Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:49:26.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Two Types of Non-Maxwellian Electron Distributions on Temperature Spectroscopic Diagnostics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

C. Möller
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Spectroscopie Atomique et Ionique, Université Paris-Sud, 91405, Orsay, France
M. Lamoureux
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Spectroscopie Atomique et Ionique, Université Paris-Sud, 91405, Orsay, France

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Continuum emission due to bremsstrahlung and direct radiative recombination is studied in two types of fusion-plasmas with non-Maxwellian electron distributions. The calculated emissivity coefficients Jω(hω) are shown to depart from the Maxwellian ones. The main consequence of the modification of the spectrum is to invalidate the usual electron temperature diagnostic which consits in equating dlnjω(hω)/d(hω) to l/kTe.

Case I corresponds to the critical density region of a laser-produced plasma ( Langdon 1980, Mora and Yahi 1982 ). The distribution function is cm exp (-v/vo,m)m with m=5 for all values of the incident electron velocity v. Case II corresponds to very steep temperature gradients for which the spacial scale of the transport region is larger than the gradient scale itself (Albritton 1983, Luciani et al. 1984, Campbell 1984). On the higher temperature side of the heat front, the tail of the distribution is depleted with respect to the Maxwellian one. At a particular distance from it, this tail can be roughly described by the above analytical function but with m=3.

Type
Session 4. Theoretical Spectroscopy
Copyright
Copyright © Naval Research Laboratory 1984. Publication courtesy of the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC.

References

Albritton, J.R. 1983, Phys. Rev. Lett., 50, 2078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, P.M. 1984, Phys. Rev. A, 30, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young Soon, Kim, and Pratt, R.H. 1983, Phys. Rev. A, 27, 2913.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, M., Möller, C., and Jaeglé, P. 1984, Phys. Rev. A, 30, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langdon, A.B. 1980, Phys. Rev. Lett., 44, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luciani, J., Mora, P., and Pellat, P., to be published, and private communication.Google Scholar
Mora, P., and Yahi, H. 1982, Phys. Rev. A, 26, 2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D.L., Kauffmann, R.L., Kilkenny, J.D., and Lee, R.W. 1983, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Report No. RL83-043.Google Scholar