4.5 Article

Energy conversion in cometary atmospheres Hybrid modeling of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 616, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732353

关键词

comets: individual: 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko; Sun: UV radiation; solar wind; methods: numerical; plasmas; acceleration of particles

资金

  1. Swedish National Space Board (SNSB project) [201/15]
  2. Belgian Science Policy Office through the Solar-Terrestrial Centre of Excellence
  3. PRODEX/ROSETTA/ROSINA PEA [4000107705]
  4. Swedish National Space Board [112/13]
  5. Swedish Research Council [2015-04187]
  6. Research Council of Norway [240000, 262941]
  7. Swedish Research Council [2015-04187] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We wish to investigate the energy conversion between particles and electromagnetic fields and determine the location where it occurs in the plasma environment of comets. Methods. We used a hybrid plasma model that included photoionization, and we considered two cases of the solar extreme ultraviolet flux. Other parameters corresponded to the conditions of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.5 AU. Results. We find that a shock-like structure is formed upstream of the comet and acts as an electromagnetic generator, similar to the bow shock at Earth that slows down the solar wind. The Poynting flux transports electromagnetic energy toward the inner coma, where newly born cometary ions are accelerated. Upstream of the shock-like structure, we find local energy transfer from solar wind ions to cometary ions. We show that mass loading can be a local process with a direct transfer of energy, but also part of a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads. Conclusions. The energization of cometary ions is governed by a dynamo system for weak ionization, but changes into a large conversion region with local transfer of energy directly from solar wind protons for high ionization.

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