DOCSLIB.ORG

Study of the Hard X-Rays from Superthermal Electrons in the HSX Stellarator A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study of the Hard X-Rays from Superthermal Electrons in the HSX Stellarator A Study of the Hard X-rays from Superthermal Electrons in the HSX Stellarator A. E. Abdou, A. F. Almagri, D. T. Anderson, J. Radder, V. Sakaguchi, J. N. Talmadge HSX Plasma Laboratory, U. of Wisconsin, Madison 1. The Helically Symmetric 2. Particle Orbits in HSX 4. Initial Results g. Evidence for a Non-thermal h. Similar HXR Emission at Different Electron Population Resonance Locations in QHS Experiment (HSX) a. Particle Orbits in QHS a. Different Hard X-ray Characteristic in QHS d. Hard X-ray Intensity variation with Plasma 1000 1000 o 4.5 y = 230.32 - 0.0043 x dN/dE = 267- 0.0047 E 20 KeV electrons with 80 pitch angle, launched at = 0, 2 a. Machine Parameters and r/a = ½ 4 100 R2 = 0.9706 100 R = 0.953 and Mirror Density ECE TS Temperature = 232.55 +/- 1.85 keV Temperature = 212.766 +/- 1.63 keV 3.5 10 10 250 1800.0 3 Major Radius 1.2 m The hard x-ray spectrum for 401 dN/dE (Number/Kev) 1600.0 QHS 2.5 1 dN/dE (Number/KeV) 1 (keV) QHS and Mirror, central heating 351 200 Anti_Mirror e <r> 0.12 m 1400.0 2 T 3 shows: QHS Mirror 1.5 0.1 0.1 Volume ~.44 m 301 1200.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1. Density of superthermal 150 1 Energy (KeV) Energy (Kev) Field periods 4 251 1000.0 • When electrons are launched at the inboard side (the top of magnetic well) electrons is higher in QHS than 0.5 1000 Counts 201 Counts 800.0 dN/dE = 151.15 - 0.0055 E axis 1.05 100 0 LFS HFS Number of Counts Numberof 2 they are passing particles in Mirror. 100 R = 0.9506 151 600.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 edge 1.12 • When they are launched at the outboard side (the bottom of the magnetic (count) dN/dE Temperature = 181.82 +/- 2.25 keV 2. Electrons are heated to 400.0 101 50 n , 1018 m-3 Coils/period 12 well) they are trapped with their orbits deviation from home flux surface e 10 higher energies in QHS than in 200.0 being small compared to Mirror and antiMirror cases. Mirror 51 • Comparison of ECE and TS data suggests the B0 (on axis) .4-.6 T 0 0.0 dN/dE (Number/KeV) 1 Central 1.25 T Max • No or minor difference in hard x-ray emission is expected between 1 1.00E+10 2.10E+11 4.10E+11 6.10E+11 8.10E+11 1.01E+12 1.21E+12 0.E+00 1.E+11 2.E+11 3.E+11 4.E+11 5.E+11 6.E+11 7.E+11 8.E+11 9.E+11 existence of non-thermal electrons at lower density 3. The antiMirror case has a -3 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 -3 Density (cm ) inboard and outboard sides. Density (cm ) 0.1 very small signal Energy (Kev) plasmas. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1- In QHS The HXR Intensity decreases with density. Energy (KeV) ECH Pulse Up to 50 • Discrepancy disappears near line averaged densities length (up to msec. 2- While in the Anti-Mirror case we have very low count rate. 12 -3 now) b. Particle Orbits in Mirror Property QHS Mirror 11 of ~1.7 - 2.0 10 cm . As predicted before from the energetic electrons drift orbit 3- Hard x-ray intensity is nearly flat at ne < 4 x 10 , then increases suddenly to 11 -3 Heating Power Up to 100 o 11 • See K. Likin’s poster for more information on ECE, analysis in QHS (at ne = 4 x10 cm ), there is nearly no 20 KeV electrons with 80 pitch angle, launched at = 0, Max. Intensity (number) ~ 351 ~ 151 a maximum at ne ~ 4.2 x 10 , and begin to decrease with increasing electrons (up to now) kW and r/a = ½ density. and K. Zhai for Thomson Scattering. difference in hard x-ray emission at different resonance Max. Energy (KeV) ~ 600 ~ 100 11 -3 location. 4- QHS and Mirror have similar behavior for ne > 5 x 10 cm . b. Magnetic Field Structure b. Hard X-ray Intensity Shows Improved e. Different Stored Energy Behavior in QHS and 5. Future Work Mirror Modes • When electrons are launched at the inboard side (top of the magnetic Confinement in QHS Over Mirror Mode well) they are passing particles. Similar to the QHS inboard case. a. Future Experiment b. Fokker-Planck Modeling • HSX is the worlds first 50 50 Quasi-Symmetric • When they are launched at the outboard side (bottom of the magnetic • HXR signal shows strong well) they are trapped with their orbits deviation from home flux surface 900 QHS Central Heating 45 •What is the effect of changing resonance location on HXR emission? Stellarator, based on a evidence of the existence of 10% Mirror Central Heating The CQL3D code being large compared to QHS (because of the asymmetry in the magnetic 800 40 40 At the same plasma density, investigate the hard x-ray emission at dominant n = 4, m = 1 superthermal electrons in QHS (total # = 3179) 700 35 - 3D, Multi-species, toroidal, fully relativistic code component of the ripples). Mirror (total # = 539.92) different resonance locations (LFS, Central, HFS) for QHS, Mirror and both QHS and mirror - Accepts the measured plasma parameters (T and n ) as simple input variables magnetic spectrum. • Different hard x-ray emission is expected in inboard and outboard sides. 600 Microwave Signal 30 30 antiMirror. e e configurations (central >( J ) p to calculate the >( J ) 500 p 25 • This symmetry can be <W At fixed resonance location, what is the density dependence of the heating). <W spatial and temporal distribution functions. broken by the addition 400 20 20 superthermal electrons population? • Similar power density in both - Ray tracing codes TORAY and/or GENRAY are used to derive the ray tracing of a large toroidal 300 15 c. Particle Orbits in antiMirror cases. At each resonance location (LFS, Central, HFS) investigate the hard x- of the EC beams mirror term (n = 4, m = Count (total in 5 mSec) 200 10 10 ray emission as density increases. - The diffusion coefficient as function of radius and energy is calculated in 0) B B 1 cosN m 20 KeV electrons with 80o pitch angle, launched at = 0, • The confinement of CQL3D using the 0 h 100 5 • All symmetry breaking and r/a = ½ superthermal electrons in •What is the effect of changing ripple amplitude on HXR emission? power deposition and wave electric fields calculated from ray tracing codes. In straight line coordinates 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 11 -3 11 -3 Investigate the hard x-ray emission in the Mirror mode for different terms below 1% of QHS is better than Mirror <n > (10 cm ) <n > (10 cm ) - The code includes highly benchmarked bremsstrahlung diagnostic e e average field. Time (mSec) ripple amplitudes (Mirror and antiMirror %). calculations. The line of site B B01h cos N m case. integrals measured by x-ray diagnostics are computed in CQL3D for direct 11 -3 •Is there any nonthermal component in the stored energy? • In QHS, the stored energy increases with density (ne < 4 x 10 cm ), then it comparison. Investigate the stored energy dependence on density and resonance - CQL3D has a limited applicability to model the Mirror and antiMirror Property QHS Mirror begin to decrease with further increase in density, and become flat for ne > 9 x location and compare it to the hard x-ray emission. 1011 cm-3. configurations. Max. Intensity ~ 391 ~ 102 What is the effect of changing the ECRH power level on the HXR • When electrons are launched at the inboard side (local maximum of 11 -3 The Marushchenko code decay time (msec) ~ 13.0 ~ 5.3 • In Mirror, the stored energy increases with density (ne < 9 x 10 cm ), and emission? - 5D Fokker-Planck, studies electron cyclotron resonance heating ECRH of c. Modes of Operation the magnetic field) they are trapped with their orbits deviation from become constant for n > 9 x 1011 cm-3. At fixed resonance location and plasma density, investigate the hard x-ray e fusion plasmas flux surface being large compared to QHS and Mirror cases. spectrum as a function of ECRH power level. • When electrons are launched at the outboard side (bottom of the - Periodic magnetic field magnetic well) they are in direct loss orbit. c. “Temperature” Evolution Shows Good f. Stored Energy may be Correlated with Hard X- c. Experimental method to Model - The solution for the distribution function is obtained by means of • Very low hard x-ray intensity is expected in both cases for antiMirror. conservative, finite difference, Confinement of Superthermal Electrons in the ray the Superthermal Electron two-step operator scheme. QHS Mode 20 Distribution Function 3. Hard X-ray Diagnostics 6. Conclusion 350 15 Another way to model superthermal electron distribution 9 8 300 Temperature (Kev) function is to use hard x-ray pulse height analysis • Hard x-ray analysis of the initial results up to H = 0.0065 G - 0.0393 7 10 2 Microwave Signal diagnostics. now show better confinement of superthermal 6 R = 0.9998 250 5 electrons in QHS compared to Mirror and 200 Solution procedures 4 5 antiMirror configuration. 3 T(Kev) 150 - Experimental data 2 StoredEnergy (Joules) H (Pulse Heigh in Volts)in Heigh (Pulse H • The future experimental work will involve 1 100 0 Two features of the data the modeling should reproduce 0 modeling the superthermal electron distribution Configuration Auxiliary Coil Dominant Feature 1.0E+10 2.1E+11 4.1E+11 6.1E+11 8.1E+11 1.0E+12 1.2E+12 1- The asymmetry in x-ray between small and large 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 50 function, investigating the hard x-ray emission in Currents G (Gain) -3 0 Density (cm ) large viewing angles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Inis: Terminology Charts
    IAEA-INIS-13A(Rev.0) XA0400071 INIS: TERMINOLOGY CHARTS agree INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, AUGUST 1970 INISs TERMINOLOGY CHARTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ... ......... *.* 1 PREFACE 2 INTRODUCTION ... .... *a ... oo 3 LIST OF SUBJECT FIELDS REPRESENTED BY THE CHARTS ........ 5 GENERAL DESCRIPTOR INDEX ................ 9*999.9o.ooo .... 7 FOREWORD This document is one in a series of publications known as the INIS Reference Series. It is to be used in conjunction with the indexing manual 1) and the thesaurus 2) for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centrea. The thesaurus and terminology charts in their first edition (Rev.0) were produced as the result of an agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Except for minor changesq the terminology and the interrela- tionships btween rms are those of the December 1969 edition of the Euratom Thesaurus 3) In all matters of subject indexing and ontrol, the IAEA followed the recommendations of Euratom for these charts. Credit and responsibility for the present version of these charts must go to Euratom. Suggestions for improvement from all interested parties. particularly those that are contributing to or utilizing the INIS magnetic-tape services are welcomed. These should be addressed to: The Thesaurus Speoialist/INIS Section Division of Scientific and Tohnioal Information International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 590 A-1011 Vienna, Austria International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Sientific and Technical Information INIS Section June 1970 1) IAEA-INIS-12 (INIS: Manual for Indexing) 2) IAEA-INIS-13 (INIS: Thesaurus) 3) EURATOM Thesaurusq, Euratom Nuclear Documentation System.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stellarator Program J. L, Johnson, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
    The Stellarator Program J. L, Johnson, Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. (On loan from Westlnghouse Research and Development Center) G. Grieger, Max Planck Institut fur Plasmaphyslk, Garching bel Mun<:hen, West Germany D. J. Lees, U.K.A.E.A. Culham Laboratory, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England M. S. Rablnovich, P. N. Lebedev Physics Institute, U.S.3.R. Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R. J. L. Shohet, Torsatron-Stellarator Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. and X. Uo, Plasma Physics Laboratory Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uj', Japan Abstract The woHlwide development of stellnrator research is reviewed briefly and informally. I OISCLAIWCH _— . vi'Tli^liW r.'r -?- A stellarator is a closed steady-state toroidal device for cer.flning a hot plasma In a magnetic field where the rotational transform Is produced externally, from torsion or colls outside the plasma. This concept was one of the first approaches proposed for obtaining a controlled thsrtnonuclear device. It was suggested and developed at Princeton in the 1950*s. Worldwide efforts were undertaken in the 1960's. The United States stellarator commitment became very small In the 19/0's, but recent progress, especially at Carchlng ;ind Kyoto, loeethar with «ome new insights for attacking hotii theoretics] Issues and engineering concerns have led to a renewed optimism and interest a:; we enter the lQRO's. The stellarator concept was borr In 1951. Legend has it that Lyman Spiczer, Professor of Astronomy at Princeton, read reports of a successful demonstration of controlled thermonuclear fusion by R.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights in Early Stellarator Research at Princeton
