4.5 Article

DC discharge experiment in an Ar/N2/CO2 ternary mixture: A laboratory simulation of the Martian ionosphere's plasma environment

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.09.008

关键词

Optical emission spectroscopy; Glow discharge; Electron temperature; CO2/N-2/Ar

资金

  1. DGAPA [IN-105010]
  2. CONACyT [128714]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A low-pressure DC plasma discharge sustained in a 1.6%Ar-2.7%N-2-95.3%CO2 ternary mixture is studied. This plasma was generated in a total pressure range from 1.0 to 4.0 Torr, a power of 6.3 W and a 12 l/min flow rate of gases. The electron temperature was found to be 8.41 eV and the ion density, in the order of 10(9) cm(-3). The species observed in the plasma mixture were CO2, CO2+, CN, CO, CO+, O-2, O-2(+), N-2, N-2(+), NO, C+, Ar and Ar+ At the pressure range in the present study, the species observed do not change their intensity due to an increase in the pressure and they separate in two groups according to their emission intensity: the band of the first group (CO2, CO2+ and CN) is approximately a factor of 3 more intense than that of the second group (CO, CO+, O-2, O-2(+), N-2, N-2(+), NO, C+, Ar and Ar+). The behavior of the emission intensities may be correlated to the constant ion density and electron temperature measured. Also, we observed the same constant behavior in the ratios of the neutral and positive species intensities to that of the N-2 intensity, as a function of pressure. This may suggest that the different rate coefficients and cross sections of elastic collision, excitation and de-excitation of electronic or vibrational levels, inelastic and superelastic collisions of electrons with the gas phase and products, neutral-neutral interactions, resonant charged transfer processes, recombination, to mention some, to produce these species change in the same proportion, as a function of the pressure to keep the relative ratios of the species almost constant. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据