4.7 Article

Generalized Harris Sheet Equilibrium in Regularized Kappa Distributed Plasmas

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 956, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf851

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Harris sheet models with antiparallel magnetic field are equilibrium solutions widely used for studying plasma instabilities and magnetic reconnection. This paper presents the first results of adopting nonthermal RKDs in the Harris equilibrium models, showing that the new RKD-Harris equilibrium is applicable for all kappa values.
Harris sheet models with antiparallel magnetic field are the equilibrium solutions to the steady Vlasov-Maxwell equations, which have been widely adopted for the study of plasma instabilities and magnetic reconnection in thin current sheets. The original Harris equilibrium model assumes the Maxwellian velocity distribution, which necessarily gives rise to the isothermal current sheets. Many observations have shown that the suprathermal populations are indispensable features of particle distribution profiles, which may well be fitted by the Kappa distribution (KD) functions with the free parameter kappa. The Harris equilibrium based on the standard Kappa distribution (SKD), however, may become unphysical for kappa <= 32 . Alternatively, the regularized KD (RKD) with two adjustable parameters, kappa and alpha 2, has been proposed to replace the SKD in various studies. The RKD may recover the SKD for alpha 2 = 0, and Maxwellian model for alpha 2 = 0 and kappa -> infinity . This paper presents the first results of adopting the nonthermal RKDs in the Harris equilibrium models. It is shown that the new RKD-Harris equilibrium is applicable for all kappa values, and exhibits a stronger magnetic field associated with higher temperature in the asymptotic region. The proposed formulations for the generalized Harris sheet equilibrium may be applied to multiple component plasmas (e.g., electrons, protons) with different RKDs and temperatures.

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

4.7
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