The ITER

Letters and Feedback

 

Eugene Sittampalam

 

Updated 9 August 2006


 

From a recent letter of mine to the Joint European Torus (JET) directorate, the following lines may be worthy of special note here first.

 

 

 

The JET tokamak today is the best testing ground for understanding the physics and technologies necessary for the eventual ITER.

As such, I shall gladly contribute US$25,000/- upfront for a simple half-day, yet a highly crucial, test that I have proposed in The ITER Test.

The payment will be made without publicity. The lab may, of course, go public with the test results.

 

 

 


 

The test request was also extended to the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA).

In web forms and e-mails between 23 March and 2 April 2006, the letters were, in essence, as follows.

 

 

To:             huoyuping@163.com, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, predh@yahoo.com, mori@naka.jaeri.go.jp, gslee@kbsi.re.kr,

                   belyakov@niiefa.spb.ru, sauthoff@pppl.gov

Cc:             mark.westra@efda.org, spearsw@itereu.de

Subject:      ITER viability

 

Dr. Huo Yuping, China

Dr. M. Gasparotto, Europe

Dr. P. Kaw, India

Dr. M. Mori, Japan

Dr. Gyung-Su Lee, Korea

Dr. V.A.Belyakov, Russian Federation, and 

Dr. N. Sauthoff, USA

Participant Team Leaders, EFDA

 

Dear Learned Team Leaders,

Feasibility of fusion power

Nothing can be more convincing here than a down-to-earth test of the underlying theory – especially in light of disturbing findings in a related field since fusion research got under way over a half century ago. Removing blinkers, do kindly access for perusal The ITER Test, where I have outlined that test. It's a simple and low-cost one that could be carried out in existing facilities. (I am an engineering consultant by profession, having also worked for some leading US-based international project management consultancies in the past; Discover April 2002, pp 66-71, has a feature on my research work and includes a short biography.)

 

Proponents or critics, we are but an insignificant number even banded together; but we, who are more in the know of the subject, owe such a final test and review to that less enlightened and unwary majority, the paying public. It becomes even an ethically pressing need when vested interest tries to gloss over the fact that not even a single experiment so far has come anywhere near breakeven point for fusion-energy viability.

 

The personal offer of US$25,000 in advance toward the test cost, sans publicity, is also a token of my sincerity. On your part, the test would serve as token of the EFDA’s own sincerity and transparency to the paying public.

Your early response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eugene Sittampalam

www.sittampalam.net

 

 

 


It was indeed heartening to receive a “non-negative” response though from just one of the above leaders, a top plasma physicist with hands-on experience with fusion reactors for the past several years (not to mention his other impressive credentials).

A series of useful exchanges ensued daily for a week. Lines of note from my end of the correspondence may be summarized as follows.

(Lines from the other end may not be proper here without the esteemed gentleman’s consent.)


 

 

 

(1)   Tritium. We now take for granted the fuel particles to remain stable till fusion time (as gasoline molecules would until ignition); that is, for instance, the half-life of the radioactive T to be unaffected during its sojourn through the harsh interior of the tokamak. However, observations elsewhere in the field reveal half-lives to generally drop exponentially in extremely violent atmospheres. In other words, the T half-life of 12.4 years could plummet even to seconds in the tokamak

 

To rule out this premature depletion, the JET today could check out for any undue amounts of the more stable isobar, He-3, that would result in the decay of T.

 

He-3 and electrons produced in the decay of T would go only to drain off energy, contaminate the plasma, and damp out any envisaged plasma burn. Increasing the size of the reactor, as in the ITER, would only compound the problem, making the key issue of self-sustained burn only an ever-receding target.

 

(2)   Deuterium. The neutron flux that you find to be in agreement with theory need not necessarily be from the expected fusion of D and T (that is, to He-4 and neutrons). Part of the neutrons could well be from the dissociation of D itself and even of the He-3 from (1) due to the propounded intrinsic property of multi-nucleonic nuclei.

 

The above two concerns could be addressed with the proposed test, which shouldn't take more than a day at the JET.

 

Finally, considering your time, it would be most understandable should you cease further communication with me. However, if you find the suggested test to be reasonable, I shall gladly make available that US$25,000 to any lab that you would care to suggest. (The funds are now in National Savings in the UK and can be withdrawn in a matter of days.)

 

 

 


 

Letter to President Bush

 


 

 

 

To:             president@whitehouse.gov
Cc:             abement@nsf.gov, mturner@nsf.gov, science_editors@aaas.org, nature@nature.com
Subject:      Fwd: The ITER Project
Date:          Apr 25, 2006 12:22 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Calls for Major New Spending on Basic Research and Energy

State of the Union address proposes doubling some basic research, new education, and energy initiatives
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/201/1?etoc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physics fights back

The physical sciences are strongly favoured in President Bush's 2007 budget request – but researchers can't count their chickens yet

http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eWsb0J4QDd0Ch0uXC0E8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


President George W Bush
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr President:
It was encouraging to read of your "serious national commitment to a future science-based economy," as Dr Alan Leshner put it. However, on this exemplary pathway, in particular, one has to be even more vigilant to avoid waste. Today, there is a dire need in the science mainstream for a deeper and coordinated understanding of the atomic nucleus; and a modern form of the Tower of Babel is rising in southern France to manifest this benightedness, to which US funds, too, are being diverted. Kindly accept also the forwarded for more on this unfortunate turn of events, which still could be checked by your great office by reason and fair play with regard to the "outside" and unfunded research findings of mine that would also transpire below.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam

PS: As mentioned below, the signed hardcopy was rushed to Dr Bodman by FedEx on the 18th; it was received there on the 21st.

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------


To:             The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov
Cc:             James.Decker@science.doe.gov, David.Garman@hq.doe.gov, Michael.Richard@hq.doe.gov, Richard.Burrow@hq.doe.gov,

                   prl@aps.org
Subject:      The ITER Project
Date:          Apr 17, 2006 1:47 PM

Dr Samuel W Bodman
The Secretary
Department of Energy
Washington, DC

Dear Dr Bodman,
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) – An Urgent Appeal For One Final Review
With the advent of the heavy-ion storage ring at Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI), Darmstadt, Germany, detailed study of atomic nuclei lifetimes has become possible. Hard evidence that has since emerged from this facility, the only one of its kind today, casts serious doubts, to say the least, on the very fundamentals of conventional fusion power theory. The findings are reported in none other than mainstream journals par excellence, such as the American Physical Society's own Physical Review Letters. Endorsements by the equally reputed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) naturally follow for inclusion in their computer-based Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF). Apparently, these disturbing empirical facts concerning fuel stability under harsh environmental conditions are yet to draw the attention of the ITER sponsors. Since a review here by DOE will be second to none internationally, a timely action from you in the new light could benefit all the funding agencies, not to mention the paying public.

For the convenience of those like you in high office with little time to address individual public concerns, I have compiled the facts and proposed a test in a short paper,
The ITER Test (http://www.sittampalam.net/ITER.Test.htm). Do kindly access it for perusal; it would take only a few minutes to get the overall picture of even what's really at stake here – the credibility of basic physics research today in general. I can assure you the ramifications will be literally cosmic!

The ITER Project is just the tip of the iceberg; yet its proposed US$12-billion edifice, if completed, would go only to serve an entirely different purpose, as – The Tower of Babel of Twentieth-Century Physics. A timely final review is the need of the hour to avert this embarrassment to all concerned. I shall be glad to clarify anything further on the subject, even in person on short notice. (I am an engineering consultant by profession, having also worked for some leading US-based international project management consultancies in the past; Discover April 2002, pp 66-71, has a feature on my research and includes a short biography; I hold a Canadian passport.)

It was somewhat heartening, though, to receive a "non-negative" response from one of the Participant Team Leaders of the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA). The correspondence continued on a daily basis for a week; and, despite a lapse the past week, it is not seemingly ended at this writing. However, his queries on the GSI findings went also to reaffirm my fears that basic research today has become far too specialized (to know more and more about less and less), with such scientists, the cream of the academe, getting increasingly hard-pressed for time to widen their scope to encompass even closely related fields.

Nevertheless, a final review here by DOE, undeterred by vested interest groups, could start to set things right, infusing also greater public confidence in research spending.

Any response from you would be gratefully received.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam

PS: A signed copy of the above will follow by FedEx from Jaffna, Sri Lanka, where I am presently based.

Simon Eugene Sittampalam
PO Box 134
645 Beach Road
Jaffna, Sri Lanka

Tel:            +9421 222 6851
E-mail:       eugenesittampalam@gmail.com
Website:    www.sittampalam.net

 

 


 

In connection with the above letter of 25 April 2006 to the White House, it may be of interest to note here the following.

 

1. Before the letter was this Science news item of 1 February 2006:

 

 

Bush Calls for Major New Spending on Basic Research and Energy.

Within Department of Energy's science office, nuclear physicists may be the biggest winners of all. A 20% increase ($87 million).

 

 

2. Ten days after my letter, that is, on 5 May 2006, was this Science news item on the same subject:

 

 

…the White House wants to take an $87 million bite out of the $606 million program for efficiency research and technology at the Department of Energy.

 

 

Coincidence? Perhaps!

If not, hope the White House will consider sparing just 1% of that bite out – half toward the proposed test and half as a grant toward my continued (and so far unfunded) research. The latter half, of course, is one of those high hopes; or, as the song goes – high as apple-pie-in-the-sky hopes!

 

 



 

In conclusion, here are the correspondences with EFDA JET, perhaps, the most crucial of all to date.

 

 

 

To:              maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org

Cc:              mark.westra@efda.org, spearsw@itereu.de, nature@nature.com, science_editors@aaas.org

Subject:       The ITER Test

Date:      Wed, Jun 7, 2006 at 5:51 PM

 

Dr Maurizio Gasparotto

Participant Team Leader for Europe

EFDA

 

Dear Dr Gasparotto,

The ITER Test

This is to kindly bring to your notice the latest and unexpected response from an ITER office outside Europe.

 

In response to my query of 4 June, two months after some useful correspondence, I received something more than I had expected of a top-ranking and mainstream scientist:

 

"We … have not ignored your concerns and the references you cited. I have sent the information to our chief scientist for his views and am awaiting his findings."

 

A final and early consensus would be that much easier should you, too, care to take up the investigation with your own team of scientists and engineers. (I shall be forwarding this to the other team leaders for that purpose.) In essence, it would be to answer these simple questions that even the lay public (paying for the project) could pose to the EFDA:

 

·        Are we quite certain of the stability of deuterium and tritium up to temperatures where they are expected to fuse?

·        If yes: Does any literature carry the empirical verification for these two specific particles?

·        If no: How is it even ethical then for us to build the ITER – all theories, predictions, and extrapolations aside – before unequivocally confirming that these two particles will be there at all, intact at around a hundred million degrees Celsius, to fuse and produce the energy?

 

Again, I hope you will not take this amiss. In the light of my greater work, I feel I have also a civic duty not to keep quiet but to bring such matters to the attention of the people at the top, like yourself.

 

In earlier instances, too, a mainstream few did lend me a sympathetic ear. Clearly, it's a sign of their personal conviction that truth and reason are the only way forward in science, without letting dogmatic theories, self-interest, complacency, and such get in the way. Two worthy of note here are:

 

1.      The KamLAND Test. Prof Giorgio Gratta of Stanford University and the KamLAND Collaboration didn't dismiss me offhand as a crank but enquired, as the above ITER gentleman did, for more details. Though their antineutrino search focused only on the firmament above, my letters may have turned their probes through a full 180 degrees to check out the Earth's core. In fact, they jumped the gun when they probably realized that the Russians and the Dutch were already seeking funds to probe it, following my extended appeal to them as well; see Earth Central. And, within 30 months of my writing to KamLAND, they discovered to their amazement what I had predicted – a strong and totally unexpected flux of electron antineutrinos from the Earth's center. [Of course, there was no acknowledgement of my request in their Nature 436, 499-503 (2005) report!] It would be of even greater import here to note the concluding lines from my last letter to Prof Gratta: "Finally, the Sun, too, will show a prominence of antineutrinos in the solar wind emanating from the corona. Hope, this solar focus, too, could be included early in your program schedule." See The Antineutrino Debut. This would then conclusively show the Sun to be a fission reactor, primarily – with fusion relegated to secondary, as in the hydrogen bomb.

 

2.      The NASA Tests. Drs James Williams, Dale Boggs, and Jean Dickey of JPL were not opposed to my reasons for a more detailed study of the Moon's orbit. Call this also sheer coincidence, but within four years, with unusually swift approval of funding from NASA and NSF, a new facility called the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) to examine the Moon's orbit with millimeter precision was already coming up in New Mexico. (Again, there was no mention of my request in NASA's headline news of 21 July 2004!) See Project APOLLO.

 

Finally, I shall continue to refrain from 'naming names' of responding ITER individuals who are accommodative of my views since the project may consider it unbecoming of its team members. This is the reason I have not revealed the identity of any to date. However, I could request them to contact you directly if it would be of some mutual help. [In (1) and (2) above, I was generally supportive of those fields of study – the reason for my naming the four researchers. It's unfortunate I cannot say the same of the ITER Project.]

Thank you for your time.

With kind regards,

Eugene Sittampalam

www.sittampalam.net

 

 

A polite rebuttal to the above came from Dr Duarte Borba, EFDA Head of Office and Associate Leader for JET:

 

 

From:     Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>

To:              eugenesittampalam@gmail.com

Cc:              "Pamela, Jerome" <jpamela@jet.uk>, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, "Mlynar, Jan" <jmlynar@jet.uk>, "Carpenter, Chris"

                   <chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk>

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test

Date:      Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 9:49 PM

 

Dear Eugene

 

Regarding your questions

 

1- Are we quite certain of the stability of deuterium and tritium up to temperatures where they are expected to fuse?

 

Yes, very certain indeed, deuterium is stable and tritium decays very slowly (12 year decay rate) and this is independent of the temperature up to the required fusion temperatures (100 MioC). 

 

2- If yes: Does any literature carry the empirical verification for these two specific particles?

 

This has been verified experimentally at JET (www.jet.efda.org) showing that the fusion process occurs as expected under the conditions foreseen in ITER and in a future fusion Reactor.

 

For more details please see:

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/history-of-jet.html

http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/news/2005/yop/oct05.html

 

During 1997 the JET operations included a three months' campaign of highly successful experiments using a range of Deuterium-Tritium fuel mixtures.

During these experiments, JET operated at the same temperatures of future fusion facilities like ITER. The results were of major significance. JET set three new world records: 22 MJ of fusion energy in one pulse, 16 MW of peak fusion power a 65% ratio of fusion power produced to total input power.

Best Regards

Duarte

 

On behalf of Dr Pamela (EFDA Leader) and Dr. Gasparotto (EFDA Associate Leader for Technology)

Duarte Borba 

EFDA JET Close Support Unit

Culham Science Centre

OX14 3DB Abingdon

United Kingdom

tel +44 1235 465270

fax +44 1235 464800

email: Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org

 

 

It was indeed good of Dr Borba to have responded in a seemingly official way for JET. After researching their specific references further, my response followed after eight days. The subsequent exchanges to date are reproduced below.

 

 

To:              Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>
From:     Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>

Cc:              Jerome Pamela <jpamela@jet.uk>, Maurizio Gasparotto <maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org>,

              Jan Mlynar <jmlynar@jet.uk, Chris Carpenter <chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk>

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test
Date:      Jun 20, 2006 1:41 PM

Dr Duarte Borba 

EFDA JET Close Support Unit

Culham Science Centre

OX14 3DB Abingdon

United Kingdom

 

Dear Duarte,

Thank you for your kind reply. To consider the subject closed, I shall greatly appreciate just one further clarification from you.

 

You state: "Yes, very certain indeed, deuterium is stable and tritium decays very slowly (12 year decay rate) and this is independent of the temperature up to the required fusion temperatures (100 MioC)." 

 

However, these do not seem empirically substantiated anywhere to date, even in the references (1 and 2, below) you were good enough to cite in support.

 

On the other hand, your conclusions here may have been derived from (2); that is, interpreted from lines such as,

(a)       "JET unambiguously observed alpha particle heating in the deuterium-tritium experiments of September 1997."

(b)      "The alpha power was 3% of the total heating power absorbed by the plasma"

(c)       "The afternoon following the press conference (31st October 1997) brought our best high power results so far. Shot number 42976 reached a fusion power of 16.1 MW and Q rose to 0.65."

 

Unfortunately, quoting from (3) in this context,

(d)      "The figure [Fig. 3] includes for comparison some ion cyclotron RF heated (ICRH) pulses, which had been used before the tritium experiment to test the feasibility of detecting alpha heating."

(e)       "The effect of ICRH is very similar to that of alpha heating because it couples mainly to the plasma."

(f)        "The alpha and ICRH power sources are identical in their effects."

 

Adding one more from (3) for my comment below,

(g)       "It will also be noted that the data in Fig. 2 shows an increase of sawtooth period with increasing tritium concentration. The reason for this is being investigated."

 

As such,

·        Statement (a) would be unquestionable only if D and T are to be unaffected by temperature, as now assumed in tests. However, this nuclear stability is no longer observationally true in general (see The ITER Test).

·        Therefore, for (b) and (c), by virtue of (d), (e) and (f), we cannot "unambiguously" rule out other ions – of He-3 and electrons from the stepped-up decay of T – to create this illusion of alpha heating.

·        In (d), even if alpha particles had been used in those ICRH pulses, one has now to ascertain the stability of even alpha particles at those temperatures. In fact, (f) would be a foregone conclusion if all H and He isotopes at around a 100 MioC are to be dissociated into their constituent nucleons.

·        Even the "best" figures noted in (c) are still dismally low after all these decades of trials. In the new light, they are but the result of low DT content (or none at all) at those temperatures. Hence, achieving (in all likelihood, if at all, proton-proton) fusion in such one-shot manner, as in the hydrogen bomb, should not be considered a great achievement towards sustainable fusion.

·        And a final proof is perhaps seen in (g): The sawtooth rise in temperature is effected not by alpha heating but by electrons from the increasing (beta-minus) decay rate of T; the peak temperature is where He-3 (the other decay product) finally dissociates en masse into its constituent nucleons – higher the initial concentration of T, more the (decay) He-3 ions in the 'pot' and longer their period to attain 'boiling' point; and the sawtooth crashes when (so-called binding) energy is instantaneously absorbed in the rapid dissociation process. ("The reason for this is being investigated." Would much appreciate knowing your conclusions as well.)

 

Hence, as you may agree, stability tests specifically for D and T would be the only logical next step forward. The item next suggests a simple and low-cost procedure whereby D and T could be investigated even separately.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Culled from

The ITER Test

Since our concern here is primarily stability of D and of T half-life with temperature rise, one could consider simpler tests such as the following.

 

At the various plasma labs already experimenting with tritium, presence of any undue helium-3 could be checked out in the plasma chambers when each experiment is over; that is, for any classically unaccountable amounts of He-3 from the premature decay of T. This would entail analyzing the chamber walls as well. [Note: Detection of any excess He-3 would confirm that T half-life had indeed dropped; but its absence, though, would not conclusively bear out stability – since T (and any He-3) could have instead dissociated into its constituent nucleons. Hence, the presence of He-3 only could be of consequence here, not its absence.]

 

Other plasma labs, too, could investigate the half-life of T, and even the stability of D and He-3, with increasing temperature, say, in steps of 10 million degrees Celsius. (Classically, T has a half-life of 12.4 years; and D and He-3 are both stable and occur in nature.)

 

The above may seem trivial at the JET, but the findings should, nevertheless, be of immense help to all concerned in "energy from fusion" (which, though most unfortunate, will still not be viable for us due to even more fundamental reasons; see Fusion Energy ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Finally, it is most understandable that your eminent team would have neither the time nor the funds to perform to every public fancy. This is the reason for my offer to pay all cost and sundry in advance and without question. Hope the JET-EFDA will consider this test proposal favourably to bring about an early resolution to one of the costliest and most protracted projects in the history of science.

Thank you again and best regards,

Eugene

 

References:

(1)  http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/history-of-jet.html

(2)  http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/news/2005/yop/oct05.html

(3)  JET pre-print

 

=======================================================================================================

 

From:     Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>

To:              Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test

Date:      Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 7:02 PM

 

Dear Eugene

 

The Deuterium-Tritium fusion reaction produces an alpha particle and a neutron.

 

You are correct in pointing out that the presence of alpha particles is difficult to detect and there are a number of publications devoted to the study of the effect of alpha particle heating in the JET experiments with Tritium.

 

However, your argument is not valid since the neutron on the other hand is “easy” to detect and the measured fusion power comes from the detection of fusion neutrons a relatively straightforward measurement with “Today’s” technology, not from the fusion alphas.

 

In the Deuterium-Tritium experiments at JET, the numbers of neutrons measured agree with the expected fusion reactions, demonstrating experimentally that fusion reactions occur, as expected, under the same conditions (temperature, density) as in ITER.

 

In other words, the “The ITER Test” you propose has already been done at JET.

 

Best Regards

 

Duarte   

 

[NB: The bold-text emphases, too, are Dr Borba’s]

 

=======================================================================================================

 

To:              Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>

From:     Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test

Cc:              jpamela@jet.uk, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, jmlynar@jet.uk, chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk

Date:      Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM

 

Dear Duarte,

Thank you for the exceptional patience and politeness shown in responding to my letters. However, I shall not test those great qualities of yours (all too rare these days) any further, but end our correspondence with a final comment and request here. (An answer is not expected but, of course, would be most welcome anytime.)

 

JET literature talks of "shots" and "seconds" in the context of fusion output; and these results are to find extrapolation in the larger ITER. One could agree that, from the frozen DT pellets injected into the plasma, the few seconds of alpha production and heating are possible, that is, before the fuel itself dissociates in the freezer-to-furnace environmental change – as evidenced by the (classically enigmatic) "sawtooth." Unfortunately, these results cannot at all be seen as something that could be usefully extended towards net output in any device whatever the size.

 

In other words, alpha production cannot be totally ruled out in the fleeting trial runs – richer the fuel,  more can be the alphas; the extended sawtooth period would also support this; but can one extend that alpha heating even a second longer without changing the fuel mix?

 

Hence, to unambiguously resolve the problem once and for all – why not check out samples of D and T separately for stability at increasing steps of, say, 10 million degrees Celsius? (The same could be conducted for helium isotopes to make the study even more robust.) Complacency in such a high-cost venture – especially in light of the disturbing findings elsewhere in the field – could only be seen by the paying public as one of the greatest scams in the history of science (nothing personal, of course!).

Thank you again and best regards,

Eugene

 

=======================================================================================================

 

From:     Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>

To:              Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test

Date:      Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 9:20 PM

 

Dear Eugene

 

In other words, alpha production cannot be totally ruled out in the fleeting trial runs – richer the fuel,  more can be the alphas; the extended sawtooth period would also support this; but can one extend that alpha heating even a second longer without changing the fuel mix?

 

I do not fully understand your question, but I can say that Fuelling, Alpha Heating and Exhaust are important research topics of both JET and ITER experiments.   

 

Hence, to unambiguously resolve the problem once and for all – why not check out samples of D and T separately for stability at increasing steps of, say, 10 million degrees Celsius?

 

JET has indeed performed a large number of experiments using different fuel mixtures, including pure Tritium and pure Deuterium (Also Hydrogen and Helium), at different temperatures 10-300 MioC.

 

Best Regards

 

Duarte

 

=======================================================================================================

 

To:              Duarte Borba <Duarte.Borba@jet.efda.org>

From:     Eugene Sittampalam <eugenesittampalam@gmail.com>

Cc:              jpamela@jet.uk, maurizio.gasparotto@tech.efda.org, jmlynar@jet.uk, chris.carpenter@ukaea.org.uk, ponti.sittampalam@halliburton.com

Subject:       Re: The ITER Test

Date:      Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:50 PM

 

Dear Duarte,

Sorry for not being clear on that paragraph. In the earlier letter, I mentioned that the heating could well be due to He-3 and electrons from the stepped-up decay of T and not necessarily from alpha particles. It was not implied that one could totally rule out the latter. In fact, this is also the crux of the argument I am trying to get across. I can accept that alpha particles are indeed being produced, but my question is – to what extent? D and T are surviving to 300 MioC – but what percentage of it? From the sawtooth signals it does not seem an encouraging 100%, but more towards an extreme low when the sawtooth crashes.

 

"JET has indeed performed a large number of experiments using different fuel mixtures, including pure Tritium and pure Deuterium (Also Hydrogen and Helium), at different temperatures 10-300 MioC."

 

Though refreshing, I'm sure stability of D and T was not in the scope of study, since nuclear properties would have been taken as absolute (a priori) – as Einstein assumed the pi-meson half-life to be, and chose to dilate time!

 

Again, since nuclear stability was never in question in plasma research to date, the test request kindly stands. So does my offer to pay for it in full and upfront. I have the funds with National Savings there, and a certified Lloyds cheque could even be hand delivered to you in a week by my brother, Ponti (who is with Halliburton in Aberdeen).

Best regards,

Eugene

 

PS: Since it is also for the betterment of science, I feel I could mention – in confidence here – the name of another great gentleman who cared to exchange views with me just as you did. He is Dr [name withheld from the web page here, but could be revealed confidentially to individuals on request]. Perhaps, you already know him personally. He was quite accommodative of my views (his latest to me was: "I have sent the information to our chief scientist for his views and am awaiting his findings"). He, too, could help bring about an early resolution here (and shut me up for good!). Cheers!

 

 

 

Finally, a paper is due for submission to a leading mainstream journal for possible publication.

The preprint may be accessed on: www.sittampalam.net/NaturePreprint.pdf.

In the paper, one would find also the fundamental prerequisite for fusion efficiency:

an isotropic environment coupled with a rhythmic process of systematic fuel intake followed by product discharge.

The ITER lacks both isotropy and rhythm; but flogging of the dead horse goes on!

 

Eugene Sittampalam

9 August 2006


 

Back to the ITER Test

 

Return to homepage