Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 32 references

A coherent structure transport model for scrape-off layer turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fast combined model reproduces the 1/B_p scaling of the divertor heat-load width and matches the DIII-D WPQH measurement.

desk verdict A promising fast reduced model for SOL heat-flux widths, but the abstract overstates the 1/Bp scaling as a full-model result when it actually comes from the B-only benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.21151 v3 pith:55BTKBQH submitted 2026-02-24 physics.plasm-ph

Zhichen Feng , James Myra , Junyi Cheng , Calder Haubrich , Yang Chen , Xinxing Ma , Darin R. Ernst , Scott Parker This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords scrape-offlayerdivertorheatloadheat-loadwidthblobturbulencegyrokineticsimulationGEMXSOLPS-ITERDIII-D
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a fast model, GEMX/CST, for the heat-load width at a tokamak divertor by combining full gyrokinetic ion trajectories in realistic X-point geometry with the axisymmetric electric field from a SOLPS-ITER solution and an analytic model of blob turbulence. With only the magnetic equilibrium, the model recovers the familiar inverse-poloidal-field scaling of the exponential heat-flux decay width λq, in line with the Eich empirical scaling and the Goldston heuristic theory. Adding the SOLPS-ITER electric field broadens the heat-flux profile by about a third and produces a secondary peak; adding blobs broadens it further. For the DIII-D WPQH discharge tested, the full model gives λq ≈ 0.0029 m, close to experimental and first-principles gyrokinetic results, at a fraction of the cost. The paper also proves a useful identity: the Eich width λq equals the heat-flux-weighted mean distance of the particles from the separatrix.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the combination of the GEMX guiding-center particle tracker with the Coherent Structure Transport (CST) model. Blobs are represented analytically as Gaussian density perturbations with the electrostatic potential of sheath-connected interchange blobs, φb ∝ ∂nb/∂Z, so their fields can be evaluated cheaply on GEMX's structured cylindrical grid without a self-consistent field solve. The SOLPS-ITER background potential supplies the stationary radial electric field, which drives E×B drifts comparable to the parallel flow. The identity λavg = λq, proven in the appendix, converts the histogram of particle kinetic energy at the divertor plate into the standard Eich heat-loa

What would settle it

Run the same DIII-D WPQH case with full electron kinetics and a logical sheath boundary condition; if the electron+ion heat-flux width (or its peak location) departs materially from 0.0029 m and from the measured profile, the central quantitative claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the divertor heat-load width in a realistic tokamak edge can be obtained quickly and accurately by superimposing analytic blob structures on a SOLPS-ITER background electric field and advancing gyrokinetic test ions in the resulting fields. The model reproduces the empirical 1/B_p scaling of λq, shows that the stationary radial electric field broadens the profile and creates a secondary peak, and demonstrates that blob turbulence of only a few percent RMS density can approximately double the width. Applying the model to the DIII-D WPQH case yields λq ≈ 0.0029 m, consistent with experimental and XGC1 results. A corollary proved in the ap

