DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems Not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium Todd H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems Not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium Todd H Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium Todd H. Rider Citation: Physics of Plasmas 4, 1039 (1997); doi: 10.1063/1.872556 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.872556 View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/php/4/4 Published by the American Institute of Physics Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium Todd H. Ridera) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 ~Received 5 June 1996; accepted 6 January 1997! Analytical Fokker–Planck calculations are used to accurately determine the minimum power that must be recycled in order to maintain a plasma out of thermodynamic equilibrium despite collisions. For virtually all possible types of fusion reactors in which the major particle species are significantly non-Maxwellian or are at radically different mean energies, this minimum recirculating power is substantially larger than the fusion power. Barring the discovery of methods for recycling the power at exceedingly high efficiencies, grossly nonequilibrium reactors will not be able to produce net power. © 1997 American Institute of Physics. @S1070-664X~97!01404-3# I. INTRODUCTION systems, fusion products, or other sources. This as- sumption sets a lower limit on the electron tempera- One of the most important challenges in modern physics ture and bremsstrahlung losses, in agreement with the is to identify the best approach to clean and efficient fusion stated goal of finding an optimistic bound on the per- power generation. Advanced aneutronic fuels such as formance of the fusion systems. 3He–3He, p-11B, and p-6Li would produce considerably less ~iii! Likewise, it is optimistically assumed that the entire neutron radiation and radioactive by-products than more con- fusion reaction output power can be utilized. Conver- ventional fusion fuels like deuterium–tritium ~D–T! and sion efficiency limitations are ignored, and power deuterium–deuterium ~D–D!, and furthermore they might permit high-efficiency direct electric conversion of the fusion losses are directly compared with the gross fusion energy instead of low-efficiency thermal conversion. Unfor- power Pfus . tunately, plasma systems which are essentially in thermody- ~iv! In comparing collisional scattering effects, fusion, and namic equilibrium cannot break even against radiation losses bremsstrahlung radiation with each other, the density, with these aneutronic fuels;1 for this reason, it has been sug- spatial density profiles, and plasma volume do not matter, since all of these phenomena are two-body gested that plasma fusion systems which are substantially out 3 2 of thermodynamic equilibrium should be considered.2 As a effects and thus are proportional to *d x@n~x!# ~ne- further incentive for the study of nonequilibrium fusion plas- glecting the weak density dependence of the Coulomb mas, the somewhat more conventional fuel D–3He could be logarithm ln L!, in which n~x! is the particle density made cleaner and more attractive if it were possible to sup- as a function of position. press undesirable D–D side reactions more than can be done ~v! The regions of the plasma which have values of 3 2 in an equilibrium D–3He plasma.1 *d x@n~x!#! large enough to be of interest are ap- This paper will resolve the question of whether highly proximately isotropic. Otherwise they would be sub- 3 4 nonequilibrium plasma systems would be useful for fusion ject to counterstreaming, Weibel, and other insta- purposes, especially with regard to advanced-fuel fusion. bilities. Rather than limit the analysis to a particular type of nonequi- ~vi! Although instabilities can prove to be a serious con- librium fusion reactor design, it would be wise to make this cern even in essentially isotropic nonthermal plasmas, study as generally applicable as possible. Accordingly, a they will be optimistically ignored here. minimum of assumptions will be made with regard to the ~vii! Spatial variations of particle energies may be ne- plasma geometry, reactor confinement system, type of fuel, glected in regions of significant *d3x@n~x!#2. and other key parameters. Those assumptions which are ~viii! The plasma is quasineutral and optically thin to made are as follows: bremsstrahlung. ~ix! In the ion energy ranges of interest, the functional ~i! Losses other than bremsstrahlung radiation and the dependence of the fusion reactivity ^sv& on the power required to keep the plasma out of thermody- fus mean ion energy ^E & is approximately independent namic equilibrium are ignored, so this analysis sets an i of the ion velocity distributions’ shapes if the distri- optimistic bound on the performance of nonequilib- butions are isotropic and the ion species have the rium fusion reactors. same mean energy, as shown explicitly in Ref. 5. ~ii! Energy transfer from the fuel ions to the electrons is ~x! The functional dependence of the bremsstrahlung ra- the only energy source available to the electrons; the diation power on the mean electron energy E is electrons cannot acquire energy from external heating ^ e& approximately independent of the electron velocity distribution shape in the energy range of interest. a!Present mailing address: 501 West A St., North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116. As demonstrated in Ref. 5, systems which violate the Phys. Plasmas 4 (4), April 1997 1070-664X/97/4(4)/1039/8/$10.00 © 1997 American Institute of Physics 1039 above assumptions would not offer advantages substantial The parallel velocity-space diffusion coefficient for a enough to be of particular value, even if such systems could particle with velocity vtest in the presence of isotropic, mo- be constructed. noenergetic field particles of the same species with speed v0 All quantities are in cgs units, with energies and tem- is7 peratures both measured in ergs, unless otherwise stated. For 3 2 ready comparison with equilibrium plasmas, the ‘‘tempera- Ap v0 v0 Di' , ~2! ture’’ T of a non-Maxwellian distribution with a mean par- 3A6 S vtestD tcol ticle energy ^E& is defined as T[2^E&/3. In Ref. 1, it was shown that plasma systems which are where the usual definition of the collision time tcol ~Ref. 8! 2 intended to operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium and has been used with ^E&5(3/2)T'mv0/2: yet which have no specific provisions for maintaining such a Am^E&3/2 state will very rapidly relax to equilibrium. Methods of pas- t [ . ~3! col 4 sively maintaining nonequilibrium distributions have also 2A3p~Ze! n ln L 6 been shown to be inadequate. Therefore the present discus- The time for a typical test particle to be collisionally sion will focus on systems which maintain nonequilibrium upscattered from the velocity v to the maximum allowed plasmas by active but otherwise arbitrary means. Such active 0 velocity v [v 1v may be estimated as maintenance of nonequilibrium plasmas will entail certain fast 0 t minimum power requirements and limitations. 2 2 vt 3A6 vt In Sec. II we will examine the limitations that affect tfast' ' tcol , ~4! Di S v D plasma systems which attempt to maintain substantially non- Ap 0 Maxwellian velocity distributions for the electrons or the where only the largest term has been retained. fuel ions. In Sec. III we will then present the fundamental By likewise keeping only the largest term of DEfast and limitations that pertain to plasma systems in which two or 2 using ^E&'mv0/2, one finds the energy upscattering to be more of the major particle species are at radically different mean energies. Using the results of Secs. II and III, in Sec. 1 2 2 vt DEfast5 m~vfast2v0!'2 ^E&. ~5! IV we will discuss the implications for controlled fusion. 2 v0 The final necessary assumption is that approximately half of the particles will be upscattered in energy and half II. NON-MAXWELLIAN VELOCITY DISTRIBUTIONS will be downscattered, so nfast'n/2. By putting all of this information together, the recirculating power required to One way in which a plasma can deviate from thermody- hold the proper distribution shape despite like-particle colli- namic equilibrium is to have non-Maxwellian particle veloc- sions is found to be ity distributions. While no fusion system has perfectly Max- wellian distributions, the systems which will be considered Ap v0 n^E& v0 n^E& here are of interest because they deviate from the Maxwell- P ' '0.24 . ~6! recirc v t v t ian equilibrium in a much more marked fashion than is usual. 3A6 t col t col A. Preliminary estimates The general form of this result will be confirmed by the more rigorous derivation. Before performing a rigorous derivation of the minimum The second case for which the minimum recirculating power requirements needed to maintain non-Maxwellian ve- power will be estimated concerns velocity distributions locity distributions, it is useful to make preliminary estimates which are nearly Maxwellian except that essentially all of the of these power requirements as a means of gaining physical very slow particles in the distribution are depleted. This situ- insight into the problem. Estimates will be made for two ation would be especially desirable for the electron distribu- different types of velocity distribution functions. For sim- tion in advanced-fuel fusion plasmas, so that far fewer than plicity only one particle species will be considered. the purely Maxwellian number of electrons would have First consider an isotropic beam-like velocity distribu- speeds slower than the ions. Because ion–electron energy tion in which the particles are centered around a mean speed transfer is mediated by those slow electrons,6 a large reduc- v0 with some ‘‘thermal’’ spread vt!v0 on each side of the tion in the electron temperature and radiation losses would mean speed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fusion & High Energy Density Plasma Science
