Can one move from Inertial to Magnetic Confinement?

AI Thread Summary
Transitioning from inertial confinement fusion (ICF) to magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) is feasible, especially for someone with a solid background in plasma physics. While both fields are distinct, with significant differences in their underlying physics—such as the role of magnetic fields and plasma parameters—individuals can successfully switch between them. A strong focus on magnetic fusion during graduate studies is advisable for a career in that area, while those interested in ICF should concentrate on its specific dynamics. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the plasma state, particularly in ICF, where the plasma parameter is notably low. Overall, pursuing research aligned with one’s career goals in fusion is crucial for success.
clope023
Messages
990
Reaction score
130
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
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 :)
 
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_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?
 
middlephysics said:
The low plasma parameter is due to the small debye length for ICF?


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