Physics:Quantum Magnetic confinement fusion

From HandWiki

Magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) is an approach to controlled thermonuclear fusion in which magnetic fields are used to confine fusion fuel in the form of a high-temperature plasma. It is one of the two main branches of controlled fusion research, alongside inertial confinement fusion (ICF).[1]

Spherical tokamak plasma (MAST experiment) with modified color scheme for visualization.

Fusion conditions and magnetic confinement principles

The central problem of magnetic fusion is to satisfy the Lawson criterion while minimizing energy losses. In a deuterium–tritium plasma, fusion performance depends on the plasma density, temperature, and energy confinement time, often summarized through the triple product.[2] Magnetic confinement generally operates at lower densities than inertial confinement, so it must compensate by maintaining the plasma for much longer times.[3]

In a magnetic field, ions and electrons gyrate around field lines with characteristic Larmor radii. This does not by itself guarantee confinement, because particles can still drift, collide, and diffuse across the field. Practical MCF devices therefore use closed magnetic surfaces, rotational transform, magnetic shear, and auxiliary heating and control systems to reduce transport and maintain stability.[4]

One of the persistent difficulties of MCF is turbulent transport. Even when the magnetic geometry is nominally closed, small-scale turbulence can drive heat and particles outward, degrading energy confinement.[5] This is one reason fusion research has required increasingly sophisticated diagnostics, real-time feedback control, and improved plasma-facing components.[6]

Historical development

Research into magnetic confinement began in the early 1950s, when several simple magnetic geometries were proposed as possible routes to fusion power. Early work focused on magnetic mirrors, pinch devices, stellarators, and toroidal systems of varying complexity.[7]

The first major international turning point came after the declassification of fusion research in 1958 by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Before that point, much of the research had been conducted under secrecy, partly because of its perceived relation to thermonuclear weapons and high-energy plasma physics.[8]

The decisive breakthrough came in 1968, when the Soviet Kurchatov Institute reported unexpectedly strong results from the tokamak T3. A British team from Culham later confirmed the high electron temperatures by Thomson scattering, showing that the Soviet measurements were real and not an artifact of diagnostic limitations.[9] This event transformed the field: tokamaks quickly became the global mainstream, and many competing concepts lost funding or shifted into more specialized roles.[10]

From the 1970s onward, large tokamak programs were built around the world, including JET, TFTR, and JT-60.[11] In the twenty-first century, attention broadened again as stellarators, spherical tokamaks, compact high-field tokamaks, and privately funded fusion ventures revived interest in alternative pathways.[12]

Major magnetic confinement concepts

Magnetic mirrors

The magnetic mirror was one of the earliest fusion concepts. In a mirror machine, a plasma is confined in a linear device with stronger magnetic fields at the ends than in the center. Particles moving along the field lines can be reflected back from these high-field regions, creating a magnetic “mirror” effect.[13] Early mirror research was attractive because the geometry was relatively simple and open-ended, making it easier to access the plasma experimentally.

However, mirror devices suffered from severe particle losses and macroscopic instabilities, especially the flute instability, which caused plasma to escape across the confining field. Later improvements such as Ioffe bars and minimum-B configurations improved stability, but mirror systems ultimately struggled to show a credible path to a practical power reactor.[14]

A more ambitious extension was the tandem mirror, in which multiple mirror sections were used to improve effective confinement. This line culminated in machines such as the Tandem Mirror Experiment and the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, but by the 1980s magnetic mirror research had largely lost momentum.[15]

Pinch devices

Another early family of concepts relied on the pinch effect. When a strong current flows through a plasma column, the self-generated magnetic field compresses the plasma inward. This led to the development of the z-pinch and related configurations.[16] In principle, the pinch effect provides both heating and compression, making it an appealingly direct approach.

In practice, pinch devices were found to be highly unstable. The kink instability and related modes caused the plasma column to distort and strike the walls before useful fusion conditions could be maintained. The British ZETA machine briefly created great excitement in 1957–1958 when it appeared to show fusion neutrons, but those claims were later withdrawn after better analysis showed that the signals arose from non-fusion effects associated with plasma instabilities.[17]

Pinch research did not vanish completely, but it ceased to be the dominant route to mainstream magnetic confinement power reactors. Some related ideas later continued in pulsed plasma devices and in concepts at the boundary between magnetic and inertial confinement.[18]

Stellarators

The stellarator was introduced by Lyman Spitzer in 1951 as a toroidal confinement system that would avoid the need for a large plasma current. Instead of relying on a current flowing through the plasma, a stellarator uses carefully shaped external coils to generate the twisted magnetic geometry needed for confinement.[19]

This feature remains the stellarator’s main strategic advantage. Because it does not fundamentally depend on a strong plasma current, it avoids several problems characteristic of tokamaks, including large current-driven disruptions and the pulsed nature of transformer-driven current induction.[20]

Early stellarators performed poorly because plasma transport was much worse than expected. For a time, stellarators were eclipsed by tokamaks, whose experimental results improved more rapidly. Interest revived only after advances in computational optimization made it possible to design three-dimensional coil systems with far better magnetic surfaces and reduced neoclassical transport.[21]

The leading modern stellarator is Wendelstein 7-X, built at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics. Its purpose is not to beat tokamaks in raw fusion output immediately, but to demonstrate that optimized stellarators can achieve good confinement together with long-pulse, steady-state operation.[22]

Tokamaks

The tokamak became the dominant MCF configuration after the Soviet T3 results. A tokamak uses a combination of externally generated toroidal magnetic field and a poloidal field produced partly by a plasma current. Together these fields form helical magnetic field lines that wrap around a toroidal plasma column.[23]

The tokamak’s success came from its relatively strong confinement and the relative simplicity of its axisymmetric geometry compared with stellarators. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, tokamaks defined the mainstream route toward reactor-relevant conditions. Major machines such as JET, TFTR, JT-60, and later devices like EAST, DIII-D, and ASDEX Upgrade each contributed to improved understanding of heating, shaping, stability control, divertor operation, and plasma transport.[24]

Tokamaks nevertheless have an intrinsic weakness: the plasma current can drive instabilities and disruptions. A major part of modern tokamak research therefore concerns disruption prediction and mitigation, control of runaway electrons, suppression of edge-localized modes (ELMs), and development of robust divertor strategies for heat exhaust.[25]

A notable offshoot is the spherical tokamak, a low-aspect-ratio version of the tokamak. Experiments such as START, NSTX, and MAST showed that spherical tokamaks can operate at high plasma beta, meaning high plasma pressure relative to magnetic pressure.[26] This makes them scientifically attractive, although the compact central column imposes engineering difficulties for reactor-scale neutron-producing systems.

Other configurations

Several other magnetic confinement concepts remain of scientific interest, including the reversed field pinch, compact toroids such as the spheromak, the field-reversed configuration, and the levitated dipole.[27] These concepts explore different balances between simplicity, stability, steady-state operation, and engineering practicality.

They have not displaced tokamaks or stellarators as the principal candidates for large-scale power production, but they remain important as alternative confinement routes and as laboratories for plasma behavior under nonstandard magnetic geometries.[28]

Experimental performance and milestones

The present historical record for fusion power from a magnetic confinement device is associated with JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 megawatts of peak fusion power in deuterium–tritium experiments, with a fusion gain factor Q=0.62, and also sustained 4 megawatts of fusion power for several seconds.[29]

In 2021, JET again demonstrated the maturity of tokamak operation by producing 59 megajoules of fusion energy over a five-second pulse, exceeding its earlier 1997 energy record of 21.7 megajoules.[30] Although this still remained below breakeven, it confirmed that high-performance D–T plasmas could be sustained with greater reliability and improved scenario control.[31]

The next major international tokamak is ITER, under construction in France. ITER is intended to demonstrate a burning plasma regime and a large step toward scientific breakeven, with a nominal design target of producing 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of external heating, corresponding to Q=10 in long pulses.[32] ITER is not a power plant, but it is the central bridge between experimental physics devices and future demonstration reactors.

Key physics and engineering challenges

Even after decades of progress, MCF still faces several coupled challenges. The first is confinement itself: the plasma must remain hot enough, dense enough, and stable enough for sufficiently long times. Turbulence, MHD instabilities, impurity contamination, and uncontrolled transients all reduce performance.[33]

A second challenge is heat exhaust. Even if core confinement is good, the plasma edge and divertor region must handle enormous heat and particle fluxes without damaging the reactor walls. This problem becomes especially severe in power-plant-scale devices, where steady-state heat loads may be extreme.[34]

A third challenge is material survival under neutron irradiation. In deuterium–tritium fusion, high-energy neutrons damage structural materials, activate components, and complicate maintenance and plant economics. These same neutrons must also be used constructively in a breeding blanket to generate tritium, since natural tritium supplies are extremely limited.[35]

A fourth challenge is operating regime. Tokamaks must manage disruptions, current drive, and steady-state or long-pulse control; stellarators must prove that their complex geometry can deliver reactor-grade performance with tolerable construction cost and engineering complexity.[36]

Recent developments

Several recent programs illustrate the evolving directions of MCF. The SPARC tokamak, being developed by the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, is designed as a high-field compact tokamak using high-temperature superconducting magnets.[37] Its design philosophy is that stronger magnetic fields can permit a smaller device to reach high performance, provided the magnets and plasma-facing systems can be made sufficiently robust.[38]

At DIII-D, major work has focused on the integration of hot, high-performance plasma cores with cooler and more manageable edge conditions. Impurity seeding, powder injection, improved divertor geometries, and better control of transport barriers are all part of the effort to make reactor-scale exhaust manageable without sacrificing confinement.[39][40]

At Wendelstein 7-X, recent campaigns have tested the optimized stellarator concept under increasingly reactor-relevant conditions, including longer pulses, divertor operation, improved microwave heating, and high-precision validation of the three-dimensional magnetic topology.[41][42]

Private-sector efforts have also expanded. Some companies remain within the mainstream of magnetic confinement, while others explore hybrid or aneutronic variants. These programs have increased funding, accelerated engineering iteration, and revived interest in compact reactor pathways, though many of their timelines remain more ambitious than those of public international programs.[43]

Major laboratories

Major magnetic confinement laboratories include the ASIPP program in China, which operates the EAST tokamak; CEA Cadarache in France, home to WEST and to ITER construction; the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in the United Kingdom, associated with JET and MAST Upgrade; the Swiss Plasma Center at EPFL, which operates TCV; General Atomics in the United States, which operates DIII-D; the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Germany, which runs ASDEX Upgrade and Wendelstein 7-X; the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, home to NSTX-U.[44][45]

These laboratories collectively support the present magnetic fusion research program, ranging from basic turbulence and stability studies to reactor-oriented research on superconducting magnets, tritium handling, plasma-facing materials, and integrated control systems.[46]

Outlook

Magnetic confinement fusion remains the most developed path toward controlled thermonuclear power. Its main strengths are the large experimental base accumulated since the 1950s, the existence of high-performance deuterium–tritium results in tokamaks, and the growing maturity of superconducting magnet and plasma control technologies.[47]

Its central unresolved problems are equally clear: reactor-grade confinement, stable long-pulse or steady-state operation, neutron-resistant materials, tritium breeding, and economically credible power extraction.[48] Whether the first practical fusion power stations will be tokamaks, stellarators, or some newer derivative remains unresolved, but MCF continues to provide the central scientific and engineering framework within which most large-scale fusion power development proceeds.[49]

See also

Table of contents (139 articles)

Index

Full contents

1. Foundations (7)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum basics
  2. Physics:Quantum Postulates
  3. Physics:Quantum Hilbert space
  4. Physics:Quantum Observables and operators
  5. Physics:Quantum mechanics
  6. Physics:Quantum mechanics measurements
  7. Physics:Quantum Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory

2. Conceptual and interpretations (10)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Interpretations of quantum mechanics
  2. Physics:Quantum Wave–particle duality
  3. Physics:Quantum Complementarity principle
  4. Physics:Quantum Uncertainty principle
  5. Physics:Quantum Measurement problem
  6. Physics:Quantum Bell's theorem
  7. Physics:Quantum Hidden variable theory
  8. Physics:Quantum A Spooky Action at a Distance
  9. Physics:Quantum A Walk Through the Universe
  10. Physics:Quantum The Secret of Cohesion and How Waves Hold Matter Together

3. Mathematical structure and systems (11)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Density matrix
  2. Physics:Quantum Exactly solvable quantum systems
  3. Physics:Quantum Formulas Collection
  4. Physics:Quantum A Matter Of Size
  5. Physics:Quantum Symmetry in quantum mechanics
  6. Physics:Quantum Angular momentum operator
  7. Physics:Quantum Runge–Lenz vector
  8. Physics:Quantum Approximation Methods
  9. Physics:Quantum Matter Elements and Particles
  10. Physics:Quantum Dirac equation
  11. Physics:Quantum Klein–Gordon equation

4. Atomic and spectroscopy (11)↑
    Quantum atomic structure and spectroscopy: orbitals, energy levels, and emission and absorption spectra.
  1. Physics:Quantum Atomic structure and spectroscopy
  2. Physics:Quantum Hydrogen atom
  3. Physics:Quantum Multi-electron atoms
  4. Physics:Quantum Fine structure
  5. Physics:Quantum Hyperfine structure
  6. Physics:Quantum Isotopic shift
  7. Physics:Quantum Zeeman effect
  8. Physics:Quantum Stark effect
  9. Physics:Quantum Spectral lines and series
  10. Physics:Quantum Selection rules
  11. Physics:Quantum Fermi's golden rule

5. Wavefunctions and modes (8)↑
    A quantum wavefunction showing probability amplitude in space; the square of its magnitude gives the probability density.
  1. Physics:Quantum Wavefunction
  2. Physics:Quantum Superposition principle
  3. Physics:Quantum Eigenstates and eigenvalues
  4. Physics:Quantum Boundary conditions and quantization
  5. Physics:Quantum Standing waves and modes
  6. Physics:Quantum Normal modes and field quantization
  7. Physics:Number of independent spatial modes in a spherical volume
  8. Physics:Quantum Density of states

6. Quantum dynamics and evolution (9)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Time evolution
  2. Physics:Quantum Schrödinger equation
  3. Physics:Quantum Time-dependent Schrödinger equation
  4. Physics:Quantum Stationary states
  5. Physics:Quantum Perturbation theory
  6. Physics:Quantum Time-dependent perturbation theory
  7. Physics:Quantum Adiabatic theorem
  8. Physics:Quantum Scattering theory
  9. Physics:Quantum S-matrix

7. Measurement and information (6)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Measurement theory
  2. Physics:Quantum Measurement operators
  3. Physics:Quantum Projective measurement
  4. Physics:Quantum POVM
  5. Physics:Quantum Weak measurement
  6. Physics:Quantum Measurement collapse

8. Quantum information and computing (6)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum information theory
  2. Physics:Quantum Qubit
  3. Physics:Quantum Entanglement
  4. Physics:Quantum Gates and circuits
  5. Physics:Quantum Computing Algorithms in the NISQ Era
  6. Physics:Quantum Noisy Qubits

9. Quantum optics and experiments (4)↑
    Experimental quantum physics: qubits, dilution refrigerators, quantum communication, and laboratory systems.
  1. Physics:Quantum Nonlinear King plot anomaly in calcium isotope spectroscopy
  2. Physics:Quantum optics beam splitter experiments
  3. Physics:Quantum Ultra fast lasers
  4. Physics:Quantum Experimental quantum physics
    5. Template:Quantum optics operators

10. Open quantum systems (7)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Open systems
  2. Physics:Quantum Master equation
  3. Physics:Quantum Lindblad equation
  4. Physics:Quantum Decoherence
  5. Physics:Quantum Markovian dynamics
  6. Physics:Quantum Non-Markovian dynamics
  7. Physics:Quantum Trajectories

11. Quantum field theory (18)↑
    Structural dependency map of quantum field theory.
  1. Physics:Quantum field theory (QFT) basics
  2. Physics:Quantum field theory (QFT) core
  3. Physics:Quantum Fields and Particles
  4. Physics:Quantum Second quantization
  5. Physics:Quantum Harmonic Oscillator field modes
  6. Physics:Quantum Creation and annihilation operators
  7. Physics:Quantum vacuum fluctuations
  8. Physics:Quantum Propagators in quantum field theory
  9. Physics:Quantum Feynman diagrams
  10. Physics:Quantum Path integral formulation
  11. Physics:Quantum Renormalization in field theory
  12. Physics:Quantum Renormalization group
  13. Physics:Quantum Field Theory Gauge symmetry
  14. Physics:Quantum Non-Abelian gauge theory
  15. Physics:Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
  16. Physics:Quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
  17. Physics:Quantum Electroweak theory
  18. Physics:Quantum Standard Model

12. Statistical mechanics and kinetic theory (10)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Statistical mechanics
  2. Physics:Quantum Partition function
  3. Physics:Quantum Distribution functions
  4. Physics:Quantum Liouville equation
  5. Physics:Quantum Kinetic theory
  6. Physics:Quantum Boltzmann equation
  7. Physics:Quantum BBGKY hierarchy
  8. Physics:Quantum Transport theory
  9. Physics:Quantum Relaxation and thermalization
  10. Physics:Quantum Thermodynamics

13. Condensed matter and solid-state physics (7)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Band structure
  2. Physics:Quantum Fermi surfaces
  3. Physics:Quantum Semiconductor physics
  4. Physics:Quantum Phonons
  5. Physics:Quantum Electron-phonon interaction
  6. Physics:Quantum Superconductivity
  7. Physics:Quantum Topological phases of matter

14. Plasma and fusion physics (10)↑
    Conceptual illustration of plasma physics in a fusion context, showing magnetically confined ionized gas in a tokamak and the collective behavior governed by electromagnetic fields and transport processes.
  1. Physics:Quantum Fusion
  2. Physics:Quantum Fusion reactions and Lawson criterion
  3. Physics:Quantum Plasma (fusion context)
  4. Physics:Quantum Magnetic confinement fusion
  5. Physics:Quantum Inertial confinement fusion
  6. Physics:Quantum Plasma instabilities and turbulence
  7. Physics:Quantum Tokamak
  8. Physics:Quantum Tokamak core plasma
  9. Physics:Quantum Tokamak edge physics and recycling asymmetries
  10. Physics:Quantum Stellarator

15. Timeline (8)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline
  2. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Pre-quantum era
  3. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Old quantum theory
  4. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Modern quantum mechanics
  5. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Quantum field theory era
  6. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Quantum information era
  7. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Quantum technology era
  8. Physics:Quantum mechanics/Timeline/Quiz/

16. Advanced and frontier topics (6)↑
  1. Physics:Quantum Supersymmetry
  2. Physics:Quantum Black hole thermodynamics
  3. Physics:Quantum Holographic principle
  4. Physics:Quantum gravity
  5. Physics:Quantum De Sitter invariant special relativity
  6. Physics:Quantum Doubly special relativity

References

  1. ↑ Peacock, N. J.; Robinson, D. C.; Forrest, M. J.; Wilcock, P. D.; Sannikov, V. V. (1969). "Measurement of the Electron Temperature by Thomson Scattering in Tokamak T3". Nature 224 (5218): 488–490. doi:10.1038/224488a0. Bibcode: 1969Natur.224..488P. 
  2. ↑ ITER Physics Basis Editors (1999). "Chapter 6: Plasma auxiliary heating and current drive". Nuclear Fusion 39 (12): 2495–2539. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/39/12/306. Bibcode: 1999NucFu..39.2495I. 
  3. ↑ Keilhacker, M.; Gibson, A.; Gormezano, C.; Rebut, P. H. (2001). "The scientific success of JET". Nuclear Fusion 41 (12): 1925–1966. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/217. 
  4. ↑ Pedersen, T. Sunn; Otte, M.; Lazerson, S.; Helander, P.; Bozhenkov, S.; Biedermann, C.; Klinger, T.; Wolf, R. C. et al. (2016). "Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000". Nature Communications 7: 13493. doi:10.1038/ncomms13493. PMID 27901043. Bibcode: 2016NatCo...713493P. 
  5. ↑ Fenstermacher, M. E. (2022). "Recent progress in DIII-D research for next-step tokamaks". Nuclear Fusion 62 (4): 042024. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac2ff2. 
  6. ↑ "DIII-D National Fusion Facility Begins Transformation to Prepare for Future Reactors" (Press release). 2018-05-18.
  7. ↑ Holloway, Nick (2019-11-22). "Mission to Moscow: 50 years on". https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/mission-to-moscow-50-years-on/. 
  8. ↑ Holloway, Nick (2019-11-22). "Mission to Moscow: 50 years on". https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/mission-to-moscow-50-years-on/. 
  9. ↑ Peacock, N. J.; Robinson, D. C.; Forrest, M. J.; Wilcock, P. D.; Sannikov, V. V. (1969). "Measurement of the Electron Temperature by Thomson Scattering in Tokamak T3". Nature 224 (5218): 488–490. doi:10.1038/224488a0. Bibcode: 1969Natur.224..488P. 
  10. ↑ Holloway, Nick (2019-11-22). "Mission to Moscow: 50 years on". https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/mission-to-moscow-50-years-on/. 
  11. ↑ Keilhacker, M.; Gibson, A.; Gormezano, C.; Rebut, P. H. (2001). "The scientific success of JET". Nuclear Fusion 41 (12): 1925–1966. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/217. 
  12. ↑ Scott, S. D.; Kramer, G. J.; Tolman, E. A.; Snicker, A.; Varje, J.; Särkimäki, K.; Wright, J. C.; Rodriguez-Fernandez, P. (2020). "Fast-ion physics in SPARC". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860508. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001087. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8608S. 
  13. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Magnetic mirror
  14. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Magnetic mirror
  15. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Magnetic mirror
  16. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Z-pinch
  17. ↑
    Main article: Physics:ZETA (fusion reactor)
  18. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Reversed field pinch
  19. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Stellarator
  20. ↑ Wolf, R. C. (2017). "Major results from the first plasma campaign of the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator". Nuclear Fusion 57 (10): 102020. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aa770d. 
  21. ↑ Pedersen, T. Sunn; Otte, M.; Lazerson, S.; Helander, P.; Bozhenkov, S.; Biedermann, C.; Klinger, T.; Wolf, R. C. et al. (2016). "Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000". Nature Communications 7: 13493. doi:10.1038/ncomms13493. PMID 27901043. Bibcode: 2016NatCo...713493P. 
  22. ↑ Wolf, R. C. et al. (2019). "Performance of Wendelstein 7-X stellarator plasmas during the first divertor operation phase". Physics of Plasmas 26 (8): 082504. doi:10.1063/1.5098761. Bibcode: 2019PhPl...26h2504W. 
  23. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Tokamak
  24. ↑ Keilhacker, M.; Gibson, A.; Gormezano, C.; Rebut, P. H. (2001). "The scientific success of JET". Nuclear Fusion 41 (12): 1925–1966. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/217. 
  25. ↑ Sweeney, R.; Creely, A. J.; Doody, J.; Fülöp, T.; Garnier, D. T.; Granetz, R.; Greenwald, M.; Hesslow, L. et al. (2020). "MHD stability and disruptions in the SPARC tokamak". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860507. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001129. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8607S. 
  26. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Spherical tokamak
  27. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Reversed field pinch
  28. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Spheromak
