Four-point Cluster application of magnetic field analysis tools: The discontinuity analyzer
The Cluster spacecraft have collected 3‐D information on magnetic field structures at small to medium scales (100–1000 km) in the Earth's dayside magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and near solar wind. We focus here on the first application of the discontinuity analyzer analysis technique (determina...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Geophysical Research. A. Space Physics 2002-11, Vol.107 (A11), p.SMP 24-1-SMP 24-13 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The Cluster spacecraft have collected 3‐D information on magnetic field structures at small to medium scales (100–1000 km) in the Earth's dayside magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and near solar wind. We focus here on the first application of the discontinuity analyzer analysis technique (determination of the geometry and motion of magnetic discontinuities, using interspacecraft timing and variance information) for the case of boundaries that are planar over the four‐spacecraft array. This multipoint technique uses minimum variance of the magnetic field to determine the boundary normals at each spacecraft. Identification of the four spacecraft crossings requires accurate timing of encounters at each spacecraft, which depends on key features in each time series being stationary in the frame of the boundary. The technique is tested for selected boundary crossing events (magnetopause and bow shock, and one TD in the magnetosheath), for which the independently determined normals are closely (∼1–2°) colinear. Closely aligned normals, on spatial scales of ∼600–1000 km, were found for most crossings studied. For such a planar geometry, the motion can be determined unambiguously and shows that significant acceleration (up to ∼10 km s−2) of the boundary over the spacecraft is nearly always present. This has the consequence that previous estimates of boundary scales, based on constant motion between two spacecraft, may be in error by factors of two or three and that implied variations in boundary thickness could therefore be predominantly due to variations in speed. We comment on the error introduced through assumptions of constant motion. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0148-0227 2156-2202 |
DOI: | 10.1029/2001JA005089 |