- #1
Loro
- 80
- 1
I'm taking a short course in plasma physics, and we've covered quickly the magnetic mirror.
So the idea is that an ion, say a proton, moves along a helical path along parallel B-field lines - say in z-direction. Then the lines converge towards the z-axis, forming a shape like a bottleneck, with the B-field strength increasing in the direction of the narrow part; and on that converging bit, if the proton is not too fast, it gets slowed down, and reflected back.
So the way our lecturer explained it to us is that the z-velocity [itex] v_{z} [/itex] of the proton decreases, and that this kinetic energy has to go somewhere, because energy is conserved (B-field can't do work) so it gets converted into the energy of the rotational component of its motion (around the B-field lines) and so the tangential velocity [itex] v_{\bot} [/itex] increases.
Then it comes to a stop and this process reverses.
With all that I agree. I'm rarely satisfied with these sorts of explanations, but I drew it, etc. and found where the forces responsible for these changes in motion come from.
So from [itex] v_{\bot} × B [/itex] , there follows a force, that on average has got a component in z-direction, and that's what's stopping it.
Then from [itex] v_{z} × B [/itex], there follows a force which is always tangential and is speeding the rotations up. And if we calculate the energy loss due to these forces, we indeed get 0.
Then the lecturer says, that angular momentum wrt the z-axis is conserved too - from that he derives [itex] v_{z}[/itex] as a function of B (because B increases along the z-axis), and calculates that the B, at which the "stop" occurs, is:
[itex]B=B_{0} (\frac{v_{\bot 0}^2 + v_{z 0}^2}{v_{\bot 0}^2} ) [/itex]
where these quantities with zero are meant to be: before it entered the bottleneck.
And I know this formula is correct, however I can't agree that the angular momentum is conserved. There is this force that's speeding the rotations up - it clearly has got a torque. I told it to the lecturer and he said, that the angular momentum is conserved, "because it can't go anywhere"...
What's the true explanation, or my mistake?
So the idea is that an ion, say a proton, moves along a helical path along parallel B-field lines - say in z-direction. Then the lines converge towards the z-axis, forming a shape like a bottleneck, with the B-field strength increasing in the direction of the narrow part; and on that converging bit, if the proton is not too fast, it gets slowed down, and reflected back.
So the way our lecturer explained it to us is that the z-velocity [itex] v_{z} [/itex] of the proton decreases, and that this kinetic energy has to go somewhere, because energy is conserved (B-field can't do work) so it gets converted into the energy of the rotational component of its motion (around the B-field lines) and so the tangential velocity [itex] v_{\bot} [/itex] increases.
Then it comes to a stop and this process reverses.
With all that I agree. I'm rarely satisfied with these sorts of explanations, but I drew it, etc. and found where the forces responsible for these changes in motion come from.
So from [itex] v_{\bot} × B [/itex] , there follows a force, that on average has got a component in z-direction, and that's what's stopping it.
Then from [itex] v_{z} × B [/itex], there follows a force which is always tangential and is speeding the rotations up. And if we calculate the energy loss due to these forces, we indeed get 0.
Then the lecturer says, that angular momentum wrt the z-axis is conserved too - from that he derives [itex] v_{z}[/itex] as a function of B (because B increases along the z-axis), and calculates that the B, at which the "stop" occurs, is:
[itex]B=B_{0} (\frac{v_{\bot 0}^2 + v_{z 0}^2}{v_{\bot 0}^2} ) [/itex]
where these quantities with zero are meant to be: before it entered the bottleneck.
And I know this formula is correct, however I can't agree that the angular momentum is conserved. There is this force that's speeding the rotations up - it clearly has got a torque. I told it to the lecturer and he said, that the angular momentum is conserved, "because it can't go anywhere"...
What's the true explanation, or my mistake?
Last edited: