scholarly journals Coupling Between Alfvén Wave and Kelvin–Helmholtz Waves in the Low Latitude Boundary Layer

Author(s):  
E.-H. Kim ◽  
J. R. Johnson ◽  
K. Nykyri

The Kelvin–Helmholtz (KH) instability of magnetohydrodynamic surface waves at the low latitude boundary layer is examined using both an eigenfrequency analysis and a time-dependent wave simulation. The analysis includes the effects of sheared flow and Alfvén velocity gradient. When the magnetosheath flows are perpendicular to the ambient magnetic field direction, unstable KH waves that propagate obliquely to the sheared flow direction occur at the sheared flow surface when the Alfvén Mach number is higher than an instability threshold. Including a shear transition layer between the magnetosphere and magnetosheath leads to secondary KH waves (driven by the sheared flow) that are coupled to the resonant surface Alfvén wave. There are remarkable differences between the primary and the secondary KH waves, including wave frequency, the growth rate, and the ratio between the transverse and compressional components. The secondary KH wave energy is concentrated near the shear Alfvén wave frequency at the magnetosheath with a lower frequency than the primary KH waves. Although the growth rate of the secondary KH waves is lower than the primary KH waves, the threshold condition is lower, so it is expected that these types of waves will dominate at a lower Mach number. Because the transverse component of the secondary KH waves is stronger than that of the primary KH waves, more efficient wave energy transfer from the boundary layer to the inner magnetosphere is also predicted.

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 1065-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Bauer ◽  
R. A. Treumann ◽  
W. Baumjohann

Abstract. We analyze 22 AMPTE/IRM crossings of the day-side low-latitude boundary layer for which a dense outer part can be distinguished from a dilute inner part. Whereas the plasma in the outer boundary layer (OBL) is dominated by solar wind particles, the partial densities of solar wind and magnetospheric particles are comparable in the inner boundary layer (IBL). For 11 events we find a reasonable agreement between observed plasma flows and those predicted by the tangential stress balance of an open magnetopause. Thus, we conclude that, at least in these cases, the OBL is formed by a local magnetic reconnection. The disagreement with the tangential stress balance in the other 11 cases might be due to reconnection being time-dependent and patchy. The north-south component of the proton bulk velocity in the boundary layer is, on average, directed toward high latitudes for both low and high magnetic shear across the magnetopause. This argues clearly against the possibility that the dayside low-latitude boundary layer is populated with solar wind plasma primarily from the cusps. "Warm", counterstreaming electrons that originate primarily from the magnetosheath and have a field-aligned temperature that is higher than the electron temperature in the magnetosheath by a factor of 1–5, are a characteristic feature of the IBL. Profiles of the proton bulk velocity and the density of hot ring current electrons provide evidence that the IBL is on closed field lines. Part of the IBL may be on newly opened field lines. Using the average spectra of electric and magnetic fluctuations in the boundary layer, we estimate the diffusion caused by lower hybrid drift instability, gyroresonant pitch angle scattering, or kinetic Alfvén wave turbulence. We find that cross-field diffusion cannot transport solar wind plasma into the OBL or IBL at a rate that would account for the thickness ( ~ 1000 km) of these sublayers. On the duskside, the dawn-dusk component of the proton bulk velocity in the IBL and magnetosphere is, on average, directed from the nightside toward local noon. Formation of the IBL may also be due to mechanisms operating in the magnetotail.Key words. Magnetospheric physics (magnetopause, cusp and boundary layer; magnetospheath)


1985 ◽  
Vol 90 (A6) ◽  
pp. 5097 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Williams ◽  
D. G. Mitchell ◽  
T. E. Eastman ◽  
L. A. Frank

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 035017 ◽  
Author(s):  
I F Shaikhislamov ◽  
Yu P Zakharov ◽  
V G Posukh ◽  
E L Boyarintsev ◽  
A V Melekhov ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document