Tokamak

A tokamak (/ˈtoʊkəmæk/; Russian: токамáк) is a device which uses a powerful

magnetic field generated by external magnets to confine plasma in the shape of an
axially-symmetrical torus.[1] The tokamak is one of several types of magnetic confinement devices being
developed to produce controlled thermonuclear fusion power. The tokamak concept is currently one of
the leading candidates for a practical fusion reactor.[2]

The proposal to use controlled thermonuclear fusion for industrial purposes and a specific scheme using
thermal insulation of high-temperature plasma by an electric field were first formulated by the Soviet
physicist Oleg Lavrentiev in a mid-1950 paper.[3] In 1951, Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm proposed to
modify the scheme by proposing a theoretical basis for a thermonuclear reactor, where the plasma
would have the shape of a torus and be held by a magnetic field.[4]

The first tokamak was built in 1954,[5] and for a long time it existed only in the USSR. In 1968 the
electronic plasma temperature of 1 keV was reached on the tokamak T-3, built at the I. V. Kurchatov
Institute of Atomic Energy under the leadership of academician L. A. Artsimovich.[6][7][8] British
scientists from the laboratory in Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (Nicol Peacock et al.) came to the
USSR with their equipment,[9] made measurements on the T-3 and confirmed the results,[10][11] which
they had originally viewed with great scepticism. This development spurred a worldwide tokamak boom.
It had been demonstrated that a stable plasma equilibrium requires magnetic field lines that wind
around the torus in a helix. Devices like the z-pinch and stellarator had attempted this, but
demonstrated serious instabilities. It was the development of the concept now known as the safety factor
(labelled q in mathematical notation) that guided tokamak development; by arranging the reactor so
this critical factor q was always greater than 1, the tokamaks strongly suppressed the instabilities which
plagued earlier designs.

By the mid-1960s, the tokamak designs began to show greatly improved performance. The initial results
were released in 1965, but were ignored; Lyman Spitzer dismissed them out of hand after noting
potential problems in their system for measuring temperatures. A second set of results was published in
1968, this time claiming performance far in advance of any other machine. When these were also met
skeptically, the Soviets invited a delegation from the United Kingdom to make their own measurements.
These confirmed the Soviet results, and their 1969 publication resulted in a stampede of tokamak
construction.

By the mid-1970s, dozens of tokamaks were in use around the world. By the late 1970s, these machines
had reached all of the conditions needed for practical fusion, although not at the same time nor in a
single reactor. With the goal of breakeven (a fusion energy gain factor equal to 1) now in sight, a new
series of machines were designed that would run on a fusion fuel of deuterium and tritium. These
machines, notably the Joint European Torus (JET) and Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), had the
explicit goal of reaching breakeven.

Instead, these machines demonstrated new problems that limited their performance. Solving these
would require a much larger and more expensive machine, beyond the abilities of any one country. After
an initial agreement between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in November 1985, the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) effort emerged and remains the primary
international effort to develop practical fusion power. Many smaller designs, and offshoots like the
spherical tokamak, continue to be used to investigate performance parameters and other issues. As of
2024, JET remains the record holder for fusion output, with 69 MJ of energy output over a 5-second
period.[12]
Etymology
The word tokamak is a transliteration of the Russian word токамак, an acronym of either:

тороидальная камера с магнитными катушками

toroidal'naya kamera s magnitnymi katushkami
toroidal chamber with magnetic coils;

or

тороидальная камера с аксиальным магнитным полем

toroidal'naya kamera s aksial'nym magnitnym polem
toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field.[13]

The term "tokamak" was coined in 1957[14] by Igor Golovin, a student of academician Igor Kurchatov. It
originally sounded like "tokamag" ("токамаг") — an acronym of the words «toroidal chamber
magnetic» («тороидальная камера магнитная»), but Natan Yavlinsky, the author of the first toroidal
system, proposed replacing "-mag" with "-mak" for euphony.[15] Later, this name was borrowed by many
languages.

History

First steps
In 1934, Mark Oliphant, Paul Harteck and Ernest Rutherford were the first
to achieve fusion on Earth, using a particle accelerator to shoot deuterium
nuclei into metal foil containing deuterium or other atoms.[16] This allowed
them to measure the nuclear cross section of various fusion reactions, and
determined that the deuterium–deuterium reaction occurred at a lower
energy than other reactions, peaking at about 100,000 electronvolts
(100 keV).[17][a]

Accelerator-based fusion is not practical because the reactor cross section is

tiny; most of the particles in the accelerator will scatter off the fuel, not fuse
A USSR stamp, 1987:
with it. These scatterings cause the particles to lose energy to the point
Tokamak thermonuclear
where they can no longer undergo fusion. The energy put into these system
particles is thus lost, and it is easy to demonstrate this is much more energy
than the resulting fusion reactions can release.[19]

To maintain fusion and produce net energy output, the bulk of the fuel must be raised to high
temperatures so its atoms are constantly colliding at high speed; this gives rise to the name
thermonuclear due to the high temperatures needed to bring it about. In 1944, Enrico Fermi calculated
the reaction would be self-sustaining at about 50,000,000 K; at that temperature, the rate that energy is
given off by the reactions is high enough that they heat the surrounding fuel rapidly enough to maintain
the temperature against losses to the environment, continuing the reaction.[19]

During the Manhattan Project, the first practical way to reach these temperatures was created, using an
atomic bomb. In 1944, Fermi gave a talk on the physics of fusion in the context of a then-hypothetical
hydrogen bomb. However, some thought had already been given to a controlled fusion device, and
James L. Tuck and Stanislaw Ulam had attempted such using shaped charges driving a metal foil
infused with deuterium, although without success.[20]
The first attempts to build a practical fusion machine took place in the United Kingdom, where George
Paget Thomson had selected the pinch effect as a promising technique in 1945. After several failed
attempts to gain funding, he gave up and asked two graduate students, Stanley (Stan) W. Cousins and
Alan Alfred Ware (1924–2010[21]), to build a device out of surplus radar equipment. This was
successfully operated in 1948, but showed no clear evidence of fusion and failed to gain the interest of
the Atomic Energy Research Establishment.[22]

Lavrentiev's letter
In 1950, Oleg Lavrentiev, then a Red Army sergeant stationed on Sakhalin, wrote a letter to the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The letter outlined the idea of using an atomic
bomb to ignite a fusion fuel, and then went on to describe a system that used electrostatic fields to
contain a hot plasma in a steady state for energy production.[23][24][b]

The letter was sent to Andrei Sakharov for comment. Sakharov noted that "the author formulates a very
important and not necessarily hopeless problem", and found his main concern in the arrangement was
that the plasma would hit the electrode wires, and that "wide meshes and a thin current-carrying part
which will have to reflect almost all incident nuclei back into the reactor. In all likelihood, this
requirement is incompatible with the mechanical strength of the device."[23]

Some indication of the importance given to Lavrentiev's letter can be seen in the speed with which it was
processed; the letter was received by the Central Committee on 29 July, Sakharov sent his review in on
18 August, by October, Sakharov and Igor Tamm had completed the first detailed study of a fusion
reactor, and they had asked for funding to build it in January 1951.[25]

Magnetic confinement
When heated to fusion temperatures, the electrons in atoms dissociate, resulting in a fluid of nuclei and
electrons known as plasma. Unlike electrically neutral atoms, a plasma is electrically conductive, and
can, therefore, be manipulated by electrical or magnetic fields.[26]

Sakharov's concern about the electrodes led him to consider using magnetic confinement instead of
electrostatic. In the case of a magnetic field, the particles will circle around the lines of force.[26] As the
particles are moving at high speed, their resulting paths look like a helix. If one arranges a magnetic field
so lines of force are parallel and close together, the particles orbiting adjacent lines may collide, and
fuse.[27]

Such a field can be created in a solenoid, a cylinder with magnets wrapped around the outside. The
combined fields of the magnets create a set of parallel magnetic lines running down the length of the
cylinder. This arrangement prevents the particles from moving sideways to the wall of the cylinder, but
it does not prevent them from running out the end. The obvious solution to this problem is to bend the
cylinder around into a donut shape, or torus, so that the lines form a series of continual rings. In this
arrangement, the particles circle endlessly.[27]

Sakharov discussed the concept with Igor Tamm, and by the end of October 1950 the two had written a
proposal and sent it to Igor Kurchatov, the director of the atomic bomb project within the USSR, and his
deputy, Igor Golovin.[27] However, this initial proposal ignored a fundamental problem; when arranged
along a straight solenoid, the external magnets are evenly spaced, but when bent around into a torus,
they are closer together on the inside of the ring than the outside. This leads to uneven forces that cause
the particles to drift away from their magnetic lines.[28][29]
During visits to the Laboratory of Measuring Instruments of the USSR Academy of Sciences (LIPAN),
the Soviet nuclear research centre, Sakharov suggested two possible solutions to this problem. One was
to suspend a current-carrying ring in the centre of the torus. The current in the ring would produce a
magnetic field that would mix with the one from the magnets on the outside. The resulting field would
be twisted into a helix, so that any given particle would find itself repeatedly on the outside, then inside,
of the torus. The drifts caused by the uneven fields are in opposite directions on the inside and outside,
so over the course of multiple orbits around the long axis of the torus, the opposite drifts would cancel
out. Alternately, he suggested using an external magnet to induce a current in the plasma itself, instead
of a separate metal ring, which would have the same effect.[28]

In January 1951, Kurchatov arranged a meeting at LIPAN to consider Sakharov's concepts. They found
widespread interest and support, and in February a report on the topic was forwarded to Lavrentiy
Beria, who oversaw the atomic efforts in the USSR. For a time, nothing was heard back.[28]

Richter and the birth of fusion research

On 25 March 1951, Argentine President Juan Perón
announced that a former German scientist, Ronald
Richter, had succeeded in producing fusion at a
laboratory scale as part of what is now known as the
Huemul Project. Scientists around the world were
excited by the announcement, but soon concluded it
was not true; simple calculations showed that his
experimental setup could not produce enough energy
to heat the fusion fuel to the needed temperatures.
[30]
Ronald Richter (left) with Juan Domingo Perón (right).
Richter's claims sparked off fusion research around the
Although dismissed by nuclear researchers, the world.
widespread news coverage meant politicians were
suddenly aware of, and receptive to, fusion research.
In the UK, Thomson was suddenly granted considerable funding. Over the next months, two projects
based on the pinch system were up and running.[31] In the US, Lyman Spitzer read the Huemul story,
realized it was false, and set about designing a machine that would work.[32] In May he was awarded
$50,000 to begin research on his stellarator concept.[33] Jim Tuck had returned to the UK briefly and
saw Thomson's pinch machines. When he returned to Los Alamos he also received $50,000 directly
from the Los Alamos budget.[34]

Similar events occurred in the USSR. In mid-April, Dmitri Efremov of the Scientific Research Institute
of Electrophysical Apparatus stormed into Kurchatov's study with a magazine containing a story about
Richter's work, demanding to know why they were beaten by the Argentines. Kurchatov immediately
contacted Beria with a proposal to set up a separate fusion research laboratory with Lev Artsimovich as
director. Only days later, on 5 May, the proposal had been signed by Joseph Stalin.[28]

New ideas
By October, Sakharov and Tamm had completed a much more detailed consideration of their original
proposal, calling for a device with a major radius (of the torus as a whole) of 12 metres (39 ft) and a
minor radius (the interior of the cylinder) of 2 metres (6 ft 7 in). The proposal suggested the system
could produce 100 grams (3.5 oz) of tritium a day, or breed 10 kilograms (22 lb) of U233 a day.[28]

As the idea was further developed, it was realized that a current in the plasma could create a field that
was strong enough to confine the plasma as well, removing the need
for the external coils.[35] At this point, the Soviet researchers had re-
invented the pinch system being developed in the UK,[20] although
they had come to this design from a very different starting point.

Once the idea of using the pinch effect for confinement had been
proposed, a much simpler solution became evident. Instead of a
large toroid, one could simply induce the current into a linear tube,
which could cause the plasma within to collapse down into a
filament. This had a huge advantage; the current in the plasma
would heat it through normal resistive heating, but this would not
heat the plasma to fusion temperatures. However, as the plasma
collapsed, the adiabatic process would result in the temperature
rising dramatically, more than enough for fusion. With this Red plasma in EAST, with visible
development, only Golovin and Natan Yavlinsky continued light radiation dominated by the
considering the more static toroidal arrangement.[35] hydrogen alpha line emitting 656 nm
light.

Instability
On 4 July 1952, Nikolai Filippov's group measured neutrons being released from a linear pinch machine.
Lev Artsimovich demanded that they check everything before concluding fusion had occurred, and
during these checks, they found that the neutrons were not from fusion at all.[35] This same linear
arrangement had also occurred to researchers in the UK and US, and their machines showed the same
behaviour. But the great secrecy surrounding the type of research meant that none of the groups were
aware that others were also working on it, let alone having the identical problem.[36]

After much study, it was found that some of the released neutrons were produced by instabilities in the
plasma. There were two common types of instability, the sausage that was seen primarily in linear
machines, and the kink which was most common in the toroidal machines.[36] Groups in all three
countries began studying the formation of these instabilities and potential ways to address them.[37]
Important contributions to the field were made by Martin David Kruskal and Martin Schwarzschild in
the US, and Shafranov in the USSR.[38]

One idea that came from these studies became known as the "stabilized pinch". This concept added
additional coils to the outside of the chamber, which created a magnetic field that would be present in
the plasma before the pinch discharge. In most concepts, the externally induced field was relatively
weak, and because a plasma is diamagnetic, it penetrated only the outer areas of the plasma.[36] When
the pinch discharge occurred and the plasma quickly contracted, this field became "frozen in" to the
resulting filament, creating a strong field in its outer layers. In the US, this was known as "giving the
plasma a backbone".[39]

Sakharov revisited his original toroidal concepts and came to a slightly different conclusion about how
to stabilize the plasma. The layout would be the same as the stabilized pinch concept, but the role of the
two fields would be reversed. Instead of weak externally induced magnetic fields providing stabilization
and a strong pinch current responsible for confinement, in the new layout, the external field would be
much more powerful in order to provide the majority of confinement, while the current would be much
smaller and responsible for the stabilizing effect.[35]

Steps toward declassification

In 1955, with the linear approaches still subject to instability, the first toroidal device was built in the
USSR. TMP was a classic pinch machine, similar to models in the
UK and US of the same era. The vacuum chamber was made of
ceramic, and the spectra of the discharges showed silica, meaning
the plasma was not perfectly confined by magnetic field and hitting
the walls of the chamber.[35] Two smaller machines followed, using
copper shells.[40] The conductive shells were intended to help
stabilize the plasma, but were not completely successful in any of the
machines that tried it.[41]
Khrushchev (roughly centred, bald),
With progress apparently stalled, in 1955, Kurchatov called an All
Kurchatov (to the right, bearded),
Union conference of Soviet researchers with the ultimate aim of
and Bulganin (to the right, white-
opening up fusion research within the USSR.[42] In April 1956, haired) visited Harwell on 26 April
Kurchatov travelled to the UK as part of a widely publicized visit by 1956. Cockcroft stands across from
Nikita Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin. He offered to give a talk at them (in glasses), while a presenter
Atomic Energy Research Establishment, at the former RAF Harwell, points to mockups of various
where he shocked the hosts by presenting a detailed historical materials being tested in the newly
opened DIDO reactor.
overview of the Soviet fusion efforts.[43] He took time to note, in
particular, the neutrons seen in early machines and warned that
neutrons did not mean fusion.[44]

Unknown to Kurchatov, the British ZETA stabilized pinch machine was being built at the far end of the
former runway. ZETA was, by far, the largest and most powerful fusion machine to date. Supported by
experiments on earlier designs that had been modified to include stabilization, ZETA intended to
produce low levels of fusion reactions. This was apparently a great success, and in January 1958, they
announced the fusion had been achieved in ZETA based on the release of neutrons and measurements of
the plasma temperature.[45]

Vitaly Shafranov and Stanislav Braginskii examined the news reports and attempted to figure out how it
worked. One possibility they considered was the use of weak "frozen in" fields, but rejected this,
believing the fields would not last long enough. They then concluded ZETA was essentially identical to
the devices they had been studying, with strong external fields.[43]

First tokamaks
By this time, Soviet researchers had decided to build a larger toroidal machine along the lines suggested
by Sakharov. In particular, their design considered one important point found in Kruskal's and
Shafranov's works; if the helical path of the particles made them circulate around the plasma's
circumference more rapidly than they circulated the long axis of the torus, the kink instability would be
strongly suppressed.[37]

(To be clear, Electrical current in coils wrapping around the torus produces a toroidal magnetic field
inside the torus; a pulsed magnetic field through the hole in the torus induces the axial current in the
torus which has a poloidal magnetic field surrounding it; there may also be rings of current above and
below the torus that create additional poloidal magnetic field. The combined magnetic fields form a
helical magnetic structure inside the torus.)

Today this basic concept is known as the safety factor. The ratio of the number of times the particle
orbits the major axis compared to the minor axis is denoted q, and the Kruskal-Shafranov Limit stated
that the kink will be suppressed as long as q > 1. This path is controlled by the relative strengths of the
externally induced magnetic field compared to the field created by the internal current. To have q > 1,
the external magnets must be much more powerful, or alternatively, the internal current has to be
reduced.[37]

Following this criterion, design began on a new reactor, T-1, which today is known as the first real
tokamak.[40] T-1 used both stronger external magnetic fields and a reduced current compared to
stabilized pinch machines like ZETA. The success of the T-1 resulted in its recognition as the first
working tokamak.[46][47][48][49] For his work on "powerful impulse discharges in a gas, to obtain
unusually high temperatures needed for thermonuclear processes", Yavlinskii was awarded the Lenin
Prize and the Stalin Prize in 1958. Yavlinskii was already preparing the design of an even larger model,
later built as T-3. With the apparently successful ZETA announcement, Yavlinskii's concept was viewed
very favourably.[43][50]

Details of ZETA became public in a series of articles in Nature later in January. To Shafranov's surprise,
the system did use the "frozen in" field concept.[43] He remained sceptical, but a team at the Ioffe
Institute in St. Petersberg began plans to build a similar machine known as Alpha. Only a few months
later, in May, the ZETA team issued a release stating they had not achieved fusion, and that they had
been misled by erroneous measures of the plasma temperature.[51]

T-1 began operation at the end of 1958.[52][c] It demonstrated very high energy losses through radiation.
This was traced to impurities in the plasma due to the vacuum system causing outgassing from the
container materials. In order to explore solutions to this problem, another small device was constructed,
T-2. This used an internal liner of corrugated metal that was baked at 550 °C (1,022 °F) to cook off
trapped gasses.[52]

Atoms for Peace and the doldrums

As part of the second Atoms for Peace meeting in Geneva in September 1958, the Soviet delegation
released many papers covering their fusion research. Among them was a set of initial results on their
toroidal machines, which at that point had shown nothing of note.[53]

The "star" of the show was a large model of Spitzer's stellarator, which immediately caught the attention
of the Soviets. In contrast to their designs, the stellarator produced the required twisted paths in the
plasma without driving a current through it, using a series of external coils (producing internal magnetic
fields) that could operate in the steady state rather than the pulses of the induction system that
produced the axial current. Kurchatov began asking Yavlinskii to change their T-3 design to a stellarator,
but they convinced him that the current provided a useful second role in heating, something the
stellarator lacked.[53]

At the time of the show, the stellarator had suffered a long string of minor problems that were just being
solved. Solving these revealed that the diffusion rate of the plasma was much faster than theory
predicted. Similar problems were seen in all the contemporary designs, for one reason or another. The
stellarator, various pinch concepts and the magnetic mirror machines in both the US and USSR all
demonstrated problems that limited their confinement times.[52]

From the first studies of controlled fusion, there was a problem lurking in the background. During the
Manhattan Project, David Bohm had been part of the team working on isotopic separation of uranium.
In the post-war era he continued working with plasmas in magnetic fields. Using basic theory, one
would expect the plasma to diffuse across the lines of force at a rate inversely proportional to the square
of the strength of the field, meaning that small increases in force would greatly improve confinement.
But based on their experiments, Bohm developed an empirical formula, now known as Bohm diffusion,
that suggested the rate was linear with the magnetic force, not its square.[54]
If Bohm's formula was correct, there was no hope one could build a fusion reactor based on magnetic
confinement. To confine the plasma at the temperatures needed for fusion, the magnetic field would
have to be orders of magnitude greater than any known magnet. Spitzer ascribed the difference between
the Bohm and classical diffusion rates to turbulence in the plasma,[55] and believed the steady fields of
the stellarator would not suffer from this problem. Various experiments at that time suggested the Bohm
rate did not apply, and that the classical formula was correct.[54]

But by the early 1960s, with all of the various designs leaking plasma at a prodigious rate, Spitzer
himself concluded that the Bohm scaling was an inherent quality of plasmas, and that magnetic
confinement would not work.[52] The entire field descended into what became known as "the doldrums",
[56] a period of intense pessimism.[35]

Progress in the 1960s

In contrast to the other designs, the experimental tokamaks appeared to be progressing well, so well that
a minor theoretical problem was now a real concern. In the presence of gravity, there is a small pressure
gradient in the plasma, formerly small enough to ignore but now becoming something that had to be
addressed. This led to the addition of yet another set of coils in 1962, which produced a vertical
magnetic field that offset these effects. These were a success, and by the mid-1960s the machines began
to show signs that they were beating the Bohm limit.[57]

At the 1965 Second International Atomic Energy Agency Conference on fusion at the UK's newly opened
Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Artsimovich reported that their systems were surpassing the Bohm
limit by 10 times. Spitzer, reviewing the presentations, suggested that the Bohm limit may still apply;
the results were within the range of experimental error of results seen on the stellarators, and the
temperature measurements, based on the magnetic fields, were simply not trustworthy.[57]

The next major international fusion meeting was held in August 1968 in Novosibirsk. By this time two
additional tokamak designs had been completed, TM-2 in 1965, and T-4 in 1968. Results from T-3 had
continued to improve, and similar results were coming from early tests of the new reactors. At the
meeting, the Soviet delegation announced that T-3 was producing electron temperatures of 1000 eV
(equivalent to 10 million degrees Celsius) and that confinement time was at least 50 times the Bohm
limit.[58]

These results were at least 10 times that of any other machine. If correct, they represented an enormous
leap for the fusion community. Spitzer remained skeptical, noting that the temperature measurements
were still based on the indirect calculations from the magnetic properties of the plasma. Many
concluded they were due to an effect known as runaway electrons, and that the Soviets were measuring
only those extremely energetic electrons and not the bulk temperature. The Soviets countered with
several arguments suggesting the temperature they were measuring was Maxwellian, and the debate
raged.[59]

Culham Five
In the aftermath of ZETA, the UK teams began the development of new plasma diagnostic tools to
provide more accurate measurements. Among these was the use of a laser to directly measure the
temperature of the bulk electrons using Thomson scattering. This technique was well known and
respected in the fusion community;[60] Artsimovich had publicly called it "brilliant". Artsimovich invited
Bas Pease, the head of Culham, to use their devices on the Soviet reactors. At the height of the cold war,
in what is still considered a major political manoeuvre on Artsimovich's part, British physicists were
allowed to visit the Kurchatov Institute, the heart of the Soviet nuclear bomb effort.[61]
The British team, nicknamed "The Culham Five",[62] arrived late in 1968. After a lengthy installation
and calibration process, the team measured the temperatures over a period of many experimental runs.
Initial results were available by August 1969; the Soviets were correct, their results were accurate. The
team phoned the results home to Culham, who then passed them along in a confidential phone call to
Washington.[63] The final results were published in Nature in November 1969.[64] The results of this
announcement have been described as a "veritable stampede" of tokamak construction around the
world.[65]

One serious problem remained. Because the electrical current in the plasma was much lower and
produced much less compression than a pinch machine, this meant the temperature of the plasma was
limited to the resistive heating rate of the current. First proposed in 1950, Spitzer resistivity stated that
the electrical resistance of a plasma was reduced as the temperature increased,[66] meaning the heating
rate of the plasma would slow as the devices improved and temperatures were pressed higher.
Calculations demonstrated that the resulting maximum temperatures while staying within q > 1 would
be limited to the low millions of degrees. Artsimovich had been quick to point this out in Novosibirsk,
stating that future progress would require new heating methods to be developed.[67]

US turmoil
One of the people attending the Novosibirsk meeting in 1968 was Amasa Stone Bishop, one of the
leaders of the US fusion program. One of the few other devices to show clear evidence of beating the
Bohm limit at that time was the multipole concept. Both Lawrence Livermore and the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL), home of Spitzer's stellarator, were building variations on the multipole
design. While moderately successful on their own, T-3 greatly outperformed either machine. Bishop was
concerned that the multipoles were redundant and thought the US should consider a tokamak of its
own.[68]

When he raised the issue at a December 1968 meeting, directors of the labs refused to consider it.
Melvin B. Gottlieb of Princeton was exasperated, asking "Do you think that this committee can out-think
the scientists?"[69] With the major labs demanding they control their own research, one lab found itself
left out. Oak Ridge had originally entered the fusion field with studies for reactor fueling systems, but
branched out into a mirror program of their own. By the mid-1960s, their DCX designs were running
out of ideas, offering nothing that the similar program at the more prestigious and politically powerful
Livermore did not. This made them highly receptive to new concepts.[70]

After a considerable internal debate, Herman Postma formed a small group in early 1969 to consider the
tokamak.[70] They came up with a new design, later christened Ormak, that had several novel features.
Primary among them was the way the external field was created in a single large copper block, fed power
from a large transformer below the torus. This was as opposed to traditional designs that used electric
current windings on the outside. They felt the single block would produce a much more uniform field. It
would also have the advantage of allowing the torus to have a smaller major radius, lacking the need to
route cables through the donut hole, leading to a lower aspect ratio, which the Soviets had already
suggested would produce better results.[71]

Tokamak race in the US

In early 1969, Artsimovich visited MIT, where he was hounded by those interested in fusion. He finally
agreed to give several lectures in April[67] and then allowed lengthy question-and-answer sessions. As
these went on, MIT itself grew interested in the tokamak, having previously stayed out of the fusion field
for a variety of reasons. Bruno Coppi was at MIT at the time, and following the same concepts as
Postma's team, came up with his own low-aspect-ratio concept, Alcator. Instead of Ormak's toroidal
transformer, Alcator used traditional ring-shaped magnetic field coils but required them to be much
smaller than existing designs. MIT's Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory was the world leader in magnet
design and they were confident they could build them.[67]

During 1969, two additional groups entered the field. At General Atomics, Tihiro Ohkawa had been
developing multipole reactors, and submitted a concept based on these ideas. This was a tokamak that
would have a non-circular plasma cross-section; the same math that suggested a lower aspect-ratio
would improve performance also suggested that a C or D-shaped plasma would do the same. He called
the new design Doublet.[72] Meanwhile, a group at University of Texas at Austin was proposing a
relatively simple tokamak to explore heating the plasma through deliberately induced turbulence, the
Texas Turbulent Tokamak.[73]

When the members of the Atomic Energy Commissions' Fusion Steering Committee met again in June
1969, they had "tokamak proposals coming out of our ears".[73] The only major lab working on a toroidal
design that was not proposing a tokamak was Princeton, who refused to consider it in spite of their
Model C stellarator being just about perfect for such a conversion. They continued to offer a long list of
reasons why the Model C should not be converted. When these were questioned, a furious debate broke
out about whether the Soviet results were reliable.[73]

Watching the debate take place, Gottlieb had a change of heart. There was no point moving forward with
the tokamak if the Soviet electron temperature measurements were not accurate, so he formulated a
plan to either prove or disprove their results. While swimming in the pool during the lunch break, he
told Harold Furth his plan, to which Furth replied: "well, maybe you're right."[63] After lunch, the
various teams presented their designs, at which point Gottlieb presented his idea for a "stellarator-
tokamak" based on the Model C.[63]

The Standing Committee noted that this system could be complete in six months, while Ormak would
take a year.[63] It was only a short time later that the confidential results from the Culham Five were
released. When they met again in October, the Standing Committee released funding for all of these
proposals. The Model C's new configuration, soon named Symmetrical Tokamak, intended to simply
verify the Soviet results, while the others would explore ways to go well beyond T-3.[74]

Heating: US takes the lead

Experiments on the Symmetric Tokamak began in
May 1970, and by early the next year they had
confirmed the Soviet results and then surpassed
them. The stellarator was abandoned, and PPPL
turned its considerable expertise to the problem of
heating the plasma. Two concepts seemed to hold
promise. PPPL proposed using magnetic
compression, a pinch-like technique to compress a
warm plasma to raise its temperature, but providing
that compression through magnets rather than
current.[75] Oak Ridge suggested neutral beam
injection, small particle accelerators that would
Overhead view of the Princeton Large Torus in 1975.
shoot fuel atoms through the surrounding magnetic
PLT set numerous records and demonstrated that the
field where they would collide with the plasma and temperatures needed for fusion were possible.
heat it.[76]

PPPL's Adiabatic Toroidal Compressor (ATC) began operation in May 1972, followed shortly thereafter
by a neutral-beam equipped Ormak. Both demonstrated significant problems, but PPPL leapt past Oak
Ridge by fitting beam injectors to ATC and provided clear evidence of successful heating in 1973. This
success "scooped" Oak Ridge, who fell from favour within the Washington Steering Committee.[77]

By this time a much larger design based on beam heating was under construction, the Princeton Large
Torus, or PLT. PLT was designed specifically to "give a clear indication whether the tokamak concept
plus auxiliary heating can form a basis for a future fusion reactor".[78] PLT was an enormous success,
continually raising its internal temperature until it hit 60 million Celsius (8,000 eV, eight times T-3's
record) in 1978. This is a key point in the development of the tokamak; fusion reactions become self-
sustaining at temperatures between 50 and 100 million Celsius, PLT demonstrated that this was
technically achievable.[78]

These experiments, especially PLT, put the US far in the lead in tokamak research. This is due largely to
budget; a tokamak cost about $500,000 and the US annual fusion budget was around $25 million at
that time.[58] They could afford to explore all of the promising methods of heating, ultimately
discovering neutral beams to be among the most effective.[79]

During this period, Robert Hirsch took over the Directorate of fusion development in the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission. Hirsch felt that the program could not be sustained at its current funding levels
without demonstrating tangible results. He began to reformulate the entire program. What had once
been a lab-led effort of mostly scientific exploration was now a Washington-led effort to build a working
power-producing reactor.[79] This was given a boost by the 1973 oil crisis, which led to greatly increased
research into alternative energy systems.[80]

1980s: great hope, great disappointment

By the late-1970s, tokamaks had reached all the
conditions needed for a practical fusion reactor; in
1978 PLT had demonstrated ignition temperatures,
the next year the Soviet T-7 successfully used
superconducting magnets for the first time,[81]
Doublet proved to be a success and led to almost all
future designs adopting this "shaped plasma"
approach. It appeared all that was needed to build a
power-producing reactor was to put all of these
design concepts into a single machine, one that
would be capable of running with the radioactive
tritium in its fuel mix.[82]

The race was on. During the 1970s, four major The Joint European Torus (JET), the largest currently
operating tokamak, which has been in operation since
second-generation proposals were funded
1983
worldwide. The Soviets continued their development
lineage with the T-15,[81] while a pan-European
effort was developing the Joint European Torus (JET) and Japan began the JT-60 effort (originally
known as the "Breakeven Plasma Test Facility"). In the US, Hirsch began formulating plans for a similar
design, skipping over proposals for another stepping-stone design directly to a tritium-burning one. This
emerged as the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), run directly from Washington and not linked to
any specific lab.[82] Originally favouring Oak Ridge as the host, Hirsch moved it to PPPL after others
convinced him they would work the hardest on it because they had the most to lose.[83]

The excitement was so widespread that several commercial ventures to produce commercial tokamaks
began around this time. Best known among these, in 1978, Bob Guccione, publisher of Penthouse
Magazine, met Robert Bussard and became the world's biggest and most committed private investor in
fusion technology, ultimately putting $20 million of his own money into Bussard's Compact Tokamak.
Funding by the Riggs Bank led to this effort being known as the Riggatron.[84]

TFTR won the construction race and began operation in 1982, followed shortly by JET in 1983 and
JT-60 in 1985. JET quickly took the lead in critical experiments, moving from test gases to deuterium
and increasingly powerful "shots". But it soon became clear that none of the new systems were working
as expected. A host of new instabilities appeared, along with a number of more practical problems that
continued to interfere with their performance. On top of this, dangerous "excursions" of the plasma
hitting with the walls of the reactor were evident in both TFTR and JET. Even when working perfectly,
plasma confinement at fusion temperatures, the so-called "fusion triple product", continued to be far
below what would be needed for a practical reactor design.

Through the mid-1980s the reasons for many of these problems became clear, and various solutions
were offered. However, these would significantly increase the size and complexity of the machines. A
follow-on design incorporating these changes would be both enormous and vastly more expensive than
either JET or TFTR. A new period of pessimism descended on the fusion field.

ITER
At the same time these experiments were
demonstrating problems, much of the impetus for
the US's massive funding disappeared; in 1986
Ronald Reagan declared the 1970s energy crisis was
over,[85] and funding for advanced energy sources
had been slashed in the early 1980s.

Some thought of an international reactor design had

been ongoing since June 1973 under the name
INTOR, for INternational TOkamak Reactor. This
was originally started through an agreement between
Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, but had been
moving slowly since its first real meeting on 23
November 1978.[86]

During the Geneva Summit in November 1985,

Reagan raised the issue with Mikhail Gorbachev and
Cutaway diagram of the International Thermonuclear
proposed reforming the organization. "... The two Experimental Reactor (ITER) the largest tokamak in
leaders emphasized the potential importance of the the world, which began construction in 2013 and is
work aimed at utilizing controlled thermonuclear projected to begin full operation in 2035. It is intended
fusion for peaceful purposes and, in this connection, as a demonstration that a practical fusion reactor is
advocated the widest practicable development of possible, and will produce 500 megawatts of power.
Blue human figure at bottom shows scale.
international cooperation in obtaining this source of
energy, which is essentially inexhaustible, for the
benefit for all mankind."[87]

The next year, an agreement was signed between the US, Soviet Union, European Union and Japan,
creating the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor organization.[88][89]

Design work began in 1988, and since that time the ITER reactor has been the primary tokamak design
effort worldwide.

High Field Tokamaks

It has been known for a long time that stronger field magnets would enable high energy gain in a much
smaller tokamak, with concepts such as FIRE, IGNITOR (https://fire.pppl.gov/snowmass02.html), and
the Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT) being proposed decades ago.

The commercial availability of high temperature superconductors (HTS) in the 2010s opened a
promising pathway to building the higher field magnets required to achieve ITER-like levels of energy
gain in a compact device. To leverage this new technology, the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(PSFC) and MIT spinout Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) successfully built and tested the
Toroidal Field Model Coil (TFMC) (https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusio
n-energy-0908) in 2021 to demonstrate the necessary 20 Tesla magnetic field needed to build SPARC, a
device designed to achieve a similar fusion gain as ITER but with only ~1/40th ITER's plasma volume.

British startup Tokamak Energy is also planning on building a net-energy tokamak using HTS magnets,
but with the spherical tokamak variant.

The joint EU/Japan JT-60SA reactor achieved first plasma on October 23, 2023, after a two year delay
caused by an electrical short.[90][91]

Design

Basic problem
Positively charged ions and negatively charged
electrons in a fusion plasma are at very high
temperatures, and have correspondingly large
velocities. In order to maintain the fusion process,
particles from the hot plasma must be confined in
the central region, or the plasma will rapidly cool.
Magnetic confinement fusion devices exploit the fact
that charged particles in a magnetic field experience
a Lorentz force and follow helical paths along the
field lines.[92] Magnetic fields in a tokamak

The simplest magnetic confinement system is a

solenoid. A plasma in a solenoid will spiral about the lines of field running down its center, preventing
motion towards the sides. However, this does not prevent motion towards the ends. The obvious
solution is to bend the solenoid around into a circle, forming a torus. However, it was demonstrated that
such an arrangement is not uniform; for purely geometric reasons, the field on the outside edge of the
torus is lower than on the inside edge. This asymmetry causes the electrons and ions to drift across the
field, and eventually hit the walls of the torus.[29]

The solution is to shape the lines so they do not simply run around the torus, but twist around like the
stripes on a barber pole or candycane. In such a field any single particle will find itself at the outside
edge where it will drift one way, say up, and then as it follows its magnetic line around the torus it will
find itself on the inside edge, where it will drift the other way. This cancellation is not perfect, but
calculations showed it was enough to allow the fuel to remain in the reactor for a useful time.[92]
Tokamak solution
The two first solutions to making a design with the required twist were the
stellarator which did so through a mechanical arrangement, twisting the
entire torus, and the z-pinch design which ran an electrical current through
the plasma to create a second magnetic field to the same end. Both
demonstrated improved confinement times compared to a simple torus, but
both also demonstrated a variety of effects that caused the plasma to be lost
from the reactors at rates that were not sustainable.

The tokamak is essentially identical to the z-pinch concept in its physical

layout.[93] Its key innovation was the realization that the instabilities that
were causing the pinch to lose its plasma could be controlled. The issue was
how "twisty" the fields were; fields that caused the particles to transit inside
and out more than once per orbit around the long axis torus were much
more stable than devices that had less twist. This ratio of twists to orbits
became known as the safety factor, denoted q. Previous devices operated at Tokamak magnetic field and
q about 1⁄3, while the tokamak operates at q ≫ 1. This increases stability by current. Shown is the
orders of magnitude. toroidal field and the coils
(blue) that produce it, the
When the problem is considered even more closely, the need for a vertical plasma current (red) and
the poloidal field created by
(parallel to the axis of rotation) component of the magnetic field arises. The
it, and the resulting twisted
Lorentz force of the toroidal plasma current in the vertical field provides the
field when these are
inward force that holds the plasma torus in equilibrium. overlaid.

Other issues
While the tokamak addresses the issue of plasma stability in a gross sense, plasmas are also subject to a
number of dynamic instabilities. One of these, the kink instability, is strongly suppressed by the
tokamak layout, a side-effect of the high safety factors of tokamaks. The lack of kinks allowed the
tokamak to operate at much higher temperatures than previous machines, and this allowed a host of
new phenomena to appear.

One of these, the banana orbits, is caused by the wide range of particle energies in a tokamak – much of
the fuel is hot, but a certain percentage is much cooler. Due to the high twist of the fields in the tokamak,
particles following their lines of force rapidly move towards the inner edge and then outer. As they move
inward they are subject to increasing magnetic fields due to the smaller radius concentrating the field.
The low-energy particles in the fuel will reflect off this increasing field and begin to travel backwards
through the fuel, colliding with the higher energy nuclei and scattering them out of the plasma. This
process causes fuel to be lost from the reactor, although this process is slow enough that a practical
reactor is still well within reach.[94]

Another instability is tearing instability. In 2024 researchers used reinforcement learning against a
multimodal dynamic model to measure and forecast such instabilities based on signals from multiple
diagnostics and actuators at 25 millisecond intervals. This forecast was used to reduce tearing
instabilities in DIII-D6, in the US. The reward function balanced the conflicting objectives of maximum
plasma pressure and instability risks. In particular, the plasma actively tracked the stable path while
maintaining H-mode performance.[95][96]

Breakeven, Q, and ignition

One of the first goals for any controlled fusion device is to reach breakeven, the point where the energy
being released by the fusion reactions is equal to the amount of energy being used to maintain the
reaction. The ratio of output to input energy is denoted Q, and breakeven corresponds to a Q of 1. A Q of
more than one is needed for the reactor to generate net energy, but for practical reasons, it is desirable
for it to be much higher.

Once breakeven is reached, further improvements in confinement generally lead to a rapidly increasing
Q. That is because some of the energy being given off by the fusion reactions of the most common fusion
fuel, a 50-50 mix of deuterium and tritium, is in the form of alpha particles. These can collide with the
fuel nuclei in the plasma and heat it, reducing the amount of external heat needed. At some point,
known as ignition, this internal self-heating is enough to keep the reaction going without any external
heating, corresponding to an infinite Q.

In the case of the tokamak, this self-heating process is maximized if the alpha particles remain in the
fuel long enough to guarantee they will collide with the fuel. As the alphas are electrically charged, they
are subject to the same fields that are confining the fuel plasma. The amount of time they spend in the
fuel can be maximized by ensuring their orbit in the field remains within the plasma. It can be
demonstrated that this occurs when the electrical current in the plasma is about 3 MA.[97]

Advanced tokamaks
In the early 1970s, studies at Princeton into the use of high-power superconducting magnets in future
tokamak designs examined the layout of the magnets. They noticed that the arrangement of the main
toroidal coils meant that there was significantly more tension between the magnets on the inside of the
curvature where they were closer together. Considering this, they noted that the tensional forces within
the magnets would be evened out if they were shaped like a D, rather than an O. This became known as
the "Princeton D-coil".[98]

This was not the first time this sort of arrangement had been considered, although for entirely different
reasons. The safety factor varies across the axis of the machine; for purely geometrical reasons, it is
always smaller at the inside edge of the plasma closest to the machine's center because the long axis is
shorter there. That means that a machine with an average q = 2 might still be less than 1 in certain areas.
In the 1970s, it was suggested that one way to counteract this and produce a design with a higher
average q would be to shape the magnetic fields so that the plasma only filled the outer half of the torus,
shaped like a D or C when viewed end-on, instead of the normal circular cross section.

One of the first machines to incorporate a D-shaped plasma was the JET, which began its design work in
1973. This decision was made both for theoretical reasons as well as practical; because the force is larger
on the inside edge of the torus, there is a large net force pressing inward on the entire reactor. The D-
shape also had the advantage of reducing the net force, as well as making the supported inside edge
flatter so it was easier to support.[99] Code exploring the general layout noticed that a non-circular shape
would slowly drift vertically, which led to the addition of an active feedback system to hold it in the
center.[100] Once JET had selected this layout, the General Atomics Doublet III team redesigned that
machine into the D-IIID with a D-shaped cross-section, and it was selected for the Japanese JT-60
design as well. This layout has been largely universal since then.

