Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fusion Reportthat there has been significant progresstoward harnessing inertial fusionas an energy source, and that thisprogram, along with the mainlinemagnetic confinement effort, shouldbe vigorously pursued as an essentialnational security goal.Metz begins by stating that the laserfusion program "has suffered a numberof setbacks . . . and the programis falling out of favor in some quartersof Washington." The facts are that the"setbacks" are largely the result ofschedule changes forced by inflation'sincreasing bite on the budget, andthat the "disfavor" is coming fromthose forces, like Metz, who don't seethe need for new high-technologyenergy sources and want to makelaser fusion military only. "Developmentof basic laser technology 'is amilitary program and it always hasbeen,' " Metz quotes one such sourceas saying.The other arguments Metz marshalsare that the leading pioneers of inertialconfinement research, EdwardTeller and Hans Bethe, feel that it hasalways been technically unfeasible asan energy source; that the largeamounts of radioactive debris fromthe "burned-up" fusion pellets wouldlead to a significant waste disposalproblem; and that coupling the energyfrom the laser beams into thefusion pellet to produce the compressionsneeded for net fusion energygeneration has not been accomplishedas promised.His conclusion is that laser fusionprograms such as that maintained bywhat he calls the "brash Californiaweapons facility, the Lawrence LivermoreLaboratory" (the leading U.S.inertial fusion research facility),should be returned "to the veiledworld of classical research from whichit originated" —in other words, classifiedresearch. Metz also all butopenly states that the top laser fusionscientists lied about their efforts toapply inertial confinement techniquesto the search for peaceful energysources in order to draw both fundsand bright young scientists into weaponsresearch.Far from being interested in expandingtheir "veiled world" ofFigure 2The most recent review of inertial confinement fusion, that by the director ofthe DOE inertial confinement program, Dr. Gregory H. Canavan, appeared inthe March-April 7987 Fusion. Nova 2, the upgrade of the Shiva laser to higherpower levels, is now predicted to go beyond breakeven in the mid-1980s. Ifnot for inflation, Nova would have reached this goal in the early 1980s.secret-military research, fusion scientistsat the national laboratories ofLawrence Livermore and Los Alamossince the beginning of the ManhattanProject have been primarily concernedwith the peaceful applicationof their scientific work.Some Real HistoryHistorically, the antiscience factionthat has classified scientific researchhas also continuously fought to preventthe development of nuclear fissionand fusion energy because theseconflict with their aim of retardingworld development. If not for thesuccess of this faction, fusion couldbe used today in the form of peacefulnuclear explosives to build canals,harbors, dams, and reservoirs, or tomine low grade ore deposits, enhancethe recovery of oil and natural gas,and retort oil shale in situ. Replacingthe fission bomb with an intensebeam of light or particles will providethe basis for the development of cleanhydrogen bombs for peaceful andmilitary purposes as well as for a newtype of inertial fusion energy.In the early 1970s, the inertial fusionpioneers won a major struggle to obtainsignificant declassification of inertialresearch and concepts to initiatethis primarily energy-directed effort.One result of this declassification wasthe publication in 1972 of a comprehensivearticle on laser fusion publishedin Nature (Vol. 239, p. 139, Sept.15) that is universally recognized asthe first general overview of laser fusionby supercompression.Here's what Metz says: "In the firstmajor publication after secrecy waslifted in 1972, two scientists fromLivermore, John Nuckolls and LowellWood, projected that breakevenlevelexperiments would occur during1973 and the next step, net energyproduction, would occur 'sometimearound 1975.' "In fact, the Nuckolls-Wood articledoes not give specific dates for predictingwhen "breakeven" or "energyproduction" would be achieved. Itdoes point to the possiblility that aslittle as 1 kilojoule of light energy maybe sufficient to generate an equal18 FUSION October-November 1981 Fusion Report
quantity of thermonuclear energy, "ifoptimally employed."The real yardstick in terms of measuringthe consistency of projectionsfor fusion research is to be found interms of what is predicted for the finalparameters of a power reactor. Nuckollsand Wood state: "Thermonuclearmicroexplosions producing on theorder of 10 7 to 10 9 (5 to 10 poundsTNT equivalent) are suitable for commercialpower production. . . . L[aserenergy] = 10 6 J." The latest laser fusionreactor designs, which consist of detailedstudies, project laser energiesof about 2 X 10 6 joules, and similartypes of pellet gains of 50 to 100.Bending FactsFurthermore, contrary to whatMetz reports, the inertial fusion programhas been able to stay prettymuch on schedule, despite majorbudget curtailments and numerousnew scientific problems. Efficientcoupling of laser energy to pellets hasbeen achieved for both the classifiedsoft X-ray and the unclassified directbeam approaches. Also, researchershave reached isentropic compression(that with no entropy change) of upto 100 times liquid density.The accompanying figures give theprojected status of the mainline inertialfusion program for 1976 and1981. The projection in Figure 1 waspresented to Congress in March 1976by Dr. John L. Emmett, director of theLivermore Laser Program. The resultspredicted for the Shiva laser havebeen achieved. The projections inFigure 2 are from the most recentlypublished review of the inertial fusionprogram, that of Dr. Gregory H. Canavanin the March-April 1981 issue ofFusion. As can be seen, Nova 2, theupgrade of the Shiva laser to higherpower levels, is predicted to go beyondbreakeven when completed inthe mid-1980s. The change in the projectiondate from the early-1980s isprimarily the result of inflation slowingdown construction.As for Metz's negative statementsabout the practicality of laser fusionreactor designs, Metz quotes not oneof the scores of detailed studies thathave been carried out over the pastdecade. The waste question, furthermore,is entirely spurious, since theamounts involved are small, and thetechnologies for waste exist today.And Teller and Bethe are both onrecord supporting a fusion-fission hybridsystem and have stated that thiscould be accomplished in a decade.As Fusion has consistently reported,it would be false to say that there areno basic scientific or technologicalquestions still to be answered in inertialconfinement research. In fact,the opposite is the case for inertial aswell as magnetic confinement. As fusionresearch has progressed over thepast decade, the number of unansweredbasic scientific questions hasincreased.This in no way undermines the contentionthat practical forms of fusionenergy generation can be confidentlypredicted as being within our grasptoday. The open-endedness of thescientific questions raised by fusionand plasma physics research actuallypoints to fusion's most attractive attribute:It can be continuously perfectedto more and more advancedforms of cheaper, cleaner, and moreefficient energy generation.Leading scientists and governmentprogram administrators have allegedthat the Science article may have beenthe product of direct collusion betweenMetz and the antiscienceforces who want to classify advancedscience and contain the kind ofbreakthrough developments thatwould permit economic and populationgrowth. Given the role of Metz'sprevious articles in Science that attackedthe magnetic fusion programat the same time that former secretaryof energy James Schlesinger wastrying to kill the program, such collusionwould not be surprising.It is also probable that the antifusioncampaign, including Metz's article,intends to impugn the credibilityof the inertial confinement scientistswithin the new Reagan administrationwho have an influential voice on crucialmilitary and technology decisions.—Charles B. StevensClassifyingScientific Progress:A Case ExampleThis exchange of letters is a recentcase example that demonstrates thechilling effect of classification on theadvancement of science and technology.Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of theUniversity of Nevada's Desert ResearchInstitute in Reno proposed ina Dec. 2, 1980 letter to the Departmentof Energy Office of Inertial Fusiondirector, Gregory H. Canavan,that the DOE undertake a new andeconomical method to test inertialconfinement. His letter and Canavan'sFeb. 20, 1981 reply appear here in full.* * *Dear Dr. Canavan:The most critical question regardingthe feasibility of beam induced ICF[inertial confinement fusion] is not somuch the feasibility of the laser oraccelerator technology but the feasibilityof the high-density pelletcompression. Many scientists, like Dr.Teller (but also myself), feel uneasyabout the prospect to reach ~ 10 3times solid density by ablative implosion.But since the cost of the requiredlaser or particle beam accel-Fusion ReportOctober-November 1981FUSION 19
Page 4 and 5: FeaturesCourtesy of Adolf BusemannS
Page 6 and 7: The Current Strategic DebateThe deb
Page 8: Lightning RodContinued from page 5t
Page 11 and 12: on development of deductive reasoni
Page 13 and 14: IQ of 145 andCan't Remember?In just
Page 15 and 16: spent fuel specified in the 1963 ac
Page 17 and 18: Special ReportRestoring Scientific
Page 19: Fusion Reporttional reforms institu
Page 23 and 24: DOE Stalls on FED;Bouquard Reconven
Page 25 and 26: Shiva laser target chamber. A needl
Page 27 and 28: The Shiva-Nova laser at LawrenceLiv
Page 29 and 30: It is not hard to show, on the othe
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2COMPUTER SIMULATION OF ISEN
Page 33 and 34: sion schemes by noting, as pointed
Page 35 and 36: An Interview withAdolfBusemannBriti
Page 37 and 38: Courtesy of Adolf BusemannThe semin
Page 39 and 40: I had the Busemann biplane. The ide
Page 41 and 42: The similar solution was, I had no
Page 43 and 44: Question: In some of the research I
Page 45 and 46: SecretA firsthand account of the 19
Page 47 and 48: Fusion has argued that the real iss
Page 49 and 50: InternationalLaunch of Ariane Rocke
Page 51 and 52: A (our group sponsored by the CCT t
Page 53 and 54: Inside EnergyNatural Gas:Our Barely
Page 55 and 56: ter, spring water runoff, and manyo
Page 57 and 58: or even to the outer limit of the s
Page 59 and 60: public has achieved importance in t
Page 61 and 62: Houston Spaceweek Conf.Refutes 'Lim
Page 63 and 64: ommends continuing the small Europe
Page 65 and 66: How can we assurethat there will be
Page 67 and 68: What would you give to learn a seco

Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?