See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234987744

A re-examination of the Buneman–Hartree condition in a cylindrical smooth-

bore relativistic magnetron

Article in Physics of Plasmas · March 2010

DOI: 10.1063/1.3328804

CITATIONS READS

45 4,531

7 authors, including:

Yue-Ying Lau John Luginsland

University of Michigan Confluent Sciences, LLC
772 PUBLICATIONS 10,612 CITATIONS 245 PUBLICATIONS 2,769 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Keith Cartwright David Henry Simon

Sandia National Laboratories University of Michigan
124 PUBLICATIONS 802 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by R.M. Gilgenbach on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 17, 033102 共2010兲

A re-examination of the Buneman–Hartree condition in a cylindrical

smooth-bore relativistic magnetron
Y. Y. Lau,1,a兲 J. W. Luginsland,2 K. L. Cartwright,3 D. H. Simon,1 W. Tang,1,3 B. W. Hoff,1,3
and R. M. Gilgenbach1
1
Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48109-2104, USA
2
Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Arlington, Virginia 22203, USA
3
Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117, USA
共Received 26 August 2009; accepted 1 February 2010; published online 8 March 2010兲
The Buneman–Hartree condition is re-examined in a cylindrical, smooth-bore, relativistic
magnetron using both the conventional, single particle model, and the Brillouin flow model. These
two models yield the same result for the Buneman–Hartree condition only in the limit of a planar
magnetron. When b / a = 1.3, where a is the cathode radius and b 共⬎a兲 is the anode radius, the
difference in the two models becomes significant. When b / a = 4 the difference is acute, the
Buneman–Hartree magnetic field at a given voltage in the Brillouin flow model exceeds four times
that in the single particle model. Such a difference is always present, whether the voltage is
relativistic or not. These results are quantified for b / a Ⰷ 1 using Davidson’s model, conveniently
cast in terms of the normalized gap voltage and normalized magnetic flux imposed on the cylindrical
magnetron. A comparison with the University of Michigan/L-3 relativistic magnetron experiment is
given. © 2010 American Institute of Physics. 关doi:10.1063/1.3328804兴

I. INTRODUCTION For the BH condition, Eq. 共3兲, Davidson et al.11 showed

The Buneman–Hartree 共BH兲 condition, together with the
Hull cutoff condition, govern the operation of crossed-field
devices.1–9 The BH condition is a synchronous condition re-
quiring that an electron is trapped in the moving frame of the
wave when it grazes the anode.1 The Hull cutoff condition
gives the minimum magnetic field that prevents an electron
from reaching the anode. While the BH condition and the
Hull cutoff condition, given respectively by Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲
below, may be derived from single particle orbit in crossed
electric and magnetic fields in vacuum, a close examination
of their derivation1,8 shows that Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 remain valid
if this orbital theory includes an arbitrary but axisymmetric
distribution of space charge within the crossed-field gap.10
The Hull cutoff condition and the BH condition have
also been studied using the Brillouin flow model.5,6,11–13 The
Brillouin flow is a laminar shear flow solely in the E ⫻ B
direction. It extends from the cathode to a distance h from
the cathode and this region is known as the Brillouin hub.
Unlike the single particle model, the effect of space charge in
Brillouin flow is extremely important. The Hull cutoff con-
dition then determines the minimum magnetic field to pre-
vent the Brillouin hub from reaching the anode at a given
voltage. The BH condition is taken as the synchronous con-
dition between the wave’s phase velocity and the Brillouin
flow velocity, both evaluated at the outer edge of the Bril-
louin hub.5,6,11,13 It is known that the Hull cutoff condition,
Eq. 共4兲, is identical in the single particle model and in the
Brillouin flow model, whether the geometry is circular or
planar, and whether the gap voltage is relativistic or
nonrelativistic.5
a兲
Electronic mail: yylau@umich.edu.
that it is identical for the single particle model and for the
Brillouin flow model in the planar geometry whether the gap
voltage is relativistic or nonrelativistic. Surprisingly, much
less is known for the circular geometry. This paper focuses
on this issue. Equally surprising is that a most useful form of
the solution on Brillouin flow in a cylindrical, relativistic
smooth-bore magnetron was published only in a conference
proceeding by Davidson et al.11
In this paper, we use Davidson’s solution to compare the
BH condition in cylindrical geometry between the single par-
ticle and Brillouin flow description. We found that the devia-
tion between the two is already quite significant, whether the
voltage is relativistic or not, when b / a ⬎ 1.3. This difference
is acute when b / a = 4, and we have quantified analytically
this difference for b / a Ⰷ 1. These findings are quite unex-
pected, considering oven magnetrons and conventional high
power magnetrons often have an aspect ratio b / a ⬃ 2, and
some relativistic magnetrons have b / a ⬃ 5 共see Ref. 7兲.
Our motivations to re-examine the old topic of BH con-
dition are the following. First, the operating voltage in rela-
tivistic magnetrons is time varying, leading to mode hopping
during the finite pulse length.2–4,7 This mode hopping is com-
pounded by beam loading, caused by the intense space
charge14–16 and by the plasmas17–20 that are produced by
electron bombardment on the anode or ion bombardment on
the cathode after being accelerated across the crossed-field
gap. Mode identification demands a knowledge of the oper-
ating condition according to BH. When we surveyed the lit-
erature, we were surprised that this issue is not addressed at
all from the view point of cylindrical Brillouin flow which is
well known to be the dominant state long before spoke
formation.1,21–26 While Davidson et al.11 provided a complete

1070-664X/2010/17共3兲/033102/9/$30.00 17, 033102-1 © 2010 American Institute of Physics

033102-2 Lau et al. Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲

solution to the cylindrical relativistic Brillouin flow, they

only considered the planar limit for the BH condition. Mak-
ing use of Davidson’s original formulation, we discover and
quantify the remarkable difference in the BH condition ac-
cording to the single particle cycloidal orbit and the Brillouin
flow picture, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Such
differences were noted in various particle simulations in the
past, performed by us and by others.27 Here we provide a
comprehensive, general, analytic formulation.
The tremendous differences in the BH conditions are
reminiscent of the old controversy on the adequacy of the
multistream model 共where electrons execute cycloidal orbits兲
versus single stream model 共where electrons form a laminar
shear flow兲 in the description of the magnetron
operation.6,21,23,28 This controversy apparently has been long
settled in favor of the Brillouin flow model.22,23,25,26 It ap-
pears that the issue of single particle model versus Brillouin
flow model resurfaces with the present re-examination of the
BH condition for cylindrical magnetrons. The resolution of
this fundamental issue will have implications on the various
priming or locking techniques on magnetrons,7 including
magnetic priming,29,30 cathode priming,31–33 anode
priming,34 rf priming,1–3,7,35 and peer-to-peer locking.36,37
FIG. 1. A cylindrical, smooth-bore magnetron with cathode radius a, anode
The adequacy of the cycloidal orbit model38 versus the Bril- radius b 共⬎a兲, and Brillouin hub between r = a and r = rb.
louin flow model12 has also been raised in the literature on
intense ion beam diodes.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces
all linear dimensions by b, where m is the electron rest mass,
the natural, nondimensional parameters that are applicable
e is the magnitude of electron charge, and Dⴱ = 共b2 − a2兲 / 2b is
for arbitrary gap voltage, magnetic field, and the geometry.
the equivalent gap width. These normalized quantities are
In Sec. III, we summarize Davidson’s important results on
denoted with a bar
cylindrical relativistic Brillouin flow. In Sec. IV, we compare
the BH conditions obtained from single particle and from the V̄ = eV/mc2, B̄ = eBDⴱ/mc, a = a/b, rb = rb/b. 共2兲
Brillouin flow and show the significant difference between
the two when b / a ⬎ 1.3. Such a difference is quantified ana- In the planar limit, b → ⬁, a → ⬁, and a / b → 1 with D = b − a
lytically for b / a Ⰷ 1, borrowing Davidson’s formulation. A being finite. Then Dⴱ reduces to the planar gap width D.
comparison with the experimental data from the University Moreover, in this planar limit, n → ⬁ in such a way that both
of Michigan/L-3 relativistic magnetron will also be given in the wavenumber k = n / b and vph = ␻ / k remain finite 关see Eq.
this section. Section V contains some concluding remarks. 共1兲兴. There is also the implicit assumption, almost universally
adopted in the literature on magnetrons1–4,6–9,22,24 that the
slow wave structure at the anode has no effect on the particle
II. BUNEMAN–HARTREE CONDITION ACCORDING orbit and on the Brillouin flow, and the inner radius of the
TO SINGLE PARTICLE ORBIT
vane tip is taken to be the anode radius 共b兲 of the equivalent
Consider a cylindrical smooth-bore magnetron of cath- smooth bore magnetron 共Fig. 1兲. It is these slow wave struc-
ode radius a and anode radius b 共⬎a兲, as shown in Fig. 1. If tures that allow ␤ ⬍ 1 in Eq. 共1兲.
there is an angular wave with dependence ej␻t-jn␪ in this A few remarks on the voltage scale and magnetic field
smooth-bore magnetron, the angular velocity of the wave scale are in order. Just from the velocity scale c and the
pattern is ␻ / n 共in rad/s兲 where ␻ is the frequency of the length scale b, all other physical scales may be constructed
wave and n is the azimuthal mode number representing the from these two. For example, the energy scale is mc2, and
number of electron spokes. The linear velocity of this wave the voltage scale is Vs = mc2 / e. Thus V̄ in Eq. 共2兲 is simply
in the azimuthal direction is vph = 共␻ / n兲b at the anode r = b. the gap voltage V divided by Vs. Moreover, the frequency
We normalize this phase velocity at the anode with respect to scale is c/b, leading to a time scale Ts = 2␲ / 共c / b兲. Since the
c, the light speed in vacuo unit of magnetic flux is volt-second, the magnetic flux scale
is naturally ⌽s = VsTs = 2␲bmc/ e. One may then easily verify
vph ␻b
␤⬅ = , 共1兲 that Eq. 共2兲 is simply B̄ = ⌽ / ⌽s, the total magnetic flux ⌽
c nc
= B共␲b2 − ␲a2兲 within the gap divided by ⌽s. Since the gap
so that the constant ␤ is assumed known once the mode voltage and the magnetic flux are externally imposed quan-
under consideration is specified. We find it convenient to tities, independent of the space charge or space current
normalize the dc voltage V by mc2 / e, vacuum dc magnetic within the gap, the scaled parameters in Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 are
field B by mc/ eDⴱ in Systeme International 共SI兲 units, and the natural parameters for both the single particle description
033102-3 A re-examination of the Buneman-Hartree condition…
FIG. 2. The universal normalized BH and Hull cutoff condition according to
single particle orbit theory. These curves are valid for both relativistic and
nonrelativistic voltages, for both circular and planar geometries and for ar-
bitrary normalized phase velocity ␤ = vph / c at the anode.
and the Brillouin flow description, whether the gap voltage is
relativistic or not.
The BH condition was most conveniently derived from
orbital consideration of a single electron exposed to the dc
voltage V and dc vacuum magnetic field B. This electron is
emitted at the cathode with zero initial velocity. An angular
wave with linear phase velocity vph at the anode is then im-
posed. This angular wave is assumed to have an infinitesi-
mally small amplitude so that it will create a torque that
brings the electron to the anode without altering the electron
energy; but the torque alters the angular momentum of the
electron so that this electron reaches the anode despite the
fact that the gap originally satisfies the Hull cutoff condition,
i.e., that the gap is originally magnetically insulated. The BH
condition further assumes that this electron reaches the an-
ode with negligible radial velocity, and that its linear velocity
in the azimuthal direction matches the wave’s phase velocity
vph at the anode. The latter assumption is essential to the BH
condition, as it reflects the physical argument that this elec-
tron must be captured by the wave 共in the moving frame of
the wave兲 if it is to strongly interact with the wave.1,21 This
condition reads,2,6–8,22,24 in the normalized quantities defined
in Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲
V̄ = B̄␤ − 共1 − 冑1 − ␤2兲 共BH兲. 共3兲
Equation 共3兲 is represented by a straight line of slope ␤ in the
V̄ − B̄ plane 共Fig. 2兲. It is relativistically correct8 and is appli-
cable to a cylindrical or planar magnetron.2,6–8,22,24 It is also
valid even if the crossed-field gap contains an arbitrary axi-
symmetric space charge distribution.10
The BH condition is usually plotted along with the Hull
cutoff condition 共Fig. 2兲. From single particle orbit in a
vacuum crossed-field diode, the Hull cutoff condition gives
the minimum magnetic field that is required to prevent an
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
electron from reaching the anode for a given gap voltage V.
In the dimensionless variables, Eq. 共2兲, the Hull cutoff con-
dition reads
冑
B̄ = 2V̄ + V̄2 共Hull cutoff兲. 共4兲
Equation 共4兲 is relativistically correct and is applicable to
both cylindrical and planar diode.5 Once more Eq. 共4兲 is
valid even if there is an arbitrary space charge distribution
that is axisymmetric within the gap.10
It is straightforward to show that in the V̄ − B̄ plane the
BH straight line 关Eq. 共3兲兴 is always tangent to the Hull cutoff
curve 关Eq. 共4兲兴, as shown in Fig. 2. The point of tangency is
readily shown to be 共B̄ , V̄兲 = 共␤␥ , ␥ − 1兲, where ␥ = 共1
− ␤2兲−1/2 is the relativistic mass factor constructed from the
normalized phase velocity of the mode ␤ = vph / c 关Eq. 共1兲兴. In
Appendix A, we provide a simple derivation of this point of
tangency, using only conservation of energy and conserva-
tion of canonical angular momentum.
The planar limits of the BH and Hull cutoff conditions,
Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲, are obtained by simply setting Dⴱ = D, the
planar gap separation, as discussed in the sentences follow-
ing Eq. 共2兲. We shall demonstrate toward the end of Sec. IV
the established fact11 that Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 are also valid for
the Brillouin flow model in this planar limit, whether the
diode voltage is relativistic or not.
The nonrelativistic limits of the BH and Hull cutoff con-
ditions, Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲, may be obtained by taking the limit
c → ⬁, in which case ␤ → 0 and V̄ → 0 from Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲.
Using the binomial expansion, 共1 − ␤2兲1/2 ⬃ 1 − ␤2 / 2, in Eq.
共3兲, we obtain the nonrelativistic BH condition in a cylindri-
cal smooth-bore magnetron
V̄ = B̄␤ − ␤2/2 共BH, nonrelativistic兲. 共5兲
Upon ignoring the V̄2 term in Eq. 共4兲 we obtain the nonrel-
ativistic Hull cutoff condition in a cylindrical smooth-bore
magnetron
冑
B̄ = 2V̄ 共Hull cutoff, nonrelativistic兲. 共6兲
In dimensional forms, Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲 become
eV = eBvphDⴱ − mvph
2
/2 共BH, nonrelativistic兲, 共5⬘兲
冉 冊 冑
eB ⴱ
m
D =
2eV
m
共Hull cutoff, nonrelativistic兲,
共6⬘兲
which are independent of c. Equation 共6⬘兲 shows that V is
proportional to B2 and is thus represented by a parabola in
the B-V plane. The BH line 关Eq. 共5⬘兲兴 is also tangent to this
parabola 关Eq. 共6⬘兲兴 in the nonrelativistic limit. Toward the
end of Appendix A, we present a simple derivation of the BH
condition, Eq. 共5⬘兲, in the nonrelativistic, planar limit. There,
we illustrate that, except at the point of tangency, canonical
angular momentum is not conserved on the BH curve ac-
cording to the single particle theory. The derivation there
makes it clear that Eq. 共5⬘兲 is valid even if there is a stratified
space charge distribution in the gap.10
033102-4 Lau et al.
III. CYLINDRICAL BRILLOUIN FLOW IN RELATIVISTIC
SMOOTH-BORE MAGNETRONS
Under the same title of this section, Davidson et al.11
provided a comprehensive study of the relativistic cylindrical
Brillouin flow. Here, we will quote their main results and
cast them in the dimensionless parameters, Eq. 共2兲. For the
geometry shown in Fig. 1, Davidson et al. formulated the
Brilluoin flow by assuming that the dc voltage V and the
共initial兲 vacuum magnetic field B are known. The initial
magnetic flux ⌽ = B␲共b2 − a2兲 is assumed to be preserved
even after the Brillouin flow is set up. That is, even if the
Brillouin flow produces significant self-magnetic field, the
total magnetic flux within the smooth-bore magnetron is still
given by this initial ⌽ through a redistribution of magnetic
flux. The Brilluoin flow is a cold, laminar shear flow only in
the ␪-direction 共Fig. 1兲; its flow velocity is 0 at r = a, at which
the electric field also equals 0. It extends from r = a to r = rb, a
region known as the Brillouin hub. The electron density pro-
file nb共r兲 and the flow velocity vb共r兲 within the Brillouin hub
need to be determined. The magnetic field B is assumed to be
sufficiently large so that the Brillouin hub radius rb is less
than b 共Fig. 1兲. The radial electric field and the axial mag-
netic field of the Brillouin flow are solved self-consistently
with the flow’s space charge density −enb共r兲 and with the
flow’s azimuthal current density −enb共r兲vb共r兲. For every elec-
tron, there is a radial force balance between the electric
force, the Lorentz force, and the relativistic centrifugal force.
共This centrifugal force vanishes in the planar limit, in which
case the flow velocity is simply the E ⫻ B drift that accounts
for all self electric and magnetic field effects.兲 Also at each
radius within the Brillouin hub, the electron’s total energy is
equal to zero 关see Eq. 共12兲 below兴.
Once a, b, V, and B are specified, the dimensionless pa-
rameters ā, V̄, and B̄ are known by Eq. 共2兲. The complete
Brillouin flow solution may be obtained by first solving for
the three parameters r̄b, ¯␬, and ¯␹ from the following three
equations, originally given as Eqs. 共20兲, 共21兲, and 共17兲 in
Davidson et al.,11 respectively
V̄ = cosh ¯␹ − 1 + 共sinh ¯␹兲冑¯␬2 + sinh2 ¯␹ ⫻ ln共1/r̄b兲,
