Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 162 references

Turbulent Transport-Limited Pedestals in Tokamaks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a Transport Critical Pedestal (TCP) constraint: once turbulent electron power equals the source power anywhere in the pedestal, pedestal height cannot grow at fixed width, and this yields algebraic width-height scalings…

desk verdict Fresh framework, shaky load-bearing flux formula: the TCP scalings are new and worth engaging, but the MAST-U proximity claims rest on an ETG model the authors themselves doubt in that regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09101 v1 pith:ZDBV2PFU submitted 2025-05-14 physics.plasm-ph

J. F. Parisi , D. R. Hatch , P. Y. Li , J. W. Berkery , A. O. Nelson , S. M. Kaye , K. Imada , M. Lampert This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords tokamakpedestalELM-freeoperationtransport-limitedelectron-temperature-gradientturbulencewidth-heightscalingkineticballooningmodeflowshearH-mode
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 argues that a tokamak pedestal can be saturated by turbulent transport rather than by the edge-localized modes (ELMs) that limit standard H-mode pedestals. It introduces a Transport Critical Pedestal (TCP) model in which the pedestal stops growing at fixed width once turbulent electron power equals the available source power, and derives width-height scalings from an electron-temperature-gradient (ETG) heat flux formula. A central result is that the scalings depend strongly on whether pedestal pressure is built up by density or temperature: temperature-built pressure is more likely to hit the transport limit and therefore to stay ELM-free. A temperature pedestal shifted radially inward relative to the density pedestal also encourages transport limitation. Comparisons with MAST-U, NSTX, and DIII-D discharges show ELMy pedestals below the predicted ETG limit and some ELM-free pedestals close to it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transport threshold condition, Equation (3): $P(\Delta_{\rm ped},\beta_{\theta,\rm ped},\ldots)=P_{\rm limit}$, evaluated with the slab-ETG electron heat flux from [119], $q_e/q_{gB}=0.1\sqrt{m_e/m_i}\,\omega_{T_e}^2(\eta_e-1)\eta_e^{1.54}\tau^{0.5}H(\eta_e-1)$, where $\eta_e=\omega_{T_e}/\omega_{n_e}$ is the temperature-to-density gradient ratio. The pedestal profiles use the tanh parameterization of [128] with a pressure rescaling $S_p=S_T S_n$ and $S_T=(S_n)^b$, so $b$ controls whether the pressure buildup is density- or temperature-dominated, and a combined model adds KBM heat and particle transport with fixed diffusivity ratios $D_e/\chi_e|_{\rm ETG}=0.02$ and $D_e/\chi_e|_{\rm KBM}=1.00$ to produce separate power-limited and particle-limited TCP curves.

What would settle it

Measure an ELM-free pedestal's width and height trajectory as auxiliary heating is ramped: if the pedestal is truly transport-limited, its height should stop rising at fixed width when the turbulent electron power equals independently measured source power, and it should not cross the predicted TCP curve. A pedestal that continues to grow in height beyond the $P=P_{\rm limit}$ surface, or an ELM-free pedestal that saturates far below the TCP with no other saturation mechanism, would falsify the model's core premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pedestal can be transport-limited rather than limited by magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) instabilities such as peeling-ballooning modes: once $P=P_{\rm limit}$ holds at any radial location, the pedestal height can no longer increase at fixed pedestal width. Working from a slab-ETG electron heat flux model [119], the paper computes, for parameterized pedestal profiles, the set of pedestal widths $\Delta_{\rm ped}$ and heights $\beta_{\theta,\rm ped}$ satisfying this equality, giving scalings $\Delta_{\rm ped}\propto\beta_{\theta,\rm ped}^{\gamma}$ whose exponent $\gamma$ depends on the density-temperature composition of the pressure buildup and on whether density or temperature is held fixed. Applying the same threshold to experimental equilibria, the paper finds ELMy discharges below the TCP, some ELM-free pedestals close to it, and combined ETG+KBM particle-limited curves with different exponents.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the slab-ETG electron heat flux formula staying quantitatively accurate for all pedestal profiles and equilibria studied, including the pedestal top and cases where the temperature pedestal is radially inward of the density pedestal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pedestal whose pressure builds up mainly through temperature is more likely to be transport-limited and therefore ELM-free, because the ETG heat flux rises steeply with temperature gradient.
  • A radially inward shift of the temperature pedestal relative to the density pedestal increases the predicted ETG power and moves the pedestal closer to the TCP.
  • A transport-limited pedestal still needs a second saturation mechanism, such as $E\times B$ flow shear, to reach a stable equilibrium point in width-height space.
  • Because the TCP omits other transport mechanisms, it provides an approximate upper bound on the achievable pedestal pressure.
  • The particle-transport TCP from the combined ETG+KBM model has a weaker width-height exponent than the heat-transport TCP for the NSTX case, suggesting particle transport can be the more limiting channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the TCP scalings hold, source power becomes an actuator: raising or lowering the electron source should move a pedestal along its width-height trajectory and change its proximity to the ELM limit, which suggests a direct experimental control knob for ELM-free operation.
  • A testable extension would be to track the time evolution of an ELM-free pedestal after a gas-puff or heating step and check whether the trajectory in $(\Delta_{\rm ped}, \beta_{\theta,\rm ped})$ space follows the predicted TCP exponent for the discharge's density/temperature composition.
  • The strong sensitivity to the relative radial alignment of density and temperature pedestals implies that error bars on profile alignment, not just profile heights, may dominate uncertainty in predicted transport-limited pedestal pressure.
  • The paper's ETG-only analysis likely underestimates transport near the pedestal top, so a natural next step is to include toroidal ETG and micro-tearing terms; adding those should lower the TCP and make transport limitation easier to reach in ELM-free regimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Transport Critical Pedestal (TCP) concept: a pedestal is transport-limited when the turbulent power equals the local source power, and the authors derive width-height scalings from this condition using a slab electron-temperature-gradient (ETG) heat flux model. The scalings are shown to be highly sensitive to whether pedestal pressure builds up through density or temperature, and to the relative radial shift of the temperature and density pedestals. The framework is applied to DIII-D, NSTX, and MAST-U discharges, including ELM-free cases, and is extended to a combined ETG plus KBM model for both heat and particle transport. The paper's central actionable claim is that temperature-dominated or radially inward-shifted temperature pedestals are more likely to be transport-limited and hence ELM-free, with an additional E×B flow-shear constraint invoked to saturate pedestal growth.

Significance. If the underlying flux model were reliable, the TCP framework would be a valuable first reduced model for ELM-free pedestal prediction, complementing the MHD/KBM-based EPED picture. The algebraic section cleanly demonstrates how the density-temperature composition and profile shifts can change the transport-limited pedestal trajectory, and the MAST-U pair (48339 vs 49463) offers a striking, falsifiable contrast in predicted ETG power. However, the quantitative proximity estimates and scaling exponents rest on a slab ETG flux formula that the authors themselves concede is unsuitable for the pedestal top and for inward-shifted temperature pedestals, and part of the combined-model agreement is enforced by calibrating CKBM at the experimental point. The work is therefore a promising proof of concept rather than a validated quantitative scaling.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV C, Figure 9(a), Equation (12)] The paper's key experimental discriminator—MAST-U 48339 versus 49463—is evaluated in the regime where the authors state that the slab ETG heat flux model 'may be unsuitable for the pedestal top' (Section IV C, discussion of Figure 10). For 48339 the model predicts P=5–6 MW against Pe,limit=1.8 MW, a factor-of-three overestimate that the authors attribute to the flux model. Because the TCP curve in Figure 9(a) and its exponent γ=1.40 are computed from the same Equation (12), the quantitative claim that this discharge is near or beyond the transport limit is not supported. The comparison should either be reworked with a flux model validated for shifted density/temperature pedestals (for example, local nonlinear gyrokinetic flux-tube checks at the relevant ψN), or explicitly reframed as a qualitative illustration; as written, the experimental discriminator is tested with its least reliable tool.
  2. [§VI, Equation (16), Figures 12 and 13] In Section VI, the value CKBM=0.6 is chosen to satisfy Ge=Glimit at the experimental NSTX equilibrium, and the resulting TCPGe curve is then compared with experiment and claimed to be closer to the NSTX scaling. This is circular for the absolute position of the equilibrium point: the calibration enforces that the experimental point lies on the particle TCP curve. The scaling exponent γ≈1.28 may still be meaningful, but the assertion that particle transport is more limiting than heat transport for NSTX 132543 requires an independent calibration of CKBM or a sensitivity scan over that parameter; the reader cannot currently tell how much of the agreement is built in.
  3. [§III B, Figures 4 and 5, Equations (9) and (12)] The central sensitivity results—the b-dependence of the TCP exponents in Figure 4 and the large enhancement of P for inward-shifted temperature pedestals in Figure 5—are direct algebraic consequences of the functional form of Equation (12). No validation or uncertainty quantification is provided for this flux model in the steep-gradient, shifted-profile regime, and the admitted factor-of-three failure in MAST-U 48339 occurs in exactly this regime. The specific exponents γ quoted throughout the paper should therefore be presented as illustrative or accompanied by a robustness estimate; as written they carry a false precision that the underlying model cannot support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV C, Figure 9(a)] The text 'the predicted ETG power ... is high, 5 = 6.0 MW' appears to be a typographical error; it should read '5–6 MW' or '5 to 6 MW' to match the surrounding discussion.
  2. [§IV C, discussion after Figure 8(b)] 'More detailed investigated is required' should read 'More detailed investigation is required.'
  3. [§VII, discussion near Figure 14] The discharge is referred to as 'MAST-U 49483' here but as 'MAST-U 49463' elsewhere in the paper; the labels should be made consistent.
  4. [§V, paragraph on equilibrium constraints] The phrase 'two constraints that have haveβθ,ped scalings' contains a duplicated word and a missing space; it should be 'two constraints that have βθ,ped scalings.'
  5. [§II, Figure 1(c)] The statement that the intersection of the TCP and E×B constraints 'is a stable point' is presented as an assumption; it would help to label it explicitly as a conjecture that remains to be verified with time-dependent or stability analysis, since the saturation mechanism is essential to the ELM-free scenario.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central ETG TCP derivation is self-contained, but the Section VI KBM particle-transport comparison is partly forced by fitting CKBM so that Ge=Glimit at the experimental NSTX point.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, around Eqs. (16)-(26) and Figure 12]
    "Because of the lack of a validated algebraic expression for KBM transport, we choose CKBM = 0.6 to satisfy the constraint Ge = Glimit for the experimental NSTX equilibrium."

    The KBM transport coefficient CKBM is fit so that the particle flux equals the limiting particle source at the experimental NSTX equilibrium. The TCPGe curve is then defined as the locus Ge(Δped, βθ,ped) = Glimit, so the experimental point lies on that curve by construction. The paper subsequently presents TCPGe as 'closer to NSTX experimental measurements', but the curve-anchor proximity is enforced by the fit rather than predicted. Only the shape/exponent of the scaling carries independent information; the claimed agreement at the fitted point is circular.

full rationale

The core TCP construction is not circular: Section II defines the threshold condition P = Plimit as an explicit ansatz (Equation (3)), and Section III derives the ETG width-height exponents algebraically from the assumed flux expression. Equation (12) is taken from published work [119] with cited independent validation (JET H-mode [145] and Alcator C-Mod I-mode [119]), so using it as a model input is legitimate rather than a self-referential reduction. The MAST-U passage stating that the slab ETG heat flux model 'may be unsuitable for the pedestal top' is a regime-validity caveat, and the paper openly treats the resulting P = 5-6 MW as an overestimate; this is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The one genuine constructional issue is localized in Section VI: CKBM is chosen so that Ge = Glimit at the experimental NSTX equilibrium, placing that point on TCPGe by construction, and the later comparison of TCPGe with experimental measurements thereby re-states the fitting constraint as agreement. Because this occurs in an acknowledged 'low-fidelity demonstration of concept' and does not affect the main ETG-based TCP scalings, the overall circularity is partial and confined to that comparison.

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

The central claim rests on three inputs: the fitted ETG flux formula from [119], the transport-threshold ansatz P = Plimit, and parametric pedestal profiles. The pure ETG model adds no invented physical entities. The combined model adds one fitted coefficient CKBM. The ExB stability assumption is explicit but not derived.

free parameters (5)
  • ETG flux amplitude A = A = 1/60 (nominal analytic model)
    In Equation (9), A sets the overall ETG heat flux strength in the analytic TCP scalings. It is an adjustable amplitude that directly sets the position of the TCP curves.
  • CKBM = 0.6
    Chosen in Section VI so that the KBM transport model satisfies Ge = Glimit for the experimental NSTX equilibrium before the TCPGe scaling is computed. This is the clearest fitted parameter in the paper.
  • b = 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 (parameter scan)
    Parameter in Equation (8) controlling the relative density versus temperature contribution to pedestal pressure. The claimed sensitivity of the scalings is a function of b; it is a control knob rather than a fit.
  • eta_e,crit = 1.0
    Critical eta_e threshold for the ETG heat flux in Equation (9), set to 1.0 in the analytic model. It affects where ETG transport switches on.
  • alpha_crit scaling factor = 0.7
    The ideal infinite-n ballooning alpha_crit is multiplied by 0.7 as a heuristic to estimate the KBM critical gradient (Section VI). This is an ad hoc factor inherited from [105].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Transport threshold ansatz: once P = Plimit at any radial location, the pedestal height can no longer increase at fixed pedestal width.
    Introduced in Section II after Equation (2). This is the defining assumption of the TCP model and is not derived from transport equations.
  • domain assumption Equation (12) is a valid electron heat flux model for ETG turbulence in the pedestal across the equilibria studied.
    Every TCP curve in the experimental comparison depends on this fitted slab ETG formula from [119]. The paper itself notes in Section IV C that the model may be unsuitable near the pedestal top.
  • domain assumption Pedestal density and temperature profiles are adequately represented by the parameterized tanh form in Equations (4) and (5).
    The model assumes these parameterizations hold for all pedestal widths and heights, including H-mode and the negative triangularity L-mode case DIII-D 193843.
  • domain assumption The inward particle pinch is weak enough that the ETG/KBM transport scalings are an approximate upper bound on pedestal pressure.
    Stated in the Introduction with references [79-82]. If the pinch is strong, the bounding argument fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The intersection of the TCP and E cross B flow shear constraints is a stable pedestal saturation point.
    Assumed in Section V and sketched in Figure 11(c); no stability analysis is provided for this intersection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbulent Transport-Limited Pedestals in Tokamaks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDBV2PFU

@misc{pith2026250509101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbulent Transport-Limited Pedestals in Tokamaks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDBV2PFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09101}
}
read the original abstract

