DOCSLIB.ORG

∫° Plasma Confinement in a Levitated Magnetic Dipole

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
∫° Plasma Confinement in a Levitated Magnetic Dipole Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 23, No. 9, 1997, pp. 742–750. From Fizika Plazmy, Vol. 23, No. 9, 1997, pp. 801–810. Original English Text Copyright © 1997 by Kesner, Mauel. MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS Plasma Confinement in a Levitated Magnetic Dipole J. Kesner* and M. Mauel** * Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Ma 02129 ** Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 10027 Received April 1, 1995 Abstract—Plasma confinement in the field of a levitated dipole offers many advantages for magnetic fusion. MHD stability is obtained from compressibility which utilizes the large flux tube expansion of a dipole field. Such a device could be high beta, steady state, and exhibit good confinement properties. The large flux expan- sion will ease the difficulty of the divertor design. The configuration is ideal for electron cyclotron heating and controlled convective flow patterns may provide a mechanism for fueling and ash removal. 1. INTRODUCTION tribution function, µ is the adiabatic invariant, µ = The dipole magnetic field is the simplest and most e⊥/2B, J is the parallel invariant, J = °∫v || dl and the flux, common magnetic field configuration in the universe. It ψ is the third adiabatic invariant. The frequencies that is the magnetic far-field of a single, circular current Ω correspond to these invariants are respectively c the loop, and it represents the dominate structure of the cyclotron frequency, ω , the bounce frequency and ω middle magnetospheres of magnetized planets and neu- b d tron stars. The use of a dipole magnetic field generated the curvature driven precessional drift frequency. Both by a levitated ring to confine a hot plasma for fusion of these conditions lead to dipole pressure profiles that scale with radius as r–20/3 while the adiabatic distribu- power generation was first considered by Akira Haseg- µ awa after participating in the Voyager 2 encounter with tion function, F( , J) also implies a density dependence ∝ –4 ∝ –8/3 Uranus [1]. Hasegawa recognized that the inward diffu- of ne r and a temperature dependence T r . sion and adiabatic heating that accompanied strong By levitating the dipole magnet in order to prevent magnetic and electric fluctuations in planetary mag- end losses, conceptual reactor studies supported the netospheres represented a fundamental property of possibility of a dipole fusion reactor [3, 4]. The dipole strongly magnetized plasmas not yet observed in labo- reactor concept is a radical departure from the better ratory fusion experiments. For example, it is well- known toroidal-based magnetic fusion reactor con- known that global fluctuations excited in laboratory cepts. For example, the most difficult problems for a fusion plasmas result in rapid plasma and energy loss. tokamak reactor are the divertor heat dissipation, dis- In contrast, large-scale fluctuations induced by sudden ruptions, steady state operation, and an inherently low compressions of the geomagnetic cavity (due to beta limit. Furthermore, the tokamak is subject to neo- enhancements in solar wind pressure) or by unsteady classical effects and micro-turbulence driven transport. convections occurring during magnetic substorms The dipole concept provides a approach to fusion energize and populate the energetic electrons trapped in which solves these problems. the Earth’s magnetosphere [2]. The fluctuations induce inward particle diffusion from the magnetospheric 1. Divertor problem: The difficulty in spreading the boundary even when the central plasma density greatly heat load at the divertor plate is generic to concepts in exceeds the density at the edge. Hasegawa postulated which the magnetic flux is trapped within the coil sys- that if a hot plasma having pressure profiles similar to tem. By having the plasma outside of the confining coil those observed in nature could be confined by a labora- the magnetic flux can be sufficiently expanded to sub- tory dipole magnetic field, this plasma might also be stantially reduce divertor heat loads. immune to anomalous (outward) transport of plasma energy and particles. 2. Major disruptions: A tokamak has a large amount of energy stored in the plasma current. The dipole The dipole reactor concept is based on the idea of plasma carries only diamagnetic current and is inher- generating pressure profiles near marginal stability for ently free of disruptions. Experiments observe relax- low-frequency magnetic and electrostatic fluctuations. ation oscillations, reminiscent of tokamak ELMs, From ideal MHD, marginal stability results when the which relax the pressure gradients when they become pressure profile, p satisfies the adiabaticity condition, too large. δ(pVγ) = 0, where V is the flux tube volume and γ = 5/3. From gyro kinetics, marginal stability results when 3. Steady state: A tokamak is a pulsed device and ∂F(µ, J, ψ)/∂ψ = 0 where F(µ, J, ψ) is the particle dis- current drive schemes that are required for steady oper- 1063-780X/97/2309-0742 $10.00 © 1997 åÄàä ç‡Û͇ /Interperiodica Publishing PLASMA CONFINEMENT IN A LEVITATED MAGNETIC DIPOLE 743 ation appear to be costly. The dipole plasma is inher- a substantially improved approach to magnetic fusion ently steady state. energy production. 4. Beta limit: Tokamak stability depends on the poloidal field which is less than the toroidal field by 2. DIPOLE CONFIGURATION Bp/BT ~ 1/qA with q the edge safety factor and A the aspect ratio. For a dipole there is a critical pressure gra- Figure 1 which shows the magnetic flux contours dient that can be supported (due to the compressibility and the mod-B surfaces for a laboratory-size levitated term in the interchange stability criterion) and for a suf- dipole facility [11]. The levitated ring has a major ficiently gentle pressure gradient the dipole plasma radius Rc and a minor radius a. The simplest vacuum resides in an absolute energy well and is stable up to chamber geometry would be a spherical tank and the local beta values in excess of unity. last closed flux surface will be assumed to have a radius ≥ 5. Transport and neoclassical effects: The trapping Rw. Typically Rw 5Rc to permit a substantial reduction of particles in regions of bad curvature makes the toka- of plasma pressure. The plasma pressure will attain a mak susceptible to drift frequency range trapped parti- peak value at a midplane radius of R0. Between the ring cle driven turbulent transport. A dipole could, theoreti- surface (located at R = Rc + a) and the peak pressure cally, show classical transport. In addition a tokamak location there is good curvature and since the field is has a “neoclassical” degradation of transport that relatively high near the ring, cross-field transport is be derives from the drifts of particles off of the flux sur- expected to be low. Thus we expect high pressure gra- faces. In a dipole the drifts are toroidal and they define dients in this region. The schematic midplane pressure the flux surfaces. profile is shown in Fig. 2. The chief drawback of the dipole approach is the need for a levitated superconducting ring internal to the plasma. Although this provides a challenge to the engi- Z, Òm neering of the device recent advances in high tempera- –300 ture superconductors coupled with an innovative design concept of Dawson [5, 6] on the maintenance of an 5 × 10 internal superconducting ring in the vicinity of a fusion –3 plasma leads to the conclusion that this issue is techno- 1 × logically solvable. –200 10 –2 Utilization of electron cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) and pellet injection in a levitated dipole per- mits a unique heating approach for the creation of fusion grade plasmas. The combination of closed field –100 lines and high beta makes the dipole an ideal geometry for creating a high beta, hot electron plasma by the application of ECRH. Such plasmas have been demon- strated in open field line mirror machines as well as in 2 × levitrons and in the non-levitated dipole (or so-called 0 10 “terrella”) CTX experiment [7–10]. The density of the –1 5 5 10 hot electron plasma is observed to be limited by micro- × wave accessibility and the energy by relativistic detun- –1 1 1 × ing. Unlike ECRH mirror applications, the hot elec- 10 trons created in a levitated dipole can only be lost by 100 –1 cross-field transport and if transport is close to classical the resulting loss rate will be small. The energy stored in the hot electron plasma can be transferred into a dense, thermal hydrogenic plasma by injecting pellets into the ECR heated plasma. 200 We conclude that the continued advances in the understanding of magnetospheric plasmas coupled with the development of the technology of gyrotrons and of pellet injectors provides the fusion community 300 with a new and unique approach to creating fusion 0 100 200 300 400 grade laboratory plasmas. In addition the development R, Òm of high temperature superconductors and of new con- ceptual approaches to the cooling of an internal levi- Fig. 1. Magnetic field and flux surfaces for a levitated dipole tated superconducting coil provide a potential path for experiment. PLASMA PHYSICS REPORTS Vol. 23 No. 9 1997 744 KESNER, MAUEL p(R) The vacuum field of a circular loop provides a useful analytic approximation. The vector potential for the field of a single loop of radius Rc in cylindrical coordi- nates has the form 12⁄ µI R c 2 2 2 Aθ =------ ----- []()1– 0.5k Kk()–Ek(),(1) πkr Rc R0 Rw R with B = ∇ × A and the magnetic flux surfaces are given by rAθ. K and E are complete elliptic integrals of the Fig. 2. Midplane pressure profile shown schematically. first and second kind. The ring current is I and 4Rr k2= -------------------------------c- . Outside of the peak pressure region the pressure will ()R+r2+z2 decay in a region of “bad” curvature and MHD stability c requires a relatively gentle pressure gradient.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V
    Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V. Minervini1, Leslie Bromberg1, Peter J. Lee2, David C. Larbalestier2, Introduction Magnet systems are the ultimate enabling technology for magnetic confinement fusion devices. Powerful magnetic fields are required for confinement of the plasma, and, depending on the magnetic configuration, dc and/or pulsed magnetic fields are required for plasma initiation, ohmic heating, inductive current drive, plasma shaping, equilibrium and stability control. Almost all design concepts for power producing commercial fusion reactors rely on superconducting magnets for efficient and reliable production of these magnetic fields. Future superconducting magnets for fusion applications require improvements in materials, components, and configurations to significantly enhance the feasibility and practicality of fusion reactors as an energy source. A demonstration of large-scale demountable High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) magnets could revolutionize fusion energy development, dramatically reducing program cost and development time. Background OFES established and maintained a robust magnet technology development for several decades. Until the end of the ITER EDA (1998), the magnet technology R&D program was arguably the most successful of all enabling magnet technology programs. Most of the laboratories and universities performing superconducting magnet R&D had robust programs. A major milestone was the first (and only) successful operation of the massive superconducting magnet system for MFTF-B at LLNL in 1986. The high point was the successful completion (1999) and operation (2000) of the ITER CS Model Coil (CSMC). Since that time, funding for the development of superconducting magnets and almost all other enabling technologies has been on a steady decline, leading to the proposed magnet technology budget for FY 2013 of $765,000 or 0.19% of the total fusion budget.
    [Show full text]
  • ERC Implementing Arrangements Call for Expression of Interest 2017
    ERC Implementing Arrangements Call for Expression of Interest 2017 Project ID: Project Acronym: Evaluation Panel: 681178 G-EDIT LS1 Principal Investigator: Dr Mariusz Nowacki Host Institution: Universitat Bern - CH Mechanisms of RNA-guided genome editing in eukaryotes The goal of this project is to contribute to our understanding of RNA-mediated epigenetic mechanisms of genome regulation in eukaryotes. Ciliated protozoa offer a fantastic opportunity to investigate the complex process of trans-generational programming of chromosomal rearrangements, which is thought to serve as a form of immune defense against invasive DNA. Developmental processes in ciliates include extensive rearrangements of the germline DNA, including elimination of transposons and the precise excision of numerous single-copy elements derived from transposons. This process is considered to be maternally controlled because the maternal genome provides essential information in the form of RNA that determines the offspring's genome content and organization. This programmed DNA subtraction, the so-called ‘RNA scanning’ process, is mediated by trans-generational comparison between the germline and the maternal somatic genome. One of the most intriguing questions is how a complex population of small RNAs representing the entire germline genome can be compared to the entire rearranged maternal genome, resulting in the efficient selection of germline-specific RNAs, which are able to target DNA deletions in the developing genome. All this occurs in a very short time and involves a massively coordinated transport of all the components between three types of nuclei. This project focuses on characterizing the molecular machinery that can orchestrate the massive genome rearrangements in ciliates through nucleic acids and protein interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Energy Science Opportunities in Emerging Concepts
    Fusion Energy Science Opportunities in Emerging Concepts Los Alamos National Laboratory Report -- LA-UR-99-5052 D. C. Barnes Los Alamos National Laboratory For the Emerging Concepts Working Group Convenors: J. Hammer Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A. Hassam University of Maryland D. Hill Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A. Hoffman University of Washington B. Hooper Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory J. Kesner Massachusetts Institute of Technology G. Miley University of Illinois J. Perkins Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory D. Ryutov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory J. Sarff University of Wisconsin R. E. Siemon Los Alamos National Laboratory J. Slough University of Washington M. Yamada Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory I. Introduction The development of fusion energy represents one of the few long-term (multi-century time scale) options for providing the energy needs of modern (or postmodern) society. Progress to date, in parameters measuring the quality of confinement, for example, has been nothing short of stellar. While significant uncertainties in both physics and (particularly) technology remain, it is widely believed that a fusion reactor based on the tokamak could be developed within one or two decades. It is also widely held that such a reactor could not compete economically in the projected energy market. A more accurate statement of projected economic viability is that the uncertainty in achieving commercial success is sufficient that the large development costs required for such a program are not justified at this time. While technical progress has been spectacular, schedule estimates for achieving particular milestones along the path of fusion research and development have proven notoriously inaccurate. This inaccuracy reflects two facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Plasma Physics Division Fachverband Plasmaphysik (P)
    Hannover 2016 – P Overview Plasma Physics Division Fachverband Plasmaphysik (P) Navid Mahdizadeh ABB Switzerland Ltd Brown-Boveri-Strasse 5 CH-8050 Zürich [email protected] Overview of Invited Talks and Sessions (Lecture rooms b302 and b305; Poster Empore Lichthof) Invited Talks P 2.1 Mon 11:00–11:30 b305 Mid-infrared cavity enhanced absorption spectroscopy of gas and surface species — ∙Jean-Pierre van Helden, Norbert Lang, Andy Nave, Jürgen Röpcke P 3.1 Mon 14:30–15:00 b302 Advances in Laser Manipulation of Dusty Plasmas — ∙Jan Schablinski, Frank Wieben, Dietmar Block P 4.1 Mon 14:30–15:00 b305 Impact of electron attachment processes on nonthermal plasmas — ∙Jürgen Meichsner, Sebastian Nemschokmichal, Robert Tschiersch, Thomas Wegner P 6.1 Tue 11:00–11:30 b302 ns-Pulsed Micro-Plasmas at Atmospheric Pressures — ∙Uwe Czarnetzki P 7.1 Tue 11:00–11:30 b305 Erste Ergebnisse an Wendelstein 7-X — ∙Hans-Stephan Bosch, W7-X Team P 8.1 Tue 14:30–15:00 b302 Nanometer-scale characterization of laser-driven plasmas, compression, shocks and phase transitions, by coherent small angle x-ray scattering — ∙Thomas Kluge, Melanie Rödel, Alexander Pelka, Emma McBride, Luke Fletcher, Christian Rödel, Siegfried Glenzer, Michael Buss- mann, Ulrich Schramm, Thomas Cowan P 9.1 Tue 14:30–15:00 b305 Computer simulations of correlated fermions–from quantum plasmas to ultracold atoms and plasma-surface interaction — ∙Michael Bonitz P 13.1 Wed 11:00–11:30 b302 Power exhaust by impurity seeding in fusion reactors — ∙Matthias Bern- ert, Felix Reimold, Arne Kallenbach, Bruce Lipschultz, Ralph Dux, Marco Wischmeier, the ASDEX Upgrade team, the EUROfusion MST1 Team P 17.1 Wed 14:30–15:00 b305 Plasma measurement and control: challenges and recent advances — ∙Timo Gans P 21.1 Thu 11:00–11:30 b302 The behavior of helium in fusion plasmas — ∙Athina Kappatou, Rachael M.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Presentation: Fusion Energy: "Pipe Dream Or Panacea"
    Fusion Energy: “Pipe Dream or Panacea” Mike Mauel Columbia University Energy Options & Paths to Climate Stabilization Aspen, 9 July 2003 Fusion Energy: “Pipe Dream or Panacea” “Promise, Progress, and the Challenge Ahead” Mike Mauel Columbia University Energy Options & Paths to Climate Stabilization Aspen, 9 July 2003 ~ OUTLINE ~ Fusion Primer Power Configurations Progress MFE Next Steps: Optimization and Burning Plasma “Fast Track” 35 Year Plan to enable Commercial Power References • Rose and Clark: Plasmas and Controlled Fusion (1961) • Sheffield: “The Physics of Magnetic Fusion Reactors,” RMP (1994) • Hawryluk: “Results from D-T Tokamak Confinement Experiments,” RMP (1998) • Example fusion resource development scenarios… • Schmidt, et al., “U.S. Fusion Future,” Fus. Tech. (2001) • Ongena and Van Oos, “Energy for future centuries. Will fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and clean energy source?” Fus. Sci. and Tech. (2002) • Report of the European Fusion “Fast Track”, D. King, et al. (2001) • Report of the U.S. DOE FESAC “A [35 Year] Plan to Develop Fusion Energy” (2003) • “The FIRE Place” http://fire.pppl.gov/ • Levitated Dipole Experiment http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ Why Fusion Energy Science? • for fundamental plasma physics and critical plasma technologies • for national defense • for fusion energy… • Inexhaustible: “unlimited” fuel and available to all nations; Low land-use costs • “Clean”: no greenhouse gases nor air pollution; Storage of short-lived radioactive components. • Safe: no catastrophic accidents; Low-risk for nuclear materials proliferation Today is an Exciting Time for Fusion Research • Tremendous progress in understanding how to confine & control high-temperature matter, e.g. • Suppression of some forms of turbulence • Control of some pressure-limiting instabilities • First light achieved at NIF • Negotiations well-along to start ITER construction: an international burning plasma experiment at the scale of a power plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Research
    TheT HE Plasma P LASMA Science S CIENCE && FusionF USION CenterC EN T ER • MMassachusettsASSACHUSE tt S I NSInstituteT I T U T E O Fof T ECHNOLOGYTechnology PHYSICS RESEARCH Understanding the basic physics of plasmas is necessary not only to advance fusion research, but to increase the physics-based foundations of plasma-related scientific disciplines and applications. embers of the Physics Re- search Division, including theoretical and experimen- Mtal plasma physicists, faculty mem- bers, graduate and undergraduate students and visiting collaborators, work together to better understand plasmas and to extend their uses. Research includes: ■ Laboratory experiments ■ Development of novel plasma diagnostics ■ Theory of magnetically confined fusion plasmas Photo by Paul Rivenberg Dr. Jan Egedal works atop the Versatile Toroidal Facility, a medium-sized tokamak currently ■ Nonlinear wave used to study magetic reconnection, a phenomenon observed in solar flares. propagation, turbulence In addition to basic plasma theory, waves to control pressure and current and chaos topics being pursued at the PSFC profiles in order to control instabilities ■ Space plasma physics include tokamak research on radio and achieve steady state operation in frequency heating and current drive, high pressure plasmas. ■ Plasma astrophysics core and edge transport and turbu- ■ Laser-plasma interactions lence, and magnetohydrodynamic and In the area of inertial confinement kinetic stability. This research sup- fusion (ICF), theorists study the ports the PSFC tokamak, Alcator C- ablation process, during which a Theoretical Plasma Physics Mod, and the Levitated Dipole Experi- plasma is created that causes nonlin- ment (LDX), as well as other such ear scattering of the laser light. This Using the fundamental laws of experiments around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Energy: Progress Towards an Unlimited Energy Source
    Fusion Energy: Progress towards an Unlimited Energy Source Mike Mauel Columbia University http://www.columbia.edu/~mem4/ and Jefferson Science Fellow EEB/ESC/IEC 5 June 2007 Today is an Exciting Time for Fusion • Tremendous progress in understanding how to confine & control high-temperature matter • Experiments are extending the limits technology: superconductivity, lasers, heat sources, advanced materials, systems control, and computation,… • First light achieved at National Ignition Facility (NIF) • International community to build ITER: the first burning plasma experiment at the scale of a power plant & the world’s largest energy science partnership. Outline • Fusion Primer • Can fusion be “green” nuclear power? • Exciting Science and Experiments • ITER: Fusion at the scale of a power plant • Discussion and questions “Forces” of Nature Gravity Tidal Energy Electromagnetic/ Combustion, Batteries, “Everyday” Molecular Energy and Chemistry Weak/Radiation Geothermal Energy Fission, Fusion, and Solar Strong/Nuclear (including wind, hydro, …) Chemical vs. Nuclear Energy Density Why Fission is (Relatively) Easy to Do… • Nuclear force is very-short ranged. Must get very close! • Neutrons can easily split big, 92 protons positively-charged nuclei… 144 neutrons • Because neutrons are neutral! • Nucleons like to be paired (even numbers!) so certain nuclei are fissile: 233U, 235U, 239Pu Why Fusion is (Really, Really) Hard to Do… Deuterium Tritium • Nuclear force is very-short ranged. Must get very close! • Fusion requires close contact between light
    [Show full text]
  • American Nuclear Society Fusion Energy Division December 2009 Newsletter
    American Nuclear Society Fusion Energy Division December 2009 Newsletter Letter from the Chair Snead New ANS “Fusion” Fellows Uckan FED Slate of Candidates Najmabadi 19th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy Najmabadi/Sharafat Call for Nominations: ANS-FED Awards Morley Fusion Award Recipients El-Guebaly News from Fusion Science and Technology Journal Uckan Ongoing Fusion Research: Recent Advances in High Temperature Superconductors Minervini Highlights of US Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop Freidberg International Activities: ITER Update Sauthoff Report on IAEA Technical Meetings on “First Generation of Fusion Power Plants: Design and Technology” and “Fusion Power Plant Safety” Mank/Kamendje Letter from the Chair, Lance Snead, Materials Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. As the subject of this letter I would like to bring the Fusion Energy Division (FED) membership up to speed on some of the metrics for our division. I am also happy to do so as the previous Chairs have made our division look quite good. For those of you who are not intimately plugged into the American Nuclear Society (ANS), the overall society membership has been remarkably constant over the 2000 decade with total membership of approximately 10,800. As can be seen from the figure below, the membership of the FED over that period has had a significant increase, for which the Division receives high marks. The ANS has recently invested great effort into evaluating the strength of each Division and has devised a set of metrics by which they can determine where improvements need to be made and which of the 22 Professional Divisions are becoming subcritical.
    [Show full text]
  • Plans for Creation and Studies of Positron- Electron Plasmas in a Laboratory Magnetosphere
    Plans for creation and studies of positron- electron plasmas in a laboratory magnetosphere Thomas Sunn Pedersen, for the APEX/PAX collaboration (next slide) Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Greifswald and Garching, Germany The PairPlasma Team: A Positron-Electron plasma eXperiment (APEX) Positron Accumulation eXperiment (PAX) APEX – PAX team Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, IPP (Greifswald and Garching): T. Sunn Pedersen, H. Saitoh, E.V. Stenson, J. Horn-Stanja, U. Hergenhahn, S. Nissel M. Stoneking C. Surko L. Schweikhard C. Hugenschmidt Lawrence U., J. Danielson G. Marx Markus Singer WI, USA UC San Diego Martin Singer T. U. Munich CA, USA U. Greifswald Germany Germany Current financial support by the following entities Max Planck Deutsche Japan Society for National Institute 2 Society, Forschungs- the Promotion of for Fusion Science Germany gemeinschaft, Science Germany Japan Overview • Electron-positron (pair) plasmas and their importance around astrophysical objects • Some unique basic properties of pair plasmas • First pair plasma in the laboratory – Sarri group • Short-lived, unconfined, dense, hot pair plasma beam • Debye length and skin depth – two important scale lengths in a plasma • Our attempt to create small-Debye length, confined pair plasmas • The “grand” plan • How far we are • Summary Astrophysical relevance • Pair plasmas are created around compact, high-energy density astrophysical objects • Continuous sources include: • Accreting black holes • Magnetars • Pulsed or explosive sources include: – Magnetar flares – Cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRB) • Copious pair creation can be thought of as a “breakdown of the vacuum” – Gamma-gamma (photon-photon) collisions – Gammas+ seed electrons+ strong magnetic fields: “pair cascade” • Conversion of matter- and charge-free space to highly conducting, matter-filled space – a pair plasma Inspired by and partly taken from talk by A.
    [Show full text]
  • IAEA-F1-CN-69/ICP/09 (Final)
    PLASMA CONFINEMENT IN A MAGNETIC DIPOLE* J. KESNER AND L. BROMBERG Plasma Science and Fusion Center MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA D. GARNIER AND M. MAUEL Department of Applied Physics, Columbia University New York, NY 10027, USA Abstract A dipole fusion confinement device is stable to MHD interchange and ballooning modes when the pressure profile is sufficiently gentle. The plasma can be confined at high beta, is steady state and disruption free. Theory indicates that when the pressure gradient is sufficiently gentle to satisfy MHD requirements drift waves will also be stable. The dipole approach is particularly applicable for advanced fuels. A new experimental facility is presently being built to test the stability and transport properties of a dipole-confined plasma. 1. INTRODUCTION The dipole fusion concept was first proposed by Hasegawa [1, 2] who was motivated by observations of high β, energetic plasma within planetary magnetospheres. Active magneto- spheres, such as that surrounding Jupiter, can have plasma pressures exceeding the magnetic pressure, β > 1. A dipole fusion confinement device takes advantage of these properties by operating with plasma profiles that have sufficiently gentle gradients to be stable to interchange and ballooning modes at high beta. This stability derives from plasma compressibility. The dipole confinement concept is fundamentally different from other fusion concepts since the diamagnetic ω frequency, *, proportional to the radial gradient of plasma pressure, is small relative to the magnetic drift frequency, ωd, proportional to the radial gradient of the magnetic field. The ω ω ≤ condition */ d 2 characterizes a unique regime in magnetic plasma confinement. It corresponds to MHD stability and the possible elimination of drift wave instabilities [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement of Dr. Stephen O. Dean President, Fusion Power Associates to Meeting of DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee February 29, 2012
    Written Statement Of Dr. Stephen O. Dean President, Fusion Power Associates To Meeting of DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee February 29, 2012 Public Comment Session First, let me say that I endorse the recommendation just made by Dr. Earl Marmar of MIT that no irrevocable decisions be made relative to reductions in the fusion program, as proposed in the President’s FY 2013 budget submission to Congress, until a vetting of such reductions occurs within the U.S. fusion community. This should be done by FESAC, or otherwise, to seek community consensus relative to priorities identified previously by FESAC. Much of the discussion has been focused on the proposed termination of the Alcator C- Mod program at MIT. The proposed termination is of serious concern, since that program has made, and is making, important contributions to our understanding of tokamak physics and, furthermore, is important to the training of the next generation of fusion scientists. Termination of Alcator C-Mod would mean a “double whammy” for the MIT fusion program, since DOE terminated the other significant experimental facility there last year, the Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX). Without these two facilities, MIT will lack the facilities to continue providing experience to students doing experimental fusion research. But the problem with the proposed reductions is much broader and more serious that just the role and future of the MIT program. Reductions in other areas, such as High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP), theory, and systems studies will result not only in a loss of valuable talent and expertise throughout the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V
    Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V. Minervini1, Leslie Bromberg1, Peter J. Lee2, David C. Larbalestier2, Magnet systems are the ultimate enabling technology for magnetic confinement fusion devices. Powerful magnetic fields are required for confinement of the plasma, and, depending on the magnetic configuration, dc and/or pulsed magnetic fields are required for plasma initiation, ohmic heating, inductive current drive, plasma shaping, equilibrium, and stability control. Almost all design concepts for power producing commercial fusion reactors rely on superconducting magnets for efficient and reliable production of these magnetic fields. Future superconducting magnets for fusion applications require improvements in materials and components to significantly enhance the feasibility and practicality of fusion reactors as an energy source. An integrated program of advanced magnet R&D should be focused on developing alternative and innovative approaches that would lead to radical advances to substantially improve and accelerate the path to fusion reactor. A new opportunity that could significantly change the economic and technical status of superconducting magnets is now viable, namely the use of so-called High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) that have now been used for demonstration of superconducting fields > 30T in small bore solenoid geometries. Recent studies performed at MIT indicate that HTS magnets that make use of demountable magnets is becoming a feasible option for future devices. This could have massive impact on fusion reactor performance and on the ability to maintain the machine, and increase reliability and availability. The state of the art in fusion superconducting magnet systems is ITER. The technology for ITER was developed in the 90’s, and although there are still some issues with the superconductor, the technology has been used successfully in model coils and in other smaller fusion experiments.
    [Show full text]