ANALYTICAL MODEL OF THE PLANETARY BOW SHOCK FOR VARIOUS MAGNETIC FIELD DIRECTIONS BASED ON MHD CALCULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study of physical processes in plasma near planets often requires knowledge of the position and shape of the planetary bow shock. Empirical models are usually used since theoretical MHD and kinetic models consume too much computer time and cannot be used to track fast processes. M.I. Verigin proposed a semi-empirical approach based on the use of exact theoretical expressions with a small number of parameters, which have a clear physical meaning. These parameters are estimated by fitting experimental data or detailed MHD calculations. A model of the bow shock near an arbitrary-shaped obstacle has previously been developed for a gas-dynamic flow. This model can be applied to any sonic Mach numbers and large values of the Alfven Mach number. In addition, the asymptotic Mach cone — the angle of inclination of the shock wave at an infinite distance from the planet — has been calculated analytically in the MHD approximation. In this paper, we propose a model of the bow shock for any direction of the magnetic field with respect to the upcoming flow and for any Mach numbers. Parameters of the model are the distance of the nose point from the obstacle, radius of curvature and bluntness of the bow shock at the nose point, a parameter related to the transition to the asymptotic downstream slope of the shock, and a skewing angle appearing when the interplanetary magnetic field is directed at an angle to the solar wind velocity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".