1: \documentclass[a4paper,superscriptaddress,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{color}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6:
7: \def\bra#1{\langle #1 \vert}
8: \def\ket#1{\vert #1 \rangle}
9:
10:
11: \def\imagi{\mbox{\rm i}}
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
14:
15: \def\reff#1{(\ref{#1})}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Charged State of a Spherical Plasma in Vacuum}
20: \author{F.\,Cornolti}
21: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica ``Enrico Fermi'' \& INFM , Universit\`a di
22: Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa,
23: Italy }
24: \author{F.\,Ceccherini}
25: \email{ceccherini@df.unipi.it}
26: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica ``Enrico Fermi'' \& INFM , Universit\`a di
27: Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa,
28: Italy }
29: \author{S.\,Betti}
30: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica ``Enrico Fermi'' \& INFM , Universit\`a di
31: Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa,
32: Italy }
33: \author{F.\,Pegoraro}
34: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica ``Enrico Fermi'' \& INFM , Universit\`a di
35: Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa,
36: Italy }
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: The stationary state of a spherically symmetric plasma configuration
40: is investigated in the limit of immobile ions and
41: weak collisions. Configurations with small radii are positively
42: charged as a significant fraction of the electron
43: population evaporates during the equilibration process, leaving
44: behind an electron distribution function with an energy
45: cutoff. Such charged plasma configurations are of interest for the
46: study of Coulomb explosions and ion acceleration
47: from small clusters irradiated by ultraintense laser pulses and for the investigation of ion bunches propagation in a plasma.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50:
51: \maketitle
52: \section{Introduction}
53: The interaction of ultraintense laser pulses with solid targets leads
54: to the formation of plasmas with unusual
55: properties in terms of particle energy distributions and of spatial mass
56: and charge density distributions. Such properties can be
57: exploited in order to obtain sources of high energy electromagnetic
58: radiation and charged particle beams with
59: unprecedented intensities and time and space resolutions.
60: For the intensities of present day ultrashort, superintense laser
61: pulses, the energy that the ions in a target acquire due to direct
62: interaction with the electromagnetic
63: fields of the laser pulse is usually small, while the energy of the plasma
64: electrons can be of the order of tens of ${\rm KeV}$. These ``hot''
65: electrons expand until their ``pressure'' is
66: balanced by the electrostatic field that sets up due to spatial
67: charge separation \cite{allen1,allen2,allen3}. This process leads to a steady state configuration (SSC) which is reached in a time of the order of some electron plasma periods. Thus, since the ion response time
68: is much longer than that of the electrons, SSC can be achieved before the ions can depart
69: significantly from their initial configuration. Afterwards ion acceleration takes place, as predicted theoretically
70: \cite{allen1,allen2,allen3,nedelea,lontano,mora,ivanov,kovalev1,kovalev2,dorozhkina1,dorozhkina2,gurevitch,
71: widner,betti},
72: and confirmed experimentally
73: \cite{hegelich,badziak,mackinnon1,mackinnon2,maksimchuk,clark1,clark2,krushelnick,hatchett,snavely,
74: habara, mckenna}.
75: Clearly, this description does not apply to highly relativistic regimes like those described in \cite{bulanov}.\\
76: The aim of this paper is to present a combined analytical and
77: numerical investigation of three dimensional SSC characterized by
78: a hot electron plasma and a cold
79: (immobile) ion core. Such configurations are especially appealing because, contrary to one dimensional geometries, in three dimensional
80: cases charged SSC are expected to set up. In fact, while in the former case an infinite energy is required in order to bring a charge to infinity, in the latter the energy necessary for electron evaporation is finite. In particular, we show that
81: the SSC charging up and the energy distribution of
82: the electrons depend on the ratio between the
83: radius of the ion core and the electron Debye length and on the
84: history of the electron expansion.
85: The understanding of the SSC charging up with immobile ions and of the electron energy
86: distribution is relevant to many experimental conditions as these
87: processes affect the way in which ions are
88: accelerated on longer time scales when the constraint of a fixed ion
89: core is removed. In the case of the
90: Coulomb explosion of a small cluster
91: \cite{kumarappan1,kumarappan2,krainov,milchberg,ditmire1,ditmire2,ditmire3} these
92: processes affect the
93: value of the maximum energy that the ions can acquire
94: in the acceleration process. Furthermore, in applications related to
95: proton imaging \cite{borghesi1,borghesi2,borghesi3} and to
96: the propagation of ion beams in solid targets \cite{califano}, the
97: Coulomb repulsion and the screening effect of the
98: electrons can strongly affect the proton trajectories. This is also
99: the case for applications of proton laser
100: acceleration to hadron therapy
101: \cite{bulanov1,bulanov2,esirkepov,orecchia1,brahme,weyrather,tsujii,orecchia2},
102: where a very precise collimation of the proton beam and a high
103: energy resolution are essential.
104: Moreover, as discussed in \cite{mulser}, the topic of the charging of
105: a spherical plasma in less extreme conditions can
106: play a key role in the study of dusty plasmas \cite{fortov}, and
107: aerosols \cite{kasparian}.\\
108: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\,\ref{SL} simple relationships are derived analytically
109: on the basis of two schematic
110: models that are introduced in order to grasp the main features of
111: the plasma charging process in different
112: collisionality regimes. In Sec.\,\ref{NR} we present the results
113: of a series of numerical simulations obtained
114: with a one-dimensional Particle in cell code (PIC) in a spherical geometry
115: and with fixed ions. We then compare the numerically obtained
116: charge values and electron energy distributions with those obtained from the analytical models. Finally, conclusions are presented in Sec.\,\ref{conclusions}. \\
117: %
118: %
119: \section{Simplified models of the charging process}\label{SL}
120: In this section we discuss two simplified models that allow us to
121: identify the main physical features of the
122: plasma charging process. These models rely on assigning a simplified
123: condition for the electrons to leave the ion core
124: and on two different rules for the energy redistribution of the
125: remaining electrons.\\
126: As a starting configuration we assume the following electron and ion
127: density profiles
128: \begin{equation}\label{initial profile}
129: n_e(r) = n_i(r) = n_0 ~ \theta(1 - r/R),
130: \end{equation}
131: with $\theta(x)= 1$ for $x>0$ and $\theta(x)= 0$ for $x<0$. Here
132: $R$ is the radius of the ion plasma core and $N_0 =
133: n_0 ( 4\pi R^3/3)$ the ion and electron initial particle number.
134: We denote by $N_e$ the time dependent number of electrons inside
135: the ion core. \\
136: Initially electrons have a Maxwellian energy distribution with
137: temperature $T_0$. Moreover, in these models the electron density
138: is taken to be uniform inside the ion core. As a further simplification,
139: we assume that, on average, the radial crossing of the electron
140: trajectories does not lead to a
141: relative redistribution of the charge in front and behind each
142: electron outside the core. This simplification allows us
143: to assume that, after leaving the ion core each electron moves as if
144: in an effective time independent Coulomb field.
145: Hence, the condition for an electron to reach infinity is that it
146: has a positive total energy when it reaches the ion
147: core surface at $r=R$. In this model the particles which satisfy
148: this condition are said to ``evaporate'' and are
149: assumed to be lost when they reach $r=R$. On the contrary, the
150: electrons that have a negative energy at $r=R$ are
151: assumed to remain inside the ion core. Furthermore, we assume that
152: inside the ion core the electrons move as free
153: particles.
154: The evaporation of the electrons with positive total energy at
155: $r=R$ changes the number of electrons $N_e$, the
156: total energy of the system inside the ion core and causes an energy
157: redistribution of the remaining electrons.\\
158: We discuss the ``collisional'' regime and
159: the ``collisionless'' one. In the first one,
160: the electrons which are not evaporated
161: thermalize at a temperature $T$, which turns out to be a
162: decreasing function of time. In the second
163: regime no thermalization occurs, and the evaporation causes a
164: progressive depletion in the high energy tail of the
165: electron distribution function, which remains isotropic in velocity space.\\
166: In what follows, lengths will be measured in units of the initial
167: Debye length $\lambda_d = ( T_0 / 4 \pi n_0 e^2 )^{1/2}$, with $e$ the
168: absolute value of the electronic charge, time $t$ in units of
169: $\omega_{pe}^{-1} = (4 \pi e^2 n_0 / m_e)^{-1/2}$,
170: with $m_e$ the electron mass,
171: energies in units of the initial electron temperature
172: $T_0$, velocities in units of the
173: initial electron thermal speed $v_{th,0} = \sqrt{T_0/ m_e}$,
174: mass in units of the electron mass and particle numbers in units
175: of $N_0$. Since inside the ion core the electron density is taken to be uniform, with the
176: adopted normalization the normalized electron density $n_e$ and the normalized total
177: number of electrons $N_e$ are numerically equal. \\
178:
179: %
180: \subsection{Collisional regime \label{colregime}}
181: If the electrons inside the ion core are re-thermalized by
182: collisions, their velocity distribution function
183: remains Maxwellian and their time dependent kinetic energy is
184: given by $U_{k} =3 N_e T/2 $.
185: The electron evaporation rate is obtained by calculating the flux of
186: electrons with positive total energy through the
187: core surface. Defining the time dependent quantity
188: $\phi_{T} = e \Phi_{R} / T =
189: (1-N_e) R^2 / 3 T$, with $\Phi_{R}$ the
190: electrostatic potential at the
191: ion core surface, the positive total energy condition corresponds to
192: $v^2/ 2 T \geq \phi_{T}$. Thus we obtain
193: \begin{equation} \label{thermal rate}
194: \frac{d N_e}{d t} = - \frac{3} {\sqrt{2 \pi} } ~ \frac{(1 + \phi_{T})}{\tau}
195: ~ e^{-\phi_{T}} ~ N_e,
196: \end{equation}
197: where $\tau = R/\sqrt{T}$ is the
198: electron crossing time inside the ion core.
199: Analogously, the energy flux $\Phi_U$ of the evaporating particle
200: can be computed
201: by noting that each evaporating electron carries away the residual
202: energy $v^2 / 2 T - \phi_{T}$.
203: Then we obtain
204: \begin{equation} \label{energy flux}
205: \Phi_U = \frac{3} {\sqrt{2 \pi} } ~ \frac{(2 + \phi_{T})}{\tau}
206: ~ e^{-\phi_{T}} ~ N_e T.
207: \end{equation}
208: The total energy of the system can be written as $U = {3} N_e T/2 +
209: U_\Phi$ where $U_\Phi$
210: is the electrostatic energy of the charged configuration
211: which increases as the electrons evaporate as
212: \begin{equation} \label{electroenergy}
213: \frac{d U_{\Phi}}{d t} = - \frac{2}{5} ~ R^2 (1-N_e)
214: \frac{d N_e}{d t}.
215: \end{equation}
216: Thus, from the total energy balance we obtain for the time change of
217: the kinetic energy of the system
218: $$
219: \frac{d (3 N_e T/2) }{d t}
220: = - \frac{3} {\sqrt{2 \pi} } \frac{(2 + \phi_{T})}{\tau}
221: ~ e^{-\phi_{T}} ~ N_e T
222: $$
223: \begin{equation} \label{energy balance}
224: + \frac{2}{5}R^2 (1-N_e) \frac{d N_e}{d t},
225: \end{equation}
226: which, coupled to Eq. (\ref{thermal rate}), gives
227: the time evolution of the temperature $T$.\\
228: %
229: %
230: %
231: %
232: %
233: %
234: \subsection{Collisionless regime}\label{collisionless}
235: If on the contrary we assume that plasma electrons inside the ion
236: core are not significantly affected by collisions, their
237: distribution function becomes non-Maxwellian. We assume that
238: the electron distribution remains homogeneous in coordinate space
239: and isotropic in velocity space. Thus,
240: denoting by $N_{\cal E}$ the time dependent number of electrons
241: with kinetic energy (normalized on the initial temperatute $T_0$)
242: in the interval $[{\cal E}, {\cal E} + d {\cal E}]$, and introducing
243: the time dependent quantity
244: $\phi_0 = e \Phi_{R} = \frac{1}{3} (1-N_e) R^2$, which differs from
245: $\phi_T$ in the previous
246: by the normalized temperature factor $1/T$, we obtain
247: \begin{equation} \label{energy decay}
248: \frac{d N_{\cal E}}{d t}
249: = - \frac{3}{2 \sqrt{2}} ~ \frac{\sqrt{{\cal E}}}{R} ~
250: \theta({\cal E} - \phi_0) ~ N_{\cal E}.
251: \end{equation}
252: This implies that the evaporation of
253: the electron population with energy ${\cal E}$
254: stops at a well defined time $t = t_{\cal E}$,
255: where $t_{\cal E}$ is such that ${\cal E} = \phi_0 (t_{\cal E})$.
256: Therefore,
257: \begin{equation}\label{spectrum}
258: \begin{split}
259: N_{\cal E} &= N_{\cal E}(0) e^{- t / t_d} \quad {\rm for} \quad t \le t_{\cal E}\\
260: &= N_{\cal E}(0) e^{- t_{\cal E} / t_d} \quad {\rm for} \quad t > t_{\cal E}\\
261: \end{split}
262: \end{equation}
263: with $t_d = \left( 2 R \sqrt{2} / 3 \sqrt{{\cal E}} \right) ~ $
264: the ${\cal E}$-dependent decay time and
265: $N_{\cal E}(0)$ the electron kinetic energy distribution
266: at the initial time $t = 0$. We assume the electron velocities
267: at time $t = 0$ to be Maxwellian distributed,
268: hence the initial electron kinetic energy distribution $N_{\cal
269: E}(0)$ is given by
270: \begin{equation}\label{kinetic spectrum}
271: N_{\cal E}(0)
272: = N_{{\cal E},0} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} e^{-{\cal E}} \sqrt{{\cal E}}.
273: \end{equation}
274: The electron number $N_e$, and therefore $\phi_0$, can thus be
275: calculated performing
276: numerically, at fixed $t$, the integral
277: $
278: N_e = \int d {\cal E} N_{\cal E}.
279: $
280: Note that in this collisionless model a rough estimate of the
281: asymptotic electron number
282: could be obtained by approximating the final electron distribution function
283: with the initial one for ${\cal E}<{\cal E}^*$, and with zero for
284: ${\cal E}>{\cal E}^*$.
285: We can then determine the cutoff energy ${\cal E}^*$ self consistently
286: by equating its value to the electrostatic energy of the configuration
287: with charge
288: $Q({\cal E}^*) = \int_{{\cal E}^*}^\infty N_{{\cal E}}(0) d {{\cal E}}$,
289: \begin{equation} \label{th_formula}
290: {\cal E}^* = [Q({\cal E}^*) ~ R^2 / 3] .
291: \end{equation}
292: %
293: %
294: %
295: %
296: %
297: %
298: %
299: %
300: %
301: \subsection{Discussion of the analytical models}
302: Numerical integration of Eqs. (\ref{thermal rate},
303: \ref{kinetic spectrum}) shows that
304: both in the collisionless and in the collisional
305: regime the electron evaporation rate
306: is significantly reduced from its initial value when the quantities
307: $\phi_T, \phi_0$ become of
308: order unity. This means that, in the collisional regime, the evaporation
309: nearly stops when the electron electrostatic
310: energy, which is an increasing function of time,
311: is of the order of the electron temperature which decreases
312: with time. Whereas in the collisionless case the electron evaporation
313: is significant
314: only until the electron electrostatic energy is of the order of the
315: initial average electron kinetic energy.\\
316: The initial evaporation rate, which is obviously the same in both, the collisional
317: and in the collisionless case, is obtained from either Eq.
318: (\ref{thermal rate}) or Eq. (\ref{energy decay}) which give
319: \begin{equation} \label{rate 0}
320: \left. \frac{d N_e}{d t} \right|_{t = 0} = - \frac{3}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} ~
321: \frac{1}{R}.
322: \end{equation}
323: A linear approximation of $N_e$ is feasible as long as
324: \mbox{$~t \ll t^* , \tilde{t} ~$} where
325: \begin{equation}\label{initevap time}
326: t^* = \sqrt{2 \pi} R / 3 \end{equation} is the initial characteristic evaporation time and $\tilde{t}$ is defined in
327: the two different
328: collisionality regimes by either the condition $\left. \phi_T
329: \right|_{\tilde{t}} \sim 1$ or
330: $\left. \phi_0
331: \right|_{\tilde{t}} \sim 1$ and which can be roughly evaluated as
332: \begin{equation}\label{transition time}
333: \tilde{t} = {3} t^*/{R^2}.
334: \end{equation}
335: Therefore, if $t^* < \tilde{t}$, i.e., for
336: ion core radii satisfying $R \leq \sqrt{3}$, the
337: charging process continues until almost complete depletion
338: of the electron population.\\
339: Finally, we note that the time dependent electron energy distribution
340: predicted in the collisionless regime is highly non thermal.
341: The fact that the electron evaporation
342: only occurs for those particles with kinetic energy ${\cal E}$
343: satisfying ${\cal E} \geq \left. \phi_0 \right|_t$
344: causes a depletion of the high energy
345: tail of the electron distribution function, as will be
346: examined in detail in Sec. \ref{NR}.\\
347: %
348: %
349: %
350: %
351: %
352: %
353: %
354: \section{PIC simulations and comparison with the analytical results}\label{NR}
355: Our PIC simulations are initialized with the
356: electron and ion density profiles $n_e, n_i$ given by
357: Eq. (\ref{initial profile}). The initial electron distribution function
358: is Maxwellian with temperature $T_0$.
359: At time $t = 0$ the electrons are allowed to move.
360: During their expansion, the electrons
361: that reach the border of the simulation box with positive
362: total energy are removed.
363: %, as shown in Fig. ( (\ref{twoprofiles.eps})).
364: \begin{figure}
365: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{%
366: \includegraphics{field_and_density.eps}
367: }
368: \caption{Spatial profile of the electric field
369: $E_{\infty}$ (panel (a)) and electron density $n_{\infty}$ (panel (b))
370: for $R=10$ (dashed line) and $R = 40$ (solid line).
371: For comparison they are plotted together with the profile that would be
372: obtained in the semi-infinite case (dotted lines) \cite{mora}. The straight line in panel (a) corresponds to the maximum value of the electric field in the semi-infinite case, i.e, $E = \sqrt{2 / {\rm e}}$. }
373: \label{field_and_density.eps}
374: \end{figure}
375: Therefore, as the total number of electrons decreases with time,
376: the plasma acquires a net positive charge and an electrostatic potential
377: sets up. Finally a stationary state is reached where no more electrons reach the boundary.
378: We denote by
379: $N_{\infty}, n_{\infty}, E_{\infty}, N_{{\cal E},
380: \infty}$ the electron number, the electron density, the electric
381: field profile, and the
382: electron kinetic energy distribution once SSC has been reached.
383: As expected, our
384: simulations show that these quantities depend on the ion core radius $R$.\\
385: The results regarding the profile of both the electric field
386: $E_{\infty}$ and of the electron
387: density $n_{\infty}$ for two different ion plasma radii $R$ are
388: presented in Fig.\,\ref{field_and_density.eps}.
389: \begin{figure}
390: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{%
391: \includegraphics{cut.eps}
392: }
393: \caption{Behaviour of the ratio between the final and the initial electron kinetic energy distributions for different ion plasma radii.}
394: \label{cut.eps}
395: \end{figure}
396: As one can see in Fig.\,\ref{field_and_density.eps}b, the electrons
397: which are outside the ion sphere are confined in a region whose width is of the order of a few Debye lengths.
398:
399: The numerical results regarding the electron kinetic energy distribution
400: in the stationary state are presented in Fig.\,\ref{cut.eps}. In the figure,
401: the ratio $N_{{\cal E},\infty} / N_{{\cal E},0}$,
402: is shown versus the electron kinetic
403: energy ${\cal E}$ in semi-logarithmic scale,
404: for several values of the ion plasma radius $R$.
405: These results show that the electron kinetic energy
406: distribution is highly non-thermal. It exhibits a cut in its high energy tail,
407: and the cutoff energy increases with the ion plasma radius $R$. \\
408: Regarding the comparison with the
409: semi-infinite, planar case,
410: our results show
411: that both the electric field and the electron density are
412: very similar to those presented in \cite{mora}
413: only as long as the ion core radius is greater than several
414: tens of Debye lengths. Since, contrary to a one-dimensional configuration, in the
415: case of a three-dimensional configuration the energy required for the electrons to
416: evaporate is finite, the differences observed are mainly due to the cutoff in the electron high energy tail. Such cutoff is responsible for the electron density depletion observed outside the ion core (see Fig.\,\ref{field_and_density.eps}b) and, consequently, for the corresponding electric field profile.
417: As shown in Fig.\,\ref{field_and_density.eps}a,
418: in the limit $R \gg 1$ the value of the dimensionless electric
419: field at the surface of the ion core is almost independent of $R$, thus the net dimensionless charge confined within the ion core scales approximately as $1 / R $.\\
420: The comparison between the charge value $Q_{\infty} = 1 - N_{\infty}$
421: obtained numerically and that predicted
422: analytically is shown in Fig.\,\ref{Rfinale.eps}, for different values of the ion core radius $R$. Note that the value of $Q_{\infty}$ obtained numerically includes all SSC electrons, i.e., the electrons inside the ionic sphere and those in the surrounding halo.
423: \begin{figure}
424: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{%
425: \includegraphics{Rfinale.eps}}
426: \caption{Comparison between the stationary state value
427: of the dimensionless charge inside the ion core
428: predicted by the collisional model (triangles),
429: the collisionless model (squares), the PIC simulations (stars),
430: and the numerical solution of Eq. (\ref{th_formula}) (solid line).
431: A magnification
432: of the region $15 < R < 45$ is also shown in the figure. }
433: \label{Rfinale.eps}
434: \end{figure}
435: It is seen that the agreement among the numerical results and the values obtained in the collisionless regime is very good in the whole range $5-40$. With regard to the thermal model adopted for the collisional regime we remark that for small radii it predicts a moderately larger value of $Q_{\infty }$, but the two different regimes lead to very close values $Q_{\infty }$ in case of large radii. \\
436: Our results indicate that collisions can affect the charging up
437: process only for small ion core radii. This result can be
438: explained by noting that the potential due to the electron
439: expansion scales as $R^2$. Thus, as the
440: potential barrier increases, the fraction of the electron
441: population that, because of Coulomb collisions, reaches a
442: positive total energy and can thus leave the ion core
443: decreases. However, the collisional thermalization of the
444: distribution function assumed in Sec.\,\ref{colregime} can only be expected
445: to to apply when the ion core radius is much larger
446: than the electron mean free path, whereas in most plasma
447: conditions the mean free path due to Coulomb collisions is much
448: greater than the Debye length. \\
449: \begin{figure}
450: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{%
451: \includegraphics{cut_comparison.eps}
452: }
453: \caption{Comparison between the cutoff energy
454: ${\cal E}_{cut}$ as a function of the ion
455: core radius $R$ predicted by the collisionless model (squares) and
456: by the PIC simulations (stars).}
457: \label{cut_comparison.eps}
458: \end{figure}
459: It is worth to note that a precise fit of the numerically-obtained plasma charge state is given by the following Pad\'e approximation
460: \begin{equation}\label{Q}
461: Q_{\infty} \simeq \frac{1 + aR}{1 + bR + cR^2},
462: \end{equation}
463: with $a = 5.6\cdot 10^{-3}$, $b = 1.4\cdot 10^{-1}$ and $c = 5.5\cdot10^{-2}$. \\
464: With regard to the high tail of the electron kinetic energy distribution we define the cutoff energy ${\cal E}_{cut}$ as the energy satisfying the relation $ ({N_{{\cal E}, \infty}}/{N_{{\cal E}, 0}})|_{{\cal E}={\cal E}_{cut}}= 10^{-1}$. The analytical and numerical results obtained for ${\cal E}_{cut}$ are shown in Fig.\,\ref{cut_comparison.eps} for different values of the ion core radius $R$. Taking into account these results, we remark that the collisionless model, although not capable of reproducing the fine details of the whole electron kinetic energy distribution observed in the simulations, nevertheless it predicts the cut in the distribution high energy tail with great accuracy.
465:
466:
467:
468: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
469:
470: In this paper we have investigated the charging up process of a
471: spherically symmetric plasma
472: configuration in vacuum in the limit of immobile ions. Two different simplified models have been presented. With the help of these models we have established scaling laws relating the steady state total charge and electron energy distribution on the radius of the
473: ion core, normalized in terms of the initial electron Debye length.
474: These scalings have been
475: validated by mean of spherical one-dimensional PIC simulations. The agreement we find is overall very good. \\
476: Charged plasma configurations such as those investigated in this
477: paper occur naturally in the
478: interaction of ultraintense laser pulses with matter and are of
479: interest, e.g., for setting the
480: initial conditions in the study of Coulomb explosions and ion
481: acceleration from small clusters
482: irradiated by ultraintense laser pulses.\\
483: In particular, regarding the problem of cluster expansion the
484: analytical and numerical results
485: that we have presented show that a spherically symmetric configuration
486: of cold ions and hot electrons, which is the typical starting
487: configuration in cluster expansion
488: experiments, does not evolve towards a neutral configuration, in contrast with the one-dimensional planar case. This charging up effect can strongly modify the maximum energy that the ions can gain and the typical timescale on which their acceleration occurs.
489:
490: %
491: %
492: %
493: %
494: %
495: %
496: %
497: %
498: %
499: \acknowledgments{
500: This work was
501: supported by the INFM Parallel Computing
502: Initiative. Useful discussions with A. Macchi are gratefully acknowledged. }
503: %
504: %
505: %
506: %
507: %
508: %
509: %
510: %
511: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
512:
513: \bibitem{allen1}
514: J. E. Allen and J. G. Andrews,
515: J. Plasma Physics, {\bf 4}, 187 (1970).
516: \bibitem{allen2} J. E. Crow, P. L. Auer and J. E. Allen,
517: J. Plasma Physics, {\bf 14}, 65 (1975).
518: \bibitem{allen3} P. D. Prewett and J. E. Allen,
519: J. Plasma Physics, {\bf 10}, 451 (1973).
520: \bibitem{nedelea} T. Nedelea and H. M. Urbassek,
521: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 0546408 (2004).
522: \bibitem{lontano} M. Passoni and M. Lontano,
523: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 026411 (2004).
524: \bibitem{mora} P. Mora, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 185002 (2003).
525: \bibitem{ivanov} A. A. Ivanov and K.S. Serebrennikov,
526: JETP Lett. {\bf 78}, 123 (2003).
527: \bibitem{kovalev1} V.
528: F. Kovalev and V. Yu. Bychenkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 185004
529: (2003).
530: \bibitem{kovalev2} V. F. Kovalev, V. Yu. Bychenkov and V. T. Tikhounchuk,
531: JETP Lett. {\bf 74}, 10 (2001).
532: \bibitem{dorozhkina1} D. S. Dorozhkina and V. E. Semenov,
533: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 2691 (1998).
534: \bibitem{dorozhkina2} D. S. Dorozhkina and V. E. Semenov,
535: JETP Lett. {\bf 67}, 573 (1998).
536: \bibitem{gurevitch} A. V. Gurevitch, L. V. Pariskaya and L.P. Pitaievskii,
537: J. Plasma Physics, {\bf 14}, 65 (1975).
538: \bibitem{widner} M. Widner, I. Alexeff and W. D. Jones,
539: Phys. Fluids {\bf 14}, 795 (1971).
540: \bibitem{betti} S. Betti, F. Ceccherini, F. Cornolti and F. Pegoraro,
541: submitted for publication. Available at
542: {\tt http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0405030}.
543: %plasma expansion, experiments
544: \bibitem{hegelich} M. Hegelich {\it et al.},
545: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 085002 (2002).
546: \bibitem{badziak} J. Badziak {\it et al.},
547: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 215001 (2001).
548: \bibitem{mackinnon1} A. J. Mackinnon {\it et al.},
549: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1769 (2001).
550: \bibitem{mackinnon2} A. J. Mackinnon {\it et al.},
551: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 215006 (2002).
552: \bibitem{maksimchuk} A. Maksimchuk and V. Yu Bychenkov,
553: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4108 (2000).
554: \bibitem{clark1} E. L. Clark {\it et al.},
555: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 670 (2000).
556: \bibitem{clark2} E. L. Clark {\it et al.},
557: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1654 (2000).
558: \bibitem{krushelnick} K. Krushelnick,
559: Phys. Plasmas {\bf 7}, 2055 (2000).
560: \bibitem{hatchett} S. P. Hatchett {\it et al.}, Phys. Plasmas
561: {\bf 7}, 2076 (2000).
562: \bibitem{snavely} R. A. Snavely {\it et al.},
563: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2945 (2000).
564: \bibitem{habara} H. Habara {\it et al.},
565: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 036407 (2004).
566: \bibitem{mckenna} P. McKenna {\it et al.},
567: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 70}, 036405 (2004).
568: \bibitem{bulanov} T. Zh. Esirkepov {\it et al.}
569: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 175003 (2004).
570: %clusters
571: \bibitem{kumarappan1} V. Kumarappan, M. Krishnamurthy and D. Mathur,
572: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 033203 (2003).
573: \bibitem{kumarappan2} V. Kumarappan, M. Krishnamurthy and D. Mathur,
574: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 085005 (2001).
575: \bibitem{krainov} V. P. Krainov, M.B Smirnov, Phys. Rep. {\bf 370},
576: 237 (2002).
577: \bibitem{milchberg} H. M. Milchberg, S. J. McNaught and E. Parra,
578: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 056402 (2001).
579: \bibitem{ditmire1} J. Zweiback, T. Ditmire and M. D. Perry,
580: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59}, R3166 (1999).
581: \bibitem{ditmire2} T. Ditmire {\it et al.},
582: Nature (London) {\bf 398}, 489 (1999).
583: \bibitem{ditmire3} T. Ditmire {\it et al.},
584: Nature (London) {\bf 386}, 54 (1997).
585: \bibitem{ditmire4} T. Ditmire, R. A. Smith, J. W. G. Tisch and M. H. R. Hutchinson,
586: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3121 (1997).
587: \bibitem{ditmire5} T. Ditmire {\it et al.},
588: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 53}, 3379 (1996).
589: \bibitem{shao} Y. L. Shao {\it et al.},
590: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77} 3343 (1996).
591: \bibitem{snyder} E. M. Snyder, S. A. Buzza and A. W. Castleman Jr.,
592: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77} 3347 (1996).
593: %proton imaging
594: \bibitem{borghesi1} M. Borghesi {\it et al.},
595: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 055003 (2004).
596: \bibitem{borghesi2} M. Borghesi {\it et al.},
597: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 135002 (2004).
598: \bibitem{borghesi3} M. Borghesi {\it et al.},
599: Phys. Plasmas {\bf 9}, 2214 (2002).
600: \bibitem{califano} F. Califano, F. Pegoraro and S. V. Bulanov,
601: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 066406 (2003).
602: %hadrontheraphy
603: \bibitem{bulanov1} S.V. Bulanov {\it et al.} Phys. Lett. A {\bf 299}, 240
604: (2002).
605: \bibitem{bulanov2} S.V. Bulanov and V. S. Khoroshkov,
606: Plasma. Phys. Rep. {\bf 28}, 453 (2002).
607: \bibitem{esirkepov} T. Zh. Esirkepov {\it et al.},
608: Phys. Rev Lett. {\bf 89}, 175003 (2002).
609: \bibitem{orecchia1}
610: R. Orecchia {\it et al.}, Clinical Reviews in Oncology/Hemathology
611: {\bf 51}, 81 (2004).
612: \bibitem{brahme} A. Brahme, Int. J. Radiat.
613: Oncol. Biol. Phys. {\bf 58}, 603 (2004).
614: \bibitem{weyrather} W. K.
615: Weyrather and J. Debus, Clinical Oncology {\bf 15}, s23
616: (2003).
617: \bibitem{tsujii} H. Tsujii, Eur. J. Cancer {\bf 37}, s251
618: (2004).
619: \bibitem{orecchia2} R. Orecchia {\it et al.}, Eur. J. Cancer
620: {\bf 34}, 459 (1998).
621: \bibitem{amaldi} U. Amaldi, analysis {\bf 1}, 1 (2003).
622: %dusty plasmas, aereosols, etc...
623: \bibitem{mulser} M. Kanapathipillai {\it et
624: al.}, Phys. of Plasmas, {\bf 11}, 3911 (2004).
625: \bibitem{fortov} V. E.
626: Fortov {\it et al.}, New. J. of Phys. {\bf 5}, 102
627: (2003).
628: \bibitem{kasparian} J. Kasparian {\it et al.}, Science {\bf
629: 301}, 61 (2003).
630: \end{thebibliography}
631: \end{document}
632:
633:
634: