Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Ultrashort pulsed laser atmospheric filament properties and microwave radiation inferred from S-band guided wave interaction and self-emission

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The axial current left in a femtosecond-laser air filament decays at a rate near 10^10 s^-1, about two orders of magnitude slower than the electron collision frequency would suggest.

desk verdict Solid, valuable experimental dataset, but the headline 'much lower upper bound on ν' is a model-dependent estimate whose status as a true upper bound is not established; referee it, with the bound flagged for revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10852 v3 pith:QNRIGSNI submitted 2026-07-12 physics.plasm-ph

Edward. L. Ruden , James. E. Wymer , Jennifer. A. Elle , Alex C. Englesbe , Andrian P. Lucero , Erin A. Thornton , Andreas Schmitt-Sody This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords ultrashortpulsedlaserfilamentationmicrowaveemissionplasmaconductivitycurrentdecayratewakeS-bandwaveguideTE10mode
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 tries to establish that the axial current left behind by an ultrashort pulsed laser filament in air decays far more slowly than the electron collision rate implies. The authors measure the filament's conductivity from S-band waveguide attenuation, combine it with radius from imaging, and invert it using models of ionization rate and electron temperature to infer local laser intensity, densities, and temperature. They then compare the filament's self-emitted microwave signal to a far-field model driven by the measured axial variation of the current time integral Q(z). The comparison puts an upper bound on the current decay rate ν near 10^10 s^-1, roughly 100 times lower than the effective collision frequency at near-atmospheric pressure. If correct, the wake current that emits microwaves lasts about 0.1 ns rather than the few picoseconds of collisional dissipation.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-step inference chain: (1) TE10-mode attenuation in an S-band waveguide, calibrated against the filament radius from fast visible-light imaging, gives the local electrical conductivity σ(z); (2) σ is inverted, together with ionization-rate W_i(I) and temperature T(I0) models, to obtain peak intensity, electron densities, temperature, and the current time integral Q(z), which is also independently measured from the filament's self-emission signal; (3) the far-field microwave pattern is computed from a retarded-potential integral over the moving axial current distribution Q(z) convolved with an exponential decay at rate ν. The key identity is that the radiated

What would settle it

A direct, temporally resolved measurement of the filament's axial current after the 50 fs pulse, with sub-100 ps resolution, would settle whether the decay rate is near 10^10 s^-1 rather than the collisional ~10^13 s^-1. Alternatively, an independent measurement of electron temperature or ionization yield at I0 ~ 10^14 W/cm^2 would check the inversion that fixes the kinetic-energy cap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the theoretically predicted far-field microwave radiation pattern, computed from the measured axial profile Q(z) of the filament's current time integral and an exponential current decay, matches published measurements only when the decay rate ν is close to 10^10 s^-1. This is much lower than the effective electron collision frequency (which exceeds 10^12 s^-1 at the higher pressures studied), so the paper infers that the current sustaining microwave emission is long-lived, with a decay time near 0.1 ns. The authors present this as evidence that the measured Q(z) is the appropriate source term for 3-D simulations and that a non-steady-state mechanism keeps the curre

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ionization-rate, electron-temperature, and mean-momentum versus intensity curves used in the inversion are accurate; the paper itself concedes these models have their own degrees of uncertainty, and a bias in them would shift all inferred intensities, densities, and the kinetic-energy cap that sets the ν bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ν is truly this low, the filament's wake current persists for roughly 0.1 ns, so simulations of laser-filament microwave emission must include a long-lived current source rather than a collisional ps-scale decay.
  • The measured Q(z) profile can serve directly as input to 3-D time-domain simulations, providing a benchmark for testing non-steady-state current-persistence mechanisms.
  • The inferred peak laser intensity, temperature, and electron densities along the filament become predictions that independent diagnostics could verify.
  • The strong dependence of the far-field pattern on ν means that multi-angle, frequency-resolved microwave measurements can tighten the bound on the decay rate beyond the values in Table 2.
  • The technique works over a broad pressure range, so the pressure dependence of the inferred ν can be compared with proposed space-charge or wake-field mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is direct time-resolved measurement of the filament current after the pulse; a picosecond-resolution probe of the axial current would settle whether the decay is truly two orders of magnitude slower than collisional.
  • The far-field model uses a hard angular cutoff θ_min where the principal frequency equals the collision frequency; replacing that cutoff with a physically motivated high-frequency cutoff might shift the inferred ν by a factor of a few, an effect the paper does not quantify.
  • The same waveguide technique, applied to other gases or at different laser intensities, could independently calibrate the ionization and temperature models that this paper adopts from the companion modeling work, reducing the dominant systematic uncertainty.
  • The comparison uses published data taken at 40 mJ pulse energy while the present measurements are at 30 mJ; checking the implied linear scaling of radiated field with laser energy in the same setup would be a simple falsification test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports measurements of the plasma filament formed by a 30-mJ, 50-fs Ti:sapphire pulse in air at pressures from 1.1 to 630 Torr. The filament is passed through an S-band waveguide; the attenuation of a 3.2 GHz TE10 mode, combined with visible-light imaging of the filament radius, is used to infer the peak electrical conductivity σ(0) via a COMSOL calibration table. Using ionization-rate and electron-temperature/momentum models, the authors invert σ to obtain peak intensity I0, temperature T, and electron densities, and compare two estimates of the current time integral Q: one from filament self-emission in the waveguide (calibrated by time-domain simulation) and one from a steady-state Ohmic-decay model. They compute far-field microwave radiation from the measured axial variation Q(z) and compare it to published Englesbe measurements, finding a "much lower upper bound" on the current decay rate νmax than the effective collision frequency. The paper's stated purpose is to provide benchmark data for 3D simulations of filament wake currents and microwave emission.

