4.3 Article

Asymmetrical features of frequency and intensity in the Io-related Jovian decametric radio sources: Modeling of the Io-Jupiter system

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010JA015844

关键词

-

资金

  1. Global COE program Global Education and Research Center for Earth and Planetary Dynamics at Tohoku University
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21740356] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Part of the Io-related Jovian decametric radiation (Io-DAM) has been thought to be excited in the auroral cavity formed on field lines downstream of Io. Since source regions of Io-DAM called Io-A and Io-B are located in dusk and dawn local times despite having nearly equal magnetic longitudes, some of the observed asymmetries between Io-A and Io-B events are expected to be due to the difference in the local times. We developed a static Vlasov code, applied it to the Io-Jupiter system, and investigated source structure in order to clarify the ways in which the characteristics of Io-DAM are affected by the plasma in the Jovian ionosphere. Generally there are various solutions which satisfy the quasi-neutrality condition for almost identical boundary conditions. With regard to the solutions with two transition layers, if the altitude of a low-altitude transition layer (LATL) is higher, the voltage at the LATL and the ionospheric proton current density is smaller. Similarly, if the altitude of a high-altitude transition layer (HATL) is higher, the voltage at the HATL and the magnetospheric electron current density is larger. A solution with a smaller ionospheric density for Io-B than for Io-A indicates lower altitude of the LATL for Io-B, which is consistent with the observed high-frequency limit higher for Io-B than for Io-A. This suggests that the high-frequency limit is affected by the local time. It is also expected that the difference in ionospheric proton current densities would be associated with the observed asymmetry of emission intensity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据