Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Optimization of passive superconductors for shaping stellarator magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that passive superconducting coil arrays, with currents induced by the background field rather than by power supplies, can be optimized to shape stellarator magnetic fields to high precision across four stellarator designs.

desk verdict First real PSC array optimization for stellarators; solid math, but Meissner effects are not adequately quantified for the HTS reactor-scale regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12468 v1 pith:H7SKAMMU submitted 2025-01-21 physics.plasm-ph physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph

Alan A. Kaptanoglu , Matt Landreman , Michael C. Zarnstorff This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.app-phphysics.comp-ph PACS 52.55.Hc
keywords stellaratorpassivesuperconductingcoilscoiloptimizationinversemagnetostaticsflux-freezingquasi-symmetrymagneticfieldshaping
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 tries to show that arrays of passive superconducting coils (PSCs) can replace powered shaping coils in stellarators. Because a superconductor's zero-resistance loops keep their enclosed magnetic flux at zero, a changing background field induces currents in the PSCs with no power supplies at all. The authors perform the first large-scale joint optimization of the positions, orientations, and radii of these coils together with the background field coils, and report normalized B·n errors as low as 5.9e-4 with good magnetic surfaces for four stellarator designs. If correct, this opens a path toward simpler, cheaper, and more accessible stellarator coil systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the flux-freezing constraint LI + Ψ = 0, which converts the infinitely many possible passive coil currents into a unique vector determined by the coil geometry and the background field. Because the currents depend on all coil positions through the inductance matrix and the flux integrals, the gradients of the objective are computed by an autodifferentiation chain that includes derivatives of the PSC currents with respect to every coil degree of freedom. The practical object that carries the optimization is the surface-averaged normal-field error K, together with engineered constraints on coil distance, curvature, and force limits.

What would settle it

A benchmark experiment: place one passive HTS coil (REBCO tape) in a uniform, slowly ramped background field, measure the external field with a Hall probe, and compare to the Biot-Savart prediction from the flux-freezing current alone; a discrepancy at the level of the surface-current approximation would falsify the assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that passive superconductor coil arrays can be optimized to shape stellarator magnetic fields to precision comparable to active coil designs. The currents in the PSCs are not free parameters; they are locked by the flux-freezing condition LI + Ψ = 0, where L is the inductance matrix and Ψ is the flux from the powered coils. The optimization therefore varies the geometry of the PSCs and the active coils, with PSC currents computed by solving that linear system, and minimizes the surface-averaged normal-field error K = (1/2)∫|B·n|^2 dS. Applied to four stellarators (two Landreman-Paul designs, a Schuett-Henneberg design, and the CSX university experiment), the method achieves ⟨B·n⟩/⟨B⟩ errors from 5.9e-4 to 2.4e-3, preserves quasi-symmetry at levels better than most existing devices, and produces good Poincaré surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The designs assume the Meissner screening field of the superconducting material is negligible, so only the flux-freezing surface currents matter; if that fails for realistic high-temperature tapes, the optimized coil currents and resulting field shapes would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellarator shaping fields can be produced without power supplies for the shaping coils, since currents are induced by the background toroidal field coils.
  • The optimization method applies to any inverse magnetostatic problem with passive conductors, not just circular coils; the paper demonstrates nonplanar and shape-varying passive coils for CSX.
  • PSC arrays keep coil forces and torques within material tolerances without explicit force objectives in most cases, because the induced currents are naturally limited.
  • University-scale stellarators such as CSX could be built with passive coils, reducing the number of powered window-pane coils needed.
  • For quasi-helically symmetric designs, field ripple from small passive coils can degrade quasi-symmetry, so PSC arrays may not benefit every stellarator type.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Meissner effect is not negligible for high-temperature superconducting tapes, the optimized currents and field errors would change; a direct measurement of the field around a passive HTS coil in a known background field would settle this.
  • The sparse-solution technique used to prune low-current coils could be applied more aggressively, potentially reducing the number of PSCs needed and lowering superconducting material cost.
  • The same flux-freezing formulation could be transferred to other coil-design problems outside fusion, such as compact MRI magnet arrays or accelerator magnets, wherever a background field is already present.
  • The paper's assumption that a spatially uniform background field on the coil scale makes Meissner contributions vanish suggests a testable extension: computing the Meissner correction for realistic nonuniform fields and Type-II conductors and re-running the optimizations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper formulates and demonstrates the first large-scale joint optimization of passive superconducting coil (PSC) arrays with the background magnetic field for stellarators. The currents in the PSC array are determined by flux-freezing through the linear system LI + Ψ = 0 (Eq. 2), and the optimization variables include the PSC orientations, locations, and shapes, together with the active TF coil shapes and currents. The authors present solutions for four stellarators (Landreman–Paul QA and QH, Schuett–Henneberg QA, and CSX), reporting normalized B·n errors between 5.9e-4 and 2.4e-3, along with Poincaré plots indicating good magnetic surfaces. The derivatives are computed with an analytic chain rule and validated against finite differences. The paper explicitly restricts the physics to the flux-freezing model and argues in Appendix A that Meissner effects are subdominant for Type-I superconductors in a sufficiently uniform background field.

