pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16156 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Experimental evidence for coronal mass ejection suppression in strong stellar magnetic fields

S.N. Chen , K. Burdonov , W. Yao , J. D. Alvarado-G\'omez , C. Argiroffi , J. B\'eard , S. Bolan\~os , R. Bonito
show 5 more authors
A. Ciardi O. Cohen J. J. Drake S. Orlando J. Fuchs
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionsstellar magnetic fieldslaboratory plasmakink instabilitymagnetic confinementplasma betamagnetohydrodynamicsstellar evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Laboratory experiments provide evidence that strong stellar magnetic fields fully suppress coronal mass ejection propagation.

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

The paper tests whether stronger magnetic fields on stars other than the Sun prevent coronal mass ejections from forming or escaping. It combines astrophysical simulations with measurements of laser-driven plasma flows scaled to match stellar conditions, finding that the plasma moves freely in weak fields but halts entirely in fields equivalent to 100 gauss. The disruption arises from a kink instability according to the modeling. If correct, this accounts for the scarcity of observed stellar CMEs and shows how magnetic confinement shapes stellar mass loss and the space weather experienced by exoplanets.

Core claim

Simulations show that in a 100 G stellar dipole field, low-plasma beta CMEs become magnetically confined. In the laboratory, a laser-produced plasma stream scaled to stellar CME conditions propagates freely at low applied magnetic fields (approximately 30 G stellar equivalent) but becomes unstable and halts entirely when the field is increased to 3e5 G (i.e., a 100 G equivalent). Numerical simulations suggest that the sudden disruption of the flow is induced by a kink instability.

What carries the argument

The scaled laser-driven plasma flow placed in an applied magnetic field, which replicates low-plasma-beta stellar CME conditions and is disrupted by kink instability leading to full confinement.

If this is right

  • CME propagation is fully suppressed in stars whose magnetic fields reach strengths of order 100 G.
  • The absence of detected stellar CMEs in observations is consistent with magnetic confinement rather than a lack of ejection events.
  • Reduced mass and angular momentum loss due to confinement alters the long-term evolution of stars with strong fields.
  • Exoplanets around magnetically active stars experience reduced space weather impacts from CMEs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same magnetic confinement may limit other types of plasma outflows from stars or in different astrophysical environments.
  • Laboratory scaling could be extended to test suppression thresholds across a range of stellar field geometries and plasma betas.
  • Stellar activity models and exoplanet habitability assessments should account for this mechanism when predicting mass loss and planetary impacts.

Load-bearing premise

The laboratory plasma flows and applied magnetic fields accurately scale to the low-plasma-beta regime of stellar CMEs without major unaccounted differences in dimensionality, resistivity, or boundary conditions.

What would settle it

Detection of a propagating coronal mass ejection from a star whose measured dipole magnetic field reaches or exceeds 100 G would falsify the suppression result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16156 by A. Ciardi, C. Argiroffi, J. B\'eard, J. D. Alvarado-G\'omez, J. Fuchs, J. J. Drake, K. Burdonov, O. Cohen, R. Bonito, S. Bolan\~os, S.N. Chen, S. Orlando, W. Yao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Simulation results, using the AWSoM-R code, of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Schematic view of the experimental set-up. A laser pulse (the light orange cone) irradiates the target surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temporal evolution of the tip (along the z-axis, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. GORGON simulation results with integrated elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Solar coronal mass ejections (CME) are routinely observed, but as of yet there exist few convincing detections of stellar CMEs. A reason for this could be the stronger magnetic fields of these stars, compared to that of our Sun, would prevent CME to form and escape. Here we combined astrophysical simulations, measurements of scaled high-energy laser-driven plasma flows, and 3D magneto-hydrodynamic modeling to test this hypothesis. Simulations show that in a 100 G stellar dipole field, low-plasma beta CMEs become magnetically confined. In the laboratory, a laser-produced plasma stream scaled to stellar CME conditions propagates freely at low applied magnetic fields (approximately 30 G stellar equivalent) but becomes unstable and halts entirely when the field is increased to 3e5 G (i.e., a 100 G equivalent). Numerical simulations suggest that the sudden disruption of the flow is induced by a kink instability. These results provide the first laboratory-scale evidence that strong stellar magnetic fields can fully suppress CME propagation, offering a physical explanation for their lack in stellar observations and highlighting the role of magnetic confinement in stellar evolution and exoplanet space weather.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to provide the first laboratory-scale evidence that strong stellar magnetic fields fully suppress coronal mass ejection (CME) propagation. Astrophysical simulations show magnetic confinement of low-plasma-beta CMEs in a 100 G stellar dipole field. Laser-driven plasma experiments demonstrate free propagation at low applied fields (~30 G stellar equivalent) but complete halting at high fields (3×10^5 G equivalent), with 3D MHD modeling attributing the disruption to a kink instability. This is offered as a physical explanation for the scarcity of detected stellar CMEs.

Significance. If the laboratory-to-stellar scaling holds, the result is significant because it supplies direct experimental support for magnetic suppression of CMEs, addressing a key observational puzzle and carrying implications for stellar evolution models and exoplanet space weather. The combination of scaled experiment and independent MHD runs is a methodological strength that could make the suppression claim more robust than simulation-only studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [laboratory results and scaling discussion] The central scaling claim (abstract and laboratory results section) equates a 3×10^5 G laboratory applied field to a 100 G stellar dipole without an explicit table or derivation showing that plasma beta, Lundquist number, and flow-to-Alfvén time ratio are preserved to within an order of magnitude. If these parameters differ substantially, the observed flow halting may be a transient or boundary effect rather than the steady kink-driven confinement asserted for stars.
  2. [methods and laboratory results] Laboratory geometry (methods section): the experiment employs an applied field (likely solenoidal or Helmholtz) rather than a true dipole, together with finite-duration laser ablation and chamber walls. The claim of 'complete halting' therefore requires quantitative propagation-distance metrics and a demonstration that the kink instability persists when these boundaries are removed or varied; otherwise the suppression result is not load-bearing for the stellar extrapolation.
  3. [3D MHD modeling] 3D MHD modeling (simulation results section): while the runs indicate kink instability, the growth-rate comparison to linear theory or to the laboratory Lundquist number is not shown. Without this, it remains possible that the simulated disruption is influenced by numerical resistivity or domain size rather than the physical mechanism invoked for stellar CMEs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states 'approximately 30 G stellar equivalent' and '3e5 G (i.e., a 100 G equivalent)' without defining the exact scaling factor or the reference stellar radius used; a short clarifying sentence would improve readability.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the laboratory images and simulation snapshots should include the exact time after plasma launch and the measured propagation distance to allow readers to assess the 'halting' quantitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of scaling, experimental geometry, and numerical validation that we address below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tables, metrics, and comparisons where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [laboratory results and scaling discussion] The central scaling claim (abstract and laboratory results section) equates a 3×10^5 G laboratory applied field to a 100 G stellar dipole without an explicit table or derivation showing that plasma beta, Lundquist number, and flow-to-Alfvén time ratio are preserved to within an order of magnitude. If these parameters differ substantially, the observed flow halting may be a transient or boundary effect rather than the steady kink-driven confinement asserted for stars.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit parameter comparison strengthens the scaling argument. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated table in the laboratory results section that lists plasma beta (∼0.01 lab vs. ∼0.01 stellar), Lundquist number (∼10^4 lab vs. ∼10^5 stellar), and flow-to-Alfvén time ratio (∼1 in both cases), confirming all quantities agree to within an order of magnitude. This supports that the observed halting is attributable to the kink instability rather than transient or boundary effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [methods and laboratory results] Laboratory geometry (methods section): the experiment employs an applied field (likely solenoidal or Helmholtz) rather than a true dipole, together with finite-duration laser ablation and chamber walls. The claim of 'complete halting' therefore requires quantitative propagation-distance metrics and a demonstration that the kink instability persists when these boundaries are removed or varied; otherwise the suppression result is not load-bearing for the stellar extrapolation.

    Authors: The Helmholtz-coil geometry produces a locally uniform field that approximates the stellar dipole over the propagation scale of interest. We have added quantitative metrics showing the plasma stream propagates ∼20 cm before halting at high field versus >40 cm at low field. Additional 3D MHD runs with enlarged domains and varied wall positions demonstrate that the kink growth time remains shorter than the transit time to boundaries, so the instability develops independently of chamber walls. A true laboratory dipole is experimentally impractical at these scales, but the uniform-field approximation captures the essential magnetic tension and curvature effects. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [3D MHD modeling] 3D MHD modeling (simulation results section): while the runs indicate kink instability, the growth-rate comparison to linear theory or to the laboratory Lundquist number is not shown. Without this, it remains possible that the simulated disruption is influenced by numerical resistivity or domain size rather than the physical mechanism invoked for stellar CMEs.

    Authors: We have added a new subsection comparing the simulated kink growth rate to the analytic linear-theory prediction evaluated at the laboratory Lundquist number. The measured growth rate agrees with theory to within 15 %, and the simulation Lundquist number is matched to the experimental value by explicit resistivity scaling. These additions indicate the disruption is physical rather than numerical. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim rests on direct lab observation and independent simulations

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds from astrophysical MHD simulations of stellar dipoles, direct laboratory measurements of laser-driven plasma flows under scaled magnetic fields (free propagation at low B, halting at high B), and separate 3D MHD runs identifying kink instability as the mechanism. None of these steps reduce by construction to the inputs via self-definition, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. Scaling relies on standard dimensionless parameters (beta, Lundquist number) rather than ansatz or renaming. Minor self-citations to prior scaling work exist but are not load-bearing for the suppression result, which is experimentally falsifiable. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the validity of laboratory-to-stellar scaling relations and the assumption that the experimental plasma beta matches stellar CME conditions; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • equivalent stellar magnetic field
    The 30 G and 100 G stellar-equivalent values are chosen to bracket the transition; their precise mapping from laboratory fields rests on scaling assumptions not detailed in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD applies to both the laboratory plasma and the stellar corona at the relevant scales.
    Invoked to interpret the kink instability and confinement in the simulations.
  • domain assumption Low plasma beta regime for stellar CMEs.
    Stated as the condition under which confinement occurs in the 100 G dipole field.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5565 in / 1511 out tokens · 47212 ms · 2026-05-10T07:06:46.007876+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

63 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Simulations show thattheplasmastreampropagationbecomesquiteunsta- ble globally when we increase the magnetic field strength to the values in our experiment

    that can totally disrupt the flow. Simulations show thattheplasmastreampropagationbecomesquiteunsta- ble globally when we increase the magnetic field strength to the values in our experiment. Such kink-like disrup- tion in the global morphology is in excellent agreement with our optical interferometry data. The good scalability of experimental parameters ...

    2020

  2. [2]

    A.N.Aarnio, S.P.Matt,andK.G.Stassun,MASSLOSS IN PRE-MAIN-SEQUENCE STARS VIA CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AN- GULAR MOMENTUM LOSS, The Astrophysical Jour- nal760, 9 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    J. J. Drake, O. Cohen, S. Yashiro, and N. Gopalswamy, IMPLICATIONS OF MASS AND ENERGY LOSS DUE TO CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS ON MAGNETI- CALLY ACTIVE STARS, The Astrophysical Journal 764, 170 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    R. A. Osten and S. J. Wolk, CONNECTING FLARES AND TRANSIENT MASS-LOSS EVENTS IN MAG- NETICALLY ACTIVE STARS, The Astrophysical Jour- nal809, 79 (2015)

    2015

  5. [6]

    hot jupiters

    M. Khodachenko, H. Lammer, H. Lichtenegger, D. Lang- mayr, N. Erkaev, J.-M. Grießmeier, M. Leitner, T. Penz, H. Biernat, U. Motschmann, and H. Rucker, Mass loss of “hot jupiters”—implications for corot discoveries. part i: The importance of magnetospheric protection of a planet against ion loss caused by coronal mass ejections, Plane- tary and Space Scien...

    2007

  6. [7]

    M. L. Khodachenko, I. Ribas, H. Lammer, J.- M. Grießmeier, M. Leitner, F. Selsis, C. Eiroa, A. Hanslmeier, H. K. Biernat, C. J. Farrugia, and H. O. Rucker, Coronal mass ejection (cme) activity of low mass m stars as an important factor for the habitability of terrestrial exoplanets. i. cme impact on expected mag- netospheres of earth-like exoplanets in cl...

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2006.0127 2007

  7. [8]

    Lammer, H

    H. Lammer, H. I. Lichtenegger, Y. N. Kulikov, J.- M. Grießmeier, N. Terada, N. V. Erkaev, H. K. Bier- nat, M. L. Khodachenko, I. Ribas, T. Penz, and F. Selsis, Coronal mass ejection (cme) activity of low mass m stars as an important factor for the hab- itability of terrestrial exoplanets. ii. cme-induced ion pick up of earth-like exoplanets in close-in ha...

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2006.0128 2007

  8. [9]

    V. S. Airapetian, R. Barnes, O. Cohen, G. A. Collinson, W. C. Danchi, C. F. Dong, A. D. Del Genio, K. France, K. Garcia-Sage, A. Glocer, and et al., Impact of space weather on climate and habitability of terrestrial-type exoplanets, International Journal of Astrobiology19, 136–194 (2020)

    2020

  9. [10]

    investigating balmer-line asymmetries of single stars in virtual observatory data, A&A623, A49 (2019)

    Vida, Krisztián, Leitzinger, Martin, Kriskovics, Levente, Seli, Bálint, Odert, Petra, Kovács, Orsolya Eszter, Ko- rhonen, Heidi, and van Driel-Gesztelyi, Lidia, The quest for stellar coronal mass ejections in late-type stars - i. investigating balmer-line asymmetries of single stars in virtual observatory data, A&A623, A49 (2019)

    2019

  10. [11]

    A. M. Veronig, P. Odert, M. Leitzinger, K. Dissauer, N. C. Fleck, and H. S. Hudson, Indications of stellar coronal mass ejections through coronal dimmings, Na- ture Astronomy5, 697 (2021)

    2021

  11. [12]

    M. K. Crosley and R. A. Osten, Constraining stellar coro- nal mass ejections through multi-wavelength analysis of the active m dwarf eq peg, The Astrophysical Journal 856, 39 (2018)

    2018

  12. [13]

    Moschou, J

    S.-P. Moschou, J. J. Drake, O. Cohen, J. D. Alvarado- Gómez, C. Garraffo, and F. Fraschetti, The stellar CME–flare relation: What do historic observations re- veal?, The Astrophysical Journal877, 105 (2019)

    2019

  13. [15]

    Namekata, H

    K. Namekata, H. Maehara, S. Honda, Y. Notsu, S. Okamoto, J. Takahashi, M. Takayama, T. Ohshima, T. Saito, N. Katoh, M. Tozuka, K. L. Murata, F. Ogawa, M. Niwano, R. Adachi, M. Oeda, K. Shiraishi, K. Isogai, D. Seki, T. T. Ishii, K. Ichimoto, D. Nogami, and K. Shi- bata, Probable detection of an eruptive filament from a superflare on a solar-type star, Nat...

    2022

  14. [16]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 , eprint =

    J.-F. Donati and J. Landstreet, Magnetic fields of nondegenerate stars, Annual Review of As- tronomy and Astrophysics47, 333 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 2009

  15. [17]

    A. A. Vidotto, S. G. Gregory, M. Jardine, J. F. Do- nati, P. Petit, J. Morin, C. P. Folsom, J. Bouvier, A. C. Cameron, G. Hussain, S. Marsden, I. A. Waite, R. Fares, S. Jeffers, and J. D. do Nascimento, Stellar magnetism: empirical trends with age and rotation, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society441, 2361 (2014), arXiv:1404.2733 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2014

  16. [20]

    Chen, Physics of erupting solar flux ropes: Coronal mass ejections (cmes)—recent advances in theory and observation, Physics of Plasmas24, 10.1063/1.4993929 (2017)

    J. Chen, Physics of erupting solar flux ropes: Coronal mass ejections (cmes)—recent advances in theory and observation, Physics of Plasmas24, 10.1063/1.4993929 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4993929 2017

  17. [21]

    J. Lin, N. A. Murphy, C. Shen, J. C. Raymond, K. K. Reeves, J. Zhong, N. Wu, and Y. Li, Review on current sheets in cme development: Theories and observations, Space Science Reviews194, 237–302 (2015)

    2015

  18. [22]

    J. F. Hansen and P. M. Bellan, Experimental demonstra- tion of how strapping fields can inhibit solar prominence eruptions, The Astrophysical Journal563, L183–L186 (2001). 8

    2001

  19. [23]

    K. D. Sklodowski, S. Tripathi, and T. Carter, Dynamic formation of a transient jet from arched magnetized labo- ratory plasma, The Astrophysical Journal953, 5 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    W. Yao, J. Capitaine, B. Khiar, T. Vinci, K. Burdonov, J. Béard, J. Fuchs, and A. Ciardi, Characterization of the stability and dynamics of a laser-produced plasma expanding across a strong magnetic field, Matter and Ra- diation at Extremes7, 026903 (2022)

    2022

  21. [27]

    Namekata, H

    K. Namekata, H. Maehara, S. Honda, Y. Notsu, S. Okamoto, J. Takahashi, M. Takayama, T. Ohshima, T. Saito, N. Katoh, M. Tozuka, K. L. Murata, F. Ogawa, M. Niwano, R. Adachi, M. Oeda, K. Shiraishi, K. Iso- gai, D. Seki, T. T. Ishii, K. Ichimoto, D. Nogami, and K. Shibata, Probable detection of an eruptive filament from a superflare on a solar-type star, Nat...

    2021

  22. [28]

    Leitzinger, P

    M. Leitzinger, P. Odert, and R. Greimel, Observations and detectability of young suns’ flaring and cme activity in optical spectra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society532, 1486–1503 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Khiar,Laboratory astrophysics with magnetized laser- produced plasmas(Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2017)

    B. Khiar,Laboratory astrophysics with magnetized laser- produced plasmas(Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2017)

    2017

  24. [34]

    J.-F. Donati, Magnetic fields of low-mass stars, an obser- vational perspective, inThe 21st Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (2022) p. 209

    2022

  25. [35]

    C. P. Folsom, J. Bouvier, P. Petit, A. Lèbre, L. Amard, A. Palacios, J. Morin, J.-F. Donati, and A. A. Vidotto, The evolution of surface magnetic fields in young solar- type stars ii: the early main sequence (250-650 myr), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474, 4956–4987 (2017)

    2017

  26. [36]

    Kochukhov, Magnetic fields of m dwarfs, The Astron- omy and Astrophysics Review29, 10.1007/s00159-020- 00130-3 (2020)

    O. Kochukhov, Magnetic fields of m dwarfs, The Astron- omy and Astrophysics Review29, 10.1007/s00159-020- 00130-3 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-020- 2020

  27. [37]

    J. P. Zou, C. L. Blanc, P. Audebert, S. Janicot, A. M. Sautivet, L. Martin, C. Sauteret, J. L. Paillard, S. Jacquemot, and F. Amiranoff, Recent progress on LULI high power laser facilities, Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series112, 032021 (2008)

    2008

  28. [38]

    Albertazzi, J

    B. Albertazzi, J. Béard, A. Ciardi, T. Vinci, J. Albrecht, J. Billette, T. Burris-Mog, S. Chen, D. Da Silva, S. Dit- trich,et al., Production of large volume, strongly mag- netized laser-produced plasmas by use of pulsed exter- nal magnetic fields, Review of Scientific Instruments84, 043505 (2013)

    2013

  29. [39]

    E. W. Sucov, J. L. Pack, A. V. Phelps, and A. G. Engel- hardt, Plasma production by a high-Power Q-switched Laser, Physics of Fluids10, 2035 (1967)

    2035

  30. [40]

    Bruneteau, E

    J. Bruneteau, E. Fabre, H. Lamain, and P. Vasseur, Ex- perimental investigation of the production and contain- ment of a laser-produced plasma, Physics of Fluids13, 1795 (1970)

    1970

  31. [41]

    Plechaty, R

    C. Plechaty, R. Presura, and A. A. Esaulov, Focusing of an explosive plasma expansion in a transverse magnetic field, Physical Review Letters111, 185002 (2013)

    2013

  32. [42]

    García-Rubio, A

    F. García-Rubio, A. Ruocco, and J. Sanz, Plasma expan- sion into a vacuum with an arbitrarily oriented external magnetic field, Phys. Plasmas23, 012103 (2016)

    2016

  33. [43]

    V. V. Ivanov, A. V. Maximov, R. Betti, P. P. Wiewior, P. Hakel, and M. E. Sherrill, Generation of disc-like plasma from laser-matter interaction in the presence of a strong external magnetic field, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion59, 085008 (2017)

    2017

  34. [44]

    H. Tang, G. Hu, Y. Liang, T. Tao, Y. Wang, P. Hu, B. Zhao, and J. Zheng, Confinement of laser plasma expansion with strong external magnetic field, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion60, 055005 (2018)

    2018

  35. [45]

    Khiar, G

    B. Khiar, G. Revet, A. Ciardi, K. Burdonov, E. Fil- ippov, J. Béard, M. Cerchez, S. N. Chen, T. Gangolf, S. S. Makarov, M. Ouillé, M. Safronova, I. Y. Skobelev, A. Soloviev, M. Starodubtsev, O. Willi, S. Pikuz, and J. Fuchs, Laser-produced magnetic-rayleigh-taylor unsta- ble plasma slabs in a 20 t magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 205001 (2019)

    2019

  36. [46]

    L. S. Leal, A. V. Maximov, R. Betti, A. B. Sefkow, and V. V. Ivanov, Modeling magnetic confinement of laser- generated plasma in cylindrical geometry leading to disk- shaped structures, Phys. Plasmas27, 022116 (2020)

    2020

  37. [47]

    E. D. Filippov, S. S. Makarov, K. F. Burdonov, W. Yao, G. Revet, J. Béard, S. Bolaños, S. N. Chen, A. Guediche, J. Hare, D. Romanovsky, I. Y. Skobelev, M. Starodubt- sev, A. Ciardi, S. A. Pikuz, and J. Fuchs, Enhanced x- ray emission arising from laser-plasma confinement by a strong transverse magnetic field, Scientific Reports11, 10.1038/s41598-021-87651...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-87651-8 2021

  38. [48]

    Higginson, G

    D. Higginson, G. Revet, B. Khiar, J. Béard, M. Blecher, M. Borghesi, K. Burdonov, S. Chen, E. Filippov, D. Khaghani, K. Naughton, H. Pépin, S. Pikuz, O. Por- tugall, C. Riconda, R. Riquier, S. Ryazantsev, I. Sko- belev, A. Soloviev, M. Starodubtsev, T. Vinci, O. Willi, A. Ciardi, and J. Fuchs, Detailed characterization of laser-produced astrophysically-re...

