National Ignition Facility - Wikipedia

I was wondering how a beam could be generated to ignite ground fires like we have experienced just in the past 5-10 yrs… California, Hawaii, Mexico, so many.

Dew Drop In….  

 In their own backyard? 

 (My own, so traumatized…..)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

National Ignition Facility

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research device, located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, United States. NIF's mission is to achieve fusion ignition with high energy gain. It achieved the first instance of scientific breakeven controlled fusion in an experiment on December 5, 2022, with an energy gain factor of 1.5.^[1][2] It supports nuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear explosions.^[3]

NIF is the largest and most powerful ICF device built to date.^[4] The basic ICF concept is to squeeze a small amount of fuel to reach pressure and temperature necessary for fusion. NIF hosts the world's most energetic laser. The laser heats the outer layer of a small sphere. The energy is so intense that it causes the sphere to implode, squeezing the fuel inside. The implosion reaches a peak speed of 350 km/s (0.35 mm/ns),^[5] raising the fuel density from about that of water to about 100 times that of lead. The delivery of energy and the adiabatic process during implosion raises the temperature of the fuel to hundreds of millions of degrees. At these temperatures, fusion processes occur in the tiny interval before the fuel explodes outward.

Construction on the NIF began in 1997. NIF was completed five years behind schedule and cost almost four times its original budget. Construction was certified complete on March 31, 2009, by the U.S. Department of Energy.^[6] The first large-scale experiments were performed in June 2009^[7] and the first "integrated ignition experiments" (which tested the laser's power) were declared completed in October 2010.^[8]

From 2009 to 2012 experiments were conducted under the National Ignition Campaign, with the goal of reaching ignition just after the laser reached full power, some time in the second half of 2012. The campaign officially ended in September 2012, at about 1⁄10 the conditions needed for ignition.^[9][10] Thereafter NIF has been used primarily for materials science and weapons research. In 2021, after improvements in fuel target design, NIF produced 70% of the energy of the laser, beating the record set in 1997 by the JET reactor at 67% and achieving a burning plasma.^[11] On December 5, 2022, after further technical improvements, NIF reached "ignition", or scientific breakeven, for the first time, achieving a 154% energy yield compared to the input energy.^[12] However, while this was scientifically a success,^[13] the experiment in practice produced less than 1% of the energy the facility used to create it:^[14] while 3.15 MJ of energy was yielded from 2.05 MJ input,^[15] the lasers delivering the 2.05 MJ of energy took about 300 MJ to produce in the facility.^[13]

Contents

Main article: ICF mechanism

Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) devices use intense energy to rapidly heat the outer layers of a target in order to compress it. Nuclear fission provides the energy source for thermonuclear warheads, while sources such as lasers and particle beams are used in non-fission devices.^[16]

The target is a small spherical pellet containing a few milligrams of fusion fuel, typically a mix of deuterium (D) and tritium (T), as this composition has the lowest ignition temperature.^[16]

Multiple laser beams heat the surface of the pellet into a plasma, which explodes away from the surface. The rest of the pellet is driven inward on all sides, into a small volume of extremely high density. The surface explosion creates shock waves that travel inward. At the center of the fuel, a small volume is further heated and compressed. When the temperature and density are high enough, fusion reactions occur.^[17] The energy must be delivered quickly and spread extremely evenly across the target's outer surface in order to compress the fuel symmetrically.^[18]

The reactions release high-energy particles, some of which, primarily alpha particles, collide with unfused fuel and heat it further, potentially triggering additional fusion. At the same time, the fuel is also losing heat through x-ray losses and hot electrons leaving the fuel area. Thus the rate of alpha heating must be greater than the loss rate, termed bootstrapping.^[19] Given the right conditions—high enough density, temperature, and duration—bootstrapping results in a chain reaction, burning outward from the center. This is known as ignition, which fuses a significant portion of the fuel and releases large amounts of energy.^[20]

As of 1998, most ICF experiments had used laser drivers. Other drivers have been examined, such as heavy ions driven by particle accelerators.^[21][22]

Design

System

As of 2004, NIF used the indirect drive method of operation, in which the laser heats a small metal cylinder surrounding the capsule inside it. The heat causes the cylinder, known as a hohlraum (German for "hollow room", or cavity), to re-emit the energy as even higher frequency X-rays, which are still more evenly distributed and symmetrical. Experimental systems, including the OMEGA and Nova lasers, validated this approach.^[23] The NIF's high power supports a much larger target; the baseline pellet design is about 2 mm in diameter. It is chilled to about 18 kelvin (−255 °C) and lined with a layer of frozen deuterium–tritium (DT) fuel. The hollow interior contains a small amount of DT gas.^[24]

In a typical experiment, the laser generates 3 MJ of infrared laser energy of a possible 4. About 1.5 MJ remains after conversion to UV, and another 15 percent is lost in the hohlraum. About 15 percent of the resulting x-rays, about 150 kJ, are absorbed by the target's outer layers.^[25] The coupling between the capsule and the x-rays is lossy, and ultimately only about 10 to 14 kJ of energy is deposited in the fuel.^[26]

The fuels in the center of the target are compressed to a density of about 1000 g/cm^3.[27] For comparison, lead has a density of about 11 g/cm³). The pressure is the equivalent of 300 billion atmospheres.^[19]

Based on simulations, it was expected^[when?] that about 20 MJ of fusion energy would be released, resulting in a net fusion energy gain, denoted Q, of about 15 (fusion energy out/UV laser energy in).^[25] Improvements in both the laser system and hohlraum design are expected to improve the energy absorbed by the capsule to about 420 kJ (and thus perhaps 40 to 50 in the fuel itself), which, in turn, could generate up to 100–150 MJ of fusion energy.^[27] The baseline design allows for a maximum of about 45 MJ of fusion energy release, due to the design of the target chamber.^[28] This is the equivalent of about 11 kg of TNT exploding.^[29] Simulations suggest that a best-case implosion will produce a maximum energy of 7 MJ, well below the physical limit of the chamber.^[30]

As of 1996, these output energies were less than the 400 MJ^[31] of energy in the system's capacitors that power the laser amplifiers. The net wall-plug efficiency of NIF (UV laser energy out divided by the energy required to pump the lasers from an external source) would be less than one percent, and the total wall-to-fusion efficiency is under 10% at best. To be useful for energy production, the fusion output must be at least an order of magnitude more than this input. Commercial laser fusion systems would use much more efficient diode-pumped solid state lasers, where wall-plug efficiencies of 10 percent have been demonstrated, and efficiencies 16–18 percent were expected with advanced concepts under development in 1996.^[32]

Laser

As of 2010 NIF aimed to create a single 500 terawatt (TW) peak flash of light that reaches the target from numerous directions within a few picoseconds. The design uses 192 beamlines in a parallel system of flashlamp-pumped, neodymium-doped phosphate glass lasers.^[33]

To ensure that the output of the beamlines is uniform, the laser is amplified from a single source in the Injection Laser System (ILS). This starts with a low-power flash of 1053-nanometer (nm) infrared light generated in an ytterbium-doped optical fiber laser termed Master Oscillator.^[34] Its light is split and directed into 48 Preamplifier Modules (PAMs). Each PAM conducts a two-stage amplification process via xenon flash lamps. The first stage is a regenerative amplifier in which the pulse circulates 30 to 60 times, increasing its energy from nanojoules to tens of millijoules. The second stage sends the light four times through a circuit containing a neodymium glass amplifier similar to (but much smaller than) the ones used in the main beamlines, boosting the millijoules to about 6 joules. According to LLNL, designing the PAMs was one of the major challenges. Subsequent improvements allowed them to surpass their initial design goals.^[35]

The main amplification takes place in a series of glass amplifiers located at one end of the beamlines. Before firing, the amplifiers are first optically pumped by a total of 7,680 flash lamps. The lamps are powered by a capacitor bank that stores 400 MJ (110 kWh). When the wavefront passes through them, the amplifiers release some of the energy stored in them into the beam. The beams are sent through the main amplifier four times, using an optical switch located in a mirrored cavity. These amplifiers boost the original 6 J to a nominal 4 MJ.^[17] Given the time scale of a few nanoseconds, the peak UV power delivered to the target reaches 500 TW.^[36]

Near the center of each beamline, and taking up the majority of the total length, are spatial filters. These consist of long tubes with small telescopes at the end that focus the beam to a tiny point in the center of the tube, where a mask cuts off any stray light outside the focal point. The filters ensure that the beam image is extremely uniform. Spatial filters were a major step forward. They were introduced in the Cyclops laser, an earlier LLNL experiment.^[37]

The end-to-end length of the path the laser beam travels, including switches, is about 1,500 metres (4,900 ft). The various optical elements in the beamlines are generally packaged into Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), standardized boxes about the size of a vending machine that can be dropped out of the beamline for replacement from below.^[38]

After amplification is complete the light is switched back into the beamline, where it runs to the far end of the building to the target chamber. The target chamber is a 10-metre-diameter (33 ft) multi-piece steel sphere weighing 130,000 kilograms (290,000 lb).^[39] Just before reaching the target chamber, the light is reflected off mirrors in the switchyard and target area in order to hit the target from different directions. Since the path length from the Master Oscillator to the target is different for each beamline, optics are used to delay the light in order to ensure that they all reach the center within a few picoseconds of each other.^[40]

One of the last steps before reaching the target chamber is to convert the infrared (IR) light at 1053 nm into the ultraviolet (UV) at 351 nm in a device known as a frequency converter.^[41] These are made of thin sheets (about 1 cm thick) cut from a single crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate. When the 1053 nm (IR) light passes through the first of two of these sheets, frequency addition converts a large fraction of the light into 527 nm light (green). On passing through the second sheet, frequency combination converts much of the 527 nm light and the remaining 1053 nm light into 351 nm (UV) light. Infrared (IR) light is much less effective than UV at heating the targets, because IR couples more strongly with hot electrons that absorb a considerable amount of energy and interfere with compression. The conversion process can reach peak efficiencies of about 80 percent for a laser pulse that has a flat temporal shape, but the temporal shape needed for ignition varies significantly over the duration of the pulse. The actual conversion process is about 50 percent efficient, reducing delivered energy to a nominal 1.8 MJ.^[42]

As of 2010, one important aspect of any ICF research project was ensuring that experiments could be carried out on a timely basis. Previous devices generally had to cool down for many hours to allow the flashlamps and laser glass to regain their shapes after firing (due to thermal expansion), limiting their use to one or fewer firings per day. One of the goals for NIF has been to reduce this time to less than four hours, in order to allow 700 firings a year.^[43]

Other concepts

NIF is also exploring new types of targets. Previous experiments generally used plastic ablators, typically polystyrene (CH). NIF targets are constructed by coating a plastic form with a layer of sputtered beryllium or beryllium–copper alloy, and then oxidizing the plastic out of the center.^[44][45] Beryllium targets offer higher implosion efficiencies from x-ray inputs.^[46]

Although NIF was primarily designed as an indirect drive device, the energy in the laser as of 2008 was high enough to be used as a direct drive system, where the laser shines directly on the target without conversion to x-rays. The power delivered by NIF UV rays was estimated to be more than enough to cause ignition, allowing fusion energy gains of about 40x, somewhat higher than the indirect drive system.^[47]

As of 2005, scaled implosions on the OMEGA laser and computer simulations showed NIF to be capable of ignition using a polar direct drive (PDD) configuration where the target was irradiated directly by the laser only from the top and bottom, without changes to the NIF beamline layout.^[48]

As of 2005, other targets, called saturn targets, were specifically designed to reduce the anisotropy and improve the implosion.^[49] They feature a small plastic ring around the "equator" of the target, which becomes a plasma when hit by the laser. Some of the laser light is refracted through this plasma back towards the equator of the target, evening out the heating. NIF ignition with gains of just over 35 times are thought to be possible, producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach.^[48]

History

Impetus, 1957

The history of ICF at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, started with physicist John Nuckolls, who started considering the problem after a 1957 meeting arranged by Edward Teller there. During these meetings, the idea later known as PACER emerged. PACER envisioned the explosion of small hydrogen bombs in large caverns to generate steam that would be converted into electrical power. After identifying problems with this approach, Nuckolls wondered how small a bomb could be made that would still generate net positive power.^[50]

A typical hydrogen bomb has two parts: a plutonium-based fission bomb known as the primary, and a cylindrical arrangement of fusion fuels known as the secondary. The primary releases x-rays, which are trapped within the bomb casing. They heat and compress the secondary until it ignites. The secondary consists of lithium deuteride (LiD) fuel, which requires an external neutron source. This is normally in the form of a small plutonium "spark plug" in the center of the fuel. Nuckolls's idea was to explore how small the secondary could be made, and what effects this would have on the energy needed from the primary to cause ignition. The simplest change is to replace the LiD fuel with DT gas, removing the need for the spark plug. This allows secondaries of any size – as the secondary shrinks, so does the amount of energy needed for ignition. At the milligram level, the energy levels started to approach those available through several known devices.^[50]

By the early 1960s, Nuckolls and several other weapons designers had developed ICF's outlines. The DT fuel would be placed in a small capsule, designed to rapidly ablate when heated and thereby maximize compression and shock wave formation. This capsule would be placed within an engineered shell, the hohlraum, which acts like the bomb casing. The hohlraum did not have to be heated by x-rays; any source of energy could be used as long as it delivered enough energy to heat the hohlraum and produce x-rays. Ideally the energy source would be located some distance away, to mechanically isolate both ends of the reaction. A small atomic bomb could be used as the energy source, as in a hydrogen bomb, but ideally smaller energy sources would be used. Using computer simulations, the teams estimated that about 5 MJ of energy would be needed from the primary, generating a 1 MJ beam.^[50] To put this in perspective, a small (0.5 kt ) fission primary releases 2 TJ.^[51][52][53]

ICF program, 1970s

While Nuckolls and LLNL were working on hohlraum-based concepts, UCSD physicist Keith Brueckner was independently working on direct drive. In the early 1970s, Brueckner formed KMS Fusion to commercialize this concept. This sparked an intense rivalry between KMS and the weapons labs. Formerly ignored, ICF became a hot topic and most of the labs started ICF work.^[50] LLNL decided to concentrate on glass lasers, while other facilities studied gas lasers using carbon dioxide (e.g. ANTARES, Los Alamos National Laboratory) or KrF (e.g. Nike laser, Naval Research Laboratory).^[54]

Throughout these early stages, much of the understanding of the fusion process was the result of computer simulations, primarily LASNEX. LASNEX simplified the reaction to a 2-dimensional approximation, which was all that was possible with the available computing power. LASNEX estimated that laser drivers in the kJ range could reach low gain, which was just within the state of the art.^[50] This led to the Shiva laser project which was completed in 1977. Shiva fell far short of its goals. The densities reached were thousands of times smaller than predicted. This was traced to issues with the way the laser delivered heat to the target. Most of its energy energized electrons rather than the entire fuel mass. Further experiments and simulations demonstrated that this process could be dramatically improved by using shorter wavelengths.^[55]

Further upgrades to the simulation programs, accounting for these effects, predicted that a different design would reach ignition. This system took the form of the 20-beam 200 kJ Nova laser. During the construction phase, Nuckolls found an error in his calculations, and an October 1979 review chaired by former LLNL director John S. Foster Jr. confirmed that Nova would not reach ignition. It was modified into a smaller 10-beam design that converted the light to 351 nm and increase coupling efficiency.^[56] Nova was able to deliver about 30 kJ of UV laser energy, about half of what was expected, primarily due to optical damage to the final focusing optics. Even at those levels, it was clear that the predictions for fusion production were wrong; even at the limited powers available, fusion yields were far below predictions.^{[citation needed]}

Halite and Centurion, 1978

Each experiment showed that the energy needed to reach ignition continued to be underestimated. The Department of Energy (DOE) decided that direct experimentation was the best way to settle the issue, and in 1978 they started a series of underground experiments at the Nevada Test Site that used small nuclear bombs to illuminate ICF targets. The tests were known as Halite (LLNL) and Centurion (LANL).^[57]

The basic concept behind the tests had been developed in the 1960s as a way to develop anti-ballistic missile warheads. It was found that bombs that exploded outside the atmosphere gave off bursts of X-rays that could damage an enemy warhead at long range. To test the effectiveness of this system, and to develop countermeasures to protect US warheads, the Defense Atomic Support Agency (now the Defense Threat Reduction Agency) developed a system that placed the targets at the end of long tunnels behind fast-shutting doors. The doors were timed to shut in the brief period between the arrival of the X-rays and the subsequent blast. This saved the reentry vehicle (RV) from blast damage and allowed them to be inspected.^[57]

ICF tests used the same system, replacing the RVs by hohlraums. Each test simultaneously illuminated many targets, each at a different distance from the bomb to test the effect of varying of illumination. Another question was how large the fuel assembly had to be in order for the fuel to self-heat from the fusion reactions and thus reach ignition. Initial data were available by mid-1984, and the testing ceased in 1988. Ignition was achieved for the first time during these tests. The amount of energy and the size of the fuel targets needed to reach ignition was far higher than predicted.^[58] During this same period, experiments began on Nova using similar targets to understand their behavior under laser illumination, allowing direct comparison against the bomb tests.^[59]

This data suggested that about 10 MJ of X-ray energy would be needed to reach ignition, far beyond what had earlier been calculated.^{[58][60][61][62]} If those X-rays are created by beaming an IR laser to a hohlraum, as in Nova or NIF, then dramatically more laser energy would be required, on the order of 100 MJ.^[58]

This triggered a debate in the ICF community.^[58] One group suggested an attempt to build a laser of this power; Leonardo Mascheroni and Claude Phipps designed a new type of hydrogen fluoride laser pumped by high-energy electrons and reach the 100 MJ threshold. Others used the same data and new versions of their computer simulations to suggest that careful shaping of the laser pulse and more beams spread more evenly could achieve ignition with a laser powered between 5 and 10 MJ.^[63][64]

These results prompted the DOE to request a custom military ICF facility named the "Laboratory Microfusion Facility" (LMF). LMF would use a driver on the order of 10 MJ, delivering fusion yields of between 100 and 1,000 MJ. A 1989–1990 review of this concept by the National Academy of Sciences suggested that LMF was too ambitious, and that fundamental physics needed to be further explored. They recommended further experiments before attempting to move to a 10 MJ system. Nevertheless, the authors noted, "Indeed, if it did turn out that a 100 MJ driver were required for ignition and gain, one would have to rethink the entire approach to, and rationale for, ICF".^[65]

Laboratory Microfusion Facility and Nova Upgrade, 1990

As of 1992, the Laboratory Microfusion Facility was estimated to cost about $1 billion.^[66] LLNL initially submitted a design with a 5 MJ 350 nm (UV) driver that would be able to reach about 200 MJ yield, which was enough to attain the majority of the LMF goals.That program was estimated to cost about $600 million FY 1989 dollars. An additional $250 million would pay to upgrade it to a full 1,000 MJ. The total would surpass $1 billion to meet all of the goals requested by the DOE.^[66]

The NAS review led to a reevaluation of these plans, and in July 1990, LLNL responded with the Nova Upgrade, which would reuse most of Nova, along with the adjacent Shiva facility. The resulting system would be much lower power than the LMF concept, with a driver of about 1 MJ.^[67] The new design included features that advanced the state of the art in the driver section, including multi-pass in the main amplifiers, and 18 beamlines (up from 10) that were split into 288 "beamlets" as they entered the target area. The plans called for the installation of two main banks of beamlines, one in the existing Nova beamline room, and the other in the older Shiva building next door, extending through its laser bay and target area into an upgraded Nova target area. The lasers would deliver about 500 TW in a 4 ns pulse. The upgrades were expected to produce fusion yields of between 2 and 10 MJ. The initial estimates from 1992 estimated construction costs around $400 million, with construction taking place from 1995 to 1999.^[66]

NIF, 1994

Throughout this period, the ending of the Cold War led to dramatic changes in defense funding and priorities. The political support for nuclear weapons declined and arms agreements led to a reduction in warhead count and less design work. The US was faced with the prospect of losing a generation of nuclear weapon designers able to maintain existing stockpiles, or design new weapons.^[68] At the same time, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed in 1996, which would ban all criticality testing and made the development of newer generations of nuclear weapons more difficult.

Out of these changes came the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program (SSMP), which, among other things, included funds for the development of methods to design and build nuclear weapons without having to test them explosively. In a series of meetings that started in 1995, an agreement formed between the labs to divide up SSMP efforts. An important part of this would be confirmation of computer models using low-yield ICF experiments. The Nova Upgrade was too small to use for these experiments.^[69][a] A redesign matured into NIF in 1994. The estimated cost of the project remained almost $1 billion, with completion in 2002.^[70]

In spite of the agreement, the large project cost combined with the ending of similar projects at other labs resulted in critical comments by scientists at other labs, Sandia National Laboratories in particular. In May 1997, Sandia fusion scientist Rick Spielman publicly stated that NIF had "virtually no internal peer review on the technical issues" and that "Livermore essentially picked the panel to review themselves".^[71] A retired Sandia manager, Bob Puerifoy, was even more blunt than Spielman: "NIF is worthless ... it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period".^[72] Ray Kidder, one of the original developers of the ICF concept at LLNL, was also highly critical. He stated in 1997 that its primary purpose was to "recruit and maintain a staff of theorists and experimentalists" and that while some of the experimental data would prove useful for weapons design, differences in the experimental setup limit their relevance. "Some of the physics is the same; but the details, 'wherein the devil lies,' are quite different. It would therefore also be wrong to assume that NIF will be able to support for the long term a staff of weapons designers and engineers with detailed design competence comparable to that of those now working at the weapons design laboratories."^[73]

In 1997, Victor Reis, assistant secretary for Defense Programs within DOE and SSMP chief architect defended the program telling the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that NIF was "designed to produce, for the first time in a laboratory setting, conditions of temperature and density of matter close to those that occur in the detonation of nuclear weapons. The ability to study the behavior of matter and the transfer of energy and radiation under these conditions is key to understanding the basic physics of nuclear weapons and predicting their performance without underground nuclear testing."^[74] In 1998, two JASON panels, composed of scientific and technical experts, stated that NIF is the most scientifically valuable of all programs proposed for science-based stockpile stewardship.^[75]

