PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

Editors’ Suggestion Featured in Physics

Design of an inertial fusion experiment exceeding the Lawson criterion for ignition

A. L. Kritcher,1,* A. B. Zylstra,1 D. A. Callahan,1 O. A. Hurricane,1 C. R. Weber,1 D. S. Clark,1 C. V. Young,1 J. E. Ralph,1

D. T. Casey,1 A. Pak,1 O. L. Landen,1 B. Bachmann,1 K. L. Baker,1 L. Berzak Hopkins,1 S. D. Bhandarkar,1 J. Biener,1
R. M. Bionta,1 N. W. Birge,2 T. Braun,1 T. M. Briggs,1 P. M. Celliers,1 H. Chen,1 C. Choate,1 L. Divol,1 T. Döppner,1
D. Fittinghoff,1 M. J. Edwards,1 M. Gatu Johnson,3 N. Gharibyan,1 S. Haan,1 K. D. Hahn,1 E. Hartouni,1 D. E. Hinkel,1
D. D. Ho,1 M. Hohenberger,1 J. P. Holder,1 H. Huang,4 N. Izumi,1 J. Jeet,1 O. Jones,1 S. M. Kerr,1 S. F. Khan,1
H. Geppert Kleinrath,2 V. Geppert Kleinrath,2 C. Kong,4 K. M. Lamb,2 S. Le Pape,5 N. C. Lemos,1 J. D. Lindl,1
B. J. MacGowan,1 A. J. Mackinnon,1 A. G. MacPhee,1 E. V. Marley,1 K. Meaney,2 M. Millot,1 A. S. Moore,1 K. Newman,1
J.-M. G. Di Nicola,1 A. Nikroo,1 R. Nora,1 P. K. Patel,1,† N. G. Rice,4 M. S. Rubery,1 J. Sater,1 D. J. Schlossberg,1
S. M. Sepke,1 K. Sequoia,4 S. J. Shin,1 M. Stadermann,1 S. Stoupin,1 D. J. Strozzi,1 C. A. Thomas,6 R. Tommasini,1
C. Trosseille,1 E. R. Tubman,1 P. L. Volegov,2 C. Wild,7 D. T. Woods,1 and S. T. Yang1
1
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, California 94551-0808, USA
2
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop F663, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
4
General Atomics, San Diego, California 92186, USA
5
Laboratoire pour l’utilisation des Lasers Intenses chez École Polytechnique, F-91128 Palaiseau cedex, France
6
Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14623, USA
7
Diamond Materials Gmbh, 79108 Freiburg, Germany

(Received 22 June 2022; accepted 13 July 2022; published 8 August 2022)

We present the design of the first igniting fusion plasma in the laboratory by Lawson’s criterion that produced
1.37 MJ of fusion energy, Hybrid-E experiment N210808 (August 8, 2021) [Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 075001
(2022)]. This design uses the indirect drive inertial confinement fusion approach to heat and compress a central
“hot spot” of deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel using a surrounding dense DT fuel piston. Ignition occurs when the
heating from absorption of α particles created in the fusion process overcomes the loss mechanisms in the
system for a duration of time. This letter describes key design changes which enabled a ∼3–6× increase in
an ignition figure of merit (generalized Lawson criterion) [Phys. Plasmas 28, 022704 (2021), Phys. Plasmas
25, 122704 (2018)]) and an eightfold increase in fusion energy output compared to predecessor experiments.
We present simulations of the hot-spot conditions for experiment N210808 that show fundamentally different
behavior compared to predecessor experiments and simulated metrics that are consistent with N210808 reaching
for the first time in the laboratory “ignition.”

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.025201

I. INTRODUCTION Central hot-spot ignition [4] aims to achieve these conditions

by compressing and heating a small fraction of the initial
Achieving fusion “ignition” in the laboratory has been a
deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel (“hot spot”) using a higher den-
long-standing milestone for more than 50 years due to the
sity DT fuel piston accelerated to high velocities (vimp ∼ 400
promise of clean limitless energy and is required for net en-
km/s) that does mechanical work on the hot spot. High areal
ergy gain in the inertial confinement fusion approach [1,2].
densities (> 0.4 g cm−2 ) are also required for absorption of
However, the conditions required for this to occur are very
energetic α particles (4 He) born in the fusion process and
difficult to create, more than 50 million degrees to overcome
subsequent reheating of the hot-spot plasma. This extra heat-
the Coulomb barrier for sufficient deuterium and tritium nu-
ing by α particles is needed to overcome energy losses in
clei to fuse [D + T → n (14.1 MeV)+4 He (3.5 MeV)] [3].
the system, including bremsstrahlung x-ray losses, conduc-
tion losses, and explosion losses (or loss of confinement)
for a duration of time (“Lawson-like” ignition criteria) [5]
*
[email protected] for the plasma to “ignite.” Until now, reaching the extreme
†
Now at Focused Energy Inc., 11525-B Stonehollow Drive, Suite temperature and pressure conditions required for ignition have
200, Austin, Texas 78758, USA. occurred only in astrophysical plasmas and thermonuclear
weapon explosions.
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the In this work we present design of the first controlled fu-
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further sion experiment to exceed Lawson-like ignition criteria at
distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) the National Ignition Facility (NIF) [8]; see also the accom-
and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. panying papers which describe the experimental results [9]

2470-0045/2022/106(2)/025201(14) 025201-1 Published by the American Physical Society

A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

FIG. 1. (a) Top: Calculated positions of the wall and capsule materials [gold-lined depleted uranium hohlraum (orange), HDC ablator (light
gray), and DT ice layer (blue)] at peak power (6 ns) from radiation-hydrodynamic HYDRA simulations with simulated laser rays colored by
relative power overlaid. Implosion symmetry control is accomplished via cross-beam energy transfer (CBET) in low-gas-filled (∼0.3 g/cm3 )
hohlraums [6] from the “outer” laser beams (44.5◦ and 50◦ ) to the “inner” beams (23◦ and 30◦ ) by detuning the wavelengths relative to each
other (λ). (a) Bottom: Hybrid-E target geometry at t = 0 with laser beam pointing (laser cones are labeled by their respective polar angle)
for the new (N210808, left) and previous (N210307, right) configurations. (b) The total (thick curves), “outer” cone (thin middle curves), and
“inner” cone (thin lower curves) laser powers vs time (i.e., pulse shape) for experiments N210808 (red) and N210307 (blue). The balancing
of power between the “outer” and “inner” cones together with CBET is tailored to give precise control of the time-dependent radiation drive
symmetry. (c) Simulated hohlraum internal radiation temperature, Trad , histories for N210808 (red) and N210307 (blue). The extended Trad , for
N210808 compared to N210307 results in increased late-time ablation pressure and reduced “coast time.” The near vertical rise of the Trad at
t ∼ 9.2 ns seen in the red curve is reheating of the hohlraum from the capsule fusion output. “Bang times” or time of peak neutron production
and times of peak implosion velocity are also denoted. (d) Calculated change in cone powers as a result of CBET moving power from the
“outer” beams to the “inner” beams, incident in black and post-CBET in red. This calculation uses multipliers on the incident powers to match
experimental tuning data [7]. (e) Ratio of the “inner” cone power to total laser power for the incident pulse (black) and post-CBET pulse (red)
from the calculation in (d). See the text for more information.

and discussion of ignition criteria together with the historical gradients [18–21] can result in the mixing of capsule mate-
perspective [10]. These experiments used the indirect drive rial with the compressed DT and central hot spot, reducing
approach [11–13] where an x-ray radiation source is generated the compression and temperature. Designing an implosion
via laser irradiation of a high atomic number cylindrical can, that satisfies the conditions to do sufficient work on the
or hohlraum (see Fig. 1), and is used to heat and ablate the implosion, while also controlling hydrodynamic instabilities
outside of a spherical capsule filled with DT fuel in the center and spherical symmetry, requires finesse and engineering
of the radiation cavity. The ablation process accelerates the control.
remaining capsule mass and DT fuel inward at high velocities Initial experiments at the NIF [13] laid the groundwork for
doing work on the central hot spot, compressing and heating the technology and understanding, but were impacted by low-
it. The plasma is confined inertially by the dense fuel sur- mode asymmetries which reduced the implosion efficiency,
rounding the hot spot for a duration of time, releasing fusion as well as hydrodynamic instabilities and sensitivity to per-
energy until it explodes and cools. The spherical integrity of turbations caused by the capsule support tent [23]. Follow-on
the imploding capsule is important for doing efficient work experiments to improve the hydrodynamic stability [18] by in-
on the central hot spot [14–17] and requires a high degree of creasing the first shock ablation pressure enabled pushing the
control and precision in both the intrinsic asymmetries that implosion to higher velocities before the capsule support tent
can result from the hohlraum and capsule configuration as perturbation eventually limited performance. Development of
well as the unintentional odd mode asymmetries. In addition, hohlraums with reduced He gas-fill density [24–26] resulted
extra radiative loss in the system from hydrodynamic insta- in higher laser coupling to the radiation cavity which enabled
bilities seeded by engineering features and material density fielding larger hohlraums and better control of symmetry.

