Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Kinetic simulations of fusion ignition with hot-spot ablator mix

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Localized carbon ablator mix is worse for fusion ignition than the same mass spread uniformly: the spike cools, contracts, and becomes an alpha-particle barrier that also inflates inferred ion temperatures.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism for localized ablator mix severity, but the 1D slab geometry overstates the alpha-barrier component and the quantitative claim needs a geometry check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05577 v1 pith:PQGC62SC submitted 2019-08-15 physics.plasm-ph

James D. Sadler , Yingchao Lu , Benjamin Spiers , Marko W. Mayr , Alex Savin , Robin H. W. Wang , Ramy Aboushelbaya , Kevin Glize
show 4 more authors
Robert Bingham Hui Li Kirk A. Flippo Peter A. Norreys
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords inertialconfinementfusionablatormixcarbonspikeionkineticsimulationVlasov-Fokker-Planckreactivityreductionneutronspectrumbroadeningbremsstrahlungcooling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a compact spike of carbon ablator inside an inertial-confinement fusion hot spot is not equivalent to the same amount of carbon mixed uniformly: the localized spike is substantially more damaging. Kinetic one- and two-dimensional simulations show that the carbon spike cools by bremsstrahlung emission and contracts over tens of picoseconds, becoming denser, more strongly radiating, and more effective at stopping alpha particles. The cooled, dense spike acts as an internal barrier that lowers the effective hot-spot areal density, and it also depletes the fast tail of the fuel-ion distribution so the fusion reaction rate falls by several to about ten percent. The contraction drives fluid motion that broadens the synthetic neutron spectrum, inflating inferred ion temperatures by several hundred electronvolts and making them depend on line of sight. If correct, this means ignition margins depend on where ablation material ends up, not just how much there is, and neutron-temperature diagnostics can be skewed by localized mix.

What carries the argument

The central object is the localized carbon mix spike, a fully ionized carbon population embedded in a deuterium-tritium hot spot. The argument is carried by a truncated kinetic ion model in which each species' velocity distribution is written as an isotropic part $f_0$ plus a first-order anisotropic part $f_1$ (Eq. 1); this makes two-dimensional kinetic simulation feasible while still capturing non-Maxwellian tails. The load-bearing mechanism is radiative cooling and contraction: carbon's bremsstrahlung losses cool the spike, it compresses to several times the surrounding density, the $n_e^2$ scaling of radiation accelerates the cooling, and the contracted spike becomes an $\alpha$-particle stopper, a heat sink, and a driver of fluid flows. A second mechanism is a boundary-layer kinetic effect in which long-mean-free-path fast fuel ions are absorbed at the spike's temperature gradient, depleting the distribution tail and lowering the fusion rate.

