1: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,amsfonts,epsfig]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[triplespace,aps, draft, epsfig]{revtex}
3: %\baselineskip=40pt
4: %\documentstyle[doublespace,twocolumn,aps, draft, epsfig]{revtex}
5: \documentstyle[aps,amsfonts,epsfig]{revtex}
6:
7: \newcommand{\MF}{{\large{\manual META}\-{\manual FONT}}}
8: \newcommand{\manual}{rm}
9: \newcommand\bs{\char '134 }
10:
11:
12: \def\z{\noindent}
13: \def\Box{{\hfill\hbox{\enspace${\sqre}$}} \smallskip}
14: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule height .#2pt
15: \hbox{\vrule width .#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt
16: \vrule width .#2pt}
17: \hrule height .#2pt}}}}
18: \def\sqre{\mathchoice\sqr54\sqr54\sqr{4.1}3\sqr{3.5}3}
19: \def\erm{\mathrm{e}}
20: \def\irm{\mathrm{i}}
21: \def\drm{\mathrm{d}}
22: \def\bchi{\mbox{\raisebox{.4ex}{\begin{Large}$\chi$\end{Large}}}}
23: \def\CC{\bf{C}}
24: \def\DD{\bf{D}}
25: \def\NN{\bf{N}}
26: \def\QQ{\bf{Q}}
27: \def\RR{\bf{R}}
28: \def\ZZ{\bf{Z}}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31: \wideabs{ \title{Space charge limited 2-d electron flow between two
32: flat electrodes in a strong magnetic field}
33:
34:
35: \author{A.Rokhlenko and J. L. Lebowitz\footnotemark }
36: \address{Department of Mathematics,
37: Rutgers University\\ Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019}
38:
39: \maketitle
40: \begin{abstract}
41:
42: An approximate analytic solution is constructed for the 2-d space
43: charge limited emission by a cathode
44: surrounded by non emitting conducting ledges of width $\Lambda$.
45: An essentially exact solution (via conformal mapping)
46: of the electrostatic problem in vacuum is matched to the solution
47: of a linearized problem in the space charge region whose boundaries
48: are sharp due to the presence of a strong magnetic field.
49: The current density growth in a narrow
50: interval near the edges of the cathode depends
51: strongly on $\Lambda$. We obtain an empirical formula for
52: the total current as a function of $\Lambda$ which extends to
53: more general cathode geometries.
54:
55:
56: \medskip
57:
58: \z PACS: 52.27.Jt; 52.59.Sa; 52.59.Wd; 85.45.Bz
59:
60: \end{abstract}}
61:
62: \narrowtext
63:
64: The study of space charge limited (SCL) current, initiated
65: in the beginning of the last century [1,2], continues to be of great
66: current interest [3-9]. These works are important for
67: the design of high power diodes, techniques of charged
68: particles beams, physics of non-neutral plasmas including plasma sheath,
69: and other numerous applications. The modelling of SCL ionic flow in
70: cylindrical and spherical geometry [3] is also necessary for the
71: inertial-electrostatic confinement of fusion plasmas.
72: Unfortunately only the planar 1-d case permits an analytic solution [1,2]
73: and as pointed out in a recent review [5] even ``the
74: seeming simple problem of 2-d planar emission
75: remains unresolved''. This motivated the present work which provides
76: a semi-analytical solution for a prototype 2-d model similar
77: to that studied in [6]. We obtain for the first time, we believe,
78: a reasonable analytic approximation for the currents at the edge of the
79: cathode - an important (though usually undesirable) feature of SCL
80: diodes [6,7]. An extension of our methods should facilitate
81: dealing with this problem to any desirable accuracy thus providing
82: an alternative to PIC simulations.
83:
84:
85: \footnotetext{*Also Department of Physics}
86: {\it Model}. We consider the current between two conducting flat
87: electrodes where the anode, whose potential is $V$, is an infinite plane
88: separated by a distance $D$ from the grounded cathode which is an
89: infinitely long strip parallel to the anode. Our assumptions
90: are: 1) The cathode upper surface, of width $2A$,
91: has infinite emissivity while the lower face and the ledges
92: of widths $\Lambda$
93: do not emit (see Fig.1). 2) A very strong strong magnetic field
94: perpendicular to the electrodes inhibits the transversal components
95: of electron velocities [6,8], but almost does not affect the total
96: current [6,8,9]. 3) The emitted electrons leave the cathode with zero
97: velocity [1,2,6].
98:
99: If the cathode is in the ($X,Z$) plane and the magnetic field in the
100: $Y$-direction the velocities $v$ of electrons are parallel to the $Y$-axis
101: with $mv^2(X,Y)=2eU(X,Y)$, where $U(X,Y)$ represents the potential
102: field while $m,e$ are the electron mass and charge. The current density
103: $J(X)$, which clearly is $Y$-independent, determines together with
104: $v(X,Y)$ the density of electrons. Using the dimensionless variables$$
105: x={X\over D},\ y={Y\over D},\ a ={A\over D},\ \lambda ={\Lambda\over
106: D},$$
107: \vskip-1cm
108: $$\eqno(1)$$
109: \vskip-1cm
110: $$\phi (x,y)={U(X,Y)\over V},\ j(x)=\sqrt{m\over 2e}{9\pi D^2\over
111: V^{3/2}}J(X),$$
112: the nonlinear Poisson equation for the potential then takes the form$$
113: {\partial^2\phi\over \partial x^2}+{\partial^2\phi\over
114: \partial y^2}=-4\pi\rho (x,y)={4j(x)\over 9\sqrt{\phi(x,y)}}.\eqno(2)$$
115: The electron density $\rho(x,y)$ and current
116: $j(x)$ are different from zero only in the shaded rectangle Q of Fig.1
117: which shows a two dimensional cross section of our system.
118: \vskip -3cm
119: \hskip -1cm \epsfig{file=pl101.eps, width=8cm,height=8cm}
120: \vskip-2.5cm
121: \centerline{\small FIG. 1. Geometry of the system}
122: \vskip 0.3cm
123: Eq.(2), subject to the boundary conditions (BC),$$
124: \phi(x,0)=0\ {\rm for}\ |x|<a+\lambda,\ \phi(x,1)=1\ {\rm for}\ |x|<
125: \infty ,$$
126: \vskip-1cm
127: $$\eqno(3)$$
128: \vskip-1cm
129: $${\partial\phi\over\partial y}(x,+0)=0\ {\rm for}\ |x|<a,$$
130: is to be solved in the half-plane $y\leq 1$ to produce
131: both functions $\phi(x,y)$ and $j(x)$ which
132: are non-negative and symmetric about the $y$-axis.
133: To do this we first
134: solve eq.(2) approximately in the current region Q on a rather intuitive
135: level. The problem is nonlinear here and it is not well posed if
136: one disregards the field at $|x|>a$. Consequently our
137: solution will have a set of free parameters which specify $j(x)$ and
138: $\phi(x,y)$: in particular $\phi(a,y)$ and ${\partial \phi\over
139: \partial x}(a^-,y)$. In the second step the potential $\phi(\pm a,y)$ is
140: used as the BC and we obtain a Dirichlet problem for
141: the Laplace eq.(2) in the outer region of the half-plane where $j(x)=0$.
142: We solve this problem using conformal mapping techniques and
143: evaluate ${\partial \phi\over\partial x}(a^+,y)$. If one excludes
144: the points $x=\pm a,\ y=0$ the electron density $\rho(a^-,y)$
145: is finite and $\rho(a^+,y)=0$, therefore the second derivative of
146: $\phi (x,y)$ has a finite jump at $x=a$, while the first derivative
147: must be continuous, i.e.$$
148: {\partial \phi\over\partial x}(a^-,y)={\partial \phi\over\partial x}(a^+,y),
149: \ 0<y<1.\eqno(4)$$
150: In the last step we satisfy approximately the matching condition (4)
151: by adjusting the free parameters mentioned above using the least squares
152: technique. This will give an approximate explicit form for $j(x)$.
153:
154: {\it The space charge region} Q. We want to solve approximately eq.(2)
155: where the function $j(x)$ is not known nor are the
156: BC for $\phi$ at $x=\pm a$.
157: When $a=\infty$ we have no $x$ dependence
158: and (2) becomes an ordinary equation which was solved in [1,2]
159: yielding $\phi_1 (y)=y^{4/3},\ j_1(x)=1$. This gives the
160: Child-Langmuir formula [1], $J_1=(2e/m)^{1/2}V^{3/2}/9\pi D^2$.
161: {}For $a\gg 1$ it is reasonable to assume that $j(x)\sim j_1=1$ when
162: $a-|x|\gg 1$ and use also a stronger assumption that the difference
163: $\phi(x,y)/\phi_1 (y) -1$ is small almost everywhere (i.e. it does not exceed
164: $\sim 1-1.5$ even near the edges of region).
165: This difference however is not small at the cathode edges, $x=\pm a$,
166: where the electric field must match the field outside. The large
167: gradients in the field lead to the acceleration of electrons and thus
168: to a strong rise of the current density $j(x)$ near the boundary
169: of the SCL flow.
170: %$a-|x|\lesssim 1$.
171:
172: We represent $\phi(x,y)$ in the form $y^{4/3}[1+\mu(x,y)]$
173: and linearize the square root as $
174: [1+\mu(x,y)]^{-1/2}\approx 1-\beta\mu(x,y),$
175: where the number $\beta$ is chosen to minimize the integral of
176: $[1-\beta\mu -(1+\mu)^{-1/2}]^2$ on the interval $0\leq \mu\leq 1$. This
177: yields $\beta \approx 0.328$ with relative average error of approximation
178: around $2.2\%$. {}For $\mu =0.2,\ 1,\ 1.5$ the error is $2.36\%,\
179: 4.96\%,\ 6.25\%,\ 19.6\%$ respectively. We shall see later that for all
180: $\lambda \geq 0.1$ $\mu <1.5$. Substituting in (2) we
181: obtain a linear equation$$
182: y^2\left ({\partial^2\mu\over \partial x^2}+{\partial^2\mu\over
183: \partial y^2}\right )+{8\over 3}y{\partial\mu\over \partial y}
184: +4{1+\beta\over 9}\mu ={4\over 9}[j(x)-1],\eqno(5)$$
185: where we dropped a nonlinear term in the right side. The
186: error due to this and to the linearization of the square root is
187: negligible for small
188: $\mu$ and decreases the right side by at most a factor $\sim 0.7$,
189: in all the cases considered (see Table 1) including even $\mu\approx 2$.
190:
191: Using the method of separation of variables we write$$
192: \mu(x,y)=\sum_lq_lf_l(x)u_l(y),\ j(x)=1+{9\over 4}\sum_l q_lf_l(x),\eqno(6)$$
193: with$$
194: f_l(x)=e^{-k_l(a-x)}+e^{-k_l(a+x)},\ |x|\leq a.\eqno(7)$$
195: Substituting (6) and (7) into (5) and assuming that (5),(3) are
196: satisfied separately for each $l=1,2,...$ gives a set of
197: inhomogeneous equations $$
198: y^2{d^2u_l\over dy^2}+{8\over 3}y{du_l\over dy}+\left ( k_l^2y^2+
199: 4{1+\beta \over 9}\right ) u_l=1,\eqno(8)$$
200: with the common BC $u_l(1)=0$. The parameters $k_l$ and $q_l$
201: will be determined later. The potential
202: can be written in the form$$
203: \phi(x,y)=y^{4/3}+y^{4/3}\sum_l q_lf_l(x)u_l(y),\eqno(9)$$
204: where the first term is the Child-Langmuir potential $\phi_1$ and the
205: $u_l(y)$ are assumed finite.
206: The relevant particular solutions of (8), which can be expressed in terms of
207: Lommel's functions $s_{-1/6,\nu}(k_ly),\ \nu =\sqrt{9-16\beta}/6$ [10],
208: is given by the power series expansion
209: \vskip-0.6cm
210: $$u_l(y)={9\over 4(1+\beta )}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^na_n\left ({k_ly\over 2}
211: \right )^{2n},$$
212: \vskip-0.9cm
213: $$\eqno(10)$$
214: \vskip-0.9cm
215: $$a_0=1,\ a_n={a_{n-1}\over n^2+5n/6 +(1+\beta )/9}.$$
216: As all $u_l(1)=0$ the parameters $k_l$ are the increasing
217: roots of (14): 3.881, 6.675, 10.065, 13.003, 16.316, 19.306, 22.582, 25.600,
218: 28.855, 31.891 for $1\leq l\leq 10$. They can be easily evaluated due to
219: the rapid convergence of (10), asymptoticaly $k_l\to l\pi$. The
220: free parameters $q_l$ will be used to satisfy (4).
221:
222: The 2-d mean current density over the whole cathode, which in terms
223: of our scheme is given by$$
224: j_2={1\over a}\int_0^aj(x)dx\approx 1+{9\over 4a}
225: \sum_l{q_l\over k_l}(1-e^{-2k_l a }),\eqno(11)$$
226: is usually presented [8] as the 1-d current density $j_1=1$ plus a
227: correction: $j_2=1+\alpha /2a$. Thus in the original units the mean
228: current has the form
229: \vskip-0.6cm
230: $$J_2=J_1\left (1+\alpha{D\over W}\right ),\eqno(12)$$
231: where $W=2A$ is the width of the cathode.
232: Using (11) the parameter $\alpha$ is defined here by$$
233: \alpha =9\sum_l{q_l\over 2k_l}(1-e^{-2k_l a}).\eqno(13)$$
234:
235: {\it Electrostatic region}. It seems clear that for $a \gg 1$
236: the electric field in the vicinity of the boundary $x\approx a,\ 0\leq
237: y\leq 1$
238: is not affected much by the region $x\leq -a,\ 0\leq y\leq 1$, see
239: Fig.1. This
240: allows us to study a simpler electrostatic
241: problem for a plane which is split according to Fig.2(a). We modified a
242: conformal transform in [11] to the form
243: \vskip-0.5cm
244: $$z=2\pi^{-1}[\ln (\sqrt{w}+\sqrt{w-1})-c\sqrt{w^2-w}],\eqno(14)$$
245: which maps the shaded half-plane $z=x+iy$ on Fig.2(a) onto
246: the upper half-plane $w=u+iv$ in Fig.2(b).
247: \vskip -1.3cm
248: \hskip -0.5cm \epsfig{file=map101.eps, width=4cm,height=4cm}
249:
250: \vskip -3.8cm
251: \hskip 4cm \epsfig{file=map201.eps, width=4cm,height=4cm}
252: \vskip -0.8cm
253: \noindent
254: {\small FIG. 2(a). Plane $z=x+iy$}~~~~~~{\small
255: FIG. 2(b). Plane
256: $w=u+iv$}
257: \vskip 0.3cm
258: Our Dirichlet problem with the BC on the real axis $\Im w =0$ (which
259: come from the previous section),$$
260: \Phi (u,0)=\cases{1,&if $-\infty<u\leq 0$\cr
261: \phi (a,y(u)),&if $0<u<1$\cr
262: 0,&if $u\geq 1$,\cr}\eqno(15),$$
263: has the solution $$
264: \Phi (u,v)={v\over \pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\Phi (s,0)\over
265: (u-s )^2+v^2}ds\eqno(16)$$
266: in the upper half-plane $w$. Here
267: by (14) $y(u)=2\pi^{-1}[\arccos{\sqrt{u}}-c\sqrt{u(1-u)}].$
268: The potential $\Phi (u,v)$ expressed in variables $x,y$ represents
269: $\phi (x,y)$ outside the space charge zone. Our task now is
270: to match the inside electric field ${\partial \phi\over \partial x}(a,y(u))$
271: in the interval $0<u<1$ with the field outside $$
272: {\partial \Phi\over \partial x}(u,v=0)={\pi\sqrt{u(1-u)}\over 1+c(1-2u)}
273: {\partial \Phi\over \partial v}(u,0).\eqno(17)$$
274:
275: {\it Continuity of the electric field}. The matching condition (4)
276: guarantees continuity of the electric field at
277: the boundary between the space charge region Q with the vacuum.
278: Using (7) and (9) we have at $x=a$ inside the space charge region
279: the field intensity,
280: \vskip-0.3cm
281: $${\partial \phi\over \partial x}=y^{4/3}\sum_l q_lk_l(1-e^{-2k_la})u_l(y)
282: \eqno(18),$$
283: \vskip-0.2cm\noindent
284: which should be equal to the vacuum field (17).
285: The exponentially small terms $e^{-2k_la}$ can be dropped
286: as $a$ is assumed large.
287: Both terms ${\partial \phi\over \partial x}$ and
288: ${\partial \Phi\over \partial x}$ depend on all parameters $q_l$,
289: but in a different way. One cannot expect an exact equality because of
290: the approximations made. We rewrite the matching condition (4) as$$
291: G[y^{4/3}]+\sum_lq_l\{G[y^{4/3}u_l(y)]-k_ly^{4/3}u_l(y)\}\approx
292: 0,\eqno(19)$$
293: \vskip-0.2cm\noindent
294: where the functionals $G$ can be written explicitly as integrals with a
295: logarithmic singularity.
296:
297: We minimize the least square divergence from zero of the expression
298: (19) on the interval $0.15<y<0.85$ without approaching the endpoints
299: where our treatment is not entirely adequate. A
300: standard procedure yields a set of linear algebraic equations
301: for $q_l$. We did not go further than
302: $l_{max}=10$. After the $q_l$ are computed one can find the current
303: density (6) and the parameter $\alpha$ (13).
304:
305: The accuracy of this method can be evaluated to some degree by
306: determining the relative average discrepancy $\Delta$ of electric fields at
307: the boundary of the space charge region Q
308: on the chosen interval of $y$. The results of our computations are shown
309: in the Table 1, where for different values of the ledge $\lambda$
310: one can see also $\alpha (\lambda)$, parameters $q_l$, $\mu_{max}$
311: (near $y=0$ and $x=\pm a$),
312: and the relative height (see Fig. 3) of the current wings $j_{max}$ at
313: $x=\pm a$. When we extend the interval of matching
314: the electric fields up to $(0.01,0.99)$ the
315: quantities in the table stay approximately the same, only $\Delta$
316: increases. This confirms the general validity of our method and
317: simultaneously
318: shows that the computation of electric fields near the corners of the
319: rectangle Q is not very good. In particular, in the worst case (the
320: most severe cathode regime, see also [6,7,12]) when
321: $\lambda =0$, the electric field is singular at the cathode edges. The
322: computation becomes unstable, we cannot therefore the
323: data of Table 1 to be accurate there when the linearization fails too.
324:
325: {\small $$\left |{\matrix{\lambda& 0&0.1&0.3&0.5&1&\infty\cr
326: \alpha&.6487&.5311&.3463&.2665&.2067&.1905\cr
327: \mu_{max}&1.955&1.432&0.804&0.605&0.497&0.461\cr
328: j_{max}&3.597&2.902&2.068&1.804&1.661&1.612\cr
329: \Delta&.0121&.0055&.0037&.0028&.0059&.0044\cr
330: q_{1}&.2448&.2339&.1891&.1530&.1140&.1032\cr
331: q_{2}&.2225&.1743&.0926&.0616&.0465&.0443\cr
332: q_{3}&.1867&.1411&.0720&.0528&.0448&.0433\cr
333: q_{4}&.1525&.0969&.0389&.0280&.0260&.0246\cr
334: q_{5}&.1184&.0760&.0327&.0253&.0232&.0222\cr
335: q_{6}&.0914&.0500&.0192&.0143&.0148&.0134\cr
336: q_{7}&.0595&.0342&.0142&.0110&.0109&.0100\cr
337: q_{8}&.0439&.0216&.0087&.0061&.0072&.0061\cr
338: q_{9}&.0203&.0108&.0046&.0033&.0037&.0032\cr
339: q_{10}&.0142&.0064&.0028&.0017&.0025&.0019\cr}}\right |$$}
340: \centerline {\small TABLE 1}
341: \vskip0.3cm
342:
343: When $l$ runs from $1$ to $10$ the values of $q_l$
344: decrease approximately by a factor 20-50. Therefore $\alpha$ is evaluated
345: very well by (13) where the $k_l$ increase from $\sim 4$
346: to $32$. The accuracy of $j(x)$ and $\mu(x)$
347: might be improved if one truncates (9) at a larger $l_{max}$ though
348: we would not expect dramatic changes. The cases $\lambda =\infty$
349: (when the mapping is exact) and $\lambda =1$ are very close which
350: means that the parameter
351: $\alpha(a,\lambda)$ as well as $q_l$ are approximately independent of
352: $a$ when $a>1$. Keeping the exponential terms in $\mu(x,y)$ in the
353: matching conditions (20) does not complicate the calculation and it
354: will give
355: only insignificant corrections. The current density $j(x)$ at $x=0$
356: increases in this case by about $2q_1e^{-3.9a}$. If $a$ is smaller,
357: but $2\lambda +2a>1$, the scheme of computation is the same though
358: the $q_l$ become functions of $a$ and one cannot decrease $a$ too much
359: because the first term in (9) needs corrections.
360:
361: An important part of our analysis is the form
362: (11) of $f_l(x)$ which implies that the current density (10) in a narrow
363: region of width $\sim 1$ ($D$ in the original units) at the cathode edges
364: has a sharp peak which decays faster than $\exp [-3.88(a-|x|)]$.
365: Everywhere else $j(x)$ is close to the 1-d current $j_1(x)=1$ with the
366: exponentially small corrections. {}For illustration plots of the
367: current density distribution (6) are shown in Fig.3 for different
368: widths of the cathode.
369: \vskip -2.2cm
370: \hskip -0.6cm \epsfig{file=pl301.eps, width=7cm,height=7cm}
371: \vskip 0cm
372:
373: {\small FIG. 3. The current densities when $\lambda =0.1$,
374: $c1-c1,\ c2-c2,\ c3-c3$ and $c4$ correspond to
375: $2a=8,4,2,1$ respectively.}
376: \vskip 0.4cm
377: We can compare our curve $c3$ for $a=1$ with PIC simulations
378: presented in [7]. There for zero cathode recess ($dx=0$), $A=50$ mm,
379: and unfortunately unspecified width of the shroud
380: a reasonable fit would be
381: $j_{max}=3.9$ in our Table for $\lambda =0.1$
382: versus $3.2$ in [7]. We get the half-width of the current density
383: peak $\sim 1.2$ mm while in [7] it was $1$ mm. Our magnetic field is
384: stronger and we think also that PIC simulations with finer grids
385: are closer to our computation, but diverge from
386: experimental results because the real cathodes with their finite
387: thickness and roundness do not have the very strong electric field
388: intensities present however in the models.
389:
390: {\it Generalization}. We expect that this pattern of narrow wings of
391: the current density holds also for finite
392: flat cathodes with perimeter $P$ where
393: the boundary region will have an area $\sim PD$ if we assume
394: reasonable restrictions on the curvature and return
395: back to the original units. In the general case of a
396: cathode with area $S\gg PD$ the total current can be written as
397: the sum $I=SJ_1+ PD {\tilde J}$. The "edge" current ${\tilde J}$,
398: which is assumed here to be independent of geometry, can be viewed as
399: distributed over the edges of the cathode of width equal to the
400: distance between the electrodes. The ratio ${\tilde J}/J_1$ can be
401: evaluated in terms of the parameter $\alpha$ defined in (13).
402: Comparing
403: $\bar J=I/S=J_1(1+{\tilde J}PD/J_1S)$ with eq.(12) for our geometry, where
404: $\bar J=J_2,\ S=2AL$ and $P=2L$ (the length $L$ of the cathode segment
405: is arbitrary), we have ${\tilde J}=J_1\alpha /2$ and finally
406: \vskip-0.5cm
407: $$\bar J=J_1\left (1+\alpha {PD\over 2S}\right ),\eqno(20)$$
408: \vskip-0.2cm\noindent
409: which should be applicable in general situations. In particular
410: the factor $PD/2S$ in (20) becomes $D/R$ for a circular cathode of
411: the radius $R$ and $2DE(\sqrt{1-C^2/B^2})/\pi C$ for an elliptical
412: cathode with the half-axes $B>C$, where $E(k)$ is the complete
413: elliptical integral. {}For a rectangular cathode with the sides $L$ and
414: $H$ it is equal to $D(L^{-1}+H^{-1})$.
415:
416: {\it Conclusions.} 1) The current wings, Fig.3, resemble
417: simulated ones [6,7,12]. They are high when the width of
418: ledges $\lambda$ is small and the vacuum electric field near the
419: cathode edges is strong. Their form becomes practicaly constant when
420: the ledges are wider than the distance D between electrodes. 2) The
421: shape of the current wings, which is determined by eigenvalues
422: $k_l$ of (8), is roughly exponential and the 1-d current is
423: restored up to a few percents at the distance D from the edges.
424: 3) The parameter $\alpha$, which defines the net current density,
425: depends on the width of ledges. An approximate empirical formula
426: \vskip-0.3cm
427: $$\alpha(\lambda)\approx 0.19 +0.48e^{-3.7\lambda},\eqno(21)$$
428: \vskip-0.1cm\noindent
429: agrees with the data in Table 1 within $\sim 3.3\%$. (For a different
430: model with the constant current density $\alpha$ was estimated in [8]
431: as close to $0.31$.) 4) Our techniques of matching the electric fields at the
432: boundary of the space charge region and using rather modest variations
433: of the potential in the $x$ direction is effective for approximate
434: modelling the 2-d and 3-d flows of charged particles.
435:
436: \bigskip
437: {\it Acknoledgements}. We thank R.Barker, R.J.Umstattd, and
438: O.Costin for inspiration and useful comments. Research supported by
439: AFOSR Grant \# F49620-01-0154.
440: \vskip-0.6cm
441:
442: \begin{thebibliography}{12}
443:
444: \bibitem{[1]} C.D.Child, Phys. Rev. {\bf 32}, 492 (1911); I.Langmuir,
445: Phys. Rev. {\bf 2}, 450 (1913).
446:
447: \bibitem{[2]} I.Langmuir and K.B.Blodgett, Phys. Rev. {\bf 22}, 347
448: (1923); I.Langmuir and K.B.Blodgett, Phys. Rev. {\bf 24}, 49 (1924).
449:
450: \bibitem{[3]} D.C.Barnes and R.A.Nebel, Phys. Plasmas {\bf 5},
451: 2498 (1998); R.A.Nebel and D.C.Barnes, Fusion Technology {\bf 38}, 28 (1998).
452:
453: \bibitem{[4]} A.S.Gilmour, Jr., {\sl Microwave Tubes} (Artech House, Dedham,
454: MA, 1986); P.T.Kirstein, G.S.Kino, and W.E.Waters, {\sl Space Charge
455: Flow} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967); A.Valfells, D.W.Feldman, M.Virgo,
456: P.G.O'Shea, and Y.Y.Lau, Phys. Plasmas {\bf 9}, 2377 (2002).
457:
458: \bibitem{[5]} J.W.Luginsland, Y.Y.Lau, R.J.Umstattd, and J.J.Watrous,
459: Phys. Plasmas {\bf 9}, 2371 (2002).
460:
461: \bibitem{[6]} R.J.Umstattd and J.W.Luginsland, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
462: 145002 (2001)
463:
464: \bibitem{[7]} F.Hegeler, M.Friedman, M.C.Myers, J.D.Sethian, and S.B.
465: Swanekamp, Phys. Plasmas {\bf 9}, 4309 (2002).
466:
467: \bibitem{[8]} J.W.Luginsland, Y.Y.Lau, and R.M.Gilgenbach,
468: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 4668 (1996); Y.Y.Lau, Phys. Rev. Lett.
469: {\bf 87}, 278301 (2001).
470:
471: \bibitem{[9]} Y.Y.Lau, P.J.Christenson, and D.Chernin, Physics of
472: Fluids B{\bf 5}, 4486 (1993).
473:
474: \bibitem{[10]} A.Erdelyi (editor), {\sl Higher Transcendental Functions}
475: Vol. 2 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953).
476:
477: \bibitem{[11]} W.von Koppenfelds and F.Stallmann, {\sl Praxis der
478: Konformen Abbildung} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1959).
479:
480: \bibitem{[12]} R.J.Umstattd, D.A.Shiffler, C.A.Baca,
481: K.J.Hendricks, T.A.Spencer, and J.W.Luginsland, Proc. SPIE
482: Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. {\bf 4031}, 185 (2000).
483:
484: \end{thebibliography}
485:
486: \end{document}
487:
488:
489:
490:
491: ------------------------------------------------------------------
492: \vskip0.5cm
493: [10]. J. W. Luginsland, Y. Y. Lau, R. J. Umstattd, and J. J. Watrous,
494: Physics of Plasmas {\bf 9}, 2371 (2002).
495:
496: [11]. A. Valfells, D. W. Feldman, M. Virgo, P. G. O'Shea, and Y. Y. Lau,
497: Physics of Plasmas {\bf 9}, 2377 (2002).
498:
499: [12]. F. Hegeler, M. Friedman, M. C. Myers, J. D. Sethian, and S. B.
500: Swanekamp, Physics of Plasmas {\bf 9}, 4309 (2002).
501:
502: [13]. Y. Y. Lau, P. J. Christenson, and D. Chernin, Physics of Fluids B{\bf 5},
503: 4486 (1993).
504:
505: [14]. D. C. Barnes and R. A. Nebel, Physics of Plasmas {\bf 5}, 2498 (1998);
506: R. A. Nebel and D. C. Barnes, Fusion Technology {\bf 38}, 28 (1998).
507:
508: \end{document}
509:
510:
511:
512:
513:
514:
515: