Test of Shi et al. Method to Infer the Magnetic Reconnection Geometry from Spacecraft Data: MHD Simulation with Guide Field and Antiparallel Kinetic Simulation

Denton, R. ; Heese, M. ; Drake, J. F. ; Swisdak, M. ; Birn, J. ; Sonnerup, B. U. O.

PID  :  NTRS Document ID: 20140000906
RP-ID  :  GSFC-E-DAA-TN9106

学科分类：空间科学

美国|英语

来源: NASA Technical Reports Server

【 摘 要 】

When analyzing data from an array of spacecraft (such as Cluster or MMS) crossing a site of magnetic reconnection, it is desirable to be able to accurately determine the orientation of the reconnection site. If the reconnection is quasi-two dimensional, there are three key directions, the direction of maximum inhomogeneity (the direction across the reconnection site), the direction of the reconnecting component of the magnetic field, and the direction of rough invariance (the "out of plane" direction). Using simulated spacecraft observations of magnetic reconnection in the geomagnetic tail, we extend our previous tests of the direction-finding method developed by Shi et al. (2005) and the method to determine the structure velocity relative to the spacecraft Vstr. These methods require data from four proximate spacecraft. We add artificial noise and calibration errors to the simulation fields, and then use the perturbed gradient of the magnetic field B and perturbed time derivative dB/dt, as described by Denton et al. (2010). Three new simulations are examined: a weakly three-dimensional, i.e., quasi-two-dimensional, MHD simulation without a guide field, a quasi-two-dimensional MHD simulation with a guide field, and a two-dimensional full dynamics kinetic simulation with inherent noise so that the apparent minimum gradient was not exactly zero, even without added artificial errors. We also examined variations of the spacecraft trajectory for the kinetic simulation. The accuracy of the directions found varied depending on the simulation and spacecraft trajectory, but all the directions could be found within about 10 for all cases. Various aspects of the method were examined, including how to choose averaging intervals and the best intervals for determining the directions and velocity. For the kinetic simulation, we also investigated in detail how the errors in the inferred gradient directions from the unmodified Shi et al. method (using the unperturbed gradient) depended on the amplitude of the calibration errors. For an accuracy of 3 for the maximum gradient direction, the calibration errors could be as large as 3% of reconnection magnetic field, while for the same accuracy for the minimum gradient direction, the calibration errors could only be as large as 0.03% of the reconnection magnetic field. These results suggest that the maximum gradient direction can normally be determined by the unmodified Shi et al. method, while the modified method or some other method must be used to accurately determine the minimum gradient direction. The structure velocity was found with magnitude accurate to 2% and direction accurate to within 5%.