Significance. If the underlying physical model is accepted, this work provides a valuable new capability: a general and open-source (SIMSOPT-based) framework for designing passive superconducting coil arrays that shape stellarator fields without power supplies. The reported B·n errors are low, the Poincaré plots show good surfaces, and the derivative formulation in Eqs. (4)–(5) is an important technical contribution, validated numerically. The use of a sparse-regression-type coil removal and the discussion of PSC currents, forces, and turns also make the paper practically useful. The main significance hinges on the physical validity of ignoring Meissner screening; the paper itself acknowledges that this is not established for high-temperature superconducting tapes, which directly affects the credibility of the reactor-scale feasibility claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A / Sec. I.A] The central feasibility claim rests on neglecting Meissner effects, but the appendix's justification covers only a Type-I superconductor with a circular cross-section in a background field that is uniform on the scale R of the coil. For the reactor-scale designs in Secs. III.A–C, the field gradient length is comparable to the PSC radii (e.g., a minor radius of 1.7 m versus PSC radii of 1.14–3.26 m), so the assumption L0 ≫ R used in the appendix fails. For the proposed REBCO tapes, which are Type-II with penetration depth comparable to the layer thickness, the paper itself states that the accuracy of approximating the screening currents as surface currents is unclear. Since Eq. (2) determines PSC currents solely from flux-freezing, any additional Meissner or vortex-magnetization currents would alter the currents and the resulting magnetic field, so the presented B·n errors and Poincaré surfaces would not necessarily be reproduced by a physical array. This point must be addressed quantitatively, or the claims must be restricted to the flux-freezing-only model.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (6)] The reported two-term quasisymmetry error is inconsistent: the text says the error is 'at approximately 7 × 10−5 is reduced by an order of magnitude from the original value of 7 × 10−6', but 7 × 10−5 is one order of magnitude larger than 7 × 10−6, not smaller. Please correct the direction or the numbers; this affects the claim about how much quasisymmetry was preserved or degraded.
  3. [Sec. I.A, Eq. (2)] The manuscript correctly notes that long-timescale coupling between passive-coil currents and plasma currents cannot be removed by a controller, unlike the case for powered coils. Because the PSC currents in Eq. (2) are determined by the vacuum flux Ψ from the TF coils, any modification of the field by equilibrium plasma currents will induce additional currents in the PSCs (to maintain zero enclosed flux), and this is not accounted for in the optimized solutions. The paper should either demonstrate via a self-consistent equilibrium calculation that the magnetic surfaces remain good when plasma currents are included, or discuss why this effect is expected to be small. As written, the feasibility claim extends beyond the vacuum-field regime that is actually optimized.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B] The statement that the Jacobian calculations 'were extensively verified against finite differences' would be more informative if the maximum relative error and the perturbation sizes were reported.
  2. [Appendix A] There is a typographical error: the text reads 'diagmagnetic' where 'diamagnetic' is intended.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The sentence about the two-term quasi-axisymmetry error is difficult to parse even after correcting the numerical inconsistency; please rewrite it to state clearly the original value, the final value, and whether the change is an increase or a decrease.
  4. [Sec. III.C] The phrase 'the average normalized two-term quasi-axisymmetry error of approximately 3.9 × 10−3 is fairly close to the original value of 1.4 × 10−3' is vague; please clarify the magnitude of the change and whether this is considered acceptable in the context of the larger B·n error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PSC currents are set by flux-freezing physics, and the reported accuracy metrics are genuine optimization objectives with independent verification.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the passive coil currents are determined by the physical condition of zero net flux, LI + Ψ = 0 (Eq. 2), and are not fitted to the target plasma boundary. The optimized B·n error is a direct objective for the inverse magnetostatics problem, but the claimed success is supported by independent checks such as Poincaré plots and two-term quasisymmetry errors, which are not used as fitting targets. Self-citations to prior dipole-array work and SIMSOPT are methodological and do not carry the load-bearing physics. The treatment of Meissner effects in Appendix A is an explicitly stated modeling assumption with an acknowledged limitation for HTS tapes; it is a physical approximation rather than a circular step, since it does not presuppose the optimized-field results. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to derive. The typo in Sec. III.A comparing quasisymmetry values does not affect circularity.

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

The central feasibility claim rests on the flux-freezing model for induced currents, the neglect of Meissner and plasma-coupling physics, and a set of hand-chosen design parameters (coil counts, turn numbers, force limits, objective weights). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • PSC array size (number of coils per half-field-period) = 25 (Landreman-Paul QA), 19 (QH), 6 (Schuett-Henneberg QA), 1 (CSX)
    Chosen by hand for each case; impacts achievable error and coil complexity.
  • Coil radii / shapes = Optimized ranges: 1.14-2.49 m (QA); fixed 1.23 m (QH); 3.26 m (SH); optimized planar shape (CSX)
    Optimization variables, not derived; final values depend on initial conditions and objectives.
  • Objective weights and thresholds = Not fully specified; user-tuned trade-offs between field error, coil length, forces
    The paper states the tuning 'will depend on tradeoff preferences' (Sec. IV). Different weights yield different designs.
  • Number of wire turns = 100 turns (PSC), 200 turns (TF)
    Assumed for force and current calculations; currents scale inversely with turns; forces depend on this.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Zero-resistance flux-freezing: induced currents keep total magnetic flux through each superconducting loop zero, yielding LI + Ψ = 0 (Eq. 2).
    Central physical model for PSC currents; valid in the magnetostatic limit after transient decay.
  • domain assumption Meissner effect can be neglected; appendix argues subdominant for uniform background fields and Type-I superconductors.
    If significant, especially for Type-II HTS tapes, the actual currents and fields would differ from the optimization.
  • domain assumption Plasma-coil coupling is ignored, following standard stellarator optimization practice.
    Acknowledged in Sec. I.A; long-timescale coupling between passive coil currents and plasma currents cannot be removed by controllers, but no time-dependent analysis is included.
  • standard math Coils are modeled as thin filaments with self/mutual inductance, with self-inductance for circular or rectangular cross-sections (Refs. [27,28]).
    Standard Biot-Savart and inductance formulas; adequate for optimization but ignores conductor details.
  • domain assumption The target plasma equilibrium is given and fixed; the inverse problem minimizes B·n error on that surface (Eq. 3).
    The design objective assumes the prescribed equilibrium is the desired outcome and achievable by coils.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization of passive superconductors for shaping stellarator magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7SKAMMU

@misc{pith2026250112468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization of passive superconductors for shaping stellarator magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7SKAMMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12468}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the novel problem of optimizing a large set of passive superconducting coils (PSCs) with currents induced by a background magnetic field rather than power supplies. In the nuclear fusion literature, such coils have been proposed to partially produce the 3D magnetic fields for stellarators and provide passive stabilization. We perform the first optimizations of PSC arrays with respect to the orientation, shape, and location of each coil, jointly minimized with the background fields. We conclude by generating passive coil array solutions for four stellarators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: PSC array solution for the two-field-period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Poincar´e plot for the Landreman-Paul QA coil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: PSC array solution for the two-field-period QA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Poincar´e plot for the Schuett-Henneberg coil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: PSC array solution for the two-field-period QA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Poincar´e plot for the CSX coil design shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Geometry of a finite-cross section circular coil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Reactor-scale stellarators with force and torque minimized dipole coils

    physics.plasm-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Jointly optimizing movable planar dipole arrays with force and torque penalties produces reactor-scale stellarator coil sets with tolerable loads and simple TF coils.

  2. Agentic Stage-One Stellarator Optimization: Autonomous Multi-Objective Search for Finite-Beta Equilibria

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM-controlled outer loop around the DESC solver improved finite-beta stellarator designs, boosting gate-valid configurations from 5 of 23 to 19 of 23, with median quasisymmetry error cut roughly in half.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. S. Hidalgo-Tobon, Theory of gradient coil design meth- ods for magnetic resonance imaging, Concepts in Mag- netic Resonance Part A 36, 223 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Steckner, Electromagnetic computation and modeling in MRI, Medical Physics 44, 1186 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    C. Z. Cooley, M. W. Haskell, S. F. Cauley, C. Sappo, C. D. Lapierre, C. G. Ha, J. P. Stockmann, and L. L. Wald, Design of sparse Halbach magnet arrays for portable MRI using a genetic algorithm, IEEE transac- tions on magnetics 54, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Z. H. Ren, W. C. Mu, and S. Y. Huang, Design and optimization of a ring-pair permanent magnet array for head imaging in a low-field portable MRI system, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 55, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Russenschuck, Field computation for accelerator mag- nets: analytical and numerical methods for electromag- netic design and optimization(John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    S. Russenschuck, Field computation for accelerator mag- nets: analytical and numerical methods for electromag- netic design and optimization(John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    J. F. Gieras, Permanent magnet motor technology: de- sign and applications(CRC press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Bekers and E

    D. Bekers and E. Lepelaars, Degaussing system de- sign optimization, in Proc. 8th Int. Marine Electromagn. Conf.-MARELEC (2013) pp. 16–19

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Robin and F

    R. Robin and F. A. Volpe, Minimization of magnetic forces on stellarator coils, Nuclear Fusion 62, 086041 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    C. Zhu, S. R. Hudson, Y. Song, and Y. Wan, New method to design stellarator coils without the winding surface, Nuclear Fusion 58, 016008 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Imbert-G´ erard, E

    L.-M. Imbert-G´ erard, E. J. Paul, and A. M. Wright, An Introduction to Stellarators: From Magnetic Fields to Symmetries and Optimization(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Erckmann, H.-J

    V. Erckmann, H.-J. Hartfuss, M. Kick, H. Renner, J. Sapper, F. Schauer, E. Speth, F. Wesner, F. Wagner, M. Wanner, et al., The W7-X project: Scientific basis and technical realization, in 17th IEEE/NPSS Sympo- sium Fusion Engineering, Vol. 1 (IEEE, 1997) pp. 40–48

    1997

  4. [12]

    Strykowsky, T

    R. Strykowsky, T. Brown, J. Chrzanowski, M. Cole, P. Heitzenroeder, G. H. Neilson, D. Rej, and M. Viol, Engineering cost & schedule lessons learned on NCSX, in 2009 23rd IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion Engi- neering (IEEE, 2009) pp. 1–4

    2009

  5. [13]

    T. Qian, D. Bishop, A. Chambliss, A. Dominguez, C. Pagano, D. Seidita, M. Zarnstorff, and C. Zhu, Stel- larator fields without stellarator coils: MUSE a table top PM stellarator, Bulletin of the American Physical Society 66 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    T. Qian, M. Zarnstorff, D. Bishop, A. Chamblis, A. Dominguez, C. Pagano, D. Patch, and C. Zhu, Simpler optimized stellarators using permanent magnets, Nuclear Fusion 62, 084001 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    T. Qian, X. Chu, C. Pagano, D. Patch, M. Zarnstorff, B. Berlinger, D. Bishop, A. Chambliss, M. Haque, D. Sei- dita, et al., Design and construction of the MUSE perma- nent magnet stellarator, Journal of Plasma Physics 89, 955890502 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hammond, C

    K. Hammond, C. Zhu, T. Brown, K. Corrigan, D. Gates, and M. Sibilia, Geometric concepts for stellarator perma- nent magnet arrays, Nuclear Fusion 60, 106010 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, R. Conlin, and M. Landreman, Greedy permanent magnet optimization, Nuclear Fusion 63, 036016 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, T. Qian, F. Wechsung, and M. Lan- dreman, Permanent-magnet optimization for stellarators as sparse regression, Physical Review Applied 18, 044006 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Hammond and A

    K. Hammond and A. Kaptanoglu, Improved stellarator permanent magnet designs through combined discrete and continuous optimizations, Computer Physics Com- munications , 109127 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    G. Yu, K. Liu, T. Qian, Y. Xie, X. Nie, and C. Zhu, Quasi-single-stage optimization for permanent magnet stellarators, Nuclear Fusion (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gates, S

    D. Gates, S. Aslam, B. Berzin, A. Cote, D. Dudt, D. Fort, A. Koen, T. Kruger, S. Kumar, M. Martin, et al., Thea Energy: Reinventing the stellarator, in APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2023 (2023) pp. CM06–010

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zarnstorff, A

    M. Zarnstorff, A. Bhattacharjee, R. Carty, and S. Team, The Stellarex Path to a Stellarator Fusion Pilot Plant, in APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2023 (2023) pp. CM06–009

    2023

  15. [23]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, A. Wiedman, J. Halpern, S. Hurwitz, E. J. Paul, and M. Landreman, Reactor-scale stellara- tors with force and torque minimized dipole coils, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13937 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Helander, M

    P. Helander, M. Drevlak, M. Zarnstorff, and S. Cowley, Stellarators with permanent magnets, Physical review letters 124, 095001 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Landreman, B

    M. Landreman, B. Medasani, F. Wechsung, A. Giuliani, R. Jorge, and C. Zhu, SIMSOPT: A flexible framework for stellarator optimization, Journal of Open Source Soft- ware 6, 3525 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Bromberg, M

    L. Bromberg, M. Zarnstorff, O. Meneghini, T. Brown, P. Heitzenroeder, G. Neilson, J. Minervini, and A. Boozer, Stellarator configuration improvement using high temperature superconducting monoliths, Fusion Sci- ence and Technology 60, 643 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Landreman, S

    M. Landreman, S. Hurwitz, and T. M. Antonsen Jr, Ef- ficient calculation of self magnetic field, self-force, and self-inductance for electromagnetic coils. II. Rectangular cross-section, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12087 (2023). 9

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hurwitz, M

    S. Hurwitz, M. Landreman, and T. M. Antonsen, Effi- cient calculation of the self-magnetic field, self-force, and self-inductance for electromagnetic coils, IEEE Transac- tions on Magnetics 60, 1 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization, Mathematical pro- gramming 45, 503 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Bradbury, James and Frostig, Roy and Hawkins, Pe- ter and Johnson, Matthew James and Leary, Chris and Maclaurin, Dougal and Necula, George and Paszke, Adam and VanderPlas, Jake and Wanderman-Milne, Skye, JAX: composable transformations of Python+ NumPy programs, (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Landreman and E

    M. Landreman and E. Paul, Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement, Physical Review Letters 128, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    T. M. Schuett and S. A. Henneberg, Exploring novel compact quasi-axisymmetric stellarators, Physical Re- view Research 6, L042052 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Baillod, E

    A. Baillod, E. Paul, G. Rawlinson, M. Haque, S. Freiberger, and S. Thapa, Integrating Novel Stel- larator Single-Stage Optimization Algorithms to Design the Columbia Stellarator Experiment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05261 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Najmabadi, A

