Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Near-axis measures of quasi-isodynamic configurations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Second-order near-axis measures screen quasi-isodynamic stellarators without global equilibria

desk verdict A substantial near-axis toolkit for QI stellarators, with mostly solid benchmarks and one internal tension: the ε_edge_eff reference at A=10 sits where the paper's own ripple-well diagnostic says the single-well assumption fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02465 v1 pith:MG7FFTGY submitted 2025-05-05 physics.plasm-ph

Eduardo Rodriguez , Gabriel G Plunk This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Hc
keywords quasi-isodynamicstellaratorsnear-axisexpansionsecond-orderequilibriumeffectiverippleomnigeneitymagneticwellstabilityShafranovshiftstellaratoroptimisation
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 argues that the second-order near-axis expansion of quasi-isodynamic stellarators can serve as a complete evaluation platform: candidates can be screened for model reliability, neoclassical transport, ripple-well formation, MHD stability, and pressure sensitivity using only axis and shaping functions, without solving a global equilibrium. The authors define explicit measures, including a field-error estimate $\delta B_{\mathrm{ar}}$, a near-axis effective ripple $\epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2} \approx \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(0)} + r^2 \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(2)}$, a ripple-well aspect ratio $A_w$, a magnetic-well shape gradient, and a Shafranov-shift $\beta$-sensitivity gradient, and benchmark them against global equilibrium and neoclassical calculations. The payoff is practical: the near-axis construction stops being merely descriptive and becomes a fast optimisation and trade-off engine for the large quasi-isodynamic design space.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is the second-order near-axis inverse-coordinate equilibrium: a Taylor-Fourier expansion of the field strength $B = B_0(\varphi) + r B_1(\chi,\varphi) + r^2 B_2(\chi,\varphi)$ in Boozer coordinates, with all flux-surface geometry expressed through the same near-axis coefficients. Every proposed measure is a functional of these coefficients: $\delta B_{\mathrm{ar}}$ uses the second-order fields from the finite-aspect-ratio matching construction; $\epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is obtained by expanding the bounce integrals and using equidistribution over the field-line label $\alpha$; $A_w$ is the smallest radius at which $\partial_\varphi|_\alpha B = 0$ and $\partial^2_\varphi|_\alpha B = 0$ occur together; magnetic-well and Shafranov-shift sensitivities are computed by adjoint solutions of the same second-order linear operator that determines $X_{20}$ and $Y_{20}$. Because all evaluations reduce to one near-axis solve, the toolkit is optimisable.

What would settle it

Take a family of near-axis QI configurations with deliberately flattened $B_0$ minima, construct global equilibria at $A = 6, 8, 10$, and compare the predicted $\epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2} = \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(0)} + r^2 \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(2)}$ and the predicted first-ripple aspect ratio $A_w$ with direct neoclassical and field-line calculations; if the effective ripple deviates by more than a factor of two while $A_w$ still predicts no well, or if a new well appears at $A > A_w$, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the second-order near-axis equilibrium description carries enough information to quantify the properties that matter for a quasi-isodynamic stellarator. The paper constructs and benchmarks five kinds of measures: the truncation error $\delta B_{\mathrm{ar}} = a^2 \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\left[(\tilde B^{(0)}_{20} + \tilde B^{(2)}_0)^2 + \frac12(\tilde B^{(0)}_{2c})^2 + \frac12(\tilde B^{(0)}_{2s})^2\right]d\varphi}$, which predicts the true field error $\delta B$ with correlation above 0.99 on a database of 1680 configurations; the leading and second-order effective ripple, whose sum reproduces global $1/\nu$ transport calculations over a wide range of aspect ratio with the second-order term dominant; the aspect ratio $A_w$ at which secondary trapping wells first appear; the magnetic-well margin $W$ and its shape gradient, which yields a constructive prescription for minimally shaped, marginally stable fields; and the Shafranov-shift gradient, which gives critical-$\beta$ estimates for pressure-driven surface touching. Together these show that second-order near-axis data, not just first-order axis shape, control neoclassical and stability behaviour, and that these behaviours can be predicted and steered before any global calculation is done.

Load-bearing premise

The effective-ripple calculation assumes that $B_0(\varphi)$ defines exactly one trapping well per field period and that local ripple wells and misaligned field maxima stay negligible at the aspect ratios of interest; if those finite-aspect-ratio effects become significant, the near-axis $\epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}$ estimate and the measures built on it lose their predictive power.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can rank quasi-isodynamic candidates by predicted neoclassical transport using only near-axis data, because $\epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2} \approx \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(0)} + r^2 \epsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2,(2)}$ tracks the global effective ripple until the aspect ratio approaches the ripple-well limit.
  • Magnetic-well stability can be built into a configuration at construction time: the shape gradient gives a unique minimal second-order shaping that makes $W$ vanish, so candidate fields are born marginally MHD-stable in the interchange sense.
  • The Shafranov-shift gradient yields an estimate of the critical plasma $\beta$ at which flux surfaces touch ($\beta_\Delta$ and $\beta_c$) before any finite-$\beta$ equilibrium is computed, flagging pressure-sensitive designs.
  • The ripple-well measure $A_w$ defines the range of aspect ratios over which the near-axis description itself is trustworthy, so the other measures carry a built-in validity check.
  • Because all measures are scalars or gradients evaluated from one near-axis solve, they can serve as objectives or constraints in automated optimisation over axis shape, elongation, triangularity, and pressure gradient, making trade-offs like omnigeneity versus shaping cost quantitatively explorable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to use $\delta B_{\mathrm{ar}}$ directly as an inexpensive objective in large parameter scans; its monotonic relation with $\delta B$, even where it overestimates, makes it a valid ranking surrogate.
  • The same adjoint-gradient construction that yields the magnetic-well sensitivity can be applied to other geometry functionals, such as ballooning stability, turbulence proxies, or coil-complexity measures, turning the near-axis space into a general optimisation geometry.
  • The trade-off illustrated for one configuration, where omnigeneising shaping reduces ripple but worsens the critical aspect ratio $A_c$, suggests a Pareto front between neoclassical quality and compactness that the new measures make measurable; testing this across the large database would be a direct follow-up.
  • The structured deviations in the $\delta B_{\mathrm{ar}}$-versus-$\delta B$ scatter indicate that a calibrated mapping could turn the near-axis error estimate into an even more quantitative predictor, a calibration the paper only hints at.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a suite of near-axis measures for quasi-isodynamic (QI) stellarators, intended to make QI design independent of global-equilibrium and neoclassical calculations. The measures are: a near-axis estimate δB_ar of the field truncation error δB, a second-order near-axis evaluation of the effective ripple ε_eff (with a leading-order buffer contribution and a second-order omnigeneity-breaking contribution), a ripple-well aspect ratio A_w, magnetic-well shaping gradients with minimal stabilising shaping, and a Shafranov-shift sensitivity/critical-β measure. The central quantitative claims are that δB_ar correlates above 0.99 with VMEC-based δB over 1680 configurations, and that the near-axis ε_eff reproduces NEO results over a large range of aspect ratios with the second-order contribution dominating. The paper also provides detailed appendices for the asymptotic expansions and shape-gradient calculations, and makes code and data openly available via Zenodo.

