Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Magnetic Dynamo Driven by Inertial Waves

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inertial waves alone, once geostrophic vortices are damped, can sustain a kinematic dynamo at Pm ~ 0.001 and Po ~ 0.025.

desk verdict Solid DNS showing inertial waves alone can sustain a low-Pm dynamo—but only under an artificial vortex-damping prescription whose planetary relevance is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06086 v1 pith:J72JETJ7 submitted 2026-08-06 physics.flu-dyn astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.geo-ph

A. Mishra , G. Mamatsashvili , M. Le Bars , A. J. Barker , F. Stefani This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.geo-ph PACS 47.65.-d47.32.-y47.27.-i
keywords inertialwaveskinematicdynamoprecession-driventurbulencegeostrophicvorticesmagneticPrandtlnumberkinetichelicityMHDplanetarydynamos
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

The paper sets out to show that inertial waves do not need geostrophic vortices to act as a dynamo: in a rotating, precessing local box, wave turbulence alone can amplify and sustain a magnetic field. The authors add a controlled damping of the $k_z=0$ geostrophic velocity mode, mimicking the suppression expected in rapidly rotating planetary and stellar interiors, and find that even a 1% per-step damping sharply raises the dynamo growth rate. In the fully vortex-free limit the inertial-wave dynamo survives down to magnetic Prandtl number $Pm\sim10^{-3}$ and Poincaré number $Po\sim0.025$ (the precession strength), and these thresholds decrease as the Reynolds number is increased. Spectral analysis attributes growth to turbulent induction from inertial waves, correlated with coherent fluctuations of kinetic helicity, rather than to the background precessional shear. If the trend holds at astrophysical Reynolds numbers, weak precession or tidal forcing could be a viable dynamo source in low-$Pm$ planetary and stellar interiors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a numerical damping parameter $\lambda$ applied after every time step exclusively to the geostrophic vortical mode $u_{2D}$ at $k_z=0$, via $u_{2D}(t+\Delta t)=\lambda u_{2D}(t)$, which is equivalent to a linear friction on that mode. This lets the authors suppress the vortices while leaving the three-dimensional inertial waves untouched, isolating the intrinsic dynamo capability of the waves. The second ingredient is the spectral magnetic-energy budget, whose induction term $I=\frac{i}{2}[\bar{\mathbf{b}}^*\cdot\mathbf{k}\times(\widehat{\mathbf{u}\times\mathbf{b}})_k - \bar{\mathbf{b}}\cdot\mathbf{k}\times(\widehat{\mathbf{u}\times\mathbf{b}})_k^*]$ measures energy production by the turbulent electromotive force; comparing $I$ with the base-shear term $P$ shows that wave-induced induction, not the background precessional shear, drives the dynamo. The $Ro_{2D}=1$ curve in spectral space separates the rotation-dominated inertial-wave range from isotropic small-scale motions and locates where coherent waves contribute to induction.

What would settle it

A direct simulation or experiment in which geostrophic vortices are suppressed by a physical boundary effect, instead of by the numerical $\lambda$ factor, would settle the claim: if no dynamo growth appears near $Pm\sim10^{-3}$ and $Po\sim0.025$ in that setting, the claimed inertial-wave dynamo is an artifact of the damping prescription.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inertial waves alone, without the quasi-two-dimensional geostrophic vortices that usually accompany them, form a sustainable kinematic dynamo and in fact a more efficient one. In the simulations, the geostrophic $k_z=0$ velocity mode is reduced by a factor $\lambda$ after each time step; in the limiting case $\lambda=0$ the wave field sustains exponential magnetic-energy growth even in parameter regimes where the vortex-dominated flow shows no dynamo. The marginal stability curves in the $(Pm,Po)$ plane shift downward as $Re$ increases, reaching $Pm\sim10^{-3}$ and $Po\sim0.025$ at the highest $Re$ studied, and the curves tend to collapse when plotted against $Rm$ in the small-$Po$ plateau regime, indicating that the onset is controlled by the magnetic Reynolds number. Dynamo growth is accompanied by coherent fluctuations of kinetic helicity, and the spectral induction term $I$ dominates the shear term $P$ over all relevant wavenumbers, so the amplification is driven by the inertial-wave turbulence itself over a broad range of scales.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the numerical damping of the vertically uniform velocity mode represents how real planetary and stellar interiors suppress geostrophic vortices, and that the thresholds keep falling as the Reynolds number is pushed from $10^6$ toward $10^{15}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, inertial-wave turbulence alone can sustain a dynamo at $Pm\sim10^{-3}$ and $Po\sim0.025$, with thresholds that drop as $Re$ rises.
  • The collapse of the marginal curves onto $Rm$ in the small-$Po$ plateau means that in that regime predictions depend mainly on the magnetic Reynolds number, not on the separate values of $Re$ and $Pm$, which simplifies extrapolation to astrophysical parameters.
  • Because even a small damping of the geostrophic mode significantly increases the growth rate, physical processes that partially suppress large-scale vortices may be enough to unlock the wave dynamo without requiring their complete absence.
  • The dominance of the induction term $I$ over the shear term $P$ places the mechanism in the turbulent wave field itself, over a broad range of scales, rather than in the laminar precessional shear.
  • The same mechanism should carry over to other mechanically forced rotating flows, such as tidally driven inertial-wave turbulence, extending the result beyond precession alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real physical suppression of vortices is only partial or scale-dependent, the actual thresholds likely lie between the $\lambda=1$ and $\lambda=0$ curves, so the reported $Pm\sim10^{-3}$ and $Po\sim0.025$ are best viewed as idealized lower bounds.
  • Doubling the vertical box size already lowers the critical $Po$ and $Pm$, which suggests that the thresholds are set partly by the available range of wave modes and by geometry, so global spherical-shell simulations could shift them further.
  • The correlation between coherent kinetic helicity and dynamo growth points to a helical-wave $\alpha$-effect; measuring the mean electromotive force $\langle\mathbf{u}\times\mathbf{b}\rangle$ and an effective $\alpha$ tensor in the $\lambda=0$ runs would test this mechanism directly.
  • If the thresholds keep falling as $Re$ increases beyond $10^6$, weak precession with $Po\lesssim10^{-4}$ might suffice to magnetize non-convective planetary cores, but the extrapolation depends on the marginal curves continuing to decline at the same rate.
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 Letter reports direct numerical simulations of precession-driven turbulence in a local shearing box, with a controlled damping of the k_z=0 geostrophic modes. The authors find that when these vortical modes are damped or removed, the remaining inertial-wave turbulence sustains a kinematic dynamo, with marginal curves in the (Pm, Po) plane moving to lower values as Re increases; the headline thresholds are Po~0.025 and Pm~1e-3 at the highest Re studied. They further analyze the magnetic energy budget and spectra, attributing growth primarily to induction by inertial-wave turbulence rather than to the background precessional shear, and identify a correlation between organized kinetic helicity and dynamo growth.

Significance. If the central claim stands, the paper provides a clean numerical demonstration that inertial-wave turbulence, in the absence of geostrophic vortices, can sustain dynamo action at lower magnetic Prandtl and Poincaré numbers than previously reported, extending Moffatt's classical inertial-wave dynamo idea into the nonlinear turbulent regime. The study has notable strengths: it uses well-resolved DNS with an explicit resolution check (End Matter Fig. 4), reports marginal curves obtained from direct simulation rather than from a fitted mean-field closure, and provides a spectral energy-budget decomposition (Eq. 4 and Fig. 5) that separates the induction, dissipation, and shear terms. The kinetic-helicity analysis is a useful diagnostic rather than an input, and the paper is generally clear about the idealized nature of the local model. However, the quantitative thresholds and their extrapolation to planets rest on the artificial vortex-damping prescription, on box-size-dependent results, and on growth rates without uncertainty estimates, so the significance is somewhat conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [End Matter, Fig. 8(b)] The load-bearing contrast in the paper is between λ=1 (vortices retained) and λ=0 (all k_z=0 velocity modes set to zero after each time step). The physical motivation cites Ekman layers, large-scale magnetic fields, and geometric constraints, but in the simulation no physical mechanism is acting: the box is periodic, so there are no Ekman layers, and the field is initialized at E_m/E_k=10^-10, so Lorentz forces are negligible throughout the kinematic phase in which the thresholds are measured. The vortex-free state is therefore an artificial projection, not a physical limit. The thresholds Po~0.025 and Pm~1e-3, and the Re-trend based on them, are properties of this constrained system unless a concrete mechanism with the same action is supplied. The Letter should either implement a physically motivated damping (e.g., a linear Ekman-type friction with the appropriate scaling) or explicitly present the results as an idealized demonstration of the intrinsic capability of inertial waves, rather than as a prediction for planetary interiors.
  2. [End Matter, Fig. 8(b)] The marginal curves shift to substantially lower Po and Pm when the vertical box height is doubled from Lz=1 to Lz=2. This means the quantitative headline thresholds (Po~0.025, Pm~1e-3) are not converged with respect to box size, and the conclusion that the dynamo extends to low Pm and Po is partly a statement about the chosen box. The authors should report the thresholds as a function of Lz (or show convergence), and any extrapolation to Re~1e15 should acknowledge that the absolute values are box-dependent. Without this, the claim that the thresholds 'decrease with increasing Reynolds number' cannot be separated from the effect of insufficient vertical scale separation.
  3. [Fig. 2 and growth-rate calculation] The marginal curves in Fig. 2 are obtained by varying Po at fixed Re and Pm and determining where the growth rate γ crosses zero, but no error estimates or convergence criteria are given for γ. Near marginality the growth rate is small, and its estimated value depends on the temporal fitting window and on the initial conditions; different random seeds can produce different apparent thresholds. Without multiple realizations, bootstrap estimates, or at least a stated criterion for distinguishing γ=0 from a residual small positive/negative value, the sharpness of the marginal curves and their systematic Re-dependence are not robustly established. Please add uncertainty quantification or conservative error bars to the marginal curves.
  4. [Fig. 3 and the Ro2D analysis] In the low-Pm/high-Po regime, the paper itself states that the dynamo operates at k⊥≳kη, where the flow is 'rough', with Ro2D>1 over a substantial range of wavenumbers, and describes the dynamics as 'small-scale, rapidly varying motions' typical of a small-scale fluctuation dynamo. In this regime the velocity field is not dominated by linear inertial waves, yet the abstract and title attribute the dynamo to 'inertial waves' over the full parameter range. The attribution is well supported only in the plateau regime (small Po, large Rm) where Ro2D<1 and the wave spectral signature is clear. The Letter should either restrict the 'inertial wave dynamo' claim to the rotation-dominated regime or explicitly separate the small-scale inertial-range induction branch from the coherent wave-driven branch in the summary and abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'Inial Waves' should be 'Inertial Waves'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The word 'anisotrophic' appears twice in the caption and should be 'anisotropic'.
  3. [Eq. (4) and surrounding text] The notation for the Fourier-transformed induction term I is somewhat opaque; please define the subscript k conventions explicitly in the text, since the paper then refers to I as a 3D spectrum that is averaged to 2D shells.
  4. [End Matter, Fig. 6] The dashed magenta circles in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) are not described in the caption; please state what the circles enclose (presumably the resonant inertial-wave modes) and how they were identified.
  5. [Introduction and Conclusions] The repeated statements that inertial waves alone give a dynamo for 'Pm∼10^-3 and Po∼0.025' should be conditioned on the simulated box size and the λ=0 projection, consistent with the major comments above; otherwise the abstract is stronger than the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamo thresholds are direct simulation outputs, and the λ-damping is an explicitly stated modeling assumption rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that inertial-wave turbulence alone sustains a kinematic dynamo at low Pm and Po, is obtained by direct numerical simulation. The marginal curves in Fig. 2 are constructed from measured growth rates for a series of simulations, with no fitting of a theory to the data; the threshold values Po ~ 0.025 and Pm ~ 10^-3 are read off from the zero-growth-rate contour. The λ parameter is introduced as an explicitly stated numerical damping of the kz=0 velocity mode, and Fig. 1(b) shows the growth rate as a function of 1-λ, so the result is a controlled comparison, not a parameter adjusted to reproduce the dynamo. The kinetic-helicity correlation in End Matter Fig. 7 is a diagnostic used to interpret the simulated growth, not an input to the model. Self-citations (Refs. 4, 11, 40) provide the local precession model, the numerical setup, and the previous vortex-dominated dynamo results, but the present conclusion does not reduce to those works: the λ=0 state is simulated here, and the marginal curves are new output. The damping prescription and the extrapolation to Re ~ 10^15 are physically debatable assumptions, and the authors acknowledge the parameter-regime gap, but these are correctness or relevance risks, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a controlled damping that is not derived from physics; the box size and damping factor are hand-chosen. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (vortex damping factor) = 0 for the main results (complete suppression)
    Hand-chosen to isolate inertial waves; not fitted. The central thresholds are for lambda=0, and the authors do not provide a physical derivation of this value.
  • Vertical box length Lz = 1 (cubic box); test at Lz=2
    The marginal curves shift with Lz (Fig. 8b), so the quoted critical Pm and Po are box-size dependent. The choice Lz=1 is an unconstrained modeling choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Incompressible MHD equations with constant density and periodic boundary conditions
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(3); standard for rotating turbulence but a simplification of spherical geometry and compressibility.
  • domain assumption Precessional base flow U0 with linear shear along z and time-periodic modulation is the correct local representation of global precession
    Follows Barker (2016) and earlier local models; neglects boundaries, curvature, and the full spherical geometry.
  • domain assumption Damping of the kz=0 geostrophic mode (u_2D multiplied by lambda each time step) does not alter the inertial wave dynamics that drive the dynamo
    The authors check that kinetic energy evolution is unchanged across lambda (Fig. 1a), but the equivalence to physical vortex suppression is assumed. This is the load-bearing premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Dynamo Driven by Inertial Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J72JETJ7

@misc{pith2026260806086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Dynamo Driven by Inertial Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J72JETJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06086}
}
abstract

We demonstrate, by studying precession-driven flows, that inertial wave hydrodynamic turbulence can drive a robust magnetic dynamo action. Motivated by the stronger damping of large-scale geostrophic vortices in rapidly rotating planetary and stellar interiors, we introduce a controlled damping of the vortices, which usually accompany inertial wave turbulence and feed on wave energy. It is shown that even a small vortex damping results in a significant increase of the growth rate of the dynamo due to inertial waves in the kinematic regime, allowing it to persist for magnetic Prandtl numbers as low as $Pm \sim 10^{-3}$ and Poincar\'e numbers $Po\sim 0.025$. These critical values of $Po$ and $Pm$ for the dynamo onset decrease with increasing Reynolds number. The onset and growth of the dynamo appear to correlate with the coherent fluctuations of kinetic helicity. Spectral analysis shows that magnetic energy growth is primarily due to inertial-wave-induced induction over a broad range of scales. These results establish inertial waves as an efficient mechanism for magnetic field amplification in rapidly rotating low-$Pm$ flows relevant to planetary and stellar interiors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Evolution of the volume-averaged kinetic (dashed) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectra of (a,c) the magnetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Marginal curves for the dynamo onset at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Shell-averaged magnetic energy spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) and (b) Shell-averaged spectra of the dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Shell-averaged spectra of the Rossby number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of the horizontally averaged kinetic helicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Evolution of the volume-averaged magnetic en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. M. Smith and F. Waleffe, Transfer of energy to two-dimensional large scales in forced, rotating three- dimensional turbulence, Phys. Fluids11, 1608 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Buzzicotti, H

    M. Buzzicotti, H. Aluie, L. Biferale, and M. Linkmann, Energy transfer in turbulence under rotation, Phys. Rev. Fluids3, 034802 (2018). 6

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Alexakis and L

    A. Alexakis and L. Biferale, Cascades and transitions in turbulent flows, Phys. Rep.767, 1 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Pizzi, G

    F. Pizzi, G. Mamatsashvili, A. Barker, A. Giesecke, and F. Stefani, Interplay between geostrophic vortices and in- ertial waves in precession-driven turbulence, Phys. Fluids 34, 125135 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    R. R. Kerswell, The instability of precessing flow, Geo- phy. Astro. Fluid.72, 107 (1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    R. R. Kerswell, Elliptical instability, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics34, 83 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Le Reun, B

    T. Le Reun, B. Favier, A. J. Barker, and M. Le Bars, Inertial Wave Turbulence Driven by Elliptical Instability, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 034502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Le Reun and M

    T. Le Reun and M. Le Bars, Rotational dynamics of plan- etary cores: Instabilities driven by precession, libration and tides, inFluid Mechanics of Planets and Stars, edited by M. Le Bars and D. Lecoanet (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 91–127

    work page 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    G. I. Ogilvie and D. N. C. Lin, Tidal Dissipation in Ro- tating Giant Planets, Astrophys. J.610, 477 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    A. J. Barker, Tidal Dissipation Due to Inertial Waves Can Explain the Circularization Periods of Solar-type Bi- naries, Astrophys. J. Lett.927, L36 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    A. J. Barker, On turbulence driven by axial precession and tidal evolution of the spin–orbit angle of close-in gi- ant planets, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.460, 2339 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    W. V. R. Malkus, Precession of the earth as the cause of geomagnetism, Science160, 259 (1968)

    1968

  5. [13]

    Vanyo, A geodynamo powered by luni-solar precession, Geophy

    J. Vanyo, A geodynamo powered by luni-solar precession, Geophy. Astro. Fluid.59, 209 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    Lagrange, P

    R. Lagrange, P. Meunier, F. Nadal, and C. Eloy, Preces- sional instability of a fluid cylinder, J. Fluid Mech.666, 104 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    A. J. Barker and Y. Lithwick, Non-linear evolution of the tidal elliptical instability in gaseous planets and stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.435, 3614 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Moffatt and E

    K. Moffatt and E. Dormy,Self-Exciting Fluid Dynamos, Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Rincon, Dynamo theories, J

    F. Rincon, Dynamo theories, J. Plasma Phys.85, 205850401 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    J. Noir, D. Brito, K. Aldridge, and P. Cardin, Experimen- tal evidence of inertial waves in a precessing spheroidal cavity, Geophys. Res. Lett.28, 3785 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Meunier, C

    P. Meunier, C. Eloy, R. Lafrange, and F. Nadal, A ro- tating fluid cylinder subject to weak precession, J. Fluid Mech.599, 405 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    S. Goto, A. Matsunaga, M. Fujiwara, M. Nishioka, S. Kida, M. Yamato, and S. Tsuda, Turbulence driven by precession in spherical and slightly elongated spheroidal cavities, Phys. Fluids26, 055107 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Herault, A

    J. Herault, A. Giesecke, T. Gundrum, and F. Stefani, Instability of precession driven kelvin modes: Evidence of a detuning effect, Phys. Rev. Fluids4, 033901 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Kumar, F

    V. Kumar, F. Pizzi, A. Giesecke, J. ˇSimkanin, T. Gun- drum, M. Ratajczak, and F. Stefani, The effect of nuta- tion angle on the flow inside a precessing cylinder and its dynamo action, Phys. Fluids35, 014114 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    D. Kong, Z. Cui, X. Liao, and K. Zhang, On the tran- sition from the laminar to disordered flow in a precess- ing spherical-like cylinder, Geophy. Astro. Fluid.109, 62 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Marques and J

    F. Marques and J. M. Lopez, Precession of a rapidly ro- tating cylinder flow: traverse through resonance, J. Fluid Mech.782, 63 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Y. Lin, P. Marti, J. Noir, and A. Jackson, Precession- driven dynamos in a full sphere and the role of large scale cyclonic vortices, Phys. Fluids28, 066601 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Giesecke, T

    A. Giesecke, T. Vogt, T. Gundrum, and F. Stefani, Non- linear large scale flow in a precessing cylinder and its abil- ity to drive dynamo action, Phy. Rev. Lett.120, 024502 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Albrecht, H

    T. Albrecht, H. M. Blackburn, J. M. Lopez, R. Manasseh, and P. Meunier, On triadic resonance as an instability mechanism in precessing cylinder flow, J. Fluid Mech. 841, R3 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    C´ ebron, R

    D. C´ ebron, R. Laguerre, J. Noir, and N. Schaeffer, Pre- cessing spherical shells: flows, dissipation, dynamo and the lunar core, Geophys. J. Int.219, S34 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    J. M. Lopez and F. Marques, Rapidly rotating precessing cylinder flows: forced triadic resonances, J. Fluid Mech. 839, 239 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    K. Wu, B. D. Welfert, and J. M. Lopez, Precessing cube: resonant excitation of modes and triadic resonance, J. Fluid Mech.887, A6 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Pizzi, A

    F. Pizzi, A. Giesecke, and F. Stefani, Ekman boundary layers in a fluid filled precessing cylinder, AIP Adv.11, 035023 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Pizzi, A

    F. Pizzi, A. Giesecke, J. ˇSimkanin, and F. Stefani, Pro- grade and retrograde precession of a fluid-filled cylinder, New J. Phys.23, 123016 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Tilgner, Precession driven dynamos, Phys

    A. Tilgner, Precession driven dynamos, Phys. Fluids17, 034104 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Wu and P

    C.-C. Wu and P. Roberts, On a dynamo driven by topo- graphic precession, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.103, 467 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Cappanera, J.-L

    L. Cappanera, J.-L. Guermond, J. L´ eorat, and C. Nore, Two spinning ways for precession dynamo, Phys. Rev. E 93, 043113 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Goepfert and A

    O. Goepfert and A. Tilgner, Dynamos in precessing cubes, New J. Phys.18, 103019 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Goepfert and A

    O. Goepfert and A. Tilgner, Mechanisms for magnetic field generation in precessing cubes, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.113, 222 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    R. M. Mason and R. R. Kerswell, Chaotic dynamics in a strained rotating flow: a precessing plane fluid layer, J. Fluid Mech.471, 71 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Khlifi, A

    A. Khlifi, A. Salhi, S. Nasraoui, F. Godeferd, and C. Cambon, Spectral energy scaling in precessing tur- bulence, Phys. Rev. E98, 011102 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Kumar, F

    V. Kumar, F. Pizzi, G. Mamatsashvili, A. Giesecke, F. Stefani, and A. J. Barker, Dynamo action driven by precessional turbulence, Phys. Rev. E109, 065101 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    H. K. Moffatt, Dynamo action associated with random inertial waves in a rotating conducting fluid, Journal of Fluid Mechanics44, 705–719 (1970)

    1970

  34. [42]

    P. A. Davidson, The dynamics and scaling laws of plan- etary dynamos driven by inertial waves, Geophys. J. Int. 198, 1832 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    P. A. Davidson and A. Ranjan, Planetary dynamos driven by helical waves - II, Geophys. J. Int.202, 1646 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Ranjan, P

    A. Ranjan, P. A. Davidson, U. R. Christensen, and J. Wicht, Internally driven inertial waves in geodynamo simulations, Geophys. J. Int.213, 1281 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Ranjan, P

    A. Ranjan, P. A. Davidson, U. R. Christensen, and J. Wicht, On the generation and segregation of helic- 7 ity in geodynamo simulations, Geophys. J. Int.221, 741 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Herreman and P

    W. Herreman and P. Lesaffre, Stokes drift dynamos, J. Fluids Mech.679, 32 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Vidal and D

    J. Vidal and D. C´ ebron, Did lunar tides sustain the early Earth’s dynamo?, Comptes Rendus. G´ eoscience, 358 (G1), pp.1 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    Hide and K

    R. Hide and K. Stewartson, Hydromagnetic Oscillations of the Earth’s Core, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics10, 579 (1972)

    1972

  41. [49]

    Salhi, T

    A. Salhi, T. Lehner, and C. Cambon, Magnetohydro- dynamic instabilities in rotating and precessing sheared flows: An asymptotic analysis, Phys. Rev. E82, 016315 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Resolution varies from (N x, Ny, Nz) = (128,128,128) to (512,512,512) depending on the pa- rameter values, and is detailed in End Matter (see Fig

    adapted to the considered local model of a preces- sional flow [11]. Resolution varies from (N x, Ny, Nz) = (128,128,128) to (512,512,512) depending on the pa- rameter values, and is detailed in End Matter (see Fig. 4). Simulations are initialized with solenoidal random veloci...

    2000

  43. [51]

    Lesur and P

    G. Lesur and P. Y. Longaretti, On the relevance of sub- critical hydrodynamic turbulence to accretion disk trans- port, Astron. Astrophys.444, 25 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Le Reun, B

    T. Le Reun, B. Favier, and M. Le Bars, Evidence of the zakharov-kolmogorov spectrum in numerical simu- lations of inertial wave turbulence, Europhysics Letters 132, 64002 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    A. A. Schekochihin, A. B. Iskakov, S. C. Cowley, J. C. McWilliams, M. R. E. Proctor, and T. A. Yousef, Fluc- tuation dynamo and turbulent induction at low magnetic Prandtl numbers, New Journal of Physics9, 300 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    A. J. Barker and Y. Lithwick, Non-linear evolution of the elliptical instability in the presence of weak magnetic fields, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.437, 305 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Astoul and A

    A. Astoul and A. J. Barker, Interplay between tidal flows and magnetic fields in non-linear simulations of stellar and planetary convective envelopes, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.541, 1575 (2025). 8 End Matter 101 102 k 10-15 10-10 10-5 100 (240,240,120) (384,384,384) (512,512,...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.