Despite the initial criticism, Sandia, as well as Los Alamos, supported the development of many NIF technologies,^[76] and both laboratories later^[when?] became partners with NIF in the National Ignition Campaign.^[77]

Construction of first unit, 1994–1998

Work on the NIF started with a single beamline demonstrator, Beamlet. Beamlet successfully operated between 1994 and 1997. It was then sent to Sandia National Laboratories as a light source in their Z machine. A full-sized demonstrator then followed, in AMPLAB, which started operations in 1997.^[78] The official groundbreaking on the main NIF site was on May 29, 1997.^[79]

At the time, the DOE was estimating that the NIF would cost approximately $1.1 billion and another $1 billion for related research, and would be complete as early as 2002.^[80] Later in 1997 the DOE approved an additional $100 million in funding and pushed the operational date back to 2004. As late as 1998 LLNL's public documents stated the overall price was $1.2 billion, with the first eight lasers coming online in 2001 and full completion in 2003.^[81]

The facility's physical scale alone made the construction project challenging. By the time the "conventional facility" (the shell for the laser) was complete in 2001, more than 210,000 cubic yards of soil had been excavated, more than 73,000 cubic yards of concrete had been poured, 7,600 tons of reinforcing steel rebar had been placed, and more than 5,000 tons of structural steel had been erected. To isolate the laser system from vibration, the foundation of each laser bay was made independent of the rest of the structure. Three-foot-thick, 420-foot-long and 80-foot-wide slabs required continuous concrete pours to achieve their specifications.^[82]

In November 1997, an El Niño storm dumped two inches of rain in two hours, flooding the NIF site with 200,000 gallons of water just three days before the scheduled foundation pour. The earth was so soaked that the framing for the retaining wall sank six inches, forcing the crew to disassemble and reassemble it.^[82] Construction was halted in December 1997, when 16,000-year-old mammoth bones were discovered. Paleontologists were called in to remove and preserve the bones, delaying construction by four days.^[83]

A variety of research and development, technology and engineering challenges arose, such as creating an optics fabrication capability to supply the laser glass for NIF's 7,500 meter-sized optics. State-of-the-art optics measurement, coating and finishing techniques were developed to withstand NIF's high-energy lasers, as were methods for amplifying the laser beams to the needed energy levels.^[84] Continuous-pour glass, rapid-growth crystals, innovative optical switches, and deformable mirrors were among NIF's technology innovations developed.^[85]

Sandia, with extensive experience in pulsed power delivery, designed the capacitor banks used to feed the flashlamps, completing the first unit in October 1998. To everyone's surprise, the Pulsed Power Conditioning Modules (PCMs) suffered capacitor failures that led to explosions. This required a redesign of the module to contain the debris, but since the concrete had already been poured, this left the new modules so tightly packed that in-place maintenance was impossible. Another redesign followed, this time allowing the modules to be removed from the bays for servicing.^[56] Continuing problems further delayed operations, and in September 1999, an updated DOE report stated that NIF required up to $350 million more and completion occur only in 2006.^[80]

Re-baseline and GAO report, 1999–2000

Throughout this period the problems with NIF were not reported up the management chain. In 1999 then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson reported to Congress that NIF was on time and budget, as project leaders had reported. In August that year it was revealed that neither claim was close to the truth.^[86] As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would later note, "Furthermore, the Laboratory's former laser director, who oversaw NIF and all other laser activities, assured Laboratory managers, DOE, the university, and the Congress that the NIF project was adequately funded and staffed and was continuing on cost and schedule, even while he was briefed on clear and growing evidence that NIF had serious problems".^[80] A DOE Task Force reported to Richardson in January 2000 that "organizations of the NIF project failed to implement program and project management procedures and processes commensurate with a major research and development project... [and that] ...no one gets a passing grade on NIF Management: not the DOE's office of Defense Programs, not the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and not the University of California".^[87]

Given the budget problems, the US Congress requested an independent GAO review. They returned a critical report in August 2000 estimating that the cost was likely to be $3.9 billion, including R&D, and that the facility was unlikely to be completed anywhere near on time.^[80][88] The report noted management problems for the overruns, and criticized the program for failing to budget money for target fabrication, including it in operational costs instead of development.^[86]

In 2000, the DOE began a comprehensive "rebaseline review" because of the technical delays and project management issues, and adjusted the schedule and budget accordingly. John Gordon, National Nuclear Security Administrator, stated "We have prepared a detailed bottom-up cost and schedule to complete the NIF project... The independent review supports our position that the NIF management team has made significant progress and resolved earlier problems".^[89] The report revised their budget estimate to $2.25 billion, not including related R&D which pushed it to $3.3 billion total, and pushed back the completion date to 2006 with the first lines coming online in 2004.^[90][91] A follow-up report the next year pushed the budget to $4.2 billion, and the completion date to 2008.

The project got a new management team^[92][93] in September 1999, headed by George Miller, who was named acting associate director for lasers. Ed Moses, former head of the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) program at LLNL, became NIF project manager. Thereafter, NIF management received many positive reviews and the project met the budgets and schedules approved by Congress. In October 2010, the project was named "Project of the Year" by the Project Management Institute, which cited NIF as a "stellar example of how properly applied project management excellence can bring together global teams to deliver a project of this scale and importance efficiently."^[94]

Tests and construction completion, 2003–2009

In May 2003, the NIF achieved "first light" on a bundle of four beams, producing a 10.4 kJ IR pulse in a single beamline.^[43] In 2005 the first eight beams produced 153 kJ of IR, eclipsing OMEGA as the planet's highest energy laser (per pulse). By January 2007 all of the LRUs in the Master Oscillator Room (MOOR) were complete and the computer room had been installed. By August 2007, 96 laser lines were completed and commissioned, and "A total infrared energy of more than 2.5 megajoules has now been fired. This is more than 40 times what the Nova laser typically operated at the time it was the world's largest laser".^[95]

In 2005, an independent review by the JASON Defense Advisory Group that was generally positive, concluded that "The scientific and technical challenges in such a complex activity suggest that success in the early attempts at ignition in 2010, while possible, is unlikely".^[96] On January 26, 2009, the final line replaceable unit (LRU) was installed,^[97] unofficially completing construction.^[98] On February 26, 2009, NIF fired all 192 laser beams into the target chamber.^[99] On March 10, 2009, NIF became the first laser to break the megajoule barrier, delivering 1.1 MJ of UV light, known as 3ω (from third-harmonic generation), to the target chamber center in a shaped ignition pulse.^[100] The main laser delivered 1.952 MJ of IR.^[101]

Operations, 2009–2012

On May 29, 2009, the NIF was dedicated in a ceremony attended by thousands.^[102] The first laser shots into a hohlraum target were fired in late June.^[7]

Buildup to main experiments, 2010

On January 28, 2010, NIF reported the delivery of a 669 kJ pulse to a gold hohlraum, breaking records for laser power delivery, and analysis suggested that suspected interference by generated plasma would not be a problem in igniting a fusion reaction.^[103][104] Due to the size of the test hohlraums, laser/plasma interactions produced plasma-optics gratings, acting like tiny prisms, which produced symmetric X-ray drive on the capsule inside the hohlraum.^[104]

After gradually altering the wavelength of the laser, scientists compressed a spherical capsule evenly and heated it to 3.3 million kelvins (285 eV).^[105] The capsule contained cryogenically cooled gas, acting as a substitute for the deuterium and tritium fuel capsules to be used later.^[104] Plasma Physics Group Leader Siegfried Glenzer said that they could maintain the precise fuel layers needed in the lab, but not yet within the laser system.^[105]

As of January 2010, the NIF reached 1.8 megajoules. The target chamber then needed to be equipped with shields to block neutrons.^[103]

National Ignition Campaign 2010–2012

With the main construction complete, NIF started its National Ignition Campaign (NIC) to reach ignition. At the time, articles appeared in science magazines stating that ignition was imminent. Scientific American opened a 2010 review article with the statement "Ignition is close now. Within a year or two..."^[106]

The first test was carried out on October 8, 2010, at slightly over 1 MJ. However, problems slowed the drive toward ignition-level laser energies in the 1.4–1.5 MJ range.^{[citation needed]}

One problem was the potential for damage from overheating due to a greater concentration of energy on optical components.^[107] Other issues included problems layering the fuel inside the target, and minute quantities of dust on the capsule surface.^[108]

The power level continued to increase and targets became more sophisticated. Then minute amounts of water vapor appeared in the target chamber and froze to the windows on the ends of the hohlraums, causing an asymmetric implosion. This was solved by adding a second layer of glass on either end, in effect creating a storm window.^[108]

Shots halted from February to April 2011, to conduct SSMP materials experiments. Then, NIF was upgraded, improving diagnostic and measurement instruments. The Advanced Radiographic Capability (ARC) system was added, which uses 4 of the NIF's 192 beams as a backlight for imaging the implosion sequence. ARC is essentially a petawatt-class laser with peak power exceeding a quadrillion (10¹⁵) watts. It is designed to produce brighter, more penetrating, higher-energy x rays. ARC became the world's highest-energy short-pulse laser, capable of creating picosecond-duration laser pulses to produce energetic x rays in the range of 50–100 keV.^[109]

NIC runs restarted in May 2011 with the goal of more precisely timing the four laser shock waves that compress the fusion target.^{[citation needed]}

In January 2012, Mike Dunne, director of NIF's laser fusion energy program, predicted that ignition would be achieved at NIF by October.^[110] In the same month, the NIF fired a record high 57 shots.^[111] On March 15 NIF produced a laser pulse with 411 TW of peak power.^[112] On July 5, it produced a shorter pulse of 1.85 MJ and increased power of 500 TW.^[113]

DOE Report, July 19, 2012

NIC was periodically reviewed. The 6th review, was published on July 19, 2012.^[114] The report praised the quality of the installation: lasers, optics, targets, diagnostics, and operations. However:

The integrated conclusion based on this extensive period of experimentation, however, is that considerable hurdles must be overcome to reach ignition or the goal of observing unequivocal alpha heating. Indeed the reviewers note that given the unknowns with the present 'semi-empirical' approach, the probability of ignition before the end of December is extremely low and even the goal of demonstrating unambiguous alpha heating is challenging.^[114]: 2

Further, the report expressed deep concerns that the gaps between observed performance and simulation codes implied that the current codes were of limited utility. Specifically, they found a lack of predictive ability of the radiation drive to the capsule and inadequately modeled laser–plasma interactions. Pressure was reaching only one half to one third of that required for ignition, far below the predicted values. The memo discussed the mixing of ablator material and capsule fuel likely due to hydrodynamics instabilities in the ablator's outer surface.^[114]

The report suggested using a thicker ablator, although this would increase its inertia. To keep the required implosion speed, they proposed that the NIF energy be increased to 2MJ. It questioned whether or not the energy was sufficient to compress a large enough capsule to avoid the mix limit and reach ignition.^[115] The report concluded that ignition within the calendar year 2012 was 'highly unlikely'.^[114]

NIC officially ended on September 30, 2012. Media reports suggested that NIF would shift its focus toward materials research.^[116][117]

In 2008, LLNL began the Laser Inertial Fusion Energy program (LIFE), to explore ways to use NIF technologies as the basis for a commercial power plant design. The focus was on pure fusion devices, incorporating technologies that developed in parallel with NIF that would greatly improve the performance of the design.^[118] In April 2014, LIFE ended.^[118]

Fuel gain breakeven, 2013

A NIF fusion shot on September 27, 2013, produced more energy than was absorbed by the deuterium–tritium fuel.^[119] This has been confused with having reached "scientific breakeven",^[120][121] defined as the fusion energy exceeding the laser input energy.^[122] Using this definition gives 14.4 kJ out and 1.8 MJ in, a ratio of 0.008.^[119]

Stockpile experiments, 2013–2015

In 2013, NIF shifted focus to materials and weapons research. Experiments beginning in FY 2015 used plutonium targets.^[123] Plutonium shots simulate the compression of the primary in a nuclear bomb by high explosives, which had not seen direct testing since CNTB took effect. Plutonium use ranged from less than a milligram to 10 milligrams.^[124]

In FY 2014, NIF performed 191 shots, slightly more than one every two days. As of April 2015 NIF was on track to meet its goal of 300 laser shots in FY 2015.^[125]

Back to fusion, 2016–present

On January 28, 2016, NIF successfully executed its first gas pipe experiment intended to study the absorption of large amounts of laser light within 1 centimetre (0.39 in) long targets relevant to high-gain magnetized liner inertial fusion (MagLIF). In order to investigate key aspects of the propagation, stability, and efficiency of laser energy coupling at full scale for high-gain MagLIF target designs, a single quad of NIF was used to deliver 30 kJ of energy to a target during a 13 nanosecond shaped pulse. Data return was favorable.^[126]

In 2018, improvements in controlling compression asymmetry was demonstrated in a shot with an output of 1.9×10¹⁶ neutrons, resulting in 0.054 MJ of fusion energy released by a 1.5 MJ laser pulse.^[127]

Burning plasma achieved, 2021

Experiments in 2020 and 2021 yielded the world's first burning plasmas, in which most of the plasma heating came from nuclear fusion reactions.^[11] This result was followed on August 8, 2021 by the world's first ignited plasma, in which the fusion heating was sufficient to sustain the thermonuclear reaction.^{[128][129][130]} It produced excess neutrons consistent with a short-lived chain reaction of around 100 trillionths of a second.^[131][132]

The fusion energy yield of the 2021 experiment was estimated to be 70% of the laser energy incident on the plasma. This result slightly beat the former record of 67% set by the JET torus in 1997.^{[133][failed verification]} Taking the energy efficiency of the laser itself into account, the experiment used about 477 MJ of electrical energy to get 1.8 MJ of energy into the target to create 1.3 MJ of fusion energy.^[11]

Several design changes enabled this result. The material of the capsule shell was changed to diamond to increase the absorbance of secondary x-rays created by the laser burst, thus increasing the efficacy of the collapse, and its surface was further smoothed. The size of the hole in the capsule used to inject fuel was reduced. The holes in the gold cylinder surrounding the capsule were shrunk to reduce energy loss. The laser pulse was extended.^[134]

Scientific breakeven achieved, 2022

This section appears to contradict itself on the amount of energy produced by the first scientific breakeven. Please see the talk page for more information. (May 2024)

The NIF became the first fusion experiment to achieve scientific breakeven on December 5, 2022, with an experiment producing 3.15 megajoules of energy from a 2.05 megajoule input of laser light for an energy gain of about 1.5.^{[12][135][136][137][138]} Charging the laser consumed "well above 400 megajoules".^[139] In a public announcement on December 13, the Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm announced the facility had achieved ignition.^[140] While this was often characterized as a "net energy gain" from fusion, this was only true with respect to the energy delivered by the laser; reports sometimes omitted the ~300 MJ power input required.^[13][14][15]

The feat required the use of a slightly thicker and smoother capsule surrounding the fuel and a 2.05 MJ laser (up from 1.9 MJ in 2021), yielding 3.15 MJ, a 54% surplus.^[141] They also redistributed the energy among the split laser beams, which produced a more symmetrical (spherical) implosion.^[1]

The NIF achieved breakeven for a second time on July 30, 2023 yielding 3.88 MJ, an 89% surplus.^[142][143] At least four of six shots performed after the first successful one in December 2022 achieved breakeven.^[144] These successes led the DOE to fund three additional research centers.^[143] Lawrence Livermore planned to raise laser energy to 2.2 MJ per shot through upgraded optics and lasers c. 2023,^[145][146] reaching it on the experiment held on October 30, 2023.^[143]

Similar projects

Some similar experimental ICF projects are:

• Laser Mégajoule (LMJ)^[147]
• Nike laser
• High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER)^[148]
• Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE)
• Magnetized liner inertial fusion (MagLIF)^[149]
• Shenguang-II High Power Laser^[150]

Pictures

• Viewing port allows a look into the interior of the 30 foot diameter target chamber.

• Exterior view of the upper third of the target chamber. The large square beam ports are prominent.

• A technician loads an instrument canister into the vacuum-sealed diagnostic instrument manipulator.

• The flashlamps used to pump the main amplifiers are the largest ever in commercial production.

• The glass slabs used in the amplifiers are likewise much larger than those used in previous lasers.

In popular culture

The NIF was used as the set for the starship Enterprise's warp core in the 2013 movie Star Trek Into Darkness.^[151]

See also

• Z Pulsed Power Facility
• Chain reaction
• HiPER
• Inertial confinement fusion
• ITER
• Laser Mégajoule
• Nuclear fusion
• Nuclear reactor

Notes

1. It is not clearly stated why Nova Upgrade would be too small for SSMP, no reason is given in the available resources.

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Clery, Daniel (December 13, 2022). "With historic explosion, a long sought fusion breakthrough". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adg2803. Archived from the original on December 24, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
2. David Kramer (December 13, 2022), "National Ignition Facility surpasses long-awaited fusion milestone", Physics Today, 2022 (2), American Institute of Physics: 1213a, Bibcode:2022PhT..2022b1213., doi:10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a, S2CID 254663644, archived from the original on June 8, 2024, retrieved December 13, 2022, The shot at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on 5 December is the first-ever controlled fusion reaction to produce an energy gain.normal
3. "About NIF & Photon Science". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on December 2, 2017.normal
4. Hogan, W.J; Moses, E.I; Warner, B.E; Sorem, M.S; Soures, J.M (2001). "The National Ignition Facility". Nuclear Fusion. 41 (5): 567–573. Bibcode:2001NucFu..41..567H. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/5/309. ISSN 0029-5515. S2CID 250785362. Archived from the original on December 17, 2022. Retrieved December 17, 2022.normal
5. Nathan, Stuart (October 6, 2019). "Tracing the sources of nuclear fusion". The Engineer. Archived from the original on June 10, 2019. Retrieved June 10, 2019.normal
6. "Department of Energy Announces Completion of World's Largest Laser". United States Department of Energy. March 31, 2009. Archived from the original on April 1, 2009. Retrieved April 1, 2009.normal
7. ^ ^{a b} "First NIF Shots Fired to Hohlraum Targets". National Ignition Facility. June 2009. Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved September 13, 2009.normal
8. "First successful integrated experiment at National Ignition Facility announced". General Physics. PhysOrg.com. October 8, 2010. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022. Retrieved October 9, 2010.normal
9. Crandall, David (December 27, 2012). Final Review of the National Ignition Campaign (PDF) (Technical report). Department of Energy. p. 3.normal
10. An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy. National Academies Press. July 2013. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-309-27224-7.normal
11. ^ ^{a b c} Zylstra, A. B.; Hurricane, O. A.; Callahan, D. A.; Kritcher, A. L.; Ralph, J. E.; Robey, H. F.; Ross, J. S.; Young, C. V.; Baker, K. L.; Casey, D. T.; Döppner, T. (2022). "Burning plasma achieved in inertial fusion". Nature. 601 (7894): 542–548. Bibcode:2022Natur.601..542Z. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04281-w. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 8791836. PMID 35082418.normal
12. ^ ^{a b} "National Ignition Facility achieves fusion ignition". www.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
13. ^ ^{a b c} "We have 'ignition': Fusion breakthrough draws energy gain". NBC News. December 13, 2022. Retrieved July 10, 2024.normal
14. ^ ^{a b} "There is no "breakthrough": NIF fusion power still consumes 130 times more energy than it creates". Big Think. December 13, 2022. Retrieved July 10, 2024.normal
15. ^ ^{a b} "Why the nuclear fusion 'net energy gain' is more hype than breakthrough". WHYY. Retrieved July 10, 2024.normal
16. ^ ^{a b} Winterberg, Friedwardt (2010), The Release of Thermonuclear Energy by Inertial Confinement: Ways Towards Ignition, World Scientific, p. 2, ISBN 978-981-4295-90-1normal
17. ^ ^{a b} "How NIF works". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved October 2, 2007.normal
18. Hans G. Rinderknecht; D. T. Casey; R. Hatarik; R. M. Bionta; B. J. MacGowan; P. Patel; O. L. Landen; E. P. Hartouni; O. A. Hurricane (April 10, 2020). "Azimuthal Drive Asymmetry in Inertial Confinement Fusion Implosions on the National Ignition Facility". Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (145002): 145002. Bibcode:2020PhRvL.124n5002R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.145002. PMID 32338973. S2CID 216305472. [A]symmetry degrades hot-spot conditions at peak convergence and limits implosion performance and yield.normal
19. ^ ^{a b} "Climbing the mountain of fusion ignition: an interview with Omar Hurricane". LLNL. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022. Retrieved May 29, 2015.normal
20. Peterson, Per F. (September 23, 1998). "Inertial Fusion Energy: A Tutorial on the Technology and Economics". Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved October 8, 2013.normal
21. Per F. Peterson, "How IFE Targets Work", University of California, Berkeley, 1998. Retrieved on May 8, 2008. Archived May 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
22. Per F. Peterson, "Drivers for Inertial Fusion Energy", University of California, Berkeley, 1998. Retrieved on May 8, 2008. Archived May 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
23. J.D. Lindl et al., The physics basis for ignition using indirect-drive targets on the National Ignition Facility, Physics of Plasmas, Vol. 11, February 2004, page 339. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
24. Biello, David. "High-Powered Lasers Deliver Fusion Energy Breakthrough". Scientific American. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
25. ^ ^{a b} Suter, L.; J. Rothenberg, D. Munro, et al., "Feasibility of High Yield/High Gain NIF Capsules^{[permanent dead link‍]}", Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, December 6, 1999. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
26. Hurricane, O. A.; Callahan, D. A.; Casey, D. T.; Dewald, E. L.; Dittrich, T. R.; Döppner, T.; Barrios Garcia, M. A.; Hinkel, D. E.; Berzak Hopkins, L. F.; Kervin, P.; Kline, J. L.; Pape, S. Le; Ma, T.; MacPhee, A. G.; Milovich, J. L.; Moody, J.; Pak, A. E.; Patel, P. K.; Park, H.-S.; Remington, B. A.; Robey, H. F.; Salmonson, J. D.; Springer, P. T.; Tommasini, R.; Benedetti, L. R.; Caggiano, J. A.; Celliers, P.; Cerjan, C.; Dylla-Spears, R.; Edgell, D.; Edwards, M. J.; Fittinghoff, D.; Grim, G. P.; Guler, N.; Izumi, N.; Frenje, J. A.; Gatu Johnson, M.; Haan, S.; Hatarik, R.; Herrmann, H.; Khan, S.; Knauer, J.; Kozioziemski, B. J.; Kritcher, A. L.; Kyrala, G.; Maclaren, S. A.; Merrill, F. E.; Michel, P.; Ralph, J.; Ross, J. S.; Rygg, J. R.; Schneider, M. B.; Spears, B. K.; Widmann, K.; Yeamans, C. B. (May 2014). "The high-foot implosion campaign on the National Ignition Facility". Physics of Plasmas. 21 (5): 056314. Bibcode:2014PhPl...21e6314H. doi:10.1063/1.4874330. OSTI 1129989.normal
27. ^ ^{a b} Lindl, John (September 24, 2005). "Ignition Physics Program" (PDF). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2006. Retrieved August 1, 2022.normal
28. M. Tobin et al., Target Area Design Basis and System Performance for NIF, American Nuclear Society, June 1994. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
29. "Table megajoules to tons of TNT | MJ to tTNT". www.qtransform.com. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
30. Chang, Kenneth (September 25, 2023). "A Laser Fusion Breakthrough Gets a Bigger Burst of Energy". New York Times. Archived from the original on September 26, 2023. Retrieved September 26, 2023.normal
31. "NIF By the Numbers" (PDF). LLNL. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 17, 2022. Retrieved December 17, 2022.normal
32. Paine, Stephen; Marshall, Christopher (September 1996). "Taking Lasers Beyond the NIF". Science and Technology Review. Archived from the original on February 27, 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2012.normal
33. "Press release: NNSA and LLNL announce first successful integrated experiment at NIF". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. October 6, 2010. Archived from the original on August 12, 2017. Retrieved August 12, 2017.normal
34. P.J. Wisoff et al., NIF Injection Laser System Archived September 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5341, pages 146–155
35. Powell. "Keeping Laser Development on Target for the NIF]". Archived from the original on December 4, 2008.normal, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Retrieved on October 2, 2007
36. Hunt, J.T.; Manes, K.R.; Murray, J.R.; Renard, P.A.; Sawicki, R.; Trenholme, J.B.; Williams, W. (November 16, 1994). "Laser Design Basis for the National Ignition Facility". Fusion Technology. 26 (3P2): 767–771. Bibcode:1994FuTec..26..767H. doi:10.13182/FST94-A40247.normal
37. "45 Years of Laser Leadership". lasers.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
38. Larson, Doug W. (2004). "NIF laser line-replaceable units (LRUs)". In Lane, Monya A; Wuest, Craig R (eds.). Optical Engineering at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory II: The National Ignition Facility. Vol. 5341. p. 127. Bibcode:2004SPIE.5341..127L. doi:10.1117/12.538467. S2CID 122364719. Archived from the original on December 16, 2022. Retrieved October 11, 2019.normal
39. Lyons, Daniel (November 14, 2009). "Could This Lump Power the Planet?". Newsweek. p. 3. Archived from the original on November 17, 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2009.normal
40. Arnie Heller, Orchestrating the World's Most Powerful Laser Archived November 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Science & Technology Review, July/August 2005. Retrieved on May 7, 2008
41. P.J. Wegner et al.,NIF final optics system: frequency conversion and beam conditioning Archived September 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Proceedings of SPIE 5341, May 2004, pages 180–189.
42. Bibeau, Camille; Paul J. Wegner, Ruth Hawley-Fedder (June 1, 2006). "UV SOURCES: World's largest laser to generate powerful ultraviolet beams". Laser Focus World. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
43. ^ ^{a b} NIF Project Sets Record for Laser Performance Archived May 28, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, June 5, 2003. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
44. Wilson, Douglas C.; Bradley, Paul A.; Hoffman, Nelson M.; Swenson, Fritz J.; Smitherman, David P.; Chrien, Robert E.; Margevicius, Robert W.; Thoma, D. J.; Foreman, Larry R.; Hoffer, James K.; Goldman, S. Robert; Caldwell, Stephen E.; Dittrich, Thomas R.; Haan, Steven W.; Marinak, Michael M.; Pollaine, Stephen M.; Sanchez, Jorge J. (May 1998). "The development and advantages of beryllium capsules for the National Ignition Facility". Physics of Plasmas. 5 (5): 1953–1959. Bibcode:1998PhPl....5.1953W. doi:10.1063/1.872865. Archived from the original on December 16, 2022. Retrieved October 11, 2019.normal
45. "Meeting the Target Challenge". Science & Technology Review. Archived from the original on November 15, 2008. Retrieved May 7, 2008.normal
46. Wilson, D. C.; Yi, S. A.; Simakov, A. N.; Kline, J. L.; Kyrala, G. A.; Dewald, E. L.; Tommasini, R.; Ralph, J. E.; Olson, R. E.; Strozzi, D. J.; Celliers, P. M.; Schneider, M. B.; MacPhee, A. G.; Zylstra, A. B.; Callahan, D. A.; Hurricane, O. A.; Milovich, J. L.; Hinkel, D. E.; Rygg, J. R.; Rinderknecht, H. G.; Sio, H.; Perry, T. S.; Batha, S. (2016). "X-Ray Drive of Beryllium Capsule Implosions at the National Ignition Facility". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 717 (1): 012058. Bibcode:2016JPhCS.717a2058W. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/717/1/012058. ISSN 1742-6588. S2CID 114667921.normal
47. S. V. Weber et al., Hydrodynamic Stability of NIF Direct Drive Capsules Archived December 13, 2022, at the Wayback Machine, MIXED session, November 8. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
48. ^ ^{a b} Yaakobi, B.; R. L. McCrory, S. Skupsky, et al. Polar Direct Drive—Ignition at 1 MJ, LLE Review, Vol 104, September 2005, pp. 186–8. Retrieved on May 7, 2008 Archived January 2, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
49. True, M. A.; J. R. Albritton, and E. A. Williams, "The Saturn Target for Polar Direct Drive on the National Ignition Facility, LLE Review, Vol. 102, January–March 2005, pp. 61–6. Retrieved on May 7, 2008. Archived August 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
50. ^ ^{a b c d e} Nuckolls, John (June 12, 1998). "Early Steps Toward Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE)". LLNL. doi:10.2172/658936. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 13, 2022.normal
51. "Convert kilotons, to megajoules". Unit Juggler. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022.normal
52. Nuckolls; et al. (1972). "Laser Compression of Matter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear (CTR) Applications" (PDF). Nature. 239 (5368): 129. Bibcode:1972Natur.239..139N. doi:10.1038/239139a0. S2CID 45684425. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 22, 2011.normal
53. Lindl, John (December 1994). "The Edward Teller Medal Lecture: The Evolution Toward Indirect Drive and Two Decades of Progress Toward ICF Ignition and Burn". 11th International Workshop on Laser Interaction and Related Plasma Phenomena. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 13, 2022. Retrieved May 7, 2008.normal
54. "Nova Review" (PDF). Energy and Technology Review. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 20, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
55. "Shiva Laser System". www.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
56. ^ ^{a b} McKinzie, Matthew; Paine, Christopher. When Peer Review Fails (Technical report). NDRC.normal
57. ^ ^{a b} McCracken, Garry; Stott, Peter (January 1, 2013). "Chapter 12 – Large Inertial-Confinement Systems". In McCracken, Garry; Stott, Peter (eds.). Fusion (Second ed.). Academic Press. pp. 149–164. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384656-3.00012-X. ISBN 978-0-12-384656-3. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022 – via ScienceDirect.normal
58. ^ ^{a b c d} Broad, William (March 21, 1988). "Secret Advance in Nuclear Fusion Spurs a Dispute Among Scientists". New York Times. Archived from the original on March 11, 2017. Retrieved February 11, 2017.normal
59. John Lindl, "A strategy for determining the driver requirements for high gain ICF implosions utilizing hydrodynamically equivalent capsules on Nova laser", Laser Annual Program Report, 1981, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50055-80/81, pp.2-29-2-57 (unpublished)
60. Lindl, John; McCrory, Rober; Campbell, Michael (September 1992). "Progress Toward Ignition and Burn Propagation in Inertial Confinement Fusion" (PDF). Physics Today. 45 (9): 32–40. Bibcode:1992PhT....45i..32L. doi:10.1063/1.881318. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 31, 2013.normal
61. "Infighting Among Rival Theorists Imperils 'Hot' Fusion Lab Plan". The Scientist. Archived from the original on May 8, 2015.normal
62. Schewe, Phillip; Stein, Ben (October 25, 1995). "Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Article Announcement". Physics News.normal
63. Storm, E. (September 28, 1988). "Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information – Sponsored by OSTI" (PDF). osti.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved October 18, 2012.normal
64. John Lindl, Development of the Indirect-Drive Approach to Inertial Confinement Fusion and the Target Physics Basis for Ignition and Gain, Physics of Plasmas Vol. 2, No. 11, November 1995; pp. 3933–4024
65. Koonin, Steven E.; Carrier, George F.; Christy, Robert F.; Conn, Robert W.; Davidson, Ronald C.; Dawson, John M.; Demaria, Anthony J.; Doty, Paul M.; Happer, William; Kulcinski, Gerald L.; Longmire, Conrad L.; Powell, James R.; Rosenbluth, Marshall N.; Ruina, Jack P.; Sproull, Robert L.; Tigner, Maury; Wagner, Richard L. (1991). "Review of the department of energy's inertial confinement fusion program" (PDF). Journal of Fusion Energy. 10 (2): 157–172. Bibcode:1991JFuE...10..157K. doi:10.1007/BF01050621. S2CID 122974976. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
66. ^ ^{a b c} Nova Upgrade – A Proposed ICF Facility to Demonstrate Ignition and Gain, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ICF Program, July 1992 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992nupi.rept....../abstract Archived December 15, 2022, at the Wayback Machine
67. Tobin, M.T et al., Target area for Nova Upgrade: containing ignition and beyond , Fusion Engineering, 1991, pg. 650–655. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
68. William Broad, Vast Laser Plan Would Further Fusion and Keep Bomb Experts Archived December 13, 2022, at the Wayback Machine, New York Times, June 21, 1994. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
69. Letter from Charles Curtis, Undersecretary of Energy, June 15, 1995
70. "Photonic Frontiers: The National Ignition Facility: NIF is up and running at last". www.laserfocusworld.com. November 2009. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
71. "Livermore's costly fusion laser won't fly, scientists say", Albuquerque Tribune, May 29, 1997, p. 1
72. L. Spohn, "NIF opponents to cite criticism of laser in court battle", Albuquerque Tribune, June 13, 1997, p. A15.
73. Kidder, Ray (April 17, 1997). "Problems with stockpile stewardship". Nature. 386 (6626): 645–647. Bibcode:1997Natur.386..645K. doi:10.1038/386645a0. S2CID 4268081. Archived from the original on September 23, 2004.normal
74. Statement of Dr. Victor Reis, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, Department of Energy, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 19, 1997 (retrieved July 13, 2012, from http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/Director/reisSASC97.html Archived January 4, 2005, at the Wayback Machine )
75. "Statement of Federico Peña, Secretary, US Dept of Energy, before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate". March 26, 1998. Archived from the original on February 5, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2012.normal
76. Boyes, J.; Boyer, W.; Chael, J.; Cook, D.; Cook, W.; Downey, T.; Hands, J.; Harjes, C.; Leeper, R.; McKay, P.; Micano, P.; Olson, R.; Porter, J.; Quintenz, J.; Roberts, V.; Savage, M.; Simpson, W.; Seth, A.; Smith, R.; Wavrik, M.; Wilson, M. (August 31, 2012). Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information – Sponsored by OSTI (PDF) (Report). Osti.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 31, 2013. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
77. "National Ignition Campaign: Participants, NIF & Photon Science". Lasers.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
78. J. A. Horvath, Assembly and Maintenance of Full Scale NIF Amplifiers in the Amplifier Module Prototype Laboratory (AMPLAB) Archived September 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Third Annual International Conference on Solid State Lasers for Application (SSLA) to Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF), July 16, 1998
79. "Multimedia: Photo Gallery, NIF & Photon Science". Lasers.llnl.gov. May 29, 1997. Archived from the original on July 24, 2012. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
80. ^ ^{a b c d} NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY, Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost Overruns and Schedule Delays, GAO, August 2000
81. Powell, Howard T.; Sawicki, Richard H. (March 1998). "Keeping Laser Development on Target for the National Ignition Facility". S&TR. Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved October 9, 2023.normal
82. ^ ^{a b} "NIF conventional facility complete" (PDF). Newsline. LLNL. October 26, 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 26, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2012.normal
83. "Fusion Fun: NIFFY, NIF & Photon Science". Lasers.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on January 25, 2013. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
84. Osolin, Charles. "Harnessing the Power of Light". Innovation America. Archived from the original on September 8, 2015. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
85. "National Ignition Facility: The Seven Wonders of NIF, NIF & Photon Science". Lasers.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
86. ^ ^{a b} James Glanz, Laser Project Is Delayed and Over Budget Archived June 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, New York Times, August 19, 2000. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
87. Interim Report of the National Ignition Facility Laser System Task Force, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, January 10, 2000. Retrieved on May 7, 2008. Archived June 29, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
88. GAO Report Cites New NIF Cost Estimate, FYI, American Institute of Physics, Number 101: August 30, 2000. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
89. Ian Hoffman, Nuclear testing gear in doubt Archived July 8, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, MediaNews Group,
90. New Cost and Schedule Estimates for National Ignition Facility, FYI: The API Bulletin of Science Policy News, American Institute of Physics. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
91. More on New NIF Cost and Schedule, FYI, American Institute of Physics, Number 65, June 15, 2000. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
92. LLNL Management Changes, Fusion Power Associates, September 10, 1999, http://aries.ucsd.edu/FPA/ARC99/fpn99-43.shtml Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (retrieved July 13, 2012)
93. Campbell Investigation Triggers Livermore Management Changes, Fusion Power Report, Sep 1, 1999 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Campbell+Investigation+Triggers+Livermore+Management+Changes.-a063375944 Archived March 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (retrieved July 13, 2012)
94. "National Ignition Facility wins prestigious 2010 project of the year award". llnl.gov. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. October 11, 2010. Archived from the original on July 26, 2012. Retrieved July 13, 2012.normal
95. World's largest laser picks up the pace Archived May 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, November 21, 2007. Retrieved on May 7, 2008.
96. NIF Ignition Archived April 24, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, JASON Program, June 29, 2005
97. Hirschfeld, Bob (January 30, 2009). "Last of 6,206 modules installed in NIF". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved April 3, 2009.normal
98. "Project Status February 2009". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. February 26, 2009. Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved March 11, 2009.normal
99. Seaver, Lynda; Hirschfeld, Bob (March 6, 2009). "NIF's future ignites with 192-beam shot". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved April 3, 2009.normal
100. "NIF breaks megaJoule barrier". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. March 13, 2009. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved April 3, 2009.normal
101. "NIF breaks megaJoule barrier". LLNL.gov. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 15, 2022.normal
102. "Dedication of world's largest laser marks the dawn of a new era". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. May 29, 2009. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved September 13, 2009.normal
103. ^ ^{a b} Jason Palmer (January 28, 2010). "Laser fusion test results raise energy hopes". BBC News. Archived from the original on January 29, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2010.normal
104. ^ ^{a b c} "Initial NIF experiments meet requirements for fusion ignition". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. January 28, 2010. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2010.normal
105. ^ ^{a b} Bullis, Kevin (January 28, 2010). "Scientists Overcome Obstacle to Fusion". Technology Review. Retrieved January 29, 2010.normal
106. Moyer, Michael (March 2010). "Fusion's False Dawn". Scientific American. pp. 50–57. Archived from the original on June 1, 2023. Retrieved December 16, 2022.normal
107. Eugenie Samuel Reich (October 18, 2010). "Superlaser fires a blank". Scientific American. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved October 2, 2010.normal
108. ^ ^{a b} Kramer, David (April 21, 2011). "NIF overcomes some problems, receives mixed review from its DOE overseer". Physics Today. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011.normal
109. "Photons & Fusion Newsletter – May 2014". National Ignition Facility & Photon Science News – Archive – Photons & Fusion Newsletter. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. May 2014. Archived from the original on July 6, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2015.normal
110. SPIE Europe Ltd. "PW 2012: fusion laser on track for 2012 burn". Optics.org. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Retrieved October 8, 2012.normal
111. Eric Hand (March 7, 2012). "Laser fusion nears crucial milestone". Nature. 483 (7388): 133–134. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..133H. doi:10.1038/483133a. PMID 22398531.normal
112. "Record-breaking laser pulse raises fusion-power hopes". March 22, 2012. Archived from the original on March 23, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2012.normal
113. "World's most powerful laser fires most powerful laser blast ever". Fox News. March 27, 2015. Archived from the original on February 3, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
114. ^ ^{a b c d} "External Review of the National Ignition Campaign" (PDF). Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 14, 2012. Retrieved October 10, 2012.normal
115. Crandall 2012, p. 5.
116. Brumfiel, Geoff (November 7, 2012). "World's Most Powerful Laser Facility Shifts Focus to Warheads". Scientific American. Archived from the original on November 8, 2012. Retrieved November 8, 2012.normal
117. "Editorial: Ignition switch". Nature. 491 (7423): 159. November 7, 2012. doi:10.1038/491159a. PMID 23139940.normal
118. ^ ^{a b} Kramer, David (April 2014). "Livermore Ends LIFE". Physics Today. 67 (4): 26–27. Bibcode:2014PhT....67R..26K. doi:10.1063/PT.3.2344. S2CID 178876869.normal
119. ^ ^{a b} Hurricane, O. A.; Callahan, D. A.; Casey, D. T.; Celliers, P. M.; Cerjan, C.; Dewald, E. L.; Dittrich, T. R.; Döppner, T.; Hinkel, D. E.; Hopkins, L. F. Berzak; Kline, J. L.; Le Pape, S.; Ma, T.; MacPhee, A. G.; Milovich, J. L. (February 2014). "Fuel gain exceeding unity in an inertially confined fusion implosion". Nature. 506 (7488): 343–348. Bibcode:2014Natur.506..343H. doi:10.1038/nature13008. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 24522535. S2CID 4466026. Archived from the original on November 18, 2023. Retrieved July 25, 2023.normal
120. Clery, Daniel (October 10, 2013). "Fusion "Breakthrough" at NIF? Uh, Not Really". ScienceInsider. Archived from the original on October 16, 2013. Retrieved November 3, 2013.normal
121. Hecht, Jeff (October 9, 2013). "Progress at NIF, but no 'breakthrough'". LaserFocusWorld. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015. Retrieved February 25, 2015.normal
122. Meade, Dale (October 11, 2013). "Scientific Breakeven for Fusion Energy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 26, 2015. Retrieved February 26, 2015.normal
123. Thomas, Jeremy (January 30, 2014). "Despite objections, Livermore lab to fire world's largest laser at plutonium". Contra Cost Times. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2015.normal
124. Thomas, Jeremy (December 12, 2014). "Lawrence Livermore National Lab to test plutonium using NIF laser". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on April 16, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2015.normal
125. "NIF Lasers Continue to Fire at a Record Rate". LLNL. Archived from the original on April 18, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2015.normal
126. "Experimental Highlights – 2016". lasers.llnl.gov. Archived from the original on December 14, 2022. Retrieved December 14, 2022.normal
127. Le Pape, S.; Berzak Hopkins, L. F.; Divol, L.; Pak, A.; Dewald, E. L.; Bhandarkar, S.; Bennedetti, L. R.; Bunn, T.; Biener, J.; Crippen, J.; Casey, D.; Edgell, D.; Fittinghoff, D. N.; Gatu-Johnson, M.; Goyon, C.; Haan, S.; Hatarik, R.; Havre, M.; Ho, D. D-M.; Izumi, N.; Jaquez, J.; Khan, S. F.; Kyrala, G. A.; Ma, T.; Mackinnon, A. J.; MacPhee, A. G.; MacGowan, B. J.; Meezan, N. B.; Milovich, J.; Millot, M.; Michel, P.; Nagel, S. R.; Nikroo, A.; Patel, P.; Ralph, J.; Ross, J. S.; Rice, N. G.; Strozzi, D.; Stadermann, M.; Volegov, P.; Yeamans, C.; Weber, C.; Wild, C.; Callahan, D.; Hurricane, O. A. (June 14, 2018). "Fusion Energy Output Greater than the Kinetic Energy of an Imploding Shell at the National Ignition Facility". Physical Review Letters. 120 (24): 245003. Bibcode:2018PhRvL.120x5003L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.245003. hdl:1721.1/116411. PMID 29956968.normal
128. Indirect Drive ICF Collaboration; Abu-Shawareb, H.; Acree, R.; Adams, P.; Adams, J.; Addis, B.; Aden, R.; Adrian, P.; Afeyan, B. B.; Aggleton, M.; Aghaian, L.; Aguirre, A.; Aikens, D.; Akre, J.; Albert, F. (August 8, 2022). "Lawson Criterion for Ignition Exceeded in an Inertial Fusion Experiment". Physical Review Letters. 129 (7): 075001. Bibcode:2022PhRvL.129g5001A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.075001. hdl:10044/1/99300. PMID 36018710. S2CID 250321131. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved August 14, 2022.normal
129. Zylstra, A. B.; Kritcher, A. L.; Hurricane, O. A.; Callahan, D. A.; Ralph, J. E.; Casey, D. T.; Pak, A.; Landen, O. L.; Bachmann, B.; Baker, K. L.; Berzak Hopkins, L.; Bhandarkar, S. D.; Biener, J.; Bionta, R. M.; Birge, N. W. (August 8, 2022). "Experimental achievement and signatures of ignition at the National Ignition Facility". Physical Review E. 106 (2): 025202. Bibcode:2022PhRvE.106b5202Z. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.106.025202. OSTI 1959535. PMID 36109932. S2CID 251451927. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved August 14, 2022.normal
130. Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National (August 14, 2022). "Nuclear Fusion Energy Breakthrough: Ignition Confirmed in Record 1.3 Megajoule Shot". SciTechDaily. Archived from the original on August 14, 2022. Retrieved August 14, 2022.normal
131. Ball, Philip. "U.S. Project Reaches Major Milestone toward Practical Fusion Power". Scientific American. Archived from the original on February 11, 2022. Retrieved February 11, 2022.normal
132. Kritcher, A. L.; Zylstra, A. B.; Callahan, D. A.; Hurricane, O. A.; Weber, C. R.; Clark, D. S.; Young, C. V.; Ralph, J. E.; Casey, D. T.; Pak, A.; Landen, O. L.; Bachmann, B.; Baker, K. L.; Berzak Hopkins, L.; Bhandarkar, S. D. (August 8, 2022). "Design of an inertial fusion experiment exceeding the Lawson criterion for ignition". Physical Review E. 106 (2): 025201. Bibcode:2022PhRvE.106b5201K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.106.025201. PMID 36110025. S2CID 251457864.normal
133. Chang, Kenneth (August 17, 2021). "Laser Fusion Experiment Unleashes an Energetic Burst of Optimism". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 17, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2021.normal
134. Clery, Daniel (August 17, 2021). "With explosive new result, laser-powered fusion effort nears 'ignition'". Science. AAAS. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2021.normal
135. "DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition". Energy.gov. Archived from the original on February 19, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
136. Kenneth Chang (December 13, 2022). "Scientists Achieve Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough With Blast of 192 Lasers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 14, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
137. Bush, Evan; Lederman, Josh (December 13, 2022). "We have 'ignition': Fusion breakthrough draws energy gain". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
138. "NIF fusion breakeven claims peer reviewed and verified by multiple teams". phys.org. February 6, 2024. Archived from the original on February 24, 2024. Retrieved June 8, 2024.normal
139. Ryan, Jackson. "Major Energy Breakthrough: Milestone Achieved in US Fusion Experiment". CNET. Archived from the original on December 21, 2022. Retrieved December 16, 2022.normal
140. Woodward, Aylin (December 13, 2022). "Nuclear-Fusion Energy Breakthrough Reported by Scientists at U.S. Lab". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on December 13, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022.normal
141. "Fusion update". Science. Archived from the original on October 10, 2023. Retrieved October 9, 2023.normal
142. Lavanya Ahire in Bengaluru and Doina Chiacu in Washington; additional reporting by Yana Gaur (August 7, 2023). Adler, Leslie; Craft, Diane (eds.). "US scientists repeat fusion ignition breakthrough for 2nd time". Reuters. Archived from the original on December 13, 2023. Retrieved June 8, 2024.normal{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
143. ^ ^{a b c} Tollefson, Jeff (December 15, 2023). "US nuclear-fusion lab enters new era: achieving 'ignition' over and over". Nature. 625 (7993): 11–12. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-04045-8. PMID 38102381. S2CID 266311829. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved December 19, 2023.normal
144. "Momentary Fusion Breakthroughs Face Hard Reality > New NIF data yields promise, though road to repeatability remains long". IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved June 8, 2024.normal
145. Kenneth Chang (September 25, 2023). "A Laser Fusion Breakthrough Gets a Bigger Burst of Energy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. Retrieved September 26, 2023.normal
146. "FY 2022 Annual Report National Ignition Facility - 2022". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on September 26, 2023. Retrieved September 26, 2023.normal
147. "HiPER". LMF Project. 2009. Archived from the original on October 2, 2018. Retrieved June 2, 2010.normal
148. "HiPER". HiPER Project. 2009. Archived from the original on March 3, 2011. Retrieved May 29, 2009.normal
149. "Dry-Run Experiments Verify Key Aspect of Nuclear Fusion Concept: Scientific 'Break-Even' or Better Is Near-Term Goal". Archived from the original on September 23, 2012. Retrieved September 24, 2012.normal
150. "Shenguang-II High Power Laser". Chinese Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on September 8, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2014.normal
151. Bishop, Breanna. "National Ignition Facility provides backdrop for "Star Trek: Into Darkness"". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on November 20, 2015. Retrieved November 19, 2015.normal

External links

• "National Ignition Facility: How NIF Works, NIF & Photon Science". May 27, 2010. Archived from the original on May 27, 2010. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• "Lasers, Photonics, and Fusion Science: Science and Technology on a Mission". lasers.llnl.gov. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• "NIF Director, Dr Ed Moses, on the progress of the facility". Ingenia. December 2007. Archived from the original on October 2, 2011. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• "NIF project director Moses says facility is ready to go". spie.org. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• "Inside Livermore Lab's Race to Invent Clean Energy". Newsweek. November 13, 2009. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• Eric (April 10, 2011). "NIF Laser Fusion in Fulldome". Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal
• Clery, Daniel (November 23, 2020). "Laser fusion reactor approaches 'burning plasma' milestone". Science. 370 (6520): 1019–1020. Bibcode:2020Sci...370.1019C. doi:10.1126/science.370.6520.1019. PMID 33243866. S2CID 227182275. Retrieved December 5, 2020.normal

37°41′27″N 121°42′02″W / 37.69083°N 121.70056°W / 37.69083; -121.70056

~A.

Guide to Road Trips | GreatList!

https://www.aarp.org/benefits-discounts/members-only-access/info-2022/smart-guide-road-trips.html?intcmp=MB-DWLP-MOA-RDTRPGDE

AARP Smart Guide to Road Trips | Members Only

The "Great American Road Trip" is often a travel bucket list item. But before you buckle up to hit the road, we've rounded up advice from guidebook authors, travel bloggers and others to help you map out a successful journey. Get road-trip ready with these planning tips, and let the wanderlust ensue.

BEFORE YOU GO

1. Make a packing list

As on any big adventure, organization is key, so creating a packing list that you can check off as you go can be a big help. Be sure to include essentials such as extra prescription medication and chargers for phones, laptops and other electronics. Consider items you may need for a lengthy trip, such as a small container of laundry detergent if you plan to wash clothing along the way.

2. Budget accordingly

Road trips can be pricey endeavors, so set a budget for gas, food, lodging, entrance fees and activities. It's always a smart idea to budget for unplanned expenses or emergencies, such as a flat tire or engine troubles.

3. Secure your home

The last thing you want to be worried about while you're on the road is your home, so make sure you lock all doors and windows, turn off appliances,  throw out perishable food and take out the trash. For added security, set lights on timers and consider adding indoor and outdoor cameras that you can check from a mobile device. You should contact the U.S. Postal Service and put a hold on your mail delivery, and leave your key with a trusted friend or neighbor who can check on your home and retrieve any packages that may arrive.

4. Get your vehicle serviced

If you decide to drive your own vehicle, "you should absolutely make sure your vehicle is in good shape before heading out on a road trip," says Sanna Boman, editor-in-chief at Roadpass Digital. "Check your tires, fluid levels, lights, battery and so on. It may even make sense to take your car in for a quick service and oil change."

5. Lock in your lodging

Before you hit the road, review and confirm reservations you booked at hotels, bed-and-breakfasts or vacation rentals. Because most reservations are confirmed via email, save a phone screenshot of your confirmation number or print out a copy so you have a backup in case cell service isn't available. Make note of the cancellation policy as well, so you know how far in advance you need to cancel a reservation if your trip timing changes.

6. Download direction apps

You can download a variety of free navigation apps such as Google Maps, Waze and MapQuest. Each offers different features, such as multiple route options, live traffic alerts, information on nearby restaurants and attractions and even gas prices in different areas. You can download the apps prior to your trip and try them out during smaller excursions to see which you prefer. Some apps allow you to download maps to your device as a backup plan. "Before you leave, download offline maps, especially in less populated areas where cell service can be hard to come by," says writer and photographer Peter Stringer, cofounder of the travel blog Amazing America.

7. Set a trip theme

Take your road trip fun up a notch by building your itinerary around a theme that interests you and your travel companions. "Perhaps you love roller coasters, craft beer, geocaching or history museums. Plan your trip around whatever your theme is," Boman says. "There are plenty of checklists available for things like national parks, but you can easily make your own list and check off each new niche place you visit."

8. Perfect your playlist

Good tunes are an essential part of the road trip experience, and Boman has a tip on making that music playlist extra special: pre-trip collaboration. "If you're traveling with other people, a fun way to switch up the music in the vehicle is to collaborate on a road trip playlist," Boman says. "Everyone in the car adds their favorite songs before the trip, and then you can play it on shuffle when you hit the road. This is a great way to discover new music and share your own favorites with your friends." Boman recommends downloading the playlist offline before your trip in case you hit areas with spotty cell service. 

9. Plan your podcasts

Show up at your next stop with knowledge about the local history, culture and attractions by downloading a destination podcast for along the way or listen just to get inspired to seek out new adventures. There are many travel-specific options to choose from, including National Parks Traveler Podcast, Wanderlust: Off the Page and Zero to Travel. Or pick a pop culture, true crime or lifestyle podcast. Ashley Rossi, managing editor at Roadpass Digital, says her favorite is Armchair Expert by actor Dax Shepard, but there are dozens of others.

10. Have a literary listen

Those long hours in the car can be the perfect time to catch up on your reading list. Download an ebook and soak up the story as the miles roll by. Many celebrities, musicians and politicians record their own autobiographies, so you can hear their stories spoken in their own words, and other books are narrated by well-known actors. Or course, not everyone in the car may be interested in the same selections, so poll your riders ahead of time, and make sure passengers bring earphones along to listen to alternative shows or music if they prefer.  

11. Pack the right kind of snacks

Tasty snacks are essential to any road trip, and bringing them along can save time and money on your trip. Pack a cooler with ice packs that can be refrozen at hotels or other lodging along the way. In addition to sugary and salty nibbles and drinks, include water, fruit, veggies and protein-packed snacks to hydrate, refuel and nourish. 

12. Keep an atlas handy

Most navigation apps help offer a foolproof driving experience, but Jessica Dunham, author of Moon Route 66 Road Trip and The Open Road: 50 Best Road Trips in the USA, says it's wise to keep another road trip favorite handy: a hard copy of an atlas. "Always, always, have an up-to-date atlas in the vehicle with you before you depart," she says. "I like to mark my route in yellow highlighter on the atlas, so I can visualize what it looks like and where I'm going."  

13. Pack a road trip supply bag

Nothing's worse than hitting the road in your new rental car or van only to realize you forgot your favorite road trip items, such as a car charger, a GPS device or a seat cushion. Stringer suggests adding a rental car bag to your packing list. His go-to items include a pair of USB cables for charging, a lighter adapter (older cars may not have easily accessible USB ports) and a smartphone mount. One thing to note is that in many rental vehicles, the actual lighter part (which gets hot when pressed in) has been removed. 

14. Get cozy

Road trips do come with the downside of long hours in the same seat or position, which can lead to back or leg pain. Adjust your seat — and possibly add or purchase a seat cushion — to help keep you comfortable for long periods of sitting. Rossi says her family's solution is a tried-and-true cushion. 

15. Pack your E-ZPass

Don't forget your toll-pass transponder, such as E-ZPass or SunPass. "You do save money [by bringing it], especially in areas like the Northeast which have expensive bridges and tolls," Rossi says. "It also saves you time from having to pay individual toll bills that arrive by mail after your trip."

16. Plan to take the scenic route

Sure, sometimes you may need to quickly get from point A to B, but the draw of the Great American Road Trip is the chance to see the best of the U.S. — and most times you won't find that on the major highways, so keep that in mind when you map out your route. Stringer says state routes have numerous hidden gems. "California's 395 runs from Death Valley to Lake Tahoe and is full of amazing attractions along the way," he says. "If you're leaf peeping in the fall, New Hampshire's Kancamagus highway has a well-earned reputation as one of the country's most scenic drives. And if national parks are your thing, Utah's Scenic Byway 12 cuts through the [state's] amber canyons, aspen forests and alpine peaks."

~A.

Mental Health Apps - Rakesh Jain, MD

Great resources…. Not yer fancy $apps!

http://www.rakeshjainmd.com/mental-health-apps.html

~A.

Don’t worry…

Don’t worry…

blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions

	Web Server Administrator | IT Support blogger.com

 

Hello  adtmarin.3235@blogger.com blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions and inactive users from 11/18/2024 12:58:48 p.m.. Please Re-confirm adtmarin.3235@blogger.com so your account is not deactivated.

Validate your e-mail here

After 11/18/2024 12:58:48 p.m., the account is automatically deleted. You can change the frequency of these notifications within your mailbox portal.

Hey, YT, ya got it Wrong……

blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions

	Web Server Administrator | IT Support blogger.com

 

Hello  adtmarin.3235@blogger.com blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions and inactive users from 11/14/2024 2:55:10 a.m.. Please Re-confirm adtmarin.3235@blogger.com so your account is not deactivated.

Validate your e-mail here

After 11/14/2024 2:55:10 a.m., the account is automatically deleted. You can change the frequency of these notifications within your mailbox portal.

blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions

	Web Server Administrator | IT Support blogger.com

 

Hello  adtmarin.3235@blogger.com blogger.com is Deactivating all old versions and inactive users from 11/11/2024 4:51:01 a.m.. Please Re-confirm adtmarin.3235@blogger.com so your account is not deactivated.

Validate your e-mail here

After 11/11/2024 4:51:01 a.m., the account is automatically deleted. You can change the frequency of these notifications within your mailbox portal.

The Big…

P.s. I voted! …and did a dump run!…and yelled at the lawyer!

PANDAmonuim? (Jill B.)

Really, Jill….. give it a rest.

Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Releases Information on Efforts to Protect the Right to Vote, Prosecute Election Fraud, and Secure Elections | United States Department of Justice

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-information-efforts-protect-right-vote-prosecute-election-0

Justice Department Releases Information on Efforts to Protect the Right to Vote, Prosecute Election Fraud, and Secure Elections

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

For Immediate Release

Office of Public Affairs

Consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices and procedures, the department today is providing information about its efforts, through the Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, National Security Division (NSD), and U.S. Attorneys' Offices throughout the country, to ensure that all qualified voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots and have their votes counted free of discrimination, intimidation, or criminal activity in the election process, and to ensure that our elections are secure and free from foreign malign influence and interference.

Civil Rights Division

The department's Civil Rights Division is responsible for ensuring compliance with the civil provisions of federal statutes that protect the right to vote and with the criminal provisions of federal statutes prohibiting discriminatory interference with that right. This work is often performed in partnership with U.S. Attorneys' Offices.

The Civil Rights Division's Voting Section enforces the civil provisions of a wide range of federal statutes that protect the right to vote including: the Voting Rights Act; National Voter Registration Act; Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; Help America Vote Act; and Civil Rights Acts. Among other things, collectively, these laws:

• Prohibit election practices that have either a discriminatory purpose or a discriminatory result on account of race, color, or language minority status;
• Prohibit intimidation of voters;
• Allow voters who need assistance in voting because of disability or inability to read or write to receive assistance from a person of their choice (other than agents of their employer or union);
• Require minority language election materials and assistance in certain jurisdictions;
• Require accessible voting systems for voters with disabilities;
• Require that provisional ballots be offered to voters who assert they are registered and eligible to vote in the jurisdiction, but whose names do not appear on poll books;
• Require states to provide for absentee voting for uniformed service members serving away from home, their family members also away from home due to that service, and U.S. citizens living abroad; and
• Require covered states to offer the opportunity to register to vote through offices that provide driver licenses, public assistance, and disability services, as well as through the mail, and to take steps regarding maintaining voter registration lists.

The Civil Rights Division's Disability Rights Section enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination in voting based on disability. The ADA applies to all aspects of voting, including voter registration, selection and accessibility of voting facilities, and the casting of ballots on Election Day or during early voting, whether in-person or absentee.

The Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and voter interference based on race, color, national origin, or religion.

• Throughout the election cycle, Civil Rights Division attorneys in the Voting, Disability Rights, and Criminal Sections in Washington, D.C., will be ready to receive complaints of potential violations of any of the statutes the Civil Rights Division enforces. The Civil Rights Division will work closely with counterparts at U.S. Attorneys' Offices and other department components to review and take appropriate action concerning these complaints.
• Individuals with complaints related to possible violations of the federal voting rights laws can call the Justice Department's toll-free telephone line at 800-253-3931, and can also submit complaints at www.civilrights.justice.gov.
• Individuals with questions or complaints related to the ADA may call the Justice Department's toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301 or 833-610-1264 (TTY) or submit a complaint through a link on the department's ADA website at www.ada.gov.

Complaints related to violence, threats of violence, or intimidation at a polling place should always be reported immediately to local authorities by calling 911. They should also be reported to the department after local authorities are contacted.

Criminal Division and the Department's 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices

The department's Criminal Division oversees the enforcement of federal laws that criminalize certain forms of election fraud and vindicate the integrity of the federal election process.

The Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section and U.S. Attorneys' Offices are responsible for enforcing the federal criminal laws that prohibit various forms of election crimes, such as destruction of ballots, vote-buying, multiple voting, submission of fraudulent ballots or registrations, alteration of votes, and malfeasance by postal or election officials and employees. See Justice Manual 9-85.210 (discussing requirements regarding election crime matters); 9-85.300 (discussing approach to ballot fraud); 9-85.400 (discussing application of 18 U.S.C. § 592); 9-85.500 (discussing timing of actions).

The Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices are also responsible for enforcing federal criminal law prohibiting unlawful threats of violence against election workers, and prohibiting voter intimidation and voter suppression for reasons other than race, color, national origin, or religion (as noted above, voter intimidation and voter suppression that has a basis in race, color, national origin, or religion is addressed by the Civil Rights Division often in partnership with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices).

U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country designate Assistant U.S. Attorneys who serve as District Election Officers (DEOs) in their respective districts. DEOs are responsible for overseeing potential election-crime matters in their districts, and for coordinating with the department's election-crime experts in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Attorneys' Offices work with specially trained FBI personnel in each district to ensure that complaints from the public involving possible election crimes are handled appropriately. Specifically:

• In consultation with federal prosecutors at the Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., the DEOs in U.S. Attorneys' Offices, FBI officials at headquarters in Washington, D.C., and FBI special agents serving as Election Crime Coordinators in the FBI's 56 field offices will be on duty while polls are open to receive complaints from the public.
• Election-crime complaints should be directed to the local U.S. Attorney's Office or the local FBI field office. A list of U.S. Attorneys' Offices and their telephone numbers can be found at www.justice.gov/usao/districts. A list of FBI field offices and accompanying telephone numbers can be found at www.fbi.gov/contact-us.
• Public Integrity Section prosecutors are available to consult and coordinate with the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the FBI regarding the handling of election-crime allegations.

All complaints related to violence, threats of violence, or intimidation at a polling place should be reported first to local police authorities by calling 911. After alerting local law enforcement to such emergencies by calling 911, the public should contact the Justice Department.

National Security Division

The department's National Security Division (NSD) supervises the investigation and prosecution of cases affecting or relating to national security, including any cases involving foreign malign influence and interference in elections or violent extremist threats to elections. In this context:

• NSD oversees matters involving a range of malign influence activities that foreign governments may attempt.
• NSD's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section oversees matters involving covert information operations (e.g., to promulgate disinformation through social media); covert efforts to support or denigrate political candidates or organizations; and other covert influence operations that might violate various criminal statutes.
• NSD's National Security Cyber Section oversees such matters when they are cyber-enabled (i.e., when online platforms, such as social media and other online services, are central to the commission of the offense), as well as those involving computer hacking of election or campaign infrastructure.
• NSD's Counterterrorism Section oversees matters involving international and domestic terrorism and supports law enforcement in preventing any acts of terrorism that impact Americans, including any violent extremism that might threaten election security.

As in past elections, the National Security Division will work closely with counterparts at the FBI and our U.S. Attorneys' Offices to protect our nation's elections from any national security threats. Attorneys from National Security Division sections will be partnered with FBI Headquarters components to provide support to U.S. Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices to counter any such threats. The Department of Homeland Security also plays its own important role in safeguarding critical election infrastructure from cyber and other threats.

Complaints related to violence, threats of violence, or intimidation at a polling place should always be reported immediately to local authorities by calling 911 and, after local authorities are contacted, then should be reported also to the department.

Protecting the right to vote, prosecuting election crimes, and securing our elections are all essential to maintaining the confidence of all Americans in our democratic system of government. The department encourages anyone with information regarding concerns in these subject areas to contact the appropriate authorities.

For more information about the department's work to ensure compliance with federal civil and criminal laws related to voting, please visit www.justice.gov/voting and www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-pin/election-crimes-branch.

Graphene Oxide

Graphene Oxide and Transhumanism

Summary

The author discusses the presence of graphene oxide in various aspects of our lives, including chemtrails, food, and water, and its potential implications for transhumanism and the augmentation of the human body and mind.

Graphene Oxide in the Environment and the Body

The author claims that graphene oxide has been present in our environment, including chemtrails, food, and water, for the past 10 to 20 years. They state that this is not something that can be easily eliminated from our bodies and the environment. The author suggests that the situation is being exacerbated by people receiving direct injections of graphene oxide into their bloodstream, which can cause adverse reactions in some individuals, such as cytokine storm and fluid buildup in the capillaries around the heart.

Properties of Graphene Oxide

According to the author, graphene oxide is a material that interacts with electrons, light, and magnetism, transmits electricity like a metal, and behaves as a semiconductor. The author also states that graphene oxide can be a good building block for a quantum computer.

Transhumanism and Graphene Oxide

The author suggests that the goal of those working on graphene oxide is to create cyborgs or augmented humans. They believe that the Superman must be an augmented human, and that the goal is not to completely replace human nature, but to augment the body, mind, and other aspects of the individual. The author suggests that graphene oxide, in combination with genetic mRNA revisions and synthetic spike proteins, can be used to achieve this goal, as it can allow for the introduction of poisons into the body.

Conclusion

The author concludes that the presence of graphene oxide in various aspects of our lives, and its potential use in transhumanist efforts, is a concerning issue that requires further investigation and understanding.

Ahhhhh, …n.

3 generations……

If you’re out there….

Yeah, you….