Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:21:29.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two-fluid electromagnetic instability in a self-consistent inhomogeneous plasma with saturated magnetic shear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

K. Katou  and
H. Mamada
K. Katou
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464, Japan
H. Mamada
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Aichi Universiyt of Education, Kariya 448, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The stability of an inhomogeneous finite-β plasma confined by a sheared magnetic field is analysed in the two-fluid slab approximation. The stationary plasma involves an electron plasma current that is self-consistently generated by magnetic shear through Ampère's law. Magnetic shear is found to be stabilizing (destabilizing) if the electron drift consistent with it is antiparallel (parallel) to the propagation direction of drift waves. Mode stability arises from competition between the Doppler shifts resulting from both the electron diamagnetic drift and the electron drift related to magnetic shear, and the wave frequency. The finite-β effects reduce the growth rate but do not stabilize the mode. In contrast with the hydromagnetic tearing instabilities, the growth rate is proportional to the electron-ion collision frequency, which is regarded as the lowest-order term in powers of the electron-ion collision frequency by Taylor's theorem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 219 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Braginskii, S. I.. 1965 Reviews of Plasma Physics, vol. 1 (ed. Leontovich, M. A.), p. 205. Consultants Bureau.Google Scholar
Cheng, C. Z.. 1982 Phys Fluids. 25. 1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S. C., Kulsrud, R. M. & Jahm, T. S. 1996 Phys Fluids. 29, 3230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, J. F. & Kleva, R. G. 1981 Phys Fluids. 24, 1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furth, H. P., Kileen, J. & Rosenbluth, M. N.. 1963 Phys Fluids. 4, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graessle, D. F. Prager, S. C. & Dexter, R. N. 1989 Phys Lett. 62, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hender, T. C., Carreas, B. A., Cooper, W. A., Diamond, P. H. & Similon, P. L. 1984 Phys Fluids., 27, 1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, C. W. & Varma, R. K. 1972 Phys Fluids. 15, 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadomtsev, B. B. 1965 Plasma Turbulence, p. 82. Academic.Google Scholar
Katou, K. 1990 Phys Fluids. B 2, 1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. J., Gentle, K. W., Ritz, C. P., Rhodes, T. L. & Bengtson, R. D. 1991 Phys Fluids. B 3, 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liewer, P. C. 1985 Nucl Fusion. 25, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauling, L. & Wilson, E. B. 1935 Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, p. 151. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schlitt, L. G. & Hendel, H. M. 1972 Phys Fluids. 15, 1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsang, K. T., Whitson, J. C. & Smith, J. 1979 Phys Fluids. 22, 1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweben, S. J. & Taylor, R. J. 1981 Nucl Fusion. 21, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar