2018
DOI: 10.1029/2018gl080762
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The D Region Response to the August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse and Coincident Solar Flare

Abstract: During the solar eclipse of 21 August 2017, the University of Florida monitored very low frequency (3–30 kHz) radio activity at ten locations, enabling the remote sensing of the D region ionosphere (∼50‐ to 100‐km altitude). Two of the locations were far enough away (Antarctica) that no response to the eclipse was detected despite the fact that the eclipse significantly shadowed the transmitter. A particularly rare observation is presented: Three receivers were at locations where the Moon blocked at least some… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found that for all three paths there was no noticeable influence on amplitude; however, the phase revealed a significant decrease during the eclipse. For the two signals transmitted from NPM and NML transmitters which both had frequencies close to 20 kHz the negative phase anomalies were −33° and −35°, correspondingly, which is in good agreement with the experimental results, obtained by Cohen et al () and Moore and Burch () for the American paths. Note that the anomalies lasted longer for the longer path.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We found that for all three paths there was no noticeable influence on amplitude; however, the phase revealed a significant decrease during the eclipse. For the two signals transmitted from NPM and NML transmitters which both had frequencies close to 20 kHz the negative phase anomalies were −33° and −35°, correspondingly, which is in good agreement with the experimental results, obtained by Cohen et al () and Moore and Burch () for the American paths. Note that the anomalies lasted longer for the longer path.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…No quantitative analysis of the ionospheric conditions during eclipse was made. Another work also presents the analysis of VLF signal during this eclipse (Moore & Burch, ). These authors observed both amplitude and phase perturbations on many middle length VLF paths from NLM transmitter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When a sudden, localized disturbance occurs in the ionosphere between a VLF transmitter and receiver, the received signal is affected for a period of time, after which it recovers to (nearly) its original value. Such transients can be produced by a wide variety of events, including lightning (e.g., early/fast events, long recovery events, and lightning induced electron precipitation events), solar flares and eclipses [2], or even galactic γ-ray bursts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2012) used the solar obscuration profile along the propagation path to reproduce the observed VLF signal changes due to the total solar eclipse of 2009 and found the variation of the D‐region electron density during the eclipse period. Moore and Burch (2018) used a linear dependence of solar obscuration percentage for the VLF reflection height and slope of electron density parameter in the LWPC model to calculate the perturbed VLF amplitude during a solar eclipse. Besides the LWPC model, Inui and Hobara (2014), also used a 2D‐Finite Domain Time Difference (FDTD) method to simulate the VLF signal changes in Japan during the annular solar eclipse of 2012.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%