| Miniproposals | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
| Operators | |
| Session leader(s): | Steve Wolfe,Brian Labombard |
| Physics operator(s): | Ian Hutchinson,Steve Horne |
| Engineering operator(s): | Vinny Bertolino |
| Engineering Operator Run Comment |
| remote control run |
| Session Leader Plans |
| Physics Operators Plans |
| Session Leader Summaries |
| Entered: Jul 7 2004 03:49:12:803PM |
| Author: To Be Determined |
| Session Leader Run Summary for 950328B MP# 95 - Run C-Mod from Remote LLNL Site PO: Horne SL: LaBombard EO: Bertolino The remote run started on shot 15. The early crew (session leader - Steve W. and Physics Operator - Ian) was quite successful in implementing the FSP control wire. This made the remainder of the run very easy. We will certainly be using this new wire heavily in the future. For reference, the run plan for Remote Control Demonstration 950328 was: Goal: This run will primarily investigate the ability of C-Mod's dissipative (detached) divertor regime to accommodate a step change in the total input power (RF+Ohmic) and remain in the detached state. Secondary to this is the related question of how high the central plasma density must be in order to sustain the detached divertor state under auxillary heating and whether these densities are accessible using the current gas-fuelling techniques. The experiment will rely on dissipation in the divertor and x-point region from intrinsic impurity radiation and hydrogen, and charge exchange losses. If even at the highest central densities we find that intrinsic radiation is insufficient to sustain a detached divertor condition under auxillary heating, we may consider the injection of N2 as a fallback. However, I would recommend that N2 (or other low-Z impurity) injection may be left to a follow-up run, leaving this run to focus on the window of accessibility to the detached divertor state (or lack of) without impurity seeding. Approach: The approach is to run a series of discharges with identical magnetic equilibia in the standard lower, single null configuration with different RF powers at different plasma densities. Plasma current would be fixed at 0.8 MA. RF power would varied from 0 to 2.0 MW (or the maximum available). Plasma densities would span the range NL_04 = 0.5e20 m^-2 to 2.5e20. The scanning probe would fire three times in each discharge. Plasma conditions in the divertor would be monitored with the divertor probe array (using between-shot data reduction) for the onset of detachment. Post-run analysis of the scanning probe and divertor probe data would yield information on the extent of detachment (pressure drop along B) as a function of density and input power. An important requirement is that the magnetic equilibrium be identical at the scanning probe location for the three scans. Shot plan: (a) Tune up (5 shots) Tune up a diverted 0.8 MA plasma (load shot 950321023 or best to date) with density NL_04 = 0.5e20. Similar to 950321023, the discharge should have inner gap and outer gap greater than 1.5 cm and distance to second separatrix (SSEP on EFIT scope) greater than smallest gap. A slow strike-point sweep (up and down) across the outer divertor is a nice feature of shot 950321023 but is not absolutely necessary. It is more important to maintain a relatively steady target for the scanning probe. This equilibrium will be used for the remainder of the run. Set up the scanning probe to fire at .5, .7 and .9 sec. This shot should have a scrape-off layer in the 'sheath-limited' regime and will therefore be used to benchmark the pressure mapping (via EFIT) between the scanning probe and the divertor probes. (b) Ohmic Detached Divertor (4 shots) Change to NL_04 = 1.0e20. Density should be programmed to remain flat from 0.45 to 1.0 sec. Fire the scanning probe. Adjust NL_04 to 1.2e20 and look for the onset of detached divertor conditions. Again fire the scanning probe for at least one shot to LCFS. (c) RF+ Ohmic coarse power/density scan (10 shots) Setup RF power programming to inject 0.5 MW from 0.6 to 0.8 sec and 2.0 MW (or maximum avaliable) from 0.8 to 1.0 sec. Set up the scanning probe to fire at .5, .7 and .9 sec. Run a series of shots with 4-5 different densities starting from NL_04 = 1.2e20 to 2.4e20. (d) RF+ Ohmic fine power/density scan (10 shots) From the above results, determine the range in RF power and density over which detachment is maintained for the highest RF powers. Adjust the second RF power pulse to within 0.2 MW of the first pulse. Scan NL_04 shot-to-shot in increments of 0.2e20 over the threshold for detachment (this will probably be a soft threshold). Notes on the actual run follows: Shot 15 was repeat of a MIT's shot 14 