Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Zonal fields as catalysts and inhibitors of turbulence-driven magnetic islands

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Plasma turbulence can grow large magnetic islands on its own, via a parity change of unstable modes and a coalescence that zonal flow enables and zonal current inhibits.

desk verdict Controlled simulations back a new turbulence-to-large-island route via parity change and coalescence, with zonal fields cast as catalyst and inhibitor; the parity diagnostic is the main weak spot but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09272 v1 pith:6LR3AEFS submitted 2024-12-12 physics.plasm-ph

Daniele Villa , Nicolas Dubuit , Olivier Agullo , Xavier Garbet This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords turbulence-drivenmagneticislandsreconnectionzonalflowcurrentinterchangeinstabilitytearingparitycoalescenceplasmafluidsimulation
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 claims that a turbulent plasma can build large magnetic islands through a path that does not rely on the linear tearing instability: interchange-unstable modes switch from odd (interchange-like) to even (tearing-like) radial parity early in the nonlinear phase, small tearing-like islands appear at the unstable scales, and these islands slowly merge toward larger scales. The merging is not a passive by-product; it is controlled by zonal fields. The zonal flow acts as a catalyst, transferring energy to large scales, while the zonal current inhibits the transfer by creating a region of weak magnetic shear that traps energy at small scales. If correct, the result would give a turbulence-driven source of seed magnetic islands relevant to fusion plasmas, where neoclassical physics alone may not explain island onset.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parity change of the unstable modes, diagnosed by the radially averaged phase difference $\langle|\Delta\phi|/2\pi\rangle$ across the resonant surface. An interchange-parity mode has a phase change of $\pi/2$ across the resonance; a tearing-parity mode has constant phase. The mechanism that flips the parity is the cubic pressure term in Ohm's law, $\Omega_i \tau_A \rho_*^2 n^{-1}\{\psi,p_e\}$: in an interchange-unstable system the nonlinear evolution creates $m=0$ pressure and density fluctuations with odd parity, and the Poisson bracket of two odd functions is odd, so multiplying by the $m=0$ density yields an even term at the same $m$ as the instability. This even term is what makes the mode tearing-like. The zonal fields then determine whether the small-scale islands coalesce: the zonal flow $\phi_0$ transfers energy to larger scales, whereas the zonal current $\psi_0$ flattens the magnetic shear and keeps energy at the turbulent scales.

What would settle it

Run the same nonlinear simulation with the cubic terms retained but with the $m=0$ pressure and density fluctuations artificially suppressed; if the unstable modes still change parity and coalesce, the proposed parity-change mechanism is falsified. Conversely, a toroidal or multi-helicity simulation with the same dimensionless parameters that fails to show the odd-to-even parity transition and the associated inverse energy transfer would falsify the paper's claim that the process is a generic route to large-scale islands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a coalescence process, previously unobserved in these simulations, that makes large-scale tearing-like magnetic islands dynamically dominant. In the linear phase the unstable modes have interchange parity (an odd radial structure with a phase jump across the resonance), and the background is stable to tearing with $\Delta' \le -1.9$. Early in the nonlinear phase the modes change to tearing-like parity: their phase becomes nearly uniform across a broad radial region around the resonance. The change is enabled by the cubic nonlinearities retained in the model, specifically by the pressure term in Ohm's law, where odd-parity $m=0$ pressure and density fluctuations multiply odd-parity $\psi$ fluctuations to produce an even correction at the same mode number. Small-scale tearing-like islands then form and coalesce into larger islands, adding energy to the large-scale modes that direct coupling of neighbouring unstable modes creates but leaves subdominant. In the end the $m=2$ mode becomes the dominant structure. The zonal flow is required for the coalescence to continue, while the zonal current slows it down.

Load-bearing premise

The single-helicity two-dimensional fluid model, with its Boussinesq approximation and drift-ordered Braginskii closure, faithfully represents the turbulence–island dynamics, so that the parity change and coalescence are physics rather than artifacts of the reduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large-scale magnetic islands can become dynamically important in interchange-driven turbulence even when the equilibrium is linearly stable to tearing.
  • The coalescence process is slower than direct mode coupling but faster than the resistive reconnection time, so it acts as an intermediate-timescale route to island growth.
  • Because the zonal flow is required for coalescence, zonal-flow saturation levels, which in these simulations are in the ideal (dissipation-independent) regime, set the pace of large-scale island formation.
  • In low-$\beta$ near-marginal regimes where direct coupling alone leaves islands subdominant, the parity-change-plus-coalescence mechanism can supply the seed islands needed for neoclassical tearing modes.
  • In high-$\beta$ astrophysical plasmas pressure fluctuations are stronger, so the cubic terms that enable the parity change should be even more influential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of generality is to repeat the runs with multiple helicities or toroidal geometry; if the odd-to-even parity mixing is altered there, the specific $m=2$ dominance reported here may not survive, but the underlying mechanism of cubic-term-induced parity change could still operate.
  • The observed strong-drive case, where the island reaches the domain boundary before $m=1$ forms, hints at a missing saturation mechanism; in a larger or more realistic domain the $m=1$ island might become the dominant structure, a prediction the authors did not make.
  • One could try to control the inhibitory zonal current externally, for instance by localized current drive or by shaping the equilibrium shear, and test whether the coalescence accelerates as the simulation's zonal-current suppression suggests.
  • The parity-difference diagnostic, averaged over the radial interval and over time, could be applied to experimental data from tokamaks or to gyrokinetic simulations to look for the same signature of turbulence-driven island formation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents nonlinear fluid simulations of a 6-field reduced Braginskii model in single-helicity slab geometry, initialized with interchange instability and linearly stable to tearing (Δ′≤−1.9). It reports a novel route to turbulence-driven magnetic islands: in the early nonlinear phase the unstable modes change from odd/interchange-like parity to even/tearing-like parity, small islands form at the unstable scales, and a slow coalescence process transfers energy to larger scales, making an m=2 island dynamically dominant. A β–shear parameter scan maps where this occurs, suppression experiments identify the zonal flow as a catalyst and the zonal current as an inhibitor of the coalescence, and runs without the cubic terms recover the literature behavior of sub-dominant direct coupling, establishing the importance of those terms.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, this is a significant advance: it provides a turbulence-driven path to large magnetic islands that does not rely on linear tearing, gives a concrete and testable role to zonal fields as catalysts/inhibitors, and is relevant to both fusion and astrophysical plasmas. The paper's strengths include multiple control experiments (removing cubic terms kills the islands and restores literature results; suppressing the zonal flow freezes coalescence; suppressing the zonal current accelerates it; raising zonal-flow dissipation by 50× has no effect), a parameter scan with no fitting to a target result, and clearly falsifiable predictions. The principal risk is the parity diagnostic: the entire causal chain—cubic terms → parity change → small-scale islands → coalescence → large-scale island—rests on a phase-difference metric that is not yet validated as a parity measure for nonlinear modes. Because that step is load-bearing, I cannot recommend acceptance without a direct even/odd decomposition test.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Material, Sec. II; main text Fig. 3] The parity-change claim is supported only by the average phase-difference metric ⟨|Δφ|/2π⟩, and this metric is not established as a valid parity diagnostic for nonlinear modes. For an odd interchange mode, ψ_m(0)=0, so the reference phase at x=0 is undefined or noise-dominated, yet the paper does not state how φ_res is computed in the nonlinear simulations. In the nonlinear phase the resonant position shifts, and the amplitude threshold A/A_max≥0.1 can exclude one side of an asymmetric mode, lowering the average without any change in the even component. I ask the authors to validate the metric against a direct even/odd decomposition of ψ_m(x) around the instantaneous resonant/O-point position (for example, the ratio of symmetric to antisymmetric energy) and to show that this decomposition tracks the same time evolution as the phase metric for both coalescing and non-coalescing runs. Without this, the step from interchange instability to small-scale TDMI formation is not quantitatively supported.
  2. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Notice that the weaker the magnetic shear...'] The statement that 'non-linear de-stabilization of tearing can also be ruled out' is not supported by any diagnostic shown in the paper. The linear stability check (Δ′≤−1.9) does not exclude a nonlinear change in Δ′ resulting from profile flattening or from the self-consistently evolved m=0 fields. Since the novelty of the paper is a route to islands without linear tearing, the authors should provide a nonlinear stability indicator, such as the time evolution of Δ′ computed from the self-consistently modified background profiles, to demonstrate that the observed islands do not arise from nonlinear destabilization of the tearing branch.
  3. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'To further address the role of the zonal fields...'] The claim that the zonal flow 'is responsible for the transfer of energy at larger scales' is inferred solely from suppression experiments in which the m=0 component of ϕ is removed. Removing the zonal flow also removes the strongly sheared flow at the island separatrix, which can by itself affect island width evolution and mode propagation. A direct spectral energy-transfer analysis (for example, the transfer function T_{k,k′} for the ψ and ϕ equations, decomposed into contributions mediated by the m=0 fields) would demonstrate that the zonal flow indeed mediates the inverse cascade rather than merely enabling it by changing the turbulence intensity. Such a diagnostic would also sharpen the distinction between the catalytic role of the zonal flow and the inhibitory role of the zonal current.
  4. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'The role of the cubic terms...'] The paper's mechanistic explanation of the parity change focuses on the pressure term (Ω_iτ_Aρ_*^2/n){ψ,p_e} in Ohm's law, but the 'essential' role of the cubic terms is established only by removing all such terms at once. This does not isolate the proposed parity-mixing channel. A more decisive test would be to retain the other cubic terms while selectively modifying or suppressing the n^{-1}{ψ,p_e} term, or to track the parity of the m=0 pressure and density modes and show that their odd component correlates in time with the onset of even parity in the unstable modes. Without such a test, the specific causal mechanism attributed to the cubic terms remains plausible but not demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Material, Sec. II] There is a typo in the caption of Fig. 1: 'asbolute' should be 'absolute'.
  2. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Thus without the mechanism described here...'] The word 'supplemetary' in 'see the supplemetary material' is misspelled.
  3. [Table II in Supplementary Material] The table gives values of Ω_iτ_A and ρ_* but does not state the corresponding β values explicitly; since β is a central control parameter, the authors should state the mapping used to obtain β=1.28% and any other β values shown in Fig. 2.
  4. [Fig. 2] The figure would benefit from a statement of how many independent simulations were performed per marker and whether the threshold is robust to initial conditions or noise.
  5. [Main text, paragraph 'The model being a 'reduced' model...'] The term 'cubic terms' is used for products of the form p{ψ,u∥} and u∥{ψ,p}, but the equations evolve full fields (equilibrium plus fluctuation). Please clarify exactly which terms are removed in the 'without cubic terms' runs, since this is central to the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central coalescence claim is a direct simulation observation supported by controlled counterfactual runs; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism—interchange modes acquiring tearing-like parity, small-scale islands forming and then coalescing—is read directly from time-resolved simulations (Figs. 1, 3, 4 and the supplementary isocontours), with no parameter fitted to the target outcome. The threshold in beta and magnetic shear is obtained from a scan, not imposed by construction. The causal role of the cubic terms is tested by running the same model without them, which reproduces the literature direct-coupling result instead of coalescence; this is a genuine counterfactual, not a self-referential fit. The zonal-flow catalyst and zonal-current inhibitor claims are based on suppression experiments, i.e., removing the field and observing the halt or acceleration of coalescence. The model, normalizations, and parameters are fully specified in the supplementary material, so the prior use of the model by the same group [21,26,27] is contextual rather than load-bearing. The parity diagnostic based on averaged phase differences is unconventional and not independently validated, and the paper itself flags a possible missing saturation mechanism at strong drive; these are validity concerns for the interpretation, but they do not make the derivation reduce to its own inputs. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

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

The central claims rest on the reduced fluid model (Boussinesq approximation, drift ordering, single-helicity 2D slab), on hand-chosen curvature coefficients K1-K3 that set the instability drive, and on an unconventional phase-difference parity diagnostic. No new particles, forces, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; the zonal flow and zonal current are standard concepts, and the 'coalescence process' is a proposed mechanism rather than an entity. The free parameters are the scan points in beta and shear plus the model knobs; the paper verifies sensitivity only for the zonal-flow dissipation.

free parameters (4)
  • Curvature coefficients K1, K2, K3 = K1 = -0.5 (or -1 for stronger drive), K2 = K3 = -0.3
    Table I describes them as 'parameters introduced to manipulate linear spectrum'; they set the curvature drive and therefore the growth rates that define the scan in Fig. 2.
  • Dissipative coefficients (eta, mu, chi, D, Ud) = eta=1e-5, mu=5e-4, chi_perp=5e-5, chi_par_e=5e2, chi_par_i=8, D=1e-4, Ud=5e-5
    Chosen for numerical stability; only the zonal-flow dissipation Ud is tested for sensitivity (factor 50 no effect), the other coefficients are not varied.
  • Omega_i tau_A (sets beta) = 3.12 (standard), 6.24 (higher beta)
    beta_e0 = 2(Omega_i tau_A)^2 rho*^2; varying this value is how the beta scan is implemented, so the beta threshold depends on the chosen values.
  • Simulation scan points (beta, shear) = beta_e0 about 0.3%-1.3%; shear 0.01-0.04
    The threshold line in Fig. 2 is drawn between the discrete hand-picked scan points; its location depends on the choice and density of these points.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Boussinesq approximation: density is treated as constant in the poloidal drift, including the diamagnetic drift; equilibrium must satisfy dx phi_eq = -Omega_i tau_A rho*^2 dx p_i_eq / n_eq
    Stated in the supplementary after Eq. (7). It changes the polarization nonlinearity and is part of the reduced model that produces all results.
  • domain assumption Drift-ordered Braginskii-based reduced fluid closure in single-helicity 2D slab geometry, with parallel magnetic fluctuations neglected
    Model description in the main text and supplementary Eqs. (1)-(6); the single-helicity setup gives exactly one resonant position, which the analysis relies on.
  • ad hoc to paper The average phase difference <|Delta phi|/2pi> over x in [-1,1], weighted by A/A_max >= 0.1, faithfully indicates tearing-like versus interchange-like parity in nonlinear modes
    Introduced in supplementary Section II and used for Fig. 3 and for the classification of mode structure; the authors note the parity values are exact only in linear simulations.
  • standard math The parity-change mechanism: a Poisson bracket of two odd-parity functions is odd, and multiplication by the odd m=0 pressure/density fluctuation gives an even (tearing-like) contribution at m*
    Main text, paragraph on the role of cubic terms in Ohm's law; consistent with the control runs but presented as a plausibility sketch, not a derivation.
  • domain assumption The equilibrium is linearly stable to tearing, with Delta' <= -1.9 at the resonant position
    Main text, computed for the Harris-sheet equilibrium; used to argue the islands cannot come from linear tearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zonal fields as catalysts and inhibitors of turbulence-driven magnetic islands." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6LR3AEFS

@misc{pith2026241209272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zonal fields as catalysts and inhibitors of turbulence-driven magnetic islands},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6LR3AEFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09272}
}
abstract

A novel coalescence process is shown to take place in plasma fluid simulations, leading to the formation of large-scale magnetic islands that become dynamically important in the system. The parametric dependence of the process on the plasma $\beta$ and the background magnetic shear is studied, and the process is broken down at a fundamental level, allowing to clearly identify its causes and dynamics. The formation of magnetic-island-like structures at the spatial scale of the unstable modes is observed quite early in the non-linear phase of the simulation for most cases studied, as the unstable modes change their structure from interchange-like to tearing-like. This is followed by a slow coalescence process that evolves these magnetic structures towards larger and larger scales, adding to the large-scale tearing-like modes that already form by direct coupling of neighbouring unstable modes, but remain sub-dominant without the contribution from the smaller scales through coalescence. The presence of the cubic non-linearities retained in the model is essential in the dynamics of this process. The zonal fields are key actors of the overall process, acting as mediators between the competitive mechanisms from which Turbulence Driven Magnetic Islands can develop. The zonal current is found to slow down the formation of large-scale magnetic islands, acting as an inhibitor, while the zonal flow is needed to allow the system to transfer energy to the larger scales, acting as a catalyst for the island formation process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09272 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the linear modes for two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ). Notice that the modes retain interchange parity and remain limited in width. FIG. 8. Isocontours of ψ in the late linear phase for the simulation with γ ∗ = 0.049 and ∂xBeq = 0.02. FIG. 9. Isocontours of ψ in the early non-linear phase for the simulation with γ ∗ = …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Zoomed in detail of the isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_14.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sequence of isocontours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Radial structure and phase differences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the energies for the simula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DA Falconer, GA Gary, RL Moore, and JG Porter. An assessment of magnetic con- ditions for strong coronal heating in solar active regions by comparing observed loops with computed potential field lines.The As- trophysical Journal, 528(2):1004, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Dy- namics of plasmoids formed by the current sheet tearing

    M B´ arta, B Vrˇ snak, and M Karlick´ y. Dy- namics of plasmoids formed by the current sheet tearing. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 477(2):649–655, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection and its application to solar flares

    Miho Janvier. Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection and its application to solar flares. Journal of Plasma Physics , 83(1), 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Theory and observa- tions of magnetic islands

    FL Waelbroeck. Theory and observa- tions of magnetic islands. Nuclear Fusion, 49(10):104025, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Zonal fields as catalysts and inhibitors of turbulence-driven magnetic islands

    has modes with noticeably more tearing-like parity. Fig. 6 shows the late non-linear phase of a simulation that undergoes coalescence (this one part of the set used in the paper), with turbulent regions enclosed within the magnetic islands that have formed non-linearly. Fig. 7 shows the late non-linear phase of a simulation run with the same parameters as...

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Multi-scale interactions be- tween turbulence and magnetic islands and parity mixture—a review

    Akihiro Ishizawa, Yasuaki Kishimoto, and Yuji Nakamura. Multi-scale interactions be- tween turbulence and magnetic islands and parity mixture—a review. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 61(5):054006, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Interaction between a mag- netic island and turbulence

    Minjun J Choi. Interaction between a mag- netic island and turbulence. Reviews of 12 Modern Plasma Physics , 5(1):1–39, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Dynam- ics of magnetic islands in large δ’ regimes

    A Poy´ e, O Agullo, A Smolyakov, S Benkadda, and X Garbet. Dynam- ics of magnetic islands in large δ’ regimes. Physics of Plasmas , 21(2):020705, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Recon- nection in a weakly stochastic field

    A Lazarian and Ethan T Vishniac. Recon- nection in a weakly stochastic field. The Astrophysical Journal, 517(2):700, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Turbulence driven magnetic reconnection causing long- wavelength magnetic islands

    A Ishizawa and N Nakajima. Turbulence driven magnetic reconnection causing long- wavelength magnetic islands. Physics of Plasmas, 17(7):072308, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Betar, D

    H. Betar, D. Del Sarto, M. Ottaviani, and A. Ghizzo. Microscopic scales of linear tear- ing modes: a tutorial on boundary layer theory for magnetic reconnection. Journal of Plasma Physics , 88(6):925880601, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nonlinear drive of tearing mode by microscopic plasma turbulence

    Masatoshi Yagi, Sanae-I Itoh, Kimitaka Itoh, Masafumi Azumi, Patrick H Dia- mond, Atsushi Fukuyama, and Takayuki Hayashi. Nonlinear drive of tearing mode by microscopic plasma turbulence. Plasma and Fusion Research, 2:025–025, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    Genera- tion and amplification of magnetic islands by drift interchange turbulence

    M Muraglia, O Agullo, S Benkadda, M Yagi, X Garbet, and A Sen. Genera- tion and amplification of magnetic islands by drift interchange turbulence. Physical review letters, 107(9):095003, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    3d turbulent reconnec- tion: Theory, tests, and astrophysical im- plications

    Alex Lazarian, Gregory L Eyink, Amir Ja- fari, Grzegorz Kowal, Hui Li, Siyao Xu, and Ethan T Vishniac. 3d turbulent reconnec- tion: Theory, tests, and astrophysical im- plications. Physics of Plasmas, 27(1), 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Dubuit, O

    N. Dubuit, O. Agullo, M. Muraglia, J. Frank, X. Garbet, and P. Maget. Dy- namics of magnetic islands driven by bal- looning turbulence. Physics of Plasmas , 28(2):022308, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Zonal flow and zonal magnetic field generation by finite β drift waves: A theory for low to high transitions in toka- maks

    PN Guzdar, RG Kleva, A Das, and PK Kaw. Zonal flow and zonal magnetic field generation by finite β drift waves: A theory for low to high transitions in toka- maks. Physical review letters, 87(1):015001, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Non- linear dynamics of turbulence driven mag- netic islands

    O Agullo, M Muraglia, S Benkadda, A Poy´ e, N Dubuit, and X Garbet. Non- linear dynamics of turbulence driven mag- netic islands. i. theoretical aspects. Physics of Plasmas, 24(4):042308, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Ex- perimental evidence of a zonal magnetic field in a toroidal plasma

    A Fujisawa, K Itoh, A Shimizu, H Nakano, S Ohshima, H Iguchi, K Matsuoka, S Oka- mura, T Minami, Y Yoshimura, et al. Ex- perimental evidence of a zonal magnetic field in a toroidal plasma. Physical review letters, 98(16):165001, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Nonlinear saturation of kinetic ballooning modes by zonal fields in toroidal plasmas

    Ge Dong, Jian Bao, Amitava Bhattachar- jee, and Zhihong Lin. Nonlinear saturation of kinetic ballooning modes by zonal fields in toroidal plasmas. Physics of Plasmas , 26(1):010701, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Zonal flows in plasma—a re- view

    Patrick H Diamond, SI Itoh, K Itoh, and TS Hahm. Zonal flows in plasma—a re- view. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion, 47(5):R35, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    poloidal

    that they can significantly impact the dy- namics. Velocities in the system are normal- ized to the Alfv´ en velocity at the reference position vA = B0√µ0mn0 , lengths are normal- ized to a characteristic but arbitrary perpen- dicular length scale L⊥, the magnetic field is nor...

  14. [22]

    Bruce D. Scott. The mechanism of self- sustainment in collisional drift wave turbu- lence. Physics of Fluids B , 4(8):2468–2494, August 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    Transport processes in a plasma

    SI Braginskii. Transport processes in a plasma. Review of Plasma Physics , 1:216, 13 1965

    1965

  16. [24]

    Localized compressional self-heating in magnetic islands

    Daniele Villa, Nicolas Dubuit, Olivier Ag- ullo, Alexandre Poy´ e, Xavier Garbet, and Andrei Smolyakov. Localized compressional self-heating in magnetic islands. Journal of Plasma Physics, 88(6):905880613, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Landau-fluid simulations of edge-sol turbulence with grillix

