Analysis of collisional and facility effects in a magnetic nozzle plasma expansion
Extracted source text · arXiv 2607.07861
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentclass[preprint]{revtex4-1}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Macros
\input{macros/macros}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{ulem}
\usepackage{float}
\newcommand{\mch}[1]{{\color{orange}\textbf{#1}}}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{document}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\title{
Analysis of collisional and facility effects in a magnetic nozzle plasma expansion}
\author{Manuel Cortés-Hernán}
\author{Mario Merino}
\author{Diego García-Lahuerta}
\author{Eduardo Ahedo}
\affiliation{Department of Aerospace Engineering, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Legan\'es, Spain}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{abstract}
An axisymmetric, quasineutral three-fluid model is proposed to study the plasma expansion in a magnetic nozzle under the presence of neutrals coming either from the plasma source or as an homogeneous background. As a difference with other models, electron cooling in the plume is achieved by treating the electron energy flux as mainly convective and without the need to postulate any anomalous resistivity.
Solutions are presented for the electron high-magnetization limit, in which the electron main magnitudes can be integrated along magnetic lines. Ionization, elastic and charge-exchange collisions with neutrals do not change the main qualitative features of the plasma expansion, known from previous collisionless models. Ionization enhances the plasma flow in the nozzle, and leads to additional electron cooling, which decreases the electric potential fall along the nozzle. The efficiency of the nozzle is quantified in terms of the gain of magnetic thrust and the plume divergence angle.
Two types of boundary conditions are discussed for the electron flow: local current ambipolarity conditions at the nozzle throat and global current-free conditions at the outer boundary (i.e., metallic vacuum chamber walls). These last ones are shown to be physically more reliable: they introduce the influence of the chamber walls on the plasma expansion by shaping the ambipolar electric field; they permit the extrapolation to undisturbed free space conditions; and they approximate better experimental trends with the background pressure.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Electrodeless plasma thrusters (EPTs) have gained interest from the space propulsion community in the last decades thanks to their theorized advantages over other well-established electric propulsion technologies \cite{ahed11s,bath17a}.
The lack of electrodes and neutralizing cathodes in EPTs offers possible advantages compared to other well-established technologies, such as potentially longer lifetimes, the possibility of using virtually any propellant \cite{shepp21a}, and ample thrust-specific impulse throttleability.
EPT devices such as the Helicon Plasma Thruster (HPT) \cite{char03b, bati09n, taka11b, nava18a} and the Electron-Cyclotron Resonance thruster (ECRT) \cite{serc87, cann15b, inch23a} are now under development.
In these devices, plasma acceleration occurs in a so-called magnetic nozzle (MN) \cite{ande69, ahed10f, meri16g,kaga20a} that, similarly to a de Laval nozzle in chemical propulsion, converts (electron) thermal energy into (ion) directed kinetic energy.
MNs operate contactlessly thanks to the Lorentz force and, among other advantages, offer the possibility of exerting thrust vectoring on the MN without moving parts \cite{meri17b}.
A seminal work by Ahedo and Merino \cite{ahed10f} analyzed the plasma expansion in a propulsive MN under free-space and collisionless conditions in the electron high-magnetization limit. Using an axisymmetric two-fluid model (DIMAGNO), they demonstrated the 2D character of the plasma expansion, explained the mechanisms for magnetic thrust generation via the electron azimuthal current, and discussed the relevance of boundary conditions. Later works discussed plasma detachment via ion demagnetization \cite{meri14a}, ion and electron thermodynamics via polytropic relations \cite{meri15a}, and the influence of the plasma-induced magnetic field \cite{meri16b}.
However, the experimental conditions of a MN for an EPT operating in a laboratory can differ largely from the ideal ones of said model. In particular, the existence of a background pressure in the vacuum chamber, $p_{bg}$, and the external ionization of the gas emitted from the plasma source, can affect the expansion of the plasma beam.
Vialis et al. \cite{vial17}, operating a small ECRT with Xe, found that thrust (and thrust efficiency) dropped significantly as $p_{bg}$ increased from 0.6 mPa to 1.3 mPa, although no clear reason for this was identified in their work. The divergence of the plasma plume also increased with $p_{bg}$, and the thruster floating potential decreased by 25\%.
Caruso and Jorns \cite{caru18}, testing an HPT with argon at low (1.6 mPa) and high (40 mPa) background pressures, found that, on the plume axis and under the highest pressure conditions, ion energies were tens of eV lower, electron temperatures a few eV lower, and higher plasma densities were observed.
Wachs and Jorns \cite{wach20a} analyzed background pressure effects on ion dynamics in the MN of a small ECRT operating with Xe. As $p_{bg}$ increased from 0.1 to 3.5 mPa, the downstream ion velocity decreased by 20\%.
They suggested inelastic electron–neutral collisions in the plume as the mechanism responsible for the decrease in ion energy, which consumed up to 39\% of the incident power in the plume.
Desangles et al. \cite{desa23a} conducted additional tests with the ECRT of \cite{vial17}, with $p_{bg}$ ranging from 0.025 to 0.5 mPa, and the results showed a significant decrease in ion energy and thrust.
These experimental studies must be complemented with theoretical work that can, first, understand and quantify facility effects under diverse MN conditions and, second, extrapolate lab measurements to in-space conditions. Several models have addressed this task. Andriulli et al. \cite{andr24} carried out a fully kinetic study of facility pressure effects on RF-source magnetic nozzles, based on a particle-in-cell (PIC) 2D model developed previously in \cite{andr22}. Background pressures up to 10 mPa were considered and significant in-plume ionization was reported, leading to thrust losses of more than 13\% at high $p_{bg}$. Their model incorporated anomalous Bohm-type collisionality with a coefficient of 1/64. To reduce the huge PIC computational cost arising from the disparate time scales of the different plasma species, they used vacuum permittivity augmented by a factor of 713 and the ion mass reduced by a factor of 250, claiming that these adjustments did not distort the plasma response.
An alternative to MN full-PIC models are full-fluid, quasineutral models, which are much cheaper computationally and thus more suitable for broad parametric investigations. However, fluid models require the pressure tensor to be isotropic and a good closure of the fluid hierarchy, either at the momentum equation level (an example is a polytropic law, as in \cite{meri15a}) or at the energy equation level (i.e., an expression for the heat flux). Electrons are the most problematic species due to magnetization and because they are mostly a confined population. Marks et al. \cite{mark20a} used the 2D 3-fluid code Hall2De (originally designed for Hall thrusters) to analyze the MN measurements of \cite{corr19d} on the MN of an ECRT. The code solves a full electron energy equation with a Fourier-type heat flux vector.
The authors found that the model over-predicts thermal conductivity along field lines, leading to a near-isothermal plume, and suggest that anomalous resistivity is needed to recover the electron cooling in the MN plume, which is well reported experimentally \cite{corr19d, litt16,zhan16a}.
This work presents an alternative 3-fluid MN model, bearing a different closure for the electron energy equation, which naturally extends DIMAGNO to a collisional plasma. The closure is based on kinetic (Vlasov-based) studies suggesting that the electron energy flux in a MN rarefied plasma expansion is mainly convective \cite{mart15a, ahed20a, zhou21a}. We will show that this choice makes it possible to avoid the need for empirical laws of anomalous resistivity in this new model. Additionally, global downstream conditions (similar to \cite{andr24}) are imposed, instead of the local conditions of \cite{mark20a}.
%
The main goals of this work are to analyze the effects of both external ionization of neutral gas emitted from the source and background pressure on MN performance. The influence of several MN parameters will also be investigated. Additionally, the electrical bridge between the thruster and the downstream region (i.e. vacuum chamber walls of free-space), manifested through the choice of boundary conditions, is examined.
Numerically, the new model (DIMAGNO-DG) is treated with a Discontinuous Galerkin zeroth-order finite element approach (making it equivalent to the finite volume method) developed recently by \cite{meri23a} to study the collisionless plasma expansion in a magnetic arch. This method overcomes some limitations of the method of characteristics used in the original DIMAGNO, such as the the inability to simulate the peripheral space surrounding the main plasma jet, to simulate regions of subsonic ion flow, or to deal with shock-like structures. The model continues to take advantage of the very-high electron magnetization, a situation that may not hold once anomalous resistivity is added.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:model} presents the three-fluid model. Section \ref{sec:vacuum_expansion} discusses the plasma expansion in vacuum, including specific subsections on different boundary conditions and the collisionless limit. Section \ref{sec:back_pressure} analyzes the effects of background pressure. Section \ref{sec:model_validation} discusses the validity of the model, the effects of using a finite plume size, and the intrinsic 2D character of the MN expansion.
Finally, section \ref{sec:conclusions} gathers the main conclusions of the study.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Three-fluid Model} \label{sec:model}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A plasma source of radius $R_0$ emits a plasma flow composed of electrons ($e$), singly-charged ions ($i$) and neutrals ($n$),
into an axisymmetric computational domain $\Omega$ of length and radius $L$.
The plasma is channelled by a diverging, axisymmetric, magnetic field $\bm B (z,r)$, which admits a magnetic streamfunction $\psi(z,r)$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\nabla\psi=rB\bm 1_\perp.
%\bm B = r^{-1}\nabla \psi \times \bm 1_\theta.
\label{eq:B_psi_relation}
\end{equation}
The cylindrical and magnetic reference frames are $\{\bm 1_z,\bm 1_r,\bm 1_\theta\}$ and $\{\bm 1_\parallel,\bm 1_\perp,\bm 1_\theta\}$, with $\bm 1_\parallel=\bm B/B$ and $\bm 1_\perp=\bm 1_\theta\times \bm 1_\parallel$ in the meridian plane.
Although the study is applicable to any divergent configuration of a MN, the results are presented for the magnetic field of a single current loop flowing along $\bm 1_\theta$, and located at $(z,r) = (0,2R_0)$. Figure \ref{fig:sketch}(a) sketches the studied domain (dashed limits) and the relative magnitude of the magnetic field, with $B_0=B(0,0)$ proportional to the current loop and large enough to neglect the self-induced magnetic field in the plasma response.
%Additionally, the results are gathered for the zero plasma-beta parameter, $\beta = \mu_0nT_e/B^2 \ll 1$, thus neglecting the induced magnetic field with respect to the applied one.
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Ion and neutral equations}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
The plasma is considered quasineutral and analyzed with a three-fluid model.
The continuity, momentum and energy fluid equations for ions and neutrals read
%
\begin{align}
&\partial_t n_i + \nabla \cdot (n_i \bm u_i) = S_{ion},
\label{eq:ioncontinuity}
\\
&
\partial_t (m_in_i\bm u_i) + \nabla \cdot (m_in_i\bm u_i\bm u_i +p_i \bm I )
=
-en_i\nabla \phi + en_i\bm u_i \times \bm B + \bm R_{in},
\label{eq:ionmomentum}
\\
&
\partial_t(n_i\mathcal{E}_i)
+ \nabla\cdot[(\mathcal{E}_i + T_i)n_i\bm u_i]
=
-en_i\bm u_i\cdot\nabla\phi
+Q_{in},
\label{eq:ionenergy}
\\
&
\partial_t n_n + \nabla \cdot (n_n \bm u_n) = -S_{ion},
\label{eq:neutralcontinuity}
\\
&
\partial_t (m_in_n\bm u_n) + \nabla \cdot (m_in_n\bm u_n\bm u_n +p_n \bm I ) = - \bm R_{in},
\label{eq:neutralmomentum}
\\
&
\partial_t (n_n\mathcal{E}_n)
+ \nabla\cdot[(\mathcal{E}_n+ T_n)n_n\bm u_n]
=
-Q_{in},
\label{eq:neutralenergy}
\end{align}
where, apart from standard symbols: $n_i=n_e$ is the quasineutral plasma density;
$\phi$ is the electrostatic potential; $p_\alpha=n_\alpha T_\alpha, \ (\alpha=i,n)$ are pressures,
$ \mathcal{E}_{\alpha} = m_iu_{\alpha}^2/2+{3}T_{\alpha}/2 $
%\begin{equation}
% \mathcal{E}_{\alpha} = \frac{3}{2}T_{\alpha} + \frac{1}{2}m_iu_{\alpha}^2,
% \mathcal{E}_{\alpha} = m_iu_{\alpha}^2/2+{3}T_{\alpha}/2 ,
%\end{equation}
are total energies per particle, and $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}+T_\alpha$ are the respective enthalpies. Ionization and charge-exchange collisions define the source terms
\begin{align}
&
S_{ion}=n_e\nu_{ion},
\qquad
S_{cex}=n_e\nu_{cex},
\label{eq:Sion_Scex_def}
\\
&
\bm R_{in} = m_i [S_{ion}\bm u_n - S_{cex} (\bm u_i - \bm u_n)],
\label{eq:Ri_def}
\\
&
Q_{in}=S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_n-S_{cex}(\mathcal{E}_i-\mathcal{E}_n),
\label{eq:Qi_def}
\end{align}
with frequencies $\nu_{ion}=n_nR_{ion}$ and $\nu_{cex}=n_nR_{cex}$. The ionization and charge-exchange rates, $R_{ion}(T_e)$ and $R_{cex}(|\bm u_i-\bm u_n|)$ are defined, together with other collisional parameters, in Appendix A of Ref. \cite{bell21a}.
For both ions and neutrals, the mechanical energy dominates over the thermal energy, so neglecting heat conduction is acceptable.
Both $Q_{in}$ and $R_{in}$ omit a small contribution from electrons, proportional to $m_e$.
The magnetization of the heavy ions is often marginal.
Since the plasma-induced magnetic field is neglected, the above set of equations is complete except for the electric potential $\phi$. The electron equations close the plasma model.
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Model for highly magnetized electrons} \label{subs:electron}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neglecting electron inertia and assuming quasineutrality, the set of electron equations is
%
\begin{align}
&\partial_t n_e +\nabla \cdot (n_e \bm u_e) = S_{ion},
\label{eq:electroncontinuity}
\\
&0 = -\nabla p_e + en_e \nabla \phi - en_e \bm u_e \times \bm B - \nu_e m_e n_e \bm u_e,
\label{eq:electronmomentum}
\\
&
\partial_t(n_e\mathcal{E}_e)+
\nabla\cdot[(\mathcal{E}_e\bm+T_e) n_e\bm u_{e}] = en_e \bm u_e \cdot \nabla \phi - S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_{inel},
\label{eq:electronenergy}
\end{align}
%
where: $\nu_e$ is the effective electron momentum collision frequency,
accounting for elastic collisions with neutrals and ions, and the velocities of these heavy species have been omitted compared to $\bm u_e$; $ \mathcal{E}_e = {T_e}/{(\gamma_e-1)}$
is the internal energy per electron,
with $\gamma_e$ the specific heat ratio of the electron fluid; and $\mathcal{E}_{inel}$ is the inelastic loss per electron due to ionization and excitation/de-excitation processes (defined together with $\nu_e$ in Ref. \cite{bell21a}).
The adopted model for the electron energy equation \eqref{eq:electronenergy} differs from that used in the Hall2De \cite{mark20a} and HYPHEN \cite{zhou22a} codes. These two assume the electron fluid to be a simple gas with $\gamma_e=5/3$ and a collisional heat flux vector, $\bm q_e=-\bar{\bar K}\cdot \nabla T_e$ , with $\bar{\bar K}$ a thermal conductivity tensor; typical results in plumes show that, if no anomalous effects are included, energy diffusion tends to dominate over convection \cite{pera25a,fern26b}. However, kinetic investigations on MNs \cite{ahed20a,zhou21a}, and other rarefied plasmas \cite{stan10,malo75,bell85}, demonstrate, first,
that the electron population is a mixture of two subpopulations (confined and free electrons) with different dynamics and, second, that the electron energy transport is mainly convective. Those investigations conclude that the mixture is reasonably well characterized with an specific enthalpy $(\mathcal{E}_e + {T_e})=T_e\gamma_e/(\gamma_e-1)$.
%
Equation \eqref{eq:electronenergy} also goes beyond imposing the simple polytropic relation
\begin{equation}
T_e\propto n_e^{\bar \gamma_e-1}
\label{eq01}
\end{equation}
for $T_e$ \cite{meri15a, arak16, cich17b}, an empirical law recovering the electron cooling observed experimentally for $\bar \gamma_e$ in the range 1.1-1.3 usually.
The present study focuses on collisional effects on the stationary plasma response, while remaining in the limit of high electron magnetization, i.e. $\bar \chi\ll 1$,
where $\bar\chi=m_e\nu_e/ eB$ is the inverse of the Hall parameter.
Figure \ref{fig:sketch} (b) shows that the Hall parameter for the simulation with the highest collisionality in this paper satisfies that criterion.
%
Then, neglecting the temporal terms in Eqs. \eqref{eq:electroncontinuity} and \eqref{eq:electronenergy},
the equations for electron continuity and internal energy, up to dominant order, reduce to
\begin{align}
&
B\ \nabla_\parallel \frac{n_e u_{\parallel e}}{B}
\simeq S_{ion},
\label{eq:electroncontinuity_red}
\\
&
B\ \nabla_\parallel \Big(\frac{\gamma_e T_e}{\gamma_e-1}\frac{n_e u_{\parallel e}}{B}\Big)
\simeq
u_{\parallel e} \nabla_\parallel p_e
- S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_{inel}
+\nu_e m_e n_e u_e^2,
\label{eq:electronenergy_red}
\end{align}
while the components of the momentum vector equation \eqref{eq:electronmomentum} become
\begin{align}
&
0=-\nabla_\parallel p_e+en_e\nabla_\parallel\phi-m_e\nu_e n_e u_{\parallel e},
\label{eq:lectronmomentum_red}
\\
&
u_{\theta e}=\frac{1}{1+\bar \chi^2 }
\Big(
\frac{\nabla_\perp \phi}{B}
-\frac{\nabla_\perp p_e}{en_eB}
\Big),
\label{eq:ue_theta}
\\
&
u_{\perp e}=\bar \chi u_{\theta e}.
\label{eq:ue_perp}
\end{align}
Since $n_e = n_i$, this set of 5 equations determines $\bm u_e$, $T_e$, and $\phi$.
Now, instead of $u_{\parallel e}$, $T_e$, and $\phi$, it is convenient to use the variables
\begin{equation}
G=\frac{n_eu_{\parallel e}}{B},
\qquad
A=\Big(\frac{T_e}{T_{e0}}\Big)\Big(\frac{n_{e0}}{n_e}\Big)^{\gamma_e -1},
\qquad
\Phi=\phi-\frac{\gamma_e}{\gamma_e-1}\frac{T_e}{e},
\label{eq:electron_properties}
\end{equation}
which respectively represent the electron flow, the adiabaticity function, and the thermalized potential; the subindex notation $n_{e0}=n_e(0,0)$, $T_{e0}=T_e(0,0)$, and so on for other variables at the origin, is used.
Operating with Eqs. \eqref{eq:electroncontinuity_red}-\eqref{eq:lectronmomentum_red} we end up with
\begin{align}
&
\nabla_\parallel G=\nu_{ion}n_e/B,
\label{eq:G_integration}
\\
&
\nabla_\parallel \ln A
=
\frac{\gamma_e-1}
{T_e u_{\parallel e}}\Big[
\nu_e m_eu_e^2-\nu_{ion}\Big(\frac{\gamma_e}{\gamma_e-1} T_e+\mathcal{E}_{inel}\Big)
\Big],
\label{eq:C_integration}
\\
&
\nabla_\parallel \Phi
=\frac{1}{eu_{\parallel e}}
\Big[
\nu_{ion}\left(\frac{\gamma_e}{\gamma_e-1} T_e+\mathcal{E}_{inel}\right)
-\nu_e m_e u_{\theta e}^2
\Big],
\label{eq:Phi_integration}
\end{align}
which determine the variations of the three variables along each magnetic line. Once the $(z,r)$ maps of these 3 functions are computed, the maps of $u_{\parallel e}$, $\phi$, and $T_e$ are readily obtained.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Full plasma model}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The plasma model is now complete. Prior to integrating the set of ion and neutral temporal-spatial equations \eqref{eq:ioncontinuity}--\eqref{eq:neutralenergy}, it is convenient to write them in fully conservative form. This requires eliminating the terms involving $\nabla\phi$ on the right-hand sides of Eqs. \eqref{eq:ionmomentum} and \eqref{eq:ionenergy}. For the ion momentum equation, the electron momentum equation \eqref{eq:electronmomentum} is added to it. For the ion energy equation, the following substitution is performed,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ei_rearrange}
n_i\bm u_i\cdot\nabla\phi=\nabla\cdot (\phi n_i\bm u_i)- \phi (S_{ion}-\partial_t n_i).
\end{equation}
After applying the rearrangement, the system is expressed almost entirely in a conservative form, except for a residual term, namely $\phi\partial_tn_i$. This contribution can be neglected, as the steady-state solution is ultimately sought.
Appendix \ref{sec:nmerical_integration} explains the details of the Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method implemented in DIMAGNO-DG to integrate the present model and which was first presented in \cite{meri23a} for the collisionless limit, when $G$, $\Phi$, and $A$ are constant along each magnetic line.
In contrast, the original DIMAGNO did not include collisions and was based on the method of characteristic lines to integrate the ion equations \cite{ahed10f}. While efficient, this limited
the integration to only the main plasma plume---bounded by the magnetic line departing from $(z,r)=(0, R_0)$.---That model was also limited to polytropic-like laws \eqref{eq01} for the electron temperature with $\bar \gamma_e$ equal or near-equal to 1---to avoid the merging of characteristic lines when ions became hypersonic.
%
The equations of the heavy species are integrated on a triangular mesh of 80000 elements of facet side 1.3 mm. An interpolation routine is then required between this mesh and the magnetically aligned results for the electron variables.
The solution procedure includes an iterative scheme to compute the functions $G$, $A$, and $\Phi$ in equations \eqref{eq:G_integration}--\eqref{eq:Phi_integration}, which starts off from the collisionless solution.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Boundary conditions in the nominal simulation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In the axisymmetric domain $\Omega$ of the MN, Fig. \ref{fig:sketch} (a), three types of boundaries are distinguished: the symmetry axis, which is not crossed by magnetic lines nor species flows; the MN throat (subindex 0), at $z=0$, with plasma entering \textit{into} the domain; and the outer boundary (subindex $P$) with plasma \textit{leaving} the domain (both downstream, laterally, and backwards).
The ``nominal'' simulation N to be discussed first
describes the expansion of an EPT exhaust with incomplete utilization, i.e., featuring a flow of neutrals as well as a flow of plasma, into free space or a very high-vacuum chamber.
In this simulation case, this is the only source of neutrals in the simulation domain, as the background pressure is kept equal to zero.
The simulation has the following boundary conditions (BCs), at the throat $z=0$:
\begin{align}
&
\phi(0,r) = 0,
&
\label{eq:phi_inlet}
\\
&
n_\alpha(0,r) = n_{\alpha 0}(10^{-3(r/R_0)^2} + \epsilon)/(1+\epsilon),
&
\quad \alpha=i,n,
\label{eq:n_inlet}
\\
&
T_{\alpha} (0,r) = T_{\alpha 0},
&
\quad \alpha=e,i,n,
\label{eq:T_inlet}
\\
&
u_{z\alpha}(0,r) = M_{\alpha 0} c_{\alpha 0},
&
\quad \alpha=i,n,
\label{eq:ualpha_inlet}
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:sonic_vel}
c_{i}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_e T_e+(5/3)T_i}{m_i}},
\qquad
c_{n}=\sqrt{\frac{5T_n}{3m_i}},
\end{equation*}
and $M_{\alpha 0}$ axial Mach numbers.
One of the numerical difficulties of the present fluid model is the treatment of the near-vacuum region around the coil. To address this, we artificially extend the throat injection region up to $r=2R_0$ and impose a lower bound on the density $\epsilon n_{e0}$, with $\epsilon\ll 1$,
%
in the confined region around the magnetic coil. For these boundary conditions, the ion and neutral mass flows are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dot_m_alpha}
\dot m_{\alpha 0}\simeq 0.145\ \pi R_0^2 \ m_i u_{\alpha 0}n_{\alpha 0},
\end{equation}
so that $\bar{n}_{\alpha0}=0.145 n_{\alpha_0}$ is the radially-averaged density at the MN throat. It is also found that 95\% of the ion mass flow is contained within the tube $r\leq 0.722 R_0$.
To complete the above set of BCs, an additional condition is needed on the parallel electron velocity (or current). This can be set at either the throat or the outer boundary. In the first and simplest case, the Throat local Current Ambipolarity (TCA) condition
\begin{equation}
u_{\parallel e}(0,r)\equiv u_{ze}(0,r) =u_{zi}(0,r)
\label{eq:ue_inlet}
\end{equation}
is imposed. Other possibilities for setting $u_{\parallel e}$ are discussed in the Section \ref{subsec:OFW}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Plasma expansion into vacuum}\label{sec:vacuum_expansion}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{2D response for the nominal simulation}
Numerical values for the magnitudes of the above BCs and other simulation parameters of case N are listed in Table \ref{Table:Initial_conditions}. These were mainly selected from prototypes and experimental data reported in \cite{wach20a,inch23a}.
%
Notice that at the MN throat: a propellant utilization of 62.5\% leaves margin for ionization within the MN;
72\% of the thrust and 97\% of the power are still provided by the electron population;
and the contribution of neutrals to thrust and power is negligible.
The selection of a subsonic ion Mach number, $M_{i0}=0.5$, is based on assuring that $\phi(z,0)$ decreases monotonically from the throat: indeed, for simulation N,
higher values of $M_{i0}$ would lead to a non-monotonic behavior of $\phi(z,0)$ with a local maximum after the throat, which locally reduces the ion velocity. This behavior, which we consider artificial, is also be observed, for instance, in \cite{andr24} when a sonic ion flow is used at the throat.
Furthermore, several experiments indicate that the sonic transition occurs downstream of the MN throat \cite{corr19d,vinci22c, coll19}.
It will be shown later that a lower plasma collisionality at the throat supports a higher value of $M_{i0}$ while keeping $\phi(z,0)$ monotonic.
Figures \ref{fig:electronic_properties_2d} and \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d} show 2D maps of relevant plasma magnitudes for simulation N.
Figure \ref{fig:electronic_properties_2d} depicts the dimensionless ratios of the electron functions $G$, $\Phi$, and $A$ characterizing the evolution of electrons along the magnetic lines. The high electron collisionality around the throat is caused by $n_n$ and explains the steep axial gradients of those functions in that region. Moving downstream, as $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{ion}$ in Eqs. \eqref{eq:G_integration}-\eqref{eq:Phi_integration} decay, the above electron functions tend to asymptotic values, \textit{different} in each magnetic line. For instance, at on-axis downstream point D, defined by $(z,r)_D=(L, 0)$, they are $G/G_0 \simeq 1.41$, $A/A_0 \simeq 0.616$, and $e(\Phi-\Phi_0)/T_{e0} \simeq 0.134$.
%\ea{comentar comportamiento fuera de eje?}
Turning now to Fig. \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d}, the following features are observed. The map of $n_n$ shows that neutrals expand almost semi-spherically, with additional depletion caused by ionization. In contrast, the map of $n_e(z,r)$ indicates that ions and electrons are well confined within the magnetic lines, and their geometric expansion is limited to central magnetic streamsurfaces.
%Of the plasma flow, 95\% is approximately confined within the magnetic line departing from $r=0.722R_0$, which we can consider separates 'plasma' from 'vacuum' conditions.
The behavior of $T_e(z,r)$ corresponds to an adiabatic expansion, with the correction factor given by function $A$. Similarly, along each magnetic line, $\phi$ approximately follows the generalized Boltzmann relation of Eq. \eqref{eq:electron_properties}, adjusted for the small variation of $\Phi$. The isopotential lines have lobed shapes due to a line of local minima emanating approximately from the edge of the thruster exit, which is analyzed below.
For velocities and current densities, it is convenient to separate the azimuthal component from the vector component in the meridian plane: for instance, $\bm j_e=\bm{\tilde \jmath}_e+ j_{\theta e}\bm 1_\theta$, and so on.
In Fig. \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d} we first observe the electron currents in the meridian plane, $\bm {\tilde\jmath}_e(z,r)$, which, due to the high magnetization regime, follow the magnetic lines. In contrast, $\bm {\tilde\jmath}_i(z,r)$ shows that ions rapidly detach inwardly from the magnetic lines, due to their supersonic expansion away from the throat \cite{meri14a}.
%
The differing behavior of ion and electron meridian currents implies that the current ambipolarity condition, Eq. \eqref{eq:ue_inlet}, is broken almost immediately, and
$\bm {\tilde\jmath}(z,r) = \bm {\tilde\jmath}_i + \bm {\tilde\jmath}_e$
develops loops of electric current in the meridian plane (while the plasma beam remains current-free across a surface totally enveloping the injection region).
The azimuthal electron current (with $j_{\theta e}= -en_eu_{\theta e}$) is negative, meaning it is diamagnetic and provides positive magnetic thrust. There is also a small azimuthal ion current, $j_{\theta i}$, which is paramagnetic \cite{ahed11d}, and reduces the magnetic thrust by about 1 \%.
The map of the magnetic force $(-j_{\theta e}B_r)$ shows that the differential magnetic thrust is concentrated within a few radii downstream of the main plasma plume, though residual thrust still remains at the end of the numerical domain. Notably, both $u_{\theta e}$ (Eq. \eqref{eq:ue_theta}) and $j_{\theta e}$ scale as $1/B_0$, whereas the force density $-j_{\theta e}B_r$ is essentially independent of $B_0$ (400 G in this case).
The bottom row of Fig. \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d} shows the three collisional frequencies included in the plasma model. For simulation N, up to a few radii downstream, these roughly satisfy the following orderings
\begin{equation}\label{eq:collisional_freq}
\nu_e=O(10^6 s^{-1})\gg \nu_{ion}=O(10^4 s^{-1})\gg \nu_{cex}=O(10^3 s^{-1}).
\end{equation}
This implies that ionization and charge-exchange collisions contribute comparably to the ion-neutral collisional force $\bm R_{in}$ of Eq. \eqref{eq:Ri_def}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Magnetic nozzle performance}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Following Appendix \ref{AppB}, the variations of ion mass flow $\dot m$, thrust $F$, and plasma power $P$ between the throat (0) and the outer surface (P) are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thrust_mass_P}
\dot m_{iP}-\dot m_{i0}=m_i\int_{\Omega} \dd \Omega\ S_{ion},
\quad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F_P-F_0=\int_{\Omega} \dd \Omega \ (-j_\theta B_r),
\quad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:P_P}
P_P-P_0=-\int_{\Omega} \dd\Omega\ S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_{inel},
\end{equation}
each expressed as a volume integral over $\Omega$.
The thrust efficiency, including the plasma source contribution, then satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:efficiency}
\eta= \dfrac{F_P^2}{2 \dot{m} P_{tot}} = \frac{P_0}{ P_{tot}} \frac{F_0^2}{2 \dot{m} P_{0}}\frac{F_P^2}{F_0^2},
%= \kappa_P \kappa_{MN}\kappa_F^2
\end{equation}
where $P_{tot}=P_0+P_{wall}+P_{inel}$ is the total deposited power into the plasma source, and $P_{wall}$, $P_{inel}$ denote, respectively, the wall losses and the electron inelastic losses (ionization and excitation) inside the source.
The present MN model does not address $P_0/P_{tot}$; it treats the quantities in ${F_0^2}/{2 \dot{m} P_{0}}$ as boundary conditions and determines only the last factor, $({F_P}/{F_0})^2$, the square of the thrust gain across the MN.
Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} details the plasma performance in the MN for the various simulations studied. Its second column corresponds to simulation N under TCA conditions. External ionization in the MN raises the ion mass flow by 11 percentage points, bringing the final propellant utilization to 74\%, while ionization and excitation losses consume 10\% of the plasma power. The magnetic force contributes significantly to performance, producing a thrust gain of 85\%, equivalent to an efficiency increase by a 3.4 factor. Although part of this thrust gain is due to the increased propellant utilization by newly created ions, most of it reflects the increase of ion velocity in the plume: $u_{zi}(L,0)/u_{zi}(0,0)\simeq 4.6$. Together with the thrust gain originated by magnetic force, the ambipolar electric field transfers 'electron' thrust and energy to 'ion' thrust and energy \cite{ahed11d}. By the outer boundary, only 3.46\% of the beam thrust and 25.9\% of its power remain in the electron fluid.
