Report on the work done toward an optical

diagnostic in the ALEXIS plasma, Summer

2011
Andrew Kiene, S. D. Loch, Ed Thomas
Auburn University, AL 36849
July 22, 2011
Abstract
In order to better characterize the ALEXIS plasma, we set out to
develop a noninvasive, optical diagnostic utilizing light emission from
the plasma to determine electron temperature and density along a line
of sight. The aim of this report is to provide enough information for
this project to be continued after my departure.

Introduction and overview of the project

Under typical operating conditions, the ALEXIS plasma is a very low temperature plasma. Usual electron temperatures are on the order of 1 to 5
electron-volts (eV). Currently, in order to characterize the plasma, a doubletipped Langmuir probe is used to measure an I-V trace, from which an analysis program extracts electron temperature and electron density. However,
the uncertainty in this temperature measurement is very large compared to
the actual temperature in the machine, perhaps a few eV in itself. For this
reason, the temperature measurements currently in place can only reliably
give ballpark estimates of the actual temperature.
Originally part of my Undergraduate Research Fellowship, we set out to
develop a noninvasive optical diagnostic in order to hopefully cut down on the
uncertainty of these measurements, and ultimately to be able to accurately
diagnose temperature and density from a simple spectrum.
The Plasma Science Lab has joined with Dr. Loch to theoretically model
the ALEXIS plasma and predict plasma conditions based on spectral line
ratios. From this theory, we hope to develop an algorithm that will compute
density and temperature when given a spectrum.
This project has met with its share of snags; most notably, the system
is much more complex than originally thought. However, we have in recent
weeks made good progress toward the end goal of a reliable measurement.

Sample measurement and analysis procedure

Currently, the ALEXIS lab uses a ThorLabs CCS200 UV-IR spectrometer

with a wavelength range of 200-1000 nanometers. We have integrated the
spectrometer into our ALEXIS LabVIEW system via a measurement VI
named ThorLabs Spectrometer scan FITS.vi. This VI allows the user to
scan parameters on ALEXIS such as magnetic current, RF power, and mass
flow voltage in increments. The spectrometer is set to take one measurement
at each of these increments with a user-given exposure time. It is a very
intuitive system that makes taking data a simple process once the machine
is up and running. Figure 1 shows the experimental setup.
In recent weeks, the analysis of the data gotten from the spectrometer
has gotten easier as well. Mihir Pandya, a graduate student in the CTH
2

Figure 1: Experimental setup for taking spectra of the ALEXIS plasma

lab working on a similar project, has developed a code to analyze an input
spectrum of the form (wavelength, intensity). The code plots the spectrum
and finds each peak above a certain threshold. It then fits a Gaussian to each
of these peaks, writing the pixel and wavenength of the center, its height and
width, and the integrated intensity to a file named fits coeffs.dat. From this
output, it is simple to compute intensity ratios ofdifferent lines. Fig. 2 shows
a sample spectrum along with its gaussian fit. Currently, the code is named
spectrum fit.pro.
In order to completely analyze the system, it is also necessary to gather
density and temperature measurements for the same parameters used in the
spectral measurements. It is best to do this on the same day as the spectra
are taken. Currently, we use a double-tipped Langmuir probe for these measurements, which is run with a LabVIEW VI titled DP scan FITS.vi. There
are a few parameters in thie VI that need setting. It also allows the user to
scan over a particular parameter in ALEXIS just like the spectrometer VI.
The other parameters to set are the voltages on the probe. For starting voltage we use -35V, and end voltage +35V. The step size is set at 0.1V. Another
important setting is the speed. Default is Normal, but we use Medium, lest
the measurements take all day. The Double Probe has a long measurement
time, so come prepared with something to do while babysitting the machine.
3

Figure 2: Gaussian fit applied to a spectrometer measurement. The bottom

plot is the measured spectrum, while the top plot (dashed lines) is the fit to
the spectrum. They are fairly consistent; only the smaller of the visible lines
are missed by the fitting code. With some tweaking, it could probably be
configured to pick those lines up as well.
The DP scan VI will output a .fits file containing an I-V trace. This in
itself does not represent the plasma density or temperature. There is another
VI that computes these parameters based on the I-V trace. It is named
DP analysis auto.vi. There is a small trick to analyzing the I-V trace; due to
the shape of a typical measurement, its derivative is discontinuous at a certain
4

