MagLIF) is an approach to fusion that combines the compressional heating of ICF with the magnetically reduced thermal transport and magnetically enhanced alpha heating of MCF [1]. From an MCF perspective, the higher density, shorter confinement times, and compressional heating as the dominant heating mechanism reduce the impact of instabilities. From an ICF perspective, the primary benefits are potentially orders of magnitude reduction in the difficult to achieve ρr parameter (areal density), and potentially significant reduction in velocity requirements and hydrodynamic instabilities for compression drivers. In fact, ignition becomes theoretically possible from ρr≤0.01 g/cm2 up to conventional ICF values of ρr~1.0 g/cm2, and as in MCF, Br rather than ρr becomes the key figure-of-merit for ignition because of the enhanced alpha deposition. Within the lower-ρr parameter space, MIF exploits lower required implosion velocities (2–100 km/s, compared to the ICF minimum of 350-400 km/s) allowing the use of much more efficient (η~0.3) pulsed power drivers, while at the highest (i.e., ICF) end of the ρr range, both higher gain G at a given implosion velocity as well as lower implosion velocity and reduced hydrodynamic instabilities are theoretically possible.
  • Reactor Potential for Magnetized Target Fusion

    Reactor Potential for Magnetized Target Fusion

    TR.TA-A Report ISSN 1102-2051 VETENSKAP OCH ISRN KTH/ALF/--01/2--SE 1ONST KTH-ALF--01-2 KTH Reactor Potential for Magnetized Target Fusion Jon-Erik Dahlin Research and Training programme on CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS (Association EURATOM/NFR) FUSION PLASMA PHYSICS ALFV N LABORATORY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ALL OF THE MISSING PAGES IN THIS DOCUMENT WERE ORIGINALLY BLANK TRITA-ALF-2001-02 ISRN KTH/ALF/--01/2--SE Reactor Potential for Magnetized Target Fusion J.-E. Dahlin VETENSKAP OCH KONST Stockholm, June 2001 The Alfven Laboratory Division of Fusion Plasma Physics Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden (Association EURATOM/NFR) Printed by Alfven Laboratory Fusion Plasma Physics Division Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm Abstract Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) is a possible pathway to thermonuclear fusion different from both magnetic fusion and inertial confinement fusion. An imploding cylindrical metal liner compresses a preheated and magnetized plasma configuration until thermonuclear conditions are achieved. In this report the Magnetized Target Fusion concept is evaluated and a zero-dimensional computer model of the plasma, liner and circuit as a connected system is designed. The results of running this code are that thermonuclear conditions are achieved indeed, but only during a very short time. At peak compression the pressure from the compressed plasma and mag- netic field is so large reversing the liner implosion into an explosion. The time period of liner motion reversal is termed the dwell time and is crucial to the performance of the fusion system.
  • Subject Categories and Scope Descriptions Co Q

    Subject Categories and Scope Descriptions Co Q

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS) • LU Q CD XA0202260 D) c CO IAEA-ETDE/TNIS-2 o X LU CO -I—• SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS CO Q ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 CT O c > LU O O E "- =3 CO I? O cB CD C , LU • CD 3 CO -Q T3 CD >- c •a « C c CD o o CD «2 i- CO .3-3/33 CO ,_ CD a) O % 3 O •z. a. Renewable energy technologies • Radiation protection • Energy storage, conversion, and consumption Radioactive waste management • Energy policy • Radiation effects on living organisms • Fossil fuels INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, JULY 2002 ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, JULY 2002 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS IAEA, VIENNA, 2002 IAEA-ETDE/INIS-2 ISBN 92-0-112902-5 ISSN 1684-095X © IAEA, 2002 Printed by the IAEA in Austria July 2002 PREFACE This document is one in a series of publications known as the ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series. It defines the subject categories and provides the scope descriptions to be used for categorization of the nuclear literature for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centers. Together with volumes of the INIS Reference Series and ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series it defines the rules, standards and practices and provides the authorities to be used in the International Nuclear Information System. A list of the volumes published in the IMS Reference Series and ETDE/ENIS Joint Reference Series can be found at the end of this publication.
  • LA-7973-MS the Reversed-Field Pinch Reactor (RFPR) Concept O

    LA-7973-MS the Reversed-Field Pinch Reactor (RFPR) Concept O

    LA-7973-MS Informal Report The Reversed-Field Pinch Reactor (RFPR) Concept 01 O LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY Post Office Box 1663 Los Alamos. New Mexico 87545 LA-7973-MS Informal Report UC-20d MOT Issued: August 1979 The Reversed-Field Pinch Reactor (RFPR) Concept R. L. Hagenson R. A. Krakowski G. E. Cort MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS Engineering: W. E. Fox, R. W. Teasdale Neutronics: P. D. Soran Tritium: C. G. Bathke, H. Cullingford Materials: F. W. Clinard, Jr. Plasma Engineering: R. L. Miller Physics: D. A. Baker, J. N. DiMarco Electrotechnology: R. W. Moses l-neip. :«. makes s any legal inW,i» „. ,«p..nS*.lil> >"' <'« 11|lll.CSi Ulit l'ISCl • '' ! 1. Equilibrium and Stability 15b 2. Transport 155 3-. Startup . 158 4. Rundown (Quench) 159 B. T'jchnolofey Assessment 160 1. First wall 160 2. Blanket 160 3» Energy Transfer, Storage and Switching 161 4. Magnets 162 5« Vacuum and Tritium Recovery 162 C. Summary Assessment 163 APPENDIX A. RFPR BURN MODEL AND REACTOR'CODE 166 1. Plasma and Magnetic Field Models 166 2. Plasma Energy balance 169 3. Anomalous Radial Transport 17A APPENDIX B. COSTING MODEL 176 APPENDIX C. STANDARD FUSIOt: REACTOR DESIGN TABLE 185 APPENDIX D. BLANKET TRITIUM TRANSPORT MODEL 197 1. Development of Model 197 2. Evaluation of Model 200 3. Tritium Inventory Question - 202 APPENDIX E. SUMMARY REVIEW OF DESIGN POINT EVOLUTION 206 vn TABLE OF CONTENTS THL REVERSED-FIELI) PINCH REACTOR (KFPR) CONCEPT 1 ABSTRACT 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 A. Fundamental Physics Issues 4 B. Reactor Description ••* 9 1. Reactor Operation 10 2.
  • The Titan Reversed-Field-Pinch Fusion Reactor Study

    The Titan Reversed-Field-Pinch Fusion Reactor Study

    4X* I ^© tf> UCLA-PPG-1200 THE TITAN REVERSED-RELD-PINCH FUSION REACTOR STUDY gFVysw^Bijyp. Final Report 1990 Volume III: TITAN-I Fusion Power Core University of California, Los Angeles Los Alamos National Laboratory Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, Los Alamos, NM and Nuclear Engineering and Institute of Plasma and Fusion Research. Los Angeles, CA Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute General Atomics Department of Nuclear Engineering San Diego, CA Troy, NY ClSTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER 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 agen­ cy thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful­ ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately r-wned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommen­ dation, 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 State Government or any agency thereof. UCLA/PPG—1200-Vol .3 DE92 000139 THE TITAN REVERSED-FIELD-PINCH FUSION REACTOR STUDY FINAL REPORT 1090 Volume III: TITAN-I Fusion Power Core University of California, Los Angeles Los Alamos National Laboratory Department of MeehanicaJ, Aerospace, Los Alamos, NM and Nuclear Engineering and Institute of Plasma and Fusion Research Los Angeles, CA Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute General Atomics Department of Nuclear Engineering San Diego, Ca Troy, NY MASTER ^ DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Farrokh Najmabadi, Robert W.
  • Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and Assembly – ALPHA

    Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and Assembly – ALPHA

    Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and Assembly – ALPHA PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS California Institute of Technology – Pasadena, CA Prototype Tools to Establish the Viability of the Adiabatic Heating and Compression Mechanisms Required for Magnetized Target Fusion - $800,000 Caltech, in coordination with Los Alamos National Laboratory, will investigate collisions of plasma jets and targets over a wide range of parameters to characterize the scaling of adiabatic heating and compression of liner-driven magnetized target fusion plasmas. The team will propel fast magnetized plasma jets into stationary heavy gases or metal walls. The resulting collision is equivalent to a fast heavy gas or metal liner impacting a stationary magnetized target in a shifted reference frame and allows the non-destructive and rapid investigation of physical phenomena and scaling laws governing the degree of adiabaticity of liner implosions. This study will provide critical information on the interactions and limitations for a variety of possible driver and plasma target combinations being developed across the ALPHA program portfolio. Helion Energy, Inc. – Redmond, WA Staged Magnetic Compression of FRC Targets to Fusion Conditions- $3,971,264 Helion Energy, Inc. will investigate staged magnetic compression of field-reversed configuration (FRC) plasmas, building on past successes to develop a prototype that can attain higher temperatures and fuel density than previously possible. The team will use these results to assess the viability of scaling to a power reactor, which if successful would offer the benefits of simple linear geometry, attractive scaling, and compatibility with modern pulsed power electronics. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – Berkeley, CA MEMS Based Ion Beam Drivers for Magnetized Target Fusion- $2,200,000 Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL), in close collaboration with Cornell University, will develop a scalable ion beam driver based on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology.
  • Yol 2 7 Ns 1 0 Barc/1995/P/005 O O 5 Government of India 6 Atomic Energy Commission

    Yol 2 7 Ns 1 0 Barc/1995/P/005 O O 5 Government of India 6 Atomic Energy Commission

    TRN-IN9600313 S BARC/i995)!>/005 CO I> NUCLEAR PHYSICS DIVISION BIENNIAL REPORT 1993-1994 Edited by K. Kumar and S. K. Kataria 1995 YOL 2 7 NS 1 0 BARC/1995/P/005 O O 5 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 6 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION U 0! NUCLEAR PHYSICS DIVISION BIENNIAL REPORT 1993-1994 Edited by: K. Kumar and S.K. Kataria Nuclear Physics Division BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE BOMBAY, INDIA 1995 BARC/1993/P/003 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION SHEET FOR TECHNICAL REPORT (as p»r IS t 9400 - 1980) 01 Security classification t Unclassified 02 Distribution : External 03 Report status t New 04 Series 3 BARC External 03 Report type : Progress Report 06 Report No. : BARC/1995/P/005 07 Part No. or Volume No. t 08 Contract No. s 10 Title and subtitle i Nuclear Physics Division biennial report 1993-1994 11 Collation t 93 p., figs., tabs. 13 Project No. : 2O Personal author (s) i K. Kumar; S.K. Kataria (eds.) 21 Affiliation of author (s) i Nuclear Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay 22 Corporate author(s) i Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay-400 083 23 Originating unit s Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Bombay 24 Sponsor(s) Name i Department of Atomic Energy Type i Government 30 Date of submission s August 1993 31 Publication/Issue date September 1995 ccntd...(ii> (ii) 40 Publisher/Distributor i Head, Library and Information Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay 42 Form of distribution i Hard Copy 90 Language of text i English 91 Language of summary i English 92 No.
  • Nuclear Fusion Power – an Overview of History, Present and Future

