Paper detail

Does the spacecraft trajectory strongly affect the detection of magnetic clouds?

Magnetic clouds (MCs) are a subset of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) where a magnetic flux rope is detected. Is the difference between MCs and ICMEs without detected flux rope intrinsic or rather due to an observational bias? As the spacecraft has no relationship with the MC trajectory, the frequency distribution of MCs versus the spacecraft distance to the MCs axis is expected to be approximately flat. However, Lepping and Wu (2010) confirmed that it is a strongly decreasing function of the estimated impact parameter. Is a flux rope more frequently undetected for larger impact parameter? In order to answer the questions above, we explore the parameter space of flux rope models, especially the aspect ratio, boundary shape, and current distribution. The proposed models are analyzed as MCs by fitting a circular linear force-free field to the magnetic field computed along simulated crossings. We find that the distribution of the twist within the flux rope, the non-detection due to too low field rotation angle or magnitude are only weakly affecting the expected frequency distribution of MCs versus impact parameter. However, the estimated impact parameter is increasingly biased to lower values as the flux-rope cross section is more elongated orthogonally to the crossing trajectory. The observed distribution of MCs is a natural consequence of a flux-rope cross section flattened in average by a factor 2 to 3 depending on the magnetic twist profile. However, the faster MCs at 1 AU, with V>550 km/s, present an almost uniform distribution of MCs vs. impact parameter, which is consistent with round shaped flux ropes, in contrast with the slower ones. We conclude that either most of the non-MC ICMEs are encountered outside their flux rope or near the leg region, or they do not contain any.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.