2020
DOI: 10.1029/2019gl086599
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Multi‐Instrument Approach to Determining the Source‐Region Extent of EEP‐Driving EMIC Waves

Abstract: Recent years have seen debate regarding the ability of electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves to drive EEP (energetic electron precipitation) into the Earth's atmosphere. Questions still remain regarding the energies and rates at which these waves are able to interact with electrons. Many studies have attempted to characterize these interactions using simulations; however, these are limited by a lack of precise information regarding the spatial scale size of EMIC activity regions. In this study we exami… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, Kim et al (2018) did not thoroughly discuss possible intersatellite differences of the wave intensity and electron density observed by the Swarm-A and Swarm-C, which fly in a tight formation. The separation of the two satellites (~1.5°in longitude or 0.1 hr in local time) is smaller than reported scale sizes of EMIC wave source regions: for example, up to 0.7 hr in local time in Blum et al (2016, Table 1), >0.3 hr in local time in Blum et al (2017, Summary), and 0.75 hr in local time in Hendry et al (2020). Hence, differences in Pc1 amplitudes observed by the two Swarm satellites, if any, are largely attributable to wave propagation effects through two different ionospheric paths.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Second, Kim et al (2018) did not thoroughly discuss possible intersatellite differences of the wave intensity and electron density observed by the Swarm-A and Swarm-C, which fly in a tight formation. The separation of the two satellites (~1.5°in longitude or 0.1 hr in local time) is smaller than reported scale sizes of EMIC wave source regions: for example, up to 0.7 hr in local time in Blum et al (2016, Table 1), >0.3 hr in local time in Blum et al (2017, Summary), and 0.75 hr in local time in Hendry et al (2020). Hence, differences in Pc1 amplitudes observed by the two Swarm satellites, if any, are largely attributable to wave propagation effects through two different ionospheric paths.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Due to the multipoint EMIC wave observations in space, we can estimate the minimum extent of the region occupied by the waves, which is significant for estimates of their roles in both ring current ion dynamics and relativistic electron precipitation (see also Hendry et al., 2020). In our case, VAP‐A and VAP‐B observe the EMIC waves simultaneously from 16:15 to 16:30 UT when the distance between them was 1.5 h in MLT.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, sub-MeV electron precipitation associated with EMIC waves has been reported with statistical lower cut off energy down to 300 keV (e.g. Hendry et al, 2020;Capannolo et al, 2019). Many of the low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite observations used to infer the electron precipitation caused by EMIC waves have not been energy-resolved and future direct measurements will continue to help characterize the spectrum of energetic electrons impacted by EMIC waves (cf.…”
Section: Wave Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%