(a) Average ionization degree as a function of temperature for solid gold from EOS database (red) and TF fitting (black). (b) Average ionization energy for gold (Z = 79) given by atomic data base (red curve) and by Thomas-Fermi model (green curve).
(a) 1D PICLS target and laser pulse setup. (b) Ionization degree for Chlorine atoms in tracer layer at 1 ps predicted by Thomas-Fermi and Saha ionization model.
(a) Silicon ionization degree, (b) oxygen ionization degree, (c) electron energy density, (d) azimuthal magnetic field.
(a) Transversal cross-section of the azimuthal magnetic field 5 μm from the surface inside the target. (b), (c) The resistivity map of the target for the Thomas-Fermi and impact ionization model, respectively.
Central slice of the ionization degree showing increased separation of ionization front between both species when using impact ionization.
(a) Electron stopping power in solid gold. Previous collision model underestimates the collisional stopping power by an order of magnitude. (b) PIC results for bulk temperature profile in 10 μm solid gold target with previous (red curve) and revised (green curve) collision model showing higher temperature at surface in a micron length.
Radiation power loss as a function of temperature in a gold target from different mechanisms. Solid red, dotted black, and solid purple lines are FLYCHK data for radiation loss due to free-free, bound-bound, and bound-free emission, respectively. Equation (9) (dotted green line) showing good agreement with FLYCHK data for free-free radiation loss.
Bulk electron temperature (upper) and average ionization degree (lower) are compared in gold target at 1 ps when no radiation power loss (red), only free-free (green), and both free-free and bound-bound (blue) radiation losses are included. Temperature at surface effectively drops due to bound-bound radiation power loss.
PICLS results compared in Al and Au transport targets. (a) Quasi-static magnetic field observed at the end of laser pulse (220τ) in (a) Au transport for case B, (b) Au transport for case C, and (c) all Al target case A. Stronger azimuthal B-field produced within Au layer collimate fast electron flow. (d) Mean propagation angle of forward going fast electrons with energy ≥100 keV plotted at X = 32 averaged for whole laser duration in each case. (f) Electron energy spectrum after Au layer compared in case B (red) and C (green), blown up view (e) for lower energy side. Simulation with bounded electron effect, case B, shows higher stopping through Au layer.
Bulk electron temperature (Te ) for case B (a) and C (b). (c) Transverse Te distribution compared inside Au layer at X = 45 μm for case B (black) and case C (black). Radiation loss model in case B brings the Te down by an order of magnitude in the center. (d), (e) Average ion charge state for case B and case C. (f), (g) Higher ion charge state and lower Te results higher resistivity inside Au for case B as compared to case C. All results are plotted at the end of laser pulse.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...