Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Construction and analysis of guiding center distributions for tokamak plasmas with ambient radial electric field

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A midplane-based coordinate system for guiding-center orbits is both simpler and more accurate than constants of motion when a radial electric field is present.

desk verdict Solid methods paper with genuinely new content; the abstract overstates the 'superior' claim against absolute CoM, but the body is honest and the core material holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19288 v2 pith:TNOLEWHD submitted 2024-11-28 physics.plasm-ph

Andreas Bierwage , Philipp Lauber , Noriyoshi Nakajima , Kouji Shinohara , Guillaume Brochard , Young-chul Ghim , Wonjun Lee , Akinobu Matsuyama
show 3 more authors
Shuhei Sumida Hao Yang Masatoshi Yagi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords tokamakplasmasguidingcenterorbitsradialelectricfieldconstantsofmotionmagneticmidplanewave-particleresonancesphasespacesamplingdriftorbitdatabase
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 for building guiding-center drift-orbit databases in tokamaks with a radial electric field $E_r$, the best sampling coordinates are not the standard constants of motion but simpler coordinates measured at the magnetic midplane crossing. Because the valid phase-space boundary is a straight line in these relative coordinates, a coarse rectangular mesh gives accurate densities, flows, and temperatures, while conventional absolute-constant-of-motion meshes under-resolve the curved trapped-passing boundary and lose low-energy particles. The method is demonstrated on three realistic tokamak-like test cases with $E_r$ up to 30 kV/m, and orbit widths and velocity modulations are verified against analytical estimates. The paper also uncovers a practical subtlety: $E_r$ modulates the mirror force in a way that makes single-launch-point electric frequency shifts ambiguous for passing orbits, so resonance analyses need orbit-averaged or multi-launch-point frequencies. A sympathetic reader would take away that midplane-based phase-space slicing is the robust choice for rotating tokamak plasmas, and that electric Doppler shifts require care.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic midplane, defined by $B \cdot \nabla B = 0$ at the guiding-center position. Each ordinary guiding-center orbit crosses this surface twice, so the entire orbit space can be parameterized by the coordinates at the crossing: initial kinetic energy $K_I$, pitch $\alpha_I$ (or $\Lambda_I \equiv \mu B_0/K_I$), and midplane radius $X_I$. The Jacobian for this parameterization is computed explicitly, and the volume element carries a factor $1/2$ to correct for double counting of the two crossings. The second essential mechanism is the term $E_\nabla = (u/\omega_B)\,\mathbf{v}_E \cdot \nabla B$ in the parallel equation of motion, the electric modulation of the mirror force, which accelerates and decelerates the guiding center periodically and produces the reference-point bias in electric frequency shifts.

What would settle it

Run the same orbit database construction on the paper's worst-case test equilibrium with a full-orbit or random-launch Monte Carlo sampler that does not assume midplane crossings, including orbits near the trapped-passing boundary and any external divertor midplane, and compare flux-surface-averaged density and flow moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when an ambient radial electric field $E_r$ is present, sampling the guiding-center orbit space with midplane-based relative constants of motion — kinetic energy $K$, pitch coordinate $\Lambda$ (or pitch angle $\alpha$), and midplane radius $X$ — is not only equivalent but numerically superior to slicing with conventional absolute constants of motion $\{E, \mu, P_\zeta\}$. The superiority comes from the shape of the valid-domain boundary: in relative coordinates the boundary $u = 0$ (where the parallel velocity vanishes) is a straight line, so rectangular mesh cells and their volumes are evaluated accurately; in absolute coordinates the same boundary is a curved line that depends on the potential profile $\Phi(X)$, so a simple implementation either discards or miscounts boundary cells near deeply trapped and barely passing orbits. In the paper's worst-case test with $E_{r0} = 30$ kV/m, absolute-CoM slicing underestimated the mid-radius density by roughly 40% at moderate resolution and left a spurious deficit of particles near $u = 0$, while relative-CoM meshes converged quickly. The paper also establishes that $E_r$ modulates the mirror force through a parallel electric acceleration term that averages to zero over a poloidal transit but makes electric transit-frequency shifts reference-point dependent; for passing orbits the toroidal component of this bias cancels when launch points are summed.

Load-bearing premise

Every guiding-center orbit that matters crosses the magnetic midplane exactly twice, with a single midplane height for each radius; if not, the double-counting factor and the mesh omit or mis-weight orbits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A rectangular mesh over midplane kinetic energy, pitch, and radius gives converged moments (density, flows, temperature) with $E_r$, whereas absolute-CoM meshes at similar resolution can lose a large fraction of the density in the paper's worst-case test.
  • $E_r$ scans of transit frequencies should be interpreted as launch-point-dependent; single-launch-point scans for passing orbits can report toroidal shifts of either sign with magnitude up to $|\Delta u_{\rm orb}|/2$, so resonance analyses should use orbit-averaged or multi-launch-point frequencies.
  • The method captures the $E_r$-induced shift of the trapped-passing boundary, which in turn explains the multi-peaked toroidal flow structure seen in the peaked-temperature test case.
  • Under weakly varying $E_r$, the electric precession Doppler shift of a trapped orbit agrees with the relaxed plasma toroidal rotation speed to about 10%, supporting the common assumption that precessional resonances can be analyzed in the rotating plasma frame.
  • With $E_r$ present, orbit weights should be assigned using orbit-averaged kinetic energy $\langle K \rangle$ and radius $\langle r \rangle$ to minimize bias from the electric modulation of the mirror force.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same midplane-relative-CoM trick could be adapted to other axisymmetric or quasisymmetric magnetic configurations whenever a unique $B \cdot \nabla B = 0$ surface exists; in configurations with multiple midplanes, the double-counting factor would need to be replaced by a sum over crossing points.
  • The reference-point bias implies that any numerical resonance code that scans $E_r$ while launching at one fixed phase-space point may mis-estimate the electric Doppler shift; a direct test would compare single-launch-point frequency scans against launch-point-averaged frequencies for the same orbit.
  • Because the $1/2$ double-counting and the Jacobian assume exactly two midplane crossings, orbit databases near the trapped-passing boundary, stagnation orbits, and divertor-region orbits are the natural failure candidates; local mesh refinement or a hybrid full-orbit check would bound the error.
  • For sharp $E_r$ layers, the guiding-center model's neglect of gyroaveraging becomes questionable, and a full-orbit simulation with the same fields would show whether the midplane-based method's accuracy persists where orbit squeezing is strong.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes an extension of the VisualStart guiding-center (GC) code that includes a stationary, toroidally symmetric radial electric field Er. The authors sample GC orbit space on the magnetic midplane using relative constants of motion (midplane kinetic energy, pitch, radius) and compare this with slicing using absolute constants of motion (energy, invariant pitch, canonical toroidal momentum). The method is exercised on KSTAR, JT-60U, and ITER equilibria, with a Maxwellian-like CoM distribution used for weighting. The paper also analyzes the Er-induced modification of individual GC orbits, including the shift of the trapped-passing boundary, the reference-point bias in electric frequency shifts, and the validity of approximating the electric Doppler shift by bulk rotation. The central claim is that midplane-based relative CoM are equivalent but superior to absolute CoM in the presence of Er, allowing high accuracy with a simple mesh.

Significance. The potential value of the work is substantial: if robust, it provides a practical recipe for constructing GC orbit databases in rotating tokamak plasmas, which is relevant for low-frequency instabilities and resonance analyses. The paper ships extensive numerical validation: convergence tests in time step (Fig. 6), resolution studies for relative vs absolute CoM (Appendix B), analytic orbit-width estimates agreeing within 2-30% (Section 5.4), a quantitative continuity check (Eq. (53)), and reconstruction of the input Er from computed flow fields (Section 4.3). The demonstration that relative and absolute CoM are equivalent when the relative-CoM mesh is accurate is well supported, and the reference-point bias analysis in Section 5.5 identifies a subtle and important ambiguity. However, the paper's headline claim of superiority over absolute CoM is not established by the benchmark presented, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §3.6; Appendix B.1] The load-bearing claim that midplane-based relative CoM are 'not only equivalent but superior' to absolute constants of motion is not established by the evidence provided. The benchmark in Appendix B compares the relative-CoM slicing against an absolute-CoM implementation that uses deliberately simple AND/OR filters (Table B.1) and does not compute boundary cell sizes near the u=0 constraint (B.1) accurately; the paper itself concedes in Appendix B.1 that 'in principle, all this could be done accurately if one invests more effort into the meshing algorithm'. Thus the documented performance gap reflects the choice of a naive comparator, not an intrinsic property of the coordinate system. The 'equivalent' part of the claim is supported; the unqualified 'superior' part is not. The authors should either soften the claim to state that relative CoM are equivalent and much simpler to implement, or add a benchmark with a boundary-fitted absolute-CoM mesh that respects the curved u=0 surface.
  2. [§3.4; §3.8; Abstract] The method's accuracy and efficiency presuppose that each relevant GC orbit crosses a unique, single-valued magnetic midplane z_mid(R) exactly twice. Section 3.4 acknowledges that additional midplanes exist (e.g., in the JT-60U divertor region, Fig. A.2) and Section 3.8 warns that stagnation and potato orbits near the trapped-passing boundary may be missed or corrupted by the midplane polynomial fit and grid. The unqualified claim in the abstract of attaining 'high numerical accuracy and efficiency with a relatively simple mesh' in the presence of Er therefore holds only for configurations satisfying this premise. The conditions under which the method is applicable should be stated in the abstract or conclusions, and it would be useful to quantify how large a fraction of orbit space is affected in the JT-60U edge region where the extra midplane exists.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] There is a typo in the third paragraph: 'vales up to ±10 kV/m' should read 'values up to ±10 kV/m'.
  2. [§4.3] The marker density is referred to as Nmk in the text of Section 4.3 but as Nmpc in the figure captions and elsewhere; please unify the notation.
  3. [Eq. (47)] The notation 'Maxw. − →' in Eq. (47c) is nonstandard and likely a LaTeX artifact; please replace it with a conventional equality or arrow.
  4. [Figure 15] The caption of Fig. 15 contains 'Top[59]' in the line listing launch-point coordinates, which appears to be a stray citation tag; please correct or remove.
  5. [General] Given the paper's length and its role as a methods-reference for VisualStart, a short 'code and data availability' statement (whether the code will be released, and on what platform) would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the relative-CoM mesh and Er implementation are self-contained, with only a minor internal-consistency caveat in the Appendix C verification and a non-circular benchmark limitation affecting the 'superior' claim.

  1. other [Section 5.4 and Appendix C.1 (Eqs. C.6a-C.11b)]
    "Conservation of total energy E in Eq. (32a) and conservation of toroidal momentum Pζ in Eq. (32b) imply that, at an arbitrary point along the GC orbit, the parallel energy gain ∆u2 and the parallel momentum gain ∆u relative to the initial value uI are ..."

    The GC equations of motion in Section 3.3 are Hamiltonian and conserve the same E and Pζ; Section 3.5 states: 'The motion of a GC in the ambient fields given by Eq. (14) conserves the total energy E and the canonical toroidal angular momentum Pζ in Eq. (13).' The analytical estimates in Appendix C are therefore derived from the same invariants that the numerical integrator enforces by construction, so agreement in Section 5.4 is partly an internal consistency check rather than an independent test. This caveat is localized to the verification methodology; the central mesh construction is benchmarked self-containedly in Appendix B and checked against independent physical expectations (uniform flows in ITER, continuity, Er reconstruction from moments), so it is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central construction is not circular. The relative-CoM sampling and Jacobian mapping in Eqs. (31)-(37) are derived from the GC Hamiltonian and the midplane condition (25), and the benchmark in Appendix B compares two concrete mesh implementations without fitting any parameter to force agreement. Independent physical checks support the numerical results: uniform-flow expectations in Section 4.2, the continuity check in Eq. (53), and the reconstruction of the input Er from the computed flow moments in Eqs. (50)-(51). The only circularity-like caveat is that the analytic verification in Section 5.4 and Appendix C uses formulas derived from the same E and Pζ conservation laws embedded in the Hamiltonian integrator, so agreement is partly an internal consistency check; this is a minor verification circularity, not a load-bearing flaw. Self-citations to Ref. [16] provide code provenance and prior verification of the Er=0 mesh, but the Er=0 mesh verification is supporting evidence and Appendix B independently tests the Er case, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The categorical 'superior' claim is weakened by the admission in Appendix B.1 that the absolute-CoM implementation was deliberately kept simple ('in principle, all this could be done accurately if one invests more effort into the meshing algorithm, which we did not do'), but that is an evidence-completeness limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method does not introduce fitted constants. Two inputs are chosen by hand: the amplitude and profile shape of the analytical electric field model, and the test distribution weights. The method relies on standard GC theory and a set of stated domain assumptions (collisionless banana regime, unique magnetic midplane, smooth Er, non-self-consistent weights and field). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Er0 (peak radial electric field) = 0, 3, +/-30 kV/m
    Free input parameter in Eq. (15), not fitted to target results. KSTAR value is estimated from rotation, JT-60U 30 kV/m is a deliberate exaggeration, ITER is a moderate overestimate.
  • Electrostatic potential shape Phi(psi_P) = sinusoidal profile, Eq. (15), Er(0)=Er(1)=0, Er(0.5)=Er0
    Analytical model chosen for convenience. The method does not depend on this shape, but the example results do.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Littlejohn guiding-center equations of motion with mu exact by construction and E, P_zeta conserved
    Section 3.3, Eqs. (18)-(23). Background from Ref. [5]; the code integrates these Hamiltonian equations.
  • domain assumption Extended banana regime: scattering is negligible on poloidal transit time and weak resonant interactions only
    Sections 1 and 2.1. Justifies representing the reference distribution as a function of constants of motion.
  • domain assumption GC model validity: rho_L grad ln Phi << 1, no gyroaveraging, no ponderomotive potential, E_parallel approx 0, stationary fields
    Sections 2.6-2.7 and 3.8. Limits applicability for steep Er and for electrons, where E_parallel must be considered.
  • domain assumption Unique magnetic midplane: each GC orbit crosses B*gradB = 0 exactly twice and z_mid(R) is single-valued in the domain
    Sections 3.4 and 3.8. The factor 1/2 in Eq. (37) and the CoM mesh rely on this; JT-60U has additional midplanes outside the internal domain, and potato or stagnation orbits may be missed.
  • domain assumption Orbit weights and Er are externally specified and not self-consistent with the constructed distribution
    Section 4.3 and 6. Results are physical within the model but not realistic; self-consistency must be enforced elsewhere.
  • ad hoc to paper Isotropic CoM Maxwellian f_mdl(<r>,<K>) with orbit-averaged coordinates is a valid test distribution
    Eq. (46) and Section 3.7. It is not meant to be realistic; it simplifies benchmarks and makes Er effects visible.
  • ad hoc to paper Analytic estimates assume Er approx constant along the orbit, B approx B_tor, Delta I/I approx 0, and small inverse-aspect-ratio terms omitted
    Appendix C.1, Eqs. (C.4)-(C.11). These approximations are stated and tested, with deviations up to 50% in some passing-orbit quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Construction and analysis of guiding center distributions for tokamak plasmas with ambient radial electric field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNOLEWHD

@misc{pith2026241119288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Construction and analysis of guiding center distributions for tokamak plasmas with ambient radial electric field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNOLEWHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19288}
}
abstract