    Fusion & High Energy Density Plasma Science Opportunities using Pulsed Power Daniel Sinars, Sandia National Laboratories Fusion Power Associates Dec. 4-5, 2018 Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA-0003525. Sandia is the home of Z, the world’s largest pulsed power facility, and its adjacent multi-kJ Z-Beamlet and Z-PW lasers Pulsed power development area Z Periscope ZBL/ZPW Chama ZPW ZBL Chamber Jemez Chamber Chaco Pecos Target Chamber Chaco Chaco Probe Chambers Laser Beam Using two HED facilities, we have demonstrated the scaling of magneto-inertial fusion over factors of 1000x in energy 3 Our fusion yields have been increasing as expected with increased fuel preheating and magnetization Progress since 1st MagLIF in 2014 Demonstrated platform on Omega • Improved laser energy coupling • Improved magnetic field from ~0.3 kJ to 1.4 kJ strength from 9 T to 27 T • Demonstrated 6x improvement • Achieved record MIF yields on in fusion performance, reaching Omega of 5x109 DD in 2018 2.5 kJ DT-equivalent in 2018 4 We believe that Z is capable of producing a fusion yield of ~100 kJ DT-equivalent with MagLIF, though doing it with DT would exceed our safety thresholds for both T inventory & yield Preheat Energy = 6 kJ into 1.87 mg/cc DT § 2D simulations indicate a 22+ MA and 25+ T with 22.6 MA 6 kJ of preheat could produce ~100 kJ 21.1 MA § Presently, we cannot produce these inputs 17.4 MA S.
    [Show full text]
  • NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report
    NASA-NIAC 2001 PHASE I RESEARCH GRANT on “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture” Final Research Activity Report (SEPTEMBER 2012) P.I.: Alfonso G. Tarditi1 Collaborators: John H. Scott2, George H. Miley3 1Dept. of Physics, University of Houston – Clear Lake, Houston, TX 2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 3University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Executive Summary - Motivation This study was developed because the recognized need of defining of a new spacecraft architecture suitable for aneutronic fusion and featuring game-changing space travel capabilities. The core of this architecture is the definition of a new kind of fusion-based space propulsion system. This research is not about exploring a new fusion energy concept, it actually assumes the availability of an aneutronic fusion energy reactor. The focus is on providing the best (most efficient) utilization of fusion energy for propulsion purposes. The rationale is that without a proper architecture design even the utilization of a fusion reactor as a prime energy source for spacecraft propulsion is not going to provide the required performances for achieving a substantial change of current space travel capabilities. - Highlights of Research Results This NIAC Phase I study provided led to several findings that provide the foundation for further research leading to a higher TRL: first a quantitative analysis of the intrinsic limitations of a propulsion system that utilizes aneutronic fusion products directly as the exhaust jet for achieving propulsion was carried on. Then, as a natural continuation, a new beam conditioning process for the fusion products was devised to produce an exhaust jet with the required characteristics (both thrust and specific impulse) for the optimal propulsion performances (in essence, an energy-to-thrust direct conversion).
    [Show full text]
  • Fission and Fusion Can Yield Energy
    Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy can also be separated into 2 separate forms: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is the splitting of large atomic nuclei into smaller elements releasing energy, and nuclear fusion is the joining of two small atomic nuclei into a larger element and in the process releasing energy. The mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together (Figure 1). As figures 1 and 2 below show, the energy yield from nuclear fusion is much greater than nuclear fission. Figure 1 2 Nuclear binding energy = ∆mc For the alpha particle ∆m= 0.0304 u which gives a binding energy of 28.3 MeV. (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html ) Fission and fusion can yield energy Figure 2 (Figure from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html) Nuclear fission When a neutron is fired at a uranium-235 nucleus, the nucleus captures the neutron. It then splits into two lighter elements and throws off two or three new neutrons (the number of ejected neutrons depends on how the U-235 atom happens to split). The two new atoms then emit gamma radiation as they settle into their new states. (John R. Huizenga, "Nuclear fission", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:3725) There are three things about this induced fission process that make it especially interesting: 1) The probability of a U-235 atom capturing a neutron as it passes by is fairly high.
    [Show full text]
  • On Fusion Driven Systems (FDS) for Transmutation
    R-08-126 On fusion driven systems (FDS) for transmutation O Ågren Uppsala University, Ångström laboratory, division of electricity V E Moiseenko Institute of Plasma Physics, National Science Center Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology K Noack Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf October 2008 Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co Box 250, SE-101 24 Stockholm Tel +46 8 459 84 00 CM Gruppen AB, Bromma, 2008 ISSN 1402-3091 Tänd ett lager: SKB Rapport R-08-126 P, R eller TR. On fusion driven systems (FDS) for transmutation O Ågren Uppsala University, Ångström laboratory, division of electricity V E Moiseenko Institute of Plasma Physics, National Science Center Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology K Noack Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf October 2008 This report concerns a study which was conducted for SKB. The conclusions and viewpoints presented in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with those of the client. A pdf version of this document can be downloaded from www.skb.se. Summary This SKB report gives a brief description of ongoing activities on fusion driven systems (FDS) for transmutation of the long-lived radioactive isotopes in the spent nuclear waste from fission reactors. Driven subcritical systems appears to be the only option for efficient minor actinide burning. Driven systems offer a possibility to increase reactor safety margins. A comparatively simple fusion device could be sufficient for a fusion-fission machine, and transmutation may become the first industrial application of fusion. Some alternative schemes to create strong fusion neutron fluxes are presented. 3 Sammanfattning Denna rapport för SKB ger en övergripande beskrivning av pågående aktiviteter kring fusionsdrivna system (FDS) för transmutation av långlivade radioaktiva isotoper i kärnavfallet från fissionskraftverk.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Public Meeting Slides-03302021-FINAL
    TitleDeveloping Lorem a Regulatory Ipsum Framework for Fusion Energy Systems March 30, 2021 Agenda Time Topic Speaker(s) 12:30-12:40pm Introduction/Opening Remarks NRC Discussion on NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Jennifer Uhle (NEI) 12:40-1:10pm Pilot Plant” Rich Hawryluk (PPPL) Social License and Ethical Review of Fusion: Methods to Achieve Social Seth Hoedl (PRF) 1:10-1:40pm Acceptance Developers Perspectives on Potential Hazards, Consequences, and Regulatory Frameworks for Commercial Deployment: • Fusion Industry Association - Industry Remarks Andrew Holland (FIA) 1:40-2:40pm • TAE – Regulatory Insights Michl Binderbauer (TAE) • Commonwealth Fusion Systems – Fusion Technology and Radiological Bob Mumgaard (CFS) Hazards 2:40-2:50pm Break 2:50-3:10pm Licensing and Regulating Byproduct Materials by the NRC and Agreement States NRC Discussions of Possible Frameworks for Licensing/Regulating Commercial Fusion • NRC Perspectives – Byproduct Approach NRC/OAS 3:10-4:10pm • NRC Perspectives – Hybrid Approach NRC • Industry Perspectives - Hybrid Approach Sachin Desai (Hogan Lovells) 4:10-4:30pm Next Steps/Questions All Public Meeting Format The Commission recently revised its policy statement on how the agency conducts public meetings (ADAMS No.: ML21050A046). NRC Public Website - Fusion https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/fusion-energy.html NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Pilot Plant” Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid R. J. Hawryluk J. Uhle D. Roop D. Whyte March 30, 2021 Committee Composition Richard J. Brenda L. Garcia-Diaz Gerald L. Kathryn A. Per F. Peterson (NAE) Jeffrey P. Hawryluk (Chair) Savannah River National Kulcinski (NAE) McCarthy (NAE) University of California, Quintenz Princeton Plasma Laboratory University of Oak Ridge National Berkeley/ Kairos Power TechSource, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The High-Field Path to Practical Fusion Energy
    The High-Field Path to Practical Fusion Energy M. Greenwald, D. Whyte, P. Bonoli, D. Brunner, Z. Hartwig, J. Irby, B. LaBombard, E. Marmar, J. Minervini, R. Mumgaard, B. Sorbom, M. Takayasu, J. Terry, R. Vieira, S. Wukitch MIT – Plasma Science & Fusion Center Objective This white paper outlines a vision and describes a coherent roadmap to achieve practical fusion energy in less time and at less expense than the current pathway. The key technologies that enable this path are high-field, high-temperature demountable superconducting magnets, a molten salt liquid blanket, high-field-side lower hybrid current drive and a long-legged divertor. We argue that successful development and integration of these innovative and synergistic technologies would dramatically change the outlook for fusion, providing a real opportunity to positively impact global climate change and to reverse the loss of U.S. leadership in fusion research, suffered in recent decades. Table of Contents 1. Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 1 2. High Temperature Superconductors ................................................................................... 4 3. Demountable Superconducting Magnet Coils ..................................................................... 7 4. Molten-Salt Liquid Blankets ................................................................................................. 9 5. High-Field Launch RF for Heating and Current Drive ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Fusion Energy
    Introduction to Fusion Energy Jerry Hughes IAP @ PSFC January 8, 2013 Acknowledgments: Catherine Fiore, Jeff Freidberg, Martin Greenwald, Zach Hartwig, Alberto Loarte, Bob Mumgaard, Geoff Olynyk Presenter’s e-mail: [email protected] Questions to answer • What is fusion? • Why do we need it? • How do we get it on earth? • Where do we stand? • Where are we headed? What is fusion, anyway? What is fusion, anyway? What is fusion, anyway? What is fusion, anyway? Fusion is a form of nuclear energy E mc2 • A huge amount of energy is released when isotopes lighter than iron combine to form heavier nuclei, with less final mass • It is an ubiquitous energy source in the universe • It is not (yet) a practical energy source on earth Fusion is a form of nuclear energy E mc2 • A huge amount of energy is released when isotopes lighter than iron combine to form heavier nuclei, with less final mass • It is an ubiquitous energy source in the universe • It is not (yet) a practical energy source on earth Terrestrial energy sources have their origin in the nuclear fusion reactions of stars Supernova produces radioactive elements Solar heating of the Earth drives atmospheric circulation, water cycle Sun illuminates Earth Terrestrial energy sources have their origin in the nuclear fusion reactions of stars Geothermal Decay of radioactive particles generates heat in Earth’s interior Nuclear fission Supernova produces radioactive elements Splitting radioactive particles generates heat Solar heating of the Earth drives atmospheric circulation, water cycle
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynomak: an Advanced Fusion Reactor Concept with Imposed-Dynamo Current Drive and Next-Generation Nuclear Power Technologies
    1 FIP/P8-24 The dynomak: An advanced fusion reactor concept with imposed-dynamo current drive and next-generation nuclear power technologies D.A. Sutherland, T.R. Jarboe, K.D. Morgan, G. Marklin and B.A. Nelson University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Corresponding Author: [email protected] Abstract: A high-β spheromak reactor concept called the dynomak has been designed with an overnight capital cost that is competitive with conventional power sources. This reactor concept uti- lizes recently discovered imposed-dynamo current drive (IDCD) and a molten salt (FLiBe) blanket system for first wall cooling, neutron moderation and tritium breeding. Currently available materials and ITER developed cryogenic pumping systems were implemented in this design from the basis of technological feasibility. A tritium breeding ratio (TBR) of greater than 1.1 has been calculated using a Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP5) neutron transport simulation. High temperature superconducting tapes (YBCO) were used for the equilibrium coil set, substantially reducing the recirculating power fraction when compared to previous spheromak reactor studies. Using zirconium hydride for neutron shielding, a limiting equilibrium coil lifetime of at least thirty full-power years has been achieved. The primary FLiBe loop was coupled to a supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle due to attractive economics and high thermal efficiencies. With these advancements, an electrical output of 1000 MW from a thermal output of 2486 MW was achieved, yielding an overall plant efficiency of approximately 40%. 1 Introduction An advanced spheromak reactor concept called the dynomak was formulated around the recently discovered imposed-dynamo current drive (IDCD) mechanism on the HIT-SI ex- periment at the University of Washington [1].
