Ann. Geophys.

, 31, 39–44, 2013

www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/ Annales
doi:10.5194/angeo-31-39-2013 Geophysicae
© Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement: reasons for

non-detection
I. Mann1 and M. Hamrin2
1 EISCAT Scientific Association, Kiruna, Sweden
2 Department of Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Correspondence to: I. Mann ([email protected])

Received: 31 May 2012 – Revised: 2 November 2012 – Accepted: 26 November 2012 – Published: 7 January 2013

Abstract. In a recent paper, Treumann and Baumjohann planets of the solar system, and space measurements per-
(2011) propose that the contribution of dust particles to the mit close studies of the processes that influence the magne-
solar wind dynamic pressure can cause large compressions of tospheres. Mercury, for instance, being closest to the Sun,
the Earth’s magnetopause and suggest that this occurs when is especially prone to the changing solar wind conditions
Earth encounters meteoroid streams. In this paper we esti- and magnetic field variations (Luhmann et al., 1998; Slavin
mate the contribution from charged dust particles to the solar et al., 2007). The physics of magnetospheres is also consid-
wind dynamical pressure, and we exclude that the dust as- ered for studying the atmospheres of extra-solar planets (see
sociated to meteoroid streams can influence the extension of e.g. Reiners and Christensen, 2010). Naturally, the Earth’s
the magnetopause according to the proposed model. A suffi- magnetosphere is best studied both from space and from the
cient coupling to the solar wind is only expected for so-called ground. The overall changes of the magnetosphere are ap-
nanodust. However, the dynamic pressure of the nanodust is parent in the variations of the Earths magnetopause, i.e. the
orders of magnitudes below that of the solar wind, making it boundary between the terrestrial magnetic field and the so-
unlikely that its variation can be observed in displacements lar wind. While the overall position and shape of the Earth’s
of the magnetopause. We also discuss the equation that the magnetopause is primarily determined by a pressure balance
authors use for estimating the extension of the Earth’s mag- between the solar wind dynamic pressure and Earth’s mag-
netopause, and conclude that this is not applicable due to the netic pressure, there is a huge number of parameters and pro-
large gyroradius of the nanodust. We finally note that an in- cesses that can influence the magnetopauses in general.
fluence of dust on the extension of a magnetosphere might The Earth’s magnetopause has been well observed and de-
be quite possible in other astrophysical systems and based scribed with different models. Many of them are parame-
on other processes. terized by the solar wind dynamic pressure and the north–
Keywords. Interplanetary physics (Interplanetary dust; So- south component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)
lar wind plasma) – Magnetospheric physics (Magnetopause, (Šafránková et al., 2002). Over the years, various processes
cusp, and boundary layers) modifying the magnetopause position and shape have been
discussed. Already in 1970, Aubry et al. (1970) found that
the orientation of the IMF influences the magnetopause po-
sition. For southward IMF, dayside reconnection is expected.
1 Introduction This results in an erosion of the magnetopause due to mag-
netic flux being transferred from the dayside to the night-
The Earth’s magnetopause plays an important role for the side (Shue et al., 2000). Lobe reconnection, on the other
complex interactions between the Earth’s magnetosphere and hand, would imply a reversed process, with magnetic flux
the Sun and the interplanetary medium. The resulting pro- being transferred from the nightside to the dayside (Shue
cesses have important consequences for the geomagnetic en- and Song, 2002). Šafránková et al. (2002) used observed
vironment of the Earth and ultimately influence the Earth’s magnetopause crossings from several space missions for a
atmosphere. Magnetospheres are also observed around other

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

40 I. Mann and M. Hamrin: Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement

comparison between different models. More recently, the five r −3 , we obtain

spacecraft of the THEMIS mission have observed around " #− 1
6
6500 magnetopause crossings, and these data were used to X
2
investigate the dependence of the magnetopause location on R = CB0 Ni mi V , (2)
i
the angle between the interplanetary magnetic field and so-
lar wind velocity vectors (i.e. IMF cone angle) (Dusik et al., where the solar wind mass density should be summed over
2010). Dusik et al. (2010) note that the dependence of the all relevant particle species, C is a constant, and B0 is the
magnetopause location on the solar wind dynamic pressure magnetic field at the surface of the Earth.
is stronger than predicted by the models. Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) discuss the balance of
In a recent work, Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) con- the dynamic pressure and the magnetic pressure in the pres-
sider the contribution of the dust component to the solar ence of dust assuming three particle species: electrons, pro-
wind dynamic pressure and suggest that enhanced dust num- tons and dust. In the present article we also include alpha
ber density, observed when Earth crosses meteoroid streams, particles (He++) and obtain the solar wind dynamic pressure:
raises the contribution of the dust component to the solar X
wind dynamical pressure to an extent that this is observed Ni mi V 2 = MN V 2 , i = e, p, α, d (3)
in variations of the extension of the magnetopause. While i

the presence of dust particles is not frequently discussed in with the components electrons (e), protons (p), alpha parti-
the context of the planetary magnetospheres, the influence cles (α), and charged dust (d). Ni is the number density of
of interstellar dust dynamic pressure is considered by Holzer the species, mi the mass, and V the solar wind speed under
(1989), for instance, when describing the extension of the he- the assumption that the dust particles are coupled to the solar
liosphere. Its outer boundary, the heliopause, builds up as a wind, i.e. move with the same bulk speed as the electrons,
result of the pressure balance between the solar wind and the protons, and alpha particles. Assuming charge neutrality one
interstellar gas. Holzer (1989) finds, however, that the dust gets
component is of minor importance.
In this paper we consider the suggestion by Treumann and Ne = Np + Qα Nα + Qd Nd , (4)
Baumjohann (2011) based on our current knowledge of the
where Qα and Qd are the alpha particle and the dust charges,
dust in the solar system near the Earth’s orbit. We start by in-
respectively. Using Eqs. (3) and (4) one obtains
troducing the model for describing the extension of the mag-
  
netopause and revisit the formula and figure given by the au- me me Qα
thors, since we found some difficulties in understanding their MN V 2 = 1 + + α α Aα 1 + +
mp mp Aα
presentation. We then discuss the dust components in the in- 
me Qd

terplanetary medium and their possible contribution to the + αd Ad 1 + mp Np V 2 , (5)
solar wind dynamic pressure. We also discuss the dust trajec- mp Ad
tories in order to check whether they can be described in the where Aα,d = mα,d /mp and αα,d = Nα,d /Np are the mass ra-
fluid approach that the Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) tio and the number density ratio for alpha and dust particles.
model is based upon. The paper ends with a summary. Substituting into Eq. (2), we obtain an expression for the sub-
solar magnetopause stagnation point
  
2 An extended version of the Treumann and Baumjo- me me Qα
R = Rp 1 + + αα Aα 1 + +
hann model mp mp Aα
 1
me Qd − 6

In a simple model, the pressure balance that determines the
+ α d Ad 1 +
magnetopause can be expressed as (Spreiter et al., 1966) mp Ad
− 1
(2f B)2

me 6
kρV 2 cos2 θ = , (1) = Rp 1 + + Sα + Sd , (6)
2µ0 mp
where ρ = N M and V are the solar wind mass density and where Rp is the stagnation point for a solar wind
speed, B is the magnetospheric magnetic field at the loca- only containing protons, and the second, third (Sα =
tion of the magnetopause, θ is the angle between the mag- αα Aα (1 + me Qα /(mp Aα ))), and forth term (Sd = αd Ad (1 +
netopause normal and the Sun–Earth line, f is a parameter me Qd /(mp Ad ))) on the right hand side describe the contribu-
describing the compression of the terrestrial magnetic field, tions from electrons, alpha particles, and dust, respectively.
and k is a parameter describing the reduction of the dynamic This description follows that by Treumann and Baumjohann
pressure by flow diversion around the magnetopause. (2011) except for the second and third terms on the right hand
The case θ = 0 describes the sub-solar magnetopause stag- side. The contribution of alpha particle (Sα ) was not included
nation point, R. Assuming a dipolar magnetic field, i.e. B ∼ by Treumann and Baumjohann (2011). Moreover, the second

Ann. Geophys., 31, 39–44, 2013 www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/

I. Mann and M. Hamrin: Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement 41

Influence from nanodust Influence from alpha

0
Magnetopause compression R/Rp = (1 + S)(−1/6)

10

−0.1
10

−0.2
10

−0.3
10

−10 −5 0 5
10 10 10 10
S Fig. 2. The radial velocity component vs. mass for dust at 1 AU.
The particle velocities for dust smaller than 10−19 kg are estimated
Fig. 1. The influence of alpha particles and dust on the position
based on a model of the formation and acceleration of nanodust in
of the sub-solar magnetopause stagnation point. The red and blue
the inner solar system. To illustrate typical velocities of the larger
regions show the relevant range for Sα and Sd , respectively (see
dust with mass larger 10−19 kg, we assume that it forms near 0.2 AU
Eq. 6 and the discussion in the text). The compression of the mag-
and is ejected by radiation pressure, this gives an upper estimate.
netopause from the nanodust (blue region) is negligible for the loca-
The dust larger than 10−15 kg is in Keplerian orbits. Further discus-
tion of the stagnation point, please also note limited applicability of
sion can be found in the reference Mann et al. (2010b).
Eq. (6). This figure is a modified version (as discussed in the text)
of the Fig. 2 presented by Treumann and Baumjohann (2011).

0.038Np < Nα < 0.048Np (Klecker, 2009; Schwenn, 1983)

for the alpha particle density, we get 0.15 < Sα < 0.19. In
term on the right hand side, me /mp , is of the order 10−4 , and the simple model of Eq. (6), the dust contribution to the loca-
was neglected. tion of the sub-solar magnetopause stagnation point is hence
By using the above equation (without the alpha parti- many order of magnitudes smaller than the alpha particle
cle contribution), Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) quan- contribution, and it is therefore negligible. This is illustrated
tified the influence of the dust component in terms of a vari- in Fig. 1 where the region of influence from dust is high-
ation of the magnetopause sub-solar stagnation point dis- lighted in blue and from alpha particles in red.
tance with respect to Rp . Figure 1 in this article is a modi-
fied version of Fig. 2 of Treumann and Baumjohann (2011).
However, note the misprint in the caption of the original 3 Comparison to dust parameters
Fig. 2 of Treumann and Baumjohann (2011): the figure
shows R/Rp = (1 + Sd )−1/6 versus Sd . In order to be de- 3.1 Dust trajectories in the solar wind
scribed within this equation, the components need to move
with the solar wind flow. This is naturally the case for the The basic assumption behind the proposed influence of dust
solar wind helium (α particles). Another component is the on the magnetopause is that the dust carries a charge and that
nanodust that is picked up by the solar wind. Its total mo- it is coupled to the solar wind. How does this compare to our
mentum flux is, however, estimated to ≤ 10−6 of that of the knowledge of the dust in interplanetary space? Dust particles
solar wind near 1 AU (Mann et al., 2011). We nonetheless in the interplanetary medium acquire a surface potential rela-
insert the respective parameters here for illustration. tive to the surrounding on the order of several Volts, primarily
The evaluation of nanodust fluxes based on analysis of as a result of photo ionization but also due to solar wind im-
ongoing measurements with plasma wave instruments on- pact (see e.g. Kimura and Mann, 1998). Nonetheless, electro-
board the two Stereo spacecraft near 1 AU (Zaslavsky et al., magnetic forces are typically small in comparison to gravity
2012) provide a basis for our estimate. We assume the and radiation pressure, and the majority of the interplanetary
following typical parameters for nanodust at the orbit of dust particles move in some type of Keplerian orbits with
Earth: 10−22 kg < md < 10−20 kg, 3×10−7 m−3 < Nd < 3× electromagnetic force imposing a perturbation (Morfill and
10−5 m−3 , and Qd = 17e. Using these values, we find that Grün, 1979). This picture changes when assuming nanodust
the dust contribution to Eq. (6) is 3 × 10−9 < Sd < 3 × 10−7 . particles with sizes 10 nm and smaller, as are identified in ob-
Comparing to Fig. 2 of Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) servations of the interstellar medium. If they also form in the
(remember that this figure shows R/Rp = (1 + Sd )−1/6 ver- interplanetary medium, they can be deflected and carried out-
sus Sd ), this corresponds to very small Sd values. By using ward with the solar wind (Mann et al., 2007). Measurements

