2.1. Particle Distribution Function
 To model the (equatorial) electron phase-space density we use the distribution function
with p2 = p∥2 + p⊥2, where p∥ = γmev∥ and p⊥ = γmev⊥ are the components of relativistic momentum p = γmev, me is the electron rest mass, v is the electron velocity with components v∥ and v⊥ respectively parallel and perpendicular to the ambient magnetic field, and γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 = (1 + p2/(mec)2)1/2, with v2 = v∥2 + v⊥2, and c is the speed of light; α = tan−1(p⊥/p∥) is the electron pitch angle; l is the spectral index and s is the pitch angle index; p* is a minimum value of the momentum to be specified below. Since the electron differential number flux J is given by
then J⊥(p*) in equation (1) is the perpendicular (α = π/2) differential number flux at p = p*. We introduce the electron kinetic energy E, given by E/(mec2) = γ − 1, which satisfies the relation
Then, by using equations (1) and (2), the electron integral omnidirectional flux,
is given by
and Γ is the gamma function.
 Barbosa and Coroniti  used a particle distribution of the form (1) in their study of relativistic electrons and whistlers in Jupiter's magnetosphere, and Schulz and Lanzerotti  used a nonrelativistic form of equation (1) in their determination of the limit on trapped particle flux in the Earth's magnetosphere. In the nonrelativistic case, γ = 1, p = mev, E = (mev2)/2, and then substitution of distribution (1) into equation (4) gives
where E* = p*2/(2me).
 Taking into consideration the form of the distribution function (1) and relation (7), we restrict our attention to the physically feasible parameter values l > 1 and s > 0. In the top panel of Figure 1, for l = 2 and s = 0.5, we show typical contours of constant phase-space density for distribution (1); in the bottom panel we illustrate the pitch angle variation of the distribution for different values of s.
Figure 1. (top) Contours of constant phase space density f = constant, where f is given by equation (1), for s = 0.5, l = 2; the contours are labeled by values of λ where [(p∥/(mec))2 + (p⊥/(mec))2]l+s+1 = λ[p⊥/(mec)]2s. (bottom) The pitch angle variation (at a fixed energy) for distribution (1), for the indicated values of the pitch angle index s.
Download figure to PowerPoint
2.2. Wave Growth Rates
 In Appendix A we derive the temporal growth rate ωi for electromagnetic R-mode waves propagating parallel to a uniform magnetic field, corresponding to the anisotropic electron distribution (1) in the presence of a cold background electron population. In the fully relativistic case, we find
where N0 is the cold electron number density,
is a cold plasma parameter where ∣Ωe∣ is the electron gyrofrequency and ωpe is the plasma frequency (each defined in Appendix A), and
where ω is the (real) wave frequency and k is the (real) wave number. I1, I2 are the integrals given by
and x, y satisfy the cold plasma R-mode dispersion relation,
 In general, the integrals I1 and I2 cannot be found in closed analytical form and so must be evaluated numerically. We evaluate I1 and I2 by employing the MATLAB function quadgk which uses an adaptive Gauss-Kronrod quadrature method [Shampine, 2008]. In addition, it is efficient to evaluate the integral occurring in equation (5), and also the similar integral in equation (46) below, by using quadgk even though these integrals can be evaluated analytically for certain values of the parameter l.
 The nonrelativistic approximation to the wave growth rate can be recovered by setting ΔR = 1 and γR = 1 in formulae (11) and (12) for the integrals I1 and I2. In this special case, the integrals can be obtained analytically and we find
Substitution of results (17) into equation (8) yields the nonrelativistic growth rate,
which can be shown to agree with the growth rate formula (2.65) given by Schulz and Lanzerotti . We find it useful to provide, in Appendix A, an equivalent derivation of expression (18) in which the parameter s is specifically identified as the electron pitch angle anisotropy in the nonrelativistic formulation (see equation (A15)).
 In Figure 2 we select typical cases to illustrate the dependence of the relativistic and nonrelativistic profiles of the whistler mode wave growth rate on the values of the parameters s and l; in the top panel we keep s fixed and vary l, and in the bottom panel we keep l fixed and vary s. The top panel indicates that a change in l value does not significantly change the frequency band for wave growth but does have some effect on the frequency at which the wave growth maximizes. The bottom panel shows that the value of s can significantly influence the frequency band over which wave growth occurs, and consequently also the value of the frequency at which the wave growth maximizes. The dependence on s and l of the frequencies at which the wave growth rate vanishes and maximizes is illustrated in detail for the relativistic case in Table 1, discussed below.
Figure 2. Relativistic and nonrelativistic whistler mode wave growth rates (given by equations (8) and (18)) for the case a = ∣Ωe∣2/ωpe2 = 0.05 and the indicated values of the pitch angle index s and the spectral index l.
Download figure to PowerPoint
Table 1. For the Relativistic Case, Values of x*, xm, and E*(keV) for the Given (s, l) Values; x* = ω*/∣Ωe∣ is the Normalized Frequency at Which the Whistler Mode Wave Growth Rate Vanishes; xm = ωm/∣Ωe∣ is the Normalized Frequency at Which the Growth Rate Maximizes; and E*(keV) is the Minimum Electron Resonant Energy for Interaction With Waves of Frequency ω*
2.3. Limiting Electron Flux
 We assume that a stably trapped electron flux can be maintained close to its limiting value by whistler mode waves of sufficient power generated at the magnetic equator. The power flow Pw of an electromagnetic wavefield is proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector and hence to the square of the wave amplitude Bw [e.g., Swanson, 1989]. We write
where G is the wave gain defined by
The path integral (20) is taken along a flux tube with element ds; ωi is the wave growth rate and vg = ∣dω/dk∣ is the group speed.
 If we apply condition (20) to a region in the vicinity of a planet with a dipole or dipole-like magnetic field, then we shall require a gain of 3 e-foldings in wave power (i.e., G = 3/2) over a distance LRP/2 where RP is the radius of the planet. Then equation (20) takes the approximate form
If we apply equation (20) to a region with a stretched magnetic field or current sheet, then we specify a wave gain G = 3/2 over the distance σRP, where the thickness of the current sheet is 2σRP and σ is a scalar constant independent of L shell. In this case, we replace equation (21) by the condition
Since the power gain in decibels (dB) is
then setting G = 3/2 is equivalent to a power gain of 30 log10e ∼ 13 dB over the specified region of convective wave growth. In both equations (21) and (22) we evaluate ωi and vg at the frequency ω = ωm corresponding to the maximum value of the wave temporal growth rate.
 From equation (16) we find the group speed of a whistler mode wave is given by
 We emphasize that the wave gain conditions (21) or (22) replace the original condition used by Kennel and Petschek  involving wave reflection. The idea of wave packets bouncing back and forth along a field line used by Kennel and Petschek  has not been validated since observations have established that the Poynting flux of the waves appears to be always directed away from the equatorial source region. As well, it has been recently found that waves are not well guided by the magnetic field lines and so, at least locally, a wave generated on one flux tube would not be fed back along the same flux tube via reflection. This makes the global modeling problem all the more difficult. Regarding the gain required to ensure self-sustaining waves, we have elected to make our formulation equivalent to that of Kennel and Petschek  by setting G = 3/2, corresponding to a net wave gain of 13 dB, as we have stated. In fact, there is some latitude in the specification of G. Analysis of whistler mode wave growth using data from the Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) [Li et al., 2008] and the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) satellite [Li et al., 2009] suggests that strong waves require a gain of about 50 dB to grow from background noise level. This corresponds to G ∼ 6 and would consequently increase our estimate of the limit on stably trapped flux by a factor of 4. It can be argued that substantial whistler mode wave growth, at least at Earth, requires a gain in the range G ∼ 3 to 6. The comparisons below of our limiting solutions with observed electron fluxes at Earth should be viewed with this caveat.
 Application of condition (21) or (22) to result (8) for the growth rate ωi serves to determine the limiting value of J⊥(p*) and hence (by equation (5)) the upper limit on the integral omnidirectional flux I4π(E > E*). We find the limiting values are
and HP is the convective growth length given by
We identify p* (or E*) as the minimum electron momentum (or energy) for which gyroresonance can occur with a wave having a positive value for the growth rate. From equations (8) and (16), we see that ωi > 0 for 0 < ω < ω* where x* = ω*/∣Ωe∣ and y* = ck*/∣Ωe∣ satisfy
Numerical values for x*, y* are determined from the simultaneous solution of equations (30) and (31). By setting ω = ω*, k = k*, v∥ = v*, and v⊥ = 0 in the relativistic gyroresonance condition,
we can show that
 Result (26), with E* given by equations (33)–(35), gives the limiting omnidirectional electron flux for E > E* in the fully relativistic case, and is a key new result in this paper.
 In Table 1 we present values of x*, xm and E* in the relativistic case for the specified array of (s, l) values, and we set the cold plasma parameter a = ∣Ωe∣2/ωpe2 = 0.05 which typically represents the Earth's trough region outside the plasmasphere near L = 4 [Sheeley et al., 2001]. We deduce from Table 1 that for any fixed l value, the values of x*, xm and E* depend sensitively on s, with x* and xm increasing and E* decreasing as s increases. For any fixed s value, x* and E* are relatively insensitive to l, while xm increases moderately as l increases.
 The nonrelativistic forms of results (25) and (26), which are obtained from equations (18), (21), (22) and (7) (or equations (25), (17) and (7)), are
where p* and E* assume nonrelativistic values of the minimum momentum and minimum energy; the function M(x, y) is the nonrelativistic limit of the function K(x, y). The nonrelativistic growth rate (18) is positive for frequencies such that 0 < ω < ω*, where ω* is given by
at which, by equation (16), the corresponding wave number is
Then, setting ω = ω*, k = k*, and v∥ = v* in the nonrelativistic gyroresonance condition
leads to v*/c = −(1 − x*)/y*, which, using equations (39) and (40), yields the required nonrelativistic values
 Our results (25) for the limiting perpendicular differential flux J⊥(p*) and (26) for the limiting integral omnidirectional flux I4π(E > E*) can be readily extended. For, from relations (1) and (2) it follows that
Result (44) is therefore the upper limit for the perpendicular differential flux, where in the fully relativistic case J⊥(p*) is given by equation (25) and p* by equation (33), and in the nonrelativistic approximation J⊥(p*) is given by equation (36) and p* by equation (42). Further, since the integral omnidirectional flux of electrons exceeding the energy E0 is
where we take E0 > E*, then, using equations (1), (2) and (25), we find
Expression (46) gives the limiting integral omnidirectional electron flux for energies exceeding E0, where E0 > E*. The nonrelativistic approximation to result (46), obtained by substituting the nonrelativistic form of equations (1) and (2) into equation (45), and by using equation (36), is
 In Figure 3 we plot x*, xm and E* as functions of the parameter a = ∣Ωe∣2/ωpe2 in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases, for the pitch angle indices s = 0.1, 0.5, 2.0, and the fixed spectral index l = 2. Since a ∝ B02/N0, then for a given background magnetic field, a “large” value of a corresponds to a “small” value of the electron density N0. Thus we observe from Figure 3 that, as expected, the differences between the relativistic and nonrelativistic profiles of x*, xm and E* become more pronounced as a becomes “large” or N0 becomes “small”. The sensitive dependence of x*, xm and E* on the pitch angle index s, as is evident from Table 1 (in the relativistic case) and as noted earlier, is also illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. (top) Values of the whistler mode wave frequency x* = ω*/∣Ωe∣ at which the growth rate vanishes, as a function of a = ∣Ωe∣2/ωpe2, in the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases, for the indicated values of s, l. (middle) Corresponding to the top panel, values of the wave frequency xm = ωm/∣Ωe∣ at which the growth rate maximizes. (bottom) Values of the minimum resonant energy E* for whistler mode wave-electron interaction corresponding to the wave frequency x* given in the top panel.
Download figure to PowerPoint