Measuring implosion dynamics through ρR evolution in inertial-confinement fusion experiments

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 9, 2003, Pages

  Petrasso, R D ^a   Frenje, J A ^a   Li, C K ^a   Seguin F H ^a   Rygg, J R ^a   Schwartz, B E ^a   Kurebayashi, S ^a   Radha, P B ^b   Stoeckl, C ^b   Soures, J M ^b   Delettrez, J ^b   Glebov, V Yu ^b   Meyerhofer, D D ^b   Sangster, T C ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY); DEUTERIUM; DYNAMICS; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; HELIUM; LASER BEAMS; PLASTIC CONTAINERS; PROTONS; SPECTROMETERS; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION;

AREAL DENSITY; COMPRESSIVE BURN; FUEL SHELL MIX; IMPLOSION DYNAMICS; PLASTIC CAPSULES; SHOCK COALESCENCE;

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION;

EID: 0037424147     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. S. W. Haan et al., Phys. Plasmas 2, 2480 (1995).
2. J. D. Lindl, R. L. McCrory, and E. M. Campbell, Phys. Today 45, 32 (1992).
3. Energy & Technology Review (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1994).
4. M. D. Rosen, Phys. Plasmas 3, 183 (1996).
5. M. Andre, M. Novaro, and D. Schirmann, Rev. Sci. Tech. Direction Appl. Militaires 13, 73 (1995)
6. J. Maddox, Nature (London) 372, 127 (1994).
7. C. K. Li et al., Phys. Plasmas 7, 2578 (2000).
8. F. H. Séguin et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 975 (2003).
9. F. H. Séuin et al., Phys. Plasmas 9, 2527 (2002).
10. F. H. Séguin et al., Phys. Plasmas 9, 3558 (2002).
11. R. D. Petrasso, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2718 (1996).
12. D. D. Meyerhofer et al., Phys. Plasmas 8, 2251 (2001).
13. D. D. Meyerhofer et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion A 43, 277 (2001).
14. P. B. Radha et al., Phys. Plasmas 9, 2208 (2002).
15. C. K. Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 165002 (2002).
16. C. K. Li et al., Phys. Plasmas 8, 4902 (2001).
17. V. A. Smalyuk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 155002 (2001).
18. T. R. Boehly et al., Opt. Commun. 133, 495 (1997).
19. R. A. Lerche et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 933 (1995).
20. R. D. Petrasso et al., Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 46, 105 (2001).
21. C. K. Li and R. D. Petrasso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3059 (1993).
22. It has been demonstrated that the effect of electric fields is negligible for these types of capsules driven by 1-ns-square laser pulses since shock coalescence and bang time occur hundreds of picoseconds after the laser pulse, at which time the electric fields has largely decayed away.
23. 3He implosion experiments, for which the signals are similar in amplitude to those of Fig. 4(b), the presence of the shock yield is clearly visible. So the absence of the shock yield in Fig. 4(b) is not due to lack of instrument sensitivity.
24. E. B. Goldman, LLE Report No. 16, University of Rochester, 1973.
25. J. Delettrez, Can. J. Phys. 64, 932 (1986).
26. R. C. Malone, R. L. McCrory, and R. L. Morse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 721 (1975).
27. J. Delettrez et al., Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 47, 142 (2002).
28. J. Frenje et al. (private communication).