The contribution of a time-independent toroidally-symmetric radial electric field $E_r$ is implemented in VisualStart [Comp. Phys. Comm. 275 (2022) 108305; arXiv:2111.08224], a code whose purposes include the construction of guiding center (GC) drift orbit databases for the study of plasma instabilities in tokamaks. $E_r$ is important for the thermal part of the velocity distribution and for fast particle resonances in the kHz frequency range. KSTAR, JT-60U and ITER tokamak cases are used as working examples to test our methods and discuss practical issues connected with $E_r$. Two points are worth noting: First, the GC orbit space is sampled in the magnetic midplane as before, and we find that in the presence of $E_r$, midplane-based coordinates are not only equivalent but superior to conventional constants of motion, allowing to attain high numerical accuracy and efficiency with a relatively simple mesh. Second, the periodic parallel acceleration and deceleration of GCs via the mirror force is modulated by $E_r$. Although this parallel electric acceleration averages to zero during a poloidal transit (or bounce) period, it has important consequences, one being the known shift of the trapped-passing boundary. Another consequence is that electric frequency shifts depend on the chosen reference point, so that some care is required when evaluating the $E_r$-dependence of transit frequencies for resonance analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Tokamak geometry, coordinates, and orbit surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relevant part of the extended VisualStart workflow in five steps as described in the text. (Adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analytical model of the radial electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of midplane-base relative (left) and ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GC orbit space grid and distribution of orbit class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence tests for residual (non-electric) ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of normalized number density (N) and temperature (T ≡ P/N) fields, as well as the distribution of markers per cell (Nmpc) computed for the KSTAR (a–f), JT-60U (g–o) and ITER cases (p–u), with corresponding color bars next to them. In each set, we show results …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of the toroidal and poloidal components o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Toroidal and poloidal flow densities, Γtor and Γpol, in the JT￾60U case with Er0 = 0 (top), 3 kV/m, and ±30 kV/m (bottom). Ar￾ranged as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Er-induced modification of the number density N and tem￾perature T in the JT-60U case with exaggerated Er0 = 30 kV/m. This is a high-resolution run with NK × NΛ × NX = 32 × 128 × 128 cells (21M markers). In order to isolate the effect of Er , the analysis was performe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: , here chosen to be the orbits’ outer (LFS) mid￾plane crossing. Panels (a) and (c) show how the GC orbits (that is, the shapes of their contours) change when the equations of motion are solved for electric field strengths in the range −30 kV/m ≤ Er0 ≤ 30 kV/m. Panels …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Deeply trapped deuteron orbits in JT-60U. Using t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Deeply passing deuteron orbits in JT-60U with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Demonstration of the reference point bias and e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jr. L. Spitzer. Physics of fully ionized gases . Wiley, New Y ork, 2nd edition, 1956. See page 30, Section 2.3

    1956

  2. [2]

    Qin, W.M

    H. Qin, W.M. Tang, G. Rewoldt, and W.W. Lee. On the gyrokinetic equilibrium. Phys. Plasmas , 7:991, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.873898

    work page doi:10.1063/1.873898 2000

  3. [3]

    Helander and D.J

    P . Helander and D.J. Sigmar. Collisional Transport in Mag- netized Plasmas . Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics. Cambridge University Press, London, 2005

    2005

  4. [4]

    A unified Monte Carlo interpreta- tion of particle simulations and applications to non- neutral plasmas

    A.Y Aydemir. A unified Monte Carlo interpreta- tion of particle simulations and applications to non- neutral plasmas. Phys. Plasmas , 1(4):822, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.870740

    doi:10.1063/1.870740 1994

  5. [5]

    Littlejohn

    R.G. Littlejohn. V ariational principles of guiding centre motion. J. Plasma Physics , 29:111, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002237780000060X

    doi:10.1017/s002237780000060x 1983

  6. [6]

    Hinton and R.D

    F.L. Hinton and R.D. Hazeltine. Theory of plasma transpo rt in toroidal confinement systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 48:239, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1103/Re/v1ModPhys.48.239

    work page doi:10.1103/re/v1modphys.48.239 1976

  7. [7]

    Morozov and L.S

    A.I. Morozov and L.S. Solov’ev. Motion of charged partic les in electromagnetic fields. In Reviews in Plasma Physics, volume 2. Consultants Bureau, New Y ork, 1966

    1966

  8. [8]

    Zonca, L

    F. Zonca, L. Chen, J.Q. Dong, and R.A. Santoro. Exis- tence of ion temperature gradient driven shear Alfv´ en in- stabilities in tokamaks. Phys. Plasmas , 6:1917, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.873449

    work page doi:10.1063/1.873449 1917

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Chen and F

    L. Chen and F. Zonca. Physics of Alfv´ en waves and energet ic particles in burning plasmas. Rev. Mod. Phys., 88:015008, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1103/Re/v1ModPhys.88.015008

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Heidbrink, M.A

    W.W. Heidbrink, M.A. V an Zeeland, M.E. Austin, A. Bier- wage, Liu Chen, G.J. Choi, P . Lauber, Z. Lin, G.R. Mc- Kee, and D.A. Spong. ‘BAAE’ instabilities observed without fast ion drive. Nucl. Fusion , 61:016029, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abc4c3

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Heidbrink, G.J

    W.W. Heidbrink, G.J. Choi, M.A. V an Zeeland, M.E. Austin, G.H. Degrandchamp, D.A. Spong, A. Bierwage, N.A. Crocker, X.D. Du, P . Lauber, Z. Lin, and G.R. McKee. Isotope dependence of beta-induced Alfv´ en eigenmode (BAE) and low frequency mode (LFM) stability in DIII-D. Nucl....

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    X.D. Du, R.J. Hong, W.W. Heidbrink, X. Jian, H. Wang, N.W. Eidietis, M.A. V an Zeeland, M.E. Austin, Y . Liu, N.A. Crocker, T.L. Rhodes, K. S¨ arkim¨ aki, A. Snicker, W. Wu, and M. Knolker. Multiscale chirping modes driven by thermal ions in a plasma with reactor-relevant ion ...

