pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02747 · v1 · pith:K64CKLY7new · submitted 2019-07-05 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Modelling the electron cyclotron emission below the fundamental resonance in ITER

Jesper Rasmussen , Morten Stejner , Lorenzo Figini , Thomas Jensen , Esben B. Klinkby , S{\o}ren B. Korsholm , Axel W. Larsen , Frank Leipold
show 3 more authors
Daniele Micheletti Stefan K. Nielsen Mirko Salewski
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords electron cyclotron emissionITERray tracingoptically thin regimewall reflectionsplasma diagnosticsmicrowave backgroundcross-polarization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ensemble ray tracing through randomized wall reflections predicts X-mode ECE below 100 eV below 70 GHz in ITER baseline plasma but keV levels in hybrid scenarios.

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

The paper develops a framework to estimate electron cyclotron emission at frequencies well below the fundamental resonance, where plasmas are optically thin, by ensemble-averaging rays traced through many randomized wall reflections. This method accounts for the overall vacuum vessel geometry and includes cross-polarization effects while also quantifying statistical uncertainty on the spectra. When applied to ITER conditions, the modeled emission increases strongly with frequency and plasma temperature in the 55-75 GHz range. The approach is relevant for assessing background signals that could affect microwave diagnostics such as ECE, reflectometry, and collective Thomson scattering.

Core claim

By ensemble-averaging rays traced through randomized wall reflections, ECE spectra can be estimated in the optically thin regime below the fundamental resonance. For ITER, this yields X-mode levels below 100 eV at frequencies smaller than 70 GHz in the baseline plasma scenario, while corresponding intensities reach keV levels in the hotter hybrid plasma scenario. The method shows good agreement with the SPECE raytracing code and produces X-mode to O-mode conversion strengths consistent with estimates from existing fusion devices.

What carries the argument

Ensemble-averaging of rays traced through many randomized wall reflections, which captures the vacuum vessel geometry, multiple reflections, and cross-polarization changes.

If this is right

  • ECE levels increase strongly with frequency and plasma temperature in the 55-75 GHz range.
  • X-mode ECE remains below 100 eV below 70 GHz in the ITER baseline scenario.
  • Intensities reach keV levels in the hotter hybrid plasma scenario.
  • The strength of X-mode to O-mode conversion induced by wall reflections is consistent with estimates from existing devices.
  • Benchmarking shows good agreement with the SPECE raytracing code under relevant conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could be used to estimate interference levels in specific channels of ITER microwave diagnostics.
  • The statistical uncertainty from the ensemble averaging offers a built-in way to evaluate reliability of background predictions.
  • Applying the same randomized-reflection approach to other tokamaks could show how vessel shape affects low-frequency ECE.
  • If wall reflection properties vary more than assumed, the predicted mode conversion rates could shift.

