PULSED POWER AT SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES the first forty years

Anne Van Arsdall

WHAT IS PULSED POWER . . .

In the early days, this technology was often called ‘pulse power’ instead of pulsed
power. In a pulsed power machine, low-power electrical energy from a wall plug is
stored in a bank of capacitors and leaves them as a compressed pulse of power. The
duration of the pulse is increasingly shortened until it is only billionths of a second
long. With each shortening of the pulse, the power increases. The final result is a
very short pulse with enormous power, whose energy can be released in several ways.
The original intent of this technology was to use the pulse to simulate the bursts of
radiation from exploding nuclear weapons.

Anne Van Arsdall

Pulsed Power Timeline (over)

Anne Van Arsdall

SAND2007-2984P
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jeff Quintenz initiated this history project while serving as director of the Pulsed
Power Sciences Center. Keith Matzen, who took over the Center in 2005, continued
funding and support for the project.
The author is grateful to the following people for their assistance with this history:
Staff in the Sandia Archives and History Program, in particular Myra O’Canna,
Rebecca Ullrich, and Laura Martinez. Also Ramona Abeyta, Shirley Aleman, Anna
Nusbaum, Michael Ann Sullivan, and Peggy Warner.
For her careful review of technical content and helpful suggestions: Mary Ann
Sweeney.
For their insightful reviews and comments: Everet Beckner, Don Cook, Mike Cuneo,
Tom Martin, Al Narath, Ken Prestwich, Jeff Quintenz, Marshall Sluyter, Ian Smith,
Pace VanDevender, and Gerry Yonas.
For their assistance with and comments on content: Malcolm Buttram, Jim Lee, Ray
Leeper, Keith Matzen, Tom Mehlhorn, Tom Sanford, and Charles Shirley.
Scientists and engineers for information provided: Ray Clark, Ellis Dawson,
Steve Downie, Mike Desjarlais, Mark Kiefer, Dan Jobe, David L. Johnson,
Barbara Lewis, John Maenchen, Dillon McDaniel, Cliff Mendel, Craig Olson,
Charlie Robinson, Johann Seamen, Dave Seidel, Steve Shope, and A.W. Snyder.
iv
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE 1960-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Technical Sidebars
Atomic Energy Commission to National Nuclear Security Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Weapons Effects Simulation and Radiation Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Cable Pulser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pulsed Power Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Spastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hermes I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15
REBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hydra and SLIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21
Lasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CHAPTER TWO 1970-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Technical Sidebars
Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Beckner, Yonas, Narath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Wire-On-Axis Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Early Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-41
Proto I and Proto II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-43
Countdown to EBFA/PBFA I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Particle Beam Weapons Make Headlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Magnetically Self-Insulated Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

 EBFA-PBFA: Electron Beams vs. Ion Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-55
PBFA II Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
CHAPTER THREE 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 .
Technical Sidebars
Recollections of the First Shot on PBFA I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
PBFA I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66-67
Major Strategic Defense Initiative Work at Sandia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-76
A 1984 Perspective of the Strategic Defense Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
PBFA II: Technical Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80-83
PBFA II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84-85
Later Computer Codes for Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86-88
On the Scene at PBFA II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Saturn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94-95
Hermes III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-97
New Record on PBFA II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Prestwich and Martin Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
CHAPTER FOUR from 1990 to ZR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Technical Sidebars
The Proposed Microfusion Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108-110
Fusion Concepts: direct and indirect drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
International Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-113
The Fusion Policy Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
PBFA II Target Experiments, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
The National Ignition Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120-121
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122-123
Sculpture Honors Pulsed Power Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Z Pinch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Sandia’s 1995 Breakthrough with Z Pinches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128-129
Final Results of Sandia’s Ion Beam Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-133
Highlights from Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-135
VanDevender, Yonas Pulsed Power Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140-141
ZR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142-143
Z-Beamlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-146
vi
vi
INTRODUCTION
Pulsed power accelerators store electrical energy, compress it in time and space,
and deliver it to a target as strong, short, fast-rising pulses of power. How the energy
is delivered determines the type of radiation, or the beam, that will be produced.
Sandia needed such capability beginning in the 1960s for one of its traditional
responsibilities, weapons effects simulations. The military was building new kinds
of electronics into warheads, and the United States needed to test their vulnerability
to radiation from an enemy’s nuclear weapons. The accelerators could simulate the
effects of those weapons and harden US warheads against them.
Chapter one of this history outlines the early years of pulsed power at Sandia, the
1960s and early 1970s, when collaborations with the Atomic Weapons Research
Establishment in the United Kingdom resulted in Sandia’s building relatively small
machines capable of simulating gamma rays and then x rays. At the same time, the
Department of Defense was building competing accelerators for the same purpose,
some of them attempting to create controlled fusion events in the laboratory in
classified experiments. (Uncontrolled fusion reactions are used as the secondaries
in nuclear weapons.) In parallel with accelerator development, the newly invented
laser was being established as an important technology for many of the same
applications as accelerators at Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia
laboratories, and at the Naval Research Laboratory.
vii
 During the 1960s, Sandia established a basic research program to support its
traditional engineering design work. Al Narath and Everet Beckner, two new staff
members who rose quickly into higher management, spearheaded this effort, and
out of this program came the push to get Sandia into the inertial confinement
nuclear fusion arena. Nuclear fusion was at the time dominated by Livermore and
Los Alamos, using lasers as drivers. Realizing that pulsed power accelerators might
be suited to fusion research, Narath and Beckner saw a fusion program as one way
to attract new talent to Sandia. In addition, fusion research would help bolster
Sandia’s role in national defense and other areas and also had the potential for
development as a source of energy, which greatly added to its appeal.*
Chapter two covers roughly the decade of the 1970s. In the early years of that
decade, Narath and Beckner hired Gerry Yonas into Sandia because of his expertise
at Physics International with large accelerators and fusion work. Very soon after
coming to Sandia, Yonas began to champion Sandia’s accelerators as potential
drivers for inertial confinement fusion to the Department of Energy and Congress.
Because lasers were seen as the frontrunner technology for fusion, the proposal
to consider accelerators for the same purpose was viewed with some skepticism.
Indeed, Livermore and Los Alamos did not welcome what they considered a dark-
horse contender in the fusion arena. Pulsed power accelerators and their particle
beams did not seem to them well suited to this work because the beams were
difficult to focus to a small area. (Tight focusing, which lasers do easily, is crucial to
compressing and heating the fusion pellet.) Moreover, Sandia would be competing
for funding in an area the other laboratories had dominated.
Chapter two also relates how various test beds and increasingly powerful accelerators
were developed in the pulsed power area for weapons effects simulations, as the
inertial confinement fusion program grew. It was during this time that Sandia
changed its approach from using electron beams to light ions for fusion. Reflecting
the increasing complexity of fusion and weapons effects studies, the new field of
computers and computer codes began to aid understanding and predictions.
Chapter three covers the 1980s and the beginning of Sandia’s large complex
accelerators designed specifically to ignite an inertial confinement fusion reaction.
Teams of experts were brought together for this effort, which requires interdependent
elements to make fusion work. The elements include designing the machines (such
as PBFA I and PBFA II) and diodes to create particle beams or other mechanisms for
delivering power onto a target, fabricating fusion pellets inside specially designed

* Inertial confinement fusion requires an enormous pulse of power focused for a few nanoseconds
on a target the size of a BB. In less than the blink of an eye, the burst of power implodes a specially
designed target, compresses the material in it, and heats it to temperatures near those at the center of
the sun. In theory, this action will ignite a fusion reaction in the material. Pulsed power accelerators
and lasers are used as ‘drivers,’ the machines that provide the power to drive the fusion reaction.

viii
targets, implementing detailed diagnostics for experiments, and creating computer
codes to understand and then predict what the diagnostics revealed.
In 1984, Pace VanDevender took leadership of what had grown into a Pulsed Power
Program. Yonas left to become chief scientist in the national Strategic Defense
Initiative (Star Wars), and, in fact, Sandia was assessing the use of pulsed power
capabilities as beam weapons. As earlier, Sandia’s particle beams were competing
with the lasers at Livermore and Los Alamos in the areas of fusion and beam
weapons. Chapter three outlines how simulation of weapons effects continued to
be a mainstay of the Pulsed Power Program and subsequently began to vie with
fusion in importance. At the national level, defense requirements necessitated a
facility capable of high-yield fusion that could deliver levels of energy beyond simple
ignition, and plans were formulated around even more powerful lasers and/or
accelerators as drivers. Meanwhile, controlled fusion ignition continued to be
assessed by computer calculations, but eluded laboratory experimenters everywhere.
Sandia’s main approach during this period was to use lithium ion beams as the
driver for fusion.
The final chapter in this history, chapter four, spans the 1990s and the early years
of the twenty-first century. Using PBFA II, Sandia tried a variety of techniques to get
its light-ion beams to deliver the power on target needed to prove this technology
was capable of igniting a fusion reaction in a pellet. The caveat was that even if the
technique were shown to be successful, a bigger machine would actually be required
to deliver enough power to ignite fusion in a pellet. VanDevender led the program
through this time, which involved a number of focused national reviews, and in 1993
turned the reins over to Don Cook, who had been the program manager under him.
As difficulties with the ion-beam approach were slowly being overcome, another
long-time candidate for fusion, called the z pinch, scored unexpected successes on
Saturn, one of Sandia’s large accelerators (formerly PBFA I). Z-pinch technology—
used in the target area to produce non-thermal x rays for testing nuclear weapons
effects and for x-ray laser experiments—had been in the weapons programs for
many years (harking back to the 1960s). It had been sidelined at Sandia in favor of
ion beams because particle beams were considered at the time more suited for use in
a fusion power plant. The upshot was that PBFA II was reconfigured for z pinches in
1996 and light-ion-beam work for fusion ceased. The new accelerator was renamed
Z to emphasize the commitment to z-pinch research, and with Z, Sandia achieved
an impressive series of scientific breakthroughs.
Cook left the Pulsed Power Program in 1999 to head up the new Microsystems
and Engineering Science Applications (MESA) program. Succeeding him was
Jeff Quintenz, a theorist who had been with pulsed power since coming to Sandia
in 1975. A major event under Quintenz was obtaining approval and funding to
refurbish and upgrade Z into the more powerful ZR. In 2004, soon after the funding
for ZR was approved, Quintenz accepted a position outside pulsed power, and in

ix
 January 2005 Keith Matzen took over the Pulsed Power Sciences Center. Matzen, a
high-energy-density physicist, had been Quintenz’s deputy and had long been a key
player in the z-pinch program.
The spectacular Z, which prompted a story in Esquire in 1999, has continued to be
a major tool in Sandia weapons effects, weapons physics, and fusion technologies
(now more often called high-energy-density physics than fusion). Z and other
capabilities in the pulsed power area are major contributors to Sandia’s traditional
mission of verifying the safety and reliability of the nation’s stockpile of nuclear
weapons. In addition, Z contributes to the development of the National Ignition
Facility, just as the refurbished Z will when succeeding Z.1
Although the research on Z has been the most visible and best-known part of pulsed
power work at Sandia, other long-term capabilities continue to be strong. These
capabilities include directed energy technologies and repetitive-rate high-energy
pulsed power, and, harking to its beginning, weapons effects simulations and
radiography. Because the emphasis in pulsed power at Sandia has been on building
and operating accelerators, this history only briefly touches on theoretical and
computational aspects, particularly before the late 1970s.
While reading this history, it must be kept in mind that the majority of activities
at the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration weapons
laboratories, such as Sandia, are government-funded. Proposals for new projects,
requests for funds for ongoing projects, and project reviews to determine funding
levels are part of life in the nuclear weapons complex. Without approval far in
advance, very large projects, such as Sandia’s accelerators PBFA I (Saturn),
PBFA II (Z) and the Z-Machine Refurbishment (ZR), would not be possible. Even
with projects planned and often funded months or years ahead, shifting national
priorities and unforeseen budget constraints quite often enter into play and are
reflected in reductions, less often increases, in the amount of funding certain projects
receive. For this reason, an ongoing thread of discussion in the history is funding.
In this work, ‘fusion’ refers to inertial confinement fusion, meaning a controlled
microfusion event in the laboratory involving a driver (such as a particle accelerator
or a laser) and a fusion target. Where magnetic confinement fusion is meant,
it is so named. The goal of both techniques is the same—to compress and heat
a plasma to a temperature that will spark a fusion reaction within it. Magnetic
confinement fusion is the technology being pursued in the international fusion
energy effort named ITER. Inertial confinement fusion, on the other hand, has
been sought primarily for weapons effects simulations, weapons physics, and other
scientific reasons, and secondarily as a source of energy production.
This history is drawn from written archives and from the memories of many who
contributed to pulsed power at Sandia.2 The historic illustrations, schematics, and
photos come directly from archival materials and were intentionally left unchanged.


 endnotes
1 The National Ignition Facility, currently a $3.6+ billion effort at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, will use multiple lasers to try to ignite fusion in a pellet. It received
initial funding in 1992 and is scheduled to begin operation in 2009 (originally 2001).
It is considered the centerpiece in the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Administration’s inertial confinement fusion program, largely on the basis of the maturity of
laser technology.
2 Sandia’s History Program in the Recorded Management Division at the Laboratories
maintains an extensive archive of materials on Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program dating to the
earliest days. Tom Martin, Ken Prestwich, Ray Clark, Don Cook, and Steve Shope provided
much material for the archives, and the Pulsed Power Sciences Center contributed a great
deal of archival material as well. Inventories of each collection are available at the archives.
Sandia also has a complete set of the Sandia Lab News, the weekly company newspaper
that began publication in November 1948 as the Sandia Lab Bulletin and continues today,
appearing twice a month. The Lab News has a wealth of information on Sandia staff and
technologies.

xi
 the ’60s

Cable Pulser

CHAPTER ONE
the ’60s

By the end of 1953, the United States had a capability no other nation had: both
fission and fusion devices in its stockpile of atomic weapons. Live field tests of
nuclear weapons were being conducted, with each test heavily instrumented to
capture minute details of the event. In the aftermath of each test, data were studied
to improve the device, maximize yield, and more fully understand the underlying
physics of the weapons.
Allies of the United States, notably Great Britain, were also making advances in
nuclear weapons development at this time, but so was the Soviet Union.1 The arms
race with Russia escalated steadily during the 1950s, highlighted by the first Soviet
fusion device being tested in 1955, closely followed by the launch of Sputnik I two
years later. Although Sputnik was not a weapon but a satellite that orbited the Earth,
its daily orbits and electronic signals were a constant reminder that US arms might
not be supreme. With Sputnik II in the skies in November 1957 and the successful
launch of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile that same year, the Cold War
and the space race between the United States and Russia gained momentum.


 From the Atomic 1946
August 1. The Atomic Energy Commission is created out of the war-
Energy Commission time Manhattan Engineering District, and control of the nation’s atomic
energy program is transferred from military to civilian authority by an
to the Department executive order signed on December 31.
Its counterpart in the Department of Defense for training in nuclear
of Energy/National weapons operations is the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project from
1947-1959, followed by the Defense Atomic Support Agency from 1959-
Nuclear Security 1971, and the Defense Nuclear Agency from 1971-1996.
1974
Administration The Atomic Energy Commission is abolished and the Energy Research
and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission take over its functions.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumes responsibility for commer-
cial reactor safety (and for Sandia’s reactor safety assessments as well).
The ERDA maintains responsibility for nuclear weapons and energy re-
search. In addition, ERDA is given oversight of fossil fuel research (it had
been in the Department of the Interior), solar and geothermal research
(formerly in the National Science Foundation), and automotive propul-
sion research (which had been in the Environmental Protection Agency).
The ERDA and the Department of Defense have shared and joint respon-
sibilities for the US nuclear weapons programs, overseen by the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy.
1977
August. The Department of Energy is created as a cabinet-level entity,
with responsibilities identical to those of the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, but now headed by a Department Secretary reporting to the Presi-
dent.
The Department of Energy and Department of Defense continue shared
and joint responsibilities for US nuclear weapons programs, overseen by
the House and Senate Armed Services Committee.
2000
From AEC to DOE/NNSA

The National Nuclear Security Administration is created as part of the

Department of Energy, to be run by the Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administra-
tion. The administration oversees sites within the Department of Energy
complex, including portions of the national laboratories. Its mission is
to carry out the national security responsibilities of the Department of
Energy, including maintenance of a safe, secure, and reliable stockpile of
nuclear weapons and associated materials capabilities and technologies;
promotion of international nuclear safety and nonproliferation; and ad-
ministration and management of the naval nuclear propulsion program.
In the Department of Defense, the Defense Nuclear Agency becomes the
Defense Special Weapons Agency from 1996 to 1998, when the On-Site
Inspection Agency, the Defense Technology Security Administration, and
selected other elements of the department are combined to form the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency.


 the ’60s
This tense environment generated new responsibilities for the weapons laboratories
in the United States during the 1950s. Realizing the Soviet Union had missile
capability, possibly rivaling that of the United States, there were concerns about
the effects of radiation from an enemy’s exploding atomic weapons on US military
equipment. New electronic systems were being deployed in US weapons control
systems, and Sandia needed to test their vulnerability to radiation, especially to
gamma rays. As vacuum tubes gave way to semiconductors, Sandia was responsible
for hardening all the arming, fusing, and other systems it was developing against
radiation from a nuclear explosion. (Please see following sidebar on Weapons
Simulation and Radiation Effects Studies.) Sandia artist’s concept from the 1960s.
In 1957, basic research responsibilities were added to Sandia’s Systems Research
organization to probe the complex subatomic world behind radiation effects.
This research laid the foundation for what would become the fledgling Pulsed
Power Program within less than a decade. Established in 1952, Systems Research
initially had the goal of promoting specialization in the areas of engineering
associated with ordnance development. To begin the basic research effort, a high-
voltage Van de Graaff accelerator was installed in Area I, and a Sandia Lab
News story of March 22, 1957, said the accelerator would “establish the scientific
basis for understanding and interpreting the effects of radiation environments.”
The Van de Graaff could accelerate single types of particles at selected intensities,
allowing their effects on materials to be studied individually. The high-energy
particles could also be used to produce x rays or neutrons.
Global concerns about radioactive fallout from international weapons testing
prompted an agreement between the United States and Soviet Union suspending
nuclear tests and prompting investigations into laboratory simulations to replace
them. The moratorium on testing lasted from October 1958 to August 1961 and,
for a time, put a brake on weapons design; however, weapons effects simulation
studies in the laboratory continued unabated. In fact, such simulations had always
been attractive since live tests were expensive and therefore limited in number.
Great interest was sparked at this time in the United States in building a variety of
machines to emulate a variety of weapons effects, and Sandia began building
and/or acquiring new facilities to respond to this need.
In March 1961, as a companion piece to the Van de Graaff at Sandia, a newly
acquired Cockcroft-Walton accelerator began creating positively charged ions and
ion beams for various experiments and studies. A junior-size Cockcroft-Walton,
the Microbevatron, joined the Systems Research organization in October 1961 to
produce low-current electron and ion beams for this basic research. X rays and
neutrons could be generated with these accelerators but at very low dose and dose
rate levels and over very small volumes compared to the levels desired for the
military’s weapons effects studies. Planned since 1957, the Sandia Engineering

1
 Early Weapons Effects Simulation and Radiation Effects Studies
To help explain the need for machines ca- Weapons scientists and engineers began to
pable of weapons effects simulations in the realize in the 1950s that this effect was much
1960s and 70s, a simplified outline follows of more serious than they had realized, prob-
aspects of a nuclear explosion that were of ably being responsible for multiple equipment
particular concern: gamma rays, x rays, and malfunctions. They ascertained that intense
neutrons. electric and magnetic fields from nuclear explo-
Gamma rays originate in the nuclei of atoms sions affected electrical and electronic equip-
and are high-energy electromagnetic waves ment at great distances and over a wide area.
similar to x rays but with a shorter wave length In addition, they learned that gamma rays and
and higher energy. They are sometimes called x rays could penetrate the solid materials of
hard x rays. This radiation penetrates deeply electronic weapons systems and create a dam-
aging electric field inside the weapon, creating
Early Weapons Effects Simulation and Radiation Effects Studies

and damages internal components such as ca-

bles, computer circuits and processor boards. electromagnetic pulses internal to the weapon.

X rays are electromagnetic radiation lying Nuclear radiation, including electromagnetic

between ultraviolet and gamma rays in the pulses, increases rapidly, peaks, and then de-
radiation spectrum. They are often called cays. The radiation ranges widely in frequency
soft x rays, having lower energy and longer and strength, and the possible ways it could
wavelengths than gamma rays, and depend- affect the electrical and electronic systems in
ing on their energy can also be described as US weapons were many and complex to ana-
hot or cold. X rays do not penetrate as deeply lyze. The electric fields created by the nuclear
as gamma rays, but deposit radiation close electromagnetic pulses are very strong and
to the surface. X rays are produced when delivered very fast, a situation electronic equip-
electrons of sufficiently high energy bombard ment never has to face under normal circum-
matter. stances. The electromagnetic pulse is not a
constant, but differs depending on the force of
Neutrons are large-mass particles released the weapon and where it is detonated, whether
through fusion or fission reactions as nuclear in outer space, near the earth, or underground.
weapons detonate. The number of neutrons
depends on several factors, which are subjects The machines developed at Sandia and else-
of weapons effects studies. Neutrons can where simulated effects of the internal weap-
travel a long way through the air and pen- ons electromagnetic pulse by creating short,
etrate thick materials. intense pulses of electromagnetic radiation
and using them to test weapons systems and
Once released from the immediate environ- components. The simulators’ pulses were cre-
ment of the exploding weapon, these kinds of ated when high-energy electrons bombarded
radiation and neutrons can alter the perfor- metallic targets and the targets emitted x rays
mance of an opponent’s weapons systems (the process is called Bremsstrahlung). The
and related equipment. Because of the wide outcome depended on the circuitry inside the
variety of materials in weapons and military weapons as well as the intensity of the radiation.
equipment, studying the effects of x rays,
gamma rays, and neutrons on multiple mate- In the 1960s and early 1970s when weapons
rial configurations and with varying intensities effects work began to escalate, the military,
and duration is a key part of weapons effects Department of Defense, and Atomic Energy
studies. At the beginning of weapons effects Commission had numerous different require-
studies, nuclear devices were designed to be ments for electromagnetic pulse and radiation
dropped from airplanes; later, and of concern simulators because of the many types of weap-
to designers, nuclear warheads were mounted ons systems being designed and tested and the
in ballistic missiles, whose systems would be myriad effects they might face. The objective of
adversely affected by the radiation and elec- all this work was to be able to build weapons
tromagnetic pulses from a nuclear explosion. and weapons systems that were hardened to
(i.e., protected from) damage. Simulation work
The initial radiation from a nuclear explosion involved testing of existing systems to probe
consists primarily of gamma rays, x rays, and their vulnerabilities to radiation, to come up
neutrons produced at the time of detonation. with approaches to harden future systems, and
This initial radiation sets off several pro- then to build and test experimental units and
cesses that produce electromagnetic pulses. systems.

 [Sources: S. Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Washington, DC: Department of Defense and
the Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977; Interviews with Tom Martin and Ken Prestwich.]
 the ’60s
Pulsed Reactor Facility opened in 1961 in Area III, providing intense bursts of fast
neutrons and gamma rays to use in radiation effects studies, in particular the effect
of bursts and total doses of radiation on equipment.
In the early 1960s weapons scientists began to realize that gamma rays and a
broad spectrum of radio frequencies (electromagnetic radiation caused by gamma
rays) had the potential to harm the operation of weapons systems at long distance
from the explosion.2 As a consequence, the Department of Defense and the Atomic
Energy Commission requested investigations of this phenomenon to ascertain
where their electronic systems would fail. Thus, the weapons community and
Unidentified Sandia researcher and Van
various Department of Defense agencies became very interested in the concept of de Graaff accelerator (Sandia Lab News,
high-current accelerators to generate x rays to simulate the effects of gamma rays. March 1, 1961).
The unique aspect of weapons effects simulators was the requirement for very high
dose rate over a relatively large volume compared to what could be produced with
commercially available x-ray sources or government research accelerators.
Because x rays are not as deeply penetrating as gamma rays, in the early days
of weapons effects testing they were not considered to be of great importance for
simulations. (In the literature, gamma rays and x rays are often not distinguished.
Gamma rays are x rays at the high end of the radiation spectrum, but originate
Ion beam passes from high-voltage
in the nucleus of the atom rather than in the surrounding electrons. Technically, stack of Cockcroft-Walton accelerator
gamma rays can be called x rays.) Some x-ray sources are high-voltage accelerators through horizontal accelerating tube
(pictured is R.E. Ewing) to work area
designed to produce an electron beam that bombards a metallic target. When outside of screened room where any of
the electrons are stopped in the target, a few percent of the kinetic energy of the seven portholes may be used at different
beam is converted to x rays. The remainder of the energy heats the target. The x experiment locations. (Story appeared in
Sandia Lab News, March 17, 1961)
rays produced in this way are named Bremsstrahlung, a German term for braking
radiation, because the x rays are formed by rapidly stopping the electron beam. If
the electron beam is accelerated to energies in the 10 million electron volts to 15
million electron volts range, the Bremsstrahlung emission gives a good simulation
of some weapons effects.
Field Emission Corporation was founded in 1958 to develop and market x-ray sources
for commercial radiography and beam physics research studies. These devices,
known as Febetrons, were high-impedance pulsed power sources that produced 30-
nanosecond pulses up to 2.3 megavolts driving unique x-ray tubes that produced
about two rads at one meter. Sandia purchased one of their first high-voltage
machines. A.W. “Bill” Snyder, head of radiation effects then, said there was suddenly
a huge market in the United States for these machines.3 Sandia started to develop
pulsed power sources at the same time it acquired the Febetron, exploring in the
laboratory how to build better radiation simulators. A machine called the cable
pulser was the result, an effort that dates to the early 1960s. Researchers realized that
the machine would not be able to produce adequate Bremsstrahlung x-ray intensities
and dose rates over a large enough area to simulate gamma rays, and they began to
look for a better way to produce the high voltage with the power needed.


 The Cable Pulser
Ray Clark began his long career in pulsed
power at Sandia working on a machine that
never got a name and was simply known as
“the cable pulser.” Clark said this machine
began pulsed power work at Sandia, although
many consider Spastic, which has a different
design and is slightly later, to merit this honor.
The cable pulser was the responsibility
of Chuck (C.F.) Martin, a staff member
and project leader in S.C. “Clay” Rogers’
organization. Chuck Martin’s goal was to
build a bigger, state-of-the-art machine like
the Field Emission Corporation’s Febetron
but producing 2 million volts and having a
specialized tube to use in weapons hardening
experiments. Clark was hired at Sandia to
help Chuck Martin, and together they built
the cable pulser. Clark recalled that “it never
reached its full potential; it was a research
project to build it.”
One problem with the cable pulser as Clark
recalls it was trying to epoxy the cables so
they would not break down under high voltage.
In fact, recounting a memory of the early days
of the pulsed power Program at Sandia for
the Sandia Lab News of April 12, 1985, A.W.
(Bill) Snyder remembered that as soon as the The cable pulser
shot button was pushed, “vast quantities of
molten copper spewed out on the floor.” The
observers at the test had to scatter—and one
The Cable Pulser

of them was George Dacey, the vice-president

for research at that time.
Clark and Chuck Martin also developed a
new x-ray output tube, but never got to test
it. Clark remembers the tubes then being hot
cathode tubes made of glass that had to be
heated.

[Sources: Van Arsdall interview with Ray Clark; inter-

view with A.W. Snyder; box of materials donated by X-ray tube
Clark to Sandia archives containing material on this
subject.]

Early dummy load for the cable pulser


 the ’60s
The requirement for high dose rate and the 15-megavolt limit meant high-current
beams (100s-1000s kiloamps) and a pulse duration less than 100 billionths of
a second were needed. Technology to satisfy these beam requirements was not
available at this time, and as a result, Sandia and private companies interested
in developing simulators for Department of Defense agencies began to seek new
approaches. One interesting approach was being developed in Great Britain
by a group headed by J.C. “Charlie” Martin4 at the Atomic Weapons Research
Establishment (AWRE), Aldermaston. This group was exploring unique ways to
create high-voltage, high-current pulses and new techniques to convert these pulses
to high-current electron beams with short pulse duration. Such a technology was
needed to make the high x-ray dose rates required to simulate gamma rays. The
work at AWRE was the start of what was later termed pulse power or pulsed power
technology and pulsed power accelerators. Rapid advances with this technology
and success with innovative ideas in the United States and England resulted soon
after in weapons effects simulators and the technology for pursuing research on
microfusion and other applications.5
From 1961 to early 1963, information about the initial flash of radiation from
a nuclear explosion and the effects of x-ray radiation had been obtained from
aboveground and underground tests of nuclear weapons, supplemented by
laboratory simulations using reactors and accelerators at weapons laboratories
such as Sandia. However, radioactive fallout from aboveground testing and renewed
popular concern about the global effects of radiation from weapons tests by an Cable Pulser
increasing number of countries led to a Limited Test Ban Treaty being signed
in August 1963 by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR. The
treaty prohibited testing of nuclear devices in the atmosphere, in outer space, and
underwater.
With full-scale aboveground tests no longer possible, weapons effects work would
henceforth be laboratory simulations, supplemented by underground testing.
Nuclear detonations produce a spectrum of radiation and radiation effects, so the
machines used to emulate them had to be capable of producing similar spectra.
Sandia and other weapons laboratories as well as private industry began a stepped-
up effort to develop machines capable of producing the effects needed to understand
how to harden US weapons absent any aboveground testing.
In 1963, Sandia began to investigate the work Charlie Martin and his group were
doing at AWRE. The highest energy, highest dose machine they had developed
was called SMOG, said to stand for “Six Megavolts or Good-Bye.” (However,
SMOG produced 4 megavolts and they did not give up.) AWRE needed flash x-ray
radiography, but could not afford the enormous sums Los Alamos had spent for this
purpose on PHERMEX, a linear electron accelerator built for flash radiographic
studies of explosively driven metal systems such as imploding nuclear weapons.
Built in 1957, the Pulsed High Energy Radiation Machine Emitting X Rays


Chapter One
(PHERMEX) at Los Alamos represented a unique—and expensive—diagnostics
capability in flash radiography at the time.6 The AWRE pulsed power radiography
approach was less expensive than PHERMEX technology, and used lower energy,
higher current electron beams. The lower voltage, higher current aspect promised to
better satisfy simulation requirements. These positive aspects factored into Sandia’s
decision to try to adopt the new pulsed power technology.
Collaboration with AWRE was enabled by the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958,
which provided the basis for extensive nuclear collaboration between the United
States and Britain. The agreement permitted the two countries to exchange
classified information to improve their atomic weapons capability. As a result, a
number of Joint Operations Working Groups (JOWOGs) were formed with the Atomic
Energy Commission labs, primarily involving AWRE and Sandia, Los Alamos, and
Livermore in topical areas. AWRE had a different structure than the weapons labs
here. Whereas Sandia designed and developed the non-nuclear parts of nuclear
weapons, and Los Alamos and Livermore the nuclear side, AWRE, on the contrary,
had responsibility for complete weapons systems.
Ken Haynes, a reactor specialist in Snyder’s group, went with several other engineers
to AWRE in 1963 and 1964 to learn their technology. The contact with Martin’s work
convinced Sandia’s staff that, with the help of Charlie Martin and his UK engineers,
they could build a machine similar to SMOG to do the experiments needed for
radiation hardening. Sandia had been weighing the merits of purchasing a pulsed
power machine from Ion Physics or Physics International, firms that were having
mixed results with their initial attempts at fabricating high-energy machines to
generate x rays. Instead, Sandia opted to sign an agreement with AWRE to build a
machine to create a large x-ray output.7
Tommy Storr and Ian Smith came over from the UK to work with Haynes in Area V
in the basement of the reactor building where they built Spastic, Sandia’s version
of SMOG. Because of Sandia’s interest in studying radiation effects using extremely
high doses of Bremsstrahlung, the primary reason for building Spastic was to
simulate gamma radiation. Using high doses of x rays from the machine, transient
radiation effects on electrical components, electronic circuits, and systems could
be analyzed. Snyder thought Spastic stood for “Sandia Pulsed Aqueous Solution
Transit Irradiation Source something or other—a contrived name of some kind,”
but others say the name described the way it worked. (Please see following sidebar on
Spastic.)
The Sandia Lab News of January 15, 1965, reported “Sandia Laboratory Team
Develops New Flash-X Ray Machine—World’s Largest,” though in the story the
machine remains nameless. Haynes is listed as project leader with Ray Clark and
Paul Beeson as his team, and the success is attributed to international cooperation
that began the previous April in England. The cooperation culminated in the first
test of the device in November 1964. When it was first fired, Haynes told the Sandia


Pulsed Power
In the early days, this technology was often across switches, charging pulse-forming lines
called ‘pulse power’ instead of pulsed power. (Blumleins or coax lines). Blumleins are essen-
Both names reflect the essential technical tially voltage multipliers designed to accommo-
concept, which is taking a pulse of electrical date pulses of power. (The configuration was
energy and shortening its duration to in- invented by British engineer Alan D. Blumlein
crease its power, summed up in the equation for radar systems in 1940-41. Blumlein was
Power = Energy/Time. In a pulsed power killed in an air crash in 1942.)
machine, low power electrical energy from a The compressed energy is then switched into
wall plug is stored in a bank of capacitors and transmission lines, insulated using oil or
leaves them as a compressed pulse of power. water. In the early days, the transmission lines
The duration of the pulse is increasingly short- brought the energy to a vacuum x-ray tube
ened until it is only billionths of a second long. containing a cathode and an anode, where a
With each shortening of the pulse, the power beam of electrons was produced. This beam
increases. The final result is a very short pulse was aimed at a tantalum target and when the
with enormous power, whose energy can be beam hit the target, a sub-microsecond burst
released in several ways. of Bremsstrahlung ensued, which then could
The original intent of this technology was to be used to simulate gamma rays.
use the pulse to simulate the bursts of radia- In later machines, the transmission lines were
tion from exploding nuclear weapons. Because connected to a diode consisting of two parts
of their intended use, these pulses are far with opposite charges, the positive anode and
beyond everyday requirements. In fact, they negative cathode. The diode emits particles;
involve great amounts of electricity, at first at Sandia they were originally electrons, later
megawatts, currently tens of terawatts. In the protons, and other ions. One goal was to have
decades since their creation in the 1950s, a stable beam leaving the cathode or the
the available power from these machines has anode and continuing toward the target. The
increased dramatically and their uses have entire process happened in a hundred nano-
expanded beyond weapons effects simulation. seconds, or the time it takes light to travel
Below is a schematic of the initial concept for about 30 m. Over the years, the diode configu-
pulsed power accelerators, which has been the ration was a matter of continued experimenta-
basis for many Sandia machines and test beds. tion because of its importance. Sandia dem-
The process of energy compression begins with onstrated that the goal of focusing a beam on

Pulsed Power
electrical power being stored in Marx genera- a target using tens of megamps was complex
tors, which are banks of capacitors similar in but possible.
purpose to batteries. (Professor Erwin Marx, [Sources: T.H. Martin, A.H. Guenther, M. Kristiansen, and
d. 1980, invented this kind of generator in J.C. Martin, On Pulsed Power, Advances in Pulsed Power Technol-
Germany in 1928.) The capacitors are charged ogy, Vol. 3, New York: Plenum Press, 1996; K.H. Prestwich,
“Electron and Ion Beam Accelerators,” AIP Conference Proceed-
in parallel and are then discharged in series. To ings 249, Vol. 2; The Physics of Particle Accelerators, New York:
give an idea of the scale, the Marx compresses American Institute of Physics, 1992; Dan Jobe, Ktech Corpora-
the charge in 100 seconds and discharges tion, Albuquerque, “Introduction to Pulsed Power,” notebook
of materials on Pulsed Power for an internal Sandia class,
in a microsecond, representing a 108 pulse October 2003; interviews with Tom Martin and Ken Prestwich.]
compression. The energy flows through sparks


 Spastic
Built by Sandia in 1965 and based on the electromagnetic noise generated by
the UK’s SMOG, Spastic was designed for Spastic and measure its output, so Sandia
gamma-ray output to simulate the effects built its own based on Charlie Martin’s
of the electromagnetic pulse created by a advice on how to do so. Clark designed a
nuclear explosion. Under guidance from UK cathode ray tube and had a vacuum tube
engineers Tommy Storr and Ian Smith, Spastic manufacturer named Dumont make it for
was assembled and tested in three weeks at Sandia. Because of the high electromagnetic
Sandia.a Ken Haynes, the project leader, told radiation from the machine, Sandia built its
the Sandia Lab News at the time that Spastic oscilloscopes in a copper box and put the
would be used to study transient radiation copper boxes in a copper-screen room. This
effects on electrical components. He said, double screen isolated the tube from Spastic’s
because of its huge output dose, it would electromagnetic radiation “noise”—at the
be useful for testing large electronic circuits time, there had never before been such high
and systems. Haynes said they had hoped energy transferred in so short a time.
for an output of 12 rads (units of absorbed Ordinary resistors would not work in this kind
radiation) from Spastic, but got 20. By adding of machine because of the large amount of
more strip lines and power, the team was energy involved, and Sandia used and im-
hoping eventually for 50 rads output.b Initially, proved liquid resistors in Spastic. The machine
Haynes was supported by one technician, worked by building up a 200-kilovolt charge
Ray Clark, and then a second technician, P.M. voltage on the 23 Blumleins, incorporating a
Beeson, was added. solid dielectric switch on every Blumlein, and
In Spastic, a 20-kilojoule capacitor bank when the voltage got to a certain point trig-
provided the energy for the flash x-ray pulse, gering all the switches and optimally releasing
charging the generator in 2.5 microseconds. the energy in a 30-nanosecond pulse at the
The generator was then fired to produce a high- 4.5 megavolts generated by connecting all the
voltage pulse at an x-ray tube. The generator Blumleins in series. All the switches had to be
section was composed of 23 strip transmission changed after each shot, and everything was
lines made of thin strips of copper separated immersed in a copper sulfate solution. So even
by polyethylene and submerged in a tank of though the machine provided the desired high
demineralized water. The strip lines were 3 m voltages and currents, it was cumbersome to
long and 66 cm wide. The tank that held the operate. Based on the experience with Spastic,
generator was 107 cm wide, 112 cm deep, Sandia adopted oil-filled Blumleins for its next
and 4.2 m long. Its walls were made of hollow gamma ray simulators.
fiberglas filled with freon gas, to add dielectric [Sources: Box 13, Martin-Prestwich Collection, Sandia
strength. Archives. For details on Spastic and its immediate successors,
see the undated memo from S.C. Rogers to T.B. Cook and
Ray Clark, who worked on Spastic, said that A.W. Snyder, Re: Tentative Plans for Constructing a Large X-Ray
the important innovations made by AWRE Generator, ca. February 1965, copy in Van Arsdall collection
Spastic

1950s-60s. For technical detail, see Charlie Martin’s notes

included demountable Lucite-insulated on SMOG in Box 19 of Martin-Prestwich collection. See
vacuum envelopes, and diodes with cold Van Arsdall interviews with Ray Clark and Tom Martin and
cathodes so the vacuum tube did not have to comments from Ian Smith in 2006.]
include heating elements. No oscilloscopes
were made then that could easily withstand a In 2006, Ian Smith recalled that AWRE pre-tested materials
Sandia sent to England, even glue, to make sure the
Sandia materials were in no way different from those used
in SMOG. Smith set up a 1-megavolt pulse transformer
in the Spastic lab so Sandia could do similar testing. The
author is grateful to Smith for his help with this sidebar.
b Sandia Lab News, January 15, 1965, “Sandia Laboratory
Team Develops New Flash X-Ray Machine—World’s
Largest.”

Oscilloscope built for pulsed power at Sandia

using Charlie Martin design.
10
10
 the ’60s
Lab News, “There was this loud bang as the capacitors discharged, the water on
the surface of the generator tank rippled, and we set the world’s record for output
x-ray dose. Naturally we felt good.” Clark, too, a long-term member of the Pulsed
Power Program, remembered the effects Spastic had on its surroundings. He said
that it put out so much electromagnetic noise, when it went off phones rang and
the lights went out, “but only when we made x rays—it did not happen if we were
unsuccessful in making x rays.”8 Initially, the team hoped for an output of 12 rads
from Spastic at a meter from the target, but even in its first few months, it was
producing more than 20 rads.9
Haynes was a key man and had the advantage of being trained by Charlie Martin
and his group, but for reasons that appear to be personal, Haynes left Sandia and
the new pulsed power effort rather abruptly to work at White Sands on reactors.
The untimely death of Ken Haynes, not long after, in a sports-car accident is a
memory everyone from the early days carries with them. Also a universal memory
is that Charlie Martin at AWRE was not particularly pleased with Sandia because
Haynes left the Labs. Charlie had mentored and tutored Haynes specifically on the
technology of the pulsed power machine at Sandia, and the two of them had worked
on an initial concept for Hermes II. He expected the collaboration to endure.
The new Sandia group was able to re-establish a productive working relationship
with the UK’s father of pulsed power, a relationship that was to flourish for decades Spastic charging supply, UK capacitors.
afterward. Tom Martin was promoted to supervise a new Flash X Ray Research
Division in the summer of 1965, responsible for the development of pulsed power
sources.10 Tom Martin reported to Snyder, who had already obtained approval
to start development of the next-generation gamma-ray simulator, later named
Hermes II. Martin would remain with Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program during his
long and successful career at the Labs. His name is associated with several of the
ground-breaking accelerators created at Sandia, and for his achievements, he
received the prestigious biennial IEEE Erwin Marx award in 1985. (Charlie Martin
received this award in 1981, and Ian Smith was the 1983 recipient; Tom Martin was
the first American-born researcher to receive it.)
The collaboration with AWRE to build Spastic was part of Sandia’s long-range
decision to construct large, high-energy machines capable of generating x-ray
dose levels closer to full weapons effects simulation than was then possible. Since
Spastic was built, Physics International had developed more powerful machines
using a new technology in which the megavolts needed were obtained in a single
Marx, and self-healing oil provided the insulation, the dielectric, and the switch
medium. Sandia recognized this as a much more practical approach to generating
high-voltage pulses in repeated, routine operation. A competing technology at
that time was based on a Van de Graaff generator, which Ion Physics, a subsidiary
of High Voltage Engineering, was pursuing. (High Voltage Engineering was the
principal supplier of Van de Graaff generators in the United States.) Sandia realized

11
 the technology used in Spastic was not suited to producing multiple shots, and
a second-generation machine using oil-filled Blumleins was already envisioned
when Tom Martin was put in charge of the new department. Sandia was not alone
in this pursuit. Through the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, the Department of
Defense/Defense Atomic Support Agency (DASA) was placing contracts with Physics
International and Ion Physics for x-ray generators and studies of x-ray tubes, and
the Ballistic Systems Division of the Air Force had placed a contract with Physics
International for a 6-megavolt machine with an eye toward its being eventually
capable of much more.11 In addition, Sandia learned that the Air Force was very
interested in developing neutron generators for simulation applications.
With the decision to build large flash x-ray machines, Sandia entered a competitive
arena, one in which the Labs believed it could excel.12 Sandia’s second-generation
pulsed x-ray machine was envisioned as delivering 1500 to 2000 units of absorbed
radiation for the Atomic Energy Commission/Department of Military Applications.
Because of technical considerations, attempting to build a machine that would
produce more than 2000 units was considered risky. Tom Martin weighed the risks
and decided not to build the new machine, by then called Hermes, for the designed
output. A working model was built for scaling parameters, named Hermes I. It
was one-tenth the desired energy and began operation in 1966. To accommodate
the planned new machines, a large warehouse was built in Area V: a high-bay,
metal-sided Butler Building, with no insulation.13 Sandia tried unsuccessfully to
get Congressional line-item funding for the initial Hermes effort and finally had
to improvise to build the machine. Obtaining used capacitors from a cancelled
program in the UK was one way to shave some costs. Somewhat ironically in view
of the future course of pulsed power at Sandia, the capacitors came from a fusion
program that had been abandoned because it was believed doomed to failure.
Because of their low cost, Sandia was able to use as many capacitors in Hermes II as
the machine could hold, and the extra capacitors enabled advances at Sandia that
later played into its fusion work.14
When it was obvious that the performance of Hermes I was acceptable, work
began in August 1967 on building the full-size Hermes II in Area V with a budget
of $900,000. It was test-fired in the summer of 1968, and the Sandia Lab
News of July 26 reported the initial shot, saying it paved the way for producing
“unprecedented radiation sources.” The initial test was designed to discharge
500,000 joules of electrical energy into a target in a 10-million-volt, 100-
nanosecond pulse. The maximum capacity of Hermes II when fully operational
was one million joules. Hermes II was at one time the largest flash x-ray machine
in operation anywhere, a record accomplished by increasing the voltage usually
obtainable in Marx generators from 4 megavolts to nominally 12 megavolts. Based
on information from Hermes II, Sandia estimated that even higher voltage Marx
generators could be built. (Please see following sidebar on Hermes I and II.)

12
 the ’60s
At the same time Sandia was designing the higher voltage Hermes machines for
the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Defense was funding Physics
International and Ion Physics Corporation to build similar machines at the Air
Force Weapons Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, next door to
Sandia. All these machines were scheduled to be completed at about the same
time, and Sandians who worked on Hermes remember competition to see who
would test-fire the first successful gamma-ray simulator. Hermes II and the Physics
International 1590 machine, using a design similar to Hermes III, were neck
and neck.15 Based on a Van de Graaff accelerator rather than the Marx generator
principle, the Ion Physics machine was successful in producing high-power pulses,
but well below specifications. (Other Van De Graaff machines performed well for
decades, for example at the Air Force Weapons Lab, at Harry Diamond Labs, and at
Boeing.)
Competition between the nuclear sides of the Department of Defense and Atomic
Energy Commission began to heat up at this time, because both agencies were
interested in using laboratories like Sandia or private contractors to build machines
for similar weapons effects studies. For example, about this time the Defense
Department requested proposals for a 50,000 rads at a meter machine that would
provide rather uniform dose over a one-meter cube volume. After several iterations
on possible designs, including proposals by Physics International and Ion Physics
and concepts by Charlie Martin and Tom Martin, the Department of Defense
Sandia’s pulsed power research began with
awarded Physics International a one-year research and development program to simulations of radiation effects on weap-
assess the technology and finalize the conceptual design. The successful Physics ons. In this 1979 photograph, Sandians pre-
International proposal was headed by Ian Smith, and a contract was awarded to pare to test the effects of gamma rays on an
experimental armored vehicle by using the
build an extremely large accelerator named Aurora in a facility to be located at Hermes II accelerator (barrel-like structure
Harry Diamond Laboratories in Silver Spring, Maryland.16 Tom Martin likened its in the right-hand corner).
capabilities to four Hermes II machines in one.17 The advantage Aurora had was its
ability to test large-sized flight packages. Aurora represented the continuing rapid
advance of this technology after the successful development of Hermes II and the
Physics International 1590 at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory. With facilities for
this work becoming larger and more expensive, Congress was beginning to put the
weapons programs of both agencies under increasing scrutiny. The key was to be
able to demonstrate—or argue persuasively—that one approach made more sense
than another and merited funding.
With Hermes II up and running, the Marx generator from Hermes I was then used
as the heart of a new machine, the Relativistic Electron Beam Accelerator (REBA).
(Please see following sidebar on REBA.) REBA was built in Area V inside a new test
facility specifically to study the properties of materials used in weapons systems
and the propagation of electron beams. This machine was also used to explore the
possibility of using de-ionized water instead of oil as insulation in the transmission
lines. REBA began testing in November 1969 and was fully operational soon
afterward, with David L. Johnson as project lead, assisted by Don Butel, Ken Prestwich,

13
Hermes I and II
Hermes I and II were x-ray machines designed to simulate the flash
of gamma radiation from a nuclear explosion. At the time it was built,
Hermes II produced more radiation than any similar machine in the
United States. Hermes I was a prototype for Hermes II and was one-
tenth its size (3 megavolts, 50 kiloamps, 50 nanoseconds), beginning
operation in 1966. It was converted to generating x rays instead of
gamma rays in 1968 when Hermes II was completed. The Marx gen-
erator from Hermes I was then used in the Relativistic Electron Beam
Accelerator (REBA), which went on line in 1969.
Hermes I and II were built using low-inductance Marx generators,
Blumlein transmission lines, and a vacuum tube where the electron
beam was formed and accelerated. In Hermes II, its high-voltage
portions were submerged in 150,000 gal. of transformer oil for
insulation, enough to fill 12 railroad tank cars. It was housed in a
bottle-shaped steel tank 26 m long and 6.7 m wide, which Eidson
Metal Products on Edith Boulevard in Albuquerque welded together
for Sandia. (Eidson usually made large water tanks.) Heavy concrete
blocks provided shielding for the machine.
Operation of Hermes machines. First the capacitors are charged
in parallel with electrical energy (in Hermes II, there were 186 100-
kilovolt capacitors). Next, the capacitors are switched and discharged
in series into the Blumlein transmission line, a voltage multiplier
made of three steel cylinders. Finally, a switch (spark gap) is
triggered and the energy from the Blumlein transmission
line is discharged in an x-ray tube made of Lucite, where a
high-current beam of electrons is produced. The high-
energy beam is directed at a metallic target. X rays
are produced by Bremsstrahlung when the electrons
interact with the atoms in the target. The resulting
burst of radiation lasts 70 billionths of a second.
Hermes II was used for many years. The Sandia
Lab News of September 13, 1974, reported its
10,000th shot and called Hermes II “the largest
and longest-lived facility of its kind in the world.”
Hermes II had an original design life of 1,000
shots. More than 10 years later, the ‘workhorse’
was still going. In a May 10, 1985, story, the
Lab News reported that Hermes II had fired its
25,000th shot and was booked solid for use out
through 1991. The only major renovations over
the years were rebuilding the 10-megavolt Marx
generator in 1981, redoing the tank that stores the
150,000 gal. of mineral oil used as the dielectric in
1985, and overhauling the data acquisition system in
1988.
Even as its successor, Hermes III was being completed,
Hermes II was fired for the 30,000th time, at 6:30 p.m.
July 5, 1988, as upper management watched and cheered.
International phone calls reported “the shot heard round the
world,” as the Sandia Lab News, July 15, 1988, called it. By this
time, Hermes II was being operated in Area V by the Simulation Tech-
nology Department, a sister organization to Pulsed Power, because its
primary mission was still producing gamma rays for weapons simula-
tion. It was also being used in the directed-energy-weapon program to
Jesse Harness
14 checks one row of the bank of 128 Marx capacitors
in the Hermes II radiation simulation facility. Hermes
II tested the effects of gamma rays on weapons for 20
years at Sandia before its retirement.
 HERMES I, a one-tenth scale model of

Hermes I and II
HERMES II, was built to help solve the
complex problems involved in creating the
world’s largest flash x-ray generator. The
model was a useful device in Sandia’s
radiation effects program. Jim Maxim,
left, and Ralph Schellenbaum operate
the machine. (Image appeared in
Sandia Lab News Vol. 20, No. 15, Pg. 2,
26 July 1968)

test whether high-energy, high-current electron The Hermes project included Tom Martin,
beams can initiate explosives (they can). Ken Prestwich, Ray Clark, Paul Beeson, David L.
Johnson, Don Butel and J.E. Boers.
Estimates at the time of the milestone shot were
that Hermes II had averaged six shots a day [Papers of interest include T.H. Martin, “Design and
every working day for two decades. The final Performance of the Sandia Laboratories Hermes II Flash X Ray
shot on Hermes II was December 22, 1989, Generator,” IEEE Transactions of Nuclear Science 16(3), June
and Tom Martin and Ken Prestwich were there as 1969:59-63; K.R. Prestwich and D.L. Johnson, “Development of
an 18-Megavolt Marx Generator,” Ibid.:64-69; T.H. Martin,
the shot fired. The two men designed and helped K.R. Prestwich, D.L. Johnson, Summary of the Hermes Flash
build Hermes II. The Sandia Lab News marked X Ray Program,” Sandia National Laboratories report SC-RR-
the event with a photo in the January 12, 1990, 69-421, October 1969; “Giant Flash X Ray Machine Test Fired,”
Sandia Lab News, July 26, 1968.]
issue.

“Final Pop” - After more than 30,000 “shots,” Sandia’s

HERMES II gamma-ray simulator was fired for the final
time on December 22, 1989. The facility was used to
test hundreds of weapon and space-system components
during its 20-year life. Preparing for the final loud
pop are (standing, from right) Ken Prestwich, manager
of Pulsed Power Applications Dept. 1240; Tom Martin,
research scientist of Pulsed Power Dept. 1290; and Jerry
Zawadzkas, supervisor of STL Operations Division
9343. Seated at the control console is Gary Devlin
(contractor). Ken and Tom designed and helped build
HERMES II in the late ‘60’s. Sandia’s gamma-ray simu-
lation work is now done on a newer machine
named - what else? - HERMES III.

15
Chapter One
and Ray Clark, all of them in Tom Martin’s department. Johnson had joined
Snyder’s group a few years earlier as a student and he would remain a key person
in developing accelerators in the Pulsed Power Program for decades. Ken Prestwich
became part of Tom Martin’s group in 1965 as the first staff member in the new
department. Within a few years, Martin and Prestwich were synonymous with pulsed
power at Sandia. Prestwich would win the Erwin Marx award in 1989, and both men
are recognized not only as pillars of the Sandia program but also of international
pulsed power technology. (See sidebar on REBA.)
REBA Toward the end of the 1960s, in the wake of the Test Ban Treaty, the military began
to ask for machines capable of simulating the spectrum of x rays at frequencies
below gamma rays. The technology was different from Hermes II, requiring low
voltage and high current. As a result, Prestwich and a team were asked to design
an electron-beam accelerator to provide low-energy x-ray simulations to deposit
the energy on the outside of weapons components (instead of using high energies
that would penetrate them). The result was a desk-sized device called Nereus, with
an adjustable pulse length. Nereus was Sandia’s first machine designed specifically
for water transmission lines, hence its being named for a sea god. The machine
proved to be extremely popular because of its relatively small size and versatility.
Besides satisfying early Sandia requirements and being useful for about 30 years,
Nereus-type machines went to such diverse locations as the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, the Weizmann Institute in Israel, Los Alamos Laboratory, and the
University of Illinois.
Water insulation in the Nereus transmission lines provided the characteristics
required in these lower voltage devices. For this reason, water lines would be an
advancement used in future Sandia machines. Based on the success with Nereus,
Tom Martin began working on the design of a bigger water-insulated machine that
would produce two electron beams simultaneously and combine them to increase
NEREUS DIODE
the available energy at the target. The Hydra accelerator was the result, a Martin
design featuring two lines and simultaneous gas switching. Martin worked with
Johnson, Ray Kline, and Johann Seamen to build the 1-megavolt, 1-megamp
Hydra. (Seamen remains a contributor to Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program.) At one
time, Hydra was envisioned as having as many as nine beams for large-volume
irradiations and more energy density at the target, a concept the Department of
Defense was funding on large machines elsewhere, such as Casino at the Naval
Surface Weapons Center.18 Named for a sea monster with several heads, Hydra came
on line in 1972.
Following the cautious approach it had taken with Hermes, Sandia built one
module of Hydra with two beams to see how the beam-combining idea would work.
At the same time, Prestwich was tasked with creating a machine to investigate
beam drifting and recombining. The outcome was SLIM (Sandia Low-Impedance
Mylar-insulated accelerator). Both SLIM and Hydra were operated as test beds to

16
REBA: StandOff and Self-Pinch Effect
The Relativistic Electron Beam Accelerator Configured to maximize the number of
(REBA) could be operated in two modes: as experiments that could be set up, REBA used
a flash x-ray machine to create gamma rays the old Hermes I Marx generator to charge
or to produce a high-current electron beam. two Blumlein transmission lines aimed at two
It began operation in 1969, and was built separate target areas. Both were shielded
using the Marx generator from Hermes I. Its by heavy concrete. The generator had 38
high-current electron beams were the primary 100-kilovolt capacitors, and this bank of
interest for experimenters. The beams were capacitors was stored in a 23,000-gal. tank of
used to directly bombard a target, simulating mineral oil. REBA had both an oil and a water
the x-ray deposition from a nuclear explosion. transmission line, permitting dual use. Sandia
Two issues complicated the proposed tech- had been considering water lines instead of
nology. One was that the current had to be the traditional oil-filled Blumleins, and REBA
increased dramatically to obtain the desired provided some of the experience that led to
simulations, and the other, which was related water lines being adopted. REBA was 8.5 m
to it, was how to get the high-current beam long and 7.3 m wide. The Sandia Lab News
from the diode and into the target without of November 7, 1969, reported that REBA
blowing the machine up in the process. The produced a beam of electrons about 10 cm
problem was to get the beam to propagate in diameter traveling at near the speed of
through the gas in the diode and keep its light. The machine had an energy output of
energy as it traveled to a target positioned 3.25 megavolts at 50,000 amperes released
away from the machine that had created it. in a pulse only 70 nanoseconds long.b REBA’s
Such a phenomenon is called standoff. (Tom design permitted it to be used as a flash x-ray
Martin likened the lack of standoff to setting machine as well, though its primary mode of
a firecracker off on the end of one’s nose.) operation was to be electron beams.
Sandia was one of several laboratories In 1973, Pulsed Power’s John Kelly used
investigating these issues in the late 1960s REBA to develop a generator that used a
and early 1970s on a variety of accelerators. unique geometry to achieve a pinch in the
In the course of investigating standoff on beam, allowing the area of the beam to be

REBA: Stand-Off and Self-Pinch Effect

its Gamble I and II accelerators, the Naval concentrated by a factor of 10. Although
Research Lab discovered an effect that certain problems limited its usefulness, it
allowed the electron beam to exit the diode pointed the way toward approaches for future
and propagate a fair distance. The effect is work in beam concentration. The Atomic
self-pinching, in which the beam is affected Energy Commission patented the invention.c
in the diode by its own magnetic field and In conjunction with laser work that year, the
self-pinches in the gap between the anode Sandia Lab News reported that REBA used its
and cathode. This pinch self-focuses the intense beams of electrons to pulse a hydro-
beam and gives it high enough intensity to gen fluoride laser to record energy levels. The
exit the diode and propagate beyond it.a power output from the laser was a 228-joule
Discovering the self-pinching phenomenon beam in a 55-nanosecond pulse, a power
enabled a new generation of much more output of 4 billion watts, and 45 times more
powerful accelerators to be envisioned, with than that confirmed on any gas laser. While
relatively low voltages (ca. 1 megavolt) and experimenting with electron beams for weap-
currents about 10 times higher than before, or ons effects simulations and for fusion, using
more than a million amperes. There was now these beams as a way to excite (or heat) large
theoretically no limit to the size of the ‘bang’ volumes of laser gases was for a time an im-
emerging from the diode because it was not portant area of work in the Physical Research
close to the machine that created it. area at Sandia. The beams could excite the
Sandia began to study beam propagation and gas without forming arcs, a drawback of other
self-pinching on REBA, and very soon, this means of excitation. High-energy electron
self-pinch effect would enable Sandia to begin beams were believed to be a promising means
its fusion program. Work on REBA confirmed of exciting future high-energy gas lasers, and
that a self-pinch effect would enable much at that time, Sandia and Los Alamos were
higher energy to be deposited on the target working together on certain ideas related to
and also that electron beams could be made laser excitation using electron beams.d
to propagate a distance from the machine.
b Sandia Lab News, November 7, 1969, “REBA
a A.E. Blaugrund and G. Cooperstein, NRL, Shyke A. Gold-
stein, University of Maryland, “Relativistic Electron Beam
Gives Flash Performance: New Electron 17
Accelerator.”
Pinch Formation Processes in Low Impedance Diodes,”
c Sandia Lab News, November 16, 1973,
Physics of Fluids, October 1976. Copy in Box 11 of
“Kelly’s Electron Beam Generator.”
Martin-Prestwich collection; also see Sandia Lab News of
d Sandia Lab News, October 19, 1973, “HF Laser
April 12, 1985.
Pulsed to New Peak Power Level.”
Chapter One
gain information before deciding on a next step. For accelerator developers like
Sandia, the challenge was to achieve a combination of higher power levels and
lower voltages than anything currently in existence to produce the radiation needed
for weapons effects tests. Given the atmosphere of competition among Atomic
Energy Commission and Department of Defense entities, the pressure was on. The
outcome of work on Slim and Hydra convinced Sandia not to build machines for
beam combination, but to find a way to increase the power of an individual electron
beam.19 (Please see following sidebar on Hydra and Slim.)
In Hermes II, Sandia had the gamma-ray capability it needed. In the weapons
community, the thrust now was to find a technology that could create x rays at a
spectral frequency below gamma rays. The actual dose requirements for the x-ray
and gamma-ray parts of the spectrum are not the same, and it is extremely difficult
to satisfy the x-ray portion with an x-ray tube.20 One approach, that taken initially
at Sandia, was direct irradiation by electron beams, which requires high-current
machines with low impedance. The second approach to achieving the broad
spectrum of x rays needed for weapons effects simulations was nuclear fusion. This
effect would emulate the environment created when a fusion device was detonated,
but on a much smaller scale using a machine in the laboratory to make a fusion
pellet implode.

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California were making a strong

case at this time to the Atomic Energy Commission to pursue inertial confinement
fusion using the newly invented laser. Sandia had a modest laser program as well,
some of it for fusion, and its electron-beam accelerators were used to drive the lasers
for weapons applications. Two recent additions to Sandia’s newly created research
organization, Al Narath and Everet Beckner, realized Sandia’s electron-beam
accelerators might be used for fusion if the beams could be focused on a target
and the high power density required to implode a fusion pellet could be achieved.
Electron-beam technology, they knew, was much less expensive than lasers. In the
1960s, Narath and Beckner envisioned fusion as a new program at Sandia, one that
would attract new staff and broaden Sandia’s capabilities. The results of their vision
emerged beginning in the 1970s, as outlined in chapter two.
18
 the ’60s
As the 1960s ended and the subsequent decade began, the military and Congress
became increasingly interested in using lasers for controlled thermonuclear fusion
because of its interest to weapons physics and basic research. (Please see following
sidebar on Lasers.) From a national standpoint, inertial confinement fusion might be
developed as an inexhaustible source of energy that could be used in power plants.
The nuclear weapons design laboratories, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, were
interested in fusion primarily from a weapons physics standpoint. If a high-yield
fusion event on a microscale could be produced in the laboratory, it might yield
a spectrum of radiation available only in underground tests; hence it was highly
desirable. The development of lasers at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos was
thus destined to intersect with Sandia’s accelerator history in the decade to come.
Laser beams can be focused easily, but they do not have the energy of electron (and
other particle) beams. Because of this, many laser beams have to be used to provide
the energy that is in one particle beam. However, it is difficult to focus particle
beams, a necessary step to getting the power on target needed to ignite fusion. For
this reason, Sandia would later try different kinds of particle beams in its fusion
work. Because of the many unknown and difficult aspects of the new accelerator
technology Sandia was proposing, from the outset Livermore, Los Alamos, and
sponsors at the Atomic Energy Commission considered it risky, even improbable for
fusion. As a result, Sandia faced an uphill battle to get into the fusion game, and
in the coming years, competition for successes and the related arguments for funds
would become an integral part of the pulsed power story.
A report to the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the fall of 1971
outlined progress since 1967 in applying intense beams of relativistic electrons
to controlled thermonuclear research (i.e., fusion research) and compared that
approach to lasers. The report concluded that relativistic electron-beam accelerators
“produce considerably greater energy than high-power lasers, operate at
comparable power levels for longer duration, but cannot be focused with the same
ease.”21 The joint committee report noted that little had been done in this country
on relativistic electron-beam focusing, a remark that was to prove prophetic of a
major challenge in years to come. The report contained this additional statement,
also prophetic: “The possibility of compressing these intense energy sources in
both space and time sufficiently to meet the criteria of igniting fusion in solid-state
density plasmas presents a considerable challenge and will require significant
innovative improvements in the state of the art.”♦

19
 Hydra
The Hydra electron beam accelerator was transmission lines 1.4 m in diameter and
designed to simultaneously produce two 1- 1.4 m long. These lines were mounted to form
megavolt, 0.5-megampere, 80-nanosecond a convergence angle between the two lines
electron beams that could be combined of 15 degrees. The transmission lines then
to form a single beam. It consisted of a tapered down for a distance of 2.4 m to the
low-inductance Marx generator, two water- flat surface insulator diodes at the front of the
dielectric pulse-forming and impedance- machine. The angle of the lines allowed the
transforming transmission lines, and two two electron beams to be formed with a spac-
low-inductance, high-current diodes. ing and direction appropriate for combination
The generator was submerged in transformer and interaction experiments.
oil and separated from the transmission line The 200-kilojoule Marx generator was
water by a Lucite interface. It charged each composed of 62 stages of 0.7 microfarad,
coaxial pulse-forming transmission line, which 100-kilovolt capacitors.
was deionized water insulated to 3 mega- The outer diameter of the 137-cm-long pulse-
volts, in 0.9 microseconds. At peak voltage,
Hydra and SLIM

forming line was 137 cm, and the diameter of

a 3-megavolt SF6 spark gap electrically con- the inner cylinder was 76 cm. With the water
nected the 4-ohm pulse-forming line to the dielectric, these dimensions formed a pulse-
impedance transformer transmission line. The forming line with 4-ohm output impedance
pulse was transmitted through that line to the and a nominal electrical length of 80 nano-
single radial insulator diode. A 30-kilojoule, seconds.
100-nanosecond duration electron beam was
formed by a cold cathode in each diode. The SF6 gas trigatron switch was housed in a
plastic cylinder measuring 38 cm in length;
The Marx tank was approximately 4.2 m 38 cm outer diameter, 30 cm inner diameter.
wide, 6 m long, and 3.3 m deep. Attached to The switch could be externally triggered, with
the Marx tank were two water-insulated coax

20
the trigger pulse transmitted through a copper
sulfate resistor between the inner and outer
cylinders of the transmission lines.
Between the SF6 switch and the transmission
line was a Lucite barrier that decoupled
the back of the main SF6 switch from the
transmission line. Inside the barrier were
six smaller self-breakdown SF6 switches that
fired shortly after the incident wave from the
pulse-forming line arrived. These switches
performed a dual function. First, the capacitive
coupling from the pulse-forming line and
the main SF6 switch to the transmission line
was greatly decreased. Thus, during charge
of the coax line by the Marx generator, the
voltage generated across the transmission
line and the anode-cathode gap was greatly
reduced. Second, the switches acted as open
circuits immediately after the main SF6 switch
fired and reflected the low voltage portion of
the rising wave front. This action effectively
decreased the voltage and current rise times.
Because the transformer line was tapered, it
acted as a short transformer line. In practice,
the pulse amplitude could be calculated
by assuming no transformer action. The
transformer was tapered from an outer
diameter of 111 cm to one of 81 cm at the
SLIM
end of the tube.
The diode had a flat disk Plexiglas insulator SLIM (Sandia Low-Impedance Mylar) was a
with a 91-cm outer diameter and a 25.4-cm related research and development program
inner diameter. The geometry was chosen for aimed at creating an electron-beam accelera-
ease of cleaning and maintenance, and low tor capable of producing several megamps of
inductance. This diode was similar to one 300-400 kilovolt electrons in a 50-nanosecond
developed at the Naval Research Laboratory. pulse. Techniques for concentrating the beam
The cathode, located at the center of the tube in a small area were investigated as well, such
insulator surface, could be readily changed. as beam combination to obtain more density
on target. The major components were a Marx
The electron beam was formed in the anode-
generator, two mylar-insulated Blumleins,
cathode gap and was extracted through a
diode, and beam-handling apparatus.
0.5-mil mylar window. The beam could then be
drifted externally to the machine. The four-stage Marx generator was rated at
The Hydra team included Tom Martin,
400 kilovolts, 60 kilojoules and was Freon-in-
sulated. The charge leads between the Marx
Hydra and SLIM
Ray Kline, Dave Johnson, and Johann Seamen.
and Blumleins were 7 m long. The Blumlein
[From an undated conference paper (ca. 1971-72) by
Tom Martin, “The Hydra Electron Beam Generator.” Box 14 of
tank was 2 m tall, 0.3 m wide, and 6 m long
the Martin-Prestwich collection at Sandia.] and made of wood. It was filled with copper
sulfate during operation. The diode had 20
cathodes and the beam chamber indicated
schematically the object of the beam experi-
ments. The team working on Slim included
Ken Prestwich, Gerry Yonas, John Corley,
Ray Clark, and David L. Johnson.

21
 Lasers and the early inertial confinement fusion program
This history concentrates on the history of In addition to the Atomic Energy Commission
Sandia’s pulsed power accelerators and their laboratories, other organizations in the United
contribution to the field of its inertial con- States began doing laser fusion research in
finement fusion, because in the end, such these early years.
accelerators proved to be Sandia’s strong KMS Fusion began as KMS Industries (KMSI),
point. A parallel story exists on laser fusion, developing laser fusion technologies for peace-
but outside Sandia. The early growth of the ful purposes. KMSI later established KMS Fu-
laser fusion program is outlined here to give a sion for laser fusion research generally, some
national perspective to the Pulsed Power Pro- of it classified for weapons. KMS Fusion built
gram at Sandia. The trend begun in the 1960s a two-beam target irradiation facility using a
continues to the present, with laser fusion neodymium-glass laser. The Atomic Energy
dominating the national inertial confinement Commission permitted KMS to do the work
fusion program over the years. under a no-cost contract.
In the early 1960s, Lawrence Livermore Labo- The Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE),
ratory indicated it had made calculations sug- part of the University of Rochester, developed
gesting that thermonuclear reactions could be a four-beam neodymium-glass laser system
set off by intense light from a laser.* A small designed to demonstrate laser fusion energy
group was created at Livermore to carry out gain. Funding was from an industrial-univer-
theoretical and experimental work on laser fu- sity-state consortium.
sion, seen at that time as part of the weapons
program. By 1967, Livermore was operating a Naval Research Laboratory/Plasma Physics
12-beam, spherically symmetric laser irradia- Division was funded by the Atomic Energy
tion facility providing 20 joules of energy in Commission and the Department of Defense.
10 nanoseconds used in plasma-heating The Naval Research Laboratory used a neo-
Lasers and the early inertial confinement fusion program

experiments. At the same time, the laboratory dymium-glass laser system primarily for the
was developing what would be the forerunner detailed physics of certain aspects of laser-
of large disk lasers. matter interactions.
The goal for laser fusion systems (the same as Research at the Battelle Memorial Institute/
for particle beam fusion) was to produce more Electromagnetic and Plasma Physics Section
energy from the fusion pellet than is delivered was funded by the Department of Defense
to the pellet. and Battelle. The program aimed at a break
even in energy. Its laser system had six beams
In 1966, a laser program was established at of neodymium-glass laser amplifiers. Most
Sandia as part of its weapons effects simula- experiments used metallic targets to enhance
tion work. Sandia built a neodymium-glass
the conversion of laser light to x rays.a
laser system that produced intense, very short
laser pulses, which were applied to laser-target Between 1973 and 1982, a significant laser
interaction experiments. In 1969, the system program was funded at Sandia. (The origins of
produced neutrons from a lithium deuteride the laser program go back to 1966.) In a quest
target.These were the first laser-produced for more efficient lasers that would be needed
neutrons in the United States. (The results in a laser-driven inertial confinement fusion
confirmed research reported by N.G. Basov at reactor, the Atomic Energy Commission/
the Soviet’s Lebedev Institute.) Department of Military Applications funded
an advanced laser research program, with
Los Alamos began its laser program in 1969,
some of it at Sandia. In the early 1980s, laser
and developed electron-beam-stabilized, large-
activities were transitioned into laser-triggered
aperture CO2 lasers. Research centered on the
switching and ion source research and the
physics of laser-plasma interactions and laser-
laser program diminished in size as the
induced implosions of fusion pellets.
particle beam fusion effort grew in importance.
Laser fusion research funded through the * Laser means “light amplification by stimulated emission of
Atomic Energy Commission increased from radiation.” A laser converts input power into a narrow, intense
about 30 people at Livermore in the early beam of light. The input power excites the atoms of an optical
1960s to 570 at the three nuclear weapons resonator to a higher energy level, and the resonator forces the
excited atoms to radiate in phase. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
laboratories by mid-1974. Scientific and Technical Terms, fourth edition)

a AEC. “AEC Laser and Electron Beam Programs: FY 1976-FY 1980.” July 15, 1974. WASH 1363.UC-21. AEC:USGPO.

22
22 In the background - Aligning the amplifier section of
Sandia’s new high-intensity, ultra-short-pulse laser are
Eric Jones and Garth Gobeli. (Photo appeared in Sandia
Lab News, Vol. 21, No. 5, Pg. 1, on February 28, 1969)
 the ’60s

endnotes
1 The Soviet Union tested a 0.5-megaton device in August 1953, described as a thermonuclear
device, and another in 1955, which entered their stockpile; so the arms race was close.
2 Samuel Glasstone and Philip Dolan, eds., The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, third
edition, Washington, DC: Department of Defense and Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1977. Ken Prestwich (2005) explained Sandia’s needs this way (paraphrased
from an interview): Gamma rays and x rays are produced by the bomb. Intense gamma
rays can ionize air and the movement of the electrons and ions created in this ionization
process creates radio frequency waves. These radio frequency waves created the need for
electromagnetic pulse simulators. Sandia had a requirement to test against this threat and
either purchased or built test sources. The pulsed power group did not develop these sources.
Some of us acted as advisors on both Sandia and military laboratory sources. Gamma rays
can harm weapons at long range although probably at less distance than the radio frequency
waves.
3 Van Arsdall interview with A.W. Snyder, June 2, 2004.
4
In a strange coincidence, several men associated with the early days of pulsed power had the
last name of Martin: Chuck Martin at Sandia, J.C. “Charlie” Martin at AWRE, and, only a few
years later, Tom Martin at Sandia. Don Martin led pulsed power work at Physics International,
including the development of Marx-oil Blumlein technology.

23
Chapter One
5 For details on the weapons effects simulation needs, the technology improvements needed,
and other information in this section of chapter one, I am indebted to Ken Prestwich for a
careful review and helpful additions, and to Tom Martin for a careful review and patient
explanations of technical subjects. For more information on the early history of pulsed power,
see Ian Smith, “The Early History of Western Pulsed Power,” IEEE Transactions of Plasma
Science 34, No. 5, October 2006.
6 Van Arsdall interview with Ken Prestwich, May 13, 2004. Note: Livermore was also working
on this (like John Maenchen’s work at Sandia and the DAHRT at Los Alamos); they wanted to
take pictures of bomb implosions.
7 Undated memo from S.C. Rogers, Org. 5221, to T.B. Cook, Org. 5200, and A.W. Snyder, Org.
5220, on “Tentative Plans for Constructing a Large X Ray Generator.” From internal evidence,
it must date to ca. February 1965. In Box 18 of the Martin-Prestwich Collection, SNL Archives.
8 Van Arsdall interview with Ray Clark, January 19, 2005.
9 Van Arsdall interview with Prestwich, May 13, 2004. “Ian Smith and Tommy Storr built
Spastic based on their SMOG machine, and in many ways it was the most sophisticated
machine we ever had. You get 23 switches to go at the same time, and have fast rise time; it’s
amazing! Especially at that time. But that technology has not continued because it is difficult
to work with.”
10 Van Arsdall interview with A.W. Snyder, June 2, 2004.
11 Tom Martin, phone interview with Van Arsdall of October 25, 2005.
12
Tom Martin said he felt “there is always a problem contracting out for machines. You
always wonder if they built what you wanted—that’s why Charlie built his own and so did
we—using the principle of the cheapest thing to do the job.” Van Arsdall interview with
Tom Martin, April 29, 2004.
13 Van Arsdall interviews with A.W. Snyder and Tom Martin. Snyder called this building a real
dump. Tom Martin said the reason there was no insulation was that the sheets of material
used for the purpose were held in place by rivets. The metal rivets were put in place by rivet
guns; when the machine went off, the rivets came out of the wall and the insulation would
not stay in place.
14 Tom Martin, phone interview with Van Arsdall of October 25, 2005.
15
Ian Smith provided the following information about this competition in January 2006: “The
1590 was first test-fired in late 1966 (I saw it when I arrived at Physics International the first
week of January 1967); it met specifications there in May 1967, and factory-acceptance tests
by the United States Air Force were complete on 2 June 1967. Since Hermes II construction
began in August 1967 and the first test firing was in the summer of 1968, the priority of the
1590 as pulsed power seems clear. Shipment of the 1590 to Albuquerque was delayed by a
contractual problem; still it was test-fired in Albuquerque in late April 1968; it reached full
power in late June, and on-site acceptance tests for the Air Force followed days later. Hermes II
could have reached full power before the end of June 1968, or been the first to do simulations
for users—I just don’t know. During shipment, the Air Force has Physics International
change the change the 1590 tank from an L to a straight tank, allowing a few more Marx
stages and about 10% more power in Albuquerque than in San Leandro.”

24
 the ’60s
16 Sandia supported the development of Aurora by participating in the Defense Atomic Support
Agency review panels.
17 Ian Smith, an engineer in Charlie Martin’s group, was by then at Physics International
working on Aurora. Smith became and remains one of the leading pulsed power experts in
the world. For an in-depth overview of the early days of pulsed power, see Ian Smith, “The
Early History of Western Pulsed Power,” cited in note 5.
18 Casino, true to its gambling name, was not completely successful and the outcome vindicated
Sandia’s decision not to build machines for beam combination but to increase the power of
an individual electron beam.
19 Information from Van Arsdall interview with Tom Martin, April 29, 2004; notebooks
belonging to Gerold Yonas dating from the early 1970s in the Sandia archives; N.S. Furman,
Interview with Gerry Yonas of June 22, 1984; Sandia archives, Furman Sandia Pulsed Power
and Electron Beam Fusion collection.
20 Van Arsdall interview with Prestwich, May 13, 2004; Van Arsdall interview with Martin,
April 29, 2004.
21 Controlled Thermonuclear Research: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Research,
Development and Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), November 10
and 11, 1971. Printed for the JCAE by the Government Printing Office, 1971. Copy in Furman
Collection.

25
 the ’70s

Proto I

CHAPTER TWO
the ’70s

The 1970s and 1980s are the Cold War era, marked by competition between the
United States and the Soviet Union over supremacy in strategic nuclear weapons.
With their responsibilities for national defense, the Department of Defense and the
Atomic Energy Commission had overlapping requirements for weapons-related
programs, and they both funded work at a number of laboratories throughout
the country to try to find the best solutions.1 Of the Atomic Energy Commission’s
nuclear weapons laboratories, Sandia had developed a special skill in designing
pulsed power accelerators for the many types of radiation simulations needed by
the weapons community. Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, on the other hand,
had pioneered laser development to study the physics of inertial confinement fusion
in addition to weapons physics. If lasers could ignite fusion in the laboratory,
fundamental questions in weapons physics could be studied, and the spectrum of
radiation for simulations could be enlarged when high gain was achieved (high
gain means much more energy is produced than went into producing the reaction).

27
 Fusion
Fusion, the source of the sun’s Although the process sounds straightforward,
energy, is generally believed to there is an almost overwhelming problem:
be the ultimate source of energy finding a way to introduce large amounts of
X-ray illumination for the earth as well—if it can be energy into the fuel while maintaining confine-
leads to ...
produced on a scale useful for a ment long enough for fusion to occur. a
power plant. The fuel—deuterium,
Inertial confinement fusion requires rapidly
a hydrogen isotope—is found in
compressing a capsule of fuel only millimeters
water and is therefore plentiful;
in size to densities and temperatures
it is readily available, essentially
higher than those at the center of the sun.
hazard free, environmentally ac-
It requires high fuel density confined and
ceptable—and cheap.
heated for a billionth of a second. Either a
But there’s a hooker: power-pro- particle or laser beam heats the spherical
ducing fusion requires physical shell of the fuel pellet, vaporizing the shell
blowoff and subsequent
conditions beyond present scientific and causing it to ablate (be blown rapidly
compressing force...
capabilities. Those conditions are rigor- outward). The resulting shock wave of the
ous: a) heat the fusion fuel above igni- outward ablation drives the fuel pellet inward.
tion point—about one hundred mil- Shock compression raises the density and
lion degrees kinetic temperature; temperature of the fuel to the point necessary
at that point the fuel becomes a for fusion (1000 times solid density and 100
plasma, a totally ionized gas; b) million degrees Celsius). This process has
while maintaining its tempera- been called pellet crushing compression.
ture, isolate the plasma from its
At that temperature and density, deuterium
container long enough so that the
and tritium will be able to collide. Pairs of
release of fusion energy is greater
deuterium and tritium nuclei will fuse, each
in order to achieve than the energy required to heat
pair becoming a single helium nucleus. Anoth-
ignition. the fuel (for inertial confinement
er nuclear particle, a neutron, will be released,
fusion, the container was the outer
along with energy.
metal shell of the capsule); and
c) convert the released energy to a useful The combined energy of trillions of individual
form, such as electricity. fusion reactions will blow the pellet apart. But
the inertia of the inward-moving material will
Fuel densities must be high and confinement
counteract, keeping the pellet together until the
times long in order to reach an efficient
reaction has spread through most of the fuel—
reaction. The most widely accepted approach
hence the term “inertial confinement.” The
to achieving the required conditions is
result will be a fusion reaction in the form of a
confinement of the plasma in magnetic
small thermonuclear explosion. The laboratory-
traps—toroidal pinch devices, for example.
scale explosion will allow better understanding
Another approach is pulsed fusion through
of the physics of nuclear weapons and is a
inertial confinement, the basis for both
potential source of energy for power plants.b
particle beam and laser work.
Magnetic confinement fusion uses lower fuel
Whereas nuclear fission is a process of break-
density than in the inertial confinement ap-
ing apart heavy atomic nuclei, thereby releas-
proach, but requires the fuel to be confined
ing energy, nuclear fusion refers to joining
for a longer period of time. The aim in this
together—fusing—the nuclei of light atoms.
technique is to confine and heat the plasma,
To make nuclei fuse, scientists put energy into
using extremely strong magnetic fields, long
fusion fuel, raising its temperature and setting
enough for fusion reactions to occur. The mag-
the atoms into rapid motion. At high tem-
netic fields are designed to create a kind of
peratures, all the electrons are stripped from
bottle that will contain the immensely hot and
the atoms, leaving bare nuclei and free elec-
unpredictable plasma and keep it away from
trons—creating what is known as plasma. In
the walls of the bottle so that fusion can take
these very high temperatures, the nuclei move
place.
energetically enough to collide, and then the
Fusion

nuclear force comes into play. Short in range a Paragraphs on fusion are adapted from Sandia Lab
but extremely powerful, the nuclear force News, September 21, 1973, “Fusion and Electron
Beams.”
binds the colliding particles together.
28 This binding is fusion. b Inertial confinement fusion description based on Particle
Beam Fusion Accelerator II, SAND86-0861.
 the ’70s
Though perhaps far in the future, the concept was always there that fusion could be
at the heart of a facility providing an inexhaustible source of energy.
In the opening years of the 1970s, Al Narath was director of Solid State Sciences in
Sandia’s research organization and Everet Beckner was manager of Plasma and
Laser Physics Research. Beckner’s group was studying the production and output
of dense plasmas. Both men recognized the importance of Sandia’s high-power
electron accelerators for weapons effects because of their ability to provide intense
x-ray sources. In time, they became convinced that fusion research also suited
Sandia’s accelerator capabilities and, in addition, that an inertial confinement
fusion program would greatly benefit the Labs. As a companion to Livermore and
Los Alamos programs, where laser fusion studies were already under way, Sandia
pointed to its lasers in addition to its electron-beam accelerators as potential fusion
drivers. However, neither of the other laboratories thought electron-beam technology
was suited to fusion, and they resisted Sandia’s attempts to enter the field (see
Magnetic Confinement Fusion
chapter one). In spite of the opposition, Narath and Beckner relentlessly insisted
upon Sandia’s capabilities to do fusion and their intent to establish a program at
the Labs.
In looking back on the early days of pulsed power at Sandia, Narath said he believed
Sandia needed a great new initiative to attract technical talent and help keep the
Labs alive, because weapons programs began to decline after 1972.2 He said that
fusion for energy was the major reason for taking on the research, although because
of the classified nature of the targets required, inertial confinement fusion activities
were funded by defense programs.3 At the same time, the stable of pulsed power
machines being developed for weapons effects simulations, including Hermes II, Magnetic field holds heat.
was becoming a Sandia hallmark. In fact, the military had additional demands
for new and more powerful machines capable of delivering different spectra of
radiation for weapons effects simulations.4 That pulsed power accelerators might be
developed to meet these needs, in addition to doing fusion experiments, opened new
possibilities at Sandia.5 Inertial Confinement Fusion
Fusion involves ignition and burning of a form of matter known as plasma,
requiring enormously high temperatures like those in the center of the sun. Beams
produced either by lasers or particle-beam accelerators theoretically have the
capability to implode a fusion capsule; ideally the implosion will compress and
heat a target within it to fusion conditions. Lasers concentrate power in short pulses
and can be focused easily, but they are inefficient and expensive. Electron-beam
accelerators, on the other hand, create beams with high energies and are efficient
and relatively less expensive than lasers. However, precisely focusing electron
beams is difficult, because the like charges of the particles in the beam repel one
another and spread the beam. In addition to the challenges of beam focusing, to Collapsing shell confines and heats
use accelerators as a trigger for fusion also requires scaling the beams to the power fuels.
required. For these and other reasons, much of the technical community looked

29
Chapter Two
upon electron-beam fusion research with skepticism. However, Sandia believed
the potential advantages far outweighed the drawbacks, and moreover considered
electron-beam fusion technically feasible.
In 1971, the nation’s fusion programs went under a Controlled Thermonuclear
Research Division within the Atomic Energy Commission. These programs were
growing rapidly both in expense and importance; as a result, that year several
Congressional hearings reviewed them to assess what was being done at laboratories
across the nation. Sandia’s pulsed power machines were included in the review,
conducted by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. At the conclusion of the
review, the committee determined that electron-beam accelerators were as viable
as lasers in the quest to create a controlled fusion reaction in small pellets of
deuterium-tritium (weapons work had suggested the composition of the pellets).
This recognition, coupled with the ongoing need for electron beams for weapons
effects simulations, created support for electron-beam fusion research. The
recognition also meant that Narath and Beckner had succeeded in gaining Sandia
a place in the nation’s fusion programs. Because inertial confinement fusion was
funded for weapons applications, many details of the target work remained under
tight security wraps. (In this history, the term fusion refers to inertial confinement
fusion. If magnetic confinement fusion is meant, it will be called such. Controlled
thermonuclear research encompasses both approaches.)
Soon after the review (mid-1972), Beckner and Narath hired Gerry Yonas into
Sandia’s research organization. Yonas had managed electron-beam physics work at
Physics International, a major firm that made large electron-beam accelerators and
performed weapons-related experiments with them. The Defense Atomic Support
Agency, which was responsible for radiation-effects studies in the Department of
Defense, was the firm’s key customer at that time. (In fact, Sandia competed with
Physics International and other Department of Defense laboratories in this field; see
chapter one.) Beckner recalled that he and Narath hired Yonas specifically to gain a
better understanding of the physics of intense electron-beam accelerators, especially
the diode, and how to get the focus needed for an intense x-ray source.6
At the same time, there was a program using a small glass laser at Sandia for fusion
studies, even though Livermore and Los Alamos were out in front with laser work
and had been in the field for some time. Beckner said, “Livermore was already a
powerhouse in glass lasers, Los Alamos less so, but a force, with their gas lasers. The
designs Los Alamos and Livermore created for fusion targets were similar to what
they did when designing nuclear weapons, so they had target expertise.
John Emmett at Livermore was a pioneer in fusion with lasers, as was Keith Boyer
at Los Alamos. Sandia entered the laser fusion arena as a third party, as it were, to
Los Alamos and Livermore. And we were using our electron accelerators for other
reasons than fusion.”7

30
 the ’70s
In Yonas, Narath and Beckner found the ideal champion for Sandia’s fusion
program; however, not for laser fusion, but using the accelerators that he knew so
well. As manager of a new Electron Beam Physics Division, Yonas joined Narath and
Beckner in insisting to Livermore and Los Alamos that Sandia merited a place at
the fusion table. It would prove to be a lengthy and at times volatile effort, naturally
involving the Atomic Energy Commission and its national fusion program. Narath
became Vice President of Research in 1972, and Beckner was promoted in 1973 to
lead the Physical Research Directorate, with Yonas and Tom Martin reporting to
him.8
Yonas recalled years later that when interviewing at Sandia, he had promised
Narath that he would “bring LIFE (lasers, ions, fusion, and electrons) to the
Sandia Pulsed Power Program,” and said he was totally committed to pursuing
fusion.9 Promoted quickly into increasingly higher management positions, Yonas
would champion and lead the fusion effort inside the Labs and at the national
level throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s. A universal acknowledgement
among pulsed power veterans is that Sandia’s fusion program is in large measure
due to Yonas’s tenacious pursuit of funding for the required facilities and his firm
commitment to the pulsed power approach. In 1998, he would receive a special Gerry Yonas
Ev Beckner Al Narath
award for his work (see chapter four). However, Yonas credits Narath and Beckner
with having had the vision to initiate Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion program
in the early 1970s. (Please see following sidebar on these men.)
Just as fusion research in the weapons community was beginning to ramp up,
the United States and the Soviet Union signed two treaties that had the effect of
reducing the need for many kinds of weapons work in the national laboratories
for a time. Because both countries had intercontinental ballistic missiles bearing
nuclear warheads and extensive anti-missile capabilities, it became obvious that, in
a shoot-out, no country could win. As a result, after lengthy negotiations, in 1972
President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed the Treaty on the
Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
(SALT). The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as it became known, limited deployment
areas for anti-ballistic missiles in each country to two and made it impossible for
either country to have or develop a nationwide anti-ballistic missile defense system.
SALT limited strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons systems. The
United States and Soviet Union were now equally open to attack, and the balance
of nuclear weapons assured—a concept known as mutually assured destruction.10
The treaties eased tensions in the arms race and called into question the need for
increased efforts at US weapons laboratories. If no nuclear weapons were deployed,
weapons effects studies were of less importance than during the arms race. As a
consequence, defense funding for weapons effects simulations became tighter,
including dollars for fusion.

31
 Beckner, Yonas, Narath
Beckner, Yonas, Narath

by Sandia artist Jim Walston

“Sandia had three programs in the early 1970s: lasers, plasma physics, and high-
power pulsed electron accelerators. It was Al Narath’s insight to try to combine
those three areas. That was the thrust when I became a director reporting to him.
The decision to use pulsed power as our main capability made us different; that set
us apart from Los Alamos and Livermore. A lot of it was coincidental, that it was all
here at the same time—the people and the technology. Narath and I developed a
strategy for turning this technology into a fusion program. And Gerry Yonas was the
right person at the right time. We had this technology that was advancing and being
supported for other reasons (weapons). We needed those x-ray sources—and we
had the opportunity to use the same accelerators to try to make fusion.”
Everet Beckner, 2006.

32
 the ’70s
Despite some funding reductions, weapons effect simulations and fusion studies
continued at Sandia, Los Alamos, Livermore, and elsewhere. Sandia was now
concentrating on using its pulsed power accelerators to produce electron beams
capable of irradiating fusion pellets, an approach similar to lasers. Sandia intended
to implode the deuterium-tritium pellets by focusing intense electron beams on
them, heating them to the point that they imploded and fusion reactions occurred.
Experiments on the accelerators Nereus and Slim introduced the concept of
wire-on-axis pinched electron beams, and for the first time, computer codes were
used to guide the work. As a result, Sandia’s team pushed its claim that it could
focus electron beams for fusion applications. In January 1973, Sandia researchers
published a paper titled “Electron Beam Focusing Using Current Carrying Plasmas
in High- ν/γ Diodes” in Physical Review Letters and the results were announced
later that year at the European Conference on Controlled Fusion and Plasma
Physics.11 (Please see following sidebar on Wire-on-Axis Research.) At the conference,
the United States learned that Russian scientists at the Kurchatov Institute, notably
Leonid I. Rudakov, were also working on electron-beam fusion using a concept
similar to Sandia’s; i.e., using electron beams to compress and implode spherical
pellets of fusion fuel. Yonas and Rudakov began a long professional association
at this time, in spite of the limitations on sharing information that security issues
posed.12
Fusion began to attract national interest at this time, but not for reasons of national
defense. In 1973, an international oil crisis made energy a rallying cry in the United
States and brought additional pressure on the national laboratories to identify
secure, environmentally safe sources of energy. Because of the need to reduce
dependence on foreign resources, the laboratories cast a wide net of possibilities for
creating energy sources at home. Beginning then, research into harnessing fusion
for energy became a major US effort. Interest in renewable energy was high as well,
and major programs evolved at the national laboratories devoted to solar, wind,
and geothermal technologies, many of them at Sandia. As reported in a Sandia
Lab News article on September 7, Senator Joseph Montoya, senior senator from
New Mexico and a staunch supporter of the Labs, visited Sandia in August. At that
time, he warned of reductions in defense spending and increasing emphasis on
energy and the environment, urging Sandia to apply its “tremendous reservoir of
experience and capabilities” to the energy crisis. In foreseeing funding reductions
ahead at all the weapons laboratories, Montoya told his Sandia audience, “The
honeymoon is over for Congress and the Atomic Energy Commission in the easy
funding of Atomic Energy Commission [weapons] programs.”
As a consequence, at weapons laboratories such as Sandia, the fusion energy effort
for awhile overshadowed the weapons-related fusion work, though both continued
in parallel. The fact that funding for defense was decreasing and the interest in
fusion for energy rather than weapons effects was increasing factored into events
at Sandia soon after Montoya’s visit. Intended primarily for weapons effects studies

33
 the radiographs, these current densities were
never exceeded. The wire-on-axis pinched
electron beam concept was patented by Yonas,
Ken Prestwich, John Freeman, and Jim Poukey.
Poukey and Freeman developed codes that de-
scribed the physics of electron beam diodes.
The code physics evolved by comparison with
the experiments performed by staff members
in what became Yonas’s division. By 1975,
Poukey and independently Shyke Goldstein
from the Naval Research Laboratory showed
that it would be very difficult to get enough
NEREUS energy in the self-pinched electron beam to
achieve fusion conditions. The problem was
that in order to get several megamps of cur-
rent, the cathode had to be the order of 1 m in

Wire-on-Axis Research radius. The magnetic field of the large current

generated at the outer edge of the cathode
caused the electron to flow radially to the axis
The facilities available for electron-beam re-
of the large cathode. During the rising portion
search when Gerry Yonas arrived were REBA,
of the current pulse, the magnetic field was
Nereus, and Slim (the diodes were still being
not large enough to cause the electrons to flow
developed). Yonas immediately started elec-
Wire-on-Axis Research

to the axis. Substantial energy was deposited

tron-beam pinching experiments on Nereus
in the anode during this phase, heating the
and conceived the idea of using a wire on axis
anode, causing gas to evolve, and producing
to provide an additional magnetic field for
an anode plasma. Ions from this anode plas-
pinching the electron beam.
ma were accelerated across the gap. In non-
These experiments were transferred to SLIM, pinching diodes, the ion current is only a few
a machine with the unique feature that it did percent of the total current. In these pinched
not have a prepulse voltage. In essentially diodes, it can become greater than 50 percent
all other pulsed power accelerators, a of the current, thereby substantially reducing
voltage appeared across the diode while the the efficiency of the pinched beam diode.
pulse-forming lines were being charged. In
Sandia and other organizations started
experiments on Slim with a 17.7-cm-diameter
ion beam research immediately after these
cathode, electron beam densities of several
papers were published, but it was nearly 10
megamps/cm2 were achieved. Although there
years before pinched electron beam diode
was some uncertainty as to the accuracy of
concepts were abandoned. This research
involved experts in plasma theory as well as
pulsed power and electron beams. Funding
came from the Atomic Energy Commission/
Controlled Thermonuclear Research and from
the Atomic Energy Commission/Department
of Military Applications. The Department of
Defense provided funding for research at the
Naval Research Laboratory, Maxwell Labs and
Physics International.
[Information from Ken Prestwich, summer 2006.]

Slim, 1971.

34
34
 the ’70s
using x rays to rip apart microcircuits, a facility named Ripper designed by Tom
Martin’s department was proposed to the Atomic Energy Commission/Division of
Military Applications, which funded the majority of pulsed power work at the Labs.
Even though Sandia said Ripper would increase by a factor of ten the power from its
existing accelerators, Ripper was turned down.13 Ripper, envisioned as a much more
powerful facility than any at Sandia at the time, was proposed both for radiation
simulation and for fundamental research with electron beams for fusion.
Fortunately, the Atomic Energy Commission’s now independent Division of
Controlled Thermonuclear Research approved Sandia’s request for $250,000 for a
year to do research into compressing and heating thermonuclear fuel using electron
beams. Initially, the research was to be in the physics of beam focusing and energy
absorption in solids (important in being able to heat the outer layer of the pellet of
fusion fuel). A Sandia Lab News article on September 23, 1973, titled “Fusion and
Electron Beams” explained that three divisions were now involved in the work, all Gerry Yonas and Tom Martin with model
of Ripper.
of them under Yonas. Plasma Theory under John Freeman, Electron Beam Research
under Al Toepfer, and Pulsed Power Research and Technology under Tom Martin
were going to work together on the difficult goal of igniting a fusion pellet in the
laboratory, drawing upon specialized capabilities of other Sandia organizations
when necessary.
Eclipsed in later years by the accelerator effort, between 1973 and 1982 a significant
laser program existed at Sandia. (The origins of the laser program go back to
1966.) Laser activities existed within the overarching Physical Research area, where
the Pulsed Power Program was being created using staff from several divisions. In
some ways the laser effort was competing with the goals of the electron-beam fusion
program. However, the tie-in was that virtually all advanced lasers required pulsed
power sources to supply energy to the laser. In a quest for more efficient lasers for a
laser-driven inertial confinement fusion reactor, the Atomic Energy Commission/
Department of Military Applications funded an advanced laser research program,
some of it at Sandia.
Jim B. Gerardo headed laser physics research beginning in the summer of 1971, and
most of his lasers used electron beams to excite the laser gas. At first, REBA was used
for the research, and then other electron-beam accelerators. LILI, Rayito, and Rayo
were developed by Juan Ramirez and David L. Johnson specifically for this kind of
work, where the beam is not required to focus. The laser group was responsible for
a considerable number of studies related to electron-beam generation, deposition
physics, and transport of electron beams. In 1974, laser and electron-beam fusion
issued a combined progress report for Sandia’s Directorate of Physical Research; the
next year, the programs were separate and remained so henceforth, yet still in the
same directorate.14 In the early 1980s, laser fusion activities were transitioned into
laser-triggered switching and ion source research and the laser program diminished
in size. With the emphasis on electron-beam development for fusion at Sandia, and

35
Chapter Two
given that Los Alamos and Livermore had large laser programs, choices had to be
made in funding requests, and the laser fusion activities elsewhere were too large to
compete with directly. Laser fusion work continued at Sandia largely in support of
accelerator work and to provide information to other laboratories.15
The US inertial confinement fusion programs were overseen by the powerful Laser-
Fusion Coordinating Committee, which would make funding recommendations
to the Atomic Energy Commission after hearing proposals. The Atomic Energy
Commission would then draw up and annually submit a budget to Congress
for approval. The committee’s name—laser fusion—suggests where the
breakthroughs in fusion work were anticipated, and also why Sandia faced an
uphill battle to gain recognition for its electron-beam approach. However, Sandia
was beginning to gain acceptance as part of the Atomic Energy Commission’s
inertial confinement fusion effort because of its electron-beam programs. The far
less expensive electron-beam technology was unique to Sandia (at this time, the
Department of Defense laboratories had a smaller effort in applying the accelerators
they had been developing for weapons effects simulations to fusion experiments,
since the military viewed fusion work primarily as an energy program with
applications to weapons effects simulations).16
Having jettisoned its proposal for Ripper, in 1974 Sandia outlined to the Atomic
Energy Commission a long-range program to develop a new Electron Beam Fusion
Facility. Such a facility would have an accelerator capable of much more power
and energy than anything yet available and specifically designed to ignite a fusion
reaction. The estimated cost was $15 million, and Sandia wanted it included in the
FY 1976 Congressional budget.
As described to the Commission, the facility would be built in a new area, away from
Area V where all the radiation facilities (including, for example, Hydra, Hermes, and
REBA) were then operating. Safety concerns were the main reason for not adding the
new accelerator and its additional staff to Area V, which was by that time considered
overcrowded. Since it would be by itself in an as-yet-unoccupied part of Sandia’s
desert landscape, plans for the Electron Beam Fusion Facility called for constructing
office and laboratory space in addition to building the accelerator. Sandia bolstered
its proposal by stating that the facility would have multiple uses: the accelerator could
be used as an x-ray simulator in addition to its fusion experiments and thus fill a
need in weapons work. In addition, it would contribute valuable information to the
Atomic Energy Commission’s laser fusion research program.
In promoting the idea for the Electron Beam Fusion Accelerator (EBFA), which
would go into the facility, Sandia said it was addressing three major technical
concerns about electron beams and fusion using theoretical studies and
experiments on existing machines. These concerns were whether the beam of
electrons could be focused on a specially designed and very small pellet of fusion
fuel, whether the beam could be made to irradiate the pellet with near-perfect

36
 the ’70s
symmetry, and finally, whether a pellet could be constructed so that it would
implode efficiently, given success in the first two areas. The pellet design was in
fact an area common to laser and electron-beam fusion and was being worked on
at all the Atomic Energy Commission laboratories; however, steering committee
minutes reveal that sharing of information could be a problem, particularly because
Los Alamos and Livermore did not think that Sandia’s electron-beam approach
would work given the difficulties with focusing the beam. The approach was also
competing with theirs for Atomic Energy Commission money.17
At this time, fusion research at Los Alamos centered on a carbon dioxide laser,
Helios, and an eight-beam facility named Antares was scheduled to be completed in
May 1975 at a cost of $22.6 million. Lawrence Livermore was building the 20-beam
glass laser, Shiva, with a ceiling cost of $20 million. Sandia’s proposal for the new
electron-beam facility was slightly less than $15 million. The fusion targets Sandia
would use in its electron-beam approach were made at Los Alamos and Livermore
because of the material they contained.18
At the national level, a shift in emphasis toward energy research within the US
government was seen in January 1975, when the Atomic Energy Commission was
abolished and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) were established to take over its
functions. The NRC took over responsibility for commercial reactor safety (and for
Sandia’s reactor safety assessments as well). The ERDA assumed responsibility for
weapon and energy research, with an organizational structure similar to that of the
Atomic Energy Commission. Funding requests and oversight of the weapons and
fusion programs continued much as in the past under the new agency.
At Sandia, the plan forward toward the EBFA was developed carefully and
systematically, though obtaining funding for it continued to be problematic. Physics
studies on beam focusing and energy deposition in targets would continue on
Hydra, in particular using low-energy electrons for energy deposition without deep
penetration. Research had demonstrated that the high magnetic fields of high-
current electron beams could focus them to millimeter size. Using this self-pinch
effect, one beam of Tom Martin’s Hydra heated two-part metal targets and caused
the inner part to implode and concentrate the beam’s power. At the same time,
studies were being made to determine whether the implosion was symmetrical, since
uniformly heating the spherical fusion pellet was a critical requirement for fusion
ignition. Because of favorable results from this work, Sandia decided to use Hydra in
a two-beam configuration and evaluate the results.19
In addition, Sandia’s ability to diagnose the results of its experiments and optimize
the configuration of fusion targets would soon improve in several areas, including
developing computer codes and collaborating with Los Alamos and Livermore to
obtain needed calculations using their enormous computer capabilities. Jeff Quintenz
was hired into John Freeman’s group at this time (1975) to work with Jim Poukey to
advance Sandia’s “rudimentary simulation capability” using computer codes,
37
Chapter Two
then being run on thousands of punch cards with a CDC-7600 computer.20 It
was during this period that electrostatic particle-in-cell computer codes began to
be developed at Sandia, codes that were soon used to understand electron beam
focusing and the role ions played in focusing electron beams. To this point, an
empirical approach had prevailed, and veterans of the program acknowledge that
the new theorists had to prove themselves to somewhat incredulous experimentalists
and machine designers. Quintenz became known as the “unprincipled advocate for
theory,” an advocacy that was vindicated in later years, when theory served to lay
firm foundations to explain and predict experimental results.21 (Please see following
Harp, 1972-1973.
sidebar on early computer codes.)
To prove the need for EBFA, Sandia outlined to the Congressional Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy detailed plans calling for not one, but two successively more
powerful prototypes to be developed and operated between 1974 and 1979. EBFA
would follow in late 1979 or early 1980, designed using information derived from
operating the prototypes. The presentation to the committee showed the first
prototype producing 2 trillion watts of power, with the planned EBFA producing
40 trillion watts, an enormous gain in only five years.22 Beyond that, and looking
years ahead, Sandia was already envisioning a successor to EBFA; its design would
depend on how well EBFA performed. Calculations were indicating that fusion
might require more power on target than had been believed in the past.
In contrast to Sandia’s other machines with their evocative names, the first
prototype for EBFA was called simply Proto I and it began operation in 1974. In
fact, Proto I was an upgrade of a slightly earlier machine named Harp—an
acronym for “Here’s Another Ripper Prototype.” Harp/Proto I was designed by
Ken Prestwich, with John Corley and Art Sharpe on his team. (Please see following
sidebar on Proto I and Proto II.) Proto I was Sandia’s first machine designed
specifically to irradiate fusion pellets. Created in the wagon-wheel configuration
that has become a hallmark of Sandia’s fusion machines, Proto I had 12
transmission lines linked into two beam sources, like spokes converging on an axle.
The trick was that the 12 transmission lines had to be triggered so that the pulses of
power from all of them would be delivered simultaneously to create a beam in the
central diode. The beam would then irradiate a fusion pellet positioned at the heart
of the wheel’s axle inside the diode. Sandia’s expertise in developing switches again
paid off. Prestwich is credited with developing the precise switches that enabled
Proto I to produce a very short pulse of power by synchronizing the pulses from the
12 transmission lines. The transmission lines were submerged in transformer oil to
insulate them, and the switches had to operate in this environment.
In November 1975, Sandia hosted the first International Conference on Electron
Beam Research and Technology with Yonas as chairman and organizer. It drew
some 200 participants, one of whom was Charlie Martin from the UK, the man
who in many ways was responsible for starting the technology that was the subject

38
 the ’70s
of the conference (see chapter one). Even Russian scientists were present, and
the conference was regarded as a signal of détente in relations between the West
and Russia. Certainly, exchange of scientific ideas began to increase beginning at
this time. Because fusion for energy held out hope to solve a major need facing
mankind, scientists everywhere wanted free discussion of the myriad challenges
in fusion work. Proto I was at center stage during the international meeting. In
talking about the conference and the status of electron-beam fusion at Sandia,
Yonas told a Sandia Lab News reporter that the program now numbered 50 people
with a budget of $4.7 million, expected to rise to $7 million in 1976.23 Although the
machines that generated the power were fundamental to success in fusion, other
specialties brought into the organization, such as plasma studies and diagnostics
for the electron beams, were vital to understanding and mastering this complex
technology.
Results from operating Proto I and data from a test bed machine called Ripple
convinced the pulsed power team to try a slightly different approach when designing
the second prototype, dubbed Proto II. The water lines in Hydra and experiments
using Ripple in 1974/75 indicated that the synchronized multi-channel switching
needed to form the power pulse could in fact be done better in water than oil.
Water lines facilitated the lower voltages and high currents required to achieve
the power densities. Earlier, water switching had been thought to be impossible.
Sandia decided to base Proto II on using water as insulation for the transmission
lines and to further develop water switching. Although the change sounds simple,
it presented many technical challenges, not the least of them how to reduce losses
in power when the switches were triggered. At this juncture in the program, a new
staff member named Pace VanDevender was hired into Tom Martin’s group in 1974
to work on the Ripple test bed. Like Yonas, VanDevender would soon be promoted
into upper management, contributing to Sandia’s pulsed power effort and to other
Sandia programs for many years to come. VanDevender and Martin worked out the
feasibility of water switching for Proto II, which began operating in early 1977.
For the US and international non-weapons community, fusion research was
primarily of interest as a source of energy, and national media coverage of advances
in inertial confinement fusion concentrated on that application. In reality, many
crucial scientific details of inertial confinement fusion, in particular the target
designs, were at that time classified and confined to the weapons community and
therefore received almost no popular attention. Foreshadowing international
technological competition that was shaping up both inside and outside that
community, the New York Times of January 15, 1976, reported that the Soviets
were turning from lasers for fusion to electron beams, which the Times said was View of Proto I, a pulsed power machine
built at Sandia during the 1970s for
“a method that, in this country, is receiving only modest support.” The Times said research into inertial confinement fusion.
that 90 percent of US funding was for laser fusion, with approximately 1000 people
working on it nationwide and estimated that only 50 to 100 were in electron beams,
most of them at Sandia.24

39
Early Use of Computer Codes in Pulsed Power Work at Sandia
In an interview in 2006, Sandia computational
physicist David Seidel likened experiment,
computer modeling, and theory in scientific
research to a three-legged stool: all three legs
are complementary and necessary to make
the stool stand. Two of those elements were
lacking in the earliest days of fusion work at
Sandia, when experiments on accelerators
and test beds sufficed for much of the needed
weapons effects simulations. Because of the
demanding scientific nature of inertial con-
finement fusion using particle beams, by the
mid-1970s Sandia staff found they needed to
be able to understand, explain, and finally im-
prove on increasingly complex machines and
experiments. As a consequence, new kinds of
diagnostics and computer codes were needed
to try to ascertain what was happening and
why—in a new field of research worldwide.
Fusion work required expertise in engineering
and in both experimental and theoretical phys-
ics at a laboratory only newly involved in basic
research.
Each area demanded increasing
sophistication—the three-legged stool analogy
again—better diagnostics of experiments
required more computer power to model what
was going on, and then better theory to analyze
the models and the data. This in turn suggested
improvements in the experiments; one complex
area in particular involved improving the diode,
the heart of ion-driven fusion. In the early
to mid-1970s, pulsed power at Sandia was
machine-oriented, with experimentalists trying
to get higher voltages and currents from new
and larger accelerators for various applications.
With the increasing complexity of inertial
confinement fusion work, the front end of the
machine, the target and beam-forming area (the
diode) and their associated elements, became
of paramount importance and the intricacy of
experiments increased enormously.
Computer codes were first used in pulsed
power at Sandia to model accelerators and
were applied after the fact to model how the
accelerator design had worked. Experimenters,
used to back-of-envelope drawings and
estimates, were leery of using computer
codes as predictive tools for machine
operation because this was a fundamentally
new approach. Electrical circuit codes model
integrated accelerator operation (called
system modeling); the earliest circuit code

40
employed at Sandia was named SCEPTRE. and Tom Mehlhorn were pioneers in this area.
Dillon McDaniel and David Seidel used this In particular, Mehlhorn developed ion-
code in the mid-to-late 1970s, primarily as an stopping power routines for inertial
analysis tool. SCEPTRE ran on a CDC-7600 confinement fusion target conditions and
supercomputer and was very expensive to run added this physics to LASNEX to enable ion-
because of the long computer time needed; driven fusion target-design calculations. The
hence its use was severely limited. ion-stopping power routines were first tested
in a radiation-hydrodynamics code called
John Freeman, who managed the plasma
TITAN in a project involving Keith Matzen,
theory group, began hiring staff to develop
Jim Morel, and Gary Montry.
accelerator codes, including Jim Poukey, Ken
Bergeron, Jeff Quintenz, and Seidel. However, Working with Bruce Goplen at Mission

Early Use of Computer Codes in Pulsed Power Work at Sandia

as the machines became larger and more Research, Seidel and Poukey helped develop a
expensive and the experiments more complex, code called MAGIC (MAGnetic Insulation Code)
it was imperative to find a way to use models that could analyze the magnetically insulated
not simply to understand but to predict what transmission lines dynamically; i.e., time
would happen—the empirical approach alone was accurately modeled as a variable of the
was becoming too limiting and too expensive. simulation. One of the first time-dependent
codes in the world for particle simulations, it
Circuit codes were adequate to show how
was employed until 2005, but in a version that
machines worked—up to a point. When
Tim Pointon and Seidel revamped in the late
magnetically insulated transmission lines
1980s into TWOQUICK. (The original Mission
were developed in the 1970s, enabling
Research version of MAGIC is still used at
breakthroughs in pulsed power fusion work,
other laboratories.) With the decision in 1983
they were new and unlike normal circuits.
to commit to ion beams as Sandia’s approach
Such transmission lines are non-linear and
to fusion, a new era in code development and
complex, and none of the existing computer
theory commenced as well, because with
codes could accurately simulate them. Non-
the promises it held out for success, the ion
linear systems are subject to instabilities, and
beam approach to fusion brought with it great
theorists knew that they needed to develop
challenges. (Please see sidebar on later codes
a code that could factor in time, creating a
in chapter three.)
two-dimensional code to help understand how
the magnetically insulated transmission lines In parallel with the new particle-in-cell phys-
worked. The transmission lines provided a ics codes, Sandia continued to develop circuit
much-desired increase in power density, but codes for accelerator design. The first effort
were not well understood. Cliff Mendel was beyond SCEPTRE was CIRCUS, developed by
involved both with discovering magnetically Gary Montry and Mel Widner to analyze ac-
insulated transmission lines and developing celerator jitter, but it had a limited lifetime.
theory to explain them, and Pace VanDevender Following it was SCREAMER, a circuit code
was a key person in this work. (Please that initially ran on a VAX super-minicom-
see sidebar on magnetically self-insulated puter instead of a CRAY. The code was named
transmission lines in this chapter.) SCREAMER to indicate how fast it ran. Widner
and Mark Kiefer developed this easy-to-use
At this same time (1970s, early 1980s),
code in 1983/84. SCREAMER allowed, for
Freeman, Poukey, and Quintenz were working
the first time, fast-running accelerator design
on another kind of code for the vacuum
calculations. It was used to help design PBFA
section of the machine—the front end. Known
II and for the design of every accelerator since
as a particle-in-cell code, it is concerned with
then because it allowed staff to look at accel-
electromagnetic fields, charged particles, and
erators in a predictive way. SCREAMER, in fact,
plasmas. Freeman, Poukey, and Quintenz were
proved to be popular even outside Sandia after
developing such codes for the diode; the first
it was configured for personal computers.
one was static in that time was not taken into
account in the calculations. Other physics
codes being used at the time for target design [Based on interviews with Jeff Quintenz, David Seidel, Mark
were LASNEX and Chart D. Mary Ann Sweeney Kiefer, and Cliff Mendel in 2006.]

41
Proto I and Proto II
Proto I was the first high-power, short-pulse Electron beams were generated from the sur-
electron beam accelerator designed specifical- faces of cathodes that were between 25 and
ly to heat and compress the fuel pellets used in 300 times larger in diameter than the fusion
fusion experiments. It was Sandia’s first step in targets. The fusion target was attached to the
an accelerator program estimated in 1976 to common anode for compression experiments.
be leading toward a 100-terawatt capability. It was found that spherical targets could be
uniformly irradiated with only two beams.
Proto I began operation in 1974 (it used ele-
ments from an earlier machine called HARP, The intent of Proto I was to deposit large
initially built as part of the proposed Ripper amounts of energy in a small target, with the
program, which was not funded). Before the hope of producing thermonuclear neutrons
accelerator could become a reality, a new using an electron beam to irradiate a fusion
high-voltage switching technique (a rail switch target—a first desired step in Sandia’s particle
using an oil dielectric), a novel pulse-forming beam fusion program. The Proto I approach
transmission line, and a dual diode especially was a conservative extrapolation from existing
suited for target interaction studies had to be technology using an oil dielectric and triggered
developed. The modular construction of Proto multi-channel switches. Proto I was designed
I was designed to allow adaptation in the de- by Ken Prestwich and built with the assistance
velopment of much higher energy systems of of Art Sharpe.
this type.
However, at the time Proto I and II were being
Although the power level of Proto I was known built, it was known that for fusion reactions to
to be well below that required for fusion, the occur, megajoules of beam energy would be
machine enabled Sandia to explore a number needed delivered on target in 10 to 20 nano-
of questions before such experiments could seconds. Sandia decided to use a more ad-
be envisioned. Proto I was useful for studying vanced and riskier approach on the 8-terawatt
the generation and focusing of electron beams Proto II, which used a water dielectric and
initiated in large-diameter cathodes, and for untriggered multi-channel switches. It began
investigating electron beam energy deposi- operation in 1977. Proto II was designed by
tion in solids that would be used in fusion Tom Martin, and the team included Johann
targets. Target compression experiments were Seamen, Dillon McDaniel, Dave Johnson, and
advanced on this accelerator. Proto I was also Pace VanDevender.
used to study the generation and focusing of
Sandia wanted to ascertain how well high-
ion beams.
purity water would work as an insulator, and a
Proto I was constructed with two Marx genera- new approach to switching was again required
tors located in an oil-filled tank and connected before a water-insulated accelerator could
to trigger circuits, transmission lines, and di- be considered at the power levels desired.
odes in an adjacent oil-filled tank. One genera- Sandia developed its technique for switching
tor charged the transmission lines, the other in a series of experiments on Ripple, a test
provided precision triggering to the rail switch- configuration that modeled the electrical
es. (Sandia devel- energy storage, switching, and transport
oped an oil-dielectric concepts for Proto II. (The technique was first
rail switch that developed at Maxwell Labs; the UK’s
would work for this Charlie Martin suggested it to Sandia.)a
application, since no The generated voltage rise times were so
such switches then short that multiple breakdowns occurred, in
existed.) The trans- effect creating many switches by producing
mission lines were numerous current-carrying channels between
in a tank measuring the electrodes of each switch.
9.1 m in diameter
Proto II was housed in a tank that was 2.74 m
and 2.4 m deep
high and 13.4 m in diameter filled with
filled with 30,000
60,000 gal. of transformer oil. It had eight
gal. of transformer
Marx generators, which discharged into 16
oil during operation.
intermediate storage capacitors, also in the
oil-filled tank. The intermediate capacitors
42 Proto II tank, October 29, 1976
released energy into pulse-forming and trans- Conference on Electron
mission lines arranged near the center of the Beam Research and
tank and submerged in 35,000 gal. of water. Technology hosted by
The new switching technique came into play Sandia in November of
at this point, and the first set of pulse-forming that year, summarized
lines self-switched in 16 current-carrying chan- here.
nels to charge the second set of pulse-forming
Sandia had improved
lines in 70 nanoseconds. The voltage rise was
its ability to predict test
so rapid that the second set of lines switched,
results, record test data
with about 200 channels, and launched a wave with increased precision,
down the converging transmission line trans- and analyze those data
formers toward the diode. At the center of later. The goal was to
the tank was an evacuated chamber, or diode, Standing atop the diode of Proto II,
determine the degree of where x-ray laser experiments were
whose outer wall of Lucite separated the diode symmetry of loading and performed for the Strategic Defense Ini-
from the surrounding transmission lines. subsequent compression tiative in 1984, are Keith Matzen, Rick
At peak energy, the electromagnetic wave of the spherical fuel pel- Spielman, and Warren Hsing. Proto II
from the transmission lines passed through let after irradiation by the then was used in an experimental pro-
the insulator, applying a strong electric field electron beam. The key to gram to develop a pulsed-power-driven
to two carbon-coated metal rings, parallel to symmetry was the “beam x-ray laser. 1984 photo.
each other and about an inch apart. Electrons pinch,” or the tight focus
flowed out of the rims of these rings, or cath- that could be achieved.
odes, and drifted toward the fuel pellet, which The speed of focus was also critical—ideally the
was suspended in the center of the chamber beam should pinch to 1 mm early, not late, in
between the cathodes. By injecting ionized gas the exposure period.
(plasma) into the diode and by using the mag- Al Toepfer, head of the Electron Beam Research
netic forces generated by the flow of electrons, department, explained that Sandia could now
the electrons could be focused and the pellet obtain up to four high-resolution holograms of
uniformly irradiated. target response within 15 nanoseconds because
Proto II was used to develop improved methods of work done by Paul Mix. Jim Chang was ob-
of switching high-current pulses so that short taining high-quality flash radiography of implod-
bursts of electrons were produced, and to ing targets, and Mel Widner used those data and
study the power flow through the insulating optical measurements of implosion times done
wall separating the transmission lines and by Frank Perry to determine the beam energy
the diode. It was also used to test energy deposition characteristics.
storage. When PBFA I began operation in 1980, John Freeman, head of Plasma Theory, said the
Proto II continued to be used for research theoretical work was a combination of studies
into imploding foils. In 1984-85, Proto II was instigated by experiments and more specula-
upgraded, became a successful test bed for tive feasibility studies, such as current flow in
the multiple ring diode concept envisioned for diodes carried out both by ions and electrons,
and implemented in Saturn, and had a reduced
inductance driving z-pinch loads. The upgrade
which James Poukey was doing. At the time, his
code was state of the art in its field. (Please see Proto I and Proto II
was implemented by a team including staff related sidebar on early codes in this chapter.)
from Pulse Sciences, Inc. (headed by Phil In related work, Milt Clauser was studying the
Spence), Rick Spielman, McDaniel, Tom Wright, benefits of ions instead of electrons in pellet
Warren Hsing, and Mark Hedemann. This was implosions. Both of these theoretical programs
one of many collaborations between Sandia were tied in to experiments on spherical ion
and Pulse Sciences, Inc. beginning in 1980 diodes being done by Paul Miller.
when the latter was founded. [Based primarily on the article “Particle Beam Fusion Accelera-
tors” in Sandia Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, October 1976, which
Important work related to developing and fully covers the technology and machines for the fusion program
improving Proto I and Proto II was summarized from Proto I to the concept for EBFA. Information was also
derived from “E-Beam Machine Will Advance Fusion Research,”
in a Sandia Lab News article of October 31, Sandia Lab News, February 25, 1977, and from comments by Ian
1975, concerning the first International Smith in January 2007.]
a Fast-charged multi-site switching in water was first developed by Richard Miller at Maxwell Labs. He explored the
approach extensively in early 1974, after seeing some initial work at the Naval Research Laboratory in 1973 that
43
was published in November 1973. Maxwell’s Blackjack 3 ¾ was the first operating machine that used the tech-
nique, and it came on line in late 1974. Physics International built PITHON, which came on line in 1975, using
the same technique, on the basis of what it heard about Maxwell’s work. Miller later was awarded the Erwin Marx award, which recog-
nized this multi-site switching in water among other work of his. (Information kindly provided by Ian Smith in January 2007.)
Chapter Two
Electron-beam research in the Soviet Union was headed up by Leonid Rudakov at
the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Because the target designs in the United States
and Russia were classified and weapons-related, it was somewhat ironic that the
Times said only as an aside, “Because of potential military applications, there are
also secret efforts in the United States and presumably in the Soviet Union.” The
truth was that the non-secret aspect of fusion work was only the tip of an iceberg.
The newspaper said that a new approach was being pursued in the United States
that even the Soviets did not know of—ion beams. In fact, at Sandia and at the
Naval Research Laboratory, experiments with electron beams and fusion targets
were revealing that the ions created inside a diode might work better than electrons
in igniting fusion. Consequently, in electron-beam experiments at Sandia, ion
beams were also being closely studied.25 Laser fusion research, of course, continued
as the nation’s major approach to inertial confinement fusion.
In 1976, Yonas and Narath went to Washington to sell Sandia’s fusion program
and try to obtain funding approval for the long-planned EBFA. The Sandia team
promoted its electron-beam work and emphasized its merits as compared to the
laser approach, seeking line-item Congressional approval for $14.2 million at a
time of tight appropriations. Sandia was able to convince Senator Montoya of the
merits of its proposal and the need for the machine. Montoya testified at the Joint
Commission on Atomic Energy, and the funding was finally approved. In later
years, Yonas recalled that to get the sums needed for large pulsed power machines
at Sandia, “it took a lot of politics and a lot of Congressional support. It’s never easy
to get money for big machines. For fusion, many times it looked like the end of the
world: it was always a hairy edge.”26
That same year, while visiting several US laboratories and giving presentations,
Rudakov, whom the New York Times had mentioned in January, publicly revealed
that he and his Russian laboratory were using electron beams to create soft x
rays to compress fusion fuel at low energy levels, confirming what the Times
had reported. He said an enormous follow-on electron-beam accelerator named
Angara 5 was being proposed at a cost of $55 million. In an assessment written in
1976 comparing the Russian approach to Sandia’s, Sandia said that the Soviets
were using conventional pulsed power technology, that is, multiple beams with
beam transport, thus focusing the beams at a distance from the generator. Sandia
was then attempting to focus the beams within the diode itself, emphasizing an
“in diode” approach to ignition, and avoiding the need for beam transport and
compression systems. Separating the fusion reaction from the accelerator (standoff),
as the Russians were doing, had the advantage of allowing larger reactions, but
Sandia predicted problems with concentrating the beam onto the target. It was
generally believed that larger reactions and stand-off would be favorable aspects in
developing the technology into an energy source, once fusion had been attained.
However, during the course of his talks, and totally unexpectedly, some of the
information Rudakov revealed about inertial confinement fusion—dealing with
44
 the ’70s
the fusion targets—was classified and known only to certain scientists within
weapons programs in the United States and United Kingdom. And even there,
because of the mandate that discussions of classified material be limited to people
who had a need to know, certain details about the fusion targets were unknown, for
example, to the accelerator builders. As Tom Martin explained it later, “The target
folks just kept asking me for a bigger hammer but they did not say exactly what it
was for.”27 Many pulsed power veterans at Sandia who were in the program in 1976
recall that the bombshell Rudakov set off dealt with how the fusion target should
be constructed and irradiated so as to ignite the fusion reaction. Because aspects of
this information could pertain directly to the design of nuclear weapons, most of it
remained classified in the United States until 1993.28
The flavor of the disclosure is mirrored in the following write-up, by a source with a
clear bias:
October 1976. New Solidarity. Disclosures by the Soviet electron-beam fusion
researcher Dr. L.I. Rudakov, first reported here earlier this month and now
known in greater detail, leave no reasonable doubt that Soviet scientists have
mastered scientific-technological capabilities which at a minimum would
permit them to improve the efficiency of their thermonuclear weapons . . .
Rudakov has demonstrated that an electron beam directed against a metal
foil, which shields a pellet of fusionable material, produces a highly non-
linear plasma configuration beneath the shield. Through interaction with that
plasma, hard x rays are converted into soft x rays, which can produce isentropic
compression of the pellet of fusion fuel.
Efforts to declassify information about inertial confinement fusion target research
being done in the United States stepped up at this time; classification not only shut
out certain foreign collaboration, but much of US industry as well. Nevertheless,
declassification would prove to be an uphill battle until the early 1990s. The
implications of Rudakov’s breakthrough were not confined to basic high-energy-
density physics; if true, the capability could position the Soviet Union as the
leader in weapons work. The result of the Soviet disclosure was a somewhat ironic
bolstering of the US electron-beam effort, because of fears the United States might
be behind.
At this time (1976), a new area of accelerator technology—pulsed power
accelerators for repetitive operation—was begun in Sandia’s Pulsed Power
Program. Prestwich was named supervisor of a new division where the work would
be carried out. Because lasers that were sufficiently efficient to be used as potential
reactor drivers would require electron beams to excite their gases, the program
was justified as being related to Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion program.
Prestwich remembered attempts at the time to try to make repetitive-rate accelerator
development a significant part of the national fusion program, but said it ended
up as a four-person effort.29 Malcolm Buttram and Juan Ramirez, who had been in

45
Chapter Two
Martin’s division, were assigned to the new group; both men would be important to
the overall program for many years. Among his many accomplishments, Ramirez
was responsible for leading development of the innovative Hermes III accelerator
in the 1980s. Buttram had helped develop a repetitive pulsed power generator for a
cloud chamber beam diagnostic tool at Argonne National Laboratory before joining
Sandia in 1975. In 2001, Buttram would be given the prestigious Erwin Marx award.
A small pulsed power program had been under way at Sandia Livermore, but
because of Yonas and Narath’s efforts to concentrate the work under one roof, its
staff was transferred to Albuquerque, at first under Martin. From California, Gene
Neau remained in Martin’s group and Gerry Rohwein joined Prestwich’s new
group when it was created.30 At Livermore, Rohwein and Neau had built Trace I,
an electron-beam machine similar to Nereus but using a transformer to multiply
the voltage, a design attractive for repetitive pulsed power work. Part of Prestwich’s
responsibilities was to develop reactor concepts, and Don Cook was hired that
same year for his experience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in doing
magnetic fusion reactor design. (Cook would become director of the Pulsed Power
Program in 1993.)
With a new administration in the White House under President Jimmy Carter
beginning in 1977, attitudes toward fusion work changed. In the first year of its
existence, the Carter administration (1977-1981) abolished ERDA and created
a cabinet-level Department of Energy, which began operation in October. The
new department had a strong leaning toward renewable energy and conservation
programs as answers to the nation’s energy situation. It did not favor nuclear
breeder reactors for power plants, as they were regarded as a dangerous stimulus
to proliferation of nuclear weapons. The first Department of Energy secretary,
James R. Schlesinger, Jr., was alarmed by what he considered a huge increase in the
overall budget for fusion compared to what it had been in 1973 when he left the
Atomic Energy Commission. He wanted to trim $100 to $200 million from fusion
and reassign it to other programs. As part of that effort, he established an Office of
Energy Research in the Department of Energy with John M. Deutch as the head.
Deutch’s priority was to assess the nation’s fusion programs, and he saw to it that
both magnetic and inertial fusion would come under the microscope of a lengthy
review by a panel headed by John S. Foster.31
Sandia broke ground for the Electron Beam Fusion Facility on January 21, 1977, a
festive occasion on a cold day in a barren location south of Sandia’s main campus,
with Sandia’s president Morgan Sparks and a crowd of 150 looking on. The Sandia
Lab News reported on the event on January 28, noting the $14.2 million facility
would be home to a 40-terawatt accelerator that could create either electron or ion
beams. The facility was designed with a laboratory, basement for equipment, two
adjacent annexes, and an associated office building, and was to be the heart of a
new technical area of the Laboratories known as Area IV. The huge EBFA and the
equipment needed to operate it were estimated to cost $8 to $9 million of the total.
46
 the ’70s
The facility and accelerator were scheduled to be completed late in 1980. (Please
see following sidebar on EBFA-PBFA.) A month later, the Sandia Lab News reported
that testing had begun on Proto II, one of the two accelerators built to help develop
technological concepts for EBFA. Proto II was designed to produce 8 trillion watts in
a pulse lasting 24 billionths of a second; when completed, EBFA would produce 40
trillion watts in the same brief instant. In full operation at the time Proto II started
up, Proto I was producing 2 trillion watts.
Not in the Sandia Lab News, however, was a development that would change
the course of Sandia’s technology within a few years. The Electron Beam Fusion
Progress Report for October 1976 to March 1977 shows that Sandia was considering
light ion and heavy ion beams at this time, in addition to electrons. The report
states that because of discoveries made since the electron-beam fusion program
began, “ . . . the program can now be described as a triad with pulsed power central
to each approach. . . . Our program is therefore best described as one following a
primary direction, namely the use of electron beams, but with other alternate paths
considered through the EBFA I stage.”32
Sandia’s pulsed power machines were versatile enough that they could be
reconfigured to produce a number of different types of particle beams. Although the
reconfigurations were complex and demanding, they typically involved reusing and
improving existing facilities, and planning to build new machines, such as EBFA I
and II, only when a great increase in power was required.
Pulsed power accelerators could be configured according to the desired use:
irradiating a weapons component with x rays or heating a fusion pellet to ignite
a fusion reaction. The requirement was to drive a defined load (e.g., the pellet)
reliably and efficiently—meaning the machine had to be configured at a certain
voltage and current to cause a specific effect. In the case of driving a fusion
pellet, unheard of power was required; hence the need for a much larger and
more powerful accelerator. Sandia’s accelerator designers were asked to provide
increasingly bigger hammers, as Tom Martin put it; it was then up to the target
teams to configure the load, whether that was a diode for fusion pellets or a device
for weapons tests. Consequently, target design was increasingly a concern; the beam
had to be precisely matched to the load. No one had been able to come up with a
credible electron-beam target and ions seemed more promising. (Electron beams
preheated the fusion fuel in the target, and the targets did not work as designed. The
targets needed to implode, compress the fusion fuel, then heat the fuel very quickly
to work.)
In June 1977, fusion neutrons were detected from a reaction produced by Sandia’s
Rehyd accelerator,33 and this success was reported as opening up new hope for using
controlled fusion in commercial power generation. On June 17, the Sandia Lab
News reported that electron beams from an accelerator, unnamed in the article,
had irradiated a deuterium-filled fusion pellet to a temperature sufficient to make

47
 Countdown to EBFA . . . . . . . . make that PBFA I
Groundbreaking ceremonies took place for
the Electron-Beam Fusion Facility in January
1977, marked by a photo in the Sandia Lab
News on January 28, 1977. A year later, on
January 6, 1978, a photo in the paper shows
the EBFA labs and office buildings approxi-
mately 50 percent complete, with plans for
the accelerator buildup to be in October and
the offices occupied by Christmas of that year.
The new site for the facility was called Area IV,
about a mile and a half due south of the main
Sandia campus in Area I. EBFA and associated
structures were the initial occupants of what
had been vacant desert.
Another Sandia Lab News photo, on
November 27, 1978, shows the circular,
wheel-like support structure for EBFA I being
constructed in the new building. The EBFA I
project mechanical design team is pictured
with the skeleton structure, including The crowd assembled for the 1980 dedication of Sand-
George Hiett, Tiny Hamilton, George Staller, ia’s Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator (PBFA I) watches
and Marlin Aker. The caption predicts the technicians at work in the water around the machine. It
accelerated light- ion beams for Sandia’s inertial con-
accelerator assembly will be complete and
Countdown to EBFA……..make that PBFA I

finement fusion experiments aimed at producing abun-

the accelerator operational by June 1980. dant, economical energy during the 21st century.
Construction of the nearby laboratory building
was almost complete and would be occupied collections and a copy is in the Van Arsdall
in mid-January 1979 by the Fusion Research folder for the 1970s.)
Department and the Pulsed Power Systems
Memos from May 1979 onward indicate that
Department.
the decision whether to commit fully to the
In November 1978, Sandia was projecting that ion-beam approach was needed by the end of
after experimenting with EBFA I for two years, the year. (See Yonas notebooks for 1979 in the
the machine would be shut down and upgrad- Sandia History Archives for these memos.)
ed to EBFA II, with funding for the preliminary Documentation on the actual change in name
engineering of the second machine expected from EBFA I and II to PBFA I and II is scarce;
in FY79-80. Completion was hoped for by but the decision to switch to light ions and
1983. In an article for the November 1978 is- the associated change in names occurred in
sue of Scientific American titled “Fusion Power the second half of 1979, as revealed in the
with Particle Beams,” Gerold Yonas said EBFA Particle Beam Fusion Progress Report for July-
I was designed for a capability of 30 trillion December 1979 (SAND80-0974, January
watts to the target area and that the upgrade 1981). The name change may have been as
to EBFA II should double the power level. At informal as Yonas recalled in an interview in
this level, he thought pellet ignition experi- 1984 with Sandia historian Necah Furman:
ments could begin as early as 1985. At this “We were not so pleased with our electron-
time, he said that EBFA I could be adapted to beam accomplishments, but we were very
produce ion beams for fusion research. impressed with the ion results we had
A timeline titled “Significant Events in Pulsed achieved. In 1979, we had a sign out here
Power Fusion, Sandia National Laboratories” on the road that said Electron Beam Fusion
dated January 1980 indicates that the ion- Facility and one day in 1979, we took the sign
beam baseline approach was chosen in 1979 down and changed it from electron beams to
over the electron-beam approach for PBFA I particle beams, which meant we were now
and II. (The timeline is in many of the archival changing our emphasis to ions.” Beginning in
1980, reference is made to PBFA I and II.

48
 the ’70s
many deuterium nuclei fuse. The report explained that when two nuclei fuse, a
new atom is created, and a neutron is released. In the experiment, the newspaper
said that about a million fusion neutrons were produced per pulse—the first time
in the United States such a device had produced neutrons. Although neutrons were
certainly detected, the ability to monitor the event was limited, and the technique
was not repeated. (This was the Φ target, which relied on magnetic insulation in
the fuel to keep the fuel hot enough to produce fusion. The behavior of the Φ target
was also hard to analyze computationally because the ability to model the system in
two or three dimensions was necessary, but not readily available.) In fact, the Pulsed
Power Program was already moving toward ion instead of electron beams, and so
nothing more came of the event at that time.34 Others, notably the Soviets, claimed
the ability to produce fusion neutrons using various techniques, but there were
problems with all of them. Proof of producing fusion neutrons is important because
it is a first step toward being able to use controlled thermonuclear fusion for energy.
The extra neutrons can be absorbed in a material and then used to produce heat
and electrical power. However, numerous other considerations and innovations will
be needed after fusion neutron production before the dream of a fusion reactor can
be realized.
In a development that affected pulsed power, events on the national scene during
1977 brought to the fore ideas that had long percolated in the minds of researchers
about the possibility of using particle beams and lasers as weapons. It was an
obvious capability to which both technologies might be suited. In April 1977, Major
General George Keegan, former head of Air Force Intelligence, alleged in public
reports that the Soviets were 20 years ahead of the United States in developing
a technology that would neutralize the ballistic missile weapon as a threat. He
confirmed that he was talking about a charged particle beam. At this time, missiles
were the heart of US military strategy, although kept in check by the ABM treaty
and SALT. The Carter administration debated the implications of such a weapon,
though not denying it might exist. Keegan justified bringing the threat of a Soviet
beam weapon out in the open because he claimed his information was being swept
under the rug and he felt the nation was at risk.35 The fusion work at Sandia using
particle-beam accelerators and elsewhere using lasers would naturally be at the
center of any national beam-weapons activities. Nothing immediate resulted from
Keegan’s allegations, but the seed of a concept had been planted.
In September 1978 a major reorganization at the Laboratories placed Gerry Yonas
at the head of a new directorate of Pulsed Energy Programs under vice president
Al Narath.36 The directorate contained four departments: Laser Physics under
Jim Gerardo, Simulation Technology under M. Cowan, Fusion Research under
Glenn Kuswa, and Pulsed Power Systems under Tom Martin. Hermes II, REBA,
and other machines primarily used for weapons simulation were in the simulation
division. Also at this time, results of the Foster Committee review were presented to

49
 Particle Beam Weapons Make Headlines in 1977
Aviation Week and Space Technology published Russian ‘Death-Beam’ Flap: News reports
an editorial on the “Beam Weapon Threat” in of Soviet advances toward a weapon-sized
its May 2, 1977, issue. It was a follow-up to charged particle beam seem based on good
the magazine’s March 28, 1977, story in which intelligence, fair physics, and poor strategy
Maj. Gen. George Keegan’s allegations about considerations” appeared on May 21, 1977.
Soviet advances in the field of beam weapons The article explains why “serious questions
were made public for the first time. The edito- can be raised about the feasibility of a charged
rial called for an end to the secrecy surround- particle beam weapon.” The authors assert
ing the topic: that “Even graver doubts can be brought up
about its capacity to protect a nation against
The Soviet Union has achieved a technical
intercontinental ballistic missiles.” One major
breakthrough in high-energy physics application
reason they cite in debunking the threat was
that may soon provide it with a directed-energy
the fact that US and Soviet scientists had been
beam weapon capable of neutralizing the entire
sharing information about beam physics for
United States ballistic missile force and check-
several years and that they were familiar with
mating this country’s strategic doctrine.
each other’s capabilities. “To be useful as a
The hard proof of eight successful Soviet tests weapon,” they write, “a beam must be able to
of directed-energy beam weapon technology burn a hole in the atmosphere—heating the
gives new and overriding urgency to bring air along a column long enough to create a
these developments into the public domain temporary vacuum for the passage of the rest
and rip the veil of intelligence secrecy so that of the beam. Leading American physicists say
this whole matter of vital national urgency and that simply hasn’t been done—either in the
survival will finally be brought to the atten- Soviet Union or the United States.”
tion of the President of these United States,
Particle Beam Weapons Make Headlines in 1977

Science magazine laid out the issues involved

the Congress, and the citizens of this republic
on April 22, 1977, under the title “Particle
whose future is at risk.
Beams as ABM Weapons: General and
It could be a fatal error for this country to con- Physicists Differ.” The magazine said that
tinue to put its major strategic reliance on a the United States had experimented with
single type weapon for which an effective coun- using an electron beam as a directed energy
ter is already looming on the horizon. weapon in a program named Seesaw, which
was abandoned in 1973. Keegan had alleged
At issue were US intelligence reports on tests
the Soviet Union was successfully using proton
the Soviet Union had made that suggested
beams, not electrons. Science said that
work on directed-beam weapons. The intel-
Jeremy Stone, director of the Federation of
ligence reports could not verify how far along
American Scientists, had told the Senate Arms
this work was, nor when a Soviet directed-
Control sub-committee in March that the idea
beam weapon could be deployed. Keegan,
of using particle beams as weapons “has been
believing that the threat was imminent, made
invented and reinvented almost every year
the issue public because he felt it was being
since there were these particle accelerators.”
swept under the rug in official circles.
As to the technical feasibility of using particle
A May 2, 1977, article, also in Aviation Week
beams as weapons, Science quoted a scien-
and Space Technology, was titled “Soviets Push
tist knowledgeable about military affairs as
for Beam Weapon: USSR developing charged-
saying, “Just getting the beam to propagate
particle device aimed at missile defense, ex-
over the long distances has been thought of
ploring high-energy lasers as satellite killer.”
as the principal difficulty. You have high cur-
The article outlines the evidence that prototype
rent beams of relativistic particles. No matter
directed energy weapons (using both particle
how you slice it this means very large pow-
beams and lasers) were under way in Russia
ers. Also the design of a suitable accelerator
and provides the evidence and arguments both
is rather problematical.” In a May 27, 1977,
supporting and rejecting Keegan’s conclusions.
commentary, “Charged Debate Erupts over
Science News writers John Douglas and Russian Beam Weapon,” Science concluded
Dietrick Thomsen came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to support
that the threat was highly overrated after Keegan’s claims and took the stand that open-
talking with US scientists and military ing discussion of intelligence matters to public
50 personnel. Their article “The Great debate might “jeopardize sources and reveal
the extent of American knowledge about Soviet
activities.”
 the ’70s
37
the House Committee on Science and Technology. The committee had examined
the Department of Energy’s magnetic confinement and inertial confinement
approaches.
The report began by saying the Department of Energy’s total budget for applied
research in fusion energy in FY 1979 was $481 million. (That same fiscal year,
the total budget requests to fund inertial confinement fusion at all three weapons
laboratories ranged from $76 to $80 million.38) Although the intent was a report
card on progress toward the prospects of using fusion for energy applications,
the findings of the committee bolstered a desire on the part of the Office of
Energy Research that all approaches toward fusion be equally funded. With the
number of technologies being tried (lasers, electron beams, tokamaks, and other
contenders, including heavy ions at Berkeley), the report said that when one or
several technologies were successful in producing fusion in the laboratory, then
and only then should power plants be designed. As in earlier reports, specific
concerns were voiced about the classified status of much research in inertial
confinement fusion. The secrecy inhibited collaboration among scientists,
constraining progress. The report highlighted a need for more funding in the
inertial confinement fusion area for breakthroughs to occur.
Construction of EBFA was well under way at this time, with a target date for
completion of July 1, 1980. However, results from experiments using the Proto II
and HydraMite machines were indicating that ion beams irradiated the fusion pellet
in a way much more conducive to compressing the gas and setting off a fusion
reaction, just as the New York Times had reported back in 1976 and confirming
what many researchers at Sandia and elsewhere had suspected. (Please see following
sidebar on Magnetically Self-Insulated Transmission Lines.) Electron beams heat both
the shell of the fusion pellet and the gas inside it, whereas ion beams deposit their
energy in the thin outer wall of the pellet, causing it to heat very rapidly. The
heated outer surface blows away, and as it does the gas in the center of the pellet
is rapidly compressed and heated; theoretically this will create the conditions
needed for fusion more efficiently than if electron beams are used. By the summer
of 1979, theoretical predictions indicated that the electron-beam approach could
not succeed. Recognizing that ion beams were much more promising for this
application, midway through the project the name was changed to Particle Beam
Fusion Accelerator (PBFA), and the thrust of the work shifted to configuring the
accelerator for ion-beam technology.39 (Please see following sidebar on EBFA/PBFA:
Electron Beams vs. Ion Beams.)
As the Labs had done earlier when planning for EBFA and trying to sell the concept
to the Department of Energy, even while EBFA/PBFA was under way, Sandia was
formulating plans for a successor, an accelerator capable of 60 trillion watts
envisioned for the 1983/85 timeframe.40 In fact, the Department of Energy decided
rather at the last minute to fund EBFA II in 1979, and Yonas and Narath had to

51
Chapter Two
rush to Washington, DC, to get the requisite signatures for the $56 million facility.
A sensitive issue in selling PBFA II was that after having argued for upgrading
EBFA/PBFA into a more powerful electron-beam machine, this was a proposal for an
upgrade using an as-yet-unproven technology: ion beams. Research at Sandia and
other places, in particular Cornell, showing the promise of ion beams was invoked,
and the head of fusion work at the Department of Energy was swayed into approving
Sandia’s request. (Please see following sidebar on PBFA II funding.)
By 1979, Fusion Research at Sandia was divided into Particle Beam Fusion Research
and Pulsed Power Systems; that is, the targets and the “hammers” that drove
them. That year, the Department of Energy named Sandia the lead laboratory for
pulsed power development and also designated Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence
Livermore as national laboratories.♦

52
Magnetically Self-Insulated
Transmission Lines the ’70s
At the voltages and energies being used in The devel-
Proto I and II and in the later PBFA machines, opment of
a concept for for
the vacuum transmission line between the magnetically
water/vacuum interface and the reaction self-insulated
chamber had to be unusually long (6 m). A transmission
lines involved
discovery about how to control electron flow the Kurchatov
between metal conductors in the transmission Institute, Phys-
line enabled Sandia to develop the concept ics International,
of magnetically self-insulated transmission and Sandia. It involves using the self-magnetic field of a powerful electro-
magnetic pulse to inhibit breakdown and is central to power concentra-
lines. Without magnetic insulation, it would tion.Without the self-field approach, the power that could be transmitted in
have been impossible to transmit efficiently a reasonably sized transmission line would be less than 0.1 terawatt. On
these high-voltage pulses in a vacuum over the the other hand, at high power levels, the self-magnetic field of the traveling
wave causes the emitted electrons to return to the high-voltage electrode,
required distances. Used in PBFA I and II, this and power levels of 1 terawatt or greater can be transmitted. (From Particle
technology was the key to producing modular Beam Fusion, Pulsed Power Program, Sandia National Laboratories,1980)
accelerators that are scalable. (Physics Inter-
national and the Kurchatov Institute were also
working on this technology at the same time as
module was modest and the currents from all
Sandia.)
modules were added in series/parallel combina-
A magnetically self-insulated transmission line tions with convolutes in vacuum.
carries the power pulse to the reaction cham-
Magnetically insulated power flow works even
ber. The magnetic field induced by the move-
though the negative conductor (cathode) copi-
ment of the electrons provides insulation by
ously emits electrons, because the loss current
inhibiting electrical breakdown of the vacuum

Magnetically Self-Insulated Transmission Lines

makes a self-generated magnetic field that
gap separating the internal cathode from the
bends the electron trajectories to keep them
surrounding anode. Ahead of the pulse, where
away from the positive conductor (anode).
the magnetic field is weak, some electrons
Sandia knew that this effect worked in an elec-
can escape, resulting in an energy loss. Within
tron beam diode but did not know what would
the central region of the pulse, however, the
happen in a long transmission line. The power
strong, self-generated magnetic field forces the
flow technology was inefficient until experi-
electron flow to remain near the surface of the
menters learned how to launch the electron
cathode virtually without loss.
flow smoothly and avoid electron instabilities.
Without this self-insulation feature designed into The successful technology gave a scalable
the transmission line, it would be impossible high-current technology with long magnetically
to deliver terawatt power levels efficiently insulated transmission lines.
over a distance of several meters. Because of
By the time EBFA I was built, the program had
magnetic insulation, as early as 1982,
moved to ions. Ion diodes have a very high ini-
2-megavolt pulses were routinely transported
tial impedance so that a lot of energy is lost at
with nearly 100 percent efficiency along the
the end of the magnetically insulated transmis-
6-m distance from the water/vacuum barrier to
sion lines before the impedance falls to match
the reaction chamber containing the diode. The
the impedance of the line. However, the change
vacuum interface between the pulse-forming
from EBFA I to PBFA I and the decision to build
network and the vacuum insulated power feed
a new and higher voltage PBFA II (instead of
to the load has been the persistent limiting
adding another 36 modules to PBFA I) allowed
bottleneck for pulsed power accelerators. a
Sandia to build PBFA II with a conventional
Unfortunately electron-beam fusion and z-pinch vacuum insulator and a short magnetically
fusion require large currents and work best with insulated transmission line.
a short rise time. Although Sandia could have
A magnetically insulated transmission experi-
built EBFA I with a conventional vacuum insula-
ment, known as MITE, was a test bed used in
tor like on PROTO II, that approach would not
the late 1970s for PBFA I. Its team included
scale to EBFA II for electron-beam fusion, so
Pace VanDevender, Johann Seamen, and
Sandia developed self-magnetically insulated
Bill Moore.
power flow to provide the 2-megavolt “extension
cords” to connect the pulse-forming networks to [From Sandia Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, October 1982
(SAND82-1398) and from information provided by Pace
the vacuum insulated load. The current in each VanDevender and Cliff Mendel, August 2006.]

The relatively low electric field (voltage per unit interface length) of vacuum-insulator flashover means that high
a

voltage requires long insulators, which means a large volume to fill with magnetic field energy. That volume is
53
53
an inductor in series with the load and the voltage across the insulator becomes the load voltage plus the induc-
tor voltage—i.e., inductance times the current divided by the rise time of the current. If the current were low or
the rise time were long, then the additional voltage is small compared to the load voltage.
HydraMite , 1978.

EBFA-PBFA: Electron Beams vs. Ion Beams

Part of an earlier machine called Hydra was number, but in color) describes PBFA I and
turned into a prototype for EBFA. It was the plans for PBFA II as follows:
named HydraMite, meaning one module of
The 36 separate beam lines of PBFA I will be
Hydra and the Magnetically Self-Insulated
able to deliver 30 trillion watts of power and
Transmission Experiment (MITE) were com-
1 million joules of energy to electron or ion
bined into a test bed.
sources when it begins operation in mid-1980.
HydraMite provided a full-power test of a In the design of PBFA I, the eventual need to
PBFA I module in 1979, producing an build an upgrade was recognized, so the tank
0.8- terawatt, 2-megavolt, 400-kiloamp, containing the accelerator was designed with
35-nanosecond pulse for PBFA-type sufficient room to contain the modified ac-
experiments. This result permitted the final celerator. The parameters of this accelerator
design to be released to build PBFA I. That are to be optimized for ion beam fusion, but
same year, results from experiments on the accelerator will also be ideal for radiation
pulse inversion and stacking using MITE and effects experiments using electron beams.
HydraMite were important to the decision PBFA II will have 72 beams, operate at nearly
to make the change to an ion-beam baseline 4 million joules output energy, and will sup-
approach for PBFA I and II. As a result, ply 4 million volts instead of the 2 million
construction began that year on SuperMite, volts specified for PBFA I, which itself will be
a full-scale module of PBFA II on which the world’s largest pulsed power accelerator.
concepts for the more powerful machine
“The flexibility of pulsed power technol-
would be tested using ion-beam experiments.
ogy allows us to change the voltage from
In the fall of 1979, the decision was made 2 to 4 million volts and to reverse polarity
to switch to ion beams and to change within the volume of the PBFA I tank. Thus
EBFA I into PBFA I not only in name but by a machine designed to supply one million
altering the technology. In a 1984 interview joules to electron sources will be upgraded
with historian Necah Furman, Gerry Yonas to supply four million joules to ion sources.
said about the change: “When PBFA I was
Issues with Electron Beams and Ion Beams in
completed in 1980, it was a machine which
the mid-1970s
had lived through a transition—it had been
built as an electron-beam machine and at Early in accelerator development at Sandia
the eleventh hour had been converted to and elsewhere, researchers realized that the
an ion beam machine through some clever diodes in electron-beam accelerators pro-
inventions of Pace VanDevender and duced intense ion beams as well as electron
Tom Martin. Basically, when the machine was beams. In these diodes, the anode is bom-
finished, it was a machine with a big gaping barded by electrons throughout the beam
hole in the middle because we still had not pulse. If the density of the electron current is
developed an ion gun—we had the electricity high enough—several kiloamperes per square
but no ion gun. The reason why is that we centimeter or more—then the anode material
had built this machine all along toward the and anode surface contaminants are heated
electron beam approach and in the eleventh and turned into a plasma sheet before the end
hour we switched, so we were unprepared.” of the pulse. The electric field of the diode
then pulls positively charged ions from this
A Sandia publication of January 1980 titled
anode plasma and accelerates them to the
Particle Beam Fusion issued by the Pulsed
cathode. The result is that a very powerful ion
Power Program (with no official SAND
beam can be generated.

54
Researchers began to believe that intense ion
Light ion beams are generated with the same pulsed
beams had several advantages over electron
power technology as for electron beams. But here, the
beams in trying to ignite fusion targets. Ions goal is to suppress the flow of electrons and to extract
lose energy more rapidly near the end of their from the diode a converging light ion beam. Drawing
path than at the beginning, so the peak in the from Particle Beam Fusion, Pulsed Power Program,
energy deposition profile occurs deep within Sandia National Laboratories, January 1980.
the target shell rather than near its surface.
This manner of energy deposition increases
the hydrodynamic efficiency of fuel compres-
sion and thereby lowers the ignition power beams could be generated as efficiently and
requirements significantly. focused as tightly as electron beams. At the
On the other hand, electrons interacting with time, ion beams had a much lower efficiency
the shell of the target generate Bremsstrah- than electron beams, but techniques using
lung (a type of radiation), which is absorbed magnetic forces were being developed to im-
by the pusher and fuel, producing a very low prove ion beam efficiency.
level of energy deposition throughout the tar- In one approach, a strong magnetic field was
get. The inner part of the target is preheated applied parallel to the anode and cathode sur-
and the heat builds pressures that resist the faces, bending the orbit of electrons and keep-
compression of the target implosion. This ing them from crossing the anode-cathode

EBFA-PBFA: Electron Beams vs. Ion Beams

detrimental preheating effect does not happen gap, thus greatly suppressing the flow of the
with ions because they produce essentially no electron beam. Because the ions associated
Bremsstrahlung as they slow down. with the beam were massive, their trajectories
Another difference between electrons and ions were only slightly bent by the magnetic field,
is that many of the incident electrons can improving the beam’s efficiency.
backscatter from the surface of the pellet, Another technique used the self-field of a
whereas ions do not backscatter appreciably. pinched electron beam to provide the mag-
Depending on the electric and magnetic fields netic insulation. In a normal focused-electron-
surrounding the target, electron backscatter- flow diode, the flow of electrons off the axis
ing could lead to a significant decrease in the is inhibited by the self-field, but ions cross the
fraction of beam energy that is deposited on gap in nearly straight lines. The overall effi-
the target. ciency of ion-beam generation can be high in a
Sandia researchers reasoned that the desir- focused-electron-flow diode.
able energy-deposition characteristics of ions Once ion beams could be generated efficiently,
might reduce the power requirements for researchers knew the next challenge would be
fusion ignition using ion-driven targets by as focusing them onto a small target. High-cur-
much as a factor of 5 or 10 below require- rent electron beams tend to be focused by
ments for electron-driven targets. In addition, their self-magnetic fields, but this process is
ions had the advantage that the power for ineffective with ion beams because ions have a
ignition could be obtained at lower currents greater mass than electrons. In 1976, Sandia
and higher voltages than was the case for was considering using concentric, spherically
electrons. shaped anodes and cathodes as a means to
In 1976, the ion-beam approach to fusion was focus the ions.
looking promising, but little was known at the [Condensed from “The Particle Beam Fusion Program” in
time about problems that might be encoun- Sandia Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, October 1976 (SAND76-
0615). Editors listed are J.A. Mogford and W.L. Garner, with
tered. The assumption was that eventually, ion G. Yonas listed as the primary contact.]

55
55
 Winning Approval for PBFA II Funding
PBFA II was sold to the Department of I think he called Don Kerr (head of Los Alamos
Energy as an upgrade of PBFA I. But, as the National Laboratory), and I think Kerr called
ion program proceeded, it was obvious to us Sewell and turned him around. By lunchtime
that the original idea, which was born of the we had Sewell’s signature.
electron-beam program, wouldn’t really work.
Winning Approval for PBFA II Funding

That was a critical period in the program. We Canavan, Narath, and I rushed up to Deutch’s
realized we would have to build a much more office without an appointment and ran into his
difficult machine, and the story of how we were secretary, Luanda—Luanda was a very impres-
able to make that transition is interesting. We sive and forceful woman with an imposing per-
continued to talk to Washington about the need sonality—and she said, “no way we were going
for a new machine, and it didn’t seem to go to get to see John Deutch.” We said, “but we
anywhere. have to get his signature. If we don’t get his
signature, we can’t go to OMB (Office of Man-
One day, I was in San Francisco at a meeting agement and Budget), we miss the deadline,
and received a phone call from Washington and we lose the whole year.” She didn’t care.
saying we had three days to sell this new Greg tried something and I tried something,
machine—the upgraded PBFA II. I called and Narath finally reached into her candy dish
Al Narath and we went to Washington and and offered her candy. I think she was begin-
met the head of the program, who at that ning to come around. At this point, Deutch
time was Greg Canavan. We never knew what heard the commotion and came out to see
had changed his mind, but clearly there was what the heck was going on. That gave Canavan
now a deadline. The machine had to be sold an opportunity to explain to him what we were
by Wednesday—and by then we had to have a trying to do. Deutch looked at me at said, “This
piece of paper from John Deutch (head of the upgrade, is it going to be for electrons?” I said,
program) approving the upgraded machine. “No sir, I’m negative on electrons, I’m positive
But first, on Tuesday, we had to sell this to on ions. We’re going to go for ions.” He said,
Duane Sewell. We made our presentation to “I’ll sign it.” And he signed it.
Sewell and he rejected it. We sat in the hall,
glum and depressed, and in walked Canavan. Gerry Yonas
He asked what the problem was—and we said [Furman Interview with Gerry Yonas, 1984; Van Arsdall inter-
view with Yonas, 2003.]
our upgrade proposal had gone down in flames.

56
 the ’70s

endnotes
1 The Department of Defense had a number of accelerators designed for the new high-current
technology, notably Casino, SNARK at Physics International, and Black Jack at Maxwell Labs
(a follow-up to Gamble II at the Naval Research Lab). These accelerators were scheduled
to come on line at about the same time as Sandia’s Hydra, Nereus, and Slim, that is in the
1971/72 time frame, and were reasonably successful in meeting their goals. Another side to
the story that comes out strongly in the literature and in discussions with Sandia engineers
who recall this time is the competition, at times extremely heated, between the Atomic
Energy Commission and Department of Defense laboratories, particularly at the upper levels,
over funding and approaches. For a more in-depth overview of this subject, see N. Furman,
Interview with G. Yonas of June 22, 1984, in the Sandia archives, Furman Pulsed Power
Collection.
2 Van Arsdall interview with Al Narath, June 2006. In Van Arsdall Collection, Narath folder.
3 In 2006, Dillon McDaniel, a manager in the Pulsed Power Program who has been with the
program since the early 1970s, said that by 1976 both the United States and Russia were
doing foil implosions, a fusion target technique highly classified at the time and thus absent
from the open literature on pulsed power. It was the target type used in the classified Scorpio
program that later evolved into z pinches. Dillon McDaniel folder, Van Arsdall Collection.
4 Accelerators would now have to be configured for low voltage, high current, and low
impedance instead of the high-voltage, high-impedance machines used for Bremsstrahlung.

57
Chapter Two
5 Gerold Yonas, “Fusion Power with Particle Beams,” Scientific American 239:5, November
1978, pp. 5-6, outlines the emergence in the early 1960s of the idea to try to use electron
and ion beams to ignite a fusion pellet. In 1967-68, US and Russian scientists came up
independently with quite similar approaches. The issue was whether pulsed power machines
could be scaled up to the required power for pellet ignition and whether the electron beams
could be focused so as to heat the fusion pellet symmetrically.
6 Van Arsdall interview with Everet Beckner, August 2006. Van Arsdall Collection, Beckner folder.
7 Ibid.
8 Narath later became president of Sandia (April 1989-August 1995). Beckner became the first
Vice President for Energy Programs at Sandia, after serving in several high-level management
positions. Beginning in 1991, Beckner joined the Department of Energy and served in its and
later the National Nuclear Security Administration’s upper-level management of Defense
Programs.
9 Gerold Yonas, A Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion Journey, SAND2004-2653P,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2004, 3.
10 Federation of American Scientists Website on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (http://www.fas.
org/main/home.jsp, consulted in October 2006).
11 The authors were G. Yonas, K.R. Prestwich, J.W. Poukey, and J.R. Freeman. Prestwich, who
had built Nereus and Slim, recalled that the wire-on-axis approach can be said to have
cemented in place the accelerator fusion program at Sandia. Later that year, John Kelly
patented an electron-beam generator used with REBA that concentrated the area of the beam
by a factor of 10 by achieving a pinch in the beam. Kelly was in A.J. Toepfer’s Electron Beam
Research group, and the device was said to point the way toward some promising approaches
for future work (Lab News, November 16, 1973).
12 Sandia’s paper for the conference was G. Yonas, J.W. Poukey, J.R. Freeman, K.R. Prestwich,
A.J. Toepfer, M.J. Clauser, and E.H. Beckner, “High Current Density Electron Beam Application
to Fusion Studies.” The Russian paper was L.I. Rudakov and A.A. Samarsky, “On Initiating
the Impulsed Nuclear Fusion Reaction by Means of DT-Mixture Compressing by the Shell
Heated with a Strong Relativistic Electron Beam.” Both were published in the Proceedings of
the Sixth European Conference on Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Moscow, 30 July
1973.
13 Casino, in fact, was funded through the Department of Defense. It too was an electron-beam
accelerator envisioned to have multiple beams, like Hydra and REBA. In an interview in 1984,
Yonas said Sandia had been skeptical about its chances for success (skepticism that proved
to be well founded). In the interview, Yonas reviewed territorial disputes between the Atomic
Energy Commission and Department of Defense about who should be developing the new
high-current machines for x-ray simulations, a feat Yonas termed “formidable” no matter
who did the work. At this time, ca. 1970, the Defense Atomic Support Agency (Department
of Defense) and Sandia embarked on separate design programs with the same goal, and
communications were less than open between the competing laboratories.
14 Report titles reflect the split: SAND75-0262, Laser-Fusion and Electron-Beam Fusion
Progress Report, July-December 1974, June 1975; SAND76-0148, Electron-Beam Fusion
Progress Report 1975, June 1976.
15 See Yonas Notebooks, 1973-1976, containing letters and reports about this development.
Senator Montoya asked repeatedly why Sandia had both a laser and an electron-beam
program. The issue, as always, was funding and competing priorities.

58
 the ’70s
16 Information on the Atomic Energy Commission/Department of Military Affairs is from
“Minutes of Atomic Energy Commission Laser-Fusion Coordinating Committee, April 2-3,
1974” in the Yonas Notebooks, SNL Archives; Atomic Energy Commission, “Atomic Energy
Commission Laser and Electron-Beam Programs: FY 1976-FY1980, July 15, 1974,” WASH
1363-UC-21, USGPO.
17 See Laser Fusion Coordinating Committee minutes and related correspondence in the Yonas
Notebooks for 1974 ff in the Sandia Corporate Archives.
18 See Yonas Notebook for 1973-76.
19 As reported in the Sandia Lab News of April 12, 1985, Steve Shope used Hydra at this time to
develop an improved cathode for inertial confinement fusion research. Using an extension of
the self-pinch concept, the cathode allowed extremely high current densities and the tightest
focus ever produced by that time.
20 See “Jeff Quintenz Notes,” dated September 5, 2006, in Quintenz Folder, Van Arsdall
Collection. Quintenz credits Poukey and John Freeman with pioneering this early work.
21 Pace VanDevender gave Quintenz that moniker, as Quintenz called it (see reference 20).
Quintenz was subsequently promoted into several management positions and became
Director of the Pulsed Power Program in 1999. He recalled that Yonas was initially quite
skeptical of the role of theory.
22 Presentation to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy by Gerold Yonas, Manager of Fusion
Research, February 1975. Copy in Yonas Notebooks for 1970s, Sandia Archives.
23 Sandia Lab News, “Sandia to Host E-Beam Meeting,” October 31, 1975. In the November 14,
1975, issue, two photos from the conference show French, Russian, and British scientists at
Sandia visiting Proto I. Among others, Yonas, Prestwich, VanDevender, and Valentin Smirnov
from Russia are shown with Proto I.
24 Physics International, the Naval Research Laboratory, and Cornell were reported in the article
to be also doing electron-beam work.
25 Yonas Notebooks, 73-77: March 30, 1976, Memo from G. Yonas to A. Narath and E.H. Beckner
has a list of highlights in the electron-beam fusion program indicating ion-beam work
was going on in 1975. The Pulsed Power Progress Reports beginning in 1975 demonstrate
a growing interest in ion beams and an intent to generate them. Electron Beam Fusion
Progress Report for 1975, SAND76-0148, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
states, “. . . electron beams should be viewed as competitors to lasers for applications to
inertial confinement fusion. We now recognize that it may be possible to include ion beams
in this listing, and will discuss this approach for the first time in this report,” p. 9.
26 Van Arsdall interview with Yonas, September 5, 2003. In the same interview, Yonas told a
story about Montoya and this funding. Yonas said he was on his way home from work and
stopped in at Powdrell’s (a popular restaurant featuring barbeque) near Kirtland Air Force
Base, where Sandia is located. He intended to pick up supper and take it home to his family.
He noticed Senator Joe Montoya there eating by himself—and Yonas said he ordered dinner
and sat down with the Senator instead of getting dinner to his family. “We talked,” Yonas said,
“and Joe backed me.” Later behind the scenes, Yonas said that Sen. Montoya worked to sway
Sen. McCormick, who opposed Sandia’s funding for EBFA. “McCormick finally asked why
Montoya wanted his support. Joe said he was a little guy from a little state and it was only a
little money.” That is how Yonas said the measure was successful.
27 Telephone interview of January 23, 2006, with Tom Martin. Van Arsdall Collection,
Tom Martin folder.

59
Chapter Two
28 Furman interview with Yonas, June 22, 1984. Yonas recalled that the disclosure was made
in July 1976 at the Gordon Conference in Santa Barbara, California. Sandia manager
Ray Leeper, who joined pulsed power at this time, recalled Rudakov also giving a talk at
Sandia’s Coronado Club in which he revealed the material about how fusion was being
attempted that was classified in the United States at that time. (Leeper interview of January
20, 2006). Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 2, 1977, stated that the technology
Rudakov outlined in California was “. . . considered highly secret in the US and ‘those
seated there [at the California meeting] had to sit with their mouths open and not respond
to Rudakov’s outline.’ ” In the journal Fusion dated August 1978:38-39, the Fusion Energy
Foundation said when Rudakov made his 1976 presentation in which he said that he had
used soft x-rays for compression of fusion fuel to generate the first electron-beam induced
fusion, the US Government classified his presentation as top secret.
29 Ken Prestwich, August 2006. See Van Arsdall collection, Prestwich folder. Prestwich added,
“Even with these limited resources, substantial progress was made in a relatively short
amount of time.”
30 Their supervisor, Jim Mogford, also came to New Mexico, but went elsewhere at Sandia.
Information from Ken Prestwich, August 2006, in Prestwich folder, Van Arsdall collection.
31 See Joan Lisa Bromberg, Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy
Source. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1983; and Van Arsdall, “Milestones,” a document
in the Van Arsdall Collection outlining more detail about this committee with references to
sources.
32 See SAND77-1414, p. 11.
33 Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 1977, reports that Rehyd produced the neutrons;
Rehyd was one of the famed “Tinker Toy” machines and it combined a line from REBA and
a line from Hydra. Tom Martin and Ray Leeper confirmed in separate telephone queries in
December 2005 that Rehyd was the machine in question.
34 Ray Leeper, a manager in pulsed power at Sandia, provided information beyond that in the
Lab News and Aviation Week in an interview on January 20, 2006. Hired into the program
in 1976 specifically to design and operate nuetron diagnostics, Leeper said there is no doubt
there were neutrons, but whether from the thermonuclear plasma is uncertain to some of the
researchers involved. He said a report of what was done was published by J. Chang,
M.M. Widner, A.V. Farnsworth, Jr., R.J. Leeper, T.S. Prevender, L. Baker, and J.N. Olsen,
“Neutron Production from Advanced REB Fusion Targets,” in the Proceedings of the 2nd
Topical Conference on High Power Electron and Ion Beam Research and Technology,
October 3-5, 1977, Cornell University.
35 Yonas notebooks.
36 Other organizations under Narath were Weapons Systems Development, Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Programs, Nuclear Waste and Environmental Programs, and Energy Programs; all were in
Organization 4000. In the Lab News of September 1, 1978, where the reorganization was
announced, Yonas’s directorate was called Pulsed Power Programs. By November, it was called
Pulsed Energy Programs.
37 John M. Deutch, Director, Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy, “Statement of
Fusion Energy: House Committee on Science and Technology,” September 18, 1978. Copy in
Yonas Notebooks.
38 Letter from Martin Stickley, Laser Fusion Office, Department of Energy, to the heads of inertial
confinement fusion programs at the three laboratories, October 16, 1978. In Yonas notebooks.

60
 the ’70s
39 Yonas notebooks. Furman interview with Yonas in 1984 for Sandia History. Sandia Lab
News, April 12, 1985, “History of ICF at Sandia.” Telephone interview with Dillon McDaniel,
December 13, 2005, concerning a Sandia Lab News article of November 16, 1979, where it is
reported that EBFA was designed to produce either electron or ion beams. McDaniel said once
the decision was made to change to ions, it was irrevocable, but before the decision was made,
it could theoretically have gone either way.
40 A feature article in Scientific American 239(5), November 1978: 50-61 by Sandia’s Gerold
Yonas titled “Fusion Power with Particle Beams” outlines Sandia’s progress to date, describes
the goals of EBFA I, acknowledges that ion beams were being considered as alternatives to
electron beams, and outlines the proposed upgrade to a more powerful accelerator soon after
EBFA I was running. Also see Sandia Lab News, November 27, 1978, page 1, containing a
photo of the support structure for EBFA I and announcing plans for EBFA II.

61
 PBFA II

CHAPTER THREE
the ’80s

In the early 1980s, the new Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator (PBFA I) began
to operate, while its more powerful successor, PBFA II, was being designed. For
such large and complex machines and related facilities, and for the anticipated
experiments to be performed on them, numerous specialized skills were required.
Because of this, teams of specialists were assembled, including theorists and
computer code designers, as well as the traditional machine designers and target
specialists. From this point forward, the story of pulsed power at Sandia becomes
more one of teams than of individuals and their technical contributions.
At this time, the Department of Energy was losing interest in making near-term
plans for a power plant based on fusion. Research was indicating that inertial
confinement fusion was much more difficult to achieve and much further away
than had been believed. Instead, the Department began to emphasize first of all
proving that fusion ignition could be achieved in the laboratory. Toward this end,
it continued funding Los Alamos and Livermore to do fusion work with lasers and
Sandia with pulsed power accelerators, urging all of them to achieve what they had

63
Chapter Three
promised. As had been the case in the 1970s, these laboratories were competing
for funding from the Department for this expensive endeavor. The presidency of
Ronald Reagan spanned the 1980s (1981-1989), and under his leadership a new
defense program began. The new program was the Strategic Defense Initiative,
intended as an update in missile defense for the United States, and it brought added
responsibilities to the weapons laboratories, including Sandia.
PBFA I fired its first shot on June 28, 1980, two days ahead of schedule and
within its budget of $14.2 million. All 36 modules fired simultaneously, as
planned, producing 840 kilojoules of energy and 20 trillion watts of power in a
40-nanosecond pulse, but without a central diode or target chamber. (Please see
following sidebar on PBFA I.) Following dedication of the facility on August 2, testing
with electron and ion beams was scheduled for the rest of the year, with target
experiments slated to start in 1981. The planned normal operating level for PBFA I
was 1000 kilojoules and 30 trillion watts in the same short pulse length, a level it
reached on November 7.1
Sandia’s expertise with pulsed power machines permitted changes to the intended
type of beam. The team changed half of the 36 lines so they would be positively
charged to produce positive ions; the remaining 18 lines were left negative for
electron experiments. Both types of beams could be accelerated at 2 million volts,
and, as another option, connecting the positive and negative 2 million volts would
result in a 4-million-volt output either for ions or electrons. Because of lingering
questions, particularly from its funding sources, Sandia had to substantiate its
earlier decision to concentrate the fusion efforts on ion beams instead of electron
beams. The problem with electron beams was their Bremsstrahlung (x-ray
radiation) passed through the outer layer of the target, preheating the fuel within it.
Ion beams would not do this.
By January 1981, the pulsed power team could report advances in its two approaches
to inertial confinement fusion: imploding foils and ion beams. In the open
literature at the time, including Sandia’s internal newspaper, few details are given
about the imploding foil work because it was classified and closely related to nuclear
weapons designs.2 On the other hand, the drivers (pulsed power machines) are fully
described, as is much of the light-ion work. Magnetically imploded foil technology
harked back to the mid-1970s at Sandia as part of a classified program named
Scorpio.3 Research was performed in this program to create plasma implosions
that stagnated on axis, creating x rays that could be used in weapons effects studies
as well as to drive a fusion target.4 The technology avoided having to focus an
electron (or ion) beam and was of interest for that reason. A decision whether to
use imploding foils or ions for PBFA II was estimated to be two years away; both
approaches used an intense burst of soft x rays to implode a target. Researchers were
already discovering challenges in using ion beams; namely, limitations on their
ability to focus the beams and difficulties in obtaining a pure, single-species beam
of ions.
64
Recollections of the First Shot on PBFA I, June 1980
When the machine fired for the first time in had to stop for the night. The next morning,
June 1980 it was one of the most exciting on Saturday, we tried again. Gerry Yonas
things I’ve ever been involved in. The day be- and Rick Sneddon (from the Department of
fore the promised deadline, we tried to bring Energy) were there. This accelerator was made
the machine to a state of readiness for first to operate most reliably at full power, so our

Recollections of the First Shot on PBFA I, July 1980

tests and many things failed. Finally the ma- first shot was also a full power shot, and that
chine was up and ready to run. We were well was unprecedented. It offered some hazards.
into the countdown; it proceeded rather well, A lot of energy was available if something
it was close to midnight on Friday night, and a goes wrong. We had some preliminary shots at
two-bit fitting exploded. And so, on Friday night lower volts that worked out fine. However, after
we shut down and we were within a day of our long delays and making sure everything was
long-term schedule of completing this ma- OK, we did fire the accelerator and everything
chine, and we were out of money and time. worked. Data came out and we were close
enough to our milestone to be very happy. No
The next day, which was the last day, we got the
one had really thought much about what was
shot off at noon but the adrenalin and excite-
going to happen after the first shot, so people
ment had been building for over 24 hours and
were running into the high bay before things
it was a marvelous and exciting experience. The
could be adequately checked out, and it was
ground shook and the machine worked. We had
a major concern because there appeared to
arranged for a picnic after the first shot, but
have been sparks and maybe a fire on top,
with the excitement and achievement, the no-
which was viewed from the outside. . . . The
tion of going somewhere else was ludicrous—
enthusiasm was so high that after the shot
everyone wanted to shoot again. We knew we
on that Saturday morning, we had a party,
had to diagnose the shot to make sure that
but what people really wanted was to fire the
everything was in good shape before we shot
machine again, not have a party. Most of
again, but everyone wanted to stay there. It was
us left early and went home after firing the
certainly the most exciting place in Albuquer-
world’s largest accelerator. As it turned out,
que that day. For many of us, it was the most
that was the week that the movie “The Empire
exciting thing we had ever done.
Strikes Back” was on. I went to this movie,
Gerry Yonas [Necah Furman interview, 1984. Transcript in walked inside the theater and noticed that
Sandia archives.] many of the people who had been at PBFA I
that morning were at the movie that afternoon,
including Gerry Yonas and his family. Seeing
When we fired PBFA I for the first time, we a “Star Wars” movie seemed appropriate after
tried the Friday night before the Monday the morning’s excitement.
deadline and failed. A small plastic coupling in
the bottom of the accelerator tank had broken Pace VanDevender
while we were charging the generator and we [Necah Furman interview of July 16, 1984. Copy from Don
Cook in Van Arsdall collection for 1980s.]

65
65
 PBFA I modules were inherently simple and efficient,
and, because they were independent, were
scalable.
In each module, energy from a conventional
power supply was delivered to a Marx genera-
tor, a bank of capacitors charged in parallel
and discharged in series to provide the initial
high-voltage pulse. The next driver element
was the intermediate store section, used to
shorten the pulse received from the Marx.
The pulse-forming line further shortened the
pulse by water-dielectric switching. The pulse
then traveled through a prepulse shield, which
prevented a premature voltage pulse from
flowing into the vacuum section during initial
stages of line charging (known as prepulse).
The pulse then traveled through a magneti-
cally insulated transmission line (please
see sidebar in chapter two about this
kind of transmission line) to
the reaction chamber
containing the elec-
tron or ion diode.
The first test firing
of PBFA I was on June 28,
1980, two days ahead of schedule.
Its output pulse was 20 terawatts and
850 kilojoules. The new facility was dedicated
Progress spanning nearly a decade of work on August 2, as reported in the August 8,
on focusing ion beams with ever-increasing 1980, Sandia Lab News. A series of five quali-
power density contributed to the design of fying shots produced typically 30-terawatt,
PBFA I. Cornell University pioneered the work 1-megajoule power pulses at the end of the
in 1974 using protons, and the intensity of ion 36 magnetically insulated transmission lines.
beams focused on a target increased over the In the next phase, the output from all 36 mod-
years—from 106 to 1011 watts/cm2 on sev- ules were combined into a single power feed,
eral machines in the United States, including or convolute section, to power the ion diode.
Sandia’s Hydra, Hermes II, Proto I, Proto II, The following phase of development involved
and Gamble at the Naval Research Laboratory. the ion diode. Diodes are devices that convert
PBFA I was expected to better this and achieve the electromagnetic energy supplied by the
1013 watts/cm2, with PBFA II projected to ob- drivers into ion beams. Diodes generate, ac-
tain 1014 watts/cm2 on target. celerate, and focus the ion beam onto the
PBFA I was envisioned as an intermediate fusion targets located at the center of the ac-
step in the development of Sandia’s fusion celerator. The beam is produced within a small
program. Operation of the accelerator showed gap, or diode region, between two plasmas
that multiple accelerators could be effectively that form and cover the anode and cathode
synchronized and their output pulses com- surfaces in a few nanoseconds after the pulse
bined to drive a common load—thus a technol- arrives. Because the plasmas are separated
ogy easily extendable to higher power levels. in potential by several megavolts, ions are
extracted from the anode plasma and are
PBFA I consisted of a circular array of 36 accelerated toward the cathode. Because the
modular accelerators, each with a power level cathode typically is an open grid, the accelera-
of more than 0.8 terawatts, resulting in tor ions pass through the structure and are
30 terawatts when combined. The accelerator focused in ballistic trajectories or by self-pinch
forces onto the target.
66
Electrons are ejected from the cathode plasma the diode region over relatively long distances
and, if allowed, would flow to the anode, re- in the vacuum, voltage polarity reversal, op-
sulting in loss of current in parallel with the erational engineering, and system-facility
ion beam, and thus a loss of efficiency. To integration. For example, a fast-opening switch
avoid the electron loss, a strong magnetic invented by Cliff Mendel in 1975, and further
field is used to prevent electron flow across developed by the Naval Research Laboratory,
the anode-cathode gap. The way in which the was used on PBFA I to boost the accelerator
field is applied became an area of continued voltage. The switch cut the pulse duration by
research, trying externally applied pulsed field a factor of 2 and reduced the input energy
coils, internally generated magnetic fields needed by a factor of 8. Boosting the voltage
within the diode, or using a coil powered by of PBFA I allowed testing some of the physics
the diode current itself. of lithium ion production.
By 1982, Sandia was studying three diode PBFA I Team
configurations for electron control: the mag- Design: Tom Martin, Pace VanDevender, Dillon McDaniel,
netic field diode, the pinched-beam diode, and David L. Johnson
the hybrid-ampfion diode. In addition to the Assembly: Johann Seamen
differences in how they controlled electrons,
Operations: Steve Goldstein
the diodes varied in details of how they pro-
duced plasmas at the anode. The purpose of Project Management: Gerry Barr

the ion-diode experiments was to determine [Condensed from “Drivers for Pulsed Power Fusion,” Sandia
Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, October 1982, SAND82-1398.]
the best concept and develop it for PBFA II.

PBFA I
Advancing previous accelerator technology to
Original sketch for PBFA I on facing page was submitted
the level needed for PBFA I required solving
to Sandia’s technical art department as the beginning
several fundamental problems, including for the later drawing on this page.
synchronized switching, ef-
ficient transfer of
energy to

67
67
Chapter Three
Experiments on PBFA I were designed to determine the best configuration for
PBFA II, and initially, beams of hydrogen ions (protons) were used. Even though
protons are heavier than electrons, they tended to be deflected by magnetic
fields in the diode, affecting the beam’s energy density possibilities. At the same
time it was looking into the optimal type of beam, in mid-1981 Sandia decided
against its initial plan to shut down PBFA I and upgrade it into PBFA II by adding
an additional 36 modules, bringing the total to 72. A primary reason was loss
of valuable research time while the machine was being rebuilt; another was
improvements in machine technology that gave the voltage and current needed
without additional modules. Instead, an entirely new machine was planned within
the funds allocated for the upgrade, approximately $48 million. Like PBFA I, it
would have 36 modules delivering power to a central diode, but with triple the
design power, totaling 100 terawatts. The goal of completing construction by the end
of 1984 remained the same. Ground was broken the end of March 1981 for a
$2.68 million high bay laboratory building for PBFA II, east of PBFA I, even as the
decision was being made whether to upgrade PBFA I or build a new machine.5
Either would fit into the new facility.
Multiple areas of research during the early 1980s were geared to improve PBFA II
and its subsystems even as it was being designed and built. Increasing the power
by a factor of three over PBFA I required new accelerator concepts and significant
advances in component technology. Moreover, higher power implies higher voltages,
making it difficult to provide a trigger for the multi-megavolt gas switches that
would enable the 36 modules to fire simultaneously. Consequently, switches were
also the subject of research. The primary goal was to create a facility and provide
the understanding required to prove that inertial confinement fusion targets could
in principle be ignited. A secondary goal was to develop the technology for a fusion
reactor for commercial power.
Meanwhile, the national inertial confinement fusion program was slowly becoming
more focused on military applications. A headline in the journal Science in May
1981 summed up the situation: “Ambitious Energy Project Loses Luster: Laser fusion,
touted as a new energy source, has produced only fizzles; its military implications
now predominate.”6 As the article pointed out, the military focus of the program—
which had always been there—had been revealed more clearly during budget
discussions in Congress in the early 1980s. Whereas in the decade before, energy had
been publicized as the primary focus for fusion work in the United States, Science
predicted its true home—in weapons work—was becoming more overt.
Projections and promises about achieving ignition and building a commercial
power plant within a relatively short amount of time circulated into the early
1980s, and the military side of fusion was of course not widely discussed in the
open literature. For a brief moment in 1976, the Rudakov disclosure (see chapter
two) about advances in this area had given a peek into the classified part of fusion

68
 the ’80s
research, without making it known that this was a major thrust. Absent an energy
focus, any news about work on inertial confinement fusion was largely confined to
highly technical journals. Because of their complexity, details of the topic did not
lend themselves to wide public interest.
The realization that creating fusion in the lab was further away than anticipated,
the yearly increases in budget requests for expensive fusion facilities, and a string
of overly optimistic predictions were beginning to take the luster off the national
fusion program as a whole. Complicating the picture, work at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory
indicated that heavy ions looked very promising for igniting fusion pellets. However,
this approach was less attractive for military applications and very expensive.
Although it was thought to be as viable as lasers or light ions for a commercial
power plant, the issue was, of course, funding sources. The Office of Fusion Energy
in the Department of Energy oversaw and funded most of the heavy ion work.
(Magnetic confinement fusion, as always, continued to be funded through this
office as well.) Defense Programs funded basic development of inertial confinement
fusion using lasers and pulsed power machines at the weapons laboratories.7
A complicating factor for Sandia was the long-standing emphasis on lasers in the
national fusion program because of their technical maturity. Lasers had already
demonstrated their capability to focus a beam, whereas Sandia was still trying to
suitably tame particle beams. Advocates of particle-beam fusion had to continually
argue their case for funding, and the laser laboratories often objected, since all
inertial confinement fusion funding came from the same pool of money. Results
from Sandia’s pulsed power accelerators for fusion work were as yet preliminary,
and the jury was out in the scientific community about their possibility for success.
Laser fusion received 70% of the funding and had totaled more than $1 billion in
the 1970s, largely based on promises that ignition would happen within a short
period and that commercial power plants would operate soon thereafter. Conceptual
designs for fusion energy reactors made it apparent that either a laser or particle
beam fusion energy plant would have to be enormous and prohibitively expensive.
Moreover, repetitive shots from the fusion driver would be needed to ignite a series of
pellets in rapid succession (several times a second) inside the reactor—like pistons
in a gas engine. The ability to fire repetitively and reliably had to be developed as
well.
By 1981, the Department of Energy had committed large sums for long-term
construction of laser facilities for fusion drivers: $137 million for the glass laser,
Nova, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and $62.5 million for Antares,
the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser at Los Alamos. Livermore was asking full funding,
$250 million, to build Nova, but had been approved for the lesser amount to build
one stage of it. The argument Livermore made was that fusion ignition could only
be proven with a machine providing adequate energy to the pellet. (A mirror fusion

69
Chapter Three
test facility was also being built at Livermore at this time for magnetic confinement
fusion at a final estimated cost of $372 million.8) Sandia’s request for $48 million
to build PBFA II fell into this time period and was from the same source of funding.
Because energy had been emphasized so strongly as a reason to fund fusion
machines, and because any fusion energy plant seemed now to be many years
away, Congress and the Office of Management and Budget began to ask pointed
questions about the large budgets earmarked for inertial confinement fusion. In
the spring of 1981, Science quoted R.L. Schriever, then head of the Office of Inertial
Confinement Fusion at the Department of Energy, as saying: “It can be argued that
the energy goal of the program is being put on the shelf. But it is more fair to say
that we are setting aside either application—civilian or military—for the goal of
proof of scientific feasibility.” (Here, scientific feasibility means fusion ignition.) In
contrast to earlier years when funding for inertial confinement fusion had been a
separate item in the DOE defense budget, in 1981, it was part of a lump
sum of $162 million allocated for weapons research, development, and testing
($236 million was requested for FY 1982).9 In a climate of restricted funding,
Sandia’s operating budget for particle-beam fusion was reduced below the
needed level for the first time ever; from $18.4 million requested to $15.9 million,
resulting in cuts and setbacks in plans.10 That same year, the House Armed Services
Committee stated openly that inertial confinement fusion research was being
funded primarily for military applications.
Sandia continued to insist upon the potential advantages pulsed power machines
held out for inertial confinement fusion, whether used for energy or weapons
applications. The advantage they had over lasers was much better efficiency and
suitability for repetitive operation, the latter a requirement for fusion energy plants.
However, a letter from the president of Sandia, George Dacey, to the directors of
Los Alamos and Livermore in September 1981 clearly spells out the direction in
which the inertial confinement work was going: “I believe that we are all fully
agreed to cooperate in directing the various elements of the inertial confinement
fusion program toward unified weapons physics orientation.” Dacey also told the
directors of the weapons design laboratories that rather than being concerned
with the physics of ignition, Sandia was concerned with the efficient conversion
of pulsed power sources into soft x rays, work that was relevant to weapons effects
studies. Thus Sandia saw its primary role as being a return to laboratory simulation
of weapons effects, a responsibility dating back to the earliest days of the nuclear
weapons program.11 To this end, Sandia had begun planning a Simulation
Technology Laboratory project encompassing the accelerators not specifically
designated as part of the fusion effort.
In laboratory experiments on PBFA I, continued problems with deflection of the
light hydrogen protons in the diode convinced researchers to try to develop a stiffer
beam. Even as parts of PBFA II were nearing construction, Sandia was investigating

70
 the ’80s
a different kind of ion beam (lithium) for the new accelerator. The challenge
was to develop lithium-ion sources at the same time as the accelerator was being
built. Another challenge was to show that an ion beam could be focused on a
target the size of a pinhead; to date this had not been accomplished. The classified
magnetically imploding foil work continued in parallel with the ion-beam effort,
and was considered a contender as a fusion driver.
With two different technologies being investigated at the same time PBFA II was
being built, many issues had to be resolved to determine how PBFA II should
finally be configured, among them the kind of ion beam the machine would
use.12 Moving rapidly from initial experiments with intense ion-beam diodes
into fielding an optimum ion-beam system on PBFA II raised many physics
issues in generation, transport, focusing, and deposition in targets that needed
to be resolved. Sandia and its partners, the Naval Research Laboratory and
Cornell University, were involved in an extensive research program to increase
understanding of these issues. In addition, international interest in ion-beam-
driven inertial confinement fusion grew at this time, and important advances
were also achieved by researchers in Japan, France, Germany, and Israel that
factored into decisions concerning PBFA II.13
Planning for the kind of capability Sandia needed—an entirely new technological
and scientific endeavor—was different than planning and constructing a new
facility designed to answer a known need. In the case of the new particle-beam
fusion accelerator being built at Sandia, experiments were being conducted on
existing pulsed power machines that pertained directly to it. Consequently, it was
desirable to be able to modify construction plans when results indicated the need to
do so.
Years are customarily required to obtain funding for major construction at Sandia
and other national laboratories. Requests have to be submitted to the Department
of Energy together with plans for a new machine often before all research questions
have been adequately answered. In this case, researchers knew they needed more
power and energy to drive fusion, but did not know the kind of beam that could best
deliver that energy to the fusion pellet. Moreover, the design of the pellet itself was a
subject of theoretical calculations and experiment.
For this reason, Sandia adopted an implementation method called ‘fast-tracking’
when PBFA I was being built, and because of its success, the method was fully
implemented for PBFA II. Using the fast-tracking approach, one stage of the
project was built while subsequent stages were being developed, ensuring that in
the end, the machine would be state of the art. This approach was not without risk
and deviated from the norm of freezing plans for a project at the time funds were
requested. Since projects had to be planned and funded so far in advance, fast-
tracking had obvious advantages for research machines such as those in pulsed
power. They were being designed and used for cutting-edge experiments in areas

71
Chapter Three
with which no one had much experience; fusion was as yet an unattained goal in
the lab.14
In the spring of 1982, all of Sandia was reorganized, and the divisions within it
were aligned according to two major functions: those with current responsibilities
and commitments, such as energy and weapons, and long-range future capabilities
involving research. Pulsed Power Sciences was placed in the research area
under Al Narath, and Sandia’s president, George Dacey, explained the reason to
the Sandia Lab News: “Gerry Yonas’ programs are futuristic devices and ideas
and understanding, not, as yet, a deliverable product. Furthermore, I think the
technology that’s involved is closer to that of our other research activities, than
for example to weapons development.”15 The placement—outside both weapons
and energy—did not make it easier for pulsed power either internal to Sandia or
externally to obtain funding and support. In April 1983, Dacey modified his stance
somewhat, saying that the inertial confinement fusion program had recently been
given a multi-pronged approach including fusion, weapons effects simulations, and
other applications needing large amounts of power in a small space. Close in time
to when the laboratories’ reorganization occurred, Pace VanDevender was promoted
to head up the Pulsed Power Research Department and Don Cook, who had joined
Ken Prestwich’s group in 1978, was tapped to head the Pulsed Power Engineering
group under Tom Martin. Both men came to play increasingly important roles at
Sandia, inside the Pulsed Power Program and outside it.
On March 23, 1983, in an announcement that took many by surprise, President
Reagan said that the United States was going to begin an extensive research and
development program for missile defense for the nation. At the time he made the
announcement, the President said the effort was consistent with US obligations
under the 1972 ABM Treaty and that its goal was to render nuclear weapons
impotent and obsolete. The program was named the Strategic Defense Initiative and
its stated goal was to eliminate the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles.
Because of Sandia’s expertise in particle accelerators and lasers, the Labs
immediately became involved in the effort, which soon was dubbed Star Wars.
(The name came from the title of a popular 1977 movie depicting futuristic wars
involving beam weapons.) One of the reasons for the Strategic Defense Initiative
was to create an anti-ballistic missile system for the nation, in which armed missiles
would be sent into space and detonated immediately following the launch of a
Soviet missile. The US missile would explode in space and the radiation from it
would disable the enemy’s missiles. However, popular artists’ concepts depicted
beams of particles or light being aimed at the heavens to bring down an enemy
missile or vehicle, with intergalactic “star wars” involving the beams as weapons.
Even though the intent was not to use the particle beams as weapons, but as a
way of wreaking havoc on enemy weapons, the idea that beams could be used as

72
 the ’80s
weapons had been around since the early days of accelerator work, largely as theory.
Work for the Strategic Defense Initiative began to scale up in the nuclear weapons
complex soon after the President’s announcement. During the summer of 1983,
Yonas headed a study team in Washington exploring the parameters of technologies
for the Strategic Defense Initiative. While Yonas was in Washington, Narath realized
the nation would need centers for strategic defense research and told VanDevender,
who was acting director in Yonas’s absence, to prepare a plan for the Strategic
Defense Facility. Yonas then proposed this facility to Congress on his return to
Sandia. The next year, in the summer of 1984, Yonas accepted the position of Chief
Scientist in the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative Office, part of
the Department of Defense, leaving Sandia for Washington, DC. (Please see following
sidebars, Major Strategic Defense Initiative work and A 1984 perspective of the Strategic
Defense Initiative.) On August 31, 1984, VanDevender was named director of Pulsed
Power Sciences, and Cook took over the Fusion Research Department. VanDevender
continued to push for the Strategic Defense Facility, which eventually was funded.
Repetitive pulsed power work, the coil gun, and other largely classified activities
related to beam weapons were carried out at this facility.
As had long been the case, part of the Pulsed Power Sciences organization was
James Powell’s Simulation Technology Department, whose groups operated the
weapons effects simulation machines, some of which became part of the Simulation
Technology Laboratory project. Some of the accelerators and test beds also helped
with the inertial fusion development and included Proto II, Hermes II, Speed, and
HydraMite.
A final design for the heart of PBFA II was determined that year, based on the
decision to use lithium ions rather than protons to bombard the fusion pellet.
Lithium was selected for its greater mass (seven times that of a proton), which
calculations showed would minimize its bending in magnetic fields and make
the beam easier to focus, with the focusing anticipated to boost beam intensity.
Use of lithium ions also would allow target experiments to be conducted at higher
voltages, resulting in greater beam brightness. The ability to focus was assumed to
increase rapidly with increased voltage.
In theory, a key to fusion ignition was the ability to achieve enormous power density
at the target, with the power density directly related to how precisely the beam
could be focused on the target. Particle beams have to travel over a distance to their
target—called propagation—and here is where some of the power density can be
lost. Another key aspect is that the electrical energy must be converted efficiently
to ions, minimizing loss of electrons, and the ion beam must be pure; i.e., only
lithium must be produced. Related to the decision to configure PBFA II for lithium-
ion beams was the choice of a diode, a key component of the accelerator that had
been the subject of intensive research for some time. The Applied-B diode was the
final choice. All of these requirements had to be factored into the final design of

73
Major Strategic Defense Initiative Work at Sandia: 1980s
The Strategic Defense Initiative, begun in
1983, had the mission to develop a defen-
sive system for the United States that would
destroy incoming ballistic missiles in space,
soon after they were launched. Lasers or di-
rected-energy beams appeared promising
technologies for this endeavor, and some of
the accelerator work Sandia was already doing
made a good match to the national program.
In fact, the possibility that electron beams
might be developed as weapons was an idea
that had existed for many years.a Light, radar,
x rays and other bands of the electromagnetic
spectrum travel freely over great distances in
space, since they are above the Earth’s atmo-
sphere. One idea was that orbiting stations
carrying power sources could be stationed
in space, and from these stations, lasers or
directed-energy beams could be deployed to
destroy enemy missiles being launched toward
the United States.
The electron beam accelerators Sandia devel-
oped in the pulsed power and radiation simu-
lation programs became key in Strategic De-
fense Initiative work. Used as directed-energy
weapons, high-current electron beams could
blow apart the body of re-entry vehicles; how-
ever, it was uncertain whether these beams
could propagate the distances required to hit
such a target. Early experiments showed that
the electron beam became unstable within
a few meters, and work ensued on making a
weapons-grade beam go the required distance.
RADLAC I AND II
Two years before the official creation of the
Strategic Defense Initiative, Sandia had begun
a collaboration with the Air Force Weapons Lab
in Albuquerque to develop the first radial lin-
ear accelerator in the United States, RADLAC I
(radial pulse linear accelerator). First tested in
1981, RADLAC I adopted pulsed power tech-
nology to a linear accelerator to create high-
current, high-energy particle beams that could
be used for a number of applications, one of
them potentially as a beam weapon. RADLAC
I used the electromagnetic pulse created in
a typical pulsed power accelerator to form a
2-million-volt electron beam that was acceler-
ated through four cavities to achieve a final
energy of 10 million volts. Project leader and
machine designer Ken Prestwich likened it to a
multi-stage rocket.b

Electric arcs on the surface of the water

74 in which RADLAC II was immersed
create lightning-like effects. The electric
discharge had no technical significance.
Development was already in the planning using Proto II to evaluate imploding plasmas
stage in 1981 for a second-generation linear as a source of photons to energize the laser.
accelerator, RADLAC II. When the Strategic Proto II converted electrical energy into the
Defense Initiative began in 1983, this second kinetic energy of an imploding plasma, which
machine, by now well under way, suited was stagnated onto an annular shell or onto a
its requirements. RADLAC II produced its central laser rod. The plasma energy was con-
first beam in the summer of 1985. Also a verted into x rays, which ionized and excited
collaborative project with the Air Force Weapons the laser medium. The experiments also inves-
Laboratory, RADLAC II was funded by the tigated some of the physics of an x-ray laser
Department of Defense/Defense Advanced and assessed its potential as a directed-energy
Research Projects Agency to address key weapon. Sandia’s Keith Matzen headed up this
issues in directed-energy weapons using work. Sandia also studied the possibility of
electron beams. The physics of producing and deploying x-ray laser missiles on submarines
propagating lethal
beams of electrons in
full-density air while
keeping it stable was

Major Strategic Defense Initiative Work at Sandia: 1980s

the primary subject
of investigation.
Laser-triggered
switches synchronized
the timing so that
the electrons were
given a series of
pushes at just the
right time. RADLAC
II, fully completed
in 1986, was used
to successfully
demonstrate stable
propagation of a
10-megavolt, Schematic diagram of Sandia’s RADLAC Facility used for directed energy experiments
40-kiloamp electron with electron beams.
beam in open air for
a distance of about 15 meters. The RADLAC and launching them from the submarines into
II team included Ken Prestwich, its designer, space to intercept incoming Soviet weapons
Steve Shope, David Hasti, Dave Smith, mounted on missiles. Related work ensued on
Bruce Miller, D.L. Johnson, Art Sharpe, and how to detect enemy missiles as soon as pos-
Ray Clark. Having proved that the concept of sible following their launch.
beam weapons was feasible, and having made
DELPHI
significant contributions to understanding
beam propagation, beam conditioning, and In considering other options for the Strategic
diagnostics, RADLAC was subsequently Defense Initiative, military strategists came
dismantled in 1991.c up with the idea that, if attacked, the United
States could deploy decoy missiles to draw
X-RAY LASER
fire from an enemy’s “Star Wars” type weap-
In early Strategic Defense Initiative efforts at ons, depleting their fire power and allowing
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the concept more US warheads to penetrate and arrive at
for a “Stars Wars” weapon—an x-ray laser their targets. However, the possibility existed
pumped by a nuclear weapon—caught popular that the enemy might be able to identify the
imagination. However, such a laser was known decoys. Work began on several ideas as to how
to be difficult to make. Sandia contributed to a decoy could be distinguished from an actual
the x-ray laser work through cooperation be- warhead in a project named DELPHI, honoring
tween its laser and pulsed power programs, the Greek oracle who saw through Oedipus’s

75
75
 disguise and recognized him as the husband in a tunnel, was a 46-
of his own mother. The name “Discriminating stage Marx generator
Electrons with Laser Photon Ionization” was with a high-voltage
force-fit into the acronym. The DELPHI team diode to convert the
was led by Ron Lipinski, Bruce Miller, Milt energy into electron
Clauser, and Tom Lockner. beams ranging from
1 to 4 megavolts in
Somewhat later, the team realized that the
pulses lasting from
same technology that detected and analyzed
0.3 to 2 microsec-
incoming missiles could be configured to
onds. Troll team members were Ray Clark,
destroy them. Instead of putting DELPHI in
Malcolm Buttram, John Smith, and Ron Lipinski.
space, Sandia studied the idea of having the
facility on the ground and sending the electron Subsequently, in EPOCH, the electron beams
pulse into the upper atmosphere. Again, the from Troll were coupled with a KrF laser beam,
difficulties involved in propagating electron which made a path for the electron beam to
beams any distance were problematic. follow. In another method, the propagation
tube, first evacuated, was surrounded by coils
MIMI/EPOCH
Major Strategic Defense Initiative Work at Sandia: 1980s

that created a plasma channel to serve as a

It was known that high-current electron beams guide for the electron beam. By 1988, electron
generate huge electromagnetic fields, and so beams were propagating some 50 meters.d
they become unstable, whip around, and do The goal was to use the same technology to
not travel long distances in a straight line. In get a beam into space.
1985, Gordon Leifeste, Charles Crist, John
The EPOCH experiments indicated that high-
Leija, and Charles Frost showed that an ultra-
energy electron beams were more efficient
violet laser could create an ionized channel to
than lasers for transporting pulsed energy
guide an electron beam from the accelerator
between widely spaced points. Electron beam
MIMI in a propagation tube.
accelerators are typically lighter and simpler
To find out whether electron beams could be than lasers, producing a beam of equal en-
propagated over greater distances, Sandia ergy. Since the electron penetrates deeply into
built the EPOCH (electron propagation on the target, deposits its energy throughout the
channels) facility, consisting of the electron depth, and produces x rays, other uses were
beam accelerator, Troll, a 56-m long, 0.9-m- suggested, such as flash x-ray radiography,
diameter aluminum propagation tube, and welding, and research on the properties of
instrumentation, all inside a concrete tunnel materials. Ron Lipinski headed up this effort,
that was 106 m long, protected by a 7-m-wide which included Tom Lockner, George Kamin,
semicircle of concrete that was 7 m wide and Malcolm Buttram, and Ray Clark.
3.6 m high. Troll, so named because it lived [General information for this sidebar from L. Johnson, A History
of Exceptional Service in the National Interest, SAND97-1029,
251-252. Additional information from Van Arsdall interview
with Malcolm Buttram, July 2006; Steve Shope collection in
Sandia archives; boxes 32-37 in Prestwich collection, Sandia
Archives; in particular Box 32.]

a J.P. VanDevender, “Pulsed Power, ICF, and SDI,” Journal

of Fusion Energy, Vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp. 33-39. An
appendix to the technical article contains VanDevender’s
personal comments on implementation of the Strategic
Defense Initiative.
b See Sandia Lab News, April 17, 1981, “RADLAC:
For High-Current, High Energy Particle Beams.” The
configuration was first investigated by Soviet physicist
A.I. Pavlovskii in 1979 on their LIU-10, a 13-million-volt
radial pulse line accelerator.

Ron Lipinski gives a briefing on the EPOCH facility to c Information on the outcome of RADLAC provided by
SDIO director General James Abrahamson. Behind them Steve Shope in a telephone interview December 15,
is the 56-m propagation tube. 2005. For RADLAC I and II, see Sandia Lab News,
April 17, 1981; August 16, 1985.

76 d “Epoch: Unique Facility for Study of Electron-Beam

Propagation,” Sandia Lab News, July 29, 1988.
A 1984 Perspective of the Strategic Defense Initiative*
In 1984, the political situation between the was needed and for a short amount of time
United States and the Soviet Union was and new materials developed for the Initiative
growing tense: arms control discussions had but adaptable for other needs.
broken down and the Soviets were testing
Yonas said the immediate strategic goal of the
a Ballistic Missile Defense System, and
Strategic Defense Initiative was to strengthen
were known to be working on ground-based
US deterrence with respect to the Soviet
lasers. It was difficult to determine whether
Union. The long-term goal, however, was to
the United States had adequate defensive
make ballistic missiles, both US and Soviet,
capabilities because the offensive technologies

A 1984 Perspective of the Strategic Defense Initiative

militarily useless “through a combination of
the Soviet Union possessed could only be
enlightened policy and breakthrough technol-
surmised from available data.
ogy.” Proponents of the Strategic Defense
The challenges faced by the Strategic Defense Initiative saw it as a way to bring the United
Initiative faced included the need to develop States and the USSR back to meaningful arms
technologies for an evolving threat: an of- negotiations, forcing both sides to think more
fensive Soviet capability that could change clearly about strategic weapons. Yonas said he
qualitatively and quantitatively. Hitting and envisioned a day when offensive nuclear bal-
destroying an intercontinental ballistic missile listic missiles would be negotiated away. Such
in flight, for example, would be difficult, but negotiations would be possible after a period
an even greater challenge would be managing when each side had single warhead deter-
the battle. That would take massive computer rent missiles and substantial ballistic missile
systems managing hundreds of thousands of defenses so that neither side would have any
data points and computer structures capable benefit from a preemptive strike. He saw the
of making decisions and of engaging weapons Strategic Defense Initiative effort as a first
and keeping track of targets—that is, which step toward reaching such an optimal state.
targets are alive, and which dead. The whole
Pursuing the research needed for the Strategic
process would need to be fast—no more than
Defense Initiative was seen as a hedge against
30 minutes.
developments in the USSR, which was believed
Yonas described it at the time as “the most to be developing a ballistic missile defense
massive software job that man has ever faced, system. The long-range goal of the Strategic
requiring new methods of artificial intelligence Defense Initiative, as Yonas outlined it at the
to write the software.” He said such a capabil- time, was to create a defense-dominated
ity could have enormous benefit to, for exam- rather than an offense-dominated, nuclear
ple, air traffic control on a global scale or any- deterrent. The technologies being developed
thing else where real-time data comes in and, were designed to destroy missiles, not people.
if it were managed properly, could be used to The intent was to move away from the long-
control large, complex processes and events. standing policy of mutually assured destruction
Other technologies related to the Strategic and toward a situation where defense
Defense Initiative that Yonas saw as potentially predominated on both sides of the globe.
benefiting other endeavors included reliable [Condensed version of a Sandia Lab News article of
portable energy supplies providing hundreds November 9, 1984, that is based on an interview with
of megawatts of power on command where it Gerry Yonas, soon after he began his duties as chief scientist
with the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative
Office, part of the Department of Defense.]

*See also Nigel Hey, The Star Wars Enigma: Behind the Scenes
of the Cold War Race for Missile Defense, Potomac Books, 2006.
Hey is a retired Sandian.

77
Chapter Three
all the elements of PBFA II. (Please see following sidebars, PBFA II: Technical Timeline
and PBFA II.) The decision to base PBFA II on lithium-ion beams meant that the
imploding foil approach, the Scorpio program, would be suspended, at least as
part of the inertial confinement fusion effort. In November 1983, VanDevender
sent a letter to the head of a committee that had recently reviewed the program to
explain his decision. After outlining the merits of lithium ion-beam technology,
VanDevender wrote:
Under the constraints of constant or declining funding for the light ion
fusion portion of the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, growth in one
area necessarily means a reduction in another. The Scorpio Program has
had some outstanding success in past years, and Proto II had been modified
as an experiment to make a lower inductance diode and increase the energy
available in the foil implosion. Had this experiment in power flow worked,
the relevant concept for using imploding plasmas to drive ICF [inertial
confinement fusion] targets could have been investigated in time for the PBFA
II decision. However, breakdown in the water feed and flashover of the vacuum
insulator have been persistent problems during the last year. We have now
redesigned the power flow section of Proto II to avoid these problems. The
new hardware will not be available until spring, and there will not be time
to investigate the promise of Scorpio for PBFA II before we would have had to
choose the PBFA II option in May 1984. . . . The Scorpio option will be revived
only if the plasma opening switch for pulse compression on PBFA II does not
scale to the high voltages required, and if double shell targets are shown to be
not viable for PBFA II.16
Imploding foil technology was not completely abandoned, however, but continued
under Dillon McDaniel in a new Strategic Defense Initiative endeavor, the X Ray
Laser Program.17 Some staff remained in the ion-beam inertial confinement fusion
area, and others went with McDaniel.18 (Perceptive readers will know that this
technology would re-emerge in Sandia’s fusion program more than 10 years later as
the z pinch. However, in most of the open literature of the time, it was not called by
that name. In the meantime, the imploding foil technology continued to be used in
weapons effects work.)
Before the scheduled start of operations on PBFA II in early 1986, researchers had
to develop a reliable source for lithium-ion beams. The source would be a plasma
formed in the diode of the machine, and more than a score of possibilities existed
for creating it. (Please see following sidebar on later computer codes for fusion.) Another
area being intensively investigated was focusing the beams. Significant success was
being reported using the Proto I machine and an Applied-B diode to repeatedly focus
intense ion beams onto a spot the size of a pinhead. Researcher David J. Johnson
discovered that particle beams can be focused like optical beams to concentrate the
power in the diode onto a target a millimeter across, and Ray Leeper developed a

78
 the ’80s
19
technique to verify the achievement. It was hoped that the focusing ability could
be scaled up from small machines, such as Proto I and PBFA I, to the much larger
PBFA II.20 The Sandia Lab News likened the accomplishment to “focusing—for
an instant—all the electrical power generating capacity of the United States onto
an area less than the size of a fingernail.”21
One pulsed power test module for PBFA II was SuperMite. Also, as part of its usual
careful process, Sandia opted first to build and test one of the 36 modules before
ordering the remaining 35 to make sure they would work as predicted. Demon
was the name given to this demonstration module built in Area IV, and it was a
full-scale (15-m-long) experiment to verify computer projections of how a module
would work. By early 1985, tests on Demon were strongly suggesting that PBFA II
would be able to meet its design goals. Predictions were that PBFA II would be able
to deliver 1 to 2 million joules of ion-beam energy onto a fusion pellet target with
a final power of 100 trillion watts at a minimum. These levels of energy and power
were thought to be equal to igniting fusion in the pellet. The Sandia Lab News
reported that “PBFA II is now believed to be the only fusion experiment in progress
anywhere that has the possibility of igniting thermonuclear fuel in the laboratory,”
predicting implosion experiments by late 1988.22
The Demon tests neared an end, the additional modules were ordered, and finally
all 36 Marx generators were installed. The generators had also been rigorously
tested, at first the one on Demon, then each one individually. These 36 Marx
generators made up the outer circle on the wagon-wheel shape of PBFA II and
had to be extremely reliable because they were designed to fire simultaneously.
Synchronized switching would be the key to making this work, an area in which
the Labs excelled. Sandia’s long experience with Marx generators, beginning in the
1960s, culminated in this fourth generation of the pulsed power energy source.23 By
the fall of 1985, several years of tests had come to successful conclusions, and PBFA
II was being assembled in preparation for its first shot. Funding for PBFA II had
been such that money for the building had become available before the accelerator
was designed. A shell building was constructed, then the basement was dug out, and
the accelerator had to be sized to fit within the existing building shell.
At this time, Sandia decided to begin converting PBFA I into the world’s largest
laboratory x-ray source primarily to support a major weapon program, the W88.
The pulsed power staff held a contest to determine a new name for it, since it
was desirable to distinguish it clearly by name from PBFA II and because, once
reconfigured, it would no longer be the same machine. Saturn was the name
chosen, suggested by its multiple-ring diode. The $5 million conversion was
scheduled to be completed by 1987 and was part of the Simulation Technology
Laboratory project.24 (Hermes III, a large gamma-ray simulator, was also planned
as part of the project.) Saturn was intended for radiation-effects research and
weapons-component hardening and to support the Strategic Defense Initiative.

79
PBFA II: Technical Timeline
Demon Switching Technology: Comet test bed
The energy storage section for PBFA II involved Increasing the power by a factor of three over
a Sandia-designed Marx generator, which was PBFA I required new accelerator concepts
extensively tested in1983/1984 at Sandia’s and significant advances in components.
Demon accelerator facility in Area IV. (Demon Higher power implies higher voltages, making
stood for ‘demonstration.’) Demon was one it difficult to provide a trigger to the multi-
complete module, built so it could be tested megavolt gas switches that determined the
before the 36 identical modules that would simultaneity of the 36 modules. Therefore, a
make up PBFA II were constructed. Measur- special type of laser-triggered, 5-megavolt gas
ing 15 m in length, it had all the components switch, the Rimfire Switch, was developed,
needed to operate one module, providing a and a krypton fluoride laser was developed in
full-scale experiment on which to verify com- industry for Sandia to power these switches.
puter projections of performance. A magnetic switch was developed as a
possible replacement for the water switches
By 1985, as reported in the Sandia Lab News
in the pulse-forming transmission lines. The
of April 12, the tests had shown the module
Sandia management team was interested in
provided the necessary voltage, energy, power,
this switch because it would eliminate the
and pulse length. The Demon experiments
shock waves from the water switches that had
also showed that the high-voltage, low-jitter
caused damage in PBFA I and Proto II and
gas switch, which was triggered by a laser,
because these switches could be operated
performed reliably at high voltage without
repetitively in a pulsed power driver for a
suffering significant energy loss or breakdown.
reactor for energy production. The invention of
(A transfer switch connects the energy storage
a metallic glass material (Metglas)
section’s high-voltage output with the driver’s
by Allied Chemical provided
first pulse-forming section.) These switches
the possibility for magnetic
would synchronize all 36 of the modules
switches for pulsed
in PBFA II, making them act in unison. The
power devices. Neau,
switch was a major advance in pulsed power
VanDevender, and
technology, and its developers were
Marilyn Stockton
Rich Adams, Joe Woodworth, Charles Frost,
developed the first
Roy Hamil, Bob Turman, Russ Humphreys, and
of these switches
Jay Penn.
to operate at up
At this time, Pace VanDevender was the divi- to 6 million volts
sion supervisor for Pulsed Power Research. He on a facility
had the responsibility for the architecture of called Comet.
PBFA II, and worked with David L. Johnson to Comet had
complete it. Dozens of Sandians also contribut- two magnetic
ed to the design and testing of the Demon mod- switches
ule including managers Tom Martin, Bobby Tur- and was one
man, and Don Cook; Gene Neau, who designed prototype
the pulse-compression system; Russ Humphreys, module for
Jay Penn, and Jerry Cap, who developed the PBFA II.
gas switch; Johann Seamen, director of the
In parallel with
Demon test facility; Darrell Green, Jeff Christ-
this effort,
offerson, Greg Mann, David Mares, Guy Dono-
higher voltage
van, and Zeke Ziska, all making up the test
water switches
crew; Larry Schneider and Tom Woolston, who
were developed
designed the Marx generator; Mike Wilson,
and incorporated
designer of the firing system and high-voltage
into another pro-
switching system; Ed Constantineau, design of
totype module. For
the work platforms; Duane Burgeson, designer
cost reasons, PBFA
of the insulating fluids supply and process-
II was built using
ing system; Keith Tolk, designer of the Demon
modules with water
tank; and Bert Arnold, manufacturing liaison.
switches. The work on
80
80 Demon, 1982, and unidentified
experimenter.
Comet provided background for development important progress in understanding these
of RHEPP II, a 3-million-volt electron beam switches was made in experiments on PBFA I,
generator with several magnetic switches that at the Naval Research Laboratory, at Physics
was completed in 1993. This machine was a International, and at Maxwell Laboratories,
demonstration of repetitively pulsed technol- tests using them on PBFA I were not success-
ogy that could be used in a reactor driver. The ful because of the turn-on time limitations of
initial concept for RHEPP and component test- the lithium ion diodes and the efficiency of
ing was led by Malcolm Buttram and energy transfer to the ion diodes.
Jerry Ginn and included extensive contribu-
Although plasma erosion switches were not
tions by a research team from Westinghouse
used for the bulk of the ion diode research on
Corporation. The final design and full system
PBFA II, Sandia continued to research their
development was done by a team headed by
operation through the 1980s and 1990s.
Neau and Kim Reed.
Cliff Mendel and Mark Savage were major
In a paper delivered at the 1983 Beams Con- contributors to understanding these switches
ference, VanDevender said the target design and invented a triggerable switch. In the early
issues indicated a 10-nanosecond ion pulse 1980s John Farber, the Defense Nuclear Agen-
was needed to create the conditions for fu- cy Program Manager for developing new weap-
sion. PBFA II modules were designed to pro- ons effects simulators, decided that plasma
duce a 40-nanosecond pulse; efficient energy erosion switches offered a technology that
transfer was not possible for shorter pulses would be considerably less expensive than the
because of switching and inductance limita- modular approach used on PBFA I and Saturn.
tions. VanDevender indicated that the final The Defense Nuclear Agency and contractors
pulse compression would be done with plasma supporting its efforts, the Naval Research Lab-
erosion switches, for which the Naval Research oratory, Physics International, Maxwell Labo-
Laboratory was responsible in both PBFA I and ratories, and Pulse Sciences, Inc., worked on
PBFA II. developing systems that had plasma erosion
switches that would conduct for several micro-
The plasma opening switch is located near
seconds and then provide a 0.1-microsecond
the ion diode and is designed to be a short
pulse when the switch opened with a voltage
until the load current in this short circuit is
gain of about a factor of 10. If this could be
a maximum. At that point, a large amount of
accomplished, it would decrease the three or
energy is stored in the inductance of the vac-
four stages of pulse compression in Sandia’s
uum transmission lines and vacuum insulator
modular approach and the only components
stack. The plasma opening switch was de-
that would need to support high voltage were
signed so that the combination of removal of
inside the vacuum insulator stack.
charge from the plasma and magnetic forces
caused the switch impedance to increase to The impact of that decision had two effects
a value much higher than the ion diode im- on the Sandia pulsed power program: first,

PBFA II: Technical Timeline

pedance in a few nanoseconds. The design Sandia now had the only program in the world
calculation at this time indicated that the that was developing high-power modular ac-
rapid decrease in current celerators and their components, and second,
would increase the extensive advances would continue to be made
ion diode voltage in opening switch technology and systems that
by a factor of 2 could be beneficial for future generation of
to 4 times the machines beyond PBFA II.
voltage with-
In the 1990s, the Centre d’Etudes in Gramat,
out these
France, implemented a program on its z-pinch
switches
research program that made extensive use of
and would
opening switches and a version of inductive
decrease
cavities that were developed by the Institute of
the pulse
High Current Physics in Tomsk, Russia, follow-
width to
ing work by Sandia in this area on Hermes III
about
and RHEPP. Dillon McDaniel was an advisor
10 nano-
for the Gramat program thoughout
seconds.
Although
the 1990s and arranged joint Sandia 81
support of Russian work in this area.
 (Please see sidebar on International Collaborations enough to ensure success in its fusion goals
PBFA II: Technical Timeline

in chapter four). The Sandia triggerable plasma on PBFA II.

erosion switch was successfully demonstrated
Many of the issues identified during this pe-
in one of the high-current z-pinch drivers
riod proved very difficult to resolve. A consider-
developed at Gramat.
able number of the shots during the first two
Diodes and focusing years operating PBFA II were to help resolve
Sandia explored three major ion diode con- problems with the pulsed power system and to
cepts that differed in how the magnetic field, find the best operational configuration for the
needed to stop electron flow, was created. ion diodes that were being evaluated.
Pinched-beam diodes used the self-magnetic
In March 1984, the Applied-B diode was cho-
field of the beam. Ampfion used some of the
sen for PBFA II because of an experimental
current delivered to the diode to power the
discovery that had been made during testing,
magnetic field coils and the Applied-B diode
allowing a dramatic improvement in the focus-
used energy from a capacitor bank to power
ing ability. The diode had been invented at
the coils. Problems from the beam interac-
Cornell nearly 10 years before and Sandia had
tions with the self-generated and applied
been developing it for high power. Experiment-
magnetic fields limiting the power density ex-
ers showed for the first time that intense ion
isted in all of these diodes. The source of ions
beams behave like optical elements: a small
for these diodes was usually an anode plasma
change in the curvature of the lens produces
that was not always uniform and thereby con-
a precisely defined change in the focal spot.
tributed to these energy-density limitations. In
Before this discovery, beam spreading was
addition, many species of ions were acceler-
blamed on a number of different effects.
ated, and beam focusing and target configura-
tions could only be optimized for one species. The Applied-B diode (or barrel diode) was a
This phenomenon was characterized as an shortened form for ‘Applied Magnetic Field
efficiency problem. Diode,’ in which a so-called virtual cathode
was created by electrons caught in the field
After the decision to use lithium ions, a great
lines from an electromagnet. The cathode per-
deal of research ensued on several types of
formed the job of attracting and accelerating
ion sources to find a technique that would
ions, impelling them from the anode surface
produce a pure lithium-ion beam. The exten-
to the fusion target.
sive ion diode experimental program included
developing sophisticated diagnostics to make In May 1984, Sandia formally announced that
better measurements of the beams, plasma it had focused an intense beam of ions to the
conditions, and the power delivered to the smallest spot size ever achieved—roughly the
diode. These experimental efforts and thor- size of a pinhead. Such a size was crucial to
ough theoretical studies advanced Sandia’s being able to focus an ion beam on a fusion
understanding of such diodes, but not quickly pellet of about the same size. The result had
been achieved repeatedly in proof-of-principle
experiments that spring (reported June 8 in the
Sandia Lab News). The earlier focusing problem
had been corrected by slightly reshaping the
diode’s cylindrical anode. Carefully changing
the interior surface from a simple curvature to
a compound curvature gave a two-and-a-half-
times tighter focus, the article said, and pro-
vided a breakthrough in beam optics.
David J. Johnson was the lead investigator for
the focusing experiment and Ray Leeper devel-
oped the technique to verify the achievement,
which was a milestone on the way to experi-
ments with PBFA II, slated to begin in 1986.
The beam-focusing experiments were made
on Proto I, now 10 years old, using a smaller
diode but a higher-current density than would
82 be used on PBFA II. The focus was onto a
In 1985, Pace VanDevender explains the ion diodes of
PBFA II to Adam Klein, counsel for the House Armed
Services Committee.
spot 1.3 mm across, and if scaled up to the with their certification, a major portion of the

PBFA II: Technical Timeline

three-times-larger PBFA II diode, the focus was new accelerator was checked out. Jitter—the
calculated to be 4.4 mm, a tighter focus than unpredictable difference in time of firing for
the 6-mm-diameter targets being considered each Marx—was quite small, approximately 3-5
for the new machine. The remaining research, nanoseconds and resulted in a 36-Marx timing
then, was to use PBFA I to scale to higher spread of only 35 nanoseconds. That spread
power in preparation for tests on PBFA II. was expected to be sufficient because the laser-
triggered gas switches between the generators
In 1985, John Maenchen was project leader
and the target provided final synchronization.
and chief experimentalist for tests proving
that earlier focusing achievements could be Over time, approximately 40 to 50 people from
scaled up to larger accelerators. He used PBFA a number of Sandia organizations worked on
I and the Applied-B diode for the tests, which some stage of the design, assembly, test, and
matched the focal intensities achieved the year operation of the PBFA II Marx generators. For a
before on Proto I. A high-intensity focused Sandia Lab News article of September 27, 1985,
beam was achieved by solving problems con- highlighting the successful tests, Tom Martin
nected with ion-beam aiming and transport singled out a number of them for special
without many of the hardware improvements mention: Larry Schneider, Tom Woolston,
the team had planned. Mike Wilson, and their colleagues in Ed Burgess’s
group; Bob Johnston, Gerold Ziska, and
The high ion intensities were attained with the
Dan Jobe of Steve Goldstein’s Ktech group;
help of a transparent plastic mesh covering
and members of Gerry Barr’s Pulsed Energy
the metal cathodes, which allowed electrons
Projects group.
to be emitted uniformly and form a virtual
cathode fast enough for the 40 billionth of a The first shot on the completed PBFA II was
second ion pulse to shoot forward as needed. December 11, 1985.
Plastic mesh assisted with aiming the beam. [Sources used include comments by Pace VanDevender,
A second mesh inserted behind the cathode in Don Cook, Ken Prestwich, and Michael Cuneo on this sidebar;
the area where the beam propagated across a articles from the Sandia Lab News from the period, and material
on specific topics in Sandia’s archives.]
strong magnetic field toward the central target
aided the transport. The double mesh arrange-
ment dramatically increased the ion power PBFA II, basement looking
density on target. At this same time, Joe at stack, 1984.
Woodworth was working on a means to use ex-
treme ultraviolet radiation to create a uniform
plasma layer above the anode surface that
could emit an ion beam immediately when the
power pulse was applied, enabling peak power Top of PBFA II around
to occur at the same time as peak voltage. 1985.
Maenchen’s team included Tom Mehlhorn,
chief theorist; Carlos Ruiz, diagnostics chief;
and Leeper, who helped with diagnostics. (See
Sandia Lab News, April 12, 1985.)
Countdown to completion
By September 1985, the circular array of
36 Marx generators—the source of power
for PBFA II—had been successfully test-fired
in the accelerator, as the accelerator itself
neared completion. The tests were run after
normal work hours so that the “downstream”
or interior portion of the machine could
continue construction. During the tests, the
Marxes were immersed in 500,000 gal. of
insulating transformer oil, just as they would
be when operating normally. During the tests,
the generators performed as expected, and
83

PBFA II, stack with jaws, 1985.

PBFA II
The accelerator was built in four layers of
nine modules each, with every layer arrayed
like the spokes of a wheel measuring 32.9 m
in diameter. Each module contained capaci-
tors, switches, and transmission lines and all
converged on a central hub, where a vacuum
chamber with the Applied-B diode was locat-
ed. The diode contained the fuel pellet. Elec-
tric current, charged into giant capacitors (the
Marxes) and released simultaneously by all 36
modules, shot into the diode and produced a
beam of particles. Efforts were made to focus
the beam so that it would impact the surface This
of a pea-sized pellet of fuel and implode the pulse
pellet, making it crush upon itself. The goal entered
was to compress the fuel in the pellet to about the middle,
1000 times solid density and heat it to some water-
100 million degrees Celsius, approximately insulated
six times the temperature at the center of the section. In
sun. This implosion would spark fusion reac- each of the
tions in the deuterium-tritium fuel. 36 modules, an
In the outer, oil-insulated section of PBFA II, a intermediate storage
Marx generator in each module accumulated capacitor began the
electrical energy for 1-2 minutes, charging process of forming
a bank of capacitors to 95,000 volts. At the a compressed pulse.
proper instant, a computer sent a trigger sig- Compressed to about one
nal, and switches in each Marx generator close third its previous duration, the
to connect the capacitors in series and pro- pulse left the capacitor through a
duce a 5-million-volt pulse of electricity lasting high-voltage gas switch. The switch,
about 1 millionth of a second. one in each module, operated by laser-
triggered breakdown of an insulating
gas. Precise, computer-controlled triggering
of the 36 gas switches synchronized the 36
pulses.
Next, still in the water section, a series of
three pulse-forming lines in each module
shortened and shaped the pulse. Self-breaking
switches, operating by breakdown of the
deionized water, let the pulse pass from each
pulse-forming line to the next. After leaving
the third pulse-forming line, the pulse entered
a transition section where the shape of the
conductors changed from cylindrical to flat.
Meeting near the center of the accelerator
were 36 flat-plate transmission lines and
about 12 million volts at the midplane. At this
point, the 36 synchronized power pulses were
combined into one.
This united pulse passed through an
aluminum-and-acrylic vacuum interface that
kept water out of the center section, which
was in vacuum. The pulse then traveled

84
84
along magnetically insulated transmission measuring 0.3 m in diameter, where the
lines toward the center point of PBFA II. Just particle beam was produced (protons or
before the pulse reached the center, one lithium ions) and focused onto a target.
more switch, the plasma opening
PBFA II operated using a data acquisition
switch, boosted the output to
system and control/monitor system, both of
30 million volts. Finally,
which coordinated hundreds of actions before
the pulse reached
and during a shot and detected the results. The
a diode
control/monitor system was highly automated,
allowing procedures to be repeated exactly,
reducing error, and monitoring the system for
hazardous conditions. The data acquisition
system was state-of-the art for the
time, including more than 100
waveform recorders, computer
hardware and software to
control the recorders
and analyze data, and
more than 25 miles of
cable linking monitors
and recorders.

