Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Electromagnetically Driven Thermal Dissipation Scaling in Plasma Centrifuges for Mass Separation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A plasma centrifuge driven by volumetric electromagnetic force can match the separative performance of a shear-driven centrifuge by keeping the centrifugal parameter λ elevated across the annulus rather than maximizing its peak value.

desk verdict Serious 2T-MHD framework and a genuinely useful reframing of EMDC separation, but the headline λ>1 claim rests on an acknowledged upper-limit closure and should be qualified in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28208 v2 pith:4COGGPSB submitted 2026-07-30 physics.plasm-ph

Drue P. Hood-McFadden , Shreyas Kotla , Thomas C. Underwood This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.30.Cv
keywords plasmacentrifugeelectromagneticforcingLorentzforcemassseparationtwo-temperaturemagnetohydrodynamicscentrifugalparameterisotopethermaldissipation
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 establish that electromagnetically driven plasma centrifuges are not limited by their own heating to weak separation. The authors build a two-temperature magnetohydrodynamic model in which the device separation factor grows exponentially with the radial integral of λ/r, where λ compares rotational kinetic energy to thermal energy. They find that volumetric Lorentz forcing sustains elevated λ across much of the annulus, so a device with only moderate peak rotation can match a wall-driven centrifuge running near its material speed limit, while using lower area-averaged rotational energy. Their optimized 40Ar/36Ar calculations reach separation factors around 1.33 at J ≈ 7.5–10 kA/m², B ≈ 0.4–0.45 T, and aspect ratio 3–4, and they argue this reframes centrifuge design from maximizing peak rotation to shaping the radial λ profile.

What carries the argument

The central object is the centrifugal parameter λ = m Vθ²/(2 k_B T), specifically the heavy-species value λh, and the separation factor α = exp(∫ 2Δλ/r dr) that follows from the radial species momentum balance. The argument is carried by a two-temperature magnetohydrodynamic model in which a radial current density J_r crossed with an axial magnetic field B_z produces azimuthal Lorentz forcing J×B, with anisotropic Pedersen and Hall conductivities and separate electron and heavy-species temperature equations. The Hartmann number Ha = B ΔR sqrt(σ_Pedersen/μ) acts as the measure of whether electromagnetic forcing controls momentum balance against viscous wall losses, and the paper shows that op

What would settle it

Run the optimized arc-regime condition (R2 = 6 cm, R2/R1 = 3–4, J ≈ 7.5–10 kA/m², B ≈ 0.4–0.45 T) with Doppler-resolved azimuthal velocity and spectroscopically determined heavy-species temperature; if the measured m_Ar Vθ²/(2 k_B Th) remains below 1 where the model predicts λ>1, the central prediction fails. The same discharge with a 40Ar/36Ar feed should show a device separation factor near 1.33 if the scaling is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the previously suggested viscous-dissipation limit λ<1 for weakly ionized plasma centrifuges is not universal. In the 2T-MHD model, Joule heating amplified by magnetization's suppression of the cross-field (Pedersen) conductivity is the dominant thermal penalty, not viscous shear, and even with that penalty the optimized 40Ar/36Ar cases reach device separation factors comparable to a shear-driven centrifuge at roughly 720 m/s wall speed. The reason is that the separation factor depends on the integrated λ/r profile, so broadening the region of elevated λ matters more than increasing the peak. The model also reproduces the trend of the earlier arc-regime meas

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that ionization stays near Saha equilibrium at the electron temperature; the paper itself notes that this overestimates electrical conductivity and therefore lowers the computed Joule heating, making the predicted λ>1 regime plausibly easier in the model than in a real discharge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, EMDCs can approach the device separation factor of modern high-speed shear centrifuges without a fast-moving rotor, relaxing material-strength and vibration constraints.
  • Volumetric forcing gives higher inner-wall-anchored separation factor over much of the annulus, which is favorable for multi-component or high-throughput feedstocks where sampling the radial composition profile matters.
  • The dominant design lever shifts from maximizing peak or area-averaged λ to shaping the radial λ/r profile through geometry, current density, and magnetic field, with the Hartmann number as a diagnostic for momentum-balance quality.
  • Joule heating intensified by magnetized reduction of Pedersen conductivity is the main performance limit, so increasing B helps rotation only over a narrowing range of current densities.
  • The model predicts λ>1 in the 7.5–10 kA/m², 0.4–0.45 T, aspect-ratio 3–4 window, giving a concrete experimental target for demonstrating that viscous dissipation does not cap weakly ionized plasma centrifuges at λ<1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Saha-equilibrium closure is indeed overpredicting conductivity, the λ>1 contour may shift to higher current densities or magnetic fields, or disappear entirely; direct measurement of Th and Vθ in that window would settle which regime is real.
  • The principle that integrated λ/r beats peak λ is likely transferable to other volumetric driving schemes besides J×B, since it follows from the exponential separation integral rather than from the Lorentz force specifically.
  • The Ar/Kr experiment hints that current filamentation can locally enhance centrifugal effects beyond the uniform-annulus model, so real EMDC separation may be spatially inhomogeneous and possibly stronger than predicted in filamented regions.
  • A natural testable extension is to map composition at several radial positions instead of two capillaries, which would directly reconstruct the λ/r profile the paper argues is the true performance metric.
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. This paper develops a reduced two-temperature MHD model for weakly ionized electromagnetically driven plasma centrifuges (EMDCs), couples it to a two-component separation metric, and validates it against Wijnakker arc-regime data, Kaneko abnormal-glow data, and new low-field UT-Austin measurements. The model is used to predict that, with joint optimization of current density, magnetic field, and radial geometry, EMDCs can reach area-averaged λ>1 and device separation factors comparable to shear-driven centrifuges, despite lower peak or area-averaged λ. The central novelty is the argument that the radial integral of λ/r, rather than peak λ, controls separation, and that volumetric Lorentz forcing can maintain elevated λ over a wider annulus.

