ITER ITA NEWSLETTER
No. 15, APRIL-MAY 2004

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, AUSTRIAISSN 1727–9852

THE WORK OF THE DIAGNOSTICS WORKING GROUPSUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
Dr. A. E. Costley, ITER International TeamThe ITER diagnostic system comprises about 45 individual measurement systems involving a very wide
range of technologies (magnetics, neutron systems, optical systems, microwave systems etc). It is a distributed system with components installed in the vacuum vessel, the divertor, the ports (23 at all three levels in
total), the port cells, the tokamak building and in the diagnostics building. It will play an important role in theoperation of ITER and the scientific programme. It is expected that all ITER Parties will contribute to the supply of the diagnostics, but a new method for the procurement of the systems is being considered.
Because of the large number of systems and the relatively small number of ports, there are benefits in procurement to grouping the diagnostics into packages based on complete ports. This contrasts with the ‘conventional way’ of procuring diagnostics on a per system basis, where the institute or collaborator provides theindividual diagnostic system and the institute that owns the tokamak integrates the system into the machine
and buildings. This latter approach has the advantage of flexibility but to apply it to ITER would require a sizeable central technical team developing a large number of individual procurement packages and handlingmany interfaces both between diagnostic systems and with the basic tokamak. The nature of the work would
be highly specialized and technical, and would draw expertise away from its experimental base in theParticipant Teams (PTs).
Port-based procurement of diagnostics should lead to fewer interfaces and less specialized technical work to
be dealt with by the Central Team. For each port a lead diagnostic would be defined. The Party that provides
the lead diagnostic becomes the lead Party for the port and provides its structure, other diagnostics and diagnostic components in the port as far as possible, and thereby carries out the integration within that port andtakes care of the interface with the tokamak.
In July 2003, the Participant Team Leaders and the International Team Leader approved a task to develop thisapproach to diagnostic procurement. A small group of two members per Party plus four of the IT staff working on diagnostics were appointed to carry out this task. For the period of this task, this group was known as
the Diagnostics Working Group. The main aims of the task were:i) To develop technically feasible, costed, port-based procurement packages based on the ITER
reference distribution of diagnostics in the allocated ports;ii) to identify the interfaces between these packages and, where possible, minimize them;iii) to develop a cost-sharing proposal amongst the Parties which is consistent with the constraints laid
down by the ITER Negotiators for diagnostic cost sharing;iv) to identify and consider any key related matters;v) to make a preliminary estimate of the level and nature of the staff required in the ITER Organization(‘Organization’) to manage the procurement of diagnostics through port-based packages.
The execution of the task commenced by updating the allocation of the individual diagnostics to the available
ports. This is a complex process since many of the diagnostic systems are installed at different levels andhave to operate together. It involves the allocation of a valuable commodity – space in the diagnostic ports.
Very careful attention has to be paid to the importance of the measurements being provided by the individual
diagnostic systems when they are allocated space to ensure that the limited space is used in the best possible way. The developed allocation of diagnostics to ports is shown in Figure 1.

