Pattern formation during diffusion limited transformations in solids

We develop a description of diffusion limited growth in solid-solid transformations, which are strongly influenced by elastic effects. Density differences and structural transformations provoke stresses at interfaces, which affect the phase equilibrium conditions. We formulate equations for the interface kinetics similar to dendritic growth and study the growth of a stable phase from a metastable solid in both a channel geometry and in free space. We perform sharp interface calculations based on Green's function methods and phase field simulations, supplemented by analytical investigations. For pure dilatational transformations we find a single growing finger with symmetry breaking at higher driving forces, whereas for shear transformations the emergence of twin structures can be favorable. We predict the steady state shapes and propagation velocities, which can be higher than in conventional dendritic growth.Comment: submitted to Philosophical Magazin

Nonlinear Two-Dimensional Green's Function in Smectics

The problem of the strain of smectics subjected to a force distributed over a line in the basal plane has been solved

Analysis of the effectiveness of ground-based VLF wave observations for predicting or nowcasting relativistic electron flux at geostationary orbit

Post-storm relativistic electron flux enhancement at geosynchronous orbit has shown correlation with very low frequency (VLF) waves measured by satellite in situ. However, our previous study found little correlation between electron flux and VLF measured by a ground-based instrument at Halley, Antarctica. Here we explore several possible explanations for this low correlation. Using 220 storms (1992–2002), our previous work developed a predictive model of the post-storm flux at geosynchronous orbit based on explanatory variables measured a day or two before the flux increase. In a nowcast model, we use averages of variables from the time period when flux is rising during the recovery phase of geomagnetic storms, and limit the VLF (1.0 kHz) measure to the dawn period at Halley (9–12 UT). This improves the simple correlation of VLF wave intensity with flux, although the VLF effect in an overall multiple regression is still much less than that of other factors. When analyses are performed separately for season and IMF Bz orientation, VLF outweighs the influence of other factors only during winter months when IMF Bz is in an average northward orientation

Empirical predictive models of daily relativistic electron flux at geostationary orbit: Multiple regression analysis

The daily maximum relativistic electron flux at geostationary orbit can be predicted well with a set of daily averaged predictor variables including previous day's flux, seed electron flux, solar wind velocity and number density, AE index, IMF Bz, Dst, and ULF and VLF wave power. As predictor variables are intercorrelated, we used multiple regression analyses to determine which are the most predictive of flux when other variables are controlled. Empirical models produced from regressions of flux on measured predictors from 1 day previous were reasonably effective at predicting novel observations. Adding previous flux to the parameter set improves the prediction of the peak of the increases but delays its anticipation of an event. Previous day's solar wind number density and velocity, AE index, and ULF wave activity are the most significant explanatory variables; however, the AE index, measuring substorm processes, shows a negative correlation with flux when other parameters are controlled. This may be due to the triggering of electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves by substorms that cause electron precipitation. VLF waves show lower, but significant, influence. The combined effect of ULF and VLF waves shows a synergistic interaction, where each increases the influence of the other on flux enhancement. Correlations between observations and predictions for this 1 day lag model ranged from 0.71 to 0.89 (average: 0.78). A path analysis of correlations between predictors suggests that solar wind and IMF parameters affect flux through intermediate processes such as ring current (Dst), AE, and wave activity

Associating ground magnetometer observations with current or voltage generators

A circuit analogy for magnetosphere‐ionosphere current systems has two extremes for drivers of ionospheric currents: ionospheric electric fields/voltages constant while current/conductivity vary—the “voltage generator”—and current constant while electric field/conductivity vary—the “current generator.” Statistical studies of ground magnetometer observations associated with dayside Transient High Latitude Current Systems (THLCS) driven by similar mechanisms find contradictory results using this paradigm: some studies associate THLCS with voltage generators, others with current generators. We argue that most of this contradiction arises from two assumptions used to interpret ground magnetometer observations: (1) measurements made at fixed position relative to the THLCS field‐aligned current and (2) negligible auroral precipitation contributions to ionospheric conductivity. We use observations and simulations to illustrate how these two assumptions substantially alter expectations for magnetic perturbations associated with either a current or a voltage generator. Our results demonstrate that before interpreting ground magnetometer observations of THLCS in the context of current/voltage generators, the location of a ground magnetometer station relative to the THLCS field‐aligned current and the location of any auroral zone conductivity enhancements need to be taken into account.Key PointsConductivity and location assumptions used to interpret ground magnetic perturbations yield conflicting resultsHigh‐latitude currents associated with voltage generators may instead be associated with current generators, and vice versaWithout better constraints on conductivity/station location relative to currents, conflicts will not be resolvedPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138366/1/jgra53632.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138366/2/jgra53632_am.pd