A multi-fluid model of the magnetopause

Manuzzo, Roberto; Califano, Francesco; Belmont, Gerard; Rezeau, Laurence

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-275-2020

Articles | Volume 38, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-275-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-275-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 38, issue 2

Regular paper

|

02 Mar 2020

Regular paper |

| 02 Mar 2020

A multi-fluid model of the magnetopause

Roberto Manuzzo, Francesco Califano, Gerard Belmont, and Laurence Rezeau

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Mar 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Sep 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee report – angeo-2019-135 - A multi-fluid model of the magnetopause - Roberto Manuzzo, Francesco Califano, Gerard Belmont, and Laurence Rezeau', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Sep 2019
- AC2: 'AC Answer to Referee 1', Francesco Califano, 01 Oct 2019
- AC3: 'SECOND ANSWER TO REF. 1', Francesco Califano, 16 Nov 2019
- AC4: 'REVISED MANUSCRIPT', Francesco Califano, 16 Nov 2019
AC1: 'AC Answer to Referee 1', Francesco Califano, 01 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Referee report for "A multi-fluid model of the magnetopause"', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2019
- AC5: 'ANSWER TO REF.2', Francesco Califano, 16 Nov 2019
- AC6: 'REVISED PAPER', Francesco Califano, 16 Nov 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (18 Nov 2019) by Minna Palmroth

AR by Francesco Califano on behalf of the Authors (20 Nov 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Nov 2019) by Minna Palmroth

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Dec 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Referee report – angeo-2019-135 revision

A multi-fluid model of the magnetopause
Roberto Manuzzo, Francesco Califano, Gerard Belmont, and Laurence Rezeau

Overall appreciation

The various remarks made on the original version have been addressed.

The authors now discuss why they did not (yet) split up the electron populations.

The authors have rewritten their brief review of existing models. I still have 2 issues with this:
- On line 52-53 the authors state “Unfortunately, such models are very complicated, leading the authors to make simplistic mathematical assumptions about the analytic form of the distribution functions. As a consequence there is no way, in general, to get close to the observed profiles as for instance the velocity and the electromagnetic fields.” One can agree or not whether these models are “complicated”, but the limitations of the assumptions about the analytic form of the distribution functions are overemphasized. Indeed, these models allow one to add as many populations as you want, so these analytic functions can be regarded as a set of basis functions with which one can construct more complicated distributions [an step in this direction is https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-31-1297-2013], so in principle there is no limitation at all. That one can obtain realistic profiles has been amply demonstrated, as already indicated in my first review [https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03298, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00149407]. I propose to simply drop the two sentences cited above.
- In the reviewer’s response, it is said that the electric field is a consequence of the simplifying assumptions of the model itself … Since many years the Chapman-Ferraro electric field has been known to be a fundamental property of the magnetopause discontinuity. This electric field follows from charge separation effects, which in the kinetic models is computed from the Poisson equation (or an equivalent quasi-neutrality equation). So it should be made clear that the sentence “there is no general constraint for fixing the normal electric field profile” does not refer to the kinetic models.

The authors have also addressed the issue regarding the existence of an equilibrium vs. the instability analysis, essentially by defining a number of tasks to be “future work” – which is acceptable, I think.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Dec 2019)

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (07 Jan 2020) by Minna Palmroth

AR by Francesco Califano on behalf of the Authors (16 Jan 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Jan 2020) by Minna Palmroth

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Jan 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Jan 2020)

ED: Publish as is (22 Jan 2020) by Minna Palmroth

AR by Francesco Califano on behalf of the Authors (27 Jan 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

We investigate the magnetopause stability and mixing using a new three-fluid model aimed at reproducing the system configuration obtained directly from satellite data. This realistic model is a basic starting point for numerical simulations; however, the realistic three-fluid equilibrium presented in this paper should allow this work to be taken a step further and could be applied to other experimental cases in the future.