4,422
edits
Anomalous transport: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Arguments against
m (Dinits -> Dimits) |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
It has been argued that turbulence cannot be responsible for a significant fraction of the anomalous component of transport, since that would lead to high resistivity (due to collisions), which contradicts experimental observation. | It has been argued that turbulence cannot be responsible for a significant fraction of the anomalous component of transport, since that would lead to high resistivity (due to collisions), which contradicts experimental observation. | ||
<ref>L.C. Woods, ''Theory of tokamak transport: new aspects for nuclear fusion reactor design'', John Wiley and Sons (2006) ISBN 3527406255</ref> | <ref>L.C. Woods, ''Theory of tokamak transport: new aspects for nuclear fusion reactor design'', John Wiley and Sons (2006) ISBN 3527406255</ref> | ||
However, this argument fails to note that transport events may | However, this argument fails to note that anomalous transport events may consist of collective events (e.g., ''streamers''), which does not require an enhanced collisionality. | ||
As a footnote, this argument does show that the contribution of turbulence to transport is likely ''not'' of the diffusive type (see [[Non-diffusive transport]]). | |||
== Can anomalous transport be modelled? == | == Can anomalous transport be modelled? == | ||