Plasma particle simulations of wake formation behind a spacecraft with thin wire booms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double‐probe electric field sensors installed on scientific spacecraft are often deployed using wire booms with radii much less than typical Debye lengths of magnetospheric plasmas (millimeters compared to tens of meters). However, in tenuous and cold‐streaming plasmas seen in the polar cap and lobe regions, the wire booms, electrically grounded at the spacecraft, have a high positive potential due to photoelectron emission and can strongly scatter approaching ions. Consequently, an electrostatic wake formed behind the spacecraft is further enhanced by the presence of the wire booms. We reproduce this process for the case of the Cluster satellite by performing plasma particle‐in‐cell (PIC) simulations, which include the effects of both the spacecraft body and the wire booms in a simultaneous manner. The simulations reveal that the effective thickness of the booms for the Cluster Electric Field and Wave (EFW) instrument is magnified from its real diameter (2.2mm) to several meters, when the spacecraft potential is at tens of volts. Such booms enhance the wake electric field magnitude by a factor of 1.5–2 depending on the spacecraft potential and play a principal role in explaining the in situ Cluster EFW data showing sinusoidal spurious electric fields with about 10mV/m amplitude. The boom effects are quantified by comparing PIC simulations with and without wire booms and also by examining the wake formation for various spacecraft potentials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".