025201-2
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

These experiments also used high-density carbon (HDC), or

diamond, ablators, vs plastic, which resulted in less sensi-
tivity to the capsule support tent perturbation and achieving
higher hot-spot pressures [27–30]. However, these designs
were already using the full laser energy and power of NIF
but did not achieve sufficient energy coupling to the hot spot
for α particle self-heating to sufficiently overcome losses for
ignition to occur. See Ref. [10] for a more detailed description
of the history and development of the program, understanding,
and technology.

II. DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

This paper reports on further optimizing the Hybrid-E
[7,31,32] design (Fig. 1) which increased the amount of en-
ergy delivered to the hot spot by increasing the size of the
implosion (15%) compared to previous experiments [27–30].
This design was part of the Hybrid strategy [33,34] to in-
crease the scale (S) of the implosion for more energy coupled
to the hot spot. The challenge of increasing initial capsule
radius with fixed available laser energy is the potential loss
of energy density. To do this, the Hybrid-E design [7,31,32]
also balanced key metrics important for maintaining high
hot-spot pressures such as the compressibility of the fuel
(“adiabat” = plasma pressure/Fermi pressure), vimp , im-
plosion symmetry, hydrodynamic stability, and the late-time
ablation pressure from the drive (related to “coast time” [35])
within the current confines of NIF. The “coast time” and
stability were further optimized on experiment N210808 [36]
compared to the predecessor experiments.
The increase in performance at fixed laser energy com-
pared to previous designs is shown in Fig. 2 together with
the theoretical hydrodynamic scalings of the highest perform-
ers from the previous designs. Figure 2 shows that much
higher laser energies would have been required to produce
> MJ of fusion energy with no additional design changes
and direct hydrodynamic scalings [37] to larger implosion
scale from the prior designs. Advances in the understand- FIG. 2. (a) Neutron yield as a function of laser energy for dia-
ing of symmetry control in low gas-fill hohlraums [38] and mond (pink), plastic (green), and beryllium (gray) ablator designs.
development of cross-beam energy transfer (CBET) in low Hybrid-E experiments (e.g., N210207, N210307, and N210808)
gas-filled hohlraums through wavelength detuning [6] were show the improvement in performance at fixed available laser en-
essential improvements that enabled increasing the capsule ergy through design changes to increase the scale of the implosion
scale in more efficient hohlraums to achieve this optimization. while maintaining high hot-spot pressures. The curves are direct
The lower density gas-filled hohlraums resulted in more ef- hydrodynamic scalings from best performing smaller scale designs
fective symmetry control with modest amounts of wavelength which require more laser energy to increase implosion scale. The
separation while also achieving high levels of laser light cou- Hybrid-E experiments are notably higher than a direct scaling of
pling to the hohlraum, ∼96%–99%; see the Appendix for previous smaller scale diamond ablator designs. (b) Fusion energy
the measured laser back-scattering on N210808. Previous as a function of scaled DT ice mass showing that, in addition to
high-gas filled hohlraums [13], however, displayed significant being able to field a larger scale implosion at fixed laser energy,
amounts of stimulated Raman and Brillouin back-scattering the quality of the implosion compared to a hydrodynamic scaling of
(∼15%–20% of the incident laser energy), which resulted in Bigfoot experiment N180128 [22] was improved on N210808. The
a less efficient hohlraum and large amounts of wavelength upper points are the measured yields, which include the impact of α
heating (α-on), and the lower curve uses calculations to remove the
separation to control the symmetry.
impact of α heating (α-off), verified in a THD experiment at 1.0 scale
Following previously reported Hybrid-E experiments that
(dark point) and calculated otherwise (light gray points).
reached the burning plasma regime [32,39,40], simulations
indicated that further optimization of the coast time and hot-
spot pressure could be achieved by increasing the late-time A. “Coast” improvement
ablation pressure [35] (see Table I), which motivated this In this work, the late-time ablation pressure (or “coast
work. time”) was further optimized by reducing one of the main

025201-3
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

TABLE I. Simulation metrics for N210808 compared to burning plasma experiments (N210207, N210307) and measurements. DSR is
defined as the ratio of the 10–12 MeV neutrons to the 13–15 MeV neutrons. Burn-off metrics correspond to calculations where the α heating
is artificially turned off, Pabl is the ablation pressure, and Ecap is the amount of energy absorbed by the capsule. G is gain of fusion energy over
the amount delivered to the DT fuel, capsule, and target assembly.

N210207Data N210207Sim N210307Data N210307Sim N210808Data N210808Sim

Quantity Setup
Laser power, Plaser (TW) 470 470 487 487 441 441
Laser energy, Elaser (MJ) 1.93 1.93 1.909 1.909 1.917 1.917
Hohlraum diameter (mm) 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4
Hohlraum length (mm) 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24 11.24
Laser entrance hole (LEH) diameter (mm) 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.1 3.1
Wavelength separation, λ (Å) 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.8 1.8
Observables and Calculated Hohlraum and Implosion Metrics
Bang time (BT) (ns) 9.09 ± 0.03 9.05 9.31 ± 0.03 9.35 9.26 ± 0.03 9.26
Fusion yield, Ytotal (MJ) 0.170 0.157 0.145 0.122 1.37 1.353
DT ion temperature, TDT (keV) 5.66 ± 0.13 6.37 5.55 ± 0.11 5.78 10.9 ± 0.4 11.3
DD ion temperature, TDD (keV) 5.23 ± 0.16 5.84 4.87 ± 0.14 4.91 8.94 ± 0.4 8.7
Thermal ion temperature, Tth (keV) n/a 5.5 n/a 5.24 n/a 9.83
Down-scattered ratio, DSR (%) 3.16 ± 0.16 3.58 3.49 ± 0.16 3.45 2.87 ± 0.24 3.09
Burn width, τBW (ps) 103 ± 25 110 138 ± 20 110 89 ± 5 78
Maximum implosion velocity, vimp (km/s) n/a 393 n/a 387 n/a 391
Time of peak velocity, tvimp (ns) n/a 8.63 n/a 8.9 n/a 8.8
Remaining ablator mass (%) n/a 4.7 n/a 5.7 n/a 4.8
Max radiation temperature, Tr,max (eV) 302 295 (internal) 294 294 (internal) 307 305 (internal)
Radiation temperature at BT, Tr,BT (eV) n/a 260 (internal) n/a 254 (internal) n/a 276 (internal)
Radiation temperature at tvimp,max (eV) n/a 279 (internal) n/a 270 (internal) n/a 291 (internal)
DT fuel adiabat n/a ∼3 n/a ∼3 n/a ∼3
Coast Metrics
Radius peak velocityLimbMin (μm) n/a 195 n/a 211 n/a 185
Coast time, tcoast (ns) 1.04 1.05 1.2 1.2 0.86 0.86
Pabl ∼ 145(Tr,tvimp /300)2.4 (Mbar) n/a 121.8 n/a 112.6 n/a 134.8
Pabl ∼ 145(Tr,avg(tvimp ,max) /300)2.4 (Mbar) n/a 124.3 n/a 115.4 n/a 132
“Burn-off” (No-α Heating) Metrics
Fusion yield, no-α Ytotal (MJ) n/a 0.024 n/a 0.03 n/a 0.044
Hot-spot pressure, no-α phs (Gbar) n/a 170 n/a 194 n/a 252
DT ion temperature, no-α TDT (keV) n/a 4.82 n/a 4.57 n/a 4.9
Hot-spot areal density, no-α ρRhs (g/cm2 ) n/a 0.26 n/a 0.29 n/a 0.26
Hot-Spot and Ignition Metrics
Hot-spot pressure, phs (Gbar) 351 ± 23 290 353 ± 23 281 569 ± 61 442
Hot-spot internal energy, IEhs (kJ) 17.4 ± 1.1 19 14.6 ± 0.9 16 55 ± 6.0 61.5
Ignition metric (Ehs Phs2 ) norm. to N210307 n/a 1.26 n/a 1.0 n/a 9.5
Hot-spot areal density, ρRhs (g/cm2 ) 0.37 ± 0.4 0.38 0.38 ± 0.02 0.40 0.44 ± 0.05 0.426
Hot-spot volume, V (105 μm3 ) 3.3 ± 0.3 2.7 2.7 ± 0.3 2.3 6.4 ± 0.75 9.1
d 2 TDT /dtBT
2
(keV/ns2 ) n/a ∼-2 n/a ∼-2 n/a ∼+6
Yield amplification, Ytotal /Ytotal,no−α n/a 6.7 n/a 4.1 n/a 30.6
Gfuel = Ytotal,exp /kinetic energyDT 7.5+0.54
−0.82 10.5 7.77+0.55
−0.82 8.7 75.6+3.6
−5.6 84
Gcapsule = Ytotal,meas. /Ecap 0.75 ± 0.05 0.8 0.69 ± 0.05 0.7 5.8 6.3
Gtarget =Ytotal,meas. /Elaser 0.089 0.09 0.075 0.08 0.72 0.71
Generalized Lawson criterionL a [41] < 1 [10] 0.66 < 1 [10] 0.61 > 1 [10] 1.7
Generalized Lawson criterionH [42] < 1 [10] 0.5 < 1 [10] 0.37 > 1 [10] 2.2
a
The method in Ref. [41] uses quantities for pressure and radius that are fusion burn-weighted in time and space, vs the reported numbers in
the table that are spatially burn-weighted quantities at the time of peak neutron production.
sources of radiation loss in the hohlraum, the laser entrance LEH to improve hohlraum efficiency was first tested in tuning
holes (LEHs) from 3.64 mm diameter (N210307) to 3.1 mm experiments [43,44] which used a previous 1100 μm scale
diameter (N210808); see Fig. 1(a) (bottom) for schematics Hybrid-E design [7] which used the same laser beam pointing
of N210307 and N210808. The efficacy of using a smaller and hohlraum configuration as the burning plasma Hybrid-E

