4.5 Article

Modeling the magnetospheric X-ray emission from solar wind charge exchange with verification from XMM-Newton observations

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 4158-4179

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JA022292

关键词

charge exchange; magnetopause; terrestrial X-ray; XMM-Newton

资金

  1. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Material Command, USAF [FA9550-14-1-0200]
  2. STFC [ST/K001000/1]
  3. STFC [ST/K001000/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001000/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An MHD-based model of terrestrial solar wind charge exchange (SWCX) is created and compared to 19 case study observations in the 0.5-0.7keV emission band taken from theEuropean Photon Imaging Cameras on board XMM-Newton. This model incorporates the Global Unified Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Coupling Simulation-4 MHD code and produces an X-ray emission datacube from O7+ and O8+ emission lines around the Earth using in situ solar wind parameters as the model input. This study details the modeling process and shows that fixing the oxygen abundances to a constant value reduces the variance when comparing to the observations, at the cost of a small accuracy decrease in some cases. Using the ACE oxygen data returns a wide ranging accuracy, providing excellent correlation in a few cases and poor/anticorrelation in others. The sources of error for any user wishing to simulate terrestrial SWCX using an MHD model are described here and include mask position, hydrogen to oxygen ratio in the solar wind, and charge state abundances. A dawn-dusk asymmetry is also found, similar to the results of empirical modeling. Using constant oxygen parameters, magnitudes approximately double that of the observed count rates are returned. A high accuracy is determined between the model and observations when comparing the count rate difference between enhanced SWCX and quiescent periods.

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