    Christoph Pitzal, Andreas Stegmeir, Wladimir Zholobenko, Kaiyu Zhang, and Frank Jenko. Landau-fluid simulations of edge-sol turbulence with grillix. Physics of Plasmas, 30(12), 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Turbulence and Instabilities in Magnetised Plasmas , volume 2 of 2053-

    Bruce Scott. Turbulence and Instabilities in Magnetised Plasmas , volume 2 of 2053-

  19. [27]

    Dynamique des ilots magn´ etiques en pr´ esence de feuille de courant et en milieu turbulent

    Alexandre Poye. Dynamique des ilots magn´ etiques en pr´ esence de feuille de courant et en milieu turbulent . PhD thesis, Aix-Marseille, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    The gbs code for the self- consistent simulation of plasma turbulence and kinetic neutral dynamics in the toka- mak boundary

    M Giacomin, P Ricci, A Coroado, G Fourestey, D Galassi, E Lanti, D Mancini, N Richart, LN Stenger, and N Varini. The gbs code for the self- consistent simulation of plasma turbulence and kinetic neutral dynamics in the toka- mak boundary. Journal of Computational Physics, page...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Rigorous approach to the nonlinear satu- ration of the tearing mode in cylindrical and slab geometry

    N Arcis, DF Escande, and M Ottaviani. Rigorous approach to the nonlinear satu- ration of the tearing mode in cylindrical and slab geometry. Physics of plasmas , 13(5):052305, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    On cubic non-linearities in fluid and kinetic models

    D Villa, X Garbet, N Dubuit, and O Ag- ullo. On cubic non-linearities in fluid and kinetic models. In Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series, volume 2397, page 012005. IOP Publishing, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Investissements d’Avenir

    that zonal flow saturation is not dom- inated by fluid dissipation. Given the im- portant role of zonal flows described above, one should check that our results are not re- liant on zonal flow dissipation. Starting sim- ulations anew with varied dissipation for the mode ϕ0 sho...

  24. [32]

    Finite-resistivity in- stabilities of a sheet pinch

    Harold P Furth, John Killeen, and Mar- shall N Rosenbluth. Finite-resistivity in- stabilities of a sheet pinch. The physics of Fluids, 6(4):459–484, 1963

    1963

  25. [33]

    Bursty trans- port in tokamak turbulence: Role of zonal 14 flows and internal transport barriers

    S Benkadda, P Beyer, N Bian, C Fi- garella, O Garcia, X Garbet, Ph Ghendrih, Y Sarazin, and PH Diamond. Bursty trans- port in tokamak turbulence: Role of zonal 14 flows and internal transport barriers. Nu- clear fusion, 41(8):995, 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    Poloidal flow driven by ion-temperature-gradient turbulence in tokamaks

    MN Rosenbluth and FL Hinton. Poloidal flow driven by ion-temperature-gradient turbulence in tokamaks. Physical review let- ters, 80(4):724, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Z. Lin, T. S. Hahm, W. W. Lee, W. M. Tang, and R. B. White. Turbu- lent transport reduction by zonal flows: Massively parallel simulations. Science, 281(5384):1835–1837, 1998

    1998

  28. [36]

    Onset and evolution of m/n= 2/1 neoclassical tearing modes in high-β p mode discharges in jt-60u

    Akihiko Isayama, Go Matsunaga, and Yoichi Hirano. Onset and evolution of m/n= 2/1 neoclassical tearing modes in high-β p mode discharges in jt-60u. Plasma and Fusion Research, 8, 2013

    2013

  29. [38]

    Inter- nal transport barrier in tokamak and heli- cal plasmas

    Katsumi Ida and Takaaki Fujita. Inter- nal transport barrier in tokamak and heli- cal plasmas. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 60(3):033001, 2018. 15

    2018

  30. [2563]

    IOP Publishing, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.