Comparison of the performance of different options for ITER ECRH Upper Launcher (Contributo in atti di convegno)

Type
Label
  • Comparison of the performance of different options for ITER ECRH Upper Launcher (Contributo in atti di convegno) (literal)
Anno
  • 2005-01-01T00:00:00+01:00 (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#doi
  • 10.1088/1742-6596/25/1/028 (literal)
Alternative label
  • H Zohm (1), R Heidinger (2), M Henderson (3), E Poli (1), G Ramponi (4), G Saibene (5) and A G A Verhoeven (6) (2005)
    Comparison of the performance of different options for ITER ECRH Upper Launcher
    in Third IAEA Technical Meeting on ECRH Physics and Technology in ITER, Como
    (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#autori
  • H Zohm (1), R Heidinger (2), M Henderson (3), E Poli (1), G Ramponi (4), G Saibene (5) and A G A Verhoeven (6) (literal)
Pagina inizio
  • 234 (literal)
Pagina fine
  • 242 (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#url
  • http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/25/1/028 (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#numeroVolume
  • 25 (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#volumeInCollana
  • 25 (literal)
Rivista
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#note
  • Journal of Physics Conference Series 25, 234-242 (2005) (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#affiliazioni
  • (1) MPI für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching, Germany, EURATOM Association (2) Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany, EURATOM Association (3) CRPP, Association EURATOM Confederation Suisse, CH-11015 Lausanne, Switzerland (4) Istituto di Fisica del Plasma, CNR, I-20125 Milano, Italy, EURATOM Association (5) EFDA Close Support Unit, D-85748 Garching, Germany (6) FOM Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, The Netherlands, EURATOM Association (literal)
Titolo
  • Comparison of the performance of different options for ITER ECRH Upper Launcher (literal)
Abstract
  • The performance of different options for the ITER ECRH upper launcher is analysed in terms of NTM stabilisation efficiency, which is the main task for this system. The driven current at the (3,2) and (2,) resonant surfaces of ITER scenarii 2, 3a and 5 is calculated and compared with the local bootstrap current density there, which is the drive for the NTM. It is found that in terms of the figure of merit for NTM stabilisation, jECCD/jbs, a launcher concept based on front steering has much better performance than concepts based on remote steering. This can be explained by the smaller spot size of the ECRH beam at the resonant surfaces in the case of front steering. Thus, from a physics point of view, the analysed front steering option is preferable to the remote steering option. (literal)
Prodotto di
Autore CNR

Incoming links:


Prodotto
Autore CNR di
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#rivistaDi
data.CNR.it