Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Non-linear saturation and energy transport in global simulations of magneto-thermal turbulence in the stratified intracluster medium

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global simulations show the magneto-thermal instability saturates through a balance between injection and dissipation of available potential energy, marginalising the Braginskii heat flux rather than erasing the temperature gradient.

desk verdict Solid global B-MHD confirmation of the Perrone-Latter MTI saturation picture, with a useful diffusive mixing-length unification; the astrophysical numbers are calibrated fits rather than independent predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16242 v1 pith:EFWPIVAQ submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Jean M. Kempf , François Rincon This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords magneto-thermalinstabilityintraclustermediumBraginskiimagnetohydrodynamicsavailablepotentialenergydiffusivemixing-lengththeorynon-thermalpressuresupportthermalconductionstratifiedturbulence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that turbulence driven by the magneto-thermal instability (MTI) in the outskirts of galaxy clusters saturates not by erasing the background temperature gradient, but by a balance between injection and dissipation of available potential energy, which effectively marginalises the anisotropic heat flux known as the Braginskii heat flux. The claim is based on global 2D and 3D Braginskii-MHD simulations of a stratified intracluster medium, using an available-potential-energy budget that shows the MTI's energy injection rate is almost exactly balanced by thermal dissipation and buoyancy work. If true, the saturation theory derived for Boussinesq models carries over to global, compressible, strongly stratified conditions, and the MTI alone can drive cluster-scale motions at Mach numbers up to about 0.3 and supply roughly 15% non-thermal pressure support in the outermost regions. The paper also unifies two previous descriptions of MTI saturation by introducing a diffusive mixing-length theory in which the mixing length is the thermal conduction length.

What carries the argument

The available potential energy (APE) of Eq. (16), its volume-averaged budget Eq. (17), and the diffusive mixing-length theory (DMLT). The APE budget separates the energy-injection rate $\varepsilon_i$ from the thermal-dissipation rate $\varepsilon_\kappa$ and the buoyancy work $A$; the saturation claim is the near-equality $\varepsilon_i \approx -\varepsilon_\kappa \approx -A$, equivalent to marginalising the Braginskii heat flux $q_B$. The DMLT sets the mixing length to the conduction length $\ell_\chi = (\chi/\omega)^{1/2}$, which makes the classical mixing-length-theory scalings identical to the Perrone-Latter diffusion scalings.

What would settle it

Run a global compressible MTI simulation with an exact APE defined relative to the sorted, minimum-total-potential-energy state, and close the budget including boundary fluxes; if the near-equality $\varepsilon_i \approx -\varepsilon_\kappa \approx -A$ breaks down, or if $q_B$ is not marginalised while the background temperature gradient is erased, the proposed saturation mechanism would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the MTI saturates through $\varepsilon_i \approx -\varepsilon_\kappa \approx -A$, a dominant balance between the rate at which energy is injected into available potential energy by the anisotropic heat flux acting on the background temperature gradient, the rate at which parallel thermal conduction dissipates that APE back into background potential energy, and the reversible buoyancy work that converts APE into kinetic energy. Because $\varepsilon_i \approx -\varepsilon_\kappa$ restates $q_B \approx 0$, the MTI stops growing by marginalising the Braginskii heat flux, not by flattening the background temperature gradient. This is shown in detail for the fiducial 3D run F0, and the same balance holds across a parameter sweep of thermal conductivity spanning two decades. The paper further shows that the injection length and velocity fluctuations of the saturated turbulence obey the Perrone-Latter scalings $\ell_i \sim (\chi \omega_T)^{1/2}/N$ and $v^2 \sim (\chi \omega_T^3)^{1/2}/N$, and that these can be reinterpreted as a diffusive mixing-length theory with $\ell_m \sim \ell_\chi = (\chi/\omega)^{1/2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The quadratic APE formula (Eq. 16) is only valid for small displacements and small density perturbations, and the reference state is the spherically-averaged profile rather than the true minimum-potential-energy state; the volume-averaged budget also assumes no boundary fluxes and constant background profiles, though Fig. 2 shows the closure is imperfect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Perrone-Latter Boussinesq saturation theory holds in global, compressible, strongly stratified ICM conditions, with the balance $\varepsilon_i \approx -\varepsilon_\kappa \approx -A$ satisfied across two decades of thermal diffusivity.
  • With realistic Spitzer conduction, the MTI alone drives cluster-size flows at Mach numbers up to about 0.3.
  • MTI-driven turbulence provides roughly 15% non-thermal pressure support near the virial shock, but only about 5% at $R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, so its mass-bias effect is strongest in the low-density outer regions.
  • Convective energy transport by the MTI is weak: the convective gravitational flux is at most about 7% of the background Braginskii heat flux, so conduction, not convection, carries the energy.
  • The two existing descriptions of MTI saturation, mixing-length theory and diffusion-balance theory, are equivalent when the mixing length is taken to be the conduction length, giving a diffusive mixing-length theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to vary $N$ and $\omega_T$ independently; the paper leaves open whether $\omega_T$ or $N$ is the correct time scale in the DMLT scalings, and this distinction becomes important in clusters where the ratio $N/\omega_T$ differs from unity.
  • Because the scaling $v^2 \propto \chi$ controls all the astrophysical numbers, any kinetic mechanism that suppresses Spitzer conductivity, such as mirror modes or whistlers, would proportionally lower the Mach number and pressure support; the paper flags this but does not model it.
  • If the APE framework applies to double-diffusive instabilities generally, as the paper speculates, then global fingering or thermocompositional convection should show a positive background-potential-energy-to-APE injection rate controlling saturation; testing that would extend the claim beyond the ICM.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents global 2D and 3D Braginskii-MHD simulations of the magneto-thermal instability (MTI) in a stratified model of the intracluster medium (ICM) outskirts. The authors analyze the saturation mechanism using a volume-averaged available potential energy (APE) budget, finding that the MTI saturates through a dominant balance between APE injection by anisotropic thermal conduction and APE dissipation, which they interpret as marginalisation of the Braginskii heat flux rather than of the background temperature gradient. They further measure scaling laws for the injection length, velocity fluctuations, and temperature fluctuations as functions of the thermal diffusivity, and propose a diffusive mixing-length theory (DMLT) that unifies earlier mixing-length and Boussinesq saturation descriptions. Using that theory, they estimate that MTI-driven convection carries at most a few percent of the radial energy flux and that the turbulent pressure support can reach about 15% of the thermal pressure near the virial radius.