Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.naic.edu/~isradar/is/intro/jiccc_pp.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Tue Feb 8 21:36:53 2000 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Sat Dec 22 05:01:35 2007 Êîäèðîâêà: Ïîèñêîâûå ñëîâà: manicouagan crater

The effect of electron coulomb collisions on the incoherent scatter spectrum in the F region at Jicamarca
Michael P. Sulzer ´ Sixto Gonzalez October 1999
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, Arecibo Observatory, Arecibo, Puerto Rico This preprint uses fonts and figures designed for web viewing. For a printed copy of the published paper write to msulzer@naic.edu.
Abstract The fact that the incoherent backscatter spectrum narrows when the radar beam is nearly perpendicular to the magnetic field is well known and has been used at Jicamarca for more than 30 years to measure very accurate line-of-sight velocities. Recently it has become clear that these spectra are narrower than expected. We have explained this effect and also the small change to the spectral shape required at somewhat larger angles to correct the ratio of electron to ion temperature seen in some studies. Coulomb collisions affecting the motion of the electrons are responsible for the additional spectral narrowing. We have carried out very accurate simulations of electron motion resulting in incoherent scatter spectra which are qualitatively similar to spectra resulting from other types of collisions, and to those predicted in an analytic solution for the Coulomb case [Woodman(1967)]. However, we found that the spectrum of the velocity time series in the radar line of sight departs significantly from the nearly Lorentzian form expected with simple collisional models. This causes the collisional effects to extend to somewhat shorter scale lengths, or further from perpendicular to the magnetic field than expected. In order to investigate the collisional process more closely, we performed another simulation combining the effects of electron-ion collisions and a simple friction model (Langevin equation) in an adjustable combination. This one showed that the effect of electron-ion collisions alone would result in collisional effects extending several degrees farther from perpendicular to the field than when both kinds of collisions are included. Collisions affecting the speed of the electrons tend to limit the size of the effect at larger angles from perpendicular. Thus the effect of these collisions on the incoherent scatter spectrum cannot be accurately predicted from simple models but depends on the detailed physics of the collisions.

1


1

Introduction

Recent efforts to derive temperatures from incoherent backscatter spectra collected at the Jicamarca Radio Observatory over part of the range of pointing angles to the magnetic field have encountered difficulties in obtaining realistic values. Previous studies have pointed out an apparent discrepancy between electron temperatures measured at Jicamarca and using probes on satellites, suggesting that the radar temperatures are somewhat low [Hanson et al.(1969)Hanson, Brace, Dyson, and McClure, McClure et al.(1973)McClure, et al., e.g.,]. More recently, it has been determined that it is necessary to point at angles of at least R to obtain the higher "reasonable" temperatures [e.g., Pingree, 1990; Aponte, 1998; D. Hysell, private communication, 1996; E. Kudeki, private communication, 1997]. [Aponte(1998)] presented autocorrelation functions (ACFs) taken at several angles to the field in his thermal balance work, and he showed that the apparent ratio of electron temperature to ion temperature varies with the angle to the field for angles close to perpendicular. In summary, previous studies have found that spectra taken about T from perpendicular to the field apparently give the correct temperatures, but spectra measured at smaller angles do not. In this paper we explain the problems with the Jicamarca spectra. We show that Coulomb collisions affecting the motion of the electrons are responsible for the observed discrepancies. This surprising effect on the spectra results from three factors, all of which require that the radar look nearly perpendicular to the field. First, the motion of the electrons is confined to helixes along the field line, and the radius of the helix (typically 0.1 m) is smaller than the radar wavelength (6 m for the Jicamarca radar). As the direction approaches perpendicularity, an electron must move a very long distance before the phase of the scattered signal changes significantly; thus any contribution to the spectrum relating directly to the motion of the electrons narrows near perpendicularity. Second, the contribution from the ions does not narrow significantly because the ions move with a helix with a much larger radius. The result of these two factors is that the electron motion determines the width near perpendicularity; the physical explanation is that the electrons can shield the ions only by moving along the field lines. The third factor is a direct consequence of the first. Since the electrons must move so far before the phase of the scattered signal changes, there is greater opportunity for something else to affect the electron's motion than if the radar were looking nearly parallel to the field, when the phase would change significantly in a fraction of a radar wavelength. It is the random interactions with ions and other electrons located within a Debye length, and resulting from the Coulomb force, that affects the motion. Of course, these interactions are always important; they are what establish the MaxwellBoltzmann (MB) probability density function (pdf). However, when the radar looks closer to parallel to the magnetic field or has a short wavelength, the effect of the Coloumb collisions is not visible on the backscatter spectrum. [Farley(1964)] described how Coulomb collisions could destroy the ion gyrofrequency resonances in the incoherent scatter (IS) spectrum. Later, [Woodman(1967)] considered the effects of Coulomb collisions on both ions and electrons, but his primary application was to the ions, in particular the damping of the ion gyroresonances. The effect on the electrons is a new application, which he did not fully explore. [Jasperse and Basu(1987)] 2


presented an analytic solution of the problem, but they did not predict the narrowing of the ion line spectrum that is seen in observations. In the past several independent methods have been used by various investigators in order to verify the correctness of various aspects of incoherent backscatter theory. This is useful in this case as well, and so we model the incoherent spectrum with Coulomb collisions in a novel way: we simulate the motion of a single electron and then compute the resulting scatter. The strength of this method is that we can model any collisional force very accurately; its weakness is that it is not fast enough for computing spectra for direct comparison to data by means of nonlinear least squares fitting. Our intent was first to compute very accurate spectra by representing the collisional process as exactly as possible, and second to explore the effects on the spectra of certain approximate models. In the next section we consider the incoherent scatter spectrum in some detail and show how the simulation can provide the one necessary component in the equation for the spectrum. We use the work of [Hagfors and Brockelman(1971)] to justify the single electron representation. The first important point is that the electron fluctuations can be treated independently of the ion fluctuations even though they are bound together by the Coulomb force. The second important point is that the electrons, when considered by themselves, are randomly located with no correlations in their positions. This means that the powers from the many electrons add, and so the average behavior of a single one is all that is needed. We need only simulate the motion of an electron under the influence of the random Coulomb forces in order to calculate the incoherent scatter. We present the results for various angles to the magnetic field which explain the observed widths of the spectra. However, we need to know more about how the physics of the Coulomb collisions affects the spectrum in order to find a faster way to calculate the spectra for the analysis of radar data. For example, could we just consider electronion collisions, or perhaps use a much simpler collisional model? The complexities of Coulomb collisions can lead to surprising effects. For example, when one calculates the resistivity of a fully ionized plasma, it would at first seem that only electron-ion collisions are important since it is the transfer of momentum from the electrons to the ions that matters, and electron-electron collisions surely cannot affect the total momentum of the electrons. However, they do have an indirect effect by coupling the faster electrons, which carry most of the current, to the slower ones, resulting in an increase of the drag on the faster ones. The result is an indirect increase of the collisional coupling to the ions. We show that a similar indirect effect affects the incoherent scatter spectrum; although both electron-electron and electron-ion collisions affect the spectrum individually, their combined effect is different from what one might expect because the momentum change depends strongly on the speed of the particles, and only the former can alter the speed quickly. We have constructed a simulation program that allows the levels of the different kinds of damping to be adjusted in order to show this effect. The reader might wonder about the relationship between the simulations performed in this paper and the Fokker-Plank equation, which is a version of the Boltzman equation useful for long-range interparticle forces. It is a differential equation involving various derivatives of the velocity. These quantities, the diffusion coefficients, are the same quantities that we use in the simulation. That is the only relationship; our simulation uses these quantities with no further approximation, except for the finite size time steps needed for the computation. 3


The effects of collisions in a magnetized plasma can be quite complicated. As shown in the following sections, we have been able to avoid these complications because of the strong field approximation and the small Debye length in the F region. However, the Coulomb collisions provide sufficient complications alone.

2

Incoherent Backscatter Spectrum
spectrum is given by equation (20) of last in a series [Dougherty and Farley, Swartz and Farley, 1979] which develshielding by means of the generalized

A very general form of the incoherent scatter [Swartz and Farley(1979)]. This paper is the 1960, 1963; Farley et al., 1961; Farley, 1966; ops the approach to handling the electron-ion Nyquist theorem. The equation is

' @3H C 3 Ad3 a

H dj y H dj y

e

e

P x re d3 % n e@y A jP 3j jk ¡ v j C j "j yj C ihP k dj j I I C "j yj C ihP k P jP e

PP

j 3 k¡v

I e@ye A e
de
(1)

j

where vdj is the bulk motion of the ion or electron or ions, h a @H u e an e eP AIaP is the electron Debye length, k a P% a! is the scattering wave number and ! is the radar wavelength. The subscript j takes on one value for each ion, nj a xj axe , "j a nj e aj , and y (the admittance function) is given by

ya t @ i2Y 0Y A a I H e i@ i2 At 0
H

i C @ i2 At X I 2t
P sin P

(2)



sin H S

P

X 0t H HXPStH

P os P

dt H

(3)

is the Gordeyev integral where



is the angle to the magnetic field and

0 2 tH t

a a a a

3 # ta X

is the normal time variable in seconds, 3H is the radar frequency, 3 is the spectral angular frequency offset, is the cyclotron frequency, # is the collision frequency, and
I I a maPu P X k

4


The above quantities take on the appropriate subscript (j or e) as required to label one of the ions in the plasma or the electrons. Variable has units of time, and thus all four of the above definitions are unitless. Caution should be used with the third definition in the set of four above because the collision frequency # is in inverse seconds rather than rad/s. Assume that there are no collisions and consider y for electrons where the high field approximation applies (small gyroradius). Then t becomes equation 7.4 from [Farley et al.(1961)Farley, Dougherty, and Baron]:

t @ A a

I H e it
H

H PS

X tH

P os P

dt H

(4) (5)

y a i C tX 3aH

The 3 in the denominator of the first factor of (1) causes an apparent singularity at . It is convenient to work with a form of the equations in which this singularity has been removed. For the case with high field and no collisions we have

e@y A a e @t A a 3 e @t AX
If we assume that the drift velocities are zero, then we obtain
P x re d3 %

' @3H C 3 Ad3 a
j

H I djye jP nj j e@tj A C j "j yj C ihP k P jP e e@te Ae H I I djye C "j yj C ihP k P jP e X
j j

(6)

This is the equation used at Arecibo in the computer code for nonlinear least squares fitting of the spectra measured with the radar to theoretical models. t is a complex quantity, but of a special kind such that its imaginary part is determined by its real part. One can see this from (3) or more easily from (4); both are onesided Fourier transforms. If one folds the argument of the transform, HXPS tHP os P in the simple case, about the origin to obtain a symmetrical function and takes the ordinary two-sided transform, one obtains a spectrum which is equal to Pe@t A and is real. Thus if we can compute e@t A by simulating the motion of a the plasma component, in our case the electrons, then we can find te from its real part by means of two transforms. [Hagfors and Brockelman(1971)] showed how to compute the contribution to the incoherent scatter spectrum of a plasma component by considering the random walk of a single charged particle in the absence of the interaction (or shielding) field. Their application was to the collisions of ions with neutral particles, and they considered various models of this interaction. However, their result applies equally well to any plasma component and any interaction. Their equation 18 (with substitution from 13) 5


is similar to our (1); it contains a quantity defined in their equations 7 and 8 as

g

which is a one-sided Fourier transform,

g @k Y 3 A a g @k Y 3 A a
where

I
H

g @kY ( Aei3( d(
H

(7)

I
H

d( e
a

i3(

¡ d v f @v Ah



exp@ i

k ¡ Ai

(8)

h

exp@ i

k ¡ Ai



@Y ( jvA ¡ exp@ i

k ¡ Ad

(9)

describes the location of the particle in phase space. The magnetic field is not included in g @ Y 3 A; recently, T. Hagfors (private communication, 1998) has modified g @ Y 3 A so that it does, and so it has become a version of the Gordeyev integral which includes collisional forces of any type. Equation (2) shows a complicated relationship between t and y because of the use of the Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) collisional model [Swartz and Farley(1979), ]. The complication results from the addition of a term to compensate for the loss of particles resulting from a simple relaxation term. [Hagfors and Brockelman(1971)] derive two cases, Brownian motion and hard body collisions, neither of which requires such correction. Those two derivations are analytic equivalents, each for a different collisional force, of the numerical simulation presented in this paper. Note that Brownian motion is described by Langevin's equation, and that the results of [Hagfors and Brockelman(1971)] for this force are very similar to the BGK results. We compare some of our results to those using Langevin's equation also. In the simulations described below we constructed a differential equation from the collisional forces containing an appropriate random driver. Solving for the velocity and integrating gave the path of the electron. Then we took the complex exponential to get a complex voltage (like the receiver signal in an experiment) and found the sample power spectrum of the resulting time series using fast Fourier transforms. The simulation ran for a long enough time so that all velocities with significant probability were sampled frequently. Alternatively, we could have used many electrons with random initial locations, following each one only long enough so that effects due to the length of the Fourier transform would be negligible.



k

k

3

Effect of Coulomb Collisions on the Electron Motion

The thermal energy of the plasma supports independent spatial charge fluctuations of the ions and electrons on scales smaller than the Debye length. The effects of the resulting electrostatic forces on either an electron or an ion are called Coulomb collisions. The electron-ion interaction is somewhat simpler and we look at it first. Electron-ion Coulomb collisions change the direction of the velocity of the electron without affecting its magnitude significantly on the timescale relevant to the incoherent scatter spectrum because of the large mass difference. Therefore they cause an acceleration perpendicular to the velocity of the electron. From equation 11.11 of 6


[Goldston and Rutherford(1995)], the change in the perpendicular velocity is described by this relationship: dh@¡vc AP i ni eR ln ¸ a Y (10) dt P % P mP v e H where ¸ a IP %n e hQ Y (11) and v is the speed of the electron. The interpretation of this possibly confusing definition is as follows: if one multiplies the coefficient by a small time ¡t, then the resulting number is the expected value of the square of a velocity change. This velocity change is measured perpendicular to the initial velocity of an electron moving with speed v . The expected value of the square changes linearly with time because the many small interactions are random in their effects. The tip of velocity vector moves randomly over the surface of a sphere of constant radius. As the electron velocity continues to change perpendicular to its instantaneous direction, the parallel component (measured in the initial direction) also changes. Ignoring terms fourth order and higher, [Goldston and Rutherford(1995)] obtain their equation 11.14: d h¡ vk i n eR ln ¸ a i P P P (12) dt R % H me v For collisions with an infinitely heavy particle, this parallel component is determined P P from vk C vc which is constant. The same is not true for electron-electron collisions. In a later section we simulate the motion of electrons under the influence of the Coulomb force. Given the current velocity, we must compute the velocity at a small (but finite) time step later. For electron-ion collisions, the velocities at various times lie on the surface of a sphere. We can think of two perpendicular unit vectors located at the tip of the current velocity vector on this surface. These define the directions of the components of the random perpendicular velocity change. Since this change is caused by many very small interactions within the Debye sphere, these two components are independent and Gaussian. The expected value of the sum of their squares is a variance, and in the limit in which the time step approaches zero, this is the same as the perpendicular coefficient defined above. Thus we have a random walk on the surface of a sphere. We decide whether we use many small steps or a few large ones on the basis of how often we need samples of the process; the random walk is accurate with any size step. Note that the two perpendicular unit vectors can be rotated arbitrarily about and that the rotation can change from one time step to the next as long as the random changes associated with each time step are independent. This independence is assured since the locations of the particles within the Debye sphere change in a very short time. The significance of the effect of electron-ion collisions on scatter from the F region over the Jicamarca radar is computed approximately as follows. Suppose that we have e a IHHH K and ni a IH IP m Q . Let the radar frequency be 50 MHz and so ! is 6 m; p for a typical particle speed we take Qu am e a PXIQ ¢ IH S m/s, and ln ¸ is approximately 14. We compute dh@¡vc AP iadt from (10), multiply by a small time interval, IH T s, and take the square root. This gives about 10,000 m/s, which is small compared

v

v

7


to the thermal speed. A thousand of these intervals is 1 ms, which is approximately the inverse of the width of the incoherent scatter spectrum from thep Jicamarca radar. The electron does a random walk to an expected value of about IHHHH IHHH % Q ¢ IH S m/s. This is a significant change, and so the electron does not move in a constant-pitch helix about the field line on the spectral timescale. We conclude that the effect of Coulomb collisions is important. Note that if we do a single step of 1 ms, we get the same result, as expected. Equation (10) defines the variance of a random process while (12) defines the mean of a related random process. Two paragraphs ago we described a method of performing a simulation for electron-ion collisions using a different coordinate system than the one in which the coefficients are defined. In doing so we are defining a new random process, and in general one must apply probability theory in order to derive the properties of a new random process which is the function of one or more others. As it turns out, the spherical representation is convenient even for electron-electron collisions in which case the magnitude of the velocity is not constant. We show why this is so later. In that case it is necessary to be more careful with the random variable transformations so that the correct variances are used in the simulation. It is convenient at this point to summarize the geometry of backscatter at the Jicamarca radar and show how the collisions fit in. This is done in Figure 1 which has four important points. First, we see that the closer the radar beam is to perpendicular to the magnetic field, the farther an electron must move in order to affect the phase of the radar signal. The spectrum then becomes narrow enough so that collisional forces become important. Second, Coulomb collisions operate only within a Debye length (approximately 0.002 m). This length is small compared to the gyroradius (typically 0.1 m), and so the electron path is nearly straight within the Debye sphere. This means that the collision process does not know about the magnetic field, and so the field need not be considered in calculating the effect of collisions on the electron velocity. Third, the gyroradius is small compared to a radar wavelength. This means that the only component that can affect the phase is that along the field; the others never result in any significant distance traveled. It is the projection of the parallel component along the radar line of sight that results in phase change in the signal. The random nature of this component determines the IS spectrum. Finally, we note that the component of the collisional force along the magnetic field would vary as the electron gyrates around the field line for some nonisotropic forces. The Coulomb collisional force is not isotropic, but it has an axis of symmetry in the direction of motion, and so the component along f does not vary. As an illustration and summary of these ideas, we state the following relationship: If we have a radar at angle from perpendicular to the field with wavelength !, e@te A is the same as that from a radar looking along the field with a wavelength !a os . This is true because the Doppler shift of the scatter from an electron is the same in both cases, and the spectrum can be found from the motion of a single electron. This relationship does not hold for the incoherent scatter spectrum, which cannot be determined from a single electron, because the correlation between the electrons is important. However, for e@te A we see that the increase of the effects of collisions as the viewing angle approaches perpendicular to the field is equivalent to that which occurs when the radar wavelength is increased. This second effect is the more familiar 8


l/cos a l

1.) The closer a is to 900, the

a

farther the electron must move to affect the phase of the radar signal. B

Conclusion: the spectrum is narrower and so collisions affect the spectral shape more.

2.) The small size of the

Rays from radar (assumed parallel in the far field)

Debye sphere means that the electron has very small curvature on that scale. Conclusion: the collision process does not know about the magnetic field.

3.) If the gyroradius is small compared to a radar wavelength, then the

gyromotion does not affect the phase of the radar signal.

Conclusion: The electron effectively moves like a "bead on a wire". Only the velocity component along the field matters. The random nature of this component determines the spectrum.

4.) The direction of the velocity vector is an axis of symmetry for the

Coulomb collisional force. Since the gyromotion causes the velocity vector to rotate about the direction of B, the component of the force in that direction is unchanged by the gyromotion. v B

Conclusion: The magnetic field does not change the component of motion that affects the radar signal phase, and thus can be ignored except for setting the scale of the radar signal phase change as described above.

Figure 1: How the electron motion affects the phase of the radar signal. one; the probability of significantly deflecting an electron increases as the path length increases, and the longer wavelength, the longer the path must remain undeflected for there to be no collisional effect on the spectrum. Now we consider the effects of Coulomb effects more generally since electronelectron as well as electron-ion collisions are important. There is no easy way to derive these more general diffusion coefficients. However, they have been computed, and the following forms are accurate for speeds up to several times the thermal speed, although

9


not for a population of very fast electrons, which is of no concern here. The coefficients for either electron-electron or electron-ion collisions are [Chandrasekhar(1942), Spitzer(1962)]:

d h¡ vk dt dh@¡vk AP dt dh@¡vc AP dt
where

i i i

m a eh l f I C e q @l f v A mf eh a q @l f v A v eh a f 0 @l f v A q @l f v Ag v
P





(13) (14) (15)

eh

n eR ln ¸ eh a f P P X P% m e H

(16)

differs from the definition of [Spitzer(1962)] only in that the units have been P changed from cgs to MKS. Also lf a mf aPk ; f designates the field particles, the ones being collided with, either e for electron or i for ion, while me refers to the test particle which is always an electron. We have assumed that all species have a charge number of 1. Finally,

q @x A a
where

0@xA x0H @xA PxP

(17)

0 @x A a

P P %I



x
H

P e y dy

(18)

is the error function. Note that the coefficients for electron-ion collisions have a simple very accurate approximate form obtained by letting mf go to infinity; then they are the same as (10) and (12). It does not really make any difference whether or not one uses the approximate form if one calculates the coefficients ahead of the main calculation and stores them in an array, as we have done, because it is the latter calculation that takes nearly all the time. Figure 2 shows the four functions derived from the diffusion coefficients for electronelectron collisions for 1000 K. The coefficients themselves are derivatives; we have multiplied by a time increment, ¡t a IH S s, in order to show velocity changes. The parallel and perpendicular variances and the parallel mean are from the reference, the coefficient with v (no subscript) is for j j; it is derived from the others. It is discussed in the next section. The diffusion coefficients are a strong function of the electron speed; note that the parallel mean is a negative quantity; when a particle is diverted from its initial direction the velocity component in that direction typically decreases initially. Figure 3 shows functions for electron-ion collisions; they are similar to the ones shown in Figure 2 for the electron-electron case. In the ion case

v

r

dh@¡vc AP i ¡t dt

is much larger than for the electron case at low speeds, and somewhat larger near the thermal velocity, and thus it is the ion collisions that provide most of the turning force. 10


x104 3 2.5 Velocity Increment (m/s) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 Velocity (m/s) 4 5 6 x105 electron-electron collisions

Figure 2: Functions derived from the diffusion coefficients for electron-electron collisions. The horizontal axis is the electron velocity (mas ¢ IH S ) and the vertical is ¡v .
x105 4 3 Velocity Increment (m/s) 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 2 3 Velocity (m/s) 4 5 6 x105 x0.01

electron-ion collisions

Figure 3: The same as Figure 2 but for electron-ion collisions. 11


4

Using the Diffusion Coefficients in a Simulation of the Electron Velocity

The first step in simulating the e@te A is to use the diffusion coefficients to make a sequence of velocity increments for each component of the velocity vector; these sequences form random processes that are functions of time. The integrals of these processes are new processes which are the components of the electron velocity. Processes that are integrals of other processes are complicated and have surprising properties. For example, the integral of a Gaussian process is not in general Gaussian unless all the random variables at different times are independent. The processes associated with the simulation are in general correlated over some time interval, and so the resulting probability density functions are not in general Gaussian. Since the form of the pdf depends on the computation, a comparison of the resulting sample pdf with the expected pdf provides a good check on the accuracy of the simulation. The coefficients vary with the amplitude v of the electron velocity, and so the time steps in the simulation must be small enough so that the values of coefficients at the end of the step are not very different from those at the beginning. The simulated @tA is approximate, but we can make the results as accurate as necessary by controlling the step size. When v is small the coefficients are much larger than when v is large, and so we must vary the step size with v in order to make the computations accurate when v is small, but efficient when v is large. However, we must choose the coordinate system carefully to get both efficiency and accuracy overall. There are various possible coordinate systems in which to perform the simulation. The path of the electron needs to be in rectangular coordinates for the radar line of sight, and so we must certainly finish in rectangular coordinates. However, the Coulomb collisional force is symmetrical about the direction of the velocity, and it is better to use a system which takes advantage of this. The problem with working with the parallelperpendicular system in which the coefficients are given is that at low speeds the accuracy is very bad unless the time steps are extremely small. Figure 4 shows what happens for electron-ion collisions, which do not change v significantly. Suppose that when v is near the thermal velocity we choose a time step so that the change of the direction of is small. This situation is shown in the left part of the figure; the tip of the new vector remains nearly on the surface of the sphere, and the change in direction is accurate. If v is smaller, as shown in the right part of the figure, the error becomes large because of two factors. First, the smaller size of the sphere means that the error would increase even with the same coefficient, but second, the coefficient is much larger for smaller v . Thus the time interval would have to decrease very quickly with decreasing v to keep the errors small. When a particle moves at a small fraction of the thermal speed, the closest charges randomize its direction in a very short time. When using the perpendicular-parallel coefficients, we must divide this small interval into many smaller intervals and follow the velocity around the sphere one small step at a time. The solution to this problem is to work in spherical coordinates using a random walk on the surface of a sphere as we described earlier. The perpendicular coefficient defines the angular motion on the surface of the sphere, and a single large step is statistically equivalent to many small steps; a single step can even orbit the sphere many

v

v

12


Large v with small coefficient gives a small error

Small v with large coefficient gives a large error error free result (velocity moves around the sphere)

v1 v0

On the sphere, five steps with variance s2 give the same expected value as one step with variance 5s2 ; they are statistically equivalent.
Figure 4: (left)The change in velocity caused by the perpendicular coefficient when v is large and the coefficient is small is an excellent approximation. (right) When v is small and thus the coefficient is large, the approximation is very poor with a large change in v and an incorrect direction. (bottom) What happens when using spherical coordinates. A large step has the same expected value as several small steps, and so very small steps are not necessary.

13


times. Thus we do not have to perform many calculations merely to get a random result. When electron-electron collisions are involved, both the direction and speed change in each step, and the steps must be small enough so that the coefficients do not change significantly. Below we see that we still need a variable time step to assure this. However, the size of the time step is not so critical. We now look at the parallel coefficients in detail. The random process describing the parallel velocity change, ¡t dh¡vk iadt, has a non-zero mean unlike the perpenp dicular process. Therefore the other parallel coefficient, ¡t dh@¡vk AP iadt, might be affected by the mean and not only by the variance as is the corresponding perpendicular process. It is not because the coefficient is a time derivative. A change in vk in a time ¡t is the sum of a term due to the mean that depends on ¡t and a random term that p depends on ¡t. If we square ¡vk and let ¡t approach zero, the two terms involving the mean go to zero. Now we look at the role dh¡vk iadt plays in the establishing the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. It is never positive, and so it might seem that it can only decrease the speed of the electron. However, there is a component of dh¡vk iadt which results from the perpendicular change. We discussed this above for the approximate treatment of the electron-ion collisions; this was a geometric argument which applies equally here, and so we can find the part of dh¡vk iadt which is due to the change in the velocity amplitude by subtracting the part due to the perpendicular change. That is,

giving the change in is shown in Figure 2. It is very positive at low speeds and crosses zero near the thermal speed, meaning that a fast electron will slow, and a slow electron will speed up, exactly as it should. Later we will see that this new coefficient does reproduce the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with good accuracy. Since we are making a new random process which is the linear combination of two others, we must also find a variance for the new process which is the sum of the variance for the parallel process and a correction depending on the mean. Since the second term is multiplied by ¡tP , it is negligible, and so we can use the parallel variance without correction. In order to make thep random samples for the simulation, we need the probability density function for ¡t dh¡v iadt. Since v is a positive quantity, ¡v cannot be Gaussian; in fact, it turns out that the process has a different density function for each v , much like the family of 1 functions for the square root of the sum of squared Gaussian variables. The difference is that in this case we are not dealing with a discrete sum. However, it is too complicated to generate random samples for this series of density functions, but it is easy to generate Gaussian random numbers, and a Gaussian approximates any of these pdfs. Thus we must use a ¡t that is small enough so that the approximation is good. The criterion used is that the probability of getting a negative v must be very small, of the order of IH IT . For large velocities ¡t can be large, say ¡t a IH S s; the upper limit is set by the bandwidth of the e@te A; we need to sample frequently enough so that it is accurately reproduced. At small velocities it must be much smaller; values as small as P ¢ IH IH are used. An electron does not spend 14

d h¡ v i d h¡ vk i a dt dt v . This coefficient

v dh@¡dtc A i @PvA Y
P I

(19)


much time there, and so the computation time spent with these very small increments is reasonable. We note that an argument similar to the one in the previous paragraph shows that the parallel process is also approximately Gaussian. Thus the mean and variance are the only moments required to characterize it, and thus no higher order moments are needed to describe the diffusion coefficients. We have not yet considered how to combine the electron-ion and electron-electron coefficients so that the simulation has the effects of both. The electron-ion collisions do not change the amplitude significantly, and so no combination is necessary. The two perpendicular processes are independent since shielding does not occur inside the Debye sphere. Thus the perpendicular variances add.

5

Simulation

The simulation begins with the rectangular components of the initial value of , randomly selected from the thermal distribution. The program converts to the spherical representation and computes the next value of . The time interval used depends on v and might be very small. The output of the simulation is a set of uniformly spaced points with ¡t a IH S s. The actual number of points computed before we reach ¡t might be large because the time increment at a given stage in the process might be very small. However, we arrange our increments as we approach our basic sampling interval ¡t so that we produce a value right on it. The calculation proceeds in this way until nfft (typically 4096) points have been saved, and the last point is saved as an initial value for the next step while nfft points are used for the first spectral estimate. The rectangular components are computed for the 4096 points. The integral of the velocity gives the electron path which goes into the complex exponential along with the radar as in (8). This result is used to produce a spectral estimate using a fast Fourier transform. This operation repeats typically a few thousand times until a very accurate spectral estimate has been accumulated. If the electron velocity at time step j is j with speed vj , then it is related to j I by P I P (20) j a @vj I C ¡vj A @ j I Y @¡vc A Y g j Y g j A

v

v

k

v

v §v

v

where

§

dh¡ve i ¡ vj a ¡t j C dt

r

is a function which operates on a vector to produce a new vector with the same amplitude and a new direction by means of the random walk described in the previous section. @¡vc AP is the set of perpendicular diffusion coefficients found by adding those for electron-electron and electron-ion collisions, as explained in the previous section. I P They and the two Gaussian random numbers gj and gj with unity variance determine the random step. Finally, we have

v

dh@¡vke AP i H ¡t j g j X dt

(21)

v ¡t a ¡ t s CP vth
15

¢

IH

IH

(22)


4.5 4 Probability Density (x10-6) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 Velocity (x105) 4 5 6

Figure 5: The velocity pdf resulting from a test simulation. The horizontal axis is the electron velocity (mas ¢ IH S ) and the vertical is the amplitude of the pdf. The circles are the test results, and the solid line is the Maxwell-Boltzmann function for 1000 K. where and

¡ts a IH S s is the typical standard sampling interval. These equations apply for v ` vth ; otherwise ¡t a ¡ts .
We stated earlier that integrals of random processes have somewhat surprising properties. The simulation for v is such a case; the steps are Gaussian, and one would expect without reason to the contrary that summing up many steps would give a Gaussian process. However, we know that it cannot be in this case if the simulation is correct because the resulting process must be Maxwell-Boltzman. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the steps in the sum are correlated, and the correlation determines the pdf of the resulting process. Thus if we have made an error in the simulation, we do not expect to get the correct pdf. In fact, it is extraordinarily unlikely that a MB pdf corresponding to the correct temperature would result from an incorrect simulation, and so the pdf is a very good test. Figure 5 shows the results of a test simulation involving about IH V numbers. The solid line is an MB pdf for 1000 K, while the circles are the simulation results. The results are slightly in error in the region near the peak. However, additional tests with larger time steps, which produce larger errors, have shown that errors in the pdf of such size do not affect the resulting spectra significantly. We tested the directional part of the simulation in the following way. The first step was to make ¡v j equal to zero by replacing the amplitude coefficients with zero. Then 16

vth a

p

Qk am e

(23)


0
500 400 300

1

2

Distance (m)

200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400

40.96 ms total (others 2.56 ms)

0

10

20 Time (ms)

30

40

Figure 6: The path of an electron along the radar line of sight showing two different timescales for which the collisional effects differ greatly. The horizontal axis is time (milliseconds), and the vertical axis shows distance (meters). the initial v did not change and so ¡ j was the result of directional changes only. The simulation ran for several thousand steps, yielding as a result an average ¡v . By varying the initial v , we obtained a set of averages which agreed with the perpendicular coefficient. The final test required that the simulation be run in its normal mode and then with a smaller time increment. A comparison of the result showed that the original time step was small enough.

v

6 Results and Discussion
The simulated path of an electron along the radar line of sight is shown in Figure 6. The dark line is 40.96 ms long, and each 2.56 ms long section of this line is shown as a lighter line on an expanded timescale. The lines are typically not straight on a 1 ms timescale, but at 0.1 ms they are. This is in agreement with our earlier rough calculation that the Coulomb collisions should divert an electron significantly in 1 ms. An electron moves about 200 m in 2.56 ms, while it moves only about 5 times farther in 16 times longer as a result of the collisions. (An examination of many of these periods shows that 900 m is roughly typical.) There are two effects on e@te A. First, the slowing of the progress along the line of sight causes it to be narrower than it would be without the collisions. Second, the changes in direction result in some spreading, or modulation, and so the shape of the e@te A changes with a greater percentage of the power outside the half-power points. 17


There is a third effect which can affect the width; this is the drift of the guiding center of the electron from one field line to another. If we get close enough to perpendicular, the narrowing stops and is reversed. E. Kudeki (private communication, 1998) has shown using equations from [Woodman(1967)] that the broadening occurs only for very small angles, 0.001 , for example. We consider angles greater than 0.1 and so safely ignore this effect. The output of the first step of the simulation is a time series of velocities; we consider the power spectrum of the component of the velocity along the radar line of sight; we can think of this as a spectrum of velocity fluctuations. In the limit of very weak collisions, the spectrum is very narrow since the velocity changes slowly. Increasing the effects of the collisions causes the velocity to change more quickly, thus increasing the high frequencies in the time series and broadening the spectrum. These changes are the result of the electron changing direction frequently, and it is these changes in direction which slow down the progress of the electron along the radar line of sight and cause the backscatter spectrum to narrow. Let us consider what this spectral shape might be; for example, we can easily solve for the shape of this spectrum in certain cases. If we assume that Langevin's equation applies, meaning that the effect of the collisions is represented by a simple frictional force, then the shape is Lorentzian. This spectral shape also applies at least approximately to various collisional models. The spectral shape for the velocity fluctuations in the case of electron Coulomb collisions in a plasma is somewhat different. The solid heavy line in Figure 7, top panel, shows the result of averaging IH S velocity spectral estimates. The dashed line that lies significantly above it at zero frequency is the Lorentzian with width given by the electron ion collision frequency. That is, it is the solution: (24) P P

3 C

of Langevin's equation [Papoulis(1965)]

d v @t A C v @t A a n @t A dt

(25)

where is in this case a collision frequency which determines the width of the solution and @tA is a random driver described by the amplitude . The collision frequency is defined by I R P h#ei i a P ni e I ln Q Y (26) P IP % IXS P me @u e A P

n

H

it gives a way of representing the many weak Coulomb interactions as fewer hard body collisions so that, for example, a frictional approximation has some meaning. This Lorentzian has been normalized so that it has the same area as the expected value of the simulation result. The lower Lorentzian has the same power at zero frequency as the result of the simulation, and it has the same width as the one above, but has been scaled to emphasize the important property of the result of the simulation. Although its half power width is nearly the same as the Lorentzian, the simulation produces a result that has more power at higher frequencies. The bottom panel of Figure 7 shows a wider frequency range to emphasize the difference; it uses a log scale to make the differences 18


180 160 140 Spectral Power Density 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 Frequency (Hz) 800 1000 Simulation result

2 Base 10 Log of Spectral Power Density 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1

Simulation result

0

2

4 6 Frequency (KHz)

8

10

Figure 7: (top) Velocity spectra: heavy solid line, obtained from the simulation; top dashed line, from solution of Langevin's equation using #ei for ; bottom dashed line, the same Lorentzian scaled so that it has the same value as the simulation result at zero frequency. The horizontal axis is frequency (hertz), and the vertical axis is the power density. (bottom) The same except the log of the power density is plotted over a greater range of frequency.

19


visible at the higher frequencies. The spectrum of velocity fluctuations along the radar line of sight for Coulomb collisions is narrower at the center with more power at the higher frequencies than a Lorentzian. Now we consider the effect of the increased power at the higher frequencies in the velocity fluctuations on the incoherent scatter spectrum when the radar looks at various angles close to perpendicular to the field. Suppose we move the viewing angle from some initial position to one further from perpendicular to the field. The spectrum of e@te A broadens because the electron does not need to move as far for a constant phase change in the radar signal, and so takes less time to do so. The shorter electron path bends less due to collisions unless the collisional effect is increased in such a way as to deflect the electron in less time. This would result from increased high frequencies in the velocity spectrum, and so if we have two velocity spectra, the one with more power in the high frequencies corresponds to an effect on the spectrum further from perpendicular. Figure 8 shows backscatter spectra for various angles to the magnetic field. It is easiest to see the meaning of the four spectra in each panel by looking at the one for one degree from perpendicular. The two spectra with the smallest amplitudes are e@te A. The one with the more complicated shape is the result of the simulation while the other is the Gaussian function for the collision-free case. The spectra with the larger amplitudes are the incoherent scatter spectra (ion line) that the radar would see. Equation 1 determines these spectra, and the only difference between the input to the equation in the two cases is the e@te A. The collisions narrow e@te A, resulting in an incoherent scatter spectrum that is also significantly narrower. The ACFs corresponding to the incoherent scatter spectra are shown in Figure 9. The effect of the Coulomb collisions varies from dominant to nearly negligible over the range of angles shown in the six panels. First, the narrowing is very important at the smaller angles; at 0.25 it is more than a factor of 2, which implies an underestimate of the temperature of more than a factor of 4 if the effect of the collisions is ignored. The effect is much less at 0.5 but still large enough to cause a temperature error of more than a factor of 2. This explains the apparent low temperatures seen in Jicamarca data taken perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the field with a full beam width on the order of 1 degree. The other panels show that the effect of the collisions declines with increasing angle. The effect is small at 4 degrees and very small at 6 degrees; the only effect on the spectrum of ignoring collisions would be to introduce a small error in the ratio of e to i . The geometry of the field lines at Jicamarca causes e to be very nearly equal to i in the F region above the region where the solar energy is deposited. However, it would be safest to make measurements intended to verify these predictions at night because then the two temperatures are nearly always equal. Earlier in the discussion of Figure 7 we concluded that Coulomb collisions would influence the incoherent scatter spectrum farther from perpendicular to the magnetic field than collisions represented by a simple frictional model. We propose the following explanation which we have tested using a simulation. Two conditions are necessary for such an effect to extend very far from perpendicular. The first condition is that the collisional force varies strongly with the speed of an electron. The second condition is that the collisional force changes the speed of an electron slowly. When both these 20


140 120 100 Re(J e ) with coll. 80 Re(J e ) w/o coll. 60 I.S. spectrum, w/o coll. 40 20 0 0 I.S. spectrum, with coll.

0.25 degrees 70 60 Power Density I.S. spectrum, with coll.

0.5 degrees

Power Density

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

Re(J e ) with coll. I.S. spectrum, w/o coll. Re(Je) w/o coll.

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

200

400

600

Frequency (Hz)

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frequency (Hz)

50 45 40 Power Density 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

I.S. spectrum, with coll.

1.0 degree

40 35 Power Density

I.S. spectrum, with coll. I.S. spectrum, w/o coll.

2.0 degrees

I.S. spectrum, w/o coll.

30 25 20 Re(J e ) with coll. 15 10 Re(J e ) w/o coll.

Re(J e ) with coll.

Re(J e ) w/o coll. 5 0 0

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frequency (Hz)

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frequency (Hz)

I.S. spectrum, with coll. 35 30 Power Density Power Density 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 Re(J e ) w/o coll. Re(J e ) with coll. I.S. spectrum, w/o coll. 4 degrees 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

I.S. spectrum, with coll. I.S. spectrum, w/o coll.

6 degrees

Re(J e ) with coll. Re(J e ) w/o coll.

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frequency (Hz)

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8: Spectra resulting from the simulation for six angles to the magnetic field. The four spectra for each case are the incoherent backscatter spectrum (ion line) and e@te A. Both are shown with and without electron Coulomb collisions. Electron density (ne ) is IH IP m Q ; e is 1000 K. The ion mass is 16. conditions are met, the population of electrons has distinct subpopulations which are affected to different degrees by the collisional force according to the speed of the subpopulation. When the second condition is not met, there are no distinct subpopulations,

21


4000 3500 3000 Power 2500 with collisions 2000 1500 1000 500 without collisions 0 0

0.25 degrees

4000 0.5 degrees 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

1

2 Time (ms)

3

4

0

1

2 Time (ms)

3

4

4000 3500 3000 2500 Power 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 Time (ms) 4000 3500 3000 2500 Power 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 0 1 2 Time (ms) 3
-600 .5 1 0

1.0 degree

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

2.0 degrees

3

4

0

1

2 Time (ms)

3

4

4 degrees
-200 -400

4000 3500 3000 2500

0 -200 -400 -600 .5 1

6 degrees

1.5

2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500

1.5

4

0

1

2 Time (ms)

3

4

Figure 9: The ACFs corresponding to the incoherent scatter spectra in Figure 8. and there is little effect far from perpendicular, even if the first condition is met. Both types of Coulomb collisions meet the first condition, while only electron-ion collisions meet the second. Electron-electron collisions tend to destroy the subpopulations that would exist with only electron-ion collisions, diminishing the effect far from perpendicular, but not eliminating it completely. We can test this explanation by simulating an artificial situation in which electron-ion collisions are present with a damping

22


force with both effects adjustable in magnitude. Thus we made a new simulation which combines the effects of friction (the Langevin equation) with electron-ion Coulomb collisions. The former is represented by three uncoupled first order linear differential equations, while the latter changes the direction but not the magnitude of the velocity, and so results in terms which couple the three equations together. Varying the relative magnitudes of the two effects resulted in simulations which cover various kinds of damping. We present two of many possibilities. In the first, the effect of the electron-ion collisions is set to zero, and the damping and driver terms in the resulting Langevin equation were set to give a Lorentzian velocity spectrum with the same width as shown earlier. The second used the full effect of the electron-ion collisions, while the damping and driver Langevin terms were set to very small values, large enough to assure that the electron speed changed on a timescale much shorter than the spectral measurement, but small enough so that the electron-ion collisions provide most of the collisional effect. The top panel of Figure 10 shows the results of the Langevin simulation. The narrower set of spectra are for 0.25 from perpendicular, showing both the e@te A resulting from the Langevin equation and the Gaussian e@te A resulting from no collisions of any kind. The effect is very similar to, although somewhat smaller than, that for the same angle in Figure 8. The wider set of spectra is for 4 from perpendicular; the result for the Langevin equation is completely indistinguishable from the Gaussian, while the same case in Figure 8 is small but definitely significant. We conclude that the collisional effect as approximated by the Langevin equation does not extend as far from perpendicular as the more complete simulation (Figure 8). We further conclude that if we want to use spectra generated with a simple collisional model instead of the complete simulation for the purpose of analyzing data, we would certainly have to make the effective collision frequency a function of the angle to the magnetic field. Next we look at the second case. The bottom panel of Figure 10 shows the results where the electron-ion collisions dominate. For 0.25 the effect is similar to that in Figure 8, although somewhat narrower. The effect at 4 in the bottom panel of Figure 10 is perhaps surprising, since it is quite a bit larger than for 4 in Figure 8. From spectra computed at other angles and levels of damping (not shown), we have verified that the size of the effect is a function of how much damping is used. As the damping approaches zero, the effect of the electron-ion collisions becomes more dominant, and the spectra further from perpendicular become non-Gaussian. However, only power at frequencies very near zero changes; the collisions push energy near zero closer to zero. On the other hand, as the damping is increased, the variation with angle becomes more like that of the Langevin equation. We conclude that the effect of electron-ion collisions by themselves extends quite a bit farther from perpendicular to the field than the more complete simulation, and we see that the effect of the electron-electron collisions, or any type of collisions which affect the speed of the electrons, is to restrict the angular range of the collisional effect. In summary, we identified the cause of the problems with the temperature measurements from the Jicamarca F region incoherent scatter data as the effect of Coulomb collisions of the electrons with other electrons and ions. We computed spectra which are much narrower than collision-free spectra at angles very close to perpendicular to the magnetic field, in agreement with observations. At angles somewhat farther from 23


4 3.5 3 Power Density 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 8 7 0.25 degrees, elec.-ion coll. + reduced damping 6 Power Density 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.25 degrees, no coll. 4 degrees, elec.-ion coll. + reduced damping 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency (Hz) 1200 4 degrees, no coll. (x10) Lang. eq., 0.25 degrees

Re(Je) only

0.25 degrees, no coll. Lang. eq., 4 degrees (x10)

1400

1600

1800

Re(Je) only

4 degrees, no coll. (x10)

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 Frequency (Hz)

1400

1600

1800

Figure 10: e@te A for various conditions. (top) e@te A made with the Langevin equation compared with those for no collisions at the same angles from perpendicular to the field, 0.25 and 4 . (bottom) e@te A at the same two angles for electron-ion Coulomb collisions with a small amount of additional damping. perpendicular these spectra have the correct shape to explain the observed biased e ai ratios. Although these spectra are the result of a numerical simulation, they are very accurate. The high accuracy is the result of two factors. First, there are no approximations in the differential equation involving the diffusion coefficients; that is, the only 24


approximation is the discrete time step used in the numerical solution. Second, the use of a step size which varies with the electron speed results in efficient calculations; normal desk-top computers are fast enough to allow arbitrarily high accuracy in reasonable times. This method is not satisfactory for routine analysis of incoherent scatter data, but it is necessary for checking spectra calculated by faster, approximate methods.

References
[Aponte(1998)] Aponte, N., Radar studies of the equatorial Ph.D. thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y., 1998.

p

-region energy balance,

[Chandrasekhar(1942)] Chandrasekhar, S., Principles of Stellar Dynamics, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1942. [Dougherty and Farley(1960)] Dougherty, J. P., and D. T. Farley, A theory of incoherent scattering of radio waves by a plasma, Proc. R. Soc. London, A(259), 79­99, 1960. [Dougherty and Farley(1963)] Dougherty, J. P., and D. T. Farley, A theory of incoherent scattering of radio waves by a plasma, 3, Scattering in a partially ionized gas, J. Geophys. Res., 68, 5473­5486, 1963. [Farley(1964)] Farley, D. T., The effect of coulomb collisions on incoherent scattering or radio waves by a plasma, J. Geophys. Res., 69, 197­200, 1964. [Farley(1966)] Farley, D. T., A theory of incoherent scattering of radio waves by a plasma, 4, The effect of unequal ion and electron temperatures, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 4091­4098, 1966. [Farley et al.(1961)Farley, Dougherty, and Baron] Farley, D. T., J. P. Dougherty, and D. W. Baron, A theory of incoherent scattering of radio waves by a plasma, II, Scattering in a magnetic field, Proc. R.. Soc., London, A(263), 238­258, 1961. [Goldston and Rutherford(1995)] Goldston, R. J., and P. H. Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics, Inst. of Phys., London, 1995. [Hagfors and Brockelman(1971)] Hagfors, T., and R. A. Brockelman, A theory of collision dominated electron density fluctuations in a plasma with applications to incoherent scattering, Phys. Fluids, 14, 1143­1151, 1971. [Hanson et al.(1969)Hanson, Brace, Dyson, and McClure] Hanson, W. B., L. H. Brace, P. L. Dyson, and J. P. McClure, Conflicting electron temperature measurements in the upper p region, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 400­401, 1969. [Jasperse and Basu(1987)] Jasperse, J. R., and B. Basu, Collisional enhancement of low-frequency density fluctuations in a weakly collisional electron-ion plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett., 58, 1423­1425, 1987.

25


[McClure et al.(1973)McClure, et al.] McClure, J. P., et al., Comparison of e and i from Ogo 6 and from various incoherent scatter radars, J. Geophys. Res., 78, 197­205, 1973. [Papoulis(1965)] Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1965. [Pingree(1990)] Pingree, J. E., Incoherent scatter measurements and inferred energy fluxes in the equatorial p -region ionosphere, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y., 1990. [Spitzer(1962)] Spitzer, L., Jr., Physics of Fully Ionized gases, Vol. 3 of Interscience Tracts on Physics and Astronomy, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2nd edn., 1962. [Swartz and Farley(1979)] Swartz, W. E., and D. T. Farley, A theory of incoherent scattering of radio waves by a plasma, 5, The use of the Nyquist theorem in general quasi-equilibrium situations, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 1930­1932, 1979. [Woodman(1967)] Woodman, R. F., Incoherent scattering of electromagnetic waves by a plasma, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass., 1967. The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which is operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The Jicamarca Radio Observatory is operated by the Geo´ physical Institute of Peru with support from the National Science Foundation through Cooperative Agreement ATM-9408441 with Cornell University. We thank John Math´ ews, Wes Swartz, and Nestor Aponte for their comments on this manuscript. We also acknowledge valuable discussions with Don Farley, Tor Hagfors, Erhan Kudeki, and Ron Woodman.

26