Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Laser experiment for the study of accretion dynamics of Young Stellar Objects: design and scaling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A laser-generated plasma stream guided by a 20-tesla magnetic field can stand in for the accretion column of a young star.

desk verdict A solid design-and-scaling companion to the group's earlier accretion experiment; the similarity argument works for ideal-MHD dynamics but omits radiative cooling, and that omission matters. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00730 v2 pith:XZBTU2EB submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph

G. Revet , B. Khiar , J. Béard , R. Bonito , S. Orlando , M. V. Starodubtsev , A. Ciardi , J. Fuchs This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords accretioncolumnsClassicalTTauristarslaboratoryastrophysicsmagneticallycollimatedplasmajetslaser-plasmainteractionidealmagnetohydrodynamicsbetashocks
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 argues that a laser-generated plasma jet, squeezed into a narrow stream by a 20-tesla magnetic field and slammed into a plastic obstacle, reproduces the essential dynamics of gas accreting onto a young star. The stream is meant to play the role of the accretion column, and the obstacle the stellar surface. The authors show that the stream's density and velocity follow a one-dimensional adiabatic expansion model, and they compute the dimensionless numbers that control ideal-magnetohydrodynamic behavior. On that basis they claim the laboratory flow is scalable to a high-plasma-beta accretion case in Classical T Tauri stars, where the stellar field is only 20 to 200 gauss. The point of the exercise is that such accretion columns cannot be resolved by telescopes, so a well-diagnosed laboratory analogue could test the physics that shapes the observed X-ray emission.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetically collimated plasma stream produced when a nanosecond laser pulse irradiates a solid target inside a homogeneous 20 T field. The external field balances the plasma ram pressure, forming a diamagnetic cavity whose curved shock envelope redirects the flow onto the axis, creating a long thin jet; this jet is the accretion column. The argument is carried by a comparison of dimensionless numbers, Euler, Alfven, dynamic $\beta$, Mach, Reynolds, Peclet, and magnetic Reynolds, between the laboratory and stellar systems, together with a 1D self-similar adiabatic expansion model that reproduces the stream's observed density and velocity profiles. The dynamic $\beta$, $\beta_{\rm dyn} = \rho v^2 / (B^2/2\mu_0)$, is the parameter the paper uses to place both systems in the same accretion regime.

What would settle it

Time-resolved imaging of the reverse shock during the first 10 ns after the stream hits the obstacle would settle the central claim: if the shock fails to form or is wider than the stream radius while the directed mean free path exceeds $10^{-2}$ cm, the flow is not in the ideal-MHD regime at the moment that matters, and the scaling to CTTS accretion would break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a magnetically collimated laser plasma stream, with density about $3\times10^{-6}$ g cm$^{-3}$, speed about 750 km s$^{-1}$, temperature about 10 eV, and impact radius about 0.1 cm, can be scaled to a Classical T Tauri star accretion column with density about $10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, free-fall speed about 500 km s$^{-1}$, and magnetic field 20 to 200 G. By measuring the stream parameters and the obstacle impact, and by verifying that the Reynolds, Peclet, magnetic Reynolds, Mach, and Alfven Mach numbers place the flow in the ideal MHD regime, the authors connect the laboratory dynamics to stellar accretion. They identify the post-shock dynamic plasma $\beta$, $\beta_{\rm dyn}\sim 10$ in the laboratory versus $\sim 5$ in the chosen CTTS case, as the key similarity parameter, and note that the Euler and Alfven numbers agree closely across the two systems. The experiment is therefore presented as representative of a high-$\beta$ CTTS accretion case, whose shocked region develops a surrounding plasma cocoon that may absorb X-rays.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling claim stands or falls on the assumption that both the laser-produced stream and the stellar accretion column are described well enough by ideal magnetohydrodynamics, so that matching dimensionless numbers such as Euler, Alfven, and dynamic beta guarantees similar evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling holds, the experiment provides a testbed for high-$\beta_{\rm dyn}$ accretion shock physics, including the formation and growth of the plasma cocoon that surrounds the shocked column.
  • The match with the 1D self-similar model means the stream conditions at the obstacle, and hence the accretion luminosity profile $L_{\rm acc} = \frac{1}{2}\rho S v^3$, can be predicted and tuned by choosing laser intensity and wavelength.
  • By varying laser intensity from $I_0/10$ to $10 I_0$, the predicted luminosity profile changes from a flat, quasi-steady signal to a sharply peaked episodic one, offering a laboratory handle on episodic accretion.
  • The accessible parameter window, $\beta_{\rm dyn}\sim 1$ to $10$ with observable shocked emission, maps onto CTTS columns with magnetic fields of roughly 20 to 200 G, so the setup singles out a specific stellar regime for direct comparison.
  • A 60 T field would bring the laboratory dynamic beta down to about 1 at maximum, allowing magnetic-pressure-dominated accretion dynamics to be studied with the same platform.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, swapping the target material would change the Euler number through the charge state $Z$, allowing the post-shock compressibility to be tuned independently of the magnetic field.
  • Extending to observations, CTTSs with measured fields in the 20 to 200 G range are the natural targets to compare against the laboratory cocoon morphology and time-resolved shock emission.
  • The paper's own early-time mean free path caveat implies that the first few nanoseconds of impact may not be ideal-MHD; a dedicated kinetic simulation of that phase would show how much of the shock evolution is affected.
  • The train-of-streams idea, pushed further, gives a laboratory route to mimic episodic accretion bursts and to compare the predicted luminosity envelope with stellar outburst light curves.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes the design and characterization of a laser-driven magnetically collimated plasma stream intended as a laboratory model of accretion columns in Classical T Tauri Stars. The authors present the experimental setup (a 60 J/0.6 ns laser on PVC in a 20 T applied field), compare GORGON simulation results with a 1D self-similar expansion model, compute dimensionless plasma parameters and mean free paths, and use post-shock Euler and Alfvén numbers to argue that the setup represents a high plasma-beta CTTS accretion case. They also use the 1D model to estimate the time evolution of the directed mean free path, the dynamic beta, and the accretion luminosity.

Significance. If the scaling argument were complete, the setup would provide a useful laboratory platform for studying magnetized reverse shocks in a high-beta accretion regime, with potential relevance to X-ray absorption and cocoon formation in CTTSs. The paper is valuable for its detailed experimental parameters, its transparent accounting of the ideal-MHD dimensionless numbers, and its identification of an accessible stellar-field window of 20 to 200 G. Its strengths include the clear documentation of the experimental configuration and the explicit acknowledgment that the 1D model is neither purely adiabatic nor purely ballistic; however, the load-bearing scaling claims are not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Relevance of the experiments to the accretion in Classical T Tauri Stars (Table I and post-shock Euler/Alfvén…] The scaling bridge matches only ideal-MHD parameters (Euler, Alfvén, Mach, Re, Rm, Pe) and omits any dimensionless radiative-cooling parameter. This is load-bearing because the reverse-shock dynamics in Ref. [1] are used to interpret CTTS accretion, and the paper itself cites Ref. [26], a study that models radiative accretion shocks, in defining the post-shock Euler and Alfvén numbers. Using the Table I values, the laboratory post-shock layer has n_e ≈ 4×10^18 cm^-3, v_ps ≈ 190 km/s, and L ≈ 0.1 cm, giving an advection time of about 5 ns, whereas the CTTS layer has n_e ≈ 2×10^11 cm^-3, v_ps ≈ 125 km/s, and L ≈ 5×10^9 cm, giving an advection time of about 400 s. For standard cooling curves these two shocks lie in different radiative-cooling regimes, so without a matched dimensionless cooling parameter the central claim that the setup is representative of a high plasma-beta CTTS accretion case is not established.
  2. [Set-up and plasma flow generation (1D self-similar model, Fig. 2)] The 1D self-similar model is calibrated to the simulated and observed expansion by setting C_s_modified = 3 C_s to match the 1000 km/s maximum expansion speed and by shifting the density profile origin by 0.2 cm to match the GORGON density profile. This same calibrated model is then used in Figs. 4, 5, and 7 to compute the time evolution of the directed mean free path, the dynamic beta, and the accretion luminosity. Because the factor of three in the sound speed is not constrained by the energy balance of the real expansion, the time dependence of these quantities is not independently validated; in particular, the statement in Fig. 4 that collisional conditions are reached after 10 ns rests on an unverified extrapolation. Please validate the time evolution against GORGON results or multi-time experimental data, or use an energy-conserving model.
  3. [Dimensionless numbers and plasma parameters (Table I)] The scaling argument is based on equality of dimensionless numbers, but the matched numbers differ by roughly a factor of two: Euler number 2.9 versus 1.6, dynamic beta 10 versus 5, and Alfvén Mach number 2.3 versus 1.6. The paper should state a quantitative criterion for what counts as sufficiently similar and demonstrate, ideally with the existing GORGON simulations, that the accretion-shock dynamics in this range of beta and Mach number are insensitive to these differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] In the abstract and introduction, 'in details' should be 'in detail'.
  2. [Conclusion] In the Conclusion, 'resumed' should be 'summarized'.
  3. [Table I] The CTTS magnetic-field entry '50.10^-4' is ambiguous; it should be written as '50 × 10^-4 T'.
  4. [References] Reference [23] contains typos: 'Wasington' and 'Reasearch' should be corrected.
  5. [Equations (1)-(2)] In Eqs. (1) and (2), the symbols ν_i/s, ψ(x_i/s), and ν_i/s^0 are used before they are defined; please define them at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling bridge is an explicit matching exercise, and the calibrated 1D model is an interpolation rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the magnetically collimated laser stream maps onto a high-β CTTS accretion case. This is established by computing measured dimensionless numbers (Mach, Re, Rm, Pe, β_dyn, Euler, Alfvén) from independently characterized stream parameters and comparing them with CTTS parameters taken from external observations and simulations. The CTTS target parameters (n ≈ 1e11 cm−3, B ≈ 20–200 G) are not derived from the experiment; they are selected from the observed density window and the experimental β_dyn range, so the 'representativeness' claim is a matching statement, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs. The 1D self-similar model is explicitly calibrated to the observed/GORGON expansion by setting C_s_modified = 3 C_s and shifting z by +0.2 cm; the paper transparently labels it a model and uses it only to compute derived quantities (β_dyn(t), mean free paths, luminosity) as an interpolation of the measured expansion, not as an independent validation. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations to Ref. [1] and Refs. [12–14] provide prior published experimental and simulation support for the collimation mechanism and are not the sole justification of the scaling claim, which rests on standard ideal-MHD similarity (Refs. [18–21]). The possible absence of a radiative-cooling parameter is a physical completeness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling claim rests on the ideal-MHD assumption, strong-shock relations, and the 1D self-similar model. The model introduces two fitted parameters: the sound-speed enhancement factor and the spatial shift. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Sound speed enhancement factor in 1D model = 3 (C_modified = 3 C_s)
    Explicitly introduced to match the observed maximum expansion velocity of 1000 km/s; the model is then used to evolve density, velocity, β_dyn, mean free path, and luminosity.
  • Spatial origin shift in 1D density profile = 0.2 cm
    The adiabatic density solution matches simulated data only after shifting z by +0.2 cm; this is a hand-chosen offset.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD is an accurate description for both the laboratory flow and the CTTS accretion flow when the listed dimensionless numbers are large.
    Used in the 'Dimensionless numbers and plasma parameters' section to justify the scaling; Rm=68 and the early directed mean free path issue show this is only approximate.
  • standard math Strong shock Rankine-Hugoniot relations (density jump 4, post-shock pressure 3/16(Z+1)ρv^2) apply.
    Used to derive Euler and Alfvén numbers and post-shock temperatures; assumes γ=5/3 and Ma>>1.
  • standard math Landau's self-similar adiabatic solution describes the density profile of the expanding plasma.
    Used as the basis of the 1D model; the authors note the solution is combined with a ballistic velocity and a modified sound speed.
  • domain assumption The laser ablation sound speed scales as C_s ∝ I^{1/3} λ^{2/3} A^{-1/3}.
    Used for luminosity scaling in Fig. 7, following Ref. [27].
  • domain assumption Observable accretion emission requires stream densities near 10^11 cm^-3, based on chromospheric absorption modeling.
    Used to restrict the accessible CTTS parameter region in Fig. 6, following Ref. [28].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laser experiment for the study of accretion dynamics of Young Stellar Objects: design and scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZBTU2EB

@misc{pith2026190900730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laser experiment for the study of accretion dynamics of Young Stellar Objects: design and scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZBTU2EB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00730}
}
abstract

A new experimental set-up designed to investigate the accretion dynamics in newly born stars is presented. It takes advantage of a magnetically collimated stream produced by coupling a laser-generated expanding plasma to a $2\times 10^{5}~{G}\ (20~{T})$ externally applied magnetic field. The stream is used as the accretion column and is launched onto an obstacle target that mimics the stellar surface. This setup has been used to investigate in details the accretion dynamics, as reported in [G. Revet et al., Science Advances 3, e1700982 (2017), arXiv:1708.02528}. Here, the characteristics of the stream are detailed and a link between the experimental plasma expansion and a 1D adiabatic expansion model is presented. Dimensionless numbers are also calculated in order to characterize the experimental flow and its closeness to the ideal MHD regime. We build a bridge between our experimental plasma dynamics and the one taking place in the Classical T Tauri Stars (CTTSs), and we find that our set-up is representative of a high plasma $\beta$ CTTS accretion case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the accretion experiment performed using a magnetically collimated supersonic flow generated by a laser. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. GORGON longitudinal density profiles (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Directed mean free path as a function of time, at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamic- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Shock luminosity for three different laser intensities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Laboratory unravelling of matter accretion in young stars

    G. Revet, S. N. Chen, R. Bonito, B. Khiar, E. Filip- pov, C. Argiroffi, D. P. Higginson, S. Orlando, J. B´ eard, M. Blecher, M. Borghesi, K. Burdonov, D. Khaghani, K. Naughton, H. P´ epin, O. Portugall, R. Riquier, R. Ro- driguez, S. N. Ryazantsev, I. Y. Skobelev, A. Soloviev, O. Willi, S. Pikuz, A. Ciardi, and J. Fuchs, Science Ad- vances 3, e1700982 (2017...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [26]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and Y. P. Raizer, Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena - I, edited by W. D. Hayes and R. D. Probstein, Vol. I (Academic Press. New York and London., 1966). 10

    work page 1966

  3. [2]

    Bouvier, S

    J. Bouvier, S. H. P. Alencar, T. J. Harries, C. M. Johns- Krull, and M. M. Romanova, EAS Publications Series 9, 287 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [3]

    Calvet and E

    N. Calvet and E. Gullbring, The Astrophysical Journal 509, 802 (1998), arXiv:0008203 [astro-ph]

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    C. M. Johns-Krull, The Astrophysical Journal 664, 975 (2007), arXiv:0704.2923

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  6. [5]

    J. E. Cross, G. Gregori, J. M. Foster, P. Graham, J. M. Bonnet-Bidaud, C. Busschaert, N. Charpentier, C. N. Danson, H. W. Doyle, R. P. Drake, J. Fyrth, E. T. Gum- brell, M. Koenig, C. Krauland, C. C. Kuranz, B. Lou- pias, C. Michaut, M. Mouchet, S. Patankar, J. Skidmore, C. Spindloe, E. R. Tubman, N. Woolsey, R. Yurchak, and ´E. Falize, Nature Communicati...

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Quasi-periodic oscillations in accreting magnetic white dwarfs II. The asset of numerical modelling for interpreting observations

    C. Busschaert, E. Falize, C. Michaut, J.-M. Bonnet- Bidaud, and M. Mouchet, Astronomy & Astrophysics 579, A25 (2015), arXiv:1506.05892v1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Numerical simulations of high-energy flows in accreting magnetic white dwarfs

    L. Van Box Som, Falize, J. M. Bonnet-Bidaud, M. Mouchet, C. Busschaert, and A. Ciardi, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, 3158 (2018), arXiv:1709.09554

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    R. P. Drake, F. W. Doss, R. G. McClarren, M. L. Adams, N. Amato, D. Bingham, C. C. Chou, C. DiStefano, K. Fidkowski, B. Fryxell, T. I. Gombosi, M. J. Grosskopf, J. P. Holloway, B. van der Holst, C. M. Huntington, S. Karni, C. M. Krauland, C. C. Kuranz, E. Larsen, B. van Leer, ...

    2011

  2. [9]

    Chaulagain, C

    U. Chaulagain, C. Stehl´ e, J. Larour, M. Kozlova, F. Suzuki-Vidal, P. Barroso, M. Cotelo, P. Velarde, R. Rodriguez, J. M. Gil, A. Ciardi, O. Acef, J. Nejdl, L. de S´ a, R. L. Singh, L. Ibgui, and N. Champion, High Energy Density Physics 17, 106 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Young, C

    R. Young, C. Kuranz, R. Drake, and P. Hartigan, High Energy Density Physics 23, 1 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Albertazzi, J

    B. Albertazzi, J. B´ eard, A. Ciardi, T. Vinci, J. Albrecht, J. Billette, T. Burris-Mog, S. N. Chen, D. Da Silva, S. Dittrich, T. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, B. Hirardin, F. Kroll, M. Nakatsutsumi, S. Nitsche, C. Riconda, L. Romag- nagni, H. P. Schlenvoigt, S. Simond, E. Veuillot, T. E...

    2013

  5. [12]

    Albertazzi, A

    B. Albertazzi, A. Ciardi, M. Nakatsutsumi, T. Vinci, J. B´ eard, R. Bonito, J. Billette, M. Borghesi, Z. Burkley, S. N. Chen, T. E. Cowan, T. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, D. P. Higginson, F. Kroll, S. A. A. Pikuz, K. Naughton, L. Ro- magnani, C. Riconda, G. Revet, R. Riquier, H.-P. H.-P...

    2014

  6. [13]

    Ciardi, T

    A. Ciardi, T. Vinci, J. Fuchs, B. Albertazzi, C. Riconda, H. P´ epin, and O. Portugall, Physical Review Letters 110, 025002 (2013), arXiv:1212.2805v1

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    D. P. Higginson, G. Revet, B. Khiar, M. Blecher, M. Borghesi, K. Burdonov, S. N. Chen, E. Filippov, D. Khaghani, K. Naughton, S. Pikuz, O. Portugall, C. Riconda, R. Riquier, S. N. Ryazantsev, A. Soloviev, M. Stardubtsev, T. Vinci, O. Willi, A. Ciardi, and J. Fuchs, High Energy...

    2017

  8. [15]

    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, Physics of Plasmas 14 (2007), 10.1063/1.2436479, arXiv:0611441 [astro-ph]

    2007 doi

  9. [16]

    J. P. Chittenden, S. V. Lebedev, C. A. Jennings, S. N. Bland, and A. Ciardi, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 46 (2004), 10.1088/0741-3335/46/12B/039

    2004 doi

  10. [17]

    given by: ρ =ρ0 ( 1− γ− 1 γ + 1(1 + z cs0t) )2/(γ−1) the velocity profiles take their origin within a Lagrangian ballistic solution (v =z/t). The Landau solution for the velocity in an adiabatic expansion context would have given instead: |v| = 2 γ+1 ( cs0− z t ) (i.e., a balli...

  11. [18]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. M. . Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, 2nd ed., Vol. 6 (Pergamon Press, 1987)

    1987

  12. [19]

    D. D. Ryutov, B. A. Remington, H. F. Robey, and R. P. Drake, Physics of Plasmas 8, 1804 (2001)

    2001

  13. [20]

    E. P. Kurbatov, D. V. Bisikalo, M. V. Starodubtsev, A. Ciardi, J. Fuchs, A. A. Solov, K. F. Burdonov, G. Revet, and S. Chen, Astronomy Reports 95, 509 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    D. D. Ryutov, R. P. Drake, J. Kane, E. Liang, B. A. Remington, and Wood-Vas, The Astrophysical Journal 518, 821 (1999)

    1999

  15. [22]

    D. D. Ryutov, R. P. Drake, and B. A. Remington, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 127, 465 (2000)

    2000

  16. [23]

    Trubnikov, in Reviews of Plasma Physics Vol

    B. Trubnikov, in Reviews of Plasma Physics Vol. I, edited by M. Leontovich (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1965) p. 105

    1965

  17. [24]

    J. D. Huba, NRL Plasma Formulary (Wasington, DC: Naval Reasearch Laboratory, 2016) pp. 1–70

    2016

  18. [25]

    J. P. Colombier, P. Combis, F. Bonneau, R. Le Harzic, and E. Audouard, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 71, 1 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Orlando, G

    S. Orlando, G. G. Sacco, C. Argiroffi, F. Reale, and A. Maggio, Astronomy & Astrophysics 510, A71 (2010), arXiv:arXiv:0912.1799v1

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tabak, J

    M. Tabak, J. Hammer, M. E. Glinsky, W. L. Kruer, S. C. Wilks, J. Woodworth, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, and R. J. Mason, Physics of Plasmas 1, 1626 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    G. G. Sacco, S. Orlando, C. Argiroffi, A. Maggio, G. Peres, F. Reale, and R. L. Curran, Astronomy & Astrophysics 522, A55 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Argiroffi, A

    C. Argiroffi, A. Maggio, and G. Peres, Astronomy & Astrophysics 465, L5 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Gullbring, L

    E. Gullbring, L. Hartmann, C. Briceno, N. Calvet, C. Brice˜ no, and N. Calvet, The Astrophysical Journal 492, 323 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    Higginson, B

    D. Higginson, B. Khiar, G. Revet, J. B´ eard, M. Blecher, M. Borghesi, K. Burdonov, S. Chen, E. Filippov, D. Khaghani, K. Naughton, H. P´ epin, S. Pikuz, O. Por- tugall, C. Riconda, R. Riquier, R. Rodriguez, S. Ryazant- sev, I. Skobelev, A. Soloviev, M. Starodubtsev, T. Vinci,...

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Bonito, S

    R. Bonito, S. Orlando, C. Argiroffi, M. Miceli, G. Peres, T. Matsakos, C. Stehl´ e, and L. Ibgui, The Astrophysical Journal 795, L34 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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