1 / 8

U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science

U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. 4 th Workshop of IEA Large Tokamak IA- W62 (with IEA PD &TEXTOR IAs) on IEA-ITPA Co-ordination of Joint Experiments. Closing Comments General Atomics, San Diego, CA November 1-2, 2005. Erol Oktay Chair, IEA LT ExCo US Contact, ITPA CC.

kiele
Download Presentation

U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Department of Energy’sOffice of Science 4th Workshop of IEA Large Tokamak IA- W62 (with IEA PD &TEXTOR IAs) on IEA-ITPA Co-ordination of Joint Experiments Closing Comments General Atomics, San Diego, CA November 1-2, 2005 Erol Oktay Chair, IEA LT ExCo US Contact, ITPA CC www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov

  2. ITPA/IEA/ITER interactions: The ITPA/IEA/ITER interaction through the joint experiments is working well. Are there thoughts on further improvements to this interaction? For example, should we consider increased collaboration on remote participation, integrated modeling, etc.? It was valuable to have ITER Physics Head (M. Shimada) participate at the meeting. Shimada updated the detailed description of specific ITER design issues that need urgent ITPA input. The ITPA Topical Groups should include a discussion of these issues in the TG meetings and recommend to the ITPA CC action items to address them. ~ 95% of ITPA HPRTs are addressed in the proposed joint experiments; Suggested issues for discussion at the Closing Session

  3. Most TG’s include modeling activities in their work routinely; some TG’s have developed proposals for coordination of their modeling activities for this IEA/ITPA meeting to consider as a part of Joint Experimental program; The consensus of the participants on this issue can be summarized as follows: We encourage modeling work as a part of ITPA, which is essential for understanding physics and scaling studies for ITER, for designing experimental scenarios, and for data analysis and interpretation. The theory/modeling effort can benefit from close coordination among themselves and with the experimental programs. The scientific exchanges in IEA IAs also include theory/modeling collaborations. Discussion on Inclusion of Modeling in the ‘Joint Experiments’ Program

  4. The unresolved issue is how to implement proposals for theory/modeling coordination: This coordination meeting of IEA/ITPA with the Tokamak Program Leaders does not include key people responsible for theory/modeling effort in the international community; The inclusion of such key people at this meeting would greatly enhance the scope and duration of this meeting; Holding a separate with IEA/ITPA meeting with the theory/modeling community would increase the number of meetings and eliminate the desired coordination between the theory/modeling and the experimental communities; What guidance to give to the TGs on this issue? What is our recommendation? Discussion on Inclusion of Modeling in the ‘Joint Experiments’ Program (cont)

  5. While it has been easy to label most proposals as E (ready to accept as planned experiment), D (need further discussion to elevate to the E category) and P (Programmatic), the designation of some proposals has been difficult. The guidelines should be: E: D: P: Discussion on Guidelines for Designation of Proposals as E, D, P

  6. The implementation of a subset of ITPA HPRTs under the IEA/ITPA Joint Experiments Program has been very successful. Shimada’s presentation indicated that 95% of the HPRTs are addressed in the Joint Experimental,proposals; Are the other HPRTs receiving sufficient support for their implementation without an additional attention? Do the TG leaders have any recommendations on this issue? What is the difference between proposals identified as ‘P’ in the Joint Experiments and the remaining ‘~5% of HPRTs not included in Joint Experiments’ Discussion on Implementation of ITPA HPRTs not included in Joint Experiments

  7. Efficiency of IEA activities: This workshop is a good example of co-ordination among the IEA tokamak related IAs. Are there opportunities for expanded co-operation on topics? No new topics emerged for consideration for expanded cooperation at this time The number of technical workshops, involving IAEA, IEA, ITPA, bilateral agreements, domestic programs, PSI, etc. is increasing. The international community has not been able to coordinate these to avoid duplications. How can we improve the effectivenes of the growing number of topical meetings? Suggested issues for discussion at the Closing Session

  8. Burning Plasma Programs in ITER Parties: We would like to exchange information on how the ITER parties are organizing their research effort on ITER related scientific research. Scheduling of the next meeting: Japan has offered to host it at JAEA next year. Proposed meeting dates? (Sometime in December ?) Suggested issues for discussion at the Closing Session (cont)

More Related