Diamagnetic “bubble” equilibria in linear traps A.D. Beklemishev1, a) Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia The equilibrium in a linear trap at β ≈ 1 (or above the mirror-instability threshold) under the topology-conservation constraint evolves into a kind of diamagnetic “bubble”. This can take two forms: either the plasma body greatly expands in radius while containing the same magnetic flux, or, if the plasma radius is limited, the plasma distribution across flux-tubes changes, so that the same cross-section contains a greatly reduced flux. If the magnetic field of the trap is quasi-uniform around its minimum, the bubble can be made roughly cylindrical, with radius much larger than the radius of the corresponding vacuum flux-tube, and with non-paraxial ends. Then the effective mirror ratio of the diamagnetic trap becomes very large, but the cross-field transport increases. The confinement time can be found from solution of the system of √ equilibrium and transport equations and is shown to be τE ≈ τkτ⊥. If the cross-field confinement is not too degraded by turbulence, this estimate in principle allows construction of relatively compact fusion reactors with lengths in the range of a few tens of meters. In many ways the described here diamagnetic confinement and the corresponding reactor parameters are similar to those claimed by the FRCs.

PACS numbers: 52.55.Dy, 52.55.Jd, 28.52.Av Keywords: linear trap, gas-dynamic trap, high- equilibrium, anisotropic pressure, energy confinement time, fusion reactor

I. INTRODUCTION anisotropic beam plasma was ensured by the relatively cold core component. Confinement of the core plasma Though are now undisputed leaders of the due to its high density and low temperature would be fusion program, their design has intrinsic limitations that in the collisional gas-dynamic regime, when the outflow deny possibility to work with advanced fuels such as d−d of the ions is limited by the nozzle effect of the mirror or aneutronic p−11B. While further progress of toka- throats, while the electron heat flux along open field lines maks is pinned to slow construction of gigantic ITER, is limited by the ambipolar electrostatic potential. The the small linear traps and field-reversed configurations theory of the axial gas-dynamic confinement predicts the (FRCs) demonstrate steady and rapid progress beyond total loss of about 8kTe per an ion-electron pair escap- 4,5 what was just 10 years ago thought to be their abso- ing to the end walls, and is experimentally confirmed. lute ceiling.1,2 The road to fusion for these “alternative” The GDT reached and surpassed its design goals. Its plasma traps is certainly still very long and rocky, but success is mainly a consequence of the simple and robust based on current theory and scalings they can offer an design. Collisional plasma tends to be more stable, while attractive vision of the more compact reactor with high additional turbulent scattering, if present, cannot further energy density and relative engineering simplicity. This increase the already maximum possible gas-dynamic out- paper describes a novel concept of efficient high-beta flow rate. The record plasma parameters in GDT are now 19 −3 plasma confinement that is half-way between the FRC β = 60%,Te . 1keV, at ne ∼ 10 m , with mean ion 1 and the linear gas-dynamic trap (GDT). It certainly im- energy of 8keV. These parameters are essentially suf- proves on the standard GDT confinement by offering a ficient for construction of the fusion source for greatly reduced reactor size at the cost of a more tricky materials science. The successful GDT design may even MHD stabilization. The energy confinement in the dia- be used for a neutron driver of nuclear waste burner or a 6 magnetic “bubbles” will be probably worse than that in hybrid reactor. However, its reliance on the beam-beam FRCs, but initial estimates suggest that a less stringent fusion limits the GDT fusion efficiency to QDT . 1. maintenance of equilibrium and stability will be required. Nevertheless, the fusion prospects of gas-dynamic traps The diamagnetic “bubble” equilibrium is a new mode were considered.8,9 Discarding the beam-beam fusion, of operation of gas-dynamic linear traps. There is cur- but retaining the gas-dynamic confinement of the core rently just one trap of this type in operation, the GDT plasma leads to the linear scaling of fusion efficiency with arXiv:1606.05454v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 17 Jun 2016 3 in Novosibirsk. It was originally constructed for concept the trap length, QDT ∝ L, so that the gas-dynamic re- exploration of a fusion neutron source for materials test- actor is theoretically possible. Unfortunately, the size ing. The idea was to use beam-beam fusion in the popu- of such a reactor is too large (L > 5km) and its power lation of fast “sloshing” ions, injected and adiabatically is enormous as well. To alleviate this deficiency it is confined in an axisymmetric mirror, while stability of the necessary to improve the axial confinement of ions. For reduction of the plasma outflow even the early papers suggested to use multiple mirror plugs.7,8 This idea was reborn after the efficiency of the mutiple-mirror confine- a)Electronic mail: [email protected]; Also at Novosibirsk State Univer- ment was shown to be at least two orders of magnitude sity. better than expected at target plasma densities10. In- deed, the axial flux reduction by a series of N mirrors due to β can be translated into a corresponding decrease has its maximum of ∼ N times, when the ion scattering in L, i.e., a really compact fusion reactor based on a lin- length is equal to the distance between mirrors. In pres- ear trap may become possible. ence of self-consistent plasma turbulence this seems to be satisfied even at densities much lower than predicted via binary collisions. A combination of the gas-dynamic core with multiple-mirror end plugs was dubbed GDMT11 and 2 promises quadratic scaling with length: QDT ∝ L . If the scaling is true, the GDMT reactor with DT fuel may be just 300m long with plasma radius of about 10cm, and the power is acceptable. However, it is disputable that the self-consistent turbulence that provides addi- tional scattering in mirror cells of the GOL-3 trap will be the same under reactor conditions with N ∼ 100. An ad- FIG. 1. Expansion of flux tubes at high β leads to corre- sponding increase in the effective mirror ratio of a linear trap. vanced concept with active helical mirror plugs that allow 12 If there is a quasi-uniform patch of the vacuum field at the better flux reduction will be tested in SMOLA device. bottom of the magnetic well, the resulting “bubble” will be While improvement of efficiency of mirror plugs may roughly cylindrical. The plasma boundary at cylinder ends be in theory sufficient for construction of a gas-dynamic needs stabilization. fusion reactor, its parameters at this stage are not attrac- tive enough to justify the risk of a new investment into Before going too optimistic about the β → 1 limit, lagging-behind-tokamaks linear traps. The main draw- we should answer a lot of difficult questions. The first back is in the geometry: while it is easy to construct √ is: how large the 1/ 1 − β-factor can be made in realis- an axially symmetric tube-like reactor, it has to be long tic equilibria? Furthermore, even if we reach this stage, and thin. The reasons are as follows: the is it may not be as beneficial as expected. While the mag- proportional to the plasma volume and squared density, netic flux is expelled from the plasma core, the transverse n , while the lost power is proportional to the plasma transport is also bound to increase up to infinity as the cross-section in mirror throats and density. The plasma ions become unmagnetized. Will the gain in axial con- occupies a magnetic flux-tube, so that cross-sections of finement be sufficient to justify the increased radial diffu- the mirror throats and of the active zone are related as sion? In fact, this diffusion is the same as the diffusion of the ratio of the magnetic fields, i.e., the mirror ratio the confining magnetic field into the diamagnetic “bub- R = B /B . As a result, Q ∝ nRL. Now the maxi- m 0 DT ble”, and the radial structure of the equilibrium will be mum density as well as the mirror ratio are related to the defined by particle sources. The force balance at β ≈ 1 is maximum attainable confining magnetic field. Indeed, in so delicate, that it is impossible to properly describe the the paraxial approximation the equilibrium is limited by plasma equilibrium state without considering the balance β: n ∝ βB2, where B is the confining (vacuum) field v v of particle and energy fluxes. Of course, the existence of in the active zone, while the magnetic field within the √ an equilibrium state does not guarantee that it can be plasma is reduced as B = B 1 − β. Thus 0 v realized in experiment. It should be made stable at least β to the ideal MHD modes. This feat is also very tricky at QDT ∝ LBvBm √ . (1) high β, as the predicted limit of ballooning stability in 1 − β linear traps may be significantly lower than 1.14–16 It follows that both the mirror field, Bm, and the con- At this point it is time to remember that new ideas fining field, Bv, should be chosen as high as technically are often old ones in disguise, and the history tends to possible, while the plasma radius can be made small as repeat itself. Once upon a time (about 40 years ago), long as transverse losses stay less than axial. This last there was a period, when one of the mainstream brands requirement is actually determining the length-to-radius of plasma devices for fusion was the linear θ-pinch. The ratio of the optimized reactor, L/a  1. magnetic configuration of this confinement scheme is the One can notice a very interesting β-dependent factor same as that of linear traps. The linear θ-pinches are in Eq.(1). While β is far from unity, say less than 60% actually direct predecessors of the multiple-mirror traps as in GDT, the gain in QDT from β is linear. However, and FRCs that were born in attempts to tackle high ax- as β → 1 the effective mirror ratio of the trap starts to ial losses. In terms of the θ-pinch community these are grow rapidly due to diamagnetic radial expansion of the particular types of “end-stoppering” schemes. The re- flux-tubes (see Fig.1). This effect has been noticed at cently invented helical mirror plug17 would qualify as least 50 years ago,13 but at the time most linear traps a special sort of “peristaltic mirror”. Due to typically were adiabatic ones with logarithmic dependence of con- high plasma density, above 1022m−3, the axial outflow finement time on the mirror ratio. Little importance was from θ-pinches was in the gas-dynamic regime (far from attached to the fact. However, it may be a game-changer the mirror throats). In this sense the GDT can also be for the gas-dynamic√ confinement due to linear scaling of considered a hybrid of the θ-pinch for the core plasma QDT ∝ R ∝ 1/ 1 − β. The increase in fusion efficiency with the adiabatic mirror for hot ions. The most im-

2 portant point is that θ-pinches were inherently√ high-β traps, the way to reach it, and possible important benefits devices, and the β → 1 limit with its 1 − β factor to use this mode of confinement for the design of fusion in axial confinement was noticed13 and explored in de- reactors. The plasma behavior in the β ≈ 1 limit is very tail theoretically13,18–23, experimentally,24,25 and by ad- different from that in more common regimes and lacks vanced numerical simulation.22,23 The general conclu- established description. Thus, the results here are all ob- sion, which one can derive from reading papers of the tained in zero-order approximation and should definitely θ-pinch era on the subject, is that if one tries really hard be refined by future work. In particular, the influence of and is lucky, one can at best expect a factor of 2 to 5 the parallel plasma flow on the form of the equilibrium improvement in plasma confinement due to the high-β and on its stability as well as most kinetic effects are left effect. Any improvement is nice, but this is a bit disap- for the future. pointing. In section II the “bubble” formation in an anisotropic So what is new in linear traps as compared to θ-pinches plasma with the increase of pressure beyond the mirror- to warrant revival of this old and forgotten idea? The instability threshold is described. The cylindrical (rather main difference is the transient-decay regime of operation than spherical) “bubble” with non-paraxial ends can be of a typical θ-pinch versus “stationary” operation regime formed in traps with quasi-uniform field near its mini- of a linear trap. The actual numbers are not as much dif- mum. In section III the requirements on heating power ferent, like 100 microseconds for a θ-pinch, vs. 5 millisec- for successful transit into the “bubble” regime are dis- onds for the current GDT, but “trap”-based reactors are cussed. Section IV is devoted to description of the satu- definitely stationary in contrast to “pinch”-based pulsed rated stationary “bubble” by solution of the equilibrium reactors. The high-temperature phase of a discharge in and particle-balance equations. The results lead to the a linear θ-pinch continued just as long as its axially ex- estimates of the energy confinement time and possible re- panding plasma column was separated from the end-walls actor parameters. In section V one possible approach to by vacuum. Once the electrical contact between them stabilization of the diamagnetic “bubble” is formulated. was established, two bad things happened: the electron In conclusion the results are summarized and concept- temperature plummeted, due to recirculation with the exploration experiments are discussed. cold plasma at the wall and the high parallel electron conductivity, and the plasma rotation appeared with an often unstable “wobbling”, due to radial currents driven II. HIGH-β PARAXIAL EQUILIBRIA IN LINEAR TRAPS by ambipolar potentials. The initial high-temperature phase was stable, but only if there were no mirrors at A lot of facts is already known about equilibria in linear the ends. A stable operation with mirrors was also pos- traps.26 Our aims here are limited and very specific: to sible, but only if the mirrors were turned on after the study the high-β limit of equilibrium in long and thin electrical contact with the end-wall, to ensure the line- axially symmetric traps. It appears that this particular tying stabilization. The most important advances made limit typically results in significant growth of the initially by the GDT with respect to this picture are the abili- thin plasma in radius. That expansion is axially localized ties to thermally insulate the internal electrons from the around the minimum of the vacuum magnetic field. end-wall by electrostatic barriers in expanders, to control The transverse pressure of plasma in a linear axisym- the radial distribution of plasma potential and rotation, metric trap can be approximated as to routinely work in stable regimes with unfavorable-on- Z average curvature and high mirror ratios, and to maintain 2 3 p⊥ = f (ε, µ, Pϕ) mv d v ≈ p⊥ (ψ, B) , (2) the approximate particle and energy balance. ⊥ The transient mode of operation of θ-pinches, and the where ψ is the flux function labeling magnetic surfaces, instability, caused by the presence of end mirrors, made and B is the local magnetic field strength. Then the their imprints on the way the high-β effect was treated. equation of paraxial equilibrium looks like The primary attention was given to transient phenom- ena, such as rarefaction waves, in uniform vacuum fields B2 = B2 + 8πp (ψ, B) , (3) (without external end mirrors). Another consequence v ⊥ was the treatment of the radial profile of plasma pressure where Bv(~r) is the confining vacuum magnetic field. as an initially generated function that would decay rather Let’s assume that we are interested in a subset of so- than evolve toward some stationary state. In particular, √ lutions that models a sequence of equilibria in a given the scaling of the life-time τ ∝ τ⊥τk was obtained by trap with growing pressure. One typical case is when Steinhauer,21 but only in the context of flux enhancement the distribution function is produced by inclined neutral by rarefaction waves due to transverse diffusion in thin beam injection (NBI) into the minimum of the magnetic plasma columns with sharp radial gradients. Thus it is field, like in GDT. Since the field minimum at finite pres- time to look at the high-β effect on confinement in linear sure, B0, itself depends on the distribution function via systems from the new angle of stationary equilibria that the equilibrium, the function p⊥ (ψ, B) will be different is relevant for modern traps. for different pressures. Going back to Eq.(2), one can This paper describes the high-β equilibrium in linear see that in a strong field what really matters is the pitch

3 angle that varies along field lines according to the local mean that there are no high-β equilibria we are looking field strength. Then the adequate representation of the for? sequence of equilibria with growing pressure but constant The answer to these questions can be based on analysis 27,28 injection angle is p⊥ = p⊥(ψ, R), where R (ψ, `) = B/B0 of Kotelnikov . According to his papers the equilib- is the local mirror ratio of the magnetic field, and the rium solutions of the paraxial equilibrium equations can function p⊥(R) retains its form. Note that the subse- be piecewise continuous, while the points of discontinu- quent use of this approximation does not alter the gen- ity can be interpreted as non-paraxial areas (with sharp erality of description, since for a given equilibrium B0 is inclination of field lines to the magnetic axis). At high just a constant. β the function R (`) becomes discontinuous. It is com- Let’s divide the equilibrium equation (3) by the square prised of two (or more) continuous intervals: the internal of the minimum vacuum magnetic field on a field line, one, where condition (7) is satisfied at low R ∼ 1, and 2 Bv0, and normalize the pressure and the magnetic field the external ones, where the same condition is satisfied by their values at the field minimum (trap center). We as well, but at large R only. Note that at β → 1 the get acceptable values of the mirror ratio R inside the trap can become arbitrarily large. Since P (R) > 0, for all 2 2 2 B0 reasonable distribution functions Rv (ψ, `) = R 2 + β0P (ψ, R) , (4) Bv0 ∂P (R) lim = 0, R→∞ ∂R2 where Rv (ψ, `) = Bv/Bv0 is the mirror ratio of the vac- 2 uum field, β0 (ψ) = 8πp⊥ (ψ, 1) /Bv0 is the β-value at and thus the piecewise continuous equilibrium solutions the minimum of the field on a given field line, while exist for all β < 1. Let’s describe some such solutions for P (ψ, R) = p⊥ (ψ, R) /p⊥ (ψ, 1) is the normalized profile typical types of pressure anisotropy shown in Fig.2. of pressure along the field line. Note that this equation should be valid everywhere, including the field minimum (R = 1,Rv = 1,P = 1), thus

2 B0 1 = 2 + β0. Bv0 Finally we arrive at

2 2 Rv (`) = (1 − β) R + βP (R) , (5) where the common argument ψ and the zero subscript of β are omitted to shorten notation. This equation should be solved in order to find R (`) with restriction R > 1, while we are particularly interested in the case 1−β  1. Let’s assume that we are dealing with a typical mirror FIG. 2. Typical forms of the normalized transverse pressure with a monotonically growing field from its center. Then distribution on a field line vs. mirror ratio R = B/B0 for the left-hand side grows with `, ∂R2/∂` ≥ 0, and to find v different distribution functions: a) isotropic;√ b) with a loss a solution for all ` we should have a growing right-hand cone; c) with inclined injection at α = arctan Rr − 1 to the side too, normal; d) with normal injection.

∂R2 ∂ · (1 − β) R2 + βP (R) 0. (6) ∂` ∂R2 > A. Quasi-isotropic distribution functions and normal This solubility condition results in a restriction on the injection pressure profile along the field line:

∂P (R) 1 − β In these cases the function P (R) is monotonously de- − . (7) ∂R2 > β creasing from 1 to 0, while the fully isotropic case corre- sponds to P ≡ 1, i.e., for all R we have In linear traps there are always some areas, where the ∂P (R) pressure derivative along the field line is negative. In- 0. ∂R2 6 deed, the pressure should be higher inside of the trap than in the mirror throats, since otherwise there would In the isotropic case solutions of Eq.(5) are continuous be no point in using mirrors. Looking at Eq.(7), one can for all β < 1: see that such decreases of pressure are restricted, and at s R2 (`) − β β → 1 they are entirely prohibited by the paraxial equi- R(`) = v . (8) librium. What is the reason for this restriction? Does it 1 − β

4 However, as β → 1 the solutions become localized in the B. Distribution function with sloshing ions vicinity of the bottom of the magnetic well on a field 2 line: Rv (`) ∼ 1. If the solution width `d is defined by In this case P (R) has a local maximum at reflection R2(` ) = h, then d point of fast ions, Rr, and then decreases to zero due to 2 the loss-cone effects. Where P (R) grows, there is always Rv (`d) = (1 − β) h + β → 1. a continuous solution, while on the downward slope at sufficient β discontinuity can appear. Its position will This isotropic solution cannot be directly applied to open tend to R as β → 1. traps due to pressure anisotropy there, but, as we shall r Let’s denote P (R ) ≡ P , and use parabolic approxi- see, the feature that the equilibrium tends to collapse r r mation of P (R) near the local maximum: toward the bottom of the magnetic well on a field line is quite robust. P (R) ≈ P − λ2 (R − R )2 . In presence of anisotropy, let’s define r r   Note that this approximation is reasonable only for the ∂P (R) 2 2 = −λ . purpose of finding position of discontinuity at β → 1 ∂R 2 R =1 (since it will be close to Rr.) The equilibrium equation near R looks like a. If λ2 6= 0 (the normal injection case), the equi- r librium equation at R = 1 takes the form 2 2  2 2 Rv (`) = (1 − β) R + β Pr − λ (R − Rr) . (9) 2 2 2 2  Rv (`) = (1 − β) R + β − λ β R − 1 . The presence of discontinuity can be detected as an ab- If β < 1/ 1 + λ2 , solution is continuous: sence of solutions in some interval of R due to negative discriminant of this quadratic equation. 2 R2 (`) − 1 If β > 1/ 1 + λ , solution of Eq.(9) becomes dis- R2(`) = 1 + v . 1 − β (1 + λ2) continuous. Position of discontinuity can be found from condition that the discriminant is zero: 2 Above this threshold, if β > 1/ 1 + λ , solution ac- λβ (1 − β) quires discontinuity at ` , where R (` ) = 1, i.e., at the R2 (` ) = βP + R2. d v d v d r β (1 + λ2) − 1 r bottom of the magnetic well. R(` < `d) = 1, while im- mediately beyond it R = Rd, which is the mirror ratio of It appears that though the discontinuity shifts toward the “bubble”. It satisfies the bottom of the magnetic well with growing pressure, it always stays on the downward slope of P (R) beyond 1 = (1 − β) R2 + βP (R ) . d d the reflection point. In the limit β → 1 the “bubble” branch of solution is still finite-length: In the limit 1 − β  1,Rd tends to infinity: 2 p Rv (`d) → Pr > 1. (10) Rd ≈ 1/ 1 − β  1.

b. If λ2 = 0 (the quasi-isotropic case), one can ap- It is interesting to note that its axial extent depends on proximate the pressure profile by parabola: the peaking of the pressure profile rather than on the injection angle. 2 P (R) ≈ 1 − δ2 R2 − 1 .

Then the equilibrium equation becomes C. Analysis and interpretations

2 2  2 2 2 At first glance the results of the above section look Rv (`) = 1 + (1 − β) R − 1 − δ β R − 1 . unusable due to appearance of discontinuities and zero- This quadratic equation has a positive solution for R2 −1 length solutions. But these zero-length singular solutions 2 2 2  at the bottom of the magnetic well are not as bad as they if D = (1 − β) − 4δ β Rv (`) − 1 > 0. While the “bub- ble” solution is not point-like like in the previous case, it look. As noted by Kotelnikov,27,28 discontinuity of the is still discontinuous, and the length to discontinuity is paraxial solution is just a non-paraxial transition between defined by two branches of the equilibrium. Thus, solution that has a branch with a single point at Rv = 1 (the “bubble” that (1 − β)2 collapsed to the bottom of the magnetic well at β = 1), R2 (` ) = 1 + . v d 4δ2β can be interpreted as just a roughly-spherical “bubble” in the middle of the trap, if Rv(`) is parabolic. One can see that Rv(`d) → 1 with β → 1, i.e., the “bub- This last condition, describing the function Rv(`), is ble” branch of solution collapses to the bottom of the extremely important. It describes the form of the mag- magnetic well as before. netic well of the vacuum field of the trap along field lines.

5 Near the bottom in a typical mirror it is indeed parabolic. suming gas-dynamic axial losses: However, we can choose this function according to our d 3 B2    B2  d aims. In particular, we can design a linear trap with a p + SL + p + [SL] = finite-length patch of uniform field at the well bottom. dt 2 8π 8π dt Then = W − 8pvmSm, (12)

R (`) ≡ 1, for ` < ` , (11) v 0 d (nSL) = Q − 2nv S . (13) dt m m and the branch of equilibrium that exists only at Rv = 1 becomes extended into a cylinder of length `0. The best Here W and Q are the source terms, vm and Sm are the thing about this trick is that the “bubble” length can outflow velocity and the flux-tube cross-section in the thus be prescribed via the form of the vacuum field. The mirror throat, p is the total (quasi-isotropic) plasma pres- bubble edges at high β will coincide with the ends of the sure, n is the average ion density. The energy loss rate uniform-field patch, so that we will be able to place there through two mirror throats is taken to be proportional some equipment for MHD stabilization. to 8Te per escaping ion (as in GDT), that translates into The type of high-β equilibrium that appears with 4p/n if Te ≈ Ti. Additional relations can be obtained sloshing ions formally allows a finite-length “bubble” from the paraxial equilibrium, even with a parabolic Rv profile. However, this is not 2 2 quite so: with growing β the magnetic field in the confine- 8πp + B = Bv = const, (14) ment area of beam ions is decreased, while the magnetic field at reflection points becomes non-paraxial. Under and the flux conservation, such conditions the conservation of the magnetic moment will be very poor. As a result, the pressure anisotropy BS = BvS0 = BmSm = const. (15) will relax, so that P → 1. As one can see from Eq.(10), r This simplified system is full. It is also obvious that this means that the developed “bubble” with inclined in- the equation for density separates from the system if we jection will be no different from a typical quasi-uniform can ignore the dependence of escape velocity on temper- case, only the path to it will vary. p ature. Strictly speaking vm ≈ p/nMi. However, the In the following sections the cylindrical geometry of the evolution of density in time may influence W in real ex- diamagnetic “bubbles” and the trap design with quasi- periments. For the sake of obtaining a simple estimate uniform patch of the magnetic field will be assumed. The we shall assume that the source of particles is configured other possible case of a roughly spherical non-paraxial to keep the plasma temperature approximately constant, “bubble” seems to lack prerequisites for plasma stabiliza- so that vm is constant too. tion (to be discussed in Section V). In particular, in the Then we can obtain a single equation of evolution of cylindrical case the interchange source term is finite only the flux-tube cross-section. Let Y = S/S = B /B, then at the ends of the cylinder, while in the middle uniform 0 v patch the plasma is marginally stable. Thus, by increas- β = 1 − 1/Y 2, (16) ing length we can add plasma without worsening stabil- ity. Furthermore, by placing localized stabilizers directly and at the ends of the cylinder it should be theoretically pos- sible to suppress even the edge ballooning modes. The 1 d dY 8πW vmSm (βY ) + 2 = 2 − 8β . (17) inclined NBI that leads to formation of sloshing ions (like 2 dt dt S0LBv LS0 in GDT) seems also to be far from optimal. Indeed, in this case more of the ”bubble” will extend over the field After substitution area with unfavorable curvature, so that the overall con- w − ν 1 − 1/Y 2 figuration will be less stable. Normal injection may also ˙ Y = 2 2 , (18) be bad, as the resulting cylindrical bubble may be unsta- 5 + Y ble to splitting into spherical ones by the mirror instabil- 2 where w = 8πW/S0LBv is the ratio of heating power ity. Thus, the trap configuration should have a uniform to initial magnetic energy within the flux tube, and ν = stretch of field in the middle and any NBI should be in- o 8vmSm/LS0 is the inverse gas-dynamic confinement time clined at about 60..80 to the axis, so that the resulting in the vacuum magnetic configuration. It is quite obvious pressure profile looks like curve b) in Fig.2. that in order to reach the “bubble”-type equilibrium with Y  1 one should have πW III. PATH TO THE “BUBBLE” REGIME w/ν = 2 & 1. (19) vmSmBv Let’s write the energy and particle conservation laws This condition is independent of L, but is proportional within a flux tube of length L and cross-section S, as- to the density of heating power per unit cross-section of

6 the initial flux tube and is inversely proportional to the then magnetic energy density. jϕ ∇ψ Condition (19) describes total power requirements to ~v⊥ = −2πr heat plasma as a whole. There is a less stringent scenario σ |∇ψ|2 based on gradual heating of the thin central flux tube. Assume that we can focus our heating up to a fixed power is the velocity of plasma slipping through the magnetic density wd, so that the total heating power in the flux field. The flux of plasma ions across a magnetic surface tube grows with its cross-section, w = wdY (as long as ψ = const is then this cross-section is less than some limit). In this case I nr j the stationary states of Eq.(18) satisfy Φ = −2π ϕ dS. (23) σ |∇ψ| 2 Y − 1 wd s = . (20) The balance of the number of ions in a flux-tube dψ can Y 3 ν s be written as

If we gradually increase the ratio wd/ν, we obtain grad- ∂Φ ∂ 0 ually higher Y roots, i.e., stationary “bubble” cross- = (Q − 2nvmSm) = Q − 2nvm/Bm, (24) s ∂ψ ∂ψ sections. But only below some threshold power density. 2 The maximum of the√ left-hand side is reached at Ysc = 3, i.e., any divergence of the radial flux is due to the external and if wd/ν > 2/3 3, there are no more stationary roots, source and axial losses within the flux-tube. The axial so that the flux tube will keep expanding (up to the limit losses are taken to be gas-dynamic, as in Eq.(13). of cross-section). This condition can be rewritten as The same azimuthal current density that enters into equation for the flux, (23), also enters the MHD equation π (W/S0) of the transverse equilibrium wd/ν = 2 Rm > 0.4, (21) vmBv ∂ j = 2πrc p (ψ, B) , (25) where W/S0 is the required heating density, and Rm = ϕ ∂ψ ⊥ S0/Sm is the vacuum mirror ratio of the trap. Condition (21) describes the required power density of and can be linked to distribution of ψ via Maxwell equa- plasma heating to reach the “bubble” state, if the con- tion finement is gas-dynamic. However, even in GDT the con- finement quality is better than that due to the population c  ∇ψ  j = − r ∇ · . (26) of fast ions. The threshold β, that has to be surpassed ϕ 4π 2πr2 (at the bottom of the magnetic well), might be a better indicator: Equations (25),(26) together form an analog of the Grad- Shafranov equation for axisymmetric linear traps 2 βc = 1 − 1/Ysc = 2/3. (22) ∂ ∆∗ψ = −16π3r2 p (ψ, B) . (27) ∂ψ ⊥ IV. RADIAL STRUCTURE OF A SATURATED “BUBBLE” Strictly speaking, one has to solve the system (23)- (26) in real geometry together with some realistic model Let’s try to describe an axisymmetric steady-state describing relationship between the transverse pressure equilibrium taking into account diffusion of the external p⊥ (ψ, B) and the ion density n. However, as a first ap- magnetic field into the “bubble”. If the magnetic field is proximation, we will formulate and solve a drastically nevertheless stationary, this means that there is a steady simplified system. Simplifications are based on consider- flux of plasma from the inside, i.e., the radial losses. The ations given in the previous sections: 1) We consider a radial plasma flux across the magnetic field is governed “developed bubble” in a magnetic field with a long uni- by the azimuthal component of the Ohm’s law: form patch of length L. The field geometry will be close to a straight cylinder, while contribution to transverse flux from its ends can be neglected. 2) The effective mir- 1 h i jϕ Eϕ + ~v × B~ = ; ror ratio within a “developed bubble” is expected to be c ϕ σ very large, so that the plasma pressure is almost isotropic and the axial losses are indeed gas-dynamic. 3) For the where σ is the effective transverse conductivity, j is the ϕ sake of simplicity we take the equation of state to be azimuthal current density, ~v is the flow velocity, and the p = 2nkT with T = const, so that σ = const, v = const azimuthal electric field E = 0, if the magnetic field is m ϕ as well. 4) The ion source is assumed to be provided by constant. Let’s define the flux function ψ according to pellet injection and is located somewhere deep inside the h i 1 “bubble”, so that only its integral rather than radial dis- B~ × ~e = − ∇ψ; ϕ 2πr tribution matters.

7 In these approximations B = ψ0/2πr and the ion bal- that can be integrated with boundary conditions: ance equation (24) simplifies to 2 h i f 2 = 8 − p1 − β 8 + 4β + 3β2 . (33)  0 0 np r 2σnvmBr 15 2 − 2 = 0, (28) B c LBm Note the important limiting value where prime denotes derivative in radius. The Grad- √ f (β = 1) = 4/ 15 ≈ 1.03 (34) Shafranov equation also simplifies and yields the familiar paraxial approximation, B2 = B2 − 8πp, where B is the v v that describes the normalized particle source to keep the magnetic field outside of the plasma cylinder. given “bubble” stationary. Excluding the magnetic field profile from the ion bal- Substituting Eq.(33) into the second line of Eq.(32), ance equation, and introducing β (r) = 8πp/B2 to re- v we get place p and n, we get a single nonlinear equation s 0 4 1 − β  β 3β2   ββ0r  0 √ p = λ−2rβp1 − β, (29) β = − 1 − 1 − β 1 + + . (35) 1 − β 15 β 2 8 where This equation can only be solved numerically (see Fig.3), however, the asymptotics can be found analytically as 16πσv B λ−2 = m v . (30) c2LB  4 r − a  r − a m 1 − β ≈ exp √ + 3.8 , → −∞; 15 λ λ The characteristic radial scale λ can be rewritten as (36) s 2 c LRm (r − a)2 r − a λ = , β ≈ , −1 < ≤ 0. (37) 4πσ 4vm 12λ2 λ and can be interpreted as a skin depth of the magnetic It follows that the magnetic field inside the “bubble” is field by the time of the gas-dynamic outflow from the decreasing exponentially from its boundary to the axis, vacuum field of the trap. It is normally very small, for while the boundary itself is quite “rigid”, i.e., there is no example, for T = 300eV, R = 35, µ = 2,L = 3 m we pressure at all beyond r = a. find λ ≈ 6.5mm. It should be even smaller for fusion parameters. 1 Equation (29) can be rewritten as a system β 0.9 y0 = λ−1rβp1 − β, (31) 0.8 1−exp(1.03(x+3.8)) β0 = λ−1y (1 − β) /βr. 0.7 The boundary conditions are β (∞) = 0, y (0) = y0 < 0, where y0 is the (almost on–axis) source of ions. Qual- 0.6 itatively, solution for the “developed bubble” looks as follows: over most of the radius β ≈ 1, while the tran- 0.5 sition layer from β ≈ 1 to β ≈ 0 (the boundary) has 0.4 the characteristic radial scale λ  r. This structure can be successfully described in the slab approximation, i.e., 0.3 −1 we set r ≈ a = const, λ y/a = f, and introduce the x2/12 normalized radial coordinate x = (r − a) /λ. Now 0.2 0.1 0 p fx = β 1 − β, (32) 0 0 β = f (1 − β) /β, −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 x (r−a)/λ describes the structure of the boundary layer. The systems (29),(32) are nonlinear boundary prob- FIG. 3. The radial structure of the boundary layer of the lems. Fortunately, (32) is simplified to the extent that it “bubble” in the MHD slab-transport model. There is vacuum can be integrated in quadratures. We first find equation (β = 0) beyond the r = a surface, and the low-field interior for f (β): (β ≈ 1) to the left.

β2dβ Now we can calculate the flux of particles that are lost fdf = √ , 1 − β from the “developed bubble” in a stationary state. It is

8 obviously equal to the total source of particles that is nec- classical (Spitzer) transverse plasma conductivity: −4 −5 essary to keep the “bubble” stationary. It is given in the λ ≈ 2 × 10 m, τGDT ≈ 5 × 10 s, and then normalized form by Eq.(34), and can be reconstructed as 3 a τE = τGDT ≈ 0.1s. c2L π ββ0r 4 a c2L π 8 λ Φ = − nB = √ nB. 4πσ 2 1 − β 15 λ 4πσ 2 In the last estimate we also assumed the GDT scal-

2 ing of τE ≈ 3τn/8 (the plasma energy is propor- Here nB = Bv /16πkT is the central density of ions that tional to 3T per ion, while the axial losses scale corresponds to β = 1, and as 8T per ion.) At 10 Tesla the central density is n = 1.4 × 1022m−3; as a result c2L B 4λ2v B = 4λ2v v = m . m 21 20 −3 4πσ Bm Rm nτE ≈ 1.4 × 10 > 10 m s. (41) It follow that Our estimate exceeds the by a fac- tor of 10. This means that even if the effective 8π aλvm Φ = √ nB. (38) plasma resistivity (or radial diffusion) is a factor of R 15 m 100 higher than the classical one, the 30m-by-1m This flux in turn can be used to estimate the particle DT reactor is still possible. confinement time: 4. Results of this section are obtained in the MHD πa2Ln a LR a approximation, which is not quite applicable. In- τ = B ≈ m = τ , (39) n Φ λ 2v λ GDT deed, the trajectories of ions in reality may be m extended far beyond the predicted thin MHD- boundary. Even ions passing right through the a LRm √ middle of the “bubble” will reflect back only af- τn = q = 2τ⊥τGDT , (40) c2 LR 2vm ter passing one Larmor radius into the magnetic 4πσ 4vm field of the border, making its width of the order of ρi ∼ c/ωpi (if it is larger than a few λ). How- where τGDT = LRm/2vm is the gas-dynamic time in the 2 2 ever, this will not necessarily lead to significant in- vacuum field, and τ⊥ = 4πσa /c is the transverse diffu- crease in the particle losses. In fact, the confine- sion time over the full “bubble” radius. ment quality may improve. Indeed, the ions passing both through the border (B ∼ Bv) and the interior (B ∼ 0) have very large values of the magnetic mo- A. Analysis ment, i.e., are far from the loss cone, and, from the viewpoint of axial losses in the boundary, are con- 1. The “bubble” radius a is directly proportional and fined in the kinetic rather than in the gas-dynamic responds to the particle source Φ, while the relevant regime. This means that their axial losses should values and profiles of β are then defined selfconsis- be far below the gas-dynamic estimate. If we con- tently. This means that the equilibrium is quite sider that only ions that do not pass through the robust and stable vs. source variations, although β “bubble” body can be lost, then their loss rate is may be exponentially close to the equilibrium limit. again limited by radial diffusion into the boundary. 2. The plasma confinement within the “bubble” can However, the rate of this diffusion may be slower be approximately described as follows. Deep within than in the MHD case, since the radial gradient of it the radial diffusion dominates, while the axial the magnetic field is lower as λ/ρi. On the other loss is vanishingly small. In fact the ions may not hand, the kinetic regime of confinement in linear be magnetized inside of the “developed bubble” at traps is often unstable, which may increase the loss all, with almost straight trajectories. All of the rate again. The qualitative and quantitative de- radial confinement is concentrated in the relatively scriptions of kinetic processes within the “bubble” thin boundary layer of width ∼ 6λ. However, due boundary are definitely very important and should to finite magnetic field within the boundary layer, be addressed in the near future. the effective mirror ratio is also finite, so that the gas-dynamic losses appear. In a unit of time the V. APPROACHES TO MHD STABILIZATION “bubble” looses particles from the layer of width λ and radius a via the standard gas-dynamic axial a As already noted in the previous sections, the plasma outflow, hence τn = τGDT . λ equilibrium in the β → 1 limit is going to be unstable if 3. A rough estimate for the confinement quality at no special measures are taken. Stabilization will be very reactor parameters (T = 9keV, L = 30m, Bv = tricky and difficult, but, as shown above, potential ben- 10T,Rm = 2, a = 1m) can be obtained using the efits of using the diamagnetic “bubble” confinement are

9 great and can justify any effort. At present the descrip- may be sufficient for suppressing long-wave instabilities of tion of the equilibrium is not yet sufficiently advanced the edge. What about the short waves and the interior? and detailed to warrant an in-depth theoretical study of For suppression of short-wave modes we have to rely on its stability. However, some general ideas of how a “bub- the finite-larmor-radius (FLR) effects. They are shown to ble” should be formed and confined in order to avoid the work quite well in the GDT-like traps3,29. However, be- most dangerous modes can be discussed. Another pos- cause of sharp field gradients the standard perturbative sibility is to look for stabilization as in existing analogs, methods fail, and there is no adequate kinetic description such as FRCs. The outer magnetic configuration of a of the equilibrium, so that the full theory of FLR stabi- linear trap in the “bubble” regime is equivalent to the lization of the “bubble” edge should be left for future FRC scrape-off layer, though the FRC itself is replaced studies. Still, it is worth to point out the question of bal- by the low-field “bubble”. This means that the ques- ance: if the FLR is large, we cannot place the conducting tion of MHD stability of the boundary of the “bubble” shell closer than ρi to the plasma surface. Fortunately, at configuration is mostly similar to that of the FRC, while least the interior of the “bubble” needs no special efforts the inside of the “bubble” has far less free magnetic en- for stabilization: there are no gradients and no magnetic ergy and thus should be more stable. We know that the energy, and thus no instability, since the radial transport conducting-shell stabilization works in the case of C-2U2 in the unmagnetized plasma is already as large as it can and can look in this direction as well. be. Two general recipes for formation of “bubbles” are al- ready formulated: 1) the plasma heating scheme should avoid any strong anisotropy of the resulting plasma pres- VI. CONCLUSION sure, and 2) there should be a long patch of nearly- uniform field at the bottom of the magnetic well. The A new scheme for confining high-β fusion plasmas in a first requirement will allow stability of anisotropy-related linear trap is described. It is midway between the classi- modes, while the second one will make the form of the cal schemes of the gas-dynamic trap and the FRC, and is “bubble” equilibrium quasi-cylindrical. In the following not really much different from what was attempted be- we assume that these requirements are satisfied. fore. However, the present estimates show that the dia- A lot is already known about the inherent instability magnetic “bubble” equilibrium promises huge improve- of flute modes in linear axisymmetric traps and the vari- ment of confinement quality as compared to the gas- ous ways to stabilize them.29 Most of stabilization meth- dynamic scheme, so that the estimated reactor length ods rely on special systems or cells placed at the ends of reduces from 5km to 30m and the total fusion power be- the traps, or in expanders. As shown, for example, by comes reasonable. The confinement time scales as the Ryutov and Stupakov,14 all of them fail when β is large, geometric average of the gas-dynamic time and the time √ i.e., when the thermal energy becomes comparable to the of the radial diffusion of the magnetic flux, τE ≈ τkτ⊥. magnetic field energy and the field lines can no longer be A stable confinement of the β ≈ 1 plasma cannot be easy, considered “rigid”. If the trap is long, the instability- but there seems to be a straightforward way to use the driving curvature is small, but the perturbation of the conducting-shell stabilization method that is shown to magnetic field energy due to bending of field lines be- work for FRCs.2 tween the plasma body and the far-away stabilizers is Although there is still no detailed theory of stabil- equally small. Let’s apply this qualitative reasoning to ity and transport, it is probably worthwhile to attempt our proposed equilibrium. an experimental check of the predicted “bubble” forma- The instability-driving curvature at ends of the “bub- tion and of the related improvement in confinement time. ble” cylinder may be significant, but it is localized. Its Such initial concept-exploration experiments are now in location is also well-defined, so that external stabilizers the planning stage in the Budker Institute of Nuclear can be (and should be) placed nearby (see Fig.1). There Physics in Novosibirsk. The common problems are the is also a particular type of such stabilizers, the massive requirement of a very high power density of heating dur- shell conductors for line-tying, that is especially suitable ing the formation stage (as detailed in section III of this for the purpose. Indeed, the own magnetic field of the paper), and the necessity to have a programmable par- quasi-cylindrical plasma column is similar to that of a ticle source within the “bubble” (that can be achieved solenoid, i.e., the own field at the cylinder ends is rapidly by pellet-injection type systems in larger traps). One expanding out of the plasma. Most of this flux can be approach is to use highly-focused nearly-transverse NBI easily intercepted by conductors. The distance between heating in the small CAT mirror (in design stage), which conductors and the plasma edge along the own plasma is originally intended for an attempt to create a beam- field will be quite small. Also note that the own plasma driven FRC. The second possible approach is to use RMF field at β ∼ 1 is as great as the confining field, so that heating like in the PFRC project in the Princeton PPL.30 its bending energy over short distance can be sufficiently Experiments to form FRCs are generally very simi- large to inhibit ballooning perturbations of the plasma lar to those to form a “bubble”. The main difference edge. lies in the plasma conductivity in the formation stage. Okay, this variant of the conducting-shell stabilizer While during the FRC formation the magnetic flux in

