4.5 Article

Observation of a retreating x line and magnetic islands poleward of the cusp during northward interplanetary magnetic field conditions

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JA020453

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF GEM [AGS-1303649]
  2. NASA [NNX10AQ45G, NNX08AF35G]
  3. NSF [1102572, AGS-0953463]
  4. STFC [ST/G008493/1, ST/H004130/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H004130/1, ST/G008493/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. UK Space Agency [ST/M003132/1, ST/J004758/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. NASA [NNX10AQ45G, 126333] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  8. Directorate For Geosciences [0953463] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Directorate For Geosciences
  10. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1102572] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [0953463] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When the interplanetary magnetic field is northward, reconnection occurs in each hemisphere on lobe field lines, poleward of the cusp. We have identified a case where the Cluster spacecraft crossed the magnetopause and encountered a tailward retreating x line. The x line is identified by the encounter of both a tailward and sunward jet, as well as Hall magnetic field signatures in the out-of-plane direction. Additionally, we find no signatures of electron heating and hypothesize that the spacecraft is too close to the x line to observe the accelerated electrons. Using two spacecraft, we are able to resolve the velocity of the structure, which moves near the magnetosheath speed. The speed of the x line is also consistent with the asymmetric reconnection theory. To our knowledge, this is the first time the speed of a retreating x line has been measured directly. Additionally, we observe ion distribution functions with counterstreaming populations, suggesting that a second x line formed sunward of the original one, leading to a magnetic island.

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

4.5
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