1 / 10

Shock geometry and particle injection at shocks

Shock geometry and particle injection at shocks. WG3 Session#7 Thursday PM :. Discussion: M. Desai vs H. Cane --- Do flare particles “see” CME shocks at all?

shaun
Download Presentation

Shock geometry and particle injection at shocks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Shock geometry and particle injection at shocks WG3 Session#7Thursday PM: Discussion: M. Desai vs H. Cane --- Do flare particles “see” CME shocks at all? J. Giacalone:Electron acceleration at shocksA.Tylka: Perp. shock to explain various Fe/O ratios Dietmar Krauss-Varban: shock acceleration: geometry and injection Nathan Schwadron: Insights from recent TS results Joseph Kota: SEP and geometry of shocks G. P. Zank (G. Li):Particle acceleration at a perpendicular shock

  2. Electron acceleration Jokippi and Giacalone, 2005

  3. Fe/O vs. Energy Geometry changing CME-driven shocks and energy dependence of Fe/O ratio • 1. A direct flare component that dominates at high energies: Cane et al. 2003; 2006. • 2. CME-driven shocks accelerate “fresh” suprathermal seed ions Li & Zank 2005 • CME-driven shocks accelerate “remnant” suprathermal flare ions.Mason et al. 1999; Tylka et al. 2001. • Tylka et al., ApJ 625, 474-495(2005) • Tylka et al, ApJS 164, 536-551 (2006) • Tylka and Lee, ApJ 646, 1319-1334 (August 1, 2006)

  4. Intrinsic Oblique Shock Undulation

  5. Topology counts Kota and Jokippi 2004

  6. Lessons from Voyager I

  7. Maximum and injection energy for parallel and perpendicular shock • Remarks: • Parallel shock calculation assumes wave excitation • 2) Particle maximum energy at parallel shock decrease faster than maximum energy at perp. shock • 3) Injection energy at Q-perp shock much higher than at Q-par, therefore expect difference in composition Zank et al. 2006

  8. Anisotropy and the injection threshold After session Marty et al points out “dip” maybe unphysical. Diffusion tensor: Since , the anisotropy is defined by For a nearly perpendicular shock To apply diffusive shock acceleration

  9. Streamer H I Lyα profiles at 1.8 & 2.2 R (May 2006) and 1.9 & 3.1 R (July 2006) Slit position for May 2006 Slit positions for July 2006

  10. Questions: • What is the injection problem? • Is there an injection problem? • How perp. shocks and parallel shocks differ? • What observations helps to discern perp. shock from parallel shock? • Is it meaningful to talk about “perp.” and parallel shock at all? • Can shock accelerate electrons? How do the shock do it and how do we tell?

More Related