text:
# Contributions to the theory of a two–scale homogeneous dynamo experiment

## I Introduction

In the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe U. Müller and R. Stieglitz have set up an experimental device for the demonstration and investigation of a homogeneous dynamo as it is expected in the Earth’s interior or in cosmic bodies stieglitzetal96 . The experiment ran first time successfully in December 1999, and since then several series of measurements have been carried out muelleretal00 ; stieglitzetal01 ; stieglitzetal02 ; muelleretal02 . It is the second realization of a homogeneous dynamo in the laboratory. Its first run followed only a few weeks after that of the Riga dynamo experiment, working with a somewhat different principle, which was pushed forward by A. Gailitis, O. Lielausis and co–workers Gai00 ; Gai01 .

The basic idea of the Karlsruhe experiment was proposed in 1975 by F. H. Busse busse75 ; busse92 . It is very similar to an idea discussed already in 1967 by A. Gailitis gailitis67 . The essential piece of the experimental device, the dynamo module, is a cylindrical container as shown in Fig. 1, with both radius and height somewhat less than 1m, through which liquid sodium is driven by external pumps. By means of a system of channels with conducting walls, constituting 52 “spin generators”, helical motions are organized. The flow pattern resembles one of those considered in the theoretical work of G. O. Roberts in 1972 robertsgo72 . This kind of Roberts flow, which proved to be capable of dynamo action, is sketched in Fig. 2. In a proper Cartesian co-ordinate system $`(x,y,z)`$ it is periodic in $`x`$ and $`y`$ with the same period length, which we call here $`2a`$, but independent of $`z`$. The $`x`$ and $`y`$–components of the velocity can be described by a stream function proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi x/a)\mathrm{sin}(\pi y/a)`$, and the $`z`$–component is simply proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi x/a)\mathrm{sin}(\pi y/a)`$. When speaking of a “cell” of the flow we mean a unit like that given by $`0x,ya`$. Clearly the velocity is continuous everywhere, and at least the $`x`$ and $`y`$–components do not vanish at the margins of the cells. The real flow in the spin generators deviates from the Roberts flow in the way indicated in Fig. 3. In each cell there are a central channel and a helical channel around it. In the simplest approximation the fluid moves rigidly in each of these channels, and it is at rest outside the channels. We relate the word “spin generator flow” in the following to this simple flow. In contrast to the Roberts flow the spin generator flow shows discontinuities and vanishes at the margins of the cells.

The theory of the dynamo effect in the Karlsruhe device has been widely elaborated. Both direct numerical solutions of the induction equation for the magnetic field tilgner96 ; tilgner97 ; tilgner00 ; tilgneretal01 ; tilgneretal02 ; tilgner02 ; tilgner02b  as well as mean–field theory and solutions of the corresponding equations raedleretal96 ; raedleretal97a ; raedleretal98a ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b ; raedleretal02c  have been employed. We focus our attention here on this mean–field approach. In this context mean fields are understood as averages over areas in planes perpendicular to the axis of the dynamo module covering the cross–sections of several cells. The crucial induction effect of the fluid motion is then, with respect to the mean magnetic field, described as an anisotropic $`\alpha `$–effect. The $`\alpha `$–coefficient and related quantities have first been calculated for the Roberts flow raedleretal97a ; raedleretal96 ; raedleretal97b ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . In the calculations with the spin generator flow carried out so far, apart from the case of small flow rates, a simplifying but not strictly justified assumption was used. The contribution of a given spin generator to the $`\alpha `$–effect was considered independent of the neighboring spin generators and in that sense determined under the condition that all its surroundings are conducting fluid at rest raedleretal97a ; raedleretal97b ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . An analogous assumption was used in calculations of the effect of the Lorentz force on the fluid flow rates in the channels of the spin generators raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02c . It remained to be clarified which errors result from these assumptions.

The main purpose of this paper is therefore the calculation of the $`\alpha `$–coefficient and a related coefficient as well as the quantities determining the effect of the Lorentz force on the fluid flow rates for an array of spin generators, taking into account the so far ignored mutual influences of the spin generators. In Section II the modified Roberts dynamo problem with the spin generator flow is formulated. In Section III the numerical method used for solving this problem and the related problems occurring in the following sections are discussed. Section IV presents in particular results concerning the excitation condition for the dynamo with spin generator flow. In Section V various aspects of a mean–field theory of the dynamo experiment are explained and results for the mean electromotive force due to the spin generator flow are given. Section VI deals with the effect of the Lorentz force on the flow rates in the channels of the spin generators. Finally in Section VII some consequences of our findings for the understanding of the experimental results are summarized.

Independent of the recent comprehensive accounts of the mean–field approach to the Karlsruhe dynamo experiment raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b ; raedleretal02c , this paper may serve as an introduction to the basic idea of the experiment. However, we do not strive to repeat all important issues discussed in those papers, but we mainly want to deliver the two supplements mentioned above.

## II Formulation of the dynamo problem

Let us first formulate the analogue of the Roberts dynamo problem for the spin generator flow. We consider a magnetic field $`𝑩`$ in an infinitely extended homogeneous electrically conducting fluid, which is governed by the induction equation,

$$\eta ^2𝑩+\times (𝒖\times 𝑩)_t𝑩=\mathrm{𝟎},𝑩=0,$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ is the magnetic diffusivity of the fluid and $`𝒖`$ its velocity. The fluid is considered incompressible, so $`𝒖=0`$. Referring to the Cartesian co–ordinate system $`(x,y,z)`$ mentioned above we focus our attention on the cell $`0x,ya`$ and introduce there cylindrical co–ordinates $`(r,\phi ,z)`$ such that the axis $`r=0`$ coincides with $`x=y=a/2`$. We define then the fluid velocity $`𝒖`$ in this cell by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}u_r=0\hfill & & \text{everywhere}\hfill \\ u_\phi =0,\hfill & u_z=u\hfill & \text{for }0<rr_1\hfill \\ u_\phi =\omega r,\hfill & u_z=(h/2\pi )\omega \hfill & \text{for }r_1<rr_2\hfill \\ u_\phi =0,\hfill & u_z=0\hfill & \text{for }r>r_2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
where $`u`$ and $`\omega `$ are constants, $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ are the radius of the central channel and the outer radius of the helical channel, respectively, and $`h`$ is the pitch of the helical channel. The coupling between $`u_\phi `$ and $`u_z`$ in $`r_1<rr_2`$ considers the constraint on the flow resulting from the helicoidal walls of the helical channel. The velocity $`𝒖`$ in all space follows from the continuation of velocity in the considered cell in the way indicated in Fig. 3, i.e. with changes of the flow directions from each cell to the adjacent ones so that the total pattern is again periodic in $`x`$ and $`y`$ with the period length $`2a`$ and independent of $`z`$.

We characterize the magnitudes of the fluid flow through the central and helical channels of a spin generator by the volumetric flow rates $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ given by

$$V_\mathrm{C}=\pi r_1^2u,V_\mathrm{H}=\frac{1}{2}(r_2^2r_1^2)h\omega .$$
(7)
We may measure them in units of $`a\eta `$, so we introduce the dimensionless flow rates $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=V_\mathrm{C}/a\eta ,\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}=V_\mathrm{H}/a\eta .$$
(8)
We further define magnetic Reynolds numbers $`R_{\mathrm{mC}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{mH}}`$ for the two channels by $`R_{\mathrm{mC}}=ur_1/\eta `$ and $`R_{\mathrm{mH}}=\omega r_2(r_2r_1)/\eta `$. Thus we have $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=(\pi r_1/a)R_{\mathrm{mC}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}=[(r_1+r_2)h/2ar_2]R_{\mathrm{mH}}`$.

In view of the application of the results for the considered dynamo problem to the experimental device we mention here the numerical values for the radius $`R`$ and the height $`H`$ of the dynamo module, the lengths $`a`$, $`h`$, $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ characterizing a spin generator and the magnetic diffusivity $`\eta `$ of the fluid: $`R=0.85\text{m}`$, $`H=0.71\text{m}`$, $`a=0.21\text{m}`$, $`h=0.19\text{m}`$, $`r_1/a=0.25`$, $`r_2/a=0.5`$, $`\eta =0.1\text{m}^2/\text{s}`$. (More precisely, the values of $`R`$ and $`H`$ apply to the “homogeneous part” of the dynamo module, i.e. the part without connections between different spin generators. The value of $`\eta `$ is slightly higher than that for sodium at $`120^{}\text{C}`$, considering the effective reduction of the magnetic diffusivity by the steel walls of the channels.) The given data imply $`a\eta =75.6\text{m}^3/\text{s}`$. Furthermore we have $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=0.785R_{\mathrm{mC}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}=1.357R_{\mathrm{mH}}`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}`$ are in fact magnetic Reynolds numbers. Concerning deviations from the rigid–body motion of the fluid assumed here and the role of turbulence we refer to the more comprehensive representations raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b .

We are interested in dynamo action of the fluid motion, so we are interested in growing solutions $`𝑩`$ of (1) with the velocity $`𝒖`$ defined by (6) and the explanations given with them. According to some modification of Cowling’s anti–dynamo theorem growing solutions $`𝑩`$ independent of $`z`$ are impossible; cf. lortz68 . We restrict our attention to solutions of the form

$$𝑩=\text{Re}\left[\widehat{𝑩}(x,y,t)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}kz)\right],$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{𝑩}`$ is a complex periodic vector field which has again a period length $`2a`$ in $`x`$ and $`y`$, and $`k`$ a non–vanishing real constant. In this case we may consider equations (1) in the period interval $`ax,ya`$ only and adopt periodic boundary conditions. (Solutions $`𝑩`$ with larger period lengths, as were investigated for the Roberts flow tilgneretal95 ; plunianetal02a ; plunianetal02b , seem to be well possible but are not considered here.)

If we put $`\widehat{𝑩}(x,y,t)=\widehat{𝑩}(x,y)\mathrm{exp}(pt)`$ with a parameter $`p`$, for which we have to admit complex values, equation (1) together with the boundary conditions pose an eigenvalue problem with $`p`$ being the eigenvalue parameter. Clearly $`p`$ depends on $`V_\mathrm{C}`$, $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`k`$. The condition $`\text{Re}(p)=0`$ defines for each given $`k`$ a neutral line, i.e. a line of marginal stability, in the $`V_\mathrm{C}V_\mathrm{H}`$–diagram, which separates the region of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ in which growing $`𝑩`$ are impossible from that where they are possible.

## III The numerical method

In view of the numerical solution of the induction equation (1) we express $`𝑩`$ by a vector potential $`𝑨`$,

$$𝑩=\times 𝑨.$$
(10)
Inserting this in (1) and choosing $`𝑨`$ properly we may conclude that

$$\eta ^2𝑨+𝒖\times 𝑩_t𝑨=\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(11)
Analogous to (9) we put

$$𝑨(x,y,z,t)=\text{Re}\left[\widehat{𝑨}(x,y,t)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}kz)\right].$$
(12)
Then we have

$$\widehat{𝑩}=\times \widehat{𝑨}+\text{i}𝒌\times \widehat{𝑨},$$
(13)
where $`𝒌=k𝒆`$ with $`𝒆`$ being the unit vector in $`z`$–direction, and

$$\eta (^2k^2)\widehat{𝑨}+𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}_t\widehat{𝑨}=\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(14)
With a solution $`\widehat{𝑨}`$ we can calculate $`\widehat{𝑩}`$ according to (13) and finally $`𝑩`$ according to (10).

In the sense explained above we consider (14) only in the period unit $`ax,ya`$ and adopt periodic boundary conditions. When replacing $`\widehat{𝑨}(x,y,t)`$ by $`\widehat{𝑨}(x,y)\mathrm{exp}(pt)`$ we arrive again at an eigenvalue problem with $`p`$ as eigenvalue parameter.

Let us, for example, assume that $`p`$ is real and consider the steady case, $`p=0`$. We may then consider, e.g., $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ as eigenvalue parameter while $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`k`$ are given. Modifying the equation resulting from (12) by an artificial quenching of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and following up the evolution of $`\widehat{𝑨}`$, the wanted steady solutions of the original equation (14) and thus the relations between $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ for given $`k`$ and $`p=0`$ can be found.

For the numerical computations a grid–point scheme was used. They were carried out on a two–dimensional mesh typically with $`60\times 60`$ or $`120\times 120`$ points, and some of the results were checked with $`240\times 240`$ points. The $`x`$ and $`y`$-derivatives were calculated using sixth order explicitly finite differences, and the equations were stepped forward in time using a third order Runge–Kutta scheme.

## IV The excitation condition of the dynamo

Using the described numerical method solutions $`𝑩`$ of the dynamo problem posed by (1), (6) and (9) have been determined. As in the case of the Roberts flow plunianetal02a ; plunianetal02b  the most easily excitable solutions are non-oscillatory, which corresponds to real $`p`$, and possess a contribution independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Fig. 4 shows the neutral lines in the $`V_\mathrm{C}V_\mathrm{H}`$–diagram for several values of the dimensionless quantity $`\kappa `$ defined by $`\kappa =ak`$. In view of the Karlsruhe experiment the case deserves special interest in which a “half wave” of $`𝑩`$ fits just to the height $`H`$ of the dynamo module, so $`\kappa =\pi a/H=0.929`$. The neutral line for this case can provide us a very rough estimate of the excitation condition of the Karlsruhe dynamo. However, this estimate neither takes into account the finite radial extend of the dynamo module nor realistic conditions at its plane boundaries. Let us consider, e.g., the values of $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ necessary for self–excitation in the experimental device for given $`V_\mathrm{C}`$. The values of $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ obtained in the experiment as well as those found by direct numerical simulations are by a factor of about 2 higher than the values concluded from the neutral curve for $`\kappa =0.9`$; see e.g. Fig. 4 in Refs. muelleretal02  and stieglitzetal02 , Fig. 2 in Ref. tilgner02  or Fig. 3 in Ref. tilgner02b . The tendency of the variation of $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ with $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ is however well predicted. (The influence of the finite radial extend of the dynamo module on the excitation condition will be discussed in Section V.4. It makes the mentioned factor of about 2 plausible.)

## V The mean–field approach

The Karlsruhe dynamo experiment has been widely discussed in the framework of the mean–field dynamo theory; see e.g. krauseetal80 . Let us first discuss a few aspects of the traditional mean–field approach applied to spatially periodic flows and then a slight modification of this approach, which possesses in one respect a higher degree of generality. We always assume that the magnetic flux density $`𝑩`$ is governed by the induction equation (1) and the fluid velocity $`𝒖`$ is specified to be either a Roberts flow or the spin generator flow as defined above.

### V.1 The traditional approach

For each given field $`F`$ we define a mean field $`\overline{F}`$ by taking an average over an area corresponding to the cross–section of four cells in the $`xy`$–plane,

$$\overline{F}(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{4a^2}\underset{a}{\overset{a}{}}\underset{a}{\overset{a}{}}F(x+\xi ,y+\eta ,z)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta .$$
(15)
We note that the applicability of the Reynolds averaging rules, which we use in the following, requires that $`\overline{F}`$ varies only weakly over distances $`a`$ in $`x`$ or $`y`$–direction. (The following applies also with a definition of $`\overline{F}`$ using averages over an area corresponding to two cells only plunianetal02a , but we do not want to consider this possibility here.)

We split the magnetic flux density $`𝑩`$ and the fluid velocity $`𝒖`$ into mean fields $`\overline{𝑩}`$ and $`\overline{𝒖}`$ and remaining fields $`𝑩^{}`$ and $`𝒖^{}`$,

$$𝑩=\overline{𝑩}+𝑩^{},𝒖=\overline{𝒖}+𝒖^{}.$$
(16)
Clearly we have $`\overline{𝒖}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and therefore $`𝒖=𝒖^{}`$.

Taking the average of equations (1) we see that $`\overline{𝑩}`$ has to obey

$$\eta ^2\overline{𝑩}+\times 𝓔_t\overline{𝑩}=\mathrm{𝟎},\overline{𝑩}=0,$$
(17)
where $`𝓔`$, defined by

$$𝓔=\overline{𝒖\times 𝑩^{}},$$
(18)
is a mean electromotive force due to the fluid motion.

The determination of $`𝓔`$ for a given $`𝒖`$ requires the knowledge of $`𝑩^{}`$. Combining equations (1) and (17) we easily arrive at

$`\eta ^2𝑩^{}+\times (𝒖\times 𝑩^{})^{}_t𝑩^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\times (𝒖\times \overline{𝑩}),`$
$`𝑩^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (19)
where $`(𝒖\times 𝑩^{})^{}=𝒖\times 𝑩^{}\overline{𝒖\times 𝑩^{}}`$. We conclude from this that $`𝑩^{}`$ is, apart from initial and boundary conditions, determined by $`𝒖`$ and $`\overline{𝑩}`$ and is linear in $`\overline{𝑩}`$. We assume here that $`𝑩^{}`$ vanishes if $`\overline{𝑩}`$ does so (and will comment on this below). Thus $`𝓔`$ too can be understood as a quantity determined by $`𝒖`$ and $`\overline{𝑩}`$ only and being linear and homogeneous in $`\overline{𝑩}`$. Of course, $`𝓔`$ at a given point in space and time depends not simply on $`𝒖`$ and $`\overline{𝑩}`$ in this point but also on their behavior in some neighborhood of this point.

We adopt the assumption often used in mean–field dynamo theory that $`\overline{𝑩}`$ varies only weakly in space and time so that $`\overline{𝑩}`$ and its first spatial derivatives in this point are sufficient to define the behavior of $`\overline{𝑩}`$ in the relevant neighborhood. Then $`𝓔`$ can be represented in the form

$$_i=a_{ij}\overline{B}_j+b_{ijk}\overline{B}_j/x_k,$$
(20)
where the tensors $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ are averaged quantities determined by $`𝒖`$. We use here and in the following the notation $`x_1=x`$, $`x_2=y`$, $`x_3=z`$ and adopt the summation convention. Of course, the neglect of contributions to $`𝓔`$ with higher order spatial derivatives or with time derivatives of $`\overline{𝑩}`$ (which is in one respect relaxed in Section V.2) remains to be checked in all applications.

The specific properties of the considered flow patterns allow us to reduce the form of $`𝓔`$ given by (20) to a more specific one. Due to our definition of averages and the periodicity of the flow patterns in $`x`$ and $`y`$, and its independence of $`z`$, the tensors $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ are independent of $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$. Clearly a $`90^{}`$ rotation of the flow pattern about the $`z`$–axis as well as a shift by a length $`a`$ along the $`x`$ or $`y`$–axes change only the sign of $`𝒖`$ so that simultaneous rotation and shift leave $`𝒖`$ unchanged. This is sufficient to conclude that $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ are axisymmetric tensors with respect to the $`z`$–axis. So $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ contain no other tensorial construction elements than the Kronecker tensor $`\delta _{lm}`$, the Levi–Civita tensor $`ϵ_{lmn}`$ and the unit vector $`𝒆`$ in $`z`$–direction. The independence of the flow pattern of $`z`$ requires that $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ are invariant under the change of the sign of $`𝒆`$. Finally it can be concluded on the basis of (19) that $`𝓔`$ has to vanish if $`\overline{𝑩}`$ is a homogeneous field in $`z`$–direction, which leads to $`a_{33}=0`$. With the specification of $`a_{ij}`$ and $`b_{ijk}`$ according to these requirements relation (20) turns into

$`𝓔`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{}\left(\overline{𝑩}(𝒆\overline{𝑩})𝒆\right)`$ (21)
$`\beta _{}\times \overline{𝑩}(\beta _{}\beta _{})(𝒆(\times \overline{𝑩}))𝒆`$
$`\beta _3𝒆\times ((𝒆\overline{𝑩})+(𝒆)\overline{𝑩}),`$
where the coefficients $`\alpha _{}`$, $`\beta _{}`$, $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _3`$ are averaged quantities determined by $`𝒖`$ and independent of $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$. The term with $`\alpha _{}`$ describes an $`\alpha `$–effect, which is extremely anisotropic. It is able to drive electric currents in the $`x`$ and $`y`$–directions, but not in the $`z`$–direction. The terms with $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ give rise to the introduction of a mean-field diffusivity different from the original magnetic diffusivity of the fluid and again anisotropic. In contrast to them the remaining term with $`\beta _3`$ is not connected with $`\times \overline{𝑩}`$ but with the symmetric part of the gradient tensor of $`\overline{𝑩}`$ and can therefore not be interpreted in the sense of a mean-field diffusivity.

In the case of the Roberts flow the coefficient $`\alpha _{}`$ has been determined for arbitrary flow rates, and coefficients like $`\beta _{}`$, $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _3`$ for small flow rates raedleretal96 ; raedleretal97a ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal97b ; raedleretal02b . As for the spin generator flow only results for $`\alpha _{}`$ have been given so far raedleretal96 ; raedleretal97a ; raedleretal97b ; raedleretal02b ; raedleretal02a .

For the determination of $`\alpha _{}`$ it is sufficient to consider equation (19) for $`𝑩^{}`$ with $`\overline{𝑩}`$ specified to be homogeneous field. In this case, which implies $`\times (\overline{𝒖\times 𝑩^{}})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, this equation turns into

$`\eta ^2𝑩^{}+(𝑩^{})𝒖(𝒖)𝑩^{}_t𝑩^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{𝑩})𝒖,`$
$`𝑩^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (22)
We may again consider $`𝑩^{}`$ like $`\overline{𝑩}`$ as independent of $`z`$. Let us put $`𝑩^{}=𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`𝒖=𝒖_{}+𝒖_{}`$ with $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝑩^{}(𝒆𝑩^{})𝒆`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=(𝒆𝑩^{})𝒆`$, and $`𝒖_{}`$ and $`𝒖_{}`$ defined analogously. Then we find

$`\eta ^2𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`+`$ $`(𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})𝒖_{}(𝒖_{})𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_t𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`=(\overline{𝑩})𝒖_{},`$
$`\eta ^2𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`(𝒖_{})𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_t𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`=((\overline{𝑩}+𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))𝒖_{}.`$
We further put $`𝒖_{}=u_{}\stackrel{~}{𝒖}_{}`$ and $`𝒖_{}=u_{}\stackrel{~}{𝒖}_{}`$, where $`u_{}`$ and $`u_{}`$ are factors independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$ characterizing the magnitudes of $`𝒖_{}`$ and $`𝒖_{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒖}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒖}_{}`$ fields which are normalized in some way. Clearly $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is independent of $`u_{}`$, and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ linear in $`u_{}`$. The $`x`$ and $`y`$–components of $`\overline{𝒖\times 𝑩^{}}`$, from which $`\alpha _{}`$ can be concluded, are sums of products of components of $`𝒖_{}`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and of $`𝒖_{}`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. Thus $`\alpha _{}`$ must depend in a homogeneous and linear way on $`u_{}`$ whereas the dependence on $`u_{}`$ is in general more complex. This can be observed from the results for the Roberts flow. In view of the spin generator flow we split $`𝒖_{}`$ into two parts, $`𝒖_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ and $`𝒖_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, of which the first one is non–zero in the central channel and the second one in the helical channel only. We further introduce the corresponding quantities $`u_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. We may then conclude that $`\alpha _{}`$ is linear but no longer homogeneous in $`u_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$. Since $`u_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ is proportional to $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ we find that $`\alpha _{}`$ is linear but not homogeneous in $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ whereas it shows a more complex dependence on $`V_\mathrm{H}`$.

For small flow rates we may neglect the terms with $`𝒖`$ on the left–hand side of equation (22). This corresponds to the second–order correlation approximation often used in mean–field dynamo theory. Then the solutions $`𝑩^{}`$ and further $`\alpha _{}`$ can be calculated analytically. Starting from the result found in this way for the spin generator flow raedleretal96 ; raedleretal97a ; raedleretal97b  and using the above findings we conclude that the general form of $`\alpha _{}`$ reads

$$\alpha _{}=\frac{V_\mathrm{H}}{a^2h\eta }\left[V_\mathrm{C}\varphi _\mathrm{C}(V_\mathrm{H}/h\eta )+\frac{1}{2}V_\mathrm{H}\varphi _\mathrm{H}(V_\mathrm{H}/h\eta )\right]$$
(24)
with two functions $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}`$ satisfying $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}(0)=\varphi _\mathrm{H}(0)=1`$. Note that the argument $`V_\mathrm{H}/h\eta `$ is equal to $`(a/h)\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}`$, which is in turn equal to $`\omega (r_2+r_1)(r_2r_1)/2\eta `$. Consequently it is just some kind of magnetic Reynolds number for the rotational motion of the fluid in a helical channel. The functions $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}`$ have been calculated analytically under a simplifying assumption raedleretal97a ; raedleretal97b , which, however, proved not to be strictly correct. We will give rigorous results for $`\alpha _{}`$ and for $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}`$ in a more general context below in Section V.3.

As announced we make now a comment on the assumption that $`𝑩^{}`$ vanishes if $`\overline{𝑩}`$ does so. Investigations with the Roberts dynamo problem have revealed that non–decaying solutions $`𝑩`$ of the induction equation (1) whose average over a cell vanishes are well possible plunianetal02a . They coincide with non–decaying solutions $`𝑩^{}`$ of the equation (19) in the case $`\overline{𝑩}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. These solutions are, however, always less easily excitable than solutions with non–vanishing averages over a cell. They are therefore without interest in the discussion of the excitation condition for mean magnetic fields $`\overline{𝑩}`$. In that sense the above assumption is, although not generally true, at least in the case of the Roberts flow acceptable for our purposes. Presumably this applies also for the spin generator flow.

In view of the next Section we assume for a moment that $`\overline{𝑩}`$ does not depend on $`x`$ and $`y`$ but only on $`z`$. In that case we have $`\times \overline{𝑩}=𝒆\times [(𝒆\overline{𝑩})+(𝒆)\overline{𝑩}]=𝒆\times \text{d}\overline{𝑩}/\text{d}z`$ and therefore (21) turns into

$`𝓔=\alpha _{}\left(\overline{𝑩}(𝒆\overline{𝑩})𝒆\right)\beta 𝒆\times \text{d}\overline{𝑩}/\text{d}z,`$
$`\beta =\beta _{}+\beta _3.`$ (25)
Interestingly enough, here the difference in the characters of the $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _3`$–terms in (21) is no longer visible. While there are reasons to assume that the coefficients $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _{}`$, which can be interpreted in the sense of a mean–field diffusivity, are never negative, this is no longer true for $`\beta _3`$ and therefore also not for $`\beta `$. The results for the Roberts flow show indeed explicitly that $`\beta `$ can take also negative values raedleretal96 ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b .

### V.2 A modified approach

We now modify the mean–field approach discussed so far in view of the case in which $`\overline{𝑩}`$ does not depend on $`x`$ and $`y`$ but may have an arbitrary dependence on $`z`$. All quantities like $`𝑩`$, $`\overline{𝑩}`$, $`𝑩^{}`$ or $`𝓔`$, which depend on $`z`$, are represented as Fourier integrals according to

$$F(x,y,z,t)=\widehat{F}(x,y,k,t)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}kz)\text{d}k.$$
(26)
The corresponding representation of $`𝑩`$ clearly includes the ansatz (9). $`\widehat{𝑩}`$ depends on $`x`$, $`y`$, $`k`$ and $`t`$, but $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝓔}`$ depend only on $`k`$ and $`t`$. The requirement that $`F(x,y,z,t)`$ is real leads to $`F^{}(x,y,k,t)=F(x,y,k,t)`$. Relations of this kind apply to $`𝑩`$, $`\overline{𝑩}`$, $`𝑩^{}`$ and $`𝓔`$.

Equations (15) to (19) remain valid whereas (20), (21) and (25) have to be modified. Clearly (17) and (18) are equivalent to

$$\eta k^2\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}\text{i}𝒌\times \widehat{𝓔}+_t\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}=\mathrm{𝟎},𝒆\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}=0,$$
(27)
and

$$\widehat{𝓔}=\overline{𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}^{}}.$$
(28)
Instead of (19) we have

$`\eta (^2k^2)\widehat{𝑩^{}}+(+\text{i}𝒌)\times (𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}^{})^{}_t\widehat{𝑩}^{}`$
$`=(+\text{i}𝒌)\times (𝒖\times \widehat{\overline{𝑩}}),(+\text{i}𝒌)\widehat{𝑩}^{}=0,`$ (29)
where $`(𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}^{})^{}=𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}^{}\overline{𝒖\times \widehat{𝑩}^{}}`$.

Assuming again that $`𝓔`$ is linear and homogeneous in $`\overline{𝑩}`$ we conclude that the same applies to $`\widehat{𝓔}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$, too. Therefore we now have

$$\widehat{}_i(k,t)=\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)\widehat{\overline{B}}_j(k,t),$$
(30)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}`$ is a complex tensor determined by the fluid flow. Analogous to $`\widehat{𝓔}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$ it has to satisfy $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}^{}(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)`$. From the symmetry properties of the $`𝒖`$–field we conclude again that the connection between $`𝓔`$ and $`\overline{𝑩}`$ remains its form if both are simultaneously subject to a $`90^{}`$ rotation about the $`z`$–axis, i.e. relation (30) remains unchanged under such a rotation of $`\widehat{𝓔}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$. This means that the tensor $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}`$ is axisymmetric with respect to the axis defined by $`𝒌`$. The general form of $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}`$ that is compatible with $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}^{}(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)`$ is given by

$$\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)=a_1(|k|)\delta _{ij}+a_2(|k|)k_ik_j+\text{i}a_3(|k|)ϵ_{ijl}k_l$$
(31)
with real $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$. Together with (30) this leads to $`\widehat{}_z=(a_1+a_2k^2)\widehat{\overline{B}}_z`$. On the other hand $`\widehat{}_z`$ is equal to the average of $`u_x\widehat{B}_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}u_y\widehat{B}_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{}`$, and we may conclude from (29) that $`\widehat{B}_{}^{}{}_{x}{}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{B}_{}^{}{}_{y}{}^{}`$ are independent of $`\widehat{\overline{B}}_z`$. This in turn implies $`a_1+a_2k^2=0`$. We note the final result for $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)`$ in the form

$$\widehat{a}_{ij}(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)(\delta _{ij}e_ie_j)+\text{i}\widehat{\beta }(k)ϵ_{ijl}k_l$$
(32)
with two real quantities $`\widehat{\alpha }_{}`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$, which are even functions of $`k`$.

From (30) and (32) we obtain

$$\widehat{𝓔}(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)\left(\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(𝒆\widehat{\overline{𝑩}})𝒆\right)\text{i}\widehat{\beta }(k)𝒌\times \widehat{\overline{𝑩}}.$$
(33)
Together with (26) this leads to

$`𝓔(z,t)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)\left[\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(k,t)(𝒆\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(k,t))𝒆\right]\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}kz)\text{d}k}`$
$`𝒆\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}{\displaystyle \widehat{\beta }(k)\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(k,t)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}kz)\text{d}k}.`$ (34)
This in turn is equivalent to

$`𝓔(z,t)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \alpha _{}(\zeta )\left[\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(z+\zeta ,t)(𝒆\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(z+\zeta ,t))𝒆\right]\text{d}\zeta }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}𝒆\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}{\displaystyle \beta (\zeta )\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}(z+\zeta ,t)\text{d}\zeta }`$ (35)
with

$`\alpha _{}(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}k\zeta )\text{d}k},`$
$`\beta (\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \widehat{\beta }(k)\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}k\zeta )\text{d}k}.`$ (36)
Note that both $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\beta `$ are even in $`\zeta `$.

Let us now expand $`\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)`$ as given by (32) in a Taylor series and truncate it after the second term,

$$\widehat{\alpha }_{ij}(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(0)(\delta _{ij}e_ie_j)+\text{i}k\widehat{\beta }(0)ϵ_{ijl}e_l.$$
(37)
The corresponding expansion of $`𝓔`$ as given by (34) reads

$$𝓔=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(0)\left(\overline{𝑩}(𝒆\overline{𝑩})𝒆\right)\widehat{\beta }(0)𝒆\times \text{d}\overline{𝑩}/\text{d}z.$$
(38)
Comparing this with relation (25) of the preceding section we find

$$\alpha _{}=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(0),\beta =\widehat{\beta }(0).$$
(39)
Returning again to arbitrary $`k`$ we define for later purposes a function $`\widehat{\alpha }(k)`$ by

$$\widehat{\alpha }(k)=\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)+k\widehat{\beta }(k).$$
(40)
If $`\widehat{\alpha }(k)`$ is given, we may determine $`\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }(k)`$ according to

$`\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\widehat{\alpha }(k)+\widehat{\alpha }(k)\right],`$
$`\beta (k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\left[\widehat{\alpha }(k)\widehat{\alpha }(k)\right].`$ (41)
Moreover, we have

$$\alpha _{}=\widehat{\alpha }(0),\beta =\frac{\text{d}\widehat{\alpha }(k)}{\text{d}k}(0).$$
(42)
### V.3 The parameters defining $`\alpha `$–effect etc.

In view of the determination of the quantities $`\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }(k)`$, which includes that of $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\beta `$, we note that relations like (25) or (33) connecting $`𝓔`$ with $`\overline{𝑩}`$ or $`\widehat{𝓔}`$ with $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$ apply, apart from the explicitly mentioned restrictions, for arbitrary $`\overline{𝑩}`$. Thus we may take these quantities from calculations carried out for specific $`\overline{𝑩}`$.

Using the method described in Section III we have numerically determined steady solutions of equation (19) for $`\widehat{𝑩}^{}`$ with given $`V_\mathrm{C}`$, $`V_\mathrm{H}`$, $`k`$ and a specific $`\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$ of Beltrami type satisfying $`𝒆\times \text{d}\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}/\text{d}z=k\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}`$. With these solutions we have then calculated the quantity $`\widehat{𝓔}\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}^{}`$, which, according to (33), has to satisfy

$$\widehat{𝓔}\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}^{}=\widehat{\alpha }\left|\widehat{\overline{𝑩}}\right|^2$$
(43)
with $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ defined by (40). From the values of $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and their dependence on $`k`$ obtained in this way $`\widehat{\alpha }_{}(k)`$, $`\widehat{\beta }(k)`$, $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\beta `$ have been determined.

In mean–field models of the Karlsruhe device in the sense of the traditional approach explained in Section V.1 the coefficient $`\alpha _{}`$ occurs in the dimensionless combination $`C=\alpha _{}R/\eta `$, with $`R`$ being the radius of the dynamo module, and the influence of $`\beta `$ can be discussed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta /\eta `$. We generalize the definitions of $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ by putting

$$C=\widehat{\alpha }_{}R/\eta ,\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\widehat{\beta }/\eta .$$
(44)
Now $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ show a dependence on $`k`$, which we express by one on $`\kappa =ak`$.

Thinking first of the traditional approach we consider $`C`$ with $`\kappa =0`$. Figure 5 shows contours of $`C`$ in the $`V_\mathrm{C}V_\mathrm{H}`$–diagram, Fig. 6 the functions $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}`$, from which $`\alpha _{}`$ and thus $`C`$ can be calculated. These results deviate for large $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ significantly from those determined with the simplifying assumption mentioned above, according to which the mutual influence of the spin generators was ignored raedleretal97a ; raedleretal97b . In the region of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ which is of interest for the experiment, say $`0<\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C},\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}<2`$, the values of $`C`$, $`\varphi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{H}`$ for given $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ are somewhat larger than those obtained with that assumption. One reason for that might be that in the case of an array of spin generators, compared to a single one in a fluid at rest, the rotational motion in a helical channel expels less magnetic flux into regions without fluid motion, where it can not contribute to the $`\alpha `$-effect. Remarkably, in the region $`0<\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C},\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}<2`$ our result for $`C`$ agrees very well with one derived under the assumption of a Roberts flow raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b .

Figure 7 exhibits contours of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ for $`\kappa =0`$ in the $`V_\mathrm{C}V_\mathrm{H}`$–diagram. We already pointed out that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ can take negative values. Here we see that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ becomes negative for sufficiently large values of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$. Although this happens somewhat beyond the region of interest for the experiment it suggests that inside this region the positive values of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ may be small. The diffusion term in the mean–field induction equation is proportional to $`\eta (1+\stackrel{~}{\beta })`$. In the investigated region of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ this quantity proved always to be positive.

Let us now proceed to $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ for $`\kappa 0`$. As already mentioned, in view of the experimental device it seems reasonable to put $`\kappa =\pi a/H=0.929`$. Analogous to Fig. 5, which applies to $`\kappa =0`$, Fig. 8 shows contours of $`C`$ for $`\kappa =0.9`$. We see that $`C`$ for given $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ is slightly higher in the latter case. The results for $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are virtually indistinguishable for both cases.

### V.4 The excitation condition in mean–field models

We consider first again the traditional approach to mean–field theory explained in Section V.1. Equation (17) for $`\overline{𝑩}`$ together with relation (21) for $`𝓔`$ allows the solutions

$`\overline{𝑩}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(\mathrm{cos}(kz),\mathrm{sin}(kz),0)\mathrm{exp}(pt),`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`(\eta +\beta )k^2\pm \alpha _{}k,`$ (45)
where $`B_0`$ is an arbitrary constant. We refer here again to Cartesian co–ordinates and consider $`k`$ as a positive parameter. For these solutions we have $`\times \overline{𝑩}=\pm k\overline{𝑩}`$, i.e. they are of Beltrami type. This implies that there are no mean electric currents in the $`z`$–direction. The solution that corresponds to the upper signs can grow if $`\alpha _{}`$ is sufficiently large. The condition of marginal stability reads $`\alpha _{}=(\eta +\beta )k`$ or, what is the same,

$$C=(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta })kR,$$
(46)
where $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have to be interpreted as the values for $`\kappa =0`$. If we relate this to the dynamo module and put $`k=\pi /H`$ we have

$$C=(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta })\pi R/H.$$
(47)
Note that the factor $`R`$ in the conditions (46) and (47) results from the definition of $`C`$ only. In fact they are independent of $`R`$.

Proceeding to the modified approach to the mean–field theory and replacing relation (21) for $`𝓔`$ by (34) we find formally the same result. However, $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\beta `$ have to be replaced by $`\widehat{\alpha }_{}`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$, and $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in (46) and (47) have to be taken for $`\kappa =ak`$. The condition (46) interpreted in this sense defines neutral lines in the $`V_\mathrm{C}V_\mathrm{H}`$–diagram which have to agree exactly with those shown in Fig. 4. Likewise, the condition (47) defines the special neutral line with $`\kappa =\pi a/H`$.

One of the shortcomings of estimates of the self–excitation condition of the experimental device based on the solutions of the induction equation used in Section IV or, equivalently, on a relation like (47), consists in ignoring the finite radial extent of the dynamo module. We point out another solution of equation (17) for $`\overline{𝑩}`$, which has been used for an estimate of the self-excitation condition of the experimental device considering its finite radial extent busseetal98 ; raedleretal97a ; raedleretal02b . For the sake of simplicity we assume that $`𝓔`$ is given by equation (21) with $`\beta _{}=\beta _{}=\beta _3=0`$. We refer to a new cylindrical co–ordinate system $`(r,\phi ,z)`$ adjusted to the dynamo module so that $`r=0`$ coincides with its axis and $`z=0`$ with its midplane. The solution we have in mind reads

$`\overline{𝑩}`$ $`=`$ $`B_0({\displaystyle \frac{\Psi }{z}},{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (q^2+k^2)+p}{\alpha _{}}}\Psi ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(r\Psi ))\mathrm{exp}(pt),`$
$`\Psi `$ $`=`$ $`J_0(qr)\mathrm{cos}(kz),`$ (48)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\eta (q^2+k^2)\pm \alpha _{}k,`$
where $`q`$ and $`k`$ are constants and $`J_0`$ is the zero–order Bessel function of the first kind. This solution is axisymmetric with respect to the $`z`$–axis. It has further the property that the normal components of $`\times \overline{𝑩}`$ vanish both on the cylindrical surfaces $`qr=z_\nu `$, where $`z_\nu `$ denotes the zeros of $`J_0`$, and on the planes $`kz=(l+1/2)\pi `$ with integer $`l`$. We identify the region inside the smallest of these cylindrical surfaces between two neighboring planes of that kind with the dynamo module, so we put $`q=z_1/R`$, where $`z_1`$ is the smallest positive zero of $`J_0`$, and $`k=\pi /H`$. Then there are no electric currents penetrating the surface of the dynamo module. The condition of marginal stability for the so specified solution reads

$$C=\pi (R/H)\left[1+(z_1H/\pi R)^2\right].$$
(49)
In the limit $`H/R0`$ this agrees with (47) if we put $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0`$. For finite $`H/R`$, however, $`C`$ is now always larger than the value given by (47) with $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0`$. This can easily be understood considering that there is now an additional dissipation of the magnetic field due to its radial gradient. $`C`$ as function of $`H/R`$ has a minimum at $`H/R=\pi /z_1`$. The dynamo module was designed so that $`H/R`$ has just this value. In this case we have

$$C=2\pi R/H.$$
(50)
In other words, the real radial extent of the dynamo module enlarges the requirements for $`C`$, compared to the case of infinite extent, by a factor 2. As can be seen from Fig. 5, in the region of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ in which experimental investigations have been carried out, say $`1.3<\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C},\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{H}<1.6`$, this enlargement of $`C`$ means that if, e.g., $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ is given, $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ grows by a factor between 2.5 and 3.5. We recall here the deviation of the experimental results from the estimate of the self–excitation condition given in Section IV on the basis of Fig. 4, which just corresponds to (47). In the light of these explanations concerning the influence of the radial extent of the dynamo module this deviation is quite plausible. It is actually rather small, which indicates that our reasoning despite a number of neglected effects does not underestimate the requirements for self–excitation.

We note that also the result (50) is not a completely satisfying estimate of the self–excitation condition of the experimental device. Apart from the fact that it does not consider realistic boundary conditions for the dynamo module it is based on an axisymmetric solution of the equation for $`\overline{𝑩}`$. Several investigations have however revealed that a non–axisymmetric solution is slightly easier to excite than axisymmetric ones raedleretal96 ; raedleretal98a ; raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . The influence of the $`\beta _{}`$ and $`\beta _3`$–terms of $`𝓔`$ can no longer be expressed by $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, and there is also an influence of the $`\beta _{}`$–term. All these influences increase the marginal values of $`C`$ raedleretal96 .

## VI The effect of the Lorentz force on the flow rates

In the theory of the experiment, equations determining the fluid flow rates in the loops containing the central channels and in those containing helical channels have been derived from the balance of the kinetic energy in these loops. The rate of change of the kinetic energy in a loop is given by the work done by the pumps against the hydraulic resistance and the Lorentz force. For the work done by the Lorentz force averaged over a central or a helical channel we write $`𝒖𝒇𝒱`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the average over this channel, $`𝒱`$ its volume and $`𝒇`$ the Lorentz force per unit volume,

$$𝒇=\mu ^1(\times 𝑩)\times 𝑩,$$
(51)
with $`\mu `$ being the magnetic permeability of free space.

We use again $`𝑩=\overline{𝑩}+𝑩^{}`$. For all results reported here we have assumed that $`\overline{𝑩}`$ is a homogeneous field and, correspondingly, $`𝑩^{}`$ is also independent of $`z`$ so that equations (22) apply. Then also $`𝒇`$ is independent of $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ may simply be interpreted as an average over the section of the channel with the $`xy`$–plane.

We have calculated the quantities $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{H}`$ for a central and a helical channel analytically in two different approximations raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02c . In approximation (i) all contributions to $`𝒇`$ of higher than first order in $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ or $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ were neglected so that it applies to small $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ only. In approximation (ii) arbitrary $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ were admitted, but as in an earlier calculation of the $`\alpha `$–effect only a single spin generator surrounded by conducting medium at rest was considered, i.e. any influence of the neighboring spin generators was ignored. We represent the results of both approximations in the form

$`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2\gamma _\mathrm{C}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{C}}{s_\mathrm{C}}}\right)^2B_{}^2\psi _\mathrm{C}(V_\mathrm{C},V_\mathrm{H}),`$
$`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2\gamma _\mathrm{H}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{H}}{s_\mathrm{H}}}\right)^2B_{}^2\psi _\mathrm{H}(V_\mathrm{C},V_\mathrm{H}).`$ (52)
Here $`\sigma `$ is the electric conductivity of the fluid, $`\gamma _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{H}`$ are given by

$$\gamma _\mathrm{C}=1,\gamma _\mathrm{H}=\frac{(r_1+r_2)^2+(h/\pi )^2}{2(r_1^2+r_2^2)+(h/\pi )^2},$$
(53)
$`s_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`s_\mathrm{H}`$ are the cross–sections of the central and helical channels, and $`B_{}`$ is the magnetic flux density perpendicular to the axis of the spin generator, i.e. to the $`z`$–axis. In approximation (i) we have $`\psi _\mathrm{C}=\psi _\mathrm{H}=1`$. In approximation (ii) $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ are functions of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ satisfying $`\psi _\mathrm{C}(V_\mathrm{C},0)=1`$ for $`V_\mathrm{C}0`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}(V_\mathrm{C},0)=1`$ for all $`V_\mathrm{C}`$, varying only slightly with $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and decaying with growing $`V_\mathrm{H}`$; see also Fig. 9. The factors $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ in the relations (52) for $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{H}`$ describe the reduction of the Lorentz force by the magnetic flux expulsion out of the moving fluid by its azimuthal motion.

We may conclude from the relevant equations that $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{H}`$ can again be represented in the form (52) if the complete array of spin generators and arbitrary $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ are taken into account. Only the dependences of $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ on $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ changes.

Before giving detailed results we make a general statement on these dependences. As in the considerations in the paragraph containing (22) we may again introduce the quantities $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`𝒖_{}`$, $`𝒖_{}`$ and use (V.1). With the same reasoning as applied there we find that for the spin generator flow $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is independent of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ linear in $`V_\mathrm{C}`$. We further express $`𝒇_{}`$ and $`𝒇_{}`$, defined analogous to $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, according to (51) by the components of $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`𝑩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, their derivatives and the components of $`\overline{𝑩}`$. In this way we find that $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{C}`$ is a sum of two terms, one proportional to $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and the other proportional to $`V_\mathrm{C}^2`$. Consequently, $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ has the form $`\psi _\mathrm{C}^{(0)}(V_\mathrm{H})+\psi _\mathrm{C}^{(1)}(V_\mathrm{H})V_\mathrm{C}^1`$ with $`\psi _\mathrm{C}^{(0)}(0)=1`$. We further find that $`𝒖𝒇_\mathrm{H}`$ is a sum of three terms, one independent of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and the others proportional to $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{C}^2`$, and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ has the form $`\psi _\mathrm{H}^{(0)}(V_\mathrm{H})+\psi _\mathrm{H}^{(1)}(V_\mathrm{H})V_\mathrm{C}+\psi _\mathrm{H}^{(2)}(V_\mathrm{H})V_\mathrm{C}^2`$ with $`\psi _\mathrm{H}^{(0)}(0)=1`$. This can be seen explicitly from the calculations in the approximation (ii) mentioned above, in which, by the way, $`\psi _\mathrm{H}^{(2)}=0`$.

We have calculated $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ numerically on the basis of equations (19) using the method described in Section III. The result is shown in Fig. 9. Instead of the complete array of spin generators we have also considered an array in which fluid motion occurs only in one out of $`4\times 4`$ spin generators. The numerical result obtained for this case agrees very well with the analytical result of approximation (ii) shown in Fig. 9.

For a complete array of spin generators the factors $`\psi _\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{H}`$ in the relations (52) are generally larger compared to approximation (ii). In other words, the Lorentz force is less strongly reduced by the azimuthal motion of the fluid. This can be understood by considering that less magnetic flux can be pushed into regions without fluid motion.

## VII Conclusions

We have first dealt with a modified Roberts dynamo problem with a flow pattern resembling that in the Karlsruhe dynamo module. Based on numerical solutions of this problem a self–excitation condition was found. Since in these calculations neither the finite radial extent of the dynamo module nor realistic boundary conditions at its plane boundaries were taken into account this self–excitation condition deviates markedly from that for the experimental device.

A mean–field approach to the modified Roberts dynamo problem is presented. Two slightly different treatments are considered, assuming as usual only weak variations of the mean magnetic field in space, or admitting arbitrary variations in the $`z`$–direction. The coefficient $`\alpha _{}`$ describing the $`\alpha `$–effect and a coefficient $`\beta `$ connected with derivatives of the mean magnetic field are calculated for arbitrary fluid flow rates. The result for $`\alpha _{}`$ corrects earlier results obtained in an approximation that ignores the mutual influences of the spin generators raedleretal97b . It leads to a much better agreement of the calculated self–excitation condition with the experimental results raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . We note in passing that in the case of small flow rates our result, although calculated for rigid–body motions only, applies also for more general flow profiles raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . The result for $`\beta `$ suggests that the enlargement of the effective magnetic diffusivity by the fluid motion can be partially compensated by another effect of this motion. The same has been observed in investigations with the Roberts flow plunianetal02b . This could be one of the reasons why the results calculated under idealizing assumptions, in particular ignoring the effect of the mean–field diffusivity, deviate only little from the experimental results raedleretal02b .

In the framework of the mean–field approach we have also given an estimate of the excitation condition which considers the finite radial extent of the dynamo module. It shows that the real extent enhances the critical value of $`C`$, which is a dimensionless measure of $`\alpha _{}`$, by a factor 2. In other words, if in the region of $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{H}`$, in which experimental investigations have been carried out, $`V_\mathrm{C}`$ is fixed, $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ has to be larger by a factor between 2.5 and 3.5. If the excitation condition is corrected in this way it does not underestimate the requirements for self–excitation.

We have also calculated the effect of the Lorentz force on the fluid flow rates in the channels of a spin generator. Again our result corrects a former one obtained in the approximation already mentioned which ignores the mutual influences of the spin generators raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02b . The braking effect of the Lorentz force proves to be stronger than predicted by the former calculations. This means in particular that estimates of the saturation field strengths given so far raedleretal02a ; raedleretal02c  have to be corrected by factors between 0.8 and 0.9; for more details see Note added in proof in raedleretal02c .

Acknowledgement The results reported in this paper have been obtained during stays of K.-H.R. at NORDITA. He is grateful for its hospitality. An anonymous referee is acknowledged for making useful suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Specific heat of MgB2 after irradiation

## 1 Introduction

The recently discovered superconductor MgB2 has attracted a lot of attention, because of its unexpectedly high critical temperature, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, for a phonon-mediated pairing mechanism . It has been proposed that such a high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is due to the existence of two superconducting gaps , with this claim supported by experiments . It was suggested that the two gaps open on different parts of the Fermi surface . One part is three-dimensional, and arises from the $`\pi `$ bonding and antibonding orbitals; it gives rise to the smaller gap with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pi 0}/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}1.11.5`$. The second part consists of nearly cylindrical sheets, which arise from the $`\sigma `$-band, and gives rise to the larger gap with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\sigma 0}/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}3.64.5`$.

The anisotropy of the superconducting gaps and that of the Fermi surface should lead to an anisotropic upper critical field, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, and this has indeed been reported in MgB2 . The anisotropy is temperature dependent, the ratio of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in the boron plane to that along the $`c`$-axis being about 3 near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and about 7 at low temperature.

An empirical two-band model based on the presence of two different gaps was successfully used to fit specific-heat data obtained on different MgB2 samples in zero field . In this model, each gap is assumed to follow the usual temperature dependence of the BCS theory, whereas the gap ratio $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}`$ is allowed to differ from the BCS value 3.5. Both gaps are expected to be sensitive to impurity scattering . An interesting prediction is that non-magnetic interband scattering will decrease $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in the case of two coupled gaps, whereas Anderson’s theorem would rather predict that scattering is irrelevant to first order for a single gap . In the limit of strong scattering, it has been predicted that both gaps will be averaged up to the point where the single gap BCS limit is recovered. This should occur for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ $`27`$. This motivated the present study where the behavior of both gaps is followed by bulk specific-heat experiments while disorder is introduced in the material. We report heat capacity measurements on a polycrystalline sample before and after irradiation by fast neutrons. We found some suppression of the larger gap after irradiation, whereas the smaller gap remains quite robust.

Finally, the normal-state resistivity and the irreversibility field of MgB2 were reported to be enhanced by proton irradiation . It has also been shown that neutron irradiation can increase the upper critical field of this material . Here we show that the upper critical field of our sample increases from about 18 to 28 T after irradiation. Compared to the results obtained on thin films by oxygen post-annealing  or fast quenching  techniques, the specificity of this study lies in the use of a bulk determination, in addition to magnetotransport measurements performed up to 28 T in a Bitter-type magnet.

## 2 Experimental details

The polycrystalline sample (HP14) was synthesized from Mg (99.8%) and B (99.7%) powders at 900C for 1 hour in a cubic press at 3 GPa. Fig. 1(a) shows the diamagnetic transition of the pristine sample as detected by $`ac`$ susceptibility at 8 kHz and 0.1 G. The midpoint of the transition is $`T_\mathrm{c}=37`$K. Neutron irradiation was subsequently performed at the Triga research reactor in Vienna. The sample was irradiated to a fast neutron fluence (E$`>`$0.1 MeV) of $`10^{22}`$ m-2, and in a second irradiation step a fluence of $`2\times 10^{22}`$ m-2 was added. Neutrons induce defects in MgB2 mainly by neutron capture of 10B followed by the emission of an alpha particle . Due to the very small penetration range of low energy neutrons in MgB2, thermal neutrons would induce damage only at the surface of the sample, resulting in a highly inhomogeneous defect structure. In order to avoid this problem, a cadmium shield was used, which absorbs nearly all low energy neutrons. The introduced disorder can be estimated to $`1.7\times 10^2`$ and $`5\times 10^2`$ dpa (displacements per atom) after the first and the second irradiation, respectively.

The transition temperature was measured after each irradiation by $`ac`$ susceptibility as shown in Fig. 1. After irradiation, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ shifted to lower temperature, 34.6 K after the first and 30.2 K after the second irradiation, and the transition broadened, but remained reasonably sharp compared to the result of similar studies . Therefore the disorder introduced by neutron irradiation is fairly homogeneous.

The specific heat was measured before and after each irradiation in the temperature range 2 – 50 K by two different techniques. A relaxation calorimeter was used from 2 to 16 K , and an adiabatic technique from 16 to 50 K . The resistivity of the sample was measured by the four-probe method. Data at fields below 17 T were obtained in a superconducting magnet by using a $`dc`$ current reversal technique, with a current of 2 mA. Additional measurements from 12 to 28 T were performed in a Bitter coil at the GHMFL in Grenoble using an $`ac`$ synchronous detection technique. These measurements were performed with a current of 2 mA at 11.7 Hz.

## 3 Results and discussion

### 3.1 The increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$

The specific heat of the sample was measured before and after each irradiation in different magnetic fields. Fig. 2 shows the specific heat difference $`[C(B)C(14\mathrm{T})]/T`$. The baseline $`C`$(14T) represents the normal state specific heat in the temperature range shown in Fig. 2; it was smoothed before subtraction. Since the lattice contribution cancels after subtraction, Fig. 2 in fact shows the difference between the electronic specific heat in the superconducting and the normal state. The amplitude of the specific-heat jump in zero field decreases after each irradiation. Its position is shifted in bulk by the magnetic field to a lower temperature. The broadening of the transition in increasing fields results from angular averaging since our sample is polycrystalline and anisotropic. In MgB2, the anisotropy of the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is estimated as 2 – 3 close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ . Because of the transition broadening due to anisotropy, the onset of the specific-heat anomaly (see arrows in Fig. 2) was used to define $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. This would correspond to the transition temperature of a single crystal for $`H`$ parallel to the boron planes. At $`H=0`$, the critical temperature is 37.4 K, 35.8 K and 31.2 K for the sample before, after the first and after the second irradiation respectively. Fig. 3 shows the temperature dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ obtained from both specific-heat and resistance measurements (before and after irradiation). Note that the determinations based on the specific-heat jump are no longer significant at high fields owing to the smearing of the jump. Nevertheless, they unambiguously demonstrate that the average initial slope $`(dH_{\mathrm{c2}}/dT)_{T_\mathrm{c}}`$ increases after each irradiation.

A positive curvature (PC) of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ can been seen in Fig. 3 at different stages of irradiation. This can be attributed to the existence of two superconducting gaps in the sample, which may be considered as a particular case of gap anisotropy . It is pointed out by theory  that the PC disappears in the “dirty” limit, where very strong interband scattering suppresses the anisotropy. In order to investigate the change of PC after irradiation, we used the following formula to fit our data near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ up to 4 - 5 T: $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)=H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{}(1T/T_\mathrm{c})^\alpha `$ , where $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is the transition temperature at zero field, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ are fitting parameter. We found $`\alpha `$ within the range of $`1.4\pm 0.1`$ before and after each irradiation, and no significant trend was observed. This is consistent with the observation that both gaps can still be identified after irradiation, confirming that the interband scattering caused by disorder in this sample is not strong enough to reach the “dirty” limit, as discussed in Section 3.2.

In order to verify the increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ after irradiation, we performed resistance measurements in magnetic field up to 17 T on the pristine sample and up to 28 T after the second irradiation. The insets of Fig. 3 show typical field and temperature sweeps after the second irradiation. For the pristine sample, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$(0) is estimated to be about 18 T, in agreement with the results obtained on single crystals for the field parallel to the boron plane . After the second irradiation, the transition becomes broader at low temperature, as it was already the case for the pristine sample, presumably again as a consequence of anisotropy . At $`T=1.5`$ K, the transition is not complete even at 28 T, indicating $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$(0) higher than 28 T. Both specific-heat onsets and resistance transition midpoints are plotted in the $`HT`$ phase diagram of Fig. 3. The results of both determinations of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ agree reasonably well in the low field range, the onset of calorimetric transitions appearing as an upper limit as expected. The quasi-linear increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ down to $`T=0`$ differs remarkably from the horizontal slope at $`T0`$ found for conventional superconductors. An explanation for this unusual behavior was provided within the two band model . Note that a similar PC was found in several borocabides , not necessarily implying the same physical origin .

For a type-II superconductor in the dirty limit, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(0)\gamma _n\rho T_\mathrm{c}`$, where $`\gamma _n`$ is the Sommerfeld coefficient in the normal state, and $`\rho `$ is the normal-state resistivity at low temperature . After irradiation, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ decreases by 20$`\%`$, so that the main parameters to be investigated for changes are $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\rho `$. As will be shown later, $`\gamma _n`$ does not change significantly.

The residual resistivity depends sensitively on disorder. Before irradiation, just above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`\rho (45\mathrm{K})=4.0\mu \mathrm{\Omega }.\mathrm{cm}`$ and the residual resistance ratio is $`RRR=\rho (300\mathrm{K})/\rho (45\mathrm{K})=3.3`$. To estimate the electronic mean free path, we use the following formula:

$$l=[\frac{\pi k_\mathrm{B}}{e}]^2\frac{\sigma }{\gamma _nv_\mathrm{F}},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the normal-state conductivity and $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi velocity. With $`\gamma _n=0.14`$mJ/K2cm3  and $`v_\mathrm{F}=4.8\times 10^7`$cm/s , this yields $`l270`$Å. Since $`l\xi 42`$Å , the sample is initially rather in the clean limit. After the second irradiation, the low-temperature resistivity increases to $`\rho (45\mathrm{K})=22.6\mu \mathrm{\Omega }.\mathrm{cm}`$(RRR = 1.4), which gives $`l50`$Å. The sample is now in the intermediate case between the clean and dirty limit. In the dirty limit, the upper critical field would be determined by the geometrical average between the coherence length and the mean free path $`\xi =\sqrt{\xi _0l}`$. Therefore, at least qualitatively, one is led to conclude that disorder induced by irradiation affects $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ through the reduction of the mean free path. However, we note that the sample approaches the dirty limit only after the irradiation, so that the discussion given here remains essentially qualitative. Moreover, the two-band nature of MgB2 complicates the determination of the mean free path .

Fig. 4 shows the specific heat below 16 K in different magnetic fields at different stages of irradiation. At the highest field accessible to our measurements, $`\mu _0H=14`$ T, $`C/T`$ reflects nearly the normal-state specific heat. At first view, this would not seem to be the case, since $`\mu _0`$$`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$(0) is 18 and 28 T before and after the second irradiation, respectively. However, it was shown by several experiments that $`\gamma `$ versus $`H`$ already saturates at about $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$/2 in polycrystals , so that no significant change is expected above 14 T. This is also illustrated by the behavior of the pristine sample (see Fig. 4(a)), where specific heat saturates near 8 T. In the inset of Fig. 4, we show that the low temperature specific heat at 14 T remains unchanged at different stages of the irradiation, indicating that the normal state Sommerfeld coefficient does not change (the downturn that occurs at very low temperature in the $`C/T`$ versus $`T^2`$ plot in the inset of Fig. 4 is believed to be due to the presence of residual magnetic impurities). Therefore, as already mentioned above, the variation of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is not due to a change in $`\gamma _n`$. We thus conclude that irradiation merely enhances the scattering, causing both a decrease of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and an increase of the upper critical field.

These results suggest that other methods able to introduce disorder, such as fast quenching or chemical doping, could also serve to increase $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, as was realized in A15 compounds . Indeed, a large increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ was obtained by metallurgical heat treatment of MgB2 thin films . The present study shows that this increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is a bulk property, at least at low fields, where the specific-heat jump is clearly observable. It is confirmed by direct resistance measurements at low temperatures and high magnetic fields, rather than by extrapolation beyond 10 T in previous work.

### 3.2 Effect of irradiation on the gaps

As discussed above, irradiation does not reduce the density of states, but merely increases the scattering. For a one-band, isotropic superconductor, scattering due to non-magnetic impurities would account for the increase of the normal-state resistivity, but would not affect $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ to first order. For a two-band superconductor, $`intra`$band scattering would preserve the two-gap structure even for a high concentration of impurities . In the present case, a clear suppression of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is observed; it can only be explained by $`inter`$band scattering between the $`\sigma `$\- and $`\pi `$\- bands . Therefore, a distinction should be made between samples for which impurities affect only the normal-state resistivity, leaving $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ unchanged , and the present irradiated samples, for which both $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and resistivity are affected. These distinct situations reflect different balances between intra- and interband scattering. If we believe that strong interband scattering exists for the present samples, which is rather unusual for MgB2 , we expect changes in the two-gap structure after strong irradiation. We proceed to study this point experimentally.

The electronic specific heat $`C_\mathrm{e}/T`$ versus $`T`$ at zero field is plotted in Fig. 5. The lattice contribution determined at 14 T was smoothed and subtracted. The low temperature excess of the specific heat with respect to a one-gap BCS curve (hatched area in Fig. 5), which results from the existence of the smaller gap , becomes less pronounced after irradiation. A satisfactory fit can be obtained for the unirradiated sample using a two-gap model . The fit gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=6.1`$ meV for the larger gap and 2.1 meV for the smaller gap, with nearly equal weights. Similar fits can be made after irradiation. The gap values at each stage of irradiation are given in Table 1. After the second irradiation, the quality of the fit was degraded by the broadening of the transition. A satisfactory fit was obtained by shifting $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ slightly above the midpoint of the jump and by lowering $`\gamma _n`$ by 2.5%.

An obvious effect of the irradiation is the suppression of the larger gap, which, in a two-gap model, is reflected in the specific heat jump at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ . This gap, which originates from the 2D $`\sigma `$-band, seems to be more sensitive to defects. The smaller gap, which is reflected in the low temperature hump in the specific heat near 10 K, appears to be quite robust in absolute value, remaining within 10% of the average 2.15 meV in all cases. However, its reduced value $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}`$ increases after each irradiation, due to the decrease of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Liu et al. predicted that interband scattering in MgB2 should average both gaps, which would finally merge into a single BCS gap when $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ reaches $`27`$. The observed gap values are plotted as a function of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in the inset of Fig. 5. This plot suggests that the single-gap limit will only be reached for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ smaller than the anticipated 27 K, although additional irradiations will be required to prove it. From the fits, one can also see that the weight of both gaps remains almost unchanged after the irradiation.

Golubov et al. calculated the effect of interband scattering on specific heat due to non-magnetic impurities within the two-band model , and pointed out that the impurity scattering should increase the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/\gamma _\mathrm{n}T_\mathrm{c}`$ ratio, whereas the specific heat jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ should remain nearly constant. According to our experiment, $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ decreases after irradiation and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C/\gamma _\mathrm{n}T_\mathrm{c}`$ decreases only slightly. This disagreement may be of experimental origin and due to the transition broadening.

The coefficient of the mixed-state electronic specific-heat, $`\gamma (H)`$, provides independent information on both gaps. Its highly non-linear increase is shown by the plot $`C(H,T)/T`$ at $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ (here, 3K) on a logarithmic field scale (see Fig. 6). The curves at different stages of irradiation lie nearly parallel to each other below 10 T, and saturate at the same value of $`\gamma _\mathrm{n}`$ at 14 T. The small maximum at 8 T for the non-irradiated sample is believed to be an artifact due to a residual Schottky contribution of magnetic origin. The fact that the three curves are parallel to each other implies a simple relation $`\gamma _{\mathrm{pristine}}(H)=\gamma _{\mathrm{irradiated}}(\alpha H)`$, where $`\alpha 1.7`$ after the first irradiation and $`\alpha 2`$ after the second one. The inset of Fig. 6 illustrates this relation: the $`C/T`$ versus $`T^2`$ curves at 0.5 T for the pristine sample, 0.84 T after the first irradiation, and 1 T after the second irradiation point to the same value of $`\gamma (H,T=0)`$.

According to theory  and experiment , both gaps have nearly equal weights, i.e. the partial densities of states $`N_\sigma `$ and $`N_\pi `$ of the associated bands, and the partial normal-state Sommerfeld coefficients $`\gamma _{\mathrm{n}\sigma }`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{n}\pi }`$, are nearly equal. Recent scanning tunneling microscopy measurements on a single crystal show that already in a magnetic field of 0.2 T, there is a significant overlap of vortex cores in the $`\pi `$-band vortices . Very recent specific-heat measurements on a single crystal have revealed that $`\gamma _\pi (H)`$ increases very fast with the field, and saturates above a crossover field $`\mu _0H0.4\mathrm{T}`$, whereas $`\gamma _\sigma (H)`$ saturates at 3.3 T (field along the $`c`$-axis) or 18 T (field in the $`ab`$-plane) . It follows that at low fields($`B0.5`$T) the contribution from the smaller gap dominates the behavior of $`\gamma (H)`$, in agreement with theory . On the contrary, at high fields ($`B>1`$T), the contribution from the smaller gap saturates, so that the variation of $`\gamma (H)`$ comes from the larger gap. The crossover near 0.4 T can be considered as the virtual upper critical field $`H_{\mathrm{c2}\pi }`$ for the smaller gap. The parallelism of the curves in Fig. 6 at high fields (1 – 8 T) provides the proof for the increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ associated with the larger gap. This is independently measured by the shift of the specific-heat jump and resistive transitions. Alternatively, at low fields ($`B<0.5`$T), below the saturation of the contribution $`\gamma _\pi (H)`$ associated with the smaller gap, one may deduce from the approximate relationship $`\gamma _\pi (H)=\gamma _{\mathrm{n}\pi }H/H_{c2}`$ that $`H_{\mathrm{c2}\pi }`$ has increased after irradiation by the same factor $`\alpha `$ as $`H_{\mathrm{c2}\sigma }`$. This observation tends to support the interpretation that the superconductivity in the $`\pi `$-band is not independent, but rather induced by superconductivity in the $`\sigma `$-band . At this point we must recall that our sample is a polycrystal, so that information on the anisotropy is lost in the high field region dominated by the large gap of the $`\sigma `$-band. More detailed information on this unusual system would require irradiation experiments on single crystals.

## 4 Conclusion

We studied irradiation effects on a polycrystalline sample of MgB2. Irradiation by fast neutrons provides a good tool to introduce $`inter`$band scattering. Specific-heat measurements show a suppression of the larger gap after irradiation, whereas the smaller gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi `$ remains nearly unchanged. In terms of reduced gap value $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}`$, the gaps tend to converge, but slower than predicted by considerations of the interband scattering. The two-gap feature remains quite robust. We also find that the upper critical or crossover field $`H_{\mathrm{c2}\pi }`$ associated with the smaller gap follows the behavior of that of the larger gap after irradiation. Together with resistivity measurements, we show that a substantial increase of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ can be obtained by irradiation, without sacrificing more than a few degrees in $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. If critical currents do not collapse, the potential of MgB2 tuned by disorder is worth further investigations in view of high field superconducting applications.

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through the national Centre of Competence in Research “Material with Novel Electronic Properties - MaNep”. The authors thank R. Flükiger, J. Kortus, and A. Holmes for fruitful discussions, and A. Lo, B. Seeber for technical assistance.

## References

## Figure captions


text:
# Possible Gigantic Variations on the Width of Viscoelastic Fingers

Pattern selection; pattern formation Non-Newtonian fluid flows Flows in ducts, channels, nozzles, and conduits 11institutetext:  Departamento de Física y Química Teórica, Facultad de Química, UNAM. Ciudad Universitaria, México, D.F. 04510, México.
Centro de Investigación en Energía, UNAM. AP 34, 62580 Temixco, Morelos

## Abstract

We analyze the effect of frequency on the width of a single finger displacing a viscoelastic fluid. We derive a generalized Darcy’s law in the frequency domain for a linear viscoelastic fluid flowing in a Hele Shaw cell. This leads to an analytic expression for the dynamic permeability that has maxima which are several orders of magnitude larger than the static permeability. We then follow an argument of de Gennes  to obtain the smallest possible finger width when viscoelasticity is important. Using this, and a conservation law, we obtain a lowest bound for the width of a single finger displacing a viscoelastic fluid. Our results indicate that when a small amplitude signal of the frequency that maximizes the permeability is overimposed to a constant pressure drop, gigantic variations are obtained for the finger width.

Many problems associated with oil, plastic, and chemical industries involve the response of a fluid in a porous medium to a frequency dependent pressure drop. Laboratory experiments have shown for example that ultrasonic vibrations can considerably increase the rate of flow of a liquid through a porous medium . A useful way to describe such frequency-dependent processes is through a dynamic permeability function . Expressions for the dynamic permeability of Newtonian fluids were obtained long ago for deformable and isotropic porous media . More recently, an enhancement of several orders of magnitude in the dynamic permeability was found for the case of Maxwellian fluids . Many other problems in the same industries, involve the displacement of a viscoelastic fluid by a second fluid of lower viscosity. The dramatic enhancement found for the dynamic permeability of a Maxwell fluid  flowing in a tube, immediately suggests that similar dramatic effects might happen in problems of flow involving more than one fluid.

The viscous fingering problem has been historically very important in the area of morphology of interfaces out of equilibrium  and has been a model system to describe displacement of viscous fluids in porous media. The viscous fingering problem is the prediction of the shape of the fluid interface in a two-phase flow confined in a Hele-Shaw cell  which consists of a pair of glass plates parallel to each other separated by a small gap. A viscous fluid occupies the space between the plates and it is pushed by a second fluid whose viscosity is relatively low. When the fluid is pushed laterally, the experiment is said to take place in a linear cell. When the fluid is injected through a hole made in one of the plates forming the cell, the experiment is said to take place in a radial cell. Both the linear and the radial geometry have been studied extensively. The interface between the fluids is unstable and the structures that are formed when the interface destabilizes are called fingers. This is the so called Saffman-Taylor instability . Recently, viscous fingering experiments have been made with non-Newtonian fluids. Some of these experiments have used clays , polymer solutions  and lyotropic lamellar phases . Non-Newtonian fluids differ widely in their physical properties, with different fluids exhibiting a range of different properties, from plasticity and elasticity to shear thickening and shear thinning. Several studies have been made, both theoretically and experimentally in order to differentiate between the effects caused by different properties .

In this letter we analyze the effect of frequency on the width of a single finger displacing a viscoelastic fluid. To start, we derive a generalized Darcy’s law in the frequency domain for a linear viscoelastic fluid flowing in a Hele Shaw cell. This leads to an analytic expression for the dynamic permeability that in agreement with results in other geometries  has maxima which are several orders of magnitude larger than the static permeability. We then follow an argument of de Gennes  to obtain the smallest possible finger width when viscoelasticity is important. Using this, and a conservation law, we obtain a lowest bound for the width of a single finger displacing a viscoelastic fluid. What we find is that, when there is a small amplitude signal of the frequency that maximizes the permeability, overimposed to a constant pressure drop, gigantic variations are obtained for the finger width, that is, tiny perturbations in the pressure drop produce dramatic effects on the amplitude of the finger width.

We start our study taking a Maxwell fluid, which is the simplest model of a linear viscoelastic fluid, and linearize the equation governing the flow. In the frequency domain this equation is

$$\rho \left(t_r\omega ^2+i\omega \right)\stackrel{}{v}\eta ^2\stackrel{}{v}=\left(1i\omega t_r\right)p.$$
(1)
Here both the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and the pressure $`p`$ are in the frequency domain, that is, they are functions of space and frequency. $`t_r`$, $`\eta `$ and $`\rho `$ are respectively the relaxation time of the Maxwell model and the viscosity and the density of the fluid. We solve (1) for a homogeneous fluid flow in the $`x`$ direction, confined between parallel plates at $`z=\pm l`$ subject to the boundary conditions $`v_x(\pm l)=0`$. We obtain the velocity profile between the plates. In order to obtain a generalized Darcy’s law, we average over the $`z`$direction and obtain for the average flow

$$v=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{tan}\sqrt{\beta }l}{\sqrt{\beta }l}\right)\frac{\left(1i\omega t_r\right)}{\beta \eta }\frac{dp}{dx}.$$
(2)
Here $`\beta (\omega )=\frac{\rho \left(t_r\omega ^2+i\omega \right)}{\eta }`$. In the limit $`\omega 0`$ we recover the steady state Darcy’s law and for $`t_r0`$ we obtain the newtonian fluid case. The dynamic permeability of a single Hele-Shaw cell is then given by

$$K\left(\omega \right)=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{tan}\sqrt{\beta }l}{\sqrt{\beta }l}\right)\frac{\left(1i\omega t_r\right)}{\beta }.$$
(3)
Figure 1 shows the real part of the normalized permeability $`K(\omega )/K(0)`$ versus the frequency for both a Maxwell fluid and a Newtonian fluid. The figure shows that for a Newtonian fluid the permeability is a monotonically decreasing function of frequency. For a Maxwell fluid on the other hand, there are frequencies in which there are resonances which give peaks for the permeability. For typical values of density, viscosity, plate spacing and relaxation time in the common literature of Hele-Shaw problems, we find that this permeability can be two or three orders of magnitude larger than the Newtonian permeability, this is because the behavior of the flow at such frequencies is dominated by the elastic properties of the fluid. What this result means is that if we displace the viscous fluid at the frequency that maximizes the permeability, the fluid will flow with the least possible resistance. We find that the frequency which gives the largest permeability is of the order of ten Hertz.

Figure 2 shows how the maximum of the real part of the permeability shifts towards higher frequencies when the viscosity is increased. So, the more viscous the fluid, the higher the frequency of the necessary pumping to minimize the resistance to flow.

We now analyze the problem of a low viscosity fluid displacing a high viscosity viscoelastic fluid. In particular, we analyze the case of a single finger with a time dependent velocity $`U(t)`$ propagating into the viscous fluid. We call $`\lambda (t)`$ the finger width. It is worth emphasizing that we are not considering a steady state. Both $`U`$ and $`\lambda `$ depend on time 111We have recently shown that the single finger solution exists for this case. Whether or not the solution is stable has not been shown..

The quantity $`U/\lambda `$ gives a characteristic frequency. The viscoelastic fluid has a characteristic time $`t_r`$ which in the case of a Maxwell fluid is given by $`t_r=\eta /G`$, $`G`$ being the rigidity modulus of the viscous fluid. When $`U/\lambda >1/t_r`$ the viscoelastic fluid behaves like a solid and there is no Saffman-Taylor instability. The allowed wavelengths should all correspond to $`U/\lambda <1/t_r`$ . Therefore, the smallest possible finger width should be such that

$$\frac{U(t)}{\lambda (t)}=\frac{1}{t_r}.$$
(4)
Conservation of matter implies that

$$U(t)\lambda (t)=V_{\mathrm{}}(t).$$
(5)
From equations (4) and (5) we can relate the finger width $`\lambda (t)`$ and the tip velocity $`U(t)`$ with the velocity at the extreme of the cell $`V_{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ as

$$\lambda ^2(t)=\frac{t_r}{W}V_{\mathrm{}}(t).$$
(6)
and

$$U^2(t)=\frac{W}{t_r}V_{\mathrm{}}(t).$$
(7)
Experimentally, the parameter that can be controlled is the pressure difference at the extremes of the cell. So, given $`\mathrm{\Delta }p(t)`$, we can make the following calculations:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }p(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}(\omega ),`$
$`FourierTransform`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{}}(\omega ),`$
$`Darcy^{}slawinfrequencydomain`$
$`\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`V_{\mathrm{}}(t),`$
$`InverseF.T.`$
$`V_{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ $``$ $`\lambda (t),U(t)`$
In order for fingers to exist, the pressure difference should be at any moment positive. Simple oscillatory signals are not possible since the instability will exist for only half of the period. So we are thinking, for example, in signals that are overimposed to pressure drops that are large enough to destabilize the interface.

We consider the simple case of an oscillatory finger. Suppose we impose a pressure difference of the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p(t)=p_o+p_ae^{i\omega _0t},$$
(8)
that is, a constant pressure drop plus an oscillatory signal of frequency $`\omega _0`$. We obtain the following expressions for the different steps presented above:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}(\omega )=\sqrt{2\pi }p_o\delta (\omega )+\sqrt{2\pi }p_a\delta (\omega \omega _0)$$
(9)
$$\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\eta L}K(\omega )\left[p_o\delta (\omega )+p_a\delta (\omega \omega _0)\right]$$
(10)
$$V_{\mathrm{}}(t)=\frac{p_o}{\eta L}K(0)+\frac{p_a}{\eta L}K(\omega _0)e^{i\omega _0t}$$
(11)
Now, for the steady state we know that

$$V_{\mathrm{}}^{ss}=\frac{p_o}{\eta L}K(0)$$
(12)
and then we can express all of our results as

$$V_{\mathrm{}}(t)=V_{\mathrm{}}^{ss}\left[1+\frac{p_a}{p_0}\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}e^{i\omega _0t}\right],$$
(13)
$$\lambda ^2(t)=\lambda _{ss}^2\left[1+\frac{p_a}{p_0}\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}e^{i\omega _0t}\right],$$
(14)
$$U^2(t)=U_{ss}^2\left[1+\frac{p_a}{p_0}\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}e^{i\omega _0t}\right].$$
(15)
Here $`\lambda _{ss}`$ and $`U_{ss}`$ are defined in terms of $`V_{\mathrm{}}^{ss}`$ trough (6) and (7). What it is interesting to note, is that the behavior is totally different if the displaced viscous fluid is Newtonian or viscoelastic. For Newtonian fluids, the ratio $`\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}`$ is always small or equal to one and the variations in the width of the finger are small. In the other hand, for viscoelastic fluids, the ratio $`\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}`$ can be several orders of magnitude larger than in the Newtonian case. Hence, if the imposed signal has a frequency $`\omega _0`$ such that it maximizes the dynamic permeability, and therefore the ratio $`\frac{K(\omega _0)}{K(0)}`$, a small amplitude in the oscillatory part of the pressure signal, will result in gigantic variations in the amplitude of both the finger velocity and the finger width.

A word of caution is needed, since when one does not consider surface tension the finger width and the velocity at the finger tip are not independent. It is worth noticing that since the surface tension has a stabilizing effect for small wavelengths any consideration of surface tension would give fingers wider or equal to the lowest bound that we are dealing with in the present work.

We are not solving the selection problem, in order to do it and to compute finger shapes, the problem should be solved as in references . Nevertheless the main result of the present paper should remain. That is, small variations in the pressure drop at a frequency that maximizes the permeability, will result in gigantic variations of the finger width.

###### Acknowledgements.

This project was partially supported by grants CONACYT 33920-E and 38538-E. We thank Mariano López de Haro for a critical reading of the manuscript and enlightening discussions.