Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Runaway electron-induced plasma facing component damage in tokamaks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that runaway-electron impacts are among the most dangerous and least understood threats to tokamak walls, and that predicting them requires one integrated chain from beam formation to material response.

desk verdict A valuable synthetic roadmap on runaway-electron wall damage; the ITER damage numbers are honest upper-bound estimates, not robust predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10411 v1 pith:Y7HYKJQD submitted 2025-06-12 physics.plasm-ph physics.app-ph

S. Ratynskaia , M. Hoelzl , E. Nardon , P. Aleynikov , F.J. Artola , V. Bandaru , M. Beidler , B. Breizman
show 26 more authors
D. del-Castillo-Negrete M. De Angeli V. Dimitriou R. Ding J. Eriksson O. Ficker R.S. Granetz E. Hollmann M. Hoppe M. Houry I. Jepu H.R. Koslowski C. Liu J.R. Martin-Solis G. Pautasso Y. Peneliau R.A. Pitts G.I. Pokol C. Reux U. Sheikh S.A. Silburn T. Tang R.A. Tinguely P. Tolias E. Tomesova R. Villari
This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.app-ph
keywords runawayelectronstokamakdisruptionsplasma-facingcomponentsITERthermomechanicaldamageelectromagneticshowersimulationbenignterminationcontrolledwallexperiments
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

The paper is a community roadmap arguing that runaway-electron (RE) impacts are among the most dangerous and least understood threats to the plasma-facing components (PFCs) of next-generation tokamaks, and that safe operation of ITER and DEMO requires treating RE beam physics, transport to the wall, and thermomechanical material response as a single coupled chain rather than separate disciplines. It collects evidence from several tokamaks showing that RE impacts can melt, splatter, and explosively fragment both metallic and brittle components, and it argues that the field is now mature enough to build and validate an integrated predictive workflow, especially as controlled RE-damage experiments begin. If this premise is right, the payoff is the ability to design resilient walls, sacrificial limiters, and mitigation strategies, including the "benign termination" of RE beams by deuterium injection, that keep future reactors operational. The paper's severity estimate for ITER, however, rests on a narrow scrape-off impact assumption that the authors themselves flag as uncertain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is an integrated modeling chain that couples beam-formation and transport codes, magnetic field-line tracing to map impact locations, Monte Carlo simulation of the relativistic electron shower inside the material, and finite-element thermomechanical response calculations. The central quantitative object is the volumetric energy deposition profile of multi-MeV electrons in tungsten and graphite: unlike the surface heating of ordinary plasma contact, RE energy is deposited over millimeter-to-centimeter depths with a maximum below the surface, which is what triggers internal stress buildup, brittle fragmentation, deep melting, and coolant-interface heating. A second key distinction is between scrape-off and stochastic impact classes, since the wetted area and incidence angle are what convert a given RE beam energy into a wall heat load.

What would settle it

A controlled RE strike on an instrumented tungsten tile, such as the planned experiments at WEST and ASDEX Upgrade, that measures the wetted area, deposited energy, and resulting melt depth would settle the central uncertainty. A much broader wetted area than the 4 mm scrape-off assumption, with melt depths well below 0.5 mm, would overturn the severe ITER baseline; a narrow footprint with melt depths in the 0.5–1.5 mm range would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that RE-induced PFC damage cannot be predicted by studying RE generation or wall materials in isolation. The complete story runs from the beam's current density, energy, and pitch-angle distribution; through its orbit transport in possibly stochastic three-dimensional magnetic fields; into the volumetric electromagnetic shower the relativistic electrons create inside the wall; and finally to the thermomechanical response of the component, including melting, vaporization, brittle failure, and debris ejection. The paper argues that this chain is becoming predictive and that the key open question is which of two impact classes occurs: a scrape-off impact on intact flux surfaces, which concentrates energy in a narrow footprint, or a stochastic impact, in which MHD-driven magnetic stochasticity spreads the load and can make the termination benign. For ITER, the narrow scrape-off assumption yields 150–200 kJ per tungsten panel and melt depths of 0.5–1.5 mm, while stochastic deposition spreads the same energy over much larger areas and reduces damage sharply. The roadmap therefore calls for controlled, well-instrumented experiments, first on graphite and then on tungsten, to decide which class dominates.

Load-bearing premise

The severity of the ITER damage projection rests on the assumption that an RE beam would hit the wall in a scrape-off impact with a 4 mm beam width and a 5 degree grazing angle; this is an assumption the paper itself flags as uncertain, since magnetic stochasticity could broaden the deposition and sharply reduce the damage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the integrated workflow is validated, ITER can size tungsten armor thickness and sacrificial limiters from predicted RE loads rather than from worst-case guesses.
  • Benign termination via deuterium injection could become a dependable mitigation strategy if models can predict the neutral-pressure window and MHD stochasticity required at reactor scale.
  • The first controlled RE-damage experiments on graphite and the planned tungsten campaigns will provide the empirical constraints needed to confirm or correct the thermomechanical models.
  • Photonuclear activation of tungsten can serve as a post-mortem diagnostic that records where, how wide, and at what angle a RE beam struck the wall.
  • Predicting whether an impact is scrape-off-like or stochastic-like is a necessary input for deciding how many RE impacts ITER's first wall can tolerate before panel replacement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If stochastic impacts turn out to be the norm, the ITER risk calculus shifts from "a handful of impacts may be intolerable" toward "impacts are survivable when benign termination is triggered," making MHD stochasticity the highest-leverage research target.
  • The same volumetric-deposition-to-thermomechanics logic could screen other intense particle loads, for example high-energy electron beams in material-testing facilities, using the ratio of deposition depth to component size as a quick severity criterion.
  • Activation maps from gamma spectroscopy on existing machines could be mined as low-cost, wide-area impact diagnostics, turning accidental RE strikes into calibration events for integrated models.
  • The benign-termination scenario rests on an extrapolation from present devices to ITER's much larger avalanche gain; a dedicated experiment measuring whether re-avalanching occurs after a partial stochastic termination would test that extrapolation directly.
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 Roadmap article surveys the state of the art and open challenges in runaway-electron (RE) induced plasma-facing component (PFC) damage in tokamaks. It collects evidence from JET, DIII-D, TCV, COMPASS, TEXTOR, Tore Supra/WEST, EAST, FTU, and Alcator C-Mod; reviews RE diagnostics; describes reduced and high-fidelity models for RE beam formation, transport, and wall impact; discusses Monte Carlo and finite-element modeling of thermomechanical PFC response; outlines neutron production and activation; and closes with ITER and DEMO perspectives. The central argument is that RE impacts pose a severe and still poorly understood threat to ITER and DEMO, and that safe operation requires a holistic, validated modeling chain from RE beam formation through volumetric wall deposition to thermomechanical PFC response.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, the paper identifies a timely and important gap: existing RE generation and transport models and PFC thermomechanical models have matured separately, but their integration for reactor-relevant damage predictions is immature. The roadmap is valuable as a community-wide status assessment, especially because it includes explicit references to recent controlled experiments (DIII-D graphite, planned AUG/WEST tungsten), a clear hierarchy of modeling tools, and candid statements of missing validation. Its quantitative ITER damage estimates, however, are not yet robust enough to carry the full weight of the urgency argument; the paper would be strengthened by a systematic sensitivity analysis of the impact parameters and by an explicit statement of the uncertainty in the tungsten response model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 10; Fig. 29] The ITER damage estimates are computed with a fixed worst-case impact geometry: beam width Δ_RE = 4 mm, 5° grazing incidence, and exponential energy spectrum with E0 = 15 MeV. The manuscript itself states in the Introduction (Classification of possible impact scenarios) that "it is presently not fully clear what type of impacts take place in existing devices or are to be expected in future ones." The only broad-deposition case presented is a single JOREK termination scenario (26 MeV, v∥/v = 0.99, 24 MJ over 1 ms), which yields 1.1 mm melt and 28 µm vaporization; this is not a sensitivity scan over beam width, incidence angle, energy spectrum, or termination timescale. Since melt depth and CuCrZr interface heating depend strongly on deposited energy density, the severity and urgency claims are not robust to the unresolved scrape-off versus stochastic impact question. Please add a parametric study over these parameters or explicitly frame the Sec. 10 numbers as one end of a wide uncertainty range rather than as the expected outcome.
  2. [Secs. 8 and 10] The tungsten thermomechanical model used for the ITER melt-depth and interface-temperature predictions is not validated in the regime of interest. Section 8 states that "Modeling of RE-driven damage in W, which is ductile at elevated temperatures with a stable liquid phase, remains to be addressed," and notes that progress has been impeded by the absence of controlled RE-impact experiments on tungsten. The MEMENTO-based results in Sec. 10 therefore rely on material response calculations that have not been benchmarked against dedicated RE-driven W damage data. The roadmap should either present these as preliminary worst-case estimates accompanied by a clear validation roadmap, or explicitly condition the armour-thickness recommendations on the outcomes of the planned AUG/WEST 2025 experiments.
  3. [Secs. 6 and 10] The 24 MJ kinetic-energy assumption used in the Sec. 10 damage estimates appears to be at the low end of the energy range that the paper itself predicts for ITER terminations. Section 6 reports reduced-model results in which up to 100–150 MJ of poloidal magnetic energy is converted into RE kinetic energy and deposited on the wall during scraping-off and final collapse, depending on the RE loss time and termination speed. The text notes that ITER RE beams "may in fact deposit substantially more energy than assumed," but this possibility is not propagated into the damage numbers. Please state whether the 150–200 kJ/FWP and 0.5–1.5 mm melt-depth figures are lower bounds, upper bounds, or central estimates, and quantify how a factor-of-several increase in deposited energy would change the conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The word "wholistic" appears in the Introduction and should be "holistic."
  2. [Sec. 9] Typographical errors: "FFig. 25" should be "Fig. 25," and "An dedicated experimen" should be "A dedicated experiment."
  3. [Sec. 10] The discussion of the broad JOREK deposition case would benefit from a direct reference to Fig. 22, since the reader is asked to compare the two deposition patterns without a cross-reference.
  4. [Sec. 6, Eq. (10)] The expression sin Θ_PFC = −cos θ_GC sin η sin χ + sin θ_GC cos η is a useful definition, but the text does not explain how the gyroaverage of this quantity enters the wetted-area formula A_w = πr_L^2/sin θ_GC; a short derivation or citation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Roadmap contains no circular derivation; ITER damage estimates are conditional scenario calculations with explicitly stated inputs, and the modeling self-citations point to independently published, validated workflows.

full rationale

This is a roadmap/review article, not a derivation of a new quantitative result, so there is no claimed prediction that reduces by construction to its inputs. The ITER damage numbers in Section 10 are explicitly conditional: the beam energy distribution, 4 mm beam width, and 5° grazing angle are stated as assumptions, and the paper itself acknowledges the unresolved scrape-off vs stochastic impact-type uncertainty and shows a broader JOREK-based deposition case. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the damage estimates follow from Monte Carlo and heat-conduction models with stated inputs. The many self-citations (JOREK, DREAM, KORC, DINA-SMITER-GEANT4-MEMENTO) reference prior published code developments and validation efforts, including against DIII-D graphite experiments and JET post-mortem analysis, so they constitute independent evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation loop. The paper also explicitly flags gaps, e.g., that modeling of RE-driven W damage remains to be addressed, which further indicates that the severity claim is not being asserted as a derived consequence of a closed self-referential chain. No circular step satisfying the quoted-equation reduction test was found.

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

As a roadmap, the paper introduces no new entities or measured constants. Its forward-looking ITER numbers do depend on explicitly chosen modeling inputs, the 4 mm beam width, 5 degree incidence, and 15 MeV exponential spectrum, which are treated here as free parameters because they are assumed rather than measured or fitted. The axioms are the standard physics frameworks the roadmap inherits from the cited literature.

free parameters (4)
  • ITER predicted RE beam width Delta_RE = 4 mm
    Section 10: assumed fixed at the Larmor radius of 15 MeV electrons. This directly controls the deposition energy density of 150-200 kJ per first wall panel.
  • ITER predicted RE incidence angle = 5 degrees grazing
    Section 10: assumed for all electrons based on DINA field geometry. Controls volumetric deposition depth and melt depth.
  • ITER predicted RE energy spectrum scale E0 = 15 MeV exponential
    Section 10: assumed exponential with E0 = 15 MeV over a 1-50 MeV range. This drives the deposition and activation calculations.
  • Avalanche amplification coefficient alpha_av = 1 MA^-1
    Section 10: used to estimate RE seed amplification in ITER as 10^(alpha_av * Ip). Taken from cited literature rather than measured in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Relativistic Fokker-Planck kinetics with Dreicer, hot-tail, and avalanche sources adequately describes runaway generation in ITER-scale disruptions.
    Sections 5 and 6 assume this framework for all RE predictions. It is standard in the field but remains challenging to validate in reactor conditions.
  • domain assumption Force-free vertical stability models (0D ring models) and 1D resistive current diffusion capture VDE dynamics and scraping-off for ITER.
    Section 6: used to quantify magnetic-to-kinetic energy conversion and scrape-off losses. The paper notes these models have not been systematically validated with halo currents.
  • standard math CSDA stopping powers and Monte Carlo cross-sections in Geant4, FLUKA, or MCNP are adequate for computing volumetric energy deposition in tungsten and graphite.
    Section 8: the entire thermomechanical damage workflow depends on these transport calculations.
  • domain assumption Photonuclear reaction data for tungsten (ENDF, JENDL, TENDL) are sufficiently accurate for activation assessments above 8 MeV.
    Section 9: activation estimates rely on these libraries, and the paper itself calls for validation of photonuclear data for fusion-relevant isotopes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Runaway electron-induced plasma facing component damage in tokamaks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7HYKJQD

@misc{pith2026250610411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Runaway electron-induced plasma facing component damage in tokamaks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7HYKJQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10411}
}
read the original abstract

This Roadmap article addresses the critical and multifaceted challenge of plasma-facing component (PFC) damage caused by runaway electrons (REs) in tokamaks, a phenomenon that poses a significant threat to the viability and longevity of future fusion reactors such as ITER and DEMO. The dramatically increased RE production expected in future high-current tokamaks makes it difficult to avoid or mitigate REs when a plasma discharge terminates abnormally. Preventing damage from the intense localised heat loads REs can cause requires a holistic approach that considers plasma, REs and PFC damage. Despite decades of progress in understanding the physics of REs and the thermomechanical response of PFCs, their complex interplay remains poorly understood. This document aims to initiate a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to bridge this gap by reviewing experimental evidence, advancing diagnostic capabilities, and improving modelling tools across different scales, dimensionalities and fidelities. Key topics include RE beam formation and transport, damage mechanisms in brittle and metallic PFCs, and observations in major facilities such as JET, DIII-D, WEST and EAST. The Roadmap emphasises the urgency of predictive, high-fidelity modelling validated against well-diagnosed controlled experiments, particularly in the light of recent changes in ITER's wall material strategy and the growing importance of private sector initiatives. Each section of the article is written to provide a concise overview of one area of this multidisciplinary subject, with an assessment of the status, a look at current and future challenges, and a brief summary. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to guide future mitigation strategies and design resilient components that can withstand the loads imposed by REs, thus ensuring the safe and sustainable operation of the next generation of fusion power plants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RE-induced damage of a stainless steel antenna from 1983 ASDEX experiments on Lower Hybrid Heating [53, 54] due to ≥5 MeV electrons that also caused nuclear material activation. Courtesy of Dr. F. Leuterer. Classification of possible impact scenarios RE beam impacts are typically associated to their motion towards PFCs, which can be either intentional or due to a loss of position control. There then seems to exist t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heat load distribution during the disruption of JET pulse no. 68782. Over-exposed overview frame for visualization (a) and temperature rise at the upper dump plate due to runaway impact (b). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [72]. Similar type of dump plate damage induced by REs was also discussed in Ref. [73]. In this work it was noted that for 17 JET pulses studied, the red localized spots, similar to those sho… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (27 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of RE-induced tile damage on the IWGL (a) and images of the two most affected tiles, (b) and (c). Reproduced with permission from Ref. [76]. disruptions events affecting the UDPs [20, 81]. Given the limited camera resolution and that these observed droplets are clo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 3D profiling reconstructed damage of Be tile (shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RE damage to sacrificial graphite limiter in DIII-D showing: IR image of resulting dust cloud (a), visible image of undamaged graphite limiter (b) , and confocal microscope image of damaged limiter (c) . Reprint with permission from Refs. [4, 42] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cherenkov probe on TCV before (left) and after (right) RE impact during a VDE of a 250 kA current plasma with significant RE population. Melting observed on the molybdenum-based alloy spacer plates. experimental focus on RE studies. Following massive material injection…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of RE-induced damage of components from COMPASS. Damage to the recessed roof-shaped (RR) graphite limiter (a). Reprint with permission from Ref. [97]. Debris release during RE termination at the graphite RR tile in discharge 14494 (b). Craters on a carbon Lang…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Runaway electron impact on Tore Supra carbon limiter. Courtesy of C. Reux. Tore Supra / WEST. Tore Supra was known for extensive RE production and seconds-long RE beams. The carbon-fiber composite wall absorbed most RE impacts, usually leading to dust release, as show…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: WEST inner limiter PJ5 damaged by multiple RE impacts, along with a zoom-in of the worse damaged tile B6 and its profilometry showing 1 mm deep material loss. Courtesy of M. Diez. outboard) covered with EK98 graphite were utilized to control the plasma boundary and pr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: C-Mod SXR signal cables damaged by a RE strike copper, Teflon, and fiberglass had been blasted out of the SXR signal cables. Replacement signal cables had to be fabricated and installed in order to return the SXR tomography system back to full performance. Regarding R…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example of an RE-induced explosion event in FTU. Debris trajectories recorded by VIS camera during shot 37761 (a). Damaged Mo-based tiles from the poloidal limiter showing several mm deep melting and layer de-attachment damage, (b)-(c). SEM images of craters, found on…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: RE-induced damage of W tiles of WEST outer limiter (a). Courtesy of M. Diez. The trailing edge of W monoblocks on the WEST divertor hit by REs, observations after the C3 campaign (b). Reprint with permission from Ref. [116]. of the molten tungsten limiter. In EAST, RE…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: RE-induced damages in EAST main limiter. a) Hot spot and W splashing viewed by CCD camera; b) surface morphology of melting main limiter and c) cross section morphology of the melting region. RE damages of PFCs. Nevertheless, a dedicated investigation on RE-material i…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The RE diagnostics classification. Principles highlighted in red are covered in this section. IR thermography. Infra-red (IR) imaging is a valuable diagnostic for measuring the spatial structure of heat loads on plasma-facing components (PFCs) [125– 127], and is widel…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: HXR time trace showing steady plasma emission initially and then a huge spike at the main RE impact event (a). Integral over the wall impact spike as a function of outer midplane detector toroidal position with approximate fit (b) . comparison of steady state and term…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: RE impact on graphite limiter as a pitch angle θp diagnostics: graphite limiter damage from RE impact (a) and modelling the graphite material failure, (b) and (c) . The model assumed REs with a single initial kinetic energy and pitch, the best matching parameters are …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: illustrates the results of IR analysis of RE impact on the DIII-D divertor shelf where these challenges have been taken into account [134] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: M3D-C1 simulation of a termination in the DIII-D tokamak. The time evolution of the RE density distribution is shown in color along with a Poincar´e plot visualizing the dynamically changing magnetic field topology. Reprint with permission from Ref. [203]. to perform …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: shows both the loss of REs during a termination event in ITER and the resulting loads to 3D walls from such a calculation. The methodically comparable work on EU-DEMO [309] also assesses the efficiency of sacrificial limiters in protecting the wall from excessive RE l…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Geant4 results (with various scattering implemen￾tations) for the plane averaged energy density profiles of 20 MeV electrons impacting W at normal (90◦) to shallow (3◦) angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Comparison of Geant4 deposition profiles, for 20 MeV electrons impacting W at normal (90◦) and shallow (10◦) angles, with a least-square and a CSDA-based exponential decay. was pointed out already in the 1990s [333, 336, 340]. The B-field presence outside the PFC impl…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Infrared view of a RE beam impact in WEST for pulse #58005 (a). Post mortem measurement of decay gammas in the monoblocks of the Plasma Facing Unit #469 on the lower divertor of WEST possibly due to multiple impacts (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: shows key parameters recorded during pulse #58005, where a RE event occurred. The plasma current features a plateau after the start of the disruption, indicating a RE beam duration of about 10 ms. Then the RE beam crashes onto the divertor, causing the current to drop…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Spectroscopy of the WEST PFCs The activation in W is a 2-step process. The RE impact can produce high energy bremsstrahlung photons due to slowing down of the REs. Then, high energy photons can have photonuclear reactions with the nuclei of the material: (X,n) reactio…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Activation rate map in W for 12 MeV electrons impinging tangentially (a) or normally (b) for a 5 mm voxel size. Activation rate map in W for 30 MeV electrons for a 0.05 mm voxel size in Z axis and 5 mm in other axes (c) . Reaction rate profile corresponding to the for…
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Composite describing the key input parameters for the new RE impact simulations performed with the DINA-SMITER￾GEANT4-MEMENTO code workflow: (a) DINA simulation (IMAS disruption database shot 100097, run 1) including RE conversion during an upward going CQ at 15 MA, 5…
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Representative RE current (linear) vs. assimilated material (logarithmic). The cases marked with ”H” (hydrogen) correspond to scenarios without activated RE sources (Compton and tritium), while the DT scenarios contain all source (except the orange diamonds). Note tha…
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Almost 75% of the plasma current is converted into RE current during the disruption, with RE seeds of tens of kA leading to ∼10.6 MA of RE current when 90% RE seed loss is considered. However, even with 99.9% loss of the RE seed, the RE current is estimated to be ∼8 M…
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Monte Carlo simulations of RE deposited energy density (normalized to 1 kJ total energy) within a cross-sectional cut of a realistic SPARC plasma facing component [460]. The incoming REs (10 MeV, zero pitch angle) are indicated by black arrows. Magnetic field inclinat…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Wall damage due to oblique high velocity dust impacts

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Crater depth from 63 um W-on-W dust impacts at 2-3 km/s scales as the cosine of the angle from the surface normal, independent of impact speed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

294 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Federici, C

    G. Federici, C. Skinner, J. Brooks, J. Coad et al. 2001 Nuclear Fusion 41 1967 URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/218

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/41/12/218 2001

  2. [2]

    Bandaru, M

    V. Bandaru, M. Hoelzl, H. Bergstr¨ om, F. Artola et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 076053 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad50ea

    doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad50ea 2024

  3. [3]

    Bergstr¨ om, K

    H. Bergstr¨ om, K. S¨ arkim¨ aki, V. Bandaru, M. M. Skyllas et al. 2024 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66(9) 095001 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6587/ad5fb5

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ratynskaia, P

    S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias, T. Rizzi, K. Paschalidis et al. 2025 Nuclear Fusion 65 024002 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adab05

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adab05 2025

  5. [5]

    The Indirect Drive ICF Collaboration 2024 Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(6) 065102 URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.065102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.065102 2024

  6. [6]

    Maslov, E

    M. Maslov, E. Lerche, F. Auriemma, E. Belli et al. 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63 112002 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ace2d8

    doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ace2d8 2023

  7. [7]

    Dinklage, R

    A. Dinklage, R. Buttery, K. Cromb´ e, A. B. del Cerro Gordo et al. 2025 Plasma Physics Control. Fusion 67 063701 URL https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1361-6587/add621

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/add621 2025

  8. [8]

    Pitts, S

    R. Pitts, S. Bardin, B. Bazylev, M. van den Berg et al. 2017 Nuclear Materials and Energy 12 60– 74 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179116302885

    2017

Show all 294 references
  1. [9]

    Pitts, X

    R. Pitts, X. Bonnin, F. Escourbiac, H. Frerichs et al. 2019 Nuclear Materials and Energy 20 100696 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179119300237

    2019

  2. [10]

    Pitts, A

    R. Pitts, A. Loarte, T. Wauters, M. Dubrov et al. 2025 Nuclear Materials and Energy 42 101854 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179124002771

    2025

  3. [11]

    Krieger, M

    K. Krieger, M. Balden, J. Coenen, F. Laggner et al. 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 026024 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa9a05

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    Ratynskaia, A

    S. Ratynskaia, A. Bortolon and S. Krasheninnikov 2022 Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 6 20 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s41614-022-00081-5

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    Beckers, J

    J. Beckers, J. Berndt, D. Block, M. Bonitz et al. 2023 Physics of Plasmas 30 120601 URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/5.0168088

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Krieger, S

    K. Krieger, S. Brezinsek, J. Coenen, H. Frerichs et al. 2025 Nuclear Fusion 65 043001 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adaf42

    2025 doi

  7. [16]

    Berger, M. J. 1992 ESTAR, PSTAR and ASTAR: computer programs for calculating stopping-power and range tables for electrons, protons and helium ions Tech. rep. Technical Report NISTIR 4999, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    1992

  8. [17]

    Coenen, K

    J. Coenen, K. Krieger, B. Lipschultz, R. Dux et al. 2013 Journal of Nuclear Materials 438 S27–S33 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0022311513000135

    2013

  9. [18]

    J. W. Coenen, G. F. Matthews, K. Krieger, D. Igle- sias et al. 2017 Physica Scripta 2017 014013 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aa8789

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    Krieger, B

    K. Krieger, B. Sieglin, M. Balden, J. W. Coenen et al. 2017 Physica Scripta 2017 014030 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aa8be8

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    I. Jepu, G. Matthews, A. Widdowson, M. Rubel et al. 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59(8) 086009 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ab2076

    2019

  12. [21]

    Corre, A

    Y. Corre, A. Grosjean, J. P. Gunn, K. Krieger et al. 2021 Physica Scripta 96 124057 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac326a

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    Corre, M.-H

    Y. Corre, M.-H. Aumeunier, A. Durif, J. Gas- par et al. 2023 Nuclear Materials and Energy 37 101546 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2352179123001850

    2023

  14. [23]

    Ratynskaia, E

    S. Ratynskaia, E. Thor´ en, P. Tolias, R. A. Pitts et al. 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 104001 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abadac

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    Ratynskaia, E

    S. Ratynskaia, E. Thor´ en, P. Tolias, R. A. Pitts et al. 2021 Physica Scripta 96 124009 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1cf4

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Thor´ en, S

    E. Thor´ en, S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias, R. Pitts et al. 2018 Nuclear Materials and Energy 17 194–199 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S235217911830098X

    2018

  17. [26]

    Thor´ en, S

    E. Thor´ en, S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias, R. A. Pitts et al. 2021 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 035021 URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6587/abd838

    2021

  18. [27]

    Ratynskaia, K

    S. Ratynskaia, K. Paschalidis, P. Tolias, K. Krieger et al. 2022 Nuclear Materials and Energy 33 101303 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179122001843

    2022

  19. [28]

    Ratynskaia, K

    S. Ratynskaia, K. Paschalidis, K. Krieger, L. Vig- nitchouk et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 036012 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad219b

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Paschalidis, S

    K. Paschalidis, S. Ratynskaia, F. Lucco Castello and P. Tolias 2023 Nuclear Materials and Energy 37 101545 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2352179123001849

    2023

  21. [30]

    Paschalidis, F

    K. Paschalidis, F. Lucco Castello, S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias et al. 2024 Fusion Engineering and Design 206 114603 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S092037962400454X

    2024

  22. [31]

    Coburn, E

    J. Coburn, E. Thoren, R. A. Pitts, H. Anand et al. 2020 Physica Scripta 2020 014076 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ab4c6b REFERENCES 55

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Coburn, M

    J. Coburn, M. Lehnen, R. Pitts, E. Thor´ en et al. 2021 Nuclear Materials and Energy 28 101016 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179121000922

    2021

  24. [33]

    Coburn, M

    J. Coburn, M. Lehnen, R. Pitts, G. Simic et al. 2021 Nuclear Fusion 62 016001 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac38c7

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Paschalidis, S

    K. Paschalidis, S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias and R. Pitts 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 126022 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad7f6b

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Lehnen, K

    M. Lehnen, K. Aleynikova, P. Aleynikov, D. Camp- bell et al. 2015 Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 39– 48 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0022311514007594

    2015

  27. [36]

    A. H. Boozer 2015 Physics of Plasmas 22(3) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4913582

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    A. H. Boozer 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 056018 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa6355

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    B. N. Breizman, P. Aleynikov, E. M. Hollmann and M. Lehnen 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59 083001 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab1822

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    C. Reux, C. Paz-Soldan, P. Aleynikov, V. Bandaru et al. 2021 Physical Review Letters 126 175001 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126. 175001

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    Paz-Soldan, C

    C. Paz-Soldan, C. Reux, K. Aleynikova, P. Aleynikov et al. 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 116058 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac2a69

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Loarte, R

    A. Loarte, R. Pitts, T. Wauters, I. Nunes et al. 2024 Initial evaluations in support of the new ITER baseline and Research Plan

    2024

  33. [42]

    E. M. Hollmann, C. Marini, D. L. Rudakov, E. Martinez-Loran et al. 2025 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 67 035020 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1361-6587/adb5b6

    2025 doi

  34. [43]

    Hoppe, O

    M. Hoppe, O. Embreus and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2021 Computer Physics Communications 268 108098 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0010465521002101

    2021

  35. [44]

    J. R. Martin-Solis, A. Loarte and M. Lehnen 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 066025 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/aa6939

    2017 doi

  36. [46]

    Bandaru, M

    V. Bandaru, M. Hoelzl, F. J. Artola, G. Papp et al. 2019 Phys. Rev. E 99(6) 063317 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.063317

    2019 doi

  37. [47]

    Breizman and P

    B. Breizman and P. Aleynikov 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57(12) 125002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/aa8c3f

    2017

  38. [48]

    Vallhagen, L

    O. Vallhagen, L. Hanebring, F. Artola, M. Lehnen et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 086033 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad54d7

    2024 doi

  39. [49]

    TFR 1975 Control

    E. TFR 1975 Control. Fusion and Plasma Physics 1 2

    1975

  40. [50]

    W. C. Barber and W. D. George 1959 Phys. Rev. 116(6) 1551–1559 URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.116.1551

    1959 doi

  41. [51]

    Strachan, E

    J. Strachan, E. Meservey, W. Stodiek, R. Naumann et al. 1977 Nuclear Fusion 17 140 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/17/1/015

    1977 doi

  42. [52]

    Maddaluno and A

    G. Maddaluno and A. Vannucci 1987 Journal of Nuclear Materials 145-147 697–699

    1987

  43. [53]

    Pinkau and et al 1983 Annual report 1983 Tech

    K. Pinkau and et al 1983 Annual report 1983 Tech. rep. Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Plasmaphysik Garching bei M¨ unchen

    1983

  44. [54]

    Leuterer, F

    F. Leuterer, F. Soldner, D. Eckhartt, A. Eberha- gen et al. 1985 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 27 1399 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0741-3335/27/12A/007

    1985

  45. [55]

    Nygren, T

    R. Nygren, T. Lutz, D. Walsh, G. Martin et al. 1997 Journal of Nuclear Materials 241- 243 522–527 URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S002231159780092X

    1997

  46. [56]

    Torre, D

    A. Torre, D. Ciazynski, S. Girard, B. Lacroix et al. 2019 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductiv- ity 29 1–5

    2019

  47. [57]

    L. Chen, R. Pitts and M. Lehnen 2021 5th Asia- Pacific Conference on Plasma Physics, MF2-II4

    2021

  48. [58]

    Keilhacker, M

    M. Keilhacker, M. L. Watkins and JET Team 1999 Journal of Nuclear Materials 266-269 1–13 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(98) 00811-3

    1999 doi

  49. [59]

    Litaudon and et al 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 102001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa5e28

    X. Litaudon and et al 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 102001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa5e28

    2017 doi

  50. [60]

    Loarte, B

    A. Loarte, B. Lipschultz, A. Kukushkin, G. Matthews et al. 2007 Nuclear Fusion 47 S203 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0029-5515/47/6/S04/pdf

    2007

  51. [62]

    J. P. Coad, M. Rubel and C. H. Wu 1997 Journal of Nuclear Materials 241-243 408–413 URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(97)80073-6

    1997 doi

  52. [63]

    G. F. Matthews, P. Edwards, T. Hirai, M. Kear et al. 2007 Physica Scripta T128 137–143 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/2007/T128/027

    2007 doi

  53. [64]

    G. F. Matthews, M. Beurskens, S. Brezinsek, M. Grothand et al. 2011 Physica Scripta 2011(T145) URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/2011/ T145/014001

    2011 doi

  54. [65]

    G. F. Matthews, JET EFDA Contributors and ASDEX-Upgrade Team 2013 Journal of Nuclear Materials 438 S2–S10 URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.282

    2013

  55. [66]

    R. D. Gill, B. Alper, M. de Baar, T. C. Hender et al. 2002 Nuclear Fusion 42(8) 1039–1044 REFERENCES 56

    2002

  56. [67]

    Helander, L.-G

    P. Helander, L.-G. Eriksson and F. Anders- son 2002 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 44(12B) URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0741-3335/44/12B/318

    2002 doi

  57. [68]

    Riccardo, G

    V. Riccardo, G. Arnoux, P. Cahyna, T. C. Hender et al. 2010 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 52(12) 124018 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0741-3335/52/12/124018

    2010 doi

  58. [69]

    V. V. Plyusnin, V. Kiptily, B. Bazylev, A. Shevelev et al. 2012 IAEA FEC EX/P8–05 URL https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/ PDFplus/2012/cn197/cn197_Programme.pdf

    2012

  59. [70]

    R. D. Gill, B. Alper, A. Edwards, M. J. L.C. Ingesson et al. 2000 Nuclear Fusion 40(2) 163 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0029-5515/40/2/302

    2000 doi

  60. [71]

    Hender, J

    T. Hender, J. Wesley, J. Bialek, A. Bondeson et al. 2007 Nuclear Fusion 47 S128 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/6/S03

    2007 doi

  61. [72]

    Lehnen, S

    M. Lehnen, S. Abdullaev, G. Arnoux, S. Bozhenkov et al. 2009 J. Nucl. Mater. 390-391 740–746 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.01.200

    2009 doi

  62. [73]

    Arnoux, B

    G. Arnoux, B. Bazylev, M. Lehnen, A. Loarte et al. 2011 Journal of Nuclear Materials 415 S817–S820 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2010. 11.042

    2011 doi

  63. [74]

    Plyusnin, V

    V. Plyusnin, V. Riccardo, R. Jaspers, B. Alper et al. 2006 Nuclear Fusion 46 277 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/46/2/011

    2006 doi

  64. [75]

    Bazylev, G

    B. Bazylev, G. Arnoux, W. Fundamenski, Y. Igitkhanov et al. 2011 Journal of Nuclear Materials 415 (2011) 415 S841–S844 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0022311510007944

    2011

  65. [76]

    C. Reux, V. Plyusnin, B. Alper, D. Alves et al. 2015 Nuclear Fusion 55 093013 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/9/093013

    2015 doi

  66. [77]

    G. Papp, T. F¨ ul¨ op, T. Feh´ er, P. de Vries et al. 2013 Nuclear Fusion 53(12) 123017 URL https://doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/12/123017

    2013 doi

  67. [78]

    Lehnen, G

    M. Lehnen, G. Arnoux, S. Brezinsek, J. Flanagan et al. 2013 Nuclear Fusion 53(9) 093007 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0029-5515/53/9/093007

    2013

  68. [79]

    C. Reux, V. Plyusnin, B. Alper, D. Alves et al. 2015 Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 143–149 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.10.002

    2015 doi

  69. [80]

    P. C. de Vries, G. Arnoux, A. Huber, J. Flana- gan et al. 2012 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 54 124032 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0741-3335/54/12/124032

    2012 doi

  70. [81]

    I. Jepu, A. Widdowson, G. Matthews, J. Coad et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64(10) 106047 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ad6614

    2024

  71. [82]

    S. Moon, P. Petersson, M. Rubel, E. Fortuna-Zalesna et al. 2019 Nuclear Materials and Energy 19 59– 66 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179118300814?via%3Dihub

    2019

  72. [83]

    Rubel, A

    M. Rubel, A. Widdowson, J. Grzonka, E. Fortuna-Zalesna et al. 2018 Fusion En- gineering and Design 136(Part A) 579–586 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0920379618302370?via%3Dihub

    2018

  73. [84]

    Fortuna-Zale´ sna, S

    E. Fortuna-Zale´ sna, S. M. J. Grzonka, M. Rubel, P. Petersson et al. 2017 Physica Scripta T170(9pp) 014038 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa8ddf

    2017 doi

  74. [85]

    C. Reux, C. Paz-Soldan, P. Aleynikov, V. Bandaru et al. 2021 Physical Review Letters 126 175001 URL https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.175001

    2021 doi

  75. [86]

    Brezinsek, A

    S. Brezinsek, A. Widdowson, M. Mayer, V. Philipps et al. 2015 Nuclear Fusion 55(6) 063021 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0029-5515/55/6/063021

    2015

  76. [87]

    Hollmann, P

    E. Hollmann, P. Parks and H. D. et al 2011 Nuclear Fusion 53 103026

    2011

  77. [88]

    E. M. Hollmann, I. Bykov, N. W. Eidietis, J. L. Herfindal et al. 2020 Physics of Plasmas 27(4) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003299

    2020 doi

  78. [89]

    Decker and et al 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 076038

    J. Decker and et al 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 076038

    2022

  79. [91]

    Decker and Y

    J. Decker and Y. Peysson 2004 Dke: a fast numerical solver for the 3d drift kinetic equation Tech. rep. no. EUR-CEA-FC-1736 URL https://spcsrv18.epfl. ch/luke/LaTeX/Project_DKE/Doc/NoticeDKE.pdf

    2004

  80. [92]

    U. A. Sheikh and et al 2023 Theory and simulation of disruptions workshop

    2023

  81. [94]

    U. A. Sheikh and et al 2020 IAEA technical meeting on plasma disruptions and their mitigation

    2020

  82. [95]

    M. Hron, J. Ad´ amek, J. Cavalier, R. Dejarnac et al. 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 042021 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac301f

    2022 doi

  83. [96]

    Caloud, E

    J. Caloud, E. Tomesova, O. Ficker, J. Cerovsky et al. 2024 Review of Scientific Instruments 95 113512 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0222211

    2024 doi

  84. [97]

    Mlynar, O

    J. Mlynar, O. Ficker, E. Macusova, T. Markovic et al. 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 61 014010 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/aae04a

    2018

  85. [98]

    Horacek, P

    J. Horacek, P. Vondracek, R. Panek, R. De- jarnac et al. 2015 Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 385–388 URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0022311514009398 REFERENCES 57

    2015

  86. [99]

    Kovarik, I

    K. Kovarik, I. Duran, J. Stockel, J. Seidl et al. 2017 Review of Scientific Instruments 88 035106 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977591

    2017 doi

  87. [100]

    Bucalossi, J

    J. Bucalossi, J. Achard, O. Agullo, T. Alarcon et al. 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 042007 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac2525

    2022 doi

  88. [101]

    C. Reux, M. Diez, J. Gerardin and Y. Corre 2024 EPS 2024 Satellite meeting on runaway electron impacts

    2024

  89. [102]

    Neunauer, G

    O. Neunauer, G. Czymek, B. Giesen, P. W. H¨ uttemann et al. 2005Fusion Sci. Technol. 47 76–86

  90. [103]

    Kohlhass and et al 1990 Fusion Engineering and Design 13 261

    K. Kohlhass and et al 1990 Fusion Engineering and Design 13 261

    1990

  91. [104]

    Hoven and et al 1989 Journal of Nuclear Materials 162 970

    H. Hoven and et al 1989 Journal of Nuclear Materials 162 970

    1989

  92. [105]

    Kudyakov and et al 2008 Review of Scientific Instruments 79 10F126

    T. Kudyakov and et al 2008 Review of Scientific Instruments 79 10F126

    2008

  93. [106]

    Forster and et al 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51 043003

    M. Forster and et al 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51 043003

    2011

  94. [107]

    Forster and et al 2012 Physics of Plasmas 19 052506

    M. Forster and et al 2012 Physics of Plasmas 19 052506

    2012

  95. [108]

    Tinguely, R

    R. Tinguely, R. Granetz, M. Hoppe and O. Embr´ eus 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 076019 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aac444

    2018 doi

  96. [109]

    R. S. Granetz, B. Esposito, J. H. Kim, R. Koslowski et al. 2014 Physics of Plasmas 21 072506 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4886802

    2014 doi

  97. [110]

    Pizzuto, C

    A. Pizzuto, C. Annino, M. Baldarelli, L. Bettinali et al. 2004 Fusion Science and Technology 45 422– 436 URL https://doi.org/10.13182/FST04-A523

    2004 doi

  98. [111]

    Esposito, L

    B. Esposito, L. Boncagni, P. Buratti, D. Carnevale et al. 2016 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 59 014044 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0741-3335/59/1/014044

    2016

  99. [112]

    De Angeli, P

    M. De Angeli, P. Tolias, S. Ratynskaia, D. Ripamonti et al. 2022 Nuclear Fusion 63 014001 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac8a04

    2022 doi

  100. [113]

    Maddaluno and B

    G. Maddaluno and B. Esposito 1999 Journal of Nuclear Materials 266-269 593–597 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0022311598005911

    1999

  101. [114]

    Vertkov, I

    A. Vertkov, I. Lyublinski, M. Zharkov, G. Mazz- itelli et al. 2017 Fusion Engineering and Design 117 130–134 URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0920379617300522

    2017

  102. [115]

    C. Reux, E. PETIT, A. TORRE, S. NICOLLET et al. 2021 Virtual Event 28th IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. pp 286–1055

    2021

  103. [116]

    M. Diez, Y. Corre, E. Delmas, N. Fedorczak et al. 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 106011 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac1dc6

    2021 doi

  104. [117]

    Nicollet, A

    S. Nicollet, A. Torre, B. Lacroix, A. Louz- guiti et al. 2022 Cryogenics 125 103493 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0011227522000753

    2022

  105. [118]

    Houry, P

    M. Houry, P. Malard, F.-P. Pellissier and Y. Peneliau 2024 Proceedings of the 50th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics, Salamanca

    2024

  106. [119]

    Z. Guo, D. Zhu, R. Yan, C. Xuan et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 076026

    2024

  107. [120]

    C. Xuan, D. Zhu, Y. Wang, B. Gao et al. 2025Nuclear Fusion 65 046027

  108. [121]

    Pautasso, M

    G. Pautasso, M. Bernert, M. Dibon, B. Duval et al. 2016 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 59 014046 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0741-3335/59/1/014046

    2016

  109. [122]

    Heinrich, G

    P. Heinrich, G. Papp, P. Lauber, G. Pautasso et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 076044 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad502b

    2024 doi

  110. [123]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez, A

    P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. Creely, M. Green- wald, D. Brunner et al. 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 042003 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ac1654

    2022

  111. [124]

    Ficker, U

    O. Ficker, U. Sheikh, C. Reux, J. Cerovsky et al. 2023 29th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (FEC 2023) (London, UK)

    2023

  112. [125]

    D. N. Hill, R. Ellis, W. Ferguson, D. E. Perkins et al. 1988 Review of Scientific Instruments 59 1878–1880

    1988

  113. [126]

    Vondracek, E

    P. Vondracek, E. Gauthier, O. Ficker, M. Hron et al. 2017 Fusion Engineering and Design 123 764–767

    2017

  114. [127]

    M. J. Dunn, T. W. Morgan, J. W. Genuit, T. Loewenhoff et al. 2020 Nuclear Materials and Energy 25 100832

    2020

  115. [128]

    Finken, J

    K. Finken, J. Watkins, D. Rusb¨ uldt, W. Corbett et al. 1990 Nuclear Fusion 30 859 URL https:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/30/5/005

    1990 doi

  116. [129]

    R. H. Tong, Z. Y. Chen, M. Zhang, D. W. Huang et al. 2016 Review of Scientific Instruments 87 11E113 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960311

    2016 doi

  117. [130]

    C. Reux, C. Paz-Soldan, N. Eidietis, M. Lehnen et al. 2022 Nuclear Fusion 64 034002 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ac48bc

    2022 doi

  118. [131]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Zhou, L. Hu, S. Lin et al. 2025 Fusion Engineering and Design 211 114738 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0920379624005891

    2025

  119. [132]

    R. A. Tinguely, A. M. Rosenthal, M. Silva Sa, M. Jean et al. 2024 Review of Scientific Instru- ments 95 113503 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/ 5.0219477

    2024

  120. [133]

    Beidler, D

    M. Beidler, D. del Castillo-Negrete, D. Shiraki, L. Baylor et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64(7) 076038 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad4c77

    2024 doi

  121. [134]

    E. M. Hollmann, N. Commaux, N. W. Eidietis, C. J. Lasnier et al. 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 062505 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4985086

    2017 doi

  122. [135]

    C. P. C. Wong, D. L. Rudakov, J. P. Allain, R. J. Bastasz et al. 2007 Journal of Nuclear Materials 363–365 276–281

    2007

  123. [136]

    Dal Molin, M

    A. Dal Molin, M. Nocente, M. Dalla Rosa, E. Panontin et al. 2023 Measurement Science and Technology 34 085501 REFERENCES 58

    2023

  124. [137]

    Simons, U

    L. Simons, U. Sheikh, J. Decker, B. P. Duval et al. 2023 5th European Conference on Plasma Diagnostics (Rethymno) URL https://ecpd2023.eventsadmin. com/Home/Welcome

    2023

  125. [138]

    Simons, J

    L. Simons, J. Cerovsk´ y, J. Decker, B. P. Duval et al. 2025 submitted to Review of Scientific Instruments

    2025

  126. [139]

    Tardocchi, L

    M. Tardocchi, L. I. Proverbio, G. Gorini, G. Grosso et al. 2008 Review of Scientific Instruments 79 10E524

    2008

  127. [140]

    Cerovsky, O

    J. Cerovsky, O. Ficker, V. Svoboda, E. Macusova et al. 2022 Journal of Instrumentation 17 C01033

    2022

  128. [141]

    Dal Molin, L

    A. Dal Molin, L. Fumagalli, M. Nocente, D. Riga- monti et al. 2021 Review of Scientific Instruments 92 043517

    2021

  129. [142]

    T. K. Ma, Z. Y. Chen, D. W. Huang, R. H. Tong et al. 2017 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 856 81–85

    2017

  130. [143]

    Rigamonti, A

    D. Rigamonti, A. Broslawski, A. Fernandes, J. Figueiredo et al. 2018 Review of Scientific Instru- ments 89 10I116

    2018

  131. [144]

    D. C. Pace, C. M. Cooper, D. Taussig, N. W. Eidietis et al. 2016 Review of Scientific Instruments 87 043507

    2016

  132. [145]

    Wongrach, D

    K. Wongrach, D. Mazon, J. Morales, L. Fleury et al. 2021 AIP Advances 11 085313

    2021

  133. [146]

    Grover, J

    O. Grover, J. Kocman, M. Odstrcil, T. Odstrcil et al. 2016 Fusion Engineering and Design 112 1038–1044

    2016

  134. [147]

    Poikela, J

    T. Poikela, J. Plosila, T. Westerlund, M. Campbell et al. 2014 Journal of Instrumentation 9 C05013

    2014

  135. [148]

    Svihra, D

    P. Svihra, D. Bren, A. Casolari, J. Cerovsky et al. 2019 Fusion Engineering and Design 146 316–319

    2019

  136. [149]

    Kulkov, M

    S. Kulkov, M. Marcisovsky, P. Svihra, M. Tunkl et al. 2022 Journal of Instrumentation 17 P02030

    2022

  137. [150]

    Kulkov 2025 Semiconductor Pixel Detectors for Nuclear Physics and Quantum Astrometry Ph.D

    S. Kulkov 2025 Semiconductor Pixel Detectors for Nuclear Physics and Quantum Astrometry Ph.D. thesis Czech Technical University Prague, Czech Republic

    2025

  138. [151]

    O. N. Jarvis, G. Sadler and J. L. Thompson 1988 Nuclear Fusion 28 1981

    1988

  139. [152]

    Zebrowski, L

    J. Zebrowski, L. Jakubowski, M. Rabinski, M. J. Sadowski et al. 2018 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 959 012002

    2018

  140. [153]

    Rabinski, L

    M. Rabinski, L. Jakubowski, K. Malinowski, M. Sad- owski et al. 2017 Journal of Instrumentation 12 C10014

    2017

  141. [154]

    Kwiatkowski, M

    R. Kwiatkowski, M. Rabinski, M. J. Sadowski, J. Zebrowski et al. 2021 The European Physical Journal Plus 136 1070

    2021

  142. [155]

    V. V. Plyusnin, L. Jakubowski, J. Zebrowski, H. Fernandes et al. 2008 Review of Scientific Instruments 79 10F505

    2008

  143. [156]

    Jakubowski, M

    L. Jakubowski, M. J. Sadowski, J. Zebrowski, M. Rabinski et al. 2010 Review of Scientific Instruments 81 013504

    2010

  144. [157]

    Dhyani, V

    P. Dhyani, V. Svoboda, V. Istokskaia, J. Mlyn´ aˇ r et al. 2019 Journal of Instrumentation 14

    2019

  145. [158]

    Novotny, J

    L. Novotny, J. Cerovsky, P. Dhyani, O. Ficker et al. 2020 Journal of Instrumentation 15 C07015–C07015

    2020

  146. [159]

    Cowley, P

    C. Cowley, P. Fuller, Y. Andrew, L. James et al. 2020 Physical Review E 102 043311

    2020

  147. [160]

    Delchambre, G

    E. Delchambre, G. Counsell and A. Kirk 2009 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 51 055012

    2009

  148. [161]

    M. H. Aumeunier, M. Koˇ can, R. Reichle and E. Gauthier 2017 Nuclear Materials and Energy 12 1265–1269

    2017

  149. [162]

    A. G. McLean, J.-W. Ahn, R. Maingi, T. K. Gray et al. 2012 Review of Scientific Instruments 83 053706 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4717672

    2012 doi

  150. [163]

    Ushiki, R

    T. Ushiki, R. Imazawa, H. Murakami, K. Shimizu et al. 2022 Review of Scientific Instruments 93 084905 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0089269

    2022 doi

  151. [164]

    Bakhtiari, G

    M. Bakhtiari, G. J. Kramer, M. Takechi, H. Tamai et al. 2005 Physical Review Letters 94(21) 215003 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.94. 215003

    2005 doi

  152. [165]

    Fern´ andez-G´ omez, J

    I. Fern´ andez-G´ omez, J. R. Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs and R. S´ anchez 2007 Physics of Plasmas 14(7) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2746219

    2007 doi

  153. [166]

    Embr´ eus, A

    O. Embr´ eus, A. Stahl and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2016New Journal of Physics 18 093023 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1367-2630/18/9/093023

  154. [167]

    Andersson, P

    F. Andersson, P. Helander and L. Eriksson 2001 Physics of Plasmas 8(12) 5221–5229 URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1418242

    2001 doi

  155. [168]

    S. T. Beliaev and G. I. Budker 1956 Soviet Physics Doklady 1 218

    1956

  156. [169]

    B. J. Braams and C. F. F. Karney 1987 Physical Review Letters 59(16) 1817–1820 URL https://doi. org/10.1103/physrevlett.59.1817

    1987 doi

  157. [170]

    O. J. Pike and S. J. Rose 2014 Physical Review E 89 053107 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE. 89.053107

    2014 doi

  158. [171]

    Zhogolev and S

    V. Zhogolev and S. Konovalov 2014 Problems of Atomic Science and Technology, Ser. Thermonuclear Fusion 37(3) 71–88 URL https://doi.org/10. 21517/0202-3822-2014-37-3-71-88

    2014

  159. [172]

    Hesslow, O

    L. Hesslow, O. Embr´ eus, A. Stahl, T. C. DuBois et al. 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(25) 255001 URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.255001

    2017 doi

  160. [173]

    Hesslow, O

    L. Hesslow, O. Embr´ eus, M. Hoppe, T. DuBois et al. 2018 Journal of Plasma Physics 84 905840605

    2018

  161. [174]

    Y. A. Sokolov 1979 JETP Letters 29(4) 244 URL http://jetpletters.ru/ps/0/article_22066. shtml

    1979

  162. [175]

    M. N. Rosenbluth and S. V. Putvinski 1997 Nuclear Fusion 37 1355 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/37/10/I03

    1997

  163. [176]

    S. C. Chiu, M. N. Rosenbluth, R. W. Harvey and V. S. Chan 1998 Nuclear Fusion 38 1711 REFERENCES 59

    1998

  164. [177]

    Aleynikov, K

    P. Aleynikov, K. Aleynikova, B. Breizman, G. Huijs- mans et al. 2014 International Atomic Energy Agency 25th Fusion Energy Conference pp 13–18 ( Preprint https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusionportal/ SharedDocuments/FEC2014/fec2014-preprints/ 319_THP338.pdf)

    2014

  165. [178]

    Embr´ eus, A

    O. Embr´ eus, A. Stahl and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2018Journal of Plasma Physics 84 905840102

  166. [179]

    Parail and O

    V. Parail and O. Pogutse 1978 Nuclear Fusion 18(3) 303–314 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/18/3/001

    1978

  167. [180]

    Pokol, T

    G. Pokol, T. F¨ ul¨ op and M. Lisak 2008Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50(4) 045003 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/50/4/045003

    doi

  168. [181]

    Aleynikov and B

    P. Aleynikov and B. Breizman 2015 Nuclear Fusion 55 043014

    2015

  169. [182]

    Dreicer 1960 Physical Review 117 329 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.117.329

    H. Dreicer 1960 Physical Review 117 329 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.117.329

    1960 doi

  170. [183]

    Connor and R

    J. Connor and R. Hastie 1975 Nuclear Fusion 15 415 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/ 15/3/007

    1975 doi

  171. [184]

    Hesslow, L

    L. Hesslow, L. Unnerfelt, O. Vallhagen, O. Em- breus et al. 2019 Journal of Plasma Physics 85(6) 475850601 URL https://doi.org/10.1017/ s0022377819000874

    2019

  172. [185]

    Putvinski, P

    S. Putvinski, P. Barabaschi, N. Fujisawa, N. Putvin- skaya et al. 1997 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 39 B157 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0741-3335/39/12B/013

    1997

  173. [186]

    Hesslow, O

    L. Hesslow, O. Embr´ eus, O. Vallhagen and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59(8) 084004 URL http:// arxiv.org/abs/1904.00602

    2019 arXiv

  174. [187]

    Smith, P

    H. Smith, P. Helander, L. Eriksson, D. Anderson et al. 2006 Physics of Plasmas 13(10) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2358110

    2006 doi

  175. [188]

    Feh´ er, H

    T. Feh´ er, H. M. Smith, T. F¨ ul¨ op and K. G´ al 2011 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 53(3) 035014

    2011

  176. [189]

    Olasz, O

    S. Olasz, O. Embreus, M. Hoppe, M. Aradi et al. 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 066010 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abf0de

    2021 doi

  177. [190]

    Landreman, A

    M. Landreman, A. Stahl and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2014 Computer Physics Communications 185(3) 847– 855 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013. 12.004

    2014 doi

  178. [191]

    Stahl, O

    A. Stahl, O. Embr´ eus, G. Papp, M. Landreman et al. 2016 Nuclear Fusion 56(11) 112009 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/56/11/112009

    2016 doi

  179. [192]

    com/cql3d_manual.pdf

    1992 The CQL3D code URL http://www.compxco. com/cql3d_manual.pdf

    1992

  180. [193]

    Z. Guo, C. Mcdevitt and X. Tang 2019 Physics of Plasmas 26(8) None URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.5055874

    2019

  181. [194]

    Stahl, M

    A. Stahl, M. Landreman, O. Embr´ eus and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2017Computer Physics Communications 212(3) 269–279 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpc.2016.10.024

    2016 doi

  182. [195]

