Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:18:44.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic helicity fluxes and their effect on stellar dynamos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Simon Candelaresi  and
Axel Brandenburg
Simon Candelaresi
Affiliation:
NORDITA, AlbaNova University Center, Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden; and Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
Axel Brandenburg
Affiliation:
NORDITA, AlbaNova University Center, Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden; and Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Magnetic helicity fluxes in turbulently driven α2 dynamos are studied to demonstrate their ability to alleviate catastrophic quenching. A one-dimensional mean-field formalism is used to achieve magnetic Reynolds numbers of the order of 105. We study both diffusive magnetic helicity fluxes through the mid-plane as well as those resulting from the recently proposed alternate dynamic quenching formalism. By adding shear we make a parameter scan for the critical values of the shear and forcing parameters for which dynamo action occurs. For this αΩ dynamo we find that the preferred mode is antisymmetric about the mid-plane. This is also verified in 3-D direct numerical simulations.

Keywords

Sun: magnetic fieldsdynamomagnetic helicity
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S286: Comparative Magnetic Minima: Characterizing quiet times in the Sun and Stars , October 2011 , pp. 49 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Brandenburg, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, A., Candelaresi, S., & Chatterjee, P. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1414Google Scholar
Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Astron. Nachr., 326, 400Google Scholar
Field, G. B. & Blackman, E. G. 2002, ApJ, 572, 685Google Scholar
Hubbard, A. & Brandenburg, A. 2012, ApJ, 748, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, F. & Rädler, K.-H., 1980 Mean-field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory Oxford: Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, H. K. 1978 Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
Pouquet, A., Frisch, U., & Leorat, J. 1976, J. Fluid Mech., 77, 321Google Scholar
Vainshtein, S. I. & Cattaneo, F. 1992, ApJ, 393, 165Google Scholar