1 / 31

Helical MHD and a -effect

Helical MHD and a -effect. Axel Brandenburg ( Nordita, Copenhagen ) Kandaswamy Subramanian ( IUCAA, Pune ). arXiv:astro-ph/0405052 Phys. Rept. (244 pages, 62 figs). MHD equations. Magn. Vector potential. Induction Equation:. Momentum and Continuity eqns. Viscous force.

ellis
Download Presentation

Helical MHD and a -effect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Helical MHD and a-effect Axel Brandenburg (Nordita, Copenhagen) Kandaswamy Subramanian (IUCAA, Pune) arXiv:astro-ph/0405052 Phys. Rept. (244 pages, 62 figs)

  2. MHD equations Magn. Vector potential Induction Equation: Momentum and Continuity eqns Viscous force Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  3. Vector potential • B=curlA, advantage: divB=0 • J=curlB=curl(curlA) =curl2A • Not a disadvantage: consider Alfven waves B-formulation A-formulation 2nd der once is better than 1st der twice! Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  4. Pencil Code • Started in Sept. 2001 with Wolfgang Dobler • High order (6th order in space, 3rd order in time) • Cache & memory efficient • MPI, can run PacxMPI (across countries!) • Maintained/developed by many people (CVS!) • Automatic validation (over night or any time) • Max resolution so far 10243 Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  5. Helical versus nonhelical Kida et al. (1991) helical forcing, but no inverse cascade Inverse cascade only when scale separation Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  6. Allowing for scale separation Position of the peak compatible with No inverse cascade in kinematic regime Decomposition in terms of Chandrasekhar-Kendall-Waleffe functions Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  7. Kazantsev spectrum (kinematic) Opposite limit, no scale separation, forcing at kf=1-2 Kazantsev spectrum confirmed (even for n/h=1) Spectrum remains highly time-dependent Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  8. 256 processor run at 10243 EM(k) not peaked at resistive scale, as previously claimed instead: kpeak~Rm,crit1/2kf ~ 6kf

  9. Structure function exponents agrees with She-Leveque third moment Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  10. Bottleneck effect: 1D vs 3D spectra Compensated spectra (1D vs 3D) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  11. Relation to ‘laboratory’ 1D spectra Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  12. Bottleneck in the literature Porter, Pouquet, & Woodward (1998) using PPM, 10243 meshpoints Kaneda et al. (2003) on the Earth simulator, 40963 meshpoints Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  13. Helical MHD turbulence • Helically forced turbulence (cyclonic events) • Small & large scale field grows exponentially • Past saturation: slow evolution  Explained by magnetic helicity equation Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  14. Animations

  15. Effects of magnetic helicity conservation Early times: h=0 important Late times: steady state By the time a steady state is reached: net magnetic helicity is generated

  16. Slow-down explained by magnetic helicity conservation molecular value!! Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  17. Connection with a effect: writhe with internal twist as by-product clockwise tilt (right handed) W  left handed internal twist Yousef & Brandenburg A&A 407, 7 (2003) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  18. Internal twist as feedback on a (Pouquet, Frisch, Leorat 1976) How can this be used in practice? Need a closure for <j.b> Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  19. Rm dependence of PFL formula St = turmskf not suppressed in Rm dependent fashion a is suppressed in Rm dependent fashion Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  20. Revised nonlinear dynamo theory(originally due to Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin 1982) Two-scale assumption Production of large scale helicity comes at the price of producing also small scale magnetic helicity Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  21. Express in terms of a  Dynamical a-quenching (Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin 1982) no additional free parameters Steady limit: consistent with VC92 (algebraic quenching) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  22. Is ht quenched?can be in models with shear Larger mean field Slow growth but short cycles: Depends on assumption about ht-quenching! Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  23. Additional effect of shear Negative shear Positive shear Consistent with g=3 and Kitchatinov et al (1996), Kleeorin & Rogachevskii (1999) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  24. Effect of surface losses of current helicity • Large scale (LS) field: • Drainage on LS dynamo • Rm-dependent cutoff • Shortens saturation time • Small scale (SS) field • Enhancement of LS dynamo Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  25. The need for small scale losses initial slope Numerical experiment: remove field for k>4 every 1-3 turnover times • large scale losses: • lower saturation level 2) higher saturation level 3) still slow time scale

  26. How do magnetic helicity losses look like? N-shaped (north) S-shaped (south) (the whole loop corresponds to CME) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  27. Sigmoidal filaments (from S. Gibson) Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  28. Examples ofhelical structures Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  29. Simulating solar-like differential rotation Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  30. Results for current helicity flux First order smoothing, and tau approximation Vishniac & Cho (2001 Expected to be finite on when there is shear Brandenburg: Helical MHD

  31. Conclusions • Homogeneous dynamos saturate resistively • Entirely magnetic helicity controlled • Inhomogeneous dynamo • Open surface, equator • Still many issues to be addressed • Current helicity flux important • Finite if there is shear • Avoid magnetic helicity, use current helicity Brandenburg: Helical MHD

More Related