pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29429 · v1 · pith:E46XYH6Hnew · submitted 2026-06-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Distribution of energy release events due to magnetic braiding

David I. Pontin , Klaus Galsgaard , James A. Klimchuk This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 02:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords magnetic braidingsolar coronananoflare heatingmagnetic reconnectioncurrent sheetsMHD simulationsmagnetic Reynolds numberflux tubes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnetic braiding at higher Reynolds numbers produces thinner, more numerous current sheets that heat coronal flux tubes.

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

The paper runs boundary-driven resistive MHD simulations of magnetic flux braiding at varying magnetic Reynolds numbers to examine how energy is released through reconnection. At higher Rm the reconnecting current sheets grow thinner and more intense, increase in number, and eventually fragment along their lengths once they exceed the threshold for plasmoid instability. This produces more tangled field lines, stronger average and peak fields, and greater Poynting flux into the domain while the global reconnection rate stays constant. The results indicate that braiding can supply the energy needed to heat the interiors of coherent coronal flux tubes via nanoflare-like events.

Core claim

In boundary-driven resistive MHD simulations of flux braiding, increasing the magnetic Reynolds number causes reconnecting current sheets to become thinner, more intense, and more numerous, with a sharp cutoff in their length distribution at high Rm consistent with the plasmoid instability threshold. The magnetic field lines become more tangled, mean and peak field strengths increase, and Poynting flux rises, while the global reconnection rate stays independent of Rm. This supports braiding as a viable mechanism to heat the internal portions of coherent flux tubes in the corona.

What carries the argument

Boundary-driven resistive MHD flux-braiding simulations that resolve individual reconnecting current sheets and track their length, intensity, and number across different magnetic Reynolds numbers.

If this is right

  • Current sheets fragment along their length at high Rm due to non-linear tearing/plasmoid instability.
  • Mean and peak magnetic field strengths increase with Rm.
  • Poynting flux into the domain increases with Rm, implying higher heating rates.
  • The global reconnection rate remains essentially independent of Rm.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Observations of current-sheet length statistics in the corona could be used to infer the effective magnetic Reynolds number operating there.
  • The same fragmentation process may operate in other astrophysical environments where braided fields undergo resistive evolution.
  • Including partial ionization or chromospheric driving in follow-up runs would test whether the length cutoff persists under more realistic photospheric conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary-driven resistive MHD setup with chosen driving and resistivity accurately represents the multi-scale, partially ionized conditions of the solar photosphere and chromosphere that braid coronal field lines.

What would settle it

Solar observations showing no increase in the number or thinness of current sheets with estimated magnetic Reynolds number, or no cutoff in their length distribution near the predicted plasmoid scale, would falsify the claimed dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29429 by David I. Pontin, James A. Klimchuk, Klaus Galsgaard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Spatial pattern of the two separate vortex flows applied on the boundary. (b) Temporal variation of the two vortex flows. On z = −10 the red (black) curve in (b) describes the time variation of the red (black) vortex in (a). On z = +10 the red (black) curve in (b) describes the time variation of the black (red) vortex in (a). {0.005, 0.01, 0.5} while for the magnetic field dissipation (resistivity) we … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Context image showing the 3D geometry including the driving boundaries and midplane cut. Flow arrows on the two end planes are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalised distribution of the modulus of the current density at every gridpoint for x, y ∈ [−0.8, 0.8], z ∈ [−9, 9], at t = 300 for the three simulations. in some places leaving) through the driving boundaries. In common with previous flux braiding simulations (re￾viewed by D. I. Pontin & G. Hornig 2020), those driving motions twist and tangle the field lines around one an￾other in the volume, leading to … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energetics of the three simulations over time. Top-left to bottom-right: Free magnetic energy (i.e., magnetic energy in excess of the initial state), kinetic energy, Poynting flux through the lower boundary z = −10, volume-integrated Joule dissipation, volume-integrated viscous dissipation. tion, likely accelerated by current sheet fragmentation – possibly but not necessarily related to turbulence (see bel… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top row: log of the squashing factor, Q, plotted on the lower boundary (z = −10) at t = 310 for the three simulations. Bottom row: field line length as a fraction of the initial length, plotted in the midplane (z = 0) at t = 310. temperatures in the current sheets and their immedi￾ate outflows. But the temperature is moderately high within the whole tube, as the flux that has been pro￾cessed through the cu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of current sheet properties measured in the mid-plane (z = 0) for the three different simulations, for all time, calculated as described in Appendix B. Note that in (b), ‘length’ refers to the length in the z = 0 plane, and in all cases non-dimensional code units are used. For reference, the Alfvén speed based on Bz is vA ≈ 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Jz in the midplane at t = 270 for the simulation with resolution 10562 × 1280. There are a number of locations in which a current sheet appears fragmented along its length with bubble-like features suggesting the presence of plasmoids and/or secondary current sheets. In (a) the most prominent are marked with arrows, while the locations of additional, smaller O-type structures within current… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Global reconnection rate as a function of time, calculated as described in Appendix C. ual reconnection rates for each current sheet need to be combined (P. F. Wyper & M. Hesse 2015). Following D. I. Pontin et al. (2011) we estimate the reconnection rate at each time by undertaking the fol￾lowing steps: (i) integrate E∥ along a set of field lines with seed points from a regular grid in the midplane z = 0 (… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the current sheet detection algorithm. Top-left: Jz at t = 365 for the medium resolution simulation. Top-right: edge pixels detected by the Canny edge detection algorithm with lower threshold of 100, upper threshold of 200, and with L2 norm option for the gradient evaluation. Bottom-left: discrete current sheets identified – different colours correspond to different current sheet labels. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Φ = ∫ E∥ dl plotted on the z = 0 plane of the simulation with resolution 5282 × 1280 at t = 300. (b) Labelled regions identified in the same quantity using the method and parameters described in the text. 12. Define a single inflow field strength, Bin, as the maximum value of |Bxy| within 20×20 pixels of the peak current pixel. Note that the distribution of |Bxy| can be quite asymmetric across a curre… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Energy conversion by reconnection-powered nanoflare heating is one of the leading explanations for the heating of the solar chromosphere and corona. The aim of this paper is to shed light on this mechanism by exploring the magnetic Reynolds number dependence of the energy conversion process. To do this we employ boundary-driven, magnetohydrodynamic, flux-braiding simulations at different magnetic Reynolds numbers ($R_m$), and explore in detail the properties of the individual magnetic energy release events. The properties of the reconnecting current sheets that mediate the energy release are shown to depend on $R_m$. For increasing $R_m$, the current sheets become thinner, more intense, and more numerous. For sufficiently large $R_m$, the current sheets fragment along their length, leading to a sharp cutoff in the current sheet length distribution. The cutoff is consistent with the threshold for non-linear tearing/plasmoid instability. For increasing $R_m$ the magnetic field lines become increasingly tangled, the mean and peak values of the magnetic field strength increase, and the Poynting flux into the domain increases, implying that the heating rate also increases. The global reconnection rate is essentially independent of $R_m$. These results support the braiding mechanism as a viable way to effectively heat the internal portions of coherent flux tubes in the corona.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents boundary-driven resistive MHD simulations of magnetic flux braiding at varying magnetic Reynolds numbers (Rm). It reports that reconnecting current sheets become thinner, more intense, and more numerous with increasing Rm; at sufficiently high Rm they fragment along their length, consistent with the nonlinear tearing/plasmoid instability threshold. Field lines become more tangled, mean and peak |B| increase, and Poynting flux rises (implying higher heating), while the global reconnection rate remains essentially Rm-independent. These trends are used to argue that braiding is a viable mechanism for heating the internal portions of coherent coronal flux tubes.

Significance. If the reported Rm scalings and the Rm-independent global rate are robust within the model, the work supplies concrete numerical evidence on how current-sheet statistics and energy-release distributions evolve with resistivity, strengthening the case for braiding-driven nanoflare heating in the corona.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Setup description] The central claim that the results 'support the braiding mechanism as a viable way to effectively heat the internal portions of coherent flux tubes in the corona' (abstract) rests on the assumption that the single-fluid resistive MHD setup with idealized boundary driving faithfully captures the multi-scale, partially ionized photospheric/chromospheric conditions that braid coronal field lines. The manuscript provides no quantitative test or discussion of how the omission of ambipolar diffusion, height-dependent ionization, and turbulent spectrum alters current-sheet thinning, fragmentation threshold, or Poynting-flux scaling; without such justification the transfer of the reported Rm trends to the real corona is not demonstrated.
  2. [Results on current-sheet statistics] The reported Rm dependence of current-sheet properties and the Rm independence of the global reconnection rate are presented as key results, yet the text does not specify the numerical values of Rm explored, the functional form of resistivity, or any resolution-convergence tests for the fragmentation cutoff. These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the sharp cutoff in the length distribution is physical or numerical, directly affecting the load-bearing claim about the tearing-instability threshold.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for magnetic Reynolds number is introduced as $R_m$ in the abstract but the precise definition (e.g., reference length and velocity) is not restated when results are discussed; a brief reminder would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the referee's report. We address each major comment in turn below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Setup description] The central claim that the results 'support the braiding mechanism as a viable way to effectively heat the internal portions of coherent flux tubes in the corona' (abstract) rests on the assumption that the single-fluid resistive MHD setup with idealized boundary driving faithfully captures the multi-scale, partially ionized photospheric/chromospheric conditions that braid coronal field lines. The manuscript provides no quantitative test or discussion of how the omission of ambipolar diffusion, height-dependent ionization, and turbulent spectrum alters current-sheet thinning, fragmentation threshold, or Poynting-flux scaling; without such justification the transfer of the reported Rm trends to the real corona is not demonstrated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our simulations employ an idealized single-fluid resistive MHD model with uniform resistivity and do not incorporate ambipolar diffusion, height-dependent ionization, or a turbulent photospheric spectrum. The study is designed to isolate the effect of varying Rm on current sheet statistics and energy release within this framework, which is commonly used in the literature on coronal heating. We will revise the manuscript to include an expanded discussion section that outlines these limitations and the regimes in which the reported Rm scalings are likely to remain relevant. However, a quantitative assessment of the omitted physics would require a separate set of multi-fluid or more complex simulations, which is outside the scope of this work. Therefore, the revision will be partial. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on current-sheet statistics] The reported Rm dependence of current-sheet properties and the Rm independence of the global reconnection rate are presented as key results, yet the text does not specify the numerical values of Rm explored, the functional form of resistivity, or any resolution-convergence tests for the fragmentation cutoff. These omissions make it impossible to assess whether the sharp cutoff in the length distribution is physical or numerical, directly affecting the load-bearing claim about the tearing-instability threshold.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out these omissions. The simulations were performed at Rm = 1000, 5000, 10000, and 50000, with a constant resistivity eta. We will add explicit statements of these values and the resistivity model in the methods section. Additionally, we have conducted resolution studies and will include a paragraph describing the convergence tests, which indicate that the fragmentation is resolved at the highest resolutions used and consistent with the plasmoid instability threshold. This will strengthen the manuscript and we will make these changes. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative evaluation of the effects of ambipolar diffusion, partial ionization, and turbulent driving on the current-sheet properties and energy release distributions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of numerical MHD experiments

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from a series of boundary-driven resistive MHD flux-braiding simulations performed at multiple values of Rm. Quantities such as current-sheet thickness, intensity, number, fragmentation, field-line tangling, mean/peak |B|, Poynting flux, and global reconnection rate are extracted directly from the simulation data. No analytical derivation chain, parameter fitting followed by renamed prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is present; the central support for the braiding-heating scenario follows immediately from the reported simulation statistics without reduction to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard resistive MHD equations, the assumption that boundary driving represents photospheric motions, and numerical treatment of reconnection at varying Rm. No new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Resistive MHD equations govern the evolution of the magnetic field and plasma in the modeled domain.
    Invoked throughout the simulation setup described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Boundary driving at the base represents the effect of photospheric motions on coronal field lines.
    Central to the flux-braiding experiment design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5763 in / 1264 out tokens · 37248 ms · 2026-06-30T02:19:20.364484+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023,, 1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10301324

    Aslanyan, V., & Meyer, K. 2023,, 1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10301324

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10301324 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Wilkins, C

    Aslanyan, V., Scott, R. B., Wilkins, C. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad55ca 2024

  3. [3]

    1986, Phys

    Biskamp, D. 1986, Phys. Fluids, 29, 1520

    1986

  4. [4]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools

    2000

  5. [5]

    Breu, C., Pontin, D., Priest, E., & Moortel, I. D. 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    Canny, J. 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.1986.4767851 1986

  7. [7]

    B., Klimchuk, J

    Dahlburg, R. B., Klimchuk, J. A., & Antiochos, S. K. 2005, Astrophys. J., 622, 1191, doi: 10.1086/425645

    work page doi:10.1086/425645 2005

  8. [8]

    B., Liu, J

    Dahlburg, R. B., Liu, J. H., Klimchuk, J. A., & Nigro, G. 2009, Astrophys. J., 704, 1059, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1059

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1059 2009

  9. [9]

    E., Hagenaar, H

    DeForest, C. E., Hagenaar, H. J., Lamb, D. A., Parnell, C. E., & Welsch, B. T. 2007, ApJ, 666, 576, doi: 10.1086/518994

    work page doi:10.1086/518994 2007

  10. [10]

    Dmitruk, P., & Gómez, D. O. 1999, Astrophys. J., 527, L63

    1999

  11. [11]

    O., & Matthaeus, W

    Dmitruk, P., Gómez, D. O., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2003, Phys. Plasmas, 10, 3584

    2003

  12. [12]

    Galsgaard, K., & Nordlund, A. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 13445, doi: 10.1029/96JA00428

    work page doi:10.1029/96ja00428 1996

  13. [13]

    Galsgaard, K., & Nordlund, A. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 231

    1997

  14. [14]

    V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V

    Gudiksen, B. V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116520

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116520 2011

  15. [15]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  16. [16]

    2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055702, doi: 10.1063/1.4802941

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055702, doi: 10.1063/1.4802941

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4802941 2013

  17. [17]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/20

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/20

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/20 2016

  18. [18]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  19. [19]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140256, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0256

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0256 2015

  20. [20]

    A., & Antiochos, S

    Klimchuk, J. A., & Antiochos, S. K. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 83, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.662861

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.662861 2021

  21. [21]

    Johnston, C. D. 2023, Frontiers in Physics, 11, 1198194, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2023.1198194

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2023.1198194 2023

  22. [22]

    E., Daldorff, L

    Leake, J. E., Daldorff, L. K. S., & Klimchuk, J. A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7193

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7193 2020

  23. [23]

    E., Daldorff, L

    Leake, J. E., Daldorff, L. K. S., & Klimchuk, J. A. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e71

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e71 2024

  24. [24]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2013, Phys. Rev. E, 87, 013102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.87.013102 Mikić, Z., Schnack, D. D., & van Hoven, G. 1989, Astrophys. J., 338, 1148, doi: 10.1086/167265

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.87.013102 2013

  25. [25]

    S., Lin, L., & Bhattacharjee, A

    Ng, C. S., Lin, L., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 109

    2012

  26. [26]

    2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 052109, doi: 10.1063/1.3428553

    Ni, L., Germaschewski, K., Huang, Y.-M., et al. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 052109, doi: 10.1063/1.3428553

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3428553 2010

  27. [27]

    1997,, Tech

    Nordlund, A., & Galsgaard, K. 1997,, Tech. rep., Astronomical Observatory, Copenhagen University

    1997

  28. [28]

    Parker, E. N. 1972, Astrophys. J., 174, 499, doi: 10.1086/151512

    work page doi:10.1086/151512 1972

  29. [29]

    Parker, E. N. 1983, ApJ, 264, 635, doi: 10.1086/160636

    work page doi:10.1086/160636 1983

  30. [30]

    Parker, E. N. 1988, Astrophys. J., 330, 474

    1988

  31. [31]

    I., & Hornig, G

    Pontin, D. I., & Hornig, G. 2015, Astrophys. J., 805, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/47

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/47 2015

  32. [32]

    I., & Hornig, G

    Pontin, D. I., & Hornig, G. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00026-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-020-00026-5 2020

  33. [33]

    I., & Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., & Priest, E. R. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9 2022

  34. [34]

    2011, Astron

    Galsgaard, K. 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 525, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014544

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014544 2011

  35. [35]

    R., Heyvaerts, J

    Priest, E. R., Heyvaerts, J. F., & Title, A. M. 2002, Astrophys. J., 576, 533

    2002

  36. [36]

    F., Velli, M., & Einaudi, G

    Rappazzo, A. F., Velli, M., & Einaudi, G. 2010, Astrophys. J., 722, 65 18

    2010

  37. [37]

    F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., & Dahlburg, R

    Rappazzo, A. F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., & Dahlburg, R. B. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 1348, doi: 10.1086/528786

    work page doi:10.1086/528786 2008

  38. [38]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254

    Rembiasz, T., Obergaulinger, M., Cerdá-Durán, P., Aloy, M.-A., & Müller, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254 2017

  39. [39]

    L., Wilmot-Smith, A

    Ritchie, M. L., Wilmot-Smith, A. L., & Hornig, G. 2016, ApJ, 824, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/19

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/1/19 2016

  40. [40]

    Schindler, K., Hesse, M., & Birn, J. 1988, J. Geophys. Res., 93, 5547, doi: 10.1029/JA093iA06p05547

    work page doi:10.1029/ja093ia06p05547 1988

  41. [41]

    Titov, V. S. 2007, Astrophys. J., 660, 863, doi: 10.1086/512671 van Ballegooijen, A. A. 1988a, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dynamics, 41, 181 van Ballegooijen, A. A. 1988b, in Solar and Stellar Coronal Structure and Dynamics, ed. R. C. Altrock, 115–124 van der Walt, S., Schönberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, doi: 10.7717/peerj.453

    work page doi:10.1086/512671 2007

  42. [42]

    L., Pontin, D

    Wilmot-Smith, A. L., Pontin, D. I., & Hornig, G. 2010, Astron. Astrophys., 516, A5

    2010

  43. [43]

    F., & Hesse, M

    Wyper, P. F., & Hesse, M. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 042117, doi: 10.1063/1.4918335

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4918335 2015

  44. [44]

    F., & Pontin, D

    Wyper, P. F., & Pontin, D. I. 2014, Phys. Plasmas, 21, 082114, doi: 10.1063/1.4893149

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4893149 2014