1 / 17

Prandtl number dependence of magnetic-to-kinetic dissipation

Prandtl number dependence of magnetic-to-kinetic dissipation. What gets in, will get out Even for vanishing viscosity What if magnetic fields contribute?. Axel Brandenburg (Nordita  CU Boulder ). (ApJ 791, 12 (2014). Finite dissipation at vanishing viscosity.

hfrancisca
Télécharger la présentation

Prandtl number dependence of magnetic-to-kinetic dissipation

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. Prandtl number dependence of magnetic-to-kinetic dissipation • What gets in, will get out • Even for vanishing viscosity • What if magnetic fields • contribute? Axel Brandenburg (Nordita  CU Boulder) (ApJ 791, 12 (2014)

  2. Finite dissipation at vanishing viscosity if n 0 then w2  infty Traceless rate-of-strain tensor How is this modified by magnetic fields? • Smaller h, more J, same dissipation • Or: dynamo stronger, more dissipation • Or: less dissipation 

  3. Couple to B-field • <u.(JxB)> taps energy • Dynamo if negative • Self-excited if instability • Requires 3-D B-field • Isotropic turbulence • Small-scale dynamo (nonhelical) • Large-scale dynamo (helical)

  4. Passive scalar case Sc=n/k Motivation of LES modeling Location of cutoff does not matter for inertial range Order of limits n 0 h 0 unimportant (Batchelor)

  5. Coupling to B-field • Magnetic dissipation depends on work term • Independent of microphysics? • Basic assumption of LES and iLES • e.g., hyperdiffusion (Galsgaard & Nordlund 1996) • Not confirmed by DNS • Ratio scales with n/h • Either n or h fixed • What if replace Spitzer by Hall?

  6. 2 solutions Re const ReM const n smaller, nw2 smaller, hJ2 larger

  7. Numerically difficult? • Energy dissipation via Joule • Viscous dissipation weak • Can increase Re substantially! PrM=n/h Brandenburg (2009, ApJ)

  8. Isothermal MHD Forcing: helical or nonhelical

  9. PrM dependence of dissipation ratio Brandenburg (2014, ApJ, 791, 12) SPP = Sahoo, Perlekar, Pandit (2011)

  10. Energy ratio nearly unchanged

  11. Inertial range  compensated spectra

  12. 2-D MHD (Tran et al, JFM 2013) h smaller, n/hlarger, J2 finite, hJ2 0 nw2/ hJ2 keeps incr. 1-D shocks 2-D decturb Brandenburg (2014, ApJ, 791, 12)

  13. Hall MHD • How does it affect dissipation ratio? • Does it “replace” ohmic diffusion somehow • Does it affect the dynamo • Backscatter from magnetic to kinetic energy (Mininni, Alexakis, Pouquet 2006) • Nature of MHD Alfven waves changed

  14. Hall MHD simulations 2883 resol. Makes dynamo weaker  less magnetic dissipation

  15. Hall effect Makes dynamo weaker =n/h

  16. Effect of rotation No effect if supercritical

  17. Conclusions • Dissipation ratio scales with PrM • Both for PrM > 1 and < 1 • SS dynamo scaling shallower (nonuniversal) • Qualitatively reproduced with MHD shocks • <u.(JxB)> determined by microphysics!? • Hall does affect dynamo, if 1/lHall subinertial • Questions about LES or iLES

More Related