Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

A Comprehensive Analytical Model of the Dynamic Z-Pinch

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 An analytical model now tracks z-pinch implosions with an axial magnetic field.

desk verdict Careful, transparent extension of the Potter/Angus slug models with the first real experimental comparison, but the uniform-pressure closure is oversold and the validation is more qualitative than the text admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18067 v4 pith:USB5OBUJ submitted 2025-05-23 physics.plasm-ph

Alejandro Mesa Dame , Eric S. Lavine , David A. Hammer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.58.Lq52.30.Cv
keywords Z-pinchgas-puffsnowplowmodelpulsedpoweranalyticalaxialmagneticfieldmagnetohydrodynamicsshockdynamics
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 develops a one-dimensional analytical model whose aim is to predict the radial motion of a gas-puff z-pinch before the experiment is run. It claims to be the first such model to combine a spatially varying initial density, a time-dependent driving current, a finite-thickness sheath, and a weak applied axial magnetic field in one set of coupled ordinary differential equations. The implosion is divided into stages, and each stage is described by a small set of ODEs for the piston and shock radii rather than a full magnetohydrodynamic simulation. If the model is right, it gives experimenters a fast surrogate for MHD codes and reproduces measured piston and shock trajectories across different density profiles, current waveforms, and axial fields.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two implosion radii, the piston $r_p(t)$ and the shock $r_s(t)$, and the three coupled ODE systems that advance them: Eq. (10) for the early separation stage, Eqs. (11) and (12) for the inward stage, and Eq. (14) for the compression stage after the shock reaches the axis. These equations are built from ideal MHD with strong-shock Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions, an assumed uniform post-shock pressure, adiabatic fluid-element evolution, and Alfvén's frozen-flux theorem, with the axial field entering as an extra pressure term in the piston equation. Lagrangian tracking of fluid elements is the mechanism that turns the piston-shock ODEs into full density and axial-field profiles, while the stage decomposition avoids the singular initial condition that prevents the Angus model from starting at $t = 0$.

What would settle it

Collect streak or interferometric images of the on-axis region around the predicted incidence time: the model says no reflected shock forms at the axis, so an outward-moving reflected shock, or a measured sheath pressure that is visibly non-uniform before incidence, would falsify the central ODE system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full dynamics of a dynamic z-pinch, meaning the piston and shock trajectories along with the velocity, pressure, density, and axial-field profiles, follow from a small system of ODEs, Eqs. (10), (11), and (14), derived from ideal MHD in the strong-shock, weak-axial-field regime. The implosion is split into a separation stage governed by a generalized Potter model, an inward stage governed by a generalized Angus model, and a compression stage after the shock reaches the axis, governed by an adiabatic piston equation. The shock is treated as the only entropy-producing agent, the post-shock sheath is assumed to have uniform pressure, fluid elements evolve adiabatically, and magnetic flux is frozen in, so the density and axial-field profiles are reconstructed by Lagrangian tracking. Comparisons with COBRA gas-puff shots, after calibrating the initial radius and adiabatic index on one shot, show close agreement for shots with different density profiles, current waveforms, and with or without a 0.2 T axial field. The paper also extracts a simple geometric balance, $r_p^2 - r_s^2 = \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma+1}(r_0^2 - r_s^2)$, as the fundamental piston-shock relation in the idealized limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that sound crosses the sheath fast enough for its post-shock pressure to stay uniform, which requires the sheath thickness to remain much smaller than the initial radius and weakens as the shock approaches the axis; the model also assumes one measured density profile represents every shot after linear rescaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given a measured initial density profile, current waveform, and weak axial field, the model returns piston and shock trajectories from a handful of ODE integrations, making rapid campaign planning practical.
  • The single calibration $(r_0,\gamma)=(3.50\,\mathrm{cm},1.37)$ on one shot transfers to other shots with different density profiles and axial fields, so a facility may not need to recalibrate for every configuration.
  • The predicted velocity, pressure, density, and axial-field profiles give experimentalists target values for Thomson scattering and interferometry before the shot is fired.
  • The geometric balance $r_p^2-r_s^2=\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma+1}(r_0^2-r_s^2)$ offers a quick back-of-the-envelope estimate of the shock position relative to the piston during the implosion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the no-reflected-shock prediction is right, the velocity boundary layer just before the shock reaches the axis should be visible in high-time-resolution interferometry or streak data, giving a direct experimental test of the infinite-sound-speed assumption.
  • The energy-conservation mismatch after stagnation, which the authors note could estimate x-ray and neutron emission, offers a route to a quick radiative-loss diagnostic without detailed spectral modeling.
  • Pushing the axial field above the weak-field regime should make the leading-order model fail detectably, since the Rankine-Hugoniot and pressure relations neglect axial-field corrections of order $1/\beta_1$; this sets a natural validity boundary for the method.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a 1D axisymmetric analytical model of the dynamic z-pinch, split into separation, inward, compression, and pinch stages. For each stage it derives coupled ODEs for the magnetic piston and shock radii from the ideal MHD equations, together with explicit velocity, pressure, density, and axial-field profiles in the sheath. The model is calibrated on COBRA shot 5532 by fitting the initial radius and adiabatic index, then compared with shot 4959 and with two ensembles with zero and 0.2 T axial field. The central claim is that this is the first analytical model to include a weak axial field, a spatially varying initial density, and a time-dependent current for a finite-thickness sheath, and that it predicts trajectories with remarkable accuracy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the ODE system in Eqs. (10), (11), and (14) would be a genuinely useful fast surrogate for MHD simulations of gas-puff z-pinches, and the staged treatment from separation through incidence is a sensible way to avoid the singular initialization of the Angus model. The derivation is unusually transparent: the appendices give the Rankine-Hugoniot relations, the velocity and pressure profiles, the Lagrangian fluid-element tracking, and the reduction from the second-order inward model to the first-order separation model. The out-of-sample comparisons across different current waveforms, density profiles, and axial-field strengths are a strength, and the paper is honest about the singular density at the piston and about the energy-conservation variants. The main weakness is that the uniform-pressure closure, which underlies the central ODEs, is justified only by a scaling argument that the model itself violates in the late inward stage; in addition, the experimental validation is only visual. The significance is therefore conditional on establishing the validity regime of the closure and quantifying the agreement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C.I, Eq. (C4), and Eq. (40)] The justification of the uniform-pressure assumption is the estimate tau_Sl/tau_0 ~ (r_p - r_s)/r_0 << 1 in Eq. (C4). This inequality fails over a substantial late portion of the implosion: the model's own geometric relation, Eq. (40), gives r_p^2 - r_s^2 = ((gamma-1)/(gamma+1))(r_0^2 - r_s^2), which for gamma = 1.37 yields (r_p - r_s)/r_0 -> sqrt(0.37/2.37) ~ 0.40 as r_s -> 0, not a small parameter. Moreover, the scaling argument neglects the inward advection of the shocked fluid: behind a strong shock the lab-frame post-shock speed is 2/(gamma+1)|dot r_s|, while the downstream sound speed is sqrt(2 gamma (gamma-1)/(gamma+1)^2)|dot r_s|; for gamma = 1.37 these are 0.84|dot r_s| and 0.43|dot r_s|, respectively, so sound waves cannot propagate outward across the sheath to equilibrate pressure. Because the piston ODE in Eq. (11), the shock ODE in Eq. (12), and the velocity profile in Eq. (B6) all rely on this closure, the model's validity in the late inward stage is not established. Please either provide a concrete validity check, such as plotting tau_Sl/tau_0 along the computed trajectories or benchmarking the ODEs against an MHD simulation in this regime, or explicitly restrict the model's domain of validity and soften the claims in Section VIII.
  2. [Section V, Figs. 4-9] The agreement between model and experiment is asserted on the basis of visual comparison, with no residual statistics, root-mean-square errors, or uncertainty propagation reported. Since two parameters are calibrated on shot 5532, the out-of-sample claim for the other shots and ensembles needs a quantitative measure to support the phrase "remarkable accuracy" in Section VIII. Please add tables of normalized residuals for piston and shock radii for each shot or ensemble, and state whether the residuals grow systematically as r_s approaches zero, which would be direct evidence about the late-time closure concern.
  3. [Section V.i and Fig. 5] All initial density profiles are stated to be obtained by linearly rescaling a single standardized PLIF measurement based on each shot's plenum pressures. This is a strong shape-universality assumption that is load-bearing for the out-of-sample validation. The description of shot 4959 as having a "higher, more intricate initial density profile" appears to conflict with using the same standardized PLIF shape; please clarify how each rho_0(r) was actually constructed, and assess the sensitivity of the reported trajectories to plausible shot-to-shot shape variations.
  4. [Section V.iv] The separation time t_s = 1 ns is declared arbitrary, with the statement that the results are "relatively insensitive" to its value, but no sensitivity study is presented. Since t_s is an effective third input to the model, a scan over plausible values (for example, 0.1-10 ns) is needed to demonstrate that the calibration and the out-of-sample comparisons are stable. If the model is sensitive to t_s, the two-parameter calibration story in Section V.i is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10) and Eq. (E13)] The piston ODE in Eq. (10) is typeset in a way that is easy to misread: the dot I/I term appears to enter a compound fraction whose denominator is not clear. Please parenthesize the numerator and denominator explicitly, as in Eq. (E13), so that the equation is unambiguous.
  2. [Appendix B.III, Eqs. (B14)-(B16)] The condition and formulas for the boundary-layer minimum contain factors that are hard to verify from the surrounding text; in particular, Eq. (B15) and Eq. (B16) mix r and zeta in a way that is not fully defined. Please rewrite v(zeta, t) explicitly in terms of r_p, r_s, dot r_p, and dot r_s, and double-check the algebraic factors.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (26)] The manuscript acknowledges the singular density at the piston, but Eq. (26) also produces a non-integrable profile as r -> r_p, which affects the plotted density and axial-field profiles in Figs. 12 and 13. A brief statement of how the plots are regularized near the piston would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section V.iii, Figs. 8-9] The two ensembles are described as highly repeatable, but the figures do not state clearly whether the plotted diagnostic points are individual shots or ensemble averages. Please indicate in the captions what each point represents and how scatter across the ensemble is handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ODEs are derived from ideal MHD with RH conditions; fitted parameters are calibrated on one shot and tested out-of-sample on others.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eqs. (10)-(14) are obtained in Appendices E-G from the ideal MHD momentum and adiabatic equations, Ampère's law, and Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions, not from the trajectories they are intended to predict. The pressure, velocity, density, and axial-field profiles are likewise derived from the RH conditions, adiabatic law, and mass/flux conservation (Appendices B-D). The only free parameters (r0, gamma) are explicitly MSE-fit to COBRA shot 5532 in Sec. V.i and then applied to shot 4959 and the Bz0=0 / Bz0=0.2T ensembles, so agreement there is an out-of-sample check rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Angus et al. [45] and Potter [43] are accompanied by full derivations in the appendices, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way. The main caveat is a validity concern, not circularity: the uniform-pressure closure is justified in Appendix C.I by tau_Sl/tau_0 ~ (rp-rs)/r0 << 1 (Eq. C4), but the model's own relation Eq. (40) implies rp^2-rs^2 = ((gamma-1)/(gamma+1))(r0^2-rs^2), giving a sheath thickness ~0.4 r0 near incidence for gamma=1.37, so the closure can fail late in the inward stage. Because this is an explicit assumption whose breakdown can be checked from the model's own equations, it is a correctness/robustness risk rather than a circular reduction of the predictions to the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is not a pure first-principles calculation: it relies on ideal MHD plus strong-shock, uniform-pressure, and thin-sheath ordering assumptions, and it carries two calibrated device parameters (r0, gamma). No new physical entities are introduced. The time at which the separation stage ends (t_s = 1 ns) is an arbitrary modeling choice.