[Based on Sandia Lab News

articles of April 12, and
September 27, 1985, and the
color booklet titled Particle
Beam Fusion Accelerator II,
SAND86-0861.]

PBFA II

85
85
Later Computer Codes for
Fusion
Former Pulsed Power Center Director Jeff
Quintenz recalled that one of the review
boards visiting Sandia during the early days
of the inertial confinement fusion program
had called pulsed power an ‘arcane endeavor,’
meaning it was really more black art than sci-
ence, not easily explained even to interested
scientists. Marshall Sluyter, who headed the
Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program for many years, echoed this
sentiment, saying that even though he was a
physicist, Sandia’s Don Cook had to spend
many hours explaining pulsed power’s
approach to fusion to him. Laser fusion is in
some ways more straightforward and compre-
hensible than the generally less-well-known
particle-beam approach, and reviewers were
much more familiar with laser-beam fusion.
Photo of Dave Seidel and
computer with graphic on
screen.

After developing the capa-

bility to visualize simula-
tion results, Sandia devel-
oped the capability make
video animations of those
visualizations. The time se-
ries of visualization results
on the computer to the left
were copied in sequence to
a videodisk unit and then
captured on video tape by
controlling the videodisk
playback with a computer.
This allowed video anima-
tions to be created quickly
and easily. Before, 16 mm
film had been used. It was
a very slow process be-
cause the computer output
was sent to a central photo
service within Sandia,
a few frames at a time,
where it was output on
16 mm filmstock. These
short segments then had to
be spliced together to pro-
duce finished animations.

Rebecca Coats and

Mark Kiefer and three-
stage system.

86
Despite the complex nature of pulsed power Despite these advances, the quality of the
fusion, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ion-beam spot was not as good as had been
review panels increasingly praised Sandia for hoped, and instabilities in the beam were
its progress in various areas, praise Quintenz suspected. Theorists knew that three-dimen-
attributes in great part to the contributions of sional (3-D) computer codes would be needed
theoretical work, which enabled Sandia to ex- to help analyze such instability problems. At
plain scientifically its problems and successes that time, the computers in the Pulsed Power
with particle beams, in particular ion beams. Center were not powerful enough to handle
When experiments did not show great progress, such codes. Like the transition from 2-D static
theory could say why, and point to how im- particle-in-cell to the 2-D electromagnetic
provements could be—and were being—made. particle-in-cell capability, the transition from
In this way, Quintenz said Sandia was able 2-D electromagnetic particle-in-cell to 3-D
to evolve from an ‘arcane endeavor’ to being electromagnetic particle-in-cell codes would
recognized for world-class science. require much more powerful computers. Pace
VanDevender, who headed pulsed power then,
The MAGIC code was a state-of-the-art model-
backed funding such computers for the ion
ing tool until about 1990 (see sidebar on early
beam work, but funds came in slowly. As a
codes in chapter two). In 1984/1985 Sandia
consequence, David Seidel and Mark Kiefer
made the commitment to ion-beam technol-
remembered Sandia staff having to slowly and
ogy for fusion based in part on theoretical
carefully develop the first 3-D particle-in-cell-
predictions of how the diode would work.
type code as funding permitted. The third di-
Lithium was the ion of choice. However, con-
mension would allow fully general electromag-
tinued problems with the diode being used,
netic fields and motion of charged particles.
the Applied-B diode, signaled the need for
new computational and theoretical tools, Rebecca Coats, one of the developers, named
because the MAGIC code was proving inad- the code Quicksilver, an acronym for Quintenz,
equate. Paul Miller, one of the experimental- Coats, Kiefer, and Seidel, who developed it.
ists, noticed a limiting voltage on the diodes All the developers vividly remembered that at
and realized that the desired voltages could that same time, SAIC was also trying to write
not be achieved with that particular configura- a 3-D code, Argus, which would be a competi-
tion. That limiting voltage was not observed, tor to Quicksilver. As it happens, quicksilver
and consequently could not be explained, in is another name for mercury, and in mythol-
MAGIC simulations, although it was the most ogy, Mercury (also called Hermes) slays the

Later Computer Codes for Fusion

advanced code Sandia had. Soon after arriving many-eyed monster Argus. Just as in mythol-
at Sandia in 1986, theorist Mike Desjarlais be- ogy, Sandia’s Quicksilver code beat out Argus.
gan working on the problem of limiting voltage Quicksilver was designed to be relatively easy
and, working hand-in-hand with experimental- to use and, although created to solve the
ists to iterate the problem, developed a model problem of instabilities in the ion diode, was
that explained the origin of the limiting voltage subsequently used to model general plasma
(the V* theory).a physics problems.
His theoretical explanation helped diode In the mid 1980s, codes were run on CRAY 1S,
research worldwide, and allowed researchers the fastest computer in the world, but even
to understand other non-ideal effects on it could not handle a 3-D code by itself. After
diode behavior. The theory explained the two years of development, Tim Pointon used
relationship between the limiting voltage and Quicksilver to run the first simulation in 1988
the magnetic field. It provided a framework using the additional memory and four paral-
to understand what was happening inside the lel processors offered by Sandia’s CRAY-XMP.
diode and broke what Steve Slutz later called The 1988 simulation illuminated the instabili-
a logjam—many advantages followed from ties that were causing ion diodes to produce a
breaking it, including new understanding of poorly focused beam. From the beam energy
diode instabilities by Slutz and Ray Lemke. and momentum diagnostics, Desjarlais saw
Simulations could then be made that were that there were indeed clear indications of
more faithful to reality, and experimentalists instabilities in the beam; the beam was waver-
were able to use this information to make ing and had too much width. It was supposed
progress in improving diodes.
87
87
 to focus down to a tiny area. The obvious next It has been employed for various applications,
step was to study the instabilities to see if such as high-power microwaves, high-
they could be eliminated or somehow over- frequency microelectronics, system-generated
come. electromagnetic pulses, and the physics of
magnetically insulated transmission lines.
Using the Quicksilver code, instability analysis,
Quicksilver has, in fact, been used for the
and experimental data, Desjarlais and Pointon
latter application to design the refurbished Z.
found after years of work that just before the
However, further large-scale improvements to
ion instability began to develop, there was a
Quicksilver are proving difficult to implement.
high-frequency electron instability. Only when
One reason is that in the late 1990s, Sandia
it died out did the ion instability begin. They
pioneered a new approach to computing,
surmised that if the electron instability could
switching from running complex computer
be controlled, the ion instability would never
programs on increasingly large monolithic
develop, or would be lessened. After work-
computers to using massively parallel
ing on this problem for nearly a decade, they
systems composed of tightly integrated,
thought it had been solved.
simple computers—sometimes as many
The German Forschungszentrum in Karlsruhe as 1000 small computers at one time.
(FZK) was researching another kind of diode, This innovation allowed significantly more
the extraction diode, using proton beams at powerful codes to be developed and enabled
this time. Sandia’s Applied-B diode was a better comprehension of complex events;
barrel type, which was not as suitable for fu- but new types of codes had to be written
sion work. To test Sandia’s theory about ion to accommodate many small computers
beam instability, in 1996, during an exchange operating in parallel. Quicksilver was not
program orchestrated by Quintenz on the US designed for such operation.
side, Desjarlais worked with Peter Hoppe in
In addition to the change to massively parallel
Karlsruhe using codes he and Coats had de-
computing, another new approach at Sandia
Later Computer Codes for Fusion

signed, and developed an extraction Applied-B

funded by the Advanced Simulation and Com-
diode in which the electron instability could
puting program has created a framework that
be controlled, inhibiting the growth of the ion
physics software development teams use as
instability. Desjarlais later called it a great
a foundation for advanced codes. Individual
success—the best diode yet. He said that they
teams then overlay the physics specific to their
were able to prove with protons that the diode
needs onto this framework. For pulsed power
worked, but a pure source of lithium was lack-
applications, the EMPHASIS (electromagnetic-
ing and nobody knew when or if it would ever
physics-analysis systems) code using this
happen. But by this time, when the instabil-
‘framework with physics overlay’ as the newer
ity problem was solved, the ion-beam fusion
approach to physics code development to bet-
program was being phased out in favor of z
ter accommodate the increasing complexity of
pinches (Please see sidebar on successes with
lithium-ion beams and closeout of this research
the science involved. Most recently, EMPHASIS
in chapter four.) In addition, and complicating
has been used to analyze some of the refur-
the chances for success with ion-beam fu- bished Z’s pulsed power components, and it
sion, Sandia was never able to develop an ion will eventually replace Quicksilver.
source with the needed purity. [Based on interviews with Mike Desjarlais, Mark Kiefer,
Jeff Quintenz, and David Seidel in 2006. See Van Arsdall col-
The code Quicksilver has been improved many lection of folders in Sandia archives.]
times and is still being used at Sandia and a M.P. Desjarlais, “Impedance Characteristics of Applied-
externally, notably by the French pulsed power B Diodes,” Physics Review Letters 59, November 20,
program and at the Naval Research Laboratory. 1987.

88
 the ’80s
An option was included to continue the magnetically imploding foil research on
Saturn that had been excluded from the inertial confinement fusion project when
the ion-beam approach was chosen for PBFA II. The imploding foils could supply
needed soft-x-ray testing in weapons effects simulations and power laboratory x-ray
laser experiments for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
After weeks of coordinated effort by a large team of scientists, engineers, technicians,
and project managers, PBFA II was completed in December 1985, seven weeks
ahead of schedule. Early in the evening of December 11, Sandia’s pulsed power
team and invited guests celebrated the accelerator’s first shot with all 36 modules
being fired.25 (Please see following sidebar, “On the scene at PBFA II.”) The shot ended
Phase 1 of the mammoth project, which was construction. Subsequent phases were
planned to unfold more or less simultaneously: during Phase 2, the accelerator’s
capabilities would be tested and analyzed; in Phase 3, the lithium-ion source for the
beam would be developed; and in Phase 4, the target pellets would be optimized.
These final phases were envisioned to last several years. The state of the art in
inertial confinement fusion was constantly changing—it was a marriage of pure
theory and expensive hardware about which the textbooks had not been written, as
the Sandia Lab News wrote after talking to Cook, the PBFA II project scientist.26
While Sandia was celebrating the successful completion of its newest particle
accelerator, Congress asked for a review of the Department of Energy’s inertial
confinement fusion program. The review committee, commissioned by the National
Academy of Sciences and informally called the Happer Committee for its chairman
(physics Professor William Happer of Princeton), was supposed to measure progress
toward the program’s overall objective. That sole objective was to achieve a small
thermonuclear explosion in the laboratory. The general conclusion contained in the
final report of March 1986 was that it was too early to predict whether the objective
could be met and that at least five more years of research were needed before any
decisions should be made about the direction of the program. The committee
recommended continuing experiments using lasers and accelerators to give all
the technologies a chance to prove themselves. It also strongly recommended that
Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore collaborate with Sandia in the area of target
design, an area traditionally belonging to the weapons design labs. Related to
the target design issue, the committee advocated funding classified, collaborative
programs of collaboration between the weapons and inertial confinement fusion
groups on the design characteristics of targets. These secret programs were
Centurion at Los Alamos and Halite at Lawrence Livermore. At this time, it was
estimated that as many as 10 million joules would be required to trigger ignition,
and these secret tests were aimed at verifying the amount of energy needed to ignite
fusion in a pellet.
The committee said that it believed PBFA II offered a more efficient and lower
cost approach to ignition than lasers, and gave the Sandia program thumbs up to

89
Chapter Three
continue its work. It also recommended level funding at $155 million a year for the
entire national inertial confinement fusion program for five years, leaving that sum
as a line item in the nuclear weapons research and development budget. During
that time, the committee hoped some basic questions could be answered so that
feasibility of fusion ignition by inertial confinement could be assessed realistically.
The Happer Committee recommended that the Department of Energy establish an
Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee to provide advice and guidance to
the Secretary of Energy through the Assistant Secretary for Military Applications.27
It was recommended that the advisory committee meet on a regular basis to assess
progress in the national program. The recommendations assured Sandia of five
years of funding for its inertial confinement fusion work, but PBFA II was as yet
untried and the stakes were high. It was encouraging that in September 1986,
PBFA II won an IR 100 Award from Research and Development Magazine for its
technological innovation. This prestigious annual international award is given to
the best technological innovations worldwide.28
While PBFA II was being readied to test its abilities to ignite a fusion reaction, two
new simulation machines began to operate as part of the Simulation Technology
Laboratory. Saturn, which had been PBFA I, became the world’s most powerful
x-ray source when it successfully began firing in the fall of 1987. Meeting the
highest expectations of engineering, Saturn was on time, on budget, and performed
exactly as predicted. Saturn would be used to simulate the x-ray effects created
by the detonation of a nuclear weapon and thus would serve as a complement to
underground shots at the Nevada Test Site.29 (Please see following sidebar on Saturn.)
A few months later, in the early spring of 1988, Sandia proudly witnessed the first
shot on Hermes III, a more powerful gamma-ray simulator than Hermes II, which
was still operating and nearing its 30,000th shot.
Gamma-ray simulators provide another spectrum of radiation for weapons effects
testing, supplementing the x rays on Saturn. An advantage such aboveground
laboratory machines had was that they could be fired often and were much less
expensive than the full underground tests in Nevada. Continuing work that began
back in the 1960s in Sandia’s early pulsed power group, the two powerful new
machines were built to help weapons designers better understand x-ray and gamma-
ray effects on weapons systems and components.30 (Please see following sidebar on
Hermes III.) Later that year, in reviewing the state of the Laboratories, President
Irwin Welber acknowledged the importance of all the pulsed power capabilities in
weapons effects simulation and in the Strategic Defense Initiative, and hinted at their
even more important role should a rumored ban take place on all weapons testing.
However, Welber, like many others at the weapons laboratories, stressed that none of
the machines should be seen as substitutes for underground tests.31
Important behind-the-scenes developments that had been in the works for several
years in the national inertial confinement fusion program and would affect its

90
 the ’80s
future direction were revealed on March 21, 1988. In a front-page story on that
date, the New York Times discussed the full implications of the classified Halite-
Centurion experiments the Happer Committee had mentioned, whose details
the Times could only hint at. The newspaper acknowledged it had obtained the
details of the results largely from unnamed sources, but their truthfulness was not
questioned by any in the weapons community. In fact, wishing to shed the cloak
of secrecy in this line of work was a continued theme among weapons scientists
beginning in the 1970s; it impeded communication in the scientific community,
hence also progress. Titled “Secret Advance in Nuclear Fusion Spurs a Dispute
Among Scientists,” the Times article made public the fact that at last fusion had
been ignited in a fusion pellet—however, not using a laser or particle accelerator,
but an exploding nuclear weapon. The accomplishment had been achieved during
a secret underground test at the Nevada Test Site in 1986. Scientists had long wanted
to perform the experiment to finally confirm the feasibility of inertial confinement
fusion events, or what the Times called microfusion.32
The implications of this classified work for the future course of the national fusion
program were radical: fusion ignition in the pellet had required much more energy
than predicted, on the order of 100 million joules, when 10 million joules had
long been the working number. Nevertheless, the Halite-Centurion experiments
had proved that the inertial confinement approach to fusion did work. Now that
scientists knew the huge amount of energy needed for ignition inside a pellet, it
was obvious that none of the current machines being built and tested for fusion
were adequate. The Times assessed the situation in this way: “At issue is whether
to press ahead with lasers and targets in the range of five to 10 million joules, or
to shift to include lasers big enough to mimic the conditions of the underground
achievement. Experts agree that the current generation of microfusion lasers are
unsuited for producing such high energies, the cost being prohibitive.” Sandia’s
particle accelerators are not mentioned in the story, because lasers were at the center
of the national program, but what the Times said about lasers applied equally to
particle-beam accelerators.
Before this public revelation, the secret results had been circulated within the
nuclear weapons complex and inside the Department of Energy. Based on the
knowledge that none of the current machines in the national program were
powerful enough for ignition, the Department had begun to formulate a plan to
build a Laboratory Microfusion Facility, estimated to cost between $500 million
and $1 billion. It would be constructed on a much larger scale than current fusion
facilities, with the sole goal of demonstrating ignition. Now that the secret results
upholding the concept of inertial confinement fusion were out in the open, while
seeking approval for the concept of a microfusion facility, the Energy Department
told Congress on March 21, 1988, “we are now to the point where all but the most
severe critics agree that the basic target physics has been proven.”33

91
 On the Scene at PBFA II
It is 7:23 p.m. on December 11, 1985. Build- It’s 8:07 p.m. The giant Marx generators are fi-
ing 983, home of PBFA II, is bustling with a nally being charged. 8:08 p.m. Voices from the
hundred or so Sandians and Ktech contractors control room are shaking a bit now. Then it’s
performing last-minute checks and operations 8:09 p.m. and Dennis Nations, control room
designed to bring the giant machine to its first coordinator, is saying “Fire!”
firing.
A few seconds later, the CCTV camera above
“This is not just a test shot,” says Tom Martin. PBFA II sends a flash of light to the moni-
“If it works, we’ll get some physics data.”—If tors, the building rocks, and a flat “Whap!”
it works.—“We’ve practiced this many times hits listeners’ ears. Everyone has been told to
before, but if the control room people feel keep quiet, so the team members in charge of
anything like I do, they’re scared to death,” safety alarms can do their work if necessary.
notes Steve Goldstein, head of Pulsed Power But it’s tough not to shout. And some do.
Operations.
Once assured that the shot had gone off suc-
It’s been a long day. Some of the shot team cessfully and no alarms were needed, the shot
members had arrived at 2 a.m., the rest be- team and visitors release the exhilaration that
tween 6 and 7 p.m.. The shot had been sched- had been building for hours, if not for days.
uled for 2 p.m., but problems with the laser The scene resembles the winner’s dugout
triggering system had caused postponement after a World Series except for the lack of real
after postponement. There was a vote whether champagne.
to wait until the next day, and the whole crew
Yonas stays on the line long enough after the
wanted to continue into the night.
shot to tell the Lab News that he’s speechless.
At 7:23 p.m., there is one last test of the After being told that that fact was as remark-
balky laser system, which Roy Hamil oversees. able as the PBFA II shot itself, Yonas regains
Tension builds. When the laser test results control: “I’m incredibly thrilled. And proud of
are analyzed nine minutes later, Mike Wilson, everybody. I could feel the machine’s vibra-
test integrator, announces “We are go!” The tions up my spine all the way across the coun-
announcement is punctuated by the theme try. That’s got to be the best pulsed power
music from Star Wars on the PA system with team in the world!”
voice-over reminding the listeners that San-
Marshall Sluyter, Department of Energy Head-
On the Scene at PBFA II

dia “boldly goes where no man has ever gone

quarters Pulsed Power program manager, had
before.”
flown in just to be with the team for the first
The waiting seems interminable as each of shot. And Sandia Vice President for Research
the interrelated systems that make up PBFA Bill Brinkman had spent most of the afternoon
II is charged, dumped, checked, and charged shuttling between his desk in Area I and the
again. “Eight minutes to go,” comes the an- visitors’ room in Area IV.
nouncement at 7:59 p.m.
At the time, VanDevender said it was the most
At 8:06 p.m. the visitors breathe a sigh of exciting day of his life. When interviewed a
relief—the shot is going to go. They know that few days later, he said, “The event and the
because Pace VanDevender, 1200 director, has impressive and professional way in which the
placed a conference call to former 1200 direc- team carried it out demonstrate we are on
tor Gerry Yonas and Gen. Kenneth Withers, the road with a winner of an accelerator. I’m
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Appli- very thankful for the engineers, experiment-
cations. They will listen to the final minutes of ers, theorists, and sponsors who together have
the countdown from Washington. made it possible.”
[Condensed from the Sandia Lab News, December 20, 1985.]

92
 the ’80s
Asserting that the target physics was now well understood, the Department said
all that remained was to determine the facility’s driver requirements. Naturally
Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore advocated a laser of some kind as the driver
at the proposed facility, and Sandia backed its accelerator approach based on the
technology of several of its particle-beam accelerators.34 At the time the Department
of Energy began its plans for a Laboratory Microfusion Facility, the goal of PBFA II
was to determine the utility of light-ion beams to drive inertial confinement fusion
targets. In view of the much greater energy the fusion driver for the microfusion
facility would require, Sandia decided to pursue its stated goal, and said that only if
it believed that ignition was possible on PBFA II would it upgrade the energy in the
accelerator and attempt ignition.35 Sandia also began to look at the technology in
its other accelerators as possibilities for designing the larger driver needed for the
Laboratory Microfusion Facility. When it would be feasible to build such a facility
remained debatable.
Reviews commissioned by the Department of Energy and by Sandia itself were
beginning to pinpoint specific areas of concern with the pulsed power light-ion
approach in the 1988/89 timeframe, particularly in view of the fact that the
Department said it planned to choose a driver for the Laboratory Microfusion
Facility within the next three to five years. Many issues had to be resolved, not only
for the particle-beam approach, but for lasers as well. A Department of Energy
report on the status of target physics for inertial confinement fusion said that “The
role of light-ion technology in the Laboratory Microfusion Facility decision is very
unclear at this time because there are no target physics data. In addition to its driver
technology, Sandia must also develop a target database to be in contention. The
weapons laboratories have offered that as soon as light ions can show sufficient
intensity for target experiments, they will be willing to provide necessary help in
developing the target designs. Therefore, the proper focus of the light-ion-beam
program should be to achieve beam intensities in the 100 terawatts/cm2 range as
soon as possible.”36
Close to this time, in the fall of 1988, a technical review committee commissioned
by Sandia scrutinized its light-ion fusion program. While lauding some significant
areas of progress, the Davidson Committee, as it was called, noted poor beam
focusing and slow progress in improving focusing on PBFA II as an area of major
concern.37 The committee said the decision to implement an energy upgrade
of PBFA II (needed in studies for the Laboratory Microfusion Facility) should be
deferred until significant progress had been made in beam focusing and a detailed
assessment had been made of targets that the upgrade might drive. The committee
said, “Making continued progress in diode physics at the energy levels available
without the upgrade is of paramount importance and no PBFA II machine time
should be diverted until this is accomplished.” The committee continued, “The
central priority for Sandia must be to establish the credibility that light ions can
indeed be produced in pulsed power diodes and focused on the target at levels
exceeding 5 terawatts/cm2.” It concluded by challenging Sandia to meet that beam
93
Saturn
With PBFA II within six months of completion, doubling and nested tri-axial diodes provid-
the Pulsed Power Center decided to convert ing a uniform radiation profile to enhance the
PBFA I from a test bed for the new fusion efficiency of x rays arriving at the target in the
accelerator into the world’s largest, large-area exposure area.
x-ray simulator. To clearly distinguish both
On October 9, 1987, the Lab News reported
machines by name, a contest was held to
that Saturn had been successfully fired on
choose a new name for PBFA I. The Sandia
September 18, completing an effort that
Lab News of June 7, 1985, noted that
had involved more than 300 Sandians and
Mark Hedemann contributed the winning name:
contractors. Saturn became part of the
Saturn, suggesting the multiple concentric
Simulation Technology Department, headed
rings in the diode of the converted machine,
by Jim Powell. At the time, Powell said, “The
rings reminiscent of the planet Saturn.
team took a tech base—pulsed power—and
The certification requirements for the W88 put it into an application—Saturn—without
warhead were the primary reason for convert- a hitch.” Had Saturn been built from
ing PBFA I into Saturn, an accelerator de- scratch, Powell estimated the cost to have
signed to produce a source of Bremsstrahlung been $40 million, so it was a real bargain.
to test the electronic components of the war- The accelerator was seen at that time as a
head. Saturn would also be used for radiation complement to underground effects shots at
effects research and for other weapons com- the Nevada Test Site. Other uses foreseen for
ponent hardening testing as part of Sandia’s Saturn were designing and developing future
Simulation Technology Laboratory project weapons systems, evaluating weapons in the
(which also included Hermes III). An option to stockpile, and assessing the survivability of
drive z-pinch implosions was included as part Strategic Defense Initiative space systems to
of the conversion, scheduled to be completed nuclear countermeasures.
in 1987. The $7 million project included
upgrades in the energy-storage and pulse-
forming sections, with
energy storage
nearly

94
94
The conceptual and preliminary design for the gas puff z-pinch mode. The team involved
conversion was developed by Jim Lee, Spielman, Keith Matzen, Warren Hsing,
Doug Bloomquist, and Regan Stinnett assisted John Porter, David Hanson, Bruce Hammel,
by Pulse Sciences, Inc. (a company that Sam Lopez, Larry Ruggles, and John McGurn,
became part of Titan, Inc. in March 1987, and the Saturn Operations crew. (See Sandia
with which Gerry Yonas was then affiliated). Lab News, April 21, 1989.)
Bloomquist was also the project scientist for
Saturn. Bloomquist, Lee, Stinnett, Hedemann, Saturn is an accelerator measuring 29.2 m
and Art Sharpe did the research and physics in diameter, with 36 modules converging on a
technical base on Saturn. Lee and Hedemann central diode consisting of multiple concentric
did the diode and testing application research rings. At the bottom of the diode is a disk-
and design. Bloomquist, Sharpe, and Stinnett shaped plate supporting a heavy-metal foil
performed the accelerator pulsed power where energy from its 36 capacitors is con-
and power flow research and design. Sharpe verted into x-ray radiation. The x rays enter an
headed the assembly team for Saturn. exposure bay beneath the diode and permeate
Chuck McClenahan and Hedemann developed the items being tested.
its key element, the multiple-ring diode, using
The diode is novel in that it has three cath-
Sandia’s SPEED accelerator and Proto II.
odes and four anodes. Saturn’s power flow is
Larry Choate was manager of Simulations
divided so that 18 of its 36 capacitor banks
Applications and also a member of the project
team. Ken Hanks of Plant Engineering was feed the outer cathode ring, 12 feed the mid-
the Saturn project manager, using the same dle ring, and 6 the inner ring. The rings thus
successful techniques as with PBFA II under receive 50, 33, and 17 percent respectively of
Gerry Barr. John Boyes was project leader for the power flow. This division of current pro-
mechanical design. duces a uniform radiation profile a short dis-
tance behind the converter, where accelerated
In 1988, a team headed by Rick Spielman electrons strike a tantalum target to produce
developed a gas-puff z-pinch system on Bremsstrahlung radiation.
Saturn and used it to produce soft x rays. In
this configuration of Saturn, a high-velocity The Bremsstrahlung photons are similar to the
cylindrical ring of gas several centimeters x-ray photons released in a nuclear explosion.
long—a puff of gas such as neon or xenon— Saturn is designed to produce an x-ray dose
was injected into the center of the machine. A rate of up to 5 trillion rads per second for
current of some 10 million amps was passed 15 to 20 billionths of a second. It provides a
through the gas. The large current, flowing peak dose of 100,000 rads, four times greater
along the axis (the z direction) of the gas than possible with Proto II (in 1987, Sandia’s
puff, causes a strong magnetic pressure. The second most powerful x-ray simulator). Saturn
pressure rapidly drove the gas inward, toward was designed to carry out up to three radia-
the axis of the cylinder, creating a high- tion shots a day.
temperature plasma that emits x rays. The
plasma was in fact heated to about 10 million Power transmission flow is from the Marx
degrees Celsius, near the temperature at the generators to the diode inside the insulator
center of the Sun. The radiation was used to stack at the center of Saturn. The generators
test the vulnerability of military hardware to are submerged in oil; the intermediate store
such radiation, and to investigate the physics capacitors, gas switches, pulse-forming lines,
of x-ray lasers. Using imploding plasmas as rod transmission lines, and disk feeds are all
the x-ray source, Saturn produced more than submerged in water. The insulator stack con-
Saturn

500 kilojules of x-ray energy in a single burst tains conical triplate magnetically insulated
lasting billionths of a second, a record when it transmission lines, the diodes and the expo-
was first achieved. Saturn was able to operate sure bay; it is about 2.4 m tall and 1.9 m in
both in the Bremsstrahlung mode and in the diameter.

95
95
Hermes III
High-Energy Radiation Megavolt Electron anything else available in 1988. Diodes were
Source (Hermes) III began operation in early developed to efficiently extract the Hermes
1988 as part of the Simulation Technology III beam and propagate it in long (10-m),
Laboratory complex in Area IV.a,b The enormous gas-filled drift cells to an outdoor exposure
accelerator measures 21 m wide, 15 m long, area where large military hardware (such as
and is 5 m high. It is still in operation and tanks) could be tested for their vulnerability
remains the world’s most powerful gamma-ray to gamma rays. Such beam propagation was
simulator, producing 13 terawatts of power in record-setting at the time.c
a 19-million electron volt, 28-nanosecond elec-
The burst of gamma rays had to be short,
tron beam. It produces intense Bremsstrahlung
20 billionths of a second, and intense. When
doses and dose rates over large areas to study
it began full operation, Hermes III produced
nuclear radiation effects induced by gamma
10 times as many rads per second as its pre-
rays. Hermes III uses technology developed
decessor, Hermes II; or 5000 billion rads a
by Pulse Sciences, Inc. and Sandia in the joint
second. (A rad is a measure of absorbed ra-
Defense Special Weapons Agency/Department
diation energy.)
of Energy Linear Induction Accelerator pro-
gram, and can provide eight shots per day, four At that time, Juan Ramirez was supervisor of
days per week. The accelerator has both indoor the Pulsed Power Development department,
and outdoor test cells, and is used primarily for leading the research and development base
simulating the effects of prompt radiation from for the machine during the three years it took
a nuclear burst on electronics and complete to make Hermes III a reality. Ramirez also
military systems. oversaw construction of its pulse-forming
section. Ken Prestwich, project scientist for
When Hermes III produced its first “big
Hermes III, explained to the Sandia Lab News
bang,” the Sandia Lab News characterized
as Hermes III began operating in 1988 that
its mission as “to generate a lightning-like
dose rate had a lot to do with the failure
bolt of electrons that produces a flood of
rate of devices being tested. “The higher the
radiation when it strikes a heavy metal plate”
dose rate—and the more photons deposited
(March 25, 1988). Such a capability was
in a test object—the greater the chance of
needed to test the vulnerability of weapons
component failure. Using Hermes III to zap
systems, in particular their electronics,
subsystems and components should give us
to radiation. Hermes III was designed to
a much better understanding of how much
simulate a weapon’s exposure to a gamma-
radiation they can take.” Jim Powell, head
ray environment more
of Sandia’s simulation program at
accurately than
the time, saw Hermes III and
Saturn as complements to
underground testing
being done at
the Nevada
Test Site.
Hermes
III enabled
laboratory
testing of large
components and
subsystems at
higher dose rates
than could then be
achieved outside the
underground tests.
Several features of Hermes III were based
on concepts that were new for the time.
Pulse Sciences, Inc. came up with the

96
idea of combining induction cavities and Ktech, and C&D.
a magnetically insulated transmission line Larry Seamons from
voltage adder, and its effectiveness was Sandia’s project
confirmed in high-energy linear induction management center
accelerator (HELIA) experiments. The oversaw Hermes III.
decision to try to engineer this new concept Powell, Wendland
into Hermes III was Ken Prestwich’s. It was Beezhold, and Larry
acknowledged to be an enormous challenge; Posey defined the
Pulse Sciences, led by Lee Schlitt, provided requirements for the
an initial design of the complex cavities and accelerator. Ramirez,
the adder, and Ed Burgess’s Pulsed Power Prestwich, Sanford,
Engineering group successfully implemented and Ron Pate were
the whole simulator. The result was that the responsible for the
outputs of the 20 induction cavities in Hermes technical base of the
III are fed into a magnetically insulated accelerator.
transmission line and an electromagnetic wave Ken Mikkelson,
is repeatedly voltage amplified in 20 stages Pete Micono, and
along the length of the magnetically insulated Mike Eaton developed
transmission line. At the end of this line, an the data acquisition
electron beam is generated in an indented- system for Hermes III.
anode diode. High-energy electrons striking Its control and
the anode generate the gamma rays that are monitor systems
used for simulations. were designed
and implemented
The indented-anode diode invented by under Dave Davis.
Tom Sanford was another unique feature of David Johnson and
Hermes III.d It used a new diode geometry that John Corley led the
prevents a high-current electron beam from assembly and test
pinching or collapsing to a point on the axis of team.
the diode because of the self-magnetic field a K.R. Prestwich, J.R.
of the beam. A pinched beam cannot provide Lee, J.J. Ramirez,
a uniform radiation dose over a substantial T.W.L. Sanford, F.J. Agee,
volume. The indented anode was invented at G.B. Frazier, A.R. Miller,
Sandia specifically for Hermes III to prevent “Overview of High-
Intensity X-Ray and
beam pinching and provide a uniform radia- Gamma-Ray Sources,”
tion pattern. John Halbleib and Jim Poukey Proceedings of the
helped develop the diode. Sixth IEEE Particle
Accelerator Conference,
The energy-storage section of Hermes III con- March 16-19, 1997,
sists of ten 2.4-megavolt, 156-kilojoule Marx Washington, DC.
generators, each of which charges two water
b J.J. Ramirez, K.R.
dielectric intermediate storage capacitors. Prestwich, E.L. Burgess, J.P. Furaus, R.A. Hamil, D.L.
Laser-triggered gas switches release energy Johnson, T.W.L. Sanford, L.O. Seamons, L.X. Schneider,
from the 20 intermediate storage capacitors G.A. Zawadzkas, “The Hermes III Program,” Sixth IEEE
to charge 80 water dielectric pulse-forming Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, 1987.
lines. The pulse-forming lines produce high- c See T.W.L. Sanford, “High-Power Electron Beam Trans-
power (1.0 megavolt, 200 kiloamp) pulses, port in Long Gas Cells from 10-3 to 103 Torr Nitrogen,”
four of which are combined in each induction Physics of Plasmas 2 :2539 (1995), given as an
Hermes III

cavity to produce a 1.1-megavolt, 730-kiloamp invited paper at the 1994 American Physical Society
meeting.
pulse that feeds the magnetically insulated
transmission line. d For a comprehensive summary of Hermes III electron-
beam diodes, see T.W.L. Sanford, “Dynamics of Electron
The project team included dozens of people Flows and Radiation Fields Produced by Electron-Beam
from 10 Sandia departments and contractors Diodes on the Hermes III Accelerator,” Physics of
from Pulse-Sciences-Titan, EG&G, Kirk-Mayer, Fluids B3: 2387 (1991), given as an invited paper at
the 1990 American Physical Society meeting.

97
Chapter Three
intensity on target by April 1, 1989.38 At the time, the energy on target was about
half a terawatt per square centimeter.
Only months later, the Sandia Lab News could write the headline “PBFA Beam
Team Beats the Clock: New Record—Five Trillion Watt/cm2 Focused Ion Beam.”39
In fact the record was set on March 23, with a week to go before the deadline set
by the Davidson Committee. (Please see following sidebar on New Record on PBFA II.)
Team members said that it was the most intense ion beam ever created; three and
a half times that produced on any other accelerator. In praising the achievement,
VanDevender told the newspaper, “Seventeen years of research and technology
are finally paying off.” The charged particles used in the record-breaking shot
were protons, but Cook, who managed the Fusion Research Department, said the
milestone indicated the experiments could be scaled up to higher intensities with
lithium-ion beams. Now that the intensity needed to ignite fusion in a pellet was
known, the trick was to scale up existing technologies to achieve it or come close.
At the close of the 1980s, the Star Wars effort began to be scaled down, although
the concept of directed-energy weapons has never completely died. In 1989,
Ken Prestwich received the Erwin Marx Award for his outstanding contributions
to pulsed power technology. (Please see following sidebar on the Prestwich and Martin
awards.) That year, Tom Martin left his management position and returned to
research as a senior scientist. Beginning a new decade and a new vision for the Labs,
Al Narath returned from AT&T to Sandia as its president in 1989. As part of that
changing vision, Gerry Yonas also returned to Sandia to head up a new Technology
Transfer Directorate, whose mission was to help the flow of technical knowledge
into the private sector as a way to make the United States more competitive
economically.40 ♦

98
New Record: Five Trillion-Watt/cm2 Focused Ion Beam ­­—the ’80s
PBFA beam team beats the clock

Late in September 1988, an external review operations groups.a David J. Johnson was in
committee hurled a challenge at Sandia’s charge of the proton focusing experiments.
ion-beam fusion program: demonstrate ma-
jor progress in beam focusing on PBFA II by The achievement was made possible by a
achieving a beam intensity of 5 trillion watts variety of improved capabilities, among them
per square centimeter on target. the ability to get one shot a day on PBFA II at
three-fourths of the machine energy (up from
Furthermore, do this by April 1, 1989. a half earlier); excellent performance of the
The beam-intensity milestone was a big one, accelerator; good agreement between experi-
among others the committee suggested, in- ment and theory; computational improvement;
cluding recommendations on ion focusing, getting the right shape and height for the
lithium source development, beam transport, anode to improve the focus of the beam; and
and others. It meant that in only six months’ finally, improvement in diagnostics that al-
time, Sandia needed a tenfold improvement in lowed the group to accurately measure what
beam intensity. they were getting and to test their ideas and
theories.
Tom Lockner from the Beam Experiments De-
partment and head of the team recalled that Sandia scientists found that developing a good
when the review was conducted, Sandia was at source of lithium ions in PBFA II’s ion diode—
half a terawatt per square centimeter. He said where the machine’s pulse of electrical energy
that by February, researchers had pushed the was converted into a beam—posed many
power density up quite a bit. By early March challenging problems. Three different types
they were close. PBFA II was then generating of lithium-ion sources were being readied for
the most powerful ion beams ever produced. testing. Sandians also planned to study the
But the challenging goal still eluded them. physics of how ions deposit energy in a target
to produce x rays, an important intermediate
Finally, on March 23, with only a week left step in producing an implosion and fusion
before the deadline, the PBFA II team met reactions in a fuel-filled capsule.
and exceeded the 5-terawatts/cm2 figure.
The team announced the results at the IEEE [Condensed from the Sandia Lab News, May 19, 1989.]

Conference on Plasma Sciences in May. PBFA

II experiments were carried out by a large a D.J. Johnson, T.R. Lockner, R.J. Leeper, J.E. Maenchen,
team, including Lockner, David J. Johnson, C.W. Mendel, G.E. Rochau, W.A. Stygar, R.S. Coats,
M.P. Desjarlais , R.P. Kensek, T.A. Mehlhorn,
Regan Stinnett, Bill Stygar, Tom Mehlhorn,
W.E. Nelson, S.E. Rosenthal, J.P. Quintenz and
John Maenchen, Mike Desjarlais, Ron Kensek, R.W. Stinnett. “PBFA II Applied-B Field Ion Diode Proton
Ray Leeper, Rebecca Coats, Jeff Quintenz, Beam Characteristics,” Proceedings of the 7th IEEE
and others in experimental, theoretical, and International Pulsed Power Conference, 1989.

99
99
 Tom Martin wins Erwin Marx Award
Tom Martin, manager for generating and transporting terawatt elec-
of the Pulsed Power trical pulses.” Martin originated the pulsed
Systems Department, power program at Sandia in 1965 by heading
was presented with up the team that built Hermes II. He and his
the Erwin Marx Award group designed and built 17 other state-of-the-
by the IEEE at its art accelerators, including Hydra, Ripple, Proto
fifth annual Pulsed II, HydraMite, SuperMite, PBFA I, and PBFA II.
Power Conference in
Tom Martin, Ken Prestwich, David L. Johnson win Erwin Marx Award

In accepting the award, Martin said that any

Arlington, Virginia. development of a major accelerator is a team
The award, the effort and he mentioned several Sandians who
most prestigious in worked on the Labs’ pulsed power program
the pulsed power since its beginning: Ken Prestwich, Ray Clark,
community, is named and Dave L. Johnson. He also recognized man-
for the originator of agement support: “They’ve always wanted one
the Marx generator, more accelerator constructed,” he said.
primary energy
source for pulsed By 1985, Martin had authored or co-authored
power accelerators. 35 technical publications in the open literature
Other recipients include J.C. “Charlie” Martin and delivered more than 70 invited lectures. In
of Britain’s AWRE and Ian Smith, with Pulsed 1983, the Department of Energy recognized
Sciences of San Leandro, California. him in its awards of excellence for his contri-
butions to the nuclear weapons program.
Martin was cited for his “many contributions
to the pulsed power community in the field of [From the Sandia Lab News, July 5, 1985.]
pulsed power accelerators and the techniques

Ken Prestwich wins Erwin Marx Award

Ken Prestwich, man- effort, and really, it’s Sandia’s pulsed power
ager of Pulsed Power team being recognized, not just me.”
Applications Depart-
Prestwich specializes in high-peak-power
ment, received the
accelerators and related systems. He has
Erwin Marx Award,
contributed to the development of about 25
which recognizes
systems for purposes such as simulation of
“outstanding contri-
nuclear weapon radiation effects, inertial
butions to the field of
confinement fusion, gas lasers, high-power
pulsed power tech-
microwaves, electromagnetic pulses, and
nology.” The award
research on potential beam weapons. He has
was presented at the
made major contributions on several Sandia
seventh biennial IEEE
projects—including Hermes II and III, Nereus,
Pulsed Power Confer-
Slim, Proto I, LILI, Rayo, and RADLAC I and II.
ence in Monterrey,
California, the sixth Prestwich is one of Sandia’s pulsed power
such award by the pioneers. He joined Sandia in 1962 and trans-
IEEE. ferred in 1965 to a pulsed power department
that subsequently expanded into the Pulsed
In accepting the award, Prestwich said he was
Power Sciences Center. His work has resulted
pleased to be recognized by his colleagues
in 64 publications. The Department of Energy
and that it put him among some outstanding
recognized his contributions to the develop-
people. He continued, “Being at Sandia has
ment of pulsed power technology in 1983 by
given me the opportunity to do the kind of
awarding him the Nuclear Weapons Program
work that leads to an award like this. But ev-
Award of Excellence.
erything we do here in pulsed power is a team
[From the Sandia Lab News, August 11, 1989.]

100
David L. Johnson wins Erwin Marx Award the ’80s
In May 2007, as this volume was going to
press, notice arrived at Sandia that David L.
Johnson had won the 2007 Erwin Marx Award.
In 1966, Johnson joined what was at the time
a small pulsed power group at Sandia, and
spent the majority of his professional life
at Sandia, making a number of significant
contributions to the field. He said he considers
himself lucky to have been in a field that was
new, exciting, and had tremendous growth
while he was working in it.

endnotes
1 Dates are in the Sandia Lab News, January 23, 1981, in an article about Sandia’s technical
highlights for 1980. “Pulsed Energy” covered pulsed power work. The dedication of PBFA I
was in the Lab News of August 8, 1980.
2 Sandia Lab News, January 23, 1981, reported on the two technologies being considered.
About the imploding foil approach it said: “Two recently developed techniques, magnetic
insulation and magnetic flashover inhibition, have made it possible to build high-power,
low impedance machines which are capable of delivering the high currents (~5 MA) and
short pulses (50 ns) necessary to magnetically implode foils at interesting energy levels. With
possible applications to inertial confinement fusion, these techniques are especially attractive
because of their simplicity and efficiency. Experiments at the 200 kilojoule level will be
conducted in the immediate future. These tests will provide the data base necessary to field
breakeven experiments on PBFA I and II. (4230).”
3 The concept has a long history; see discussion of z pinch in chapter four, giving sources for
the history of this technology.
4 According to Dillon McDaniel, Sandian and Russian scientists had been separately exploring
imploding foils in classified work since 1976; see chapter two. In “Overview,” Particle Beam
Fusion Progress Report for July–December 1981, SAND82-0340, further development of
ion sources is mentioned coupled with beam transport systems suitable for application in
reactors, showing that the idea of inertial confinement fusion for energy production was alive
at Sandia.
101
Chapter Three
5 See Sandia Lab News, “Ground Broken for New PBFA Lab,” April 3, 1981.
6 Science, 212, May 1, 1981: 517-519. The headline of the article is cited here.
7 See “Military in clash over US nuclear fusion research,” Nature, 281, October 11, 1979:
414-415.
8 Mirror fusion at Livermore was for a time a rival approach to Princeton’s Plasma Physics
Lab and its tokamak machine. However, on February 21, 1986, after years of construction
and $372 million, Livermore’s Mirror Fusion Test Facility, a tandem mirror machine, was
dedicated and the next day it was mothballed. Budget constraints and the high cost of the
magnetic confinement machines forced a hard decision at the Department of Energy over
which approach to back. See “Fusion’s $372 million Mothball,” Science, October 9, 1987,
an overview of the entire project, which involved several expensive redesigns of the machine.
Science reports, “They were building a huge machine on fundamentally new and untested
principles.”
9 See Science, 212, May 1, 1981: 517-519, quoted above. The issues raised here are evident
in correspondence between Gerold Yonas, head of Pulsed Energy Programs at Sandia, and
various Department of Energy officials and key people at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
in 1980-1981. See the 1200 Supporting Documentation collection in the Sandia archives, and
the 1980s folder in the Van Arsdall archives, where some of this documentation is located.
10 “Overview,” Particle Beam Fusion Progress Report for July-December 1981, SAND82-0340.
11 G.C. Dacey letter of September 11, 1981, to R.E. Batzel, LLNL, and D.M. Kerr, LANL, copy to
H.E. Roser at DOE. In the Cook Collection at Sandia archives; copy in Van Arsdall collection,
1980s folder. In the letter, Dacey states that Sandia has no plans or intentions of fabricating
fusion targets, intending instead to support those activities at the design laboratories.
12 Furman interview of July 1984 with Pace VanDevender; Particle Beam Fusion Progress
Report, July 1979-December 1979, SAND80-0974, and succeeding progress reports.
Information about the imploding foil work is veiled or reference is made to classified reports.
13 Details on Sandia partners and international work provided by Ken Prestwich, August 2006.
Prestwich attributed some of the international interest in part to “Sandia’s team enthusiasm
and optimism for particle beam driven fusion.” (Van Arsdall collection, Prestwich folder)
14 See G.W. Barr, J.P. Furaus, and C.G. Shirley, “Particle Accelerator Research and Development
at Sandia National Laboratories,” Project Management Journal XIX, No. 1, February 1988:
29-47.
15 “Dacey on Reorganization: Thinking Long Term and Thinking Short Term,” Sandia Lab
News, August 6, 1982.
16 Letter from Pace VanDevender to Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, Director, Plasma Fusion
Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and head of the “Davidson Committee,”
November 21, 1983, kindly provided by VanDevender in August 2006. The letter mentions
that the decision was “particularly difficult.” (VanDevender folder, Van Arsdall collection).
See also J. P. VanDevender, “Light Ion Beam Fusion,” Proceedings of the Fifth International
Topical Conference on High-Power Particle Beams, San Francisco, California,
September 12-14, 1983.
17 Sandia Lab News, March 2, 1984, “Diodes, Ions Selected: Final Design of PBFA II Set”;
Furman interview with VanDevender, July 1984; Van Arsdall interview with VanDevender, 2004;
Van Arsdall interview with D. McDaniel, 2005 and 2006.
18 Keith Matzen remained with imploding foil work under McDaniel. Matzen had been at
Sandia since 1974; years later, beginning in 2005, he would lead the Pulsed Power Program.
102
 the ’80s
19 Leeper was a new hire in the mid-1970s when he was involved in the experiment that was said
to produce fusion neutrons (see chapter two). His specialty through a long career at Sandia is
diagnostics (especially neutron diagnostics), an area crucial to scientific achievements. For
the focusing story, see Sandia Lab News, “Major Step Toward Particle Beam Fusion,” June 8,
1984.
20 John Maenchen, who led the experiments, became a supervisor in the Pulsed Power Program
in the area of advanced pulsed power technologies. On his team for the experiments were
Tom Mehlhorn, chief theorist; Carlos Ruiz, diagnostics (especially neutron diagnostics),
chief; and Leeper. Mehlhorn is also currently a manager in the program. (See Sandia Lab
News, April 12, 1985.) The “Report of the Sandia National Laboratories Light Ion Fusion
1985 Technical Review Committee” by the Davidson Committee in February 1985 praised
what Sandia was doing generally, particularly in the fields of beam generation, focusing,
and diagnostics. Sandia regularly commissioned technical review committees to guide its
progress. Report is in Van Arsdall collection for 1980s, from Sandia archives.
21 Sandia Lab News, “Focusing ‘Scale Up’ Works,” April 12, 1985.
22 Sandia Lab News, “Demon Passes All Tests,” April 12, 1985.
23 Sandia Lab News, “Marx Generators Pass Tests,” September 27, 1985.
24 Sandia Lab News, “Good-Bye PBFA I; Hello Saturn,” November 22, 1985. In a memo of
September 16, 1985, Sandia communications guru Nigel Hey suggested to VanDevender
that PBFA II get an easy, user-friendly name too, like Nova, instead of an abbreviation.
Handwritten on the memo is VanDevender’s reply: “real men don’t eat quiche and real fusion
machines aren’t user friendly; e.g., TFTR, JET, MFTF-B, etc. PBFA II is now internationally
known and it is too late to change. Sorry, Pace.” Photocopy in Van Arsdall collection for
1980s.
25 “Overview,” Particle Beam Fusion Progress Report for July-December 1985, SAND86-0016.
26 “Fusion Possible in the Laboratory?: First PBFA II Shot Successful,” Sandia Lab News,
December 20, 1985. Related to these predictions, see SAND86-0016, Particle Beam Fusion
Progress Report for July-December 1985. The Technical Overview begins, “Light-ion beams
offer an efficient, low-cost, and repetitive driver technology for inertial fusion. . . . (PBFA
II) is the only experimental device constructed that has the potential to reach ignition.”
J.P. VanDevender and Donald L. Cook, “Inertial Confinement Fusion with Light Ion Beams,”
Science, May 16, 1986; also Sandia Lab News, “Sandia Fusion Research,” special report,
April 12, 1985.
27 National Academy of Sciences, Review of the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, March 1986. The White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy initially requested the review, which the National
Research Council performed under the leadership of William Happer of Princeton. Informally
this became known as the Happer Review.
28 Sandia Lab News, “Six Sandia Winners Announced in International R&D Competition,”
September 26, 1986.
29 Sandia Lab News, “Powerful X-Ray Source: Saturn Enters Arsenal of Simulation
Technologies,” October 9, 1987. During the 1970s and particularly the 1980s, statements at
the weapons laboratories reflect their emphasis on underground testing to corroborate data
from laboratory simulations.
30 Sandia Lab News, “Hermes III: First Firing of Gamma-Ray Simulator: A Successful ‘Big
Bang,’ ” March 25, 1988.

103
Chapter Three
31 Sandia Lab News, August 1, 1988, “Labs Accomplishments.”
32 The Halite-Centurion information was officially declassified shortly after this time. On
September 1, 1988, Fusion Power Associates issued a press release with the headline, “DOE
[Department of Energy] declassifies previously secret aspects of ICF [inertial confinement
fusion] research.” It was one of the first times that the concept of indirect drive within a
hohlraum was openly mentioned: “ICF targets located in a hollow chamber may be driven by
trapped energy, nature unspecified, created in the chamber by one or more energetic beams
penetrating the chamber through holes in the chamber walls.” Only in the following decade
of the 1990s would the indirect drive approach using hohlraums be openly discussed at any
length. See also Marshall Sluyter (Department of Energy/Defense Programs) presentation to
the Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee/Defense Programs of September 1988,
“Basic concept of ignition and gain validated in Halite/Centurion Program,” in the Cook
Collection at Sandia Archives, Box I/Van Arsdall.
33 June 14, 1988, “Review of Solid State Laser Technology for ICF,” Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory report for Department of Energy/Inertial Fusion Division. Pulsed Power Center
Archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall.
34 Livermore at this time proposed a $1 billion follow-on laser to Nova, and Los Alamos proposed
an interim krypton fluoride laser fusion research facility. Affecting the funding picture was the
approval to build an advanced particle accelerator named the Supercollider in 1987 for high-
energy physics research into the basic nature of matter at an estimated final cost of $6 billion.
That same year, the Livermore Mirror Fusion Test Facility was mothballed before it operated.
Congress voted to terminate the Supercollider project in October 1993, by then called an
$11 billion project that was one-fifth complete. About $640 million in an Energy and Water
spending bill was allocated to dismantle the project.
35 “Status of Target Physics for ICF,” report prepared by InterScience for DOE/IF Division on
Review of DOE programs, November 14-17, 1988. The report is unclassified, but the review
and the meeting were classified. In the Pulsed Power Center Archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall.
36 Ibid.
37 Not all the numerous reviews of the program are mentioned in this history. Davidson and his
committees reviewed Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program several times.
38 “Report of the Sandia National Laboratories Light Ion Fusion 1988 Technical Review
Committee,” written by SAIC for Sandia, October 1988. Pulsed Power Center Archives,
Box 1/Van Arsdall.
39 Sandia Lab News, May 19, 1989.
40 Sandia Lab News articles: January 27, 1989, “Tom Martin Returns to Research”;
April 21, 1989, page 1 features a letter by Narath on his return to Sandia; May 19, 1989,
“Yonas Returns to Head Tech Transfer Directorate.”

104
 ZR

CHAPTER FOUR
from the ’90s to ZR

As the 1990s dawned, international events were bringing an end to the Cold War,
which had shaped US defense policies and the mission of the nuclear weapons
complex since the close of World War II. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and East and
West Germany began to reunite, as Soviet influence over East Germany diminished.
In 1991, the United States and Russia signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty,
eliminating nearly 50 percent of the nuclear warheads carried by ballistic missiles.
That same year, Communism fell across Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was
replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) brought a new
head to the Department of Energy. Retired Admiral James D. Watkins demanded
military rigor in reporting and operations not only from the Department but from
all its laboratories. Intensive government scrutiny of the national laboratories
began, particularly in the area of environment and safety, coupled with pressure to
consolidate efforts to save money. Watkins was concerned about the national fusion
program, and he implemented several programs to learn about the various players

105
Chapter Four
and to set goals and priorities. He saw the magnetic confinement approach as the
path to supply much of the nation’s electricity and supported inertial confinement
primarily for military uses (though recognizing its long-term potential for energy).
All of this translated into significant challenges for the Pulsed Power Program at
Sandia as the decade of the 1990s began. The new PBFA II accelerator was just
beginning full-scale experiments when two important national reviews became the
focus of activities in Area IV.
At the end of 1989, in part because of Admiral Watkins’ concerns, Congress
chartered a National Academy of Sciences panel (known as the Koonin Committee
for its chair, physics Professor Steven Koonin of Cal Tech) to review the national
inertial confinement fusion program and publish a final report by the fall of
1990. After a preliminary review of the efforts at all the laboratories involved, the
committee issued an interim report in which it found that the program as a whole
was somewhat distracted by the push toward the Laboratory Microfusion Facility,
envisioned as a large-scale fusion facility based either on a laser or an accelerator
as the driver and capable of the enormous energy and power needed for sustained
fusion. (Please see following sidebar on the proposed Laboratory Microfusion Facility.)
Results from the secret Halite-Centurion experiments at the Nevada Test Site (see
chapter three) had shown that none of the current lasers or accelerators could
achieve ignition, though they could perform experiments to provide valuable
information about the conditions necessary for ignition. Given this information, a
decision had to be made about the immediate goals of the program.
The Koonin Committee’s interim findings were that existing facilities were not being
fully used and some critical experiments were not being performed. It recommended
a focused national effort to resolve any remaining uncertainties about whether it
was possible to achieve ignition in the laboratory using the facilities then available
and through cooperation among the laboratories. It said that the highest priority
should be given to studies of target physics, because the choice of a driver would
be derived from this work. At the Department of Energy, a timely decision in 1990
to review declassification of some details concerning inertial confinement fusion
would soon enable discussion with the international community about concepts
connected with fusion targets, such as “hohlraum” and direct and indirect drive.1
(Please see the following sidebar on fusion concepts.)
For years, foreign countries had been routinely discussing details of inertial
confinement fusion target technology that US scientists had to keep mum about
because it was considered classified weapons information in the United States. US
scientists and engineers had long favored declassification of much of their target
work on inertial confinement fusion because they felt international cooperation on
the difficult scientific problems involved was vital. Thanks to support from Marshall
Sluyter, head of the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program at the Department of
Energy, a team from Sandia made contact with Russian scientists working on foil

106
 from the ’90s to ZR
implosions in 1989-90 and then went to Russia to investigate successes they claimed
to have made in 1992.2 This was the beginning of international collaborations
in pulsed power that continue to the present. (Please see the following sidebar on
International Collaborations.)
The Koonin Committee report recommended upgrading the lasers Nova at Lawrence
Livermore, OMEGA at the University of Rochester, and Nike at the Naval Research
Laboratory, and to configure the Los Alamos Aurora krypton fluoride laser to
implode a different kind of fusion target. After its initial review of Sandia’s Pulsed
Power Program, VanDevender later said, “We got a call in December [1989] from
Koonin that they [the committee] had decided to kill our program immediately—
not even waiting until the fiscal year was out. I negotiated another review in August
of 1990. So with death facing us, we went to work.”3 Because the results for lithium
ions were not yet fully known, the committee deferred a recommendation on the
light-ion approach. In doing so, it accepted Sandia’s proposal to set and meet five
milestones, including producing a high-power lithium-ion beam by the end of July
1990 when the final review would take place.4
While the Koonin Committee continued its investigations of the national fusion
program, Admiral Watkins also began reforms in the areas of environment,
safety, and health (ES&H) at the Department’s laboratories. To that end, he sent
out independent Tiger Teams to audit compliance with existing ES&H laws and
regulations at all the major laboratories.5 Watkins said that any facility shut down
for safety reasons would have to obtain his signature before resuming operations,
thus stressing his concern with the issue. One of the first Tiger Teams came to
Sandia in March 1990, and used the PBFA II facility as a training ground for its
upcoming official audits. The inspection led to a complete facility shut down on
March 13 because of safety concerns, and pulsed power was told to develop a plan
of improvement, notably in procedure control. Don Cook, the manager of Pulsed
Power Research, drafted a plan for the resumption and continuation of operations
on PBFA II in which he listed five underlying reasons for the deficiencies the
Tiger Team found: lack of formality of operations; lack of critical self-assessment;
lack of time for training, education, and ES&H; conflicting concerns for meeting
milestones vs. safety; and lack of job ownership. Al Narath, president of Sandia,
held up the findings at PBFA II as lessons for all of Sandia, and the formality of
operations that began in the Pulsed Power Program was instigated Labs-wide.6
In fact, because of the way in which the nuclear weapons complex had evolved,
research into totally new areas had lent itself more to innovative one-of-a-kind
experiments than to documented procedures. However, because of the materials
involved, the scope of the national laboratories’ work, and their now decades-long
history of operations affecting the environment, Watkins believed it was time that
ES&H concerns be taken seriously. The Department of Energy approved Cook’s
improvement plan for PBFA II operations, and PBFA II resumed activities on March 29.

107
The Proposed Laboratory Microfusion Facility

In October did inertial confine-

1986, following ment experiments on
“very fruitful progress its glass laser, Chroma.c
in the inertial confinement
The initial proposal stipulated
fusion program,” the Department
that once the needed capability had
of Energy’s Defense Programs/Inertial Con-
been defined, a specific Laboratory Microfu-
finement Fusion Division launched a study to
sion Facility would be designed and potential
define a baseline facility to produce fusion in
drivers would be evaluated in terms of cost
the laboratory, at that time usually referred to
and performance from among the contenders
as microfusion.a The primary purpose for such
at the six laboratories.
a facility was to provide a source of fusion
events for weapons physics and weapons ef- On March 21, 1988, the Department of Ener-
fects studies as a supplement to underground gy officially announced to Congress that it was
testing (or as a replacement for testing if a beginning the study to determine the driver re-
ban ever went into effect). Developing fusion quirements.d Dr. Marshall Sluyter, head of the
energy for future electric power plants was Department of Energy/Inertial Confinement
considered a supplemental outcome. When the Fusion Division, subsequently headed up the
feasibility study began, the cost was estimated study, which involved a detailed review of the
to be “greater than $500 million and less than candidate machines being developed across
$2 billion.”b the United States. Lasers were considered the
front runners because of their technological
A steering committee was named, made up
maturity.
of representatives from the six US laborato-
ries involved in inertial confinement fusion In the fall of 1988, Sandia proposed using
and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which was PBFA II for target experiments to address the
doing heavy ion work primarily for energy ap- physics of fusion ignition. In parallel, Sandia
plications. The laboratories were Sandia and advocated applying Hermes III technology
its light-ion accelerator, PBFA II; Los Alamos to drive light ions. By operating in reversed
and the KrF laser, Aurora, supplemented by polarity to drive an ion beam, Hermes III
classified Centurion experiments; Lawrence could demonstrate a 1/3-scale light-ion driver
Livermore and the glass laser, Nova, as well module for the proposed microfusion facil-
as classified Halite experiments; the Naval ity. Sandia predicted that when results of the
Research Laboratory, using a direct-drive ap- PBFA II and Hermes III development efforts
proach on its Nike KrF laser; the Laboratory were integrated, they would establish the basis
for Laser Energetics at the University of Roch- for a light-ion-beam system for the Laboratory
ester, which was also using direct drive with Microfusion Facility.e The team behind this
the glass laser, Omega; and KMS Fusion, Inc., work included Ken Prestwich, Juan Ramirez,
a commercial firm that fabricated targets and and Craig Olson.

108
In 1990, in determining “whether there was The ambitious and expensive proposal for a
sufficient confidence in driver and target tech- National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Liver-
nology to proceed with the Laboratory Micro- more began its way through approvals in the
fusion Facility, or whether more work with facil- Department of Energy in 1991. The facility
ities in existence or available soon is required would be driven by a glass laser and was
to attain this confidence,” the Department of heralded as being designed to achieve igni-
Energy decided to wait for more results before tion of a fuel pellet by 2000. By 1992, a newly
reaching any final decision.f At that time, the formed Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory
Department backed an intermediate upgrade Committee/Defense Programs within the
for Nova, Omega, Nike, a reconfiguration of Department of Energy was evaluating plans
Aurora for indirect drive, and another evalua- for the National Ignition Facility in terms of
tion of Sandia’s light-ion approach once more its technology and the roles of other inertial
data were available. The University of Roches- confinement fusion laboratories in the effort.
ter, advocating an immediate decision to use a Sluyter, head of Defense Programs, said the
glass laser as the facility’s driver, argued that National Ignition Facility answered the needs
“It is poor management and poor science to of his programs in a number of areas, al-
try to keep the inertial confinement fusion pro- though he said Defense Programs ultimately
gram from advancing until the least developed required the capability of a Laboratory Mi-
options achieve (or fail to achieve) parity with crofusion Facility, particularly if underground

The Proposed Laboratory Microfusion Facility

glass laser technology.”g At this time, and in
testing were permanently banned. He advo-
cooperation with Rochester, events were under
cated having the National Ignition Facility
way at Lawrence Livermore that served to alter
designed so that it could be scaled up to the
the course of events considerably.
Laboratory Microfusion Facility.k Sandia con-
Plans for the Nova upgrade had begun back in tinued to advocate its concept for the facility
1988; however, a series of top-secret under- using Hermes III and PBFA II.
ground tests code-named Halite-Centurian,
In 1993 (and subsequently) Sandia defined
coupled with Nova test results, demonstrated
its responsibilities with regard to the National
the need for a much more powerful laser to
Ignition Facility, but continued for two years
reach ignition. In 1990, Lawrence Livermore
to propose to the Department of Energy plans
proposed a $320 million Nova Upgrade,
for new and more powerful machines—Jupiter,
consisting of an 18-beamline, high-power
and then a module of a potential light-ion
neodymium-doped glass laser that would be
Laboratory Microfusion Facility. Sandia’s intent
much more compact and efficient.h,i The new
was to develop plans for a facility beyond
Nova would have only one amplifier instead of
the National Ignition Facility. Demonstrating
five. Each beamline would accommodate 16
ignition at the National Ignition Facility was
optically independent laser “beamlets.”j
generally conceded to be a step needed
In 1991, Livermore established the Beamlet before plans for the ultimate Laboratory
Demonstration Project and began to develop Microfusion Facility could be formulated.
the next-generation technology for inertial However, by 1995, the national focus in the
confinement fusion lasers. Beamlet technol- Inertial Confinement Fusion Program was on
ogy did not result in the Nova Upgrade but the National Ignition Facility and plans for
in a prototype beamline for a much bigger anything beyond it ceased. After this year,
and more powerful laser system called the plans for a Laboratory Microfusion Facility
National Ignition Facility, which would be a became historical documents.
Department of Energy center to study inertial
confinement fusion and high-energy-density a Laboratory Microfusion Facility Capability Study,
science in lieu of underground nuclear test- Phase I Executive Summary of the Phase I Summary Re-
ing. The laser for the new facility was designed port, Department of Energy/DP-0069, June 1989 (Pulsed
with 192 beams, to produce 1.8 million joules Power Center Archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall).
of energy. b Ibid.

109
 c KMS Fusion, Inc., received funding from the Department of f National Academy of Sciences, Committee for a Review
Energy/Defense Programs for inertial confinement fusion of the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion
work from 1974 until 1990. The termination of its contract Program, Review of the Department of Energy’s Inertial
in 1990 was controversial, because it had been the only Confinement Fusion Program: Interim Report, Washington:
private firm in an area dominated by national laboratories National Academy Press, January 1990, p. 2.
and universities. See March 1990, “Government Account- g University of Rochester, “Comments and Recommendations
ing Office Fact Sheet for the Hon. Jon Kyl, House of Rep- on the Proposed Nova Upgrade,” Department of Energy/
resentatives, on Nuclear Science: Department of Energy’s DP/40200-130, prepared for the National Academy of
Acceptance of Academy of Sciences 1986 Inertial Confine- Sciences review of the inertial confinement fusion program
ment Fusion Technical Priorities,” GAO/RCED-90-115FS; a (Pulsed Power Center Archives, Box PP6: 1987-1990).
similar report was delivered to the House Armed Services h Los Alamos issued an unfavorable review of the full Nova
Committee as GAO/RCED-90-113BR, also in March 1990. upgrade, saying it found significant probability that it
KMS’s fusion work to 1989 is mentioned in “Toiling on the “will fail to achieve ignition, and that the cost estimate
ICF Vinyards,” Lasers & Optronics, July 1989, pp. 24-25, is probably overly optimistic.” Los Alamos National
and in John Horgan, “Infighting Among Rival Theorists Im- Laboratory, “Analysis of the Lawrence Livermore National
perils ‘Hot” Fusion Lab Plan,” The Scientist, June 26, 1989, Laboratory Proposed Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition
pp. 1-9. Facility: issues and proposed experiments,” July 25, 1990,
d “Review of Solid State Laser Technology for Inertial prepared for the National Academy of Sciences Inertial
Confinement Fusion,” presentation by Lawrence Livermore Confinement Review Group (Pulsed Power Center Archives,
National Laboratory to the Department of Energy/Inertial Box I/Van Arsdall).
Confinement Fusion Division, June 14, 1988 (Pulsed Power i The University of Rochester backed the proposal; see
Center Archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall). University of Rochester, “Proposed Nova Upgrade,” in
e October 27, 1988, “Status of Light Ion Beam Driver reference g above.
Development for Inertial Confinement Fusion,” report for j W. H. Lodermilk et al., The Nova Upgrade Facility, UCRL-JC-
Department of Energy/Office of Weapons Research Devel- 105734 (Livermore: Lawrence Livermore National Labora-
opment and Testing/ Div. of Inertial Confinement Fusion, tory, 1991).
by InterScience, Inc. (Pulsed Power Center Archives, Box k Sandia Archives: Cook Collection, Box 1. Folder on ICFAC/
1/Van Arsdall). A note in the report says that work was DP (Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee/
The Proposed Laboratory Microfusion Facility

predicted to be affected adversely in FY 1989 by a nearly Defense Programs) meetings and the National Ignition
10-percent reduction in funding for inertial confinement Facility.
fusion research at Sandia.

110
110
Fusion Concepts: Direct and Indirect Drive
In inertial confinement fusion, the energy from technical publications
a particle beam accelerator, z pinch, or laser document Sandia’s
is used to compress and heat a minuscule major efforts in these
fuel capsule containing a mixture of hydrogen areas; concepts
isotopes (deuterium and tritium). The com- based, for example,
pression is intense, squeezing the plasma to on imploding cap-
a high density and initiating a fusion reaction sules using double-
throughout the fuel. ended hohlraums and
If the energy directly bombards the capsule, dynamic hohlraums,
the process is called direct drive. If the energy and also deal with z-
is first converted to x rays, which then com- pinch-driven compres-
press and heat the capsule, the process is sion studies with the
known as indirect drive.a addition of a short-
pulse laser beam.b
Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion research Schematic of a double-
has primarily concerned indirect-drive con- The reason for clas- ended hohlraum with
cepts, involving accelerators to provide energy sifying much of the the deuterium-filled
and fusion targets. Sandia’s accelerators have technology connected capsule at the center.
been made increasingly powerful through with indirect-drive
the years, as this history relates, to satisfy targets is that it de-
increasing requirements for energy on target. rives directly from the
For fusion, the focus of that energy is a fusion design of nuclear weapons. Much of the work
target, comprising a container (hohlraum) connected with inertial confinement fusion,
into which a capsule of fusion fuel is placed therefore, is pertinent to understanding nuclear
(together, as small as a spool of thread). The weapons and weapons physics and plays a role
capsule and hohlraum have to work together in Sandia’s mission to certify the reliability of
to produce a desired outcome, and their con- the nation’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Fusion Concepts: Direct and Indirect Drive

figurations and interactions are the subject of a Historically, the University of Rochester and its OMEGA
intense theory and experiment. laser have concentrated on the key physics issues of
direct-drive targets, doing research that is not classified.
The purpose for the hohlraum (German for hol- The Naval Research Laboratory has studied the interactions
low space) is to convert the incoming energy of laser beams and fusion targets using direct drive with
into intense x rays. A variety of hohlraums both glass and krypton fluoride gas lasers (thus support-
exist, constructed of materials specific to ing both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore). Sandia,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos
their purpose. Confinement of the x-ray source
National Laboratory have concentrated on the indirect-drive
power within a hohlraum works like an oven to approach.
increase the intensity and uniformity of x rays b For an overview of Sandia’ s recent work, see M. Keith
driving the capsule. The x rays envelop the Matzen, M.A. Sweeney, R.G. Adams, J.R. Asay, J.E. Bailey,
fusion capsule within the hohlraum, causing G.R. Bennett, D.E. Bliss, D.D. Bloomquist, T.A. Brunner,
the outer surface of the capsule to vapor- R.B. Campbell, G.A. Chandler, C.A. Coverdale, M.E. Cuneo,
ize and rapidly blow outward. This outward J.-P. Davis, C. Deeney, M.P. Desjarlais, G.L. Donovan,
C.J. Garasi, T.A. Haill, C.A. Hall, D.L. Hanson, M.J. Hurst,
movement compresses the deuterium-tritium
B. Jones, M.D. Knudson, R.J. Leeper, R.W. Lemke,
fuel inside the capsule to an extremely high M.G. Mazarakis, D.H. McDaniel, T.A. Mehlhorn,
density and temperature. When the required T.J. Nash, C.L. Olson, J.L. Porter, P.K. Rambo,
density and temperature are attained, ther- S.E. Rosenthal, G.A. Rochau, L.E. Ruggles, C.L. Ruiz,
monuclear ignition occurs at the center and T.W.L. Sanford, J.F. Seamen, D.B. Sinars, S.A. Slutz,
spreads throughout the fuel. At Sandia, both I.C. Smith, K.W. Struve, W.A. Stygar, R.A. Vesey,
ion beams and imploding foils (z pinches) E.A. Weinbrecht, D.F. Wenger, and E.P. Yu, “Pulsed-power
driven high energy density physics and inertial confinement
have used hohlraums. Ion beams are remotely fusion research,” Physics of Plasmas 12, 055503-1 (2005).
created and focus their energy at a distance
from the target. With the z-pinch, the electri-
cal connections are made directly into the foil
within the hohlraum.
Sandia’s research with hohlraums and cap-
sules was largely classified until 1990, but
dates back to the 1970s. A number of recent
Schematic of a dynamic hohlraum showing the
outer wire array and the fusion capsule
embedded in a foam target. 111
111
 International Collaborations
The global scientific quest to develop new sources of chapter two). Sandia and Russian scientists kept in
energy intensified in the 1970s because of the nega- contact during the decades of the Cold War, discuss-
tive political ramifications tied to having oil—available ing the non-military aspects of inertial confinement
abundantly only in limited geographic locations—as fusion. Much of the pulsed power technology was
the primary source for the world’s energy supply. unclassified; the targets were the sensitive area be-
As a result, technical collaboration between political cause often they were designed for weapons-related
rivals began to be established, such as between the work. Prominent among the Russian fusion scientists
United States and Russia, to explore and develop who worked with Sandians at that time were Leonid
or improve alternative energy sources, among them Rudakov and Valentin Smirnov. Rudakov was involved
nuclear reactors and fusion. with electron and ion beam fusion; Smirnov with the
then-secret imploding foil approach on Angara V,
an approach later known as z pinch. Both scientists
still collaborate with Sandia’s pulsed power director-
ate. Because particle beam technology was largely
unclassified, it was in this area that most collabora-
tions with Russia could occur. The fusion world knew
about Russian work with imploding foils through pub-
lications and presentations at international meetings.
Because of the classified work Sandia was doing
with imploding foil targets, Sandia’s Dillon McDaniel
kept in contact with Smirnov over the years for the
purpose of observing the Russians’ work.
With the fall of Communism and restructuring of the
former Soviet Union beginning in 1989, what had
been organized government research programs in
Russsia splintered, as regular sources of funding for
science dried up. Marshall Sluyter, head of inertial
confinement fusion programs at the Department of
Energy beginning in 1990, said that because of this
situation, working with the Russians became a tre-
mendous bargain if it could be done right, and there
was great interest in capturing Russian knowledge.b
Russian Scientists Georgyi Volkov (left) and Eugeni Grabovski (center)
and Sandia experiment coordinator Johann Seamen (1273) work on a McDaniel had heard a talk at the Beams Meeting in
line-of-sight diagnostic tube underneath the Saturn accelerator. 1990 in which Smirnov said his team had reached
about 150 electron volts in a z-pinch-driven holhraum
on Angara V, achieving an internal temperature of
Because of their leadership in technologies related to 135 electron volts. Because the most Sandia had
nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia were achieved to that date was 50 electron volts, he and
also technical leaders in research areas applying his team were somewhat skeptical of the Russian
to nuclear power and the emerging field of fusion claims but intrigued by the science involved. (At this
ignition, with its potential as an energy source. time in Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion program,
A Soviet-American Joint Committee on Atomic the thrust was ion-beam-driven fusion, and z-pinch re-
Energy was established in 1975 to share technical search was confined to weapons-related work.) With
information. (A related story is the decades-long the possibility of direct and more open collaboration
international effort in magnetic confinement fusion with Russian fusion scientists working on z pinch,
using the tokamak concept for a future power plant. McDaniel and Sluyter began to plan how to set up a
This effort is now centered in the international ITER team to work in Russia and explore their approaches
project located in France.a) to similar scientific problems.
As early as 1975, French, Russian, and British scien- At Sluyter’s request, Sandia prepared a white paper
tists had visited Sandia to find out about its elec- for the Department of Energy outlining the benefits
tron beam fusion work as it applied to energy (see of such interactions, indicating four areas of pulsed

a Sandia contributes to this effort as well; see Leland Johnson, A History of Exceptional Service in the National Interest,
112
112 SAND97-0029, Albuquerque, NM, 1997, pp. 324-25. For ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor),
see, for example, http://www.iter.org. ITER means “journey” or “way” in Latin, and this is often cited as the meaning
of the term; i.e., the way to get to fusion energy.
power technology and applications that appeared to
be more advanced in the former Soviet Union than in
the United States. These areas were production of
record high temperatures in low-density foam targets
using pulsed power, magnetized fusion targets,
repetitively pulsed Tesla generators, and multiple
plasma opening switch devices. In its justification,
Sandia stated that its staff was uniquely suited to
investigate the Soviet advances, validate the results,
and apply them to Department of Energy programs
in inertial confinement fusion, weapons physics,
weapons effects simulations, and development of
pulsed power.c An initial visit to Russia in July 1992
to lay groundwork for the collaborations included
Sluyter, McDaniel, Rick Spielman, and James Aubert
from Sandia and others from Los Alamos and Liver-
more. Sluyter later said it took nearly two years from
inception of the idea to visiting Russian laboratories
and doing the work because of the myriad political
complications involved.
Because the work would benefit the Department
of Energy laboratories generally, Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore scientists and engineers were
included in the team. Experiments were conducted
from May to July 1993 at several locations. McDaniel
recalled that seven huge cases of equipment were
sent over and back, a complex feat because of
the customs regulations. The Sandia team now
included all who had gone before and also Dan Jobe
(Ktech), Peter Hockday, Jimmy Emmich, and Johann
Seamen. Collaborations with Russian institutes and
scientists initiated then continue through today.
As a result of the work and negotiations with the
Russian Minister Boris Saltykov (second from left),
Russians by Sluyter and McDaniel, a team of about the Russian Minister of Science and Technology Policy,
15 US citizens worked with the Russians on joint

International Collaborations
and Dillon McDaniel (right), Manager of High Energy
experiments at Angara V in 1993-94. They confirmed Plasma Physics Dept. 1273, jointly examine a low-den-
that a hohlraum temperature exceeding 85 electron sity foam target used in physics experiments on Sandia’s
volts (about 900,000 oC) had been achieved. Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II. Behind Saltykov
Because this was higher than anything achieved at are (at far left) Vladimir Kuznetsov, Consul General,
Sandia up to that time, it led to a further set of joint and Valeri Semin, Consul for Science and Education,
experiments on Saturn in 1994 that included more both at Russia’s US Consulate in San Francisco. The Rus-
sian science visitors were at Sandia September 22, 1994,
than 20 visiting Russians.
hosted by Bert Westwood, Vice President for Research
Other international collaborations continue on fusion and Exploratory Technology 1000, who briefed them
research, facilitated by this early effort. An important on research initiatives at Sandia. They also received
collaboration for Sandia’s z-pinch inertial confinement briefings on pulsed power technology, surface sciences,
fusion program is with France and its Delegation and computer-aided materials processing and met with
Executive VP Jim Tegnelia. Clyde Layne, deputy program
Générale pour l’Armement to develop large pulsed
manager of Sandia’s Cooperative Measures Program
x-ray sources.d Office, was with them the whole day, split between Los
Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia.
b The following information is from Van Arsdall, interview with
Marshall Sluyter, August 7, 2006, and interview with Dillon
McDaniel on July 27, 2006.
c D.H. McDaniel, D.L. Cook, J.P. VanDevender, and J.K. Rice, “Potential Soviet Interactions of Benefit to US/DOE
Programs in Pulsed Power Sciences,” March 4, 1992. Copy provided by McDaniel to Van Arsdall, in McDaniel
folder, Van Arsdall collection.
113
d “Technical Arrangement Between the Department of Energy of the United States of America and the Minister of
Defense of the French Republic Concerning Cooperation in the Application of Emerging Technologies,” signed in
May 2000. Copy provided by McDaniel; in Van Arsdall collection, McDaniel folder.
Chapter Four
The shutdown had come at a particularly difficult time, however. Not only was the
pulsed power team striving to meet the milestones for the Koonin Committee by July,
it was also preparing for a comprehensive review in May by the newly appointed
Fusion Policy Advisory Committee. That blue-ribbon committee had been created
to advise the Secretary of Energy about the future direction of the national fusion
program as a whole.7
In August 1990, the Koonin Committee returned to Sandia and was pleased to learn
that the Pulsed Power Program had met four of the five milestones the committee
had set. Following official release in September of the committee’s final report to
the National Academy of Sciences, the Sandia Lab News reported on October 5:
“Sandia Gets High Marks for Fusion Research—Funding Expected to Continue.” In
the Lab News article, Cook praised the teamwork that was involved in meeting the
milestones, with 85 Sandians and 50 contractors working long days and long weeks
with little vacation. For the milestones, PBFA II had produced a beam of 10 million
volts (11 million in one test), generated a diode current of nearly 3 million
amperes, achieved a purer lithium beam, and reached more than 70% efficiency in
converting electrical to ion power.
The milestone not achieved was in reducing the divergence of the lithium ion
beam, i.e., improving the focus, although some improvement in this area was
noted. To help tackle the problem, new diagnostics were developed experimentally
to better diagnose the conditions inside the diode. In addition, a team in the theory
group developed analytic theory and better computer modeling using a new type of
three-dimensional code. Together, these efforts had the goal of understanding why
the beam spread. Theory was saying that energies high enough to cause ignition
were possible with lithium ion beams, but for this to happen the beams had to be
precisely focused on target.
For this reason, the Koonin Committee’s final report identified reducing the
divergence of the ion beam as the highest priority Sandia should set. Other
recommendations were to increase the power density of the beam and to begin
actual target experiments. It stipulated that detailed milestones be set for the
following two years for PBFA II and technical progress be monitored. The committee
recommended that the budget remain the same for the next two years, promising
that an increase in funding to upgrade PBFA II could become a reality if sufficient
progress were made during that time toward the newest milestones. Another review
was scheduled for the summer of 1992, but was eventually postponed until March
1993.
Sandia had not been the sole subject of the Koonin Committee’s report, of course.
Lawrence Livermore’s proposal to upgrade its Nova laser was sanctioned in the
final Committee report as the most promising way to meet what it termed “the
national ignition demonstration.” The committee endorsed a four-year program
at Livermore with a number of milestones, estimating the cost to be $95 million

114
The Fusion Policy Advisory Committee and Its Impact on
Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Work
In 1990, a series of interrelated high-level to high gain used in military applications
reviews was launched to evaluate US fusion were equally valid for energy applications. At
programs. A newly created Secretary of the time, the Laboratory Microfusion Facility
Energy Advisory Board reported directly to the was being planned, and this future facility
Secretary of Energy, and under this board was was envisioned as yielding high gain for both
a Fusion Policy Advisory Committee. Its charter weapons studies and energy. The laboratories
was to advise the secretary about the future of argued that after that facility was built, energy
the nation’s fusion research and to make fund- research could proceed on an engineering
ing recommendations. (These studies were in test facility demonstration reactor leading to
parallel with the National Academy of Sciences energy production, while military applications
reviewers who were independently weighing sci- would continue using high yield for weapon
entific progress in inertial confinement fusion.) physics.a
The Fusion Policy Advisory Committee examined The outcome of the Fusion Policy Advisory
Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion program Committee’s findings was that there was a
in the spring of 1990. By this time, defense need for fusion energy because of greenhouse

The Fusion Policy Advisory Committee and Its Impact on

applications for inertial confinement fusion warming and depletion of fossil fuels, popu-
clearly dominated at Sandia; however, har- lation expansion, and public concern for the
nessing fusion for energy remained a viable safety of nuclear fission-based power plants.
although long-term possibility. Indeed, as from The Committee’s report said the United States
the beginning of Sandia’s fusion program, should set its sights on a demonstration fusion
funding was primarily from the Defense Pro- reactor producing electricity by 2025 and plan
grams side of the Department of Energy, and for a commercial plant by 2040.
work aimed at developing fusion for commer- The Fusion Policy Advisory Committee Final
cial power had to be ancillary to defense uses. Report appeared in September 1990. On
On the other hand, the Office of Science within September 27, 1990, the Albuquerque

Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Work

the Department of Energy funded and oversaw Tribune summarized the findings, saying
a Fusion Energy Sciences organization devoted that “the Department of Energy Fusion
entirely to research into fusion for commercial Policy Advisory Committee calls for new
power. The thrust here was magnetic confine- initiatives in civilian fusion energy research to
ment fusion, and the inertial confinement ap- bolster current military fusion projects that
proach was a relatively minor player. have been struggling at New Mexico’s two
national nuclear weapons labs [Sandia and
By this time, the paramount issue was that no
Los Alamos]. The proposal would eventually
approach to controlled fusion in the laboratory
shift the military program to a new civilian
had succeeded after years of effort, with the
Department of Energy Inertial Fusion Energy
science and technologies involved spanning
Program, including PBFA and Aurora.”
both defense and energy programs. A compli-
cating factor was that classification of some ar- However hopeful this prediction was, the
eas of inertial confinement fusion, largely con- Pulsed Power Program at Sandia remained
cerned with the targets, inhibited full sharing of under Defense Programs as a key component
research results both within the United States of stockpile stewardship, and fusion for energy
and with foreign scientists and engineers. would be a very small part of the formal pro-
gram in the years to come. However, the high-
Because the Fusion Policy Advisory Committee
energy-density and plasma physics issues with
was examining all of fusion in the United
which Sandia researchers grappled would have
States, Sandia and the other defense bearing on the basic science involved in creat-
laboratories were eager to explain how their ing laboratory fusion. (Please see following sidebar
fusion research, though based in defense on Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy later in this chapter.)
applications, applied to energy as well. In In addition, when many details of inertial
several presentations to the Committee, the confinement fusion target development were
nuclear weapons laboratories argued that an declassified in the early 1990s, the implica-
energy-related program could be built on the tions of this approach to fusion energy could
defense-related inertial confinement fusion be more freely discussed and evaluated.
program to resolve technical issues leading to
[Related sources: Documents available at the Office of Energy
commercial power. They pointed out that the Sciences website (www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov and www.science.
target physics and driver development leading doe.gov).]

a March 22, 1990, “Inertial Fusion for Energy Application,” Presentations by Defense Programs Inertial Fusion Division to the Fusion
115
115
Policy Advisory Committee, in the Sandia archives, Pulsed Power Center Archives: Pulsed Power 6: 1987-1990 and Pulsed Power
Center archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall; and in the Van Arsdall collection.
Chapter Four
annually, or a $25 million more per year budget increase. Citing again the proposed
ignition demonstration at Lawrence Livermore and its findings during the review,
the committee’s assessment of Aurora, the krypton fluoride laser at Los Alamos,
was not favorable. In fact, because of dwindling funds for the fusion program, the
committee predicted that the $31 million annually spent on the Aurora program
might have to be shifted to cover expenses for the Nova upgrade, thus terminating it
(and in fact this is what happened).
At that time, Sandia’s fusion budget was $27.3 million annually. In reporting on the
committee’s findings and recommendations, one of Sandia’s hometown newspapers,
the Albuquerque Tribune, said “Sandia’s work on the $48 million Particle Beam
Fusion Accelerator so dazzled the experts that the lagging accelerator has switched
places with Aurora in the last month. Sources close to the panel say that in the
early going of the review, the struggling Sandia was the target laboratory for major
fusion budget cuts.”8 Going into the review, few predicted that the Los Alamos
laser would be axed and Sandia’s accelerator kept alive. Given two years of only
level funding before the next review by the committee, VanDevender, who was both
the Inertial Confinement Fusion program manager and director of Pulsed Power
Sciences, appointed Cook as the program manager in October 1990 to give the
program more focused leadership. By the fall of 1991, major target experiments
had been carried out on PBFA II, indicating that the accelerator could successfully
meet the milestones the committee had set for the following year’s review. The series
of experiments used hydrogen ions (protons) to heat and implode several types of
targets to measure their response. The committee had told Sandia to emphasize
work on beam focusing and target physics experiments at increasing power
concentration. Explaining the significance of the series to the Sandia Lab News in
October, Cook said that the quality of the data was superb, and “. . .the experiments
show we’re on the right track.”9
In the wake of these and associated events, while visiting Sandia in September
1992, President Bush told the Labs, “The Cold War is over, and freedom finished
first.” During a talk to Sandians, Bush outlined some major shifts in funding at
the defense laboratories, which included Sandia and Los Alamos in New Mexico.
Instead of missile defense, the United States was committing itself to limiting
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to strengthening American industry by
emphasizing research and development at the laboratories and then transferring the
results to industry. Nuclear deterrence would continue to be essential to national
defense, but the number of weapons could be greatly reduced. Bush told Sandia,
“We are setting priorities, holding the line on money in other areas of government
spending so that we can turn the scientific prowess of American away from creating
weapons of mass destruction to creating new industries for mass employment.”10
In October 1992, the United States decided unilaterally to stop nuclear weapons
tests, taking the weapons laboratories by surprise, since underground testing
was considered the fallback for acquiring data required for accurate studies and
116 predictions.11 (However, many of the weapons effects simulations facilities had
PBFA II Experiments Erase Doubts About Obtaining Data

Pea-size targets imploded by ion beams Inside this capsule was deuterium (heavy hydrogen)
October 18, 1991 gas. These were the first target experiments using
deuterium ever conducted on PBFA II. (Tritium, a still
The first major target experiments have been suc- heavier isotope of hydrogen and a second neces-
cessfully carried out on Sandia’s powerful PBFA II sary ingredient for achieving fusion, has not yet been
particle beam fusion accelerator. added to the capsules.)
The series in August and September included the

PBFA II Experiments Erase Doubts About Obtaining Data

The intent was to have the proton beam heat the
first experiments on PBFA II aimed at heating and shell directly from all sides, resulting in an implosion
imploding inertial confinement fusion ignition-size of the target and compression of the fuel. The col-
targets. The types of targets tested included foam lapse of the target was accurately recorded by x-ray
targets for diagnosing target heating and spheri- imaging diagnostic instruments. In these first-ever
cal targets for diagnosing hydrodynamic response. hydrodynamic target experiments on PBFA II, the
Hydrogen ion (proton) beams were used. The experi- material was indeed imploded by the ion beam.
ments were recorded with sophisticated diagnostic
instrumentation, and this resulted in achieving high- The data were of good quality, allowing successful
quality data. comparisons of theoretical calculations with experi-
mental outcome—one of the goals of the experi-
During the next year, work will concentrate on ments. Don Cook, Manager of the Fusion Research
improving the focusing and therefore increasing the Department, said “There has always been a question
intensity of the giant accelerator’s ion beam. Experi- whether we would be able to get high-quality target
ments during this period will use lithium ions. data out of the harsh environment of this accelera-
The goal is to bolster the intensity of the acceler- tor. We proved that we can get the data. We’ve made
ator’s ion beam to 10 trillion watts (10 terawatts) major progress.”
per square centimeter and then to do further target The new achievements in target experiments are
experiments with that beam. the result of “an exemplary team effort” by Sandia
A major National Academy of Sciences review in researchers, diagnostics experts, and operations
late summer of 1992 will determine whether beam- personnel,” said Jim Rice, Manager of the Target
focusing issues have been resolved and whether Research Department.
PBFA II should be upgraded to higher energies to Rice and Cook gave major credit to Gordon Chandler,
make it possible to achieve fusion ignition. principal experimenter for the target experiments,
The recent series involved two new kinds of targets and the target team, Mark Derzon, Paul Rockett,
that are much closer to those of real interest for Jose Torres, John Hunter, Jack Pantuso, and
fusion. They are about 0.6 cm in diameter, near the supervisor Keith Matzen. In addition, signaled for
dimensions required for achieving ignition with a suit- credit were Rick Olson and Tom Hussey, of the
ably intense lithium ion beam. Radiation and Hydrodynamics Theory department;
David J. Johnson of the Beam Experiments
One was a cylindrical target filled with an extremely
department for proton beam focusing; Jim Aubert,
low-density hydrocarbon foam. As the foam is heated
manager of the Target Fabrication Department, and
by the ion-beam energy to very high temperatures,
his staffers Dora Derzon and Patti Sawyer; Jim Bailey,
it gives off x rays. The experiments successfully
Alan Carlson, and Carlos Ruiz of the Diagnostics
recorded the spatial distributions and intensities of
Department; Tom Mehlhorn and Ray Dukart of the
those x rays.
Diagnostics Theory Department; and all the members
The second type of target was spherical. It consisted of PBFA II operations.
of a shell 6 millimeters in diameter—about the [Condensed from the October 18, 1991, issue of the Sandia
size of a pea—made of 0.1-millimeter-thick plastic. Lab News.]

117
Chapter Four
been designed with this possibility in mind.) In an effort that became linked to
the cessation of underground testing and the need for more capabilities in the
laboratory, soon after the Koonin Committee endorsed the Nova upgrade Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory began to promote the concept for a facility designed
specifically to demonstrate ignition of fusion in the laboratory. The Nova upgrade
would be based on an enormous capability using glass lasers and located at
Livermore. It was promoted as an intermediate stage to the Laboratory Microfusion
Facility, one based entirely on the laser approach. (Please see following sidebar on the
National Ignition Facility.) Concepts for the upgrade to Nova soon became merged
with planning for another new facility, which was heralded as a multi-laboratory
effort, despite the fact that other laboratories felt it was premature in the light of the
current state of technology. In 1992, initial concepts began for an ambitious new
laser fusion effort, the National Ignition Facility, which Admiral Watkins approved
in January 1993 and whose construction continues to the present. At the time,
Sandia’s fusion capabilities were seen as supporting this national facility. Realizing
that the microfusion facility remained a long-term need, Sandia continued working
on its light-ion technology as the basis for it, asserting that pulsed power was
cheaper and more efficient than the laser approach.12
Soon after the cessation of underground testing, the nuclear weapons complex was
given a formal new mission called Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship.13 This
mission was mandated by the White House through the Department of Energy and
Department of Defense beginning in 1993, when the administration of President
William J. Clinton began (1993-2001). Science-based stockpile stewardship means
that the weapons laboratories use computers, experiments, simulators, and other
tools of science to fulfill their responsibility, or stewardship, of the nation’s stored
arsenal of nuclear weapons, the stockpile. (Please see following sidebar on Science-
Based Stockpile Stewardship.) Lawrence Livermore argued that funding for the
National Ignition Facility was justified because of its foreseen contributions to this
new mission.14
These interrelated developments helped shape the mission of Sandia’s Pulsed Power
Sciences Center during the next decade, while Sandia’s traditional responsibilities
in weapons effects testing and simulation became more critical in the absence
of underground nuclear weapons tests. Without these tests, the full spectrum of
radiation produced in a nuclear explosion was not available, and the Departments
of Energy and Defense needed this capability. Only limited subsets of the radiation
could be provided at that time by laboratory simulations on machines such as
Saturn and Hermes III. And so, Sandia investigated how pulsed power could be
used to provide radiation test capabilities closer to the full nuclear environment,
including converting PBFA II for this use and formulating plans for a more
powerful simulation facility.
Although the standoff necessary for fusion ignition was then believed impossible
on PBFA II, experiments on the accelerator could provide data for fusion studies.
118
 from the ’90s to ZR
Standoff refers to the separation needed between the ion beam driver and the fusion
target. For high yield, and for energy applications, this meant the final light-ion
beam had to be transported a distance of typically several meters from the exit of the
accelerator to the target, so that the driver could be protected from the fusion blast.
Part of the light-ion fusion program was dedicated to studying standoff, and it was
led by Craig Olson.15 A variety of possible transport modes was proposed and studied.
In addition, potential instabilities, such as the two-stream instability and the
filamentation instability, were investigated and assessed.16 The bottom line was
that transport and final focusing were thoroughly studied theoretically (and in
experiments at the Naval Research Laboratory) both for light and heavy ion fusion
and were ready for substantial experiments with high-current, low-emittance,
extracted light-ion beams—but such beams never became available.
The more powerful weapons effects simulation facility Sandia envisioned was
named Jupiter and was based on PBFA II technology. The more powerful Jupiter
driver would implode foil targets to produce the soft x rays needed for weapons
physics. Juan Ramirez, who had headed the Hermes III project, led the team to
plan Jupiter, a team that would combine talent from VanDevender and Powell’s
organizations.17 In addition, the continuing light-ion target studies on PBFA II were
now being used in conjunction with results from Sabre and Hermes III to establish
the light-ion accelerator basis for the Laboratory Microfusion Facility. Sandia
continued developing designs for this facility, calculating that the final fusion plant
should be based on lower-cost and more-efficient particle beams.
In March 1993, the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory
Committee/Defense Programs conducted a review at Sandia as part of its
responsibilities to evaluate the entire US inertial confinement fusion program.18 The
committee was pleased with Sandia’s progress toward what it called “a challenging
set of milestones” and said the quality of science had improved significantly.19
The committee recommended that another set of technical milestones be set up
for Sandia’s program to help it reach its predicted goals. A “Light Ion Technical
Contract” was developed that included requirements to define Sandia’s role with
regard to the proposed National Ignition Facility, and set milestones in the area of
beam intensity, targets, standoff, and experimental facilities. The committee also
recommended that Sandia’s proposal to build Jupiter be delayed until essential
target physics experiments had been performed.20 The Laboratory Microfusion
Facility concept was still being discussed at this time, and the committee indicated
that light ions were seen as a possible approach as drivers for inertial confinement
fusion targets. (The National Ignition Facility was considered the primary hope for
ignition and the Laboratory Microfusion Facility for high gain; high gain means
more energy out of the reaction than was used to produce it.)
Looking back on these crucial reviews, VanDevender later recalled that one of
Sandia’s principal detractors, Bob McCrory, the leader for direct-drive laser fusion
with glass lasers and director of the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser
119
Chapter Four

The National Ignition Facility

The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence showed that long-wavelength lasers would not
Livermore National Laboratory is the cul- provide the characteristics needed for the goals
mination of decades of work in developing of inertial confinement fusion, and Los Alamos
increasingly powerful lasers to ignite inertial built a short-wavelength ultraviolet KrF laser
confinement fusion in the laboratory. Laser named Aurora as an alternative to Nova. By
technology has long been central to the na- 1988, Aurora had failed to produce key results,
tional Inertial Confinement Fusion Program according to John Browne, P-Division Leader.
at the Department of Energy. As this history
In 1990, Aurora was cancelled following a
indicates, Sandia’s pulsed power accelerators
recommendation to that effect by a national
were developed in parallel with lasers; some-
inertial confinement fusion review committee
times in competition with them, sometimes
(the Koonin Committee). That year, Livermore
complementary to them.
proposed a $320 million Nova Upgrade: an
Below is a brief outline of the lasers at 18-beamline, high-power neodymium-doped
Los Alamos and Livermore. Over the years, glass laser that would be much more compact
these have been the major laboratories in and efficient. The new Nova would have only
designing and developing lasers as fusion one amplifier instead of five. Each beamline
drivers in a proposed national ignition (or would accommodate 16 optically independent
microfusion) facility. Ultimately, in such a laser “beamlets.”
facility, fusion events can be used for weapons
physics and weapons effects studies and high- In 1991, the Beamlet Demonstration Project
yield fusion would then be possible, leading to began at Livermore. It resulted not in the Nova
the development of commercial power plants. Upgrade, but in a prototype beamline (called
The Naval Research Laboratory with its Nike Beamlet) for a much bigger, more powerful,
laser, the University of Rochester, Laboratory and more expensive laser system called the
for Laser Energetics, and its Omega laser, National Ignition Facility. In 1994, Beamlet
and KMS Fusion have also made important laser was complete. (Beamlet was given
contributions to laser and target technologies to Sandia in 1998 and after reassembly in
over the years. Albuquerque began a new life as Z Beamlet in
2001.)
In the late 1960s, Los Alamos began research
on the two-beam CO2 laser Gemini, designed for Approvals began in the Department of Energy
2.5 kilojoules. Livermore was developing both to fund and build the National Ignition Facility.
the tandem mirror machine and glass lasers. An analytic paper on the “Contributions of the
National Ignition Facility to the Department of
In the 1970s, Los Alamos built Helios, an Energy Strategic Plan” was submitted to the
eight-beam CO2 laser, designed for 10 kilo- Secretary of Energy in June 1994, drawn up by
joules. Lawrence Livermore built the 20-beam staff in Defense Programs, and the Office of
glass laser Shiva. Later, in 1978, Livermore Energy Research, the Office of Intelligence and
requested $220 million for its Nova glass laser, National Security, with input from the national
an upgrade to Shiva. Los Alamos began its laboratories and the University of Rochester.
$35 million Antares project, a long-wavelength The mission of the facility was “to produce
CO2 laser designed with 72 beams to produce ignition and modest energy gain in inertial con-
40 kilojoules (24 beams of which were com-
finement fusion targets in support of national
pleted in 1984).
security and civilian objectives.” It was de-
In the early 1980s, Antares, the CO2 laser scribed as a cornerstone of the Department of
at Los Alamos, was in trouble; calculations Energy’s Science based Stockpile Stewardship
120
120
Program, a major contributor to the field of Ever Burn Brightly?” (Vol. 289, Issue 5482, pp.
high-energy-density physics, and a necessity to 1126-1129, August 18, 2000).
evaluate inertial confinement fusion for energy. Construction of the building for the 192-beam,
Total cost for the National Ignition Facility 500-terawatt National Ignition Facility was
was estimated to be initially $340 million, and completed in 2000, and construction of the
later $843 million; the total project cost itself laser beamlines and target bay diagnostics
was estimated as $1074 million. Construction then commenced. At the time, the planned first
was planned for 1996-2002. After completion, shot was 2010.
the operating costs and maintenance were A press release was issued on November 9,
estimated to be $60 million a year. The facil- 2005, from Lawrence Livermore on the Na-
ity was described as benefiting more than a

The National Ignition Facility

tional Ignition Facility: “Statement on con-
thousand scientists in basic sciences, inertial gressional funding for the National Ignition
confinement fusion energy, nuclear weapons, Facility” (for that FY): The President’s budget
weapons effects, and inertial confinement requested a total of $337.4 million for the
fusion. The laser in the new facility was de- National Ignition Facility in four categories. In
signed with 192 beams, to produce a total of action yesterday, the Energy and Water Ap-
1.8 million joules of energy. propriations Conference Committee approved
Groundbreaking for the National Ignition Facil- the requested $141.9 million for construction;
ity was in 1997 at Livermore. Science Maga- $43 million for diagnostics; and $40.2 million
zine reported in July 1997 that the facility was for ignition.” (At that time, the facility was said
estimated to cost $1.2 billion, and outlined to be more than 80 percent complete. Eight
some of the concerns the scientific and weap- of its 192 laser beams had been placed into
ons community was voicing about the goals operation.)
and outcome of the facility. The article was by The National Ignition Facility is scheduled for
James Glanz, titled “Harsh Light falls on NIF: completion in mid-2009, with the first inte-
This giant fusion laser is meant to simulate grated ignition experiments expected to begin
aspects of nuclear explosions, but critics ques- the following year.
tion both its relevance to weapons and whether
[Additional sources include the Los Alamos National Laboratory
it can meet its technical goals” (Vol. 277, Issue website, Physics Division Organization, History Page; Lawrence
5324, pp. 304-307, July 18, 1997). While the Livermore National Laboratory website on the National Ignition
new facility was being built, Nova was shut Facility.]
down in 1999 to reduce the cost to the nation-
al inertial confinement fusion program.
In 2000, the General Accounting Office
estimated the National Ignition
Facility would cost $4 billion to
complete, including all research Installation of the first wall
and development costs from inside the target chamber
areas that support the was completed in March
National Ignition Facility. 2005.
The Department of Energy
and Lawrence Livermore
estimated $3 billion
and completion by
2008 (GAO/RCED-00-
141, August 8, 2000).
Science Magazine
reported that the
National Ignition Facility
would cost $3.26 billion
and completion was
estimated to be in
2008. Charles Seife and
David Malakoff wrote:
“Will Livermore Laser

121
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship
In 1993, President Bill Clinton extended The scientific and engineering tools are state
the moratorium on nuclear testing and initi- of the art in a number of fields, ranging from
ated steps toward a Comprehensive Test Ban banks of extremely fast and highly powerful
Treaty. At the same time, he directed the computers to perform simulations, to basic
Department of Energy to explore additional research fusion/radiation facilities such as the
methods to maintain confidence in the safety, ZR at Sandia and the National Ignition Facility
reliability, and performance of US weapons in at Lawrence Livermore, to hydrodynamic and
the absence of nuclear testing. In 1996, the radiographic test facilities at the Nevada Test
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty cemented the Site, Los Alamos, and Sandia.
moratorium on testing. Sandia itself has a wide range of responsibili-
The Department of Energy’s Stockpile Stew- ties related to the Stockpile Stewardship Pro-
ardship Program was established when the gram. Pulsed Power Sciences contributes to
National Defense Authorization Act was these stewardship responsibilities (specifically
passed in 1994. The act required the depart- under the National Nuclear Security Admin-
ment to establish and maintain a multi-faceted istration’s Directed Stockpile Work and the
program to increase understanding of the Stockpile Stewardship Program campaigns),
stockpile, to be able to predict any problems providing
as the stockpile aged, to refurbish and re- • intense x rays to measure material
manufacture weapons and components as properties at high pressures to certify the
necessary, and to maintain the science and survivability and performance of strategic
engineering facilities required to support the systems
nation’s nuclear deterrent. The Department of
Defense works with the Department of Energy • research on Z toward the long-term national
goal of high-yield inertial confinement fu-
to set requirements for the stockpile.
sion, which, when available, will enhance US
Although underground testing never provided capabilities in radiation effects, weapons
all the capabilities needed to understand physics, and fusion for energy, thus sup-
the total nuclear weapons environment porting a number of areas in the Stockpile
(aboveground testing has added some of Stewardship Program
this information), it was considered vital to
• contributions toward weapon science
round out weapons physics data and verify
campaigns, which are challenging, multi-
computer models. With no underground tests
year, multi-functional efforts, notable
available, data to predict the performance
among them: dynamic materials properties
and longevity of nuclear warheads had to
studies to develop physics-based, experi-
be obtained differently. The term science-
mentally validated data and models of all
based stockpile stewardship was in common
stockpile materials for a broad range of
use for the program at the time, since it
dynamic conditions; advanced radiography
involved interrelated capabilities across the
to provide the technical basis for deploying
nuclear weapons complex at the weapons compact, inexpensive pulsed-power-driven
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and flash radiographic x-ray sources in support
production facilities. Complicating the picture of work at Los Alamos and the Nevada Test
currently is the fact that the stockpile is being Site; and using Z and Z-Beamlet to assess
revamped. Modern manufacturing capabilities the performance of the secondary compo-
and microelectronics are being developed nent in weapons
to replace components and reduce life-
cycle costs based on developing a scientific • support for activities associated with certifi-
understanding of how weapons age and the cation of specific weapons for the Stockpile
effects of radiation on them. Today, this Life Extension Program
work is part of the Stockpile Life Extension • advances in x-ray power output and mag-
Program within what is now called the netic pressure and in repetitive, high-aver-
Stockpile Stewardship Program. age-power accelerator technology for basic
The Stockpile Stewardship Program is direct- science applications
ed by Defense Programs within the National • accurate high-pressure equation-of-state
Nuclear Security Administration (a semi-au- data for a broad range of materials, including
tonomous arm of the Department of Energy). deuterium and special nuclear materials.
122
 from the ’90s to ZR
Energetics, said, “There has been a sea-state change of science at Sandia and A Government Account-
ability Office Report on
Sandia deserves more funding.”21 VanDevender said this recognition of Sandia’s Nuclear Weapons (GAO-
success made a profound impression on him. Having shepherded the Pulsed Power 06-261), published in
Program through this challenging time, VanDevender turned it over to different February 2006, states
that from fiscal year
leadership in April 1993 (later becoming the director of the new National Industrial
2001 through fiscal
Alliances Center after a brief stint as director of the Corporate Communications year 2005, the National
Center for the contract transition to Lockheed Martin).22 (Please see following sidebars Nuclear Security Ad-
on “Sculpture Honors Pulsed Power Researchers” and on the VanDevender Lawrence ministration spent more
than $7 billion (in 2005
Award.) Don Cook was then promoted to head up the Pulsed Power Sciences Center; dollars) on the six scien-
Jeff Quintenz, who had been in the program since 1975, became the center deputy tific campaigns associ-
and program manager of Inertial Confinement Fusion Program; and Keith Matzen, ated with the Stockpile
Stewardship Program;
at Sandia since 1974 and in pulsed power after 1980, was named manager of i.e., primary, secondary,
Inertial Confinement Fusion/High-Energy-Density Physics. Quintenz, long an advanced computing,
advocate for theory to support experimental work in pulsed power (see chapter two), advanced radiography,
said about this successful review that what had been called an “arcane endeavor” dynamic materials
properties, and inertial
back in the early days of pulsed power had clearly become a science-based research confinement fusion. The
program in large part due to advances in theoretical capabilities.23 intent of the report is to

Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship

review how well per-
Cook later characterized the time between 1994 and 1996 as key. Sandia faced formance and cost are
another review by the advisory committee, and the future of its fusion program being measured in the
Stockpile Stewardship
hung on being able to show it could produce the energy on target that it had Program, as reflected
promised. Cook said, “We got stuck at the 1989 level of energy for four years. We in a wider evaluation of
just could not improve the power concentration. We tried and tried.”24 The main the “quantification of
reason for not being able to improve was not fully recognizing the fundamental margins and uncertain-
ties” methodology de-
physics involved. At this time, the National Ignition Facility was emerging as veloped by Los Alamos
the Department of Energy’s champion for microfusion, over the protests of other and Livermore to assess
laboratories about its technical merits. The Department of Defense, having and certify the nuclear
stockpile.
immediate x-ray requirements, expressed interest in a less ambitious facility, [Information primarily from
one more realistic in the near term, to provide the types of radiation it needed Sandia National Laboratories
Institutional Plan: 2005-2010,
for weapons testing. The White House was calling for Science-Based Stockpile SAND-2005-4400P, where details
of Sandia’s responsibilities are
Stewardship capabilities at the weapons laboratories. In this very demanding outlined; and US Department
weapons fusion and weapons physics arena, Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program had to of Energy, National Nuclear
Security Administration paper on
prove itself. Stockpile Stewardship, DOE/NV-
1017 (available at http://www.
Funding cuts for fusion nationwide had been significant since the late 1980s, and nv.doe.gov). See also Physics
Today Online: Science Based
by 1994 at Sandia had gone from $80 million to $40 million with a loss of about Stockpile Stewardship, dated
2001: http://www/physicstoday.
200 people in pulsed power. The National Ignition Facility was funded in 1994 at org.]
an estimated cost of about $1 billion, and fears were voiced that the entire inertial
confinement fusion program was in danger of being committed to this one facility
because of its enormous cost. Research dollars had been carefully allocated at
Sandia, and in an innovative move to mitigate the situation, Cook and Jim Powell,
head of Radiation Effects and Testing, Center 9300, integrated the defense
program work of their respective centers in 1995, though remaining in separate
organizations.25
123 123
Chapter Four
By 1994, a small research effort in the weapons physics side of pulsed power—using
z pinches to create intense x-ray sources on the Saturn machine—was showing
such progress that Cook was considering reconfiguring PBFA II so it could operate
part-time with z pinches. (Please see following sidebar on Z Pinch.) This z-pinch
effort was the imploding foil technology that had been excluded from the main
microfusion work when ion beams were chosen, but had been kept alive in the
weapons side of pulsed power. Dillon McDaniel and Keith Matzen, who had long
worked on imploding foil technology in the Scorpio program, outlined such a
project with Rick Spielman and Bill Stygar as the technical leads. They argued that
operating as PBFA-Z, the existing PBFA II could efficiently drive z-pinch targets at
energy levels no existing facility in the United States could match. It was Powell
who made the decision to allocate some of his scarce funds to the z-pinch work
on Saturn, at a considerable risk, but it soon paid off. With data in hand, Cook
and Powell agreed to make the modifications to PBFA II to scale up the power
available for driving z-pinch implosions as PBFA II/Z. Sandia then began to outline
the expected benefits of PBFA-Z to several national committees and stressed that
inertial confinement fusion work and weapons program work were interrelated and
interdependent at Sandia.
In June 1995, Tom Sanford and his team had a breakthrough on the Saturn machine
that promised optimistic results on PBFA II, which was being modified at a cost of
$13 million to operate part-time as PBFA-Z.26 (Please see following sidebar on Sandia’s
1995 Breakthrough with Z Pinches.) Saturn focused its energy on an innovative target,
a configuration of small aluminum wires; they imploded symmetrically, and 40
terawatts (0.5 megajoules) of x-ray output resulted from the implosion—researchers
had expected 10 to 15.26 These experiments were based on the reasoning that greatly
Don Cook
increasing the number of wires would improve the symmetry of the resulting z
pinch, an idea that had not been explored to the fullest. These and other refinements
continued to be made in z-pinch technology in subsequent years, building upon the
breakthrough and on a significant body of earlier work. Attention then turned from
Saturn to PBFA II/Z and its performance as a driver for z pinches; expectations were
that the more powerful accelerator could obtain even more impressive results.27
Before the results of the z pinch on Saturn, Sandia was looking toward the future
primarily based on the PBFA II ion-beam approach using a new diode concept,
the applied-B extraction ion diode. Beyond that was the concept for the super
accelerator, Jupiter, envisioned as producing 32 megajoules of energy.28 In mid-
1996, PBFA-Z was still seen as a complement to the PBFA-X (the accelerator
configured with an extraction diode) and was to be operated primarily for
weapons physics programs. PBFA-X was a configuration of the machine to drive an
extraction ion diode, designed to enable ion beams to be extracted from the diode
and propagated to a target—a feature necessary for fusion and a step on the way to
fusion energy. (The applied-B cylindrical, or “barrel” ion diode had focused the ions
internally.) PBFA II was to run a six-month set of scaling experiments for z pinches
124
 from the ’90s to ZR
as PBFA-Z, after which it was to return to light-ion research as PBFA-X.29 Looking
back over the evolution of pulsed power to this point, VanDevender some years later
attributed the ability to make these switches in technology relatively easily as key to
its versatility. “That’s the real story of pulsed power. The versatility of the technology
to allow an accelerator to drive all three of those different technologies [electron
beams, ion beams, and z pinches].”30
In April 1996, Sandia received a favorable review from an external advisory board,
the Welch Committee, of the contributions that the Pulsed Power Program was
making to Stockpile Stewardship. In part, the committee found, “The science that
is being done in the pulsed power programs at Sandia has reached world-class
quality. This is the result of several years of deliberate attention to experimental and
theoretical detail, including the development of high-quality diagnostics operating
in a hostile environment. The quality of engineering in the program is superb.”31
The results on PBFA-Z were even better than anticipated. Between October
and early November 1996, the Z accelerator increased its x-ray output from
1 to 1.8 megajoules. The increases came just as the United States signed the
international Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, officially committing the United
States to continuing the ban on nuclear testing for the foreseeable future. In a news
release from Sandia at the time, the powerful shots on PBFA-Z were billed as capable
of providing data for computer simulations used to predict the physics within, and
effects of, a nuclear blast. It said the PBFA-Z data could be substituted for some of
the data from underground nuclear explosions, now a thing of the past.32
As positive as the situation concerning z pinches sounds, in many ways it posed a
dilemma for the managers in the Pulsed Power Program and for their Department
of Energy sponsor.33 On the one hand, years of effort and innovation had gone into
the ion beam inertial confinement fusion work, and several of Sandia’s theorists
and experimentalists felt they were capable of overcoming problems that they finally
understood. To this point, the thrust of Sandia’s fusion program had been meeting
goals set internally and by review committees specifically for ion beam technology.
To consider changing course, dropping ion beams, and basing Sandia’s fusion work
entirely on z pinches was not only a difficult decision, but a painful one because of
how it would affect many who had been committed to the ion-beam program for
years. The successes with PBFA-Z were finally so overwhelming that the program
managers had to make the final decision to go with z pinches. (Please see following
sidebar on Final Results of Sandia’s Ion-Beam Research.)
By early 1997, the Pulsed Power Program was shifting its strategy for proposing to
build the more powerful X-1 facility from ions to z pinches. A second review by the
Welch Committee in March 1997, specifically to assess the quality and relevance
of z-pinch work to stockpile stewardship and populated by potential users of Z,
endorsed Sandia’s decision to proceed with the z-pinch approach and saw it as
a valuable addition to the weapons program. In June 1997, Quintenz called an
all-hands meeting at which he announced that the ion-beam fusion experiments
125
 Sculpture Honors Pulsed Power Researchers, Achievements
--“Filling the Void”
Sculpture Honors Pulsed Power Researchers, Achievements

Sandia Lab News, March 4, 1994 of 545 interlocking iron rings welded together
Science and art have merged in the form of to form an arch. The outreach of the arch
a new metal sculpture honoring the accom- represents searching for new discovery; the
plishments of Sandia’s pulsed power research interlocking rings and the crucibles from which
community. Titled “Filling the Void,” the they rise represent Sandia and the organiza-
sculpture was dedicated to Sandia’s pulsed tions it works with synergistically. VanDevender
power researchers in a brief outdoor ceremony welded all the metal parts together, and Karen
on the bright Monday morning of February 14 Yank, another Albuquerque artist, applied the
just north of the entrance to Building 960. surface patina and anti-oxidant coating.
The idea for the sculpture goes back to 1992 The plaque reads: “Filling the Void” by Walter
and the day Pace VanDevender received the Hoel and Karen Yank. Presented to the people
E.O. Lawrence Award. VanDevender recalled of Sandia National Laboratories’ Pulsed Power
that at the time of the award, he “felt like Community upon recognition of their work by
an athlete who receives an honor in a team the Department of Energy’s 1991 Lawrence
sport, because pulsed power is a team effort, Award for Physics.
and no one person is responsible for its A short distance to the northwest, another
accomplishments.” pulsed power sculpture, “Starburst,” made
So VanDevender decided the award really be- from the power flow section of the old Particle
longed to everyone in pulsed power at Sandia. Beam Fusion Accelerator I, likewise glistened
He put out bids to commission a sculpture in the sunlight.
with the award money to honor not just all the
individuals involved but to recognize what he
calls the “superb horizontal and vertical inte-
gration” of teams and capabilities at Sandia
and elsewhere that helped bring the
award to Sandia. Albuquerque
artist Walter Hoel and
VanDevender worked
together to refine the
concept for the
sculpture,
which is
made

Pace VanDevender
with sculpture in
Area IV

126
Z Pinch
Pulsed power accelerators take electrical energy from the wall plug and compress it densely in time
and space. Like water turned on full at the faucet and tightly compressed at the nozzle of the hose,
the power in such accelerators arrives at the center of the machine greatly increased from its origins.
Here, at the heart of the accelerator, scientists and engineers devise methods to turn such power into
radiation to suit their needs and requirements. Z pinch is one of them.

Initiation Implosion Stagnation

In a z pinch, enormous amounts of electrical plasma. This squeeze is the z pinch, so named

Z Pinch
current are converted into soft x rays such as because the enormous force of its compres-
those created by a nuclear weapon detonation. sion goes along the z axis. The velocities
(Such radiation does not penetrate deeply, involved are approximately 500,000 mph.
but is deposited very near the outer surface For decades, scientists and engineers explored
of materials.) Laboratory sources of these x various cylindrical assemblies to use with z
rays are used in weapons effects and weapons pinches, such as wire arrays, gas puffs, or
physics studies and in the effort to achieve metal foils. One problem in the early days was
microfusion in the laboratory. that the power levels needed to create x rays
At Sandia, the z-pinch process is initiated by for weapons and fusion work (and to drive z
high currents from a pulsed power accelerator pinches) had not been attained by existing
called Z. Released quickly from the accelera- accelerators. Thus, the machines developed
tor, the currents, some 20 million amperes to by the Department of Energy and Defense De-
date and expected to be 26 million amperes partment during the 1970s were in part used
after the refurbishment of Z is completed, flow to answer this need.
through a large number of wires (each about In the world of weapons physics and weapons
the size of a human hair). The combination effects studies, z pinches are used to increase
of the vertically hanging wires forms a hollow x-ray power output to approximate nuclear
cylindrical shape about the size of a spool of detonations. For inertial confinement fusion
thread. Such currents are more than a thou- research, z pinches are used as sources of x
sand times larger than lightning bolts, and rays to heat the hohlraum in which a fusion
their force is a million times larger. capsule is placed. The x rays in the hohlraum,
The currents in their wires produce intense as noted earlier, bathe the capsule in-
magnetic fields that rapidly and tightly com- side the hohlraum, causing the fusion
press the hollow cylinder of wires to the point fuel to be uniformly compressed and 127
that it implodes upon itself toward its axis heated to the point that it ignites.
(called z in mathematics), vaporizing into a
Sandia’s 1995 Breakthrough with Z Pinches
Sandia’s success with z pinches came after to understand the implosion of the individual
years of experimentation and collaborations, wires and their merger into a plasma shell. It
including those with Russian scientists in was a breakthrough in z-pinch technology. The
1992/93 on gas puff loads and hohlraums, Sandia Lab News summarized it in this way:
and then in particular with Physics Interna- Tom set up a series of experiments, using
tional and the Naval Research Laboratory on different radii of wires with spacing adjusted
wire arrays.a By 1989, Chris Deeney, then at to keep the total wire mass constant, to
Physics International, and Ken Whitney at determine whether the wire size and spac-
the Naval Research Laboratory were working ing had any appreciable effect as his team
to improve wire arrays, using aluminum and painstakingly measured x-ray output pro-
nickel for the wires. duced by arrays ranging from a very small
At Sandia, Dillon McDaniel, Keith Matzen, number to hundreds of wires. The results
were clear. A larger number of thinner wires
Rick Spielman, and others continued related
with minimum spacing between them sent
work on Saturn. From 1991 to 1993, their
the output of Saturn, and then Z, skyrocket-
experiments were indicating that the number
ing, and eventually caused a change in the
of wires was a factor in determining powers
world scientific view of the Z-pinch process.c
and yields because of the fraction of the
load mass that was optimally heated. At Results of the breakthrough were first pub-
Physics International, Deeney showed in 1993 lished in 1995 in the Bulletin of the American
that by using mixed elements, yields were Physical Society (40: 1846) and later in 2006
enhanced. Diagnostics confirmed that wire in Physical Review Letters (77, 5063) with San-
numbers above 12 (the number customary ford as first author.d
before that time) improved performance. In Subsequently, the z-pinch team implemented
1994, based on this work, Whitney suggested tungsten arrays with high wire numbers, and
experimenting with 30 and then 42 aluminum by January 1996 Saturn had doubled its
wires with higher mass, larger diameter output to ~80 terawatts of power because
implosions. In March 1995, using Whitney’s of the additional radiation states available in
suggestion, Deeney, by then working at tungsten. A Sandia news release from April 24,
Sandia, and Spielman, the project lead for 1996, quotes director Don Cook as saying:
z-pinch work, obtained some increased yields “The breakthrough has altered the mindset
and powers when the number of wires was we’ve been operating with about Saturn’s
increased from 24 to 40 wires. capabilities. Controlling the symmetry of the
implosion was the key.” The significantly larger
Meanwhile, in January 1995, using a new number of wires was the key to creating a
type of camera at Sandia, Tom Sanford plasma implosion with much better symmetry.
observed that with 24 aluminum wires in The pulse was decreased in six months from
an array (then the standard), the wires 20 nanoseconds to about 4 nanoseconds. The
imploded as separate wire array plasmas, results were announced at the BEAMS ’96
not as a plasma shell as had been previously meeting in Prague by Sanford and Spielman in
assumed. Sanford thought that if the number separate papers.
of wires were quite significantly increased, Spielman, Deeney, Sanford, and John Porter
perhaps a more uniform plasma shell could were the main experimentalists who carried
be produced with subsequent increase in the z-pinch work forward into 1996, when
x-ray power at stagnation because of the experiments begun on Saturn continued on
more coherent implosion. Experiments to PBFA II, reconfigured into PBFA-Z. Theoretical
test his theory were delayed until June of work investigating the feasibility of z pinches
that year. In June, Sanford began detailed to drive inertial confinement fusion targets
experiments on Saturn with wire numbers was spearheaded by managers Jeff Quintenz,
that ranged from 10 to ~200.b The outcome Keith Matzen, and Ray Leeper. Simultaneously,
of the experiments was that Sanford and his Melisssa Douglas did Rayleigh-Taylor
team were able to explain and thus solve the instability studies with the Alegra computer
plasma instability problems that had long code. Barry Marder evaluated the dynamic
plagued z pinches. George Allshouse and effects of the wire array symmetry using
Barry Marder developed theoretical techniques another radiation hydrodynamics code, and

128
 from the ’90s to ZR
Allshouse designed fusion targets to use with Laboratory on thorny theoretical analysis to
the powerful new x-ray source. Experimental understand and vary the x-ray energy yields
work investigating the feasibility of z pinches from the imploding wire arrays. Sandia’s
to drive inertial confinement fusion targets successes begun in 1995/96 with z pinches
was spearheaded by Rick Olson, Tom Nash, continued on Z (as PBFA-Z was renamed) until
Mark Derzon, and Ray Leeper. Sandia 2006, when Z was shut down for an extensive
collaborated with Los Alamos and Livermore refurbishment. Z-pinch experiments are slated
on theoretical studies connected with loads to begin again in 2008 at x-ray power levels
and implosions, and with the Naval Research higher than before the refurbishment.

a For a detailed history of z-pinch research, see d For a technical summary and history of the z-pinch
M.A. Sweeney, “History of Z-Pinch Research in the breakthrough including detailed bibliography of
U.S.,” Dense Z-Pinches: 5th International Conference relevant papers, see T.W.L. Sanford, “Wire number
on Dense Z-Pinches, ed. J. Davis et al., American breakthrough for high-power annular z pinches and
Institute of Physics, 2002: 9-14. some characteristics at high wire number,” Laser and
b Sanford credits Wendland Beezhold, a manager in the Particle Beams (2001), 19: 541-556. Sandia authors
Pulsed Power Program, with funding his experiments, include D.D. Bloomquist, D.L. Cook, M.E. Cuneo,
which were outside the main z-pinch work. C. Deeney, M.K. Matzen, T.A. Mehlhorn, J.L. Porter,
c Sandia Lab News, June 24, 2005, “Tom Sanford J.P. Quintenz, J.J. Ramirez, R.B. Spielman, K.W. Struve,
shares European physics prize for work on Z: Key G. Yonas. For an early technical account of the
observations led to huge increase in Z machine power success, see T.W.L. Sanford, G.O. Allshouse,
output.” The article explains the work in detail. The B.M. Marder, T.J. Nash, R.C. Mock, R.B. Spielman,
prize was the European Physical Society’s Hannes Alfen J.F. Seamen, J.S. McGurn, D. Jobe, T.L. Gilliland,
Prize; Malcolm Haines of London’s Imperial College and M. Vargas, K.W. Struve, W.A. Stygar, M.R. Douglas,
Valentin Smirnov of the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow and M.K. Matzen (Sandia); J.H. Hammer, J.S. DeGroot,
shared the prize. See M.G. Haines, T.W.L. Sanford and J.L. Eddleman (Lawrence Livermore); D.L. Peterson

Sandia’s 1995 Breakthrough with Z Pinches

V.P. Smirnov, “Wire Array z-pinch: a powerful x-ray (Los Alamos); D. Mosher (Naval Research Lab);
source for ICF,” Plasma Physics and Controlled K.G. Whitney, J.W. Thornhill, P.E. Pulsifer, J.P. Apruzese
Fusion 47 (2005), B1-B11. Smirnov and his staff had (Naval Research Lab); Y. Maron, (Weismann Institute),
collaborated with Sandia’s Dillon McDaniel and his “Improved Symmetry Greatly Increases X-Ray Power
team on z pinch back in 1992/93. Sanford was named from Wire-Array Z-Pinches,” Physical Review Letters
a Fellow of the American Physical Society, Division of 77, No. 25, December 16, 1996.
Plasma Physics, in 2000 for this work.

In 2005, Sandia’s Tom

Sanford (center) shared the
European Physical Society’s
Hannes Alfven Prize with
Malcolm Haines (left), Im-
perial College, London, and
Valentin Smirnov, Kurcha-
tov Institute, Moscow. The
award was for Sanford’s
observation, outlined in this
sidebar, and for his follow-
up z-pinch research with
other Sandians. The prize
went to all three scientists
for “the remarkable achieve-
ments of the multi-filament
z-pinch development in
recent years.”

129
Chapter Four
would continue only for another few months, then would cease, and that henceforth
Sandia’s inertial confinement fusion program would be committed to z-pinch
technology.34 In July PBFA II was renamed simply the Z machine, reflecting its
preferred configuration. (Please see following sidebar on Highlights from Z.) A Sandia
news release in August reported that Z was the most powerful generator of x rays in
the world, having more than quintupled its output from 40 to 210 trillion watts and
achieving a temperature of 1.5 million degrees (fusion was predicted to require 2 to
3 million degrees). The future course of Sandia’s fusion work was from then on tied
to the z pinch, which had begun years ago as classified imploding foil research.
Pulsed power at Sandia then began to evaluate the role Z would play in the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Program as a companion to its other radiation
simulators, Saturn, Hermes III, and other smaller machines. In fusion research,
the challenge was to get energy from Z’s x rays to heat a hohlraum evenly, making
the target within it implode. To do that required near-perfect symmetry when power
arrived. The vision was that when Z was scaled up to the power levels on X-1 (a
facility envisioned for a time as a successor to Z), a fusion reaction could indeed be
ignited in the target. (By now, there was no more talk of the Laboratory Microfusion
Facility. The National Ignition Facility finally supplanted those plans because of its
cost, although the need for such a facility is still recognized. X-1 was the Laboratory
Microfusion Facility in another guise.)
With respect to stockpile stewardship work, absent underground testing and
needing capabilities to harden weapons, the nuclear weapons community was
calling for increased x-ray capabilities. Viewed from a Department of Energy
funding perspective, the situation was complex. High-yield fusion would provide
the radiation needed by the weapons community in addition to its potential for
energy. Before high-yield fusion, however, a demonstration that fusion could be
ignited in the laboratory was needed. The National Ignition Facility was then (and
remains) the centerpiece of the Department’s inertial confinement fusion program
(see sidebar on the National Ignition Facility earlier in this chapter) and its stated goal
was demonstration of fusion ignition. However, the costs had steadily escalated
beyond estimates and projections.35 A few years earlier, construction had risen from
$842.5 million to $1.046 billion and program costs were estimated at $1.2 billion.
Sandia’s approach to fusion had shown merit and advances, and, with the z-pinch
breakthrough, seemed even more viable. But despite years of predictions and
expectations, high-gain fusion has remained years away.36
In August 1998, an overview of Sandia’s pulsed power work titled “Fusion and the
Z-Pinch” appeared in the Scientific American, authored by Gerry Yonas, now a
Sandia vice president. In it, he advocated building the X-1, saying, “Z may achieve
fusion conditions; the National Ignition Facility should achieve ignition; and X-1,
building on the lessons of the National Ignition Facility, should achieve high
yield.” The drawback was that X-1 was estimated to cost more than $1 billion,
clearly impossible in view of the rising costs at the National Ignition Facility. 37 (See
130 following sidebar on Yonas 1998 Pulsed Power Award.)
 from the ’90s to ZR
Internal priorities at Sandia came into play at this point. The Labs had developed
a proposal to build a Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications (MESA)
facility, estimated to cost $300 million. Of that, $10 million was being requested for
the immediate fiscal year so that the project could get under way and be completed
by 2005. MESA figured into Sandia’s historic role in the nuclear weapons complex of
developing the electronic switches and other non-nuclear components of weapons.
With the shift from developing and testing new weapons components and systems to
assuring the reliability of an existing stockpile of aging weapons, Sandia intended to
use MESA to develop and test microsystems that could be used not only in weapons
refurbishment but with high-tech commercial applications as well. Knowing that
two top-dollar proposals to the Department of Energy in the same fiscal year was
not advisable and unlikely to succeed, Sandia opted to request funds for the MESA
project and to postpone requesting funds for X-1. (A facility, ZX, intermediate in
energy between Z and X-1, was also considered for a time.)38
A refurbishment of the Z machine had been a fall-back possibility even as the X-1
proposal was being made, and Sandia began in 1999 a plan to modernize Z into
a machine called Z-Mod. The primary mission outlined for the program at this
point was to support the immediate needs of the Department of Energy’s Stockpile
Stewardship Program. And too, the international pulsed power community was
extremely interested in Sandia’s z-pinch technology and recognized the Labs as a
leader in the field. France, Russia, and Japan began collaborations with Sandia to
improve their own capabilities with z pinches for high-energy-density physics.
Still desirable for nuclear weapons simulations was the capability to emulate the
entire spectrum of x rays from nuclear explosions to validate the physical models
that formed the foundation of computer simulations. Because new components and
microsystems were being developed for the stockpile, the need to test them in the
laboratory was urgent. For this, Z and later Z-Mod could provide near-term weapons
science and fusion experiments, recognizing that the National Ignition Facility
was some years from realizing its goal of fusion. By this time, the Nova laser, a
workhorse in weapons simulation work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
had been closed because of the escalating costs of the National Ignition Facility.
Early in 1999, Paul Robinson became president of Sandia, and a major transition
occurred in upper management slots. Pulsed Power Sciences returned to the
research side of the house, its traditional home, and radiation sciences, including
the pulsed power accelerators other than Z, remained in the Nuclear Weapons
organization. Yonas became principal scientist and head of a new Advanced
Concepts Group. Pace VanDevender assumed duties as Sandia’s Chief Information
Officer. Don Cook, who had overseen the successful transition to Z, agreed to leave
pulsed power to head up the enormous MESA project where the new components for
the stockpile would be developed. Jeff Quintenz became director of the program. His
deputies, Keith Matzen and Dillon McDaniel, were pulsed power veterans, having
contributed to imploding foil (z-pinch) work as it evolved through the years.
131
Final Results of Sandia’s Ion-Beam Research
When the decision was made in 1997 to cease energy plant. The extraction diode results
the ion-beam effort and channel Sandia’s looked good enough in 1995 that PBFA II was
inertial confinement fusion funds and exper- slated to operate in 1996 for six months as
tise into z-pinch research, a small core group PBFA-X (for extraction) and for six months as
of researchers was tasked with closing the PBFA-Z, driving z-pinches for a needed weap-
effort out within a year.a Reflecting nearly ten ons effect project.
years later on what was accomplished, and As explained by Tom Mehlhorn, the technical
acknowledging that it was wise to go with the situation was the following:
obviously more successful z-pinch approach,
Mike Cuneo and Tom Mehlhorn couldn’t help The PBFA II lithium beam intensity was
wondering whether the tricky ion-beam tech- limited by the 24-mrad ion beam divergence
nology could have finally been perfected. resulting from the passive LiF source diver-
gence and the divergence generated by wave-
The results were tempting enough in 1997/98 particle interactions between instabilities in
to make them hopeful. Although it is by now the diode electron sheath and the ion beam
a moot point, the strategy for finishing a (electromagnetic divergence). Further, the
series of validating experiments remains in a ion power was limited to about 6 terawatts
notebook in Cuneo’s office, and the tantaliz- by a parasitic load. Experiments on PBFA II
ing ‘what ifs’ connected to continued funding and the SABRE accelerators have identified
and more time are not completely forgotten. the parasitic load as contaminant ions that
In the end, most of the people working in the are desorbed as neutrals in the anode and
ion-beam program transitioned over to some ionized during the machine pulse. In FY95
aspect of z-pinch research, bringing with them we reduced the parasitic load and increased
valuable experience and knowledge that per- the lithium current density by a factor of 3
tained directly to it. to 4 on the SABRE extraction diode through
Closeout on SABRE anode cleaning. . . (PBFA-X) generated a
From 1979/80 until 1995, Sandia tried out record 4 terawatts of lithium power from an
several types of applied-B barrel-type ion extraction ion diode using a laser-produced
diodes to form particle beams on a succession ion source. The lithium beam divergence was
of water-line machines: Proto I, Proto II, PBFA 38 + 8 mrad in these initial experiments.b
I and PBFA II. In 1989, Juan Ramirez and his The discovery of the link between parasitic
group built a 10-megavolt machine called loads limiting the energy output and con-
SABRE (Sandia Accelerator and Beam Re- tamination on the electrode surfaces within
search Experiment) with $2 million saved from the diode was important. The need for clean-
building Hermes III as a test bed that could ing was one of the reasons for shifting to the
be fired many more times than PBFA II and at extraction diode on PBFA II. The SABRE team
less cost. After SABRE was completed, new was working toward an active (pre-formed)
concepts for ion diodes that allowed the beam plasma source of lithium ions for the beam,
to be extracted and propagated were tried out and contaminants—ignored as factors in the
while the main thrust of ion-beam research past—were determined to be detrimental. For
was being carried out using barrel diodes on this reason, a pure lithium ion source was the
PBFA II. (With the same technology as Hermes goal. Also, a pre-formed, pure lithium source
III, SABRE was a companion piece to the older was crucial to being able to limit the diver-
HELIA, which had been the successful proto- gence of the beam. (The effect of contami-
type for Hermes III, and a Ramirez design as nants in pulsed power technologies generally
well. HELIA was a high-energy linear induction was a factor that then became integrated into
accelerator also used to try out new diode future work on Z.c)
concepts, notably for proton beams.) When PBFA II became Z in 1996 because of
David Hanson, Cuneo, and Peter Menge the unexpected outstanding results with z
formed the core of a team that used SABRE pinches, the extraction diode ion-beam work
beginning in 1992 to develop an extraction went back to SABRE, where it continued until
diode for possible use on the more powerful the end of 1998. Cuneo credits Jeff Quintenz,
PBFA II. Such a diode would theoretically allow then the Inertial Confinement Fusion program
the beam to be propagated in a channel, a manager, with giving the team an additional
necessity for the standoff required in a fusion year to close out the work that had occupied

132
many Sandians and contractors for decades. Ten years later, Cuneo mused, “Well, we al-
One mitigating factor in the decision to go with most brought them together.” He likened the
Z was that the goal of the national inertial con- operation of an ion diode to that of a Swiss
finement program at this time was simply fu- watch, saying: there are many separate parts,
sion ignition and the z-pinch approach seemed cogs, gears, hands, springs, that all have to be
to be the faster way to reach that goal. present simultaneously, and working exactly in
precise relationship to each other to achieve
In the end, the high-brightness light-ion
the goal of keeping time. These four condi-
beams required for fusion energy were never tions necessary for ion diodes to generate
achieved, but whether they could be is another high-quality ion beams can be thought of in
matter. In a paper by Mike Cuneo and his the same way.
collaborators summarizing the final effort to
achieve such beams, the results are as follows:
Experimental and theoretical work over the
last six years shows that high-brightness

Final Results of Sandia’s Ion-Beam Research

beams meeting the requirements for an
inertial confinement fusion energy-injector a Primary SABRE extraction diode team members from
could be possible, but require the simultane- 1992-1998 were M.E. Cuneo, D.L. Hanson, A.B. Filuk,
R.A. Vesey, D.F. Wenger, W.E. Fowler, D.J. Johnson,
ous integration of at least four conditions: R.G. Adams, J.E. Bailey, M.P. Desjarlais, S.A. Slutz,
1) rigorous vacuum cleaning techniques for T.D. Pointon, T.A. Mehlhorn, P. R. Menge, C.L. Olson,
control of undesired anode, cathode, and R. Johnston, B. Clark, T.R. Lockner, R.S. Coates, C.L. Ruiz,
ion source plasma formation from electrode W.A. Stygar, J.W. Poukey, J.R. Smith, J.E. Maenchen,
contaminants to control impurity ions and R.W. Stinnett, D.R. Welch, D. Nielsen, J. Armijo,
M.A. Bernard, G.R. Ziska, J.M. McKenney, and J.R. Chavez.
impedance collapse; 2) carefully tailored
b T.A. Mehlhorn, “Intense Ion Beams for Inertial Confinement
insulating magnetic field geometry for Fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 25,
radially uniform beam generation; 3) high No. 6, Dec. 1997: 1336-1356.
magnetic fields and other techniques to c M.E. Cuneo, P.R. Menge, G.L. Hanson, W.E. Fowler,
control the electron sheath and the onset of M.A. Bernard, G.R. Ziska, A.B. Filuk, T.D. Pointon,
high divergence electromagnetic instability R.A. Vesey, D.R. Welch, J.E. Bailey, M.P. Desjarlais,
T.R. Lockner, T.A. Mehlhorn, S.A. Slutz, and M.A. Stark,
that couples strongly to the ion beam; and “Results of Vacuum Cleaning Techniques on the Perfor-
4) a pre-formed (“active”), pure, uniform mance of LiF Field-Threshold Ion Sources on Extraction
lithium plasma for improved uniformity and Applied-B Ion Diodes at 1-10 TW,” IEEE Transactions of
low source divergence which is compat- Plasma Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 1997: 229-251. See
ible with the above electron-sheath control also M.E. Cuneo, “The Effect of Electrode Contamination,
techniques. These four conditions have never Cleaning and Conditioning on High-Energy Pulsed-Power
Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectric and Electrical
been simultaneously present in any intense Insulation, Vol. 6, No. 4, August 1999: 469-485.
non-protonic ion beam experiment, but we have d M.E. Cuneo, R.G. Adams, J.E. Bailey, M.P. Desjarlais,
demonstrated the effectiveness of each condi- A.B. Filuk, D.L. Hanson, D.J. Johnson, T.A. Mehlhorn,
tion in experimental tests. A major advance in P.R. Menge, C.L. Olson, T.D. Pointon, S.A. Slutz,
our understanding is that these conditions are R.A. Vesey, D.F. Wenger, and D.R. Welch, “Generating
High-Brightness Light Ion Beams for Inertial Fusion Energy,”
synergistic and tightly linked. We have brought
[paper IFP/14, Proceedings of the 17th IAEA Conference in
these four key technologies and the underlying Fusion Energy 1998 (2001 edition). Proceedings, C and S
physics understanding together on the SABRE Papers series no. 8/C, 4269 pages, ISSN 1562-4153;
accelerator (emphasis added).d see references in this paper to other important work in this
area.

133
Chapter Four
Highlights from Z
Pulsed Power Fusion Fire Understanding the world’s most powerful
Massive generators in the 33-m-diameter Z facility events
use a 20-million-ampere surge of electrical current Measuring the implosion that creates millions of
with enough energy to light a hundred homes for a degrees of radiation in only billionths of a second in
few minutes. The current is driven into a spool-sized a thimble-sized hohlraum challenges the ingenuity of
array of hundreds of tungsten wires enclosed in a researchers and the limits of physical devices. As
small metal container (a hohlraum) that serves as an fast and powerful as the implosion is, the instru-
oven to maintain uniform temperature. The goal is to ments that measure it must be an order of magni-
create an environment of intense heat that will pro- tude or so faster and able to record an enormous
duce a thermonuclear reaction. For a brief instant, range of outputs.
the hohlraum contains the seed of a miniature sun
that, with more refinement and research, will ignite
the long-sought fusion fire.
[Excerpted from Pulsed Power Fusion Fire, Sandia National
Laboratories
Fact Sheet,
SAND98-
2020.]

The Z Pinch on Z
A lightning bolt that
singes the air and
shatters a nearby
tree is one of nature’s most startling
displays of power. Now imagine a
bolt that carries 1,000 times more
electricity and finishes 20,000
times more quickly.
That’s the pulse that drives Sandia’s Z
accelerator—20 million amperes of current
that last 100-billionth of a second. In that short time,
the Z accelerator pulse causes a radiation implosion These measurements are the most critical part of
that produces even more impressive amounts of understanding not only Z results, but nuclear events
power—290 trillion watts (terawatts), or 80 times in general. More than ten kinds of instruments mea-
the capacity of all the electric plants in the world, for sure and record images of the intensity, duration,
4 billionths of a second. and spectrum of the x rays emitted from the z-pinch
In physics terms, Z produces outputs of 2 millon plasma and the walls of the hohlraum heated by the
joules of x-ray energy and working temperatures pinch. They obtain information using different and in-
of 150 electron volts, or about 1.8 million degrees dependent techniques so that critical measurements
Celsius. It is the Earth’s most powerful and efficient can be compared for accuracy.
laboratory radiation source. And it is pointing the [Excerpted from Instrumentation and Diagnostics: Understanding
the world’s most powerful events, Sandia National Laboratories
way for the design and validation of larger fusion
Fact Sheet, SAND98-2020.]
facilities.
From ICE to Fire—the Future of Pulsed Power
Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore labo-
High Energy Density Physics
ratories and defense agencies use Z to study the
basic properties of matter at high temperature and Over the past few years, the Z pulsed power
density, the physics of inertial confinement fusion, generator has become a premiere facility for high
and the survivability of hardware in the US nuclear energy density physics research by delivering
stockpile. 20-megamp load currents to create high magnetic
[Excerpted from The z pinch on Z: The world’s most powerful fields and pressures. The magnetic pressure can
radiation source, Sandia National Laboratories Fact Sheet, implode a wire-array z pinch, generating x-ray ener-
SAND98-2020.] gies approaching 2 megajoules at powers as high

134
134
as 200 terawatts for inertial confinement fusion,
radiation hydrodynamics, inertial fusion energy, and
astrophysics experiments.
Alternatively, the magnetic pressure can directly
drive isentropic compression experiments (ICE) to
2.5 Mbar and accelerate flyer plates to more than
20 km/second for equation-of-state experiments.
The Z Refurbishment Project will increase the shot
capacity and precision, as well as provide a modest
increase in the load current to 26 megamps. The
increased current should enable more than 50%
increases in the x-ray energy and power for inertial
confinement fusion and radiation physics experi-
ments, drive isentropic compression experiments
in excess of 10 Mbar, and accelerate flyer plates to
velocities approaching 40 km/second.
[Excerpted from M. Keith Matzen, From ICE to Fire—the Future of
Pulsed Power High Energy Density Physics, SAND2002-1164A).

Caught in the grip of a crushing magnetic force:

New technique tests, may create, materials
Z increases pressures from zero to a million atmo-
spheres in a few billionths of a second in a new tech-
nique called isentropic compression experiments or
ICE for short. It is far faster and less expensive than
any way available to test materials over a wide range
of stress. Project head Clint Hill said the technique
would cut costs by an order of magnitude compared
with others.
For isentropic compression experiments, scientists
remove the cylindrical target array of fine wires in Z,
and in their place, insert a target of four plates, each
a bit bigger than a postage stamp, several millime-
ters thick and arranged at right angles to each other
like a tiny fort. The massive incoming current creates
a rapidly increasing magnetic compression through
each plate that acts as a kind of ram against materi- Marcus Knudson, calls it the fastest gun in
als secured there. Hill said that the pressure wave Z the world. Z propels dime-sized pellets called
generates travels through material at 4500 to 9000 flyer plates only a few hundred millimeters
m per second, five to 10 times faster than a bullet to gain information on the effect of high-
from a conventional firearm. Such pressure pulses velocity impacts. The plates are accelerated
would be important assets in shock physics. in the vacuum chamber at the core of Z. It
is the fastest, most accurate, and cheapest
Highlights from Z
[Excerpted from “Caught in the grip of a crushing magnetic
force: New technique tests, may create, materials,” Sandia method to determine how materials will react
National Laboratories News Release, August 30, 2000.] under high pressures and temperatures,
Magnetic field shocklessly shoots pellets characteristics that can then be expressed
20 times faster than rifle bullet in formulas called equations of state. Such
equations tell researchers how materials will
The machine that generates a magnetic field react if basic conditions like pressure and
to accelerate pellets faster than anything temperature are changed by specific amounts.
in the world except a nuclear explosion has
[Excerpted from “Magnetic field shocklessly shoots pellets 20
been dubbed the fastest gun in the West, times faster than rifle bullet,” Sandia National Laboratories
but lead Sandia scientist on the project, News Release, February 21, 2001.]

135
 Pace VanDevender Receives Gerold Yonas Receives
E.O. Lawrence Award Peter Haas Pulsed
—One of the Department of Energy’s top Power Award
scientific awards
Sandia Lab News, May 15, 1992 In 1991, Gerold Yonas received
Pace VanDevender, Director of Pulsed Power the Peter Haas Pulsed Power
Sciences, has been selected to receive the Award through the IEEE
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Memorial Award, Nuclear and Plasma Science
which recognizes outstanding contributions Society. Begun in 1987, the
Pace VanDevender and Gerold Yonas

in science and engineering fields related to award is given every other year
atomic energy. to recognize individuals whose
efforts over an extended period
VanDevender is being recognized in the resulted in important pulsed power
physics category for his “outstanding programs and the growth of important
contributions to the generation of pulsed areas of activity including research, education,
power.” The Department of Energy applications and information exchange. The
announcement read, “He has demonstrated award is presented at the IEEE International
new concepts and designs for magnetically Pulsed Power Conference. (Sandia’s
insulated transmission lines, dielectric Dillon McDaniel won the award in 2001.)
and magnetic pulse forming switches, and
magnetically inhibited flashover, and has “Still-living Gerry Yonas accepts renamed
played a central role in the design of new pulsed power prize”
accelerators generating high-intensity, short In June 1998, in Israel, Sandia VP Gerry
pulsed beams.” Yonas had the opportunity not only to receive
Receive Awards

“This was a total surprise,” VanDevender said. an award for decades of work in the field of
“I was really humbled by the news because pulsed power, but to have the new biannual
I respect the people who’ve been given the prize itself named for him.
award in the past. I was also excited on behalf When Yonas turned down the honor because
of Sandia because people don’t win these he “wasn’t dead yet,” the following question
kinds of awards in isolation. I’m fully aware arose before the 18 learned members of the
that I’m one person in the midst of ‘big sci- advisory committee of the International Con-
ence.’ So I hope that every Sandian and every ference on High-Power Particle Beams: Which
member of Pulsed Power Sciences can take was it Yonas had turned down—the award, or
pleasure in this award and see that it is a the naming of the prize after him?
recognition of the quality of the science that
is done at Sandia.” As things worked out, the one Sandia member
of the committee, Don Cook, said “We had a
VanDevender considered the award particu- hard decision. We either could change Gerry’s
larly timely. “Since we are under the gun for status to be no longer among the living, or re-
a series of six milestones to be reviewed by name the prize.”
the federal advisory committee on inertial
fusion this fall, the award takes on a special This conundrum was solved when the council
meaning. I think the award is a statement of decided to recognize Yonas as one of the living,
support from the Department of Energy that rename the prize, and award it to him. The
the quality of science we do at Sandia in the newly named 1998 Beams Prize Award was
inertial fusion program is likely to make us given to Yonas in recognition of his leader-
successful, because I don’t think they give this ship in the area of pulsed power, high-power
award with the expectation that the program particle beams, and intense sources of radia-
will fail. And of course having the visibility of tion, and his nurturing and encouragement of
our program at this time is worth much more the pulsed power community for more than
than the $10,000 award.” 20 years.
Yonas initiated the conference in Albuquerque in
Pace VanDevender with Area IV’s Starburst 1975. It has since been held around the world.
sculpture—actually the power flow section of [Condensed from the Sandia Lab News article of August 28,
Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator I, removed 1998.]
when the accelerator was converted into the
Saturn x-ray simulator. (Sandia Lab News,
May 15, 1992)

136
136
 from the ’90s to ZR
Quintenz found himself reporting to two men who were also new to their positions:
Al Romig, Vice President for Research, the line organization for Pulsed Power
Sciences, and Tom Hunter, who headed Nuclear Weapons Programs. At their
suggestion, Quintenz and his management team drafted a plan for Pulsed Power
Sciences that would guide it into the future and exercise the expertise in designing
big pulsed power machines that had not been used since creating Hermes III
years ago. Called “Pulsed Power Path Forward: A Strategy for Leadership,” the
plan outlined the need for a modernization of Z that would double the radiation
produced by the z pinch, increase the reliability and shot rate of Z, and reduce the
cost of operations. To achieve these benefits would involve improvements in several
areas of pulsed power technology in which Sandia traditionally excelled. The plan
stressed how the modernization could significantly contribute to the needs of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and to international collaborations in pulsed power
technology. In the end, for political reasons, the modernization or upgrade to Z was
called the Z Refurbishment Project, and both Hunter and Romig endorsed it.39
Little more than a year later, the Pulsed Power Sciences Center was reviewed by the
Garwin Committee. Its findings, released in June 2000, gave the Labs’ Pulsed Power
Program high marks on every count and strongly endorsed the upgrade of Z, calling
pulsed power at Sandia an important national asset and encouraging collaboration
with Russia, France, and other countries to leverage work being done abroad.40 The
committee backed Sandia’s continued long-range vision of fusion ignition, and
beyond that to obtain more energy from the reaction than had gone into it—the
long-standing Holy Grail in fusion physics. High-yield fusion in the laboratory
would provide an enhanced capability in radiation effects, weapons science, and
inertial fusion energy.41
Jeff Quintenz
But for the time being, the committee felt the Z refurbishment was a prudent step
toward that vision, promising to shed important light on the feasibility of inertial
confinement fusion in the lab, and at the same time serving as a more powerful
contributor to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Other aspects of the Pulsed
Power Program receiving kudos and encouragement were for materials physics
studies and radiography. At this time, the national fusion program recommended
substituting the term ‘high-energy-density physics’ both for inertial confinement
fusion and weapons science work. Such physics is characterized as studying extreme
states of matter, such as plasmas, revealing “a universe of colossal agitation and
tempestuous change.”42
At the same time as these developments, using inertial confinement fusion for
peaceful production of electricity had always been of interest to Sandia’s Pulsed
Power Sciences. Sandia’s concept was to use repetitive pulsed power to drive a
fusion reactor. As director, Don Cook supported light-ion-fusion power-plant studies
and, following him, Jeff Quintenz supported similar studies using z-pinch drivers.
Z-pinch inertial fusion energy complements and extends the single-shot z-pinch
fusion program on Z to a repetitive, high-yield power plant scenario that can be
137
Chapter Four
used for the production of electricity, and also, for example, transmutation of
nuclear waste, hydrogen production, and desalination of water, with no production
of CO2 and no long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. Z-pinch then became the newest
of the three major approaches to inertial fusion energy (the others are heavy ion
and laser fusion).
Before 1998, no one believed there was a way to make a repetitive z-pinch machine
for inertial fusion energy. But about 1998, several concepts for repetitive z pinches
were beginning to be proposed and assessed. Sandia’s Craig Olson gave the first
talk on the final results of the light-ion fusion program and the start of the Z
program approach to fusion energy at the first joint magnetic fusion energy/inertial
fusion energy meeting in the fall of 1998. Subsequently, researchers from Sandia
(including Steve Slutz, Mark Derzon, Gary Rochau, Greg Rochau, and Olson),
Lawrence Livermore (Jim Hammer and Dmitri Ryutov), and the Naval Research
Laboratory (Gerry Cooperstein and his team) contributed to several initial z-pinch
power plant concepts.
The concept of a recyclable transmission line, as conceived and developed by the
same Sandia team, quickly became the mainline concept. (Please see following
sidebar on Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy.) Under Olson’s leadership, Z-pinch inertial
fusion energy began to play a major role nationally.43 Initial research from 1999-
2003 was supported by special corporate research funding (Laboratory Directed
Research and Development) up to $300,000 annually. The Z-pinch Inertial
Fusion Energy Program grew into a 19-member collaborative team supported by a
Congressional Initiative for $4 million in both fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and again
by Sandia’s corporate research funding ($2.6 million) in fiscal year 2006. This
research addressed critical issues and led to the concept for z-pinch inertial fusion
energy being accepted by the broader fusion community.44 However, the funding
future for fiscal year 2007 and beyond for z-pinch inertial fusion energy, for heavy
ion fusion, and laser fusion is uncertain. For the last decade, there has been no
home for inertial fusion energy within the Department of Energy.
Sandia began the time-consuming process of developing a plan to upgrade the Z
Machine for the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.
The project was soon officially named ZR, for refurbishment of Z; Z remained the
name of the accelerator. In June of the following year, 2001, a review that Sandia
had requested supported the ZR project and recommended that funding be included
in the High Energy Density Program budget because of its importance to Stockpile
Stewardship. The estimate to refurbish Z was approximately $60 million in 2001.
(Please see following sidebar on Refurbishment of Z: ZR.)
Experiments continued on Z, and in mid-2001, in its first use as a diagnostic tool
for the accelerator, the giant Z-Beamlet laser documented what was happening
inside the hohlraum, the outer part of the target that generates the x rays, which
surround and heat the fusion capsule. (In August 1998, the Beamlet laser had
138
 from the ’90s to ZR
been transferred to Sandia from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to use
as an x-ray backlighter for hydrodynamic experiments. It was reassembled at
Sandia and modernized in a $13 million project.) (Please see following sidebar on
Z-Beamlet.) An x-ray radiograph produced by Z-Beamlet showed that Z spherically
compressed a simulated fusion pellet during a shot with the newly developed
double-z pinch or double-ended hohlraum.45 Fusion was thought to require a factor
of 30 compression, beyond the utmost capability of Z; however, the diagnostic photo
revealed that the technology was definitely on the right track. A number of papers
were published, many in Physical Review Letters, describing Z-beamlet work in
detail, initiated by John Porter and his department.46
Sandia announced a significant step toward the compression needed for fusion in
the spring of 2003 at a meeting of the American Physical Society. In March, Z had
created a hot, dense plasma that produced thermonuclear neutrons. Theoretical
predictions agreed with experimental results: a yield of 10 billion neutrons. Neutron
pulses had been observed late the previous summer, and the March experiments
demonstrated that neutron production had been in the capsule (hohlraum).47
Compressing plasmas, an action that produces neutrons, is a crucial part of
realizing fusion ignition. Again, a stream of papers described the results.48
The following year, the National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
$61.7 million to refurbish Z. Of overriding immediate importance was Z’s ability
to provide data for supercomputer simulations of nuclear weapons explosions and
tests of materials under extreme conditions. Ultimately, the refurbishment of Z
should enable more insight into z pinches and the possibility for high-yield fusion. Keith Matzen became director in 2005.
Scheduled to last two years, the overhaul involves installing 36 new and more
powerful Marx generators of exactly the same size as the 21-year-old originals in
PBFA II. From the outset, the refurbished Z has been designed for the high currents
suited to z pinches, not for the high voltages that lithium-ion beams needed and for
which PBFA II had originally been designed. The trigger switches, too, have been
designed to be upgraded and converted to a system in which each switch could be
individually controlled, improving the ability of researchers to shape the pulse of
electrical current in each of the 36 transmission lines emanating from the Marxes.
The refurbished facility offers improvements on every front. The high currents used
to vaporize tiny tungsten wires are to be increased from 18 million to 26 million
amps. The peak emissions of x rays should rise from 230 to 350 terawatts, and the
x-ray energy output from 1.6 to 2.7 megajoules. The number of possible shots per
year could be expected to double, from 200 to approximately 400. The refurbished
machine is expected to support the weapons program and materials work at
Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore. Furthermore, it is expected to contribute to
the national inertial confinement fusion program, complementing the National
Ignition Facility.♦
139
Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy
The day after Sandia announced its observation The recyclable transmission line is central to
of fusion neutrons during an experiment on Z, a standoff scheme that emerged in 1998/99,
the New York Times linked the success to the and quickly became the mainline concept for
possibility of at last being able to harness fu- z-pinch inertial fusion energy. The concept
sion for energy, one goal of the US fusion pro- is to make the final transmission line out
gram since its earliest days. Titled “New Fusion of a solid coolant material (e.g., Flibe—a
Method Offers Hope of binary salt) or a
New Energy Source” material that is easily
and featuring a color separable from the
photo of Z in action, coolant (e.g., carbon
the April 8, 2003, ar- steel). As shown in the
ticle contrasted the in- figure, the recyclable
ertial confinement and transmission line
magnetic confinement would enter the fusion
conceptual techniques power-plant chamber
for producing com- through a single
mercial power: hole at the top of
The Sandia experi- the chamber (~1 m
ments, by compari- radius), and extend
son [with magnetic into the chamber a
confinement] could distance of two or
lead to something more meters. The line
more like an internal would bend at the
combustion engine, top of the chamber,
in which power is and upper shielding
generated through a The Recyclable Transmission Line concept for Z-Pinch would be placed
series of explosions. Inertial Fusion Energy above it. In operation,
“Squirt in a little bit the recyclable
of fuel, explode it,” transmission line/
Dr. Jeff Quintenz said. “Squirt in a little bit of target assembly would be inserted, the shot
fuel, explode it.” . . . But designing a machine fired, portions of the line would be vaporized
that could detonate controlled thermonuclear and finally be mixed with the coolant to be
explosions in quick succession—and survive recycled. The upper remnant of the line would
them—is an engineering challenge that scien- be removed, and the cycle would be repeated.
tists have only begun to think about. The present strategy for z-pinch inertial
fusion energy is to use high-yield targets
In actuality, by 2003 Sandia had been work- (~3 gigajoules per shot) and low repetition
ing on the challenges related to inertial fusion rate per chamber. Initial experiments at the
energy for some time, and continues to do so. 10-megamp level on Saturn led by Steve
One important area is developing the capacity Slutz were successfully used to study the
to fire a high-current pulsed power machine electrical current initiation in the recyclable
repetitively to allow for repetitive explosion. transmission line, the line’s low-mass limit,
The norm for such machines has always been and the line’s electrical conductivity.
one shot a day. Another area is the target; at
that time, as now, they are precisely designed The concept for z-pinch inertial fusion energy
and experimental. Once an optimum target requires a repetitive pulsed power driver. The
has been developed, then the challenge will be idea for a linear transformer driver, as devel-
to pulse the machine several times a minute, oped under the leadership of Michael Maz-
like a gas-fired engine, with each pulse creat- arakis, emerged as the mainline choice for
ing a fusion event within the target. The target z-pinch inertial fusion energy in 2002. This
chamber will have to be designed to capture technology is different from the Marx genera-
the energy from the shots and transmit it to tor/water line technology used on Z/ZR, be-
a power-producing system. The trick is to be cause in it, Marx generators and pulse-forming
able to quickly replace the targets and to de- lines are eliminated altogether. This concept
vise a suitable standoff scheme that will allow calls for a series of compact, low-inductance
repetitive operation. capacitors to be charged directly in parallel, in

140
a cylindrical formation, at a moderate voltage for Z, whose primary mission had always been
(~100 kilovolts). A series of switches next to regarded as weapons work.
the capacitors, and in the same cylindrical Since 1999, the pieces of the puzzle needed
formation, switches the charged capacitors to use z pinch for inertial fusion energy have
directly to apply voltage to a single, inductively been coming together at Sandia, and enabled
isolated gap. By proper selection of compact, the 2003 New York Times hopeful predictions.
low-inductance capacitors, pulse lengths on Work on recyclable transmission lines, repeti-
the order of 100 nanoseconds can be achieved tive rate operation, and target and chamber
directly—and this is the typical pulse length designs has moved to the point that Olson
desired to drive a z-pinch fusion target. To can be cautiously optimistic. Though admit-
reach higher voltages, a series of modules ting it has been an uphill battle to get z-pinch
is stacked into an inductive voltage-adder technology accepted in the fusion arena, Olson
configuration. In addition, linear transformer said z-pinch inertial fusion energy at Sandia
drivers are well-suited for repetitive opera- was funded for $4 million in FY 2004 by Con-
tion. The concept was pioneered at the High gressional initiative. In addition, in its review
Current Electronics Institute (HCEI) in Tomsk, of the national Inertial Fusion Energy Program
Russia, and a single 0.5-megamp linear trans- in the spring of 2004, the Fusion Energy Sci-
former driver cavity has operated repetitively ence Advisory Committee formally recognized
at Sandia with 10.25 seconds between shots. the synergy between weapons-related inertial
This is the rate needed for a z-pinch inertial confinement fusion research and energy ap-
fusion energy power plant. (Five 1.0-megamp plications, particularly where basic physics
cavities have been operated in a voltage-adder issues span both areas. The report concludes:
configuration at Tomsk.) “In sum, the Inertial Fusion Energy Panel is of
The proposed technology for z-pinch inertial the unanimous opinion that the inertial fusion
fusion energy uses a thick liquid wall chamber. energy program is technically excellent and
The coolant (typically Flibe) is used to absorb that it contributes in ways that are noteworthy
the neutron energy, breed tritium, and shield to the ongoing missions of the Department of
the structural wall from neutrons. Initial work Energy.”
at Sandia on this area was by Mark Derzon, Sandia’s Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy team
Greg Rochau, and Gary Rochau. Further encompasses staff in the research (1000)

Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy

neutronics studies (from the University of and energy (6000) areas of the Laboratory,
Wisconsin and Lawrence Livermore National and involves researchers at Lawrence Liver-
Laboratory) indicate that wall lifetimes of more National Laboratory; Los Alamos Na-
about 40 years are now possible. Thick liq- tional Laboratory; Naval Research Laboratory;
uid walls essentially eliminate the ‘first wall Argonne National Laboratory; University of
problem’ (common to all magnetic fusion California, Berkeley; University of Wisconsin;
schemes and to dry-wall inertial fusion energy University of California, Los Angeles; Univer-
schemes). Such walls lead to a faster devel- sity of California, Davis; Georgia Tech; Uni-
opment path for fusion energy, since no new versity of Alabama; Texas A&M; Hobart and
neutron test facilities are required. Extensive William Smith College; General Atomics; Voss
work on z-pinch inertial fusion power plants Scientific; SAIC; the Institute of High Current
continued at Sandia during FY 2004-FY 2006. Electronics-Tomsk, Russia; and the Kurchatov
Moreover, recyclable transmission lines, linear Institute, Moscow, Russia.
transformer drivers, and thick liquid walls are
[Sources: Interview with Craig Olson, May 2004 and January
also applicable to a single-shot inertial con- 2007; Craig Olson, “Inertial Fusion Energy,” presentation to the
finement fusion high-yield fusion facility, Advanced Concepts Group at Sandia, May 7, 2004; “A Review
of the Inertial Fusion Energy Program,” final report to the
A September 13, 1999, news release from Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee, March 29, 2004;
Sandia about the first Snowmass Fusion Robert Conn, “Reflections on Fusion’s History and Implications
Summer Study said that scientists at the for Fusion’s Future,” paper based on invited talk at the Snow-
mass meeting, July 11-23, 1999 (copies in the Van Arsdall
conference “placed z pinches on the list for collection, Sandia archives.)]
recommended scientific exploration as an
energy source.” This was a real breakthrough

141
Refurbishment of Z: ZR
Several important reasons factored into the Congress appropriated $10 million in October
need to refurbish Z. By 1999, only three years 2002 to begin the refurbishment of Z, known
after PBFA II was permanently converted into as the ZR Project. With concurrence of the Na-
Z, increased demand for Z shots had exceeded tional Nuclear Security Administration, San-
the capacity of the machine by a factor of 2. dia’s Nuclear Weapons Program allocated an
More users were asking for shots and they additional $50 million to ZR in 2003-2007 for
needed Z to be a stable, precision platform for engineering and hardware procurement within
a large number and variety of reliable, repro- the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
ducible experiments. Most of the hardware in program. Sandia’s Pulsed Power Technolo-
Z dated to 1985 when PBFA II was originally gies and Inertial Confinement Fusion program
constructed as a high-voltage machine to budgets applied about $30 million in other
drive ion beams rather than z pinches, which project costs to the ZR Project for component
require high current rather than high voltage. and subsystem development and for hardware
Moreover, Z was not designed to handle daily installation.
operation at greater than 18 megamperes. Z
had been heavily relied upon since 1997 as a
workhorse for weapons physics and weapons
effects programs, for basic research, and for
research into critical material properties and
equations of state.

142
 from the ’90s to ZR
The redesign and upgrade of the major sec-
tions of the 22-year-old Z will enable signifi-
cant improvements in its reliability, overall
robustness and maintenance, potentially
allowing 25 to 40% more shots using ap-
proximately the same number of personnel.
The redesigned pulsed power drive system
improves the efficiency of energy transfer and
the additional energy storage capacity enables
higher delivered load current. By incorporating
individual control of key timing components, a
range of pulse widths and shapes can be pro-
vided that were not possible on Z. Improved
precision of the delivered pulse will be particu-
larly useful to scientists working to validate the
nuclear stockpile. Modern capacitor technol-
ogy will allow the refurbished Z to double the
amount of energy stored in the same volume,
providing 40% increase in current.
The overall goal of the project is to achieve—
routinely and often—more current to the load
with high precision and flexibility. The project
goals are to
1. Enable the facility and diagnostics infra-
structure to support a higher number of
experiments per year.
2. Provide enhanced precision, improved
timing jitter, and advanced pulse shaping
capability needed for full parameter space
assessment for materials of interest to the
Stockpile Stewardship Program.
3. Provide a useful increase in current; i.e.,
26 megamps into a standard z-pinch load
(compared to 18 megamps on Z).

Refurbishment of Z: ZR

143
Chapter Four
Z-Beamlet
Uniform compression of a fusion capsule is an Z-Beamlet creates a bright x-ray source behind
essential step in creating controlled nuclear the fusion capsule when Z is fired; the x rays
fusion. Using Sandia’s Z accelerator, the x rays penetrate the capsule and make direct images
from a z pinch compress the capsule, and the of objects inside it. Such a diagnostic tool is
Z-Beamlet images the compression so it can called an x ray backlighter.
be studied and modeled. Z-Beam- In a burst of energy only a
let is a $30 million laser fraction of a billionth
that was originally at of a second long, Z
Lawrence Liver- Beamlet takes
more National an x-ray
Laboratory. snapshot
Built in of the
1994,

it
was BB-
used sized
as a fusion
proto- capsule in-
type for the side the cen-
National Ignition tral chamber of
Facility. Measur- the firing Z machine.
ing 30 m long, it is one Z-Beamlet Facility In a special x-ray camera,
of largest pulsed lasers in the developed at Sandia specifi-
world. cally for the Z experiments, curved crystals
In the fall of 1998, Livermore’s Beamlet was are used to focus the Z-Beamlet x-rays into a
disassembled and shipped to Sandia to be detailed image of the fusion experiment. This
reassembled and configured specifically to new camera system produces significantly
take x-ray pictures of plasmas created by Z. more detailed images than the original ‘point
In the transition, it was renamed Z-Beamlet. projection’ camera that merely records an x-
ray shadow of the target.
144
144
 from the ’90s to ZR
Z-Beamlet is housed inside a former and a means of compressing the final pulse,
warehouse adjacent to the Z facility. This which advanced the state of the art in the de-
warehouse was converted into a state-of-the- sign of such compressors. One crucial compo-
art clean room required by a laser before nent of a petawatt laser is a laser source that
Beamlet arrived from California. Its beam is capable of producing the very short pulses
travels 68.5 m from the warehouse and turns required at the beginning of the system.
downward 90 degrees into Z, where it is Z-Beamlet has developed such a short pulse
focused to a small spot about the diameter of system over several years and has operated
a human hair. Because the laser pulse delivers the laser at the one-tenth petawatt level, using
all its energy in about 1 nanosecond, it is a small scale compressor, while performing
extremely powerful. experiments to develop
It then strikes a in imaging techniques
metal plate and necessary to allow the
the plate releases short pulse petawatt
x rays. The entire laser to be used on Z
laser system is run experiments. Petawatt
and monitored by an development is timed
elaborate computer to take advantage of
control system, the pause in routine
an enhancement operation while Z
incorporated into is being upgraded.
Z-Beamlet when it During the pause, the
came to Sandia. necessary final large-
The entire project scale modifications
to reassemble the will be made to boost
recycled Livermore the short pulse from
laser cost $12.875 the tenth petawatt lev-
million, took three el to the full petawatt
years to complete, and capability and add the
required the talent and full-scale compressor
dedication of scores necessary for higher
of individuals from power operation.
John Porter, Manager, Z-Beamlet Facility (left) and
Lawrence Livermore Michael Hurst, Operations Coordinator, examine one of With the petawatt
and Sandia. Sandia’s the flashlamp cassettes used in the main amplifiers of capability, Z-Beamlet
John Porter was the the Z-Beamlet laser in August 2001. experiments will be
project director. conducted in the fol-
In the summer of lowing areas:
2001, Z-Beamlet was first used to image the Radiography. When a petawatt laser is a real-
compression of a fusion capsule inside the Z ity, it should provide x rays up to the megavolt
accelerator and confirmed that Z spherically range (instead of the <10 kilovolt range cur-
compressed it. The addition of the Z-Beamlet rently available). More penetrating x rays will
laser to the Z complex represented a revo- permit images to be made of denser materials
lutionary combination of technologies: the undergoing much more fleeting transforma-
efficiency of Z and the precision of Z-Beamlet. tions. These images could contribute valuable
The next step for Z-Beamlet is to modify the knowledge to the study of weapons effects and
laser to increase its peak power a thousand- fusion processes. Protons generated from the
fold from terawatts to petawatts. To increase petawatt laser-driven backlighting of targets
could be used to create a new kind of image
Z-Beamlet

the power of the laser pulse without damaging

laser components, a short pulse is stretched of materials, structures, and events.
out in time before passing through the laser Fast Ignitor Fusion Research. Although lasers
and amplified to high energy. Then, before it can be used to compress a target, at Sandia
strikes the pellet, it is compressed back into this function is performed by the Z accelerator.
an extremely short, high-power pulse. This However, the perfectly uniform compression
process, called Chirped Pulse Amplification, of the target that is required in fusion experi-
required extensive modification of Z-Beamlet ments is difficult to attain. Instead, a short,

145
145
 well-timed pulse from Z-Beamlet would act as and generate responses that are of great inter-
a spark plug to initiate a fusion burn in a less est to scientists. Although the exact nature
than perfectly compressed target, reducing the of the discoveries that might be produced is
required uniformity to achievable levels. This impossible to predict, the transmutation of
approach to fusion experiments may ultimate- materials and the production of exotic atomic
ly make it possible to produce more energy particles might be studied.
from experiments than is put into them, yield- [Sources include Sandia National Laboratories press releases
ing valuable insights into fusion processes. and Sandia Lab News stories about Z-Beamlet (for example,
However, its success depends on having a articles of August 24, 2001, January 11, 2002, March 22,
2002; the Z-Beamlet website (http://www.z-beamlet.sandia.
petawatt laser. gov/); the 2005 technical paper by M. Keith Matzen et al. on
“Pulsed-power-driven high energy density physics and inertial
Pure Physics. The extremely high power levels confinement fusion research” fully referenced in the sidebar
to which target materials could be exposed on Fusion Concepts in this chapter; and input from I.C. Smith,
may produce reactions that are unexpected P.K. Rambo, B.W. Atherton, and M.A. Sweeney of Sandia in 2007.]
Z-Beamlet

Telescope enclosure that provides beam transport to the Z-Accelerator facility

146
 from the ’90s to ZR

endnotes
1 US Department of Energy/Office of Security, Restricted Data Declassification Decisions
1946 to the Present, Section IX on Inertial Confinement Fusion; Official Use Only, RDD-8.
In 1990, the hohlraum (indirect drive) approach and much capsule data were declassified
except for certain areas, and in 1993, many calculations were declassified, again, with certain
exceptions. See the World Energy Council report, “Prospects on the Use of Inertial Nuclear
Fusion,” by G. Velarde, J.M. Martinez-Val, and S. Eliezer, Proceedings of the World Energy
Congress, Houston, 1998, outlining the history of US classification of inertial confinement
fusion from a European perspective. In fact, a major textbook on inertial confinement
fusion was written in 1989/90 and the indirect drive approach was entirely omitted because
of US scientists’ constraints. Newer sources cover the topic completely: see J.D. Lindl, Inertial
Confinement Fusion: The Quest for Ignition and Energy Gain Using Indirect Drive,
Springer-Verlag, 1998, and S. Atzeni and J. Meyer-Ter-Vehn, The Physics of Inertial Fusion,
Clarendon-Press, Oxford, 2004.
2 In 2006, Sluyter recalled that his support of the collaboration was motivated by his desire to
get Sandia’s Pulsed Power Program out of the rut it was in at the time and get some fresh
ideas from the outside.
3 VanDevender review of October 2, 2006, draft of this history and in an earlier interview with
Van Arsdall.

