Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 55 references

Prandtl--Batchelor and flux-expulsion selection for steady MHD flows in a disk

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs steady MHD disk flows whose interior limits are rigid rotations with constant vorticity and current, selected by a new MHD–Wood law that couples the two classical mechanisms.

desk verdict A genuinely new rigorous construction of coupled Prandtl–Batchelor selection and flux expulsion in steady MHD; the non-Alfvénic restriction is explicit and the proof holds up on reading. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05994 v1 pith:FNBP77LF submitted 2026-08-06 math.AP physics.flu-dyn

Chen Gao , Zhiwu Lin , Jianfeng Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APphysics.flu-dyn MSC 76W0576D1035Q3535B25
keywords Prandtl–BatchelorprinciplefluxexpulsionMHDboundarylayerWoodformulavanishingviscosityandresistivitysteadyinadisknon-Alfvénicconditionmagnetohydrodynamics
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 tries to prove that a magnetized eddy in a disk has a single, jointly selected inviscid core: as viscosity and resistivity vanish simultaneously, every small nonaxisymmetric perturbation of a rotating boundary pulls the interior into rigid rotation about the center, with both vorticity and out-of-plane current constant. The two constants are not free data. A new MHD–Wood law fixes the magnetic constant as the imposed mean boundary circulation and fixes the velocity constant by a quadratic balance of the kinetic and magnetic boundary oscillations. If true, this is the first steady, fully coupled instance in which Prandtl–Batchelor vorticity selection and magnetic flux expulsion are resolved together, with the field allowed to be as strong as the flow. It also explains what survives expulsion: the circulation-carrying uniform magnetic rotation survives, while oscillatory magnetic modes are confined to a thin layer, so expulsion is selective rather than absolute.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a periodic steady MHD–Prandtl boundary layer solved in von Mises coordinates, with the square velocity $u_p^2$ and the tangential magnetic field $g_p$ as unknowns. Around the constant state $(\alpha^2, \beta)$ the principal tangential combinations are $\partial_\theta w - 2\beta\, \partial_\theta g$ and $\partial_\theta g - \frac{\beta}{2\alpha^2}\,\partial_\theta w$, whose coefficient matrix has determinant $1 - \beta^2/\alpha^2$; invertibility of this matrix is exactly the non-Alfvénic condition, and the same factor $a^2 - b^2$ appears later in Euler matching and in the stability energy. Two averaged identities across the layer, $\frac{d^2}{d\psi^2}\int g\, d\theta = 0$ and $\frac{d^2}{d\psi^2}\int (\kappa u^2 - g^2)\,d\theta = 0$, produce the two scalars of the MHD–Wood law. The stability argument is carried by the coupled quantity $G = a\Pi_\theta - b\Phi_\theta$ plus zero-mode correction terms, which gives strong magnetic control (an $\varepsilon^{-2}$ weighted norm) that the Neumann magnetic boundary condition does not supply; three energies $E, P, L$ with different $\varepsilon$ scales close the estimate through the coercive factor $|a^2 - b^2|/|a|$.

