4.5 Article

An optimized and flexible configuration for the magnetic filter in the SPIDER experiment

期刊

FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.112281

关键词

Neutral beam injector; Plasma source; Radio frequency driver; Magnetic field; Electron filter; Resistive insert

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic fields in negative ion driven Neutral Beam Injectors play a crucial role in reducing electron temperature and density. Experimental results indicate that the topology of the magnetic field has an impact on plasma generation. Therefore, a new bus-bar layout was designed to optimize the magnetic field topology and expand the operating margin of experimental activities.
Magnetic fields in negative ion driven Neutral Beam Injectors (NBIs) are essential to reduce the electron temperature and density in the extraction region, along with filtering out the otherwise unavoidably co-extracted electrons. In SPIDER, the full scale ion source and extractor of the ITER NBI, a horizontal magnetic field up to 8 mT inside the plasma source is produced by a current of up to 5 kA flowing through the plasma-facing electrode and additional bus-bars. First SPIDER experimental campaigns showed an influence on the plasma generation when the magnetic field is increased beyond a threshold. This effect has been ascribed to the particular topology of the field in the plasma volume inside the 8 inductively-coupled radio-frequency drivers that generate the plasma. The paper describes the experiments aimed at identifying the problem and the design process for a new layout of bus-bars capable of creating an optimized magnetic field topology within the RF driver, while keeping it almost unchanged in the other regions where the required performances were already achieved. Particular attention was given for a design leaving the possibility of easily modifying the new topology, so as to significantly expand the operating margin of the experimental activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据