from the LLNL remote control room. We started tuning up the low density shot for benchmarking the pressure mapping via (EFIT). Shot 17 had a nice stable FSP target with the desired NL04=0.6e20. The scanning probe begain firing on shot 18. Shot 19 was a repeat with the FSP making it to the LCFS. This was deemed our EFIT benchmarking shot. Shot 20 was the first in a series of Ohmic detachment test shots, NL04=1.0e20. "death ray"-like features where seen on probes 4 and 5 but since the strike point was swept, it was difficult to determine if and when the divertor was truly detaching. Shot 21 was similar with NL04=1.1e20. Shot 22 began the auxillary heated segment of the run having some significant RF power (.7+ MW) Again it was difficult to see if the divertor was affected by RF with the strike point sweep. The divertor temperature showed an increase during RF. The FSP showed its usual pickup problem during RF on the second and third scans. (We really need to fix this problem!) Shot 23 (NL4=1.4e20) had a fixed strike point position with some hint of slow detachment. RF again pulled up the divertor Te. On shot 24 we used the NINJA system to puff D2 through the inner wall midplane capillary as an assist to the A-Side piezo valve to increase the density. This worked well. However, EFIT did not complete on this shot. The magnetics data was apparently corrupted. On shot 25 Death rays were seen on probes 3-6. The rays go away when the RF comes on and the divertor appears to reattach during the lower RF power. During the higher RF power an interesting phenomenon occured - an H-mode with a detached divertor? We have chosen to try and dial up this shot on tomorrow's run to investigate this further. Shot 26 - NINJA did not fire and as a result we had a density ramp to 1.5e20. Shot 27 had the NINJA puff with a nice flat NL04 of 1.5e20. Again prompt RF reattachment is seen during the first RF pulse (0.8 MW), particulary on probe 4. On shots 28, 29 we tried to get more RF power but did not manage to get it. Shot 30 fizzled. Shot 31 & 32 were at NL04 = 1.7e20 with RF. Again, divertor re-attached during the first pulse. Shots 33, 34 and 35 were attempts to get higher density. The plasma became vertically unstable at these densities. Shots 33 and 34 appear to partially re-attach during the first RF pulse while shot 34 remains detached on the first pulse and starts to re-attach on the second pulse - the beginings of a "death-ray" are seen at this time. From the physics point of view, the run was very successful. We managed to retain divertor detachment under RF heating at the 0.7 MW power level (with no impurity puffing). Operating from the remote control site was not an excessive burden on the us or the run although we did slow down the shot-to-shot turn around rate. Unfortunately, from the slowness of some of the interfaces plus the distractions of press briefings and some connection problems, I was not able to enter my usual comments under the session_leader topic of the logbook. See Steve Horne's Physics Operator summary for more info, particularly on operating PCS remotely. Credit for the success of the remote run really goes to Josh, Tom, Steve and the local support from Tom Casper and company. My role was merely as an observer/user. |
| Entered: Jul 7 2004 03:49:12:820PM |
| Author: To Be Determined |
| Session Leader Summary for 950328 (AM) MP# 101 topic #3 (FSP target control) SL: Wolfe PO: Hutch EO:Bertolino The goal was to implement control on the scanning probe target position. This was achieved, although we did not get to test how robust the control was against changes in density. The run plan was as follows: We will begin with segment 2 based on 950321023. Put FSP on wire 9, predictor and controller. The controller should be orthogonal to STRKPSI, but not to the x-point location, using the ALL keyword: ALL=['PSI0','RCUR','ZCUR','CLEARIN','STRKPSI','RXU','ZXU','FSP'] It may be useful to recalculate the STRKPSI controller to be orthogonal to the same set, making it a full rank controller as well. We'll hold that in reserve. 1. With FSP on wire 9 and zero gain on that wire, and a zero in the waveform, run the shot and observe the error signal. 2. If the output looks reasonable, program a constant value similar to the average position as indicated by the AOUT (maybe zero?). Turn on a small gain on wire 9, leaving the other gains the same. The new wire should fight the old controllers to some extent, nominally given by the ratio of the Physics PID time constants. Observe the result, making sure it seems to go in the right direction. 3. Over several shots, decrease the RXL and/or ZXL (or STRKPSI) gains, and increase the FSP\_TARGET gain, observing the changes in the equilibrium. Determine optimum relationship to get a good target and not screw up the divertor. Consider making the STRKPSI gain orthogonal to FSP. 4. Using the gain proportions established above, vary the density and verify that the target is well-controlled; observe the effect on x-point and strike-point location. 5. If time permits, try varying the current to see if the target remains well-controlled. We actually made it through step 3, turning the gain on RXL completely off. Changes in the progrgammed FSP position tracked well with Brian's target finder program. A program value of -.01 corresponded to a target reading of 0.006, and a setting of -.006 to a target reading of .010. The scale factor thus seems to be right on. Both STRKSPSI and FSP seemed to be well-controlled. A change in the direction of the STRKPSI sweep helped get rid of an EF1 voltage saturation problem late in the shot. Control was turned over to LLNL to begin the remote run (MP#095) after shot #14. Problems: ----------- We had some difficulty with the startup, and ended up tweaking both EF4 and the OH1 voltage, as well as the early gas puff. Some of this seemed to work. We had an unexplained power supply failure on shot #13. All the 13.8 supplies failed to fire, for no obvious reason. The next shot was fine. There was a CAMAC hang on shot #8, associated with a loss of connection to the LLNL Remote site. Ian had a problem running the COLDSTART in the morning. He used the HYB_INIT_FROM_SHAPE.TCL command, and got error communicating with Bitbus or loader. TWF was able to run this successfully; he thinks it may be a privilege problem. Scorecard for first part of run: -------------------------------- Tests: 1 Duds 1 (Power system fault) Fizzles 3 Plasmas 9 (No disruptions) ------- -- Total 14 |
| Physics Operator Summaries |
| Entered: Jul 7 2004 04:36:53:647PM |
| Author: To Be Determined |
| Physop Summary 950328 part 1. Exercising the Fast Scanning Probe Controller. MP101. SL: Wolfe PO: Hutch EO: Bertolino Summary: _______ Some breakdown fizzle problems were encountered initially. These were fixed by raising the EF4 by a total of 25A. After shot 7, breakdown was reliable except for a strange PS error on shot 15. The FSP controller was turned on and worked fine. By the time we handed over to LLNL, the gain on RXL had been zeroed, ZXL gain was low, FSP and STRKPSI were controlling well. Basically the quarter run was a success as planned. Loaded Wolfe's Shot with FSP but zero gain. Using A-side gas. 1 OH test shot looked OK some magnetics warnings. Fill 1.8e-5. 2 Pla Good Long shot. STRKPSI sweep in place. X-point rather inside at the end of the shot. Draw FSP to be -.006m. Draw RXU to ramp from -.035 to -.025m .5 to 1s. 3 Fiz Seems to have too rapid a Bz rise at 10ms. Raise OH1 voltage to 90V around 10ms, from 76V. 4 Fiz Not obvious that we did anything good. Flux predictors of R,z show noticeable differences between 3 and 4. Bz and Br do not. Got a TRAQ1 data corrupted warning. Lower p_0 to 1.5 5 Pla Just barely went. Long current pause 10-20ms. Flux plot look like shot 2. OH1 V to 105V 10-15ms. FSP gain to 10s^-1. 6 Fiz Went marginally longer than 4. EF4 to -1080 from -1095. 7 Pla Better breakdown. Current pause at 35kA. Fill to p_0=1.8. FSP to -.010m (from -.006) 8 Pla Data hangs. Thought to be do to loss of the internet when LLNL were running an action monitor. Recovered. Init still inside. FSP reads an error +2360 now. Brian's monitor dropped by about 2mm So we got about half what we asked for. Delay pulse-gas 3 by 2ms. Raise FSP gain to 25s^-1. 9 Pla FSP error reads 700. Brian's FSP monitor drops another 2mm. Still an Ip pause. Reprogrammed STRKPSI sweep order to end high. EF4 to -1070 from -1080 RXL gain to 20 from 48 s^-1. 10 Pla Looks fine on the errors. RXL hardly controlled now. FSP controlled. Lower the gas puff to 45 from 48 at ~30ms. Set RXL gain to zero from .52 to 1s. 11 Pla Initiation looks good now. RXL changed only minimally. Slightly higher early Mo: 3e15. Got an H-mode which stayed after the RF turned off. Good heating for only about 1MW RF. Increase STRKPSI sweep to +1.5mm at the end. 12 Pla Another H-mode. Early Moly rises a bit more. 4e15. Early gas to 47V. Add a step to the RXL gain turn-off. 13 PSdud Nothing that runs off the alternator. Repeat 14 Pla Good H-mode. Handed over to LLNL. From shot 15 on. |
| Entered: Jul 7 2004 04:36:53:647PM |
| Author: To Be Determined |
