4.6 Article

Development of advanced stellarator with identical permanent magnet blocks

Journal

CELL REPORTS PHYSICAL SCIENCE
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100709

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Magnetic Confinement Fusion Energy R&D Program of China [2019YFE03030000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U19A20113]
  3. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [QYZDB-SSW-SLH001]
  4. CASHIPS Director's Fund [BJPY2019A01]
  5. K.C. Wong Education Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes an innovative strategy to simplify stellarators by introducing standardized permanent magnet blocks. Compared to existing designs, this new approach reduces the difficulty and cost of magnet fabrication and assembly, potentially opening up a new avenue for fast development of stellarator fusion.
The stellarator offers an attractive approach to fusion energy. How to simplify its complicated 3D coil system has always been one of the most important topics. Recent study indicates that the coils can be dramatically simplified through introducing permanent magnets. However, the existing designs use permanent magnets with various shapes, sizes, and even arbitrary magnetization orientations, so that their fabrication and assembly may be even more difficult and costly than the 3D coils. Here, we propose an innovative strategy to design advanced stellarators with standardized permanent magnet blocks, such as identical cubes. This magnet design may substantially reduce the difficulty and cost of magnet fabrication and assembly. The standardized magnet blocks can be easily manufactured and assembled offline with tight tolerance in the mounting frames. These innovations significantly lower the engineering barrier for stellarator construction, which potentially opens a new avenue for fast development of the stellarator fusion approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available