discussion of engineering activities for c-mod mse upgrades plasma science & fusion center july...
DESCRIPTION
Reduce temperature excursions of in-vessel MSE Optics File: MSE-design-overview Required physics ‘pre-analysis’ & lab measurements Allowable temperature excursion and ramp rate (1 o C / hour?). Do same specifications apply to L2 and L3? Is any temperature control required at L1? Specify some thermal ‘scenarios’ that temperature-control system must handle, e.g. torus cooling/heating; ECDC; plasma heating. Design analysis issues Is cooling/heating at periphery of lenses sufficient, or must we also control the radiation environment, i.e. control temperature of entire canister? Selection of tubing & means of attaching it to lenses. Disruption tolerance. Selection of coolant. Temperature monitoring, esp. invessel thermocouples. Consideration of copper plating to reduce temperature gradients.TRANSCRIPT
Discussion of Engineering Activities for C-Mod MSE upgrades
Plasma Science & Fusion Center
July 10, 2008
File: MSE-design-overview
• Reduce spurious variability in polarization angle measured by MSE due to thermal stress-induced birefringence to < 0.05o (in MSE frame of reference) this meeting
• by reducing temperature excursions, and/or
• thru in-situ, before/after shot calibration.
• Provide remote & reliable capability to open & close MSE shutter this meeting
• Provide means to measure polarized ‘background’ light emission in real time.
• Increase photon-gathering power of MSE
• If intensity calibrations identify a particular ‘culprit’ for loss of light.
• Improved spatial resolution (FY09-10).
Overall MSE objectives, FY08-10
File: MSE-design-overview
Reduce temperature excursions of in-vessel MSE Optics
File: MSE-design-overview
• Required physics ‘pre-analysis’ & lab measurements
• Allowable temperature excursion and ramp rate (1o C / hour?).
• Do same specifications apply to L2 and L3?
• Is any temperature control required at L1?
• Specify some thermal ‘scenarios’ that temperature-control system must handle, e.g. torus cooling/heating; ECDC; plasma heating.
• Design analysis issues
• Is cooling/heating at periphery of lenses sufficient, or must we also control the radiation environment, i.e. control temperature of entire canister?• Selection of tubing & means of attaching it to lenses.• Disruption tolerance.• Selection of coolant.• Temperature monitoring, esp. invessel thermocouples.• Consideration of copper plating to reduce temperature gradients.
Reduce temperature excursions of in-vessel MSE Optics, cont’d
File: MSE-design-overview
• Design analysis issues• Interface thru port flange.• External heat exchanger.• Control & data acquisition.• Computer interface.
• Testing• TBD
In-situ, before/after shot calibration system
File: MSE-design-overview
• Major design objectives
• Calibration accuracy to 0.05o, within ~15 sec of a shot.• We probably require calibration at two polarization angles.• Reliability: use on 50% to 75% of all C-Mod shots in a run campaign, i.e. about 1000-1500 cycles between servicing. `Failure not an option.’
• Remote shutter to protect lens L1 against boronization.
•Two basic design options
• Fixed system: polarizers at periphery of lens L1.
• Articulated system: translate a polarized light source into MSE field-of-view.
• Should provide a spatial or polarization ‘reference’ to compensate for small, uncontrolled movements of the mechanism.
• Option A: moving element is a mirror; fixed light source.
• Option B: moving element is a full polarized light source.
In-situ, before/after shot calibration system
File: MSE-design-overview
• Major engineering challenges• Disruption forces
• Provide articulated push/pull thru vacuum interface
• Limited space & mechanical interferences
• Heating by plasma
• Vacuum compatibility
• Thermal expansion.
• Provide illumination source through vacuum interface
• Temperature enviroment -20 to +120 Celsius?
In-situ, before/after shot calibration system
File: MSE-design-overview
• Physics ‘pre-analysis’• Fixed system
• Easiest to implement. No moving parts attractive solution.• But … does a fixed system based on a polarized light source only at the periphery of lens L1 provide sufficient accuracy?
• Would not fully mimic light pattern from DNB, but maybe good enough.• Tasks: lab measurements + optics calculations.
• Option A: moving mirror.
• Is required positional stability of mirror any less onerous than corresponding stability of Option B (= moving polarized light source)?
• Work: lab tests.• Optics calculations to specify mirror shape & location of polarized light sources.
• Option B: moving polarized light source.
• Fully mimics light pattern from DNB. • Work: lab tests & optics calculations to verify that two polarization angles are necessary & sufficient.
Remote shutter capability
File: MSE-design-overview
• Our present manual system is inadequate.• Requires manned access to cell.
• Completely incompatible with between-shots boronization.
• Has worked poorly: failed to provide access to all three positions (open, closed, linear-polarizer) in two recent run campaigns.
• An in-situ calibration system will incorporate a remote shutter.• Note that we need to protect both lens L1 and the polarized light source.
• If we choose not to install an in-situ calibration system, we still need the remote shutter capability.
• The pneumatic mechanism developed for the polarimeter is a good basis for the MSE remote shutter and/or the articulated in-situ calibration mechanism.
Capability to measure polarized background light
• We observe significant levels of polarized background light in C-Mod.• Glowing hot surfaces + plasma emission.
• Varies on a rapid time scale.
• Interpolating ‘beam-off’ periods does not provide adequate accuracy.
• Seems to be broadband emission.
• It is ‘straightforward’ to measure background in real time.• Sacrifice ~4 of 16 fibers.
• Cost about $5k / channel.
• Might have to rework fibers in ferrules.
emission from DNB
broadband, polarized plasma emission
MSE opticalfilter (existing)
background opticalfilter (proposed)
Improve light-gathering power
• The MSE light emission levels have always seemed weak.
• Recent intensity calibration suggests we are realizing only 10-20% of expected photon flux.
• Previous measurements by Howard Yuh indicated that the basic MSE optics (not including PEMs, linear polarizer, filter, or fibers) was ~80% transmissive.
• Fibers are ~20 years old. Left over from TFTR.
• If we can identify a particular element that is faulty, we will repair / replace it.
• This work should not interfere with any other upgrade.
Improve spatial resolution
• In various FWP and 5-year plans, we have promised improvements to the spatial resolution of MSE.
• Size of DNB is most important.
• More spatial channels is a secondary consideration.
• I am reluctant to invest in more spatial channels until we prove that the schemes to eliminate spurious effects of temperature-induced birefringence are eliminated.
• Increasing number of spatial channels requires either
• a major re-design of the optical relay system – to allow a larger fiber dissector & more room for fibers; or
• greatly increased photon-gathering power, to allow us to use 1 x8 rather than 2 x 8 fiber arrays.
Issues
• Schedule
• Division of responsibilities , PPPL vs PSFC