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Hirshman and D.J

    S.P . Hirshman and D.J. Sigmar. Neoclassical transport of im- purities in tokamak plasmas. Nucl. Fusion , 21:1079, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/21/9/003

    1981 doi

  6. [14]

    K. Ida. Experimental studies of the physical mechanism de- termining the radial electric field and its radial structure in a toroidal plasma. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion , 40:1429, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/40/8/002

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    Callen, A.J

    J.D. Callen, A.J. Cole, and C.C. Hegna. Toroidal rota- tion in tokamak plasmas. Nucl. Fusion , 49:085021, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/49/8/085021

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Bierwage, M

    A. Bierwage, M. Fitzgerald, Ph. Lauber, M. Salewski, Y . Kazakov, and ˇZiga ˇStancar. Representation and modeling of charged particle distributions in toka- maks. Comp. Phys. Comm. , 275:108305, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108305

    2022

  9. [17]

    Benjamin, H

    S. Benjamin, H. J¨ arleblad, M. Salewski, L. Stagner, 44 M. Hole, and D. Pfe fferl´ e. Distribution transforms for guiding center orbit coordinates in axisymmetric toka- mak equilibria. Comp. Phys. Comm. , 292:108893, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108893

    2023

  10. [18]

    Imbeaux, S.D

    F. Imbeaux, S.D. Pinches, J.B. Lister, Y . Buravand, T. C asper, B. Duval, B. Guillerminet, M. Hosokawa, W. Houlberg, P . Huynh, S.H. Kim, G. Manduchi, M. Owsiak, B. Palak, M. Plociennik, G. Rouault, O. Sauter, and P . Strand. De- sign and first applications of the ITER integra...

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Zonca, L

    F. Zonca, L. Chen, S. Briguglio, G. Fogaccia, G. Vlad, and X. Wang. Nonlinear dynamics of phase space zonal structures and energetic particle physics in fu- sion plasmas. New J. Phys. , 17:013052, 2015. https://doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/1/013052

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Falessi and F

    M.V . Falessi and F. Zonca. Transport theory of phase space zonal structures. Phys. Plasmas , 26:022305, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5063874

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Falessi, L

    M.V . Falessi, L. Chen, Z. Qiu, and F. Zonca. Non- linear equilibria and transport processes in burn- ing plasmas. New. J. Phys. , 25:123035, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ad127d

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Lauber, M

    Ph. Lauber, M. Falessi, G. Meng, T. Hayward-Schneider, V .-A. Popa, F. Zonca, and M. Schneider. A TEP: an advanced transport model for energetic particles. Nucl. Fusion , 64:096010, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad6336

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Meng, Ph

    G. Meng, Ph. Lauber, Z. Lu, A. Bergmann, and M. Schneider . Energetic particles transport in constants of motion space due to collisions in tokamak plasmas. Nucl. Fusion, 64:096009, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad5190

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Hezaveh, Z.S

    H. Hezaveh, Z.S. Qu, M.J. Hole, and R.L. Dewar. Theo- retical description of chirping waves using phase-space wa - terbags. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion , 63:065008, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/abf574

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Brochard

    G. Brochard. Dynamics of ion-driven fishbones in tokamaks: theory and nonlinear full scale simulations . PhD thesis, Plasma Physics [physics.plasm-ph], Institut Polytechnique de Pa ris, France, 2019. English. NNT : 2019IPPAX002. tel-02495955. https://theses.hal.science/tel-02495955/v11

    2019

  18. [26]

    Carlsson

    J. Carlsson. Breakdown of adiabatic invariance in spherical tokamaks. Phys. Plasmas , 8(11):4725, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1412008

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    D.F Escande and F. Sattin. Breakdown of adiabatic invar iance of fast ions in spherical tokamaks. Nucl. Fusion, 61(10):106025,

  20. [28]

    M. Rud, D. Moseev, F. Jaulmes, K. Bogar, Y . Dong, P .C. Hansen, J. Eriksson, H. J¨ arleblad, M. Nocente, G. Prechel, B.C.G. Reman, B.S. Schmidt, A. Snicker, L. Stagner, A. V alen- tini, and M. Salewski. Orbit tomography in constants- of-motion phase-space. Nucl. Fusion , 64:0...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Bierwage, C

    A. Bierwage, C. Di Troia, S. Briguglio, and G. Vlad. Orbit-based representation of equilibrium distribution f unc- tions for low-noise initialization of kinetic simulations of toroidal plasmas. Comp. Phys. Comm. , 183:1107, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.013

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Bierwage and K

    A. Bierwage and K. Shinohara. Orbit-based analy- sis of nonlinear energetic ion dynamics in tokamaks. I. E ffective mode number profile and resonant fre- quency tracking. Phys. Plasmas , 23:042511, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4947033

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Bierwage and K

    A. Bierwage and K. Shinohara. Orbit-based anal- ysis of nonlinear energetic ion dynamics in toka- maks. II. Mechanisms for rapid chirping and convec- tive amplification. Phys. Plasmas , 23:042512, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4947034

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Stagner and W

    L. Stagner and W. W. Heidbrink. Action-angle for- mulation of generalized, orbit-based, fast-ion diagnosti c weight functions. Phys. Plasmas , 24:092505, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4990391

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Stagner, W.W

    L. Stagner, W.W. Heidbrink, M. Salewski, A.S. Jacob- sen, B. Geiger, and the DIII-D and ASDEX Upgrade Teams. Orbit tomography of energetic particle dis- tribution functions. Nucl. Fusion , 62:026033, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac3ed2

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    J¨ arleblad, L

    H. J¨ arleblad, L. Stagner, M. Salewski, J. Eriksson, M. No- cente, B.S. Schmidt, and M. Rud Larsen. A frame- work for synthetic diagnostics using energetic-particle o r- bits in tokamaks. Comp. Phys. Comm. , 294:108930, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108930

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. Wesson. Tokamaks. Oxford University Press, New Y ork, 4th edition, 2011. Section 1.5, page 10

    2011

  28. [36]

    Brochard

    G. Brochard. Generation of constants of motion distrib utions for energetic particles in ITER Integrated Modelling Analy sis Suite. 50th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics, July 8-12, 2024, Salamanca, Spain. Poster P3-082. Paper in preparation

    2024

  29. [37]

    H. Chen, L. Chen, F. Zonca, J. Li, and M. Xu. V alidity of gy - rokinetic theory in magnetized plasmas. Comm. Phys. , 7:261,

  30. [38]

    Cary and A.J

    J.R. Cary and A.J. Brizard. Hamiltonian theory of guiding-center motion. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 81(2):693, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/Re/v1ModPhys.81.693

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Bierwage and K

    A. Bierwage and K. Shinohara. Testing the conserva- tive character of particle simulations: II. Spurious heat- ing of guiding centers and full orbits subject to fluctu- ations expressed in terms of e and b. Phys. Plasmas , 29:113906, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0106395. Err...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Berger, W.A

    J.M. Berger, W.A. Newcomb, J.M. Dawson, E.A. Frieman, R .M. Kulsrud, and A. Lenard. Heating of a confined plasma by os- cillating electromagnetic fields. Phys. Fluids , 1(4):301, 1958. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1705888

    1958 doi

  33. [41]

    Rosenbluth, R.D

    M.N. Rosenbluth, R.D. Hazeltine, and F.L. Hinton. Plas ma transport in toroidal confinement systems. Phys. Fluids, 15:116,

  34. [42]

    T.H. Stix. Decay of poloidal rotation in a toka- mak plasma. Phys. Fluids , 16:1260, 1973. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1694506

    1973 doi

  35. [43]

    Novakovskii, C.S

    S.V . Novakovskii, C.S. Liu, R.Z. Sagdeev, and M.N. Rosenbluth. The radial electric field dynamics in the neoclassical plasmas. Phys. Plasmas , 4:4272, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.872590

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    Winsor, J.L

    N. Winsor, J.L. Johnson, and J.M. Dawson. Geodesic acou stic waves in hydromagnetic systems. Phys. Fluids, 11:2448, 1968. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.169183513

    1968 doi

  37. [45]

    Lee, J.W

    W.J. Lee, J.W. Kim, S.M. Joung, G.J. Choi, J.G. Bak, J.S. Kang, and Y .-C. Ghim. Non-monotonic radial structures of fluctuating temperatures and densities associated with fish - bone activities in KSTAR. Phys. Plasmas , 30:022502, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0134354

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Landreman and P .J

    M. Landreman and P .J. Catto. Omnigenity as general- ized quasisymmetry. Phys. Plasmas , 19:056103, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3693187

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Helander and A.N

    P . Helander and A.N. Simakov. Intrinsic ambipolarity a nd rotation in stellarators. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 101:145003, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe/v1Lett.101.145003

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    Simakov and P

    A.N. Simakov and P . Helander. Plasma rota- tion in a quasi-symmetric stellarator. Plasma 45 Phys. Control. Fusion , 53:024005, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/53/2/024005

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Cooper, M

    G.A. Cooper, M. Jucker, W.A. Cooper, J.P . Graves, and M.Y u. Isaev. Exact canonical drift hamilto- nian formalism with pressure anisotropy and finite perturbed fields. Phys. Plasmas , 14:102506, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2786061. See also M. Jucker et al., Single partic...

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    Porcelli, R

    F. Porcelli, R. Stankiewicz, W. Kerner, and H.L. Berk. S o- lution of the drift-kinetic equation for global plasma mode s and finite particle orbit widths. Phys. Plasmas , 1:470, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.870792

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Hinton and Y .-B

    F.L. Hinton and Y .-B. Kim. Poloidal rotation in tokamak s with large electric field gradients. Phys. Plasmas, 2:159, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871105

    1995 doi

  44. [52]

    Shinohara, M

    K. Shinohara, M. Takechi, M. Ishikawa, Y . Kusama, A. Morioka, N. Oyama, K. Tobita, T. Ozeki, the JT-60 Team, N.N. Gorelenkov, C.Z. Cheng, G.J. Kramer, and R. Nazikian. Recent progress of Alfv´ en eigenmode experiments using N- NB in JT-60U tokamak. Nucl. Fusion , 42:942, 2002...

    2002 doi

  45. [53]

    Bierwage, K

    A. Bierwage, K. Shinohara, Y . Todo, N. Aiba, M. Ishikawa , G. Matsunaga, M. Takechi, and M. Y agi. Self-consistent long-time simulation of chirping and beating energetic par ti- cle modes in JT-60U plasmas. Nucl. Fusion, 57:016036, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/57...

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Bierwage, K

    A. Bierwage, K. Shinohara, Y . Todo, N. Aiba, M. Ishikawa , Go Matsunaga, M. Takechi, and M. Y agi. Simulations tackle abrupt massive migrations of energetic beam ions in a tokamak plasma. Nature Commun. , 9:3282, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05779-0

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    K. Tani, M. Honda, T. Oikawa, K. Shinohara, Y . Kusama, an d T. Sugie. E ffects of the radial electric field on the confine- ment of fast ions in ITER. Nucl. Fusion , 55:053010, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/5/053010

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Zhang, G.Y

    R.B. Zhang, G.Y . Fu, R.B. White, and X.G. Wang. Local wave particle resonant interaction causing energetic part icle prompt loss in DIII-D plasmas. Nucl. Fusion, 55:122002, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/12/122002

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    Heidbrink and G

    W.W. Heidbrink and G. Sager. The fishbone instability in the DIII-D tokamak. Nucl. Fusion , 30:1015, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/30/6/004

    1990 doi

  50. [58]

    Matsunaga, N

    G. Matsunaga, N. Aiba, K. Shinohara, Y . Sakamoto, A. Isayama, M. Takechi, T. Suzuki, N. Oyama, N. Asakura, Y . Kamada, T. Ozeki, and JT-60 Team. Observation of an energetic- particle-driven instability in the wall-stabilized high- β plasmas in the JT-60U tokamak. Phys. Rev. L...

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    Matsunaga, K

    G. Matsunaga, K. Shinohara, N. Aiba, Y . Sakamoto, A. Isayama, N. Asakura, T. Suzuki, M. Takechi, N. Oyama, H. Urano, and the JT-60 Team. Energetic particle driven instability in wa ll- stabilized high-β plasmas. Nucl. Fusion , 50:084003, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5...

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    Okabayashi, G

    M. Okabayashi, G. Matsunaga, J.S. deGrassie, W.W. Heid - brink, Y . In, 5 Y . Q. Liu, H. Reimerdes, W.M. Solomon, E.J. Strait, M. Takechi, N. Asakura, R.V . Budny, G.L. Jack- son, J.M. Hanson, R.J. La Haye, M.J. Lanctot, J. Man- ickam, K. Shinohara, and Y .B. Zhu. O ff-axis fish...

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    Heidbrink, M.E

    W.W. Heidbrink, M.E. Austin, R.K. Fisher, M. Garc´ ıa-M u noz, G. Matsunaga, G.R. McKee, R.A. Moyer, C.M. Muscatello, M. Okabayashi, D.C. Pace, K. Shinohara, W.M. Solomon, E.J. Strait, M.A. V an Zeeland, and Y .B. Zhu. Characterization ofoff- axis fishbones. Plasma Phys. Control...

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    L. Chen. Theory of magnetohydrodynamic instabilities excited by energetic particles in tokamaks. Phys. Plasmas , 1:1519,

  55. [63]

    Brochard, C

    G. Brochard, C. Liu, X. Wei, W. Heidbrink, Z. Lin, N. Gore - lenkov, C. Chrystal, X. Du, J. Bao, A.R. Polevoi, M. Schneide r, S.H. Kim, S.D. Pinches, P . Liu, J.H. Nicolau, and H. L ¨ utjens . Saturation of fishbone instability by self-generated zonal flows in tokamak plasmas. P...

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Brochard, C

    G. Brochard, C. Liu, X. Wei, W.W. Heidbrink, Z. Lin, M.V . Fa- lessi, F. Zonca, Z. Qiu, N.N. Gorelenkov, C. Chrystal, X. Du, J. Bao, A.R. Polevoi, M. Schneider, S.H. Kim, S.D. Pinches, P . Liu, J.H. Nicolau, and H. L ¨ utjens. Saturation of fish- bone instability through zonal ...

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Bierwage, K

    A. Bierwage, K. Shinohara, Y e.O. Kazakov, V .G. Kiptily , Ph. Lauber, M. Nocente, ˇZ. ˇStancar, S. Sumida, M. Y agi, J. Gar- cia, S. Ide, and JET Contributors. Energy-selective con- finement of fusion-born alpha particles during internal rel ax- ations in a tokamak plasma. Nat...

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    MA TLAB version: 24.1.0 (r2024a), 20 24

    The MathWorks Inc. MA TLAB version: 24.1.0 (r2024a), 20 24

  59. [67]

    Parallel Processing Toolbox: 24.1

    The MathWorks Inc. Parallel Processing Toolbox: 24.1. 0 (r2024a), 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Brizard and T.S

    A.J. Brizard and T.S. Hahm. Foundations of nonlinear gy roki- netic theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 79:421, 2007. See p.461, top right. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/Re/v1ModPhys.79.421

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    H. Sugama. Modern gyrokinetic formulation of col- lisional and turbulent transport in toroidally rotat- ing plasmas. Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. , 1(9):1, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41614-017-0010-5

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    Honda, T

    M. Honda, T. Takizuka, A. Fukuyama, M. Y oshida, and T. Ozeki. Self-consistent simulation of torque generation by ra- dial current due to fast particles. Nucl. Fusion, 49:035009, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/49/3/035009

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    Honda, S

    M. Honda, S. Ide, T. Takizuka, N. Hayashi, M. Y oshida, M. Y agi, and T. Fujita. Development of the transport- code framework for self-consistent predictions of rotatio n and the radial electric field. Nucl. Fusion , 53:073050, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/7/073050

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    Honda and A

    M. Honda and A. Fukuyama. Development of the fluid-type transport code on the flux coordinates in a tokamak. Comp. Phys. Comm. , 208:117, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.008

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    Belova, N.N

    E.V . Belova, N.N. Gorelenkov, and C.Z. Cheng. Self-con sistent equilibrium model of low aspect-ratio toroidal plasma with en- ergetic beam ions. Phys. Plasmas, 10(8):3240, 2003

    2003

  66. [74]

    Shinohara, M

    K. Shinohara, M. Takechi, M. Ishikawa, Y . Kusama, K. Tsuzuki, K. Urata, H. Kawashima, K. Tobita, A. Fukuyama, C.Z. Cheng, D.S. Darrow, G.J. Kramer, N.N. Gorelenkov, R. Nazikian, Y . Todo, Y . Miura, and T. Ozeki. Energetic particle physics i n JT-60U and JFT-2M. Plasma Phys. ...

  67. [75]

    Ishikawa, M

    M. Ishikawa, M. Takechi, K. Shinohara, Y . Kusama, C.Z. Cheng, G. Matsunaga, Y . Todo, N.N. Gorelenkov, G.J. Kramer, R. Nazikian, A. Fukuyama, V .A. Krasilnikov, Y u. Kashuck, T. Nishitani, A. Morioka, M. Sasao, M. Isobe, and the JT-60 team. Energetic ion transport by abrupt l...

    2005 doi

  68. [76]

    Salewski, B

    M. Salewski, B. Geiger, A.S. Jacobsen, I. Abramovic, S. B. Korsholm, F. Leipold, B. Madsen, J. Madsen, R.M. McDer- mott, D. Moseev, S.K. Nielsen, M. Nocente, J. Rasmussen, M. Stejner, M. Weiland, The EUROfusion MST1 team, and The ASDEX Upgrade team. Deuterium temperature, drif...

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Madsen, J

    B. Madsen, J. Huang, M. Salewski, H. J¨ arleblad, P .C. Ha nsen, L. Stagner, J. Su, J.F. Chang, J. Fu, J.F. Wang, L.Z. Liang, G.Q. Zhong, Y .Y . Li, B. Lyu, H.Q. Liu, Q. Zang, Z.P . Luo, M. Nocente, D. Moseev, T.S. Fan, Y .M. Zhang, D. Y ang, J.Q. Sun, L.Y . Liao, and the EAST...

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    Kim, P .H

    Y .B. Kim, P .H. Diamond, and R.J. Groeb- ner. Neoclassical poloidal and toroidal rota- tion in tokamaks. Phys. Fluids B , 3:2050, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.859671. Erratum: Phys. Flu- ids B 4 (1992) 2996 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.860488

    1992 doi

  71. [79]

    V alanju, M.D

    P .M. V alanju, M.D. Calvin, R.D. Hazeltine, and E.R. Sol ano. The effect of charge exchange on plasma flows. Phys. Fluids B , 4:2675, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.860187

    1992 doi

  72. [81]

    Baylor, K.H

    L.R. Baylor, K.H. Burrell, R.J. Groebner, W.A. Houlber g, D.P . Ernst, M. Murakami, and M.R. Wade. Comparison of toroidal rotation velocities of di fferent impurity ions in the DIII-D tokamak. Phys. Plasmas , 11(6):3100, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1710900

    2004 doi

  73. [82]

    N. Aiba, C. Giroud, M. Honda, E. Delabie, S. Saarelma, L. Frassinetti, I. Lupelli, F.J. Casson, S. Pamela, H. Urano , C.F. Maggi, and JET Contributors. Numerical analy- sis of ELM stability with rotation and ion diamagnetic drift e ffects in JET. Nucl. Fusion , 57:126001, 2017....

    2017 doi

  74. [83]

    Plank, D

    U. Plank, D. Brida, G.D. Conway, T. Happel, A.E. Hub- bard, T. P¨ utterich, C. Angioni, M. Cavedon, R. Dux, T. Eich, R. Fischer, P . Hennequin, and ASDEX Upgrade Team. Ex- perimental study of the edge radial electric field in di ffer- ent drift configurations and its role in the ...

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    Viezzer, T

    E. Viezzer, T. P¨ utterich, C. Angioni, A. Bergmann, R. D ux, E. Fable, R.M. McDermott, U. Stroth, E. Wolfrum, and the ASDEX Upgrade Team. Evidence for the neoclassical na- ture of the radial electric field in the edge transport bar- rier of ASDEX Upgrade. Nucl. Fusion , 54:012...

    2014 doi

  76. [85]

    S.G. Lee, J. Seol, and H.H. Lee. Toroidal rotation dynam ics in KSTAR ohmic plasmas. Nucl. Fusion , 62:106018, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac8a5e

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    Coenen, B

    J.W. Coenen, B. Schweer, M. Clever, S. Freutel, O. Schmi tz, H. Stoschus, U. Samm, B. Unterberg, and the TEX- TOR Team. Charge exchange recombination spectroscopy on a diagnostic hydrogen beam—measuring impurity ro- tation and radial electric field at the tokamak TEX- TOR. J. P...

    2010 doi

  78. [87]

    X. Xu, Y . Xu, X. Zhang, and Y . Hu. Simulations of the radial electric field induced by neutral beam in- jection in a tokamak. Nucl. Fusion , 61:086002, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac054d

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    K. Kim, J. Kang, H. Kim, S. Yi, J. Y oo, M. Choi, T. Rhee, J. Kim, M. Lee, W.-H. Ko, and J. Kwon. Ob- servation of improved confinement by nonaxisymmetric mag- netic field in KSTAR. Nucl. Fusion , 44:066003, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acc3ad

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    Cary; C.L

    J.R. Cary; C.L. Hedrick and J.S. Tolliver. Orbits in asy mmet- ric toroidal magnetic fields. Phys. Fluids , 31(6):1586, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.866698

    1988 doi

  81. [90]

    Todoroki

    J. Todoroki. Theory of longitudinal adiabatic invaria nt in the helical torus. J. Phys. Soc. Japan , 62:1562, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.62.1562

    1993 doi

  82. [91]

    Brizard and B.C

    A.J. Brizard and B.C. Hodgeman. Faithful guiding-cent er orbits in an axisymmetric magnetic field. Phys. Plasmas, 30:042115,

  83. [1972]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1693728

    doi

  84. [1994]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.870702

    doi

  85. [2004]

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/46/7/S03

    doi

  86. [2022]

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac21fb

    doi

  87. [2023]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0145035. 47

    doi

  88. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-024-01756-w

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.