Page 10 - Inference of field reversed configuration topology and dynamics during Alfvenic transients

ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03110-5
12. Romero, J. A. & Svensson, J. Optimization of out-vessel magnetic diagnostics for plasma boundary reconstruction in tokamaks. Nucl. Fusion 53, 033009 (2013).
13. Mazon, D. et al. Validation of magnetic reconstruction codes for real-time applications. Fusion Sci. Technol. 58, 742–754 (2010).
14. Sivia, D. S. & Skilling, J. Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial 2nd edn, (Oxford University Press, Oxford. UK, 2006).
15. Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. (The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2006).
16. Svensson, J. (2012). Non-parametric tomography using Gaussian processes. JET Internal Report EFDA-JET-PR(11)24 (2011).
17. Deng, B. H. et al. High sensitivity far infrared laser diagnostics for the C-2U advanced beam-driven field-reversed configuration plasmas. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 11E125 (2016).
18. Gupta, D. K. Hanle effect as a magnetic diagnostic for field-reversed configuration plasmas. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 11E526 (2016).
19. Maciejowski, J. M. Multivariable Feedback Design. (Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, 1989).
20. Mok, Y., Barnes, D. C. & Dettrick, S. Modeling of dynamic FRC formation. APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting. Abstract #GP9.00097 (2010).
21. Rath, N., Onofri, M. & Barnes, D. C. Positional stability of field-reversed-
configurations in the presence of resistive walls. Phys. Plasmas 23, 064505
(2016).
22. Golnaraghi, F. & Kuo, B. C. Automatic Control Systems. 10th Edition.
(McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2017)
23. Galeotti, L. et al. Plasma equilibria with multiple ion species: Equations and
algorithm. Phys. Plasmas 18, 082509 (2011).
24. Rath, N., OnofriM, Dettrick, S. A., Barnes, D. C. & Romero, J. Modeling
feedback control of unstable separatrix location in beam-driven field-reversed
configurations. Phys. Plasmas 24, 042504 (2017).
25. Granstedt, E. et al. Fast imaging diagnostics on the C-2U advanced beam-
driven field-reversed configuration device. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 11D416
(2016).
26. Andersen, A. H. & Kak, A. C. Simultaneous algebraic reconstruction
technique (SART): a superior implementation of the art algorithm. Ultrason.
Imaging 6, 81–94 (1984).
27. Steinhauer, L. Hybrid equilibria of field-reversed configurations. Phys. Plasmas
18, 112509 (2011).
28. Steinhauer, L. Two dimensional interpreter for field-reversed configurations.
Phys. Plasmas 21, 082516 (2014).
29. Armstrong, W. T. et al. Field reversed experiments (FRX) on compact toroids.
Phys. Fluids 24, 2068 (1981).
30. Tuszewsky, M. Excluded flux analysis of a field-reversed plasma. Phys. Fluids
24, 2126 (1981).
31. MacKay, D. J. C. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms.
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
32. Roche, M. et al. Enhanced magnetic field probe array for improved excluded
flux calculations on the C-2U advanced beam-driven field-reversed configuration plasma experiment. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 11D409 (2016).
33. Thompson, M. C. et al. Magnetic diagnostic suite of the C-2 field-reversed configuration experiment confinement vessel. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 10D709 (2012).
34. Conway, J. T. Trigonometric integrals for the magnetic field of the coil of rectangular cross section. IEEE Trans. Magn. 42, 1538–1548 (2006).
Acknowledgements
This work has been performed thanks to the continued financial support from TAE’s investors. The authors are very grateful to R. Mendoza for database support. The authors would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Onofri, R. Smith, L. Steinhauer, E. Trask, S. Putvinski and P. Yushmanov.
Author contributions
J.A.R. developed the Bayesian inference framework, performed the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. S.A.D. provided equilibrium simulation results used for validation of the inference method at its early stage. E.G. provided the SART-based tomographic inversion for plasma emissivity. T.R. provided magnetic probes and magnet current measurements. Y.M. made the simulations of formation/merging.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 018-03110-5.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests. Reprints and permission information is available online at http://npg.nature.com/
reprintsandpermissions/
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2018
10 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:691
| DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03110-5 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications