Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T08:23:53.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perturbation region near a biased body in a flowing collision-dominated plasma with low ionization density. Current–voltage chracteristics of a langmuir probe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

M. S. Benilov
M. S. Benilov
Affiliation:
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Plasmaphysik, Ruhr-University Bochum, Postfach 102148, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The asymptotic theory of flows of high-pressure plasmas past biased bodies (electrostatic probes) is extended to relatively low charge densities, where the Debye radius h is comparable to or exceeds the thickness ▴ of the viscous near- probe boundary layer. Various orders of magnitude of h with respect to a dimension of the probe and various ranges of the probe potential are considered. The governing physical mechanism of current transfer in the perturbation region is identified in each regime, and simple formulae for the probe current–voltage characteristic are obtained whenever possible. In particular, it is shown that an earlier conclusion, valid for h ≪ Δ, on the existence of a linear segment on the electron branch of current-voltage characteristic with a slope depending on the electron density, is also valid in the present situation. It h ≫ Δ, a similar conclusion holds for the ion branch; at large enough probe potentials the jon branch saturates —although for a different physical reason than in the case h ≪ Δ

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 293 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Alexeev, B. V.& Kotel'nikov, V. A. 1988 The Probe Technique of Plasma Diagnostics. Energoatomizdat.Google Scholar
Batyrbekov, G. A., Belyakova, E. A., Benilov, M. S., Bochkarev, G. G., Kunakov, S. K.& Rogov, B. V. 1991 Soviet J. Plasma Phys. 17, 64.Google Scholar
Benilov, M. S. 1988 High Temp. (USSR) 26, 780.Google Scholar
Benilov, M. S., Bochkarev, G. G., Buznikov, A. E., German, V. O.& Kovbasyuk, V. I. 1983 Fluid Dyn. 18, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benilov, M. S.& Rogov, B. V. 1991 J. Appl. Phys. 70, 6726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benilov, M. S., Rogov, B. V.& Tirskii, G. A. 1981 High Temp. (USSR) 19, 751.Google Scholar
Chang, J. S.& Laframboise, J. G. 1976 Phys. Fluids 19, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, P. M., Talbot, L.& Tourjan, K. J. 1975 Electric Probes in Stationary and Flowing Plasmas: Theory and Application. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. D. 1968 Perturbation Methods in Applied Mathematics. Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Kodera, K.& Chang, J. S. 1976 J. Phys. D: Appi. Phys. 7, 183.Google Scholar
MacLatchy, C. S. 1988 J. Appi. Phys. 64,2305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLatchy, C. S.& Smith, H. C. L. 1991 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.. 19, 1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, S., Chang, J. S.& Teii, S. 1987 Contributed Papers of the 18th International Conference on Phenomena in Ionized Cases, Swansea, UK, July 1987, vol. 4 (ed. Williams, W. T.), p. 620. Adam Hilger.Google Scholar
Nayfeh, A. H. 1973 Perturbation Methods. Wiley.Google Scholar
Nayfeh, A. H. 1981 Introduction to Perturbation Techniques. Wiley.Google Scholar
Nayfeth, A. H. 1985 Problems in Perturbation. Wiley.Google Scholar
Smy, P. R. 1976 Adu. Phys. 25, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smy, P. R.& Noor, A. I. 1976 J. Appi. Phys. 47, 1327.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, M. 1964 Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics. Academic.Google Scholar