One problem seen in all fusion reactors is that the presence of heavier elements causes energy to be lost
at an increased rate, cooling the plasma. During the very earliest development of fusion power, a
solution to this problem was found, the divertor, essentially a large mass spectrometer that would cause
the heavier elements to be flung out of the reactor. This was initially part of the stellarator designs,
where it is easy to integrate into the magnetic windings. However, designing a divertor for a tokamak
proved to be a very difficult design problem.

Another problem seen in all fusion designs is the heat load that the plasma places on the wall of the
confinement vessel. There are materials that can handle this load, but they are generally undesirable and
expensive heavy metals. When such materials are sputtered in collisions with hot ions, their atoms mix
with the fuel and rapidly cool it. A solution used on most tokamak designs is the limiter, a small ring of
light metal that projected into the chamber so that the plasma would hit it before hitting the walls. This
eroded the limiter and caused its atoms to mix with the fuel, but these lighter materials cause less
disruption than the wall materials.

When reactors moved to the D-shaped plasmas it was quickly noted that the escaping particle flux of the
plasma could be shaped as well. Over time, this led to the idea of using the fields to create an internal
divertor that flings the heavier elements out of the fuel, typically towards the bottom of the reactor.
There, a pool of liquid lithium metal is used as a sort of limiter; the particles hit it and are rapidly
cooled, remaining in the lithium. This internal pool is much easier to cool, due to its location, and
although some lithium atoms are released into the plasma, its very low mass makes it a much smaller
problem than even the lightest metals used previously.

As machines began to explore this newly shaped plasma, they noticed that certain arrangements of the
fields and plasma parameters would sometimes enter what is now known as the high-confinement
mode, or H-mode, which operated stably at higher temperatures and pressures. Operating in the H-
mode, which can also be seen in stellarators, is now a major design goal of the tokamak design.

Finally, it was noted that when the plasma had a non-uniform density it would give rise to internal
electrical currents. This is known as the bootstrap current. This allows a properly designed reactor to
generate some of the internal current needed to twist the magnetic field lines without having to supply it
from an external source. This has a number of advantages, and modern designs all attempt to generate
as much of their total current through the bootstrap process as possible.

By the early 1990s, the combination of these features and others collectively gave rise to the "advanced
tokamak" concept. This forms the basis of modern research, including ITER.

Plasma disruptions
Tokamaks are subject to events known as "disruptions" that cause confinement to be lost in
milliseconds. There are two primary mechanisms. In one, the "vertical displacement event" (VDE), the
entire plasma moves vertically until it touches the upper or lower section of the vacuum chamber. In the
other, the "major disruption", long wavelength, non-axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamical instabilities
cause the plasma to be forced into non-symmetrical shapes, often squeezed into the top and bottom of
the chamber.[101]

When the plasma touches the vessel walls it undergoes rapid cooling, or "thermal quenching". In the
major disruption case, this is normally accompanied by a brief increase in plasma current as the plasma
concentrates. Quenching ultimately causes the plasma confinement to break up. In the case of the major
disruption the current drops again, the "current quench". The initial increase in current is not seen in
the VDE, and the thermal and current quench occurs at the same time.[101] In both cases, the thermal
and electrical load of the plasma is rapidly deposited on the reactor vessel, which has to be able to
handle these loads. ITER is designed to handle 2600 of these events over its lifetime.[102]

For modern high-energy devices, where plasma currents are on the order of 15 megaamperes in ITER, it
is possible the brief increase in current during a major disruption will cross a critical threshold. This
occurs when the current produces a force on the electrons that is higher than the frictional forces of the
collisions between particles in the plasma. In this event, electrons can be rapidly accelerated to
relativistic velocities, creating so-called "runaway electrons" in the relativistic runaway electron
avalanche. These retain their energy even as the current quench is occurring on the bulk of the plasma.
[102]

When confinement finally breaks down, these runaway electrons follow the path of least resistance and
impact the side of the reactor. These can reach 12 megaamps of current deposited in a small area, well
beyond the capabilities of any mechanical solution.[101] In one famous case, the Tokamak de Fontenay
aux Roses had a major disruption where the runaway electrons burned a hole through the vacuum
chamber.[102]

The occurrence of major disruptions in running tokamaks has always been rather high, of the order of a
few percent of the total numbers of the shots. In currently operated tokamaks, the damage is often large
but rarely dramatic. In the ITER tokamak, it is expected that the occurrence of a limited number of
major disruptions will definitively damage the chamber with no possibility to restore the device.[103][104]
[105] The development of systems to counter the effects of runaway electrons is considered a must-have

piece of technology for the operational level ITER.[102]

A large amplitude of the central current density can also result in internal disruptions, or sawteeth,
which do not generally result in termination of the discharge.[106]

Plasma heating
In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will serve to maintain the plasma
temperature as fresh deuterium and tritium are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either
initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be heated to its operating temperature of
greater than 10 keV (over 100 million degrees Celsius). In current tokamak (and other) magnetic fusion
experiments, insufficient fusion energy is produced to maintain the plasma temperature, and constant
external heating must be supplied. Chinese researchers set up the Experimental Advanced
Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) in 2006 which is believed to sustain 100 million degree Celsius
plasma (sun has 15 million degree Celsius temperature) which is required to initiate the fusion between
hydrogen atoms, according to the latest test conducted in EAST (test conducted in November 2018).

Ohmic heating ~ inductive mode

Since the plasma is an electrical conductor, it is possible to heat the plasma by inducing a current
through it; the induced current that provides most of the poloidal field is also a major source of initial
heating.

The heating caused by the induced current is called ohmic (or resistive) heating; it is the same kind of
heating that occurs in an electric light bulb or in an electric heater. The heat generated depends on the
resistance of the plasma and the amount of electric current running through it. But as the temperature
of heated plasma rises, the resistance decreases and ohmic heating becomes less effective. It appears
that the maximum plasma temperature attainable by ohmic heating in a tokamak is 20–30 million
degrees Celsius. To obtain still higher temperatures, additional heating methods must be used.

The current is induced by continually increasing the current through an electromagnetic winding linked
with the plasma torus: the plasma can be viewed as the secondary winding of a transformer. This is
inherently a pulsed process because there is a limit to the current through the primary (there are also
other limitations on long pulses). Tokamaks must therefore either operate for short periods or rely on
other means of heating and current drive.

Magnetic compression
A gas can be heated by sudden compression. In the same way, the temperature of a plasma is increased
if it is compressed rapidly by increasing the confining magnetic field. In a tokamak, this compression is
achieved simply by moving the plasma into a region of higher magnetic field (i.e., radially inward). Since
plasma compression brings the ions closer together, the process has the additional benefit of facilitating
attainment of the required density for a fusion reactor.

Magnetic compression was an area of research in the early "tokamak stampede", and was the purpose of
one major design, the ATC. The concept has not been widely used since then, although a somewhat
similar concept is part of the General Fusion design.

Neutral-beam injection
Neutral-beam injection involves the introduction of high energy (rapidly moving) atoms or molecules
into an ohmically heated, magnetically confined plasma within the tokamak.

The high energy atoms originate as ions in an arc chamber before being extracted through a high voltage
grid set. The term "ion source" is used to generally mean the assembly consisting of a set of electron
emitting filaments, an arc chamber volume, and a set of extraction grids. A second device, similar in
concept, is used to separately accelerate electrons to the same energy. The much lighter mass of the
electrons makes this device much smaller than its ion counterpart. The two beams then intersect, where
the ions and electrons recombine into neutral atoms, allowing them to travel through the magnetic
fields.

Once the neutral beam enters the tokamak, interactions with the main plasma ions occur. This has two
effects. One is that the injected atoms re-ionize and become charged, thereby becoming trapped inside
the reactor and adding to the fuel mass. The other is that the process of being ionized occurs through
impacts with the rest of the fuel, and these impacts deposit energy in that fuel, heating it.

This form of heating has no inherent energy (temperature) limitation, in contrast to the ohmic method,
but its rate is limited to the current in the injectors. Ion source extraction voltages are typically on the
order of 50–100 kV, and high voltage, negative ion sources (-1 MV) are being developed for ITER. The
ITER Neutral Beam Test Facility in Padova will be the first ITER facility to start operation.[107]

While neutral beam injection is used primarily for plasma heating, it can also be used as a diagnostic
tool and in feedback control by making a pulsed beam consisting of a string of brief 2–10 ms beam blips.
Deuterium is a primary fuel for neutral beam heating systems and hydrogen and helium are sometimes
used for selected experiments.

Radio-frequency heating
High-frequency electromagnetic waves are generated by oscillators (often by gyrotrons or klystrons)
outside the torus. If the waves have the correct frequency (or wavelength) and polarization, their energy
can be transferred to the charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other plasma
particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk plasma. Various techniques exist including
electron cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) and ion cyclotron resonance heating. This energy is
usually transferred by microwaves.
Particle inventory
Plasma discharges within the tokamak's vacuum chamber consist of
energized ions and atoms and the energy from these particles
eventually reaches the inner wall of the chamber through radiation,
collisions, or lack of confinement. The inner wall of the chamber is
water-cooled and the heat from the particles is removed via
conduction through the wall to the water and convection of the
heated water to an external cooling system.
Set of hyperfrequency tubes (84
Turbomolecular or diffusion pumps allow for particles to be GHz and 118 GHz) for plasma
evacuated from the bulk volume and cryogenic pumps, consisting of heating by electron cyclotron waves
a liquid helium-cooled surface, serve to effectively control the on the Tokamak à Configuration
density throughout the discharge by providing an energy sink for Variable (TCV). Courtesy of SPC-
EPFL.
condensation to occur. When done correctly, the fusion reactions
produce large amounts of high energy neutrons. Being electrically
neutral and relatively tiny, the neutrons are not affected by the magnetic fields nor are they stopped
much by the surrounding vacuum chamber.

The neutron flux is reduced significantly at a purpose-built neutron shield boundary that surrounds the
tokamak in all directions. Shield materials vary but are generally materials made of atoms which are
close to the size of neutrons because these work best to absorb the neutron and its energy. Good
candidate materials include those with much hydrogen, such as water and plastics. Boron atoms are also
good absorbers of neutrons. Thus, concrete and polyethylene doped with boron make inexpensive
neutron shielding materials.

Once freed, the neutron has a relatively short half-life of about 10 minutes before it decays into a proton
and electron with the emission of energy. When the time comes to actually try to make electricity from a
tokamak-based reactor, some of the neutrons produced in the fusion process would be absorbed by a
liquid metal blanket and their kinetic energy would be used in heat transfer processes to ultimately turn
a generator.

Experimental tokamaks

Currently in operation
(in chronological order of start of operations)

▪ 1960s: TM1-MH (since 1977 as Castor; since 2007 as Golem[108]) in Prague, Czech Republic. In
operation in Kurchatov Institute since the early 1960s but renamed to Castor in 1977 and moved to
IPP CAS,[109] Prague. In 2007 moved to FNSPE, Czech Technical University in Prague and
renamed to Golem.[110]
▪ 1975: T-10, in Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia (formerly Soviet Union); 2 MW
▪ 1983: Joint European Torus (JET), in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 1986: DIII-D,[111] in San Diego, United States; operated by General Atomics since the late 1980s
▪ 1987: STOR-M, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; its predecessor, STOR1-M built in 1983, was
used for the first demonstration of alternating current in a tokamak.[112]
▪ 1988: Tore Supra,[113] but renamed to WEST in 2016, at the CEA, Cadarache, France
▪ 1989: Aditya, at Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) in Gujarat, India
▪ 1989: COMPASS,[109] in Prague, Czech Republic; in operation since 2008, previously operated from
 1989 to 1999 in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 1990: FTU,[114] in Frascati, Italy
▪ 1991: ISTTOK,[115] at the Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear,
Lisbon, Portugal

▪ 1991: ASDEX Upgrade, in Garching, Germany

▪ 1992: H-1NF (H-1 National Plasma Fusion Research Facility)
[116] based on the H-1 Heliac device built by Australia National
University's plasma physics group and in operation since 1992
▪ 1992: Tokamak à configuration variable (TCV), at the EPFL,
Switzerland
▪ 1993: HBT-EP Tokamak, at the Columbia University in New York
The Tokamak à Configuration
City, USA[117] Variable
▪ 1994: TCABR, at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil;
this tokamak was transferred from Swiss Plasma Center (http://s
pc.epfl.ch/Welcome) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2017
0714112535/http://spc.epfl.ch/Welcome) 14 July 2017 at the
Wayback Machine in Switzerland
▪ 1995: HT-7, at the Institute of Plasma Physics, Hefei, China
▪ 1996: Pegasus Toroidal Experiment[118] at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison; in operation since the late 1990s
▪ 1999: NSTX in Princeton, New Jersey
▪ 1999: Globus-M (http://globus.rinno.ru/) in Ioffe Institute, Saint
Petersburg, Russia
▪ 2000: ETE at the National Institute for Space Research, São Outside view of the NSTX reactor
Paulo, Brazil
▪ 2002: HL-2A, in Chengdu, China
▪ 2006: EAST (HT-7U), in Hefei, at The Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, China (ITER member)
▪ 2007: QUEST, in Fukuoka, JAPAN https://www.triam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/QUEST_HP/suben/history.html
▪ 2008: KSTAR, in Daejon, South Korea (ITER member)
▪ 2010: JT-60SA, in Naka, Japan (ITER member); upgraded from the JT-60.
▪ 2012: Medusa CR, in Cartago, at the Costa Rica Institute of Technology, Costa Rica
▪ 2012: SST-1, in Gandhinagar, at the Institute for Plasma Research, India (ITER member)
▪ 2012: IR-T1, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran[119]
▪ 2015: ST25-HTS at Tokamak Energy Ltd in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 2017: KTM – this is an experimental thermonuclear facility for research and testing of materials
under energy load conditions close to ITER and future energy fusion reactors, Kazakhstan
▪ 2018: ST40 at Tokamak Energy Ltd in Oxford, United Kingdom
▪ 2020: HL-2M China National Nuclear Corporation and the Southwestern Institute of Physics, China
▪ 2020: MAST Upgrade, in Culham, United Kingdom

Previously operated
▪ 1960s: T-3 and T-4, in Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia (formerly Soviet Union); T-4 in operation
in 1968.
▪ 1963: LT-1, Australia National University's plasma physics group built a device to explore toroidal
configurations, independently discovering the tokamak layout
▪ 1970: Stellarator C reopens as the Symmetric Tokamak in May at PPPL
▪ 1971–1980: Texas Turbulent Tokamak, University of Texas at Austin, US
▪ 1972: The Adiabatic Toroidal Compressor begins operation at
PPPL
▪ 1973–1976: Tokamak de Fontenay aux Roses (TFR), near Paris,
France
▪ 1973–1979: Alcator A, MIT, US
▪ 1975: Princeton Large Torus begins operation at PPPL
▪ 1978–1987: Alcator C, MIT, US
▪ 1978–2013: TEXTOR, in Jülich, Germany
▪ 1979–1998: MT-1 Tokamak, Budapest, Hungary (Built at the
The control room of the Alcator C
Kurchatov Institute, Russia, transported to Hungary in 1979,
tokamak at the MIT Plasma Science
rebuilt as MT-1M in 1991)
and Fusion Center, in about 1982–
▪ 1980–1990: Tokoloshe Tokamak, Atomic Energy Board, South 1983.
Africa[120]
▪ 1980–2004: TEXT/TEXT-U, University of Texas at Austin, US
▪ 1982–1997: TFTR, Princeton University, US
▪ 1983–2000: Novillo Tokamak,[121] at the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares, in Mexico
City, Mexico
▪ 1984–1992: HL-1 Tokamak, in Chengdu, China
▪ 1985–2010: JT-60, in Naka, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan; (Being upgraded 2015–2018 to Super,
Advanced model)
▪ 1987–1999: Tokamak de Varennes; Varennes, Canada; operated by Hydro-Québec and used by
researchers from Institut de recherche en électricité du Québec (IREQ) and the Institut national de la
recherche scientifique (INRS)
▪ 1988–2005: T-15, in Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia (formerly Soviet Union); 10 MW
▪ 1991–1998: START, in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 1990s–2001: COMPASS, in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 1994–2001: HL-1M Tokamak, in Chengdu, China
▪ 1999–2006: UCLA Electric Tokamak, in Los Angeles, US
▪ 1999–2014: MAST, in Culham, United Kingdom
▪ 1992–2016: Alcator C-Mod,[122] MIT, Cambridge, US

Planned
▪ ITER, international project in Cadarache, France; 500 MW;
construction began in 2010, first plasma expected in 2025.
Expected fully operational by 2035.[123]
▪ DEMO; 2000 MW, continuous operation, connected to power
grid. Planned successor to ITER; construction to begin in 2040
according to EUROfusion 2018 timetable.
▪ CFETR, also known as "China Fusion Engineering Test
Reactor"; 200 MW; Next generation Chinese fusion reactor, is a
ITER, currently under construction,
new tokamak device.[124][125][126][127] will be the largest tokamak by far.
▪ K-DEMO in South Korea; 2200–3000 MW, a net electric
generation on the order of 500 MW is planned; construction is
targeted by 2037.[128]
▪ SPARC a development of Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) in collaboration with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) in Devens,
Massachusetts.[129][130] Expected to achieve energy gain in 2026 with a fraction of ITERs size by
utilizing high magnetic fields.
See also
▪ Magnetic mirrors Nuclear technology
▪ Edge-localized mode, a tokamak plasma instability portal
▪ Stellarator, an alternative design Energy portal
▪ Reversed-field pinch, an alternative design
▪ Divertor, used in long pulse tokamaks
▪ Ball-pen probe
▪ Dimensionless parameters in tokamaks in the article on Plasma scaling
▪ Lawson criterion, and triple product, needed for break-even and ignition
▪ Fusion power#Records, inc beta, Q
▪ ARC fusion reactor, an MIT tokamak design

References
1. "DOE Explains...Tokamaks" (https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainstokamaks). Energy.gov.
Retrieved 15 December 2023.
2. Greenwald, John (24 August 2016). "Major next steps for fusion energy based on the spherical
tokamak design" (https://web.archive.org/web/20210919050707/https://www.pppl.gov/news/2016/08/
major-next-steps-fusion-energy-based-spherical-tokamak-design). Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory. United States Department of Energy. Archived from the original (https://www.pppl.gov/ne
ws/2016/08/major-next-steps-fusion-energy-based-spherical-tokamak-design) on 19 September
2021. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
3. B.D.Bondarenko The role of O. A. Lavrentiev in raising the issue and initiating research on
controlled thermonuclear fusion in the USSR (https://ufn.ru/ru/articles/2001/8/q/) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20170912101849/https://ufn.ru/ru/articles/2001/8/q/) 12 September 2017 at the
Wayback Machine // UFN 171, 886 (2001).
4. "The Soviet Magnetic Confinement Fusion Program: An International future (SW 90-" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20101105091945/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000498695/DOC_000049869
5.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/0000498
695) on 5 November 2010. Retrieved 27 June 2019.
5. V.Reshetov "An ocean of energy" (http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/429/) Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20131113224010/http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/429/) 13 November 2013 at the
Wayback Machine // "Around the world"
6. Garry McCracken, Peter Stott (2015). Fusion: The Energy of the Universe (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=XagVcVzaG5oC&pg=PA167). Elsevier Academic Press. p. 167.
ISBN 978-0-12-481851-4.
7. L.A.Artsimovich; et al. (1969). Experimental studies on Tokamak installations (CN-24/B-1) (https://ini
s.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:44064038). Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research Held by the International
Atomic Energy Agency at Novosibirsk, 1-7 August 1968. Vol. 1 (Plasma Physics and Controlled
Nuclear Fusion Research. ed.). Vienna: IAEA. pp. 157–173.
8. Juho Miettunen (2015). Modelling of global impurity transport in tokamaks in the presence of non-
axisymmetric effects (https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/92ee2a0e-769a-4d9f-8f2b-3
ec9a57640bc/content) (PhD thesis). Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy. p. 19. ISBN 978-952-60-6189-4.
9. Robert Arnoux (9 October 2009). "Off to Russia with a thermometer" (https://web.archive.org/web/20
190708181712/https://www.iter.org/newsline/102/1401). ITER Newsline 102. Archived from the
original (https://www.iter.org/newsline/102/1401) on 8 July 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
10. Peacock N. J.; et al. (1969). "Measurement of the Electron Temperature by Thomson Scattering in
Tokamak T3". Nature. 224 (5218): 488–490. Bibcode:1969Natur.224..488P (https://ui.adsabs.harvar
d.edu/abs/1969Natur.224..488P). doi:10.1038/224488a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F224488a0).
S2CID 4290094 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4290094).
11. Evgeny Velikhov (2004). "I didn't let my soul be lazy. To the 95th anniversary of the birth of
Academician L. A. Artsimovich" (https://web.archive.org/web/20201022150618/http://vivovoco.astron
et.ru/VV/PAPERS/BIO/VELAR.HTM). Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 74 (10): 940.
Archived from the original (http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/BIO/VELAR.HTM) on 22 October
2020.
12. "Nuclear fusion: new record brings dream of clean energy closer" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scien
ce-environment-68233330). www.bbc.co.uk. 8 February 2024. Retrieved 8 February 2024.
13. "Tokamak" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tokamak). Merriam-Webster. 6 July 2023.
14. V.D.Shafranov (1999). "Prospects of screw magnetic systems for TC". Achievements of the Physical
Sciences (in Russian). 169 (7). Russian Academy of Sciences: 808.
15. A.Y.Pogosov; V.A.Dubkovsky (2013). Pogosov A. Yu. (ed.). Ionizing radiation: radioecology, physics,
technology, protection: textbook for university students. Odessa: Science and Technology. p. 343.
ISBN 978-966-1552-27-1.
16. Oliphant, Mark; Harteck, Paul; Rutherford, Ernest (1934). "Transmutation Effects Observed with
Heavy Hydrogen" (http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Rutherford-1934b/Rutherford-1934b.htm
l). Proceedings of the Royal Society. 144 (853): 692–703. Bibcode:1934RSPSA.144..692O (https://u
i.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934RSPSA.144..692O). doi:10.1098/rspa.1934.0077 (https://doi.org/10.1
098%2Frspa.1934.0077).
17. McCracken & Stott 2012, p. 35.
18. Alvarez, Luis; Cornog, Robert (1939). "Helium and Hydrogen of Mass 3". Physical Review. 56 (6):
613. Bibcode:1939PhRv...56..613A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939PhRv...56..613A).
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.613 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.56.613).
19. McCracken & Stott 2012, pp. 36–38.
20. Bromberg 1982, p. 18.
21. "UTPhysicsHistorySite" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220529211017/https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/ut
physicshistory/AlanAWare.html). Archived from the original (https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/utphysicshis
tory/AlanAWare.html) on 29 May 2022. Retrieved 29 May 2022.
22. Herman 1990, p. 40 (https://archive.org/details/fusionsearchfore00herm/page/40).
23. Shafranov 2001, p. 873.
24. Bondarenko, B.D. (2001). "Role played by O. A. Lavrent'ev in the formulation of the problem and the
initiation of research into controlled nuclear fusion in the USSR" (http://ufn.ru/ufn01/ufn01_8/Russia
n/r018m.pdf) (PDF). Phys. Usp. 44 (8): 844. doi:10.1070/PU2001v044n08ABEH000910 (https://do
i.org/10.1070%2FPU2001v044n08ABEH000910). S2CID 250885028 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:250885028).
25. Shafranov 2001, p. 837.
26. Bromberg 1982, p. 15.
27. Shafranov 2001, p. 838.
28. Shafranov 2001, p. 839.
29. Bromberg 1982, p. 16.
30. Arnoux, Robert (26 October 2011). " 'Proyecto Huemul': the prank that started it all" (https://www.ite
r.org/newsline/196/930). iter.
31. Bromberg 1982, p. 75.
32. Bromberg 1982, p. 14.
33. Bromberg 1982, p. 21.
34. Bromberg 1982, p. 25.
35. Shafranov 2001, p. 840.
36. Adams, John (31 January 1963). "Can we master the thermonuclear plasma?" (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=TF7wQYDRIXAC&pg=PA222). New Scientist. pp. 222–225.
37. Cowley, Steve. "Introduction to Kink Modes – the Kruskal- Shafranov Limit" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20180128001629/http://home.physics.ucla.edu/calendar/conferences/cmpd/talks/cowley.pdf)
(PDF). UCLA. Archived from the original (http://home.physics.ucla.edu/calendar/conferences/cmpd/t
alks/cowley.pdf) (PDF) on 28 January 2018. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
38. Kadomtsev 1966.
39. Clery 2014, p. 48.
40. Arnoux, Robert (27 October 2008). "Which was the first 'tokamak' – or was it 'tokomag'?" (https://ww
w.iter.org/newsline/55/1194). ITER.
41. Bromberg 1982, p. 70.
42. Shafranov 2001, p. 240.
43. Shafranov 2001, p. 841.
44. Kurchatov, Igor (26 April 1956). The possibility of producing thermonuclear reactions in a gaseous
discharge (https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/Mag%20Stories/Attachments/64/kurchat
ov_1956.pdf) (PDF) (Speech). UKAEA Harwell.
45. McCracken & Stott 2012, p. 5.
46. Arnoux, Robert. "Which was the first 'tokamak' – or was it 'tokomag'?" (https://www.iter.org/newslin
e/55/1194). ITER. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
47. Shafranov 2001.
48. "К столетию со дня рождения Н. А. Явлинского" (http://vant.iterru.ru/vant_2012_1/naj.pdf) (PDF).
49. "В. Д. Шафранов "К истории исследований по управляемому термоядерному синтезу" " (http://u
fn.ru/ufn01/ufn01_8/Russian/r018l.pdf) (PDF). Успехи Физических Наук. 171 (8): 877. August 2001.
50. "ОТЦЫ И ДЕДЫ ТЕРМОЯДЕРНОЙ ЭПОХИ" (http://www.ras.ru/digest/showdnews.aspx?id=578d7
525-c224-4f92-9a57-ed7113cb2c75&print=1). Retrieved 6 November 2018.
51. Herman 1990, p. 53.
52. Smirnov 2009, p. 2.
53. Shafranov 2001, p. 842.
54. Bromberg 1982, p. 66.
55. Spitzer, L. (1960). "Particle Diffusion across a Magnetic Field". Physics of Fluids. 3 (4): 659.
Bibcode:1960PhFl....3..659S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960PhFl....3..659S).
doi:10.1063/1.1706104 (https://doi.org/10.1063%2F1.1706104).
56. Bromberg 1982, p. 130.
57. Bromberg 1982, p. 153.
58. Bromberg 1982, p. 151.
59. Bromberg 1982, p. 166.
60. Bromberg 1982, p. 172.
61. "The Valleys boy who broached the Iron Curtain to convince the USA that Russian Cold War nuclear
fusion claims were true" (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/valleys-boy-who-broache
d-iron-1794244). WalesOnline. 3 November 2011.
62. Arnoux, Robert (9 October 2009). "Off to Russia with a thermometer" (http://www.iter.org/newsline/1
02/1401). ITER Newsline. No. 102.
63. Bromberg 1982, p. 167.
64. Peacock, N. J.; Robinson, D. C.; Forrest, M. J.; Wilcock, P. D.; Sannikov, V. V. (1969).
"Measurement of the Electron Temperature by Thomson Scattering in Tokamak T3". Nature. 224
(5218): 488–490. Bibcode:1969Natur.224..488P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Natur.22
4..488P). doi:10.1038/224488a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F224488a0). S2CID 4290094 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4290094).
65. Kenward, Michael (24 May 1979). "Fusion research - the temperature rises" (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=tbhTdnZsqMUC&pg=PA626). New Scientist.
66. Cohen, Robert S.; Spitzer, Lyman Jr.; McR. Routly, Paul (October 1950). "The Electrical Conductivity
of an Ionized Gas" (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/spitzer1950.pdf) (PDF). Physical Review. 80 (2): 230–238.
Bibcode:1950PhRv...80..230C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950PhRv...80..230C).
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.80.230 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.80.230).
67. Bromberg 1982, p. 161.
68. Bromberg 1982, p. 152.
69. Bromberg 1982, p. 154.
70. Bromberg 1982, p. 158.
71. Bromberg 1982, p. 159.
72. Bromberg 1982, p. 164.
73. Bromberg 1982, p. 165.
74. Bromberg 1982, p. 168.
75. Bromberg 1982, p. 169.
76. Bromberg 1982, p. 171.
77. Bromberg 1982, p. 212.
78. "Timeline" (https://www.pppl.gov/about/history/timeline). PPPL.
79. Bromberg 1982, p. 173.
80. Bromberg 1982, p. 175.
81. Smirnov 2009, p. 5.
82. Bromberg 1982, p. 10.
83. Bromberg 1982, p. 215.
84. Arnoux, Robert (25 October 2010). "Penthouse founder had invested his fortune in fusion" (https://w
ww.iter.org/newsline/151/468). ITER.
85. Reagan, Ronald (19 April 1986). "Radio Address to the Nation on Oil Prices" (http://www.presidenc
y.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=37156). The American Presidency Project.
86. Arnoux, Robert (15 December 2008). "INTOR: The international fusion reactor that never was" (http
s://www.iter.org/newsline/62/146). ITER.
87. Joint Soviet-United States Statement on the Summit Meeting in Geneva (http://www.reagan.utexas.e
du/archives/speeches/1985/112185a.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160307091345/h
ttps://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/112185a.htm) 7 March 2016 at the Wayback
Machine Ronald Reagan. 21 November 1985
88. Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. (October 1992). "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"
(https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_wQwAAAAAMBAJ). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Science
and Public Affairs. Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc.: 9 (https://archive.org/details/bu
b_gb_wQwAAAAAMBAJ/page/n10)–. ISSN 0096-3402 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0096-3402).
89. Braams & Stott 2002, pp. 250– (https://books.google.com/books?id=Zj4vx9O0T0YC&pg=PA250).
90. "Inauguration" (https://www.jt60sa.org/wp/category/uncategorized/). 24 October 2023. Retrieved
1 January 2024.
91. Szondy, David (5 December 2023). "World's largest tokamak fusion reactor powers up" (https://newa
tlas.com/energy/worlds-largest-tokamak-fusion-reactor-powers-up/). New Atlas. Retrieved 1 January
2024.
92. Wesson 1999, p. 13.
93. Kenward 1979b, p. 627.
94. Wesson 1999, pp. 15–18.
 95. Seo, Jaemin; Kim, SangKyeun; Jalalvand, Azarakhsh; Conlin, Rory; Rothstein, Andrew; Abbate,
Joseph; Erickson, Keith; Wai, Josiah; Shousha, Ricardo; Kolemen, Egemen (February 2024).
"Avoiding fusion plasma tearing instability with deep reinforcement learning" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10881383). Nature. 626 (8000): 746–751. Bibcode:2024Natur.626..746S (htt
ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.626..746S). doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07024-9 (https://do
i.org/10.1038%2Fs41586-024-07024-9). ISSN 1476-4687 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1476-4687)
. PMC 10881383 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10881383). PMID 38383624 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38383624).
96. Ate-a-Pi (26 February 2024). "Deep learning fusion breakthrough" (https://x.com/8teAPi/status/1762
190250355658885?s=20). X.
97. Wesson 1999, p. 20.
98. Gray, W.H.; Stoddart, W.C.T.; Akin, J.E. (1977). Bending free toroidal shells for tokamak fusion
reactors (https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5233082) (Technical report). Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
99. Wesson 1999, p. 22.
100. Wesson 1999, p. 26.
101. Kruger, S. E.; Schnack, D. D.; Sovinec, C. R. (2005). "Dynamics of the Major Disruption of a DIII-D
Plasma" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130227121923/http://www.scidac.gov/FES/FES_FusionGri
d/pubs/kruger-phys-plasma-2005.pdf) (PDF). Phys. Plasmas. 12 (5): 056113.
Bibcode:2005PhPl...12e6113K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhPl...12e6113K).
doi:10.1063/1.1873872 (https://doi.org/10.1063%2F1.1873872). Archived from the original (http://ww
w.scidac.gov/FES/FES_FusionGrid/pubs/kruger-phys-plasma-2005.pdf) (PDF) on 27 February
2013. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
102. Runaway Electrons in Tokamaks and Their Mitigation in ITER (http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/ifs/iaea
ep/talks/s11-i11-putvinski-sergei-ep-talk.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021030800003
3/http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/ifs/iaeaep/talks/s11-i11-putvinski-sergei-ep-talk.pdf) 8 March 2021 at
the Wayback Machine, S. Putvinski, ITER Organization
103. Wurden, G. A. (9 September 2011). Dealing with the Risk and Consequences of Disruptions in
Large Tokamaks (https://web.archive.org/web/20151105232903/http://advprojects.pppl.gov/ROADM
APPING/presentations/MFE_POSTERS/WURDEN_Disruption_RiskPOSTER.pdf) (PDF). MFE
Roadmapping in the ITER Era. Archived from the original (http://advprojects.pppl.gov/ROADMAPPI
NG/presentations/MFE_POSTERS/WURDEN_Disruption_RiskPOSTER.pdf) (PDF) on 5 November
2015.
104. Baylor, L. R.; Combs, S. K.; Foust, C. R.; Jernigan, T.C.; et al. (2009). "Pellet Fuelling, ELM Pacing
and Disruption Mitigation Technology Development for ITER" (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meeti
ngs/FEC2008/it_p6-19.pdf) (PDF). Nucl. Fusion. 49 (8): 085013. Bibcode:2009NucFu..49h5013B (ht
tps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NucFu..49h5013B). doi:10.1088/0029-5515/49/8/085013 (http
s://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F49%2F8%2F085013). S2CID 17071617 (https://api.semantic
scholar.org/CorpusID:17071617).
105. Thornton, A. J.; Gibsonb, K. J.; Harrisona, J. R.; Kirka, A.; et al. (2011). "Disruption mitigation
studies on the Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak (MAST)". J. Nucl. Mater. 415 (1): S836–S840.
Bibcode:2011JNuM..415S.836M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JNuM..415S.836M).
doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2010.10.029 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jnucmat.2010.10.029).
106. von Goeler, S.; Stodiek, W.; Sauthoff, N. (1974). "Studies of internal disruptions and m= 1
oscillations in tokamak discharges with soft – x-ray techniques". Physical Review Letters. 33 (20):
1201. Bibcode:1974PhRvL..33.1201V (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974PhRvL..33.1201V).
doi:10.1103/physrevlett.33.1201 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.33.1201).
107. "Neutral Beam Test Facility" (https://web.archive.org/web/20161010212050/https://www.igi.cnr.it/ww
w/sites/default/files/home201511/SchedaNBTF_MIUR_EN.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (htt
ps://www.igi.cnr.it/www/sites/default/files/home201511/SchedaNBTF_MIUR_EN.pdf) (PDF) on 10
October 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2016.
108. Vojtěch Kusý. "GOLEM @ FJFI.CVUT" (http://golem.fjfi.cvut.cz). cvut.cz.
109. "Tokamak Department, Institute of Plasma Physics" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150901115841/h
ttp://www.ipp.cas.cz/Tokamak/). cas.cz. Archived from the original (http://www.ipp.cas.cz/Tokamak/)
on 1 September 2015.
110. "History of Golem" (https://archive.today/20130217030814/http://golem.fjfi.cvut.cz:5001/Introduction/
History/GOLEM%20History). Archived from the original (http://golem.fjfi.cvut.cz:5001/Introduction/Hi
story/GOLEM%20History) on 17 February 2013. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
111. Fenstermacher, M.E.; et al. (2022). "DIII-D research advancing the physics basis for optimizing the
tokamak approach to fusion energy" (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ac2ff2).
Nuclear Fusion. 62 (4): 042024. Bibcode:2022NucFu..62d2024F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2022NucFu..62d2024F). doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac2ff2 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1741-4326%2
Fac2ff2). hdl:1721.1/147629 (https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1%2F147629). S2CID 244608556 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:244608556).
112. Singh, A.K.; Morelli, J.; Xiao, C.; Mitarai, O.; Hirose, A. (2006). "Investigation of Plasma Equilibrium
in the Saskatchewan Torus-Modified (STOR-M) during Alternating Current Operation" (https://doi-or
g.cyber.usask.ca/10.1002/ctpp.200610077). Contributions to Plasma Physics. 46 (10): 773.
Bibcode:2006CoPP...46..773S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006CoPP...46..773S).
doi:10.1002/ctpp.200610077 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fctpp.200610077). S2CID 123466788 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:123466788). Retrieved 27 April 2022.
113. Tore Supra (http://www-drfc.cea.fr/gb/cea/ts/ts.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20121115
112229/http://www-drfc.cea.fr/gb/cea/ts/ts.htm) 15 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine
114. EMazzitelli, Giuseppe. "ENEA-Fusion: FTU" (https://web.archive.org/web/20190104175759/http://w
ww.fusione.enea.it/FTU/index.html.en). www.fusione.enea.it. Archived from the original (http://www.f
usione.enea.it/FTU/index.html.en) on 4 January 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2017.
115. "Centro de Fusão Nuclear" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100307154259/http://www.cfn.ist.utl.pt/en
g/Prj_Tokamak_main_1.html#intro). utl.pt. Archived from the original (http://www.cfn.ist.utl.pt/eng/Prj
_Tokamak_main_1.html#intro) on 7 March 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2008.
116. Fusion Research: Australian Connections, Past and Future (http://h1nf.anu.edu.au/media/pdfs/Black
well_AIP_fusion_article_draft_6-1.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180313171528/htt
p://h1nf.anu.edu.au/media/pdfs/Blackwell_AIP_fusion_article_draft_6-1.pdf) 13 March 2018 at the
Wayback Machine B. D. Blackwell, M.J. Hole, J. Howard and J. O'Connor
117. Gates, David (1993). Passive-stabilization-of-MHD-instabilities at high βn in the HBT-EP Tokamak
(Thesis). doi:10.2172/10104897 (https://doi.org/10.2172%2F10104897). S2CID 117710767 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117710767).
118. "Pegasus Toroidal Experiment" (http://pegasus.ep.wisc.edu/). wisc.edu.
119. "Tokamak" (http://www.pprc.srbiau.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27:tokama
k&catid=5:research-advanced-labs&Itemid=20). Pprc.srbiau.ac.ir. Retrieved 28 June 2012.
120. De Villiers, J. A. M.; Hayzen, A. J.; Omahony, J. R.; Roberts, D. E.; Sherwell, D. (1979). "Tokoloshe -
the South African Tokamak". South African Journal of Science. 75: 155.
Bibcode:1979SAJSc..75..155D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979SAJSc..75..155D).
121. Ramos J, de Urquijo J, Meléndez L, Muñoz C, et al. (1983). "Diseño del Tokamak Novillo" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20160808040124/http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/29/4/29_4_551.pdf) (PDF). Rev. Mex.
Fís. (in Spanish). 29 (4): 551–592. Archived from the original (http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/29/4/29_4_5
51.pdf) (PDF) on 8 August 2016. Retrieved 7 June 2016.
122. "MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center: research>alcator>" (https://web.archive.org/web/201507092
10155/http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/). mit.edu. Archived from the original (http://www.psf
c.mit.edu/research/alcator/) on 9 July 2015.
123. "ITER & Beyond. The Phases of ITER" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120922162049/http://www.ite
r.org/proj/iterandbeyond). Archived from the original (http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond) on 22
September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
124. Gao, X.; et al. (CFETR team) (17–20 December 2013). Update on CFETR Concept Design (https://
web.archive.org/web/20190330120409/http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/meetings/TM4525
6/talks/Gao.pdf) (PDF). 2nd IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop. Vienna, Austria. Archived from the
original (http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/meetings/TM45256/talks/Gao.pdf) (PDF) on 30
March 2019. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
125. Zheng, Jinxing; Liu, Xufeng; Song, Yuntao; Wan, Yuanxi; et al. (2013). "Concept design of CFETR
superconducting magnet system based on different maintenance ports". Fusion Engineering and
Design. 88 (11): 2960–2966. Bibcode:2013FusED..88.2960Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/201
3FusED..88.2960Z). doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.06.008 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fusengdes.2
013.06.008).
126. Song, Yun Tao; et al. (2014). "Concept Design of CFETR Tokamak Machine". IEEE Transactions on
Plasma Science. 42 (3): 503–509. Bibcode:2014ITPS...42..503S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2014ITPS...42..503S). doi:10.1109/TPS.2014.2299277 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTPS.2014.229
9277). S2CID 24159256 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24159256).
127. Ye, Minyou (26 March 2013). "Status of design and strategy for CFETR" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20151125075902/http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/MEETINGS/1302-USJ-PPS/Ye.pdf) (PDF). Archived
from the original (http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/MEETINGS/1302-USJ-PPS/Ye.pdf) (PDF) on 25
November 2015. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
128. Kim, K.; Im, K.; Kim, H.C.; Oh, S.; et al. (2015). "Design concept of K-DEMO for near-term
implementation" (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F55%2F5%2F053027). Nuclear Fusion.
55 (5): 053027. Bibcode:2015NucFu..55e3027K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015NucFu..55e
3027K). doi:10.1088/0029-5515/55/5/053027 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F55%2F
5%2F053027). ISSN 0029-5515 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0029-5515).
129. Chesto, Jon (3 March 2021). "MIT energy startup homes in on fusion, with plans for 47-acre site in
Devens" (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/03/business/mit-energy-startup-homes-fusion-with-
plans-47-acre-site-devens/). BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
130. Verma, Pranshu. Nuclear fusion power inches closer to reality. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/tec
hnology/2022/08/26/nuclear-fusion-technology-climate-change/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20220827165948/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/26/nuclear-fusion-techno
logy-climate-change/) 27 August 2022 at the Wayback Machine The Washington Post, August 26,
2022.