| 1. |
- Joffrin, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Overview of the JET preparation for deuterium-tritium operation with the ITER like-wall
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 59:11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- For the past several years, the JET scientific programme (Pamela et al 2007 Fusion Eng. Des. 82 590) has been engaged in a multi-campaign effort, including experiments in D, H and T, leading up to 2020 and the first experiments with 50%/50% D-T mixtures since 1997 and the first ever D-T plasmas with the ITER mix of plasma-facing component materials. For this purpose, a concerted physics and technology programme was launched with a view to prepare the D-T campaign (DTE2). This paper addresses the key elements developed by the JET programme directly contributing to the D-T preparation. This intense preparation includes the review of the physics basis for the D-T operational scenarios, including the fusion power predictions through first principle and integrated modelling, and the impact of isotopes in the operation and physics of D-T plasmas (thermal and particle transport, high confinement mode (H-mode) access, Be and W erosion, fuel recovery, etc). This effort also requires improving several aspects of plasma operation for DTE2, such as real time control schemes, heat load control, disruption avoidance and a mitigation system (including the installation of a new shattered pellet injector), novel ion cyclotron resonance heating schemes (such as the three-ions scheme), new diagnostics (neutron camera and spectrometer, active Alfven eigenmode antennas, neutral gauges, radiation hard imaging systems...) and the calibration of the JET neutron diagnostics at 14 MeV for accurate fusion power measurement. The active preparation of JET for the 2020 D-T campaign provides an incomparable source of information and a basis for the future D-T operation of ITER, and it is also foreseen that a large number of key physics issues will be addressed in support of burning plasmas.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Heggarty, Paul, et al.
(författare)
-
Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Science. - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 381:6656
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Languages of the Indo-European family are spoken by almost half of the world’s population, but their origins and patterns of spread are disputed. Heggarty et al. present a database of 109 modern and 52 time-calibrated historical Indo-European languages, which they analyzed with models of Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Their results suggest an emergence of Indo-European languages around 8000 years before present. This is a deeper root date than previously thought, and it fits with an initial origin south of the Caucasus followed by a branch northward into the Steppe region. These findings lead to a “hybrid hypothesis” that reconciles current linguistic and ancient DNA evidence from both the eastern Fertile Crescent (as a primary source) and the steppe (as a secondary homeland).
|
|
| 7. |
- Rohrer, Julia M., et al.
(författare)
-
Putting the Self in Self-Correction : Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : Sage Publications. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 16:6, s. 1255-1269
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.
|
|