free parameters (3)
  • adiabatic index gamma = 1.37
    MSE fit to COBRA shot 5532 in Sec. V.i; physically motivated as an effective gamma for ionized argon, but it is a free parameter that absorbs unmodeled effects.
  • initial liner radius r0 = 3.50 cm
    MSE fit to shot 5532; stated to coincide with the gas nozzle outer diameter, but treated as adjustable because the liner formation radius is not directly measured.
  • separation time t_s = 1 ns
    Arbitrary transition time from Potter's separation model to the Angus inward model, chosen to avoid the singular initial conditions; the paper claims results are insensitive to this value.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ideal MHD governing equations (mass, momentum, adiabatic pressure, induction: Eqs. 1-4).
    The starting point of the derivation; the model solves these equations under simplifying assumptions in the sheath and upstream regions.
  • domain assumption Strong-shock ordering: the shock speed is much greater than upstream sound and Alfven speeds (M_s^2 >> 1, beta_1 >= 1).
    Used in Appendix A to reduce the Rankine-Hugoniot jumps to the strong-shock limit, giving Eqs. A23-A27. The weak axial field condition beta_1 >= 1 is asserted for the experiments.
  • domain assumption Uniform pressure within the post-shock sheath.
    Invoked in Sec. IV and Appendix C; justified by the thin-sheath scaling argument Eq. C4. It supports the velocity profile, shock ODE, and piston ODE.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic evolution of fluid elements and frozen-in axial field after shock passage.
    Used in Appendix D to construct Lagrangian density and axial-field profiles, and to derive the piston ODE axial-field term via Alfven's theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Equipartition between directed flow energy and thermal pressure energy in the sheath (for the energy-conserving ODE variants).
    Assumed in Appendix F.II (Eq. F22) to derive the conservation-of-energy criteria Eqs. 15, F25-F28, and G4-G7. It is exact for planar geometry and only approximate for thin cylindrical sheaths.
  • domain assumption Initial pressure profile P0(r) is negligible in the strong-shock limit.
    Stated in Sec. IV and Appendix C.II; the model does not need the initial temperature profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Analytical Model of the Dynamic Z-Pinch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USB5OBUJ

@misc{pith2026250518067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Analytical Model of the Dynamic Z-Pinch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USB5OBUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18067}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analytical 1D axisymmetric model describing the evolution of the dynamic z-pinch. This model is capable of predicting the trajectories of the imploding sheath's magnetic piston and preceding shock front, along with the velocity, pressure, density, and magnetic field profiles, for any time-dependent current, spatially varying initial density profile, and weak initial axial field. The implosion is divided into stages, with each stage described by a set of coupled ordinary differential equations derived from the ideal MHD equations. Comparisons with experimental data from the COBRA pulsed-power facility are quite promising and imply this model could prove useful in designing and analyzing future pulsed-power experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18067 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Z-Pinch Configuration. The z-pinch is shown in cylin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Implosion Stages. Here we see the evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial Density and Current Waveform for Shot 5532. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial Trajectories for Shot 5532. Here we see a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial Trajectories Comparison for the Bz0 = 0.2T Ensemble. Here we see a comparison of the predicted trajec￾tories of the piston and shock radii for Bz0 = 0.2T shots 6459, 6465, 6471, 6472, 6475, and 6477, along with var￾ious diagnostic measurements, using calibrated …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial Trajectories Comparison for the Bz0 = 0 En￾semble. Here we see a comparison of the predicted trajectories of the piston and shock radii for Bz0 = 0 shots 6457, 6462, 6467, 6474, and 6476, along with various diagnostic measure￾ments, using calibrated parameters (…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Density Profiles ρ(r, t) for the Bz0 = 0.2T Ensemble. Here we see the predicted density profiles for Bz0 = 0.2T shots 6459, 6465, 6471, 6472, 6475, and 6477 for times t = {100ns, 150ns, 200ns, 250ns, 275ns, 305ns}. We observe a clear compressed reproduction of the ini…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pressure Profiles P(r, t) for Bz0 = 0.2T Ensemble. Here we see the predicted pressure profiles for Bz0 = 0.2T shots 6459, 6465, 6471, 6472, 6475, and 6477 for times t = {100ns, 150ns, 200ns, 250ns, 275ns, 305ns}. Evidently, these uniform profiles are an oversimplifica…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Geometric Relation. Shown here is an exemplary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Lab Frame vs Shock Frame. The lab frame is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Boundary Layer. Shown here is the velocity profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. G. Haines. The physics of the dense z-pinch in the- ory and in experiment with application to fusion reactor. Physica Scripta, 1982(T2B):380, jan 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    M. A. Liberman, J. S. De Groot, A. Toor, and R. B. Spielman.Physics of High-Density Z-Pinch Plasmas. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    M. G. Haines, S. V. Lebedev, J. P. Chittenden, F. Beg, S. N. Bland, and A. E. Dangor. The past, present, and future of z pinches.Physics of Plasmas, 7:1672–1680, 05 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    D. D. Ryutov, M. S. Derzon, and M. K. Matzen. The physics of fastzpinches.Rev. Mod. Phys., 72:167–223, Jan 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    A review of the dense z-pinch.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53(9):093001, jun 2011

