pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04190 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Yinsen: A low power density HTS tokamak fusion reactor for marine and off-grid applications

Justin Cohen , Jason Kaufmann , Maxim Umansky , Adriana Ghiozzi , David Smith , Oak Nelson , Benedikt Zimmermann
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords HTS tokamaklow power densitymarine propulsionoff-grid powertritium breedingdivertor detachmentvanadium alloysupercritical CO2
0
0 comments X

The pith

An HTS tokamak limited to 0.7 MW per square meter fusion power density can deliver more than 25 MWe net for marine and off-grid uses.

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

The paper presents a tokamak reactor concept sized to a conservative power density set by the lifetime of its structural materials rather than by the need for high output. This limit of 0.7 MW per square meter comes from a 35 displacements-per-atom threshold on a vanadium alloy vacuum vessel over a twenty-year plant life at 40 percent utilization. Simulations show that a high-field device built around this limit reaches 130 MW of fusion power, sustains a 9.29 tesla plasma with 9.67 MA current, breeds its own tritium at a ratio near 1.1, and produces over 25 MWe net while keeping divertor heat loads manageable through impurity seeding. The approach targets applications such as ship propulsion and remote power where the remaining steps to economical grid electricity are not required.

Core claim

By anchoring the entire reactor design to a materials-limited fusion power density of 0.7 MW per square meter, obtained from the 35 DPA structural limit on V-4Cr-4Ti with a 20-year lifetime, 40 percent utilization, and geometric correction, a self-consistent high-temperature-superconducting tokamak emerges with 130 MW fusion power, a shaped 9.29 T plasma at 9.67 MA, tritium breeding ratio of approximately 1.1, and net electric output above 25 MWe, suitable for maritime and remote applications.

What carries the argument

The materials-limited fusion power density of 0.7 MW per square meter, derived from the 35 DPA limit on the V-4Cr-4Ti vacuum vessel together with lifetime, utilization, and geometric factors, which fixes the minimum useful reactor size and enables the remaining high-field HTS, transport, divertor, and neutronics design points.

If this is right

  • The vacuum vessel reaches a lifetime of 1040 MW·yr, supporting the full 20-year plant life at 130 MW fusion power.
  • Total nuclear heating in the toroidal-field HTS magnets is only 7.4 kW at 20 K, allowing them to remain lifetime components across many vacuum-vessel replacements.
  • Neon-seeded detached divertor operation reduces peak heat fluxes well below 10 MW per square meter.
  • A supercritical CO₂ balance of plant combined with a 34 kV medium-voltage backbone and local energy storage supports pulsed operation.
  • Several technical challenges that lie between Q greater than 1 and competitive grid-scale economics are avoided in this lower-density regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A reactor of this type could reach first commercial deployment in niche markets such as large vessels or isolated industrial sites well before full grid economics are solved.
  • The same materials-limited sizing logic could be applied to other fusion concepts to shorten the path from laboratory results to useful power.
  • Further increases in net output within the same power-density ceiling could be achieved by enlarging plasma volume or raising thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency.
  • Dedicated experiments that measure actual plasma performance and neutron damage rates at the modeled conditions would directly test whether the operating window remains accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The 0.7 MW per square meter power density limit derived from the 35 DPA damage threshold on the vanadium alloy accurately represents the reactor's structural endurance under the assumed lifetime and utilization without requiring higher densities for practical output.

What would settle it

A neutron irradiation test on V-4Cr-4Ti samples that reaches the 35 DPA damage limit in less than the modeled equivalent operating time at the baseline power, or an experimental plasma discharge that cannot meet the required confinement and stability at 9.29 T and 9.67 MA while keeping divertor heat fluxes below 10 MW per square meter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04190 by Adriana Ghiozzi, Benedikt Zimmermann, David Smith, Jason Kaufmann, Justin Cohen, Maxim Umansky, Oak Nelson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Historical U.S. nuclear capacity factor [7], used to view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: POPCON-style operating-space reference for the Yinsen plasma class, with transport informed profiles. The figure view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Blanket-area-normalized fusion power density for view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature dependence of the beta-limited view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Nominal build and flattop equilibrium for Yinsen. view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ion-channel power sources and sinks for the baseline view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Electron-channel power sources and sinks for the view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Evolution of the LCFS after a ∆Z0 = 10 cm initial displacement, subject to control with a 6 kV power supply. The evolution of the (b) magnetic axis and (c) current and voltage applied in the vertical stability system (IVSC – blue and VVSC – red, respectively) are also shown. zations of vertical control [24, 25, 26, 27], the max￾imum vertical displacement (∆Zmax) is taken as a critical metric for the o… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of (a) the plasma magnetic axis, (b) view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of the core transport modeling using AS view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Variation of the radiated power during a scan in view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Separatrix operating-space (SepOS) scan for Yin view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: ICRH wave propagation and absorption on plasma view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Variation of first-pass absorption with temper view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Time evolution of the integrated inward hoop view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Radial force density at 10 ms during the imposed view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: UEDGE base case with nsep=3×1019 m−3 , Psol 27 MW, and no impurity radiation. The top left plot shows the model geometry and the top right plot shows the normal heat flux profile on the outer target plate. The heat profile width (mapped to the midplane) is close to 0.5 mm, consistent with the Eich scaling projection. Fig. (21) describes the UEDGE base case with electron density on the separatrix nsep = 3 … view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Plasma 2D profiles from the fully-detached view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The peak power flux and peak temperature on view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Contour plots of the peak wall heat flux extracted from the full poloidal view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Resolved target-plate heat-flux profiles centered on the local strike points for representative cases near the detachment view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: ITER-inspired FLiBe monoblock target plate design. The upper panel shows the applied outer-target surface heat view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Peak tungsten surface temperature as a function of view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Outer-target tungsten surface temperature pro view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Measured HTS tape data at 20 K for Fara view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: SHIELD CroCo cable cross section showing the view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Simplified TF structural frame highlighting view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: TF coil inboard and outboard cross sections de view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Full 18-coil TF cage rendered from the CAD master model, shown assembled (left) and exploded (right). The view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Maximum achievable current by location for view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: TF case CAD used in the structural analysis: view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Isometric cutaway of the Yinsen tokamak assem view at source ↗
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: Von Mises stress on the TF case (logarithmic colour scale; gold markers indicate the four OIS contact centres). The view at source ↗
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: Peak magnetic field on conductor. 7Cr-5Fe), the nickel-base alloy developed at ORNL for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment to provide corrosion resistance against fluoride salts at elevated temperature [65]. Outside the breeding region, Yinsen adopts a double-layer neutron-shield strategy using WC fol￾lowed by W2B5: the dense WC layer is used first to reduce fast-neutron energy and associated vol￾umetric … view at source ↗
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: Poloidal field magnitude |Bp| view at source ↗
Figure 44
Figure 44. Figure 44: Resultant force components on the PF and CS view at source ↗
Figure 45
Figure 45. Figure 45: Faraday Factory tape-length summary for the view at source ↗
Figure 46
Figure 46. Figure 46: Radial build at the midplane, showing the sequence of plasma-facing, breeding, shielding, and magnet-adjacent view at source ↗
Figure 47
Figure 47. Figure 47: Total volumetric nuclear heating density normal view at source ↗
Figure 48
Figure 48. Figure 48: Integrated nuclear heating by layer normalized per view at source ↗
Figure 50
Figure 50. Figure 50: Midplane energy-weighted neutron power flux by view at source ↗
Figure 51
Figure 51. Figure 51: Comparison of divertor-region and midplane neu view at source ↗
Figure 52
Figure 52. Figure 52: Radial neutron-flux profile through the HFS TF view at source ↗
Figure 54
Figure 54. Figure 54: Low-field-side W2B5 shield-thinning optimization relative to the poloidally uniform baseline shield build. The low-field-side shield is reduced away from the midplane until the total TF nuclear heating reaches the retained 25 kW limit at 300 MW Pf . plier materials because of their large fusion-relevant (n, 2n) cross sections, and Hg remains of separate interest because the same reaction pathway could in … view at source ↗
Figure 55
Figure 55. Figure 55: Tritium breeding ratio as a function of 6Li enrich￾ment in FLiBe for the present Yinsen baseline, showing that the self-sufficiency target can be reached without extreme en￾richment or a dedicated multiplier layer. 7.2 Activation Analysis Activation behavior is what ultimately determines how quickly the machine can be approached af￾ter shutdown, how maintenance must be staged, and which components can pla… view at source ↗
Figure 56
Figure 56. Figure 56: Activation decay behavior for principal compo view at source ↗
Figure 57
Figure 57. Figure 57: Dose-rate maps after shutdown at multiple post view at source ↗
Figure 58
Figure 58. Figure 58: Top-down shutdown dose-rate maps in the maintenance hall with the tokamak split into two halves separated view at source ↗
Figure 59
Figure 59. Figure 59: Shutdown dose rate versus cooldown time at suc view at source ↗
Figure 60
Figure 60. Figure 60: Combined TBR and blanket energy multiplier view at source ↗
Figure 62
Figure 62. Figure 62: Fissile material breeding rates in grams per full view at source ↗
Figure 63
Figure 63. Figure 63: Conceptual solid-state-transformer interface be view at source ↗
Figure 65
Figure 65. Figure 65: Cost-optimal hybrid storage cost and capacitor view at source ↗
Figure 66
Figure 66. Figure 66: Cost-optimal capacitor share αopt from the time￾dependent model across pulse duration and required lifetime pulse count at fixed pulse energy. This map is used to select hybrid splits consistent with duty-cycle targets and storage lifetime limits. and high lifetime-pulse requirements push the op￾timum toward low α, while longer pulse durations permit substantially larger capacitor participation. Here puls… view at source ↗
Figure 67
Figure 67. Figure 67: (a) Electron temperature, (b) electron density, (c) view at source ↗
Figure 69
Figure 69. Figure 69: Two-parameter sensitivity from the time view at source ↗
Figure 70
Figure 70. Figure 70: Plant power-flow summary for Yinsen at the higher-power case B operating point, showing the partition of fusion view at source ↗
Figure 71
Figure 71. Figure 71: BOP schematic. Five primary FLiBe loops dis view at source ↗
Figure 73
Figure 73. Figure 73: Thermal inputs used in the reduced-order BOP view at source ↗
Figure 74
Figure 74. Figure 74: Primary-side transient response during repeated view at source ↗
Figure 75
Figure 75. Figure 75: Secondary-side and plant-level transient response view at source ↗
Figure 77
Figure 77. Figure 77: Primary- and secondary-side flow scaling over view at source ↗
Figure 78
Figure 78. Figure 78: Total in-system tritium budget over the fusion view at source ↗
Figure 79
Figure 79. Figure 79: Fuel-cycle baseline and dominant startup-inventory sensitivity. Left: 80-day pulse-resolved inventory evolution view at source ↗
Figure 80
Figure 80. Figure 80: Facility layout and subsystem footprint split from the unified layout and direct-capital model. Left: representative view at source ↗
Figure 81
Figure 81. Figure 81: FOAK and NOAK direct overnight-capital breakdowns for the full plant (top) and power core (bottom). view at source ↗
Figure 82
Figure 82. Figure 82: Marine fusion-engine CAPEX break-even versus view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Yinsen is a high-temperature-superconducting (HTS) tokamak reactor concept for off-grid applications such as maritime propulsion, remote power, and industrial energy. Rather than pursuing grid-scale power density, the design is anchored to a materials-limited fusion power density of $P_f/S_b=0.7~\mathrm{MW/m^2}$, obtained from a 35 DPA structural limit, a 20-year plant lifetime, 40% utilization, and a geometric damage-peaking correction. The resulting device has a V-4Cr-4Ti vacuum-vessel lifetime of $1040~\mathrm{MW\cdot yr}$, pointing to a minimum useful fusion power of $130~\mathrm{MW}$ and more than $25~\mathrm{MWe}$ net output. Integrated FUSE modeling refines the design into a self-consistent high-field baseline with a shaped 9.29 T, 9.67 MA plasma, while ASTRA transport analysis corroborates a broader operating window above the minimum design point. Divertor power handling is addressed with UEDGE modeling, showing that impurity-seeded detached operation is attainable with neon seeding, reducing peak heat fluxes well below $10~\mathrm{MW/m^2}$. OpenMC neutronics calculations with a double-layered WC/W$_2$B$_5$ shield show that the vacuum vessel is the lifetime-limiting solid structure, while the HTS magnets remain lifetime components: at the 130 MW baseline, total TF nuclear heating is 7.4 kW at 20 K, and the TF fast-neutron limit corresponds to roughly sixteen vacuum-vessel lifetimes. The same neutronics analysis gives $TBR\approx1.1$ with 30% $^6\mathrm{Li}$ enrichment and no dedicated neutron multiplier. Plant-level studies detail a supercritical CO$_2$ balance of plant and pulsed-power operation using a 34 kV medium-voltage backbone and local energy storage. Taken together, these results suggest that a low-power-density HTS tokamak offers a near-term path for relevant FOAK fusion reactors where many remaining challenges between $Q>1$ and economic grid operation are alleviated.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a conceptual design for Yinsen, a high-temperature superconducting (HTS) tokamak fusion reactor for off-grid and marine applications. It is anchored to a materials-limited fusion power density of 0.7 MW/m² derived from a 35 DPA limit on V-4Cr-4Ti vacuum vessel material, 20-year lifetime, 40% utilization, and geometric peaking correction, yielding a minimum useful fusion power of 130 MW with >25 MWe net output. Integrated modeling with FUSE establishes a self-consistent high-field baseline (9.29 T, 9.67 MA), ASTRA confirms a broader operating window, UEDGE demonstrates neon-seeded detached divertor operation with heat fluxes <10 MW/m², and OpenMC neutronics yields TBR≈1.1 with WC/W₂B₅ shielding while showing HTS magnets as lifetime components. Plant-level analysis covers supercritical CO₂ balance of plant and pulsed-power systems. The authors conclude this low-power-density approach offers a near-term path to first-of-a-kind fusion reactors by alleviating challenges between Q>1 and economic grid operation.

Significance. If the materials-limited power density and modeling fidelity hold, the work has moderate significance as an exploration of an alternative fusion design space that prioritizes earlier deployment for niche applications over grid-scale power density. The explicit linkage of structural lifetime assumptions to device scale, combined with multi-code integration (FUSE, ASTRA, UEDGE, OpenMC) for a consistent baseline, provides a useful reference for systems-level studies. It highlights how HTS enables high-field operation at reduced densities, potentially simplifying some power-handling and lifetime issues. The absence of experimental validation for the codes in this regime and the assumption-driven nature of the central scale limit the broader impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction / Design philosophy] Introduction and design philosophy section: The 0.7 MW/m² fusion power density limit is obtained from a 35 DPA structural limit on V-4Cr-4Ti, 20-year lifetime, 40% utilization, and geometric damage-peaking correction, directly setting the minimum 130 MW fusion power. No sensitivity analysis is provided for variations in these inputs (e.g., 30 DPA or 30% utilization), and no experimental benchmarks for the DPA-to-power-density conversion under fusion spectra are cited; this assumption is load-bearing for the entire minimum-size claim and the 'near-term path' assertion.
  2. [FUSE / ASTRA sections] FUSE and ASTRA modeling sections: The self-consistent baseline (9.29 T, 9.67 MA) and broader operating window are derived from these codes without any comparison to experimental tokamak data in the high-field low-density regime or uncertainty quantification on transport assumptions. If the predicted performance deviates, both the claimed operating window and the assertion that many challenges between Q>1 and economic operation are alleviated are affected.
  3. [UEDGE / OpenMC sections] UEDGE and OpenMC sections: Detached operation is shown with neon seeding reducing peak heat fluxes below 10 MW/m², and TBR≈1.1 is reported with 30% ⁶Li enrichment, but the specific impurity concentrations, their impact on core performance or TBR, and sensitivity of neutronics results (including the claim that TF magnets correspond to sixteen vacuum-vessel lifetimes) lack quantification or error bars. These are load-bearing for the feasibility and lifetime conclusions.
minor comments (3)
  1. All acronyms (TBR, DPA, HTS, FOAK, sCO₂) should be defined at first use for clarity.
  2. Add explicit references to prior experimental or modeling benchmarks for the FUSE, ASTRA, UEDGE, and OpenMC codes in relevant parameter regimes.
  3. Include a table summarizing key parameters (B_t, I_p, P_f, TBR, heat fluxes) with uncertainty ranges where available.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript describing the Yinsen low-power-density HTS tokamak concept. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where the comments identify opportunities to strengthen the analysis, we will incorporate revisions in the updated manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Introduction and design philosophy section: The 0.7 MW/m² fusion power density limit is obtained from a 35 DPA structural limit on V-4Cr-4Ti, 20-year lifetime, 40% utilization, and geometric damage-peaking correction, directly setting the minimum 130 MW fusion power. No sensitivity analysis is provided for variations in these inputs (e.g., 30 DPA or 30% utilization), and no experimental benchmarks for the DPA-to-power-density conversion under fusion spectra are cited; this assumption is load-bearing for the entire minimum-size claim and the 'near-term path' assertion.

    Authors: We agree that sensitivity analysis on the key assumptions would improve the robustness of the minimum-size claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection or appendix presenting sensitivity studies varying the DPA limit (30-40), utilization (30-50%), and lifetime, showing the resulting range in minimum fusion power (approximately 100-160 MW). For the DPA-to-power-density conversion, we will cite additional references on vanadium alloy irradiation data under fission and fusion-relevant spectra, noting that the 35 DPA limit is a conservative engineering value from the literature. While direct long-term experimental benchmarks in a true fusion neutron spectrum are not yet available, the methodology aligns with standard practices in fusion reactor design studies. We will also clarify the geometric peaking correction derivation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: FUSE and ASTRA modeling sections: The self-consistent baseline (9.29 T, 9.67 MA) and broader operating window are derived from these codes without any comparison to experimental tokamak data in the high-field low-density regime or uncertainty quantification on transport assumptions. If the predicted performance deviates, both the claimed operating window and the assertion that many challenges between Q>1 and economic operation are alleviated are affected.

    Authors: The high-field low-density operating space is an extrapolation beyond current experimental databases, which is inherent to exploring HTS-enabled designs. FUSE incorporates empirical scalings from existing tokamaks, and we will add explicit comparisons to the ITER98(y,2) scaling law and other high-field projections in the revised text. For ASTRA, we will include a discussion of transport model uncertainties by varying the anomalous transport coefficients within ranges consistent with existing data and showing the impact on the Q and power balance. A new figure will illustrate the operating window with uncertainty bands derived from these variations. This will support the claim that the design alleviates certain challenges while acknowledging the modeling limitations. revision: partial

  3. Referee: UEDGE and OpenMC sections: Detached operation is shown with neon seeding reducing peak heat fluxes below 10 MW/m², and TBR≈1.1 is reported with 30% ⁶Li enrichment, but the specific impurity concentrations, their impact on core performance or TBR, and sensitivity of neutronics results (including the claim that TF magnets correspond to sixteen vacuum-vessel lifetimes) lack quantification or error bars. These are load-bearing for the feasibility and lifetime conclusions.

    Authors: We will enhance the UEDGE section with the specific neon concentration (approximately 1.5% in the scrape-off layer for the detached case) and couple it to ASTRA to quantify any degradation in core confinement or fusion power. For OpenMC neutronics, we will report Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties on TBR (typically ±0.01) and provide sensitivity curves for TBR versus ⁶Li enrichment and shield thickness. The TF magnet lifetime claim will be backed by explicit dpa and fast neutron fluence values, with a note that the sixteen-fold margin is based on the conservative fast-neutron limit for REBCO. Additional text will address potential impacts of impurities on TBR. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The complete experimental validation of integrated modeling in the high-field, low-density regime cannot be provided, as no tokamak has yet operated in this parameter space.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minimum useful fusion power of 130 MW and 0.7 MW/m² density limit follow directly by arithmetic from the 35 DPA, 20 yr, 40% utilization and geometric correction inputs

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "the design is anchored to a materials-limited fusion power density of P_f/S_b=0.7 MW/m², obtained from a 35 DPA structural limit, a 20-year plant lifetime, 40% utilization, and a geometric damage-peaking correction. The resulting device has a V-4Cr-4Ti vacuum-vessel lifetime of 1040 MW·yr, pointing to a minimum useful fusion power of 130 MW and more than 25 MWe net output."

    The 0.7 MW/m² value is defined from the listed assumptions; the 1040 MW·yr is the total fusion energy the vessel can sustain before 35 DPA; dividing by the assumed operating time (20 yr × 0.4) yields exactly 130 MW. The 'minimum useful' power is therefore the arithmetic consequence of the inputs, not an independent result.

full rationale

The paper fixes the central scale (power density and minimum power) by explicit construction from material lifetime assumptions rather than from an independent external benchmark or first-principles derivation. The subsequent modeling (FUSE, ASTRA, UEDGE, OpenMC) is performed on a device whose size and power are already set by those same assumptions, so the claim that this configuration 'offers a near-term path' inherits the definitional scaling. No self-citation chain or renamed known result is present; the circularity is limited to this one load-bearing definitional step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The design rests on standard plasma confinement and materials damage assumptions drawn from prior literature plus the specific numerical limits chosen for lifetime and utilization.

free parameters (2)
  • Fusion power density limit = 0.7 MW/m²
    Set to 0.7 MW/m² based on 35 DPA structural limit, 20-year lifetime, 40% utilization, and geometric damage-peaking correction.
  • Vacuum vessel lifetime = 1040 MW·yr
    Calculated as 1040 MW·yr from the power density and material assumptions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption V-4Cr-4Ti vacuum vessel can operate to 35 DPA before replacement
    Invoked to derive the power density limit and vessel lifetime.
  • domain assumption Standard tokamak transport and divertor physics models in ASTRA and UEDGE apply without major modification
    Used to corroborate operating window and detached operation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1616 out tokens · 113425 ms · 2026-05-08T18:17:08.250712+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

