Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 62 references

Piecewise omnigenous magnetohydrodynamic equilibria as fusion reactor candidates

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new stellarator magnetic configuration satisfies the ideal MHD equilibrium equation while achieving unprecedented levels of piecewise omnigenity, combining low transport and stability in one reactor-scale design.

desk verdict CIEMAT-pw1 is a credible first demonstration of a deliberately optimized piecewise-omnigenous equilibrium, but the radial extension of the maximum-J benefits is argued, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.14886 v2 pith:2E43XHJO submitted 2026-01-21 physics.plasm-ph

V. Fernández-Pacheco , J.L. Velasco , E. Sánchez , R. Gaur , J.M. García-Regaña , J.A. Alonso , I. Calvo , D. Carralero This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Hc52.25.Fi52.35.Kt
keywords piecewiseomnigenitystellaratorreactorMHDequilibriummaximum-Jneoclassicaltransportgyrokineticturbulencealphaparticleconfinementislanddivertor
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 argues that piecewise omnigenity — a relaxed notion of omnigenity where the second adiabatic invariant is constant within regions of a flux surface rather than on the whole surface — is not just a theoretical construct but a practical design target. It presents a five-field-period stellarator equilibrium optimized so that the magnetic field strength at the middle flux surface differs from an ideal pwO form by less than about one percent. The authors claim that this configuration meets the standard set of reactor physics criteria: low neoclassical and turbulent transport, small bootstrap current, MHD stability, and roughly 95 percent alpha heating efficiency at beta equal to three percent. A sympathetic reader should care because pwO fields may allow a broader family of reactor candidates than exact omnigenous designs, with added robustness to changes in the rotational transform.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametrized piecewise-omnigenous field B_pwO(theta, zeta): a smooth (p = 2) generalization of a parallelogram-shaped field-strength distribution whose width and slope parameters are fixed by the requirements of collisionless trapped-particle confinement and zero bootstrap current. A fixed-boundary equilibrium solver and optimizer is used to minimize the relative deviation delta_B between the equilibrium B and this B_pwO at the middle flux surface, while also targeting Mercier stability, rotational transform, elongation, and mirror ratio. The argument that pwO closeness pays off in turbulence and fast-ion confinement relies on the approximate factorization B(s,

What would settle it

Compute the exact B(s, theta, zeta) from the equilibrium and compare it with f(s) B_pwO(theta, zeta) across the whole radius; if the residual is large enough that the derivative of J with respect to s changes sign, or a significant variation of J within a flux surface appears away from s = 0.5, the piecewise maximum-J claim fails. A direct test would be a full-volume neoclassical and gyrokinetic simulation at reactor collisionality checking that the radial energy flux stays below the reactor threshold at all radii, not just at the single optimized surface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a fixed-boundary stellarator equilibrium can be optimized to be very close to piecewise omnigenity while still solving the ideal MHD force balance equation and passing the usual reactor-physics filters. The optimized design has magnetic field strength at s = 0.5 within about one percent of the target pwO form (and roughly ten percent of the strict p-to-infinity limit), with the approximation degrading only weakly across the plasma volume. This closeness yields small effective ripple, a bootstrap transport coefficient comparable to that of a proven optimized stellarator, maximum-J-like behavior at finite beta, Mercier and ballooning stab

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the magnetic field of the almost-pwO configuration can be written approximately as B = f(s) B_pwO with all shape parameters fixed except the minimum and maximum field strength — if the radial variation of different Fourier harmonics is too strong, the piecewise maximum-J property and its transport benefits do not extend away from the optimized surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, piecewise omnigenity becomes a third viable design family alongside quasi-axisymmetry and quasi-isodynamicity.
  • pwO configurations can satisfy all standard reactor physics criteria simultaneously in a single equilibrium.
  • Robustness of transport properties to changes in the rotational transform — notably bootstrap-current-induced changes — suggests design flexibility for reactors.
  • Turbulence can be mitigated through the piecewise maximum-J property even without exact omnigenity.
  • The concept opens a wider configuration space for future coil and divertor optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-surface optimization at s = 0.5 may understate edge transport, since effective ripple rises toward the edge; a full reactor assessment should check whether finite-volume degradation remains acceptable when realistic profiles and electromagnetic effects are included.
  • The robustness to rotational-transform changes hints that pwO designs might tolerate larger bootstrap current or coil tolerances than quasi-isodynamic designs, a property worth testing with explicit coil-error studies.
  • The coil-feasibility estimate suggests a minimum plasma-to-coil distance of roughly 1.3 meters in the tightest region; whether this is compatible with a breeding blanket is an open question the paper leaves to future work.
  • Because the optimizer simultaneously drives many targets, it is unclear how much of the good performance is due to pwO closeness versus the other constraints; a useful control experiment would be to optimize with the pwO deviation excluded and compare reactor metrics.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents CIEMAT-pw1, a fixed-boundary stellarator equilibrium optimized with DESC to minimize the local deviation δB (Eq. 5) between the magnetic field strength at s=0.5 and the piecewise-omnigenous (pwO) model field of Eq. (2) with p=2. The authors report that the optimized equilibrium has δB below 1% relative to the p=2 surrogate (and ~10% relative to the strict p→∞ pwO limit), low neoclassical effective ripple and bootstrap coefficient compared with W7-X, Mercier and COBRA stability, a rotational-transform profile compatible with an island divertor, electrostatic gyrokinetic turbulent fluxes in the reactor-relevant range, and an alpha heating efficiency near 95% at β=3%. The central claim is that CIEMAT-pw1 satisfies the standard set of physics criteria for a viable reactor candidate, thereby demonstrating piecewise omnigenity as a practical stellarator design concept.

Significance. If the results hold, CIEMAT-pw1 would be the first MHD equilibrium explicitly designed for piecewise omnigenity that simultaneously exhibits low neoclassical and turbulent transport, small bootstrap current, fast-ion confinement, and MHD stability, substantially broadening the stellarator design space beyond quasisymmetric and quasi-isodynamic concepts. The paper draws on a credible set of established numerical tools (DESC, SFINCS, stella, ASCOT, COBRA) and provides quantitative comparisons with W7-X, which strengthens the empirical content. The main gap is that the volume-integrated transport and stability benefits are bridged from the optimized surface to the whole plasma by the approximate factorization Eq. (6); this bridge is not directly verified via the second adiabatic invariant. If the authors close that gap and resolve the reproducibility issue in Appendix A, the paper would be a strong contribution to the field.

major comments (5)
  1. [§I, Eq. (6)–(7)] The volume-integrated conclusions (turbulence mitigation, fast-ion confinement, maximum-J) rely on Eq. (6), but the factorization is not established. Eq. (6) assumes B(s,θ,ζ)=f(s)BpwO with all shape parameters except Bmin and Bmax constant. The text does not specify how Bmin and Bmax are absorbed into f(s); if f(s) is a common radial multiplier, their radial profiles must be identical, which is not demonstrated, and if they vary independently, Eq. (6) is not a valid representation. Moreover, in real equilibria the Fourier harmonics of B decay as B_mn ~ s^{m/2}, so the high-m content of BpwO decays faster than the low-m content and B(θ,ζ) changes shape with s. The paper acknowledges degradation but never computes J(s,α,E,μ) or ∂sJ from the equilibrium; Γc is only a phase-space average of |∂αJ/∂sJ|^2 and does not establish the sign of ∂sJ. Since Eq. (7) is the bridge from s=0.5 to the full
  2. [§II, Fig. 6] The abstract claims 'unprecedented levels of piecewise omnigenity,' but the quantity actually targeted and reported is δB relative to the p=2 surrogate BpwO, not relative to the p→∞ piecewise-omnigenous limit. Fig. 6 states that the p→∞ relative difference is ~10% in specific surface regions and was not an optimization target. This is an order of magnitude larger than the reported <1% deviation from the p=2 surrogate and raises the question of whether the configuration demonstrates pwO at the level claimed, or only closeness to a smooth surrogate that shares transport properties with pwO. The distinction should be stated precisely in the abstract and the p→∞ deviation should be quantified as a function of s.
  3. [§III, Fig. 9] The Mercier criterion is reported as not satisfied near the core at the highest β values, with the text attributing this to simulations becoming 'unreliable.' The abstract's claim of 'robust MHD stability across a range of β values' depends on this being a numerical artifact. Please show convergence of D_mercier with resolution at β=3%, or otherwise state explicitly which β range is stable. COBRA negative growth rates for all cases are supportive but do not resolve the reported core Mercier inconsistency.
  4. [§II, Fig. 8 and Eq. (7)] The maximum-J property is stated to follow from ∂sBmin > 0 and ∂sBmax > 0 up to s=0.5. Under Eq. (6), ∂s f > 0 requires both Bmin and Bmax to increase radially; Fig. 8 shows this only for 'sufficiently high β' and up to s=0.5. The paper does not demonstrate ∂s f > 0 across the whole volume, nor does it present the direct computation of J(s,α,E,μ) that would validate Eq. (7) away from the optimized surface. The alpha-particle and turbulence conclusions are drawn at β=3%, where ∂sB are positive, so this is a partial gap rather than a fatal flaw, but the radial and β range of the maximum-J property should be made explicit.
  5. [Appendix A] The data availability statement is incomplete: the text says the configuration and scripts 'are available in the Zenodo link [?]' with a literal placeholder. For a computational design paper, the central claims cannot be independently checked without access to the equilibrium and optimization scripts. This must be resolved before publication.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §II] Typos and minor wording issues: 'abscence' in the abstract; 'collisionlity' near Fig. 7; 'estabilization' near Fig. 12; 'orbit-averated' in §I. Also, the notation Γ_c is introduced in §II without defining the subscript c or the exact normalization used in Fig. 8.
  2. [§II, Fig. 7] The bootstrap coefficient is labeled D31; it would be clearer to use D_31 with sub/superscript formatting consistent with the text and references.
  3. [§I, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) defines the pwO field with w2=π, while w1 depends on ι through Eq. (3). In §I, the text says 'all the parameters discussed below equation (2) (and ι) kept constant throughout the plasma volume' — but ι is a radial profile in the equilibrium, so this assumption needs an explicit caveat; otherwise the reader cannot tell whether the factorization refers to the local ι at each s or to a fixed value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's design targets are transparent, and the central result is the converged MHD equilibrium plus independent numerical checks.

full rationale

The paper's workflow is a multi-objective stellarator optimization, not a derivation that disguises its inputs as predictions. The optimization explicitly targets small δB relative to BpwO (Eq. 5), and Section II reports that the optimized equilibrium indeed has small δB at s=0.5; this is a convergence/achievement check, not a prediction. The neoclassical and bootstrap results are explicitly described as 'as expected [25, 27]' because the target field BpwO was constructed with w1 and w2 chosen from those prior theoretical works to guarantee collisionless confinement and zero bootstrap; the paper is transparent that these properties are design inputs. The independent content is that a real DESC fixed-boundary MHD equilibrium can closely approach this target at finite β while also satisfying rotational-transform, Mercier, mirror-ratio, and boundary-shape objectives, and that the subsequent SFINCS, stella, COBRA, and ASCOT evaluations are performed on the converged equilibrium rather than fitted to the reported metrics. The main weakness is not circularity but an unverified extrapolation: Eq. (6) is explicitly introduced as an assumption ('Let us then assume...'), and the paper does not directly verify ∂_s J < 0 away from s=0.5 or confirm that the factorized form holds across the volume. That is a correctness/evidence gap, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to [25–27] are published theoretical foundations used to set the target, not a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged limitations (no coil design, Zenodo placeholder, neutronics left for future work) further indicate a forward design study rather than a circular argument.

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

The design's target field is a parameterized ansatz (Eq 2) with free shape parameters; the paper does not derive B from first principles. The main upstream input is the pwO theory itself (refs 25-27, same group), plus an assumed radial factorization (Eq 6) that is plausible but not proven. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • B_max, B_min = not reported (optimization variables)
    Eq (2) target BpwO; their values set the mirror ratio and are adjusted during optimization, so transport metrics are partly a consequence of these choices.
  • t1, t2 = not reported
    Eq (2); left free during optimization; they set the slopes of the parallelogram-shaped B contours and absorb part of the fit.
  • p (super-Gaussian exponent) = 2
    Chosen instead of the exact pwO limit p->infinity for smoother B; the p->infinity comparison shows ~10% deviations, so the 'piecewise omnigenous' quality is approximate.
  • s0 (optimization surface) = 0.5
    Only one flux surface is targeted; all volume-wide benefits depend on weak radial degradation, an assumption tested but not guaranteed.
  • w2 (poloidal width parameter) = pi
    Eq (4) is set by the zero-bootstrap requirement from ref [27]; an input constraint rather than independently measured.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Guiding-center orbits on a flux surface depend only on B(theta,zeta) in Boozer coordinates.
    Background from ref [7]; foundation for using B-contours and the second adiabatic invariant J as confinement descriptors.
  • domain assumption A field given by Eqs (2)-(4) with p->infinity is piecewise omnigenous and gives zero bootstrap current.
    Adopted from refs [25,27] (same group); not re-derived here; this is why optimizing deltaB is expected to reduce transport.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximate factorization B(s,theta,zeta) = f(s) BpwO(theta,zeta) with constant shape parameters except Bmin/Bmax.
    Introduced in Section I before Eq (6) to derive Eq (7); generally violated by different radial decays of Fourier modes B_mn ~ s^{m/2}; load-bearing for maximum-J claims.
  • domain assumption Piecewise maximum-J property (Eq 7) follows from the factorization and from d_s B_min > 0.
    'Straightforward calculations analogous to section 3.5 of [26]' are cited, not shown; this underlies turbulence and alpha-particle confinement expectations.
  • domain assumption Fixed-boundary ideal MHD equilibria computed with DESC are representative; coil error fields and finite-beta self-consistency are ignored.
    All results are fixed-boundary; stage-2 coil design is explicitly left for future work, and the bootstrap current is not evolved self-consistently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Piecewise omnigenous magnetohydrodynamic equilibria as fusion reactor candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2E43XHJO

@misc{pith2026260114886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Piecewise omnigenous magnetohydrodynamic equilibria as fusion reactor candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2E43XHJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.14886}
}
read the original abstract

In piecewise omnigenous magnetic fields, charged particles remain perfectly confined in the abscence of collisions and turbulence. This concept extends the traditional notion of omnigenity, the theoretical principle upon which most of existing magnetic fusion reactor designs, including tokamaks, are based. While piecewise omnigenity broadens the range of potentially viable stellarator reactor candidates, it is achieved by relaxing the requirement of continuity in the magnetic field strength, which could appear to pose significant challenges for the design of magnetohydrodynamic equilibria. In this work, a stellarator magnetic configuration is presented that satisfies the ideal magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium equation and that achieves unprecedented levels of piecewise omnigenity. As a result, it exhibits favorable transport characteristics, including reduced bulk radial (neoclassical and turbulent transport), bootstrap current and fast ion losses. In addition, the configuration displays robust MHD stability across a range of \b{eta} values and possesses a rotational transform profile compatible with an island divertor. Collectively, these features satisfy the standard set of physics criteria required for a viable reactor candidate which, until now, were believed to be attainable only by certain types of omnigenous stellarators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Flux surface of a stellarator magnetic configuration (red/blue colours correspond to a larger/smaller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Diagram depicting the different families of optimized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Top and side views (top and bottom figures, respec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Top, from left to right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Radial profile of the effective ripple (top) and colli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Mercier stability criterion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Radial profile of the rotational transform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Plasma profiles of the reactor scenario employed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Fraction of alpha particle energy lost through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Estimate of coil complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the absence of collisions and turbulence, passing particles are always well confined because their radial drift velocity vanishes when averaged over lowest-order orbits

    For passing particles (figure 1, black), the component of the velocity that is parallel toBnever vanishes, and they go over the complete flux surface. In the absence of collisions and turbulence, passing particles are always well confined because their radial drift velocity vanishes when averaged over lowest-order orbits. The situation is different for tr...

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Helander, C

    P. Helander, C. D. Beidler, T. M. Bird, M. Drevlak, Y. Feng, R. Hatzky, F. Jenko, R. Kleiber, J. H. E. Proll, Y. Turkin, et al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion54, 124009 (2012), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/0741-3335/54/12/124009

    2012

  3. [3]

    J. D. Lawson, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Sec- tion B70, 6 (1957), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 0370-1301/70/1/303

    1957

  4. [4]

    T. G. Northrop, Annals of Physics15, 79 (1961), ISSN 0003-4916, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0003491661901671

    arXiv 1961

  5. [5]

    Helander and D

    P. Helander and D. J. Sigmar,Collisional transport in magnetized plasmas, vol. 87 (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Spitzer, The Physics of Fluids1, 253 (1958), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1705883, URLhttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/ 1.1705883

    L. Spitzer, The Physics of Fluids1, 253 (1958), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1705883, URLhttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/ 1.1705883

    doi:10.1063/1.1705883 1958

  7. [7]

    Arcimovich, G

    L. Arcimovich, G. Bobrovskij, E. Gorbunov, D. Ivanov, V. Kirillov, J. Kuznecov, S. Mirnov, M. Petrov, K. Razu- mova, V. Strelkov, et al.,Experiments in Tokamak De- vices(IAEA, 1969)

    1969

  8. [8]

    A. H. Boozer, The Physics of Fluids26, 496 (1983), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.864166, URLhttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/ 1.864166

    doi:10.1063/1.864166 1983

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    N¨ uhrenberg and R

    J. N¨ uhrenberg and R. Zille, Physics Letters A129, 113 (1988), ISSN 0375-9601, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0375960188900801

    1988

  2. [10]

    J. R. Cary and S. G. Shasharina, Physical Review Let- ters78, 674 (1997), URLhttp://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.674

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Wobig, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion35, 903 (1993), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/35/ 8/001

    H. Wobig, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion35, 903 (1993), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/35/ 8/001

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    Helander and J

    P. Helander and J. N¨ uhrenberg, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion51, 055004 (2009), URLhttps://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0741-3335/51/5/055004

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    T. S. Pedersen, R. K¨ onig, M. Jakubowski, M. Krychowiak, D. Gradic, C. Killer, H. Nie- mann, T. Szepesi, U. Wenzel, A. Ali, et al., Nuclear Fusion59, 096014 (2019), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab280f

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Landreman and E

    M. Landreman and E. Paul, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 035001 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.128.035001

    2022

  7. [15]

    A. G. Goodman, K. Camacho-Mata, S. A. Henneberg, R. Jorge, M. Landreman, G. Plunk, H. M. Smith, R. Mackenbach, C. Beidler, and P. Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890504 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    D. W. Dudt, A. G. Goodman, R. Conlin, D. Panici, and E. Kolemen, Journal of Plasma Physics90, 905900120 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    H. Liu, G. Yu, C. Zhu, and G. Zhuang, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09350 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    V. V. Nemov, S. V. Kasilov, W. Kernbichler, and G. O. Leitold, Physics of Plasmas15, 052501 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2912456, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1063/1.2912456

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    J. L. Velasco, I. Calvo, S. Mulas, E. S´ anchez, F. Parra, ´A. Cappa, and the W7-X Team, Nuclear Fusion 61, 116059 (2021), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ac2994

    2021

  12. [20]

    S´ anchez, J

    E. S´ anchez, J. Velasco, I. Calvo, and S. Mulas, Nuclear Fusion63, 066037 (2023), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/accd82

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    A. G. Goodman, P. Xanthopoulos, G. G. Plunk, H. Smith, C. N¨ uhrenberg, C. D. Beidler, S. A. Hen- neberg, G. Roberg-Clark, M. Drevlak, and P. Helander, PRX Energy3, 023010 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PRXEnergy.3.023010

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Hegna, D

    C. Hegna, D. Anderson, E. Andrew, A. Ayilaran, A. Bader, T. Bohm, K. C. Mata, J. Canik, L. Carba- jal, A. Cerfon, et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E76 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Lion, J.-C

    J. Lion, J.-C. Angl` es, L. Bonauer, A. Ba˜ n´ on Navarro, S. Cadena Ceron, R. Davies, M. Drevlak, N. Fop- piani, J. Geiger, A. Goodman, et al., Fusion Engi- neering and Design214, 114868 (2025), ISSN 0920- 3796, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0920379625000705

    2025

  16. [24]

    C. P. Swanson, Fusion Engineering and Design (submit- ted), URLhttps://arxiv.org/html/2512.08027v2

  17. [25]

    Bader, A

    A. Bader, A. Ayilaran, J. Canik, A. De, W. Guttenfelder, C. Hegna, M. Knilans, A. Malkus, T. Pedersen, P. Sinha, et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E67 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    J. L. Velasco, I. Calvo, F. J. Escoto, E. S´ anchez, H. Thienpondt, and F. I. Parra, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 185101 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.133.185101

    2024

  19. [27]

    Velasco, E

    J. Velasco, E. S´ anchez, and I. Calvo, Nuclear Fusion 65, 056012 (2025), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/adc4f6

    2025

  20. [28]

    Calvo, J

    I. Calvo, J. L. Velasco, P. Helander, and F. I. Parra, Phys. Rev. E112, L023201 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/tnh1-mq88

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    D. A. Spong, S. P. Hirshman, J. C. Whitson, D. B. Batchelor, B. A. Carreras, V. E. Lynch, and J. A. Rome, Physics of Plasmas5, 1752 (1998), ISSN 1070-664X, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article- pdf/5/5/1752/19230573/1752 1 online.pdf, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.872844

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Bindel, M

    D. Bindel, M. Landreman, and M. Padidar, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion65, 065012 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/acd141

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R. G. et al., arXiv:2505.04211v1 p. arXiv:2505.04211v1 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    M. N. Rosenbluth, The Physics of Fluids11, 869 (1968), ISSN 0031-9171, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/article- pdf/11/4/869/12535285/869 1 online.pdf, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1692009

    1968 doi

  25. [33]

    Helander, J

    P. Helander, J. H. E. Proll, and G. G. Plunk, Physics of Plasmas20, 122505 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4846818, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.4846818

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    G. G. Plunk, J. W. Connor, and P. Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 715830404 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Proll, G

    J. Proll, G. Plunk, B. Faber, T. G¨ orler, P. Helander, I. McKinney, M. Pueschel, H. Smith, and P. Xanthopou- los, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 905880112 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Rodr ´ ıguez, P

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez, P. Helander, and A. Goodman, Journal of 11 Plasma Physics90, 905900212 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Velasco, I

    J.L. Velasco, I. Calvo, E. S´ anchez, and F. Parra, Nuclear Fusion63, 126038 (2023), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/acfe8a

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    C. D. Beidler, K. Allmaier, M. Y. Isaev, S. V. Kasilov, W. Kernbichler, G. O. Leitold, H. Maaßberg, D. R. Mikkelsen, S. Murakami, M. Schmidt, et al., Nuclear Fu- sion51, 076001 (2011), URLhttp://stacks.iop.org/ 0029-5515/51/i=7/a=076001

    2011

  31. [39]

    C. G. Albert, C. D. Beidler, G. Kapper, S. V. Kasilov, and W. Kernbichler, Journal of Plasma Physics91, E77 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Sanchez, S

    R. Sanchez, S. P. Hirshman, A. S. Ware, L. A. Berry, and D. A. Spong, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion42, 641 (2000), URLhttp://stacks.iop.org/0741-3335/ 42/i=6/a=303

    2000

  33. [41]

    Waelbroeck, Nuclear Fusion49, 104025 (2009), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/49/10/104025

    F. Waelbroeck, Nuclear Fusion49, 104025 (2009), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/49/10/104025

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    S´ anchez, Nuclear Fusion (submitted), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.08825

    E. S´ anchez, Nuclear Fusion (submitted), URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.08825

  35. [43]

    Alonso, I

    J. Alonso, I. Calvo, D. Carralero, J.L. Velasco, J. Garc ´ ıa- Rega˜ na, I. Palermo, and D. Rapisarda, Nuclear Fusion 62, 036024 (2022), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ac49ac

    2022

  36. [44]

    Landreman, H

    M. Landreman, H. Smith, A. Moll´ en, and P. He- lander, Physics of Plasmas21, 042503 (2014), URL http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/ pop/21/4/10.1063/1.4870077

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    A. B. Navarro, A. D. Siena, J. Velasco, F. Wilms, G. Merlo, T. Windisch, L. LoDestro, J. Parker, and F. Jenko, Nuclear Fusion63, 054003 (2023), URLhttps: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acc3af

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Landreman and P

    M. Landreman and P. J. Catto, Physics of Plasmas19, 056103 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Barnes, F

    M. Barnes, F. Parra, and M. Landreman, Journal of Computational Physics391, 365 (2019), ISSN 0021- 9991, URLhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S002199911930066X

    2019

  40. [48]

    Garc ´ ıa-Rega˜ na, I

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Rega˜ na, I. Calvo, E. S´ anchez, H. Thienpondt, J. Velasco, and J. Capit´ an, Nuclear Fusion65, 016036 (2024), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ ad86cb

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Mulholland, K

    P. Mulholland, K. Aleynikova, B. J. Faber, M. J. Pueschel, J. H. E. Proll, C. C. Hegna, P. W. Terry, and C. N¨ uhrenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 185101 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.185101

    2023

  42. [50]

    Di Siena, A

    A. Di Siena, A. Ba˜ n´ on Navarro, and F. Jenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 105002 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.105002

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    J. M. Garc ´ ıa-Rega˜ na, I. Calvo, F. I. Parra, and H. Thien- pondt, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 105101 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 133.105101

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    G. T. Roberg-Clark, Journal of Plasma Physics (submit- ted), URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22166v1

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Thienpondt, J

    H. Thienpondt, J. Garc ´ ıa-Rega˜ na, I. Calvo, G. Acton, and M. Barnes, Nuclear Fusion65, 016062 (2024), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad9ab9

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    ¨Ak¨ aslompolo, P

    S. ¨Ak¨ aslompolo, P. Drewelow, Y. Gao, A. Ali, C. Bieder- mann, S. Bozhenkov, C. Dhard, M. Endler, J. Fellinger, O. Ford, et al., Journal of Instrumentation14, C10012 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/ 10/c10012. FIG. 14: Estimate of coil complexity

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Landreman, S

    M. Landreman, S. Buller, and M. Drevlak, Physics of Plasmas29, 082501 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0098166, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/5.0098166

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Kessel, J

    C. Kessel, J. Manickam, G. Rewoldt, and W. M. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1212 (1994), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1212

    1994 doi

  49. [57]

    Nadeem, T

    M. Nadeem, T. Rafiq, and M. Persson, Physics of Plas- mas8, 4375 (2001), ISSN 1070-664X, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1063/1.1396842

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    d’Herbemont, F

    V. d’Herbemont, F. I. Parra, I. Calvo, and J L Velasco, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 905880507 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    C. D. Beidler, Y. I. Kolesnichenko, V. S. Marchenko, I. N. Sidorenko, and H. Wobig, Physics of Plasmas8, 2731 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1365958, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1365958

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    DESC team,Desc optimization package website(2025), URLhttps://control.princeton.edu/research/ stellarator_optimization/desc/

    2025

  53. [61]

    Kappel, M

    J. Kappel, M. Landreman, and D. Malhotra, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion66, 025018 (2024), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad1a3e

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    At the time instant when this happens, the particle transitions to a different region of the magnetic surface (figure 1, pink)

    Transitioning particles are a subclass of trapped particles, one of whose bounce points, at some instant along their trajectory, lies on a local maximum ofB. At the time instant when this happens, the particle transitions to a different region of the magnetic surface (figure 1...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.