pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02756 · v1 · pith:OAJLSLTBnew · submitted 2019-07-05 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Inference of α-particle density profiles from ITER collective Thomson scattering

Jesper Rasmussen , Morten Stejner , Thomas Jensen , Esben B. Klinkby , S{\o}ren B. Korsholm , Alex W. Larsen , Frank Leipold , Stefan K. Nielsen
show 1 more author
M. Salewski
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords iteralphaeffectsparticlespectracollectivedensitydiagnostic
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ITER collective Thomson scattering diagnostic recovers true alpha-particle densities to within 10 percent accuracy from noisy synthetic spectra using existing fitting methods that ignore spatial refraction effects.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper generates synthetic collective Thomson scattering spectra for the ITER baseline plasma scenario and includes modeled noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, and nuisance-parameter uncertainties. It develops a model that adds the spatial effects of frequency-dependent refraction, which distort the measured spectra. Fitting the resulting noisy spectra with standard methods that do not account for those spatial effects still recovers the input alpha-particle densities to within about 10 percent. This level of accuracy satisfies the ITER requirement of 20 percent precision on alpha-particle density profiles at 100 ms time resolution. A reader would care because reliable alpha-particle measurements are needed to confirm self-heating and control in a burning fusion plasma.

Core claim

Based on the present design of the diagnostic, we compute and fit synthetic CTS spectra for the ITER baseline plasma scenario, including the effects of noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, and uncertainties on nuisance parameters. As part of this, we developed a model for CTS that incorporates spatial effects of frequency-dependent refraction. While such effects will distort the measured ITER CTS spectra, we demonstrate that the true α-particle densities can nevertheless be recovered to within ~10% from noisy synthetic spectra, using existing fitting methods that do not take these spatial effects into account. Under realistic operating conditions, we thus find the predicted性能 of

What carries the argument

A model for collective Thomson scattering incorporating spatial effects of frequency-dependent refraction, used to produce and invert synthetic spectra.

If this is right

  • True alpha-particle densities remain recoverable to within 10 percent even when the fit ignores the modeled spatial refraction effects.
  • The ITER CTS system meets its 20 percent accuracy requirement on density profiles at 100 ms time resolution under realistic conditions.
  • Existing fitting methods continue to work when multiple fast-ion populations and nuisance uncertainties are present.
  • Performance predictions hold for the baseline scenario once refraction and noise are included in spectrum generation.
  • pith_inferences=[
  • keywords
  • msc
  • pacs

Load-bearing premise

The synthetic spectra generated under the ITER baseline plasma scenario with modeled noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, and nuisance-parameter uncertainties are sufficiently representative of actual future ITER CTS measurements.

What would settle it

Actual ITER CTS data under baseline conditions that yield alpha-particle density errors larger than 20 percent when processed with the existing fitting methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02756 by Alex W. Larsen, Esben B. Klinkby, Frank Leipold, Jesper Rasmussen, Morten Stejner, M. Salewski, S{\o}ren B. Korsholm, Stefan K. Nielsen, Thomas Jensen.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plasma profiles in the adopted ITER baseline plasma scenario as functions of poloidal flux coordinate, showing electron and ion temperatures T, densities n of the various thermalized plasma species, and the ion toroidal rotation velocity vi. higher central ne,0 ≈ 12.5 × 1020 m−3 and lower central Te,0 ≈ 17 keV than suggested by several other simulations of the ITER baseline scenario, including some of thos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scattering geometries of the seven ITER CTS receivers in a poloidal cross section, based on raytracing at 56 and 64 GHz in the adopted baseline plasma scenario (probe beam is at 60 GHz). Ellipses outline the extent of the scattering volumes, here defined as the region containing 75% of the scattering signal. Receivers are (arbitrarily) labelled in order of increasing major radius R of the corresponding sca… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Original model spectrum (black curve) for Receiver 1, along with the final spectrum to be fitted based on rebinning and randomizing the original spectrum according to our default noise estimates for a ∆t = 20 ms acquisition period. Cyan curve shows the spectrum and associated uncertainties corresponding to the best-fit forward model. (b) 1D distribution functions g(u) for α-particles and fast-D ions un… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example ITER CTS spectra computed with and without frequency-dependent refraction for (a) Receiver 2, (b) Receiver 4, and (c) Receiver 6, labelled with ρp of the central measurement location at 60 GHz. These are shown on a (top) linear scale as a function of absolute frequency, and (bottom) logarithmic scale and relative to the probe gyrotron frequency νgyr = 60 GHz. Panel (d) shows for all receivers the a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example results of fit series 1 with reduced noise and fixed nuisance parameters. (a) Results for the α-particle densities integrated over all projected velocities, along with the residuals relative to the true values, ∆rel = (nfit − ntrue)/ntrue. (b) Results for the total and partial (i.e. observable, excluding the thermal bulk) NBI fast-ion densities. 1σ error bars on data points are plotted but are not … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example results of fit series 2 with nominal noise and free nuisance parameters. Since the synthetic spectra can now vary more significantly due to the increased noise levels, each density profile reconstructed from five spectra for each receiver represents only an example outcome of a 100 ms measurement. Hence, to verify the generality of the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of the ratio of fitted to true values for all free nuisance parameters in the 100 fit series shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of true and fitted total and observable fast-ion densities for fit series 4. The observable fast-ion values represent the velocity-integrated sum of α-particle and NBI densities at projected velocities outside the thermal bulk and are scaled by a factor of 3 for ease of comparison to the true total densities. fast-ion velocity distribution g(u), for which the fast￾ion mass and charge are fixed at … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The primary purpose of the collective Thomson scattering (CTS) diagnostic at ITER is to measure the properties of fast-ion populations, in particular those of fusion-born $\alpha$-particles. Based on the present design of the diagnostic, we compute and fit synthetic CTS spectra for the ITER baseline plasma scenario, including the effects of noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, and uncertainties on nuisance parameters. As part of this, we developed a model for CTS that incorporates spatial effects of frequency-dependent refraction. While such effects will distort the measured ITER CTS spectra, we demonstrate that the true $\alpha$-particle densities can nevertheless be recovered to within ~10% from noisy synthetic spectra, using existing fitting methods that do not take these spatial effects into account. Under realistic operating conditions, we thus find the predicted performance of the ITER CTS system to be consistent with the ITER measurement requirements of a 20% accuracy on inferred $\alpha$-particle density profiles at 100 ms time resolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a forward model for ITER collective Thomson scattering (CTS) spectra that incorporates spatial effects arising from frequency-dependent refraction. Synthetic spectra are generated for the ITER baseline plasma scenario, including modeled noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, and nuisance-parameter uncertainties. The central claim is that existing fitting methods, which do not account for the spatial refraction effects, can nevertheless recover the true α-particle density profiles to within ~10% from these noisy synthetics, satisfying the ITER requirement of 20% accuracy at 100 ms time resolution.

Significance. If the synthetic tests hold, the result indicates that refraction-induced distortions do not prevent the ITER CTS diagnostic from meeting its α-particle measurement specifications using current analysis pipelines. The work receives credit for constructing a forward model that includes multiple physical effects simultaneously and for performing recovery tests against known ground-truth densities in the synthetics. This provides a quantitative performance assessment under the modeled conditions rather than relying solely on idealized assumptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [synthetic spectra generation and recovery tests] The recovery to ~10% is demonstrated only for the specific ITER baseline scenario with the listed effects folded into the forward model. No tests are shown for additional unmodeled systematics (e.g., time-dependent beam misalignment or edge density fluctuations) that would appear as biases in real data; such tests are needed to confirm the claim remains within the 20% requirement when the forward model is more complete than the inverse model.
  2. [results on density profile recovery] The manuscript states that the fitting methods 'do not take these spatial effects into account,' but does not quantify the degradation in accuracy that would occur if the refraction model were omitted from the synthetics entirely. A direct side-by-side comparison (with vs. without spatial refraction in the generated data) is required to isolate whether the ~10% figure is robust to the new effect or partly due to other included physics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] Clarify the exact form of the nuisance-parameter uncertainties and how they are sampled when generating the ensemble of synthetic spectra.
  2. [introduction and methods] The abstract and text refer to 'existing fitting methods' without citing the specific algorithm or reference; add the citation for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, providing the strongest honest responses based on the scope and results of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [synthetic spectra generation and recovery tests] The recovery to ~10% is demonstrated only for the specific ITER baseline scenario with the listed effects folded into the forward model. No tests are shown for additional unmodeled systematics (e.g., time-dependent beam misalignment or edge density fluctuations) that would appear as biases in real data; such tests are needed to confirm the claim remains within the 20% requirement when the forward model is more complete than the inverse model.

    Authors: We agree the demonstration is specific to the ITER baseline scenario and the modeled effects (noise, refraction, multiple fast-ion populations, nuisance uncertainties). Additional systematics such as beam misalignment or edge fluctuations are not included and could introduce further biases in real data. However, the manuscript's purpose is to evaluate the impact of the newly incorporated refraction model under these conditions, not to exhaustively validate against all possible unmodeled effects. We maintain that the ~10% recovery supports consistency with ITER requirements for this forward model; broader robustness tests lie outside the current scope and would require a substantially expanded study. revision: no

  2. Referee: [results on density profile recovery] The manuscript states that the fitting methods 'do not take these spatial effects into account,' but does not quantify the degradation in accuracy that would occur if the refraction model were omitted from the synthetics entirely. A direct side-by-side comparison (with vs. without spatial refraction in the generated data) is required to isolate whether the ~10% figure is robust to the new effect or partly due to other included physics.

    Authors: The central result shows recovery to ~10% when refraction is included in the synthetic spectra but omitted from the fit. To isolate the refraction contribution, we will generate an additional set of synthetic spectra without the spatial refraction model and perform the same recovery analysis. A direct comparison of the two cases will be added to the results section to quantify any accuracy degradation attributable specifically to refraction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; recovery validated on independent synthetic benchmarks

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic CTS spectra from a forward model (including frequency-dependent refraction, noise, multiple fast-ion populations, and nuisance uncertainties) under the ITER baseline scenario. It then applies existing fitting methods (which ignore the spatial refraction effects) and compares the recovered α-particle density profiles to the known ground-truth inputs of the simulation. This yields the ~10% accuracy figure against an external benchmark, not by construction from the fit itself. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input-as-prediction steps, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the derivation. The central performance claim is therefore falsifiable against the simulated data and remains independent of the paper's own modeling choices.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; the central claim rests on the representativeness of the synthetic data generation process and on standard assumptions about plasma parameters and noise statistics that are not detailed here.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The ITER baseline plasma scenario parameters and the modeled noise and nuisance uncertainties produce spectra representative of future measurements.
    Used to generate the synthetic data against which recovery is tested.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1312 out tokens · 23462 ms · 2026-05-25T02:02:42.405241+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    et al 2011 Nucl

    Chugunov I.N. et al 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 083010

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    et al 2017 Nucl

    Nocente M. et al 2017 Nucl. Fusion 57 076016

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    et al 2009 Plasma Phys

    Salewski M. et al 2009 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 51 035006

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    et al 2016 High power microwave di- agnostic for the fusion energy experiment ITER Conf

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2016 High power microwave di- agnostic for the fusion energy experiment ITER Conf. Proc. for 41st Int. Conf. on Infrared, Mil- limeter and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz) (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7758537/)

    work page arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    et al 2019 EPJ Web Conf

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2019 EPJ Web Conf. 203 03002

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    et al 2015 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 093029

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    et al 2018 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 096019

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    1990 Fusion Sci

    Kiptily V.G. 1990 Fusion Sci. Technol. 18 583

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

    and Bass E.M

    W altz R.E. and Bass E.M. 2014 Nucl. Fusion 54 104006

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    et al 2007 Nucl

    Donn´ e A.J.H. et al 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 S337

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    and Philip A

    Vayakis G. and Philip A. 2014 Diagnostic Measurement requirements with relation to diagnostic systems, ITER IDM document ID ITER D 2LMA3T v1.0 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=2LMA3T

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    1.18, ITER IDM document ID ITER D 26L94U https://user.iter.org/?uid=26L94U

    ITER diagnostics Database v. 1.18, ITER IDM document ID ITER D 26L94U https://user.iter.org/?uid=26L94U

    work page

  13. [13]

    Figueroa

    Rasmussen J. et al Modelling the electron cyclotron emission below the fundamental resonance in ITER, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion in press https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361- 6587/ab2f4a

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-

  14. [14]

    et al 1985 Rev

    Hutchinson D.P. et al 1985 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 56 1075

    work page 1985

  15. [15]

    and Giruzzi G

    Orsitto F. and Giruzzi G. 1997 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68 686

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    and Korsholm S.B

    Bindslev H., Meo F. and Korsholm S.B. 2003 ITER Fast Ion Collective Thomson Scattering Feasibility study, Technical Report Risø National Laboratory, Risø, Denmark http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/iter-fas t- ion-collective-thomson-scattering(401e562c-65a3-4345- 9032-da5cc8b9013b).html

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    et al 2004 Rev

    Bindslev H. et al 2004 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75 3598

    work page 2004

  18. [18]

    et al 2004 Rev

    Meo F. et al 2004 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75 3585

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    et al 2006 Rev

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2006 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77 10E514

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    and Korsholm S.B

    Meo F., Bindslev H. and Korsholm S.B. 2007 ITER fast ion collective Thomson scattering, conceptual design of 60 GHz system, Risø-R-1600(EN) Technical Report http://www.orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/iter- fast-ion-collective-thomson-scattering-conceptual- design-of-60-ghz-system(30e4aab5-22c1-43e0-91a1- 39f12584b782).html

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    et al 2008 Fusion Sci

    Tsakadze E. et al 2008 Fusion Sci. Technol. 53 69

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    et al 2008 AIP Conf

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2008 AIP Conf. Proc. 988, 118

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Michelsen S. et al 2009 ITER Fast Ion Collective Scattering, development of diagnostic components and techniques, Risø-R-1716(EN) Technical Re- port http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/efda-task- α-particle densities from ITER CTS 17 tw6tpdsdiadev-deliverable-2-iter-fast-ion-collective- scattering-development-of-diagnostic-components-and- techniques(77b19...

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    Michelsen P.K. et al 2009 Engineering design of the ITER Collective Thomson Scattering di- agnostic, Risø-R-1717(EN) Technical Report http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/engineering-design- of-the-iter-collective-thomson-scattering-diagnostic- contract-efda-061478(5d9b474b-b184-4da2-be9c- eb59c0558fe0).html

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Bindslev H. et al 2005 ITER Fast Ion Collective Thomson Scattering, detailed integrated design of the collective Thomson scattering (CTS) system for ITER Technical Report http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/iter-fast- ion-collective-thomson-scattering(220dc911-ddcb-43a5- 9f96-c7a2a0153f86).html

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    et al 2010 Rev

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2010 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81 10D323

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    et al 2012 Nucl

    Stejner M. et al 2012 Nucl. Fusion 52 023011

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    et al 2005 Nucl

    Egedal J. et al 2005 Nucl. Fusion 45 191

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    et al 2009 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2009 Nucl. Fusion 49 025006

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    et al 2011 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 083014

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    et al 2017 Fusion Eng

    Infante V. et al 2017 Fusion Eng. Des. 123 663

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    et al 2018 Fusion Eng

    Lopes A. et al 2018 Fusion Eng. Des. 134 22

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    et al 2019 Fusion Eng

    Vidal C. et al 2019 Fusion Eng. Des. 140 123

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    1999 Rev

    Bindslev H. 1999 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70 1093

    work page 1999

  35. [35]

    Nielsen S. K. et al 2008 Phys. Rev. E 77 016407

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    et al 2010 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2010 Nucl. Fusion 50 035012

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Nielsen S. K. et al 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 063014

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    et al 2015 Plasma Phys

    Rasmussen J. et al 2015 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57 075014

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    et al 2017 Phys

    Nielsen S.K. et al 2017 Phys. Scr. 92 024001

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    1992 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1992 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 34 1601

    work page 1992

  41. [41]

    1992 On the Theory of Thomson Scattering and Reflectometry in a Relativistic Magnetized Plasma, PhD Thesis Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, Risø-R-663

    Bindslev H. 1992 On the Theory of Thomson Scattering and Reflectometry in a Relativistic Magnetized Plasma, PhD Thesis Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, Risø-R-663

    work page 1992

  42. [42]

    1993 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1993 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 35 1093

    work page 1993

  43. [43]

    Shkarofsky I.P. 1986 J. Plasma Phys. 35 319

    work page 1986

  44. [44]

    1991 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1991 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 33 1775

    work page 1991

  45. [45]

    et al 2015 Phys

    Henderson M. et al 2015 Phys. Plasmas 22 021808

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    ITER Organization 2018 ITER Research Plan within the Staged Approach, ITR-18-003 ITER Technical Report https://www.iter.org/technical-reports

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Simulation data performed as part of ITER-F4E project GRT502, ITER IDM document ID ITER D SQ8LP5 https://user.iter.org/?uid=SQ8LP5

    work page

  48. [48]

    et al 2015 Nucl

    Imbeaux F. et al 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 123006

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    et al 2018 Progress in the ITER Inte- grated Modelling Programme and the ITER Sce- nario Database Preprint: 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf

    Pinches S. et al 2018 Progress in the ITER Inte- grated Modelling Programme and the ITER Sce- nario Database Preprint: 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Gandhinagar, India) [TH/P6-7] (https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusionportal/Shared Documents/FEC 2018/fec2018- preprints/preprint0741.pdf)

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    2012 Characterization and scaling of th e tokamak edge transport barrier, PhD Thesis Ludwig– Maximilians–Universit¨ at, Munich, Germany

    Schneider P.A. 2012 Characterization and scaling of th e tokamak edge transport barrier, PhD Thesis Ludwig– Maximilians–Universit¨ at, Munich, Germany

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    1993 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1993 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 35 1615

    work page 1993

  52. [52]

    Bindslev H. 1996 J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 58 983

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    Simulation data, ITER IDM document ID ITER D Q43JH7 https://user.iter.org/?uid=Q43JH7

    work page

  54. [54]

    et al 2017 Plasma Phys

    Stejner M. et al 2017 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 075009

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    et al 2010 Rev

    Stejner M. et al 2010 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81 10D515

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    2018 55.C7 CTS: Performance Analysis Report , ITER IDM document ID ITER D UXVCNQ v1.0 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=UXVCNQ

    Stejner M. 2018 55.C7 CTS: Performance Analysis Report , ITER IDM document ID ITER D UXVCNQ v1.0 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=UXVCNQ

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    et al 2015 Plasma Phys

    Nielsen S.K. et al 2015 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57 035009

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    et al 2016 Nucl

    Rasmussen J. et al 2016 Nucl. Fusion 56 112014

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    et al 2012 Rev

    Furtula V. et al 2012 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 013507

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    and Smith S.R.P

    Hughes T.P. and Smith S.R.P. 1988 Nucl. Fusion 28 1451

    work page 1988

  61. [61]

    et al 2015 J

    Yavorskij V. et al 2015 J. Fusion Energy 34 774

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    et al 2015 Phys

    Pinches S. et al 2015 Phys. of Plasmas 22 021807

    work page 2015

  63. [63]

    and W altz R

    Estrada-Mila C., Candy J. and W altz R. E. 2006 Phys. of Plasmas 13 112303

    work page 2006

  64. [64]

    et al 2018 Rev

    van den Berg J. et al 2018 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 89 083507

    work page 2018