1 Introduction

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

UCRL-CR-153297 Assessment of Eligibility to National Register of Historic Places Building 431 M. A. Sullivan, R. A. Ullrich U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore May 7, 2003 National Laboratory Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W- 7405-Eng-48. Assessment of Eligibility to National Register of Historic Places Building 431 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Prepared by Michael Anne Sullivan with Rebecca Ann Ullrich Corporate History Program Sandia National Laboratories May 7, 2003 1 Executive Summary Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) proposes to demolish the original sections of Building 431 at its main site in Livermore, California. As this action will constitute an undertaking within the regulatory constraints of the National Historic Preservation Act, LLNL arranged for an assessment of the building’s historic significance. This report provides a brief history of the magnetic fusion energy research activities housed in Building 431 and a historic assessment of the building. The final recommendation of the report is that, although Building 431 housed some significant breakthroughs in accelerator technology and magnetic mirror plasma confinement, it lacks integrity for the periods of significance of those developments. It is, therefore, not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. 2 1 Introduction weapons laboratory, LLNL conducts This report assesses the historic advanced research in physics, chemistry, significance of Lawrence Livermore environmental studies, computation, National Laboratory’s (LLNL) Building engineering, and biomedical science.2 431 within the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act LLNL is located forty miles east of San (NHPA). The report supports the U.S. Francisco in Alameda County, Department of Energy’s (DOE) efforts California. The main site is situated on to evaluate potential historic properties 821 acres and includes approximately at LLNL for NHPA compliance. 500 buildings and structures totaling 6,000,000 gross square feet. LLNL also LLNL proposes to demolish the original maintains a 7,000-acre high explosives sections of Building 431. This action test area designated as Site 300. Located represents a threat to the building and is, fifteen miles southeast of Livermore, in therefore, an undertaking as defined in Alameda and San Joaquin counties, Site the NHPA implementation guidance. 300 includes approximately 200 buildings and structures totaling 400,000 1.1 LLNL gross square feet.3 Building 431 is LLNL is a U.S. DOE national laboratory located at the Livermore main site. operated by the University of California.1 LLNL’s primary mission is 1.2 Building 431 the design and the maintenance of Building 431, built in 1950, is a four- nuclear weapons for the U.S. stockpile. story building with a high bay in the In addition to its function as a nuclear center of the structure. Offices and laboratories surround an open pit on two levels. The pit extends twenty feet below 1 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was ground level and the high bay rises to the originally a branch of the University of top of the roof for a total building height California Radiation Laboratory. From its inception in 1952, the laboratory was identified of 100 feet. A seven-foot-thick wall— as the University of California Radiation part of which is made of numbered, Laboratory, Livermore. In 1958, after the death concrete shielding blocks of varying of Ernest O. Lawrence, the laboratory name was sizes and part of which is seven-foot- changed to Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. In thick poured concrete—surrounds this 1971, it became a separate entity from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and was re- open pit area. The concrete shielding named the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. In blocks are capped with concrete. The 1979, Congress designated it a national laboratory, and it became Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. See University of 2 For an official description of LLNL’s current California, Lawrence Livermore National mission and organization, see LLNL website, Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National www.llnl.gov; and Charles R. Loeber, Building Laboratory: A Concise History, 1952–2000, the Bombs: A History of the Nuclear Weapons UCRL-TB-133100 (Livermore: University of Complex, SAND2002-0307P (Albuquerque: California, Lawrence Livermore National Sandia National Laboratories, 2002), 173. Laboratory, 2000). For clarity, it will hereafter 3 Paul McGuff, “Lawrence Livermore National be referred to as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory World War II and Later Historic Laboratory (LLNL), except when the discussion Context and National Register Assessment: requires more precision for historical Scope of Work” (Livermore: Lawrence understanding. Livermore National Laboratory, 2002), 1. 3 building is steel-framed and covered All experimental equipment has been with sheet-metal-and-asbestos composite removed from the main section of the panels. It has a flat roof. There are building and it is currently empty. The windows on the first, second, and fourth building does contain an eighty-ton floors on the north and south sides of the crane, seven-foot-thick concrete building. Building 431 is approximately shielding blocks, a three-kilowatt 150,366 gross square feet. The exterior cryogenic plant, a partial control room of Building 431 is shown in figure 1. from the Microwave Tokamak Experiment (MTX), some of the power Building 431 was originally Building 57 supplies, a large concrete shielding door of the Livermore Research Laboratory on the first floor, and the outside run by the California Research and platforms for the rough vacuum of the Development Corporation (CR&D), a Mirror Fusion Test Facility Modification subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company B (MFTF-B). The Experimental Test of California. From 1950 to 1954, Accelerator (ETA), a weapons-related CR&D and University of California project, is also still active in the south Radiation Laboratory (UCRL) used the wing of the building. Building 431, with structure to house an AEC-sponsored the exception of the ETA, is slated for project to develop fissionable materials decontamination and decommissioning for nuclear weapons. (D&D) in the coming years. The ETA was installed in 1980; although it is not In 1954, CR&D transferred Building 57 currently threatened, it will be included to UCRL’s new Livermore branch. It in this assessment. became Building 157 of the new UCRL- Livermore nuclear weapons design 2 Methodology laboratory.4 In 1967, in a laboratory- The following standard historical wide re-numbering, it was designated methodologies were used in conducting Building 431. To avoid confusion, this this assessment. report will refer to the structure as Building 431 throughout. 2.1 Building Tour On March 18, 2003, Don Podesta, the From 1954 to 1992, Building 431 engineering contact for Building 431, housed successive generations of fusion gave the authors of this report a building research. The building has been tour. The tour included the exterior, extensively remodeled over the years to interior, and rooftop of Building 431. At accommodate these experiments. In that time, the authors also reviewed the 1998, the last of the fusion research building drawing files that remain in the machines in the building was facility. dismantled. 2.2 Documentary Research 4 Memorandum by Eustace Tombras, “Radiation The authors conducted an extensive Laboratory Building Numbers—Livermore review of both published and manuscript Site,” 27 May 1954, 434-900020, Box 761382, primary sources pertaining to Building File 19, Donald Cooksey Administrative Files, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1954, Lawrence 431. Published scientific literature on Berkeley National Laboratory Archives, controlled thermonuclear fusion proved Berkeley, California. Hereafter cited as LBNL particularly useful, as did documentary Archives. 4 collections in the LLNL Archives, requires the identification of the local, LLNL Reports Library, LLNL Plant state, national, and/or international Engineering Library, and the Lawrence historic contexts that might give a Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) property significance.5 In other words, it Archives. is necessary to determine which broader historical events, themes, or trends give The architectural drawings and floor a property meaning and importance. plans of Building 431 provided information
Recommended publications
  • L-Shell and Energy Dependence of Magnetic Mirror Point of Charged

    L-Shell and Energy Dependence of Magnetic Mirror Point of Charged

    Soni et al. Earth, Planets and Space (2020) 72:129 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01264-5 FULL PAPER Open Access L-shell and energy dependence of magnetic mirror point of charged particles trapped in Earth’s magnetosphere Pankaj K. Soni* , Bharati Kakad and Amar Kakad Abstract In the Earth’s inner magnetosphere, there exist regions like plasmasphere, ring current, and radiation belts, where the population of charged particles trapped along the magnetic feld lines is more. These particles keep performing gyration, bounce and drift motions until they enter the loss cone and get precipitated to the neutral atmosphere. Theoretically, the mirror point latitude of a particle performing bounce motion is decided only by its equatorial pitch angle. This theoretical manifestation is based on the conservation of the frst adiabatic invariant, which assumes that the magnetic feld varies slowly relative to the gyro-period and gyro-radius. However, the efects of gyro-motion can- not be neglected when gyro-period and gyro-radius are large. In such a scenario, the theoretically estimated mirror point latitudes of electrons are likely to be in agreement with the actual trajectories due to their small gyro-radius. Nevertheless, for protons and other heavier charged particles like oxygen, the gyro-radius is relatively large, and the actual latitude of the mirror point may not be the same as estimated from the theory. In this context, we have carried out test particle simulations and found that the L-shell, energy, and gyro-phase of the particles do afect their mirror points. Our simulations demonstrate that the existing theoretical expression sometimes overestimates or underesti- mates the magnetic mirror point latitude depending on the value of L-shell, energy and gyro-phase due to underlying guiding centre approximation.
  • Nicholas Christofilos and the Astron Project in America's Fusion Program

    Nicholas Christofilos and the Astron Project in America's Fusion Program

    Elisheva Coleman May 4, 2004 Spring Junior Paper Advisor: Professor Mahoney Greek Fire: Nicholas Christofilos and the Astron Project in America’s Fusion Program This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations The author thanks the Program in Plasma Science and Technology and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for their support. Introduction The second largest building on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s campus today stands essentially abandoned, used as a warehouse for odds and ends. Concrete, starkly rectangular and nondescript, Building 431 was home for over a decade to the Astron machine, the testing device for a controlled fusion reactor scheme devised by a virtually unknown engineer-turned-physicist named Nicholas C. Christofilos. Building 431 was originally constructed in the late 1940s before the Lawrence laboratory even existed, for the Materials Testing Accelerator (MTA), the first experiment performed at the Livermore site.1 By the time the MTA was retired in 1955, the Livermore lab had grown up around it, a huge, nationally funded institution devoted to four projects: magnetic fusion, diagnostic weapon experiments, the design of thermonuclear weapons, and a basic physics program.2 When the MTA shut down, its building was turned over to the lab’s controlled fusion department. A number of fusion experiments were conducted within its walls, but from the early sixties onward Astron predominated, and in 1968 a major extension was added to the building to accommodate a revamped and enlarged Astron accelerator. As did much material within the national lab infrastructure, the building continued to be recycled. After Astron’s termination in 1973 the extension housed the Experimental Test Accelerator (ETA), a prototype for a huge linear induction accelerator, the type of accelerator first developed for Astron.
  • Anl-7807 Anl-7807 Survey of Thermonuclear-Reactor

    Anl-7807 Anl-7807 Survey of Thermonuclear-Reactor

    ANL-7807 ANL-7807 SURVEY OF THERMONUCLEAR-REACTOR PARAMETERS P. J. Persiani, W. C. Lipinski, and A. J. Hatcli U of C-AUA-USAECB ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, ARGONNE, ILLINOIS Prepared for the U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38 The faciliUes of Argonne National Laboratory are owned by the "-'f •> S'^^f °°^^%'" ment. Under the terms of a contract (W-31-109-Eng-38) between the U. S. ""^^^^J^^'J/ Commission, Argonne Universities Association and The University of Chicago, the ""'J'"=">' employs the staff and operates the Laboratory in accordance with policies and programs formu- lated, approved and reviewed by the Association. MEMBERS OF ARGONNE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION The Ohio State University The University of Arizona Kansas State University Carnegie-Mellon University The University of Kansas Ohio University Case Western Reserve University Loyola University The Pennsylvania State University The University of Chicago Marquette University Purdue University University o£ Cincinnati Michigan State University Saint Louis University Illinois Institute of Technology The University of Michigan Southern Illinois University University of Illinois University of Minnesota The University of Texas at Austin Indiana University University of Missouri Washington University Iowa State University Northwestern University Wayne State University The University of Iowa University of Notre Dame The University of Wisconsin NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontrac­ tors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.
  • Effect of Quaslconflned Particles and I= 2 Stellarator Fields on the Negative Mass Lnstablllty in a Modified Betatron G

    Effect of Quaslconflned Particles and I= 2 Stellarator Fields on the Negative Mass Lnstablllty in a Modified Betatron G

    TABLE II. Coefficients a and b + r of log(ac,) vs log[2/( p 1/p0 +Pel ACKNOWLEDGMENTS p,)J. We thank Jeanette Nelson for a careful reading of the log(ac1 ) =a+ b log(2/( pc/p1 + p 1/p0 ) l when a = 10 manuscript and G. Pollarolo for useful discussions about the NAG FORTRAN LIBRARY. The numerical computations were 0.1 <Pi <Po< 10 carried out on the Vax 11/780 ofINFN Sezione di Torino. M = 100 M=30 M =IO a; b; r 0.44; 0.06; 0.99 0.33; 0.06; 0.98 0.42; 0.04; 0.98 1 where r0 is the Lorentz factor and spans between 1 and 10. A. E. Gill, Phys. Fluids 8, 1428 (1965). The presence of a shear in cylindrical symmetry has not 2 A. Ferrari, B. Trusooni, and L. Zaninetti, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 196, yet been considered and will presumably produce a cutoff in !OSI (1981). 3H. Cohn, Astrophys. J. 269, 500 (1983). the instabilities where a> 21'Id, with d (in jet radius units) 4 D. G. Payne and H. Cohn, Astrophys. J. 287, 29S (1984). the length characterizing the thickness of the shear. ' A. M. Anile, J.C. Miller, and S. Motta, Phys. Fluids 26, 14SO (1983). Effect of quaslconflned particles and I= 2 stellarator fields on the negative mass lnstablllty in a modified betatron G. Roberts and N. Rostoker Department ofPhy sics, University ofCalifomia, Irvine. California 92717 (Received 5 February 1985; accepted 10 October 1985) A sufficient stability condition for the negative mass instability is derived.
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Spotlight on National Labs Los Alamos National Laboratory Thom Mason, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory Alan Carr, Historian of Los Alamos National Laboratory Leslie Sherrill, Group Leader, XTD-IDA (Integrated Design and Assessment) Alexis Trahan, Engineer, NEN-1 (Safeguards Science and Technology) Joetta Goda, Engineer, NEN-2 (Advanced Nuclear Technology) Dave Poston, Chief Reactor Designer, NEN-5 (Systems Design and Analysis) Moderator Nicholas Thompson, Engineer, NEN-2 (Advanced Nuclear Technology) May 6, 2020 ANS Spotlight on National Labs Los Alamos National Laboratory Thom Mason Director of LANL May 6, 2020 LA-UR-20-23309 75+ years serving the nation • In 1943, Los Alamos Laboratory was founded with a single, urgent purpose: build an atomic bomb • The future holds no shortage of national security threats, but there is no shortage of innovative ways to combat those threats • LANL leverages strategic nuclear deterrence to solve challenges to our nation’s security LANL’s national security focus means we are uniquely qualified to tackle big, novel problems such as COVID-19 Los Alamos National Laboratory 4/30/20 | 3 Our 12,866 employees rely on cutting-edge equipment and facilities to solve grand challenges on Earth and in space • 37.8 sq. mile campus (about the size of D.C.) • Flagship research facilities For plutonium, explosives, simulations, chemistry, and more, enabling work that’s impossible anywhere else • Much of our stockpile research is applied to complex challenges in: – Climate change – Vaccine development & epidemic
  • Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade No. 99 (2020), 256 - 257 Invited Lecture

    Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade No. 99 (2020), 256 - 257 Invited Lecture

    Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade No. 99 (2020), 256 - 257 Invited Lecture CHALLENGES AND PROGRESS ON THE PATH TOWARDS FUSION ELECTRICITY A. J. H. DONNÉ EUROfusion, Garching, Germany E-mail [email protected] Abstract. The European Roadmap to the Realisation of Fusion Energy1 breaks the quest for fusion energy into eight missions: 1. Plasma regimes of operation: Demonstrate plasma scenarios (based on the tokamak configuration) that increase the success margin of ITER and satisfy the requirements of DEMO. 2. Heat-exhaust systems: Demonstrate an integrated approach that can handle the large power leaving ITER and DEMO plasmas. 3. Neutron tolerant materials: Develop materials that withstand the large 14MeV neutron flux for long periods while retaining adequate physical properties. 4. Tritium self-sufficiency: Find an effective technological solution for the breeding blanket that also drives the generators. 5. Implementation of the intrinsic safety features of fusion: Ensure safety is integral to the design of DEMO using the experience gained with ITER. 6. Integrated DEMO design and system development: Bring together the plasma and all the systems coherently, resolving issues by targeted R&D activities 7. Competitive cost of electricity: Ensure the economic potential of fusion by minimising the DEMO capital and lifetime costs and developing long-term technologies to further reduce power plant costs. 8. Stellarator: Bring the stellarator line to maturity to determine the feasibility of a stellarator power plant. Now we are approaching the end of the 8th European Framework Programme (2014- 2020), it is a good moment to look back at the achievements since the establishment of EUROfusion in 2014, while at the same time have a peek into the future, to see which challenges lay ahead of us as well as the strategy to tackle them.
  • Spitzer S 100Th: Founding PPPL & Pioneering Work in Fusion Energy

    Spitzer S 100Th: Founding PPPL & Pioneering Work in Fusion Energy

    (1) Spitzer’s 100th: Founding PPPL & Pioneering Work in Fusion Energy Greg Hammett (2) Some Stories From Working with Spitzer In the Early Years Russell Kulsrud Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Colloquium Dec. 4, 2013 These are shorter versions of talks we gave at the 100th Birthday Celebration for Lyman Spitzer, October 19-20, 2013, Peyton Hall, Princeton University, http://www.princeton.edu/astro/news-events/public-events/spitzer-100/ https://www.princeton.edu/research/news/features/a/?id=11377 Video of a longer talk by Kulsrud, “My Early Years Spent Working with Lyman Spitzer“: https://mediacentral.princeton.edu/id/1_1kil7s0p Thanks for slides: Dale Meade, Rob Goldston, Eleanor Starkman and PPPL photo archives, ... PPPL Historical Photos: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tjv8lbx2844fxoa/FtubOdFWU2 June 19, 2014: added historical info. Jul 9, 2015: pointer to updated figure Lyman Spitzer Jr.’s 100th: Founding PPPL & Pioneering Work in Fusion Energy Outline: • Pictorial tour: from Spitzer’s early days, the Model-C stellarator (1960’s), to TFTR’s 10 megawatts of fusion & the Hubble Space Telescope (Dec. 9-10, 1993) • Russell Kulsrud: A few personal reflections on early days working with Lyman Spitzer. • The road ahead for fusion: – Interesting ideas being pursued in fusion, to improve confinement & reduce the cost of power plants I never officially met Prof. Spitzer, though I saw him at a few seminars. Heard many stories from Tom Stix, Russell Kulsrud, & others, learned from the insights in his book and his ideas in other books. 2 2 Lyman Spitzer, Jr. 1914-1997 Photo by Orren Jack Turner, from Biographical Memoirs V.
  • Signature Redacted %

    Signature Redacted %

    EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC FUSION PROGRAM ARCHW.$ By MASS ACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Lauren A. Merriman I OF IECHNOLOLGY MAY U6 2015 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING I LIBR ARIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FEBRUARY 2015 Lauren A. Merriman. All Rights Reserved. - The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly Paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author:_ Signature redacted %. Lauren A. Merriman Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering May 22, 2014 Signature redacted Certified by:. Dennis Whyte Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering I'l f 'A Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted Accepted by: Richard K. Lester Professor and Head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering 1 EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC FUSION PROGRAM By Lauren A. Merriman Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering on May 22, 2014 In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering ABSTRACT Fusion has been "forty years away", that is, forty years to implementation, ever since the idea of harnessing energy from a fusion reactor was conceived in the 1950s. In reality, however, it has yet to become a viable energy source. Fusion's promise and failure are both investigated by reviewing the history of the United States domestic fusion program and comparing technological forecasting by fusion scientists, fusion program budget plans, and fusion program budget history.
  • Observation of Nuclear Fusion Driven by a Pyroelectric Crystal

    Observation of Nuclear Fusion Driven by a Pyroelectric Crystal

    letters to nature 1900þ14. I. An interpretive study of BeppoSAX and Ulysses observations. Astrophys. J. 549, electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate 1021–1038 (2001). a deuteron beam (>100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a 10. Gaensler, B. M. et al. Second-epoch VLA observations of SGR 1806220. GRB Circ. Network 2933 (2005). deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the 11. Corbel, S. & Eikenberry, S. S. The connection between W31, SGR 1806220, and LBV 1806220: background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction Distance, extinction, and structure. Astron. Astrophys. 419, 191–201 (2004). D 1 D ! 3He (820 keV) 1 n (2.45 MeV) within the target is 12. Kolpak, M. A., Jackson, J. M., Bania, T. M. & Dickey, J. M. The radial distribution of cold atomic hydrogen in the galaxy. Astrophys. J. 578, 868–876 (2002). confirmed by pulse shape analysis and proton recoil spectro- 13. Corbel, S. et al. The distance of the soft gamma repeater SGR 1806220. Astrophys. J. 478, 624–630 scopy. As further evidence for this fusion reaction, we use a novel (1997). time-of-flight technique to demonstrate the delayed coincidence 14. Hartmann, D. & Burton, W. B. Atlas of Galactic Neutral Hydrogen. Ch. 4, 169 (Cambridge Univ. Press, between the outgoing a-particle and the neutron. Although the Cambridge, 1997). 15. Garwood, R. W. & Dickey, J. M. Cold atomic gas in the inner Galaxy. Astrophys. J. 338, 841–861 (1989). reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we 16. Figer, D.
  • Astron 104 Laboratory #7 Nuclear Fusion and Stars Chapter 12

    Astron 104 Laboratory #7 Nuclear Fusion and Stars Chapter 12

    Lab #7 Name: Date: Section: Astron 104 Laboratory #7 Nuclear Fusion and Stars Chapter 12 Introduction You are intimately linked to the nuclear fusion that occurs in stars. Life on Earth thrives on sunlight, which originates as energy produced at the center of the Sun as hydrogen is fused to form helium. Even the very atoms and molecules of your body | iron in your blood, calcium in your bones, phosphorous in your DNA | were forged in stars and dispersed to the interstellar medium in spectacular explosions. In this lab, you will explore the creation of heavy elements and release of energy through nuclear fusion in stars. Learning Objectives At the completion of this lab, you should be able to: 1. Describe the components of atomic nuclei and the properties of subatomic particles 2. Describe the force between two protons as a function of their separation distance 3. Describe the temperature required for nuclear fusion of hydrogen and heavier elements 4. Describe how nuclear fusion produces energy 5. Describe why iron is the heaviest element that can be made via nuclear fusion in stars Atomic Nuclei [5 pts each, 15 pts total] Atomic nuclear are made of combinations of sub-microscopic particles called protons and neutrons. The neutron is slight more massive than the proton, but for now we will ignore that difference and assume the neutron and proton each have a mass of 1 unit. Protons have a positive electrical charge (let's call it +1 unit) and neutrons have no electrical charge. Astron 104 Fall 2015 1 Lab #7 1.
  • Towards Nuclear Fusion

    Towards Nuclear Fusion

    TOWARDS NUCLEAR FUSION The outlook for controlled nuclear fusion has many people had apparently been led to believe. become much more complex than it appeared to be - Professor Teller said that while he believed that at least to the general public - when the possibility of thermonuclear energy generation was possible, it was taming thermonuclear reactions for the production of not going to be "quite easy". Professor L.A.Artsim- useful power was optimistically mentioned at the 1955 ovich of the Soviet Union remarked: "We do not Geneva conference on the peaceful uses of atomic wish to be pessimistic in appraising the future of our energy. Indeed, it may now be impossible to re­ work, yet we must not underestimate the difficulties capture the widespread excitement that followed the which will have to be overcome before we learn to prediction about thermonuclear power by the Presi­ master thermonuclear fusion. " Dr. P. C. Thonemann dent of the conference. Dr. Homi J. Bhabha of India, of the United Kingdom thought that an answer to the and the subsequent disclosures that research on con­ question whether electrical power could be generated trolled nuclear fusion was actively under way in some "using the light elements as fuel by themselves" could of the technically advanced countries. be given only in the next decade, and if the answer was "yes" a further ten years would be required to The significance of this possibility was immedi­ answer the question whether such a power source was ately recognized and there were many enthusiastic economically valuable. accounts of what the generation of power from fusion reactions would mean to the world.
  • Introduction to Fusion Energy Plasma Physics (K

    Introduction to Fusion Energy Plasma Physics (K

    BOOK REVIEWS S',".'"" o book, tor review " based on the editor's 'P'"'""' ",,,d'", possible reader E interest and on the availability of the book to the editor. Occasional selections may include II. L><:5.NB; ns books on topics somewhat peripheral to the subject matter ordinarily considered acceptable. 1111. Controlled Nuclear Fusion - Fundamentals of Its experiments and design studies have evidently so consumed Utilization for Energy Supply the time of experienced workers that there is a great short­ age of rigorous but comprehensible review articles that Authors J. Raeder, K. Borass, R. Bunde, W. should serve as the basis for such a text. Danner, R. Klingelhofer, L. Lengyel, In summary, the book by Raeder et al. should serve as F. Leuterer, M. Soli a useful supplementary text for courses on controlled fusion and a useful enough reference to justify its purchase by Publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Somerset, researchers and instructors active in the various fields of New Jersey (1986) tokamak research that it covers. Despite the recent publica­ tion of a number of very good efforts, the definitive, self­ Pages 316 (illustrated) contained, introductory text on fusion reactor design and a more widely useful reference work for tokamak researchers Price $100.00 remain to be written. Clifford E. Singer Reviewer Clifford E. Singer received his PhD at the University of California, Berkeley. He has worked on the theory and This book is a translation of Kontrol/ierte Kernfusion, applied physics ofplasma transport in tokamak experiments written in 1980. Despite the delay in translation, the book and reactors at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (and remains a timely summary of many aspects of tokamak the University ofIllinois) since 1977.