What would settle it

Run the same two-dimensional kinetic setup with the carbon jet replaced by a uniform distribution of the same 1.9% carbon mass; the paper's claim predicts the uniform case still self-heats toward ignition while the localized case does not. If the uniform case burns no better, or if a seeded carbon spike of the same mass produces no line-of-sight neutron-temperature difference, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that localized mix is more detrimental than uniform mix because of its radiative cooling and contraction. A fully ionized carbon spike totalling 1.9% of the hot-spot mass, initialized as a 5-micrometer Gaussian, cools the surrounding electrons and then the ions through increased bremsstrahlung; the spike contracts to several times the hot-spot density, and since radiative losses scale as $n_e^2$, the contraction feeds back into faster cooling. The dense cool spike then has high $\alpha$ stopping power, so fast $\alpha$ particles born elsewhere in the hot spot slow down inside it and deposit their energy where it is radiated away; the spike therefore acts like an internal shell, partially separating the two sides of the hot spot and reducing the effective areal density below the threshold value. A separate kinetic effect arises because fast fuel ions have long mean free paths and are absorbed at the spike's temperature gradient, depleting the tail of the deuterium-tritium distribution and cutting the fusion reactivity by a few percent, up to about 10% near the edges. Finally, the cooling-driven inflow of fuel broadens the fusion neutron spectrum: synthetic spectra fitted with a thermal model give 4464 eV along one line of sight and 4526 eV along another, versus 4026 eV when fluid motion is neglected, an inflation comparable to the unexplained experimental discrepancy.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation depends on the truncated kinetic expansion of Eq. (1), which is valid only while the fluid velocity is small compared to the thermal velocity; the two-dimensional neutron-broadening result is analyzed at t = 40 ps, when the fluid kinetic-to-total energy ratio has reached about 0.1, near the edge of that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ignition thresholds depend on the spatial structure of ablator mix, not just its mass: a carbon load that is tolerable when spread evenly can extinguish ignition when concentrated in a jet or spike.
  • Localized mix lowers the effective hot-spot areal density by acting as an internal alpha-particle barrier, so a target whose total areal density meets the ignition criterion may still fail if a mix spike is present.
  • Inferred ion temperatures from neutron spectra can be inflated by several hundred electronvolts and vary with line of sight when mix-driven flows are present, complicating comparisons between neutron and X-ray diagnostics.
  • In a hot spot with multiple mix jets, the regions between jets are expected to have fusion reactivity reduced by roughly 10% relative to a Maxwellian plasma, so burn-rate estimates from fluid codes will run high.
  • The fusion burn shape and the temperature or X-ray emission shape should differ in a mixed hot spot: the burn profile is flattened relative to the temperature profile, which could be used to distinguish localized from uniform mix.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests a testable diagnostic strategy: because the neutron-temperature excess and its line-of-sight variation track the radial inflow into the spike, measuring those variations on shots with known mix asymmetries could quantify mix localization independent of X-ray imaging.
  • By the same radiative-contraction logic, higher-Z ablator dopants such as tungsten should produce a comparable internal barrier at smaller mass fractions, since bremsstrahlung scales with the square of the ion charge; this could be tested by rerunning the same setup with the carbon charge replaced.
  • If the kinetic tail depletion around a mix spike is as large as the two-dimensional run suggests, radiation-hydrodynamic codes that assume Maxwellian reactivity will systematically overestimate yield in mixed implosions; a simple local correction for mix edges could close much of that gap without full kinetic simulation.
  • The contraction timescale of tens of picoseconds implies mix damage worsens as the hot spot evolves, so time-resolved neutron or X-ray measurements over a 40 ps window should show growing broadening; if the broadening saturates instead, the feedback loop in the model may be weaker than assumed.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper applies a truncated ion Vlasov-Fokker-Planck model (Eqs. (1)-(15)) to the stagnated ICF hot-spot with carbon ablator mix. In 1D Cartesian geometry, it compares a Gaussian carbon spike carrying 1.9% of the hot-spot mass with the same carbon mass uniformly distributed, and finds that the localized mix cools radiatively, contracts, increases alpha stopping and radiative losses, and acts as an alpha barrier, so ignition is suppressed in the localized case but not in the uniform-mix case. A 2D jet simulation is used to estimate fluid-flow-induced broadening of the DT neutron spectrum, giving inferred ion temperatures about 10% higher than the thermal value and a line-of-sight asymmetry. Kinetic corrections to fusion reactivity near the mix boundaries are post-processed using Eq. (16), yielding reductions from several percent near the mix up to about 20% at the hot-spot edge.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, they are important for ICF mix physics: localized ablator mix is a plausible experimental morphology, and the predicted neutron-spectrum broadening and line-of-sight asymmetry offer falsifiable diagnostic signatures. The paper is transparent about several model assumptions, such as the optically thin radiation treatment and the estimated reabsorption optical depth of about 0.2, and it specifies numerical parameters sufficiently for reproduction. The explicit synthetic neutron-spectrum calculation and the direct comparison of two mix morphologies are strengths. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or public code, but the equations are stated in enough detail that the central simulations are in principle reproducible.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2 and §5, Figs. 1 and 4] The headline comparison between localized and uniform mix is made only in one-dimensional Cartesian geometry, where the "localized" carbon is an infinite slab perpendicular to x. In this geometry every alpha particle crossing the hot-spot must pass through the mix region, which maximizes the barrier contribution to the claimed severity. The two-dimensional jet in Fig. 4 is still infinite in the third direction and is not compared against a uniform-mix control. Consequently the quantitative claim that "localized mix is more detrimental than the uniform mix" (abstract and §5) is not yet established for a finite three-dimensional Rayleigh-Taylor spike; alpha particles could travel around such a spike. The radiative-cooling/contraction mechanism may survive, but the comparison that supports the headline conclusion needs either a 2D uniform-mix control or a 3D simulation, or the claim must be explicitly restricted to slab/ridge geometries.
  2. [§2 and §3 (Eqs. (6), (16))] The kinetic reduction of fusion reactivity is not part of the simulated dynamics: the fusion source Fa in Eq. (6) uses the Maxwellian reactivity of ref. [35], while the kinetic rate from Eq. (16) is computed as a post-processing diagnostic from the stored distributions. Thus the abstract's statement that "a purely kinetic effect reduces fusion reactivity by several percent" is a diagnostic estimate, not a self-consistent prediction of yield or ignition threshold. The simulations should either feed the kinetic rate back into the fusion source term, or the text should clearly label the reactivity reduction as a one-way diagnostic and avoid drawing conclusions about ignition-threshold changes from it.
  3. [§4 and §5] No convergence study or error estimate is reported for any of the quantitative outputs. The runs use 288 cells and a 3000-point velocity grid with a 20 fs time-step in one dimension and equivalent parameters in two dimensions, but there is no demonstration that the 10-20% reactivity reductions, the 4.0-4.5 keV neutron temperatures, or the localized-vs-uniform ignition contrast are converged with respect to spatial resolution, velocity resolution, or time-step. Because several of the headline numbers are of order ten percent, a resolution study, or at least a two-resolution comparison, is needed before those numbers can be taken at face value.
  4. [§2 and §5 (Fig. 4b)] The neutron-spectrum analysis is performed at t=40 ps, the time at which Fig. 4b shows the deuterium-tritium fluid kinetic energy reaching about 10% of its total energy. Using the relation between this ratio and the fluid velocity, this corresponds to |u| on the order of half the thermal velocity, which is not deeply inside the regime where retaining only f0 and f1 in Eq. (1) is clearly accurate, and the flow contribution to the synthetic spectra is exactly the quantity being measured. The authors should check the sensitivity of the inferred temperatures to higher-order terms, for example by testing a more conservative case or by reporting the velocity-to-thermal-speed ratio explicitly, and should discuss whether the expansion in Eq. (1) remains controlled at the time used for the main diagnostic claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title page] The title in the manuscript text reads "ablat or mix" and should read "ablator mix."
  2. [Eq. (15)] Please state the units of the numerical coefficient 1.69e-32 so that the expression can be evaluated without guessing; the text gives electron temperature in eV and densities in cm^-3 but not the coefficient's units.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The color-bar label "EK/U" is not defined in the caption; the text defines the ratio as mn|u|^2/(2U), so the caption should define EK explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all headline results are emergent simulation outputs; the kinetic-reactivity and neutron-broadening claims are explicitly post-processed diagnostics.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the localized-vs-uniform comparison is a simulation output generated from explicitly stated initial conditions (Gaussian carbon spike vs uniform carbon of equal mass) and the evolution equations (1)-(15); the claimed radiative cooling, contraction, increased alpha stopping power, and neutron-spectrum broadening are emergent, not encoded in the inputs. The fusion reactivity reduction is not used as a simulation input—the paper states that 'The fusion term Fa in equation (6) used the Maxwellian fusion reactivity formula [35]' and the kinetic reactivity is post-processed via Eq. (16) from the simulated distribution, so the claimed reduction is a diagnostic of the simulated distribution, not a fitted quantity. Similarly, the neutron-broadening temperature overestimate follows by comparing synthetic spectra with and without fluid velocity using Eq. (17), and the statement that the magnitude 'is similar to the known discrepancy at the National Ignition Facility [3]' is an ex post comparison, not an inverse fit. The only overlapping-author citation is [33] (Tzoufras, Bell, Norreys, Tsung) for the standard truncated Fokker-Planck and Krook collision forms; it is not used as an unverified premise or uniqueness theorem, and the model equations are described in the text. The 1D/2D Cartesian geometry limits extrapolation to finite 3D mix spikes, but that is an external-validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it relies on standard plasma physics models and chosen initial conditions. The main assumptions are the truncated kinetic expansion, the Krook collision operator, the electron fluid treatment, and the optically thin radiation model. These are stated explicitly and their limits are discussed.

free parameters (4)
  • Hot-spot initial conditions = T=4.9 keV, density=100 g/cm^3, areal density=0.35 g/cm^2
    Chosen as representative near-ignition-threshold conditions, not fitted to any experimental output.
  • Carbon mix profile = 1.9% of hot-spot mass, Gaussian waist 5 um (1D and 2D azimuth), 20 um radial in 2D
    Chosen to represent experimentally observed mix jets; not fitted to simulation outcomes.
  • Flux limiter fraction = 0.05
    Standard choice for electron heat flux limiting; not fitted.
  • Coulomb logarithm = ~3
    Estimated using Lee-More formula for the stated plasma conditions; not fitted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Diffusive approximation truncating the distribution after first-order anisotropy (Eq. 1)
    Valid only when fluid velocity is much less than thermal velocity; the paper acknowledges it breaks down during later burn phases and curtails simulations.
  • domain assumption Krook form for the anisotropic collision operator C1a (Eq. 13)
    Approximates the full Fokker-Planck collision operator; stated as most accurate for supra-thermal ions.
  • domain assumption Electron fluid model with quasi-neutrality and electrostatic approximation
    Assumes electron collision time (~1 fs) is much shorter than self-heating timescales; neglects magnetic effects.
  • domain assumption Optically thin bremsstrahlung radiation with open radiation boundaries
    The paper estimates the mix-region optical depth approaches 0.2 at the end, so re-absorption is considered minimal but is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Bremsstrahlung emission formula from Atzeni and Meyer-ter Vehn (Eq. 15)
    Assumes weakly coupled, fully ionized plasma; a smooth cutoff is applied below 1.5 keV to avoid the dense-shell regime.
  • standard math Maxwellian fusion reactivity (Bosch-Hale) used for evolving the distribution
    Standard empirical reactivity fit; the paper later post-processes a more accurate kinetic reactivity.
  • domain assumption Carbon is fully ionized
    Assumed for charge state in the bremsstrahlung sum; ionization physics is not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic simulations of fusion ignition with hot-spot ablator mix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQGC62SC

