Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analytical models for the enhancement of fusion reactivity by turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper derives a formula that computes how much small-scale turbulence boosts fusion reactivity, predicting up to 3.1x enhancement in inertial-confinement scenarios.

desk verdict A genuinely new analytical result for turbulence-enhanced reactivity, but the ICF numbers lean on an untested collision model; worth refereeing anyway. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13711 v1 pith:APIZAIPB submitted 2025-06-16 physics.plasm-ph

Henry Fetsch , Nathaniel J. Fisch This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.25.Dg52.35.Ra52.57.-z
keywords fusionreactivityturbulenceshearflowenhancementinertialconfinementGamowpeakturbulentenergyspectrumkinetictheoryBGKcollisionoperator
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

Fusion reactivity is usually treated as a function of temperature alone, but a recently identified kinetic effect makes it depend also on the relative velocities of nearby fluid elements. This paper develops analytical formulas that quantify that "shear flow reactivity enhancement" for arbitrary subsonic turbulent flows, expressing the enhancement directly in terms of the turbulent energy spectrum. If the formulas hold, turbulence at fine scales is not wasted energy in inertial confinement fusion; it can be put to use, with predicted reactivity enhancements between 1.4 and 3.1 in representative ICF scenarios and the prospect of igniting smaller, colder fuel masses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the utility function $G(k)$, defined by equation (32) and computed explicitly in (44): it converts turbulent kinetic energy at wavenumber $k$ into a fractional increase in fusion reactivity. The derivation works because fusion-relevant ions sit far above the thermal bulk, near the Gamow peak, with a long "Gamow mean free path", so each Fourier mode of the flow imprints a non-Maxwellian tail on the ion distribution, and the second-order correction $f_2$ plus the product $f_1 f_1$ survive spatial averaging. Equation (44) evaluates these contributions at a shifted Gamow peak whose location is found by solving the polynomials (41)-(43), an adjustment needed at ICF-relevant temperatures where $b$ is only moderately large. A modified BGK collision operator with a velocity-dependent collision frequency supplies the collisional physics for both the analytical theory and the numerical validation.

What would settle it

Run a low-Mach-number kinetic simulation of fusion reactivity in a random, small-scale turbulent flow whose energy spectrum $E(k)$ is known, but use a full Coulomb or Fokker-Planck collision operator instead of the BGK operator; if the measured $\Phi$ differs from $1 + 2\int_0^\infty dk\, E(k)G(k)$ by more than the numerical uncertainty across a range of temperatures and forcing scales, the central formula is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any subsonic turbulent flow, the space-averaged reactivity enhancement takes the form $\langle\Phi\rangle \sim 1 + 2\int_0^\infty dk\, E(k)G(k)$, where $E(k)$ is the normalized turbulent energy spectrum and $G(k)$ is a utility function measuring how much reactivity a given eddy scale buys. The paper derives a corrected formula for $G(k)$, equation (44), that accounts for the shift of the Gamow peak at ICF-relevant temperatures, where the simpler asymptotic expression underestimates the effect. Numerical simulations of fast-ion transport in random Kolmogorov-like flows agree with the formula at low Mach number and systematically underpredict at higher Mach number, so the authors present the formula as a conservative estimate. Applied to three representative ICF regimes, the formula gives DT reactivity enhancements of 1.6 (indirect drive), 3.1 (fast ignition), and 1.4 (z pinch).

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation assumes that the velocity-dependent BGK collision operator, with collision frequency (50), faithfully represents how suprathermal ions actually collide; because the same operator is used in both the analytical derivation and the numerical validation, the agreement in Fig. 4 does not independently test this physical assumption against a full Coulomb or Fokker-Planck operator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The enhancement of fusion reactivity in a turbulent plasma can be estimated from coarse spectrum data alone, since only $E(k)$ and $G(k)$ are needed; this is actionable because detailed flow structure in ICF targets is usually not directly measurable.
  • In inertial confinement fusion, turbulent kinetic energy at bang time is not necessarily wasted: deliberately driving small-scale turbulence could raise reactivity by factors of 1.4-3.1 in representative regimes, reducing the need for extreme heating.
  • Because the effect is larger at lower temperatures and for fuels with higher Gamow energy, designs for fast ignition and advanced or aneutronic fuels stand to gain more from the enhancement.
  • Since the analytical formula systematically underpredicts at high Mach number, the calculated enhancements are conservative; real designs might do somewhat better.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework assumes same-mass reactants and treats DT as a single species; extending the utility-function formalism to unequal masses would show whether the enhancement survives the more realistic kinematics of DT and other mixtures.
  • The paper's diagnostic inversion, inferring the turbulent energy spectrum from measured fusion yield, could be developed into a practical turbulence diagnostic if the formula is confirmed by experiments with independently characterized spectra.
  • One could test the scaling predicted in (12) and (44) with a controlled experiment or simulation that varies the ratio of forcing scale to the Gamow mean free path; the model predicts the enhancement should rise sharply as the forcing scale shrinks toward $\lambda_*$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives analytical formulas for the enhancement of fusion reactivity by a prescribed turbulent flow. Starting from a kinetic equation with a velocity-dependent BGK collision operator, it computes first- and second-order corrections to the ion distribution in the Mach number and expresses the volume-averaged reactivity enhancement as 1 + 2∫E(k)G(k) dk (Eq. 31). The utility function G(k) is first evaluated asymptotically (Eq. 37) and then in a corrected form (Eq. 44) that accounts for a shifted Gamow peak. The corrected formula is compared with kinetic simulations using the same BGK operator and with Bosch-Hale cross sections, and is then applied to three ICF-inspired scenarios in Table I, yielding enhancements of 1.4-3.1.

Significance. If the central formula were validated against a realistic Coulomb/Fokker-Planck collision operator, this would be a valuable contribution: it turns a previously qualitative effect into a tractable spectral formula, ships numerical simulations, and gives falsifiable predictions that could matter for ICF design. The paper is also honest about where the asymptotic formula fails, and it characterizes the corrected formula as conservative. The derivation of Eq. (31) from the kinetic equation is not circular with respect to the prior SFRE results, and the Appendix gives a concrete derivation of the peak-shift procedure. However, the numerical validation currently uses the same collision model as the analytical derivation, so the physical significance of the absolute numbers in Table I remains unproven without an independent test of the collision physics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-V, Eqs. (16), (50), (44), Fig. 4] The physical fidelity of the collision operator is load-bearing and untested. The analytical derivation and the numerical validation use the same modified BGK operator (16) with collision frequency (50), so the agreement in Fig. 4 is an internal-consistency check: it verifies that Eq. (44) solves the model equation (17), not that the model describes a real plasma. Because the reactivity enhancement relies on shear distortion of the suprathermal tail, and because the real relaxation of that tail involves distinct electron drag, ion pitch-angle scattering, and energy-diffusion processes with different velocity dependences, a single scalar relaxation rate to a local Maxwellian cannot capture the balance. The authors should benchmark the collision model against a full Coulomb or Fokker-Planck operator (for a simple shear or a single Fourier mode) and show how Φ changes before the quantitative ICF claims can be accepted.
  2. [§IV.C.3, Eqs. (38)-(44)] The corrected utility function depends on the ad hoc exponents h1 and h2. Equations (38)-(39) define these exponents with explicitly stated freedom ("There is some freedom in approximating the exponents"), yet the shifted Gamow peak, and hence the main quantitative correction over the asymptotic formula, is controlled by h1 and h2 through (41)-(44). No sensitivity analysis is provided, and Fig. 1 itself shows an artifact in the b=1000 curve attributed to the approximation method. The authors should either derive these exponents from a systematic expansion or quantify how much Φ changes over the plausible range of h1 and h2; without that, the central formula has an unquantified parametric uncertainty.
  3. [§VI, Table I, Eq. (56)] Table I applies the formula outside its stated regime. Using the paper's definition T = TKE/(3T) and the single-species normalization TKE = T∫E(k) dk, the values T=1/3 and T=2/3 correspond to ⟨u²⟩/v_th² ≈ 2 and 4, respectively, whereas the derivation in §IV assumes |u| ≪ v_th and the numerical validation in Fig. 4 covers only ⟨u²⟩/v_th² up to about 0.5. The predicted enhancements of 1.4-3.1 are therefore extrapolations, not validated predictions. The authors should either recompute the table with low-Mach parameters, extend the numerical validation to those Mach numbers, or clearly mark these entries as order-of-magnitude speculations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (35)] The symbol χ′ is used for both p′_x/p′ and p′_z/p′; one of these should be ξ′.
  2. [Eq. (41)] The factor "√2 b1/3 23/2" is typeset ambiguously and should be written as 2^{3/2} b^{1/3} or with an explicit multiplication symbol.
  3. [§V.C] There is a typo: "precisision" should be "precision".
  4. [§VI, Table I] The symbol T is used both for temperature and for the TKE ratio defined in Eq. (56), which makes Table I difficult to read; a different symbol for the ratio would help.
  5. [References] Reference 4 is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a journal version of that paper now exists, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation (31)+(44) is obtained from the kinetic equation independently; the few self-citations are motivational, and the main caveat is that the numerical validation shares the collision model, which limits physical validation but does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The central claim that the reactivity enhancement factorizes as 1 + 2 integral dk E(k) G(k) with G(k) given by (44) is derived within the paper from the kinetic equation (17) using the modified BGK operator (16), and no step in that derivation is defined in terms of the target result. The FF self-citation (ref. 4) is used only to introduce the SFRE and to motivate fast-ignition energy savings; the quantitative theory here is not imported from that paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The numerical validation in Sec. V is a self-consistency check rather than external physical validation: the paper states in Sec. V.D that 'The formula for nu(w) given in (50) is used for both numerical and analytical calculations,' so Fig. 4 tests the algebraic accuracy of (44) against a numerical solution of the same model, not the fidelity of the BGK collision operator to Coulomb collisions of suprathermal ions. This is a validation-fidelity limitation and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: no parameter is fitted to the simulation, and (44) is not constructed from the numerical output. The limiting checks in Sec. III are derived independently, and (37)/(44) are not asserted to follow from prior work. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on a simplified BGK collision operator, low Mach number, small Knudsen number, and a Gamow-peak asymptotic expansion; the ICF estimates add a -5/3 turbulent spectrum and large TKE inputs. The peak-shift exponents h1 and h2 are chosen by hand with stated freedom. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • h1 and h2 peak-shift exponents = Functions of k and b, defined by equations (38) and (39)
    Chosen by hand to represent phi11 and phi20 as power laws near the Gamow peak; the paper notes 'there is some freedom in approximating the exponents.' Not fitted to simulation data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Modified BGK operator (16) with collision rate (50) models collisions for suprathermal ions.
    Used throughout Section IV and V; the operator is non-conserving but the authors argue the tail population is small enough that this does not matter. No comparison to a full Coulomb operator is provided.
  • domain assumption Low Mach number |u| << vth, solenoidal flow, and small Knudsen number Kn << 1.
    Restricts the validity of equation (44). The Table I scenarios use turbulence levels where u_rms is comparable to or larger than vth, outside this assumption.
  • standard math Gamow peak dominance with b >> 1, allowing Laplace's method and the shifted peak expansion.
    The reactivity integrals in (5), (32), and (A1) are evaluated by expanding about the Gamow peak; the corrected formula accounts for peak shift at moderate b.
  • domain assumption Stationary, uniform-density and uniform-temperature system with no external forces and negligible viscosity in the kinetic equation.
    Reduces the kinetic equation (15) to (17), which is the basis for the first- and second-order distribution functions in Section IV.
  • ad hoc to paper Turbulent spectrum follows a -5/3 power law between forcing scale L0 and dissipation scale L_eta for the Table I estimates.
    The authors describe this model as 'heavily simplified' but use it to compute the reactivity enhancements in the three ICF scenarios.
  • domain assumption Fusion cross section (2) with S(prel) from Bosch-Hale represents the reaction rate.
    Used for both analytical formulas and numerical reactivity computation; the paper applies it to DD and DT reactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical models for the enhancement of fusion reactivity by turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APIZAIPB

@misc{pith2026250613711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical models for the enhancement of fusion reactivity by turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APIZAIPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13711}
}
read the original abstract

The reactivity of fusion plasma depends not only on its local density and temperature but also, through a recently identified kinetic effect, on the relative velocities of nearby fluid elements. Turbulence on fine spatial scales therefore enhances fusion reactivity. The enhancement is quantified here for general subsonic turbulent flows. Leveraging this effect in the design of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments could enable substantial energy savings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Utility function G(k) as a function of the wavenumber k normalized to the thermal mean free path. Dotted lines show the corrected result (44) and solid lines show the asymptotic result (37). Vertical dashed lines show the location where γ∗ = 1. The b = 27 curve corresponds roughly to DD reactions at 3 keV. large k, as predicted by the arguments in §III, G(k) asymp￾totes to a constant. V. NUMERICAL RESULTS This secti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated distribution function in the z−wx plane for a sinusoidal shear flow with u0 = vth and k = 1/10λth. The left panel shows the background flow profile ux(z). Normalization of f is arbitrary. quency given by ν(p) = ν0 p 3    erf p √ 2  − q 2 π pe− 1 2 p 2 1 4 p 2   +ν0 r me m , (50) where erf(x) is the error function. Because ν is not a constant, this operator does not conserve overall density, momentu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reactivity enhancement in a 2D turbulent flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reactivity enhancement for DD fusion using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rapidly varying part of the integrand in (A1) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An ignition criterion for inertial fusion boosted by microturbulence

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modified Lawson criterion shows that driving micron-scale turbulence inside a fusion hot spot could enable ignition at lower temperature, provided the turbulence does not mix cold material inward.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Lindl ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871025 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 2 ,\ pages 3933–4024 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    author author J. Lindl ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871025 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 2 ,\ pages 3933–4024 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.871025 1995

  2. [2]

    author author M. D. \ Rosen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0221005 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 31 ,\ pages 090501 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/5.0221005 2024

  3. [3]

    Betti , author P

    author author R. Betti , author P. Y. \ Chang , author B. K. \ Spears , author K. S. \ Anderson , author J. Edwards , author M. Fatenejad , author J. D. \ Lindl , author R. L. \ McCrory , author R. Nora ,\ and\ author D. Shvarts ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3380857 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 17 ,\ pages 058102 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.3380857

  4. [4]

    Enhancement to Fusion Reactivity in Sheared Flows

    author author H. Fetsch \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ journal journal arXiv preprint \ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.03590 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03590 ( year 2024 ),\ note arXiv:2410.03590 [physics] NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.03590 2024

  5. [5]

    author author A. L. \ Kritcher , author A. B. \ Zylstra , author C. R. \ Weber , author O. A. \ Hurricane , author D. A. \ Callahan , author D. S. \ Clark , author L. Divol , author D. E. \ Hinkel , author K. Humbird , author O. Jones , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.109.025204 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 109 ,\ pages 025204 ( y...

    doi:10.1103/physreve.109.025204

  6. [6]

    author author O. A. \ Hurricane , author A. Allen , author B. L. \ Bachmann , author K. L. \ Baker , author S. Baxamusa , author S. D. \ Bhandarkar , author J. Biener , author S. R. M. \ Bionta , author T. Braun , author T. Briggs , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad994f journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 67 ,\ pages...

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad994f

  7. [7]

    author author J. L. \ Giuliani , author J. W. \ Thornhill , author E. Kroupp , author D. Osin , author Y. Maron , author A. Dasgupta , author J. P. \ Apruzese , author A. L. \ Velikovich , author Y. K. \ Chong , author A. Starobinets , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4865223 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 21 ,\ pages 031209 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4865223

  8. [8]

    Kroupp , author D

    author author E. Kroupp , author D. Osin , author A. Starobinets , author V. Fisher , author V. Bernshtam , author L. Weingarten , author Y. Maron , author I. Uschmann , author E. Förster , author A. Fisher , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.105001 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 107 ,\ pages 105001 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.105001

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Maron ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009432 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 060901 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author Y. Maron ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009432 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 060901 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    author author D. S. \ Clark , author M. M. \ Marinak , author C. R. \ Weber , author D. C. \ Eder , author S. W. \ Haan , author B. A. \ Hammel , author D. E. \ Hinkel , author O. S. \ Jones , author J. L. \ Milovich , author P. K. \ Patel , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Zhou , author J

    author author Y. Zhou , author J. D. \ Sadler ,\ and\ author O. A. \ Hurricane ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-022824-110008 journal journal Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 57 ,\ pages 197–225 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    author author J. D. \ Lindl , author S. W. \ Haan , author O. L. \ Landen , author A. R. \ Christopherson ,\ and\ author R. Betti ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5049595 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 25 ,\ pages 122704 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  5. [13]

    author author D. S. \ Clark , author S. W. \ Haan ,\ and\ author J. D. \ Salmonson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2890123 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 15 ,\ pages 056305 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    author author A. R. \ Christopherson , author R. Betti ,\ and\ author J. D. \ Lindl ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.021201 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 99 ,\ pages 021201 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Davidovits \ and\ author N

    author author S. Davidovits \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.105004 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 116 ,\ pages 105004 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Davidovits \ and\ author N

    author author S. Davidovits \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5026413 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 25 ,\ pages 042703 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Davidovits \ and\ author N

    author author S. Davidovits \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5098790 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 26 ,\ pages 062709 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Molvig , author N

    author author K. Molvig , author N. M. \ Hoffman , author B. J. \ Albright , author E. M. \ Nelson ,\ and\ author R. B. \ Webster ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.095001 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 109 ,\ pages 095001 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi

  11. [19]

    author author B. J. \ Albright , author K. Molvig , author C.-K. \ Huang , author A. N. \ Simakov , author E. S. \ Dodd , author N. M. \ Hoffman , author G. Kagan ,\ and\ author P. F. \ Schmit ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4833639 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 20 ...

    doi

  12. [20]

    \ Bosch \ and\ author G

    author author H.-S. \ Bosch \ and\ author G. M. \ Hale ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/32/4/I07 journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume 32 ,\ pages 611 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    author author C. J. \ McDevitt , author X.-Z. \ Tang ,\ and\ author Z. Guo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998462 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 24 ,\ pages 112702 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Kroupp , author E

    author author E. Kroupp , author E. Stambulchik , author A. Starobinets , author D. Osin , author V. I. \ Fisher , author D. Alumot , author Y. Maron , author S. Davidovits , author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ and\ author A. Fruchtman ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.013202 journal...

    doi

  15. [23]

    Davidovits , author E

    author author S. Davidovits , author E. Kroupp , author E. Stambulchik ,\ and\ author Y. Maron ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.103.063204 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 103 ,\ pages 063204 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    author author J. E. \ Ralph , author J. S. \ Ross , author A. B. \ Zylstra , author A. L. \ Kritcher , author H. F. \ Robey , author C. V. \ Young , author O. A. \ Hurricane , author A. Pak , author D. A. \ Callahan , author K. L. \ Baker , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s4...

    doi

  17. [25]

    Pak , author A

    author author A. Pak , author A. B. \ Zylstra , author K. L. \ Baker , author D. T. \ Casey , author E. Dewald , author L. Divol , author M. Hohenberger , author A. S. \ Moore , author J. E. \ Ralph , author D. J. \ Schlossberg , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.109....

    doi

  18. [26]

    Ma , author P

    author author T. Ma , author P. K. \ Patel , author N. Izumi , author P. T. \ Springer , author M. H. \ Key , author L. J. \ Atherton , author L. R. \ Benedetti , author D. K. \ Bradley , author D. A. \ Callahan , author P. M. \ Celliers , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/Phy...

    doi

  19. [27]

    author author B. M. \ Haines , author F. F. \ Grinstein ,\ and\ author J. R. \ Fincke ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.053302 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 89 ,\ pages 053302 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    author author C. R. \ Weber , author D. S. \ Clark , author A. W. \ Cook , author L. E. \ Busby ,\ and\ author H. F. \ Robey ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.053106 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 89 ,\ pages 053106 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi

  21. [29]

    author author C. R. \ Weber , author D. S. \ Clark , author A. W. \ Cook , author D. C. \ Eder , author S. W. \ Haan , author B. A. \ Hammel , author D. E. \ Hinkel , author O. S. \ Jones , author M. M. \ Marinak , author J. L. \ Milovich , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1....

    doi

  22. [30]

    author author B. M. \ Haines , author D. S. \ Clark , author C. R. \ Weber , author M. J. \ Edwards , author S. H. \ Batha ,\ and\ author J. L. \ Kline ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0008769 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 082703 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  23. [31]

    author author B. A. \ Hammel , author S. W. \ Haan , author D. S. \ Clark , author M. J. \ Edwards , author S. H. \ Langer , author M. M. \ Marinak , author M. V. \ Patel , author J. D. \ Salmonson ,\ and\ author H. A. \ Scott ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hedp.2009.12.005 jour...

    doi

  24. [32]

    author author V. A. \ Thomas \ and\ author R. J. \ Kares ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.075004 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 109 ,\ pages 075004 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    author author F. F. \ Grinstein , author V. P. \ Chiravalle , author B. M. \ Haines , author R. K. \ Greene ,\ and\ author F. S. \ Pereira ,\ journal journal Flow, Turbulence and Combustion \ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-024-00607-6 10.1007/s10494-024-00607-6 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    author author M. F. \ Zhang , author S. Davidovits ,\ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ journal journal arXiv preprint \ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.18708 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18708 ( year 2025 ),\ note arXiv:2502.18708 [astro-ph] NoStop

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    author author V. M. \ Malkin \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.125004 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 89 ,\ pages 125004 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    author author B. M. \ Haines , author T. J. \ Murphy , author R. E. \ Olson , author Y. Kim , author B. J. \ Albright , author B. Appelbe , author T. H. \ Day , author M. A. \ Gunderson , author C. E. \ Hamilton , author T. Morrow ,\ and\ author B. M. \ Patterson ,\ https://do...

    doi

  29. [37]

    author author T. J. \ Murphy , author B. J. \ Albright , author M. R. \ Douglas , author T. Cardenas , author J. H. \ Cooley , author T. H. \ Day , author N. A. \ Denissen , author R. A. \ Gore , author M. A. \ Gunderson , author J. R. \ Haack , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.10...

  30. [38]

    Larroche , author H

    author author O. Larroche , author H. G. \ Rinderknecht ,\ and\ author M. J. \ Rosenberg ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.031201 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 98 ,\ pages 031201 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    author author B. J. \ Albright , author T. J. \ Murphy , author B. M. \ Haines , author M. R. \ Douglas , author J. H. \ Cooley , author T. H. \ Day , author N. A. \ Denissen , author C. Di Stefano , author P. Donovan , author S. L. \ Edwards , et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.106...

    doi

Pith tools

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