Can one move from Inertial to Magnetic Confinement?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of pursuing graduate studies and a postdoc in fusion plasma research, specifically in the fields of magnetic and inertial confinement fusion. The differences between the two fields are highlighted, including the role of the magnetic field and shock dynamics. It is noted that the plasma parameter is small in ICF due to the large number densities.
  • #1
clope023
992
131
Hello all, my question is related to graduate school topics and future postdoc possiblities.
I'm a double major in electrical engineering and physics and have been doing plasma physics research as an undergraduate for roughly the last two years, with the last summer I played a part in installing a diagnostic onto the MAST tokamak at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. My current advisor says it's not necessarily a good thing to marry yourself to the research you did in undergrad, but I'm very much interested in doing fusion plasma research in graduate school and as a career. Though the option to stay and continue my research that I'm doing now at my ugrad institution is open, I'm very much interested in going elsewhere for graduate school. Assuming I got into a grad school that focused on inertial as opposed to magnetic confinement fusion. My question would be how feasible is it to move from inertial/laser confinement to a magnetic/tokamak sort of focus from grad school to post doc (assuming I went to my reach school in question)? I'm interested in diagnostics, plasma instabilities, as well as plasma-material interactions if that plays a part in your advice. Thanks for any and all opinions on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think it would be much of a problem, especially since you are already focused on the plasma aspect.If all you worked on was laser physics and didn't know anything about plasmas that might be a problem, but sounds like that is not the case :)
 
  • #3
People can and do make the switch, but If you want a career in magnetic fusion, study magnetic fusion. If you want a career in inertial fusion study inertial fusion.

The two fields are really very different. A critical aspect of magnetic fusion is the magnetic field. The shape and quality of the magnetic field influences everything from stability, to transport, to even the plasma-material interface. In inertial confinement fusion, the magnetic field is tiny compared the dynamical pressure. As a result most ICF research ignores any and all dynamics related to the magnetic field.

Similarly shock dynamics are a critical aspect of inertial confinement. Yet they play little role in conventional magnetic fusion confinement concepts.

As a final comment on the difference between the two. A critical parameter in plasma physics is the plasma parameter, which is the number of particles in a Debye Sphere. In order for something to be considered a plasma you need a large plasma parameter, and thus a lot of particles in a Debye Sphere. At IFC conditions relevant to ignition, the number of particles in a Debye Sphere is less than one, thus the plasma parameter is small. So in ICF at ignition, you don't actually have a classical plasma. The technical name for this new state is "strongly-coupled plasma," but this is misleading, and you arguably have a totally different state of matter.
 
  • #4
the_wolfman said:
People can and do make the switch, but If you want a career in magnetic fusion, study magnetic fusion. If you want a career in inertial fusion study inertial fusion.

The two fields are really very different. A critical aspect of magnetic fusion is the magnetic field. The shape and quality of the magnetic field influences everything from stability, to transport, to even the plasma-material interface. In inertial confinement fusion, the magnetic field is tiny compared the dynamical pressure. As a result most ICF research ignores any and all dynamics related to the magnetic field.

Similarly shock dynamics are a critical aspect of inertial confinement. Yet they play little role in conventional magnetic fusion confinement concepts.

As a final comment on the difference between the two. A critical parameter in plasma physics is the plasma parameter, which is the number of particles in a Debye Sphere. In order for something to be considered a plasma you need a large plasma parameter, and thus a lot of particles in a Debye Sphere. At IFC conditions relevant to ignition, the number of particles in a Debye Sphere is less than one, thus the plasma parameter is small. So in ICF at ignition, you don't actually have a classical plasma. The technical name for this new state is "strongly-coupled plasma," but this is misleading, and you arguably have a totally different state of matter.

The low plasma parameter is due to the small debye length for ICF?
 
  • #5
middlephysics said:
The low plasma parameter is due to the small debye length for ICF?


Yes. The Debye length scales as [itex]n^{-1/2}[/itex] and the plasma parameter scales as [itex]n\lambda_D^3[/itex] which also scales as [itex]n^{-1/2}[/itex]. Both Debye length and the plasma parameter are small in ICF due to the large number densities.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person

1. What is the difference between Inertial and Magnetic Confinement?

Inertial confinement involves using lasers or particle beams to compress and heat a small amount of fuel, such as hydrogen, to extremely high temperatures and pressures in order to create nuclear fusion reactions. Magnetic confinement, on the other hand, uses strong magnetic fields to contain and heat a larger amount of fuel, typically in the form of plasma, to produce fusion reactions.

2. Can one method of confinement be converted to the other?

No, the two methods are fundamentally different and cannot be easily converted from one to the other. Inertial confinement requires precise timing and alignment of multiple laser or particle beams, while magnetic confinement relies on the stability of magnetic fields to contain the plasma.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method?

Inertial confinement has the advantage of producing higher energy densities and temperatures, which can lead to more efficient fusion reactions. However, it is more challenging to maintain and control, and the fuel must be replenished for each reaction. Magnetic confinement, on the other hand, can sustain reactions for longer periods of time and does not require frequent refueling, but it has lower energy densities and can be more difficult to achieve fusion conditions.

4. Which method is currently being used in fusion research?

Both methods are actively being researched and developed for fusion energy. Inertial confinement is being pursued mostly through laser fusion experiments, such as the National Ignition Facility in the US and the Laser Mégajoule in France. Magnetic confinement is being studied through various designs of fusion reactors, such as tokamaks, stellarators, and spherical tokamaks.

5. Can one method be more suitable for certain applications than the other?

Yes, the choice of confinement method depends on the specific goals and requirements of the application. Inertial confinement may be more suitable for producing high-yield bursts of energy for weapons or space propulsion, while magnetic confinement may be better for sustained energy production for electricity generation. Both methods have potential for fusion energy, and further research and development will determine their feasibility for different applications.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
793
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
746
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
5
Views
859
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top