What can you tell me about wakefield plasma acceleration?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Eirhead
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration Plasma
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Wakefield plasma acceleration presents a promising method for space thruster applications, potentially outperforming current technologies like VASIMR, which utilizes ICH RF coupling. However, the current limitations include a wall-plug efficiency of less than 5% and the capability to accelerate only small electron bunches (less than 1 nC). Increasing plasma density may not improve efficiency and could worsen the quality of the electron beam due to non-linear effects. The discussion highlights the need for advancements in plasma acceleration technology to achieve higher efficiencies for practical applications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of plasma physics and acceleration mechanisms
  • Familiarity with VASIMR technology and ICH RF coupling
  • Knowledge of electron bunch characteristics and their applications
  • Basic principles of efficiency in energy conversion systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advancements in wakefield plasma acceleration techniques
  • Explore the efficiency metrics of VASIMR and alternative propulsion systems
  • Investigate the impact of plasma density on electron beam quality
  • Study the non-linear effects in plasma acceleration and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Researchers in plasma physics, aerospace engineers, and anyone interested in advanced propulsion technologies for space exploration.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K