Streamer Self-Focusing in External Longitudinal Magnetic Field

Starikovskiy, Andrey; Shneider, Mikhail N.; Aleksandrov, N. L.

doi:10.1109/icops36761.2021.9588516

Cited by 1 publication

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figures 3a and 3b depict two‐dimensional (2D) scans of the streamer reduced electric field E / E k at t = 1.3 ms for

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

and

\vert \vec{B}\vert =5

G, respectively. In addition, Figures 3c and 3d, respectively, depict 2D scans of the streamer electron density n e at the same moment of time and for

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

and

\vert \vec{B}\vert =5

G. Similar to (Starikovskiy et al., 2021, Figures 9 and 10), it is evident that in the presence of the axial magnetic field, the streamer is narrower. In the following, this is explained in terms of the magnetic field effect on both mobility and mean energy of electrons (both are functions of the angle between the electric and magnetic field vectors).…”

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitersupporting

confidence: 68%

“…We note that Starikovskiy et al. (2021) demonstrate that compared to

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

, for

\vert \vec{B}\vert \ne 0

the magnitude of anisotropy in the electron energy distribution function (EEDF)

f\left({\vec{v}}_{\mathrm{e}}\right)

reduces such that results obtained from the two‐term approximation to

f\left({\vec{v}}_{\mathrm{e}}\right)

remain valid.…”

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitermentioning

confidence: 63%

“…In order to retain model symmetry in the polar direction ϕ ′ we assume that magnetic field is parallel to the simulation model axis, and applied electric field

{\vec{E}}_{a}

. We emphasize that the streamer has a considerably large electric field which is not necessarily parallel to the axis, that is,

\vec{B}

, and our model correctly captures important effects for radial component of electric field (i.e., when

\vec{E}\perp \vec{B}

) (Starikovskiy et al., 2021).…”

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We note that for conditions of reported modeling at 250 km altitude ω ce = 8.79 × 10 7 rad

{\mathrm{s}}^{-1},N=6.32\times 1{0}^{14}\ {\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}^{-3},\frac{{N}_{0}}{N}=6.90\times 1{0}^{4}

, and

B\frac{{N}_{0}}{N}=34.54

T (see Figure 4). Following (Starikovskiy et al., 2021) we use BOLSIG+ (Hagelaar & Pitchford, 2005) to generate lookup tables of transport coefficients and rate constants. In particular, the tables are calculated for magnetic field magnitudes

\vert \vec{B}\vert =[0,5,10,15]

G, cosine values of angle between electric field and magnetic field

\mathrm{cos}\left(\angle \vec{E},\vec{B}\right)=[0,0.25,0.5,0.75,1]

, and reduced electric fields E / N = 0–600 Td.…”

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sprite streamer inception and propagation on Jupiter has not been investigated yet. In this paper we report on development of a numerical model for modeling of magnetized streamers (e.g., Starikovskiy et al., 2021) in presence of Jupiter's strong magnetic field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Preliminary Modeling of Magnetized Sprite Streamers on Jupiter Following Juno's Observations of Possible Transient Luminous Events

Janalizadeh

Pasko

2023

JGR Space Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first observation of possible transient luminous events (TLEs) on Jupiter was recently reported by Giles et al. (2020). This is a finding that resembles the serendipitous capture of Earth's TLEs on camera three decades ago (Franz et al., 1990). Specifically, the ultraviolet spectrograph (UVS) aboard the Juno spacecraft has recorded 11 optical signals during the first 4 years of the mission that may have originated from TLEs on Jupiter. Light curves for 10 of the flashes show a mean decay time of ∼1.4 ms while the remaining flash has a noticeably shorter duration (i.e., 0.1 ms), which possibly may be because Juno's UVS was triggered immediately before the photodetector moved off the flash. Additional properties of the detected flashes and the observation geometry may be found in Giles et al. (2020, Table 1). 2020) use a model of radiative transfer in Jupiter's atmosphere to locate the altitude of flashes. It is concluded that the best fit to the recorded spectrum of flashes is obtained for a source altitude of ∼258 km above the 1-bar level (i.e., ∼10 μbar pressure). Giles et al. ( 2020) emphasize that UV observations cannot probe altitudes below that corresponding to 100 mbar. As such, the UV signature of lightning, which is generally thought to occur at ∼5 bar and even the recently observed "shallow lightning" (Becker et al., 2020) that occurs at pressures higher than 1.4 bar will be absent from Juno UVS observations (e.g., Moses et al., 2005, Figure 8). It is therefore clear that Giles et al. (2020) did not observe typical lightning discharges. Giles et al. (Previous observations of Jupiter lightning were limited by camera sensitivity, distance from Jupiter and long exposures. This contributed to the exclusive detection of Jupiter lightning with optical energies comparable to terrestrial superbolts (e.g., Turman, 1977) (i.e., ∼10 9 J). Juno's observations of Jupiter, however, has led to the conclusion that Jupiter lightning predominantly consists of flashes with optical energies similar to typical terrestrial energies (i.e., 10 5 -10 8 J) (Becker et al., 2020, Figure 2). Kolmašová et al. (2018) report a much higher lightning frequency, which is comparable to the frequency of lightning on Earth, and Becker et al. (2020) report an increase in the flash rate from ∼4 × 10 −3 to ∼6.1 × 10 −2 flashes per square kilometer per year with several flashes

show abstract

“…Figures 3a and 3b depict two‐dimensional (2D) scans of the streamer reduced electric field E / E k at t = 1.3 ms for

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

and

\vert \vec{B}\vert =5

G, respectively. In addition, Figures 3c and 3d, respectively, depict 2D scans of the streamer electron density n e at the same moment of time and for

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

and

\vert \vec{B}\vert =5

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitersupporting

confidence: 68%

“…We note that Starikovskiy et al. (2021) demonstrate that compared to

\vert \vec{B}\vert =0

, for

\vert \vec{B}\vert \ne 0

the magnitude of anisotropy in the electron energy distribution function (EEDF)

f\left({\vec{v}}_{\mathrm{e}}\right)

reduces such that results obtained from the two‐term approximation to

f\left({\vec{v}}_{\mathrm{e}}\right)

remain valid.…”

Section: Sprite Streamer Inception On Jupitermentioning

confidence: 63%

“…In order to retain model symmetry in the polar direction ϕ ′ we assume that magnetic field is parallel to the simulation model axis, and applied electric field