Observed tail current systems associated with bursty bulk ...€¦ · Cluster spacecraft...

Ann. Geophys., 26, 167–184, 2008www.ann-geophys.net/26/167/2008/© European Geosciences Union 2008

AnnalesGeophysicae

Observed tail current systems associated with bursty bulk flows andauroral streamers during a period of multiple substorms

C. Forsyth1, M. Lester1, S. W. H. Cowley1, I. Dandouras2, A. N. Fazakerley3, R. C. Fear1, H. U. Frey4, A. Grocott1,A. Kadokura 5, E. Lucek6, H. Reme2, S. E. Milan1, and J. Watermann7

1Dept. Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK2CESR/CNRS, 9 Avenue du Colonel Roche, B.P. 4346, 31028, Toulouse Cedex 4, France3Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, UK4Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA5National Institute of Polar Research, 9-10-1 Kaga, Itabashi, Tokyo 173-8515, Japan6Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London, SW7 2BZ, UK7Atmosphere Space Research Division, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

Received: 26 March 2007 – Revised: 14 December 2007 – Accepted: 18 December 2007 – Published: 4 February 2008

Abstract. We present a multi-instrument study of a sub-storm bursty bulk flow (BBF) and auroral streamer. Duringa substorm on 25 August 2003, which was one of a seriesof substorms that occurred between 00:00 and 05:00 UT, theCluster spacecraft encountered a BBF event travelling Earth-wards and duskwards with a velocity of∼500 km s−1 somenine minutes after the onset of the substorm. Coincident withthis event the IMAGE spacecraft detected an auroral streamerin the substorm auroral bulge in the Southern Hemispherenear the footpoints of the Cluster spacecraft. Using FluxGateMagnetometer (FGM) data from the four Cluster spacecraft,we determine the field-aligned currents in the BBF, using thecurlometer technique, to have been∼5 mA km−2. When pro-jected into the ionosphere, these currents give ionosphericfield-aligned currents of∼18 A km−2, which is comparablewith previously observed ionospheric field-aligned currentsassociated with BBFs and auroral streamers. The observa-tions of the BBF are consistent with the plasma “bubble”model of Chen and Wolf (1993). Furthermore, we show thatthe observations of the BBF are consistent with the creationof the BBF by the reconnection of open field lines Earthwardof a substorm associated near-Earth neutral line.

Keywords. Magnetosphere (Auroral phenomena; Currentsystems; Storms and substorms)

Correspondence to:C. Forsyth([email protected])

1 Introduction

The current circuits of the magnetosphere-ionosphere systemare a fundamental constituent of the near-Earth space envi-ronment. Whereas large scale current systems, such as thesubstorm current wedge, can excite auroral activity coveringmany hours of magnetic local time (MLT), localised currentsystems can excite localised auroral forms. Ground-basedmagnetometers and radars and low Earth orbiting spacecrafthave previously been used to study the ionospheric currentsystems, but the launch of the Cluster mission in 2001 pro-vides a unique opportunity to study current systems out inthe magnetosphere.

Previous studies have shown that the flow diversions andmagnetic shears observed along the edges of bursts of highspeed plasma convection in the plasma sheet, termed burstybulk flows (BBFs), are consistent with the concept of field-aligned currents flowing in BBFs, forming a localised cur-rent wedge (Sergeev et al., 1996; Birn and Hesse, 1996;Birn et al., 1999, 2004). These are also consistent with amodel of these flows as “bubbles” of under-populated fluxtubes propagating through the plasma sheet (Chen and Wolf,1993). In particularSergeev et al.(1996) showed that themodel ofChen and Wolf(1993) predicted that BBFs wouldhave currents into the ionosphere on their dawnward edgeand out of the ionosphere on their duskward edge. They alsoshowed that the model predicted a magnetic shear at the sur-face of the flow and that the side of the flow that the space-craft passed through (duskward or dawnward) could be de-termined by analysing the plane of the surface of the flow.From this they determined that if the sign of the product of

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

168 C. Forsyth et al.: Current systems of bursty bulk flows and auroral streamers

BX and the change inBY was negative (positive), the space-craft passed through the duskward (dawnward) edge of theflow (Sergeev et al., 1996, Fig. 2) and vice versa beneaththe plasma sheet. It should be noted that most definitions ofBBFs (see e.g.Cao et al., 2006) consider multiple bursts ofhigh speed plasma flow within a limited period (commonly10 min) to be a single BBF. As such, we can apply the re-sults ofChen and Wolf(1993) andSergeev et al.(1996) toindividual flow bursts within a BBF.

In recent years, there have been a number of studies re-lating BBFs to auroral streamers either explicitly, with di-rect observation of both features (e.g.Lyons et al., 1999;Nakamura et al., 2001a,b), or implicitly, with ionosphericmeasurements being compared to the predicted form of theionospheric manifestations of BBFs from the model ofChenand Wolf (1993) (e.g.Henderson et al., 1998; Amm et al.,1999; Sergeev et al., 2004). In particular,Nakamura et al.(2001a) dealt with the footprint location of the Geotail satel-lite and the comparison of Geotail observations of BBFs andthe passage of the streamers near the spacecraft’s footprint.They found good spatial and temporal correlation betweenflow bursts in the tail and auroral activity. They also foundthat auroral enhancements that break up within the vicinityof the spacecraft footprint, calculated using the Hybrid In-put Algorithm (HIA) (Kubyshkina et al., 1999) to modify themagnetic field model ofTsyganenko(1989), appeared within±1 min of the flow onset in the tail. It should be noted thatin the study byNakamura et al.(2001a), the variations in thefootpoint location from the different models tended to be inthe north-south direction as opposed to a change in the MLT.

Studies of ionospheric current systems near the footpointsof BBFs and associated with auroral streamers have shownthat they are also consistent with theChen and Wolf(1993)model (Amm et al., 1999; Sergeev et al., 2004; Nakamuraet al., 2005). Combined ground and space-based studiesof the ionosphere during the passage of auroral streamershave shown that the bright westward edge of the streameris associated with a large, upward field-aligned current den-sity whereas diffuse aurora to the east is associated with alower, Earthward current density (Amm et al., 1999; Sergeevet al., 2004), although a lack of tail observations meant thatthese streamers could not be directly associated with burstybulk flows.Amm et al.(1999) inferred field-aligned currentsin streamers of∼25 A km−2 by using the method of char-acteristics (Inhester et al., 1992; Amm, 1995, 1998) to in-vert ground magnetic field data and ionospheric electric fielddata. This forward technique solves a 2-D partial differentialequation along its characteristics for the Hall conductance,allowing other electrodynamic parameters to be inferred withthe inclusion of the measurements.Grocott et al.(2004) es-timated an ionospheric field-aligned current of∼0.2 A km−2

near the footpoint of the Cluster spacecraft as the spacecraftdetected the passage of a BBF during a “quiet” period, bymeasuring the curl of the ionospheric flows detected by theCUTLASS radars (Lester et al., 2004) and assuming a non-

substorm Pedersen conductivity of a few Siemens. Theyshowed that this current system was associated with auro-ral activity with a maximum brightness of∼1 kR, althoughthey did not discuss the current system in terms of theChenand Wolf(1993) model.Nakamura et al.(2005) inferred thecurl of the ionospheric equivalent currents near the footpointof the Cluster spacecraft at the time of a BBF using the 2-D spherical elementary current technique ofAmm and Vil-janen(1999) to invert IMAGE magnetometer data. In thecase of uniform conductances within the region of the Clus-ter footpoint, this gave field-aligned currents of the order of3 A km−2. However, no auroral data were presented suchthat the passage of an auroral streamer could not be con-firmed. Also, EISCAT radar data indicated that there werelocalised conductance enhancements, although the localisedfeature was considered not to affect the overall current pat-tern. The currents observed in these studies vary by two or-ders of magnitude, although the three values were obtainedduring differing periods of auroral, magnetic and substormactivity, indicating that the substorm phase during which theBBF is detected has a strong influence on the associated cur-rents. A review of the ionospheric signatures of BBFs isgiven byAmm and Kauristie(2002).

On 25 August 2003, the Cluster spacecraft observed aBBF consisting of two flow bursts during a period of mul-tiple substorms. Simultaneously, the IMAGE spacecraft ob-served an auroral streamer in the Southern Hemisphere auro-ral oval. We show that the field-aligned currents detected bythe Cluster spacecraft, calculated using the curlometer tech-nique (Dunlop et al., 1988; Robert et al., 1998, and referencestherein), are consistent with previous ground-based studies ofionospheric currents detected in association with an auroralstreamer byAmm et al. (1999). The pitch angle distribu-tion, energy spectra of particles, ion density and magneticflux within the flow are shown to be consistent with the re-connection of open field lines close to the spacecraft.

2 Instrumentation

Figure 1 presents the locations of the Cluster and IMAGEspacecraft in X-Y, X-Z and Y-Z planes in GSM coordinates(spacecraft data will be given in GSM coordinates unless oth-erwise stated) at 00:00, 01:00 and 02:00 UT on 25 August2003. The Cluster spacecraft separation has been magni-fied by a factor of 200 and Cluster 1 (Rumba, blue) is plot-ted at the correct location. The dashed lines represent themagnetic field lines of the model ofTsyganenko and Stern(1996) (hereafter referred to as the T96 model) which passthrough the location of Cluster 1 at these times. All theCluster spacecraft were south of, and moving away from,the centre of the plasma sheet in the post-midnight sector,with Cluster 4 (Tango, red) furthest south and Cluster 1–3(Rumba, blue, Salsa, green and Samba, yellow) at approxi-mately the same Z location. Cluster 1 (blue) was closest to

Ann. Geophys., 26, 167–184, 2008 www.ann-geophys.net/26/167/2008/

C. Forsyth et al.: Current systems of bursty bulk flows and auroral streamers 169

dawn and Cluster 2 (green) was closest to dusk. Cluster 3(yellow) was furthest down tail. At 01:00 UT Cluster 1 waslocated at [−18.62,−3.58,−0.96]RE and the average separa-tion of the spacecraft was 120 km. Cluster data are presentedhere from the FluxGate Magnetometer (FGM;Balogh et al.,2001), the Cluster Ion Spectrometer CODIF sensor (CIS;Reme et al., 2001), and the Plasma Electron And CurrentExperiment High Energy Electron Analyser (PEACE HEEA;Johnstone et al., 1997). The FGM data presented is basedon the full resolution (22 Hz) data from the Cluster ActiveArchive. These data have been calibrated such that they arebetter suited to the multi-spacecraft analysis presented withinthis study. Plots of the data from the PEACE HEEA sensoralso include a trace of the spacecraft potential, as measuredby the Electric Fields and Waves instrument (EFW;Gustafs-son et al., 2001).

The IMAGE spacecraft passed through perigee at around23:30 on 24 August 2003 and was travelling sunward andduskward during the interval, passing over the southern mag-netic pole shortly after midnight. Data is presented fromthe Far-UltraViolet Wideband Imaging Camera (FUV-WIC;Mende et al., 2000a,b) on board IMAGE.

Interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind data wereobtained by the Advanced Composition Explorer spacecraft(ACE; Stone et al., 1998) located in the solar wind upstreamof the Earth at [227,−26,15]RE GSM. Data are employedfrom the magnetometer (MAG;Smith et al., 1998) and So-lar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM;McCo-mas et al., 1998) instruments. The data have been lagged by44 min to the magnetopause using the method ofKhan andCowley(1999), with an uncertainty of±3 min.

Ground-based magnetometer data are presented from thewest coast magnetometer stations of the Greenland mag-netometer chain operated by the Danish MeteorologicalInstitute (DMI) (for instrument details, seehttp://www.dmi.dk/projects/chain/greenland.html) and from the Antarc-tic low power magnetometer (LPM) chains operated bythe British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the Japanese Na-tional Institute for Polar Research (NIPR) (for instru-ment details, seehttp://www.antarctica.ac.uk/basresearch/instruments/lpm.php). Figure 2 indicates the locations ofthese magnetometer stations in MLT-invariant latitude mag-netic coordinates at 01:16 UT on 25 August 2003 from alti-tude adjusted corrected geomagnetic coordinates (AACGM)(Baker and Wing, 1989). The magnetic footpoint of the Clus-ter spacecraft, calculated using the T96 model, is shown as ared star in each panel.

