Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 48 references

Surface Current Optimization and Coil-Cutting Algorithms for Stage-Two Stellarator Optimization

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the physical content of a surface current potential—net currents, field contributions, and the response to external fields—can be derived explicitly, and that these derivations justify the standard coil-cutting algorit

desk verdict Useful stage-two coil design write-up with a novelty claim that needs checking in the full text. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09321 v1 pith:6GIC4BRU submitted 2025-08-12 physics.plasm-ph

Dario Panici , Rory Conlin , Rahul Gaur , Daniel W. Dudt , Yigit Gunsur Elmacioglu , Matt Landreman , Todd Elder , Nadav Snir
show 3 more authors
Itay Gissis Yasha Nikulshin Egemen Kolemen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Hc
keywords stellaratorcoildesignsurfacecurrentpotentialcuttingmodularcoilshelicaltwo-stageoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper addresses the gap between stage-one stellarator optimization, which finds a good plasma boundary, and stage-two coil design, which must realize that boundary with external coils. It derives, for the first time, the explicit relations between the surface current potential and the physical quantities of the surface current that determines the coils, including how an external magnetic field changes the required current. It then documents the coil-cutting algorithm that turns the continuous surface current into modular or helical coils and shows it working in the DESC code. If correct, the paper gives coil designers a solid mathematical foundation for a step that was previously described only loosely.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the current potential $\Phi$ on the coil winding surface, with surface current $\mathbf K = \hat{\mathbf n}\times\nabla\Phi$. The paper's key moves are (i) an explicit, derived dictionary linking the terms in a Fourier/linear representation of $\Phi$ to physical quantities such as net currents, boundary-normal field, and external-field corrections, and (ii) a contouring prescription that cuts $\Phi$ at chosen discrete levels to produce individual modular or helical coil curves while preserving the total current each coil must carry. The explicit external-field term is what lets the method be used when other coil systems already contribute to the field.

What would settle it

Take the derived relation for net current as a function of the potential's linear term, build a simple toroidal surface with a prescribed $\Phi$, numerically integrate $\mathbf K = \hat{\mathbf n}\times\nabla\Phi$ to get the continuous field, cut coils at the prescribed levels, and compare Biot–Savart fields. If, as the coil count and contour resolution increase, the discretized field does not converge to the continuous surface-current field (or the measured net coil current does not match the derived formula), the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is this: for a divergence-free surface current $\mathbf K$ written in terms of a current potential $\Phi$ on the winding surface, the net toroidal current, net poloidal current, and other basic physical quantities are not ad hoc outputs of the optimization—they are determined by specific components of $\Phi$ (its linear/constant terms and Fourier coefficients), and this paper gives the first explicit derivations of those relations. The same formalism shows exactly how an externally imposed magnetic field enters the surface-current solve: the field must be subtracted from the target boundary field before the residual is minimized, and the paper gives th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the region between the plasma boundary and the coil surface is a vacuum, so the entire external field can be represented by a single divergence-free surface current; if internal currents, additional nearby conductors, or non-vacuum fields are present, no surface current can exactly reproduce the target boundary and the cutting algorithm can degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the relation between potential coefficients and physical quantities is now explicit, stage-two optimizers can directly constrain net currents, field errors, and other coil metrics during the surface-current solve.
  • The external-field correction lets designers include pre-existing coils (e.g., toroidal field coils) in the stage-two surface-current calculation rather than treating them as an afterthought.
  • The documented coil-cutting procedure, implemented in DESC, gives modular and helical coilsets that reproduce the stage-one boundary field, making two-stage stellarator design reproducible end-to-end.
  • The explicit derivation means the same physical relations used for optimization can be used for sensitivity analysis and for choosing initial guesses in full coil optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the closed-form relations could be used to compute analytic gradients of coil metrics (field error, coil length, force) with respect to the surface geometry and potential coefficients, not just to the potential parameters, which would accelerate coil optimization.
  • Editorial extension: the external-field treatment suggests a natural fixed-point scheme in which any coils added during cutting are reabsorbed into the effective external field and the surface current re-solved; the paper does not explore this iteration, but its formulation makes it possible.
  • Editorial extension: the same surface-current-plus-cutting construction applies to any axisymmetric or 3D boundary where a divergence-free current is used to match a target field, such as tokamak error-field correction or magnetized plasma confinement concepts, so the derivations may transfer beyond stellarators.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper describes stage-two stellarator coil design using a surface current potential on a toroidal winding surface. It claims to present, for the first time, explicit mathematical derivations linking basic physical quantities of the surface current to the parameters of the current potential, a detailed treatment of external fields in the surface-current algorithm, and a comprehensive description of the coil-cutting procedure that converts a surface current into modular and helical coil sets. The approach is implemented in the DESC code and demonstrated on example modular and helical coilsets.

Significance. If the derivations are correct and genuinely new, the paper would provide a rigorous mathematical foundation for current-potential-based coil design and a clear reference for coil-cutting algorithms. The DESC implementation is a useful practical contribution for the stellarator community. However, the central novelty claim—that the relationships are presented 'for the first time'—is questionable because similar identities have been used in the REGCOIL/NESCOIL literature for decades. The paper's value therefore depends strongly on whether the authors can demonstrate a genuinely new derivation or reframe the contribution as a pedagogical and implementational synthesis. The numerical demonstration, if accompanied by proper error metrics, would add practical value regardless of the novelty of the analytic part.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The claim that the physical relations are 'supported for the first time by explicit mathematical derivations' is not supported by the material available in the abstract and introductory section, and it appears to conflict with established literature. For example, the relation between the secular term of the current potential and the net toroidal current has been used in NESCOIL (Merkel 1987) and REGCOIL (Landreman & Boozer 2016). The manuscript must either clearly differentiate a new derivation from these standard results or revise the novelty claim. This is load-bearing because the advertised contribution is the missing mathematical foundation.
  2. [Introduction / Section 2 (as applicable)] The abstract promises explicit details on how to account for an external field in the surface-current algorithm, but the provided text does not show these details, and the reference list is absent. The referee cannot verify the correctness of this treatment. In particular, the derivation must state the conditions under which the external field can be represented by a divergence-free surface current on a single toroidal surface (i.e., the annulus is vacuum and current-free). Without such a statement, the method's domain of validity is unclear.
  3. [Example optimizations (Section 4, if present)] The abstract mentions an example coil optimization for modular and helical coilsets, but no quantitative error metrics are reported (e.g., normal field error on the boundary, B_N/B_0, coil complexity, or comparison to target field). Without such metrics, the numerical demonstration does not establish that the coil-cutting algorithm faithfully reproduces the stage-one boundary field. Please include these metrics in the revised manuscript.
  4. [Implicit assumptions] The method assumes that the region between the plasma boundary and the coil winding surface is a vacuum, so that the entire external field is uniquely representable by a surface current on that winding surface. This is the standard REGCOIL-style premise, but the abstract and introduction do not state it. If the stage-one equilibrium includes internal currents, non-vacuum fields, or additional conductors near the boundary, no surface current can exactly reproduce the target field and the cutting algorithm will degrade silently. This limitation should be explicitly stated and discussed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction] The introduction should include references to prior work on surface-current coil design (e.g., NESCOIL, REGCOIL) to contextualize the claimed novelty and to avoid the appearance of an overclaim.
  2. [General] The notation for the surface current potential, its Fourier coefficients, and the geometric quantities (normal vector, Jacobian) should be defined clearly in one place early in the paper.
  3. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'coil-cutting procedure' is used but not elaborated in the abstract; a brief description of the algorithm (e.g., contouring of the current potential) would help readers understand the scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identifiable from the supplied text; the derivation chain is not shown.

full rationale

The provided manuscript text contains only the abstract and the opening paragraph of the introduction; no equations, derivations, or coil-cutting algorithm details are present. The abstract's assertion that physical quantities are 'supported for the first time by explicit mathematical derivations' is a claim about forthcoming content, not an exhibited reduction. There is no quoted identity that makes a predicted quantity equal to an input by construction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation. The statement that the algorithm is implemented in the DESC code is a code-availability note, not an argument that imports a conclusion from the authors' prior work. The skeptic's concern that the 'for the first time' novelty claim may overstate known results from the NESCOIL/REGCOIL literature is a novelty/correctness issue, not circularity, because no specific derivation is available to compare with the prior relations. Therefore, from the text supplied, no circular step can be established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard surface-current formalism and the vacuum-field premise of two-stage stellarator optimization. The genuinely tuned quantities are the potential spectrum, the regularization weight, and the coil count; none are quantified in the abstract. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Surface current potential Fourier coefficients = not given in abstract (optimized in DESC)
    The coil optimization adjusts the Fourier spectrum of the current potential to minimize normal-field error on the boundary; these coefficients are fitted quantities central to the method.
  • Regularization weight (lambda on current density) = not given in abstract
    A weighting controlling the tradeoff between field error and coil complexity is standard in REGCOIL-style optimization; the abstract does not state how the regularization is chosen.
  • Number of coils and contouring threshold = not given in abstract
    The coil-cutting procedure discretizes the continuous potential into a finite number of coils by contouring; the number of coils is a chosen parameter affecting feasibility and field accuracy.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The magnetic field in the region outside the plasma boundary is a vacuum field, so all external sources can be collapsed onto a surface current on a toroidal winding surface.
    The two-stage approach presupposes that the stage-one fixed-boundary equilibrium's boundary field can be reproduced by external coils in a vacuum exterior; this is the standard REGCOIL premise invoked by the described method.
  • standard math A divergence-free surface current on a torus can be represented as K = n x grad(Phi) with a single-valued potential up to a branch-cut jump.
    This is the Helmholtz decomposition for tangential vector fields on a torus; it underlies the current-potential formalism.
  • domain assumption The stage-one boundary is an ideal-MHD flux surface with a well-defined target normal field.
    The optimization targets the normal field of the fixed-boundary equilibrium; if the boundary were not a flux surface, the target would be ill-defined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface Current Optimization and Coil-Cutting Algorithms for Stage-Two Stellarator Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6GIC4BRU