H-mode operation of tokamak fusion plasmas free of dangerous Type 1 edge-localized-modes (ELMs) requires a non-ELM mechanism for saturating the edge pedestal growth. One possible mechanism is turbulent transport. We introduce a transport threshold model to find pedestal width-height scalings for turbulent transport-limited pedestals. The model is applied to electron heat transport resulting from electron-temperature-gradient (ETG) turbulence. The width-height scalings are highly sensitive to the relative contribution of density and temperature to the pedestal pressure. Pressure that builds up mainly through temperature is more likely to be transport-limited, and hence ELM-free. A relative radial inward shift of the temperature to density pedestal location is also more likely to transport-limit the pedestal. A second constraint such as flow shear is required to saturate pedestal growth. We also calculate width-height transport scalings resulting from particle and heat transport arising from ETG and kinetic-ballooning-mode turbulence. Comparisons are performed for ELMy and ELM-free experiments in MAST-U, NSTX, and DIII-D. This is a first step towards a pedestal width-height scaling for transport-limited ELM-free pedestals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Heuristic pedestal trajectories in width-height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Heat transport from ETG turbulence at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: Radial profiles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Transport Critical Pedestal width-height scalings for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: TCP scalings and ETG power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Growth rate of fastest growing ideal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: TCP scalings and ETG power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: TCP scalings and ETG power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Pedestal phase diagrams. Stars indicate stable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (a) Power and (b) particle transport scalings for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: (a) Power and (b) particle transport scalings for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Terms in the electron power balance equation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Terms in the electron particle balance equation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zohm, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion38, 105 (1996)

    H. Zohm, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion38, 105 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    P. B. Snyder, H. R. Wilson, J. R. Ferron, L. L. Lao, A. W. Leonard, T. H. Osborne, A. D. Turnbull, D. Mossessian, M. Murakami, and X. Q. Xu, Physics of Plasmas 9, 2037 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    A. Kirk, H. R. Wilson, G. F. Counsell, R. Akers, E. Arends, S. C. Cowley, J. Dowling, B. Lloyd, M. Price, M. Walsh, and M. Team, Physical Review Letters 92 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    A. W. Leonard, Physics of Plasmas 21, 090501 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Wagner, G

    F. Wagner, G. Becker, K. Behringer, D. Campbell, A. Eberhagen, W. Engelhardt, G. Fussmann, O. Gehre, J. Gernhardt, G. v. Gierke, G. Haas, M. Huang, F. Karger, M. Keilhacker, O. Kl¨ uber, M. Kornherr, K. Lackner, G. Lisitano, G. G. Lister, H. M. Mayer, D. Meisel, E. R. M¨ uller, H. Murmann, H. Niedermeyer, W. Poschenrieder, H. Rapp, H. R¨ ohr, F. Schneider...

    1982

  6. [6]

    R. J. Groebner and S. Saarelma, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65, 073001 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Maingi, Nuclear Fusion 54, 114016 (2014)

    R. Maingi, Nuclear Fusion 54, 114016 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    J. W. Hughes, N. T. Howard, P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. J. Creely, A. Q. Kuang, P. B. Snyder, T. M. Wilks, R. Sweeney, and M. Greenwald, Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (2020)

    2020

Show all 162 references
  1. [9]

    Viezzer, M

    E. Viezzer, M. Austin, M. Bernert, K. Burrell, P. Cano-Megias, X. Chen, D. J. Cruz-Zabala, S. Coda, M. Faitsch, O. F´ evrier, et al. , Nuclear Materials and Energy 34, 101308 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. R. Wade and J. A. Leuer, Fusion Science and Tech- nology 77, 119 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Federici, C

    G. Federici, C. Bachmann, L. Barucca, C. Baylard, W. Biel, L. Boccaccini, C. Bustreo, S. Ciattaglia, F. Cis- mondi, V. Corato, C. Day, E. Diegele, T. Franke, E. Gaio, C. Gliss, T. Haertl, A. Ibarra, J. Holden, G. Keech, R. Kembleton, A. Loving, F. Maviglia, J. Morris, B. Mesza...

    2019

  4. [12]

    A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, S. B. Ballinger, D. Brun- ner, J. Canik, J. Doody, T. F¨ ul¨ op, D. T. Garnier, R. Granetz, T. K. Gray, C. Holland, N. T. Howard, J. W. Hughes, J. H. Irby, V. A. Izzo, G. J. Kramer, A. Q. Kuang, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, B. Lipschultz, N. C. Logan, J...

    2020

  5. [13]

    S. I. Muldrew, C. Harrington, J. Keep, C. Waldon, C. Ashe, R. Chapman, C. Griesel, A. J. Pearce, F. Cas- son, S. P. Marsden, and E. Tholerus, Fusion Engineer- ing and Design 201, 114238 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Najmabadi, A

    F. Najmabadi, A. Abdou, L. Bromberg, T. Brown, V. Chan, M. Chu, F. Dahlgren, L. El-Guebaly, P. Heitzenroeder, D. Henderson, H. St. John, C. Kessel, L. Lao, G. Longhurst, S. Malang, T. Mau, B. Merrill, R. Miller, E. Mogahed, R. Moore, T. Petrie, D. Petti, P. Politzer, A. Raffra...

    2006

  7. [15]

    H. S. Wilson, A. O. Nelson, J. McClenaghan, P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, J. F. Parisi, and C. Paz- Soldan, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    T. M. Collaboration, G. Rutherford, H. S. Wil- son, A. Saltzman, D. Arnold, J. L. Ball, S. Ben- 17 jamin, R. Bielajew, N. de Boucaud, M. Calvo-Carrera, R. Chandra, H. Choudhury, C. Cummings, L. Cor- saro, N. DaSilva, R. Diab, A. R. Devitre, S. Ferry, S. J. Frank, C. J. Hansen,...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Faitsch, T

    M. Faitsch, T. Eich, G. Harrer, E. Wolfrum, D. Brida, P. David, M. Griener, U. Stroth, A. U. Team, E. M. Team, et al. , Nuclear Materials and Energy 26, 100890 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    G. F. Harrer, M. Faitsch, L. Radovanovic, E. Wolfrum, C. Albert, A. Cathey, M. Cavedon, M. Dunne, T. Eich, R. Fischer, M. Griener, M. Hoelzl, B. Labit, H. Meyer, F. Aumayr, T. A. U. Team, and T. E. M. Team, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 165001 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Radovanovic, M

    L. Radovanovic, M. Dunne, E. Wolfrum, G. Harrer, M. Faitsch, R. Fischer, F. Aumayr, the ASDEX Up- grade Team, and the EUROfusion MST1 Team, Nu- clear Fusion 62, 086004 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Faitsch, T

    M. Faitsch, T. Eich, G. Harrer, E. Wolfrum, D. Brida, P. David, M. Dunne, L. Gil, B. Labit, U. Stroth, et al. , Nuclear Fusion 63, 076013 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    M. G. Dunne, M. Faitsch, L. Radovanovi´ c, and E. Wol- frum, Nuclear Fusion 64, 124003 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kamada, T

    Y. Kamada, T. Oikawa, L. Lao, T. Takizuka, T. Hatae, A. Isayama, J. Manickam, M. Okabayashi, T. Fukuda, and K. Tsuchiya, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 42, A247 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Saibene, P

    G. Saibene, P. Lomas, R. Sartori, A. Loarte, J. Sto- ber, Y. Andrew, S. Arshad, G. Conway, E. de la Luna, K. G¨ unther, L. Ingesson, M. Kempenaars, A. Korotkov, H. Koslowski, J. L¨ onnroth, D. McDonald, A. Meigs, P. Monier-Garbet, V. Parail, C. Perez, F. Rimini, S. Sharapov, a...

    2005

  16. [24]

    Suttrop, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 42, A1 (2000)

    W. Suttrop, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 42, A1 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Stober, M

    J. Stober, M. Maraschek, G. Conway, O. Gruber, A. Herrmann, A. Sips, W. Treutterer, H. Zohm, and A. U. Team, Nuclear Fusion 41, 1123 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Sartori, G

    R. Sartori, G. Saibene, L. D. Horton, M. Becoulet, R. Budny, D. Borba, A. Chankin, G. D. Conway, G. Cordey, D. McDonald, K. Guenther, M. G. von Hellermann, Y. Igithkanov, A. Loarte, P. J. Lomas, O. Pogutse, and J. Rapp, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 46, 723 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Maingi, R

    R. Maingi, R. E. Bell, B. P. LeBlanc, D. A. Gates, S. M. Kaye, J. E. Menard, S. A. Sabbagh, and H. Yuh, Jour- nal of nuclear materials 390, 440 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Maingi, R

    R. Maingi, R. E. Bell, J. M. Canik, S. P. Gerhardt, S. M. Kaye, B. P. LeBlanc, T. H. Osborne, M. G. Bell, E. D. Fredrickson, K. C. Lee, J. E. Menard, J.-K. Park, S. A. Sabbagh, and S. A. Sabbagh, Physical Review Letters 105, 135004 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    J. M. Canik, W. Guttenfelder, R. Maingi, T. H. Os- borne, S. Kubota, Y. Ren, R. E. Bell, H. W. Kugel, B. P. Leblanc, and V. A. Souhkanovskii, Nuclear Fu- sion 53 (2013), 10.1088/0029-5515/53/11/113016

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Gerhardt, J

    S. Gerhardt, J. Canik, R. Maingi, D. Battaglia, R. Bell, W. Guttenfelder, B. LeBlanc, D. Smith, H. Yuh, and S. Sabbagh, Nuclear Fusion 54, 083021 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    A. E. Hubbard, R. L. Boivin, R. S. Granetz, M. Green- wald, J. W. Hughes, I. H. Hutchinson, J. Irby, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, E. S. Marmar, et al. , Physics of Plasmas 8, 2033 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    LaBombard, T

    B. LaBombard, T. Golfinopoulos, J. L. Terry, D. Brun- ner, E. Davis, M. Greenwald, J. W. Hughes, and A. C.- M. Team, Physics of Plasmas 21, 056108 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    L. Gil, C. Silva, T. Happel, G. Birkenmeier, G. Conway, L. Guimarais, A. Kallenbach, T. P¨ utterich, J. Santos, P. Schneider, M. Schubert, E. Seliunin, A. Silva, J. Sto- ber, U. Stroth, E. Trier, E. Wolfrum, the ASDEX Up- grade team, and the EUROfusion MST1 team, Nuclear Fusio...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Macwan, K

    T. Macwan, K. Barada, J. F. Parisi, R. J. Groeb- ner, T. L. Rhodes, S. Banerjee, C. Chrystal, Q. Pratt, Z. Yan, H. Wang, L. Zeng, M. E. Austin, N. A. Crocker, and W. A. Peebles, Physics of Plasmas 31, 122503 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Greenwald, J

    M. Greenwald, J. Schachter, W. Dorland, R. Granetz, A. Hubbard, J. Rice, J. Snipes, P. Stek, and S. Wolfe, Plasma physics and controlled fusion 40, 789 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Ryter, W

    F. Ryter, W. Suttrop, B. Br¨ usehaber, M. Kaufmann, V. Mertens, H. Murmann, A. Peeters, J. Stober, J. Schweinzer, H. Zohm, et al., Plasma physics and con- trolled fusion 40, 725 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Hubbard, S.-G

    A. Hubbard, S.-G. Baek, D. Brunner, A. Creely, I. Cziegler, E. Edlund, J. Hughes, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, Z. Liu, E. Marmar, M. Reinke, J. Rice, B. Sor- bom, C. Sung, J. Terry, C. Theiler, E. Tolman, J. Walk, A. White, D. Whyte, S. Wolfe, S. Wukitch, X. Xu, and the Alcator C-Mod...

    2017

  30. [38]

    K. H. Burrell, M. E. Austin, D. P. Brennan, J. C. De- Boo, E. J. Doyle, C. Fenzi, C. Fuchs, P. Gohil, C. M. Greenfield, R. J. Groebner, L. L. Lao, T. C. Luce, M. A. Makowski, G. R. McKee, R. A. Moyer, C. C. Petty, M. Porkolab, C. L. Rettig, T. L. Rhodes, J. C. Rost, B. W. Stal...

    2001

  31. [39]

    Sakamoto, H

    Y. Sakamoto, H. Shirai, T. Fujita, S. Ide, T. Takizuka, N. Oyama, and Y. Kamada, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 46, A299 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Suttrop, V

    W. Suttrop, V. Hyn¨ onen, T. Kurki-Suonio, P. Lang, M. Maraschek, R. Neu, A. St¨ abler, G. Conway, S. Hac- quin, M. Kempenaars, P. Lomas, M. Nave, R. Pitts, K.-D. Zastrow, the ASDEX Upgrade team, and con- tributors to the JET-EFDA workprogramme, Nuclear Fusion 45, 721 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Garofalo, W

    A. Garofalo, W. Solomon, J.-K. Park, K. Burrell, J. De- Boo, M. Lanctot, G. McKee, H. Reimerdes, L. Schmitz, M. Schaffer, and P. Snyder, Nuclear Fusion 51, 083018 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    D. R. Ernst, A. Bortolon, C. S. Chang, S. Ku, F. Scotti, H. Q. Wang, Z. Yan, J. Chen, C. Chrystal, F. Glass, S. Haskey, R. Hood, F. Khabanov, F. Laggner, C. Las- nier, G. R. McKee, T. L. Rhodes, D. Truong, and J. Watkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 235102 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    K. H. Burrell, K. Barada, X. Chen, A. M. Garofalo, R. J. Groebner, C. M. Muscatello, T. H. Osborne, C. C. Petty, T. L. Rhodes, P. B. Snyder, W. M. Solomon, 18 Z. Yan, and L. Zeng, Physics of Plasmas 23, 056103 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    X. Chen, K. H. Burrell, T. H. Osborne, K. Barada, N. M. Ferraro, A. M. Garofalo, R. J. Groebner, G. R. McKee, C. C. Petty, M. Porkolab, T. L. Rhodes, J. C. Rost, P. B. Snyder, W. M. Solomon, and Z. Yan, Nu- clear Fusion 57 (2017), 10.1088/1741-4326/aa7531

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Wilks, L

    T. Wilks, L. Morton, D. Kriete, M. Knolker, P. Sny- der, K. Barada, C. Paz-Soldan, T. Rhodes, K. Burrell, X. Chen, et al. , Nuclear Fusion 61, 036032 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Houshmandyar, K

    S. Houshmandyar, K. Burrell, B. Grierson, J. Mc- Clenaghan, G. Staebler, C. Chrystal, M. Halfmoon, D. Hatch, L. Zeng, and M. Austin, Nuclear Fusion 62, 056024 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    A. Kirk, E. Nardon, R. Akers, M. B´ ecoulet, G. D. Temmerman, B. Dudson, B. Hnat, Y. Liu, R. Martin, P. Tamain, D. Taylor, and the MAST team, Nuclear Fusion 50, 034008 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    A. W. Degeling, Y. R. Martin, J. B. Lister, L. Villard, V. N. Dokouka, V. E. Lukash, and R. R. Khayrutdinov, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 45, 1637 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    T. E. Evans, R. A. Moyer, P. R. Thomas, J. G. Watkins, T. H. Osborne, J. A. Boedo, E. J. Doyle, M. E. Fen- stermacher, K. H. Finken, R. J. Groebner, M. Groth, J. H. Harris, R. J. La Haye, C. J. Lasnier, S. Masuzaki, N. Ohyabu, D. G. Pretty, T. L. Rhodes, H. Reimerdes, D. L. Ru...

