Hard X-ray Emission from Superthermal Electrons

in the HSX Stellarator

Ali E. Abdou
Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
Manhattan, KS
USA
IWPDA2009, Singapore
 Poor Collisionless Trapped Particle Confinement
is a Property of Conventional Stellarators

Typical drift orbit of a collisionless trapped Fraction of a-particle lost in W7-AS*.

particle in W7-AS*.

Conventional stellarators have high collisionless a

particle loss
* W. Lotz et. al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 34(6) 1037, 1992
Quasi-Symmetric Stellarators can Solve the Problem
of Collisionless Trapped particle Confinement
90 1
120 60

150 0.5 30

180 0

210 330

240 300
270

 HSX quasi-helical symmetry in |B| promises improved

trapped particle confinement.
 Evidence of good energetic particles confinement in the
quasi-helically symmetric configuration in HSX
 Outline

 The HSX Stellarator

 Existence of Superthermal Electrons in HSX at low
density
 Hard X-ray PHA System at the HSX
 Flexibility of Running HSX
 Experimental Results
 Single Particle Heating
 Single Particle Confinement
 HSX is the world’s first test of a quasi-symmetric
stellarator
1
Major Radius 1.2 m
B 3
<r> 0.12 m R
Volume ~.37 m3
Field periods 4
axis 1.05 E
k
edge 1.12
Coils/period 12 B
B0 (on axis) .4-.6 T
ECH Pulse length (up to Up to 50 msec. grad|B|
now)

Heating Power (up to now) Up to 200 kW R

 2nd harmonic X-mode ECRH is used to produce and heat
the plasma
 2nd harmonic X-mode ECRH drives superthermal
electron tail at low density
 High Population of Superthermal Electrons is Generated at
Low Plasma Density in HSX
ECE vs. TS at r = 0.2 HXR Signal in QHS at ne ~ 2x1011 cm-3
1000
4.5
4 ECE 800
3.5 TS
Te (keV)

3 600

HXR (keV)
2.5 400
2
1.5 200
1
0
0.5
0 -200
0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9
Time (seconds)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
<ne> 1018 (m-3)
Microwave Absorption in QHS Hard X-Ray Density Variation for QHS
1.2 1600
Microwave Diode
1 Ray Tracing
1400

HXR (Counts)
1200
0.8
1000
P/Pin

0.6 800
0.4
600
400
0.2
200
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
<ne>*10 -12 (cm-3) <ne > 1018 (m-3)
 PHA System based on CdZnTe Detector is used to
Study the Hard X-ray Emission in HSX

CdZnTe Calibration Curves

 CdZnTe has high good
700 efficiency in the energy
E = 995.62V + 0.771
600 range of interest 20-300
Photon Energy, E (keV).

E = 398V - 0.541
500
E = 198.68V + 0.396
keV .
400
300  Software based pulse high
200 analysis system is used to
100
Gain = 10 Gain = 25 Gain = 50 analyze the hard x-rays
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Pulse Height, H (Volts)
 HSX has the Flexibility to Operate with/without Quasi-
Helical Symmetry in One Machine

QHS Mirror
Red=High Field Red=High Field
Blue=Low Field Blue=Low Field

90 1 90 1 90 1
120 60 120 60 120 60
0.5 0.5 150 0.5 30
150 30 150 30

180 0 180 0 180 0

210 330 210 330 210 330

240 300 240 300

270 240 300 270
270
QHS Mirror AntiMirror
 Different Hard X-ray Emission in Different
Magnetic Configurations
11 -3 11 -3
HXR Signal in QHS at ne ~ 4x10 cm HXR Signal in Mirror at ne ~ 4x10 cm
1000 1200

800
QHS 1000 Mirror
800
600
HXR (keV)

600

HXR (keV)
400
400
200
200
0
0

-200 -200
0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)
11 -3
HXR Signal in AntiMirror at ne ~ 4x10 cm
 Intense hard x-ray signal is 1200

1000 AntiMirror
detected at low plasma
800
density (~ 4x1011 cm-3) in HXR (keV)
600
QHS compared to Mirror 400
and AntiMirror. 200

 AntiMirror has negligible 0

hard x-ray signal -200

0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9
Time (seconds)
 X-ray Diagnostics Show Higher Superthermal Electron Tail
in QHS Compared to Mirror
Hard X-Ray Density Variation for QHS and Mirror HXR Spectrum for QHS, Mirror <ne> ~ 2 x 10 11 cm-3
1600 1000
1400 T~55 keV QHS
QHS

dN/dE (Counts)_
1200 Mirror
Mirror
HXR (Counts)

100
1000 T~ 176 keV
800
600 10
400 T~52 keV
200
0 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 200 400 600 800 1000
18 -3
<ne > 10 m
Photon Energy (keV)
 Density of superthermal electrons is higher in QHS than in
Mirror.
 Electrons are heated to higher energies in QHS than in Mirror.
 The antiMirror case has a very small signal.
 Superthermal electron characteristic energy is higher in QHS
compared to Mirror
High energy particle confinement is seven times better in
QHS than in Mirror
1400
1200 QHS <ne> ~ 4x1011 cm-3
HXR Signal (Counts)
1000
800
600
400
~ 7ms
200 Mirror ~ 1ms
0
800 820 840 860 880 900
Time (msec)

 HXR flux is higher in QHS, implies more energetic

electrons.
 HXR Flux has a longer decay time in QHS implies
better confinement.
 Coulomb Collision Can not Explain the
Superthermal Electron Confinement Time
1400
QHS
1200
HXR Signal (Counts) Expon. (QHS)
1000
800
600 ~ 7ms
400
200
0
800 820 840 860 880 900
Time (msec)

e-e ~ e-i ~ 0.5 second

QHS orbit width for 100 keV electrons ~ 6 mm.
D ~ Dx2/Dt ~ 7x10-5 m2/s
 ~ a2/5.8D ~ 30 s >> 7 ms
 The Neutral Collisionality can Explain Superthermal
Confinement Time
8 Electron Collision Frequencies
10 n=
i 1x
10

n= 12 e-i
i 1x cm -3
6 10 11
10 cm -3


(sec-1)

12 -3
e-n
4 ne =1x10 cm n =1x 12
10
10 11 -3
n cm -3
n =1x10 cm
e-n

e n =1x 11
10

n
cm -3
 , ,

2 e-e n =1x 10
10 10
e-i

n
cm -3
e-e

0
10
3..123
3 101515
123xx10
eenn  (log1010 00..792
(log 792))11
-2 
10 0 2 4 6
10 10 E (eV) 10 10

Dt = 0.1 msec
QHS ~ 6.7 msec (QHS Dx ~ 6 mm)
Mirror ~ 0.1 msec (Mirror Dx ~ 45 mm)
1 R. K. Janev et. al., “Elementary Processes in Hydrogen-Helium Plasmas”, Springer-Verlag, (1987)
 Conclusions
 HSX is the world’s first stellarator built with quasi-
symmetry
 Super thermal electrons are generated at low plasma
density during ECRH discharges in HSX
 Hard x-ray is more intense and more energetic in QHS
configurations compared to Mirror and AntiMirror
 Single particle heating calculations shows:
 No difference in single transit heating between configurations
 Guiding center drift orbit model shows effects of orbit
topology:
 QHS has higher multiple-transit heating rate, smaller orbit
width
 Neutrals play a role in super thermal electron confinement
in HSX
What Causes the HXR difference between Magnetic
Configurations?

 Is the difference in hard x-ray emission between

configurations due to

 Super thermal electrons confinement?

 Super thermal electrons production?

 In order to answer the question, single particle

heating is investigated.
 The Equation of Motion with a Lorentz Force is Solved to
Study Single Transit Energy Gain
B along Magnetic Field Line    
dme
 eE    B 
0.65
AntiMirror
0.6 dt
y2  z2
 
cos(t  k x   ) zˆ
0.55
E  Eo e
B, (Tesla)

w2

2 PR B  B  B ,  k 
0.5

Eo  , w B w  E

QHS 2 ext
0.45 w
Mirror
Magnetic Axis and the Position of the ECRH Antena
0.4
-100 -50 0 50 100
 (degree) 1
 B along Magnetic Field Line
0.5025

0.5 Z'
0.502
Z
B, (Tesla)

0.5015 AntiMirror 0
Mirror X' O'
0.501 QHS (1.445,0,0)
-0.5
Resonance Point -2
0.5005 Y'
0 2
X 0 1
0.5 2 -2 -1
-2 -1 0 1 2 Y
 (degree)
 Electron Can Gain or Lose Energy During Single Transit
through the Microwave Heating Zone
DW in QHS for W = 0.4 keV, a = 45,  = 0
0
DW in QHS for W
ini
= 0.4 keV a = 45o,  = 145o
0.5 ini 0.41
Initial electron Position
0.48 0.4

0.46 0.39

W (keV)
W (keV)

DW Energy Gain
0.44 0.38
DW Energy Loss
0.42 Final electron Position 0.37

0.4 0.36
Initial electron Position Final electron Position
0.38 0.35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (sec) -8 Time (sec) -8
x 10 x 10

 Energy gain depends on 120

Energy Gain for Mirror W|| = 200 eV, Wperp = 200 eV

the initial wave-electron 80

QHS
<DW>
phase angle. 40
D W (eV)

 If a distribution of 0

particles has a random -40

phases, the particles on -80

average gain energy. -120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Initial Phase  (rad)
 No Difference in <DW> between Magnetic Configurations
<DW> for QHS, Mirror and AntiMirror Wini = 0.5 keV, a=75o <DW> for QHS, Mirror and AntiMirror Wll = 100 eV
1400 90
QHS
1200  DW  Eo2 80
Mirror
70 AntiMirror
1000

<D W> (eV)

60
<D W> (eV)

800 50
600 40
400 30
200
QHS
Mirror
20  DW  W
AntiMirror 10
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Microwave Power (kW) 0 100 200 300 400 500
Wperp (eV)
<DW> for QHS, Mirror and AntiMirror Wini=0.5 keV, a=75
o

450
e2 E 2 2
400
350
QHS  DW  J 1 (k   L ) i2
Mirror
me
<DW> (eV)

300 AntiMirror

250 2
N W r
200  DW  E 2    f ( , a )
150 W|| a
100
50  DW  N 2
0
*Y. Tatematsu et. al., Physics of Plasmas
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
4(8), 2972, 1997
Nperp
 How do Particle Orbits Affect Heating?

 Electrons gain the same net energy during single

transit through the heating zone

 How does orbit topology outside the heating zone

affect the net heating rate?

 Guiding center drift orbit is investigated

 The Guiding Center Heating Model
 In Boozer coordinates, heating zone is defined as a cylinder of radius r/a ~
0.1 and length of 6 cm.
 A model heating operator based on the single transit calculations is used
inside the heating zone
 Once the particle enters the heating zone, its perpendicular energy will
increase linearly with time until it leaves the heating zone.
d d  DW   DP 
 ( )
Nested dt dt B B
Flux 1.6E+10
Surfaces 1.4E+10 r/a = 0
1.2E+10 r/a = 0.025
<D P> (eV/Sec)

|B|
1.0E+10 r/a = 0.05
8.0E+09
r/a = 0.075
6.0E+09
r/a = 0.1
Heating Zone
Vacuum
Vessel 4.0E+09
2.0E+09
0.0E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pitch Angle (Degree)
QHS has Good Orbits Compared to Mirror and AntiMirror
100 eV electrons with 85o pitch angle, launched at  = 0, q = 0, r/a = 0.05 and t = 0.1 msec
-14 Heating Rates in Different Configurations
2.5 x 10
QHS
2

1.5 AntiMirror
 (AU)
Mirror
1

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (sec) -4
x 10
90 1 90 1 90 1
120 60 120 60 120 60
0.5 150 0.5 30 0.5
150 30 150 30

180 0 180 0 180 0

210 330 210 330

210 330
240 300 240 300
270 270 240 300
270
QHS Mirror AntiMirror
 Figures of Merit to Quantify Orbit Topology
90 1
120 60
<a>
150 0.5 30

180 0

210 330
Heating Zone
240 300
270
 Resonance zone crossing probability

 Resonance zone crossing time fraction

 Final electron energy (heating rate)

 Electron drift orbit width (rmax- rmin)

 QHS has the Highest Resonance Zone Crossing
Probabilities
1.20 1.20
Mirror
Resonance Crossing Probability

Resonance Crossing Probability

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80
phi = 0 phi = 0
0.60 0.60
phi = pi/8 phi = pi/8
0.40 phi = pi/4 0.40 phi = pi/4
phi = pi/2 phi = pi/2
0.20 QHS 0.20
phi = pi phi = pi
0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pitch Angle, a (degree) Pitch Angle, a (degree)
 B along Magnetic Field Line at r/a = 0.05
0.65 1.20
r/a = 0.05
AntiMirror

Resonance Crossing Probability

AntiMirror 1.00
0.6

0.80
B, (Tesla)

0.55 phi = 0
0.60 phi = pi/8
0.5 QHS
0.40 phi = pi/4
Mirror phi = pi/2
0.45
0.20 phi = pi
Heating Zone
0.4 0.00
-100 -50 0 50 100
 (degree) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pitch Angle, a (degree)
 Net Heating Rate is Largest in QHS
Resonance Time Fraction in 0.1 msec Electron Final Energy in 0.1 msec
4.0E-04 9.E+04
QHS
QHS

Electron Final Energy (keV)

3.5E-04 Mirror 8.E+04
Mirror
Resonance Crossing Time

AntiMirror
3.0E-04 7.E+04 AntiMirror
2.5E-04
6.E+04
Fraction

5.E+04
2.0E-04
4.E+04
1.5E-04
3.E+04
1.0E-04
2.E+04
5.0E-05 1.E+04
0.0E+00 0.E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pitch Angle, a (degree) Pitch Angle, a (degree)

Electron Drift Orbit Width in 0.1 msec

In QHS, particles spend the most time 1.0

Electron Drift Orbit Width

QHS
in the heating zone 0.8 Mirror
Higher heating rate 0.6
AntiMirror

0.4
AntiMirror particles are trapped in
the heating zone, but have very large 0.2

orbits 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pitch Angle, a (degree)