Search for: All records

Both high‐power large aperture radars and smaller meteor radars readily observe the dense head plasma produced as a meteoroid ablates. However, determining the mass of such meteors based on the information returned by the radar is challenging. We present a new method for deriving meteor masses from single‐frequency radar measurements, using a physics‐based plasma model and finite‐difference time‐domain (FDTD) simulations. The head plasma model derived in Dimant and Oppenheim (2017),https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja023963depends on the meteoroids altitude, speed, and size. We use FDTD simulations of a radar pulse interacting with such head plasmas to determine the radar cross section (RCS) that a radar system would observe for a meteor with a given set of physical properties. By performing simulations over the observed parameter space, we construct tables relating meteor size, velocity, and altitude to RCS. We then use these tables to map a set of observations from the MAARSY radar (53.5 MHz) to fully defined plasma distributions, from which masses are calculated. To validate these results, we repeat the analysis using observations of the same meteors by the EISCAT radar (929 MHz). The resulting masses are strongly linearly correlated; however, the masses derived from EISCAT measurements are on average 1.33 times larger than those derived from MAARSY measurements. Since this method does not require dual‐frequency measurements for mass determination, only validation, it can be applied in the future to observations made by many single‐frequency radar systems.

A strong mountain wave, observed over Central Europe on 12 January 2016, is simulated in 2D under two fixed background wind conditions representing opposite tidal phases. The aim of the simulation is to investigate the breaking of the mountain wave and subsequent generation of nonprimary waves in the upper atmosphere. The model results show that the mountain wave first breaks as it approaches a mesospheric critical level creating turbulence on horizontal scales of 8–30 km. These turbulence scales couple directly to horizontal secondary waves scales, but those scales are prevented from reaching the thermosphere by the tidal winds, which act like a filter. Initial secondary waves that can reach the thermosphere range from 60 to 120 km in horizontal scale and are influenced by the scales of the horizontal and vertical forcing associated with wave breaking at mountain wave zonal phase width, and horizontal wavelength scales. Large‐scale nonprimary waves dominate over the whole duration of the simulation with horizontal scales of 107–300 km and periods of 11–22 minutes. The thermosphere winds heavily influence the time‐averaged spatial distribution of wave forcing in the thermosphere, which peaks at 150 km altitude and occurs both westward and eastward of the source in the 2 UT background simulation and primarily eastward of the source in the 7 UT background simulation. The forcing amplitude is2that of the primary mountain wave breaking and dissipation. This suggests that nonprimary waves play a significant role in gravity waves dynamics and improved understanding of the thermospheric winds is crucial to understanding their forcing distribution.