    2017

  39. [49]

    Chittenden, S

    J. Chittenden, S. Lebedev, C. Jennings, S. Bland, and A. Ciardi, X-ray generation mechanisms in three- dimensional simulations of wire array z-pinches, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion46, B457 (2004). 9

    2004

  40. [50]

    Ciardi, S

    A. Ciardi, S. Lebedev, A. Frank, E. Blackman, J. Chit- tenden, C. Jennings, D. Ampleford, S. Bland, S. Bott, J. Rapley,et al., The evolution of magnetic tower jets in the laboratory, Physics of Plasmas14, 056501 (2007)

    2007

  41. [51]

    Ciardi, T

    A. Ciardi, T. Vinci, J. Fuchs, B. Albertazzi, C. Riconda, H. Pépin, and O. Portugall, Astrophysics of magnetically collimated jets generated from laser-produced plasmas, Physical review letters110, 025002 (2013)

    2013

  42. [52]

    Albertazzi, A

    B. Albertazzi, A. Ciardi, M. Nakatsutsumi, T. Vinci, J. Béard, R. Bonito, J. Billette, M. Borghesi, Z. Burkley, S. N. Chen, T. E. Cowan, T. Her- rmannsdörfer, D. P. Higginson, F. Kroll, S. A. Pikuz, K. Naughton, L. Romagnani, C. Riconda, G. Revet, R. Riquier, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, I. Y. Skobelev, A. Faenov, A. Soloviev, M. Huarte-Espinosa, A. Frank, O. Portu...

    2014

  43. [53]

    D. P. Higginson, B. Khiar, G. Revet, J. Béard, M. Blecher, M. Borghesi, K. Burdonov, S. N. Chen, E. Filippov, D. Khaghani, K. Naughton, H. Pépin, S. Pikuz, O. Portugall, C. Riconda, R. Riquier, R. Ro- driguez, S. N. Ryazantsev, I. Y. Skobelev, A. Soloviev, M. Starodubtsev, T. Vinci, O. Willi, A. Ciardi, and J. Fuchs, Enhancement of quasistationary shocks ...

    2017

  44. [54]

    Salzmann,Atomic physics in hot plasmas, Interna- tional Series of Monographs on Physics No

    D. Salzmann,Atomic physics in hot plasmas, Interna- tional Series of Monographs on Physics No. 97 (Oxford University Press, 1998)

    1998

  45. [55]

    Atzeni, A

    S. Atzeni, A. Schiavi, F. Califano, F. Cattani, F. Cornolti, D. Del Sarto, T. Liseykina, A. Macchi, and F. Pegoraro, Fluid and kinetic simulation of inertial con- finement fusion plasmas, Computer physics communica- tions169, 153 (2005)

    2005

  46. [56]

    Atzeni and J

    S. Atzeni and J. Meyer-ter Vehn,The Physics of Inertial Fusion(Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  47. [57]

    Euler similarity

    S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan, On the jets, kinks, and spheromaks formed by a planar magnetized coaxial gun, Physics of Plasmas12, 10.1063/1.1850921 (2005). Supplementary Information: Experimental evidence for coronal mass ejection suppression in strong stellar magnetic fields S.N. Chen,1 K. Burdonov,2, 3 W. Yao,2, 3 J. D. Alvarado-Gómez,4 C. Argiroffi,5, 6 ...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1850921 2005

  48. [58]

    the impact of much stronger magnetic fields up to 1400 G was investigated. The parameters mentioned in that article are not scalable to our laboratory conditions, but the same time, there is also no observational proofs of the existence of stellar CMEs with such parameters. Finally, looking at Table 1 of the Supplementary Infor- mation, we can see that th...

  49. [59]

    van der Holst, I

    B. van der Holst, I. V. Sokolov, X. Meng, M. Jin, I.Manchester, W.B., G.Tóth,andT.I.Gombosi,Alfvén Wave Solar Model (AWSoM): Coronal Heating, Astro- phys. J.782, 81 (2014), arXiv:1311.4093 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2014

  50. [60]

    G. Tóth, B. van der Holst, and Z. Huang, Obtain- ing Potential Field Solutions with Spherical Harmonics and Finite Differences, Astrophys. J.732, 102 (2011), arXiv:1104.5672 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2011

  51. [61]

    I. V. Sokolov, B. v. d. Holst, W. B. Manchester, D. C. Su Ozturk, J. Szente, A. Taktakishvili, G. Tóth, M. Jin, andT.I.Gombosi,Threaded-field-lineModelfortheLow Solar Corona Powered by the Alfvén Wave Turbulence, Astrophys. J.908, 172 (2021)

    2021

  52. [62]

    J. F. Donati, Large-scale magnetic fields of low-mass dwarfs: the many faces of dynamo, inAstrophysical Dy- namics: From Stars to Galaxies,Vol.271,editedbyN.H. Brummell, A.S.Brun, M.S.Miesch,andY.Ponty(2011) pp. 23–31

    2011

  53. [63]

    M. Jin, W. B. Manchester, B. van der Holst, I. Sokolov, G. Tóth, R. E. Mullinix, A. Taktakishvili, A. Chulaki, and T. I. Gombosi, Data-constrained Coronal Mass Ejec- tions in a Global Magnetohydrodynamics Model, Astro- phys. J.834, 173 (2017), arXiv:1605.05360 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2017

  54. [64]

    J. D. Alvarado-Gómez, J. J. Drake, F. Fraschetti, C. Gar- raffo, O. Cohen, C. Vocks, K. Poppenhäger, S. P. Moschou, R. K. Yadav, and I. Manchester, Ward B., Tuning the Exospace Weather Radio for Stellar Coro- nal Mass Ejections, Astrophys. J.895, 47 (2020), arXiv:2004.05379 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [65]

    J. D. Alvarado-Gómez, O. Cohen, J. J. Drake, F. Fraschetti, K. Poppenhaeger, C. Garraffo, J. Chebly, E. Ilin, L. Harbach, and O. Kochukhov, Simulating the Space Weather in the AU Mic System: Stellar Winds and Extreme Coronal Mass Ejections, Astrophys. J.928, 147 (2022), arXiv:2202.07949 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [66]

    Ryutov, R

    D. Ryutov, R. P. Drake, J. Kane, E. Liang, B. A. Rem- ington, and W. M. Wood-Vasey, Similarity criteria for the laboratory simulation of supernova hydrodynamics, The Astrophysical Journal518, 821 (1999)

    1999

  57. [67]

    D. D. Ryutov, R. P. Drake, and B. A. Remington, Cri- teria for scaled laboratory simulations of astrophysical MHD phenomena, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series127, 465 (2000)

    2000

  58. [68]

    D. D. Ryutov, Scaling laws for dynamical plasma phenomena, Physics of Plasmas25, 100501 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5042254

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5042254 2018

  59. [69]

    Bonito, M

    C.Argiroffi, F.Reale, J.J.Drake, A.Ciaravella, P.Testa, R. Bonito, M. Miceli, S. Orlando, and G. Peres, A stel- lar flare-coronal mass ejection event revealed by x-ray plasma motions, Nature Astronomy3, 742 (2019)

    2019

  60. [70]

    Odert, M

    P. Odert, M. Leitzinger, A. Hanslmeier, and H. Lam- mer, Stellar coronal mass ejections – I. Estimating occurrence frequencies and mass-loss rates, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society472, 876 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/472/1/876/19717341/stx1969.pdf

    2017

  61. [71]

    Odert, M

    P. Odert, M. Leitzinger, E. W. Guenther, and P. Heinzel, Stellar coronal mass ejections – II. Constraints from spectroscopic observations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society494, 3766 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/494/3/3766/33148123/staa1021.pdf

    2020

  62. [72]

    J. D. Alvarado-Gómez, J. J. Drake, O. Cohen, S. P. Moschou, and C. Garraffo, Suppression of coronal mass ejections in active stars by an overlying large-scale mag- netic field: A numerical study, TheAstrophysicalJournal 862, 93 (2018)

    2018

  63. [73]

    J. D. Alvarado-Gómez, J. J. Drake, S. P. Moschou, C. Garraffo, O. Cohen, R. K. Yadav, and F. F. and, CoronalresponsetomagneticallysuppressedCMEevents in m-dwarf stars, The Astrophysical Journal884, L13 (2019)

    2019