4.6 Article

Plasma acceleration in a magnetic arch

期刊

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6595/acd476

关键词

electric propulsion; electrodeless plasma thrusters; magnetic nozzles; plasma expansions; fluid models

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When two magnetic nozzles with opposite polarity are placed side by side, a 'magnetic arch' is formed, connecting the field lines of each nozzle into a closed-line configuration. This magnetic topology is important for electrodeless plasma thrusters and non-cylindrical thruster architectures. A model is introduced to analyze the plasma expansion and properties in this magnetic arch. It is shown that the ions from the nozzles form a single beam that propagates beyond the applied magnetic field, generating magnetic thrust.
When two magnetic nozzles with opposite polarity are placed side by side, a 'magnetic arch' (MA) is formed, which connects the field lines of each nozzle into a closed-line configuration. The plasma expansion and acceleration in this magnetic topology are relevant for clusters of electrodeless plasma thrusters, as well as novel, non-cylindrical thruster architectures. A collisionless, quasineutral, two-fluid model of the plasma expansion in a MA, is introduced. The plasma properties (density, electron temperature, electrostatic potential, ion velocity, electric currents) in the 2D planar and zero plasma-beta limit are analyzed, and the magnetic thrust density is discussed. It is shown that the ions coming out of the two nozzles meet on a shock-like structure to form a single beam that propagates beyond the closed lines of the applied magnetic field, generating magnetic thrust. A small magnetic drag contribution comes from the final part of the expansion. The plasma-induced magnetic field is then computed self-consistently for non-zero plasma-beta expansions, showing that it stretches the MA in the downstream direction and helps reduce that drag contribution. Finally, the limitations of the present model are discussed.

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

4.6
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