Phner. Space SW, Vol. 32. No. I I, pp. 1427.-1437, 19X4 0032 0633jS4~3.W+O.

O0
Prmted in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Ltd.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LANG~UIR PROBE

CHARACTERISTICS IN DIFFERENT IONOSPHERIC
CONDITIONS

JOeLLE MARGOT-CHAKER and A. G, McNAMARA

Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada KIA OR6

(Receid 2 1 March 1984)

Abstract--This paper examines the role played by the high energy tail of the electron distribution function on
Langmuir probe characteristics. A model is developed to derive the mean energy and the density of the
hyperthermal electrons from probe characteristics for two ionospheric rocket flights involving different
plasma conditions. The hyperthermal electrons are shown to influence the electron temperature measurement
even if they constitute only a small fraction of the total electron concentration. The influence of the
geomagnetic field, the collisions and the velocity of the vehicle on the probe data are also examined.

1. INTRODUCTION to the presence of non-thermal electrons. We show that

these electrons influence the measurement of electron
Probes constitute a relatively simple device for the
temperature. Our model also allows us to determine the
measurement of electron density and temperature of
concentration of the hyperthermal electrons. These are
plasmas and extensive use of probes mounted on board
of particular interest because of their contribution to
rockets sounding the ionosphere has been made since
other plasma parameters such as the collision
they can operate at any altitude. Furthermore their
frequency.
main advantage over, for example, radio propagation
Other aspects of probe physics in the ionosphere are
techniques is their ability to give information on local
also discussed. Especially, we shall concentrate our
plasma conditions with very high spatial and temporal
attention on the effect of magnetic field and collisions
resolution.
on the probe response.
The response of the probe, however, depends on a
large variety of parameters such as the distribution
function of charged particles, the importance of 2. THE PROBE EXPERIMENTS

collisions, the velocity of the vehicle and the The experiments reported here concern a flight in the
geomagnetic field. At the present time, theevaluation of night-time D- and lower E-regions during an aurora1
the errors introduced by these different factors on the absorption event and another one in the quiet
data derived from probe characteristics still remains an midlatitude daytime E-region. These flights will be
open question. respectively denoted by “A” and “Q”.
Basic probe theories have been mainly derived on the The two experiments involve a spherical probe of
basis of a Maxwellian distribution function and the radius rp = 3.2 mm mounted at the extreme forward
probe data are always analyzed under this assumption. end of the payload in order to minimize the effects on
Recent measurements based on Druyvesteyn’s method the probe of the wake of the vehicle.
(Oyama and Hirao, 1979) have nevertheless shown that The data have been analyzed on the basis of the
the electron distribution function in the ionosphere
orbital-motion-limited (OML) theory elaborated by
cannot be considered as a simple mono-Maxwellian Mott-Smith and Langmuir (1926). In this case the
distribution but contains a high-energy tail. Other
electron temperature T, and the density neo by:
measurements by means of spectrometers (Lee et al.,
1980) give evidence for the occurrence of several peaks d(ln i,,)jdV = e/kT, for V < 0 (1)
in the high-energy taif of the electron distribution Ii2 e
function. di,,,fdV = -447cr$_,e E for V>0 (2)
We examine here the influence of hyperthermal e
electrons on probe characteristics during two rocket where V is the probe voltage measured with respect to
flightsinvolvingdifferent plasmaconditions.Amodelis the plasma potential, m and e denote respectively the
developed for interpretating the response of the probe mass and the charge of the electron.

1427
1428 JO~~LLE MAR~T-C~AK~R and A. G. MCNAMARA

The relation (1) used to determine T, is valid under

any plasma conditions except when the electron
distribution function is not ~~welli~ and/or in the
collisional regime when the electron mean-free path a,,,
becomes comparable to or smaller than the probe radius.
The relation (2) used to calculate n,, requires for
accuracy that the Debye length &,* is larger than the
probe radius. However, the exact probe theory for a
collisionless plasma, derived by Laframboise (1966)
shows that the density neO derived from the QML
theory is accurate within 6% up to r,/.& N 1.
In order to verify if the OML theory can be applied in
our case, the parameters aDe and I,,, have been
evaluated respectively by
1!2
a,* = 6.91
(>
‘T4
n
=o
(3)

&iz= 4Jz&n (4)

where T,, neo and ADeare expressed in Kelvin degrees,
cm -3 and cm, and where 1,” is the neutral mean-free-
path taken from the U.S. S~und~$d A~~Qsp~e~emodel
(1976).
The profiles of& and d, for the two flights are given
in Fig. 1. It can be seen that A, is sulficicntly larger than
the probe radius to consider the electrons
collisionless. Similarly, the ratio r,/l,_ remains smaller
than one. It will be discussed later that the actual
electron density is probably higher by a factor of 2 than
the value used to calculate &,,. That results in a
reduction of lDe by about 1.4. Even in this case 1,= 2 rP
(ouroral obsorptionl
FIG. ~.PKOFILESOFTHEELECTRON DELIYELENG'I'H~~~ANDOF
THEELECTRON MEAN-FR~~-~ATH~~~C~MPARE~TOTHEP~~~~
RADIUS.
Flo.2. ~YPIcALPRO~ECHARACTEKISTIcFORTlfEFLlGHTINTFIF.
QUIETMID-LATI~REE-REGION~FLIGHT~~.
The dashed line indicates the characteristic of the thermal
background with the hyperthermal component removed.
as
and the OML theory remains valid with a good
accuracy.
On the other hand, the analysis of the probe
characteristics give evidence for an incompletely
Maxwellian behaviour of the electron current which
would limit the use of equation (1) to a restricted
portion of the I-V characteristic. Typical examples of
characteristics are given in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively for
the flights Q and A. In a normal characteristic, the
current exhibits a “knee’” in the ion “saturation” region
due to the rise of the Maxwellian electron current. This
knee is located around the floating potential V’ where
the electron and ion currents are equal.
In flight Q (Fig. 2) the 1-V characteristic exhibits a
normal behaviour. However, after subtracting the ion
current it is found that a small hy~rthermal electron
component arises at about - 1 V. In order to derive the
electron temperature from the relation (l), both the ion
and non-Maxwellian electron currents had to be
subtracted from the total current. The remaining
current was linear in semi-logarithmic scale so that the
measured electron temperature was representative of a
Maxwellian distribution function.
For flight A(Fig. 3) the situation is quite different. As
a matter of fact, the “knee”in the ion saturation region
is located well above the floating potential lrP Thus the
electron component contains also a non-Maxwellian
 Langmuir probe characteristics 1429

function tail. Among these peaks the most important lie

around 1 and 5 eV (Lee et al., 1980). Two theoretical
models (Ashihara and Takayanagi, 1974; Jasperse,
1977)give evidence also for the presence of bumps in the
electron distribution tail with a very important one
located at about 3.5 eV.
Physically, the presence of bumps can be explained
from a qualitative point of view as follows: In the range
of energy between 0.5 and 10 eV there are located levels
of vibrational and electronic excitation of N, and O,,
each of these levels being associated with a cross-
section having a narrow shape so that the total cross-
section Gwill present a spiked structure. It can be easily
understood that when the cross-section D is large, the
electrons are lost at a high rate and when it is small, they
are lost at a low rate. Thus the electron distribution will
exhibit dips associated with large values of ri and peaks
I
associated with small values ofg. In reahty the situation
; PROBE VOLTAGE (VOLTS)
r 1 l+tl-n,-te is not so simple since a large variety of other parameters
1’0 I 2 3
must be taken into account such as elastic cross-section
or electron-electron collisions. However, the presence
of bumps in the electron distribution tail can be
understood qualitatively in this way.
We assume that only one peak is dominant; the
validity ofthis assumption will be discussed later in this
section. On the other hand, we represent the shape of
FlG.3.TYP~cALPKOBECHAKACTEK~ST~CFOKTHEFL~GHTINTHE
the peak by a gaussian function so that the tail of the
AURDKAL~~STUR~~D D- AND LOWER ~-R~GI~N~FLI~HTA~
The dashed line indicates the characteristic of the thermal distribution function is given by
background with hyperthermal component removed.
f,(v) = nerA exp [-m(t) - t#/2kTB] (5)

part but sufficiently populated this time to be clearly wheren,, is thedensityofthehyperthermaIelectrons,~~~

is the velocity corresponding to the peak energy
seen by the probe. Furthermore, it is observed as a
break in the slope of the ion “saturation” current at Enn(E,(eV) = gm/e)v$, and T, is related to the width at
about - 3.5 V. This break is attributed to the rise of the half-height W of the distribution by :
hyperthermal electron component. It will be noted that
due to the range bf potentials used to get the full E, = T&eV) = In2. (6)
characteristic, the purely ionic current cannot be
completely resolved. Contrary to the previous case, the In relation (5) the normalization factor A is chosen such
ion and hyperthermal electron components cannot be that
separated from each other. After subtracting these two ?i>
currents the remaining current is also quite linear in ,fi(r)4irv2 dv = n,,. (7)
I 0
semi-logarithmic plot. This is the thermal electron
component. When E, =KI?~, A can be approximated by
We shall return to these different points in the
analysis of the results but first of all we shall develop a
model allowing us to analyze the current due to the
hyperthermal electrons. Thus the total electron distribution function f can be
written asf‘ = ,fO+j”i where& is the Maxwellian part of
3. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS the distribution. A schematic plot of j’is given in Fig. 4.

Structure of the electron distributionjunction Calculation of the hyperthermal electron current

As previously mentioned, measurements of photo- Since the hyperthermal electrons have a larger mean-
electron spectra below 300 km in the ionosphere reveal energy and smaller density than the thermal electrons
thepresenceofseveralpeaksin theelectrondistribution the Debye length associated with the hyperthermal
 JOBLLE MARGOT-CHAKER and A. G. MCNAMARA

where

x, = (&?-&)“/EB if V< 0

f, (eE,_,/kTe = 20) XI = E.&E, if V>O

\
x
-I
&;4 = t’-‘e-‘dt.
i s 0
In the relation (1 l), the sign (-) is taken for V< -EM
and (+) for V 2 -EM. The factor c is given by

c = - 4nr;n&42n 5 A. (12)

If E, >>E,, A can be replaced by its value (8) and c is

reduced to :

J-.
e 1
c = -4nr&.,e (13)
8nm2E,
IO3
i
0 05 I5 E/E,,, The hyperthermal current i,, vs voltage is given in
Fig. 5 for different values of E, and W It is observed
FIG.~.ELECTRONDISTRIBUTION FUNCTION vs E/E,.
that a part of the current varies linearly with the
E,is the energy corresponding to the gaussian peak, W has
been taken equal to E,,,/2. voltage. This behaviour corresponds to large values of
x, since in this case
electrons is, in our experiments, much larger than the
probe radius. Thus, to calculate the current due to these
electrons, the OML theory can be used. Mott-Smith
and Langmuir (1926) have derived an expression to and exp(-xi) -+ 0
calculate the current collected by a spherical probe. For
so that for V > -EM and by using (13), the relation (11)
the OML conditions, the current is given for the
electrons by :

where u, is the component of the electron velocity

directed toward the center of the probe, V is the probe
voltage measured with respect to the sheath edge and f
is the distribution function assumed to be isotropic.
The lower limit of the integral is taken as 0 for positive
voltages and or for negative voltages where vi is given
by
/ ?- \ l/Z
II1 q-y (10)

By applying the relation (9) to the gaussian function

fi given by(5), we obtain after integrating an expression
for the hyperthermal electron current i,,

i,, = c &&+V(&&,))
+3&“.($~,(;;x,))+E~~~
FIG. 5. HYPERTHERMAL ELECTRON CURRENT i,,vs PROBE
(11) VOLTAGEFORDlFFERENTPEAKENERGlESANDWlDTHSATHALF-
HEIGHT.
 Langmuir probe characteristics 1431

can be approximated by

i,, 2: -4nr:n.,e&( 1+ 2). (14)

The exact calculation shows that the use of (14) rather

than (11) introduces only a small error on the
determination of n,,. We have calculated this error is
only 7% in the case where E, = 1 eV and W = 1.5 eV.

Experimental determination of the mean energy E,

From relation (14) it can be seen that the intersection
of i,, with the zero current axis occurs at V = - E,. For
the flight Q, it has been found that E, N 1 eV. By
observing the probe characteristics it can be concluded
that the density of the hyperthermal electrons having
E, > 1 eV is negligible since, in the contrary case, there
would have been observed, as for the flight A, a 0.2 04
displacement of the floating potential toward more PROBE VOLTAGE (Volts)

negative potentials. Thus, for this flight, we assume that F1c.6. TOTALELECTRONCUKKENT i,,+i,, (CUKVE~)COMPAKEU
the distribution function is the sum fO+f, of a ro THERMALCURRENT i,, (CURVE b) AS A FUNCTIONOF PROBE
Maxwellian and a gaussian centred at E, = 1 eV. VOLTAGEFOR II&,, = 2% AND T,= 800 K.
On the other hand, for flight A, it has been observed
on all the characteristics that there is only one evident
change of slope and this occurs for V = - 3.5 V. Thus By using the relations (2) and (14), we obtain
in this case, we take fi as a gaussian centred at E, =
3.5 eV. dl
- -4nrie
dv-
Injluence of i,, on the determination of the electron
For the two flights analyzed, E, = kT,Je has been found
temperature
smaller than or comparable to 0.1 eV and E, 2 1eV so
To illustrate the influence of the hyperthermal
that even if neo N ne,, the relation (16) is reduced to
electron current on the probe characteristics, we have
plotted in Fig. 6 (curve a) the total electron current
i,, -t i,, when n,,ln,, = 2% and Te = 800 K. We note
that the temperature obtained from this curve is
significantly higher than that derived from the Thus the density calculated from the accelerated
maxwellian (curve b) obtained by subtracting the electron current is essentially the density neo of thermal
hyperthermal current. For the case presented in Fig. 6, electrons, and is not affected by the hyperthermals.
the error in T, can be about 20%. Thus it is evident that,
in addition to the ion current, the hyperthermal current Calculation of the hyperthermal electron density n,,
must be subtracted from the total current in order to get For the flight Q, n,, can be easily derived from (14)
the actual electron temperature. through the relation

di,,_- -47tr,2e
lr$uence cfi,, on the determination qf the electron dV
density nem
The total current collected by the probe can be The slope di,,/d V has to be taken as far as possible from
written as the plasma potential in order to make the thermal
current i,, negligible with respect to n,,. In practice, for
I = i, + i,, + i,, (15) the electron temperatures involved, di,,/dV must be
where i, is the ion current. measured below approx. -0.3 V.
For a positive voltage, i, becomes negligible with For flight A, the hyperthermal electron component
respect to i,, and (15) is reduced to could not be isolated so that di,,/dV could not be
calculated. Thus we have proceeded by a different
I = i,, + i,,. manner.
1432 JO~~LLEMARGOT-CHAKER and A. G. MCNAMARA

The total current I for V < 0, by assuming the ion

current is given by the OML theory, can be written as
l/2

0
I = i, + i, + i,, = 4nrze $

x{n+~~l-~)-n~~~ex~~V,E~~ ‘ii
YIEO-

!i
OIIO-
09) w
I:

where E, = kT+/e, T+ being the ion temperature and loo-

where m, is the ion mass.
A simple calculation shows that around the 90

experimental values of the floating potential Vf( - 2 i

5 V, s - 0.35 V), we have i,, CCi,,. Thus at the floating 80 ! \ z
IO0 200 400 600 800 too0 1500
potential, i,, = i, that is to say:
ELECTRON TEMPERATURE Tei”K)

FIG. 7. ELECTRON TEMPERATURE PROFILE = A FLIGHT A;

.FLICHTQ;-NEUTRALTEMPERATURE PROFILE(U.S. Standard
hnosphere 1976);--- MEANPROFILE FORTHEFLIGHT A.
On theotherhand,from(19),for V 5 V$dI/dVisgiven
by such as Joule heating from electric fields and heating
from the precipitated particles fluxes (Willmore, 1970)
W) which exist at high latitudes.
On the other hand, the lowest measurable
By taking E, << E,, from (20) and (21) we obtain temperature was about 240 K around 84 km. Below this
altitude, the time of sampling by the telemetry system
df Vf--E+
(22) became too long with respect to the rise time of the V-I
% =,dV l/2‘
characteristic and the measurements of T, were badly
deteriorated. Thus, below 84 km, wesee from Fig. 8 that

Care must be taken to measure dl/dV below the

floating potential to adequately ensure that i,, c i,,
and V,is measured with respect to the plasma potential.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Electron temperature
The hyperthermal and ion components having been
eliminated from the probe current, the electron
temperature T, is determined according to relation (1).
The profiles of T, for the two flights are given in Fig. 7.
The T, profile for the flight A exhibits a large scatter in
the individual points. This scatter is considered to be
due more to experimental resolution rather than real
fluctuations in the plasma temperature. The mean i
profile is represented by the dashed line in Fig. 7.
furthermore, we have plotted in Fig. 8, the profile of
the electron-to-neutral temperature ratio Te/T, as a
function ofthe altitude. We see that this ratio is about 1
>
around 84 km and increases up to 3 at the apogee (98 2 3
TEMPERATURE RATIO T, /T,,
km). Such high temperatures are frequently observed in
auroras (Jespersen et al., 1964; McNamara, 1969) and FIG.~.ELECTRON-TO-NEUTRALTEMPERAWRE RATIO PROFILE:
are explained in terms of additional heating processes A FLIGHT A;* FLIGHTQ.
 Langmuir probe characteristics 1433

T, can be assumed to be in equilibrium with the neutral
species, that is to say equal to about 200 K. Due to the
magnitude of T, just above 84 km, we think that this
assumption is sufficiently accurate that only a very
small error is introduced in the electron density
calculation from relation (2).
For flight Q, Fig. 7 shows that T, decreases smoothly
from 1200 to 400 K between 145 and 90 km. We have
noted that neglecting to subtract the hyperthermal
component from the total electron current leads to
electron temperatures higher than the actual tempera-
ture by a factor varying up to 30%.
The ratio T,/T,, is also given for flight Q in Fig. 8. It is
noted that the electron temperatures are found to be
higher thant Tnby a factor of 2 or even 3. A maximum is
observed for the flight Q between 100 and 110 km. In a
recent paper Oyama et al. (1986) have summarized a
large number of data obtained from probe measure-
ments in the E-region. They have also noted that T, has
a maximum departure from T, between 100 and 110 km
in agreement with our measurements.
From simultaneous measurements of large electron
temperature and electric fields in the polar E-region
near 110 km altitude (Schlegel and St. Maurice, 1981),
St. Maurice et al. (1981) have developed a model able to
explain these anomalous electron temperatures in
terms of heating by unstable waves. Further detailed
experiments would be needed in order to confirm or
invalidate a similar explanation for the electron heating
in the quiet midlatitude 110 km region.
Electron density
As explained in the second section, the relative sizes
ofthe electron Debye length, ofthe mean-free-path, and
of the probe radius make it possible to employ the
OML theory with confidence to derive the electron-
density from the accelerating electron regime (I/ > 0).
The electron density profiles neo are given in Fig. 9 for
the two flights.
The profile for flight A is compared with a typical
night-time profile in the midlatitude quiet ionosphere.
Thus it can be seen that the density at low altitudes was
considerably higher than during undisturbed con-
ditions. Such high densities are typical of an aurora1
absorption event and result from additional ionization
due to the penetration ofenergetic particles down to the
lower ionospheric altitudes. No quantitative com-
parison with other results can be made since the density
depends on the flux and the energy of the incoming

140

:
I30
i
.

70 I I I l>
IO' 103 104 IO5
THERMAL ELECTRON DENSITY n,,(~rn-~)

F1c.9. ELECTRONOENSITYPROFILEFORTHERMALELECTRONS~,,:AFL~CHT A;* FLIGHTQ;---TYPICALQUIETMID-

LATITUDE NIGHT-TIMEPROFILE(BELROSEetal.,
1972).
1434 JOELLE MARGOT-CHAKER and A. G. MCNAMARA

particles (Jones, 1974) which in the present case are
unknown.
The flight Q exhibits an electron density profile in
agreement with other measurements (Wright et al.,
1975; Andreyena et al., 1971). The density
approximately constant and equal to 5 x lo4 cmm3
down to 105 km and then decreases monotonically.
On the other hand, as previously mentioned, our
theoretical model allows us to calculate the density of
the hyperthermal electrons for flights A and Q, through
the relations (22) and (18) respectively. The np, profiles
are given in Fig. 10. It will be noted that the uncertainty
in the values of E, can lead to an error in n,, but does
not modify the shape of the profile.
For flight A, a measurement of the radio-wave
absorption coefficient by 30 MHz riometers has been
performed simultaneously with the probe measure-
ments. In a preceding paper (Margot-Chaker and
McNamara, 1984) we have shown that the absorption
could not be explained completely by the enhancement
of the electron density but required that the collision
frequency be increased above its normal level due to the
presence of the hyperthermal electrons. Thus, the
model developed here to calculate the hyperthermal
density n,, has been applied to determine
contribution of these electrons to the absorption
coefficient. Good agreement has been found between
theoretical and experimental absorption values. Thus,
the calculation of n,, presents an important factor in
evaluating the contribution of the distribution tail to
plasma parameters.
For flight Q, a ratio n,,/n,, from 1 to 3% has been
FIG. 10. HYPERTHERMAL ELECTRON DENSITY PROFILES,
FLIGHT Q,(b)FLlGHT A.
found. A maximum is observed around 115-120 km in
the n,, profile (Fig. IO). This maximum was too strongly
marked to be due to experimental error. However, no
explanation has been found to this phenomena,
is although it may be noted that it is the principal region of
ionospheric current flow (Yabuzaki and Ogawa, 1974).
5.DISCUSSION
Attempts have been undertaken to study the
influence ofdifferent factors on the probe response such
as the velocity of the vehicle, the geomagnetic field and
the collisions. These parameters act differently on the
electrons and ions so that it is interesting to examine the
ratio y = n+/n, where n + is the ion density and n, = neO
+ n,, is the total electron density.
The ion current is assumed to satisfy the OML
conditions. Thus for flight A, n, is derived from the
relations (20) and (21) whereas for flight Q it is derived
from relation (2) applied to ionic species for V <<0. In
the D- and E-regions the main ionic species are NO+
and 0: (Giraud and Petit, 1978) having respectively a
mass of 30 and 32 amu. These values are close to each
other so that m, is taken equal to 30 amu. The error
the introduced by this approximation in the calculation of
n, is very low. Finally, the ion temperature T+ is
assumed equal to the neutral temperature taken from
the U.S. Standard Atmosphere model (1976). The
observations made for each flight will be discussed
separately.
Flight A
Since this flight occurs in the lower night-time
ionosphere, a non-negligible number of negative ions is
expected, leading thus to a ratio y = n+/n, = (n_
+ n,)/n, which is presumed different from 1. The density
of negative ions is denoted by n _ .
We compare in Fig. 11 the experimental values of y
with a theoretical profile (Aikin, 1962). Firstly, it
appears that the mean experimental profile is higher
than the theoretical one. Secondly, it is observed that,
above 90 km, y tends toward a constant value of about
2.5 whereas the theoretical value is closer to 1. Our
purpose will be to examine what mechanism could be
responsible for the high measured values of y.
The collisions are not expected to affect the ion
current when the ion mean-free-path li, is larger than
the probe radius. In our case, the condition is satisfied
above 78 km. Moreover, the electron current enters into
the collisional regime only below 70 km, due to the
larger mean-free-path of the electrons (&., = 61,).
On the other hand, the effects of the velocity uR of the
(a) vehicle should be minimal for this flight since the
apogee was 98 km. As a matter of fact, if we define an ion
 Langmuir probe characteristics 1435

potentials sufficiently negative to confer on the ions a

velocity higher than the rocket velocity. Finally, the
larger discrepancy between experimental and theoret-
ical y occurs around the apogee when Mi -+ 0 SO that
especially in this region, the high value of y cannot be
explained in terms of velocity effects.
It is suspected that the experimental y is increased
with respect to the theoretical one because of a
reduction of the collected thermal electron current
resulting from the effect of the geomagnetic field on the
electron orbits. Primarily, a magnetic field is thought to
reduce the electron current only when the electron
gyroradius rL, becomes smaller or comparable to the
probe radius (Chen, 1965). However, in a recent paper,
Rubinstein and Laframboise (1982) have suggested that
there could exist a strong dependence of the current on
the ratio r&S where S is the thickness of the sheath
surrounding the probe and is usually some Debye
lengths in size.
ION TO ELECTRON DENSITY RATIO y, yl
Their results show that for moderate and weak field
FE. 11. PROFILES OF UNCORRECTED AND CORRECTED POSITIVE strength, the current collected in the repelling
ION-TO-ELECTRON RATIO, y AND y’ FOR FLIGHT A: A 1’= potentials region is not affected by the field except in the
n+/(n,,,+ n,,); + y’ = (n,,, +n,,/2n,, +tI&; ~THEORETICAL
n+/n, PROFILE (AIKIN, 1962).
vicinity of the plasma potential where it appears as a
“rounding of the knee” phenomena. Thus neither the
electron temperature nor the hyperthermal density
Mach number Mi by determinations are expected to be affected in our own
measurements.
Mi = vR/(2kT+/m+)‘i2 = VJV+ (23) On the other hand, their results for the accelerating
it can be seen in Fig. 12 that Mi is less than 2 over most of potentials region cannot be quantitatively used, but
the studied attitudes. For such values, any aero- qualitatively, a flattening of the electron current with
dynamic effects associated with the shock wave increasing potentials is predicted so that the electron
surrounding the probe are expected to be weak. In density determined from relation(2) is probably smaller
addition, the ion current is always measured at than the actual density. Having taken care to measure
the slope of the electron current always in the same
range of potentials above the space potential, it can be
reasonably expected that the effect of the magnetic held
on the measured density should be approximately the
same at any altitude. It will be finally noted that because
of their heavy mass, the ions are not affected by the R-
held (rL, >>rL,).
In order to estimate the factor of reduction oflr,“, we
proceeded in the following manner. Returning to Fig.
11, it can be seen that around the apogee (98 km), the
experimental and theoretical 1~differ by about a factor
of 2. Since at this altitude n,, << neo we assume that the
density nrsoderived from the probe data at this altitude is
one half the actual density. Thus we define a new ion-to-
electron ratio y’ by

Y’ = n+/(2npo + n,,). (24)

The ratio y’ is calculated at each altitude. It can be seen
from Fig. 11 that the profile of y’ is in good agreement
with the theoretical profile except perhaps below 80 km
FIG. t 2. ION MACH NUMBhR PROFILE. where y’ tends to become smaller than the theoretical
1436 JOSLLE MAR~T-C~AKER
value. It will be noted that 80 km is approximately the
altitude corresponding to 2, N rp. Thus the too low
values of y’ below 90 km could be due to ~ollisional
effects which are known to decrease the current
collected by the probe and therefore the measured ion
density. However, the good agreement between y’ and
the theoretical values over most of the profile provides
favourable grounds for the validity of our results and
the related assumptions~
Flight Q
The profile ofy for this flight is given in Fig. 13. It will
be noted firstly that since this flight occurs in the
daytime E-region, no negative ions are present contrary
to the previous flight.
The profile of y is clearly divided in two parts. Above
106 km, 1’is approximately constant and equal to 2
whereas below this altitude, it strongly increases.
Concerning the altitude above 106 km, no collisional
effects are present in the collection of the current since
the mean-free-paths for both the ions and the electrons
are much larger than the probe radius (&/rP > 100).
On the other hand, as seen in Fig. 12, the ion Mach
number for this flight varied from 0 to about 2.65 down
to 106 km. Ifthe value ofy was related to the velocity of
the vehicle, a variation of y with the altitude should be
observed. The constant value of y suggests that it is
related to an effect independent of altitude.
Once again, as for flight A, the assumption that the
geomagnetic field reduces the measured electron
density to one half the actual density is the most
reasonable explanation of the discrepancy between n +
and n,,.
Below 106 km, a large enhan~ment of y is observed
which can no longer be explained on the basis of the
Rc.13. IoN-TO-ELECTR~I*I
RATIO PROFILEFOR FLIGHT Q.
and A. G. MCNAMARA
magnetic field. It can be seen from Fig. 12 that contrary
to the cases previously presented, the ion Mach number
becomes large in this range of altitudes. Thus we expect
a dependence of the ratio y on the effects related to a
high vehicle velocity such as a shock wave. Further
detailed comparisons between flights involving a large
variety of Mach numbers are required to determine this
dependence.
6. CONCLUSION
The behaviour of a probe imbedded in. the
ionosphere for two different plasma conditions has
been studied. It has been shown that the orbital-
motion-limited regime is a good means to test the
validity of probe measurements since the full
characteristic can be used to determine the plasma
parameters and no exact knowledge of the plasma
potential is required. Moreover, the measurement of
the hyperthermal current allows us in this regime to
derive, under certain basic conditions, the density and
the mean-energy of these electrons.
The knowledge of the structure of the hyperthermal
current is important in evaluating the error it
introduces in the electron temperature measurement. It
has been shown that even for very small densities of the
hyperthermal electrons, the temperature could be in
error by a significant amount.
The importance offieasuring the density of the non-
thermal electrons is that they contribute to enhance-
ment of the collision frequency and the effect can
increase the radio wave absorption coefficient as
mentioned for flight A in the aurora1 zone.
The effects on the probe ofdi~erent factors have been
discussed also. The velocity of the vehicle has been
shown to have a negligible effect on the ion current over
most of the altitudes studied in this paper. The
geomagnetic field, although it is weak, is suspected to
affect the measurement of the thermal electron density,
reducing its value by a factor of 2. Since this factor is
nearly constant with altitude, it can easily be
incorporated as a correction factor.
REFERENCES
Aikin, A. C. (1962) The sunrise absorption effect observed at
IOW frequencies. 2. otmos. terr. Phys. 23,287.
Andreyana, L. A., Burakov,Yu. B., Katasev, L. A., Komrakov,
G. P., Nesterov, V. P., Uvarov, D. B., Khryukin, V. G. and
Chasovitin, Yu. K. (1971) Rocket investigation of the
ionosphere at mid-latitudes. Space Res. Xi, 1043.
Ashihara, 0. and Takayanagi, K. (1974) Velocity distribution
of ionospheric low-energy electrons. Pkunet. Space. Sci. 22,
1201.
Belrose, J. S., Ross, D. B. and McNamara, A. G. (1972)
 Langmuir probe characteristics 1437

Ionization changes in the lower ionosphere during the solar Mott-Smith, H. M. and Langmuir, I. (1926) The theory of
eclipse of 7 March 1970. J. atmos. rerr. Phys. 34,627. collectors in gaseous discharges. Phys. Rev. 28,727.
Chen, F. F. (1965) Electric probes, in Plasma Diagnostics Oyama, K. I. and Hirao, K. (1979) Distortions of the energy
techniques (Edited by Huddlestone, R. H. and Leonard, distribution of ionospheric thermal eiectrons near the focus
S. L.), p. 113. Academic Press, New York. of Sq current vortex. Planet Space Sci. 27, 183.
Giraud, A. and Petit, M. (1978) ionospheric Techniques and Oyama, K. I., Hirao, K., Banks, P. M. and Williamson, P. R.
Phenomena. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. (1980) Is T, equal to T. at the heights of 100 to 120 km?
Jasperse, J. R. (1977) Electron distribution function and ion Planet. Space Sci. 28, 207.
concentration in the Earth’s lower ionosphere from Rubinstein, J. and Laframboise, J. G. (1982) Theory of a
Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck theory. Planet. Space Sci. 25, spherical probe in a collisionless magnetoplasma. Phys.
743. Fluids 25, 1114.
Jespersen, M., Petersen, O., Rybner, J., Bjelland, B., Holt, O., SchlegeI,K.andSt. Maurice,J.P.(19~llAnomalous heatingof
Landmark, B. and Kane. J. A. (1964) Electron and ion the polar E-region by unstable plasma waves, 1.
density observations in the D-region during aurora1 Observations. J. geophys. Res. 86, 1447.
absorption. Planet. Space Sci. 12, 543. St. Maurice, P. J., Schlegel, K. and Banks, P. M. (1981)
Jones, A. V. (1974) Aurora. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Anomalous heating of the polar E-region by unstable
Laframboise, J. G. (1966) University of Toronto, UTIAS plasma waves, 2. Theory. J. geophys. Res. 86,1453.
Report No. 100. U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1976) National Oceanic and
Lee, J. S., Doering, J. P., Potemra, T. A. and Brace, L. H. (1980) Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and
Measurement of the ambient photoelectron spectrum from Space Administration, United States Air Force.
Atmosphere Explorer: I. AE-E measurements below 300 Willmore, P. A. (1970) Electron and ion temperatures in the
km during solar-minimum conditions. Planet Space Sci. 28, ionosphere. Space Sci. Rev. 11,607.
947. Wright, J. W., Paul. A. K. and Mechtlv, E. A. (19751 Electron
McNamara, A. G. (1969) Rocket measurements of plasma density profiles from ionograms: -underlying ionization
densitiesand temperaturesinvisualaurora.Can. J.Phys.47, corrections and their comparison with rocket results. Radio
1913. Sci. IO, 225.
Margot-Chaker, J. and McNamara, A. G. (1984) The Yabuzaki, T. and Ogawa, T. (1974) Rocket measurements of
relationship of aurora1 absorption to the electron energy Sq ionospheric currents over Kagashima, Japan: J. geophys.
distribution of the plasma. Planet, Space Sci. 32,391. Rex 79, 1999.