@misc{pith2026190805577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic simulations of fusion ignition with hot-spot ablator mix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQGC62SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05577}
}
read the original abstract

Inertial confinement fusion fuel suffers increased X-ray radiation losses when carbon from the capsule ablator mixes into the hot-spot. Here we present one and two-dimensional ion Vlasov-Fokker-Planck simulations that resolve hot-spot self heating in the presence of a localized spike of carbon mix, totalling 1.9% of the hot-spot mass. The mix region cools and contracts over tens of picoseconds, increasing its alpha particle stopping power and radiative losses. This makes a localized mix region more severe than an equal amount of uniformly distributed mix. There is also a purely kinetic effect that reduces fusion reactivity by several percent, since faster ions in the tail of the distribution are absorbed by the mix region. Radiative cooling and contraction of the spike induces fluid motion, causing neutron spectrum broadening. This artificially increases the inferred experimental ion temperatures and gives line of sight variations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Results of two one-dimensional kinetic simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fusion reactivity of the deuterium-tritium plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results of the two-dimensional kinetic simulation a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Synthetic normalized neutron spectra generated fro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    A. R. Bell, R. G. Evans, and D. J. Nicholas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 243 (1981)

    work page 1981

  2. [1]

    is no longer valid. Inserting equation ( 1) into the non-relativistic Vlasov- Fokker-Planck equation and averaging over angles leads to the kinetic equations for each ion species [32, 33], ∂f0a ∂t + v 3 ∇.f 1a + qa 3mav2 ∂ ∂v (v2E.f 1a) = C0a + Fa, (6) ∂f1a ∂t + v∇f0a + qa ma E ∂f0a ∂v = C1a. (7) In addition to these ion equations, the electrons are model...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Betti, A

    R. Betti, A. R. Christopherson, B. K. Spears, R. Nora, A. Bose, J. Howard, K. M. Woo, M. J. Edwards and J. Sanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 255003 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    [8], it yields the velocity dependent Krook form [30, 33], C1a = − ∑ b Γ abnb v3 (f1a − fMa) , (13) fMa = −uDT ∂f0a ∂v

    is substituted in to the Fokker-Planck form given by equation (2) in ref. [8], it yields the velocity dependent Krook form [30, 33], C1a = − ∑ b Γ abnb v3 (f1a − fMa) , (13) fMa = −uDT ∂f0a ∂v . (14) Although this is an approximation to the full Fokker- Planck form, it is most accurate for the supra-thermal ions responsible for the fusion reactivity reduc...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Atzeni and J

    S. Atzeni and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, The Physics of Inertial Fusion (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    is small compared to the second term. This rules out mod- elling of the implosion (as previously achieved with one- dimensional ion-kinetic codes [31]) but does allow effi- cient two-dimensional modelling of the stagnated hot- spot. As such, simulations will be initialized in the time of peak fuel compression. This approximation also breaks down during the ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    used the Maxwellian fusion reactivity formula [35], giving the vol- umetric reaction rate r as a function of temperature. There may be kinetic corrections to this formula, so the more accurate reactivity will be post-processed by inte- grating the full hydrogen distribution function from the simulation. The hydrogen ion density was reduced and the alpha p...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Furthermore, the energy deposited in the mix re- gion is more efficiently radiated away and wasted, since the radiative rate scales as n2 e

    This increases the stopping power for alpha par- ticles. Furthermore, the energy deposited in the mix re- gion is more efficiently radiated away and wasted, since the radiative rate scales as n2 e. Once it cools and contracts, the mix region acts as an effective heat sink and barrier for the alpha particles, partially separating the two sides of the hot-spot...

    work page

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    The fusion rate is reduced in Knudsen layers at the edge of the hot-spot and near the mix region

    The volumetric fusion reaction rate was calcu- lated by numerically integrating the fusion cross section across the distribution function of the fuel ions in three velocity space dimensions, r(x) = ∫ d3v′ d3v fD(x, v′)fT(x, v)σ(vr)vr, (16) where vr = |v − v′| is the relative s...

  2. [9]

    Therefore the inflow of hot fuel into the mix region and dense fuel shell is enough to significantly broaden the fusion neutron distribution

    to the spectra yields T = 4026 eV in the control case, T = 4464 eV along the x direction and T = 4526 eV in the y direction. Therefore the inflow of hot fuel into the mix region and dense fuel shell is enough to significantly broaden the fusion neutron distribution. The magnitud...

    2014

  3. [10]

    Le Pape, L

    S. Le Pape, L. F. Berzak Hopkins, L. Divol, A. Pak, E. L. Dewald, S. Bhandarkar, L. R. Bennedetti, T. Bunn, J. Biener et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 245003 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Kagan, D

    G. Kagan, D. Svyatskiy, H. G. Rinderknecht, M. J. Rosenberg, A. B. Zylstra, C.-K. Huang and C. J. McDevitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 105002 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    O. A. Hurricane, D. A. Callahan, D. T. Casey, P. M. Cel- liers, C. Cerjan, E. L. Dewald, T. R Dittrich, T. D¨ oppner, D. E. Hinkel et al. , Nature 506, 343 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    H. Sio, J. A. Frenje, A. Le, S. Atzeni, T. J. T. Kwan, M. Gatu Johnson, G. Kagan, C. Stoeckl, C. K. Li et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 035001 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Sherlock and S

    M. Sherlock and S. Rose, High Energy Density Physics 5, 27 (2009)

    2009

  8. [15]

    The boundary conditions are open for the radiation and periodic for the plasma

    is only valid for weakly coupled plasma and not the dense fuel shell, the model imposes a smooth exponential cut-off of W for regions of plasma with temperature below 1 .5 keV. The boundary conditions are open for the radiation and periodic for the plasma. The plasma is assumed...

  9. [16]

    Michta, F

    D. Michta, F. Graziani, T. Luu, and J. Pruet, Phys. of Plasmas 17, 012707 (2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    The calculation was performed to find the broadening for lines of sight in the x and y directions [Fig

    assumes that the neutrons are not scattered by collisions as they es- cape. The calculation was performed to find the broadening for lines of sight in the x and y directions [Fig. 5]. The numerical integration of equation ( 17) for the simulation data at t = 40 ps was compared ...

  11. [18]

    B. E. Peigney, O. Larroche and V. Tikhonchuk, J. of Comp. Phys. 278, 416 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    Molvig, N

    K. Molvig, N. M. Hoffman, B. J. Albright, E. M. Nelson and R. B. Webster, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 095001 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    B. I. Cohen, A. M. Dimits, G. B. Zimmerman and S. C. Wilks, Phys. of Plasmas 21, 122701 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Albright, K

    B. Albright, K. Molvig, C.-K. Huang, A. Simakov, E. Dodd, N. Hoffman, G. Kagan and P. Schmit, Phys. of Plasmas 20, 122705 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Inglebert, B

    A. Inglebert, B. Canaud and O. Larroche, Europhysics Letters 107, 65003 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    T. Ma, P. K. Patel, N. Izumi, P. T. Springer, M. H. Key, L. J. Atherton, M. A. Barrios, L. R. Benedetti, R. Bionta et al. , Phys. of Plasmas 24, 056311 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    Larroche, H

    O. Larroche, H. G. Rinderknecht and M. J. Rosenberg, Phys. Rev. E 98, 031201(R) (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Larroche, Phys

    O. Larroche, Phys. of Plasmas 19, 122706 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    T. Ma, P. K. Patel, N. Izumi, P. T. Springer, M. H. Key, L. J. Atherton, L. R. Benedetti, D. K. Bradley, D. A. Callahan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 085004 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

    S. P. Regan, R. Epstein, B. A. Hammel, L. J. Suter, H. A. Scott, M. A. Barrios, D. K. Bradley, D. A. Callahan, C. 8 Cerjan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 045001 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    T. Ma, O. A. Hurricane, D. A. Callahan, M. A. Barrios, D. T. Casey, E. L. Dewald, T. R. Dittrich, T. D¨ oppner, S. W. Haan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 145004 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    H. G. Rinderknecht, H. Sio, C. K. Li, A. B. Zylstra, M. J. Rosenberg, P. Amendt, J. Delettrez, C. Bellei, J. A. Frenje et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 135001 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    H. G. Rinderknecht, H. Sio, C. K. Li, N. Hoffman, A. B. Zylstra, M. J. Rosenberg, J. A. Frenje, M. Gatu Johnson, F. H. S´ eguinet al. , Phys. of Plasmas 21, 056311 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    B. A. Hammel, H. A. Scott, S. P. Regan, C. Cerjan, D. S. Clark, M. J. Edwards, R. Epstein, S. H. Glenzer, S. W. Haan et al. , Phys. of Plasmas 18, 056310 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    V. A. Smalyuk, R. E. Tipton, J. E. Pino, D. T. Casey, G. P. Grim, B. A. Remington, D. P. Rowley, S. V. Weber, M. Barrios et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 025002 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    N. B. Meezan, M. J. Edwards, O. A. Hurricane, P. K. Patel, D. A. Callahan, W. W Hsing, R. P. J. Town, F. Albert, P. A. Amendt et al. , Plasma Phys. and Cont. Fusion 59, 014021 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    D. S. Clark, C. R. Weber, J. L. Milovich, J. D. Salmonson, A. L. Kritcher, S. W. Haan, B. A. Ham- mel, D. E. Hinkel, O. A. Hurricane et al. , Phys. of Plas- mas 23, 056302 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    R. J. Henchen, M. Sherlock, W. Rozmus, J. Katz, D. Cao, J. P. Palastro, and D. H. Froula, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 125001 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

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

    1984

  30. [38]

    M. N. Rosenbluth, W. M. MacDonald, and D. L. Judd, Phys. Rev. 107, 1 (1957)

    1957

  31. [39]

    M. J. Keskinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 055001 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    W. T. Taitano, A. N. Simakov, L. Chacon, and B. Keenan, Phys. of Plasmas 25, 056310 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Thomas, M

    A. Thomas, M. Tzoufras, A. Robinson, R. Kingham, C. Ridgers, M. Sherlock, and A. Bell, J. of Comp. Phys. 231, 1051 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Tzoufras, A

    M. Tzoufras, A. Bell, P. Norreys, and F. Tsung, J. of Comp. Phys. 230, 6475 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Chang and G

    J. Chang and G. Cooper, J. of Comp. Phys. 6, 1 (1970)

    1970

  36. [44]

    H. S. Bosch and G. Hale, Nuclear fusion 32, 611 (1992)

    1992

  37. [45]

    C. R. Weber, D. S. Clark, A. W. Cook, D. C. Eder, S. W. Haan, B. A. Hammel, D. E. Hinkel, O. S. Jones, M. M. Marinak et al. , Phys. of Plasmas 22, 032702 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Gatu Johnson, J

    M. Gatu Johnson, J. P. Knauer, C. J. Cerjan, M. J. Eckart, G. P. Grim, E. P. Hartouni, R. Hatarik, J. D. Kilkenny, D. H. Munro et al. , Phys. Rev. E 94, 021202(R) (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    K. M. Woo, R. Betti, D. Shvarts, A. Bose, D. Patel, R. Yan, P. Y. Chang, O. M. Mannion, R. Epstein et al. , Physics of Plasmas 25, 052704 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Murphy, Phys

    T. Murphy, Phys. of Plasmas 21, 072701 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Brysk, Plasma Physics 15, 611 (1973)

    H. Brysk, Plasma Physics 15, 611 (1973)

    1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.