Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg
General Atomics
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg.
Physics of Plasmas | 2002
S. P. Obenschain; Denis G. Colombant; Max Karasik; Carl J. Pawley; V. Serlin; Andrew J. Schmitt; J.L. Weaver; John H. Gardner; Lee Phillips; Y. Aglitskiy; Y.-L. Chan; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; M. Klapisch
Experimental results and simulations that study the effects of thin metallic layers with high atomic number (high-Z) on the hydrodynamics of laser accelerated plastic targets are presented. These experiments employ a laser pulse with a low-intensity foot that rises into a high-intensity main pulse. This pulse shape simulates the generic shape needed for high-gain fusion implosions. Imprint of laser nonuniformity during start up of the low intensity foot is a well-known seed for hydrodynamic instability. Large reductions are observed in hydrodynamic instability seeded by laser imprint when certain minimum thickness gold or palladium layers are applied to the laser-illuminated surface of the targets. The experiment indicates that the reduction in imprint is at least as large as that obtained by a 6 times improvement in the laser uniformity. Simulations supported by experiments are presented showing that during the low intensity foot the laser light can be nearly completely absorbed by the high-Z layer. X ra...
Journal of Fusion Energy | 2001
Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; James Corones; D. B. Batchelor; Randall Bramley; M. Greenwald; Stephen C. Jardin; S. I. Krasheninnikov; Alan J. Laub; Jean-Noel Leboeuf; J. D. Lindl; William Lokke; Marshall N. Rosenbluth; David Ross; D. D. Schnack
This is the final report of a panel established as a subcommittee of the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fusion Energy Sciences Committee (FESAC) on Integrated Simulation and Optimization of Magnetic Fusion Systems (ISOFS). The report was requested by the DOE in February 2002 and the approved report was transmitted to the DOE by the FESAC in December 2002. The report addresses the challenge of how to “develop fully integrated capability for predicting the performance of externally-controlled systems including turbulent transport, macroscopic stability, wave-particle physics, and multi-phase interfaces.”
Archive | 2001
Thomas M. Antonsen; Lee A. Berry; M. R. Brown; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; Ronald C. Davidson; M. Greenwald; C. C. Hegna; William McCurdy; David E. Newman; C. Pellegrini; C. K. Phillips; Douglass E. Post; Marshall N. Rosenbluth; John Sheffield; Thomas C. Simonen; James W. Van Dam
At the November 14-15, 2000, meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, a Panel was set up to address questions about the Theory and Computing program, posed in a charge from the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (see Appendix A). This area was of theory and computing/simulations had been considered in the FESAC Knoxville meeting of 1999 and in the deliberations of the Integrated Program Planning Activity (IPPA) in 2000. A National Research Council committee provided a detailed review of the scientific quality of the fusion energy sciences program, including theory and computing, in 2000.
Journal of Fusion Energy | 2001
Stewart C. Prager; Charles C. Baker; David E. Baldwin; H. L. Berk; R. Betti; James D. Callen; V.S. Chan; B. Coppi; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; Steven Dean; William Dorland; J. F. Drake; Jeffrey P. Freidberg; R.J. Goldston; R.J. Hawryluk; R. D. Hazeltine; E. Bickford Hooper; A. Hubbard; Thomas R. Jarboe; Joseph Johnson; Martin Lampe; J. D. Lindl; Grant Logan; E. Marmar; M.E. Mauel; K.A. McCarthy; William McCurdy; Dale M. Meade; Wayne R. Meier; S. L. Milora
This panel was set up by the U.S. Department of Energys Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee in response to a request from the department to prepare a strategy for the study of burning fusion plasmas. Experimental study of a burning plasma has long been a goal of the U.S. science-based fusion energy program. There is an overwhelming consensus among fusion scientists that we are now ready scientifically, and have the full technical capability, to embark on this step. The fusion community is prepared to construct a facility that will allow us to produce this new plasma state in the laboratory, uncover the new physics associated with the fusion burn, and develop and test new technology essential for fusion power. Given this background, the panel has produced a strategy to enable the United States to proceed with this crucial next step in fusion energy science. The strategy was constructed with awareness that the burning plasma program is only one major component in a comprehensive development plan for fusion energy. A strong core science and technology program focused on fundamental understanding, confinement configuration optimization, and the development of plasma and fusion technologies essential to the realization of fusion energy. The core program will also be essential to the successful guidance and exploitation of the burning plasma program, providing the necessary knowledge base and scientific workforce.
Journal of Fusion Energy | 2000
Jeffrey P. Freidberg; H. L. Berk; R. Betti; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; E. Bickford Hooper; Dale M. Meade; Gerald A. Navratil; W. M. Nevins; M. Ono; F. W. Perkins; Stewart C. Prager; Kurt Schoenburg; T. S. Taylor; N. A. Uckan
This is the report of a panel set up by the U.S. Department of Energy Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) in response to a charge letter on October 5, 2000, from Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus, then Director of the DOEs Office of Science. In that letter, Dr. Dresselhaus asked the FESAC to investigate the subject of burning plasma science. The report addresses several topics, including the scientific issues to be addressed by a burning plasma experiment and its major supporting elements, identification of issues that are generic to toroidal confinement, and the role of the Next-Step Options (NSO) Program.
Journal of Fusion Energy | 2000
John Sheffield; M Thomas AntonsenJr.; Lee A. Berry; M. R. Brown; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; Ronald C. Davidson; M. Greenwald; C. C. Hegna; William McCurdy; David E. Newman; C. Pellegrini; C.K. Phillips; Douglass E. Post; Marshall N. Rosenbluth; Thomas C. Simonen; James W. Van Dam
This Panel was set up by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) at its November 2000 meeting for the purpose of addressing questions from the Department of Energy concerning the theory and computing/simulation program of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences. Although the Panel primarily addressed programmatic questions, it acknowledges that the theory and computing in fusion energy sciences has a stellar record of research successes. (A recent FESAC report entitled “Opportunities in the Fusion Energy Sciences Program” listed a number of theory and computing research highlights.) Last year the National Research Council performed an assessment of the quality of the fusion energy sciences program—including theory and computing—and concluded that the quality of its research is on a par with that of other leading areas of contemporary physical science.
Journal of Fusion Energy | 1998
Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; John H. Gardner; Andrew J. Schmitt; S. P. Obenschain
There are several topics that require resolution prior to the construction of an Inertial Fusion Energy [IFE] laboratory Engineering Test Facility [ETF]: a pellet that produces high gain; a pellet fabrication system that cost-effectively and rapidly manufactures these pellets; a sufficiently uniform and durable high repetition-rate laser pellet driver; a practical target injection system that provides accurate pellet aiming; and, a target chamber that will survive the debris and radiation of repeated high-gain pellet implosions. In this summary we describe the science issues and opportunities that are involved in the design of a successful high gain direct drive Inertial Confinement Fusion [ICF] pellet.
Archive | 2001
James Kellogg; Christopher Bovais; Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; Richard J. Foch; John H. Gardner; Diana Gordon; Ralph Hartley; Behrooz Kamgar-Parsi; Hugh McFarlane; Frank Pipitone; Ravi Ramamurti; Adam Sciambi; William M. Spears; Donald Srull; Carol Sullivan
Archive | 2007
Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; Daria Bielecki; Jeff Bowles; Jeff Byers; Richard Colton; Christopher Dwyer; Richard M. Bevilacqua; Jay P. Boris; Jack Brown; Ray Cole
Archive | 2015
Jill Potkalitsky Dahlburg; G. A. Doschek; Kenneth F. Dymond; Stephen D. Eckermann; Douglas P. Drob; John T. Emmert; Christoph R. Englert; Russell A. Howard; W. N. Johnson; C. M. Korendyke; M. N. Lovellette; David E. Siskind; Dennis G. Socker; Michael H. Stevens; Michael J. Wolff; Kent S. Wood