Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Lower-Hybrid Drift Instabilities in a magnetic nozzle

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Parallel gradients can drive magnetic-nozzle instabilities even at zero axial wavenumber.

desk verdict A serious fluid-theory advance for E×B instabilities that adds parallel gradients to the dispersion relation; the central claim is credible but rests on one modeling assumption that needs a kinetic benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10070 v1 pith:4M5XOCVY submitted 2024-12-13 physics.plasm-ph

Matteo Ripoli , Eduardo Ahedo , Mario Merino This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.35.-g52.35.Qz52.30.-q
keywords lower-hybriddriftinstabilitymagneticnozzleE×Bplasmaparallelgradientsdrift-gradientquasi-lineartransportheliconthrusterazimuthalinstabilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper develops a local linear fluid stability analysis of electrostatic waves in a partially magnetized E×B plasma, applied to the magnetic nozzle of a helicon plasma thruster. Its central claim is that gradients of the equilibrium plasma along the magnetic field, the parallel gradients, must be retained in the dispersion relation because they can destabilize the plasma where established criteria (the modified Simon–Hoh and modified two-stream instabilities) predict stability, even for waves with k∥ = 0. The authors derive a low-frequency dispersion relation that unifies drift-gradient, drift-resistive, and parallel-gradient driven instabilities, including magnetic curvature, finite Larmor radius, gyroviscosity, collisions, and 3D wave propagation. Applied to simulation data, it predicts essentially azimuthal instabilities in the 1 kHz–1 MHz range, and a quasi-linear analysis suggests that the resulting cross-field transport acts to smooth the gradients that caused the instability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-frequency dispersion relation, Eq. (III.30), obtained by closing the linearized two-fluid equations with quasineutrality. It uses the electron Doppler-shifted frequency ωe and the gyroviscously corrected frequencies ω⊥ and ω∥ from Eqs. (III.1)–(III.2), with parallel-gradient coupling entering through Ω∥ (Eq. (III.25)) and σ∥ (Eq. (III.26)). A key step is selecting the wave-amplitude envelope along the magnetic field, Eq. (III.24), ∇∥ ln(n0φ1/B) = (1/2)∇∥ ln(pe0/B) in the long-wavelength limit, so that the collisionless dispersion relation remains real; Appendix B justifies this choice with a 1D WKB argument. The generalized instability criterion, Eq. (IV.7), then shows how the interspecies drift, perpendicular gradient drifts, and parallel-gradient or parallel-propagation terms combine, and the quasi-linear flux, Eq. (VI.8), has the sign of kθ and is directed against the perpendicular gradient of n0/B².