Load-bearing premise

The computation assumes that the ion-only heat-flux width, computed without a sheath boundary condition, can be compared directly with experimental total heat-flux widths—the paper itself notes that without a sheath the code vastly overestimates electron heat flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1/B_p scaling of λq, obtained with equilibrium magnetic field alone, ties the model to both the Eich empirical scaling and Goldston's heuristic theory.
  • The SOLPS-ITER electric field alone broadens the heat-flux profile by roughly 33% and creates a secondary peak, showing that neoclassical drifts matter for divertor heat-load width.
  • Blob turbulence at a few percent RMS density can double λq, linking measured SOL fluctuation levels to heat-load broadening.
  • λq grows approximately linearly with blob amplitude and changes only modestly with blob size at constant packing fraction, giving simple design scalings.
  • For the DIII-D WPQH case the fast model produces λq ≈ 0.0029 m, close to experimental and XGC1 values, in under ten minutes of wall-clock time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the λavg = λq identity holds for measured profiles, then the first moment of an experimental heat-flux profile directly estimates the Eich width, offering a fitting-free diagnostic.
  • The linear λq-versus-blob-density relation predicts that fluctuation diagnostics can serve as a proxy for expected heat-load width; testing on a density scan in DIII-D would sharpen or refute this.
  • Because the model needs a SOLPS-ITER solution for each equilibrium, the scaling laws derived here are tied to the WPQH case; extending to a multi-shot SOLPS-ITER scan would test whether the 1/B_p and blob scalings are universal.
  • The ion-only treatment means the 0.0029 m value may shift once electrons and the sheath are included; the secondary-peak structure is also sensitive to the SOLPS-ITER potential, so both are candidate points for falsification.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fast, reduced model (GEMX/CST) for computing divertor heat-flux profiles in tokamak X-point geometry. Guiding-center ion trajectories are advanced with GEMX in the equilibrium magnetic field, the SOLPS-ITER axisymmetric electrostatic potential, and a superimposed analytic model of blob-like coherent structures (the CST model). The heat-flux profile is accumulated at the lower outer divertor and characterized by λq, defined as the heat-flux-weighted mean mid-plane displacement from the separatrix; an appendix shows this equals the Eich λq. The authors report that the magnetic-field-only case reproduces the 1/B_p scaling, that the SOLPS-ITER E-field broadens the profile and produces a secondary peak, and that including blobs further broadens the profile, with λq increasing linearly with blob amplitude. For a DIII-D WPQH test case with 'typical' blob parameters, they obtain λq = 0.0029 m, which they compare with experimental and XGC1 results. The abstract states that the 1/B_p scaling is obtained in agreement with Eich and Goldston, and that a secondary peak appears whose amplitude increases with blob density.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution: an extremely fast (≲10 min per run) tool for estimating divertor heat-load widths from SOLPS-ITER solutions, incorporating realistic X-point geometry and a physics-based blob model. The appendix identity λavg = λq is a clean and useful observation, and the qualitative effects of the equilibrium E-field and blob turbulence—broadening and a secondary peak—are plausible and supported by the simulations shown. The model could be valuable for rapid scoping studies, provided its quantitative predictions are validated. However, the current manuscript's headline quantitative claims are not yet established: the 1/B_p scaling is demonstrated only for the magnetic-field-only case, and the final λq match is based on ions-only physics with several tunable blob parameters, so a cautious assessment is required.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV, Case I, Fig. 6] The abstract claims 'We obtain the 1/B_p scaling of the heat load exponential decay width λq, in agreement with the Eich empirical scaling and with the Goldston heuristic theory.' However, the only scaling scan is Fig. 6, which is explicitly Case I: equilibrium magnetic field only, with no SOLPS-ITER E-field and no blobs. The text in Sec. IV states that 'neither the axisymmetric equilibrium E-field or turbulence is present' and that 'To obtain a realistic scaling, further work is needed to include the Bp scaling of the SOLPS-ITER axisymmetric E-field (a SOLPS-ITER Bp scan), as well as the scaling of the blob turbulence with Bp.' Since Case II shows the SOLPS E-field changes λq by ~33% at one B_p, there is currently no evidence that the full GEMX/CST model preserves the B_p^{-1} law. The single full-model point (λq ≈ 0.0029 m) is not a scaling test. Additionally, the empirical Eich expone
  2. [Sec. V; Sec. IV final paragraph] The quantitative comparison of the computed λq = 0.0029 m with experimental and XGC1 results is not yet supported because the simulations include ions only. The paper explicitly states: 'Results presented in this paper include ions only' and that without a sheath boundary condition GEMX/CST 'vastly overestimates the electron heat flux.' The electron contribution, which is expected to be deposited in a much narrower layer due to smaller orbit widths, is not included. Yet the comparison in Sec. IV is made against total (electron+ion) heat-flux widths. If the missing electron sheath physics broadens the ion profile or shifts the peak, the claimed match to 0.0029 m could change substantially. Furthermore, no uncertainty bars are provided on any λq value, so the significance of the agreement cannot be assessed. This is a major issue for the paper's central quantitative claim.
  3. [Sec. III.B; Sec. IV, Case III, Figs. 8–10] The final match λq = 0.0029 m depends on several freely chosen blob parameters: amplitude nb0/n0 = 0.103, half-widths δR = δZ = 0.015 m, parallel half-width Δl = 20 m, lifetime distance dblob = 0.045 m, and packing fraction fp = 0.125 (via number of blobs). These are stated as 'typical' experimental values, but no error bars or variations around these values are given for the final result. Moreover, Fig. 9 shows λq scales linearly with blob amplitude, so the output is highly sensitive to the chosen nb0/n0; a modest change in amplitude would move λq outside the claimed experimental range. Without a sensitivity analysis or a derivation of these parameters from the same experimental data, the agreement appears contingent on parameter selection. This is not an equation-level circularity—λq is an output—but it weakens the claim that the model 'predicts' the measured width.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II (after Eq. (4))] Typo: 'magmatic field' should be 'magnetic field'.
  2. [Fig. 4(b) caption] Typo: 'SOPLS-ITER' should be 'SOLPS-ITER'.
  3. [Sec. III.B (paragraph after Eq. (12))] The sentence 'One can use a different expression for the electrostatic potential given in Eq. (11)' appears to refer to Eq. (12), not Eq. (11).
  4. [Sec. V, first paragraph] Typo: 'larg enough comp ete with with' should read 'large enough to compete with'.
  5. [Fig. 6] The figure shows the GEMX fit line as 5.0×10^-4 B_p^-1, but the text says λq ∼ 4.5×10^-4 B_p^-1. Please reconcile the numerical coefficient.
  6. [Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The definition of q(s) as proportional to the sum of v_j^2 is correct, but note that this is kinetic energy, not heat flux; the text should clarify whether a factor of 1/2 and mass are omitted and whether this affects the λq comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: λq is an output, not an input; the 1/Bp scaling is an explicitly B-only benchmark with self-admitted limits, and the final full-model λq is a forward-model result with externally motivated blob parameters.

full rationale

λq is computed from particle-hit statistics (Eqs. 6–8), not used as an input; the appendix proves λavg=λq from the Eich functional form, a mathematical identity rather than an assumed equivalence. The 1/Bp scaling is obtained from Case I (equilibrium B-field only), and the paper explicitly states that 'neither the axisymmetric equilibrium E-field or turbulence is present' and that 'to obtain a realistic scaling, further work is needed to include the Bp scaling of the SOLPS-ITER axisymmetric E-field ... as well as the scaling of the blob turbulence with Bp.' This self-admitted limitation weakens the abstract's scope but is not a circular reduction. The blob parameters (nb0/n0=0.103, δR=δZ=0.015m, dblob=0.045m) are taken from typical experimental values via external references, not fitted to the DIII-D target λq≈0.0029 m, so the final comparison is a forward-model output. The blob potential in Eq. (12) is cited to [6,8,13], including the authors' own prior work, but it is an externally established analytic model, the paper explicitly notes alternative blob models, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the choice. The ion-only limitation is also openly stated ('Results presented in this paper include ions only'). These are validity/overclaim concerns, not self-referential constructions.

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

The model introduces no new physical entities: blobs are empirical SOL structures represented analytically. The main burdens are the six free input parameters listed, the ion-only/no-sheath approximation, and the prior analytic blob potential.

free parameters (6)
  • blob amplitude nb0/n0 = 0.103 typical; 0.15 in Fig. 10 scan
    Sets turbulence strength; λq is nearly proportional to it (Fig. 9). Chosen from typical experimental blob amplitudes, not derived.
  • blob half-width δR=δZ (=rblob) = 0.015 m typical; scanned up to 0.05 m
    Gaussian width in Eq. (9) controls the blob potential amplitude via Eq. (12). Chosen from experimental blob sizes.
  • parallel blob half-width Δl = 20 m
    Field-line extent in Eq. (9); chosen as typical for field-aligned blobs.
  • blob lifetime distance dblob = 0.045 m typical; 3 rblob in Fig. 10
    Controls blob frequency/recycling and enters the packing fraction Eq. (13). Chosen by hand.
  • number of blobs / packing fraction fp = 1, 4, 10 blobs (fp=0.0125, 0.05, 0.125)
    Sets the SOL coverage. The 10-blob fp=0.125 case is used for the λq=2.9 mm comparison.
  • parallel flow cs toward divertor = cs (sound speed)
    Shifted Maxwellian approximates pre-sheath acceleration; affects where ions hit the plate. An ad hoc modeling choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Guiding-center equations (Littlejohn) are valid for ion dynamics in the SOL/X-point geometry.
    Eqs. (1)-(4), Sec. II. Standard gyro-center theory, but no self-consistent field solve.
  • domain assumption SOL turbulence can be represented as a linear superposition of independent Gaussian blobs with the analytic sheath-connected interchange potential Eq. (12).
    Eqs. (9)-(12), Sec. III.B. Based on prior blob theory and the low-packing-fraction argument.
  • domain assumption Ion heat flux with a shifted Maxwellian at c_s, without electrons or a sheath boundary condition, determines the divertor heat-flux width.
    Secs. II and V. The authors state ions only and that the electron sheath would reduce/reshape electron heat flux.
  • domain assumption The SOLPS-ITER electrostatic potential is a faithful stationary equilibrium E-field for GEMX after interpolation.
    Sec. III.A. Interpolation issues were found and patched; no direct verification against measured potential is shown.
  • standard math The Eich functional form with qBG=0 describes the simulated heat-flux profile, so λavg=λq.
    Appendix A. The identity holds for the Eich erfc form, though Eq. (A.2) is missing a factor μ in the printed exponent.
  • domain assumption Low packing fraction justifies neglecting blob-blob interactions and using linear superposition.
    Sec. I and Eq. (13). fp=0.0125 for one blob is low, but fp=0.125 for the 10-blob case is not very small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A coherent structure transport model for scrape-off layer turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55BTKBQH

@misc{pith2026260221151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A coherent structure transport model for scrape-off layer turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55BTKBQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.21151}
}
abstract

Understanding the locality of high-temperature plasma energy deposition on material surfaces in fusion reactors is critical for design. Here, we utilize the Gyrokinetic ElectroMagnetic turbulence including X-points (GEMX) simulation, together with SOLPS-ITER solutions for the background equilibrium electric field including drifts, to model the heat flux at the divertor plate and characterize the heat load width using realistic X-point geometry. We use a theory-based blobby transport model called the "Coherent Structure Transport" (CST) model to include the effect of plasma transport in the edge scrape-off layer. The CST model is extremely fast and can be used to quickly analyze any SOLPS-ITER solution. SOLPS-ITER provides the steady state, or equilibrium on which we superimpose blobby turbulence characterized by blob size, amplitude and frequency. We obtain the $1/B_p$ scaling of the heat load exponential decay width $\lambda_q$, in agreement with the Eich empirical scaling and with the Goldston heuristic theory. When including blobby turbulence in combination with the SOLPS-ITER electric field, we find a secondary peak in the heat flux radial profile, outwardly displaced from the strike point radius, with a relative amplitude that increases with the initial blob density. We describe the CST model in detail and provide initial investigations of the scaling of $\lambda_q$ and the secondary heat flux peak with blob size and amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Initial particle load between (0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The ion (deuterium) trajectory and heat flux on the low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Contour plot of the electrostatic potential from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: SOLPS-ITER solution of the 2D electrostatic potenti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A snapshot of the electrostatic potential of 10 blobs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Heat flux profiles mapped back to the outer midplane for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Heat flux profiles at the lower outer divertor plate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Herrmann, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 44, 883 (2002), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0741-3335/44/6/318

