Paper detail

Reply to Reply and Further Analysis of paper "New probing techniques of radiative shocks" (C. Stehle et al, Opt.Comm. 285, 64 (2012))

We show in this paper that the "reply to comment" by Chantal Stehlé et al was not satisfactorily and is contradictory to their latest results. The analysis of the published results of their last campaign reveals an average shock velocity below 20 km/s which should not be compatible with the existence of a radiative precursor. Furthermore, XUV probing is sensitive to density more than to temperature and is not suited to probe a radiative precursor, which is a pure temperature wave. These results also suggest exploding back layers of the pusher and some jet originating from a crater at the back of the pusher.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.