What would settle it

A local kinetic (Vlasov) linear stability calculation at point B of Table V.1, with k∥ = 0 and the same equilibrium gradients, would settle the central claim: if it finds no growing lower-hybrid mode where the modified Simon–Hoh criterion predicts stability, the parallel-gradient mechanism is an artifact of the fluid closure or the amplitude-envelope assumption; if it finds one, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the low-frequency dispersion relation, Eq. (III.30), which includes parallel equilibrium gradients, magnetic curvature, finite Larmor radius, collisions, gyroviscosity, and 3D wave propagation, generalizes earlier fluid dispersion relations for E×B plasmas. Within this relation, the parallel gradient terms enter through the frequencies Ω∥ and σ∥, and they open a destabilization channel: even when the perpendicular gradient condition for the modified Simon–Hoh instability fails, and even with k∥ = 0, the parallel gradients of n0, B, and Te can drive a lower-hybrid drift instability. The paper states this directly: parallel inhomogeneities 'may drive instabilities even in the absence of axial propagation.' This result implies that no local fluid stability analysis of a magnetic nozzle is complete without retaining the parallel gradients of equilibrium plasma quantities.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation fixes the spatial shape of the wave's amplitude along the magnetic field ahead of time, so that the collisionless dispersion relation stays real; if the true amplitude envelope differs from this WKB-consistent choice, the stability criteria derived could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No local fluid stability analysis of an axisymmetric E×B discharge in a magnetic nozzle is complete unless it retains parallel gradients of equilibrium quantities; analyses restricted to perpendicular gradients can miss unstable regions.
  • Magnetic nozzles are predicted to host essentially azimuthal lower-hybrid drift instabilities at 1 kHz–1 MHz across wide regions of the plume, including regions where the modified Simon–Hoh condition is not satisfied, offering a candidate explanation for observed fluctuations.
  • Finite parallel propagation k∥ can stabilize some perpendicular-gradient-driven modes in the near plume, but it can also create short-wavelength onset regions in the far plume where perpendicular gradients are weak.
  • The quasi-linear cross-field electron transport is directed against the perpendicular gradient of n0/B², so the instability acts to relax the density and profile gradients that produced the drift, making the growth self-limiting.
  • Collisions are secondary for the most unstable drift-gradient modes over the explored parameter range, but they can extend instability into regions where gradient drives are weak and slightly reduce peak gradient-driven growth rates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If confirmed experimentally with azimuthal mode-resolved measurements, the predicted 1 kHz–1 MHz instability band could serve as a non-intrusive local probe of gradient steepness in the nozzle plume.
  • The same parallel-gradient mechanism should operate in other E×B devices with field-aligned gradients, such as Hall thruster plumes and mirror-like divergent magnetic fields, so the local model could be tested against global simulations that resolve k∥.
  • The amplitude-envelope condition, Eq. (III.24), is a testable prediction: a fully self-consistent linearized solution that solves for the envelope of φ1 along the field should reproduce this shape at long wavelength if the mechanism is real.
  • The quasi-linear transport result, being outward for radially decreasing density, aligns with observations of wave-driven outward electron flux and implies that instabilities may reduce magnetic nozzle efficiency by flattening the density gradient rather than acting as a simple anomalous diffusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper derives a local, linear, electrostatic dispersion relation for low-frequency instabilities in a partially magnetized E×B plasma, retaining two-dimensional equilibrium gradients (perpendicular and parallel to the magnetic field), magnetic curvature, finite Larmor radius effects, gyroviscosity, collisions, and three-dimensional wave propagation. The model is applied to equilibrium profiles from hybrid simulations of a helicon-thruster magnetic nozzle, yielding instability criteria and 2D maps of maximum growth rate, frequency, and wavenumber. The paper reports predominantly azimuthal instabilities in the 1 kHz–1 MHz range, including cases where parallel equilibrium gradients destabilize modes with k∥=0, and a quasi-linear analysis indicating cross-field electron transport that opposes the equilibrium gradient of n0/B^2.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper generalizes the standard fluid dispersion relations for E×B plasmas (MSHI, MTSI) to include parallel equilibrium gradients, with the substantive prediction that no local fluid stability analysis of a magnetic nozzle is complete without these terms. The derivation is analytically explicit, recovers known limits in Eqs. (III.31)–(III.33), and provides simple instability criteria (IV.7) that can be tested in other devices. The application to a publicly available simulation dataset and the falsifiable quasi-linear transport prediction are additional strengths. However, the load-bearing envelope-shape assumption in Eq. (III.24) is not yet derived from the linearized initial-value problem, and the quantitative maps include growth-rate maxima outside the stated kρe<1 fluid validity. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the approach, but they currently limit confidence in the headline predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (III.24); Appendix B] The dispersion relation's dependence on parallel equilibrium gradients, and the derived stability criteria, rest on an imposed envelope shape. In Section III, Eq. (III.24) sets ∇∥ ln(n0φ1/B) = (1/2)∇∥ ln(pe0/B) − k^2ρe^2 ∇∥ ln Te specifically to force Im{Ω∥²}=0. This choice is presented as necessary to avoid spurious energy sources, and Appendix B justifies it by analogy to a 1D scalar WKB wave equation (B.1)–(B.10). However, the linearized electron system (II.6)–(II.9) is a coupled four-field system; the amplitude of φ1 (or of n0φ1/B) is fixed by the transport equation of the full system, not by requiring the dispersion relation to be real. If the physical envelope differs from Eq. (III.24), the coefficients of Eq. (III.30) acquire imaginary parts and the reactive-instability criteria (IV.5)–(IV.7) no longer follow. In particular, the claim that parallel gradients alone destabilize modes at k∥=0 (points B and C in Figs. V.3–V.5, and the abstract's statement) passes through this assumption. To establish the central claim, the authors need to derive the envelope shape from the linearized initial-value problem, or demonstrate that Eq. (III.24) is the unique choice that eliminates artificial sources/sinks in the full model, not merely in the scalar analogue of Appendix B.
  2. [Section V, Figs. V.3, V.4, V.5] The quantitative maps in Fig. V.5, and the representative dispersion relations in Figs. V.3 and V.4, present growth-rate maxima at kρe = O(1). The fluid model is stated to be valid only for kρe < 1 (Section II and the closing paragraph of Section V). The authors acknowledge that 'in those points where γmax is reached for k*ρe=1, a kinetic formulation of the problem would be more suitable,' but the 2D maps of γmax, ω*r, and k* are drawn using those maxima, and the subsequent discussion (e.g., the conclusion that azimuthal instabilities appear in the 1 kHz–1 MHz range) relies on them. As a result, the maps cannot be taken as quantitative predictions in those regions. I request either (i) restricting the maximization to kρe < 1 with a statement of how much of the nozzle domain is excluded, or (ii) providing a kinetic or particle-in-cell check of the growth rates at kρe = O(1) for at least the three representative points A–C.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V, paragraph after Fig. V.5] The phrase 'comparing γmax from Figure V.4 with the ones from Figures V.2 and V.3' appears to refer to Figure V.5, not Figure V.4, which is the ω(k) plot for point C.
  2. [Section II, first paragraph] Typo: 'Consquently' should be 'Consequently'.
  3. [Figure V.1 caption] Typo: 'thrsuter' should be 'thruster'.
  4. [Section V, paragraph on point C] The phrase 'as as shown in Figure V.4' should be 'as shown in Figure V.4'.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (III.7)] The notation 'ωeO(ε)' is ambiguous; please write O(ε ωe) or define the ordering explicitly.
  6. [Section VI, paragraph after Eq. (VI.8)] The wording 'the second order electron flux has the same sign of the second order velocity ⟨u⊥e1h∗⟩' is confusing because the preceding sentences describe the two terms as having opposite directions; please clarify the sign convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dispersion relation is derived algebraically from the fluid equations; the envelope-shape assumption is a modeling premise, not an input that the predictions reduce to.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The low-frequency dispersion relation Eq. (III.30) follows algebraically from the linearized electron equations (II.6)-(II.9), the ion solution (II.12)-(II.13), and quasineutrality, with no parameter fitted to the phenomena it predicts. The instability criteria (IV.5)-(IV.7) and the quasi-linear flux (VI.8) are obtained by algebraic manipulation of this dispersion relation and the linearized response; simulation data from Ref. [37] are used only as equilibrium input profiles, not to tune the theory, and the experimental comparisons are qualitative post hoc statements. The only notable modeling choice is the imposed envelope shape Eq. (III.24), selected so that the collisionless dispersion relation appears as a real polynomial in omega_i and justified in Appendix B by a 1D WKB analogy. This is an a priori consistency constraint on the perturbation envelope, not a fitted parameter and not a consequence of the linearized initial-value problem. If the physical envelope differs, the stability criteria would not apply, but that is a validity/robustness concern, not a circular reduction of the predictions to their inputs. Self-citations in the paper are either data sources ([37]), a preliminary conference version ([38]), or background fluid/gradient literature ([11], [45], [46]); none is load-bearing in the sense of importing a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz to forbid alternatives. The central claim—parallel equilibrium gradients can drive instabilities at k_parallel = 0—is derived, not assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the dispersion relation is derived from fluid equations and applied to equilibrium quantities taken from a prior simulation [37]. The collisional scan in Fig. V.7 multiplies νe by 10^4 as a numerical experiment, not a fit. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Electrostatic perturbations with B1 = 0.
    Stated in Section II.C; excludes electromagnetic waves such as the magnetosonic mode proposed by Takahashi et al.
  • domain assumption Isothermal perturbations, Te1 = 0.
    Stated in Section II.A and Summary; justified as reasonable for low-frequency modes, but not derived.
  • domain assumption Low-frequency ordering ωe = O(ωce ε) and uθe0 = O(ce ε).
    Section II.C; selects the LF regime relevant to LHDI; the HF regime is not analyzed here.
  • domain assumption Weakly inhomogeneous plasma: second-order spatial derivatives of perturbed quantities are neglected.
    Eq. (II.11); needed to close the implicit system for first-order gradients.
  • ad hoc to paper The envelope gradient ∇∥ ln(n0φ1/B) obeys Eq. (III.24), chosen so the collisionless dispersion relation is real.
    Section III, Eq. (III.24) and Appendix B; this WKB consistency condition is imposed rather than derived from the linearized initial-value problem.
  • domain assumption Quasineutrality closure hi1 = he1.
    End of Section II.E; equivalent to the ε0→0 limit, appropriate for low-frequency, long-wavelength modes.
  • domain assumption The equilibrium plasma profiles from the HYPHEN-EPT simulation [37] are representative of a real magnetic nozzle.
    Used as input for all quantitative maps in Section V; no experimental validation of these profiles is given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lower-Hybrid Drift Instabilities in a magnetic nozzle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4M5XOCVY

@misc{pith2026241210070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lower-Hybrid Drift Instabilities in a magnetic nozzle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4M5XOCVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10070}
}
abstract

Magnetic nozzles are a key component of electrodeless plasma thrusters, acting as their main acceleration stage. Non-stationary phenomena common to the entire range of $E \times B$ devices, such as oscillations and instabilities, are likely to exist in the magnetic nozzle, according to the mounting experimental evidence. These mechanisms could lead to anomalous cross-field transport, either enhancing the plasma plume divergence or favoring electron detachment. In this work we present a local linear analysis of fluid instabilities relevant for said devices, expanding on previous works with the addition of plasma inhomogeneities in the direction parallel to the magnetic field, with a rigorous inclusion of the effects of magnetic curvature, finite Larmor radius and $3$D wave propagation, allowing for a general formulation of drift-driven instabilities in partially magnetized plasmas. Instability conditions are first studied analytically, and then applied to simulation data of a helicon plasma thruster. Finally, the effect of instabilities on wave-driven cross-field electron transport is assessed by means of quasi-linear analysis. This study predicts the onset of essentially-azimuthal instabilities in the $1$ kHz--$1$ MHz range, in qualitative agreement with some of the available experimental data, and highlights the importance of including parallel inhomogeneities in the formulation of the dispersion relation of an $E \times B$ plasma, as these gradients may drive instabilities even in the absence of axial propagation. Lastly, quasi-linear analysis suggests that the induced cross-field transport acts to smooth out the zeroth-order drifts which cause the plasma to destabilize in the first place.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ∆ − ωMe − ωTe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ #

    Long-wavelength limit Taking the limit kρe → 0 of relation (IV .7), the instability criterion simplifies to: " ∆ − ωMe − ωTe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ # " ωMe + Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ # > 0 . (IV .8) This expression can be easily shown to be a generalization of the MSHI and the MTSI conditions, Eqs. (III.31)-(III.32). Neglecting parallel propagation and gradients, Ω∥ = 0, Eq. (IV .8) y...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ∆ − ωMe − ωTe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ #

    Finite Larmor radius effects As kρe becomes non-negligible, rearranging the relation (IV .7) yields a finite Larmor radius correction to the criterion in (IV .8): " ∆ − ωMe − ωTe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ # " ωMe + Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ # > − k2ρ2 e " ωTe 2 − ∆ ∆ − ωMe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ ! + ∆ ωMe + Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ ! k2ρ2 e 4 + ∆ ωTe 2 − ∆ k4ρ4 e 2 # , (IV .11) implying that even if the condition for ...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Plasmas for space propulsion,

    E. Ahedo, “Plasmas for space propulsion,” Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, vol. 53, no. 12, p. 124037, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Ex- perimental characterization of a 1 kW helicon plasma thruster,

    J. Navarro-Cavallé, M. Wijnen, P. Fajardo, and E. Ahedo, “Ex- perimental characterization of a 1 kW helicon plasma thruster,” Vacuum, vol. 149, pp. 69–73, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Technology of closed-drift thrusters,

    H. Kaufman, “Technology of closed-drift thrusters,” AIAA Journal, vol. 23, pp. 78–87, 1985

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Goebel and I

    D. Goebel and I. Katz, Fundamentals of Electric Propulsion: Ion and Hall Thrusters . Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Perspectives on physics of exb discharges relevant to plasma propulsion and similar technolo- gies,

    I. D. Kaganovich, A. Smolyakov, Y . Raitses, E. Ahedo, I. G. Mikellides, B. Jorns, F. Taccogna, R. Gueroult, S. Tsikata, A. Bourdon, J.-P. Boeuf, M. Keidar, A. T. Powis, M. Merino, M. Cappelli, K. Hara, J. A. Carlsson, N. J. Fisch, P. Chabert, I. Schweigert, T. Lafleur, K. Matyash, A. V . Khrabrov, R. W. Boswell, and A. Fruchtman, “Perspectives on physics...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Drift ballooning instabilities in tokamak edge plasmas,

    R. Hastie, J. Ramos, F. Porcelli, M. o. T. Science, and F. Cen- ter, “Drift ballooning instabilities in tokamak edge plasmas,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 4405–4412, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    H2020 MINOTOR: Magnetic nozzle electron cyclotron resonance thruster,

    D. Packan, P.-Q. Elias, J. Jarrige, T. Vialis, S. Correyero, S. Pe- terschmitt, J. Porto-Hernandez, M. Merino, A. Sánchez-Villar, E. Ahedo, G. Peyresoubes, A. Thorinius, S. Denis, K. Hol- ste, P. Klar, S. Scharmann, J. Zorn, M. Bekemans, T. Scalais, E. Bourguignon, S. Zurbach,...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Magnetic nozzles for space plasma thrusters,

    M. Merino and E. Ahedo, “Magnetic nozzles for space plasma thrusters,” inEncyclopedia of Plasma Technology(J. L. Shohet, ed.), vol. 2, pp. 1329–1351, Taylor and Francis, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Local analysis of electrostatic modes in a two-fluid E x B plasma,

    J. J. Ramos, E. Bello-Benítez, and E. Ahedo, “Local analysis of electrostatic modes in a two-fluid E x B plasma,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 052115, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Fluid 19 and kinetic plasma instabilities for hall effect thrusters,

    K. Hara, A. R. Mansour, A. C. Denig, and S. Tsikata, “Fluid 19 and kinetic plasma instabilities for hall effect thrusters,” in37th International Electric Propulsion Conference, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Parametric analysis of the two-fluid tearing instability,

    E. Ahedo and J. Ramos, “Parametric analysis of the two-fluid tearing instability,” in50th Annual Meeting of the APS-Division of Plasma Physics, November 2008, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Normal-mode-based theory of collisionless plasma waves,

    J. J. Ramos, “Normal-mode-based theory of collisionless plasma waves,” Journal of Plasma Physics, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Plasma oscillations in Hall thrusters,

    E. Choueiri, “Plasma oscillations in Hall thrusters,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1411–1426, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Advances on low- dimensionality fluid modelling of Hall thruster discharges,

    E. Bello-Benítez and E. Ahedo, “Advances on low- dimensionality fluid modelling of Hall thruster discharges,” in Space Propulsion Conference 2021 , no. paper 133, (March 17-19), Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Physics and instabilities of low- temperature E x B plasmas for spacecraft propulsion and other applications,

    J.-P. Boeuf and A. Smolyakov, “Physics and instabilities of low- temperature E x B plasmas for spacecraft propulsion and other applications,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 30, no. 5, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Using electron fluid models to analyze plasma thruster discharges,

    E. Ahedo, “Using electron fluid models to analyze plasma thruster discharges,” Journal of Electric Propulsion , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 2, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Effect of the magnetic field on a closed-electron- drift accelerator,

    A. Morozov, Y . Esipchuk, A. Kapulkin, V . Nevrovskii, and V . Smirnov, “Effect of the magnetic field on a closed-electron- drift accelerator,” Sov. Phys.-Tech. Phys.(Engl. Transl.) 17: No. 3, 482-7 (Sep 1972)., 1972

    1972

  12. [20]

    Drift instability in a Hall-current plasma accelerator,

    Y . Esipchuk and G. Tilinin, “Drift instability in a Hall-current plasma accelerator,” Sov. Physics-Tech. Physics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 417–423, 1976

    1976

  13. [21]

    Time- dependent axial fluid model of the hall thruster discharge and its plume,

    D. Poli, E. Bello-Benítez, P. Fajardo, and E. Ahedo, “Time- dependent axial fluid model of the hall thruster discharge and its plume,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Effect of injection conditions on the non-linear behavior of the ECDI and related turbulent transport,

    E. Bello-Benítez, A. Marín-Cebrián, and E. Ahedo, “Effect of injection conditions on the non-linear behavior of the ECDI and related turbulent transport,” 2024. Pre-print available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.08761

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fluid theory and simulations of instabilities, tur- bulent transport and coherent structures in partially-magnetized plasmas of ExB discharges,

    A. Smolyakov, O. Chapurin, W. Frias, O. Koshkarov, I. Ro- madanov, T. Tang, M. Umansky, Y . Raitses, I. Kaganovich, and V . Lakhin, “Fluid theory and simulations of instabilities, tur- bulent transport and coherent structures in partially-magnetized plasmas of ExB discharges,”...

    2017

  16. [24]

    for both electrostatic and electromagnetic waves. Ramos, Bello and Ahedo [11] provided a more general derivation of fluid electrostatic instabilities in E × B plasmas, examining in detail drift-gradient and drift-resisitive instabilities in a variety of frequency and wavelengt...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Long wavelength gradient drift instability in Hall plasma devices. I. Fluid theory,

    W. Frias, A. Smolyakov, I. Kaganovich, and Y . Raitses, “Long wavelength gradient drift instability in Hall plasma devices. I. Fluid theory,”Physics of Plasmas, vol. 19, p. 072112, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Low frequency azimuthal stability of the ionization region of the hall thruster discharge. i. local analysis,

    D. Escobar and E. Ahedo, “Low frequency azimuthal stability of the ionization region of the hall thruster discharge. i. local analysis,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 043505, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Low-frequency instabilities in magnetic pulses,

    N. A. Krall and P. C. Liewer, “Low-frequency instabilities in magnetic pulses,” Physical Review A , vol. 4, pp. 2094–2103, 1971

    1971

  20. [28]

    Resistive instabilities in Hall current plasma discharge,

    A. Litvak and N. Fisch, “Resistive instabilities in Hall current plasma discharge,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 648– 651, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Instability of electrons drifting through ions across a magnetic field,

    O. Buneman, “Instability of electrons drifting through ions across a magnetic field,” Journal of Nuclear Energy. Part C, Plasma Physics, Accelerators, Thermonuclear Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 111–117, 1962

    1962

  22. [30]

    Axial-azimuthal, high- frequency modes from global linear-stability model of a Hall thruster,

    E. Bello-Benítez and E. Ahedo, “Axial-azimuthal, high- frequency modes from global linear-stability model of a Hall thruster,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology , vol. 30, p. 035003, 3 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    ∆ 1 + k4ρ4 e 4 − ωMe − ωTe − Ω2 ∥ ∆∥ # ×

    to the magnetosonic wave in the work of Takahashi et al. [28], the latter being electromagnetic in nature. In the work of Desjardins and Gilmore [33], the oscillations are identified as a mixture of drift-resistive electron drift waves and Kelvin- Helmoltz instabilities. Moreo...

  24. [32]

    Wave-driven electron inward transport in a magnetic nozzle,

    K. Takahashi, C. Charles, and R. W. Boswell, “Wave-driven electron inward transport in a magnetic nozzle,” Scientific re- ports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 20137, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Experimental characterization of oscillations in the magnetic nozzle of an electron cyclotron res- onance thruster,

    D. Maddaloni, F. Boni, V . Désangles, B. Bayón-Buján, M. Merino, and F. Terragni, “Experimental characterization of oscillations in the magnetic nozzle of an electron cyclotron res- onance thruster,” in 38th International Electric Propulsion Con- ference, no. IEPC-2024-387, (T...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Low-frequency oscillations in the magnetic noz- zle of a helicon plasma thruster,

    D. Maddaloni, B. Bayón-Buján, J. Navarro-Cavallé, and M. Merino, “Low-frequency oscillations in the magnetic noz- zle of a helicon plasma thruster,” Plasma Sources Scinece and Technology (under review), 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Wave-driven non-classical electron transport in a low temperature magnetically expanding plasma,

    S. Hepner, B. Wachs, and B. Jorns, “Wave-driven non-classical electron transport in a low temperature magnetically expanding plasma,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 116, no. 26, p. 263502, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    A. E. Vinci, Physics of magnetic nozzles and helicon plasma discharges. PhD thesis, Université d’Orléans, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Dynamics of flows, flucua- tions, and global instability under electrode biasing in a linear plasma device,

    T. R. Desjardins and M. Gilmore, “Dynamics of flows, flucua- tions, and global instability under electrode biasing in a linear plasma device,” Physics of Plasmas, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Effects of a magnetic field gradi- ent on the lower hydrid drift instability,

    J. D. Huba and C. S. Wu, “Effects of a magnetic field gradi- ent on the lower hydrid drift instability,”The Physics of Fluids, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 988–994, 1976

    1976

  31. [39]

    In what sense do slow waves carry negative energy?,

    P. A. Sturrock, “In what sense do slow waves carry negative energy?,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 31, no. 11, 1960

    1960

  32. [40]

    Hasegawa, Plasma Instabilities and Nonlinear Effects

    A. Hasegawa, Plasma Instabilities and Nonlinear Effects . Springer-Verlag, 1975

    1975

  33. [41]

    Analysis of a cusped helicon plasma thruster discharge,

    P. Jiménez, J. Zhou, J. Navarro-Cavallé, P. Fajardo, M. Merino, and E. Ahedo, “Analysis of a cusped helicon plasma thruster discharge,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology , vol. 32, no. 10, p. 105013, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Analysis of drift in- stabilities in magnetic nozzles,

    M. Ripoli, M. Merino, and E. Ahedo, “Analysis of drift in- stabilities in magnetic nozzles,” in 38 th International Elec- tric Propulsion Conference , no. IEPC-2024-506, (Toulouse, France, June 23-28), Electric Rocket Propulsion Society, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Con- tinuous supersonic plasma wind tunnel,

    S. Andersen, V . Jensen, P. Nielsen, and N. D’Angelo, “Con- tinuous supersonic plasma wind tunnel,” Phys. Fluids, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 557–560, 1969

    1969

  36. [44]

    Two-dimensional supersonic plasma acceleration in a magnetic nozzle,

    E. Ahedo and M. Merino, “Two-dimensional supersonic plasma acceleration in a magnetic nozzle,”Physics of Plasmas, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 073501, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Time-dependent expansion of a weakly-collisional plasma beam in a paraxial magnetic nozzle,

    J. Zhou, G. Sánchez-Arriaga, and E. Ahedo, “Time-dependent expansion of a weakly-collisional plasma beam in a paraxial magnetic nozzle,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology , vol. 30, no. 4, p. 045009, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    General expression of the gyroviscous force,

    J. Ramos, “General expression of the gyroviscous force,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 112301, 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    The universally growing mode in the solar atmosphere: coronal heating by drift waves,

    J. Vranjes and S. Poedts, “The universally growing mode in the solar atmosphere: coronal heating by drift waves,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Nonlinear plasma theory,

    R. Z. Sagdeev, A. A. Galeev, T. M. O’Neil, and D. L. Book, “Nonlinear plasma theory,” 1969

    1969

  41. [49]

    Magnetized fluid electron model within a two-dimensional hybrid simulation code for electrodeless plasma thrusters,

    J. Zhou, A. Domínguez-Vázquez, P. Fajardo, and E. Ahedo, “Magnetized fluid electron model within a two-dimensional hybrid simulation code for electrodeless plasma thrusters,” Plasma Sources Science and Technology , vol. 31, no. 4, p. 045021, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Hybrid plasma simula- tions of the HT5k thruster,

    J. Perales-Díaz, A. Domínguez-Vázquez, P. Fajardo, E. Ahedo, F. Faraji, M. Reza, and T. Andreussi, “Hybrid plasma simula- tions of the HT5k thruster,” in ExB Plasmas Workshop, Young researchers "poster" mini-session , (Madrid, Spain, February 16-18), 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    T. H. Stix, Waves in plasmas . Springer Science & Business Media, 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.