pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16329 · v1 · pith:FLDKFM3Unew · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.app-ph

Lithium Experimental Application Platform (LEAP): Secondary-Containment Architecture for Flowing Liquid Lithium in Fusion Systems

Yufan Xu , Yoichi Momozaki , Michael Hvasta , Robert Kaita , Egemen Kolemen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.app-ph
keywords flowing liquid lithiumsecondary containmenthazard complexity frameworkfusion plasma-facing componentsLEAP platformargon gloveroomchemical reactivityfusion safety
0
0 comments X

The pith

An inert airtight secondary enclosure without scrubbers balances hazard reduction and facility complexity for flowing liquid lithium systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework to select secondary containment architectures for flowing liquid lithium. It applies the framework to six scenarios and to the LEAP platform under construction at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The resulting design uses a modular room-scale argon gloveroom to manage chemical reactivity, fire, and aerosol risks while supporting staged experiments with heating, diagnostics, and magnetic fields. This approach is presented as a practical compromise that enables lithium plasma-facing component development without excessive facility demands.

Core claim

The paper establishes that an inert, airtight secondary enclosure without scrubbers around a liquid lithium loop provides a practical balance between hazard reduction and facility complexity, as defined by the design requirements. LEAP implements this with a modular argon gloveroom for a staged flowing lithium program that includes heating, diagnostics, magnetic field exposure, and future device interface capability.

What carries the argument

The semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework that scores containment scenarios on categories such as chemical reactivity, fire, aerosols, inert gas operation, maintainability, and experimental iteration.

If this is right

  • The LEAP architecture supports modular experiments with heating, diagnostics, magnetic fields, and device interfaces.
  • This containment choice provides a deployable path for developing lithium plasma-facing components in fusion systems.
  • The framework supplies transferable design logic for other reactive or conductive liquid metal systems.
  • Rapid experimental iteration becomes feasible through the room-scale, modular gloveroom setup.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same enclosure logic could reduce scrubber infrastructure needs in larger-scale fusion test facilities.
  • Applying the framework to non-fusion liquid metal experiments would test whether the hazard weighting remains valid outside plasma environments.
  • Integrating the lithium loop directly with fuel recovery hardware inside the enclosure might further lower overall system risk.
  • Future work could compare this inert gloveroom against active scrubber systems using actual operational data from similar setups.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen hazard categories and weighting factors accurately capture real-world risks for flowing lithium without needing full quantitative probabilistic risk assessment or experimental validation of the scores.

What would settle it

Collecting incident rates or measured hazard levels from an operating lithium loop inside the proposed argon gloveroom and finding that they deviate substantially from the framework's predicted complexity scores would undermine the balance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16329 by Egemen Kolemen, Michael Hvasta, Robert Kaita, Yoichi Momozaki, Yufan Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Lithium systems in a fusion reactor. a) Schematics of a liquid lithium divertor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Six scenarios for the liquid metal containment systems. (A) A minimalistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Design penalty index Q map for the six representative secondary containment scenarios. The contour shows Q = αH(1 − γeff) + βC with γeff = γ exp(−kHH − kC C), using α = 0.7, β = 0.3, γ = 1.0, and kH = kC = 0.1. Points A–F correspond to the six containment scenarios based on existing liquid lithium systems listed in fig. 2. Scenario E, corresponding to the LEAP gloveroom architecture, gives the lowest penal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) A model of LEAP gloveroom with a Phase I liquid lithium loop inside. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P&ID of LEAP Phase I and II configuration, with potential expansion for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LEAP Phase I lithium loop and its major components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Pressure drop due to MHD drag and viscous drag in various methods at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Conceptual drawing with two LEAP gloverooms around the vacuum vessel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System heights vs. cavitation number at the pump inlet, showing that faster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Flowing liquid lithium is a promising fusion technology because it can provide a renewable Plasma-Facing Component (PFC) surface, modify recycling, support power exhaust, and potentially connect plasma-facing components with fuel recovery. Its deployment, however, is limited by the need to manage chemical reactivity, fire and aerosol hazards, inert gas operation, maintainability, and rapid experimental iteration. This paper develops a semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework for selecting secondary containment architectures for flowing liquid lithium systems. The framework is applied to six representative containment scenarios and to the Lithium Experimental Application Platform (LEAP) at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. LEAP is under construction with a modular, room-scale argon gloveroom as an inert secondary containment boundary for a staged flowing lithium program with heating, diagnostics, magnetic field exposure, and future device interface capability. The analysis shows that an inert, airtight secondary enclosure without scrubbers around a liquid lithium loop provides a practical balance between hazard reduction and facility complexity, as defined by the design requirements. The resulting architecture offers a deployable path for lithium PFC development and a transferable design logic for other reactive or conductive liquid metal systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework for selecting secondary containment architectures for flowing liquid lithium systems. It applies the framework to six representative scenarios and to the Lithium Experimental Application Platform (LEAP) under construction at PPPL, which uses a modular room-scale argon gloveroom as an inert secondary boundary. The analysis concludes that an inert, airtight secondary enclosure without scrubbers provides a practical balance between hazard reduction and facility complexity for the LEAP design requirements, offering a deployable path for lithium PFC development.

Significance. If the framework rankings hold, the work supplies a structured, transferable design logic for managing reactivity, fire, and aerosol risks in liquid lithium loops, which is relevant to advancing plasma-facing component technology in fusion. The modular, iteration-friendly architecture and emphasis on inert operation without added scrubber complexity are practical strengths for experimental facilities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Hazard Complexity Framework and Scenario Evaluation] The semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework (as described in the methods for evaluating the six scenarios) selects hazard categories including reactivity, fire, aerosol, and maintainability along with unspecified weighting factors to generate scores. These choices are not derived from quantitative probabilistic risk assessment, historical lithium incident databases, or sensitivity analysis, yet the central recommendation for the no-scrubber inert enclosure rests directly on the resulting ranking. If the relative weighting of fire or aerosol hazards is miscalibrated for flowing lithium under magnetic fields and heating, the preferred architecture could change.
  2. [Application to LEAP] No quantitative validation data, error estimates on the hazard scores, or direct comparison against measured incident rates from lithium systems are provided. This leaves the claim that the selected LEAP architecture achieves the practical balance (as defined by the design requirements) dependent on the untested accuracy of the framework outputs.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction could more explicitly list the quantitative design requirements (e.g., target hazard reduction thresholds or iteration speed metrics) used to judge the 'practical balance' among scenarios.
  2. Consider adding a table or figure that tabulates the raw category scores and weights for all six scenarios to improve traceability of the final ranking.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of the semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework. We respond to each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Hazard Complexity Framework and Scenario Evaluation] The semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework (as described in the methods for evaluating the six scenarios) selects hazard categories including reactivity, fire, aerosol, and maintainability along with unspecified weighting factors to generate scores. These choices are not derived from quantitative probabilistic risk assessment, historical lithium incident databases, or sensitivity analysis, yet the central recommendation for the no-scrubber inert enclosure rests directly on the resulting ranking. If the relative weighting of fire or aerosol hazards is miscalibrated for flowing lithium under magnetic fields and heating, the preferred architecture could change.

    Authors: The framework is presented as a semi-quantitative decision-support tool for architecture selection under defined design requirements (modularity, rapid iteration, inert operation), not as a full probabilistic risk assessment. Hazard categories were chosen to capture the dominant concerns for flowing lithium systems based on established literature and operational considerations. Weighting factors were assigned to reflect priorities for the LEAP program, such as balancing hazard reduction with maintainability. We agree that explicit documentation and sensitivity testing would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will state the specific weighting values, describe their derivation from design requirements, and add a sensitivity analysis demonstrating how variations in fire or aerosol weights affect scenario rankings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Application to LEAP] No quantitative validation data, error estimates on the hazard scores, or direct comparison against measured incident rates from lithium systems are provided. This leaves the claim that the selected LEAP architecture achieves the practical balance (as defined by the design requirements) dependent on the untested accuracy of the framework outputs.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include quantitative validation against incident databases or error estimates on the scores. Such data for flowing liquid lithium under combined magnetic-field, heating, and vacuum conditions remain limited in the open literature, which is why the framework is positioned as an engineering heuristic rather than a statistically validated model. The six scenarios serve to illustrate application of the framework, and the LEAP conclusion is tied directly to the stated design requirements rather than to absolute risk numbers. In revision we will add an explicit limitations subsection discussing assumptions, the absence of error propagation, and the framework's intended use as a transferable design logic rather than a predictive tool. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Comprehensive quantitative validation data and direct comparison to measured incident rates for flowing liquid lithium systems under fusion-relevant conditions with magnetic fields and heating are not currently available in sufficient detail for inclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework developed and applied independently

full rationale

The paper constructs a new semi-quantitative hazard complexity framework from design requirements for lithium reactivity, fire, aerosol, and maintainability hazards, then applies the resulting scores to rank six containment scenarios including the LEAP inert airtight enclosure. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to reduce the final architecture recommendation back to the framework inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained because the framework categories and weights are presented as chosen inputs rather than outputs forced by the target conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard engineering safety assumptions rather than new physical laws. No free parameters are fitted to data. The main axioms are domain assumptions about lithium reactivity and facility constraints.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Liquid lithium poses significant chemical reactivity, fire, and aerosol hazards that must be mitigated by secondary containment.
    Invoked in the opening paragraph to motivate the need for the framework.
  • domain assumption Inert-gas operation and maintainability are primary design constraints for experimental lithium systems.
    Used to evaluate the six representative containment scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5748 in / 1350 out tokens · 28060 ms · 2026-05-21T00:15:59.968863+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Müller, L

    U. Müller, L. Bühler, Magnetofluiddynamics in channels and containers, Springer Science & Business Media, 2001. 42

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    P. A. Davidson, Introduction to magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge university press, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    S.-Y. Tang, C. Tabor, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, M. D. Dickey, Gallium liquid metal: the devil’s elixir, Annual Review of Materials Research 51 (1) (2021) 381–408

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Coenen, G

    J. Coenen, G. De Temmerman, G. Federici, V. Philipps, G. Sergienko, G. Strohmayer, A. Terra, B. Unterberg, T. Wegener, D. Van den Bekerom, Liquid metals as alternative solution for the power exhaust of future fusion devices: status and perspective, Physica Scripta 159 (1) (2014) 014037

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    M. Ono, R. Majeski, M. A. Jaworski, Y. Hirooka, R. Kaita, T. K. Gray, R. Maingi, C. H. Skinner, M. Christenson, D. N. Ruzic, Liquid lithium loop system to solve challenging technology issues for fusion power plant, Nuclear Fusion 57 (11) (2017) 116056

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Kaita, Fusion applications for lithium: wall conditioning in mag- netic confinementdevices, PlasmaPhysics and ControlledFusion 61(11) (2019) 113001

    R. Kaita, Fusion applications for lithium: wall conditioning in mag- netic confinementdevices, PlasmaPhysics and ControlledFusion 61(11) (2019) 113001

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A.DeCastro, C.Moynihan, S.Stemmley, M.Szott, D.Ruzic, Lithium, a path to make fusion energy affordable, Physics of Plasmas 28 (5) (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    F. R. Urgorri, S. Smolentsev, I. Fernández-Berceruelo, D. Rapisarda, I. Palermo, A. Ibarra, Magnetohydrodynamic and thermal analysis of pbli flows in poloidal channels with flow channel insert for the eu-dcll blanket, Nuclear fusion 58 (10) (2018) 106001

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Department of Energy, Fusion science & technology roadmap, Tech

    U.S. Department of Energy, Fusion science & technology roadmap, Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Energy (2025). URLhttps://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/ fusion-s%26t-roadmap-101625.pdf

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Golubchikov, V

    L. Golubchikov, V. Evtikhin, I. Lyublinski, V. Pistunovich, I. Potapov, A. Chumanov, Development of a liquid-metal fusion reactor divertor with a capillary-pore system, Journal of nuclear materials 233 (1996) 667–672. 43

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    Mirnov, V

    S. Mirnov, V. Lazarev, S. Sotnikov, V. Evtikhin, I. Lyublinski, A. Vertkov, et al., Li-cps limiter in tokamak t-11m, Fusion Engineer- ing and Design 65 (3) (2003) 455–465

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    Herrmann, H

    A. Herrmann, H. Greuner, N. Jaksic, M. Balden, A. Kallenbach, K. Krieger, P. De Marné, V. Rohde, A. Scarabosio, G. Schall, et al., Solid tungsten divertor-iii for asdex upgrade and contributions to iter, Nuclear Fusion 55 (6) (2015) 063015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    R. E. Nygren, D. L. Rudakov, C. Murphy, J. D. Watkins, E. A. Unter- berg, J. L. Barton, P. C. Stangeby, Thermal management of tungsten leading edges in diii-d, Fusion Engineering and Design 124 (2017) 271– 275

