Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Turbulence-Generated Stepped Safety Factor Profiles in Tokamaks with Low Magnetic Shear

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

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

Pith's one-line read Turbulence-generated currents flatten the safety factor profile near low-order rational surfaces when magnetic shear is low, cutting turbulent heat transport even at small beta.

desk verdict Turbulence-generated q-flattening is a genuinely new mechanism with strong internal controls, but the collisionless assumption and closed data may limit device-level claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04459 v1 pith:J64KLWJQ submitted 2025-02-06 physics.plasm-ph

Arnas Volčokas , Justin Ball , Giovanni Di Giannatale , Stephan Brunner This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords safetyfactormagneticsheargyrokineticsparallelcurrentzonalflowsinternaltransportbarriersturbulenceself-interactiontokamak
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 aims to show that tokamak turbulence is not merely a passive response to the plasma's magnetic geometry: at low magnetic shear, the turbulence itself generates persistent parallel currents that reshape the safety factor profile, flattening it near low-order rational surfaces. Using local flux-tube and global full-radius gyrokinetic simulations, it argues that this self-organization is a feedback loop: flattening creates zero-shear plateaus, eddies stretch along the field and 'bite their own tail' more strongly, and the enhanced self-interaction stabilizes the turbulence. The resulting stepped safety factor profiles cut the turbulent heat flux substantially even at the small plasma beta typical of the plasma core. If correct, this gives a concrete mechanism for the long-puzzling onset of internal transport barriers and implies that q-profile corrugation should be part of predictive transport models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time- and flux-surface-averaged zonal parallel magnetic potential $\langle\langle A_\parallel\rangle_{FS}\rangle_t$, which acts as a self-generated modification of the equilibrium safety factor through $\tilde{q}_{A_\parallel}(x) \propto \partial_x \langle\langle A_\parallel\rangle_{FS}\rangle_t$. This makes the turbulent current distribution a direct driver of the magnetic geometry. The paper also uses an externally imposed periodic modulation $\tilde{q}(x)$, parametrized by magnetic-shear Fourier coefficients, to mimic the self-generated profile in adiabatic-electron runs and thereby isolate the role of profile geometry from kinetic-electron self-interaction.

What would settle it

Run the same flux-tube or global gyrokinetic setup with the physical electron-to-proton mass ratio (1836) and a collision operator at realistic collisionality: if the time-averaged zonal $A_\parallel$ and the associated q-plateaus do not form, or if the heat flux no longer drops by roughly a factor of three when qmin crosses an integer, the claimed feedback loop is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In collisionless, weakly electromagnetic gyrokinetic simulations with low magnetic shear, the paper demonstrates that the flux-surface-averaged parallel current develops stationary corrugations that, through Ampère's law, produce a steady zonal parallel vector potential $A_\parallel$. The radial derivative of this potential modifies the safety factor via $\tilde{q}_{A_\parallel}(x) \propto \partial_x \langle\langle A_\parallel\rangle_{FS}\rangle_t$, flattening the profile at nearby low-order rational surfaces; in some scans the profile is 'pulled' toward a rational value that was not present initially. At the flattened locations, eddy self-interaction is strongly enhanced and the heat flux drops by roughly a factor of three, while artificially removing the zonal $A_\parallel$ restores the high flux. The paper shows that the q-profile feedback, rather than the direct electromagnetic correction, is the stabilizer, and global reversed-shear simulations reproduce the same pull of $q_{\rm min}$ toward an integer value.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that strong, persistent parallel current corrugations survive in real tokamaks; the simulations are collisionless, use heavy electrons (mi/me = 364–500), and a short parallel domain, so realistic collisions, the physical mass ratio, or a longer connection length could suppress the corrugations and collapse the mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A low-shear tokamak whose q profile sits near a low-order rational value will tend to develop an internal transport barrier without external current drive.
  • The q profile in low-shear devices cannot be treated as a fixed input: turbulence-driven current corrugations alter it on transport-relevant timescales, so predictive models must couple q evolution to turbulent current.
  • The predicted stepped q profile should be observable with internal q diagnostics: flat segments around rational surfaces and a q minimum pulled toward an integer during barrier formation.
  • The mechanism is expected to extend to stellarators, where low-shear regions such as those in W7-X and HSX should exhibit similar turbulence-driven modifications of the rotational transform.
  • In reversed-shear discharges with qmin just above an integer, confinement will improve as turbulence pulls qmin down to the integer, matching the qualitative behavior seen in DIII-D and JET.
  • Even purely electrostatic turbulence drives the parallel current corrugations, but electromagnetic effects are needed for those currents to feed back on the q profile.
  • The transport reduction is not produced by the q-profile curvature itself but by the extended zero-shear regions that enhance eddy self-interaction.
  • Stepped q profiles are robust across linear and nonlinear imposed profiles, positive and negative background shear, and both local and global simulation domains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The feedback suggests a hysteresis: once turbulence flattens q, the zero-shear plateau locks in reduced transport, so barrier onset may depend on discharge history as well as instantaneous profiles, a testable prediction for ramp experiments.
  • The same loop may regulate density peaking, momentum transport, and other channels in low-shear discharges through the same eddy-elongation mechanism, though the paper quantifies only heat flux.
  • A practical boundary of the claim is electron mass and collisions: the simulations use mi/me = 364–500 and are collisionless, so whether the corrugations survive at the physical mass ratio and realistic collisionality remains an open test.
  • The paper's flux-tube results use Npol = 1, so the strength of the feedback could depend on the simulated parallel connection length; the global runs mitigate this concern but a systematic scaling with toroidal system size is not mapped.
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. The paper reports nonlinear flux-tube (GENE) and global (ORB5) gyrokinetic simulations of ITG-dominated turbulence in tokamaks with low magnetic shear. The central claim is that turbulence-generated parallel currents produce a quasi-stationary zonal component of the parallel vector potential A∥, which modifies the safety factor profile through Eq. (1) and creates stepped q profiles with flat regions around low-order rational surfaces. These flat regions enhance parallel eddy self-interaction and reduce turbulent heat transport. The authors support the causal chain with control runs that eliminate the zonal A∥ and with electrostatic runs that impose the same q modulation. They interpret the effect as a candidate mechanism for ITB triggering.

Significance. If the mechanism is robust in realistic conditions, it constitutes a novel turbulence self-organization process that could be relevant for ITB formation and for confinement optimization in low-shear devices. The paper's strengths are the multiple control tests (zeroing zonal A∥, imposing q corrugations in ES runs, reversing the sign of shear) and the use of two independent simulation codes, which together give credibility to the causal chain within the modeled regime. However, the simulations are collisionless, use reduced proton-electron mass ratios and a short parallel domain, and provide no convergence or statistical error information; these gaps prevent the paper from establishing the claimed robustness for tokamak conditions as it currently stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Introduction / 'In this study' paragraph; Figs. 2 and 3(b)] The simulations are explicitly collisionless, yet the central mechanism requires a steady zonal A∥ to persist on the timescale of transport-barrier formation. In a collisional plasma the zonal current is resistively damped; for radial corrugation scales of tens of ρi and Spitzer resistivity the magnetic diffusion time is roughly 0.1–1 s in device units, comparable to or shorter than the ITB formation timescale. The runs shown reach only about 10^3 R/c_i, so they cannot establish a collisionally stationary state. The ⟨A∥⟩ = 0 control shows that A∥ is the stabilizing agent, but it does not test whether collisions render A∥ negligible. The abstract's claim that stepped q profiles are a 'robust phenomenon' for tokamaks is therefore not currently supported by the evidence presented. The manuscript should either include collisional simulations, a resistive-damping model for the zonal A∥, or an explicit quantitative argument that the collisional damping time exceeds the turbulent drive timescale, or alternatively moderate the claims to the collisionless regime.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 3(b) and the global ORB5 discussion] No convergence tests or statistical error bars are reported for any of the simulation results. The heat-flux time traces in Figs. 2 and 3(b) show large fluctuations and no indication of when the time-average is considered statistically stationary. Moreover, there is no discussion of numerical parameters such as grid resolution, box size in x and y, particle number in ORB5, or sensitivity of the q flattening amplitude to these choices. Since the central claim concerns small-amplitude corrugations in the current profile and a specific transport reduction, a convergence study is necessary to establish that the effect is not a numerical artifact.
  3. [Flux tube setup, 'In these simulations Npol = 1'; scan paragraph with 'mi/me = 364'; ORB5 paragraph with 'mi/me = 500'] The key mechanism is attributed to strong parallel self-interaction, and the paper states that at zero shear turbulent eddies can extend for 'hundreds of poloidal turns'. Yet the flux-tube simulations use Npol = 1, which truncates the parallel domain to a single poloidal turn. The paper does not demonstrate that Npol = 1 is sufficient to capture the long-eddy self-interaction that is central to the feedback loop. Similarly, the reduced electron mass ratio (mi/me = 364 in the flux-tube scans and 500 in ORB5) may alter the electron parallel response and the magnitude of the turbulent current. A sensitivity scan over Npol and over the mass ratio is needed to confirm that the flattening and transport reduction are not consequences of these numerical choices.
  4. [Eq. (1) and the 'Turbulent Modifications of Safety Factor Profile' section] Equation (1) is only a proportionality. The paper does not give the explicit relation between the measured time-averaged ⟨A∥⟩ and the displayed qtot profiles, nor does it show the radial profile of ⟨A∥⟩ alongside the inferred ilde{q}_{A∥}(x). Since the causality argument relies on the identity between the A∥-induced q flattening and the imposed ilde{q} used in the ES control runs, providing this quantitative mapping would make the argument considerably more transparent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and surrounding text] There is a typo in the sentence describing eddy displacement: 'birnormal' should be 'binormal'.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The notation ⟨⟨·⟩⟩_{FS,t} is introduced in the text but the equation itself does not define the double average; a brief definition next to the equation would improve clarity.
  3. [Conclusions] The phrase 'key mechanism' should be 'a key mechanism' or 'the key mechanism' for grammatical completeness.
  4. [References] Reference [17] has an inconsistent author format ('C. J., Ajay' should be 'Ajay, C. J.' or similar); please check the reference style throughout.
  5. [Fig. 1] The right vertical axis is described in the text as being normalized to rational-surface order, but the figure itself does not appear to label this axis; a label would help readers interpret the flattening directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the q-flattening and transport reduction are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that turbulence-generated parallel currents produce a steady zonal A_parallel which modifies the safety factor profile and reduces transport. This is presented as an observed outcome of nonlinear gyrokinetic simulations (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), not as an input. Eq. (1) defines the safety-factor modulation in terms of A_parallel, and Eq. (2) combines imposed and self-generated terms, but the flattening itself is a diagnosed simulation result, and the transport reduction is measured independently. The key control — setting the zonal A_parallel to zero causes heat fluxes to rise to the electrostatic level — establishes causality without relying on fitted parameters. The imposed qtilde(x) profiles used in consistency checks are explicitly matched to the self-consistent EM result, then used to confirm the mechanism; this is a verification step, not a prediction derived from a fit. The paper does cite the authors' prior work on turbulent self-interaction and non-uniform shear boundary conditions, but those citations support methodology and prior numerical evidence; the current simulations independently reproduce the eddy-squeezing and the transport reduction, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The main caveats — collisionless simulations, reduced mass ratio, Npol = 1, and 'Additional simulation details will be made available in a future publication' — are correctness or reproducibility limitations, not circularity. No step was found where a result is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no fitted constants in the usual sense; the results are emergent simulation outputs. The modeling choices that the central claim depends on are the gyrokinetic model, the local flux tube approximation with twisted parallel boundary conditions, the collisionless and reduced-mass-ratio limit, and the interpretation of time-averaged zonal A_parallel as a q-profile modification. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • parallel domain length Npol = 1
    Flux tube simulations use Npol = 1 poloidal turn; a longer domain could change the strength of eddy self-interaction, and no Npol scan is shown in this Letter.
  • electron-to-ion mass ratio mi/me = 364 (flux tube scan), 500 (global ORB5)
    Set below the physical ratio of 1836 for numerical feasibility; the robustness of the q flattening to realistic mass ratio is not tested.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gyrokinetic Vlasov-Maxwell equations accurately describe low-frequency core plasma turbulence and transport.
    Used as the governing model throughout; standard in the field and cited in Refs. 20-23.
  • domain assumption The local flux tube approximation with parallel boundary condition captures the relevant parallel self-interaction at low magnetic shear.
    All flux tube results rely on this; self-interaction depends on the boundary condition, which is the core of the mechanism.
  • domain assumption Collisionless, weakly electromagnetic dynamics with reduced electron mass ratio represent low-beta tokamak conditions relevant to ITBs.
    The main numerical results use collisionless electrons and mi/me of 364 or 500; this is a tractability choice whose physical fidelity is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The time-averaged zonal parallel potential A_parallel corresponds to a quasi-static modification of the equilibrium safety factor profile via Eq. (1).
    The central feedback loop is built on this interpretation; it is stated in Eqs. (1)-(2) and used to define qtot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbulence-Generated Stepped Safety Factor Profiles in Tokamaks with Low Magnetic Shear." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J64KLWJQ

@misc{pith2026250204459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbulence-Generated Stepped Safety Factor Profiles in Tokamaks with Low Magnetic Shear},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J64KLWJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04459}
}
abstract

Nonlinear local and global gyrokinetic simulations of tokamak plasmas demonstrate that turbulence-generated currents flatten the safety factor profile near low-order rational surfaces when magnetic shear is low, even when the plasma $\beta$ is small. A large set of flux tube simulations with different safety factor profiles (e.g. linear and non-linear safety factor profiles) and global simulations with reversed magnetic shear profiles show that such stepped safety factor profiles dramatically reduce the heat transport and are a robust phenomenon. This mechanism may play a key role in the triggering of internal transport barriers (ITBs) and more generally reveal novel strategies for improving confinement in devices with low magnetic shear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04459 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Radial profile of the flux surface-averaged parallel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time traces of ES (solid) and EM (dashed) heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) A safety factor profile scan varying the binormal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. P. Freidberg, Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Fasoli, Essay: Overcoming the obstacles to a magnetic fusion power plant, Phys

    A. Fasoli, Essay: Overcoming the obstacles to a magnetic fusion power plant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 220001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    R. C. Wolf, Internal transport barriers in tokamak plas- mas, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 45, R1 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Connor, T

    J. Connor, T. Fukuda, X. Garbet, C. Gormezano, V. Mukhovatov, M. Wakatani, the ITB Database Group, the ITPA Topical Group on Transport, and I. B. Physics, A review of internal transport barrier physics for steady- state operation of tokamaks, Nuclear Fusion 44, R1 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Ida and T

    K. Ida and T. Fujita, Internal transport barrier in toka- mak and helical plasmas, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60, 033001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [7]

    F. M. Levinton, M. C. Zarnstorff, S. H. Batha, M. Bell, R. E. Bell, R. V. Budny, C. Bush, Z. Chang, E. Fredrick- son, A. Janos, J. Manickam, A. Ramsey, S. A. Sabbagh, G. L. Schmidt, E. J. Synakowski, and G. Taylor, Im- proved Confinement with Reversed Magnetic Shear in TFTR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4417 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [8]

    E. J. Strait, L. L. Lao, M. E. Mauel, B. W. Rice, T. S. Taylor, K. H. Burrell, M. S. Chu, E. A. Lazarus, T. H. Osborne, S. J. Thompson, and A. D. Turnbull, Enhanced Confinement and Stability in DIII-D Discharges with Re- versed Magnetic Shear, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4421 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [9]

    Crisanti, X

    F. Crisanti, X. Litaudon, J. Mailloux, D. Mazon, E. Bar- bato, Y. Baranov, A. B´ ecoulet, M. B´ ecoulet, C. D. Chal- lis, G. D. Conway, R. Dux, L.-G. Eriksson, B. Espos- ito, D. Frigione, P. Hennequin, C. Giroud, N. Hawkes, G. Huysmans, F. Imbeaux, E. Joffrin, P. Lomas, P. Lotte, P. Maget, M. Mantsinen, D. Moreau, F. Rimini, M. Riva, Y. Sarazin, G. Tresse...

    work page 2002

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    Hobirk, R

    J. Hobirk, R. C. Wolf, O. Gruber, A. Gude, S. G¨ unter, B. Kurzan, M. Maraschek, P. J. McCarthy, H. Meister, A. G. Peeters, G. V. Pereverzev, J. Stober, W. Treut- terer, and A. U. Team, Reaching High Poloidal Beta at Greenwald Density with Internal Transport Barrier Close to F...

    2001

  2. [11]

    E. Li, X. L. Zou, L. Q. Xu, Y. Q. Chu, X. Feng, H. Lian, H. Q. Liu, A. D. Liu, M. K. Han, J. Q. Dong, H. H. Wang, J. W. Liu, Q. Zang, S. X. Wang, T. F. Zhou, Y. H. Huang, L. Q. Hu, C. Zhou, H. X. Qu, Y. Chen, S. Y. Lin, B. Zhang, J. P. Qian, J. S. Hu, G. S. Xu, J. L. Chen, K. ...

    2022

  3. [12]

    Chung, H

    J. Chung, H. Kim, Y. Jeon, J. Kim, M. Choi, J. Ko, K. Lee, H. Lee, S. Yi, J. Kwon, S.-H. Hahn, W. Ko, J. Lee, and S. Yoon, Formation of the internal transport barrier in KSTAR, Nuclear Fusion 58, 016019 (2017)

    2017

  4. [13]

    Coda et al

    S. Coda et al. , Physics research on the TCV tokamak facility: from conventional to alternative scenarios and beyond, Nuclear Fusion 59, 112023 (2019)

    2019

  5. [14]

    L. G. Eriksson, C. Fourment, V. Fuchs, X. Litaudon, C. D. Challis, F. Crisanti, B. Esposito, X. Garbet, C. Giroud, N. Hawkes, P. Maget, D. Mazon, and G. Tres- set, Discharges in the JET tokamak where the safety fac- tor profile is identified as the critical factor for triggeri...

    2002

  6. [15]

    M. W. Shafer, G. R. McKee, M. E. Austin, K. H. Bur- rell, R. J. Fonck, and D. J. Schlossberg, Localized Tur- bulence Suppression and Increased Flow Shear near the q = 2 Surface during Internal-Transport-Barrier Forma- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 075004 (2009)

    2009

  7. [16]

    Koide, M

    Y. Koide, M. Kikuchi, M. Mori, S. Tsuji, S. Ishida, N. Asakura, Y. Kamada, T. Nishitani, Y. Kawano, T. Hatae, T. Fujita, T. Fukuda, A. Sakasai, T. Kondoh, R. Yoshino, and Y. Neyatani, Internal transport barrier on q=3 surface and poloidal plasma spin up in JT-60U high-βp disch...

    1994

  8. [17]

    J. Ball, S. Brunner, and Ajay C. J., Eliminating turbulent self-interaction through the parallel boundary condition in local gyrokinetic simulations, J. Plasma Phys. 86, 1 (2020)

    2020

  9. [18]

    Joffrin, G

    E. Joffrin, G. Gorini, C. D. Challis, N. C. Hawkes, T. C. Hender, D. F. Howell, P. Maget, P. Mantica, D. Mazon, S. E. Sharapov, and G. Tresset, Triggering of internal transport barrier in JET, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 44, 1739 (2002)

    2002

  10. [19]

    M. E. Austin, K. H. Burrell, R. E. Waltz, K. W. Gentle, P. Gohil, C. M. Greenfield, R. J. Groebner, W. W. Heid- brink, Y. Luo, J. E. Kinsey, M. A. Makowski, G. R. Mc- Kee, R. Nazikian, C. C. Petty, R. Prater, T. L. Rhodes, 6 M. W. Shafer, and M. A. Van Zeeland, Core barrier fo...

    2006

  11. [20]

    P. J. Catto, Linearized gyro-kinetics, Plasma Physics 20, 719 (1978)

    1978

  12. [21]

    E. A. Frieman and L. Chen, Nonlinear gyrokinetic equa- tions for low-frequency electromagnetic waves in general plasma equilibria, The Physics of Fluids 25, 502 (1982)

    1982

  13. [22]

    A. J. Brizard and T. S. Hahm, Foundations of nonlinear gyrokinetic theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 421 (2007)

    2007

  14. [23]

    I. G. Abel, G. G. Plunk, E. Wang, M. Barnes, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, and A. A. Schekochihin, Multi- scale gyrokinetics for rotating tokamak plasmas: Fluctu- ations, transport and energy flows, Reports Prog. Phys. 76, 116201 (2013)

    2013

  15. [24]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers, Electron temperature gradient driven turbu- lence, Phys. Plasmas 7, 1904 (2000)

    2000

  16. [25]

    G¨ orler, X

    T. G¨ orler, X. Lapillonne, S. Brunner, T. Dannert, F. Jenko, F. Merz, and D. Told, The global version of the gyrokinetic turbulence code GENE, Journal of Com- putational Physics 230, 7053 (2011)

    2011

  17. [26]

    Lanti, N

    E. Lanti, N. Ohana, N. Tronko, T. Hayward-Schneider, A. Bottino, B. McMillan, A. Mishchenko, A. Scheinberg, A. Biancalani, P. Angelino, S. Brunner, J. Dominski, P. Donnel, C. Gheller, R. Hatzky, A. Jocksch, S. Jolliet, Z. Lu, J. Martin Collar, I. Novikau, E. Sonnendr¨ ucker, T...

    2020

  18. [27]

    M. A. Beer, S. C. Cowley, and G. W. Hammett, Gy- rofluid models of turbulent transport in tokamaks, Phys. Plasmas 2, 2687 (1995)

    1995

  19. [28]

    Dominski, S

    J. Dominski, S. Brunner, T. G¨ orler, F. Jenko, D. Told, and L. Villard, How non-adiabatic passing electron lay- ers of linear microinstabilities affect turbulent transport, Phys. Plasmas 22, 062303 (2015)

    2015

  20. [29]

    J., Ajay, S

    C. J., Ajay, S. Brunner, B. Mcmillan, J. Ball, J. Domin- ski, and G. Merlo, How eigenmode self-interaction affects zonal flows and convergence of tokamak core turbulence with toroidal system size, J. Plasma Phys. 86, 905860504 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    R. E. Waltz, M. E. Austin, K. H. Burrell, and J. Candy, Gyrokinetic simulations of off-axis minimum- q profile corrugations, Phys. Plasmas 13, 052301 (2006)

    2006

  22. [31]

    Dominski, B

    J. Dominski, B. F. McMillan, S. Brunner, G. Merlo, T.-M. Tran, and L. Villard, An arbitrary wavelength solver for global gyrokinetic simulations. application to the study of fine radial structures on microturbulence due to non-adiabatic passing electron dynamics, Physics of Pl...

    2017

  23. [32]

    F. I. Parra and M. Barnes, Intrinsic rotation in tokamaks: Theory, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion57, 045002 (2015), arXiv:1407.1286

    2015 arXiv

  24. [33]

    C. J. McDevitt, X.-Z. Tang, and Z. Guo, Turbulent cur- rent drive mechanisms, Physics of Plasmas 24, 082307 (2017)

    2017

  25. [34]

    Volˇ cokas, J

    A. Volˇ cokas, J. Ball, and S. Brunner, Ultra long turbulent eddies, magnetic topology, and the triggering of internal transport barriers in tokamaks, Nucl. Fusion 63, 014003 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Volˇ cokas, J

    A. Volˇ cokas, J. Ball, and S. Brunner, Numerical study of turbulent eddy self-interaction in tokamaks with low magnetic shear. Part I: Linear simulations, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 67, 015001 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    Volˇ cokas, J

    A. Volˇ cokas, J. Ball, and S. Brunner, Numerical study of turbulent eddy self-interaction in tokamaks with low magnetic shear. Part II: Nonlinear simulations, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 67, 015002 (2024)

    2024

  28. [37]

    Ball and S

    J. Ball and S. Brunner, Local gyrokinetic simulations of tokamaks with non-uniform magnetic shear, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65, 014004 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    A. M. Dimits et al. , Comparisons and physics basis of tokamak transport models and turbulence simulations, Phys. Plasmas 7, 969 (2000)

    2000

  30. [39]

    J. M. Wallace, Space-time correlations in turbulent flow: A review, Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 4, 022003 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    Here ρ∗ = ρi/a, where a is the device minor radius

    and TCV ( ρ∗ ∼ 1/100) [41] scale machines using both gradient-driven and flux-driven simulations, with ρ∗ defined at the qmin location. Here ρ∗ = ρi/a, where a is the device minor radius. ES and weakly EM simula- tions were compared. Additional simulation details will be made ...

  32. [41]

    Hofmann et al

    F. Hofmann et al. , Creation and control of variably shaped plasmas in TCV, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 36, B277 (1994)

    1994

  33. [42]

    5 The authors would like to thank Laurent Villard, Oleg Krutkin, Alessandro Geraldini, Ben McMillan, and An- toine Hoffmann for useful discussions pertaining to this work

    and W7-X [43]. 5 The authors would like to thank Laurent Villard, Oleg Krutkin, Alessandro Geraldini, Ben McMillan, and An- toine Hoffmann for useful discussions pertaining to this work. This work has been carried out within the frame- work of the EUROfusion Consortium, via th...

  34. [43]

    DIII-D Team, DIII-D Capabilities and Tools for Plasma Science Research (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    Gerard, B

    M. Gerard, B. Geiger, M. Pueschel, A. Bader, C. Hegna, B. Faber, P. Terry, S. Kumar, and J. Schmitt, Optimiz- ing the hsx stellarator for microinstability by coil-current adjustments, Nuclear Fusion 63, 056004 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    Klinger et al

    T. Klinger et al. , Overview of first Wendelstein 7-X high-performance operation, Nuclear Fusion 59, 112004 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.