Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analytic neutron wall loading from spin-polarized fusion in axisymmetric geometries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 exact, differentiable formulas for the neutron wall load from spin-polarized fusion rings, turning wall-shape optimization into a fast gradient problem.

desk verdict Closed-form, differentiable NWL formulas are a genuinely useful scoping tool, but the general-convex extension rests on an unproved visibility claim and the dense algebra has not been checked against numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11758 v1 pith:JQOAZGG4 submitted 2025-07-15 physics.plasm-ph

Jacob A. Schwartz This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords neutronwallloadspin-polarizedfusionaxisymmetrictorusanalyticintegrationellipticintegralsshapeoptimizationpolarizationmodestokamak
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 derives closed-form analytic formulas for the neutron wall load (NWL) on the walls of an axisymmetric torus from thin ring-shaped fusion sources, including the directional neutron emission produced by spin-polarized fuel. The formulas work for arbitrary polarization mixtures (the A, B, and C modes and combinations) and for magnetic fields that are angled out of the purely toroidal direction. Because the expressions are fast to evaluate and automatically differentiable, they can replace numerical ray tracing in scoping studies and can be embedded directly in gradient-based optimization of first-wall shape. As demonstrations, the paper constructs toroidal shells with nearly uniform NWL for each main polarization mode, with residual nonuniformity below 1.5 percent. The price of this speed is scope: scattering is omitted, and the general convex-wall formulas rely on a geometric visibility assumption about which parts of a source ring a wall point can see.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the reduced geometric intensity g for a filamentary ring source: an integral over the visible toroidal angle of p cos(nu) times the angular emission factor (1 for isotropic emission, $sin^{2}$ $\theta$ for the A mode, 1/4 + 3/4 $cos^{2}$ $\theta$ for the B/C modes) divided by |$\Delta$|^2. The paper evaluates all such integrals by decomposing the numerator into monomials over denominators (h - cos phi)^{3/2} or (h - cos phi)^{5/2}, each of which integrates to algebraic leading terms plus incomplete elliptic integrals F and E. The second piece of machinery is the visibility algorithm: for convex cross sections the integration limits are fixed by tangency of the line of sight to an outward-facing wall segment, computed from a stated formula, and arbitrary wall normals are assembled from horizontal and vertical component formulas.

What would settle it

Take a convex poloidal cross section with an extended straight inboard segment and a target near one end; for each source ring, compare the visible intervals computed by the tangency formula with direct three-dimensional ray tracing. If any visible-interval endpoint is set by a line of sight that crosses the wall rather than being tangent to an outward-facing segment, the general-convex formulas fail; likewise, any convex cross section where a source ring's near arc is occluded would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the neutron wall load from any axisymmetric filamentary ring source with the spin-polarized DT emission pattern can be reduced to algebraic functions of the source, target, and wall parameters plus incomplete elliptic integrals F and E. For rectangular-cross-section tori the paper writes exact intensities on inboard, floor, and outboard walls for isotropic emission, $sin^{2}$ $\theta$ (A-mode), and 1/4 + 3/4 $cos^{2}$ $\theta$ (B/C-mode) angular distributions, with the magnetic field either purely toroidal or at arbitrary axisymmetric angles. For arbitrary convex poloidal cross sections, the same kernels apply after replacing the fixed integration limits with bounds computed from sightlines tangent to outward-facing wall segments, and a wall element with arbitrary orientation is handled by a weighted sum of horizontal and vertical normal components. The author demonstrates the resulting formulas through gradient-optimized first-wall shapes with uniform NWL and provides an open-source implementation.