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Pitts, S

    R. Pitts, S. Bardin, B. Bazylev, M. Van Den Berg, P. Bunting, S. Carpentier-Chouchana, J. Coenen, Y. Corre, R. Dejarnac, F. Escour- biac, et al., Physics conclusions in support of iter w divertor monoblock shaping, Nuclear Materials and Energy 12 (2017) 60–74

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Sinclair, J

    G. Sinclair, J. Tripathi, P. Diwakar, A. Hassanein, Melt layer erosion during elm-like heat loading on molybdenum as an alternative plasma- facing material, Scientific reports 7 (1) (2017) 12273

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    S. Wang, J. Li, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, R. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Cao, Thermal damage of tungsten-armored plasma-facing components under high heat flux loads, Scientific Reports 10 (1) (2020) 1359

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    divertorlets

    A. Fisher, Z. Sun, E. Kolemen, Liquid metal “divertorlets” concept for fusion reactors, Nuclear Materials and Energy 25 (2020) 100855

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Saenz, Z

    F. Saenz, Z. Sun, A. E. Fisher, B. Wynne, E. Kolemen, Divertorlets con- cept for low-recycling fusion reactor divertor: experimental, analytical and numerical verification, Nuclear Fusion 62 (8) (2022) 086008

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    N. B. Morley, M. A. Abdou, Modeling of fully-developed, liquid metal, thin film flows for fusion divertor applications, Fusion engineering and design 30 (4) (1995) 339–356

    work page 1995

  20. [20]

    Pan, M.-J

    J.-H. Pan, M.-J. Ni, Magnetohydrodynamic effects on liquid metal flows in an open channel for fusion plasma facing components with a trans- verse magnetic field, Nuclear Fusion 65 (4) (2025) 046015. 44

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Jiang, S

    Y. Jiang, S. Aduloju, S. Smolentsev, Design and analysis of the open- surface slow li flow divertor and comparison to the fast li flow divertor, Fusion Science and Technology 82 (1-2) (2026) 135–155

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    Khodak, R

    A. Khodak, R. Maingi, Plasma facing components with capillary porous system and liquid metal coolant flow, Physics of Plasmas 29 (7) (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Ruzic, W

    D. Ruzic, W. Xu, D. Andruczyk, M. Jaworski, Lithium–metal infused trenches(limit)forheatremovalinfusiondevices, NuclearFusion51(10) (2011) 102002

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    R. J. Goldston, R. Myers, J. Schwartz, The lithium vapor box divertor, Physica Scripta 167 (1) (2016) 014017

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Emdee, R

    E. Emdee, R. J. Goldston, J. Schwartz, M. Rensink, T. Rognlien, A sim- plified lithium vapor box divertor, Nuclear Fusion 59 (8) (2019) 086043

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Ruzic, M

    D. Ruzic, M. Szott, C. Sandoval, M. Christenson, P. Fiflis, S. Hammouti, K. Kalathiparambil, I. Shchelkanov, D. Andruczyk, R. Stubbers, et al., Flowing liquid lithium plasma-facing components–physics, technology and system analysis of the limit system, Nuclear Materials and Energy 12 (2017) 1324–1329

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    M. S. Islam, J. D. Lore, S. Smolentsev, C. E. Kessel, R. Maingi, Analysis and design of fast flow liquid li divertor for fusion nuclear science facility (fnsf) using coupled plasma boundary and lm mhd/heat transfer codes, Nuclear Fusion 64 (5) (2024) 056036

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Kuang, S

    A. Kuang, S. Ballinger, D. Brunner, J. Canik, A. Creely, T. Gray, M. Greenwald, J. Hughes, J. Irby, B. LaBombard, et al., Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in sparc, Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5) (2020) 865860505

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Coburn, F

    J. Coburn, F. Effenberg, M. A. Cusentino, C. Hargrove, M. Ialovega, M. Morbey, L. Nuckols, Ž. Popović, Z. Bergstrom, S. Zamperini, et al., Overview of advanced plasma-facing materials testing for fusion pilot plants at diii-d, Nuclear Materials and Energy (2026) 102064

    work page 2026

  30. [30]

    Nolen, et al., Argonne physics division 2000 annual report, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, USA, Rep

    J. Nolen, et al., Argonne physics division 2000 annual report, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, USA, Rep. ANL-01/19 (2001). 45

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    J. Wei, H. Ao, S. Beher, N. Bultman, F. Casagrande, S. Cogan, C. Compton, J. Curtin, L. Dalesio, K. Davidson, et al., Advances of the frib project, International Journal of Modern Physics E 28 (3) (2019) 1930003

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Momozaki, C

    Y. Momozaki, C. B. Reed, J. A. Nolen, J. R. Specht, D. B. Chojnowski, J. Song, F. Marti, P. Guetschow, J. Sherman, Proton beam-on-liquid lithiumstripperfilmexperiment, JournalofRadioanalyticalandNuclear Chemistry 305 (3) (2015) 843–849

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Kanemura, M

    T. Kanemura, M. LaVere, R. Madendorp, F. Marti, T. Maruta, Y. Mo- mozaki, P. Ostroumov, A. S. Plastun, J. Wei, Q. Zhao, Experimen- tal demonstration of the thin-film liquid-metal jet as a charge stripper, Physical Review Letters 128 (21) (2022) 212301

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Furukawa, Y

    T. Furukawa, Y. Hirakawa, S. Kato, M. Iijima, M. Ohtaka, H. Kondo, T. Kanemura, E. Wakai, Current status of the technology development on lithium safety handling under ifmif/eveda, Fusion Engineering and Design 89 (12) (2014) 2902–2909

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Kondo, T

    H. Kondo, T. Kanemura, H. Sugiura, N. Yamaoka, M. Ida, H. Naka- mura, I. Matsushita, T. Muroga, H. Horiike, Liquid metal lithium jet experiment for ifmif target, Journal of Power and Energy Systems 3 (1) (2009) 114–125

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Knaster, T

    J. Knaster, T. Kanemura, K. Kondo, An assessment of the evaporation and condensation phenomena of lithium during the operation of a li (d, xn) fusion relevant neutron source, Heliyon 2 (12) (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Knaster, P

    J. Knaster, P. Favuzza, Assessment of corrosion phenomena in liquid lithium at t< 873 k. a li (d, n) neutron source as case study, Fusion Engineering and Design 118 (2017) 135–141

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Gupta, A

    D. Gupta, A. Brooks, T. Brown, A. Khodak, B. Linn, J. Menard, Mhd analysis of dual-coolant lead-lithium blanket for spherical tokamak ad- vanced reactor, Fusion Science and Technology 82 (1-2) (2026) 252–273

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Majeski, R

    R. Majeski, R. Doerner, T. Gray, R. Kaita, R. Maingi, D. Mansfield, J. Spaleta, V. Soukhanovskii, J. Timberlake, L. Zakharov, Enhanced en- ergy confinement and performance in a low-recycling tokamak, Physical review letters 97 (7) (2006) 075002. 46

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    D. P. Boyle, J. Anderson, S. Banerjee, R. Bell, W. Capecchi, D. Elliott, C. Hansen, S. Kubota, B. LeBlanc, A. Maan, et al., Extending the low-recycling, flat temperature profile regime in the lithium tokamak experiment-β(ltx-β) with ohmic and neutral beam heating, Nuclear Fusion 63 (5) (2023) 056020

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Kugel, J

    H. Kugel, J. Allain, M. Bell, R. Bell, A. Diallo, R. Ellis, S. Gerhardt, B. Heim, M. Jaworski, R. Kaita, et al., Nstx plasma operation with a liquid lithium divertor, Fusion Engineering and Design 87 (10) (2012) 1724–1731

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Mazzitelli, M

    G. Mazzitelli, M. Apicella, D. Frigione, G. Maddaluno, M. Marinucci, C.Mazzotta, V.PericoliRidolfini, M.Romanelli, G.Szepesi, O.Tudisco, et al., Ftu results with a liquid lithium limiter, Nuclear Fusion 51 (7) (2011) 073006

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    Tabarés, M

    F. Tabarés, M. Ochando, F. Medina, D. Tafalla, J. Ferreira, E. Ascasi- bar, R. Balbín, T. Estrada, C. Fuentes, I. García-Cortés, et al., Plasma performance and confinement in the tj-ii stellarator with lithium-coated walls, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50 (12) (2008) 124051

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    G. Zuo, J. Hu, J. Li, N. Luo, L. Zakharov, L. Zhang, A. Ti, First results of lithium experiments on east and ht-7, Journal of Nuclear Materials 415 (1) (2011) S1062–S1066

