Idealized Jovian magnetosphere shape and field

Engle, Irene M.; Beard, David B.

doi:10.1029/ja085ia02p00579

Cited by 49 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerical calculations made by Engle and Beard (1980) and Engle (1991) showed the asymmetry between equatorial and noon-midnight cross sections of Jupiter's magnetosphere. The "flattened" shape of the Jovian magnetopause (compared to that of the Earth) is consistent with the disc-like magnetosphere.…”

Section: Model Of the Jovian Magnetospheric Magnetic Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hill et al, 1974;Barish and Smith, 1975;Smith et al, 1975;Beard and Jackson, 1976;Goertz, 1976aGoertz, , 1976bGoertz, , 1979Engle and Beard, 1980;Acuña et al, 1983;Connerney et al, 1981Connerney et al, , 1998Khurana, 1997). Most of them describe the data observed by some spacecraft and are applicable to limited regions of the Jovian magnetosphere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling of the Jovian Magnetosphere

Alexeev

Belenkaya

2005

Ann. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents a global model of the Jovian magnetosphere which is valid not only in the equatorial plane and near the planet, as most of the existing models are, but also at high latitudes and in the outer regions of the magnetosphere. The model includes the Jovian dipole, magnetodisc, and tail current system. The tail currents are combined with the magnetopause closure currents. All inner magnetospheric magnetic field sources are screened by the magnetopause currents. It guarantees a zero normal magnetic field component for the inner magnetospheric field at the whole magnetopause surface. By changing magnetospheric scale (subsolar distance), the model gives a possibility to study the solar wind influence on the magnetospheric structure and auroral activity. A dependence of the magnetospheric size on the solar wind dynamic pressure p sw (proportional to p −0.23 sw ) is obtained. It is a stronger dependence than in the case of the Earth's magnetosphere (p −1/6 sw ). The model of Jupiter's magnetospheric which is presented is a unique one, as it allows one to study the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) effects.

show abstract

Section: Model Of the Jovian Magnetospheric Magnetic Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of the Jovian Magnetosphere

Alexeev

Belenkaya

2005

Ann. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While several models of the Jovian ►nagnetosphere and external current system exist (Barish and Smith, 1975;Goertz et al, 1976;Jones et al (1980); Beard and Jackson, 1976;Engle and Beard, 1980;Connerney et al, 1981) only the model of Connerney et al (1981 1 ) represents a detailed vector fit to magnetometer observations in the innermost magnetosphere (< 20 R J ), the region of importance here. The other models represent qualitative fits (Beard and Jackson, 1976;Engle and Beard, 1980;Barish and Smith, 1976) or are applicable in the more distant magnetosphere (Goertz et al, 1976) and often match only scalar magnitude. The Euler potential models of Goertz et al…”

Section: External Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The magnetic field of Jupiter: A generalized inverse approach

Connerney¹

1981

J. Geophys. Res.

110

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The estimation of planetary magnetic fields from observations of the magnetic field gathered along a spacecraft flyby trajectory is examined with the aid of generalized inverse techniques, with application to the internal magnetic field of Jupiter. Model non-uniqueness resulting from the limited spatial extent of the observations and noise on the data is explored and quantitative estimates of the model parameter resolution are found. The presence of a substantial magnetic field of external origin due to the currents flowing in the Jovian magnetodisc is found to be an important source of error in estimates of the internal Jovian field, and new models explicitly incorporating these currents are proposed. New internal field models are derived using the vector helium magnetometer observations and the high field fluxgate observations of Pioneer 11, and knowledge of the external current system gained from the Pioneer 10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 encounters. (Smith et al., 1974;Van Allen et al., 1974), a thin annular disc of tenuous plasma and charged particles encircling the giant planet to distances approaching 100 Jovian radii. Large scale azimuthal currents flowing in this magnetodisc, subsequently observed by the Voyagers 1 and 2 spacecraft (;Jess et al., 1979a; Ness et al., 1979b; Bridge et al., 1979) lead to a substantial magnetic field of ext .., rnal origin throughout the entire inner magnetosphere. The high-inclination retrograde approach of the Pioneer 11 spacecraft yielded measurements of the inner magnetosphere at high latitudes spanning a wide range of Jovian. longitude. In addition, the close approach of s1.6 Jovian radii (R J ) made this trajectory the most favorable for the purposes of estimating the internal magnetic field of Jupiter. Thus, models of the internal field based on the Pioneer 10 measurements (Smith et al., 1974) were quickly supplanted by models based on the Pioneer 11 observations 2 r^ //+ .^^ t c^ 11 ,0114"A Iwo n i (Davis and Smith, 1976; Acuna and Ness, 1976). The near equatorial approaches of the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, at, the close approaches of P5 and 10 Rio have permitted more detailed studies of the external azimuthal current system but have thus far a . 4ded little to the present understanding of the internal magnetic field of Jupiter (Ness et al., 1979b) .As the number of available Jovian internal field models grows it becomes increasingly important to evaluate the model non-uniqueness inherent in the estimation of planetary magnetic fields from flyby observations. While some of the proposed mot1#*l3 represented an intermediate stage of data processing and analysis, in general differences between the proposed models reflect differences in the number and kind of coefficients used in the hasic models, differences in the actual observations, data intervals eWsen for analysis, r and the choice of weights applied to the observations in the least squares minimization process. A recent summary of the magnetic field observations of Jupiter (Smith and Gulkis, 1979) lists...

show abstract

“…Additionally, the solar wind pushes the magnetotail far above the magnetic equator of the planet on the dusk-side. The method outlined in Section HI has been applied to both Earth [Beard, 1960;Mead and Beard, 1964] and Jupiter [Engle and Beard, 1980;Engte, 1991]. In each case the field model was consistent with magnetospheric field data that has been collected.…”

Section: Results Of the X = -267° Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model represents the Saturnian magnetospheric field based on the method outlined in Section III (although the method has been used to model the fields of Earth and Jupiter) [Beard, 1960;Engle and Beard, 1980].…”

Section: The Maurice/engle Idealized Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the Saturnian magnetosphere for the Cassini Mission

Skubis¹

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Idealized Jovian magnetosphere shape and field

Cited by 49 publications

References 23 publications

Modeling of the Jovian Magnetosphere

Modeling of the Jovian Magnetosphere

The magnetic field of Jupiter: A generalized inverse approach

Modeling the Saturnian magnetosphere for the Cassini Mission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About