Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Magnetic helicity fluxes in dynamos from rotating inhomogeneous turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in sheared, rotating inhomogeneous turbulence, the small-scale magnetic helicity flux between hemispheres can overcompensate the helicity transfer between scales, making the saturated large-scale field independent…

desk verdict A genuinely new numerical result, but the ReM-independence claim needs more resolution and error bars before it is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17402 v2 pith:GKLWEPRA submitted 2024-12-23 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.flu-dyn

Axel Brandenburg , Ethan T. Vishniac This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRphysics.flu-dyn
keywords magnetichelicityfluxeslarge-scaledynamocatastrophicquenchingshearturbulencealphaeffectReynoldsnumberdirectnumericalsimulation
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 shear, not just boundaries, can let a large-scale dynamo escape catastrophic quenching, the tendency of magnetic helicity conservation to suppress mean-field generation as resistivity drops. Using direct numerical simulations of nonhelically driven rotating turbulence whose intensity is peaked at the midplane, it shows that with shear the hemispheric small-scale magnetic helicity flux $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a}$ can exceed the helicity transfer between large and small scales, so a resistive term carries the imbalance. In these runs the saturated mean-field strength $\overline{B}_{\rm rms}/B_{\rm eq}$ stays roughly independent of magnetic Reynolds number, whereas in the same setup without shear it declines. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that magnetic helicity fluxes generated inside the shearing volume are enough to sustain a large-scale field.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-scale splitting of magnetic helicity balance. For horizontally averaged fields, the paper tracks four reservoirs: mean and fluctuating helicity in the north and south hemispheres, connected by the mean flux $\overline{\mathbf{E}}\times\overline{\mathbf{A}}$, the small-scale flux $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a}$, the transfer term $2\overline{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}\cdot\mathbf{B}}$ between large and small scales, and the resistive terms $2\eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{B}}$ and $2\eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}}$. The load-bearing identity is the steady-state balance in the small-scale equation, $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a} = -2\int (\overline{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}\cdot\mathbf{B}} + \eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}})\,dz$, which forces any mismatch between the hemispheric flux and the scale-transfer term to be absorbed by small-scale ohmic dissipation. The quasi-kinematic test-field method supplies the transport coefficients $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $\eta_t$, and $\delta$ used to classify the dynamo as $\alpha^2$ or $\alpha\Omega$.

What would settle it

A direct check is to repeat the highest-Reynolds-number sheared runs at higher resolution and with longer time averaging. If the small-scale flux balance $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a} = -2\int(\overline{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}\cdot\mathbf{B}} + \eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}})\,dz$ fails to hold, or if $\overline{B}_{\rm rms}/B_{\rm eq}$ is found to decline with $\mathrm{Re}_M$ once the grid-scale excess is removed, the overcompensation claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a dynamo driven by an $\alpha$ effect of opposite signs in the two hemispheres, adding shear changes the magnetic-helicity balance qualitatively. The paper computes the evolution equations for large-scale and small-scale magnetic helicity separately. Without shear, the flux $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a}$ between hemispheres is nearly absent, and the transfer term $2\overline{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}\cdot\mathbf{B}}$ between scales is balanced by ohmic dissipation. With shear, $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a}$ becomes comparable to or larger than $2\overline{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}\cdot\mathbf{B}}$, and the excess appears as a resistive contribution $2\eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}}$. As a result, the integrated transfer declines like $\mathrm{Re}_M^{-1}$, yet the saturated mean field remains almost independent of $\mathrm{Re}_M$, in contrast to the nonshearing case. The authors summarize this as catastrophic quenching being alleviated by shear-induced hemispheric small-scale magnetic helicity fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the simulations resolving the small-scale dissipation term $2\eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}}$ accurately and reaching a statistically steady state; the paper admits that at the highest magnetic Reynolds numbers extra energy lingers at the smallest resolved grid scale and that one run has questionable statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sheared inhomogeneous turbulent dynamos can reach a saturated mean-field strength that does not fade as the magnetic Reynolds number increases, at least for the parameter range simulated.
  • Catastrophic quenching need not require loss of helicity through boundaries; internally generated hemispheric fluxes can carry the imbalance.
  • The transfer of magnetic helicity between large and small scales still decays like $\mathrm{Re}_M^{-1}$ even in the sheared case, so the alpha effect itself weakens with resistivity.
  • The small-scale current helicity term $2\eta\mu_0\overline{\mathbf{j}\cdot\mathbf{b}}$ becomes the main sink at high $\mathrm{Re}_M$ when shear is present, so resolved small scales are essential for the balance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the result carries to real disk geometry, shearing flows in accretion disks or galaxies could sustain large-scale fields without relying on vertical boundary escape of magnetic helicity; the paper itself only demonstrates this in a local slab.
  • Editorial inference: the near constancy of $\mathbf{e}\times\mathbf{a}$ with $\mathrm{Re}_M$ hints at a saturated turbulent transport that could be captured analytically by a closure proportional to $B^2$ times a shearing rate; extracting such a closure from the runs would be a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension would be to measure the same flux balance in shearing-box simulations with Keplerian shear $q=3/2$ over longer times, checking whether the resistive term continues to absorb the overcompensation.
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 analyzes direct numerical simulations of large-scale dynamos in nonhelically forced, rotating, inhomogeneous turbulence, with and without shear. The authors diagnose the magnetic helicity budget split into mean-field and fluctuating contributions, compute turbulent transport coefficients with the quasi-kinematic test-field method, and focus on the balance between the hemispheric small-scale helicity flux e×a, the scale-transfer term 2E·B, and the resistive term 2ημ0j·b. In shearing runs they report that e×a remains approximately independent of magnetic Reynolds number while the 2E·B transfer declines, so that the resistive term carries the imbalance; correspondingly, the saturated large-scale field Brms/Beq no longer declines with ReM as it does without shear. The authors interpret this as shear-induced alleviation of catastrophic quenching through overcompensating hemispheric small-scale magnetic helicity fluxes.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is significant for dynamo theory and for astrophysical applications: it identifies a shear-driven small-scale helicity flux that can dominate the scale-transfer term and produce a saturated mean field nearly independent of ReM, directly addressing the catastrophic-quenching problem. The paper has clear strengths: the helicity balance equations are internally consistent, the runs span a range of PrM and ReM, the test-field results are included, and the simulation setups and reduced data are publicly available on Zenodo. The main limitation is that the load-bearing claim of overcompensation depends on accurate computation of the small-scale current helicity at the largest ReM, and the manuscript itself provides two reasons to doubt that accuracy: Run K retains excess energy at the Nyquist wavenumber, and Run G is acknowledged to have questionable statistical significance. No error bars are reported for the key flux-balance quantities or for the Brms/Beq trends.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5 and Figure 15] Run K still shows excess magnetic and velocity energy at the Nyquist wavenumber on the 512^3 grid. The integrated small-scale current helicity 2ημ0∫j·b dz in Eqs. (14)-(16) is dominated by the smallest resolved scales, so an unresolved spectral tail can contribute non-negligibly to j·b. If that contribution is significant, the paper's central claim that the resistive term replaces the 2E·B transfer at large ReM would be a resolution artifact rather than a physical balance. Please provide a resolution/convergence test or a quantitative estimate of the unresolved contribution, for example by recomputing the helicity budget after spectrally filtering the highest wavenumbers.
  2. [Section 3.5 and Figure 10] The paper states that for Run G the statistical significance is more questionable, yet Run G is one of only three points (Runs E-G) defining the monotonic decline of -2∫E·B dz and the rise of the resistive term in Figure 11. Moreover, the E-G lines are upscaled by a factor 3 to align with Runs H-K. This means the ReM-dependence of the flux balance for the PrM≠1 sequence is not established as stated. Error bars from the time-splitting method described in Section 2.3 should be shown, and the factor-3 rescaling should be justified or removed.
  3. [Table 3 and Figure 13(b)] No error bars are displayed for the flux contributions in Table 3 or for Brms/Beq in Figure 13(b), so the claimed near-constancy of e×a and of Brms/Beq across ReM cannot be distinguished from run-to-run scatter. Because the central conclusion is a null trend in ReM, the paper should present the uncertainties defined in Section 2.3 for these quantities, together with the number of independent samples in each time average.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.6 after Eq. (16)] The sentence identifying the gauge-invariant third terms says 'F mz and F mz in each equation, respectively'; the second occurrence should presumably be F_fz, not F_mz.
  2. [Figure 3 caption and Section 3.2] The caption states that the ratio α/ηtk1 shows local extrema of 'about 5', while the text says 'about ±5'; please make the sign convention explicit and consistent.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The column 'Run D+Sh' in Table 2 is not defined in the table caption; the text mentions 'Run D with shear' but it would help to state explicitly that this is the same shear profile as Run E applied with Run D transport coefficients.
  4. [Section 3.5, first paragraph] The sentence 'Although Brms is seen to increase with increasing magnetic Reynolds number... the rms magnetic field contained in the mean field, Brms, is seen to decrease' is clear in context, but the notation Brms versus Brms is easy to confuse in Table 3; a note in the table caption defining both quantities would improve readability.
  5. [Section 3.6] The phrase 'superequipartition with shear' is potentially misleading because only the total field, not the large-scale field, reaches superequipartition; the text makes this distinction, but a more precise section title would prevent misinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central helicity-flux and quenching claims are direct DNS diagnostics, not derived from fitted coefficients or self-cited uniqueness theorems.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are empirical: the small-scale hemispheric helicity flux e×a is diagnosed from the simulated fields, and the terms 2E·B and 2ημ0j·b entering the budget are separately measured. Equations (14)-(16) are exact budget identities used as bookkeeping; the 'overcompensation' statement is a reading of the measured relative sizes of these independently computed terms, not a term defined as a residual. The only fitted factor, cα=0.25 in Table 2, is a mean-field model diagnostic and does not enter the helicity-flux or ReM-independence conclusion. Self-citations (e.g., Hubbard & Brandenburg 2010, Brandenburg 2018b) provide method background and gauge arguments, but the central result does not reduce to any of them. The paper itself flags the two main threats to the trend: Section 3.5 notes Run G has questionable statistical significance (Figure 10), and Section 3.5/Figure 15 note Run K retains excess energy at the Nyquist wavenumber. These are resolution/statistics caveats affecting confidence in the ReM-independence trend, but they are not circularity. Accordingly no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an interpretation of direct numerical simulations; it introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The main inputs are standard MHD, a prescribed nonhelical forcing, rotation, and shear. One diagnostic scaling factor c_alpha is fitted in a side calculation.

free parameters (1)
  • c_alpha = 0.25
    Scaling factor applied to the alpha tensor in the mean-field model to reach a marginally excited state (Table 2). It is a diagnostic of the mismatch between mean-field model and DNS, not used in the central helicity-flux result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isothermal, subsonic, unstratified-density approximation with forcing profile fprof(z)
    The model assumes a constant sound speed and Ma less than or about 0.1, and uses sinusoidal or top-hat modulation of the forcing intensity (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Nonhelical stochastic forcing with kf=8, delta k=1
    Helicity in the turbulence is not injected directly; it must emerge from rotation and the intensity gradient (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Quasi-kinematic test-field method is valid
    The method computes transport coefficients from simulations; its validity assumes small-scale dynamo fields are not correlated with the large-scale field (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Bz=0 for the mean field because of planar averages
    Used to drop the Phi B term from the helicity flux (Section 2.6).
  • domain assumption Statistically steady state allows dropping time derivatives in helicity balance
    Equations (15) and (16) integrate the steady-state helicity balance (Section 2.6).
  • standard math Gauge invariance of the inferred flux components
    The fluxes F_mz and F_fz are inferred to be gauge invariant because the other terms in each balance equation are gauge invariant (Section 2.6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic helicity fluxes in dynamos from rotating inhomogeneous turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKLWEPRA

@misc{pith2026241217402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic helicity fluxes in dynamos from rotating inhomogeneous turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKLWEPRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17402}
}
abstract

We analyze direct numerical simulations of large-scale dynamos in inhomogeneous nonhelically driven rotating turbulence with and without shear. The forcing is modulated so that the turbulent intensity peaks in the middle of the computational domain and drops to nearly zero at the two ends above and below the midplane. A large-scale dynamo is driven by an $\alpha$ effect of opposite signs in the two hemispheres. In the presence of shear, the hemispheric magnetic helicity flux from small-scale fields becomes important and can even overcompensate for the magnetic helicity transferred by the $\alpha$ effect between large and small scales. This effect has not previously been observed in nonshearing simulations. Our numerical simulations show that the hemispheric magnetic helicity fluxes are nearly independent of the magnetic Reynolds number, but those between large and small scales, and the consequent dynamo effect, are still found to decrease with increasing Reynolds number -- just like in nonshearing dynamos. However, in contrast to nonshearing dynamos, where the generated mean magnetic field declines with increasing magnetic Reynolds number, it is now found to remain independent of it. This suggests that catastrophic dynamo quenching is alleviated by the shear-induced hemispheric small-scale magnetic helicity fluxes that can even overcompensate the fluxes between large and small scales and thereby cause resistive contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the magnetic helicity fluxes between north and south (upper and lower boxes), and between large scales (LS, left) and small scales (SS, right). In the steady state, the four magnetic helicity reservoirs can still have sinks or sources because of the microphysical resistivity. This can still be important, especially at small scales, and therefore the small-scale magnetic helicity fluxes, Ffz, may not bal￾an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Butterfly diagrams for Bx (left) and By (right) for Run D with PrM = 10, η = 5 × 10−5 , ν = 5 × 10−4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The black lines denote the time-averaged normalized profiles of α, γ, ηt, and δ for Run D with PrM = 10, η = 5 × 10−5 , ν = 5 × 10−4 . In the four panels, the red (blue) lines denote αxx (αyy), αyx (−αxy), ηxx (ηyy), and ηxy (−ηyx). The ratio, α/ηtk1, shows local extrema at k1z = ±2 of about 5, but has here a nearly linear profile as a function of z. To identify the nature of the large-scale dynamo seen above, it is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic helicity fluxes for Run D with PrM = 10, η = 5× 10−5 , and ν = 5× 10−4 . The blue (red) lines denote the small-scale (large-scale) contributions, where applicable, and the black dotted lines denote their sum. The black dashed–dotted line is the zero line. Note…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Butterfly diagrams for Bx (left) and By (right) for Run E with shear and PrM = 10. −2ηµ0j · b term, but now there is also a significant con￾tribution from the integrated 2ηµ0J · B term, which balances E × A. Looking at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time-averaged profiles of α, γ, ηt, and δ for Run E with shear and PrM = 10. The ratio, α/ηtk1, shows local extrema at k1z = ±2 of about 5, but has here a more linear profile as a function of z. The red lines refer to αxx(z), αyx(z), ηxx(z), and ηyx(z), and the blue li…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Summary of the small-scale magnetic helicity fluxes (blue line) and the typical values of −2 R E · B dz (black lines) and −2ηµ0 R j · b dz (red lines) for the runs with shear in semi-logarithmic (a) and double-logarithmic (b) representations. The latter also shows the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) z-profiles of hB2 ixyt (solid black), B 2 eq (dashed blue), hB 2 yit (solid red), and hB 2 xit (dotted red). (b) t-profiles of hB2 ixyz (solid black), B 2 eq (dashed blue), hB 2 yiz (solid red), and hB 2 xiz (dotted red) for Run E, here plotted in code units, [B] …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dependence of Brms (black) and Brms (red) on ReM (a) without shear and (b) with shear. Dashed lines indicate that ReM is varied by changing PrM [Runs A–D in (a) and Runs E–G in (b)], while solid lines indicate that Re has been changed [Runs H–K in (b)]. In (b), the op…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Slice of Jx(x, y, z∗) for Run G at k1z∗ = 1, showing a systematic tilt from the upper left to the lower right, with all structures being well resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Three-dimensional kinetic (blue) and magnetic (red) energy spectra for Runs G (solid lines) and K (dashed lines). are comparable to the reference flux defined in Equa￾tion (17). For Run D with ReM = 160, the magnetic helicity fluxes are about 30% of the reference flux…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 2011

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 17

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  3. [3]

    1996, ARA&A, 34, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.155

    Beck, R., Brandenburg, A., Moss, D., Shukurov, A., & Sokoloff, D. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.155

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.155 1996

  4. [4]

    2022, PhRvL, 129, 195101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.195101

    Bermudez, G., & Alexakis, A. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 195101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.195101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.195101 2022

  5. [5]

    G., & Brandenburg, A

    Blackman, E. G., & Brandenburg, A. 2002, ApJ, 579, 359, doi: 10.1086/342705

    doi:10.1086/342705 2002

  6. [6]

    G., & Field, G

    Blackman, E. G., & Field, G. B. 2000, ApJ, 534, 984, doi: 10.1086/308767

    doi:10.1086/308767 2000

  7. [7]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 824, doi: 10.1086/319783 —

    Brandenburg, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 824, doi: 10.1086/319783 —. 2005, Astron. Nachr., 326, 787, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510414 —. 2017, A&A, 598, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630033 —. 2018a, Astron. Nachr., 339, 631, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913604 —. 2018b, J. Plasma Phys., 84, 735840404, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000806

    doi:10.1086/319783 2001

  8. [8]

    1997, in Accretion Disks - New Aspects, ed

    Brandenburg, A., & Campbell, C. 1997, in Accretion Disks - New Aspects, ed. E. Meyer-Hofmeister & H. Spruit, Vol. 487, 109, doi: 10.1007/BFb0105826

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0105826 1997

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Astron

    Brandenburg, A., & Chatterjee, P. 2018, Astron. Nachr., 339, 118, doi: 10.1002/asna.201813472

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Brandenburg, A., Gressel, O., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/127

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2011, ApJL, 740, L50, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L50

    Rogachevskii, I. 2011, ApJL, 740, L50, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L50

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    F., & Torkelsson, U

    Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R. F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ, 446, 741, doi: 10.1086/175831

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ARA&A, 61, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    Brandenburg, A., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Rheinhardt, M., & K¨ apyl¨ a, P

    Brandenburg, A., R¨ adler, K. H., Rheinhardt, M., & K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J. 2008a, ApJ, 676, 740, doi:10.1086/527373

    doi

  7. [15]

    2008b, ApJL, 687, L49, doi: 10.1086/593146

    Subramanian, K. 2008b, ApJL, 687, L49, doi: 10.1086/593146

    doi

  8. [16]

    H., & Schrinner, M

    Brandenburg, A., R¨ adler, K. H., & Schrinner, M. 2008c, A&A, 482, 739, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809365

    doi

  9. [17]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e7f

    Brandenburg, A., & Scannapieco, E. 2020, ApJ, 889, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e7f

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, Phys

    Candelaresi, S., Hubbard, A., Brandenburg, A., & Mitra, D. 2011, Phys. Plasmas, 18, 012903, doi: 10.1063/1.3533656

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Cattaneo, F., & Hughes, D. W. 1996, PhRvE, 54, R4532, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.54.R4532

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 251, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040012

    Charbonneau, P. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 251, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040012

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & K¨ apyl¨ a, M

    Cole, E., Brandenburg, A., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., & K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J. 2016, A&A, 593, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628165

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 Del Sordo, F., Guerrero, G., & Brandenburg, A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts398

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, PhRvL, 112, 125003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.125003

    Ebrahimi, F., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2014, PhRvL, 112, 125003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.125003

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    B., & Blackman, E

    Field, G. B., & Blackman, E. G. 2002, ApJ, 572, 685, doi: 10.1086/340233

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    Gopalakrishnan, K., & Subramanian, K. 2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, Astron

    Gressel, O., Ziegler, U., Elstner, D., & R¨ udiger, G. 2008, Astron. Nachr., 329, 619, doi: 10.1002/asna.200811005

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    V., & Diamond, P

    Gruzinov, A. V., & Diamond, P. H. 1996, Phys. Plasmas, 3, 1853, doi: 10.1063/1.871981

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Brandenburg, A., & Dobler, W

    Haugen, N. E., Brandenburg, A., & Dobler, W. 2004, PhRvE, 70, 016308, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.016308

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    2009, ApJ, 706, 712, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/712 —

    Hubbard, A., & Brandenburg, A. 2009, ApJ, 706, 712, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/712 —. 2010, GApFD, 104, 577, doi: 10.1080/03091929.2010.506438 —. 2011, ApJ, 727, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/11 —. 2012, ApJ, 748, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/51

    2009

  22. [30]

    2014, A&A, 568, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423499

    Rogachevskii, I. 2014, A&A, 568, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423499

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    1999, PhRvL, 83, 3198, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3198

    Ji, H. 1999, PhRvL, 83, 3198, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3198

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106 K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J., Rheinhardt, M., & Brandenburg, A. 2022, ApJ, 932, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b78 K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J., Vizoso, J.´A., Rheinhardt, M., Brandenburg, A., & Singh, N....

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Rheinhardt, M., Brandenburg, A., K¨ apyl¨ a, P

    Karak, B. B., Rheinhardt, M., Brandenburg, A., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., & K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J. 2014, ApJ, 795, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/16

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2000, A&A, 361, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205266

    Kleeorin, N., Moss, D., Rogachevskii, I., & Sokoloff, D. 2000, A&A, 361, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205266

    2000 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2141

    Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2141

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press) Moffatt, H

    Krause, F., & R¨ adler, K.-H. 1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press) Moffatt, H. K. 1978, Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    1980

  29. [37]

    2002, A&A, 394, 735, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021224 18

    Ossendrijver, M., Stix, M., Brandenburg, A., & R¨ udiger, G. 2002, A&A, 394, 735, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021224 18

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293, doi: 10.1086/146087 —. 1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields: Their Origin and Their Activity (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, JOSS, 6, 2807, doi: 10.21105/joss.02807

    1955 doi

  31. [39]

    Pipin, V. V. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1150

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    1976, JFM, 77, 321, doi: 10.1017/S0022112076002140 R¨ adler, K

    Pouquet, A., Frisch, U., & Leorat, J. 1976, JFM, 77, 321, doi: 10.1017/S0022112076002140 R¨ adler, K. H. 1969, Monatsber. Deutsch. Akad Wissensch. Berlin, 11, 194

    1976 doi

  33. [41]

    2010, A&A, 520, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014700 —

    Rheinhardt, M., & Brandenburg, A. 2010, A&A, 520, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014700 —. 2012, Astron. Nachr., 333, 71, doi: 10.1002/asna.201111625

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, PhRvF, 6, L121701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.L121701

    Rincon, F. 2021, PhRvF, 6, L121701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.L121701

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2003, PhRvE, 68, 036301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.036301 —

    Rogachevskii, I., & Kleeorin, N. 2003, PhRvE, 68, 036301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.036301 —. 2004, PhRvE, 70, 046310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.046310 R¨ udiger, G., & Brandenburg, A. 2014, PhRvE, 89, 033009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.033009 R¨ udiger, G., & Kichatinov, L. L. 19...

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    H., Schmitt, D., Rheinhardt, M., & Christensen, U

    Schrinner, M., R¨ adler, K. H., Schmitt, D., Rheinhardt, M., & Christensen, U. 2005, Astron. Nachr., 326, 245, doi: 10.1002/asna.200410384

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    , & Christensen, U

    Schrinner, M., R¨ adler, K.-H., Schmitt, D., Rheinhardt, M. , & Christensen, U. R. 2007, GApFD, 101, 81, doi: 10.1080/03091920701345707

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    S., & Vishniac, E

    Shapovalov, D. S., & Vishniac, E. T. 2011, ApJ, 738, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/66

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Astrophysical Magnetic Fields: From Galaxies to the Early Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Shukurov, A., & Subramanian, K. 2022, Astrophysical Magnetic Fields: From Galaxies to the Early Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2022

  40. [48]

    2015, PhRvE, 92, 053101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.053101

    Squire, J., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2015, PhRvE, 92, 053101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.053101

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    Steenbeck, M., Krause, F., & R¨ adler, K. H. 1966, Zeitschr. Naturforsch. A, 21, 369, doi: 10.1515/zna-1966-0401

    1966 doi

  42. [50]

    2003, PhRvE, 67, 027302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.027302

    Stefani, F., & Gerbeth, G. 2003, PhRvE, 67, 027302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.027302

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    F., & Levy, E

    Stepinski, T. F., & Levy, E. H. 1990, ApJ, 362, 318, doi: 10.1086/169268

    1990 doi

  44. [52]

    2004, PhRvL, 93, 205001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.205001 —

    Subramanian, K., & Brandenburg, A. 2004, PhRvL, 93, 205001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.205001 —. 2006, ApJL, 648, L71, doi: 10.1086/507828

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    T., & Cho, J

    Vishniac, E. T., & Cho, J. 2001, ApJ, 550, 752, doi: 10.1086/319817

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    T., & Shapovalov, D

    Vishniac, E. T., & Shapovalov, D. 2014, ApJ, 780, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/144

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJL, 919, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1db5

    Warnecke, J., Rheinhardt, M., Viviani, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1db5

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    B., Ruzmaikin, A

    Zeldovich, Ya. B., Ruzmaikin, A. A., & Sokoloff, D. D. 1983, Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics (New York: Gordon and Breach)

    1983

  49. [57]

    Zenati, Y., & Vishniac, E. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca1e

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Zhou, H., & Blackman, E. G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx914 —. 2024, PhRvE, 109, 015206, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.109.015206

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.