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    Maingi, T

    R. Maingi, T. Osborne, B. LeBlanc, R. Bell, J. Manickam, P. Snyder, J. Menard, D.Mansfield, H. Kugel, R. Kaita, et al., Edge-localized-mode suppression through density-profile modification with lithium-wall coat- ings in the national spherical torus experiment, Physical review letters 103 (7) (2009) 075001

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    G. Zuo, J. Hu, J. Li, Z. Sun, D. Mansfield, L. Zakharov, Lithium coating for h-mode and high performance plasmas on east in asipp, Journal of Nuclear Materials 438 (2013) S90–S95

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Abdou, M

    M. Abdou, M. Riva, A. Ying, C. Day, A. Loarte, L. Baylor, P. Hum- rickhouse, T. F. Fuerst, S. Cho, Physics and technology considerations for the deuterium–tritium fuel cycle and conditions for tritium fuel self sufficiency, Nuclear fusion 61 (1) (2021) 013001. 47

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Sawan, M

    M. Sawan, M. Abdou, Physics and technology conditions for attaining tritium self-sufficiency for the dt fuel cycle, Fusion Engineering and De- sign 81 (8-14) (2006) 1131–1144

    work page 2006

  49. [49]

    C. Baus, P. Barron, A. D’Angiò, Y. Hirata, S. Konishi, J. Mund, T. Na- gao, D. Nakahara, R. Pearson, M. Sakaguchi, et al., Kyoto fusioneering’s mission to accelerate fusion energy: Technologies, challenges and role in industrialisation, Journal of Fusion Energy 42 (1) (2023) 10

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    T. D. Bohm, A. Davis, M. S. Harb, E. P. Marriott, P. P. Wilson, Initial neutronics investigation of a liquid-metal plasma-facing fusion nuclear science facility, Fusion Science and Technology 75 (6) (2019) 429–437

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    J. A. Lane, H. G. MacPherson, F. Maslan, Fluid fuel reactors: Molten salt reactors, aqueous homogeneous reactors, fluoride reactors, chloride reactors, liquid metal reactors and why liquid fission, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1958

    work page 1958

  52. [52]

    Michal, Fifty years ago in december: Atomic reactor ebr-i produced first electricity, Nuclear News 44 (12) (2001) 28–29

    R. Michal, Fifty years ago in december: Atomic reactor ebr-i produced first electricity, Nuclear News 44 (12) (2001) 28–29

    work page 2001

  53. [53]

    Kultgen, M

    D. Kultgen, M. Weathered, E. Kent, J. Rein, A. Grannan, C. Grandy, Mechanisms engineering test loop (metl) operations and testing report (fy2022), Tech. rep., Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States) (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Generation IV International Forum, Sodium fast reactor (sfr),https: //www.gen-4.org/generation-iv-criteria-and-technologies/ sodium-fast-reactor-sfr, accessed 2026-05-02 (n.d.)

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    A. C. Marshall, An assessment of reactor types for thermochemical hy- drogen production, Tech. Rep. SAND2002-0513, Sandia National Labo- ratories (02 2002). URLhttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/793338

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    C. B. e. Jackson, Liquid metals handbook: Sodium-nak supplement, Tech. Rep. TID-5277, Atomic Energy Commission; Bureau of Ships (07 1955). URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/4376530 48

    work page arXiv 1955

  57. [57]

    O. J. Foust, Sodium-NaK Engineering Handbook. Volume III: Sodium Systems, Safety, Handling, and Instrumentation. [LMFBR], Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc., 1978. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/6639472

    work page arXiv 1978

  58. [58]

    Miyakawa, H

    A. Miyakawa, H. Maeda, Y. Kani, K. Ito, Sodium leakage experience at the prototype fbr monju, IAEA. (2000)

    work page 2000

  59. [59]

    Hvasta, E

    M. Hvasta, E. Kent, D. Kultgen, J. Rein, M. Weathered, A. Grannan, E. Ogren, C. Grandy, Mechanisms engineering test loop (metl) exper- imenter’s guide-revision 2, Tech. rep., Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States) (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    D’Ovidio, F

    G. D’Ovidio, F. Martín-Fuertes, J. C. Marugán, S. Bermejo, F. S. Nitti, Lithium fire protection design approach in ifmif-dones facility, Fusion Engineering and Design 189 (2023) 113446

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Maroni, R

    V. Maroni, R. Beatty, H. Brown, L. Coleman, R. Foose, C. McPheeters, M. Slawecki, D. Smith, E. Van Deventer, J. Weston, Analysis of the october 5, 1979 lithium spill and fire in the lithium processing test loop, Tech. rep., Argonne National Lab., IL (USA) (1981)

    work page 1979

  62. [62]

    Nygren, Sandia plasma materials test facility (pmtf) and actions after li fire on 26 aug 2011, Technical report/presentation, Sandia National Laboratories (2012)

    R. Nygren, Sandia plasma materials test facility (pmtf) and actions after li fire on 26 aug 2011, Technical report/presentation, Sandia National Laboratories (2012)

    work page 2011

  63. [63]

    Pérez, G

    M. Pérez, G. D’Ovidio, F. Martin-Fuertes, Application of the melcor for fusion code to the transient accident analysis of the ifmif-dones test cell, Journal of Fusion Energy 42 (2) (2023) 38

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    URLhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/s/IBC2021P1/ chapter-3-occupancy-classification-and-use/ IBC2021P1-Ch03-Sec307.8

    International Code Council, 2021 International Building Code, section 307, Hazardous Materials (2021). URLhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/s/IBC2021P1/ chapter-3-occupancy-classification-and-use/ IBC2021P1-Ch03-Sec307.8

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    URLhttps://www.nfpa.org/product/nfpa-484-standard/ p0484code 49

    National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 484: Standard for Com- bustible Metals (2022). URLhttps://www.nfpa.org/product/nfpa-484-standard/ p0484code 49

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    URLhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2024P1

    International Code Council, 2024 International Fire Code (2024). URLhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2024P1

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    URLhttps://www.iaea.org/publications/14797/ fire-protection-in-nuclear-power-plants

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Fire Protection in Nuclear Power Plants (2021). URLhttps://www.iaea.org/publications/14797/ fire-protection-in-nuclear-power-plants

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    URLhttps://www.asme.org/codes-standards/ find-codes-standards/b313-2018-process-piping

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B31.3: Process Piping (2024). URLhttps://www.asme.org/codes-standards/ find-codes-standards/b313-2018-process-piping

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    URLhttps://www.asme.org/codes-standards/bpvc-standards/ bpvc-2025

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (2025). URLhttps://www.asme.org/codes-standards/bpvc-standards/ bpvc-2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Gertman, H

    D. Gertman, H. Blackman, J. Marble, J. Byers, C. Smith, et al., The spar-h human reliability analysis method, US Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission 230 (4) (2005) 35

    work page 2005

  71. [71]

    Bernoulli, Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk, in: The Kelly capital growth investment criterion: Theory and practice, World Scientific, 2011, pp

    D. Bernoulli, Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk, in: The Kelly capital growth investment criterion: Theory and practice, World Scientific, 2011, pp. 11–24

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    H. W. Davison, Compilation of thermophysical properties of liquid lithium, Vol. 4650, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1968

    work page 1968

  73. [73]

    Miyazaki, K

    K. Miyazaki, K. Konishi, S. Inoue, Mhd pressure drop of liquid metal flow in circular duct under variable transverse magnetic field, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 28 (2) (1991) 159–161

    work page 1991

  74. [74]

    G. R. Kinsley Jr, Properly purge and inert storage vessels, Natural gas (Pittsburgh) 12 (2001) 14–5

    work page 2001

  75. [75]

    S. Wei, S. Lampman, Centrifugal casting, in: Casting, ASM Interna- tional, 2008, pp. 667–673. 50

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    Q. Wang, Y. Yu, J. Liu, Preparations, characteristics and applications of the functional liquid metal materials, Advanced Engineering Materials 20 (5) (2018) 1700781

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    M. D. Dickey, Stretchable and soft electronics using liquid metals, Ad- vanced materials 29 (27) (2017) 1606425

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    M. M. Adams, D. R. Stone, D. S. Zimmerman, D. P. Lathrop, Liquid sodium models of the earth’s core, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science 2 (1) (2015) 29

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    Stefani, A

    F. Stefani, A. Gailitis, G. Gerbeth, A. Giesecke, T. Gundrum, G. Rüdi- ger, M. Seilmayer, T. Vogt, The dresdyn project: liquid metal experi- ments on dynamo action and magnetorotational instability, Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 113 (1-2) (2019) 51–70

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Y. Xu, S. Horn, J. M. Aurnou, Thermoelectric precession in turbulent magnetoconvection, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 930 (2022) A8

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.