147
 4 Sandia Lab News, March 23, 1990. The article refers to the review as being “last December”
but it was in November 1989, as a number of presentations to the committee prove; copies
are in Pulsed Power Center Archives, PP6, and in Box 1/Van Arsdall. See also the Committee
for a Review of the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, “Review of
the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion Program; Interim Report,” National
Academy of Sciences, January 1990; in the Pulsed Power Center Archives at Sandia National
Laboratories archives, Box 1/Van Arsdall.
5 “Watkins mandated sweeping reforms to remedy years of inattention [in the areas of
environment, safety and health], forming an Office of Environmental Management and
boosting the budget until the Department of Energy had the largest environmental restoration
and waste management program in the world.” Leland Johnson, Sandia National
Laboratories: A History of Exceptional Service in the National Interest, SAND97-1029,
p. 309.
6 Sandia Lab News, March 23, 1990, “Don’t Just Fix the Symptoms: Tiger Team Training at
PBFA II Gives Lessons for All Sandia.” The article summarizes all the findings and concerns.
The Don Cook collection in the Sandia archives has a number of documents and memos
related to this incident; Box 2, Tiger Team.
7 Also in March 1990, the US General Accounting Office issued a Briefing Report to the
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, on “Nuclear Science:
Performance of Participants in Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion
Program.” It was complementary to the National Academy of Sciences review and did not
differ from the findings the National Academy of Sciences would make some months later.
The issue of decreasing support for continued funding of KMS Fusion, Inc., a private firm that
had been part of the inertial confinement fusion effort for more than ten years, is dealt with
in this report.
8 Albuquerque Tribune, September 20, 1990.
9 Sandia Lab News, October 18, 1991. “Pea-Size Targets Imploded by Ion Beam: PBFA II
Experiments Erase Doubts about Obtaining Data.”
10 Sandia Lab News, September 18, 1992. “Deeply Impressed by Labs’ Work: Bush Announces
Weapon Nonproliferation Initiative at Sandia,” and “Weapon Part Sculpted into Plowshare:
President Views Labs Technology, Receives Symbolic Gift.” The gift was a “Swords to
Plowshares” sculpture that artist Doug Weigel made out of material from a dismantled B61
nuclear weapon.
11 The United States instigated a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing beginning in October
1992 under President Bush. The moratorium continued under President Clinton until 1996,
when the United States signed the United Nations-sponsored Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT). It is still in effect, with the United States as a signatory; however, the Senate did not
ratify the CTBT when it came up in 1999. See the related Sandia Lab News article of May 15,
1992, “Watkins Testifies Against Nuclear Testing Moratorium Bill: Tests Maintain Stockpile
Safety, Security.”
12 For some time after approval of the National Ignition Facility, Sandia continued to plan to
scale up its pulsed power technology for the Laboratory Microfusion Facility, a national goal
that faded away. An intermediate facility, Jupiter, was also proposed.
13 See Leland Johnson, Sandia National Laboratories, note 5, pp. 352-357; Sandia Lab News,
December 16, 1994, “ ‘Science-based stewardship’ new long-term mission of the three nuclear
labs, Domenici tells Sandians.”

148
 from the ’90s to ZR
14 Cook Collection at Sandia, Box 1, folder labeled National Ignition Facility.
15 Olson also worked with the Heavy Ion Fusion program at Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence
Livermore on final beam transport for heavy ion beams beginning when the heavy ion fusion
program began in 1976.
16 This research was performed at Sandia and with Paul Ottinger et al. of Naval Research
Laboratory, Dale Welch et al. of Mission Research Corporation, and Simon Yu et al. of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. For the light-ion Laboratory Microfusion Facility,
and for a light-ion power plant study named LIBRA (developed over several years at the
University of Wisconsin), Olson developed an achromatic two-lens system. Extensive work
was also done on channel transport and self-pinched transport. Because an “extracted” ion
beam never became available for transport studies at Sandia, experiments were performed
with the GAMBLE II ion beam at Naval Research Laboratory, where a collaborative self-
pinched transport experiment was successfully performed near the end of the light-ion
fusion program. Results from all of these studies are included in several large proceedings:
(1) Workshop on Transport for a Common Ion Driver at Sandia, C. Olson, E. Lee, and
B. Langdon, September 20-21, 1994 (SAND95-0116, UC-712); (2) Ion Beam Uniformity,
Standoff Meeting Series at Sandia, four meetings March/April 1995; (3) Tri-Lab Meeting
at Livermore sponsored by Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Lawrence Berkeley national
laboratories, November 16-17, 1995 (UCRL-MI-123016); (4) Tri-Lab Ion ICF Meeting
at Sandia National Laboratories sponsored by Sandia, Lawrence Berkeley, and Lawrence
Livermore national laboratories December 17-18, 1996 (SAND98-0845); (5) Workshop on
Pinch Phenomena in Final Transport of Heavy Ion Beams, Danville, CA, February 13-15,
2001 (HIFAR-513, LBNL-47686).
17 See VanDevender/Powell memo, January 18, 1993, in Cook Collection, Box 2, Folder on
Jupiter. The memo says that Jupiter is a high priority for Sandia in preparation for an era with
reduced reliance on underground testing, but indicates the proposed project has not yet been
approved. It indicates that the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense/Defense
Nuclear Agency might partner to fund it as well as be potential customers for such a facility.
18 The Department of Energy chartered the Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee/
Defense Programs (ICFAC/DP) on April 14, 1992, which reported to the Assistant Secretary for
Defense Programs. Duties were to review the programs, meeting two to three times a year, and
report on technical and management aspects of the program. Cook Collection, Box 1, has a
large folder on the ICFAC/DP from 1992-1996.
19 Letter from V. Narayanamurti, chair of the ICFAC, to E.H. Beckner, acting Assistant Secretary
for Defense Programs, Department of Energy, April 12, 1993, on the results of the review. In
Cook Collection.
20 See W. Beezhold, R. Commisso, R.Gullickson, and R. Spielman, Jupiter Design Options
Study Team-Final Report, May 1995, 3 vols. (SAND94-3163), a feasibility study written at
the request of Juan Ramirez to help justify the Jupiter project to the Department of Energy
and Department of Defense. The pre-conceptual study was multi-disciplinary, lasted six
months and was completed in January 1994, and took almost a year to write. Jupiter was
envisioned as an ultimate laboratory x-ray simulator for weapon effects with a primary focus
on experiments for x-ray-produced mechanical damage. (See Pulsed Power Center Archives,
Box 2/Van Arsdall, and a box labeled “Pulsed Power All 1987-1996.”) Jupiter was intended to
provide the spectrum of warm x rays needed for materials and structures testing that had only
been available from live nuclear tests. Jupiter was not funded, but remained a desired facility
for some time after this.

149
Chapter Four
21 Van Arsdall interview with Pace VanDevender, September 23, 2003. VanDevender’s move to
head the new communications center is detailed in the Sandia Lab News, April 30, 1993.
At the time, VanDevender said, “I’ve been the director of Pulsed Power Sciences for a long
time. We just had a successful review of the major portion of our pulsed power work. So that
organization has never been in better shape—the spirit of teamwork, the closeness to our
customers, and the competence of our technical staff and managers has never been better.”
22 VanDevender became head of Sandia’s Communications Center in April 1993 and then head
of National Industrial Alliances in March 1994. After later serving as the Chief Information
Officer, VanDevender became Vice President for Science, Technology and Partnerships in
August 2003.
23 Memo from Jeff Quintenz to Anne Van Arsdall, September 5, 2006. Quintenz added: The panel
was composed both of experimentalists and theorists with some very high-power plasma
physicists (Marshall Rosenbluth, to name one) who were very impressed with the explanation
of the instability in the diode, and the fact that we could actually measure the growth of that
instability using a spectroscopic technique that Jim Bailey had perfected. So it was again, an
evolution from “arcane endeavor” to science that I think was recognized by that panel and
helped prolong the program at that time.
24 Van Arsdall interview with Don Cook, October 6, 2003.
25 For a short time, radiation effects and pulsed power were united in an organization titled
Information and Pulsed Power Research and Technology, which Yonas headed. In 1999,
pulsed power returned to the primary research organization at Sandia and radiation-effects
work went to the weapons side of Sandia.
26 G. Yonas, “Fusion and the Z Pinch,” Scientific American, August 1998, p. 43, and Van Arsdall
interview with Tom Sanford, March 2007.
27 Sandia Lab News, December 6, 1996, “PBFA-Z’s energy bursts reach new highs, help predict
nuclear blast physics, edge closer to fusion.” The Z story is told in many publications, from
popular to scientific, from this point forward. See for example M. Paterniti, “A Voyage to the
Sun,” Esquire, November 1999; “Will NIF Put the Squeeze on Sandia’s Z Pinch?” Science
277, 18 July 1997: 306 ff. Several Sandia news releases were issued on Z in the late 1990s
(available from Sandia’s Media Relations Department). See also the color portfolio of
information, Pulsed Power: Fusion Fire, SAND98-2020.
28 Memo of Record, June 14, 1996, from Robinson, Hagengruber, Powell, Crawford, Yonas, and
Cook on “What We Agreed to at the June 5 Meeting on Pulsed Power.” (Pulsed Power Center
Archives). Sandia Lab News Release, April 24, 1996, “Pulsed Power Accelerator Achieves
Record-Breaking X-Ray Outputs,” which has a sidebar on X-1 and Jupiter.
29 Z-Pinch Modification Correspondence, Cook Collection, Box 2; imput from Mike Cuneo to
Van Arsdall, September 2006, that the PBFA-X diode work was based on extraction diode work
done on SABRE.
30 Van Arsdall, interview with Pace VanDevender, September 23, 2003.
31 “Sandia External Advisory Committee on Pulsed Power-Based Stockpile Stewardship Final
Report,” Jasper Welch, chair. SAIC Report, April 2, 1996. In Cook Collection, Box 2, Stockpile
Stewardship; also in Box 1, Stockpile Stewardship, 1994.

150
 from the ’90s to ZR
32 Sandia Lab News Release of December 2, 1996. “High Output Sandia Accelerator Able to
Predict Nuclear Blast Physics.” For more information on the long history of z pinches in the
United States and in particular at Sandia, see M.A. Sweeney, “History of Z-Pinch Research in
the U.S.,” Dense Z Pinches: 5th International Conference on Dense Z-Pinches, American
Institute of Physics, 2002: 9-14 and the 1998 Scientific American article by Gerry Yonas
cited in text.
33 From interviews with Jeff Quintenz, Keith Matzen, Don Cook, Pace VanDevender, Gerry Yonas,
Ray Leeper, Tom Mehlhorn, and Marshall Sluyter, the Department of Energy sponsor.
34 Quintenz memo to Van Arsdall, September 5, 2006, and Van Arsdall, interviews with Mike
Cuneo and Tom Mehlhorn, 2006.
35 For detail on the cost of the National Ignition Facility, see the Natural Resources Defense
Council 2000 report, “When Peer Review Fails: The Roots of the National Ignition Facility
Debacle.”
36 Numerous presentations from this era also focus on inertial confinement fusion energy.
37 Notes to the Lab Leadership Team from Paul Robinson, November 1998. (In Don Cook
Collection, Box 1, Galvin Committee.) It is an isolated document but highly interesting.
By this time, the idea for a Laboratory Microfusion Facility had been abandoned largely
because of the focus on the National Ignition Facility and because Sandia and other weapons
laboratories were looking at other possibilities to fill the simulation needs of the military.
38 “Sandia Bets on Mega-Microsystems Facility, Holds Off on Pulsed Power,” Physics Today,
October 1999, pp. 65-66. Letter from Tom Hunter to Gil Weigand, Department of Energy/DP,
July 23, 1999, about priorities at Sandia regarding MESA and pulsed power, stressing that
the decision was to postpone, not abandon, ZX, and citing the importance of pulsed power to
Sandia and to weapons science; in the VP 1000 files, Box 6.
39 See Memo from Jeff Quintenz to A. Van Arsdall of September 5, 2006, and the 2000 “Pulsed
Power Path Forward: A Strategy For Leadership,” mentioned in text. The authors were
J.R. Asay, K.W. Bieg, D.D. Bloomquist, J.R. Lee, R.J. Leeper, J.E. Maenchen, M.K. Matzen,
D.H. McDaniel, J. Polito, J.P. Quintenz, P.S. Raglin, M.S. Sluyter (Department of Energy,
retired), G. Smith, and W.J. Tedeschi.
40 Pulsed Power Program Peer Review-Executive Summary by SAIC, June 22, 2000, in the
VP 1000 Files, Box 6; Richard Garwin, Pulsed Power Peer Review Committee Report,
SAND2000-2515, October 2000.
41 See justifications cited in “Pulsed Power Path Forward: A Strategy for Leadership,” J. Quintenz
et al. (Copy in Van Arsdall Collection, Quintenz folder.)
42 Frontiers in HED Physics: The X-Games of Contemporary Science, Committee on High-
Energy-Density Plasma Physics; Plasma Science Committee. National Research Council,
2003.
43 For example, see Sandia’s role in inertial fusion energy at the 1999 Snowmass Fusion
Summer Study, the IAEA Cooperative Research Project on Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) Power
Plants, the 2002 Snowmass Fusion Summer Study, the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (FESAC) 35-year Plan Panel Report (2003), and the FESAC IFE Panel Report
(2003).

151
Chapter Four
44 See for example C. L. Olson, “Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy,” in the Landholt-Boernstein
Handbook on Energy Technologies (ed.-in-chief W. Martienssen), Volume VIII/3,
Fusion Technologies (ed. K. Heinloth), Springer-Verlag (Berlin-Heidelberg), 495 (2005),
which includes an extensive list of references; Z-Pinch IFE Program: Final Report for
FY04, SAND2005-2742P, Sandia National Laboratories (856 pages) CD (2005); Z-Pinch
IFE Program: Final Report for FY05, SAND2006-7399P, Sandia National Laboratories
(1037 pages) CD (2006); Z-Pinch IFE Program: Final Report for FY06, Sandia National
Laboratories, SAND2007-0419P (1032 pages) CD (2007).
45 Sandia News Release, August 30, 2001, “Z Beamlet image shows Z evenly compresses pellet.”
Nature 413, 338 (2001), “Crushing victory could help in quest for fusion energy.”
46 Researchers included J.L. Porter, J.H. Hammer, M.E. Cuneo, G.R. Bennett, and R.A. Vesey.
47 Sandia News Release, April 7, 2003, “Z produces fusion neutrons, Sandia scientists confirm.”
See also Labs Accomplishments for 2003 (printed March 2004), which says “the deuterium
fuel in inertial confinement fusion capsule implosions has been heated to temperatures found
at the center of the sun (ca. 11 million degrees C). This temperature measurement, coupled
with measurements of the emission of 2.45 MeV D-D neutrons, confirms the thermonuclear
origin of neutrons from inertial confinement fusion capsule experiments driven by a 20-MA
z-pinch dynamic hohlraum. Scaling predicts ideal ignition at about 30 MA. Other experi-
ments on Z demonstrated its reliability to contain hazardous materials, enabling revolution-
ary dynamic materials studies.” Ray Leeper, who had done the initial diagnostics in 1978
when neutrons were thought to have been produced, told Van Arsdall in a 2006 interview that
he made absolutely certain about the results in 2003.
48 First authors included T.A. Sanford, T.J. Nash, S.A. Slutz, J.E. Bailey, T.A. Mehlhorn, and
C.L. Ruiz.

152
 index

index
Page numbers for endnotes include the letter ‘n’ and the number of the note.
Page numbers in bold refer to illustrations.

Φ target, 49
3-D computer codes, 87–88

A
Abrahamson, Gen. James, 76
accelerators. See names of specific accelerators
Adams, Rich, 80
Advanced Concepts Group, Sandia, 131
AEC. See Atomic Energy Commission
Air Force Ballistic Systems Division, 12
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, 13, 74, 75
Allshouse, George, 128, 129
Photos show Z machine
Ampfion diodes, 82
being reassembled in 2007
Angara V, 112, 113 after refurbishment.

153
 animation of fusion simulations, 86
Antares laser, 37, 69, 120
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 31
applied-B diodes, 82, 84, 88, 124, 132
Applied Magnetic Field diodes. See applied-B diodes
Area IV, Sandia
Demon, 79, 80
EBFA I, 46, 48
“Filling the Void” sculpture, 126
Hermes III, 96
PBFA I, 48
“Starburst” sculpture, 126, 136
Area V, Sandia
Hermes I, 12, 14, 15, 24 n13
Hermes II, 12, 13, 14, 14–15, 15
REBA, 13, 16, 17
Argus computer code, 87
Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, 2
arms race and arms control, 1, 3, 31, 72–73, 74–76, 77
Arnold, Bert, 80
Atomic Energy Commission, 2, 37
Controlled Thermonuclear Research Division, 30, 34, 35
Department of Military Applications, 11, 22, 34, 35
early competition with DOD, 13, 57 n1, 58 n13
Aubert, James, 113, 117
Aurora laser, 13, 107, 116, 120
AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), Great Britain, 7–8, 10, 11

B
Bailey, Jim, 117, 150 n23
Ballistic Systems Division, Air Force, 12
Barr, Gerry, 67, 83, 95
barrel diodes, 82
Basov, N.G., 22
Battelle Memorial Institute, 22
beam concentration. See beam focusing
Beam Experiments Department, Sandia, 99
beam focusing
anode curvature and, 82–83
applied-B diode, 82–83, 84
Koonin Committee milestones, 114
lasers vs. electron beams, 29–30
lasers vs. particle beams, 19, 69

154
 index
lithium-ion beams, 73, 78, 82
modelling using computer codes, 87–88
in PBFA II, 82–83, 84, 98, 99
self-pinching, 17, 37
simulating instabilities, 87–88
wire-on-axis pinched beams, 33, 34
beam instabilities, 87–88
beam propagation
EPOCH facility, 76, 76
in Hermes III, 96
lasers vs. electron beams, 76
lithium-ion beams, 73, 78
in particle-beam weapons, 50, 74, 75, 76
self-pinching, 17, 37
standoff, 17, 44, 119, 132, 140
beam weapons
potential Soviet development, 49, 50
Strategic Defense Initiative, 72–73, 74–76, 77
Beamlet Demonstration Project, 109, 120. See also Z Beamlet
beams
electron. See electron beams
focusing. See beam focusing
instabilities, 87–88
ion. See ion beams
particle. See particle beams
propagating. See beam propagation
Beams Conference, 1983, 81
Beams Meeting, 1990, 112
Beams Prize Award, 136
Beckner, Everet, viii, 18, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32, 58 n8
Beeson, Paul, 8, 15
Beezhold, Wendland, 97
Bergeron, Ken, 41
Black Jack, 57 n1
Bloomquist, Doug, 95
Blumlein transmission lines, 9, 10
Boers, J.E., 15
Boyer, Keith, 30
Boyes, John, 95
braking radiation, 5. See also Bremsstrahlung
Bremsstrahlung, 4, 5, 9, 55, 95
Brezhnev, Leonid, 31
Brinkman, Bill, 92

155
 Browne, John, 120
Burgeson, Duane, 80
Burgess, Ed, 83, 97
Bush, Pres. G.H.W., 105, 116
Butel, Don, 13, 15
Buttram, Malcolm, 45, 46, 76, 81

C
cable pulser, 1, 5, 6, 6, 7
Canavan, Greg, 56
Cap, Jerry, 80
Carlson, Alan, 117
Carter, Pres. Jimmy, 46, 49
Casino, 13, 16, 25 n18, 57 n1, 58 n13
C&D, 97
Centre d’Etudes, Gramat, France, 81
Centurion program (Halite-Centurion), 89, 91, 104 n32, 109
Chandler, Gordon, 117
Chang, Jim, 43
Chart D computer codes, 41
Chirped Pulse Amplification, 145
Choate, Larry, 95
Christofferson, Jeff, 80
circuit codes, 40–41
CIRCUS circuit code, 41
Clark, Ray, xi n2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21, 75, 76, 100
classification of fusion research, 39, 45, 51, 60 n28, 112, 115
declassification, 104 n32, 106, 147 n1
Halite-Centurion experiments, 91, 104 n32
Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958, 8
Clauser, Milt, 43, 76
Clinton, Pres. William, 118, 122
CO2 gas lasers, 22, 37, 69, 120
Coats, Rebecca, 86, 87, 88, 99
Cockcroft-Walton accelerator, 3, 5
Cold War, 1, 3, 77
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 31
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), 31
Strategic Defense Initiative, 72–73, 74–76, 77
collaboration, international
with France, 112, 131, 137
with Great Britain, 7–8, 10, 11, 112
with Japan, 131

156
 index
with Soviet Union, 106–107, 112–113, 128, 131
Comet facility, 80
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 122, 125
computer codes, 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
computer software development, 77
Conference on Electron Beam Research and Technology, International, 38–39, 43
Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 2, 19, 30, 38
Constantineau, Ed, 80
Controlled Thermonuclear Research Division, 30, 34, 35
Cook, Don, ix, xi n2, 46, 72, 73, 80, 86, 89, 98, 107, 114, 116, 117, 123, 124, 128, 131, 136,
137
Cooperstein, Gerry, 137
Corley, John, 21, 38, 97
Cowan, M., 49
Crist, Charles, 76
Cuneo, Mike, 132, 133
cylindrical targets, 117

D
Dacey, George, 6, 70, 72, 102
Davidson Committee, 93, 98, 103 n20
decoy missiles, 75–76
Deeney, Chris, 128
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 75
Defense Atomic Support Agency, 2, 12
Defense Nuclear Agency, 2
Defense Special Weapons Agency, 2
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2
DELPHI project, 75–76
Demon test module, 79, 80
Department of Defense, 2
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 75
Defense Atomic Support Agency, 2, 12
early competition with Atomic Energy Commission, 13, 57 n1, 58 n13
early fusion research, 13
early weapons effects studies, 5
Department of Energy, 2, 46
environment, safety, and health reforms, 107
Fusion Policy Advisory Committee, 114, 115
Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee, 90, 109, 119, 149
Inertial Confinement Fusion Division, 108
National Ignition Facility, 109, 116, 120–121, 123, 130
National Nuclear Security Administration, 2, 122, 123, 139, 142

157
 Office of Energy Research, 46, 49
Office of Fusion Energy, 69
Office of Inertial Confinement Fusion, 69
review of pulsed power light-ion fusion research, 93
Department of Military Applications, 11, 22, 34, 35
Derzon, Dora, 117
Derzon, Mark, 117, 129, 138, 141
Desjarlais, Mike, 87, 88, 99
Deutch, John M., 46, 56
Devlin, Gary, 15
diagnostics
computer codes, 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
flash radiography, 19–20, 43
Z-Beamlet laser, 138–139, 144–146
diodes
Ampfion diodes, 82
applied-B diodes, 82, 84, 88, 124, 132
barrel diodes, 82
extraction diodes, 88, 124, 132
in Hydra, 21
in NEREUS, 16
in pulsed power devices, 9
in SLIM, 21
indented-anode diode, 97
ion diodes, 54, 55, 66–67
limiting voltage problem, 87
modelling using computer codes, 41, 87–88
multiple-ring diode, 43, 95
pinched-beam diodes, 34, 82
standoff. See standoff
direct-drive fusion, 111
directed-energy weapons. See beam weapons
Discriminating Electrons with Laser Photon Ionization (DELPHI project), 75–76
DOD. See Department of Defense
DOE. See Department of Energy
Donovan, Guy, 80
Douglas, John, 50
Douglas, Melissa, 128
Dukart, Ray, 117

158
 index
E
Eaton, Mike, 97
EBFA I and II (Electron Beam Fusion Accelerator)
proposal for, 36–37
Proto I, 38, 39, 39, 42
transition to PBFA, 48, 51, 53, 54, 61 n39
EG&G, 97
Electromagnetic and Plasma Physics Section, Battelle Memorial Institute, 22
electromagnetic pulses, 4. See also weapons effects studies
electron-beam accelerators. See also electron-beam fusion; electron beams
EBFA, 36–38, 44, 48, 51, 53, 54, 61 n39
HARP, 38, 38
Hydra, 16, 18, 20, 20–21, 37, 59 n19
PBFA I, 64
Proto I, 27, 38, 39, 39, 42
Proto II, 39, 42, 42–43, 43, 47, 75
Ripple, 39, 42
SLIM, 16, 18, 21, 21
Strategic Defense Initiative research, 74
Trace I, 46
wire-on-axis pinched beams, 33, 34
electron-beam fusion. See also electron-beam accelerators; electron beams
self-pinching, 17, 37
standoff. See standoff
USSR research, 33, 45, 60 n28
vs. ion beams, 51, 54
vs. lasers, 29–30, 35, 39, 44, 76
Electron Beam Fusion Facility, 36–37, 46–47, 48
Electron Beam Physics Division, Sandia, 31
Electron Beam Research and Technology, First International Conference, 38–39, 43
Electron Beam Research Division, Sandia, 35, 43
electron beams. See also particle beams
accelerators. See electron-beam accelerators
focusing. See beam focusing
for fusion. See electron-beam fusion
laser excitation, 17
propagating. See beam propagation
standoff. See standoff
electron propagation on channels (EPOCH facility), 76, 76
Emmett, John, 30
Emmich, Jimmy, 113
EMPHASIS (electromagnetic-physics-analysis systems) code, 88
energy-producing fusion, 28, 33

159
 Fusion Policy Advisory Committee Report, 114, 115
repetitive z-pinch fusion, 137–138, 140–141
vs. weapons applications, 33, 35, 37, 39, 68–70
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 2, 37, 46
environment, safety, and health reforms, 107
E.O. Lawrence Award, 126, 136
EPOCH facility, 76, 76
Erwin Marx Award, IEEE, 11, 16, 46, 98, 100–101
ES&H reforms, 107
Ewing, R.E., 5
extraction diodes, 88, 124, 132

F
Farber, John, 81
fast-charged multi-site switching, 42, 43 n(a)
fast ignitor fusion research, 145–146
Febetrons, 5
Field Emission Corporation, 5
“Filling the Void” sculpture, 126
flash x-ray devices
Aurora, 13
electron beam production, 17
gamma ray simulation, 7, 17
Hermes I, 12, 14, 15, 24 n13
Hermes II, 12, 13, 14, 14–15, 15
PHERMEX, 7–8
REBA, 13, 16, 17
SMOG, 7–8
Spastic, 8, 10, 11, 24 n9
Flash X Ray Research Division, Sandia, 11
flyer plates, 135
focusing beams. See beam focusing
foil implosion. See also z pinch
early Sandia research, 57 n3, 64, 78, 101 n2
in Saturn, 89, 95
in z pinch fusion, 127, 130
Russian research, 45, 57 n3, 112
Forschungszentrum in Karlsruhe, 88
Foster, John S., 46
Foster Committee report, 49, 51
France, research and collaboration, 112, 131, 137
Freeman, John, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43
Frost, Charles, 76, 80

160
 index
funding
competition between DOD and AEC, 13, 57 n1, 58 n13
effect of 1982 Sandia reorganization, 72
effect of 1972 treaties, 31
for early laser fusion research, 22
for EBFA, 36–37, 44, 51–52, 59 n26
for energy vs. weapons applications, 33, 35, 37, 68–70, 115
for ignition feasibility research, 89–90
for laser vs. particle-beam fusion, 30, 36, 37, 39, 51, 69–70
for PBFA II, 51–52, 56, 71–72, 89–90, 114, 116
for refurbishment of Z machine, 138, 139, 142
for wire-on-axis pinched beam, 34
for z-pinch fusion, 138, 141
Laser-Fusion Coordinating Committee, 36
National Ignition Facility, 120–121, 123
Office of Energy Research oversight, 46
post-Cold War funding shifts, 116
Stockpile Stewardship Program, 123
Furman, Necah, 48, 54
fusion
computer codes for simulation, 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
direct-drive vs. indirect-drive, 111
early laser programs, 22
early programs at national laboratories, 18–19
as energy source, 28, 33, 37, 39, 68–70, 115, 137–138, 140–141
funding and budgets. See funding
inertial confinement. See inertial confinement fusion
lasers vs. electron beams, 29–30
lasers vs. particle beams, 18–19, 69
magnetic confinement. See magnetic confinement fusion
weapons effects. See weapons effects studies
Fusion Energy Science Advisor Committee, 141
fusion ignition. See ignition
Fusion Policy Advisory Committee, 114, 115
Fusion Research department, Sandia, 49, 52, 73, 98, 117

G
gamma-ray simulation. See also flash x-ray devices
Hermes II, 12, 13, 14, 14–15, 15
Hermes III, 46, 96–97
REBA, 13, 16, 17
Spastic, 8, 10, 11, 24 n9
in weapons effects studies, 4, 5, 13, 23 n2, 90

161
 gamma rays, 4
simulation. See gamma-ray simulation
weapons effects. See weapons effects studies
Garwin Committee, 137
gas lasers, 17, 22, 30, 37, 69, 80, 104 n34, 111 n(a), 116
gas-puff z pinch, 95, 107
Gemini laser, 120
Gerardo, Jim B., 35, 49
Ginn, Jerry, 81
Glanz, James, 121
glass lasers, 22, 30, 37, 69, 109, 120
Gobeli, Garth, 22
Goldstein, Shyke, 34
Goldstein, Steve, 67, 83, 92
Goplen, Bruce, 41
Government Accountability Office, 123
Grabovski, Eugeni, 112
Great Britain, research and collaboration, 7–8, 10, 11, 112
Green, Darrell, 80

H
Haas, Peter, Pulsed Power Award, 136
Haines, Malcolm, 129
Halbleib, John, 97
Halite program (Halite-Centurion), 89, 91, 104 n32, 106, 108, 109
Hamil, Roy, 80, 92
Hamilton, Tiny, 48
Hammer, Jim, 138
Hanks, Ken, 95
Hannes Alfven Prize, 129
Hanson, David, 95, 132
Happer, William, 89
Happer Committee, 89–90
Harness, Jesse, 14
HARP, 38, 38
Harry Diamond Laboratories, 13
Hasti, David, 75
Haynes, Ken, 8, 10, 11
Hedemann, Mark, 43, 94, 95
Helios laser, 37, 120
Hermes I, 12, 14, 15, 24 n13
Hermes II, 12, 13, 14, 14–15, 15
Hermes III, 46, 96–97, 119, 132

162
 index
Hiett, George, 48
High Current Electronics Institute (HCEI), 141
High-Energy-Density Physics Department, Sandia, 123
High-Energy Radiation Megavolt Electron Source (Hermes). See Hermes I; Hermes II;
Hermes III
High Voltage Engineering, 11
Hill, Clint, 135
Hockday, Peter, 113
Hoel, Walter, 126
hohlraums, 104 n32, 111, 112
Hoppe, Peter, 88
House Committee on Science and Technology, 51
Hsing, Warren, 43, 43, 95
Humphreys, Russ, 80
Hunter, John, 117
Hunter, Tom, 137
Hussey, Tom, 117
Hydra, 16, 18, 20, 20–21, 37, 59 n19
HydraMite, 54

I
ICE (isentropic compression experiments), 135
ignition
fast ignitor fusion research, 145–146
first occurrence, 91
hohlraums, 111
in ion-beam fusion, 55
National Ignition Facility, 109, 116, 120–121, 123, 130
neutron production in Z machine, 139
Nova laser, 117
requirements for, 28, 29, 73, 89, 91, 114, 152 n47
as research goal, 90, 91, 108, 137
imaging
flash radiography, 19–20, 43
Z-Beamlet laser, 138–139, 144–146
imploding foil technology. See foil implosion
indented-anode diode, 97
indirect-drive fusion, 104 n32, 111
inertial confinement fusion, 22, 28, 29
Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee, 90, 109, 119, 149
Inertial Confinement Fusion Division, Sandia, 108
Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, Sandia, 123
instabilities in beams, 87–88

163
 Institute of High Current Physics, 81
International Conference on Electron Beam Research and Technology, 38–39, 43
ion-beam accelerators
PBFA I, 48, 48, 54, 64
PBFA II, 56
SABRE, 132–133
SuperMite, 54
ion-beam fusion
hohlraums, 111
parasitic loads, 132
results of Sanida’s research, 132–133
transition to z-pinch fusion, 125, 130, 132
ion beams
accelerators. See ion-beam accelerators
for fusion, vs. electron beams, 51, 54
lithium. See lithium-ion beams
ion diodes, 54, 55, 66–67, 81
Ion Physics, 11, 12, 13
isentropic compression experiments (ICE), 135

J
Japan, research and collaboration, 131
Jobe, Dan, 83, 113
Johnson, David J., 42, 78, 82, 99, 117
Johnson, David L., 13, 15, 16, 21, 35, 67, 75, 80, 97, 100, 101, 101
Johnston, Bob, 83
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (Congressional), 2, 19, 30, 38
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (Soviet-American), 112
Joint Operations Working Groups (JOWOGs), 8
Jones, Eric, 22
Jupiter, 119

K
Kamin, George, 76
Keegan, Gen. George, 49, 50
Kelly, John, 17, 58 n11
Kensek, Ron, 99
Kerr, Don, 56
Kiefer, Mark, 41, 86, 86, 87
Kirk-Mayer, 97
Klein, Adam, 82
Kline, Ray, 16, 21

164
 index
KMS Fusion (KMS Industries), 22, 108, 110, 120, 148 n7
Knudson, Marcus, 135
Koonin, Steven, 106
Koonin Committee, 106, 107, 114, 118, 120
krypton fluoride gas lasers, 80, 104 n34, 111 n(a), 116
Ktech, 83, 92, 97, 113
Kurchatov Institute, 33, 44, 53
Kuswa, Glenn, 49
Kuznetsov, Vladimir, 113

L
Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester, 22, 108, 120
Laboratory Microfusion Facility, 91, 93, 108–110, 115, 119, 120, 130, 149 n16
laser fusion. See also lasers
competition with electron-beam fusion programs, 35–36
early laser fusion programs, 22
vs. electron beams, 29–30, 35, 39, 44, 76
vs. particle beams, 18–19, 69, 70
Laser-Fusion Coordinating Committee, 36
Laser Physics department, Sandia, 49
laser-triggered switches, 75, 80, 84, 97
lasers
excitation using electron beams, 17
first laser-produced neutrons, 22
for fusion. See laser fusion
gas lasers, 17, 22, 30, 37, 69, 80, 104 n34, 111 n(a), 116
glass lasers, 22, 30, 37, 69, 109, 120
Strategic Defense Initiative research, 74
x-ray laser, 75
LASNEX computer codes, 41
Lawrence Award, 126, 136
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 8, 37, 52, 120
early laser fusion programs, 22
mirror fusion program, 69–70, 102 n8, 104 n34
National Ignition Facility, 109, 116, 120–121, 123, 130
x-ray laser research, 75
Z-Beamlet laser, 144
Layne, Clyde, 113
Lee, Jim, 95
Leeper, Ray, 60 n34, 78, 82, 83, 99, 103 n19, 128, 129
Leifeste, Gordon, 76
Leija, John, 76
Lemke, Ray, 87

165
 light-ion fusion, 47, 93, 119
Limited Test Ban Treaty, 7
linear accelerator, 74–75
Lipinski, Ron, 76
lithium-ion beams, 73, 78, 99, 114, 132
Lockner, Tom, 76, 99
Lopez, Sam, 95
Los Alamos National Laboratory, 52, 120
collaboration on fusion research, 70, 89, 113
laser fusion research, 19, 22, 30–31, 37, 116, 120

M
Maenchen, John, 83, 99, 103 n20
MAGIC computer code, 41, 87
magnetic confinement fusion, 28, 29
magnetic fields. See also magnetic confinement fusion; magnetically insulated transmission
lines
applied-B diodes, 82, 84, 88
beam control, 17, 34, 37, 67
limiting voltage, 87
weapons effects studies, 4
magnetically imploded foil technology. See foil implosion
magnetically insulated transmission lines, 37, 41, 53, 66, 85
Malakoff, David, 121
management. See oversight
Mann, Greg, 80
Marder, Barry, 128
Mares, David, 80
Martin, Charlie (J.C.), 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 23 n4, 38, 42, 100
Martin, Chuck (C.F.), 6, 23 n4
Martin, Tom, 11, 12, 13, 15, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23 n4, 24 n12, 24 n13, 31, 35, 35, 37, 39, 42, 45,
46, 47, 49, 54, 67, 72, 80, 83, 92, 98, 100, 100
Marx, Erwin, 9
Marx, Erwin Award, IEEE, 11, 16, 46, 98, 100–101
Marx generators, 9
in Hermes I and II, 12, 14, 14
in Hydra, 20
in PBFA I, 66
in PBFA II, 79, 83, 84
in Proto I and II, 41
in REBA, 13, 17
in SLIM, 21
in Z machine, 139

166
 index
Matzen, Keith, x, 41, 43, 43, 75, 95, 102 n18, 117, 123, 124, 128, 131, 139
Maxim, Jim, 15
Maxwell Laboratories, 81
Mazarakis, Michael, 140
McClenahan, Chuck, 95
McCrory, Bob, 119
McDaniel, Dillon, 41, 42, 43, 57 n3, 67, 78, 81, 101 n4, 112, 113, 113, 124, 128, 131, 136
McGurn, John, 95
Mehlhorn, Tom, 41, 83, 99, 103 n20, 117, 132
Mendel, Cliff, 41, 81
Menge, Peter, 132
Micono, Pete, 97
Microbevatron, 3
Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications facility (MESA), 131
Mikkelson, Ken, 97
Miller, Bruce, 75, 76
Miller, Paul, 43, 87
mirror fusion, 69–70, 102 n8, 104 n34
missiles, decoy, 75–76
MITE, 53, 54
Mix, Paul, 43
models (computer codes), 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
Montoya, Sen. Joseph, 33, 44, 59 n26
Montry, Gary, 41
Moore, Bill, 53
Morel, Jim, 41
multiple-beam devices
Casino, 13, 16, 25 n18, 57 n1, 58 n13
Hydra, 16, 18, 20, 20–21, 37, 59 n19
SLIM, 16, 18, 21, 21
multiple-beam lasers, 22
multiple-ring diode, 43, 95
Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958, 8

N
Narath, Al, viii, 18, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32, 44, 46, 49, 51, 56, 58 n8, 60 n36, 72, 73, 98, 107
Nash, Tom, 129
National Defense Authorization Act, 122
National Ignition Facility, 109, 116, 120–121, 123, 130
National Nuclear Security Administration, 2, 122, 123, 139, 142
Nations, Dennis, 92
Naval Research Laboratory, 17, 22, 34, 44, 67, 71, 81, 111, 120, 138, 149 n16
Neau, Gene, 46, 80, 81

167
 neodymium-glass lasers, 22, 109
Nereus, 16, 33, 34, 34
neutrons, 4
first fusion-produced neutrons, 47, 49, 60 n33
first laser-produced neutrons, 22
produced in Z machine, 139
Nike laser, 107, 109, 120
Nixon, Pres. Richard M., 31
Nova laser, 69, 107, 108, 109, 114, 116, 118, 120, 121, 131
Nuclear Regulatory Commision, 2, 37
nuclear test moratorium, 3, 116, 122, 125, 148

O
Office of Energy Research, 46, 49
Office of Fusion Energy, 69
Office of Inertial Confinement Fusion, 69
Office of Management and Budget, 70
oil-insulated transmission lines, 14, 17
Olson, Craig, 108, 119, 138, 141, 152 n44
Olson, Rick, 117, 129
OMEGA laser, 107, 109, 120
oscilloscopes, shielding, 10
oversight
Davidson Committee, 93, 103 n20
Department of Energy, 93
ES&H Tiger Teams, 107
Foster Committee report, 49, 51
Fusion Policy Advisory Committee, 114, 115
Government Accountability Office, 123
Happer Committee, 89–90
House Committee on Science and Technology, 51
Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee, 90, 109, 119, 149
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 19, 30, 38
Koonin Committee, 106, 107, 114, 116, 118, 120
Laser Fusion Coordinating Committee, 36
Office of Energy Research, 46, 49
Office of Management and Budget, 70
Welch Committee, 125

P
Pantuso, Jack, 117
parasitic load issue, 132

168
 index
particle-beam accelerators
HydraMite, 54
PBFA I. See PBFA I
PBFA II. See PBFA II
PBFA X, 124, 125, 132
PBFA Z, 124, 125, 127, 128–129, 132
Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator. See PBFA I; PBFA II; PBFA X; PBFA Z
Particle Beam Fusion Research department, Sandia, 52
particle beam weapons
potential Soviet development of, 49, 50
Strategic Defense Initiative, 72–73, 74–76, 77
particle beams. See also electron beams
accelerators. See particle-beam accelerators
for fusion, vs. lasers, 18–19, 69
particle-in-cell computer codes, 38, 41, 87–88
Pate, Ron, 97
PBFA I, 48, 48, 66, 66–67, 67
conversion to Saturn, 79, 103 n24
first shot, 64, 65
“Starburst” sculpture, 126, 136
transition from EBFA, 48, 51, 53, 54, 61 n39
PBFA II, 80–83, 82, 83, 84, 84–85, 85
beam focusing success, 98, 99
configuring for z pinch, 124
Demon test module, 79, 80
final lithium ion design, 73, 78
first shot, 83, 89, 92
funding, 56, 71–72, 89–90, 114, 116
Happer Committee review, 89–90
Koonin Committee milestones, 114, 116
naming issues, 103 n24
safety concerns, 107
SuperMite test module, 79
target implosion success, 117
transition to Z machine, 130
weapons effects studies, 118
PBFA X, 124, 125, 132
PBFA Z (Z machine), 124, 125, 127, 128–129, 132
pellets, 28. See also targets
composition of, 30
design, 36–37, 47
flyer plates, 135
for EBFA, 37
for ion beams vs. electron beams, 51, 55
169
 in applied-B diode, 84
power required for ignition, 47, 79, 91
radiographic imaging, 145
Penn, Jay, 80
Perry, Frank, 43
Peter Haas Pulsed Power Award, 136
PHERMEX (Pulsed High Energy Radiation Machine Emitting X Rays), 7–8
physics codes, 41, 86–88
Physics International, 8, 11, 12, 13, 24, 53, 81, 128
pinched-beam diodes, 33, 34, 82
plasma, defined, 28
plasma erosion switch, 81
plasma opening switch, 81
Plasma Theory Division, Sandia, 35, 43
Pointon, Tim, 41, 87, 88
Porter, John, 95, 128, 139, 145
Posey, Larry, 97
Poukey, Jim, 34, 37, 41, 43, 97
Powell, James, 73, 94, 96, 97, 119, 123, 124
power-producing fusion. See energy-producing fusion
Prestwich, Ken, xi n2, 13, 15, 15, 16, 21, 34, 38, 42, 45, 46, 72, 75, 96, 97, 98, 100, 100, 108
programs (computer codes), 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
propagation of electron beams. See beam propagation
Proto I, 27, 38, 39, 39, 42
Proto II, 39, 42, 42–43, 43, 47, 75
proton-beam accelerators. See PBFA I; PBFA II
pulse-forming lines, 9, 20
Pulse Sciences, 43, 81, 95, 96, 97
Pulse Sciences-Titan, 97
Pulsed Energy Programs directorate, Sandia, 49
Pulsed High Energy Radiation Machine Emitting X Rays (PHERMEX), 7–8
pulsed power
defined, ii
technical details, 9
timeline, ii
Pulsed Power Program, Sandia, 107, 123, 137
Pulsed Power Research and Technology Division, Sandia, 35
Pulsed Power Sciences Center, Sandia, 72, 118, 123, 131, 137
Pulsed Power Systems department, Sandia, 49, 52

Q
Quicksilver computer code, 87–88
Quintenz, Jeff, ix, 37, 38, 41, 59 n21, 86, 87, 88, 99, 123, 125, 128, 131, 132, 133, 137, 140

170
 index
R
radial pulse linear accelerator (RADLAC I and II), 74–75
radiation effects studies, 4. See also weapons effects studies
electromagnetic pulses, 4
flash x-rays. See flash x-ray devices
gamma-ray simulation. See gamma-ray simulation
gamma rays, 4
Hermes III, 96–97
Limited Test Ban Treaty, 7
low-energy x-ray simulation, 16, 18
neutrons, 4
Saturn, 90, 95
Spastic, 8, 10, 11, 24 n9
x rays, 4
radiography
flash radiography, 19–20, 43
Z-Beamlet laser, 138–139, 144–146
RADLAC I and II, 74–75
Ramirez, Juan, 35, 45, 46, 96, 97, 108, 119, 132
Reagan, Pres. Ronald, 64, 72, 73
REBA (Relativistic Electron Beam Accelerator), 13, 16, 17
recyclable transmission lines, 138, 140–141
Reed, Kim, 81
refurbishment of Z machine, 131, 137, 142–143
Rehyd accelerator, 47, 60 n33
repetitive pulsed power
early research, 45–46
for energy production, 137–138, 140–141
repetitive-rate accelerators. See repetitive pulsed power
reviews. See oversight
Rice, James, 117
Rimfire switch, 80
Ripper, 35
Ripple, 39, 42
Robinson, Paul, 131
Rochau, Gary, 137, 141
Rochau, Greg, 137, 141
Rockett, Paul, 117
Rogers, Clay (S.C.), 6
Rohwein, Gerry, 46
Romig, Al, 137
Rudakov, Leonid I., 33, 44, 45, 60 n28, 68, 112
Ruggles, Larry, 95

171
 Ruiz, Carlos, 83, 117
Ryutov, Dmitri, 137

S
SABRE (Sandia Accelerator and Beam Research Experiment), 119, 132–133
safety concerns, 107
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty), 31
Saltykov, Boris, 113
Sandia Engineering Pulsed Reactor Facility, 3, 5
Sandia Livermore, 46
Sanford, Tom, 97, 124, 128, 129
Saturn, 79, 90, 94, 94, 94–95, 103 n24, 103 n29
Savage, Mark, 81
Sawyer, Patti, 117
SCEPTRE circuit code, 41
Schellenbaum, Ralph, 15
Schlesinger, James R., Jr., 46
Schlitt, Lee, 97
Schneider, Larry, 80, 83
Schriever, R.L., 70
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program, 118, 122–123
Scorpio program, 78
sculptures, 126, 136
SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), 72–73, 74–76, 77
Seamen, Johann, 16, 21, 42, 53, 67, 80, 112, 113
Seamons, Larry, 97
Seesaw, 50
Seidel, David, 40, 41, 86, 86, 87
Seife, Charles, 121
self-magnetically insulated transmission lines, 53
self-pinching, 17, 37, 59 n19
Semin, Valeri, 113
Sewell, Duane, 56
SF6 trigatron switches, in Hydra, 20
Sharpe, Art, 38, 42, 75, 95
Shiva laser, 37, 120
Shope, Steve, xi n2, 59 n19, 75
simulation
computer codes, 37–38, 40–41, 86–88
of beam instabilities, 87–88
of gamma rays. See gamma-ray simulation
of limiting voltage on diodes, 87
of radiation effects. See radiation effects studies

172
 index
of weapons effects. See weapons effects studies
visualization and animation, 86
Simulation Technology Department, Sandia, 49, 73
Simulation Technology Laboratory, Sandia, 70, 73, 79
SLIM (Sandia Low-Impedance Mylar-insulated accelerator), 16, 18, 21, 21, 33, 34, 34
Slutz, Steve, 87, 138, 140
Sluyter, Marshall, 86, 92, 106, 108, 109, 112, 113
Smirnov, Valentin, 112, 129
Smith, Dave, 75
Smith, Ian, 8, 10, 11, 13, 24 n15, 25 n17, 100
Smith, John, 76
SMOG, 7–8
SNARK, 57 n1
Sneddon, Rick, 65
Snowmass Fusion Summer Study, 141
Snyder, A.W., 5, 6, 8, 11, 16
soft x rays, 4, 44, 95, 127
Soviet Union
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 31
arms race, 1, 3, 23 n1, 31
beam weapons development, 49, 50
electron-beam research, 44, 45
fusion target research, 45, 60 n28
Limited Test Ban Treaty, 7
presence at international conference, 1975, 39
research collaboration, 33, 106–107, 112–113, 128, 131, 137
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, 31
Strategic Defense Initiative, 72–73, 74–76, 77
z-pinch hohlraum research, 112
Sparks, Morgan, 46
Spastic, 8, 10, 11, 24 n9
Spence, Phil, 43
spherical targets, 117
Spielman, Rick, 43, 43, 95, 113, 124, 128
Staller, George, 48
standoff, 17, 119
extraction diodes, 132
REBA, 17
for repetitive operation, 140
USSR research, 44
Star Wars. See Strategic Defense Initiative
“Starburst” sculpture, 126, 136
Stinnett, Regan, 95, 99

173
 Stockpile Life Extension Program, 122
stockpile stewardship
refurbishment of existing stockpiles, 131
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program, 118, 122–123
Stockpile Life Extension Program, 122
Stockton, Marilyn, 80
Stone, Jeremy, 50
Storr, Tommy, 8, 10, 12
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), 31
Strategic Defense Facility, 73
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), 72–73, 74–76, 77
Stygar, Bill, 124
Supercollider, 104 n34
SuperMite test module, 79
Sweeney, Mary Ann, 41
switches
fast-charged multi-site switching, 42, 43 n(a)
laser-triggered switches, 75, 80, 84, 97
oil-dielectric rail switches, 42
plasma erosion switch, 81
plasma opening switch, 81
SF6 trigatron switches, 20
synchronized switching, 38, 39, 67, 75
untriggered multi-channel switches, 42–43

T
targets, 4, 9. See also pellets
Φ target, 49
cylindrical targets, 117
flyer plates, 135
focusing beams. See beam focusing
foil implosion. See foil implosion
for ion beams vs. electron beams, 47, 51, 55
hohlraums, 111, 114 n32
modelling using computer codes, 41
PBFA II implosion, 117
power required for ignition, 47, 79, 91
radiographic imaging, 145
spherical targets, 117
standoff. See standoff
USSR research, 45, 112, 113
wire array targets, 124, 127, 128
z pinches. See z-pinch fusion
174
 index
Tegnelia, James, 113
Thomsen, Dietrick, 50
three-dimensional computer codes, 87–88
Tiger Teams, Department of Energy, 107
TITAN computer code, 41
Toepfer, Al, 35, 43
Tolk, Keith, 80
Torres, Jose, 117
Trace I, 46
transmission lines, 9
Blumlein transmission lines, 9, 10
magnetically insulated lines, 37, 41, 53, 66, 85
oil-insulated lines, 14, 17
pulse-forming lines, 9, 20
recyclable lines, 138, 140–141
water insulated lines. See water-insulated transmission lines
Troll accelerator, 76
Turman, Bob, 80
TWOQUICK computer code, 41

U
ultraviolet laser, 76
United Kingdom, research and collaboration, 7–8, 10, 11, 112

V
V* theory, 87
Van de Graaff accelerators, 3, 5, 13
VanDevender, Pace, ix, 39, 41, 42, 53, 54, 65, 67, 72, 73, 78, 80, 81, 82, 87, 92, 98, 107, 116,
119, 123, 125, 126, 126, 131, 136, 150 n21, 150 n22
video animation of fusion simulations, 86
visualization of fusion simulations, 86

W
water-insulated transmission lines
Hydra, 16, 18, 20, 20–21
Nereus, 16
Proto II, 42–43
REBA, 13, 17
Spastic, 10, 13
synchronized multi-channel switching, 38, 39
Watkins, Adm. James D., 105, 106, 107, 118
weapons development. See also stockpile stewardship

175
 beam weapons, 49, 50
decoy missiles, 75–76
Strategic Defense Initiative. See Strategic Defense Initiative
x-ray laser, 75
weapons effects studies, 4. See also radiation effects studies; weapons hardening experiments
effects of nuclear test moratoria, 3, 116
effects of treaties, 7, 31
flash x-rays. See flash x-ray devices
foil implosion research, 64, 89
gamma-ray simulation, 4, 5, 13, 23 n2, 90, 96–97
Hermes III, 96–97
Laboratory Microfusion Facility, 108–110
low-energy x-ray simulation, 16, 18
PBFA II, 118
PBFA Z, 125
Saturn, 90, 95
Simulation Technology Laboratory, Sandia, 70
Spastic, 8, 10, 11, 24 n9
weapons refurbishment, 131. See also stockpile stewardship
Welber, Irwin, 90
Welch Comittee, 125
Westwood, Bert, 113
Whitney, Ken, 128
Widner, Mel, 41, 43
Wilson, Mike, 80, 83, 92
wire array targets, 124, 127, 128
wire-on-axis pinched beams, 33, 34
Withers, Gen. Kenneth, 92
Woodworth, Joe, 80, 83
Woolston, Tom, 80, 83
Wright, Tom, 43

X
x-ray laser, 75
x rays
Bremsstrahlung, 4, 5
flash x rays. See flash x-ray devices
gamma-ray simulation. See gamma-ray simulation
indirect-drive fusion, 111
low-energy x-ray simulation, 16, 18
soft x rays, 4, 44, 95, 127
technical explanation of, 4

176
 index
Y
Yank, Karen, 126
Yonas, Gerry, viii, ix, 21, 30, 31, 32, 32, 33, 34, 35, 35, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59 n26,
65, 72, 73, 77, 92, 98, 130, 131, 136

Z
Z-Beamlet laser, 120, 138–139, 144–146
Z machine (PBFA Z), 124, 125, 127, 128–129.
news releases, 134–135
refurbishment, 131, 137, 142–143
Z-Mod, 131
z-pinch fusion. See also foil implosion
breakthroughs at Sandia, 128–129
energy production, 137–138, 140–142
gas-puff z pinch, 95, 107
repetitive z-pinch fusion, 137–138, 140–141
on Saturn, 124, 128
technical details, 127
transition from ion-beam fusion, 125, 130
wire array targets, 124, 127, 128
Z-Pinch Inertial Fusion Energy Program, Sandia, 138, 141
Z Refurbishment Project. See ZR Project
Zawadzkas, Jerry, 15
Ziska, Zeke, 80, 83
ZR project, 137, 138, 139, 142, 142–143, 143

177
PULSED POWER AT SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES the first forty years
Anne Van Arsdall

WHAT IS PULSED POWER . . .

In the early days, this technology was often called ‘pulse power’ instead of pulsed
power. In a pulsed power machine, low-power electrical energy from a wall plug is
stored in a bank of capacitors and leaves them as a compressed pulse of power. The
duration of the pulse is increasingly shortened until it is only billionths of a second
long. With each shortening of the pulse, the power increases. The final result is a
very short pulse with enormous power, whose energy can be released in several ways.
The original intent of this technology was to use the pulse to simulate the bursts of
radiation from exploding nuclear weapons.

Anne Van Arsdall

Pulsed Power Timeline (over)