    Nuclear Fusion Power – an Overview of History, Present and Future

    International Journal of Advanced Network, Monitoring and Controls Volume 04, No.04, 2019 Nuclear Fusion Power – An Overview of History, Present and Future Stewart C. Prager Department of Physics University of Wisconsin – Madison Madison, WI 53706, USA E-mail: [email protected] Summary—Fusion power offers the prospect of an allowing the nuclei to fuse together. Such conditions almost inexhaustible source of energy for future can occur when the temperature increases, causing the generations, but it also presents so far insurmountable ions to move faster and eventually reach speeds high engineering challenges. The fundamental challenge is to enough to bring the ions close enough together. The achieve a rate of heat emitted by a fusion plasma that nuclei can then fuse, causing a release of energy. exceeds the rate of energy injected into the plasma. The main hope is centered on tokamak reactors and II. FUSION TECHNOLOGY stellarators which confine deuterium-tritium plasma In the Sun, massive gravitational forces create the magnetically. right conditions for fusion, but on Earth they are much Keywords-Fusion Energy; Hydrogen Power; Nuclear Fusion harder to achieve. Fusion fuel – different isotopes of hydrogen – must be heated to extreme temperatures of I. INTRODUCTION the order of 50 million degrees Celsius, and must be Today, many countries take part in fusion research kept stable under intense pressure, hence dense enough to some extent, led by the European Union, the USA, and confined for long enough to allow the nuclei to Russia and Japan, with vigorous programs also fuse. The aim of the controlled fusion research underway in China, Brazil, Canada, and Korea.
  • Compact Fusion Reactors

    Compact Fusion Reactors

    Compact fusion reactors Tomas Lind´en Helsinki Institute of Physics 26.03.2015 Fusion research is currently to a large extent focused on tokamak (ITER) and inertial confinement (NIF) research. In addition to these large international or national efforts there are private companies performing fusion research using much smaller devices than ITER or NIF. The attempt to achieve fusion energy production through relatively small and compact devices compared to tokamaks decreases the costs and building time of the reactors and this has allowed some private companies to enter the field, like EMC2, General Fusion, Helion Energy, Lockheed Martin and LPP Fusion. Some of these companies are trying to demonstrate net energy production within the next few years. If they are successful their next step is to attempt to commercialize their technology. In this presentation an overview of compact fusion reactor concepts is given. CERN Colloquium 26th of March 2015 Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 1 / 37 Contents Contents 1 Introduction 2 Funding of fusion research 3 Basics of fusion 4 The Polywell reactor 5 Lockheed Martin CFR 6 Dense plasma focus 7 MTF 8 Other fusion concepts or companies 9 Summary Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 2 / 37 Introduction Introduction Climate disruption ! ! Pollution ! ! ! Extinctions Ecosystem Transformation Population growth and consumption There is no silver bullet to solve these issues, but energy production is "#$%&'$($#!)*&+%&+,+!*&!! central to many of these issues. -.$&'.$&$&/!0,1.&$'23+! Economically practical fusion power 4$(%!",55*6'!"2+'%1+!$&! could contribute significantly to meet +' '7%!89 !)%&',62! the future increased energy :&(*61.'$*&!(*6!;*<$#2!-.=%6+! production demands in a sustainable way.
  • Magneto-Inertial Fusion

    Magneto-Inertial Fusion

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284228265 Magneto-Inertial Fusion Article in Journal of Fusion Energy · February 2016 DOI: 10.1007/s10894-015-0038-x CITATIONS READS 46 587 17 authors, including: Glen A. Wurden Scott C. Hsu Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory 400 PUBLICATIONS 4,528 CITATIONS 259 PUBLICATIONS 2,481 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Chris Grabowski Matt Domonkos Air Force Research Laboratory Air Force Research Laboratory 118 PUBLICATIONS 647 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 823 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Plasma Diagnostics View project Magnetic reconnection View project All content following this page was uploaded by Glen A. Wurden on 22 November 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. J Fusion Energ DOI 10.1007/s10894-015-0038-x ORIGINAL RESEARCH Magneto-Inertial Fusion 1 1 1 2 2 G. A. Wurden • S. C. Hsu • T. P. Intrator • T. C. Grabowski • J. H. Degnan • 2 3 4 4 5 M. Domonkos • P. J. Turchi • E. M. Campbell • D. B. Sinars • M. C. Herrmann • 6 7 7 7 8 R. Betti • B. S. Bauer • I. R. Lindemuth • R. E. Siemon • R. L. Miller • 9 9 M. Laberge • M. Delage Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In this community white paper, we describe an fusion (MCF). From an MCF perspective, the higher density, approach to achieving fusion which employs a hybrid of shorter confinement times, and compressional heating as the elements from the traditional magnetic and inertial fusion dominant heating mechanism reduce the impact of instabil- concepts, called magneto-inertial fusion (MIF).
  • Energy Devices and Processes Generally Suppressed

    Energy Devices and Processes Generally Suppressed

    Energy Devices and Processes Generally Suppressed Strategic Overview of Energy Technology Suppression Introduction Research shows that over the past 75 years a number of significant breakthroughs in energy generation and propulsion have occurred that have been systematically suppressed. Since the time of Tesla, T. Townsend Brown and others in the early and mid-twentieth century we have had the technological ability to replace fossil fuel, internal combustion and nuclear power generating systems with advanced non-polluting electromagnetic and electro-gravitic systems. The open literature is replete with well-documented technologies that have surfaced, only to later be illegally seized or suppressed through systematic abuses of the national security state, large corporate and financial interests or other shadowy concerns. Technologically, the hurdles to achieve what is called over- unity energy generation by accessing the teeming energy in the space around us are not insurmountable. Numerous inventors have done so for decades. What has been insurmountable are the barriers created through the collusion of vast financial, industrial, oil and rogue governmental interests. In short, the strategic barriers to the widespread adoption of these new electromagnetic energy-generating systems far exceed the technological ones. The proof of this is that, after many decades of innovation and promising inventions, none have made it through the maze of regulatory, patenting, rogue national security, financial, scientific and media barriers that confront the inventor or small company. Categories of Suppression Our review of now-obscure technological breakthroughs show that these inventions have been suppressed or seized by the following broad categories of actions: Acquisition of the technology by 'front' companies whose intent have been to 'shelve' the invention and prevent the device from coming to market.
  • Emerging Concepts Reactor Subgroup Summary J

    Emerging Concepts Reactor Subgroup Summary J

    LA-UR-99-5178 Emerging Concepts Reactor Subgroup Summary J. Hammer and R. Siemon Emerging Concepts offer unique reactor features, which may lead to a qualitative improvement in cost and maintainability, with associated increased attractiveness to the customer. Table 3 shows some of these unique features grouped by concept: Concept Motivation RFP Low external field; no disruptions Spheromak, FRC Simple geometry; small size; open axial divertor MTF, Flow Pinch Low development cost; compatible with liquid walls Levitated Dipole, Centrifugally confined High β, classical confinement; no current drive Mirrors Low physics risk; linear geometry Electrostatic, IEC, POPS Small unit size; low-cost development; high mass power density; alternate applications Fast Igniter High gain; low recirculating power Table 3: Reactor features of Emerging Concepts. Again, many examples of reactor advantages associated with Emerging Concepts could be given. As one such, there appears at first examination to be a greater accessibility for incorporating liquid walls into many such reactors. This follows from the linear, open geometry of several of the concepts, including FRC, MTF, Flow Pinch, and Mirrors. Organization The reactor subgroup, jointly with the Physics subgroup, heard presentations arranged before the conference on the 11 concepts listed below. These covered a wide range in physical parameter space with radically different reactor embodiments. The reversed field pinch and spheromak talks were held jointly with the Magnetic Confinement sessions. For each concept, a presenter introduced the concept and reviewed progress to date and important physics and reactor issues. The presenter was followed by a reviewer who brought additional insights. Concept Presenter Reviewer RFP S.