Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:35:06.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plasma losses through an adiabatic cusp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

A. S. Kaye
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Queen's University, Belfast

Abstract

Previous calculations of β = 1 cusp losses are extended to the case where there exists a third ‘adiabatic’ invariant of the particle motion, related to the magnetic moment, and additional to the particle energy and angular momentum. Simple analytic results are obtained for the particle and energy loss rate from a Maxwellian plasma in both plane and axisymmetric geometry, electric fields being assumed zero everywhere. The results are valid for a plasma radius large relative to the ion gyro-radius, in which case the adiabaticity in the sense used reduces the loss rate by a factor ⅔λ⅔ to give an overall scaling as λ–⅔ with external mirror ratio λ. The absolute value is about a factor two less than the previously accepted result (for λ = 1 only) for an axisymmetric cusp. cusp. The enhanced scaling with A arises from the absence of a certain class of particles in the sheath, which must be everywhere adiabatic; its applicability to a simple theta pinch is queried, however. The end loss rate of angular momentum is also obtained, and is non-zero at a point cusp. This is shown to lead to rapid rotational instability in a collisionless theta pinch.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berkowitz, J., Friedrichs, K. O., Goertzel, H., Grad, H., Killeen, J. & Rubin, E. 1958. Proc. 2nd UN Int. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 31, 171.Google Scholar
Firsov, O. B. 1959 Plasma Physics and the Problem of Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions (ed. Leontovich, M. A.), vol. 3, p. 385. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Gardner, C. S. 1959 Phys. Rev. 115, 791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grad, H. 1960 Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grad, H. 1963 Progress in Nuclear Energy, 9, Plasma Physics (ed. Longmire, C. L. et al.), vol. 2, p. 189. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Grossman, W. B. 1966 Phys. Fluids, 9, 2478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, F. A. & Wesson, J. A. 1966 Phys. Fluids, 9, 2472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, M. G. 1965 Advances in Physics, 14, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, A. S. 1968 D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Kilb, R. W. 1967 Proc. A.P.S. Topical Conf. on Pulsed High Density Plasmas, LA.3770 B5.Google Scholar
Roberts, K. V. 1962 Nucl. Fusion Suppl. (2), 521.Google Scholar
Rosenbluth, M. N., Krall, N. A. & Rostoker, N. 1962 Nucl. Fusion Suppl. (1), 143.Google Scholar
Rosenbluth, M. N. & Simon, A. 1965 Phys. Fluids, 8, 1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostoker, N. & Kolb, A. C. 1961 Phys. Rev. 124, 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalding, I. J. 1968 Nucl. Fusion, 8, 161.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B. 1962 J. Nucl. Energy C 4, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. B. 1966 Culham Laboratory Rep. CLM R 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar