Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Back to the Figure-8 Stellarator

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A re-imagined figure-8 stellarator is the first quasi-isodynamic design that can be built with planar racetrack coils.

desk verdict A genuinely new QI figure-8 design with planar coils, but the headline claim hangs on a coil-field omnigenity check that the paper doesn't actually perform. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16411 v2 pith:UHCDPUU6 submitted 2024-11-25 physics.plasm-ph

G. G. Plunk , M. Drevlak , E. Rodriguez , R. Babin , A. Goodman , F. Hindenlang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Hc
keywords figure-8stellaratorquasi-isodynamicplanarcoilsnear-axisexpansionmagneticwellaxistorsionwritheoptimization
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 argues that the earliest stellarator concept, a twisted tube closed in a figure-8, can be revived as a modern optimized quasi-isodynamic (QI) stellarator with surprisingly simple construction. The central result is a design whose magnetic axis rotates without twisting: nearly all its self-linking comes from writhe rather than torsion. Because the axis barely twists, the plasma boundary stays close to elliptical, weak shaping is needed for a stabilizing vacuum magnetic well, and the coil set reduces to two planar racetrack shapes. This is presented as the first QI stellarator design compatible with planar coils. If correct, it points to a concrete way to reduce the coil complexity that is a common criticism of optimized stellarators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic axis curve: a two-field-period space curve whose signed curvature has double zeros at field maxima and triple zeros at minima, and whose torsion is nearly zero. The Călugăreanu-White-Fuller relation links the axis self-linking number M to integrated torsion (twist) plus writhe; in the figure-8 limit twist vanishes and writhe carries M. This allows the first-order near-axis construction to satisfy the omnigenity solubility condition with alpha-prime approximately iota-0, keeping the elliptical cross-sections aligned with the Frenet frame. The same low torsion removes the 'twisting' term in the second-order magnetic-well expression, so only mild shaping is needed for a well.

What would settle it

Compute the effective ripple of the coil-generated field: if the coil field no longer confines trapped-particle drift orbits (large ripple) despite matching Poincare surfaces, the planar-coil QI claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from near-axis theory of QI fields, the authors construct magnetic-axis curves with two field periods, N=2, and axis helicity M=1, parameterized by an inclination angle gamma. As gamma grows, the axis approaches a planar lemniscate and its integrated torsion drops, with the Călugăreanu-White-Fuller formula showing that self-linking is carried by writhe. This 'rotation without twisting' makes the first-order boundary nearly elliptical and aligned with the signed Frenet frame, so that a vacuum magnetic well can be produced with only small second-order deformations. Optimizing one configuration (inclination 0.374pi, aspect ratio raised to 10) with planar coils yields a maximum normal field error of 5.1% and mean of 1.4%, with Poincare surfaces matching the design field. The paper claims this is the first quasi-isodynamic stellarator design admitting planar coils, and connects both the stability tendency and the coil simplicity to the low torsion of the axis.

Load-bearing premise

The coil set is assumed to keep the good magnetic-field structure of the design; the paper verifies that the surfaces line up but does not verify that the coil field still confines particles the way the design field does.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, quasi-isodynamic stellarators no longer require complex three-dimensionally shaped coils; a two-shape planar racetrack set with 64 coils reaches 5.1% maximum field error.
  • Low axis torsion can serve as a design target for future optimization, since it simultaneously reduces boundary shaping requirements and strengthens the vacuum magnetic well.
  • The figure-8 configuration addresses the historical stability objection by demonstrating compatibility with a stabilizing vacuum magnetic well of 0.8% depth.
  • Near-axis construction combined with a generalized Frenet-frame equilibrium solver can handle axis shapes that standard cylindrical-coordinate codes cannot, opening a broader class of exotic configurations to optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the planar-coil result is robust, coil simplification may extend to other high-writhe configurations beyond exact figure-8s, since the mechanism is low torsion rather than the specific lemniscate shape.
  • The 5.1% maximum normal field error (mean 1.4%) leaves open whether the coil field is truly omnigenous; a next step would be computing effective ripple or drift-orbit losses for the coil field directly.
  • The 'rotation without twisting' principle suggests an inverse design strategy: prescribe axis writhe and minimize integrated torsion as a proxy for coil complexity, which might generalize to higher field-period numbers N>2.
  • A small modular figure-8 experiment could test the coil simplicity in practice, since the planar coil shapes and modest aspect ratio make construction unusually accessible.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper revisits Spitzer's figure-8 stellarator concept using modern near-axis expansion (NAE) theory and the GVEC equilibrium solver. The authors construct a family of N=2 quasi-isodynamic (QI) configurations with varying axis inclination, characterized by low torsion and high writhe, and optimize the boundary shape for a vacuum magnetic well. They report that the maximum achievable well depth increases monotonically with inclination angle, and that the QI proxy error ΔB decreases. They then present a single configuration with an aspect ratio of 10, for which they design a set of 64 planar racetrack coils using ONSET, with a maximum boundary normal field error of 5.1% and a mean error of 1.4%. They claim this is the first quasi-isodynamic stellarator design with planar coils.