3 Observations

3.1 Cluster observations

Data from the Cluster FGM and CIS instruments from Clus-ter 4 between 01:00 and 02:00 UT, encompassing the sub-

Figures

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25XGSM

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

YG

SM

5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25XGSM

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

ZG

SM

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15YGSM

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

ZG

SM

Cluster 1 (Rumba)

Cluster 2 (Salsa)

Cluster 3 (Samba)

Cluster 4 (Tango)

00:00 UT 01:00UT

02:00 UT

00:00 UT

01:00 T

02:00

0:00U

T

01:0

0 U

T

02:0

0 U

T

00:00 UT

01:00 UT

02:00 UT

00:

00 U

T

01:

00 U

T

02:0

0 UT

UU

(a)

(c)

(b)

T

Fig. 1. Plots of the Cluster and IMAGE orbital positions between 00:00, 01:00 and 02:00UT in the

(a) X-Y, (b) Y-Z and (c) X-Z in GSM coordinates. The Cluster tetrahedron is magnified by a factor

of 200. Cluster 1 (Rumba, blue) is plotted at the correct location. The dotted lines represent the

magnetic field lines passing through Cluster 1 at 00:00, 01:00 and 02:00UT as determined by the

Tsyganenko T96 model (Tsyganenko and Stern, 1996).

34

Fig. 1. Plots of the Cluster and IMAGE orbital positions between00:00, 01:00 and 02:00 UT in the(a) X-Y, (b) Y-Z and (c) X-Z inGSM coordinates. The Cluster tetrahedron is magnified by a factorof 200. Cluster 1 (Rumba, blue) is plotted at the correct location.The dotted lines represent the magnetic field lines passing throughCluster 1 at 00:00, 01:00 and 02:00 UT as determined by the Tsy-ganenko T96 model (Tsyganenko and Stern, 1996).

storm, are presented in Fig.3. CIS data were unavailablefrom Cluster 1 and 2 and data from Cluster 3 were noisy andwill not be discussed here. Discussion of ion moments fromthe CIS instrument on board Cluster 4 will refer to the protonmoments derived from the CODIF sensor, since the protondensities detected by the CIS instrument were much largerthan the densities of other ions. Differences in the FGM datafrom the four spacecraft are unnoticeable on the timescalespresented here and as such, overall magnetic field conditionsare taken to be those at Cluster 4. The FGM data have beensmoothed using a 4 s Box Car filter. Figure3a shows theion density moments from the CIS instrument. Figure3b–eshows the magnetic field components in the X, Y and Z GSMdirections and the total magnetic field strength, respectively,from the FGM instrument. The red dashed line in Fig.3b–erepresents the T96 model magnetic field values at the loca-tion of the spacecraft. The vertical dashed line at 01:15 UTindicates the time at which Cluster first detected evidenceof the substorm expansion phase, evidenced as a decrease inthe total magnetic field of∼30 nT over the following 12 min,dominated by a decrease in theBX component indicating adipolarisation of the magnetic field. The shaded area indi-cates the time at which Cluster encountered the BBF.

At 01:13 UT, the ion density (Fig.3a) began to increasefrom 0.01 cm−3 to 0.3 cm−3, indicating that the plasma sheetboundary layer (PSBL) encompassed the spacecraft. Be-tween 01:15 and 01:27 UT, the total magnetic field strength

www.ann-geophys.net/26/167/2008/ Ann. Geophys., 26, 167–184, 2008

http://www.dmi.dk/projects/chain/greenland.html

http://www.dmi.dk/projects/chain/greenland.html

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/instruments/lpm.php

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/instruments/lpm.php


(a)

THLSVS

KUV

UPNUMQ

GDHATU

STFSKTGHB

NRD

DMH

DNB

SCO

M78-337M79-336M81-338 M82-003

M83-348M84-336M85-002

M85-096

M87-028M87-068

M88-316

M68-041

M69-041M70-039

M70-044M74-043M77-040

FHB

NAQ

AMK

Fig. 2. Maps indicating (a) the locations of the Greenland magnetometer chain run by the Danish

Meteorological Institute and (b) the Antarctic low power magnetometer chains run by the British

Antarctic Survey and the Japanese National Institute for Polar Research in MLT - invariant latitude

coordinates calculated at 01:16UT on 25 August 2003 from altitude adjusted corrected geomagnetic

coordinates (12:00MLT is at the top and 18:00MLT to the left). The Cluster footpoint at this time

is indicated by the red star. The radial dotted lines indicate hours of MLT, while the dotted concentric

circles are shown for every 10° of magnetic latitude.

35

(b)

THLSVS

KUV

UPNUMQ

GDHATU

STFSKTGHB

NRD

DMH

DNB

SCO

M78-337M79-336M81-338 M82-003

M83-348M84-336M85-002

M85-096

M87-028M87-068

M88-316

M68-041

M69-041M70-039

M70-044M74-043M77-040

FHB

NAQ

AMK

Fig. 2. Maps indicating (a) the locations of the Greenland magnetometer chain run by the Danish

Meteorological Institute and (b) the Antarctic low power magnetometer chains run by the British

Antarctic Survey and the Japanese National Institute for Polar Research in MLT - invariant latitude

coordinates calculated at 01:16UT on 25 August 2003 from altitude adjusted corrected geomagnetic

coordinates (12:00MLT is at the top and 18:00MLT to the left). The Cluster footpoint at this time

is indicated by the red star. The radial dotted lines indicate hours of MLT, while the dotted concentric

circles are shown for every 10° of magnetic latitude.

35

Fig. 2. Maps indicating(a) the locations of the Greenland mag-netometer chain run by the Danish Meteorological Institute and(b)the Antarctic low power magnetometer chains run by the BritishAntarctic Survey and the Japanese National Institute for Polar Re-search in MLT-invariant latitude coordinates calculated at 01:16 UTon 25 August 2003 from altitude adjusted corrected geomagneticcoordinates (12:00 MLT is at the top and 18:00 MLT to the left).The Cluster footpoint at this time is indicated by the red star. Theradial dotted lines indicate hours of MLT, while the dotted concen-tric circles are shown for every 10◦ of magnetic latitude.

(Fig. 3e) dropped by∼30 nT, dominated by a decline in theBX component (Fig.3b). TheBZ component (Fig.3d) waselevated above that of the model field throughout most of the

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 3. Stacked plots of the ion and magnetic field data from Cluster 4, showing (a) the ion density,

(b)-(d) the X, Y, and Z components of the magnetic field in GSM coordinates, and (e) the total

magnetic field value. The dotted lines represent the zero value in panels (b)-(e), while the red dashed

line represents the T96 model field value. The vertical dashed line indicates the time at which

Cluster 4 detected the substorm expansion phase. The shaded area indicates Cluster’s encounter

with the BBF.

36

Fig. 3. Stacked plots of the ion and magnetic field data from Clus-ter 4, showing(a) the ion density,(b–d) the X, Y, and Z componentsof the magnetic field in GSM coordinates, and(e) the total magneticfield value. The dashed lines represent the zero value in panels (b–e), while the red dashed line represents the T96 model field value.The vertical dashed line indicates the time at which Cluster 4 de-tected the substorm expansion phase. The shaded area indicatesCluster’s encounter with the BBF.

interval, which, coupled with the decrease in theBX compo-nent, indicates that the field became more dipole-like at thistime. This is taken to be an indication that the Cluster space-craft detected a substorm expansion phase onset at 01:15 UT.Since Cluster was initially in the southern lobe and movingaway from the central plasma sheet, the plasma sheet config-uration changed so as to engulf the spacecraft.

Previous studies have used various criteria to define BBFs.Cao et al.(2006) summarise several of these in their statis-tical investigation of BBFs detected by the Cluster space-craft. Angelopoulos et al.(1994) defined a BBF as segmentsof continuous total ion flow velocity>100 km s−1, with apeak in the velocity of>400 km s−1 whilst the observingspacecraft was in the inner plasma sheet (β>0.5). Raj et al.(2002) replaced the peak velocity andβ conditions with the



conditions that the peak flow velocity perpendicular to themagnetic field,Vperp, >250 km s−1 and thatβXY >2 (basedon the X and Y components of the magnetic field). We adaptthe above to emphasise the convective element of the modelsuch thatVperp>300 km s−1 for the flow enhancement to beconsidered a BBF. Based on the prediction of the model ofChen and Wolf(1993) that the under-populated flux tubesthat make up a BBF are convecting magnetic structures inwhich the magnetic field magnitude is enhanced, we distin-guish between flow bursts within the BBF based on the mag-netic field magnitude. We also compare the magnetic fielddata and ion density to distinguish between separate flowbursts. This differs from the definition given byAngelopou-los et al.(1992), who used the plasma flow data to defineflow bursts.

At 01:24 UT, approximately 9 min after Cluster detectedthe substorm expansion phase, the spacecraft encountered abursty bulk flow consisting of two flow bursts (indicated bythe shaded region in Fig.3) followed by a low magnetic fieldevent in which the total magnetic field strength at Clusterdropped to∼1 nT . We now consider data from the Clusterspacecraft which illustrate the passage of the BBF and thesubsequent low field event.

Presented in Fig.4 are data from the FGM and CIS instru-ments between 01:18 and 01:30 UT. Figure4a shows the iondensity. Figure4b shows the ion velocity perpendicular tothe magnetic field (black), defined asb×(V ×b) whereb isthe unit magnetic field vector andV is the ion velocity vec-tor, the ion velocity parallel to the magnetic field (blue), andthe total ion velocity(red). Figure4c shows plasma beta (β,black) and the plasma beta calculated using only theBX andBY GSM components (βXY , blue). Figure4d–g shows the X,Y and Z GSM components of the magnetic field and the totalmagnetic field strength, respectively. The green shaded areaindicates the time at which the BBF engulfed Cluster. Thehorizontal dashed line in Fig.4b–f indicates the zero value.The horizontal dotted line in Fig.4b indicates 300 km s−1.The red dashed line in Fig.4d–g represents the T96 modelfield value. The dotted vertical lines represent the start ofeach of the two flow bursts. The dashed vertical lines en-close the low field event.

Between 01:24:15 and 01:26:15 UT, the ion velocity per-pendicular to the magnetic field at Cluster (Fig.4b) increasedto >300 km s−1 with a peak value of∼720 km s−1 and amean value of∼500 km s−1. Simultaneously, the magneticfield strength increased in all components by∼5 nT indicat-ing that Cluster encountered a BBF. The ion density detectedby Cluster at this time halved (Fig.4a). There was a briefdrop in the magnetic field magnitude between∼01:25:30and∼01:25:50 UT coincident with a recovery in the ion den-sity, indicating that the BBF consisted of two flow bursts orplasma “bubbles” as described byChen and Wolf(1993).Following the encounter with the BBF, the magnetic fieldstrength dropped to∼5 nT at 01:26:20 UT and continuedto drop until ∼1:27:20 UT, with theBX (Fig. 4d) andBZ

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Fig. 4. Stacked plots of the ion and magnetic field data from Cluster 4, showing (a) the ion density,

(b) the ion velocity, (c) the plasma beta, (d)-(f) the X, Y, and Z components of the magnetic field in

GSM coordinates, and (g) the total magnetic field value. The red line shows the total ion velocity, the

blue line shows the field parallel velocity and the black line shows the field perpendicular velocity in

panel (b); the dotted line represents 300km s−1. The black dashed lines represent the zero value in

panels (b) and (d)-(f); the red dashed lines in panels (d)-(g) represents the T96 model field value. The

green shaded area indicates the time at which Cluster 4 encountered the BBF and the blue shaded

area indicates the low field event. The arrows indicate the magnetic features used in the MVAB and

four-spacecraft timing analysis. The dotted vertical lines represent the start of each of the two flow

bursts. The dashed vertical lines enclose the low field event.

