Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Near-axis quasi-isodynamic database

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds a database of over 800,000 quasi-isodynamic stellarator configurations and extracts design heuristics from it.

desk verdict A genuinely new 800k-configuration QI near-axis database, carefully constructed and open; the f_J section has an internal consistency gap that needs addressing before the heuristics are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.08400 v3 pith:R663LPU3 submitted 2026-01-13 physics.plasm-ph

Eduardo Rodriguez , Gabriel G. Plunk This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords quasi-isodynamicstellaratorsnear-axisexpansionstellaratordatabasedesignheuristicseffectiverippleMHDstabilitymaximum-Jmagneticgradientscale
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

The paper constructs a first-of-its-kind database of more than 800,000 approximately quasi-isodynamic (QI) vacuum stellarator configurations using the near-axis expansion. Each configuration is defined by a handful of geometric inputs and evaluated with a broad set of physics measures: magnetic gradient scale, critical aspect ratio for MHD stability, maximum-J fraction, effective ripple, Shafranov shift sensitivity, and more. The authors analyze this dataset statistically to uncover heuristics about how field-period number, torsion, curvature, and elongation control these properties. The result is a systematic map of a wide region of QI design space, together with baseline configurations for future optimization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the near-axis expansion to second order for quasi-isodynamic fields, with a specific parameterization: axis curvature and torsion with two flattening points per field period, a flattened on-axis field minimum, and prescribed flux-surface elongation. This yields a low-dimensional input space (eight scalars) that is exhaustively scanned. Diagnostics include L∇B, A_mhd^c, f_J, epsilon_eff, Shafranov shift sensitivity, and q_eff. Statistical tools—linear and non-linear correlations, permutation feature importance, conditional Shapley values, forward sequential feature selection, and clustering—identify the dominant geometric drivers.

What would settle it

Take a subset of the database's 'good' configurations (e.g., the N=2 figure-8) and reconstruct them as global equilibria at the near-axis-predicted finite aspect ratio using an independent equilibrium solver. If flux surfaces break before the predicted critical aspect ratio, or if the calculated effective ripple including the first-order buffer terms exceeds the near-axis threshold by more than a factor of two, the central claim would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the near-axis expansion now enables a systematic, exhaustive mapping of quasi-isodynamic stellarator design space. Its construction parameterizes each configuration by eight scalars (axis curvature and torsion, on-axis field shape, flux-surface elongation), yielding a database of over 800,000 vacuum, approximately QI fields. Statistical analysis yields heuristics: the magnetic gradient scale is set mainly by torsion at the field minimum; MHD stability favors low integrated torsion and elongation stretching; maximum-J can exceed 80% at any field period; and effective ripple is the most restrictive measure. 'Good' configurations exist for N=1-5 but not N=6.

Load-bearing premise

The entire database assumes that a vacuum field's near-axis second-order expansion accurately represents a real stellarator equilibrium at finite aspect ratio, and in particular that first-order 'buffer' deviations from omnigeneity can be ignored when computing the effective ripple; if these approximations fail, the rankings and heuristics could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the database is accurate, it provides thousands of baseline QI configurations that can serve as initial conditions for full-scale stellarator optimization, reducing the sensitivity of QI optimization to initial guesses.
  • The heuristics indicate that lower field period numbers are systematically better for coil compatibility, MHD-stability shaping, and low neoclassical transport, while higher N improves beta resilience and zonal-flow support—quantifying the trade-off behind the choice of intermediate N in reactor designs.
  • The figure-8-like configurations at N=2 stand out as the most compact stable configurations in the database, with aspect ratios around 2.3, offering a promising starting point for ultra-compact QI designs.
  • Maximum-J behaviour can be achieved approximately at all field period numbers in a vacuum, with f_J exceeding 80% for the best cases, suggesting that turbulence-suppressing configurations need not be limited to low N.
  • The effective ripple is the most restrictive 'goodness' criterion; no N=6 configurations satisfy all three thresholds, implying that transport-optimized high-N configurations require more flexible shaping than the current parameterization allows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the database's near-axis heuristics survive global reconstruction, they imply a design principle not explicitly stated in the paper: the torsion at the field minimum, rather than average torsion, is the master parameter for coil-plasma distance. This could be used as a fast analytic proxy for coil complexity in future stellarator codes.
  • A natural extension is to use the database to train a surrogate model that predicts epsilon_eff from the eight input scalars, enabling inverse design by gradient-based optimization directly in near-axis parameter space.
  • The observed clustering into 'flat' and 'crown' families suggests distinct local minima in the design landscape; a testable hypothesis is whether these families are topologically distinct in terms of axis self-linking number or writhe, which might explain why optimization tends to converge to one family or the other.
  • Because the database is limited to half-helicity, flattening class (2,3), and second order near-axis, the absence of 'good' N=6 configurations is not a fundamental bound; extending the parameterization (e.g., more Fourier harmonics in curvature/torsion or a different helicity) could plausibly produce good high-N configurations, and the database's structure can guide where to search.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a database of more than 800,000 near-axis quasi-isodynamic (QI) stellarator vacuum configurations, built from the authors' previously developed second-order near-axis construction with a restricted set of input parameters (axis torsion/curvature coefficients, elongation coefficients, mirror ratio, well-width parameter, and field period number). Each configuration is evaluated with near-axis measures: magnetic gradient scale L_∇B, critical aspect ratio A_mhd^c for a marginal vacuum well, maximum-J fraction f_J, effective ripple ε_eff, Shafranov shift sensitivity, and finite-orbit-width measures. The authors apply statistical tools (correlation, FSFS, PFI/cSAGE, clustering) to identify design heuristics, e.g. that low N favours coil compatibility and low ripple, high N favours high rotational transform and low Shafranov shift, and that maximum-J can be achieved at all N. The database is publicly released.

Significance. If the reported construction and diagnostics hold up, this is a valuable open resource: it maps a substantial, if deliberately restricted, part of near-axis QI design space and provides a large set of initial conditions for optimisation. The construction is internally careful — axis closure and first-order realness/periodicity are checked, and many measures are computed from parameter-free near-axis formulas rather than fitted to targets. The statistical analysis is thorough and reproducible in principle. The main weakness is the f_J computation, which omits a first-order non-omnigenous term that the manuscript itself says dominates near the axis; this could bias the maximum-J heuristics. The abstract's 'stable' also overstates the marginal W=0 vacuum-well nature of the representative configurations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix D, §3.3, Eq. (D1) and Eq. (3.6)-(3.8), Table 6] The f_J computation uses only the O(r^0) omnigenous precession term ω_{α,vac} in Eq. (3.8), dropping the first-order non-QI term ω^{non-QI}_{α,-1}(λ) cos α / r shown in Eq. (D1). Appendix D itself states that this 1/r term 'dominate[s] precession sufficiently close to the magnetic axis, expecting f_J ≈ 0.5 there.' No estimate is given for the crossover radius r* = |ω^{non-QI}_{α,-1}|/|ω_{α,vac}|, nor is r* compared with the reference radius r_ref entering Eq. (3.6). Since Eq. (3.6) integrates with weight r dr from 0 to r_ref, the inner region contributes non-negligibly unless r* ≪ r_ref. If that condition is not met, the reported f_J maxima (Table 6: 0.86–0.91) are biased upward, and the conclusion in §3.3.2 and §4 that maximum-J is achievable at all N without excessive shaping may be an artifact. Please quantify r* for representative configurations across the database, or recompute f_J
  2. [Abstract, §1, §2, §3.2] The abstract and introduction describe the database as containing 'stable ... configurations', but the representative chosen for each first-order configuration is the marginal W=0 vacuum-well case (§2: 'marginal representative, W=0'; §3.2: 'marginally stable construction'). A vanishing vacuum well is a marginal condition, not a stable one, and A_mhd^c as defined in Eq. (3.3) is the aspect ratio at which the near-axis construction first breaks, not a demonstrated stability boundary. The 'stable' wording should be qualified as 'marginally stable (W=0)' in the abstract and wherever the database is summarised, to avoid overstating the physical content.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B and §3.1.2] The acronym SVR is used inconsistently: 'Statistical Vector Regression' in Appendix B.2, 'Statistical Virtual Regression' in the main text and later in Appendix B. Please use the standard 'Support Vector Regression' throughout.
  2. [Eq. (3.11)] The integral limits 'Z 1/Bmin over 1/Bmax' are difficult to read; the notation should be cleaned up (likely ∫_{1/Bmax}^{1/Bmin}).
  3. [Table 6] The superscript/subscript notation for maxima and minima (e.g. '0.43^0.12_0.27') is non-standard and hard to parse. Please define the notation explicitly in the caption or use a clearer format.
  4. [§3.4.1] The statement that the first-order buffer contribution ε_{eff}^{3/2,(0)} 'may be in practice ignored' would benefit from a quantitative justification — for example, citing the values in Table 6, which appear to be several orders of magnitude smaller than the ε_edge values used in the 'good' configuration criteria.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the database and heuristics are computed from independent near-axis formulas and descriptive statistics, not from fitting the target conclusions.

full rationale

The database is generated by scanning the stated input features and retaining configurations only if curve closure and first-order σ-equation periodicity/realness succeed. None of these filters use the physics diagnostics (L∇B, A_mhd^c, ϵeff, fJ) as targets, so the database is not constructed to force the reported trends. The diagnostics are evaluated from explicit near-axis formulas (Eqs. 3.1, 3.3, 3.10, 3.6-3.8) with stated assumptions; statistical conclusions (correlations, FSFS rankings, APM) are descriptive summaries of those computed values, not predictions obtained from fitted parameters that are then called independent. Self-citations to Plunk & Rodríguez (2026) and Rodriguez & Plunk (2025) transmit prior derivations with stated assumptions; they are not invoked as unverified uniqueness theorems and do not make the central claim definitional. The one caveat that could be mistaken for circularity is the use of ω_α≈ω_α,vac in Eq. (3.8): Appendix D explicitly notes the dropped 1/r buffer term dominates very close to the axis and would give fJ≈0.5 there, and no crossover radius is given. That is an internal correctness/validation risk, not a circular step, because the approximation is not fitted to or defined by the fJ values it is used to report. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claim (a public, code-generated database with stated near-axis assumptions) does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or physical entities. It rests on the near-axis equilibrium model and a specific quasi-isodynamic ansatz; the free parameters are the structural choices and scan ranges that define the database, not fitted constants.

free parameters (7)
  • u = 2
    Order of curvature zero at B_max, chosen to enforce 1/2 helicity (Eq. 2.2 and Appendix E).
  • v = 3
    Odd order of curvature zero at B_min, required for QI; defines the (2,3) flattening class (Eq. 2.2, Sec. 2).
  • Nκ, Nτ = 2, 2
    Truncation of Fourier series for curvature and torsion (Eqs. 2.2-2.3); restricts input space.
  • helicity = 1/2
    Half-helicity QI fields only; other helicities are left to future work (Appendix E).
  • W = 0
    Each configuration is represented by the marginally stable vacuum-well W=0 family (Sec. 2, Sec. 3.2).
  • B0 shape = (1+λB, 1/4-2λB, -λB)
    On-axis field-strength form with B0''=0 at minima, chosen to promote MHD stability (Eq. 2.4).
  • scan ranges = Table 4
    Rectangular grid domains for the eight input features; a survey choice that defines database coverage and granularity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Second-order near-axis expansion accurately describes finite-aspect-ratio quasi-isodynamic equilibria.
    Used throughout to compute L_∇B, A^mhd_c, ε_eff, f_J; validity away from the axis is acknowledged as limited (Sec. 3.1.1 footnote).
  • ad hoc to paper First-order omnigeneity holds except in neglected buffer regions; buffer contributions to ε_eff are ignorable.
    Sec. 3.4.1: 'may be in practice ignored'; footnote in Sec. 3.1.3 calls the ideal QI limit 'artificial' but valid near B_min.
  • ad hoc to paper The prescribed (κ, τ, ρ, B0) parameterization spans a representative subset of quasi-isodynamic stellarators.
    Restricts to half-helicity, flattening class (2,3), Nκ=Nτ=2; authors note other configurations likely exist (Sec. 3.4.2, Sec. 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The marginal W=0 construction represents each first-order configuration's family for stability and shaping.
    Sec. 2: 'We shall often represent each of these families by its marginal representative, W=0, unless otherwise stated.'
  • standard math Vacuum magnetic well W governs MHD stability via Mercier's criterion in the low-beta limit.
    Sec. 3.2: 'restricted notion of a vacuum magnetic well ... leading low-beta limit of Mercier’s criterion.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-axis quasi-isodynamic database." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R663LPU3

@misc{pith2026260108400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-axis quasi-isodynamic database},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R663LPU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.08400}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the landscape of quasi-isodynamic stellarators using the near-axis expansion of the magnetic field. Building on recent theoretical developments, we construct a database of more than 800,000 stable, approximately quasi-isodynamic vacuum magnetic configurations. These configurations span a range of field period numbers and other geometric control parameters, including the magnetic axis shape and plasma elongation. To evaluate each configuration, we use a broad set of measures, including effective ripple, sensitivity of the Shafranov shift to changes in plasma beta, the prevalence of maximum-J trapped particles, and the Rosenbluth-Hinton residual, among others. This enables an exhaustive, thorough and quantitative characterization of the database. Statistical analysis and modern machine learning techniques are then employed to find correlations, and identify key descriptors and heuristics to help understand tendencies that govern the behaviour of numerical optimization. The database provides baseline configurations for further studies, and to serve as tailored initial conditions for optimization. With this work we initiate a long term program to complete a systematic exploration of quasi-isodynamic stellarator design space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. L∇B behaviour across different number of field periods. a) Dependence of the maximum and mean value of L∇B as a function of the number of field periods N in the database. Reference scalings are given as dotted lines and the distribution of the configurations as violin plots. b) Rendering of the 3D finite aspect ratio flux surface of L∇B maximising fields for each number of field periods in the database. As a result … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistical summary of feature dependence for L∇B. This figure is representative of the input feature dependence of derived quantities employed in the analysis and discussion of the database, here exemplified by L∇B. (a) Scatter plots illustrating any univariate dependence of L∇B on the features τc1 and τc2, for the N = 2 subset. (b) Summary of key statistical measures describing the dependence of L∇B on input featu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analysis of torsion dependence of L∇B. The left plots show L∇B in the N = 4 subset (lightgray scatter) as a function of the value of torsion at the field minimum, τˇ, and the combination of torsion and curvature at the point where curvature is maximum, C. The black broken lines represent the two different predicted upper bounds for L∇B, illustrating the two limiting contributions indicated in the diagram (right). Th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Despite this clear role, the FSFS analysis only gives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Amhd c behaviour across different number of field periods. a) Dependence of the minimum and median value of Amhd c as a function of the number of field periods N in the database. Reference scaling is given as dotted line. b) Rendition of the 3D finite aspect ratio flux…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average percentile measure (APM) for lowest Amhd c . (Left) Schematic diagram for the average percentile measure (APM) calculation. (Right) APM of the best Amhd c 150 configuration subset (roughly the lowest 1000th quantile for N ⩾ 2) respect to the total population as…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Clustering of least shaped N = 2 configurations. The figure shows the clustering of the 1 thousandth percentile (a total of 145 configurations) of least shaped N = 2 configurations represented as a cloud of points in 2D. MDS was used to perform the dimensionality reduc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of least shaped marginally stable configurations of the "flat" and "crown" classes. The figures are a 3D rendition of the representative least shaped, marginally stable configurations continuing the two N = 2 families in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Family of N = 1 configurations. Examples of configurations belonging to the low Amhd c , N = 1 family of configurations. A continuum of stellarators parametrised by the integrated torsion appears to exist, their corresponding critical aspect ratios are, in order, Amhd …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: High and low shaping approaches to fJ . a) Near-axis detail of the high (top) and low (bottom) shaping approaches to fJ . Configurations are N = 2 corresponding to the red scatter from the shaped cluster and (ii) in (c). The left plots show the contributions to the int…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Large curvature fields in the large fJ subsets. The figure presents three examples of large curvature fields for a) N = 3, b) N = 4 and c) N = 5, as part of the low shaping clusters. These show a knotted configuration, a crown and a curled alternative. Both a) and c) …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of fJ with different amounts of MHD stabilising shaping. The plots show the value of both the fraction of maximum J for different amounts of shaping tuned to achieve a magnetic well (negative values) desired, W. Plot a) corresponds to the highly shaped confi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ϵ edge eff behaviour across different number of field periods. a) Dependence of the minimum and median value of ϵ edge eff as a function of the number of field periods N in the database. Reference scaling is given as dotted line and distributions represented as vertic…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FSFS summary for ϵ edge eff and average percentile of lowest ϵ edge eff subspace. The left table summarises the top selected features by FSFS on the combined input features detailed in Appendix B. The numerical value represents the coefficient of determination R2 of t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ‘Good’ configurations in the database. (a) 3D rendition of the largest L∇B configurations in the ‘good’ configuration subset per field period. (b) Example of variety of good N = 2 configurations in a lower dimensional MDS representation showing larger and lower torsio…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Behaviour of high-N prone properties across number of field periods. The plots show the behaviour of the mean and maximum (or minimum) values of the database as a function of the number of field periods N of (a) rotational transform, ι, (b) relative shift of surfaces …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Illustration of different correlation measures. Examples of different data distributions illustrating the limitations of the different correlation measures (Pearson, Spearman and non-linear). The artificial data is generated using (a) a linear function, (b) a cubic fu…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Correlation analysis of L∇B with input features. a) L∇B distribution as a function of the input features for the N = 4 subset of the database. b) Pearson (circles) and Spearman (triangles) correlation for different input features and different number of field periods …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Characteristic features of the basic input near-axis functions. Diagram showing the definition of characteristic features of curvature, torsion elongation and magnetic field. These features have a clearer meaning compared to the true input parameters, and magnetic str…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Forward sequential feature selection examples. The two plots show the evolution of the R2 coefficient of determination of the random forest models fitted as each of the features is added to the set of inputs. The bars denotes the coefficient of determination of a univ…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Feature importance analysis for L∇B dependence on input features. PFI and cSAGE feature importance for the input features for predicting L∇B of the N = 4 subset of the database. The goodness of the model fit is shown on the right margin of the plot, in this case showi…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Friedman H-statistic for L∇B dependence on input features. Summary of the feature overlap quantified by the Friedman H-statistic as a function of input feature for different number of field periods. The value of the statistic shown is the maximum value of Hi,j for fix…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Illustrating examples of different Kauffmann number curves. 3D (top) and knot diagram (along the z-axis, bottom) for a LK = 0 and LK = 1 curves. The curve on the left has LK = 0 as it follows from the lack of crossings. The gray curve is generated by the blackboard fr…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Feature dependence statistical summary for Amhd c . (a) Scatter plots showing the univariate dependence of Amhd c on the features τc1 and ρ1c, for the N = 2 subset. (b) Summary of key statistical measures describing the dependence of Amhd c on input features. (Top lef…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Feature dependence statistical summary for fJ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Feature dependence statistical summary for ϵ edge eff . Boozer, Allen H 1983 Transport and isomorphic equilibria. The Physics of Fluids 26 (2), 496–499. Boozer, Allen H 1998 What is a stellarator? Physics of Plasmas 5 (5), 1647–1655. Borg, Ingwer & Groenen, Patrick JF…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exploring the link between coil non-planarity and magnetic surface geometry across a dataset of QI stellarators

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Statistical study of QI stellarator designs shows principal-direction rotation rate of the plasma boundary best predicts coil non-planarity, with surface features yielding Random Forest R²=0.882.

  2. Equilibrium of a simplified coil quasi-axisymmetric stellarator: Free boundary approach

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Optimized quasi-axisymmetric stellarator equilibria using a four-coil setup achieve reasonably good neoclassical transport for both vacuum and finite-pressure cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    CRC press

    Animov, Yu2001Differential geometry and topology of curves. CRC press. Beidler, CD, Harmeyer, E, Herrnegger, F, Igitkhanov, Yu, Kendl, A, Kisslinger, J, Kolesnichenko, Ya I, Lutsenko, VV, Nührenberg, C, Sidorenko, I & others 2001 The helias reactor hsr4/18.Nuclear Fusion41(12),

    2001

  2. [3]

    Plunk, G

    omnigenity near the magnetic axis.Journal of Plasma Physics 85(6), 905850602. Plunk, G. G. & Rodríguez, E.2026 A geometric approach to constructing quasi-isodynamic fields.Journal of Plasma Physics, in press, arXiv: 2508.12820. Pohl, William F1968 The self-linking number of a closed space curve.Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17(10), 975–985. Proll, J...

    arXiv 2026

  3. [5]

    Spitzer Jr, Lyman1958 The stellarator concept.The Physics of Fluids1(4), 253–264

    New York - London: Consultants Bureau. Spitzer Jr, Lyman1958 The stellarator concept.The Physics of Fluids1(4), 253–264. Tenenbaum, Joshua B, Sil v a, Vin de & Langford, John C2000 A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction.science290(5500), 2319–2323. W armer, Felix, Alguacil, J, Biek, D, Bogaarts, T, Bongiovì, G, Bykov, V, Catal...

    2025

  4. [117]

    Nührenberg, Jürgen2010 Development of quasi-isodynamic stellarators.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion52(12), 124003. 50E. Rodriguez, G. G. Plunk Oberti, Chiara & Ricca, Renzo L2016 On torus knots and unknots.Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications25(06), 1650036. Panici, Dario, Rodriguez, Eduardo, Conlin, Rory, Dudt, Daniel & Kolemen, Egemen2025 E...

    arXiv 2011

  5. [213]

    I., Shafranov, V

    Mikhailov, M. I., Shafranov, V. D., Subbotin, A. A., Isaev, M. Y., Nührenberg, J., Zille, R. & Cooper, W. A.200242(11), L23–L26. Moff att, Henry Keith & Ricca, Renzo L1992 Helicity and the călugăreanu invariant. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 439(1906), 411–429. Molnar, Christoph2020Interpretable m...

    1906

  6. [724]

    N.1968 Low-frequency limit of interchange instability.The Physics of Fluids 11(4), 869–872, arXiv: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1692009

    Rosenbluth, M. N.1968 Low-frequency limit of interchange instability.The Physics of Fluids 11(4), 869–872, arXiv: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1692009. Sánchez, E., Velasco, J. L., Cal vo, I. & Mulas, S.2023 A quasi-isodynamic configuration with good confinement of fast ions at low plasmaβ.Nuclear Fusion63(6), 066037. Schölkopf, Bernhard & ...

    doi:10.1063/1.1692009 1968

  7. [1759]

    P., Moses, R

    Bernardin, M. P., Moses, R. W. & Tataronis, J. A.1986 Isodynamical (omnigenous) equilibriuminsymmetricallyconfinedplasmaconfigurations.The Physics of Fluids29(8), 2605–2611. Blank, HJ de2004 Guiding center motion.Fusion science and technology45(2T), 47–54. 46E. Rodriguez, G. G. Plunk Figure 24:Feature dependence statistical summary forfJ. Figure 25:Featur...

    arXiv 1986

  8. [2830]

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

    Pfefferlé, Da vid, Gunderson, Lee, Hudson, Stuart R & Noakes, Lyle2018 Non- planar elasticae as optimal curves for the magnetic axis of stellarators.Physics of Plasmas 25(9). Plunk, GG, Drevlak, M, Rodriguez, E, Babin, R, Goodman, A & Hindenlang, F 2024 Back to the figure-8 stellarator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16411. Plunk, G. G., Landreman, M. & Helande...

    arXiv 2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.