Significance. If the QI property is confirmed, the result is significant: it brings together favorable stability, weak boundary shaping, and coil simplicity in a single stellarator concept, and demonstrates the utility of NAE-based construction and GVEC for non-standard topologies. The magnetic well optimization across eight cases is a concrete numerical result that supports the theoretical argument connecting low axis torsion to stability. The paper also provides a useful link between axis geometry (writhe versus twist) and coil complexity. However, the headline claim depends on QI verification that is currently incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 10] The quasi-isodynamic property of the coil-generated field is never assessed. The manuscript verifies only the alignment of Poincaré surfaces and reports the boundary normal field error (max 5.1%, mean 1.4%). Nested flux surfaces do not imply omnigenity: QI requires the field strength |B| to be nearly independent of the Boozer poloidal angle on each flux surface, which the Poincaré plot cannot diagnose. The 5.1% maximum error is not obviously small compared with the 30% mirror ratio and the deliberate flatness condition B_0''=0 at the minima (Sec. 2.1). Therefore, the claim that this is the first quasi-isodynamic stellarator design with planar coils is not supported by the evidence presented.
  2. [Secs. 3 and 4] The only QI quality metric used, ΔB, is defined as the RMS deviation of |B| from the first-order near-axis prediction (Sec. 3). This is a self-consistency check of the NAE construction rather than an independent omnigenity metric, and it is computed only for the unshaped (ν=1) boundaries (Sec. 4). The final design of Section 5 has been re-optimized for a magnetic well, so its boundary differs from the ν=1 case; no QI metric is reported for that boundary. Consequently, the QI quality of the actual design presented in Section 5, and the effect of the well optimization on QI, are unknown.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The priority claim 'first quasi-isodynamic stellarator design' with planar coils rests entirely on the QI verification discussed above. Since the coil field's omnigenity is not demonstrated, and the design field's QI is only characterized by the near-axis self-consistency metric for the unshaped boundary, the claim should be either revised to a more limited statement (e.g., 'first figure-8 configuration with planar coils constructed from near-axis QI theory') or supported by direct omnigenity metrics (e.g., effective ripple ε_eff, Boozer spectrum) computed for the coil-field equilibrium.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, text near Fig. 9] The phrase 'mean error if 1.4%' contains a typo; it should read 'mean error of 1.4%'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Ref. [15]] The method of solving the sigma equation with elongation as input is deferred to reference [15], which is listed as 'in preparation'; this makes the construction not fully self-contained. Please clarify or include the essential equations.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Table 1] The table appears three times with different subsets of rows, which is redundant and confusing; consider merging into a single table with all reported quantities.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The total number of coils (64 total, 16 independent) is not prominently stated in the abstract; since 'simple construction' is a headline, the coil count should be mentioned early in the paper.
  5. [Eq. (4) and footnote] The mirror ratio is defined in a footnote that differs from the standard definition; please define the convention used in the text to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planar-coil result is an independent constrained-optimization outcome, and the NAE-based ΔB metric is a self-consistency check rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward design: the magnetic axis ansatz, the chosen B0 profile, the sigma-equation solution, and the prescribed elongation define a plasma boundary; GVEC then solves the equilibrium independently of the near-axis construction. The ΔB metric compares the GVEC field strength to the first-order NAE field B0 + εB1, so it is a consistency check of the NAE construction rather than a parameter fit renamed as a prediction. The planar-coil claim comes from NESCOIL and ONSET optimization subject to a planarity constraint; the 5.1% maximum normal-field error, the 1.4% mean error, and the Poincaré alignment in Fig. 10 are outputs of that optimization, not inputs, so the existence of a planar coil set is not forced by construction. Several enabling results are cited from the authors' prior work (near-axis QI theory, the GVEC coordinate extension), but these are published or arXiv-documented methods with stated assumptions, and they are used as tools rather than invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. The main weakness, that the coil field's omnigenity is not directly checked—only flux-surface alignment is shown—is a gap in support for the 'first QI stellarator with planar coils' claim, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity. Under the rule that unsupported claims and non-consensus are not circularity arguments, the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen axis and elongation profiles, the NAE validity at finite aspect ratio, the use of a vacuum well as a stability proxy, and an unverified preservation of QI by the coil set. The configuration is a numerical design study rather than a derivation from independent first principles.

free parameters (5)
  • axis torsion amplitude τ1 (or inclination angle γ) = τ0 range 0.2935 to 0.9066, γ from 0.0786π to 0.4223π
    The family of axis curves (Eqs. 2-3) is parameterized by τ1; two constants are fixed by closure, leaving τ1 free. It controls inclination and is varied across the sequence; for the coil design γ=0.374π.
  • on-axis field strength harmonics (0.3, 0.075 in Eq. 4) = B0 = 1 + 0.3 cos(2ℓ) + 0.075 cos(4ℓ)
    Chosen by hand so the mirror ratio is 30% and B0''=0 at field minima to promote a magnetic well.
  • elongation profile parameters ρ0, ρ1 = ρ0=4.5, ρ1=1.7 for the sequence; ρ1=2.3 for the coil design
    The elongation profile (Eq. 11) is set as input; it is a free shaping choice that affects the magnetic well (stretching term in Eq. 15).
  • aspect ratio = 8, then increased to 10
    Aspect ratio is chosen for comparison with typical QI stellarators and to fit coils; it affects the NAE reliability.
  • surface deformation control points ν = bounded 0.9-1.1, 5x5 grid
    The 25 control points are optimized with Bayesian methods to maximize the magnetic well depth; they are fit variables in each of the eight optimizations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Near-axis expansion (NAE) at first and second order is valid at the chosen finite aspect ratio (8-10)
    The boundary shapes are generated from the asymptotic NAE, and the optimized equilibria are compared with the first-order prediction. If the expansion does not converge or truncate accurately at this aspect ratio, the QI property may not hold in the full equilibrium. Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.1.
  • domain assumption Vacuum magnetic well (d²V/dψ²) is a sufficient proxy for the MHD stability relevant to the figure-8 design
    The paper uses the well depth as the target function and interprets it as stability; full Mercier criterion, ballooning, and finite-beta stability are not computed. Sec. 4 and conclusion.
  • domain assumption The axis family with signed Frenet frame and the α(φ) choice from ref [16] yields a quasi-isodynamic field
    The QI construction relies on the theory in refs [13,15,16] for the α function and sigma equation; the paper does not re-derive them. Sec. 2.2 and Eq. 6.
  • domain assumption GVEC equilibrium solutions with the generalized Frenet frame accurately represent the device field, and NESCOIL/ONSET coil fields are accurate
    Results depend on numerical solvers; no convergence tests are reported. Sec. 4 and 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Back to the Figure-8 Stellarator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHCDPUU6

@misc{pith2026241116411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Back to the Figure-8 Stellarator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHCDPUU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16411}
}
read the original abstract

