These pages provide an access point to data contained in CCFE published journal papers. By selecting a paper, and then a specific figure or table, you can request the related underlying data if it is available for release.
Search the list of Figures using keywords (case insensitive):
|Figure Reference||Title||Description||Number of Figure Data Items||Identifier||Download Figure Details|
|1||FLX box geometry||Example visualisation of the FLH bolometer camera (red), which contains four bolometer foil sightlines, with its pinhole viewing between a first wall tile gap (green). In b) the same FLH camera is shown with its context viewing into the AUG divertor (grey). Note that the model detail has been reduced for visualisation.||0||CF/18/100||Download|
|2||Comparison of etendue calculation methods.||The four foil detector étendues for the FLH camera were calculated with the analytic pinhole approximation (Eqn. 7) and these are compared with the ray-tracing étendue values (Eqn. 6). The three cases shown are a) the analytic pinhole approximation, b) the ray-tracing calculation with a realistic first wall model and a simplified pinhole in a rectangular plane, and c) as b) but also including the full as built detector geometry.||0||CF/18/101||Download|
|3||Comparison of sensitivity matrices||Comparison of sensitivity matrices W in the poloidal plane for a bolometer foil modelled with a single-ray and a volume sampled light cone.||0||CF/18/102||Download|
|4||Sightline density plot||Comparison of the sight line densities for foil bolometers at AUG modelled with single-ray paths and volume sampled light cones.||0||CF/18/103||Download|
|5||AUG case study||Figure a) shows the BLB code inverted emission profile for AUG shot 33280 at 4.1s. Figure b) shows the forward calculated sightlines colour-coded by the percentage error between the two techniques. The bolometer camera positions are labeled.||0||CF/18/104||Download|
|6||Scattered power measurement comparisons||Plot of the forward modelled power with the single ray technique, ? SR , against the power calculated with ray-traced volumes, ? V ol , for each detector observing the radiation scenario in Figure 5. The deviations become more pronounced at higher powers which tends to correlate with sightlines that see the divertor.||0||CF/18/105||Download|
|7||Occlusion example||Example case where the single-ray path terminates too early on a tile surface. When the volume ray-tracing technique is used a large fraction of the collection volume extends into the inner divertor resulting in a significant error in the collected power calculation.||0||CF/18/106||Download|
|8||2D Laplacian operator||Examples of the 2D Laplacian operator for a) a cen- tral cell (C = 8) and b) a cell near the inversion grid corner (C = 5).||0||CF/18/107||Download|
|9||Phantom inversion case study||Bolometer foil measurements of the phantom emission scenario given in a) have been forward modeled with the volume ray-tracing method. The synthetic measurements are then inverted with the unregularised SART algorithm using weight matrices constructed with the single-ray approximation b) and the volume ray-tracing method c). The differences between b) and c) demonstrate the extra spatial constraints imposed by volume ray-tracing. Additionally, both single-ray and ray-tracing inversions were used with regularised SART in d) and e) respectively. See Table I for a comparison of the results.||0||CF/18/108||Download|
|10||Performance of volume ray-tracing against single ray method||Performance on all 94 phantoms of the two weight matrices, W SR and W Vol for varying levels of regularisation. The performance measure is the Pearson correlation coefficient, where ? c = 1 means the inverted emission profile is identical to the phantom emission profile.||0||CF/18/109||Download|
|11||Performance on total power||The phantoms’ total radiated power, ? rad , plotted against the inverted solution ? rad for all 94 phantoms using the single ray and volume ray-tracing techniques. Inversion performance decreases as the inversion points move away from the dashed line. This dataset used the middle regularisation case (? L = 0.001) and demonstrates the volume-raytracing technique consistently out performs the single ray model.||0||CF/18/110||Download|
Loading... please wait...