Magnetopause stand-off distance in dependence on the magnetosheath and solar wind parameters

Pudovkin, M. I.; Besser, Bruno P.; Zaitseva, S. A.

doi:10.1007/s00585-998-0388-z

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Petrinec and Russell [], Kuznetsov and Suvorova [], and Shue et al [] models (abbreviated below as PR96, KS98, and S98, respectively) are axisymmetric but use different analytical expressions and differ in their predictions. The analytical model of Pudovkin et al [] (P98) was developed from the pressure balance condition at the subsolar point R x . The P98 model uses both the well‐known dependence

R_{x} \sim P_{dyn}^{- 1 / 6}

[ Mead and Beard , ] and some assumptions about southward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) penetration into the magnetosphere resulting from magnetopause reconnection.…”

Section: Empirical and Numerical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do we know the actual magnetopause position for typical solar wind conditions?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare predicted magnetopause positions at the subsolar point and four reference points in the terminator plane obtained from several empirical and numerical MHD models. Empirical models using various sets of magnetopause crossings and making different assumptions about the magnetopause shape predict significantly different magnetopause positions (with a scatter >1 RE) even at the subsolar point. Axisymmetric magnetopause models cannot reproduce the cusp indentations or the changes related to the dipole tilt effect, and most of them predict the magnetopause closer to the Earth than nonaxisymmetric models for typical solar wind conditions and zero tilt angle. Predictions of two global nonaxisymmetric models do not match each other, and the models need additional verification. MHD models often predict the magnetopause closer to the Earth than the nonaxisymmetric empirical models, but the predictions of MHD simulations may need corrections for the ring current effect and decreases of the solar wind pressure that occur in the foreshock. Comparing MHD models in which the ring current magnetic field is taken into account with the empirical Lin et al. model, we find that the differences in the reference point positions predicted by these models are relatively small for Bz=0. Therefore, we assume that these predictions indicate the actual magnetopause position, but future investigations are still needed.

show abstract

R_{x} \sim P_{dyn}^{- 1 / 6}

[ Mead and Beard , ] and some assumptions about southward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) penetration into the magnetosphere resulting from magnetopause reconnection.…”

Section: Empirical and Numerical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Abbreviations of models: PR96 [ Petrinec and Russell , ], KS98 [ Kuznetsov and Suvorova , ], P98 [ Pudovkin et al , ], S98 [ Shue et al , ], B00 [ Boardsen et al , ], L10 [ Lin et al , ], W13 [ Wang et al , ], and SG15 [ Shukhtina and Gordeev , ].…”

Section: Empirical and Numerical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we know the actual magnetopause position for typical solar wind conditions?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in fact the spatial normalization) in response to changes in the solar wind conditions. In this work, we have made a few runs of simulation testing assumptions about both a fixed magnetopause and a moving magnetopause when the position of subsolar point is determined by the models of Pudovkin et al (1998), Shue et al (1998) and pressure balance models. However, only results of the first run with a fixed magnetopause will be shown in the figures.…”

Section: Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton temperature anisotropy in the magnetosheath: comparison of 3-D MHD modelling with Cluster data

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.We study four intervals of Cluster data, lasting from five to eight hours, in the flanks of the magnetosheath. In a first part, we make numerical simulations of these magnetosheath crossings, using a three-dimensional double-adiabatic MHD model of the magnetosheath and assuming that the proton temperature anisotropy is bounded by the kinetic thresholds of the Alfvén proton cyclotron instability and of the mirror instability. The conditions at the upstream boundary of the numerical domain are given by the solar wind parameters observed by ACE. We assume that the magnetopause is a fixed and impenetrable boundary, i.e. without magnetic reconnection. The global agreement between the observations and the simulations confirms the validity of the model in the magnetosheath flanks. We discuss the consequences of different models of the magnetopause on some simulation results. In a second part, we compare the observed proton temperature anisotropy and the kinetic anisotropy thresholds of the two above-mentioned instabilities which are local functions of the proton β. In the intervals with a low proton β, the observed temperature anisotropy agrees well with the kinetic threshold of the proton-cyclotron instability; in the intervals with a higher β, the observed anisotropy is close to both the proton-cyclotron and the mirror thresholds. This confirms that the observed proton anisotropy is indeed bounded by the instability thresholds. We then analyse the magnetic field power spectra in a frequency range 0.003-10 Hz during four 18-min intervals for different values of β. If β<1, transverse (i.e. Alfvénic) fluctuations are dominant at every frequency. For β≥1, a mixture of compressive (i.e. mirror) and transverse waves is usually observed. For a case with β 10, there is no frequency where compressive waves are dominant. The values of β and of the proton temperature anisotropy are thus important but not the only parameters which determine the domiCorrespondence to: A. A. Samsonov (samsonov@geo.phys.spbu.ru) nant mode, compressive or transverse, at the proton scales in the magnetosheath.

show abstract

“…The terrestrial magnetopause standoff distance is known to be determined from the balance between the outer solar wind dynamic pressure and the inner magnetosphere pressure, which is generated by both the terrestrial dipole field and the fields generated by the magnetospheric current systems. For a fixed solar wind dynamic pressure the subsolar magnetopause is displaced toward the Earth when the IMF turns southward (Pudovkin et al 1998), an effect that has been associated with the erosion caused by the magnetic reconnection (see also Sect. 3.1) at the dayside magnetopause (Samsonov et al 2012).…”

Section: Planetary Space Weather As a Tool To Understand The Circum-tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We note that in most simple scenarios applied for the circum-terrestrial space weather case, the shock impacting the subsolar point of the magnetosphere drives the magnetopause earthward in a piston-like motion that launches a fast-mode wave that propagates both radially inward (earthward) and azimuthally around the Earth (Araki et al 1997;Gannon et al 2005). For the Earth case, Pudovkin et al (1998), in a statistical study on the magnetopause compression dependence on solar wind parameters, showed that the observed magnetopause standoff distances vary by a factor up to~2 depending on the orientation of the IMF field.…”

Section: Plasma and Magnetic Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planetary space weather: scientific aspects and future perspectives

Plainaki

Lilensten

Radioti

et al. 2016

J. Space Weather Space Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review the scientific aspects of planetary space weather at different regions of our Solar System, performing a comparative planetology analysis that includes a direct reference to the circum-terrestrial case. Through an interdisciplinary analysis of existing results based both on observational data and theoretical models, we review the nature of the interactions between the environment of a Solar System body other than the Earth and the impinging plasma/radiation, and we offer some considerations related to the planning of future space observations. We highlight the importance of such comparative studies for data interpretations in the context of future space missions (e.g. ESA JUICE; ESA/JAXA BEPI COLOMBO). Moreover, we discuss how the study of planetary space weather can provide feedback for better understanding the traditional circumterrestrial space weather. Finally, a strategy for future global investigations related to this thematic is proposed.

show abstract

Magnetopause stand-off distance in dependence on the magnetosheath and solar wind parameters

Cited by 21 publications

References 24 publications

Do we know the actual magnetopause position for typical solar wind conditions?

Do we know the actual magnetopause position for typical solar wind conditions?

Proton temperature anisotropy in the magnetosheath: comparison of 3-D MHD modelling with Cluster data

Planetary space weather: scientific aspects and future perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About