|Title||On the challenge of plasma heating with the JET metallic wall|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2014|
|Authors||M.L Mayoral, V. Bobkov, A. Czarnecka, I. Day, A. Ekedahl, P. Jacquet, M. Goniche, R. King, K. Kirov, E. Lerche, J. Mailloux, D. Van Eester, O. Asunta, C. Challis, D. Ciric, J.W Coenen, L. Colas, C. Giroud, M. Graham, I. Jenkins, E. Joffrin, T. Jones, D. King, V. Kiptily, C.C Klepper, C. Maggi, R. Maggiora, F. Marcotte, G. Matthews, D. Milanesio, I. Monakhov, M. Nightingale, R. Neu, J. Ongena, T. Puetterich, V. Riccardo, F. Rimini, J. Strachan, E. Surrey, V. Thompson, G.J van Rooij|
|ISBN Number||0029-5515; 1741-4326|
The major aspects linked to the use of the JET auxiliary heating systems: NBI, ICRF and LHCD, in the new JET ITER-like wall are presented. We show that although there were issues related to the operation of each system, efficient and safe plasma heating was obtained with room for higher power. For the NBI up to 25.7 MW was safely injected; issues that had to be tackled were mainly the beam shine-through and beam re-ionization before its entrance into the plasma. For the ICRF system, 5 MW were coupled in L-mode and 4 MW in H-mode; the main areas of concern were RF sheaths related heat loads and impurities production. For the LH, 2.5 MW were delivered without problems; arcing and generation of fast electron beams in front of the launcher that can lead to high heat loads were the keys issues. For each system, an overview will be given of: the main modifications implemented for safe use, their compatibility with the new metallic wall, the differences in behaviour compared with the previous carbon wall, with emphasis on heat loads and impurity content in the plasma.
Go back one page.