Significance. If the predictions hold, the paper would overturn the earlier Wijnakker-based conclusion that weakly ionized plasma centrifuges are limited to λ<1, and would provide a concrete design target (broad λ/r profiles with moderate Ha) for separating isotopes and heavier mixtures without a moving rotor. The paper is commendable for testing the model against several independent datasets, for explicitly exposing the role of Pedersen conductivity suppression in Joule heating, and for producing falsifiable predictions (the λ>1 window in Fig. 16A and the α comparisons in Fig. 17). However, the central quantitative claim rests on an ionization closure that the authors themselves identify as an upper-limit estimate, and the one direct mass-separation experiment is not reproduced by the model. The strengths are real, but the headline extrapolation is not yet supported to the standard required for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (10); §4.1.3; Fig. 11] The Saha-equilibrium closure for n_e, evaluated at T_e, is an upper-limit ionization model: it overestimates n_e and therefore σ_P, reducing J·E* = J_r²/σ_P and suppressing Joule heating. The authors acknowledge this in §4.1.3: "Saha equilibrium ... overpredicts electrical conductivity and thus reduces J⃗·E*". The validation in Fig. 11 shows the model overpredicts λ_h by 0.05 at B=0.13 T and by 0.18 at B=0.26 T, with the bias increasing with B. The predicted λ>1 window (7.5–10 kA/m², 0.4–0.45 T, Fig. 16A) lies beyond the validated B range and in the direction of that growing bias. Since the headline claim depends on V_θ²/T_h staying high, this closure is load-bearing. The authors should either implement a non-equilibrium ionization/recombination model, or calibrate the Saha closure against the measured T_h and V_θ and show that λ>1 survives within the resulting uncertainty band.
  2. [§4.1.3, Fig. 15] The only direct mass-separation experiment, the Ar/Kr capillary measurements, is not captured by the model: the model predicts |V_θ(r₂)| ~ 1 m/s and a negligible composition shift, while the measured capillary-to-capillary shift corresponds to an isothermal rigid-body estimate of |V_θ(r₂)| ~ 75 m/s. The paper attributes the discrepancy to current filamentation and evolving discharge geometry, but these mechanisms are not modeled. A direct separation measurement that disagrees with the model by nearly two orders of magnitude in velocity undermines the claim that the model can be extrapolated to predict α≈1.33 for 40Ar/36Ar. The authors should either provide a quantitative model of the filamentation/2D effects or substantially soften the claim that the model predicts the measured mass-separation response.
  3. [§4.1.1–4.1.3; Fig. 10B inset] The effective discharge length L is a free parameter per validation case (L=14 cm for Wijnakker, ~5 cm for Kaneko, ~3 cm for the enlarged reactor). This parameter directly sets J_r = I/(2πrL) and therefore the Lorentz force, Joule heating, and all derived quantities. Fig. 10B inset shows sensitivity of ⟨λ⟩ to L, but the paper does not provide a systematic uncertainty analysis for the extrapolated λ>1 design window in Fig. 16A. The reader cannot tell whether the predicted λ>1 conditions are robust to reasonable variations in L, especially as L would need to be specified for a practical device. Please provide an explicit L sensitivity study for the headline operating points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout (e.g., Eqs. 17, 20, Fig. 16)] Many symbols are garbled in the rendering (e.g., "V!", "T?", "λ?", "J?ABB"). The manuscript must be typeset correctly with clear subscripts for V_θ, T_h, λ_h, J_r, and B_z before it can be properly evaluated.
  2. [§4.1.3, Fig. 15] The statement that the model is "not appropriately scoped" for a non-dilute Ar/Kr mixture is in tension with the subsequent quantitative comparison. Either apply a dilute-mixture caveat to the whole comparison or provide a mixture-appropriate model; otherwise the comparison is misleading.
  3. [§3, Fig. 9] The phase velocity of the ionization waves (~2 km/s) is noted not to equal bulk velocity, but the reader would benefit from a quantitative statement of how the pressure-derived V_θ ≤ 100 m/s is obtained and how the wave motion is separated from the bulk flow.
  4. [§4.2, Fig. 16A] The compressibility band between the γ_k=1 and γ_k=5/3 M_r=1 contours is introduced but not defined precisely. Please define M_r and the polytropic index γ_k, and state how the contours are computed from the 2T-MHD solution.
  5. [References] Reference [7] is a DOE NEPA CX document with an access date in 2026; if this is not yet publicly available in final form, consider replacing or supplementing with a peer-reviewed source on lithium isotope separation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central λ>1 and α predictions are forward-model outputs benchmarked against external data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The 2T-MHD model (Eqs. 1-10) is solved from stated inputs (Jr, Bz, R2, R2/R1, p(R2), wall temperatures), and the separation factor (Eq. 20) is post-processed from the resulting Vθ and Th profiles. No model parameter is fitted to the target α or to λ_h; the effective discharge lengths are geometric estimates anchored to reported reactor dimensions, not tuned to reproduce separation. The model is benchmarked against external Wijnakker and Kaneko data, and the λ>1 regime is a forward-model extrapolation. The paper explicitly flags the Saha closure (Eq. 10) as an upper-limit ionization estimate that overpredicts electrical conductivity and suppresses Joule heating, and validation shows a B-dependent positive bias on λ_h; this is a soundness/validity concern for the headline extrapolation, not circularity. The self-citations [35-38] support the high-speed imaging diagnostic methodology and are not load-bearing for the central scaling claims. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation; the SDC comparison is an independent model baseline (Appendix B).

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's inputs are standard plasma closures plus three per-case effective lengths and idealized 300 K walls. The load-bearing assumption is the Saha upper-limit closure, which is flagged by the authors themselves and directly inflates the headline λ>1 prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • effective discharge length L (per validation case) = Wijnakker 14 cm; Kaneko 5 cm; enlarged Ar/Kr 3 cm
    Sets J_r = I/(2πrL) and thus the Lorentz force magnitude. Chosen from geometric estimates, not measured; model predictions of V_θ and λ_h depend on it (sensitivity shown in Fig. 10 inset).
  • wall temperature boundary condition = 300 K at both walls (ideal cooled-electrode limit)
    Used in design studies (Figs. 4–6, 16–17); lowers T_h and raises λ_h. Not representative of the uncooled Ar/Kr experiment, where walls rose to ~340 K.
  • polytropic compressibility index γ_k (contour band) = γ_k = 1 (isothermal) and γ_k = 5/3 (isentropic)
    Defines the compressibility band in Fig. 16A; affects where M=1 contours sit but not the main result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Saha equilibrium at electron temperature T_e (Eq. 10)
    Provides n_e for conductivity and Joule heating; paper admits it overpredicts ionization ('upper-limit estimate', §2.2 and §4.1.3), biasing λ_h high.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric steady laminar 1D radial flow (V_r=0, no axial variation)
    Reduces Eqs. 1–6 to ODEs in r; authors state in §5 that finite-length effects, secondary flows, and instabilities are unaddressed.
  • domain assumption Co-rotation of charged and neutral species, |w_θ| << |V_θ| (Eq. 15)
    Invoked to use a single azimuthal velocity profile; not verified a posteriori in the optimized high-J,B regime.
  • domain assumption No-slip walls and 300 K wall temperatures in design cases
    Sets parabolic V_θ and T_h profiles; wall cooling assumption is an ideal thermal limit that boosts λ_h.
  • domain assumption Neglect of electron heat flux and inelastic losses in electron energy equation
    Treats T_e algebraically; standard in reduced arc models but unverified here.
  • domain assumption Quasi-neutral singly ionized plasma; no sheaths; neutral-dominated transport
    Standard weakly-ionized assumptions used throughout; cited to [18,22,26].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electromagnetically Driven Thermal Dissipation Scaling in Plasma Centrifuges for Mass Separation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4COGGPSB

@misc{pith2026260728208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electromagnetically Driven Thermal Dissipation Scaling in Plasma Centrifuges for Mass Separation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4COGGPSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28208}
}
read the original abstract