37Fig. 4. Stacked plots of the ion and magnetic field data from Clus-ter 4, showing(a) the ion density,(b) the ion velocity,(c) the plasmabeta, (d–f) the X, Y, and Z components of the magnetic field inGSM coordinates, and(g) the total magnetic field value. The redline shows the total ion velocity, the blue line shows the field paral-lel velocity and the black line shows the field perpendicular veloc-ity in panel (b); the dotted line represents 300 km s−1. The blackdashed lines represent the zero value in panels (b) and (d–f); the reddashed lines in panels (d–g) represents the T96 model field value.The green shaded area indicates the time at which Cluster 4 en-countered the BBF and the blue shaded area indicates the low fieldevent. The arrows indicate the magnetic features used in the MVABand four-spacecraft timing analysis. The dotted vertical lines rep-resent the start of each of the two flow bursts. The dashed verticallines enclose the low field event.

(Fig. 4f) components reversing just before the field strengthreached its minimum value. During the recovery of theBX

andBZ components, theBY (Fig. 4e) component also brieflyreversed. We note that the plasmaβ andβXY were similarthroughout. At the time of the BBF, both were∼2, whereasduring the PSBL crossings both were<1.

Previous studies have shown the scale size of BBFs inthe Y direction to be between 1 and 5RE and in the X



Table 1. The means of the outputs of the minimum variance analysis (MVAB) across the Cluster spacecraft and the outputs of the four-spacecraft timing analysis (4SC) at various universal times. The universal times indicate the start of a 5 s period of data analysed by eachmethod. The vectors are the normals to the boundaries of the flow bursts.

UT MVAB X MVAB Y MVAB Z λ2/λ3 4SC X 4SC Y 4SC Z Vel.

01:24:25 0.406 0.147 0.897 31.6 0.297 0.239 0.924 160 km s−1

01:25:32 0.286 −0.911 0.289 16.6 0.691 −0.223 0.688 165 km s−1

01:25:47 0.214 0.573 0.780 7.6 0.446 0.073 0.892 190 km s−1

01:26:15 0.605 0.332 0.722 36.6 0.444 0.333 0.871 170 km s−1

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

1.0

0.0

-1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

1.0

0.0

-1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

1.0

0.0

-1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0 0.0 -1.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

1.0 0.0 -1.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0 0.0 -1.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

XY XZ YZ

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 5. Plots of the boundaries of the BBF flow bursts as determined by MVAB (blue) and four-

spacecraft timing analysis (black) at the four times given in table 1 (lines (a)-(d) respectively) in the

XY, XZ and YZ GSM planes. The horizontal axes are in the XGSM , XGSM and YGSM directions

respectively. The lines represent the boundary of the BBF flow bursts and the arrows represent the

normals to the boundary. The green arrows indicate the perpendicular ion velocity at the given times.

38

Fig. 5. Plots of the boundaries of the BBF flow bursts as determinedby MVAB (blue) and four-spacecraft timing analysis (black) at thefour times given in Table1 (linesa–d, respectively) in the XY, XZand YZ GSM planes. The horizontal axes are in the XGSM, XGSMand YGSM directions, respectively. The lines represent the bound-ary of the BBF flow bursts and the arrows represent the normalsto the boundary. The green arrows indicate the perpendicular ionvelocity at the given times.

direction to be>10RE (Sergeev et al., 1996; Angelopouloset al., 1997; Kauristie et al., 2000; Nakamura et al., 2001b,2004; Amm and Kauristie, 2002). We therefore assume thatthe separation of the Cluster spacecraft during the intervalin question (∼120 km) was significantly less than the scalesize of the BBF. Considering the two flow bursts as localisedmagnetic field structures, we can determine the orientationof the boundaries of these structures, and the directions of

the normals to the boundaries, by considering the boundarylocally as a planar surface and applying minimum varianceanalysis (MVAB) (Sonnerup and Cahill, 1967; Sonnerup andScheible, 1998) and four-spacecraft timing analysis (Russellet al., 1983; Harvey, 1998) techniques to the magnetic fielddata. The arrows in Fig.4g indicate the variations in the to-tal magnetic field used in the four-spacecraft timing analysis.The results of these two analysis techniques are given in Ta-ble 1. The X, Y, and Z columns show the components of thevector normal to the boundary determined by each method.The universal times indicate the start of a 5 s period of dataanalysed by each method. The ratio of the intermediate tominimum eigenvalues (λ2 andλ3, respectively) for the vari-ance directions are given as an indicator of the quality of theMVAB results, with larger ratios indicating a more reliableresult. The velocity is the velocity of the boundary along thevector as determined by the four-spacecraft timing analysis.The mean results from MVAB from all four Cluster space-craft are given for 01:24:25 and 01:26:15 UT. The meanresults from MVAB from Cluster 2, 3 and 4 are given for01:25:32 UT and from Cluster 1, 2 and 3 for 01:25:47 UT. Atthese times, the vectors from the remaining spacecraft weresignificantly different from those presented. Also, the ratiosof the intermediate to minimum eigenvalues, were low (of theorder of 1), indicating that the MVAB results were poor com-pared with the results from the other spacecraft. We note thatthe ratios of the intermediate to minimum eigenvalues givenare, in most cases, greater than those obtained byNakamuraet al.(2001b), who used this method to find the normal to thediscontinuity in the magnetic field at the surface of a numberof BBFs. Comparison of the full resolution FGM data fromeach spacecraft (not shown) for the field reversals shows thatthe field reversals were “nested” such that the last spacecraftto detect the negative change inBZ was the first to detect thepositive change inBZ. This signature is consistent with thelow field strength event moving across the Cluster tetrahe-dron and then moving back. However, the time lags betweenthe spacecraft were small and the variability in the magneticfield components across the four Cluster spacecraft increasedduring the low field event, such that further analysis of thestructure and the determination of the motion and orientation



of the structure using either four-spacecraft timing or MVABis badly defined, although a visual inspection of the data sug-gests motion predominantly in the ZGSM direction.

Figure5 shows the MVAB (blue) and four-spacecraft tim-ing analysis (black) vectors normal to the flow boundaries asarrows, and the flow boundaries themselves as lines in theX-Y, X-Z and Y-Z planes at 01:24:25, 01:25:32, 01:25:47,and 01:26:15 UT (rows a–d, respectively). The green arrowsrepresent the unit vectors of ion velocity perpendicular tothe field at those times. The sense of the MVAB and four-spacecraft timing vectors are similar, such that, in each case,the vectors are pointing through the same quadrant. Rows (a)and (d) show a particularly good correspondence betweenthe two analysis techniques, whereas in rows (b) and (c),in which the MVAB vectors had a lower eigenvalue ratio,the correspondence is less good between the two techniques.The vectors in the X-Z plane show that the normals to theboundaries and the motion of the field lines were predom-inantly in the Z direction, although this is expected, giventhat the plasma sheet field lines are highly distended andcontracting. The orientation of the boundary changes in thedusk-dawn direction between rows (a) and (b), representingthe boundaries of the first flow burst. This change is not seenbetween rows (c) and (d), representing the boundaries of thesecond flow burst, such that both boundaries are orientatedtowards dusk. We note that at each boundary the ion veloc-ity perpendicular to the field, i.e. the field line motion, wasdirected more towards dusk than the boundaries in each case.

Comparison of the instantaneous magnetic field vector be-tween the four Cluster spacecraft enables the curl and di-vergence of the magnetic field within the tetrahedron to beestimated by the curlometer technique and the net currentthrough the spacecraft tetrahedron to be calculated (Dunlopet al., 1988; Robert et al., 1998, and references therein). Wenote that the divergence of the magnetic field is zero, fromGauss’ Law, and as such, any measured divergence high-lights the limitations of this analysis technique. We there-fore use the measured divergence as a numerical check bycomparing this with the measured curl of the magnetic field.Figure6 shows the results of the curlometer analysis. Fig-ure6a–d shows the currents in the X, Y, Z and field parallel(i.e. field-aligned currents) directions deduced from the curlof the magnetic field. Positive field-aligned currents indicatea tailward directed current. The ratio of the divergence of themagnetic field and modulus of the curl of the magnetic field(Fig.6e) acts as an indication of the quality of the result fromthe curlometer technique, with lower ratios indicating morereliable results. The analysis output has been smoothed usinga 10 s Box Car filter in order to reduce the variability in thedata and highlight the large scale structure. The blue line inFig. 6e is the ratio of the divergence and curl of the magneticfield smoothed with a 60 s Box Car filter to further highlightthe lower ratio at the time of the BBF. We note that the un-smoothed currents (not shown) are highly variable, with thepolarity of the current changing rapidly. However, such small

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 6. Stacked plots of the results of the curlometer analysis of the FGM data from the Cluster

spacecraft, showing (a)-(d) the X, Y, Z and field-aligned components of curl vector of the magnetic

field and (e) the ratio of the moduli of the divergence and curl of the magnetic field. The data have

been smoothed with a 10s Box Car filter. The dotted lines represent the zero value in panels (a)-(d).

The blue line (panel (e)) shows the ratio of the moduli of the divergence and curl of the magnetic

field smoothed with a 60s Box Car filter. The green shaded area indicates the time at which Cluster

encountered the BBF and the blue shaded area indicates the low field event. Positive field-aligned

currents represent tailward flow, given that Cluster was beneath the current sheet. The dotted vertical

lines represent the start of each of the two flow bursts. The dashed vertical lines indicate enclose the

low field event.

39Fig. 6. Stacked plots of the results of the curlometer analysis ofthe FGM data from the Cluster spacecraft, showing(a–d) the X,Y, Z and field-aligned components of curl vector of the magneticfield and(e) the ratio of the moduli of the divergence and curl ofthe magnetic field. The data have been smoothed with a 10 s BoxCar filter. The dashed lines represent the zero value in panels (a–d). The blue line (panel e) shows the ratio of the moduli of thedivergence and curl of the magnetic field smoothed with a 60 s BoxCar filter. The green shaded area indicates the time at which Clusterencountered the BBF and the blue shaded area indicates the lowfield event. Positive field-aligned currents represent tailward flow,given that Cluster was beneath the current sheet. The dotted verticallines represent the start of each of the two flow bursts. The dashedvertical lines indicate enclose the low field event.

scale current systems are beyond the scope of this paper, inwhich we consider the variations in the current on the scaleof the flow bursts themselves.

Between 01:24 and 01:28 UT the field-aligned currents areenhanced (Fig.6d). During the passage of each flow burst(between 01:24 and 01:27 UT) the field-aligned currents areinitially tailwards and then turn Earthwards. The currentsin both Earthward and tailward directions have peak mag-nitudes of∼5 mA km−2. These values of the field-aligned



2x105

1x105

0

2x105

1x105

0

2x105

1x105

0

2x105

1x105

0

2x105

1x105

0

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 7. The pitch angle distribution of the ion differential num-ber flux for ions with energy>1 keV at(a) 01:15:13,(b) 01:17:04,(c) 01:21:10,(d) 01:24:57,(e) 01:28:55 UT. A pitch angle of 180◦

represents Earthward flowing ions.

currents in the plasma sheet can be scaled up, although some-what crudely, using the T96 model magnetic field to give anestimate of the ionospheric field-aligned currents associatedwith the detected flow of∼18 A km−2. During the low fieldevent (indicated by the blue shading) that follows the BBF,between 01:26:15 and 01:27:45 UT, the field-aligned cur-rents become larger, with peaks>10 mA km−2. The meansof the magnitudes of the X, Y and Z components of the mag-netic field and current data show that during this period theZ component of the magnetic field and Y component of thecurrent had the largest components, suggesting that Clusterentered the current sheet. The ratio of the moduli of the di-vergence and curl of the field (Fig.6e) drops during the pas-sage of the BBF and the low field event, indicating that theresults of the curlometer are due to currents flowing throughthe spacecraft tetrahedron.

Figure 7 shows the pitch angle distribution of ions withenergy>1 keV from the CIS instrument on board Cluster 4at (a) 01:15:13, (b) 01:17:04, (c) 01:21:10, (d) 01:24:57, (e)01:28:55 UT. These times are indicative of Cluster first en-tering the PSBL, Cluster approaching the inner edge of thePSBL, Cluster located in the plasma sheet before the BBF,Cluster’s encounter with the BBF and Cluster re-entering theplasma sheet, respectively. A pitch angle of 180◦ representsEarthward flowing ions. Presented in Fig.8 is the omni-directional ion differential number flux in the energy range10 eV to 30 keV between 01:10 and 01:30 UT from the CISinstrument on board Cluster 4. Panel (a) presents the data

i ii

(a)

(b) 01:17:04

01:24:57

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 8. (a) Colour spectrogram of the ion differential number flux for energies in the range 10eV-

30 keV across all pitch angles from the CIS CODIF sensor (b) the ion differential number flux

against energy at (black) 01:17:04 and (yellow) 01:24:57UT. The labels on the bottom axis of

panel (a) represent the times of the traces in Fig. 7. Arrows i and ii indicate the times at which

Cluster encountered the PSBL and BBF respectively. The colour scale is shown on the right hand

side.

41

Fig. 8. (a)Colour spectrogram of the ion differential number fluxfor energies in the range 10 eV–30 keV across all pitch angles fromthe CIS CODIF sensor(b) the ion differential number flux againstenergy at (black) 01:17:04 and (yellow) 01:24:57 UT. The labelson the bottom axis of panel (a) represent the times of the traces inFig. 7. Arrows i and ii indicate the times at which Cluster encoun-tered the PSBL and BBF, respectively. The colour scale is shownon the right hand side.

as a spectrogram, whereas panel (b) shows the differentialnumber flux against ion energy at 01:17:04 UT (black) and01:24:57 UT (yellow). At the bottom of Fig.8a are letters (a)to (e) representing the times of the pitch angle distributionspresented in Fig.7. From Fig.8, it can be seen that through-out the interval of interest, the majority of the ion populationhad energies>1 keV.

Between 01:15 and 01:18 UT Fig.8a shows distinct dis-persed energy signatures. The ion pitch angle distributions atthis time (Fig.7a and b) show that the ions consisted mainlyof bidirectional field-aligned beams. After 01:18 UT, thepitch angle distribution became fairly isotropic (Fig.7c) in-dicating that Cluster was within the plasma sheet. Figure7dindicates that when Cluster encountered the BBF the ionsagain consisted of bidirectional beams, although the differ-ential number flux in the Earthward beam was higher than inthe tailward beam. At this time, the non-field aligned compo-nent of the pitch angle distribution dropped below the plasmasheet level (Fig.7c), indicating that the beam was not super-imposed on the plasma sheet but was a separate plasma pop-ulation. Comparing the differential ion fluxes between theinner edge of the PSBL and the BBF (Fig.8b, black and yel-low lines, respectively) indicates that the ion population atthe inner edge of the PSBL was similar to the ion population



(a)

(b)

(c)

i ii

Fig. 9. The differential energy flux of electrons in the energy range 37-2.2×104 eV (a) parallel,

(b) perpendicular and (c) antiparallel to the magnetic field from the PEACE HEEA sensor on board

Cluster 4 between 01:10-01:30 UT shown in colour spectrogram format. The colour scale is shown

on the right hand side. The black trace in each panel represents the spacecraft potential in volts.

Arrows i and ii indicate the times at which Cluster encountered the PSBL and BBF respectively. The

colour scale is shown on the right hand side

42Fig. 9. The differential energy flux of electrons in the energy range37–2.2×104 eV (a)parallel,(b) perpendicular and(c)antiparallel tothe magnetic field from the PEACE HEEA sensor on board Cluster4 between 01:10–01:30 UT shown in colour spectrogram format.The colour scale is shown on the right hand side. The black tracein each panel represents the spacecraft potential in volts. Arrows iand ii indicate the times at which Cluster encountered the PSBL andBBF, respectively. The colour scale is shown on the right hand side.

detected during the BBF encounter. After Cluster encoun-tered the BBF, the spacecraft re-entered the plasma sheet,as seen by the isotropic pitch angle distribution (Fig.7e)and the similarity between the ion differential number fluxes(Fig. 8a).

Presented in Fig.9 are the differential energy fluxes ofelectrons moving parallel, perpendicular and antiparallel tothe magnetic field (Fig.9a–c, respectively) from the PEACEHEEA sensor on board Cluster 4 for the interval 01:10–01:30 UT. The spacecraft potential in volts from the EFWinstrument is shown as a black trace at the bottom of eachpanel. Between 01:10 and 01:18 UT, there is a high flux oflow energy (<60 eV) electrons, although comparison withthe spacecraft potential shows that these are photo-electrons

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(a) 01:15:45

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(b) 01:17:48

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(c) 01:19:52

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(d) 01:21:56

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(e) 01:23:59

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(f) 01:26:03

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(g) 01:28:06

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(h) 01:30:10

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(i) 01:32:13

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(j) 01:34:17

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(k) 01:36:21

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

(L) 01:15:45

<30000

3250

3500

3750

4000

4250

4500

4750

5000

5250

5500

5750

Rayle

ighs

BAS/NIPRDMI

Fig. 10. Eleven consecutive auroral images from the FUV-WIC instrument on board the IMAGE

spacecraft, taken from 01:15 to 01:37UT mapped into the AACGM coordinate system and plotted

in MLT-invariant latitude coordinates. The top of each panel represents the 06:00-18:00MLT merid-

ian. The vertical dotted line in each panel represents the 00:00 MLT meridian. The colour scale of

the images is shown on the right hand side. Panel (l) shows the locations of the (green dots) BAS and

NIPR LPM magnetometer chain in the southern hemisphere and the (blue dots) DMI magnetometer

chain in the northern hemisphere in AACGM coordinates and plotted in MLT-invariant latitude co-

ordinates at 01:15:45UT. The footprint of the Cluster spacecraft in the southern hemisphere at that

time is shown as a red star in panel (l).

43

Fig. 10. Eleven consecutive auroral images from the FUV-WICinstrument on board the IMAGE spacecraft, taken from 01:15 to01:37 UT mapped into the AACGM coordinate system and plottedin MLT-invariant latitude coordinates. The top of each panel rep-resents the 06:00–18:00 MLT meridian. The vertical dotted line ineach panel represents the 00:00 MLT meridian. The colour scale ofthe images is shown on the right hand side. Panel (L) shows thelocations of the (green dots) BAS and NIPR LPM magnetometerchain in the Southern Hemisphere and the (blue dots) DMI magne-tometer chain in the Northern Hemisphere in AACGM coordinatesand plotted in MLT-invariant latitude coordinates at 01:15:45 UT.The footprint of the Cluster spacecraft in the Southern Hemisphereat that time is shown as a red star in panel (L).

and not part of the natural plasma population. Between 01:24and 01:26 UT (Fig.9 arrow ii) the perpendicular electron fluxdecreased and the electron flux increased in the parallel andantiparallel directions, indicating that Cluster encounteredfield-aligned beams of electrons, which we interpret as thesignature of newly reconnected field-lines (e.g.Keiling et al.,2006), complementing the ion data. We note, however, thatthe differential energy flux and energy of the electrons waslower during the PSBL crossing compared with the BBF en-counter.

3.2 IMAGE FUV-WIC observations

Figure10shows a series of consecutive images of the South-ern Hemisphere auroral region taken by the FUV-WIC in-strument on board the IMAGE spacecraft between 01:15 and



22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00Magnetic Local Time

-12

-4

-2

0

2

-4

-2

0

2

Norm

alis

ed lum

inosity

1:19:52

1:21:56

1:23:59

1:26:03

UT

Fig. 11. Time series of normalised auroral luminosity above 3kR between 01:19 and 01:27UT.

Each trace has been normalised to the maximum luminosity along the trace. The traces plot these

values between magnetic latitudes of -67° and -68° in the range 22:00-02:00MLT. Each successive

trace is offset by -1. The arrows indicate the signature of the auroral streamer.

44

Fig. 11. Time series of normalised auroral luminosity above 3 kRbetween 01:19 and 01:27 UT. Each trace has been normalised to themaximum luminosity along the trace. The traces plot these valuesbetween magnetic latitudes of−67◦ and−68◦ in the range 22:00–02:00 MLT. Each successive trace is offset by−1. The arrows in-dicate the signature of the auroral streamer.

01:37 UT. The images have been mapped into AACGM co-ordinates and plotted in MLT-invariant latitude coordinatesbased on spacecraft pointing data. The dotted rings repre-sent−80◦, −70◦, and−60◦ of invariant latitude from thetop of the image outwards. The radial dotted lines representhours of MLT. The top of each panel represents the 06:00–18:00 MLT meridian and the vertical dotted lines representthe 00:00 MLT meridian. The T96 model, applied using datafrom the ACE spacecraft lagged by 44 min, with an error of±3 min, using the technique ofKhan and Cowley(1999),puts the mapped footpoint of Cluster 4 at∼01:00 MLTthroughout the interval. Figure10L shows the location ofthe BAS and NIPR LPM magnetometer chains in the South-ern Hemisphere (green dots) and the DMI magnetometers inthe Northern Hemisphere (blue dots) in MLT-invariant lati-tude coordinates from AACGM coordinates at 01:15:45 UT.The Cluster footpoint in the Southern Hemisphere is shownas a red star. We note that mapping field lines between hemi-spheres is non-trivial and that equivalent MLT-invariant lat-itude coordinates may not indicate true magnetic conjugacy(see e.g.Østgaard et al., 2004). The FUV-WIC data havebeen calibrated such that the flat-field and dayglow have beenremoved. Comparing Fig.10a and Fig.10b shows that therewas a brightening of the auroral bulge between the imagesat 01:15:45 and 01:17:48 UT centred at∼01:00 MLT whichextended over 2 h of MLT towards dusk and dawn. This indi-cates the start of an auroral substorm expansion phase, whichoccurred∼1–3 min after Cluster detected the substorm ex-pansion phase in the tail. Figure10c–k shows that the au-roral bulge expanded polewards, as expected for an auroralsubstorm, to cover∼15◦ of magnetic latitude at its widestpoint at 01:36 UT. Figure10 panels (c–k) also show that theauroral breakup was predominantly in the post-midnight sec-

tor. Although the breakup was over the NIPR LPM magne-tometers (around 01:00 MLT, Fig.10a), the breakup did notexpand duskwards to encompass the BAS LPM magnetome-ters until 01:26:03 UT (Fig.10f). An auroral streamer wasevident dawnward of the Cluster 4 footpoint in the imagesbetween 01:21–01:27 UT (Fig.10d–f), highlighted by whitecircle), giving it a lifetime of 6-10 min, based on the cadenceof the FUV-WIC instrument.

Presented in Fig.11 is a time series of auroral luminos-ity above 3 kR from FUV-WIC taken between magnetic lati-tudes of−67◦ and−68◦ and between 22:00 and 02:00 MLTfrom 01:19 to 01:27 UT. The luminosity in each image hasbeen normalised to the maximum luminosity along the trace,such that the maximum data value is 1. The auroral streamerthat was detected at 01:21 UT is evident as a peak in the00:00–01:00 MLT range between 01:21 and 01:26 UT, indi-cated by the arrows on Fig.11. Successive traces show thatthis peak moves westwards with a velocity of∼3 km s−1.Amm et al. (1999) and Sergeev et al.(2004) showed thatthe bright, duskward edge of an auroral streamer is associ-ated with a large, upward current whereas the trailing diffuseaurora is associated with a smaller downward current. Al-though the peak of the streamer is evident in Fig.11, theedge of the diffuse aurora is not well defined. As such, wecannot estimate the width of the streamer, and therefore thewidth of the BBF, solely from the auroral data.