point, and if you analyze around that point, it will give erroneous temperature
measurements, because temperature is dependent upon the derivative of the
trace. There are two numbers in the VI backpanel that need to be changed
until the analysis gives reasonable numbers. These numbers represent the
range over which the trace is analyzed. Anomalously high temperature values
on the plot are indicative of this issue. Reasonable numbers are anywhere
from 1 to 5 eV; anything higher than that is probably wrong.
Dr. Loch has suggested the use of a program called xmgrace to fit the
density and temperature profiles. It is run on his linux machine, and it will
output coefficients to be used in the theoretical modelling code (see section
4).
However, measuring and fitting the data is the easy part. Figuring out
which lines to analyze is a process worthy of a few headaches. The first and
most important thing to do is to identify which lines correspond to which
atomic transition. This is not as simple as it might sound; in fact, it is
possibly the most confusing part. The atomic data currently available for
neutral argon is not J-resolved; that is, there can be multiple transitions
resulting from a single term described by the atomic codes used to mdoel the
system (see sec. 3).
So, in order to match up a ratio given by the modelling code, one may
need to add the strengths of multiple lines together. Not too daunting a
task in itself, but when it comes to notation, it is difficult to see which
is which. NIST, the primary database used as a wavelength reference for
line identification, uses a style of notation called L-K coupling, while the
ADAS codes output in simple L-S coupling. The ADAS codes are also not
J-resolved, so one must work out by hand the J values corresponding to each
term.
Matching up the NIST transitions to their terms in ADAS was a difficult
task, one I spent a long time hung up on. NIST lists five configurations
for the 4p levels, which are the ones we are primarily interested in. However,
ADAS gives six. Where each configuration in NIST has two Js associated
with it, ADAS has singlet and triplet terms. At first, I simply put them in
ascending energy order, splitting the one level in NIST that had a wide J-gap
into two to give six. However, it quickly became apparent that was not the
correct solutionour calculated ratios were outlandish. It also did not fix the
problem of the triplet states that were only assigned two Js.
It seems a simple step now, but this step alone will hopefully allow the
project to move forward much quicker than before. I noticed that, working
5

the Js out by hand from the ADAS code gave ten total, the same number as the five doublets outputted by NIST. Furthermore, these values all
correspondedthree zeroes, four ones, two twos, and a three. It struck me to
place the NIST levels not in order by their terms, but by their [italics]energies,
and then I applied the ADAS terms to them in order, and I found that each
J matched up with the corresponding ADAS term. Table 1 contains each
transition as it is indexed in the ADAS output, as well as its corresponding
energies and wavelength given by NIST.
It is worth discussing the notation used in this table. The Levels column
lists the atomic terms in what is called LSJ notation, displaying each term in
terms of its angular momentum and spin in the form x yz where x is (2S+1)
with S being the total spin of the system, y is L, the total angular momentum,
and Z is J, a value that can range from L+S to L-S.
Certain changes in L, S, and J are considered allowed, while some are
considered forbidden by rules of quantum mechanics. These rules help determine which transitions are strong and which are weak. A good rule of
thumb is that if total spin, S, changes, then the transition is forbidden. L
can change by 0 or +/- 1, elsewise it is forbidden.
With the line intensities in hand, the last thing to consider is the time response scaling of the spectrometer. This is a tricky matter that has hindered
progress of this project significantly. ThorLabs seems reluctant to address
this issue at present, but hopefully we will one day get some resolution.
When increasing the exposure time of the spectrometer, one would expect
the number of photons striking the detector to increase linearly with time,
i.e. doubling the exposure time doubles the line intensity. However, in my
experience, this has not been the case. As near as I have been able to work
out, the intensity scales exponentially with time, to the power of something
between 2 and 2.5. Attempting to work this out was immensely frustrating,
and my suggestion to anyone working on this project is to badger ThorLabs
about it until they tell you.

Aside from the time scaling, spectrometers also have a varying response
over the length of the spectruman intensity of 0.5 at 500nm is not the same
as at 800nm. This problem was much simpler to solve, however, as there is
a response curve taken from ThorLabs website that gives spectral response
as a function of wavelength. I fitted it with a sixth-degree polynomial, the
coefficients of which are given below:
6

Transition
4 to 2

5 to 2

6 to 2
7 to 2

8 to 2

9 to 2
4 to 3
5 to 3
6 to 3
7 to 3
8 to 3
9 to 3

Wavelength (nm)
912.30
965.78
1047.01
772.38
801.48
810.37
811.53
842.46
866.79
763.51
800.62
706.72
714.70
738.40
751.47
794.82
696.54
727.29
772.42
667.73
1148.81
935.42
978.45
922.45
840.82
852.14
826.45
750.39

Levels
3
S1 3 P2
3
S1 3 P1
3
S1 3 P0
3
D1 3 P2
3
D2 3 P2
3
D1 3 P1
3
D3 3 P2
3
D2 3 P1
3
D1 3 P0
1
D2 3 P2
1
D2 3 P1
3
P2 3 P2
3
P1 3 P2
3
P2 3 P1
3
P0 3 P1
3
P1 3 P0
1
P1 3 P2
1
P1 3 P1
1
P1 3 P0
1
S0 3 P1
3
S1 1 P1
3
D1 1 P1
3
D2 1 P1
1
D2 1 P1
3
P2 1 P1
3
P1 1 P1
1
P1 1 P1
1
S0 1 P1

Energies (cm1 )
104102 - 93143
104102 - 93750
104102 - 94553
106087 - 93143
105617 - 93143
106087 - 93750
105462 - 93143
105617 - 93750
106087 - 94553
106237 - 93143
106247 - 93750
107289 - 93143
107131 - 93143
107289 - 93750
107054 - 93750
107131 - 94553
107496 - 93143
107496 - 93750
107496 - 94553
108722 - 93750
104102 - 95399
106087 - 95399
105617 - 95399
106237 - 95399
107289 - 95399
107131 - 95399
107496 - 95399
108722 - 93570

Table 1: Transitions as indexed in ADAS, with their corresponding lines and

energies as given by NIST
(1.22 1015 )x6 + (4.49 1012 )x5 + (6.50 109 )x4 + (4.57 106 )x3 + (1.53
10 3)x2 + 0.172x + 0.766
The way I analyze line intensities is to normalize them, dividing the calculated integral of the gaussian fit by the wavelength-scaling at the centroid
of the peak as well as the exposure time squared. With a number of nor7

malized intensities, I can then set about calculating ratios for a given set of
transitions.

IDL modelling code

In conjunction with Dr. Loch, I have developed a code written in the IDL
language that uses the ADAS suite of software to model the plasma system
with given parameters and computes the ratio of spectral lines given by the
user. The code has gone through several iterations as we add more and more
to the simulation. At first, we had assumed that the plasma was homogenous,
which, it became obvious, was not the case. Density and Temperature vary
radially along the plasma column; density by approximately a factor of 10
from the highest to lowest point (see fig. 3). Our optics, even if we were
to focus on a particular point, collects light from all along the radius of the
column, emission from locations of varying density and temperature. Plainly,
a homogenous system is not a good model for ALEXIS.
These measurements are obtained using the VIs discussed in section 2
above.

Our solution was to add a line of sight integration, using the double
probe data as a model for the shape of the density and temperature profiles.
The profiles appear to be approximately the sum of two Gaussians, so we
have fit the probe data to those functions and gathered a set of coefficients
for different magnetic field configurations on ALEXIS. From these, we pick
some number of points evenly spaced along the radius (dr) and integrate
over them. The ADAS code is run each time to compute a photon emissivity
coefficient array for that particular point, and these chunks are added up to
compute a total PEC for the entire plasma. This approximation gives much
more accurate results.
As discussed in Results below, it also became apparent that the systems
metastable population was not in equilibrium with the ground state. We have
added the capacity for metastable populations, but it is not fully known yet
what fraction of the population exists in the metastable state. For now, it
is assumed it is close to zero. Adding metastable data notably improved the
results as well.
The current version of the code (with metastables included) is named
8

Figure 3: Double-tip Langmuir probe measurements for electron density at

two magnetic currents. All other plasma parameters remain the same. These
profiles were fit with a double Gaussian: A0exp((x A1)/A2)2 + A3exp((x
A4)/A5)2
ar spectra los2.pro.

Results

We began by modeling the system as being in equilibrium, assuming that the

plasma ionization and recombination had sufficient time to reach a balance.
Models showed that the population should be overwhelmingly Ar+ with a
significant fraction of Ar2+ and almost no neutral argon. However, from the
spectra taken, it is quite obvious that that is not the case; we see almost 100
percent neutral argon (see figure 5).

Figure 4: Double-tip Langmuir probe measurements for electron temperature at two magnetic currents. These profles are fit with a double Gaussian
mirrored about the Y-axis: A0exp((x A1)/A2)2 + A3exp((x A4)/A5)2 +
A0exp((x + A1)/A2)2 + A3exp((x + A4)/A5)2
From there, we ran a different ADAS code, 406, which computes ion
population based on time. This showed that at the time scale relevant to
ALEXIS, the system was very far from equilibrium. On the order of 1 ms,
the plasma is almost completely neutral, with the Ar+ population fraction
between 106 and 104 , significantly different from the equilibrium calculation, but much more in line with what we saw from the spectra (see figure
5).
Still, one problem remained, even after computing the photon emissivity
coefficients with the plasma as containing only neutral argon. The program
output several lines between 400 and 500 nanometers that were supposedly
among the strongest lines, but these lines were not present at all on the
10

Figure 5: Equilibrium Ionization Balance calculation using ADAS. Note that

in the region between 1 and 5 eV, the plasma should have mostly Ar+ and
Ar2+ with an almost negligible amount of Ar0+.
observed spectra, save for very long exposure times. They were several orders
of magnitude less in intensity than the lines in the 700-1000 nm range.
We investigated several avenues to explain this. The first, as suggested
by Dr. Loch, was that the plasma might be optically thick, absorbing these
400 nm photons before they escaped to be observed. However, after running
another code in the ADAS suite, we could see no reason for the lines to be
almost completely absorbed. It is worth noting that these 400 nm photons
are transitions from the n = 5 shell, but all the transitions we can definitively
see on a spectrum come from the n = 4 shell, which is siginificantly lower in
energy. It is my belief that ALEXIS is such a low temperature system that
we are not exciting the 5p transitions as much as the ADAS code believes we
should be. This suggests a problem either with the atomic data or with the
temperature we are giving it; however, making new data is a long process,
and there was not enough time before I was scheduled to leave. Thus we
looked at other ways to improve our ratios.
In the Ar0+ spectrum that we can observe, transitions do not happen
to the ground state; rather they decay to the first excited state (3s2 3p5 4s),
11

Figure 6: Nonequilibrium Ionization Balance calculation using ADAS. The

blue box is drawn around the confinement time scale in which ALEXIS operates. From this, it is apparent that the fraction of Ar+ is quite small,
and the plasma is overwhelmingly neutral argon, which agrees with observed
spectra.
which then decays to ground by emitting a photon that we cannot observe
with our spectrometer. This state has two terms, a 1 P and a 3 P, but because
the ground state is 1S, the 3P state cannot easily decay to ground (because of
a spin change), making it a metastable state with some nonzero population.
The code previously assumed that the ground state and metastable state
had come to equilibrium, much like we first assumed with the whole plasma.
However, considering the ion stage populations took close to 1000 seconds to
equilibrate, it is much more likely that a similar time scale would be required
for the metastable state to reach equilibrium with the ground. Dr. Loch
has created metastable-resolved rates to use with the code; however as of
now, we have only included it to the point of assuming that the metastable
population is very close to zero. It is very possible that this is not the case,
that the metastable state has some finite population. This is something that
must be accounted for.
12

As of this point, the results we have are far from satisfactory. Much
of my time has been spent developing codes and measurement techniques.
The data we do have does not match well with theory as of yet, but it is
improving.

Future Work

Work is currently being done to resolve the metastable populations. Accurately determining the metastable population will lead to better results from
the theoretical side.
The issue still remains, however, that the ADAS output suggests that
certain lines should be very strong, even when they are almost negligible.
The metastable population modelling may fix that problem, but if it does
not, it would be wise to try and create better atomic data. Neutral atoms
are notoriously hard to model, and the current data is not J-resolved when
the analysis is. The Auburn University AMO group has expressed interest
in making this data if needed.
Another issue is that the temperature we are feeding the ADAS code is
one we have measured with our probes. The problem is, the impetus for this
project was the lack of confidence in our temperature measurements. Therefore, the ADAS output may not be accurate to our real plasma conditions.
The fusion group at Auburn has recently acquired a spectrometer with
a range of 200-600 nm. It appears to be a higher-quality device than the
ALEXIS lab spectrometer. Its range, however, limits it to Ar+ lines, which
are very faint in ALEXIS. Still, it remains an option, as ionized Argon data
is much more reliable than neutral data.

13