| MP 95, Run C-Mod from LLNL. LaBombard (sl) Horne (po) Bertolino, Daigle (eo). This was our first serious attempt at a remote run. The run began at MIT by Wolfe (sl) and Hutchinson (po) who turned on and tuned up feedback control of the Fast Scanning Probe target. We inherited this and didn't touch it for our part of the run. At the LLNL end, we were plagued during the start of the run by various network problems. Once the network stabilized, we were able to make some progress. The fundamental difficulty we had was lack of bandwidth. The time required to either bring up a scope, or to do a change in PCS, was so painful that we tended to a) rely on MIT to diagnose problems and b) make changes involving PCS with a certain amount of reluctance. In spite of all the difficulties, we took 21 shots in about 6 1/2 hours; at our nominal rate this would be 26 shots. Two of these we can account for through the PR filming holdups at each end; therefore we can say we lost three shots to lack of bandwidth. This isn't bad, considering it's a first attempt. I would claim that the run was a success; we demonstrated control of plasma shape, density, RF power. We had interactions with a third site, Ben Welch at U. MD. We had a good cross-section of the usual problems, including power supply faults (shot 24), bad magnetics data (also 24), camac problems (shot 29). We adhered to a run plan in spite of all this and got some interesting physics out of it. RF: D port fine; Yuichi confidently claims we can get more than 1.5 MW. E port has problems. Possibly arcing in the 6" loop. Can't count on it. PLAN IS TO START TOMORROW WITH SHOT 25 AND INVESTIGATE the detached h-mode. -====== REMOTE RUN STARTS === We took over for shot 15, which was a repeat of 14. 16 nl = .6e20. Fizzle due to "focus" problem on my screen. An IRC comment went into the fizzle detector on time, which became set to t=0. 17 fixed fizzle detector, good shot with rampdown. 18 probe enabled; everything worked. 19 probe in 3mm further. Late disruption; good probe data. 20 nel to 1.e20; worked fine. Some question about efc current -- seems low. 21 nel to 1.2e20 by reloading shot 15. Good shot. 22 Brian is worried about upper x-point. tweak zxl up by 5 mm. Doesn't seem to have done much. 23 nel to 1.4e20. turn off the strike point sweep. This worked. a side valve flat out; need more gas. 24 Enable the ninja gas to get density up. Comm fault on this shot. Also corrupted magnetics data. 25 Tweaked up nl sightly, early. Very interesting shot. Might be both h-mode and detachment on second RF pulse. RF is .8 MW from .65 to .85; about 1.5 MW from from .85 to 1 sec. MIT is coping with publicity dept. 26 nl to 1.5e20. Good shot. 27 No PCS changes, but Ninja puff longer, from .05 to .075 sec. 28 trying for more RF power. Didn't get it. 29 another try at more RF. Didn't get it. 30 fizzled. Wolfe suggests we need slightly more negative BZ. For me to diagnose it from this end would take several minutes. (See fundamental problem, above. 31 Camera crew came into RES room about now. A certain amount of confusion resulted (they turned lights on and off, opened and closed blinds, etc.) Took a repeat of shot 30, which went. 32 Move ninja .025 sec later. program nl to 1.7e20 15 A more negative on IC_ef4. Also move zxu up another .5 cm. (I (horne) screwed this up two ways. Forgot to load, and made the ef4 change in segment 2. Can only blame distraction due to the circus in here.) 33 Late disruption. I've been worried about a VDE due to power supplies on the rail late in the shot; Brian is making sure his probe is out of the way after 700 msec or so. 34 ask for nl=1.8e20; this would have loaded all the changes from shot 32. 35 Straight repeat; last shot. Good one. Score -- 20 plasmas, 1 fizzle in 21 attempts, over 6 1/2 hours. |
| Session Leader Comments | |||
| Mar 28 1995 07:20:36:050AM | Steve Wolfe | Run Plan for Morning of 3/28/95
MP #101, Topic 3 (FSP Target control SL: Wolfe PO: Hutch EO: Bertolino We will begin with segment 2 based on 950321023. Put FSP on wire 9, predictor and controller. The controller should be orthogonal to STRKPSI, but not to the x-point location, using the ALL keyword: ALL=['PSI0','RCUR','ZCUR','CLEARIN','STRKPSI','RXU','ZXU','FSP'] It may be useful to recalculate the STRKPSI controller to be orthogonal to the same set, making it a full rank controller as well. We'll hold that in reserve. 1. With FSP on wire 9 and zero gain on that wire, and a zero in the waveform, run the shot and observe the error signal. 2. If the output looks reasonable, program a constant value similar to the average position as indicated by the AOUT (maybe zero?). Turn on a small gain on wire 9, leaving the other gains the same. The new wire should fight the old controllers to some extent, nominally given by the ratio of the Physics PID time constants. Observe the result, making sure it seems to go in the right direction. | |
| Mar 28 1995 07:22:12:130AM | Steve Wolfe | Run Plan for Morning of 3/28/95 (cont.)
