Gas handling for the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor during the DT phase of operation: system overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original design of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and tritium handling are described. Modifications to these designs inspired by operational experience gained from running TFTR since 1982 with deuterium-deuterium (D-D)-fueled experiments are also presented. The presently installed gas handling systems work well for the D-D phase of operation, but they do not have the level of sophistication needed for tritium injection, tritium-contaminated-gas exhaustion, and gas detritiation for deuterium-tritium (D-T) operations. The pumping and gas-handling systems were designed prior to the operation of TFTR to handle the tritiated process streams anticipated during the DT phase. Since then, it has been found that certain changes and refinements to this design would make tritium handling simpler and safer. Most (90%) of the process gas (deuterium fuel) is pumped by the cryopanels in the neutral beams during operations. This nearly pure elemental hydrogenic gas is radiologically 25000 times more safe to handle than the corresponding amount of tritium oxide. It has been decided to transfer the hydrogenic species from the neutral beam cryopanels into special containers for off-site shipment as elemental tritium rather than as oxide. This reduces the exposure of oil-lubricated pumps from large contact with tritium-laden gas and reduces the risk of exposure to tritium oxide. Conditioning of the torus will be processed by impurity cryopumps, designed to pump only the nonhydrogenic species (impurities) and reduce the total amount of tritium used during conditioning.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".