Search for: All records

Previously, using an incompressible von Kármán–Howarth formalism, the behavior of cross-scale energy transfer in magnetic reconnection and turbulence was found to be essentially identical to each other, independent of an external magnetic (guide) field, in the inertial and energy-containing ranges [Adhikari et al., Phys. Plasmas 30, 082904 (2023)]. However, this description did not account for the energy transfer in the dissipation range for kinetic plasmas. In this Letter, we adopt a scale-filtering approach to investigate this previously unaccounted-for energy transfer channel in reconnection. Using kinetic particle-in-cell simulations of antiparallel and component reconnection, we show that the pressure–strain interaction becomes important at scales smaller than the ion inertial length, where the nonlinear energy transfer term drops off. Also, the presence of a guide field makes a significant difference in the morphology of the scale-filtered energy transfer. These results are consistent with kinetic turbulence simulations, suggesting that the pressure strain interaction is the dominant energy transfer channel between electron scales and ion scales. 

ABSTRACT We examine dissipation and energy conversion in weakly collisional plasma turbulence, employing in situ observations from the Magnetospheric Multiscale mission and kinetic particle-in-cell simulations of proton–electron plasma. A previous result indicated the presence of viscous-like and resistive-like scaling of average energy conversion rates – analogous to scalings characteristic of collisional systems. This allows for extraction of collisional-like coefficients of effective viscosity and resistivity, and thus also determination of effective Reynolds numbers based on these coefficients. The effective Reynolds number, as a measure of the available bandwidth for turbulence to populate various scales, links turbulence macroscale properties with kinetic plasma properties in a novel way. 

Abstract An important aspect of energy dissipation in weakly collisional plasmas is that of energy partitioning between different species (e.g., protons and electrons) and between different energy channels. Here we analyse pressure–strain interaction to quantify the fractions of isotropic compressive, gyrotropic, and nongyrotropic heating for each species. An analysis of kinetic turbulence simulations is compared and contrasted with corresponding observational results from Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission data in the magnetosheath. In assessing how protons and electrons respond to different ingredients of the pressure–strain interaction, we find that compressive heating is stronger than incompressive heating in the magnetosheath for both electrons and protons, while incompressive heating is stronger in kinetic plasma turbulence simulations. Concerning incompressive heating, the gyrotropic contribution for electrons is dominant over the nongyrotropic contribution, while for protons nongyrotropic heating is enhanced in both simulations and observations. Variations with plasma β are also discussed, and protons tend to gain more heating with increasing β . 

Abstract The dissipative mechanism in weakly collisional plasma is a topic that pervades decades of studies without a consensus solution. We compare several energy dissipation estimates based on energy transfer processes in plasma turbulence and provide justification for the pressure–strain interaction as a direct estimate of the energy dissipation rate. The global and scale-by-scale energy balances are examined in 2.5D and 3D kinetic simulations. We show that the global internal energy increase and the temperature enhancement of each species are directly tracked by the pressure–strain interaction. The incompressive part of the pressure–strain interaction dominates over its compressive part in all simulations considered. The scale-by-scale energy balance is quantified by scale filtered Vlasov–Maxwell equations, a kinetic plasma approach, and the lag dependent von Kármán–Howarth equation, an approach based on fluid models. We find that the energy balance is exactly satisfied across all scales, but the lack of a well-defined inertial range influences the distribution of the energy budget among different terms in the inertial range. Therefore, the widespread use of the Yaglom relation in estimating the dissipation rate is questionable in some cases, especially when the scale separation in the system is not clearly defined. In contrast, the pressure–strain interaction balances exactly the dissipation rate at kinetic scales regardless of the scale separation.