3. Over several shots, decrease the RXL and/or ZXL (or STRKPSI) gains, and increase the FSP\_TARGET gain, observing the changes in the equilibrium. Determine optimum relationship to get a good target and not screw up the divertor. Consider making the STRKPSI gain orthogonal to FSP. 4. Using the gain proportions established above, vary the density and verify that the target is well-controlled; observe the effect on x-point and strike-point location. 5. If time permits, try varying the current to see if the target remains well-controlled. It is unlikely we will get as far as step 4, unless the LLNL team has problems and postpones their run. In this case, the afternoon will be turned over to the RF Group for more of MP102. | |
| Mar 28 1995 08:30:54:130AM | 950328001 | Steve Wolfe | Tuesday OH test:
Note: there was a problem doing the HYB_INIT_FROM_SHAPE. TWF thinks there may be a privilege problem. He got it to run ok. Test looks fine. |
| Mar 28 1995 08:47:18:670AM | 950328002 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328002
Try for plasma. FSP on wire 9 with no gain. Good shot. Ran all the way down. FSP error appears to be around -5000 -> -6mm |
| Mar 28 1995 09:04:44:400AM | 950328003 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328003
Draw FSP at -6e-3. Still no gain. Draw RXU to look sort of like what we got. (EF1U is out of volts) Fizzle. Looks like it was inside. Try a positive tweak on the OH1 voltage. |
| Mar 28 1995 09:15:08:080AM | 950328004 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328004
Draw FSP at -6e-3. Still no gain. Draw RXU to look sort of like what we got. (EF1U is out of volts) Try a positive tweak on the OH1 voltage. Another fizzle. This one shows a bounce. No sign on the ECE, must be inside. |
| Mar 28 1995 09:23:53:640AM | 950328005 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328005
Draw FSP at -6e-3. Still no gain. Draw RXU to look sort of like what we got. (EF1U is out of volts) Try a positive tweak on the OH1 voltage. Drop the fill to 1.5e-5 That ran. No hards, despite the low fill. Bad hesitation on the current, almost didn't go. Bounce scope looks like shot 2 FSP target looks ok, error near zero. |
| Mar 28 1995 09:49:24:960AM | 950328007 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328007
Ef4 15a more positive (to -1080a) It ran, maybe some hard xrays. Still a bad hesitation, but at a higher current. Starts further out and moves to center. FSP looks flat but it was before, so make a change. |
| Mar 28 1995 10:06:46:470AM | 950328008 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328008
Raise fill to 1.8e-5 Change FSP program to -.01m Ran ok. Two in a row, maybe we should quit while we're ahead. Data system hang. On next shot, delay PG3 by 2msec. FSP error is now around +2000. |
| Mar 28 1995 10:19:03:810AM | 950328009 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328009
Delay PG3 by 2msec Jack the P gain up to 25/s on FSP. FSP error is now around +1000A-m STRKPSI still gets lost around .8sec |
| Mar 28 1995 10:35:44:930AM | 950328010 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328010
Reverse sweep on STRKPSI Decrease EF4 another 10A (-1070) Decrease gain on RXL from 48 to 20/sec Current rise looks good. STRKPSI control looks better. |
| Mar 28 1995 10:48:21:390AM | 950328011 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328011
Lower early gas puff. Turn off RXL gain from 0.5 to 1.0sec Good plasma. Startup looks good. STRKPSI and FSP look well controlled. Had an H-mode during RF, lasting into rampdown. |
| Mar 28 1995 10:59:59:710AM | 950328012 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328012
Change the sweep in strkpsi a little. Ran fine |
| Mar 28 1995 11:09:31:000AM | 950328013 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328013
Step the gain down on rxl in steps. Raise early gas back up to 47V Power supplies didn't go. None of the 13.8kV supplies went. |
| Mar 28 1995 11:35:12:850AM | 950328014 | Steve Wolfe | Shot # 950328014
Step the gain down on rxl in steps. Raise early gas back up to 47V Nice H-mode. Still had a bit of a thrash at .52 or so . It'll do. End of local control. |