  29. ↑ Keilhacker, M.; Gibson, A.; Gormezano, C.; Rebut, P. H. (2001). "The scientific success of JET". Nuclear Fusion 41 (12): 1925–1966. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/217. 
  30. ↑ Gibney, Elizabeth (2022-02-09). "Nuclear-fusion reactor smashes energy record". Nature 602 (7897): 371. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00391-1. PMID 35140372. Bibcode: 2022Natur.602..371G. 
  31. ↑ Gibney, Elizabeth (2022-02-09). "Nuclear-fusion reactor smashes energy record". Nature 602 (7897): 371. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00391-1. PMID 35140372. Bibcode: 2022Natur.602..371G. 
  32. ↑
    Main article: Organization:ITER
  33. ↑ Fenstermacher, M. E. (2022). "Recent progress in DIII-D research for next-step tokamaks". Nuclear Fusion 62 (4): 042024. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac2ff2. 
  34. ↑ Kuang, A. Q.; Ballinger, S.; Brunner, D.; Canik, J.; Creely, A. J.; Gray, T.; Greenwald, M.; Hughes, J. W. et al. (2020). "Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860505. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001117. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8605K. 
  35. ↑
    Main article: Physics:Breeding blanket
  36. ↑ Wolf, R. C. (2017). "Major results from the first plasma campaign of the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator". Nuclear Fusion 57 (10): 102020. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aa770d. 
  37. ↑ Scott, S. D.; Kramer, G. J.; Tolman, E. A.; Snicker, A.; Varje, J.; Särkimäki, K.; Wright, J. C.; Rodriguez-Fernandez, P. (2020). "Fast-ion physics in SPARC". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860508. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001087. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8608S. 
  38. ↑ Sweeney, R.; Creely, A. J.; Doody, J.; Fülöp, T.; Garnier, D. T.; Granetz, R.; Greenwald, M.; Hesslow, L. et al. (2020). "MHD stability and disruptions in the SPARC tokamak". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860507. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001129. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8607S. 
  39. ↑ Casali, L.; Eldon, D. et al. (2022). "Impurity leakage and radiative cooling in the first nitrogen and neon seeding study in the closed DIII-D SAS configuration". Nuclear Fusion 62 (2): 026021. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac3e84. Bibcode: 2022NucFu..62b6021C. 
  40. ↑ Effenberg, F.; Bortolon, A.; Casali, L.; Nazikian, R. et al. (2022). "Mitigation of plasma–wall interactions with low-Z powders in DIII-D high confinement plasmas". Nuclear Fusion 62 (10): 106015. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac899d. Bibcode: 2022NucFu..62j6015E. 
  41. ↑ Pedersen, T. Sunn; Otte, M.; Lazerson, S.; Helander, P.; Bozhenkov, S.; Biedermann, C.; Klinger, T.; Wolf, R. C. et al. (2016). "Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000". Nature Communications 7: 13493. doi:10.1038/ncomms13493. PMID 27901043. Bibcode: 2016NatCo...713493P. 
  42. ↑ Wolf, R. C. et al. (2019). "Performance of Wendelstein 7-X stellarator plasmas during the first divertor operation phase". Physics of Plasmas 26 (8): 082504. doi:10.1063/1.5098761. Bibcode: 2019PhPl...26h2504W. 
  43. ↑ Gardner, Timothy (2023-05-10). "Microsoft signs power purchase deal with nuclear fusion company Helion". Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-buy-power-nuclear-fusion-company-helion-2023-05-10/. 
  44. ↑
    Main article: Organization:Culham Centre for Fusion Energy
  45. ↑
    Main article: Organization:Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
  46. ↑ "DIII-D National Fusion Facility Begins Transformation to Prepare for Future Reactors" (Press release). 2018-05-18.
  47. ↑ Keilhacker, M.; Gibson, A.; Gormezano, C.; Rebut, P. H. (2001). "The scientific success of JET". Nuclear Fusion 41 (12): 1925–1966. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/217. 
  48. ↑ Kuang, A. Q.; Ballinger, S.; Brunner, D.; Canik, J.; Creely, A. J.; Gray, T.; Greenwald, M.; Hughes, J. W. et al. (2020). "Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC". Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5): 865860505. doi:10.1017/S0022377820001117. Bibcode: 2020JPlPh..86e8605K. 
  49. ↑ Wolf, R. C. (2017). "Major results from the first plasma campaign of the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator". Nuclear Fusion 57 (10): 102020. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aa770d. 
Author: Harold Foppele




Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Physics:Quantum_Magnetic_confinement_fusion&oldid=4309219"