025201-4
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

design [32,39]. These experiments verified increased radiation frequency tripling) [6,48–50] from λ = 1.55 Å for N210307
temperature and energy coupling with adequate low-mode to λ = 1.8 Å for N210808. The additional transfer can be
symmetry control at larger scale. For the N210808 design, the seen in the simulated laser rays colored by the spatially vary-
reduction in radiation losses with the smaller LEH was used to ing power after transfer for the two configurations in Fig. 1(a)
operate at lower peak power for N210808 vs N210307 while and in the calculated post-CBET vs incident laser powers by
still achieving similar radiation temperature (Trad ) [Fig. 1(c)], cone in Fig. 1(d). This can also be seen in Fig. 1(e), which
implosion velocity, and ablator mass remaining, but signifi- shows a larger cone fraction (ratio of “inner” power to total
cantly reducing the “coast time” (see Table I). Here the saved power) post-CBET (red) vs incident (black).
energy from operating at lower power was used to extend the The intentional increase in energy transfer during the peak
pulse duration at the same total laser energy to increase the of the pulse also results in more transfer during the “foot”
late-time Trad and ablation pressure. of the pulse (before the rise to peak power), which was then
The value tcoast is defined as the difference in bang time reoptimized by adjusting the time-dependent foot cone frac-
and the time where the laser power falls off to half maximum tion [6,7,32]. This is done by changing the ratio of “inner”
after the peak of the laser pulse, which was reduced by 40% beam power to total power using radiation hydrodynamic
compared to N210307 for N210808 (∼350 ps shorter). The ra- simulations. Figure 3(a) shows the calculated P1, P2, and P4
dius of peak velocity (RPV) [45] is another metric for reduced Legendre moments of the radiation drive for N210808, the
“coast time,” which becomes smaller as the “coast” is reduced. scaled laser pulse, and the cone fraction as a function of time.
The RPV for N210808 was reduced by ∼30 μm compared Since the outers are “drooping,” or ramping down, late in time
to N210307 leading to a predicted increase in up to 50 Gbar while the “inner” beams are being held on, this causes the
of no-α (without the impact of α heating) hot-spot pressure late-time increase in cone fraction. This “drooping” was incor-
and is defined in Table I as the minimum transmission of an porated into the design to enable using the full NIF energy and
in-flight radiograph of the dense fuel and shell. power on all 192 laser beams, increase the late-time ablation
Other “coast” metrics were notably improved for N210208 pressure, and mitigate potential laser backscattering out of the
vs N210307, including the late-time ablation pressure cal- hohlraum late in time from the “outer” beams which interact
culated using the simulated radiation temperature at time of with the high-Z expanding wall plasma; see the Appendix.
peak implosion velocity (tvimp ) and maximum radiation tem- The cone fraction in the peak was 33% and was also chosen
perature. The calculated internal radiation temperature was (together with the shape of the droop) to enable the full use of
∼20 eV higher for N210808 compared to N210307 at “bang NIF, which results in a P2 flux asymmetry swing during to the
time,” time of maximum neutron production. The estimated peak from waist to pole hot as the wall ingresses. If this swing
increase in E P2 , an ignition metric [37,46], was >7–10× can be balanced, the imploding shell and hot-spot symmetry
the previous burning plasma experiments and ∼40% higher can be maintained. Simulations were used to design the “foot”
for no-α E P2 (no-α removes the impact of α heating on symmetry, and work is currently being done to benchmark
calculated hot-spot metrics). the flux asymmetry calculations in the rise and peak for the
N210808 platform.
Since late-time laser beam propagation through the plasma
B. Low-mode symmetry filled hohlraum is difficult to model, a data-driven model [38]
Reducing the size of the LEH required moving the position was used together with an experimental playbook of delta
of the 50◦ laser beams toward the midplane of the hohlraum hot spot P2 vs λ to select the wavelength separation for
[43,44] so they are not absorbed unintentionally by the edge N210808 [Fig. 3(b)] and tested in a symmetry-tuning exper-
of the LEH; see Fig. 1(a) (bottom). This creates more over- iment [9] prior to N210808. The y axis is the amount of
lap between the “outer” laser beams (44◦ and 50◦ ), which observed increase in hot spot P2 (more prolate due to more
causes the “gold bubble” (ablated Au wall plasma) to ingress drive on the hohlraum waist) compared to the calculated P2
further, which can inhibit the “inner” laser beams (23◦ and using the model [38] at λ = 0 Å for the hohlraum design
30◦ ) from reaching the interior of the hohlraum. This can parameters and fielding conditions. Figure 3 includes several
be seen in Fig. 1(a) (top), which shows radiation hydrody- 1050 μm inner radius Hybrid-E experiments and symcap
namic simulations (HYDRA) [47] of the integrated designs experiment N210601 [9], which used the same hohlraum con-
for N210808 (left) and N210307 (right) at 6 nanoseconds after figuration as N210808 [9]. This experiment did not include
the start of the laser pulse. The relatively smaller gap between the DT payload and is more prolate compared to a DT at the
the capsule and hohlraum wall gives less physical space for same wavelength separation.
the laser beams to propagate in and more interaction with the
ingress of hohlraum wall plasma, resulting in an energetically
C. Additional changes
undesirable oblate asymmetric implosion—asymmetry wastes
implosion kinetic energy, and time variation fluctuations in the Other aspects impacting the quality of the implosion were
radiation drive symmetry can cause large ρR variations in the improved for N210808 compared to predecessor experiments
compressed DT which reduces the implosion efficiency and (N210307 and N210207), including a more stable Atwood
confinement time. number at the DT fuel-ablator interface, improved diamond
To regain sufficient drive at the waist of the hohlraum, the ablator quality [9,20], and reduced DT fill-tube diameter
amount of light transferred from the “outer” to “inner” beams from 5 μm to 2 μm [21,52]. The Atwood number is an
(CBET) was increased by additionally detuning their relative important parameter which determines the growth of hydro-
wavelengths (λ = “Inner” beam–“Outer” beam before laser dynamic instabilities [Rayleigh-Taylor (RT)] and is defined

025201-5
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

hydrodynamic scaling from smaller scale Bigfoot diamond

ablator experiments [22], accounting for the scaled DT fuel
mass. The N210808 design used a thicker DT ice layer com-
pared to a hydrodynamic scaling of Bigfoot (∼30% increase
in DT thickness for a ∼10% increase in scale), which can
protect the “hot spot” from high-Z ablator mixing, translating
to better implosion quality, but also had a lower design fuel
adiabat. Future experiments will test sensitivities to the trade-
offs in these design parameters for N210808 (adiabat and DT
thickness). Experiments N210207 and N210307 also used a
thick (65 μm) DT ice layer but may have been limited by
capsule quality or nonoptimal “coast time.” The thicker ice of
the N210808 design was motivated by successful tests to mit-
igate the impact of observed capsule quality defects in larger
scale 1100 μm Hybrid-E experiments [7,31]. Increasing the
ice thickness is a trade-off with implosion velocity and ablator
mass remaining at a given implosion velocity. Thicker ice
layers require longer laser pulses for the shocks to transit the
ice, which burns off more ablator mass. Maintaining sufficient
ablator mass is also important for stability and confinement,
and sensitivity to ablator thickness and mass remaining for
N210808 will be studied in future experiments.
Figure 4 shows the hohlraum and capsule configuration for
N210808 and capsule configurations burning plasma experi-
ments N210207 and N210307. For all three experiments the
hohlraum was gold-lined depleted uranium (Au-lined DU),
6.4 mm in diameter and 11.24 mm in length, with a helium gas
fill density in the hohlraum of 0.3 mg/cm3 . Gold-lined DU
hohlraums require less energy in the beginning of the pulse
(picket) to achieve the same radiation temperature compared
to unlined DU hohlraums, which slows down the ingress of
the wall bubble (see the low mode symmetry Sec. II B) while
providing a higher radiation drive in the peak of the pulse
compared to solid Gold hohlraums due to the higher albedo.
The laser entrance hole was 3.64 mm in diameter for N210307
FIG. 3. (a) Simulated Legendre decomposition of the radiation and N210207 and 3.1 mm in diameter or N210808 (see also
flux asymmetry (Pn = P1, P2, and P4) for N210808 plotted together Table I). An improved diagnostic window configuration to
with the scaled laser power as a function of time, and cone fraction reduce odd mode radiation drive asymmetries [16] was used
(ratio of “inner” laser cones to total power) as a function of time. on N210808 but not N210307 or N210207. The diamond abla-
Also denoted is the range of ±1% radiation flux asymmetry. The tors consisted of an inner undoped diamond layer, a W-doped
calculated radiation flux symmetry is within specification during diamond layer at larger radius, and an outer undoped diamond
most of the pulse for P1 and P4. The P2 decomposition is within layer. The crystal structure was microcrystalline diamond
the specification during the “foot,” until the rise to peak power, but (MCD) for N210207 (fabrication batch identification num-
is allowed to swing during the peak of the pulse (see the text). These ber KC720) and nanocrystalline (NCD) for N210307 (batch
calculations do not adjust the drive of the “inner” cones and overes- KC461) and N210808 (batch KC789). The ablator thickness
timate the P2 swing in the rise to peak. (b) Observed increase in hot ranged from ∼76 μm to 80 μm due to the difference in
spot P2 (more prolate) for a given amount of wavelength separation mass density of the ablator, ∼3.5 g/cm3 for MCD, and ∼3.32
(λ) over the calculated P2 at λ = 0 Å using the Callahan et al. g/cm3 for NCD.
semiempirical model [38].
The N210808 and N210307 capsules had a high level of
tungsten dopant (∼0.42%–0.44% W), designed to improve
as A = (ρ1 − ρ2 )/(ρ1 + ρ2 ), where ρ1 is the density of the the Atwood number at the accelerating fuel-ablator interface
compressed DT fuel and ρ2 is the density of the remaining ab- by maintaining the ablator density relative to the compressed
lator material. When this parameter is small, the accelerating DT fuel density; see Fig. 5 (blue is N210207 0.28% W-doped
fuel-ablator interface is more stable, reducing growth of the HDC and red is N210307 0.44% W-doped HDC). Diamond
RT instability. The improvement in quality on performance ablator batch KC461 was the first >0.4% W-doped diamond
for N210808 compared to the previous burning plasma ex- batch and the first NCD batch to be tested at the NIF in
periments (N210207 and N210307) can be seen in Fig. 2(b), earlier Hybrid-B experiments [20,53]. However, this batch
which shows fusion energy produced as a function of scaled contained thousands of voids, which can seed hydrodynamic
DT ice mass together with the theoretical hydrodynamic scal- instabilities [20]. The design for N210808 used a high-dopant
ing (gray curves). The performance of N210808 exceeds the ablator together with higher quality capsules (fewer defects)

025201-6
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

FIG. 4. Schematic of the N210808 Hybrid-E hohlraum and capsule configuration showing the nominal target dimensions for the hohlraum
(left) and pie chart for the central DT-fuel filled capsules (right). Also shown are pie charts for N210307 and N210207. The diamond ablator
consists of a ∼6 μm inner undoped HDC layer, followed by a tungsten (W)-doped HDC layer at larger radii and an outer undoped HDC
layer. The crystal structure for the diamond ablators used in N210307 and N210808 was nanocrystalline diamond (NCD) compared to
microcrystalline diamond (MCD) used in experiment N210207. The DT ice and gas core radii are also listed.

[9] and additionally improved the calculated stability at the changes include adjusting the length of the pulse before
DT-fuel ablator interface with the lower “coast” drive, being peak power (shortening the “trough” by 100 ps) to maintain
stable for nearly the entire acceleration phase (black curve). equivalent shock timing, given the higher early-time radiation
Improving Atwood number at the fuel-ablator interface with temperature, compared to N210307 [see Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 1].
higher W-dopant capsules is generally a trade-off with growth The increase in early-time “picket” Trad also helps with
factors for perturbations seeded at the ablation front [54]. stability at the ablation front [18]. Figure 6(b) shows the radial
To balance this tradeoff, gold-lined DU hohlraums were pressure gradient as a function of time which enables tracking
chosen due to their higher level of M band (> 1.8 keV) the three shocks launched by three distinct power steps in
in the radiation spectrum, which blows down the ablation the laser profile, moving through the ablator and DT ice. The
front and reduces growth factors. Other intentional design plot on the left shows the shock trajectories in radius and
time for the previous N210307 platform along the equator,
where the merger of the first and second shocks is ∼10
μm inside the DT ice from the ice-gas interface. This merger
within the DT ice increases the adiabat by ∼0.3–0.5 compared
to merging shocks 1 and 2 at the ice gas interface (where
the calculated adiabat of N210808 is 3–3.3). The adiabat is
also set by the strength of the first shock and the rate of rise
of the final shock due to reflection off of the ablation front
of the rarefaction from the third shock. Here the higher M
band of the Au-lined DU hohlraum compared to unlined-DU
reduces steepness at the ablation front and results in a weaker
reflected shock.
While calculations predict higher performance by addi-
tionally reducing the adiabat from N210808 (shock mergers
closer to the ice-gas interface), past studies have shown op-
posite trends experimentally due to complications at higher
convergence [33]. Thus for the N210808 design which was
meant to be primarily a test of “coast” time, the shock
trajectories were maintained relative to the previous burning
plasma experiments. Future experiments will test a reduction
FIG. 5. Calculated DT fuel-HDC ablator Atwood number as a
function of fuel-ablator radius for Hybrid-E designs using lower
in adiabat from N210808. The preshot N210808 laser pulse
W-dopant diamond ablators (N210207 with 0.3% W dopant, blue) request was designed to give similar shock timing to N210307
compared to higher W-dopant ablators in the longer “coast-time” [middle plot of Fig. 6(b)] and the postshot as-delivered laser
configuration (N210307 with 0.44% W dopant, red). The improve- resulted in a slightly deeper 1–2 shock merger than the preshot
ment in Atwood number for the higher W-dopant ablators in the calculation. Model validation for simulated shock trajectories
lower-coast design of N210808 is shown in black (KC789 with for the N210808 configuration was not performed prior to the
0.42% W dopant). When the ablator density > the DT fuel density experiments, and work is ongoing to benchmark the calcula-
(negative values on the y axis) the implosion is more stable at the DT tions. Here we use earlier data from the Hybrid-E campaign
fuel-ablator interface. [7] to calibrate the modeling.

025201-7
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

FIG. 6. (a) Simulated internal radiation temperature for N210808 (red) and N210307 (blue) where the inset is expanded on the first shock.
(b) Radial pressure gradients of the three shocks launched by distinct changes in radiation temperature plotted as a function of initial radius vs
time. The darker contours show the shock front moving through the various capsule layers (ablator, DT ice, and DT gas), which are denoted
on the right-hand side. The ice-gas interface is also noted. The plot on the left-hand side is for experiment N210307, the middle is a preshot
calculation for the adjusted N210808 pulse (see the text), and the right-hand plot is for the postshot delivered N210808 pulse. (c) Calculated
leading shock front pressure in the diamond (red) is higher than the melting pressure for HDC along the shock Hugoniot (∼10–12 Mbar) [51].
The black curves denote where the temperature is > 3 eV behind the shock front.

Figure 6(c) shows the calculated leading shock pressure mass remaining and implosion velocity for two capsule
in the diamond ablator where each line corresponds to a options [KC720 (red) and KC789 (blue)] in the small LEH
different time as the shock moves through the diamond. The configuration. Here the velocity was varied by adjusting
black curves overlaid denote where the temperature behind the laser power in the peak of the pulse [Fig. 7(b)] while
the shock is > 3 eV, sufficient to melt diamond. This design maintaining the full laser energy (1.9 MJ) through extending
is calculated to have a high enough first shock pressure (> or contracting the “peak” duration.
10–12 Mbar) [51] to avoid refreeze of the diamond.
The laser power during the “peak” of the pulse (see
Fig. 1) was reduced to increase late-time ablation pressure III. RELATIVE IMPACTS OF CHANGES
and reduce “coast” time; see the “Coast” improvement The sensitivity of performance (total neutron yield) to
section, II.A. The level of reduced power was chosen to changes made between the burning plasma regime (N210307)
maintain sufficient ablator mass remaining of ∼5% to avoid and N210808 calculated using HYDRA are shown in Fig. 8.
burn-through and loss of stability and confinement, while also These calculations use calibrated models for the capsule
maintaining a comparable implosion velocity to the burning support tent and DT fill-tube perturbations, and include rough-
plasma experiments N210307 and N210207 (∼390 km/s; see nesses at the ice and ablator interfaces (see the Appendix).
Table I). Figure 7(a) shows the relationship between ablator The insets are “bang-time” images of the DT density (left)

025201-8
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

FIG. 8. Relative impacts: Simulations of the total neutron yield

for the changes made between the burning plasma regime (N210307)
and this paper (N210808) including the lower-coast radiation drive,
DT fill-tube size change, stability improvement, and capsule qual-
ity change. Postshot simulations including all degradations for that
experiment, (a) for N210307 and (g) for N210808, are compared
to experimental data (slashed bars). See the text for a description
of the relative changes between the bars. The insets are simulated
images of the density (left) and ion temperature (right); see also the
text.

radiation drive asymmetries are first removed from the post-

shot simulation of N210307 (b), which has a ∼20% impact on
performance for this platform. Then the lower coast drive used
for N210808 was applied to this calculation (c) showing the
impact of the increased late-time ablation pressure fielded on
FIG. 7. Calculations of ablator mass remaining as a function of N210808, which was ∼4×. The impact of stability improve-
implosion velocity (a) and implosion velocity as a function of peak ments made between N210307 and N210808 (improvements
laser power (b) for preshot simulations of the N210808 hohlraum and to the Atwood number and capsule quality) were estimated
LEH configuration for high (blue) and low (red) W-doped capsule by making adjustments to the fall-line mix model (see the
batches (see Fig. 4). As the peak laser power is varied the total laser Appendix), moving from bar (c) to bar (d). A ∼5× increase
energy is conserved. The spread in velocities for a given peak laser in yield is estimated from the improvement in capsule qual-
power is a result of using a range to estimate uncertainty in the drive ity, which was determined by comparing the fall-line model
benefit of the smaller LEH (3.1 vs 3.64 mm) for the full 1.9 MJ required to match the observed conditions of N210307 (see
laser energy, which was first fielded on this experiment N210808. Table I) to a benchmarked fall-line model for prior experi-
The design point for N210808 was ∼5% ablator mass remaining and ments [55], which had higher intrinsic capsule quality (defects
∼390 km/s, which led to the 430 TW requested laser power (with inside the ablator). Since N210808 was calculated to be stable
440 TW actually delivered on N210808).
for the entire acceleration phase, removing the fall-line mix
model resulted in an additional ∼65% increase in perfor-
and ion temperature (right) on a scale of ±70 μm. As mance. The impact of the reduced DT fill-tube size (2 μm
the yield increases, the size of the hot spot increases as a for N210808 and 5 μm for N210307) was a ∼10% increase
result of burning into the fuel and compressed DT shell, in performance for bar (e) compared to bar (d), which used a
which was observed experimentally on N210808 [9]. The blue calibrated 2 μm fill-tube model.
dashed bars are measured yields for N210307 (dark blue) and A postshot calculation of N210808 without low modes
N210808 (light blue). The dark blue bars represent postshot from the radiation drive is denoted by bar (f) and with low
simulations of N210307 sequentially “walking” to the condi- modes from the radiation drive by bar (g), which had a higher
tions of N210808 (postshot simulations of N210808 are the impact on performance in this regime and for this order of
solid light blue bars). applied perturbations. The order in which a perturbation is
Postshot simulations including all degradations for applied may influence its impact on performance. The final
N210307 and N210808 are denoted by (a) and (g), postshot simulation denoted by bar (g) also matched other
respectively. Moving from left to right, the low-mode experimental observables (see Table I) without the need for

025201-9
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

applying a fuel-ablator fall line mix model. This figure shows

that the main contributors for the higher performance of
N210808 vs N210307 were the design changes that produced
a lower-coast implosion, more stable fuel-ablator interface,
and improved diamond ablator quality which led to higher
compressions [measured through the down-scattered neutron
ratio (DSR); see Table I].

IV. SIMULATED HOT-SPOT CONDITIONS AND IGNITION

METRICS FOR N210808
Simulations support N210808 being in a fundamentally
new regime as compared to the burning plasma experiments
(e.g., N210307 and N210207) and previous α-heating experi-
ment N170601. This can be seen in Fig. 9(a), which shows the
evolution in time of the hot-spot ion temperature as a function
of hot spot ρR with the time direction noted on the curves
with arrows. Also shown is a dashed curve which corresponds
to the temperature and ρR conditions where α heating and
losses in the system (radiative losses, conduction losses, and
explosion phase cooling) roughly balance [37]. For N170601
the fusion yield exceeded the kinetic energy of the DT,
but the α heating was not sufficient to overcome the losses and
the hot spot disassembles to lower ρR and ion temperature.
Burning plasma experiment N210307 had a greater amount of
α heating that dominated the hot-spot energy balance, which
started in its creation with a higher initial ion temperature
as a result of the design changes, but the α heating was not
sufficient to overcome the losses for a long enough duration
to provide significant α-bootstrap heating. The N210808 ex-
periment shows a substantial increase in hot-spot temperature
and ρR and a reversal of the trajectory where the hot spot
continues to increase in temperature on expansion. Here the
extra initial confinement and α heating allow the temperature
overcome losses and increase significantly.
Simulations of N210808 hot-spot energy balance support
the creation of an “igniting” plasma. When the α particle
heating is greater than the initial work done on the plasma
as well as the energy loss mechanisms, and for a long enough FIG. 9. (a) “Hot-spot” ion temperature and ρR evolution as a
duration of time (confinement time), the plasma “ignites” and function of time for α-heating experiment N170601 compared to
a thermodynamic instability or tipping point in DT plasma burning plasma experiment N210307 and ignition by Lawson crite-
self-heating occurs; see [10]. We use these detailed postshot rion experiment N210808. The direction of increasing time is shown
with the arrows on the curves, and the overlaid red curves denote
simulations that match experimental observables to assess
“bang time” (peak neutron production) and ±50 ps. The dashed
the energy balance in the hot spot. Figure 9(b) shows the
curve is a theoretical model for conditions where the α heating
cumulative hot-spot energies for N210808 as a function of
balances the loss terms. (b) Calculated hot-spot energy partition as a
time including the PdV (P: pressure; dV: volume change) function of time: PdV work on the hot spot [black (dot-dashed)], en-
work being done on the hot spot (black), internal hot spot ergy deposited by α heating (green), radiative (red), and conduction
energy (blue), radiative loss from the hot spot (red), and con- [magenta (dotted)] energy loss, and hot-spot internal energy [blue
duction losses (magenta). The PdV work term also becomes (dashed)]. Note that the negative PdV work is a loss term that is
a loss mechanism when the high-pressure hot spot expands, comparable to the radiative loss and exceeds the conduction loss by
or explodes, due to its own pressure. This happens when the the time of peak neutron production. Inset: Simulated density (left,
PdV cumulative energy starts to decrease just after the implo- g/cm3 ) and ion temperature Tion (right, keV) at the time of peak
sion has reached minimum volume and eventually becomes neutron production. Inset spatial scale in microns.
negative. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that the amount of heating
from α particles far outweighs the amount of work being done the internal energy continues to increases and reaches peak
on the hot spot. Early in time the internal energy of the hot burn well after the time of minimum volume, when PdV
spot tracks the work being done on the hot spot but increases changes sign from positive to negative and burns into the
beyond this starting at about 9.1 ns due to the additional surrounding denser fuel as the implosion is exploding. This
α-particle heating. As the other loss terms start to increase indicates that significant α-particle bootstrap heating of the
(radiative loss, conduction losses, and explosion phase losses) hot spot has occurred and that the hot spot has ignited.

