pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23974 · v2 · pith:QKOXXDISnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

The science of compressional heating on the LM26 magnetized target fusion experiment

S. J. Howard , D. P. Brennan , K. Epp , P. Forysinski , D. Plant , M. Reynolds , A. Froese , N. Sirmas
show 56 more authors
D. Krotez V. Suponitsky R. Zindler E. Love C. Macdonald N. Kumar Z. Seifollahi Moghadam K. Conquergood A. Wong W. Zawalski B. Rablah W. Kozicki P. Carle A. Rohollahi C. Preston A. M. D. Lee J. Hobbis L. Santos X. Feng M. Schellenberg-Beaver R. Tingley R. Underwood J. Sanchez Rojo J. Gorenstein D. Froese E. Cessford J. Pratt J. Crofts J. Sardari G. Faust D. Ross J. Wilkie S. Bernard S. Edwards R. Oosterom M. Yurkiv J. Y. J. Cheng C. Connor S. Bolanos C. Gutjahr E. Chan M. Greenwood E. Ng A. Massey K. Chen R. Svihra A. Gromer S. Lee X. Zhu L. Marshall C. Eyrich A. Mahoney M. Davidson H. Feng A. Rudy M. Laberge
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 21:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords compressional heatingmagnetized target fusionspherical tokamaklithium linerplasma compressionneutron fluxequilibrium reconstruction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compressional heating accounts for the majority of temperature rise in LM26's first plasma compression shots.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports results from eleven compression shots on the LM26 device in which a spherical tokamak deuterium plasma was radially compressed by a factor of three using an imploding solid lithium liner. Diagnostic measurements show corresponding increases exceeding a factor of three in electron temperature, ten in density, and ten in poloidal field. An integrated physics model that reconstructs the equilibrium from time-resolved diagnostics and balances compression work, Ohmic heating, and boundary losses against the data concludes that compression supplied most of the observed heating.

Core claim

The central conclusions of the integrated physics model specifically indicate that compressional heating was achieved in this set of experiments, as evidenced by the balance of heating power from compression, Ohmic heating from plasma current, and losses to the boundary needed to match the experimental data. A majority of the temperature rise is attributable to compressional heating. An increase in neutron flux is also observed during compression.

What carries the argument

The integrated physics model that reconstructs experimental equilibrium states from diagnostic data as a function of time and matches the observed evolution through the sum of compressional heating, Ohmic heating, and boundary losses.

If this is right

  • An increase in neutron flux occurs during the compression phase.
  • The results build confidence in the stability and transport analyses used for the high-performance shots.
  • The data set supplies a basis for planned facility improvements that target higher densities and temperatures.
  • Trends across the eleven shots show consistent scaling of plasma parameters with radial compression.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar energy-balance methods could be applied to other liner-compression or magnetized-target experiments to isolate the compressional contribution.
  • Fast-camera images of plasma-wall interaction during compression could guide liner surface preparation or magnetic-field shaping in next-step devices.
  • The observed neutron increase supplies a possible independent check on ion temperature if neutron spectra are recorded in future runs.

Load-bearing premise

The equilibrium reconstruction from diagnostic data and the transport model assumptions accurately capture the dominant energy balance without large unmodeled contributions from plasma-wall interactions or liner-plasma mixing.

What would settle it

A quantitative mismatch between the measured temperature, density, and field profiles and the profiles predicted by the model when only compression, Ohmic, and boundary-loss terms are included would falsify the claim that compressional heating dominates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23974 by A. Froese, A. Gromer, A. Mahoney, A. Massey, A. M. D. Lee, A. Rohollahi, A. Rudy, A. Wong, B. Rablah, C. Connor, C. Eyrich, C. Gutjahr, C. Macdonald, C. Preston, D. Froese, D. Krotez, D. P. Brennan, D. Plant, D. Ross, E. Cessford, E. Chan, E. Love, E. Ng, G. Faust, H. Feng, J. Crofts, J. Gorenstein, J. Hobbis, J. Pratt, J. Sanchez Rojo, J. Sardari, J. Wilkie, J. Y. J. Cheng, K. Chen, K. Conquergood, K. Epp, L. Marshall, L. Santos, M. Davidson, M. Greenwood, M. LaBerge, M. Reynolds, M. Schellenberg-Beaver, M. Yurkiv, N. Kumar, N. Sirmas, P. Carle, P. Forysinski, R. Oosterom, R. Svihra, R. Tingley, R. Underwood, R. Zindler, S. Bernard, S. Bolanos, S. Edwards, S. J. Howard, S. Lee, V. Suponitsky, W. Kozicki, W. Zawalski, X. Feng, X. Zhu, Z. Seifollahi Moghadam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of LM26 experiment, with liner trajectory (lower half-view) and poloidal flux (upper half-view) shown for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example data from non-compression ST plasma for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fitted simulation trajectory for LMC-9 outlining in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measurements of liner symmetry ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of reconstructed equatorial liner trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Location of diagnostics in LM26 overlaid on flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Detail of AXUV filtered photodiode array assembly. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Maps of individual AXUV view cones as they inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Thomson scattering laser and view line, with scatter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Trend of increase of peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Vibration-compensated line average density of each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Flux surface resolved electron inventory versus time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Observation of X-ray emissivity profile during a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Electron temperature rise for LMC-9 (a) and LMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Possible contribution to AXUV R2 ratio discrep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Thomson scattering measurements of (a) electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Raw and Gaussian-fit polychromator data for laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Expected polychromator channel signal ratios for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Neutron yield and scintillator signals (stacked his [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Ion temperature obtained by neutron yield (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Fast color-camera observations of visible light emission from near the edge of the plasma during the LMC-9 compres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Example geometry during a PsiBC reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Geometric and plasma equilibrium parameters as a function of time after formation in LMC-9. Compression starts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. The resistive MHD growth rates of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Ion temperature from neutron yield data (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Temperature evolution from the ISM reconstructions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Power terms from the ISM reconstructions of (a, b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. Concentrations of impurities in an otherwise pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Concentrations of impurities that would give rise to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_32.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Lawson Machine 26 (LM26) at General Fusion has demonstrated compressional heating of a spherical tokamak deuterium plasma as it was compressed by an imploding solid lithium liner. Results from the first 11 compression shots on LM26 are presented, the highest-performing of which show more than a 3x increase in $T_e$, a 10x increase in $n_e$, and a 10x increase in $B_{pol}$ within the plasma driven by 3x radial compression. The experimental device and instrumentation are reviewed in detail, followed by observations about the liner trajectory and evolution of plasma properties, including increases in emission of neutrons, X-rays, and visible radiation. Observations from fast-camera images during compression provide context for interpreting the spatial structure of plasma-wall interaction. Overviews of relevant models and analysis are presented. Diagnostic data are used to reconstruct the experimental equilibrium state in computational framework as a function of time. The results build confidence in the stability and transport analyses that support the primary conclusions. Trends across the full set of 11 compression shots are presented, and detailed examinations of the high-performance shots are given individually. The central conclusions of the integrated physics model specifically indicate that compressional heating was achieved in this set of experiments, as evidenced by the balance of heating power from compression, Ohmic heating from plasma current, and losses to the boundary needed to match the experimental data. A majority of the temperature rise is attributable to compressional heating. An increase in neutron flux is also observed during compression. The results provide a basis for planned improvements to the LM26 facility that will enable the compression of magnetized plasma to increasingly higher densities and temperatures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from the first 11 compression shots on the LM26 magnetized target fusion experiment, in which a spherical tokamak deuterium plasma is compressed by an imploding solid lithium liner. The highest-performing shots exhibit >3× increase in Te, 10× in ne, and 10× in Bpol under 3× radial compression. Diagnostic data are used for time-dependent equilibrium reconstruction, and an integrated physics model (equilibrium + transport) is fitted to match observed time traces; the authors conclude that compressional heating accounts for the majority of the temperature rise, with supporting observations of increased neutron, X-ray, and visible emission plus fast-camera images of plasma-wall interaction.

Significance. If the model-based partitioning of heating terms is robust, the work constitutes a concrete experimental milestone for magnetized target fusion by demonstrating compressional heating as the dominant mechanism in a spherical tokamak geometry. The multi-shot trends and neutron-flux increase supply partial external grounding, and the detailed device/instrumentation description plus planned facility upgrades provide a clear path forward.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / integrated physics model description] Abstract and integrated-physics-model section: the central claim that 'a majority of the temperature rise is attributable to compressional heating' is obtained by adjusting the energy-balance terms (compression work, Ohmic heating, boundary losses) to match experimental time traces; the manuscript provides no quantified sensitivity of the attributed fractions to variations in the equilibrium-reconstruction assumptions or transport coefficients, nor explicit goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or residual distributions) that would demonstrate the partitioning is uniquely supported rather than under-constrained.
  2. [High-performance shots and model-data matching] High-performance-shot analysis (as summarized in the abstract): the weakest assumption—that large unmodeled contributions from plasma-liner mixing, enhanced radiation, or plasma-wall heat fluxes visible in fast-camera images are negligible—is load-bearing for the majority-compressional-heating conclusion; without an explicit bound on the size of these terms or an independent observable (beyond neutron flux) that decouples them from the fitted loss coefficients, the attribution remains partly circular.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported factors (>3× Te, 10× ne, 10× Bpol) are given without error bars, shot-to-shot scatter, or explicit data-exclusion criteria.
  2. [Trends across the full set of 11 compression shots] The manuscript should clarify whether the 11-shot dataset includes all attempted compressions or only those that met a minimum diagnostic-quality threshold.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript on the first compression shots from the LM26 experiment. The major comments correctly identify areas where additional quantification would strengthen the presentation of the integrated physics model results. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / integrated physics model description] Abstract and integrated-physics-model section: the central claim that 'a majority of the temperature rise is attributable to compressional heating' is obtained by adjusting the energy-balance terms (compression work, Ohmic heating, boundary losses) to match experimental time traces; the manuscript provides no quantified sensitivity of the attributed fractions to variations in the equilibrium-reconstruction assumptions or transport coefficients, nor explicit goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or residual distributions) that would demonstrate the partitioning is uniquely supported rather than under-constrained.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit sensitivity analysis and goodness-of-fit metrics. In the revised version we will add a new subsection that quantifies the sensitivity of the derived heating fractions to variations in equilibrium-reconstruction parameters (e.g., boundary conditions and current-profile assumptions) and transport coefficients within their experimental uncertainties. We will also report χ² values together with a description of residual distributions for the model fits to the measured Te, ne, and Bpol time traces. These additions will allow readers to assess the robustness of the conclusion that compressional heating accounts for the majority of the temperature rise. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [High-performance shots and model-data matching] High-performance-shot analysis (as summarized in the abstract): the weakest assumption—that large unmodeled contributions from plasma-liner mixing, enhanced radiation, or plasma-wall heat fluxes visible in fast-camera images are negligible—is load-bearing for the majority-compressional-heating conclusion; without an explicit bound on the size of these terms or an independent observable (beyond neutron flux) that decouples them from the fitted loss coefficients, the attribution remains partly circular.

    Authors: The fast-camera images do document localized plasma-wall interaction, and we acknowledge that unmodeled terms such as mixing or enhanced radiation could in principle contribute. The model is nevertheless constrained by the simultaneous evolution of multiple independent diagnostics (Te, ne, Bpol, neutron flux, X-ray emission, and liner trajectory). In the revision we will add explicit upper-bound estimates on the possible contributions from mixing and radiation, derived from the observed emission intensities and the spatial extent of wall interaction visible in the images. These bounds will be compared against the fitted boundary-loss term to reduce the scope for circularity. While the neutron-flux increase already provides supporting evidence independent of the energy-balance fit, the new bounds will further decouple the unmodeled terms. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model interprets independent observables

full rationale

The paper reconstructs equilibria from diagnostic data and uses an integrated transport model to partition observed temperature evolution into compression work (from measured radial compression), Ohmic heating, and boundary losses. The central claim that compressional heating dominates is an output of this partitioning rather than a redefinition of the inputs. Neutron yield increase and other diagnostics provide external grounding. No equations reduce to their own fitted parameters by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for uniqueness, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation remains self-contained against the reported measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MHD equilibrium reconstruction and energy balance modeling whose detailed assumptions are not enumerated in the abstract; no new free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diagnostic data can be inverted to reconstruct the time-dependent plasma equilibrium under standard MHD assumptions.
    Used to interpret evolution of Te, ne, and Bpol during compression.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6151 in / 1308 out tokens · 24429 ms · 2026-07-02T21:27:43.498353+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CONCLUSIONS In this study, we presented a series of experimental re- sults from the LM26 device at General Fusion and ex- plore relevant analyses and modeling to draw conclu- sions about future directions for MTF research. The initial pre-compression state of the CHI-formed ST deu- terium plasmas has sufficiently good confinement prop- erties to remain in...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Both give similarT e values, which are further validated with the Thomson scattering mea- surements obtained on LMC-11

    Overall, we find that the beryllium and properly- curated aluminized Mylar filters give similar results on the LM26 system. Both give similarT e values, which are further validated with the Thomson scattering mea- surements obtained on LMC-11. Both types of filters are intrinsically susceptible to plasma-gradient effects if not properly arranged, as well ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Howardet al., Nuclear Fusion65, 016029 (2025)

    S. Howardet al., Nuclear Fusion65, 016029 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    I. V. Khalzov, D. Krotez, and R. S´ egas, Physics of Fluids 36, 032125 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Robson, Report of NRL Progress, June 1973 (1973)

    A. Robson, Report of NRL Progress, June 1973 (1973)

    work page 1973

  6. [6]

    P. J. Turchi, R. L. Burton, A. L. Cooper, R. D. Ford, D. J. Jenkins, J. Cameron, and R. Lanham,Develop- ment of Imploding Liner Systems for the NRL LINUS Program, Tech. Rep. (Naval Research Lab. (NRL), Wash- ington, DC (United States), 1979)

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    K. Bol, J. L. Cecchi, C. C. Daughney, F. DeMarco, R. A. Ellis, Jr., H. P. Eubank, H. P. Furth, H. Hsuan, E. Mazzucato, and R. R. Smith,Experiments on the Adi- abatic Toroidal Compressor, Tech. Rep. (PPPL, 1974) doi:10.2172/4203067

    work page doi:10.2172/4203067 1974

  8. [8]

    Bolet al., Phys

    K. Bolet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1495 (1972)

    work page 1972

  9. [9]

    K. Bol, J. L. Cecchi, C. C. Daughney, F. DeMarco, R. A. Ellis, Jr., H. P. Eubank, H. P. Furth, H. Hsuan, E. Mazzucato, and R. R. Smith, inPlasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1974 (Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Tokyo, 1974), Vol. 1 (IAEA, Vienna, 1975) p. 83

    work page 1974

  10. [10]

    Ellis, Nuclear Fusion25, 1145 (1985)

    R. Ellis, Nuclear Fusion25, 1145 (1985)

    work page 1985

  11. [11]

    Robinson, Nuclear Fusion25, 1101 (1985)

    D. Robinson, Nuclear Fusion25, 1101 (1985)

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    G. Tait, M. Bell, and J. Bell, inPlasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1984 (Proc. 10th Int. Conf. London, 1984, Vol. 1 (IAEA, Vienna, 1985) pp. 141–154

    work page 1984

  13. [13]

    D. J. Grove and D. M. Meade, Nucl. Fusion25, 1167 (1985)

    work page 1985

  14. [14]

    The science of JET

    J. Wesson, “The science of JET” JET-R(99)13(1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    Tanga, JET Joint Undertaking Progress Report 1986, EUR 11113 EN (EUR-JET-PR4) , 211 (1987)

    A. Tanga, JET Joint Undertaking Progress Report 1986, EUR 11113 EN (EUR-JET-PR4) , 211 (1987)

    work page 1986

  16. [16]

    Askinazi, M

    L. Askinazi, M. Andrejko, and V. Golant, J. Plasma Fu- sion Res. SERIES4, 224 (2001)

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    J. M. Taccetti, T. P. Intrator, G. A. Wurden, S. Y. Zhang, R. Aragonez, P. N. Assmus, C. M. Bass, C. Carey, S. A. deVries, W. J. Fienup, I. Furno, S. C. Hsu, M. P. Kozar, M. C. Langner, J. Liang, R. J. Maqueda, R. A. Mar- tinez, P. G. Sanchez, K. F. Schoenberg, K. J. Scott, R. E. Siemon, E. M. Tejero, E. H. Trask, M. Tuszewski, W. J. Waganaar, C. Grabowsk...

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Wurden, T

    G. Wurden, T. Intrator, P. Sieck, L. Dorf, S. Hsu, R. Ren- neke, W. Waganaar, Z. Wang, J. Degnan, E. Ruden, et al., inProc. 23rd Int. Conf. Geneva, 2008, IC/P4-13 LA-UR-08-0796 (IAEA, Vienna, 2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Kirtley and R

    D. Kirtley and R. Milroy, Journal of Fusion Energy42, 30 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Yager-Elorriaga, M

    D. Yager-Elorriaga, M. Gomez, D. Ruiz, S. Slutz, A. Harvey-Thompson, C. Jennings, P. Knapp, P. Schmit, M. Weis, T. Awe, G. Chandler, M. Mangan, C. Myers, J. Fein, B. Galloway, M. Geissel, M. Glinsky, S. Hansen, E. Harding, D. Lamppa, W. Lewis, P. Rambo, G. Robert- son, M. Savage, G. Shipley, I. Smith, J. Schwarz, D. Am- pleford, K. Beckwith, K. Peterson, ...

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Y.-K. M. Peng, Physics of Plasmas7, 1681 (2000)

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    M. Ono, M. Bell, R. Bell, T. Bigelow, M. Bitter, W. Blan- chard, D. Darrow, E. Fredrickson, D. Gates, L. Grisham, J. Hosea, D. Johnson, R. Kaita, S. Kaye, S. Kubota, H. Kugel, B. LeBlanc, R. Maingi, R. Maqueda, E. Maz- zucato, J. Menard, D. Mueller, B. Nelson, C. Neumeyer, F. Paoletti, S. Paul, Y.-K. Peng, S. Ramakrishnan, R. Raman, P. Ryan, S. Sabbagh, C...

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    Kurskiev, V

    G. Kurskiev, V. Gusev, N. Sakharov, Y. Petrov, N. Bakharev, I. Balachenkov, A. Bazhenov, F. Cherny- shev, N. Khromov, E. Kiselev, S. Krikunov, V. Mi- naev, I. Miroshnikov, A. Novokhatskii, N. Zhiltsov, E. Mukhin, M. Patrov, K. Shulyatiev, P. Shchegolev, O. Skrekel, A. Telnova, E. Tkachenko, E. Tukhmeneva, V. Tokarev, S. Tolstyakov, V. Varfolomeev, A. Voro...

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy38, 199 (2019)

    M. Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy38, 199 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy27, 65 (2008)

    M. Laberge, Journal of Fusion Energy27, 65 (2008)

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    Howard, M

    S. Howard, M. Laberge, L. McIlwraith, D. Richardson, and J. Gregson, Journal of Fusion Energy28, 156 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Froese, S

    A. Froese, S. Howard, V. Suponitsky, J. Zimmermann, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, J. McCone, R. Ivanov, D. Par- feniuk, P. O’Shea, D. Richardson, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, in19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)(Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS), 2014) p. 2151

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Tancetti, C

    A. Tancetti, C. Ribeiro, S. Howard, S. Coop, C. Mc- Nally, M. Reynolds, P. Kholodov, F. Braglia, R. Zindler, C. Macdonald, E. Love, P. Carle, X. Feng, A. Ro- hollahi, K. Leci, D. Plant, C. Dunlea, R. Ivanov, and A. Mossman, Nuclear Fusion65, 036043 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adb8fb