Significance. If valid, the proposed toolkit would be a significant methodological advance: it would allow QI design-space exploration and optimisation to proceed within the near-axis framework, dramatically reducing reliance on expensive global equilibrium and neoclassical evaluations. The paper is commendable in several respects: the measures are derived from near-axis theory rather than fitted to the quantities they predict; the δB_ar benchmark uses a large database of 1680 configurations; the ε_eff comparison to NEO covers multiple configurations and aspect ratios; the shape-gradient and adjoint treatments are carefully derived and checked to machine precision; and the code and data are openly available. However, the validity of ε_edge_eff at its defined reference aspect ratio is undermined by the paper's own A_w diagnostic, as detailed below, so the central claim that these measures can replace global calculations for design decisions is only partially established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.5, Eq. (4.13), and §5.1/Table 2] ε_edge_eff is defined at A_ref=10 in Eq. (4.13), but every benchmark configuration in Table 2 has A_w > 10 (values 27.4, 37.0, 12.9, 32.8, 24.4, 18.5, 16.5). By the definition in Eq. (5.1), A_w is the largest aspect ratio at which secondary wells appear in the asymptotic field, so at A=10 each configuration already contains ripple wells, the structures that the derivation in §4.1 explicitly assumes away and that §4.4 states the near-axis estimate cannot capture. The benchmark in Figure 2 therefore validates the ε_eff estimate only for A larger than these thresholds, not at the point A_ref=10 where ε_edge_eff is evaluated; the growing departures at A≲10 seen in Figure 2 are consistent with this. Because ε_edge_eff is proposed as a design measure replacing global neoclassical calculations, this omission can change the ranking of configurations, especially those with large A_w. Please redefine ε_edge_eff at an aspect ratio satisfying A_ref > max A_w (or otherwise ensure the single-well assumption holds), add a ripple-well correction, or explicitly restrict the measure's domain and quantify its error at A=10.
  2. [§4.4, Figure 2] The benchmark of the near-axis ε_eff uses only seven configurations, and while the agreement at large aspect ratio is good, it does not establish agreement at the reference point of ε_edge_eff. Figure 2 shows departures growing for A≲10, the regime in which ε_edge_eff is defined. The paper should report, for each of the seven configurations, the relative difference between the near-axis estimate and the NEO result at A=10, and ideally verify that the ranking by ε_edge_eff agrees with the ranking by NEO at A=10. Without this, the claim that ε_edge_eff is a useful design measure at A_ref=10 is not supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, after Eq. (C8)] The K-equation is written with two identical terms "K4s sin 4χ + K4s sin 4χ"; one of these should presumably be K4c cos 4χ (or a similar distinct harmonic). Please correct this typo.
  2. [§6.2 and Table 3] The text refers to "the measure ˆT and r_mhd_c", but the table and the definitions in Section 6.1 use A_mhd_c; please unify the notation.
  3. [Introduction] "In the vain of the near-axis expansion" should be "In the vein of the near-axis expansion".
  4. [§4.4] The sentence beginning "The latter is unable to capture local ripples..." lacks a clear antecedent for "the latter"; please rephrase to identify the near-axis estimate explicitly.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states the plot is in log scale but does not state the normalization of ε_eff; please clarify that the ripple is normalized to B̄=1 T and R̄=1 m, as mentioned in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the near-axis measures are tested against independent VMEC and NEO calculations, and the cited prior results are derivational rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

I find no circular step that makes a prediction or first-principles result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central quantitative claims are benchmarked against independent global codes: for the field error, "The comparison of δB to the near-axis estimate δB_ar is shown in Figure 1. The agreement is excellent (the correlation is in excess of 0.99)" (Section 3.2), where δB comes from VMEC global equilibria and δB_ar is computed from the second-order near-axis construction of Landreman (2021). For effective ripple, "The agreement between the predicted near-axis ε_eff and the finite volume equilibria calculation, although not exact, is excellent over quite a large range of A" (Section 4.4), where the comparison uses NEO on global equilibria. The near-axis ε_eff expression is derived, in Appendix B, from the Nemov et al. effective-ripple formula rather than fitted to the NEO results. The paper's use of prior self-authored results, such as "The expression in Eq. (4.12b) is equivalent to the omnigeneity condition at second order when it vanishes, as derived explicitly in (Rodríguez & Plunk 2023, Eq. (32c))", is an interpretative citation of a previous derivation, not a load-bearing uniqueness claim or a fitted renaming; the same quantity is independently derived in Appendix B and validated against NEO. Similarly, the omnigenising shaping from Rodríguez et al. (2024) is used constructively for a defined diagnostic, not as an external oracle that manufactures the measured value. The skeptical concern that ripple wells appear below the reference aspect ratio (Aw values in Table 2 exceed A_ref=10) is a substantive validity limitation, and the paper itself acknowledges that the near-axis estimate "is unable to capture local ripples and the appearance of new trapped particle classes (as in Figure 3b), nor misalignment of maxima (as in Figure 3c)" (Section 4.4). That limitation affects correctness or range of applicability, but it is not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

The central claims rely on the standard near-axis asymptotic ansatz, the single-well and ergodic-field-line assumption for the effective ripple, and the fidelity of finite-aspect-ratio global equilibria built from near-axis surfaces. No new particles or forces are postulated; the only hand-chosen numbers are normalization and masking conventions.

free parameters (3)
  • Reference aspect ratio A_ref = 10
    Used to normalize ε_edge_eff, ε_shap_eff, T_shap, and beta measures to a common size. This is a convention chosen by the authors, not fitted to data.
  • Masking fraction around inflection points = 15% of toroidal domain
    Defines the omnigenised measure ε_shap_eff in Section 4.5(e). The choice is arbitrary and affects the numerical values of that measure.
  • Buffer-region steepness k = 3 or 5, config-dependent
    Smooth buffer functions in benchmark configurations are set by hand in Appendix A. This affects the configurations used for benchmarking but not the general derivations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The near-axis expansion is asymptotic and the retained terms through second order dominate the equilibrium at the radii considered.
    Used throughout; any finite-aspect-ratio validity of the measures rests on this. Entered in Section 2 and used in all later sections.
  • domain assumption B0(phi) defines exactly one trapping well per field period and field lines ergodically sample the poloidal angle alpha under an irrational rotational transform.
    Justifies Weyl equidistribution replacement of the well sum by an alpha average in Section 4.1, Eq. (4.5). False for low-order rationals or multispecies wells.
  • domain assumption The global equilibrium computed from a first-order near-axis surface is a faithful finite-aspect-ratio representation of the near-axis field.
    Needed for both the δB benchmark (Section 3) and the ε_eff benchmark (Section 4.4), following Landreman and Sengupta (2019).
  • standard math Nemov's effective ripple formula captures the relevant neoclassical transport in the 1/nu regime.
    Adopted as the definition of omnigeneity error, Eq. (4.1), from Nemov et al. (1999).
  • domain assumption The second-order omnigeneity condition ΔB_QI_2c = 0 from Rodriguez and Plunk (2023) is the correct measure of second-order non-omnigeneity.
    The near-axis ε_eff^(2) is proportional to the bounce integral of ΔB_QI_2c, Eq. (4.12); this imports a prior result as ground truth.
  • domain assumption Magnetic well criterion V'' < 0 and the Greene well measure indicate MHD interchange stability in the low-beta limit.
    Used in Section 6 to rank stability; it is a minimal criterion, not a full stability assessment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-axis measures of quasi-isodynamic configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MG7FFTGY

@misc{pith2026250502465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-axis measures of quasi-isodynamic configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MG7FFTGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02465}
}
abstract

We present a number of measures and techniques to characterise and effectively construct quasi-isodynamic stellarators within the near-axis framework, without the need to resort to the computation of global equilibria. These include measures of the reliability of the model (including aspect-ratio limits and the appearance of ripple wells), quantification of omnigeneity through $\epsilon_\mathrm{eff}$, measure and construction of MHD stabilised fields, and the sensitivity of the field to the pressure gradient. The paper presents, discusses and gives examples of all of these, for which expansions to second order are crucial. This opens the door to the exploration of how key underlying choices of the field design govern the interaction of desired properties (``trade-offs''), and provides a practical toolkit to perform efficient optimisation directly within the space of near-axis QI configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02465 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Benchmark of the error field measure δBar. The main plot compares the field error δB, Eq. (3.1), evaluated using the global equilibrium computed with VMEC, to the near-axis estimate δBar for the QI near-axis configurations in the benchmark database of Appendix A.1. The black broken line represents δB = δBnae, and the dotted one the moving average of the scatter. The colours for δBar denote the number of field period… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Benchmark of effective ripple calculation. The plots show, in log scale, a comparison of the effective ripple as calculated using the code NEO on global equilibria (scatter points) and calculated with the near-axis estimate (solid lines), for a number of different benchmark configurations (see Appendix A). The two detail plots on the right show the individual comparison for two of the cases, including the 0th order … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram with different contributions to ϵeff . a) Deformation of |B| within the principal well violating the equal radial drift condition of omnigeneity (depicted by broken line). b) Appearance of local ripple or secondary wells. c) Misalignment of field maxima, leading to multiple-well trapped particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of effective ripple with omnigeneising second order shaping. The plots show the evolution of the half helicity benchmark configuration #76 with changing 2nd order shaping. (Left) Evolution of ϵ edge eff (solid) and Ac (broken) as a function of shaping. A valu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ripple well diagnostic measure Aˆw for configurations 4.1 and 4.3. The plots show (left) the function 1/Aˆw as a function of α, the field line label, for Configs. 4.1. (a) and 4.3 (b), the spaghetti diagrams. The hatched area represents Aˆw > Aw, and the shaded regions…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stabilised configurations and sensitivity of vacuum magnetic well to shaping. (a)-(b) The plots show (left) the shaping input for stabilising the near-axis fields and (left) the resulting re-shaped cross-sections for the first three configurations of the benchmark. The…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b) Estimate of critical plasma β, β∆: Estimate of the critical plasma βp at which, due to the rigid part of the Shafranov shift, the first order near-axis elliptical flux surfaces of an equilibrium just touch at r = rref. The value of the plasma beta is defined as a d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shafranov shift sensitivity to plasma β. The plots show the shape gradient Sˆx and Sˆy for configurations 4.1 (a) and 4.3 (b) in the benchmark set. 7.2. Implementation and examples We assess the Shafranov shift sensitivity in the configurations of the benchmark [PITH_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D rendition of configurations in the benchmark set. 3D rendition of configurations in the benchmark set constructed for r = 0.1 and with the colormap denoting the strength of the magnetic field |B|. •Configuration 4.1: minimally shaped 2nd order stellarator symmetric,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustrating diagrams for the estimation of the critical β. (a) Elliptical cross-section indicating the rotation angle θ and major and minoraxes, a and b respectively. (b) Shift of ellipses along the direction D, and the M-transformed scenario involving circles. The di…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    Springer Science & Business Media

    Bender, Carl M & Orszag, Steven A 2013 Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers I: Asymptotic methods and perturbation theory\/ . Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Bernardin, M. P. , Moses, R. W. & Tataronis, J. A. 1986 Isodynamical (omnigenous) equilibrium in symmetrically confined plasma configurations . The Physics of Fluids 29 (8), 2605--2611

    1986

  5. [5]

    Fusion science and technology 45 (2T), 47--54

    Blank, HJ de 2004 Guiding center motion . Fusion science and technology 45 (2T), 47--54

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    1981 Plasma equilibrium with rational magnetic surfaces

    Boozer, Allen H. 1981 Plasma equilibrium with rational magnetic surfaces . The Physics of Fluids 24 (11), 1999--2003

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    The Physics of Fluids 26 (2), 496--499

    Boozer, Allen H 1983 Transport and isomorphic equilibria . The Physics of Fluids 26 (2), 496--499

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Boozer, Allen H 1998 What is a stellarator? Physics of Plasmas 5 (5), 1647--1655

    work page 1998

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics 61 (9)

    Burby, Joshua William , Kallinikos, Nikos & MacKay, Robert S 2020 Some mathematics for quasi-symmetry . Journal of Mathematical Physics 61 (9)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (6), 905890609

    Camacho Mata, Katia & Plunk, Gabriel G 2023 Helicity of the magnetic axes of quasi-isodynamic stellarators . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (6), 905890609

    2023

  3. [11]

    , Plunk, G

    Camacho Mata, K. , Plunk, G. G. & Jorge, R. 2022 Direct construction of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic magnetic configurations . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (5), 905880503

    2022

  4. [12]

    Cary, J. R. & Shasharina, S. G. 1997 Omnigenity and quasihelicity in helical plasma confinement systems . Physics of Plasmas 4 (9), 3323--3333 , arXiv:arXiv: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/4/9/3323/12664528/3323\_1\_online.pdf

    1997

  5. [13]

    MIT press

    Cormen, Thomas H , Leiserson, Charles E , Rivest, Ronald L & Stein, Clifford 2022 Introduction to algorithms\/ . MIT press

    2022

  6. [14]

    D'haeseleer, W. D. , Hitchon, W. N. G. , Callen, J. D. & Shohet, J. L. 2012 Flux coordinates and magnetic field structure: a guide to a fundamental tool of plasma theory\/ . Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  7. [15]

    Physics of Plasmas 27 (10)

    Dudt, DW & Kolemen, E 2020 Desc: a stellarator equilibrium solver . Physics of Plasmas 27 (10)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 90 (1), 905900120

    Dudt, Daniel W , Goodman, Alan G , Conlin, Rory , Panici, Dario & Kolemen, Egemen 2024 Magnetic fields with general omnigenity . Journal of Plasma Physics 90 (1), 905900120

    2024

  9. [17]

    Freidberg, J. P. 2014 ideal MHD\/ . Cambridge University Press

    2014

  10. [18]

    Garren, D. A. & Boozer, A. H. 1991 a\/ Existence of quasihelically symmetric stellarators . Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 3 (10), 2822--2834

    1991

  11. [19]

    Garren, D. A. & Boozer, A. H. 1991 b\/ Magnetic field strength of toroidal plasma equilibria . Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 3 (10), 2805--2821

    1991

  12. [20]

    JHU press

    Golub, Gene H & Van Loan, Charles F 2013 Matrix computations\/ . JHU press

    2013

  13. [21]

    , Camacho Mata, K

    Goodman, A.G. , Camacho Mata, K. , Henneberg, S.A. , Jorge, R. , Landreman, M. , Plunk, G.G. , Smith, H.M. , Mackenbach, R.J.J. , Beidler, C.D. , Helander, P. & et al. 2023 Constructing precisely quasi-isodynamic magnetic fields . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (5), 905890504

    2023

  14. [22]

    Academic press

    Gradshteyn, Izrail Solomonovich & Ryzhik, Iosif Moiseevich 2014 Table of integrals, series, and products\/ . Academic press

    2014

  15. [23]

    Greene, J. M. 1997 A brief review of magnetic wells . Comments on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 17 , 389--402

    1997

  16. [24]

    & McNamara, Brendan 1975 Three‐dimensional equilibrium of the anisotropic, finite‐pressure guiding‐center plasma: Theory of the magnetic plasma

    Hall, Laurence S. & McNamara, Brendan 1975 Three‐dimensional equilibrium of the anisotropic, finite‐pressure guiding‐center plasma: Theory of the magnetic plasma . The Physics of Fluids 18 (5), 552--565

    1975

  17. [25]

    2014 Theory of plasma confinement in non-axisymmetric magnetic fields

    Helander, P. 2014 Theory of plasma confinement in non-axisymmetric magnetic fields . Reports on Progress in Physics 77 (8), 087001

    2014

  18. [26]

    & Nührenberg, J

    Helander, P. & Nührenberg, J. 2009 Bootstrap current and neoclassical transport in quasi-isodynamic stellarators . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 51 (5), 055004

    2009

  19. [27]

    Simons Collaboration on Hidden Symmetries and Fusion Energy

    Hindenlang, Florian , Maj, Omar , Strumberger, Erika , Rampp, Markus & Sonnendr \"u cker, Eric 2019 Gvec: a newly developed 3d ideal mhd galerkin variational equilibrium code . Simons Collaboration on Hidden Symmetries and Fusion Energy

    2019

  20. [28]

    Hirshman, S. P. & Whitson, J. C. 1983 Steepest‐descent moment method for three‐dimensional magnetohydrodynamic equilibria . The Physics of Fluids 26 (12), 3553--3568

    1983

  21. [29]

    & Kulsrud, Russell M

    Ho, Darwin D.‐M. & Kulsrud, Russell M. 1987 Neoclassical transport in stellarators . The Physics of Fluids 30 (2), 442--461

    1987

  22. [30]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 (1), 014001

    Jorge, Rogerio & Landreman, Matt 2020 The use of near-axis magnetic fields for stellarator turbulence simulations . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63 (1), 014001

    2020

  23. [31]

    , Plunk, G.G

    Jorge, R. , Plunk, G.G. , Drevlak, M. , Landreman, M. , Lobsien, J.-F. , Camacho Mata, K. & Helander, P. 2022 A single-field-period quasi-isodynamic stellarator . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (5), 175880504

    2022

  24. [32]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66 (2), 025018

    Kappel, John , Landreman, Matt & Malhotra, Dhairya 2024 The magnetic gradient scale length explains why certain plasmas require close external magnetic coils . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66 (2), 025018

    2024

  25. [33]

    2021 Figures of merit for stellarators near the magnetic axis

    Landreman, M. 2021 Figures of merit for stellarators near the magnetic axis . Journal of Plasma Physics 87 (1), 905870112