%which means that the plasma expansion is not complete yet.
A further performance metric is the semiangle of the plume divergence, measured as $\alpha_{div}=\text{atan}(R^*/L)$, where $R^*$ is the downstream radius of the streamtube enclosing 95\% of the plasma mass flow.
For the nominal simulation, it takes a moderate value of $\alpha_{div}\simeq $34.3 deg.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Outer boundary closure for the electron model} \label{subsec:OFW}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Although the TCA condition is the simplest to integrate numerically, it lacks solid physical justification, for two reasons. First, simulations of the whole system (source + MN) do not suggest local current ambipolarity at the exit \cite{meri16a, zhou22a}; the plasma is more collisional inside the source, and thus more prone to sustain $\bm{\tilde \jmath}\neq 0$ than within the MN itself. In fact, we already showed that current ambipolarity is violated immediately after the throat.
Second, the TCA condition provides no mechanism to electrically bridge the plume boundary surface P to a vacuum chamber wall or the undisturbed free space \cite{domi25a}. This link must be established by determining electrical conditions at the outer boundary surface.
To illustrate the situation and define the outer BCs, let us consider the boundary P of the quasineutral simulation domain as adjacent to a conducting wall W, biased to a floating potential $\phi_W$, yet to be determined.
Let $\bm 1_n$ be the outward-pointing local unit vector normal to P. At any point Q of the quasineutral boundary surface P, a non-neutral Debye sheath develops, connecting point Q to the wall. The local potential drop across the sheath, $\phi_{W Q}=\phi_Q-\phi_W$ (assumed positive), governs the electron current reaching the wall, which satisfies \cite{pera22b}
\begin{equation}
j_{neQ}\equiv(\bm j_{e}\cdot \bm 1_n)_Q =-en_{eQ}\sqrt{T_{eQ}/(2\pi m_e)}\exp(-e\phi_{W Q}/T_{eQ}).
\label{eq02}
\end{equation}
The global current-free condition at boundary P requires $\phi_W$ to satisfy the integral condition \cite{domi25a}
\begin{equation}
\int_{P} dS [j_{niQ}+j_{neQ}(\phi_W)]=0
\end{equation}
where $j_{niQ}\equiv\bm (\bm j_{i}\cdot \bm 1_n)_Q$ does not depend on $\phi_W$.
Once this wall potential is determined, $j_{neQ}$ is known at each point of the boundary P, and $u_{\parallel eQ}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
u_{\parallel eQ}=
\frac{\sqrt{T_{eQ}/(2\pi m_e)}
\exp(-e\phi_{W Q}/T_{eQ})}{(\bm 1_\parallel\cdot \bm 1_n)_Q}.
\end{equation}
This Outer-boundary Floating Wall (OFW) condition is proposed to substitute the TCA condition \eqref{eq:ue_inlet}, allowing Eq. \eqref{eq:G_integration} for $G$ to be integrated inward from the outer boundary toward the throat.
Figure \ref{fig:boundaries_1d} compares, for simulation N,
the use of TCA and OFW conditions on the electric potential and currents along all the domain boundaries (except for the axis). The abscissa is the arc length variable $s$, advancing along the boundary P, with $s=0$ at $(z,r)=(0,0)$.
All the plotted magnitudes differ moderately between cases TCA and OFW, while
$j_{ne}$ changes wildly at the MN throat.
In the OFW case, $j_{ne}$ along P defines $j_{\parallel e}$ at P, and the backward integration along each magnetic line departing from P to the throat yields the highly variable profile of $j_{ne}$ at the throat, where it even changes sign and contrasts sharply with the constant behavior of the TCA case.
For both TCA and OFW cases, the electric potential at P is between -40 and -30 V. However, only using the OFW condition can we determine the wall potential ($\phi_W\simeq -53.6$ eV), which is about 5-6 times $T_{e0}$, in agreement with kinetic modeling (for xenon) \cite{ahed20a}.
The electron temperature along the outer boundary varies in the range 1.5-3.5 eV.
Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} tells us that, in spite of the differences on $\bm {\tilde\jmath}_e$
for the TCA and OFW cases of the N simulation, the differences in the MN performance are minor. For the OFW case,
ionization is a bit stronger, explaining the larger power losses. However, the thrust gain is a bit lower, likely due to a slightly higher plume divergence ($\alpha_{div}\simeq 35$ deg).
The electron BCs at P applied by Mark et al.\cite{mark20a} to their fluid model
set $j_n=0$ and fix the value of $T_e$ at P. The first one applies to a dielectric wall (which is not the common case in a vacuum chamber and does not permit an extension to free-space conditions) and the second one is not the most natural one. Indeed, the imposition of $T_e$ at P plus the \textit{ad hoc} inclusion of \textit{parallel} anomalous resistivity are due to the dominance of energy diffusion in the electron energy equation that tends to create an isothermal plume. The same problem was identified in the electron model of HYPHEN and was recently discussed in \cite{fern26b}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{The collisionless plasma expansion}\label{sec:collisionless_limit}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In order to distinguish between the effects on performances of the plasma injected into the MN and the one created within it, we run a second simulation, called the collisionless simulation B0, identical to simulation N but canceling all collisional effects involving the ejected neutrals (i.e. $\nu_{ion}$, $\nu_e$, and $\nu_{cex}$ are taken zero). The numerical integration simplifies much since (a) the equations of neutrals are not needed, and (b) the electron related functions $G$, $\Phi$, and $A$, remain constant along each magnetic lines, as already found in \cite{ahed10f,meri15a}. This model also showed that $u_{\theta e}/r$ is constant along each magnetic line, $u_{\parallel e}=G B/n_e$ is decoupled from the rest of equations and magnitudes, and differences between TCA and OFW conditions affect \textit{exclusively} to $u_{\parallel e}$.
In addition, the collisionless simulation B0 allow us a direct comparison of our new model with the original DIMAGNO \cite{ahed10f}.
The comparison between simulations N and B0 finds only mild differences in the 2D maps of plasma variables. To illustrate them,
Figure \ref{fig:basic_ideal_properties} plots 3 maps for simulation B0-TCA. Compared to simulation N, $T_e(z,r)$ near the throat decreases less in case B0, since inelastic losses are absent; and the same lobes on equipotential lines are found.
The plot of $\bm{\tilde \jmath}_i$ adds two colored solid lines, corresponding to
95\% flow surfaces, both departing from $(z,r)/R_0=(0, 0.722)$:
the red line corresponds to ions, and the black one to electrons and to a magnetic streamline. The progressive separation between illustrates clearly that ion detachment in the MN is progressive, it is already well developed at $z=2R_0$, and ions end with a near-conical expansion, while the plasma beam remains quasineutral \textit{everywhere}\cite{meri14a}.
Figure \ref{fig:basic_ideal_properties} confirms that the lobed isopotential lines of simulation N are not due to external ionization. There is ample experimental \cite{char10, litt19, coll19} and numerical\cite{chen20a} evidence of this behavior. The line of local minima of $\phi$ follows approximately the magnetic line
departing from the thruster mouth edge, that is the one separating the magnetized plasma beam from the isolated near-vacuum region.
The behavior of $\phi$ is attributed in those works to warm ions with large lateral velocity components moving laterally outward and trying to cross the plume-vacuum interface. This would generate a positive electric charge buildup resulting in a rise of electric potential to bound the fled ions to the magnetized electrons.
We do not question that explanation, but it does not fit with the conditions of our expansion, where \textit{near-cold} ions
are emitted \textit{axially} and the whole solution (even beyond the plasma-vacuum separatrix) is \textit{quasineutral} and thus the electric field \textit{ambipolar}.
We propose therefore an alternative explanation.
Under the electron massless assumption, the ambipolar electric field responds immediately to maintain the electron momentum balance. For illustration, let us consider the radial equilibrium at a given $z=$const section:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grad_phi_r}
\nabla_r \phi
=
u_{\theta e }B_z
+
\frac{\nabla_r p_e}{e n_e}.
\end{equation}
Under usual conditions at the thruster exit, the confining magnetic force and the expanding pressure force are dominant near the throat, so that the electric force is marginal (which implies that the electron $E\times B$ azimuthal drift is marginal too). Therefore, the sign of the electric force is very sensitive to small variations on the other two forces. Figure \ref{fig:phi_study} illustrates this with radial profiles at $z=R_0$, for simulation B0 and three values of the residual density $\epsilon n_{e0}$. The electric force is just a 10\% of the other two and its value in the interval $0.5<r<2.5$ is much affected but the details of the decay profile of the pressure and magnetic forces. The results indicate that the development of a minimum of $\phi$, first, is favored by a lower $\epsilon n_{e0}$ (i.e., a higher vacuum and a larger pressure gradient in that confined region), and second, it surely depends much on the initial formation of the MN plasma beam.
Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} compares performances in simulations N and B0. For case B0, there is no increase on propellant utilization and thus no related power losses. Without contribution from new ions in simulation B0, the thrust gain is 69\%, the downstream ion velocity at the axis increase to $u_{zi}(L,0)/u_{zi}(0,0)\simeq 5.3$, and the plume divergence semiangle decreases slightly to 33.7 deg.
The contribution of the external ionization of neutrals to $F_P^2/F_0^2$ in simulation N is not negligible, enhancing $\eta$ about 15-20\% (but at the expense of the electron power used up in those inelastic collisions).
Even so, the collisionless case is simpler to integrate and provides a good qualitative description and a fair quantitative one of the plasma response in the MN. Taking advantage of this numerical simplicity, two new collisionless simulations were run. The first one has $B_0=$ 100 G, and performances were found the same than for 400G, within a margin below 2\%. The only relevant change is that $j_{\theta e}$ quadruples so $j_{\theta e}B_r$ and thrust $F_P$ remain identical.
This result confirms that the main role of the magnetic field is to channel the electron flow. A lower magnetic field is beneficial for ion detachment, as it can occur earlier in the expansion\cite{meri14a}, but, it lowers the electron magnetization too. As we will see in a later section, this reduces the extension of the plume where the present model is valid.
The second additional simulation, B0m in Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3}, considers a sonic ion flow at entrance, $M_{i0}=1$, to assess the influence of this parameter in the plasma response. Related changes in the throat BCs of Table \ref{Table:Initial_conditions} are as follows: Ion velocity $u_{zi0}$ doubles and $\bar n_{i0}$ halves, so $P_0$ is 4.85 W instead of 4.53 W, $F_0$ is 546 $\mu$N instead of 644 $\mu$N, and now $P_{i0}>P_{e0}$ and $F_{i0}>F_{e0}$. The plasma response (not plotted) shows a gentler decay in density and electrostatic potential near the throat, due to the higher ion momentum. The lobes in the maps of $\phi$ persist. Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} compares the performances in both cases \textit{for the selected throat BCs}: although most of the downstream magnitudes are rather similar in simulations B0 and B0m, the MN efficiency gain is 12\% larger, (which highlights the importance of coupling the source and nozzle regions for an accurate quantitative assessment).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Effects of background pressure}\label{sec:back_pressure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The presence of a background pressure, $p_{bg}$, in the beam expansion is modeled as a uniform population of neutrals at rest with temperature $T_n=290$ K (= 0.025 eV) and density $n_n=p_{bg}/T_n$. Although the physical model can include the combined effects of background neutrals and those emitted by the source, we have opted for presenting simulations with the presence of background neutrals only, in order to highlight clearly the effects of $p_{bg}$. Hence, B0 is simulation of reference in this Section and we discuss two new simulations, B2 and B4, corresponding to $p_{bg}=$ 2 and 4 mPa, respectively; for comparison, the experiments of \cite{wach20a} consider values of $p_{bg}$ up to 3.45 mPa.
With the adopted model assumptions, the background density affects only the ionization and electron-momentum collision frequencies $\nu_{ion}$ and $\nu_e$; charge-exchange collisions are considered marginal in these cases and thus neglected. For each simulation, both TCA and OFW boundary conditions are considered.
Figure \ref{fig:electronic_properties_1d} shows the 1D profiles for the three electron-related functions along the MN axis for both the TCA and OFW cases. In contrast to what is observed for simulation N, where functions $G$, $\Phi$ and $A$ change steeply near the throat and then approach asympotic values downstream (when the semispherical expansion of neutrals makes $n_n$ very low), simulations B2 to B4 present a gentle but persistent variation of those functions.
This is of course related to the profile of $n_n (z,0)$, which is constant and equal to $0.5\cdot 10^{18}$m$^{-3}$ and $10^{18}$m$^{-3}$ for B2 and B4, respectively, while it decreases several orders of magnitude along the MN for simulation N, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:properties_1d}.
The trends of the 3 electron functions depend mainly on $\nu_{ion}\propto n_n$, except for the slight downstream increase of function $A$ in simulation B4, caused by a higher $\nu_e$.
The gradients of the 3 functions are a bit larger for the TCA cases than for the OFW ones, due to the differences in $u_{\parallel e}$ between both cases.
The first row of Fig. \ref{fig:properties_1d} depicts the profiles along the MN axis of $n_e$, $T_e$ and $\phi$ for different $p_{bg}$ (and simulation N) and the OFW case; trends are similar for the TCA case. As $p_{bg}$ increases from B0 to B4, so does ionization. As a consequence, $T_e$ decreases more rapidly, and the gradient of $\phi$ and $u_{zi}$ (in the second row) are gentler. The behavior of $n_e$ is the combined result of the beam geometrical expansion and the lower gradient of $u_{zi}$. The increase of the ion mass flow is proportional to $\nu_{ion}$, and the gain in magnetic thrust is not much influenced by $p_{bg}$, since the decrease in ion velocity is mostly compensated by the increase in ion mass flow. The presence of a residual magnetic force still at $z=L$ , observed in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d} explains that $F$ has not reached an asymptote in the simulated domain. As a side note, Andrews et al.\cite{andr22} link the presence of a plateau in $F$ to beam detachment, which is not the case: Fig. \ref{fig:basic_ideal_properties} already showed that ion detachment is progressive and was evident already at $z=2R_0$.
Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} compares the performance parameters of simulations B0 to B4, for TCA and OFW conditions. From B0 to B4 there is
$\sim 13$\% increase in the ion mass flow, $\sim 19$\% of the beam power spent in $p_{bg}$-related ionization, and $\sim 10$\% decrease in the downstream ion velocity at the axis. Our results agree well with the experimental evidence of \cite{vial17,caru18,wach20a,desa23a}. Quantitavely and for the closest case of \cite{wach20a}, we have lower variations of the above magnitudes (about a factor 1.5 to 2). The difference can be due to the limited size of the simulation domain or the choices made for certain parameters, such as $M_{i0}$, $T_n$, and $\gamma_e$.
A higher $p_{bg}$ implies that ions are hotter (up to 0.5 eV in simulation B4), but their thermal energy continues to be marginal. As expected, the plume divergence increases with $p_{bg}$. The fact that the wall potential $|\phi_W|$ is independent of $p_{bg}$ gives reliability to OFW conditions.
Differences between applying TCA and OFW conditions are worth of commenting, since they are related to the influence of the electrical downstream conditions on the whole plasma response. Taking the simulation B4 for illustration, MN performances are worse for OFW conditions than for the TCA ones: the plume divergence is a 10\% higher and more power is spent in ionization, but the final thrust is lower. Indeed, while $F_P$ increases with $p_{bg}$ (up to a 9\% from B0 to B4) when using the TCA conditions, it decreases slightly when using OFW conditions. All experimental evidence supports this last behavior, which would reassert that OFW conditions are most physical and appropriate.
Finally, Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} also gathers the value $\bar\gamma_e$ for the polytropic law \eqref{eq01} obtained from a linear regression on the curves $\log T_e$ versus $\log n_e$. From B0 to B4, $\bar\gamma_e$ goes from 1.2 to 1.28, well within the range of experimental fittings. The variation in the computed parameter is mainly observed in the low-pressure regime, from B0 up to 1 mPa, while minor changes are obtained between B2 and B4.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Further considerations}\label{sec:model_validation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{On the effect of domain size}
The size of the domain to integrate the present plasma model is necessarily finite and, in general, much smaller than the full size of the plasma expansion, which can still be finite for an expansion into a vacuum chamber or semi-infinite for the expansion into the free space. In the previous simulations, with $L/R_0=10$, the domain size was just 18cm x 18cm. It is therefore pertinent to analyze whether the size selected for integration is suitable for the purposes of the work and how to link the results in the integration domain with the far-downstream, real BCs.
For the first point and the most collisional simulation B4, an additional simulation B4e with an extended domain $L/R_0=15$ and same BCs, has been run and results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:domain_analysis}.
The first row compares $n_e$, $T_e$, and $\phi$ along the axis for both simulations. The agreement is essentially total for the TCA case, when all conditions are imposed at the throat, and the numerical integration has no information of the domain size. The agreement is not total, but excellent, for the OFW case.
The variables in the second row have already information about the outer boundary, and the agreement remains excellent for both TCA and OFW.
Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3} compares the performance for B4 and B4e. As the domain is enlarged, the ratios $\dot{m}_{iP}/\dot{m}_{i0}$, $P_P/P_0$ and the thrust-related quantities are nearly identical between both simulations, with differences below 2\%.
From $z/R_0=10$ to 15, more thrust and power are transferred from electrons to ions, and $\phi$ continues decreasing. Still, $\phi_D-\phi_W\approx$ 20 V and $T_{eD}\approx $2 eV, which means that the expansion is incomplete and explains that the profiles of $F/F_0$ in Figure \ref{fig:domain_analysis} have not reached an asymptote yet. Therefore, the comparison of simulations B4 and B4e states that the simulation B4 is quite robust, but the expansion is incomplete and a residual magnetic force remains to be developed, which highlights the importance of the plume size to compute $F$ accurately.
The BCs of the model have assumed the presence of a floating wall W next to boundary P, both separated by a Debye sheath. If the real boundary for the plasma is much much further away or at infinity, the Debye sheath must be interpreted as a 'downstream matching layer' between the boundary P and the real boundary \cite{ahed20a, domi25a}. The physics of the Debye sheath and that extended layer are not exactly the same but the main role of the potential fall $\phi_D-\phi_W$ in both of them, to filter the electron current to the chamber walls or to infinity, is equally fulfilled.
Beyond the very valuable experimental results, Wachs et al. \cite{wach20a} have proposed a \textit{global} model of the the plasma expansion on a MN, based on using only averaged values of plasma magnitudes in the whole mN. However, models and experiments show the highly inhomogeneous, 2D character of that expansion: first, plasma densities and the ionization rate $R_{ion}(T_e)$ decrease by 2 or more orders of magnitude as the plasma expansion evolve;
%\mmm{no se entiende porqué mencionamos esto} \ea{(retocado)};
second, the azimuthal current and the axial magnetic force are fully 2D, with local maxima at intermediate radii within the MN. With these features, we find it unaffordable to obtain approximate analytical expressions for the integrals on the right sides of Eqs. \eqref{eq:thrust_mass_P}-\eqref{eq:P_P}, which constitute the core of a global model. This type of model works reasonably well, for instance, in the discharge chamber of an ion thruster\cite{LIEB05}, where variations of plasma magnitudes are rather moderate (say a factor of 2).
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Validity of the magnetized electron model}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
The asymptotic, $\bar\chi\to 0$ treatment of the electron continuity and energy equations \eqref{eq:electroncontinuity_red} and \eqref{eq:electronenergy_red} is valid as long as
\begin{equation}
\bar\chi\ll 1,
\qquad
u_{\perp e}=\bar\chi u_{\theta e}\ll u_{\parallel e},
\qquad
\frac{(\gamma_e-1)}{2\gamma_e}\frac{m_eu_e^2}{T_e}
\approx \frac{m_eu_e^2}{10\,T_e}\ll 1.
\label{eq03}
\end{equation}
The Hall parameter, $\bar \chi^{-1}$, was plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:sketch} (b) for simulation B4e, and continues to be rather large at the plume boundary P: at the MN axis, it is $\bar \chi^{-1}\approx 1060$ at $z=10R_0$ and $\bar \chi^{-1}\approx 455$ at $z=15R_0$. Interpolating that trend, $\bar\chi =1$ is estimated to be reached at $z\sim 50 R_0$.
%The computational effort to try simulate such a large domain would be huge, not only due to the very large size but also to the required refinement of numerical algorithms to deal accurately with the large inhomogeneity of plasma magnitudes, densities mainly.
The two other conditions in Eq. \eqref{eq03} are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:inertial_terms} for simulation B4e, and TCA and OFW cases.
The two conditions are well satisfied for $B_0=400$ G and the main plasma beam.
Since $\bar\chi u_{\theta e}$ and $u_{\theta e}^2$ scale proportional to $1/B_0^2$ and $u_e\sim u_{\theta e}$, values on these plots scale approximately as $1/B_0^2$. The maxima of the two conditions are at top-right section of the plots, and are the result of $u_{\theta e}$ increasing nearly proportional to $r$ \cite{ahed10f}; fortunately it is a region of secondary interest.
The neglect of electron finite Larmor radius (FLR) effects (i.e. electron inertia, pressure anisotropy, and gyroviscosity) \cite{ramo05b}, applied on the momentum equations \eqref{eq:lectronmomentum_red}-\eqref{eq:ue_perp} may require a condition stricter than the last one in Eq.\eqref{eq03}, possibly $m_eu_e^2\ll T_e$,
%\mmm{ porque sospechas eso, yo creo que está bien} \ea{porque es una ecuación vectorial, donde cada ecuación escalar tiene sus propios balances},
but the analysis of FLR effects in the momentum vector equation is rather involved and outside the scope of the present study.
These FLR analyses would also have to confirm wheter electron demagnetization is due first to FLR effects than $\bar\chi=O(1)$ ones. Electron demagnetization caused by electron inertia (part, but not all, of the FLR effects) was studied in \cite{ahed12b}.
The red lines are the streamtubes containing 95\% of the ion flow and evidence the larger plume divergence observed when applying the OFW conditions.
\subsection{On the anomalous resistivity}
There are two different phenomena in a MN expansion that can lead to an 'anomalous' behavior to be modelld with an anomalous resistivity term. First, there is the enhanced cross-field diffusion due nonlinear azimuthal instabilities. Hepner et al. \cite{hepn20b}, Takahashi et al. \cite{taka22a} and Maddaloni et al. \cite{madd25a} have experimentally detected azimuthal oscillations in MN expansions, which could be a signature of this effect being present in MNs.
Second, there is the kinetic electron cooling in the plume due to changes on the electron velocity distribution function\cite{zhou21a}. This effect is purely kinetic and does not require waves or instabilities to take place, although is weakly affected by electron collisionality.
Due to their very different nature and cause, Zhou et al.\cite{zhou22a} and Fernández et al. \cite{zhou22a} have proposed to use different empirical models for each of these `anomalous' phenomena in HYPHEN. Andriulli et al. \cite{andr24} use an isotropic anomalous resistivity model, such that $\bar \chi\geq $ 1/64. Mark et al. \cite{mark20a} claim the need of anomalous resistivity to reproduce the observed electron cooling, but they justify that resistivity on the findings of \cite{hepn20b}.
Our simulations here have not applied any anomalous resistivity. Electron cooling appears naturally if the conductive energy flux is null or marginal, as a consequence of inelastic electron collisions. Cross-field anomalous resistivity can be included in the customary way for Hall thrusters, where it is much more relevant for the plasma currents. Cross-field anomalous resistivity would increase the effective $\bar\chi$, but as far as it remains much smaller than 1, the effect on the MN expansion is expected minimal due to the weak cross-field currents.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
An axisymmetric three-fluid formulation
of the plasma quasineutral expansion in a magnetic nozzle at the high electron magnetization limit has been presented, with the aim of analyzing incomplete ionization of the emitted plasma beam, background pressure effects, and the electrical connection between MN throat and the outer boundary.
In particular, the proposed electron fluid model presents differences with other well-known ones, by postulating the dominance of electron energy convection versus diffusion. This has permitted to reproduce the experimentally observed plume cooling without needing to include any anomalous resistivity empirical law. Compared to previous collisionless MN models,
three electron scalar magnitudes (the electron flow, a thermalized potential, and an adiabaticity function)
that were constant along each magnetic line, are now changing due to elastic and ionization collisions with neutrals.
It is shown that the presence of moderate collisions does not alter qualitatively the main plasma physics along the magnetic nozzle: the ambipolar electric field efficiently transfers electron thermal energy to ion directed kinetic energy, while electrons remain strongly magnetized, ions progressively detach from magnetic lines due to their inertia, and the azimuthal electron current (combination of diamagnetic and ExB drifts) generates magnetic thrust on the thruster.
But collisional processes, particularly ionization, leave their mark on the plasma response. First, they take energy out of the electrons, augmenting their cooling, thus reducing the potential fall along the nozzle and the ion downstream velocity. Simultaneously, they increase the ion mass flow and thus the thrust, and since new ions are born almost at rest, their more prone to radial deflection and increase plume divergence.
When ionization is due to background neutrals, instead of ejected ones, the effects are more distributed along the plume, as expected.
Results with background pressure match well with experimental observations in the literature.
Furthermore, the present model offers the possibility of extrapolating laboratory MN experiments to in-space conditions, effectively discounting facility effects. This could be accomplished by, first, fitting the model inputs to reproduce the laboratory measurements under a given background pressure, and then, carrying out the same simulation for an identical plume expanding into vacuum.
The study has also highlighted the importance of the boundary conditions of the electron flow on the plasma response. The simpler (and widely used) local current ambipolarity at the throat is computationally convenient but it is physically questionable. In contrast, the global floating wall condition at the outer boundary, combined with a downstream matching layer, captures more adequately the conditions matching electrically the MN throat (i.e., the thruster exit) with a metallic vacuum chamber or even the free-space for a current-free plume. Interestingly, the two types of conditions present opposite trends in the evolution of the magnetic thrust with the background pressure, with only the OFW showing a decrease in thrust as $p_{bg}$ increases, in agreement with the experimental evidence.
Finally, the model's central assumption of electron high-magnetization does not allow us to analyze electron demagnetization, which is linked to the appearance of FLR effects and/or a Hall parameter below 1. Full FLR effects, in particular, are difficult to include in a fluid model.
%----------
\section*{Acknowledgments}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
This work has been carried out as part of the ZARATHUSTRA project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 950466). Additional support came from R\&D project PID2023-150052OB-I00 (ADAPT) funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF, EU.
E. Ahedo has been supported by
the R\&D project PID2022-140035OB-I00 (HEEP) funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”.
\appendix
%---------------------------------------
\section{Numerical Integration Scheme} \label{sec:nmerical_integration}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
In DIMAGNO-DG, the set of partial differential equations for ions and neutrals is cast as a single system in conservative form:
%
\begin{align}
\frac{\pd \bm Q}{\pd t} + \nabla \cdot \mathcal{\bm F} = \mathcal{\bm R},
\label{eq:QFR}
\end{align}
%
where
\begin{align*}
\bm Q = \begin{bmatrix}{}
n_i,&
m_in_i
\bm u_{i},&
n_i(\mathcal{E}_i+e\phi),&
n_n,&
m_in_n \bm u_{n},&
\mathcal{E}_n
\end{bmatrix}^\top
\end{align*}
is the vector of unknowns, and
%$\mathcal{F}(\bm Q)$ and $\mathcal{R}(\bm Q)$ are the flux tensor and the vector that contains the right-hand side forcing terms, respectively,
\begin{align*}
\quad
\textbf{$\mathcal{F}$} = \begin{bmatrix}
m_i n_i u_{zi} & m_in_iu_{ri}\\
m_i n_i u_{zi}^2 + p_e + p_i & m_i n_i u_{ri}u_{zi} + p_e + p_i\\
m_i n_i u_{zi}u_{ri} + p_e + p_i & m_i n_i u_{ri}^2 + p_e + p_i\\
m_i n_i u_{zi}u_{\theta i} & m_in_iu_{ri}u_{\theta i}\\
(\mathcal{E}_i+e\phi + T_i)n_iu_{zi} & (\mathcal{E}_i+e\phi + T_i)n_iu_{ri}\\
m_i n_n u_{zn} & m_in_nu_{rn}
\\
m_i n_n u_{zn}^2 + p_n & m_i n_n u_{rn}u_{zn} + p_n
\\
m_i n_n u_{zn}u_{rn} + p_n & m_i n_n u_{rn}^2 + p_n
\\
(\mathcal{E}_n + T_n)n_nu_{zn} & (\mathcal{E}_n + T_n)n_nu_{rn}
\end{bmatrix},
\quad\textbf{$\mathcal{R}$} = \begin{bmatrix}
S_{ion}\\
en_i(u_{\theta e} - u_{\theta i})B_r + R_{zi}\\
en_i( u_{\theta i}-u_{\theta e} )B_z + R_{ri}\\
en_i(u_{zi} B_r - u_{ri}B_z)\\
Q_{in}+e\phi S_{ion}\\
-S_{ion}\\
-R_{zi}\\
-R_{ri}\\
-Q_{in}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
are, respectively, the flux tensor and the forcing vector.
The numerical approach is analogous to the one used in \cite{meri23a}, although the problem is now extended to include neutral species, ion and neutral temperature from total energy conservation, as well as ionization and charge exchange collisions.
The spatial discretization and numerical integration of the problem follow a Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) scheme of order $p = 0$, with the domain of interest, $\Omega$, discretized on a triangular mesh, $\mathcal{T}_h$, of 80000 elements $\kappa$ of facet side 1.3 mm. To formulate the problem in DG, the weak formulation is constructed by multiplying Eq. \eqref{eq:QFR} by the arbitrary smooth vectorial function $\textbf{v}$ and integrated by parts over $\kappa$ in the mesh. Then, all elements $\kappa$ in $\mathcal{T}_h$ are added together,
\begin{align}
\sum_{\kappa\in\mathcal{T}_h}\bigg[\int_\kappa \textbf{v}_h\cdot \frac{\pd \bm Q_h}{\pd t}d\textbf{x} - \int_\kappa \mathcal{F}:\nabla\textbf{v}_hd\mathbf{x}\notag
\\
+\int_{\partial \kappa} (\textbf{v}_h^+-\textbf{v}_h^-)\cdot\mathcal{H}_{LF}\cdot \mathbf{1}_ndS = \int_\kappa \textbf{v}_h\cdot\mathcal{R}d\mathbf{x}\bigg],\label{eq:weak_form}
\end{align}
where superindices '$+$' and '$-$' indicate internal and external facets of the cell, $\mathbf{1}_n$ is the unitary normal vector of the facet pointing outward ('$+$'), and $\mathcal{H_{LF}}$ is a numerical flux function chosen, in the present study, to be the local Lax-Friedrichs flux, given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H_{LF}} = \frac{1}{2}[\mathcal{F}(\bm Q^+)-\mathcal{F}(\bm Q^-)+\alpha (\bm Q^+-\bm Q^-)],
\end{equation}
with $\alpha$ computed as the maximum of all eigenvalues of the normal flux Jacobian ($\nabla\mathcal{F}\cdot \bm 1_n$) evaluated in each side of the facet \cite{meri23a}. The problem is then evolved in time with a strong stability preserving Runge Kutta (SSPRK) method \cite{shu88}, until a steady state is reached. The convergence criterium of the solution for a steady state is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:convergence}
\sum_{\forall\text{ nodes}} \sum_{\forall i} \frac{|\bm Q_{i,n+1}- \bm Q_{i,n}|}{t_{n+1}-t_n}<10^{-8},
\end{align}
with $\bm Q_{in}$ being the components of $\bm Q$, and the subindex $n$ the temporal instant.
In order to initialize the simulation, a map of $A$ and $\Phi$ must be fixed before solving the equations for the heavy species. To this end, we ignore the collisional effects of ionization and charge-exchange on equations \eqref{eq:G_integration}-\eqref{eq:Phi_integration}, which return constant functions along magnetic streamlines. We analytically calculate the value of the magnetic streamfunction $\psi$ and find that the values of $A$, $\Phi$ and $u_{\theta e}$ can be fixed everywhere by interpolation from the upstream conditions. Note that, by doing so, the solution for $G = nu_{\parallel e}/B$ is initially decoupled from the plasma model.
At $t = 0$, the simulation is initialized with a low density background (i.e. $n_i = 10^{-6}n_{e0}$) and, after a sufficient number of integration steps, convergence is reached. Once the first steady-state is achieved: $G$, $A$, and $\Phi$ are updated by performing one-dimensional integration along magnetic lines with Eqs. \eqref{eq:G_integration}, \eqref{eq:C_integration}, and \eqref{eq:Phi_integration}, respectively. Simulation is then re-initialized with the previous steady state solution and updated values for electrostatic potential and collisional effects, expecting for subsequent convergence.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Computation of performance magnitudes}
\label{AppB}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Starting with plasma power, adding the energy equations of neutrals, ions, and electrons, the plasma total energy flux $\bm P''$
%
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\nabla\cdot \bm P''=-S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_{inel},
\qquad
\bm P''(z,r)=\sum _{\alpha=n,i,e} \bm P''_\alpha,
\qquad
\bm P''_\alpha =(\mathcal{E}_\alpha+ T_\alpha)n_\alpha\bm u_\alpha.
\end{equation}
Integrating this equation over the whole simulation domain $\Omega$, the power stationary balance is
\begin{equation*}
P_P-P_0=-\int_{\Omega} \dd\Omega\ S_{ion}\mathcal{E}_{inel},
\end{equation*}
with $\int_{\Omega} \dd\Omega \equiv 2\pi \int_{0}^{L} dz \int_{0}^{L} dr r $, and $P_P$ and $P_0$ are surface integrals of $\bm P''$ over the throat and the outer boundary, respectively:
\begin{align}
&
P_P=2\pi \Bigg[
\int_{0}^{L} \dd r \, r\, P''_z(L,r)
+ L \int_{0}^{L} \dd z \, P''_r(z,L)
- \int_{2R_0}^{L} \dd r \, r\, P''_z(0,r)
\Bigg],
\\
&
P_0=2\pi \int_{0}^{2R_0} \dd r \, r\, P''_z(0,r).
\end{align}
Proceeding in the same way with Eq. \eqref{eq:ioncontinuity}, the stationary balance of the ion mass flow satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\dot m_{iP}-\dot m_{i0}=m_i\int_{\Omega} \dd\Omega\ S_{ion},
\end{equation*}
and the expressions for $\dot m_{iP}$ and $\dot m_{i0}$ are straightforward. Similar balances exist for other mass or electric flows.
In steady-state and vacuum, the plasma momentum flux $\bar{\bar{\bm M}}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\nabla \cdot \bar{\bar{\bm M}}=\bm j\times \bm B,
\qquad \bar{\bar{\bm M}}= \sum_{\alpha=n,i,e}( n_\alpha \bm u_\alpha\bm u_\alpha +p_\alpha \bar{\bar{\bm I}}),
\end{equation}
Taking the $z$ component of this equation and integrating it over the cylindrical simulation domain $\Omega$, we obtain $\int_V dV \ (\bm 1_z \cdot \nabla \cdot \bar{\bar{\bm M}})
=\int_V dV ( \bm 1_z \cdot\bm j\times \bm B)$ , that is
\begin{equation*}
F_P-F_0=\int_{\Omega} d\Omega\ (-j_\theta B_r),
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{align}
&
F_P=2\pi \Bigg[
\int_{0}^{L} dr \, r\, M_{zz}(L,r)
+L \int_{0}^{L} dz \, M_{zr}(z,L)
- \int_{2R_0}^{L} dr \, r\, M_{zz}(0,r)
\Bigg],
\label{eq:F_P}
\\
&
F_0=2\pi \int_{0}^{2R_0} dr \, r\, M_{zz}(0,r),
\label{eq:F_0}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}
M_{zr}
=
m_i \sum_{\alpha=i,n} n_\alpha \, u_{z\alpha} \, u_{r\alpha},
\qquad
M_{zz}
=
m_i \sum_{\alpha=i,n} n_\alpha \, u_{z\alpha}^{2}
+ \sum_{\alpha=i,n,e} p_\alpha.
\end{equation}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\bibliography{bibtex/others,bibtex/ep2}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\newpage
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Nominal simulation N. Throat boundary conditions for each plasma species and selected plasma parameters.
}
\label{Table:Initial_conditions}
\begin{minipage}{0.58\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
$\alpha$ & $n$ & $i$ & $e$ \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 1pt\vskip 2pt}
$\dot{m}_{\alpha0}$ [$\mu$g/s] & 60 & 100 & -- \\
$\bar{n}_{\alpha0}$ [$10^{17}$ m$^{-3}$] & 7.7 & 3 & 3 \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 0.1pt\vskip 2pt}
$T_{\alpha0}$ [eV] & 0.1 & 0.1 & 10 \\
$c_{\alpha0}$ [km/s] & 0.35 & 2.9 & -- \\
$M_{\alpha0}$ & 1 & 0.5 & -- \\
$u_{z\alpha0}$ [km/s] & 0.35 & 1.49 & 1.49 \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 0.1pt\vskip 2pt}
$P_{\alpha0}$ [W] & 0.015 & 0.130 & 4.39 \\
$F_{\alpha0}$ [$\mu$N] & 33 & 154 & 490 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
Global variables & \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 1pt\vskip 2pt}
$R_0$ [cm] & 1.8 \\
$L/R_0$ & 10 \\
$B_0$ [G] & 400 \\
$\gamma_e$ & 1.2 \\
$\epsilon$ & $10^{-3}$ \\
$P_0$ [W] & 4.53 \\
$F_0$ [$\mu$N] & 678 \\
$\dot m_{i0}/\dot m$ & 0.625 \\
$F_0^2/(2\dot{m}P_0)$ & 0.32 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[h!]
\caption{Global performance parameters for the nominal simulation (N) and the
background-pressure simulations B0--B4 (0 to 4~mPa). Simulation B0m corresponds
to B0 with $M_{i0}=1$; B4e corresponds to B4 with an extended domain $L/R_0 = 15$.
Subscript $D$ denotes the outlet point $(z,r) = (L,0)$. Except for simulation N
(see Table~\ref{Table:Initial_conditions}), $F_0 = F_{i0} + F_{e0} = 645\ \mu\text{N}$.
Results are reported for the Throat local Current-Ambipolarity condition (TCA)
and the Outer-boundary Floating Wall condition (OFW).}
\label{Table:End_values_reordered3}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l cc@{\hspace{20pt}} c@{\hspace{20pt}} cc@{\hspace{20pt}} cc@{\hspace{20pt}} cc@{\hspace{20pt}} c}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{-20pt}\textbf{N}}
& \hspace{0pt}\textbf{B0}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{-20pt}\textbf{B2}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{-20pt}\textbf{B4}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{-20pt}\textbf{B4e}}
& \hspace{0pt}\textbf{B0m} \\
& TCA & OFW & --
& TCA & OFW
& TCA & OFW
& TCA & OFW
& -- \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 1pt\vskip 2pt}
$\dot{m}_{iP}/\dot{m}_{i0}$
& 1.18 & 1.21 & 1 & 1.09 & 1.08 & 1.14 & 1.12 & 1.14 & 1.12 & 1 \\
$P_P/P_0$
& 0.885 & 0.872 & 1 & 0.905 & 0.903 & 0.83 & 0.80 & 0.82 & 0.79 & 1 \\
$F_P/F_0$
& 1.85 & 1.82 & 1.69 & 1.83 & 1.67 & 1.84 & 1.66 & 1.87 & 1.67 & 1.79 \\
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 0.1pt\vskip 2pt}
$P_{iP}$ [W]
& 2.95 & 2.35 & 3.41 & 2.94 & 2.59 & 2.14 & 2.44 & 2.22 & 2.55 & 3.67 \\
$P_{eP}$ [W]
& 1.04 & 1.58 & 1.12 & 1.55 & 2.02 & 1.95 & 2.39 & 1.84 & 2.23 & 1.19 \\[2pt]
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 0.1pt\vskip 2pt}
$F_{iP}$ [mN]
& 1.18 & 1.16 & 1.05 & 1.13 & 1.03 & 1.13 & 1.01 & 1.15 & 1.02 & 0.942 \\
$F_{eP}$ [$\mu$N]
& 43.7 & 47.0 & 40 & 48.3 & 46.6 & 55.8 & 55.7 & 55.1 & 55.2 & 38.5 \\[2pt]
\noalign{\vskip 2pt\hrule height 0.1pt\vskip 2pt}
$u_{ziD}$ [km/s]
& 6.82 & 6.93 & 7.91 & 7.25 & 7.39 & 6.93 & 7.02 & 7.06 & 7.24 & 8.08 \\
$T_{iD}$ [eV]
& 0.40 & 0.30 & 0.025 & 0.44 & 0.40 & 0.56 & 0.48 & 0.56 & 0.49 & 0.02 \\
$T_{eD}$ [eV]
& 2.31 & 2.42 & 3.27 & 2.45 & 2.53 & 1.97 & 2.06 & 1.90 & 1.86 & 3.56 \\
$-\phi_D$ [V]
& 30.9 & 32.0 & 40.6 & 35.9 & 37.3 & 32.6 & 33.6 & 33.5 & 34.8 & 38.6 \\
$-\phi_W$ [V]
& -- & 53.6 & 53.7 & -- & 53.7 & -- & 53.7 & -- & 53.6 & 54.8 \\
$\alpha_{\mathrm{div}}$ [deg]
& 34.3 & 35.0 & 33.7 & 35.5 & 37.5 & 36.6 & 40.6 & 34.9 & 43.7 & 34.0 \\
$\bar{\gamma}_e$
& 1.22 & 1.22 & 1.20 & 1.27 & 1.27 & 1.28 & 1.28 & 1.29 & 1.28 & 1.20 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/GENERAL/field.png}
\caption{Normalized applied magnetic field $\bm B_a/B_0$ and Hall parameter $\chi=eB/m_e\nu_{e}$ for simulations B4 (small square) and B4e (lareg square) in Table \ref{Table:End_values_reordered3}. Black lines depict magnetic streamlines up to $r = 0.722R_0$, where 95\% of plasma is inputted. Black dot represents the single current loop at $(z,r) = (0,2R_0)$.}
\label{fig:sketch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/CASE_U/electronic_properties.png}
\caption{Nominal simulation N with TCA condition. Maps for the electron functions $G(z,r)/G(0,r)$, $e\Delta \Phi(z,r)/T_{e0}$, and $A(z,r)/A(0,r)$, with $\Delta\Phi(z,r)=\Phi(z,r)-\Phi(0,r)$.
}
\label{fig:electronic_properties_2d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/CASE_U/REF_properties_2.png}
\caption{Nominal simulation N with TCA condition. Maps of different plasma magnitudes.
Dashed lines are magnetic lines up to $r = 0.722R_0$. The map of $\phi$ includes contour lines separated by 5\ V. The maps of $\bm{\tilde\jmath}_i$ and $\bm{\tilde\jmath}_e$ include both magnitude and streamlines.
}
\label{fig:ref_properties_2d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/PARAMETRIC/boundaries.png}
\caption{Nominal simulation N with TCA (dashed lines) and OFW (solid) conditions. Plasma magnitudes at the domain boundaries (except for the axis). Arc length $s$ starts at $(z,r)=(0,0)$, follows the boundary and ends at $(z,r)=(L,0)$.
Note that the interval $0\leq s \leq 2$ in the horizontal axis, corresponding to the throat, has been expanded for visibility; the vertical axis for $j_{ni}$ and $j_{ne}$ include both positive and negative values; and the sharp minima of $j_{ne}$ in the corners is likely of numerical origin.
}
\label{fig:boundaries_1d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/CASE_IDEAL/basic_properties_1.png}
\caption{Collisionless simulation B0. Maps of three plasma magnitudes, to be compared with same ones for simulation N in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_properties_2d} In the last plot the red and black lines correspond to 95\% of the ion and (magnetized) electron flows, respectively.
}
\label{fig:basic_ideal_properties}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/PARAMETRIC/phi_final_study.png}
\caption{Collisionless simulation B0 with TCA condition.
Electron radial balance at $z=R_0$ for three levels of near-vacuum density $\epsilon n_{e0}$ in the region around the magnetic coil.
}
\label{fig:phi_study}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/PARAMETRIC/G_A_He_article.png}
\caption{Comparison of different simulations for TCA (dashed lines) and OFW (solid lines) conditions. 1D axial profiles at the axis of normalized electron functions $G(z,r)/G(0,r)$, $e\Delta \Phi(z,r)/T_{e0}$, and $A(z,r)/A(0,r)$, with $\Delta\Phi(z,r)=\Phi(z,r)-\Phi(0,r)$.}
\label{fig:electronic_properties_1d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/PARAMETRIC/1D_prop_article.png}
\caption{Comparison of different simulations with the OFW condition.
1D axial profiles at $r=0$ of $n_e$, $n_n$, $T_e$, $\phi$, and $u_{zi}$, and 1D profiles of ion mass flow and thrust, computed at $z=$const sections from integration over $0<r<L$.
}
\label{fig:properties_1d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/PARAMETRIC/domain_analysis.png}
\caption{Effect of the domain size for simulations B4 and B4e with the OFW condition. Same variables than in Fig. \ref{fig:properties_1d}.
}
\label{fig:domain_analysis}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/CASE_B4/e_inertial_2.png}
\caption{Simulation B4 with TCA and OFW conditions. Ratios on electron magnitudes for the verification the magnetized electron model. The red lines correspond to the tube transporting 95\% of the ion mass flow.
}
\label{fig:inertial_terms}
\end{figure}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\end{document}
% Mario's macros file, 2022-01-14
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Document variables (define in your document with \newcommand)
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\providecommand{\doctitle}{~} % These are used as default values
\providecommand{\docsubtitle}{~}
\providecommand{\docauthor}{~}
\providecommand{\docversion}{~}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Package loading and options
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Load packages
\usepackage{graphicx,amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb,color,
dcolumn,siunitx,bm,paralist,setspace,rotating,array,fix-cm,
multirow,hhline,enumitem,cancel,tikz,pgfplots,listings,ifthen,
framed,fancybox,empheq,verbatim}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
% empheq options
\empheqset{box=\fbox}
% tikz/pgfplot options
\usetikzlibrary{calc,patterns,shapes}
\pgfplotsset{compat=newest}
%% the following commands are needed for some matlab2tikz features
\usetikzlibrary{plotmarks}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}
\usepgfplotslibrary{patchplots}
\usepackage{grffile}
\usepackage{tikzscale}
% enumitem options
\setlist[enumerate]{topsep=1ex,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex}
\setlist[itemize]{topsep=1ex,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex}
% hyperref and associated options
\usepackage[unicode=true,bookmarks=true,bookmarksopen=false,
bookmarksopenlevel=1,pdfborder={0 0 0},backref=false,
colorlinks=true,allcolors=magenta,pdfstartview=Fit,
pdfcenterwindow=true,pdfdisplaydoctitle=true,
linktocpage=true]{hyperref}
% empheq options
\empheqset{box=\fbox}
% tikz/pgfplot options
\usetikzlibrary{calc,patterns,shapes}
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.15}
\tikzstyle{axis}=[->]
\tikzstyle{vector}=[-stealth, very thick]
% enumitem options
\setlist[enumerate]{topsep=1ex,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex}
\setlist[itemize]{topsep=1ex,itemsep=-1ex,partopsep=1ex,parsep=1ex}
% hyperref options
\hypersetup{
pdftitle={\doctitle\ -- \docsubtitle},
pdfsubject={\docversion},
pdfauthor={\docauthor},
pdfproducer={\docauthor},
pdfcreator={\docauthor}
}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Math macros
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\newcommand{\const}{\mathrm{const}}
\newcommand{\pr}{^\prime}
\newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\pd}{\partial}
\newcommand{\oone}{\mathcal{O}(1)}
\newcommand{\mytens}[1]{\mathbf{#1}} % Tensors
\newcommand{\myvec}[1]{\bm{#1}} % Vectors
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Internal macros
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
\newcommand{\optsub}[1]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{}{_{\obj{#1}}}} % optional sub
\newcommand{\optsup}[1]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{}{^{\obj{#1}}}} % optional sup
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Physics macros
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Objects
\newcommand{\obj}[1]{\mathrm{#1}}
\newcommand{\axis}[2]{\obj{#1}#2}
% Common vectors
\newcommand{\ii}[1][]{\myvec i\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\jj}[1][]{\myvec j\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\kk}[1][]{\myvec k\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\iip}[1][]{\myvec i^\prime\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\jjp}[1][]{\myvec j^\prime\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\kkp}[1][]{\myvec k^\prime\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\ijk}[1][]{\ii[#1],\jj[#1],\kk[#1]}
\newcommand{\ijkp}[1][]{\iip[#1],\jjp[#1],\kkp[#1]}
\newcommand{\uu}[1][]{\myvec u\optsub{#1}}
% Bases
\newcommand{\basis}[1]{\mathrm B\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\Basis}[1]{\{\ijk[#1]\}}
\newcommand{\BASIS}[1]{\basis{#1}=\Basis{#1}}
% Frames
\newcommand{\rframe}[1]{\mathrm S\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\Rframe}[2]{\{\obj{#1};\basis{#2}\}}
\newcommand{\Rframelong}[2]{\{\obj{#1};\ijk[#2]\}}
\newcommand{\RFRAME}[3]{\rframe{#1}=\Rframe{#2}{#3}}
\newcommand{\RFRAMELONG}[3]{\rframe{#1}=\Rframelong{#2}{#3}}
% Coordinate system
\newcommand{\coordsys}[1]{\mathrm C\optsub{#1}}
\newcommand{\Coordsys}[1]{\{#1\}}
\newcommand{\COORDSYS}[2]{\coordsys{#1}=\Coordsys{#2}}
% kinematics
\newcommand{\pos}[2]{\myvec{r}\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\vel}[2]{\myvec{v}\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\acc}[2]{\myvec{a}\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\angvel}[2]{\myvec{\omega}\optsub{#1#2}}
\newcommand{\angacc}[2]{\myvec{\alpha}\optsub{#1#2}}
\newcommand{\posm}[2]{r\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}} % magnitudes
\newcommand{\velm}[2]{v\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\accm}[2]{a\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\angvelm}[2]{\omega\optsub{#1#2}}
\newcommand{\angaccm}[2]{\alpha\optsub{#1#2}}
% time derivative with frame subindex
\newcommand{\tdd}[2][]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{\frac{\dd #2}{\dd t}}{\left.\frac{\dd #2}{\dd t}\right|_{\obj{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\tdddd}[2][]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{\frac{\dd^2 #2}{\dd t^2}}{\left.\frac{\dd^2 #2}{\dd t^2}\right|_{\obj{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\tddi}[2][]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{\dd #2/\dd t}{\left.\dd #2/\dd t\right|_{\obj{#1}}}} % inline
\newcommand{\tddddi}[2][]{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{\dd^2 #2/\dd t^2}{\left.\dd^2 #2/\dd^2 t\right|_{\obj{#1}}}} % inline
% dynamics and kinetics
\newcommand{\mom}[2][]{\myvec p\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\angmom}[3][]{\myvec H\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2#3}}
\newcommand{\momm}[2][]{p\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}} % magnitudes
\newcommand{\angmomm}[3][]{H\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2#3}}
\newcommand{\kine}[2][]{T\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\meche}[2][]{E\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\sangmom}{\myvec h} % specific angmom
\newcommand{\sangmomm}{h} % magnitude
\newcommand{\smeche}{\xi} % specific meche
% Mass and inertia
\newcommand{\mass}[1][]{m\optsup{#1}}
\newcommand{\tinertia}[2][]{\mytens{I}\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2}}
\newcommand{\nmomd}[3][]{\mathcal{M}\optsup{#1}\optsub{#2,#3}}
% Rotation matrices
\newcommand{\rotmat}[2]{\left[{}\optsub{#1}R\optsub{#2}\right]}
% Positive rotation equalities about X axis
\newcommand{\transformationpX}[3]{ % left index, right index, angle
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \ii[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = \cos#3\jj[#2] + \sin#3\kk[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = -\sin#3\jj[#2] + \cos#3\kk[#2]. \\
\end{array}
\right.
}
% Negative rotation equalities about X axis
\newcommand{\transformationmX}[3]{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \ii[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = \cos#3\jj[#2] - \sin#3\kk[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = \sin#3\jj[#2] + \cos#3\kk[#2]. \\
\end{array}
\right.
}
% Positive rotation equalities about Y axis
\newcommand{\transformationpY}[3]{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \cos#3\ii[#2] - \sin#3\kk[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = \jj[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = \sin#3\ii[#2] + \cos#3\kk[#2]. \\
\end{array}
\right.
}
% Negative rotation equalities about Y axis
\newcommand{\transformationmY}[3]{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \cos#3\ii[#2] + \sin#3\kk[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = \jj[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = -\sin#3\ii[#2] + \cos#3\kk[#2]. \\
\end{array}
\right.
}
% Positive rotation equalities about Z axis
\newcommand{\transformationpZ}[3]{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \cos#3\ii[#2] + \sin#3\jj[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = -\sin#3\ii[#2] + \cos#3\jj[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = \kk[#2].
\end{array}
\right.
}
% Negative rotation equalities about Z axis
\newcommand{\transformationmZ}[3]{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ii[#1] = \cos#3\ii[#2] - \sin#3\jj[#2], \\
\jj[#1] = \sin#3\ii[#2] + \cos#3\jj[#2], \\
\kk[#1] = \kk[#2].
\end{array}
\right.
}
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Text macros
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Inlist
\newenvironment{inlist} % Use inlist for inline lists with roman numerals
{\begin{inparaenum}[(\itshape i\/\upshape )]} {\end{inparaenum}}
% Abbreviations
\newcommand{\etal}{\emph{ et al.\xspace}}
% Comments
\newcommand{\mmm}[1]{{\color{red}\textbf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\ea}[1]{{\color{magenta}\textbf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\dg}[1]{{\color{cyan}\textbf{#1}}}