118 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. J. Hawryluk, Results from deuterium– tritium tokamak confinement experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998) 537–587

    1998

  2. [2]

    Keilhacker et al, High fusion performance from deuterium–tritium plasmas in JET, Nucl

    M. Keilhacker et al, High fusion performance from deuterium–tritium plasmas in JET, Nucl. Fusion 39 (1999) 209–234

    1999

  3. [3]

    Abu-Shawareb et al, Achievement of ignition in a laboratory fusion experiment, Phys

    H. Abu-Shawareb et al, Achievement of ignition in a laboratory fusion experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 065102

    2024

  4. [4]

    A. J. Creely et al, Overview of the SPARC toka- mak, J. Plasma Phys. 86 (2020) 865860502

    2020

  5. [5]

    Online ITER overview available from the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference 2001 materials

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Interna- tional Organizations — ITER, 2001. Online ITER overview available from the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference 2001 materials

    2001

  6. [6]

    Whyte, Fusion economics: power den- sity, materials and maintenance, September 12, 2024

    D. Whyte, Fusion economics: power den- sity, materials and maintenance, September 12, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    nuclear generat- ing statistics, accessed April 4, 2026

    Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. nuclear generat- ing statistics, accessed April 4, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, His- tory, Naval Submarine Base New London, not- ing USSNautilusas the world’s first nuclear- powered submarine, accessed April 4, 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Department of Energy, December 23, 1957: Shippingport, Office of History and Her- itage Resources, accessed April 4, 2026

    U.S. Department of Energy, December 23, 1957: Shippingport, Office of History and Her- itage Resources, accessed April 4, 2026

    1957

  10. [10]

    Pettinari, S

    D. Pettinari, S. Meschini, and R. Testoni, As- sessment of structural materials in compact fu- sion reactor design, Front. Nucl. Eng. 4 (2025) 1683702. doi:10.3389/fnuen.2025.1683702

    work page doi:10.3389/fnuen.2025.1683702 2025

  11. [11]

    A. F. Rowcliffe and G. Burn,Fusion Mate- rials Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending December 31, 1998, DOE/ER-0313/25, ORNL/M-6712, Oak Ridge National Labora- tory, April 1999. doi:10.2172/6717

    work page doi:10.2172/6717 1998

  12. [12]

    H. M. Chung, B. A. Loomis, and D. L. Smith, Properties of V–4Cr–4Ti for application as fusion reactor structural components, Fusion Eng. Des. 29 (1995) 455–464. doi:10.1016/0920- 3796(95)80053-Z

    work page doi:10.1016/0920- 1995

  13. [13]

    H. M. Chung, A. P. Tsai, D. L. Smith, L. J. Nowicki, D. L. Rink, and R. V. Strain, Mi- crostructural evolution of V–4Cr–4Ti during neutron irradiation at 390–600 ◦C to 24–34 dpa, U.S./Japan collaborative irradiation stud- ies technical report, ANL/FPP/TM-286, 1995. doi:10.2172/415186

    work page doi:10.2172/415186 1995

  14. [14]

    D. P. Butt, X. Hu, C. H. Skinner, T. Muroga, T. Nagasaka, N. Baluc, and R. L¨ asser, Research and development on vana- dium alloys for fusion breeder blanket appli- cation, Fusion Eng. Des. 210 (2025) 114739. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2024.114739

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2024.114739 2025

  15. [15]

    A. C. Rolfe, P. Brown, P. Carteret al., A re- port on the first remote handling operations at JET, Fusion Eng. Des. 46 (1999) 299–306. doi:10.1016/S0920-3796(99)00022-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0920-3796(99)00022-8 1999

  16. [16]

    Blanchard, J

    W. Blanchard, J. Bartlit, R. Bellet al., Tritium processing and management during D–T exper- iments on TFTR, OSTI record 41436, 1995

    1995

  17. [17]

    Wenninger et al, The physics and technology basis entering European system code studies for DEMO, Nucl

    R. Wenninger et al, The physics and technology basis entering European system code studies for DEMO, Nucl. Fusion 57 (2017) 016011

    2017

  18. [18]

    Kuang et al (2018), Fus

    A.Q. Kuang et al (2018), Fus. Eng. and Design, 137, p. 221-242

    2018

  19. [19]

    Stambaugh, L

    R. Stambaugh, L. Lao, and E. Lazarus, Re- lation of vertical stability and aspect ratio in tokamaks, Nucl. Fusion 32 (9) (1992) 1642

    1992

  20. [20]

    Plank, R

    U. Plank, R. M. McDermott, G. Birkenmeier, N. Bonanomi, M. Cavedon, G. D. Conway, T. Eich, M. Griener, O. Grover, P. A. Schneider, M. Willensdorfer, et al., Overview of L- to H- mode transition experiments at ASDEX Up- grade, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 (2023) 014001. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aca35b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aca35b 2023

  21. [21]

    Hansen, I

    C. Hansen, I. G. Stewart, D. Burgess, M. Pharr, S. Guizzo, F. Logak, A. O. Nelson, and C. Paz-Soldan, TokaMaker: An open-source time- dependent Grad-Shafranov tool for the design and modeling of axisymmetric fusion devices, Comput. Phys. Commun. 298 (2024) 109111. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111 2024

  22. [22]

    Leuthold, N

    N. Leuthold, N. C. Logan, D. A. Burgess, A. O. Nelson, S. Benjamin, C. Hansen, A. Kumar, C. F. B. Zimmermann, F. Carpanese, A. J. Creely, J. C. Hillesheim, M. Muraca, and C. Paz-Soldan, ARC physics basis– 69 magnetohydrodynamics, J. Plasma Phys. 92 (2026) E49. doi:10.1017/S0022377826101421

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377826101421 2026

  23. [23]

    Guizzo, M

    S. Guizzo, M. A. Drabinskiy, C. Hansen, A. G. Kachkin, E. N. Khairutdinov, A. O. Nelson, M. R. Nurgaliev, M. Pharr, G. F. Subbotin, and C. Paz-Soldan, Electromagnetic system conceptual design for a negative triangularity tokamak, Fusion Eng. Des. 219 (2025) 115257. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2025.115257

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2025.115257 2025

  24. [24]

    D. A. Humphreys, T. A. Casper, N. Eidietis, M. Ferrara, D. A. Gates, I. H. Hutchinson, G. L. Jackson, E. Kolemen, J. A. Leuer, J. Lister, L. L. LoDestro, W. H. Meyer, L. D. Pearlstein, A. Portone, F. Sartori, M. L. Walker, A. S. We- lander, and S. M. Wolfe, Experimental vertical stability studies for ITER performance and de- sign guidance, Nucl. Fusion 49...

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/49/11/115003 2009

  25. [25]

    A. O. Nelson, A. Hyatt, W. Wehner, A. We- lander, C. Paz-Soldan, T. Osborne, H. Anand, and K. E. Thome, Vertical control of DIII-D discharges with strong negative triangularity, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 (2023) 044002. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/acbe65

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/acbe65 2023

  26. [26]

    Guizzo, A

    S. Guizzo, A. O. Nelson, C. Hansen, F. Lo- gak, and C. Paz-Soldan, Assessment of vertical stability for negative triangularity pilot plants, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 66 (2024) 065018. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad4175

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad4175 2024

  27. [28]

    Neiser, O

    T. Neiser, O. Meneghini, T. Slendebroek, S. Smith, J. McClenaghan, A. Ghiozzi, B. Patel, A. Nelson, G. Avdeeva, C. Roach, et al., Large database validation of TGLF on DIII-D and MAST-U plasmas, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. (2024)

    2024

  28. [29]

    Pereverzev and P

    G. Pereverzev and P. N. Yushmanov (2002), ASTRA Automated System for TRansport Analysis in a Tokamak, MPI for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany, https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_ 2138238/component/file_2138237/content

    2002

  29. [30]

    Fableet al.(2013), Novel free-boundary equilibrium and transport solver with theory- based models and its validation against ASDEX Upgrade current ramp scenarios, Plasma Phys

    E. Fableet al.(2013), Novel free-boundary equilibrium and transport solver with theory- based models and its validation against ASDEX Upgrade current ramp scenarios, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 55(12) 124028,https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124028

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124028 2013

  30. [31]

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey and R. E. Waltz (2007), A theory-based transport model with comprehensive physics, Physics of Plasmas 14(5) 055909,https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 2436852

    work page doi:10.1063/1 2007

  31. [32]

    T. Eich, T. Body, M. Faitsch, O. Grover, M. A. Miller, P. Manz, T. Looby, A. Q. Kuang, A. Redl, M. Reinke, A. J. Creely, D. Battaglia, J. Hillesheim, M. Wigram, J. W. Hughes, and the ASDEX Upgrade Team, The separatrix oper- ational space of next-step fusion experiments: From ASDEX Upgrade data to SPARC sce- narios, Nucl. Mater. Energy 42 (2025) 101896. do...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2025.101896 2025

  32. [33]

    T. Eich, P. Manz, and the ASDEX Upgrade Team, The separatrix operational space of AS- DEX Upgrade due to interchange-drift-Alfv´ en turbulence, Nucl. Fusion 61 (2021) 086017. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac0412

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac0412 2021

  33. [34]

    Faitsch, T

    M. Faitsch, T. Eich, G. F. Harrer, E. Wolfrum, D. Brida, P. David, M. Dunne, L. Gil, B. Labit, U. Stroth, the EUROfusion MST1 Team, and the ASDEX Upgrade Team, Analysis and ex- pansion of the quasi-continuous exhaust (QCE) regime in ASDEX Upgrade, Nucl. Fusion 63 (2023) 076013. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/acd464

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/acd464 2023

  34. [35]

    G. F. Harrer, M. Faitsch, L. Radovanovic, E. Wolfrum, C. Albert, A. Cathey, M. Cave- don, M. Dunne, T. Eich, R. Fischer, M. Griener, M. Hoelzl, B. Labit, H. Meyer, F. Aumayr, the ASDEX Upgrade Team, and the EUROfusion MST1 Team, Quasicontin- uous exhaust scenario for a fusion reac- tor: The renaissance of small edge localized modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.165001 2022

  35. [36]

    FUSE (Fusion Synthesis Engine): A next generation framework for integrated design of fusion pilot plants

    O. Meneghini, J. Citrin, M. Boyer, M. Casanova, A. Correa, A. D. Pace, C. D. Challis, 70 S. E. Ferry, A. Janzer, A. M. Jokisaari, G. Man- duchi, T. M. Rognlien, D. T. Farina, N. den Harder, S. H. Hahn, M. Jaeger, F. Imbeaux, D. Kalupin, S. K. Kim, S. Kwon, P. M. Meng, G. Raupp, J. S. Son, R. T. Sbarbaro, J. V. O’Connor, J. L. Varela, F. A. Volpe, M. Wilso...

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [37]

    D. N. Smithe, Finite Larmor radius effects in ion cyclotron resonance heating of inhomo- geneous plasmas, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 1987

    1987

  37. [38]

    Migliore, M

    C. Migliore, M. Usoltseva, and J. Wright, Simu- lations of ICRF heating for SPARC during first campaign and primary reference-like discharge using the Stix code, EPJ Web Conf. 346 (2026) 02011. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202634602011

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202634602011 2026

  38. [39]

    D. N. Smithe, Novel ICRH coupler configura- tion for high-field tokamak, 25th Topical Con- ference on Radio Frequency Power in Plasmas, Hohenkammer, Germany, 2025

    2025

  39. [40]

    Moriyama, Y

    S. Moriyama, Y. Ogawa, T. Fujii, K. Anno, S. Shinozaki, M. Terakado, H. Kimura, M. Sai- gusa, T. Nagashima, M. Ohta, D. B. Rem- sen, C. Marshall Loring, S. G. McNees, K. Oi- hara, and T. Yamane, The results of X2242 and X2274 high power tetrodes with the JT- 60 ICRF amplifier in a frequency range of 110– 130 MHz, Fusion Eng. Des. 18 (1992) 237–243. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1016/0920-3796(92)90062-9 1992

  40. [41]

    A. D. Maris, A. Wang, C. Rea, R. Granetz, and E. Marmar, The impact of disrup- tions on the economics of a tokamak power plant, Fusion Sci. Technol. 80 (2024) 636–652. doi:10.1080/15361055.2023.2229675

    work page doi:10.1080/15361055.2023.2229675 2024

  41. [42]

    A. M. Wang, C. Rea, O. So, C. Dawson, D. T. Garnier, and C. Fan, Active ramp-down control and trajectory design for tokamaks with neural differential equations and reinforce- ment learning, Commun. Phys. 8 (2025) 231. doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02146-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02146-6 2025

  42. [43]

    N. W. Eidietis, S. P. Gerhardt, R. S. Granetz, Y. Kawano, M. Lehnen, J. B. Lister, G. Pau- tasso, V. Riccardo, R. L. Tanna, A. J. Thorn- ton, and the ITPA Disruption Database Par- ticipants, The ITPA disruption database, Nucl. Fusion 55 (2015) 063030. doi:10.1088/0029- 5515/55/6/063030

    work page doi:10.1088/0029- 2015

  43. [44]

    Eich et al 2020 Nucl

    T. Eich et al 2020 Nucl. Fusion 60 056016

    2020

  44. [45]

    Brunner et al 2018 Nucl

    D. Brunner et al 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 094002

    2018

  45. [46]

    Sorbom, A

    B. Sorbom, A. Q. Creely, and C. Tse, Recent developments in the design of ARC, 62nd An- nual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics (2020)

    2020

  46. [47]

    R. A. Pitts, X. Bonnin, P. Escourbiac, H. Frerichs, J. Gunn, T. Hirai, A. Kukushkin, S. Lisgo, M. Loarte, M. Merola, A. S. Naik, R. Neu, T. Eich, W. Fundamenski, A. Loarte, D. Mou, B. Sieglin, and D. Reiter, Physics basis for the first ITER tungsten diver- tor, Nucl. Mater. Energy 20 (2019) 100696. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2019.100696

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2019.100696 2019

  47. [50]

    J. Li, J. Li, H. Liu, J. Qian, X. Huang, T. Luo, Q. Wang, G. Chen, P. Hu, Y. Lu, and S. Zhang, Optimization design for plasma configuration at the CFETR, Fusion Eng. Des. 152 (2020) 111447. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.111447

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.111447 2020

  48. [52]

    Rognlien et al, J

    T.D. Rognlien et al, J. Nucl. Mater., v. 196-198, 71 p. 347, 1992

    1992

  49. [53]

    Hulse, Nuclear Technology - Fusion 1983,3,259-272

    R.A. Hulse, Nuclear Technology - Fusion 1983,3,259-272

    1983

  50. [54]

    Post, Journal of Nuclear Materials 1995,220-222,143-157

    D.E. Post, Journal of Nuclear Materials 1995,220-222,143-157

    1995

  51. [55]

    Wang et al., Nucl

    H.Q. Wang et al., Nucl. Mater. Energy, v. 33, 2022, 101301

    2022

  52. [56]

    Hydrogenic fast-ion diagnostic using Balmer-alpha light

    A. Kallenbach, Impurity seeding for toka- mak power exhaust: from present devices via ITER to DEMO, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 55 (2013) 124041. doi:10.1088/0741- 3335/55/12/124041

    work page doi:10.1088/0741- 2013

  53. [57]

    Wigram et al 2019 Nucl

    M.R.K. Wigram et al 2019 Nucl. Fusion 59 106052

    2019

  54. [58]

    J. D. Lore et al 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 126054

    2024

  55. [59]

    Gong et al 2024 Nucl

    X. Gong et al 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 112013

    2024

  56. [60]

    ITER Organization, IIS PFC design note, educational materials PDF available from the ITER public materials repository, accessed April 2026.https://www.iter.org/sites/ default/files/education/%5B4-3%5D1901% 20IIS%20PFC%20Ezato.pdf

    2026

  57. [61]

    Tsuchida, T

    K. Tsuchida, T. Miyazawa, A. Hasegawa, S. Nogami, and M. Fukuda, Recrystallization be- havior of hot-rolled pure tungsten and its alloy plates during high-temperature anneal- ing, Nucl. Mater. Energy 15 (2018) 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2018.04.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2018.04.004 2018

  58. [62]

    Robinson Research Institute, Victoria Univer- sity of Wellington, HTS tape database at 20 K, including the Faraday Factory and Shang- hai Superconductor angle-dependence datasets used in this work; local dataset archive accessed April 2026

    2026

  59. [63]

    Bocci et al (2020), Fus

    M. Bocci et al (2020), Fus. Eng. and Design, 154, 111529

    2020

  60. [64]

    Muroga et al (2002), J

    T. Muroga et al (2002), J. Nucl. Mater., 307– 311, p. 547–554

    2002

  61. [65]

    H. E. McCoy, Status of Materials Develop- ment for Molten Salt Reactors, Oak Ridge National Laboratory technical memorandum ORNL/TM-5920 (1978), summarizing the de- velopment and qualification of Hastelloy N for fluoride-salt service in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, including the rationale for limiting Cr content to suppress selective Cr leaching by...

    1978

  62. [66]

    J. W. Fletcher, E. E. Peterson, J. R. Trelewicz, and L. L. Snead, Design and performance of metal hydride composite neutron shields for compact, high-power fusion reactors, Fu- sion Sci. Technol. 82 (4) (2025) 901–916. doi:10.1080/15361055.2025.2514910

    work page doi:10.1080/15361055.2025.2514910 2025

  63. [67]

    MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, PSFC report 20JA056 (2020), MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center report library

    2020

  64. [68]

    P. J. Rutkowski, D. Whyte, and M. Short, Chrysopoeia and its implications for fu- sion energy, arXiv:2507.13461 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.13461

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13461 2025

  65. [69]

    Bocci, Z

    B. Bocci, Z. S. Hartwig, S. Segantin, R. Testoni, D. Whyte, and M. Zucchetti, ARC reactor materials: Activation analysis and optimiza- tion, Fusion Eng. Des. 154 (2020) 111539. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.111539

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.111539 2020

  66. [70]

    ICRP 40(2–5)

    ICRP (2010), Conversion Coefficients for Radi- ological Protection Quantities for External Ra- diation Exposures, ICRP Publication 116, Ann. ICRP 40(2–5)

    2010

  67. [71]

    3, IAEA, Vienna (2002)

    International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Safeguards Glossary, 2001 Edition, Interna- tional Nuclear Verification Series No. 3, IAEA, Vienna (2002)

    2001

  68. [72]

    L. E. McNeese and L. M. Ferris, Molten- Salt Breeder Reactor Fuel Processing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory technical memoran- dum, describing the salt–bismuth reductive- extraction flowsheet and fluoride-volatility ura- nium recovery developed for the MSBR pro- gram. OSTI 4628558

  69. [73]

    D. D. Sood and S. K. Patil, Chemistry of nu- clear fuel reprocessing: Current status, J. Ra- dioanal. Nucl. Chem. 203 (1996) 547–573, re- viewing fluoride-volatility separation of ura- nium and the difficulty of plutonium recovery via PuF6 disproportionation

    1996

  70. [74]

    Activation of FLiBe coolant in the molten salt reactor, Annals of Nuclear Energy 132 (2019), quantifying short-lived 20F, 16N, 19O activation 72 and tritium / 14C buildup in operational FLiBe

    2019

  71. [75]

    The MANTA Collaboration, MANTA: a negative-triangularity NASEM-compliant fu- sion pilot plant, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 66 (2024) 105006. doi:10.1088/1361- 6587/ad6708

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2024

  72. [76]

    Tesla, Order Megapack, Tesla product config- uration page, listing current Megapack prod- uct details including 3.854 MWh (2-hour) and 3.916 MWh (4-hour) per unit, accessed April 9, 2026, available from the Tesla Megapack design page

    2026

  73. [77]

    Forsberg et al (2020), Nuclear Technology, 206:11, 1778-1801

    C. Forsberg et al (2020), Nuclear Technology, 206:11, 1778-1801

    2020

  74. [78]

    Nishimura, A

    H. Nishimura, A. Suzuki, M. Enoeda, Y. Naruse, S. Tanaka, and A. Sagara, Chemical behavior of Li2BeF4 molten salt as a liquid tri- tium breeder, Fus. Eng. Des. 61–62 (2002) 783– 788

    2002

  75. [79]

    G. J. Janz, C. B. Allen, N. P. Bansal, R. M. Murphy, and R. P. T. Tomkins, Physical Properties Data Compilations Relevant to En- ergy Storage. II. Molten Salts: Data on Single and Multi-Component Salt Systems, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 17, Sup- plement 2 (1988), Table 2.3.a

    1988

  76. [80]

    NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Labora- tory, Ocean Climate Stations sensor specifica- tions, conductivity range for seawater salinity measurements, accessed April 6, 2026

    2026

  77. [81]

    Segantin et al (2020), Fus

    S. Segantin et al (2020), Fus. Eng. and Design, 155, 111645

    2020

  78. [82]

    Y. Ma, S. Gowda, R. Anantharaman et al., ModelingToolkit: A composable graph trans- formation system for equation-based modeling, arXiv:2103.05244, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  79. [83]

    P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard (eds.), NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69, Carbon dioxide thermophysical properties, National Institute of Standards and Technology, critical temper- ature 304.13 K and critical pressure 7.38 MPa, accessed April 7, 2026

    2026

  80. [84]

    Dostal, M

    V. Dostal, M. J. Driscoll, and P. Hejzlar, A su- percritical carbon dioxide cycle for next genera- tion nuclear reactors, MIT-ANP-TR-100, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004

    2004

Showing first 80 references.