Chamber Subgroup Question #6 Comments

Mohamed Sawan Wed 30 June 1999 11:37 Subject: Message to Members of Working Group Dear members of the core working group for Q#6, The schedule for the cross cutting technology sessions at Snowmass is finalized. We have two sessions (each is 1 hr 45 min long) in the late afternoon periods (3-5 pm) of Thursday 7/15 and Friday 7/16 at "Top of the Village Condo #1". Please take note of the time and place of the sessions. Members of the core working group attending the Snowmass meeting should be present at these sessions. I have a draft agenda for the Q#6 sessions. It is attached to this message (file Q6 agenda). Please review and give me your comments. The idea here is to have some discussion periods for the subtopics covered. I followed the outline in the prospectus and the draft report written by the core working group to stimulate the discussion. For each discussion period, a member of the core working group gives introductory remarks to start the discussion. Please plan for no more than 10 min presentation to introduce the subtopic and summarize opinion given in the core working group report. We should spend more time for discussion. You can have additional materials supporting your opinion being presented during the discussion. We should assume that attendees had access to our draft report through the web, by E-mail, or by distribution at the meeting. The one hour period at the end of the sessions is aimed at finalizing the response to the questions addressed during the sessions. Essentially, we will formulate the two vugraphs requested for Monday's Plenary. We need to appoint a "Recording Secretary" to take notes during the discussion that will help use writing the 3-5 pages summary and two vugraphs that should be prepared by noon Saturday, July 17. Any volunteers for taking notes? I am attaching the latest version of the draft of the report for question #6 (file Question 6 - rpt -Snowmass). I included the input I received from several of you and comments received on the previous draft. I included in front of the title for each subsection names of people who contributed it or who are expected to contribute to it. Please review and give us (Scott and I) any comments you have. Please send also your input to the subsections ASAP so we can get a complete draft ready and available to the technology group through the web early next week. Notice that the report is only a draft and will be the basis for discussion at Snowmass. We will keep updating it before and after Snowmass as we get comments on its content. Thanks, Mohamed Sawan

Rob Goldston Fri 9 July 1999 15:48 Subject: Re: Opinion paper for CQ6 In comparing stellarators and tokamaks, you do not seem to have considered the effects that disruptions have on the amount of structural material. It seems like this could be a very important issue. Rob Goldston

Add Comments