pith. sign in

arxiv: 2108.09621 · v3 · submitted 2021-08-22 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Screening effect of plasma flow on the resonant magnetic perturbation penetration in tokamak based on two-fluid model

Weikang Tang , Qibin Luan , Hongen Sun , Lai Wei , Shuangshuang Lu , Shuai Jiang , Jian Xu , Zhengxiong Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords resonant magnetic perturbationmode penetrationbootstrap currenttwo-fluid modelneoclassical tearing modetokamak plasma flowdiamagnetic driftisland width oscillation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bootstrap current in two-fluid tokamak model produces a mode penetration threshold at zero rotation.

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

The paper runs numerical simulations of resonant magnetic perturbation penetration with an updated MHD code based on two-fluid four-field equations that incorporate bootstrap current along with parallel and perpendicular transport. It reports a mode penetration phenomenon that appears even at zero rotation and differs from the classical tearing mode picture. This offers one route to explain why experiments detect a finite penetration threshold without rotation. Separate treatment of E×B and diamagnetic flows shows that large enough diamagnetic drift exerts a stabilizing influence on neoclassical tearing modes. The simulations also reveal an oscillation in island width traced to negative feedback between pressure and the magnetic island.

Core claim

Taking into account the bootstrap current, a mode penetration like phenomenon is found, which is essentially different from the classical tearing mode model. It may provide a possible explanation for the finite mode penetration threshold at zero rotation detected in experiments. Numerical results show that a sufficiently large diamagnetic drift flow can drive a strong stabilizing effect on the neoclassical tearing mode. An oscillation phenomenon of island width is discovered due to the negative feedback regulation of pressure on the magnetic island.

What carries the argument

Two-fluid four-field equations in the MDC code, with bootstrap current and separate treatment of E×B and diamagnetic flows.

Load-bearing premise

The two-fluid four-field equations and their numerical implementation capture bootstrap current, parallel and perpendicular transport, and the distinct effects of the two flows without dominant missing physics.

What would settle it

Run the same initial-value simulation with bootstrap current artificially removed and check whether the finite penetration threshold at zero rotation disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2108.09621 by Hongen Sun, Jian Xu, Lai Wei, Qibin Luan, Shuai Jiang, Shuangshuang Lu, Weikang Tang, Zhengxiong Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Safety factor q and pressure p profiles adopted in this work. 3.2. Basic verification To begin with, the role of seed island width on the onset of NTM is verified to ensure the neoclassical current effect implemented properly. The seed island width is considered by the initial magnetic perturbation in a form of eψt=0 = ψ00(1−r) 2 . The nonlinear evolution of magnetic island width for different initial magn… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (left) Nonlinear evolution of the island width for different magnitude of seed island. The solid traces are for bootstrap current fraction fb = 0.3 and the dashed trace is for fb = 0. (right) Nonlinear evolution of island width for different turn-off time of RMP with fb = 0.3 and δBr/B0 = 3.75 × 10−5 . is triggered for a larger seed island width. In experiments, the RMP coils are commonly used to seed a ma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal evolution of island width for different RMP amplitude for bootstrap current fraction fb = 0 (left) and fb = 0.3 (right) without plasma rotation. JXO\KTXKIUTTKIZOUT Y[VVXKYYKJ92/ 4:3 VKTKZXGZKJ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Island width versus the RMP amplitude for natural frequency ω0 = 0 (left) and ω0 = 6.4 kHz (right). The bootstrap current fraction fb is set as 0.3. as a function of RMP amplitude in figure 4 (left). As the RMP amplitude increases, the saturated island width increases slowly first. Once the RMP amplitude exceeds a threshold, there is a jump of the saturated island width. This process can be divided into tw… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The typical eigenmode structure of poloidal magnetic flux and current density for m/n=3/2 component in the regime below the jump of island width. For natural frequency ω0 = 0 (left column), the magnetic perturbation in the core region is excited by the RMP. For ω0 = 6.4 kHz (right column), the RMP is kept out from the resonant surface. The solid traces are for the real part and dashed traces for the imagin… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Nonlinear evolution of the island width for ω0 = ωE0=6.4 kHz (solid) and ω0 = ωdia0=6.4 kHz (dashed). As shown in figure 6, the screening effects of the two types of flow on the RMP penetration are compared. The solid lines are for cases with a equilibrium E × B flow frequency ωE0=6.4 kHz and diamagnetic flow frequency ωdia0=0, while dotted lines for ωdia0=6.4 kHz and ωE0=0. Thus, for both cases the natura… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the phase frequency ωph and different flow frequency ωE, ωdia and ωtot = ωE + ωdia. The ωph is calculated by the partial derivative of the phase of poloidal flux Φψ with respect to time. ωE and ωdia are the angular frequencies of electric drift and diamagnetic drift flow, respectively. 0 0000 0000 0000 0000 00000  000 00 00 00 00 00         0      0    … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Nonlinear evolution of the island width for ω0 = ωE0=12.8 kHz (solid) and ω0 = ωdia0=12.8 kHz (dashed). figure 7. It shows a good agreement for the flow frequency and the phase frequency after mode penetration, indicating that the magnetic island and the flow are coupled in accordance with the frozen-in theorem. For the case (ωE0=6.4 kHz, ωdia0=0), the ωE decreases with time and drops to zero at the moment… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temporal evolution of the island width and various frequencies for the oscillated case (ω0 = ωdia0=12.8 kHz, δBr/B0 = 9.75×10−5 ) in figure 8. Oscillation of ωdia is observed after mode penetration. Four time points t=73000, t=77000, t=83200 and t=88800 are marked by the red circles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contour plot of the plasma pressure p (solid lines) and poloidal flux ψ (dotted lines), corresponding to the four red time points marked in figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of island width versus time for different (upper left) resistivity η, (upper right) bootstrap current fraction fb, (lower left) parallel transport coefficient χk and (lower right) perpendicular transport coefficient χ⊥. threshold is almost the same. However, there are two differences observed. First, the saturated island width is evidently smaller for the case (ωE0=0, ωdia0=12.8 kHz) than that … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Numerical simulation on the resonant magnetic perturbation penetration is carried out by the newly-updated initial value code MDC (MHD@Dalian Code). Based on a set of two-fluid four-field equations, the bootstrap current, parallel and perpendicular transport effects are included appropriately. Taking into account the bootstrap current, a mode penetration like phenomenon is found, which is essentially different from the classical tearing mode model. It may provide a possible explanation for the finite mode penetration threshold at zero rotation detected in experiments. To reveal the influence of diamagnetic drift flow on the mode penetration process, $\bf E\times B$ drift flow and diamagnetic drift flow are separately applied to compare their effects. Numerical results show that, a sufficiently large diamagnetic drift flow can drive a strong stabilizing effect on the neoclassical tearing mode. Furthermore, an oscillation phenomenon of island width is discovered. By analyzing in depth, it is found that, this oscillation phenomenon is due to the negative feedback regulation of pressure on the magnetic island. This physical mechanism is verified again by key parameter scanning.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports numerical simulations of resonant magnetic perturbation (RMP) penetration in tokamaks using the updated MDC initial-value code based on two-fluid four-field equations. Bootstrap current, parallel and perpendicular transport are included. The central results are a mode-penetration-like phenomenon driven by bootstrap current (distinct from classical tearing modes and potentially explaining finite experimental thresholds at zero rotation), a stabilizing effect from sufficiently large diamagnetic drift flow, and an oscillation in island width attributed to negative pressure feedback on the island, confirmed via parameter scanning. E×B and diamagnetic flows are applied separately for comparison.

