Magnetic field profile of a mesoscopic SQUID-shaped superconducting film

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 075005 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Rogeri ◽  
R Zadorosny ◽  
P N Lisboa-Filho ◽  
E Sardella ◽  
W A Ortiz
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Superconducting Film ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile

Dependence of the a-Si:H Defect Density of States on the Magnetic Field Profile of an Electron Cyclotron Resonance Microwave Plasma

1992 ◽  
Vol 258 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.S. Pool ◽  
J.M. Essick ◽  
Y.H. Shing ◽  
R.T. Mather
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Density Of States ◽  
Cyclotron Resonance ◽  
Electron Cyclotron Resonance ◽  
Microwave Plasma ◽  
Defect Density ◽  
Electron Cyclotron ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile ◽  
The Magnetic Field

ABSTRACTThe magnetic field profile of an electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) microwave plasma was systematically altered to determine subsequent effects on a-Si:H film quality. Films of a-Si:H were deposited at pressures of 0.7 mTorr and 5 mTorr with a H2/SiH4 ratio of approximately three. The mobility gap density of states ND, deposition rate and light to dark conductivity were determined for the a-Si:H films. This data was correlated to the magnetic field profile of the plasma, which was characterized by Langmuir probe measurements of the ion current density. By variation of the magnetic field profile ND could be altered by more than an order of magnitude, from 1×1016 to 1×1017 at 0.7 mTorr and 1×1016 to 5×1017 at 5 mTorr. Two deposition regimes were found to occur for the conditions of this study. Highly divergent magnetic fields resulted in poor quality a-Si:H, while for magnetic field profiles defining a more highly confined plasma, the a-Si:H was of device quality and relatively independent of the magnetic field configuration.

Generation of a Large Swelling in the Spatial Magnetic Field Profile near the Coil Axis of a Theta Pinch

1987 ◽  
Vol 26 (Part 1, No. 10) ◽  
pp. 1727-1732
Author(s):  
Sukeomi Ogi ◽  
Masaharu Shiratani ◽  
Yukio Watanabe
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile ◽  
Theta Pinch ◽  
Coil Axis

scholarly journals Non-stationarity of the quasi-perpendicular bow shock: comparison between Cluster observations and simulations

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Comişel ◽  
M. Scholer ◽  
J. Soucek ◽  
S. Matsukiyo
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Bow Shock ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
Mass Ratio ◽  
Poynting Flux ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile ◽  
Low Mass ◽  
Low Mass Ratio ◽  
The Waves ◽  
The Magnetic Field

Abstract. We have performed full particle electromagnetic simulations of a quasi-perpendicular shock. The shock parameters have been chosen to be appropriate for the quasi-perpendicular Earth's bow shock observed by Cluster on 24 January 2001 (Lobzin et al., 2007). We have performed two simulations with different ion to electron mass ratio: run 1 with mi/me=1840 and run 2 with mi/me=100. In run 1 the growth rate of the modified two-stream instability (MTSI) is large enough to get excited during the reflection and upstream gyration of part of the incident solar wind ions. The waves due to the MTSI are on the whistler mode branch and have downstream directed phase velocities in the shock frame. The Poynting flux (and wave group velocity) far upstream in the foot is also directed in the downstream direction. However, in the density and magnetic field compression region of the overshoot the waves are refracted and the Poynting flux in the shock frame is directed upstream. The MTSI is suppressed in the low mass ratio run 2. The low mass ratio run shows more clearly the non-stationarity of the shock with a larger time scale of the order of an inverse ion gyrofrequency (Ωci): the magnetic field profile flattens and steepens with a period of ~1.5Ωci−1. This non-stationarity is different from reformation seen in previous simulations of perpendicular or quasi-perpendicular shocks. Beginning with a sharp shock ramp the large electric field in the normal direction leads to high reflection rate of solar wind protons. As they propagate upstream, the ion bulk velocity decreases and the magnetic field increases in the foot, which results in a flattening of the magnetic field profile and in a decrease of the normal electric field. Subsequently the reflection rate decreases and the whole shock profile steepens again. Superimposed on this 'breathing' behavior are in the realistic mass ratio case the waves due to the MTSI. The simulations lead us to a re-interpretation of the 24 January 2001 bow shock observations reported by Lobzin et al. (2007). It is suggested that the high frequency waves observed in the magnetic field data are due to the MTSI and are not related to a nonlinear phase standing whistler. Different profiles at the different spacecraft are due to the non-stationary behavior on the larger time scale.

I–V characteristics and magnetic field profile studies in high Tc BSCCO based Helmholtz coil

2009 ◽  
Vol 469 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 211-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.K. Nayak ◽  
U. Prasad ◽  
A.N. Sharma ◽  
D. Patel ◽  
S. Kedia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Helmholtz Coil ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
High Tc ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile

scholarly journals Modeling the Zeeman effect in high-altitude SSMIS channels for numerical weather prediction profiles: comparing a fast model and a line-by-line model

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 841-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Larsson ◽  
Mathias Milz ◽  
Peter Rayer ◽  
Roger Saunders ◽  
William Bell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Numerical Weather Prediction ◽  
Weather Prediction ◽  
Zeeman Effect ◽  
Field Profile ◽  
Average Difference ◽  
Numerical Weather ◽  
Magnetic Field Profile ◽  
Sensor Measurement

Abstract. We present a comparison of a reference and a fast radiative transfer model using numerical weather prediction profiles for the Zeeman-affected high-altitude Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder channels 19–22. We find that the models agree well for channels 21 and 22 compared to the channels' system noise temperatures (1.9 and 1.3 K, respectively) and the expected profile errors at the affected altitudes (estimated to be around 5 K). For channel 22 there is a 0.5 K average difference between the models, with a standard deviation of 0.24 K for the full set of atmospheric profiles. Concerning the same channel, there is 1.2 K on average between the fast model and the sensor measurement, with 1.4 K standard deviation. For channel 21 there is a 0.9 K average difference between the models, with a standard deviation of 0.56 K. Regarding the same channel, there is 1.3 K on average between the fast model and the sensor measurement, with 2.4 K standard deviation. We consider the relatively small model differences as a validation of the fast Zeeman effect scheme for these channels. Both channels 19 and 20 have smaller average differences between the models (at below 0.2 K) and smaller standard deviations (at below 0.4 K) when both models use a two-dimensional magnetic field profile. However, when the reference model is switched to using a full three-dimensional magnetic field profile, the standard deviation to the fast model is increased to almost 2 K due to viewing geometry dependencies, causing up to ±7 K differences near the equator. The average differences between the two models remain small despite changing magnetic field configurations. We are unable to compare channels 19 and 20 to sensor measurements due to limited altitude range of the numerical weather prediction profiles. We recommended that numerical weather prediction software using the fast model takes the available fast Zeeman scheme into account for data assimilation of the affected sensor channels to better constrain the upper atmospheric temperatures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document