    [Show full text]
  • High Energy Density Plasma Physics Experiments at the National Labs: X-Ray Spectroscopy, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and Laboratory Astrophysics
    High Energy Density Plasma Physics Experiments at the National Labs: X-ray Spectroscopy, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and Laboratory Astrophysics David Cohen Swarthmore College Dept. of Physics and Astronomy astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen → presentations → vanderbilt Talk Outline 1. Facilities and capabilities 2. Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) 3. OMEGA experiments: X-ray spectral diagnostics of ICF materials 4. Laboratory astrophysics 5. Creating an X-ray photoionized nebula in the laboratory High Energy Density Plasma Physics at National Facilities Lasers NOVA (Livermore) - closed in late 1990s - 10 beams, 20 kJ UV light in ~1 ns OMEGA (U. Rochester/LLE) - opened in 1970s - 60 beams, 30 kJ, UV (Nd glass laser) National Ignition Facility (NIF) (Livermore) - coming on line this decade - 192 beams, 2 MJ Z-pinches Z-machine/PBFA-II (Sandia) - originally built in 1970s - 20 MA of current in a cylindrical wire array - ~2 MJ of X- rays in ~10 ns These facilities are open to non-lab scientists DOE’s National Laser Users Facilities (NLUF) program enables university scientists access of OMEGA (and previously NOVA), as well as other facilities at Los Alamos, etc. - some coordination with lab scientists and technicians is required/provided Use of the Z-Machine generally requires a Sandia collaborator, but DOE’s fusion grants program (SBSS) provides support and can facilitate collaborations Types of experiments: generally involving high energy density plasmas (>105 atm) Can achieve multi-GPa pressures, 103 g cm-3 densities, multi-million K temperatures in 10 cm3 volume Sophisticated diagnostics are available at these facilities (time resolved imaging and spectroscopy, neutron and other particle detectors, fast radiography, etc.) - Plasma instability studies (instability growth rate, including applications to supernova explosions) - EOS studies (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Pulsed Power
    SAND2007-2984P PULSED POWER AT SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES LABORATORIES NATIONAL SANDIA PULSED POWER AT WHAT IS PULSED POWER . the first forty years In the early days, this technology was often called ‘pulse power’ instead of pulsed power. In a pulsed power machine, low-power electrical energy from a wall plug is stored in a bank of capacitors and leaves them as a compressed pulse of power. The duration of the pulse is increasingly shortened until it is only billionths of a second long. With each shortening of the pulse, the power increases. The final result is a very short pulse with enormous power, whose energy can be released in several ways. The original intent of this technology was to use the pulse to simulate the bursts of radiation from exploding nuclear weapons. Anne Van Arsdall Anne Van Pulsed Power Timeline (over) Anne Van Arsdall SAND2007-????? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Jeff Quintenz initiated this history project while serving as director of the Pulsed Power Sciences Center. Keith Matzen, who took over the Center in 2005, continued funding and support for the project. The author is grateful to the following people for their assistance with this history: Staff in the Sandia History Project and Records Management Department, in particular Myra O’Canna, Rebecca Ullrich, and Laura Martinez. Also Ramona Abeyta, Shirley Aleman, Anna Nusbaum, Michael Ann Sullivan, and Peggy Warner. For her careful review of technical content and helpful suggestions: Mary Ann Sweeney. For their insightful reviews and comments: Everet Beckner, Don Cook, Mike Cuneo, Tom Martin, Al Narath, Ken Prestwich, Jeff Quintenz, Marshall Sluyter, Ian Smith, Pace VanDevender, and Gerry Yonas.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]