www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/ Ann. Geophys., 31, 39–44, 2013

42 I. Mann and M. Hamrin: Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement

onboard the Stereo spacecraft suggest the presence of such not sufficient for describing the influence of pick-up ions to
picked-up nanodust in the solar wind (Meyer-Vernet et al., explain observational data, and that rather a hybrid or kinetic
2010). model is necessary.
Figure 2 shows the velocities of dust near 1 AU as a func-
tion of mass. One can estimate average values of the veloc- 3.3 Earth-crossing meteoroid streams
ity of nanodust based on trajectory calculations when assum-
ing a model of dust production inside 1 AU. Figure 2 shows As a possible event during which the dust could cause the
such a model based on discussions in Mann et al. (2010b) magnetopause compressions, Treumann and Baumjohann
in comparison to the velocities of the larger dust particles. (2011) propose the encounters with meteoroid dust streams
One can see that the nanodust particles with masses m ≤ along Earth’s orbit. One criticism to this model concerns the
10−19 kg have velocities ∼300 km s−1 ; the dust particles ap- orbital properties of these meteoroid streams. The streams
proximately in the mass interval 10−19 kg ≤ m ≤ 10−14 kg are observed as meteor showers, describing a number of me-
are significantly influenced by radiation pressure and de- teoroids entering the Earth’s atmosphere with approximately
pending on their optical properties can be repelled from the parallel trajectories (note that the term meteor denotes the
Sun. The shown velocity is obtained from a typical model brightness phenomenon, while meteoroid denotes the solid
of the optical properties of interplanetary dust. Larger dust object moving in interplanetary space). The similar trajecto-
particles (typically m ≥ 10−14 kg) are mainly influenced by ries occur from meteoroids that move in interplanetary space
gravity, and their trajectories follow approximately Keplerian with similar orbital parameters corresponding to an orbit that
orbits. The dust flux near 1 AU increases steeply with dust crosses Earth’s orbit. Since the meteoroids follow bound or-
size, and the Stereo measurements show that the observed bits and hence the velocity of the meteoroids is below es-
flux, F , is close to the curve F ∼ m−5/6 (Meyer-Vernet et al., cape velocity (42 km s−1 ), they do not move with the solar
2010), but the larger dust particles do not influence the dy- wind speed, nor in the direction of the solar wind. Studies of
namic pressure since they have much smaller velocities. the sporadic meteor orbital statistics could not provide any
evidence for the detection of meteors that move faster than
3.2 Dust pickup and fluid approach escape velocity (Hajdukova, 2008).
A further criticism bases on the total meteoroid mass that
The deflection of the nanodust is similar, though not identi- is associated with the meteor showers, since the vast majority
cal, to the behavior of pickup of ions in the solar wind, as of the mass that continuously enter Earth’s atmosphere is as-
described for instance by Luhmann, 2003). The pickup oc- sociated to sporadic meteors (see e.g. Ceplecha et al., 1998)
curs for dust with surface charge to mass ratios 10−5 e/mp < (note, it is not possible to derive absolute values of the fluxes
Q/m < 10−4 e/mp , which, assuming typical charging condi- in interplanetary space from the meteor observations). We
tions in the interplanetary medium, are associated to dust par- also assume that production of nanodust or ions within the
ticles of radii around 3 nm to 10 nm (Czechowski and Mann, meteoroid streams is negligible. An estimate of the influence
2010). The particles reach velocities of the order of the so- of cometary dust trails on the solar wind was carried out in
lar wind after traveling for a good fraction of one AU. Those a different context and showed that enhancements in density
particles that form closest to the Sun pass Earth’s orbit with of free charges compared to the surrounding solar wind are
the highest speed. Trajectory calculations show that the nan- marginal (Mann et al., 2010a).
odust moves in complex trajectories likened to a stretched
spiral along a magnetic field line with gyration radii, rg , of 3.4 Summary and discussion
the order of 1/100 of an AU, i.e. of the order of 106 km in
comparison of the extension of the magnetopause which is We suggest that it is not reasonable to assume that Earth-
smaller than 15 Earth radii, i.e. smaller than 105 km. orbit-crossing meteoroid streams can influence the extension
While the exact value of the radius of gyration depends, for of the magnetopause as suggested by Treumann and Baumjo-
example, on the dust velocity perpendicular to the magnetic hann (2011), nor does any other dust component in the solar
field (which is determined by the location where the nanodust wind. Since our reasoning against the proposed process is
forms) (Czechowski and Mann, 2012), one may evaluate the based on the characteristics of dust in the solar wind and
number based on the fact that rg ∼ m/Q to see that the ra- since the effect is orders of magnitude below that of other
tio of Q/m needs to be larger by about 103 as compared to processes, we presume that our result may hold in general for
the values in the paragraph above for the fluid approach to be the magnetospheres of the other planets in the solar system.
valid. These values of Q/m do not occur for dust in the so- We suggest that variations in the solar wind composition play
lar system (see e.g. Czechowski and Mann, 2010), but rather a more important role for the extension of the magnetopause
apply to heavy ions. In this context we point out that the in- than the dust does.
fluence of the gyration radius has been mentioned before in a We note, however, that a dust component may also gen-
different context. In a study of the solar wind interacting with erate a dynamic pressure without being coupled to the solar
Venus, Phillips et al. (1987) point out that a fluid treatment is wind. In the case of the solar system, the nanodust is picked

Ann. Geophys., 31, 39–44, 2013 www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/

I. Mann and M. Hamrin: Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement 43

up in the solar wind. Dust particles can also be accelerated doi:10.1007/s11038-007-9171-5, Meteoroids Conference 2007,
by radiation pressure forces. Such dust is not coupled to the CosmoCaixa Sci Museum, Barcelona, Spain, 11–15 June 2007,
solar wind and has a different velocity. In the solar system, 2008.
this is the case for larger dust grains (see Fig. 1). The radi- Holzer, T.: Interaction between the solar-wind and the interstellar-
ation pressure force depends on dust properties, but also on medium, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 27, 199–234,
doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.27.1.199, 1989.
the spectrum and brightness of the host star. The dust parti-
Kimura, H. and Mann, I.: The electric charging of interstellar dust in
cles in disks around stars with higher photospheric temper- the solar system and consequences for its dynamics, Astrophys.
ature and higher UV flux reach considerably higher speed Journal, 499, 454–462, doi:10.1086/305613, 1998.
(Czechowski and Mann, 2007). Such a dust component may Klecker, B.: Interplanetary Particles and Magnetic Fields, in:
influence the position and shape of magnetospheres in other Landolt-Börnstein – Group VI Astronomy and Astrophysics
planetary systems. Systems with strong stellar UV brightness Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and
and/or strong stellar wind may be an interesting topic for fu- Technology Volume, edited by: Trümper, J. E., p. 436,
ture research. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4 33, 2009.
While the dynamics of nanodust in the solar wind is simi- Luhmann, J.: Characteristics of scatter-free behavior of helio-
lar to the that of pick-up ions, the radii of gyration are larger spheric pickup ions, Astrophys. Journal, 592, 1241–1251,
than those of the pick-up ions, and this prevents us from us- doi:10.1086/375770, 2003.
Luhmann, J., Russell, C., and Tsyganenko, N.: Disturbances
ing the fluid approach when estimating the extension of the
in Mercury’s magnetosphere: Are the mariner 10 “sub-
Earth’s magnetopause. We hence conclude that the formula storms” simply driven?, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 9113–9119,
suggested by Treumann and Baumjohann (2011) is not ad- doi:10.1029/97JA03667, 1998.
equate for describing the influence of a dust component on Mann, I., Murad, E., and Czechowski, A.: Nanoparticles in
scales of the order of the extension of the Earth’s magneto- the inner solar system, Planet. Space Sci., 55, 1000–1009,
sphere and smaller. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.11.015, 2nd Annual Meeting of the
Asia-Oceania-Geosciences-Society, Singapore, Singapore, 20–
24 June 2005, 2007.
Acknowledgements. This paper was prepared while IM stayed as Mann, I., Czechowski, A., and Meyer-Vernet, N.: Dust In The In-
guest professor at Umeå University and this support is greatly ac- terplanetary Medium – Interactions With The Solar Wind, in:
knowledged. The authors also acknowledge helpful discussion with Twelfth international solar wind conference, edited by: Maksi-
Rudolf Treumann on his related work. movic, M., Issautier, K., MeyerVernet, N., Moncuquet, M., and
Topical Editor R. Nakamura thanks Y.-D. Jia and one anony- Pantellini, F, vol. 1216 of AIP Conference Proceedings, pp. 491–
mous referee for their help in evaluating this paper. 496, Amer inst physics, doi:10.1063/1.3395911, 12th Interna-
tional Solar Wind Conference, St Milo, France, 21–26 June 2009,
2010a.
References Mann, I., Czechowski, A., Meyer-Vernet, N., Zaslavsky, A.,
and Lamy, H.: Dust in the interplanetary medium, Plasma
Aubry, M., Russell, C., and Kivelson, M.: Inward motion of Physics and Controlled Fusion, 52, doi:10.1088/0741-
magnetopause before a substorm, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 7018, 3335/52/12/124012, 37th European-Physical-Society Con-
doi:10.1029/JA075i034p07018, 1970. ference on Plasma Physics, Dublin City Univ, Helix Arts Ctr,
Ceplecha, Z., Borovicka, J., Elford, W., Revelle, D., Hawkes, R., Dublin, Ireland, 22–25 June 2010, 2010b.
Porubcan, V., and Simek, M.: Meteor phenomena and bodies, Mann, I., Pellinen-Wannberg, A., Murad, E., Popova, O., Meyer-
Space Sci. Rev., 84, 327–471, doi:10.1023/A:1005069928850, Vernet, N., Rosenberg, M., Mukai, T., Czechowski, A., Mukai,
1998. S., Safrankova, J., and Nemecek, Z.: Dusty Plasma Effects in
Czechowski, A. and Mann, I.: Collisional vaporization of dust and Near Earth Space and Interplanetary Medium, Space Sci. Rev.,
production of gas in the beta Pictoris dust disk, Astrophys. Jour- 161, 1–47, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9762-3, 2011.
nal, 660, 1541–1555, doi:10.1086/512965, 2007. Meyer-Vernet, N., Czechowski, A., Mann, I., Maksimovic, M.,
Czechowski, A. and Mann, I.: Formation and acceleration of nano Lecacheux, A., Goetz, K., Kaiser, M. L., Cyr, O. C. S., Bale,
dust in the inner heliosphere, Astrophys. Journal, 714, 89–99, S. D., and Le Chat, G.: Detection of fast nanoparticles in the solar
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/89, 2010. wind, in: Twelfth international solar wind conference, edited by:
Czechowski, A. and Mann, I.: Nanodust Dynamics in Interplane- Maksimovic, M., Issautier, K., MeyerVernet, N., Moncuquet, M.,
tary Space, in: Astrophysics and Space Science Library, edited and Pantellini, F, vol. 1216 of AIP Conference Proceedings, pp.
by: Mann, I., Meyer-Vernet, N., and Czechowski, A., vol. 385 of 502–505, Amer inst physics, doi:10.1063/1.3395912, 12th Inter-
Astrophysics and Space Science Library, p. 47, doi:10.1007/978- national Solar Wind Conference, St Milo, France, 21–26 June
3-642-27543-2 4, 2012. 2009, 2010.
Dusik, S., Granko, G., Safrankova, J., Nemecek, Z., and Je- Morfill, G. E. and Grün, E.: The motion of charged dust particles in
linek, K.: IMF cone angle control of the magnetopause lo- interplanetary space-II. Interstellar grains, Planet. Space Sci., 27,
cation: Statistical study, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L19103, 1283–1292, doi:10.1016/0032-0633(79)90106-5, 1979.
doi:10.1029/2010GL044965, 2010. Phillips, J., Luhmann, J., Russell, C., and Moore, K.: Finite larmor
Hajdukova Jr., M.: Meteors in the IAU meteor data center radius effect on ion pickup at Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 9920–
on hyperbolic orbits, Earth moon and planets, 102, 67–71,

www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/ Ann. Geophys., 31, 39–44, 2013

44 I. Mann and M. Hamrin: Dust dynamic pressure and magnetopause displacement

9930, doi:10.1029/JA092iA09p09920, 1987. Slavin, J. A., Krimigis, S. M., Acuna, M. H., Anderson, B. J.,
Reiners, A. and Christensen, U. R.: A magnetic field evolution sce- Baker, D. N., Koehn, P. L., Korth, H., Livi, S., Mauk, B. H.,
nario for brown dwarfs and giant planets, Astron. Astrophys., Solomon, S. C., and Zurbuchen, T. H.: MESSENGER: Explor-
522, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014251, 2010. ing mercury’s magnetosphere, Space Sci. Rev., 131, 133–160,
Šafránková, J., Něemecěk, Z., Dušı́k, Š., Přrech, L., Sibeck, D. doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9154-x, 2007.
G., and Borodkova, N. N.: The magnetopause shape and lo- Spreiter, J., Summers, A., and Alksne, A.: Hydromagnetic
cation: a comparison of the Interball and Geotail observations flow around magnetosphere, Planet. Space Sci., 14, 223,
with models, Ann. Geophys., 20, 301–309, doi:10.5194/angeo- doi:10.1016/0032-0633(66)90124-3, 1966.
20-301-2002, 2002. Treumann, R. A. and Baumjohann, W.: Magnetopause displace-
Schwenn, R.: The average solar wind in the inner heliosphere: ments: the possible role of dust, Ann. Geophys., 29, 2219–2223,
Structures and slow variations, in: NASA Conference Publica- doi:10.5194/angeo-29-2219-2011, 2011.
tion, vol. 228 of NASA Conference Publication, pp. 489–507, Zaslavsky, A., Meyer-Vernet, N., Mann, I., Czechowski, A., Is-
1983. sautier, K., Le Chat, G., Pantellini, F., Goetz, K., Maksimovic,
Shue, J. and Song, P.: The location and shape of the magne- M., Bale, S. D., and Kasper, J. C.: Interplanetary dust detec-
topause, Planet. Space Sci., 50, 549–558, doi:10.1016/S0032- tion by radio antennas: mass calibration and fuxes measured
0633(02)00034-X, 2002. by STEREO/WAVES, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A05102, in press,
Shue, J., Russell, C., and Song, P.: Shape of the low-latitude magne- 2012.
topause: Comparison of models, in: Coordinated Measurements
of Magnetospheric Processes, edited by: Russell, C. T., vol. 25
of Advances in space research-series, pp. 1471–1484, Int. Union
Geodesy & Geophys, Int. Assoc. Geomagnetism & Aeron.;
Comm. Space Res., Pergamon press ltd, doi:10.1016/S0273-
1177(99)00658-4, 2000.

Ann. Geophys., 31, 39–44, 2013 www.ann-geophys.net/31/39/2013/