Image Details

Choose export citation format:

On the Contribution of EMIC Waves to the Reconfiguration of the Relativistic Electron Butterfly Pitch Angle Distribution Shape on 2014 September 12—A Case Study

  • Authors: Claudia Medeiros, V. M. Souza, L. E. A. Vieira, D. G. Sibeck, A. J. Halford, S.-B. Kang, L. A. Da Silva, L. R. Alves, J. P. Marchezi, R. S. Dallaqua, P. R. Jauer, M. Rockenbach, O. Mendes, M. V. Alves, A. Dal Lago, M.-C. Fok, S. G. Kanekal, D. N. Baker, and C. A. Kletzing

2019 The Astrophysical Journal 872 36.

  • Provider: AAS Journals

Caption: Figure 6.

Comparison between pitch angle–resolved electron fluxes before (T1) and during (T2) the electron flux dropout on 2014 September 12. Panels (a)–(d) present a 2 hr interval (17:00–19:00 UT) of REPT’s B electron fluxes (blue circles) at a 90° pitch angle for several energy channels ranging from ∼1.80 MeV to ∼3.4 MeV. A Gaussian-like fit (see text for details) was also superposed (black curve) onto these plots. The time T1 corresponds to the maximum fitted flux value, whereas T2 corresponds to when the flux drops to 80% (roughly 1/e2) of this maximum value. The corresponding electron pitch angle distributions (PADs) at these two time instants are shown as red and green curves, respectively, in panels (e)–(h). At T1 (T2), the electron PADs have a 90°-peaked (butterfly) shape, as evidenced by the r parameter, which provides the ratio between the flux at the 90° pitch angle bin to the average flux at both 47.6° and 132.4° pitch angle bins. It is defined that whenever r > 1.1 (r < 0.9), the analyzed electron PAD has a 90°-peaked-like (butterfly-like) shape (see text for details).

Other Images in This Article

Show More

Copyright and Terms & Conditions