A methodology for creating the port-based packages was developed. As far as possible it was based on objective considerations and minimized the need for judgement. Working from the information determined as partof the ITER costing in 2000, the fractional cost of the diagnostic components installed in each diagnostic port
was determined. A lead diagnostic was chosen for each port according to specific guidelines. With port-based
procurement, the ITER Party that commits to supply the lead diagnostic becomes the lead Party for that port
and also takes ona) the integration of the port and, in particular, the integration of other diagnostics within the port which
may or may not be supplied by the lead Party;b) the design and supply of other elements of the lead diagnostic that are located in other ports.
The supply of the lead diagnostic, plus the work under (a) and (b), plus the supply of the other diagnostic systems assigned to the same port as the lead diagnostic, constitutes a port-based procurement package.
Some diagnostics (about 15) are not located in ports – for example magnetics and neutron flux monitors.
These are known as distributed systems and were treated as individual systems in the procurement.
The members of the DWG reviewed the draft port-based packages in consultation with their domestic experts
and determined their level of interest in each package. As mentioned above, some of the systems have components in more than one port and these can be assigned to different port-based packages. A few systems
have parts that function separately and these parts can be assigned to different port-based packages. This
gave some flexibility and enabled adjustment of the package content and value. Through a close interaction
between the members of the DWG, their experts in the Parties, and the IT, the content of the packages was
adjusted to improve the fit of Party interest and package content. Obviously, because the Party interests andcompetences arise from many years of independent development, a perfect fit is impossible. However, for thesake of achieving the overall goal – that is, the full distribution of all packages to Parties with only one lead
Party per package and with the fractional cost for each Party conforming with that determined by the ITER
Negotiators – the Parties worked together to achieve a compromise distribution. The proposal has the meritsof a high fraction of the distribution being consistent with individual Party preferences and Party competence
thereby giving the best possible chance for a high performance of the ITER diagnostic system. It is also consistent with the cost-sharing for diagnostics set down by the ITER Negotiators.
Several related topics were identified and discussed. Since the costing of ITER diagnostics was carried out in
2000, the measurement requirements have changed and some diagnostics have matured, and it is desirable
to include additional systems in the diagnostic set. This has led to some desirable systems being not currently
included in the plan. For the current integration technical work, these systems are included to maintain theoption for their later inclusion. It was recommended that a means to include these systems in the plan should
be made as soon as possible.
Many of the diagnostic designs and some of the interfacing systems are at an early stage in design. As thedesigns mature it is probable that changes will be required. These may affect the procurement packaging anddiagnostic supply. Moreover, diagnostics is a rapidly developing field and obviously the most up-to-date systems will be wanted on ITER. It is expected that during the detailed design phase the ‘Organization’ will organize reviews of the design and construction progress. To make the best use of the available expertise that exists
in the laboratories of the ITER Parties, it was recommended that these design reviews should involve relevant
diagnostic experts from the non-supplying Parties. Finally, a preliminary estimate of the IT resources, including the type of staff (specializations etc), necessary to support the port-based procurement was made.
The task of the group has now been executed and has laid the foundations for the procurement for diagnostics. By establishing a unique distribution at this stage it has become possible for the Parties to begin working on the details of their packages, thereby ensuring a good use of the time between now and the start of
ITER construction. Specific recommendations have been made for the future stages in the preparation of the
ITER diagnostic system and the ITER IT and PTs will carry these forward. The progress achieved has beena direct result of the cooperation and good will in this activity, and the willingness to compromise for the sakeof achieving the overall goal, demonstrated by all those involved in this process. All the DWG members feel
privileged to have been involved in such an important task.

2

N 55 GR 29 03-10-31 W 0.2

NORTH

05

06
07

DIAG

03
02

DIAG

DIAG

01

DIAG

DIAG
DIAG

10

18

DIAG

11

DIAG

EC

17

EC
EC

12

13

DIAG EC

System
migr
atio
nf
or
S

NORTH
05

06
07

HB

HB

08

04
03

HB
RH

DIAG
(obs.)

DNB
DIAG

RH
LIM

09
10

02
TBM

DIAG

DIAG

DIAG

TBM

01

11

RH

DIAG

RH
RF

12

17

TBM

13

RF

RF

14

04

07

03

08

03 Vis. / IR TV (2 of 4)
CXRS (on the DNB)
MSE (edge, HB5)
Ha Spectroscopy (divertor inner)

02

09

01

06 Activation System (foil, 1/3)
Pressure Gauge (d), RGA (d)1018

08 Reflectometry/Interferometry (gg)
LIF (c)Magnetics(i)Bolometry(i), Pressure Gauges(i)

11

17
12

16
13

14

DIVERTOR

15

11 Vis. / IR TV (4 of 6)
Edge Thomson Scattering
Activation System (foil, 2 of 2)
12 (EC), CTS
14 Vis. / IR TV (5 of 6)
X-ray Crystal Spectrometry(survey)
Position Reflectometry(2 of 2)17 Vis. / IR TV (6 of 6)
Main Reflectometry (3 of 3)
X-ray Crystal Spectrometry(graphite)
Bolometry,
Soft X-ray Array
10 Thomson Scattering (main plasma)Polarimeter
Thomson Scattering (innerdivertor)
11 X-ray Crystal Spectrometry(survey)VUV (main and divertor)
Reflectometry for the main plasma
NPA
12 Vis. / IR TV (4 of 4)
Ha Spectroscopy (upper edge)
Visible Continuum ArrayCTS
17 Neutron Flux Monitor (DT)Activation System (16N, 1 of 2)
Activation System (foil, 2 of 2)

09 Vis. / IR TV (3 of 4)
Toroidal Interferometer/Polarimeter
ECE, X-ray Crystal Spectrometry(imaging)
Fast Wave Reflectometry
Soft X-ray Array
10 X-point Thomson Scattering (c)02 Divertor Impurity Monitor
Divertor Thomson Scattering(Visible, gcg)
(outer leg,g)Langmuir Probes (i)Ha Spectroscopy (g)Magnetics (i)Langmuir Probes (i)Thermocouples (i)Magnetics (i)Bolometry (i), Pressure Gauges (i)04 Dust measurement (c)Magnetics (i)12 Activation System (foil, 2/3)
Pressure Gauges (i)Pressure Gauge (d), RGA (d)Pressure Gauge(d), RGA (d)

16

15

NORTH
05

06 VUV grazing image (x 2)
Activation System (foil, 1 of 2)

08 Neutron Flux Monitor (DT)EQUATORIAL PORT

06

05 Vis. / IR TV (2 of 6)
Activation System (16N, 2 of 2)
Vertical Neutron Camera (2 of 3)

07 Activation System (16N, 1 of 2)
Activation System (foil, 1 of 2)
Neutron Flux Monitor (DD)

18

LIM
DIAG

10 Polarimeter

08 Vis. / IR TV (3 of 6)
Main Reflectometry (1 of 3)
Bolometry
01 Vis. / IR TV (1 of 4)
Radial Neutron Camera
Bolometry, MSE (core, HB4)
Divertor Impurity Monitor
Gamma Ray Spectroscopy
High Resolution Neutron
Spectrometer

UPPER PORT

nario 1ce

02 Vis. / IR TV (1 of 6)
Ha spectroscopy (divertor outer)Ha spectroscopy (outer edge)

07 Ha spectroscopy (inner edge)
Ha spectroscopy (upper edge)
Vertical Neutron Camera (3 of 3)

16

15

14

09 X-ray Crystal Spectrometry(imaging),
Main Reflectometry (2 of 3)

03 CXRS (on the DNB, core)
Vertical Neutron Camera (1 of 3)

DIAG

DIAG

08
09

DIAG

04

01 Position Reflectometry (1 of 2)
Divertor Impurity Monitor
Activation System (16N, 1 of 2)

Optical access (c: centre, g: gap)
& Cassette Instrumentation (i)Cassette Instrumentation(i)Pumping Duct Instrumentation(d)14 Reflectometry/Interferometry (gg)
Plate Erosion (c)Langmuir Probes (i)Magnetics (i)Thermocouples (i)16 Divertor Impurity Monitor (VUV, gg)
IR thermography (c)Magnetics (i)Bolometry (i), Pressure Gauges (i)18 Activation System (foil, 3/3)
Pressure Gauge (d), RGA (d)Figure 1. Distribution of diagnostics in ports at Upper, Equatorial and Divertor levels

3Members of the Diagnostic Working GroupCN:
Dr J. Zhao (ASIPP)
Dr Q. Yang (SWIP)

RF:
Dr. V. Zaveriaev (Kurchatov Institute)
Dr. A. Krasilnikov (TRINITI, Troitsk)

EU:
Dr. D. Campbell (EFDA)
Dr. F. Romanelli (ENEA)

US:
Dr. D. Johnson (PPPL)
Dr. R. Boivin (General Atomics)

JA:
Dr. Y. Miura (Naka Research Establishment, JAERI)
Dr. Y. Kusama (Naka Research Establishment,
JAERI)
KO:
Dr M Kwon (Korea Basic Science Institute)
Dr. S. J. Yoo (Korea Basic Science Institute)

IT
Dr. A. Costley
Dr. G. Vayakis
Mr. C. Walker
Dr. A Malaquias (until 31/12/03)

Members of the Diagnostic Working Group meeting at the ITER JWS, Naka, Japan.

4

SIXTH MEETING OF THE ITPA TOPICAL GROUP ON DIAGNOSTICS
by Drs. A.J.H. Donné, FOM Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, andA.E. Costley, ITER International TeamThe Sixth Meeting of the International Tokamak Physics Activities (ITPA) Topical Group (TG) on Diagnostics
was held at JAERI, Naka from 19 – 21 February 2004. This meeting was combined with a Progress Meetingon ITER/BPX (burning plasma experiment) relevant diagnostic developments on-going in Japan. For the firsttime, ITPA members from China, as well as observers from South Korea, attended. In addition, an associatedsub-meeting was held at General Atomics, San Diego, 23 – 24 April, immediately after the 15th Topical
Conference on High Temperature Plasma Diagnostics. At the sub-meeting a special one-day session was
devoted to issues related to beam-aided spectroscopy. In total more than 50 participants attended the meetings and all ITER partners were represented.
The key topics reviewed and discussed at the TG meeting were: (i) the overall status of diagnostics developments for ITER, (ii) the progress in the research on the designated high priority topics, (iii) the progress withsome key ITER/BPX-relevant diagnostic developments ongoing in the ITPA participant laboratories, (iv) the
progress and plans for the work of the specialist working groups, (v) the status and plans for the International
Diagnostic Database.
Good progress had been made in the tasks designated as high priority:
1. One of the outstanding questions connected to the measurement of the alpha/neutron source profile iswhether the neutron emission profile can be expected to be a constant on a magnetic flux surface. If so,
the need for the Vertical Neutron Camera (VNC) on ITER is much reduced because it would be possible
to obtain the profile of the neutron emission from measurements with the radial camera (RNC) andmagnetics. At the meeting, good arguments were made that under some ITER-relevant conditions in JET,
for example under conditions where non-isotropic fast ions are present (ICRH), the neutron source profile
is not a constant on a flux contour. Under these conditions both cameras are needed to reliably measure
the neutron source profile in JET.
A proposed new design of a VNC for ITER with ten viewing chords looking upwards adjacent to a divertor
port through a gap between blanket modules was presented. The design appears to be feasible but further
study of the concept is needed.
2. Progress was reported on the need and methods of making measurements of steady state magnetic fields.
In a study by CRPP, Lausanne, it was suggested that it should be possible to compensate for drifts inmagnetics during long plasma discharges by imposing a small modulation on the plasma position. This
needs to be demonstrated.
The understanding of Radiation-Induced Electro-Motive Force (RIEMF) and Radiation-Induced ThermoElectric Sensitivity (RITES) is gradually increasing. New irradiation tests in the JMTR reactor werereported and confirm the earlier result that probably RITES is the dominant effect. Although there are still
aspects of the results not fully understood, on the basis of the work carried out, it is probable that coils canbe developed for ITER in which the combined action of RIEMF, RITES and other related effects is tolerable,
and it may be possible to use the coils for measurements on long (> 1000 s) pulses. The development ofsteady state sensors also shows progress and it is likely that Hall sensors can be developed for
applications outside the ITER vacuum vessel.
3. All the optical and infrared diagnostic systems will view the plasma via a mirror. The ‘plasma facing’ mirrors
will be subject to erosion and deposition possibly leading to degradation in their reflectivity. Test mirrors
made from candidate materials have been installed in some of today’s tokamaks and the extent of theerosion and/or deposition has been measured. The results are highly variable and depend on several
factors such as the location of the mirror relative to the plasma, the material of the mirror, and the qualityof the discharge. For example, some recent tests on the T-10 tokamak have shown deposition rates of
0.2 nm/s in normal, clean discharges, and 2 nm/s in highly polluted discharges. A periscope system on
TEXTOR has shown that the plasma-facing mirror had a deposit of ~0.7 µm while the second mirror
located deeper in the tube was clean.

5An important recent finding is that the vulnerability of mirrors to sputtering strongly depends on the
manufacturing process. For example, the reflectivity of Cu mirrors with a large grain size exhibits a muchsmaller decrease than that of Cu mirrors with small grain size for the same amount of erosion.
Possible cleaning techniques are also under investigation. One method is cleaning by laser ablation. It has
been demonstrated that the mirrors can be completely cleaned by 30–50 laser pulses with >0.12 J/cm2.
One method of measuring the confined alpha particles is by collective Thomson scattering. A study has
been completed in Europe on the various collective Thomson scattering options to measure alphas andfast ions in ITER. It appears that the option that uses radiation at a frequency 60 GHz is the most attractive,
because it combines a good signal/noise ratio with minimum required technological developments. The
system is rather robust against density variations and mechanical disturbances, but it does have amagnetic field limitation (B > 3T). (In nominal ITER operation this is not a limitation since B > 4T throughout
the plasma.) A collective Thomson scattering system for measuring confined fast alpha particles on ITER
based on the 60 GHz option has been designed. Implementation of the system appears feasible althoughsome key interface details need to be worked through.
A new concept for measurements of fast ions based on the observation of re-neutralized beam ionsthrough Charge Exchange Recombination Spectroscopy (CXRS) has been proposed. The concept will betested at DIII-D. A new approach for the measurement of the alpha knock-on tail neutrons, based on themeasurement of proton tracks in nuclear emulsion foils, was also proposed.
New results have been reported with activation foils in JET. Six foils are mounted on a manipulator and canbe removed from the plasma at regular intervals. By simultaneously using different foils it is possible todiscriminate between different fast ions.
5. The results of many irradiation tests on candidate materials for diagnostic construction performed in the
EU during 1989 – 2002 have been gathered in a detailed electronic table. The database now needs to beextended with the work done in the other ITPA Partners.
During the one-day special session on beam-aided spectroscopy, the present status and open issues in thefield of CXRS, Beam Emission Spectroscopy (BES), and Motional Stark Effect (MSE), and particularly theirplanned application on ITER, were reviewed. Considerable progress has been made in the design of CXRS
diagnostics for ITER and the analysis of expected performance. The studies have shown that, in principle,
most of the ITER measurement requirements (ion temperature, ion densities, rotation velocities, He-ash distribution, etc.) can be met with the planned implementation. However, there still remain a number of important
aspects to be studied.
Similarly, it is expected that the proposed implementation of the MSE system will also largely meet the ITER
measurement requirements. The recent change in the port allocation, specifically for this diagnostic, has substantially improved the potential performance, in particular, the spatial resolution is now < 10 cm over most of
the minor radius. Also here there are several aspects requiring further study.
There are also issues to be studied in relation to the Diagnostic Neutral Beam (DNB). Thus far it has beenplanned that the DNB would be a negative ion beam. However, there are some advantages (and disadvantages) in using a positive ion source. It is recommended that the choice of the ion type should be reviewed
again. Since the DNB will be used to make important measurements, and possibly measurements used in thereal time control of the plasma, a very high reliability of the DNB is required.
The ITPA Partners reported steady progress for many diagnostic techniques that are relevant to a BPX. A productive progress meeting on ITER/BPX-relevant diagnostic developments in JA was held, with many excellent contributions. Some examples of recent work are: development of radiation-resistant imaging bolometers
for tangentially viewing the ITER plasma (JA), high-resolution charge exchange recombination spectroscopy
to measure rotation and radial electric field profiles (US), conceptual design of a MSE diagnostic for ITER with
optimised views (EU), an alternative design of a LIDAR Thomson scattering system to monitor the inner divertor leg (RF). The Chinese members as well as the observers from the Republic of Korea gave an overview ofthe diagnostic programme in their respective countries.

6

The International Diagnostic Database (IDD) presently contains information on 265 diagnostics operating on
experiments worldwide. In particular, since the last meeting the NSTX team has been very active in adding
new diagnostics. The ISTTOK and EXTRAP T2R teams have joined the IDD. Addition of information on new
diagnostics and information updates of diagnostics that are already in the database continues to be actively
stimulated.
The Seventh Meeting of the ITPA TG on Diagnostics will be held in Hefei, China from 11–15 October 2004.
During this meeting it is planned to organize a one-day session with extended overview/review talks on
ITER/BPX diagnostic developments on-going in Europe, Japan, the Russian Federation and the US, anddiagnostic activities within the ITER IT. The meeting will be further combined with a one-day meeting on relevant diagnostic developments on-going in China.

Participants at the Sixth Meeting of the ITPA Topical Group on Diagnostics,
Naka, Japan, 18–21 February 2004 (Main Meeting)Members of Topical Group on Diagnostics
Rejéan Boivin (GA, USA)
Alan Costley (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA)
Tony Donné (FOM, Netherlands, EU)
David Johnson (PPPL, USA)
Kazuo Kawahata (NIFS, JA)
Yasunori Kawano (JAERI, JA)
Anatolij Krasilnikov (TRINITI, RF)
Yoshinori Kusama (JAERI, JA)

Atsushi Mase (Kyushu Univ., Japan)
Francesco Orsitto (ENEA, Italy, EU)
Mamiko Sasao (Tohoku Univ., JA)
Fernando Serra (IST, Portugal, EU)
Tatsuo Sugie (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA))
Konstantin Vukolov (Kurchatov, RF)
Qinwei Yang (Southwestern Inst., CN)
Victor Zaveriaev (Kurchatov, RF)

Guests and Attendees at the Topical Group Meeting
Leonid Bruskin (Kyushu Univ., JA)
Ruggero Giannella (CEA, France, EU)
Yasuji Hamada (NIFS, JA)
Takaki Hatae (JAERI, JA)
Nick Hawkes (UKAEA, UK, EU)
Takao Hayashi (JAERI, JA)
Christian Ingesson (EFDA-CSU, EU)
Masao Ishikawa (JAERI, JA)
Kiyoshi Itami (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA))
Takahi Kondoh (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA))
Shigeru Konoshima (JAERI, JA)
Hirotaka Kubo (JAERI, JA)

Myeun Kwon (KBSI, Korea)
Masayuki Nagami (JAERI, JA)
Takeo Nishitani (JAERI, JA)
Byron Peterson (NIFS, JA)
Gennadiy Razdobarin (Ioffe, RF)
Tatsuo Shikama (Tohoku Univ., JA)
Kentaro Toh (Tohoku Univ., JA)
Yury Verzilov (JAERI, JA)
Chris Walker (ITER Int. Team, Garching, EU)
Jingwei Yang (Southwestern Inst., CN)
Suk Jae Yoo (KBSI, Korea)
Junyu Zhao (IPP-CAS, CN)

7

Participants in the Main Meeting
Participants at the Sixth Meeting of the ITPA Topical Group on Diagnostics,
San Diego, USA, 23 – 24 April 2004 (Sub-meeting)Members of Topical Group on Diagnostics
Rejéan Boivin (GA, USA)
Alan Costley (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA)
Tony Donné (FOM, Netherlands, EU)
David Johnson (PPPL, USA)

Kazuo Kawahata (NIFS, JA)
George McKee (Univ. Wisconsin, USA)
Tony Peebles (UCLA, USA)
Glen Wurden (LANL, USA)

Participants in the Sub-Meeting8Guests and Attendees at the Topical Group Meeting
Leonid Askinazi (Ioffe, RF)
Ronald Bell (PPPL, USA)
Henrik Bindslev (Risø, Denmark, EU)
Manfred Bitter (PPPL, USA)
Maarten De Bock (FOM, Netherlands, EU)
Patrick Carolan (UKAEA, UK, EU)
Luis Cupido (IST, Portugal, EU)
Ivan Duran (IPP-CSA, Czech Rep., EU)
Rainer Fischer (IPP-Garching, Germany, EU)
Ray Fisher (GA, USA)
Jill (Elizabeth) Foley (PPPL, USA)
Ruggero Giannella (CEA, France, EU)
Punit Gohil (GA, USA)
Sami Hahto (LBL, USA)
Nick Hawkes (UKAEA, UK, EU)
Bill Heidbrink (UC Irvine, USA)
Manfred von Hellermann (FOM, EU)
Don Hillis (ORNL, USA)
Christian Ingesson (EFDA-CSU, EU)
Maso Ishikawa (JAERI, JA)
Kiyoshi Itami (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA)
Katarzyna Jakubowska (FOM, Netherlands, EU)
Jay Jayakumar (GA, USA)
Ralf Koenig (IPP-Greifswald, Germany, EU)
Takahi Kondoh (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA)

Joe Kwan (LBL, USA)Fred Levinton (PPPL, USA)
Yadong Luo (UC Irvine, USA)
Michael Makowski (GA, USA)
Darlene Markevich (DOE , USA)
Mark May (LLNL, USA)
Fernando Meo (Risø, Denmark, EU)
Susanne Michelsen (Risø, Denmark, EU)
Roberto Pasqualotto (ENEA-RFX, Italy, EU)
Roger Reichle (CEA, France, EU)
Lane Roquemore (PPPL, USA)
Joaquin Sanchez (CIEMAT, Spain, EU)
Wayne Solomon (GA, USA)
Vlad Soukhanovskii (LLNL, USA)
Brent Stratton (PPPL, USA)Dan Stutman (J. Hopkins Univ., USA)Dan Thomas (GA, USA)
George Vayakis (ITER Int. Team, Naka, JA)
Chris Walker (ITER Int. Team, Garching, EU)
Michael Walsh (UKAEA, UK, EU)
Andreas Werner (IPP-Greifswald, Germany, EU)
Paul Woskov (MIT, USA)
Kenneth Young (PPPL, USA)
Klaus-Dieter Zastrow (UKAEA, UK, EU)

9

Printed by the IAEA in Austria
July 200404-27271

Items to be considered for inclusion in the ITER ITA Newsletter should be submitted to C. Basaldella, ITER Office, IAEA,
Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria, or Facsimile: +43 1 2633832, or e-mail: c.basaldella@iaea.org(phone +43 1 260026392).