What would settle it

Solve the steady MHD system (1.3) computationally in the disk at small $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$ with smooth zero-mean $f$ and $\hat f$, and compare the measured interior vorticity and current density with the constants $2a$ and $2b$ given by (1.2); a systematic mismatch beyond $O(\varepsilon)$ would refute the selection law. Repeating the same computation at $\alpha = \beta$ would test whether the excluded Alfvénic regime still admits a rigid rotating core or genuinely degenerates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 1.1, is that for $\alpha \neq 0$, $|\alpha| \neq |\beta|$ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon, \eta$, the steady MHD system with boundary traces $u\cdot t = \alpha+\eta f(\theta)$ and $B\cdot t = \beta+\eta \hat f(\theta)$ has exact solutions that, on every compact interior subdisk, converge to $u_e = ar\, e_\theta$ and $B_e = br\, e_\theta$ with $b = \beta$ and $a^2 = \alpha^2 + \frac{\eta^2}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\!(f^2 - \kappa^{-1}\hat f^2)\,d\theta$, $a$ having the sign of $\alpha$. Equivalently, the limiting vorticity is $2a$ and the limiting current density is $2b$. The velocity core is the output of a coupled kinetic–magnetic boundary-layer balance; the magnetic core is the output of the global circulation constraint, and the constant $2\beta\varepsilon^2$ in the magnetic-flux equation independently confirms $b = \beta$. The construction is genuinely two-field: the Lorentz force enters the leading-order momentum balance, so the magnetic field actively changes the flow and need not be weak.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the boundary means being unequal: if $|\alpha| = |\beta|$, the key coercivity factor $a^2 - b^2$ vanishes and the construction stops, so the theorem says nothing about the Alfvénic case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the imposed magnetic circulation vanishes ($\beta = 0$), every compact interior subdisk has magnetic field tending to zero: complete flux expulsion.
  • When $\beta \neq 0$, the uniform magnetic rotation $\beta r e_\theta$ survives in the core while all nonaxisymmetric magnetic modes are confined to an $O(\varepsilon)$ boundary layer: selective, not absolute, expulsion.
  • The selected velocity rotation $a^2$ is raised by the kinetic boundary oscillation $\int f^2$ and lowered by the magnetic boundary oscillation $\kappa^{-1}\int \hat f^2$, so boundary magnetic wiggles act on the core through the diffusivity ratio $\kappa$.
  • The limiting vorticity and current density are constants $2a$ and $2b$, with uniform convergence on compact subdisks and an $O(\varepsilon)$ error in the full disk including the boundary layer.
  • The construction requires $|\alpha| \neq |\beta|$; at the Alfvénic balance the coercivity factor $a^2 - b^2$ vanishes in the Prandtl estimate, the Euler matching, and the final stability energy, so the theorem leaves the Alfvénic regime open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The formula suggests a practical test that the paper does not run: at moderate $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$ with measured boundary traces $f, \hat f$, compare the interior vorticity and current against (1.2); agreement would confirm the selection law, disagreement would localize where the asymptotics break.
  • Because the MHD–Wood law is derived from two layer-averaged balances rather than from a specific trace shape, the same two-constant selection should extend to other simply connected eddies and to annuli, where a second boundary would supply a second magnetic datum; this is an inference, not a result of the paper.
  • The conditional rigidity argument of Appendix B suggests that, under a single-eddy and non-Alfvénic hypothesis, any locally $C^1$-convergent ideal limit must be the same rigid core without needing the explicit expansion; if combined with a uniqueness statement for the boundary layer, this could yield a selection theorem that does not construct the layer at all.
  • The Alfvénic endpoint $|\alpha|=|\beta|$, excluded here, may be a genuine bifurcation point rather than a removable technical assumption: at $a = \pm b$ one Elsässer component vanishes, and the two-field interaction degenerates, so the selected-core structure may change or fail there; this is left open by the paper.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the simultaneous vanishing-viscosity and vanishing-resistivity limit of steady incompressible MHD flows in the unit disk. For boundary velocity a small non-axisymmetric perturbation of rigid rotation with mean angular speed α, and tangential magnetic trace with mean β, the authors construct exact steady solutions of system (1.3) under the assumptions α≠0 and |α|≠|β|. The construction uses a matched asymptotic expansion consisting of a periodic MHD–Prandtl boundary layer, global Euler–MHD core profiles through order ε^11, residual estimates of order ε^10, a three-scale linear stability estimate, and a contraction argument for the nonlinear error equations. The paper proves convergence on compact interior subdisks to the Couette-type ideal core u_e=ar e_θ, B_e=br e_θ, where b=β and a²=α²+(η²/2π)∫₀^{2π}(f²−κ^{-1}hat_f²)dθ. An appendix presents a separate conditional rigidity argument for single-eddy ideal limits.

Significance. If correct, this is the first fully coupled steady MHD realization of Prandtl–Batchelor selection together with selective flux expulsion in a closed single-eddy geometry. The Lorentz force is retained at leading order, so the result goes beyond kinematic flux-expulsion models, and it identifies the boundary-circulation mode that survives expulsion. The proof has several checkable and genuinely structural components: the MHD–Wood identities are derived from the von Mises formulation without circular solvability; the non-Alfvénic coercivity condition det M_{α,β}=1−β²/α² is explicit and is exactly the degeneracy of the linearized mechanisms; and the stability norm uses the coupled quantity G whose L-scale is two powers of ε stronger than the naive diffusive control. The exclusion of the Alfvénic regime |α|=|β| is an explicitly stated hypothesis rather than a hidden failure, and it is consistently the source of the a²−b² factors in the Prandtl coercivity, the Euler matching, and the final stability estimate.

minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The sign convention in B^ε=∇⊥Π^ε and the derivation of u^ε·∇Π^ε−ε²∆Π^ε=C₀ should be accompanied by an explicit verification of the vector identity, since the same identity is later used in Appendix B in the form B·∇Φ=ε²(j−2β).
  2. [§2.2.2, Step 5] The notation w_{≠,ψ} and g_{≠,ψ} is used in the weighted estimates without definition; the authors should define w_{≠}=w−w₀ and w_{≠,ψ}=∂_ψ w_{≠}.
  3. [§3.2.2, proof of Lemma 3.5] The cancellation b∫r(∆Π)_θ Φ = −b∫r∆Π Φ_θ is used silently; citing periodicity and the self-adjointness of the polar Laplacian would improve readability.
  4. [Abstract and after Eq. (1.2)] The notation for the magnetic perturbation is inconsistently rendered: the abstract displays “fhat²” while the displayed formula uses \(\hat f^2\). These should be unified.
  5. [§2.2.3, Proposition 2.4] In the Fourier representation of v_e^{(1)}, the zero mode is asserted but not shown to vanish; this follows from the zero mean of v_p^{(1)}(·,0) and should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Appendix B, Lemma B.1] The argument that regular levels are connected would benefit from a sentence explaining why a nested pair of level curves would force an additional critical point in the annulus between them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the MHD–Wood constants are outputs of a self-contained fixed-point construction, and self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain of Theorem 1.1 and found no circular step. The constants a and b are not imposed as outer data; Lemma 2.1 derives the MHD–Wood identities by exact periodic integration of the von Mises system, and Proposition 2.2 constructs the Prandtl profiles by a fixed-point argument before evaluating the identities to identify the far-field limits. The paper explicitly states this ordering: “The nonlinear fixed point first constructs the periodic boundary layer and its constant far-field limits; only afterward are the identities evaluated to identify a and b. This avoids a circular solvability argument.” The boundary-lift zero mode is determined by the boundary data, not by the target constants, and the weighted fixed-point space allows generic far-field constants that are later identified. The linearized Euler and stability estimates require only |a^2−b^2|>0, which follows from the explicit hypothesis |α|≠|β| together with a=α+O(η^2); this is a scope condition, not a fitted input. The exact PDE identity C_0=2βε^2 independently recovers b=β, so the selection law is not built into the ansatz. Citations to the authors’ earlier hydrodynamic disk and annulus papers are contextual and are not used as load-bearing ingredients in the proof; no uniqueness theorem is imported from those works. Appendix B is explicitly conditional and is not used in the main construction. No prediction reduces by construction to its input, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data: α, β, κ, η, f, and fhat are prescribed boundary inputs, and the selected core constants a and b are explicit functions of these inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The axioms are the stated MHD model, the non-Alfvénic gap condition, the Couette-type core ansatz, smallness assumptions, and standard mathematical tools.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Non-Alfvénic condition |α| ≠ |β| ensures |a² - b²| ≥ c₀ after small η.
    Invoked in Theorem 1.1 and used in the Prandtl coercivity matrix M_{α,β}, in the Euler matching, and in the final stability estimate. The authors explicitly state that the Alfvénic case is a distinct characteristic regime.
  • domain assumption The steady incompressible MHD model (1.3) with boundary conditions (1.4)-(1.5) and diffusivity ratio κ.
    The theorem is formulated inside this model; the boundary magnetic trace is a prescribed Neumann-type condition rather than a conducting-wall or full exterior matching condition.
  • domain assumption The selected interior core is assumed to be of Couette-type form (ar, 0, br, 0).
    Section 1 after (1.6) states this ansatz; the theorem constructs solutions with this core rather than proving that every inviscid limit must be of this form. The conditional rigidity argument in Appendix B addresses a broader single-eddy family under extra hypotheses.
  • domain assumption Smallness of η and ε is required throughout.
    The fixed-point argument requires u_p ≥ α/2, the Wood formula requires positivity of the right-hand side for small η, and the contraction argument requires ε small. These are stated in Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 2.2.
  • standard math Standard PDE tools are used: Hardy inequalities, polar Hessian identities, elliptic regularity, compact perturbation alternative, and Gidas-Ni-Nirenberg radial symmetry.
    These are invoked in Lemmas 3.1-3.2, Lemma 4.2, Proposition 4.1, and Appendix B. They are classical background results, not new postulates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prandtl--Batchelor and flux-expulsion selection for steady MHD flows in a disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNBP77LF

@misc{pith2026260805994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prandtl--Batchelor and flux-expulsion selection for steady MHD flows in a disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNBP77LF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05994}
}
abstract

We study the simultaneous vanishing-viscosity and vanishing-resistivity limit of steady incompressible MHD flows in a disk. The boundary velocity is a small nonaxisymmetric perturbation of a rigid rotation with mean angular speed \(\alpha\), while the prescribed tangential magnetic trace has mean \(\beta\). Assuming \(\alpha\neq0\) and the non-Alfv\'enic condition \(|\alpha|\neq|\beta|\), we construct solutions converging on compact interior subdisks to a rigidly rotating ideal MHD core with constant vorticity and out-of-plane current density. A new MHD--Wood law determines the two core rotations from the boundary data: the velocity core is selected by a coupled kinetic--magnetic balance, whereas the magnetic core is fixed by the imposed mean circulation. Consequently, zero circulation gives complete interior magnetic expulsion, while nonzero circulation leaves a uniform magnetic rotation after the nonaxisymmetric modes are confined to a thin boundary layer. This provides a fully coupled realization of Prandtl--Batchelor selection and flux expulsion; unlike classical kinematic models, the magnetic field actively changes the flow and need not be weak. The proof combines a non-Alfv\'enic coercive theory for a periodic MHD boundary layer, global matching of the two fields, and a coupled stability estimate adapted to the magnetic boundary condition. A separate conditional rigidity argument, using exact viscous identities and local convergence but no interior asymptotic expansion, explains the same core structure for a broader single-eddy family.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alfv´ en,Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves, Nature150(1942), 405–406

    H. Alfv´ en,Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves, Nature150(1942), 405–406

    work page 1942

  2. [2]

    Bajer,Flux expulsion by a point vortex, Eur

    K. Bajer,Flux expulsion by a point vortex, Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids17(1998), no. 4, 653–664

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    G. K. Batchelor,On steady laminar flow with closed streamlines at large Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech.1 (1956), no. 2, 177–190

    work page 1956

  4. [4]

    Boundary layer expansions of the steady MHD equations in a bounded domain

    D. Bian and Z. Si,Boundary layer expansions of the steady MHD equations in a bounded domain, preprint, arXiv:2405.09726, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Chandrasekhar,Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961

    S. Chandrasekhar,Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961

    work page 1961

  6. [6]

    Constantin, A

    P. Constantin, A. Kiselev, L. Ryzhik, and A. Zlatoˇ s,Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow, Ann. of Math. (2)168 (2008), no. 2, 643–674

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    P. A. Davidson,An Introduction to Magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    W. M. Elsasser,The hydromagnetic equations, Phys. Rev.79(1950), no. 1, 183

    work page 1950

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Fannjiang and G

    A. Fannjiang and G. C. Papanicolaou,Convection-enhanced diffusion for periodic flows, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 54(1994), no. 2, 333–408

    1994

  2. [10]

    R. P. Feynman and P. A. Lagerstrom,Remarks on high Reynolds number flows in finite domains, Proc. IX International Congress on Applied Mechanics, Brussels, vol. 3 (1956), 342–343

    1956

  3. [11]

    M. Fei, C. Gao, Z. Lin, and T. Tao,Prandtl–Batchelor flows on a disk, Comm. Math. Phys.397(2023), 1103– 1161

    2023

  4. [12]

    M. Fei, C. Gao, Z. Lin, and T. Tao,Prandtl–Batchelor flows on an annulus, Adv. Math.458(2024), Paper No. 109994

    2024

  5. [13]

    D. J. Galloway, M. R. E. Proctor, and N. O. Weiss,Magnetic flux ropes and convection, J. Fluid Mech.87 (1978), no. 2, 243–261

    1978

  6. [14]

    Gidas, W

    B. Gidas, W. M. Ni, and L. Nirenberg,Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle, Comm. Math. Phys.68(1979), no. 3, 209–243

    1979

  7. [15]

    Gao and L

    C. Gao and L. Zhang,On the steady Prandtl boundary layer expansion, Sci. China Math.66(2023), 1993–2020

    2023

  8. [16]

    Gao and L

    C. Gao and L. Zhang,The steady Prandtl boundary layer expansions for non-shear Euler flow, J. Math. Phys. 65(2024), Paper No. 071504, 27 pp

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gao and Z

    C. Gao and Z. Xin,Prandtl boundary layers in an infinitely long convergent channel, Comm. Math. Phys.407 (2026), Paper No. 26

    2026

  10. [18]

    G´ erard-Varet and M

    D. G´ erard-Varet and M. Prestipino,Formal derivation and stability analysis of boundary layer models in MHD, Z. Angew. Math. Phys.68(2017), Paper No. 76, 16 pp

    2017

  11. [19]

    A. D. Gilbert, J. Mason, and S. M. Tobias,Flux expulsion with dynamics, J. Fluid Mech.791(2016), 568–588

    2016

  12. [20]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Iyer,Validity of steady Prandtl layer expansions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.76(2023), no. 11, 3150–3232

    2023

  13. [21]

    Guo and T

    Y. Guo and T. Nguyen,Prandtl boundary layer expansions of steady Navier–Stokes flows over a moving plate, Ann. PDE3(2017), no. 1, Paper No. 10

    2017

  14. [22]

    Hartmann,Hg-dynamics I

    J. Hartmann,Hg-dynamics I. Theory of the laminar flow of an electrically conductive liquid in a homogeneous magnetic field, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab. Mat.-Fys. Medd.15(1937), no. 6, 1–28

    1937

  15. [23]

    Iyer and N

    S. Iyer and N. Masmoudi,Global inviscid limit of two-dimensional stationary Navier–Stokes and stability of Prandtl expansions, Forum Math. Pi14(2026), Paper No. e13

    2026

  16. [24]

    Kamkar and H

    H. Kamkar and H. K. Moffatt,A dynamic runaway effect associated with flux expulsion in magnetohydrodynamic channel flow, J. Fluid Mech.121(1982), 107–122

    1982

  17. [25]

    Kim,On Prandtl–Batchelor theory of a cylindrical eddy: asymptotic study, SIAM J

    S.-C. Kim,On Prandtl–Batchelor theory of a cylindrical eddy: asymptotic study, SIAM J. Appl. Math.58(1998), no. 5, 1394–1413

    1998

  18. [26]

    Kim,On Prandtl–Batchelor theory of a cylindrical eddy: existence and uniqueness, Z

    S.-C. Kim,On Prandtl–Batchelor theory of a cylindrical eddy: existence and uniqueness, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 51(2000), 674–686

    2000

  19. [27]

    P. A. Lagerstrom,Solutions of the Navier–Stokes equation at large Reynolds number, SIAM J. Appl. Math.28 (1975), no. 1, 202–214

    1975

  20. [28]

    Li and F

    S. Li and F. Xie,Prandtl boundary layer expansion with strong boundary layers for inhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamics equations in Sobolev framework, J. Funct. Anal.287(2024), no. 12, Paper No. 110653. 76 CHEN GAO, ZHIWU LIN, AND JIANFENG ZHAO

    2024

  21. [29]

    Li and R

    W.-X. Li and R. Xu,Well-posedness in Sobolev spaces of the two-dimensional MHD boundary layer equations without viscosity, Electron. Res. Arch.29(2021), no. 6, 4243–4255

    2021

  22. [30]

    C.-J. Liu, D. Wang, F. Xie, and T. Yang,Magnetic effects on the solvability of 2D MHD boundary layer equations without resistivity in Sobolev spaces, J. Funct. Anal.279(2020), no. 7, Paper No. 108637

    2020

  23. [31]

    C.-J. Liu, F. Xie, and T. Yang,MHD boundary layers theory in Sobolev spaces without monotonicity. I. Well- posedness theory, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.72(2019), no. 1, 63–121

    2019

  24. [32]

    C.-J. Liu, F. Xie, and T. Yang,Justification of Prandtl ansatz for MHD boundary layer, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 51(2019), no. 3, 2748–2791

    2019

  25. [33]

    C.-J. Liu, T. Yang, and Z. Zhang,Validity of Prandtl expansions for steady MHD in the Sobolev framework, SIAM J. Math. Anal.55(2023), no. 3, 2377–2410

    2023

  26. [34]

    H. K. Moffatt and E. Dormy,Self-Exciting Fluid Dynamos, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    H. K. Moffatt,Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1978

    1978

  28. [36]

    H. K. Moffatt and H. Kamkar,The time-scale associated with flux expulsion, inStellar and Planetary Magnetism, A. M. Soward (ed.), Gordon and Breach, 1983, 91–98

    1983

  29. [37]

    Moreau,Magnetohydrodynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990

    R. Moreau,Magnetohydrodynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    R. L. Parker,Reconnexion of lines of force in rotating spheres and cylinders, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A291(1966), no. 1424, 60–72

    1966

  31. [39]

    Poth´ erat, J

    A. Poth´ erat, J. Sommeria, and R. Moreau,Effective boundary conditions for magnetohydrodynamic flows with thin Hartmann layers, Phys. Fluids14(2002), 403–410

    2002

  32. [40]

    Prandtl, ¨Uber Fl¨ ussigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner Reibung, inVerhandlungen des III

    L. Prandtl, ¨Uber Fl¨ ussigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner Reibung, inVerhandlungen des III. Internationalen Mathematiker-Kongresses, Heidelberg, 1904, Teubner, Leipzig, 1905, 484–491

    1904

  33. [41]

    M. R. E. Proctor and D. J. Galloway,The dynamic effect of flux ropes on Rayleigh–B´ enard convection, J. Fluid Mech.90(1979), no. 2, 273–287

    1979

  34. [42]

    M. R. E. Proctor and N. O. Weiss,Magnetoconvection, Rep. Prog. Phys.45(1982), 1317–1379

    1982

  35. [43]

    Renardy,On non-existence of steady periodic solutions of the Prandtl equations, J

    M. Renardy,On non-existence of steady periodic solutions of the Prandtl equations, J. Fluid Mech.717(2013), Paper No. R7

    2013

  36. [44]

    P. B. Rhines and W. R. Young,Homogenization of potential vorticity in planetary gyres, J. Fluid Mech.122 (1982), 347–367

    1982

  37. [45]

    P. B. Rhines and W. R. Young,How rapidly is a passive scalar mixed within closed streamlines?, J. Fluid Mech. 133(1983), 133–145

    1983

  38. [46]

    Riley,High Reynolds number flows with closed streamlines, J

    N. Riley,High Reynolds number flows with closed streamlines, J. Eng. Math.15(1981), 15–27

    1981

  39. [47]

    J. A. Shercliff,A Textbook of Magnetohydrodynamics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965

    1965

  40. [48]

    L. Tao, N. O. Weiss, D. P. Brownjohn, and M. R. E. Proctor,Flux separation in stellar magnetoconvection, Astrophys. J. Lett.496(1998), L39–L42

    1998

  41. [49]

    Tessier, F

    J. Tessier, F. J. Poulin, and D. W. Hughes,Dynamic expulsion of magnetic flux by vortices, Phys. Rev. Fluids 10(2025), Paper No. 053702

    2025

  42. [50]

    van Wijngaarden,Prandtl–Batchelor flows revisited, Fluid Dyn

    L. van Wijngaarden,Prandtl–Batchelor flows revisited, Fluid Dyn. Res.39(2007), 267–278

    2007

  43. [51]

    N. O. Weiss,The expulsion of magnetic flux by eddies, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A293(1966), 310–328

    1966

  44. [52]

    N. O. Weiss,Convection in an imposed magnetic field. Part 1. The development of nonlinear convection, J. Fluid Mech.108(1981), 247–272

    1981

  45. [53]

    N. O. Weiss,Convection in an imposed magnetic field. Part 2. The dynamical regime, J. Fluid Mech.108(1981), 273–289

    1981

  46. [54]

    N. O. Weiss, M. R. E. Proctor, and D. P. Brownjohn,Magnetic flux separation in photospheric convection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.337(2002), 293–304

    2002

  47. [55]

    W. W. Wood,Boundary layers whose streamlines are closed, J. Fluid Mech.2(1957), no. 1, 77–87. School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China Email address:gaochen@amss.ac.cn School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University...

    1957

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.