The first stellarator design was a simple tube of plasma twisted and closed on itself in the form of a figure-8. The line of such devices, however, was quickly ended over concerns related to plasma stability. We revisit the figure-8 concept, re-imagined as a modern optimized stellarator, and find the potential for a high degree of stability, as well as exceptionally simple construction. In particular, the design that we find admits planar coils, and is the first quasi-isodynamic stellarator design to have this property. Our work is made possible by recent theoretical progress in the near-axis theory of quasi-isodynamic stellarators, combined with fundamental progress in the numerical solution of three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic equilibria that cannot be well represented using traditional cylindrical coordinates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16411 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Cartoon of radial deformation, which defines the shape space for the optimization of the magnetic well. The deformed shape can be written in terms of the original shape (obtained from the first-order NAE) as x ′ 1 = νx1. 4. Susceptibility of the Figure-8 to the formation of a magnetic well A first issue to investigate for the figure-8 is the question of stability, which was historically one of the main criticisms mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maximum magnetic well depth versus inclination angle (left). Visualization of magnetic surface for two cases of low inclination (middle) and high inclination (right). of 10%. The number of control points is chosen (5 in the θ direction and 5 in the φ direction) to control ‘triangularity’ at several values of the toroidal angle, i.e. the shape freedom that arises at second order in the NAE, which is known to control … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of magnetic surface shaping for the cases of lowest inclination (γ = 0.0786π; left) and highest inclination (γ = 0.4223π; right). Cross sections are shown for equally spaced values of φ, as labeled. The initial (perfectly elliptical) shapes are shown in black and the final (optimized) shapes are shown in dashed colors. The shapes are plotted in the Frenet frame, which is why the ellipses tend to align ver… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Depiction of three contributions to the magnetic well near locations of field extrema in QI stellarators. The magnetic field strength grows normal to the axis in the direction of the curvature κ of the field-lines, and thus the behavior of κ can be considered to provid…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross sections are shown for equally spaced values of φ, as labeled. The initial (perfectly elliptical) shapes are shown in black and the final (optimized) shapes are shown in dashed colors. The shapes are plotted in the Frenet frame, which is why the ellipses are most…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A quasi-isodynamic figure-8 stellarator from three viewpoints: figure-8 view, bow-tie view, and racetrack view. The aspect ratio is set to 8, and the magnetic well depth is 0.8%. The colors indicate field strength, from high (red) to low (blue), according to the first-…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Racetrack coil set. There are only two different coil shapes, corresponding to small (blue) and large (green) sizes, and a total of 64 coils in the design, of which only a quarter (16) can be considered independent (the number present in one half field-period). designe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnitude of the field error (Bn) on the design plasma boundary as viewed from two different perspectives. The maximum value is 5.1% (purple) and the mean is 1.4%. The colormap encodes max (Bn) as blue and min (Bn) as white [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Poincar´e plots of the design field (red) and of the coils field (black). Note that the ‘bean’ shape of the surfaces in the NESCOIL solution arises because the cross sections are made in the cylindrical R-z plane. This can be compared with the almost perfectly ellipti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Near-axis quasi-isodynamic database

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A public database of over 800,000 near-axis quasi-isodynamic stellarator configurations with computed stability, transport, and coil-complexity proxies, plus statistical heuristics for design.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fusion: science, politics, and the invention of a new energy source

    Bromberg JL. Fusion: science, politics, and the invention of a new energy source. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Highlights in early stellarator research at Princeton

    Stix TH. Highlights in early stellarator research at Princeton. J Plasma Fusion Res SERIES. 1998;1:3-8

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Preliminary Experimental Results with the Model A Stellarator

    Goldman L, Spitzer Jr L. Preliminary Experimental Results with the Model A Stellarator. Princeton Univ., NJ Project Matterhorn; 1953

    work page 1953

  4. [4]

    A Conceptual Design of the Model C Stellarator; 1956

    Farber WR, Fraser JC, Grove DJ, Mills RG, Rashevsky M, Schultz MA, et al.. A Conceptual Design of the Model C Stellarator; 1956. U.S. Atomic Energy Commision Report No. NYO- 7309 (PMS-19). Available from: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4299735

    work page arXiv 1956

  5. [5]

    Problems of the stellarator as a useful power source

    Spitzer Jr L, Grove D, Johnson W, Tonks L, Westendorp W. Problems of the stellarator as a useful power source. Princeton Univ., NJ Project Matterhorn; 1954

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    The Stellarator Concept

    Spitzer J Lyman. The Stellarator Concept. The Physics of Fluids. 1958 07;1(4):253-64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1705883

    doi:10.1063/1.1705883 1958

  7. [7]

    Project Sherwood; the U.S

    Bishop AS. Project Sherwood; the U.S. program in controlled fusion. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1958

    work page 1958

  8. [8]

    GVEC: a newly developed 3D ideal MHD Galerkin variational equilibrium code; 2019

    Hindenlang F, Maj O, Strumberger E, Rampp M, Sonnendr¨ ucker E. GVEC: a newly developed 3D ideal MHD Galerkin variational equilibrium code; 2019. Annual Meeting of the Simons Collaboration on Hidden Symmetries and Fusion Energy

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver

    Dudt DW, Kolemen E. DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver. Physics of Plasmas. 2020 Oct;27(10):102513. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0020743

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Quasi-isodynamic Stellarators

    Gori S, Lotz W, N¨ uhrenberg J. Quasi-isodynamic Stellarators. Theory of Fusion Plasmas (Proc Joint Varenna-Lausanne Int Workshop). 1996:335-42. Back to the Figure-8 Stellarator 17

    1996

  3. [11]

    Bootstrap current and neoclassical transport in quasi-isodynamic stellarators

    Helander P, N¨ uhrenberg J. Bootstrap current and neoclassical transport in quasi-isodynamic stellarators. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. 2009 feb;51(5):055004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/51/5/055004