    M G Haines. A review of the dense z-pinch.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53(9):093001, jun 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    R. J. Leeper, T. E. Alberts, and J. R. Asay et al. Z- pinch driven inertial confinement fusion target physics 11 research at sandia national laboratories.Nuclear Fusion, 39(9Y):1283, sep 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    M. K. Matzen. Z pinches as intense x-ray sources for high- energy density physics applications.Physics of Plasmas, 4(5):1519–1527, 05 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    M. K. Matzen. Z pinches as intense x-ray sources for iner- tial confinement fusion applications.Fusion Engineering and Design, 44(1):287–293, 1999

    work page 1999

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Wire- array z pinches as intense x-ray sources for inertial con- finement fusion.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 42(12B):B157, dec 2000

    R B Spielman, C Deeney, M R Douglas, G A Chan- dler, M E Cuneo, T J Nash, J L Porter, L E Ruggles, T W L Sanford, W A Stygar, K W Struve, M K Matzen, D H McDaniel, D L Peterson, and J H Hammer. Wire- array z pinches as intense x-ray sources for inertial con- finement fusion.Pl...

    2000

  2. [10]

    Wire- array z-pinch: a powerful x-ray source for icf.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47(12B):B1, nov 2005

    M G Haines, T W L Sanford, and V P Smirnov. Wire- array z-pinch: a powerful x-ray source for icf.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47(12B):B1, nov 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Giuliani and Robert J

    John L. Giuliani and Robert J. Commisso. A review of the gas-puffz-pinch as an x-ray and neutron source. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 43(8):2385–2453, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    C. A. Coverdale, C. Deeney, A. L. Velikovich, R. W. Clark, Y. K. Chong, J. Davis, J. Chittenden, C. L. Ruiz, G. W. Cooper, A. J. Nelson, J. Franklin, P. D. LePell, J. P. Apruzese, J. Levine, J. Banister, and N. Qi. Neutron production and implosion characteristics of a deuteriu...

    2007

  5. [13]

    Zhang, U

    Y. Zhang, U. Shumlak, B. A. Nelson, R. P. Golingo, T. R. Weber, A. D. Stepanov, E. L. Claveau, E. G. Forbes, Z. T. Draper, J. M. Mitrani, H. S. McLean, K. K. Tum- mel, D. P. Higginson, and C. M. Cooper. Sustained neu- tron production from a sheared-flow stabilizedzpinch. Phys....

    2019

  6. [14]

    U. Shumlak. Z-pinch fusion.Journal of Applied Physics, 127(20):200901, 05 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    D. A. Yager-Elorriaga, M. R. Gomez, D. E. Ruiz, S. A. Slutz, A. J. Harvey-Thompson, C. A. Jennings, P. F. Knapp, P. F. Schmit, M. R. Weis, T. J. Awe, G. A. Chan- dler, M. Mangan, C. E. Myers, J. R. Fein, B. R. Galloway, M. Geissel, M. E. Glinsky, S. B. Hansen, E. C. Harding, D...

    2022

  8. [16]

    N. D. Ouart, P. W. L. de Grouchy, N. Qi, J. L. Giu- liani, A. Dasgupta, T. A. Shelkovenko, S. A. Pikuz, D. A. Hammer, B. R. Kusse, J. P. Apruzese, and R. W. Clark. Radiative properties of argon gas puff z-pinch implosions on cobra.Physics of Plasmas, 23(10):101202, 10 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    N. Qi, S. V. Rocco, J. Engelbrecht, E. S. Lavine, P. W. L. de Grouchy, J. T. Banasek, L. Atoyan, T. Byvank, W. M. Potter, J. B. Greenly, D. A. Hammer, B. R. Kusse, S. A. Pikuz, T. A. Shelkovenko, E. Kroupp, A. Fisher, and Y. Maron. Study of triple ar gas puff z-pinches on 0.9-...

    2018

  10. [18]

    E. S. Lavine, S. V. Rocco, J. T. Banasek, W. M. Potter, J. B. Greenly, H. Wilhelm, N. Qi, D. A. Hammer, and B. R. Kusse. Implosion dynamics of triple-nozzle gas-puff z pinches on cobra.Physics of Plasmas, 28(2):022703, 02 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    E. S. Lavine, S. R. Rocco, W. M. Potter, J. Angel, E. Freeman, J. T. Banasek, J. Lawson, J. B. Greenly, H. Wilhelm, D. A. Hammer, and B. R. Kusse. The struc- ture and evolution of imploding plasma sheaths in multi- shell gas-puff z-pinch implosions. In2022 IEEE Inter- national...

    2022

  12. [20]

    E. S. Lavine, A. Rososhek, J. Angel, E. Freeman, C. Chen, W. M. Potter, H. Wilhelm, D. A. Hammer, and B. R. Kusse. Energetics of triple-nozzle gas-puff z-pinch implosions on cobra.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci- ence, pages 1–16, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    E. S. Lavine, D. A. Lund, E. Freeman, W. M. Pot- ter, C. E. Seyler, and B. R. Kusse. An experimental platform for investigating astrophysically relevant mag- netized plasma jets on the cobra facility.Physics of Plas- mas, 32(1):012902, 01 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Shiloh, A

    J. Shiloh, A. Fisher, and N. Rostoker.zpinch of a gas jet.Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:515–518, Feb 1978

    1978

  15. [23]

    F. S. Felber, F. J. Wessel, N. C. Wild, H. U. Rahman, A. Fisher, C. M. Fowler, M. A. Liberman, and A. L. Velikovich. Ultrahigh magnetic fields produced in a gas- puff z pinch.Journal of Applied Physics, 64(8):3831– 3844, 10 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    A. P. Shah, B. J. Sporer, G. V. Dowhan, K. W. Elliott, M. Krishnan, N. M. Jordan, and R. D. McBride. Devel- opment of a gas-puff z-pinch for the maize linear trans- former driver.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 52(10):4794–4803, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    P. W. L. de Grouchy, E. Rosenberg, N. Qi, B. R. Kusse, E. Kroupp, A. Fisher, Y. Maron, and D. A. Hammer. Characterization of the cobra triple-nozzle gas-puff valve using planar laser induced fluorescence.AIP Conference Proceedings, 1639(1):43–46, 12 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    S. H. Glenzer and R. Redmer. X-ray thomson scatter- ing in high energy density plasmas.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:1625–1663, Dec 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    S. V. R. Rocco, J. T. Banasek, W. M. Potter, B. R. Kusse, and D. A. Hammer. Time-resolved thomson scattering on gas-puff z-pinch plasmas at pinch time. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 46(11):3906– 3911, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    S. V. R. Rocco, E. S. Lavine, J. T. Banasek, W. M. Potter, and D. A. Hammer. Applying thomson scattering to diagnosing turbulent density and velocity fluctuations in a gas-puff z-pinch.Physics of Plasmas, 29(11):110703, 11 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    J. T. Banasek, C. Goyon, S. C. Bott-Suzuki, G. F. Swadling, M. Quinley, B. Levitt, B. A. Nelson, U. Shum- lak, and H. S. McLean. Probing local electron tempera- ture and density inside a sheared flow stabilized z-pinch using portable optical thomson scattering.Review of Sci- e...

    2023

  22. [30]

    N. Qi, J. Schein, J. Thompson, P. Coleman, M. Mc- Farland, R.R. Prasad, M. Krishnan, B.V. Weber, B.G. Moosman, J.W. Schumer, D. Mosher, R.J. Commisso, and D. Bell. Z pinch imploding plasma density pro- file measurements using a two-frame laser shearing in- terferometer.IEEE Tr...

    2002

  23. [31]

    G. Chen, S. Liu, X. Huang, Z. Li, and L. Yang. Laser differential interferometer for diagnostics of gas- 12 puffz-pinch.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 37(12):2359–2364, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    J. P. Chittenden, S. V. Lebedev, S. N. Bland, F. N. Beg, and M. G. Haines. One-, two-, and three-dimensional modeling of the different phases of wire array Z-pinch evolution.Physics of Plasmas, 8(5):2305–2314, 05 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    J. P. Chittenden, S. V. Lebedev, C. A. Jennings, S. N. Bland, and A. Ciardi. X-ray generation mechanisms in three-dimensional simulations of wire array z-pinches. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 46(12B):B457, nov 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Ciardi, S

    A. Ciardi, S. V. Lebedev, A. Frank, E. G. Blackman, J. P. Chittenden, C. J. Jennings, D. J. Ampleford, S. N. Bland, S. C. Bott, J. Rapley, G. N. Hall, F. A. Suzuki-Vidal, A. Marocchino, T. Lery, and C. Stehle. The evolution of magnetic tower jets in the laboratorya).Physics of...

    2007

  27. [35]

    J. P. Chittenden and C. A. Jennings. Development of instabilities in wire-arrayzpinches.Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:055005, Aug 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Bocchi, Jerry P

    M. Bocchi, Jerry P. Chittenden, Sergey V. Lebedev, Gareth N. Hall, Matthew Bennett, Adam Frank, and Eric G. Blackman. Numerical simulations of z-pinch experiments to create supersonic differentially-rotating plasma flows.High Energy Density Physics, 9(1):108– 111, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    M. R. Martin.Generalized Ohm’s Law at the Plasma–Vacuum Interface. PhD thesis, Cornell Univer- sity, Ithaca, NY, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    C. E. Seyler and M. R. Martin. Relaxation model for extended magnetohydrodynamics: Comparison to mag- netohydrodynamics for dense z-pinches.Physics of Plas- mas, 18(1):012703, 01 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    J. M. Woolstrum, D. A. Yager-Elorriaga, P. C. Campbell, N. M. Jordan, C. E. Seyler, and R. D. McBride. Extended magnetohydrodynamics simulations of thin-foil z-pinch implosions with comparison to experiments.Physics of Plasmas, 27(9):092705, 09 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Woolstrum, C

    J. Woolstrum, C. E. Seyler, and R. D. McBride. Hall instability driven seeding of helical magneto- rayleigh–taylor instabilities in axially premagnetized thin-foil liner z-pinch implosions.Physics of Plasmas, 29:122701, 12 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Rosenbluth, A

    M. Rosenbluth, A. Rosenbluth, and R. Garwin. Infinite conductivity theory of the pinch, Mar 1955

    1955

  34. [42]

    Miyamoto

    T. Miyamoto. Analysis of high-density z-pinches by a snowplow energy equation.Nuclear Fusion, 24(3):337, mar 1984

    1984

  35. [43]

    D. Potter. The formation of high-density z-pinches.Nu- clear Fusion, 18(6):813, jun 1978

    1978

  36. [44]

    A. R. Piriz, Y. B. Sun, and N. A. Tahir. Analytic model for the dynamic Z-pinch.Physics of Plasmas, 22(6):062704, 06 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    J. R. Angus, A. J. Link, and A. E. W. Schmidt. One- dimensional theory and simulations of the dynamic Z- pinch.Physics of Plasmas, 27(1):012108, 01 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Lee and S

    S. Lee and S. H. Saw.The Plasma Focus—Numerical Experiments, Insights and Applications, pages 113–232. Springer, 10 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Narkis, H

    J. Narkis, H. U. Rahman, J. C. Valenzuela, F. Conti, R. D. McBride, D. Venosa, and F. N. Beg. A semi-analytic model of gas-puff liner-on-target magneto- inertial fusion.Physics of Plasmas, 26(3):032708, 03 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    S. C. Hsu and Y. C. F. Thio. Physics criteria for a sub- scale plasma liner experiment.Journal of Fusion Energy, 37(2):103–110, June 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    E. S. Lavine, S. V. R. Rocco, W. M. Potter, J. Angel, E. Freeman, J. T. Banasek, J. Lawson, J. B. Greenly, H. Wilhelm, D. A. Hammer, and B. R. Kusse. Measure- ments of the imploding plasma sheath in triple-nozzle gas-puff z pinches.Physics of Plasmas, 29(6):062702, 06 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    N. D. Hamlin and C. E. Seyler. Relativistic modeling ca- pabilities in perseus extended-mhd simulation code for hed plasmas.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 44(7):1112–1126, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    J. E. Allen. An elementary theory of the transient pinched discharge.Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section B, 70(1):24, jan 1957

    1957

  44. [52]

    Ya. B. Zel’dovich and Yu. P. Raizer.Physics of shock waves and high-temperature plasmas, chapter IV: Shock Tubes, pages 318–336. Academic Press, New York, 1966

    1966

  45. [53]

    J. N. Johnson and R. Ch´ eret.Classic Papers in Shock Compression Science, page 68. Springer, 1998

    1998

  46. [54]

    Zorondo, C

    M. Zorondo, C. Pavez, and V. Mu˜ noz. Model of thom- son scattering from z-pinch plasma: Application in ex- perimental design for plasma focus.Results in Physics, 40:105831, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    N. Qi, E. W. Rosenberg, P. A. Gourdain, P. W. L. de Grouchy, B. R. Kusse, D. A. Hammer, K. S. Bell, T. A. Shelkovenko, W. M. Potter, L. Atoyan, A. D. Cahill, M. Evans, J. B. Greenly, C. L. Hoyt, S. A. Pikuz, P. C. Schrafel, E. Kroupp, A. Fisher, and Y. Maron. Study of gas-puff...

    2014

  48. [56]

    ρ⃗ u⃗ u+ P+ B2 2µ0 1− ⃗B ⃗B µ0 ! ·ˆ n # = 0,(A2)

    C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag.Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers. Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 1978. 13 APPENDIX A: RANKINE-HUGONIOT JUMP CONDITIONS The Rankine-Hugoniot (RH) jump conditions are re- lations describing changes in the densityρ, fl...

    1978

Pith tools

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