1: \documentclass[12pt,eqsecnum,preprint,flushrt]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[10pt,eqsecnum,manuscript,flushrt]{aastex}

3: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: %\usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{vmargin}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: 

9: \def\pd#1#2{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

10: \def\od#1#2{\frac{d #1}{d #2}}

11: \def\pdd#1#2{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}

12: \def\odd#1#2{\frac{d^2 #1}{d #2^2}}

13: \newcommand\Partial{\boldsymbol{\partial}}

14: \newcommand{\Del}{\mathbf{\nabla}}

15: \newcommand{\Cross}{\boldsymbol{\times}}

16: 

17: \def\ahalf{{\frac{1}{2}}}

18: \def\oneover#1{{\frac{1}{#1}}}

19: \def\prn#1{{\left(#1\right)}}

20: \def\brk#1{{\left[#1\right]}}

21: \def\brc#1{{\left\{#1\right\}}}

22: \def\abs#1{{\left|#1\right|}}

23: \newcommand{\sech}{\text{sech}}

24: \newcommand{\xhat}{\mathbf{\hat x}}

25: \newcommand{\yhat}{\mathbf{\hat y}}

26: \newcommand{\zhat}{\mathbf{\hat z}}

27: \newcommand{\rhat}{\mathbf{\hat r}}

28: \newcommand{\thetahat}{\mathbf{\hat \theta}}

29: \newcommand{\varphihat}{\mathbf{\hat \varphi}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\text}[1]{\rm{#1}}

32: \newcommand{\eqref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

33: \newcommand{\iint}{\int\!\!\!\int}

34: 

35: \title{X-winds in Action}

36: \author{Mike J. Cai$^1$, Hsien Shang$^1$, Hsiao-Hsuan Lin$^{2}$, Frank H. Shu$^3$

37: } \affil{$^1$Academia Sinica, Institute of Astronomy

38: and Astrophysics, Taiwan\\

39: $^2$Department of Physics, University of Southern California\\

40: $^3$Department of

41:  Physics, University of California, San Diego}

42: \email{mike@asiaa.sinica.edu.tw}

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: The interaction of accretion disks with the magnetospheres of young

46: stars can produce X-winds and funnel flows. With the assumption of

47: axial symmetry and steady state flow, the problem can be formulated

48: in terms of quantities that are conserved along streamlines, such as

49: the Bernoulli integral (BI), plus a partial differential equation

50: (PDE), called the Grad-Shafranov equation (GSE), that governs the

51: distribution of streamlines in the meridional plane.  The GSE plus

52: BI yields a PDE of mixed type, elliptic before critical surfaces

53: where the flow speed equals certain characteristic wave speeds are

54: crossed and hyperbolic afterward.  The computational difficulties

55: are exacerbated by the locations of the critical surfaces not being

56: known in advance.  To overcome these obstacles, we consider a

57: variational principle by which the GSE can be attacked by

58: extremizing an action integral, with all other conserved quantities

59: of the problem explicitly included as part of the overall

60: formulation.   To simplify actual applications we adopt the cold

61: limit of a negligibly small ratio of the sound speed to the speed of

62: Keplerian rotation in the disk where the X-wind is launched.  We

63: also ignore the obstructing effects of any magnetic fields that

64: might thread a disk approximated to be infinitesimally thin. We then

65: introduce trial functions with adjustable coefficients to minimize

66: the variations that give the GSE.  We tabulate the resulting

67: coefficients so that other workers can have analytic forms to

68: reconstruct X-wind solutions for various astronomical,

69: cosmochemical, and meteoritical applications.

70: \end{abstract}

71: 

72: \keywords{stars: pre-main-sequence; winds; ISM: accretion disks;

73: jets and outflows; MHD}

74: \begin{document}

75: \maketitle

76: \section{Introduction}

77: 

78: Accretion, disks, and jets are ubiquitous in astrophysics (see,

79: e.g., Blandford \& Rees 1992).  A consensus has been reached that an

80: extra needed ingredient to obtain outflow from inflow is the

81: presence of strong magnetic fields that thread a disk conventionally

82: assumed to be rotating at Keplerian speeds about a central

83: gravitating object, taken in this paper to be a newly born star.

84: Differences come in ascribing the origin of the magnetic fields in

85: the disk itself or in the central star (K\"onigl \& Pudritz 2000,

86: Shu et al. 2000).

87: 

88: Disk winds have been extensively studied, both analytically via the

89: assumptions of self-similarity in 2-D space for axisymmetric,

90: time-independent flows (e.g., Blandford \& Payne 1982;  Contopoulos

91: \& Lovelace 1994) or by taking advantage of arbitrary variations of

92: the gas pressure (e.g., Tsinganos \& Trussoni 1991) or by studying

93: the asymptotic properties of the collimation (Heyvaerts \& Norman

94: 1997); and numerically by finite-element methods attacking the

95: axisymmetric, time-independent, Grad-Shafranov equation (e.g., in

96: the relativistic regime by Camenzind 1987) or by finite-difference

97: treatments of the time-dependent equations of ideal MHD in 2- and

98: 3-D (e.g., Uchida \& Shibata 1986, Pudritz et al. 2006). For a

99: review of these types of calculations, see Ferreira (2004).

100: 

101: The most highly developed semi-analytic theory for the second

102: viewpoint is called X-wind theory, in which fast jets arising in

103: young stellar objects (YSOs) owe their existence to the interaction

104: of the accretion disk with the magnetosphere of the central star.

105: The interaction of accretion disks with strongly magnetized central

106: stars has also been studied numerically (e.g., Goodson, Bohm, \&

107: Winglee 1999; Long et al. 2005, Ustyugova et al. 2006).   Although

108: both funnel flows and X-like winds have been found, they have yet to

109: appear simultaneously in numerical simulations, probably because the

110: numerical calculations have not yet proceeded to steady state where

111: the condition of disk-locking applies (Shu et al. 1994).  Pure

112: X-wind theory assumes for simplicity that the disk itself is

113: unmagnetized, in fact, all that is needed for the theory to work is

114: for open field lines to be concentrated in a narrow annulus near the

115: inner edge of an accretion disk.

116: 

117: Recently, Bacciotti et al. (2002) and Coffey et al. (2004)

118: identified jet rotation in four T Tau systems, DG Tau, TH 28, RW

119: Aur, and LkH$\alpha$ 321, of an amount too large to be compatible

120: with X-winds, but consistent with launching from disks at radii of

121: 0.5-2 AU.  Later, Cabrit et al. (2006) showed from mm-wave radio

122: measurements that the disk rotation in RW Aur is actually in the

123: opposite sense to that deduced for the jet from optical lines.

124: Moreover, Pety et al. (2006) find that HH 30, which is observed

125: nearly edge-on and therefore should have had the clearest signature

126: for jet rotation, showed no evidence for outflow rotation at mm

127: wavelengths, a conclusion reinforced by optical and ultraviolet

128: observations of the HH 30 jet by Coffey et al. (2007). While the

129: positive results remain for the three other systems, the case of HH

130: 30, where longitudinal velocities occur in the direction transverse

131: to the line of sight, suggests that the slight line asymmetries in

132: the other cases may be more associated with unequal jumps in the

133: velocity of shocked, high-speed jets, than to the rotation of

134: collimated outflows.

135: 

136: In contrast, no one has proposed any explanation other than X-winds

137: for the correlated inflow-outflow signatures seen in SU Aur by

138: Giampapa et al. (1993) and Johns \& Basri (1995).  Apart from SZ 68

139: (Johns-Krull \& Hatzes 1997), we are unaware of any other T Tau star

140: that shows a tilted-dipole magnetic-field geometry, and it could be

141: that the dipole component is small on the surface of most T Tau

142: stars (Johns-Krull 2007).  Fortunately, Mohanty \& Shu (2007) show

143: that while funnel flows are sensitive to the detailed assumptions

144: made concerning multi-pole structure on the surfaces of the central

145: stars, the properties of the X-wind depend mostly only on the amount

146: of trapped flux in the X-region (see also the observational evidence

147: relating to this point collected by Johns-Krull \& Gafford 2002).

148: 

149: Recent calculations show that YSOs are unlikely to lose enough

150: magnetic flux in the process of gravitational collapse to make the

151: level of magnetization ignorable in the resultant circumstellar

152: accretion disks (Galli et al. 2006; Shu et al. 2006, 2007).  Indeed,

153: the disks are sufficiently magnetized in many cases that, in

154: quasi-steady state, they rotate at sub-Keplerian rates until the the

155: inner disk-edge is reached.  Thus, there are open questions of how

156: much of the trapped flux near the inner edge is to be attributed to

157: the central star versus the disk, and how such disks reacquire

158: near-Keplerian rates of rotation at their inner edges. We ignore

159: these complications in the present study of the X-wind phenomenon,

160: but we note that the methods introduced here are easily modified to

161: attack the more complex problem when the accretion disk interacting

162: with a stellar magnetosphere is itself strongly magnetized.

163: 

164: The original X-wind model supposed the outflow to occur from the

165: equator of a magnetized star spun to breakup by a presence of an

166: accretion disk that abutted its surface (Shu et al. 1988). Later, in

167: order to accommodate the slow rotators, such as the classical T

168: Tauri stars which are only rotating at one tenth of breakup (Vogel

169: \& Kuhi 1981, Bouvier et al. 1991, Edwards et al. 1993), Shu et al.

170: (1994a) generalized the X-wind picture to include the case of

171: relatively low accretion when the magnetosphere of the star would

172: truncate the accretion disk at an inner edge before the disk reached

173: the stellar surface (typically a circle of radius 0.2 on the scale

174: of Fig.1, where the disk's inner edge is taken to be at $\varpi =

175: 1$).  In a quasi-steady-state where most of the mass of the central

176: star is built up by disk accretion, the magnetic coupling between

177: the star and the disk regulates the star to corotate at the

178: Keplerian frequency at the truncation radius. For a protostar with

179: magnetic dipole moment $\mu_*$, mass $M_*$, mass accretion rate

180: $\dot M_D$, Ostriker \& Shu (1995) estimate this radius to be

181: \begin{equation}

182:   R_X = \Phi_{\text{dx}}^{-4/7} \prn{\frac{\mu_*^4}{GM_*\dot

183:   M_D^2}}^{1/7},

184: \end{equation}

185: where $\Phi_{\text{dx}}$ is an order unity dimensionless number that

186: parameterizes the amount of stellar magnetic flux that is trapped in

187: the disk.  Inside this radius, matter is channeled to the star via a

188: funnel flow.  The excess angular momentum of the

189: accreting material is deposited in the magnetic field in the form of

190: Maxwell torque, and then transported back to the disk.  The gain of

191: angular momentum and approximate field freezing would try to move

192: the footpoint of the funnel-flow field lines outward.

193: 

194: Exterior to the truncation radius $R_X$, the equatorial inward drift

195: in the accretion disk creates an angle between the stellar

196: magnetic-field lines and the disk normal.  If approximate field

197: freezing holds as the accretion proceeds, a fraction of the field

198: lines will develop an angle larger than $30^\circ$, when matter

199: frozen to this flux tube becomes unstable to magnetocentrifugal

200: fling (Blandford \& Payne 1982).  These field lines are thus

201: responsible for driving a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) wind from the

202: disk. Since the wind removes angular momentum from the disk, the

203: footpoints of those field lines in the disk will try to migrate

204: inward. The radially inward press of the footpoints of the wind

205: field lines footpoints and the radially outward press of the

206: footpoints of the funnel-flow field lines create a magnetic

207: X-configuration that distinguishes the model from similar variants

208: in the literature (the historical choice of the name from the

209: X-point of the equivalent gravitational potential in the co-rotating

210: frame is common to many models). In quasi-steady state where radial

211: advection into the X is balanced by the resistive diffusion of field

212: lines out of the X, Shu et al. (1994b) estimated that enough stellar

213: flux could be trapped in a small X-region near the inner disk edge

214: to have large dynamical effects, namely, the truncation of the disk

215: by a funnel flow out of the disk plane accompanied by an X-wind that

216: carries away most of the excess angular momentum transported into

217: the X-region.

218: 

219: Apart from the original numerical estimates, there are reasons to

220: suppose that if turbulent resistivity is the source of the diffusion

221: across magnetic field lines (Shu et al. 2007), then the fractional

222: size of the X-region in units of $R_X$ is given by the ratio of

223: sound speed at the surface of the disk where the X-wind is launched

224: to the local Keplerian speed at $R_X$.  For the inner disk of a

225: classical T Tauri star, the thermal sound speed is $a\sim 5$ km/s

226: while the Keplerian speed at $R_X$ is $v_K \sim 100$ km/s (Najita et

227: al. 2007); thus, the ratio $\epsilon$ is a small number $\sim 0.05$.

228: In an asymptotic analysis where $\epsilon$ is taken to $\rightarrow

229: 0$, the X-wind tied to the trapped field lines in the X-region would

230: emerge from virtually a single point in the meridional plane with a

231: fan-like geometry. Seen by an observer rotating at the Keplertian

232: angular frequency of $R_X$, gas flows along streamlines that

233: coincide with field lines if field freezing is assumed, and both

234: patterns of streamlines and field lines remain stationary in the

235: corotating frame.

236: 

237: \begin{figure}[ht]

238: \begin{center}

239: \includegraphics[width = 4in, angle = 0]{f1.ps}

240: \end{center}

241: \caption{Funnel flow (red curves), X-wind streamlines (blue curves),

242: and field lines dead to magnetocentrifugal fling (black curves)

243: according to Ostriker \& Shu (1995) and Shang et al. (1998).  The

244: magnetic field near the origin (center of YSO) is modeled as a

245: magnetic dipole, and all of the field lines contained in the X-wind

246: have their counterparts (with reversed directions) in opened stellar

247: field lines that lie inside a hollow cone dead to flow surrounding

248: the $z$-axis. Exact pressure balance across the sheet current that

249: divides the X-wind and dead field lines holds near and far from the

250: Y-point at $\varpi \approx 1.3$, $z\approx 0.7$, but this balance is

251: only approximate at intermediate distances, which accounts for why

252: the tilted upside-down Y of the separatrix does not have the equal

253: angles of 120$^\circ$ that would characterize an exact

254: Y-configuration appropriate for coronal conditions. In fact, the

255: field lines in red and black are computed as if they were vacuum

256: magnetic fields; only the portion depected in blue are attacked via

257: the solution of the Grad-Shafranov equation or its

258: variational-principle analog discussed in the present paper.  The

259: neutral line separating the black and blue field lines is replaced

260: by a separatrix of prescribed locus satisfying the approximate

261: pressure balance as described above. (see \S 4).}  The implied

262: poloidal and toroidal current flows are discussed in Ostriker \& Shu

263: (1995) and Shu et al. (1995); in particular, there is no current

264: flow along the $z$-axis which is taken to be a region of vacuum

265: longitudinal field. \label{funnel-wind}

266: \end{figure}

267: 

268: Viewed in this fashion, the overall problem can be broken into

269: smaller pieces and tackled separately. Using a formulation with a

270: precedent in the work of Lovelace et al. (1986), Shu et al. (1988,

271: 1994b) wrote down the mathematical equations that describe a steady

272: state axisymmetric flow in the corotating frame (Grad \& Rubin 1958,

273: Shafranov 1966).  By the method of matched asymptotic expansions,

274: Shu et al. demonstrated the existence of an inner solution in the

275: X-region where the flow makes a sonic transition, and an outer

276: solution where the sound speed is formally taken to zero and the

277: X-region shrinks down to a point.  Najita \& Shu (1994) computed

278: numerically the portion of the X-wind in which the fluid velocity is

279: sub-Alfv\'enic, and the governing equation is elliptic.  Ostriker \&

280: Shu (1995) solved the problem of the funnel flow and the field

281: configuration in the dead zone (in which the field lines do not

282: depart sufficiently from disk normal to load any matter) in an

283: approximation that treated the accretion flow onto the star as

284: highly sub-Alfv\'enic. Shu et al. (1995) constructed asymptotic

285: solutions that describe the logarithmically slow, far-wind

286: collimation into jets.  The free boundaries between various parts of

287: the problem (funnel flow, dead zone, and X-wind) were determined by

288: pressure balance on either side.

289: 

290: In this paper, we wish to address the X-wind part of the overall

291: problem.  In order for the X-wind to accelerate from rest to

292: supersonic speeds, it must smoothly pass three surfaces on which the

293: flow velocity is equal to the slow MHD, Alfv\'en, and fast MHD

294: velocity, respectively (Heinemann \& Olbert 1978, Sakurai 1985).

295: These critical surfaces manifest themselves as singularities in the

296: governing equation (see Weber \& Davis 1967), and thus need to be

297: handled analytically.  In an axisymmetric problem, if the shapes of

298: the streamlines are known in the meridional plane, the conserved

299: quantities of the problem (mass to flux loading, angular momentum

300: flux including that carried in the Maxwell stress, and Bernoulli's

301: integral along a streamline) suffice to give a completely analytic

302: solution, including the locations and conditions required to cross

303: the critical surfaces smoothly. Unfortunately, the streamline

304: distribution in the meridional plane is not known a priori but must

305: be obtained, in principle, from a solution of the Grad-Shafranov

306: equation (GSE). The spatial location of the critical surfaces are

307: part of the overall solution of the GSE; indeed, they characterize

308: the regions where this PDE is elliptic or hyperbolic. The mixed

309: character of the GSE makes a direct numerical attack extremely

310: difficult when self-similarity does not apply, perhaps the hardest

311: problem in the mathematical theory of nonlinear PDEs of second-order

312: (see Garabedian 1986). The current work sidesteps the mathematical

313: solution of the GSE as a nonlinear PDE of second order, and

314: approaches it instead as a much more amenable problem in variational

315: calculus.

316: 

317: The rest of this paper is organized as following. In \S 2 we review

318: the basic formulation in terms of a stream function and an Alfv\'en

319: discriminant that yields the partial-differential equations -- the

320: so-called Grad-Shafranov and Bernoulli equations -- that govern a

321: steady, axisymmetric, X-wind flow.  In \S 3 we write down an action

322: whose variations with respect the stream function $\psi(\varpi,z)$

323: and the Alfv\'en discriminant ${\cal A}(\varpi,z)$ yield,

324: respectively, the Grad-Shafranov equation and the Bernoulli equation

325: when the action reaches an extremum. We also perform a

326: transformation where we replace the vertical coordinate $z$ in

327: cylindrical coordinates $(\varpi, \varphi, z)$ by $\psi$.  In \S 4,

328: we show how to incorporate boundary conditions into the problem, as

329: well as how to take advantage of the fact that analytic forms are

330: known for the solutions in the near-neighborhood of the X-point and

331: in the asymptotic regime far from the X-point (Shu et al. 1994b,

332: 1995).  In \S 5, we outline a practical implementation of the

333: principle of extremal action, making use of only variations of

334: $\psi$ -- or, more precisely, of $z(\varpi,\psi)$ in our actual

335: working space -- as the substitute to attacking the Grad-Shafranov

336: equation, while we solve Bernoulli's equation directly for reasons

337: that are expounded upon in this section.  In \S 6, we present

338: numerical results for three specific cases of mass-loading onto wind

339: flux-tubes, finding good agreement with previous approximate

340: solutions obtained by Shang (1998) that have been used for many

341: different astrophysical applications (e.g., Shang et al. 1998, 2002,

342: 2004).  In \S 7, we summarize the recipes needed to convert the

343: numerical solutions of \S 6 into practical dimensional models.  We

344: then offer our conclusions and suggestions for needed future

345: research.

346: 

347: \section{Basic Equations} \label{Basic Equations}

348: \newcommand{\Veff}{V_{\text{eff}}}

349: \newcommand{\A}{\mathcal{A}}

350: From the fundamental parameters of the problem, we may construct

351: units of length, time, and density as $R_X$, $\Omega_X^{-1}$, and

352: $\dot M_w/4\pi R_X^3\Omega_X$, respectively.  By assuming

353: axisymmetry and stationarity in a frame that is rotating with

354: angular velocity $\Omega_X$, we may write down the dimensionless

355: governing equations in the above units.

356: \begin{mathletters}

357: \begin{eqnarray}

358:   &&\Del \cdot (\rho \mathbf{u}) = 0, \label{continuity_eqn}\\

359:   &&\Del \prn{\ahalf \abs{\mathbf{u}}^2} + (2 \mathbf{e}_z + \Del

360:   \times \mathbf{u}) \times \mathbf{u} = -\frac{\epsilon}{\rho} \Del \rho

361:   -\Del \Veff + \oneover{\rho} (\Del \times \mathbf{B}) \times \mathbf{B},

362:   \label{Euler_eqn}\\

363:   &&\mathbf{B} \times \mathbf{u} = 0,\label{field_freezing}\\

364:   &&\Del \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0, \label{monopole}

365: \end{eqnarray}

366: \end{mathletters}

367: where $\epsilon \equiv a/R_X \Omega_X$ is the sound speed measured

368: in units of Keplerian velocity at the X-point, and is assumed to be

369: a small parameter of the problem. The effective potential in the

370: corotating frame is defined as

371: \begin{equation}

372:   \Veff = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varpi^2 + z^2}} -\ahalf \varpi^2 +

373:   \frac{3}{2}.

374:   \label{Veff}

375: \end{equation}

376: Here we have added a constant term to the effective potential so

377: that its numerical value is zero at the X-point.

378: 

379: \subsection{Constants of Motion}

380: \newcommand{\oneoverrho}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2\A}

381: The continuity equation \eqref{continuity_eqn} is satisfied

382: identically if we define the poloidal velocity through a stream

383: function (Shu et al. 1988, 1994a):

384: \begin{equation}

385:   \rho u_\varpi \equiv \oneover{\varpi} \pd{\psi}{z}, \quad \rho

386:   u_z \equiv - \oneover{\varpi} \pd{\psi}{\varpi}.

387: \label{psidef}

388: \end{equation}

389: For steady state axisymmetric flow in the corotation frame, the

390: field freezing condition \eqref{field_freezing} demands that the

391: magnetic field and the velocity are related by (see, e.g., Mestel 1968)

392: \begin{equation}

393:   \mathbf{B} = \beta \rho \mathbf{u}.

394: \label{betadef}

395: \end{equation}

396: With this identification, the continuity equation

397: \eqref{continuity_eqn} and the absence of magnetic monopoles

398: \eqref{monopole} imply $\mathbf{u} \cdot \Del \beta = 0$.  In terms

399: of the stream function, this means $\beta$ is constant along each

400: streamline, or $\beta = \beta(\psi)$.

401: 

402: The Euler equation describes momentum and energy balance in three spatial

403: dimensions.  If we take the component along the fluid velocity by

404: taking the inner product of \eqref{Euler_eqn} with $\mathbf{u}$, we

405: obtain the Bernoulli's equation (BE) along streamlines

406: \begin{equation}

407:   \mathbf{u} \cdot \Del H = 0 \; \text{where} \; H \equiv \ahalf

408:   \abs{\mathbf{u}}^2 + \epsilon^2 \ln \rho + \Veff.

409: \end{equation}

410: In other words, $H = H(\psi)$, and the energy per unit mass of an

411: isothermal gas, including its specific enthalpy, is conserved along

412: a streamline in the corotating frame where the flow occurs parallel

413: to $\bf B$.  Similarly, if we take the toroidal component of the

414: Euler equation \eqref{Euler_eqn}, we obtain a third conserved

415: quantity along stream lines, the angular momentum of the gas

416: allowing for that part carried away by the Maxwell torque of the

417: field:

418: \begin{equation}

419:   J \equiv \varpi^2 + \varpi(1-\beta^2 \rho) u_\varphi = J(\psi).

420: \label{Jdef}

421: \end{equation}

422: %The existence of three conserved quantities is no accident.  It is

423: %well known from Noether's theorem that symmetries imply conserved

424: %quantities along particle's trajectory.  In the context of X-wind,

425: %we have identified three symmetries: axisymmetry, stationarity, and

426: %field freezing.  The corresponding integrals of motion are $J$

427: %(which is composed of angular momentum from the gas and Maxwell

428: %torque from the field), $H$ (which consists of the Jacobi's constant

429: %and specific enthalpy), and $\beta$ (which describes mass loading

430: %onto field lines).

431: As we shall see, the determination of the conserved quantities,

432: $H(\psi)$and $J(\psi)$, is achieved by demanding that the X-wind

433: crosses the slow MHD and fast MHD surfaces smoothly.  The loading of

434: mass onto flux, which is governed by $\beta(\psi)$ is freely

435: specifiable within certain limits to be detailed below.

436: 

437: The last component of the Euler equation describes momentum balance

438: in the direction perpendicular to the poloidal field lines. It is

439: the famous Grad-Shafranov equation (Heinemann \& Olbert 1978, Sakurai 1985):

440: \begin{equation}

441:   \Del \cdot (\A \Del \psi) + \oneover{\A}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

442:   -1}\frac{J'}{\varpi^2}

443:   + \frac{{\beta^2}'\brc{\Veff + \epsilon^2 \ln \brk{\epsilon^2

444:   h/(\oneoverrho)}}}{(\oneoverrho)^2}

445:   - \frac{\epsilon^2 h'/h}{\oneoverrho} =0,

446:   \label{GSE-general}

447: \end{equation}

448: where we have rescaled Bernoulli's function as

449: \begin{equation}

450: H \equiv -\epsilon^2\ln (\epsilon^2h),

451: \end{equation}

452: so that $h$ remains an order unity quantity in our calculation. Here

453: $\A$ is the Alfv\'en discriminant defined by

454: \begin{equation}

455:   \A \equiv \frac{M_A^{-2} -1}{\varpi^2 \rho},

456:   \label{calAdef}

457: \end{equation}

458: where

459: \begin{equation}

460:   M_A^2 \equiv \frac{\rho u^2}{B^2} = \oneover{\beta^2 \rho}

461: \end{equation}

462: is the Alfv\'en Mach number. Hence $\A$ is positive when the total

463: velocity is less than the Alfv\'en speed, and negative when the

464: total velocity is larger than the Alfv\'en speed.  From the form of

465: the GSE \eqref{GSE-general}, we see that the conserved angular

466: momentum flux $J$ is not freely specifiable. It is determined by the

467: condition of smooth Alfv\'en transition. In order for the solution

468: to remain continuous and differentiable, one must impose

469: \begin{equation}

470:     J = \varpi^2 \; \text{ whenever } \; \A = 0.\label{J-condition}

471: \end{equation}

472: The elimination of $\rho$ in the equations in favor of $\A$ is based

473: on numerical considerations, since $\rho$ will in general vary by

474: many orders of magnitude, while $\A$ only varies moderately. As we

475: argued in the previous section, the sound speed $\epsilon$ is likely

476: to be small.  In terms of these variables, the BE takes the

477: form

478: \begin{equation}

479:   \abs{\Del \psi}^2 + \oneover{\A^2}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1 }^2 +

480:   \frac{2\varpi^2\brc{\Veff +

481:   \epsilon^2 \ln \brk{\epsilon^2 h/(\oneoverrho)}}}{(\oneoverrho)^2}  =

482:   0.\label{BE-general}

483: \end{equation}

484: 

485: \subsection{The Cold Limit}

486: With $\A$ implicitly defined in the BE \eqref{BE-general}, the GSE

487: is a PDE of mixed type, which demands different numerical methods in

488: different regions (see Heinemann \& Olbert 1978 and Appendix

489: \ref{Character}). There are three relevant signal speeds (which we

490: term sonic, slow, and fast in the appendix) involved in an MHD flow

491: (see Jackson 1975 or Shu 1992).  The loci where the poloidal fluid

492: speed equals those signal speeds separate the flow into four

493: regions. As the poloidal velocity exceeds the sonic speed, the

494: governing GSE changes from elliptic to hyperbolic. A wise strategy

495: might start with the search of appropriate boundary conditions in

496: the disk where $u_p^2 = 0$, and at the sonic surface (whose location

497: is still undetermined), followed by a standard scheme (e.g.,

498: relaxation) to obtain the interior solution. Beyond the sonic

499: surface, the GSE becomes hyperbolic. The boundary condition on the

500: sonic surface now serves as the initial condition, which we use to

501: integrate forward along characteristics toward the slow surface.  We

502: then follow similar procedures to obtain solutions from the slow

503: surface to the fast surface, and beyond.

504: 

505: A significant simplification can be achieved when the sound speed is

506: negligible, as in the outer problem of the X-wind (see

507: \S 4 of Shu et al. 1994b). The governing equations are treated as

508: power series expansion in $\epsilon$.  The leading term in the GSE

509: \eqref{GSE-general} and the BE \eqref{BE-general} are

510: \begin{mathletters}

511: \begin{eqnarray}

512:   &&\Del \cdot (\A \Del \psi) + \oneover{\A}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

513:   -1}\frac{J'}{\varpi^2} + \frac{{\beta^2}'\Veff}{(\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A)^2}

514:   =0, \label{GSE}\\

515:   &&\abs{\Del \psi}^2 + \oneover{\A^2}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1 }^2 +

516:   \frac{2\varpi^2 \Veff}{(\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A)^2} =

517:   0.\label{BE}

518: \end{eqnarray}

519: \end{mathletters}

520: Notice the lowest order term in $H$ vanishes independent of the form

521: of $h$.  In this limit, both the sonic speed and the slow speed

522: reduce to zero, and the first elliptic and hyperbolic parts of the

523: flow shrink down to the X-point. We are thus spared the vicissitudes

524: of this portion of the problem.  Once the fluid leaves the X-region

525: (with poloidal velocity greater than the slow speed), it proceeds to

526: the fast surface, where the governing equation becomes hyperbolic.

527: %By setting $\epsilon= 0$, one can easily check that the poloidal

528: %component of the fast MHD wave travels at the Alfv\'en velocity, and

529: %the fast mode transition is made when the poloidal component of the

530: %fluid velocity exceeds the Alfv\'en velocity (see Appendix A).

531: %We offer the following interpretation

532: %for this mathematical result. For a general MHD flow, when the sound

533: %speed is taken to be zero, the slow speed vanishes and the

534: %\textit{total} fast speed reduces to the Alfv\'en speed (see,

535: %e.g., Jackson 1975, Shu1992). In other words, there is only one

536: %velocity at which MHD waves can propagate. If there is no symmetry

537: %in the problem, one would indeed expect the fast surface to coincide

538: %with the Alfv\'en surface. However, in an axisymmetric

539: %configuration, waves are forbidden to travel in the toroidal

540: %direction, and the only relevant part of the fluid velocity is its

541: %poloidal component.\footnote{Waves are local disturbances; they are

542: %unaware of the global symmetry.  Hence even though the fast wave can

543: %only travel in the poloidal direction, its phase velocity is still

544: %given by the total Alfv\'en velocity.}  Therefore the axisymmetry

545: %of the problem breaks the degeneracy of Alfv\'en and fast surface.

546: 

547: Najita \& Shu (1994) solved the GSE in the sub-Alfv\'enic region. By

548: introducing a generalized coordinate system, they were able to map

549: the location of the Alfv\'en surface to a known location, and

550: determine the functional form of $\beta(\psi)$ based on the position

551: and shape of the Alfv\'en surface. Their numerical scheme to find

552: $\beta (\psi)$ by iteration encountered a systematic ``drift

553: problem", however, and an artificial ``Alfv\'en seam'' was invented

554: to cope with this difficulty.

555: 

556: In a later treatment by Shang (1998), $\beta(\psi)$ was

557: specified in advance, limited in its functional form by

558: considerations of how the gas exits the X-region, an analysis that

559: we repeat in \S 4.2 (see also \S 5).  The GSE was not solved as a

560: PDE, but rather as an error estimator in a Weber-Davis type of

561: analysis, where $\psi$ as a trial function of spatial location is

562: obtained by interpolating between the known analytic forms in the

563: X-point neighborhood (see \S 4.1) and at asymptotic infinity (see \S

564: 4.3).  The interpolation formula has a number of degrees of freedom,

565: which are adjusted to give ``least error'' in some sense when the

566: trial solution for $\psi$ is substituted back into the GSE.  The

567: rest of the problem, including the constraints of the conserved

568: quantities and smooth passage through the Alfv\'en and fast

569: surfaces, are performed exactly.  She verified the result derived by

570: Goldreich and Julian (1970) that passage through the Alfv\'en surface

571: is automatic in such a scheme if one has guaranteed it through the

572: fast surface. In fact, \S 5.2 demonstrates the

573: falsity of the frequent claim made otherwise in the literature that

574: $J(\psi)$ is set at the Alfv\'en surface; the claim holds only if one

575: already has a solution such that the wind passes smoothly through

576: the fast surface.

577: 

578: %The fact that the discriminant $\Delta$ changes sign through a

579: %vanishing denominator suggests that the hyperbolic part of the flow

580: %possesses its own demon.  From any standard textbook on PDE

581: %\citep[e.g., ][]{Garabedian:1986}, $\Delta$ is proportional to the

582: %Jacobian in the transformation from original coordinates to the

583: %characteristics coordinates.  A diverging Jacobian implies a

584: %singular coordinate transformation.  In our particular example, the

585: %characteristics of the GSE are degenerate on the fast surface, and

586: %can not foliate the entire two dimensional physical space.

587: 

588: \section{Variational Principle}

589: Based on the above arguments, the X-wind is a fierce mathematical

590: beast, and a direct numerical attack is unlikely to subdue it fully.

591: To construct a global solution of the X-wind that accelerates

592: elements of plasma from the disk to super-magnetosonic speeds, we

593: must resort to a different approach.  Consider the following action

594: written down by inspection:\footnote{In their pioneering development

595: of magnetized stellar winds in a Grad-Shafranov formalism, Heinemann

596: \& Olbert (1978) noted in passing that the resultant equations could

597: be derived from a principle of least action, which differs in

598: detailed form from that used in this paper, but is in the same

599: spirit. However, they, and subsequent workers who have made similar

600: observations, did not exploit the principle to obtain actual wind

601: solutions.}

602: \begin{equation}

603:   S = \int \brc{\ahalf \mathcal{A} |\Del \psi|^2

604:   -\oneover{2\mathcal{A}} \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2 +

605:   \frac{V_{\text{eff}} + \epsilon^2 \ln [\epsilon^2 h/(\oneoverrho)]

606:   - \epsilon^2}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \mathcal{A}}} d^3x,

607:   \label{action}

608: \end{equation}

609: It is straight forward to demonstrate that variation against $\psi$

610: yields the GSE \eqref{GSE-general}, while variation against $\A$

611: gives the BE \eqref{BE-general}.  The challenges of constructing

612: solutions to a nonlinear PDE of mixed type is now transformed to

613: tuning trial functions of $\psi$ and $\mathcal{A}$ until a

614: local extremum of the action \eqref{action} is reached.

615: 

616: To formulate a scheme that is easy to implement numerically, we

617: consider a change of independent variables from the usual

618: cylindrical coordinates

619: \begin{displaymath}

620:   (\varpi, z, \varphi) \rightarrow (\varpi, \psi, \varphi).

621: \end{displaymath}

622: For a given value of $\psi$, the functional form of $z(\varpi)$

623: determines the shape of the given streamline, and

624: $\mathcal{A}(\varpi)$ offers information on the velocity distribution

625: along that streamline. Written in these new coordinates, and taking

626: the cold limit as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, the action reads

627: \begin{equation}

628:   S = 2\pi\iint \brc{\frac{1}{2} \A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

629:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}

630:   -\frac{1}{2\A}\pd{z}{\psi} \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2 +

631:   \pd{z}{\psi}\frac{V_{\text{eff}}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}} \varpi

632:   d\psi d\varpi \label{new_action}

633: \end{equation}

634: Since $\A$ only enters the action as a constraint rather than a

635: dynamic variable (i.e., its derivative is absent in the action),

636: variation with respect $\A$ yields the BE as before, but now written

637: in a different set of coordinates,

638: \begin{equation}

639:   \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-2} \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}

640:   + \oneover{\A^2} \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2 +

641:   \frac{2\varpi^2\Veff}{(\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A)^2} = 0

642: \end{equation}

643: Variation with respect to $z$ gives

644: \begin{eqnarray*}

645:   &&\delta S_z = 2\pi\iint \Bigg \{-\frac{1}{2} \A \prn{\pd{z}

646:   {\psi}}^{-2}

647:   \pd{\delta z}{\psi}

648:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}+\A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

649:   \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}} \pd{\delta z}{\varpi}\\

650:   &&\qquad -\frac{1}{2\A}\pd{\delta z}{\psi} \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

651:   -1}^2 +

652:   \pd{\delta z}{\psi}\frac{V_{\text{eff}}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

653:   +\pd{z}{\psi}\frac{V_{\text{eff},z}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

654:   \delta z \Bigg \} \varpi

655:   d\psi d\varpi.

656: \end{eqnarray*}

657: Integrating by parts, we have

658: \begin{eqnarray*}

659:   &&\delta S_z = 2\pi\int \brc{-\frac{1}{2} \A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-2}

660:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}

661:   -\frac{1}{2\A}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

662:   -1}^2 + \frac{V_{\text{eff}}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}}

663:   \varpi \delta z \Bigg \vert_{\psi = 0}^{\psi =1}d\varpi\\

664:   &&\qquad +2\pi \int\A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

665:   \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}} \delta z \varpi \Bigg \vert_{\varpi =

666:   1}^{\varpi = \infty}

667:   d\psi\\

668:   &&\qquad +2\pi\iint \pd{}{\psi}\Bigg \{\frac{1}{2} \A

669:   \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-2}

670:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}+\frac{1}{2\A}\prn{\frac{J}

671:   {\varpi^2}

672:   -1}^2 - \frac{V_{\text{eff}}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

673:   \Bigg \} \varpi \delta z d\psi d \varpi\\

674:   &&\qquad +2\pi \iint \Bigg\{

675:   \pd{z}{\psi}\frac{\varpi V_{\text{eff},z}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

676:    - \pd{}{\varpi} \brk{\A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

677:   \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}\varpi }\Bigg \} \delta z

678:   d\psi d\varpi.

679: \end{eqnarray*}

680: Since we specify the boundary condition $z = 0$ on $\psi = 0$, and

681: $z = Z(\varpi)$ on $\psi = 1$, where $Z(\varpi)$ is a known

682: function, we see that $\delta z$ vanishes on these two boundaries.

683: As we shall see later \citep[see ][]{paper2, paper5}, the

684: solution near the X-point and asymptotically can be constructed

685: analytically.  Thus $\delta z$ also vanishes when $\varpi =1$ and

686: $\varpi \rightarrow \infty$ in our variational scheme, and both

687: surface terms vanish in the above expression.  In order for the

688: action to be stationary against any choice of $\delta z$, the

689: solution must satisfy the Euler Lagrange equation,

690: \begin{eqnarray}

691:   &&\frac{\delta S}{\delta z} =  \pd{}{\psi}\brc{\frac{1}{2} \A

692:   \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-2}

693:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}+\frac{1}{2\A}\prn{\frac{J}

694:   {\varpi^2}

695:   -1}^2 - \frac{V_{\text{eff}}}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

696:   } \varpi \nonumber \\

697:   &&\qquad + \pd{z}{\psi}\frac{\varpi}{\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A}

698:   \pd{V_{\text{eff}}}{z}

699:    - \pd{}{\varpi} \brk{\A \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

700:   \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}\varpi } = 0.

701: \label{dSdz}

702: \end{eqnarray}

703: Dividing both sides by $\varpi$, we can simplify the Euler-Lagrange equation

704: \eqref{dSdz} to obtain

705: \begin{eqnarray}

706:   &&-\ahalf \pd{\A}{\psi}\brc{

707:   \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-2}

708:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}+ \frac{1}{\A^2}

709:   \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

710:   -1}^2 + \frac{2\varpi^2 \Veff}{(\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A)^2}} \nonumber \\

711:   &&\qquad + \frac{1}{\A}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2}

712:   -1} \frac{J'}{\varpi^2}  + \frac{{\beta^2}' \Veff}{(\beta^2

713:   - \varpi^2 \A)^2} - \oneover{\varpi}\prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

714:   \pd{}{\varpi} \brk{\A

715:   \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}\varpi } \nonumber\\

716:   &&+ \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}\pd{}{\psi}\brc{\A

717:   \prn{\pd{z}{\psi}}^{-1}

718:   \brk{1 + \prn{\pd{z}{\varpi}}^2}}= 0.\label{GSE_halfdo}

719: \end{eqnarray}

720: We notice that the coefficient of $\partial \A/\partial \psi$ is

721: simply the BE, which vanishes at a local extremum of the action. One

722: may easily check that the other terms yield the conventional GSE,

723: but written in our new coordinates.

724: 

725: \section{Boundary Conditions}

726: \subsection{X-point}\label{X-point}

727: With the new coordinates, the computational domain is bounded by

728: $\psi \in [0, 1]$ and $\varpi \in [1, \infty)$.  The X-point in

729: these coordinates is a singularity given by $\varpi = 1$ for all

730: values of $\psi$.  Fortunately, we have analytic solutions there.

731: From this point onward, we shall work with a scaled Alfv\'en

732: discriminant

733: \begin{equation}

734:   \chi \equiv \frac{\A}{\beta^2}.

735: \end{equation}

736: This function has the advantage of remaining finite even when

737: $\beta$ diverges. For a given functional form of $\beta$ (which

738: tells us how matter is loaded onto the field lines), the Alfv\'en

739: discriminant has the series expansion in $\varpi-1$.

740: \begin{equation}

741:   \chi_X = 1 + \chi_1(\psi) (\varpi-1) + \chi_2(\psi) (\varpi-1)^2 + ...,

742: \end{equation}

743: Here a subscript $X$ reminds us that this series solution is valid

744: near the X-point.  In order to match asymptotically onto the outer

745: limit of the inner problem (Shu et al. 1994b), the density $\rho \equiv

746: \beta^{-2}(1- \varpi^2 \chi)^{-1}$ must diverge as $(\varpi-1)^{-2}$

747: near the X-point. This requirement translates to $\chi_1 = -2$ for

748: all values of $\psi$. Similarly, for the coordinate $z$ (now a

749: dependent variable), we expand it as,

750: \begin{equation}

751:     z_X = z_1(\psi) (\varpi-1) + z_2(\psi)(\varpi-1)^2 + ....

752: \end{equation}

753: Notice that the Jacobian near the X-point is

754: \begin{displaymath}

755:   \sqrt{g} = z_1'(\varpi-1) \; \text{ as } \; \varpi \rightarrow 1.

756: \end{displaymath}

757: which is expected since the entire line of $\psi \in [0, 1]$ is

758: mapped into a single point, and the Jacobian must vanish in this

759: situation. Substituting the series expansion into the GSE

760: \eqref{GSE_halfdo} in the transformed coordinates, the lowest order

761: is $(\varpi-1)^{-2}$.

762: \begin{displaymath}

763:   \pd{}{\psi}\brk{\frac{\beta}{z_1'}

764:   \prn{1+z_1^2}} = 0,

765: \end{displaymath}

766: which has the solution

767: \begin{equation}

768:   z_1 = \tan \vartheta, \qquad \vartheta =

769:   \frac{1}{K} \int_0^\psi \beta d\psi.\label{-2nd_order}

770: \end{equation}

771: If we assume that the upper boundary of the X-wind ($\psi = 1$) near

772: the X-point forms an angle of $\theta_X$ with the $x$ axis, we have

773: \begin{displaymath}

774:   \tan \theta_X \approx \frac{z}{\varpi-1} \Big \vert_{\chi

775:   \rightarrow 1} = z_1(\psi = 1) = \tan \frac{1}{K} \int_0^1 \beta

776:   d\psi.

777: \end{displaymath}

778: Thus, the integration constant is given by

779: \begin{equation}

780:   K = \frac{\bar \beta}{\theta_X}, \qquad \bar\beta = \int_0^1

781:   \beta d\psi.

782: \end{equation}

783: Substituting back into the Bernoulli's equation allows us to solve

784: for $\chi_2$,

785: \begin{equation}

786:   \chi_2 = 3- \frac{\sqrt{4\cos^2 \vartheta -1}}{K \beta \cos^2

787:   \vartheta} \label{chi_2}

788: \end{equation}

789: For better numerical accuracy, we carry out the computation to next

790: order.  The next term in the series expansion of the GSE is $O[(\varpi-1)^{-1}]$:

791: \begin{displaymath}

792:   \pdd{\mathcal{Q}}{\vartheta}  + \mathcal{Q} = \sin

793:   \vartheta,

794: \end{displaymath}

795: where $\mathcal{Q} = z_2\cos^3\vartheta$. Given the boundary

796: condition $z=0$ at $\psi=0$ for all values of $\chi$, the above

797: equation may be solved to give

798: \begin{equation}

799:   z_2 = \ahalf \sec^2\vartheta \prn{q \tan \vartheta - \vartheta

800:   }.\label{z_2}

801: \end{equation}

802: The integration constant $q$ can be determined by expanding the

803: upper boundary near the X-point.  Substituting into the BE, we can determine the last

804: term without the knowledge of $J$ as

805: \begin{equation}

806:   \chi_3 = \frac{\cos^2\vartheta -2 + \tan \vartheta(q \tan

807:   \vartheta - \vartheta)}{2K \beta \cos^2 \vartheta \sqrt{4

808:   \cos^2 \vartheta -1}} + \frac{\sqrt{4 \cos^2 \vartheta -1}

809:   (4-q \sec^2\vartheta)}{2K \beta \cos^2 \vartheta} - 4. \label{varpi_3}

810: \end{equation}

811: 

812: \subsection{Specifying Mass Loading and Difficulties with the

813: Boundary Layer} \label{Boundary_Layer} Since the X-wind is driven

814: magnetocentrifugally, one would naively expect that it is bounded

815: away from the polar axis (at least in the immediate vicinity of the

816: X-point) by some curve which intersects the disk.  In the outer

817: limit of the inner problem (see eq. 3.10d of Shu et al. 1994b), the gas

818: pressure $p = \epsilon^2 \rho$ takes the form

819: \begin{displaymath}

820:   p \rightarrow \brk{\frac{\bar \beta}{\vartheta_x(0) \beta}}

821:   \sigma^{-2} (4\cos^2\vartheta -1)^{-1/2}, \; \text{ as } \; \sigma

822:   \rightarrow \infty,

823: \end{displaymath}

824: where $\tan\vartheta = z/(\varpi-1)$.  As $\vartheta_x \rightarrow

825: \pi/3$ (which is the critical angle for the last matter carrying

826: streamline), the pressure diverges unless

827: \begin{displaymath}

828:   \beta \propto (4 \cos^2\vartheta -1)^{-1/2}, \; \text{ as } \; \psi

829:   \rightarrow 1.

830: \end{displaymath}

831: Substitute this functional form into the lowest order equation

832: \eqref{-2nd_order}, finite magnetic field and pressure on the last

833: streamline demands

834: \begin{equation}

835:   \beta \propto (1-\psi)^{-1/3}, \;\text{ as }\; \psi \rightarrow 1.

836: \end{equation}

837: 

838: The divergence of $\beta$ should not come as a surprise.  Recall

839: that the last streamline is defined to be the boundary between the

840: X-wind and the dead zone.  To ensure analyticity across this

841: boundary, we must have $\rho \rightarrow 0$ as $\psi \rightarrow 1$.

842: Now since neither the magnetic field nor the velocity become

843: singular, we must take $\beta \rightarrow \infty$ on that last

844: streamline, so that the product $\beta^2 \rho^2 = B^2/u^2$ remains

845: finite.  With this limit in place, we see that the rescaled Alfv\'en

846: discriminant

847: \begin{displaymath}

848:   \chi = \frac{1 - 1/\beta^2 \rho}{\varpi^2} \rightarrow

849:   \oneover{\varpi^2}

850: \end{displaymath}

851: remains positive for all points along the last streamline.  In other

852: words, the flow on the last streamline is always sub-Alfv\'enic,

853: since the Alfv\'en speed is infinite there.  This behavior of the

854: last streamline requires a double limiting procedure if we were to

855: accurately construct the asymptotic solution on that interface.  We

856: speculate that this difficulty is an indication that the last

857: streamline needs to be treated as a boundary layer.  This

858: speculation is reinforced by the fact that the last X-wind

859: streamline is the outer bounding surface to a sheet of axisymmetric

860: current defined by opened stellar field lines that reverse poloidal

861: directions as the current sheet is crossed and we find ourselves in

862: the dead zone of the overall X-wind/funnel-flow configuration (see

863: Fig. 1).  Until we actually construct such a

864: boundary-layer/current-sheet theory, we adopt a simple modification

865: to deal with the problem:  we truncate the formal wind solution at

866: some $\psi_1<1$, below which $J$ and $\beta$ remain finite.  We then

867: add the part between $\psi_1$ and $1$ to the dead zone fields of the

868: problem, i.e., treat the last few streamlines as opened vacuum

869: fields and impose the pressure balance condition at $\psi_1$.

870: 

871: \subsection{Asymptotic Solution}\label{Asymptotic Solution}

872: The asymptotic solution at large distances from the X-point was

873: constructed by Shu et al. (1995).  In particular, for a wind

874: reaching more or less constant terminal velocity, its density scales

875: roughly as $\rho \propto \varpi^{-2}$, and the Alfv\'en discriminant

876: $\chi \rightarrow -1/\beta^2 \rho \varpi^2$ is a slowly varying

877: function of $r$.  By ignoring all radial derivatives compared to

878: angular derivatives, the GSE and the BE admit solutions of the form

879: \begin{equation}

880:   \chi = - 1/\beta C, \qquad \sin \theta = \sech [C^{-1}I(C, \psi)],

881:   \qquad I(C, \psi) = \int_0^\psi \frac{\beta

882:   d\psi}{\sqrt{2J - 3- 2C \beta}},\label{sol_asymp}

883: \end{equation}

884: where $\theta$ is the usual polar angle in spherical coordinates,

885: and $C$ is a ``constant of integration'' that vary slowly in $r$. In

886: an inertial frame, the wind reaches a terminal velocity given by

887: \begin{equation}

888:   v_w = (2J-3-2C \beta)^{1/2}.

889: \end{equation}

890: To determine the constant $C$, we impose pressure balance between

891: the X-wind and the dead zone. Since the dead zone field lines carry

892: no inertia, they do not develop a toroidal component, and the

893: poloidal field satisfies the vacuum equation (Ostriker \& Shu1994).

894: Asymptotically, we do not expect the field lines to pinch toward the

895: rotational axis since the hoop stress is vanishingly small (Shu et

896: al. 1995).  For simplicity, we assume the boundary layer deviates

897: only slightly from a cylindrical surface at the asymptotic infinity

898: (an assumption which shall be checked a posteriori for consistency).

899: For any given (large) value of $r$, we can approximate the boundary

900: locally by $\varpi = $ const. Then a particular solution is

901: $\mathbf{B} = B_{\rm hc} \zhat$. For the hollow-cone region to trap

902: the same amount of {\it net} flux as the wind part and have a

903: cross-sectional area of $\pi \varpi_{\rm hc}^2$, we have

904: \begin{displaymath}

905:   B_{\rm hc} = \frac{2\phi_{\rm hc} \bar \beta}{\varpi_{\rm hc}^2},

906: \end{displaymath}

907: where $\phi_{\rm hc}$ is a number ranging from $1$ to $3$ depending

908: on the fraction of closed field lines in the dead zone (compare Fig.

909: 1 of this paper with Fig. 1 of Shu et al. 2001).  The maximal case

910: $\phi_{\rm hc} = 3$ has three times as many field lines as the

911: minimal case $\phi_{\rm hc} = 1$, but the extra field lines cancel

912: in oppositely directed pairs and contribute no net flux.  The

913: overall solution does not depend sensitively on the number

914: $\phi_{\rm hc}$, and we take $\phi_{\rm hc}$ henceforth to be unity

915: as illustrated in Figure 1 of the current paper.

916: 

917: In contrast, the wind region is dominated by the toroidal field

918: \begin{displaymath}

919:   B_{w, \varphi} = \beta \rho u_\varphi = -\frac{J-\varpi^2}

920:   {\varpi^3 \chi \beta} \rightarrow -\frac{C}

921:   {\varpi}.

922: \end{displaymath}

923: The poloidal field $B_{w,p} = \beta \rho v_w \propto 1/\varpi^2$ is

924: much weaker in this limit.  By equating the magnetic pressures on

925: both sides of the boundary, $B_{\rm hc}^2 = B_{w, \varphi}^2$, we obtain

926: \begin{equation}

927:   C = \frac{2\bar \beta}{\varpi_{\rm hc}} = \frac{2\bar \beta}{r}

928:   \cosh [C^{-1} I(C, 1)],

929: \end{equation}

930: which implicitly defines $C(r)$.  Since $I$ only depends very weakly

931: on $C$, this expression shows that $C \rightarrow 0$ logarithmically

932: as $r \rightarrow \infty$.  Notice that this limiting behavior of

933: $C$ ensures that $\varpi_{\text{hc}}$ deviates from a constant only

934: logarithmically slowly, which validates our assumption on the

935: geometry of the boundary layer.  Written in our coordinates, the

936: asymptotic geometry of each streamline is given by

937: \begin{equation}

938:   z = \varpi \sinh[C^{-1} I(C, \psi)].

939: \end{equation}

940: In other words, each streamline is approximately radial, with a

941: logarithmic collimation toward the axis.

942: 

943: With $\rho \rightarrow C/\beta \varpi^2$ and $v_w \rightarrow $

944: constant, the poloidal and toroidal Alfv\'en speeds are given by

945: \begin{equation}

946:   v_{A,p}^2 = B_p^2/\rho \rightarrow C \beta v_w^2/\varpi^2, \qquad

947:   v_{A,\varphi}^2 = B_{\varphi}^2/\rho \rightarrow C\beta.

948: \end{equation}

949: Thus the Alfv\'en speed is dominated by the toroidal component,

950: which decreases logarithmically.  This means that the (poloidal)

951: terminal velocity is super-fast in the asymptotic regime, and the

952: wind has to make a fast mode transition along each streamline.  The

953: above analysis simply reiterates the claims made in Appendix

954: \ref{Character} that the asymptotic behavior of the flow is governed

955: by a hyperbolic differential equation.

956: 

957: %\begin{displaymath}

958: %  \oneover{r^2\sin\theta} \prn{\sin\theta \chi

959: %  \beta^2 \psi_{,\theta}}_{,\theta} + \oneover{\chi \beta^2}

960: %  \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1} \frac{J'}{\varpi^2} +

961: %  \frac{2\Veff}{\beta^4(1-\chi \varpi^2)^2}

962: %  \beta \beta' = 0.

963: %\end{displaymath}

964: %Upon multiplication by $2 \chi \beta^2 r^2 \sin^2\theta

965: %\psi_{,\theta}$, and take the leading term in $\Veff$, we have

966: %\begin{displaymath}

967: %  \pd{}{\theta}\brk{\prn{\sin\theta \chi

968: %  \beta^2 \psi_{,\theta}}^2} + 2

969: %  \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1} \pd{J}{\theta} -

970: %  \frac{\chi \varpi^4}{(1-\chi \varpi^2)^2} \pd{\log \beta^2}{\theta}

971: %  = 0.

972: %\end{displaymath}

973: %In the same limit, the Bernoulli's equation \eqref{BE} can be

974: %written as

975: %\begin{displaymath}

976: %  (\sin \theta \psi_{,\theta})^2 =

977: %  \frac{(\varpi^2 - 3)\varpi^4}{\beta^4(1-\chi\varpi^2)^2} -

978: %  \frac{\varpi^2}{\chi^2 \beta^4}

979: %  \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2.

980: %\end{displaymath}

981: %We have to keep two leading terms in $\Veff$ here because for

982: %streamlines with $\beta \sim O(1)$, $\alpha^2 \chi^2 \beta^4

983: %\rightarrow 1$, which causes the $\varpi^2$ term to cancel.

984: %Substitute Bernoulli's equation back into the Grad-Shafranov

985: %equation, we have

986: %\begin{displaymath}

987: %  \pd{}{\theta}\brk{\frac{\chi^2\varpi^6}{(1-\chi\varpi^2)^2}} +

988: %  \pd{\varpi^2}{\theta}\brk{\prn{\frac{J^2}{\varpi^4} -1}} -

989: %  \frac{\chi \varpi^4}{(1-\chi \varpi^2)^2} \pd{\log \beta^2}{\theta}

990: %  = 0.

991: %\end{displaymath}

992: %It is advantageous now to choose the asymptotic surface to be

993: %$\varpi = \varpi_\infty =$ const. so that the Grad-Shafranov

994: %equation reads

995: %\begin{equation}

996: %  \chi \varpi_\infty^2 \pd{}{\theta}\brk{\log \frac{\chi^2

997: %  \varpi_\infty^6}{(1-\chi\varpi_\infty^2)^2}} -

998: %  \pd{\log \beta^2}{\theta}

999: %  = 0.\label{GSE_asymptotic}

1000: %\end{equation}

1001: %Equation \eqref{GSE_asymptotic} can be integrated to give

1002: %\begin{equation}

1003: %  \chi = \frac{1}{\varpi_\infty^2}-\frac{1}{C

1004: %  \beta},\label{chi_asymp}

1005: %\end{equation}

1006: %where $C$ is a (slow varying) function of $r$.  The other solution

1007: %\begin{displaymath}

1008: %  \chi = \frac{C \beta - \varpi_\infty^2}{(C \beta - 2

1009: %  \varpi_\infty^2) \varpi_\infty^2}

1010: %\end{displaymath}

1011: %is extraneous because it gives a diverging $\chi$ for $C \beta \sim

1012: %2\varpi_\infty^2$, and it does not have the correct limit when

1013: %$\varpi_\infty \rightarrow \infty$ with finite $\beta$. Adopting the

1014: %finite solution \eqref{chi_asymp}, the Bernoulli's equation becomes

1015: %\begin{equation}

1016: %  \sin\theta\pd{\psi}{\theta} =-\frac{C}{\beta}\brk{

1017: %  \varpi_\infty^2 - 3

1018: %  - \frac{\varpi_\infty^6}{(C \beta - \varpi_\infty^2)^2}

1019: %  \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi_\infty^2} -1}^2}^{1/2}.\label{BE_asymptotic}

1020: %\end{equation}

1021: %The sign is chosen so that $\psi$ decreases with increasing

1022: %$\theta$. In the regions where $\beta$ is finite (and hence $J$ is

1023: %finite), the asymptotic solution requires $\varpi_\infty^2 \gg J$.

1024: %Then the asymptotic boundary is located at $\chi = -1/\beta C$, as

1025: %discovered by \citet{paper5}. In the same region, the Bernoulli's

1026: %equation can be approximated as

1027: %\begin{displaymath}

1028: %  \sin \theta\pd{\psi}{\theta} =-\frac{C}{\beta}

1029: %  \brk{- 3 -

1030: %  2\beta C +2J}^{1/2},

1031: %\end{displaymath}

1032: %which has solution

1033: 

1034: \section{Global Solutions}

1035: As a particular example, let us suppose that diffusive mass loading

1036: onto field lines in the X-region produces a $\beta$ function which

1037: has the form

1038: \begin{equation}

1039:   \beta = \frac{2}{3} \bar \beta (1-\psi)^{-1/3}.\label{beta}

1040: \end{equation}

1041: It is easy to verify that $\int_0^1 \beta d\psi = \bar \beta$. To be

1042: definite, let us also assume that the upper boundary of the

1043: X-wind near the X-point forms the maximum angle $\vartheta_X =

1044: \pi/3$ with the equatorial plane in order for magnetocentrifugal

1045: acceleration to operate. The $O[(\varpi-1)^{-2}]$ solution

1046: \eqref{-2nd_order} takes the form

1047: \begin{equation}

1048:   z_1 = \tan \vartheta = \tan \frac{\pi}{3} \brk{1-(1-\psi)^{2/3}}.

1049:   \label{-2nd_order_solution}

1050: \end{equation}

1051: In fact we have chosen a very special value for the opening angle.

1052: Recall that the formal boundary between the X-wind and the dead zone

1053: is characterized by vanishing $\rho$ with finite magnetic field.

1054: That results in $\beta \rightarrow \infty$ and $\chi = \varpi^{-2}$.

1055: If $\vartheta_X$ were smaller than $\pi/3$, one may check that the

1056: boundary condition $\chi = \varpi^{-2}$ agrees with the series

1057: solution of \S \ref{X-point} to the second order for all values of

1058: $q$. This integration constant is computed by expanding the shape of

1059: the last streamline near the X-point. However, when $\vartheta_X =

1060: \pi/3$, the series solution agrees with the boundary condition only

1061: if the quantity $q$ in equation (\ref{z_2}) satisfies

1062: \begin{displaymath}

1063:   q = \oneover{3} \prn{\frac{7}{4} + \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{3}}}.

1064: \end{displaymath}

1065: If $\vartheta_X > \pi/3$, the solution becomes discontinuous.  This

1066: behavior is consistent with our physical intuition.  When the flow

1067: is cold, the upper boundary of the X-wind is imposed by pressure

1068: balance.  As one eases up the external pressure, $\vartheta_X$

1069: increases. However, even when the external pressure drops to zero,

1070: the matter carrying streamlines are confined to $\vartheta \le

1071: \pi/3$, since it is the boundary where centrifugal effects can

1072: overcome gravity. At least near the X-point, there is no freedom to

1073: choose the shape of the last streamline.  Any excursion across this

1074: boundary requires additional pressure support from the X-wind, which

1075: calls for a warm rather than cold outflow.

1076: 

1077: In the particular example we are studying here, the second order

1078: coefficient for $z$ becomes

1079: \begin{equation}

1080:   z_2 = \ahalf \sec^2 \vartheta \brk{\prn{\frac{7}{12} +

1081:   \frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{3}}}

1082:   \tan \vartheta - \vartheta}.

1083: \end{equation}

1084: For numerical tractability, we place the boundary layer at $\psi =

1085: 0.99$. Given the choice of mass loading in equation \eqref{beta},

1086: the $\beta$ function is not much larger than unity there.

1087: 

1088: \subsection{Fixing the Free Function $J(\psi)$}

1089: \label{find_J}

1090: The BE \eqref{BE} is actually

1091: a quartic algebraic equation for the Alfv\'en discriminant once the

1092: shape of the streamlines are known. The Alfv\'en surface here is not

1093: a real singularity of the equation; it simply ensures that $\chi =

1094: 0$ is a solution when $J = \varpi^2$. In other words smooth crossing

1095: of the Alfv\'en surface does not uniquely determine the value of

1096: $J$.  To see this, let us define

1097: \begin{displaymath}

1098:   \mathcal{L} = \varpi \rho u_\varphi = - \oneover{\beta^2 \chi}

1099:   \prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}.

1100: \end{displaymath}

1101: It is always negative and asymptotes to zero for the wind since the

1102: magnetic field lines form a trailing spiral.  The BE can be written

1103: as

1104: \begin{equation}

1105:   (\abs{\Del \psi}^2 + \mathcal{L}^2)(\beta^2 \mathcal{L}

1106:   + J - \varpi^2)^2 +

1107:   2\varpi^2 \Veff \mathcal{L}^2 = 0.\label{mod_BE}

1108: \end{equation}

1109: As long as $J$ is larger than some critical value, there are always

1110: real and finite solutions to this equation, which means the Alfv\'en

1111: surface is automatically crossed.  On the other hand, the fast point

1112: is a real critical point for the BE.  A smooth fast mode transition

1113: demands the BE to have a double root at the critical point (see Fig

1114: \ref{fast_crossing}). That means not only does the left hand side of

1115: \eqref{mod_BE} need to vanish, its derivative with respect to

1116: $\mathcal{L}$ must vanish as well.

1117: 

1118: After some algebra, these

1119: requirements can be written as

1120: \begin{equation}

1121:   \mathcal{L} = \abs{\Del \psi}^{2/3}

1122:   (J - \varpi^2)^{1/3} \beta^{-2/3}.\label{fast}

1123: \end{equation}

1124: This expression is simply a statement that at the fast point, the

1125: poloidal fluid velocity is equal to the magnetosonic speed, which

1126: for $\epsilon = 0$ is equal to the total Alfv\'en speed. Notice that

1127: both equations \eqref{mod_BE} and \eqref{fast} are automatically

1128: satisfied by $\mathcal{L} = (J-\varpi^2) = 0$. This solution,

1129: however, is unphysical since it has a discontinuity on the Alfv\'en

1130: surface when $\chi = 0$.  Substituting equation \eqref{fast} back in

1131: to the BE \eqref{mod_BE}, we have

1132: \begin{equation}

1133:   \brk{\abs{\Del \psi}^{2/3}

1134:   \beta^{4/3} + (J - \varpi^2)^{2/3}}^3 +

1135:   2\varpi^2 \Veff= 0.\label{degen_root}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: For a given value of $J$, the solutions to this equation give the

1138: locations where the BE has degenerate roots.  If $J<J_c$, equation

1139: \eqref{degen_root} has no roots in the super-Alfv\'en region

1140: ($\varpi^2 > J$). If $J>J_c$, then equation \eqref{degen_root} has

1141: two roots in the super-Alfv\'en part of the flow.  The desired

1142: solution is obtained when $J=J_c$, and there is only one double root

1143: occurring at the fast mode transition point (see Fig. 2).

1144: \begin{figure}[ht]

1145: \begin{center}

1146: \includegraphics[width = 4.5in, angle = 0]{f2.ps}

1147: \end{center}

1148: \caption{Determination of the critical value of $J$ that allows a

1149: fast mode transition}

1150: \label{fast_crossing}

1151: \end{figure}

1152: 

1153: \subsection{Interpolation Schemes and Numerical Strategy}

1154: Our strategy is then to find interpolations between the X-point

1155: solution in \S \ref{X-point} and the asymptotic solution of \S

1156: \ref{Asymptotic Solution} so that the action \eqref{new_action} is

1157: extremized. Since the action involves an integral extending to $r

1158: \rightarrow \infty$, and the streamlines are approximately radial,

1159: in general the action integral is infinite. In the X-wind problem,

1160: however, the assumption of stationarity is an approximation that

1161: must fail physically at very large distances from the X-point.  If

1162: the flow extends all the way to spatial infinity, then steady state

1163: cannot be established in finite time.  To make the practical aspect

1164: of this problem manageable, we opt to truncate the action integral

1165: at some finite spatial surface, and assume that the solution is

1166: identical to the asymptotic solution beyond that point. Then the

1167: interpolation requires the intermediate solution to join smoothly on

1168: to the asymptotic solution at the boundary.  Since the parameter $C$

1169: that appears in the asymptotic solution is purely a function of $r$,

1170: it is natural to choose the boundary surface at $r = r_0 <\infty$.

1171: Thus, along a given streamline labeled by $\psi$, the action

1172: involves an integral over the range $\varpi \in [1, \varpi_\infty]$,

1173: where

1174: \begin{equation}

1175:   \varpi_\infty = \frac{2 \bar \beta}{C} \frac{\cosh[C^{-1}I(C,

1176:   1)]}{\cosh[C^{-1} I(C, \psi)]} \label{varpi_infty}

1177: \end{equation}

1178: Here $I$ is the integral defined in equation \eqref{sol_asymp}, and

1179: the asymptotic value of $z$ is given by

1180: \begin{equation}

1181:   z_\infty(\varpi, \psi) = \varpi_\infty \sinh \brk{C^{-1} I(C, \psi)},

1182: \end{equation}

1183: 

1184: Since the asymptotic behavior of the streamlines are predominantly

1185: radial with a logarithmic collimation toward the pole, we may

1186: approximate them by linear functions.  There is a large class of

1187: basis functions in which $z(\psi, \varpi)$ can be expanded. To avoid

1188: unphysical oscillations introduced by higher order polynomial

1189: interpolations, we approximate $z$ by a cubic spline such that the

1190: second derivative $z_{\varpi\varpi}$ is a continuous piecewise

1191: linear function.

1192: \begin{equation}

1193:   z_{\varpi \varpi} = f_i + (\varpi-\varpi_i)\frac{f_{i+1} - f_i}

1194:   {\varpi_{i+1} - \varpi_i} , \; \text{ for } \;

1195:   \varpi_i \le \varpi < \varpi_{i+1},

1196: \end{equation}

1197: where $i = 0...N-1$, with $\varpi_0 = 1$ and $\varpi_N =

1198: \varpi_\infty$. The boundary conditions on $z_{\varpi\varpi}$ read

1199: \begin{equation}

1200:   f_0 = 2z_2, \qquad f_N = 0.

1201: \end{equation}

1202: Direct integration yields \citep{Press:1992}

1203: \begin{eqnarray}

1204:   &&z = a y_i + b y_{i+1} + c f_i + d f_{i+1},\label{y-spline}\\

1205:   &&z_\varpi = \frac{y_{i+1}-y_i}{\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i} -

1206:   \frac{3a^2-1}{6}(\varpi_{i+1} -

1207:   \varpi_i)f_i + \frac{3b^2 -1}{6} (\varpi_{i+1} - \varpi_i)

1208:   f_{i+1},\label{yp-spline}

1209: \end{eqnarray}

1210: where

1211: \begin{eqnarray*}

1212:   &&a \equiv \frac{\varpi_{i+1} -\varpi}{\varpi_{i+1} - \varpi_i},

1213:   \qquad b \equiv 1-a = \frac{\varpi-\varpi_i}{\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i},\\

1214:   &&c \equiv \frac{1}{6}(a^3-a)(\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i)^2, \qquad d \equiv

1215:   \frac{1}{6} (b^3-b)(\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i)^2,

1216: \end{eqnarray*}

1217: and $y_i \equiv z(\varpi_i)$ for that particular streamline.  The

1218: $y_i$ are determined by demanding $z_\varpi$ is continuous

1219: throughout the domain. Explicitly,

1220: \begin{equation}

1221:   \frac{\varpi_i-\varpi_{i-1}}{6} f_{i-1} + \frac{\varpi_{i+1} - \varpi_{i-1}}{3} f_i +

1222:   \frac{\varpi_{i+1} - \varpi_i}{6} f_{i+1} = \frac{y_{i+1} - y_i}{\varpi_{i+1} -

1223:   \varpi_i} - \frac{y_i - y_{i-1}}{\varpi_i -

1224:   \varpi_{i-1}},\label{smooth_condition}

1225: \end{equation}

1226: which is a set of $N-2$ linear equations for the $N$ $y_i$.  The

1227: boundary conditions $y_0 = 0$ and $y_N = z_\infty$ close the

1228: equations, and allows unique determination of $y_i$ once $f_i$ are

1229: given. Since we have information on the slope of the solution on

1230: both boundaries, they impose two further constraints

1231: \begin{eqnarray}

1232:   &&z_1= \frac{y_{1}-y_0}{\varpi_{1}-\varpi_0} - \frac{1}{3}(\varpi_{1} -

1233:   \varpi_0)f_0 - \frac{1}{6} (\varpi_{1} - \varpi_0)

1234:   f_{1},\label{ypXconstraint}\\

1235:   &&z_{\infty,\varpi}= \frac{y_{N}-y_{N-1}}{\varpi_{N}-\varpi_{N-1}}

1236:   + \frac{1}{6}(\varpi_{N} -

1237:   \varpi_{N-1})f_{N-1} + \frac{1}{3} (\varpi_{N} - \varpi_{N-1})

1238:   f_{N}.\label{ypinftyconstraint}

1239: \end{eqnarray}

1240: To demonstrate the principles, we choose $N=3$, so that all the

1241: $f_i$ are constrained.  For a given set of $\varpi_i$, the equations

1242: \eqref{smooth_condition}, \eqref{ypXconstraint}, and

1243: \eqref{ypinftyconstraint} form a set of four linear equations, which

1244: can be solved by standard means.  We also define $\varpi_2$ by

1245: \begin{equation}

1246:   \frac{\varpi_2-\varpi_1}{\varpi_1 - 1} = \frac{\varpi_\infty -

1247:   \varpi_2}{\varpi_2 - \varpi_1},\label{varpi_2}

1248: \end{equation}

1249: i.e., we demand that the interval between interpolation points to

1250: increase exponentially.  Thus the shape of each streamline is

1251: parameterized by a single variable, $\varpi_1$.

1252: %\begin{align*}

1253: %  &f_0 \frac{\varpi_1-\varpi_{0}}{6} - 2\prn{\varpi_{2} - \varpi_{0}}\brk{

1254: %  \frac{y_0}{(\varpi_{1}-\varpi_0)^2} +\frac{f_0}{3} +\frac{z_1}{\varpi_1

1255: %  -\varpi_0}} \\

1256: %  &\qquad -

1257: %  \prn{\varpi_{2} - \varpi_1} \brk{\frac{y_{3}}{(\varpi_{3}-\varpi_{2})^2}

1258: %  +\frac{f_{3}}{3} - \frac{z_{\infty,\varpi}}{\varpi_{3} -

1259: %  \varpi_{2}}} - \frac{y_{0}}{\varpi_1 -

1260: %  \varpi_{0}}\\

1261: %  &\qquad = - y_1 \brk{\frac{1}{\varpi_{2} -

1262: %  \varpi_1} + \frac{1}{\varpi_1 - \varpi_{0}} + \frac{2(\varpi_2

1263: %  -\varpi_0)}{(\varpi_1 - \varpi_0)^2}} + y_2\brk{\frac{1}{\varpi_{2} -

1264: %  \varpi_1} -\frac{\varpi_2-\varpi_1}{(\varpi_3 - \varpi_2)^2}} \\

1265: %  &-\prn{\varpi_2-\varpi_{1}}\brk{\frac{y_0}{(\varpi_{1}-\varpi_0)^2}

1266: %  + \frac{f_0}{3} + \frac{z_1}{\varpi_1

1267: %  -\varpi_0}} -\frac{y_{3}}{\varpi_{3} -

1268: %  \varpi_2} \\

1269: %  &\qquad -2 \prn{\varpi_{3} - \varpi_{1}}\brk{\frac{y_{3}}{(\varpi_{3}-\varpi_{2})^2}

1270: %  +\frac{1}{3}f_{3} - \frac{z_{\infty,\varpi}}{\varpi_{3} -

1271: %  \varpi_{2}}} +

1272: %  \frac{\varpi_{3} - \varpi_2}{6} f_{3} \\

1273: %  &\qquad = y_1 \brk{\frac{1}{\varpi_2- \varpi_1} - \frac{\varpi_2 - \varpi_1}

1274: %  {(\varpi_1-\varpi_0)^2}} - y_2\brk{\frac{1}{\varpi_{3} -

1275: %  \varpi_2} + \frac{1}{\varpi_2 -

1276: %  \varpi_{1}} + \frac{2(\varpi_3-\varpi_1)}{(\varpi_3 - \varpi_2)^2}}\\

1277: %  &f_{1} = \frac{6y_{1}}{(\varpi_{1}-\varpi_0)^2} -6\frac{y_0}

1278: %  {(\varpi_{1}-\varpi_0)^2}- 2f_0 -6\frac{z_1}{\varpi_1

1279: %  -\varpi_0},\\

1280: %  &f_{2}= \frac{6y_{2}}{(\varpi_{3}-\varpi_{2})^2} -6\frac{y_{3}}{(\varpi_{3}-\varpi_{2})^2}

1281: %  -2f_{3} + 6\frac{z_{\infty,\varpi}}{\varpi_{3} -

1282: %  \varpi_{2}}.

1283: %\end{align*}

1284: 

1285: %\begin{equation}

1286: %\begin{split}

1287: %  &\chi = \chi_\infty

1288: %  + \oneover{2\bar \beta \beta} \prn{1-\frac{\varpi-1}{\varpi_0-1}}^2

1289: %  P_\chi, \\

1290: %  &\chi_\infty = \oneover{\varpi^2}

1291: %  - \frac{\varpi}{2\bar \beta \beta}, \qquad P_\chi =

1292: %  \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{M} a_i(\psi)

1293: %  (\varpi-1)^i}{1+\sum_{i=0}^N b_i(\psi) (\varpi-1)^i}.

1294: %\end{split}

1295: %\end{equation}

1296: 

1297: The action integral and the asymptotic solution can be treated as

1298: solutions to a set of simultaneous ``ordinary'' differential

1299: equations

1300: \begin{equation}

1301:   \od{S}{\psi} = \int_1^{\varpi_\infty(\psi)} L \varpi

1302:   d\varpi,\qquad

1303:   \od{I}{\psi} = \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{2J(\psi) - 3 - 2 C

1304:   \beta(\psi)}},\label{num_int}

1305: \end{equation}

1306: subject to the boundary conditions

1307: \begin{displaymath}

1308:   S(0) = 0, \qquad I(0) = 0.

1309: \end{displaymath}

1310: Here $L$ represents the Lagrangian appearing in the action

1311: \eqref{new_action}.  For each value of $\psi$, to compute the right

1312: hand side of equation \eqref{num_int}, one needs the values of

1313: $\varpi_1(\psi)$, $I(\psi)$ and $I(\psi_1)$, where $\psi_1 = 0.99$

1314: is the label of the boundary layer discussed in \S

1315: \ref{Boundary_Layer}.  Ideally, one would like to specify the shape

1316: of the last streamline by fixing the values of $\varpi_1(\psi_1)$

1317: and $I(\psi_1)$ as boundary conditions, and vary the function

1318: $\varpi_1(\psi)$ in a constrained manner to achieve a local extremum

1319: of the action. In practice, we find it more convenient to implement

1320: a scheme where only $\varpi_1(\psi_1)$ is given, and $I(\psi_1)$ is

1321: determined as an eigenvalue.  This approach allows more freedom in

1322: the parameter search for the desired $\varpi_1(\psi)$.  With each

1323: streamline fully parameterized, one can proceed to determine the

1324: necessary value of $J(\psi)$ that allows a smooth fast mode

1325: transition according to the procedure outlined in \S \ref{find_J}.

1326: 

1327: Once $J(\psi)$ and $I(\psi)$ are both known, we can easily solve the

1328: BE \eqref{BE} as an algebraic equation along each streamline for

1329: $\mathcal{L}$ using standard techniques such as Laguerre's method

1330: (see Press et al. 1992).  In particular, note that we do {\it not}

1331: actually use the extremal property of the action principle with

1332: respect to $\cal A$ to attack the Bernoulli equation, but effect

1333: direct solutions of it instead. Increased numerical accuracy

1334: constitutes only one reason for a mixed procedure, where we do find

1335: the extremal action through variations of $\psi$, or equivalently,

1336: through variations of $z(\varpi, \psi)$, as a substitute for solving

1337: the Grad-Shafranov equation. There is a yet more practical reason.

1338: It turns out the the correct solution sits on a saddle, where the

1339: extremal action is minimized by variations of $\psi$ but maximized

1340: by variations of $\cal A$.  This combination makes a numerical

1341: search for the extremal action extremely difficult to execute in

1342: practice, perhaps even impossible, if the search is carried out in

1343: the double-function space of allowable $\psi$ and $\cal A$.

1344: 

1345: One further obstacle to

1346: overcome is that the action integral \eqref{new_action} is

1347: logarithmically divergent at the X-point. Recall that the Jacobian

1348: of the coordinate transformation vanishes at the X-point since it

1349: maps the entire axis of $\varpi = 1$ onto a single point. A series

1350: expansion of the Lagrangian using the series solution of section

1351: \S\ref{X-point} shows that it diverges as

1352: \begin{equation}

1353:   L_* = \frac{K\beta}{2(\varpi-1)}.

1354: \end{equation}

1355: Fortunately, this term does not enter into the variation scheme, and

1356: we may safely remove it as a counter term from the Lagrangian, as is

1357: the standard practice in quantum-field theory.

1358: 

1359: Finally, the function $\varpi_1(\psi)$ is modeled by a Hyman

1360: filtered spline \citep{Hyman:1983} interpolating over evenly spaced

1361: control points $\psi_i \in [0, \psi_1]$.  The values of $\varpi_1$

1362: at these control points, $\varpi_1(\psi_i)$, are the parameters we

1363: can adjust in our variation scheme.  We restrict the parameter space

1364: to that satisfies the condition that the streamlines do not cross

1365: and that each streamline is monotonic. We then adopt a genetic

1366: algorithm to search for a set of $\varpi_1(\psi_i)$ that gives a

1367: local extremum of the action \eqref{new_action}.

1368: 

1369: \section{Numerical Results}

1370: We compute the streamlines for three cases of average mass loading

1371: corresponding to $\bar \beta = 1, 2, 3$.  In each case, we place the

1372: outer boundary of the computational domain at a constant radius so

1373: that it intersects the last streamline at $\varpi_\infty(\psi_1) =

1374: 20$ (which yields $C = 0.1 \bar \beta$).  After a multidimensional

1375: search, we locate the desired set of control points that extremize

1376: the action. They are tabulated in Table \ref{control_pts}, and the

1377: function $\varpi_1(\psi)$ is interpolated between these points as

1378: described in the previous section.

1379: \begin{table}[ht]

1380: \begin{center}

1381: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1382: \hline $\bar \beta$ & $\varpi_1(0.0)$ & $\varpi_1(0.2)$

1383: &$\varpi_1(0.4)$

1384: &$\varpi_1(0.6)$ &$\varpi_1(0.8)$ &$\varpi_1(0.99)$\\

1385: \hline

1386: 1.0 &29.687 & 29.817 & 23.281 & 18.809 & 8.310 &6.000 \\

1387: 2.0 &28.281 & 29.165 & 24.644 & 17.774 & 11.150 &6.000\\

1388: 3.0 &28.384 & 28.985 & 23.990 & 19.965 & 10.139 &6.000\\

1389: \hline

1390: \end{tabular}

1391: \caption{Values of control points $\varpi_1(\psi_i)$ that yield a

1392: local extremum of the action.  The last value $\varpi_1(0.99)$ is

1393: fixed as a boundary condition.} \label{control_pts}

1394: \end{center}

1395: \end{table}

1396: 

1397: For each converged solution, we can numerically integrate the

1398: asymptotic equation to evaluate $I(\psi)$.  For practical purposes,

1399: we present here an interpolation formula that is a seventh degree

1400: polynomial in $\beta^{-1}$, and the coefficients are tabulated in Table

1401: \ref{I_inter}. Once $I(\psi)$ is known, one may determine the outer

1402: boundary of the computational domain in accordance with the

1403: asymptotic condition \eqref{sol_asymp}.  With the combination of

1404: $\varpi_1(\psi)$ and $I(\psi)$, we are able to reconstruct the

1405: streamlines with the spline interpolation scheme, and they are

1406: depicted in Figure \ref{crit}. The location of the Alfv\'en surface

1407: determines the value of $J$ as a function of $\psi$, which

1408: ultimately allows us to compute the angular momentum being

1409: transported as well as the terminal velocity along each streamline.

1410: For convenience, we also present an interpolation formula for $J(\psi)$ as a

1411: polynomial in $\beta$, with the coefficients tabulated in Table

1412: \ref{J_inter}.

1413: \begin{table}[ht]

1414: \begin{center}

1415: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1416: \hline

1417: $\bar\beta$&$I_0$&$I_1$&$I_2$&$I_3$&$I_4$&$I_5$&$I_6$&$I_7$\\

1418: \hline 1&0.732&-0.446&0.886&-0.511&-1.781&2.648&-1.397&0.263\\

1419: 2&0.842&0.413&-2.504&2.699&-11.768&24.849&-22.870&7.602\\

1420: 3&1.164&-2.915&30.674&-194.996&585.524&-998.495&$930.236$&$-347.764$ \\

1421: \hline

1422: \end{tabular}

1423: \caption{Interpolation formula for $I_{\text{int}}(\psi) =

1424: \sum_{i=0}^7 I_i \beta^{-i}$.  The interpolated function agrees with

1425: the numerical values to within $0.5\%$.} \label{I_inter}

1426: \end{center}

1427: \end{table}

1428: 

1429: \begin{figure}[ht]

1430: \begin{center}

1431: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3a.ps}

1432: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3b.ps}

1433: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3c.ps}

1434: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3d.ps}

1435: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3e.ps}

1436: \includegraphics[width = 2.9in, angle = 90]{f3f.ps}

1437: \end{center}

1438: \caption{Solutions for $\bar \beta = 1, 2, 3$.  The dotted curves

1439: represent the streamlines labeled by constant $\psi$, and the solid curves

1440: are isodensity contours separated by logarithmic intervals.  The dashed

1441: curves are the location of the Alfv\'en surface in each case, and the

1442: dashed-dotted curves mark the fast surface where the GSE becomes

1443: hyperbolic.}

1444: \label{crit}

1445: \end{figure}

1446: 

1447: \begin{table}[ht]

1448: \begin{center}

1449: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|}

1450: \hline

1451: $\bar\beta$&$J_0$&$J_1$&$J_2$&$J_3$&$J_4$&$J_5$&$J_6$&$J_7$&$\bar J$\\

1452: \hline

1453: 1&-2.791&17.214&-13.640&-10.294 & 22.483 &-13.656 &3.628 &-0.362 & 2.638\\

1454: 2&-14.944&45.162&-43.065&21.660&-6.265&1.057&-0.0969&0.00373 & 4.356\\

1455: 3&-20.285&40.676&-25.088&8.006&-1.440&0.148&-0.00825&0.000191& 6.202\\

1456: \hline

1457: \end{tabular}

1458: \end{center}\caption{Interpolation formula for $J_{\text{int}}(\psi) =

1459: \sum_{i=0}^7 J_i \beta^i$.  The last column gives the value $\bar J$

1460: of $J(\psi)$ averaged over $\psi$ from 0 to 0.99.  The interpolated

1461: function agrees with the numerical values to within $1\%$. }

1462: \label{J_inter}

1463: \end{table}

1464: 

1465: The solid lines in Figure 3 show the logarithmically spaced contours

1466: of constant density.  It is evident that even though the dotted

1467: streamlines become asymptotically radial and only collimate

1468: logarithmically slowly, the density becomes cylindrically stratified

1469: very quickly, giving the X-wind the illusion of a jet-like

1470: appearance (Shang et al. 1998, 2002).

1471: 

1472: Detailed comparisons of the results obtained here with those given

1473: by Shang (1998) show some differences, but the main impression is

1474: how remarkably well the solutions obtained by the two very different

1475: methods for the same mass-to-flux loading $\beta (\psi)$ agree with

1476: one another.  Shang (1998) had a similar experience in comparing her

1477: approximate, but analytic, solutions for the sub-Alfv\'enic region

1478: to the exact, but numerical, solutions obtained by Najita \& Shu

1479: (1994).

1480: 

1481: We attribute the fortunate circumstance to the following causes.  If

1482: one is given somehow the geometric shape of the streamlines (or,

1483: equivalently, the field lines in the meridional plane), then the

1484: Weber-Davis procedure used by Shang, which includes an exact

1485: solution of Bernoulli's equation, would give an exact solution of

1486: the two-dimensional flow problem, provided one takes care to cross

1487: each of the critical points properly.  In realistic circumstances,

1488: the geometric shape of streamlines in the meridional plane is not

1489: given a priori, but is to be found from the Grad-Shafranov equation

1490: (or, equivalently, from minimizing the action by variations of the

1491: stream function $\psi$).  However, if one has analytic solutions to

1492: the Grad-Shafranov equation (from the work of Shu et al. 1994b and

1493: 1995) near and far from the X-point, then there are only so many

1494: ways that one can adjust the function $z(\varpi, \psi)$ for values

1495: of $\psi$ from 0 to 1 and of $\varpi$ close to 1 (or dimensionally,

1496: $R_X$) to $\varpi \gg 1$ (or $R_X$) that will connect the shape of

1497: the streamlines near the X-point (a fan) smoothly to those

1498: appropriate at asymptotic infinity (radial outflow).  The procedures

1499: used by Shang (1998) and those used here to make such adjustments

1500: differ, but the global solution is relatively insensitive to these

1501: details as long as one gets the conserved quantities: mass-to-flux

1502: loading $\beta(\psi)$, angular momentum distribution $J(\psi)$, and

1503: Bernoulli's constant $H(\psi) = 0$ correctly.

1504: 

1505: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1506: 

1507: \subsection{Recipe for Use of Results}

1508: 

1509: For the convenience of the reader, we summarize the recipes needed

1510: to convert the results of the previous section into numerical X-wind

1511: models for astronomical and meteoritical applications. Begin with

1512: the equation that describes the dimensionless locus of a streamline

1513: for given $\psi$ with numerical value between 0 and 1:

1514: \begin{equation}

1515: z = z(\varpi,\psi),

1516: \end{equation}

1517: where the functional form of $z(\varpi, \psi)$ is computed

1518: numerically by the technique described in \S 5.2.

1519: 

1520: The reconstruction of streamline shapes, i.e., the function

1521: $z(\varpi,\psi)$, is performed over three radial intervals whose end

1522: points are $\varpi_0 \equiv 1$, $\varpi_1(\psi) > 1$,

1523: $\varpi_2(\psi) > \varpi_1(\psi)$, and $\varpi_3(\psi) \equiv

1524: \varpi_\infty(\psi) > \varpi_2(\psi)$ that give a geometrically

1525: increasing separation:

1526: \begin{equation}

1527:   \frac{\varpi_2-\varpi_1}{\varpi_1 - 1} = \frac{\varpi_\infty -

1528:   \varpi_2}{\varpi_2 - \varpi_1} ,

1529: \label{separation-interval}

1530: \end{equation}

1531: where $\varpi_\infty (\psi)$ is given by equation

1532: \eqref{varpi_infty}:

1533: \begin{equation}

1534: \varpi_\infty = \frac{2 \bar \beta}{C} \frac{\cosh[C^{-1}I(C,

1535: 1)]}{\cosh[C^{-1} I(C, \psi)]} .

1536: \end{equation}

1537: For practical computations, we choose $C = 0.1\bar \beta$ so that

1538: $\varpi_\infty = 20$ on the $\psi =1$ streamline. The asymptotic

1539: integral $I(C, \psi)$ in equation \eqref{sol_asymp} can be

1540: approximated by a seventh degree polynomial in $\beta^{-1}$:

1541: \begin{equation}

1542: I(\psi) = I_0 + I_1 \beta^{-1}(\psi) + \dots + I_7 \beta^{-7}(\psi),

1543: \end{equation}

1544: where the coefficients $I_0$, $I_1$, $\dots$, $I_7$ are given in

1545: Table 2 for the three values of $\bar \beta$ = 1, 2, 3. The function

1546: $\varpi_1(\psi)$ represents the first nontrivial abscissa of the

1547: spline beyond the X-point for each value of $\psi$ and is tabulated

1548: in Table \ref{control_pts} for $\psi_i = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,

1549: 0.99$.  For intermediate values, we interpolate $\varpi_1$ by a

1550: piecewise cubic polynomial:

1551: \begin{equation}

1552:   \varpi_1 = h_0(\psi_i)+h_1(\psi)(\psi-\psi_i) +h_2(\psi_i)(\psi-\psi_i)^2

1553:   +h_3(\psi_i)(\psi-\psi_i)^3 \text{ for } \psi_i

1554:   \le \psi < \psi_{i+1}.

1555: \end{equation}

1556: In Table \ref{Hyman_coef}, we list the values of $h_j(\psi_i)$ for

1557: each case of $\bar \beta$.  To get $\varpi_2(\psi)$ for any value of

1558: $\psi$, one should use equation \eqref{separation-interval} after

1559: first computing $\varpi_1(\psi)$ and $\varpi_\infty(\psi)$ at the

1560: desired value of $\psi$.

1561: 

1562: \begin{table}[ht]

1563: \begin{center}

1564: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1565: \hline & $\psi$ & $0.0$ & $0.2$ & $0.4$ & $0.6$ &

1566: $0.8$\\

1567: \hline$\bar \beta = 1$& $h_0$&$29.687$&$29.817$ & $23.281$ & $18.809$ & $8.310$\\

1568: & $h_1$&$17.315$&$-1.950$ & $-27.520$ & $-37.428$ & $-31.809$\\

1569: & $h_2$&$-153.650$&$-333.100$ & $126.938$ &$-254.103$ &$103.428$ \\

1570: & $h_3$&$351.625$ &$897.250$ &$-505.688$ &$893.830$ & $0.000$\\

1571: \hline $\bar \beta = 2$ &$h_0$ & $28.281$ &$29.165$ & $24.644$ &

1572: $17.774$ & $11.150$\\

1573: &$h_1$ &$17.933$ & $-9.093$ & $-28.478$ & $-33.735$ & $-30.035$\\

1574: &$h_2$ &$-67.563$ &$-105.763$ & $-61.800$ & $-9.272$ & $15.422$\\

1575: &$h_3$ &$0.000$& $191.000$&$162.188$ & $61.737$ & $0.000$\\

1576: \hline $\bar \beta = 1$&$h_0$ & $28.384$ & $28.985$ & $23.990$ &

1577: $19.965$ & $10.139$\\

1578: &$h_1$ & $16.995$ &$-9.015$ & $-22.550$ & $-34.628$ & $-35.107$\\

1579: &$h_2$ & $-79.800$ & $-171.725$ & $96.763$ & $-215.142$ & $70.117$\\

1580: &$h_3$ & $49.250$ &$459.625$ & $-423.188$ & $713.150$ & $0.000$\\

1581: \hline

1582: \end{tabular}

1583: \caption{Interpolation coefficients for $\varpi_1(\psi)$}

1584: \label{Hyman_coef}

1585: \end{center}

1586: \end{table}

1587: 

1588: The shape of each streamline given by $\psi$ = const in the three

1589: radial intervals whose end points are $\varpi_0(\psi)=1$,

1590: $\varpi_1(\psi)$, $\varpi_2(\psi)$, and

1591: $\varpi_3(\psi)=\varpi_\infty(\psi)$ is then described by a

1592: piecewise cubic polynomial, whose form, suppressing the implicit

1593: dependence on $\psi$, is given by equation \eqref{y-spline}:

1594: \begin{equation}

1595: z(\varpi) = y_1a + y_2b+ {(\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i)^2\over 6}\left[

1596: f_1(a^3-a)+f_2(b^3-b)\right],

1597: \end{equation}

1598: where

1599: \begin{equation}

1600: a\equiv {\varpi_{i+1}-\varpi\over \varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i}, \qquad b

1601: \equiv {\varpi-\varpi_i\over \varpi_{i+1}-\varpi_i}.

1602: \end{equation}

1603: The coefficients $y_1$, $y_2$, $f_1$, and $f_2$ are listed in Table

1604: \ref{spline_coef} for discrete values of $\psi$ = 0.0, 0.2., 0.4,

1605: 0.6, 0.8, 0.99 in the three cases $\bar \beta = 1$, 2, 3. A Hyman

1606: limited spline may be used to compute the streamlines for other

1607: values of $\psi$.

1608: \begin{table}[ht]

1609: \begin{center}

1610: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1611: \hline &$\psi$ &$0.0$ &$0.2$ &$0.4$ &$0.6$ &$0.8$ &

1612: $0.99$\\

1613: \hline $\bar \beta = 1$ &$y_1$ &$0.0$ & $12.764$ & $21.872$ & $41.255$ & $51.367$

1614: &$525.487$\\

1615: & $y_2$ & $0.0$ & $366.579$ & $627.01$ &$1044.15$ & $1402.6$ &$3648.96$\\

1616: & $f_1$ & $0.0$ & $3.834 \times 10^{-3}$ &$3.083 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.256$ & $4.120$

1617: & $118.485$\\

1618: & $f_2$ & $0.0$ & $-2.901 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-4.685 \times 10^{-4}$ & $-1.033\times 10^{-2}$

1619: & $-0.301$ & $-48.051$\\

1620: \hline $\bar \beta = 2$ &$y_1$ &$0.0$ &$12.091$ &$22.694$ &$29.659$ & $37.935$ & $73.230$\\

1621: &$y_2$ &$0.0$ & $86.922$ & $156.801$ & $208.943$ & $267.766$ & $383.996$\\

1622: & $f_1$ &$0.0$ & $2.359 \times 10^{-3}$ & $1.489\times 10^{-2}$ &

1623: $9.705 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.750$ & $9.943$\\

1624: & $f_2$ &$0.0$ & $-1.991 \times 10^{-4}$ & $-1.518 \times 10^{-3}$ &

1625: $ -1.333 \times 10^{-2}$& $-0.158$ & $-4.246$\\

1626: \hline $\bar \beta = 3$ &$y_1$ & $0.0$ & $14.138$ & $22.415$ & $33.841$ & $26.286$ & $44.094$\\

1627: &$y_2$ & $0.0$ & $82.541$ & $104.01$ & $133.299$ & $131.469$ & $173.659$\\

1628: &$f_1$ & $0.0 $ & $1.903 \times 10^{-2}$ & $2.353 \times 10^{-2}$ & $5.056 \times 10^{-2}$

1629: & $0.376$ & $2.950$\\

1630: &$f_2$ & $0.0$ & $-3.651\times 10^{-3}$ & $-5.610 \times 10^{-3}$ &

1631: $-1.722 \times 10^{-2}$ & $-0.102$ & $-1.424$\\

1632: \hline

1633: \end{tabular}

1634: \caption{Spline coefficients for the

1635: streamlines.}\label{spline_coef}

1636: \end{center}

1637: \end{table}

1638: 

1639: The partial derivatives of $\psi$ with $\varpi$ or $z$ are now given

1640: by the usual rules of multivariate calculus:

1641: \begin{equation}

1642: \left( {\partial \psi \over \partial \varpi}\right)_z = -{(\partial

1643: z/\partial \varpi)_\psi\over (\partial z/ \partial \psi)_\varpi};

1644: \qquad \left( {\partial \psi\over \partial z}\right)_\varpi =

1645: {1\over (\partial z/\partial \psi)_\varpi}.

1646: \end{equation}

1647: Table 3 gives $J(\psi)$ as a seventh order polynomial in $\beta(\psi)$:

1648: \begin{equation}

1649: J(\psi) = J_0 + J_1\beta(\psi) + \dots +J_7\beta^7(\psi),

1650: \end{equation}

1651: where $\beta(\psi)$ is itself given by

1652: \begin{equation}

1653: \beta(\psi) = {2\over 3}\bar \beta (1-\psi)^{-1/3},

1654: \end{equation}

1655: with $\bar \beta$ = 1, 2, 3 in the three chosen model cases. The

1656: coefficients tabulated in Table 3 give a $J(\psi)$ that guarantees

1657: that equation \eqref{BE},

1658: \begin{equation}

1659: \abs{\Del \psi}^2 + \oneover{\A^2}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1 }^2 +

1660:   \frac{2\varpi^2 \Veff}{(\beta^2 - \varpi^2 \A)^2} =

1661:   0,

1662: \label{Bernoulli}

1663: \end{equation}

1664: has one real root for $\cal A$ in the computational domain when

1665: $V_{\rm eff}$ is given by equation \eqref{Veff}:

1666: \begin{equation}

1667: \Veff = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varpi^2 + z^2}} -\ahalf \varpi^2 +

1668:   \frac{3}{2}.

1669: \end{equation}

1670: By solving equation (\ref{Bernoulli}) as a fourth-order polynomial,

1671: we may obtain the relevant value for the Alfv\'en discriminant $\cal

1672: A$. Then the density can be computed through equation

1673: \eqref{calAdef}

1674: \begin{equation}

1675: \rho = (\beta^2 - \varpi^2

1676: \A)^{-1}.

1677: \label{density}

1678: \end{equation}

1679: Note that this equation produces $\rho = \beta^{-2}$ at the

1680: Alfv\'enic transition ${\cal A} = 0$.

1681: 

1682: With the density in place, we may obtain the two components of dimensionless

1683: poloidal velocity from the definition \eqref{psidef} of $\psi$:

1684: \begin{equation}

1685:  u_\varpi \equiv \oneover{\varpi\rho} \pd{\psi}{z}, \quad

1686:   u_z \equiv - \oneover{\varpi\rho} \pd{\psi}{\varpi}.

1687: \end{equation}

1688: The toroidal velocity in the corotating frame is given by equation \eqref{Jdef}

1689: \begin{equation}

1690: u_\varphi = {J(\psi)-\varpi^2\over \varpi (1-\beta^2\rho)}.

1691: \label{toroidalvel}

1692: \end{equation}

1693: Note that $J(\psi) = \varpi^2$ where $\beta^2\rho = 1$ keeps

1694: the toroidal velocity $u_\varphi$ well-behaved across the Alfv\'en surface, which is

1695: not one of the critical surfaces of the overall problem.

1696: 

1697: The vector magnetic field may now be obtained from equation \eqref{betadef}:

1698: \begin{equation}

1699: {\bf B} = \beta \rho {\bf u},

1700: \label{vectorB}

1701: \end{equation}

1702: whereas

1703: the azimuthal velocity in the inertial frame is given by

1704: \begin{equation}

1705: v_\varphi = u_\varphi + \varpi ,

1706: \label{inertialvphi}

1707: \end{equation}

1708: with the term $\varpi$ from the frame rotation being cancelled at

1709: large $\varpi$ where $u_\varphi \rightarrow -\varpi$ because $\rho$

1710: vanishes as $1/\varpi^2$ at large distances from the rotation axis.

1711: Finally, to convert the computed quantities to their dimensional

1712: counterparts, we must multiply velocities, densities, and magnetic

1713: fields by $R_X\Omega_X$, $\dot M_w/4\pi R_X^3\Omega_X$, and

1714: $(\Omega_X\dot M_w/R_X)^{1/2}$, respectively.

1715: 

1716: For interpolations or extrapolations in $\bar \beta$, we recommend

1717: computation first of the dimensionless density, velocity, and

1718: magnetic fields for the three cases $\bar \beta =$ 1, 2, 3, and then

1719: direct interpolations or extrapolations of those fields.  Other

1720: techniques starting farther back in the process run the danger of

1721: obtaining complex roots of $\cal A$ (i.e., complex values of $\rho$)

1722: from the solution of the quartic equation (\ref{Bernoulli}) because

1723: of slight inaccuracies in computing the numerical coefficients.

1724: 

1725: \subsection{Summary}

1726: 

1727: In this paper, we have presented a technique by which solutions to

1728: the so-called Grad-Shafranov equation for X-wind flow can be solved,

1729: not by attacking the partial differential equation directly, but by

1730: choosing trial functions that minimize an appropriate action

1731: integral.  While this method has been applied before in problems of

1732: plasma confinement in the fusion community, we believe that the

1733: example given here is its first application in astrophysics for the

1734: notorious case when magnetohydrodynamical flows cross critical

1735: surfaces that change the character of the underlying PDE.

1736: 

1737: Many empirical arguments suggest that funnel flows and X-winds do

1738: underlie the accretion hot-spots, jets, and winds of YSOs, although

1739: a dipolar field geometry near the star (see Fig. 1) may be an

1740: over-simplification (Ardila et al. 2002, Unruh et al. 2004,

1741: Johns-Krull 2007).  Fortunately, although the fractional areal

1742: coverage of hot spots depends on the detailed multipole structure of

1743: the surfaces of actual young stars, the general validity of X-wind

1744: theory depends only on the level of trapped flux in the X-region and

1745: is insensitive to the magnetic geometry on the star as long as the

1746: fields are strong (Mohanty \& Shu 2007).  The trapped flux in the

1747: X-wind models of this paper are computed as

1748: \begin{equation}

1749: 2\pi \bar\beta \left(GM_*\dot M_w\over \Omega_X\right)^{1/2},

1750: \end{equation}

1751: and should be compared with the magnetic flux (area times mean

1752: field) in hot-spots on one hemisphere's surface of the star impacted

1753: by the corresponding funnel flow.  (Both fluxes are 1/3 of the total

1754: trapped flux in the X-region and equal the net flux of the dead

1755: region.)  For T Tauri stars, the comparison is pretty good (see,

1756: e.g., Johns-Krull \& Gafford 2002).

1757: 

1758: Apart from relative simplicity, the semi-analytical solutions

1759: summarized in \S 7.1 have many other advantages.  For example, the

1760: solutions hold over a formally infinite dynamic range, showing the

1761: asymptotic, logarithmically slow, collimation into jets missing in

1762: many numerical simulations.  These properties make the models of

1763: this paper especially suitable for a wide variety of astronomical

1764: and meteoritical applications, such as detailed comparisons with

1765: observations, trajectories of solids entrained in the wind, and

1766: interactions with neighboring circumstellar or interstellar matter.

1767: A needed generalization for future research is the inclusion of the

1768: effects of the intrinsic magnetization of the surrounding accretion

1769: disk.

1770: 

1771: \bigskip\bigskip

1772: We thank the Physics Department and the Center for Astrophysics and

1773: Space Sciences of UCSD for support. The Academia Sinica and the

1774: National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan also provided funding

1775: through their grants to the Theoretical Institute for Advanced

1776: Research in Astrophysics (TIARA). The research of MJC is supported

1777: in part by the NSC grant 95-2112-M-001-44.

1778: 

1779: \appendix \section{Character of Governing Equation}\label{Character}

1780: 

1781: The GSE \eqref{GSE-general} resembles the steady state heat

1782: diffusion equation with a variable diffusion coefficient $\A$.  This

1783: analogy is actually misleading since we do not know its overall

1784: character until we substitute in the implicit dependence of $\A$ on

1785: $\psi$ by solving the (algebraic) BE and examine the characteristics

1786: of the GSE.  To do so, let us first differentiate the BE with

1787: respect to $\varpi$ and $z$.

1788: \begin{eqnarray*}

1789:   &&2(\psi_{,\varpi} \psi_{,\varpi \varpi} + \psi_{,z}\psi_{,z \varpi}) -

1790:   \frac{2\A_{,\varpi}}{\A^3}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2 \\

1791:   &&\qquad +

1792:   \frac{2\varpi^4 \A_{,\varpi}}{(\oneoverrho)^3}\brk{2\Veff +

1793:   2\epsilon^2 \ln \prn{\frac{\epsilon^2 h}{\oneoverrho}}+ \epsilon^2}

1794:   + ... = 0,\\

1795:   &&2(\psi_{,\varpi} \psi_{,\varpi z} + \psi_{,z}\psi_{,z z}) -

1796:   \frac{2\A_{,z}}{\A^3}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1}^2 \\

1797:   &&\qquad +

1798:   \frac{2\varpi^4 \A_{,z}}{(\oneoverrho)^3}\brk{2\Veff +

1799:   2\epsilon^2 \ln \prn{\frac{\epsilon^2 h}{\oneoverrho}}+ \epsilon^2}

1800:   + ... = 0,

1801: \end{eqnarray*}

1802: where in the above equations, a subscript denotes partial derivative

1803: and the ellipsis symbols include terms that are irrelevant in

1804: determining the character of the GSE. These equations may be solved

1805: for $\A_{,\varpi}$ and $\A_{,z}$ to give

1806: \begin{displaymath}

1807:   \A_{,\varpi} = \oneover{\mathcal{P}}\prn{\psi_{,\varpi} \psi_{,\varpi\varpi} +

1808:   \psi_{,z} \psi_{,z\varpi}} + ..., \qquad \A_{,z} = \oneover{\mathcal{P}}

1809:   \prn{\psi_{,\varpi} \psi_{,\varpi z} + \psi_{,z}\psi_{,zz}} + ...,

1810: \end{displaymath}

1811: where

1812: \begin{displaymath}

1813:   \mathcal{P} =

1814:   \frac{\varpi^2}{\oneoverrho}

1815:   \abs{\Del \psi}^2 + \oneover{\A^3}\prn{\frac{J}{\varpi^2} -1 }^2 \frac{\beta^2}{\oneoverrho}

1816:   - \frac{\epsilon^2\varpi^4}{(\oneoverrho)^3},

1817: \end{displaymath}

1818: after we eliminate $\Veff$ in the expression by using the BE

1819: \eqref{BE}.  The second derivative terms in the GSE \eqref{GSE} can

1820: now be written in the form

1821: \begin{displaymath}

1822:   a \psi_{,\varpi\varpi} + 2b\psi_{,\varpi z} + c \psi_{,zz} + ... =

1823:   0,

1824: \end{displaymath}

1825: where

1826: \begin{displaymath}

1827:   a = \A + \frac{\psi_{,\varpi}^2}{\mathcal{P}}, \qquad b =

1828:   \frac{\psi_{,\varpi} \psi_{,z}}{\mathcal{P}}, \qquad c = \A +

1829:   \frac{\psi_{,z}^2}{\mathcal{P}}.

1830: \end{displaymath}

1831: The character of the GSE is determined by the quantity $\Delta = b^2

1832: - ac$ (Garabedian 1986): it is elliptic, parabolic, or

1833: hyperbolic if $\Delta$ is negative, zero, or positive.  We may

1834: compute $\Delta$ for our GSE explicitly.

1835: \begin{equation}

1836:   \Delta = - \A^2\left\{

1837:   {|\Del \psi|^2 + (J\varpi^{-2} -1 )^2\A^{-2}

1838:   - \epsilon^2\A \varpi^4[\beta (\beta^2-\varpi^2\A)]^{-2}\over

1839:   \varpi^2 \A\beta^{-2} |\Del \psi|^2 + (J\varpi^{-2} -1)^2\A^{-2}

1840:   - \epsilon^2 \A \varpi^4[\beta (\beta^2-\varpi^2\A)]^{-2}}\right\}.

1841: \end{equation}

1842: The interpretation of this expression becomes transparent if we

1843: transform back into the physical quantities.  After some algebra, we

1844: have

1845: \begin{equation}

1846:   \Delta = - \A^2\brk{

1847:   \frac{u^2

1848:   - \epsilon^2(1-M_A^2)}{

1849:   (1-M_A^2) (u_p^2-\epsilon^2) + u_\varphi^2}}

1850: %  = \A^2\brk{

1851: %  \frac{(v_A^2 + \epsilon^2) u_p^2

1852: %  - \epsilon^2v_{Ap}^2}{u_p^4 -

1853: %  u_p^2 (v_A^2 + \epsilon^2)+\epsilon^2v_{Ap}^2}}

1854:   =\A^2\brk{

1855:   \frac{(v_A^2 + \epsilon^2) (u_p^2

1856:   - v_s^2)}{(u_p^2 - v_{-p}^2)(u_p^2 - v_{+p}^2)

1857:   }}.\label{PDE_character}

1858: \end{equation}

1859: where $v_{Ap} \equiv \sqrt{B_p^2/\rho}$ is the poloidal component of

1860: the Alfv\'en velocity $v_A \equiv \sqrt{B^2/\rho}$ with $B^2 =

1861: B_p^2+B_\varphi^2$, $u_p$ is the poloidal fluid velocity, and $v_s$

1862: is defined by

1863: \begin{displaymath}

1864:   v_s^2 \equiv \frac{\epsilon^2v_{Ap}^2}{v_A^2 + \epsilon^2}.

1865: \end{displaymath}

1866: In the limit where $v_A^2 \gg \epsilon^2$, it reduces to the thermal

1867: sound speed.  In addition, $v_{\pm p}$ denote the poloidal component

1868: of the fast and slow MHD wave speeds, respective, and are given by

1869: \begin{equation}

1870:   v_{\pm p}^2 = \ahalf (v_A^2 + \epsilon^2)\brk{1 \pm \sqrt{1- \frac{4v_s^2}

1871:   {v_A^2 + \epsilon^2}}}.

1872: \end{equation}

1873: A moment of thought reveals that $v_s < v_{-p} < v_{+p}$.  The

1874: significance of the equation \eqref{PDE_character} is now clear. The

1875: governing GSE is elliptic when $u_p^2 < v_s^2$ or $v_{-p}^2 < u_p^2

1876: < v_{+p}^2$, and it is hyperbolic when $v_s^2 < u_p^2 < v_{-p}^2$ or

1877: $u_p^2 > v_{+p}^2$ \citep{Heinemann:1978,Sakurai:1985}.

1878: 

1879: To be definite, we shall refer to the loci where the poloidal

1880: velocity squared equals $v_s^2$, $v_{-p}^2$ and $v_{+p}^2$ as

1881: sonic, slow, and fast surfaces, respectively. Despite

1882: the deceiving appearance of the GSE \eqref{GSE-general}, note that it does not

1883: change character on the Alfv\'en surface when $\A = 0$ (or

1884: equivalently when $M_A = 1$ and the total fluid velocity in the corotating frame

1885: equals the total Alfv\'en speed); it remains elliptic until the fast

1886: surface. The fact that the asymptotic flow is described by a

1887: hyperbolic PDE is consistent with our physical intuition.  When the

1888: fluid speed is super-magnetosonic, no information can be sent

1889: upstream into the flow.  Thus the asymptotic behavior of the X-wind is determined

1890: by the ``initial condition'' at the place when the fluid velocity

1891: first becomes equal to the fastest signal propagation speed -- a

1892: defining feature of hyperbolic problems.

1893: 

1894: In the cold limit the discriminant $\Delta$ has the simplification,

1895: \begin{equation}

1896:   \Delta =  -\A^2\left\{

1897:   {|\Del \psi|^2 + (J\varpi^{-2} -1 )^2\A^{-2} \over

1898:   \varpi^2 \A\beta^{-2} |\Del \psi|^2 + (J\varpi^{-2} -1)^2\A^{-2}}\right\}

1899:   = -\A^2\left(\frac{1

1900:   }{1 -u_p^2/v_A^2}\right).

1901: \end{equation}

1902: This equation explicitly states that the transition to the

1903: hyperbolic portion of the solution is done through the fast surface,

1904: where the poloidal fluid velocity is equal to the magnetosonic

1905: speed, which is the total Alfv\'en speed $v_A = B/\sqrt{\rho}$ when

1906: $\epsilon$ is set to zero.  The axial symmetry of the assumed

1907: problem guarantees that any compressions or rarefactions occur only

1908: in the meridional plane, so the relevant speed of signal propagation

1909: in the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is the magnetosonic speed

1910: relative to the poloidal motion of the fluid.

1911: %Furthermore, since

1912: %this transition is made through a diverging $\Delta$, the

1913: %characteristics of the flow are degenerate on the fast surface, and

1914: %one would need an infinite numerical accuracy and resolution to

1915: %handle this portion of the calculation via a conventional

1916: %computational scheme.

1917: 

1918: \newpage

1919: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1920: \bibitem[Ardila et al.(2002)]{Ardila:2003}

1921: Ardila, D. R., Basri, G., Walter, F. M., Valenti, J. A.,

1922: Johns-Krull, C. M. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1013

1923: 

1924: \bibitem[Askey(1982)]{Askey:1982}

1925: Askey, R. 1982 Lett. in Math. Phys, 6, 299

1926: 

1927: \bibitem[Bacciotti et al(2002)]{Bacciotti:2002}

1928: Bacciotti, F., Ray, T. P., Eisl\"offel, J., Solf, J. 2002, ApJ, 576, 222

1929: 

1930: \bibitem[Blandford \& Rees(1992)]{Blandford:1992}

1931: Blandford, R. D., Rees, M. J. 1992, in Testing the AGN Paradigm, AIP

1932: Conf. Proc., 254, 3

1933: 

1934: \bibitem[Blandford \& Payne(1982)]{Blandford:1982}

1935: Blandford, R. D., Payne, D. G. 1982 MNRAS, 199, 883

1936: 

1937: \bibitem[Bouvier(1990)]{Bouvier:1990}

1938: Bouvier, J. 1990, AJ, 99, 946

1939: 

1940: \bibitem[Cabrit et al(2006)]{Cabrit:2006}

1941: Cabrit, S., Pety. J., Presenti, N., Dougados, C. 2006, A\&A, 452, 897

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[Camenzind(1987)]{Camenzind:1987}

1944: Camenzind, M. 1987, A\&A, 184, 341

1945: 

1946: \bibitem[Coffey et al(2004)]{Coffey:2004}

1947: Coffey, D., Bacciotti, F., Woitas, J., Ray, T. P., Eisl\"offel, J.

1948: 2004, ApJ, 604, 708

1949: 

1950: \bibitem[Coffey et al(2007)]{Coffey:2007}

1951: Coffey, D., Bacciotti, F., Ray, T. P., Esil\"offel, J., Woitas, J.

1952: 2007, ApJ, 663, 350

1953: 

1954: \bibitem[Contopoulos \& Lovelace(1994)]{Contopoulos:1994}

1955: Contopoulos, J., Lovelace, R.V.E. 1994, ApJ, 429, 139

1956: 

1957: \bibitem[Edwards et al.(1993)]{Edwards:1993}

1958: Edwards, S., Ray, T., Mundt, R. 1993, in Protostars \& Planets III,

1959: ed. E. H. Levy \& J. Lunine (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 567

1960: 

1961: \bibitem[Ferreira(2004)]{Ferreira:2004}

1962: Ferreira, J. 2004, Ap\&SS, 293, 83

1963: 

1964: \bibitem[Garabedian(1986)]{Garabedian:1986}

1965: Garabedian, P. R. 1986, Partial Differential Equations, (Providence:

1966: Americal Mathematical Society)

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[Giampapa et al(1993)]{Giampapa:1993}

1969: Giampapa, M.S., Basri, G., Johns, C.M., Imhoff, C.L. 1993, ApJS, 89, 321

1970: 

1971: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Julian(1970)]{Goldreich:1970}

1972: Goldreich, P., Julian, W. H. 1970, ApJ, 160, 971

1973: 

1974: \bibitem[Goodson et al(1999)]{Goodson:1999}

1975: Goodson, A. P., Bohm, K. H., Winglee, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 142

1976: 

1977: \bibitem[Grad \& Rubin(1958)]{Grad:1958}

1978: Grad, H., Rubin, H. 1958, in Proc. Conf. Internat. Atomic Energy

1979: Agency 31, (Geneva: Internat. Atomic Energy Agency)

1980: 

1981: \bibitem[Heinemann \& Olbert(1978)]{Heinemann:1978}

1982: Heinemann, M., Olbert, S. 1978, JGR, 83, 2457

1983: 

1984: \bibitem[Heyvaerts \& Normal(1997)]{Heyvaerts:1997}

1985: Heyvaerts, J., Norman, C.A. 1997, in Herbig--Haro Flows and the

1986: Birth of Stars, IAU Symp. 182, ed. B. Reipurth \& C. Bertout

1987: (Kluwer), 275

1988: 

1989: \bibitem[Hyman(1983)]{Hyman:1983}

1990: Hyman, J. 1983, SIAM, J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 4, 645

1991: 

1992: \bibitem[Jackson(1975)]{Jackson:1975}

1993: Jackson, J. D. 1975, Classical Electrodynamics, (New York: John

1994: Wiley \& Sons)

1995: 

1996: \bibitem[Johns \& Basri(1995)]{Johns:1995}

1997: Johns, C., Basri, G. 1995, ApJ, 449. 341

1998: 

1999: \bibitem[Johns-Krull(2007)]{Johns-Krull:2007}

2000: Johns-Krull, C. M. 2007, arXiv0704.2923v1 [astro-ph]

2001: 

2002: \bibitem[Johns-Krull \& Gafford(2002)]{Johns-Krull:2002}

2003: Johns-Krull, C. M., Gafford, A. D. 2002, ApJ, 573, 685

2004: 

2005: \bibitem[Johna-Krull \& Hatzes(1997)]{Johns-Krull:1997}

2006: Johns-Krull, C.M., Hatzes, A.P. 1997, ApJ, 487, 896

2007: 

2008: \bibitem[K\"onigl \& Pudritz(2000)]{Konigl:2000}

2009: K\"onigl, A., Pudritz, R. E. 2000, in Protostars \& Planets IV, ed.

2010: V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, \& S. S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona

2011: Press), 759

2012: 

2013: \bibitem[Long et al(2005)]{lrl07}

2014: Long, M., Romanova, M. M., Lovelace, R. V. E. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1214

2015: 

2016: \bibitem[Lovelace et al(1986)]{Lovelace:1986}

2017: Lovelace, R.V.E., Mehanian, C., Mobarry, C.M., Sulkanen, M.E. 1986,

2018: ApJS, 62, 1

2019: 

2020: \bibitem[Mestel(1968)]{Mestel:1968}

2021: Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359

2022: 

2023: \bibitem[Mohanty \& Shu(2007]{Mohanty:2007}

2024: Mohanty, S., Shu, F.H. 2007, ApJ, in preparation

2025: 

2026: \bibitem[Najita et al.(2007)]{Najita:2007}

2027: Najita, J. R., Carr, J. S., Glassgold, A. E., Valenti. J. A. 2007,

2028: Protostars \& Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil

2029: (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 507

2030: 

2031: \bibitem[Najita \& Shu(1994)]{paper3}

2032: Najita, J. R., Shu, F. H. 1994, ApJ, 429, 808

2033: 

2034: \bibitem[Ostriker \& Shu(1995)]{paper4}

2035: Ostriker, E. C., Shu, F. H. 1995, ApJ, 447, 813

2036: 

2037: \bibitem[Pety et al(2006)]{Pety:2006}

2038: Pety, J., Gueth, F., Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A. 2006, A\&A, 458, 841

2039: 

2040: \bibitem[Press(1992)]{Press:1992}

2041: Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B.

2042: P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C++ (Cambridge University Press)

2043: 

2044: \bibitem[]{}

2045: Pudritz, R.E., Rogers, C.S., Ouyed, R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 113

2046: 

2047: \bibitem[Ramsay(1988)]{Ramsay:1988}

2048: Ramsay, J. O. 1988, Statist. Sci., 3, 425

2049: 

2050: \bibitem[Ramsay(1998)]{Ramsay:1998}

2051: Ramsay, J. O. 1998, J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 60, Part 2, 365

2052: 

2053: \bibitem[Sakurai(1985)]{Sakurai:1985}

2054: Sakurai, T. 1985, A \& A, 152, 121

2055: 

2056: \bibitem[Shafranov(1966)]{Shafranov:1966}

2057: Shafranov, V. D. 1966, Rev. Plasma Phys, 2, 103

2058: 

2059: \bibitem[Shang(1998)]{Shang:1998a}

2060: Shang, H. 1998, PhD Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley

2061: 

2062: \bibitem[Shang et al.(1998)]{Shang:1998b}

2063: Shang, H., Shu, F. H., Glassgold, A. E. 1998, ApJ, 493, 91

2064: 

2065: \bibitem[Shang et al.(2002)]{Shang:2002}

2066: Shang, H., Glassgold, A. E., Shu, F. H., Lizano, S. 2002, ApJ, 564,

2067: 853

2068: 

2069: \bibitem[Shang et al.(2004)]{Shang:2004}

2070: Shang, H., Lizano, S., Glassgold, A. E., Shu, F. H. 2004, ApJ, 612,

2071: L69

2072: 

2073: \bibitem[Shu et al. (1988)]{paper0}

2074: Shu, F. H., Lizano, S., Ruden, S. P., Najita, J. 1988, ApJ, 328, L19

2075: 

2076: \bibitem[Shu(1992)]{Shu:1992}

2077: Shu, F. H. 1992, The Physics of Astrophysics, Vol II: Gas Dynamics,

2078: (Mill Valley: University Science Books)

2079: 

2080: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1994a)]{paper1}

2081: Shu, F. H.,  Najita, J., Ostriker, E., Wilkin, F., Ruden, S.,

2082: Lizano, S. 1994 ApJ, 429, 781

2083: 

2084: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1994b)]{paper2}

2085: Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ruden, S. P., Lizano, S. 1994b, ApJ, 429,

2086: 797

2087: 

2088: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1995)]{paper5}

2089: Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ostriker, E. C., Shang, H. 1995 ApJ, 455,

2090: L155

2091: 

2092: \bibitem[Shu et al.(2000)]{Shu:2000}

2093: Shu, F. H.,  Najita, J. R., Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y., 2000, in

2094: Protostars \& Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, \& S. S.

2095: Russell (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 789

2096: 

2097: \bibitem[Shu et al.(2001)]{Shu:2001}

2098: Shu, F. H., Shang, H., Gounelle, M., Glassgold, A. E., Lee, T. 2001,

2099: ApJ, 548, 1029

2100: 

2101: \bibitem[Tsinganos \& Trussoni(1991)]{Tsinganos:1991}

2102: Tsinganos, K., Trussoni, E. 1991, A\&A, 249, 156

2103: 

2104: \bibitem[Uchida \& Shibata(1985)]{Uchida:1985}

2105: Uchida, Y., Shibata, K. 1985, PASJ, 37, 515

2106: 

2107: \bibitem[Unruh et al.(2004)]{Unruh:2004}

2108: Unruh, Y. C. et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1301

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[Ustyugova et al(2006)]{Ustyugova:2006}

2111: Ustyugova, G.V., Koldoba, A., Romanova, M.M., Lovelace, R.V.E. 2006, 646, 304

2112: 

2113: \bibitem[Van Dyke(1964)]{van Dyke:1964}

2114: Van Dyke, M. 1964 Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics, (New

2115: York: Academic Press)

2116: 

2117: \bibitem[Vogel \& Kuhi(1981)]{Vogel:1981}

2118: Vogel. S., Kuhi, L. 1981, ApJ, 245, 960

2119: 

2120: \bibitem[Weber \& Davis(1967)]{Weber:1967}

2121: Weber, E. J., Davis, L. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217

2122: \end{thebibliography}

2123: 

2124: \end{document}

2125: