Nonlinear ion-acoustic waves in e–p–i plasmas with (r, q) distributed electrons and positrons

Abstract

The influence of the low energy part of the velocity distribution on the propagation characteristics of the nonlinear ion-acoustic waves is investigated in this study by employing the double spectral index (r, q) distribution function. We present an ample study to ascertain how the formation of compressive and rarefactive ion-acoustic solitary structures is influenced by the low energy particles in the distribution profile. We found that only compressive structures are formed for flat top distribution; however, both compressive and rarefactive structures are admissible for spiky distribution. The effect of spectral indices r and q on the formation of solitary structures is explored in detail, and a brief comparison with the Maxwellian and kappa distribution is also given. The present study is imperative in understanding the role of flat top or spiky distributions in plasmas, where positrons are present, and simultaneous observations of such distributions.

Analysis of electron acoustic waves interaction in the presence of homogeneous unmagnetized collision-free plasma

“…Ever since the kappa distribution is being reported to match the collected data in the solar wind, the magnetosphere for Mercury, Saturn, and Uranus, and the terrestrial magnetosphere, the terrestrial plasma sheet, the radiation belts, the magnetosheath, etc [29]. In addition to kappa distribution, here are some other distribution functions in the fitness of the situation that match the observational data well, exceptionally the behavior of low energy electrons, and have also been used to justify different inspections for space plasmas [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. To examine the superthermal electron's influence on the linear and nonlinear propagation characteristics of electron acoustic waves in numerous plasma models, numerous researchers have however implemented the kappa distribution [37][38][39].…”

Two-stage mass spectrometry approach for the analysis of triterpenoid glycosides in Fagonia indica

“…2,3 Fagonia species are oen used in traditional medicines, for treating fever, jaundice, 4 blood puri-cation, cold, cough, 5 asthma, skin infections, liver troubles, 6 carminative and emetic conditions. 7 Pharmacological effects of Fagonia species including antimicrobial, [8][9][10] anti-inammatory, 11 antioxidant, 12 antipyretic, 13 analgesic, 14 antitumor 8, 15 and anticancer 16 properties have been well veried.…”

Engagement in the digital age: practitioners’ perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for planning and environmental decision-making.

“…Public and stakeholder engagement is increasingly advocated and embedded in environmental decision-making processes to meet a spectrum of normative, substantive, and instrumental goals: people have a right to be involved in decisions that affect their lives; a plurality of views provides better knowledge to inform decision-making processes; engagement helps to increase the legitimacy of decisions and enhance the credibility and trust of decision-making organisations (Fiorino, 1990;Stirling, 2008b). As such, the involvement of members of the public and other stakeholder groups (for example, local authorities, businesses, and charities) has been increasingly sought after and embedded in research, policy, and practice from local to international scales (Butler et al, 2020;Konisky and Beierle, 2001;OECD, 2022;Reed, 2008).…”

“…Researchers have investigated the role and influence of technology across multiple disciplines including online qualitative research (e.g., Adams-Hutcheson and Longhurst, 2017;Longhurst, 2016;Salmons, 2016;Pink et al, 2015) and digital geographies (e.g., Ash et al, 2018a;Ash et al, 2018b). The literature on digital engagement, participatory, and online qualitative methods rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an explosion of studies exploring the benefits and limitations of switching from in-person to online methods (Ada Lovelace Institute, 2020; Auerbach et al, 2022;Butler et al, 2020;Egid et al, 2021;Falter et al, 2022;Gray et al, 2020;Lobe et al, 2020;Boland et al, 2021;Hall et al, 2021;Marzi, 2021;Muñoz et al, 2021;Sattler et al, 2022;Tremblay et al, 2021;Willis et al, 2021). At the same time, researchers and practitioners alike worked together to produce crowdsourced documents, public blog posts, and share resources on social media to quickly bring together diverse ideas for conducting research during the pandemic (e.g., Gulliford, 2020;Jowett, 2020;Kara and Khoo, 2021;Lupton, 2021;Midgelow, 2020).…”

“…It is clear that digital technology is continuously transforming participatory and engagement processes in research, policy, and practice (Butler et al, 2020;Evans-Cowley and Hollander, 2010;Rawat and Yusuf, 2019;Wilson and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). In recent years, national strategies for digital transformation, Levelling Up, and economic growth in the UK have followed a 'digital-by-default' or 'digital first' mantra in line with the Government's aspirations to become a world leader in digital adoption 12 (Cabinet Office, 2012;Government Digital Service, 2017;DLUHC, 2022;DDCMS, 2022 Despite evident drives for more digital engagement and 'digital first', there are still many unresolved questions about the benefits of these technologies and their effectiveness at addressing the goals of participation (Afzalan and Muller, 2018;Köpsel et al, 2021;Manderscheid et al, 2022;McKinley et al, 2021;Robinson and Johnson, 2021;Willis et al, 2021).…”