Disruption: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
191 bytes removed ,  9 September 2009
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/39/12/303 ITER Physics Expert Group on Disruptions, Plasma Control, and MHD, ''ITER Physics Basis Chapter 3: MHD stability, operational limits and disruptions'', Nucl. Fusion '''39 ''' (1999) 2251-2389]</ref>
<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/39/12/303 ITER Physics Expert Group on Disruptions, Plasma Control, and MHD, ''ITER Physics Basis Chapter 3: MHD stability, operational limits and disruptions'', Nucl. Fusion '''39 ''' (1999) 2251-2389]</ref>


Due to the fact that in stellarators, confinement does not depend on the plasma current, disruptions are less severe or inexistent in such machines, which is a significant advantage for the design of a future reactor.
Due to the fact that in stellarators, confinement does not depend on the plasma current, disruptions are less severe or inexistent in such machines, which is a significant advantage for the design of a future [[Stellarator reactor|stellarator reactor]].
<ref>[http://link.aip.org/link/?PHPAEN/7/1911/1 G.H. Neilson et al, ''Physics issues in the design of high-beta, low-aspect-ratio stellarator experiments'', Phys. Plasmas '''7''' (2000) 1911]</ref>
<ref>[http://link.aip.org/link/?PHPAEN/7/1911/1 G.H. Neilson et al, ''Physics issues in the design of high-beta, low-aspect-ratio stellarator experiments'', Phys. Plasmas '''7''' (2000) 1911]</ref>
<ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.05.008 R.C. Wolf et al, ''A stellarator reactor based on the optimization criteria of Wendelstein 7-X'', Fusion Engineering and Design '''83''', Issues 7-9 (2008) 990-996]</ref>


== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />

Navigation menu