4.7 Article

Evidence of strong energetic ion acceleration in the near-Earth magnetotail

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 41, Issue 11, Pages 3724-3730

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060252

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR) [50 OC 1101]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZZD-EW-01-3]
  3. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2011CB811404, 2014CB845903, 2012CB825604]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41204122, 41174122]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Until now it is still questionable whether ions are accelerated to energies above 100 keV in the near-Earth current sheet (CS), in the vicinity of a possible near-Earth neutral line. By using 11 years of 3-D energetic ion flux data for protons, helium, and oxygen (similar to 150 keV-1 MeV) from the RAPID instrument on board Cluster 4, we statistically study the energetic ion acceleration by investigating ion anisotropies in the near-Earth magnetotail (-20 R-E< X< -16 R-E). It is found that the earthward (tailward) anisotropy of the energetic (> 150 keV) ions (protons, He+, and O+) tend to become higher as the earthward (tailward) plasma bulk flows (measured by Cluster Ion Spectrometry experiment) become stronger. During such periods the presence of a strong acceleration source tailward (earthward) of Cluster spacecraft (S/C) is confirmed by the hardening energy spectra of the earthward (tailward) energetic ion flows. A good statistical correlation between tailward bulk flow, negative Bz, and the tailward anisotropy of energetic ions indicates that the strong ion acceleration might be related to a near-Earth reconnection, which occurred earthward of the Cluster S/C. The energetic ion anisotropies do not show a clear dependence on the AE index, which may indicate that the acceleration source(s) for the energetic ions could be spatially localized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available