Load-bearing premise

For any convex torus cross section, the part of each source ring visible from any wall point is always cut off only by lines of sight that just graze an outward-facing wall segment; the paper states this claim but does not prove it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NWL estimates that previously required numerical toroidal integration or Monte Carlo transport can be evaluated analytically, making wall-load scoping studies nearly instantaneous.
  • Because the formulas are automatically differentiable, first-wall shape, plasma shape, and polarization mix can be optimized jointly with constraints such as maximum wall load or peaking factor.
  • In the square-torus example, B/C polarization reduces center-stack neutron load by 43 percent at the midplane, which could relax shielding requirements on the center stack of a spherical tokamak.
  • Uniform-NWL shells built by gradient optimization for the A, isotropic, and B/C modes show residual nonuniformity below 1.5 percent, confirming that the formulas are usable in practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The visibility algorithm is stated for convex poloidal cross sections; extending the same kernels to non-convex geometries, such as diverted tokamaks or mirror end cells, would require up to two visible intervals per ring and is left for future work.
  • The absence of scattering means these formulas bound the direct component of wall load; adding a scattering correction on top of the analytic direct term could give a hybrid tool that is faster than full Monte Carlo while retaining accuracy in blankets.
  • The B/C modes' reduction of center-stack loading suggests a systems-level trade: sacrificing some fusion power (C mode) or keeping rate unchanged (B mode) to shrink the center stack and lower aspect ratio, a consequence the paper mentions but does not optimize.
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 derives closed-form analytic expressions for the neutron wall load (NWL) from filamentary ring sources in axisymmetric toroidal geometries, for rectangular and general convex poloidal cross-sections, with arbitrary spin-polarization emission patterns (A, B/C modes and mixtures) and arbitrary local magnetic-field directions. The toroidal integrals are reduced to algebraic expressions and incomplete elliptic integrals using the Rubi symbolic integration package, and the results are implemented in a Python/JAX library called anarrima. As demonstrations, the paper presents first-wall shapes optimized for uniform NWL for the A, isotropic, and B/C polarization modes. The main generalization to arbitrary convex cross-sections rests on a visibility algorithm in Section 4.1 that determines the integration limits by tangency to outward-facing wall segments.

Significance. If the formulas are correct, they provide a fast, differentiable surrogate for the previously numerical part of NWL scoping calculations, which is genuinely useful for systems codes and for building intuition about spin-polarization effects. Concrete strengths are the use of machine-checked symbolic integration, the public availability of the code and example scripts, the explicit statement of physical limitations (no scattering, no beam-target center-of-mass corrections), and the honest treatment of the polarization physics as taken from prior literature rather than fit to the new formulas. The optimized uniform-NWL shells with sub-1.5% residuals are a useful proof-of-concept, though they test only internal consistency. The main weaknesses are the unproved and potentially fragile visibility claim that underlies the general-convex formulas and the absence of any independent numerical validation of the long analytic expressions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 (Eqs. 24-25)] The claim that for any convex poloidal cross section every source ring is visible from any wall point and that the limiting angles ±φm are always set by tangency to an outward-facing wall segment is stated without proof. This is the only step that converts the exactly integrable rectangular/cylindrical formulas into the general-convex formulas used in Sections 4 and 6, so it is load-bearing. The projected chord from target to source in the poloidal plane is not a straight line: its cylindrical radius satisfies R(λ) = sqrt((1−λ)²r² + λ²p² + 2λ(1−λ)rp cosφ), so a tangency condition derived for the straight segment between the target and a source at radius p, as in Eq. (24), is not evidently equivalent to a 3D visibility test against the solid of revolution. The algorithm also tests only conical wall segments and never checks the vertex circles where adjacent segments meet, although a limiting sightline can pass through a vertex without being tangent to either segment. I request either a rigorous proof of the visibility statement with the exact hypotheses on the cross section, or a brute-force verification by ray-surface intersection on a battery of convex shapes, including sloped segments and vertex circles. Without this, the correctness of the general-convex NWL formulas is not established; the rectangular formulas would remain exact if supplied with the correct bounds.
  2. [Secs. 3-4 (Eqs. 16, 17, 22, 23, 27-30)] The final expressions are presented without any independent numerical check. The defining integrands are simple enough to be evaluated by adaptive quadrature or Monte Carlo, and such a comparison would also catch transcription errors in the typesetting of these very long formulas. The uniform-shell examples in Section 6 only demonstrate that the optimization routine converges on the model's own formulas; they cannot detect a wrong constant, a missing term, or a misapplied integration limit. Please add a validation section comparing the analytic g-expressions to direct numerical integration of the defining integrals (e.g., Eqs. (4), (8), (10), (15), (19), (21)) over a grid of p, r, z, α, and β, including both r < p and r > p cases, and for at least one nontrivial convex cross section with brute-force occlusion of the ring.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 (Eqs. 6, 20, 26)] The paper asserts that the F and E terms for arbitrary integration limits follow from the fixed-limit formulas by replacing u or v with r and setting φ = φm/2, but it does not give the general-φm F/E coefficients. This is not a trivial claim, because the fixed-limit formulas such as Eq. (20) have been simplified using the specific values of the limits, and it is not shown that the same coefficient forms survive for arbitrary φm. Since the general-normal formulas in Section 4.2 (Eqs. 26-30) rely on these F/E terms, the authors should either print the general-φm coefficients explicitly or provide a derivation showing that the adapted fixed-limit coefficients are limit-independent. As written, a reader implementing a tilted wall element cannot verify this essential piece without redoing the symbolic integration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1.2] The section outline lists Section 5 before Section 4 in the paper's own ordering; please reorder the sentences so the numerical order matches the actual section sequence.
  2. [Sec. 2, first paragraph] The text says the geometry is "shown in Figure 1," but the square-cross-section torus is Figure 2; Figure 1 shows the polarization emission triangles.
  3. [Secs. 3-4 notation] The naming scheme for the h and g terms is introduced piecemeal across Sections 3 and 4; a table collecting the geometry subscripts (Ri, Rf, Ro, H, V, I, A, c, B, a) and the meaning of the trailing L, F, E letters would make the paper much easier to use.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (41)] The statement that F and E are "as for sin²θ (see Eq. 16)" should explicitly say that the amplitude and parameter are the same as in Eq. (16); otherwise a reader may carry over the wrong amplitude when reusing the component integrals.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract claims the formulas "can be evaluated very quickly," but no timing benchmark is reported; a short runtime comparison against quadrature would make this concrete and would also serve as a partial validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's new content is analytic evaluation of an externally supplied angular emission law over geometric kernels, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The spin-dependent angular emission law (Eq. 2) is imported from prior, external literature (Kulsrud et al., Ref. [13]) and is treated as an input; the paper does not claim to derive polarization physics. The new content is the analytic integration of products of this angular factor with geometric kernels (cos nu / |Delta|^2 etc.) over ring angles, using component integrals in Appendix B. The B/C mode expressions are explicitly linear combinations gRiB = (1/4) gRiI + (3/4) gRic (Eq. 12, and analogous equations for floor and angled-field cases); this is not a hidden reduction because (1/4 + 3/4 cos^2 theta) is, by the adopted emission law, the sum of an isotropic term and a cos^2 theta term, so superposition is exact by construction and acknowledged. No parameter is fitted to any dataset and then renamed a prediction: the optimized uniform-NWL wall shapes in Section 6 are demonstrations of the formulas and are compared only against internal consistency (residual nonuniformities below 1.5%), not used to set constants in the formulas. The only self-citation, Ref. [1] (Parisi, Diallo, and Schwartz), motivates the benefit of spin-polarized fuel; it is not invoked to justify any geometric or analytic step. The paper explicitly acknowledges its limitations (non-convex cross sections, beam-driven processes, scattering excluded), which further indicates that the remaining claims are scoped rather than tautological. The unproved visibility assertion in Section 4.1 is a potential correctness risk for the general-convex extension, but it is not circular: it is an added geometric assumption, not a restatement of the inputs or a consequence of a fitted parameter. Thus no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The central claim rests on the prior spin-polarized differential cross section model (Eq. 2), the geometric visibility claim for convex cross sections (Section 4.1), the filamentary no-scattering modeling choices, and the correctness of the component integrals in Appendix B. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The spin-polarized DT differential cross section is given by Eq. 2: dsigma/dOmega = sigma0/(2pi)[(3/4)a sin^2 theta + (2/3 b + 1/3 c)(1/4 + 3/4 cos^2 theta)].
    Taken from Kulsrud et al.; all formulas in the paper build on this angular emission model.
  • domain assumption For a convex poloidal cross section, every source ring is visible from any wall point and the limiting integration angles are set by sightlines tangent to outward-facing wall segments.
    Stated in Section 4.1; if false for some convex shape, the integration bounds and hence the NWL formulas are wrong.
  • domain assumption Neutron scattering is neglected, neutrons are monoenergetic, and the source is a filamentary ring with emission rate 1 per unit length per unit time.
    Stated in Sections 1.3 and 1.4; this keeps the formulas analytic but limits physical fidelity.
  • standard math The component integrals in Appendix B, computed with the Rubi symbolic integration library, are correct.
    The main formulas reduce to these component integrals; the paper does not show their derivations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic neutron wall loading from spin-polarized fusion in axisymmetric geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQOAZGG4

@misc{pith2026250711758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic neutron wall loading from spin-polarized fusion in axisymmetric geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQOAZGG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11758}
}
read the original abstract

Spin-polarized nuclei can be used to enhance the fusion reaction rate, preferentially direct neutrons and alpha particles, or do some combination of these. In this paper we present formulas for the neutron wall load (NWL) on the walls of an axisymmetric torus with a convex cross section from filamentary ring sources with arbitrary fuel polarizations and arbitrary local magnetic field directions. While the NWL does not include neutron scattering, which would require a more sophisticated treatment, these formulas can be evaluated very quickly. This can help a fusion machine designer build intuition about the effects of spin-polarization on neutron wall loading. The formulas are also fully differentiable, so they could be included in a fusion systems optimization code. As an example, we present sets of first wall shapes optimized to have a uniform NWL for each of the main polarization modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Differential cross sections and total cross sections for possible combinations of polarization modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relative neutron wall load intensity patterns on the four walls of an axisymmetric square-cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometry to compute the intensity on a target on the inboard wall at radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Definitions for the angled B⃗ -field complication. This adds a detail to the construction of θ in the overall geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Geometry to compute the intensity on a target patch of the floor at radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Geometry for the intensity on the outboard wall, which has radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Part (a) shows a cut through a torus with a convex cross section. The three outward-facing wall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Toroidal shells with uniform NWL from a ring source located at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evaluated NWL on the surfaces shown in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Toroidal shells with a uniform NWL around a tokamak-like source. For each emission mode, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Target point T1 is on the outward-facing part of a levitated dipole flyer magnet. The normal to the surface at its location is ψ. The source ring at S1 is entirely visible to T1, S2 is partially visible, and S3 is not visible. a target point such as T1 on the outward-…

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. Enhanced alpha channeling with spin-polarized fuel

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Vector-aligned spin-polarized D-T fuel keeps its perpendicular alpha birth bias through slowing-down, raises alpha-channeling efficiency ~1.5x, and projects 2-4x fusion-power gains if high-efficiency channeling waves ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Parisi, A

    J.F. Parisi, A. Diallo, and J.A. Schwartz. Simultaneous enhancement of tritium burn efficiency and fusion power with low-tritium spin-polarized fuel. Nuclear Fusion , 64(12):126019, December 2024. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7da3

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7da3 2024

  2. [2]

    Romano, Nicholas E

    Paul K. Romano, Nicholas E. Horelik, Bryan R. Herman, Adam G. Nelson, Benoit Forget, and Kord Smith. OpenMC: A state-of-the-art Monte Carlo code for research and development. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 82:90–97, August 2015. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048

    doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048 2015

  3. [3]

    MCNP® Code Version 6.3.0 Theory & User Manual

    Joel Kulesza, Terry Adams, Jerawan Armstrong, Simon Bolding, Forrest Brown, Jeffrey Bull, Timothy Burke, Alexander Clark, Robert Forster Iii, Jesse Giron, Tristan Grieve, Colin Josey, Roger Martz, Gregg McKinney, Eric Pearson, Michael Rising, Clell Solomon Jr., Sriram Swaminarayan, Travis Trahan, Stephen Wilson, and Anthony Zukaitis. MCNP® Code Version 6....

    doi:10.2172/1889957 2022

  4. [4]

    ARIES-ST nuclear analysis and shield design

    Laila A El-Guebaly. ARIES-ST nuclear analysis and shield design. Fusion Engineering and Design , 65(2):263–284, February 2003. doi:10.1016/S0920-3796(02)00306-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0920-3796(02)00306-x 2003

  5. [5]

    A. R. Raffray, L. El-Guebaly, S. Malang, X. R. Wang, L. Bromberg, T. Ihli, B. Merrill, L. Waganer, and ARIES-CS Team. Engineering Design and Analysis of the ARIES-CS Power Plant. Fusion Science and Technology, 54(3):725–746, October 2008. doi:10.13182/FST08-4

    work page doi:10.13182/fst08-4 2008

  6. [6]

    Tokamak D-T neutron source models for different plasma physics confinement modes

    Clement Fausser, Antonella Li Puma, Franck Gabriel, and Rosaria Villari. Tokamak D-T neutron source models for different plasma physics confinement modes. Fusion Engineering and Design , 87(5-6):787– 792, August 2012. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2012.02.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2012.02.025 2012

  7. [7]

    A deterministic method for the fast evaluation and opti- misation of the 3D neutron wall load for generic stellarator configurations.Nuclear Fusion, 62(7):076040, July 2022

    Jorrit Lion, Felix Warmer, and Huaijin Wang. A deterministic method for the fast evaluation and opti- misation of the 3D neutron wall load for generic stellarator configurations.Nuclear Fusion, 62(7):076040, July 2022. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac6a67

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac6a67 2022

  8. [8]

    T. J. Woods. Neutron wall loading characteristics of a doublet reactor. In Seventh Symposium on Engineering Problems in Fusion Research, Knoxville, TN, September 1977

    work page 1977

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Davis, M

    A. Davis, M. Harb, L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, and E. Marriott. Neutronics aspects of the FESS-FNSF. Fusion Engineering and Design, 135:271–278, October 2018. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.06.008

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Chapin and William G

    David L. Chapin and William G. Price. A Comparison of the Deuterium-Tritium Neutron Wall Load Distributions in Several Tokamak Fusion Reactor Designs. Nuclear Technology, 31(1):32–47, October

  3. [11]

    V. S. Chan, R. D. Stambaugh, A. M. Garofalo, M. S. Chu, R. K. Fisher, C. M. Greenfield, D. A. Humphreys, L. L. Lao, J. A. Leuer, T. W. Petrie, R. Prater, G. M. Staebler, P. B. Snyder, H. E. St. John, A. D. Turnbull, C. P. C. Wong, and M. A. Van Zeeland. Physics Basis of a Fusi...

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Effects of Neutron Source Models on Neutron Wall Loading in the EAST Tokamak.Fusion Science and Technology, 80(6):724–730, August 2024

    Wenjun Yang, Changlin Lan, Guoqiang Li, Xueyu Gong, and Xiang Gao. Effects of Neutron Source Models on Neutron Wall Loading in the EAST Tokamak.Fusion Science and Technology, 80(6):724–730, August 2024. doi:10.1080/15361055.2023.2234224

    2024

  5. [13]

    R. M. Kulsrud, H. P. Furth, E. J. Valeo, and M. Goldhaber. Fusion Reactor Plasmas with Polarized Nuclei. Physical Review Letters, 49(17):1248–1251, October 1982. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1248

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    Nuclear Fusion with Polarized Fuel, volume 187 of Springer Proceedings in Physics

    Giuseppe Ciullo, Ralf Engels, Markus B¨ uscher, and Alexander Vasilyev, editors. Nuclear Fusion with Polarized Fuel, volume 187 of Springer Proceedings in Physics. Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  7. [15]

    W. W. Heidbrink, L. R. Baylor, M. B¨ uscher, R. W. Engels, A. V. Garcia, A. G. Ghiozzi, G. W. Miller, A. M. Sandorfi, X. Wei, and X. Zheng. A research program to measure the lifetime of spin polarized fuel. Frontiers in Physics, 12:1355212, June 2024. doi:10.3389/fphy.2024.1355212

    2024

  8. [16]

    Knock-On

    J. K¨ allne, L. Ballabio, J. Frenje, S. Conroy, G. Ericsson, M. Tardocchi, E. Traneus, and G. Gorini. Observation of the Alpha Particle “Knock-On” Neutron Emission from Magnetically Confined DT Fusion Plasmas. Physical Review Letters, 85(6):1246–1249, August 2000. doi:10.1103/...

    doi

  9. [17]

    J.R.R. Tolkien. The Etymologies. In Christopher Tolkien, editor, The Lost Road and Other Writings , The History of Middle-earth. 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    Anarr ´ ıma

    Tolkien Gateway. Anarr ´ ıma. https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Anarr%C3%ADma

  11. [19]

    B. C. Carlson. Computing elliptic integrals by duplication. Numerische Mathematik, 33(1):1–16, March

  12. [20]

    B. C. Carlson. Numerical computation of real or complex elliptic integrals. Numerical Algorithms , 10(1):13–26, March 1995. doi:10.1007/BF02198293

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    B.C. Carlson. Three improvements in reduction and computation of elliptic integrals. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology , 107(5):413, September 2002. doi: 10.6028/jres.107.034

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    Panici, R

    D. Panici, R. Conlin, D.W. Dudt, K. Unalmis, and E. Kolemen. The DESC stellarator code suite. Part

  15. [23]

    T. E. Simpson, C. R. Acheson, T. Berry, C.S. Chisholm, D.T. Garnier, and Ratu Mataira. Reactor Study of a break-even class levitated dipole reactor, October 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Line-Torus Intersection for Ray Tracing: Alternative Formulations

    Vaclav Skala. Line-Torus Intersection for Ray Tracing: Alternative Formulations. 12(7), 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Rule-based integration: An extensive system of symbolic integration rules

    Albert Rich, Patrick Scheibe, and Nasser Abbasi. Rule-based integration: An extensive system of symbolic integration rules. Journal of Open Source Software , 3(32):1073, December 2018. doi:10. 21105/joss.01073. 30

    2018

  18. [26]

    Journal of Plasma Physics , 89(3):955890303, June 2023

    Quick and accurate equilibria computations. Journal of Plasma Physics , 89(3):955890303, June 2023. doi:10.1017/S0022377823000272

    2023 doi

  19. [1976]

    doi:10.13182/NT76-A31696

    doi

  20. [1979]

    doi:10.1007/BF01396491

    doi

  21. [2016]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39471-8

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.