Talk:ITER

Criticism and responses outdated and misleading

The criticism section needs to be updated to reflect the current status.

On the criticism section:

1. IFMIF has never really been 'planned' (which I would interpret as someone taking the decision to build it) but various concepts have been proposed, partially designed and strongly supported by many organisations. It is recognised by experts in the field that it is a necessary facility but the costs, technical challenges and other factors have prevented anyone from taking the necessary funding decision. I think it should say 'proposed'.
2. ADX still hasn't been supported (that I am aware) - perhaps this should be removed? There are many divertor experiments around the world so it seems strange to comment on this one unsuccessful proposal.
3. The cost estimate should be updated and it needs a reference. It is a controversial topic and probably too complicated for one number. Some estimates (extrapolations based on individual country costs) have been reported as high as $65B (testimony by DOE US for Science http://doi.org/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a), although those are strongly disputed by IO and others.
4. I don't think the polywell needs to be in the section. There are other alternatives that would like to have ITER funding - including ICF, small tokamaks, etc, but people complaining that they didn't get funding isn't really a criticism. It's complaining.
5. The last two paragraphs are the really important ones and I think should go first. There are technical challenges with neutron damage, waste, tritium, etc., but the main criticism is a high-level one: is it going to help us meet strategic electricity generation objectives in the timescale that matters for current (and very important) objectives?

For the response section:

1. The first sentence isn't based on a criticism that is made in the previous section - 'inherent danger' isn't meaningfully defined here and it isn't one of the main criticisms of ITER or MCF in general. The next sentences are specific advantages with respect to fission and would make sense if there was some discussion in the criticism section on the advantages of fission (primarily that it generates electricity!).
2. Last sentence of the first paragraph is confusingly written and actually highlights a very significant issue - tritium handling. There is a lot of work on tritium handling but keep in mind JET had grams and it was a very complex ordeal! Kilograms is going to be a serious challenge! This isn't a response to criticism since there isn't a section really detailing these issues.
3. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power would be able to produce reliable electricity on demand, and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2, SO2, or NOx by-products are produced). This is not a response to a criticism (nobody is claiming it makes CO2, say) and it is also confusing. Fusion is not proposed as a variable energy source on demand but baseload (or at least the mainstream proposals are).
4. According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities that are exploring several fusion paths. Please remove. A 15 year old paper for a concept that is not being built is not evidence that a demonstration reactor (the one after ITER!) is going to be built in the 30s. ITER will not have tritium plasmas until the mid-2030s (based on the current plans).
5. The US figures are really out of date and from different time periods. It is more confusing than useful and I think it really needs to be updated otherwise it is a negative to the overall page rather than a plus.
6. ...which reduces the projected cost of electricity from such reactors by a factor of two to a value only about 50% more than the projected cost of electricity from advanced light-water reactors.[citation needed] Nobody has a realistic idea about what a commercial fusion reactor will cost. In extraordinarily conceptual studies you would hopefully find a better value than this! I've never done those analyses but I'm certain better results have been published (particularly if they are generated by labs that work on MCF and may be a little biased).
7. Perhaps take some inspiration from IO: http://www.iter.org/faq#Is_it_worth_spending_billions_on_fusion_or_would_the_money_be_better_spent_in_improving_renewables_like_solar_wind_and_geothermal

Anyway, I would make some quick changes if there was agreement. Let me know if you disagree. I think I was respectful but apologies in advance if you disagree.

--Mikeflem (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike, your general ideas seem cogent and well-supported. Your general expertise on these matters surpasses mine, so I can't offer you specific critique on your suggestions. My area of expertise is limited to power measurements and claims. I would suggest you draft your proposed changes and drop them here in the talk page. Wait a few days for response. If none, pop them into the main page.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most observations from Mike and support the suggestion from Steven. Otto (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor: Bringing a Sun to Earth

There's a new book by Michel Claessens "ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor: Bringing a Sun to Earth" that goes into great detail on some of the aspects of ITER mentioned above, including tritium handling. I have added some of the facts and clarifications to the article already, but if you're interested in the topic it's worth reading it (not only as source for Wikipedia). Now regarding the Q calculations as raised by @StevenBKrivit: here[1] I'm not an expert in this field so I have just paraphrased what Claessens wrote because I believe this distinction between "fusion" gain factor and "engineering" gain factor is quite important one. Happy to share quotes from the book if that helps.

