Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:19:43.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolution of small-amplitude intermediate shocks in a dissipative and dispersive system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

C. C. Wu  and
C. F. Kennel
C. C. Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A.
C. F. Kennel
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our study of the relationship between shock structure and evolutionarity is extended to include the effects of dispersion as well as dissipation. We use the derivative nonlinear Schrödinger-Burgers equation (DNLSB), which reduces to the Cohen-Kulsrud-Burgers equation (CKB) when finite ion inertia dispersion can be neglected. As in our previous CKB analysis, the fast shock solution is again unique, and the intermediate shock structure solutions are non-unique. With dispersion, the steady intermediate shock structure solutions continue to be labelled by the integral through the shock of the non-co-planar component of the magnetic field, whose value now depends upon the ratio of the dispersion and dissipation lengths. This integral helps to determine the solution of the Riemann problem. With dispersion, this integral is also non-zero for fast shocks. Thus, even for fast shocks, the solution of the Riemann problem depends upon shock structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 85 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Brio, M. & Wu, C. C. 1987 Nonstrictly Hyperbolic Conservation Laws (ed. Keyfitz, B. & Kranzer, H. C.), p. 19. American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, J. 1940 Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam 43, 2.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. & Kulsrud, R. 1974 Phys. Fluids 17, 2215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHoffmann, F. & Teller, E. 1950 Phys. Rev. 80, 692.Google Scholar
Feeustühler, H. 1990 Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 113, 39.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, A. & Taniuti, T. 1964 Nonlinear Wave Propagation. Academic.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, A. & Petschek, H. 1966 Plasma Physics in Theory and Application (ed. Kunkel, W. B.), p. 148. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kennel, C. F., Blandford, R. D. & Wu, C. C. 1990 Phys. Fluids B2, 253.Google Scholar
Kennel, C. F., Buti, B., Hada, T. & Pellat, R. 1988 Phys. Fluids 31, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, P. D. 1957 Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 10, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruderman, M. S. 1989 Fluid Dynamics 24, 618.Google Scholar
Wu, C. C. 1987 Geophys. Res. Lett. 14, 668.Google Scholar
Wu, C. C. 1988 a J. Geophys. Res. 93, 987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C. C. 1988 b J. Geophys. Res. 93, 3969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C. C. 1990 J. Geophys. Res. 95, 8149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar