| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Rudakov, D. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Dust measurements in tokamaks (invited)
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Review of Scientific Instruments. - : AIP Publishing. - 0034-6748 .- 1089-7623. ; 79:10, s. 10F303-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dust production and accumulation present potential safety and operational issues for the ITER. Dust diagnostics can be divided into two groups: diagnostics of dust on surfaces and diagnostics of dust in plasma. Diagnostics from both groups are employed in contemporary tokamaks; new diagnostics suitable for ITER are also being developed and tested. Dust accumulation in ITER is likely to occur in hidden areas, e.g., between tiles and under divertor baffles. A novel electrostatic dust detector for monitoring dust in these regions has been developed and tested at PPPL. In the DIII-D tokamak dust diagnostics include Mie scattering from Nd:YAG lasers, visible imaging, and spectroscopy. Laser scattering is able to resolve particles between 0.16 and 1.6 mu m in diameter; using these data the total dust content in the edge plasmas and trends in the dust production rates within this size range have been established. Individual dust particles are observed by visible imaging using fast framing cameras, detecting dust particles of a few microns in diameter and larger. Dust velocities and trajectories can be determined in two-dimension with a single camera or three-dimension using multiple cameras, but determination of particle size is challenging. In order to calibrate diagnostics and benchmark dust dynamics modeling, precharacterized carbon dust has been injected into the lower divertor of DIII-D. Injected dust is seen by cameras, and spectroscopic diagnostics observe an increase in carbon line (CI, CII, C(2) dimer) and thermal continuum emissions from the injected dust. The latter observation can be used in the design of novel dust survey diagnostics.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Cameron, F. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Are family factors universally related to metabolic outcomes in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes?
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Diabetic Medicine. - : Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc.. - 0742-3071 .- 1464-5491. ; 25:4, s. 463-468
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To assess the importance of family factors in determining metabolic outcomes in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes in 19 countries.METHODS: Adolescents with Type 1 diabetes aged 11-18 years, from 21 paediatric diabetes care centres, in 19 countries, and their parents were invited to participate. Questionnaires were administered recording demographic data, details of insulin regimens, severe hypoglycaemic events and number of episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. Adolescents completed the parental involvement scale from the Diabetes Quality of Life for Youth--Short Form (DQOLY-SF) and the Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ). Parents completed the DFRQ and a Parental Burden of Diabetes score. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was analysed centrally on capillary blood.RESULTS: A total of 2062 adolescents completed a questionnaire, with 2036 providing a blood sample; 1994 parents also completed a questionnaire. Family demographic factors that were associated with metabolic outcomes included: parents living together (t = 4.1; P < 0.001), paternal employment status (F = 7.2; d.f. = 3; P < 0.001), parents perceived to be over-involved in diabetes care (r = 0.11; P < 0.001) and adolescent-parent disagreement on responsibility for diabetes care practices (F = 8.46; d.f. = 2; P < 0.001). Although these factors differed between centres, they did not account for centre differences in metabolic outcomes, but were stronger predictors of metabolic control than age, gender or insulin treatment regimen.CONCLUSIONS: Family factors, particularly dynamic and communication factors such as parental over-involvement and adolescent-parent concordance on responsibility for diabetes care appear be important determinants of metabolic outcomes in adolescents with diabetes. However, family dynamic factors do not account for the substantial differences in metabolic outcomes between centres
|
|