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important result: it would extend the Boussinesq saturation theory of Perrone and Latter to global, compressible, strongly stratified ICM conditions, reconcile two previously competing phenomenological descriptions, and provide quantitative estimates of MTI-driven turbulence for ICM mass-bias studies. The paper is also creditable for its explicit parameter sweep over thermal diffusivity, spectral diagnostics, careful discussion of boundary-condition effects in Appendix C, and the honest acknowledgment in Appendix B that the APE construction is approximate and that the reference state is not the minimum-TPE state. The scaling laws are presented with clear fits over more than two decades, and the 3D verification of the energy budget in run F0 is a useful step beyond purely local simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Appendix B, Eqs. (16)-(17) and Fig. 2] The saturation claim rests on the volume-averaged APE budget in Fig. 2, but this budget is approximate: the quadratic APE in Eq. (16) is valid only for small displacements and density perturbations, the spherically-averaged reference state is not guaranteed to be the minimum-TPE state, and the budget in Eq. (17) neglects APE boundary fluxes and the exchange term F. The inset of Fig. 2 indeed shows that ε_i+ε_κ+A does not close exactly. Because the simulation contains boundary layers and a thermal wind, the apparent equality could be dominated by these mean-flow or boundary contributions rather than by local MTI turbulent saturation. Please provide a shell-resolved or otherwise local APE budget, and quantify the magnitude of the boundary-flux term, to confirm that the ε_i≈-ε_κ balance is not an artefact of the volume average.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The inference that ε_i≈-ε_κ implies q_B≈0 is not direct. By construction, ε_i+ε_κ = q_B·∇(δT/T) in a volume-averaged sense, so the integral of q_B·∇(δT/T) being near zero does not demonstrate that q_B itself is small locally: the volume integral can vanish if ∇∥(δT/T) is zero over much of the domain, regardless of the heat-flux magnitude. To substantiate the claim that the MTI saturates by marginalising the Braginskii heat flux, the authors should show that ∇∥(δT/T) is non-zero in the regions where ε_i and ε_κ are individually large, or directly measure q_B (or the effective parallel conductivity) in the saturated state. Without such evidence, the statement in Section 4.1 that ε_i≈-ε_κ is 'just a restatement of q_B≈0' is logically overreaching.
  3. [Secs. 5.1-5.3, Eqs. (33)-(35) and (38)-(39)] The DMLT 'predictions' of the convective-flux ratio and non-thermal pressure support are not independent tests of the theory. The coefficients 4.6, 0.13, and 0.03 in Eqs. (33)-(35) are fitted to the same simulation suite shown in Fig. 5, and Eq. (39), when evaluated with the stated ICM parameters, returns ≈14%, which essentially reproduces the ≈15% non-thermal pressure support already measured in run S0 (see Tab. 3, where ⟨M⟩_V=0.17 gives γM²≈0.15). The abstract and conclusions should be phrased as a consistent phenomenological description calibrated on the simulations, rather than as independent predictions, unless the prefactors are validated against additional simulations or previous results in the literature.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 5] The scaling laws in Fig. 5 are established primarily by 2D runs; only three 3D runs are included, and they exhibit a systematic offset from the 2D points (lower kinetic and APE energies, slightly larger injection length). Given that the magnitude predictions in Section 5 assume the same prefactors for the 3D ICM, the paper should quantify the 2D/3D systematic uncertainty in the fitted exponents and prefactors, and clarify whether the apparent two-decade scaling is robust to the exclusion of the 2D points or to the inclusion of additional 3D runs with intermediate diffusivities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The symbol M is used both for the Mach number and, in some places, for the magnetic energy (e.g., in Fig. 4, E_M(m) is the magnetic spectral density). Please distinguish the notations, for example by writing the Mach number as 𝒥 or Ma, to avoid confusion.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'about ∼ 15%' contains both 'about' and '∼'; please use one or the other throughout the text.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads 'Profile at TE and HSE'; this should be 'Profiles at TE and HSE' (plural).
  4. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (38)] Equation (38) contains the ratio δ3_r^2/δ3^2, but the quantities δ3_r and δ3 are not defined in the text preceding the equation. Please define these as the radial and total velocity fluctuations, respectively, as used in Eq. (30).
  5. [Appendix B] The term 'extrinsic state function' is introduced without a definition; a one-sentence explanation of the concept would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with oceanographic APE terminology.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The APE saturation balance is an independent measurement, but the 14% pressure support and 7% convective flux are fitted predictions from the same simulation suite.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Eqs. (33)-(35); Section 5.3, Eq. (39)]
    "We therefore propose the three following scalings: ℓi≈ 4.6(χ/ω)^0.5, 3^2≈ 0.13ωχ, (g0 δT/T0)^2≈ 0.03ω^3χ … Using typical values for the outermost regions r∼ 1.5Rvir leads to: pturb/p0 = 14% … (39)"

    The prefactors 4.6, 0.13, and 0.03 are fitted to the same simulation suite displayed in Fig. 5, which includes the Spitzer run S0 that already reaches Mach numbers ~0.3 and hence γM^2 ≈ 15%. Evaluating Eq. (34) at the same Spitzer conductivity and dividing by the background pressure reproduces the simulation's own measured pressure support; the 14% figure is a restatement of the fit rather than an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Eq. (38)]
    "Using Eqs. (34)-(35), we rederive the ratio of the convective flux of gravitational energy, Eq. (29), to the background Braginskii conductive heat flux, Eq. (24), as: Gr,1/Qr,0 = 7% …"

    The 7% ratio is assembled from the fitted scaling prefactors (Eqs. 34-35) together with measured correlation coefficients α, b_r^2, and other ratios taken from the same simulations. It therefore does not constitute an independent first-principles prediction of the convective transport efficiency; it is an interpolation of the fitted scalings and simulation statistics.

full rationale

The central saturation claim — that the MTI saturates through an APE-balance εi ≈ -εκ ≈ -A — is a direct measurement from the 3D run F0 (Fig. 2) and is not circular; it is a legitimate diagnostic result, even though the volume-averaged budget is approximate (Appendix B) and does not close exactly. The paper then imports Perrone & Latter's Boussinesq scalings, fits their power-law prefactors to its own run series (Fig. 5, Eqs. 33-35), and uses those fitted scalings to produce an ICM pressure-support estimate (Eq. 39) and a convective-flux ratio (Eq. 38). Because the fitted prefactors already encode the simulation outcomes, evaluating the scaling law at Spitzer conductivity and asserting 14% support simply recovers the ~15% already measured in run S0, making it a restatement rather than an independent prediction. The proposed DMLT is a re-expression of Perrone & Latter's conduction-length scaling in mixing-length language, but that does not by itself constitute a circular argument; the circularity arises specifically from the fitted prefactors being sold as predictive. The paper's core saturation mechanism and its scaling-law exponent tests (e.g., ℓi ∝ χ^0.5, 3 ∝ χ^0.5) retain independent content, but the quantitative ICM numbers claimed as predictions are not independent of the fitted data set. Hence a score of 6 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central saturation claim rests on the quadratic APE approximation and the spherically-averaged reference state (flagged in Appendix B), plus the neglect of kinetic micro-instabilities for the astrophysical extrapolations. The DMLT prefactors are fitted to the simulation suite, so the derived ICM estimates inherit the calibration.

free parameters (4)
  • DMLT prefactor for injection length (4.6) = 4.6 in Eq. (33)
    Fit to the simulation suite in Fig. 5 (top panel); used to predict the injection length in the ICM.
  • DMLT prefactor for velocity variance (0.13) = 0.13 in Eq. (34)
    Fit to the simulation suite in Fig. 5 (middle panel); directly enters the non-thermal pressure prediction in Eq. (39).
  • DMLT prefactor for temperature variance (0.03) = 0.03 in Eq. (35)
    Fit to the APE scaling in Fig. 5 (bottom panel).
  • typical MTI turbulent frequency omega = 1 Gyr^-1
    Chosen by hand in Eqs. (33)-(35); the paper argues N/omega_T is of order unity in the ICM, so the choice has limited impact, but it is not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Braginskii-MHD with isotropic viscosity (Eq. 12) captures the large-scale MTI saturation dynamics.
    Stated in Section 3.1; the authors argue viscous-scale dynamics is irrelevant to the two saturation theories, but kinetic micro-instabilities are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic APE definition (Eq. 16) with spherically-averaged reference state is a valid diagnostic of the saturation balance.
    Appendix B flags it as valid only for small displacements; it underpins the central energetic budget in Eq. (17).
  • domain assumption The McCourt et al. (2013) HSE atmosphere with Dirichlet temperature boundary conditions supplies an astrophysically relevant stratification and heat reservoir.
    Used in Sections 3.2-3.3; Appendix C shows the thermodynamic profiles and thermal wind depend on boundary condition choice, although the turbulence levels are similar.
  • ad hoc to paper APE boundary fluxes and the time-dependence of the background are negligible in the volume-averaged budget (Eq. 17).
    The inset of Fig. 2 shows the budget does not close exactly, attributed to small boundary fluxes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-linear saturation and energy transport in global simulations of magneto-thermal turbulence in the stratified intracluster medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFWPIVAQ

@misc{pith2026241116242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-linear saturation and energy transport in global simulations of magneto-thermal turbulence in the stratified intracluster medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFWPIVAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16242}
}
abstract

Context. The magneto-thermal instability (MTI) is one of many possible drivers of stratified turbulence in the intracluster medium (ICM) outskirts of galaxy clusters, where the background temperature gradient is aligned with the gravity. This instability occurs because of the fast anisotropic conduction of heat along magnetic field lines; but to what extent it impacts the ICM dynamics, energetics and overall equilibrium is still a matter of debate. Aims. This work aims at understanding MTI turbulence in an astrophysically stratified ICM atmosphere, its saturation mechanism, and its ability to carry energy and to provide non-thermal pressure support. Methods. We perform a series of 2D and 3D numerical simulations of the MTI in global spherical models of stratified ICM, thanks to the finite-volume code IDEFIX, using Braginskii-magnetohydrodynamics. We use volume-, shell-averaged and spectral diagnostics to study the saturation mechanism of the MTI, and its radial transport energy budget. Results. The MTI is found to saturate through a dominant balance between injection and dissipation of available potential energy, which amounts to marginalising the Braginskii heat flux but not the background temperature gradient itself. Accordingly, the strength and injection length of MTI-driven turbulence exhibit clear dependencies on the thermal diffusivity. The MTI drives cluster-size motions with Mach numbers up to $\mathcal{M} \sim 0.3$, even in presence of strong stable entropy stratification. We show that such mildly compressible flows can provide about $\sim 15\%$ of non-thermal pressure support in the outermost ICM regions, and that the convective transport itself is much less efficient than conduction at radially transporting energy. Finally, we show that the MTI saturation can be described by a diffusive mixing-length theory, shedding light on the diffusive buoyant nature of the instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In blue: initial stratified ICM atmosphere; density ρ0 (in g/cm3 , left), temperature T0 (in keV, center) and entropy S 0 (right) profiles. In yellow: same profiles but averaged over time for the 3D run F0 with κeff = 0.075. In green: same but for the 2D run S0 with a realistic Spitzer conduction (see discussion in Section 4.3). In red: for comparison only, an ICM atmosphere at both hydrostatic and thermal equilibri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: volume-averaged time evolution of the available potential energy density ⟨EA⟩V, and of the different contributions to the kinetic ⟨EK⟩V and magnetic ⟨EM⟩V volume energy densities in the run F0. Bot￾tom: volume-averaged time evolution of the APE injection rate ⟨εi⟩V, APE thermal dissipation rate −⟨εκ⟩V, and the (opposite amount of) re￾versible buoyancy work −⟨A⟩V during the 3D run F0. Inset: zoom-in on the highl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top left: velocity field in the equatorial plane (r, φ) of the 3D run F0 at saturation. Top right: Mach number (left half) and magnetic strength (right half) snapshots of the 2D run S0 at saturation. Bottom right: same but for the 2D run S1. Bottom left: temperature fluctuation maps and magnetic field lines (in black). Different 2D runs are shown in each sixth of the pie, and are ranked (counter-clockwise, starting … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radially-averaged spectra plotted against the azimuthal order m, for all simulations in Tab. 2, with darker colors corresponding to higher κeff. Dotted lines are for 3D runs and regular lines for 2D runs. Top row: kinetic energy spectral density. Middle row: magnetic e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MTI scaling laws. Volume average of the turbulent injection length (top), the velocity fluctuation strength (middle), and specific APE (bottom), as a function of the volume-averaged thermal diffusivity, for all simulations in Tab. 2. Diamonds (respectively, circles) co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: dominant equilibrium between Braginskii heat, enthalpy and gravitational energy fluxes, Eqs. (24)-(26)-(28), in the energy flux budget Eq. (20) at quasi steady-state, for the 3D simulation F0. Bottom: subdominant perturbed energy fluxes, Eqs. (25)-(27)-(29), for t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    P., Beaver, M., Davids, B., et al

    Abbett, W. P., Beaver, M., Davids, B., et al. 1997, , 480, 395

    1997

  4. [4]

    2021, , 651, A3

    Ahuir, J., Mathis, S., & Amard, L. 2021, , 651, A3

    2021

  5. [5]

    W., Evrard, A

    Allen, S. W., Evrard, A. E., & Mantz, A. B. 2011, , 49, 409

    2011

  6. [6]

    Andrews, D. G. 1981, J. Fluid Mech., 107, 227

    1981

  7. [7]

    2020, , 495, 864

    Angelinelli, M., Vazza, F., Giocoli, C., et al. 2020, , 495, 864

    2020

  8. [8]

    Balbus, S. A. 2000, , 534, 420

    2000

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Balbus, S. A. 2001, , 562, 909

    2001

  2. [10]

    2023, Exp

    Barret, D., Albouys, V., den Herder, J.-W., et al. 2023, Exp. Astron., 55, 373

    2023

  3. [11]

    E., & Pfrommer, C

    Berlok, T., Quataert, E., Pessah, M. E., & Pfrommer, C. 2021, , 504, 3435

    2021

  4. [12]

    1958, 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, 46, 108

    1958

  5. [13]

    Braginskii, S. I. 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1, 205

    1965

  6. [14]

    Braginsky, S. I. & Roberts, P. H. 1995, Geo. Astro. Fluid Dyn., 79, 1

    1995

  7. [15]

    S., Miesch, M

    Brun, A. S., Miesch, M. S., & Toomre, J. 2004, , 614, 1073

    2004

  8. [16]

    Canuto, V. M. 1990, , 227, 282

    1990

  9. [17]

    H., Toomre, J., Malagoli, A., & Hurlburt, N

    Cattaneo, F., Brummell, N. H., Toomre, J., Malagoli, A., & Hurlburt, N. E. 1991, , 370, 282

    1991

  10. [18]

    W., Donahue, M., Voit, G

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, , 182, 12

    2009

  11. [19]

    A., Boles, M

    Cengel, Y. A., Boles, M. A., & Kano g lu, M. 2011, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, Vol. 5 (McGraw-hill New York)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Chan, K. L. & Sofia, S. 1989, , 336, 1022

    1989

  13. [21]

    Chandran, B. D. G. & Maron, J. L. 2004, , 602, 170

    2004

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 682, A85

    Dhouib, H., Baruteau, C., Mathis, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A85

    2024

  15. [23]

    F., Pfrommer, C., Reynolds, C

    Drake, J. F., Pfrommer, C., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2021, , 923, 245

    2021

  16. [24]

    2023, , 673, A91

    Dupourqu \'e , S., Clerc, N., Pointecouteau, E., et al. 2023, , 673, A91

    2023

  17. [25]

    2019, , 621, A40

    Eckert, D., Ghirardini, V., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, , 621, A40

    2019

  18. [26]

    Eddington, A. S. 1917, The Observatory, 40, 290

    1917

  19. [27]

    M., & Rephaeli, Y

    Ferrari, C., Govoni, F., Schindler, S., Bykov, A. M., & Rephaeli, Y. 2008, , 134, 93

    2008

  20. [28]

    E., Reifenstein, S

    Fraser, A. E., Reifenstein, S. A., & Garaud, P. 2024, , 964, 184

    2024

  21. [29]

    2006, , 457, 371

    Fromang, S., Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2006, , 457, 371

    2006

  22. [30]

    2018, Annu

    Garaud, P. 2018, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 50, 275

    2018

  23. [31]

    T., & Zhuravleva, I

    Gaspari, M., Churazov, E., Nagai, D., Lau, E. T., & Zhuravleva, I. 2014, , 569, A67

    2014

  24. [32]

    & Dintrans, B

    Gastine, T. & Dintrans, B. 2008, A&A, 484, 29

    2008

  25. [33]

    2012, , 546, A19

    Gastine, T., Duarte, L., & Wicht, J. 2012, , 546, A19

    2012

  26. [34]

    & Wicht, J

    Gastine, T. & Wicht, J. 2012, Icarus, 219, 428

    2012

  27. [35]

    & Wicht, J

    Gastine, T. & Wicht, J. 2021, Icarus, 368, 114514

    2021

  28. [36]

    2019, , 621, A41

    Ghirardini, V., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, , 621, A41

    2019

  29. [37]

    & Feretti, L

    Govoni, F. & Feretti, L. 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 1549

    2004

  30. [38]

    Helander, P. 2017, J. Plasma Phys., 83, 715830401

    2017

  31. [39]

    Helander, P. 2020, J. Plasma Phys., 86, 905860201

    2020

  32. [40]

    & Mcintyre, M

    Holliday, D. & Mcintyre, M. E. 1981, J. Fluid Mech., 107, 221

    1981

  33. [41]

    E., Toomre, J., & Massaguer, J

    Hurlburt, N. E., Toomre, J., & Massaguer, J. M. 1984, , 282, 557

    1984

  34. [42]

    Ishisaki, Y., Ezoe, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2018, J. Low Temp. Phys., 193, 991

    2018

  35. [43]

    Johnson, R. E. 2010, , 716, 1573

    2010

  36. [44]

    E., Zuhone, J., Jones, C., Forman, W

    Johnson, R. E., Zuhone, J., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., & Markevitch, M. 2012, , 751, 95

    2012

  37. [45]

    M., Rincon, F., & Clerc, N

    Kempf, J. M., Rincon, F., & Clerc, N. 2023, , 680, A24

    2023

  38. [46]

    A., Churazov, E., & Spitkovsky, A

    Komarov, S., Schekochihin, A. A., Churazov, E., & Spitkovsky, A. 2018, J. Plasma Phys., 84, 905840305

    2018

  39. [47]

    1997, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 123, 2141

    Kucharski, F. 1997, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 123, 2141

    1997

  40. [48]

    W., Bogdanovi \'c , T., Reynolds, C

    Kunz, M. W., Bogdanovi \'c , T., Reynolds, C. S., & Stone, J. M. 2012, , 754, 122

    2012

  41. [49]

    & Molendi, S

    Leccardi, A. & Molendi, S. 2008, , 486, 359

    2008

  42. [50]

    Lesur, G. R. J., Baghdadi, S., Wafflard-Fernandez , G., et al. 2023, , 677, A9

    2023

  43. [51]

    & Del Zanna, L

    Londrillo, P. & Del Zanna, L. 2004, J. Comp. Phys., 195, 17

    2004

  44. [52]

    Lorenz, E. N. 1955, Tellus A, 7, 157

    1955

  45. [53]

    2009, , 398, 1858

    McBride, J., Fakhouri, O., & Ma, C.-P. 2009, , 398, 1858

    2009

  46. [54]

    J., Sharma, P., & Quataert, E

    McCourt, M., Parrish, I. J., Sharma, P., & Quataert, E. 2011, , 413, 1295

    2011

  47. [55]

    McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Parrish, I. J. 2013, , 432, 404

    2013

  48. [56]

    D., Balsara, D

    Meyer, C. D., Balsara, D. S., & Aslam, T. D. 2014, J. Comp. Phys., 257, 594

    2014

  49. [57]

    C., MacKinnon, J

    Middleton, L., Fine, E. C., MacKinnon, J. A., Alford, M. H., & Taylor, J. R. 2021, Geo. Research Letters, 48, e2021GL092779

    2021

  50. [58]

    & Taylor, J

    Middleton, L. & Taylor, J. R. 2020, J. Fluid Mech., 893, R3

    2020

  51. [59]

    Miesch, M. S. 2005, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 2

    2005

  52. [60]

    & Kusano, K

    Miyoshi, T. & Kusano, K. 2005, J. Comp. Phys., 208, 315

    2005

  53. [61]

    2020, , 493, 5838

    Mohapatra, R., Federrath, C., & Sharma, P. 2020, , 493, 5838

    2020

  54. [62]

    2021, , 500, 5072

    Mohapatra, R., Federrath, C., & Sharma, P. 2021, , 500, 5072

    2021

  55. [63]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493

    1997

  56. [64]

    J., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Sharma, P

    Parrish, I. J., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Sharma, P. 2012 a , , 422, 704

    2012

  57. [65]

    J., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Sharma, P

    Parrish, I. J., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Sharma, P. 2012 b , , 419, L29

    2012

  58. [66]

    Parrish, I. J. & Stone, J. M. 2005, , 633, 334

    2005

  59. [67]

    Parrish, I. J. & Stone, J. M. 2007, , 664, 135

    2007

  60. [68]

    J., Stone, J

    Parrish, I. J., Stone, J. M., & Lemaster, N. 2008, , 688, 905

    2008

  61. [69]

    M., Berlok, T., & Pfrommer, C

    Perrone, L. M., Berlok, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2024 a , , 682, A125

    2024

  62. [70]

    M., Berlok, T., & Pfrommer, C

    Perrone, L. M., Berlok, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2024 b , , 690, A292

    2024

  63. [71]

    Perrone, L. M. & Latter, H. 2022 a , , 513, 4605

    2022

  64. [72]

    Perrone, L. M. & Latter, H. 2022 b , , 513, 4625

    2022

  65. [73]

    & Fabian, A

    Peterson, J. & Fabian, A. 2006, Physics Reports, 427, 1

    2006

  66. [74]

    2000, , 127, 159

    Porter. 2000, , 127, 159

    2000

  67. [75]

    & Ligni \`e res, F

    Prat, V. & Ligni \`e res, F. 2014, , 566, A110

    2014

  68. [76]

    W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al

    Pratt, G. W., Arnaud, M., Biviano, A., et al. 2019, , 215, 25

    2019

  69. [77]

    W., B \"o hringer, H., Croston, J

    Pratt, G. W., B \"o hringer, H., Croston, J. H., et al. 2007, , 461, 71

    2007

  70. [78]

    2008, , 673, 758

    Quataert, E. 2008, , 673, 758

    2008

  71. [79]

    2022, , 667, A94

    Reboul-Salze , A., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Bugli, M. 2022, , 667, A94

    2022

  72. [80]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., & Scolnic, D. 2019, , 876, 85

    2019

  73. [81]

    2015, Fluid Dynamics : An Introduction (Cham: Springer International Publishing)

    Rieutord, M. 2015, Fluid Dynamics : An Introduction (Cham: Springer International Publishing)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Rincon, F. 2019, J. Plasma Phys., 85, 205850401

    2019

  75. [83]

    A., Quataert, E., & Verscharen, D

    Riquelme, M. A., Quataert, E., & Verscharen, D. 2016, , 824, 123

    2016

  76. [84]

    & Klein, P

    Roullet, G. & Klein, P. 2009, J. Fluid Mech., 624, 45

    2009

  77. [85]

    Ruszkowski, M., Lee, D., Br \"u ggen, M., Parrish, I., & Oh, S. P. 2011, , 740, 81

    2011

  78. [86]

    Ruszkowski, M. & Oh, S. P. 2010, , 713, 1332

    2010

  79. [87]

    A., Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Kulsrud, R. M., Hammett, G. W., & Sharma, P. 2005, , 629, 139

    2005

  80. [88]

    A., Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Rincon, F., & Rosin, M. S. 2010, , 405, 291

    2010

  81. [89]

    o niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G \

    Schwarzschild, K. 1906, Nachrichten von der K \"o niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G \"o ttingen, 195, 41

    1906

  82. [90]

    & Hammett, G

    Sharma, P. & Hammett, G. W. 2007, J. Comp. Phys., 227, 123

    2007

  83. [91]

    W., Mantz, A., et al

    Simionescu, A., Allen, S. W., Mantz, A., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1576

    2011

  84. [92]

    1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases (New York: Interscience)

    Spitzer, L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases (New York: Interscience)

    1962

  85. [93]

    Tailleux, R. 2009, J. Fluid Mech., 638, 339

    2009

  86. [94]

    2013, Phys

    Tailleux, R. 2013, Phys. Scr., T155, 014033

    2013

  87. [95]

    Tailleux, R. 2018, J. Fluid Mech., 842, R1

    2018

  88. [96]

    Tailleux, R. 2024, J. Fluid Mech., 994, A5

    2024

  89. [97]

    & Dubos, T

    Tailleux, R. & Dubos, T. 2024, Ocean Modelling, 188, 102339

    2024

  90. [98]

    2011, , 728, L29

    Traxler, A., Garaud, P., & Stellmach, S. 2011, , 728, L29

    2011

  91. [99]

    2017, , 472, 3147

    Vaidya, B., Prasad, D., Mignone, A., Sharma, P., & Rickler, L. 2017, , 472, 3147

    2017

  92. [100]

    W., et al

    Vazza, F., Angelinelli, M., Jones, T. W., et al. 2018, , 481, L120

    2018

  93. [101]

    1953, Zeitschrift f \"u r Astrophysik, 32, 135

    Vitense, E. 1953, Zeitschrift f \"u r Astrophysik, 32, 135

    1953

  94. [102]

    N., Johnson, R

    Volkov, A. N., Johnson, R. E., Tucker, O. J., & Erwin, J. T. 2011, , 729, L24

    2011

  95. [103]

    B., Lombard, P

    Winters, K. B., Lombard, P. N., Riley, J. J., & D'Asaro, E. A. 1995, J. Fluid Mech., 289, 115

    1995

  96. [104]

    2015, , 450, 4184

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Ar \'e valo, P., et al. 2015, , 450, 4184

    2015

  97. [105]

    M., Schekochihin, A

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E. M., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, , 788, L13

    2014

  98. [106]

    J., ZuHone, J., et al

    Zingale, M., Dursi, L. J., ZuHone, J., et al. 2002, , 143, 539

    2002

  99. [107]

    A., Markevitch, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Lee, D

    ZuHone, J. A., Markevitch, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Lee, D. 2013, , 762, 69

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.