Significance. If the bootstrap-current implementation and resulting threshold are shown to be robust, the work could supply a fluid-level mechanism for rotation-independent RMP penetration thresholds seen in experiments and clarify the separate screening roles of E×B versus diamagnetic flows. The reported pressure-island oscillation adds a concrete nonlinear regulation process whose generality could be tested further.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical results / bootstrap-current implementation] The claim that bootstrap current produces a distinct mode-penetration threshold at zero rotation (abstract and numerical-results section) rests on the MDC implementation of the bootstrap term inside the four-field system. No grid-convergence study, time-step convergence, or artificial-viscosity scan is described, nor is any comparison presented against the analytic Rutherford or Glasser–Greene–Johnson thresholds. This is load-bearing: a singular-layer discretization artifact could generate an artificial threshold that vanishes upon refinement or removal of the bootstrap term.
  2. [Model equations] The two-fluid four-field model is asserted to capture bootstrap current, parallel transport, and the separate E×B versus diamagnetic flows 'appropriately,' yet the precise form of the parallel Ohm’s law or current-evolution equation (including the pressure-gradient drive and any neoclassical closure) is not given. Without this, it is impossible to judge whether the reported zero-rotation threshold is a physical neoclassical effect or a consequence of the chosen fluid closure.
  3. [Oscillation phenomenon / parameter scanning] The oscillation of island width is attributed to negative pressure feedback and said to be verified by key parameter scanning. However, the manuscript provides neither quantitative diagnostics (e.g., cross-correlation between local pressure and island width, or growth-rate dependence on the pressure-gradient drive) nor the scanned parameter ranges, leaving the causal mechanism under-supported relative to the strength of the claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'key parameter scanning' verifies the pressure-feedback mechanism, but the ranges, resolution, and specific parameters varied (flow speed, resistivity, bootstrap coefficient, etc.) are not listed, reducing reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and agree that the manuscript will benefit from added details on numerics, equations, and diagnostics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical results / bootstrap-current implementation] The claim that bootstrap current produces a distinct mode-penetration threshold at zero rotation (abstract and numerical-results section) rests on the MDC implementation of the bootstrap term inside the four-field system. No grid-convergence study, time-step convergence, or artificial-viscosity scan is described, nor is any comparison presented against the analytic Rutherford or Glasser–Greene–Johnson thresholds. This is load-bearing: a singular-layer discretization artifact could generate an artificial threshold that vanishes upon refinement or removal of the bootstrap term.

    Authors: We agree that convergence studies and analytic comparisons were not reported. In the revised manuscript we will add grid-convergence and time-step convergence tests, an artificial-viscosity scan, and a direct comparison of the observed threshold against the Rutherford and Glasser–Greene–Johnson regimes. We will also show that the threshold disappears when the bootstrap term is switched off, confirming it is not a discretization artifact. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model equations] The two-fluid four-field model is asserted to capture bootstrap current, parallel transport, and the separate E×B versus diamagnetic flows 'appropriately,' yet the precise form of the parallel Ohm’s law or current-evolution equation (including the pressure-gradient drive and any neoclassical closure) is not given. Without this, it is impossible to judge whether the reported zero-rotation threshold is a physical neoclassical effect or a consequence of the chosen fluid closure.

    Authors: The manuscript omitted the explicit equation set for brevity. The revised version will include the full two-fluid four-field system, with the parallel Ohm’s law and current-evolution equation written out, showing the bootstrap-current drive term and the neoclassical closure employed. This will make clear that the zero-rotation threshold arises from the standard neoclassical bootstrap term rather than an ad-hoc closure. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Oscillation phenomenon / parameter scanning] The oscillation of island width is attributed to negative pressure feedback and said to be verified by key parameter scanning. However, the manuscript provides neither quantitative diagnostics (e.g., cross-correlation between local pressure and island width, or growth-rate dependence on the pressure-gradient drive) nor the scanned parameter ranges, leaving the causal mechanism under-supported relative to the strength of the claim.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative support for the pressure-feedback mechanism is insufficient. The revision will report the scanned parameter ranges and add diagnostics including the cross-correlation between local pressure and island width together with the dependence of oscillation amplitude on the pressure-gradient drive, thereby strengthening the causal link. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of time-dependent simulation with standard inputs

full rationale

The paper reports numerical initial-value simulations in the MDC code using two-fluid four-field equations. Bootstrap current, flows, and transport terms are introduced as standard inputs drawn from plasma theory rather than fitted to the reported thresholds or oscillations. The mode-penetration-like phenomenon and island-width oscillations emerge as simulation outputs; no step in the provided abstract or description reduces a central claim to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a self-citation chain. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation depends on standard tokamak plasma assumptions and the numerical solver; no new particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The two-fluid four-field equations appropriately model the relevant tokamak physics including bootstrap current and transport.
    Stated as the basis for the MDC code runs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1100 out tokens · 26890 ms · 2026-05-24T13:34:56.532917+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1706761

    Furth H P, Killeen J and Rosenbluth M N 1963 The Physics of Fluids 6 459–484 ( Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1706761) URL https://aip.scitation. org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1706761

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1706761 1963

  2. [2]

    org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1694232) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1

    Rutherford P H 1973 The Physics of Fluids 16 1903–1908 ( Preprint https://aip.scitation. org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1694232) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1. 1694232

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1694232 1973

  3. [3]

    org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.865682

    Carrera R, Hazeltine R D and Kotschenreuther M 1986 The Physics of Fluids 29 899–902 (Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.865682) URL https://aip.scitation. org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.865682

    work page doi:10.1063/1.865682 1986

  4. [4]

    Bard´ oczi L, Rhodes T L, Ba˜ n´ on Navarro A, Sung C, Carter T A, La Haye R J, McKee G R, Petty C C, Chrystal C and Jenko F 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 056106 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977533) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977533

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4977533 2017

  5. [5]

    Wang Z X, Wei L and Yu F 2015 Nuclear Fusion 55 043005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F0029-5515%2F55%2F4%2F043005

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Zhang W, Ma Z W, Zhu J and Zhang H W 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61 075002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6587%2Fab16ae

    work page 2019

  7. [8]

    Sauter O, Henderson M A, Ramponi G, Zohm H and Zucca C 2010 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 52 025002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0741-3335%2F52%2F2%2F025002

    work page 2010

  8. [9]

    Maraschek M 2012 Nuclear Fusion 52 074007 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515% 2F52%2F7%2F074007 15

    work page 2012

  9. [10]

    Hender T, Fitzpatrick R, Morris A, Carolan P, Durst R, Edlington T, Ferreira J, Fielding S, Haynes P, Hugill J, Jenkins I, Haye R L, Parham B, Robinson D, Todd T, Valovic M and Vayakis G 1992 Nuclear Fusion 32 2091–2117 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515% 2F32%2F12%2Fi02

    work page 1992

  10. [11]

    org/10.1063/1.3100236) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3100236

    Yu Q, G¨ unter S and Finken K H 2009 Physics of Plasmas 16 042301 ( Preprint https://doi. org/10.1063/1.3100236) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3100236

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3100236 2009

  11. [12]

    Buttery R, Benedetti M D, Gates D, Gribov Y, Hender T, Haye R L, Leahy P, Leuer J, Morris A, Santagiustina A, Scoville J, Tubbing B, Team J, Team C D R and Team D D 1999 Nuclear Fusion 39 1827–1835 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/39/11y/323

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/39/11y/323 1999

  12. [14]

    Logan N, Zhu C, Park J K, Yang S and Hu Q 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 076010 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abff05

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/abff05 2021

  13. [15]

    Nave M and Wesson J 1990 Nuclear Fusion 30 2575–2583 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/30/12/011

    work page 1990

  14. [16]

    Lu S S, Ma Z W, Zhang H W and Liu Y 2020 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 62 125005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/abbcc4

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/abbcc4 2020

  15. [17]

    Wang H, Wang Z, Ding Y and Rao B 2015 Plasma Science and Technology 17 539–544 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1009-0630/17/7/03

    work page doi:10.1088/1009-0630/17/7/03 2015

  16. [18]

    Wolf R, Biel W, Bock M D, Finken K, G¨ unter S, Hogeweij G, Jachmich S, Jakubowski M, Jaspers R, Krmer-Flecken A, Koslowski H, Lehnen M, Liang Y, Unterberg B, Varshney S, von Hellermann M, Yu Q, Zimmermann O, Abdullaev S, Donn´ e A, Samm U, Schweer B, Tokar M, Westerhof E and the TEXTOR Team 2005 Nuclear Fusion 45 1700–1707 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/002...

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/45/12/026 2005

  17. [19]

    Choi W, La Haye R J, Lanctot M J, Olofsson K E, Strait E J, Sweeney R and Volpe F A 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 aaa6e3 ISSN 17414326 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aaa6e3

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aaa6e3 2018

  18. [20]

    Tang W, Wang Z X, Wei L, Wang J and Lu S 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 026015 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab61d5

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab61d5 2020

  19. [21]

    Nelson A O, Logan N C, Choi W, Strait E J and Kolemen E 2020 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 62 094002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab9b3b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab9b3b 2020

  20. [23]

    Yu Q and G¨ unter S 2008Nuclear Fusion 48 065004 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/ 48/6/065004

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/

  21. [24]

    Cole A J, Hegna C C and Callen J D 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(6) 065001 URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.065001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.065001 2007

  22. [25]

    Wang J, Wang Z X and Wei L 2015 Physics of Plasmas 22 092122 (Preprint https://doi.org/ 10.1063/1.4931067) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4931067

