Magnetohydrodynamic stability at a separatrix. I. Toroidal peeling modes and the energy principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A potentially serious impediment to the production of energy by nuclear fusion in large tokamaks, such as ITER [R. Aymar, V. A. Chuyanov, M. Huguet, Y. Shimomura, ITER Joint Central Team, and ITER Home Teams, Nucl. Fusion 41, 1301 (2001)] and DEMO [D. Maisonner, I. Cook, S. Pierre, B. Lorenzo, D. Luigi, G. Luciano, N. Prachai, and P. Aldo, Fusion Eng. Des. 81, 1123 (2006)], is the potential for rapid deposition of energy onto plasma facing components by edge localized modes (ELMs). The trigger for ELMs is believed to be the ideal magnetohydrodynamic peeling-ballooning instability, but recent numerical calculations have suggested that a plasma equilibrium with an X-point—as is found in all ITER-like tokamaks, is stable to the peeling mode. This contrasts with analytical calculations [G. Laval, R. Pellat, and J. S. Soule, Phys. Fluids 17, 835 (1974)] that found the peeling mode to be unstable in cylindrical plasmas with arbitrary cross-sectional shape. Here, we re-examine the assumptions made in cylindrical geometry calculations and generalize the calculation to an arbitrary tokamak geometry at marginal stability. The resulting equations solely describe the peeling mode and are not complicated by coupling to the ballooning mode, for example. We find that stability is determined by the value of a single parameter Δ′ that is the poloidal average of the normalized jump in the radial derivative of the perturbed magnetic field’s normal component. We also find that near a separatrix it is possible for the energy principle’s δW to be negative (that is usually taken to indicate that the mode is unstable, as in the cylindrical theory), but the growth rate to be arbitrarily small.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".