comparison of three methods for the estimation of cross-shock electric potential using cluster data

Clicks: 6
ID: 222928
2011
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #441 of 484 articles by views in journal of food measurement and characterization

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 484 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Cluster four point measurements provide a comprehensive dataset for the separation of temporal and spatial variations, which is crucial for the calculation of the cross shock electrostatic potential using electric field measurements. While Cluster is probably the most suited among present and past spacecraft missions to provide such a separation at the terrestrial bow shock, it is far from ideal for a study of the cross shock potential, since only 2 components of the electric field are measured in the spacecraft spin plane. The present paper is devoted to the comparison of 3 different techniques that can be used to estimate the potential with this limitation. The first technique is the estimate taking only into account the projection of the measured components onto the shock normal. The second uses the ideal MHD condition E·B = 0 to estimate the third electric field component. The last method is based on the structure of the electric field in the Normal Incidence Frame (NIF) for which only the potential component along the shock normal and the motional electric field exist. All 3 approaches are used to estimate the potential for a single crossing of the terrestrial bow shock that took place on the 31 March 2001. Surprisingly all three methods lead to the same order of magnitude for the cross shock potential. It is argued that the third method must lead to more reliable results. The effect of the shock normal inaccuracy is investigated for this particular shock crossing. The resulting electrostatic potential appears too high in comparison with the theoretical results for low Mach number shocks. This shows the variability of the potential, interpreted in the frame of the non-stationary shock model.
Reference Key
dimmock2011annalescomparison Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;A. P. Dimmock;M. A. Balikhin;Y. Hobara
Journal journal of food measurement and characterization
Year 2011
DOI
10.5194/angeo-29-815-2011
URL
https://www.ann-geophys.net/29/815/2011/angeo-29-815-2011.pdf
Keywords
cosmic physics sciencephysicsgeophysics

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.