Experimental determination of the dispersion of waves observed upstream of a quasi‐perpendicular shock

Balikhin, M. A.; Wit, T. Dudok de; Alleyne, H.; Woolliscroft, L. J. C.; Walker, S. N.; Krasnoselskikh, V.; Mier-Jedrzejeowicz, W. A. C.; Baumjohann, W.

doi:10.1029/97gl00671

Cited by 60 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fairfield, 1974;Balikhin et al, 1997). Nevertheless, these waves have been reported at many other other locations such as Venus (Orlowski and Russell, 1991) and Saturn (Orlowski et al, 1992) concluding that they are a fundamental phenomena associated with collisionless shocks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Dispersion of low frequency plasma waves upstream of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low frequency waves in the foot of a supercritical quasi-perpendicular shock front have been observed since the very early in situ observations of the terrestrial bow shock (Guha et al., 1972). The great attention that has been devoted to these type of waves since the first observations is explained by the key role attributed to them in the processes of energy redistribution in the shock front by various theoretical models. In some models, these waves play the role of the intermediator between the ions and electrons. It is assumed that they are generated by plasma instability that exist due to the counter-streaming flows of incident and reflected ions. In the second type of models, these waves result from the evolution of the shock front itself in the quasi-periodic process of steepening and overturning of the magnetic ramp. However, the range of the observed frequencies in the spacecraft frame are not enough to distinguish the origin of the observed waves. It also requires the determination of the wave vectors and the plasma frame frequencies. Multipoint measurements within the wave coherence length are needed for an ambiguous determination of the wave vectors. In the main multi-point missions such as ISEE, AMPTE, Cluster and THEMIS, the spacecraft separation is too large for such a wave vector determination and therefore only very few case studies are published (mainly for AMPTE UKS AMPTE IRM pair). Here we present the observations of upstream low frequency waves by the Cluster spacecraft which took place on 19 February 2002. The spacecraft separation during the crossing of the bow shock was small enough to determine the wave vectors and allowed the identification of the plasma wave dispersion relation for the observed waves. Presented results are compared with whistler wave dispersion and it is shown that contrary to previous studies based on the AMPTE data, the phase velocity in the shock frame is directed downstream. The consequences of this finding for both types of models that were developed to explain the generation of these waves are discussed

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Dispersion of low frequency plasma waves upstream of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phase differencing method (Balikhin and Gedalin, 1993) has been successfully applied on a number of previous occasions (Balikhin et al, 1997;Chisham et al, 1999;Balikhin et al, 2001Balikhin et al, , 2002. It is solely reliant on the use of data collected by 4 (or more) closely-spaced spacecraft, such as that currently available from the Cluster mission.…”

Section: Phase Differencing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The phase difference is related to the projection of the wave vector k along the satellite separation vector so that r αβ may then be determined. If data from only two satellites are available, other techniques such as MVA are required to determine the propagation direction (Balikhin et al, 1997;Chisham et al, 1999). However, the use of such methods severely limits the applicability of this phase differencing method for the determination of the wave vector.…”

Section: Phase Differencing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of wave mode identification techniques

Walker

Sahraoui²,

Balikhin

et al. 2004

Ann. Geophys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The four point measurements available from the Cluster mission enable spatiotemporal effects in data sets to be resolved. One application of these multipoint measurements is the determination of the wave vectors and hence the identification of wave modes that exist within the plasma. Prior to multi-satellite missions, wave identification techniques were based upon the interpretation of observational data using theoretically defined relations. However, such techniques are limited by the quality of the data and the type of plasma model employed. With multipoint measurements, wave modes can be identified and their wave directions determined purely from the available observations. This paper takes two such methods, a phase differencing technique and k-filtering and compares their results. It is shown that both methods can resolve the k vector for the dominant mirror mode present in the data. The phase differencing method shows that the nature of the wave environment is constantly changing and as such both methods result in an average picture of the wave environment in the period analysed. The k-filtering method is able to identify other modes that are present.

show abstract

“…Models of the first type consider these waves to be a result of the numerous plasma insta-netospheric Particle Tracer Explorer (AMPTE) United Kingdom Subsatellite (UKS) and Ion Release Module (IRM) measurements. That determination allowed the validation of the theoretical models proposed [Balikhin et al, 1997]. That led to the conclusion that the observed waves can be generated as a result of the nonstationarity of the shock front itself [Krasnosel'skikh, 1985; Balikhin et al, 1997], or via an instability of nongyrotropic proton distributions [Wong and Goldstein, 1988].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These oscillations were identified as whistler waves [Fairfield, 1974]. Numerous theoretical models have been worked out for the generation mechanism of these waves [Balikhin et al, 1997, and references therein]. All proposed models could be subdivided into two types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of nonlinear interaction in the formation of LF whistler turbulence upstream of a quasi‐perpendicular shock

Balikhin¹,

Alleyne²,

Treumann³

et al. 1999

J. Geophys. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The role of the nonlinea, r intera, ction in developed low-frequency turbulence has been experimenta, lly studied upstream of the ramp of a quasiperpendicular shock. The study has been ca, rried out by a, pplication of the methods of bispectral analysis and wavelet decomposition to the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorer Ion Release Module a, nd Interball Tail Probe magnetic field data. It is shown that three-wave processes play a key role in the formation of the spectrum of the turbulence. Experimenta,1 results presented and previous theoretical considerations lead to the conclusion that energy is transfered from a narrow maximum frequency pumped by nonlinea, r dyna, mic processes to lower and higher frequencies.

show abstract

Experimental determination of the dispersion of waves observed upstream of a quasi‐perpendicular shock

Cited by 60 publications

References 14 publications

Dispersion of low frequency plasma waves upstream of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock

Dispersion of low frequency plasma waves upstream of the quasi-perpendicular terrestrial bow shock

A comparison of wave mode identification techniques

The role of nonlinear interaction in the formation of LF whistler turbulence upstream of a quasi‐perpendicular shock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About