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4931067 2015

  23. [26]

    Beidler M T, Callen J D, Hegna C C and Sovinec C R 2018Physics of Plasmas 25 082507 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046076) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5046076

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5046076

  24. [27]

    Zhang H W, Lin X, Ma Z W, Zhang W and Bagwell T E 2021 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 035011 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/abd304

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/abd304 2021

  25. [28]

    Becoulet M, Orain F, Maget P, Mellet N, Garbet X, Nardon E, Huysmans G, Casper T, Loarte A, Cahyna P, Smolyakov A, Waelbroeck F, Schaffer M, Evans T E, Liang Y, Schmitz O, Beurskens M, Rozhansky V and Kaveeva E 2012 Nuclear Fusion 52 054003 URL http: //doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/52/5/054003

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/52/5/054003 2012

  26. [29]

    Yu Q, G¨ unter S and Lackner K 2018Nuclear Fusion 58 054003 URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1741-4326%2Faab2fb

    work page

  27. [32]

    Yu Q, G¨ unter S and Lackner K 2021Nuclear Fusion 61 036040 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/abd197

    work page

  28. [33]

    Hu Q, Logan N, Park J K, Paz-Soldan C, Nazikian R and Yu Q 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 076006 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab8b79

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab8b79 2020

  29. [34]

    Bock M D, Classen I, Busch C, Jaspers R, Koslowski H and and B U 2008 Nuclear Fusion 48 015007 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/48/1/015007

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/48/1/015007 2008

  30. [35]

    org/0029-5515/56/i=10/a=106015?key=crossref.51a4d6ebf40ee4461b4ad0b15ca7f588

    Wei L, Wang Z X, Wang J and Yang X 2016Nuclear Fusion 56 106015 URL http://stacks.iop. org/0029-5515/56/i=10/a=106015?key=crossref.51a4d6ebf40ee4461b4ad0b15ca7f588

    work page

  31. [36]

    org/0029-5515/57/i=4/a=046007?key=crossref.6d879fa2ab17585f1e3b54ac2dcce45b

    Wang J, Wang Z X, Wei L and Liu Y 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 046007 URL http://stacks.iop. org/0029-5515/57/i=4/a=046007?key=crossref.6d879fa2ab17585f1e3b54ac2dcce45b

    work page 2017

  32. [37]

    Liu T, Wang Z X, Wang J and Wei L 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 076026 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088%2F1741-4326%2Faac527

    work page 2018

  33. [38]

    iop.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab3000

    Ye C, Wang Z X, Wei L and Hu Z Q 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59 096044 URL http://iopscience. iop.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab3000

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab3000 2019

  34. [39]

    Han M, Wang Z X, Dong J and Du H 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 046019 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/aa5d02

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aa5d02 2017

  35. [40]

    Hazeltine R D, Kotschenreuther M and Morrison P J 1985 The Physics of Fluids 28 2466– 2477 ( Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.865255) URL https:// aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.865255

    work page doi:10.1063/1.865255 1985

  36. [41]

    Bickerton R J, Connor J W and Taylor J B 1971 Nature Physical Science 229 110–112 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/physci229110a0

    work page doi:10.1038/physci229110a0 1971

  37. [42]

    Kikuchi Y, De Bock M F M, Finken K H, Jakubowski M, Jaspers R, Koslowski H R, Kraemer- Flecken A, Lehnen M, Liang Y, Matsunaga G, Reiser D, Wolf R C and Zimmermann O (TEXTOR-team) 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(8) 085003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.97.085003

    work page 2006

  38. [43]

    Hu Q, Yu Q, Rao B, Ding Y, Hu X and Zhuang G 2012 Nuclear Fusion 52 083011 URL http://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/52/8/083011

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/52/8/083011 2012

  39. [44]

    Tang W, Wei L, Wang Z, Wang J, Liu T and Zheng S 2019 Plasma Science and Technology 21 065103 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F2058-6272%2Fab0a18

    work page 2019

  40. [45]

    The Journal of Chemical Physics 132(21), 214102 (2010)

    Fitzpatrick R 1998 Physics of Plasmas 5 3325–3341 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 873000) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.873000

    work page doi:10.1063/1 1998

  41. [46]

    Gates D A and Delgado-Aparicio L 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(16) 165004 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.165004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.165004 2012