    A. Herrmann, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 44, 883 (2002), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0741-3335/44/6/318

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/44/6/318 2002

  2. [2]

    Renner, J

    H. Renner, J. Boscary, H. Greuner, H. Grote, F. W. Hoffmann, J. Kisslinger, E. Strumberger, and B. Mendelevitch, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 44, 1005 (2002), URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/44/6/325

    doi:10.1088/0741-3335/44/6/325 2002

  3. [3]

    D. R. Ernst, A. Bortolon, C. S. Chang, S. Ku, F. Scotti, H. Q . Wang, Z. Yan, J. Chen, C. Chrystal, F. Glass, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 235102 (2024), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.235102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.235102 2024

  4. [4]

    Chang, S

    C. Chang, S. Ku, A. Loarte, V. Parail, F. K¨ ochl, M. Romane lli, R. Maingi, J.-W. Ahn, T. Gray, J. Hughes, et al., Nuclear Fusion 57, 116023 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/aa7efb

    2017

  5. [5]

    Keramidas Charidakos, J

    I. Keramidas Charidakos, J. R. Myra, S. Ku, R. M. Churchil l, R. Hager, C. S. Chang, and S. Parker, Physics of Plasmas 27, 072302 (2020), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/ 10.1063/5.0008755

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0008755 2020

  6. [6]

    Cheng, J

    J. Cheng, J. Myra, S.-H. Ku, R. Hager, C.-S. Chang, and S. P arker, Nuclear Fusion 63, 086015 (2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acdf01

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/acdf01 2023

  7. [7]

    J. R. Myra, D. A. D’Ippolito, D. P. Stotler, S. J. Zweben, B . P. LeBlanc, J. E. Menard, R. J. Maqueda, and J. Boedo, Physics of Plasmas 13, 092509 (2006), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2355668

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2355668 2006

  8. [8]

    D. A. D’Ippolito, J. R. Myra, and S. J. Zweben, Physics of P lasmas 18, 060501 (2011), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3594609

    doi:10.1063/1.3594609 2011

Show all 32 references
  1. [10]

    https://www.stewartzweben.com/

  2. [11]

    S. I. Krasheninnikov, D. A. D’Ippolito, and J. R. Myra, J ournal of Plasma Physics 74, 679–717 17 (2008)

    2008

  3. [12]

    D. A. D’Ippolito, J. R. Myra, and S. I. Krasheninnikov, P hysics of Plasmas 9, 222 (2002), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1426394

    2002 doi

  4. [13]

    J. R. Myra, J. Cheng, and S. E. Parker, Physics of Plasmas 30, 072302 (2023), ISSN 1070- 664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0152389

    2023 doi

  5. [15]

    Decristoforo, F

    G. Decristoforo, F. Militello, T. Nicholas, J. Omotani , C. Marsden, N. Walkden, and O. E. Garcia, Physics of Plasmas 27, 122301 (2020), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/5.0021314

    2020

  6. [16]

    R. G. Littlejohn, The Physics of Fluids 24, 1730 (1981), ISSN 0031-9171, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/article-pdf/24/9/1730/12699643/1730 1 online.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.863594

    1981 doi

  7. [17]

    X. Ma, T. Abrams, D. Ernst, H. Wang, A. Bortolon, X. Chen, T. Odstrcil, T. Osborne, F. Scotti, D. Thomas, et al., Nuclear Fusion 65, 026017 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/ad9f83

    2024

  8. [18]

    T. Eich, A. Leonard, R. Pitts, W. Fundamenski, R. Goldst on, T. Gray, A. Herrmann, A. Kirk, A. Kallenbach, O. Kardaun, et al., Nuclear Fusion 53, 093031 (2013), URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093031

    2013 doi

  9. [19]

    T. Eich, B. Sieglin, A. Scarabosio, W. Fundamenski, R. J . Goldston, and A. Herrmann (AS- DEX Upgrade Team), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 215001 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.215001

    2011 doi

  10. [20]

    M. A. Makowski, D. Elder, T. K. Gray, B. LaBombard, C. J. L asnier, A. W. Leonard, R. Maingi, T. H. Osborne, P. C. Stangeby, J. L. Terry, et al., P hysics of Plasmas 19, 056122 (2012), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4710517

    2012 doi

  11. [21]

    Wiesen, D

    S. Wiesen, D. Reiter, V. Kotov, M. Baelmans, W. Dekeyser , A. Kukushkin, S. Lisgo, R. Pitts, V. Rozhansky, G. Saibene, et al., Journal of Nuclear Materia ls 463, 480 (2015), ISSN 0022- 3115, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311514006965

    2015

  12. [22]

    Goldston, Nuclear Fusion 52, 013009 (2011), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/52/1/013009

    R. Goldston, Nuclear Fusion 52, 013009 (2011), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/52/1/013009

    2011

  13. [23]

    C. K. Tsui, J. A. Boedo, J. R. Myra, B. Duval, B. Labit, C. T heiler, N. Vianello, W. A. J. 18 Vijvers, H. Reimerdes, S. Coda, et al., Physics of Plasmas 25, 072506 (2018), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038019

    2018 doi

  14. [24]

    Scotti, S

    F. Scotti, S. Zweben, J. Myra, R. Maqueda, and V. Soukhan ovskii, Nuclear Fusion 60, 026004 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab5886

    2019 doi

  15. [25]

    O. E. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 265001 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.108.265001

    2012

  16. [26]

    Theodorsen and O

    A. Theodorsen and O. E. Garcia, Physics of Plasmas 23, 040702 (2016), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4947235

    2016 doi

  17. [27]

    O. E. Garcia, R. Kube, A. Theodorsen, B. LaBombard, and J . L. Terry, Physics of Plasmas 25, 056103 (2018), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5018709

    2018 doi

  18. [28]

    S. J. Zweben, S. Banerjee, N. Bisai, A. Diallo, M. Lamper t, B. LeBlanc, J. R. Myra, and D. A. Russell, Physics of Plasmas 29, 012505 (2022), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10. 1063/5.0074261

    2022

  19. [29]

    Militello and J

    F. Militello and J. Omotani, Nuclear Fusion 56, 104004 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/56/10/104004

    2016

  20. [30]

    Militello, T

    F. Militello, T. Farley, K. Mukhi, N. Walkden, and J. T. O motani, Physics of Plasmas 25, 056112 (2018), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5017919

    2018 doi

  21. [31]

    Lasnier, D

    C. Lasnier, D. Hill, T. Petrie, A. Leonard, T. Evans, and R. Maingi, Nuclear Fusion 38, 1225 (1998), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/38/8/209

    1998 doi

  22. [32]

    S. J. Zweben, M. Lampert, and J. R. Myra, Physics of Plasm as 29, 072504 (2022), ISSN 1070-664X, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0097282

    2022 doi

  23. [33]

    T. Eich, P. Manz, R. Goldston, P. Hennequin, P. David, M. Faitsch, B. Kurzan, B. Sieglin, E. Wolfrum, the ASDEX Upgrade team, et al., Nuclear Fusion 60, 056016 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab7a66

    2020 doi

  24. [34]

    Parker, R

    S. Parker, R. Procassini, C. Birdsall, and B. Cohen, Jou rnal of Computational Physics 104, 41 (1993), ISSN 0021-9991, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0021999183710053. 19

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.