Physics Conference Call, 18 January, 1996

There was a Starlite Physics Conference Call held on Jan 18, 1996.
Participating were Clement Wong, Steve Jardin, Chuck Kessel, Chuck Bathke, Dave Ehst, T.K.Mau, and B.J.Lee.
The following is a summary:

1. Ehst/Kessel/Bathke are refining the SS and RS design points for Chapter 6 of the report. There are 2 issues: (i) the SS bootstrap calculation was missing the alpha contribution in the bootstrap current and (ii) the wall position was different for the SS and RS designs, giving the SS design an apparent advantage. It was decided to update the SS design with the correct bootstrap and CD calculation, and to redo the RS design with a wall present at b/a=1.25, same as for SS. Bathke will have to perform 2 new systems calculations to incorporate these changes and to compute the COE. At the project meeting, we will decide where we really want the wall for the RS design. There will be some discussion on the tradeoff involving the wall in the text.

2. Ehst is looking on the effects of disruptions and Elms on wall erosion. This is a critical issue. He will report on it at the project meeting.

3. We will probably delay the ORINCON presentation until a later date when they either have more data or are part of a town meeting on disruption avoidance.

4. TK is looking into the aspect-ratio limitations on his CD calculation. He plans to have the Low-A current drive calculations done by next monday (1/22/96) so that he can give the gamma_B scaling to Bathke, so that a low-A systems optimization can be done in time for the project meeting.

5. Concerning the Starlite report: - Section 2.2.1 on Plasma System Requirements is done and has been submitted - Bathke and Kessel have to finish a figure in section 6.2.5 - Section 6.4 has to be finished after the SS/RS comparison is done - Section 6.5 should be read by everyone for comment - T.K. needs help on some of the EPS and IAEA references - The figures in Chapter 6 will be put up on the home page - Section 8.3 on RS Physics Basis will be done by the project meeting - Section 9.3 Draft 2.0 is distributed, still needs input from Mau and Kessel, should be done by project meeting

6. After the Low-A operating point is chosen, we will do a tradeoff of triangularity vs beta. The low triangularity helps the design in that it allows the center column to be tapered, but it drops the beta. Present studies indicate that you can lower triangularity to 0.4 before beta starts to drop too much.

7. The following physics presentations are requested at the town meeting and the project meeting:

   Low-A town meeting:
   Stability of High-BS Low-A Equilibrium      . . . Jardin
   Equilibrium and Vertical Stability at Low A . . . Kessel
   Current Drive at Low A                      . . . Mau
   Systems Assessment of Low-A                 . . . Bathke
   Project Meeting:
   SS/RS Stability and CD Comparison           . . . Ehst
   Vertical Stability and Kink Requirements    . . . Kessel
   Effects of Disruptions and Elms on Erosion  . . . Ehst
   Systems Assessemnt                          . . . Bathke
   IN ADDITION. . . The physics group would like to get together
   for at least 2 hours towards the end of the meeting for a planning
   session.  This could be done EITHER thursday afternoon or friday