June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary.

Advertisements

Initial Results from ARIES-IFE Study and Plans for the Coming Year Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team Heavy-ion IFE Meeting July 23-24, 2001 Lawrence.

DAH, UW-FTI ARIES-IFE, April 2002, 1 Results from parametric studies of thin liquid wall IFE chambers D. A. Haynes, Jr. Fusion Technology Institute University.

May 27, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., IFE Chamber Walls: Requirements, Design Options, and Synergy with MFE Plasma Facing Components 1 IFE Chamber Walls:

Assessment of Chamber Concepts for IFE Power Plants: The ARIES-IFE study Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team IFSA2001 September 9-14, 2001 Kyoto, Japan.

April 6-7, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Modeling of Inertial Fusion Chamber 1 Modeling of Inertial Fusion Chamber A. R. Raffray, F. Najmabadi, Z. Dragojlovic,

IFSA, Kyoto, Japan, September Dry Chamber Wall Thermo-Mechanical Behavior and Lifetime under IFE Cyclic Energy Deposition A. R. Raffray 1, D. Haynes.

May 31-June 1, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Assessment of Dry Chamber Walls as Preliminary Step in Defining Key Processes for Chamber Clearing Code 1 Assessment.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 1 Thin liquid Pb wall protection for IFE chambers D. A. Haynes, Jr. and R. R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute.

September 3-4, 2003/ARR 1 Liquid Wall Ablation under IFE Photon Energy Deposition at Radius of 0.5 m A. René Raffray and Mofreh Zaghloul University of.

Design Considerations for Beam Port Insulator Rings

March 8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Assessment of Carbon and Tungsten Dry Chamber Walls under IFE Energy Depositions Assessment of Carbon and Tungsten.

Overview of US Power Plant Studies Farrokh Najmabadi US/Japan Workshop April 6-7, 2002 Hotel Hyatt Islandia, San Diego Electronic copy:

April 4-5, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Modeling Analysis of Carbon Fiber Velvet Tested in RHEPP Ion Beam Facility 1 Modeling Analysis of Carbon Fiber Velvet.

A. R. Raffray, B. R. Christensen and M. S. Tillack Can a Direct-Drive Target Survive Injection into an IFE Chamber? Japan-US Workshop on IFE Target Fabrication,

November th TOFE, Washington, D.C. 1 Thermal Behavior and Operating Requirements of IFE Direct-Drive Targets A.R. Raffray 1, R. Petzoldt 2, J. Pulsifer.

June 18, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., ARIES-IFE Chamber Engineering Activities, IAEA Meeting, San Diego 1 ARIES-IFE Chamber Engineering Activities A. R.

September 3-4, 2003/ARR 1 ARIES-IFE ARIES Project Meeting Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia September 3-4, 2003 Summary of Issues, Results,

Advanced Energy Technology Group Mechanisms of Aerosol Generation in Liquid-Protected IFE Chambers M. S. Tillack, A. R. Raffray.

Design Windows and Trade-Offs for Inertial Fusion Energy Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi ISFNT 6 April 8-12, 2002 Hotel Hyatt Islandia, San Diego Electronic.

EFFECTS OF CHAMBER GEOMETRY AND GAS PROPERTIES ON HYDRODYNAMIC EVOLUTION OF IFE CHAMBERS Zoran Dragojlovic and Farrokh Najmabadi University of California.

April 4-5, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Chamber Clearing Code Development 1 Chamber Dynamics and Clearing Code Development Effort A. R. Raffray, F. Najmabadi,

Overview of US Power Plant Studies: A) Results from ARIES-IFE Study B) Plans For Compact Stellarator Farrokh Najmabadi US/Japan Workshop October 9-11,

November 20, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Thin Liquid Wall Behavior under IFE Cyclic Operation 1 Thin Liquid Wall Behavior under IFE Cyclic Operation A.

Design Windows for IFE Chambers and Target Injection Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team US/Japan Workshop on Target Fabrication December 3-4, 2001 General.

May 28-29, 2008/ARR 1 Thermal Effect of Off-Normal Energy Deposition on Bare Ferritic Steel First Wall A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.

April 10, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Dynamic Chamber Armor Behavior in IFE and MFE 1 Dynamic Chamber Armor Behavior in IFE and MFE A. R. Raffray 1, G.

November 8-9, Considerations for Small Chambers A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)

July 1, 2002/ARR 1 Scoping Study of FLiBe Evaporation and Condensation A. R. Raffray and M. Zaghloul University of California, San Diego ARIES-IFE Meeting.

Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling Zoran Dragojlovic.

April 22, 2002/ARR 1 1. Concluding Sacrificial Liquid Film Activities 2. Starting Thick Liquid Wall Activities A. R. Raffray, J. Pulsifer, M. Zaghloul.

Action Items For ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES Project Meeting June 19-21, 2000 University of Wisconsin, Madison Electronic copy:

May 5-6, 2003/ARR 1 Town Meeting on Liquid Wall Chamber Dynamics ARIES Town Meeting Hilton Garden Inn, Livermore, CA May 5-6, 2003 Background and Goals.

October 24, Remaining Action Items on Dry Chamber Wall 2. “Overlap” Design Regions 3. Scoping Analysis of Sacrificial Wall A. R. Raffray, J.

ARIES-IFE Assessment of Operational Windows for IFE Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi and the ARIES Team UC San Diego 16 th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology.

1 THERMAL LOADING OF A DIRECT DRIVE TARGET IN RAREFIED GAS B. R. Christensen, A. R. Raffray, and M. S. Tillack Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department.

Progress Report on Chamber Dynamics and Clearing Farrokh Najmabadi, Rene Raffray, Mark S. Tillack, John Pulsifer, Zoran Dragovlovic (UCSD) Ahmed Hassanein.

Laser IFE Program Workshop –5/31/01 1 Output Spectra from Direct Drive ICF Targets Laser IFE Workshop May 31-June 1, 2001 Naval Research Laboratory Robert.

ARIES-IFE: An Integrated Assessment of Chamber Concepts for IFE Power Plants Mark Tillack for the ARIES Team 19th IEEE/NPSS SOFE January 22-25, 2002 Atlantic.

December 12-13, 2007/ARR 1 Power Core Engineering: Design Updates and Trade-Off Studies A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting.

January 8-10, 2003/ARR 1 1. Pre-Shot Aerosol Parameteric Design Window for Thin Liquid Wall 2. Scoping Liquid Wall Mechanical Response to Thermal Shocks.

Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Advanced Chamber Concept with Magnetic Intervention: - Ion Dump Issues - Status of Blanket Study A. René Raffray UCSD.

Nov 13-14, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Progress Report on Chamber Clearing Code Effort 1 Progress Report on Chamber Clearing Code Development Effort A.

Highlights of ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi VLT Conference Call April 18, 2001 Electronic copy: ARIES Web Site:

January 1, 2002/ARR 1 1. “Overlap” Design Regions for IFE Dry Wall 2. Scoping Analysis of Condensation for Wetted Wall A. R. Raffray, D. Blair, J. Pulsifer,

Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Open Discussion on Advanced Armor Concepts Moderated by A. René Raffray UCSD HAPL Meeting GA, La Jolla, CA August 8-9,

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Update on IFE Aerosol Analysis J.P. Sharpe INEEL Fusion Safety Program.

Design Considerations for Thin Liquid Film Wall Protection Systems S.I. Abdel-Khalik and M.Yoda Georgia Institute of Technology ARIES Project Meeting,

August 30, 2001 A. R. Raffray, IFE Dry Chamber Wall Designs 1 IFE Dry Chamber Wall Designs A. R. Raffray and F. Najmabadi University of California, San.

1 MODELING DT VAPORIZATION AND MELTING IN A DIRECT DRIVE TARGET B. R. Christensen, A. R. Raffray, and M. S. Tillack Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

RRP:10/17/01Aries IFE 1 Liquid Wall Chamber Dynamics Aries Electronic Workshop October 17, 2001 Robert R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute University.

 Analyze & assess integrated and self-consistent IFE chamber concepts  Understand trade-offs and identify design windows for promising concepts. The.

HAPL WORKSHOP Chamber Gas Density Requirements for Ion Stopping Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

A Plan to Develop Dry Wall Chambers for Inertial Fusion Energy with Lasers Page 1 of 46 DRAFT.