    2021

  26. [34]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (6), 905880616

    Landreman, Matt 2022 Mapping the space of quasisymmetric stellarators using optimized near-axis expansion . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (6), 905880616

    2022

  27. [35]

    & Jorge, R

    Landreman, M. & Jorge, R. 2020 Magnetic well and mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis . Journal of Plasma Physics 86 (5), 905860510

    2020

  28. [36]

    & Sengupta, W

    Landreman, M. & Sengupta, W. 2019 Constructing stellarators with quasisymmetry to high order . Journal of Plasma Physics 85 (6), 815850601

    2019

  29. [37]

    1983 Variational principles of guiding centre motion

    Littlejohn, Robert G. 1983 Variational principles of guiding centre motion . Journal of Plasma Physics 29 (1), 111–125

    1983

  30. [38]

    u hrenberg, J 1976 Equilibrium and stability of a three-dimensional toroidal mhd configuration near its magnetic axis . Zeitschrift f \

    Lortz, D & N \"u hrenberg, J 1976 Equilibrium and stability of a three-dimensional toroidal mhd configuration near its magnetic axis . Zeitschrift f \"u r Naturforschung A 31 (11), 1277--1288

    1976

  31. [39]

    Nuclear Fusion 4 (3), 213

    Mercier, Claude 1964 Equilibrium and stability of a toroidal magnetohydrodynamic system in the neighbourhood of a magnetic axis . Nuclear Fusion 4 (3), 213

    1964

  32. [40]

    The Physics of Fluids 26 (4), 1008--1017

    Mynick, Harry E 1983 Improved theory of collisionless particle motion in stellarators . The Physics of Fluids 26 (4), 1008--1017

    1983

  33. [41]

    Mynick, H. E. 2006 Transport optimization in stellarators . Physics of Plasmas 13 (5), 058102

    2006

  34. [42]

    Physics of plasmas 6 (12), 4622--4632

    Nemov, VV , Kasilov, SV , Kernbichler, W & Heyn, MF 1999 a\/ Evaluation of 1/ neoclassical transport in stellarators . Physics of plasmas 6 (12), 4622--4632

    1999

  35. [43]

    Nemov, V. V. , Kasilov, S. V. , Kernbichler, W. & Heyn, M. F. 1999 b\/ Evaluation of 1/ neoclassical transport in stellarators . Physics of Plasmas 6 (12), 4622--4632

    1999

  36. [44]

    Nemov, V. V. , Kasilov, S. V. , Kernbichler, W. & Leitold, G. O. 2008 Poloidal motion of trapped particle orbits in real-space coordinates . Physics of plasmas 15 (5)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Annals of Physics 15 (1), 79--101

    Northrop, Theodore G 1961 The guiding center approximation to charged particle motion . Annals of Physics 15 (1), 79--101

    1961

  38. [46]

    & Zille, R

    N \"u hrenberg, J. & Zille, R. 1988 Quasi-helically symmetric toroidal stellarators . Physics Letters A 129 (2), 113 -- 117

    1988

  39. [47]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 52 (12), 124003

    Nührenberg, Jürgen 2010 Development of quasi-isodynamic stellarators . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 52 (12), 124003

    2010

  40. [48]

    Nuclear Fusion 55 (3), 033005

    Parra, Felix I , Calvo, Iv \'a n , Helander, Per & Landreman, Matt 2015 Less constrained omnigeneous stellarators . Nuclear Fusion 55 (3), 033005

    2015

  41. [49]

    Paul, E. J. , Bhattacharjee, A. , Landreman, M. , Alex, D. , Velasco, J. L. & Nies, R. 2022 Energetic particle loss mechanisms in reactor-scale equilibria close to quasisymmetry . Nuclear Fusion 62 (12), 126054

    2022

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16411

    Plunk, GG , Drevlak, M , Rodriguez, E , Babin, R , Goodman, A & Hindenlang, F 2024 Back to the figure-8 stellarator . arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16411

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Plunk, G. G. , Landreman, M. & Helander, P. 2019 Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. part 3. omnigenity near the magnetic axis . Journal of Plasma Physics 85 (6), 905850602

    2019

  44. [52]

    Plunk, G. G. & others 2025 A geometric approach to constructing quasi-isodynamic fields. In preparation

    2025

  45. [53]

    , Helander, P

    Rodr\' i guez, E. , Helander, P. & Bhattacharjee, A. 2020 Necessary and sufficient conditions for quasisymmetry . Physics of Plasmas 27 (6), 062501

    2020

  46. [54]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 90 (2), 905900212

    Rodr\' i guez, Eduardo , Helander, Per & Goodman, AG 2024 The maximum-j property in quasi-isodynamic stellarators . Journal of Plasma Physics 90 (2), 905900212

    2024

  47. [55]

    & Mackenbach, R.J.J

    Rodr\' i guez, E. & Mackenbach, R.J.J. 2023 Trapped-particle precession and modes in quasisymmetric stellarators and tokamaks: a near-axis perspective . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (5), 905890521

    2023

  48. [56]

    , Paul, E

    Rodr\' i guez, E. , Paul, E. J. & Bhattacharjee, A. 2022 a\/ Measures of quasisymmetry for stellarators . Journal of Plasma Physics 88 (1), 905880109

    2022

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17824

    Rodriguez, Eduardo & Plunk, Gabriel G 2024 The zonal-flow residual does not tend to zero in the limit of small mirror ratio . arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17824

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20328

    Rodriguez, Eduardo , Plunk, Gabriel G & Jorge, Rogerio 2024 Near-axis description of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic stellarators to second order . arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20328

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    , Sengupta, W

    Rodr\' i guez, E. , Sengupta, W. & Bhattacharjee, A. 2022 b\/ Phases and phase-transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 64 (10), 105006

    2022

  52. [60]

    Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65 (9), 095004

    Rodr \' guez, E , Sengupta, W & Bhattacharjee, A 2023 Constructing the space of quasisymmetric stellarators through near-axis expansion . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65 (9), 095004

    2023

  53. [61]

    2023 Magnetohydrodynamic stability and the effects of shaping: a near-axis view for tokamaks and quasisymmetric stellarators

    Rodríguez, E. 2023 Magnetohydrodynamic stability and the effects of shaping: a near-axis view for tokamaks and quasisymmetric stellarators . Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (2), 905890211

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Plunk, G

    Rodríguez, E. & Plunk, G. G. 2023 Higher order theory of quasi-isodynamicity near the magnetic axis of stellarators . Physics of Plasmas 30 (6), 062507

    2023

  55. [63]

    Physical review letters 80 (4), 724

    Rosenbluth, MN & Hinton, FL 1998 Poloidal flow driven by ion-temperature-gradient turbulence in tokamaks . Physical review letters 80 (4), 724

    1998

  56. [64]

    Plasma physics and controlled fusion 42 (6), 641

    Sanchez, R , Hirshman, SP , Ware, AS , Berry, LA & Spong, DA 2000 Ballooning stability optimization of low-aspect-ratio stellarators . Plasma physics and controlled fusion 42 (6), 641

    2000

  57. [65]

    Solov'ev, L. S. & Shafranov, V. D. 1970 Reviews of Plasma Physics 5 \/ . New York - London: Consultants Bureau

    1970

  58. [66]

    The Physics of Fluids 1 (4), 253--264

    Spitzer Jr, Lyman 1958 The stellarator concept . The Physics of Fluids 1 (4), 253--264

    1958

  59. [67]

    Stein, Elias M & Shakarchi, Rami 2011 Fourier analysis: an introduction\/ , , vol. 1 . Princeton University Press

    2011

  60. [68]

    Cambridge university press

    S \"u li, Endre & Mayers, David F 2003 An introduction to numerical analysis\/ . Cambridge university press

    2003

  61. [69]

    Wesson, John 2011 Tokamaks; 4th ed. \/ . International series of monographs on physics\/ . Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press

    2011

  62. [70]

    Weyl, Hermann 1916 \"U ber die gleichverteilung von zahlen mod. eins . Mathematische Annalen 77 (3), 313--352

    1916

  63. [71]

    Journal of Plasma Physics 91 (1), E28

    Zhu, Hongxuan , Lin, Z & Bhattacharjee, A 2025 Collisionless zonal-flow dynamics in quasisymmetric stellarators . Journal of Plasma Physics 91 (1), E28

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.