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adb8fb 2025

  29. [29]

    Raman and V

    R. Raman and V. F. Shevchenko, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion56, 103001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Dunlea, S

    C. Dunlea, S. Howard, W. Zawalski, K. Epp, A. Moss- man, C. Xiao, and A. Hirose, Physics of Plasmas27, 062513 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Sirmas, J.-S

    N. Sirmas, J.-S. Dick, S. Bernard, Y. Miao, L. San- tos, J. Hobbis, C. Preston, A. Lee, S. Cameron, and P. Forysinski, inProceedings of the 2025 Pressure Ves- sels and Piping Conference, Vol. Volume 2: Computer Technology & Bolted Joints (2025) p. V002T02A025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    N. S. Mangione, H. Wu, C. Preston, A. M. Lee, S. En- tezami, R. S´ egas, P. W. Forysinski, and V. Suponitsky, Fusion Engineering and Design198, 114087 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Suponitsky, I

    V. Suponitsky, I. V. Khalzov, D. M. Roberts, and P. W. Forysinski, Fluids10, 10.3390/fluids10090222 (2025). 41

    work page doi:10.3390/fluids10090222 2025

  34. [34]

    Suponitsky, K

    V. Suponitsky, K. Conquergood, N. Sirmas, D. Roberts, and J.-S. Dick, inProceedings of the 14th PAMIR Inter- national Conference on Fundamental and Applied MHD (2026)

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    L. F. Delgado-Aparicio, D. Stutman, K. Tritz, M. Finkenthal, R. Bell, J. Hosea, R. Kaita, B. LeBlanc, L. Roquemore, and J. R. Wilson, Journal of Applied Physics102, 073304 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    Bosch and G

    H.-S. Bosch and G. Hale, Nuclear Fusion32, 611 (1992)

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    A. J. Radich, V. Grecu, P. J. F. Carle, M. Hildebrand, S. J. Howard, C. P. McNally, M. Reynolds, A. Rohollahi, R. E. Underwood, and S. Weinstein, Fusion Science and Technology , 1 (2026)

    work page 2026

  38. [38]

    Chung, M

    H.-K. Chung, M. Chen, W. Morgan, Y. Ralchenko, and R. Lee, High Energy Density Physics1, 3 (2005)

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    Breiman, W

    L. Breiman, W. Meisel, and E. Purcell, Technometrics 19, 135 (1977)

    work page 1977

  40. [40]

    Gangadhara, D

    S. Gangadhara, D. Craig, D. A. Ennis, D. J. Den Har- tog, G. Fiksel, and S. C. Prager, Physics of Plasmas15, 056121 (2008)

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    R. M. Magee,Ion energization during tearing mode mag- netic reconnection in a high temperature plasma, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    E. B. Hooper, R. H. Bulmer, B. I. Cohen, D. N. Hill, C. T. Holcomb, B. Hudson, H. S. McLean, L. D. Pearl- stein, C. A. Romero-Talam´ as, C. R. Sovinec, B. W. Stal- lard, R. D. Wood, and S. Woodruff, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion54, 113001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Grad and H

    H. Grad and H. Rubin, Journal of Nuclear Energy7, 284 (1958)

    work page 1958

  44. [44]

    Froese, R

    A. Froese, R. Zindler, M. Herunter, C. MacDonald, T. Chisholm, D. Krotez, M. Hildebrand, B. Kelly, E. Love, A. Mossman, and M. Reynolds, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,67, BP11.003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Nevins in the CORSICA code base

    This current profile equation is attributed to William M. Nevins in the CORSICA code base

    work page

  46. [46]

    Khalzov, D

    I. Khalzov, D. Krotez, and R. S´ egas, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,66, TP11.90 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Khalzov and V

    I. Khalzov and V. Suponitsky, Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS Meeting Abstracts,68, PP11.65 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Gerhardt, R

    S. Gerhardt, R. Bell, A. Diallo, D. Gates, B. LeBlanc, J. Menard, D. Mueller, S. Sabbagh, V. Soukhanovskii, K. Tritz,et al., Nuclear Fusion53, 043020 (2013)

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Gerhardt, D

    S. Gerhardt, D. Darrow, R. Bell, B. LeBlanc, J. Menard, D. Mueller, A. Roquemore, S. Sabbagh, and H. Yuh, Nu- clear Fusion53, 063021 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    P. C. de Vries, M. F. Johnson, B. Alper, P. Buratti, T. C. Hender, H. R. Koslowski, and V. Riccardo, Nuclear Fu- sion51, 053018 (2011)

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    Pautasso, P

    G. Pautasso, P. De Vries, A. U. Team,et al., in41st EPS Conference on Plasma Physics(2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Eidietis, S

    N. Eidietis, S. Gerhardt, R. Granetz, Y. Kawano, M. Lehnen, J. Lister, G. Pautasso, V. Riccardo, R. Tanna, A. Thornton,et al., Nuclear Fusion55, 063030 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Glasser, Physics of Plasmas23, 072505 (2016)

    A. Glasser, Physics of Plasmas23, 072505 (2016)

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Glasser, Z

    A. Glasser, Z. Wang, and J.-K. Park, Physics of Plasmas 23, 112506 (2016)

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Brennan, A

    D. Brennan, A. Froese, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, Z. Wang, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, Nuclear Fusion60, 046027 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Brennan, A

    D. Brennan, A. Froese, M. Reynolds, S. Barsky, A. Wen, Z. Wang, M. Delage, and M. Laberge, Nuclear Fusion61, 046047 (2021)

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Sovinec, A

    C. Sovinec, A. Glasser, T. Gianakon, D. Barnes, R. Nebel, S. Kruger, S. Plimpton, A. Tarditi, M. Chu, and the NIMROD Team, J. Comp. Phys.195, 355 (2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Brennan, S

    D. Brennan, S. Kruger, T. Gianakon, and D. Schnack, Nuclear fusion45, 1178 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    D. J. Rhodes, A. J. Cole, D. P. Brennan, J. M. Finn, R. FItzpatrick, M. E. Mauel, and G. A. Navratil, Phys. Plasmas25, 012517 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    J. M. Finn, A. J. Cole, and D. P. Brennan, Physics of Plasmas22(2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    A. D. Turnbull, J. M. Hanson, F. Turco, N. M. Fer- raro, M. J. Lanctot, L. L. Lao, E. J. Strait, P. Piovesan, and P. Martin, Journal of Plasma Physics82, 515820301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    D. P. Brennan, R. J. La Haye, A. D. Turnbull, M. S. Chu, T. H. Jensen, L. L. Lao, T. C. Luce, P. A. Politzer, E. J. Strait, S. E. Kruger, and D. D. Schnack, Physics of Plasmas10, 1643 (2003)

    work page 2003

  63. [63]

    Fitzpatrick, Physics of plasmas21(2014)

    R. Fitzpatrick, Physics of plasmas21(2014)

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    H. P. Furth, P. H. Rutherford, and H. Selberg, The Physics of Fluids16, 1054 (1973)

    work page 1973

  65. [65]

    S. M. Kaye, R. E. Bell, D. Gates, B. P. LeBlanc, F. M. Levinton, J. E. Menard, D. Mueller, G. Rewoldt, S. A. Sabbagh, W. Wang, and H. Yuh, Physical Review Letters 98, 175002 (2007)

    work page 2007

  66. [66]

    Kumar, G

    N. Kumar, G. Avdeeva, J. Candy, M. Reynolds, E. A. Belli, and C. P. McNally, Nuclear Fusion 10.1088/1741- 4326/adeff2 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741- 2025

  67. [67]

    Henke, E

    B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data TablesV54, 181 (1993)

    work page 1993

  68. [68]

    Maslov, M

    M. Maslov, M. N. A. Beurskens, J. Flanagan, M. Kem- penaars, and J.-E. Contributors, Review of Scientific In- struments83, 096106 (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Sauter, C

    O. Sauter, C. Angioni, and Y. R. Lin-Liu, Physics of Plasmas6, 2834 (1999)

    work page 1999