next up previous
Next: Summary and Final Remarks Up: Discussion Previous: Temperature Radial Profile

Inferences on the Interplanetary Potential

Since the electron core population is roughly Maxwellian with a small anisotropy in its proper frame [see, e.g., Feldman et al., 1975], we can approximate its tensor pressure by a scalar. Hence the radial momentum balance can be approximated by

eqnarray354

Here tex2html_wrap_inline1446 is the electrostatic potential, tex2html_wrap_inline1448 is the difference in radial bulk velocity between the core electrons and the protons, tex2html_wrap_inline1450 is the electron-proton collision frequency for momentum transfer, and k, e and tex2html_wrap_inline1456 are respectively the Boltzmann's constant, the elementary charge, and the electron mass. We neglected the small inertia and gravitational terms and the contribution of wave interactions to the momentum balance.

With tex2html_wrap_inline1458 and tex2html_wrap_inline1216 , and neglecting the collisional term, (1) yields

eqnarray372

Putting tex2html_wrap_inline1462 and tex2html_wrap_inline1464 K yields the electrostatic field at 1 AU

eqnarray377

This polarization field, which is directed outward and accelerates the protons, produces a potential barrier for the electrons that the escaping ones have to overcome. As predicted by kinetic theories, it is larger than the Pannekoek-Rosseland electric field which would ensure charge quasi-neutrality in hydrostatic isothermal equilibrium

eqnarray381

(and to its generalization for unequal temperatures); here tex2html_wrap_inline1468 , tex2html_wrap_inline1470 , and G are respectively the proton and solar mass and the gravitational constant. So large a potential is required in order to reduce the electron escape flux which would otherwise be much larger than the proton flux since their thermal velocity is much larger than that of the protons (see, e.g., [Lemaire & Scherer, 1971]).

Note also that this interplanetary field is of the same order as the ``run-away field" (see, e.g., [Dreicer, 1959])

eqnarray396

where tex2html_wrap_inline1476 is the core electron mean free path in SI units {[Spitzer , 1962].

Although our result was obtained from a simplified fluid equation, it is interesting to compare it with the predictions of solar wind kinetic theories. We find a polarization electric field at 1 AU equal to about 3.5 times the Pannekoek-Rosseland field. This is close to the values found by Lemaire and Scherer [1971]; the same is true for the generalization of these results to non-Maxwellian distributions by Maksimovic et al. [1997].

If the index tex2html_wrap_inline1438 did hold up to large distances, we might integrate (2) to obtain the interplanetary potential at 1 AU

eqnarray414

This value is close to typical estimates in high-speed streams [Feldman et al., 1978b]. (Note also that the isothermal Pannekoek-Rosseland potential at 1 AU is, from (4), tex2html_wrap_inline1480 .) The contribution of this potential to the solar wind acceleration up to large distances is given by tex2html_wrap_inline1482 , which yields a relative increase in velocity of tex2html_wrap_inline1484 . With tex2html_wrap_inline1486 km/s [Phillips et al., 1995a] this gives tex2html_wrap_inline1488 , which is negligible.

Finally, let us estimate the importance of the neglected collision term in the momentum balance. The ratio of this term to the pressure gradient is given by

eqnarray425

where we substituted tex2html_wrap_inline1450 by tex2html_wrap_inline1492 with tex2html_wrap_inline1494 . For an upper estimate of the radial velocity lag of the core electrons, we take the local Alfven speed, as suggested by the data of Feldman et al. [1975], i.e., tex2html_wrap_inline1496 with tex2html_wrap_inline1498 T (extrapolated at 1 AU from [Forsyth et al., 1996], and we use the 1 AU values of n and tex2html_wrap_inline1040 determined above in the southern high-speed wind. This yields a collisional term of order 3% of the pressure term, which justifies the approximation made. Note that the velocity difference may be larger [Scime et al., 1994], so that this term might no longer be negligible, making the true electrostatic field larger than the above estimate.


next up previous
Next: Summary and Final Remarks Up: Discussion Previous: Temperature Radial Profile

Karine Issautier
Fri Nov 27 18:47:01 MET 1998