    2004

  42. [50]

    L. Yao, Y. Zhou, J. Cao, B. Feng, Z. Feng, J. Luo, J. Dong, L. Yan, W. Hong, K. Li, Z. Cui, Y. Liu, E. Wang, J. Yan, and H.-M. Team, Nuclear Fusion 41, 817 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    M. E. Austin, A. Marinoni, M. L. Walker, M. W. Brook- man, J. S. Degrassie, A. W. Hyatt, G. R. McKee, C. C. Petty, T. L. Rhodes, S. P. Smith, C. Sung, K. E. Thome, and A. D. Turnbull, Physical Review Letters 122, 115001 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Nelson, L

    A. Nelson, L. Schmitz, C. Paz-Soldan, K. E. Thome, T. B. Cote, N. Leuthold, F. Scotti, M. E. Austin, A. Hy- att, and T. Osborne, Physical Review Letters 131, 195101 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Assessment of vertical stabil- ity for negative triangularity pilot plants,

    S. Guizzo, A. O. Nelson, C. Hansen, F. Logak, and C. Paz-Soldan, “Assessment of vertical stabil- ity for negative triangularity pilot plants,” (2024), arXiv:2401.15217 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K. E. Thome, M. E. Austin, A. Hyatt, A. Marinoni, A. O. Nelson, C. Paz-Soldan, F. Scotti, W. Boyes, L. Casali, C. Chrystal, et al. , Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 66, 105018 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Paz-Soldan, C

    C. Paz-Soldan, C. Chrystal, P. Lunia, A. Nelson, K. Thome, M. Austin, T. Cote, A. Hyatt, N. Leuthold, A. Marinoni, T. Osborne, M. Pharr, O. Sauter, F. Scotti, T. Wilks, and H. Wilson, Nuclear Fusion 64, 094002 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Nelson, C

    A. Nelson, C. Paz-Soldan, and S. Saarelma, Nuclear Fusion 62, 096020 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    A. O. Nelson, L. Schmitz, T. Cote, J. F. Parisi, S. Stewart, C. Paz-Soldan, K. E. Thome, M. E. Austin, F. Scotti, J. L. Barr, A. Hyatt, N. Leuthold, A. Mari- noni, T. Neiser, T. Osborne, N. Richner, A. S. Welander, W. P. Wehner, R. Wilcox, T. M. Wilks, J. Yang, and the DIII-D ...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Jardin, C

    S. Jardin, C. Bathke, D. Ehst, S. Kaye, C. Kessel, B. Lee, T. Mau, J. Menard, R. Miller, and F. Na- jmabadi, Fusion Engineering and Design48, 281 (2000)

    2000

  51. [59]

    W. M. Tang, J. W. Connor, and R. J. Hastie, Nuclear Fusion 20, 1439 (1980)

    1980

  52. [60]

    Aleynikova, A

    K. Aleynikova, A. Zocco, P. Xanthopoulos, P. He- lander, and C. N¨ uhrenberg, Journal of Plasma Physics 84 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Lortz, Nuclear Fusion 15, 49 (1975)

    D. Lortz, Nuclear Fusion 15, 49 (1975)

    1975

  54. [62]

    J. W. Connor, R. J. Hastie, H. R. Wilson, and R. L. Miller, Physics of Plasmas 5, 2687 (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    H. R. Wilson, J. W. Connor, A. R. Field, S. J. Field- ing, R. L. Miller, L. L. Lao, J. R. Ferron, and A. D. Turnbull, Physics of Plasmas 6 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Y. C. Lee, J. Q. Dong, P. N. Guzdar, and C. S. Liu, Physics of Fluids 30 (1987)

    1987

  57. [65]

    Horton, B

    W. Horton, B. G. Hong, and W. M. Tang, Physics of Fluids 31, 2971 (1988)

    1988

  58. [66]

    Dorland, F

    W. Dorland, F. Jenko, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers, Physical Review Letters 85, 5579 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers, Physics of Plasmas 7, 1904 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    Zielinski, A

    J. Zielinski, A. I. Smolyakov, P. Beyer, and S. Benkadda, Physics of Plasmas 24, 024501 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Adkins, A

    T. Adkins, A. A. Schekochihin, P. G. Ivanov, and C. M. Roach, Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    P.-Y. Li, D. Hatch, B. Chapman-Oplopoiou, S. Saarelma, C. Roach, M. Kotschenreuther, S. Maha- jan, G. Merlo, and the MAST Team, Nuclear Fusion 64, 016040 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    T. Nasu, T. Tokuzawa, M. Nakata, K. Ida, S. Ina- gaki, M. Nishiura, Y. Yoshimura, R. Yanai, K. Tanaka, M. Yoshinuma, T. Kobayashi, A. Ejiri, K. Watanabe, I. Yamada, and L. E. Group, Nuclear Fusion64, 096008 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    C. F. Clauser, T. Rafiq, J. F. Parisi, G. Avdeeva, W. Guttenfelder, E. Schuster, and C. Wilson, Physics of Plasmas 32.2 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Y. Ren, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, and W. X. Wang, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 8, 5 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    M. J. Pueschel, M. Kammerer, and F. Jenko, Physics of Plasmas 15 (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    Maeyama, A

    S. Maeyama, A. Ishizawa, T.-H. Watanabe, M. Nakata, N. Miyato, M. Yagi, and Y. Idomura, Physics of Plas- mas 21 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Ishizawa, K

    A. Ishizawa, K. Imadera, Y. Nakamura, and Y. Kishi- moto, Physics of Plasmas 26 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    McKinney, M

    I. McKinney, M. Pueschel, B. Faber, C. Hegna, A. Ishizawa, and P. Terry, Journal of Plasma Physics 87, 905870311 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Kumar, Y

    N. Kumar, Y. Camenen, S. Benkadda, C. Bourdelle, A. Loarte, A. R. Polevoi, F. Widmer, et al. , Nuclear Fusion 61, 036005 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    A. A. Ware, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 15 (1970)

    1970

  72. [80]

    Wagner and U

    F. Wagner and U. Stroth, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 35, 1321 (1993)

    1993

  73. [81]

    G. T. Hoang, C. Bourdelle, B. P´ egouri´ e, B. Schunke, J. F. Artaud, J. Bucalossi, F. Clairet, C. Fenzi-Bonizec, X. Garbet, C. Gil, R. Guirlet, F. Imbeaux, J. Lasalle, T. Loarer, C. Lowry, J. M. Trav` ere, and E. Tsitrone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 155002 (2003)

    2003

  74. [82]

    Weisen, A

    H. Weisen, A. Zabolotsky, X. Garbet, D. Mazon, L. Zabeo, C. Giroud, H. Leggate, M. Valovic, K.-D. Zastrow, and contributors to the JET-EFDA Workpro- 19 gramme, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion46, 751 (2004)

    2004

  75. [83]

    T. S. Hahm and K. H. Burrell, Physics of Plasmas 2, 1648 (1995)

    1995

  76. [84]

    R. M. McDermott, B. Lipschultz, J. W. Hughes, P. J. Catto, A. E. Hubbard, I. H. Hutchinson, R. S. Granetz, M. Greenwald, B. LaBombard, K. Marr, M. L. Reinke, J. E. Rice, D. Whyte, and A. C.-M. Team, Physics of Plasmas 16, 056103 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    Barnes, F

    M. Barnes, F. I. Parra, E. G. Highcock, A. A. Schekochi- hin, S. C. Cowley, and C. M. Roach, Physical Review Letters 106, 175004 (2011)

    2011

  78. [86]

    P. B. Snyder, T. H. Osborne, K. H. Burrell, R. J. Groebner, A. W. Leonard, R. Nazikian, D. M. Orlov, O. Schmitz, M. R. Wade, and H. R. Wilson, Physics of Plasmas 19 (2012)

    2012

  79. [87]

    Meneghini, P

    O. Meneghini, P. B. Snyder, S. P. Smith, J. Candy, G. M. Staebler, E. A. Belli, L. L. Lao, J. M. Park, D. L. Green, W. Elwasif, B. A. Grierson, and C. Holland, Physics of Plasmas 23 (2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    Meyer, T

    H. Meyer, T. Eich, M. Beurskens, S. Coda, A. Hakola, P. Martin, J. Adamek, M. Agostini, D. Aguiam, J. Ahn, L. Aho-Mantila, R. Akers, R. Albanese, R. Aledda, E. Alessi, S. Allan, D. Alves, R. Ambrosino, L. Am- icucci, H. Anand, G. Anastassiou, Y. Andr` ebe, C. An- gioni, G. Apr...

    2017

  81. [89]

    Meneghini, G

    O. Meneghini, G. Snoep, B. C. Lyons, J. McClenaghan, C. S. Imai, B. Grierson, S. P. Smith, G. M. Staebler, P. B. Snyder, J. Candy, E. Belli, L. Lao, J. M. Park, J. Citrin, T. L. Cordemiglia, A. Tema, and S. Mordijck, Nuclear Fusion 61 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Snyder, J

    P. Snyder, J. M. Park, H. Wilson, C. Collins, E. Hassan, J. Hughes, M. Knolker, T. Osborne, J. Parisi, M. Shafer, et al., Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Welsh, L

    A. Welsh, L. Casali, E. Fable, J. Smiskey, R. Mattes, G. Tardini, and B. T. Taczak, Nuclear Fusion 65, 044002 (2025)

    2025

  84. [92]

    Romanelli, G

    M. Romanelli, G. Corrigan, V. Parail, S. Wiesen, R. Ambrosino, P. D. S. A. Belo, L. Garzotti, D. Hart- ing, F. Koechl, T. Koskela, et al. , Plasma and Fusion research 9, 3403023 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    Meneghini, S

    O. Meneghini, S. P. Smith, L. L. Lao, O. Izacard, Q. Ren, J. M. Park, J. Candy, Z. Wang, C. J. Luna, V. A. Izzo, B. A. Grierson, P. B. Snyder, C. Holland, J. Penna, G. Lu, P. Raum, A. McCubbin, D. M. Orlov, E. A. Belli, N. M. Ferraro, R. Prater, T. H. Osborne, A. D. Turnbull, ...

    2015

  86. [94]

    Imbeaux, S

    F. Imbeaux, S. Pinches, J. Lister, Y. Buravand, T. Casper, B. Duval, B. Guillerminet, M. Hosokawa, W. Houlberg, P. Huynh, S. Kim, G. Manduchi, M. Owsiak, B. Palak, M. Plociennik, G. Rouault, O. Sauter, and P. Strand, Nuclear Fusion 55, 123006 (2015)

    2015

  87. [95]

    Artaud, F

    J. Artaud, F. Imbeaux, J. Garcia, G. Giruzzi, T. Aniel, V. Basiuk, A. B´ ecoulet, C. Bourdelle, Y. Buravand, J. Decker, R. Dumont, L. Eriksson, X. Garbet, R. Guir- let, G. Hoang, P. Huynh, E. Joffrin, X. Litaudon, P. Maget, D. Moreau, R. Nouailletas, B. P´ egouri´ e, Y. Peysso...

    2018

  88. [96]

    Staebler, M

    G. Staebler, M. Knolker, P. Snyder, C. Angioni, E. Fa- ble, T. Luda, C. Bourdelle, J. Garcia, J. Citrin, M. Marin, H.-T. Kim, J. Kinsey, C. Lee, Y.-S. Na, J. Park, P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, and M. Wu, Nuclear Fusion 62, 042005 (2022)

    2022

  89. [97]

    Badalassi, J

    A. Badalassi, J. Sircar, M. Solberg, J. W. Bae, K. Borowiec, P. Huang, S. Smolentsev, and E. Peterson, Fusion Science and Technology 79, 345 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    B. C. Lyons, J. McClenaghan, T. Slendebroek, O. Meneghini, T. F. Neiser, S. P. Smith, D. B. Weisberg, E. A. Belli, J. Candy, J. M. Hanson, L. L. Lao, N. C. Logan, S. Saarelma, O. Sauter, P. B. Snyder, G. M. Staebler, K. E. Thome, and A. D. Turnbull, Physics of Plasmas 30, 0925...

    2023

  91. [99]

    Anand, O

    H. Anand, O. Bardsley, D. Humphreys, M. Lennholm, A. Welander, Z. Xing, J. Barr, M. Walker, J. Mitchell, and H. Meyer, Fusion Engineering and Design 194, 113724 (2023)

    2023

  92. [100]

    H. R. Wilson and S. C. Cowley, Physical Review Letters 92 (2004)

    2004

  93. [101]

    P. B. Snyder, N. Aiba, M. Beurskens, R. J. Groeb- ner, L. D. Horton, A. E. Hubbard, J. W. Hughes, G. T. Huysmans, Y. Kamada, A. Kirk, C. Konz, A. W. Leonard, J. L¨ onnroth, C. F. Maggi, R. Maingi, T. H. Os- borne, N. Oyama, A. Pankin, S. Saarelma, G. Saibene, J. L. Terry, H. U...

    2009

  94. [102]

    Diallo and F

    A. Diallo and F. M. Laggner, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 63, 013001 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Kotschenreuther, X

    M. Kotschenreuther, X. Liu, S. Mahajan, D. Hatch, and G. Merlo, Nuclear Fusion 64, 076033 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    The effect of separatrix density and pfc ma- terial on h-mode confinement in the itpa global h-mode database,

    M. Kotschenreuther, X. Liu, D. R. Hatch, and S. M. Mahajan, “The effect of separatrix density and pfc ma- terial on h-mode confinement in the itpa global h-mode database,” (2024), arXiv:2406.15693

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    This would be a straightforward generalization of the current model

    In this limited example, we are only interested in the KBM transport up to first stability for an NSTX pedestal – our model does not capture the effects of sec- ond stability at very steep gradients and low magnetic shear; in this regime, the KBM fluxes could vanish. This woul...

  98. [106]

    Dickinson, C

    D. Dickinson, C. M. Roach, S. Saarelma, R. Scannell, A. Kirk, and H. R. Wilson, Physical Review Letters 108, 135002 (2012)

    2012

  99. [107]

    Saarelma, M

    S. Saarelma, M. Beurskens, D. Dickinson, L. Frassinetti, M. Leyland, C. Roach, and E.-J. Contributors, Nuclear Fusion 53, 123012 (2013)

    2013

  100. [108]

    Parisi, W

    J. Parisi, W. Guttenfelder, A. Nelson, R. Gaur, A. Kleiner, M. Lampert, G. Avdeeva, J. Berkery, C. Clauser, M. Curie, A. Diallo, W. Dorland, S. Kaye, J. McClenaghan, and F. Parra, Nuclear Fusion 64, 054002 (2024)

    2024

  101. [109]

    F. M. Laggner, E. Wolfrum, M. Cavedon, F. Mink, E. Viezzer, M. G. Dunne, P. Manz, H. Doerk, G. Birken- meier, R. Fischer, S. Fietz, M. Maraschek, M. Willens- dorfer, F. Aumayr, the EUROfusion MST1 Team, and the ASDEX Upgrade Team, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion 58, 065...

    2016

  102. [110]

    C. F. Maggi, L. Frassinetti, L. Horvath, A. Lunniss, S. Saarelma, H. Wilson, J. Flanagan, M. Leyland, I. Lu- pelli, S. Pamela, H. Urano, L. Garzotti, E. Lerche, I. Nunes, F. Rimini, and J. Contributors, Nuclear Fu- sion 57, 116012 (2017)

    2017

  103. [111]

    Diallo, R

    A. Diallo, R. J. Groebner, T. L. Rhodes, D. J. Battaglia, D. R. Smith, T. H. Osborne, J. M. Canik, W. Gutten- felder, and P. B. Snyder, Physics of Plasmas 22, 056111 (2015)

    2015

  104. [112]

    N. A. Krall and M. N. Rosenbluth, Physics of Fluids 8, 1488 (1965)

    1965

  105. [113]

    J. F. Drake, N. T. Gladd, C. S. Liu, and C. L. Chang, Physical Review Letters 44, 994 (1980)

    1980

  106. [114]

    A. M. Dimits, G. Bateman, M. A. Beer, B. I. Cohen, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, C. Kim, J. E. Kinsey, M. Kotschenreuther, A. H. Kritz, L. L. Lao, J. Man- drekas, W. M. Nevins, S. E. Parker, A. J. Redd, D. E. Shumaker, R. Sydora, and J. Weiland, Physics of Plas- mas 7, 969 (2000)

    2000

  107. [115]

    Xiao and Z

    Y. Xiao and Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 085004 (2009). 21

    2009

  108. [116]

    C. M. Roach, I. G. Abel, R. J. Akers, W. Arter, M. Barnes, Y. Camenen, F. J. Casson, G. Colyer, J. W. Connor, S. C. Cowley, D. Dickinson, W. Dorland, A. R. Field, W. Guttenfelder, G. W. Hammett, R. J. Hastie, E. Highcock, N. F. Loureiro, A. G. Peeters, M. Reshko, S. Saarelma, ...

    2009

  109. [117]

    P. N. Guzdar, L. Chen, W. M. Tang, and P. H. Ruther- ford, The Physics of Fluids 26 (1983)

    1983

  110. [118]

    and there are few other turbulent modes apart from KBM to cause significant particle transport, it may not be surprising that the particle transport scaling associ- ated with KBM + ETG is in reasonable agreement with experiment. It is also noteworthy that the particle TCP 0.00...

  111. [119]

    Hatch, M

    D. Hatch, M. Kotschenreuther, P.-Y. Li, B. Chapman- Oplopoiou, J. Parisi, S. Mahajan, and R. Groebner, Nuclear Fusion 64, 066007 (2024)

    2024

  112. [120]

    Garbet, Y

    X. Garbet, Y. Idomura, L. Villard, and T. Watanabe, Nuclear Fusion 50, 043002 (2010)

    2010

  113. [121]

    Kotschenreuther, X

    M. Kotschenreuther, X. Liu, D. R. Hatch, S. Mahajan, L. Zheng, A. Diallo, R. Groebner, J. C. Hillesheim, C. F. Maggi, C. Giroud, F. Koechl, V. Parail, S. Saarelma, E. Solano, A. Chankin, A. Chankin, and J. Contribu- tors, Nuclear Fusion 59, 096001 (2019)

    2019

  114. [122]

    N. T. Howard, C. Holland, A. E. White, M. Greenwald, J. Candy, and A. J. Creely, Physics of Plasmas (2016)

    2016

  115. [123]

    Parisi, A

    J. Parisi, A. Nelson, W. Guttenfelder, R. Gaur, J. Berk- ery, S. Kaye, K. Barada, C. Clauser, A. Diallo, D. Hatch, A. Kleiner, M. Lampert, T. Macwan, and J. Menard, Nuclear Fusion 64, 086034 (2024)

    2024

  116. [124]

    Maeyama, Y

    S. Maeyama, Y. Idomura, T. H. Watanabe, M. Nakata, M. Yagi, N. Miyato, A. Ishizawa, and M. Nunami, Physical Review Letters 114, 255002 (2015)

    2015

  117. [125]

    J. F. Parisi, F. I. Parra, C. M. Roach, M. R. Hard- man, A. A. Schekochihin, I. G. Abel, N. Aiba, J. Ball, M. Barnes, B. Chapman-Oplopoiou, D. Dickinson, W. Dorland, C. Giroud, D. Hatch, J. Hillesheim, J. R. Ruiz, S. Saarelma, D. St-Onge, and J. Contributors, Nuclear Fusion 62...

    2022

  118. [126]

    M. R. Hardman, M. Barnes, C. M. Roach, and F. I. Parra, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61, 065025 (2019)

    2019

  119. [127]

    J. F. Parisi, F. I. Parra, C. M. Roach, C. Giroud, W. Dorland, D. R. Hatch, M. Barnes, J. Hillesheim, N. Aiba, J. Ball, and P. G. Ivanov, Nuclear Fusion 60, 126045 (2020)

    2020

  120. [128]

    P. B. Snyder, R. J. Groebner, A. W. Leonard, T. H. Osborne, and H. R. Wilson, Physics of Plasmas 16, 056118 (2009)

    2009

  121. [129]

    E. A. Belli, J. Candy, and I. Sfiligoi, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65, 024001 (2022)

    2022

  122. [130]

    Chapman-Oplopoiou, J

    B. Chapman-Oplopoiou, J. Walker, D. Hatch, T. G¨ orler, and J. Contributors, Physical Review Research 7, L012004 (2024)

    2024

  123. [131]

    Boyle, J

    D. Boyle, J. Anderson, S. Banerjee, R. Bell, W. Capec- chi, D. Elliott, C. Hansen, S. Kubota, B. LeBlanc, A. Maan, R. Maingi, R. Majeski, J. Menard, S. Oliva, T. Rhodes, V. Soukhanovskii, and L. Zakharov, Nu- clear Fusion 63, 056020 (2023)

    2023

  124. [132]

    Chapman-Oplopoiou, D

    B. Chapman-Oplopoiou, D. Hatch, A. Field, L. Frassinetti, J. Hillesheim, L. Horvath, C. Maggi, J. Parisi, C. Roach, S. Saarelma, J. Walker, and J. Contributors, Nuclear Fusion 62, 086028 (2022)

    2022

  125. [133]

    Guttenfelder, D

    W. Guttenfelder, D. J. Battaglia, A. Diallo, R. Maingi, S. M. Kaye, J. F. Parisi, W. Dorland, R. Gaur, J. Canik, E. A. Belli, and J. Candy, in APS-DPP 2022 (2022)

    2022

  126. [134]

    T. Eich, T. Body, M. Faitsch, O. Grover, M. A. Miller, P. Manz, T. Looby, A. Q. Kuang, A. Redl, M. Reinke, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13539 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  127. [135]

    A. Maan, D. Boyle, R. Majeski, S. Banerjee, M. Fran- cisquez, R. Kaita, G. Wilkie, W. Capecchi, S. Kubota, C. Hansen, and V. Soukhanovskii, Nuclear Materials and Energy 35, 101408 (2023)

    2023

  128. [136]

    Berkery, P

    J. Berkery, P. Adebayo-Ige, H. A. Khawaldeh, G. Avdeeva, S.-G. Baek, S. Banerjee, K. Barada, D. Battaglia, R. Bell, E. Belli, E. Belova, N. Bertelli, N. Bisai, P. Bonoli, M. Boyer, J. Butt, J. Candy, C. Chang, C. Clauser, L. C. Rivera, M. Curie, P. de Vries, R. Diab, A. Diallo...

    2024

  129. [137]

    Guttenfelder, R

    W. Guttenfelder, R. J. Groebner, J. M. Canik, B. A. Grierson, E. A. Belli, and J. Candy, Nuclear Fusion 61, 056005 (2021)

    2021

  130. [138]

    D. R. Hatch, M. Kotschenreuther, S. M. Mahajan, G. Merlo, A. R. Field, C. Giroud, and J. Hillesheim, Nuclear Fusion 59, 086056 (2019)

    2019

  131. [139]

    J. F. Parisi, A. O. Nelson, R. Gaur, S. M. Kaye, F. I. Parra, J. W. Berkery, K. Barada, C. Clauser, A. J. Creely, A. Diallo, W. Guttenfelder, J. W. Hughes, L. A. Kogan, A. Kleiner, A. Q. Kuang, M. Lampert, T. Macwan, J. E. Menard, and M. A. Miller, Physics of Plasmas 31, 030702 (2024)

    2024

  132. [140]

    Imada, T

    K. Imada, T. H. Osborne, S. Saarelma, J. G. Clark, A. Kirk, M. Knolker, R. Scannell, P. B. Snyder, V. C., and H. R. Wilson, Nuclear Fusion 64, 086002 (2024)

    2024

  133. [141]

    Candy, E

    J. Candy, E. Belli, and R. Bravenec, Journal of Com- putational Physics 324, 73 (2016)

    2016

  134. [142]

    Barnes, D

    M. Barnes, D. Dickinson, W. Dorland, P. A. Hill, J. T. Parker, C. M. Roach, S. Biggs-Fox, N. Christen, R. Nu- mata, J. F. Parisi, G. Wilkie, L. Anton, J. Ball, J. A. Baumgaertel, G. Colyer, M. R. Hardman, J. Hein, E. G. Highcock, G. Howes, A. Jackson, M. Kotschenreuther, J. Le...

    2021

  135. [143]

    D. R. Hatch, C. Michoski, D. Kuang, B. Chapman- Oplopoiou, M. Curie, M. Halfmoon, E. Hassan, M. Kotschenreuther, S. M. Mahajan, G. Merlo, M. J. Pueschel, J. Walker, and C. D. Stephens, Physics of Plasmas 29, 062501 (2022). 22

    2022

  136. [144]

    Pankin, J

    A. Pankin, J. Breslau, M. Gorelenkova, R. Andre, B. Grierson, J. Sachdev, M. Goliyad, and G. Pe- rumpilly, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07781 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Therefore, the reduced model in this paper might be testable on such discharges

    and an Alcator C-Mod I-mode [119]. Therefore, the reduced model in this paper might be testable on such discharges. One could extend the electron heat transport model to include additional instabilities as implemented in many transport existing models [146–153]. The main chall...

  138. [146]

    Diallo, J

    A. Diallo, J. Canik, T. G¨ oerler, S. H. Ku, G. J. Kramer, T. Osborne, P. Snyder, D. R. Smith, W. Guttenfelder, R. E. Bell, D. P. Boyle, C. S. Chang, B. P. Leblanc, R. Maingi, M. Podest` a, and S. Sabbagh, Nuclear Fusion 53, 093026 (2013)

    2013

  139. [147]

    Farcas, G

    I.-G. Farcas, G. Merlo, and F. Jenko, Journal of Plasma Physics 90 (2024), 10.1017/S0022377824001314

    2024 doi

  140. [148]

    A. R. Field, B. Chapman-Oplopoiou, J. W. Con- nor, L. Frassinetti, D. R. Hatch, C. M. Roach, and S. Saarelma, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences 381 (2023)

    2023

  141. [149]

    Hawryluk, in Physics of Plasmas Close to Ther- monuclear Conditions , edited by B

    R. Hawryluk, in Physics of Plasmas Close to Ther- monuclear Conditions , edited by B. Coppi, G. Leotta, D. Pfirsch, R. Pozzoli, and E. Sindoni (Pergamon, 1981) pp. 19–46

    1981

  142. [150]

    S. C. Jardin, M. Bell, and N. Pomphrey, Nuclear Fusion 33, 371 (1993)

    1993

  143. [151]

    R. E. Waltz, G. M. Staebler, W. Dorland, G. W. Ham- mett, M. Kotschenreuther, and J. A. Konings, Physics of Plasmas 4, 2482 (1998)

    1998

  144. [152]

    Bateman, A

    G. Bateman, A. H. Kritz, J. E. Kinsey, A. J. Redd, and J. Weiland, Physics of Plasmas 5, 1793 (1998)

    1998

  145. [153]

    G. V. Pereverzev and P. Yushmanov, ASTRA. Auto- mated system for transport analysis in a tokamak , Tech. Rep. (2002)

    2002

  146. [154]

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz, Physics of Plasmas 14, 055909 (2007)

    2007

  147. [155]

    Belli and J

    E. Belli and J. Candy, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50, 095010 (2008)

    2008

  148. [156]

    Rafiq, A

    T. Rafiq, A. Kritz, J. Weiland, A. Pankin, and L. Luo, Physics of Plasmas 20 (2013)

    2013

  149. [157]

    Helander and D

    P. Helander and D. J. Sigmar, Collisional transport in magnetized plasmas (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  150. [158]

    Saarelma, J

    S. Saarelma, J. Connor, P. B´ ılkov´ a, P. Bohm, C. Bow- man, A. Field, L. Frassinetti, R. Friedstr¨ om, S. Hender- son, K. Imada, A. Kirk, O. Kwon, T. Luda, R. Sarwar, R. Scannell, S. Smith, the ASDEX Upgrade Team, M.- U. team, S. team, J. Contributors, and the Eurofusion Tok...

    2024

  151. [159]

    Merle, O

    A. Merle, O. Sauter, and S. Y. Medvedev, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 59, 104001 (2017)

    2017

  152. [160]

    P. B. Snyder, J. W. Hughes, T. H. Osborne, C. Paz- Soldan, W. M. Solomon, M. Knolker, D. Eldon, T. Evans, T. Golfinopoulos, B. A. Grierson, R. J. Groeb- ner, A. E. Hubbard, E. Kolemen, B. Labombard, F. M. Laggner, O. Meneghini, S. Mordijck, T. Petrie, S. Scott, H. Q. Wang, H. ...

    2019

  153. [161]

    Implications of vertical stability control on the sparc tokamak,

    A. O. Nelson, D. T. Garnier, D. J. Battaglia, C. Paz- Soldan, I. Stewart, M. Reinke, A. J. Creely, and J. Wai, “Implications of vertical stability control on the sparc tokamak,” (2024), arXiv:2401.09613

    2024 arXiv

  154. [162]

    Prediction of elm-free operation in spher- ical tokamaks with high plasma squareness,

    J. F. Parisi, J. W. Berkery, K. Imada, A. O. Nel- son, S. M. Kaye, P. B. Snyder, M. Lampert, and A. Kleiner, “Prediction of elm-free operation in spher- ical tokamaks with high plasma squareness,” (2025), arXiv:2505.02727 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.