025201-10
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

Several simulated metrics also support that N210808 has observed perturbation. Work to identify the source of the
crossed the ignition threshold. The calculated ratio of fusion imperfections and improve the capsule quality to the level of
yield produced for N210808 to the amount of work done N210808 is ongoing as well as work to improve robustness of
on the hot spot, or fuel gain, is Gfuel ∼ 80×, which is a the design to these target imperfections.
∼10× increase over the predecessor experiments (see Ta- In summary, N210808 was the first experiment [9] to reach
ble I). The capsule gain, or fusion energy produced compared Lawson’s criterion for ignition in the laboratory [10] which
to the amount of energy absorbed by the capsule to drive made intentional design changes compared to predecessor ex-
the implosion, was Gcapsule ∼ 6× for N210808, which was periments. This proof-of-principle experiment demonstrates
the first experiment to achieve Gcapsule > 1. The high level that there is nothing fundamentally limiting fusion ignition
of calculated yield amplification, ratio of the yield to the in the laboratory. N210808, a Hybrid-E experiment, builds
expected yield without α heating, of ∼30× compared to pre- on the previous burning plasma Hybrid-E design by further
decessor experiments (∼4–7) is also a signature of an igniting optimizing the coast time through improving the hohlraum
plasma. efficiency. In addition target fabrication quality enabled real-
Other metrics such as the generalized lawson criterion izing the full design potential, and N210808 is a culmination
(GLCH [42] and GLCL [41]) are calculated to be greater than of the effort to increase implosion scale on the NIF to couple
one for N210808 (see Table I) and consistent with the GLCs more energy to the hot spot while maintaining high hot-spot
inferred from experimental data [10]: pressures, without having additional laser energy available to
drive the implosion compared to smaller scale experiments.
GLCH = phs τBW H (Ths ) > 1, (1) This was achieved by the use of CBET in low-gas-filled
phs rhs hohlraums and using a semianalytical model and detailed
GLCL = > 1. (2) radiation hydrodynamics modeling to optimize the hohlraum
420 Gbar 50 μm
design. Various optimizations to improve overall performance
Here phs is the hot-spot pressure, τBW is the burn duration, were performed using radiation hydrodynamics simulations
H (TH S ) is a function of temperature [42] that accounts for of the integrated hohlraum and capsule assembly. Future
x-ray loss due to the presence of ablator mixing into the hot work will study the input conditions of N210808, variability
spot, and rhs is the radius of the hot spot. These values are to fielding these experiments and modifications to further
directly extracted from the simulations and inferred from the increase the ρR of the compressed shell and hot spot for
experimental data. The burn duration is directly measured us- increased confinement time which will improve fuel burn-up
ing a gamma reaction history (GRH) diagnostic [56], and the fraction. Increasing the energy coupled to the hot spot through
radius and volume of the hot spot are determined from three- future improvements in hohlraum efficiency and the use of
dimensional imaging of the primary 14 MeV neutrons [57]. more laser driver energy are also being considered to drive
The ion temperature is measured from Doppler broadening thicker ablators and DT ice layers, which would improve
of the D-T and D-D neutron spectrum using neutron-time- hydrodynamic stability.
of-flight (NTOF) detectors [58]. The density of the hot spot
is inferred from the fusion energy produced, the known D-T
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
and D-D temperature-dependent reaction rates, the measured
burn duration, and the measured hot spot volume. The inferred This work was performed under the auspices of U.S.
measured pressure is then a function of the inferred den- Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National
sity and measured temperature of the hot spot. This method Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344. This
has been validated against a database of ensemble simula- document was prepared as an account of work sponsored
tions spanning the performance and input parameter space of by an agency of the United States government. Neither the
N210808 [59]. N210808, however, did not reach the National United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National
Academy of Sciences definition of ignition of target gain, Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any war-
Gtarget > 1 (fusion energy out exceeds the amount of laser ranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
energy imparted to the hohlraum), due to the inefficiencies of responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
converting laser light to x-ray radiation drive. any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
Follow-on experiments to test the variability in perfor- represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
mance given the current NIF system capability produced > rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
50% of the neutron yield of N210808 (experiment N211107), process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer,
currently the second highest performing experiment on NIF or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its en-
with a capsule gain of > 3. A major limiting factor in re- dorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
producing the performance of N210808 has been obtaining government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC.
capsules of the same quality (number of defects that can seed The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
hydrodynamic instabilities and size of DT fill tube) compared necessarily state or reflect those of the United States gov-
to N210808 which can increase mixing into the hot spot ernment or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and
and reduce hot-spot temperature. Another issue has been an shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement pur-
unintentional odd mode asymmetry which reduces coupling poses. Author contributions: A.L.K. lead designer for Hybrid-
of fuel KE to hot-spot internal energy. These issues were E and N210808, integrated hohlraum team lead, asymmetry
verified through experimental measurements and agree with physics, designer for hohlraum scans, strategy for parameter
the expected reduction in performance given the level of optimization, wrote this paper; A.B.Z. hot-spot and igni-

025201-11
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

tion metrics lead, Hybrid-E experimental lead, N210808 shot parameter “tuning” data (gas capsule experiments that mea-
responsible individual (RI), strategy for parameter optimiza- sure the in-flight symmetry and velocity near implosion peak
tion; D.A.C. Hybrid hohlraum strategy, hohlraum LEH scans velocity and shock timing experiments), and then application
concept, and semiempirical hohlraum asymmetry model; of the spatially, temporally, and frequency-resolved radiation
O.A.H. Hybrid capsule physics strategy, theory, coast-time drive to higher resolution capsule-only simulations to addi-
and asymmetry physics; C.R.W. capsule/instability physics; tionally model perturbations such as the capsule support tent
D.S.C. capsule/instability physics; C.V.Y. integrated capsule- and DT fill tube [55,60]. All simulations also use the as-shot
hohlraum simulations; J.E.R. LEH experiments and Hybrid-E laser delivery as well as interface roughness, which varies
shot RI (N210207); D.T.C. Hybrid-E shot RI, Hybrid-B ex- between experiments.
perimental lead, asymmetry physics working group (WG) A fall-line interface mix model for mixing material at
lead; A.P. x-ray mix analysis and experimental team lead the DT fuel-ablator interface [61] was included and set to
for stagnation; O.L.L. hohlraum window redesign, physics- initiate relative to when the calculated Atwood number be-
facility integration group (PFIG) lead, program management; came unstable. This model mixes isotopes over a user-defined
B.B. penumbral x-ray diagnostic; K.L.B. Hybrid-E Shot RI layer relative to the interface between the two materials being
(N210307); L.B.H. Lead designer for HDC campaign; S.D.B. mixed. The amount of mixing is a fraction of the user-defined
cryo layering; J.B. HDC (diamond) capsule material science “fall-line,” and the timing for the mix is defined by the user
and development; R.M.B. real-time nuclear activation diag- with the additional criteria that the acceleration between the
nostic (RTNAD); N.W.B. Neutron Imaging System (NIS) interface of the heavy and light liquids is in the unstable
diagnostic; T.B. capsule fabrication and metrology; T.M.B. direction. Since N210808 was calculated to always have a
cryo layering; P.M.C. VISAR diagnostic; H.C. GLEH x-ray stable Atwood number, a fall-line mix model was not used.
diagnostic; C.C. target fabrication planning; L.D. hot-spot Modes one, two, and four of the Legendre decomposition
analysis; T.D. LEH experiments Shot RI; D.F. NIS diagnostic; of the radiation drive were included in the simulations. Mode
M.J.E. program management; M.G.J. MRS diagnostic; N.G. two of the radiation drive flux asymmetry was multiplied by
solid radiochemistry diagnostic; S.H. iPOM analysis; K.D.H. a factor of ∼0.7 in the “peak” to match the observed symme-
nuclear activation diagnostic; E.H. neutron time-of-flight try. The radiation hydrodynamic calculations using HYDRA
(NTOF) diagnostics; D.E.H. hohlraum physics, CBET stud- include detailed equations of state [62,63], transport [64,65],
ies in Hybrid-C; D.D.H. Designer for HDC campaign; M.H. electron-ion coupling [66,67], and opacity models [68]). In
Hybrid-E and LEH experiments Shot RI; J.P.H. x-ray diag- this study, the equation-of-state model for the carbon ablator
nostics; H.H. HDC capsule fabrication; N.I. x-ray diagnostics; was LEOS table 9067 [69].
J.J. NTOF diagnostics; O.J. hohlraum physics; S.M.K. NTOF
diagnostics; S.F.K. SPIDER diagnostic; H.G.K. GRH diag- 2. Laser back-scatter
nostic; V.G.K. NIS diagnostic; C.K. HDC capsule fabrication;
K.M.L. NIS diagnostic; S.L.P. Hybrid-E Shot RI, HDC cam- The measured laser light that was scattered back out of the
paign; N.C.L. optical diagnostics; J.D.L. hot-spot models hohlraum as a result of laser plasma interactions was similar
and ignition metrics; B.J.M. asymmetry assessment, PFIG, to the previous burning plasma Hybrid-E platform (N210207)
laser performance assessment; A.J.M. diagnostic manage- and >30× less backscatter than previous high-gas-filled
ment; A.G.M. x-ray diagnostics; E.V.M. x-ray diagnostics; hohlraums (e.g., N140520). The stimulated Brillouin scatter-
K.M. GRH diagnostic; M.M. VISAR diagnostic; A.S.M. nu- ing (SBS) on the “inner” (23◦ and 30◦ ) cones for these three
clear diagnostics; K.N. project engineering; J.G.D.N. MOR experiments was ∼0–1 kJ per cone, with large error bars (up to
and PAM stability, SSD improvements, and FC control; A.N. 16 kJ) backscattered from the “inner” 23◦ cone for N210808.
target fabrication engineering, capsule, and fabrication plan- The stimulated Raman scattering for N210808 (2.8 ± 1.1 kJ)
ning; R.N. ensemble simulations; P.K.P. hot-spot models and and N210207 (0.74 ± 0.28 kJ) were significantly less than for
ignition metrics; N.G.R. capsule fabrication; M.S.R. DANTE N140520 (81 ± 32 kJ per cone and ∼162 kJ total for the “in-
diagnostic; J.S. mode-1 capsule analysis, cryo layering; ner” beams), which was also fielded with ∼150 kJ less laser
D.J.S. NTOF diagnostics; S.M.S. HYDRA code development; energy incident on target. Differences between N210808 and
K.S. mode-1 metrology; S.J.S. sagometer data and particle N210207, although small, could be attributed to the change
analysis; M.S. target fabrication lead; S.S. x-ray diagnostics; in wavelength separation required to regain symmetry for the
D.J.S. hohlraum/LPI physics; C.A.T. Designer for Bigfoot N210808 platform. The SBS on the “outer” 50◦ beams was
campaign; R.T. x-ray diagnostics, Hybrid-E shot RI; C.T. reduced for N210808 (4.8 ± 2.4 kJ) compared to N210207
x-ray diagnostics; E.R.T. optical diagnostics; P.L.V. NIS (9.5 ± 3.4 kJ) as a result of more energy being transferred
diagnostic; C.W. HDC capsule coating development and fab- from the “outer” beams to the “inner” beams. The 44.5◦ SBS
rication; D.T.W. hohlraum physics; S.T.Y. MOR and PAM was similar to the 50◦ beam SBS for N210207 and N210808.
stability, SSD improvements, and FC control. Both N210207 and N210808 showed less “outer” beam SBS
than N140520, which was 13 ± 5.2 kJ on the 44.5◦ beams and
APPENDIX 33 ± 6.6 kJ on the 50◦ beams. The “outer” SRS was < 1 kJ
for N210207 and N210808 and 3.4 ± 0.70 kJ for N140520.
1. Simulation methodology In total N140520 (1.76 MJ incident laser energy) backscat-
The simulations use a common methodology of ap- tered ∼216 kJ of laser light out of the hohlraum compared to
plying a common adjustment (artificial multipliers on the ∼15.5 kJ for N210207 (1.930 MJ incident laser energy) and
input laser power) of the radiation drive to match existing ∼13.4 kJ for N210808 (1.92 MJ incident laser energy).

025201-12
DESIGN OF AN INERTIAL FUSION EXPERIMENT … PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

[1] J. Nuckolls, L. Wood, A. Thiessen, and G. Zimmerman, Nature [23] S. R. Nagel, S. W. Haan, J. R. Rygg, M. Barrios, L. R. Benedetti,
(London) 239, 139 (1972). D. K. Bradley, J. E. Field, B. A. Hammel, N. Izumi, O. S. Jones
[2] J. S. Clarke, H. N. Fisher, and R. J. Mason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, et al., Phys. Plasmas 22, 022704 (2015).
249 (1973). [24] S. Le Pape, L. F. B. Hopkins, L. Divol, N. Meezan, D. Turnbull,
[3] R. F. Post, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 338 (1956). A. J. Mackinnon, D. Ho, J. S. Ross, S. Khan, A. Pak et al., Phys.
[4] G. S. Fraley, E. J. Linnebur, R. J. Mason, and R. L. Morse, Phys. Plasmas 23, 056311 (2016).
Fluids 17, 474 (1974). [25] L. F. Berzak Hopkins, N. B. Meezan, S. Le Pape, L. Divol, A. J.
[5] J. D. Lawson, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 70, 6 (1957). Mackinnon, D. D. Ho, M. Hohenberger, O. S. Jones, G. Kyrala,
[6] A. L. Kritcher, J. Ralph, D. E. Hinkel, T. Doppner, M. Millot, J. L. Milovich et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 175001 (2015).
D. Mariscal, R. Benedetti, D. J. Strozzi, T. Chapman, C. Goyon [26] L. Divol, A. Pak, L. F. B. Hopkins, S. L. Pape, N. B. Meezan,
et al., Phys. Rev. E 98, 053206 (2018). E. L. Dewald, D. D.-M. Ho, S. F. Khan, A. J. Mackinnon, J. S.
[7] A. L. Kritcher, A. B. Zylstra, D. A. Callahan, O. A. Hurricane, Ross et al., Phys. Plasmas 24, 056309 (2017).
C. Weber, J. Ralph, D. T. Casey, A. Pak, K. Baker, B. Bachmann [27] S. Le Pape, L. F. Berzak Hopkins, L. Divol, A. Pak, E. L.
et al., Phys. Plasmas 28, 072706 (2021). Dewald, S. Bhandarkar, L. R. Bennedetti, T. Bunn, J. Biener,
[8] E. I. Moses et al., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 688, 012073 (2016). J. Crippen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 245003 (2018).
[9] A. B. Zylstra, A. L. Kritcher, O. A. Hurricane, D. A. Callahan, [28] L. B. Hopkins, S. LePape, L. Divol, A. Pak, E. Dewald, D. D.
J. E. Ralph, D. T. Casey, A. Pak, O. L. Landen, B. Bachmann, Ho, N. Meezan, S. Bhandarkar, L. R. Benedett, T. Bunn et al.,
K. L. Baker et al., Phys. Rev. E 106, 025202 (2022). Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 61, 014023 (2019).
[10] H. Abu-Shawareb et al. (Indirect Drive ICF Collaboration), [29] K. L. Baker, C. A. Thomas, D. T. Casey, M. Hohenberger, S.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 075001 (2022). Khan, B. K. Spears, O. L. Landen, R. Nora, D. T. Woods, J. L.
[11] J. Lindl, Phys. Plasmas 2, 3933 (1995). Milovich et al., Phys. Rev. E 102, 023210 (2020).
[12] J. D. Lindl, P. Amendt, R. L. Berger, S. G. Glendinning, S. H. [30] M. Hohenberger, D. T. Casey, A. L. Kritcher, A. Pak, A. B.
Glenzer, S. W. Haan, R. L. Kauman, O. L. Landen, and L. J. Zylstra, C. A. Thomas, K. L. Baker, S. Le Pape, B. Bachmann,
Suter, Phys. Plasmas 11, 339 (2004). R. L. Berger et al., Phys. Plasmas 27, 112704 (2020).
[13] S. W. Haan, J. D. Lindl, D. A. Callahan, D. S. Clark, J. D. [31] A. B. Zylstra, A. Kritcher, A. L. Kritcher, O. A. Hurricane,
Salmonson, B. A. Hammel, L. J. Atherton, R. C. Cook, M. D. A. Callahan, K. Baker, T. Braun, D. T. Casey, D. Clark, K.
J. Edwards, S. H. Glenzer et al., Phys. Plasmas 18, 051001 Clark et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 025001 (2021).
(2011). [32] A. Kritcher, C. Young, H. Robey, C. Weber, A. Zylstra, O.
[14] A. L. Kritcher, R. Town, D. Bradley, D. Clark, B. Spears, O. Hurricane, D. Callahan, J. Ralph, J. Ross, K. Baker et al., Nat.
Jones, S. Haan, P. T. Springer, J. Lindl, R. H. H. Scott et al., Phys. 18, 251 (2022).
Phys. Plasmas 21, 042708 (2014). [33] O. A. Hurricane, D. A. Callahan, P. T. Springer, M. J. Edwards,
[15] O. A. Hurricane, D. T. Casey, O. Landen, A. L. Kritcher, R. P. Patel, K. Baker, D. T. Casey, L. Divol, T. Dppner, D. E.
Nora, P. K. Patel, J. A. Ganey, K. D. Humbird, J. E. Field, M. Hinkel et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 61, 014033 (2019).
K. G. Kruse, J. L. Peterson, and B. K. Spears, Phys. Plasmas [34] O. A. Hurricane, P. T. Springer, P. K. Patel, D. A. Callahan, K.
27, 062704 (2020). Baker, D. T. Casey, L. Divol, T. DŁoppner, D. E. Hinkel, M.
[16] B. J. MacGowan, O. Landen, D. Casey, C. Young, D. Callahan, Hohenberger et al., Phys. Plasmas 26, 052704 (2019).
E. Hartouni, R. Hatarik, M. Hohenberger, T. Ma, D. Mariscal [35] O. A. Hurricane, A. Kritcher, D. A. Callahan, O. Landen, P. K.
et al., High Energy Density Phys. 40, 100944 (2021). Patel, P. T. Springer, D. T. Casey, E. L. Dewald, T. R. Dittrich,
[17] D. T. Casey, B. J. MacGowan, J. D. Sater, A. B. Zylstra, T. Doppner et al., Phys. Plasmas 24, 092706 (2017).
O. L. Landen, J. Milovich, O. A. Hurricane, A. L. Kritcher, [36] NYYMMDD: YY = year, MM = month, DD = day.
M. Hohenberger, K. Baker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 025002 [37] P. K. Patel, P. T. Springer, C. R. Weber, L. C. Jarrott, O. A.
(2021). Hurricane, B. Bachmann, K. L. Baker, L. F. B. Hopkins, D. A.
[18] T. R. Dittrich, O. A. Hurricane, D. A. Callahan, E. L. Dewald, Callahan, D. Casey et al., Phys. Plasmas 27, 050901 (2020).
T. Doppner, D. E. Hinkel, L. F. B. Hopkins, S. Le Pape, T. Ma, [38] D. A. Callahan, O. A. Hurricane, J. E. Ralph, C. A. Thomas, K.
J. L. Milovich et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 055002 (2014). L. Baker, L. R. Benedetti, L. F. Berzak Hopkins, D. T. Casey, T.
[19] T. Ma, P. K. Patel, N. Izumi, P. T. Springer, M. H. Key, L. J. Chapman, C. E. Czajka et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 056305 (2018).
Atherton, L. R. Benedetti, D. K. Bradley, D. A. Callahan, P. M. [39] A. Zylstra, O. Hurricane, D. Callahan, A. Kritcher, J. Ralph, H.
Celliers et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 085004 (2013). F. Robey, J. S. Ross, C. V. Young, K. Baker, D. T. Casey et al.,
[20] A. B. Zylstra, D. T. Casey, A. Kritcher, L. Pickworth, B. Nature (London) 601, 542 (2022).
Bachmann, K. Baker, J. Biener, T. Braun, D. Clark, V. Geppert- [40] J. S. Ross, J. E. Ralph, A. B. Zylstra, A. Kritcher et al.,
Kleinrath et al., Phys. Plasmas 27, 092709 (2020). arXiv:2111.04640.
[21] A. Pak, L. Divol, C. R. Weber, L. F. Berzac Hopkins, D. S. [41] J. D. Lindl, S. W. Haan, O. L. Landen, A. R. Christopherson,
Clark, E. L. Dewald, D. N. Fittinghoff, H. Geppert Kleinrath, and R. Betti, Phys. Plasmas 25, 122704 (2018).
M. Hohenberger, S. LePape et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 145001 [42] O. A. Hurricane, S. A. Maclaren, M. D. Rosen, J. H. Hammer,
(2020). P. T. Springer, and R. Betti, Phys. Plasmas 28, 022704 (2021).
[22] D. T. Casey, C. Thomas, K. L. Baker, B. K. Spears, M. [43] J. E. Ralph et al., in 63rd Annual Meeting of the American
Hohenberger, S. F. Khan, R. C. Nora, C. R. Weber, D. Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics, Vol. 66, no. 13,
T. Woods, O. Hurricane et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 056308 abstract GO04.00003, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 8–
(2018). 12, 2021 (unpublished).

025201-13
A. L. KRITCHER et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 106, 025201 (2022)

[44] J. E. Ralph, T. Woods, A. Kritcher et al. (unpublished). [55] D. S. Clark, C. R. Weber, J. L. Milovich, A. E. Pak, D. T. Casey,
[45] O. A. Hurricane, D. T. Casey, O. Landen, D. A. Callahan, R. B. A. Hammel, D. D. Ho, O. S. Jones, J. M. Koning, A. L.
Bionta, S. Haan, A. Kritcher, R. Nora, P. Patel, P. Springer Kritcher et al., Phys. Plasmas 26, 050601 (2019).
et al., Phys. Plasmas 29, 012703 (2022). [56] H. W. Herrmann, N. Homan, D. C. Wilson, W. Stoe, L. Dauy,
[46] A. Zylstra, O. Hurricane, D. Callahan, A. Kritcher, O. Landen, Y. H. Kim, A. McEvoy, C. S. Young, J. M. Mack, C. J. Horseld
J. Lindl, A. Pak, P. Patel, J. Ralph, S. Ross et al., Nucl. Fusion et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 10D333 (2010).
61, 116066 (2021). [57] P. Volegov et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 023508 (2014).
[47] M. M. Marinak, G. D. Kerbel, N. A. Gentile, O. Jones, D. [58] V. Y. Glebov, T. C. Sangster, C. Stoeckl, J. P. Knauer, W.
Munro, S. P. and T. R. Dittrich, and S. W. Haan, Phys. Plasmas Theobald, K. L. Marshall, M. J. Shoup, T. Buczek, M. Cruz,
8, 2275 (2001). T. Duy et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 10D325 (2010).
[48] P. Michel, L. Divol, E. A. Williams, S. Weber, C. A. Thomas, [59] A. Zylstra, R. Nora, P. Patel, and O. Hurricane, Phys. Plasmas
D. A. Callahan, S. W. Haan, J. D. Salmonson, S. Dixit, D. E. 28, 122703 (2021).
Hinkel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 025004 (2009). [60] D. S. Clark, C. Weber et al., Phys. Plasmas 23, 056302 (2016).
[49] J. D. Moody, P. Michel, L. Divol, R. L. Berger, E. Bond, D. K. [61] L. Welser-Sherrill, J. Cooley, D. Haynes, D. Wilson, M.
Bradley, D. A. Callahan, E. L. Dewald, S. Dixit, M. J. Edwards Sherrill, R. Mancini, and R. Tommasini, Phys. Plasmas 15,
et al., Nat. Phys. 8, 344 (2012). 072702 (2008).
[50] L. A. Pickworth, T. Dppner, D. E. Hinkel, J. E. Ralph, [62] L. X. Benedict, K. P. Driver, S. Hamel, B. Militzer, T. Qi, A. A.
B. Bachmann, L. P. Masse, L. Divol, L. R. Benedetti, P. Correa, A. Saul, and E. Schwegler, Phys. Rev. B 89, 224109
M. Celliers, H. Chen et al., Phys. Plasmas 27, 102702 (2014).
(2020). [63] J. Gaffney, S. Hu, P. Arnault, A. Becker, L. Benedict, T. Boehly,
[51] S. J. Ali, P. M. Celliers, S. Haan, T. R. Boehly, N. Whiting, S. P. Celliers, D. Ceperley, O. Certik, J. Clerouin et al., High
H. Baxamusa, H. Reynolds, M. A. Johnson, J. D. Hughes, B. Energy Density Phys. 28, 7 (2018).
Watson et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 092708 (2018). [64] M. P. Desjarlais, C. R. Scullard, L. X. Benedict, H. D. Whitley,
[52] C. R. Weber, D. S. Clark, A. Pak, N. Alfonso, B. Bachmann, L. and R. Redmer, Phys. Rev. E 95, 033203 (2017).
F. B. Hopkins, T. Bunn, J. Crippen, L. Divol, T. Dittrich et al., [65] L. G. Stanton and M. S. Murillo, Phys. Rev. E 93, 043203
Phys. Plasmas 27, 032703 (2020). (2016).
[53] A. L. Kritcher, D. T. Casey, C. A. Thomas, A. B. Zylstra, [66] Y. Lee and R. More, Phys. Fluids 27, 1273 (1984).
M. Hohenberger, K. Baker, S. Le Pape, B. Bachmann, S. [67] C. R. Scullard, S. Serna, L. X. Benedict, C. L. Ellison, and F. R.
Bhandarkar, J. Biener et al., Phys. Plasmas 27, 052710 (2020). Graziani, Phys. Rev. E 97, 013205 (2018).
[54] D. S. Clark, S. W. Haan, A. W. Cook, M. J. Edwards, B. A. [68] C. A. Iglesias and F. J. Rogers, Astrophys. J. 464, 943 (1996).
Hammel, J. M. Koning, and M. M. Marinak, Phys. Plasmas 18, [69] A. Correa, L. Benedict, D. Young, E. Schwegler, and S. A.
082701 (2011). Bonev, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024101 (2008).

025201-14