ARR/April 8, Magnetic Intervention Dump Concepts A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from: A. E. Robson, D. Rose and J. Sethian HAPL Meeting.

Moving Solid Walls Type of Moving Walls: 1- Solid pebbles falling down under gravity for intercepting ion and X-ray radiation. 2- Moving metallic surfaces.

ARIES Workshop Dry Wall Response to the HIB (close-coupled) IFE target Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

July 11, 2003 HAPL e-meeting. 1 Armor Design & Modeling Progress A. René Raffray UCSD HAPL e-meeting July 11, 2003 (1)Provide Parameters for Chamber “System”

Aerosol Limits for Target Tracking Ronald Petzoldt ARIES IFE Meeting, Madison, WI April 22-23, 2002.

Temperature Response and Ion Deposition in the 1 mm Tungsten Armor Layer for the 10.5 m HAPL Target Chamber T.A. Heltemes, D.R. Boris and M. Fatenejad,

Liquid Walls Town Meeting May 5, 2003, Livermore, CA Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence.

350 MJ Target Thermal Response and Ion Implantation in 1 mm thick silicon carbide armor for 10.5 m HAPL Chamber T.A. Heltemes and G.A. Moses Fusion Technology.

Action Items from ARIES IFE Meeting, GA, July 1-2, 2002 (DRAFT)

A. R. Raffray, J. Pulsifer, M. S. Tillack, X. Wang

University of California, San Diego

IFE Wetted-Wall Chamber Engineering “Preliminary Considerations”

Farrokh Najmabadi US/Japan Workshop October 9-11, 2003 UC San Diego

University of California, San Diego

Aerosol Production in Lead-protected and Flibe-protected Chambers

Action Items from ARIES IFE Meeting, UW, April 22-23, 2002 (DRAFT)

Presentation transcript:

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 1 1. Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas 2. Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option A. R. Raffray, M. S. Tillack, X. Wang, M. Zaghloul University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting UCSD June 7-8, 2001

A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 2 Outline of Presentation Dry Walls (from last ARIES meeting’s action items) Direct-drive target (without protective chamber gas) -Sensitivity study of thermal behavior for different chamber radii (different time of flights and different energy deposition per unit volume) -Thermal/erosion effect on chamber wall of reflective light from laser (~10%) Indirect-drive target -Thermal/mass transfer analysis for C and W without protective gas Start documentation -Outline of dry chamber wall report and first draft write-up over next 3 months Wetted Walls Initial Planning for Assessment for Direct-Drive and Indirect-Drive Targets

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 3 Changing Chamber Radius Affects Photon and Ion Times of Flight and Energy Deposition Density Time of Flight  R chamber Energy Deposition per Unit Volume  1/(R chamber ) 2 Temporal Distribution for Ions Based on Direct Drive Spectra and 6.5 m Chamber Debris Ions Time 10ns 0.2  s 1s1s 2.5  s Fast Ions Photons Energy Deposition Perform Sensitivity Analysis for for 3 chamber radii: 3.5 m, 5 m and 6.5 m Energy Deposition for 6.5 m Chamber and Direct Drive Spectra

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 4 Effect of Changing Chamber Radius on Thermal Behavior of Carbon Flat Wall Annual Sublimation Loss > 1-10  m for Chamber Radius < ~ 5 m Corresponding Maximum Surface Temperature > ~2500°C Initial Temperature = 500°C k= f(T) q’’(sublimation) = f(T)

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 5 Effect of Changing Chamber Radius on Thermal Behavior of Tungsten Flat Wall Melt Layer Thickness per Shot ~ 0.3  m for Chamber Radius = 3.5 m No Melting for Chamber Radius > ~ 4 m Annual Evaporation Loss > 1-10  m for Chamber Radius < ~ 3.5 m Corresponding Maximum Surface Temperature > ~3765°C Initial Temperature = 500°C k= f(T), C = f(T) q’’(sublimation) = f(T) Include phase change in ANSYS by increasing enthalpy at melting point to account for latent heat of fusion (= 220 kJ/kg for W)

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 6 Temperature History and Snap-shot Profile for Tungsten Flat Wall Under Energy Deposition from NRL Direct-Drive Spectra and Chamber Wall Radius of 3.5 m Temperature History Separation = 1  m Temperature profile at the end of X-ray energy deposition: Time = 5.4 ns W melting point = 3410°C W max. temp. = 3765°C Melt layer thickness ~ 0.3  m

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 7 Evaporated Thickness of C and W as a Function of Laser Energy Density on the Chamber Wall (from reflection or target by-pass?) Conservative estimate assuming all laser energy used for temperature increase from 500°C to sublimation/evaporation point and phase change(s): 0.1  m loss per shot corresponds to ~ 16 m of annual evaporated loss For a laser energy of 1.6 MJ with 100 beams of area ~ 0.01 m 2 each at the chamber wall, the corresponding laser energy density 1.6 x 10 5 J/m 2 for a 10% loss on the chamber wall Key issue: -Must avoid or minimize shots with laser reflection or target by-pass on the chamber wall -Must find in-situ repair measure for threatened region

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 8 X-ray and Charged Particles Spectra HI Indirect-Drive Target 1. X-ray (115 MJ) 2. Debris ions (18.1 MJ) 3. Fast burn ions (8.43 MJ) (from J. Perkins, LLNL) 1 2 3

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 9 Photon and Ion Attenuation in Carbon and Tungsten for Indirect Drive Target Spectra Without a Protective Chamber Gas

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 10 Temporal Distribution of Energy Depositions from Photons and Ions for Direct Drive and Indirect Drive Spectra and Chamber Radius of 6.5 m Direct Drive Spectra Photons Debris Ions Time 10ns 0.2  s 1s1s 2.5  s Fast Ions Energy Deposition Indirect Drive Spectra Photons Debris Ions 10ns 0.2  s 10  s 20  s Fast Ions Energy Deposition 0.5  s

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 11 Sublimation/Vaporization is Included in the Analysis as a Heat Flux Boundary Condition at the Surface Dependent on Temperature Carbon Latent heat of evaporation = 5.99 x10 7 J/kg Sublimation point ~ 3367 °C Tungsten Latent heat of evaporation = 4.8 x10 6 J/kg Melting point ~ 3410 °C

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 12 Temperature-Dependent Properties are Used for Carbon and Tungsten C thermal conductivity as a function of temperature for 1 dpa case (see figure) C specific heat = 1900 J/kg-K W thermal conductivity and specific heat as a function of temperature from ITER material handbook (see ARIES web site) Calculated thermal conductivity of neutron irradiated MKC-1PH CFC (L. L. Snead, T. D. Burchell, Carbon Extended Abstracts, , 1995)

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 13 Example Temperature History for Carbon Flat Wall Under Energy Deposition from Indirect-Drive Spectra No protective gas Coolant temperature = 500°C Chamber radius = 6.5 m Maximum temperature = 17,650 °C Sublimation loss per shot = 3x10 -3 m (6x10 5 m per year) Coolant at 500°C 3-mm thick Carbon Chamber Wall Energy Front Evaporation heat flux B.C at incident wall Convection B.C. at coolant wall: h= 10 kW/m 2 -K Clearly, the Presence of a Protective Gas is a Must for Indirect-Drive Target Spectra

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 14 Example Temperature History for Tungsten Flat Wall Under Energy Deposition from Indirect-Drive Spectra No protective gas Coolant temperature = 500°C Chamber radius = 6.5 m Maximum temperature = 86,300 °C Sublimation loss per shot = 0.63x10 -3 m (10 5 m per year) Again, the Presence of a Protective Gas is a Must for Indirect-Drive Target Spectra Coolant at 500°C 3-mm thick W Chamber Wall Energy Front Evaporation heat flux B.C at incident wall Convection B.C. at coolant wall: h= 10 kW/m 2 -K

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 15 Corresponding Melt Layer for Tungsten Flat Wall Under Energy Deposition from Indirect-Drive Spectra No protective gas Coolant temperature = 500°C Chamber radius = 6.5 m Substantial melt layer thickness per shot at different time: –1.5  m (10 -8 s) –5  m (0.2 x s) –6.8  m (0.5 x s) Photons Debris Ions 10ns 0.2  s 10  s 20  s Fast Ions Energy Deposition 0.5  s

