Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:51:51.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Existing and new applications of micropellet injection (MPI) in magnetic fusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2016

Zhehui Wang*
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
Robert Lunsford
Affiliation:
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Dennis K. Mansfield
Affiliation:
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Jacob H. Nichols
Affiliation:
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: zwang@lanl.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The intense heat and energetic particle fluxes expected in ITER and future magnetic fusion reactors pose prohibitive problems to the design, selection and maintenance of the first wall and divertor. Micropellet injection (MPI) technologies can offer some innovative solutions to the material and extreme heat challenges. Basic physics of micropellet motion, ablation and interactions with high-temperature plasmas and energetic particles are presented first. We then discuss MPI technology options and applications. In addition to plasma diagnostic applications, controlled injection of micropellets of different sizes, velocities and injection frequencies will offer several possibilities: (1) better assessment of the core plasma cooling due to dust produced in situ; (2) better understanding of the plasma–material interaction physics near the wall; (3) new methods for plasma fuelling and impurity control; and (4) techniques for edge cooling with minimal impact on the plasma core. Dedicated small-scale laboratory experiments will complement major fusion experiments in development and applications of MPI.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 
Figure 0

Table 1. A summary of major transient events in magnetic fusion.

Figure 1

Figure 1. (Left) Dust of different sizes and irregular shapes collected from an arc discharge using graphite as the cathode and a mixture of hydrogen and argon. (Right) Another graphite electrode nearby shows redeposition of carbon.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Dust-size distribution from a carbon-arc discharge. The number of dust particles increases rapidly as the size decreases, consistent with in situ measurements (Voinier et al.2005).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Entrain time ${\it\tau}_{0}$ as a function of deuterium plasma density and temperature for carbon dust of $1~{\rm\mu}\text{m}$ in radius. Dust granules are unlikely to approach plasma flow velocities in the $\text{km}~\text{s}^{-1}$ range.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Expected dust velocity as a function of acceleration distance due to ion-drag force – carbon dust ($10~{\rm\mu}\text{m}$ in radius). The deuterium plasma density is $10^{19}\,\text{m}^{-3}$.

Figure 5

Table 2. Material properties for ablation models.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Minimum dust velocity required to penetrate a ‘model’ edge plasma with a constant density of $10^{19}~\text{m}^{-3}$ and a linear variation of temperature from 10 to 200 eV. The same pre-ablation model can be applied to other realistic edge-plasma scenarios.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Shielding factor ($f_{s}$) as a function of dust potential ${\it\phi}_{d}$ (normalized to plasma temperature $T$).

Figure 8

Figure 7. Transition dust radius as a function of the surface neutral density ($n_{surf}$) for Li and C spheres. $N_{0}=2.69\times 10^{19}\,\text{m}^{-3}$ (the ideal gas density at STP). The plasma is assumed to be at 100 eV with a density of $10^{19}~\text{m}^{-3}$.

Figure 9

Figure 8. SRIM predictions of energetic ion (3 MeV p and 3.5 MeV ${\it\alpha}$) stopping in matter. The results indicate that individual dust grains of the order of $100~{\rm\mu}\text{m}$ in radius are sufficient to stop MeV ions.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Continuous slowing down approximation (CSDA) ranges of energetic electrons in matter. The results indicate that individual dust grains are not sufficient to stop 10–20 MeV electrons, which are expected during ITER-like disruptions. A thick cloud with equivalent matter thickness of the order of 1–10 cm would be needed for medium-$Z$ materials.

Figure 11

Figure 10. A comparison of different mass-injection technologies. Along the lowest slanted line from the top to the bottom are an electrostatic dust accelerator (Shu et al.2012), a plasma-drag accelerator (Ticos et al.2006b) and a mechanical lithium propeller (Mansfield et al.2013). Along the slanted line above is a two-stage gas gun (Physics Applications Inc. 0000). No technology exists today along the top slanted line.

Figure 12

Table 3. Possible facilities for new micropellet injection experiments and development.