Significance. If the central inference survives scrutiny, this paper is a significant experimental contribution: it provides an independent, directly calibrated Q(z) measurement and a validated S-band attenuation calibration table (Table A1), and it offers a falsifiable far-field signature that can be used as a source term for 3D simulations. The conclusion that the microwave-emitting current persists for ~0.1 ns rather than the collisional picosecond timescale would be an important constraint on filament wake physics. The paper is careful to document the diagnostics, to use 50-shot averaging, and to correct for self-emission and random phase. However, the headline low-νmax result rests on a regularization of a divergent radiation integral and on self-cited model curves, so the strength of the claim currently exceeds what the evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VII, Eq. (35) and following text] The νmax upper bound is not robust. The text notes that KR→∞ as θmin→0 and sets θmin by f1(θmin)=νc,eff. For small θ, Eθ from Eq. (31) scales as θ/(1−cosθ)^3 ~ 8/θ^5, so the radiated-energy integrand ~ θ^-9 and KR ~ θmin^-8; a small change in νc,eff or in the "unphysical" threshold therefore changes νmax by a large factor. In addition, the 32-mode series in Eq. (33) contains harmonics jf1 that exceed νc,eff for θ just above θmin, and the instantaneous current rise is only partially regularized by the cutoff. Because these effects inflate KR, equating KR=K0 does not give a guaranteed upper bound on ν. A finite-rise-time calculation or an explicit convergence test in θmin is needed before the "much lower upper bound" claim in the abstract can be accepted.
  2. [§IV and §VI, Eqs. (11)-(13), (16), (23)-(24)] The inversion from σ to I0,T,n_i and the kinetic energy K0 is entirely mediated by W_i(I) from ref. 16 and T(I0), ⟨p_z⟩(I0) from ref. 17, both first-authored by the present first author and not independently benchmarked here. The paper itself concedes in §VIII that these models "have their own degrees of uncertainty." Because νmax is obtained by equating KR(ν; θmin) with K0, a bias in K0 shifts νmax directly; and because θmin depends on νc,eff(T) via Eq. (12), T uncertainty is amplified by the cutoff sensitivity of Major Comment 1. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over plausible variations in W_i, T, and ⟨p_z⟩, or benchmark the curves against independent ionization/temperature data.
  3. [§III/§IV/§VI, Figs. 8/11/14 and Table 2] The analysis assumes a single dominant filament, while Figs. 8 and 11 show surges attributed to "excessive violation of the single-filament approximation." The reference points z1 used for Table 2 are selected as locations where the two Q estimates agree. Selecting the comparison points after the fact can bias the agreement and the inferred ν; a pre-specified selection rule or an explicit robustness check excluding the z1 choice is needed.
  4. [§V and Appx. A4] The absolute scale of the direct Q measurement rests on a single time-domain simulation in which the current is represented by a 5 ps Gaussian with radius 25.1 µm — much smaller than the measured R — and in which conductivity is switched on at t=1 ns. The resulting Q50=0.93 pC is used to scale all Q(z) via Eq. (15); this is a central benchmark. Please validate the self-emission calibration against an independent known-current source or show explicitly why the reduced radius and switched-on conductivity do not bias Q.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Various] Fig. 5 caption: "correponding" should be "corresponding"; Eq. (25): "suggested buy" should be "suggested by"; and "Englebe" appears inconsistently (Englesbe in the reference list).
  2. [Appx. A4 vs. rest of paper] Notation collision: I0(t) in Appx. A4 denotes the current waveform while I0 elsewhere denotes peak laser intensity; please rename the current waveform, e.g., I_c(t).
  3. [§V] Sign convention for Q: the simulated current is "negative going" with Qsim = -1 pC, Eq. (15) defines Q from Q50 = 0.93 pC, yet Fig. 13 plots -Q. Make the sign convention explicit in one place.
  4. [Table 1] The row labels "Eng." and "[13]" are explained only in the caption; consider adding a sentence in the text defining the frequency-dependent calibration correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured A/R/Q chain provides independent constraints, and the self-cited model inputs, while uncertain, are not defined in terms of the target decay rate.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense prohibited here. The primary measured inputs are independent of the target quantity ν: the TE10 attenuation parameter A and radius R are used with a COMSOL calibration table to determine the conductivity σ; the visible-light radius follows from imaging; and the charge integral Q is obtained from a separately calibrated self-emission signal (Eq. 15). These are data, not outputs of the model being tested. The model chain Wi(I), T(I0), and ⟨pz⟩ vs. I0 from refs. 16 and 17 is used to convert σ into I0, T, and densities and later to form K0. Although both refs. 16 and 17 are first-authored by the present first author, they are not constructed from the measured A, R, or Q data, nor from the far-field comparison target; they rest on separate TOF ion-count data and kinetic modeling. Thus they are independent inputs, not a self-referential reduction. The central equation K_R(νmax;θmin)=K0 is an energy-balance equation solved for νmax, not a tautology: K0 is fixed before solving, and Q(z) enters through the radiation integral, so the far-field angular pattern computed at νmax is not equivalent to an input by construction. The comparison to Englesbe's published data tests the angular and temporal shape implied by the measured Q(z); only the overall energy scale is fixed by the balance equation. The θmin cutoff regularizes a divergent integral and is admittedly 'crude' (Sec. VIII), and the paper explicitly concedes that 'The models for Wi(I), T(I0) and ⟨pz⟩ vs. I0 needed to calculate K0 have their own degrees of uncertainty.' Those are model-sensitivity and calibration concerns, not definitional circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a long chain: measured A and R, COMSOL calibration (validated with wires), self-cited ionization/temperature models, steady-state decay-mode analysis, energy-balance regularization, and far-field convolution. The largest unpaid inputs are the self-cited W_i, T, and ⟨p_z⟩ models, the single-filament assumption, the Gaussian profile mapping, and the θ_min regularization. No new physical entities are introduced; νmax, θ_min, and z1 are numerically set rather than derived from independent first principles.

free parameters (4)
  • νmax (upper-bound current decay rate) = 1.11 Torr: 1.105e10 s^-1; 10.4 Torr: 1.341e10 s^-1; 100 Torr: 6.63e9 s^-1; 630 Torr: 1.663e10 s^-1 (Table 2)
    Computed by requiring radiated energy K_R to equal the model K0 (after Eq. 35). It is the value behind the headline 'much lower upper bound' and the far-field comparison; it is not independently measured.
  • θ_min (radiation cutoff angle) = 19.5°, 6.8°, 2.05°, 0.99° at 1.11, 10.4, 100, 630 Torr (Table 2)
    Introduced because K_R diverges as θ_min → 0 (Sec. VII); set by f1 = νc,eff, and it directly controls K_R and νmax. The paper calls the cutoff 'crude' (Sec. VIII).
  • z1 reference axial positions = 323, 310, 313, 309 cm for 1.11, 10.4, 100, 630 Torr (Table 2)
    Defined as the z locations where the direct self-emission Q equals the model-based If/ν1; every Table 2 quantity and the constant ν values used in Eq. 35 are evaluated here, making the selection post hoc.
  • Q50 calibration scale = Q50 = 0.93 pC at 50 Torr, z = 307 cm
    Obtained by matching the peak-to-peak amplitude of the measured self-emission voltage to a simulation with a -1 pC Gaussian current (Fig. 12). All Q(z) values and therefore νmax inherit this calibration.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations, Lorentz/Ampere force, and the wave equation in vacuum/waveguide
    Used throughout for calibration, decay modes (Eq. 19), and far-field potentials (Eqs. 27-31).
  • domain assumption Generalized Ohm's law (Eq. 17) from Kimura & Morrison (ref 33), with Hall and pressure-gradient terms neglected
    Eq. 17 is the starting point for the decay-rate derivation; dropping the third term removes transverse charge/current components from the model.
  • domain assumption Drude-type conductivity model Eq. 12 with collision frequencies from Kawaguchi/LISBON cross sections and Spitzer-Härm/Viegas Coulomb corrections
    The real part of σ at 3.2 GHz is computed with this chain; the b_max/b_min cutoffs are approximate.
  • domain assumption W_i(I) ionization rates from ref 16 (Ruden 2025, arXiv:2508.07500)
    Used in Eqs. 11 to get n_i(I0); self-cited and based on TOF inversion, with no independent validation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper T(I0) and ⟨p_z⟩(I0) from ref 17 (Ruden 2025, arXiv:2509.10986), with N2 contribution argued small
    Used for the Fig. 10/11 inversion and for K0 via Eq. 16; N2 is argued to differ by only tens of percent, not demonstrated here.
  • ad hoc to paper Single dominant filament at each measured z; multi-filament images are analyzed as one Gaussian
    Acknowledged in Sec. I ('only accurate at z locations with one dominant filament'); violated at many z and visible as surges in Fig. 8.
  • ad hoc to paper Radial profiles of luminosity, current density, and conductivity are all Gaussian with common width s; luminosity ∝ J(r)
    Used to convert camera images to R and σ(0) (Eqs. 4, 5, 8, 9); the proportionality is stated as an assumption in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Steady-state filament z'=z-ct and purely exponential, non-oscillatory current decay for ν1 and ν0
    Sec. VI assumes a rigid steady state and neglects oscillatory Sommerfeld modes; the resulting ν1, ν0 are later called unphysical because K_R >> K0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrashort pulsed laser atmospheric filament properties and microwave radiation inferred from S-band guided wave interaction and self-emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNRIGSNI

@misc{pith2026260710852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrashort pulsed laser atmospheric filament properties and microwave radiation inferred from S-band guided wave interaction and self-emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNRIGSNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10852}
}
abstract

The electrical conductivity $\sigma$ of the plasma filament left behind by an ultrashort pulsed laser (USPL) optical pulse after it is geometrically then self-focused in air via the Kerr effect is measured by attenuation of a 3.2 GHz TE$_{10}$ mode within an S-band waveguide through which the filament passes, taking into account the characteristic radius $R$ of the filament, as determined by fast camera visible light imaging. Models of the major air constituents' ionization rate $W_{i}$ vs. local laser intensity $I$, and of temperature $T$ and mean axial electron momentum $\left\langle p_{{z}}\right\rangle $ vs. peak laser intensity $I_{0}$ are then used to infer a hypothetical steady state filament's $I_{0}$, $T$, major species particle densities, and assumed axially invariant current time integral $Q$ and current decay rate $\nu$ after pulse passage. $Q$ is independently measured via the filament's self-emission signal in the waveguide for comparison. The theoretical far field microwave radiation pattern due to the actual axial variation in $Q=Q\left( z\right)$ is compared favorably to published measurements. A much lower upper bound on $\nu$ is inferred once such radiation is taken into account. Results are presented along a $30$ cm long filament at a broad range of atmospheric pressures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10852 by the authors.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Contour plots of composites of the image line-outs from at all z locations and all pressures p studied. The solid line tracks the peak intensity vs. z, with the dashed line above and below tracking the point at which intensity falls by a factor of exp(−1/2) on either side (one standard deviation s of a Gaussian profile) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A number of self-emission simulations with various I0 (t) waveforms, filament radii, and trailing conductivities were performed to calibrate the signal. Details are provided in Appx. A4. The best match, also shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. The contour plots of Fig. 6 provide a degree of cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sprangle and B

    P. Sprangle and B. Hafizi, Phys.\ Plasmas 21 , 055402 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Englesbe, J

    A. Englesbe, J. Elle, R. Reid, A. Lucero, H. Pohle, M. Domonkos, S. Kalmykov, K. Krushelnick, and A. Schmitt-Sody, Optics Letters 43 , 4953 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Englesbe, J

    A. Englesbe, J. Elle, R. Schwartz, T. Garrett, D. Woodbury, D. Jang, K. Kim, H. Milchberg, R. Reid, A. Lucero, D. Gordon, R. Phillips, S. Kalmykov, and A. Schmitt-Sody, Phys.\ Rev.\ A 104 , 013107 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Janicek, E

    A. Janicek, E. Thornton, T. Garrett, A. Englesbe, J. Elle, and A. Schmitt-Sody, IEEE Trans.\ on Plasma Sci. 48 , 1979 (2020)

    1979

  5. [5]

    Thornton, T

    E. Thornton, T. Garrett, and J. Elle, Phys.\ Plasmas 31 , 050702 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Sprangle, J

    P. Sprangle, J. R. Pe\ n ano, B. Hafizi, and C. A. Kapetanakos, Phys.\ Rev.\ E 69 , 066415 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Garrett, J

    T. Garrett, J. Elle, M. White, R. Reid, A. Englesbe, R. Phillips, P. Mardahl, E. Thornton, J. Wymer, A. Janicek, O. Sale, and A. Schmitt-Sody, Phys.\ Rev.\ E 104 , L063201 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Garrett, A

    T. Garrett, A. Janicek, J. T. Fayard, II, and J. Elle, Phys.\ Rev.\ E 111 , 045206 (2025)

    2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Papeer, C

    J. Papeer, C. Mitchell, J. Penano, Y. Ehrlich, P. Sprangle, and A. Zigler, Appl.\ Phys.\ Lett. 99 , 141503 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Mechain, A

    G. Mechain, A. Couairon, M. Franco, B. Prade, and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 93 , 035003 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    J. A. Bittencourt, Fundamentals of Plasma Physics , 3rd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Kawaguchi, Y

    S. Kawaguchi, Y. Iwabe, K. Takahashi, and K. Satoh, Plasma Sources Sci.\ Technol. 34 , 075002 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Kawaguchi, K

    S. Kawaguchi, K. Takahashi, and K. Satoh, Plasma Sources Sci.\ Technol. 30 , 035010 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Spitzer and R

    L. Spitzer and R. H\" a rm, Phys.\ Rev. 89 , 977 (1953)

    1953

  7. [15]

    J. R. Viegas, J.\ Res.\ Natl.\ Bur.\ Stand., Sec.\ D: Radio Sci. 14 , 541 (1971)

    1971

  8. [16]

    E. L. Ruden, Ionization rate vs.\ laser intensity determined from ion count vs.\ peak intensity due to neutral gas exposure to an 800 nm ultrashort pulsed laser, 2025, arXiv:2508.07500 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E. L. Ruden, Temperature and mean axial momentum vs.\ laser intensity of electrons released from O _2 by an 800 nm ultrashort pulsed laser, 2025, arXiv:2509.10986 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    technical documention

    HP 423B HP 8470B Crystal Detector Operating and Service Manual, 1979, H ewllett- P ackard Co. technical documention

    1979

  11. [19]

    J. D. Huba, NRL Plasma Formulary, Revised (Naval Research Laboratory, NRL/PU/6790-94-265, Washington, DC, 1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Okunishi, R

    M. Okunishi, R. Itaya, K. Shimada, G. Pr\" u mper, K. Ueda, M. Busulad z i\' c , A. Gazibegovi\' c -Busulad z i\' c , D. B. Milo s evi\' c , and W. Becker, J.\ Phys.\ B: At.\ Mol.\ Opt.\ Phys. 41 , 201004 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Yongkai Deng , Yunquan Liu , Xianrong Liu , Hong Liu , Yudong Yang , Chengyin Wu , and Qihuang Gong , Phys.\ Rev.\ A 84 , 065405 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    I. P. Shkarofsky, M. P. Backynski, and T. W. Johnston, Planet.\ Space Sci. 6 , 24 (1961)

    1961

  15. [23]

    Gilardini, Low energy electron collisions in gases: Swarm and Plasma Methods Applied to Their Study (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1972)

    A. Gilardini, Low energy electron collisions in gases: Swarm and Plasma Methods Applied to Their Study (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1972)

    1972

  16. [24]

    A. J. Lieberman, M. A.and Lichtenberg, Principles of Plasma Discharges and Materials Processing , 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    V. M. Adamyan, A. A. Mihajlov, N. M. Sakan, S. V. A., and I. M. Tkachenko, J.\ of Phys.\ A: Math.\ and Theor. 42 , 214005 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    K awaguchi database, retrieved O ctober 13, 2025, from LXcat http:www.lxcat.net

    2025

  19. [27]

    LISBON database, retrieved O ctober 13, 2025, from LXcat http:www.lxcat.net

    2025

  20. [28]

    Y. T. Lee and R. M. More, Phys.\ Fluids 27 , 1273 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Kittel and H

    C. Kittel and H. Kroemer, Thermal Physics , 2'rd ed. (W.\ H.\ Feeman and Company, New York, NY, 1980)

    1980

  22. [30]

    R. J. Goldston and P. H. Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics (IOP Publishing Ltd., Bristol, England, 1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    J. R. Viegas, Technical Report No. NASA TN D-5977, Nat'l.\ Aero.\ Space Admin.\ MAR 1971 (unpublished)

    1971

  24. [32]

    Itikawa, J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn

    Y. Itikawa, J.\ Phys.\ Soc.\ Jpn. 18 , 1499 (1963)

    1963

  25. [33]

    Kimura and P

    K. Kimura and P. J. Morrison, Phys.\ Plasmas 21 , 082101 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1941)

    1941

  27. [35]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products , 8th ed. (Academic Press, New York, NY, 2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    H. A. Wheeler, Proc.\ IRE 412 (1942)

    1942

  29. [37]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics , 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    B. Zhou, A. Houard, Y. Liu, B. Prade, A. Mysyrowicz, A. Couairon, P. Mora, C. Smeenk, L. Arissian, and P. Corkum, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 106 , 255002 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    S. S. Baturin and A. D. Kanareykin, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 113 , 035003 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2010)

    J.-M. Jin, Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.