关共1 + r̄2b兲sinh ¯␹ + 共1 − r̄2b兲共cosh ¯␹兲冑¯␬2 + sinh2 ¯␹兴,
1
B̄ =
2r̄b
ln 冉 冊 冕冑
r̄b
ā
=
¯␹
0
d␹
␬ + sinh2 ␹
¯2
. 共9兲
Equation 共7兲 关Eq. 共8兲兴 gives the total voltage 共magnetic flux兲
in the gap as the sum of voltage 共magnetic flux兲 within the
Brillouin hub and outside the Brillouin hub. Equation 共9兲 is
the solution to the Poisson equation within the Brillouin hub,
i.e., it is the explicit solution to Eq. 共19兲 of Davidson11 where
¯␬ = ␬a ⬅ ␻ pa / c and ␻ p is the nonrelativistic electron plasma
frequency of the Brillouin flow evaluated at r = a. 关An algo-
rithm yielding simultaneous solutions to Eqs. 共7兲–共9兲 and
共13兲 below, is given in Appendix B.兴
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
Once r̄b, ¯␬, and ¯␹ have been determined, the complete
Brillouin flow profile may be deduced. Specifically, the nor-
malized Brillouin flow velocity profile ␤b共r兲 = vb共r兲 / c may be
obtained from
␤b共r兲 = tanh ␹共r兲, 共10兲
where ␹共r兲 can be numerically integrated from r = a to r = ra
关see Eq. 共9兲兴
d␹ 冑 2
r = ¯␬ + sinh2 ␹, ␹共a兲 = 0. 共11兲
dr
From ␤b共r兲, one may construct the relativistic mass factor,
␥b共r兲 = 关1 − ␤2b共r兲兴−1/2 = cosh ␹共r兲. The electrostatic potential
profile ␾共r兲 within the Brillouin hub is then given by
− e␾共r兲 + 关␥b共r兲 − 1兴mc2 = 0. 共12兲
From ␾共r兲, the electron density profile within the Brillouin
hub follows from the Poisson equation.
Given a dc voltage V, we may next inquire what is the
value of B so that rb = b, i.e., the Brillouin hub just fills the
entire gap. It turns out that this critical value of B is identical
to the Hull cutoff condition, Eq. 共4兲, that is derived from
single particle orbit. To verify this well-known result, con-
sider this critical case r̄b = 1. Equation 共7兲 gives cosh ¯␹ = 1
+ V̄. Thus, sinh ¯␹ = 共cosh2 ¯␹ − 1兲1/2 = 共2V̄ + V̄2兲1/2. Substitution
of this expression into Eq. 共8兲 immediately yields Eq. 共4兲 in
the limit r̄b = 1.
IV. SYNCHRONISM BETWEEN THE PHASE
VELOCITY AND ELECTRON FLOW VELOCITY
AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE BRILLOUIN HUB
Davidson’s complete solution of the Brillouin flow11 en-
ables us to answer the following questions. Given the phase
velocity vph at the anode 关see Eq. 共1兲兴, what should be the
relation between V and B so that the phase velocity at the
outer edge of the Brillouin hub vphrb / b is equal to the Bril-
louin flow velocity there? How is this relation between V̄ and
B̄, in nondimensional form, compared with the BH condition,
共7兲 Eq. 共3兲, that is obtained from single particle orbit consider-
ation?
In terms of the normalized parameters, Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲,
the normalized phase velocity of the wave at r = rb is
共vphrb / b兲 / c = ␤rb. We next recognize that the value of ␹ at
共8兲 r = rb is simply ¯␹, by comparing Eq. 共11兲 with its solution,
Eq. 共9兲. Thus, from Eq. 共10兲, we have ␤b共rb兲 = tanh ¯␹ which
is the normalized Brillouin flow velocity at r = rb. The condi-
tion for synchronism between the phase velocity and electron
flow velocity at r = rb then reads
␤r̄b = tanh ¯␹ . 共13兲
This synchronism condition, at fixed values of b / a and ␤, is
represented in the V̄ − B̄ plane in Figs. 3–6, and is designated
as the BH condition according to the Brillouin fluid flow
model 共the dash-dotted curves in Figs. 3–6兲. It is solved us-
ing the algorithm given in Appendix B.
In Figs. 3–6, we progressively increase the geometrical
aspect ratio, 1 / ā = b / a = 1.1, 1.3, 2, and 4. In each of these
033102-5 A re-examination of the Buneman-Hartree condition…
FIG. 3. 共Color online兲 共Top兲 The normalized Hull cutoff condition 共black
curve兲, the normalized BH condition according to single particle orbit theory
共color, solid curves兲, and the normalized BH condition according to the
Brillouin flow model 共color, dash-dotted curves兲, for b / a = 1.1. 共Bottom兲
Enlarged plot near the point of tangency.
figures, we display the relation between B̄ and V̄ for three
values of ␤ : ␤ = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. The range of voltage V
ranges from 0 共V̄ = 0兲 to about 1 MV 共V̄ = 2兲. Thus, a fairly
inclusive range of operating voltage and geometry is covered
in Figs. 3–6. For comparison, the BH condition, Eq. 共3兲, and
the Hull cutoff condition, Eq. 共4兲, are also displayed in
Figs. 3–6.
For b / a = 1.1 共Fig. 3兲, the circular magnetron is almost
planar. The BH condition according to the fluid model 共dash-
dotted line兲 deviates from the BH condition according to
orbit theory 共solid line兲 by about 10%. That is, given a value
of V̄, the value of B̄ according to the fluid BH model is larger
than the single particle BH model by about 10%. This is true
for relativistic voltage 关V̄ = 2, Fig. 3共a兲兴 and for nonrelativis-
tic voltage 关V̄ Ⰶ 1, Fig. 3共b兲兴. This is also true regardless of
the value of ␤ chosen, i.e., regardless of the mode. As b/a
progressively increases from Fig. 4–6, the departure from
planar geometry increases accordingly. The difference in the
BH condition according to fluid theory and single particle
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
FIG. 4. 共Color online兲 共Top兲 The normalized Hull cutoff condition 共black
curve兲, the normalized BH condition according to single particle orbit theory
共color, solid curves兲, and the normalized BH condition according to the
Brillouin flow model 共color, dash-dotted curves兲 for b / a = 1.3. 共Bottom兲 En-
larged plot near the point of tangency.
increases markedly. Figure 6 shows that for b / a = 4, this dif-
ference is huge. The BH magnetic field, at a given voltage, in
the Brillouin flow model exceeds four times that in the single
particle model. A close-up view of Fig. 6共b兲 shows that the
BH curve according to the fluid model remains tangent to the
Hull cutoff curve at the point of tangency, even though it
does not appear to be so in Fig. 6共b兲. Below, we consider the
decidedly cylindrical limit b / a Ⰷ 1 and the planar limit b/a
approaching 1.
To quantify the large deviations for 1 / ā = b / a Ⰷ 1, let us
examine the limit B̄ Ⰷ 1 so that the Brillouin hub is expected
to be very close to the cathode, i.e., r̄b → ā, 共ā Ⰶ 1兲. In this
limit, Eqs. 共13兲, 共9兲, 共7兲, and 共8兲 simplify to read, respec-
tively
¯␹ ⬵ ␤r̄b ⬵ ␤ā Ⰶ 1, 共14兲
ln共r̄b/ā兲 ⬵ ¯␹/¯␬ ⬵ ␤ā/¯␬ Ⰶ 1, 共15兲
033102-6 Lau et al. Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲

FIG. 6. 共Color online兲 共Top兲 The normalized Hull cutoff condition 共black
curve兲, the normalized BH condition according to single particle orbit theory
FIG. 5. 共Color online兲 共Top兲 The normalized Hull cutoff condition 共black
共color, solid curves兲, and the normalized BH condition according to the
curve兲, the normalized BH condition according to single particle orbit theory
Brillouin flow model 共color, dash-dotted curves兲, for b / a = 4. 共Bottom兲 En-
共color, solid curves兲, and the normalized BH condition according to the
larged plot near the point of tangency.
Brillouin flow model 共color, dash-dotted curves兲, for b / a = 2. 共Bottom兲 En-
larged plot near the point of tangency.

¯␹2
V̄ ⬵ + ¯␹¯␬ln共1/ā兲 ⬵ ¯␹¯␬ln共1/ā兲 ⬵ ␤ā¯␬ln共1/ā兲, 共16兲
2

1 ¯␬ ¯␬
B̄ ⬵ 共¯␹ + ¯␬兲 ⬵ ⬵ . 共17兲
2r̄b 2r̄b 2ā
Division between Eqs. 共16兲 and 共17兲 yields

V̄ ⬵ B̄ ⫻ ␤ ⫻ 关2ā2ln共1/ā兲兴, ā Ⰶ 1. 共18兲
Equation 共18兲 is shown by the solid curves in Fig. 7 for the
case b / a = 4. It is in qualitative agreement with the BH con-
dition according to the fluid theory, shown by the dash-dotted
curves in Fig. 7 关and also in Fig. 6共a兲兴. In comparison, at
large values of B̄, the BH condition according to single par-
ticle orbit reads

V̄ ⬵ B̄ ⫻ ␤ , 共19兲
FIG. 7. 共Color online兲 The normalized BH condition according to the Bril-
from Eq. 共3兲. Equation 共18兲 quantifies the very significant louin flow model 共dash-dotted curves兲 and to the asymptotic formula Eq.
deviation in the BH condition using the fluid model, as com- 共18兲 共solid curves兲. Here, b / a = 4.
033102-7 A re-examination of the Buneman-Hartree condition…
FIG. 8. 共Color online兲 The normalized Hull cutoff condition 共black curve兲,
the normalized BH condition according to single particle orbit theory 共color,
solid curves兲, and the normalized BH condition according to the Brillouin
flow model 共color, dash-dotted curves兲 for the ␲-mode and 2␲ / 3-mode of
the University of Michigan/L-3 relativistic magnetron. The data show the
maximum and average values for normalized voltage and magnetic field
strength recorded during magnetron operation.
pared to the conventional single particle model 关Eq. 共19兲兴,
when the cathode radius is small and the anode radius is
large 共ā Ⰶ 1兲, regardless of the diode voltage and the phase
velocity of the wave.
For easy reference, we shall recapitulate Davidson’s
proof11 that the BH condition is indeed the same for the fluid
model and for the single particle model in the planar limit. In
the planar limit, a → ⬁, b → ⬁, r̄b = 1 − 共b − rb兲 / b → 1, and ¯␬
= ␻ pa / c → ⬁, while the quantities 共b − a兲, 共b − rb兲, ␤, and ¯␹
remain finite. The leading terms of Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲 give
V̄ = cosh ¯␹ − 1 + 共sinh ¯␹兲¯␬共b − rb兲/b, 共20兲
B̄ = sinh ¯␹ + 共cosh ¯␹兲¯␬共b − rb兲/b. 共21兲
We next multiply Eq. 共20兲 by cosh ¯␹, Eq. 共21兲 by sinh ¯␹, and
subtract to obtain a relation between B̄ and V̄. This relation is
readily shown to be Eq. 共3兲 upon using tanh ¯␹ = ␤ which is
Eq. 共13兲 in the planar limit.
Finally, we present in Fig. 8 the experimental data on the
University of Michigan/L-3 relativistic magnetron which has
been described elsewhere.7 This magnetron has a b/a ratio of
5, ␤ = 0.2261 for the ␲-mode, and ␤ = 0.3258 for the
2␲ / 3-mode. The maximum values for the voltage and mag-
netic field values are extracted from each pulse. In addition,
the values of the voltage and magnetic field are averaged
over the pulse. Both of these values are shown in Fig. 8
along with the theoretical models for both the single particle
and Brillouin flow BH condition. The data show that all
of the 2␲ / 3 and many of the ␲ mode pulses are beneath the
single particle theoretical BH curve. Since oscillations
only occur between the Hull cutoff and the BH curves, the
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
experimental data show that the single particle orbit BH con-
dition cannot adequately explain the operation of the Univer-
sity of Michigan relativistic magnetron, while the Brillouin
flow BH condition is consistent with the experiments.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper provides a critical re-examination of the Hull
cutoff condition and BH condition according to the single
particle orbit model and Brillouin flow model. It employs the
natural dimensionless parameters V̄ and B̄ that are con-
structed for a smooth-bore magnetron which may either be
relativistic or nonrelativistic, planar or circular. For the Hull
cutoff voltage, we confirm that it is the same for the single
particle and Brillouin flow model. For the BH condition, we
also confirm that it is the same for the single particle and
Brillouin flow model, but only in the planar magnetron limit.
If the magnetron is cylindrical, the BH condition differs pro-
gressively as b/a increases, between the single particle and
Brillouin flow model. This difference is huge for b / a = 4,
regardless of whether the voltage is relativistic or not. This
difference is quantified by Eqs. 共18兲 and 共19兲. If magnetron
operation lies between the BH curve and Hull cutoff curve in
the V̄ − B̄ plot, then the Brillouin flow model allows a signifi-
cantly wider range of operating conditions. A comparison
with the University of Michigan/L-3 relativistic magnetron,
as given toward the end of Sec. IV, shows that this is indeed
the case, enabling an interpretation of a large amount of ex-
perimental data.
Since an overwhelming majority of magnetrons are cy-
lindrical, a large fraction7 with aspect ratio b / a ⬃ 2, and
some with b / a ⬃ 5, it is interesting that the Brillouin flow
description and the single particle description give such
vastly different BH conditions. Arguably, magnetrons must
start with emission of single particles that execute cycloidal
orbits at the very early stage and presumably that was the
physical basis in the original derivation of synchronism by
Buneman and Hartree. However, simulations and theoretical
analysis invariably show that the Brillouin flow is the pre-
ferred state,21–23,25,26 and that this state is fully developed
long before the spokes are formed. Indeed, Slater repeatedly
emphasized that the electron cycloidal orbits that now bear
his name are not accessible, and that the Brillouin flow
would be the preferred state 共see pp. 341, 342, 350, 355, and
356 of Ref. 1兲. This would seem to settle in favor of the
Brillouin flow model. However, one needs to be very bold to
abandon the venerable BH condition Eq. 共3兲 which was
based on single particle orbit consideration whenever b / a
⬎ O共1兲.
From a description of the guiding center orbits,
Riyopoulos39 suggested that the correct synchronism condi-
tion is between the phase velocity of the wave and the guid-
ing center velocity of the electron, rather than the electron
velocity itself. Since Riyopoulos’ treatments employed a
Cartesian geometry, they cannot explain the differences in
the synchronism condition due to the cylindrical geometry
according to the single particle model and the fluid model.
Once more, in the derivation of BH condition, Eq. 共3兲,
we only compare the end states of a single electron’s cycloi-
033102-8 Lau et al.
dal orbit 共i.e., on the cathode and on the anode surfaces兲. It
demands conservation of energy, but not conservation of ca-
nonical angular momentum, as illustrated in Appendix A. On
the other hand, in the Brillouin flow solution, both energy
and canonical angular momentum are conserved everywhere
within the Brillouin hub. In the Brillouin flow model, an
electron next to the cathode surface is not the same electron
at the top of the Brillouin hub, while the single particle orbit
theory follows the motion of the same electron.
Particle simulations may further help resolve the dis-
crepancy between the BH condition in the fluid and single
particle model. The new revelation given in this paper invites
a re-examination of the experimental evidence on the appli-
cability of Eq. 共3兲, especially for the typical cases with b / a
⬃ 2.
Finally, we should remark that in the relativistic, cylin-
drical Brillouin flow solution, the BH condition 共3兲 is indeed
satisfied at the top of the Brillouin hub, r = rb, if V̄, B̄, and ␤
in Eq. 共3兲 are taken to be, respectively, the normalized elec-
trostatic potential, the normalized magnetic flux, and the nor-
malized Brillouin flow velocity, all evaluated at r = rb. How-
ever, the latter quantities are not measurable and are of little
use to experiments. Other interesting but hitherto little-
explored properties of the relativistic, cylindrical Brillouin
flow solution are beyond the scope of the present paper and
will be given elsewhere.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the referee, whose multiple reviews
helped improve our manuscript. This work was supported by
AFOSR Grant No. FA9550-09-1-0086, Air Force Research
Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, L-3 Communications
Electron Device Division, and Northrop Grumman Corpora-
tion.
APPENDIX A: POINT OF TANGENCY
ON THE HULL CUTOFF AND BH CURVES
The physically appealing forms of the ordinate V̄ = ␥ − 1
and of the abscissa B̄ = ␤␥ at the point of tangency shown in
Fig. 2 prompted their derivation from conservation of energy
and conservation of canonical angular momentum, respec-
tively. We use the single particle orbit model. On this point
of tangency, both the Hull cutoff condition and the BH con-
dition are simultaneously satisfied. Some subtlety on the BH
condition1 is revisited in the last paragraph of this Appendix,
using a simple case for illustration.
An electron emitted from the cathode with 0 initial ve-
locity obeys the energy conservation law, Eq. 共12兲, where
␥b共r兲 now stands for the relativistic mass factor of the elec-
tron when it reaches a radius r. Evaluation of Eq. 共12兲 at r
= b immediately yields V̄ = ␥ − 1, remembering that this elec-
tron has only a tangential velocity equal to the phase velocity
vph at the anode, at the point of tangency in Fig. 2.
This electron also satisfies conservation of canonical an-
gular momentum P␪. In the limit of zero rf electric fields, this
gives
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
P␪ = ␥mrv␪ − erA␪ = constant, 共A1兲
where v␪ is the electron’s azimuthal velocity and A␪ is the
azimuthal component of the vector potential A, which is re-
lated to the magnetic field B by ⵜ ⫻ A = B. Thus, the total
magnetic flux, ⌽, within the magnetron is
⌽= 冕冕 magnetron
B · ds = 冕冕magnetron
ⵜ ⫻ A · ds
= 冕 A · dᐉ = 2␲bA␪共b兲 − 2␲aA␪共a兲. 共A2兲
Next recall that v␪ = 0 at r = a and that v␪ = vph = ␤c at r = b, for
the electron that satisfies both the Hull cutoff and BH condi-
tion. For this electron, we evaluate Eq. 共A1兲 at r = b, and then
at r = a, and subtract. This gives, upon using Eq. 共A2兲
⌽ ⌽
= ⬅ B̄ = ␤␥ , 共A3兲
⌽s 2␲bmc/e
where we have used the magnetic flux scale ⌽s = 2␲bmc/ e
that is introduced in the paragraph after Eq. 共2兲 in the main
text. Equation 共A3兲 proves the abscissa at the point of tan-
gency shown in Fig. 2.
Finally, we provide a simple derivation of the BH con-
dition, Eq. 共5⬘兲, in the planar, nonrelativistic limit. This
serves to illustrate some subtlety from the single particle pic-
ture. Consider energy conservation in the frame moving at
the phase velocity of the wave vph. This wave is assumed to
have an infinitesimally small amplitude so that it can create a
共small兲 torque that brings the electron to the anode, but with-
out altering the total energy of the electron.1 In this moving
frame, the initial energy of electron, at the cathode, is
mvph2
/ 2, and its potential energy is zero. Thus, the total initial
energy of the electron in the moving frame is
Einitial = 21 mvph
2
. 共A4兲
When this electron just grazes the anode, in the moving
frame, its kinetic energy is zero because this electron is
trapped by the wave at the anode.1 This electron suffers a
potential energy drop −eV+ e共vph ⫻ B兲D in the moving
frame, when it reaches the anode. Here, the term ⫺eV ac-
counts for the anode-cathode voltage drop, whereas the last
term accounts for the constant, additional Lorentz force
e共vph ⫻ B兲, that the electron experiences in the moving frame
throughout its journey to the anode. Thus, in the moving
frame, the total energy of the electron at the anode is
Efinal = − eV + evphBD. 共A5兲
Equating Eq. 共A4兲 with Eq. 共A5兲, we obtain the nonrelativ-
istic BH condition, Eq. 共5⬘兲, in the planar limit. Thus, on the
BH curve 共Fig. 2兲, the electron energy is conserved, but the
electron canonical angular momentum is not 共except at the
point of tangency兲. This subtle point, together with the math-
ematical derivation of the BH condition, may be found in
Slater.1 Note also that Eqs. 共A4兲 and 共A5兲 remain valid if
there is a space charge distribution that depends only on x,
where x is the coordinates orthogonal to the cathode
surface.10
033102-9 A re-examination of the Buneman-Hartree condition…
APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES TO SOLVE
EQUATIONS „7…–„9… and „13… AND THE BH CONDITION
ACCORDING TO THE BRILLUOIN FLOW MODEL
We assume that ā and ␤ are specified. The four equa-
tions, 共7兲–共9兲 and 共13兲, may be solved simultaneously to
yield the BH condition according to the Brillouin flow
model, as follows:
A. Assume a value of r̄b 共ā ⬍ r̄b ⬍ 1兲.
B. Calculate ¯␹ = tanh−1共␤r̄b兲 according to Eq. 共13兲.
Find ¯␬ so that Eq. 共9兲 is satisfied.
C.
D. Use the values of r̄b, ¯␹, and ¯␬ in Eq. 共7兲 to obtain V̄ and
in Eq. 共8兲 to obtain B̄.
E. The value of 共V̄ , B̄兲 in Step D corresponds to the value
of r̄b assigned in Step A. Changing r̄b in Step A and
repeating Steps B–D then traces a curve in the V̄ − B̄
plane. This curve is labeled in Figs. 3–6 as the BH
synchronous condition according to the fluid model, for
the values of ā and ␤ specified at the beginning of this
Appendix.
In Step C, there is only one real, positive value of ¯␬ that
satisfies Eq. 共9兲. This may be proved by differentiating the
RHS of Eq. 共9兲 with respect to ¯␬ under the integral sign. The
result is always negative. Therefore, the RHS of Eq. 共9兲 is a
monotonically decreasing function of ¯␬ and there is only one
root of ¯␬ to Eq. 共9兲. Finally, Step E gives 共B̄ , V̄兲 = 共␤␥ , ␥
− 1兲 for r̄b = 1, the point of tangency in Fig. 2.
1
J. C. Slater, Microwave Electronics 共Van Nostrand, New York, 1951兲, p.
302.
2
J. Benford, J. A. Swegle, and E. Schamiloglu, High Power Microwaves,
2nd ed. 共Taylor & Francis, New York, 2007兲.
3
R. J. Barker, N. C. Luhmann, J. H. Booske, and G. S. Nusinovich, Modern
Microwave and Millimeter Wave Power Electronics 共IEEE, Piscataway,
NJ, 2004兲.
4 V. B. Neculaes, P. Pengvanich, Y. Hidaka, Y. Y. Lau, R. M. Gilgenbach,
V. L. Granatstein and I. Alexeff, High-Power Microwave Sources 共Artech
House, Norwood, MA, 1987兲.
5 Trans. Plasma Sci. 33, 654 共2005兲.
R. C. Davidson, Physics of Nonneutral Plasmas 共Addison-Wesley, Red-
wood City, CA, 1990兲.
6 Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 6332 共2004兲.
Y. Y. Lau, in High-Power Microwave Sources, edited by V. L. Granatstein
and I. Alexeff 共Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1987兲, p. 309.
7
R. M. Gilgenbach, Y. Y. Lau, H. McDowell, K. L. Cartwright, and T. A.
Spencer, in Modern Microwave and Millimeter Wave Power Electronics,
edited by R. J. Barker, N. C. Luhmann, J. H. Booske, and G. S. Nusinov-
ich, 共IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2004兲 Chap. 6.
8
R. L. Walker, in Microwave Magnetrons, edited by G. B. Colloins
共McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948兲, p. 227.
9 36
J. R. M. Vaughan, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 20, 818 共1973兲.
10
It is often forgotten that the orbital theory results, Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲, are also
valid even when there is an axisymmetric space charge distribution in a
cylindrical crossed-field gap. Since these two equations compare the en-
ergy and canonical angular momentum of an electron at the anode and at
the cathode, an axisymmetric space charge distribution would not alter
these quantities at the end points 共anode and cathode兲. The simple deriva-
View publication stats
Phys. Plasmas 17, 033102 共2010兲
tion of the BH condition toward the end of Appendix A illustrates this fact
which was mentioned in Refs. 1 and 8.
11
R. C. Davidson, G. L. Johnston, K. T. Tsang, and A. T. Drobot, Proc. SPIE
1061, 186 共1989兲.
12
T. M. Antonsen and E. Ott, Phys. Fluids 19, 52 共1976兲.
13
E. Ott and R. V. Lovelace, Appl. Phys. Lett. 27, 378 共1975兲.
14
R. Kowalczyk, Y. Y. Lau, T. M. Antonsen, J. W. Luginsland, D. P. Cher-
nin, C. B. Wilsen, W. Tang, and R. M. Gilgenbach, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 52, 2087 共2005兲.
15
Y. Y. Lau and D. P. Chernin, Phys. Fluids B4, 3473 共1992兲.
16
B. E. Carlsten, R. J. Faehl, M. V. Fazio, W. B. Haynes, R. D. Ryne, and R.
M. Stringfield, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 22, 730 共1994兲.
17
D. Price, J. S. Levine, and J. N. Benford, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 26, 256
共1998兲.
18
M. D. Haworth, K. L. Cartwright, J. W. Luginsland, D. A. Shiffler, and R.
J. Umstattd, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 30, 992 共2002兲.
19
J. Benford, F. J. Agee, D. M. Goebel, F. Hegeler, K. J. Hendricks, R. M.
Gilgenbach, C. Grabowski, H. Jory, and J. P. Verboncoeur, in High-Power
Microwave Sources and Technologies, edited by R. J. Barker and E.
Schamiloglu 共IEEE, New York, 2001兲 Chap. 4; K. J. Hendricks, J. Ben-
ford, J. Eastwood, M. Friedman, M. Haworth, R. W. Lemke, J. Lugin-
sland, R. B. Miller, and J. Pasour, High-Power Microwave Sources and
Technologies, 共IEEE, New York, 2001兲 Chap. 3; Also, F. J. Agee, IEEE
Trans. Plasma Sci. 26, 235 共1998兲.
20
Y. Y. Lau, J. W. Luginsland, K. L. Cartwright, and M. D. Haworth, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 98, 015002 共2007兲.
21
O. Buneman, in Crossed-Field Microwave Devices, edited by E. Okress
22
共Academic, New York, 1961兲, p. 218.
A. Palevsky, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 1980.
23
T. J. Orzechowski and G. Bekefi, Phys. Fluids 22, 978 共1979兲.
24
A. Palevsky and G. Bekefi, Phys. Fluids 22, 986 共1979兲.
25
P. J. Christenson, D. Chernin, A. Gardner, and Y. Y. Lau, Phys. Plasmas 3,
4455 共1996兲.
26
P. J. Christenson and Y. Y. Lau, Phys. Plasmas 1, 3725 共1994兲; Phys. Rev.
Lett. 76, 3324 共1996兲.
27
P. Mardahl and J. Watrous, personal communication.
28
G. D. Sims, in Crossed-Field Microwave Devices, edited by E. Okress
共Academic, New York, 1961兲, p. 180.
29
V. B. Neculaes, R. M. Gilgenbach, and Y. Y. Lau, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83,
1938 共2003兲; U.S. Patent No. 6,872,929 共29 March 2005兲; U.S. Patent No.
6,921,890 共26 July 2005兲.
30
W. M. White, M. C. Jones, H. L. Bosman, and J. W. Luginsland, IEEE
31
M. C. Jones, V. B. Neculaes, Y. Y. Lau, R. M. Gilgenbach, and W. White,
32
M. C. Jones, V. B. Neculaes, Y. Y. Lau, R. M. Gilgenbach, W. M. White,
B. W. Hoff, and N. M. Jordan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 081501 共2005兲.
33
M. Fuks and E. Schamiloglu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 205101 共2005兲.
34
J. I. Kim, J. H. Won, G. S. Park, H. J. Ha, and J. C. Shon, Appl. Phys. Lett.
88, 221501 共2006兲.
35
P. Pengvanich, V. B. Neculaes, Y. Y. Lau, R. M. Gilgenbach, M. C. Jones,
W. M. White, and R. D. Kowalczyk, J. Appl. Phys. 98, 114903 共2005兲.
P. Pengvanich, Y. Y. Lau, E. Cruz, R. M. Gilgenbach, B. Hoff, and J. W.
Luginsland, Phys. Plasmas 15, 103104 共2008兲.
37
E. J. Cruz, B. W. Hoff, P. Pengvanich, Y. Y. Lau, R. M. Gilgenbach, and J.
W. Luginsland, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 191503 共2009兲.
38
K. D. Bergeron, Appl. Phys. Lett. 28, 306 共1976兲; Phys. Fluids 20, 688
共1977兲.
39
S. Riyopoulos, Phys. Rev. E 47, 2839 共1993兲.