    F. Najmabadi, A. Raffray, S. Abdel-Khalik, L. Bromberg, L. Crosatti, L. El-Guebaly, P. Garabedian, A. Grossman, D. Henderson, A. Ibrahim, et al., The ARIES-CS com- pact stellarator fusion power plant, Fusion Science and Technology 54, 655 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Z. S. Hartwig, R. F. Vieira, B. N. Sorbom, R. A. Bad- cock, M. Bajko, W. K. Beck, B. Castaldo, C. L. Craighill, M. Davies, J. Estrada, et al., VIPER: an industrially scal- able high-current high-temperature superconductor ca- ble, Superconductor Science and Technology 33, 11LT...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Z. Zhao, P. Moore, and L. Chiesa, Structural modeling of REBCO VIPER cable for high-field magnet applications, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 32, 1 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    N. Riva, R. Granetz, R. Vieira, A. Hubbard, A. Pfeiffer, P. Harris, C. Chamberlain, Z. Hartwig, A. Watterson, D. Anderson, et al., Development of the first non-planar REBCO stellarator coil using VIPER cable, Supercon- ductor Science and Technology 36, 105001 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Z. S. Hartwig, R. F. Vieira, D. Dunn, T. Golfinopoulos, B. LaBombard, C. J. Lammi, P. C. Michael, S. Agabian, D. Arsenault, R. Barnett, et al., The SPARC toroidal field model coil program, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    X. Xu, S. Tao, Y. Shi, H. Ma, H. Han, H. Liu, F. Liu, and J. Qin, Double casing conductor designed for high mechanical stress in fusion devices, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Hammond, A framework for discrete optimization of stellarator coils, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00267 (2024)

    K. Hammond, A framework for discrete optimization of stellarator coils, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00267 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wechsung, M

    F. Wechsung, M. Landreman, A. Giuliani, A. Cerfon, and G. Stadler, Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2202084119 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    F. S. B. Anderson, A. F. Almagri, D. T. Anderson, P. G. Matthews, J. N. Talmadge, and J. L. Shohet, The he- lically symmetric experiment, (HSX) goals, design and status, Fusion Technology 27, 273 (1995)

    1995

  35. [43]

    A. F. Almagri, D. T. Anderson, F. S. B. Anderson, P. H. Probert, J. L. Shohet, and J. N. Talmadge, A he- lically symmetric stellarator (HSX), IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 27, 114 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Wiedman, S

    A. Wiedman, S. Buller, and M. Landreman, Coil opti- mization for quasi-helically symmetric stellarator con- figurations, Journal of Plasma Physics 90, 905900307 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discover- ing governing equations from data by sparse identifica- tion of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3932 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, C. Hansen, J. D. Lore, M. Landreman, and S. L. Brunton, Sparse regression for plasma physics, Physics of Plasmas 30, 033906 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, G. P. Langlois, and M. Landre- man, Topology optimization for inverse magnetostatics as sparse regression: Application to electromagnetic coils for stellarators, Computer Methods in Applied Mechan- ics and Engineering 418, 116504 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    T. S. Pedersen, A. H. Boozer, J. P. Kremer, R. G. Lefran- cois, W. T. Reiersen, F. Dahlgren, and N. Pomphrey, The Columbia Nonneutral Torus: a new experiment to con- fine nonneutral and positron-electron plasmas in a stel- larator, Fusion science and technology 46, 200 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Zaitsev, R

    A. Zaitsev, R. Schneider, G. Linker, F. Ratzel, R. Smithey, P. Schweiss, J. Geerk, R. Schwab, and R. Hei- dinger, Microwave measurements of the absolute London penetration depth in double-sided YBa2Cu3O7-x thin films on sapphire, Review of scientific instruments 73, 335 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Sundaram, Y

    A. Sundaram, Y. Zhang, A. Knoll, D. Abraimov, P. Brownsey, M. Kasahara, G. Carota, R. Nakasaki, J. Cameron, G. Schwab, et al., 2G HTS wires made on 30 µm thick Hastelloy substrate, Superconductor Science and Technology 29, 104007 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.