This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
NIF vs Z machine
Anonymous said...
"What happens if Z Machine reaches breakeven before NIF? It was rumored that they are closer than NIF.
Comment:
October 13, 2012 6:07 AM"
Than the Z Machine will be closed down and the money will be moved to NIF.
89 comments:
Anonymous
said...
While I am no fan of NIF based on cost benefit, I am highly skeptical of Z getting ignition and break even in a reasonable timeframe. On the other hand the lower cost for pursuing ignition on z does favor continued support so long as technical risk is managed continuously. If they start going on a NIF like PR campaign of over bloated expectations , then you can be sure that something is wrong with the Z ignition strategy.
the truth is that Moses has made NIF far more expensive then it should be. Look at the size of his staff and LIFE as two examples of his incompetence and complete lack of concern about money! How much has LIFE brought into the lab so far? How much did we taxpayers pay for this fiasco (demo reactors in 10 years! LLNL is a laughing stock in the fusion community? NIF and Z do about the same number of shots-Z even uses Pu! but NIF costs about 4 times as much! not worth it! and Rochester costs even less and does >1500 shots! Give me Z and Omega anytime!
Z will ultimately prove far more important and useful for national security than the hypedome of colosal waste that is the NIF under current mismanagement. Z will justify itself and its path in more ways than one. It is the long term winner since energy is what ultimately counts and not just energy density. The only future for NIF is to retool for Green, but under current mismanagement, that will not happen. Only hype and hucksterism can be expected. Empty promises and chest-beating gorillas, snookering aging members of congress, and other nobel pursuits.
Scientific breakeven is, according to the press, what Z seeks to achieve. Energy into igniting fuel = energy released by fusion reactions. Not ignition, which is energy into the target, the whole target, not just the fuel, being less than the energy released by fusion reactions. Hohlraums or direct drive targets are inefficient absorbers or converters of energy, and getting some capsule to implode is yet another inefficient and hazardous (prone to failure) process. After all that, if enough energy were coupled to the fuel, say 10-15 kJ in the case of NIF, and 15 kJ were released by way of n + He4, then one would have scientific breakeven on NIF. No such thing has happened nor will happen anytime soon. Burn propagation is needed for that to happen. Z is only claiming, according to press reports, to be nearing a credible attempt at achieving scientific breakeven. So jumping up and down about ignition is not a comeback. It is irrelevant. NIF has claimed to be able to achieve ignition and it has failed to achieve ignition. Nor has it even achieved scientific breakeven. That is yet another fact. But it has promise power on the grid in 10 years! Pure hucksterism.
I wanna hear more jibber jabber from NIF management spout on and on about the ship ready to sail and all that biblically epic stuff. Tell me about all the unknown unknowns that are just waiting to be discovered. I like that fanciful stuff. I want to be entertained. Gimme more of the ignition PR! I want MORE dammit!
There have been many pivotal moments in humankinds existence where we we came to juncture that could lead to a path of greatness. In many cases the intial goal may have been lofty but the end outcome was history changing.... I contend that NIF may well be just that point of us. Think about it the future of humanity will depend on our ability to create cheap energy, to build new kinds of cities, and ultimately go the stars. We have now hit a roadblock which could mean that new physics unexpected is the underlying cause. We can now explore this realm and if this is the case it could lead to the great breakthrough that will allow us to control the energy of the sun itself and radically change the world. We may have wanted ignition but we could well be getting way more than we bargained for. We may have built a ship to sail around the world but it can not float because unbeknownst to us we have really built a star cruiser that is not meant to explore the world by sea but to fly through the entire universe! The naysayers are the types to be left behind like the dinosaurs but to those who dare we are like the mammals at the end of the dinosaur age. Become a mammal and crawl not just out or the sea but out of the land into space and join the NIF cause!!!!
Ya ya the next milestone will be to show that NIF is not a caribbean cruise liner but a galactic starship. It will take off one night and when it comes back Ed Moses will come out and say "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost if funding for NIF is cut.
Whether it takes another 2 billion dollars or 2 trillion dollars, we need to pump all Our national resources into NIF. We need to double down on LIFE. To do so would mean that many platforms like Z will be shut down to free funding for NIF. NIF is the way of the future. A vast majority of the scientific community including the JASONs and others who have reviewed the program would agree that NIF takes priority over all other large projects. Even if we have to eat into other non-NNSA programs like social security and Medicare if necessary. NIF is much more important to this nation than any social contract public entitlements. And we absolutely need to stop wasting money on idiotic ideas like Z, NSTX, ITER, NLUF/omega, etc etc. Funding spread thin is funding wasted.
I want more PR. I miss the days of amped up expectations and promises of pilot fusion power plants in 10 years. I think they just need more celebrity power. More blockbuster movies filmed on location at the facility. More articles by Friedman and other luminaries. More movies like Wall Street: Money never sleeps, or whetever it was called. If you ask me, NIF mgmt just didn't put enough resources into PR. Getting rid of Tomas was the worst move they could make. He was a PR animal on the warpath.
Now is the time for all good men and women to realize that we are at an important juncture in human history. We are at the crossroads at which one path can take us on a path towards the future of energy security through unlimited energy production and into a new era in human evolution. The other path takes us backwards to a world filled with misery and resource depletion. I ask all of you to consider the sacrifices that we can make today, in order to ensure our energy security for tomorrow. We have embarked on a mission of great importance to everyone. It is time to set our petty differences aside and work towards a common goal. Cold fusion will take us there. Forget about NIF, or fracking, or solar energy or other nonsense. Anomalous heat effect will be the savior of all humankind.
"Anonymous said... I want more PR. I miss the days of amped up expectations and promises of pilot fusion power plants in 10 years. I think they just need more celebrity power. More blockbuster movies filmed on location at the facility. More articles by Friedman and other luminaries. More movies like Wall Street: Money never sleeps, or whetever it was called. If you ask me, NIF mgmt just didn't put enough resources into PR. Getting rid of Tomas was the worst move they could make. He was a PR animal on the warpath."
I am not a fan of the people tomas empowered. There is a lot of people who feel they are above the law, but they get there for a reason and Tomas was a great at selling science. It is too bad this type of talent always goes along with corrupt behavior.
Don't worry. Tomas is not gone. He is still on the payroll. Once they find a way to get back at Parney who isn't an insider anyways, and wait for Cook and others to roll on out (assuming a Romney win), Tomas can bully his way back up to the top of the ladder. Hey! He's big fish you know. He participated in important high level delegations to China even. Photos from that trip were all the talk around DOE/NNSA!
So what's the new event calendar look like? We have some assessment for ignition coming up soon I thought. What are the betting lines? Me bet was that claims will be made that NIF will reach ignition in 2 years p/m 2 months. What do you all think NIF's "play" will be?
Livermore Lab officials cite the "important role" NIF will play in "Stockpile Stewardship" to keep our nuclear weapons safe and reliable. However, top scientists expose this as a lie. Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked about the NIF's utility for this task, replied: "None whatsoever." Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community." Sandia Lab's former vice-president Bob Peurifoy called NIF "worthless" for maintenance of the arsenal. In a separate interview with another newspaper, Livermore weapons scientist Seymour Sack called NIF "worse than worthless" for that task. Ray Kidder, another Livermore Lab physicist, said: "As far as maintaining the stockpile is concerned, [NIF] is not necessary."
"The principal tool for assuring reliability of stockpile weapons is surveillance, in which samples are periodically disassembled and examined. This has been pursued for decades and, of the rare defects found, the vast majorities are associated with nonnuclear components that can be tested in the laboratory", says Seymour Sack
Yeah yeah so they gotta lie and play the game still. EoS to x percent is still the party line. We need to know how devices will handle themselves when in special environments like in the center of Jupiter. And we need to validate the models and properties. God forbid, if computer simulations show the sky is falling and that weapons don't work, then panic may ensue! People may think that all pre-test-ban experiments and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were all flukes! And god forbid we don't know how to use slide rules to retrace steps of the original designers to make fresh ones. All you have to do is raise doubt, even unreasonable ones, and you will see the machinery churn and get into action, and you can just smell all of that money burning at a intense rate.
Has NIF made any mention of a containment strategy? My thoughts are that it's difficult though maybe not impossible. That may be one of their only cards remaining for demonstrating programmatic relevance to SNM properties. However any prolonged shutdown would jeopardize the facility's performance metrics and incur additional costs far beyond what they are capable of absorbing. If they don't get the neutron yields way up, other novel experiments are out of the question also. Waiting for 5 years for technology to catch up, we can't keep pumping money to do a endless lineup of less-than-relevant materials at 1M per shot. They should have had this part planned out long ago. Too bad they didn't.
The comment from the poster describing the ability for Z to handle Pu was not intended to refer to ignition but rather to establish that the Z platform is being used for programmatically relevant experiments to measure properties or SNM at extreme conditions, as well as for investigations geared towards the science of ignition, while NIF address mainly ignition science with only tenuous relevance to weapons.
While neither may actually reach ignition in a reasonable time-frame, one regularly meets core mission objectives while the other struggles to just make that case.
What Seymour and other say may actually apply to the many various platforms, not just NIF, dependign on the specific reasoning being used. So they may not be the best argument to be made unless the position being taken is to advocate shutting down many or all those platforms supported by NNSA.
But if science is to be the new sole mission objective of NIF, then it needs to learn to survive on a greatly curtailed budget and be managed out of DoE.
NIF will not work because of a fundamental error in extrapolating Halite-Centurion data to thin capsules. 10MJ would be needed but his is at least an order of magnitude higher than what NIF can provide. Z (and its Russian equivalent baikal) are fully scaleable and have demonstrated mastery of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities and do not suffer from NIF's mix problems. Both are very inexpensive comared to NIF. So watch out for Z.
Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community".
Now there's a guy we should listen to. A guy that got married on top of the Sudan Crater at NTS to another weapon designer (her highness), spending their honeymoon at the NTS in separate dorms.
Upgrading Z for the purpose of pursuing ignition would require a huge hit on other programs. But even if they hit new unanticipated technical issues as NIF did, they can still pursue SNM properties as the capability and expertise exists there to handle those types of experiments.
It must be pretty harsh at LLNL to be forced to rely on only non programmatically relevant arguments. But this is all self-inflicted pay-back.
"something else has the likelyhood of achieving scientific breakeven before NIF and then ITER?"
Well if you think about it. If the "regime" of failure which was not the goal of NIF or ITER, was the main goal of what you wanted to study, than ya I think a number of existing devices could be modified to do that better or a new one could be made that is far cheaper. The "regime of failure" or whatever your version of the the "regime" as you keep saying over and over again was not nor was ever the goal nor the actual regime that was meant to be studied. By the way ITER is really a different thing altogether from NIF so what is your point anyway or are you just trying to show that you are clueless.
.....Alight you win NIF is the best thing ever, give it money for 20 years or as long as poster 6.43PM is working. They are the best ya ya ya pure science, study the regime, exciting times, ship going to a Mexico port, it is all true and it is all yours.
You haven't answered the question, nor even tried.
Is there an operational alternative for observing controlled nuclear fusion approaching the breakeven point other than NIF? Is another on the horizon sooner than ITER in 2025-2030?
I am not aware of another one in progress or in the mind of men that can be begin experiments before 2030.
So this country commits 500-1000 manyears per year of its 100 million man labor force and over the next decade completes the path we started down.
The near term is clearer, farther down the path is terra obscura, but in the end, the science will be clearer.
And no, to keep the chaff down, I haven't worked on NIF or for LLNL for years and I don't speak for LLNL.
The content of this post stands on its own dubious merit.
"...Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community..'.
Taking the longer view, the scientific programmes at both weapons design labs allow the gestation of "Rod Schultzes", who ARE the most important long-term element of the weapons stockpile.
Even if they can't see it unless they look in the mirror.
Too that point, as I approached the end of my tenure, I was troubled that I had not done enough to pass on the key knowledge, to prepare the next generation to take over.
Fortunately, my oversight is corrected by the fabulous talent that was developed in the design and execution of NIF, where ordinary men were forged into technical experts by the challenges they overcame. That kind of career forming event happens once to twice in a lifetime, an now the country will benefit from 500 - 1000 technical masters for the next 20 -30 years.
A fabulous spinoff that may dwarf the scientific benefits.
Technical masters trained to perform science with blinders on and to think in terms of simulation first, reality second. We shall coin a new term for those. We will call them "scienticians."
Keep fooling yourself dude. You didn't facilitate the creation of a generation of great minds. You are just playing the game and trying to find ways to pat yourself on the back even in light of all of the lies and disgraceful behavior. Don't try to make yourself appear better than anyone else currently or formerly in the game. You will be forgotten.
All of these issues raised about NIF is all part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by Sandia and other minor actors like PNNL, LBL, Argonne and others to promote their agendas by actively engaging in a smear campaign against NIF management. It would not surprise me if they were engaged in illegal activities to purposefully fabricate their own scientific data to prop themselves while also sabotaging and poisoning NIF experiments. I think the FBI needs to be brought into this matter. NNSA is a stacked deck of personalities all of whom are intellectually dishonest and all of whom are willfully engaged in lies and deceit to do anything and everything they can to make NIF fail, all the while gushing praise to the program when the media spotlight is turned on. You all need to know the truth, that it IS a conspiracy likely orchestrated by the oil and nuclear power industries. The reason why NIF failed to reach ignition is that NNSA is actively sabotaging the experiments. That is why we need to keep them out of our business and that is why we are seeking less oversight. If not, then we cannot take any responsibilities for any of the problems or failures in the future since they are all out of our control and we were not given any power to mitigate against NNSA manipulations.
If NIF could be operated on 75-100/year, while still a huge amount, I can easily see support for it. This tells you that the argument against NIF is not based on the merits of the benefit, but rather those benefits compared to the cost. So why NIF does not articulate its position in these terms really baffles me. Why they keep going on and on about the Nobel prize, pilot plant reactors, and these so-called higher pursuits without any consideration of the cost element? All of these supportive arguments that just focus on the lofy ideals of science is really just part of a very simple con strategy supported by a PR campaign to get alot of money with no accountability to justify the cost. And further, these NIF support arguments aren't even technical. They are more "faith-based" than anything.
NIF had it their way for many years, and now we have had a huge failure. It does not make any sense to give them a second chance, since nothing has truly changed, and they still continue to play the PR con game. 1kJ yield from neutrons just from the compression tells you how far off they are from reality. The fact that they say they are "tantalizingly close" tells you that there is a con in play.
A: NIF is the closest to reaching ignition do we need to keep funding. B: Evidence suggests that NIF is far off and the alpha heating milestone failure and the persistently low neutron yields support that. A: But there is great science to be discovered by NIF in conditions not replicated in any other facility and there is no other alternative. B: Z is making progress in it's ignition strategy and it is an alternative. Plus it is a proven platform for programmatic mission experiments. Plus it's a better value based on cost, and mission work is not at risk. A: But NIF is already built, and it works. B: Z is built, it works, it delivers both scientifically and programmatically, it is scalable, and the technology exists and is mature for the next upgrade. A But NIF will produce a small star. We can easily imagine one or two Nobel prized emerging out of NIF.
This is a kind of prototype aggregated dialog after removing the obvious deceptions. You can clearly see that one is supported on the basis of delivery and value while the other is based on hope, faith and PR. NIF is unable to make a convincing value based case and must rely upon its technical reviewers statements about the merits of the science while unable to address any of the programmatic irrelevance problems nor the high cost elements. And on a comparative base, arguments in support of NIF are weak at best. The reliance on the fact that it is built and that it works is an insult to many people working on even more complex projects in both the public and private sector.
Back in the day LLNL management routinely showed slides to nnsa behind closed doors showing slides comparing the two for the purpose of making a claim that Z should be shut down. There were many suspect claims being made. Some were clearly intentional lies and misrepresentations. Now that the issue is out in the open, we see what arguments withstand scrutiny and what is just PR.
This nonsense about the thin shell strategy can't be left unchallenged. There is no issues regarding the thin shell capsule and it's role in recent isues in pursuing ignition. In fact, the capsule shells should be made thinner and the technology to make them so exists. People here are willing to lie and make up things just to further agendas. The fact that you make a certain reference shows that you should be put in jail and are therefore likely to be a criminal whose words cannot be trusted. NIF is tantalizingly close to ignition and this is not only the truth but it's a very conservative assessment. Any day now, you will see, and you will be made to eat your words. That will be the death knell for Z and all NIF naysayers. You will have been shown how inadequate you are in terms of intellectual capacity most likely due to a pitiful upbringing, adolescent drug use, or whatever excuse you use to explain your numerous failures in life. Your pent up bitterness and frustration should be aimed somewhere else. Stop trying to tear down our people who are without argument the very best and brightest scientific minds on the planet. Maybe if you went back to school, or finally treated your adult ADHD, maybe you can be a more productive contributor to society and the human race. NIF is about the big picture. It goes beyond any selfish motivation. If you can't understand that, then there is no way you could comprehend, let alone contribute to any conversation around the topic. 1.8 MJ is all we need and not a joule more. All evidence points to a non-model related discrepancy that has a complex interaction with the models themselves. So once the engineering and materials issues are identified, they will be corrected and the experiments will agree with the simulations. Your puny brain and lack of capacity could never have made any such deduction geared to problem solving at this level of complexity. These blanket assertions about how NIF won'worm reach ignition are all based on agenda driven actors who have pre-determined their favorable outcome and made every effort to make their fantasy a reality, even going so far as to lie and manipulate. You probably for your degrees by going over the Mexico border in pay-for-PhD accelerated degree programs. It is no wonder why there is so much misinformation by people who are clearly not knowledgeable about NIF. Your best bet though is to just turn on the cable tv and watch the animal planet channel or whatever programming that your brain is most compatible with, and just stay there. Stop going on the Internet. You are too easy a target against your intellectual superiors like ourselves. You are do stupid that we may even end up stealing your SSN and credit card numbers. Stick to cable tv. That is the best bet for many of you people.
And Osama Lives! Allah should smite all NIF naysayers! "You are too easy a target against your intellectual superiors like ourselves. You are do stupid that we may even end up stealing your SSN and credit card numbers." Yeah, that's a really convincing logical argument. Nice parody - but don't quit your day job - if you have one.
I agree the race of Ubermensch created by NIF could not done anywhere or for such small cost as was done in NIF. This will be NIF's legacy, these simple ordinary men transformed into the super 12 sigma tech masters of the world with skills like no others, and work ethic second to none. They are the agents of transformative science that we are all stake holders of now. They have created a machine...A MACHINE...the likes of which are planet has never seen. If other life forms view earth and see NIF they will know just what humanity is capable of.
Indeed thin capsules can be made... but using them exposes to more Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities. Either you have the power (Centurion-Halite or Z) or like NIF you struggle. Also there is the problem of the NIF geometry; simulated Raman scattering is a significant problem. Remember that the Lawson criteria is density, temperature and time. Illuminate for a long time and wall-created plasma stands in the way of more laser energy. Yes you can do pulse shaping but you struggle. NIF is at the end of its power roadmap; Z can scale to dozens of MJ. Guess who will achieve breakeven first?
Say what you want about graffiti but history has shown time and time again that graffiti is usually the truth bubbling through. You might want to try another analogy to make your point. Also it is graffiti not grafitti.
Pu has to do with material properties, not fusion. The original poster was making the point that z can do experiments on Pu because similar experiments cannot currently be done on NIF.
And therefore, if the scientific objective is to advance the study of controlled thermonuclear research approaching or achieving scientific breakeven, NIF is the only available instrument. Followed by ITER which may become available in 2025 after an international investment of five times what is already paid for in NIF.
The solution is self-evident to those who employ reason in decision making
There is a separate effort on the z platform to investigate fusion research. You can see in the NNSA budget request that the ignition campaign includes Sandia(Z) and omega, not just NIF. NIF has not proven that it can reach ignition. Garwin is part of that conversation. One gets better insights by listening to him than to any of us anonymous troll bloggers.
The NIF bubble will burst if they do not get ignition in a few months. Expectations fatigue is setting in, and seeing no increase in neutron yield (in fact alot of what they try to do to correct the problems decreases the yield) is contributing to that fatigue. Though you can be certain to keep hearing more pleas for time since the science behind the failure has yet to be completed, yadda yadda yadda. But the GAO report correctly alludes to problems related to management and oversight and so there is no point in performing an investigation if behavioral biases are intentionally being built into the process.
There is also fatigue about the use of the argument that the machine is state of the art and that it works. You can only set the bar one notch lower before you have to conclude that the project was failure whose lessons learned were not proportional to the cost. Alpha heating milestone failure is what is called a "show stopper.". Dude, that's gotta really suck to have to swallow a bitter pill like that, especially after all that irrational exuberance from past years.
"And therefore, if the scientific objective is to advance the study of controlled thermonuclear research approaching or achieving scientific breakeven, NIF is the only available instrument. Followed by ITER which may become available in 2025 after an international investment of five times what is already paid for in NIF.
The solution is self-evident to those who employ reason in decision making
October 25, 2012 12:30 PM"
That was not scientific objective so your point is mute.
Centurion Halite said 10MJ, which would you bet on? NIF @ 1.8MJ in 2012 or Z @ 3MJ in 2007 and in the initial phase of testing 3 significant improvements. Even if Z does not achieve breakeven in 2013, it can easily scale x8 for a fraction of the cost of either NIF or ITER.
The real legacy of NIF will be how it turned 500 ordinary people to beyond expert scientists, techs and engineers. Can Z or any other current scientific endeavor say anything close to this? Gentlemen, explore the realm, much treasure awaits.
6:22 AM is trying to use the NIF workers as a human shield to deflect technical and management criticisms towards the employees to make it look like the attacks are assaults against them instead. Nice try and bad argument. Plus many of your "top scientists" are apparently not very capable of applying deductive logic.
Centurion Halite said 10MJ, which would you bet on? NIF @ 1.8MJ in 2012 or Z @ 3MJ in 2007 and in the initial phase of testing 3 significant improvements. Even if Z does not achieve breakeven in 2013, it can easily scale x8 for a fraction of the cost of either NIF or ITER.
October 26, 2012 5:42 AM
Another "back of of the envelope" scaling calculation similar to the way NIF was designed. Unfortunately, Congress took the line-and-sinker on this "disaster".
As much as we beat up on NIF (and rightly so), that project looks like an angel in comparison with the Y-12 and Los Alamos radiological release fiascos. We need to keep the pressure on, demanding better accountability and transparency, and better management practices. Whatever the outcome, it will be better for all.
The few top caliber scientists at NIF were top caliber to begin with. What the project has given people is experience. But it takes more than experience to solve scientific problems that are shrouded with so much uncertainty. It takes brilliant people to put all the disparate pieces of information together. And those people have to be brilliant to begin with. NIF did not create those people. The experience provided by NIF is only of limited value compared with what is actually needed to solve such hard problems.
Upon receiving my clearance I never did fulfill my self-made-promise to immediately read the classified Centurion Halite (CH) reports. I had by then chosen a different National Lab Division for my physics career. Can anyone answer the following without an agenda, bias, angry attitude, and so on, as to whether the underground CH, ICF-related tests partly justified the large step from NOVA to NIF, without an intermediate-sized laser facility? An intelligently-written response with as many unclassified details as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.
So in summary. NIF is operational at LLNL, with $3B invested over 10 years, now employing a highly capable team investigating the key topics related to controlled inertial fusion. Opponents assert the key model is flawed. Based on their interpretation of UG test data, more power is required than NIF can reasonably be expanded to. They suggest cancelling the current investigation on this premise rather than completing it.
It has been suggested here, as an alternative, that a current machine at the competing national lab, LANL, called Z, can be modeled, validated, scaled up and reconfigured to achieve the required power levels and target configuration and diagnosics to achieve current controlled inertial fusion scaling to breakeven, faster, better and cheaper than continuing with NIF. The current NIF funds should be shifted to this effort, which has less risk than continuing NIF.
Is this a correctly and fairly stated summary of this thread?
yeah Z is a facility at Sandia, not LANL. They have a website with photos and details.
Some may argue Z has less risk but that is not yet settled (for reaching ignition). Ignition on both platforms are moonshots. Each faces different and somewhat unique challenges. Both platforms would need expensive upgrades in the future, with Z claiming to be more readily scalable and at a lower cost, while NIF suggesting that they are closer to ignition. Part of the argument is regarding comparisons of what capability NNSA has with each platform assuming continued (expensive) funding. One can reach higher pressures whle the other can handle special nuclear materials. This can delineate the kind of programmatically relevant experiments that can be done in support of the stockpile.
I'm not sure whether the "shift of funding" part of your summary is fully solidified yet. You have to remember that it hasn't been a clear-cut either-or argument. The National Ignition Campaign (look on google, for NIC, national ignition campaign) has set funding and milestones for work on NIF, Rochester, Sandia Z, and I think minor amounts to other labs). Suggestions of cancelling opposing programs is mostly bluster, posturing and anonymous sniping. It reflects thinking by some, though there are many other factors involved.
I thought Lindl was one of the main architects of the technical justification for the current NIF design. You might be able to piece some of that together by examining all the NIF related technical review documents that have been released over the past decade. Or you might just contact him and ask.
Just be careful. If you maintain a clearance, and you bring up a certain experiment in the wrong environment, and in a context which questions NIF, you will face severe retaliation and consequences. But if you loosely throw things around that are supportive, they will turn a blind eye. That's actually happened in the past.
Since NIF is operational with ongoing investigations, and an upgrade of Z to become a breakeven-scale experimental facility would involve a preparation period, from modeling and conceptual design, funding, Title I-III, commissioning, diagnostic validation and operations, that might take up to 10 years from today.
So is it also likely that with a head start of perhaps 5 - 10 years, that NIF will complete it's investigations sooner than an thermonuclear fusion breakeven demonstration on an upgraded Z?
A reminder that details of stockpile stewardship experiments are verboten. Ergo, SNM topics are questionable.
But controlled thermonuclear fusion topics are fair game, since they are so unlikely in our lifetimes as to be philosophy or fetish as much as observable science, hence not worthy of classification.
Equation of state of materials, including SNM is one of the things sought out in high compression experiments. Materials properties under these conditions can be determined on such a number of NNSA platforms. NIF and Z are both used to compress materials to high pressures. Note that these particular experiments have little to do with ignition goals.
My understanding is that Z was originally built for other goals, but Sandia, led by the work of Jim Asay and many Sandians and non-Sandians, were able to demonstrate the ability to also perform, on Z, material compression experiments to generate data for equation of state. Constitutive material data is used to feed codes that support stockpile stewardship, and better data in regimes before not measurable.
Z had undergone an upgrade, and now has enhanced capabilities. Likewise, NIF experiments can also compress materials, with diagnostics to pull out material properties.
One of the things that can be done to reduce costs significantly is to cut out much of the work (and shot allocations) that go towards equation of state. While at first, one may wonder why NNSA would accept elimination of work that most directly supports its programmatic mission, it may make sense in the end. Laser and Omega EOS work is of limited value since other platforms can do the same experiments with better control for much less cost. There is little credible evidence to show that the technical background and capability of the the team and leadership behind the Laser based EOS shots can produce the kinds of high quality technical output to match the amount of funding to support that work. However, the technical analytical capability to support plasma, hydrodynamics and astrophysics based research is very mature and most capable of producing the kinds of technical and scientific contributions expected of a large scientific project. Restricting the technical/labor costs to those areas, plus the operational cost of the facility would provide a fairly sizeable reduction in overall cost. Equation of State related work can be picked up by other facilities already capable of performing that work.
This strategy would allow NIF to perform the science, at a reduced cost, to examine the technical difficulties behind ICF, and to begin to perform technical feasibility and engineering reliability studies for potentual upgrade options. I've always been someone skeptical about the value of the EoS work overall (not just on NIF). However, funding for Laser EOS could be reinstated if there are improvements in the budgetary environment in the future.
I am assuming that you meant to include strength measurement efforts as part of the EoS standdown. Very interesting idea. Counterintuitive at first thought, but it clearly leverages the strengths and work of very highly regarded plasma physicists and such. Even the Trivelpiece and JASONs reviews appear to be compatible with such an approach.
Well it's common sense, if you gotta spend alot of hard earned money, you spend it on the A-team. No real new idea here. Thought that's what theyd be doin anyways
Yeah they should drop Laser EOS and Strength. They are not the technical leaders in the field by any stretch of the imagination. In fact some of the work out of LLNL in these areas is baffling. At first I thought that the scientific review process is showing its failures in not stopping some significantly shoddy analyses from getting into peer-reviewed technical journals. Then I thought that leaders in the field are intentionally keeping mum, to let the fraudsters show their true colors. Mind boggling.
EoS and strength are such minor parts of the budget, so you would have to scale down in other ways. I'm not sure how you would do that, since ongoing costs don't simply scale with the number of shots. It is a very well known fact that the EoS and Strength technical capability there lacks credibility. But the stakes are so small, so long as they don't keep making embarrassments of themselves as they have in the past. Having people guiding experiments but who have no substantial publication record to demonstrate their ability to lead experimental efforts should give you a significant amount of ammunition to question their program as a whole.
89 comments:
While I am no fan of NIF based on cost benefit, I am highly skeptical of Z getting ignition and break even in a reasonable timeframe. On the other hand the lower cost for pursuing ignition on z does favor continued support so long as technical risk is managed continuously. If they start going on a NIF like PR campaign of over bloated expectations , then you can be sure that something is wrong with the Z ignition strategy.
Both are engineering marvels. One of them works as advertised.
the truth is that Moses has made NIF far more expensive then it should be. Look at the size of his staff and LIFE as two examples of his incompetence and complete lack of concern about money! How much has LIFE brought into the lab so far? How much did we taxpayers pay for this fiasco (demo reactors in 10 years! LLNL is a laughing stock in the fusion community?
NIF and Z do about the same number of shots-Z even uses Pu! but NIF costs about 4 times as much! not worth it! and Rochester costs even less and does >1500 shots! Give me Z and Omega anytime!
Z will ultimately prove far more important and useful for national security than the hypedome of colosal waste that is the NIF under current mismanagement. Z will justify itself and its path in more ways than one. It is the long term winner since energy is what ultimately counts and not just energy density. The only future for NIF is to retool for Green, but under current mismanagement, that will not happen. Only hype and hucksterism can be expected. Empty promises and chest-beating gorillas, snookering aging members of congress, and other nobel pursuits.
I am also no fan of NIF. But I must say this loudly: Z WILL NEVER ACHEIVE IGNITION.....trust me.
Scientific breakeven is, according to the press, what Z seeks to achieve. Energy into igniting fuel = energy released by fusion reactions. Not ignition, which is energy into the target, the whole target, not just the fuel, being less than the energy released by fusion reactions. Hohlraums or direct drive targets are inefficient absorbers or converters of energy, and getting some capsule to implode is yet another inefficient and hazardous (prone to failure) process. After all that, if enough energy were coupled to the fuel, say 10-15 kJ in the case of NIF, and 15 kJ were released by way of n + He4, then one would have scientific breakeven on NIF. No such thing has happened nor will happen anytime soon. Burn propagation is needed for that to happen. Z is only claiming, according to press reports, to be nearing a credible attempt at achieving scientific breakeven. So jumping up and down about ignition is not a comeback. It is irrelevant. NIF has claimed to be able to achieve ignition and it has failed to achieve ignition. Nor has it even achieved scientific breakeven. That is yet another fact. But it has promise power on the grid in 10 years! Pure hucksterism.
How do you get fusion out of Pu?
That a hell of a collision!, Even more interesting mass stability with 400 plus nucleons...
Congratulations on the breakthru?
How do you get fusion out of Pu?
October 14, 2012 10:15 PM
You don't, idiot. Try to pay attention to the "relevant to weapons" part of this.
I wanna hear more jibber jabber from NIF management spout on and on about the ship ready to sail and all that biblically epic stuff. Tell me about all the unknown unknowns that are just waiting to be discovered. I like that fanciful stuff. I want to be entertained. Gimme more of the ignition PR! I want MORE dammit!
October 15, 2012 1:50 AM
Ok than.
There have been many pivotal moments in humankinds existence where we we came to juncture that could lead to a path of greatness. In many cases the intial goal may have been lofty but the end outcome was history changing.... I contend that NIF may well be just that point of us. Think about it the future of humanity will depend on our ability to create cheap energy, to build new kinds of cities, and ultimately go the stars. We have now hit a roadblock which could mean that new physics unexpected is the underlying cause. We can now explore this realm and if this is the case it could lead to the great breakthrough that will allow us to control the energy of the sun itself and radically change the world. We may have wanted ignition but we could well be getting way more than we bargained for. We may have built a ship to sail around the world but it can not float because unbeknownst to us we have really built a star cruiser that is not meant to explore the world by sea but to fly through the entire universe! The naysayers are the types to be left behind like the dinosaurs but to those who dare we are like the mammals at the end of the dinosaur age. Become a mammal and crawl not just out or the sea but out of the land into space and join the NIF cause!!!!
October 15, 2012 5:26 AM
Ya ya the next milestone will be to show that NIF is not a caribbean cruise liner but a galactic starship. It will take off one night and when it comes back Ed Moses will come out and say "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost if funding for NIF is cut.
Whether it takes another 2 billion dollars or 2 trillion dollars, we need to pump all Our national resources into NIF. We need to double down on LIFE. To do so would mean that many platforms like Z will be shut down to free funding for NIF. NIF is the way of the future. A vast majority of the scientific community including the JASONs and others who have reviewed the program would agree that NIF takes priority over all other large projects. Even if we have to eat into other non-NNSA programs like social security and Medicare if necessary. NIF is much more important to this nation than any social contract public entitlements. And we absolutely need to stop wasting money on idiotic ideas like Z, NSTX, ITER, NLUF/omega, etc etc. Funding spread thin is funding wasted.
Attaboy Ed, sock it to those scienticians.
Re: October 15, 2012 5:26 AM
Wow, that's some mighty fine Kool-Aid you're drinking!
I want more PR. I miss the days of amped up expectations and promises of pilot fusion power plants in 10 years. I think they just need more celebrity power. More blockbuster movies filmed on location at the facility. More articles by Friedman and other luminaries. More movies like Wall Street: Money never sleeps, or whetever it was called. If you ask me, NIF mgmt just didn't put enough resources into PR. Getting rid of Tomas was the worst move they could make. He was a PR animal on the warpath.
Now is the time for all good men and women to realize that we are at an important juncture in human history. We are at the crossroads at which one path can take us on a path towards the future of energy security through unlimited energy production and into a new era in human evolution. The other path takes us backwards to a world filled with misery and resource depletion. I ask all of you to consider the sacrifices that we can make today, in order to ensure our energy security for tomorrow. We have embarked on a mission of great importance to everyone. It is time to set our petty differences aside and work towards a common goal. Cold fusion will take us there. Forget about NIF, or fracking, or solar energy or other nonsense. Anomalous heat effect will be the savior of all humankind.
My dad can beat your dad.
"Anonymous said...
I want more PR. I miss the days of amped up expectations and promises of pilot fusion power plants in 10 years. I think they just need more celebrity power. More blockbuster movies filmed on location at the facility. More articles by Friedman and other luminaries. More movies like Wall Street: Money never sleeps, or whetever it was called. If you ask me, NIF mgmt just didn't put enough resources into PR. Getting rid of Tomas was the worst move they could make. He was a PR animal on the warpath."
I am not a fan of the people tomas empowered. There is a lot of people who feel they are above the law, but they get there for a reason and Tomas was a great at selling science. It is too bad this type of talent always goes along with corrupt behavior.
Don't worry. Tomas is not gone. He is still on the payroll. Once they find a way to get back at Parney who isn't an insider anyways, and wait for Cook and others to roll on out (assuming a Romney win), Tomas can bully his way back up to the top of the ladder. Hey! He's big fish you know. He participated in important high level delegations to China even. Photos from that trip were all the talk around DOE/NNSA!
So what's the new event calendar look like? We have some assessment for ignition coming up soon I thought. What are the betting lines? Me bet was that claims will be made that NIF will reach ignition in 2 years p/m 2 months. What do you all think NIF's "play" will be?
Livermore Lab officials cite the "important role" NIF will play in "Stockpile Stewardship" to keep our nuclear weapons safe and reliable. However, top scientists expose this as a lie. Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked about the NIF's utility for this task, replied: "None whatsoever." Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community." Sandia Lab's former vice-president Bob Peurifoy called NIF "worthless" for maintenance of the arsenal. In a separate interview with another newspaper, Livermore weapons scientist Seymour Sack called NIF "worse than worthless" for that task. Ray Kidder, another Livermore Lab physicist, said: "As far as maintaining the stockpile is concerned, [NIF] is not necessary."
"The principal tool for assuring reliability of stockpile weapons is surveillance, in which samples are periodically disassembled and examined. This has been pursued for decades and, of the rare defects found, the vast majorities are associated with nonnuclear components that can be tested in the laboratory", says Seymour Sack
Yeah yeah so they gotta lie and play the game still. EoS to x percent is still the party line. We need to know how devices will handle themselves when in special environments like in the center of Jupiter. And we need to validate the models and properties. God forbid, if computer simulations show the sky is falling and that weapons don't work, then panic may ensue! People may think that all pre-test-ban experiments and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were all flukes! And god forbid we don't know how to use slide rules to retrace steps of the original designers to make fresh ones. All you have to do is raise doubt, even unreasonable ones, and you will see the machinery churn and get into action, and you can just smell all of that money burning at a intense rate.
Has NIF made any mention of a containment strategy? My thoughts are that it's difficult though maybe not impossible. That may be one of their only cards remaining for demonstrating programmatic relevance to SNM properties. However any prolonged shutdown would jeopardize the facility's performance metrics and incur additional costs far beyond what they are capable of absorbing. If they don't get the neutron yields way up, other novel experiments are out of the question also. Waiting for 5 years for technology to catch up, we can't keep pumping money to do a endless lineup of less-than-relevant materials at 1M per shot. They should have had this part planned out long ago. Too bad they didn't.
The comment from the poster describing the ability for Z to handle Pu was not intended to refer to ignition but rather to establish that the Z platform is being used for programmatically relevant experiments to measure properties or SNM at extreme conditions, as well as for investigations geared towards the science of ignition, while NIF address mainly ignition science with only tenuous relevance to weapons.
While neither may actually reach ignition in a reasonable time-frame, one regularly meets core mission objectives while the other struggles to just make that case.
What Seymour and other say may actually apply to the many various platforms, not just NIF, dependign on the specific reasoning being used. So they may not be the best argument to be made unless the position being taken is to advocate shutting down many or all those platforms supported by NNSA.
But if science is to be the new sole mission objective of NIF, then it needs to learn to survive on a greatly curtailed budget and be managed out of DoE.
So the Z machine has nothing to do with fusion?
And ITER is 20 years away from beginning fusion experiments.
So NIF is the only device in the world that can study this regime, and has no competition for the rest of my life.
If studying contained fusion leading to breakeven is the objective, NIF, then, is the only game in town?
A question.
"So NIF is the only device in the world that can study this regime, and has no competition for the rest of my life."
If studying this regime was the sole goal than much cheaper devices and approaches could and can be done.
A statement.
NIF will not work because of a fundamental error in extrapolating Halite-Centurion data to thin capsules. 10MJ would be needed but his is at least an order of magnitude higher than what NIF can provide. Z (and its Russian equivalent baikal) are fully scaleable and have demonstrated mastery of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities and do not suffer from NIF's mix problems. Both are very inexpensive comared to NIF. So watch out for Z.
Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community".
Now there's a guy we should listen to. A guy that got married on top of the Sudan Crater at NTS to another weapon designer (her highness), spending their honeymoon at the NTS in separate dorms.
Upgrading Z for the purpose of pursuing ignition would require a huge hit on other programs. But even if they hit new unanticipated technical issues as NIF did, they can still pursue SNM properties as the capability and expertise exists there to handle those types of experiments.
It must be pretty harsh at LLNL to be forced to rely on only non programmatically relevant arguments. But this is all self-inflicted pay-back.
" If studying this regime was the sole goal than much cheaper devices and approaches could and can be done..."
something else has the likelyhood of achieving scientific breakeven before NIF and then ITER?
"something else has the likelyhood of achieving scientific breakeven before NIF and then ITER?"
Well if you think about it. If the "regime" of failure which was not the goal of NIF or ITER, was the main goal of what you wanted to study, than ya I think a number of existing devices could be modified to do that better or a new one could be made that is far cheaper. The "regime of failure" or whatever your version of the the "regime" as you keep saying over and over again was not nor was ever the goal nor the actual regime that was meant to be studied. By the way ITER is really a different thing altogether from NIF so what is your point anyway or are you just trying to show that you are clueless.
.....Alight you win NIF is the best thing ever, give it money for 20 years or as long as poster 6.43PM is working. They are the best ya ya ya pure science, study the regime, exciting times, ship going to a Mexico port, it is all true and it is all yours.
You haven't answered the question, nor even tried.
Is there an operational alternative for observing controlled nuclear fusion approaching the breakeven point other than NIF? Is another on the horizon sooner than ITER in 2025-2030?
I am not aware of another one in progress or in the mind of men that can be begin experiments before 2030.
So this country commits 500-1000 manyears per year of its 100 million man labor force and over the next decade completes the path we started down.
The near term is clearer, farther down the path is terra obscura, but in the end, the science will be clearer.
And no, to keep the chaff down, I haven't worked on NIF or for LLNL for years and I don't speak for LLNL.
The content of this post stands on its own dubious merit.
"...Los Alamos physicist Rod Schultz wrote in a lab publication that NIF's touted importance to the weapons stockpile does "not reflect the technical judgment of the nuclear weapons design community..'.
Taking the longer view, the scientific programmes at both weapons design labs allow the gestation of "Rod Schultzes", who ARE the most important long-term element of the weapons stockpile.
Even if they can't see it unless they look in the mirror.
Too that point, as I approached the end of my tenure, I was troubled that I had not done enough to pass on the key knowledge, to prepare the next generation to take over.
Fortunately, my oversight is corrected by the fabulous talent that was developed in the design and execution of NIF, where ordinary men were forged into technical experts by the challenges they overcame. That kind of career forming event happens once to twice in a lifetime, an now the country will benefit from 500 - 1000 technical masters for the next 20 -30 years.
A fabulous spinoff that may dwarf the scientific benefits.
Technical masters trained to perform science with blinders on and to think in terms of simulation first, reality second. We shall coin a new term for those. We will call them "scienticians."
Keep fooling yourself dude. You didn't facilitate the creation of a generation of great minds. You are just playing the game and trying to find ways to pat yourself on the back even in light of all of the lies and disgraceful behavior. Don't try to make yourself appear better than anyone else currently or formerly in the game. You will be forgotten.
All of these issues raised about NIF is all part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by Sandia and other minor actors like PNNL, LBL, Argonne and others to promote their agendas by actively engaging in a smear campaign against NIF management. It would not surprise me if they were engaged in illegal activities to purposefully fabricate their own scientific data to prop themselves while also sabotaging and poisoning NIF experiments. I think the FBI needs to be brought into this matter. NNSA is a stacked deck of personalities all of whom are intellectually dishonest and all of whom are willfully engaged in lies and deceit to do anything and everything they can to make NIF fail, all the while gushing praise to the program when the media spotlight is turned on. You all need to know the truth, that it IS a conspiracy likely orchestrated by the oil and nuclear power industries. The reason why NIF failed to reach ignition is that NNSA is actively sabotaging the experiments. That is why we need to keep them out of our business and that is why we are seeking less oversight. If not, then we cannot take any responsibilities for any of the problems or failures in the future since they are all out of our control and we were not given any power to mitigate against NNSA manipulations.
If NIF could be operated on 75-100/year, while still a huge amount, I can easily see support for it. This tells you that the argument against NIF is not based on the merits of the benefit, but rather those benefits compared to the cost. So why NIF does not articulate its position in these terms really baffles me. Why they keep going on and on about the Nobel prize, pilot plant reactors, and these so-called higher pursuits without any consideration of the cost element? All of these supportive arguments that just focus on the lofy ideals of science is really just part of a very simple con strategy supported by a PR campaign to get alot of money with no accountability to justify the cost. And further, these NIF support arguments aren't even technical. They are more "faith-based" than anything.
NIF had it their way for many years, and now we have had a huge failure. It does not make any sense to give them a second chance, since nothing has truly changed, and they still continue to play the PR con game. 1kJ yield from neutrons just from the compression tells you how far off they are from reality. The fact that they say they are "tantalizingly close" tells you that there is a con in play.
A: NIF is the closest to reaching ignition do we need to keep funding.
B: Evidence suggests that NIF is far off and the alpha heating milestone failure and the persistently low neutron yields support that.
A: But there is great science to be discovered by NIF in conditions not replicated in any other facility and there is no other alternative.
B: Z is making progress in it's ignition strategy and it is an alternative. Plus it is a proven platform for programmatic mission experiments. Plus it's a better value based on cost, and mission work is not at risk.
A: But NIF is already built, and it works.
B: Z is built, it works, it delivers both scientifically and programmatically, it is scalable, and the technology exists and is mature for the next upgrade.
A But NIF will produce a small star. We can easily imagine one or two Nobel prized emerging out of NIF.
This is a kind of prototype aggregated dialog after removing the obvious deceptions. You can clearly see that one is supported on the basis of delivery and value while the other is based on hope, faith and PR. NIF is unable to make a convincing value based case and must rely upon its technical reviewers statements about the merits of the science while unable to address any of the programmatic irrelevance problems nor the high cost elements. And on a comparative base, arguments in support of NIF are weak at best. The reliance on the fact that it is built and that it works is an insult to many people working on even more complex projects in both the public and private sector.
Back in the day LLNL management routinely showed slides to nnsa behind closed doors showing slides comparing the two for the purpose of making a claim that Z should be shut down. There were many suspect claims being made. Some were clearly intentional lies and misrepresentations. Now that the issue is out in the open, we see what arguments withstand scrutiny and what is just PR.
Yeah Bruce is a naughty boy. A smart and likeable guy too... But sometimes veeeerrry naughty.
This nonsense about the thin shell strategy can't be left unchallenged. There is no issues regarding the thin shell capsule and it's role in recent isues in pursuing ignition. In fact, the capsule shells should be made thinner and the technology to make them so exists. People here are willing to lie and make up things just to further agendas. The fact that you make a certain reference shows that you should be put in jail and are therefore likely to be a criminal whose words cannot be trusted. NIF is tantalizingly close to ignition and this is not only the truth but it's a very conservative assessment. Any day now, you will see, and you will be made to eat your words. That will be the death knell for Z and all NIF naysayers. You will have been shown how inadequate you are in terms of intellectual capacity most likely due to a pitiful upbringing, adolescent drug use, or whatever excuse you use to explain your numerous failures in life. Your pent up bitterness and frustration should be aimed somewhere else. Stop trying to tear down our people who are without argument the very best and brightest scientific minds on the planet. Maybe if you went back to school, or finally treated your adult ADHD, maybe you can be a more productive contributor to society and the human race. NIF is about the big picture. It goes beyond any selfish motivation. If you can't understand that, then there is no way you could comprehend, let alone contribute to any conversation around the topic. 1.8 MJ is all we need and not a joule more. All evidence points to a non-model related discrepancy that has a complex interaction with the models themselves. So once the engineering and materials issues are identified, they will be corrected and the experiments will agree with the simulations. Your puny brain and lack of capacity could never have made any such deduction geared to problem solving at this level of complexity. These blanket assertions about how NIF won'worm reach ignition are all based on agenda driven actors who have pre-determined their favorable outcome and made every effort to make their fantasy a reality, even going so far as to lie and manipulate. You probably for your degrees by going over the Mexico border in pay-for-PhD accelerated degree programs. It is no wonder why there is so much misinformation by people who are clearly not knowledgeable about NIF. Your best bet though is to just turn on the cable tv and watch the animal planet channel or whatever programming that your brain is most compatible with, and just stay there. Stop going on the Internet. You are too easy a target against your intellectual superiors like ourselves. You are do stupid that we may even end up stealing your SSN and credit card numbers. Stick to cable tv. That is the best bet for many of you people.
October 18, 2012 4:33 PM
Breathe buddy breathe.....
October 18, 2012 4:33 PM
And Osama Lives! Allah should smite all NIF naysayers! "You are too easy a target against your intellectual superiors like ourselves. You are do stupid that we may even end up stealing your SSN and credit card numbers." Yeah, that's a really convincing logical argument. Nice parody - but don't quit your day job - if you have one.
October 18, 2012 8:10 AM
I agree the race of Ubermensch created by NIF could not done anywhere or for such small cost as was done in NIF. This will be NIF's legacy, these simple ordinary men transformed into the super 12 sigma tech masters of the world with skills like no others, and work ethic second to none. They are the agents of transformative science that we are all stake holders of now. They have created a machine...A MACHINE...the likes of which are planet has never seen. If other life forms view earth and see NIF they will know just what humanity is capable of.
NIF no longer is a physics platform for scientists but a socio-political anti-Islamic platform. First step before it's dismantlement.
Animal Planet has some fairly decent programming.
Why are their neutron yields still so low? Did they stop trying out cluges and fixes for ignition, and are just doing programmatic/EoS shots?
Indeed thin capsules can be made... but using them exposes to more Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities. Either you have the power (Centurion-Halite or Z) or like NIF you struggle.
Also there is the problem of the NIF geometry; simulated Raman scattering is a significant problem. Remember that the Lawson criteria is density, temperature and time. Illuminate for a long time and wall-created plasma stands in the way of more laser energy. Yes you can do pulse shaping but you struggle.
NIF is at the end of its power roadmap; Z can scale to dozens of MJ. Guess who will achieve breakeven first?
So Z can do near breakeven fusion with Pu now? How?
Like an H bomb? Fission initiation driving a D/T fuel?
How does this help the clean nuclear power development? Fission already is mature, and well-controlled but has long-lived decay products.
It is difficult on a blog to get more substance than grafitti.
"October 24, 2012 9:37 PM"
Say what you want about graffiti but history has shown time and time again that graffiti is usually the truth bubbling through. You might want to try another analogy to make your point. Also it is graffiti not grafitti.
Pu has to do with material properties, not fusion. The original poster was making the point that z can do experiments on Pu because similar experiments cannot currently be done on NIF.
It sounds like someone is simply trolling.
So then z has little to do with controlled thermonuclear fusion research?
Please be clear. The question has been berated a few times, but not answered clearly.
And therefore, if the scientific objective is to advance the study of controlled thermonuclear research approaching or achieving scientific breakeven, NIF is the only available instrument. Followed by ITER which may become available in 2025 after an international investment of five times what is already paid for in NIF.
The solution is self-evident to those who employ reason in decision making
There is a separate effort on the z platform to investigate fusion research. You can see in the NNSA budget request that the ignition campaign includes Sandia(Z) and omega, not just NIF. NIF has not proven that it can reach ignition. Garwin is part of that conversation. One gets better insights by listening to him than to any of us anonymous troll bloggers.
The NIF bubble will burst if they do not get ignition in a few months. Expectations fatigue is setting in, and seeing no increase in neutron yield (in fact alot of what they try to do to correct the problems decreases the yield) is contributing to that fatigue. Though you can be certain to keep hearing more pleas for time since the science behind the failure has yet to be completed, yadda yadda yadda. But the GAO report correctly alludes to problems related to management and oversight and so there is no point in performing an investigation if behavioral biases are intentionally being built into the process.
There is also fatigue about the use of the argument that the machine is state of the art and that it works. You can only set the bar one notch lower before you have to conclude that the project was failure whose lessons learned were not proportional to the cost. Alpha heating milestone failure is what is called a "show stopper.". Dude, that's gotta really suck to have to swallow a bitter pill like that, especially after all that irrational exuberance from past years.
"And therefore, if the scientific objective is to advance the study of controlled thermonuclear research approaching or achieving scientific breakeven, NIF is the only available instrument. Followed by ITER which may become available in 2025 after an international investment of five times what is already paid for in NIF.
The solution is self-evident to those who employ reason in decision making
October 25, 2012 12:30 PM"
That was not scientific objective so your point is mute.
Centurion Halite said 10MJ, which would you bet on?
NIF @ 1.8MJ in 2012 or Z @ 3MJ in 2007 and in the initial phase of testing 3 significant improvements.
Even if Z does not achieve breakeven in 2013, it can easily scale x8 for a fraction of the cost of either NIF or ITER.
"October 26, 2012 5:42 AM"
The real legacy of NIF will be how it turned 500 ordinary people to beyond expert scientists, techs and engineers. Can Z or any other current scientific endeavor say anything close to this? Gentlemen, explore the realm, much treasure awaits.
That was not scientific objective so your point is mute.
October 25, 2012 9:42 PM
I think you meant "moot."
Anonymous said...
That was not scientific objective so your point is mute.
October 25, 2012 9:42 PM
I think you meant "moot."
October 26, 2012 9:45 AM
Works either way --
6:22 AM is trying to use the NIF workers as a human shield to deflect technical and management criticisms towards the employees to make it look like the attacks are assaults against them instead. Nice try and bad argument. Plus many of your "top scientists" are apparently not very capable of applying deductive logic.
Centurion Halite said 10MJ, which would you bet on?
NIF @ 1.8MJ in 2012 or Z @ 3MJ in 2007 and in the initial phase of testing 3 significant improvements.
Even if Z does not achieve breakeven in 2013, it can easily scale x8 for a fraction of the cost of either NIF or ITER.
October 26, 2012 5:42 AM
Another "back of of the envelope" scaling calculation similar to the way NIF was designed. Unfortunately, Congress took the line-and-sinker on this "disaster".
As much as we beat up on NIF (and rightly so), that project looks like an angel in comparison with the Y-12 and Los Alamos radiological release fiascos. We need to keep the pressure on, demanding better accountability and transparency, and better management practices. Whatever the outcome, it will be better for all.
The few top caliber scientists at NIF were top caliber to begin with. What the project has given people is experience. But it takes more than experience to solve scientific problems that are shrouded with so much uncertainty. It takes brilliant people to put all the disparate pieces of information together. And those people have to be brilliant to begin with. NIF did not create those people. The experience provided by NIF is only of limited value compared with what is actually needed to solve such hard problems.
objective so your point is mute.
that's moot. As in mooted. Look it up Cicero.
Thanks for the clarification. Now get back to your important NIF work. Stop messing around on blogspot while on the taxpayer's dime.
Grammar Nazi
Upon receiving my clearance I never did fulfill my self-made-promise to immediately read the classified Centurion Halite (CH) reports. I had by then chosen a different National Lab Division for my physics career. Can anyone answer the following without an agenda, bias, angry attitude, and so on, as to whether the underground CH, ICF-related tests partly justified the large step from NOVA to NIF, without an intermediate-sized laser facility? An intelligently-written response with as many unclassified details as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.
Give a call to Richard Garwin and say that Ed sent you.
No no, just call Ed, go straight to the horse's mouth.
So in summary.
NIF is operational at LLNL, with $3B invested over 10 years, now employing a highly capable team investigating the key topics related to controlled inertial fusion. Opponents assert the key model is flawed. Based on their interpretation of UG test data, more power is required than NIF can reasonably be expanded to. They suggest cancelling the current investigation on this premise rather than completing it.
It has been suggested here, as an alternative, that a current machine at the competing national lab, LANL, called Z, can be modeled, validated, scaled up and reconfigured to achieve the required power levels and target configuration and diagnosics to achieve current controlled inertial fusion scaling to breakeven, faster, better and cheaper than continuing with NIF. The current NIF funds should be shifted to this effort, which has less risk than continuing NIF.
Is this a correctly and fairly stated summary of this thread?
Z is a Sandia platform
yeah Z is a facility at Sandia, not LANL. They have a website with photos and details.
Some may argue Z has less risk but that is not yet settled (for reaching ignition). Ignition on both platforms are moonshots. Each faces different and somewhat unique challenges. Both platforms would need expensive upgrades in the future, with Z claiming to be more readily scalable and at a lower cost, while NIF suggesting that they are closer to ignition. Part of the argument is regarding comparisons of what capability NNSA has with each platform assuming continued (expensive) funding. One can reach higher pressures whle the other can handle special nuclear materials. This can delineate the kind of programmatically relevant experiments that can be done in support of the stockpile.
Talk to Garwin if he's got the time to talk to you.
I'm not sure whether the "shift of funding" part of your summary is fully solidified yet. You have to remember that it hasn't been a clear-cut either-or argument. The National Ignition Campaign (look on google, for NIC, national ignition campaign) has set funding and milestones for work on NIF, Rochester, Sandia Z, and I think minor amounts to other labs). Suggestions of cancelling opposing programs is mostly bluster, posturing and anonymous sniping. It reflects thinking by some, though there are many other factors involved.
I thought Lindl was one of the main architects of the technical justification for the current NIF design. You might be able to piece some of that together by examining all the NIF related technical review documents that have been released over the past decade. Or you might just contact him and ask.
Just be careful. If you maintain a clearance, and you bring up a certain experiment in the wrong environment, and in a context which questions NIF, you will face severe retaliation and consequences. But if you loosely throw things around that are supportive, they will turn a blind eye. That's actually happened in the past.
One can reach higher pressures whle the other can handle special nuclear materials...
A question from a civilian. What does SNM have to do with achieving controlled thermonuclear fusion energy production?
Since NIF is operational with ongoing investigations, and an upgrade of Z to become a breakeven-scale experimental facility would involve a preparation period, from modeling and conceptual design, funding, Title I-III, commissioning, diagnostic validation and operations, that might take up to 10 years from today.
So is it also likely that with a head start of perhaps 5 - 10 years, that NIF will complete it's investigations sooner than an thermonuclear fusion breakeven demonstration on an upgraded Z?
A reminder that details of stockpile stewardship experiments are verboten. Ergo, SNM topics are questionable.
But controlled thermonuclear fusion topics are fair game, since they are so unlikely in our lifetimes as to be philosophy or fetish as much as observable science, hence not worthy of classification.
Might as well classify angels.
Equation of state of materials, including SNM is one of the things sought out in high compression experiments. Materials properties under these conditions can be determined on such a number of NNSA platforms. NIF and Z are both used to compress materials to high pressures. Note that these particular experiments have little to do with ignition goals.
My understanding is that Z was originally built for other goals, but Sandia, led by the work of Jim Asay and many Sandians and non-Sandians, were able to demonstrate the ability to also perform, on Z, material compression experiments to generate data for equation of state. Constitutive material data is used to feed codes that support stockpile stewardship, and better data in regimes before not measurable.
Z had undergone an upgrade, and now has enhanced capabilities. Likewise, NIF experiments can also compress materials, with diagnostics to pull out material properties.
One of the things that can be done to reduce costs significantly is to cut out much of the work (and shot allocations) that go towards equation of state. While at first, one may wonder why NNSA would accept elimination of work that most directly supports its programmatic mission, it may make sense in the end. Laser and Omega EOS work is of limited value since other platforms can do the same experiments with better control for much less cost. There is little credible evidence to show that the technical background and capability of the the team and leadership behind the Laser based EOS shots can produce the kinds of high quality technical output to match the amount of funding to support that work. However, the technical analytical capability to support plasma, hydrodynamics and astrophysics based research is very mature and most capable of producing the kinds of technical and scientific contributions expected of a large scientific project. Restricting the technical/labor costs to those areas, plus the operational cost of the facility would provide a fairly sizeable reduction in overall cost. Equation of State related work can be picked up by other facilities already capable of performing that work.
This strategy would allow NIF to perform the science, at a reduced cost, to examine the technical difficulties behind ICF, and to begin to perform technical feasibility and engineering reliability studies for potentual upgrade options. I've always been someone skeptical about the value of the EoS work overall (not just on NIF). However, funding for Laser EOS could be reinstated if there are improvements in the budgetary environment in the future.
I am assuming that you meant to include strength measurement efforts as part of the EoS standdown. Very interesting idea. Counterintuitive at first thought, but it clearly leverages the strengths and work of very highly regarded plasma physicists and such. Even the Trivelpiece and JASONs reviews appear to be compatible with such an approach.
Well it's common sense, if you gotta spend alot of hard earned money, you spend it on the A-team. No real new idea here. Thought that's what theyd be doin anyways
Yeah they should drop Laser EOS and Strength. They are not the technical leaders in the field by any stretch of the imagination. In fact some of the work out of LLNL in these areas is baffling. At first I thought that the scientific review process is showing its failures in not stopping some significantly shoddy analyses from getting into peer-reviewed technical journals. Then I thought that leaders in the field are intentionally keeping mum, to let the fraudsters show their true colors. Mind boggling.
EoS and strength are such minor parts of the budget, so you would have to scale down in other ways. I'm not sure how you would do that, since ongoing costs don't simply scale with the number of shots. It is a very well known fact that the EoS and Strength technical capability there lacks credibility. But the stakes are so small, so long as they don't keep making embarrassments of themselves as they have in the past. Having people guiding experiments but who have no substantial publication record to demonstrate their ability to lead experimental efforts should give you a significant amount of ammunition to question their program as a whole.
Post a Comment