Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:09:06.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energetics of compressible models of fast steady-state magnetic reconnection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

M. Jardine  and
E. R. Priest
M. Jardine
Affiliation:
Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, England
E. R. Priest
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An understanding of the energy transfer that takes place during magnetic reconnection is crucial to the study of this fundamental process. It depends on two factors: the type of reconnection regime (which is determined by the boundary conditions) and the degree of compressibility. Here we examine the role of compressibility in the energetics of a family of reconnection models. When the inflow Mach number (or reconnection rate) Me is small the effects of compressibility may be more important than the differences between regimes. We find that for a slow-compression regime with Me = 0·005 compressibility decreases by 39% the efficiency of the shocks in converting magnetic energy and increases by 14% the ratio of thermal to kinetic energy in the outflow jet. This compares with a 13% decrease in the shock efficiency and a 7% decrease in the jet ratio obtained by choosing instead a flux-pile-up regime. As Me is increased, however, the differences between regimes become larger and may be comparable to or greater than the effects of compressibility. Thus when the above Mach number is doubled we find that a change of regime now has 1–6 times the effect on the jet energy ratio as the introduction of compressibility. For those regimes, therefore, which only exist at low inflow Mach numbers, compressibility will always be important. At higher values of Me the type of regime may be the dominant factor governing the energetics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 141 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Forbes, T. G. 1982 Solar Phys. 81, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, T. G. & Priest, E. R. 1983 a Solar Phys. 84, 169.Google Scholar
Forbes, T. G. & Priest, E. R. 1983 b J. Geophys. Rea. 88, 863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, T. G. & Priest, E. R. 1984 Solar Phys. 94, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hones, M. (ed.) 1984 Magnetic. Reconnection in Space and Laboratory Plasmas. American Geophysical Union.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, M. & Priest, E. R. 1988 J. Plasma Phys. 40, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, M. & Priest, E. R. 1989 J. Plasma Phys. 42, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, A. & Taniuti, T. 1964 Non-Linear Wave Propagation. Academic.Google Scholar
Min, K., Okuda, H. & Sato, T. 1985 J. Geophys. Res. 90, 4035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. 1985 Rep. Prog. Phys. 48, 955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. 1986 J. Geophys. Res. 91, 5579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. 1978 Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. 1979 J. Geophys. Res. 84, 7177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T., Walker, R. J. & Ashour-Abdalla, M. 1984 J. Geophys. Res. 89, 9701.Google Scholar
Semenov, V. S., Kubyshkin, I. V. & Heyn, M. F. 1983 J. Plasma Phys. 30, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soward, A. & Priest, E. R. 1982 J. Plasma Phys. 28, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugai, M. 1984 Phys. Fluids 27, 1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugai, M. & Tsuda, T. 1977 J. Plasma Phys. 17, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasyliunas, V. M. 1975 Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 13, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar