Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 96 references

Divertor topology and vacuum vessel design for stellarators

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Stellarator coils and vessels can be optimized together so the edge magnetic field forms chosen divertor topologies, including precise snowflake divertors.

desk verdict Solid methods paper that actually delivers stellarator snowflakes and joint coil–vessel control in vacuum; the engineering fragility of M=I is the real open question, not the numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27127 v1 pith:BR5JKZJ6 submitted 2026-07-29 physics.plasm-ph math-phmath.MP

Andrew Giuliani , Raffael Wendlinger , Misha Padidar , Robert Davies , Shibabrat Naik , Calvin Lowe , Georg Harrer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phmath-phmath.MP PACS 52.55.Hc52.55.Rk52.65.-y
keywords stellaratoroptimizationdivertortopologysnowflakeperiodicfieldlinessigneddistancefunctionsvacuumvesseldesignquasi-axisymmetryfixedpoints
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

Fusion devices need a controlled way to dump heat and ash without destroying the wall. This paper shows how to design that edge structure in stellarators at the same time as the coils and the vacuum vessel. The authors give a stable numerical method that finds closed magnetic field lines of every topological type—X-points, O-points, and the delicate parabolic cases that sit between them—and they introduce simple vessel shapes whose distance to any point is cheap and differentiable. With those tools they jointly optimize modular coils and the vessel so that quasi-axisymmetric stellarators realize single-null, double-null, parabolic, and, for the first time, six-legged snowflake divertors while still meeting engineering clearances and core physics targets. The resulting small devices are offered as candidates for a next university-scale experiment.

What carries the argument

Stabilized spectral fixed-point solve: the field-line ODE is collocated in Fourier form and, for parabolic (degenerate) points, is augmented with trace or full tangent-map targets plus auxiliary poloidal-field coil degrees of freedom so Newton’s method stays well-conditioned; signed-distance vessel families then supply differentiable clearance constraints that couple divertor placement to vessel and coil geometry.

What would settle it

Build or rigorously model one of the optimized coil sets at finite plasma pressure and check whether the intended fixed-point type (especially the snowflake with return-map equal to the identity) still exists at the designed location with the same leg structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A well-conditioned spectral solver for periodic magnetic field lines of any type (elliptic, hyperbolic, or parabolic), paired with parametric vacuum vessels that have efficient signed-distance functions, lets modular coils and the vessel be optimized together so vacuum stellarators achieve prescribed divertor topologies—including precise rank-0 parabolic snowflake divertors—while retaining nested surfaces, quasi-axisymmetry, magnetic well, and coil/vessel engineering constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The type and location of edge fixed points computed in vacuum (or at tiny plasma pressure) remain a good enough stand-in for the real divertor once the plasma itself makes a magnetic field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Snowflake and other advanced tokamak-style divertors become designable options in stellarators, not only island divertors.
  • Vacuum vessel shape can be a free variable in coil optimization rather than a post-hoc packing problem.
  • A library of small quasi-axisymmetric devices with controlled single-null, double-null, parabolic, and snowflake edges can be generated for experimental comparison.
  • Connection-length and strike-line patterns follow the chosen fixed-point topology across toroidal angle, guiding where divertor plates should sit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If vacuum snowflakes survive at reactor-relevant pressure, stellarators could borrow decades of tokamak snowflake heat-exhaust experience without axisymmetry.
  • The same fixed-point continuation that converts O-points to X-points could be used online to retune edge topology with PF-coil currents during an experiment.
  • Piecewise-cylinder and canal vessels with closed-form distances may make automated port and baffle packing a standard constraint in future coil codes.
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 / 9 minor

Summary. The paper presents two algorithms and their integration into a stellarator optimization framework. First, a spectral collocation/Newton method for computing periodic field lines (fixed points of the Poincaré return map) of arbitrary type — elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic — using augmented systems (trace or full-M targets with auxiliary PF-coil degrees of freedom) that keep the Jacobian well-conditioned through the degenerate parabolic limit; continuation examples convert O-points to X-points, heal and unfold a snowflake (rank-0 parabolic, M=I), and form an O-point chain. Second, parametric vacuum-vessel families (pill pipe, non-planar canal surface, piecewise mitered cylinders) with efficiently computable, differentiable signed distance functions. These are combined in a joint coil–vessel–fixed-point optimization with physics targets (quasi-axisymmetry, transform, aspect ratio, magnetic well) and engineering constraints (coil curvature, length, clearances), producing four STAR Lite-class two-field-period devices: double-null, single-null, rank-1 parabolic, and a six-legged snowflake. Edge characterization (FLARE connection lengths, strike maps) and vacuum/β=0.01% MHD proxies (Mercier, ballooning) are reported; the snowflake is Mercier-stable only in an intermediate region.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial methods contribution: (i) the first demonstration of non-axisymmetric snowflake divertors in stellarators, extending a tokamak concept previously unrealized in 3D fields; (ii) a numerically well-conditioned solver for degenerate fixed points, demonstrated with bounded Jacobian condition numbers through bifurcations (Figs. 3F, 4D) — a real technical advance over naive Newton on the displacement map; (iii) closed-form or 1D-root-find signed distance functions for three parametric vessel families, enabling coil-on/off-vessel optimization with differentiable clearance constraints; (iv) a fully stated constrained optimization problem (App. A) with engineering bounds taken from the STAR Lite project, and post-hoc physics validation via connection lengths, strike maps, and Mercier/ballooning proxies at the experimental operating point. The honest reporting of the snowflake's limited Mercier-stable region and of the custom A_50% metric's caveats is commendable. The tools are broadly useful for stellarator edge design beyond STAR Lite.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §7, Fig. 4D, Fig. 8D] The headline result — 'precise' rank-0 snowflakes as STAR Lite prototype candidates — rests on enforcing M=I, a codimension-2 degenerate condition. Fig. 4 itself shows the snowflake unfolds into two X-points (or O + 3 X) when Tr(M) departs from 2 by ~0.05, yet nowhere is the sensitivity of M to the design variables quantified: no singular values of d(vec M)/dq, no tolerance on PF-coil currents, no Monte-Carlo over modular-coil manufacturing errors. App. C flags exactly this fragility for the magnetic well ('particularly sensitive to manufacturing errors') but the analogous analysis is missing for the edge fixed point. A snowflake holding Tr(M)=2 to 1e-4 vs 1e-2 are very different device propositions. Please add a vacuum-field error budget (e.g. condition number of the map from coil/PF perturbations to M, or an ensemble over plausible coil displacements). This is testable today within the
  2. [§6, Eqs. (25)-(26); §2.2, Fig. 2] The optimization constrains only Tr(M)=2 or M=I (Eqs. 25-26). But Fig. 2 shows that rank-0 (M=I) fixed points come in (at least) two-legged and six-legged varieties, and only the latter are snowflakes. Nothing in the constraint set or objective selects the six-legged topology or its unfolding direction; the six legs appear to be verified post hoc from Poincaré sections. Please state explicitly how the six-legged structure is obtained and whether it is robust: is leg count selected by the seed, by the PF-coil arrangement, or by higher-order terms in the return map? If a small perturbation of the converged design yields the two-legged rank-0 state instead, the 'snowflake' claim for Fig. 8D needs qualification.
  3. [§7.2, §8] All fixed-point locations/types are computed in vacuum; the stability proxies use a fixed-boundary β=0.01% equilibrium, and finite-β edge fixed points are deferred to virtual-casing/SPEC work (§8). This scoping is honestly stated, but the abstract and §8 then describe the devices as 'candidates for a next-generation STAR Lite prototype.' For the claim to stand, some estimate is needed of whether plasma-generated fields at the planned operating point move Tr(M) by less than the snowflake's fragility scale (see comment 1). Even an order-of-magnitude virtual-casing or diamagnetic-field estimate at the edge, compared against the field perturbation required to shift Tr(M) by 0.05, would bound the risk. Alternatively, temper the prototype language to 'magnetic-design candidates pending finite-β verification.'
minor comments (9)
  1. [§4.3] The text states the continuation varies T 'from 1.95 to 2.05, so that it transitions from hyperbolic to parabolic snowflake, then elliptic,' but two sentences later says the trace 'varies from 2.4 to 1.90.' The latter is consistent with X→O conversion; the former is not. Please correct.
  2. [§2.2] The rotation-matrix display for the elliptic case has a sign/glyph error (the off-diagonal should be -sin(α)); throughout the text the minus sign renders as '9' (e.g. 'Tr(M)<9 2', 'topological index ... is 9 2'). Please fix the typesetting.
  3. [§3.2] The sentence 'then, b representation is given in eq. (4)...' is garbled; presumably 'the n,b representation.'
  4. [§5, Eq. (23)] Eq. (23) is explicitly a level-set function, not a true SDF, yet it is used inside the distance constraints (24.1)-(24.3) whose bounds (d_coil-vessel etc.) are interpreted as physical distances. Please clarify which vessel family was used with Eq. (23) and how the clearance bounds were reinterpreted in that case.
  5. [§7.1, Fig. 10] The A_50% measure is non-standard (as the authors note). Since the snowflake's 2-3.5x advantage may partly reflect edge chaos rather than topology, it would strengthen §7.1 to also report a standard quantity (wetted area at fixed diffusion, or flux expansion) for at least the snowflake and double-null cases.
  6. [§5] SDF spatial gradients are undefined when the nearest vessel point is non-unique (e.g. on the canal centerline). The text says this 'did not prevent' convergence; a sentence on how the optimizer avoids or handles these points (safeguarded line search, constraint margins) would help reproducibility.
  7. [§9] 'The scripts ... will be made publicly available in a repository on Zenodo.' Please deposit before publication and cite the DOI; the results (condition-number continuations, optimized devices) should be reproducible at review time for a methods paper.
  8. [Fig. 10 caption] Fig. 10 normalizes strike density per configuration; the caption should state explicitly that absolute magnitudes differ and point to the A_50% comparison for the common-scale statement.
  9. [§2.2] Eq. (6): the expression 'ι = nfp/2π α' is ambiguous (ι = nfp α/(2π)?). Please parenthesize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Constructive optimization paper: divertor type is enforced by explicit Tr(M)/M constraints and design targets, not predicted from fitted inputs; no load-bearing circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims are algorithmic and constructive: a spectral Newton method for periodic orbits (including degenerate parabolic cases via augmented trace/M constraints), signed-distance vessel families, and joint coil–vessel optimization that realizes prescribed divertor topologies (X-point, single/double-null, rank-1 parabolic, rank-0 snowflake) under quasisymmetry, well, and engineering bounds. Fixed-point type is not derived from data or redefined as success; it is imposed by explicit algebraic targets (Tr(M)=T, M=I, or |Tr(M)−2|≤0.1) while free PF/modular degrees of freedom are solved for. Design targets (ι*, A*, B*, well bound, coil limits) are specifications, not fitted ‘predictions’ of nature. Self-citations ([30,31] Boozer surfaces, SIMSOPT, STAR Lite design A) supply infrastructure and initialization, not uniqueness theorems that force the snowflake claim. No equation reduces the existence of a snowflake or the vessel clearance result to its own input by construction. Minor self-use of prior tools does not raise circularity beyond a 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Claims rest on standard Hamiltonian field-line dynamics, vacuum Biot–Savart fields from filament coils, and engineering/design targets taken from the STAR Lite program. Methodological inventions are computational (augmented Newton systems, vessel SDF families), not new physical entities. Free parameters are optimizer set-points and coil/vessel DOF bounds, not fits to experimental divertor performance.

free parameters (6)
  • Target rotational transforms ι*_s, ι*_a and aspect ratio A* = A*=6.66; ι targets as in STAR Lite-class runs
    Chosen design set-points (A* = 6.66 from STAR Lite design A) that shape the confined region; not predicted from first principles.
  • On-axis mean field B* and magnetic-well bound W* = B*=0.0875 T; W* example −100
    B*=0.0875 T and well targets (e.g. V''≤−100) are imposed by hand for the prototype scale and stability proxy.
  • Coil current/geometry engineering bounds (I*, Lmax, κmax, d_cc, …) = e.g. modular ≤60 kA·turns, PF ≤5 kA·turns, Lmax=3 m, d_cc=0.15 m
    Manufacturing limits adopted from STAR Lite design A; they define the feasible set rather than being measured outcomes.
  • Pairwise distance bounds d_coil-vessel, D_coil-vessel, d_divertor-vessel
    Clearance/packing tolerances chosen for the optimization; control whether coils sit on or off the vessel.
  • Auxiliary PF coil count, radii, vertical positions, currents η
    Reserved DOFs to regularize parabolic solves and shape the edge; number and layout are design choices (e.g. N_PF=5 or 10 in continuations).
  • Near-parabolic seed tolerances |Tr(M)−2|≤0.1 or ||M−I||_∞≤0.1 = 0.1
    Ad hoc thresholds used to stage the optimization into the exact parabolic manifold.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Magnetic field lines form a Hamiltonian system, so det(M)=1 for the Poincaré return-map Jacobian (Abel–Liouville).
    Used throughout §2 to classify fixed points by Tr(M) only and to drop one entry of M when constraining parabolic points.
  • domain assumption Vacuum fields from filamentary modular/PF coils adequately represent the edge for topology design at STAR Lite parameters.
    All fixed-point solves and example devices are vacuum; finite-β plasma response is deferred (§8).
  • domain assumption Isolated parabolic fixed points with Tr(M)=+2 (rank-1 or rank-0/M=I) are the correct mathematical targets for stellarator snowflake/parabolic divertors.
    Stated by analogy to tokamak B_pol=∇B_pol=0 snowflakes (§2.2, §4.2); topological index −2 discussion supports but does not prove reactor relevance.
  • ad hoc to paper Signed-distance (or level-set) constraints on the chosen vessel families suffice to enforce non-intersection and clearance without needing fully free-form vessel CAD.
    §5 restricts vessels to pill-pipe, canal, piecewise-cylinder classes with explicit validity inequalities so distances stay cheap and differentiable.
  • ad hoc to paper Penalty method driving physics/engineering constraints to ~0.1% (or 0.1 absolute) yields designs that are acceptably feasible for prototype candidacy.
    §6.1 optimization protocol; ODE/PDE constraints are exact but inequality suite is soft.
invented entities (2)
  • Augmented spectral Newton systems for parabolic fixed points (trace or full-M targets plus η DOFs) independent evidence
    purpose: Keep the Jacobian well-conditioned when M−I is singular so parabolic/snowflake points can sit inside gradient-based stellarator optimization.
    Core numerical invention of §3–4; demonstrated via continuations with bounded condition numbers.
  • Parametric SDF vessel families (pill pipe, non-planar canal, piecewise-cylinder/mitered) independent evidence
    purpose: Make point-to-vessel distances and derivatives efficient enough for joint coil–divertor–vessel optimization.
    §5 constructs explicit ϱ formulas/1D minimizations and validity constraints; used in all example devices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Divertor topology and vacuum vessel design for stellarators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BR5JKZJ6

@misc{pith2026260727127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Divertor topology and vacuum vessel design for stellarators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BR5JKZJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27127}
}
read the original abstract

We present stellarator optimization algorithms for designing the edge magnetic structure in vacuum fields, together with the vacuum vessel. First, we introduce a numerical method that robustly computes periodic-orbit fixed points of any type (elliptic, hyperbolic, or parabolic), which could form the basis of a divertor. To couple divertor and vacuum vessel design, we introduce parametric families of vacuum vessels for which point-to-vessel distances, and their derivatives, can be computed efficiently. The resulting algorithms use signed distance functions to enforce coil-vessel clearance while allowing coils to be placed on or off the vessel. Using these methods, we jointly optimize modular coils and the vacuum vessel to realize a wide range of magnetic topologies for diverting exhaust, including standard X-point divertors, and single- and double-null configurations. For the first time, we show that precise snowflake divertors can be achieved in stellarators. Using this framework, we generate a number of quasi-axisymmetric stellarator designs with compatible vacuum vessels and diverse divertor architectures, which we consider to be candidates for a next-generation STAR Lite prototype.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. STAR Lite class stellarators featuring various kinds of divertors, designed using the algorithms in this work. The top row shows the magnetic surface on a field period, the six modular coils with the vacuum vessel geometry (gray). The middle row shows Poincar´e sections of the devices in the ϕ = 0 plane, with stable and unstable manifolds in red and blue. The bottom row depicts the connection length Lc at ϕ = 0 of e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellarators exhibiting rank(M − I) = 0 parabolic fixed points. Panel A shows a two-legged fixed point (horizontal diamond) with two orbiting X-points (crosses), and panel B shows a six-legged fixed point (star). 3 A spectral method for computing fixed points We now describe methods for numerically computing fixed points of any type: hyperbolic, elliptic, and parabolic. The computations rely on treating eq. (1) as a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Condition numbers of the Jacobian of (14a) associated to the magnetic axis (blue), of (14b) associated to the tracked fixed point (purple dashed), and of the full system (14) (purple solid) as the target trace T of the tracked fixed point is varied. Circle, cross, square markers correspond respectively to O, X, and parabolic fixed points. Panel B contains the Z-coordinate of the fixed points illustrating the bifurca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A-C) Poincar´e sections of the boxed region in (F) when the target trace value, T, of the tracked fixed point is varied about the bifurcation point. (F) An expanded view of the Poincar´e section shown in (B), where the blue dot labels the magnetic axis. (D) Condition …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The tracked fixed point (purple) in panel A is converted from an X-point to an O-point in panel B, using a continuation. The traces of the tangent map for the remaining three fixed points in panel A are controlled to ensure they do not disappear. Converting the X-point…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The three vacuum vessel families. Panels A and D show the pill pipe vessel, B and E the non-planar vessel, and C and F the piecewise-cylinder vessel realized as a loop of six mitred cylinders. A, B and C show the defining geometry (cross-section parameters for A, the c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of the vacuum vessel geometries supported by our signed-distance-function approach, shown for real optimized devices. Columns, from left to right: torus, pill pipe, planar piecewise cylinder, non-planar, and non-planar piecewise cylinder. The top row shows con…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Top row) Four optimized stellarators with diverse diverting fixed point topologies. The modular coils are displayed in blue and red, and the poloidal field coils are shown in orange and light blue. The vacuum vessel is shown revealing the nested flux surfaces within. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Connection length Lc on a sequence of toroidal cross sections for the single-null (top row) and double-null (bottom row) configurations of fig. 8. Since the single null breaks stellarator symmetry, the cross sections span the full field period ϕ ∈ [0◦, −180◦]; for the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Strike lines for the four devices from fig. 8. Zero degrees of the poloidal angle represents the outboard midplane with the positive direction following the vessel in the counter clockwise direction. 7.2 MHD Stability Proxy The configurations of fig. 8 are vacuum fiel…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ideal MHD stability analysis via the Mercier and ballooning criteria. Panel A shows the individual Mercier terms (DShear, DWell, DCurr, DGeod) and their sum DMerc as a function of the normalized toroidal flux s = Ψ/Ψb, where Ψb is the flux at the plasma boundary, for …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Impact of well optimization on a particular device. We compare two configurations with identical optimization goals, differing only in the well optimization: the solid lines correspond to a configuration with a well-term target of V ′′ ≤ −100, while the dotted lines c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Akers, J

    R. Akers, J. Ahn, G. Antar, L. Appel, D. Applegate, C. Brickley, C. Bunting, P. Carolan, C. Challis, N. Conway, et al. Transport and confinement in the Mega Ampere Spherical Tokamak (MAST) plasma.Plasma physics and controlled fusion, 45(12A):A175–A204, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Akers, J

    R. Akers, J. Ahn, L. Appel, E. Arends, K. Axon, R. Buttery, C. Byrom, P. Carolan, G. Counsell, G. Cunningham, et al. H-mode access and performance in the Mega-Amp Spherical Tokamak.Physics of Plasmas, 9(9):3919–3929, 2002

    2002

  3. [3]

    Andreeva, J

    T. Andreeva, J. Geiger, A. Dinklage, G. Wurden, H. Thomsen, K. Rahbarnia, J. Schmitt, M. Hirsch, G. Fuchert, C. N¨ uhrenberg, et al. Magnetic configuration scans during divertor operation of Wendelstein 7-X.Nuclear Fusion, 62(2):026032, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Aymar, P

    R. Aymar, P. Barabaschi, and Y. Shimomura. The ITER design.Plasma physics and controlled fusion, 44(5):519–565, 2002

    2002

  5. [5]

    Bader, A

    A. Bader, A. Ayilaran, J. Canik, A. De, W. Guttenfelder, C. Hegna, M. Knilans, A. Malkus, T. Pedersen, P. Sinha, et al. Power and particle exhaust for the Infinity Two fusion pilot plant. Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(2):E67, 2025. 22 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Giulianiet al

    2025

  6. [6]

    Baillod, E

    A. Baillod, E. J. Paul, T. Elder, and J. M. Halpern. Enhancing stellarator accessibility through port size optimization.Nuclear Fusion, 65(8):086040, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Bold and B

    D. Bold and B. Shanahan. Numerical methods for stellarator simulations in bout++.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28221, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    A. H. Boozer. Stellarator design.Journal of Plasma Physics, 81(6):515810606, 2015

    2015

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Davies, D

    R. Davies, D. Boeyaert, A. Wolfmeister, B. Geiger, G. Harrer, and J. Geiger. Computational studies of giant edge islands and unpaired X-points in HSX and W7-X by manipulating coil currents, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Davies, M

    R. Davies, M. Drevlak, Y. Feng, J. Geiger, A. Goodman, C. Smiet, G. Plunk, P. Xanthopoulos, and S. Henneberg. Stellarator divertor optimisation for a Stable Quasi-Isodynamic Design (SQuID): magnetic topology, divertor plates and baffle design. In 51st EPS Conference on Plasma ...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Davies, Y

    R. Davies, Y. Feng, D. Boeyaert, J. C. Schmitt, M. J. Gerard, K. A. Garcia, O. Schmitz, B. Geiger, and S. A. Henneberg. A semi-automated algorithm for designing stellarator divertor and limiter plates and application to HSX.Nuclear Fusion, 64(12):126044, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Davies, C

    R. Davies, C. B. Smiet, C. Batzdorf, J. Geiger, J. Loizu, and S. A. Henneberg. Characterisation of X-and O-points in Wendelstein 7-X with respect to coil currents.Journal of Plasma Physics, 92(2), 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Davies, C

    R. Davies, C. B. Smiet, A. Punjabi, A. H. Boozer, and S. A. Henneberg. The topology of non-resonant stellarator divertors.Nuclear Fusion, 65(7):076018, jun 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Di Pietro, P

    E. Di Pietro, P. Barabaschi, Y. Kamada, S. Ishida, et al. Overview of engineering design, manufacturing and assembly of JT-60SA machine.Fusion Engineering and Design, 89(9-10):2128–2135, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Drevlak, D

    M. Drevlak, D. Monticello, and A. Reiman. PIES free boundary stellarator equilibria with improved initial conditions.Nuclear fusion, 45(7):731–740, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    D. Eberly. Distance from a point to an ellipse, an ellipsoid, or a hyperellipsoid. https://geometrictools.com/Documentation/DistancePointEllipseEllipsoid.pdf,

  9. [17]

    T. Evans. Resonant magnetic perturbations of edge-plasmas in toroidal confinement devices. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 57(12):123001, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Y. Feng, H. Frerichs, M. Kobayashi, A. Bader, F. Effenberg, D. Harting, H. Hoelbe, J. Huang, G. Kawamura, J. Lore, et al. Recent improvements in the EMC3-EIRENE code.Contributions to Plasma Physics, 54(4-6):426–431, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Y. Feng, M. Kobayashi, T. Lunt, and D. Reiter. Comparison between stellarator and tokamak divertor transport.Plasma physics and controlled fusion, 53(2):024009, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Feng and W7-X-team

    Y. Feng and W7-X-team. Review of magnetic islands from the divertor perspective and a simplified heat transport model for the island divertor.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 64(12):125012, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    E. Flom, W. Kalb, S. Seethalla, C. Swanson, R. Wu, M. Avida, A. Doudna Cate, D. Dudt, T. Kruger, S. Kumar, N. Maitra, and D. Gates. Design and conceptual modeling of a tokamak-like X-point divertor for the Helios quasi-axisymmetric stellarator.Fusion Engineering and Design, 23...

    2026

  14. [22]

    D. A. Frank-Kamenetskii.Interchange or Flute Instabilities, pages 98–100. Macmillan Education UK, London, 1972

    1972

  15. [23]

    Frerichs

    H. Frerichs. Flare: field line analysis and reconstruction for 3d boundary plasma modeling. Nuclear Fusion, 64(10):106034, sep 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Frerichs, D

    H. Frerichs, D. Boeyaert, Y. Feng, and D. Reiter. FIREFLY: heat load and particle exhaust approximations for rapid evaluation of divertor designs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11497, 2026. 23 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Giulianiet al

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gallo, N

    A. Gallo, N. Fedorczak, S. Elmore, R. Maurizio, H. Reimerdes, C. Theiler, C. Tsui, J. A. Boedo, M. Faitsch, H. Bufferand, et al. Impact of the plasma geometry on divertor power exhaust: experimental evidence from tcv and simulations with soledge2d and tokam3x. Plasma Physics a...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Gates, S

    D. Gates, S. Aslam, B. Berzin, P. Bonofiglo, A. Cote, D. Dudt, E. Flom, D. Fort, A. Koen, T. Kruger, et al. Stellarator fusion systems enabled by arrays of planar coils.Nuclear Fusion, 65(2):026052, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Gates, A

    D. Gates, A. Boozer, T. Brown, J. Breslau, D. Curreli, M. Landreman, S. Lazerson, J. Lore, H. Mynick, G. Neilson, et al. Recent advances in stellarator optimization.Nuclear Fusion, 57(12):126064, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    R. Gaur, D. Panici, T. Elder, M. Landreman, K. Unalmis, Y. Elmacioglu, D. Dudt, R. Conlin, and E. Kolemen. Omnigenous umbilic stellarators.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(6), 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Geraldini, M

    A. Geraldini, M. Landreman, and E. Paul. An adjoint method for determining the sensitivity of island size to magnetic field variations.Journal of Plasma Physics, 87(3):905870302, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Giuliani, F

    A. Giuliani, F. Wechsung, A. Cerfon, G. Stadler, and M. Landreman. Single-stage gradient-based stellarator coil design: optimization for near-axis quasi-symmetry.Journal of Computational Physics, 459:111147, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Giuliani, F

    A. Giuliani, F. Wechsung, G. Stadler, A. Cerfon, and M. Landreman. Direct computation of magnetic surfaces in Boozer coordinates and coil optimization for quasisymmetry.Journal of Plasma Physics, 88(4):905880401, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    R. J. Goldston and P. H. Rutherford.Introduction to Plasma Physics. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, 1995

    1995

  25. [33]

    A. G. Goodman, G. G. Plunk, P. Xanthopoulos, M. Drevlak, J. Geiger, R. Davies, H. M. Smith, C. N¨ uhrenberg, C. D. Beidler, S. A. Henneberg, and et al. A quasi-isodynamic stellarator configuration towards a fusion power plant.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(6):E153, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Gorno, C

    S. Gorno, C. Colandrea, O. F´ evrier, H. Reimerdes, C. Theiler, B. P. Duval, T. Lunt, H. Raj, U. A. Sheikh, L. Simons, et al. Power exhaust and core-divertor compatibility of the baffled snowflake divertor in TCV.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 65(3):035004, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    J. M. Greene. Method for determining a stochastic transition. Technical report, Princeton Univ., NJ (USA). Plasma Physics Lab., 11 1978

    1978

  28. [36]

    Griewank

    A. Griewank. Starlike domains of convergence for newton’s method at singularities. Numerische Mathematik, 35(1):95–111, 1980

    1980

  29. [37]

    Griewank and G

    A. Griewank and G. W. Reddien. Characterization and computation of generalized turning points.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 21(1):176–185, 1984

    1984

  30. [38]

    Grulke, G

    O. Grulke, G. Acton, J. Adamek, D. Aggelis, R.-M. Alamo-Calderon, C. Albert, P. Aleynikov, K. Aleynikova, A. Alonso, G. Amanekwe, et al. Overview of Wendelstein 7-X high-performance operation.Nuclear Fusion, 66(11):116003, 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    Grulke, C

    O. Grulke, C. Albert, J. Alcuson Belloso, P. Aleynikov, K. Aleynikova, A. Alonso, G. Anda, T. Andreeva, M. Arvanitou, E. Ascasibar, et al. Overview of the first Wendelstein 7-X long pulse campaign with fully water-cooled plasma facing components.Nuclear Fusion, 64(11):112002, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    G. F. Harrer, A. Giuliani, M. Padidar, R. Davies, S. Naik, and C. Lowe. STAR Lite: A stellarator designed to experimentally validate non-resonant divertors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18265, 2026

    2026

  33. [41]

    J. R. Harrison, C. Bowman, J. Clark, A. Kirk, J. Lovell, B. Patel, P. Ryan, R. Scannell, A. Thornton, and K. Verhaegh. Benefits of the Super-X divertor configuration for scenario integration on MAST upgrade.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66(6):065019, 2024. 24 IOP Publi...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Hegna, D

    C. Hegna, D. Anderson, E. Andrew, A. Ayilaran, A. Bader, T. Bohm, K. C. Mata, J. Canik, L. Carbajal, A. Cerfon, et al. The Infinity Two fusion pilot plant baseline plasma physics design.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(3):E76, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. P. Hirshman and J. C. Whitson. Steepest-descent moment method for three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic equilibria.The Physics of Fluids, 26(12):3553–3568, 12 1983

    1983

  36. [44]

    Hudson, J

    S. Hudson, J. Loizu, C. Zhu, Z. Qu, C. Nuehrenberg, S. Lazerson, C. Smiet, and M. Hole. Free-boundary MRxMHD equilibrium calculations using the stepped-pressure equilibrium code.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62(8):084002, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Jorge, A

    R. Jorge, A. Giuliani, and J. Loizu. Simplified and flexible coils for stellarators using single-stage optimization.Physics of Plasmas, 31(11):112501, 11 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Keilhacker, A

    M. Keilhacker, A. Gibson, C. Gormezano, and P. Rebut. The scientific success of JET. Nuclear Fusion, 41(12):1925–1966, 2001

    1925

  39. [47]

    Keilhacker and A

    M. Keilhacker and A. team. The ASDEX divertor tokamak.Nuclear fusion, 25(9):1045–1054, 1985

    1985

  40. [48]

    Kharwandikar.Power Exhaust Investigations in the W7-X Island Divertor

    A. Kharwandikar.Power Exhaust Investigations in the W7-X Island Divertor. PhD thesis, University of Greifswald, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    K¨ onig, P

    R. K¨ onig, P. Grigull, K. McCormick, Y. Feng, J. Kisslinger, A. Komori, S. Masuzaki, K. Matsuoka, T. Obiki, N. Ohyabu, et al. The divertor program in stellarators.Plasma physics and controlled fusion, 44(11):2365–2422, 2002

    2002

  42. [50]

    Krieger, S

    K. Krieger, S. Brezinsek, J. Coenen, H. Frerichs, A. Kallenbach, A. Leonard, T. Loarer, S. Ratynskaia, N. Vianello, N. Asakura, et al. Scrape-off layer and divertor physics: Chapter 5 of the special issue: on the path to tokamak burning plasma operation.Nuclear Fusion, 65(4):0...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Kuang, S

    A. Kuang, S. Ballinger, D. Brunner, J. Canik, A. Creely, T. Gray, M. Greenwald, J. Hughes, J. Irby, B. LaBombard, et al. Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC.Journal of Plasma Physics, 86(5):865860505, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Kuang, J

    J. Kuang, J. Yang, Z. Ren, P. Zhang, Y. Wang, and W. Wang. Implementation of a free-boundary equilibrium solver for the cloverleaf configuration and its implications for X-point radiators.Plasma Science and Technology, 28(4):045102, 2026

    2026

  45. [53]

    Landreman and R

    M. Landreman and R. Jorge. Magnetic well and Mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis.Journal of Plasma Physics, 86(5):905860510, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Landreman, B

    M. Landreman, B. Medasani, F. Wechsung, A. Giuliani, R. Jorge, and C. Zhu. SIMSOPT: a flexible framework for stellarator optimization.Journal of Open Source Software, 6(65):3525, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Landreman and E

    M. Landreman and E. Paul. Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:035001, Jan 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    S. A. Lazerson, A. J. Coelho, D. Douqa, A. A. Fessler, L. H¨ ubner, M. Moscheni, E. Hodge, R. Kembleton, J. Sissonen, K. S¨ arkim¨ aki, et al. The fixed boundary plasma equilibrium basis for a one gigawatt electric stellarator power plant.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.09346, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lion, J.-C

    J. Lion, J.-C. Angl` es, L. Bonauer, A. B. Navarro, S. C. Ceron, R. Davies, M. Drevlak, N. Foppiani, J. Geiger, A. Goodman, et al. Stellaris: A high-field quasi-isodynamic stellarator for a prototypical fusion power plant.Fusion Engineering and Design, 214:114868, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    B. Liu, G. Kawamura, S. Dai, Y. Xu, Y. Suzuki, A. Shimizu, H. Frerichs, and Y. Feng. A universal target plate design scheme for stellarators: theoretical basis and its application to heat load control.Nuclear Fusion, 65(1):016023, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    A. Loarte. Effects of divertor geometry on tokamak plasmas.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 43(6):R183–R224, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Loizu, S

    J. Loizu, S. Hudson, and C. N¨ uhrenberg. Verification of the SPEC code in stellarator geometries.Physics of Plasmas, 23(11), 2016. 25 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Giulianiet al

    2016

  53. [61]

    Maaziz, F

    N. Maaziz, F. Reimold, V. Winters, S. Makarov, and Y. Feng. Investigating island divertor physics with an extended stellarator two-point model.Nuclear Fusion, 2026

    2026

  54. [62]

    Maekawa, N

    T. Maekawa, N. M. Patrikalakis, T. Sakkalis, and G. Yu. Analysis and applications of pipe surfaces.Computer aided geometric design, 15(5):437–458, 1998

    1998

  55. [63]

    Malhotra, A

    D. Malhotra, A. J. Cerfon, M. O’Neil, and E. Toler. Efficient high-order singular quadrature schemes in magnetic fusion.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62(2):024004, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    C. Marsden. FORGE: Forge Optimises Reactor Geometries to improve Exhaust, 2026

    2026

  57. [65]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical optimization, 2006

    2006

  58. [66]

    Ohyabu, T

    N. Ohyabu, T. Morisaki, S. Masuzaki, R. Sakamoto, M. Kobayashi, J. Miyazawa, M. Shoji, A. Komori, O. Motojima, and L. E. Group). Observation of stable superdense core plasmas in the Large Helical Device.Physical review letters, 97(5):055002, 2006

    2006

  59. [67]

    Peternell and H

    M. Peternell and H. Pottmann. Computing rational parametrizations of canal surfaces. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 23(2-3):255–266, Feb. 1997

    1997

  60. [68]

    Power, M

    D. Power, M. V. Umansky, and V. A. Soukhanovskii. Simulations of the churning mode: Toroidally symmetric plasma convection and turbulence around the X-points in a snowflake divertor.Physics of Plasmas, 32(9), 2025

    2025

  61. [69]

    I. Quilez. Distance functions.https://iquilezles.org/articles/distfunctions/, 2013. Accessed: 2026-07-18

    2013

  62. [70]

    Renner, D

    H. Renner, D. Sharma, J. Kisslinger, J. Boscary, H. Grote, and R. Schneider. Physical aspects and design of the Wendelstein 7-X divertor.Fusion science and technology, 46(2):318–326, 2004

    2004

  63. [71]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez, A

    P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. Creely, M. Greenwald, D. Brunner, S. Ballinger, C. Chrobak, D. Garnier, R. Granetz, Z. Hartwig, N. Howard, et al. Overview of the SPARC physics basis towards the exploration of burning-plasma regimes in high-field, compact tokamaks.Nuclear Fusion, 62...

    2022

  64. [72]

    snowflake

    D. Ryutov. Geometrical properties of a “snowflake” divertor.Physics of Plasmas, 14(6), 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    Ryutov, R

    D. Ryutov, R. Cohen, W. Farmer, T. Rognlien, and M. Umansky. The ‘churning mode’of plasma convection in the tokamak divertor region.Physica Scripta, 89(8):088002, 2014

    2014

  66. [74]

    Ryutov, R

    D. Ryutov, R. Cohen, T. Rognlien, and M. Umansky. The magnetic field structure of a snowflake divertor.Physics of Plasmas, 15(9), 2008

    2008

  67. [75]

    Ryutov, R

    D. Ryutov, R. Cohen, T. Rognlien, and M. Umansky. A snowflake divertor: a possible solution to the power exhaust problem for tokamaks.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 54(12):124050, 2012

    2012

  68. [76]

    Ryutov and M

    D. Ryutov and M. Umansky. Divertor with a third-order null of the poloidal field.Physics of Plasmas, 20(9), 2013

    2013

  69. [77]

    D. D. Ryutov and V. A. Soukhanovskii. The snowflake divertor.Physics of Plasmas, 22(11),

  70. [78]

    S´ anchez, J

    E. S´ anchez, J. Velasco, I. Calvo, J. Garc´ ıa-Rega˜ na, C. Salcuni, and J. Alonso. CIEMAT-QI4X: a reactor-relevant quasi-isodynamic stellarator configuration compatible with an island divertor.Nuclear Fusion, 66(5):056008, 2026

    2026

  71. [79]

    Sanchez, S

    R. Sanchez, S. Hirshman, J. Whitson, and A. Ware. COBRA: An optimized code for fast analysis of ideal ballooning stability of three-dimensional magnetic equilibria.Journal of Computational Physics, 161(2):576–588, 2000

    2000

  72. [80]

    Shanahan, D

    B. Shanahan, D. Bold, and B. Dudson. Global fluid turbulence simulations in the scrape-off layer of a stellarator island divertor.Journal of Plasma Physics, 90(2):905900216, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    Shanahan, B

    B. Shanahan, B. Dudson, and P. Hill. Fluid simulations of plasma filaments in stellarator geometries with bsting.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 61(2):025007, 2019. 26 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Giulianiet al

    2019

  74. [82]

    Soukhanovskii, G

    V. Soukhanovskii, G. Cunningham, J. Harrison, F. Federici, P. Ryan, M.-U. Team, et al. First snowflake divertor experiments in MAST-U tokamak.Nuclear Materials and Energy, 33:101278, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    V. A. Soukhanovskii, S. L. Allen, M. E. Fenstermacher, C. J. Lasnier, M. A. Makowski, A. G. McLean, W. H. Meyer, D. D. Ryutov, E. Kolemen, and R. J. Groebner. Developing physics basis for the snowflake divertor in the DIII-D tokamak.Nuclear Fusion, 58(3):036018, 2018. ISBN: 0029-5515

    2018

  76. [84]

    Stangeby

    P. Stangeby. A tutorial on some basic aspects of divertor physics.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 42(12B):B271–B291, 2000

    2000

  77. [85]

    P. C. Stangeby and G. McCracken. Plasma boundary phenomena in tokamaks.Nuclear Fusion, 30(7):1225–1379, 1990

    1990

  78. [86]

    S¨ uli and D

    E. S¨ uli and D. F. Mayers.An introduction to numerical analysis. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  79. [87]

    G. Sun, H. Reimerdes, C. Theiler, B. Duval, M. Carpita, C. Colandrea, O. F´ evrier, and T. Team. Performance assessment of a tightly baffled, long-legged divertor configuration in tcv with solps-iter.Nuclear Fusion, 63(9):096011, 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    T. Tork, F. Reimold, D. Bold, B. Shanahan, B. Dudson, A. Stegmeir, and P. Manz. A BOUT++ transport model for island diverted stellarators including drifts. In67th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics. APS, 2025

    2025

  81. [89]

    P. M. Valanju, M. Kotschenreuther, S. Mahajan, and J. Canik. Super-X divertors and high power density fusion devices.Physics of Plasmas, 16(5), 2009

    2009

  82. [90]

    Veksler, A

    A. Veksler, A. Bader, H. Frerichs, and E. Paul. Stellarator island divertor shape optimization for reduced peak heat fluxes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.24049, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Warmer et al

    F. Warmer et al. European conceptual design of a HELIAS fusion power plant.Fusion Engineering and Design, 184:113293, 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    Z. Xu, R. Feng, and J.-g. Sun. Analytic and algebraic properties of canal surfaces.Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 195(1):220–228, 2006

    2006

  85. [93]

    H. Yamada. Overview of results from the Large Helical Device.Nuclear Fusion, 51(9):094021, 2011

    2011

  86. [94]

    Yang, J.-K

    S. Yang, J.-K. Park, Y. Jeon, N. C. Logan, J. Lee, Q. Hu, J. Lee, S. Kim, J. Kim, H. Lee, et al. Tailoring tokamak error fields to control plasma instabilities and transport.Nature communications, 15(1):1275, 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Yoshikawa

    M. Yoshikawa. An overview of the JT-60 project.Fusion engineering and design, 5(1):3–8, 1987. 27

    1987

  88. [2013]

    Accessed: 2026-07-18

    Geometric Tools. Accessed: 2026-07-18

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.