Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Singular limits of anisotropic weak solutions to compressible magnetohydrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MHD weak solutions converge to RMHD under strong anisotropy

desk verdict A serious paper with a real gap in the gamma range: the density corrector bound fails for 3/2<gamma<2, so the main theorems are not established as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19784 v2 pith:IWDTPQYV submitted 2025-06-24 math.AP

Nicolas Besse , Christophe Cheverry This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B2535Q3535Q8576W0535D30
keywords reducedmagnetohydrodynamicssingularlimitsweaksolutionsanisotropicplasmascompressibleMHDlowMachnumberlimitfastmagnetosonicwaveslargemagneticfield
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 proves that global weak solutions of viscous and resistive barotropic compressible magnetohydrodynamics pass, in the singular limit of strong magnetization and spatial anisotropy, to weak solutions of the reduced magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) equations used in fusion and astrophysics. The convergence is established in the periodic box $\mathbb{T}^3$ and in the whole space $\mathbb{R}^3$, up to subsequences, with the density converging strongly to $1$ and the perpendicular magnetic field, the solenoidal perpendicular velocity, and the parallel fields converging in the stated strong or weak topologies. The limit is only perpendicularly incompressible: $\nabla_\perp \cdot v_\perp = 0$ and $\nabla_\perp \cdot B_\perp = 0$, while the parallel direction keeps compressible information through the algebraic relation $b\varrho + B_\parallel = 0$. The proof works for unprepared initial data because a time boundary layer at $t=0$ projects the initial perpendicular velocity and modifies the initial parallel magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fast-oscillatory unitary group $S(\tau) = \exp(\tau L)$ generated by the skew-adjoint operator $L$ acting on the pair $U^\varepsilon = (b_\varepsilon \varrho^\varepsilon + B_\parallel^\varepsilon,\, Q_\perp(\rho^\varepsilon v_\perp^\varepsilon))$, where $P_\perp$ and $Q_\perp$ are the perpendicular divergence-free and gradient projections. The operator $L$ encodes the transverse fast magnetosonic waves, whose perpendicular speeds are $\pm\sqrt{b+1}$; wrapping $U^\varepsilon$ in $S(-t/\varepsilon)$ filters those waves and leaves a compact filtered profile. In the parallel direction the proof uses an algebraic cancellation: the combination $B_\parallel^\varepsilon - \varrho^\varepsilon/\rho^\varepsilon$ evolves with no $\varepsilon^{-1}$ singularity, which together with a product compactness criterion yields the linear parallel system and the relation $b\varrho + B_\parallel = 0$.

What would settle it

A decisive numerical or analytical test takes unprepared data in $\mathbb{T}^3$ with $\nabla_\perp\cdot v_{0\perp}\neq 0$ and $B_{0\parallel}+b\varrho_0\neq 0$, solves the linearized version of (3) for small $\varepsilon$, and checks that after the fast magnetosonic transient the perpendicular velocity has projected to $P_\perp v_{0\perp}$ and the parallel magnetic field has relaxed to $(B_{0\parallel}-\varrho_0)/c$; persistent $O(1)$ deviations from those projected initial values, or any surviving component of $B_\parallel + b\varrho$, would contradict the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a two-part convergence statement. First, in both $\mathbb{T}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^3$ and for adiabatic exponent $\gamma > 3/2$, any sequence of global weak solutions to the penalized anisotropic MHD system (3)-(4) converges, up to a subsequence, to $(1,\varrho,v,B)$ where the perpendicular pair $(v_\perp,B_\perp)$ solves the closed nonlinear RMHD system (12)-(13) with initial data $(P_\perp B_{0\perp}, P_\perp v_{0\perp})$, the solenoidal part of the original data in the perpendicular plane. Second, the parallel components $(v_\parallel, B_\parallel)$ solve the linear transport system (16) with $c = 1 + 1/b$ and initial data $B_\parallel(0) = (B_{0\parallel} - \varrho_0)/c$, and the first-order density is slaved to the parallel magnetic field by $b\varrho + B_\parallel = 0$. For unprepared data the same limit emerges because a time boundary layer at $t=0$ removes the irrotational part $Q_\perp v_{0\perp}$ and redefines $B_\parallel(0)$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the exact anisotropic ordering that fixes the perpendicular and parallel length scales in ratio $\varepsilon$ and scales the viscosities and resistivities as $\mu_\perp = \varepsilon \mu_\perp^\varepsilon$, $\mu_\parallel = \mu_\parallel^\varepsilon/\varepsilon$, and similarly for $\lambda$ and $\eta$, with $\varepsilon \to 0$, so if a plasma obeys different anisotropy scalings the RMHD limit, including which Laplacians survive, can change or fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The RMHD system is the true weak limit of dissipative compressible MHD in the strongly anisotropic, strongly magnetized regime; it is not only a formal asymptotic model.
  • In this limit the plasma flow is incompressible in the plane perpendicular to the background field, while the parallel direction retains compressibility through the relation $b\varrho + B_\parallel = 0$.
  • Unprepared initial data are admissible: fast magnetosonic oscillations are filtered by a time boundary layer that effectively replaces $v_{0\perp}$ by $P_\perp v_{0\perp}$ and $B_{0\parallel}$ by $(B_{0\parallel}-\varrho_0)/c$.
  • The same passage to the limit gives an alternative construction of global weak solutions of the RMHD system by letting $\varepsilon \to 0$.
  • In the whole space the proof manages without isotropic Strichartz estimates, using a truncation-and-mollification argument adapted to the anisotropic wave equation, which is the reason the result covers $\mathbb{R}^3$ as well.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to vary the scaling ratios, e.g. $\mu_\perp \sim \varepsilon^2$ or $\eta_\perp \sim \varepsilon^2$; the paper's limit equations depend on the chosen ratios, so one would expect different reduced models or failure of RMHD beyond the threshold.
  • The proof's separation of perpendicular and parallel mechanisms suggests the same strategy can be carried to extended MHD with extra Hall or electron-pressure terms, where the fast transverse waves would have modified speeds.
  • A Fourier computation in the periodic case shows that resonant modes with equal perpendicular wavenumbers survive the filtering; this indicates that the perpendicular filtered component feeds the pressure term, which could be probed numerically by computing $\pi_3$ from two-point correlations.
  • An anisotropic Strichartz estimate for the transverse wave equation, if available, would likely upgrade the weak convergence of $Q_\perp v_\perp$ to strong convergence in the whole space, settling an open question noted in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies, for the anisotropic compressible MHD system (3)-(4) with strong vertical magnetic field, the singular limit of global weak solutions as the aspect-ratio and time-scale parameters go to zero. The authors claim that, up to subsequences, these solutions converge to weak solutions of the reduced MHD system (12)-(17), with perpendicular initial data given by transverse Leray projections and with the algebraic relation bϱ+B=0 for positive times. The proofs are carried out separately in the periodic domain T^3 and in the whole space R^3, using energy estimates, fast magnetosonic wave filtering by a unitary group, Simon compactness, and the Lions-Masmoudi compactness lemma. The paper is written for adiabatic exponents γ>3/2 and includes both prepared and unprepared initial data, with explicit discussion of the time boundary layer.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper is a substantial contribution: it gives the first rigorous weak-solution level justification of the RMHD model from compressible MHD, in both periodic and whole-space settings, with general unprepared data and with the correct projection operator appearing at t=0. The proof is detailed, carefully structured, and built on appropriate and well-tested tools (Hu-Wang existence theory, Lions-Masmoudi compactness, Simon's lemma, and an explicit unitary group for transverse fast magnetosonic waves). The authors are also transparent about limitations, such as the lack of anisotropic Strichartz estimates. However, as detailed below, the stated range γ>3/2 is not supported by the argument; the density-corrector estimate fails for 3/2<γ<2, so the theorems as stated are false in that range. The paper would be sound if the statement were restricted to γ≥2, unless a new density estimate is found.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Lemma 1, estimate (42)] The claimed uniform L^κ bound for ϱε fails for 3/2<γ<2. From the energy inequality (30)-(33) and Lemma 11, the correct consequences are ‖ϱε 1_{ρε≤R}‖_{L∞L^2}^2 ≲ ε^{2γ-4} and ‖ϱε 1_{ρε>R}‖_{L∞L^γ}^γ ≲ ε^{γ-2}; both right-hand sides diverge as ε→0 for γ<2, whereas (42) asserts boundedness and uses the exponent ε^{2/γ-1}. This estimate is the only mechanism producing the weak limit ϱ in L∞L^κ and consequently the relation bϱ+B=0 (Lemma 4, point 3, and Section 4.7). The gap is load-bearing: with initial data ρ0ε=1+ε^{γ-1}f (f smooth with zero mean), v0ε=0, B0ε=0, assumption (27) is satisfied with O(1) energy, but ϱ0ε=ε^{γ-2}f diverges in L^γ for γ<2, so the weak-* convergence claimed in Theorem 1 cannot hold at t=0.
  2. [§5.1, Lemma 6, third and fifth assertions] The same issue appears in the whole-space proof. The bound ‖ρε−1‖_{L∞L^γ_loc}≤Cε stated for 1<γ<2 is stronger than what (68) together with Lemma 11 yields; the correct local bound is O(ε^{2(γ−1)/γ}), which tends to zero but is weaker than ε. Consequently the uniform bound for ϱε in L^κ_loc in the fifth assertion of Lemma 6 also fails for γ<2, and Theorem 2 inherits exactly the same obstruction as Theorem 1. A different density estimate, or an explicit restriction to γ≥2, is needed before the passage to the limit is justified.
  3. [Theorems 1 and 2] Because the density-corrector compactness is used in several load-bearing places (the filtered profile in Lemma 4, the pressure terms πε2, the identification of initial data in (17), and the derivation of the parallel equations (16)), the gap is not local. The counterexample at t=0 described above shows that the theorems as stated are false for 3/2<γ<2, not merely unproved. The authors should either prove a genuinely new uniform estimate for ϱε in this range or explicitly restrict the main theorems to γ≥2, with all subsequent statements adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The word 'ANISTROPIC' in the title should be 'ANISOTROPIC'.
  2. [§2.4 and Theorem 2] In the whole-space section, the reference 'from (27)' should be 'from (36)', and the regularity lines in (37) and Theorem 2 contain T^3 where R^3 is intended (e.g., H^1(T^3) and L^2(T^3)).
  3. [§4.3, proof of Lemma 3] The notation H^1_0(T^3) is used for the mean-zero subspace of \.H^1(T^3); since H^1_0 usually denotes zero trace, a different symbol would avoid confusion.
  4. [§5.3, Lemma 9] The symbol κ is overloaded: it is defined both as κ=min{2,γ} and later as κ=max{1/2,3/(2γ)}; please use a distinct letter for the second quantity.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos (e.g., 'seventhies', 'ubiquitus', 'regim', 'anistotropic') and inconsistent uses of the pair (ρ,ρ̄) in the initial-data discussion; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RMHD limit is obtained from the penalized compressible MHD system by compactness and oscillatory filtering, not from the target equations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The target RMHD system (12)-(16) is not used as an input; it is obtained by passing to the limit in the weak formulations (20)-(24). The pressure-density relation bϱ+B=0 is derived in Lemma 4 point 3 from the convergence of ϕ^ε = b^εϱ^ε+B^ε to zero in D'(R*_+×T^3), which follows from the compactness and cancellation arguments, not assumed. The transverse Leray projections in the initial data (14) emerge from the boundary-layer cancellation of Q⊥u0⊥ via π0, as explained in Section 4.5. The two self-citations [1]-[2] are contextual references to the authors' other work on XMHD and do not supply any uniqueness theorem or ansatz used in the proof. The scaling choices in Section 3.1 are physical modelling assumptions, not fitted parameters, and the paper's conclusions are conditional on them; that is a modelling assumption, not circularity. The skeptical concern about the L^κ bound for ϱ^ε when 3/2<γ<2 is a possible gap in the compactness argument, since the energy only gives an ε^{γ-2} divergence, but that is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and under the stated hard rules it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants appear in the derivation. The only chosen numeric ordering is β=1, a standard high-beta normalization; the proof rests on the existence theory of [23] and the compactness toolbox of [32,33].

free parameters (1)
  • plasma beta β = 1
    Set to 1 in Section 3.1 as the high-beta ordering; this is a chosen normalization, not a fit. The derived RMHD system depends on this ordering.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Global weak solutions to the penalized system (3)-(4) exist for γ>3/2 under the stated initial data (theorem of Hu and Wang [23]).
    Invoked in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 to obtain the sequence of solutions; not re-proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption The physical ordering: strong background field, β=1, aspect ratio x̄⊥/x̄∥=ε, slow time t̄=τ⊥/ε, velocity scaling v̄=εvA, and dissipation scaling μ⊥=εμ⊥ε, μ∥=μ∥ε/ε, λ=ελε, η⊥=εη⊥ε, η∥=η∥ε/ε.
    Section 3.1 fixes this ordering; it defines the regime in which RMHD is the claimed limit.
  • domain assumption Barotropic closure p=aργ with γ>3/2 and uniform initial energy bounds (27)/(36).
    These hypotheses appear in Theorems 1 and 2 and are needed for compactness and existence.
  • standard math Compactness toolbox: Simon's lemma, Lions-Masmoudi Lemma 14, convexity inequalities for x^γ, and mollifier estimates (Lemmas 11-15).
    Used throughout Sections 4 and 5; Lemmas 11 and 12 are only sketched, with details left to the reader.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Singular limits of anisotropic weak solutions to compressible magnetohydrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWDTPQYV

@misc{pith2026250619784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Singular limits of anisotropic weak solutions to compressible magnetohydrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWDTPQYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19784}
}
read the original abstract

The aim is to justify rigorously the so-called reduced magnetohydrodynamic model (abbreviated as RMHD), which is widely used in fusion, space and astrophysical plasmas. Motivated by physics, the focus is on plasmas that are simultaneously strongly magnetized and anisotropic. We consider conducting fluids that can be described by viscous and resistive barotropic compressible magnetohydrodynamic equations. The purpose is to study the asymptotic behaviour of global weak solutions, which do exist, for strongly anisotropic plasmas such as the large aspect ratio framework. We prove that such anisotropic weak solutions converge to the weak solutions of the RMHD equations. Rigorous justification of this limit is performed both in a periodic domain and in the whole space. It turns out that the resulting system is incompressible only in the perpendicular direction to the external strong magnetic field, whereas it involves compressible features in the parallel direction. In order to pass to the singular limit in the perpendicular direction we exploit, among others, tools elaborated for proving the low Mach number limit of compressible fluid flows such as the introduction of a fast oscillatory unitary group associated to the dynamics of transverse fast magnetosonic waves. In the parallel direction, we bring out compactness arguments and particular cancellations coming from the structure of our equations.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Besse, C

    N. Besse, C. Cheverry, The equations of extended magnetohydrodynamics, to appear in SIAM J. Math. Anal

    work page

  2. [2]

    Besse, C

    N. Besse, C. Cheverry, Asymptotic analysis of extended magnetohydrodynamics , preprint, hal-05009504

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bhattacharjee, C.S

    A. Bhattacharjee, C.S. Ng, S.R. Spangler, Weakly compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the solar wind and the interstellar medium, ApJ494(2012) 409–418

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Biskamp, nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1993

    D. Biskamp, nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1993

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Bourbaki, Elements of mathematics, General Topology, Springer 1989

    N. Bourbaki, Elements of mathematics, General Topology, Springer 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Borden, A course in advanced calculus, Dover Publications, 1998

    R.S. Borden, A course in advanced calculus, Dover Publications, 1998

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Brezis, Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, Springer, 2011

    H. Brezis, Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations, Springer, 2011

    2011

  8. [8]

    Brezis, P

    H. Brezis, P. Mironescu, Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities and non-inequalities: the full story, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire35(2018) 1355–1376

    work page 2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Brezis, P

    H. Brezis, P. Mironescu, Where Sobolev interacts with Gagliardo–Nirenberg, J. Funct. Anal.277(2019) 2839–2864

    2019

  2. [10]

    Czarny, G

    O. Czarny, G. Huysmans, B´ ezier surfaces and finite elements for MHD simulations, J. Comput. Phys. 227(2008) 7423–7445

    2008

  3. [11]

    Desjardins, E

    B. Desjardins, E. Grenier, Low Mach number limit of viscous compressible flows in the whole space, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A455(1999) 2271–2279

    1999

  4. [12]

    Despr´ es, R

    B. Despr´ es, R. Sart, Reduced resistive MHD in Tokamaks with general density, ESAIM: M2AN46 (2012) 1081–1106

    2012

  5. [13]

    Drake, T.M

    J.F. Drake, T.M. Antonsen, Nonlinear reduced fluid equations for toroidal plasmas, Phys. Fluids27 (1983) 898–908

    1983

  6. [14]

    Duvaut, J.-L

    G. Duvaut, J.-L. Lions, In´ equations en thermo´ elasticit´ e et magn´ eto-hydrodynamique, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.46(1972) 241–279

    1972

  7. [15]

    Feireisl, A

    E. Feireisl, A. Novotn´ y, H. Petzeltov´ a, On the existence of globally defined weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations, J. Math. Fluid. Mech.3(2001) 358–392

    2001

  8. [16]

    Fonseca, G

    I. Fonseca, G. Leoni, Modern methods in the calcul of variations inL p spaces, Springer 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Ginibre, G

    J. Ginibre, G. Velo, Generalized Strichartz inequalities for the wave equation, J. Funct. Anal.133(1995) 50–68

    1995

  10. [18]

    Goedbloed, S

    H.P. Goedbloed, S. Poedts, Principles of magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, Springer 2014

    L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, Springer 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Grenier, Oscillatory perturbations of the Navier–Stokes equations, J

    E. Grenier, Oscillatory perturbations of the Navier–Stokes equations, J. Math. Pures Appl.76(1997) 477–498

    1997

  13. [21]

    Guillard, The mathematical theory of reduced MHD models for fusion plasmas, INRIA Research Report No 8715 (2015)

    H.M. Guillard, The mathematical theory of reduced MHD models for fusion plasmas, INRIA Research Report No 8715 (2015). SINGULAR LIMITS OF ANISTROPIC WEAK SOLUTIONS TO COMPRESSIBLE MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS 37

    2015

  14. [22]

    Hazeltine, Reduced magnetohydrodynamics and the Hasegawa-Mima equation, Phys

    R.D. Hazeltine, Reduced magnetohydrodynamics and the Hasegawa-Mima equation, Phys. Fluids26 (1983) 3242–3245

    1983

  15. [23]

    X. Hu, D. Wang, Global existence and large-time behaviour of solutions to the three-dimensional equa- tions of compressible magnetohydrodynamic flows, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.197(2010) 203–238

    2010

  16. [24]

    Izzo, D.A

    R. Izzo, D.A. Monticello, H.R. Strauss, W. Park, J. Manickam, R. Grimm, J. DeLucia, Reduced equa- tions for internal kinks in tokamaks, Phys. Fluids26(1983) 3066–3069

    1983

  17. [25]

    Q. Ju, S. Schochet, X. Xu, Singular limits of the equations of compressible ideal magneto-hydrodynamics in a domain with boundaries, Asymptot. Anal.113(2019) 137–165

    2019

  18. [26]

    Kadomtsev, O.P

    B.B. Kadomtsev, O.P. Pogutse, Nonlinear helical perturbations of a plasma in the tokamak, Sov. Phys.- JETP38(1974) 283–290

    1974

  19. [27]

    M. Keel, T. Tao, Endpoint Strichartz estimates, Amer. J. Math.120(1998) 955–980

    1998

  20. [28]

    Kelley, General topology, Springer, 1975

    J.L. Kelley, General topology, Springer, 1975

    1975

  21. [29]

    McWilliams, Magnetohydrodynamic equations under anisotropic conditions, J

    R Kinney, J.C. McWilliams, Magnetohydrodynamic equations under anisotropic conditions, J. Plasma Physics57(1997) 73–82

    1997

  22. [30]

    Klainerman, A

    S. Klainerman, A. Majda, Singular limits of quasilinear hyperbolic systems with large parameters and the incompressible limit of compressible fluids, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.34(1981) 481–524

    1981

  23. [31]

    Kruger, C.C

    S.E. Kruger, C.C. Hegna, J.D. Callen, Generalized reduced magnetohydrodynamic equations, Phys. Plasmas5(1998) 4169–4182

    1998

  24. [32]

    Lions, Mathematical topics in fluid dynamics

    P.-L. Lions, Mathematical topics in fluid dynamics. Vol.2: compressible models, Oxford University Press, 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    Lions, N

    P.-L. Lions, N. Masmoudi, Incompressible limit for a viscous compressible fluid, J. Math. Pures Appl. 77(1998) 585–627

    1998

  26. [34]

    Majda, Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables, Springer, 1984

    A. Majda, Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables, Springer, 1984

    1984

  27. [35]

    C.S. Ng, L. Lin, A. Bhattacharjee, High-Lundquist number scaling in three-dimensional simulations of Parker’s model of coronal heating, ApJ747:109 (2012) 10pp

    2012

  28. [36]

    Orain, M

    S. Orain, M. B´ ecoulet, G.T.A. Hujmans, G. Dif-Pradalier, M. Hoelzl, J. Morales, X. Garbet, E. Nardon, S. Pamela, C. Passeron, G. Latu, P. Cahyna, Resistive reduced MHD modeling of multi-edge-localized- mode cycles in tokamak X-point plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 035001

    2015

  29. [37]

    Oughton, W.H

    S. Oughton, W.H. Matthaeus, P. Dmitruk, Reduced MHD in astrophysical applications: two- dimensional or three-dimensional?, ApJ839:2 (2017) 13pp

    2017

  30. [38]

    Ricci, F.D

    P. Ricci, F.D. Halpern, S. Jolliet, J. Loizu, A. Mosetto, A. Fasoli, I. Furno, C. Theiler, Simulation of plasmas turbulence in scrape-off layer conditions: the gbs code, simulations results and code validation, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion54(2012) 124047

    2012

  31. [39]

    Roe, D.S

    P.L. Roe, D.S. Balsara, Notes on the eigensystem of magnetohydrodynamics, SIAM J. Appl. Math.56 (2012) 57–67

    2012

  32. [40]

    Schekochihin, S.C

    A.A. Schekochihin, S.C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G.W. Hammett, G.G. Howes, E. Quataert, T. Tatsuno, Astrophysical gyrokinetics: kinetic and fluid turbulent cascades in magnetized weakly collisional plasmas, ApJS182(2009) 310–377

    2009

  33. [41]

    Sermange, R

    M. Sermange, R. Temam, Some mathematical questions related to the MHD equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.36(1983) 635–664

    1983

  34. [42]

    Schochet, Fast singular limits of hyperbolic PDEs, J

    S. Schochet, Fast singular limits of hyperbolic PDEs, J. Differential Equations114(1994) 476–512

    1994

  35. [43]

    Simon, Compact sets in the spaceL p(0,T;B) , Ann

    J. Simon, Compact sets in the spaceL p(0,T;B) , Ann. Mat. Purea Appl.146(1986) 65–96

    1986

  36. [44]

    Strauss, Nonlinear, three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamics of non circular tokamaks, Phys

    H.R. Strauss, Nonlinear, three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamics of non circular tokamaks, Phys. Fluids19(1976) 134–140

    1976

  37. [45]

    Strauss, Dynamics of highβtokamaks, Phys

    H.R. Strauss, Dynamics of highβtokamaks, Phys. Fluids20(1977) 1354–1360

    1977

  38. [46]

    Willard, General topology, Addison–Wesley Publications, 1970

    S. Willard, General topology, Addison–Wesley Publications, 1970

    1970

  39. [47]

    Zank, W.H

    G.P. Zank, W.H. Matthaeus, The equations of reduced magnetohydrodynamics, J. Plasma Physics48 (1992) 85–100

    1992

  40. [48]

    Zank, W.H

    G.P. Zank, W.H. Matthaeus, Nearly incompressible fluids. II: magnetohydrodynamics, turbulence, and waves, J. Plasma Physics48(1992) 85–100. 38 N. BESSE AND C. CHEVERRY (Nicolas Besse)Laboratoire J.-L. Lagrange, Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur, Universit´e Cˆote d’Azur, Bvd de ...

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.