10 its interior has to reconnect, which would be difficult in 7G.I. Budker, V.V. Mirnov, D.D. Ryutov, JETP Letters 14, 212 highly-conducting plasma, in the “bubble” case there is (1971). 8 no reconnection. Instead, the flux-conserving radial ex- LA. Kotel’nikov, V.V. Mirnov, V.P. Nagornyj, D.D. Ryutov, in Plasma Phys. and Contr. Research: Proceedings pansion of flux tubes can lead to a drastic drop of the of the 10th. Int. Conf. on PPCNF, London, UK, 1984, (Nuclear ion density. Without solving the problem of feeding the Fusion Supplement, IAEA, Vienna, 1985) 2, pp.309-319. “bubble” by sufficient numbers of particles, the experi- 9V. V. Mirnov and D. D. Ryutov, Sov. Tech. Phys Lett. 5, 279 ments would produce transient states at best. The simple (1979). 10 and common way of the gas puff is clearly not the best A.V. Arzhannikov, A.M. Batrakov, A.V. Burdakov, I.A. Ivanov, K.I. Mekler, V.V. Postupaev, A.F. Rovanskih, S.V. Polosatkin, choice: it cannot be applied in the area of fast-ion con- V.Ya. Sazanskii, S.L. Sinitskii, Yu.S. Sulyaev, Plasma Physics finement for fear of charge-exchange losses, while outside Reports 32, 94 (2006). of this area the particle feed will not reach the core of 11A. Beklemishev, A. Anikeev, V. Astrelin, P. Bagryansky, A. Bur- the “bubble”. However, the author is sure that the in- dakov, V.Davydenko, D. Gavrilenko, A. Ivanov, I. Ivanov, M. genuity of physicists is limitless and the still outstanding Ivantsivsky, I. Kandaurov, S.Polosatkin, V. Postupaev, S. Sinit- problems can be solved one way or another. sky, A. Shoshin, I. Timofeev, Yu. Tsidulko, Fusion Sci. Technol., 63 (1T), 46 (2013). 12V.V. Postupaev, A.V. Sudnikov, A.D. Beklemishev, I.A. Ivanov, Fusion Engineering and Design, 106, 29 (2016). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 13J. B. Taylor, J. A. Wesson, Nucl. Fusion, 5, 159 (1965). 14D. D. Ryutov and G. V. Stupakov, in Plasma Phys. and Contr. Nuclear Fusion Research: Proceedings of the 8th. Int. Conf. on The author is grateful to his colleagues from the Bud- PPCNF, Brussels, Belgium, 1980, (Nuclear Fusion Supplement, ker Institute for encouragement and many fruitful discus- IAEA, Vienna, 1981) 1, p.119. sions, especially to V.V. Postupaev for commenting the 15T. B. Kaiser and L. D. Pearlstein, Phys. Fluids 26, 3053 (1983). 16 manuscript; and to Prof. T. Tajima of Tri Alfa Energy, T. B. Kaiser and L. D. Pearlstein, Phys. Fluids 28, 1003 (1985). 17A.D. Beklemishev, Fusion Science & Technology 63 (1T), 355 Inc. for suggesting an important reference. (2013). This work has been supported by Russian Science 18J. A. Wesson, in Plasma Phys. and Contr. Nuclear Fusion Re- Foundation (project N 14-50-00080). search: Proceedings of the 2nd. Int. Conf. on PPCNF, Culham, UK, 1965, (Nuclear Fusion Supplement, IAEA, Vienna, 1964) 1, 1P.A. Bagryansky, E.D. Gospodchikov, A.A. Lizunov, V.V. pp.223-235. Maximov, V.V. Prikhodko, A.G. Shalashov, E.I. Soldatkina, 19R. L. Morse, Phys. Fluids 11, 738 (1968). A.L. Solomakhin, D.V. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 205001 20J. P. Freidberg, H. Weitzner, Nuclear Fusion 15 217 (1975). (2015). 21L. C. Steinhauer, Phys. Fluids 19, 738 (1976). 2M. W. Binderbauer, T. Tajima, L. C. Steinhauer, E. Garate, 22F. Brunel, T. Tajima, J. N. Leboeuf, and J. M. Dawson, Phys. M. Tuszewski, L. Schmitz, H. Y. Guo, A. Smirnov, H. Gota, D. Rev. Lett. 44, 1494 (1980). Barnes, B. H. Deng, M. C. Thompson, E. Trask, X. Yang, S. 23F. Brunel and T. Tajima, Phys. Fluids 26, 535 (1983). Putvinski, N. Rostoker, R. Andow, S. Aefsky, N. Bolte, D. Q. 24K. F. McKenna, R. R. Bartsch, R. J. Commisso, C. A. Ekdahl, K. Bui, F. Ceccherini, R. Clary, A. H. Cheung, K. D. Conroy, S. A. B. Freese, R. F. Gribble, F. C. Jahoda, G. Miller, R. E. Siemon, Dettrick, J. D. Douglass, P. Feng, L. Galeotti, F. Giammanco, J. U. Brackbill, J. P. Friedberg, S. P. Gary, H. R. Lewis, A. G . E. Granstedt, D. Gupta, S. Gupta, A. A. Ivanov, J. S. Kinley, Sgro, L. Turner, D. Winske, A. L. Hoffman, E. A. Crawford, D. D. K. Knapp, S. Korepanov, M. Hollins, R. Magee, R. Mendoza, Y. Lowenthal, D. C. Quimby, G. C. Vlases, H. W. Hoida, and Z. A. Mok, A. Necas, S. Primavera, M. Onofri, D. Osin, N. Rath, T. Pietrzyk, in Plasma Phys. and Contr. Nuclear Fusion Research: Roche, J. Romero, J. H. Schroeder, L. Sevier, A. Sibley, Y. Song, Proceedings of the 7th. Int. Conf. on PPCNF, Innsbruck, 1978, A. D. Van Drie, J. K. Walters, W. Waggoner, P. Yushmanov, K. (Nuclear Fusion Supplement, IAEA, Vienna, 1979) II, pp.229- Zhai and TAE Team, Phys. Plasmas 22, 056110 (2015). 247. 3A.A. Ivanov, V.V. Prikhodko, Plasma Phys. and Contr. Fusion 25K. F. McKenna, R. R. Bartsch, R. J. Commisso, C. A. Ekdahl, 55 006301 (2013). W. E. Quinn, R. E. Siemon, Phys. Fluids 23 1443 (1980). 4D. D. Ryutov, Fusion Science & Technology 47, 148 (2005). 26R. F. Post, Nuclear Fusion 27, 1579 (1987). 5P. A. Bagryansky, A. V. Anikeev, A. D. Beklemishev, A. S. 27I. A. Kotelnikov, Fusion Science & Technology 59 (1T), 47 Donin, A. A. Ivanov, M. S. Korzhavina, and K. V. Zaytsev, Fu- (2011). sion Science & Technology 59, 31 (2011). 28I. A. Kotelnikov, P. A. Bagryansky, V. V. Prikhodko, Phys. Rev. 6A. V. Anikeev, P. A. Bagryansky, A. D. Beklemishev, A. E 81, 067402 (2010). A. Ivanov, E. Yu. Kolesnikov, M. S. Korzhavina, O. A. Ko- 29D. D. Ryutov, H. L. Berk, B. I. Cohen, A.W. Molvik, and T. C. robeinikova, A. A. Lizunov, V. V. Maximov, S. V. Murakhtin, Simonen, Phys. Plasmas 18, 092301 (2011). E. I. Pinzhenin, V. V. Prikhodko, E. I. Soldatkina, A. L. Solo- 30S.A. Cohen, A.S. Landsman, and A.H. Glasser, Phys. Plasmas, makhin, Yu. A. Tsidulko, D. V. Yakovlev and D. V. Yurov, Ma- 14, 72508 (2007). terials , 8, 8452 (2015). doi:10.3390/ma8125471

11