W. Feng
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by W. Feng.
Nuclear Fusion | 2014
Lianzhou Wang; H.Y. Guo; Guosheng Xu; Shaojin Liu; Kaifu Gan; H. Q. Wang; X.Z. Gong; Y. Liang; X.L. Zou; J.S. Hu; L. Chen; Jichan Xu; J.B. Liu; N. Yan; W. Zhang; R. Chen; L. M. Shao; S. Ding; G. H. Hu; W. Feng; N. Zhao; L.Y. Xiang; Y. Liu; Yan Li; Chaofeng Sang; Jizhong Sun; Dezhen Wang; H. Ding; Guang-Nan Luo; Jianing Chen
Dedicated experiments for the scaling of divertor power footprint width have been performed in the ITER-relevant radiofrequency (RF)-heated H-mode scheme under the lower single null, double null and upper single null divertor configurations in the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) under lithium wall coating conditioning. A strong inverse scaling of the edge localized mode (ELM)-averaged power fall-off width with the plasma current (equivalently the poloidal field) has been demonstrated for the attached type-III ELMy H-mode as λq ∝ I −1.05 p by various heat flux diagnostics including the divertor Langmuir probes (LPs), infra-red (IR) thermograph and reciprocating LPs on the low-field side. The IR camera and divertor LP measurements show that λq,IR ≈ λq,div-LPs/1.3 = 1.15B −1.25 p,omp , in good agreement with the multi-machine scaling trend during the inter-ELM phase between type-I ELMs or ELM-free enhanced Dα (EDA). H-mode. However, the magnitude is nearly doubled, which may be attributed to the different operation scenarios or heating schemes in EAST, i.e., dominated by electron heating. It is also shown that the type-III ELMs only broaden the power fall-off width slightly, and the ELM-averaged width is representative for the inter-ELM period. Furthermore, the inverse Ip (Bp) scaling appears to be independent of the divertor configurations in EAST. The divertor power footprint integral width, fall-off width and dissipation width derived from EAST IR camera measurements follow the relation, λint ∼ λq +1.64S, yielding λ EAST = (1.39±0.03)λ EAST +(0.97±0.35) mm. Detailed analysis of these three characteristic widths was carried out to shed more light on their extrapolation to ITER.
Nuclear Fusion | 2016
J.B. Liu; H.Y. Guo; L. Wang; G. Xu; T.Y. Xia; S. Liu; X.Q. Xu; Jie Li; L. Chen; N. Yan; H. Q. Wang; Jichan Xu; W. Feng; L. M. Shao; G. Z. Deng; H.Q. Liu; East Probe Team
The in–out divertor asymmetry in the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), as manifested by particle fluxes measured by the divertor triple Langmuir probe arrays, is significantly enhanced during type-I edge localized modes (ELMs), favoring the inner divertor in lower single null (LSN) for the normal toroidal field (B t) direction, i.e. with the ion B × B direction towards the lower X-point, while the in–out asymmetry is reversed when the ion B × B is directed away from the lower X-point. The plasma flow measured by the Mach probe at the outer midplane is in the ion Pfirsch–Schluter (PS) flow direction, opposite to both B × B and E × B drifts, i.e. towards the inner divertor for normal B t, and the outer divertor for reverse B t, consistent with the observed in–out divertor asymmetry in particle fluxes. Since the particle source from an ELM event is predominantly located near the outer midplane, this new finding suggests a critical role of the PS flow in driving the in–out divertor asymmetry. The divertor asymmetry during type-III ELMs exhibits a similar trend to that during type-I ELMs. Strong in–out divertor asymmetry is also present during inter-ELM and ELM-free phases for the normal field direction, i.e. with more particle flux to the lower inner divertor target, but the peak particle flux merely becomes more symmetric, or slightly reversed, for reverse B t, i.e. reversed B × B drift direction.
Nuclear Fusion | 2018
M. Jia; Youwen Sun; Y. Liang; Liang Wang; Jichan Xu; Shuai Gu; B. Lyu; Hui-Hui Wang; Xu Yang; Fangchuan Zhong; Nan Chu; W. Feng; Kaiyang He; Yueqiang Liu; J. Qian; Tonghui Shi; Biao Shen
Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion | 2018
Y.F. Wang; Guosheng Xu; Baonian Wan; Guoqiang Li; N. Yan; Y. C. Li; H. Q. Wang; Y K Martin Peng; T.Y. Xia; Siye Ding; R. Chen; Qingquan Yang; Haiqing Liu; Qing Zang; Tao Zhang; B. Lyu; Jichan Xu; W. Feng; Liang Wang; Yingjie Chen; Zhengping Luo; G. H. Hu; Wei Zhang; L. M. Shao; Yang Ye; H. Lan; Liang Chen; Jie Li; Nan Zhao; Qi Wang
Nuclear Fusion | 2018
S. Xu; M. Rack; Y. Liang; Jinhua Huang; M. Jia; Y. Feng; J. Cosfeld; Houxian Zhang; S. Liu; Y. Gao; K.F. Gan; W. Feng; L. Wang; W. Zholobenko; D. Reiter
Nuclear Fusion | 2018
R. Chen; Heng Zhang; Guosheng Xu; C. Zhou; Y. C. Li; Yang Ye; Tonghui Shi; Haiqing Liu; Tao Zhang; Wei Gao; Yong Liu; B. Lyu; Qing Zang; Jichan Xu; W. Feng; Ah Di Liu; Liang Wang; J. Qian; Siye Ding; H. Q. Wang; X.Q. Wu; Qingquan Yang; G. H. Hu; Y. Liang; X.Z. Gong; Baonian Wan
Nuclear Fusion | 2018
K. Wu; Q.P. Yuan; B.J. Xiao; L. Wang; Yixiang Duan; Jiale Chen; X.W. Zheng; X.J. Liu; Bo Zhang; J. C. Xu; Z.P. Luo; Qing Zang; Y.Y. Li; W. Feng; J.H. Wu; Z.S. Yang; L. Zhang; Guang-Nan Luo; X.Z. Gong; L. Q. Hu; J.S. Hu; J. Li
Contributions To Plasma Physics | 2018
H. Xie; R. Zagórski; R. Ding; I. Ivanova-Stanik; Jizheng Chen; Qing Zang; Yixiang Duan; H. M. Zhang; B. Lyu; Yingjie Chen; W. Feng
Plasma Science & Technology | 2017
Huan Liu; Liang Wang; Xu Guosheng; Fang Ding; Jianbin Liu; Jichan Xu; W. Feng; G. Z. Deng; X.W. Zheng; Yaowei Yu; Hang Si; Haiqing Liu; Qingquan Yang; Zhen Sun; Houyang Guo
Plasma Science & Technology | 2017
G. Z. Deng; Xiaoju Liu; Liang Wang; Shaocheng Liu; Jichan Xu; W. Feng; Jianbin Liu; Huan Liu; X. Gao