3.3 Ground-based magnetometer observations

Figure 12 shows stacked plots of the northward mag-netic field component, averaged over 20 s, detected by theDMI west coast magnetometer chain between 00:00 and03:00 UT. A substorm expansion phase onset, indicatedby a sharp negative bay, was seen at 01:15 UT at Narsar-suaq (NAQ), propagating up to 14◦ northwards to (UPN) by01:30 UT. This substorm expansion phase onset was pre-ceded by an earlier onset at 00:40 UT that was seen at NAQand FHB. Filtering the NAQ data using a 4 min high passfilter (Fig. 12 lower panel) shows that the negative bay in-dicating the substorm expansion phase onset was accompa-nied by a significant increase in Pi2 band noise. Similarly,Fig. 13 shows stacked plots of the northward magnetic fieldcomponent detected by the BAS LPM chain, which is ap-proximately magnetically conjugate to the Greenland mag-netometer chain, between 00:00 and 03:00 UT. The substormexpansion phase onset was indicated by the negative bay at01:25 UT, 10 min after the onset detected in the Greenlandmagnetometers but in conjunction with the movement of theauroral breakup over the magnetometers (Fig.10f). This neg-ative bay was first observed, although comparatively weakly,at M81-388, and propagated up to 7◦ polewards, reachingM87-028 at 01:35 UT. It should be noted that the BAS LPMdata is subject to timing uncertainties of between 58 (at M81-338) and 2170 s (at M79-336), with an average uncertainty



20 nT

-20 nT

Fig. 12. Stacked plots of the northward (H) component of the magnetic field from the west coast

magnetometer chain of the DMI Greenland magnetometer network. The dotted horizontal lines

represent the baseline (0nT) for each station. The stations are plotted in descending latitudinal

order and the stations corrected geomagnetic latitudes are shown on the right hand side of the plot.

Each plot baseline is separated by 250nT.The vertical dotted lines indicate hours. The lower panel

shows the northward (H) component of the magnetic field from NAQ filtered using a 4min high

pass filter.

45

Fig. 12. Stacked plots of the northward (H) component of the mag-netic field from the west coast magnetometer chain of the DMIGreenland magnetometer network. The dotted horizontal lines rep-resent the baseline (0 nT) for each station. The stations are plottedin descending latitudinal order and the stations corrected geomag-netic latitudes are shown on the right hand side of the plot. Eachplot baseline is separated by 250 nT. The vertical dotted lines indi-cate hours. The lower panel shows the northward (H) component ofthe magnetic field from NAQ filtered using a 4 min high pass filter.

(discounting M79-336) of∼180 s, caused by instrumental ef-fects.

Figure14 shows stacked plots of the (a) eastward, and (b)vertically downward magnetic field components detected bythe NIPR LPM chain between 01:15 UT and 01:35 UT. Thevertical dashed line represents the time at which FUV-WICobserved the auroral streamer over the NIPR LPM chain. Theeastward component (Fig.14a) shows a “sawtooth-like” sig-nature accompanied by a minimum in the vertically down-ward (Fig.14b) component, considered to be a characteristicsignature of the streamer (Amm et al., 1999), at the time ofthe passage of the streamer. This indicates the passage of aweaker east-west current system, in which the current direc-tion changed in the vertical direction during the passage ofthe structure. However, it should be noted that although thesignature is observed at the three stations, timing uncertain-ties in the data of the order of 100 s for both M70-039 andM68-041 mean that the data cannot be used to determine themotion, if any, of the magnetic structure. The timing uncer-tainties in the data from M69-041 were<1 s.

0000

0030

0100

0130

0200

0230

0300

CGM

lat.

-77.64

-75.45

-73.31

-72.09

-71.12

-69.14

-68.61

-68.51

-66.32

-65.20

-63.49

Station

code

M85-096

M87-068

M87-028

M88-316

M85-002

M84-336

M82-003

M83-348

M81-338

M79-336

M78-337

500 n

T b

etw

een

base l

ines

LPM Stackplot, H

Fig. 13. Stacked plots of the northward (H) component of the magnetic field detected by the BAS

LPM chain. The data has been filtered using a 4min high pass filter. The dotted horizontal lines

represent the baseline (0nT) for each station. The stations are plotted in ascending latitudinal order

and the stations corrected geomagnetic latitudes are shown on the right hand side of the plot. Each

plot baseline is separated by 500nT. The vertical dotted lines indicate hours.

46

Fig. 13. Stacked plots of the northward (H) component of the mag-netic field detected by the BAS LPM chain. The dotted horizontallines represent the baseline (0 nT) for each station. The stations areplotted in ascending latitudinal order and the stations corrected ge-omagnetic latitudes are shown on the right hand side of the plot.Each plot baseline is separated by 500 nT. The vertical dotted linesindicate hours.

4 Discussion

Previous studies of the ionospheric current systems associ-ated with the passage of auroral streamers or BBFs have in-vestigated the currents during various phases of substormactivity. Amm et al. (1999) investigated the current sys-tems associated with an auroral streamer detected 14 min af-ter an auroral breakup and found currents of∼25 A km−2.Grocott et al. (2004), Sergeev et al.(2004), and Naka-mura et al.(2005) investigated the current systems associ-ated with BBFs during fairly quiet periods (potentially sub-storm growth phases) and found currents ranging from 0.2 to7 A km−2. The range of these current values (two orders ofmagnitude) suggests that substorm phase is important to thecurrents associated with a BBF.

In this study, the substorm expansion phase onset pre-ceded the BBF observations. Southern Hemisphere auro-ral data (Fig.10), Northern Hemisphere magnetometer data(Fig. 12), and Cluster FGM data (Fig.3) show that the



0115 0120 0125 0130 0135

0115 0120 0125 0130 0135

0115

0125

0135

M70-039

M69-041

M68-041

200 n

T b

etw

een

base

lin

es

D c

omp

onen

tZ

com

pon

ent

M70-039

M69-041

M68-041

-69.67

-69.29

-68.57

-69.67

-69.29

-68.57

CGM lat.

Station Code

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. Stacked plots of the (a) eastward (D) and (b) vertically downward (Z) components of the

magnetic field detected by the NIPR LPM chain. The dotted horizontal lines represent the baseline

(0 nT) for each station. The stations are plotted in ascending latitudinal order and the stations

corrected geomagnetic latitudes are shown on the right hand side of the plot. Each plot baseline is

separated by 200nT. The vertical dashed line indicates when the auroral streamer was above the

magnetometer stations, as determined by the FUV-WIC data.

47

Fig. 14. Stacked plots of the(a) eastward (D) and(b) verticallydownward (Z) components of the magnetic field detected by theNIPR LPM chain. The dotted horizontal lines represent the base-line (0 nT) for each station. The stations are plotted in ascendinglatitudinal order and the stations corrected geomagnetic latitudesare shown on the right hand side of the plot. Each plot baseline isseparated by 200 nT. The vertical dashed line indicates when the au-roral streamer was above the magnetometer stations, as determinedby the FUV-WIC data.

substorm expansion phase onset occurred around 01:15 UT,indicated by an auroral breakup, the formation of an east-west current system accompanied by Pi2 band noise, anda large drop in the tail magnetic field. However, SouthernHemisphere magnetometer data from the BAS LPM chainindicates that an electrojet didn’t form in the Southern Hemi-sphere until 01:25 UT. The timing discrepancy between theGreenland and BAS magnetometers is explained by estimat-ing the position of the auroral breakup region in the North-ern Hemisphere.Østgaard et al.(2004) empirically showedthat the offset in location of auroral activity between hemi-spheres is related to the solar wind conditions. Using theirresults, we estimate that the Greenland magnetometers werenear the centre of the breakup region, whereas Fig.10f showsthe auroral breakup region was not over the BAS chain un-til 01:26 UT. We note that the timing discrepancy betweenthe formation of the electrojets in the northern and southernhemispheres (∼600 s) is much larger than the timing error inthe BAS LPM data (∼180 s).

As discussed previously, the magnetic field magnitudedata from Cluster indicates that the BBF encountered con-sisted of two flow bursts or “bubbles” as described in themodel ofChen and Wolf(1993). During the BBF encounter,theBX component of the magnetic field remained negative,although the gradient of theBY component of the field variedfrom negative to positive twice during the encounter. FromSergeev et al.(1996), this indicates that the spacecraft twice

X

Y

JFAC

Earth

Fig. 15. Diagram illustrating the relative motion of the Clusterspacecraft across the BBF, looking down on the BBF in the X-Y (GSM coordinates) plane from the current sheet (i.e. into thesouthern magnetosphere). The BBF consists of two flow bursts.Field-aligned currents associated with the BBF are shown as yellow(Earthward) and grey (tailward) arrows. In both flow burst encoun-ters, the Cluster spacecraft entered the flow burst on the duskwardside, close to the nose of the flow, then traversed through to thedawnwards side of the flow burst. The graph indicates the field-aligned currents detected by the spacecraft during their encounterwith the each flow burst.

encountered the duskward then dawnward edge of an under-populated flux tube bundle. This is confirmed by both theMVAB analysis and four-spacecraft timing for the first fluxtube bundle, showing that the orientation of the boundariesof the flux tube bundle was towards dusk and then dawn(Fig. 5). MVAB and four-spacecraft timing analysis indi-cates that as the Cluster spacecraft exited from the secondflux tube through a boundary that was orientated towardsdusk as opposed to dawn; however, the boundary motion wasstill Earthwards. We consider that in this case, the space-craft exited the flow tailwards of the widest point, such thatthe boundary of the flow was tapering back towards the flowcentre (seeChen and Wolf, 1993, Fig. 5). The motion of thefield lines, as indicated by the ion velocity perpendicular tothe field, was duskwards of the orientation of the boundary.Since the currents and magnetic field shear both suggest thatCluster passed through the flow bursts from the dusk sideto the dawn side, this would indicate that the direction oftravel of the BBF is not along its length. Figure15 illus-trates the relative motion of the Cluster spacecraft across theBBF in the X-Y plane south of the centre of the plasma sheet.The yellow arrow represents Earthward field-aligned currentswhereas the grey arrow represents tailward field-aligned cur-rents. Beneath the illustration is the expected form of thefield-aligned currents detected by Cluster during its passagethrough the BBF, with positive field-aligned currents indicat-ing tailward currents. This is consistent with the lateral cur-rent variation in the field aligned currents expected from the



model ofChen and Wolf(1993) as shown bySergeev et al.(1996). We note that the various analysis methods used showthat the flow bursts had significant velocity in the Z directionand that the orientation of the normals to flow boundarieswere consistently towards the middle of the plasma sheet.This is consistent with highly stretched magnetic flux tubesconvecting and contracting through the plasma sheet.

Data from the NIPR LPM chain showed magnetic signa-tures of auroral streamers, similar to, but weaker than, thosereported byAmm et al. (1999). The observations of thesesignatures were centred at 01:24 UT and with a duration of∼6–8 min. The magnetic field detected by these magnetome-ters before and during the substorm was highly variable, al-though by comparing the magnetometer and auroral data themagnetic signatures seen around 01:24 UT can be attributedto the BBF. Using the Tsyganenko T96 model and the veloc-ity of the streamer determined from the auroral data this givesthe BBF a width of∼3–4RE . This agrees with the expecteddawn-dusk spatial size of a BBF of 3–5RE (Angelopouloset al., 1997; Kauristie et al., 2000; Nakamura et al., 2001b).Integrating the ion velocity perpendicular to the field fromCluster 4 during the BBF encounter, and considering thatCluster is essentially stationary during that period (veloc-ity of the order of 1 km s−1 since the spacecraft were nearapogee), gives the size of the BBF as 2.3RE .

The event studied byAmm et al.(1999) had backgroundconditions most similar to the event presented here (multiplesubstorms and streamer detected after an auroral breakup)and, correspondingly, showed very similar field-alignedionospheric currents (25 A km−2 compared with 18 A km−2

detected in our event). The ground magnetic field data pre-sented byAmm et al.(1999) shows a far stronger eastwardcomponent signature associated with the passage of the au-roral streamer for a comparatively small change in current.

The event studied byGrocott et al. (2004) occurredduring a relatively quiet time, with no apparent substormactivity and was associated with ionospheric currents of∼0.2 A km−2. The authors compared their ionospheric datawith data from FUV-WIC and found that their current sys-tem coincided with an auroral enhancement which had abrightness approximately an order of magnitude lower thanthe brightness of the streamer presented here.Cowley andBunce(2001) showed that, based on the theory ofKnight(1973) andLundin and Sandahl(1978), the energy flux intothe ionosphere due to field-aligned currents driven by a field-parallel voltage, such as those that cause the aurora, is relatedto the square of the field-aligned current. Assuming that, atthe energies involved in the currents under discussion, theauroral luminosity is directly related to the energy flux of theelectrons, we therefore find that the results ofGrocott et al.(2004) are qualitatively consistent with the results presentedhere.

The field reversals in theBX andBZ directions suggeststhat after the passage of the BBF, Cluster crossed a currentsheet. This is in agreement with the currents determined

by the curlometer method (Fig.6), which shows strong cur-rents detected in the X-Y plane. Comparison of the mag-netic fields across the four Cluster spacecraft shows that themagnetic signature was “nested” such that the current sheetmoved across the spacecraft then returned, or that the space-craft encountered a convecting feature into which they pen-etrated to differing depths. The magnetic field componentsduring the encounter with this current sheet were not suffi-ciently ordered to allow for meaningful determination of thedirection of the motion of the current sheet.Sergeev et al.(1996) showed that the model ofChen and Wolf(1993) pre-dicted that flux tubes in front of a plasma bubble would bedisplaced by its passage.Sergeev et al.(1996) consideredthe case of a bubble where the normal to the edge of the bub-ble was in the X-Y plane to demonstrate that there wouldbe a front-side shear. It is, therefore, conceivable that if thebubble was tilted about the X-axis, such that the normal toits edge on the duskward and dawnward flanks had some Zcomponent, that plasma would be displaced in the Z direc-tion also. After the bubble’s passage, the displaced plasmawould recoil back towards its original position since the bub-ble causes no persistent dipolarisation of the field, as shownby Lyons et al.(1999). If the current sheet is displaced bythis travelling feature and recoils after its passage, the currentsheet may overshoot its former position. This could explainwhy Cluster briefly detects the current sheet.

The origins of BBFs are not yet understood, although theyhave often been associated with reconnection processes (e.g.Chen and Wolf, 1993; Birn et al., 1999; Sitnov et al., 2005).Based on the simple model of plasma sheet acceleration, asdiscussed inCowley (1984), we consider methods of BBFcreation by reconnection. We assume the magnetosphere isunder-going Dungey Cycle convection (Dungey, 1961) suchthat there is a reconnection X-line in the far tail. We also as-sume that substorm expansion phase conditions are createdby the reconnection of open magnetic flux in the tail by anear-Earth neutral line (NENL) reconnection X-line (Bakeret al., 1996, and references therein). In this simple model,the rate of reconnection (EY ), theBZ component of the mag-netic field across the current sheet and the velocity of the re-connected field lines (de Hoffmann-Teller velocity,VHT , deHoffmann and Teller(1950)) are related by

EY = BZ.VHT (1)

where, for stress balance,VHT is equal to the Alfven speed ofthe lobe plasma at the reconnection site less the speed of thelobe plasma at the reconnection site. Plasma flows into thereconnection site at theE×B velocity from both the northernand southern lobes and flows out at the velocity of the Earth-ward (VBE) and tailward (VBT ) beams, found by coordinatetransformation to be

VBE = 2VA − VL ≡ VHT + VA (2)

whereVA is the Alfven speed of the lobe plasma andVL isthe lobe plasma speed. If we consider that a BBF shows an



nL`

XGSM

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

D

DS

S

SB

B

(g)B

Fig. 16. A series of diagrams depicting the generation of a BBF by open field line reconnection.

The colours represent field lines with different ion densities. Tailward pointing arrows indicate the

motion of the X-lines and Earthward pointing arrows indicate the motion of the reconnected field

lines. Panel (a) shows a simple variation the variation of the plasma density in the lobes based

on Cowley (1984). Initially the plasma sheet is thin and being populated by the Dungey cycle

reconnection X-line (panel (a)), with Cluster (represented by the triangle) in the lobe. A substorm

X-line forms Earthwards of the Dungey cycle X-line and reconnects through the closed field lines,

forming a plasmoid between itself and the Dungey cycle X-line. When the substorm X-line begins

to reconnect lobe field lines, the plasmoid is disconnected from the Earth and the plasmoid and

substorm X-line retreat tailward. The plasma sheet then expands and the Cluster spacecraft are

engulfed by the PSBL populated by the substorm X-line (panel (c)). As the substorm X-line retreats

further downtail and the plasma sheet continues to expand, the Cluster spacecraft are engulfed by

the central plasma sheet (panel (d)). A new X-line, localised in the Y direction) forms Earthward

of the substorm X-line. This reconnects through the closed field lines, creating a plasmoid between

itself and the substorm X-line, and begins to reconnect lobe field lines. This injects lower density

lobe plasma into the plasma sheet and creates a BBF (yellow) (panel (e)). The injected plasma then

convects through the plasma sheet as a BBF (panels (f) and (g))

49

Fig. 16. A series of diagrams depicting the generation of a BBF byopen field line reconnection. The colours represent field lines withdifferent ion densities. Tailward pointing arrows indicate the motionof the X-lines and Earthward pointing arrows indicate the motion ofthe reconnected field lines. Panel(a) shows a simple variation of theplasma density in the lobes based onCowley (1984). Initially theplasma sheet is thin and being populated by the Dungey cycle recon-nection X-line (panelb), with Cluster (represented by the triangle)in the lobe. A substorm X-line forms Earthwards of the Dungeycycle X-line and reconnects through the closed field lines, forminga plasmoid between itself and the Dungey cycle X-line. When thesubstorm X-line begins to reconnect lobe field lines, the plasmoidis disconnected from the Earth and the plasmoid and substorm X-line retreat tailward. The plasma sheet then expands and the Clus-ter spacecraft are engulfed by the PSBL populated by the substormX-line (panelc). As the substorm X-line retreats further downtailand the plasma sheet continues to expand, the Cluster spacecraft areengulfed by the central plasma sheet (paneld). A new X-line, lo-calised in the Y direction, forms Earthward of the substorm X-line.This reconnects through the closed field lines, creating a plasmoidbetween itself and the substorm X-line, and begins to reconnect lobefield lines. This injects lower density lobe plasma into the plasmasheet and creates a BBF (yellow) (panele). The injected plasmathen convects through the plasma sheet as a BBF (panelsf andg).

increased ion velocity andBZ component then it is appar-ent, from Eqs. (1) and (2), that the creation of BBFs requiresan increased rate of reconnection (assumingVA is fixed fora given location in the lobe under the timescales being con-sidered). BBFs can show a decreased plasma density (e.g.Lyons et al., 1999; Nakamura et al., 2005), as in the casepresented here. From the model ofCowley (1984), it canbe shown that plasma density on the newly reconnected fieldlines is equal to the density in the lobe source region. Assuch, in order to create a low density fast flow, the den-sity of the lobe plasma at the source of the flow must belower than that of the surrounding compressed central plasmasheet. One possibility is that density perturbations within thelobe plasma are coupled with an increased rate of reconnec-tion at the tail X-line, although the mechanisms for creatingthe density perturbations in the lobes that would necessarilyalso cause an increase in the reconnection rate upon the field-line reaching the plasma sheet are unclear. Another possibil-ity is that a burst of reconnection occurs closer to the Earththan the global X-line or alternatively, a part of the X-line,localised in the Y direction, moves Earthward. Since lobeplasma density increases with increasing tailward distance,the site of the bursty reconnection would create a low den-sity injection into the plasma sheet if the X-line reconnectsthrough to the open field-lines of the lobe. The reconnectedfield-lines associated with the low density injection, i.e. theBBF, will necessarily have a higher de Hoffmann-Teller ve-locity than those reconnected at the substorm X-line since,as noted above, the de Hoffmann-Teller velocity is equal tothe Alfven speed of the lobe plasma being reconnected andAlfv en velocity is inversely proportional to the plasma den-sity. As such, the BBF will convect through the plasma sheet.What is unclear, from the data presented, is the evolution ofthe BBF X-line. CIS instrument data shows that the ion den-sity and velocity returns to pre-BBF values over∼1.5 minafter the velocity in the X direction reaches its maximum.However, analysis of the flow boundaries indicates that Clus-ter does not pass along the whole length of the flow, rather itexits through the side, such that Cluster does not observe thefull evolution of the flow.

Figure 16 shows a series of diagrams depicting the pro-posed evolution of the plasma sheet during this event. Forreference, Fig.16a shows a model of the variation of the lobedensity with distance downtail based onCowley(1984). Ini-tially, the plasma sheet is thin and being populated by theDungey cycle X-line (Fig.16b). Cluster is in lobe plasma inthe Southern Hemisphere. At some (undetermined) time, anew X-line formed Earthwards of the Dungey cycle X-line.This X-line reconnects the closed field lines of the plasmasheet and then begins to reconnect the open field lines of thelobe. This is the substorm expansion phase onset, leading tothe expansion phase signatures noted above. After this onset,the plasma sheet expands so as to engulf Cluster (Fig.16c).At some time (also undetermined), a third X-line forms in thecentral plasma sheet, Earthward of the substorm X-line. The



rate of reconnection at this new X-line is higher than that ofthe substorm X-line, such that the X-line reconnects throughthe closed field lines and eventually reconnects the open fieldlines of the lobes. This X-line injects plasma from the lobesEarthwards of the substorm line (Fig.16e), such that the iondensity on these field lines is lower than the surrounding fieldlines. Since the Alfven speed of the plasma is inversely re-lated to the plasma density, the speed of the field lines awayfrom the reconnection site is higher, hence the field lines con-vect through the plasma sheet as a BBF. As noted above, thedata presented are insufficient to determine the full evolutionof the new X-line. For illustrative purposes, we show theBBF as a convecting bundle of flux that is no longer beingfed by the X-line that created it (Fig.16f and g), with the X-line retreating downtail in a manner similar to the substormrecovery phase (e.g.Hones, 1984).

The above model considers the origins of a BBF to be re-connection of open field lines. This agrees with the work ofLyons et al.(1999) andGrocott et al.(2004) who associatedBBFs with pseudo-breakups, which are often considered tobe the localised closure of open flux. If we consider sub-storm reconnection to take place at a single X-line, as in theNENL and current disruption models, and the creation of aBBF to occur Earthwards of that line then such a burst ofreconnection would create a flux rope Earthwards of the sub-storm reconnection site as shown in Fig.16e. The substormX-line creates a flux rope between itself and the downtail(Dungey cycle) X-line, hence there would be two flux ropesin the tail. It has been suggested that the passage of multi-ple flux ropes is a signature of multiple X-line reconnection(e.g.Slavin et al., 2005), hence the detection of BBFs duringsubstorms could also be considered to be a signature of mul-tiple X-lines. Alternatively, the generation of a BBF couldbe considered to show that substorm reconnection does notoccur on one “global” X-line, but on a series of X-lines sep-arated in the Y direction, such as has been suggested for fluxtransfer events at the dayside magnetopause. A BBF couldbe generated by an X-line markedly Earthwards of the av-erage position of the substorm X-lines. The model is alsoapplicable to “quiet” time observations of BBFs. It is gen-erally accepted that Dungey Cycle reconnection in the tailis ongoing. As such, any reconnection Earthwards of theDungey Cycle X-line would inject low density plasma intothe plasma sheet. A recent study byGrocott et al.(2007) hasprovided evidence of localised tail reconnection during quiettimes, termed by the authors as tail reconnection during IMFnorthward non-substorm intervals, or TRINNI, and the de-tection of an associated BBF, hence reconnection is a viablemethod by which to inject BBFs into the plasma sheet dur-ing both quiet and disturbed times. It should be noted thatthis model does not consider the evolution of the motion ofthe BBF through the substorm populated plasma sheet and iscomplementary to the model ofChen and Wolf(1993), whoonly considered the time evolution of a plasma bubble afterits generation and not the generation mechanism itself.

Particle data from the CIS and PEACE instruments dur-ing the BBF are consistent with the above reconnectionmodel. During reconnection, both ions and electrons are en-ergised in the field-aligned direction. The velocity of theelectrons away from the reconnection is greater than thatof the ions, hence electrons will mirror in the inner mag-netosphere and return along the field lines before the ionssuch that bidirectional electron beams form before bidirec-tional ion beams. During this event, bidirectional ion andelectron beams are observed by Cluster when it passes intothe PSBL at 01:15 UT (Fig.7a and b and Fig.9). Duringthe encounter with the BBF at 01:24 UT, Cluster observed abidirectional electron and ion beams, although the Earthwardion beam had a greater differential number flux than the tail-ward beam (Figs.7c and9), suggesting that the spacecraftwere sufficiently close to the reconnection site that the ma-jority of the ion population had insufficient time to mirrorin the inner magnetosphere and return to the spacecraft po-sition, such that the BBF consisted of recently reconnectedfield lines. Cluster detected a dispersed ion energy signaturewhen the spacecraft crossed the PSBL (Fig.8a), indicatingthat the PSBL was the result of reconnection. During theBBF encounter, the ions were energised to a level similar tothat in the PSBL, although there was no apparent energy dis-persion. Given that estimates of the width of the BBF fromground-based data and from integrating the ion velocity per-pendicular to the magnetic field during the BBF encounterare∼3RE and BBFs are considered to be long and narrow(Sergeev et al., 2000; Amm and Kauristie, 2002), and thatthe spacecraft crossed the width of the BBF, it is conceiv-able that the spacecraft did not travel far enough along theBBF to detect any energy dispersion. The similarity betweenthe ion density during the passage of the BBF and the earlierPSBL crossing (Fig.3a) suggests that the BBF reconnectionsite was close to the location of the substorm X-line locationwhen Cluster was engulfed by the PSBL.

5 Conclusions

On 25 August 2003, the Cluster spacecraft detected a sub-storm expansion phase at 01:15 UT, indicated by a drop inthe total magnetic field. At 01:24 UT, during the substormexpansion phase, the Cluster spacecraft encountered a burstybulk flow consisting of two under-populated flux tube bun-dles travelling Earthward and duskward at∼500 km s−1.At the same time, an auroral streamer was seen in FUV-WIC data of the Southern Hemisphere close to the foot-point of the Cluster spacecraft. Field-aligned currents of∼5×10−3 A km−2 flowing in the BBF were measured us-ing the curlometer technique. These currents were initiallyEarthward and then became tailward for each flux tube bun-dle. Four-spacecraft timing analysis and MVAB, combinedwith the magnetic field shears, at the flux tube bundle bound-aries showed that Cluster entered the flux tube bundles on



the duskward and exited on the dawnward side. The pro-jected ionospheric field-aligned currents were found to be∼18 A km−2, comparable to the measured ionospheric cur-rents associated with an auroral streamer as reported byAmm et al.(1999), who also obtained their readings duringa period of multiple substorms and after an auroral breakup.The detection of currents that, when projected into the iono-sphere, are comparable with the currents detected in associ-ation with auroral streamers lends support to the argumentthat auroral streamers can be considered the auroral manifes-tation of BBFs.

The results presented are consistent with a model of the re-connection of open field-lines Earthward of the substorm re-connection region for BBF generation based upon the plasmasheet acceleration model ofCowley (1984). The pitch an-gle distribution of the ions from the CIS instrument on Clus-ter 4 showed that during the passage of the BBF the ionswere approximately field-aligned in an Earthwards direction,whereas the electrons showed bi-directional beams, indicat-ing that Cluster encountered recently reconnected field lines.The elevatedBZ component indicates that the reconnectionevent that generated the BBF had a greater rate of reconnec-tion than the source of the plasma sheet detected around theflow. Since the lobe plasma density increases with distancefrom the Earth, reconnection of open (lobe) field lines closerto the Earth than the substorm X-line would inject lower den-sity plasma into the plasma sheet. This is also consistentwith the notion that pseudo-breakups are BBFs outside ofsubstorm times.

Acknowledgements.The authors wish to thank CDAWeb for pro-viding the IMAGE FUV-WIC data; ESA Cluster Active Archive forproviding the full resolution FGM data; M. P. Freeman, M. Roseand others at the British Antarctic Survey for providing the lowpower magnetometer data. Thanks go to the operations teams ofthe various instruments used in this study. Analysis of the ClusterFGM data and CIS moments was done with the QSAS science anal-ysis system provided by the United Kingdom Cluster Science Cen-tre (Imperial College London and Queen Mary, University of Lon-don) supported by PPARC. M. Lester, R. C. Fear, A. Grocott, andS. E. Milan were supported by PPARC grant PPA/G/O/2003/00013and STFC grant PP/E000983. During this study C. Forsythwas supported by STFC studentship PPA/S/S/2005/04156, whileS. W. H. Cowley was supported by a Royal Society LeverhulmeTrust Senior Research Fellowship.

Topical Editor I. A. Daglis thanks O. Amm and another anony-mous referee for their help in evaluating this paper.

References

Amm, O.: Direct determination of the local ionospheric Hall con-ductance distribution from two-dimensional electric and mag-netic field data: Application of the method using models of typi-cal ionospheric electrodynamic situations, J. Geophys. Res., 100,21 473–21 488, doi:10.1029/95JA02213, 1995.

Amm, O.: Method of characteristics in spherical geometry appliedto a Harang-discontinuity situation, Ann. Geophys., 16, 413–

424, 1998,http://www.ann-geophys.net/16/413/1998/.

Amm, O. and Kauristie, K.: Ionospheric signatures of bursty bulkflows, Surv. Geophy., 23, 1–32, 2002.

Amm, O. and Viljanen, A.: Ionospheric disturbance magnetic fieldcontinuation from the ground to the ionosphere using sphericalelementary current systems, Earth, Planets, and Space, 51, 431–440, 1999.

Amm, O., Pajunpaa, A., and Brandstrom, U.: Spatial distributionof conductances and currents associated with a north-south auro-ral form during a multiple-substorm period, Ann. Geophys., 17,1385–1396, 1999,http://www.ann-geophys.net/17/1385/1999/.

Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W., Kennel, C. F., Coronti, F. V.,Kivelson, M. G., Pellat, R., Walker, R. J., Luehr, H., andPaschmann, G.: Bursty bulk flows in the inner central plasmasheet, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 4027–4039, 1992.

Angelopoulos, V., Kennel, C. F., Coroniti, F. V., Pellat, R., Kivel-son, M. G., Walker, R. J., Russell, C. T., Baumjohann, W., Feld-man, W. C., and Gosling, J. T.: Statistical characteristics ofbursty bulk flow events, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 21 257–21 280,1994.

Angelopoulos, V., Phan, T. D., Larson, D. E., Mozer, F. S., Lin,R. P., Tsuruda, K., Hayakawa, H., Mukai, T., Kokubun, S., Ya-mamoto, T., Williams, D. J., McEntire, R. W., Lepping, R. P.,Parks, G. K., Brittnacher, M., Germany, G., Spann, J., Singer,H. J., and Yumoto, K.: Magnetotail flow bursts: association toglobal magnetospheric circulation, relationship to ionosphericactivity and direct evidence for localization, Geophys. Res. Lett.,24, 2271–2274, doi:10.1029/97GL02355, 1997.

Baker, D. N., Pulkkinen, T. I., Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W.,and McPherron, R. L.: Neutral line model of substorms: Pastresults and present view, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 12 975–13 010,doi:10.1029/95JA03753, 1996.

Baker, K. B. and Wing, S.: A new magnetic coordinate system forconjugate studies at high latitudes, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 9139–9143, 1989.

Balogh, A., Carr, C. M., Acuna, M. H., Dunlop, M. W., Beek, T. J.,Brown, P., Fornacon, K.-H., Georgescu, E., Glassmeier, K.-H.,Harris, J., Musmann, G., Oddy, T., and Schwingenschuh, K.:The Cluster Magnetic Field Investigation: Overview of in-flightperformance and initial results, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1207–1217,2001,http://www.ann-geophys.net/19/1207/2001/.

Birn, J. and Hesse, M.: Details of current disruption and diversionin simulations of magnetotail dynamics, J. Geophys. Res., 101,15 345–15 358, doi:10.1029/96JA00887, 1996.

Birn, J., Hesse, M., Haerendel, G., Baumjohann, W., and Shiokawa,K.: Flow braking and the substorm current wedge, J. Geophys.Res., 104, 19 895–19 904, doi:10.1029/1999JA900173, 1999.

Birn, J., Raeder, J., Wang, Y., Wolf, R., and Hesse, M.: On thepropagation of bubbles in the geomagnetic tail, Ann. Geophys.,22, 1773–1786, 2004,http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/1773/2004/.

Cao, J. B., Ma, Y. D., Parks, G., Reme, H., Dandouras, I., Naka-mura, R., Zhang, T. L., Zong, Q., Lucek, E., Carr, C. M., Liu,Z. X., and Zhou, G. C.: Joint observations by Cluster satellitesof bursty bulk flows in the magnetotail, J. Geophys. Res., 111,A04 206, doi:10.1029/2005JA011322, 2006.


http://www.ann-geophys.net/16/413/1998/





Chen, C. X. and Wolf, R. A.: Interpretation of high-speed flows inthe plasma sheet, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 21 409–21 419, 1993.

Cowley, S. W. H.: The Distant Geomagnetic Tail in Theory andObservation, in: Magnetic Reconnection in Space and Labora-tory Plasmas, edited by: Hones Jr., E. W., pp. 228–239, 1984.

Cowley, S. W. H. and Bunce, E. J.: Origin of the main auroral ovalin Jupiter’s coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere system, Planet.Space Sci., 49, 1067–1088, 2001.

de Hoffmann, F. and Teller, E.: Magneto-Hydrodynamic Shocks,Physical Review, 80, 692–703, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.80.692,1950.

Dungey, J. W.: Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones,Phys. Rev. Lett., 6, 47–48, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47, 1961.

Dunlop, M. W., Southwood, D. J., Glassmeier, K.-H., andNeubauer, F. M.: Analysis of multipoint magnetometer data,Adv. Space Res., 8, 273–277, doi:10.1016/0273-1177(88)90141-X, 1988.

Grocott, A., Yeoman, T., Nakamura, R., Cowley, S., Frey, H.,Reme, H., and Klecker, B.: Multi-instrument observations of theionospheric counterpart of a bursty bulk flow in the near-Earthplasma sheet, Ann. Geophys., 22, 1061–1075, 2004,http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/1061/2004/.

Grocott, A., Yeoman, T. K., Milan, S. E., Amm, O., Frey, H. U.,Juusola, L., Nakamura, R., Owen, C. J., Reme, H., and Takada,T.: Multi-scale observations of magnetotail flux transport dur-ing IMF-northward non-substorm intervals, Ann. Geophys., 25,1709–1720, 2007,http://www.ann-geophys.net/25/1709/2007/.

Gustafsson, G., Andre, M., Carozzi, T., Eriksson, I. A., Falthammar,C.-G., Grard, R., Holmgren, G., Holtet, J. A., Ivchenko,N., Karlsson, T., Khotyaintsev, Y., Klimov, S., Laakso, H.,Lindqvist, P.-A., Lybekk, B., Marklund, G., Mozer, F., Mur-sula, K., Pedersen, A., Popielawska, B., Savin, S., Stasiewicz,K., Tanskanen, P., Vaivads, A., and Wahlund, J.-E.: First resultsof electric field and density observations by Cluster EFW basedon initial months of operation, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1219–1240,2001,http://www.ann-geophys.net/19/1219/2001/.

Harvey, C. C.: Spatial gradients and the volumetric tensor, in: Anal-ysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, edited by: Paschmann,G. and Daly, P. W., pp. 307–348, ISSI, 1998.

Henderson, M. G., Reeves, G. D., and Murphree, J. S.: Are north-south aligned auroral structures an ionospheric manifestation ofbursty bulk flows?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3737–3740, doi:10.1029/98GL02692, 1998.

Hones Jr., E. W.: Plasma sheet behavior during substorms, Wash-ington D.C. American Geophysical Union Geophysical Mono-graph Series, pp. 178–184, 1984.

Inhester, B., Untiedt, J., Segatz, M., and Kuerschner, M.: Directdetermination of the local ionospheric hall conductance distri-bution from two-dimensional electric and magnetic field data, J.Geophys. Res., 97, 4073–4083, 1992.

Johnstone, A. D., Alsop, C., Burge, S., Carter, P. J., Coates, A. J.,Coker, A. J., Fazakerley, A. N., Grande, M., Gowen, R. A., Gur-giolo, C., Hancock, B. K., Narheim, B., Preece, A., Sheather,P. H., Winningham, J. D., and Woodliffe, R. D.: PEACE: aPlasma Electron And Current Experiment, Space Sci Rev., 79,351–398, 1997.

Kauristie, K., Sergeev, V. A., Kubyshkina, M., Pulkkinen, T. I., An-

gelopoulos, V., Phan, T., Lin, R. P., and Slavin, J. A.: Ionosphericcurrent signatures of transient plasma sheet flows, J. Geophys.Res., 105, 10 677–10 690, doi:10.1029/1999JA900487, 2000.

Keiling, A., Parks, G. K., Reme, H., Dandouras, I., Wilber, M.,Kistler, L., Owen, C., Fazakerley, A. N., Lucek, E., Maksimovic,M., and Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N.: Energy-dispersed ions in theplasma sheet boundary layer and associated phenomena: Ionheating, electron acceleration, Alfven waves, broadband waves,perpendicular electric field spikes, and auroral emissions, Ann.Geophys., 24, 2685–2707, 2006,http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/2685/2006/.

Khan, H. and Cowley, S. W. H.: Observations of the response timeof high-latitude ionospheric convection to variations in the in-terplanetary magnetic field using EISCAT and IMP-8 data, Ann.Geophys., 17, 1306–1335, 1999,http://www.ann-geophys.net/17/1306/1999/.

Knight, S.: Parallel electric fields, Planet. Space Sci., 21, 741–750,doi:10.1016/0032-0633(73)90093-7, 1973.

Kubyshkina, M. V., Sergeev, V. A., and Pulkkinen, T. I.:Hybrid Input Algorithm: An event-oriented magnetosphericmodel, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 24 977–24 994, doi:10.1029/1999JA900222, 1999.

Lester, M., Chapman, P., Cowley, S., Crooks, S., Davies, J.,Hamadyk, P., McWilliams, K., Milan, S., Parsons, M., Payne,D., Thomas, E., Thornhill, J., Wade, N., Yeoman, T., and Barnes,R.: Stereo CUTLASS – A new capability for the SuperDARNHF radars, Ann. Geophys., 22, 459–473, 2004,http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/459/2004/.

Lundin, R. and Sandahl, I.: Some characteristics of the parallel elec-tric field acceleration of electrons over discrete auroral arcs asobserved from two rocket flights, Tech. rep., ESA, 1978.

Lyons, L. R., Nagai, T., Blanchard, G. T., Samson, J. C., Yamamoto,T., Mukai, T., Nishida, A., and Kokobun, S.: Association be-tween Geotail plasma flows and auroral poleward boundary in-tensifications observed by CANOPUS photometers, J. Geophys.Res., 104, 4485–4500, doi:10.1029/1998JA900140, 1999.

McComas, D. J., Bame, S. J., Barker, P., Feldman, W. C., Phillips,J. L., Riley, P., and Griffee, J. W.: Solar Wind Electron Pro-ton Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) for the Advanced Composi-tion Explorer, Space Sci. Rev., 86, 563–612, doi:10.1023/A:1005040232597, 1998.

Mende, S. B., Heetderks, H., Frey, H. U., Lampton, M., Geller,S. P., Abiad, R., Siegmund, O. H. W., Tremsin, A. S., Spann, J.,Dougani, H., Fuselier, S. A., Magoncelli, A. L., Bumala, M. B.,Murphree, S., and Trondsen, T.: Far ultraviolet imaging from theIMAGE spacecraft. 2. Wideband FUV imaging, Space Sci. Rev.,91, 271–285, 2000a.

Mende, S. B., Heetderks, H., Frey, H. U., Stock, J. M., Lampton,M., Geller, S. P., Abiad, R., Siegmund, O. H. W., Habraken, S.,Renotte, E., Jamar, C., Rochus, P., Gerard, J.-C., Sigler, R., andLauche, H.: Far ultraviolet imaging from the IMAGE spacecraft.3. Spectral imaging of Lyman-α and OI 135.6 nm, Space Sci.Rev., 91, 287–318, 2000b.

Nakamura, R., Baumjohann, W., Brittnacher, M., Sergeev, V. A.,Kubyshkina, M., Mukai, T., and Liou, K.: Flow bursts and auro-ral activations: Onset timing and foot point location, J. Geophys.Res., 106, 10 777–10 790, doi:10.1029/2000JA000249, 2001a.

Nakamura, R., Baumjohann, W., Schodel, R., Brittnacher, M.,Sergeev, V. A., Kubyshkina, M., Mukai, T., and Liou, K.:









Earthward flow bursts, auroral streamers, and small expan-sions, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 10 791–10 802, doi:10.1029/2000JA000306, 2001b.

Nakamura, R., Baumjohann, W., Mouikis, C., Kistler, L. M.,Runov, A., Volwerk, M., Asano, Y., Voros, Z., Zhang, T. L.,Klecker, B., Reme, H., and Balogh, A.: Spatial scale of high-speed flows in the plasma sheet observed by Cluster, Geophys.Res. Lett., 31, L09 804, doi:10.1029/2004GL019558, 2004.

Nakamura, R., Amm, O., Laakso, H., Draper, N. C., Lester, M.,Grocott, A., Klecker, B., McCrea, I. W., Balogh, A., Reme, H.,and Andre, M.: Localized fast flow disturbance observed in theplasma sheet and in the ionosphere, Ann. Geophys., 23, 553–566, 2005,http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/553/2005/.

Østgaard, N., Mende, S. B., Frey, H. U., Immel, T. J., Frank, L. A.,Sigwarth, J. B., and Stubbs, T. J.: Interplanetary magnetic fieldcontrol of the location of substorm onset and auroral features inthe conjugate hemispheres, J. Geophys. Res., 109, 7204–7215,doi:10.1029/2003JA010370, 2004.

Raj, A., Phan, T., Lin, R. P., and Angelopoulos, V.: Wind surveyof high-speed bulk flows and field-aligned beams in the near-Earth plasma sheet, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 3–1, doi:10.1029/2001JA007547, 2002.

Reme, H., Aoustin, C., Bosqued, J. M., Dandouras, I., Lavraud, B.,Sauvaud, J. A., Barthe, A., Bouyssou, J., Camus, T., Coeur-Joly,O., Cros, A., Cuvilo, J., Ducay, F., Garbarowitz, Y., Medale,J. L., Penou, E., Perrier, H., Romefort, D., Rouzaud, J., Vallat, C.,Alcayde, D., Jacquey, C., Mazelle, C., D’Uston, C., Mobius, E.,Kistler, L. M., Crocker, K., Granoff, M., Mouikis, C., Popecki,M., Vosbury, M., Klecker, B., Hovestadt, D., Kucharek, H.,Kuenneth, E., Paschmann, G., Scholer, M., Sckopke, N., Sei-denschwang, E., Carlson, C. W., Curtis, D. W., Ingraham, C.,Lin, R. P., McFadden, J. P., Parks, G. K., Phan, T., Formisano,V., Amata, E., Bavassano-Cattaneo, M. B., Baldetti, P., Bruno,R., Chionchio, G., di Lellis, A., Marcucci, M. F., Pallocchia,G., Korth, A., Daly, P. W., Graeve, B., Rosenbauer, H., Va-syliunas, V., McCarthy, M., Wilber, M., Eliasson, L., Lundin,R., Olsen, S., Shelley, E. G., Fuselier, S., Ghielmetti, A. G.,Lennartsson, W., Escoubet, C. P., Balsiger, H., Friedel, R., Cao,J.-B., Kovrazhkin, R. A., Papamastorakis, I., Pellat, R., Scudder,J., and Sonnerup, B.: First multispacecraft ion measurements inand near the Earth’s magnetosphere with the identical Cluster IonSpectrometry (CIS) experiment, Ann. Geophys., 19, 1303–1354,2001,http://www.ann-geophys.net/19/1303/2001/.

Robert, P., Dunlop, M. W., Roux, A., and Chanteur, G.: Accuracy ofCurrent Density Determination, in: Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, edited by: Paschmann, G. and Daly, P. W., pp.395–418, ISSI, 1998.

Russell, C. T., Mellott, M. M., Smith, E. J., and King, J. H.:Multiple spacecraft observations of interplanetary shocks Fourspacecraft determination of shock normals, J. Geophys. Res., 88,4739–4748, 1983.

Sergeev, V., Liou, K., Newell, P., Ohtani, S., Hairston, M., andRich, F.: Auroral streamers: characteristics of associated pre-cipitation,convection and field-aligned currents, Ann. Geophys.,22, 537–548, 2004,http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/537/2004/.

Sergeev, V. A., Angelopoulos, V., Gosling, J. T., Cattell, C. A., andRussell, C. T.: Detection of localized, plasma-depleted flux tubesor bubbles in the midtail plasma sheet, J. Geophys. Res., 101,10 817–10 826, doi:10.1029/96JA00460, 1996.

Sergeev, V. A., Sauvaud, J.-A., Popescu, D., Kovrazhkin, R. A.,Liou, K., Newell, P. T., Brittnacher, M., Parks, G., Nakamura,R., Mukai, T., and Reeves, G. D.: Multiple-spacecraft observa-tion of a narrow transient plasma jet in the Earth’s plasma sheet,Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 851–854, 2000.

Sitnov, M. I., Guzdar, P. N., and Swisdak, M.: On the formation ofa plasma bubble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, 16 103, doi:10.1029/2005GL023585, 2005.

Slavin, J. A., Tanskanen, E. I., Hesse, M., Owen, C. J., Dun-lop, M. W., Imber, S., Lucek, E. A., Balogh, A., and Glass-meier, K.-H.: Cluster observations of travelling compressionregions in the near-tail, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A06 207, doi:10.1029/2004JA010878, 2005.

Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F., Acuna, M. H., Burlaga,L. F., and Scheifele, J.: The ACE Magnetic Fields Experiment,Space Sci. Rev., 86, 613–632, doi:10.1023/A:1005092216668,1998.

Sonnerup, B. U. O. and Cahill Jr., L. J.: Magnetopause structureand attitude from Explorer 12 observations, J. Geophys. Res.,72, 171–183, 1967.

Sonnerup, B. U. O. and Scheible, M.: Minimum and MaximumVariance Analysis, in: Analysis Methods for Multi-SpacecraftData, edited by: Paschmann, G. and Daly, P. W., pp. 185–220,ISSI, 1998.

Stone, E. C., Frandsen, A. M., Mewaldt, R. A., Christian, E. R.,Margolies, D., Ormes, J. F., and Snow, F.: The Advanced Com-position Explorer, Space Sci. Rev., 86, 1–22, doi:10.1023/A:1005082526237, 1998.

Tsyganenko, N. A.: A magnetospheric magnetic field model witha warped tail current sheet, Planet. Space Sci., 37, 5–20, doi:10.1016/0032-0633(89)90066-4, 1989.

Tsyganenko, N. A. and Stern, D. P.: Modeling the global magneticfield of the large-scale Birkeland current systems, J. Geophys.Res., 101, 27 187–27 198, doi:10.1029/96JA02735, 1996.





Observed tail current systems associated with bursty bulk ...€¦ · Cluster spacecraft...

Documents

Transcript of Observed tail current systems associated with bursty bulk ...€¦ · Cluster spacecraft...