Load-bearing premise

Ensemble-averaging of rays through randomized wall reflections sufficiently captures the effects of overall vessel geometry, multiple reflections, and cross-polarization changes without needing detailed surface property modeling.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of X-mode ECE intensity at 60 GHz in an ITER baseline-like plasma that yields values significantly above 100 eV (or much below keV in a hybrid scenario) would contradict the predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02747 by Axel W. Larsen, Daniele Micheletti, Esben B. Klinkby, Frank Leipold, Jesper Rasmussen, Lorenzo Figini, Mirko Salewski, Morten Stejner, S{\o}ren B. Korsholm, Stefan K. Nielsen, Thomas Jensen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Profiles of (a) electron density and (b) electron temperature in the adopted ITER baseline and hybrid plasma scenarios as functions of ρp (square root of normalized poloidal flux). Dotted lines in (a) indicate the location of the relativistic 75 GHz cutoff for O-mode waves, computed from [23]. Panel (c) shows the location of relevant resonances and cutoffs as a function of major radius R in the baseline pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Adopted ITER wall geometry in a (a) poloidal and (b) toroidal cross section. The blue line shows our default single-pass receiver viewing geometry A and red lines the corresponding alternative sight lines B and C. Depicted single-pass ray paths result from raytracing at f = 60 GHz using the baseline plasma scenario; the bending is due to refraction owing to proximity to the X-mode L-cutoff [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 2D representation of the reflection geometry for specular and randomized (diffuse) reflections. Specular reflections take place in the plane w of the actual surface with normal vector n. Diffuse reflections take place at an angle drawn from a Gaussian distribution of width σ around the direction of specular reflection; for the purpose of calculating the associated cross-polarization, these are assumed to t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example X-mode ray paths for the first 50 reflections going backwards from the antenna for viewing geometry A in the ITER baseline plasma scenario in the case of (a) specular reflection, (b) our default case with σ = 20◦. Filled circles mark the associated reflection points and gray rectangles the assumed antenna location and orientation. (c) Example distributions of the length s of individual ray segments… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of the contribution to the radiation temperature for individual ray segments as a function of the number of reflections taken. Also shown is the ensemble￾averaged result for two different values of the wall reflectivity Rw, our default value of Rw = 0.9 and, for comparison, an extreme case with Rw = 0.99. Results apply for the ITER baseline scenario. Error bars show the final statistical errors on… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of Trad at 60 GHz on scaled electron temperature of the ITER baseline scenario. Representative uncertainties are shown for a wall reflectivity Rw = 0.9. Bottom panel shows the ratio of Trad at 75 and 70 GHz, respectively, to that at 60 GHz for Rw = 0.9. The horizontal axis range corresponds to a core Te ranging from 15–40 keV. so equation 6 remains valid). The considered Te range covers the lowe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated X-mode ECE spectra for (a) the ITER baseline scenario and (b) the hybrid scenario for different wall reflectivities Rw. Representative statistical uncertainties are shown for the case Rw = 0.9. The same vertical axis is used in both plots, and the top horizontal axis gives the frequency in terms of the relativistically downshifted first harmonic at the magnetic axis, ωc,rel. that dominate the con… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of Trad as a function of the assumed width σ of the angle distribution function for the ITER baseline scenario, computed for f = 60 GHz and Rw = 0.9. The curves show the impact of different antenna orientations as indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Wall reflection coefficients including mode conversion as a function of (a) σ at fixed Rw = 0.9, and (b) Rw at fixed σ = 20◦ . Both plots are for the ITER baseline scenario at f = 60 GHz. The width of each curve in (a) represents the variation among the adopted viewing geometries (A–C), and in (b) the statistical variation across the considered frequency range for geometry A. Dashed curve in (b) shows the … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of predicted X-mode ECE spectra from our formalism and from the SPECE code, assuming viewing geometry A, specular reflection, Rw = 0.65, and plasma parameters from our ITER baseline scenario. Inset compares our associated ensemble-averaged optical depths to the single￾pass values from SPECE. large dynamical range in Trad. Both the emission and absorption coefficients and hence the resulting rad… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The electron cyclotron emission (ECE) in fusion devices is non-trivial to model in detail at frequencies well below the fundamental resonance where the plasma is optically thin. However, doing so is important for evaluating the background for microwave diagnostics operating in this frequency range. Here we present a general framework for estimating the ECE levels of fusion plasmas at such frequencies using ensemble-averaging of rays traced through many randomized wall reflections. This enables us to account for the overall vacuum vessel geometry, self-consistently include cross-polarization, and quantify the statistical uncertainty on the resulting ECE spectra. Applying this to ITER conditions, we find simulated ECE levels that increase strongly with frequency and plasma temperature in the considered range of 55-75 GHz. At frequencies smaller than 70 GHz, we predict an X-mode ECE level below 100 eV in the ITER baseline plasma scenario, but with corresponding intensities reaching keV levels in the hotter hybrid plasma scenario. Benchmarking against the SPECE raytracing code reveals good agreement under relevant conditions, and the predicted strength of X-mode to O-mode conversion induced by wall reflections is consistent with estimates from existing fusion devices. We discuss possible implications of our findings for ITER microwave diagnostics such as ECE, reflectometry, and collective Thomson scattering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a ray-tracing framework for estimating electron cyclotron emission (ECE) at frequencies well below the fundamental resonance (55-75 GHz) in optically thin ITER plasmas. It employs ensemble averaging over many randomized wall reflections to incorporate overall vacuum vessel geometry, multiple bounces, and cross-polarization scrambling, while quantifying statistical uncertainty. Applied to ITER baseline and hybrid scenarios, the work predicts X-mode ECE levels below 100 eV for frequencies <70 GHz in the baseline case but reaching keV levels in the hotter hybrid case. The approach is benchmarked against the SPECE code with reported good agreement, and the modeled X-to-O conversion strength is stated to be consistent with existing devices. Implications for ITER diagnostics (ECE, reflectometry, CTS) are discussed.

