4.5 Article

An analysis of Alfven radius based on sunspot number from 1749 to today

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS
Volume 119, Issue 1, Pages 115-120

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JA019420

Keywords

interplanetary magnetic fields; solar wind; solar wind acceleration; Solar Probe Plus

Funding

  1. Caltech [44A-1062037]
  2. EMM-REM [NNX07AC14G]
  3. C-SWEPA (NASA) [NNX07AC14G]
  4. Sun-2-Ice (NSF) [AGS1135432]
  5. NASA LRO/CRaTER [NNG11PA03C]
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1135432] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Solar Probe Plus mission now under construction will provide the first in situ measurements from inside the orbit of Mercury. The most critical part of that mission will be measurements from inside the Alfven radius where the Alfven speed exceeds the wind speed and the physics of the solar wind changes fundamentally due, in part, to the multidirectionality of wave propagation. In this region waves from both sunward and antisunward of the observation point can effect the local dynamics including the turbulent evolution, heating, and acceleration of the plasma. While the location of this point can change with solar wind conditions, we ask the question of whether there is a systematic dependence on the solar cycle that moves the average Alfven radius to different locations depending upon solar activity. We show that the average Alfven radius is correlated with the sunspot number and moves systematically from similar to 15 at solar minimum to 30 R-S at solar maximum. The analysis shown here does not predict movement of the Alfven radius during the recent protracted solar minimum. We project the average Alfven radius backward and forward in time using the monthly sunspot record to attempt a better understanding of the historical record and predict the behavior of this point during the coming solar cycle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available