Scientists use plasma shaping to control turbulence in stellarators (Phys. Rev. Lett.)

By John Greenwald, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Magnetic field strength in a turbulence-optimized stellarator design. Regions with the highest strength are shown in yellow. (Source: PPPL)

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and the Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics in Germany have devised a new method for minimizing turbulen

ce in bumpy donut-shaped experimental fusion facilities called stellarators. This week in Physical Review Letters, these authors describe an advanced application of the method that could help physicists overcome a major barrier to the production of fusion energy in such devices, and could also apply to their more widely used symmetrical donut-shaped cousins called tokamaks. This work was supported by the DOE Office of Science.

Turbulence allows the hot, charged plasma gas that fuels fusion reactions to escape from the magnetic fields that confine the gas in stellarators and tokamaks. This turbulent transport occurs at comparable levels in both devices, and has long been recognized as a challenge for both in producing fusion power economically.

“Confinement bears directly on the cost of fusion energy,” said physicist Harry Mynick, a PPPL coauthor of the paper, “and we’re finding how to reshape the plasma to enhance confinement.”

The new method uses two types of advanced computer codes that have only recently become available. The authors modified these codes to address turbulent transport, evolving the starting design of a fusion device into one with reduced levels of turbulence. The current paper applies the new method to the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator, soon to be the world’s largest when construction is completed in Greifswald, Germany.

Results of the new method, which has also been successfully applied to the design of smaller stellarators and tokamaks, suggest how reshaping the plasma in a fusion device could produce much better confinement. Equivalently, improved plasma shaping could produce comparable confinement with reduced magnetic field strength or reduced facility size, with corresponding reductions in the cost of construction and operation.

The simulations further suggest that a troublesome characteristic called “stiffness” could occur in reactor-sized stellarators. Stiffness, the tendency for heat to rapidly escape as the plasma temperature gradient rises above a threshold, has been observed in tokamaks but less so in stellarators. The possibility that stiffness might be present in reactor-sized stellarators, wrote the authors, could stimulate efforts “toward further optimizing stellarator magnetic fields for reduced turbulence.”

PPPL, on Princeton University’s Forrestal Campus in Plainsboro, New Jersey, is devoted to creating new knowledge about the physics of plasmas — ultra-hot, charged gases — and to developing practical solutions for the creation of fusion energy. Fusion takes place when atomic nuclei fuse and release a burst of energy. This compares with the fission reactions in today’s nuclear power plants, which operate by splitting atoms apart.

Results of PPPL research have ranged from a portable nuclear materials detector for anti-terrorist use to universally employed computer codes for analyzing and predicting the outcome of fusion experiments. The laboratory is managed by the University for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Read the abstract.

Xanthopoulos, P.; Mynick, H.E.; Helander, P.; Turkin, Y.; Plunk, G.G.; Jenko, F.; Görler, T.; Told, D.; Bird, T.; J.H.E. Controlling turbulence in present and future stellarators. Article published in Physical Review Letters on Oct. 7, 2014.

Unstoppable magnetoresistance (Nature)

Mazhar Ali (left) and Steven Flynn (right), co-authors on the Nature paper. Photo by C. Todd Reichert.
Mazhar Ali (left) and Steven Flynn (right), co-authors on the Nature paper. Photo by C. Todd Reichart.

by Tien Nguyen, Department of Chemistry

Mazhar Ali, a fifth-year graduate student in the laboratory of Robert Cava, the Russell Wellman Moore Professor of Chemistry at Princeton University, has spent his academic career discovering new superconductors, materials coveted for their ability to let electrons flow without resistance. While testing his latest candidate, the semimetal tungsten ditelluride (WTe2), he noticed a peculiar result.

Ali applied a magnetic field to a sample of WTe2, one way to kill superconductivity if present, and saw that its resistance doubled. Intrigued, Ali worked with Jun Xiong, a student in the laboratory of Nai Phuan Ong, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Princeton, to re-measure the material’s magnetoresistance, which is the change in resistance as a material is exposed to stronger magnetic fields.

