Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T22:15:42.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origin of the plasma in an electromagnetic shock tube

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

D. G. Fearn
D. G. Fearn
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Imperial College, London, S.W. 7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A pair of electrodes was placed in an electromagnetic shock tube to measure the electric field induced by the flow of an argon plasma through a transverse magnetic field. This investigation suggested that the plasma consisted of two regions, the first of which was non-luminous. Flow velocities, deduced from the variation of induced voltage with electrode separation, were compared with luminous front velocities measured photoelectrically. The first plasma region moved more slowly than the second, and its velocity and duration were consistent with shock-heating. The second region, which was dominant in most, experiments, flowed at the luminous front velocity, and had probably been ejected from the driver discharge. It is proposed that the flow velocity in the second region exceeded that in the first owing to an extensive leakage of gas through the boundary layer at the contact surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 1968 , pp. 93 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Ahlstrom, H. G., Mahaffey, D. W., Sanga, L. & Schoen, R. I. 1964 Phys. Fluids 7, 906–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barach, J. P. & Vermillion, R. E. 1965 Phys. Fluids 8, 1977–1984.Google Scholar
Brederlow, G. 1963 Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Ionis. Phen. Gases 4, 355–359. Paris: S.E.R.M.A.Google Scholar
Brogan, T. R. 1956 M.S. Thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Byron, S. & Spongberg, R. M. 1964 I.E.E.E. Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS 11, 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, C. 1965 J. Appl. Phys. 36, 342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloupeau, M. 1963 Phys. Fluids 6, 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croce, P. A. 1965 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 36, 1561–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech, J. & Theenhaus, R. 1966 Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Ionis. Phen. Gases 2, 774–777. Belgrade: Gradevinska Knjiga.Google Scholar
Dattner, A. & Eninger, J. 1964 Phys. Fluids 7, S41–S43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Leeuw, J. H. 1958 University of Toronto Inst. of Aerophys. Rept. no. 49.Google Scholar
Duff, R. E. 1959 Phys. Fluids 2, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearn, D. G. 1967 Phys. Lett. 25A, 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearn, D. G., Cooper, J. & Pain, H. J. 1963 Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Ionis. Phen. Gases 1, 347–352. Paris: S.E.R.M.A.Google Scholar
Jeanmaire, P. 1963 Phys. Fluids 6, 1028–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makarov, Y. V. & Maksimov, A. M. 1966 Soc. Phys.-Tech. Phys. 11, 203–212.Google Scholar
Makios, W. & Muntenbrucg, H. 1965 Z. Naturf. 20a, 870–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petschek, H. & Byron, S. 1957 Ann. Phys. N.Y. 1, 270–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roshko, A. 1960 Phys. Fluids 3, 835–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakuntala, M., Von Engel, A. & Fowler, R. G. 1960 Phys. Rev. 118, 1459–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smy, P. R. & Driver, H. S. 1963 J. Fl. Mech. 17, 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, C. B. 1963 Imperial College Internal Rept.Google Scholar
Wiese, W., Berg, H. F. & Griem, H. R. 1960 Phys. Rev. 120, 1079–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. K. 1961 Shock Tubes, Chap. 2. London: Methuen.Google Scholar