Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Enhanced Collisional Losses from a Magnetic Mirror Using the Lenard-Bernstein Collision Operator

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read With the Lenard–Bernstein collision operator, the magnetic mirror confinement time scales as $a\exp(a^2)$, not $a^2\exp(a^2)$, so model-operator codes overestimate collisional losses.

desk verdict The a·exp(a²) LBO confinement scaling is genuine and worth publishing; the key ordering in Eq. (2.12) is unproven and the prefactor leans on a fitted c0, but the scaling survives the FEM check and the paper is honest about its gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14294 v3 pith:F6QU65I6 submitted 2024-11-21 physics.plasm-ph

Maxwell H. Rosen , Wrick Sengupta , Ian Ochs , Felix Parra Diaz , Gregory W. Hammett This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords magneticmirrorLenard-BernsteincollisionoperatorDoughertyPastukhovmethodofimagescollisionalconfinementtimeambipolarpotentialgyrokineticcodecollisionsWHAM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analyzes how the approximate Lenard–Bernstein/Dougherty collision operator changes the classic Pastukhov prediction for particle and energy losses from an electrostatic magnetic mirror. It extends the method-of-images calculation to this operator and finds that the particle confinement time scales as $a\exp(a^2)$, where $a^2$ is approximately the normalized ambipolar potential, one factor of $a$ shorter than the $a^2\exp(a^2)$ scaling produced by the more accurate Coulomb operator. The practical consequence the authors argue for is that gyrokinetic and continuum codes using the Lenard–Bernstein/Dougherty operator systematically overestimate collisional losses from mirrors, and that rescaling the collision frequency by a factor $\gamma$ near 0.27–0.30 restores Coulomb-accurate confinement times for WHAM-class parameters.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Pastukhov/Najmabadi method-of-images reduction: image sinks placed just inside the loss hyperboloid balance a low-energy source, and the Lenard–Bernstein operator is transformed by $z=\exp(\bar{v}^2)$ and $\rho=(2z\ln z/\sqrt{Z_s})\tan\theta$ into a cylindrical Poisson equation whose Green's function gives the distribution function. The variable transformation absorbs the velocity factors in the LBO so the problem becomes a conducting-plane-plus-charged-wire image problem; the confinement time follows from integrating the image sinks. A critical ordering, equation (2.12), justifies moving $\bar{v}^3$ outside the derivative and produces the $\mathrm{Erfc}(a)$ factor that yields the $a\exp(a^2)$ scaling.

What would settle it

A converged finite-element kinetic solution with the full velocity-dependent Coulomb operator at fixed $R=10$ and $z_s e\phi/T_s = 8$ should produce a confinement time near the $a^2\exp(a^2)$ curve; if it instead follows $a\exp(a^2)$, the claimed scaling difference is wrong. Alternatively, a direct simulation of the same mirror with LBO rescaled by $\gamma \approx 0.30$ should reproduce the Coulomb-operator ambipolar potential; a substantial mismatch would disprove the rescaling proposal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that with the Lenard–Bernstein collision operator, the collisional particle confinement time of an electrostatically confined species in a high-mirror-ratio trap scales like $a\exp(a^2)$ rather than $a^2\exp(a^2)$, because this model operator's collision frequency does not fall off with velocity. The authors derive this by carrying the Lenard–Bernstein operator through a method-of-images reduction to a cylindrical Poisson problem, obtaining closed-form formulas for the confinement time and energy-loss rate, and they validate the analytic scaling against a finite-element kinetic solver. They also extract a numerical correction coefficient $c_0$ and propose that codes should rescale the collision frequency to match the more accurate Coulomb-operator loss rate, giving explicit $\gamma$ values for WHAM and WHAM++.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation relies on the ordering in equation (2.12): near the loss cone at high velocity, the terms $3\bar{v}^2F_s$ and $\bar{v}\partial F_s/\partial\bar{v}$ are assumed negligible compared with $\bar{v}^3\partial F_s/\partial\bar{v}$ and the second-derivative term, which is what lets the paper move $\bar{v}^3$ outside the derivative and obtain the $a\exp(a^2)$ scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Particle confinement times in magnetic mirrors computed with Lenard–Bernstein/Dougherty operators are systematically shorter, by a factor of order $a$, than Coulomb-operator predictions at the same ambipolar potential.
  • For WHAM and WHAM++ parameters, multiplying the LBO collision frequency by $\gamma \approx 0.303$ ($R=13.3$) or $\gamma \approx 0.272$ ($R=10$) brings confinement times in line with Coulomb-operator predictions.
  • The average energy of lost particles is higher under LBO collisions because losses are spread around the loss hyperboloid rather than concentrated at its tip.
  • In low-mirror-ratio, low-potential regimes such as tokamak scrape-off layers, the LBO and Coulomb results agree more closely, so the correction matters most for high-field mirror devices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension: running the same kinetic solver with a velocity-dependent Coulomb operator and with LBO rescaled by $\gamma$ should produce matching ambipolar potentials; a mismatch would reveal where the simple constant rescaling breaks down.
  • Because the LBO's velocity-independent collision frequency is the source of the extra loss, an alternative fix suggested by the paper's structure is to make the effective collision frequency velocity-dependent, or to raise $Z_s$ in the pitch-angle term, rather than multiplying all collision rates by a constant.
  • The pattern likely generalizes to other approximate collision operators: any model whose collision frequency does not decline with velocity may require operator-specific corrections to Pastukhov-style confinement scalings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives an analytic model for collisional particle and energy confinement in an electrostatic magnetic mirror using the Lenard-Bernstein/Dougherty collision operator, following the Pastukhov-style method of images. The central result is that the particle confinement time scales as a exp(a^2) in the dimensionless ambipolar potential a, in contrast to the a^2 exp(a^2) scaling obtained with a Coulomb operator. The authors validate the analytic expressions against a finite-element solution of the Fokker-Planck equation, introduce a numerically fitted correction coefficient c0, and propose a collision-frequency rescaling factor gamma ~0.27-0.30 for WHAM-class parameters when using LBO/Dougherty-based codes.

Significance. If the scaling result holds, the paper is practically important: many gyrokinetic and continuum codes use the LBO or Dougherty operator, and the proposed rescaling provides a simple, concrete correction for mirror confinement studies. The paper is clearly written, extends the method of images to a model collision operator, includes convergence studies, and provides tables of correction factors. Its principal weakness is that the key asymptotic ordering is asserted without quantitative verification, and the numerical validation is partially circular because the correction coefficient c0 is fitted to the same FEM data used for validation. The energy-loss predictions also show large and growing discrepancies that are not fully addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.12)] The ordering used to reduce the LBO equation to the cylindrical Poisson form is load-bearing: it produces the Erfc(a) factor and hence the a exp(a^2) scaling, but no quantitative estimate of the dropped terms is given. The numerical validation of Eq. (3.2) does not independently test this ordering because c0 is chosen to minimize the error against the very same FEM code (Table 1). To make the scaling claim robust, please either (i) evaluate the relative magnitudes of the terms in (2.12) using the FEM solution near the loss cone, or (ii) compare the FEM-computed confinement time over a wide range of a with the two asymptotic forms a exp(a^2) and a^2 exp(a^2) without any fitted constant and show that the data selects the former.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 5(c)] The average energy of lost particles, Eq. (2.27), is independent of the fitted correction c0 and the comparison with the FEM code shows a discrepancy that grows from roughly 20% at low zsephi/Ts to nearly 50% at zsephi/Ts = 8. The text states this is comparable to prior work, but the error is not constant and exceeds the roughly 20% level quoted for the Najmabadi model. This undermines the paper's energy-confinement predictions, which are part of the claimed contribution. Please address the source of this discrepancy or soften the energy-confinement claims.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.1) and Table 1] The proposed rescaling gamma for WHAM/WHAM++ uses c0 = 1.05, but Table 1 shows that the optimal c0 for R = 10 varies from 0.948 at zsephi/Ts = 10 to 1.132 at zsephi/Ts = 50 and does not asymptote to a constant in the displayed range. Appendix B similarly shows that the analogous coefficient c_N in the Najmabadi formula depends on both parameters, and the authors state they could not replicate the literature value 0.84. The quoted gamma values therefore carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty from the choice of c0. Please provide a sensitivity analysis of gamma with respect to c0 or define a more robust procedure for selecting c0.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.13)] Once z = exp(bar v^2) is introduced, the function g_s should be written as g_s(z, mu) rather than g_s(bar v, mu), as the independent variables in Eq. (2.13) are z and mu.
  2. [Section 3, Table 1] Please report the fitting uncertainty for c0 or show the error landscape around the reported minima; the table gives four significant figures without indicating how well the minimum is constrained.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the error curves go 'in even steps in the value of c0' but does not specify the range or step size; please make the list of c0 values explicit.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The symbol x_a is used without definition; it presumably denotes the dimensionless potential a, and should be defined before use.
  5. [Section 4] The gamma values are quoted to four significant figures (0.3030 and 0.2721) but depend on an estimated ambipolar potential zsephi/Te ~ 5 and a fitted c0; please include an uncertainty estimate or a sensitivity statement.
  6. [Data availability] The paper states that the code and data are stored on a private repository and available upon request; for a computational paper, a permanent public archive would be preferable to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The a exp(a^2) scaling is analytic and not fitted, but the numerical validation of equation (3.2) is partly circular because c0 is chosen to minimize error against the same FEM data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, equations (3.2)-(3.3), Table 1, Figure 5]
    "To improve agreement between the code and equation (2.25), rather than calculating the flux correction coefficient by hand to be 0.77 in (2.22), we can calculate this number numerically. First, let's call this correction coefficient c0. It can be chosen to minimize error with the finite element code."

    The coefficient c0 is selected to minimize error against the FEM loss-rate data (Table 1), and Figure 5 is then 'reconstructed' using these fitted c0 values. Therefore the apparent agreement of equation (3.2) with the FEM is enforced by construction for this parameter, so those figures do not independently validate the analytic formula. The fitted c0 also propagates into equation (4.1) and the proposed WHAM gamma factors (0.3030 and 0.2721), making those quantitative recommendations fit-dependent. The asymptotic scaling a exp(a^2) is not circular: it follows from the Erfc(a) in equation (2.25) and the analytic method-of-images q0, independent of the fitted c0.

full rationale

The central analytic claim is that the confinement time scales as a exp(a^2) with the Lenard-Bernstein operator, versus a^2 exp(a^2) for the Coulomb operator. This scaling is derived in Section 2: equations (2.11)-(2.13) use an explicit ordering approximation, reduce to a cylindrical Poisson equation, and yield Erfc(a) in equation (2.25), whose large-argument expansion gives a exp(a^2). That derivation does not invoke the FEM code and does not fit any parameter, so the scaling claim has independent content. The ordering in equation (2.12) is a genuine unvalidated approximation, but it is an accuracy risk rather than a circular step; it is not introduced through a self-citation. The numerical validation is partially circular: c0 in equations (3.2)-(3.3) is explicitly 'chosen to minimize error with the finite element code' and varies with parameters in Table 1, so the good agreement in Figure 5 is partly by construction. The paper also states (Section 2 and Appendix B) that the analogous Najmabadi 0.84 correction was not replicated; this is an admitted limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: the FEM solver is based on Ochs et al. (2023), a co-authored prior code, but it is used as a numerical benchmark rather than as an external theorem. Therefore the score is 5: partial circularity in the fitted quantitative formula, with the asymptotic scaling claim intact.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the standard Pastukhov method-of-images framework (square-well field, low-energy Maxwellian source, image sinks along mu=+/-1), plus a paper-specific ordering (2.12) that reduces the LBO equation to a cylindrical Poisson problem. The main adjustable input is the correction coefficient c0, fitted to the FEM code; Zs is introduced as a tunable pitch-angle enhancement but set to 1 for the LBO comparison.

free parameters (2)
  • c0 (correction coefficient) = Table 1, e.g., 1.04 for R=10 and z_s e phi/T_s = 5-10; 1.05 used for WHAM
    Introduced in equations (3.2)-(3.3) as a numerical correction to the image-charge strength q0; chosen to minimize fractional error between the analytic formula and the FEM code (Figure 4, Table 1). The asymptotic scaling is independent of c0, but the quantitative prefactor and the gamma recommendation depend on it.
  • Zs (pitch-angle scattering enhancement) = 1 (set by hand for LBO)
    Introduced in equation (2.7) as a multiplier on the pitch-angle diffusion term to correct the LBO's equal treatment of pitch-angle scattering and energy diffusion. Left free for future work; all main results use Zs=1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Square-well approximation for the magnetic field: constant B in the central region with loss at the mirror throat.
    Section 2 states 'Assuming a square well approximation for the magnetic field' before writing the LBO operator. Standard in Pastukhov-style analyses but neglects spatial B variation and finite-length effects.
  • domain assumption Large mirror ratio and large ambipolar potential ordering: R >> 1 and z_s e phi/T_s >> 1, so a >> 1 and the near-loss-cone approximation mu near +/-1 holds.
    Used near equation (2.14) for the rho transformation and after equation (2.26) for the asymptotic expansion of Erfc(a). The paper explicitly restricts to this regime.
  • ad hoc to paper The ordering in equation (2.12): 3*bar_v^2 Fs and bar_v dFs/dbar_v are negligible compared to bar_v^3 dFs/dbar_v and higher derivative terms near the loss cone.
    Section 2: 'We now make a critical approximation... This justifies moving the bar_v^3 outside the derivative.' This is a paper-specific, unproven ordering that is load-bearing for the cylindrical Poisson reduction.
  • domain assumption Image sink ansatz: sinks placed on mu = +/-1 outside the loss hyperboloid, with q(bar_v) chosen as q0 * 8*sqrt(pi)/(mu^2 Zs) * z ln(z) to make the RHS a constant line charge.
    Equations (2.10), (2.16), (2.17). This is the standard Pastukhov/Najmabadi method of images; the specific q(bar_v) is chosen for solvability and is not rigorously derived from the physics.
  • domain assumption Low-velocity distribution is Maxwellian and the source is at low energy (equation 2.4).
    Section 2: 'For small v, we assume that fs is a Maxwellian.' The paper notes the precise source form has little effect in the asymptotic limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Collisional Losses from a Magnetic Mirror Using the Lenard-Bernstein Collision Operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6QU65I6

@misc{pith2026241114294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Collisional Losses from a Magnetic Mirror Using the Lenard-Bernstein Collision Operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6QU65I6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14294}
}
abstract

Collisions are crucial in governing particle and energy transport in plasmas confined in a magnetic mirror trap. Modern gyrokinetic codes model transport in magnetic mirrors, but some utilize approximate model collision operators. This study focuses on a Pastukhov-style method of images calculation of particle and energy confinement times using a Lenard-Bernstein model collision operator. Prior work on parallel particle and energy balances used a different Fokker-Planck plasma collision operator. The method must be extended in non-trivial ways to study the Lenard-Bernstein operator. To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we compare our results with a modern finite element solver. Our findings reveal that the particle confinement time scales like $a \exp(a^2)$ using the Lenard-Bernstein operator, in contrast to the more accurate scaling that the Coulomb collision operator would yield $a^2 \exp(a^2)$, where $a^2$ is approximately proportional to the ambipolar potential. We propose that codes solving for collisional losses in magnetic mirrors utilizing the Lenard-Bernstein or Dougherty collision operator scale their collision frequency of any electrostatically confined species. This study illuminates the collision operator's intricate role in the Pastukhov-style method of images calculation of collisional confinement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14294 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The loss boundary in velocity space for electrostatically confined particles in a magnetic mirror field. Imposed on the figure is a model depiction of the low energy source. The dotted green line represents the sinks used to solve for the distribution function. The blue line is the loss hyperboloid described in equation (2.1), and the red dashed line is the loss cone without an ambipolar potential. 2. Method of Imag… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example mesh from the finite element model. Here, zseϕ/Ts = 1 and R = 2 to exaggerate the loss cone. on the boundaries smoothly (the precise form of the source term has little effect on the results in the asymptotic limit zseϕ/Te ≫ 1). Zero-flux boundary conditions are used at θ = 0, θ = π/2, v = 0, and v = vmax, the maximal velocity extent in the problem. A resolution of ∆θ = ∆v¯ = 0.1 is chosen, with double res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized particle confinement time τcνsLBO from equation (2.25) and its dependence on ambipolar potential and mirror ratio of the LBO versus Pastukhov (1974), with the correction noticed by Cohen et al. (1978), and Najmabadi et al. (1984). The y-axis is confinement time, normalized to the collision frequency with Zs = 1 for electrostatically confined electrons. confined. In both cases, the thermal velocity of elec… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fractional error in the confinement estimates between the numeric code and analytic approximation for electrostatically confined electrons. The legend goes from the top curve to the bottom curve in even steps in the value of c0 R zseϕ/Ts 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison particle confinement time and average loss energy, and its dependence on ambipolar potential and mirror ratio of the LBO versus Pastukhov (1974) and Najmabadi et al. (1984). The y-axis is confinement time or average loss energy subtracted by zseϕ/Ts, normali…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fractional error in the confinement estimates between equation (B 3) and the finite element code n for electrostatically confined electrons. The legend goes from the top curve to the bottom curve in even steps in the value of c0. we order zseϕ/Ts < ZsR. Then, we get q0…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    , Anikeev, A.V

    Bagryansky, P.A. , Anikeev, A.V. , Beklemishev, A.D. , Donin, A.S. , Ivanov, A.A. , Korzhavina, M.S. , Kovalenko, Yu V. , Kruglyakov, E.P. , Lizunov, A.A. , Maximov, V.V. & others 2011 Confinement of hot ion plasma with = 0.6 in the gas dynamic trap . Fusion Science and Technology 59 (1T), 31--35

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Bagryansky, P. A. , Shalashov, A. G. , Gospodchikov, E. D. , Lizunov, A. A. , Maximov, V. V. , Prikhodko, V. V. , Soldatkina, E. I. , Solomakhin, A. L. & Yakovlev, D. V. 2015 Threefold increase of the bulk electron temperature of plasma discharges in a magnetic mirror device . Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 , 205001

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Beklemishev, A. D. 2017 Tail-Waving System for Active Feedback Stabilization of Flute Modes in Open Traps . Fusion Science and Technology 59 (1T), 90--93

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    , Bagryansky, Peter A

    Beklemishev, Alexei D. , Bagryansky, Peter A. , Chaschin, Maxim S. & Soldatkina, Elena I. 2010 Vortex confinement of plasmas in symmetric mirror traps . Fusion Science and Technology 57 (4), 351--360

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    & Chen, C.Y

    Berk, H.L. & Chen, C.Y. 1988 Dissipative trapped particle modes in tandem mirrors . The Physics of Fluids 31 (1), 137--148

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    & Bernstein, Ira B

    Catto, Peter J. & Bernstein, Ira B. 1981 Collisional end losses from conventional and tandem mirrors . The Physics of Fluids 24 (10), 1900--1905

    work page 1981

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    & Li, Xing Zhong 1985 Particle loss rates from electrostatic wells of arbitrary mirror ratios

    Catto, Peter J. & Li, Xing Zhong 1985 Particle loss rates from electrostatic wells of arbitrary mirror ratios . The Physics of Fluids 28 (1), 352--357

    1985

  2. [10]

    , Servidio, S

    Celebre, G. , Servidio, S. & Valentini, F. 2023 Phase space dynamics of unmagnetized plasmas: Collisionless and collisional regimes . Physics of Plasmas 30 (9), 092304 , arXiv:arXiv: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0160549/18121857/092304\_1\_5.0160549.pdf

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    & Rosenbluth, M.N

    Chernin, D.P. & Rosenbluth, M.N. 1978 Ion losses from end-stoppered mirror trap . Nuclear Fusion 18 (1), 47

    1978

  4. [12]

    , Freis, Robert P

    Cohen, Bruce I. , Freis, Robert P. & Newcomb, William A. 1986 Interchange, rotational, and ballooning stability of long-thin axisymmetric systems with finite-orbit effects . The Physics of Fluids 29 (5), 1558--1577

    1986

  5. [13]

    , Rensink, M.E

    Cohen, R.H. , Rensink, M.E. , Cutler, T.A. & Mirin, A.A. 1978 Collisional loss of electrostatically confined species in a magnetic mirror . Nuclear Fusion 18 (9), 1229

    1978

  6. [14]

    1964 Model Fokker-Planck equation for a plasma and its solution

    Dougherty, J.P. 1964 Model Fokker-Planck equation for a plasma and its solution . The Physics of Fluids 7 (11), 1788--1799

    1964

  7. [15]

    , Endrizzi, D

    Egedal, J. , Endrizzi, D. , Forest, C.B. & Fowler, T.K. 2022 Fusion by beam ions in a low collisionality, high mirror ratio magnetic mirror . Nuclear Fusion 62 (12), 126053

    2022

  8. [16]

    , Anderson, J.K

    Endrizzi, D. , Anderson, J.K. , Brown, M. , Egedal, J. , Geiger, B. , Harvey, R.W. , Ialovega, M. , Kirch, J. , Peterson, E. , Petrov, Yu V. & others 2023 Physics basis for the Wisconsin HTS Axisymmetric Mirror (WHAM) . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (5), 975890501

    2023

  9. [17]

    , Moir, R.W

    Fowler, T.K. , Moir, R.W. & Simonen, T.C. 2017 A new simpler way to obtain high fusion power gain in tandem mirrors . Nuclear Fusion 57 (5), 056014

    2017

  10. [18]

    , Mandell, Noah R

    Francisquez, Manaure , Bernard, Tess N. , Mandell, Noah R. , Hammett, Gregory W. & Hakim, Ammar 2020 Conservative discontinuous Galerkin scheme of a gyro-averaged Dougherty collision operator . Nuclear Fusion 60 (9), 096021

    2020

  11. [19]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (3), 905880303

    Francisquez, Manaure , Juno, James , Hakim, Ammar , Hammett, Gregory W & Ernst, Darin R 2022 Improved multispecies Dougherty collisions . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (3), 905880303

    2022

  12. [20]

    , Mandell, Noah R

    Francisquez, Manaure , Rosen, Maxwell H. , Mandell, Noah R. , Hakim, Ammar , Forest, Cary B. & Hammett, Gregory W. 2023 Toward continuum gyrokinetic study of high-field mirrors . Physics of Plasmas 30 (10)

    2023

  13. [21]

    , Hoffmann, A.C.D

    Frei, B.J. , Hoffmann, A.C.D. & Ricci, P. 2022 Local gyrokinetic collisional theory of the ion-temperature gradient mode . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (3), 905880304

    2022

  14. [22]

    , Weiser, A

    Fyfe, D. , Weiser, A. , Bernstein, I. , Eisenstat, S. & Schultz, M. 1981 A finite element solution of a reduced Fokker-Planck equation . Journal of Computational Physics 42 (2), 327--336

    1981

  15. [23]

    , Abiteboul, J

    Grandgirard, V. , Abiteboul, J. , Bigot, J. , Cartier-Michaud, T. , Crouseilles, N. , Dif-Pradalier, G. , Ehrlacher, Ch. , Esteve, D. , Garbet, X. , Ghendrih, Ph. , Latu, G. , Mehrenberger, M. , Norscini, C. , Passeron, Ch. , Rozar, F. , Sarazin, Y. , Sonnendrücker, E. , Strug...

    2016

  16. [24]

    2020 Conservative discontinuous Galerkin schemes for nonlinear Dougherty--Fokker--Planck collision operators

    Hakim, Ammar , Francisquez, Manaure , Juno, James & Hammett, Gregory W. 2020 Conservative discontinuous Galerkin schemes for nonlinear Dougherty--Fokker--Planck collision operators . Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (4), 905860403

    2020

  17. [25]

    Hatch, D. R. , Jenko, F. , Ba\ n\'on Navarro, A. & Bratanov, V. 2013 Transition between saturation regimes of gyrokinetic turbulence . Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 175001

    2013

  18. [26]

    & Sigmar, D.J

    Hirshman, S.P. & Sigmar, D.J. 1976 Approximate Fokker--Planck collision operator for transport theory applications . The Physics of Fluids 19 (10), 1532--1540

    1976

  19. [27]

    , Frei, B.J

    Hoffmann, A.C.D. , Frei, B.J. & Ricci, P. 2023 Gyrokinetic simulations of plasma turbulence in a z-pinch using a moment-based approach and advanced collision operators . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (2), 905890214

    2023

  20. [28]

    Jackson, John David 1999 Classical electrodynamics

    1999

  21. [29]

    1997 Longitudinal losses of electrostatically confined particles from a mirror device with arbitrary mirror ratio

    Khudik, V.N. 1997 Longitudinal losses of electrostatically confined particles from a mirror device with arbitrary mirror ratio . Nuclear Fusion 37

    1997

  22. [30]

    , Dorf, M

    Knyazev, A.R. , Dorf, M. & Krasheninnikov, S.I. 2023 Implementation and verification of a model linearized multi-species collision operator in the cogent code . Computer Physics Communications 291 , 108829

    2023

  23. [31]

    1958 Plasma oscillations with diffusion in velocity space

    Lenard, Andrew & Bernstein, Ira B. 1958 Plasma oscillations with diffusion in velocity space . Physical Review 112 (5), 1456

    1958

  24. [32]

    , Dorland, W

    Loureiro, N.F. , Dorland, W. , Fazendeiro, L. , Kanekar, A. , Mallet, A. , Vilelas, M.S. & Zocco, A. 2016 Viriato: A fourier–hermite spectral code for strongly magnetized fluid–kinetic plasma dynamics . Computer Physics Communications 206 , 45--63

    2016

  25. [33]

    , Bell, R

    Majeski, R. , Bell, R. E. , Boyle, D. P. , Kaita, R. , Kozub, T. , LeBlanc, B. P. , Lucia, M. , Maingi, R. , Merino, E. , Raitses, Y. , Schmitt, J. C. , Allain, J. P. , Bedoya, F. , Bialek, J. , Biewer, T. M. , Canik, J. M. , Buzi, L. , Koel, B. E. , Patino, M. I. , Capece, A....

    2017

  26. [34]

    , Dorland, W

    Mandell, N.R. , Dorland, W. , Abel, I. , Gaur, R. , Kim, P. , Martin, M. & Qian, T. 2022 GX: a GPU-native gyrokinetic turbulence code for tokamak and stellarator design . arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06731

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    & Cohen, Ronald H

    Najmabadi, Farrokh , Conn, R.W. & Cohen, Ronald H. 1984 Collisional end loss of electrostatically confined particles in a magnetic mirror field . Nuclear Fusion 24 (1), 75

    1984

  28. [36]

    , Munirov, Vadim R

    Ochs, Ian E. , Munirov, Vadim R. & Fisch, Nathaniel J. 2023 Confinement time and ambipolar potential in a relativistic mirror-confined plasma . Physics of Plasmas 30 (5)

    2023

  29. [37]

    & Dellar, Paul J

    Parker, Joseph T. & Dellar, Paul J. 2015 Fourier–hermite spectral representation for the vlasov–poisson system in the weakly collisional limit . Journal of Plasma Physics 81 (2), 305810203

    2015

  30. [38]

    1974 Collisional losses of electrons from an adiabatic trap in a plasma with a positive potential

    Pastukhov, V.P. 1974 Collisional losses of electrons from an adiabatic trap in a plasma with a positive potential . Nuclear Fusion 14 (1), 3

    1974

  31. [39]

    Perrone, L. M. , Jorge, R. & Ricci, P. 2020 Four-dimensional drift-kinetic model for scrape-off layer plasmas . Physics of Plasmas 27 (11), 112502 , arXiv:arXiv: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0024968/16099478/112502\_1\_online.pdf

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Physics of Plasmas 23 (2), 022103 , arXiv:arXiv: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4940963/15794445/022103\_1\_online.pdf

    Pezzi, Oreste , Camporeale, Enrico & Valentini, Francesco 2016 Collisional effects on the numerical recurrence in Vlasov-Poisson simulations . Physics of Plasmas 23 (2), 022103 , arXiv:arXiv: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4940963/15794445/022103\_1\_online.pdf

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    & Rosenbluth, M.N

    Post, Richard F. & Rosenbluth, M.N. 1966 Electrostatic instabilities in finite mirror-confined plasmas . The Physics of Fluids 9 (4), 730--749

    1966

  34. [42]

    , MacDonald, William M

    Rosenbluth, Marshall N. , MacDonald, William M. & Judd, David L. 1957 Fokker-Planck equation for an inverse-square force . Physical Review 107 (1), 1

    1957

  35. [43]

    , Berk, H.L

    Ryutov, D.D. , Berk, H.L. , Cohen, B.I. , Molvik, A.W. & Simonen, T.C. 2011 Magneto-hydrodynamically stable axisymmetric mirrors . Physics of Plasmas 18 (9)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Journal of Computational Physics 230 (12), 4899--4909

    Sharma, Prateek & Hammett, Gregory W 2011 A fast semi-implicit method for anisotropic diffusion . Journal of Computational Physics 230 (12), 4899--4909

    2011

  37. [45]

    , Chac \'o n, Luis , Simakov, A.N

    Taitano, William T. , Chac \'o n, Luis , Simakov, A.N. & Molvig, K. 2015 A mass, momentum, and energy conserving, fully implicit, scalable algorithm for the multi-dimensional, multi-species Rosenbluth--Fokker--Planck equation . Journal of Computational Physics 297 , 357--380

    2015

  38. [46]

    Physics of Plasmas 30 (5)

    Ulbl, Philipp , Body, Thomas , Zholobenko, Wladimir , Stegmeir, Andreas , Pfennig, Jan & Jenko, Frank 2023 Influence of collisions on the validation of global gyrokinetic simulations in the edge and scrape-off layer of tcv . Physics of Plasmas 30 (5)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Contributions to Plasma Physics 62 (5-6), e202100180 , arXiv:arXiv: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ctpp.202100180

    Ulbl, Philipp , Michels, Dominik & Jenko, Frank 2022 Implementation and verification of a conservative, multi-species, gyro-averaged, full-f, Lenard-Bernstein/Dougherty collision operator in the gyrokinetic code GENE-X . Contributions to Plasma Physics 62 (5-6), e202100180 , a...

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Physics of Plasmas 25 (1)

    White, Roscoe , Hassam, Adil & Brizard, Alain 2018 Centrifugal particle confinement in mirror geometry . Physics of Plasmas 25 (1)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Journal of Computational Physics 514 , 113219

    Ye, Boyang , Hu, Jingwei , Shu, Chi-Wang & Zhong, Xinghui 2024 Energy-conserving discontinuous galerkin methods for the vlasov-ampère system with dougherty-fokker-planck collision operator . Journal of Computational Physics 514 , 113219

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.