a vehicle moving through the stratosphere ( altitudes 40km-50 km ) at hypersonic velocities ( 8 - 15 mach ) is covered by a plasma sheath .
typically , the plasma density @xmath0 can be as high as @xmath1 with corresponding plasma frequency @xmath2 of about @xmath3 . in ( [ plasma_freq ] ) , @xmath4 is the electron charge @xmath5 , @xmath6 and @xmath7 is the electron mass @xmath8 . therefore the plasma is opaque to frequencies lower than @xmath3 .
direct communication through such a plasma to and from the vehicle is impossible because frequencies @xmath9 suitable for long distance propagation through the atmosphere are usually much less .
for example , the standard frequency used for navigational satellite systems , including the global positioning system ( gps ) , are less than @xmath10 .
for the gps , @xmath11 .
the challenge is to devise means to maintain continuous contact with the hypersonic vehicle .
when such vehicles were principally spacecrafts , a blackout period of up to two minutes was acceptable albeit undesirable .
but when the vehicles are of military origin , it is clear that continuous contact is essential for both targeting and rapid abort reasons .
it is a challenge which has drawn many responses .
they fall into several categories .
the first ignores the presence of the plasma by using signals with frequencies well above the plasma frequency .
the difficulty with this method is that such signals are heavily attenuated in and scattered by the atmosphere .
a second means , which also ignores the plasma , is to use low frequency signals in the @xmath12 range where wavelengths are large compared to the plasma sheath thickness ( typically of the order of a meter ) .
but such solutions have high cost and low bit rates and are not well supported by existing infrastructure .
a third category of solutions violates the plasma .
one approach is to remove , by vehicle reshaping , for example , the plasma from certain points on the vehicle at which one might place an antenna .
another is to destroy it by electrophilic injection or by injecting water drops .
a third approach is to use powerful magnets to reshape the plasma .
such solutions involve a heavy cost in that design features necessary for their implementation must be built into the vehicle a priori .
nevertheless some are feasible and worthy of consideration .
for example , it is possible to build an antenna into a sharp leading edge which would protrude beyond the plasma and survive for sufficiently long ( it would be eventually destroyed by ablation ) to cover the flight time .    the fourth category of solutions , and the one to which we are attracted , uses the properties of the plasma itself to effect transmission in the same way a judo expert uses the strength and motion of an opponent to defeat him .
one idea is to create new modes of oscillation and propagation by the introduction of magnetic fields .
indeed , for strong enough fields , the larmor frequency @xmath13 is sufficiently large that the window @xmath14 for which the plasma is opaque is small and transmission can be achieved for frequencies below @xmath13 .
but the introduction of magnetic fields involves large additional weight and new design features .
the second idea is much more simple .
its aim is to take advantages of nonlinear properties of plasma to render it effectively transparent to the signal .
communications both to and from the vehicle are feasible using basically the same ideas .
we shall first describe the `` to the vehicle '' case .
consider figure [ plasma_response_fig ] in which we show schematically the response of the plasma to an incoming signal with low frequency @xmath15 from a direction which makes an angle @xmath16 with the normal to the vehicle .
there are two principal features to the response .
first , there is a reflection from the layer at a point @xmath17 where the plasma frequency at the point @xmath18 is @xmath19 .
however , the influence of the signal is felt beyond that point , namely at the resonant layer @xmath20 where @xmath21 .
langmuir oscillations are excited there which produce large transversal and longitudinal components of the electric field .
the resonant layer acts as an antenna .
the task is to find a way to connect the antenna at the resonant layer at @xmath20 to a receiver on board the vehicle at @xmath22 .
there are several possibilities which we have outlined before @xcite .
the most practical one , however , is also the most simple and first suggested without a detailed numerical simulation in @xcite .
we use an onboard source , which we call the pump , to generate electromagnetic signals of sufficiently high frequency @xmath23 ( @xmath24 ) that they can propagate through the plasma .
there are several candidates for such a source .
for example , available on the open market is a klystron amplifier which can generate @xmath25 of power at frequencies of @xmath26 .
these high frequency waves have only to travel distances of a meter or less .
they interact nonlinearly with and scatter off the signal wave .
not surprisingly , the largest contribution to the scattered wave comes from the nonlinear interaction of the pump wave with the plasma density distortion induced by the incoming signal wave at the resonant layer .
we call the scattered wave a stokes wave because the scattering process is a three wave interaction analogous to raman scattering .
the stokes wave with frequency @xmath27 carries the information encoded on the signal wave back to the vehicle .
we will show that , whereas much of the scattered stokes wave propagates away from the vehicle , a significant fraction is returned to the vehicle .
what is remarkable is this .
the ratio of the power flux of the stokes wave received at the vehicle to the power flux contained in the signal wave at the plasma edge can be between 0.7 and 2 percent .
this means that reception of gps signals may be possible because one simply needs an onboard receiver approximately 100 times more sensitive than commercially available hand held receivers or use sufficiently larger antenna .
we shall discuss in the conclusion the sensitivity required for a variety of sources .
communications from the vehicle requires two power sources on the vehicle .
one , which we term the stokes wave generator , will also carry the signal .
the other is the pump wave .
both have carrier frequencies above that of the maximum of the plasma frequency .
their nonlinear interaction in the plasma produces an oscillations of frequency @xmath28 .
consider figure [ from_concept ] .
for @xmath29 where @xmath30 is determined by @xmath31 and @xmath16 is calculated from the differences in propagation directions of the pump and stokes waves , the oscillation does not propagate and its strength decays away from the vehicle .
nevertheless this oscillation is sufficiently strong to act as a power source for a propagating wave in the region @xmath32 where @xmath33 . in the conclusion
we analyze what power is required in order for the signal to be detected by distant receivers .
it appears that even if we use usual available on the market generators communication can be put into practice .
the plan of the paper is as follows .
we begin in _ section  2 _ with a detailed analysis of the two dimensional propagation and interaction of a signal wave of frequency @xmath15 , a pump wave of frequency @xmath23 and a stokes wave of frequency @xmath34 through a plasma with a given density profile @xmath35 where @xmath36 is the direction normal to the vehicle .
the key equation is a modification of the well known ginzburg equation @xcite @xmath37,\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the magnetic field amplitude @xmath38 of an oscillation of frequency @xmath39 . in ( [ ginzburg_equation ] ) ,
the effective electric susceptibility is @xmath40 ( @xmath41 is the local plasma frequency and @xmath42 the collision frequency ) .
the susceptibility is due to the linear response of the plasma to the electric fields of whichever waves are involved .
the nonlinear current @xmath43 will be determined both by the product of the plasma density distortion with the linear current and the nonlinear response of the electric velocity field due principally to dynamic pressure forces .
we observe that , for @xmath44 , the electric susceptibility is approximately @xmath45 and the left hand side of the nonlinear ginzburg equation ( [ ginzburg_equation ] ) is the usual wave operator
.    how do we use ( [ ginzburg_equation ] ) ?
for the case of communication to the vehicle , we use it in two ways .
first with @xmath46 , we determine for @xmath47 and @xmath48 , the field @xmath49 from which the distortion to the plasma produced by the incoming wave is calculated . in this instance
, @xmath49 satisfies @xmath50 a glance at the third term shows that propagation is impossible for @xmath51 or , from ( [ epsilon_z_omega ] ) , for @xmath52 . the importance of the resonance layer where @xmath53 is seen from the denominator in the second term . having solved for @xmath49 from ( [ ginzburg_to_equation ] ) we can then calculate the plasma distortion field @xmath54 .
its interaction with the pumping wave then produces a nonlinear current @xmath43 which gives rise to the stokes wave .
the stokes wave @xmath55 and its propagation is calculated by solving ( [ ginzburg_equation ] ) with this @xmath43 and appropriate boundary conditions at the plasma edge and at the vehicle .
our goal is to determine @xmath56 .
we give the results of both the numerical simulation and an analytic estimation .
the latter takes advantage of the fact , that , for the stokes wave , @xmath57 and that the principal plasma distortion occurs at the resonance layer .    for communicating from the vehicle , we solve ( [ ginzburg_to_equation ] ) with the right hand side given by @xmath58 with @xmath43 calculated from the nonlinear interaction of the pump and
stokes waves . here
the goal is to calculate the flux of power of the signal wave with frequency @xmath59 as it leaves the plasma edge in the direction of some distant receiver .    in _ section 3 _
, we describe the numerical procedure and give detailed results of our calculations .
finally , in the _ conclusion _ , we use our results to calculate the powers of both the incoming and outgoing signals at their respective receivers .
we discuss in addition several important considerations :    * the advantages , particularly in terms of available power , of using pulsed signals . *
the possibility of using gps sources for incoming signals . * the challenges involved in making ideas practicable .
we shall study a very idealized situation when the plasma sheath is a flat slab .
the plasma density is a linear function of the horizontal coordinate @xmath36 @xmath60 in this geometry the vehicle is the vertical wall placed at @xmath22 . the plasma density near the vehicle is @xmath61
. the plasma contacts the vacuum at @xmath62 , where @xmath63 .
we shall study two situations : communication to the vehicle and communication from the vehicle . in both cases ,
three almost monochromatic electromagnetic waves exist in the plasma .
two of them have high frequencies @xmath23 ( pumping wave ) , @xmath34 ( stokes wave ) .
the third one has low frequency @xmath15 , satisfying the condition @xmath64 in the `` to the vehicle '' case @xmath15 is the circular frequency of the incoming signal . in the `` from the vehicle '' case
, @xmath15 is the circular frequency of the outgoing signal . in both these cases
, the low - frequency signal plays a key role .
because the local plasma frequency at @xmath65 is @xmath15 , @xmath66 let us denote also the langmuir frequency at the vehicle as @xmath67 thus @xmath68 in a realistic situation @xmath69 ( it corresponds to @xmath70 ) , @xmath71 , @xmath72 , and @xmath73 .
the wavelength of the incoming signal in the vacuum is @xmath74 , so that @xmath75 .
we point out that in the case of low - frequency wave reflection from the ionosphere , the situation is the opposite @xmath76 .
we shall assume that the ions positions are fixed and the plasma is cold ( @xmath77 ) .
the magnetic field has only one component @xmath78 .
the electric field has two components @xmath79 , @xmath80 .
neither the electric nor magnetic fields depend on the @xmath81-coordinate .
maxwell s equations read @xmath82 @xmath83 @xmath84 @xmath85 + \frac{\mu_0 e}{m}\vec h\right ) - \frac{1}{2}\nabla v^2,\ ] ] @xmath86 the power flux in vacuum is @xmath87 in equation ( [ euler ] ) @xmath42 is the effective friction of the electron fluid with the neutral gas , sometimes called the ion collision frequency .
we take @xmath88 .
the current @xmath89 .
@xmath90 is the linear response of the plasma on the electric field , @xmath43 is the current due to nonlinear effects . for a monochromatic wave of frequency  @xmath39 ,
maxwell s equations can be rewritten in the following form @xmath91 @xmath92 in our geometry , ( [ protoginzburg ] ) is one scalar equation .
we should stress that this is an exact equation .
the only challenge is the calculation of @xmath43 .    finally for the magnetic field , one obtain the ginzburg equation @xmath93 for the high frequency pump and stokes waves @xmath94 .
some exact solutions of simplified versions of the homogeneous ginzburg equation for several important cases can be found in appendix [ app : analytics_homogenious ] .
what we are going to do is the following : in subsection [ lin_resp ] we shall calculate linear responses of the plasma to an electromagnetic wave , such as the electron velocity , linear current and the electron density profile perturbation ; the calculation of the first nonlinear correction to the linear current is done in subsection [ nonlin_curr ] ; analytic estimations for `` to the vehicle '' and `` from the vehicle '' cases are given in subsections [ analytics_to ] and [ analytics_from ] respectively .      in order to calculate the nonlinear current we need to consider the linear responses of the plasma to the presence of an electromagnetic wave .
for a field with frequency @xmath39 @xmath95 from ( [ euler ] ) , the linear term in the velocity @xmath96 and @xmath97 from ( [ rot_h ] ) @xmath98 using maxwell equations one can express all responses in terms of magnetic field @xmath99 the expression for a distortion @xmath100 of the electron density in the plasma @xmath101 can be derived from ( [ continuity ] ) and ( [ linear_velocity ] ) , @xmath102      the nonlinear current is due to the first nonlinear correction to the linear response velocities of electrons and a scattering of an electromagnetic wave on the distortion of the charge density profile produced by another wave @xmath103 we introduce the nonlinear velocity @xmath104 which can be found from the following equation @xmath105 + \frac{\mu_0 e}{m}\vec v_l \times \vec h - \frac{1}{2}\nabla v_l^2 = - \frac{1}{2}\nabla v_l^2.\ ] ] here we used a corollary of the maxwell equations and ( [ linear_v ] ) whence to within @xmath106 , @xmath107 = -\frac{\mu_0 e}{m}\vec h.\ ] ] this means that only the dynamic pressure induced by the fields affects the plasma .    finally , we have everything for the calculation of the first term in right hand side of ginzburg equation ( [ ginzburg ] ) [ curl_j_nl ] @xmath108 the detailed expression of equation s ( [ ginzburg ] ) right hand side can be found in appendix  [ app : current_nl ] .
we would like to estimate the ratio @xmath109 of the fluxes of the squared scattered field to the squared incoming signal field and express it as a function of pump power flux @xmath110 measured in watts per square meter .
we can make an analytic estimation of the three - wave process efficiency .
the main contribution comes from the vicinity of @xmath65 .
the reason comes from the fact that the real part of dielectric susceptibility ( [ epsilon_z_omega ] ) for the low frequency signal wave has a zero at this point .
it means that the nonlinear current on the right hand side of the ginzburg equation has a very sharp peak near @xmath20 .
a typical plot of right hand side is given in figure [ rhs_to ] .
this issue is discussed in more detail in appendix [ app : current_nl_to ] .
if we consider a high frequency pumping wave we can use the plane wave approximation @xmath111 the low frequency signal wave can be written @xmath112 for the stokes wave , whose frequency is higher than the plasma frequency , one can use the following approximate ginzburg equation @xmath113 where @xmath114 is calculated from the @xmath115 of the nonlinear current given in ( [ curl_j_nl ] ) . to solve ,
we use the method of variation of constants.we find @xmath116 one can say that @xmath117 is the amplitude of the stokes wave propagating to the vehicle and @xmath118 is the amplitude of the anti - stokes wave propagating from the vehicle .
the main contribution to @xmath119 arises from the vicinity of @xmath20 , where @xmath120 is almost singular @xmath121 after some simple but tedious calculations ( see appendix [ app : current_nl_to ] ) one finds @xmath122 where @xmath123 is the pumping incident angle .
details of these calculations are given in appendix [ app : current_nl_to ] .
the angular dependence of @xmath124 , which we call @xmath125 , can be calculated numerically by solving the homogeneous ginzburg equation . in fig .
[ rhosinphi ] , we plot the product @xmath126 against @xmath16 . at the optimal value @xmath127 , @xmath128 , @xmath129 using the expression @xmath130 , one gets @xmath131 for the optimal values of incidence angles ( @xmath132 , @xmath133 ) , the given plasma parameters and @xmath73 , one gets the following maximum value of the efficiency coefficient @xmath134 this is consistent with what we obtain by direct numerical simulation .
equation ( [ ginzburg_equation ] ) can be rewritten in the following form @xmath135 it is not too surprising that that the dominant contribution to the rhs of ( [ ginzburg_rewritten_to ] ) is the first term and arises from the neighborhood of @xmath20 .
again , just as in the `` to the vehicle '' case , the resonant layer acts as a transmitting antenna which will beam the message contained on the stokes wave to a distant receiver at frequency @xmath28 . in fig .
[ rhs_from ] we verify that indeed the dominant contribution comes from the first term on the rhs of ( [ ginzburg_rewritten_to ] ) and from the neighborhood of @xmath20
. hence we can get simple equation for a very good approximation to the approximate particular solution of ( [ ginzburg_from ] ) , namely @xmath136 the general solution is the following @xmath137 where @xmath138 and @xmath139 are solutions of the homogeneous part of equation ( [ ginzburg_from ] ) , and @xmath138 is bounded as @xmath140 , @xmath139 is unbounded ( exponentially ) at the vehicle .
thus @xmath141 .
see appendix  [ app : analytics_homogenious ] for a discussion of solutions to the homogeneous ginzburg equation
.    using the boundary condition on the edge of the plasma ( @xmath62 ) @xmath142 where @xmath143 is the @xmath36-component of wavevector of the outgoing low frequency signal wave , and @xmath144 , one finds @xmath145 finally , for the magnetic field at @xmath62 we find @xmath146 the function @xmath147 oscillates with @xmath36 with wavenumber @xmath148 .
the lower the wavenumber the more will be the contribution in the integral .
this gives us a very simple optimal strategy for the choice of pump and stokes wave directions .
we should radiate both the stokes and pumping waves in the desired direction of the signal wave propagation . in this case
we also have an exact compatibility with the boundary conditions at @xmath62 .
if we consider the expression for @xmath147 given in appendix  [ app : current_nl ] , we can see that in the case @xmath149 the first term ( [ current_nl_y ] ) is the major one in the vicinity of resonant layer .
the resonant layer works like radiating antenna .    using the simplified nonlinear current expression and considering the pumping and stokes waves
as plane waves one finds @xmath150 where @xmath151 .    using the solutions of the approximate homogeneous equations ( [ ginzburgbessel ] )
, we can estimate @xmath152 .
thus for @xmath153 , one finds @xmath154 for the power density , we have @xmath155 this result is quite clear from physical point of view .
the larger @xmath16 is , the longer is the distance over which the signal wave is generated in the plasma .    in our simulations , @xmath156 and in this case we can not use the simplified expression given above .
instead we find , @xmath157 here we introduced the coefficient @xmath158 the value of which we obtain from our numerics .    finally , we find @xmath159 the subscripts refer to the frequencies of the onboard pump waves .
again , we find the magnitude and angular dependence to be consistent with our numerical results .
the equation we solve numerically in all cases is the ginzburg equation ( [ ginzburg ] ) including all terms on its right hand side .
the boundary conditions are given at @xmath160 , in the vacuum beyond the plasma edge and at @xmath22 , the vehicle .
to solve this equation we use a `` sweep''-method described in detail in appendix  [ app : numerical_method ] .
the method was invented simultaneously in several places for work on classified topics in the middle of the last century . in the soviet union , it was introduced by a group of l.d .
landau ( information from i.m .
khalatnikov ) ( the first publication @xcite appeared several years later due to obvious reasons ) and was developed to its modern form in @xcite .    as the first step in the `` to the vehicle '' case
we have to find the profile of the incoming magnetic field in the plasma .
we used an incident angle @xmath161 .
it will be shown later that this angle is an optimal value but it is good for an initial evaluation of the possibility of communication .
we consider the incoming signal as a monochromatic plane wave of a given frequency @xmath162 and amplitude @xmath163 .
the current is equal to zero . in this case
, the boundary conditions are @xmath164 the resulting profile of the magnetic field is shown in fig .
[ h_low_freq_to ] .
the profile of @xmath165 is shown in fig .
[ ez_low_freq_to ] . at the next stage
, we consider an incident low frequency magnetic field profile as a source of distortion of the plasma density profile and take into account currents due to the presence of a pump wave . the pumping wave angle @xmath166 .
our goal is to calculate the scattered field @xmath167 with frequency @xmath27 . in this case
, the boundary conditions are @xmath168 the profiles of the magnetic fields @xmath167 for two different pumping frequencies are shown in figures  [ h_high_freq_to_12ghz ] and [ h_high_freq_to_18ghz ] .
we note that the resonant layer @xmath20 acts as if it were a source . in the `` from the vehicle '' case
we calculate the magnetic field of the low frequency wave generated by plane pump and stokes waves . following the optimal strategy in this case , described in the analytic part of the paper ,
we take all angles equal to each other @xmath169 . in this case
, the boundary conditions are @xmath170 here @xmath49 is the magnetic field of the signal wave with frequency @xmath59 .
the boundary condition at @xmath171 , gives us the worst of all cases by definition .
the low frequency magnetic fields for two different pumping frequencies are shown in figs .
[ h_low_freq_from_12ghz ] and [ h_low_freq_from_18ghz ] .
we tested the robustness of the code by allowing for both finite and zero conductivity of the vehicle surface in the `` to the vehicle case '' . during the simulation in the `` from the vehicle '' case we also redid the simulation with the derivative of the magnetic field at the vehicle equal to zero .
in all the cases , the influences of the differing boundary conditions were negligible .    in the `` to the vehicle '' case , it is convenient to introduce the function @xmath172 as the ratio @xmath109 of the scattered field flux to the incoming signal flux and express it as a function of pump flux @xmath110 measured in watts per square meter .
we found @xmath173 @xmath174 these results are in a good agreement with the analytic estimation ( [ estimate_to_number ] ) .
any difference is due to the fact that the pumping frequency is not sufficiently high to neglect the plasma frequency .
the reason we used these frequencies and not much higher ones was that they are available on standard microwave equipment and devices .    in the `` from the vehicle '' case
, we calculate the ratio @xmath175 of the output signal flux to the product of the pump and stokes fluxes and express it as a function of the optimal angle .
we found @xmath176 @xmath177    in order to investigate the dependence of the result on the angles @xmath178 , we calculated @xmath179 for various different choices .
the results are shown in figs .
[ theta_phi_to_12ghz]-[theta_phi_from_18ghz ] .
as one can see , in the `` to the vehicle '' case we have a very good agreement between the analytically estimated angular dependence ( [ estimation_to ] ) and the numerical results .
namely , we have a maximum at pumping angles close to @xmath132 and the efficiency coefficient @xmath172 goes to zero at the vicinity of @xmath180 in a agreement with the @xmath181 dependence .
so we can formulate a simple rule : in order to get the best possible performance , send the pump wave in a direction perpendicular to the plasma edge surface .    in the `` from the vehicle '' case , the situation is even simpler .
as it was shown in section [ analytics_from ] the power conversion is optimal if we radiate both the pump and stokes waves in the direction of the desired signal wave propagation . the estimated angular dependence ( [ estimation_from ] )
can be fitted with good accuracy to the numerical results using only one tuning coefficient @xmath182 .
it is shown that this coefficient weakly depends on the pumping frequency .
let us now discuss the practical usage of this approach for receiving at and transmitting from the vehicle . for the `` to the vehicle '' case we consider the problem of receiving even gps signals .
let us estimate the resulting attenuation coefficient .
given a pump waveguide aperture of @xmath183 and a pump power of @xmath184 , this gives @xmath185 .
one can use the pulse regime . in this case , even for pulses @xmath186 long , every pulse still contains more than @xmath187 periods of the low frequency signal and we can get much higher power flux @xmath188 .
it gives us the attenuation coefficients @xmath189
@xmath190 the usual level of a gps signal at the earth surface is about @xmath191 ( 1 decibel per milliwatt is equal to @xmath192 ) .
indoors , one must use high sensitivity gps receivers .
many general purpose chipsets have been available for several years .
presently , the market offers sensitivities @xmath193 ( for example @xcite ) . using the definition of @xmath194
one can see , that it is possible to receive a signal with an attenuation about @xmath195 .
also it is possible to use a much bigger antenna on the vehicle than in the case of a handheld device . in this case
, it is even possible to receive a signal using the continuous rather than pulsed regime for a klystron pump .
so even at the angles far from optimal , one can receive gps signals .
further , we used maximum value of the plasma thickness . if the plasma sheath is thinner , the angular dependence is broader .
some characteristics of klystron amplifiers available on the open market are given in table  [ table_1 ] @xcite .
in the `` from the vehicle '' case , because of sensitive land based receivers , all we need is to have a reasonable signal . let us estimate an incoming power on some land based antenna .
first of all , for any real antenna we have to take into account the decrease of a signal due to diffraction broadening .
if the diameter of the land - based antenna ( figure [ antenna ] ) is @xmath196 , the diameter of the signal flux after some long distance @xmath197 will be @xmath198 it means that if we have power flux at an antenna @xmath199 , the power flux at the edge of the plasma after a distance @xmath197 will be @xmath200 for example , for an antenna of the diameter equal to 5 m , after 100 km @xmath201 now one can calculate the sensitivity of the receiver needed .
let us suppose that the signal beam outgoing from the vehicle has diameter @xmath202 , signal frequency @xmath203 and corresponding wave length @xmath204 , the land based antenna has a diameter @xmath205 and is situated at a distance @xmath206 . using the previous results for diffraction , the pumping klystrons powers from the table above and the expression @xmath207 , one can get for the power on the land based receiver @xmath208 we now list for two different frequencies , the corresponding powers in watts at the receiving antenna . @xmath209    the gps receiver mentioned above has a sensitivity about @xmath210 . even with such a modest size of the antenna and ordinary klystrons one can receive the signal at almost any angle .    as a final remark one can conclude that proposed method for communication with and from the supersonic vehicle is realistic even using standard devices available on the open market .    in a future work ,
there are several additional points we would like to consider further .
first , it might be worthwhile to discuss the effect of the plasma density profile at @xmath211 on the wave interaction .
one may expect that the transition will be much narrower than @xmath212 , because of the shock formation .
but shock waves take place not in the plasma but in air .
the air and plasma densities are not connected directly .
the plasma density is defined by the level of ionization which is governed by a density distribution in accordance with the saha equation . in a real plasma sheath
the characteristic temperature is much less then the ionization potential , and a typical level of ionization is low ( @xmath213-@xmath214 ) . under this conditions the plasma density depends on the temperature dramatically
. the temperature jumps inside the shock then grows gradually toward the vehicle .
still , just after the shock it is too low to provide a strong ionization , and the most essential increase in ionization takes place far behind the shock . for this reason we can neglect the jump of plasma density inside the shock wave and treat it as smooth
. in this case
an approximation by a linear function seems to be reasonable .
let us note that there is no blackout if the plasma sheath is as thick as @xmath212 and the plasma density is as low as @xmath215 . in this case , the incident wave can reach the vehicle due to the skin - effect . anyway
, our numerical code can be used for an arbitrary density profile .
another question is the following : will the shock and the flow behind it suffer from hydrodynamic instabilities ? actually , hydrodynamic - type instabilities as well as hydrodynamic turbulence are slow processes in our time - scale .
we can treat the plasma sheath as `` frozen '' .
the distortion of the density profile , although frozen , can slightly change the results .
it could look quite surprising that collision frequency @xmath42 drops out from the final results after integration over the spatial variable . this is a common mathematical trick , working perfectly as long as @xmath216 . in our case
we have @xmath217 .
in fact , the shape of the resonant layer can be distorted by nonlinear effects .
they are essential if the ongoing signal is powerful enough . at very small @xmath42 ,
the resonant peak would become very narrow .
could then the electron thermal motion start affecting the structure of the resonance ?
this question is very important .
a resonant layer can not be thinner than the debye length . in our case @xmath218 while the thickness of the resonant layer is @xmath219 .
thus the influence of the temperature can be neglected . in the case of much thinner resonant layer
this phenomenon should be taken into account and considered separately .
anyway , such influence could lead only to a radiation of langmuir waves from the resonant area .
but this effect is nothing but additional dissipation , dropping out from the final formulae .    when the signals come from the external source , what would be the role of the @xmath220-polarized component ?
one can expect that , for some orientations of the vehicle , the s - component will be dominant , and the resonance will disappear.this could somewhat reduce the efficiency . in our idealized model
( the vehicle is an infinite wall ) there is a difference between @xmath220 and @xmath221 polarizations . for a real vehicle
such a difference could be important .
this is a subject for future study .    as one can see there are still a lot of open questions .
the physics of the problem is very rich .
our present work may be best described as a `` proof of concept '' research from which we can make some orders of magnitude estimates and gain some insights .
the results can be made more accurate by including some of the physical effects discussed above .
this work was supported by afosr contract number  fh95500410090 .
korotkevich was supported by rfbr grant 06 - 01 - 00665-a , the programme `` nonlinear dynamics and solitons '' from the ras presidium and `` leading scientific schools of russia '' grant .
by neglecting @xmath43 , we obtain the linear ginzburg equation .
it takes an especially simple form if @xmath47 , @xmath222 and @xmath223 . in this case
@xmath224 and equation ( [ ginzburg ] ) is @xmath225 here @xmath226 and @xmath227 is another length . in our case @xmath228 ,
@xmath229 and @xmath230 .
one can introduce the dimensionless variable @xmath231 .
then equation ( [ ginzburglinear ] ) simplifies to , @xmath232 here @xmath233 is a dimensionless constant .
equation ( [ ginzburglinear ] ) has two linearly independent solutions @xmath234 , @xmath235 .
we assume @xmath236 the wronskian of these solutions is proportional to @xmath237 .
we can put @xmath238 it means that @xmath239 equation ( [ ginzburglineardimensionless ] ) can not be solved in terms of any known special functions . in the `` outer '' area @xmath240 it reduces to the form @xmath241 one can check that equation ( [ ginzburgairy ] ) can be solved in terms of the airy functions @xmath242 and @xmath243 .
namely , @xmath244 from ( [ wronskian ] ) one gets @xmath245    in the `` inner '' area @xmath246 , the equation ( [ ginzburglineardimensionless ] ) is reduced to the form @xmath247 equation ( [ ginzburgbessel ] ) can be solved in terms of bessel functions @xcite .
two linearly independant solutions of equation ( [ ginzburgbessel ] ) @xmath248 , @xmath249 behave in neighborhood of @xmath250 as follows @xmath251 both solutions , which are some linear combinations of @xmath248 , @xmath249 are bounded . thus the magnetic field has no singularity at @xmath20 .
consider the ginzburg equation for a wave @xmath252 and calculate the right hand side of ( [ ginzburg ] ) in terms if the fields @xmath253 . in the `` to the vehicle '' case , @xmath254 will represent the pump wave , @xmath255 the signal wave and @xmath256 the stokes wave . in the `` from the vehicle '' case
, @xmath256 will be the signal and @xmath254 and @xmath255 the pump and signal carrying stokes waves respectively . in all cases @xmath257 .
we find    @xmath258_x = \nonumber\\ = -\frac{e^3 n_0'(z ) k_3}{2m^2 \omega_3 \left(1+{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_3\right ) } \left ( \frac{1}{\varepsilon_1^ * \left(1 - { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)\omega_1 ^ 2 \varepsilon_2 \left(1 + { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)\omega_2 ^ 2 } \frac{\partial h_1^*}{\partial z}\frac{\partial h_2}{\partial z } + \right.\\ \left.+ \frac{k_1 k_2}{\varepsilon_1^ * \left(1 - { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)\omega_1 ^ 2 \varepsilon_2 \left(1 + { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)\omega_2 ^ 2}h_1^ * h_2\right ) + \nonumber\\ + \frac{e^3}{m^2}\left(\frac{k_2k_1 ^ 2 } { \left(1 - { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)\omega_1 ^ 3 \varepsilon_2 \left(1 + { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)\omega_2 ^ 2}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_1^*}\right)\right.+\nonumber\\ + \left.\frac{k_2 ^ 2k_1 } { \left(1 - { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)\omega_2 ^ 3 \varepsilon_1^ * \left(1 + { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)\omega_1 ^ 2}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_2}\right)\right)h_1^*h_2\\ + \frac{e^3}{m^2}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_2 ^ 2 \varepsilon_2\left(1+{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)}\frac{\partial h_2}{\partial z } \frac{k_1}{\omega_1 ^ 3\left(1-{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)}\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(h_1^*\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_1^*}\right)\right)+\right.\nonumber\\ + \left.\frac{1}{\omega_1 ^ 2\varepsilon_1^*\left(1-{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)}\frac{\partial h_1^*}{\partial z } \frac{k_2}{\omega_2 ^ 3\left(1+{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2\right)}\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(h_2\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_2}\right)\right)\right)-\\ -\frac{\mu_0 e^3}{m^2}\left(\frac{k_2}{\omega_2
^ 3\left(1+{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_2 \right)}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_2}\right ) + \frac{k_1}{\omega_1 ^ 3\left(1-{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_1\right)}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon_1^*}\right)\right)h_1^ * h_2.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using formulae ( [ current_nl_general ] ) , @xmath259      in the `` to the vehicle '' case , the main contribution comes from the terms containing poles @xmath260_x \simeq\\ \simeq \frac{e^3}{m^2}\frac{k_p k^2}{\left(1 - { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_p\right)\omega^3 \varepsilon_p \left(1 + { \mathrm i}\nu/\omega_p\right)\omega_p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon^*}\right)h^ * h_p+\nonumber\\ + \frac{e^3}{m^2}\frac{1}{\omega_p^2 \varepsilon_p\left(1+{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega_p\right)}\frac{\partial h_p}{\partial z } \frac{k}{\omega^3\left(1-{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega\right)}\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(h^*\frac{\partial } { \partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon^*}\right)\right)-\nonumber\\ -\frac{\mu_0 e^3}{m^2}\frac{k}{\omega^3\left(1-{\mathrm i}\nu/\omega\right)}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{n_0(z)}{\varepsilon^*}\right)h^ * h_p.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    assume that the high frequency pumping wave remains undisturbed .
then @xmath261 we find @xmath262_x { \mathrm e}^{-{\mathrm i}\kappa_p z}\ ] ] and @xmath263 after several integrations by parts in the second term of @xmath264_x$ ] , taking into account @xmath265 , one finds @xmath266 for most pumping angles , and using the fact that @xmath267 , one can substitute @xmath268 and consider incidence angles of pumping and stokes wave to be close in absolute value . following fig .
[ plasma_response_fig ] the pumping incidence angle is @xmath123 and low frequency signal incidence angle is @xmath16 .
@xmath269 using integration by parts once more one can get @xmath270 calculating this integral by residues and taking into account @xmath271 we finally get @xmath272
here we briefly present formulae for the `` sweep '' method in a very general way following the approach given in @xcite .      consider the ode @xmath273 in the region @xmath274 with boundary conditions @xmath275 we use for ( [ num_equation ] ) a second order finite difference scheme on a grid of @xmath276-nodes ( @xmath277 ) with constant step @xmath278 @xmath279 this equation is only valid for inner nodes of the grid .
the boundary conditions take the form @xmath280 we can rewrite equation ( [ num_equation_diff ] ) as @xmath281 in the same way for ( [ num_boundary_diff ] ) , one finds @xmath282 the result is a tridiagonal matrix @xmath283 equation for @xmath284 .
the solution of the linear system of equations with tridiagonal matrix is well described in numerous sources ( for instance @xcite ) .
it can be shown that one can find a solution in the following form @xmath285 from the left boundary , we have from ( [ num_matrix_left ] ) , that @xmath286 in this case @xmath287 next we derive a recurrence relation for @xmath288 and @xmath289 . after substituting ( [ sweep_relation ] ) in ( [ num_matrix_inner ] )
, we find @xmath290 then , comparing with ( [ sweep_relation ] ) , we see that @xmath291 using the initial values ( [ initial_for_pq ] ) and the recurring relations ( [ direct_sweep_recurring ] ) , one can get all @xmath292 coefficients up to @xmath293 ( `` direct sweep '' from left to right ) .
than we use second ( right ) boundary condition ( n - th equation ) @xmath294 immediately one finds @xmath295 finally , performing a recurrent `` backward sweep '' ( from right to left ) , using the already known @xmath292 , `` sweep''-relations ( [ sweep_relation ] ) and the initial condition ( [ y_initial ] ) , we get values for all @xmath296 .            l.d .
landau , n.n .
meiman and i.m .
khalatnikov , proceedings of the iiird ussr mathematics meeting , moscow , * 3 * , 92 ( 1956 ) . also in a book `` l.d .
collection of papers '' , vol .
2 , p.393 , `` science '' , moscow ( 1969 ) .            w.h .  press , b.p .
flannery , s.a .
teukolsky and w.t .  vetterling , `` numerical recipes : the art of scientific computing '' , cambridge university press + ( isbn-13 : 9780 - 5214 - 3108 - 8 | isbn-10 : 0 - 5214 - 3108 - 5 ) http://nr.com