Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:31:02.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An experimental investigation of slow-mode shock waves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

A. D. Craig
Affiliation:
UKAEA Research Group, Cuiham Laboratory, Abingdon, Berkshire

Abstract

This paper presents an idealized, one-dimensional theoretical model of a novel method of launching a slow-mode hydromagnetic shock wave. The reduction of the transverse magnetic field component, at the boundary of a semi-infinite plasma containing a uniform oblique magnetic field, results in the propagation of a fast-mode expansion wave followed by a slow-mode shock. An experiment designed to test this launching method is described. An initial hydrogen plasma containing axial and azimuthal magnetic field components is set up in a large annular apparatus. The azimuthal field is then reversed at one end of the device, by a fast-rising radial discharge. Diagnosis of the resulting flow, with small magnetic and electric probes, shows the propagation of the fast expansion wave and the slow shock; but there also follows a third wave, having the properties of a ‚piston’. When the theory is extended to include a moving boundary (i.e. ‚piston’), good quantitative agreement is obtained with the experimental results. The annular geometry of the experiment leads to centrifugal effects not considered in the one-dimensional theory; but these are not sufficient to disrupt seriously the main flow pattern. Detailed measurements of the shock indicate a dispersive structure.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Anderson, J. E. 1963 MHD Shock Waves. MIT.Google Scholar
Bazer, J. & Ericson, W. B. 1958 Astrophys. J. 129, 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, R. J., Lenamon, L. & Murphy, R. V. W. 1971 J. Plasma Phys. 5, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratenahl, A. & Yeates, C. M. 1970 Phys. Fluids, 13, 2696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlaga, L. F. & Ceao, J. K. 1971 J. Geophys. Rev. 76, 7516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, J. K. & Olbert, S. 1970 J. Geophys. Rev. 75, 6394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, A. D. & Paul, J. W. M. 1973 a Phys. Rev. Letts. 30, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, A. D. & Paul, J. W. M. 1973b J. Plasma Phys. 9, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantrowitz, A. & Petscrek, H. E. 1966 Plasma Physics in Theory and Application (ed. Kunkel, W. B.). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Paul, J. W. M., Holmes, L. S., Parkinson, M. J. & Sheffield, J. 1965 Nature, 208, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petschek, H. E. 1964 AAS-NASA Symp. on the Physics of Solar Flares (ed. Hess, W.), NASA SP-50, p. 425.Google Scholar
Robson, A. E. & Sheffield, J. 1969 Proc. IAEA, Vienna, vol. 1, p. 119.Google Scholar
Stringer, T. E. 1963 Plasma Phys. 5, 89.Google Scholar