    J. Plasma Fusion Res. SERIES, Vol.1 (1998) 3-8 Highlights in Early Stellarator Research at Princeton STIX Thomas H. Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA (Received: 30 September 1997/Accepted: 22 October 1997) Abstract This paper presents an overview of the work on Stellarators in Princeton during the first fifteen years. Particular emphasis is given to the pioneering contributions of the late Lyman Spitzer, Jr. The concepts discussed will include equilibrium, stability, ohmic and radiofrequency plasma heating, plasma purity, and the problems associated with creating a full-scale fusion power plant. Brief descriptions are given of the early Princeton Stellarators: Model A, Model B, Model B-2, Model B-3, Models 8-64 and 8-65, and Model C, and also of the postulated fusion power plant, Model D. Keywords: Spitzer, Kruskal, stellarator, rotational transform, Bohm diffusion, ohmic heating, magnetic pumping, ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH), magnetic island, tokamak On March 31 of this year, at the age of 82, Lyman stellarator was brought to the headquarters of the U.S. Spitzer, Jr., a true pioneer in the fields of astrophysics Atomic Energy Commission in Washington where it re- and plasma physics, died. I wish to dedicate this presen- ceived a favorable reception. Spitzer chose the name tation to his memory. "Project Matterhorn" for the project which was to be Forty-six years ago, in early 1951, Spitzer, then sited in the Princeton area, on the newly acquired For- chair of the Department of Astronomy at Princeton restal tract, and funding began on July 1 of that year University, together with Princeton physicist John 121- Wheeler, had been thinking about the physics of ther- Spitzer's earliest stellarator papers comprise a truly monoclear processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Tomographic Inversion of Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator Plasmas
    45th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics P4.1056 Tomographic inversion of Wendelstein 7-X stellarator plasmas C. Brandt1, H. Thomsen1, T. Andreeva, N. Lauf1, U. Neuner1, K. Rahbarnia1, J. Schilling1, T. Broszat1, R. Laube1 and the Wendelstein 7-X Team 1 Max-Planck-Institute for Plasma Physics, Greifswald, Germany In the operational phase OP1.2a (Aug-Dec 2017) of the Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) stellarator experiment the soft X-ray tomography diagnostic (XMCTS: soft X-ray multi camera tomogra- phy system) has been commissioned. Soft X-ray tomography systems are powerful diagnostics for high temperature plasmas measuring spatiotemporal X-ray emissivity profiles. The XMCTS consists of 20 poloidally arranged pinhole cameras at one toroidal location observing a triangu- lar shaped up-down symmetric plasma cross section. X-ray radiation is mainly emitted in the hot plasma core (electron temperatures > 1keV). In the pinhole cameras the plasma radiation is filtered by a beryllium foil of 12:5 mm thickness being transmissible for X-ray radiation above 1keV. Taking into account the detector silicon thickness of 100 mm the detectable energy range is limited to approximately 1 − 10keV. With 18 available cameras in OP1.2a the soft X-ray emissivity has been recorded along 324 lines-of-sight with a time resolution of 0:5 ms. The presentation concentrates on the preparation and first results of the tomographic inver- sion. For correct calculation of the tomograms, both, the knowledge of the exact geometry of the lines-of-sight and the sensitivity of each photodiode are of crucial importance. The as-built coordinates of the cameras have been measured after the in-vessel installation.
    [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]
  • Stellarator and Tokamak Plasmas: a Comparison
    Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Stellarator and tokamak plasmas: a comparison This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 2012 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 124009 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/54/12/124009) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: 130.183.100.97 The article was downloaded on 22/11/2012 at 08:08 Please note that terms and conditions apply. IOP PUBLISHING PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED FUSION Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 (2012) 124009 (12pp) doi:10.1088/0741-3335/54/12/124009 Stellarator and tokamak plasmas: a comparison P Helander, C D Beidler, T M Bird, M Drevlak, Y Feng, R Hatzky, F Jenko, R Kleiber,JHEProll, Yu Turkin and P Xanthopoulos Max-Planck-Institut fur¨ Plasmaphysik, Greifswald and Garching, Germany Received 22 June 2012, in final form 30 August 2012 Published 21 November 2012 Online at stacks.iop.org/PPCF/54/124009 Abstract An overview is given of physics differences between stellarators and tokamaks, including magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium, stability, fast-ion physics, plasma rotation, neoclassical and turbulent transport and edge physics. Regarding microinstabilities, it is shown that the ordinary, collisionless trapped-electron mode is stable in large parts of parameter space in stellarators that have been designed so that the parallel adiabatic invariant decreases with radius. Also, the first global, electromagnetic, gyrokinetic stability calculations performed for Wendelstein 7-X suggest that kinetic ballooning modes are more stable than in a typical tokamak.
    [Show full text]
  • Stellarator Research Opportunities
    Stellarator Research Opportunities A report of the National Stellarator Coordinating Committee [1] This document is the product of a stellarator community workshop, organized by the National Stellarator Coordinating Committee and referred to as Stellcon, that was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in February 2016, hosted by MIT. The workshop was widely advertised, and was attended by 40 scientists from 12 different institutions including national labs, universities and private industry, as well as a representative from the Department of Energy. The final section of this document describes areas of community wide consensus that were developed as a result of the discussions held at that workshop. Areas where further study would be helpful to generate a consensus path forward for the US stellarator program are also discussed. The program outlined in this document is directly responsive to many of the strategic priorities of FES as articulated in “Fusion Energy Sciences: A Ten-Year Perspective (2015-2025)” [2]. The natural disruption immunity of the stellarator directly addresses “Elimination of transient events that can be deleterious to toroidal fusion plasma confinement devices” an area of critical importance for the U.S. fusion energy sciences enterprise over the next decade. Another critical area of research “Strengthening our partnerships with international research facilities,” is being significantly advanced on the W7-X stellarator in Germany and serves as a test-bed for development of successful international collaboration on ITER. This report also outlines how materials science as it relates to plasma and fusion sciences, another critical research area, can be carried out effectively in a stellarator. Additionally, significant advances along two of the Research Directions outlined in the report; “Burning Plasma Science: Foundations - Next-generation research capabilities”, and “Burning Plasma Science: Long pulse - Sustainment of Long-Pulse Plasma Equilibria” are proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin Derivatives Dictionary
    Dedication: 3/15/05 I dedicate this collection to my friends Orville and Evelyn Brynelson and my parents George and Marion Greenwald. I especially thank James Steckel, Barbara Zbikowski, Gustavo Betancourt, and Joshua Ellis, colleagues and computer experts extraordinaire, for their invaluable assistance. Kathy Hart, MUHS librarian, was most helpful in suggesting sources. I further thank Gaylan DuBose, Ed Long, Hugh Himwich, Susan Schearer, Gardy Warren, and Kaye Warren for their encouragement and advice. My former students and now Classics professors Daniel Curley and Anthony Hollingsworth also deserve mention for their advice, assistance, and friendship. My student Michael Kocorowski encouraged and provoked me into beginning this dictionary. Certamen players Michael Fleisch, James Ruel, Jeff Tudor, and Ryan Thom were inspirations. Sue Smith provided advice. James Radtke, James Beaudoin, Richard Hallberg, Sylvester Kreilein, and James Wilkinson assisted with words from modern foreign languages. Without the advice of these and many others this dictionary could not have been compiled. Lastly I thank all my colleagues and students at Marquette University High School who have made my teaching career a joy. Basic sources: American College Dictionary (ACD) American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD) Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (ODEE) Oxford English Dictionary (OCD) Webster’s International Dictionary (eds. 2, 3) (W2, W3) Liddell and Scott (LS) Lewis and Short (LS) Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD) Schaffer: Greek Derivative Dictionary, Latin Derivative Dictionary In addition many other sources were consulted; numerous etymology texts and readers were helpful. Zeno’s Word Frequency guide assisted in determining the relative importance of words. However, all judgments (and errors) are finally mine.
    [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]
  • Peaceful Uses of Fusion
    P/2410 USA Peaceful Uses of Fusion By Edward Teller * INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ticles involved in that explosion will necessarily move It is a great pleasure to discuss with you the topic with high velocity. of the day and I should like to begin by expressing The second and more important difference is the the same sentiments with which the previous speaker following: The fission chain reaction is regulated finished his paper. It is wonderful that over a large by assembling the correct amounts of active materials and important area of research we can now all talk and absorbers. If the correct amount is exceeded, and work together freely. I hope that this spirit the energy release rises in a rather slow manner due of cooperation will endure, that it will be generally to the action of delayed neutrons. In contrast, the exercised throughout the world in this field and that main regulating feature in a fusion reaction is the it will be extended also to other fields. temperature. When a certain ignition temperature has been exceeded, the reaction itself raises the It is remarkable how closely parallel the develop- temperature and this leads to an exceedingly rapid ments in the different countries are and this, of course, acceleration of further energy release. Slow energy is due to the fact that we all live in the same world release is possible only at low densities ; but this raises and obey the same laws of nature. I was particularly further problems. impressed by the wealth of detail given by the previous speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • The Helias Reactor
    The Helias Reactor C.D. Beidler, E. Harmeyer, F. Herrnegger, Yu. Igitkanov, A. Kendl, J. Kisslinger, Ya.I. Kolesnichenko1, V.V. Lutsenko1, C. Nührenberg, I. Sidorenko, E. Strumberger, H. Wobig, Yu.V. Yakovenko1 Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM Association D-85740 Garching bei München, Germany. 1 Scientific Centre “Institute for Nuclear Reseach” 03680 Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The Helias reactor is an upgraded version of the Wendelstein 7-X experiment. A straightforward extrapolation of Wendelstein 7-X leads to HSR5/22, which has 5 field periods and a major radius of 22 m. HSR4/18 is a more compact Helias reactor with 4 field periods and 18 m major radius. Stability limit and energy confinement times are nearly the same as in HSR5/22, thus the same fusion power (3000 MW) is expected in both configurations. Neoclassical transport in HSR4/18 is very low, the effective helical ripple is below 1%. The paper describes the power balance of the Helias reactor, the blanket and maintenance concept. The coil system of HSR4/18 comprises 40 modular coils with NbTi-superconducting cables. The reduction from 5 to 4 field periods and the concomitant reduction in size will also reduce the cost of the Helias reactor. 1. Introduction The Wendelstein 7-X experiment, which is under construction in the city of Greifswald, is the basis of the Helias reactor studies. HSR5/22 (5 field periods, major radius 22 m) is a straightforward extrapolation of Wendelstein 7-X. In order to reduce the size of the reactor another option with 4 field periods and a major radius of 18 m has been investigated and the main subject of this paper is the presentation of this 4-period Helias reactor.
    [Show full text]