4.4 Article

Charge resolved electrostatic diagnostic of colliding copper laser plasma plumes

期刊

PHYSICS OF PLASMAS
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.3633486

关键词

copper; ion accelerators; ionisation; plasma accelerators; plasma diagnostics; plasma production by laser

资金

  1. Enterprise Ireland [SC/2003/0180]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [07/IN.1/I1771]
  3. HEA PRTLI IV INSPIRE program of the Second National Development Plan program (NDP2)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The collision of two laser generated plasma plumes can result, under appropriate conditions, in the formation of a stagnation layer. The processes underlying this phenomenon are complex and time dependent. The majority of experiments over the last few decades have focused upon spectroscopic diagnostic of colliding plasmas. We have performed electrostatic diagnosis of multiply charged copper ions (Cu+ to Cu5+) generated via Q-switched pulsed laser (lambda = 1.06 mu m, tau = 6 ns, and EL = 52-525 mJ) generation of copper plasma plumes from a planar target. Time dependent current traces, charge yields, and kinetic energy (K-e) distributions are obtained for single plasma plumes (S-p) and colliding plasma plumes (C-p). The charge yield from a C-p relative to twice that from a S-p is characterized by a charge yield ratio (CYR) parameter. Superior ion yields for all charge states occur for a discrete range of fluences (F) from colliding plasma plumes leading to a CYR parameter exceeding unity. The kinetic energy distributions from colliding plasma plumes display well defined energy compression via narrowing of the distributions for all fluences and charge states. The extent of this energy compression is charge dependent. Space charge forces within the stagnation layer and the resulting charge dependent acceleration of ions are proposed to account for the transfer of ion kinetic energy in favour of collisional ionization mechanisms. (C) 2011 American Institute of Physics. [doi: 10.1063/1.3633486]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据