What can you tell me about wakefield plasma acceleration?

AI Thread Summary
Wakefield plasma acceleration is being explored for potential applications in space thrusters, with suggestions to replace current methods like ICH rf coupling used by VASIMR. The discussion highlights concerns about the low wall-plug efficiency of less than 5% and the limited capacity to accelerate small electron bunches. Increasing plasma density may not improve efficiency and could worsen electron beam quality due to non-linear effects. The focus on achieving higher speeds for ion ejection is emphasized, but practical challenges remain. Overall, while the concept is intriguing, significant technical hurdles must be addressed for viable space propulsion applications.
Eirhead
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to read as much as I can about the topic. So I've read over wikipedia and watched some videos and such.

It seems to me, this method of plasma acceleration would be prime for space thruster applications. Right now VASIMR is using ICH rf coupling to accelerate their plasma. They should ditch that entirely and move to wakefield plasma acceleration if it's at all possible within in the context of their current design.

I'm not sure about the math behind this, but I'm under the assumption that the closer we get to relative speeds with ion ejection, the higher the efficiencies are going to be for Electricity to Force conversions (assuming the coupling efficiency remains the same). So let's stop wasting our time with 0.01% c plasma excitation, and really focus on getting to 50% - 99% c.

Whatever the electricity cost, I could really careless about, because if we can develop an engine strong enough for terrestrial liftoff, there will be limitless potential for where we can go with it and you'll really see progress ramp up!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have a severe misunderstanding about this principle.

The plasma wakefield acceleration so far is used to generate high gradient fields to accelerate charged particles, currently just electrons. Why you would want to use this for space thruster is very puzzling.

First of all, the wall-plug efficiency is extremely low (we're talking about less than 5% here). Secondly, so far, the technology can only accelerated very small electron bunches (significantly less than 1 nC per bunch), which isn't very much (but enough for many high energy physics applications). Try and figure out how much of a push you think you can get out of that many electrons.

Zz.
 
Ok, that's a smidgen of the type of information I'm looking for. Now if the plasma density were increased would it be possible to increase the wall-plug efficiency? Or alternatively, have an experiments been scaled upwards?
 
Eirhead said:
Ok, that's a smidgen of the type of information I'm looking for. Now if the plasma density were increased would it be possible to increase the wall-plug efficiency? Or alternatively, have an experiments been scaled upwards?

No, you'll just make it worse, because now you need to put in even MORE energy to create that plasma. Furthermore, the quality of the electron beam you will get will be worse, because the non-linear effects will be even larger.

Zz.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top