J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 DOI 10.1007/s10894-007-9099-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Technical Survey of Simply Connected Compact Tori (CTs): Spheromaks, FRCs and Compression Schemes S. Woodruff
Published online: 15 September 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract A possible means for reducing core complexity and size could lie with research into simply connected compact tori. Much progress has been made in the last 20 years, and now tokamak-like confinement is being reported, with work focusing on understanding beta-limits, transport and novel means of generating magnetic fields both in sustained and pulsed scenarios. Compact torus research is maturing, with many experiments integrated into a national program to resolve well defined critical physics issues. This article summarizes the work from the last 20 years both as a historical overview and an outline of the present status. Keywords Innovative confinement concepts Technical survey
Introduction In order to make fusion energy a viable economic alternative, significant improvements in concept design need to occur. Broadly, these improvements must reduce the cost of the presently envisaged reactor cores by simplifying the overall engineering, and by providing a more efficient means for accessing fusion conditions. Various panels of experts have met during the last 15 years to stress this point and to ensure that concept innovation remains a central component to the national program (for a summary see [1]). Simply connected means that there is no material linking the center of the device, making the first wall either S. Woodruff (&) Woodruff Scientific, LLC, 301 Minor Avenue North #429, Seattle, WA 98109, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
a cylinder or a sphere. Omitting material from the center of the machine immediately reduces the cost of the core, and sometimes removes the need for remote handling. There are several magnetic concepts that fall into this category with varying degrees of maturity, they are the Spheromak, Field Reversed Configuration, Flow-Through Pinch, Mirror and Centrifugal Mirror. Further there are concept innovations in each area—it is possible to compress simply connected concepts too. Here we limit the scope of this technical survey to compact tori, and outline the Spheromak, FRC and means for their compression. In each section, the history and issues are discussed, and physics principles of each concept is given, finally, a summary of the reactor visions that have appeared in literature during the last 20 years is presented. The first section of the ‘Technical Survey’ has appeared in the special edition of the Journal of Fusion Energy, summarizing the history of planning documents produced in the US fusion program over the last 15 years relating to concept innovation [1]. This article is the final section of the Innovative Confinement Concepts Roadmap, which became the ‘Technical Survey’ of ICCs, after the APS meeting in 2005 [2]. The scope of the work was reduced after community input to entail only simply-connected concepts. The work has been presented in various guises, for example, at the Global Climate and Energy Project meeting in Princeton [3] and at the Fusion Power Associates annual meeting on Capitol Hill, Washington DC [4]. This article is structured as follows. In the section titled ‘Concept Development’, the staged approach to fusion energy development in the US program is presented. Then in the section titled ‘Simply Connected Compact Tori’, all of the major devices are discussed, broken into subsections on ‘Spheromaks’, ‘Field Reversed Configurations (FRCs)’ and ‘Adiabatic Compression’. There follows a brief
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
135
summary and a comprehensive list of references for the devices and concepts investigated in the last 20 years.
Concept Development Within the USA, concepts advance through a series of stages of experimental development. These stages are ‘‘Concept Exploration’’ and the ‘‘Proof- of-Principle,’’ followed by ‘‘Performance Extension.’’ Success in these stages then should lead to a stage of ‘‘Fusion Energy Development’’ and ‘‘Fusion Energy Demonstration.’’ Briefly, the steps for concept developments are as follows: Concept Exploration is typically at \$5 M/year and involves the investigation of basic characteristics. Experiments cover a small range of plasma parameters (e.g., at \1 keV) and have few controls and diagnostics. Proof-of-Principle is the lowest cost program ($5 M–$30 M/year) to develop an integrated understanding of the basic science of a concept. Well-diagnosed and controlled experiments are large enough to cover a fairly wide range of plasma parameters, with temperatures of a few kiloelectron volts, and some dimensionless parameters in the power plant range. All of the CT experiments investigated to date are either in the CE or POP category. In terms of scientific metrics—these are usually concept specific, so to illustrate, here is an example of a broad metric for advancing understanding of the concept in terms of performance and science for the SSPX experiment— there are specific scientific metrics that are outlined in the rows to push the concept in its development towards reactor concepts (columns). Generally (as with all magnetic confinement systems) progress has to be demonstrated with understanding and control of confinement; magnetic field generation; particle control and stability (Table 1). Research into CTs is carried out at most major institutions. Table 2 shows the devices listed according to
institution, level of development and year of first plasma. CT research programs have been carried out in the US (LANL, RPPL, PPPL, LLNL, Caltech, Swarthmore, UC Berkeley, UN Reno, AFRL, Marshall,), one in the United Kingdom (UMIST), several institutions in Japan (Osaka University, Tokyo U., Nagoya, Nihon U., Himeji) and several institutions in Russia. Much independent work has also been carried out, with research on Compact Tori also occurring in India, and Europe.
Simply Connected Compact Tori Here we consider the Spheromak and FRC, and the compression of the FRC. Both concepts are very similar although differ in terms of formation. Both are plasma toroids (rings) that are formed in a vacuum. Both require initial vacuum magnetic fields to thread the formation volume. FRCs are typically formed inside a solenoid by swinging magnetic flux, and Spheromaks are formed usually by passing current between two magnetized coaxial electrodes, although various schemes have been investigated in the past, these two are the ones that are used today. The first distinguishing feature of these concepts is that the safety factors are quite different—the spheromak has a q-profile, while because the toroidal field in the FRC is zero, the FRC does not have a safety factor profile at all. However, toroidal fields are observed in some FRCs, suggesting that there might be a continuum of CT magnetic field profiles. Spheromak stability and equilibrium is defined in terms of standard MHD, whereas the critical issues with the FRC are determined by kinetic theory: the definitions used to describe spheromaks and FRCs are shown in Fig. 1. Larmor orbit effects are important in FRC physics.
Table 1 Matrix of scientific and performance metrics for the SSPX experiment Issue
Timescale
SSPX
National PoP program
Enhanced perform
PoP
Supporting experiments
Reactor exp
Success to take next step
Energy confinement
Now
X
X
x
X
x
T
Drive efficiency
Now/Intermed
X
X
X
X
x
Itor/Iinj [ 3 & increasing with Te & R
Particle control
Intermed
x
x
x
X
x
I/N * 10–14 A-m
x
Global stability & beta limits
Intermed
Power handling and PWI
Longer term
Ignition physics & burn control
Long term
e * few hundred eV, favorable sE scaling with S
X
X
X
X
b [ 10% with Rwall/2a [ 1.05
x
X
X
X
Pwall \ 20 MW/m2, Zeff \ 1.6
X
Controlled fusion reactions
x: will gain information, but not a primary focus for extensive study X: main subject of experiment—favorable results needed to move to next step
123
136
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
Table 2 Compact Tori presently researched in the USA and Japan
Table 3 Major spheromak experiments before and after 1990
Device
Type
Location
Since
Status
SSPX
Spheromak
LLNL
1999
CE
HIT-SI
Spheromak
U. Washington
2004
CE
MRX
FRC
Princeton
2004
CE
TCS
Frc
RPPL
1996
CE
CTIX
CT injection
UC Davis
1999
Basic
FRX-L
FRC
LANL
1995
CE/POP
SSX
Frc/spheromak
Swarthmore
1996
Basic
BSX
Spheromak
Caltech
1999
Basic
PHD
FRC
U. Washington
2006
CE
IPA
FRC
MSNW
2006
CE
U Colorardo FRC
FRC
U Colorado
2006
Basic
Princeton FRC
FRC
Princeton
2005
CE
HIST CT injection
Spheromak
Himeji, Japan
2000
Basic
PHD
FRC
U. Washington
2006
CE
Before 1990
Location
a(m)
After 1990
Location
a(m)
Alfven
Sweden
0.1
SPHEX
UMIST, UK
0.2
S1
Princeton
0.1
SSPX
LLNL
0.2
SSX
Swarthmore
0.1
0.1
Caltech
Caltech
0.1
MCT
Maryland
CTCC
Osaka
0.2
TS-3/4
U. Tokyo, JP
0.1
CTX
LANL
0.05–0.3
BCTX
UC Berkeley
0.2
TS-1–4
Tokyo
0.1
CTIX
UC Davis
0.1
Marauder
Philips
0.1
HIT-SI
U. Wash.
0.2
RACE
LLNL
0.1
CT injection
Caltech
0.1
Spheromak The Spheromak is a plasma ring, with roughly equal toroidal and poloidal magnetic fields. The concept is maturing with nearly a 50 years history. Much of the physics is written into several textbooks (Bellan’s is a good one [5] and is Dolan [6]), and several review papers (Jarboe’s is the standard reference for work until 1994 [7]). Work ongoing seeks to address performance issues: efficient means for generating strong magnetic fields with a low current source; investigation of the limits to plasma beta, and transport; and particle control. The major spheromak experiments investigated before and after 1990 are shown in Table 3.
Principles •
The Spheromak has a toroidally symmetric equilibrium with toroidal and poloidal fields of comparable strengths. The simplicity and compact size provide
123
•
•
•
good diagnostic access, and spheromaks are relatively inexpensive to build. Contemporary Spheromaks are formed electrostatically (by passing current between coaxial electrodes), although several formation schemes are being investigated. The Spheromak is a compact configuration with relatively high energy density (typical plasmas carry Itor * 1 MA with a * 0.2 m). Plasma beta’s have been obtained at *5% and perpendicular transport approaching tokamak L-mode has been measured, with electron temperatures consistently measured at *500 eV. More recently, analytic descriptions of spheromaks have been set aside in favour of full 3D MHD simulations that tend to entail most of the pertinent physics issues. It is found that generally the spheromak is much like any other toroidal configuration, and hence is as intolerant to perturbations to the equilibrium. When the fluctuation amplitudes are suppressed to B~rms \ 1% mode rational surfaces form, and toroidal
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 Fig. 1 Illustration of Compact Torus definitions, conventions and scale
137 a
DEFINITIONS CLOSED FLUX CONTOURS
PROLATE (b>a)
OPEN FLUX
OBLATE (b~a)
b
MAGNETIC AXIS
SEPARATRIX (LAST CLOSED FLUX SURFACE) DIVERTOR
CL
CL
a
DIRECTION CONVENTIONS
R
ASPECT RATIO COMPACT TORI A=R/a ~ 1
z
θ
R
Low Aspect Ratio A~1.5
r
CL
SCALE
CL
’Conventional’ Aspect Ratio A~3
CL
IPA TCS-U SSPX 1m
•
mode numbers are observed that are consistent with the evolution of the safety factor profile. Recent efforts have therefore focused on separating the study of formation physics from confinement studies by the reduction of fluctuations during periods showing good confinement.
History Before 1990. The original coaxial gun formation schemes are attributed to Alfve´n, and Lindberg was the first to observe flux amplification to result from an MHD kink. By use of a magnetized coaxial gun, Turner demonstrated the fast formation (sform * sAlfven) of force-free configurations and developed the analytic theory to describe their equilibrium. Gross macroscopic stability was initially explored in S1 and CTX by use of a variety of stabilizing ‘flux conservers’. Temperatures of 400 eV were achieved transiently only in a small flux conserver with high current
NSTX
ITER
(MA) (This experiment had a high magnetic field ([1 T on the edge and *3 T near the symmetry axis)). Most plasmas were radiation dominated and decay rates were enhanced and terminated by instability. Analysis was rudimentary and diagnostics were few [1]. Several groups attained electron temperatures above 100 eV in decaying plasmas. 1990–Today: Spheromaks generated by two separate guns have been merged by magnetic reconnection to form a single spheromak. The n = 1 mode that results from a kink instability of the open flux is oserved in many gun-driven configurations and some evidence exists for the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo thought to be an important process in the generation of astrophysical magnetic fields. Internal probe surveys used to reconstruct the instantanoues structure of the central column—finding that the structure was kinked, and had a dough-hook appearance. Today, grossly stable objects: looking at islands and pressure-limiting modes—2D configuration. 500 eV achieved in lower energy density (·8) object (=high beta) by suppressing fluctuations. Low radiated power: surface
123
138
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
conditioning. q-profile evolution in controlled decay by edge current drive, new methods of helicity injection. Full 3D resistive MHD simulations, approaching tokamak-like diagnostic set. The SPHeromak Experiment, SPHEX [8–20]: many internal probe surveys of a gun-driven plasma, determination pf plasma structure when driven with n = 1 mode; some results with applied toroidal field. Berkeley Compact Torus Experiment, BCTX [21–25]: RF heating of a decaying spheromak. The Sustained Spheromak Physics Experiment, SSPX [26–63]: is addressing the physics of a spheromak with tokamak-quality vacuum conditions: high currents, good confinement with suppressed fluctuations. TS-3/4 [64–80]: merging of spheromaks to form larger spheromaks, FRCs and other toroidal configurations. Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment, SSX [81–99]: extensive multi-probe surveys of the reconnection between two spheromaks. CTIX and other accelerators [100–104]: acceleration of compact tori for tokamak fueling. Caltech spheromak [104–116]: extensive probe surveys reveal structure of the plasma during formation, and relevance to astrophysical jets. Helicity Injected Toruis—Steady Inductive, HIT-SI [117–123]: possible new means for forming spheromaks inductively.
instabilities, impurity generation, and other effects due to wall interactions. Particle Control –
–
In order to maintain a sufficient particle inventory during sustainment with a coaxial source it becomes necessary to puff gas routinely To reach the lowest densities, and hence the highest temperatures for beta-limit surveys means for reducing density in a coaxial system need to be found.
Recent Successes • • •
•
•
Tokamak-like transport measured in the SSPX experiment by suppressing fluctuations. Multi-pulsed build-up of magnetic energy in a spheromak demonstrated in SSPX. SSX merged spheromaks and detailed magnetic reconnection and generation of energetic plasma flows, FRC formation by merging. 3-D movies of the Caltech Helicity Experiment show very clearly the time evolution of the twisted magnetic flux tubes emanating from the muzzle of the coaxial spheromak gun, linked to astrophysical jets. TS-3/4 shows means for forming various toroidal configurations by merging.
Issues Reactor Visions Issues fall into three categories as outlined in the introduction: efficient magnetic field generation (efficiently converting bank energy to plasma energy); stabililty and confinement; and particle control. Magnetic field generation: –
Improve understanding of the coupling of the bank energy into the spheromak, typically, efficiency of coupling bank energy into the spheromak is low (*10%).
Stability and Confinement –
– –
Understand the physics of energy confinement in the presence of the magnetic dynamo during sustainment; use this understanding to improve confinement. Determine the beta-limiting processes in the spheromak plasma, and maximize the beta. Understand and control the processes that determine the properties of the edge/boundary plasma, including the role of edge current density in helicity injection into the core plasma, atomic and molecular processes,
123
Many reactor visions exist: given that the spheromak remains a CE-level experiment, these visions are often optimistic extrapolations from physics that has yet to be proven. However, they act as a guide and stress the importance of generating large toroidal currents from a low current source (so as not to melt electrodes), and ultimately to have external poloidal field coils around main chamber to maintain equilibrium. Liquid walls are often stressed as important for spheromak reactors, given that the reactor could be topologically spherical. Field Reversed Configuration (FRC) Unlike all other toroidal confinement concepts, there is no toroidal magnetic field in the FRC. The concept originates not with an idea to locally reverse the field in a mirror to mitigate end-losses (which produced the field revered mirror), but in experiments with theta pinches. Today, research aims to address several physical issues:
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
139
sustainment with good confinement; pulsed operation with high density targets for compression; particle control; high flux formation; and stability. Various courses are taught on the subject (AA559 given by Hoffman [124] is a good one, and Dolan’s textbook offers a good introduction [125]), and there exist some very good reviews (see Tuszewski’s review [126] for work prior to 1988). The major FRC experiments investigated before and after 1990 are shown in Table 4.
Principles •
•
•
• •
s¼
The FRC is a compact toroidal plasma with negligible toroidal magnetic field. It is usually more prolate than the spheromak (elongated), although this is generally due to the shape of the first wall (mostly cylindrical in the case of the FRC). Plasma beta can be close to unity, and has been measured in various experiments to be quite high: hbi = 1 – x2s /2 where xs : rs/rc is the ratio of the separatrix radius to the implosion coil radius, giving hbi * 50% for typical experiments. High ion temperatures are typical in FRCs, even in small scale experiments due to fast implosive formation, often with shock heating. Simple linear geometry: Be ¼ Bo =ð1 x2s Þ Stability in present experiments is thought to be due to kinetic effects, which have been characterized by a parameter s, equal to the number of ion gyro-radii between the field null R and the separatrix rs: Zrs R
•
rdr rs qi
Often a metric for success for the concept is to show that confinement and stability scaling favorably as s is increased from present values of about 4 to s values that might represent reactor conditions (s*30).
Table 4 Main FRC experiments before and after 1990, note that the list prior to 1990 is not complete—see Tuszewski [126]
Before 1990
Location
History Before 1990: FRCs were short lived (200 ls) objects, stable for *ls. Early translation experiments demonstrated that the FRC could be moved from formation region to a compression chamber. Initial stability studies showed that a rotating n = 2 mode could be suppressed by close-fitting multipole coils. Most objects were radiation dominated, and the decay rate was enhanced and terminated by instability. Analysis was mostly analytic and diagnostics were relatively few. Due to typical densities *1021 m–3, nsT products of close to 1018 m–3 keVs have been achieved in FRCs with a *0.1 m with Te [ 100 eV temperatures. Lifetimes observed to increase with density. Short-lived FRCs produced at n * 1021 m–3 with keV temperatures. Stable FRCs with s values of up to 4 and poloidal fluxes of 10 mWb were produced in a Large s Experiment (LSX). Rotating magnetic fields (RMFs) formed and sustained FRCs in small rotamak experiments in Australia. Many reactor studies were considered for pulsed FRCs—all using one form or another of pulsed operation and adiabatic compression. 1990–Today: The main focus in the US has been to sustain plasma current with rotating magnetic fields and to form a suitable targets for fast compression. Two RMF ideas are presently being investigated: symmetric fields and odd-parity magnetic fields. 10 ms stable discharges with beta near unity have been produced in TCS with even parity RMF. Experiments with asymmetric rotating magnetic fields demonstrate formation and sustainment with closed flux. FRCs are presently used as target plasmas in compression experiments: combination of heating mechanisms tried, including NBI. Full 3D resistive MHD and kinetic simulations are now used routinely, and a large diagnostic set is being employed. Recently, experiments aim for tokamak-like cleanliness with metal seals and baking, shot conditioning and glowdischarge cleaning with base pressures in the 10–9 Torr range.
a(m)
After 1990
Location
a(m)
Scylla
LANL
*0.02
TCS-U
U. Washington
*0.1
Pharos
NRL
*0.04
MRX-FRC
Princeton
*0.1
TOR
Kurchatov
FRX-L
LANL
*0.05
FRX-A,B
LANL
*0.06
Odd parity FRC
Princeton
*0.02
FRXC/LSM
LANL
*0.15
PHD
U. Washington
*0.2
LSX
STI
*0.2
IPA
U. Washington
*0.05
TRX-1
MSNW
0.06
Munsat’s FRC
Colorado
*0.1
TRX-2
STI
0.06
SSX-FRC
Swarthmore
*0.05
OCT
Osaka
FIX
Osaka
*0.2
0.07
*0.05
123
140
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
Sustainment experiments TCS-U [124–150]: formation and sustainment of a FRC by use of rotating magnetic fields. Recent efforts have been to improve plasma cleanliness to raise temperature and increase flux. Odd-parity FRC [151–155]: uses odd-parity rotating magnetic fields in a small device to drive current in closed flux. MRX-FRC [155–162]: FRCs are formed by merging spheromaks in an oblate flux-conserver, and the stability of the configuration is investigated. SSX-FRC [163]: formation of FRCs by merging two spheromaks in a prolate flux-conserver. Boulder FRC [164]: formation of FRCs much like the SSX-FRC, but on a larger scale. FIX [165–171]: translation and confinement experiments. Designed to have *MW of NBI heating. Some work relates to shock heating of the FRC as it comes to rest after an initial acceleration. Pulsed high density experiments FRX-C [172–175]: compression of a FRC using flux compression tended to yield good agreement with expected adiabatic scaling relations. Theory work occurred in support of various FRC concepts [176–178]. FRX-L [179–185]: Formation of FRC for liner compression. Focus is on producing high density FRCs with the ability to translate from the formation region to the liner. PHD [186]: formation, acceleration and stagnation of a FRC in a conical chamber. First results on the formation of a high flux FRC were recently reported. IPA [187–190]: formation, acceleration and collisions of two FRCs, with a compression stage.
Recent Successes • • • •
• • •
Formation and Sustainment of long-lived FRCs in the TCS device (10 ms). Production of low-density FRCs with enhanced confinement in Osaka FIX experiment. Sustainment of FRCs using odd-parity RMF in the Princeton FRC. Production of high density FRCs in the FRX-L device. FRCs have been formed with an equilibrium density ne ( *1–2) 1016 cm–3, Te \ Ti *250 eV, and excluded flux 2–3 mWb. Formation of high flux FRCs in PHD. Formation, acceleration to M [ 1, and collisions of FRCs in the IPA device. Formation of hot FRCs through merging of opposite helicity cold spheromaks at PPPL, and Swarthmore.
123
Issues In order to continue to make progress, effort continues to be applied in understanding the stability of the configuration; production of high flux FRCs; controlling particle inventory, and production of suitable objects for compression. Stability Develop specialized diagnostics for internal profile measurements. Develop a theoretical understanding of FRC stability in its unique kinetic regime, and develop sufficient understanding of FRC confinement to allow confident extrapolation to larger devices (scaling with s). Magnetic field generation Form large, low-density FRCs by translating and expanding theta-pinch-formed FRCs. Increase the flux and produce higher s FRCs by applying high-power RMF. Sustain hot FRCs with moderate s values for millisecond timescales. Develop an efficient technology for both forming and sustaining hot, high flux FRCs Particle control Develop fueling and heating methods to go along with RMF current drive. Find means for obtaining high density FRCs as targets for compression. Reactor Visions Several reactor visions have been outlined over the years, particularly during the 1980s (see [126]), mostly as targets for compression. More recently the reactor prospects were reviewed by Hoffman [191]. Highlights of the reactors entail both pulsed and steady-state reactor scenarios such as the study produced by the EPRI [192]. Adiabatic Compression The standard means for obtaining high pressures in a magnetic confinement system is to increase the overall size and magnetic field strength of the concept—this is the path that has produced the ITER concept, aiming for long confinement times in a steady-state system. There is an opposite approach, namely to compress the target plasma configuration to small sizes very quickly, i.e. on a timescale short compared with the energy confinement time of the target plasma. Please refer to the summary overview articles by Ryutov and Sieman [191–192]. The major compression experiments investigated before and after 1990 are shown in Table 5.
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
141
Principles •
•
•
Adiabatic compression is a reversible thermodynamic process, occurring without loss or addition of heat. An example of a common system employing adiabatic compression is the diesel engine in which the fuel is compressed (usually with a volumetric compression ratio of *10), producing sufficient pressures for it to ignite in a pulsed cycle: a metal piston does pdV work to compress the gas, with a period that is short compared with the time for heat loss. Plasma ignition might proceed in a similar manner (although will need to occur much faster). Macroscopic parameters scale with the linear convergence ratio C = r0/r: B = B0C2, T = T0C2, n = n0C3, and p = p0C5 [193] and so a convergence of *10 could lead to a many thousand-fold increase of plasma pressure and potentially give access to ignition in a small (few cm) high energy density configuration. Magnetic insulation has the potential for orders of magnitude reductions in power requirements compared with conventional inertial confinement fusion. If this avenue to low-cost energy- producing plasmas is successful, MTF permits fusion development without billion-dollar facilities, thus circumventing one of the most serious obstacles to fusion development.
History Pre 1990: Plasma compression experiments were performed as early as 1960 by Post: electron temperatures in compressed mirror plasmas reached keVs. In the 1970s compact tori were compressed and claims of keV ion temperatures were made. Many schemes using multiple coils were considered through the 1970s to the 1980s, culminating in a large study by EPRI for a translating ring reactor. In the mid eighties the Marauder and RACE experiments were built to study the acceleration and compression of a CT into a cone. Later in the 1990s FRC plasmas were compressed by strong magnetic fields,
Table 5 Compression experiments before 1990 and after 1990
showing that the compression obeyed analytic scaling relations. Towards the end of the 1990s the use of solid liners was investigated (and termed Magnetized Target Fusion, generally determined to be more efficient than coil compression). Variations of the liner concept were considered, including a liquid liner for slow compression (LINUS also for waste transmutation) and more recently gaseous liners with plasma pushers, and plasma liners for fast compression. 1990s–today: Solid liner experiments are currently underway in collaboration between LANL and AFRL. PHD experiment at MSNW aims to compress plasmas by acceleration of a CT into a cone, and today, the collision and compression of CTs possibly with a plasma liner is being investigated in the IPA experiment. All of the compression experiments are considering the FRC as the candidate plasma for compression, with well researched confinement scaling and understanding of equilibrium. Break-even experiments are aimed at with existing pulsed-power facilities. Defense program research has demonstrated the implosion of solid liners with the energy needed and on the time-scales required for FRC compression. AFRL/LANL MTF with FRX-L [196–215]: Formation of FRC for liner compression. Focus is on producing high density FRCs with the ability to translate from the formation region to the liner. MAGO concept [216–225] Russian magnetic compression experiment Inverse Pinch concept [226–228] Plasma Liner Experiment, PLX [229–233] Converging plasma jets used as a pusher on a target plasma. Magneto Inertial Fusion, MIF [234] Using the Omega laser, small magnetized capsules will be imploded to high convergences to obtain very strong magnetic fields. Pulsed High Density experiment, PHD [235]: formation, acceleration and stagnation of a FRC in a conical chamber. First results on the formation of a high flux FRC were recently reported. Inductive Plasmoid Accelerator, IPA [236–238]: formation, acceleration and collisions of two FRCs, with a compression stage.
Before 1990
Location
a(m)
FRX-C
LANL
0.1
After 1990
Location
a(m)
FRX-L
LANL
0.02
Inverse Pinch
UN, Reno
Maruader
Philips
0.1
IPA
U. Washington
0.02
RACE
LLNL
0.1
PHD
U. Washington
0.1
Bellan
Caltech
0.05
MIF
Rochester
123
142
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148
Recent Success • • • •
Liner experiments show the necessary symmetry and energy needed for the compression. Target plasmas with the necessary density can be formed and translated into target region. High flux FRCs have been generated for the PHD concept. IPA is able to form and accelerate FRCs up to 200km/s, prior to compression.
2. S. Woodruff, Y.C.F. Thio, T.R. Jarboe, Innovation in fusion energy sciences: looking towards the future American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics, Denver (2005) 3. S. Woodruff, Alternative pathways to fusion energy (focus on Department of Energy Innovative Confinement Concepts) Global Climate and Energy Project, Princeton, May 1st (2006) 4. S. Woodruff, Alternative pathways to fusion energy (focus on Department of Energy Innovative Confinement Concepts) Fusion Power Associates Meeting Washington DC (2006) 5. P.M. Bellan, spheromaks (Imperial College Press, London, UK 2000) 6. T. Dolan, Fusion Research (Pergamon Press 1982), ISBN 0-08025565-5 7. T.R. Jarboe, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 36(6), 945–990 (1994)
Issues Issues fall into similar categories as with non-compressed plasmas, namely to ensure stability; to generate targets with sufficient flux; and to control particle inventory. Stability Understand stability of the target plasma during compression. Understand mixing during compression and ameliorate if possible. Magnetic field generation Develop an efficient technology for both forming hot (*300 eV), high flux FRCs. Particle control Obtain very high initial densities (1023 m–3). In the long term, a means for producing many targets inexpensively needs to be found (if the liner assembly is destroyed on every shot—this is the kopek problem) and some way of satisfying the requirement that the energy source must be some distance from the target still needs to be found (stand-off driver problem). Reactor Visions Many reactor visions have been outlined but particularly by Drake [190]. Summary In summary, the last 20 years of research has produced a wide range of innovations for compact torus research. Some highlights include near tokamak-like confinement, steadystate sustainment with rotating magnetic fields, and new experiments to examine the adiabatic compression. References Review articles and books 1. S. Woodruff, J. Fusion Energ. 26, (1/2), 247 (2007)
123
UMIST 8. D.A. Kitson, P.K. Browning, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 32(14), 1265–1287 (1990) 9. P.K. Browning, G. Cunningham, S.J. Gee, K.J. Gibson, A. al Karkhy, D.A. Kitson, R. Martin, M.G. Rusbridge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68(11), 1718 (1992) 10. P.K. Browning, G. Cunningham, R. Duck, S.J. Gee, K.J. Gibson, D.A. Kitson, R. Martin, M.G. Rusbridge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68(11), 1722 (1992) 11. P.K. Browning, J.R. Clegg, R.C. Duck, M.G. Rusbridge, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 35, 1563 (1993) 12. G. Cunningham, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 39, 1339 (1997) 13. K.J. Gibson, S.J. Gee, M.G. Rusbridge, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 37, 31 (1995) 14. A. al Karkhy, P.K. Browning, G. Cunningham, S.J. Gee, M.G. Rusbridge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70(12), 1814 (1993) 15. R. Martin, S.J. Gee, P.K. Browning, M.G. Rusbridge, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 35, 269 (1993) 16. M.G. Rusbridge, S.J. Gee, P.K. Browning, G. Cunningham, R.C. Duck, A. Al-Karkhy, R. Martin, J.W. Bradley, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 39(5), 683–714 (1997) 17. R.C. Duck, P.K. Browning, G. Cunningham, S.J. Gee, A. AlKarkhy, R. Martin, M.G. Rusbridge, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 39(5), 715–736 (1997) 18. D. Brennan, P.K. Browning, R.A.M. Van der Linden, A.W. Hood, S. Woodruff, Phys. Plasmas. 6(11), 4248 (1999) 19. D.M. Willett, P.K. Browning, S. Woodruff, K.J. Gibson, Plasma Phys Contr. F. 41(5), 595–612 (1999) 20. K.J. Gibson, P.K. Browning, S.J. Gee, S. Woodruff, D.M. Willett, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 42(12), 1331–1347 (2000) 21. S. Woodruff, M. Nagata, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 44(12), 2539– 2553 (2002) 22. D.P. Brennan, P.K. Browning, R.A.M. Van der Linden, Physics Plasmas 9(8), 3526–3535 (2002)
BCTX 23. U. Shumlak, T.K. Fowler, E.C. Morse, Physics Plasmas 1(3), 643–647 (1994) 24. T.K. Fowler, D.D. Hua., Plasma Phys. Rep. 23(9), 719–722 (1997) 25. E. Coomer, C.W. Hartman, E. Morse D. Reisman, Nucl. Fusion 40(9), 1669–1681 (2000)
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 26. D.D. Hua, T.K. Fowler, E.C. Morse, J. Plasma Physics 66(4), 275–294 (2001) 27. T.K. Fowler, D.D. Hua., Plasma Phys. Rep. 28(9), 773–775 (2002)
LLNL 28. E. Bickford Hooper, T. Kenneth Fowler, Fusion Tech. 30, 1390 (1996) 29. E. Bickford Hooper, J.H. Hammer, C.W. Barnes, J.C. Ferna´ndez, F.J. Wysocki. Fusion Tech. 29, 191 (1996) 30. N. Mattor, Phys. Plasma. 3(5) pt.1, 1578–1584 (1996) 31. T.K. Fowler., Fusion Technol. 29(2), 206–209 (1996) 32. E. Bickford Hooper, J.H. Hammer, C.W. Barnes, J.C. Fernandez, F.J. Wysocki, Fusion Technol. 29(2), 191–205 (1996) 33. R.W. Moir, Nucl Fusion. 37(4), 557–566 (1997) 34. K.I. Thomassen. (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA); E.B. Hooper, D.D. Ryutov. J Fusion Energ. 17(3), 193–199 (1998) 35. B.I. Cohen (California Univ., Livermore, CA, USA); L.L. LoDestro, E.B. Hooper, T.A. Casper. Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 40(1), 75–89 (1998) 36. B.I. Cohen (California Univ., Livermore, CA, USA); E.B. Hooper; T.B. Kaiser; E.A. Williams; C.W. Dornier. Physics Plasmas 6(5), 1732–1741 (1999) 37. E.B. Hooper (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA); L.D. Pearlstein, R.H. Bulmer. Nucl. Fusion 39(7), 863–871 (1999) 38. B.I. Cohen (California Univ., Livermore, CA, USA); E.B. Hooper, M.C. Spang, C.W. Domier. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70(2), 1407–1415 (1999) 39. E.B. Hooper, R.H. Cohen, D.D. Ryutov, J. Nucl. Mater. 278(1), 104–110 (2000) 40. N. Mattor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(26), 6022–6025 (2000) 41. H.S. McLean, A. Ahmed, D. Buchenauer, D. Den Hartog, C.W. Domier, D.N. Hill, C. Holcomb, E.B. Hooper, E.C. Morse, M. Nagata, Y. Roh, B. Stallard, R.D. Wood, S. Woodruff, G. Wurden, Z. Wang, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(1), pt. 1–2, 556–561 (2001) 42. D.A. Buchenauer, B.E. Mills, R. Wood, S. Wooduff, D.N. Hill, E.B. Hooper, D.F. Cowgill, M.W. Clift, N.Y. Yang, J. Nucl. Mater. 290–293, 1165–1170 (2001) 43. R.D. Wood, D.N. Hill, E.B. Hooper, D. Buchenauer, H. McLean, Z. Wang, S. Woodruff, G. Wurden, J. Nucl. Mater. 290–293, 513–517 (2001) 44. H.S. McLean, S. Woodruff, E.B. Hooper, R.H. Bulmer, D.N. Hill, C. Holcomb, J. Moller, B.W. Stallard, R.D. Wood, Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(12), 125004/1–4 (2002) 45. Z. Wang (Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NM, USA), C.W. Barnes, G.A. Wurden, D.N. Hill, E.B. Hooper, H.S. McLean, R.D. Wood, S. Woodruff, Nucl Fusion. 42(6), 643–52 (2002) 46. E.B. Hooper, L.D. Pearlstein, Plasma Phys. Rep. 28(9), 765–772 (2002) 47. H.S. McLean, D.N. Hill, D.D. Ryutov, H. Chen, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74(3), 1547–1550 (2003) 48. S. Woodruff, D.N. Hill, B.W. Stallard, R. Bulmer, B. Cohen, C.T. Holcomb, E.B. Hooper, H.S. McLean, J. Moller, R.D. Wood, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90(9), 095001/1–4 (2003) 49. D.N. Hill (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., California Univ., USA); R.D. Wood, R. Bulmer, H.S. McLean, D. Ryutov, B.W. Stallard, S. Woodruff, J. Nucl. Mater. 313–316, 941–946 (2003) 50. C.R. Sovinec (Eng. Phys. Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA); T.A. Gianakon, E.D. Held, S.E. Kruger, D.D. Schnack, Physics Plasmas 10(5), 1727–1732 (2003)
143 51. B.W. Stallard (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA); E.B. Hooper, S. Woodruff, R.H. Bulmer, D.N. Hill, H.S. McLean, R.D. Wood, Physics Plasmas 10(7), 2912–2924 (2003) 52. R.H. Cohen, H.L. Berk, B.I. Cohen, T.K. Fowled, E.B. Hooper, L.L. LoDestro, E.C. Morse, L.D. Pearlstein, T.D. Rognlien, D.D. Ryutov, C.R. Sovinec, S. Woodruff, Nucl. Fusion 43(10), 1220–34 (2003) 53. D.D. Ryutov, R.H. Cohen, D.N. Hill, Plasma Phys. Rep. 29(7), 605–617 (2003) 54. R.W. Moir, R.H. Bulmer, T.K. Fowler, T.D. Rognlien, M.Z. Youssef, Fusion Sci. Technol. 44(2), 317–326 (2003) 55. S. Woodruff, B.W. Stallard, H.S. McLean, E.B. Hooper, R. Bulmer, B.I. Cohen, D.N. Hill, C.T. Holcomb, J. Moller, R.D. Wood, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(20), 205002/1–4 (2004) 56. S. Woodruff, B.I. Cohen, E.B. Hooper, H.S. Mclean, B.W. Stallard, D.N. Hill, C.T. Holcomb, C. Romero-Talamas, R.D. Wood, G. Cone, C.R. Sovinec, Physics Plasmas 12(5), 52502– 1–13 (2005) 57. B.I. Cohen, E.B. Hooper, R.H. Cohen, D.N. Hill, H.S. McLean, R.D. Wood, S. Woodruff, C.R. Sovinec, G.A. Cone Physics Plasmas 12(5), 56106–1–9 58. R.D. Wood, D.N. Hill, E.B. Hooper, H.S. McLean, D. Ryutov, S. Woodruff, J. Nucl. Materi. 337–339(1), 548–552 (2005) 59. E.B. Hooper (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA), T.A. Kopriva, B.I. Cohen, D.N. Hill, H.S. McLean, R.D. Wood, S. Woodruff, C.R. Sovinec, Physics Plasmas 12(9), 92503–1–11 (2005) 60. R.D. Wood (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA); D.N. Hill, E.B. Hooper, S. Woodruff, H.S. McLean, B.W. Stallard, Nucl. Fusion 45(12), 1582–1588 (2005) 61. M.V. Umansky, R.H. Bulmer, D.N. Hill, L.L. LoDestro, H.S. McLean, W.M. Nevins, D.D. Ryutov, Woodruff. Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 48(2), 235–244 (2006) 62. C.T. Holcomb, T.R. Jarboe, D.N. Hill, S. Woodruff, R.D. Wood, Physics Plasmas 13(2), 22504–1–6, (2006) 63. S. Woodruff, E.B. Hooper, L.D. Pearlstein, R. Bulmer, D.N. Hill, C.T. Holcomb, H.S. McLean, J. Moller, B.W. Stallard, R.D. Wood. Physics Plasmas 13(4), 44506–1–4 (2006) 64. H.S. McLean, R.D. Wood, B.I. Cohen, E.B. Hooper, D.N. Hill, J.M. Moller, C. Romero-Talamas, S. Woodruff, Physics Plasmas 13(5), 56105–1–8 (2006) 65. D.D. Ryutov, Physics Plasmas 14(2), 22506–1–7 (2007)
TS-3/4 and other Japanese spheromaks 66. N. Amemiya, A. Hayakawa, M. Katsurai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 60(8), 2632–44 (1991) 67. A. Morita, A. Hayakawa, M. Katsurai, Trans. Institute Electrical Eng. Jpn. Part A. 112-A(8), 706–712 (1992) 68. Y. Ono, A. Morita, M. Katsurai, M. Yamada, Physics Fluids B (Plasma Physics), 5(10), 3691–3701 (1993) 69. N. Amemiya, A. Morita, M. Katsurai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62(5), 1552–1561 (1993) 70. M. Katsurai. Trans. Fusion Tech., 27:97, April 1995. Proceedings Toki 71. M. Nagata, Y. Kinugasa, T. Uyama, Fusion Technol. 27, 387– 390 (1995) 72. R. Ono, M. Katsurai, Trans. Institute Electrical Eng. Jpn. Part A 117-A(6), 591–598 (1997) 73. H. Hayashiya, M. Katsurai, Trans. Institute Electrical Eng. Jpn. Part A 122-A(6), 569–574 (2002) 74. H. Hayashiya, T. Asaka, M. Katsurai, Trans. Institute Electrical Eng. Jpn. Part A. 123-A(4), 357–363 (2003)
123
144 75. V. Ono, T. Kimura, E. Kawamori, Y. Murata, S. Miyazaki, Y. Ueda, M. Inomoto, A.L. Balandin, M. Katsurai, Nucl. Fusion 43(8), 789–794 (2003) 76. Y. Ono, T. Matsuyama, K. Umeda, E. Kawamori, Nucl. Fusion 43(8), 649–654 (2003) 77. H. Hayashiya, M. Katsurai, Electr. Eng. Jpn. 145(2), 35–41 (2003) 78. M. Tsuruda, Y. Ono, M. Katsurai, Electr. Eng. Jpn. 145(4), 1–11 (2003) 79. M. Tsuruda, Y. Ono, M. Katsurai, Trans. Institute Electrical Eng. Jpn. Part A. 124-A(2), 209–216 (2004) 80. H. Hayashiya, T. Asaka, M. Katsurai, Electr. Eng. Jpn. 148(2), 14–21 (2004) 81. M. Tsuruda, Y. Ono, M. Katsurai, Electr. Eng. Jpn. 151(4), 7–15 (2005) 82. E. Kawamori, Y. Murata, K. Umeda, D. Hirota, T. Ogawa, T. Sumikawa, T. Iwama, K. Ishii, T. Kado, T. Itagaki, M. Katsurai, A. Balandin, Y. Ono, Nucl. Fusion 45(8), 843–8 (2005)
SSX 83. M.R. Brown, A. Martin, Fusion Technol. 30, 300 (1996) 84. M.R. Brown, J. Plasma Physics 57, 203 (1996) 85. C.G.R. Geddes, T.W. Kornack, M.R. Brown, Phys. Plasmas 5, 1027 (1998) 86. T.W. Kornack, P.K. Sollins, M.R. Brown, Phys. Rev. E 58, R36 (1998) 87. M.R. Brown, Phys. Plasmas 6, 1717 (1999) 88. V.S. Lukin, G. Qin, W.H. Matthaeus, M.R. Brown, Phys. Plasmas 8, 1600 (2001) 89. G. Qin, V.S. Lukin, C.D. Cothran, M.R. Brown, W.H. Matthaeus, Phys. Plasmas 8, 4816 (2001) 90. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, M. Landreman, D. Schlossberg, W.H. Matthaeus, G. Qin, V.S. Lukin, T. Gray, Phys. Plasmas 9, 2077 (2002) 91. P. Dmitruk, W.H. Matthaeus, N. Seenu, M.R. Brown, Astrophysical J. Lett. 597, L81 (2003) 92. C.D. Cothran, M. Landreman, W.H. Matthaeus, M.R. Brown, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1213 (2003) 93. M. Landreman, C.D. Cothran, M.R. Brown, M. Kostora J.T. Slough, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 2361(2003) 94. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, M. Landreman, D. Schlossberg, W.H. Matthaeus, Astrophysical J. Lett. 577, L63 (2002) 95. C.D. Cothran, M. Landreman, M.R. Brown, W.H. Matthaeus, Geophysical Res. Lett. 32, L03105 (2005) 96. W.H. Matthaeus, C.D. Cothran, M. Landreman, M.R. Brown, Geophysical Res. Lett. 32, L23104 (2005) 97. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, J. Fung, Physics Plasmas 13, 056503 (2006) 98. C.D. Cothran, J. Fung, M.R. Brown, M.J. Schaffer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 063504 (2006) 99. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, J. Fung, M. Chang, J. Horwitz, M.J. Schaffer, J. Leuer, E.V. Belova, Physics Plasmas 13, 102503 (2006) 100. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, J. Fung, M.J. Schaffer, E.V. Belova, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 35 (2007) 101. M.R. Brown, C.D. Cothran, J. Fung, M.J. Schaffer, E.V. Belova, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 31 (2007)
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 103. M.R. Brown, P.M. Bellan, Physical Rev. Lett. 64(18), 2144– 2147 (1990) 104. D.Q. Hwang, H.S. McLean, K.L. Baker, R.W. Evans, R.D. Horton, S.D. Terry, S. Howard, G.L. Schmidt, Nucl. Fusion 40(5), 897–905 (2000) 105. H.S. McLean, D.Q. Hwang, R.D. Horton, R.W. Evans, S.D. Terry, J.C. Thomas, R. Raman, Fusion Technol. 33(3), 252–272 (1998) 106. R. Raman, F. Martin, B. Quirion, M. St-Onge, J.-L. Lachambre, D. Michaud, B. Sawatzky, J. Thomas, A. Hirose, D. Hwang, N. Richard, C. Cote, G. Abel, D. Pinsonneault, J.-L. Gauvreau, B. Stansfield, R. Decoste, A. Cote, W. Zuzak, C. Boucher, Physical Rev. Lett. 73(23), 3101–3104 (1994)
Caltech 107. M.R. Brown, D.M. Cutrer, P.M. Bellan, Physics Fluids B (Plasma Physics) 3(5), 1198–1213 (1991) 108. J. Yee, P.M. Bellan, Physics Plasmas 7(9), 3625–3640 (2000) 109. P.M. Bellan, J. Yee, J.F. Hansen, Earth, Planets Space 53(6), 495–499 (2001) 110. P.M. Bellan, Physics Plasmas 9(7), 3050–3056 (2002) 111. S.C. Hsu, P.M. Bellan, Physical Rev. Lett. 90(21), 215002/1–4 (2003) 112. S.C. Hsu, P.M. Bellan, Physics Plasmas 12(3), 32103–1–12 (2005) 113. G.S. Yun, S. You, P.M. Bellan, Nucl. Fusion 47(3), 181–188 (2007) 114. P.M. Bellan, J.F. Hansen, S. Zweben, D. Stutman, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(1), pt. 1–2, 742 (2001) 115. C.A. Romero Talamas, P.M. Bellan, S.C. Hsu, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75(8), 2664–2667 (2004) 116. G.S. Yun (California Inst. of Technol., Pasadena, USA); S. You, P.M. Bellan, Nucl. Fusion 47(3), 181–188 (2007)
HIT-SI 117. U. Shumlak, T.R. Jarboe, Physics Plasmas 6(11), 4382–4383 (1999) 118. T.R. Jarboe, Fusion Technol. 36(1), 85–91 (1999) 119. U. Shumlak, T.R. Jarboe, Physics Plasmas 7(7), 2959–2963 (2000) 120. V.A. Izzo, T.R. Jarboe, Physics Plasmas 10(7), 2903–2911 (2003) 121. V.A. Izzo, T.R. Jarboe, Physics Plasmas 12(5), 56109–1–8 (2005) 122. P.E. Sieck, T.R. Jarboe, V.A. Izzo, W.T. Hamp, B.A. Nelson, R.G. O’Neill, A.J. Redd, R.J. Smith, Nucl. Fusion 46(2), 254– 261 (2006) 123. T.R. Jarboe, W.T. Hamp, G.J. Marklin, B.A. Nelson, R.G. O’Neill, A.J. Redd, P.E. Sieck, R.J. Smith, J.S. Wrobel, Physical Rev. Lett. 97(11), 115003/1–4 (2006)
Reviews CTIX and other accelerators 102. M.R. Brown, P.M. Bellan, Physics Fluids B (Plasma Physics), 2(6) pt. 2 1306–1310 (1990)
123
124. A. Hoffman Physics of the Field Reversed Configuration, Course AA559, University of Washington, Available by request to
[email protected]
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 125. T. Dolan, Fusion Research (Pergamon Press 1982), ISBN0-08025565-5 126. M. Tuszewski, Nucl. Fusion 28, 2033 (1988)
145 160. E.V. Belova, R.C. Davidson, Ji Hantao, M. Yamada, Physics Plasmas 11(5), 2523–2531 (2004) 161. S.P Gerhardt, E. Belova, M. Inomoto, M. Yamada, H. Ji, Y. Ren, A. Kuritsyn, Physics Plasmas 13(11), 112508–1–18 (2006) 162. E.V. Belova, R.C. Davidson, Hantao Ji, M. Yamada, Physics Plasmas 13(5), 56115–1–5 (2006)
Washington 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132.
133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.
K. Wira, Z.A. Pietrzyk, Phys. Fluids B 2, 561 (1990) J.T. Slough, A.L. Hoffman, Phys. Fluids B 2, 797 (1990) L.C. Steinhauer, A. Ishida, Phys. Fluids B 2, 2422 (1990) L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Fluids B 2, 2679 (1990) L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Fluids B 2, 3081 (1990) J.T. Slough, A.L. Hoffman, R.D. Milroy, E.A. Crawford, M. Cecik, R. Maqueda, G.A. Wurden, Y. Ito, A. Shiokawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2212 (1992) A.L. Hoffman, J.T. Slough, Nucl. Fusion 33, 27 (1993) L.C. Steinhauer, A. Ishida, R. Kanno, Phys. Plasmas 1, 1523 (1994) J.T. Slough, A.L. Hoffman, R.D. Milroy, R. Maqueda, L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Plasmas 2, 2286 (1995) R.D. Milroy, Phys. Plasmas 6, 2771 (1999) R.D. Milroy, Phys. Plasmas 7, 4135 (2000) J.T. Slough, K.E. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1444 (2000) J.T. Slough, K.E. Miller, Phys. Plasmas 7, 1945 (2000) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman, R.D. Brooke, A.M. Peter, Z.A. Pietrzyk, S.J. Tobin, G.R. Votroubek, Phys. Plasmas 9, 185 (2002) A.L. Hoffman, H.Y. Guo, R.D. Milroy, Z.A. Pietrzyk, Nucl. Fusion 43, 1091 (2003) R.D. Milroy, K.E. Miller, Phys. Plasmas 11, 633 (2004) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman K.E. Miller, L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 245001 (2004) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman, Phys. Plasmas 11, 1087 (2004) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman, L.C. Steinhauer, K.E. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 175001 (2005) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman, R.D. Milroy, K.E. Miller, G.R. Votroubek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 185001 (2005) H.Y. Guo, A.L. Hoffman, L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Plasmas 12, 062507 (2005) R.D. Milroy, H.Y. Guo, Phys. Plasmas 12, 072503 (2005) A.L. Hoffman, H.Y. Guo, K.E. Miller, R.D. Milroy, Nucl. Fusion 45, 176 (2005)
Swarthmore SSX-FRC 163. C.D. Cothran, A. Falk, A. Fefferman, M. Landreman, M.R. Brown, M.J. Schaffer, Physics Plasmas 10, 1748 (2003)
Colorado FRC 164. T. Munsat, C.L. Ellison, A. Light, J. Nuger, W. Willcockson, S. Wurzel, The Colorado FRC Experiment, Proceedings of the 2007 ICC Workshop
Osaka FRC (FIX) 165. A. Shiokawa, S. Goto, Phys. Fluids B 5, 534 (1993) 166. A. Ishida, N. Shibata, L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Plasmas 1, 4022 (1994) 167. H. Himura, S. Okada, S. Sugimoto, S. Goto, Phys. Plasmas 2, 191 (1995) 168. T. Ohtsuka, M. Okubo, S. Okada, S. Goto, Phys. Plasmas 5, 3649 (1998) 169. H. Himura, S. Ueoka, M. Hase, R. Yoshida, S. Okada, S. Goto, Phys. Plasmas 5, 4262 (1998) 170. T. Kanki, Y. Suzuki, S. Okada, S. Goto, Phys. Plasmas 6, 4672 (1999) 171. S. Okada, K. Kitano, H. Matsumoto, K. Yamanaka, T. Ohtsuka, A.K. Martin, M. Okubo, S. Yoshimura, S. Sugimoto, S. Ohi, S. Goto, Nucl. Fusion 39, 2009 (1999)
Princeton Odd-parity RMF-FRC and MRX-FRC
LANL FRCs (FRX-C and –L)
150. 151. 152. 153.
172. M. Tuszewski, D.C. Barnes, D.J. Rej, D.P. Taggart, Phys. Fluids B 3, 2205 (1991) 173. M. Tuszewski, D.P. Taggart, R.E. Chrien, D.J. Rej, R.E. Siemon, B.L. Wright, Phys. Fluids B 3, 2856 (1991) 174. M. Tuszewski, D.C. Barnes, R.E. Chrien, J.W. Cobb, D.J. Rej, R.E. Siemon, D.P. Taggart, B.L. Wright, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 711 (1991) 175. D.J. Rej, D.P. Taggart, M.H. Baron, R.E. Chrien, R.J. Gribble, M. Tuszewski, W.J. Waganaar, B.L. Wright, Phys. Fluids B 4, 1909 (1992) 176. D.C. Barnes, (Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NM, USA); R.D. Milroy, Physics Fluids B (Plasma Physics) 3(9), 2609–2616 (1991) 177. D.C. Barnes, Physics Plasmas 10(5), 1636–1642 (2003) 178. D.C. Barnes, (Appl. Phys. Div., Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NM, USA) Profile consistency of an elongated field-reversed configuration. I. Asymptotic theory Physics of Plasmas 8(11), 4856– 4863 (2001)
154. 155. 156.
157. 158. 159.
S.A. Cohen, R.D. Milroy, Phys. Plasmas 7, 2539 (2000) S.A. Cohen, A.H. Glasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5114 (2000) A.H. Glasser, S.A. Cohen, Phys. Plasmas 9, 2093 (2002) A. Landsman, S.A. Cohen, Comm. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 10, 617 (2004) A. Landsman, S.A. Cohen, Phys. Plasmas 11, 947 (2004) A.S. Landsman, S.A. Cohen, A.H. Glasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 015002 (2006) E.V. Belova, R.C. Davidson, H. Ji, M. Yamada, C.D. Cothran, M.R. Brown, M.J. Schaffer, Nucl. Fusion 46(1), 162–170 (2006) E.V. Belova, S.C. Jardin, H. Ji, M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud, Physics Plasmas 7(12), 4996–5006 (2000) E.V. Belova, S.C. Jardin, H. Ji, M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud, 8(4), 1267–1277 (2001) E.V. Belova, R.C. Davidson, Ji Hantao, M. Yamada, Physics Plasmas 10(6), 2361–2371 (2003)
123
146 179. G.A. Wurden, T.P. Intrator, D.A. Clark, R.J. Maqueda, J.M. Taccetti, F.J. Wysocki S.K. Coffey, J.H. Degnan, E.L. Ruden, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72, 552 (2001) 180. G.A. Wurden, P.N. Assmus, W.J. Feinup, T.P. Intrator, M.C. Langner, R.J. Maqueda, K.J. Scott, R.E. Siemon, E.M. Tejero, J.M. Taccetti, M.G. Tuszewski, Z. Wang, S.Y. Zhang, C. Grabowski, S.K. Coffey, J.H. Degnan, D. Gale, E.L. Ruden, W. Sommars, (2002) Progress on the FRX-L FRC Plasma Injector at LANL for Magnetized Target Fusion LA-UR-01–5301 181. J.M. Taccetti, T.P. Intrator, G.A. Wurden, S.Y. Zhang, R. Aragonez, P.N. Assmus, C.M. Bass, C. Carey, S.A. deVries, W.J. Fienup, I. Furno, S.C. Hsu, M.P. Kozar, M.C. Langner, J. Liang, R.J. Maqueda, R.A. Martinez, P.G. Sanchez, K.F. Schoenberg, K.J. Scott, R.E. Siemon, E.M. Tejero, E.H. Trask, M. Tuszewski, W.J. Waganaar, C. Grabowski, E.L. Ruden, J.H. Degnan, T. Cavazos, D.G. Gale, W. Sommars, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 4314 (2003) 182. S.Y. Zhang, E.M. Tejero, J.M. Taccetti, G.A. Wurden, T.P. Intrator, W.J. Waganaar, R. Perkins, Rev. Sci. instrum. 75, 4289 (2004) 183. T. Intrator, S.Y. Zhang, J.H. Degnan, I. Furno, C. Grabowski, S.C. Hsu, E.L. Ruden, P.G. Sanchez, J.M. Taccetti, M. Tuszewski, W.J. Waganaar, G.A. Wurden, Phys. Plasmas 11, 2580 (2004) 184. T.P. Intrator, Member, IEEE, J.Y. Park, J.H. Degnan, Senior Member, IEEE, I. Furno, C. Grabowski, S.C. Hsu, E.L. Ruden, P.G. Sanchez, J. Martin Taccetti, M. Tuszewski, W.J. Waganaar, G.A. Wurden, S.Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, IEEE Trans. Plasma. Sci. 32 0093–3813 (2004) 185. S. Zhang, T.P. Intrator, G.A. Wurden, W.J. Waganaar, J.M. Taccetti, R. Renneke, C. Grabowski, E.L. Ruden, Physics Plasmas 12(5), 52513–1–8 (2005)
PHD 186. J. Slough, S. Andreason, H. Gota, C. Pihl, G. Votroubek, J. Fusion Energy 26, 199 (2007)
IPA 187. S. Woodruff G. Votroubek J. Slough T. Ziemba, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 243 (2007) 188. S. Woodruff, A.I.D. Macnab, N. Mattor, Adiabatic compression of a doublet Field Reversed Configuration (FRC) These proceedings 189. J. Slough, R. Milroy, T. Ziemba, S. Woodruff, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 191 (2007) 190. G. Votroubek, J. Slough, S. Andreason, C. Pihl, Formation of a stable Field Reversed Configuration through merging These proceedings
Reactors 191. A.L. Hoffman, Fusion Technol. 27, 91–96 (1995) 192. A.C. Smith Jr., G.A. Carlson, W.S. Neef, C.P. Ashworth, K.E. Abreu, H.H. Fleischmann, K.R. Schultz, C.P.C. Wong, D.K. Bhadra, R.L. Creedon, E.T. Cheng, G.R. Hopkins, W.
123
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 Grossmann Jr., D.M. Woodall, T. Kammash, Fusion tech. 9, 136 (1986)
Review articles 193. R.P. Drake, J.H. Hammer, C.W. Hartman, L.J. Perkins, D.D. Ryutov, Fusion Tech. V30, 310 (1996) 194. D.D. Ryutov, R.E. Siemon, Com. Mod. Phys. 2, 185 (2001) 195. R. Siemon, et al. The relevance of Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) to practical energy production A white paper for consideration by the fusion community and the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Draft 2: June 3, 1999
MTF LANL/AFRL 196. R.C. Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, Fusion Technol. 20, (1991) 197. R.C. Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, M.S. Ward, Fusion Technol. 27(3), 201–214 (1995) 198. I.R. Lindemuth, R.E. Reinovsky, R.E. Chrien, J.M. Christian, C.A. Ekdahl J.H. Goforth, R.C. Haight, G. Idzorek, N.S. King, R.C. Kirkpatrick, R.E. Larson, G.L. Morgan, B.W. Olinger, H. Oona, P.T. Sheehey, J.S. Shlachter, R.C. Smith, L.R. Veeser, B.J. Warthen, S.M. Younger, V.K. Chernyshev, V.N. Mokhov, A.N. Demin, Y.N. Dolin, S.F. Garanin, V.A. Ivanov, V.P. Korchagin, O.D. Mikhailov, I.V. Morozov, S.V. Pak, E.S. Pavlovskii, N.Y. Seleznev, A.N. Skobelev, G.I. Volkov, V.A. Yakubov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (10), 1953–1956 (1995) 199. J.H. Degnan, G.P. Baca, D.E. Bell, G. Bird A.L. Chesley, S.K. coffey M.E. Dearborn, M.R. Douglas, S.E. Englert, T.J. Englert, D. Gale, J.D. Graham, K.E. Hackett, J.H. Holmes, T.W. Hussey, G.F. Kiuttu, F.M. Lehr, G.J. Marklin, B.W. Mullins, R.E. Peterkin Jr., D.W. Price, N.F. Roderick, E.L. Ruden, M. Scott, S.W. Seiler, W. Sommars, P.J. Turchi, Fusion Tech. 27, 107 (1995) 200. J.H. Degnan, W.L. Baker, M.L. Alme, C. Boyer, J.S. Buff, J.D. Beason, C.J. Clouse, S.K. Coffey, D. Dietz, M.H. Frese, J.D. Graham, D.J. Hall, J.L. Holmes, E.A. Lopez, R.E. Peterkin, D.W. Price, N.F. Roderick, S.W. Seiler, C.R. Sovinec, P.J. Turchi, Fusion Technol. 27(2), 115–123 (1995) 201. R.C. Kirkpatrick, D.P. Smitherman, Fusion Technol. 30(3, pt. 2B), 1311–1314 (1996) 202. D.C. Barnes, Plasma Phys. Contr. F. 18 (2), 71–84 (1997) 203. L.R. Lindemuth, C.A. Ekdahl, C.M. Fowler, R.E. Reinovsky, S.M. Younger, V.K. Chernyshev, V.N. Mokhov, A.I. Pavlovskii, IEEE T. Plasma Sci. 25(6), 1357–1372 (1997) 204. P. Sheehey, (Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NM, USA); W. Atchison, R. Faehl, R. Kirkpatrick, I. Lindemuth, R. Siemon, Computational investigation of plasma-wall interaction issues in magnetized target fusion Digest of Technical Papers. 12th IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference. (Cat. No. 99CH36358), vol. 2, pt. 2, 888–891 (1999) 205. F.J. Wysocki, (Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NM, USA); J.M. Taccetti, R.A. Gerwin, J.F. Benage, G. Idzorek, H. Oona, R.C. Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, P.T. Sheehey, Analysis of data from Zpinch MTF target plasma experiments Digest of Technical Papers. 12th IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference. (Cat. No. 99CH36358), vol. 2 pt. 2, 700–703 (1999) 206. G.A. Wurden, T.P. Intrator, D.A. Clark, R.J. Maqueda, J.M. Taccetti, F.J. Wysocki, S.K. Coffey, J.H. Degnan, E.L. Ruden, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(1, pt. 2), 552–555 (2001)
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 207. J.H. Degnan, J.M. Taccetti, T. Cavazos, D. Clark, S.K. Coffey, R.J. Faehl, M.H. Frese, D. Fulton, J.C. Gueits, D. Gale, T.W. Hussey, T.P. Intrator, R.C. Kirpatrick, G.H. Kiuttu, F.M. Lehr, J.D. Letterio, I. Lindemuth, W.F. McCullough, R. Moses, R.E. Peterkin, R.E. Reinovsky, N.F. Roderick, E.L. Ruden, J.S. Shlachter, K.F. Schoenberg, R.E. Siemon, W. Sommars, P.J. Turchi, G.A. Wurden, F. Wysocki, IEEE T. Plasma. Sci. 29(1), 93–98 (2001) 208. J.M. Taccetti, T.P. Intrator, F.J. Wysocki, K.C. Forman, D.G. Gale, S.K. Coffey, J.H. Degnan, Fusion Sci. Technol. 41(1), 13– 23 (2002) 209. T. Intrator, M. Taccetti, D.A. Clark, J.H. Degnan, D. Gale, S. Coffey, J. Garcia, P. Rodriguez, W. Sommars, B. Marshall, F. Wysocki, R. Siemon, R. Faehl, K. Forman, R. Bartlett, T. Cavazos, R.J. Faehl, K. Forman, M.H. Frese, D. Fulton, J.C. Gueits, T.W. Hussey, R. Kirkpatrick, G.F. Kiuttu, F.M. Lehr, J.D. Letterio, I. Lindemuth, W. McCullough, R. Moses, R.E. Peterkin, R.E. Reinovsky, N.F. Roderick, E.L. Ruden, K.F. Schoenberg, D. Scudder, J. Shlachter, G.A. Wurden, Nucl. Fusion 42(2), 211–222 (2002) 210. J.H. Degnan, G.F. Kiuttu, J.D. Letterio, N.F. Roderick, E.L. Ruden, Simulations of imploding solid liner melting and vaporization vs liner thickness, and evidence for ‘‘melt waves’’ Digest of Technical Papers. PPC-2003. 14th IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37472), vol. 1, pt. 1, 103–106 (2003) 211. T. Intrator, S.Y. Zhang, J.H. Degnan, I. Furno, C. Grabowski, S.C. Hsu, E.L. Ruden, P.G. Sanchez, J.M. Taccetti, M. Tuszewski, W.J. Waganaar, G.A. Wurden, Physics Plasmas 11(5), 2580–2585 (2004) 212. J.H. Degnan, D. Amdahl, A. Brown, T. Cavazos, S.K. Coffey, G.G. Craddock, M.H. Frese, S.D. Frese, D. Gale, T.C. Grabowski, G.F. Kiuttu, F.M. Lehr, J.D. Letterio, R.E. Peterkin Jr., N.F. Roderick, E.L. Ruden, R.E. Siemon, W. Sommars, P.J. Turchi, Deformable contact liner implosion performed with 8 cm diameter electrode apertures IEEE Conference Record Abstracts. 31st IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37537), 2004, 161
LLNL 213. D.D. Ryutov, Fusion Sci. Technol. 41(2), 88–91 (2002) 214. D.D. Ryutov, (Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., CA, USA) Physics Plasmas 9(9), 4085–4088 (2002) 215. D.D. Ryutov, D.C. Barnes, B.S. Bauer, J.H. Hammer, C.W. Hartman, R.C. Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, V. Makhin, P.B. Parks, D.B. Reisman, P.T. Sheehey, R.E. Siemon, Nucl. Fusion 43(9), 955–960 (2003)
Russia 216. C. Cereceda, C. Deutsch, M. De Peretti, M. Sabatier, M.M. Basko, A. Kemp, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Physics Plasmas 7(11), 4515–4533 (2000) 217. C. Cereceda, C. Deutsch, M.D. Peretti, M. Sabatier, H.B. Nersisyan, Physics Plasmas 7(7), 2884–2893 (2000) 218. S.F. Garanin, IEEE T. Plasma Sci. 26(4), 1230–1238 (1998) 219. A.N. Demin, V.K. Chernyshev, V.P. Korchagin, V.N. Mokhov, V.A Ivanov, S.V. Pak, V.B. Yakubov, S.F. Garanin, V.I. Mamyshev, S.D. Kuznetsov, A.N. Subbotin, O.M. Burencov,
147
220. 221.
222. 223. 224.
225.
Y.N. Dolin, V.I. Dudin, I.V. Morozov, A.A. Volkov, S.V. Trusilo, P.L. Usenko, A.N. Skobelev, V.I. Shpagin, MHD-nozzle device as a thermonuclear target in MAGO/MTF concept 12th International Conference on High-Power Particle Beams. BEAMS’98. Proceedings (Cat. No. 98EX103), vol. 2 pt. 2, 585– 587 (1998) M.M. Basko, A.J. Kemp, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Nucl. Fusion 40(1), 59–68 (2000) M.M. Basko, M.D. Churazov, A. Kemp, J. Meyer-Ter-Vehn, Methods in Physics Research, Section A 464(n 1–3), 196–200 (2001) A.J. Kemp, M.M. Basko, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Nucl. Fusion 43(1), 16–24 (2003) A.J. Kemp, M.M. Basko, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, Nucl. Fusion 43(1), 16–24 (2003) V.N. Mokhov, O.M. Burenkov, A.M. Buyko, S.F. Garanin, S.D. Kuznetsov, V.I. Mamyshev, A.I. Startsev, V.B. Yakubov, Fusion Eng. Des, 70(1), 35–43 (2004) S.F. Garanin, V.I. Mamyshev, E.M. Palagina, IEEE T. Plasma Sci. 34(n 5, pt.3), 2268–2272 (2006)
Reno 226. V. Makhina, (Nevada Univ., Reno, NV, USA); A. Esaulov, B.S. Bauer, R.E. Siemon, R. Presura, V.I. Sotnikov, I. Paraschiv, I.R. Lindemuth, R.C. Kirkpatrick, P.T. Sheehey, D.D. Ryutov, Modeling of the inverse z-pinch dynamics Digest of Technical Papers. PPC-2003. 14th IEEE International Pulsed Power Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37472), vol. 1 pt. 1, 63–65 (2003) 227. A. Esaulov, (Phys. Dept., Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA); B.S. Bauer, I.R. Lindemuth, V. Makhin, R. Presura, D.D. Ryutov, P.T. Sheehey, R.E. Siemon, V.I. Sotnikov, Physics Plasmas 11(4), 1589–1599 (2004) 228. R.E. Siemon, (Phys. Dept., Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA); W.L. Atchison, T. Awe, B.S. Bauer, A.M. Buyko, V.K. Chernyshev, T.E. Cowan, J.H. Degnan, R.J. Faehl, S. Fuelling, S.F. Garanin, T. Goodrich, A.V. Ivanovsky, I.R. Lindemuth, V. Makhin, V.N. Mokhov, R.E. Reinovsky, D.D. Ryutov, D.W. Scudder, T. Taylor, V.B. Yakubov, Nucl. Fusion 45(9), 1148– 1155 (2005)
Marshall/plasma jets 229. Y.C.F. Thio et al., in Current Trends in International Fusion Research, ed. by E. Panarella, (National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1999), p. 113 230. Y.C.F. Thio, C.E. Knapp, R.C. Kirkpatrick, R.E. Siemon, P.J. Turchi, J Fusion Energ. 20(1–2), 1–11 (2001) 231. Y.C.F. Thio, R. Eskridge, A. Martin, J. Smith, M. Lee, T. Markusic, J.T. Cassibry, T Am Nucl Soc 86, 411–412 (2002) 232. F. Winterberg, Physics Plasmas. 9(8), 3540–3544 (2002) 233. D.D. Ryutov, Y.C.F. Thio, Fusion Sci. Technol. V49, 39 (2006)
PHD 234. J. Slough, S. Andreason, H. Gota, C. Pihl, G. Votroubek, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 199 (2007)
123
148
IPA 235. S. Woodruff, G. Votroubek, J. Slough, T. Ziemba, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 243 (2007) 236. S. Woodruff, A. I. D. Macnab, N. Mattor Adiabatic compression of a doublet Field Reversed Configuration (FRC) These proceedings
123
J Fusion Energ (2008) 27:134–148 237. J. Slough, R. Milroy, T. Ziemba, S. Woodruff, J. Fusion Energ. 26, 191 (2007) 238. G. Votroubek. J. Slough, S. Andreason, C. Pihl, Formation of a stable Field Reversed Configuration through merging These proceedings