@misc{pith2026250809321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface Current Optimization and Coil-Cutting Algorithms for Stage-Two Stellarator Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6GIC4BRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09321}
}
read the original abstract

Stellarator optimization often takes a two-stage approach, where in the first stage the boundary is varied in order to optimize for some physics metrics, while in the second stage the boundary is kept fixed and coils are sought to generate a magnetic field that can recreate the desired stellarator. Past literature dealing with this stage lacks details on the coil cutting procedure and the mathematical and physical properties of the surface current potential which dictates it. In this work, some basic physical quantities of the surface current and how they relate to the parameters in the current potential are presented, and supported for the first time by explicit mathematical derivations. Additionally, the details of how to account for the presence of an external field in the surface current algorithm are explicitly presented. These relations underpin the procedure of discretizing the surface current into coils. Finally, the conventionally-used algorithm for discretizing the surface current into coils is detailed, along with an example coil optimization for both a modular and a helical coilset. The algorithm is implemented in the \texttt{DESC} code, with both modular and helical coil capabilities, where it is available for use in stellarator coil design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    2000 a\/ Optimization of the current potential for stellarator coils

    Boozer, Allen H. 2000 a\/ Optimization of the current potential for stellarator coils . Physics of Plasmas 7 (2), 629--634

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    2000 b\/ Stellarator coil optimization by targeting the plasma configuration

    Boozer, Allen H. 2000 b\/ Stellarator coil optimization by targeting the plasma configuration . Physics of Plasmas 7 (8), 3378--3387

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    2015 Non-axisymmetric magnetic fields and toroidal plasma confinement

    Boozer, Allen H. 2015 Non-axisymmetric magnetic fields and toroidal plasma confinement . Nuclear Fusion 55 (2), 025001

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    2021 The interaction of the ITER first wall with magnetic perturbations

    Boozer, Allen H. 2021 The interaction of the ITER first wall with magnetic perturbations . Nuclear Fusion 61 (4), 046025 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    , Panici, Dario & Kolemen, Egemen 2023 The DESC stellarator code suite

    Conlin, Rory , Dudt, Daniel W. , Panici, Dario & Kolemen, Egemen 2023 The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 2. Perturbation and continuation methods . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (3), 955890305

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Dewar, R. L. & Hudson, S. R. 1998 Stellarator symmetry . Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 112 (1), 275--280 , tex.ids= dewar\_stellarator\_1998-1

    work page 1998

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    , Hitchon, William N

    D'haeseleer, William D. , Hitchon, William N. G. , Callen, James D. & Shohet, J. Leon 2012 Flux Coordinates and Magnetic Field Structure : A Guide to a Fundamental Tool of Plasma Theory \/ . Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  2. [10]

    Fusion Technology 33 (2), 106--117

    Drevlak, Michael 1998 Automated Optimization of Stellarator Coils . Fusion Technology 33 (2), 106--117

    1998

  3. [11]

    , Beidler, C

    Drevlak, M. , Beidler, C. D. , Geiger, J. , Helander, P. & Turkin, Y. 2018 Optimisation of stellarator equilibria with ROSE . Nuclear Fusion 59 (1), 016010 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  4. [12]

    , Brochard, F

    Drevlak, M. , Brochard, F. , Helander, P. , Kisslinger, J. , Mikhailov, M. , Nührenberg, C. , Nührenberg, J. & Turkin, Y. 2013 Estell: A quasi-toroidally symmetric stellarator . Contributions to Plasma Physics 53 (6), 459--468 , \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pd...

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Dudt, Daniel , Conlin, Rory , Panici, Dario , Kolemen, Egemen , Unalmis, Kaya & Kim, Patrick 2024 DESC

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dudt, D. W. , Conlin, R. , Panici, D. & Kolemen, E. 2023 The DESC stellarator code suite Part 3: Quasi -symmetry optimization . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (2), 955890201 , publisher: Cambridge University Press

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dudt, D. W. & Kolemen, E. 2020 DESC : A stellarator equilibrium solver: Physics of Plasmas : Vol 27, No 10 . Physics of Plasmas

    2020

  8. [16]

    2024 Current potential patches

    Elder, Todd & Boozer, Allen H. 2024 Current potential patches. ArXiv:2402.17634 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2024 Three-dimensional magnetic fields: from coils to reconnection

    Elder, Todd M. 2024 Three-dimensional magnetic fields: from coils to reconnection . PhD thesis, Columbia University

    2024

  10. [18]

    , Kaptanoglu, Alan A

    Fu, Lanke , Paul, Elizabeth J. , Kaptanoglu, Alan A. & Bhattacharjee, Amitava 2024 Global Stellarator Coil Optimization with Quadratic Constraints and Objectives . ArXiv:2408.08267

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gates, D. A. , Boozer, A. H. , Brown, T. , Breslau, J. , Curreli, D. , Landreman, M. , Lazerson, S. A. , Lore, J. , Mynick, H. , Neilson, G. H. , Pomphrey, N. , Xanthopoulos, P. & Zolfaghari, A. 2017 Recent advances in stellarator optimization . Nuclear Fusion 57 (12), 126064 ...

    2017

  12. [20]

    , Panici, D

    Gaur, R. , Panici, D. , Elder, T. M. , Landreman, M. , Unalmis, K. E. , Elmacioglu, Y. , Dudt, D. , Conlin, R. & Kolemen, E. 2025 Omnigenous umbilic stellarators. ArXiv:2505.04211 [physics]

    2025

  13. [21]

    ArXiv:2010.02033 [physics]

    Giuliani, Andrew , Wechsung, Florian , Cerfon, Antoine , Stadler, Georg & Landreman, Matt 2022 Single-stage gradient-based stellarator coil design: Optimization for near-axis quasi-symmetry. ArXiv:2010.02033 [physics]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Kaptanoglu, A.A

    Hammond, K.C. & Kaptanoglu, A.A. 2024 Improved stellarator permanent magnet designs through combined discrete and continuous optimizations . Computer Physics Communications 299 , 109127

    2024

  15. [23]

    , Drevlak, M

    Helander, P. , Drevlak, M. , Zarnstorff, M. & Cowley, S. C. 2020 Stellarators with Permanent Magnets . Physical Review Letters 124 (9), 095001

    2020

  16. [24]

    , Hudson, Stuart R

    Henneberg, Sophia A. , Hudson, Stuart R. , Pfefferlé, David & Helander, Per 2021 Combined plasma-coil optimization algorithms . Journal of Plasma Physics 87 (2), 905870226 , arXiv: 2012.09278

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007 Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment . Computing in Science & Engineering 9 (3), 90--95

    2007

  18. [26]

    , Giuliani, A

    Jorge, R. , Giuliani, A. & Loizu, J. 2024 Simplified and Flexible Coils for Stellarators using Single - Stage Optimization . ArXiv:2406.07830 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    , Goodman, A

    Jorge, R. , Goodman, A. , Landreman, M. , Rodrigues, J. & Wechsung, F. 2023 Single- Stage Stellarator Optimization : Combining Coils with Fixed Boundary Equilibria . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65 (7), 074003 , arXiv:2302.10622 [physics]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    , Conlin, Rory & Landreman, Matt 2023 a\/ Greedy permanent magnet optimization

    Kaptanoglu, Alan A. , Conlin, Rory & Landreman, Matt 2023 a\/ Greedy permanent magnet optimization . Nuclear Fusion 63 (3), 036016 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    2023

  21. [29]

    , Langlois, Gabriel P

    Kaptanoglu, Alan A. , Langlois, Gabriel P. & Landreman, Matt 2023 b\/ Topology optimization for inverse magnetostatics as sparse regression: application to electromagnetic coils for stellarators. ArXiv:2306.12555 [physics]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2009 Nonaxisymmetric shaping of tokamaks preserving quasiaxisymmetry

    Ku, Long-Poe & Boozer, Allen H. 2009 Nonaxisymmetric shaping of tokamaks preserving quasiaxisymmetry . Physics of Plasmas 16 (8), 082506

    2009

  23. [31]

    Ku, L. P. & Boozer, A. H. 2010 a\/ Modular coils and plasma configurations for quasi-axisymmetric stellarators . Nuclear Fusion 50 (12), 125005

    2010

  24. [32]

    2010 b\/ Stellarator coil design and plasma sensitivity

    Ku, Long-Poe & Boozer, Allen H. 2010 b\/ Stellarator coil design and plasma sensitivity . Physics of Plasmas 17 (12), 122503

    2010

  25. [33]

    Nuclear Fusion 57 (4), 046003

    Landreman, Matt 2017 An improved current potential method for fast computation of stellarator coil shapes . Nuclear Fusion 57 (4), 046003

    2017

  26. [34]

    Physical Review Letters 128 (3), 035001

    Landreman, Matt & Paul, Elizabeth 2022 Magnetic Fields with Precise Quasisymmetry for Plasma Confinement . Physical Review Letters 128 (3), 035001

    2022

  27. [35]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 (3), 035001 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    Landreman, Matt & Zhu, Caoxiang 2021 Calculation of permanent magnet arrangements for stellarators: a linear least-squares method . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 (3), 035001 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    2021

  28. [36]

    , Paul, Elizabeth J

    Lee, Brandon F. , Paul, Elizabeth J. , Stadler, Georg & Landreman, Matt 2023 Stellarator coil optimization supporting multiple magnetic configurations . Nuclear Fusion 63 (1), 014002 , arXiv:2208.01096 [physics]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    1987 Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents

    Merkel, P. 1987 Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents . Nuclear Fusion 27 (5), 867--871

    1987

  30. [38]

    Miner, W. H. , Valanju, P. M. , Hirshman, S. P. , Brooks, A. & Pomphrey, N. 2001 Use of a genetic algorithm for compact stellarator coil design . Nuclear Fusion 41 (9), 1185

    2001

  31. [39]

    2019 Influence of winding number on vortex knots dynamics

    Oberti, Chiara & Ricca, Renzo L. 2019 Influence of winding number on vortex knots dynamics . Scientific Reports 9 (1), 17284 , publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019

  32. [40]

    , Conlin, R

    Panici, D. , Conlin, R. , Dudt, D.W. , Unalmis, K. & Kolemen, E. 2023 The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 1. Quick and accurate equilibria computations . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (3), 955890303

    2023

  33. [41]

    Paul, E. J. , Landreman, M. , Bader, A. & Dorland, W. 2018 An adjoint method for gradient-based optimization of stellarator coil shapes . Nuclear Fusion 58 (7), 076015 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  34. [42]

    , Berry, L

    Pomphrey, N. , Berry, L. , Boozer, A. , Brooks, A. , Hatcher, R. E. , Hirshman, S. P. , Ku, L.-P. , Miner, W. H. , Mynick, H. E. , Reiersen, W. , Strickler, D. J. & Valanju, P. M. 2001 Innovations in compact stellarator coil design . Nuclear Fusion 41 (3), 339

    2001

  35. [43]

    2022 Minimization of magnetic forces on stellarator coils

    Robin, Rémi & Volpe, Francesco A. 2022 Minimization of magnetic forces on stellarator coils . Nuclear Fusion 62 (8), 086041 , publisher: IOP Publishing

    2022

  36. [44]

    Rehker & H

    S. Rehker & H. Wobig 1973 Stellarator fields with twisted coils

    1973

  37. [45]

    , Berry, Lee A

    Strickler, Dennis J. , Berry, Lee A. & Hirshman, Steven P. 2002 Designing Coils for Compact Stellarators . Fusion Science and Technology 41 (2), 107--115 , publisher: Taylor & Francis \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.13182/FST02-A206

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    Zarnstorff, M. C. , Berry, L. A. , Brooks, A. , Fredrickson, E. , Fu, G.-Y. , Hirshman, S. , Hudson, S. , Ku, L.-P. , Lazarus, E. , Mikkelsen, D. , Monticello, D. , Neilson, G. H. , Pomphrey, N. , Reiman, A. , Spong, D. , Strickler, D. , Boozer, A. , Cooper, W. A. , Goldston, ...

    2001

  39. [47]

    Zeeman, E. C. 1976 The umbilic bracelet and the double-cusp catastrophe . In Structural Stability , the Theory of Catastrophes , and Applications in the Sciences \/ , , vol. 525 , pp. 328--366 . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg , series Title: Lecture Notes in Ma...

    1976

  40. [48]

    , Song, Yuntao & Wan, Yuanxi 2018 New method to design stellarator coils without the winding surface

    Zhu, Caoxiang , Hudson, Stuart R. , Song, Yuntao & Wan, Yuanxi 2018 New method to design stellarator coils without the winding surface . Nuclear Fusion 58 (1), 016008

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.