The static (unloaded) electrical parameters of a capacitor bank are of utmost importance for the purpose of modeling the system as a whole when the capacitor bank is discharged into its dynamic electromagnetic load. Using a physical short circuit across the electromagnetic load is usually technically difficult and is unnecessary. The discharge can be operated at the highest pressure permissible in order to minimize current sheet motion, thus simulating zero dynamic load, to enable bank parameters, static inductance L(0), and resistance r(0) to be obtained using lightly damped sinusoid equations given the bank capacitance C(0). However, for a plasma focus, even at the highest permissible pressure it is found that there is significant residual motion, so that the assumption of a zero dynamic load introduces unacceptable errors into the determination of the circuit parameters. To overcome this problem, the Lee model code is used to fit the computed current trace to the measured current waveform. Hence the dynamics is incorporated into the solution and the capacitor bank parameters are computed using the Lee model code, and more accurate static bank parameters are obtained.
Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.