Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston

Details Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston

Mar 1993

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1993jgr....98.3623t&link_type=abstract

Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), vol. 98, no. A3, p. 3623-3625; Author's Reply, p. 3627-3629.

Physics

1

Bow Waves, Halley'S Comet, Ion Distribution, Shock Wave Interaction, Solar Wind, Wave-Particle Interactions, Electromagnetic Surface Waves, Power Spectra, Transport Properties, Comets, Halley, Implantation, Ions, Comparisons, Distribution, Energy, Polarization, Electromagnetic Waves, Solar Wind, Diffusion, Pickup, Resonance, Calculations, Particles, Frequencies, Models, Transport, Parameters, Compression, Velocity, Plasma, Power

Scientific paper

It is argued that the formulation used by Gombosi (1991) does not distinguish between two fundamental types of resonant interactions (those between cometary pickup ions and LF electromagnetic waves). Two problems arise from using their overly simplified expressions. The wave polarization of the solar wind Alfven wave is not purely right-handed, and values from alphacom and alphasw are not well known, nor are the 'polarizations' of the 'backward'-going waves in either case. Gombosi et al. discuss the antisunward vs the sunward propagating solar wind Alfven wave, and assume a reasonable value of 0.2 for alphasw. However, alphacom is totally unknown. It is concluded that a more correct analysis of wave polarization can lead to significant changes in the formulation and results from Gombosi et al. In his reply Gombosi argues that his simplified wave-particle interaction model is consistent with Giotto observations and plasma kinetic simulations and it leads to a reasonable approximation of the implanted ion transport coefficients. The more complicated approach suggested by Tsurutani & Thorne (1993) requires the introduction of several ad hoc parameters and it does not lead to any change of the energy diffusion coefficient.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Comment on 'Comparison of observed and calculated implanted ion distributions outside Comet Halley's bow shock' by T. I. Gombosi, M. Neugebauer, A. D. Johnstone, A. J. Coates, and D. E. Huddleston will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1446083