scholarly journals Formation of multiple energy dispersion of H+ , He+ , and O+ ions in the inner magnetosphere in response to interplanetary shock

2017 ◽  
Vol 122 (4) ◽  
pp. 4387-4397 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Tsuji ◽  
Y. Ebihara ◽  
T. Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Energy Dispersion ◽  
Inner Magnetosphere

Energetic particle injections in the inner magnetosphere as a response to an interplanetary shock

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinlin Li ◽  
D.N. Baker ◽  
S. Elkington ◽  
M. Temerin ◽  
G.D. Reeves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energetic Particle ◽  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Inner Magnetosphere

scholarly journals Inner magnetosphere plasma characteristics in response to interplanetary shock impacts

2011 ◽  
Vol 116 (A11) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Yue ◽  
Qiugang Zong ◽  
Yongfu Wang ◽  
I. I. Vogiatzis ◽  
Zuyin Pu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Inner Magnetosphere ◽  
Plasma Characteristics ◽  
Magnetosphere Plasma ◽  
Shock Impacts

scholarly journals Fast acceleration of “killer” electrons and energetic ions by interplanetary shock stimulated ULF waves in the inner magnetosphere

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (12) ◽  
pp. 1188-1201 ◽  
Author(s):  
QiuGang Zong ◽  
YongFu Wang ◽  
ChongJing Yuan ◽  
Biao Yang ◽  
ChenRui Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Ulf Waves ◽  
Energetic Ions ◽  
Inner Magnetosphere

The Inner Magnetosphere Imager mission

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Les Johnson ◽  
Melody Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Inner Magnetosphere

Access of plasma sheet ions to the inner magnetosphere

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rothwell ◽  
William Burke ◽  
Carl-Gunne Falthammar
Keyword(s):  
Plasma Sheet ◽  
Inner Magnetosphere

scholarly journals What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know about Interplanetary Drivers

Universe ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Yuri I. Yermolaev ◽  
Irina G. Lodkina ◽  
Lidia A. Dremukhina ◽  
Michael Y. Yermolaev ◽  
Alexander A. Khokhlachev
Keyword(s):  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Magnetic Storms ◽  
System Response ◽  
Ionospheric Disturbances ◽  
Atmosphere System ◽  
Compression Region ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Composite Nature ◽  
Incorrect Data

One of the most promising methods of research in solar–terrestrial physics is the comparison of the responses of the magnetosphere–ionosphere–atmosphere system to various types of interplanetary disturbances (so-called “interplanetary drivers”). Numerous studies have shown that different types of drivers result in different reactions of the system for identical variations in the interplanetary magnetic field. In particular, the sheaths—compression regions before fast interplanetary CMEs (ICMEs)—have higher efficiency in terms of the generation of magnetic storms than ICMEs. The growing popularity of this method of research is accompanied by the growth of incorrect methodological approaches in such studies. These errors can be divided into four main classes: (i) using incorrect data with the identification of driver types published in other studies; (ii) using incorrect methods to identify the types of drivers and, as a result, misclassify the causes of magnetospheric-ionospheric disturbances; (iii) ignoring a frequent case with a complex, composite, nature of the driver (the presence of a sequence of several simple drivers) and matching the system response with only one of the drivers; for example, a magnetic storm is often generated by a sheath in front of ICME, although the authors consider these events to be a so-called “CME-induced” storm, rather than a “sheath-induced” storm; (iv) ignoring the compression regions before the fast CME in the case when there is no interplanetary shock (IS) in front of the compression region (“sheath without IS” or the so-called “lost driver”), although this type of driver generates about 10% of moderate and large magnetic storms. Possible ways of solving this problem are discussed.

scholarly journals Unusual enhancement of ~ 30 MeV proton flux in an ICME sheath region

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuo Oka ◽  
Takahiro Obara ◽  
Nariaki V. Nitta ◽  
Seiji Yashiro ◽  
Daikou Shiota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Front ◽  
Energetic Particle ◽  
Leading Edge ◽  
Solar Energetic Particle ◽  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Proton Event ◽  
Sheath Region ◽  
Time Profiles ◽  
Energetic Particle Flux ◽  
Mev Protons

AbstractIn gradual Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events, shock waves driven by coronal mass ejections (CMEs) play a major role in accelerating particles, and the energetic particle flux enhances substantially when the shock front passes by the observer. Such enhancements are historically referred to as Energetic Storm Particle (ESP) events, but it remains unclear why ESP time profiles vary significantly from event to event. In some cases, energetic protons are not even clearly associated with shocks. Here, we report an unusual, short-duration proton event detected on 5 June 2011 in the compressed sheath region bounded by an interplanetary shock and the leading edge of the interplanetary CME (or ICME) that was driving the shock. While < 10 MeV protons were detected already at the shock front, the higher-energy (> 30 MeV) protons were detected about four hours after the shock arrival, apparently correlated with a turbulent magnetic cavity embedded in the ICME sheath region.

scholarly journals Cluster observations of sudden impulses in the magnetotail caused by interplanetary shocks and pressure increases

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 609-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. E. J. Huttunen ◽  
J. Slavin ◽  
M. Collier ◽  
H. E. J. Koskinen ◽  
A. Szabo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Field ◽  
Solar Wind ◽  
Dynamic Pressure ◽  
Solar Wind Speed ◽  
Interplanetary Shock ◽  
Wind Pressure ◽  
Shock Propagation ◽  
Interplanetary Shocks ◽  
Maximum Variance ◽  
The Magnetic Field

Abstract. Sudden impulses (SI) in the tail lobe magnetic field associated with solar wind pressure enhancements are investigated using measurements from Cluster. The magnetic field components during the SIs change in a manner consistent with the assumption that an antisunward moving lateral pressure enhancement compresses the magnetotail axisymmetrically. We found that the maximum variance SI unit vectors were nearly aligned with the associated interplanetary shock normals. For two of the tail lobe SI events during which Cluster was located close to the tail boundary, Cluster observed the inward moving magnetopause. During both events, the spacecraft location changed from the lobe to the magnetospheric boundary layer. During the event on 6 November 2001 the magnetopause was compressed past Cluster. We applied the 2-D Cartesian model developed by collier98 in which a vacuum uniform tail lobe magnetic field is compressed by a step-like pressure increase. The model underestimates the compression of the magnetic field, but it fits the magnetic field maximum variance component well. For events for which we could determine the shock normal orientation, the differences between the observed and calculated shock propagation times from the location of WIND/Geotail to the location of Cluster were small. The propagation speeds of the SIs between the Cluster spacecraft were comparable to the solar wind speed. Our results suggest that the observed tail lobe SIs are due to lateral increases in solar wind dynamic pressure outside the magnetotail boundary.

scholarly journals Recent Advancements and Remaining Challenges Associated With Inner Magnetosphere Cross‐Energy/Population Interactions (IMCEPI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. 886-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiqun Yu ◽  
Mike W. Liemohn ◽  
Vania K. Jordanova ◽  
Colby Lemon ◽  
Jichun Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Inner Magnetosphere ◽  
Population Interactions
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document