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Development of quasi-isodynamic stellarators

    N¨ uhrenberg J. Development of quasi-isodynamic stellarators. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. 2010;52(12):124003. Available from: http://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/52/i=12/ a=124003

    2010

  5. [13]

    Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes

    Plunk GG, Landreman M, Helander P. Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part

  6. [14]

    Journal of Plasma Physics

    Omnigenity near the magnetic axis. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2019;85(6):905850602

    2019

  7. [15]

    Direct construction of stellarator symmetric N -field period magnetic configurations

    Camacho Mata K, Plunk GG, Jorge R. Direct construction of stellarator symmetric N -field period magnetic configurations. Journal of Plasma Physics (to be submitted). 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A geometric approach to constructing quasi-isodynamic fields; 2024

    Plunk GG, et al. A geometric approach to constructing quasi-isodynamic fields; 2024. In preparation

    2024

  9. [17]

    Near-axis description of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic stellarators to second order; 2024

    Rodr ´ ıguez E, Plunk GG, Jorge R. Near-axis description of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic stellarators to second order; 2024. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20328

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A generalized Frenet frame for computing MHD equilibria in stellarators

    Hindenlang F, Plunk GG, Maj O. A generalized Frenet frame for computing MHD equilibria in stellarators. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion submitted. 2024. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17595

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    pyGVEC: python interface to the equilibrium solver GVEC for integration into stellarator optimization

    Babin R, et al. pyGVEC: python interface to the equilibrium solver GVEC for integration into stellarator optimization. in preparation. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A single- field-period quasi-isodynamic stellarator

    Jorge R, Plunk GG, Drevlak M, Landreman M, Lobsien JF, Camacho Mata K, et al. A single- field-period quasi-isodynamic stellarator. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2022;88(5):175880504

    2022

  13. [21]

    Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes

    Landreman M, Sengupta W. Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 1. Theory in cylindrical coordinates. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2018;84(6):905840616

    2018

  14. [22]

    Transport and isomorphic equilibria

    Boozer AH. Transport and isomorphic equilibria. The Physics of Fluids. 1983 02;26(2):496-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.864166

    1983 doi

  15. [23]

    Quasi-helically symmetric toroidal stellarators

    N¨ uhrenberg J, Zille R. Quasi-helically symmetric toroidal stellarators. Physics Letters A. 1988;129(2):113 117. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0375960188900801

    1988

  16. [24]

    Necessary and sufficient conditions for quasisymmetry

    Rodriguez E, Helander P, Bhattacharjee A. Necessary and sufficient conditions for quasisymmetry. Physics of Plasmas. 2020;27(6)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Sur les courbes ` a double courbure

    Frenet F. Sur les courbes ` a double courbure. Journal de math´ ematiques pures et appliqu´ ees. 1852;17:437-47

  18. [26]

    Differential geometry and topology of curves

    Animov Y. Differential geometry and topology of curves. CRC press; 2001

    2001

  19. [27]

    Magnetic field strength of toroidal plasma equilibria

    Garren DA, Boozer AH. Magnetic field strength of toroidal plasma equilibria. Physics of Fluids B. 1991;3(10):2805-21. Available from: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/ pofb/3/10/10.1063/1.859915

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    The Quasi-isodynamic Stellarator; 2023

    Plunk GG. The Quasi-isodynamic Stellarator; 2023. Simons Col- laboration on Hidden Symmetries and Fusion Energy Annual Meet- ing. Available from: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/event/ simons-collaboration-on-hidden-symmetries-and-fusion-energy-annual-meeting-2023/

    2023

  21. [29]

    Improving Frenet’s frame using Bishop’s frame

    Carroll D, K¨ ose E, Sterling I. Improving Frenet’s frame using Bishop’s frame. Journal of Mathematics Research. 2013;5(4):97-106

    2013

  22. [30]

    Stellarator symmetry

    Dewar R, Hudson S. Stellarator symmetry. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 1998;112(1-2):275- 80

    1998

  23. [31]

    Phases and phase-transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space

    Rodr ´ ıguez E, Sengupta W, Bhattacharjee A. Phases and phase-transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. 2022;64(10):105006

    2022

  24. [32]

    Helicity of the magnetic axes of quasi-isodynamic stellarators

    Mata KC, Plunk GG. Helicity of the magnetic axes of quasi-isodynamic stellarators. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2023;89(6):905890609

    2023

  25. [33]

    Helicity and the C˘ alug˘ areanu invariant

    Moffatt HK, Ricca RL. Helicity and the C˘ alug˘ areanu invariant. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1992;439(1906):411-29

    1906

  26. [34]

    The geometric and topological structure of holonomic knots

    Fuller Jr EJ. The geometric and topological structure of holonomic knots. University of Georgia; Back to the Figure-8 Stellarator 18 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    The writhing number of a space curve

    Fuller F. The writhing number of a space curve. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1971;68(4):815-9

    1971

  28. [36]

    A catalog of special plane curves

    Lawrence JD. A catalog of special plane curves. Courier Corporation; 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes

    Landreman M, Sengupta W, Plunk GG. Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part

  30. [38]

    Journal of Plasma Physics

    Numerical quasisymmetric solutions. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2019;85(1):905850103

    2019

  31. [39]

    Magnetohydrodynamic stability and the effects of shaping: a near-axis view for tokamaks and quasisymmetric stellarators

    Rodr ´ ıguez E. Magnetohydrodynamic stability and the effects of shaping: a near-axis view for tokamaks and quasisymmetric stellarators. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2023;89(2):905890211

    2023

  32. [40]

    Non-planar elasticae as optimal curves for the magnetic axis of stellarators

    Pfefferl´ e D, Gunderson L, Hudson SR, Noakes L. Non-planar elasticae as optimal curves for the magnetic axis of stellarators. Physics of Plasmas. 2018;25(9)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Equilibrium and stability of a toroidal magnetohydrodynamic system in the neighbourhood of a magnetic axis

    Mercier C. Equilibrium and stability of a toroidal magnetohydrodynamic system in the neighbourhood of a magnetic axis. Nuclear Fusion. 1964;4(3):213. Available from: http: //stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/4/i=3/a=008

    1964

  34. [42]

    Omnigenity and quasihelicity in helical plasma confinement systems

    Cary JR, Shasharina SG. Omnigenity and quasihelicity in helical plasma confinement systems. Physics of Plasmas. 1997;4(9):3323-33. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1. 872473

    1997 doi

  35. [43]

    Optimisation of stellarator equilibria with ROSE

    Drevlak M, Beidler CD, Geiger J, Helander P, Turkin Y. Optimisation of stellarator equilibria with ROSE. Nuclear Fusion. 2018 nov;59(1):016010. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/aaed50

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    A brief review of magnetic wells

    Greene JM. A brief review of magnetic wells. Comments on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. 1997;17:389-402

    1997

  37. [45]

    ideal MHD

    Freidberg JP. ideal MHD. Cambridge University Press; 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Equilibrium and stability of a toroidal magnetohydrodynamic system in the neighbourhood of a magnetic axis

    Mercier C. Equilibrium and stability of a toroidal magnetohydrodynamic system in the neighbourhood of a magnetic axis. Nuclear Fusion. 1964 sep;4(3):213. Available from: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/4/3/008

    1964 doi

  39. [47]

    Magnetic well and Mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis

    Landreman M, Jorge R. Magnetic well and Mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2020;86(5):905860510

    2020

  40. [48]

    The maximum-J property in quasi-isodynamic stellarators

    Rodriguez E, Helander P, Goodman A. The maximum-J property in quasi-isodynamic stellarators. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2024;90(2):905900212

    2024

  41. [49]

    Coil Designs for a Quasi-Axially Symmetric Stellarator

    Drevlak M. Coil Designs for a Quasi-Axially Symmetric Stellarator. 20th Symposium on Fusion Technology. Association Euratom-CEA Cadarache;. p. 883

  42. [50]

    Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents

    Merkel P. Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents. Nuclear Fusion. 1987;27(5):253-64

    1987

  43. [51]

    Coils for 3d MHD equilibria

    Merkel P, Drevlak M. Coils for 3d MHD equilibria. 25th EPS Conference on Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics; 1998. p. 1745

    1998

  44. [52]

    Differentiating the shape of stellarator coils with respect to the plasma boundary

    Hudson SR, Zhu C, Pfefferl´ e D, Gunderson L. Differentiating the shape of stellarator coils with respect to the plasma boundary. Physics Letters A. 2018;382(38):2732-7. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596011830759X

    2018

  45. [53]

    Steepest-descent moment method for three-dimensional magnetohy- drodynamic equilibria

    Hirshman SP, Whitson JC. Steepest-descent moment method for three-dimensional magnetohy- drodynamic equilibria. The Physics of Fluids. 1983;26(12):3553-68. Available from: http: //aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.864116

    1983 doi

Pith tools

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