Significance. If validated, the framework supplies quantitative background estimates needed for microwave diagnostics in the optically thin regime, where standard optically thick approximations fail. The ability to include statistical uncertainty and self-consistent cross-polarization via randomized reflections is a practical strength, and the reported agreement with an independent code (SPECE) under relevant conditions lends support to the central predictions. The scenario-dependent contrast (baseline vs. hybrid) is potentially useful for diagnostic design.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / modeling framework description] The quantitative claims (X-mode ECE <100 eV below 70 GHz in baseline; keV levels in hybrid) rest directly on the assumption, stated in the abstract, that ensemble averaging over randomized wall reflections adequately reproduces the net effect of ITER vacuum-vessel geometry, multiple bounces, and polarization scrambling without explicit surface-property modeling. In the optically thin limit the effective emissivity integrates over long paths, so any systematic bias in the reflection operator propagates into the intensity. The manuscript reports statistical uncertainty from the ensemble and good agreement with SPECE, but does not demonstrate convergence against deterministic tracing through the actual ITER CAD geometry with measured wall reflectivities or angle-dependent polarization conversion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the central predictions but supplies no plasma-parameter inputs, reflection-model details, or error-propagation information, making independent verification of the numerical results difficult.
  2. [Abstract] Notation for polarization modes (X-mode, O-mode) and frequency ranges should be defined at first use for readers outside the immediate sub-field.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and the constructive comment on the modeling assumptions. We respond to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The quantitative claims (X-mode ECE <100 eV below 70 GHz in baseline; keV levels in hybrid) rest directly on the assumption, stated in the abstract, that ensemble averaging over randomized wall reflections adequately reproduces the net effect of ITER vacuum-vessel geometry, multiple bounces, and polarization scrambling without explicit surface-property modeling. In the optically thin limit the effective emissivity integrates over long paths, so any systematic bias in the reflection operator propagates into the intensity. The manuscript reports statistical uncertainty from the ensemble and good agreement with SPECE, but does not demonstrate convergence against deterministic tracing through the actual ITER CAD geometry with measured wall reflectivities or angle-dependent polarization conversion.

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative predictions depend on the validity of the randomized reflection operator as a representation of the net effect of the vessel geometry and multiple bounces. The ensemble approach was developed specifically to capture the statistical average behavior and polarization scrambling without requiring explicit surface-property data, which are not available in sufficient detail for ITER. Convergence of the ensemble-averaged intensities with respect to the number of realizations is demonstrated in the manuscript, and the reported statistical uncertainty quantifies the variability inherent to the randomization. The good agreement obtained with the independent SPECE code under comparable conditions provides supporting evidence that the results are not strongly sensitive to the precise implementation of the reflection model. A direct benchmark against deterministic ray tracing through the full ITER CAD geometry with measured, angle-dependent reflectivities would be a valuable additional validation step. However, the required wall-property data are not publicly available, and the computational cost of such a deterministic calculation for the optically thin, multi-bounce regime is prohibitive within the scope of the present work. We will revise the manuscript to include an expanded discussion of these modeling assumptions and limitations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation relies on a forward ray-tracing simulation with ensemble averaging over randomized reflections to compute ECE spectra from given plasma profiles and vessel geometry. This is benchmarked against the independent SPECE code and produces predictions for specific ITER scenarios without any fitted parameters drawn from the target ECE data itself or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, ansatz smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results; the central quantitative claims follow directly from the described computational procedure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; full paper may contain additional parameters or assumptions not visible here. No explicit free parameters, invented entities, or detailed axioms are stated beyond the core modeling choices.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The plasma is optically thin at frequencies well below the fundamental resonance
    Explicitly stated as the regime where modeling is non-trivial and the method is applied.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomized wall reflections adequately represent multiple bounces and polarization scrambling
    Central to the ensemble-averaging framework described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5797 in / 1439 out tokens · 27748 ms · 2026-05-25T02:07:16.221019+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    et al 2015 Fusion Eng

    Ricardo E. et al 2015 Fusion Eng. Des. 98–99 1593

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    et al 2006 Nucl

    Vayakis G. et al 2006 Nucl. Fusion 46 S836

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    et al 2016 High power microwave di- agnostic for the fusion energy experiment ITER Conf

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2016 High power microwave di- agnostic for the fusion energy experiment ITER Conf. Proc. for 41st Int. Conf. on Infrared, Mil- limeter and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz) (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7758537/)

    work page arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    et al 2019 EPJ Web Conf

    Korsholm S.B. et al 2019 EPJ Web Conf. 203 03002

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    et al 2015 EPJ Web Conf

    Taylor G. et al 2015 EPJ Web Conf. 87 03002

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    et al 2009 Nucl

    Hoang G.T. et al 2009 Nucl. Fusion 49 075001

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    et al 2015 Fusion Eng

    Belo J.H.C.M. et al 2015 Fusion Eng. Des. 96–97 70

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    et al 1983 Nucl

    Bornatici M. et al 1983 Nucl. Fusion 23 1153

    work page 1983

  9. [9]

    et al 1994 Nucl

    Brusati M. et al 1994 Nucl. Fusion 34 23

    work page 1994

  10. [10]

    and Ruffina U

    Bornatici M. and Ruffina U. 1996 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 38 1561

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    et al 2017 Nucl

    W ang Y. et al 2017 Nucl. Fusion 57 072007

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    et al 2015 Fusion Eng

    Biel W. et al 2015 Fusion Eng. Des. 96–97 8

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    and Katte n- berg A

    Sillen R.M.J., Allaart M.A.F., Goedheer W.J. and Katte n- berg A. 1987 Rijnhuizen Report 86–165, FOM Institute for Plasma Physics, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

    work page 1987

  14. [14]

    and Mills R.G

    Chaturvedi S. and Mills R.G. 1992 Comput. Phys. Commun. 70 183

    work page 1992

  15. [15]

    and Van Milligen B.P

    Tribaldos V. and Van Milligen B.P. 1996 Nucl. Fusion 36 283

    work page 1996

  16. [16]

    et al 2008 AIP Conf

    Farina D. et al 2008 AIP Conf. Proc 988 128

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    et al 2008 Nucl

    Prater R. et al 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 035006

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    and Giruzzi G

    Orsitto F. and Giruzzi G. 1997 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68 686

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Fidone I., Giruzzi G

    I. Fidone I., Giruzzi G. and Granata G. 1996 Phys. Plasmas 3 1612

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    1966 Radiation Processes in Plasmas (Wiley, Ne w York)

    Bekefi G. 1966 Radiation Processes in Plasmas (Wiley, Ne w York)

    work page 1966

  21. [21]

    and Geist T

    Hartfuß H.-J. and Geist T. 2013 Fusion Plasma Diagnosti cs with mm-W aves (W einheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    1992 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1992 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 34 1601

    work page 1992

  23. [23]

    1993 Plasma Phys

    Bindslev H. 1993 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 35 1093

    work page 1993

  24. [24]

    Shkarofsky I.P. 1986 J. Plasma Phys. 35 319

    work page 1986

  25. [25]

    et al 2017 Phys

    Nielsen S.K. et al 2017 Phys. Scr. 92 024001

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    2017 Summary report on the benchmarking of ray tracing and beam tracing software codes, ITER IDM document ID ITER D VFXWH8 v1.0 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=VFXWH8

    Stejner M. 2017 Summary report on the benchmarking of ray tracing and beam tracing software codes, ITER IDM document ID ITER D VFXWH8 v1.0 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=VFXWH8

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    et al 2001 Comput

    Poli E. et al 2001 Comput. Phys. Commun. 136 90

    work page 2001

  28. [28]

    et al 2015 Phys

    Henderson M. et al 2015 Phys. Plasmas 22 021808

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    et al 2015 Nucl

    Imbeaux F. et al 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 123006

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    et al 2018 Progress in the ITER Integrated Modelling Programme and the ITER Scenario Database Preprint: 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf

    Pinches S. et al 2018 Progress in the ITER Integrated Modelling Programme and the ITER Scenario Database Preprint: 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Gandhina- gar, India) [TH/P6-7]

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    2015 Poloidal curves coordinates, ITER IDM document ID ITER D 2N9J75 v1.7 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=2N9J75

    David E. 2015 Poloidal curves coordinates, ITER IDM document ID ITER D 2N9J75 v1.7 Technical Report https://user.iter.org/?uid=2N9J75

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Plasmas 3 4128

    Kernbichler W., Kasilov S.V., 1996, Phys. Plasmas 3 4128

    work page 1996

  33. [33]

    1990 Plasma Phys

    Segre S.E. 1990 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 32(13) 1249

    work page 1990

  34. [34]

    et al 2012 EPJ Web Conf

    Udintsev V. et al 2012 EPJ Web Conf. 32 03013

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    et al 2015 Evaluation of EC stray radiation in ITER and its implication for diagnostics Proc

    Sirinelli A. et al 2015 Evaluation of EC stray radiation in ITER and its implication for diagnostics Proc. of 1st EPS conference on Plasma Diagnostics (ECPD2015) , https://pos.sissa.it/cgi-bin/reader/conf.cgi?confid=240

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    et al 2012 in 6th European Conference on Antennas and Propaga- tion (EUCAP) , Prague, 2012, pp

    Kasparek W. et al 2012 in 6th European Conference on Antennas and Propaga- tion (EUCAP) , Prague, 2012, pp. 585–589 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6206543/)

    work page arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    et al 2014 Nucl

    Raffray A.R. et al 2014 Nucl. Fusion 54 033004

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    et al 2016 Nucl

    Hirai T. et al 2016 Nucl. Mat. Energy 9 616

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    et al 2018 Plasma Phys

    Denk S.S. et al 2018 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 105010

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    et al 2005 Nucl

    Albajar F. et al 2005 Nucl. Fusion 45 L9

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    et al 2015 EPJ Web Conf

    Minashin P.V. et al 2015 EPJ Web Conf. 87 03005

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    et al 2010 Plasma Phys

    Barrera L. et al 2010 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 52 085010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    and Luce T.C

    Austin M.E., Ellis R.F. and Luce T.C. 1997 Proc. Of The 10th Joint Workshop On Electron Cyclotron Emission and Electron Cyclotron Heating , eds. T. Donne, T. Verhoeven (Singapore: W orld Scientific Publishing) p. 249 ECE below the fundamental resonance in ITER 16

    work page 1997

  44. [44]

    et al 2009 Phys

    Reichle R. et al 2009 Phys. Scr. 2009 014029

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    et al 2012, IEEE Trans

    Aumeunier M.-H. et al 2012, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 40 753

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    et al 2016 Phys

    Koˇ can M. et al 2016 Phys. Scr. 2016 014047

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    et al 1992 Rev

    Rhee D.Y. et al 1992 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63 4644

    work page 1992

  48. [48]

    et al 1995 Rev

    Machuzak J.S. et al 1995 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66 484

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    et al 1997 Rev

    Machuzak J.S. et al 1997 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68 458

    work page 1997

  50. [50]

    et al 1992 Nucl

    Budny R.V. et al 1992 Nucl. Fusion 32 429

    work page 1992

  51. [51]

    and Kaye S.M

    Budny R.V. and Kaye S.M. 2018 private communication

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    et al 2007 Plasma Phys

    Heidbrink W.W. et al 2007 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 49 1457

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    et al 2014 Plasma Phys

    Salewski M. et al 2014 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 56 105005

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    2002 Principles of Plasma Diagnostics , 2nd ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Hutchinson I.H. 2002 Principles of Plasma Diagnostics , 2nd ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2002

  55. [55]

    et al 2016 Nucl

    Salewski M. et al 2016 Nucl. Fusion 56 106024

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    et al 2017 Nucl

    Nocente M. et al 2017 Nucl. Fusion 57 076016

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    1992 On the Theory of Thomson Scattering and Reflectometry in a Relativistic Magnetized Plasma PhD Thesis Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, Risø-R-663

    Bindslev H. 1992 On the Theory of Thomson Scattering and Reflectometry in a Relativistic Magnetized Plasma PhD Thesis Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, Risø-R-663

    work page 1992

  58. [58]

    and Sampson D.H

    Zhang H.L. and Sampson D.H. 2000 Phys. Rev. A 61 022707

    work page 2000

  59. [59]

    and Ferland G.J

    Goddard W.E. and Ferland G.J. 2003 Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 115 647

    work page 2003

  60. [60]

    and Docenko D.O

    Sunyaev R.A. and Docenko D.O. 2007 Astron. Lett. 33 67

    work page 2007