Physics of auroral phenomena : proceedings of the 33rd Annual seminar, Apatity, 02 - 05 March, 2010 / [ed.: A.G. Yahnin, A. A. Mochalov]. - Апатиты : Издательство Кольского научного центра РАН, 2011. - 206 с. : ил.

Calculation o f the magnetopause stand-offdistance B C f ( V, R l) is the field of currents on the magnetopause shielding the dipole field; BT( Ц>, R l, R2, Ф) is the field of the tail current system (cross-tail current and its closure magnetopause current); BR ( у/, br) is the field of the ring current; B sr (¥• bn R l) is the field of currents on the magnetopause shielding the ring current field; В fac ( ЩRl> Jo) is the field due to field-aligned currents. Table 1 shows magnetopause stand-off distance R0 predicted according to following models: Shue et al. [1997] Kuznetsov and Suvorova [1998] and PM-used procedure during strong disturbed IMF conditions when model input parameters increases to values specifying strong magnetic storms. Table 1. R0 (Re) predicted according to different models under strong disturbed IMF conditions: Dp > 10 nPa, B z< -10 nT. Bz, nT Dp, nPa -10 -20 -30 Model 6.91 6.32 6.30 Shue et.al [1998] 10 6.10 5.56 5.55 Kuznetsov et al. [1998] 7.74 7.66 7.74 PM-used-procedure 6.50 5.95 5.93 Shueetal. [1998] 15 5.69 5.15 5.14 Kuznetsov et al. [1998] 7.31 7.22 7.30 PM-used-procedure 6.22 5.69 5.67 Shueetal. [1998] 20 5.42 4.88 4.87 Kuznetsov et al. [1998] 7.10 6.94 7.02 PM-used-procedure 6.01 5.50 5.48 Shue et.al . [1998] 25 5.22 4.68 4.67 Kuznetsov et al. [1998] 6.89 6.74 7.10 PM-used-procedure 5.85 5.35 5.33 Shue et al. [1998] 30 5.06 4.52 4.51 Kuznetsov et al. [1998] 6.75 6.58 6.63 PM-used-procedure Results predicted according to analytical models o f Shue et.al, [1998] and Kuznetsov et al. are sufficiently close and differ from results based on the dynamic balance of the solar winds plasma’s pressure Dp and PM magnetic pressure В2/2ц0 by 1-2 Re because of the statistical set of initial data doesn’t practically contain measurements under great amplitudes of the southern IMF component Bz and the solar wind pressure. Table 2 shows R0 predicted according to different models according to following models: Shue et al. [1997], Shue et al. [1998], Kuznetsov and Suvorova [1998] and PM-used-procedure for specific events when geostationary satellite was located close to the magnetopause, and therefore R0 should be equal to 6.6 Re. Note, that at Bz = -27 nT only R0 predicted by PM-used-procedure is approximately equal to 6.6 Re (bold in the Table 2). Table 3 shows R0 predicted according to the same, as in Table 2, models for specific events that have been examined by team o f IKI RAN. R0 measured by IKI team are presented in the last column of the Table 3. During these events difference between results of analytical models and PM-used-procedure increases under strong negative IMF Bz. Conclusion Analytic models for estimation of the magnetopause stand-off distance R0 [Kuznetsov and Suvorova, 1998; Shue et al. 1997, 1998] are rather reliable if input data for model calculating correspond to the statistical set of initial data that doesn’t practically contain measurements under great amplitudes of the southern IMF component Bz and the solar wind pressure Dp. R0 estimation basing on balance of the solar wind plasma’s pressure Dp and magnetic