Shock-wave structure in collisionless plasmas from results of laboratory experiments

Еселевич, В. Г.

doi:10.1007/bf00225177

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is confirmed by laboratory experiments (Eselevich, , ) and bow shock studies (Mellott & Greenstadt, ). It also means that the boundary between the quasi‐parallel and quasi‐perpendicular shocks, introduced according to the results of the bow shock investigation, is very relative.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Fine Structure of Interplanetary Shock Front—Results from BMSW Experiment with High Time Resolution

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure of subcritical interplanetary shocks was studied using high time resolution from the BMSW plasma instrument onboard the Spektr-R satellite and MFI magnetometer measurements from WIND. Ion scales of the ramp and wavelength of precursor waves were obtained and compared with results of the bow shock structure study. The comparison of precursor wavelengths, determined experimentally with those determined from dispersion relation for low-Mach, low-beta shocks has showed similar results. This confirms the assumption that the dispersion of oblique magnetosonic waves is the determining factor in the formation of upstream wave trains. On the base of the case study it was shown that damped downstream oscillations of density, velocity, temperature may be generated by the interaction of the inflowing solar wind ions with the reflected gyrating ions inside the ramp. A sequence of six wave trains of magnetosonic whistlers has been observed upstream the ramp of subcritical oblique IP shock. The amplitude of oscillations inside the trains decreased with increasing distance from the ramp. The possible energy dissipation mechanism within the shock front is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Fine Structure of Interplanetary Shock Front—Results from BMSW Experiment with High Time Resolution

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have suggested that the potential varies predominantly within iso-magnetic jumps, i.e., on a smaller scale than the magnetic field. In laboratory plasmas, such a short scale of the cross-shock electrostatic potential ('isomagnetic jump') was observed by Eselevich (1982). This isomagnetic jump is often attributed to the ion sound subshock (see the review by Kennel et al, 1985).…”

Section: Fine-scale Features In the Electric Fieldmentioning

confidence: 94%

Quasi-perpendicular Shock Structure and Processes

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the two decades prior to the launch of Cluster, collisionless shocks at which the magnetic field in the unshocked plasma is nearly perpendicular to the shock normal ('quasi-perpendicular shocks') received considerable attention. This is due, in part, to their relatively clean, laminar appearance in the time series data. The tendency of the magnetic field to bind particles together owing to their (perpendicular) gyromotion gives rise to this appearance, which facilitated deeper studies into the collisionless processes responsible for the overall thermalization of the principle plasma populations as well as the acceleration of an energetic non-thermal component. Despite the considerable effort, key questions remained unanswered or re-

show abstract

“…Three different points of view have been suggested on the relationship between the magnetic ramp scales, L Br , and L È in the front of a quasi-perpendicular collisionless shock. The first is that L È is considerably smaller than the magnetic ramp for some types of shock, i.e., L Br > L È [Eselevich et al, 1971;Heppner et al, 1978;Formisano, 1985;Balikhin et al, 1993]. The second view is that L Br is of the same order of magnitude as L È .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth emphasizing that subshocks can be formed from other plasma modes and can possess different spatial scales. Subshocks have been observed in laboratory plasma for shocks with Mach numbers between M* and 4.5-5.5 [Eselevich, 1971;Kennel et al, 1985]. Encounters with subshocks in satellite data should not occur very often as they occupy only a small region in b-M a parametric space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observation of the terrestrial bow shock in quasi‐electrostatic subshock regime

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Electric field measurements made on board the four Cluster II satellites are used to estimate the spatial scale of the electrostatic potential in the front of the terrestrial bow shock in the quasi-perpendicular regime. High-amplitude electric fields (up to 70 mV m À1 ) were measured at the shock fronts encountered on 31 March 2001. The main change in the cross-shock potential took place on spatial scales of a few electron inertial lengths. Such small scales in the electrostatic potential can be explained in the framework of the quasi-electrostatic subshock concept. The high magnitude of the upstream magnetic field, which resulted in an unusually small b and moderate Mach numbers, created favorable conditions for the occurrence of quasi-electrostatic subshocks in the shock front.

show abstract

Shock-wave structure in collisionless plasmas from results of laboratory experiments

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Fine Structure of Interplanetary Shock Front—Results from BMSW Experiment with High Time Resolution

Fine Structure of Interplanetary Shock Front—Results from BMSW Experiment with High Time Resolution

Quasi-perpendicular Shock Structure and Processes

Observation of the terrestrial bow shock in quasi‐electrostatic subshock regime

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About