Bibliography

Observation of two distinct, rapid loss mechanisms during the 20 November 2003 radiation belt dropout event

The relativistic electron dropout event on 20 November 2003 is studied using data from a number of satellites including SAMPEX, HEO, ACE, POES, and FAST. The observations suggest that the dropout may have been caused by two separate mechanisms that operate at high and low L-shells, respectively, with a separation at L \~ 5. At high L-shells (L > 5), the dropout is approximately independent of energy and consistent with losses to the magnetopause aided by the Dst effect and outward radial diffusion which can deplete relativistic electrons down to lower L-shells. At low L-shells (L < 5), the dropout is strongly energy-dependent, with the higher-energy electrons being affected most. Moreover, large precipitation bands of both relativistic electrons and energetic protons are observed at low L-shells which are consistent with intense pitch angle scattering driven by electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves and may result in a rapid loss of relativistic electrons near the plasmapause in the dusk sector or in plumes of enhanced density.

Bortnik, J.; Thorne, R.; O\textquoterightBrien, T.; Green, J.; Strangeway, R.; Shprits, Y; Baker, D.;

Published by: Journal of Geophysical Research      Published on: 12/2006

YEAR: 2006     DOI: 10.1029/2006JA011802

Local Loss due to VLF/ELF/EMIC Waves

Substorm electron injections: Geosynchronous observations and test particle simulations

We investigate electron acceleration and the flux increases associated with energetic electron injections on the basis of geosynchronous observations and test-electron orbits in the dynamic fields of a three-dimensional MHD simulation of neutral line formation and dipolarization in the magnetotail. This complements an earlier investigation of test protons [Birn et al., 1997b]. In the present paper we consider equatorial orbits only, using the gyrocenter drift approximation. It turns out that this approximation is valid for electrons prior to and during the flux rises observed in the near tail region of the model at all energies considered (\~ 100 eV to 1 MeV). The test particle model reproduces major observed characteristics: a fast flux rise, comparable to that of the ions, and the existence of five categories of dispersionless events, typical for observations at different local times. They consist of dispersionless injections of ions or electrons without accompanying injections of the other species, delayed electron injections and delayed ion injections, and simultaneous two-species injections. As postulated from observations [Birn et al., 1997a], these categories can be attributed to a dawn-dusk displacement of the ion and electron injection boundaries in combination with an earthward motion or expansion. The simulated electron injection region extends farther toward dusk at lower energies (say, below 40 keV) than at higher energies. This explains the existence of observed energetic ion injections that are accompanied by electron flux increases at the lower energies but not by an energetic electron injection at energies above 50 keV. The simulated distributions show that flux increases are limited in energy, as observed. The reason for this limitation and for the differences between the injection regions at different energies is the localization in the dawn-dusk direction of the tail collapse and the associated cross-tail electric field, in combination with a difference in the relative importance of E \texttimes B drift and gradient drifts at different energies. The results demonstrate that the collapsing field region earthward of the neutral line appears to be more significant than the neutral line itself for the acceleration of electrons, particularly for the initial rise of the fluxes and the injection boundary. This is similar to the result obtained for test ions [Birn et al., 1997b].

Birn, J.; Thomsen, M.; Borovsky, J.; Reeves, G.; McComas, D.; Belian, R.; Hesse, M.;

Published by: Journal of Geophysical Research      Published on: 05/1998

YEAR: 1998     DOI: 10.1029/97JA02635

Substorm Injections