In the paper we comment on (Rüdiger & Shalybkov, Phys. Rev. E. 69, 016303 (2004) (RS)), the instability of the TaylorCouette flow interacting with a homogeneous background field subject to Hall effect is studied. We correct a falsely generalizing interpretation of results presented there which could be taken to disprove the existence of the Hall-drift induced magnetic instability described in Rheinhardt and Geppert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101103. It is shown that in contrast to what is suggested by RS, no additional shear flow is necessary to enable such an instability with a non-potential magnetic background field, whereas for a curl-free one it is. In the latter case, the instabilities found in RS in situations where neither a hydrodynamic nor a magneto-rotational instability exists are demonstrated to be most likely magnetic instead of magnetohydrodynamic. Further, some minor inaccuracies are clarified.
I.The main purpose of this Comment on the paper [1] (further on referred to as RS) is to prevent a incorrect conclusion with respect to our work [2,3] which could be drawn from an incorrect statement in the discussion section of RS. There, at the end of the third paragraph, the authors conclude from the invariance of their results with respect to simultaneous sign inversions of shear and Hall term that no instabilities are possible without shear. Although this conclusion being looked at out of context is not comprehensible, it is nevertheless true for the special case of a homogeneous (more generally: curl-free) background field B 0 , but not in general. As the scheme (40) of RS is valid for nonpotential (axisymmetric) fields, too, and the quoted conclusion is drawn completely on its basis, the reader will be tempted to generalize it. He or she could then come to the end that the results on a Hall instability without shear reported in [2,3] have to be put in question. (Note, that the term 'shear' is used throughout RS to refer to the macroscopic motion of a fluid.) Here, we will show that conclusions on necessary conditions for the instabilities in question can reliably be drawn on the basis of energy considerations. They support the possibility of a Hall instability without shear.The linearized induction and Navier-Stokes equations describing the evolution of small perturbations B ′ and u ′ of the background field B 0 and the shear flow (here: differential rotation) u 0 , respectively, read for a curl-freewhere we used the symbols introduced in RS. Standard arguments yield the following evolution equation for the total energy E of the perturbations:with V ′ being the infinite space minus any volume with infinite conductivity and V the volume of the container. Of course, solutions with growing total energy are impossible, as long as u 0 = 0. More generally, even if we would admit a rigid body motion for u 0 , growing solutions do not exist. The situation changes qualitatively, if B 0 is no longer curl-free: The additional term −β curl(curl B 0 × B ′ ) occurring in the linearized induction equation results in ...