By the way, the book also goes into some detail on tritium handling, safety and the licensing process for that part, as mentioned above by @Mikeflem: so I can also share excerpts on that subject. Cloud200 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cloud200, thanks for your response. Ok, yes, I know the citation well, it is page 164. You might have noticed that on page 165, Claessens also lists the value of 300 MW that he got from my investigation. I list my sources here: http://news.newenergytimes.net/iter-historical-resources/ I should point out to you that on page 4 of http://news.newenergytimes.net/2020/06/15/the-dark-side-of-iter I have reported that he has now concurred with the 300 MW value. Of course you can't cite my report, but you can cite the Jülich Research Centre and the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics on pages 30 and 31 of the Hearing on Nuclear Fusion before the Bundestag Committee for Education, Research and Technology Assessment, Berlin, 28 March 2001, available here: https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_bundestag_english.pdf

StevenBKrivit (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Steven, I have just realized that my happy edit triggered a whole minefield, especially after reading this whole talk page since 2017! :) As you already reached a consensus about the "thermal power" paragraph which is very carefully worded, I don't think any additional citations from Claessens will add much here, although the details you have provided (and Claessens nicely paraphrased) might serve as a good case study for the article about Q factor itself. What do you think? Cloud200 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the DMZ! I think that almost everyplace were people mention Q it should be shown as either Q_fus or Q_eng and not left to assumption. You know what happens when you assume, right? ;)

StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But then neither Fusion energy gain factor nor this article does that :) Why not fix that then? Cloud200 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried once before and one person fought with me. He said "everybody knows what Q means." I did not wish to spend my time arguing with that person so I left it alone. But I will support you should you choose to seek this improvement.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing LEDE Warning Template

I propose removing the warning template for a long LEDE.Johncdraper (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I will remove it. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

seeming error in "Background" section

First paragraph: "1 gram of deuterium-tritium mixture in the process of nuclear fusion produces an amount of energy equivalent to burning 80,000 tonnes of oil.[3]"

I think that should be 8 tonnes of oil, not 80,000 tonnes.

Reasoning: A deuterium/tritium pair should have a combined atomic mass of roughly five.

Avogadro's number divided by five yields 1.2e+23 D-T pairs per gram.

One D-T fusion releases 17.6 MeV or 2.8 x 10e-12 joules

1.2e+23 D-T pairs/gram x 2.8 x 10e-12 joules/pair = 33.6 x 10e+10 joules/gram.

One tonne oil equivalent is approx. 4.2 x 10e+10 joules,

4.2 x 10e+10 joules (one tonne oil) is 1/8 of 33.6 x 10e+10 joules (one gram D-T fusion), so it takes eight tonnes oil equivalent to equal the energy from one gram of D-T fusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.177.156 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Members

Should the UK be listed as a separate member, as the UK has left the EU, but I believe will still participate as part of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.13 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would urge caution about the designation of the UK. The seven partners, China, India, EU, Japan, S. Korea, Russia and the US have very specific agreements as Domestic Agencies. I believe that they are all considered equal partners, with equal rights, responsibilities and representations on the Iter Council. I highly doubt that the UK has attained that level, though it certainly has some kind of relationship now, as does Canada. But not partner.

04:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs)

Good point. The UK seems to have a similar status as Switzerland. See [2] and [3]. The current article treats the UK like a completely independent member, but it's only part via Euratom. --mfb (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Most Expensive Scientific Endeavor

"Consequently, ITER is considered the most expensive scientific endeavor in history."

A quick search shows the ISS cost around 150 billion.

Would that not make this wrong? is the ISS considered multiple endeavors? 69.60.67.247 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "science experiment", the phrase used by the reference. The ISS is more expensive but it's not a single science experiment. --mfb (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has written a peer-reviewed article about ITER, yes, the party line is that ITER is the world's largest and most expensive science experiment, whereas the ISS is, young Wikipedian, a fully armed and operational battle station. Mwahahahaha. Johncdraper (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IceCube is far larger. --mfb (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Major Deletion in Lede Restored

I have restored a major deletion made by user Zurkhardo. The deletion was performed without any discussion or debate. Zurkhardo's deletion (temporarily) removed the primary measurable objective of the project and left, in its place, a sentence that said nothing about the technical goals. That sentence: "The primary goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy for peaceful use" appeared more like a statement from the public relations department of the organization. In fact, that sentence, modified slightly, was originally placed into the article by the same user on 16 Oct. 2020.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Tritium Statements and Other Promotional Language

Two sections in the article currently create a misleading impression about ITER and tritium breeding. I'm thinking that the bulk of Wikipedia readers would appreciate a straightforward and transparent explanation about the tritium topic. There are also other components in these sections that read more like marketing hyperbole and I question their appropriateness in Wikipedia.

SECTION #1
EXISTING: The purpose of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy for peaceful use.[4][3] It will also test new technologies such as tritium breeding in a real fusion environment[5] and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry.

PROPOSED:

According to the final report of the ITER Engineering Design Activities, the overall programmatic objective of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes." (https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/ITER-EDA-DS-21.pdf) ITER is not designed to breed the tritium it will require and will need to rely on tritium produced in nuclear fission reactors, primarily the heavy-water CANDU reactors in Canada, for its deuterium-tritium operation.

DISCUSSION
SENTENCE #1: "The purpose of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy."
Comment: My intention with the proposed replacement is to help Wikipedia appear more objective and appear less like a tool for marketing hyperbole. I think any of these words "safe, clean, and unlimited" — as directly associated with ITER could be challenged — although they are certainly associated with the broader purpose of nuclear fusion research.

SENTENCE #2: "It will also test new technologies such as tritium breeding in a real fusion environment."
Comment: I'm rephrasing my comment. Depending on interpretation, it could be true. But let's try to avoid ambiguity. ITER is not designed for tritium breeding. The only relevance to tritium breeding in the project are a set of experiments that will take place in the reactor that are intended to test a "mockup" of tritium breeding. On the other hand, breeding tritium is one of the major objectives of the DEMO-class reactors.

SENTENCE #2: "and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry"
Comment: I cannot figure out any value of this phrase and I propose its removal.


SECTION #2
EXISTING: Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. Firstly, its hydrogen isotope fuels are relatively abundant. ITER will use a mix of deuterium-tritium for its fusion because of the combination’s high energy potential.[32] The first isotope, deuterium, can be extracted from seawater, which means it is a nearly inexhaustible resource.[33] The second isotope, tritium, only occurs in trace amounts in nature and estimates are the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms.[34] However, ITER will be testing tritium breeding blanket technology that would allow the fusion process to create its own tritium and thus be self-sufficient

PROPOSED:

Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. After preliminary tests with deuterium, ITER will eventually use a 50/50 mix of deuterium and tritium. The first isotope, deuterium, can be extracted from seawater, which means it is a nearly inexhaustible resource.[33] The second isotope, tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which has a half-life of 12.32 years, is not available as a resource in nature. The world’s supply is just 20 kilograms, which is produced mainly by the heavy-water CANDU fission reactors. [34] A deuterium-tritium mixture is required to approach practical power output levels. [32] However, future DEMO-class reactors are designed to incorporate tritium breeding blankets to test whether the fusion process can create enough tritium to be self-sufficient. A set of experiments will be performed in ITER to test what are called "mockup" modules, which will simulate a tritium breeding blanket. The tritium produced from these modules will be used in ITER, but the purpose of the modules is to test the breeding process, not to supply fuel. These four modules will cover less than one percent of the plasma-facing surface area inside the reactor. For this reason, the mockups cannot produce more than 1 percent of the tritium ITER will need.

DISCUSSION
SENTENCE #2: "Firstly, its hydrogen isotope fuels are relatively abundant."
Comment: This is simply not true. Only half of the intended 50/50 DT fuel mixture is abundantly available and even that, deuterium, requires costly extraction from seawater. I propose removing the sentence entirely.

SENTENCE #3: "ITER will use a mix of deuterium-tritium for its fusion because of the combination’s high energy potential."
Comment: The current sentence puts a rosy spin on the matter. ITER will use DT, not because of its high energy potential, but because scientists long ago realized that DD cannot possibly work as a practical fuel for fusion.

SENTENCE #5: "The second isotope, tritium, only occurs in trace amounts in nature and estimates are the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms."
Comment: It's questionable to assert that tritium occurs in nature even at trace levels, particularly when there is no natural source (key word) for tritium in nature.

SENTENCE #6: "However, ITER will be testing tritium breeding blanket technology that would allow the fusion process to create its own tritium and thus be self-sufficient."
Comment: This is more counterfactual than factual; ITER is not designed to test a tritium breeding blanket. Considering that the mockup modules (which are not designed as fuel sources for ITER) can provide no more than one percent of the tritium fuel ITER needs to operate, the phrase "self-sufficient" should in no way be associated with triitum in the context of ITER. It should only be associated with the DEMO-class reactors. Also, the breeding blanket idea, since it doesn't and has never existed physically, is not a "technology." It is a component of the fusion scientific research.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@StevenBKrivit: tritium does indeed form naturally in trace quantities, from high-energy cosmic ray reactions in the atmosphere. It would be impractical to harvest this source, though. In your summaries above, you call CANDU fusion when I think you meant fission. Probably just a typo since you only do it once. Please see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS regarding your edit summary here, though some sort of explanation of the revert by Zurkhardo would have been nice. Overall, I don't take any exception to your proposed improvements. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr. Thanks for your review. Thanks for pointing out the typo (now fixed). I'm confused about BRD and ONUS. I'm certainly not a major contributor to Wikipedia and I'm certainly not up to speed on policies. My understanding was that major or critical changes should be discussed in TALK first. Q1: Has this Wikipedia protocol been replaced by BRD and ONUS? Q2: Does the current Wikipedia protocol actually prefer me to avoid discussing major changes in advance?

Regarding your point about tritium, "tritium does indeed form naturally in trace quantities." Yes, I certainly agree. What I object to in the current phraseology is the extant ambiguity that because tritium "only occurs in trace amounts in nature" there is a linkage to "the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms." There is no such linkage. Thus, my proposed language "is not available as a resource in nature." Q3: I welcome any suggestion you might have for greater precision and clarity. There are two footnotes that apply to some other section. I don't know how to relocate them properly. Do you?

StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

BRD/ONUS/Talk pages: Discussing major changes is still encouraged first; I was addressing the specific edit summary which I linked in my previous post.

Tritium: seems a fine phrasing for now, I was just clarifying.

Relocation of footnotes: you can use the {{reflist talk}} template, as I did here, to move those to the appropriate section. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

okay, thank you for the clarification about BRD/ONUS. Regarding the specific edit summary. I didn't think it was practical to go into the required detail in the edit summary. Instead, I created a section here under the heading "Major Deletion in Lede Restored." Was that good Wiki-etiquette?

thanks for the clarification on tritium

thanks for the info on relocation.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Section 1: Testing tritium breeding is absolutely one of the ITER goals. Read the reference please. The proposed replacement for section 1 is blatantly false in that aspect. ITER won't breed nearly enough tritium to be self-sufficient, that's not the goal, and the article doesn't claim that so arguing against that is pointless. No objection concerning the rest of the proposed change there.

Section 2: The proposal has an odd jump between sentence 1 and 2. I propose to add a transition sentence: "Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. The fuel is relatively abundant or can be produced in a fusion reactor. After preliminary tests with deuterium, ... then continue as suggested. Tritium exists in traces in nature, so I suggest changing "not available as a resource" to "not available as a practical resource". The world's supply needs a time frame for the 20 kg (per year?). "future DEMO-class reactors" are not expected to be a thing. There will (hopefully) be one DEMO, and commercial reactors will look different because they will include lessons learned from DEMO. And again you are missing that ITER will test this while DEMO will use this. Proposal: "Tritium is required to approach practical power output levels.[32] ITER will test breeding tritium using neutrons released in the fusion reactions. Future reactors are expected to incorporate enough tritium breeding blankets to be self-sufficient." And remove the last sentence of the proposal.

--mfb (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello MFB,

TRITIUM BREEDING: ITER is not designed for and is not intended to breed tritium for its operation. It will, however, have what is called a "mockup," a simulation of a blanket module that is about 1 square meter facing the plasma. There will be four of these. These are just modules designed to test parts of the breeding process. ITER has about 600 square meters of surface area. So the combined tritium produced by the test mockups cannot produce more than 1 percent of the tritium ITER will need. Although the tiny amount of tritium will be used by the reactor, these are test modules, not intended to supply the reactor with tritium. The purpose of the test modules is to determine whether the amount of tritium bred can be predicted accurately by neutronics calculations. These experiments will have no effect on the amount of tritium that must be purchased by the ITER project. It would be a significant exaggeration, therefore to say that ITER will breed tritium. Tritium breeding, and thermal-to-electric conversion are the two primary objectives of DEMO-class reactors.

ABUNDANT FUEL: The idea that fusion fuel is "relatively abundant" is also a gross exaggeration. Only half of the fuel, deuterium, is relatively abundant. Making tritium in an experimental fusion reactor - in sufficient quantities to use as fuel - has never been done and won't be done until midcentury when the DEMO-class reactors are built and are operating. Therefore, in this Wikipedia page, it would be inappropriate for us to say that tritium "can be produced in a fusion reactor." All we can say is that fusion researchers plan to breed tritium in future reactors.

TRITIUM RESOURCE: Your proposed wording "not available as a practical resource" implies that tritium is available as a natural resource, but that it's just not practical. This too, I think, is stretching things a bit too far. Consider the fact that its existence in nature only occurs in the atmosphere as a result of cosmic ray interactions and residue from weapons tests. Consider that tritium decays quickly. Can you point to any kind of reference or example to indicate that tritium is ever acquired from the atmosphere as a natural resource? I've never heard of such a thing.

DEMO(s): There has never been a plan for a single DEMO reactor by the 7 ITER partners. The partners involved in ITER all have designs for their individual DEMO-class reactors. The EU DEMO design activity started at least a decade ago. The EU and Japan may collaborate. Part of the reason for the confusion about this is because EUROfusion and the European fusion researchers all know that when they talk about "DEMO," they are talking about *their* DEMO, and when you see the EUROfusion Web site or read the team's scientific papers, they just say "DEMO." If you were in China or South Korea, you would hear about their DEMOs.

Given this information, could I ask you to please revise/restate your suggested changes to my proposals?

Thanks,

StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This source says: "for tritium, unlike deuterium, is radioactive and exists only transiently in nature." which might be the best way to phrase it: "exists only transiently in nature." ...or "on earth". ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think if we are to head in the direction of suggesting to readers that tritium "exists in nature," we must make it very clear that it exists not only transiently because of its decay rate, but that it exists at trace levels only in the atmosphere, and at a level below the ability to harvest, and that it does not exist on earth. Anything less than that and we might find that promoters of ITER will use an inference from Wikipedia to spread the idea that tritium "exists" although rare, as a natural resource. I think its accurate to say that tritium does NOT "exist" on earth or in the heavens above as a resource.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ITER acronym contradiction

There is a contradicting comment in the "fullname" field of "fusion devices" infobox stating that:

<!-- it is NOT International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; there is no full name for ITER -->

However, the article itself states twice that ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. There are also multiple sources supporting this: IEEE Spectrum, Forbes (note: source mentioned Thermal rather than Thermonuclear, however), and Scientific American.

Either the comment should be removed or the article should be edited. Due to the (albeit "unofficial") sources, the former should probably be correct... thoughts?

--JoeDai (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoeDai, When the project was first conceived, designed, authorized and funded, it was known by its full and original name, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. At some point in time, people responsible for the project, I don't know who or when, decided that the word "thermonuclear," even though it was the correct and accurate word, was politically disadvantageous. So they made a decision to just call it by its acronym. I do not know any paper trail on this decision. Only by coincidence, and absolutely not by design, does the acronym happen to be the Latin word for "the way." Now, can I prove that this is what happened and this is the explanation for the change? If I put some work into it, maybe. But I don't have the time. Perhaps Michel Claessens' book documents this marketing word shift. But when the Wikipedia editors who are enthusiastic about ITER engage in this topic, they express strongly that the project should only be called by its acronym, because that's what the officials do and what they want. They will say that ITER is no longer officially known by its full name. And they're right. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the spin and that the project is, in reality, an international thermonuclear experimental reactor. I guess what it boils down to is whether Wikipedia should lean towards explaining this nomenclature history or whether Wikipedia should lean toward forgetting the nomenclature history — and perhaps favoring the marketing strategy of the project's managers.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a standard to use what Reliable Sources call something. For example, the same happened with MRI, which is actually resonating the spins in nucleons and therefore more properly and originally (and in chem labs) called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, but that was deemed too scary for the public to subject themselves to in medical procedures, so it was renamed, and we in Wikipedia use the now accepted name, with a sentence in the lead explaining the change: "MRI was originally called NMRI (nuclear magnetic resonance imaging), but "nuclear" was dropped to avoid negative associations."

The guardian source in this article after the sentence: "The name ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but the project also uses the Latin definition of the word iter, meaning "the way" or "the path". - talks about the name change, but not WHEN it was done. I'll change that sentence in the lead to clarify the name change. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent info and analogy to MRI. Thank you for your help to resolve this.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)