Thrust 06 06.001 Greenwald Martin 6/08/2009 16:13 Thrust 06 Test of chit system 06.002 hill David 6/09/2009 09:11 Thrust 06 When experiments work closely with theorists to validate codes, it would seem that this is exactly the type of "case study" mentioned in Martin's talk today. Things that come to mind are comparisons between GYRO and detailed transport measurements (such as the effort on DIII-D which has been ongoing for a number of years, or efforts on NSTX). Similarly, there have been ongoing efforts to compare RF or ECH heating codes with experiment, comparing SOL models such as UEDGE against a wide variety of edge diagnostics, work on rotation physics comparing with MHD codes such as MARS-F, and comparisons of TAE mode structure measurements with simulation. So, I don't understand what is being advocated. Is it some central administration? It is an official adoption of some new efforts to add to the present mix? Is it funding for new efforts to build codes to replace existing codes? Since we are a fusion science program, programs are already stressing physics understanding using simulation. 06.003 Callis Richard 6/09/2009 09:18 Thrust 06 It appears that this thrust only covers plasma physics. Is there not a place in this thrust for model development for predicting better materials for the first wall and structural material. 06.004 Chang CS 6/09/2009 09:19 Thrust 06 Dear Martin, On page 12, another big part of computer science is data management. 06.005 Ji Hantao 6/09/2009 09:22 Thrust 06 In some areas, such as magnetic reconnection, space and astrophysical community have specific strengths in terms of theory and simulations. I strongly suggest that we add a component in this thrust to collaborate and interact with them in a mutually beneficial way. 06.006 Peebles Tony 6/09/2009 09:25 Thrust 06 Generally your talk strongly supported the need for innovation in diagnostics and presents a balanced approach to development of validated predictive models. However, your VG on resources (VG #12) seems very biased towards the "needs" of the theory/ computational research activity. For example, 7 of your list of 11 resources are theory/ computaional, 1 on diagnostics, 2 experimental facilities and 1 on analysts. This projects a, perhaps unintended, but biased perspective especially in light of the fact that computational resources have increased significantly in recent whereas funding for measurement innovation has been stagnant for at least 10 years. 06.007 Marmar Earl 6/09/2009 09:30 Thrust 06 Should this thrust be broadened to include technology? 06.008 Humphreys Dave 6/09/2009 09:37 Thrust 06 I see a strong focus on the flow of data from experiments to codes for the validation mission, which is of course essential. But the need for significant effort to enable the output of the thrust to be used by experimentalists, control designers, etc... isn't so clear. See for example the summary slide for a good illustration of the focus and direction of data flow in the thrust. What I think is missing is an entirely separate activity to adapt the validated codes so they can produce specific model forms and other results as needed by these customers. This is an element of computational modeling research plans that is traditionally neglected, or in cases when it is pursued, has not been very successful in the fusion community (e.g. NTCC). I suggest that it is important to make more explicit in the thrust description the intent to do the substantial and costly work to make the results of thrust 6 highly usable and tailored to the needs of experimentalists and other customers. 06.009 Hill David 6/09/2009 09:45 Thrust 06 What is meant by coordination? The discussion of this thrust does not recognize the substantial ongoing coordinated effort comparing theory/simulation and experiment in many areas (core, edge, rf, transport, fast ion stability and transport, MHD stability, and rotation physics). More resources are needed for this field, and the idea of getting support and respect for "analysts" is urgently needed. However, the emphasis on "coordinated" implies that what is really needed is better top-down management or a new upper level management structure. 06.010 Brower David 6/09/2009 11:29 Thrust 06 it has often been said…. “Equilibrium reconstruction codes are only as good as the measurements that constrain them”. This led to the demand for detailed measurements of equilibrium parameters in the plasma core over the past 10-15 years. Same is true for development of simulation codes, predictive models and validation procedures, …. Critical nature of the measurement component must be made clear. One-page thrust contains 7 proposed action items, including... 5 related to theory/codes/validation, 1 related to experiments and 1 related to measurements. Perhaps a bit out of balance...... 06.011 McKee George 6/09/2009 16:23 Thrust 06 In response to Dave Hill's comment ("Aren't we doing this already"): this thrust needs to emphasize that the validation effort requires a level of rigor that, frankly, is not often achieved in fusion science today. Confidently extrapolating models/simulations to BP/ITER experiments requires the more rigorous validation process that is envisioned for this thrust. 06.012 Ulrickson Mike 6/09/2009 18:10 Thrust 06 Much (most) of the development of models of the SOL is described and will be done under thrust 9. Thrust 6 should reference input from thrust 9 for the SOL portion of the integrated model formation. 06.013 Berry Lee 6/10/2009 08:40 Thrust 06 To balance issues, reliability of ECH (invessel, tubes, xmission system) and of NBI performance should be mentioned--no actions required. It should be noted that: 1. ITER, because of size, beta field is qualitatively different from present machines and is largely single pass. 2. Ill understood possibilities for flow drive are possible with ICRH. 06.014 Berry Lee 6/10/2009 08:51 Thrust 06 Ignore previous chit--used wrong thrust #. 06.015 Buttery Richard 6/10/2009 15:06 Thrust 06 I am skeptical about needs to "coordinate" more - we don't want to risk turning this into a giant management activity with standards and interfaces - at expense of the extremely powerful sharp focus US efforts have on scientific deliverables of their modelling projects. 06.016 Callen Jim 6/11/2009 08:46 Thrust 06 To me this is potentially one of the most important and scientifically promising of the thrusts. However, I still feel very strongly that this Thrust 6 on V&V needs to conclude with a "punchy action item" which indicates something specific that administrators and OFES/DoE planners could endorse and develop a program to do something about. I can understand why you do not want to choose a particular area to focus on. However, it seems to me you could propose that a "prototype" program(s) could/should be developed and tested -- e.g., by arranging for a proposal solicitation (>~ $2M/yr?) for a few year V&V activity in an area of the proposers choosing. PROPOSED ACTION ITEM FOR THRUST 6: To develop an effective framework for implementing these ideas, one or more prototype V&V activities should be developed and enfranchised with real resources in the aforementioned areas over a multi-year time frame for one or more of the 8 indicated "case study" activities on page 2 of the six page