The bounce-kinetic model for driven nonlinear Langmuir waves

Physics of Plasmas

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 903-917

  Barnes, D C ^a,b  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b Sumner Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LANDAU DAMPING; LANGMUIR WAVES; LASER-PLASMA INTERACTION;

BOUNDARY LAYERS; DAMPING; HAMILTONIANS; HYDRODYNAMICS; LASER APPLICATIONS; PLASMA THEORY; SPECKLE;

PLASMA WAVES;

EID: 2042505706     PISSN: 1070664X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1641032     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. W. Kruer, The Physics of Laser Plasma Interactions (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1988), pp. 73-85.
2. H. X. Vu, D. F. DuBois, and B. Bezzerides, Phys. Plasmas 9, 1745 (2002).
3. H. A. Rose and D. A. Russell, Phys. Plasmas 8, 4784 (2001).
4. H. A. Rose, Phys. Plasmas 10, 1468 (2003).
5. W. J. Hogan, E. I. Moses, B. E. Warner, M. S. Sorem et al., Nucl. Fusion 41, 567 (2001).
6. T. M. O'Neil, Phys. Fluids 8, 2255 (1965).
7. V. E. Zakharov and V. L. Karpman, Sov. Phys. JETP 43, 351 (1962).
8. G. J. Morales and T. M. O'Neil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 417 (1972).
9. W. M. Manheimer and R. W. Flynn, Phys. Fluids 14, 2393 (1971).
10. R. L. Dewar, Phys. Fluids 15, 712 (1972).
11. B. I. Cohen and A. N. Kaufman, Phys. Fluids 20, 1113 (1977).
12. B. I. Cohen and A. N. Kaufman, Phys. Fluids 21, 404 (1978).
13. H. X. Vu, B. Bezzerides, and D. F. DuBois, J, Comput. Phys. 156, 12 (1999).
14. K. Y. Sanbonmatsu, H. X. Vu, D. F. DuBois, and B. Bezzerides, Phys. Plasmas 7, 1723 (2000).
15. R. L. Berger, L. M. Divol, S. H. Glenzer, D. E. Hinkel et al., Proc. SPIE 4424, 206 (2001); Conference of the 26th European Conference on Laser Interactions with Matter (ECLIM 2000); 12-16 June 2000; Prague, Czech Republic.
16. R. L. Berger, L. M. Divol, S. H. Glenzer, D. E. Hinkel et al., Proc. SPIE 4424, 206 (2001); Conference of the 26th European Conference on Laser Interactions with Matter (ECLIM 2000); 12-16 June 2000; Prague, Czech Republic.
17. D. C. Barnes, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 48, 249 (2003).
18. As noted in Sec. II, the variable J introduced here is not exactly the action, but rather the relative action (per unit length). Consequently, one finds that J is not constant, but slowly varying. Our choice preserves the usual space coordinate (ζ) as conjugate to J. If we introduce the true action, the canonically conjugate coordinate would be the phase s, and transformations to physically useful coordinates would be cumbersome.
19. B. J. Albright (private communication).