scholarly journals Time-dependent modeling of particles and electromagnetic fields during the substorm growth phase: Anisotropy of energetic electrons

1999 ◽  
Vol 104 (A5) ◽  
pp. 10205-10220 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. K. Toivanen ◽  
T. I. Pulkkinen ◽  
R. H. W. Friedel ◽  
G. D. Reeves ◽  
A. Korth ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
D. Wu ◽  
X. T. He ◽  
W. Yu ◽  
S. Fritzsche

Direct numerical simulation of intense laser–solid interactions is still of great challenges, because of the many coupled atomic and plasma processes, such as ionization dynamics, collision among charged particles and collective electromagnetic fields, to name just a few. Here, we develop a new particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation code, which enables us to calculate laser–solid interactions in a more realistic way. This code is able to cover almost ‘all’ the coupled physical processes. As an application of the new code, the generation and transport of energetic electrons in front of and within the solid target when irradiated by intense laser beams are studied. For the considered case, in which laser intensity is $10^{20}~\text{W}\cdot \text{cm}^{-2}$ and pre-plasma scale length in front of the solid is $10~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$, several quantitative conclusions are drawn: (i) the collisional damping (although it is very weak) can significantly affect the energetic electrons generation in front of the target, (ii) the Bremsstrahlung radiation will be enhanced by 2–3 times when the solid is dramatically heated and ionized, (iii) the ‘cut-off’ electron energy is lowered by an amount of 25% when both collision damping and Bremsstrahlung radiations are included, and (iv) the resistive electromagnetic fields due to Ohmic heating play nonignorable roles and must be taken into account in such interactions.


Geophysics ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-355
Author(s):  
Shri Krishna Singh

In this paper Verma obtains a time‐domain solution by inverting the frequency‐domain solution given by Wait (1952). However, it has been recently pointed out by Singh (1973a) (see also Wait, 1973) that there is an error in the quasi‐static solution of Wait. Wait neglected the axially symmetric inducted electric current in the cylinder giving rise to a secondary transverse magnetic field outside (the n=0 term in the scattered wavefield). Singh (1973a) has shown that this term dominates. [It should be noted that Wait in his other works on the cylinder retains this term (e.g., Wait, 1959).] It is clear that this term would be dominant in the time‐domain also. This has been shown by Singh (1972, 1973b). Since the theoretical solution given by Verma in the paper under discussion is incomplete, his interpretation schemes are meaningless.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document