Propagation of Electron-Acoustic Waves in a Plasma with Suprathermal Electrons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron-acoustic waves occur in space and laboratory plasmas where two distinct electron populations exist, namely cool and hot electrons. The observations revealed that the hot electron distribution often has a long-tailed suprathermal (non-Maxwellian) form. The aim of the present study is to investigate how various plasma parameters modify the electron-acoustic structures. We have studied the electron-acoustic waves in a collisionless and unmagnetized plasma consisting of cool inertial electrons, hot suprathermal electrons, and mobile ions. First, we started with a cold one-fluid model, and we extended it to a warm model, including the electron thermal pressure. Finally, the ion inertia was included in a two-fluid model. The linear dispersion relations for electron-acoustic waves depicted a strong dependence of the charge screening mechanism on excess suprathermality. A nonlinear (Sagdeev) pseudopotential technique was employed to investigate the existence of electron-acoustic solitary waves, and to determine how their characteristics depend on various plasma parameters. The results indicate that the thermal pressure deeply affects the electron-acoustic solitary waves. Only negative polarity waves were found to exist in the one-fluid model, which become narrower as deviation from the Maxwellian increases, while the wave amplitude at fixed soliton speed increases. However, for a constant value of the true Mach number, the amplitude decreases for increasing suprathermality. It is also found that the ion inertia has a trivial role in the supersonic domain, but it is important to support positive polarity waves in the subsonic domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".