4.7 Article

Mitigation of magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor instability growth in a triple-nozzle, neutron-producing gas-puff Z pinch

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 104, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.L023201

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0003842, DE-NA0003278]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gas-puff Z-pinch is a well-known source of x-rays and/or neutrons, but it is highly susceptible to the magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor instability (MRTI). Mitigation strategies for MRTI include density profile tailoring and axial pre-magnetization, which can be additive in reducing energy loss and improving yield. By adding a second liner to stabilize the implosion of the gas liner, the initial axial magnetic field can be reduced, ultimately leading to a more attractive source for intense neutrons or fusion applications.
The gas-puff Z-pinch is a well-known source of x-rays and/or neutrons, but it is highly susceptible to the magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor instability (MRTI). Approaches to MRTI mitigation include density profile tailoring, in which nozzles are added or modified to alter the acceleration trajectory, and axial pre-magnetization, in which perturbations are smoothed out via magnetic field line tension. Here, we present two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of loads driven by an 850 kA, 160 ns driver that suggest these mitigation strategies can be additive. The initial axial magnetic field, Bz0, to stabilize a 2.5-cm-radius Ne gas liner imploding onto an on-axis deuterium target can be reduced from 0.7 T to 0.3 T by adding a second liner with a radius of 1.25 cm. Because MRTI mitigation tends to increasingly lower yield with higher Bz0, the use of a lower field is advantageous. Here, we predict a reduction in yield penalty from >100x with the single liner to <10x with a double liner. A premagnetized, triple nozzle gas puff could therefore be an attractive source for intense neutrons or other fusion applications.

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

4.7
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