Thrust 18 ChitID 18.001 tom intrator 6/08/2009 14:00 Thrust 18 just to amplify on the question on (paraphrased) "why bother spreading out our resources on tangents to mainstream approaches?" Especially since themes 1-4 call out physics and engineering, vs theme 5 that calls out configurations. response could include ... we need some game changers, and there is a long list (eg disruptions, magnet cost, simple geometry, lithium, no center stack, engineering simplicity and modularity that follows from simply connected, eases super conducting magnet implementation… ) ChitID 18.002 tom intrator 6/08/2009 14:29 Thrust 18 I like a figure that displays frc, st, rfp, tmak, sphmak, stellarator, in 3D shaping vs ext magnetization vs aspect ratio cube. I would place spheromak and perhaps rfp and frc (translated ones primarily) at larger 3D character. There is likely a continuum albeit sparsely populated between tokamak and stellarator of 3D ness. And 3D issues are important for all approaches. ChitID 18.003 Roger Raman 6/09/2009 18:11 Thrust 18 Chit 1) over the past 20 years, the tokamak program has consistently built larger and larger machines that helped it to rapidly develop the concept. Is the FRC/Spheromak program sufficiently aggressive to consider the construction of a machine much larger than present machines as the next step? Because these concepts do not have expensive TF coils and much less auxiliary systems than tokamaks, the cost of a much larger FRC or spheromak would still be quite low compared to a comparably sized tokamak. Chit 2) historically these programs have also been instrumental in educating students (who have then gone on to work on larger fusion projects), much more so than large tokamak programs. Clearly a much larger well trained fusion work force is needed in the ITER-era. This quite valuable benefit to fusion research should appear someplace in the document. ChitID 18.004 Piero Martin 6/10/2009 09:09 Thrust 18 I propose to select a limited number of keywords, to be listed at the beginning of the document and to be used throughout it. They may help a continue focusing of the reader on our key points. As in John Sarff presentation, I'd try to stress as much as possible to 'linking' role and the contact toward other configurations that low-B configuration (RFP in particular) have. ChitID 18.005 Sam Cohen 6/10/2009 10:49 Thrust 18 Following up on Mike Mauel's comments about stressing the transformative aspects of CTs, place more emphasis on advanced fuels in CTs, to overcome some of the major materials issues of D-T burning and tritium breeding. ChitID 18.006 Harry McLean 6/10/2009 13:07 Thrust 18 Suggestion for second paragraph to bring out innovative character at modest cost without criticizing mainline approaches. ...Research on multiple configurations provides a vital and healthy scientific approach to grow and validate fusion science over a wide range of plasma conditions. add While generally/often regarded/recognized as more speculative than mainline tokamak research, exploring this wider range of plasma conditions and technologies used to produce them expands opportunity for scientific discovery, breakthrough, and innovation, often at very modest cost. /add Also, low-field configurations exhibit magnetic self-organization processes resembling those in astrophysical plasmas. They thus...