 
Next, consider the calculation of the surface component of
 , the geodesic curvature
, the geodesic curvature  , which is defined by
, which is defined by
|  |  | ![$\displaystyle [\nabla \Psi \times \nabla \phi + g
\nabla \phi] \times \nabla \Psi$](img761.png) | |
|  |  | ||
|  |  | (269) | 
|  | (275) | 
|  | (276) | 
 is written as
 is written as
|  |  |  | |
|  |  | 
 
 term, the other terms on the
r.h.s of the above equation are written
 term, the other terms on the
r.h.s of the above equation are written
|  | |||
|  | |||
|  | |||
|  | 
 is proportional to the poloidal
derivative of the magnetic field strength. Equation (
 is proportional to the poloidal
derivative of the magnetic field strength. Equation (![[*]](crossref.png) ) indicates
that the geodesic curvature is zero for an equilibrium configuration that is
uniform in poloidal direction. Note that this formula for
) indicates
that the geodesic curvature is zero for an equilibrium configuration that is
uniform in poloidal direction. Note that this formula for  is valid
for arbitrary Jacobian. (Remarks: When I derived the formula of
 is valid
for arbitrary Jacobian. (Remarks: When I derived the formula of  for
the first time, I found that
 for
the first time, I found that  can be written in the simple form
given by Eq. (282) for the equa-arc length Jacobian. Later I found
that
 can be written in the simple form
given by Eq. (282) for the equa-arc length Jacobian. Later I found
that  can also be written in the simple form given by Eq.
(282) for the Boozer Jacobian. This makes me realize that the simple
form given by Eq. (282) may be universally valid for arbitrary
Jacobian. However, I did not verify this then. About two years later, I
reviewed this notes and succeeded in providing the derivation given above. The
derivation given above seems to be tedious and may be greatly simplified in
some aspects. But, at present, the above derivation is the only one that I can
provide.)
 can also be written in the simple form given by Eq.
(282) for the Boozer Jacobian. This makes me realize that the simple
form given by Eq. (282) may be universally valid for arbitrary
Jacobian. However, I did not verify this then. About two years later, I
reviewed this notes and succeeded in providing the derivation given above. The
derivation given above seems to be tedious and may be greatly simplified in
some aspects. But, at present, the above derivation is the only one that I can
provide.)
If we choose the equal-arc Jacobian, then Eq. (280) becomes relatively simple:
 calculated by using Eq. (283). I have verified
numerically that the results given by Eqs. (282) and (283)
agree with each other.
 calculated by using Eq. (283). I have verified
numerically that the results given by Eqs. (282) and (283)
agree with each other.
|  | 
yj 2015-09-04