Comparison Between Experimental Measurements and Numerical Simulations of Spheromak Formation in SSPX

Files

s10894-006-9040-7.pdf (352.37 KB)

Links to Files

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-006-9040-7

Permanent Link

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-006-9040-7
 http://hdl.handle.net/11603/31468

Collections

UMBC Mechanical Engineering Department

Author/Creator

Author/Creator ORCID

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6830-3126

Date

2006-12-06

Type of Work

journal articles
Text

Department

Program

Citation of Original Publication

Romero-Talamás, C., Hooper, E., Hill, D. et al. Comparison Between Experimental Measurements and Numerical Simulations of Spheromak Formation in SSPX. J Fusion Energ 26, 169–172 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-006-9040-7

Rights

This work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
Public Domain Mark 1.0

Subjects

Abstract

Data from a recently installed insertable magnetic probe array in the Sustained Spheromak Physics Experiment (SSPX) [E. B. Hooper, L. D. Pearlstein, and R. H. Bulmer, Nucl. Fusion 39, 863 (1999)] is combined with high-speed images and compared against NIMROD [C. R. Sovinec, A. H. Glasser, T. A. Gianakon, D. C. Barnes, R. A. Nebel, S. E. Kruger, D. D. Schnack, S. J. Plimpton, A. Tarditi, and M. S. Chu, J. Comp. Phys. 195, 355 (2004)], a 3D resistive magnetohydrodynamic code that is used to simulate SSPX plasmas. The experiment probe consists of a linear array of chip inductors arranged in clusters that are spaced every 2 cm, and spans the entire machine radius at the flux conserver midplane. Both the experiment and the numerical simulations show the appearance, shortly after breakdown, of a column with a hollow current profile that precedes magnetic reconnection, a process essential to the formation of closed magnetic flux surfaces. However, there are differences between the experiment and the simulation in how the column evolves after it is formed. These differences are studied to help identify the mechanisms that eventually lead to closed-flux surfaces (azimuthally averaged) and flux amplification, which occur in both the experiment and the simulation.