Electron diffusion region and thermal demagnetization

(By measurement we mean all variables of a theoretical relation that determine the length have been quantitatively observed, no ROMs.) The skew above the electron skin depth of the scale length population determined an average scale length of the ‘‘EDRs’’ 80% higher than the upper bound stated in the ‘‘EDR’’ study’s abstract. This situation contributes another average multiplicative enhancement of (1.8) = 3.24 to the strongly magnetized picture we have developed earlier. This brings the typical ‘‘EDR’’ layer to some 96 timesmoremagnetized than expected for the EDR of CMR, providing a back of the envelope estimate of the range for d 2 illustrated in Figure 4. [35] The ‘‘EDR’’ study did not discuss if any events were prescreened for time duration thresholds. As described, all events under consideration were essentially postulated to be of the electron skin depth scale, thus vacating any rejection of events that were too long or too short. [36] The ‘‘N’’ in the sixth column notes that the scale lengths that were measured were performed on Cluster events and then argued to constrain Polar ‘‘EDR’’ events. This criterion and VI below were both argued to be ‘‘validated’’ for Polar ‘‘EDR’’ events using Cluster data of these ‘‘analogous’’ events. It should be clearly stated that these are not events observed on both spacecraft. These are distinctly different events. This assertion of certification of 117 Polar events collected over a 3 year period using properties of an isolated group of events on Cluster is problematical. This is especially clear given that the existence of Ek is so important for establishing the analogy of layer type (sieve I) and that Cluster EFW experiment could not measure this important ‘‘analogous’’ quantity. [37] 6. The last screening for a necessary criterion and necessary proxy test advanced in the ‘‘EDR’’ study was (paper 1, paragraph 18) ‘‘. . .Accelerated electrons must be produced in the electron diffusion region. The electromagnetic energy conversion should produce accelerated electron beams.’’ This approach is a rather specific variant of the more widely subscribed view of CMR that the plasma should show some visible signs of having received the Joule electromagnetic energy density that condition IV indicated was being released, with adequate corrections for the loss or gain of Poynting flux in the frame where the energy exchange is being monitored. While the overall energetics requirement of Poynting’s theorem are general, they are also unspecific. Regardless of the frame adopted, Poynting’s theorem does not determine ‘‘how,’’ or ‘‘which part’’ of the plasma will accept the Joule work done or extracted from it [Jackson, 1998]. Since paper 1 has suggested a necessary criterion in terms of a specific species benefitting from the Joule dissipation, its proxy test is inordinately specific, for it to remain a necessary condition. Further, the suggested necessary test further requires that all the energy headed for the electrons is necessarily required to be found in the form of electron beams on the distribution function. Had the electron’s stored their energy in convection and not as beams, paper 1’s test would be unfulfilled, but this would not have been a contradiction to Poynting’s theorem. If all of the Joule power was carried off by accelerated ions with electrons garnering nothing, there is no contradiction with Poynting’s theorem. Accordingly the overly narrow form of the proposed criterion and even the proxy test for it cannot be supported as necessary. As a criterion this condition of paper 1 needs to be reframed in terms of the total time rate of change of energy density of all species of the plasma in the frame where Poynting flux vanishes; it should be framed to demonstrate that this total time rate of change of plasma energy in such a frame shall necessarily be correlated with the Joule work done by the fields on the particles. [38] The ‘‘EDR’’ study offered ‘‘certification’’ of this effect for all 117 Polar events using a small group of different, A10208 SCUDDER ET AL.: EDR DEMAGNETIZATION OF THERMAL ELECTRONS