IFE Summary

S. Jacquemot
2 overviews, 6 orals + 19 posters

LMJ ramps up power gradually, allowing arobust roadmap towards ignition

4 diags

2017
26+ diags

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J.‐L. Miquel IFE/1‐1

LMJ ramps up power gradually, allowing arobust roadmap towards ignition
hohlraumenergetics


fundamental
data
radiationtransport
implosion
fusion studieshydro‐hydrodynamics

instabilities
ignition

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J.‐L. Miquel IFE/1‐1

LMJ first experiments already provide valuable
information to benchmark ignition codese.g. plasma jet formation due to target defect or
implosion non‐sphericity due to asymmetric drive

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J.‐L. Miquel IFE/1‐1

NIF is the premier facility for full‐scale ignition& burning plasma physics
a coherent program since 2009

O. Hurricane J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 717, 012005 (2016)

improving hohlraum & capsule design till …
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J. Edwards OV/3‐2

alpha heating was evidencedP (atm‐s)from scaling of fusion yieldwith fuel energy

O. Hurricane et al.
Nature Phys. 12, 800 (2016)

but record yield still below 30kJ
(GIR>n~0.007)
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J. Edwards OV/3‐2

major factors limiting performances areidentified
 LPI‐driven time‐dependent drive asymmetry  new target designs(e.g. capsule shims or alternative ablators) & diagnostic development (e.g.
neutron imaging, PW‐driven radiography, core dopant x‐ray spectroscopy)

 engineering issues (e.g. tent)  innovative mountings under study
 understanding of implosion physics (e.g. kinetics effects) dedicated studies at reduced scale
MRSSpec‐ENITOF

Spec‐ASpec‐SP

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J. Edwards OV/3‐2
J. Frenje IFE/1‐3
H. Rinderknecht IFE/1‐5
A. Simakov P5‐7
K. Hill P5‐6

implementing PW beams on MJ facilities allow
improved IFE diagnostics & HED scienceenergetic and brief sources of
x‐rays and protons for
multi‐axis time‐resolved
implosion radiography
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J.‐L. Miquel IFE/1‐1
NNSA blog

SG‐III is coming online soon…
48 beams
180 kJ / with an approach combining
direct & indirect drive
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

H. Li PDP‐20
J. Liu P5‐8(not shown)… as well as the Russian MJ facility (UFL‐2M)

192 beams
2.8 MJ/ 

direct drive or indirect drive

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

V.A. Lykov
S.A. Belkov
ECLIM2016

direct drive is investigated on a large variety
of intermediate‐scale ns+ps facilities
PALS

VULCAN/RAL

43
LULI2000
12 LMJ+PETAL/CEA

NIF/LLNLISKRA5/VNIIEF« MJ »/VNIIEF
SGIII/CAEP
SGII(U)/SIOM GEKKO‐XII+LFEX/ILE

ZBL/SNL
1.
2.
3.
4.

OMEGA/LLE
NIKE/NRLORION/AWE
PHELIX/GSI

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

hot spot pressure > 50 Gbars was demonstrated
for direct drive DT implosions on OMEGAachieving core conditions (pressure,temperature and density) that leadto significant alpha heating ifhydrodynamically scaled to NIF
energies (from 26 kJ to 1.9 MJ)
A. Bose et al. Phys. Rev. E 94, 011201(R) (2016)22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J. Edwards OV/3‐2

understanding of laser‐plasma interaction(e.g. CBET) is improving
nD multiscale (hydro/PIC) capabilities developed
to predict energy transfer due to interferences
between 2 (or more) laser beams
crossing in a plasma
thick‐ray PGCO approach validated against
2D PIC simulations & implemented in 2D
CHIC hydrocode for fast computations

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

S. Jacquemot PDP‐12

IFE requires high gain, favoringalternative ignition schemes
fast ignition

fast ignition

central ignition

shock ignition

power vs time

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

shock ignition

shock ignition studies highlight importanceof hot electrons in implosion
PGCO approach  non‐linear laser‐plasma interaction, hot electron
generation (due to parametric instabilities) & transport
experimental validation on PALS (planar geometry) & OMEGA (spherical geometry)
CHIC with hot e
CHIC w/o

W. Theobald et al.
PoP 22, 056310 (2015)

exp

OMEGA ablation pressures above min. required

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

S. Jacquemot PDP‐12

shock ignition studies highlight importanceof hot electrons in implosion
PGCO approach  non‐linear laser‐plasma interaction, hot electrongeneration (due to parametric instabilities) & transport
hot electrons increase shock pressure & velocity but
decrease temperature  internal ablation
Pshock + 15Mbars

further validation on LMJ scheduled

2D CHIC w/o (SSD) & with hot e (no smoothing)

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

S. Jacquemot PDP‐12

improved laser performances driveincreased heating efficiency for e‐fast ignition
GEKKO‐XII

LFEX

2 PW
LFEX contrast
down to 10‐10

2013
2015

cooler electron distribution

x5 on LFEX

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

A. Yogo IFE/1‐4
R. Khaydarov P5‐2
H. Azechi OV/4‐2
J. Kanawaka IFE/1‐6
A. Morace P5‐13
Y. Arikawa P5‐11

lasers & B‐fields on the route to ignitionon laser facilities …
B=0

B=2kT

collimation by external kT B fields
of diverging relativisitic e beams

1000

Cu

800

0B [T]

600

kT, ns, mm3 B fields
can be produced bycapacitor‐coil targets

B-dot
probing

Faraday
rotation
(Ni)

Ni

400
200

Al

0-200

proton-deflectometry
(Ni)

-202

4

68

10time [ns]22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

Y. Mori P5‐9
H. Azechi OV/4‐2
S. Fujioka IFE/1‐2
S. Jacquemot PDP‐12

lasers & B‐fields on the route to ignitionon laser facilities …
collimation demonstrated on LULI2000 (planar geometry)and LFEX (spherical geometry)
w/o B

w/o B

2.7 g/cm2– 3 keV obtainedin a Cu‐doped beadwith Benergy density x5
22/10/2016

with B

IAEA FEC 2016

H. Azechi OV/4‐21‐
S. Fujioka IFE/1‐2
H. Nagatomo P5‐12
S. Jacquemot PDP‐12

… and on Z‐pinches: Magnetized Liner
Inertial Fusion (MagLIF)MagLIF combines three complementary
design elements into a single target design
1st integrated experiment successfully
demonstrated the concept
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

J. Edwards OV/3‐2
N. Ding P5‐4

IFE reactors are conceptually designed &adequate technologies studied• LIFT & CANDY concepts (Japan)• high‐repetition rate drivers (diode‐pumped, ceramics, coherent beamcombination) & target injection systems• materials for first walls H. Azechi OV/4‐2

22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

T. Norimatsu IFE/P5‐19
Y. Kitagawa P5‐10
H.‐J. Kong IFE/P5‐14
K. Ishii IFE/P5‐17
R. C. Issac IFE/P5‐18(not shown)
M. Perlado P5‐33
T. Kikuchi P5‐5

conclusion
 our understanding of ICF physics (laser‐plasma interaction,hydrodynamics, etc.) is progressing
 complementary MJ‐class facilities will soon
allow comparative full‐scale experiments
on multiple schemes new ideas may arise from this competition
paving the way to ignition
 in parallel, technological bricks for a prospective IFE reactor aredeveloped
22/10/2016

IAEA FEC 2016

S. Jacquemot