Discontinuities in the solar wind

Colburn, D. S.; Sonett, C. P.

doi:10.1007/bf00240575

Cited by 283 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Landau and Lifshitz, 1960;Hudson, 1970), but also experimentally (e.g. Colburn and Sonett, 1966;Siscoe et al, 1968;Turner and Siscoe, 1971;Smith, 1973).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

What is the best method to calculate the solar wind propagation delay?

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present a statistical study of propagation times of solar wind discontinuities between Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft orbiting the L1 libration point and the Cluster quartet of spacecraft near the Earth's magnetopause. The propagation times for almost 200 events are compared with the predicted times from four different models. The simplest model assumes a constant convective motion of solar wind disturbances along the Sun-Earth line, whereas more sophisticated models take the orientation of the discontinuity as well as the real positions of the solar wind monitor and target into account. The results show that taking orientation and real position of the solar wind monitor and target into account gives a more precise time delay estimation in most cases. In particular, we show that recent modifications to the minimum variance technique can improve the estimation of propagation times of solar wind discontinuities.

show abstract

“…Landau and Lifshitz, 1960;Hudson, 1970), but also experimentally (e.g. Colburn and Sonett, 1966;Siscoe et al, 1968;Turner and Siscoe, 1971;Smith, 1973).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

What is the best method to calculate the solar wind propagation delay?

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Directional discontinuities (DD) in the IMF have been studied and described in varying degrees of detail by Ness et al (1966), Colburn and Sonett _(1966), Ness (1968, 1969), Siscoe et alo. (1968), Belcher andSolodyna (1975), Burlaga (1969, 1971a,b) Turner and Siscoe (1971, Smith (1973a,b), and others.…”

Section: Directional Discontinuity Distance Dependencementioning

confidence: 99%

Heliocentric distance dependence of the interplanetary magnetic field

Behannon

1978

Reviews of Geophysics

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Classes of hydromagnetic discontinuities have been described in a review article by Colburn and Sonett (1966), and discontinuous structures in the solar wind have been observed by a number of authors. The classes of discontinuities we shall be concerned with are either "rotational" or "tangential"; other discontinuous structures, such as fast or slow shocks, occur too infrequently to be of interest to this study.…”

Section: Contribution Of Discontinuitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of low-energy cosmic rays

Sari¹

1975

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theories have related the diffusion of cosmic rays in the solar wind to the power spectrum of interplanetary magnetic field fluctuations. In this study the power spectrum‐diffusion coefficient relation for low‐energy protons (T < 80 MeV) is tested directly, and the relative contribution to the scattering from directional discontinuities in the magnetic field is examined. Modulation parameters Vw/Krr, the solar wind speed divided by the radial diffusion coefficient, are calculated from Pioneer 6 magnetic field and solar wind data and are compared with simultaneous Imp 3 observations of the 20‐ to 80‐MeV proton flux. Daily variations in the 40‐ to 80‐MeV proton flux are found to respond to changes in Vw/Krr, as is predicted by a perturbation solution of the Fokker‐Planck equation once the contribution from directional discontinuities in the magnetic field is subtracted from the diffusion coefficients. This finding is interpreted to imply that a large percentage of the identified discontinuities are basically tangential. A lack of correlation between the 20‐ to 40‐MeV flux and the parameter changes is interpreted as being due to either the invalidity of the theory at lower energies or the presence of a continuous flux of high‐energy solar protons. A well‐defined time lag between changes in the 60‐ to 80‐MeV proton flux and corresponding changes in Vw/Krr is observed during a period when the interplanetary magnetic field is predominantly radial and the Imp 3‐sun‐Pioneer 6 angle is greater than 10°. This lag is consistent with the interpretation of little or no cross‐field diffusion or a perpendicular diffusion coefficient less than 3 × 1019 cm²/s.

show abstract

Discontinuities in the solar wind

Cited by 283 publications

References 43 publications

What is the best method to calculate the solar wind propagation delay?

What is the best method to calculate the solar wind propagation delay?

Heliocentric distance dependence of the interplanetary magnetic field

Modulation of low-energy cosmic rays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About