Electromagnetically driven centrifuges (EMDCs) rotate fluids using the Lorentz force, but their separative performance is limited by thermal dissipation that is coupled to electromagnetic forcing. This follows because local centrifugal strength is characterized by {\lambda}=mV_{\theta}^2/2k_B T, which compares directed kinetic energy that drives species separation to thermal energy that smooths concentration gradients and counteracts separation. In this work, we develop a two-temperature magnetohydrodynamic model to determine how radial geometry, current density, and magnetic field strength control the coupled evolution of rotation and heating that dictates {\lambda}. The model is benchmarked against Ar velocity, temperature, and pressure measurements spanning current density up to 15 kA/m2, magnetic field up to 0.57 T, feed pressures of 0.5-3 Torr, and annulus sizes of 1-5 cm. The results show that volumetric Lorentz forcing sustains elevated {\lambda}, and therefore greater local compositional shifts throughout a larger radial portion of the fluid volume than wall-bounded shear centrifuges, despite producing a lower peak {\lambda}. Simulations of a 40Ar/36Ar isotopic mixture demonstrate that, when electromagnetic force and geometry are jointly optimized, EMDCs can approach or match the separative performance of shear-driven centrifuges operating near material speed limits while requiring lower area-averaged values of {\lambda}, and can sustain greater radial compositional shifts than the SDC reference over much of the annulus. These results challenge assertions that viscous dissipation constrains weakly ionized plasma centrifuges to {\lambda}<1, and indicate that enhanced radial mass separation can be achieved by broadening the radial region over which {\lambda} remains elevated rather than maximizing its peak or area-averaged value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28208 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rotational forcing enables mass separation. (A) A radial current density, J!, crossed with an applied axial magnetic field, B", produces azimuthal Lorentz forcing and bulk rotation. The resulting centrifugal force and concentration gradients establish a mass distribution with heavier species pushed towards R# and lighter species towards R$, enabling radial binary-component separation without a moving rotor. (B) Isot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature-dependent anisotropic conductivity components used in the 2T-MHD model under LTE conditions with charged species, 𝒮/ = {𝑒0, 𝐴𝑟1}. (A) Electron conductivity components as functions of T&, including the parallel conductivity, σ∥&, Pedersen conductivity, σ3&, Hall conductivity, σ4&, and the corresponding σ56(7"&! reference. The inset cartoon illustrates the imposed radial current density, J! axial magnetic … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature-dependent anisotropic conductivity components used in the 2T-MHD model under LTE conditions with charged species, 𝒮/ = {𝑒0, 𝐴𝑟1}. (A) Electron conductivity components as functions of T&, including the parallel conductivity, σ∥&, Pedersen conductivity, σ3&, Hall conductivity, σ4&, and the corresponding σ56(7"&! reference. The inset cartoon illustrates the imposed radial current density, J!, axial magnetic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EMDC profiles used to isolate the roles of J ⃗∙ C EC⃗∗, ⃡τ: ∇VCC⃗, @J ⃗ × C BC⃗D ! , and β=$ in setting λ>. From top to bottom, the panels show the electron temperature, T&, heavy-particle temperature, T>, azimuthal velocity magnitude, |V-|, and λ>, as functions of rad…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pressure calibration between RGA measurement and LVCP. (A) Time-resolved pressure traces during calibration. Both RGA and Baratron pressure measurements are presented in a twin axis format as the LVCP was stepped ~2.1-2.5 Torr. Dashed vertical lines indicate when the c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A, R" is swept from 1 to 6 cm and R"/R) from 1.5 to 10. The results show that ⟨Ha⟩0 increases strongly with R", while the aspect ratio has an intermediate optimum near 2 ≤ R"/R) ≤ 6. This behavior follows directly from Eq. 18, where larger devices increase ΔR, but larg…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: High-speed imaging of coherent wave structures (A) Image sequence without an applied magnetic field with feed pressure, pf = 1.5 Torr argon pressure and 100 mA discharge current. (B,C) Image sequences with an applied axial magnetic field of B = 0.15 T, showing rotating…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of EMDC and SDC radial profiles for R# = 6 cm and R#/R$ = 2 to 4. (A) Heavy-particle temperature normalized by T>,?(@ = 300 K. (B) Azimuthal velocity normalized by the argon isentropic sound speed at T>,?(@. (C) Corresponding λ> profiles, with the inset show…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Arc-regime comparison between Wijnakker V- measurements, analytic reconstructions, and the EMDC model. (A) V￾profiles for the reported Wijnakker argon arc cases at 3 Torr, 0.17 T (Case 1) and 1 Torr, 0.13 T (Case 2). Markers show the reported V- doppler shift measurem…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EMDC configuration and diagnostic schematic for the enlarged reactor. The left object shows the outside of the LVC with the feedthroughs and attachments labelled. The right schematic shows the coaxial discharge region inside the LVC. The gas is injected into the reacto…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Magnetic-field scaling comparison between Wijnakker measurements at pf = 3 Torr, I = 100 A and EMDC model predictions. The panels compare V-,?AB, T>,?AB, and λh evaluated from the maximum quantities, as functions of the magnetic field. Red markers show Wijnakker exper…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pressure calibration between RGA measurement and LVCP. (A) Time-resolved pressure traces during calibration. Both RGA and Baratron pressure measurements are presented in a dual-axis format as the LVCP was stepped ~2.1-2.5 Torr. Dashed vertical lines indicate when the c…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: High magnetic-field, low current density abnormal glow validation. (A) Radial pressure ratio, p/p(r$), profile for the reported measurements using B = 0.57 T and estimated electromagnetic force J?ABB" = 181 AT/m2 . The black and grey curves show the 2T-MHD model with …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: ⟨λ>⟩., ⟨Ha⟩., α%&'()&, and power-efficiency scaling with J?AB and B in the arc-regime design space for R# = 6 cm and R#/R$ = 3. (A) Area-averaged λ> as a function of J?AB and B. The red contour marks the reported Wijnakker upper limit value, λ> ∼ 0.4, and the white co…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: 40Ar/36Ar separation-factor scaling for EMDC radial geometries compared with SDC predictions at the carbon-fiber thin-wall speed limit of VO = 720 m/s. The EMDC cases use R# = 6 cm and B" = 0.45 T. (A) α+"→! profiles for different R#/R$values. Solid curves show EMDC p…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Glaser A 2008 Characteristics of the gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment and their relevance for nuclear weapon proliferation Sci. Glob. Secur. 16 1–25

    2008

  2. [2]

    Benedict M, Pigford T H and Levi H W 1981 Nuclear Chemical Engineering (New York: McGraw-Hill)

    1981

  3. [3]

    Kessler G 2011 Proliferation-Proof Uranium and Plutonium Fuel Cycles: Safeguards and Non-Proliferation (Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Szepessy S and Thorwid P 2018 Low energy consumption of high-speed centrifuges Chem. Eng. Technol. 41 2375–84

    2018

  5. [5]

    Plasmas 26 043511

    Gueroult R, Zweben S J, Fisch N J and Rax J M 2019 E×B configurations for high-throughput plasma mass separation: an outlook on possibilities and challenges Phys. Plasmas 26 043511

    2019

  6. [6]

    Gueroult R and Fisch N J 2014 Plasma mass filtering for separation of actinides from lanthanides Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 23 035002

    2014

  7. [7]

    Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 2025 CX-270890: Marathon Fusion, Inc

    U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 2025 CX-270890: Marathon Fusion, Inc. — Partial Ionization Centrifuge Enabling Differential Pumping and Lithium Isotope Separation for Fusion Energy Online: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/cx-270890-marathon-fusion-inc-partial-ionization-centrifuge-enabling-differential (accessed 18 June

    2025

  8. [8]

    Naturforsch

    Wijnakker M M B and Granneman E H A 1980 Limitations on mass separation by the weakly ionized plasma centrifuge Z. Naturforsch. A 35 883–93

    1980

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Wijnakker M M B 1980 Centrifugal effects in a weakly ionized rotating gas PhD Thesis 27 Universiteit van Amsterdam

    1980

  2. [10]

    Plasma Process

    Korobtsev S V, Kosinova T A, Rakhimbabaev Y R and Rusanov V D 1986 Chemical processes in a plasma centrifuge Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 6 97–107

    1986

  3. [11]

    Prasad R R and Krishnan M 1987 Isotope separation in a vacuum-arc centrifuge J. Appl. Phys. 61 4464–70

    1987

  4. [12]

    Egle B, Asgari M, Bigelow T, Bodey I, Burkhardt E, Duckworth R, Goulding R, Robinson S, Tusar J and Mahgerefteh M 2020 Plasma separation process feasibility study for the commercial enrichment of gadolinium-157 Technical Report ORNL/TM-2020/26 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Nationa...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Fetterman A J and Fisch N J 2009 Wave-driven countercurrent plasma centrifuge Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 18 045003

    2009

  6. [14]

    Pronko P P and VanRompay P A 2026 Magnetic centrifuge effects in ultrafast laser ablation plasmas J. Appl. Phys. 139 165902

    2026

  7. [15]

    Plasmas 31 013101

    Wong A Y, Lee K H and Lee L C 2024 Simulation of dynamics of rotating weakly ionized plasmas Phys. Plasmas 31 013101

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lehnert B 1973 The partially ionized plasma centrifuge Phys. Scr. 7 102

    1973

  9. [17]

    Plasmas 32 123505

    Muir H A, Eschbach N, Rodway-Gant G, Vankov I, Chen A, Wrixon B, Li Z, Gunn A and Gregori G 2025 Steady-state rotational dynamics of a weakly ionized hydrogen plasma under cross-field configuration Phys. Plasmas 32 123505

    2025

  10. [18]

    Mitchner M and Kruger C H 1973 Partially Ionized Gases (New York: Wiley)

    1973

  11. [19]

    Inan U S and Gołkowski M 2011 Principles of Plasma Physics for Engineers and Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Plasmas 32 070901

    LeVan J and Baalrud S D 2025 Foundations of magnetohydrodynamics Phys. Plasmas 32 070901

    2025

  13. [21]

    Plasmas 19 072508

    Meier E T and Shumlak U 2012 A general nonlinear fluid model for reacting plasma-neutral mixtures Phys. Plasmas 19 072508

    2012

  14. [22]

    Raizer Y P 1991 Gas Discharge Physics (Berlin: Springer)

    1991

  15. [23]

    Braginskii S I 1965 Transport processes in a plasma Reviews of Plasma Physics vol 1 ed M A Leontovich (New York: Consultants Bureau) pp 205–311

    1965

  16. [24]

    Plasmas 27 120601

    Kaganovich I D, Smolyakov A, Raitses Y, Ahedo E, Mikellides I G, Jorns B, Taccogna F, Gueroult R, Tsikata S, Bourdon A, Boeuf J-P, Keidar M, Powis A T, Merino M, Cappelli M, Hara K, Carlsson J A, Fisch N J, Chabert P, Schweigert I, Lafleur T, Matyash K, Khrabrov A V, Boswell R...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Plasma Sci

    Keidar M and Beilis I I 2006 Electron transport phenomena in plasma devices with E×B drift IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 34 804–14

    2006

  18. [26]

    Baeva M, Kozakov R, Gorchakov S and Uhrlandt D 2012 Two-temperature chemically non-equilibrium modelling of transferred arcs Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 21 055027

    2012

  19. [27]

    Neufeld P D, Janzen A R and Aziz R A 1972 Empirical equations to calculate 16 of the transport collision integrals Ω(l,s)* for the Lennard-Jones (12–6) potential J. Chem. Phys. 57 1100–2

    1972

  20. [28]

    Bird R B, Stewart W E, Lightfoot E and Klingenberg D J 2014 Introductory Transport Phenomena (New York: Wiley)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Dymond J H 1971 High temperature transport coefficients for the rare gases neon to xenon J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 4 621–7

    1971

  22. [30]

    Fridman A A 2008 Plasma Chemistry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Hazeltine R D and Waelbroeck F L 2004 The Framework of Plasma Physics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Song P, Gombosi T I and Ridley A J 2001 Three-fluid Ohm’s law J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 106 8149–56

    2001

  25. [33]

    Stelzer Z, Cébron D, Miralles S, Vantieghem S, Noir J, Scarfe P and Jackson A 2015 Experimental and numerical study of electrically driven magnetohydrodynamic flow in a modified cylindrical annulus. I. Base flow Phys. Fluids 27 077101

    2015

  26. [34]

    Wilhelm H E and Hong S H 1977 Boundary-value problem for plasma centrifuge at arbitrary magnetic Reynolds numbers Phys. Rev. A 15 2108–16

    1977

  27. [35]

    Underwood T C, Subramaniam V, Riedel W M, Raja L L and Cappelli M A 2019 Effects of 28 flow collisionality on ELM replication in plasma guns Fusion Eng. Des. 144 97–106

    2019

  28. [36]

    Fluids 61 1

    Underwood T C, Loebner K T K, Miller V A and Cappelli M A 2020 Schlieren diagnostic for cinematic visualization of dense plasma jets at Alfvénic timescales Exp. Fluids 61 1

    2020

  29. [37]

    Underwood T C, Loebner K T K, Miller V A and Cappelli M A 2019 Dynamic formation of stable current-driven plasma jets Sci. Rep. 9 2588

    2019

  30. [38]

    Subramaniam V, Underwood T C, Raja L L and Cappelli M A 2018 Computational and experimental investigation of plasma deflagration jets and detonation shocks in coaxial plasma accelerators Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 27 025016

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bevington P R and Robinson D K 2003 Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences 3rd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill)

    2003

  32. [40]

    Panjan M, Loquai S, Klemberg-Sapieha J E and Martinu L 2015 Non-uniform plasma distribution in dc magnetron sputtering: origin, shape and structuring of spokes Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 24 065010

    2015

  33. [41]

    Sengupta M, Smolyakov A and Raitses Y 2021 Restructuring of rotating spokes in response to changes in the radial electric field and the neutral pressure of a cylindrical magnetron plasma J. Appl. Phys. 129 223302

    2021

  34. [42]

    20 1167–78

    Kaneko O, Sasaki S and Kawashima N 1978 Mass separation experiment with a partially ionized rotating plasma Plasma Phys. 20 1167–78

    1978

  35. [43]

    Lev D and Choueiri E 2012 Scaling of efficiency with applied magnetic field in magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters J. Propuls. Power 28 609–16

    2012

  36. [44]

    Fluids 86 177–84 29

    Bogovalov S V, Borisevich V D, Borman V D, Kislov V A, Tronin I V and Tronin V N 2013 Verification of numerical codes for modeling of the flow and isotope separation in gas centrifuges Comput. Fluids 86 177–84 29

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.