Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 19 references

An ignition criterion for inertial fusion boosted by microturbulence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A modified Lawson criterion shows that micron-scale turbulence can pull inertial-fusion targets across the ignition threshold.

desk verdict A promising idea undercut by a sign error in the central criterion; needs correction before it's useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18917 v1 pith:5EGQS2MI submitted 2025-07-25 physics.plasm-ph

Henry Fetsch , Nathaniel J. Fisch This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords inertialconfinementfusionignitioncriterionLawsonturbulentkineticenergyshear-flowreactivityenhancementhot-spotmicroturbulenceDT
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

Turbulence is usually counted as a loss in inertial confinement fusion, with residual kinetic energy something to be minimized. This paper argues the opposite for a narrow class of flows: it derives a modified Lawson-like ignition criterion, $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}} > 1$ (Eq. 7), for a hot spot in which part of the thermal energy is replaced by turbulent kinetic energy on scales much smaller than the hot-spot radius. Because small-scale shear flows broaden the ion distribution's tail, fusion reactivity rises faster than the temperature falls, and a turbulent hot spot can ignite where a quiescent one cannot. If true, this identifies a new ignition regime and gives a quantitative target length scale, typically microns, for seeding turbulence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified ignition parameter of Eq. (7), $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}} = [f_\alpha \epsilon_\alpha S_0 T_0^{\omega-2} (1+\theta)^{\omega}(1+\theta H) - f_b B_0 T_0^{\beta-2}(1+\theta)^{\beta}(1+\theta M)] \tau p$, built from the turbulence-free generalized Lawson ignition parameter of Ref. [4]. The reactivity enhancement enters through the spectral function $G(k)$, fit as a hyperbolic tangent in $\ln(k\lambda_{\mathrm{th}})$ with temperature-dependent parameters; $G(k)$ is the mechanism that converts each turbulent mode's energy into extra $\alpha$ heating, and because it increases with $k$, short-wavelength modes give more ignition benefit per unit energy. The paper then defines per-mode efficiency functions $\psi_0(k) = (1/|\chi|)(\partial\chi_{\mathrm{turb}}/\partial\theta)|_{\hat E = \delta(k-k'),\, \theta=0}$ and its viscous cousin $\psi_\eta(k) = (\tau_\eta/\tau)\psi_0(k)$ with $\tau_\eta = \min(1/(k^2\eta),\tau)$, and the peak of $\psi_\eta$ identifies the preferred driving scale.

What would settle it

Take two matched implosions at the same stored energy, density, and temperature, seed one with a narrow-band perturbation at the predicted optimal wavelength (near the micron range), and compare time-resolved neutron yield and shell-emission spectra. If the seeded implosion does not shift toward $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}}>1$ while remaining free of high-Z contamination, or if its bremsstrahlung rises with the same scaling as $M$, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the ignition condition of an inertial hot spot is not a function of thermodynamic temperature alone. Replacing a fraction $\theta$ of the thermal energy with divergence-free turbulent kinetic energy at wavenumber $k$ raises fusion reactivity through the shear-flow reactivity enhancement, multiplying the $\alpha$-heating term by $(1+\theta H)$ with $H = (6/\theta T)\int dk\,E(k)G(k)$, while radiative losses are multiplied by $(1+\theta M)$ if turbulent mixing contaminates the hot spot with high-Z material. With $M=0$, the resulting criterion $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}}>1$ can be satisfied at lower values of the turbulence-free temperature $T_0$ than the standard criterion $\chi>1$, opening a regime $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}}>1>\chi$ in which ignition is possible only because of turbulence. The per-unit-energy benefit grows with $k$ until viscous dissipation wins; for ICF conditions the optimum sits at $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$ with wavelength in the micron range, while long-wavelength turbulence remains harmful.

Load-bearing premise

All predicted gain rests on turbulence being driven deep inside the hot spot without pulling heavy shell material into the burning core; if shell material gets mixed in, the extra radiation it emits can cancel the reactivity gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An implosion with $\chi<1$ but $\chi_{\mathrm{turb}}>1$ can ignite: redirecting roughly $1/12$ of the hot-spot thermal energy into small-scale turbulence moves the ignition contour down in the $\rho R$\,--\,$T_0$ plane (the shaded region of Fig. 4).
  • The optimal scale is finite: because viscous damping timescale scales as $k^{-2}$, $\psi_\eta$ peaks near a micron-scale wavelength under ICF-like conditions, so flows at that scale should be seeded rather than avoided.
  • Long-wavelength turbulence remains detrimental, so the conventional conclusion is not overturned; the criterion reproduces the standard $\chi$ for $m=0$.
  • For D$^3$He and DD reactions, the same turbulence-boosted reactivities raise alpha heating at a given internal energy, suggesting ignition could become accessible at lower laboratory temperatures than in thermal plasmas, although the quantitative ignition criterion is worked out only for DT.
  • Because $\psi_0$ and $\psi_\eta$ depend on local hot-spot parameters rather than on the 1D geometry used for the contour plots, the micron-scale optimum is expected to survive in asymmetric, realistic implosions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not specify how to keep $M=0$ in practice; an obvious extension is to compute the turbulent mixing rate across the hot-spot boundary for a given spectrum and to identify the perturbation amplitudes and density gradients that keep heavy shell material out of the reacting core.
  • A concrete experiment would impose a narrow-band perturbation (for example, engineered foam voids or seeded Rayleigh-Taylor or Richtmyer-Meshkov seeds) with dominant wavelength near the predicted micron optimum, holding total internal energy fixed, and look for the predicted downward shift of the ignition threshold.
  • Because $H$ is evaluated with central hot-spot parameters, the criterion ignores radial variation of the turbulence spectrum; a higher-fidelity version would weight $G(k)$ across the reaction-rate profile, which could shift $k_{\mathrm{opt}}$.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a generalized ignition criterion, χ_turb > 1, for inertial confinement fusion hot spots that contain turbulent kinetic energy (TKE). It defines θ as the ratio of TKE to thermal energy, T0 as the effective temperature p/2n, and incorporates the authors' previously derived shear-flow reactivity enhancement (SFRE) through a factor H. The resulting Eq. (7) is used to map ignition contours in the ρR–T0 plane (Fig. 4) and to define per-mode efficiency functions ψ0 and ψη, including viscous damping, leading to the claim that micron-scale turbulence can lower the energy required for ignition and can open a new regime in which χ_turb > 1 > χ.

Significance. The idea is provocative and, if correct, would expand the ICF design space by suggesting that a fraction of implosion energy redirected into small-scale flows could lower the ignition threshold. The paper is commendably explicit about its modeling assumptions, including the approximate SFRE formula, the central-position approximation for the turbulent spectrum, and the M=0 no-mixing assumption. The analytic framework is compact and can in principle be tested against corrected algebra and future kinetic simulations. However, the central quantitative predictions currently rest on an algebraic error in Eq. (7) and on a three-parameter fit to the authors' own SFRE model without independent validation, so the numerical results as printed are not reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. The exponents on (1+θ) have the wrong sign under the paper's own definitions. With p denoting the effective pressure and T0=p/2n, the thermal temperature is T=T0/(1+θ) and the thermal pressure is p/(1+θ). The alpha-heating power therefore scales as p^2 S0 T0^{ω−2} (1+θ)^{−ω}, and the radiation term scales as p^2 B0 T0^{β−2} (1+θ)^{−β}. The printed Eq. (7) instead contains (1+θ)^ω and (1+θ)^β, which overstates the turbulent reactivity benefit by a factor (1+θ)^{2ω} ≈ 1.7 at θ=1/12 and makes radiation increase with θ, contradicting the physics illustrated in Fig. 2b. Because Figs. 4 and 5 are computed from Eq. (7), the ignition contours, the shaded χ_turb>1>χ region, and the optimal-scale predictions must be recomputed. A corrected version may still show a benefit, but the quantitative claims as stated are not supported.
  2. [After Eq. (7)] The central claim of turbulence-enabled ignition assumes M=0 after Eq. (7). The manuscript states this is reasonable if turbulence is driven near the center without mixing at the boundary, but no quantitative scale-separation estimate or transport constraint is given. If a non-negligible amount of high-Z material is mixed into the hot spot, the radiative-loss term (1+θ M) rises and can cancel the reactivity gain. The authors should quantify the largest M for which the χ_turb>1>χ region survives and connect that bound to a physical estimate of turbulent mixing from micron-scale modes.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (6)] The quantitative predictions depend entirely on G(k), a three-parameter fit to the authors' own previous model (Ref. 14), with no independent benchmark, uncertainty estimate, or sensitivity scan. Since the optimal wavenumber in Fig. 5 is essentially the convolution of this fitted G(k) with a 1/k² viscous lifetime, the micron-scale optimum is not robust unless the SFRE model is validated or the sensitivity to G0, G1, and G2 is explored. The manuscript itself acknowledges that the SFRE formula involves approximations and tends to underestimate the enhancement in high-Mach-number flows; the paper should show how the contours and k_opt shift under such variations.
  4. [Eq. (12)] The per-mode efficiency formula ψ0(k) in Eq. (12) appears to contain a typesetting or algebraic error: the second grouped term is not separated by a clear sign, and the printed expression as rendered does not follow unambiguously from differentiation of Eq. (7). This needs to be corrected and rechecked, especially because Eq. (7) itself requires the exponent sign correction discussed above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The notation eE(k,r) for the local turbulent spectrum is not defined before Eq. (5); please define it and its normalization explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that ∫ E(k) dk = T/4 gives θ=1/12 for DD and DT; this follows only if the thermal energy is 3T, so that relation should be stated when θ is first introduced.
  3. [References] Reference 10 lists Physical Review Letters 132, 102707 with year 2008; the volume and year appear inconsistent, and the entry should be checked.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption repeats 'Fig. 5' within the caption text and should label subfigures (a) and (b) more clearly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Core turbulence benefit and micron-scale optimum are inherited from the authors' own unverified SFRE fit (Refs. 13-14); Eq. (7) also has a sign inconsistency in its theta exponents.

  1. self citation load bearing [Eqs. (5)-(6), section 'Accounting for the reactivity enhancement']
    "By the results of Ref. 14, H takes the form H= TR ∞ 0 dkE(k) * (6 R ∞ 0 dk \tilde E(k)G(k)/\tilde T)_react. ... To evaluate G(k), the formula from Ref. 14 is fit to a hyperbolic tangent with temperature-dependent parameters, viz. G(k) = G0(T)/2 (1+tanh((ln(kλth)-G2(T))/G1)) (6). ... Reference data generated from the 'corrected utility function' of Ref. 14."

    The turbulent enhancement H and the kernel G(k) are the only new physics entering chi_turb (Eq. (7)), the efficiency function psi0 (Eq. (12)), and the optimal-scale claim. Both are taken directly from Refs. 13 and 14, the same authors' unverified arXiv preprints; the paper does not re-derive or externally benchmark them and even notes the formula is approximate and underestimates high-Mach SFRE. Thus the central 'turbulence enables ignition' result is load-bearing on a self-citation chain rather than established in this work.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 5 and surrounding text, Eq. (12)]
    "Due to the k−2 dependence of τη, ψη(k) has a peak at some kopt, which depends on temperature. Within the model of viscous dissipation adopted here, kopt is the wavenumber at which TKE produces the largest time-integrated increase in χturb."

    The claimed optimal length scale is not a new independent result. ψη is defined as (min(1/k^2η, τ)/τ)ψ0, and Eq. (12) shows ψ0 is affine in 6G(k). Maximizing ψη therefore yields a kopt that solves an equation involving G(k) and η. Since G(k) is the three-parameter hyperbolic-tangent fit (6) to Ref. 14's reference data, the micron-scale optimum is a re-expression of the fitted transition scale G2 and the assumed 1/k^2 viscous damping. The prediction is inherited from those fitted inputs.

full rationale

The modified ignition criterion chi_turb (Eq. (7)) is mostly a formal substitution of T=T0/(1+theta) into the Betti et al. GLC, plus the enhancement factor 1+theta*H. The enhancement H and its kernel G(k) are taken, by the authors' own statement, from Refs. 13 and 14—the same group's unverified arXiv preprints—so the new physics is a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation in this paper. The quantitative prediction highlighted in the abstract, the micron-scale optimal turbulence length, is the position of the peak of psi_eta = (min(1/k^2 eta, tau)/tau) psi_0, where psi_0 is affine in the fitted G(k) (Eqs. (6), (12), Fig. 5). That peak is therefore inherited from the three-parameter fit to Ref. 14's reference data and the assumed 1/k^2 viscosity; no external benchmark or independent validation is provided. I also note, as a correctness caveat separate from circularity, that Eq. (7) uses (1+theta)^omega and (1+theta)^beta where the temperature substitution T=T0/(1+theta) into Eq. (3) gives (1+theta)^{2-omega} and (1+theta)^{2-beta}; the printed exponents appear to have the wrong sign and would bias the ignition contours. Finally, the M=0 assumption (turbulence without high-Z mixing) is acknowledged in the text but not quantified, so the practical benefit is not robustly established. These issues are severity/validity concerns; the circularity score reflects the self-citation/fitted-input structure of the central prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the SFRE model from the authors' prior work (Refs. 13 and 14), on power-law fits for reactivity and radiation from prior literature, and on the M=0 assumption that turbulence does not mix cold material into the hot spot. Several numerical inputs are fitted or chosen ad hoc.

free parameters (6)
  • G0 = 3.87 T^-0.13
    Fit parameter for the G(k) hyperbolic tangent, fitted to the authors' Ref. 14 data (Fig. 3).
  • G1 = 1.38
    Fit parameter for G(k) width, fitted to Ref. 14 data.
  • G2 = 2.40 T^-0.22
    Fit parameter for G(k) transition location, fitted to Ref. 14 data.
  • S0, B0, omega, beta = 2.78e-21, 8.34e-16, 3.26, 1/2
    Power-law fits for DT reactivity and bremsstrahlung, taken from Betti et al. (Refs. 3-5). Not introduced here but central to the quantitative criterion.
  • theta = 1/12
    Ratio of TKE to thermal energy, chosen for Fig. 4. Not fitted but a free parameter of the analysis.
  • eta (viscosity) = unspecified
    The optimal wavenumber k_opt depends on viscosity through tau_eta = 1/(k^2 eta), but eta is never specified numerically, so the micron-scale claim is not quantitatively grounded.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Power-law approximations S(T) ≈ S0 T^(omega-2) and B(T) ≈ B0 T^(beta-2) are valid in the ICF regime (4-12 keV).
    Invoked after Eq. (2) to derive Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Alpha heating, radiation, and mechanical work balance (Eq. (1)) describes ignition; heat conduction is neglected.
    Stated in Section 2 as an approximation following Refs. 4 and 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The SFRE enhancement formula from Ref. 14 is accurate enough for quantitative predictions.
    Used in Eqs. (5) and (6); it is the authors' own prior model with several acknowledged approximations.
  • ad hoc to paper M=0, i.e., no radiation increase from turbulent mixing of high-Z material into the hot spot.
    Set after Eq. (7); if violated, the radiation term rises and may erase the benefit.
  • domain assumption The turbulent energy spectrum E(k) at the hot-spot center represents the whole reacting volume.
    Used to simplify Eq. (5) to H = (6/theta T) integral dk E G.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An ignition criterion for inertial fusion boosted by microturbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EGQS2MI

@misc{pith2026250718917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An ignition criterion for inertial fusion boosted by microturbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EGQS2MI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18917}
}
read the original abstract

Turbulence enhances fusion reactivity, enabling ignition at lower temperature. A modified Lawson-like ignition criterion is derived for inertially confined plasmas harboring turbulent kinetic energy. Remarkably, if small-scale turbulence is driven in the hot spot while avoiding mixing at the boundary, less energy is required to ignite a target. The optimal length scale for hot-spot turbulence is quantified, typically lying in the micron range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Replacement of thermal energy with TKE. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fit of G(k) with parameters described in (6). Reference data generated from the “corrected utility function” of Ref. 14. thermal plasma and in “turbulent” plasma modeled by a shear single mode with kinetic energy per particle equal to T. The horizontal axis shows T0; all points at the same T0 have equal internal energy. Two cases are shown: one with a turbulent Knudsen number of 0.1 and one with asymptotically large… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Per-mode efficiency functions for a range of tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author J. D. \ Lawson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0370-1301/70/1/303 journal journal Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 6 ( year 1957 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1088/0370-1301/70/1/303 1957

  2. [2]

    author author J. D. \ Lindl , author S. W. \ Haan , author O. L. \ Landen , author A. R. \ Christopherson ,\ and\ author R. Betti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5049595 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 25 ,\ pages 122704 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.5049595

  3. [3]

    author author C. D. \ Zhou \ and\ author R. Betti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2998604 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 15 ,\ pages 102707 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2998604 2008

  4. [4]

    Betti , author P

    author author R. Betti , author P. Y. \ Chang , author B. K. \ Spears , author K. S. \ Anderson , author J. Edwards , author M. Fatenejad , author J. D. \ Lindl , author R. L. \ McCrory , author R. Nora ,\ and\ author D. Shvarts ,\ journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 17 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3380857 10.1063/1.3380857 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.3380857

  5. [5]

    author author A. R. \ Christopherson , author R. Betti , author A. Bose , author J. Howard , author K. M. \ Woo , author E. M. \ Campbell , author J. Sanz ,\ and\ author B. K. \ Spears ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4991405 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 25 ,\ pages 012703 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4991405

  6. [6]

    author author A. B. \ Zylstra , author A. L. \ Kritcher , author O. A. \ Hurricane , author D. A. \ Callahan , author J. E. \ Ralph , author D. T. \ Casey , author A. Pak , author O. L. \ Landen , author B. Bachmann , author K. L. \ Baker , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.106.025202 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 106 ,\ pages 025202...

    doi:10.1103/physreve.106.025202

  7. [7]

    author author O. A. \ Hurricane , author S. A. \ Maclaren , author M. D. \ Rosen , author J. H. \ Hammer , author P. T. \ Springer ,\ and\ author R. Betti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0035583 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 28 ,\ pages 022704 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0035583

  8. [8]

    author author O. A. \ Hurricane , author A. Allen , author B. L. \ Bachmann , author K. L. \ Baker , author S. Baxamusa , author S. D. \ Bhandarkar , author J. Biener , author S. R. M. \ Bionta , author T. Braun , author T. Briggs , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad994f journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 67 ,\ pages...

    doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad994f

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    author author A. R. \ Christopherson , author R. Betti , author S. Miller , author V. Gopalaswamy , author O. M. \ Mannion ,\ and\ author D. Cao ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5143889 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 052708 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  2. [10]

    Abu-Shawareb , et al

    author author The Indirect Drive ICF Collaboration , author H. Abu-Shawareb , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.065102 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 132 ,\ pages 102707 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    author author A. L. \ Kritcher , author A. B. \ Zylstra , author C. R. \ Weber , author O. A. \ Hurricane , author D. A. \ Callahan , author D. S. \ Clark , author L. Divol , author D. E. \ Hinkel , author K. Humbird , author O. Jones , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author M. D. \ Rosen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0221005 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 31 ,\ pages 090501 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Fetsch \ and\ author N

    author author H. Fetsch \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ journal journal arXiv preprint \ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.03590 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03590 ( year 2024 ),\ note arXiv:2410.03590 [physics] NoStop

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fetsch \ and\ author N

    author author H. Fetsch \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ journal journal arXiv preprint \ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.13711 10.48550/arXiv.2506.13711 ( year 2025 ),\ note arXiv:2506.13711 [physics] NoStop

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    \ Bosch \ and\ author G

    author author H.-S. \ Bosch \ and\ author G. M. \ Hale ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/32/4/I07 journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume 32 ,\ pages 611 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    Davidovits \ and\ author N

    author author S. Davidovits \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5098790 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 26 ,\ pages 062709 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    author author P. K. \ Patel , author P. T. \ Springer , author C. R. \ Weber , author L. C. \ Jarrott , author O. A. \ Hurricane , author B. Bachmann , author K. L. \ Baker , author L. F. \ Berzak Hopkins , author D. A. \ Callahan , author D. T. \ Casey , et al. ,\ https://doi...

    doi

  10. [18]

    Davidovits \ and\ author N

    author author S. Davidovits \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa619f journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 838 ,\ pages 118 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Yin , author B

    author author L. Yin , author B. J. \ Albright , author E. L. \ Vold , author W. D. \ Nystrom , author R. F. \ Bird ,\ and\ author K. J. \ Bowers ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5109257 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 26 ,\ pages 062302 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

Pith tools

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