Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:39:55.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-frequency linear response of a cylindrical tokamak with arbitrary cross-section to ‘helical’ perturbations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

Torkil H. Jensen  and
Ming S. Chu
Torkil H. Jensen
Affiliation:
General Atomic Company, San Diego, California 92138
Ming S. Chu
Affiliation:
General Atomic Company, San Diego, California 92138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current driven, ‘helical’ (non-axisymmetric) modes of a tokamak with arbitrary cross-section are considered in the straight (cylindrical) geometry approximation. The plasma is considered surrounded by a resistive wall. The plasma may be unstable on a fast time-scale, namely the MHD or tearing mode time-scale, on a slow time-scale given by the wall properties or it may be stable. The formalism given in this paper allows determination of stability by relatively simple numerical means. In the case of instability on the slow time-scale, the formalism allows determination of growth rates and mode structures. Since the formalism is an eigenvalue formalism with orthogonal eigenfunctions, it is well suited for calculation of the effects on a stable plasma of slow error fields caused by externally driven error currents flowing predominantly in the direction of the ignorable co-ordinate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , October 1980 , pp. 229 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Caldas, I. L. & Tasso, H. 1978 Plasma Phys. 20, 1299.Google Scholar
Carraras, B., Callen, J. D., Hicks, H. R. & Waddell, B. V. 1979 Nucl. Fusion, 19,583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furth, H. P., Killeen, J. & Rosenbluth, M. N. 1963 Phys. Fluids, 6, 459.Google Scholar
Furth, H. P., Rutherford, P. H. & Selberg, H. 1973 Phys. Fluids, 16, 1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, H. R., Carraras, B., Holmes, J. A., Lee, D. K., Lynch, S. J. & Waddell, B. V. 1978 Proceedings of Computational Plasma Physics Meeting, Livermore, California.Google Scholar
Hicks, H. R., Carraras, B., Holmes, J. A. & Waddell, B. V. 1977 Report ORNL/TM- 6096, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Jensen, T. H. & Thompson, W. B. 1978 J. Plasma Phys. 19, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnack, D. & Killeen, J. 1978 Theoretical and Computational Plasma Physics, p. 337. IAEA.Google Scholar
Pollard, R., Turner, M., Sykes, A. & Wesson, J. A. 1979 Proceedings of IAEA Symposium on Current Disruption in Toroidal Devices, Garching, Germany.Google Scholar
Waddell, B. V., Carraras, B., Hicks, H. R. & Holmes, J. A. 1979 Phys. Fluids, 22, 896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar