We have discovered that one of the original articles [1] findings, that the actual choice of the dimensionless parameter χ _{∥i 0} for the ion heat conductivity11 *χ _{∥i 0} is obtained by normalizing the Braginskii ion parallel heat conductivity to , with . seemed to play no role for the simulation results, was not physical. Instead, due to a mistake in the handling of input parameters, χ _{∥i 0} was actually not used in the code ‐ the dimensionless electron heat

conductivity χ _{∥e 0} was used instead. Hence, the results in chapter 4 and the conclusions are correct only if χ _{∥i 0} = χ _{∥e 0}. For the reference case, this means χ _{∥i 0} = χ _{∥e 0} = 26.6 was used,22 ^†We have for deuterium χ _{∥i 0}/χ _{∥e 0} = 23 ≠ 35 because the electron collision frequency was calculated with Z _eff = 1.5. instead of what we thought was χ _{∥i 0} = 1.15 and χ _{∥e 0} = 26.6. The rest of the code and model is correct.

We have fixed the error, verified the code and rerun all the simulations. The main conclusion is that the dimensionless ion heat conductivity χ _{∥i 0} plays as much of a role for the equilibrium ion temperature profile T _i as the electron heat conductivity χ _{∥e 0} for the electron profile T _e . Further, with the correct heat conductivity χ _{∥i 0} = 1.15, T _i saturates faster ‐ after ms ‐ while it was still not saturated at 1.5 ms with the wrong χ _{∥i 0} = χ _{∥e 0} = 26.6. The saturation time for the plasma density n and electron temperature T _e remain the same ‐ ms.

Figure 1, left, shows the saturated radial profiles for the reference simulation. We find that in comparison to the mistakenly used χ _{∥i 0} = 26.6, the proper, lower ion heat conductivity χ _{∥i 0} = 1.15 increases the stationary ion temperature gradient ∂ _r T _i in the confined region, leading to T _i  < T _e at the separatrix. The T _i profile and fluctuation level are now similar to those of the plasma density n . The T _e and n profiles remain unaffected. The stationary profile of the electrostatic potential ϕ flattens in the confined region due to the lower T _i , while it remains the same in the SOL following T _e . In the far SOL, T _i  > T _e is found due to electron sheath heat transmission ‐ unlike in the case without this boundary condition (γ _e  = 0). We note that the previously observed result, T _i  > T _e also at the separatrix, is recovered again at higher temperature, see double temperature case in Figure 1, right.

Other results of the original article [1] hold true, at least qualitatively. The GAM frequency spectrum, shown in Figure 2, is somewhat different quantitatively. With the lower ion heat conductivity χ _{∥i 0}, the ion temperature fluctuates more, but overall the turbulence is nonetheless enhanced with increasing density and suppressed with increasing temperature, see Figure 3. In cases 2 and 3 from chapter 4.1, we already had χ _{∥i 0} = χ _{∥e 0} (and case 4 was actually nearly the same as the reference scenario), so the result holds that reducing χ _{∥i 0} and χ _{∥e 0} below 0.1 has no impact on outboard midplane profiles.

We additionally remark that the Bohm sheath boundary conditions (7) for parallel velocity should contain T _i , . Also, there is a mistake in the indexes in Equation (9): instead of ∇_⊥p ^{i  + j} , it should read .

我们已经发现，原来文章之一[ 1 ]的研究结果，即无量纲参数的实际选择χ _∥我0的离子热conductivity11 * χ _∥我0是通过归一化Braginskii离子平行导热率来获得，与。似乎对模拟结果没有作用，不是物理上的。取而代之的是，由于在输入参数，处理一个错误χ _∥我0实际上不是在代码中使用-无量纲电子热

电导率χ _{∥ Ë 0}被替代地使用。因此，在第4章的结果和结论是正确的仅当χ _∥我0  =  χ _{∥ Ë 0}。对于参考的情况下，此装置χ _∥我0  =  χ _{∥ Ë 0}  = 26.6使用，22 ^†我们有氘χ _∥我0 / χ _{∥ ë 0}  = 23≠35由于电子碰撞频率与计算出的Ž _EFF  = 1.5。而不是什么我们认为是χ _∥我0  = 1.15和χ _{∥ Ë 0}  = 26.6。其余的代码和模型是正确的。

我们已经修复了错误，验证了代码，然后重新运行所有仿真。的主要结论是，无量纲离子热导率χ _∥我0戏剧作为多大作用的平衡离子的温度分布的Ť_我作为电子热导率χ _{∥ Ë 0}用于电子轮廓Ť _ë。此外，在正确的热传导率χ _∥我0  = 1.15，Ť_我饱和更快-后毫秒-而它仍然没有在1.5毫秒与错误的饱和χ _∥我0 =  χ _{∥ Ë 0}  = 26.6。等离子体密度n和电子温度T _e的饱和时间保持不变。

左图1显示了用于参考模拟的饱和径向轮廓。我们发现，相比于错误地使用χ _∥我0  = 26.6，适当的，较低离子热导率χ _∥我0  = 1.15的增加而固定离子温度梯度∂ _ř Ť_我在限定区域，从而导致Ť_我 <  Ť _e在分隔线处。所述Ť_我的个人资料和波动水平现在是类似于那些等离子体密度的Ñ。的Ť _Ë和Ñ配置文件不受影响。静电电位的固定轮廓φ在受限区域由于较低的变平Ť_我，同时它保持在跟随SOL相同Ť _ë。在远SOL，Ť_我 >  Ť _Ë没有这个边界条件不同的情况下（ -被发现由于电子鞘传热γ _ë  = 0）。我们注意到，先前观察到的结果，也就是在分隔线处的T _i  >  T _e，在更高的温度下又恢复了，参见图1中双温情况。

原始文章[ 1 ]的其他结果至少在定性上成立。图2所示的GAM频谱在数量上有所不同。与下部离子热导率χ _∥我0，离子温度变动较多，但整体的紊流仍然随密度增强，并且随着温度的升高受到抑制，参见图3。在例2和3中从第4.1章，我们已经有了χ _∥我0  =  χ _{∥ è 0}（和壳体4实际上几乎相同的参考方案），所以结果认为，减少χ _∥我0和χ _{∥ Ë 0}低于0.1对外侧平面轮廓没有影响。

我们另外此话该玻姆鞘平行速度的边界条件（7）应包含Ť_我，。此外，还有在索引中的错误公式（9）：不是∇ _⊥ p^{我 +  Ĵ}，应该阅读。