Geomagnetic pulsations

Conclusion In writing this review paper the author has been aware that although the present international classification on geomagnetic pulsations (see Table I) had been really useful for several years since the Berkeley Meeting, it seems unsuitable for the up-to-date pulsation study. This is mainly due to the fact that it depends only on the period and waveform of the pulsations. For example, (1) occurrence of PP type of Pc1 even in the international Pc3 range (Heacock, 1966), (2) PP and CE getting mixed in a common period band (cf. 2.7), (3) similar mixing tendency of Pc3 with Pc4 (cf. 3.3 or Figure 21), (4) subtypes of Pi pulsations having common period ranges but different source mechanisms, (5) existence of various types of pulsations which can be classified neither to Pc nor to Pi (cf. Section 6), and so on. Hence the author feels that a new pulsation classification based on physical image on the occurrence models is really needed now.According to the international definition which has a period range of pulsations from 0.2 (5 Hz) to 600 sec, a part of the following electromagnetic field fluctuations called ELF emissions and ELF whistlers should belong to geomagnetic pulsations. ELF emissions are at times observed near 4 Hz and 9 Hz. They are so termed because of the difference between these frequencies and the Schumann resonance frequencies of 8 and 14 Hz (Yanagihara and Shimizu, 1969; Polk, 1969). Another type, ELF whistlers, exhibit either rising, falling or fluctuating tones from about 2 Hz to probably a few tens of Hz (Duffus, Nasmyth et al., 1958; Yamashita, 1967; Glangeaud, 1967; Yanagihara and Shimizu, 1969). In this review paper, however, both ELF emissions and whistlers have not been reviewed, since most of these seem to be out of the international frequency range so far as present observational knowledge is concerned. Some of the Pc6 and Dp2, involved in the international period range of pulsations, have also not been commented on, but the reader is advised to refer to Herron (1967) and Nishida (1968), respectively, for more detail.It has been frequently pointed out in this paper that latitudinal dependence of pulsation amplitude is one of the most important clues for seeking the model of excitation and propagation of HM and EM waves, but that this dependence has not been precisely obtained so far owing to the difference in geomagnetic longitude of the pulsation stations (for example, see Figure 40). Cooperative observations based on standardized magnetometers are eagerly desired at stations which are densely arranged along the same magnetic meridian, even if the observation is temporal.As already reviewed, various conflicting models have been proposed for each type of pulsation. On the occurrence of pc's, for example, there are two main conflicting models. In the first model, Pc2, 3, and 4 (Troitskaya, 1967; Patel and Hastings, 1968; and others) or Pc3 and 4 (Radoski and Carovillano, 1966) are related to one and the same resonance system and the difference in the type of these pc's is attributed to an effect of geomagnetic activity on the size of this system. In the second model, Pc2, 3, 4 and 5 are related to three or four different resonant systems (Jacobs and Sinno, 1960b; Hirasawa and Nagata, 1966; Kato, Mori et al., 1968; and others). Most of the conflict among such models seems to be removable by combining more thorough theoretical studies and correct dynamic spectrum analyses of the data at the polar region, auroral zone, sub-auroral zone, and middle and low latitudes, for various geomagnetic disturbance conditions.