↓ Skip to main content

Explaining Cold-Pulse Dynamics in Tokamak Plasmas Using Local Turbulent Transport Models

Overview of attention for article published in Physical Review Letters, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Explaining Cold-Pulse Dynamics in Tokamak Plasmas Using Local Turbulent Transport Models
Published in
Physical Review Letters, February 2018
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.120.075001
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. E. White, N. T. Howard, B. A. Grierson, G. M. Staebler, J. E. Rice, X. Yuan, N. M. Cao, A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, A. E. Hubbard, J. W. Hughes, J. H. Irby, F. Sciortino

Abstract

A long-standing enigma in plasma transport has been resolved by modeling of cold-pulse experiments conducted on the Alcator C-Mod tokamak. Controlled edge cooling of fusion plasmas triggers core electron heating on time scales faster than an energy confinement time, which has long been interpreted as strong evidence of nonlocal transport. This Letter shows that the steady-state profiles, the cold-pulse rise time, and disappearance at higher density as measured in these experiments are successfully captured by a recent local quasilinear turbulent transport model, demonstrating that the existence of nonlocal transport phenomena is not necessary for explaining the behavior and time scales of cold-pulse experiments in tokamak plasmas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 19 56%
Energy 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2019.
All research outputs
#963,874
of 25,363,685 outputs
Outputs from Physical Review Letters
#2,949
of 39,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,102
of 350,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physical Review Letters
#75
of 616 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 616 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.