4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Diagnostic of fast-ion energy spectra and densities in magnetized plasmas

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSTRUMENTATION
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/14/05/C05019

关键词

Nuclear instruments and methods for hot plasma diagnostics; Computerized Tomography (CT); Computed Radiography (CR)

资金

  1. ITPA Energetic Particle Physics Topical Group
  2. Fusion for Energy [F4E-FPA-393]
  3. Euratom research and training programme [633053]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The measurement of the energy spectra and densities of alpha-particles and other fast ions are part of the ITER measurement requirements, highlighting the importance of energy-resolved energetic-particle measurements for the mission of ITER. However, it has been found in recent years that the velocity-space interrogation regions of the foreseen energetic-particle diagnostics do not allow these measurements directly. We will demonstrate this for gamma-ray spectroscopy (GRS), collective Thomson scattering (CTS), neutron emission spectroscopy and fast-ion D-alpha spectroscopy by invoking energy and momentum conservation in each case, highlighting analogies and differences between the different diagnostic velocity-space sensitivities. Nevertheless, energy spectra and densities can be inferred by velocity-space tomography which we demonstrate using measurements at JET and ASDEX Upgrade. The measured energy spectra agree well with corresponding simulations. At ITER, alpha-particle energy spectra and densities can be inferred for energies larger than 1.7 MeV by velocity-space tomography based on GRS and CTS. Further, assuming isotropy of the alpha-particles in velocity space, their energy spectra and densities can be inferred by 1D inversion of spectral single-detector measurements down to about 300 keV by CTS. The alpha-particle density can also be found by fitting a model to the CTS measurements assuming the alpha-particle distribution to be an isotropic slowing-down distribution.

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

4.3
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