Theme 02
02.001	intrator	tom	6/08/2009 10:54	Theme 02	the level of discussion thus far (through thrust 2, and what I have seen from thrust docs) is mired in mind numbing detail. The only one that seems close to ready to be massaged into a document that the layman could comprehend, is the RFP one.    The science is mingled with the engineering, which is logical. However the excitement needs more effective advocacy.
02.002	Peebles	Tony	6/08/2009 11:05	Theme 02	The "Diagnostic Table" is too positive for existing devices - it seems to imply there are very few needs and that measurements are accurate.    This is generally not the case on existing devices. I understand the need to provide contrast with the future. However, I think the readiness box needs to be ALL yellow.    However, I agree that the "Major Gaps" are in ITER and follow-up DEMO. 
02.003	Buttery	Richard	6/08/2009 11:07	Theme 02	Given US consensus that an extra facility(s) is needed before DEMO can be built, the priority of this week should be to agree that the US should proceed with this, and start to scope out the optimum set of missions for this facility.
02.004	Morley	Neil	6/08/2009 11:10	Theme 02	A quick note in response to Ron Stambaugh's comment about linkages to theme 4, here are some ideas we have identified you may wish to consider.    1. Does the presence of tritium breeding blanket systems with significant ferromagnetic material, and 70 cm depth of moving, highly conducting liquid metal with it own error field generation affect plasma control by impacting placement of coils and sensors and field penetration times?    2. Do the design of plasma diagnostics systems for nuclear environment need accurate neutron transport simulation capabilities?     3. The need to meet tritium self sufficiency requirements for a system depend on many plasma issues like tritium burn fraction, recycling behavior, fueling efficiency, and placement and materials in plasma fueling/heating/control.     Are we in danger of developing plasma operation modes and plasma control schemes that invalidate tritium self-sufficiency and power extraction functions including needed reliability and maintainabi
02.005	Taylor	Tony 	6/08/2009 11:19	Theme 02	TOPIC  Inclusion of key issues from "Panels" in the thrust.      There are a number of items in the theme presentations that are presented as important, but do not show up in the thrusts (which have been presented as combining key issues from severl panels)    Key question:  Are the omissions a result of priority choice or a consequence of unintended omission in the combination.     Specific question:  Theme II presentation highlighted a need for electron heating from both RF and EC.  In thrust 4, the need for developing EC and strong need for electron heating at the relevant colisonality and beta is totally missing. I think this is an oversight.     
02.006	Berk	Herb	6/08/2009 11:19	Theme 02	Amanda,      What I was trying to get across with my question was that I felt that your presentation was not really addressing the issues of working for a Demo, but instead a presentation that would work well for the TTF transport meeting that focuses on our continued need to refine and expand our knowledge of the dynamics of plasma transport. Of course this issue is an essential  for achieving Demo, but this issue is not new thrust of our program. Considering on how to go about achieving Demo is new and a concise summary of what we need to do as a program to achieve the knowledge is an issue that would be new.     As I suggested I think it would be good to state with each of the issues what questions could be answered with existing experiments, what needs to be answered with ITER and what type of experiments we could build to answer the essential questions we need to know for building a Demo. 
02.007	Berk	 	6/08/2009 11:20	Theme 02	Amanda,      What I was trying to get across with my question was that I felt that your presentation was not really addressing the issues of working for a Demo, but instead a presentation that would work well for the TTF transport meeting that focuses on our continued need to refine and expand our knowledge of the dynamics of plasma transport. Of course this issue is an essential  for achieving Demo, but this issue is not new thrust of our program. Considering on how to go about achieving Demo is new and a concise summary of what we need to do as a program to achieve the knowledge is an issue that would be new.     As I suggested I think it would be good to state with each of the issues what questions could be answered with existing experiments, what needs to be answered with ITER and what type of experiments we could build to answer the essential questions we need to know for building a Demo. 
02.008	Peng	Martin	6/08/2009 13:15	Theme 02	Theme 4 presentation and write-up contain R&D goals, the success of which will depend very much on the success of disruption avoidance and mitigation research in Themes 1 and 2.  This points to the need to raise the importance of, or at least clearly include, disruption avoidance and mitigation in some research thursts from Themes 1 and 2.      This is a duplicate chit to Theme 1.
02.009	Chan	Vincent	6/08/2009 15:10	Theme 02	If this has not happened already, it would be very useful for this theme (and other themes as well) to do a risk assessment of the proposed tasks. What would be the consequence of not doing a task or skipping an incremental step in order to speed up the timescale to DEMO? Since DOE has specifically asked the ReNeW team not to prioritize the tasks, the risk assessment will be very helpful for DOE to make program decisions.
02.010	Temkin	Richard	6/08/2009 22:10	Theme 02	I would not use the word “actuator” to describe the plasma control systems such as heating, fueling, etc. The word “actuator” is ordinarily used to describe “a mechanical device for moving or controlling a mechanism or system.” Using the word “actuator” will really confuse people, especially non-fusion people. I would replace “actuator” with the specific device or devices needed such as “heating and fueling systems.” I would make the replacement everywhere in the Theme write-up.
02.011	Jarboe	tom	6/09/2009 14:16	Theme 02	In a high-Q reactor with a high level of bootstrap current fraction, the external input power would be significantly reduced. As a result, precision fueling may be the only way to control the internal density (and hence the pressure) profile. This is clearly recognized and noted in the Greenwald panel report. Recognition of the need for advanced fueling systems is lacking at the higher levels of thrust 5 and it should be clearly noted in first thrust page, because unlike the other auxiliary systems (RF, RWM coils), there is no program at present in the area of advanced fueling.