 Okay, so hello everyone. Thank you all for joining us today. And thank you especially to our speakers, Tony Doné, Homer Hurricane and Dennis White for accepting our invitation to this event. I'm Matteo Barbarino. I work at the International Atomic Energy Agency and we work to foster collaboration and coordination on Fusion R&D and move forward in developing the peaceful use of fusion energy. And we've been doing this work since 1958. This webinar series starting today will give an overview of the most recent groundbreaking results in the Fusion R&D to understand how such progress brings fusion energy closer to realization. This first episode features the Jet Tokamak, the National Ignition Facility, and the Spark Tokamak. As you probably know, 2021 was an amazing year for fusion. In August, the NIF reached a record breaking 1.3 megajoules of output, achieving for the first time a burning plasma state. In September, MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced the successful demonstration of a record breaking 20 Tesla magnetic field in their first of a kind superconducting magnet. There's again a major breakthrough in the design of their Spark device. And then in December, the Jet Tokamak reached the highest sustained energy paths ever and a record breaking 59 megajoules of sustained fusion energy. We're going to hear about these three groundbreaking results. The format will be a sequence of three talks, 30 minutes each. Please tap your questions and comments into the chat box and we'll go through those during the 30 minutes Q&A at the end. So without further ado, please welcome Professor Toyndon, the CEO of your Fusion. Thank you very much. I think you can all hear me and see the screen, so very good. So thank you very much for this invitation of this very, very interesting seminar and I'm really delighted with sharing this webinar with another number of excellent speakers. Well, Jet is really the collaboration of a large team of people and I want to especially acknowledge the people which are here on the screen, Lauren Wharton who was the Jet expectation manager, the team of members and deputies and about 300 people from all over Europe which have been involved in the experiments. So it's really big teamwork and I'm just a messenger in a sense. So, why don't my, okay, before I come to the Jet results, a few words about your fusion, what we are and one slide on the European Fusion roadmap that I can put everything in perspective, but then I really focus on Jet, on the ether like wall, on the first results of the recent campaigns with the term tritium and full tritium and also what does this mean for either. So let's go to your fusion. We are a construction of 30 national research institutes and 152 universities to be exact. 28 countries, we were very proud that also the Ukraine is part of this and we are very worried of course what is happening at the moment in Ukraine. We have roughly 700 PhD students, 100 MSC students all over Europe and 4,000 fusion researchers are involved in the work. And also Jet is really an international device as said, it's about 300 people working together here you can see them making up the logo. This was taken before the pandemic so without any face masks, but anyhow the people are too small to recognize. The fusion roadmap where our idea is to get to the fusion power plant. The most important devices are either and demo either will show that fusion is feasible, but will not deliver electricity that will be done by by demo you can see that there is some what time faced. And at this very moment we're doing a lot of research in present day developments which which in present day facilities which includes chat but also other talk max. We're doing a parallel work and stellarators we're working on the materials but I am not going to bother you with this. The important element is that present day devices including jet give very important input to either. Now, let's start talking. What we're here for. That's chat and the ether like wall. And, in principle, in 2004 we took the decision to change the wall of jet from carbon to to full metal in principle, brilliant first wall and tungsten, they're further. And the reason was that we realize that carbon is not a good material for fusion reactor. And we did this complete overhaul of the machine in a period of two years with only using remote handling robotics which already was a very nice test for a device like either where you definitely cannot go into device. And we can have been using it at at my fusion power. So, at jets. It's very important that it's the machine which at the moment and still is closest in size to either it's the largest operating talking back in the world. It has the same plasma facing materials as as either. And it's the only talking back in the world which can operate with the terium tritium fuel. So, this is, this is really a very important. So what we realized in the early 2000s is that a carbon, although an ideal experiment ideal material in a talking back has a number of important drawbacks, one is that it binds with with hydrogen and so also with the terium and tritium. It forms dust and the simulations which were done in the early 2000s show that if you operate either with a carbon wall. You would be able able only to run either for typically 100 discharges and then you would reach a tritium safety limit because all the tritium would be bound to the carbon and blind as dust on the surface of on the bottom of of. Either. So this was a reason to change to brilliant tungsten, which now, let's say brings either in a condition where it can operate for multiple years, typically 10,000 discharges before you reach the tritium safety limit. So, we wanted to bring it all together we changed the wall that was done as said in in 2010 2011. And already in the first experiments we showed have shown that that the retention of of hydrogenic isotope so especially the terium to the brilliant tungsten is much less than a carbon. And we also noted that it's much more difficult to operate the machine because the tungsten has a tendency to migrate into the plasma it dilutes the plasma leads to disruptions it leads to plasma which are not that good anymore. So we really needed to find new recipes new scenarios how to operate the machine and that took really a lot of time. I'll take you through the results. The new jet wall has led to a very strong reduction in the fuel trapped in the wall and while the Texas more than 10 times I think if you really look at the grass it's in the order of almost 20 times less. And then the fusion retention, which is very good news for either, and this is basically why we install the, the italic wall. Then the fusion performance. It's very difficult to achieve and, and for instance, the, the graph here shows the great data with the old carbon wall where in 1997 we had record performance and the data which we had until 2014 so in the early years of get where we really run into problems. So for low power it worked reasonably well but at some point then the tungsten comes into plasma and you get this kind of saturation. And we have been working on recipes to overcome that and one is to have seeding of the of the plasma so to have a kind of neon or argon blanket around the jet plasma. And the second is also applying central heating to flush the, the tungsten out. And also we could use alms which are often seen as a, well, negative effect to flush part of the tungsten out and then in more recent years and I would say until the end of 2019 early to 2020 we got back to the previous scaling with with the carbon wall. So we were more or less ready then to do the final proof of the pudding to load jet with the terium treaching and do the experiments. The good is, 25 years have passed since the previous experiment which is a long time, but that really also gave us all the time to improve the diagnostic system so we got better diagnostics, more, let's say measurement of the pressure resolution higher tempo resolution, and also new diagnostics specifically focused on for instance the nutrients, the alpha particles in the gammas. At the same time we have been also upgrading our our theoretical and numerical models, and this means that our capability to predict the discharges has been enormously enhanced. Now, let me take you through the DT results. So, of course, important is to see what is the impact of the fuel mass on the plasma properties. We have been looking into novel heating methods. I will show a little bit about that alpha particles about the validation of the models and also what this means for for either and what ultimately the fusion energy production. So, yeah, how does the fuel mass influence basically the plasma properties so chemically hydrogen deuterium and treaching are let's say rather similar but of course they they mainly differ in mass, but does it really have an effect on the plasma. It does have. For instance, what we immediately noted is that the, the energy threshold the power threshold to get into the high confinement modes is lower. So here you can see the, the threshold is a function of plasma density. So you clearly can see if you go from the terium to a 5050 detergent region mixture or even a full tritium plasma that essentially the threshold is about 30% lower. So again, this is very good news for for either because it means you need less power to get any high confounded mode. And it's also to see what what happens with these different isotopes and does it really influence the plasma transports properties and will also describe shows a little bit on how we have improved our diagnostics. This is not a complete jet plasma radius is just the last 20 centimeters so including the separate tricks in the scrape off layer and shown here are measurements of the electron temperature and density taken with our high resolution Thompson scattering system. What you see is going from the terium to fire a 70% 30% between tritium mixture to 30% 70% tritium so tritium Rick's plasma. You can see an increase in the electron density where the main changes in the pedestal area, but in essentially in the in the overall temperature profile and the in the pedestal you don't see. We didn't have these data in 1997 where we did the experiment so this really gives a lot of new insights which really help us to better understand what's going on. What we also know to do is that because tritium is about one half times more heavy than the terium that the erosion by the inner wall is a little bit higher than with a pure detergent plasma. Still the increase in the erosion by the tritium is is noticeable but it's still within the tolerance it's not a nuisance and we still can well cope with it. And on the new heating method which I mentioned is that of course because of the brilliant wall we always have a little bit intrinsic brilliant in the plasma as an impurity it's not much. But instead of brilliant being a nuisance, you can also make use of it in a positive way. So in our iron cyclotron group we developed now a technique to do minority heating on the brilliant. So the brilliant actually is pumped up to very high energy and then in collisions it gives the energy away to the plasma and thus eating the detergent region plasma. So this is also a very nice achievement which of course is also for either good news because either for sure will also have brilliant in the plasma. And you can use similar tricks. We have chosen deliberately to focus on the five second discharge is not to try to enable come back to that later not try to let's say get very high power in a short time, because the five seconds are basically long enough, compared to the energy which in chat is typically between half a second and one second so a five second discharge is already long, because it's a longer time than any of the plasma physics processes. But the longer time gives you also better possibility and looking into the detailed interaction of the alpha particles for instance with the plasma and here you can see interaction between the alpha particles so you can see the fusion power is the curve and these these lines here. I'm not sure whether you can see my cursor but it's the high pitched ringing of the plasma so this is really interaction of the plasma of the particles with with modes in the plasma. Then of course I said we we have been, let's say, working on our modeling and we did modeling calculations already. Many years ago and principle these model model calculations were done by Geronimo Garcia back in 2019 and now we have overlaid our data. And the data exactly follow the outcome of the model so this is this is really good. We are very happy with this validation, because the same models predict and also that eater will achieve 500 megawatt at 50 megawatt input. This is also very important news for eater because I should say that all the, the modeling which has been done in the past for either was based on the old carbon data which were taken with jet and also of course data from other machines. But it was important to now have also a validation with machine with the machine with the terium tritium and having the brilliant and and wall and the tungsten divergent. So coming now to the record and this is the right at the picture you have seen probably many times these are the old records from 1997. We're at the one hand we had, well 16 megawatt for really a fraction of a second. And we had a five seconds pulse at on average four to four, four and a half megawatt so totally 22 megajoule. But we really wanted to focus on the longer pulse, because that gives the best input to all the physics, the five seconds by the way comes from the fact that the jet has copper coils, which are inertially cooled. We need some time after every discharge so if when we really operated high performance we only can go to five seconds. The coils get too hot and we need to stop and wait some time for the next shot. So, I really expect that superconducting devices, they of course can go to much longer pulses but that doesn't have that possibility not at the highest power. So here you can see the the T power which we did in the 5050 mixture, which is already much better so it's almost double the, the world previous world energy record. So this is already a very nice achievement. And this is the present best pulse we have, which is 59 mega joule. To be fair this was done in a tritium rich plasma it was in a 3070 percent deuterium tritium plasma. But you can see a very nice performance. We totally created this 59 mega joule with only a minute amount of fuel so what I've been explaining in the meantime many times to journalists. And they asked me well what does it mean 59 mega joule and well then I think one journalist came up with the idea that well it's about 60 kettles of water you bring to boil. Well, it's great doesn't say much but we brought this to boil with only 170 microgram of detergium and tritium 100 microgram tritium 70 micrograms of detergium, which is a minor amount and if you want to do that with fossil fuel you would need typically four kilograms of So to come towards a conclusion. So we, we have prepared suddenly a new generation also of scientists and engineers. The previous DT campaign was in 97 and many people which were involved at that time they are slowly getting older so some have left already team so it was important also to train new people to work with tritium to know how all the active gas handling systems work etc. What was important is to test DT in either like conditions either like so with the brilliant light wall and machine as big as possible as as ether. We got a lot of data on, let's say the the burning plasma physics, we have a list of about 60 papers which we will submit in the coming year to peer reviewed journals we are planning a special issue of nuclear fusion on on the chat results. The important is that we validate the models to extrapolate to to eater and any any machine beyond so the models are correct and and show that eater will work. And well, actually the fusion energy record was not our main goal it's always nice to have a world record and this is what resonates with with journalists and with the public. So for us the most important was the the science which we could do and which we will do now in the coming year now we really are going to digest all the data. Just to end my talk, we will release a movie on the story behind the DT campaign and actually the premier is next week. The data has changed from the 30s to the 31st of March and that really gives nicely the story behind the DT campaign. It's a 50 mini minute video and showing how we went from all the beginning of the DT campaign to the end. Some of the drawbacks we had if we run into a when we run into a water leak all the way to let's say the final final discharges. This is basically a list of all the people so very often it's thought that jet is situated in the UK and it's a UK experiment. No, it's a machine which is operated by the UK for your fusion. And it's basically a machine which brings in all the European laboratories, which, which basically together are working to create ultimately electricity from fusion. So thank you very much for the attention and I'm looking forward to your questions later on during this webinar. I will share now the screen and give it back to you, Matteo. Thank you Tony wonderful. There are some questions and we'll get to those in the in the Q&A and I look forward to watching the movie. And now please welcome Dr. Homer Hurricane, Chief Scientist for the National Combined Fusion Program, the Science and Physics Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, super. All right, so thank you for inviting me to speak. Like the work at Jet and at Eater, there are a large number of people involved in our effort. I've tried to list a subset of them here on this slide. Of course, they're about 150 people listed here who were recently directly involved in this work, but there've been over a thousand involved in the lead up to what we're talking about today. So, again, I'm Omar Hurricane. I work closely with Annie Crichter, who is the lead designer for the work I'm going to be talking about today. Alex Zilstra was the lead experimentalist and Debbie Callahan. She was the co-lead with me on developing the strategy and some of the empirical and theoretical models behind this work. And so what we're discussing is achieving the loss in criteria for ignition in a inertial confinement fusion experiment. And so let's get into that. So, back in the 1960s, shortly after Theodore Mamon developed the laser people from laboratories like mine envisioned that you could use a laser to create micro explosions, micro fusion explosions based on what they were learning on the nuclear defense side of things. And that work was pretty much classified until the 1970s, at which time a fairly famous paper came out in 1972 where it was discussed that you could use lasers to directly compress matter to super high densities for thermonuclear applications. That's illustrated in this image on the right. You envision a microscopic scale capsule filled with fusion fuel. You blast the outside surface of that fuel with the laser and you cause the surface to explode and the equal and opposite reaction causes the capsule to compress. We call that configuration an implosion and the implosion is the principle concept behind ICF, which you're using the implosion to squeeze the fuel and obtain high temperature and density. And today this, this direct what we call direct drive of shooting the lasers directly at the capsule is the primary focus of colleagues at the LLE and University of Rochester laboratory. So, back then they weren't allowed to discuss what they really had in mind that. And the, the idea was actually to use indirect drive where instead of shooting the lasers directly at the capsule, you can find the capsule inside a metal can you shoot the lasers at the metal can. And you create a bath of X rays. And then you use the X rays to drive the capsule inwards upon itself and there are certain pros and cons to each approach. So what we do in in our approach is the lasers enter through apertures at the top of this metal can we call this metal can a Hall Rom, which is a German word for for hollow room. And it becomes an X ray converter. The laser light has a certain frequency. It's absorbed near the critical surface where the plasma frequency matches the laser frequency or nearly so sometimes a quarter of that value that energy from the laser is absorbed. The atoms radiates and you get a bath of X rays flying in all directions, but in particular hitting the surface of the capsule when we call that the the ablation front. The absorption of that X ray energy causes that service to a blade basically absorb the energy ionized and explode. That creates a pressure on the outside of the capsule and that drives the rest of the capsule with the fusion fuel inside inwards upon itself. So the ablation pressure that's developed as a result of seeing these X rays is a function of the atomic number and atomic weight of the material that the ablator is made of the radiation temperature of the of the X rays inside the Hall Rom. And there's a degradation of that pressure due to the rejection of that some X ray energy in the form of the Albedo of the surface. So typically in our experiments. We develop pressures of 100 to 200 megabars or million atmospheres of pressure on the outside surfaces of our capsule. Okay, so as we are doing this process of delivering laser energy into this Hall Rom and then to the capsule, we actually are losing energy. Pretty significantly in each of these steps. But we what we're doing is actually we're trading that energy away for energy density. And the whole purpose of a of an implosion is actually to act as a pressure amplifier. So, again, here's our cartoon of the configuration where we have laser and energy entering through these apertures, which we call laser entrance holes. The X ray bath is generated around this capsule. And then if you were to take a cutaway of this capsule, here's the ablator on the outside. You have the fusion fuel layered on the inside of that capsule. The laser energy entering in our experiments into the Hall Rom is about 1 to 1.9 megajoules of energy. It's a blue light. We call it 3 omega 351 nanometer wavelength. As we said on the previous slide, that X ray energy causes the ablator to explode generating several hundred a million atmospheres of pressure. That pressure then drives that capsule inwards upon itself. And eventually it runs out of. Place to go there, there's no place else to go so that kinetic energy that's acquired. As it accelerates under this pressure. Then gets turned into internal energy. As as the plasma kind of collides in on itself. At that moment, you've generated several hundred billions of atmospheres of pressure as you trade that kinetic energy for internal energy. But as you go through these chain of events where you go from the X ray energy to the X ray absorbed by the outside of the ablator. To the conversion of that kinetic energy into internal energy of the fusion fuel, you give up several decades of energy at each step. So you go from 1.9 megajoules of laser energy to a couple hundred kilojoules of X ray energy absorbed to only 10 to 20 kilojoules of energy that makes it into the fusion fuel. So it's actually very energy inefficient, but you've again traded away energy for for pressure. And that's again the key, the key use of an implosion because there's such a dramatic loss of energy through each step. We have different metrics for for progress in terms of energy. And these are called gains. So for the target, you have a measure of how much fusion yield you get out compared to the laser energy you put in. So we call that target gain. When you look at the capsule, there's energy out compared to the energy absorbed by the capsule, we call that capsule gain. And then finally, for this last step, you just have the fusion fuel and there's the energy out compared to the energy delivered to the fusion fuel and we call that fuel gain. So you have to be aware there are several different definitions of gain and they all have different meanings because of this significant loss of energy as the implosion proceeds. Okay, so these type of experiments are mostly carried out at Lawrence Livermore National Labs National Ignition Facility. This is a facility that's about the size of 3 football fields. But because of this nature of implosions, while the facility is huge, the actual fusion experiment is on the scale of 2 millimeters. So there's just a dramatic difference in scale between the facility and our fusion plasma itself. So what you're seeing here are the capacitor banks outside the main laser bays pre amplifiers, the main laser bay. The switch yard which redirects the laser beams to the target chamber. The target chamber is shown here on the right and scale is about 10 meters diameter. The target that is inside of that target chamber is 1 centimeter in scale. That's the hall ROM seen here on the lower right with some cooling arms attached to it. And then inside of that is our capsule of fusion fuel, which is only about 2 millimeters in diameter. So, while many of us who work in this area are interested in fusion energy. National ignition facility is not an energy research facility. It's primary mission is national security were paid by the national security branch of our government. And so that's that's our primary job. Okay, so this implosion again is trying to create energy density. And that's because we're trying to create some very extreme conditions in order to stop alpha particles from the DT fusion reaction inside this, this rather tiny fusion plasma. We're doing that because we're trying to utilize this nature of the DT fusion reaction where essentially the reaction rate goes up as a function of temperature. And if we can trap the heat that's generated from the fusion that we can increase the temperature. And if we increase the temperature that increases the reaction rate and if we can trap that heat we get more temperature and we can increase the reaction rate again. So that's the process we're trying to leverage. Essentially, for our designs on NIF. We're trying to trap 70 to 80% of the alphas and what we call the hotspot, which results in the temperature increasing. And the hotspot just by its name, it's the hot part of the plasma, but it tends to be a lower density than the surrounding cold fuel. The, the 20 to 30% of alpha particles that are not stopped in the hotspot are actually used to ablate that fusion fuel from the inside out. And that adds to the mass of the hotspot as the fusion proceeds. The typical scale of this fusion plasma is about 100 microns diameter. So if that doesn't mean anything to you 100 microns is about the diameter of a human hair. So the conditions we need now to get this alpha heating feedback is aerial density. We tall call it row R. You'll hear me say row or a lot of about 0.3 grams per centimeter squared a peak central density of over 100 grams per centimeter squared in this hotspot. And again, the pressures are several hundreds of gigabars, which is billions of atmospheres about twice more than twice the pressure at the center of the sun. All right, so let's talk a little bit about the energy balance in order to get these conditions. We really have to delicately balance all these different processes in our plasma. To get interesting things to happen. So this is a image from a simulation shown on the left on the left part of this image. You see kind of what we expect to be the typical configuration of what we call the shell of the implosion. It's a mixture of the what's left of the ablator and the fusion fuel at peak compression. We'd like it to be perfectly round like the drawings I showed previously, but in reality it's not in the simulations pick up some of that on the right side of that image. There, this shows the temperature. So again, it's hot in the middle cooler at the edge. And there are some key physics processes that are competing with each other in order to get the pressure and temperature amplification that we see. Of course, the, the primary process that we're interested in is alpha heating where you stop these alpha particles and and get that heat to deposit itself. It's a function of the density and the reaction rate competing with that as we try to make the plasma hot brems losses try to carry energy away. Because we are making a hot plasma next to a cold plasma thermal conduction and the form of spitzer conduction tends to carry the energy away and they all have different dependencies on temperature. Density and radius or row are so the fundamental power balance equation that determines whether or not we are going to be successful is determined by this equation on the upper right. So we have a heat capacity DT times the time rate of change of temperature is just this balance of source and sources and sinks of energy. So we have the alpha heating term, the brems term, the electron loss term, and then the primary way we get the plasma to heat up is actually through this PDB work we're doing mechanical work as the implosion proceeds. So as we squeeze the implosion up PDB work is doing work on the hotspot that increases the temperature. We call that phase the implosion, typically during this phase we're achieving velocities of several hundreds kilometers per second. So that's a typical like high velocity projectile is is under 10,000 kilometers per second. So this is this is this is 10 kilometers per second. So this is quite quite fast. And then after the implosion reaches peak compression it explodes. And this source of heating the PDB work term that actually was beneficial initially becomes actually another sink of energy, because it mechanically draws energy out of the fusion plasma as this explosion proceeds and that's one of the big differences between an ICF plasma and magnetic fusion plasma. And you don't have to worry about the magnetic fusion plasma exploding and taking energy out in mechanical form. As a result of this competition of these different physical processes of heating and cooling, the nature of an implosion is that it's quite impulsive. So this is power in gigajoules per second versus time. And again what we're trying to do is maximize the alpha heating, which is this this burst of power here. And it's driven by the PDB work that is initially positive, but then turns negative. And it's competing with the brems losses, which is impulsive because of the temperature and the density both responding to the impulsive nature of the implosion and then you have the electron conduction loss term. So it's really a delicate balance between all these losses, temporarily, that we have to design or engineer to kind of get the conditions that we want. Okay, so what are the conditions we want? Well, some of the conditions we're trying to achieve or we have achieved is a burning plasma. And so let's define that in terms of this power balance. So a burning plasma. The statement is that the integral of the alpha heating power needs to exceed the external sources of heating. So for an ICF plasma, the only external source of heating is this PDB work. So the time integral of the PDB work has to be less than the time integral of the alpha heating. And that defines a burning plasma for an ICF system. And this is an analog to the magnetic fusion statement of what a burning plasma is. Taking into taking into account that an ICF plasma is impulsive, while magnetic fusion plasma is more or less steady state. So in magnetic fusion language, this statement is most similar to what is called the Q alpha being greater than one. All right. So that's not the only state we're trying to achieve. We're also trying to get to ignition. And this statement of ignition is more or less made by loss in the physics is in order to get the thermal instability that I described earlier. The alpha heating must exceed all losses for a duration of time. So if we go back to our energy balance equation here of sources and sinks. If we can somehow engineer a situation where the Brems loss, the electron conduction loss. And the negative PDB work are essentially small compared to the alpha heating. You basically have a balance of the heating of the plasma with alpha heating that is finite time singular. Where the, the, the time rate of change of temperature increases as a function of temperature and you get a rapid explosive increase in temperature that we call the thermonuclear instability. And that, that is what we're calling ignition. And that is basically a loss in definition. So it's a thermonuclear instability that causes a rapid increase in temperature. If you engineer a situation where this can happen and to engineer that situation, you need very high temperatures, a high row, which is that aerial density of the plasma and you need sufficient time. The reason why you need sufficient time is because of this heat capacity here, it does take a little bit of time for this plasma to heat up and for that finite time singular instability to take place for us. It takes several tens of picoseconds. So that means we have to hold our implosion together for several tens of picoseconds to have a chance of this happening. And that's difficult because this implosion wants to blow itself apart with that. That's the nature of the implosions, but we can engineer that situation apparently. So to engineer this situation, we developed this strategy that we call a hybrid strategy. And the challenge was that we need to increase our capsule scale, but keep the properties of the implosions that we're working on earlier experiments such as the 80 of that, which is a measure of the compressibility. The stability we had because we're doing these rapid accelerations of materials. It has a tendency to be a Rayleigh Taylor unstable. So that's a lot of work to control that. We don't have time to go into that here. We need these high implosion velocities just that we had before we have this jargony term called coast time. I'll explain that later. And we have to keep our implosion symmetric. Otherwise, we squander the kinetic energy that we put into it. And we have to do that with fixed laser energy because our facility has the energy it has. And so the strategy was that back in 2018 or 2017, we had some pretty interesting implosions that were producing a significant amount of alpha heating. We call these designs the HDC and big foot design here. The lead people on those designs. And we wanted to basically just make that. That system bigger or make the fusion part of the system bigger by making the capsule bigger and absorbing more energy into it. And also doing something that's kind of similar in a qualitative sense to what eater is doing. If you can change the volume to surface ratio of your plasma, which is, you know, one of the reasons I understand why we eat are so big. You can kind of tip the balance in favor of heating and a little less in favor of cooling because of the volume to surface ratio. And so that's essentially what we're trying to do here. The challenge of doing this is actually trying to control the cemetery of our implosions because as you make these capsules large compared to the scale of the hall around. It's actually becomes a very, very difficult to control the cemetery. So you might get more energy in, but then you squander it with a cemetery. So we understood from that power balance equation that I showed a few slides earlier what the key parameters were to get the fusion yield to increase. And I'm going to have to run through these quickly. You have the inflate of relation pressure, which is related to the inflation pressure. I talked about earlier response to the horror on X ray radiation temperature. It responds to the velocity. It responds negatively to a cemetery. It responds negatively to Rayleigh Taylor instability and mixing, which increases the brems losses. But for these implosions in 2017, 2018, we had made basically maximized or maximized our control on most of these terms. The 2 terms that we had not quite leveraged was the 80 about. But in previous experiments, we never had a good control of lowering the 80 about trying to get more compression out of the fuel. So the last term that we really had leveraged to try to. Exploit was the scale and there's a fairly rapid scaling there and that that's basically what we did. As I said, trying to do this, the main challenge was controlling cemetery. So we had to increase the size of the capsule without demonstrating damaging cemetery control. Our problem that we understood with controlling cemetery is illustrated by this cartoon on the right, where we have this whole room wall that we're blasting the lasers towards. And we have sets of beams. We call them outers, which are these steep angle beams and enters, which are our shallow steep angle beams. And what was happening is the outer beams were hitting the inside of this plasma. Causing a, sorry. Inside of this whole room wall creating this plume of plasma. That plume of plasma would fly inwards and ingress into the interior of the whole room. And that would interfere with getting the inner laser beams where we needed them on the wall to control the cemetery of this capsule. And this, it took a while to understand that this was the physical process that was challenging us. And a nice model by Debbie Callahan and experiments by Joe Ralph. Basically demonstrated this and we could then once we understood this process design around it. And that was done by Annie. We used data driven models to re engineer. The design of the hall room to account for this. And we use something called cross beam energy transfer, which was actually utilizing a laser plasma instability in a beneficial way. By tuning the wavelengths between these different laser beams in this plasma to swap energy from the enters to the outers to compensate for what's being scraped off. And you can see here, these are images of the hotspot of our implosion where if we, we didn't do this trick, we'd have a very oblique pancake shaped implosion, which is not energy efficient, but we can eventually round it out. Okay, so. To progress towards higher compression and higher temperature. We also had to get an increase in the late time x ray drive to try to keep the capsule from decompressing prematurely. There's a whole another story, a physics story behind this. We have a jargony term that we use called coast time. But it basically involves we have to make the whole around more efficient to try to keep the energy that's injected by the lasers from leaking out in the form of x rays prematurely. And that that story is illustrated here. What you see on the left is actually 2 different designs. A design we had from about a year ago and then a design. Which created the burning plasmas that were reported recently in our, in our nature papers to a design where we made small modifications and actually we're able to cross into an ignition regime back in August. Yeah, you'll probably look at this image on the left and see no difference between these 2 different designs and the design details are subtly different. And it's an illustration of how sensitive these these target designs are to small changes. In addition to the design change on the geometry, which result, which is basically a reduction of this laser entrance all sides and a repointing of these beams. There was a modification to the laser pulse that we request from the facility. We went from a high power pulse that that shut off earlier to a lower power pulse that shut off later. But because of the changes to the geometry of the target, we were able to increase the amount of x ray drive late in time. And this small difference where you could it's almost imperceptible here in the geometry. And only an expert would really see this difference in radiation temperature. You get an order of magnitude difference in fusion performance. So the benefits of this late time x ray drive is really just increased hotspot temperature and pressure the implosion responds very favorably to this. And it actually also has an influence on reducing Rayleigh Taylor instability, but that's another story. So, as a result of making these design changes, we were able to create a state where we can actually get the alpha heating to far exceed the radiative loss and conduction loss. This is these are, this is a plot of the integrated hotspot energies for this experiment 2108 from last August as a function of time. You see this nature of this dynamic nature of the implosion in this plot of these energies. But again, the alpha heating is far exceeding the conduction loss, the radiative loss and the negative PDD work. And that allows us to bring this plasma to a state. That's quite interesting in a fairly symmetric form as illustrated on the upper left. Our simulations at least retroactively are pretty good at predicting or post dicting the conditions of our experiments. We can can match the fusion yields, the temperatures, the densities, the roars and these capsule gains pretty much makes sense with these models. And so that's going to be reported soon in a paper we have forthcoming. So, to measure these conditions, of course, our facility has quite a number of diagnostics that provide imaging data, neutron data, spectroscopy data. And by using that data, we can inspect the what's going on in our fusion plasma. The way we use that data primarily is to do this inference, which is key to determining whether or not we've really achieved a burning plasma or an igniting plasma or not. And let me just run through this quickly. So, we know that fusion yield is basically related through a number to the density of the plasma squared, the reaction rate, the volume of the plasma and the time at which the plasma is fusing. So, from the diagnostic, from the neutron time of flight diagnostics on the facility, we can infer a temperature. We know the reaction rate for DT so we can calculate this part of this equation from the imaging data that we get in terms of neutron imaging and x-ray imaging. We can reconstruct the volume of the plasma that's creating the fusion burn so we can get a volume here from the gamma ray pulse and or from the x-ray duration. We can infer what the time of the plasma being hot is. We measure the fusion yield. Therefore, we can solve this equation for the properties of the fusion plasma that we're interested in, the density, the mass, the rho r pressure and hot spot energy, etc. So, using this, we can infer all the key properties of the fusion fusing plasma and the determine whether or not we have a burning plasma or if we've passed the loss and criteria. So, that's illustrated here. The loss and criteria again is the statement that you have now so much alpha heating that you're beating out all the losses in the plasma and you can get this thermodynamic instability of temperature. And while that statement is a single statement, there are many different formulations of that statement that allow you to make this determination. I'm showing a few, well, I'm showing about eight different ones here. In terms of pressure of the hot spot, the radius, that's the criteria. Here are old experiments. Here's our recent one from August. This is the one that is maybe most familiar to people in magnetic fusion. It's the p tau versus temperature. That's a set of curves here depending on how much brems loss you have. Here's our old data set. Here's the new experiment. And people who work with implosions generally like to work in the space of route row are hot spot aerial density and temperature. And there are a number of different curves here for this criteria from different authors. But again, you know, most of our past status to the left of these curves and the recent experiment from August is to the right. So these different, these are all different formulations of the same loss and statement to have different assumptions and different mathematics behind them. But they're all basically saying the same thing that prior to August, we were not igniting, although some of these were burning. And then after August, we have passed this loss and criteria. And again, this, this publication will be forthcoming. Okay, so in conclusion. What we see is, you know, our ICF. Effort has was not is actually easy as originally envisioned, but by by solving little problems and steps in very incremental ways. We've actually attained a significant advanced in infusion research. So our shots in 2020 and 2021 passed a burning plasma threshold for the first time that's published recently in these nature papers that have have come out recently in in August. It was the first NIF shot to achieve a capsule gain greater than 1 where the fusion energy is greater than the capsule energy absorbed actually the the capsule gain was close to 6. We now from that August experiments have passed several formulations of the loss and criteria for ignition. The shot achieved a target gain though, which is the fusion yield over laser energy of less than unity. And the National Academy of Sciences in the US in 1997 they define that to be ignition because there wasn't agreement on what ignition was back then. So we don't pass that criteria. The recent experiments have yet to we've actually done repeat experiments we've been they have yet to reproduce the August result. The best was about 50% of the performance. And that implies that we have less than ideal engineering control, which has always been a frustration. And as I illustrated earlier, you know, imperceptible or nearly imperceptible changes. Can be the difference between an order of magnitude of performance or not. So really tight engineering control is really needed to make this thing work reliably. So, we have efforts going on to increase fusion performance and robustness. And, but what is the final takeaway what's nice about this is basically we. The fusion community has an existence proof that fusion ignition in the lab is possible. And that should be good for everyone. So with that, I'll end the images on the writer are just from the set of experiments on, you know, August and lead up to that, but I don't think we have time to go into those. So, all right, with that, I'll end. Thanks so much. Amazing. Amazing results. Okay, we have lots of questions also for you. We'll get to them. Finally, now, please welcome. Professor Dennis white director of the MIT plasma science and fusion center. Thank you and thank you for the invitation to come. Sure results on this just excuse me for a few moments while the wallet, while it uploads it just as it's uploading. I just want to say thank you to all of my colleagues at combo fusions. Systems. MIT's cloud science and fusion center and our many collaborators. So the story here is, is about achieving a technological breakthrough that has. Significant implications on the science. An energy pathway for fusion and mainly achieving a 20. Tesla superconducting magnet. So the other line is I'll talk about why high magnetic field is so important for fusion science and energy. And I'll go to the achievement of of a Rebco superconducting fusion magnet above 20 Tesla. And then I'll describe what this means for the spark high field burning plasma to come back. So, it's a great follow on from from our presentation is that although we have slightly different different definitions in the end, both magnetic and actually all kinds of fusion seek to meet the criteria, which is essentially a power balance that tells you about the internal heating going on versus the losses in this, in this plasma state. So, for magnetic fusion, we have the energy gain is determined by 3 parameters the density confined in temperature, which is shown in this standard plot ratio over here on the right hand side. And in fact, showing a collection of data points that is impressive that in fact in magnetic fusion. We've gotten very close to QP of one, which is defined as the fusion power produced divided by the heating power couple to the plasma. So if you call it again from almost presentation saw a fifth of the fusion power heats the plasma because this comes from the alpha heating. So above QP of five is a clear definition and magnetic fusion because it's in it's basically an equilibrium all the time it's dawnily heated by its own fusion products and this state is called the burning plasma. Practical energy systems need QP order of 10 or greater because of the conversion efficiencies. And you can see from this plot the token that concept has been leading, but hasn't got there yet about actually achieving that energy gain system. So why is high magnetic fields so important. So here's the sort of cartoon version basically comes from two principles. So one of them on the left is the Lorentz force, which for this is what is literally the force of just acting on the plasma fuel particles to contain it. The size of the gyro radius is dictated by the temperature of the fuel and divide in the denominator by the strength of the magnetic field B. But the plasma temperature by that last part is really almost a constant because it's really set by the nuclear cross section. So what's important here is that a fusion conditions. This means the gyro radius decreases linearly with the size of the magnetic field. And if approximately you think of this as the volume goes like the cost and the other dimensions go like this and it's a diffusive process to linear process. This means the volume or cost scales very strongly non linearly inverse of strength and magnetic field. And on the right hand side, we basically concerned about how stable the plasma is. So the plasma pressure is exerting pressure that wants to it because it's out of thermodynamic equilibrium surrounding the large magnetic field. We use particular token back stabilizes against this because the fusion rate in the area that we're interested in goes like the plasma pressure squared and the magnetostatic pressure goes like the magnetic field squared B squared. Then in the end the fusion rate per unit volume scales at the mag to B to the fourth. We can actually get a little bit more technical on this and particularly for token max because it's usually defined as the equations which are shown here, which is this is the so-called beta, which is the relative ratio of thermal pressure in the plasma to the to the magnetic pressure. We know this actually quite well in token max is so-called trial limit, which actually has within it then other optimizations that have to do with the shaping of the plasma. Then we combine this with the fact that in the fusion area that we're interested in around 10 KV the fusion power density that's the power per unit volume scales at the pressure squared as I said before. This leads to generic considerations that the fusion power density, namely the amount of fusion power per unit volume scales at B to the fourth power. This is the leading indicator for economics in fusion energy because it really tells you the is the leading indicator of watts per dollar and that's going to be proportional to B to the fourth power. Confinement is a little messier than that. And this is actually from a review talk that I gave a several years ago. This is actually cast in the same way that Omar did it, that it's namely it's the product of the thermal pressure, which is the density and the temperature times the energy confinement time as I showed you thermal pressure scales at fixed physics like B squared. And then tau E has a variety of different often debated of dependencies on size and magnetic field, but it basically always is monotonically increasing the size, which is kind of makes intuitive sense. Large things can find things their heat longer on the strength of the magnetic field because you're improving the insulation through the smaller gyro radius as you increase the magnetic field. There's a set of various ways we look at this, including stellarators, not even just token max. And in the end you come up with something that usually looks like this is kind of got our cubed ish and B to some power, which is between four and six. So why is this important will high field enables high gain because this is what the loss and criterion determines is what gain that you get. And you can do this at lower cost because again, the dollars if they're approximate the volume of the device, and there's there's there's a standard token max sitting there. That goes like our cubed, which is the linear size of the device. So this also scales in between B and four to the six. Okay, so that's what the that's what the physics tells us. So basically fusion gain requires a minimum composite combination of size and magnetic field token back and fusion energy requires superconductors because they must not consume large amounts of electricity. So it's really in the end for for for power plants for fusion energy. So limits of superconductor magnetic fields set the required cost and size and the technology that was developed for either which is a certain 1990s. This is now you'll be in 10 superconductors. This amounts to a peak magnetic field at the coil of around 12 Tesla configured into a token back. This means the field of the plasma is just less than six Tesla. If you look at the curves of size versus magnetic field. This actually tells you why either basis the size of it is with a major radius near six meters. And it's really this technology is the foremost important parameter that sets the linear size of this. If it was smaller at this magnetic field, it would not be able to access the burning plasma state. And you can see the contours of gain. So the thing is that if you can get access to higher magnetic field than the linear size and therefore the volume of the device we significantly go down. So what happened was along came a new technology rare earth barium copper oxide Rebco often also called HTS because their high temperature superconductors really enable access to higher field. Here's some pictures over on the right. That's a very different physical form. Basically in the what makes the superconducting the superconducting state is a combination of three parameters of the temperature usually near low cryogenic temperatures strength of the magnetic field and the current density which is going in the superconductor. So the low temperature superconductor technology lived very close to the axis of this and this is what set the limit of the magnetic field. The new Rebco superconductor shown in the lighter shade region and essentially expands the operating space by what a factor of a thousand. So this is what you're really looking for is an engineer to be able to go after this. So what is the features of HTS or Rebco it's superconducting well above for Kelvin. It's critical surface as a very weak dependence on the magnetic field. So all this is theoretically possible to greatly increase the magnetic field for fusion. But what are the practical limits for example the stress scales like to be squared because it's the magnetic static pressure. What would be the stability of the coil. How would you cool it and so forth all the detailed engineering questions. But why were we motivated to do this well we're motivated because opening up the right hand side of that plot. Which says that based on known established tokamak science if we get access in a superconducting state a much larger magnetic field. Then revealed access actually will quite large and significant performance including access to QP order of 10 at much reduced size. And that's what we required a peak field at the coil of order of 20 Tesla. And so what was the comparison of this well in fact we know about this from experiments we'd run for a long time at MIT called the Alcatore projects. And the last one was Alcatore C mod which actually established for example the world record for for thermal pressure in the plasma. But it is a very compact device it's only one cubic meter plasma volume. So here we put into Congress what does this mean in terms of scale for the project is that I'll talk about spark and here's either to scale. You can see them beside each other they both achieve an energy gain of order of 10. Oh sorry the fusion part should be 500 megawatts and eater that was a type of apologies and a volume of 800 cubic meters and spark which I'll describe later. Has high gain large amounts of fusion power but in about 140th the volume of either based on the same physics. Okay, so that was a clear motivation so the good question was can we actually do it. So a part of this is that we launched common fusion systems out of out of out of the plasma science and fusion center. This raise over 200 million dollars to develop a greater than 20 Tesla revco magnet and in an R&D partnership with with the plasma science and fusion center at MIT to enable this high field path. So first of all I'll show you is the so called Viper cable. So this is a conductor and conduit using twisted stacks. This offers high I cross B or Lawrence loading tolerance by rock the quench detection and we actually demonstrated nano own joints in this in the publications which are shown here. So and then this is developed for multiple spark applications including our feeder cables AC magnets and it was a backup option for our large DC magnets because we didn't choose this we actually chose another configuration which is so called no insulation no twist or mint is our internal name for it. What is it so this is based on single tape non insulating design that came from the from the paper that you see there. And what the idea of this is that the structural material of the magnet or the steel is in fact the insulator when the superconductor is active this because the superconductor has zero resistivity so the current basically doesn't want to go into the steel or any structure material even though at room temperature it's a normal conductor it essentially acts as an insulator. And one of the features of this because it's a the coil is an enormous electrical short large voltages are are disallowed in it and it offers a high degree of self protection basically the same reason. So what did we do so we basically took multiple engineering and tactical decisions and formed our decision to use nint in the trial field of spark. So low voltage watch you on the right. Why is this important well the magnetic field is produced by the electric current going in the superconductor which is going around. And then the idea is that you actually even if something happens to the superconducting material the current is allowed to internally redistribute. In this case so the sort of cartoon is think of a river of a pebble going into a stream in the stream kind of diverts around it rather than damming up and causing some bad things. So that damming up usually it looks like high voltage because that causes arts and breakdown. This disallows it and basically enforces low voltage which is this removes a common failure point and assembly difficulties of a proxy insulators in the system. It improves the process for self protection because of the low voltage simplifies operation criteria and is then very robust to I the Lorentz forces internal to the coil because you're getting rid of a weak structural material. And you get also larger choice of materials and in the end the normal it also allows normal joints are readily integrated because of the simplicity of the system. But it's challenges were required advanced electromagnetic models because the current path is self determined inside of the coil. And then to do this we built more than a dozen coils and tested them. So this didn't come overnight. So what did we do with the so-called TFMC the Troideville model coil of spark was achieved the spark requirements with respect to peak magnetic field current density and cooling power. Of course there was aspects of this too because we have this is in partnership with a with a private company. We also did high tension the HTS supply and characterization. We came up with large scale vendors. We figured out how to build this how to tool it and in fact very important about how to scale it how to scale it to eventual large level productions that would be for commercial fusion as well too. So what did it look like well here it is it's around two meters tall. And it has the shape of what you think of for a fusion magnet with some modifications that came from the fact that it was a single coil that was being tested at a time. But it was basically built to retire the risk for spark by recreating the conditions that would be seen by such a high temperature super detecting coil in the spark token back. So how was it done so was done again with no insulation. So it was machine steel radio plates with channels for the HTS and the and the cooling. The HTS is stacked into the grooves and is capped with copper that is terminated at the internal pancake to pancake joints and therefore the current was allowed to go from one pancake to the next. So it's a completely modularized fabrication and assembly process which actually included in the end 16 independent magnets which are independently QA to put together and so forth. And then in the end we use a VPI solder process which is developed for the biker cables to be able to have mechanical electric and thermal stability for the HTS. So in the end as I said this is completely modularized the 16 independent pancakes were stacked together. They were internally jointed with with normal conductors. And then on the top and the bottom we had current leaves which basically we've been the current in and out. And then it's contained within a within a structural case to be able to tolerate and translate the forces which are coming from the large I cross B forces. So what are the design features and what we were looking to do in this so improve passes stability does not have does not have an active quench system like most superconducting magnets of large size intrinsically low voltage less than one volt. High thermal stability, which means that it's robust to damage defects and off normal events a key aspect of this an approximate is compared to low temperature superconductors it's 100 to 1000 times more thermally stable. This comes from different combinations of the much higher critical temperature in each yes but also the much higher heat capacity of materials at the higher temperature. So it's actually benefit to operate at high temperature. We use a very simplified and robust cooling scheme using pressurized helium we got away from liquid helium. And in the end we came up with ways to have very compact magnet and have very high current density, which from ampures law is the way that you get high field in a small object. So what did it look like so there was again there's a more of an engineering cartoon of it. So actually this helium comes in the plan on what you see or which are these two on that comes in and goes off the other end. The magnet is inserted like this. So it had 16 pancakes the key one is that it operated near 20 Kelvin was super critical helium. It actually had an I cross B forces on the order of 800 kilonewtons per meter and a very high winding pack current density about 100 and so it's 150 million amps per square meter. So a new test facility at the plaza size infusion center. In fact, in the hall that used to contain the power supplies for the outdoor seam on which took the 50 kilo amps of current brought it through the temperature transition inserted into the into the magnet. And all the assemblies that come along with this. So we also have now at the power size infusion center a an ability to test many generations and many. Different variations in fact of this technology because this is all installed now at the power size infusion center. So what did it look like so you bring in current it comes down. It has to make a transition from room temperature down to 20 Kelvin. This is done with some cleverness that actually uses soldered. HTS to transition the temperature itself. So everybody told you about the 2 pathways in the end we actually used almost we really use the technology of both pathways because the soldering process, the development of the Viper cable was actually used as the feeder cable into the magnet as it will be in spark. And of course, and it was used for the for the toital field magnet in general. So I can't go through all the details just because of time and others, but as order of 30 patents have been filed around this technology. And most importantly, it was all designed to be representative spark and to actually extrapolate eventually to commercial magnet production. So how did it do. Well, so the first test that we did, which I'll report here, which was really to get to 20. So the first time we tested it in an integrated way. We went to 20 tests that went to the peak performance of what we decided was needed to verify the DC call performance. So what did we want objectives that design could it actually with the coil produced the design field and withstand the static loading with the coil and distribute the current is predicted. And we would get the by the same token would we get the power dissipation that we thought would happen. As I told you, we, we developed very complex 3D electromagnetic models. It's a very complex electromagnetic problem. This is actually the, this is all planned beforehand modeled with these, the test plan was such that this was ramped up that we put current in wait for the current to soak in. You would get the magnetic field and then go down stress calculations, electromagnetic performance of the superconductors and so forth. And we instrumented instrumented the heck out of this thing over 100 internal voltage taps, fiber optic current sensors embedded all the things that you would do. In fact, Validate such a model. So how did it go. Well, it went very well. So in September of 2021, the test confirmed essentially all the key DC predictions. So before I showed you on the bottom, this is the electromagnetic simulation. This is the actual experiment. It turned out we made a few tweaks in the test plan as we went along as we were measuring things in real time. Why is that? Because the charging time is on order of a day. So you actually have time to look at the data and figure out what's going on. But in the end, we, we ramped up the current to order 40 kilo amps. And here you can see at the HTS stack edge and at the HTS stack center. We, we went above the 20 Tesla objective and then, and then ramp the coil back down. So what do we verify? Over 20 Tesla peak field, I cross be at over 800 kilo Newton's per meter and a peak stress over 900 mega Pascal with no visible signs or measured signs of changes or structural problems. The internal joints work very well at about a nano ohm. We verify charging voltage in time at an excellent thermal and mechanical stability. We can see in some sense, it was kind of a little bit boring from that, not always boring, but most of the time boring. And we really verified the simulated distributions of current and voltage are verified. So we verified low voltages also and quench tests and other quench tests and optimizations are in progress now. So let me then conclude actually with the spark high field burning plasma to come back. So I'll bring up this slide again because again motivated about what we wanted to do. Was that the previous generation of superconductors could really in a token back this meant for the peak magnetic field at the plasma was ordered of around 6 Tesla. And what we showed in the in the coil that I just showed you was approximately doubling the magnetic field. In fact, the peak field in the largest part of the coil was was near 21 or 23 Tesla. So are sorry 22 Tesla. So what this opened up was the right hand side of this plot and enables now a spark as I showed you before, which significantly reduces the size of the device by the by the physicals that I showed you at the beginning of the talk and the idea that we can. We can actually get a burning plasma at a very, very compact device, but it's even more than just gaining a burning plasma. And as I said, we, we, we launched common well fusion systems spark is a net energy gain burning plasma, which is in the context of developing commercial fusion energy using the red magnets. And our plan was, you know, understand high field fusion confinement, which we largely did an Alcatour complete the TMC, which we did in September 5th. Then the company was able to raise $1.8 billion, which was announced in December of 2021. And what is what did they raise these funds for? Well, it wasn't just to build spark, which the idea is coming in 2025 and build this compact device to achieve net energy defined by QP. It was actually to go all the way to a commercial power system over here on the right called art, which we hope will come online in the early 2030s, again, but this greatly reduced size because of the advent of the Rebco magnets. So what is spark? Well, you know, are in our, in our own terminology, we think of this as the Kitty Hawk moment for commercial fusion. So what I, I'll get to what that means. So what is, so here it is, you can see the, you can see the device, you can see the token back in its trial configuration. These are the trial field coils. It would be at the similar operating conditions is what I showed you to that and you can see the people standing beside it. So it produces over 100 megawatts of fusion power. It's standard confinement conditions and a plasma energy gain just over 10, but at very compact size on the order of 20 cubic meters. So it's for those familiar is basically a D3D or as this upgrade size token and it uses this breakthrough greater than 20 Tesla Rebco magnet required and not just that, but the one that's required for art. Not just for spark. In terms of the peak magnetic field. Yeah. So while providing the access to new science of heated plasma. Yeah, but it's, yeah, it's not trying to be a commercial device itself. And this is key about spark. This is why we call it the Kitty Hawk moment. The right flyer was not a commercial airliner. Neither the spark try to do this, but it tries to prove that fusion, you know, can fly quote unquote. But yet at the same time, we are looking forward collectively to try to use the use spark to provide the economic basis to go forward to art, but use yet a tactical approach. So it burns for order of 10 seconds, which it equilibrates the plasma, but avoids the technology limits of active cooling and it has a minimal treating fuel inventory for licensing ease. And so, why does this all work? Well, it works because of this simple pot. I'm showing on the bottom right hand, which is Q and spark versus the field that you can get on coil. And again, as the previous generation of superconductors were kind of stuck around 11 or 12 Tesla. This means that at such a size device, you would not be able to achieve a gain greater than 1. And you can see this is steeply non linear with the strength of the magnetic field at the coil. And this is the roughly where we obtained the conditions. And so right now, our prediction is a Q of around 11 in spark. It's standard operating conditions. So where is it? Well, it's actually being built literally right now. So at 45 minutes northwest of Boston fully funded by private sector investment. Here's the picture. The first being building being made is very interesting. Not offices, but actually the, the Rebco magnet factory. And this is being done by my colleagues at common fusion systems. And the spark token back building being built over on the other side of it. And this is what the finish campus looks like over here. So the spark design and operations are really are pushed by the needs to inform arc and here for details. Please go look at the journal Plaza physics spark papers, which are free online. Here you can see the standard cross section for the plasma. And this looks at the standard set of things that we've talked about for a long time because this is what we've talked about for the eater mission as well too. Which is confinement, particularly burning plasma physics, including the alpha interactions because the plasma becomes normally heated by the fusion alpha particles. The usual, the usual questions about to talk about physics in terms of disruptions, fueling efficiency, and a very key one was heat removal be an X point target diverter. I'll get back to that real quick running out of time. So that's just all done. So spark. The other thing to remember is that spark is solid. Even though it's very small because of this gyro radius business and the deep in the, and the increase in the magnetic field spark is very solidly in the Plaza physics experience of existing token acts. But of course, what it adds is the physics of self heating. So this is the normalized confinement on the vertical axis and what these are showing in the black points are the data set that comes from existing token acts in terms of normalized pressure iron radius collision at collision rate. Magnetic winding and the density limit and the big green point is where spark is and the yellow triangle is where either is. So we're basically using a common physics space as to either as well, but even more so than either, particularly because of something called the density limit. We're actually even more in the center of the, of the set of data points than that, which is a very, which is very attractive and hopefully gives us high confidence about moving forward. And speaking of confidence and links it back to Tony's great talk and the great results from jet is that part of this is very interesting. The jet is the largest token act right now and it has the lowest road star. It actually has data points that have been taken. This is not the new results results from so many years ago, which we published and showed that in fact, the data points in the same database pulled out from jet, which are read. Are actually clustered very much around around the spark results. So we're very excited to see the jet results because this is confirmatory for token act physics in general as we go forward and hopefully we get we get solid results as we go forward with spark. And in the end spark, because of its high field actually has has a very high range of burning plasma regimes that it can offer, which is directly relevant to arc. And in particular, this comes from the bill, its ability to operate a large variety of densities and still actually access fairly high gain. This is very important, not just to confinement physics, but also to boundary physics where the this this key parameter. Peace up be over R n squared tells you about the heat flux challenge and also the ability to be able to dissipate this, and this can be ordered, varied by over order magnitude and in spark and still maintain its, its mission. And this is in fact one of the interesting ones I'll just pull out this one for is the high field path really enables high power density. This is the be the fourth, but I showed you before, but a steady state power system. So we actually have to exhaust this power, which is a key part of going forward with the high field path. So spark really provides early key insights to reactor class boundary plazas with very high tolerance to exploring the options and solutions. And why is this well the empirical scaling to predict very, you know, it unmitigated very high large amounts of heat flux that the short pulse of spark at 10 seconds, even though it's a superconducting device allows the design for survivability because it doesn't have internally relative components. So what we're going to do is we can use a core equilibrium plasma, and this will provide insights to art solutions such as the advanced diverter topology that I'm showing on the right to be able to get to those answers. And in the end, the, and really if people seem, you know, this over the last few years, arc and spark have been pulled closer together because we realized, arc itself is really the motivation, you know, for spark so we've been trying to answer more and more questions about arc as we go forward on this really means that that the missions are becoming more similar to each other. So for example, our present ideas of arc is a is an inductive device, but it's actually pulsed for a period of time which scales basically from the spark device, and very also important exploits and advanced diverter, which we believe will be tested and validated in spark itself. So in the end, I'll conclude there. To note that very exciting development, but they're really that in my mind the development is, is, you know, the development of the of the new magnet is a very exciting one for us as fusion scientists because it gives us new pathways to build fusion science, but in particular the fact that it's hopefully taking off time towards commercial fusion. So we can, so we can use fusion as a new energy source. So thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Amazing. And thank you all again. Well, there's 90 minutes flew by. We have some baby. If you can stop sharing we go into, I don't know if you can, or I can probably take it over. Okay, let's have this. Let's get started with. I don't know how to stop the sharing. If you can do that. Yes. Okay. Let's get started. We have about 30 minutes and lots of questions. You all got more than five questions. I will start from Tony, then we go to Omar and then I'll come back to you, Dennis. So, Tony, there's a question where do the new DT data fit on the curve of stored energy versus scaling. Yeah, sort of one. Well, that's a very good question, but I think it's a little bit premature to give already an answer. We need to validate more data. So we're working on that and we hope to come out soon with a statement on that. But we cannot say yet. Okay. And I guess, likewise, if the observer stop effect improvement is in agreement with the conventional scaling law. Yeah, that's similar. Yeah, we are really looking into that. Okay. For the jet DT to experiment the erosion of tungsten by tritium is with intolerance. Could you could erosion of tungsten by tritium be an issue for demo. For demo is also a little bit difficult to say it's certainly not an issue for either. So we have seen that, let's say for that it is perfectly fine. Ether is using the same materials we're still in the process of defining the materials for for demo. So, at this moment, we don't know exactly what what first wall we are using. Also, I should state here this various demos. So I'm talking about European demo. There's also K demo Japanese demo to see if there are also our American friends have some ideas. So, yeah, we need to look into that but I think suddenly for either I would say it looks fine. Okay, and then there was this question, but I think it was partially answered on the chat just to bring it here are the new DT this charges standard age modes or some improved advanced scenario. They had a hybrid scenario. So we were looking over the last years in the hybrid scenarios in the baseline scenarios for either. The shots are in the in the hybrid scenario in the baseline scenario, the results were slightly less good. We also had a limit in the length of our DT campaign. So we decided to focus on the hybrid scenario here. Okay, and then there was a question about the Q plasma achieved and it. Yeah, very good. I didn't mention that. So the Q of the 59 megajoule discharge is 0.33 so basically one third. This compares to a Q is 0.2 of the 22 megajoule discharge back in 1997 only for the short blip of 60 megajoule during infraction of a second we had a Q of 0.6, 0.62 to be exact. In general, you could say that the confinement is better than it was in back in 1997. There's a question which just came in now does the the success from this experiments give us a chance to continue continue running experiments with jet. Well, the idea with jet is, well, there's still a little bit of question mark which we hope to answer in one or two weeks or at the moment we have agreement to go on with jet until the end of September this year. And this includes cleanup discharges because we need to get a tritium out and then helium discharges which are very important for each side priority there. We have a plan to continue jet until the end of 2023 and then around the time we will, let's say stop the machine and it's a machine we started back in 1983 with the first discharges so it's 40 years old. And what has happened with jet is that we each time extended the life of jet with one or two years. And this is really not a very good strategy, because in the end, each time when it's two years there's a lot of maintenance you're not doing because you think it's another two years. So it's much better to extend the machine by 10 years because then you really can put power, let's say effort in upgrading. I would say the end of 23 is fairly sure. And there can be always one or two months you know to finish some things but I would say around the time we will grab up chat. Okay, thanks Tony. Tony, come back to Omar. There was this recurring question which you actually answered in your final slide. Have you tried to reproduce the 1.3 megajoule shot. And you said, not yet, and that she reached 50% of the yield. I mean, you actually you did reproduce it I think about four times. But we tried the reproducibility experiments about four times and the best of those was about 50% of the record performance. Although all of those repeats were records compared to what we had a year ago. So there were still very high performance and they're kind of bridging this regime between where we were with burning plasmas and igniting. They're crossing that the what we understood from those experiments is we observe retroactively that we have the appearance of what's called a mode 1 a cemetery, which is essentially a drift. Of the implosion either off to the side or up and down. That basically steals kinetic energy. Because of conservation of a man of man energy, you never get that energy back. And we also observe an enhancement in mixing, which we see in Bremstra long losses. And those are kind of distorting the energy balance in the hotspot that I talked about and degrading the performance. So we saw we can explain the degradation of most of those experiments after the fact, why the experiments decided to mix more or have mode 1 a cemetery is less clear. Usually the mode 1 a cemetery is associated with the manufacturer of the capsule not being uniform thickness it's thicker on one side and then on the other you don't have perfect control of that, or driven by asymmetries in the laser, not being perfectly symmetric in the drive. And that's mixing. We do observe on the manufacturer of these targets. They're developed in a clean room by and large, but we've had an issue this last year with a lot of particulates showing up on the surface of the capsule. And that leads to deleterious hydrodynamics and the injection of high Z material into the hot region of the plasma. And that tends to radiate. So we think we understand where some of these are things are coming from, but we don't have the precise engineering control to just, you know, get a clean target, get perfect laser delivery. And so those are our challenges we still face. There was a question about the capsule about the dimension and if you've tried other shapes of the caption. Yeah, so we've changed obviously the 1 of the strategies we've had is you change the volume or the size of the capsule thickness of the capsule making the capsules a spherical. There's something we called shimming where you try to make it thicker in 1 region and thinner in the other in a way to engineer in a compensation for asymmetries that might occur in the x-ray radiation field or other places. So that's been tried. Yeah, our best success though is with the spherical capsule so far. Open code to simulate ICF other than multi. Is there anything. I didn't get that question. Open source code to simulate ICF other than multi like any other open source code. I think the University of Chicago has a code that has some of the physics in it that is open source. I can't quite remember the name of it off the top of my head. There was an interesting 1 about how do we meet the condition that the target must be short into the chamber 10 times a second. I have no idea. Just to give you an idea of how far away we are from that conceptual inertial confinement fusion or inertial fusion energy plant. You know, it takes us essentially a week to set up 1 of these experiments. And, you know, it has to be very good. The target has to be very carefully positioned in the center of the target chamber. You know, to just, you know, remarkable degrees of precision, we have to be within a 3rd of a micron or 30 microns. Of the center of the chamber, you know, this 10 meter chamber, we have to be in 30 microns. Otherwise, we'll get a cemetery. The other issue is we have to keep trying to make that DT fuel layer on the inside of the capsule. So there's a whole team dedicated to that who keep trying over and over. To try to make it as perfect as possible. And again, it generally takes us a week to set 1 of these up. So that's a very long way from doing this 10 times a second. So. So it's really just research at this point. It's. Thank you. There was a question about, how do you control the LP in an optic system? And now someone just wrote, what's the biggest LP in an ICS experiment. You know, I'm not an expert on LPI, but our primary mitigation of LPI in the optic system is bandwidth. Where basically you have an incoherence in the different frequencies of the laser around kind of a mean frequency. And that bandwidth tends to mitigate driving single LPI modes to some degree. Oh, yeah, someone, Maria got it. Thank you, Maria. I appreciate the flash code is that was the name of it. She provided the link in the chat. So, so that's our primary mitigation in the optics. But again, I'm not an expert. So you're stretching my knowledge based on LPI. Okay. There was a question about fast ignition and your opinion here. They're asking about the possibility of realizing fast ignition without ultra short ultra intense heating pulses. Well, yeah, so fast ignition is interesting. There hasn't been nearly as much work on it as what we're doing, which we do hot spot ignition. The compression of the fuel and the heating are done simultaneously. So fast ignition is you try to do the compression of the fuel separately from the heating. And so an ultra fast laser or proton beams are the proposed ways to get in the heating. My understanding is so far though that getting that heat where you want it is been very problematic regardless with the scheme. You know, it's just mother nature does not like putting a lot of energy into a small volume. So she will fight you any way you can. But maybe with research that will become more promising. Okay, one last one. What is the set of plasma relative to the all round. What, what is what the size of the plasma relative to the all round. Yeah. Okay. So the whole room is about a centimeter tall. And it's about 0.7 centimeters in diameter. The capsule as I said before we do the experiment is about 2 millimeters in diameter. It's crushed down or the fusion plasma is crushed down to a diameter of 100 microns. So it's 100 microns over a centimeter. It's so it's a very tiny fraction of that volume. Okay. Thank you. Mark. Dennis, I come to you. I could see you were answering some of the questions. So I apologize if I'm asking some question, which you already answered, but it was difficult to keep an eye on on the chat. So there was a question about how much time is necessary to complete the TF coil for spark. And then I think someone else asked this 20 Tesla approaching some technology or functional limit. That was the first question. How long how much time to build the TF coil for spark. The model coil that we did or that maybe so they don't understand so that that I think maybe if you could, if you could. Yeah, so the test coil itself took. It was just under a year to actually assemble it. Of course, first of a kind. I mean, an anecdote to that very important 1, which was that the very 1st, as I pointed, it was actually made by separate. It was made of separate coils. Not too surprisingly in technology. The 1st 1 took us. A couple of months to make by by the end of the process we were we were making the pancakes at a much faster rate, sort of more like a few weeks and so forth. So this is what actually extrapolates to when CFS as as an interesting 1, because we built that mostly at MIT. But now it's actually going into the hands of common fusion systems because it's becoming more of a commercial endeavor. So they are now building the capability out at the site that I showed the photo of. And then the idea is that that scales up the production capacity that that that hits the hits the timeline that we that we talked about for the TFs in spark, which of those order 18 TFs in spark. And is the 20 Tesla some functional limit. No, actually, it was an interesting 1 that 20 Teslas. And was was was key based on the confinement, you know, physics and stability physics that I showed before, but 20 Tesla itself has no. Didn't seem to have any particular threshold that went by it. And that affected the high temperature superconductors or the structural materials at some point, you will hit a limit. And the limit in that the problem might my guess is that the limit in that design would have been the structural. A stresses in it. There was some things that we have to do to the geometry, because it was a single coil to be able to concentrate the field. In particular reasons so that that that volume was at the representative ones for spark. And, you know, we were around 900 mega Pascal of on me's stresses. That's that's 9000 answers and steady state on a on a structural material that that's significant, you know, but we didn't seem to hit we did not hit any thermal dissipation limit, nor could we extrapolate 1 or power limit. It looked quite good. Yeah, it probably I'll guess you're probably could have gone around 22 Tesla. It'd be my guess. But we hit the limit. We stopped there. Um, what is I think you answered this one on the chapter. What is the expected behavior of the HTS under high and neutral influence and then someone asking also about disruption. Actually, I didn't interest that answer that 1 so spark. This is 1 of the other tactical tactical advantages of even though we're building a superconducting device for operating it for. Order of 10 second pulses, you know, 5 to 10 second much like the 1, the jet ones that Tony showed this limits the fluence of neutrons to the to the toriel field coil so that we will not hit any in spark. We will not hit any limitations because of the neutron damage on the high temperature superconductors in the magnet. That is not the case. Of course, for arc where they'll have a large influence because it will be operating more. Semi continuously. So we have an active research program underway to much better quantify the damage caused by neutrons on the high temperature superconductors. We have a rough idea of what that is and knowing what that number is with a high level of fidelity is key to designing because it was related to the other question. What about like the neutron mean free path? Yes, that's exactly. So, these take off a centimeters in the art design and these things matter because it really affects the economics. There were lots of questions. I think about design need about power exhaust solution and what would be the two team breathing blanket made of, and then I saw you were on the chat. You were talking also about the RF eating. Do you want to elaborate on this? So spark will use ion cyclotron range of frequency heating only. This is a robust technique that was demonstrated on high field compact high density. Plasmas like the Alcatore, like the Alcatore experiments. Tony can come and I'm pretty sure used ice your up in your jet in your jet record jet results as well too. So, yeah, exactly. So it's a no, no, and it avoids particularly the compact devices the challenges of neutral beams which don't penetrate very well because of because of the high density. So that's going to be for spark and it's around 25 megawatts of installed eating power in the scenario that I mentioned with the cube of 10, it'll be around 11 or 12 megawatts of coupled eating power in arc. We'll almost certainly use ICRF again. We are pursuing aspects of looking at inside large lower hybrid for arc for improved. Even if it's not not inductive to help with the flux consumption, but you know, that's that's open at this point. But RF only. There was a question about spark not having the mountable joints, but I was planning to have the mountable joints is the TF technology demonstrating the model coil appropriate to a TF call with the multiple joints. So it's a good question. So the right. So we're looking at different options for about the jointing in arc. It's it's a challenging geometric and design problem. There's some papers going to be coming out on that fairly soon. What we did in the TF and what we didn't spark doesn't require it because it's got a low fluence mission. So we don't actually need to. We don't we don't hit any fluence limits for the interior materials. So we decided not to use that to simplify it and work in parallel in the jointing in the TF MC itself. It featured 17 joints, which have a similar which have a commonality in their internal design to what we think of what we would use in arc and namely that it's essentially allows the transition from one set of superconducting high temperature pipes to another one through a normal joint. And we were able to test that in a variety of conditions, including large stresses, very high magnetic field, very high current densities. And they passed with flying colors at this point. I mean, it was, we established that they were all around a nano ohm and resistivity and very stable. We feel fairly confident that we've validated the basic physical concept of using joints because that's really the key thing is what kind of resistance you can get in each joint. But we have to work more on the details of how you'd actually implement that in a larger coil. But it's fully disassembled disassembly bowl in a in the TF MC. So you can take it put it together and take it back all apart again, which is another key aspect to me of having a viable solution going forward for maintenance, not just for maintenance, but also for for assembly. Really key. There's a question about what are the main limitations on past duration. I think both you and Tony explained that, but maybe we can, if you want to say a few more words and maybe we can hear from Tony again on why the jet talk of my corporates for those seconds. Yeah, in spark it was a, it comes from several things. So one of them is an administrative limit on the amount of energy that's allowed to be dissipated in the coil from the fusion neutrons. The other part, but you know, really it's a physics one, because it's exactly to what Tony said is that it turns out that the intern, there's a long time scale, the two longest time scales are the energy confinement time. And the current relaxation time of the distribution. And in these, in these classes of devices, these tend to be several seconds. So, once you waited like 5 or 10 seconds to the plasma, it's eternity. I mean, it's, it's an equilibrium. So, holding it off for longer than that just adds in more engineering complexity, but you're not really gaining a lot of insight as to the equilibrium of the plasma. I agree. Well, basically a jet is basically the copper coils, which, which I heated it's not the only effect it's also the heat loads on the defterters so slowly the defterter heats up because the one in jet is also inertially cool. We don't have active cooling there. And the time limit is a little longer than that from the coils, but then still it limits us to maybe maybe that will limit us to seven or 10 seconds or something like that. Thank you, Tony. Omar, there's a question for you about the degree RTI and the 1.3 megajoule shot is the is RTI still one of the biggest issue and then I don't know if you answered this on the chat, but they were asking to comment on the path forward for NIF. And if you're going to, yeah, how the underlying physics and burning ignited plasma will be useful for the ICF community and for the MFE community. Sure. So, let me do this to questions and so the RTI the Rayleigh Taylor instability that is a constant challenge. We learned, you know, about eight years ago how to manage it. By changing the laser pulse in our implosions. To mitigate it to a degree and we've essentially been using that same tactic. For the seven, eight years. So the compromise we made or the, the trade off we made in managing the Rayleigh Taylor instability. It comes through reducing the potential maximum theoretical compression of our implosions, which practical result of that is there, our implosions will be limited in the amount of gain. That they could produce until we get some sort of other technique to manage Rayleigh Taylor instability control without having to trade off compression. So, it's a constant challenge, but we manage it. Okay. So now to the second question about the path forward. Our path forward involves increasing the robustness of our implosions. Part of that is improving the engineering side so we get improvements in the laser beam balance and, you know, better quality targets to the degree that is realistic. And then altering the design the best we can to make it even more robust. Now, there's a limit to how well we can do that because. There's a trade off between the energy that the facility can provide and robustness. So we had more energy available on the facility and we're able to deliver more energy to the implosion. That relaxes some of these extremely high pressures and densities that we have to achieve. But as long as we are energy limited. It's sort of inevitable that we're going to be sensitive. I have a very sensitive. Implosion. So then we're also trying to increase increase the fusion performance and just see how far we can go. Some of that might just involve playing the same tricks of making the implosion larger and larger. Now that we've better learned how to manage the symmetry control with that. There's a thicker shell implosions and, you know, alternate horror designs and so forth. So there's a mirad of different options that will allow us to kind of build on this result. But we're trying to do it in steps because as I tried to illustrate in my talk, you know, these implosions because of their small scale are very sensitive. So you don't want to take too big of a step and get lost in the desert. You don't want to lose contact with what you know works. Thanks so much. Then is there were plenty of questions on Spark Arc. I'm not sure I could see all of them. I'm typing as fast as I can. I'm going to pick these two because they were reachable. They're down on the chat and I can see them easily. There's a question on if Arc will require active cooling of the first wall end diverter as compared to Spark. Yes. Yes. And then because it right because Arc goes to. Because of its increase in size and higher temperature and decrease what's assumption all these things. Basically, we look now at around like a 30 minute kind of pulse length for for arc or something like. Approximately something like that. So, you're so far past now. The thermal equilibration time you have to have actively cooled internal components. This is the. This is one of the, the secrets of actually keeping pulse links below 5 or 10 seconds. You can use inertially cool objects because. Yeah, you just got enough thermal inertia in them. Yeah. And 2 weeks long process for cooling down the structure of the 20 Tesla magnet. Can this be reduced can tank in this time? Yes. Yes. So it can be to a limit. So we were very cautious just because we were, you know. It was very new and we're also testing out a new cooling capability, which was the super critical helium. So we are fairly cautious. So there are ways that you can reduce this, but in the end, there's a limit. It's basically the cooling capacity and the. And the, and the total thermal energy content of the of the coil and the surrounding medium. So, you know, probably for that class of magnets, it's it's going to be hard for not to be many days. Basically to go though. Yeah. Thanks. And so we also heard from you what's happening with spark and then arc. We heard from Nick. And also the path forward Tony, there's a question now for you. What will be fusion research focusing on after jet. And either will stop will start operation. So at 60 say, if you could say a few words about what what it's going to happen in the next future. Well, in the future, it will be very exciting. So indeed comes in operation the course of this year, but first physics operation is more for 2324. 24 actually. We, what is very exciting is then the course of this year, Wendelstein seven X comes back in operation. It's a stellerator and where we equip now the stellerator where actively cool the furter so we can go to high power and 30 minute discharges. So this is really exciting. We are working on other devices in Europe. We are at the same time in the coming six, seven years completing design of demo the European demo. Which would come after either. So it's a very exciting time. We have pretty much on our, our task list to do list. We're working very hard. So it's a great time to work in fusion at the moment. And on this topic, there was a question about someone interested in studying fusion and how to get involved and participate in fusion R&D. So if you could all share some guidance and on how to engage in. Well, there's so many laboratories. It depends. I don't know whether the person is completely outsider or still doing a study of course working as a mechanical engineer. Oh, yeah. I think there's many laboratories. I don't know what a person is based. But if you look study your fusion website, your fusion.org, we have the list of all our members institutes and I would recommend that person to contact the. The members institute in his or her country. And then see what is possible. I think we really need. You know, we, we recently made a movie in your fusion code. We need your 20 Watts because our human brain works on 20 Watts. We meet. We need many of these 20 Watts together to make fusion work and to realize electricity from fusion. And I'll just point out my, my colleague, Amanda Hubbard said, we are now hiring mechanical engineers at the, at the plaza center as well too. So please take a look around. I agree with toys and it's a very exciting time in fusion right now. And. In the end, we, the way I look at it, we need it's a field that has been. Dominated by people like myself, Tony and Omar, who are really at our heart plaza plaza scientists. But you can see that the, the breadth of the kinds of talents that are going to be needed to carry out these. These next generation of devices and eventual power plants is greatly expanded past past plazas. And that's really where we're going to. We're going to need more talent. Omar, do you want to add anything on ICS? It's just going to suggest finding a venture capitalist, but good little more. Actually, we are hiring prolifically. So there's a, if you're interested in the ICF slide. With the understanding, you know, that a lot of what we do is national security related. Please apply to livermore. There are a number of openings available presently. Okay, well, thank you all very much. We're almost formed. We're only four minutes late. We can close and we'll have a second episode, perhaps in June or we're fixing the date. And I can announce that will be Easter results feature than a few more, a few more devices laboratory. So thank you all. Thanks to speaker speakers and see you next time. Thank you. Thank you for the participants. Yeah, thanks for setting this up. Yeah. Bye bye.