Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

On the link between parallel flows, turbulence and electric fields in the edge of the TJ-II

stellarator

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2009 EPL 85 25002

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/85/2/25002)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 128.122.253.212
This content was downloaded on 26/04/2015 at 10:44

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 January 2009
EPL, 85 (2009) 25002 www.epljournal.org
doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/85/25002

On the link between parallel flows, turbulence and electric fields

in the edge of the TJ-II stellarator
J. A. Alonso(a) , C. Hidalgo, M. A. Pedrosa, J. L. De Pablos and the TJ-II team

Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión, EURATOM-CIEMAT Association - Av. Complutense 22, 28040 Madrid, Spain, EU

received 16 July 2008; accepted in final form 15 December 2008

published online 22 January 2009

PACS 52.35.Ra – Plasma turbulence

PACS 52.30.-q – Plasma dynamics and flow
PACS 52.55.Hc – Stellarators, torsatrons, heliacs, bumpy tori, and other toroidal confinement
devices

Abstract – The structure of turbulence and parallel and perpendicular E × B flows have been
investigated across the transition to improved confinement regimes induced by biasing. The radial
electric field at the edge and the E × B shear increase, while the level of edge fluctuations is reduced
significantly during such improved confinement regimes in TJ-II. In addition, the parallel flow
Mach number changes by ∆M
≈ 0.3 in the plasma edge region which is in rough agreement with
the expected change in the Pfirsch-Schlüter flow. In order to investigate the role of E × B sheared
flows and turbulence on parallel dynamics, the cross-correlation coefficient ṽr ṽ
/(ṽr2 ṽ
2 )1/2
was computed in the presence of perpendicular flows induced by biasing. Although the level of
turbulence decreases, the phase coherence increases and the resulting turbulent forces ∂r ṽr ṽ
 are
shown to be high enough to affect parallel dynamics. These findings represent the first experimental
evidence of the dual role of electric fields as a stabilizing mechanism of plasma turbulence and as
an agent affecting the parallel momentum balance via turbulence modification.

c EPLA, 2009
Copyright

Introduction. – Plasma flows play a crucial role in
transport (e.g., in the development of transport barriers)
and stability (e.g., in stabilizing resistive wall modes) in
magnetically confined plasmas [1]. Toroidal rotation can
be driven by external forces, e.g., momentum input by
neutral beam injection (NBI) but in large-scale devices
like ITER, the NBI-driven rotation will only be moderate,
so that the identification and understanding of plasma
rotation mechanisms is important. Nonetheless, the
dominant role of external-momentum input is being ques-
tioned due to experimental evidence of significant toroidal
rotation without momentum input. Experiments in the
Alcator C-Mod tokamak show that the toroidal rotation
propagates inwards radially from the plasma edge after
the transition from low to high confinement regimes (L-H
transition), and the resulting core rotation was found to
depend strongly on the edge magnetic configuration [2].
Other experiments also show regimes with spontaneous or
anomalous toroidal [3–5] and poloidal [6,7] rotation of the
plasma core. There are few instances of experiments [8]
that report on poloidal rotation in good agreement with
(a) E-mail: arturo.alonso@ciemat.es
neoclassical transport in the collisional Pfirsch-Schlütter
regime.
Different mechanisms were proposed to explain these
results, including neoclassical effects [9], turbulence-
driven models [10–12], fast particle effects [13] and
electric fields [14]. A renewed interest in the mechanisms
of toroidal rotation in tokamaks has motivated recent
perturbative experiments in JET [15] and JT60 as well
as some theoretical effort aimed at identifying the origin
of anomalous momentum pinches [16–18] required to
explain the experimental observations. The importance of
identifying edge sources of momentum and understanding
the flow dynamics in the outer region of open field
lines, the so-called Scrape-Off Layer (SOL) has been
highlighted in these an other works. Parallel flows in the
SOL of the TCV tokamak seem to be well explained by
Pfirsch-Schlüter flows [19] with a B-field–independent
component attributed to the strong poloidal asymmetry
of the turbulent transport. This is sometimes referred to
as the ballooning nature of the transport in the plasma
edge and has been considered as a flow driving mecha-
nism in the SOL in a number of works [20–23]. Recent
experiments have demonstrated the possible influence of

25002-p1
J. A. Alonso et al.

shot#16006 ρ=1.03
100
0
−100
shot#16007 ρ=1.00
100
0
−100
shot#16008 ρ=0.99
100
0
−100
shot#16009 ρ=0.97
100
0
V Floating (V)

−100
shot#16010 ρ=0.93
100 Fig. 2: (Colour on-line) Combined Langmuir-Mach probe
0 scheme. Probes 1 and 3 are aligned along the field line forming
−100
shot#16011 ρ=0.89 a Mach probe. Probe 2 (which is taken as the radial reference
100 in this work) is 5 mm more inward than probes 1 and 3.
0
−100
shot#16012 ρ=0.85 fluctuation intensity. Pioneering experiments focused on
100
0 the direct measurement of the perpendicular Reynolds
−100 stress in the boundary region of fusion plasmas [27–32], in
shot#16013 ρ=0.83
100 search of a poloidal flow driving mechanism. More recently,
0 the influence of the parallel Reynolds stress on mean flow
−100 regulation was pointed out in various works [11,16,24,33].
shot#16014 ρ=0.82
100 In ref. [16] the role of sheared radial electric fields as a
0 parallel symmetry-breaking agent (i.e. rendering a finite
−100 non-diffusive component of the parallel Reynold stress
shot#16015 ρ=0.80
100
ṽr ṽ
) was put forward.
0 This paper presents the first experimental evidence of
−100
1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 the dual character of electric fields as a damping mech-
time (ms) anism for plasma turbulence, a well known ingredient in
the development of transport barriers, and its influence on
Fig. 1: (Colour on-line) Evolution of the floating potential in parallel momentum balance via turbulence modification.
the TJ-II shot series presented in this paper. External biasing
was applied between 1100 and 1150 ms. Time windows used for Experiment description. – Experiments were
averaging are marked by blue (before biasing) and red (during carried out at the TJ-II heliac in Electron Cyclotron
biasing) bands. Resonance Heated plasmas (PECRH = 200–400 kW,
BT = 1 T, R = 1.5 m,
a
0.22 m, ı(a) ≈ 1.7–1.8). A
turbulence on anomalous parallel flows observed in the graphite electrode was inserted 3–4 cm into the plasma
plasma boundary region [20,24]. and biased with respect to a poloidal limiter located
Following the line of the turbulence-driven models, in the Last Closed Flux Surface (LCFS) for 50 ms. A
mean flows or plasma rotation can be originated as a combined Langmuir-Mach probe (located in a different
collective effect of small-scale turbulence self-organising toroidal sector of the device) was used to measure the
into a mean flow pattern in what is known as a nega- fluctuating poloidal electric field (Ẽθ ) and the parallel
tive viscosity phenomenon in fluid hydrodynamics [25]. Mach number (M
= v
/cs , with cs being the plasma
Negative stands for the fact that turbulence can, in sound speed), with a sampling frequency of 2 MHz.
some circumstances, sustain a gradient in the mean flow, Profiles of the were obtained in a series of very similar
instead of tending —as a “positive” viscosity would do, plasma discharges on a shot-to-shot basis (see fig. 1).
to flatten it. The Reynolds stress mean i-flow acceler- The parallel Mach number is estimated by the formula
(3) (1)
ation in a (flat) magnetic surface labeled with r is of M
= 0.4 log(Is /Is ), being positive (negative) when
the form ∂r
ṽi ṽr , i.e. it requires turbulent motion to be the velocity is parallel (anti-parallel) of the B-field,
anisotropic and this to be radially non-uniform. Turbu- whereas the fluctuating E × B radial velocity is computed
lence anisotropy can be heuristically pictured as an “eddy as the difference of two poloidally separated floating-
tilting” (recently pictured with a fast visible camera diag- potential measurements, ṽr = Ẽθ /B ≈ (Ṽf 1 − Ṽf 2 )/∆θ B
nostic in the perpendicular plane [26]), whereas the radial (cf. the probe head scheme in fig. 2). It is customary to
dependence can be ascribed to a variation on the eddy use the innermost Langmuir probe that is not shadowed
tilting (i.e. on the coherence of the velocity fluctuations by the material separating the two pins of the Mach probe

ṽi ṽr /(
ṽi2 
ṽr2 )1/2 ) and/or to a variation of the turbulent (probe 2 in fig. 2). However, this poses the question of

25002-p2
 On the link between parallel flows, turbulence and electric fields in the edge of the TJ-II stellarator

probe 1 probe 2 w/o bias

1
shot#16006 ρ=1.03 60 w bias Vf (V)
0.5
0 40
−0.5 1
shot#16007 ρ=1.00 20
0.5
0
0
1 −0.5 −20 80
shot#16008 ρ=0.99
0.5 Is (mA)
0 60
−0.5 1
shot#16009 ρ=0.97 40
0.5
0 20
1 −0.5
shot#16010 ρ=0.93 0.2 0
0.5
M|| (cs)
0 0
−0.5 1
shot#16011 ρ=0.89 −0.2
0.5
0 −0.4
1 −0.5
shot#16012 ρ=0.85
0.5 −0.6
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
0
ρ
−0.5 1
shot#16013 ρ=0.83
0.5
Fig. 4: (Colour on-line) Floating potential, ion saturation
0 current and parallel Mach-number profiles in the time windows
1 −0.5 marked in fig. 1. Because of the excellent statistics for the
shot#16014 ρ=0.82
0.5 calculation of the mean values of the probability distribution
0 functions, the estimated error bars are below the marker size
−0.5 1 of the profiles of this and other figures. However, it should
shot#16015 ρ=0.80 0.5 be noted that the shot-to-shot procedure can introduce small
0 deviations in the profile shapes.
−0.5
−10 0 10 −10 0 10
τ (µs) τ (µs) resulting from the spatial separation of the measurement
locations. To avoid this ambiguity, all results presented
Fig. 3: (Colour on-line) Cross-correlation curves of the fluc- below have been calculated using the radial velocity from
tuating components of the radial and parallel velocity (blue: probe 1 (with τ = 0), in spite of the fact that it is in the
before biasing, red: during biasing), with radial velocity from shadow region.
probe 1 (left column) and probe 2 (right column) —see fig. 2
for a probe diagram. Results and discussion. – The effects of biasing are
clearly seen in the floating potential and ion saturation
current profiles, as well as in the turbulence level (figs. 4
whether the spatial separation (of the order of 5 mm) of and 5). Before the application of the external biasing the
the measurement locations for ṽr and M̃
can introduce a plasma density was below the critical value to trigger edge
phase difference. This instrumental problem is illustrated sheared flows in TJ-II [34]. As a consequence, floating-
in fig. 3, which shows the cross-correlation curves of the potential profiles were very flat before biasing (fig. 4).
radial and parallel fluctuating velocity components as The external biasing modifies the floating-potential profile
measured by probe 1 and probe 2. The curves for the from ρ ∼ 0.95 inwards. The increased radial-electric-field
probe 1 are centred whereas those of probe 2 show a shear reduces the amplitude of the turbulence, while the
time lag of about 3–4 µs. The differentiation of the curves density profile (proportional to the ion saturation current
without (blue) and with (red) biasing is clear for both Is in fig. 4) becomes steeper as a result of improved
probes, and the maxima of the curves for probe 2 show confinement [35]. The external biasing has also a deep
a similar tendency as those for probe 1. We understand effect on the parallel mass flow represented in fig. 4
that both probe signals reflect the same physical changes (lower graph) as the parallel Mach number. The parallel
(i.e., an increase in the cross-correlation coefficient, velocity profiles are rather flat when there is no external
which constitutes one of the main results reported in this biasing, with values ranging from −0.4 outside the LCFS
paper), but probe 2 is affected by a spurious time delay to −0.2 at ρ = 0.8, some 4 cm into the plasma. During the

25002-p3
J. A. Alonso et al.

6000 400
5000 vrrms (m/s)
4000 200

3000 〈vrM||〉 (m/s cs)

0
2000
0.5 w/o bias
−200 w/o bias 0.8
w bias
0.4 w bias
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2 M rms (c ) 0.2
|| s
0.1
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 〈vrM||〉 /vrrmsM||rms 0
ρ −0.2
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
Fig. 5: (Colour on-line) Profiles of the RMS level of the radial ρ
(top) and parallel (bottom) velocity fluctuations, before (blue
squares) and during (red circles) external biasing. Fig. 7: (Colour on-line) Profiles of the radial-parallel
Reynolds stress component (top) and the correlation coeffi-
0 cient (bottom), before (blue squares) and during (red circles)
external biasing.
0.5
θ/π [0,2]

1
1.5
2 radial range of the measurements presented here. From
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
φ/π [0,1/2]
−20 0 20
f for the LCFS of TJ−II
PS
Fig. 6: (Colour on-line) Dimensionless P-S factor in the
LCFS of TJ-II. The Langmuir/Mach probe location is marked
with a +.
improved confinement due to external biasing, a stronger
parallel flow shear develops at the plasma edge: while
the Mach number remains unaltered in the outermost
position (where the biasing does not affect the electrostatic
potential either), there is a significant positive increment
∆M
≈ 0.2–0.4 at inner radial locations.
The Pfirsch-Schlüter flow is a field-aligned mass flow
arising from the compressibility of the electric and diamag-
netic ion flows. It is defined by the magnetic differential
equation
v
P S
B·∇ = −∇ · v⊥ ,
Bv
P S  = 0.
B
This results in a parallel flow proportional to the
diamagnetic component, i.e. v
P S = fP S v⊥ , with the
proportionality factor, fP S , being a function of the posi-
tion within the flux surface, determined by the magnetic
structure of the confinement device [36]. Figure 6 shows
fP S computed for the LCFS of the TJ-II stellarator in
the magnetic configuration under study. For the probe
location, fP S = 11.5. Comparable values are found in the
0.4 0.5 the change in the radial electric field inferred from the
plot in fig. 4 (with dρ/dr ≈ 4 m−1 , B = 0.75 T) the change
in the E × B velocity is ∆vE ≈ 2 km/s. The corresponding
40 change in the parallel flow is ∆M
≈ 0.3cs ≈ 30 km/s for
(Te + Ti ) in the range (100–200) eV. The proportionality
factor is ∆M
/∆vE ≈ 15, in rough agreement with
fP S = 11.5.
In order to investigate the role of the turbulent
momentum transport in these two phases, the parallel
component of the Reynolds stress (
ṽr M̃
) was computed
both before and during the biasing as is shown in fig. 7. In
both phases, the highest gradients appear to be associated
to the transition from open to closed field lines in the
proximity of the LCFS. In this location the radial-parallel
correlation changes sign. During biasing, the reduction of
turbulence tends to diminish the magnitude of
ṽr M̃
,
and yet the radial gradient of this turbulence-driven veloc-
ity flux inside the LCFS is larger than without biasing.
Normalising the Reynolds stress component by the RMS
values of its constituents (which amounts to calculating
the correlation coefficient) reveals that the fluctuation
coherence strongly increases toward the interior (see
fig. 7, lower graph) and is responsible of a good part of
the gradient in the radial-parallel coupling. Making use of
the fast reciprocating capabilities of the combined probe,
single-shot scans were obtained, the profiles showing
similar tendencies, which will be presented in future work.
It must be noticed that in the phase before the biasing,
with very low radial electric field, the magnitude of
ṽr ṽ

is already noticeable. The main effect of the applied Er

25002-p4
 On the link between parallel flows, turbulence and electric fields in the edge of the TJ-II stellarator
(apart from the turbulence level reduction) is the increase acknowledged. JAA work was supported by a FPI grant
in the fluctuation coherence which sustains the values of from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a.
the parallel momentum flux,
ṽr ṽ
, even in the situation
of reduced fluctuation levels.
To estimate the importance of the biasing-induced
increment of ∂r
ṽr M̃
 in the parallel flow balance, it
can be compared with the increment of the friction term
−µ∆M
, where the friction coefficient is approximated by
−1
the inverse flow damping time, µ ∼ τd . This decay time
has been measured in electric potential relaxation experi-
ments, and found to be of the order of (10–50) µs [26,37].
Fitting the relaxation time of the parallel flow after
turning off the biasing is less conclusive than the study
performed in [37] (which strictly applies only to perpen-
dicular flows), but the order of magnitude is found to be
alike. Using this estimate, we obtain −µ∆M
∼ −(10–
50)−1 µs−1 × 0.3cs = −(3–0.6) × 104 cs /s, to be compared
with ∂r
ṽr M̃
 ∼ −200 m/s·cs
10−2 m = −2 × 104 cs /s. This order of
magnitude comparison shows that Reynold-stress–driven
forces, together with other mechanisms, can affect
equilibrium parallel flows in the plasma boundary region.
Conclusions. – Applying a radial electric field gener-
ated by external biasing was seen to have a strong impact
on the parallel Mach-number profile in the edge of the
TJ-II stellarator. Changes of ∆M
≈ 0.3 were reported at
interior positions (ρ = 0.8–0.95) whereas the parallel mass
flow remained unchanged in the SOL. The change in the
parallel rotation was shown to be in order-of-magnitude
agreement with the expected change from the parallel
Pfirsch-Schlüter flow.
The parallel Reynolds stress
ṽr M̃
 was measured
at different radial locations in the SOL/edge transition
region. The effect of the increased radial electric field
shear on the radial profiles during an improved confine-
ment regime due to external basing was investigated.
A reduction of the parallel Reynolds stress component
as a result of the lower turbulence level was observed.
However, the “phase coherence” between the fluctuations
was strongly enhanced inside the plasma, generating
a gradient in
ṽr M̃
, of a magnitude comparable to
the observed change in the friction term. This order of
magnitude comparison of local measurements suggests
that the turbulence-driven momentum flux (via Reynolds
stress) should be taken into account when considering the
parallel momentum balance equation, particularly in high-
electric-field shear regimes, such as those studied in the
H-mode momentum propagation experiments performed
in Alcator C-Mod [2]. The results presented in this paper
show the dual role of sheared E × B flows as a fluctuation
stabilising term as well as an agent affecting the parallel
momentum balance via turbulence modification.
∗∗∗
Discussions with A. Salas, J. A. Jiménez, A.
López-Fraguas and V. Tribaldos are gratefully
25002-p5
REFERENCES
[1] Terry P. W., Rev. Mod. Phys., 72 (2000) 109.
[2] Rice J. E., Hubbard A. E., Hughes J. W.,
Greenwald M. J., La Bombard B., Irby J. H., Lin
Y., Marmar E. S., Mossessian D., Wolfe S. M. and
Wukitch S. J., Nucl. Fusion, 45 (2005) 251.
[3] Scott S. D., Diamond P. H., Fonck R. J., Goldston
R. J., Howell R. B., Jaehnig K. P., Schilling G.,
Synakowski E. J., Zarnstorff M. C., Bush C. E.,
Fredrickson E., Hill K. W., Janos A. C., Mansfield
D. K., Owens D. K., Park H., Pautasso G., Ramsey
A. T., Schivell J., Tait G. D., Tang W. M. and
Taylor G., Phys. Rev. Lett., 64 (1990) 531.
[4]
Lee W. D., Rice J. E., Marmar E. S., Greenwald
M. J., Hutchinson I. H. and Snipes J. A., Phys. Rev.
Lett., 91 (2003) 205003.
[5] Bortolon A., Duval B. P., Pochelon A. and
Scarabosio A., Phys. Rev. Lett., 97 (2006) 235003,
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v97/e235003.
[6] Crombé K., Andrew Y., Brix M., Giroud C.,
Hacquin S., Hawkes N. C., Murari A., Nave
M. F. F., Ongena J., Parail V., Oost G. V.,
Voitsekhovitch I. and Zastrow K.-D., Phys.
Rev. Lett., 95 (2005) 155003, http://link.aps.org/
abstract/PRL/v95/e155003.
[7] Solomon W. M., Burrell K. H., Andre R., Baylor
L. R., Budny R., Gohil P., Groebner R. J., Holcomb
C. T., Houlberg W. A. and Wade M. R., Phys.
Plasmas, 13 (2006) 6116.
[8] Severo J., Nascimento I., Tsypin V. and Ao R. G.,
Nucl. Fusion, 43 (2003) 1047, http://stacks.iop.org/
0029-5515/43/1047.
[9] Rogister A., Rice J., Nicolai A., Ince-Cushman A.,
Gangadhara S. and Group A. C.-M., Nucl. Fusion,
42 (2002) 1144, http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/
42/1144.
[10] Coppi B., Nucl. Fusion, 42 (2002) 1, http://stacks.
iop.org/0029-5515/42/1.
[11] Garbet X., Sarazin Y., Ghendrih P., Benkadda
S., Beyer P., Figarella C. and Voitsekhovitch I.,
Phys. Plasmas, 9 (2002) 3893, http://link.aip.org/
link/?PHP/9/3893/1.
[12] Diamond P. H. et al., presented at Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Plasma Physics and
Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Seville, 1994 (IAEA,
Vienna) 1995.
[13] Koide Y. et al., presented at Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Plasma Physics and
Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Würzburg, 1992
(IAEA, Vienna) 1993.
[14] Ida K., Minami T., Yoshimura Y., Fujisawa A.,
Suzuki C., Okamura S., Nishimura S., Isobe M.,
Iguchi H., Itoh K., Kado S., Liang Y., Nomura
I., Osakabe M., Takahashi C., Tanaka K. and
Matsuoka K., Phys. Rev. Lett., 86 (2001) 3040.
[15] Tala T., Crombé K., de Vries P. C., Ferreira
J., Mantica P., Peeters A. G., Andrew Y.,
Budny R., Corrigan G., Eriksson A., Garbet
J. A. Alonso et al.
X., Giroud C., Hua M.-D., Nordman H., Naulin
V., Nave M. F. F., Parail V., Rantamäki K.,
Scott B. D., Strand P., Tardini G., Thyagaraja
A., Weiland J., Zastrow K.-D. and Contributors
J.-E., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 49 (2007) B291,
http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/49/B291.
[16] Gürcan O. ¨ D., Diamond P. H., Hahm T. S.
and Singh R., Phys. Plasmas, 14 (2007) 042306,
http://link.aip.org/link/?PHP/14/042306/1.
[17] Hahm T. S., Diamond P. H., Gurcan O. D.
and Rewoldt G., Phys. Plasmas, 14 (2007) 072302,
http://link.aip.org/link/?PHP/14/072302/1.
[18] Peeters A. G., Angioni C. and Strintzi D., Phys.
Rev. Lett., 98 (2007) 265003, http://link.aps.org/
abstract/PRL/v98/e265003.
[19] Pitts R. A., Horacek J., Fundamenski W., Garcia
O. E., Nielsen A. H., Wischmeier M., Naulin V. and
Rasmussen J. J., J. Nucl. Mater., 363 (2007) 505.
[20] La Bombard B., Rice J. E., Hubbard A. E., Hughes
J. W., Greenwald M., Irby J., Lin Y., Lipschultz
B., Marmar E. S., Pitcher C. S., Smick N., Wolfe
S. M., Wukitch S. J. and the Alcator Group, Nucl.
Fusion, 44 (2004) 1047.
[21] Erents S. K., Pitts R. A., Fundamenski W., Gunn
J. P. and Matthews G. F., Plasma Phys. Control.
Fusion, 46 (2004) 1757, http://stacks.iop.org/
0741-3335/46/1757.
[22] Zagórski R., Gunn J. P. and Nanobashvili
I., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 49 (2007) S97,
http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/49/S97.
[23] Tamain P. et al., in Proceedings of the 18th PSI Confer-
ence (Elsevier, Toledo) 2008, p. O32.
[24] Gonçalves B., Hidalgo C., Pedrosa M. A., Orozco
R. O., Sánchez E. and Silva C., Phys. Rev. Lett.,
96 (2006) 145001, http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/
v96/e145001.
[25] Stark V. P., Physics of Negative Viscosity Phenomena
(McGraw-Hill, New York, USA) 1968.
[26] Alonso J. A., Zweben S. J., Carvalho P., de Pablos
J. L., de la Cal E., Hidalgo C., Klinger T., van
Milligen B. P., Maqueda R. J., Pedrosa M. A.,
Silva C., Spolaore M., Thomsen H. and the TJ-II
Team, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 48 (2006) B465,
http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/48/B465.
25002-p6
[27] Matthews P. G., Anderson D. T., Anderson
F. S. B., Shohet J. L. and Talmadge J. N., Phys.
Fluids B: Plasma Phys., 5 (1993) 4061, http://link.
aip.org/link/?PFB/5/4061/1.
[28] Hidalgo C., Silva C., Pedrosa M. A., Sánchez E.,
Fernandes H. and Varandas C. A. F., Phys. Rev. Lett.,
83 (1999) 2203.
[29] Xu Y. H., Yu C. X., Luo J. R., Mao J. S., Liu B. H.,
Li J. G., Wan B. N. and Wan Y. X., Phys. Rev. Lett.,
84 (2000) 3867.
[30] Sanchez E., Hidalgo C., Goncalves B., Silva C.,
Pedrosa M., Hron M. and Erents K., J. Nucl. Mater.,
337-339 (2005) 296.
[31] Antoni V., Spada E., Vianello N., Spolaore
M., Cavazzana R., Serianni G. and Martines
E., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 47 (2005) B13,
http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/47/B13.
[32] Vianello N., Spada E., Antoni V., Spolaore M.,
Serianni G., Regnoli G., Cavazzana R., Ker H. B.
and Drake J. R., Phys. Rev. Lett., 94 (2005) 135001,
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v94/e135001.
[33] Hallatschek K., Phys. Rev. Lett., 93 (2004) 065001,
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v93/e065001.
[34] Pedrosa M. A., Hidalgo C., Calderón E., Estrada
T., Fernández A., Herranz J., Pastor I. and the TJ-
II team, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 47 (2005) 777,
http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/47/777.
[35] Hidalgo C., Pedrosa M. A., Dreval N., McCarthy
K. J., Eliseev L., Ochando M. A., Estrada T.,
Pastor I., Ascası́bar E., Calderón E., Cappa
A., Chmyga A. A., Fernández A., Gonçalves
B., Herranz J., Jiménez J. A., Khrebtov S. M.,
Komarov A. D., Kozachok A. S., Krupnik L., López-
Fraguas A., López-Sánchez A., Melnikov A. V.,
Medina F., van Milligen B., Silva C., Tabarés
F. and Tafalla D., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 46
(2004) 287, http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/46/287.
[36] Wakatani M., Stellarator and Heliotron Devices (Oxford
University Press) 1998.
[37] Pedrosa M. A., Carreras B. A., Hidalgo C.,
Silva C., Hron M., Garcı́a L., Alonso J. A.,
Calvo I., de Pablos J. L. and Stöckel J., Plasma
Phys. Control. Fusion, 49 (2007) B303, http://stacks.
iop.org/0741-3335/49/B303.