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 16 Proposed Outline of Dry Chamber Wall Report (I) (First draft of report to be written over next 3-4 months) 1. Introduction (Raffray/ Najmabadi) Erosion is a key lifetime issue for dry chamber wall design Separate thin armor region from structural backbone -Most issues linked with armor itself -Possibility of repairing armor (in-situ) Gas protection helps but adversely affect target injection Overall topic probably make or break issue for dry walls Importance of spectra and energy partitioning between x-rays and ions Precise analysis required– correct energy deposition calculations from x-ray and ion spectrum and detailed calculations of resulting spatial and temporal distributions of heat fluxes Possible use of engineered surface to increase frontal area 2.Spectra from target calculations (direct drive and indirect drive) Describe spectra for NRL direct-drive and HI indirect-drive targets -Comparison with past target assumptions (Peterson/Haynes) Temporal distribution of x-rays (Peterson/Haynes) Time of flight of ions (Tillack/Zaghloul)

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 17 Outline of Dry Chamber Wall Report (II) 3. Calculations of spatial distribution of energy deposition with (Peterson/Haynes) and without (Zaghloul/Raffray) protective gas 3.1Direct drive NRL target x-rays fast ions slow ions Importance of fine grids -Calculations of temporal variation of energy deposition -As a function of protective gas pressure -Sensitivity analysis for model assumption (e.g. for lower energy ions) 3.2 Indirect drive target Same as for direct drive 4.Material properties at temperature and under irradiation (Billone) Carbon W

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 18 Outline of Dry Chamber Wall Report (III) 5.Thermal analysis for direct drive NRL target Flat case for C with (Peterson/Haynes) and without (Raffray/Wang) protective gas -Including sublimation effect -Effect of temporal energy deposition distribution -Effect of k(T) vs. constant k for carbon -Effect of scaling up energy deposition for same spectra -Effect of scaling up stopping power in model for low energy ions Fibrous surface without protective gas (Raffray/Wang) -Model for energy deposition calculations -Model for thermal analysis -Parametric studies of geometry Flat case for W with (Peterson/Haynes) and without (Raffray/Wang) protective gas -Including melting + sublimation effect -Effect of scaling up energy deposition for same spectra -Effect of scaling up stopping power in model for low energy ions

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 19 Outline of Dry Chamber Wall Report (IV) 6.Thermal analysis for indirect drive target with (Peterson/Haynes) and without (Raffray/Wang) protective gas Carbon W Effect of debris accumulation on chamber wall 7.Other erosion mechanisms (Raffray/Hassanein/Federici) Physical sputtering Chemical sputtering RES Macroscopic erosion Splashing and melt layer loss 8.Safety Issues (Petti/El-Guebaly) Including C fiber configuration vs flat C surface Activation Disposal/recycling and activation of debris in particular for indirect-drive

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 20 Outline of Dry Chamber Wall Report (V) 9. Tritium inventory and recovery (Federici/Hassanein) 10.How to understand and apply properties and parameters derived for equilibrium conditions for highly-pulsed, irradiated IFE conditions (Raffray/others) 11.Conclusions (Raffray/all) Combination of precise analysis and engineered material = Strong ray of hope for dry wall chambers!! Design window seems to exist Protective gas is a must for indirect-drive spectra Outstanding issues Comments are welcome Gentle notice to all co-authors: -I will send a schedule for the report write-up and would appreciate receiving your contribution(s) in time for the first draft of the report to be ready within the next 3-4 months

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 21 Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option Wetted Wall Chamber Issues Film Flow Assure full coverage, adequate uniformity Avoid dripping Avoid droplet ejection from blast Clearing Return chamber environment to a condition which allows successful target and driver propagation 1. Help determine criteria (target injection and beam propagation) 2. Model energy deposition and aerosol creation processes 3. Scope time scales for recondensation (in flight and on wall) 4. Model “late-stage” thermal and fluid dynamic behavior (DP task)

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 22 Liquid Wall Interaction Concern about creating quiescent atmosphere in time for next shot : Time scale of recovery mechanisms, e.g: -Condensation -Clearing -Aerosol evacuation Initial effort to determine extent of ablation and limiting conditions for aerosol formation Future effort will address key issues linked with recovery process time scales

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment of Wetted Wall Option 23 Photon and Ion Attenuation in Lead Wall for Pb Chamber Pressure of 0 and Torr (Pb Partial Pressure at 800°C)