| Mar 28 1995 12:14:57:830PM | 950328015 | Brian Labombard | Shot 15:
First shot with remote operation. Scanning probe not firing. Next shot will attempt lower density NL_05 = .6e20 |
| Mar 28 1995 12:16:35:370PM | 950328016 | Brian Labombard | Shot 16:
Operator error. Steve ended up typing in the wrong window. |
| Mar 28 1995 03:22:54:990PM | 950328023 | Brian Labombard | Shot 23
Setup: FSP firing at .6, .75, .9 sec. Steady strike point position. Result: FSP made it to LCFS. |
| Mar 28 1995 03:28:53:890PM | 950328024 | Brian Labombard | Shot 24
Setup: FSP firing at .6, .75, .9 sec. Steady strike point position. Result: Trouble with probe scans #2 and #3 during RF. |
| Mar 28 1995 03:53:28:110PM | 950328025 | Brian Labombard | Shot 25
Setup: FSP firing at .6, sec. Result: Diverter re-attaches during hte first RF pulse. The second pulse causes H-Mode an possibly a detached divertor state also! |
| Mar 28 1995 04:11:26:620PM | 950328026 | Brian Labombard | Shot 26
Setup: FSP firing at .6, sec. Result: Density did not make it to 1.5e20 until later. next shot try again. -it turns out that all the NINJA fuelling was from the inner wall capillary. |
| Mar 28 1995 04:49:33:660PM | 950328027 | Brian Labombard | Shot 27
Setup: FSP firing at .6, .9 sec. Result: |
| Mar 28 1995 05:13:42:710PM | 950328029 | Brian Labombard | Shot 29
Setup: FSP firing at .6, .9 sec. Result: Fizzle. |
| Mar 28 1995 05:34:09:000PM | 950328031 | Brian Labombard | Sorry shot #30 was a fizzle . 29 was good.
Shot 31 Setup: FSP scanning at .6 and .9 sec. Result: FSP did not fire. RF reattachment. |
| Physics Operator Comments |
| Engineering Operator Comments | ||||
| Shot | Time | Type | Status | Comment |
| 1 | 08:28:32:720AM | Test | Ok | coax test |
| 2 | 08:36:48:870AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 3 | 08:55:38:810AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 4 | 09:07:49:800AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 5 | 09:18:26:140AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 6 | 09:33:33:670AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 7 | 09:43:16:970AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 8 | 09:55:04:100AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 9 | 10:13:33:940AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 10 | 10:26:28:260AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 11 | 10:41:02:980AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 12 | 10:53:03:530AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 13 | 11:06:40:160AM | Plasma | Bad | missing all supplies except tmx's |
| 14 | 11:25:28:130AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 15 | 11:50:36:700AM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 16 | 12:08:53:670PM | Plasma | Ok | fizzle detector too early |
| 17 | 12:19:41:830PM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 18 | 12:48:19:090PM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 19 | 01:07:01:690PM | Plasma | Ok | no faults |
| 20 | 01:22:43:660PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 21 | 01:53:58:970PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 22 | 02:24:03:740PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 23 | 02:47:55:370PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 24 | 03:04:56:870PM | Plasma | Ok | Comm Fault OH1, & EF1U |
| 25 | 03:27:43:700PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 26 | 03:49:41:460PM | Plasma | Ok | NO Faults. |
| 27 | 04:02:56:070PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 28 | 04:16:42:650PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 29 | 04:34:14:410PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 30 | 04:58:32:470PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 31 | 05:15:17:780PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 32 | 05:39:00:960PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 33 | 05:59:14:810PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 34 | 06:17:04:380PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |
| 35 | 06:29:43:550PM | Plasma | Ok | No Faults. |