Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock
With the measurements of magnetic field of Venus Express (VEX), magnetic coplanarity and minimum variance analysis (MVA) methods are analyzed and their validity is tested to determine the normal of Venusian bow shocks. It is found that MVA method is the better than magnetic coplanarity, and 95% shoc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Chinese science bulletin 2013-07, Vol.58 (20), p.2469-2472 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2472 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 20 |
| container_start_page | 2469 |
| container_title | Chinese science bulletin |
| container_volume | 58 |
| creator | Shan, LiCan Lu, QuanMing Zhang, TieLong Gao, XinLiang Huang, Can Su, YanQing Wang, Shui |
| description | With the measurements of magnetic field of Venus Express (VEX), magnetic coplanarity and minimum variance analysis (MVA) methods are analyzed and their validity is tested to determine the normal of Venusian bow shocks. It is found that MVA method is the better than magnetic coplanarity, and 95% shock crossings can be accurately determined by the method. However, the occurrence of the shock normal which is not determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity increases with the decrease of the solar zenith angle (SZA). At the same time, compared with quasi-parallel shocks, there is more occurrence of the shock normal which cannot be determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity for quasi-perpendicular shocks. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11434-013-5675-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1439743770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>46425884</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>1439743770</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f7e703958d1b5ef0b72dba394ba2c855afa21898a7ebcd72b175032e9b5164473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kTtP7DAQhS0EErDwA6gw3W0CHj9ip0QrXhKIgkdrOckkG9jYi50V4t9jFHRLKtuac87MfCbkBNg5MKYvEoAUsmAgClVqVZgdcgCmhKJSEnbznTEoSiXMPjlM6S2_BGh-QPplGDcuDil4WuP0iejp6HqP09DQJmzWzufq9EWdb-nD6yUdcVqFNtHB0xYnjOPgB9_TaYXUhzi6NQ0dfUW_TYPLkeGTplVo3o_IXufWCY9_zwV5ub56Xt4W9483d8vL-6KRIKei06iZqJRpoVbYsVrztnaikrXjjVHKdY6DqYzTWDet5jVoxQTHqlZQSqnFgvybczcxfGwxTXYcUoPrvAeGbbKZUqWl0LnLgsAsbWJIKWJnN3EYXfyywOwPVDtDtZmV_YFqTfbw2ZOy1vcY7VvYRp83-tN0Ops6F6zrM2z78sQZyPwLXHCtsuLsd5RV8P1HTv4_iywlV8ZI8Q1o5I8S</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1439743770</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Shan, LiCan ; Lu, QuanMing ; Zhang, TieLong ; Gao, XinLiang ; Huang, Can ; Su, YanQing ; Wang, Shui</creator><creatorcontrib>Shan, LiCan ; Lu, QuanMing ; Zhang, TieLong ; Gao, XinLiang ; Huang, Can ; Su, YanQing ; Wang, Shui</creatorcontrib><description>With the measurements of magnetic field of Venus Express (VEX), magnetic coplanarity and minimum variance analysis (MVA) methods are analyzed and their validity is tested to determine the normal of Venusian bow shocks. It is found that MVA method is the better than magnetic coplanarity, and 95% shock crossings can be accurately determined by the method. However, the occurrence of the shock normal which is not determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity increases with the decrease of the solar zenith angle (SZA). At the same time, compared with quasi-parallel shocks, there is more occurrence of the shock normal which cannot be determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity for quasi-perpendicular shocks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1001-6538</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1861-9541</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11434-013-5675-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>analysis of variance ; Chemistry/Food Science ; Coplanarity ; Earth Sciences ; Engineering ; equations ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Life Sciences ; Magnetic fields ; multidisciplinary ; MVA ; MVA method ; Physics ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Variance ; Venus ; Zenith ; 共面性 ; 太阳天顶角 ; 定正 ; 方差分析 ; 测量方法 ; 激波 ; 金星</subject><ispartof>Chinese science bulletin, 2013-07, Vol.58 (20), p.2469-2472</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2013</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f7e703958d1b5ef0b72dba394ba2c855afa21898a7ebcd72b175032e9b5164473</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f7e703958d1b5ef0b72dba394ba2c855afa21898a7ebcd72b175032e9b5164473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/86894X/86894X.jpg</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27928,27929</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shan, LiCan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, QuanMing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, TieLong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, XinLiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Can</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Su, YanQing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shui</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock</title><title>Chinese science bulletin</title><addtitle>Chin. Sci. Bull</addtitle><addtitle>Chinese Science Bulletin</addtitle><description>With the measurements of magnetic field of Venus Express (VEX), magnetic coplanarity and minimum variance analysis (MVA) methods are analyzed and their validity is tested to determine the normal of Venusian bow shocks. It is found that MVA method is the better than magnetic coplanarity, and 95% shock crossings can be accurately determined by the method. However, the occurrence of the shock normal which is not determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity increases with the decrease of the solar zenith angle (SZA). At the same time, compared with quasi-parallel shocks, there is more occurrence of the shock normal which cannot be determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity for quasi-perpendicular shocks.</description><subject>analysis of variance</subject><subject>Chemistry/Food Science</subject><subject>Coplanarity</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>equations</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Magnetic fields</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>MVA</subject><subject>MVA method</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Variance</subject><subject>Venus</subject><subject>Zenith</subject><subject>共面性</subject><subject>太阳天顶角</subject><subject>定正</subject><subject>方差分析</subject><subject>测量方法</subject><subject>激波</subject><subject>金星</subject><issn>1001-6538</issn><issn>1861-9541</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kTtP7DAQhS0EErDwA6gw3W0CHj9ip0QrXhKIgkdrOckkG9jYi50V4t9jFHRLKtuac87MfCbkBNg5MKYvEoAUsmAgClVqVZgdcgCmhKJSEnbznTEoSiXMPjlM6S2_BGh-QPplGDcuDil4WuP0iejp6HqP09DQJmzWzufq9EWdb-nD6yUdcVqFNtHB0xYnjOPgB9_TaYXUhzi6NQ0dfUW_TYPLkeGTplVo3o_IXufWCY9_zwV5ub56Xt4W9483d8vL-6KRIKei06iZqJRpoVbYsVrztnaikrXjjVHKdY6DqYzTWDet5jVoxQTHqlZQSqnFgvybczcxfGwxTXYcUoPrvAeGbbKZUqWl0LnLgsAsbWJIKWJnN3EYXfyywOwPVDtDtZmV_YFqTfbw2ZOy1vcY7VvYRp83-tN0Ops6F6zrM2z78sQZyPwLXHCtsuLsd5RV8P1HTv4_iywlV8ZI8Q1o5I8S</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Shan, LiCan</creator><creator>Lu, QuanMing</creator><creator>Zhang, TieLong</creator><creator>Gao, XinLiang</creator><creator>Huang, Can</creator><creator>Su, YanQing</creator><creator>Wang, Shui</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock</title><author>Shan, LiCan ; Lu, QuanMing ; Zhang, TieLong ; Gao, XinLiang ; Huang, Can ; Su, YanQing ; Wang, Shui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f7e703958d1b5ef0b72dba394ba2c855afa21898a7ebcd72b175032e9b5164473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>analysis of variance</topic><topic>Chemistry/Food Science</topic><topic>Coplanarity</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>equations</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Magnetic fields</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>MVA</topic><topic>MVA method</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Variance</topic><topic>Venus</topic><topic>Zenith</topic><topic>共面性</topic><topic>太阳天顶角</topic><topic>定正</topic><topic>方差分析</topic><topic>测量方法</topic><topic>激波</topic><topic>金星</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shan, LiCan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, QuanMing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, TieLong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, XinLiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Can</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Su, YanQing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shui</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Springer Nature OA/Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Chinese science bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shan, LiCan</au><au>Lu, QuanMing</au><au>Zhang, TieLong</au><au>Gao, XinLiang</au><au>Huang, Can</au><au>Su, YanQing</au><au>Wang, Shui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock</atitle><jtitle>Chinese science bulletin</jtitle><stitle>Chin. Sci. Bull</stitle><addtitle>Chinese Science Bulletin</addtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>20</issue><spage>2469</spage><epage>2472</epage><pages>2469-2472</pages><issn>1001-6538</issn><eissn>1861-9541</eissn><abstract>With the measurements of magnetic field of Venus Express (VEX), magnetic coplanarity and minimum variance analysis (MVA) methods are analyzed and their validity is tested to determine the normal of Venusian bow shocks. It is found that MVA method is the better than magnetic coplanarity, and 95% shock crossings can be accurately determined by the method. However, the occurrence of the shock normal which is not determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity increases with the decrease of the solar zenith angle (SZA). At the same time, compared with quasi-parallel shocks, there is more occurrence of the shock normal which cannot be determined accurately by magnetic coplanarity for quasi-perpendicular shocks.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s11434-013-5675-8</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1001-6538 |
| ispartof | Chinese science bulletin, 2013-07, Vol.58 (20), p.2469-2472 |
| issn | 1001-6538 1861-9541 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1439743770 |
| source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | analysis of variance Chemistry/Food Science Coplanarity Earth Sciences Engineering equations Humanities and Social Sciences Life Sciences Magnetic fields multidisciplinary MVA MVA method Physics Science Science (multidisciplinary) Variance Venus Zenith 共面性 太阳天顶角 定正 方差分析 测量方法 激波 金星 |
| title | Comparison between magnetic coplanarity and MVA methods in determining the normal of Venusian bow shock |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T03%3A09%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20between%20magnetic%20coplanarity%20and%20MVA%20methods%20in%20determining%20the%20normal%20of%20Venusian%20bow%20shock&rft.jtitle=Chinese%20science%20bulletin&rft.au=Shan,%20LiCan&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=2469&rft.epage=2472&rft.pages=2469-2472&rft.issn=1001-6538&rft.eissn=1861-9541&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11434-013-5675-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1439743770%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1439743770&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cqvip_id=46425884&rfr_iscdi=true |