International tokamak-reactor “INTOR.” phase I
- 27 Downloads
- 5 Citations
Conclusions
The conceptual design for INTOR can serve as a basis for the technical design. The design has been drawn up with some margin in the parameters so that present uncertainties in plasma physics and technology would not significantly change the solutions adopted in the design after further research and development in the nearest future. The design has made it possible to reveal problems which must necessarily be solved in order to build an experimental thermonuclear reactor. Work on the design has reached a stage such that the solution of technological and engineering problems depends on the details of the design. It has become necessary to optimize the design in regard to all of the main subassemblies by working it out in greater detail.
The work of the International INTOR Group in phase I made it possible to focus the attention of the scientific community on the solution of the most important problems of both existing tokamaks and those being built. The design gains much by being developed on an international basis. It concentrates all of the latest world advances in the domain of plasma physics and engineering and technological developments for fusion reactors. It constitutes an example of fruitful international cooperation of scientists and engineers which enabled the zero and first phases to be carried out in a short time (2.5 yrs). In respect of the level of execution the design surpasses all existing national designs for fusion reactors.
Keywords
Scientific Community Plasma Physics Technological Development Conceptual Design Engineering ProblemPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literature Cited
- 1.INTOR Group, “International Tokamak Reactor — Zero Phase,” IAEA Report, Vienna (1980); Yad. Sintez,20, No. 3, 349 (1980).Google Scholar
- 2.G. Grieger et al. European Contributions to the INTOR Workshop. EUR FUBRU/XII 501/79/EDV-50, EUR FUBRU/XII 501/79/EDV-60, Brussels (1979).Google Scholar
- 3.B. B. Kadomtsev, et al., USSR Contribution to the INTOR Workshop — 1979, Kurchatov Institute Report, Moscow (1980).Google Scholar
- 4.S. Mori et al., Japanese Contribution to the INTOR Workshop — 1980, JAERI Report, Tokai-Mura, Japan (1980).Google Scholar
- 5.W. Stacey et al., US Contribution to the INTOR Workshop — 1979, US INTOR Report, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. (1979).Google Scholar
- 6.B. B. Kadomtsev, Problems of Atomic Science and Engineering. Series “Thermonuclear Fusion” [in Russian], No. 1 (15), 3 (1980).Google Scholar
- 7.EC Conceptual Design Contribution to the INTOR Phase-I Workshop, EC Report, Brussels (1981).Google Scholar
- 8.Japanese Conceptual Design Contribution to the INTOR Phase-I Workshop, JAERI Report, Tokai-Mura (1981).Google Scholar
- 9.USA Conceptual Design Contribution to the INTOR Phase-I Workshop, Report INTOR/81-1, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. (1981).Google Scholar
- 10.USSR Conceptual Design Contribution to the INTOR Phase-I Workshop, Kurchatov Institute Report, Moscow (1981).Google Scholar
- 11.INTOR Group, “International Tokamak Reactor — Phase One” IAEA Report, Vienna (1982).Google Scholar