pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23974 · v1 · pith:QKOXXDISnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

The science of compressional heating on the LM26 magnetized target fusion experiment

S. J. Howard , D. P. Brennan , K. Epp , P. Forysinski , D. Plant , M. Reynolds , A. Froese , N. Sirmas
show 56 more authors
D. Krotez V. Suponitsky R. Zindler E. Love C. Macdonald N. Kumar Z. Seifollahi Moghadam K. Conquergood A. Wong W. Zawalski B. Rablah W. Kozicki P. Carle A. Rohollahi C. Preston A. M. D. Lee J. Hobbis L. Santos X. Feng M. Schellenberg-Beaver R. Tingley R. Underwood J. Sanchez Rojo J. Gorenstein D. Froese E. Cessford J. Pratt J. Crofts J. Sardari G. Faust D. Ross J. Wilkie S. Bernard S. Edwards R. Oosterom M. Yurkiv J. Y. J. Cheng C. Connor S. Bolanos C. Gutjahr E. Chan M. Greenwood E. Ng A. Massey K. Chen R. Svihra A. Gromer S. Lee X. Zhu L. Marshall C. Eyrich A. Mahoney M. Davidson H. Feng A. Rudy M. Laberge
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 05:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords magnetized target fusioncompressional heatingspherical tokamaklithium linerLM26plasma compressionneutron fluxenergy balance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compressional heating accounts for most temperature rise in LM26 plasma shots

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

The paper reports results from the first 11 compression experiments on the LM26 device, in which a spherical tokamak deuterium plasma is radially compressed threefold by an imploding solid lithium liner. The highest-performing shots show more than a threefold rise in electron temperature, tenfold rises in density and poloidal field, and increased neutron, X-ray, and visible emission. An integrated physics model reconstructs the time-dependent equilibrium from diagnostic data and shows that the observed temperature evolution is matched only when compression work is included as the dominant heating term alongside Ohmic heating and boundary losses. This establishes that compressional heating occurred and supplies a quantitative basis for scaling the approach to higher densities and temperatures.

Core claim

The central claim is that compressional heating was achieved. The integrated physics model balances heating power from compression, Ohmic heating from plasma current, and losses to the boundary; this three-term balance reproduces the measured temperature rise, with the majority of the increase attributable to compression work rather than other mechanisms. The same model supports the observed increases in neutron flux during compression.

What carries the argument

The integrated physics model that reconstructs the experimental equilibrium state versus time and partitions the energy balance into compression work, Ohmic heating, and boundary losses.

If this is right

  • The observed 3x radial compression produces >3x Te, 10x ne, and 10x B_pol in the best shots.
  • Neutron flux rises during the compression phase.
  • The same modeling framework supports stability and transport conclusions drawn from the shots.
  • The data set provides a quantitative starting point for planned facility upgrades that increase final density and temperature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the compression scaling continues without new loss channels, further increases in liner velocity or initial plasma size could reach higher fusion-relevant parameters.
  • Fast-camera images of plasma-wall interaction during compression supply spatial information that could be used to refine boundary-loss terms in future runs.
  • The same liner-driven compression geometry might be tested on other spherical-tokamak or field-reversed configurations to isolate the role of initial magnetic geometry.

Load-bearing premise

Diagnostic measurements and the computational equilibrium reconstruction accurately capture the time-dependent plasma state, and the three-term energy balance contains every significant contribution.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same diagnostic data in which the observed temperature rise is fully reproduced by Ohmic heating and boundary losses alone, without any compression-work term, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23974 by A. Froese, A. Gromer, A. Mahoney, A. Massey, A. M. D. Lee, A. Rohollahi, A. Rudy, A. Wong, B. Rablah, C. Connor, C. Eyrich, C. Gutjahr, C. Macdonald, C. Preston, D. Froese, D. Krotez, D. P. Brennan, D. Plant, D. Ross, E. Cessford, E. Chan, E. Love, E. Ng, G. Faust, H. Feng, J. Crofts, J. Gorenstein, J. Hobbis, J. Pratt, J. Sanchez Rojo, J. Sardari, J. Wilkie, J. Y. J. Cheng, K. Chen, K. Conquergood, K. Epp, L. Marshall, L. Santos, M. Davidson, M. Greenwood, M. LaBerge, M. Reynolds, M. Schellenberg-Beaver, M. Yurkiv, N. Kumar, N. Sirmas, P. Carle, P. Forysinski, R. Oosterom, R. Svihra, R. Tingley, R. Underwood, R. Zindler, S. Bernard, S. Bolanos, S. Edwards, S. J. Howard, S. Lee, V. Suponitsky, W. Kozicki, W. Zawalski, X. Feng, X. Zhu, Z. Seifollahi Moghadam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of LM26 experiment, with liner trajectory (lower half-view) and poloidal flux (upper half-view) shown for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example data from non-compression ST plasma for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fitted simulation trajectory for LMC-9 outlining in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measurements of liner symmetry ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of reconstructed equatorial liner trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Location of diagnostics in LM26 overlaid on flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Detail of AXUV filtered photodiode array assembly. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Maps of individual AXUV view cones as they inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Thomson scattering laser and view line, with scatter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Trend of increase of peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Vibration-compensated line average density of each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Flux surface resolved electron inventory versus time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Observation of X-ray emissivity profile during a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Electron temperature rise for LMC-9 (a) and LMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Possible contribution to AXUV R2 ratio discrep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Thomson scattering measurements of (a) electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Raw and Gaussian-fit polychromator data for laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Expected polychromator channel signal ratios for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Neutron yield and scintillator signals (stacked his [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Ion temperature obtained by neutron yield (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Fast color-camera observations of visible light emission from near the edge of the plasma during the LMC-9 compres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Example geometry during a PsiBC reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Geometric and plasma equilibrium parameters as a function of time after formation in LMC-9. Compression starts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. The resistive MHD growth rates of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Ion temperature from neutron yield data (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Temperature evolution from the ISM reconstructions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Power terms from the ISM reconstructions of (a, b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. Concentrations of impurities in an otherwise pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Concentrations of impurities that would give rise to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_32.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Lawson Machine 26 (LM26) at General Fusion has demonstrated compressional heating of a spherical tokamak deuterium plasma as it was compressed by an imploding solid lithium liner. Results from the first 11 compression shots on LM26 are presented, the highest-performing of which show more than a 3x increase in $T_e$, a 10x increase in $n_e$, and a 10x increase in $B_{pol}$ within the plasma driven by 3x radial compression. The experimental device and instrumentation are reviewed in detail, followed by observations about the liner trajectory and evolution of plasma properties, including increases in emission of neutrons, X-rays, and visible radiation. Observations from fast-camera images during compression provide context for interpreting the spatial structure of plasma-wall interaction. Overviews of relevant models and analysis are presented. Diagnostic data are used to reconstruct the experimental equilibrium state in computational framework as a function of time. The results build confidence in the stability and transport analyses that support the primary conclusions. Trends across the full set of 11 compression shots are presented, and detailed examinations of the high-performance shots are given individually. The central conclusions of the integrated physics model specifically indicate that compressional heating was achieved in this set of experiments, as evidenced by the balance of heating power from compression, Ohmic heating from plasma current, and losses to the boundary needed to match the experimental data. A majority of the temperature rise is attributable to compressional heating. An increase in neutron flux is also observed during compression. The results provide a basis for planned improvements to the LM26 facility that will enable the compression of magnetized plasma to increasingly higher densities and temperatures.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from the first 11 compression shots on the LM26 magnetized target fusion experiment at General Fusion. A spherical tokamak deuterium plasma is compressed radially by a factor of ~3 using an imploding solid lithium liner, yielding >3x increase in Te, 10x in ne, and 10x in B_pol in the best shots. Diagnostic data are used to reconstruct time-dependent equilibria; an integrated physics model balancing compressional work, Ohmic heating from plasma current, and boundary losses is fitted to the data and concludes that compressional heating accounts for the majority of the observed temperature rise. Neutron, X-ray, and visible emission increases are noted, along with fast-camera observations of plasma-wall interaction.

Significance. Demonstration of controlled compressional heating in a magnetized target fusion geometry would be a notable experimental result for the field, directly addressing a key physics question for liner-driven MTF concepts. The reported trends across 11 shots and the explicit attribution of heating fractions via a three-term energy balance provide a concrete data set against which future modeling and facility upgrades can be benchmarked.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and models/analysis section] The central claim that compressional heating dominates the temperature rise rests on the integrated physics model matching the observed Te evolution after subtracting Ohmic heating and boundary losses. However, the manuscript provides no quantitative sensitivity analysis of the derived compression-heating fraction to plausible variations in the time-dependent equilibrium reconstruction (e.g., assumptions about axisymmetry, profile shapes, or diagnostic weighting) or to possible omitted terms such as impurity radiation or anomalous transport. This directly affects the load-bearing conclusion stated in the abstract.
  2. [Abstract and models/analysis section] The energy-balance attribution is obtained by fitting the three-term model to the same diagnostic time traces used to reconstruct the plasma state. No independent cross-check (e.g., direct measurement of compression work via liner trajectory and magnetic-flux conservation, or comparison against a null model without compression) is reported, raising the risk that the majority-compression conclusion is partly a consequence of model choice rather than an independent test.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'stability and transport analyses support the primary conclusions,' but no quantitative metrics (growth rates, transport coefficients, or comparison to data) are given in the provided text; these should be expanded with explicit references to figures or tables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of the LM26 results and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and models/analysis section] The central claim that compressional heating dominates the temperature rise rests on the integrated physics model matching the observed Te evolution after subtracting Ohmic heating and boundary losses. However, the manuscript provides no quantitative sensitivity analysis of the derived compression-heating fraction to plausible variations in the time-dependent equilibrium reconstruction (e.g., assumptions about axisymmetry, profile shapes, or diagnostic weighting) or to possible omitted terms such as impurity radiation or anomalous transport. This directly affects the load-bearing conclusion stated in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative sensitivity analysis is not presented in the current manuscript. The equilibrium reconstructions rely on standard assumptions for axisymmetry and profile shapes consistent with the diagnostic set, and the three-term energy balance omits explicit impurity radiation and anomalous transport terms. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix or subsection performing sensitivity studies on the compression-heating fraction, including variations in diagnostic weighting, profile assumptions, and estimates of the magnitude of omitted terms. This will directly quantify the robustness of the majority-compression conclusion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and models/analysis section] The energy-balance attribution is obtained by fitting the three-term model to the same diagnostic time traces used to reconstruct the plasma state. No independent cross-check (e.g., direct measurement of compression work via liner trajectory and magnetic-flux conservation, or comparison against a null model without compression) is reported, raising the risk that the majority-compression conclusion is partly a consequence of model choice rather than an independent test.

    Authors: The integrated model is fitted to the reconstructed time traces, as noted. The liner trajectory is measured independently via imaging and is used to constrain the radial compression factor in the equilibrium reconstruction; magnetic-flux conservation is enforced in the equilibrium solver. However, a direct, separate calculation of compression work from liner dynamics alone or an explicit null-model comparison is not reported. We will add a short discussion clarifying the independent elements of the reconstruction and will include a comparison of the observed Te evolution against a simplified model with the compression term set to zero, to the extent the existing data permit. We acknowledge that a fully decoupled cross-check would strengthen the result but is limited by the current diagnostic suite. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental observations from 11 LM26 compression shots (increases in Te by >3x, ne and Bpol by 10x under 3x radial compression) together with diagnostic-based equilibrium reconstructions and a three-term energy balance model (compression work, Ohmic heating, boundary losses) that is adjusted to reproduce the measured time evolution. The central attribution that compressional heating accounts for the majority of the temperature rise is an output of that matching procedure applied to the observed data, not a self-referential definition or a fitted parameter relabeled as an independent prediction. No equations are shown that reduce the claimed result to its inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked to establish uniqueness, and the supporting stability/transport analyses are presented as external checks rather than tautological inputs. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the reported measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides no explicit list of free parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on an integrated physics model whose energy-balance terms are assumed to be complete and whose equilibrium reconstruction is assumed to be faithful to the diagnostics; these are domain assumptions rather than quantities derived from first principles or external benchmarks.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The computational framework accurately reconstructs the experimental equilibrium state as a function of time from the available diagnostics.
    Invoked to enable the energy-balance comparison that attributes heating to compression.
  • domain assumption The three heating and loss channels (compression work, Ohmic heating, boundary losses) contain all significant contributions to the observed temperature evolution.
    Required for the conclusion that a majority of the temperature rise is due to compressional heating.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6151 in / 1584 out tokens · 32155 ms · 2026-06-26T05:45:49.416175+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

69 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CONCLUSIONS In this study, we presented a series of experimental re- sults from the LM26 device at General Fusion and ex- plore relevant analyses and modeling to draw conclu- sions about future directions for MTF research. The initial pre-compression state of the CHI-formed ST deu- terium plasmas has sufficiently good confinement prop- erties to remain in...

  2. [2]

    Both give similarT e values, which are further validated with the Thomson scattering mea- surements obtained on LMC-11

    Overall, we find that the beryllium and properly- curated aluminized Mylar filters give similar results on the LM26 system. Both give similarT e values, which are further validated with the Thomson scattering mea- surements obtained on LMC-11. Both types of filters are intrinsically susceptible to plasma-gradient effects if not properly arranged, as well ...

  3. [3]

    Howardet al., Nuclear Fusion65, 016029 (2025)

    S. Howardet al., Nuclear Fusion65, 016029 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    I. V. Khalzov, D. Krotez, and R. S´ egas, Physics of Fluids 36, 032125 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Robson, Report of NRL Progress, June 1973 (1973)

    A. Robson, Report of NRL Progress, June 1973 (1973)

    1973

  6. [6]

    P. J. Turchi, R. L. Burton, A. L. Cooper, R. D. Ford, D. J. Jenkins, J. Cameron, and R. Lanham,Develop- ment of Imploding Liner Systems for the NRL LINUS Program, Tech. Rep. (Naval Research Lab. (NRL), Wash- ington, DC (United States), 1979)

    1979

  7. [7]

    K. Bol, J. L. Cecchi, C. C. Daughney, F. DeMarco, R. A. Ellis, Jr., H. P. Eubank, H. P. Furth, H. Hsuan, E. Mazzucato, and R. R. Smith,Experiments on the Adi- abatic Toroidal Compressor, Tech. Rep. (PPPL, 1974) doi:10.2172/4203067

    work page doi:10.2172/4203067 1974

  8. [8]

    Bolet al., Phys

    K. Bolet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1495 (1972)

    1972

  9. [9]

    K. Bol, J. L. Cecchi, C. C. Daughney, F. DeMarco, R. A. Ellis, Jr., H. P. Eubank, H. P. Furth, H. Hsuan, E. Mazzucato, and R. R. Smith, inPlasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1974 (Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Tokyo, 1974), Vol. 1 (IAEA, Vienna, 1975) p. 83

    1974

  10. [10]

    Ellis, Nuclear Fusion25, 1145 (1985)

    R. Ellis, Nuclear Fusion25, 1145 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    Robinson, Nuclear Fusion25, 1101 (1985)

    D. Robinson, Nuclear Fusion25, 1101 (1985)

    1985

  12. [12]

    G. Tait, M. Bell, and J. Bell, inPlasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1984 (Proc. 10th Int. Conf. London, 1984, Vol. 1 (IAEA, Vienna, 1985) pp. 141–154

    1984

  13. [13]

    D. J. Grove and D. M. Meade, Nucl. Fusion25, 1167 (1985)

    1985

  14. [14]

    The science of JET

    J. Wesson, “The science of JET” JET-R(99)13(1999)

    1999

  15. [15]

    Tanga, JET Joint Undertaking Progress Report 1986, EUR 11113 EN (EUR-JET-PR4) , 211 (1987)

    A. Tanga, JET Joint Undertaking Progress Report 1986, EUR 11113 EN (EUR-JET-PR4) , 211 (1987)

    1986

  16. [16]

    Askinazi, M

    L. Askinazi, M. Andrejko, and V. Golant, J. Plasma Fu- sion Res. SERIES4, 224 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    J. M. Taccetti, T. P. Intrator, G. A. Wurden, S. Y. Zhang, R. Aragonez, P. N. Assmus, C. M. Bass, C. Carey, S. A. deVries, W. J. Fienup, I. Furno, S. C. Hsu, M. P. Kozar, M. C. Langner, J. Liang, R. J. Maqueda, R. A. Mar- tinez, P. G. Sanchez, K. F. Schoenberg, K. J. Scott, R. E. Siemon, E. M. Tejero, E. H. Trask, M. Tuszewski, W. J. Waganaar, C. Grabowsk...

    2003

  18. [18]

    Wurden, T

    G. Wurden, T. Intrator, P. Sieck, L. Dorf, S. Hsu, R. Ren- neke, W. Waganaar, Z. Wang, J. Degnan, E. Ruden, et al., inProc. 23rd Int. Conf. Geneva, 2008, IC/P4-13 LA-UR-08-0796 (IAEA, Vienna, 2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Kirtley and R

    D. Kirtley and R. Milroy, Journal of Fusion Energy42, 30 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Yager-Elorriaga, M

    D. Yager-Elorriaga, M. Gomez, D. Ruiz, S. Slutz, A. Harvey-Thompson, C. Jennings, P. Knapp, P. Schmit, M. Weis, T. Awe, G. Chandler, M. Mangan, C. Myers, J. Fein, B. Galloway, M. Geissel, M. Glinsky, S. Hansen, E. Harding, D. Lamppa, W. Lewis, P. Rambo, G. Robert- son, M. Savage, G. Shipley, I. Smith, J. Schwarz, D. Am- pleford, K. Beckwith, K. Peterson, ...

    2022

  21. [21]

    Y.-K. M. Peng, Physics of Plasmas7, 1681 (2000)

    2000

  22. [22]

    M. Ono, M. Bell, R. Bell, T. Bigelow, M. Bitter, W. Blan- chard, D. Darrow, E. Fredrickson, D. Gates, L. Grisham, J. Hosea, D. Johnson, R. Kaita, S. Kaye, S. Kubota, H. Kugel, B. LeBlanc, R. Maingi, R. Maqueda, E. Maz- zucato, J. Menard, D. Mueller, B. Nelson, C. Neumeyer, F. Paoletti, S. Paul, Y.-K. Peng, S. Ramakrishnan, R. Raman, P. Ryan, S. Sabbagh, C...

    2001

  23. [23]

    Kurskiev, V

    G. Kurskiev, V. Gusev, N. Sakharov, Y. Petrov, N. Bakharev, I. Balachenkov, A. Bazhenov, F. Cherny- shev, N. Khromov, E. Kiselev, S. Krikunov, V. Mi- naev, I. Miroshnikov, A. Novokhatskii, N. Zhiltsov, E. Mukhin, M. Patrov, K. Shulyatiev, P. Shchegolev, O. Skrekel, A. Telnova, E. Tkachenko, E. Tukhmeneva, V. Tokarev, S. Tolstyakov, V. Varfolomeev, A. Voro...

    2021

  24. [24]

    Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy38, 199 (2019)

    M. Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy38, 199 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy27, 65 (2008)

    M. Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy27, 65 (2008)

    2008

  26. [26]

    Howard, M

    S. Howard, M. Laberge, L. McIlwraith, D. Richardson, and J. Gregson, Journal of Fusion Energy28, 156 (2009)

    2009

  27. [27]

    Froese, S

    A. Froese, S. Howard, V. Suponitsky, J. Zimmermann, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, J. McCone, R. Ivanov, D. Par- feniuk, P. O’Shea, D. Richardson, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, in19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)(Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS), 2014) p. 2151

    2014

  28. [28]

    Tancetti, C

    A. Tancetti, C. Ribeiro, S. Howard, S. Coop, C. Mc- Nally, M. Reynolds, P. Kholodov, F. Braglia, R. Zindler, C. Macdonald, E. Love, P. Carle, X. Feng, A. Ro- hollahi, K. Leci, D. Plant, C. Dunlea, R. Ivanov, and A. Mossman, Nuclear Fusion65, 036043 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adb8fb

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adb8fb 2025

  29. [29]

    Raman and V

    R. Raman and V. F. Shevchenko, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion56, 103001 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Dunlea, S

    C. Dunlea, S. Howard, W. Zawalski, K. Epp, A. Moss- man, C. Xiao, and A. Hirose, Physics of Plasmas27, 062513 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Sirmas, J.-S

    N. Sirmas, J.-S. Dick, S. Bernard, Y. Miao, L. San- tos, J. Hobbis, C. Preston, A. Lee, S. Cameron, and P. Forysinski, inProceedings of the 2025 Pressure Ves- sels and Piping Conference, Vol. Volume 2: Computer Technology & Bolted Joints (2025) p. V002T02A025

    2025

  32. [32]

    N. S. Mangione, H. Wu, C. Preston, A. M. Lee, S. En- tezami, R. S´ egas, P. W. Forysinski, and V. Suponitsky, Fusion Engineering and Design198, 114087 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Suponitsky, I

    V. Suponitsky, I. V. Khalzov, D. M. Roberts, and P. W. Forysinski, Fluids10, 10.3390/fluids10090222 (2025). 41

    work page doi:10.3390/fluids10090222 2025

  34. [34]

    Suponitsky, K

    V. Suponitsky, K. Conquergood, N. Sirmas, D. Roberts, and J.-S. Dick, inProceedings of the 14th PAMIR Inter- national Conference on Fundamental and Applied MHD (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    L. F. Delgado-Aparicio, D. Stutman, K. Tritz, M. Finkenthal, R. Bell, J. Hosea, R. Kaita, B. LeBlanc, L. Roquemore, and J. R. Wilson, Journal of Applied Physics102, 073304 (2007)

    2007

  36. [36]

    Bosch and G

    H.-S. Bosch and G. Hale, Nuclear Fusion32, 611 (1992)

    1992

  37. [37]

    A. J. Radich, V. Grecu, P. J. F. Carle, M. Hildebrand, S. J. Howard, C. P. McNally, M. Reynolds, A. Rohollahi, R. E. Underwood, and S. Weinstein, Fusion Science and Technology , 1 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Chung, M

    H.-K. Chung, M. Chen, W. Morgan, Y. Ralchenko, and R. Lee, High Energy Density Physics1, 3 (2005)

    2005

  39. [39]

    Breiman, W

    L. Breiman, W. Meisel, and E. Purcell, Technometrics 19, 135 (1977)

    1977

  40. [40]

    Gangadhara, D

    S. Gangadhara, D. Craig, D. A. Ennis, D. J. Den Har- tog, G. Fiksel, and S. C. Prager, Physics of Plasmas15, 056121 (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    R. M. Magee,Ion energization during tearing mode mag- netic reconnection in a high temperature plasma, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    E. B. Hooper, R. H. Bulmer, B. I. Cohen, D. N. Hill, C. T. Holcomb, B. Hudson, H. S. McLean, L. D. Pearl- stein, C. A. Romero-Talam´ as, C. R. Sovinec, B. W. Stal- lard, R. D. Wood, and S. Woodruff, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion54, 113001 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    Grad and H

    H. Grad and H. Rubin, Journal of Nuclear Energy7, 284 (1958)

    1958

  44. [44]

    Froese, R

    A. Froese, R. Zindler, M. Herunter, C. MacDonald, T. Chisholm, D. Krotez, M. Hildebrand, B. Kelly, E. Love, A. Mossman, and M. Reynolds, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,67, BP11.003 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Nevins in the CORSICA code base

    This current profile equation is attributed to William M. Nevins in the CORSICA code base

  46. [46]

    Khalzov, D

    I. Khalzov, D. Krotez, and R. S´ egas, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,66, TP11.90 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Khalzov and V

    I. Khalzov and V. Suponitsky, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,68, PP11.65 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Gerhardt, R

    S. Gerhardt, R. Bell, A. Diallo, D. Gates, B. LeBlanc, J. Menard, D. Mueller, S. Sabbagh, V. Soukhanovskii, K. Tritz,et al., Nuclear Fusion53, 043020 (2013)

    2013

  49. [49]

    Gerhardt, D

    S. Gerhardt, D. Darrow, R. Bell, B. LeBlanc, J. Menard, D. Mueller, A. Roquemore, S. Sabbagh, and H. Yuh, Nu- clear Fusion53, 063021 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    P. C. de Vries, M. F. Johnson, B. Alper, P. Buratti, T. C. Hender, H. R. Koslowski, and V. Riccardo, Nuclear Fu- sion51, 053018 (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    Pautasso, P

    G. Pautasso, P. De Vries, A. U. Team,et al., in41st EPS Conference on Plasma Physics(2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    Eidietis, S

    N. Eidietis, S. Gerhardt, R. Granetz, Y. Kawano, M. Lehnen, J. Lister, G. Pautasso, V. Riccardo, R. Tanna, A. Thornton,et al., Nuclear Fusion55, 063030 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    Glasser, Physics of Plasmas23, 072505 (2016)

    A. Glasser, Physics of Plasmas23, 072505 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    Glasser, Z

    A. Glasser, Z. Wang, and J.-K. Park, Physics of Plasmas 23, 112506 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Brennan, A

    D. Brennan, A. Froese, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, Z. Wang, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, Nuclear Fusion60, 046027 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Brennan, A

    D. Brennan, A. Froese, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, A. Wen, Z. Wang, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, Nuclear Fusion61, 046047 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Sovinec, A

    C. Sovinec, A. Glasser, T. Gianakon, D. Barnes, R. Nebel, S. Kruger, S. Plimpton, A. Tarditi, M. Chu, and the NIMROD Team, J. Comp. Phys.195, 355 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    Brennan, S

    D. Brennan, S. Kruger, T. Gianakon, and D. Schnack, Nuclear fusion45, 1178 (2005)

    2005

  59. [59]

    D. J. Rhodes, A. J. Cole, D. P. Brennan, J. M. Finn, R. FItzpatrick, M. E. Mauel, and G. A. Navratil, Phys. Plasmas25, 012517 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    J. M. Finn, A. J. Cole, and D. P. Brennan, Physics of Plasmas22(2015)

    2015

  61. [61]

    A. D. Turnbull, J. M. Hanson, F. Turco, N. M. Fer- raro, M. J. Lanctot, L. L. Lao, E. J. Strait, P. Piovesan, and P. Martin, Journal of Plasma Physics82, 515820301 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    D. P. Brennan, R. J. La Haye, A. D. Turnbull, M. S. Chu, T. H. Jensen, L. L. Lao, T. C. Luce, P. A. Politzer, E. J. Strait, S. E. Kruger, and D. D. Schnack, Physics of Plasmas10, 1643 (2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Fitzpatrick, Physics of plasmas21(2014)

    R. Fitzpatrick, Physics of plasmas21(2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    H. P. Furth, P. H. Rutherford, and H. Selberg, The Physics of Fluids16, 1054 (1973)

    1973

  65. [65]

    S. M. Kaye, R. E. Bell, D. Gates, B. P. LeBlanc, F. M. Levinton, J. E. Menard, D. Mueller, G. Rewoldt, S. A. Sabbagh, W. Wang, and H. Yuh, Physical Review Letters 98, 175002 (2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    EEGNet: A compact convolutional neural network for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces,

    N. Kumar, G. Avdeeva, J. Candy, M. Reynolds, E. A. Belli, and C. P. McNally, Nuclear Fusion 10.1088/1741- 4326/adeff2 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741- 2025

  67. [67]

    Henke, E

    B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data TablesV54, 181 (1993)

    1993

  68. [68]

    Maslov, M

    M. Maslov, M. N. A. Beurskens, J. Flanagan, M. Kem- penaars, and J.-E. Contributors, Review of Scientific In- struments83, 096106 (2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    Sauter, C

    O. Sauter, C. Angioni, and Y. R. Lin-Liu, Physics of Plasmas6, 2834 (1999)

    1999