    C. J. McDevitt, Z. Guo and X. Tang 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61(5) 054008 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab0d6d

    2019 doi

  183. [196]

    Aleynikov and B

    P. Aleynikov and B. N. Breizman 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57(4) 046009 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/aa5895

    2017

  184. [197]

    Daniel, W

    D. Daniel, W. T. Taitano and L. Chac´ on 2020 Computer Physics Communications 254 107361 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107361

    2020

  185. [198]

    Hirvijoki, O

    E. Hirvijoki, O. Asunta, T. Koskela, T. Kurki-Suonio et al. 2014 Computer Physics Communications 185(4) 1310–1321 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cpc.2014.01.014

    2014

  186. [199]

    Hoelzl, G

    M. Hoelzl, G. Huijsmans, S. Pamela, M. B´ ecoulet et al. 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61(6) 065001 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abf99f

    2021 doi

  187. [201]

    Carbajal, D

    L. Carbajal, D. del Castillo-Negrete, D. Spong, S. Seal et al. 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24(4) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4981209

    2017 doi

  188. [202]

    Bandaru, M

    V. Bandaru, M. Hoelzl, F. J. Artola, O. Vallhagen et al. 2024 Physics of Plasmas 31 082503 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0213962

    2024 doi

  189. [203]

    C. Liu, C. Zhao, S. C. Jardin, N. M. Ferraro et al. 2021 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 63 125031 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/ac2af8

    2021

  190. [204]

    A. P. Sainterme and C. R. Sovinec 2024 Physics of Plasmas 31 010701 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/5.0183530

    2024

  191. [205]

    Matsuyama, N

    A. Matsuyama, N. Aiba and M. Yagi 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 066038 URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/aa6867

    2017

  192. [206]

    de Vries and Y

    P. de Vries and Y. Gribov 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59(9) 096043 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ ab2ef4

    2019 doi

  193. [207]

    de Vries, Y

    P. de Vries, Y. Lee, Y. Gribov, A. Mineev et al. 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63(8) 086016 URL https:// doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acdd11

    2023 doi

  194. [208]

    J. R. Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs, R. S´ anchez and B. Esposito 2010 Physical Review Letters 105(18) 185002 URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.105.185002

    2010 doi

  195. [209]

    B. N. Breizman 2014 Nuclear Fusion 54(7) 072002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/54/7/ 072002

    2014 doi

  196. [210]

    Putvinski, N

    S. Putvinski, N. Fujisawa, D. Post, N. Putvin- skaya et al. 1997 Journal of Nuclear Materials 241-243 316–321 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0022-3115(97)80056-6

    1997

  197. [211]

    Linder, G

    O. Linder, G. Papp, E. Fable, F. Jenko et al. 2021 Journal of Plasma Physics 87(3) 905870301 URL https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022377821000416 REFERENCES 60

    2021 doi

  198. [212]

    H. M. Smith and E. Verwichte 2008 Physics of Plasmas 15(7) None URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.2949692

    2008

  199. [213]

    Hollmann, N

    E. Hollmann, N. Eidietis, J. Herfindal, P. Parks et al. 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59(10) 106014 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab32b2

    2019 doi

  200. [214]

    H. Kim, A. Mineev, D. Ricci, J. Lee et al. 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60(12) 126049 URL https://doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/abb95c

    2020 doi

  201. [215]

    Hoppe, I

    M. Hoppe, I. Ekmark, E. Berger and T. F¨ ul¨ op 2022 Journal of Plasma Physics 88(3) 905880317 URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09900

    2022 arXiv

  202. [216]

    Hollmann, L

    E. Hollmann, L. Baylor, A. Boboc, P. Carvalho et al. 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63(3) 036011 URL https:// doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acb4aa

    2023 doi

  203. [217]

    M. T. Beidler, D. del Castillo-Negrete, L. R. Baylor, D. Shiraki et al. 2020 Physics of Plasmas 27(11) 112507 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0022072

    2020 doi

  204. [218]

    Aleynikov and B

    P. Aleynikov and B. N. Breizman 2015 Physical Review Letters 114(15) 155001 URL https://doi. org/10.1103/physrevlett.114.155001

    2015 doi

  205. [219]

    Hesslow, O

    L. Hesslow, O. Embr´ eus, G. J. Wilkie, G. Papp et al. 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60(7) 074010 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ aac33e

    2018 doi

  206. [220]

    Hoppe, L

    M. Hoppe, L. Hesslow, O. Embreus, L. Un- nerfelt et al. 2021 Journal of Plasma Physics 87(1) 855870102 URL https://doi.org/10.1017/ s002237782000152x

    2021

  207. [221]

    C. J. McDevitt, X. Tang, C. J. Fontes, P. Sharma et al. 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63(2) 024001 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acae38

    2023 doi

  208. [222]

    N. A. Garland, H. Chung, C. J. Fontes, M. C. Zammit et al. 2020 Physics of Plasmas 27(4) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003638

    2020 doi

  209. [223]

    N. A. Garland, H. Chung, M. C. Zammit, C. J. McDevitt et al. 2022 Physics of Plasmas 29(1) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0071996

    2022 doi

  210. [224]

    Hoppe, J

    M. Hoppe, J. Decker, U. Sheikh, S. Coda et al. 2025 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/adbcd5

    2025 doi

  211. [225]

    Z. Guo, C. J. McDevitt and X. Tang 2018 Physics of Plasmas 25(3) None URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.5019381

    2018

  212. [226]

    Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs, B

    J. Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs, B. Esposito, R. S´ anchez and G. Granucci 2004 Nuclear Fusion 44(9) 974–981 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/44/9/005

    2004 doi

  213. [227]

    F¨ ul¨ op, G

    T. F¨ ul¨ op, G. Pokol, P. Helander and M. Lisak 2006 Phys. Plasmas 13 062506 URL http: //scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/ pop/13/6/10.1063/1.2208327

    2006 doi

  214. [228]

    Pokol, A

    G. Pokol, A. K´ om´ ar, A. Budai, A. Stahl et al. 2014 Physics of Plasmas 21(10) 102503 URL https:// doi.org/10.1063/1.4895513

    2014 doi

  215. [229]

    Decker, M

    J. Decker, M. Hoppe, U. Sheikh, B. Duval et al. 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64(10) 106027 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad6c61

    2024 doi

  216. [230]

    Reinke, S

    M. Reinke, S. Scott, R. Granetz, J. Hughes et al. 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59 066003

    2019

  217. [231]

    Breizman 2015 Runaway electrons (whitepaper) Tech

    B. Breizman 2015 Runaway electrons (whitepaper) Tech. rep. USBPO group URL https://burningplasma.org/resources/ref/ Workshops2015/IS/A_breizman_b.pdf

    2015

  218. [232]

    F¨ ul¨ op, H

    T. F¨ ul¨ op, H. M. Smith and G. Pokol 2009 Physics of Plasmas 16(2) None URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.3072980

    2009

  219. [233]

    Spong, W

    D. Spong, W. Heidbrink, C. Paz-Soldan, X. Du et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 155002 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 120.155002

    2018 doi

  220. [234]

    W. W. Heidbrink, C. Paz-Soldan, D. A. Spong, X. D. Du et al. 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61(1) 014007 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6587/aae2da

    2019

  221. [235]

    W. Bin, C. Castaldo, F. Napoli, P. Buratti et al. 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 045002 URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.045002

    2022 doi

  222. [236]

    Breizman and D

    B. Breizman and D. I. Kiramov 2023 Physics of Plasmas 30

    2023

  223. [237]

    Breizman and D

    B. Breizman and D. Kiramov 2023 Physics of Plasmas 30

    2023

  224. [238]

    Lukash and R

    V. Lukash and R. Khayrutdinov 2016 Final report IO/15/CT/4300001189 Tech. rep. ITER

    2016

  225. [239]

    J. R. Martin-Solis, J. A. Mier, M. Lehnen and A. Loarte 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 076013 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac637b

    2022 doi

  226. [240]

    C. Wang, E. Nardon, F. Artola, V. Bandaru et al. 2025 Nuclear Fusion 65 016012 URL https://doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad8d66

    2025 doi

  227. [241]

    Bandaru, M

    V. Bandaru, M. Hoelzl, F. Artola, M. Lehnen et al. 2025 Journal of Plasma Physics 91(1) E27 URL https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022377824001661

    2025 doi

  228. [242]

    Vallhagen, L

    O. Vallhagen, L. Hanebring, T. F¨ ul¨ op, M. Hoppe et al. 2025 Journal of Plasma Physics 91 E78

    2025

  229. [243]

    G. Papp, M. Drevlak, T. F¨ ul¨ op, P. Helander et al. 2011 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 53(9) 095004 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/ 53/9/095004

    2011 doi

  230. [244]

    G. Papp, M. Drevlak, T. F¨ ul¨ op and P. Helander 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51(4) 043004 URL https:// doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/51/4/043004

    2011 doi

  231. [245]

    A. H. Boozer 2011 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 53(8) 084002 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/0741-3335/53/8/084002

    2011

  232. [246]

    H. M. Smith, A. H. Boozer and P. Helander 2013 Physics of Plasmas 20(7) None URL https://doi. org/10.1063/1.4813255

    2013 doi

  233. [247]

    Sweeney, A

    R. Sweeney, A. J. Creely, J. Doody, T. F¨ ul¨ op et al. 2020 Journal of Plasma Physics 86 865860507

    2020

  234. [248]

    Paz-Soldan, N

    C. Paz-Soldan, N. W. Eidietis, Y. Q. Liu, D. Shi- raki et al. 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 61(5) 054001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/aafd15 REFERENCES 61

    2019

  235. [249]

    Lvovskiy, C

    A. Lvovskiy, C. Paz-Soldan, N. Eidietis, P. Aleynikov et al. 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60(5) 056008 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab78c7

    2020 doi

  236. [250]

    Hauff and F

    T. Hauff and F. Jenko 2009 Physics of Plasmas 16 102308 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3243494

    2009 doi

  237. [251]

    S¨ arkim¨ aki, O

    K. S¨ arkim¨ aki, O. Embreus, E. Nardon, T. F¨ ul¨ op et al. 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 126050 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abb9e9

    2020 doi

  238. [252]

    Svensson, O

    P. Svensson, O. Embreus, S. L. New- ton, K. S¨ arkim¨ aki et al. 2021 Journal of Plasma Physics 87(2) 905870207 URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.07156

    2021 arXiv

  239. [253]

    J. R. Myra, P. J. Catto, A. J. Wootton, R. D. Bengtson et al. 1992 Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 4(7) 2092–2097 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.860016

    1992

  240. [254]

    O. Kwon, P. Diamond, F. Wagner, G. Fussmann et al. 1988 Nuclear Fusion 28(11) 1931–1943 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/28/11/002

    1988 doi

  241. [255]

    Esposito, R

    B. Esposito, R. M. Solis, P. van Belle, O. N. Jarvis et al. 1996 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 38 2035 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0741-3335/38/12/001

    1996

  242. [256]

    J. R. Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs 2021Physics of Plasmas 28(3) None URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0032283

    doi

  243. [257]

    J´ anosi and G

    D. J´ anosi and G. K´ arolyi 2024 Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34 081104 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0216731

    2024 doi

  244. [258]

    J. R. Martin-Solis, A. Loarte, E. M. Hollmann, B. Esposito et al. 2014 Nuclear Fusion 54 083027 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/54/8/ 083027

    2014 doi

  245. [259]

    J. R. Mart ´ ın-Sol ´ ıs, A. Loarte and M. Lehnen 2015 Physics of Plasmas 22 082503 URL https://doi. org/10.1063/1.4927773

    2015 doi

  246. [260]

    Riemann, H

    J. Riemann, H. M. Smith and P. Helander 2012 Physics of Plasmas 19 012057 URL https://doi. org/10.1063/1.3671974

    2012 doi

  247. [261]

    Hollmann, M

    E. Hollmann, M. Austin, J. Boedo, N. Brooks et al. 2013 Nuclear Fusion 53 083004 URL https://doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/8/083004

    2013 doi

  248. [262]

    Loarte, V

    A. Loarte, V. Riccardo, J. R. Martin-Sol ´ ıs, J. Paley et al. 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51 073004 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/51/7/073004

    2011 doi

  249. [263]

    Jayakumar, H

    R. Jayakumar, H. Fleischmann and S. Zweben 1993 Physics Letters A 172 447 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0375-9601(93)90237-T

    1993 doi

  250. [264]

    Eriksson, P

    L.-G. Eriksson, P. Helander, F. Andersson, D. An- derson et al. 2004 Physical Review Letters 92 205004 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92. 205004

    2004 doi

  251. [265]

    D. I. Kiramov and B. N. Breizman 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 100702 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.4993071

    2017

  252. [266]

    Lehnen 2018 Private Communication

    M. Lehnen 2018 Private Communication

    2018

  253. [267]

    Aleynikova, G

    K. Aleynikova, G. T. Huijsmans and P. Aleynikov 2016 Plasma Physics Reports 42 486–494

    2016

  254. [268]

    Khayrutdinov and V

    R. Khayrutdinov and V. Lukash 1993 Jour- nal of Computational Physics 109 193–201 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999183712118

    1993

  255. [269]

    Jardin, N

    S. Jardin, N. Pomphrey and J. Delucia 1986 Journal of Computational Physics 66 481–507 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/002199918690077X

    1986

  256. [270]

    Bandyopadhyay, A

    I. Bandyopadhyay, A. Singh, M. Sugihara and S. Jardin 2012 International Atomic Energy Agency 24th Fusion Energy Conference

    2012

  257. [271]

    C. Zhao, C. Liu, S. C. Jardin and N. M. Ferraro 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 126017 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab96f4

    2020 doi

  258. [272]

    Konovalov, P

    S. Konovalov, P. Aleynikov, K. Aleynikova, Y. Gri- bov et al. 2016 International Atomic Energy Agency 26th Fusion Energy Conference URL https:// conferences.iaea.org/indico/event/98/session/ 23/contribution/321/material/slides/0.pdf

    2016

  259. [273]

    P. B. Aleynikov, A. A. Ivanov, R. R. Khayrutdinov, S. V. Konovalov et al. 2010 37th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics 2010 vol 1 pp 281–284

    2010

  260. [274]

    Kiramov, M

    D. Kiramov, M. Lehnen, R. Khayrutdinov and V. Lukash 2016 Proc. 43rd EPS Conf. Plasma Physics p P4

    2016

  261. [275]

    F. J. Artola, A. Loarte, E. Matveeva, J. Havlicek et al. 2021 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 064004

    2021

  262. [276]

    Russo 1991 Nuclear Fusion 31 117 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/31/1/011

    A. Russo 1991 Nuclear Fusion 31 117 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/31/1/011

    1991 doi

  263. [277]

    Heikkinen, S

    J. Heikkinen, S. Sipil¨ a and T. P¨ attikangas 1993 Computer Physics Communications 76 215–230 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/001046559390133W

    1993

  264. [278]

    X. Guan, H. Qin and N. J. Fisch 2010 Physics of Plasmas 17 092502 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.3476268

    2010

  265. [279]

    V. Izzo, E. Hollmann, A. James, J. Yu et al. 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51 063032 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/51/6/063032

    2011 doi

  266. [280]

    Sommariva, E

    C. Sommariva, E. Nardon, P. Beyer, M. Hoelzl et al. 2017 Nuclear Fusion 58 016043 URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa95cd

    2017 doi

  267. [281]

    Y. Liu, P. Parks, C. Paz-Soldan, C. Kim et al. 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59 126021 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab3f87

    2019 doi

  268. [282]

    M. T. Beidler, D. del Castillo-Negrete, L. R. Baylor, J. L. Herfindal et al. 2021 Preprint: 2020 IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (2021) TH/P1-9

    2021

  269. [283]

    C. J. McDevitt and X.-Z. Tang 2019 EPL (Euro- physics Letters) 127 45001 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1209/0295-5075/127/45001

    2019 doi

  270. [284]

    C. J. McDevitt, Z. Guo and X.-Z. Tang 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61 024004 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6587%2Faaf4d1 REFERENCES 62

    2019

  271. [285]

    J. S. Arnaud and C. J. McDevitt 2024 Physics of Plasmas 31 062509 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/5.0198338

    2024

  272. [286]

    C. J. McDevitt and X. Tang 2023 Physical Review E 108(4) L043201 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevE.108.L043201

    2023

  273. [287]

    Pautasso et al

    G. Pautasso et al. 2015 Proceedings of the 42nd EPS Conference on Plasma Physics, Lisbon

    2015

  274. [288]

    B. S. Cornille, M. T. Beidler, S. Munaretto, B. E. Chapman et al. 2022 Physics of Plasmas 29 052510 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0087314

    2022 doi

  275. [289]

    Carbajal, D

    L. Carbajal, D. del Castillo-Negrete and J. J. Martinell 2020 Physics of Plasmas 27 032502 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5135588

    2020 doi

  276. [290]

    A. H. Boozer and A. Punjabi 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 102513 URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.4966046

    2016

  277. [291]

    Abdullaev 2013 Magnetic Stochasticity in Magnet- ically Confined Fusion Plasmas (Springer Cham)

    S. Abdullaev 2013 Magnetic Stochasticity in Magnet- ically Confined Fusion Plasmas (Springer Cham)

    2013

  278. [292]

    de Rover, N

    M. de Rover, N. J. Lopes Cardozo and A. Montvai 1996 Physics of Plasmas 3 4478–4488 URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.871582

    1996 doi

  279. [293]

    G. Papp, M. Drevlak, T. F¨ ul¨ op and G. I. Pokol 2012 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 54 125008 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/54/ 12/125008

    2012 doi

  280. [294]

    Carbajal and D

    L. Carbajal and D. del Castillo-Negrete 2017 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 59 124001 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa883e

    2017 doi

  281. [295]

    del Castillo-Negrete, L

    D. del Castillo-Negrete, L. Carbajal, D. Spong and V. Izzo 2018 Physics of Plasmas 25 056104 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5018747

    2018 doi

  282. [296]

    F. J. Artola, K. Lackner, G. T. A. Huijsmans, M. Hoelzl et al. 2020 Physics of Plasmas 27 032501 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5140230

    2020 doi

  283. [297]

    Jardin, J

    S. Jardin, J. Breslau and N. Ferraro 2007 Jour- nal of Computational Physics 226 2146–2174 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999107003038

    2007

  284. [298]

    N. M. Ferraro, S. C. Jardin, L. L. Lao, M. S. Shephard et al. 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 056114 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4948722

    2016 doi

  285. [299]

    Huysmans and O

    G. Huysmans and O. Czarny 2007 Nuclear Fu- sion 47 659 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/47/7/016

    2007

  286. [300]

    Bandaru, M

    V. Bandaru, M. Hoelzl, C. Reux, O. Ficker et al. 2021 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion 63 035024 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/abdbcf

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.