Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

A rotating magnetic mirror that preheats plasma then pinches it radially and axially can be extrapolated to meet or beat the Lawson criterion for fusion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 13:27 UTC pith:C6HDT7DK

load-bearing objection Concept paper that packages known mirror/pinch physics into a staged rotating-mirror architecture; the Lawson claim is a hand-multiplied scaling stack, not a demonstrated result. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27024 v1 pith:C6HDT7DK submitted 2026-07-29 physics.plasm-ph nucl-th

Rotating mirror with all-directional pinch compressions - The beauty and simplicity in controlled nuclear fusion

Linjin Zheng This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph nucl-th PACS 52.35.Py52.55.Fa52.55.Hc
keywords magnetic mirrorrotating plasmadetached electrodestheta pinchlongitudinal compressionLawson criterionmagnetic confinement fusioninertial confinement fusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that controlled fusion has a simpler path than either pure magnetic or pure inertial confinement: preheat fuel in a rotating magnetic mirror whose electrodes are magnetically detached from the core, then apply fast pinch compressions from both the sides and the ends. Preheating raises the starting temperature and density; the radial pinch multiplies perpendicular ion energy with the magnetic field; the longitudinal pinch adds another large density factor and plugs end losses. Because the pinch is fast, ions reach fusion energies before they fully share heat with electrons, so bremsstrahlung losses hurt less. Starting from published mirror parameters and scaling the field to about 20 tesla, the author multiplies the fusion triple product by roughly sixteen thousand and concludes the device can reach or exceed the Lawson threshold needed to show net-energy fusion is feasible.

Core claim

The central claim is that a rotating mirror with detached electrodes for steady-state preheating, followed by staged all-directional (radial plus longitudinal) magnetic pinch compressions, combines the strengths of magnetic and inertial confinement so that existing mirror results can be extrapolated past the deuterium–tritium Lawson triple product n·T·τ > 5×10²¹ m⁻³·keV·s.

What carries the argument

The rotating mirror with detached electrodes and all-directional pinch compressions: magnetic-moment conservation turns a rise in B into higher ion perpendicular temperature and density, while sequential coil-current peaks move the mirror throats inward to squeeze the plasma along the axis as well.

Load-bearing premise

The fusion triple product really multiplies by independent factors of about forty from the field rise and about ten from axial squeeze, without the energy confinement time collapsing during the staged pinch.

What would settle it

Build or simulate the staged 20-tesla radial-plus-longitudinal pinch on a preheated rotating-mirror plasma at GDT-like starting parameters and measure whether the achieved n·T_i·τ actually exceeds 5×10²¹ m⁻³·keV·s before thermalization and end losses erase the gain.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A linear mirror a few tens of meters long becomes a practical fusion testbed instead of a multi-meter-radius tokamak torus.
  • Longitudinal compression supplies an extra order-of-magnitude density factor unavailable to ordinary theta-pinch or Z-pinch schemes.
  • Fast ion heating after preheating keeps electron radiation from draining ion energy, opening a path toward aneutronic fuels such as p-¹¹B.
  • Open ends remain available for direct MHD energy conversion and ash removal once the burning core is formed.
  • Superconducting coils can hold the final compressed configuration, allowing sustained burn rather than a single pulsed collapse.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the axial density compression of ~10 proves harder than assumed, the same apparatus could still serve as a high-flux neutron source or materials-test facility even without net energy gain.
  • The detached-electrode rotation drive may be transferable to other open-field-line devices that today rely on end-plate biasing and suffer electrode erosion.
  • Staged coil sequencing that mimics two approaching pinch guns could be tested first at lower field on existing mirror machines before a full 20 T build.
  • Success would re-open interest in linear confinement geometries that were largely abandoned after early end-loss problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid fusion concept: steady-state preheating of fuel in a rotating magnetic mirror driven by detached biased electrodes, followed by staged all-directional (radial plus longitudinal) theta-pinch compressions using sequenced coil currents. Single-particle invariants (magnetic moment and energy) are used to argue that raising the central field (e.g., to ~20 T) multiplies T_perp and, via force balance, density, while longitudinal throat motion supplies an extra density factor. Extrapolating from GDT-like parameters (n·T_i·τ ~ 6×10^17 m^{-3}·keV·s) with a hand-estimated total gain ~16,000, the author claims the device can reach or exceed the DT Lawson triple product. Enabling elements (detached electrodes, non-constant rotation shear stabilization of flute modes) are referenced to provisional patents and unpublished notes. The framing emphasizes beauty/simplicity and combines magnetic and inertial confinement ideas.

Significance. If the scaling and stability arguments held under a controlled loss and equilibration budget, a linear device that adds a large longitudinal compression factor to preheated mirror plasma would be a meaningful conceptual contribution and a simpler path than large tokamaks or laser ICF for a first net-gain demonstration. The single-particle compression physics (μ conservation) and the engineering observation that the required post-pinch mirror ratio drops as 1/P are standard and clearly stated. The paper does not, however, supply machine-checked proofs, reproducible transport/MHD calculations, or falsifiable device parameters beyond order-of-magnitude arithmetic, so the significance remains conditional on analyses that are not yet in the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV (after Eq. 10); Fig. 8] Sec. IV, paragraphs after Eq. (10) and the construction of Fig. 8: the central Lawson claim multiplies a GDT-like base triple product (~6×10^17) by independent factors P~40 (T_perp and radial density from B_new/B_orig ~20 T / 0.5 T) and an axial density factor ~10, yielding ~16,000, while leaving τ at the preheated value. No particle/energy inventory, no time-dependent equilibrium during the moving-mirror stages, and no post-compression confinement model (even with held superconducting currents) are given. If density does not track B, the axial factor is ≪10, or τ collapses, the product falls below 5×10^21. This arithmetic is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion and must be replaced by a controlled scaling or simulation with stated loss channels.
  2. [Sec. IV] Sec. IV assertion that “fast compression … limits the time for thermalization … and therefore minimizes … bremsstrahlung”: no comparison of compression timescale to ion–electron equilibration time (or to bremsstrahlung cooling time) is provided for the staged coil sequence. Without that budget, using ion temperature alone in the Lawson product while dismissing electron radiation is not justified, and the claimed advantage over steady-state MCF is unsupported.
  3. [Sec. III; Sec. IV] Sec. III–IV stability premise: interchange/flute stabilization by non-constant parallel rotation and the practicality of detached electrodes are cited to provisional patents [1,2], Hazeltine–Mahajan–Zheng (2026), and Zheng et al. “to be submitted.” Those results are not derived or reproduced here. For a claim that preheating to GDT-level (or better) parameters is achievable and that post-pinch precession further helps, the manuscript needs either self-contained analysis or published, citable demonstrations; otherwise the preheated base state used in the Lawson extrapolation is not established.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (5)–(7)] Sec. IV, Eqs. (5)–(7) and the density-scaling step: μ conservation correctly gives T_perp,new = P T_perp,orig, and the reduced mirror-ratio requirement is standard. The further statement that density “scales with B” by the same factor P from force balance, and that longitudinal squeeze multiplies n by another ~10 with beta falling as B^{-2}, is not derived from a Grad–Shafranov or long-thin equilibrium under staged boundary motion. Radial and axial compression are not independent once flux conservation, pressure balance, and end losses are enforced; a consistent compressed equilibrium is required before multiplying factors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I; Fig. 1] The extended theological/philosophical framing (Genesis, John, Psalm, “Law above the natural laws,” Fig. 1) is atypical for a plasma-physics research article and dilutes the technical argument; it should be removed or confined to a brief preface if the journal allows.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: “LA W ABOVE THE NA TURAL LA WS,” “Coulumn,” “ROT A TING,” “DET ACHED,” duplicated bibliography tag “[1]” near the EBT reference, and inconsistent units (M^{-3} vs m^{-3}).
  3. [Sec. IV; Figs. 6–7] Figs. 6–7 are schematic only; coil-current waveforms, timing, and a table of assumed preheated vs post-pinch (n, T_perp, T_parallel, B, L, τ) would make the proposal clearer even if the Lawson claim is deferred.
  4. [Sec. I; Sec. V] Related hybrid/MTF and moving-mirror or FRC compression literature is cited thinly; a tighter comparison to liner-MTF, staged FRC compression, and classical theta-pinch (Scylla) limits would help readers place the novelty.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Enabling stability/preheating premise leans on author-overlapping patents and unpublished notes, but the Lawson 16,000× claim is independent external scaling, not forced by definition.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III (detached electrodes + rotation stabilization); refs [1],[20],[21]]
    "An important development of rotating mirror device is the invention of the detached electrodes to induce the electric field in a mirror. ... With the invention of detached electrodes [1], one can expect better confinement to be achieved. ... the so-called Hinton-Wong Boltzmann distribution function cannot be used for a mirror [20]. ... This leads to the stabilization of the interchange or flute modes [21]."

    The load-bearing claim that the preheated rotating mirror is stable enough to serve as the Lawson base rests on the author’s provisional patent [1], an overlapping-author equilibrium paper [20], and a Zheng et al. note “to be submitted” [21]. Those citations are not machine-checked or externally reproduced here; they underwrite the premise that GDT-like parameters are usable after rotation is added. This is partial circularity of justification, not of the subsequent 16,000× arithmetic.

  2. self citation load bearing [Abstract / Sec. I / Sec. IV opening; patents [1],[2]]
    "This is based on the provisional patents filed recently by the University of Texas at Austin [1, 2]. ... the rotating mirror with detached electrodes is used for steady-state preheating, and after the preheating, all-directional fast theta pinch compressions are applied [2]."

    The device concept and the two-stage (preheat then all-directional pinch) procedure are introduced as grounded in the author’s own provisional patents rather than in an independent prior literature derivation. The patents supply the conceptual starting point that the rest of the paper then scales; they do not numerically force the Lawson product, but they are the sole cited source for the specific configuration being extrapolated.

full rationale

The paper’s central numerical claim is an extrapolation: take GDT’s reported n·T_i·τ≈6×10^17 m^{-3}·keV·s, multiply by a pinch factor P≈40 (B from ~0.5 T to 20 T) for T_⊥ via μ conservation and for radial density via a force-balance assumption, times an assumed longitudinal density factor ~10, holding τ fixed, to exceed the DT Lawson triple product. That arithmetic is not circular: the base numbers are external experimental results, μ conservation is standard, and the product is not equal to its inputs by construction—if density fails to track B, the axial factor is ≪10, or τ collapses, the claim fails. What is self-referential is the enabling premise that a rotating mirror with detached electrodes can stably preheat to (or beyond) those GDT-like parameters and survive staged pinches. That premise is justified primarily by the author’s own provisional patents [1,2], the overlapping-author equilibrium paper [20], and a “to be submitted” rotation-shear stabilization note [21], with only partial external support from WHAM rotation experiments [19]. Per the rubric this is “some self-citation; central claim still has independent content” (score ~3–4), not a derivation that reduces to a fit or to a self-citation uniqueness chain. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives; the Lawson number is not self-definitional.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central Lawson claim rests on standard single-particle mirror physics plus a stack of domain assumptions about stability, compression scaling, and base device performance, several of which are supplied by the author’s provisional patents and unpublished notes. Free parameters (final B, axial compression factor, which base nTτ to use) dominate the numerical conclusion. The ‘invented’ content is the integrated device, not a new particle or force.

free parameters (4)
  • Final on-axis field after pinch B0,new = ~20 T (P≈40)
    Chosen as ~20 T from ‘current superconductor technology’ to set the pinch factor P≈40 relative to ~0.5 T GDT-like fields; drives both T_perp and radial density multipliers.
  • Longitudinal density compression factor = ~10
    Set to ~10 by appeal to GDT length (~7 m) and a target few-meter burning core; directly multiplies the triple-product amplification to ~16,000.
  • Base preheated triple product = ≈6×10^17 m^{-3}·keV·s
    Uses GDT-like n·T_i·τ≈6×10^17 with T_i=1 keV and short τ; WHAM/GDT ranges are selected at the optimistic edge for the story.
  • Post-compression energy confinement time τ = unspecified (effectively ≥ preheated τ in the multiply)
    Implicitly assumed not to fall enough to cancel the nT gain; precession-drift and axial-plug arguments are qualitative with no predicted τ value.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Magnetic moment μ=mv_perp^2/(2B) is conserved through the pinch, so T_perp scales with B while v_parallel is unchanged.
    Standard adiabatic invariant if ramps are slow vs gyroperiod and fast vs collision time; invoked throughout Sec. IV for ion heating.
  • domain assumption After compression, force balance makes density scale proportionally to B (radial) and further with the imposed axial length change.
    Used to get n×40×10; beta argument (nT/B^2 falls as B^{-2}) is sketched but not a full Grad–Shafranov or axial equilibrium solve.
  • domain assumption Non-constant rotation along field lines short-circuits flute/interchange charge separation and stabilizes the preheated mirror.
    Sec. III; relies on author’s rotation-shear picture and WHAM-like rotation results; full nonlinear proof is ‘to be submitted’.
  • ad hoc to paper Detached biased electrodes can impose the needed electric field without being destroyed by core plasma.
    Central to steady preheating; defined in provisional patent [1] and Fig. 3, not demonstrated with data here.
  • domain assumption Fast pinch after preheat limits ion–electron thermalization so ion Lawson product is the right figure of merit and bremsstrahlung does not clamp ions.
    Sec. IV justification for using T_i rather than T_e; no equilibration-time calculation versus ramp time is given.
  • domain assumption Required mirror ratio after pinch falls as 1/P, making longitudinal throat motion ‘easy’ and providing axial plugs.
    Eqs. (5)–(7); follows from μ conservation if the distribution remains mirror-trapped through the sequence.
  • domain assumption Superconducting coils can hold the staged currents after compression so the final burning configuration persists.
    Used to distinguish from Scylla IV-P; engineering feasibility of sequential high-field ramps is assumed.
invented entities (1)
  • Rotating mirror with detached electrodes and staged all-directional (radial+longitudinal) pinch coils no independent evidence
    purpose: Integrate steady preheat, rotation stabilization, and multi-directional magnetic compression in one linear device aimed at Lawson.
    Defined by provisional patents [1,2] and Figs. 3, 6, 7; the integrated configuration is the paper’s main proposal.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 16318 in / 4296 out tokens · 96152 ms · 2026-07-30T13:27:21.044716+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Controlling nuclear fusion is so challenging that for decades, people have been asking: Are we closer to infinite clean energy? Upon the philosophy of beauty and simplicity, the current work points out that there can be a shortcut: the rotating mirror with detached electrodes and all-directional pinch compressions. This is based on the provisional patents filed recently by the University of Texas at Austin. The device combines the steady-state and fast processes in the two main streams of controlled nuclear fusion research: magnetic confinement fusion and inertial confinement fusion. The fuel plasma is preheated in a steady-state process in a rotating mirror with detached electrodes and then the pinch compressions in both radial and longitudinal directions are applied as the fast process. Preheating and longitudinal compression, in addition to the radial compression, significantly boost the nuclear fusion rate. Fast compression after the preheating limits the time for thermalization between ions and electrons and, therefore, minimizes the impact of electron bremsstrahlung radiation loss on ions. Based on the existing experimental results, the current method can be extrapolated to have the potential to reach or exceed the Lawson criterion for the first demonstration of the feasibility of peaceful usage of nuclear fusion energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27024 by Linjin Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Distribution of scientific discoveries: the “bread” ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Basic mirror concept (Attribution: User: Wiki [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Mirror device with detached electrodes for driving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The short circuit effect on the interchange modes due [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Rotating mirror device with both radial and longitu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Cross Section of DT, DD, D-He3, P-B11 and He [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The final stage after the radial and longitudinal pinch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The triple product and fusion gain factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

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

32 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B” and “B’

    is explained in Fig. 3. In this figure, the magnetic field lines are depicted in the black curves with arrows. The two coil sets on the left and right at positions “B” and “B’” are the main coils used to generate the magnetic mirror configuration with the current directions shown with “x” and “.”. More auxiliary coils in positions “A”, “A’”, “C”, and “C’”...

  2. [2]

    Provisional Patent, Application # 64/050,493, filing date: April 27, 2026

    Linjin Zheng, Kotschenreuther M T, and Hazeltine R D, Magnetic mirror device including detached electrically biased electrodes and related methods, U.S. Provisional Patent, Application # 64/050,493, filing date: April 27, 2026

    2026

  3. [3]

    Provisional Patent, Application # 64/115,442, filing date: July 20, 2026

    Linjin Zheng, Rotating mirror with multi-direction pinch compressions, U.S. Provisional Patent, Application # 64/115,442, filing date: July 20, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Zheng Linjin 2015Advanced tokamak stability theory (San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Publishers & Bristol: IOP Publishing)

  5. [5]

    Zheng L. J. 2012 Overview of magnetohydrodynamics theory in toroidal plasma confinement, in Topics in Mag- netohydrodynamics” (ISBN: 978-953-51-0211-3, InTech), p. 1

    2012

  6. [6]

    Zheng Linjin 2022Magnetically Confined Fusion Plasma Physics, volume 3: Kinetic theory(Bristol: IOP Publish- ing)

  7. [7]

    Teller E (Ed.) 1981Fusion(New York: Academic Press)

  8. [8]

    Fusion 47, 1

    Ikeda K (2007)Nucl. Fusion 47, 1

    2007

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1126/science.adg2803

    Clery D 2022 With historic explosion, a long sought fu- sion breakthrough,Science. doi:10.1126/science.adg2803

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adg2803 2022

  10. [10]

    Lawson J D 1955 Some criteria for a pcower producing thermonuclear reactor,Technical report, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Berkshire, U. K

    1955

  11. [11]

    Dahlin J E 2001 Reactor Potential for Magnetized Target Fusion, TRITA-A Report, ISSN 1102-2051, https://inis.iaea.org/records/vkkam-zb252

    2001

  12. [12]

    29, 1979

    Daniel R W, Method and apparatus for generation of thermonuclear power, US Patent 4342720, filing date: Mar. 29, 1979

    1979

  13. [13]

    02, 2010

    Slough J, Bellevue T, Method and apparatus for the gen- eration, heating and/or compression of plasmoids and/or recovery of energy therefrom, European patent: EP 3 002 761 A1, filing date: Dec. 02, 2010

    2010

  14. [14]

    DOI 10.1088/1741-4326/ae034d

    Slough J 2025 A compact fusion reactor based on the staged compression of a field reversed configurationNu- clear Fusion, 65, 106019. DOI 10.1088/1741-4326/ae034d

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae034d 2025

  15. [15]

    Spitzer L 1951 A proposed stellarator,Technical report, Project Matterhorn

    1951

  16. [16]

    Artsirnovich L A 1958 Research on controlled thermonu- clear reactions in the USSR,Proceedings of the Second United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy

    1958

  17. [17]

    Grieger G, Beidler C D, Maassberg H, Harmeyer E, Her- rnegger F, Junker J, Kisslinger J, Lotz W, Merkel P, N¨ uhrenberg J, Rau F, Sapper J, Schl¨ uter A, Sardei F, and Wobig H 1991 inPlasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research(International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1990) vol. 3, 525

    1991

  18. [18]

    Boozer A H 1995 Quasi-helical symmetry in stellarators, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion37A103. 9

    1995

  19. [19]

    Post R F 1987 The magnetic mirror approach to fusion Nuclear Fusion271579

    1987

  20. [20]

    Endrizzi et al

    D. Endrizzi et al. 2023 Physics basis for the Wisconsin HTS Axisymmetric Mirror (WHAM),J. Plasma Phys. 89, 975890501

    2023

  21. [21]

    R. D. Hazeltine, S. M. Mahajan, and Linjin Zheng, Equi- librium of a rotating mirror plasmaPhys. Plasmas33, 072501 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0334273

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0334273 2026

  22. [22]

    to be submitted for publication

    Linjin Zheng et al 2026 Parallel rotation shear stabiliza- tion of flute modes. to be submitted for publication

    2026

  23. [23]

    Rosenbluth M N, Longmire C L 1957 Stability of plas- mas confined by magnetic fields,Annls Phys. 1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90055-6

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(57)90055-6 1957

  24. [24]

    Freidberg J P 1987 Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics (New York: Plenum)

    1987

  25. [25]

    Linjin Zheng 2026 Ideal and Resistive Magnetohydrody- namics (Boca Raton: CRC Press — Taylor & Francis)

    2026

  26. [26]

    DOI 10.1007/s10894-015-0017-2

    Simonen T C, 2016 Three Game Changing Discoveries: A Simpler Fusion Concept?J Fusion Energ 3563. DOI 10.1007/s10894-015-0017-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10894-015-0017-2 2016

  27. [27]

    Bagryansky P A, Shalashov A G, Gospodchikov E D, Lizunov A A, Maximov V V, Prikhodko V V, Soldatkina E I, Solomakhin A L and Yakovlev D V 2015 Three fold increase of the bulk electron temperature of plasma dis- charges in a magnetic mirror devicePhys. Rev. Lett. 114 205001. [1]

    2015

  28. [28]

    Hiroe S et al

    S. Hiroe S et al. 1988 Summary of ELMO Bumpy Torus (EBT-S) experiments from 1982 to 1984Nuclear Fusion, 28, 2249. DOI 10.1088/0029-5515/28/12/014

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/28/12/014 1988

  29. [29]

    Thomas K S 1978 LASL Controlled Thermonuclear Re- search Program (January—December 1976),LA-7082- PR Progress Report

    1978

  30. [30]

    Maglich, Bogdan 1973 The Migma principle of con- trolled fusion.Nuclear Instruments and Methods. 111,

    1973

  31. [32]

    Wurzel S E, Hsu S C 2022 Progress to- ward fusion energy breakeven and gain as measured against the Lawson criterionPhys

    Samuel E. Wurzel S E, Hsu S C 2022 Progress to- ward fusion energy breakeven and gain as measured against the Lawson criterionPhys. Plasmas 29, 062103. doi:10.1063/5.0083990

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0083990 2022

  32. [213]

    doi:10.1016/0029-554X(73)90068-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0029-554x(73)90068-2