Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Ambipolar diffusion reshapes Rayleigh–Taylor mixing by redistributing gravity-driven energy between magnetic tension and ion–neutral drift, not by simply rescaling classical growth rates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 23:30 UTC pith:LJUKTKAW

load-bearing objection Solid controlled two-fluid RT survey with clean linear validation and a real nonlinear message; the gn=0 idealization is load-bearing and untested, so treat the IC morphology/drag peak as setup-specific until checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.10566 v1 pith:LJUKTKAW submitted 2026-03-11 astro-ph.GA

The Rayleigh Taylor instability in partially ionized plasmas: ambipolar diffusion effects in the non linear phase

E. Callies , Z. Meliani , A. Marcowith , V. Guillet This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Rayleigh–Taylor instabilityambipolar diffusionpartially ionized plasmastwo-fluid MHDmixing layerion–neutral driftinterstellar medium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks how partial ionization changes the Rayleigh–Taylor instability once it leaves the linear exponential stage and enters the nonlinear mixing regime. Classical hydrodynamics and ideal magnetohydrodynamics predict a self-similar mixing layer that thickens roughly as the square of time. In a two-fluid plasma the charged fluid feels gravity while neutrals are dragged along only by collisions, so a slip velocity develops and a fraction of the injected buoyancy power is dissipated by ion–neutral drag. High-resolution two-fluid simulations that span uncoupled, intermediate (ambipolar-dominated), and strongly coupled regimes show that this drag does not merely slow the instability by a constant factor. Instead it produces a time-dependent growth law and, for multi-wavelength initial conditions, a non-monotonic reorganization of the interface: intermediate coupling maximizes small-scale fragmentation when magnetic fields are absent, yet yields the smoothest, most coherent plumes when magnetic tension is present. Morphology-based diagnostics that compare runs at the same normalized mixing height, together with force maps and energy budgets, show that the intermediate regime maximizes conversion of gravitational energy into inter-fluid drift while magnetic stresses remain localized along the interface. The result matters for any stratified astrophysical plasma—molecular clouds, irradiated H2 regions, prominence–corona interfaces—where the classical single-fluid picture would mis-predict both growth rates and the morphology of mixing.

Core claim

Ambipolar diffusion does not merely rescale Rayleigh–Taylor growth rates; it reshapes the nonlinear, multi-scale dynamics by altering how gravity-driven kinetic energy is redistributed through magnetic tension and ion–neutral drift. In multi-wavelength magnetized runs the smoothest interface morphologies occur at intermediate coupling, where drag dissipation peaks and large-scale coalescence is reorganized rather than simply suppressed.

What carries the argument

Morphology-based synchronization at fixed normalized mixing height h/λ (or Δh/Lx), combined with a minimal two-fluid slip model that yields an analytic mixing-height law containing both quadratic and transient linear terms, and global energy pathways that partition gravitational injection between ion–neutral drag dissipation and magnetic work.

Load-bearing premise

Gravity is applied only to the charged fluid; neutrals feel gravity solely through collisions. If both species felt gravity directly, the slip velocity, the peak in drag dissipation, and the non-monotonic morphology ordering could change.

What would settle it

Repeat the multi-wavelength magnetized suite with gravity applied to both fluids (or with a controlled gravity ratio gn/gc) and check whether the intermediate-coupling regime still produces the smoothest interface and the maximum drag-to-gravitational energy conversion at fixed Δh/Lx.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Classical quadratic mixing-layer scalings cannot be used as-is in partially ionized media; growth laws become coupling- and time-dependent.
  • Intermediate ion–neutral coupling is the regime of strongest morphological departure from both pure hydrodynamics and ideal MHD.
  • Magnetic tension still suppresses small-scale corrugations, but ambipolar drift weakens that constraint by allowing partial decoupling, producing non-monotonic smoothness with coupling strength.
  • Energy diagnostics that track gravitational injection versus drag dissipation provide a clearer physical ranking of regimes than density power spectra alone.
  • Any model of mixing or structure formation in the cold neutral medium or similar environments must treat ambipolar diffusion as a dynamical participant, not a passive rescaling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same intermediate-coupling sweet spot that maximizes drag dissipation may also set the scale at which observed magnetic-field-aligned anisotropy appears in cold neutral gas.
  • Three-dimensional mixed and interchange modes could either erase or amplify the non-monotonic morphology reported here, making controlled 3D two-fluid runs the natural next test.
  • If cooling or cosmic-ray pressure is added, the energy-partition diagnostics developed here would immediately show whether the intermediate-coupling peak survives or shifts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the Rayleigh–Taylor instability in a two-fluid (ion–neutral) plasma with an oblique magnetic field, focusing on how ambipolar diffusion modifies linear growth and, especially, nonlinear mixing-layer evolution. Using high-resolution 2D MPI-AMRVAC simulations across uncoupled to strongly coupled regimes, the authors revise the linear dispersion of Paper I to allow density-dependent collision frequencies across the interface, validate growth rates with multi-wavelength collapse of a finger–bubble height diagnostic, and then compare nonlinear stages at fixed normalized mixing thickness. They report that ambipolar coupling induces sub-quadratic, time-dependent growth of the mixing layer; in multi-mode hydrodynamics intermediate coupling enhances fragmentation, while magnetized runs show non-monotonic interface reorganization with the smoothest morphologies at intermediate coupling, correlated with a peak in ion–neutral drag dissipation relative to magnetic stresses.

Significance. If the nonlinear results hold under the stated idealizations, the paper provides a controlled, mechanism-level bridge between bi-fluid linear RT theory and nonlinear mixing morphology that is still scarce in the partially ionized literature. Strengths include a physically consistent revision of the interface matching (Appendix A), clean multi-wavelength linear validation (Fig. 2), a morphology-based synchronization that enables fair cross-regime comparison, and complementary spectral, force-map, and energy-pathway diagnostics. The non-monotonic intermediate-coupling behaviour in MHD is a concrete, falsifiable prediction for how ambipolar diffusion can reorganize buoyancy-driven interfaces without simply rescaling classical αAg t² growth. The work is relevant to molecular ISM and related stratified, weakly ionized media, provided the idealizations (especially one-sided gravity and 2D geometry) are kept in view.

major comments (3)
  1. Sect. 2.1, Eqs. (4)–(7) and the local model Eqs. (20)–(25): gravitational acceleration is applied only to the charged fluid (gn = 0), so neutrals are accelerated solely by drag. This choice is load-bearing for the claimed intermediate-coupling (IC) drag peak and the non-monotonic morphology ordering. Buoyancy power is injected exclusively into charges (Pg ∝ ρc vc,z g; Fig. 10), so maximal slip and Dkin at IC is partly built into the forcing. In real stratified media both species feel gravity; relative acceleration then depends on density contrast and ionization fraction. The manuscript never tests or systematically bounds the symmetric-gravity case. Either a comparison run with gn = gc (or a reduced model of that limit) or a clear, quantitative discussion of how the IC drag peak and smoothest-MHD-morphology claim would change is needed before the strongest abstract/conclusion statements
  2. Sect. 4.3 and Figs. 7–8: the central multi-mode MHD claim is a non-monotonic reorganization with smoothest interfaces at intermediate coupling. The evidence is primarily visual (Fig. 7). The corresponding charge-density spectra (Fig. 8) show essentially no coupling dependence in slope or power distribution at fixed Δh/Lx ≃ 0.35, in contrast to the clear high-kx enhancement at IC in the hydrodynamic suite (Fig. 6). Without a quantitative morphology metric (e.g., interface perimeter/length, curvature statistics, or bubble/finger aspect-ratio distributions) the non-monotonic MHD claim rests on subjective snapshot comparison and is only weakly supported by the spectral diagnostics the paper itself presents. A reproducible morphological diagnostic at the same fixed nonlinear stage would substantially strengthen (or qualify) this result.
  3. Sect. 4.3 and Fig. 10: the energy-pathway analysis is performed in an open vertical domain whose boundaries act as reservoirs; the authors note that the global energy budget is not closed. The IC maximum of cumulative drag dissipation and minimum of retained gravitational energy are therefore comparative diagnostics, not closed conversion efficiencies. The text sometimes reads as if these establish a robust physical ranking of coupling regimes. The conclusions should state more carefully what is and is not constrained by open-boundary cumulative integrals, and avoid implying a unique energy-partition ranking that would necessarily survive in a closed or control-volume formulation.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 3 header and caption say “four” coupling regimes but list five (NC, LC, IC, HC, HC-Lim). Align the count with the table contents.
  2. Fig. 8 legend appears to label two curves as LC (NC, LC, IC, LC). Correct the HC label if that is intended.
  3. Conclusions state that the ratio of mixing heights between coupled and uncoupled runs “asymptotically approaches a value significantly below unity, of order ∼0.7.” This quantitative claim is not clearly shown or tabulated in Sect. 4 for the multi-mode runs; either add the supporting figure/measurement or soften the wording.
  4. Sect. 2.4 and Table 1: absolute values of Lx and gc are rescaled for numerical convenience; a short explicit statement of the dimensionless groups that are held fixed (and which free parameters map to astrophysical CNM conditions) would help readers assess “astrophysically relevant” claims in the abstract.
  5. Occasional wording issues (e.g., “the non linear phase,” missing hyphens, “thenonlinear” in the abstract) should be cleaned in copy-editing.
  6. Fig. 1 and coupling labels: define ωth consistently when νnc/ωth is used to name regimes, since ωth itself depends on coupling; a one-sentence clarification would avoid circular reading of Table 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No meaningful circularity: nonlinear morphology and energy claims are measured simulation outputs; Paper I is only upstream linear theory, revised and re-validated here.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sect. 2.1; Introduction (Paper I); Appendix A]
    "Building on the linear analysis of Paper I, we extend the study beyond the exponential stage... The linear theory developed in Paper I relied on the simplifying assumption that the ion–neutral and neutral–ion collision frequencies were identical on both sides of the density interface... we relax this assumption... The analytical framework of Paper I therefore remains fully applicable, provided that the coupling strength is interpreted in terms of an effective collision frequency."

    The linear dispersion framework and the asymmetric gravity setup (g_c only) are imported from the authors' own Paper I. This is sequential self-citation of upstream theory, not a closed loop: Appendix A re-derives matching conditions for ξ=d, and Sect. 3 independently validates growth rates against the simulations. The central nonlinear claims (non-monotonic morphology, IC drag peak) do not reduce to Paper I by construction; they are new measured outputs. Flagged only as minor self-citation, not load-bearing circularity.

full rationale

This is a controlled two-fluid simulation study. Linear growth rates are taken from a prior dispersion analysis (Paper I), revised in Appendix A for density-dependent collision frequencies, and then independently recovered in the simulations (multi-wavelength collapse of h/h0 vs ω_th t in both NC and IC). That is ordinary sequential validation, not a closed loop. Coupling labels (NC/LC/IC/HC) are fixed a priori from α and ν_nc/ω_th (Table 3), not reverse-engineered from the morphology result. The classical quadratic law h≈α A g t² is used only as a reference; the paper then measures departures (curvature, sub-quadratic growth) and interprets them with a minimal local two-fluid model (Eqs. 20–25) whose purpose is explicitly qualitative, not a fitted prediction. Multi-wavelength morphology, Welch spectra, force maps, and cumulative E_g / E_D budgets at fixed Δh/L_x are direct diagnostics of the runs. The asymmetric gravity choice (g_n=0) is a load-bearing modeling assumption for physics fidelity, not a circular derivation step: it is stated as an idealization consistent with Paper I, not derived from the nonlinear conclusions. No uniqueness theorem, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and no self-definitional identity between input and claimed result. Score 1 only for the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of Paper I as the linear starting point.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central nonlinear claim rests on standard two-fluid MHD with collisional drag, plus several deliberate idealizations that isolate ambipolar effects: gravity only on charges, sharp interface, fixed α, no ionization/recombination, 2D domain, and parameter choices that place magnetic cutoff and coupling timescales inside the box. No new particles or forces are invented; coupling-regime names are labels for α ranges. Free parameters are control knobs of the numerical experiment, not fits to observational data.

free parameters (6)
  • collision coefficient α (coupling regimes NC/LC/IC/HC/HC-Lim)
    Varied by hand over orders of magnitude (0 to 7.5e22 cm3 g−1 s−1) to define regimes via νnc/ωth; not fitted to data but chosen to sample uncoupled through ambipolar-dominated to locked limits.
  • plasma beta β
    Default β=3e2 sets magnetic tension strength relative to thermal pressure; chosen so magnetic effects matter without fully suppressing RTI.
  • gravitational acceleration gc
    Treated as free control so magnetic cutoff Lcut ≃ Lx/20, maximizing competition between buoyancy, tension, and coupling on resolved scales; absolute value not meant to match a specific CNM object.
  • magnetic inclination θ
    Default θ=10° in the xOz plane; controls oblique-field stabilization and is fixed rather than surveyed exhaustively in the nonlinear multi-mode section.
  • Atwood number A and density ratio nc/nn
    A=3/5 and nc/nn=1e−4 fix stratification and weak ionization; representative but hand-chosen for the survey.
  • initial perturbation amplitude ε≃1/3 and multi-mode coefficients ci, ϕi
    Dimensionless seed h0=ελ and random but reproducible mode content control nonlinear path; morphology comparisons depend on this controlled spectrum.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Two-fluid continuity, momentum, energy, and ideal induction equations with collisional Rn, Mn exchange; ionization/recombination, Ohmic resistivity, Hall effect neglected.
    Sect. 2.1 governing equations; standard multi-fluid idealization for ambipolar-dominated partially ionized plasmas.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitational acceleration acts only on the charged component (gc=−gẑ, gn=0).
    Explicitly chosen to match Paper I and isolate ion–neutral momentum exchange; not the usual both-fluids-feel-g setup.
  • domain assumption Sharp density interface with hydrostatic charged pressure and uniform neutral pressure; identical Atwood numbers for both fluids.
    Sect. 2.2; classical RT contact discontinuity idealization, contrasting smooth prominence interfaces in cited work.
  • domain assumption Incompressible linear dispersion of Paper I (with ξ=d collision-frequency asymmetry) is an adequate reference for ordering growth rates when gL/cs²≪1.
    Sect. 3.1 and Appendix A; used to normalize time and validate linear stage.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional dynamics suffice to isolate ambipolar effects on growth laws, force balance, and energy redistribution relative to ideal MHD.
    Stated motivation in Introduction; paper acknowledges 3D differences from Kalluri & Hillier (2025).
  • ad hoc to paper Morphology-based comparison at fixed normalized mixing thickness Δh/Lx (or h/λ) equates nonlinear stages across different linear growth rates.
    Core diagnostic strategy of Sect. 4; enables cross-regime comparison but is a methodological choice, not a theorem.
invented entities (1)
  • Named coupling regimes NC/LC/IC/HC/HC-Lim independent evidence
    purpose: Classify ion–neutral coupling strength via νnc/ρc (or νnc/ωth) for systematic survey language.
    Labels for ranges of α, not new physical objects; independent evidence is the continuous two-fluid equations themselves.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27142 in / 4095 out tokens · 39751 ms · 2026-07-14T23:30:53.654559+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rayleigh Taylor instability in partially ionized plasmas: ambipolar diffusion effects in the non linear phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJUKTKAW

@misc{pith2026260310566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rayleigh Taylor instability in partially ionized plasmas: ambipolar diffusion effects in the non linear phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJUKTKAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.10566}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Aims. We aim to determine how ion neutral coupling and ambipolar diffusion affect the linear and the nonlinear growth of the RTinstability under astrophysically relevant conditions, and to identify the coupling regimes in which departures from the classical single fluid picture become significant. Methods. We perform high resolution two fluid numerical simulations using the MPI AMRVAC code, spanning a wide range of perturbation wavelengths, coupling strengths, from uncoupled to strongly coupled passing by intermediate or ambipolar diffusion dominated regimes, and magnetic field configurations. The linear theory is revisited using a physically consistent formulation with different ion neutral coupling strengths across the interface and validated against the simulations. We investigate the physics of the instability using morphology based diagnostics of the mixing layer to compare simulations at equivalent nonlinear stages, complemented by spectral, force, and energy budgets analyses. Results. In the linear regime, theoretical growth rates are recovered over a wide range of wavelengths, from the single fluid limit to intermediate bi fluid coupling. In the nonlinear regime, ambipolar diffusion modifies the classical quadratic growth and introduces a coupling dependent evolution. For multi wavelength perturbations, the nonlinear dynamics becomes strongly scale dependent: intermediate coupling enhances fragmentation in hydrodynamic configurations, while magnetised cases exhibit a non monotonic reorganisation of the interface, with the smoothest morphologies occurring at intermediate coupling. Spectral and energetic diagnostics indicate that these behaviours correlate with changes in the relative contributions of ion neutral drift and magnetic stresses during thenonlinear evolution

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10566 by A. Marcowith, E. Callies, V. Guillet, Z. Meliani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Theoretical linear growth rate as a function of the hori [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quadratic scaling of the mixing height in the single–fluid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized finger–bubble height h/h0 plotted as a func￾tion of the reduced time t¯ = ωtht for three injected wavelengths. curves correspond to the numerical results, while the solid green line show the corresponding theoretical linear growth rates. Top panel: no–coupling (NC) case. Bottom panel: bi–fluid simula￾tion in the intermediate–coupling (IC) regime. rates, mode ordering, and magnetic stabilization … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quadratic scaling of the mixing height for No , Low, In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Snapshots of the charge density ρc in hydrodynamic simulations with multi–wavelength initial perturbations, extracted at an equivalent nonlinear stage defined by a fixed normalized mixing layer thickness, ∆h/Lx ≃ 0.35. From left to right: increasing coupling strength (α = 0, weak, intermediate, and strong coupling). All snapshots are shown using the same spatial window and color scale. (the density of the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One–dimensional power spectrum of the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshots of the charge density ρc in MHD simulations with multi–wavelength initial perturbations, extracted at an equivalent nonlinear stage defined by a fixed normalized mixing layer thickness, ∆h/Lx ≃ 0.35. From left to right, the panels correspond to increasing coupling strength: α = 0, weak coupling, intermediate coupling, and strong coupling. All snapshots are shown using the same spatial window and … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: One–dimensional power spectrum of the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial organization of force densities in the magnetized multi–wavelength simulations at a fixed nonlinear stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Global energy pathways as functions of the normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

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

31 extracted references

  1. [1]

    & Lea, S

    Arons, J. & Lea, S. M. 1976, Astrophysical Journal, 207, 914

    1976

  2. [2]

    M., Ruuth, S

    Ascher, U. M., Ruuth, S. J., & Spiteri, R. J. 1997, Applied Numerical Mathemat- ics, 25, 151, special Issue on Time Integration

    1997

  3. [3]

    Braileanu, B. P. & Keppens, R. 2022, A&A, 664, A55

    2022

  4. [4]

    2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 423, 253

    Bucciantini, N., Amato, E., & Del Zanna, L. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 423, 253

    2004

  5. [5]

    2025, A&A, 698, A147

    Callies, E., Guillet, V ., Marcowith, A., Meliani, Z., & Lesaffre, P. 2025, A&A, 698, A147

    2025

  6. [6]

    & Hillier, A

    Carlyle, J. & Hillier, A. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 605, A21

    2017

  7. [7]

    1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford University Press)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1961, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford University Press)

    1961

  8. [8]

    M., Durrive, J

    Changmai, M., Jenkins, J. M., Durrive, J. B., & Keppens, R. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A152

    2023

  9. [9]

    & Woodward, P

    Colella, P. & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174

    1984

  10. [10]

    W., Cabot, W

    Cook, A. W., Cabot, W. H., & Miller, P. L. 2004, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 511, 333 Díaz, A. J., Khomenko, E., & Collados, M. 2014, A&A, 564, A97 Díaz, A. J., Soler, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 754, 41

    2004

  11. [11]

    2004, Physics of Fluids, 16, 1668

    Dimonte, G., Youngs, D., Dimits, A., et al. 2004, Physics of Fluids, 16, 1668

    2004

  12. [12]

    & von Neumann, J

    Fermi, E. & von Neumann, J. 1953, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report

    1953

  13. [13]

    Hester, J. J. et al. 1996, Astrophysical Journal, 456, 225

    1996

  14. [14]

    2016, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews

    Hillier, A. 2016, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews

    2016

  15. [15]

    2005, Nature, 434, 478

    Isobe, H., Miyagoshi, T., Shibata, K., & Yokoyama, T. 2005, Nature, 434, 478

    2005

  16. [16]

    & Norman, M

    Jun, B.-I. & Norman, M. L. 1996, Astrophysical Journal, 465, 800

    1996

  17. [17]

    L., & Stone, J

    Jun, B.-I., Norman, M. L., & Stone, J. M. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 453, 332

    1995

  18. [18]

    Kalluri, M. T. & Hillier, A. 2025, Arxiv 2510.27053

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    2025, A&A, 697, A29

    Khomenko, E., Vitas, N., Collados, M., & Modestov, M. 2025, A&A, 697, A29

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Kusano, K

    Miyoshi, T. & Kusano, K. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 208, 315 Popescu Braileanu, B., Lukin, V . S., & Khomenko, E. 2023, A&A, 670, A31 Popescu Braileanu, B., Lukin, V . S., Khomenko, E., & de Vicente, Á. 2021a, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 646, A93 Popescu Braileanu, B., Lukin, V . S., Khomenko, E., & de Vicente, Á. 2021b, Astronomy and Astroph...

    2005

  21. [21]

    Ristorcelli, J. R. & Clark, T. T. 2004, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 507, 213

    2004

  22. [22]

    J., Ricker, P

    Robinson, K., Dursi, L. J., Ricker, P. M., et al. 2004, Astrophysical Journal, 601, 621

    2004

  23. [23]

    A., Brüggen, M., & Heinz, S

    Ruszkowski, M., Enßlin, T. A., Brüggen, M., & Heinz, S. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 662

    2007

  24. [24]

    Ruuth, S. J. & Spiteri, R. J. 2002, Journal of Scientific Computing, 17, 211

    2002

  25. [25]

    Sharp, D. H. 1984, Physics Reports, 101, 221

    1984

  26. [26]

    & Ballester, J

    Soler, R. & Ballester, J. L. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 789083

    2022

  27. [27]

    Taylor, G. I. 1950, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 201, 192

    1950

  28. [28]

    2020, A&A, 634, A96

    Vickers, E., Ballai, I., & Erdélyi, R. 2020, A&A, 634, A96

    2020

  29. [29]

    2026, JWST imaging of the Pleiades: anisotropy of turbulence in the cold neutral medium

    Vigoureux, G., Flagey, N., Boulanger, F., et al. 2026, JWST imaging of the Pleiades: anisotropy of turbulence in the cold neutral medium

    2026

  30. [30]

    & Nepveu, M

    Wang, Y .-M. & Nepveu, M. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 118, 267

    1983

  31. [31]

    i kx tanθ ! − Ω sinθc Acϕc1 # (A.11) m2+ =− i kx tanθ ! + Ω sinθ √ dcAcϕc2  (A.12) α1c ≡k x

    Welch, P. 1967, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 15, 70 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa59496-26 Appendix A: Discussion on Paper I In Paper I, the analytical dispersion relation was derived under the simplifying assumption that the ion–neutral and neutral–ion collision frequencies were identical on both sides of t...

    1967