“He noticed the magnetoresistance kept going up and up and up—that never happens.” said Cava. The researchers then exposed WTe2 to a 60-tesla magnetic field, close to the strongest magnetic field mankind can create, and observed a magnetoresistance of 13 million percent. The material’s magnetoresistance displayed unlimited growth, making it the only known material without a saturation point. The results were published online on September 14 in the journal Nature.

Crystal structure of WTe2 (Source: Nature)
Crystal structure of WTe2 (Source: Nature)

Electronic information storage is dependent on the use of magnetic fields to switch between distinct resistivity values that correlate to either a one or a zero. The larger the magnetoresistance, the smaller the magnetic field needed to change from one state to another, Ali said. Today’s devices use layered materials with so-called “giant magnetoresistance,” with changes in resistance of 20,000 to 30,000 percent when a magnetic field is applied. “Colossal magnetoresistance” is close to 100,000 percent, so for a magnetoresistance percentage in the millions, the researchers hoped to coin a new term.

Their original choice was “ludicrous” magnetoresistance, which was inspired by “ludicrous speed,” the fictional form of fast-travel used in the comedy “Spaceballs.” They even included an acknowledgement to director Mel Brooks. After other lab members vetoed “ludicrous,” the researchers considered “titanic” before Nature editors ultimately steered them towards the term “large magnetoresistance.”

Terminology aside, the fact remained that the magnetoresistance values were extraordinarily high, a phenomenon that might be understood through the structure of WTe2. To look at the structure with an electron microscope, the research team turned to Jing Tao, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

“Jing is a great microscopist. They have unique capabilities at Brookhaven,” Cava said. “One is that they can measure diffraction at 10 Kelvin (-441 °F). Not too many people on Earth can do that, but Jing can.”

Electron microscopy experiments revealed the presence of tungsten dimers, paired tungsten atoms, arranged in chains responsible for the key distortion from the classic octahedral structure type. The research team proposed that WTe2 owes its lack of saturation to the nearly perfect balance of electrons and electron holes, which are empty docks for traveling electrons. Because of its structure, WTe2 only exhibits magnetoresistance when the magnetic field is applied in a certain direction. This could be very useful in scanners, where multiple WTe2 devices could be used to detect the position of magnetic fields, Ali said.

“Aside from making devices from WTe2, the question to ask yourself as a scientist is: How can it be perfectly balanced, is there something more profound,” Cava said.

Read the abstract.

Ali, M. N.; Xiong, J.; Flynn, S.; Tao, J.; Gibson, Q. D.; Schoop, L. M.; Haldolaarachchige, N.; Hirschberger, M.; Ong, N. P.; Cava, R. J. “Large, non-saturating magnetoresistance in WTe2.” Nature. Published online September 14. 514, 205–208 (09 October 2014).

This research was supported by the Army Research Office, grants W911NF-12-1-0461 and W911NF-11-1-0379, and the NSF MRSEC Program Grant DMR-0819860. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy’s Basic Energy Sciences (DOE BES) project “Science at 100 Tesla.” The electron microscopy study at Brookhaven National Laboratory was supported by the DOE BES, by the Materials Sciences and Engineering Division under contract DE-AC02-98CH10886, and through the use of the Center for Functional Nanomaterials.

Study questions the prescription for drug resistance (Proceedings of the Royal Society B)

A drug-resistant strain of bacteria known as MRSA. Photo by James Gathany
A new study examines the question of aggressive versus moderate drug treatment on the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. Shown is a strain of bacteria known as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Photo by James Gathany

By Catherine Zandonella, Office of the Dean for Research

In response to the rise of drug-resistant pathogens, doctors are routinely cautioned against overprescribing antimicrobials. But when a patient has a confirmed bacterial infection, the advice is to treat aggressively to quash the infection before the bacteria can develop resistance.

A new study questions the accepted wisdom that aggressive treatment with high drug dosages and long durations is always the best way to stem the emergence and spread of resistant pathogens. The review of nearly 70 studies of antimicrobial resistance, which was authored by researchers at Princeton and other leading institutions and published last week in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, reveals the lack of evidence behind the practice of aggressive treatment in many cases.

“We found that while there are many studies that test for resistance emergence between different drug regimes, surprisingly few have looked at the topic of how varying drug dosage might affect the emergence and spread of resistance,” said Ruthie Birger, a Princeton graduate student who works with C. Jessica Metcalf, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, and Bryan Grenfell, the Kathryn Briger and Sarah Fenton Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Public Affairs in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. Birger, Metcalf and Grenfell coauthored the paper with colleagues from 16 universities. “We are a long way from having the evidence for the best treatment decisions with respect to resistance for a range of diseases,” Birger said.

Microbes such as bacteria and parasites can evade today’s powerful drugs by undergoing genetic mutations that enable them to avoid being killed by the drug. For example, bacteria can develop enzymes that degrade certain antibiotics. The logic behind aggressive treatment goes something like this: kill off as many microbes as you can so that few will be around to evolve into resistant forms.

But some scientists have observed a different outcome in mice infected with both an already-resistant strain of malaria and a non-resistant strain. The high-dose drug treatment killed off the non-resistant malarial parasites, leaving the resistant strains to multiply and make the mice even sicker.

The idea that aggressive treatment may backfire against malarial parasites led the authors of the current study to comb the scientific literature to examine whether the same may be true for other types of microbes such as bacteria. The few studies that they found — mostly in laboratory cell cultures rather than animal models or patients — suggest that the picture is complicated, and depends on whether the resistance is new or existing, how many mutations are necessary for the pathogen to become resistant, and how long the drugs have been in use. “It’s remarkable how little we know about this topic,” said Metcalf. “The malaria study conducted by Silvie Huijben and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University is an inspiring step towards developing an evidence base for these important issues.”

In the current analysis, the study authors found that drug resistance is governed by two factors: the abundance of the pathogen and the strength of the selection pressure that drives the pathogen to evolve. Aggressive treatment deals with the first factor by killing off as much pathogen as possible, while moderate treatment may, for some pathogens, reduce the ability for the resistant pathogen to thrive (for example, by maintaining the competitive advantage of a co-infecting drug-sensitive strain of the pathogen) but still reduce total pathogen levels sufficiently that the patient can recover.

Finding the ideal dose and duration of treatment, one that cures the patient without aiding the spread of resistance, will likely be done on a disease by disease basis, the authors found.

One possibility is that moderate treatment might be best used against already-resistant microbes to prevent their spread. Moderate treatment may also be best for drugs that have been on the market for several years with plenty of time for resistant strains to develop.

Aggressive treatment might be best for pathogens that develop resistance slowly, over the course of several mutations. High doses early in the process could be effective at heading off the development of resistance.

Read the abstract.

Roger D. Kouyos, C. Jessica E. Metcalf, Ruthie Birger, Eili Y. Klein, Pia Abel zur Wiesch, Peter Ankomah, Nimalan Arinaminpathy, Tiffany L. Bogich, Sebastian Bonhoeffer, Charles Brower, Geoffrey Chi-Johnston, Ted Cohen, Troy Day, Bryan Greenhouse, Silvie Huijben, Joshua Metlay, Nicole Mideo, Laura C. Pollitt, Andrew F. Read, David L. Smith, Claire Standley, Nina Wale and Bryan Grenfell. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biological Sciences, 281, 20140566. Published Sept. 24, 2014

The work emerged from two workshops held at Princeton University and funded by the RAPIDD program of the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security and the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health; Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; contract HSHQDC-12-C-00058