Plasma and Fusion Research

Volume 14, 3401145 (2019)

Regular Articles

Analysis of Energy Conversion during Co- and Counter-Helicity Spheromak Merging by Particle-In-Cell Simulation
Kento NISHIDA, Ritoku HORIUCHI1) and Yasushi ONO2)
Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 133-0032, Japan
1)
National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki 509-5292, Japan
2)
Graduate School of Frontier Science, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8561, Japan
(Received 10 January 2019 / Accepted 20 June 2019 / Published 2 September 2019)

Abstract

Plasma merging has been proposed as an attractive startup method for obtaining compact and high-beta configurations, utilizing the fast energy conversion of magnetic reconnection. In this paper, we investigate energy conversion during spheromak mergings using particle-in-cell computations in cylindrical coordinates. The simulations reveal differences in the heating characteristics that depend upon the polarity of the toroidal field. We find symmetry breaking of the energy conversion downstream from the reconnection point, although it does not affect the total amount of energy exchanged. The differences in the ion temperature profiles are explained by a radial shift of the reconnection point and the deformation of the current sheet due to the Hall effect. The electrostatic potential structure modified by the polarity effect causes one-sided acceleration of the ions, which leads to symmetry breaking of the energy gain E·Ji. The energy gained by the electrostatic field in the perpendicular direction is the dominant term for the ions, while the electrons gain energy inductively, mainly parallel to magnetic field.

Keywords

particle-in-cell, plasma merging, magnetic reconnection, energy conversion, case-I/O, polarity effect

DOI: 10.1585/pfr.14.3401145

Full Text

PDF format (5.0Mbytes) PDF Download

References

  • [1] M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 603 (2010).
  • [2] C.G.R. Geddes, T.W. Kornack et al., Phys. Plasmas 5, 1027 (1998).
  • [3] M. Yamada, H. Ji et al., Plasma Fusion Res. 2, 004 (2007).
  • [4] E. Kawamori, Y. Ono et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 3401060 (2018).
  • [5] L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Plasmas 18, 070501 (2011).
  • [6] R. Horiuchi and T. Sato, Phys. Plasmas 4, 277 (1997).
  • [7] J.F. Drake, M. Swisdak et al., J. Geophys. Res. 114, A05111 (2009).
  • [8] A. Stanier, P.K. Browning et al., Phys. Plasmas 20, 122302 (2013).
  • [9] P.K. Browning, S. Cardnell et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 58, 014041 (2016).
  • [10] M. Inomoto, S.P. Gerherdt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 135002 (2006).
  • [11] Y. Kaminou, X. Guo et al., Phys. Plasmas 24, 032508 (2017).
  • [12] R. Horiuchi, T. Moritaka et al., Plasma Fusion Res. 13, 3403035 (2018).
  • [13] K.D. Makwana, R. Keppens et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 082904 (2018).
  • [14] C.K. Birdsall and A.B. Langdon, Plasma Physics Via Computer Simulation (McGraw-Hill, 1985).
  • [15] T.Zh. Esirkepov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 144 (2001).
  • [16] F. Assous, T.P. Dulimbert et al., J. Comput. Phys. 187, 550 (2003).
  • [17] K. Nishida, X. Guo et al., Plasma Fusion Res. 13, 3401060 (2018).
  • [18] A. Kuwahata, Y. Kaminou et al., IEEJ Trans. Fundamentals and Materials 136, No.4, 212 (2015).