Can Fusion Propulsion Be Optimized with Altered Magnetic Field Configurations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the optimization of fusion propulsion through altered magnetic field configurations involving horizontal tokamaks and vertical fusion combustion chambers. The proposed setup utilizes the magnetic fields generated by the ionized working fluid to enhance plasma confinement, potentially eliminating the need for separate confinement magnets and improving energy efficiency. The periodic deviations in the tangential magnetic field and their relationship with the number of vertical pipes and their distance from the tokamaks are examined for their impact on stability and confinement. The idea suggests that these deviations could stabilize the plasma in the vertical direction, enhancing overall fusion performance. This innovative approach could lead to significant advancements in fusion propulsion technology.
tomkeus
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
I came up with this during idle afternoon. Don't know if it's worth something but I wanted to discuss it with someone. Basically, outline of business part is given on the picture

attachment.php?attachmentid=19176&stc=1&d=1243872414.jpg


Horizontal tori are basically tokamaks and vertical pipes are "fusion combustion chambers" where working fluid is heated and ionized by fusion then directed downward to nozzles. Inner and outer tokamaks create magnetic field directed along vertical pipes , let's call it \vec{B}_v, and vertical pipes generate magnetic field approximately tangential to tokamaks, let's call this one \vec{B}_t. Purpose of \vec{B}_v is plasma confinement in tokamaks while purpose of \vec{B}_t is plasma confinement in vertical pipes.

Now, \vec{B}_t is not perfectly tangential to tokamaks. Rather it's direction deviates from tangent for some angle \Delta\alpha and it's intensity varies from average value on a torus by \Delta B_t. Both \Delta\alpha and\Delta B_t are periodic functions along tokamak length. By increasing number of vertical pipes both \Delta\alpha and \Delta B_t get smaller, while they get bigger when distance between tori and pipes is decreased. As for intensity of vertical field along pipes, B_v it also has periodic deviations.

One advantage of setup like this (if it could work) is that it doesn't require separate magnets for confinement in tokamaks because tangential field is provided by ionized working fluid rushing out. We only have to provide magnets that create poloidal fields. This also makes tokamaks more energy efficient.

Now, question is whether these deviations could be reduced enough by using appropriate number of toruses and pipes at appropriate distance, so that instabilities doesn't destroy confinement and fusion.
 

Attachments

  • machine.JPG
    machine.JPG
    40.4 KB · Views: 631
Engineering news on Phys.org
Actually, I just had another idea.

The fact that direction of magnetic field produced by vertical pipes deviates from tangential direction, and the fact that deviations are periodical along the length of the tokamaks might stabilize tokamak plasma in vertical direction because particle trajectories in tokamak will wiggle around in normal direction which will in combination with field produced by tokamaks provide force in vertical direction whose direction will change periodically along tokamak.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...

Similar threads

Back
Top