Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:44:46.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hydrodynamic Hamilton theory for discussing the space charge (Langmuir–Child Law) at high density particle currents between poles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Cord Passow
Cord Passow
Affiliation:
Institut für Kernphysik, 7500 Karlsruhe, Postfach 3640, Federal Republic of Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to calculate more generally the space-charge limited current between two points of different voltage, modern differential geometrical methods are applied. This problem was first treated by Child (1911) and later by Langmuir (1913). It is possible, for example, to account for effects due to more than one charge component as well as the influence of a neutral background gas (which causes ionization and scattering of charge carriers). A systematic derivation of the self-consistent representation based on a Hamilton theory for density functions is given, and solution methods are discussed. The concept is designed to investigate ion and electron diodes with very intense currents, but it may also be useful for treating space charge problems in a stationary plasma.

Type
Research Article
Information
Laser and Particle Beams , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , August 1988 , pp. 579 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Acton, E. W. 1957 J. Electron Control 3, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, V. I. 1966. Ann. Inst. Fourier Grenoble 16, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, J. E. & Kelleher, D. 1969 J. Appl. Phys. 40, 2409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boggasch, E. et al. 1983 Proc. 5th. Inter. Conf. High-Power Particle Beams,San Francisco,208.Google Scholar
Buneman, O. 1980 Phys. Fluids 23, 1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cap, F. 1976 Handbood on Plasma Instabilities I, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Child, C. D. 1911 Phys. Rev. 32, 492.Google Scholar
Christiansen, J. & Schultheiss, Ch., 1979 Z. Physik A290, 35; and Private communication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsworthy, M. P. et al. 1986 IEEE Trans. Plas. Sc. P5 14, 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, M. G. 1983 Nucl. Inst. Meth. 207, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jory, H. R. & Trivelpiece, A. W., 1969 J. Appl. Phys. 40, 3924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langmuir, I. 1913 Phys. Rev. 2, 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, J. E.Weinstein, A. 1982 Physica 4D, 394.Google Scholar
Morrisson, P. J., 1982 AIP conf. Proc. 88, 13.Google Scholar
Morrisson, P. J. 1984 Phys. Letters 100a, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudan, R. N., 1983 Lecture notes, Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH Postfach D-7500 Karlsruhe 1 FRG.Google Scholar