XAPPER Progress & Plans
description
Transcript of XAPPER Progress & Plans
XAPPER Progress & PlansXAPPER Progress & Plans
Presented by: Jeff Latkowski
XAPPER Team: Ryan Abbott, Steve Payne, Susana Reyes, Joel Speth
April 9, 2003
Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.
XAPPERXAPPER
JFL—4/03 HAPL
The XAPPER experiment will be used toThe XAPPER experiment will be used tostudy damage from rep-rated x-ray exposurestudy damage from rep-rated x-ray exposure
Source built by PLEX LLC; delivered 10/02; operational 11/02; system testing and characterization now complete
Uses rf-initiated star-pinch to generate plasma
Operates with Xe (113 eV), Ar (250-300 eV), N (430 eV)
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER MissionXAPPER Mission
XAPPER is to perform rep-rated, x-ray exposures to look for “sub-threshold” effects such as roughening and thermomechanical fatigue.
XAPPER provides large doses of soft (100-400 eV) x-rays; Dose is a reasonable figure of merit, not fluence.
XAPPER cannot match exact x-ray spectrum, but it can replicate a selected figure of merit. For example, the peak surface temperature, dose, stress, etc. that would occur in a real IFE system can be matched on XAPPER.
XAPPER will be used in the study of x-ray damage to optics and chamber wall materials.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
December – Crack in the ceramic within the plasma head. Loss of vacuum, water leak into plasma
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
December – Crack in the ceramic within the plasma head. Loss of vacuum, water leak into plasma
Resolution – Replaced ceramic with higher thermal conductivity material; Added epoxy layer as vacuum barrier; Operation to >100,000 pulses (everything from 1-10 Hz) without problem.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
January-April – Fluence on sample 40x lower than spec
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
January-April – Fluence on sample 40x lower than spec
Note: We don’t actually need the full 40x full currently envisioned
experiments – we would be quite happy with a 5x improvement.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
January-April – Fluence on sample 40x lower than spec
Resolution – Direct source measurements to ensure that problem is with optic, rather than source. Confirmed that source output is adequate.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Source measurements indicate thatSource measurements indicate thatoutput is within 1.4x of specificationoutput is within 1.4x of specification
Sampled source through foil comb at 23º (rough center of condensing optic, when used)
Source output is ~0.24 J/sr (0.33 expected) Indicates that majority of problem is with
optic
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rep rate (Hz)
X-r
ay p
ow
er (
mW
)
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
March-April – Continued problems with second optic.
Incoming x-rays
Zr filter(passes 7-17 nm)
Phosphorescentmaterial
Reticle
CCD imaging of inner spot 1.3 cm
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
March-April – Continued problems with second optic.
Resolution – Discussions with internal optics experts. Testing and analysis of current optics. Decision to remove optic from PLEX contract. Internal team to sub-contract mandrels but coat optics internally.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Spot size measurements made with HeNeSpot size measurements made with HeNe
Tabletop visible (HeNe) spot size measurements suggest error must be a wavelength-dependent effect
Vendors and EUV experts agree that likely explanation is mid-frequency spatial roughness
~3 mm spot
JFL—4/03 HAPL
We are removing the condensing optics from the We are removing the condensing optics from the PLEX contract; A combination of LLNL expertise PLEX contract; A combination of LLNL expertise and external vendors will be usedand external vendors will be used
LLNL’s Materials Science & Technology Division (MSTD) routinely makes collimating optics that far surpass our figuring & roughness specifications
Current plan:– Outside vendor for mandrels (3):
• Roughness specification <1.5 nm RMS• Slope error specification <1 arc-minute
– MSTD to coat optics: C, Pd, Cu, Ni– Should get 4 good optics per mandrel– Total cost: $6-10K/optic
For now, we will switch to study of Al mirrors (we have more than enough fluence for this)
JFL—4/03 HAPL
MSTD has previously produced MSTD has previously produced collimatingcollimating optics that far optics that far exceed our specifications for roughness and slope errorexceed our specifications for roughness and slope error
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.5 1 1.5gain
radial position (cm)
simulation
experiment
X-ray Radial Intensity Distribution
Multiple optics produced from a single mandrel
When measured figure errors (from mandrel) are accounted for, calculations agree well with measured intensities suggests that coating process is not significantly degrading optical quality
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
February – Question raised if damage could be due to ions.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
XAPPER activities since December 2002XAPPER activities since December 2002
Star-pinchplasma Ellipsoid
alcondenser
Sample plane
February – Question raised if damage could be due to ions.
Resolution – Conducted simple experiment to verify damage due to x-rays.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
We have confirmed that damage is being We have confirmed that damage is being caused by focused x-rays, not stray ionscaused by focused x-rays, not stray ions
1st sequence: ~0.19 J/cm2
2nd sequence: ~0.13 J/cm2
Sample is ½” diameter Al mirror from Newport (Al on SiO2):– Exposed to 3000 pulses at 8 Hz; pulse ~40 ns– Translated focusing optic (perpendicular to axis of symmetry) by ~0.9
mm between 1st and 2nd exposure sequences
Observed movement ofdamage spot, indicatingthat damage is caused byx-rays, which are focusedby the condensing optic
Ions, if present, would notbe focused to new spot
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Gantry was installed & spectrometer has been Gantry was installed & spectrometer has been mounted/aligned—testing is underwaymounted/aligned—testing is underway
EUV Spectrometer is mounted vertically to intercept x-rays directed upon the pinch axis
JFL—4/03 HAPL
ABLATOR has been used to predict the ABLATOR has been used to predict the time/temperature history of an Al GIMMtime/temperature history of an Al GIMM
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
0.0E+00 2.0E+02 4.0E+02 6.0E+02 8.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.2E+03 1.4E+03
Time (ns)
Te
mp
era
ture
(K
)
Assumes 99% reflectivity GIMM @ 85Assumes 99% reflectivity GIMM @ 85° and 30 m° and 30 m, 10 mTorr Xe, 1 ns prompt, , 10 mTorr Xe, 1 ns prompt, and 1 and 1 s secondary x-ray pulselengths. Surface zone is 10 nm thick. s secondary x-ray pulselengths. Surface zone is 10 nm thick.
Full 46 MJ assumed for 2Full 46 MJ assumed for 2ndnd x-ray pulse. x-ray pulse.
Secondary x-ray pulse
Prompt x-ray pulse
Laser 30 ns pulse
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Increasing the gas pressure to 50 mTorrIncreasing the gas pressure to 50 mTorrhelps attenuate the x-rayshelps attenuate the x-rays
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
0.0E+00 2.0E+02 4.0E+02 6.0E+02 8.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.2E+03 1.4E+03
Time (ns)
Te
mp
era
ture
(K
)
Secondary x-ray pulse
Prompt x-ray pulse
Laser 30 ns pulse
Assumes 99% reflectivity GIMM @ 85Assumes 99% reflectivity GIMM @ 85° and 30 m° and 30 m, 50 mTorr Xe, 1 ns prompt, , 50 mTorr Xe, 1 ns prompt, and 1 and 1 s secondary x-ray pulselengths. Surface zone is 10 nm thick. s secondary x-ray pulselengths. Surface zone is 10 nm thick.
Full 46 MJ assumed for 2Full 46 MJ assumed for 2ndnd x-ray pulse. x-ray pulse.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
New version needed to analyze exposure of Newport mirrors (and components such as tungsten armor and dielectric mirrors):– Treatment as single, thin layer (100 nm Al) way too conservative– Treatment as thicker Al layer non-conservative due to high conductivity
Calculation agrees with experimental observations:– Removal of Al at only 0.18 J/cm2
– Can actually see plasma burn through Al layer
We have completed a multi-material versionWe have completed a multi-material versionof ABLATOR; Testing is underwayof ABLATOR; Testing is underway
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Zone #
Tem
p (
K)
t=0.4 ps
t=5 ns
t=10 ns
t=15 ns
t=20 ns
t=30 ns
t=40 ns
t=100 ns
t=200 ns
t=300 ns
t=400 ns
Aluminum Fused silica
X-ray pulse off
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Resolve optic issues: outside contractor for mandrels and LLNL-produced coatings
Spectral characterization and tuning (EUV spectrometer)
Enhance diagnostic capabilities:– Fast (<1 ns resolution) photodiode– Procure/install fast optical thermometer (from UCSD)
Add ion heating to ABLATOR
Sample testing and evaluation:– Campaign for Al to begin (actually need to reduce fluence for optics
experiments); return to tungsten once new optics are available– Explain effect of energy, number of pulses, fluence, etc.
Summary: Source characterization is completedSummary: Source characterization is completed(for now); Ready to start hitting Al samples(for now); Ready to start hitting Al samples
Back-up slides
JFL—4/03 HAPL
PLEX LLC produces a sourcePLEX LLC produces a sourcethat meets our needsthat meets our needs
Uses a Z-pinch to produce x-rays:– 1 GHz radiofrequency pulse pre-ionizes
low-pressure gas fill
– Pinch initiated by ~100 kA from thyratrons
– Operation single shot mode up to 10 Hz
Operation with Xe (11 nm, 113 eV):– 70% of output at 113 eV (tunable)
– 3 mm diameter spot
– Fluence of ≥7 J/cm2
Several million pulsesbefore minor maintenance
Star-pinchplasma
Ellipsoidalcondenser
Sampleplane
Significant Significant margin for laser-margin for laser-IFE simulationsIFE simulations
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Specification calls for <3 mm spot size, which provides >7 J/cm2
Experiments using a phosphorescent disk indicate a large (~1.5 cm) spot
Expected energy appears to be there; will be confirmed with calorimeter experiments
The ellipsoidal condenserThe ellipsoidal condenseris not performing to specificationis not performing to specification
Incoming x-rays
Zr filter (passes 7-17 nm)Phosphorescent materialReticle
CCD image of inner spot
OptiCAD spot calculation
(with MFSR)
JFL—4/03 HAPL
X-ray fluences in IFE andX-ray fluences in IFE andICF systems will be significantICF systems will be significant
Direct-drive dry-walls:
– Chamber: ~1 J/cm2
– Final optics: ~100 mJ/cm2
Indirect-drive liquid walls:
– Thick-liquid jets: ~1 kJ/cm2
– Wetted wall/vortices:30-80 J/cm2
NIF ignition targets:
– Diagnostic @ 1 m: ~40 J/cm2
– First wall @ 5 m: ~3 J/cm2
– Final optic @ 6.8 m: ~2 J/cm2
100
102
104
106
108
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
NRL targetHIF target
X-r
ay
ou
tpu
t (J
/ke
V)
Energy (keV)
Total = 6.1 MJ
Total = 115 MJ
Target output calculations (1-D LASNEX) courtesy of John Perkins, LLNL
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Photodiode signal = 4.1 V (~0.18 J/cm2);3000 pulses @ 8 Hz
JFL—4/03 HAPL
The x-ray exposure significantlyThe x-ray exposure significantlyreduced the mirror reflectivityreduced the mirror reflectivity
Reflectivity measurement averaged over a5-mm-diameter area centered over obvious damage site
NOTE: This mirror looks NOTE: This mirror looks very very different from different from what an IFE final optic would look like.what an IFE final optic would look like.
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Design can provide systems that avoid significant single-shot damage
Single-shot results are not adequate; miss:– Thermal fatigue– Surface roughening (RHEPP
results, UW analyses)– Difficult to assess very small
ablation levels
Analyses need to consider multi-shot effects; rep-rated exposures are needed
Result from UCSD
0 2 4 6 8 10time (sec)
Surface temperature
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
5000 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec)
Surface1 micron5 microns10 microns100 microns
3000
2600
2200
1800
1600
1200
600
200Ch
amb
er W
all T
emp
erat
ure
(d
eg C
)
400 MJ TargetGraphite wall @ 8.25 m radius25 mTorr Xe in chamber
154 MJ TargetTungsten wall @ 6.5 m radiusNo gas in chamber
0 2 4 6 8 10time (sec)
Surface temperature
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
5000 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec)
Surface1 micron5 microns10 microns100 microns
Surface1 micron5 microns10 microns100 microns
3000
2600
2200
1800
1600
1200
600
200Ch
amb
er W
all T
emp
erat
ure
(d
eg C
)
400 MJ TargetGraphite wall @ 8.25 m radius25 mTorr Xe in chamber
154 MJ TargetTungsten wall @ 6.5 m radiusNo gas in chamber
X-ray damage: need for rep-rated exposuresX-ray damage: need for rep-rated exposures
Single-shot results Single-shot results are not sufficientare not sufficient
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Single-shot results, (Cont’d.)Single-shot results, (Cont’d.)
Single-shot, laser-induced damage threshold is ~140 J/cm2
Multiple-shot operation is only safe at a small fraction (~40%?) of the single-shot threshold
Gradual optical degradation explained (ref: Ghoniem) as roughening caused by migration of dislocation line defects
While length scales will differ (eV vs. keV), laser/x-ray physics should be quite similar
Rep-rated x-ray damage Rep-rated x-ray damage studies are neededstudies are needed
Data courtesy of Mark Tillack, University of California at San Diego532 nm lightfluence quoted is normal to beam
JFL—4/03 HAPL
Significant damage was found throughout theSignificant damage was found throughout theunshielded region using white-light interferometryunshielded region using white-light interferometry
~250 nm removed over visible damage site
Peak-to-valley removal >500 nm
Considerable pitting throughout unshielded region(concentrated inobvious damage area)
Semi-regular“roughening” observed– seems consistentwith RHEPP results