Snowplow Model Predictions for Plasma Temperature in Z pinch Discharges

Alejandro Nettle; Leandro N\'u\~nez; Miguel C\'ardenas

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Snowplow Model Predictions for Plasma Temperature in Z pinch Discharges

T0 review · 4 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 Plasma temperature in Z pinch discharges grows linearly with capacitor-bank voltage.

desk verdict A modest, honest extension of the authors' snowplow model that adds a temperature functional and efficiency formulas; the headline linear-voltage scaling is a heuristic fit that the paper itself concedes breaks down in the high-voltage regime where it would matter most. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16551 v1 pith:WIFOB76J submitted 2025-06-19 physics.plasm-ph

Miguel Cárdenas , Alejandro Nettle , Leandro Núñez This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.58.Lq

keywords Zpinchsnowplowmodelmodifiedequationsplasmatemperaturescalingcapacitorbankvoltageenergytransferefficiencylineardischarge

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

Using the modified snowplow model, this paper derives formulas for the plasma temperature and energy budgets of Z pinch discharges. Its central result is that, for a fixed discharge tube, the temperature at the first pinch scales linearly with the initial voltage of the capacitor bank: raising $V_0$ by a factor $\lambda$ raises $k_{\mathrm{B}}T$ by the same factor, which is equivalent to $k_{\mathrm{B}}T/k_{\mathrm{B}}T_0=(E/E_0)^{1/2}$ when only the voltage changes. The model also yields characteristic conversion efficiencies, roughly 51 percent for transferring bank energy into the plasma and 68 percent for converting that energy into internal energy, for a combined 35 percent. Applied to a prototypical helium-filled tube, the formulas predict that going from 12 kV to 48 kV raises the pinch temperature from about 32 eV to about 142 eV. The authors stress the prediction is an upper bound that fails at very high voltage, where the swept-up particles would no longer randomize into heat.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the modified snowplow (MSP) equation pair: two coupled nonlinear integro-differential equations for the dimensionless current-sheath radius $r(t)$ and current $I(t)$, with the kinetic pressure of the swept-up plasma included in the radial force balance. The temperature is then a functional of the sheath trajectory, $k_{\mathrm{B}}T = \frac{2}{3}m\int_0^{t_p}\left(-\frac{1}{r}\right)\left(\frac{dr}{dt'}\right)^3\,dt'$, in which the integrand is the rate at which the moving sheath converts its directed kinetic energy into random internal energy. The dimensionless parameters $\alpha\propto V_0$ and $\beta$ encode the bank voltage, filling density, capacitance, and geometry, so solving the MSP equations for a given set of parameters and evaluating the integral yields both the temperature and its scaling laws.

What would settle it

Take a fixed Z pinch device and measure the temperature at first pinch for two bank voltages separated by a known factor $\lambda$; the linear law predicts exactly $\lambda$ times the temperature, so a measured ratio below $\lambda$ (expected once radiation, instabilities, or incomplete thermalization appear) would falsify it. A sharper test uses the 360 kV extrapolation: if actual temperatures fall far short of the predicted ~1.1 keV, the randomization assumption has broken down and the scaling no longer applies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a pure scaling statement: inside the modified snowplow model, the temperature of the plasma at pinching is $k_{\mathrm{B}}T=(2/3)(U/N_0)$, with $U$ the integral of the kinetic energy deposited by the collapsing current sheath, and for a fixed device this temperature obeys $k_{\mathrm{B}}T/k_{\mathrm{B}}T_0=\lambda$ when the bank voltage is changed as $V_0\to\lambda V_0$. Since the stored electrostatic energy scales as $E=\lambda^2 E_0$, the same statement reads $k_{\mathrm{B}}T/k_{\mathrm{B}}T_0=(E/E_0)^{1/2}$. The accompanying energy accounting gives $\eta_{\mathrm{pl}}\approx 51\%$, $\eta_{\mathrm{th}}\approx 68\%$, and $\eta\approx 35\%$, with these efficiencies invariant under proportional scaling of the tube, bank, and inductance. More generally, the temperature scalings are summarized by $(k_{\mathrm{B}}T/k_{\mathrm{B}}T_0)=(E/E_0)^n$ with $n=0$ for a full similarity enlargement, $n=1/3$ when radius, capacitance, and voltage are scaled together, and $n=1/2$ when only voltage is scaled.

Load-bearing premise

The entire temperature prediction rests on the assumption that every particle swept up by the current sheath immediately thermalizes, turning its directed kinetic energy into internal energy, with radiation, ohmic, and instability losses all ignored; if thermalization fails at high voltage, the plasma never gets hot and the linear scaling collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A fixed Z pinch machine can, within the model's validity, multiply its pinch temperature by simply multiplying the bank voltage: the 12 kV prototype is predicted to reach about 142 eV at 48 kV and about 1.1 keV at 360 kV.
Because $E\propto V_0^2$, increasing temperature by voltage alone means temperature grows only as the square root of the stored bank energy.
Any experiment in the snowplow regime — Z pinch, plasma focus, or simple torus — should show the same characteristic efficiencies, $\eta_{\mathrm{pl}}\approx 51\%$, $\eta_{\mathrm{th}}\approx 68\%$, and $\eta\approx 35\%$.
The three-exponent summary $(k_{\mathrm{B}}T/k_{\mathrm{B}}T_0)=(E/E_0)^n$ with $n=0,1/3,1/2$ gives a quick way to judge whether a proposed enlargement of a reference experiment will actually heat the plasma to a higher temperature.
At very high bank voltages the snowplow premise of rapid thermalization fails, so the predicted temperatures are not physical; the discharge would behave more like a particle accelerator, and shock-heating physics would be needed.

Reading between the lines

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

If the linear scaling is taken at face value, the cost of heating by voltage alone escalates quickly: a factor-$\lambda$ temperature gain requires a factor-$\lambda^2$ increase in stored energy, so practical paths to thermonuclear temperatures would have to enlarge the device as well as raise voltage.
Equation (16) suggests a direct experimental test: extract $r(t)$ from current and voltage traces, integrate $(-1/r)(dr/dt)^3$ up to the first pinch, and compare the inferred $k_{\mathrm{B}}T$ with spectroscopically measured electron temperatures or neutron yields.
Because the model deliberately ignores radiation, ohmic, and instability losses, real discharges should sit below this prediction; the linear law is best interpreted as an upper-bound envelope whose deviations should grow as temperature and density rise.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a modest but honest modeling paper. The new pieces are a closed-form temperature functional (Eq. 14) and an energy-efficiency decomposition (Eqs. 34-37). The headline n=1/2 voltage-only scaling is a heuristic simulation fit, and the paper itself flags the assumption that breaks it at high voltage.

What it does well: the assumptions are stated plainly in Section 2, the temperature formula is a natural and useful addition to the snowplow framework, and the synthesis formula (kBT/kBT0)=(E/E0)^n with n=0, 1/3, 1/2 is a compact design rule. The authors are also candid in Section 3.3: at 360 kV they say the randomization of particle motion is unlikely and the device would behave as a particle accelerator, so the MSP equations would no longer be valid. That honesty is real and credits the paper more than many modeling papers do.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The efficiency numbers (51%, 68%, 35%) are asserted without a derivation or a dataset; saying "a number of actual experiments" without listing them is not enough. The n=1/2 scaling rests on only two displayed cases (λ=4 and λ=30), and the λ=30 case is exactly in the regime where the model's own validity criterion fails, so the fit does not support the interesting end of the curve. No code, data, or convergence study is provided, so the simulations cannot be checked. There is also a minor dimensional-typo issue: Eq. (15) calls the prefactor "purely geometric" when it contains L0C0, which is electrical. That is the kind of looseness that should be fixed, though it does not affect the main argument.

The stress-test note is right: Eq. (47) is only as valid as Assumption 4, and the paper itself concedes that assumption fails where the scaling is extrapolated. That means the central claim is an upper-bound model artifact until experimental data or kinetic simulations back the randomization assumption. But the paper does not hide this; it says the result must be looked at cautiously.

Who it is for: people working with snowplow models, or designing small Z pinch and plasma focus experiments, will get a handy scaling summary and a clear statement of where the model stops being believable. It deserves a serious referee—not a desk reject—because the framework is standard, the claims are testable, and the paper is transparent about its limits. A referee should ask for the efficiency calculations with data, the simulation results with uncertainties, and a sensitivity analysis on the randomization assumption. My own verdict is conditional: I would not publish it as is, but I would send it to review and expect a revised version to be publishable.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a modified snowplow (MSP) model for cylindrical Z pinch discharges to compute the plasma temperature at first pinch and to quantify energy-transfer efficiencies. After listing assumptions, the authors state the dimensionless MSP equations (Eqs. 2-3) and define the internal energy U, the temperature kBT, and the efficiencies ηpl and ηth (Eqs. 11-16, 34-37). They apply the model to a helium-filled prototype (E0≈5760 J, V0≈12 kV, L0≈30 nH), reporting kBT0≈32 eV and efficiencies ηpl≈51%, ηth≈68%, η≈35%. The central new claim is that, for a fixed device, kBT at pinching scales linearly with the bank voltage (Eq. 47), or equivalently as the square root of stored energy (Eq. 48), with exponent n=1/2; this scaling is said to have been discovered heuristically from simulations. The paper also discusses a λ=30 extrapolation to 360 kV giving kBT≈1.1 keV, while acknowledging that the assumption of rapid randomization of kinetic energy into internal energy may fail in that regime.

Significance. The paper is a transparent, assumption-listed extension of a classical snowplow model; the explicit temperature functional in Eqs. (14)-(16) and the decomposition of energy transfer into efficiency factors are useful and could provide a compact design rule for Z pinch experiments. If the linear voltage scaling were rigorously established, it would be practically important because voltage is a directly controllable parameter. However, the central scaling law is presently supported only by a two-case heuristic fit, the authors themselves place the high-voltage extrapolation outside the model's validity, and no experimental benchmark is provided; the claimed efficiencies are asserted without a supporting dataset. The significance is therefore currently that of a model-based conjecture rather than an established scaling law.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (47)] The linear scaling kBT/kBT0 = λ is not derived from the MSP equations; it is presented as a heuristic discovery from 'targeted simulations'. Only two cases are shown: V0≈12 kV with kBT0≈32 eV and V0≈48 kV with kBT≈142 eV. The temperature ratio is 142/32 ≈ 4.44, not λ=4, so the displayed data alone do not establish a linear law. The exponent n=1/2 in Eq. (48) therefore has no analytical support from the stated equations. Additional simulations over a range of λ, together with an error analysis or a derivation, are needed before this can be called a prediction.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (16) and surrounding text] The high-voltage extrapolation used to motivate the result is internally inconsistent. The authors state that at V0≈360 kV (λ=30) 'randomization of plasma particles motion is unlikely' and that the device would behave 'simply as a particle accelerator', making the MSP equations and the temperature formula invalid; nevertheless they quote kBT≈1.1 keV from Eq. (16) and use it to argue for neutron-producing temperatures. Since Eq. (47) is asserted only within the model's validity, the model's own validity criterion excludes the regime that makes the scaling law interesting. This should be explicitly presented as an upper-bound artifact or as a testable limit, not as a prediction of the model.
[Section 3.2, Eqs. (38)-(39)] The efficiency values ηpl≈51%, ηth≈68%, and η≈35% are stated as 'repeatedly' obtained from 'a number of actual experiments', but no experimental dataset, parameter list, uncertainty estimate, or derivation is reported. Because these values are used in the conclusions and in the claim that the efficiencies 'prevail' in the voltage-scaling simulations, the claim is not substantiated. The authors should provide the source data or the exact computations leading to these numbers.
[Section 3 (overall)] No experimental validation of the temperature scaling is presented. The only comparison is to the authors' previous simulation [17]; no pinch-time, current, or neutron-yield data are used to test Eq. (47). Given the acknowledged difficulty of direct temperature measurement, an indirect test (e.g., comparing predicted pinch times or neutron emission trends with published Z pinch data) would substantially strengthen the central claim.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1, Eq. (8)] There is a typographical error in the displayed initial condition: '(d^2 r)' contains a stray parenthesis; it should read d²r/dt².
[Section 2.2, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The dimensional relationship between Eq. (15) and Eq. (16) should be stated explicitly: Eq. (15) uses dimensionless r and t, while Eq. (16) uses physical r(t) and t, which removes the factor r0²/(L0C0). A short derivation would prevent unit errors and clarify that the two expressions are equivalent.
[Section 3.3, text after Eq. (45)] The phrase 'in a not entirely predictable way' is imprecise; the quoted values give 142/32 ≈ 4.44, which is not λ=4. Reporting the actual ratio and discussing the residual would be more informative than describing the result as unpredictable.
[Figures 3 and 4] The captions should specify all simulation parameters (C0, r0, l0, ρ0) and the units of the f(t) axis in Figure 4, so that the curves can be reproduced from the text alone.
[Throughout] Several typographical and spelling errors should be corrected, including 'sorrounds', 'pendant', 'entereley', and 'corcerned'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the linear voltage scaling is a heuristic numerical result from the stated MSP model, not an input, a fitted parameter, or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the explicitly stated model assumptions (1-12) to the MSP equations (2)-(3), the kinetic-energy integral (11)/(14), and the numerical result Eq. (47). Voltage enters only through alpha proportional to V0; the simulations solve the coupled equations and then evaluate the temperature formula. Eq. (47) is explicitly labeled a heuristic discovery ('we discovered heuristically that the temperature... roughly scales linearly with the initial voltage'), not a parameter fitted to experimental data, and the lambda=30 case is checked by an actual simulation ('The corresponding simulation indicates...'), so the scaling law is not a renamed input. Assumptions 4 and 5 (rapid randomization and identification of swept-up kinetic energy with internal energy) define what 'temperature' means within the model; that is a modeling assumption, not a circular reduction of the claim to itself. The paper's own caveat that at around 360 kV randomization is unlikely and the device would behave as a particle accelerator is a validity limitation, not an equivalence of output to input. Self-citations to [17] supply the MSP framework and the earlier n=1/3 result, but the equations are reproduced in the paper, and the linear-voltage scaling does not depend on a disputed uniqueness theorem or on an unverified external benchmark. The absence of direct experimental validation is a correctness risk, not a circularity defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model is the authors' modified snowplow (MSP) framework from [17]; the paper adds temperature and energy-efficiency formulas. The main load-bearing ideals are the snowplow assumptions: full ionization, thin current sheath, adiabatic compression, complete thermalization of swept-up kinetic energy, and neglect of radiation, resistance, and instabilities. The voltage-scaling exponent n=1/2 is fitted to simulations rather than derived, and the reference experiment is not independently documented.

free parameters (1)

scaling exponent n for voltage-only enlargement = n = 1/2
The 'discovery' that kBT grows linearly with V0 is a heuristic fit to targeted simulations (Section 3.3, Eq. 47); combining with E proportional to V0^2 yields n=1/2. No analytic derivation, fit residuals, or uncertainty are provided.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Gas is fully ionized before switch-on and has infinite conductivity (Assumption 1).
Sets the initial plasma state and removes resistive voltage drops from the circuit model, which is needed for the simple L(t) circuit.
domain assumption A thin current sheath sweeps all particles and the region between sheath and wall is vacuum, making the compression adiabatic (Assumptions 2-3).
This turns the discharge into a one-dimensional snowplow problem and lets the authors identify kinetic energy with internal energy.
ad hoc to paper Particles undergo inelastic collisions with the moving sheath and their kinetic energy rapidly randomizes into internal energy (Assumptions 4-5).
This is the thermodynamic bridge that converts mechanical work into temperature; it is the most fragile assumption because fast high-voltage dynamics may not thermalize.
domain assumption Losses from bremsstrahlung, ohmic resistance, and hydromagnetic instabilities are neglected (Assumptions 6-8).
The model is deliberately lossless, so the computed temperature is claimed as an upper bound rather than a realistic prediction.
domain assumption The circuit is a constant capacitor C0 discharging into a time-dependent inductor L(t) = L0 + (mu0 l0 / 2 pi) ln(r0/r) (Assumptions 9-13, Eq. 1).
This equivalent-circuit picture underlies the MSP equations and the energy-transfer bookkeeping in Section 2.3.
domain assumption The modified snowplow (MSP) equations from the authors' prior work [17] correctly describe the sheath radius and current in the experimental regime.
The present paper does not re-derive or independently validate the MSP equations; it imports them wholesale from the self-cited preprint.
domain assumption The parameters of the 'real prototypical experiment' are representative and correctly stated.
The reference experiment is described only by approximate values (3 L tube, helium at 1 mmHg, 12 kV, 30 nH) with no original data source cited; all later scaling depends on this benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Snowplow Model Predictions for Plasma Temperature in Z pinch Discharges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIFOB76J

@misc{pith2026250616551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Snowplow Model Predictions for Plasma Temperature in Z pinch Discharges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIFOB76J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16551}
}

read the original abstract

Using the general framework of the snowplow model, we introduce the equations for computing plasma temperature in Z pinch discharges. We also present expressions to quantify energy transfers in Z pinch discharges. We then apply this methodology to estimate the temperature and energy transfers of a real prototypical experiment and analyze how the plasma temperature behaves under various modifications of the parameters of the prototypical experiment. Among our discoveries we highlight that the temperature of the plasma in the discharges grows linearly with the initial voltage at the capacitor bank. We summarize this and other findings through a single, fairly compact formula.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16551 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Side view drawing of the z pinch experiment. At this stage, it is worth to mention that some care should be taken at the time of choosing V0 and p0 . Indeed, those variables must be chosen in a way as to guarantee that the electrical breakdown of the working gas contained in the vessel of spatial dimensions r0 and l0 is actually going to take place. Whether or not this will be the case can be easily determined by s… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Equivalent electrical circuit of the z pinch experiment. Here Lp(t) stands for Lp(t) = (µ0l0/2π) ln [r0/r(t)]. In experiments on Z-pinch discharges, the radius of the plasma column as a function of time r(t) can be reconstructed on the basis of the experimental data for the electrical signals, i.e. voltage and current, across the plasma column. Other physical quantities like for instance the temperature of the plasm… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Radius of the current sheath r versus time t for the cases V0 ≈ 12 [kV] and 4V0 ≈ 48 [kV]. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The function f = (2/3)m h (−1/r) (dr/dt) 3 i versus time t for the case V0 ≈ 12 [kV] and the case 4V0 ≈ 48 [kV]. We went a step further by performing targeted simulations. Then, 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[17]

Miguel C´ ardenas, Alejandro Nettle and Leandro N´ u˜ nez, Scaling Law for Discharges in Z pinch Devices, arXiv.org, 12 February 2025, [arXiv:2502.08570v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Gamow and C

G. Gamow and C. L. Critchfield, ’Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources’, Oxford University Press, at the Clarendon Press, Oxford 1949

work page 1949
[2]

University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California, July 3, 1958

Edward Teller, Peaceful Uses of Fusion, Report UCRL-5257 Rev. University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California, July 3, 1958

1958
[3]

Cloud and Microjet Mix: A Possible Source of Yield limitation of the National Ignition Facility Targets

Gene H. McCall, Cloud and Microjet Mix: A possible Source of Yield limitation of the National Ignition Facility Targets, arXiv.org, 28 Aug 2022, [arXiv:2208.13131v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[4]

W. H. Bennett: Magnetically Self-focusing Sreams, Phys. Rev. 45, 890 (1934)

1934
[5]

Tonks, ’Theory of Magnetic Effects in the Plasma of an Arc’, Phys

L. Tonks, ’Theory of Magnetic Effects in the Plasma of an Arc’, Phys. Rev.56, 360 (1939)

1939
[6]

J. D. Jackson, ’Classical Electrodynamics’, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1975). 32

work page 1975
[7]

Reitz and Frederick J

John R. Reitz and Frederick J. Milford, ’Foundations of Electro- magnetic Theory’, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Reading Massachusetts, U. S. A. (1960)

work page 1960

Show all 24 references

[8]

N. A. Krall and A. W. Trivelpiece, ’Principles of Plasma Physics’, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (1973)

1973
[9]

Glasstone and R

S. Glasstone and R. H. Lovberg: ’Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions’ , D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, N. J. (1960)

1960
[10]

Bishop, ’Project Sherwood- The U

Amasa S. Bishop, ’Project Sherwood- The U. S. Program in Controlled Fusion’, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1958)

1958
[11]

M. O. Hagler and M. Kristiansen, ’An Introduction to Con- trolled Thermonuclear Fusion’, Lexington Books D. C. Heath and Company Lexington Massachusetts Toronto (1977)

1977
[12]

Post, Controlled Fusion Research- An Appplication of the Physics of High Temperature Plasmas, Rev

Richard F. Post, Controlled Fusion Research- An Appplication of the Physics of High Temperature Plasmas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 338 (1956)

1956
[13]

Kolb, Magnetic Compression of Plasmas, Rev

Alan C. Kolb, Magnetic Compression of Plasmas, Rev. Mod. Phys.32, 748 (1960)

1960
[14]

D. D. Ryutov, M. S. Derzon and M. K. Matzen: The physics of fast Z pinches, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 167 (2000)

2000
[15]

J. Mather: An Intense Source of Neutrons from the Dense Plasma Focus, Intense Neutron Sources: Proceedings of a 33 United States Atomic Energy Commission/European Nuclear Energy Agency seminar, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 19-23 Septem- ber 1966

1966
[16]

M. N. Rosenbluth, R. Garwin and A. Rosenbluth: Infinite Con- ductivity Theory of the Pinch, Report LA-1850, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, September 1954

1954
[18]

J. D. Lawson: Some Criteria for a Power Producing Thermonu- clear Reactor, Proc. Phys. Soc. B,70(1957)

1957
[19]

J. M. Meek and J. D. Craggs, ’Electrical Breakdown of Gases’, Oxford University Press, at the Clarendon Press, Oxford (1953)

1953
[20]

Lyman Spitzer, Jr., ’Physics of Fully Ionized Gases’, Inter- science Publishers, Inc., New York (1956)

1956
[21]

Anderson, William R

Oscar A. Anderson, William R. Baker,Stirling A. Colgate, John Ise, Jr., and Robert V. Pyle, Neutron Production in Linear Deuterium Pinches, Phys. Rev.110, 1375 (1958)

1958
[22]

M. J. Bernstein and F. Hai, Evidence for Nonthermonuclear Neutron Production in a Plasma Focus Discharge, Phys. Lett. 31A, 317 (1970). 34

1970
[23]

McCall, Calculation of Neutron Yield from a Dense Z Pinch, Phys

Gene H. McCall, Calculation of Neutron Yield from a Dense Z Pinch, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1986 (1989)

1989
[24]

Lavine and David A

Alejandro Mesa Dame, Eric S. Lavine and David A. Hammer, A Comprehensive Analytical Model of the Dynamics Z-Pinch, arXiv.org, 23 May 2025, [arXiv:2505.18067v1]. 35

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [17]

Miguel C´ ardenas, Alejandro Nettle and Leandro N´ u˜ nez, Scaling Law for Discharges in Z pinch Devices, arXiv.org, 12 February 2025, [arXiv:2502.08570v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Gamow and C

G. Gamow and C. L. Critchfield, ’Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources’, Oxford University Press, at the Clarendon Press, Oxford 1949

work page 1949

[3] [2]

University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California, July 3, 1958

Edward Teller, Peaceful Uses of Fusion, Report UCRL-5257 Rev. University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California, July 3, 1958

1958

[4] [3]

Cloud and Microjet Mix: A Possible Source of Yield limitation of the National Ignition Facility Targets

Gene H. McCall, Cloud and Microjet Mix: A possible Source of Yield limitation of the National Ignition Facility Targets, arXiv.org, 28 Aug 2022, [arXiv:2208.13131v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[5] [4]

W. H. Bennett: Magnetically Self-focusing Sreams, Phys. Rev. 45, 890 (1934)

1934

[6] [5]

Tonks, ’Theory of Magnetic Effects in the Plasma of an Arc’, Phys

L. Tonks, ’Theory of Magnetic Effects in the Plasma of an Arc’, Phys. Rev.56, 360 (1939)

1939

[7] [6]

J. D. Jackson, ’Classical Electrodynamics’, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1975). 32

work page 1975

[8] [7]

Reitz and Frederick J

John R. Reitz and Frederick J. Milford, ’Foundations of Electro- magnetic Theory’, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Reading Massachusetts, U. S. A. (1960)

work page 1960