Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:45:45.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finite-Larmor-radius effects on z–pinch stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

Jan Scheffel and
Mostafa Faghihi
Jan Scheffel
Affiliation:
The Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Mostafa Faghihi
Affiliation:
The Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of finite Larmor radius (FLR) on the stability of m = 1 small-axial-wavelength kinks in a z–pinch with purely poloidal magnetic field is investigated. We use the incompressible FLR MHD model; a collisionless fluid model that consistently includes the relevant FLR terms due to ion gyroviscosity, Hall effect and electron diamagnetism. With FLR terms absent, the Kadomtsev criterion of ideal MHD, 2r dp/dr + m2B2/μ0 ≥ 0 predicts instability for internal modes unless the current density is singular at the centre of the pinch. The same result is obtained in the present model, with FLR terms absent. When the FLR terms are included, a normal-mode analysis of the linearized equations yields the following results. Marginally unstable (ideal) modes are stabilized by gyroviscosity. The Hall term has a damping (but not absolutely stabilizing) effect – in agreement with earlier work. On specifying a constant current and particle density equilibrium, the effect of electron diamagnetism vanishes. For a z–pinch with parameters relevant to the EXTRAP experiment, the m = 1 modes are then fully stabilized over the crosssection for wavelengths λ/a ≤ 1, where a denotes the pinch radius. As a general z–pinch result a critical line-density limit Nmax = 5 × 1018 m–1 is found, above which gyroviscous stabilization near the plasma boundary becomes insufficient. This limit corresponds to about five Larmor radii along the pinch radius. The result holds for wavelengths close to, or smaller than, the pinch radius and for realistic equilibrium profiles. This limit is far below the required limit for a reactor with contained alpha particles, which is in excess of 1020 m–1.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , June 1989, pp. 427 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Åkerstedt, H. O. 1988 Physica Scripta, 37, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braginskii, S. I. 1966 Review of Plasma Physics (ed. Leontovich, M. A.), vol. 1, p. 205. Consultants Bureau.Google Scholar
Brynolf, J., Ring, R. & Wahlberg, C. 1985 Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion, 27, 1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhajlani, R. K. & Bhand, S. C. 1980 J. Plasma Phys. 23, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, J. R., Hellsten, T., Landberg, R., Lehnert, B. & Wilner, B. 1981 Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research (Proceedings of 8th International Conference, Brussels, 1980), vol. 2, p. 717. IAEA, Vienna.Google Scholar
Goedbloed, J. P. & Sakanaka, P. H. 1974 Phys. Fluids, 17, 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellsten, T. 1982 Nucl. Fusion, 22, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadomtsev, B. B. 1966 Review of Plasma Physics (ed. Leontovich, M. A.), vol. 2. Consultants Bureau.Google Scholar
Lehnert, B. 1961 a Phys. Fluids, 4, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, B. 1961 b Phys. Fluids, 4, 847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, B. 1974 Physica Scripta, 10, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehneht, B. 1982 Unconventional Approaches to Fusion (ed. Brunelli, B. & Leotta, G. G.). Plenum.Google Scholar
Lehneht, B. 1983 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 207, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, A. 1965 Phys. Fluids, 8, 1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhailovskii, A. B. & Tsypin, V. S. 1984 Beitr. Plasmaphys. 24, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oraevskii, V., Chodura, R. & Feneberg, W. 1968 Plasma Phys. 10, 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, K. V. & Taylor, J. B. 1962 Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbluth, M. N., Krall, N. A. & Rostoker, N. 1962 Nucl. Fusion Suppl. 1, 143.Google Scholar
Scheffel, J. & Faghihi, M. 1986 Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, TRITA-PFU-86–09.Google Scholar
Scheffel, J. & Faghihi, M. 1987 J. Plasma Phys. 38, 495.Google Scholar
Spies, G. & Faghihi, M. 1987 Phys. Fluids, 30, 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, R. J. 1957 Proc. Phys. Soc. B 70, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. B. 1962 An Introduction to Plasma Physics. Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar