2018 Interplanetary External Driven Geo Dynamo As The Origin of The Geomagnetic Jerks Aligned With Length of Day Variations and Gravity Anomalies

Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy Vol.
48/1, 2018 (23–74)
Interplanetary external driven

quasidynamo as the origin of geomagnetic
jerks correlated with length of day and
gravity anomaly
[The origin of 5.9-years and 11-years and semi-annual periodic
geophysical signals and Jovian planets alignments as the origin of
the abrupt geomagnetic jerks]
Mohsen LUTEPHY
Chemistry engineer and independent researcher
Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch,
Hwy Haggi St., Ahang, Iran; e-mail: [email protected], tel.: 00989354444405
Abstract: We report phenomenological inevitable correlation between the Sun’s mag-

netic field oscillation through the Earth and the Jupiter, with sinusoidal geomagnetic
jerks observed at the Earth, additionally aligned with the gravity and length of day si-
nusoidal variations and we observe too that the Sun and Jovian planets alignments with
Jupiter are origin of the observable abrupt geomagnetic jerks whether historical or new,
and experimental results demonstrate a possible explanation on the base of the planetary
induced currents upon the metallic liquid cores of the planets upon the varying external
magnetic fields as the source of heat flows continued by frictional turbulent and convec-
tional fluid fluxes, amplified and expanding by the Earth magnetic field and observations
are showing too that it should be an electric coupling effect between metallic cores of the
planets, under the magnetic field oscillation so that Jupiter conductive metallic region
interacts with Earth metallic core while the Sun’s magnetic field is oscillating through
the Jupiter and we see a relation between secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field
and long term trend of 5.9-years signals as a new method to measure geomagnetic secular
variation by LOD signals.
Key words: geological and geophysical evidences of deep processes, core dynamics, heat
flow, magnetic and electrical methods, gravity variations, dynamo theory, geomagnetic
field variations, solar-terrestrial interaction, planets alignment, geomagnetic jerks, LOD
variations
1. Introduction
A geomagnetic jerk or secular geomagnetic variation impulse is a relatively
sudden change in the second derivative of the Earth’s magnetic field with re-
spect to time. These events were noted initially by Courtillot et al. (1978),
doi: 10.2478/congeo-2018-0002 23
Lutephy M.: Interplanetary external driven quasidynamo . . . (23–74)
Malin and Hodder (1982), Courtillot and Le Mouël (1984). The clearest
ones, observed all over the world, happened in 1969, 1978, 1991, and 1999.
Data before 1969 is scarce, but there is evidence of other global jerks in
1901, 1913, and 1925. Other events at 1932, 1949, 1958, 1986 and 2003
were detected only in some parts of the world and new analyzing has de-
tected some next jerks. We do not want to introduce here a technical version
of the geomagnetic jerk features in detail for example the exact geographi-
cal map of the magnetic field variations or exact inverse engineering of the
secular variations to shape the core flows dynamics because that our paper
is not on the detection of the geomagnetic jerks. But we want to explain
here the origin of the detected geomagnetic jerks in addition with detection
of the LOD variations and relevant gravity changes all on the base of ex-
perimental results and solar system phenomenology and Maxwell equations
and hydrodynamics, and in reality we want to show here that the reported
geomagnetic jerks aligned with LOD variations and relevant gravity changes
are not appeared randomly suppose originated externally out of the Earth’s
atmosphere. But the introduction of geomagnetic jerks features in detail
is visible at multitude of the papers published before and for an excellent
general definition of the geomagnetic jerk features we may refer to the pa-
per Tozzi et al. (2009) and many next papers are included to the relevant
introductions not needed to repeat here.
By the way, measurements are showing the abrupt changes of the sec-
ular magnetic field in some dates (De Michelis et al., 2005; Brown et al.,
2013; Alexandrescu et al., 1996) assumed to be connected to the core flows
(Bloxham and Jackson, 1991; Mandea et al., 2010; Holme, 2007) and at the
paper “The origin of the geomagnetic jerks” (Bloxham et al., 2002), we see
a general explanation of process as noted that:
“The fact that they represent a reorganization of the secular variation im-
plies that they are of internal origin, and their short timescale implies that
they are due to a change in the fluid flow at the surface of the Earth’s core
(as has also been established through mapping the time-varying flow at the
core surface). However, little is understood of their physical origin. Here
we show that geomagnetic jerks can be explained by the combination of a
steady flow and a simple time-varying, axisymmetric, equatorially symmet-
ric, toroidal zonal flow. Such a flow is consistent with torsional oscillations
in the Earth’s core, which are simple oscillatory flows in the core that are
24
Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy Vol. 48/1, 2018 (23–74)
expected on theoretical grounds, and observed in both core flow models and
numerical dynamo models.”
An analysis on the measurements data is showing a background oscillat-
ing geomagnetic jerk as 5.9 years’ periodic oscillation of the geomagnetic
jerks (Silva et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2013) and as noted at Silva et al.
(2012) paper:
“The first time derivative of residual length-of-day observations is known
to contain a distinctive 6-year periodic oscillation. Here we theorize that
through the flow accelerations at the top of the core the same periodicity
should arise in the geomagnetic secular acceleration. We use the secular
acceleration of the CHAOS-3 and CM4 geomagnetic field models to recover
frequency spectra through both a traditional Fourier analysis and empirical
mode decomposition. We identify the 6-year periodic signal in the geomag-
netic secular acceleration and characterize its spatial behaviour.”
The analysis by scientists on the LOD observations show that the length
of day is changing periodically almost 5.9 years (Vondrák and Burša, 1977;
Liao and Greiner-Mai, 1999; Abarca del Rio et al., 2000; Mound and Buf-
fett, 2003; 2006; Olsen and Mandea, 2007; Holme and de Viron, 2013) as a
verification for oscillation of the Earth’s rotation aligned with geomagnetic
jerk 5.9 years oscillation and not only the 5.9 years periodic signals are
confirmed for times above 1960 suppose as noted at Holme and de Viron
(2013), the 5.9 years signals have been confirmed for times before 1960 as:
“Also plotted (vertically shifted for clarity) are the decadal varying signal
alone and the data with the 5.9-year oscillation subtracted, demonstrating
the separation of the oscillation from the background trend. Inference from
spectral studies suggests that the 5.9-year oscillation is also present prior to
1960.”
We have shown here phenomenological evidences for link of the interplan-
etary external sources and internal core flows, and new reported geomag-
netic jerks and historical geomagnetic jerks (Korte et al., 2009; Qamili et
al., 2013; Matzka et al., 2010) are being detected all in agreement with Jo-
vian planets alignments and observations show the 11-year periodic signals
too and strongly this is correlated to the solar activity and we have shown
here the origin of the planetary semi-annual signals too. On the other hand,
recently it was published an article by Anderson et al. (2015) on the gravi-
tational constant G measurements data, reported in these decades and their
25
analysis in the data shows the Earth’s gravity is oscillating at the same pe-
riod the Earth rotation is oscillating and Mandea et al. (2012) has analyzed
the data from continuous satellite measurements made from 1999 to 2010
so that oscillation of the Earth’s magnetic jerk aligns with Earth’s gravity
oscillation and for exact analysis on data we may refer to Schlamminger et
al. (2015).
We need to notice that the main reason of jerks is outside of the Earth.
In the paper it is considered as the interplanetary driven partial quasidy-
namo which, of course, is not the self consistent hydromagnetic dynamo,
mechanism operating in the Earth‘s outer core. This partial quasidynamo
is an of external origin perturbation of flows and magnetic fields on the
CMB.
In the section 1 – in the introduction we have described the annals of the
Geomagnetic jerks and LOD variations and gravity anomalies in relevant
together and we have shown some examples of the occurrences and a simple
definition of the parameters and data and in the section 2. We have dis-
cussed purely the possible mechanism and probable methods and we have
resulted the equations and formulas on the base of the Maxwell equations
and hydrodynamics and in section 3. We have shown the observational data
and experimental results referenced to the published papers and reported
data by scientists to set with pure results aligned with description of the
compatibles included to the relevant figures and tables and this section,
we have referred to the solar system simulators to evaluate the parameters
and ultimately in the conclusions it has been described the most important
motes of the paper in simplest and shortest sentences.
2. Method and theory
For explanation of the observations and experimental reports we put forward

a logical mechanism on the base of the Maxwell equations and hydrodynam-
ics, in addition with some experimental results, actually accepted and we
refer to the scientific references and we have verified the mechanism in result
by reported data and observed phenomena. Generally, the proposed mech-
anism is a quasidynamo, initiated externally by the Sun and Jovian planets
affecting at the Earth’s conductive outer core. But it should be noticed
26
that this quasidynamo is not the self consistent hydromagnetic dynamo in

dynamo region of the cosmic body. But in the Earth‘s core it is a partial
dynamo as a perturbation on the CMB.
2.1. Interplanetary induced currents as the origin of the partial

core flows
The geomagnetic jerks reveal presence of the core flows (Bullard, 1948) as
quoted by Bullard that:
“It may be subject to turbulent currents due to thermal convection or to the
shearing forces associated with the secular deceleration of the Earth. Such
motions would cause the conducting material of the core to move across the
Earth’s magnetic field and would produce electric currents. These electric
currents would produce a further magnetic field, and it is the purpose of
this paper to consider the hypothesis that the changes in this field constitute
the secular change. We do not consider the origin of the main field itself,
but merely use the observed fact of its existence as part of the mechanism
required to produce the secular change.”
It has been theorized to exist secular change of the magnetic field, rel-
evant to the chaotic occurrences of the core flows as mentioned in some
papers, for example Qamili et al. (2013). But observations are showing
that partial geomagnetic jerks over time scale of a year or more, almost all
are not random suppose random processes probably are atmospheric (iono-
sphere and magnetosphere) tiny effects and some long time secular vari-
ations might dependent too to convectional heat processes in the mantle
(Biggin et al., 2012) and then based on the Bullard suggested mechanism,
it remains turbulent currents due to the thermal convection as a possible
internal origin of the geomagnetic jerks whereas that we may refer to newer
papers, for example Bloxham et al. (2002), Dumberry and Bloxham (2006).
For geomagnetic jerk extraction from core flows and dynamo driven core
currents, we may refer to a scientific technical report (Wardinski, 2004)
“Core Surface Flow Models from Decadal and Sub decadal Secular Varia-
tion of the Main Geomagnetic Field”.
At all papers the geomagnetic jerks are completely on the Maxwell equa-
tions and hydrodynamics related to the core fluxes and the fluid fluxes cause
to oscillate the gravity and Earth’s spin because of asymmetric change in the
27
moment of inertia for change of gravity (Dumberry, 2010) and the exchange
of angular momentum between the outer core and solid mantle (Mound
and Buffett, 2006). For Earth’s spin change and in addition to periodic
geomagnetic jerks we observe, abrupt geomagnetic jerks, reported in some
dates, and these abrupt geomagnetic jerks are aligned with gravity and LOD
anomalies too (Holme and de Viron, 2005; Nakada, 2009).
The cores of the planets are liquid conductors and then a possible expla-
nation is on the base of the eddy currents or generally geomagnetic induced
currents (GIC) (Fink and Christiansen, 1989). Eddy currents are loops of
the electric currents, induced within conductors by a changing magnetic
field in the conductor due to the Faraday law of induction.
A conductor object in a varying magnetic field or upon an AC voltage
will experience dissipation of kinetic energy and braking effect. This mecha-
nism does generate an external driven fluid fluxes as a partial quasidynamo
which might be defined as a perturbation in the whole Earth’s dynamo and
versus a theory published newly on the whole generation of the Earth’s
dynamo by lunar tidal effect (Andrault et al., 2016) which is so far to ac-
cept, the mechanism of interplanetary external driven dynamo here is a
secondary partial dynamo and ultimately, the drag forces are created by in-
duced currents and electrical resistance within conductors cause a dragging
effect analogous to friction which dissipates the kinetic energy as a source
for convectional hydrodynamic flows. In both externally driven and inter-
nally driven secular variations of the magnetic field, the cause are induced
currents and relevant heat convection and core fluid fluxes, based on the
Maxwell electromagnetism and hydrodynamics. However, the braking ef-
fect of the eddy currents too may result, the variation in the length of day.
We should notice that the Earth has internal driven fluid fluxes too and
some of the core flows which they cause to appear secular variation of the
geomagnetic field are relevant to the internal sources as the secondary dy-
namos. But external driven partial dynamos have own relevant induced
currents, penetrative in the Earth’s metallic core and some partial induced
currents are generated by external sources and continued by relevant core
flows. Motion of these external driven core flows through the Earth’s mag-
netic field will generate again, secondary induced currents by dynamo shape
mechanism. The Earth’s magnetic field will expand and amplify the exter-
nally driven heat processes. Thus, the Earth’s magnetic field is reason to
28
continue and expand occurrences of the fluid fluxes and then the retarda-
tion of the visible events, and ultimately neutralized in an equilibrium point
by Magnetohydrodynamics as a mechanism initially developed by Alfvén
(1942) which causes to set fluids along the magnetic field lines or return-
ing to ever stable motions in equilibrium points with those relevant secular
change.
On the other hand against the internally driven core flows which moving
at whole inside of the core, on the base of the externally driven quasidy-
namo we understand that the external driven core flows will be generated
near the core mantle boundary (CMB) for that, in a perfect conductor with
no resistance, the surface eddy currents, exactly cancel the field inside the
conductor, so no external magnetic field penetrates inside the conductor and
then, eddy currents will be generated on the core mantle boundary. Recent
investigations of the secular acceleration pulses in the Earth’s magnetic field
have concluded that these events, observed at the Earth’s surface, are re-
sulted at the core mantle boundary (Bloxham, 1988; Buffett et al., 2016;
Chulliat et al., 2010; Mandea et al., 2000; Gire et al., 1986) or, (Voorhies,
1986, 1993, 1995, 2004). Then the core mantle boundary (CMB) is dom-
inant area for external driven fluxes originated by induced currents with
hundreds kilometer diameter to generate geomagnetic jerks as reported and
mentioned by scientists in references. Of course penetration of the exter-
nally driven quasidynamo to the core inside concerns to conductivity of the
metallic core and by decrease of the conductivity, the penetration depth of
external driven quasidynamo will increase proportionally.
In reality, the core flows models are scientific predictions from observa-
tions of the geomagnetic secular variations (with jerks included), accompa-
nied with LOD variations and gravity anomalies, as an inverse engineering
of the geomagnetic jerks’ observations and for a mathematical analysis on
the inverse theory, schematically we may refer in some sections to the paper
Aubert (2013).
Fluid fluxes are not ended after end of the initial generation of induced
currents, but continued by the Earth’s magnetic field. Because of the ab-
sorption and generation of the heat, they do not occur simultaneously and
not in a constant position. They can’t neutralize themselves suppose con-
tinued in the core as the hydrodynamic flows to develop induced currents
upon the Earth’s magnetic field. While it exits several number of the fluid
29
fluxes, the event is visible as global. But since there is alone one fluid flux
it seems local event (Bloxham et al., 2002; De Michelis et al., 2005; Duka
et al., 2012).
Mathematical solutions on the base of the Maxwell equations and hydro-
dynamics have been developed for such an inverse theory and the problem
of electromagnetic induction in thin sheets was first formulated by Price
(1949) in terms of the scalar magnetic potentials of the inducing and in-
duced magnetic fields and developed by Ashour (1950) to investigate the
problem of induction of electric currents in a uniformly conducting circular
disk.
But we have a schematic comparable similarity between planetary driven
induced currents and ionosphere induced currents by geomagnetic field os-
cillations (Ashour and Price, 1948). Strong reason of this schematic correla-
tion is conductivity of both ionosphere and liquid cores and the reality that
the penetration of the Solar magnetic fields into the planetary interiors is
possible and similar to this penetration into their ionospheres.
It has long been known that the compass needle daily executes small
regular oscillations and Stewart (1882) concluded that the daily magnetic
variations were due to electric currents in the upper atmosphere and Stew-
art also suggested that convective currents established by the Sun’s heating
influence are to be regarded as “conductors moving across lines of mag-
netic force, and are thus the vehicle of electric currents which act upon the
magnet”. It is convenient to call this hypothesis of Stewart’s the “dynamo
theory”.
The theory received early support from Schuster (1889), who proved that
the greater part of the field of the Geomagnetic variations has its origin out-
side the Earth, and that the remainder may reasonably be attributed to the
Earth’s currents induced by the varying external field and Schuster (1908)
developed a dynamo theory for such an external effect. Improved the the-
ory further, giving special attention to the magnetic variations due to tides
caused by Moon, which are more amenable to theoretical treatment of ex-
ternally driven induced currents. Martyn (1949) showed that the oscillation
of the ionospheric E region was likely to be due to the electrodynamic forces
associated with the currents responsible for the lunar magnetic variations.
The current induction in an anisotropic ionosphere by external fields has
been studied by Ashour and Ferraro (1962; 1964) so that certain distribu-
30
tions of freely decaying currents in a spherical shell model of the ionosphere

of non-isotropic electric conductivity would rotate about the geomagnetic
axis. We may refer to the paper Ferris and Price (1965) as the currents in-
duced by periodic and aperiodic magnetic fields in a uniformly ionized spher-
ical shell rendered anisotropic by a permanent dipole field. Schematically
here we consider spherical shell of the Earth’s core, rendered anisotropic
by the permanent dipole field of the Earth, situated to generate induced
currents by initial effect of interplanetary external magnetic fields and the
generation of the eddy currents in the ionosphere by oscillation of the ge-
omagnetic field, mechanically is the same generation of the eddy currents
in the core of the Earth by oscillation of the external magnetic fields and
for motion of the induced currents in the core of the planets by external
magnetic fields, we may refer to the paper Price and Ferris (1962). We
can generalize mathematical equations of the electromagnetic induction in
an infinite plane sheet with a circular hole by an external magnetic field
(Ferris, 1973), with a spherical conductor with a hole in the centre to show
the mathematical equations for induced currents in the conductive cores of
the planets and it needs no to repeat equations again here.
2.2. Jupiter intermediate electric coupling effect upon terrestrial

planets metallic cores
The flows at the top of the core, affect to generate LOD variations as noted
by Holme and Buffett (2015) that:
“We also consider the implications for the connection between core-surface
flow and length-of day variation – a stably stratified layer has implications
for interpretation of core flow and the Earth’s angular momentum budget.”
And we may refer to Holme and de Viron (2013) as noted that:
“Interdecadal periods have been less clear, and have been characterised by
signals with a wide range of periods and varying amplitudes, including a
peak at around 6 years. Here, by working in the time domain, rather than
the frequency domain, we demonstrate a clear partition of non-atmospheric
component into only three components: a decadally varying trend, 5.9-year
period oscillation and jumps at times contemporaneous with geomagnetic
jerks.”
The observations of 5.9 years periodic signals are showing we have geo-
31
magnetic jerks in the Earth by varying the Sun’s magnetic field through the
Jupiter and this phenomenology shows that the Jupiter with big metallic
region has an intermediate effect electromagnetically on the Earth’s con-
ductive core and thus, we have the Jupiter driven partial core flows on the
terrestrial planets conductive cores and Jupiter effect is much larger than
that of other Jovian planets for its giant metallic region and nearness to
the Sun and nearness to the terrestrial planets and then mainly we detect
Jupiter-driven core flows at the Earth by the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation
through the Jupiter.
The Jovian magnetic field amplitude at the Earth’s position is very
smaller than that of the Sun and this means that the Jupiter’s magnetic
field is not directly affecting to generate eddy currents at the core of the
Earth and in reality, the period of signals in LOD variations and geomag-
netic jerks, don’t verify such a direct effect suppose the periodicities are
showing that the Jupiter has an intermediate effect on the Earth’s core to
generate geomagnetic jerks and relevant LOD variations and probable grav-
ity anomalies.
Observations are showing that the Sun should be affecting on the Jupiter
electrically conducting region and this Jupiter metallic Hydrogen region is
influencing on the Earth’s metallic core as an indirect intermediate effect.
But what is the mechanism of this interaction between metallic electrically
conducting regions?
It is almost impossible for such an interacting effect of the metallic cores
under the magnetic field variations by Hall effect and then we may refer to
Nipher experiments as a possible explanation. In the Nipher experiments
(Nipher, 1916; 1917; 1918) two metallic spheres were used so that a small
metallic core was in the Faraday cage and a next big metallic core was
outstanding and when Nipher used a AC voltage into the outstanding big
metallic core, it was observed a difference in the atomic level electric field
as a reason to generate electric interaction between these metallic spheres.
As noted in the New York Times (19 September 1917):
“It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not
only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion
which is more than twice as great as normal attraction.”
In further experiments (1918), Nipher decided to check his results. To do
this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled
32
Fig. 1. Gravitational repulsion caused between large & small masses. Current on.
with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass)
rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by
sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal
boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been,
but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be de-
tected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the “repulsion” and
“gravitational nullification” effects that he had produced when the solid
balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a
true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic
or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. In Nipher
experiments (Nipher, 1920) it was noted that:
“Results obtained on December 12 last are alone sufficient to establish the
fact that enormous local changes in the earth’s potential are constantly oc-
curring and these changes produce variations in gravitational attraction be-
tween large masses and suspended masses.”
In addition, it was noted by Very (1919) that:
“Nipher has shown that electric charges slowly penetrate into the substance
of the leaden spheres of the Cavendish apparatus, producing a repulsion
which is of the same order as their gravitational attraction, and this is no
matter whether the electricity be positive or negative. After equilibrium is
attained, and exhibition of the opposite sort of electricity penetrates most
rapidly into the substance of the smaller spheres and reverses their electric
sign first, when, for a time, there may be electric attraction, or at least a
progressively diminishing repulsion between the large and small spheres; but
33
when saturation is reached, the spheres repel each other as before... It is

a misnomer, however, to call the effect as Nipher does, a “gravitational”
repulsion.”
Then we can generalize such a phenomenon to the solar system and if
we consider the Jupiter’s metallic core as the same big outstanding metallic
sphere in the Nipher experiments and Earth’s metallic core as the same small
metallic sphere in the Nipher experiments, then schematically we can wait
for a very small electric interaction between Jupiter’s and Earth’s metallic
cores, while the Sun’s magnetic field is oscillating through the Jupiter as
the same that Nipher used AC voltage into big outstanding metallic sphere.
From Nipher experiments, the metallic atoms show infinitesimal small
electric interaction under the influence of the vibrational magnetic field and
then, when the Sun’s magnetic field is oscillating through the Jupiter metal-
lic region, it appears an infinitesimal small electric interaction as an electric
coupling effect between Jupiter metallic region and other planets electrically
conducting regions.
The electric coupling effect of planets electrically conducting regions how-
ever, is infinitesimal small but in the planetary scales we may see for Jupiter
very big metallic Hydrogen region, a small measurable effect reasoning to
vary the atomic potential energy of other planets metallic regions and too
an electric force between metallic regions to appear braking effect and too
shearing forces between metallic region and surrounding shell (e.g. mantle
in the Earth).
Such a similar mechanism has been revealed newly for super conduc-
tors and we may refer to the famous experiments by Eugene Podkletnov
(Podkletnov and Nieminen, 1992; Podkletnov and Vuorinen, 1996; Podklet-
nov, 1997), known for his claims made in the 1990 of designing devices
consisting of rotating discs constructed from ceramic superconducting ma-
terials. Podkletnov used a superconducting ceramic disc by rotating it above
powerful electromagnets and he noticed something extremely strange. Small
objects above the disc seemed to lose weight.
By the way, strongly the metallic bodies on the influence of the mag-
netic field variation will generate an electric interaction, however not easy
to detect in small scales but we may observe a very small size of electric
interaction between the large scale metallic bodies, for example the cores
of the planets and it has been false idea to consider just the pure gravity
34
between planets and we may accept ultimately that there is a partial electric
interaction while the planets are upon the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation.
Then Sun’s magnetic field oscillation through the Jupiter will generate
shearing forces at the CMB as a turbulent flows generated by frictional
forces between solid mantle and molten core, and mechanism of this fric-
tional core flows is the same initially proposed by Bullard (1948) and the
change of atomic level potential energy is creating too, convectional heat
flows.
The primordial heat generation of the planets may be too relevant to the
change of the atomic level potential energy in the metallic cores and this
change of the potential energy possibly may reason to generate heat flows
in the core and their relevant convectional flows and then all geomagnetic
jerks may not be relevant to the shearing forces but directly may be relevant
to convectional flows.
The interaction of the planets cores is visible in the phenomena and
here, we will see that LOD variations and geomagnetic jerk reports and rel-
evant gravity anomalies are verifying external driven quasidynamo included
systematically to the metallic cores electric coupling effect and this is a
proposed mechanism here as a theory on the base of the phenomenologi-
cal reports and physical sciences. But scientists may refer to their theories
however experimental reports show that the Jupiter metallic region has
an influence on the Earth’s core as a coupling effect and Jovian planets
alignments with Jupiter are verifying such a process and this is verified by
analysis of the data here.
2.3. Jovian planets alignments as the amplifier effect
It was understood above that the Jupiter metallic region is active to in-
teract on the terrestrial planets metallic cores, of course since it be upon
the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation. But at the alignment dates which the
Jupiter is aligned with other Jovian planets or the Sun is in the middle of
Jovian alignment, the empirical results are showing that the Sun and Jovian
planets alignments with Jupiter are reason to enhance the electric activity
of the Jupiter to interact upon the terrestrial planets metallic cores. The
mechanism of this amplification phenomenon is not exactly clear yet but as
we will show it in the next sections, the reported data of geomagnetic jerks
35
are verifying completely it and we will see that analysis of the scientific re-
ported data shows exactly that the alignment effect is not a direct magnetic
effect suppose it works as an amplification for electric coupling effect and
the size of the planetary magnetic fields is tiny to generate such a direct
effect.
At the alignments, the Jupiter metallic region has the more tendency to
interact with terrestrial planets metallic cores means that the alignment of
active conductive cores cause the electric coupling effect between metallic
cores to be amplified as an electric resonance and such a phenomenon re-
quires to be followed by scientists in detail whereas here on the base of the
jerks data and LOD variations, it is visible that the alignment effect am-
plifies the electric coupling effect between metallic cores of planets means
that the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation upon the electrically conducting re-
gions of planets activates the planets electric interaction and Jovian planets
alignments enhances it.
It was noted above that there exist a schematic similarity between the
ionosphere induced currents by external magnetic field variations and inter-
planetary externally driven quasidynamo and then it is probable to observe
the enhancement effect of geomagnetic variations in the ionosphere too. In
a theoretical discussion of the solar atmosphere, Cowling (1932) considered
the consequences, for the electron conductivity, of the inhibition of the Hall
current by polarization of the medium; he found this conductivity thereby
increased from the Pedersen value to that which obtained in the absence
of a magnetic field. Martyn (1948) suggested that this effect might be re-
sponsible for the high conductivity necessary in the ionosphere to meet the
requirements of the dynamo theory.
As noted Egedal (1947), the daily magnetic variations are considerably
enhanced in a narrow zone near the magnetic equators. Martyn (1949) ex-
amined the data accumulating regarding this equatorial enhancement, with
a view to testing the applicability of the enhanced conductivity to this re-
gion. He found evidence consistent with the existence of a narrow belt of
high conductivity encircling the Earth in a region lying near the equators
and for Hall current polarization on ionosphere at all latitudes we may refer
to Baker and Martyn (1953).
Then it is very probable that Jovian planetary alignments which cause
to enhance the Jovian driven quasidynamo, to be dependent to the induced
36
current polarization at Jupiter by Jovian planets alignments with Jupiter

and such a mechanism may be discussed by scientists in detail for that
here, inverse engineering of phenomena shows existence of enhancing effect
by Jovian planets alignments.
3. Results
3.1. Solar magnetic field oscillation and planetary core flows
Schematically referring to the paper Ferris and Price (1965), the idea that
the ionosphere shields the Earth from magnetic field fluctuation outside it
is not entirely valid and then, for induced current driven by variation of the
external magnetic field and the reality that the magnitude of the current
in a given loop is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field, it is
resulted that the magnetic jerks OM in each planet M , it corresponds to the
first time derivative of the external magnetic fields B iM through the planet
which iis i-th magnetic field and M is M-th planet which the magnetic field
passes through in so that:
OM = kM |∂BiM /∂t| . (1)
The influence of the external magnetic fields to the conductive core of the
planets is not equal for different planets suppose coefficient k M seems to be
small for terrestrial planets, probably for those with solid mantle and thus
we should wait for record of the geomagnetic jerks in the Jovian planets
highly, directly by the Sun’s magnetic field variation through them however
this realization is very hard and in this time some scientists are analyzing
large scale variations in Jupiter (Ridley and Holme, 2016). For the Earth by
consideration of the Sun’s inverse cube force of magnetic field and Earth’s
equation of its elliptical orbit we deduce the Sun’s effect on the Earth’s core
by Eq. (1) that:

2π
O3 = −4
K30 r30
× sin t + θ3 . (2)
T3
So that K30 is a coefficient for penetration of the Sun’s magnetic field

into the Earth’s core and r30 is Sun-Earth distance and T3 is the Earth
orbital period and t is date and θ 3 is time phase relevant to the considered
37
date however θ 3 is almost near to zero for Earth because that year beginning
is at the date that the Earth is almost at the major axis however θ is not
zero for other planets clearly.
By equation (2) we expect relevant geomagnetic jerk and LOD variations
and this equation is showing semi-annual signal for geomagnetic jerk and
LOD variation in the planets relevant to oscillation of the θ’s magnetic field
through the planets, of course actually included to those relevant retarda-
tions. By Eq. (2) we should expect minimum amplitudes for signals when
the Earth is on the major axis because, the sinus function at Eq. (2) is zero
at major axis and for points of the orbit that first time derivative of the
Sun’s magnetic field through the Earth is maximum we should expect peaks
for geomagnetic jerk and LOD variation diagrams and, for orbits near to
circle, these maximum values of the magnetic field time derivative should
lie on the minor axis.
This semi-annual oscillation is just match with first time derivative of
the Sun’s magnetic field through the planets because that the Sun’s fea-
tures similar to the solar wind and heat and radiation are not oscillating at
the planets position in such a oscillation phase which peaks be happened
just at the major axis and minor axis of the orbits and then if the measure-
ments at the Earth are verifying semi-annual signals which the peaks be
happened at the major and minor axes then such an experimental results
will verify completely the reality that the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation at
the planets does generate relevant semi-annual signals.
Now question is that is visible such a sinusoidal semi-annual signals at
the LOD variation and geomagnetic jerk and gravity anomalies?
For such a semi-annual signals we may refer to many papers for example
Le Mouël et al. (2010) or in the paper Höpfner (1998) we observe clear semi-
annual oscillations of the LOD, relevant to reality that the core flows are
dependent on the Sun as a complete phenomenological evidence for exter-
nally driven quasidynamo and we observe in the Fig. 2, complete agreement
of LOD variation semi-annual signals with Sun’s magnetic field sinusoidal
oscillation at the Earth position as a wonderful inevitable paradigm.
As it is visible the sinusoidal functions are completely in agreement and
such a symmetry is impossible to be occurred accidentally and similar semi-
annual variations should be appeared in the other planets too, of course
planetary semi-annual sinusoids in that planets.
38
Fig. 2. The comparison of semi-annual LOD signals (Höpfner, 1998) versus the Sun’s
magnetic field oscillation through the Earth’s orbit.
39
3.2. The 5.9-years geophysical signals
Jupiter metallic region is able not only to induct flows to the core of the
terrestrial planets suppose even, the induction is being amplified and ex-
panded by planets magnetic field and for Earth we have below equation so
that u53 is showing Jupiter penetration coefficient as the fifth planet on the
Earth as the third planet in the solar system and i is i-th external magnetic
field indices so that:
N

O3 = u53 |∂Bi5 /∂t| . (3)
i=0
Of course the Sun’s magnetic field B05 through the Jupiter is much greater
than that of the other external magnetic fields at the Jupiter position and
then this equation is transferred to a simpler equation that:
O3 = u53 |∂B05 /∂t| . (4)
Then geomagnetic jerks in terrestrial planets are mainly relevant to the

first time derivative of the external magnetic fields through the Jupiter
with partial effect dependent to the Jupiter distance from the Earth so that
by inverse cube force of magnetic field and the equation of Jupiter elliptical
orbit we deduce for Sun’s effect on Jupiter and Jupiter secondary interaction
effect on Earth that:

−4
2π
O3 = K50 r50 × sin t − 0.9 . (5)
T5
And K is additional coefficient different for each planet and r 50 is distance
of the Sun from the Jupiter and geomagnetic jerk O 3 is relevant just to
the value of the external magnetic fields allowing us to compare the Sun
and planets in their effect to the Jupiter and −0.9 is phase of the Jupiter
in its orbit around the Sun relevant to the considered date. The Eq. (5)
has period as half of the Jupiter orbital period means T 5 /2 = 5.93 yr for
that, the magnetic field changing through the Jupiter is relevant to radial
distance varying.
Observations confirm tightly both the period and phase of the signals
with partially Jovian driven quasidynamo and such a complete agreement
never could be appeared randomly and for geomagnetic jerk confirmation
40
with Eq. (5), we may refer to paper Silva et al. (2012) and as noted by
(Brown et al., 2013), the jerk amplitudes suggest possible periodic trends
which may related to the 6-year periods detected independently in the ge-
omagnetic secular variation and length-of-day. Length of day and secular
variation of the magnetic field are dependent on the core flows (Holme and
de Viron, 2005) as noted in this paper for a time-series that:
“By subtracting computed atmospheric angular momentum from a time-
series for length-of-day variations, we obtain a high-resolution time-series
that is useful for studying the effects of core on length-of-day variations.
Features in time-series are closely correlated with time at which geomagnetic
jerks have been observed, suggesting a role for core in angular momentum
exchange within Earth system on timescales as short as one year, and that
jerks are directly related to processes responsible for changes in core angular
momentum.”
At Fig. 3 we observe correlation between sinusoid of LOD variations and
Jupiter driven geomagnetic sinusoid at Eq. (5) so that the left side dia-
gram contributes to the analysis at Duan (2015) and we may refer to other
databases too.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the LOD variations signals and the Sun’s magnetic field sinusoid
through the Jupiter.
For gravity changes, referring to Schlamminger et al. (2015) as noted

by Anderson et al. (2015), fit shows the period is almost 5.91 years and
agreement of oscillation of the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter and
gravity oscillation is visible at Fig. 4.
Coefficient u53 in Eq. (3) corresponds to Jupiter-Earth distance because
that the electric coupling effect of the cores is relevant partially to the
41
Fig. 4. A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve)

(Credit: Anderson et al. (2015) EPLA) that closely matches the 5.9-year oscillation in
the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter.
Jupiter-Earth distance. but we should notice that the sinusoid of geomag-

netic jerk is not dependent on the parameter u 53 for that, peaks are rel-
evant to the first time derivative of the Sun’s magnetic field through the
Jupiter. Coefficient u53 is almost constant for small changes of distance like
the Jupiter-Earth distance as a factor between 1–1.5 however probably de-
tectable in very accurate analysis and it was detected a near period 1.023 yr
in revised G measurement (Schlamminger et al., 2015) as noted in Anderson
et al. (2015).
3.3 Jovian planets alignments as the source of abrupt geomag-

netic jerks
Then the Jovian planets alignments with Jupiter is reason to amplify the
electromagnetic activity of the Jupiter which is the source of 5.93 years
periodic signal. This amplification is a source to generate abrupt geomag-
42
netic jerks visible at the Earth surface. It means that the Jovian planets
alignments with Jupiter are reason to enhance the Jupiter metallic region
electromagnetic activity to influence on the Earth’s core so that Jovian
driven geomagnetic jerk is enhanced by an alignment amplifier factor λ as:
O3∗ = λO3 . (6)
So that O3 is geomagnetic jerk at Eq. (4) and O ∗ is relevant total geomag-

netic jerk amplified by jovian planets alignments.
We show here in the tables, the correlation of the alignments with ob-
served geomagnetic jerks O ∗ . The line arc is the angle between Jupiter’s
major axis and Sun-Jupiter line and the geomagnetic jerks are proportional
with sinusoid of line arc of the Jupiter according to the Eq. (5) and corre-
lation of Jovian planets alignments with amplification of the geomagnetic
jerks is an inevitable confirmation.
The geomagnetic jerks are not simultaneous because spatial distribution
of the core flows occur with retardation and usually the event begins from
northern hemisphere and ends to the south (De Michelis et al., 2005). This
may concern to the migration of the flows, and the alignment date should be
almost the beginning time of occurrence. This is an evidence that the core
flows are expanding by Earth’s magnetic field after generation at alignment
epoch. The research of all alignments between 1890 to 2020 is presented in
the next Tables 1–9.
In these tables for alignments dates we have referred to NASA’s solar
system simulator (NASA’S EYES: Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Line arc
is angle between Jupiter’s major axis and Sun-Jupiter line in that orbit
around the Sun and L as the length of the alignment defined as the dis-
tance between left and right planets in the alignment and reports are data
for occurrences of the geomagnetic jerks referring to the published papers
and each mentioned amplitude for an especial geomagnetic jerk in the tables
it is relevant to the detected amplitude referenced in the relevant report in
that table.
Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus is very strong alignment so that it is visible the
reports in the fewer line arcs too and we observe agreement between the
alignments line arcs and amplitudes of the reported geomagnetic jerks as a
verification for Eqs. (5, 6).
For Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus in comparison with Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus we
43
Table 1. Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line arc L (AU) Reports
1915.08.30 for event 1915 ∼ 25 ∼ 29 Brown et al., 2013;
Qamili et al., 2013
1922.08.02 Less marked event ∼8 ∼ 28 –
1925.02.04 for event 1925 ∼ 77 ∼ 27 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
1958.03.16–
1959.08.12 Tangential event 1958 ∼ 9 − 45 ∼ 28 Golovkov et al., 1989
1968.07.09 Related to 1969 event ∼ 37 ∼ 29 Le Mouël et al., 1982;
Malin et al., 1983
2010.07.10 For event 2011 ∼ 25 ∼ 30 Chulliat and Maus, 2014
Fig. 5. The Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.
see that when Jupiter is between the Jovian planets, the generated effect
is almost two times stronger and it is wonder that recorded jerk at 1896 is
exactly for lining up at 1895.08.11.
Again we see that the alignments of Saturn-Jupiter-Neptune with much
less line arcs, have no any jerk reports and generally all relevant geomag-
netic jerks are less marked as a relation between alignment arm length and
amplitude of the geomagnetic jerk.
Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune average arm length is almost equal to Saturn-
Jupiter-Neptune arm length but Jupiter is not in the middle and then the
amplitude is almost half and there is no any reported geomagnetic jerks
relevant to these alignments else a less marked event for 1989.11.11 if it be
possible to discriminate between other geomagnetic jerks occurred almost
simultaneously.
It is visible that the relevant geomagnetic jerks are less marked and this
is completely in agreement with size of the alignments arm length and value
44
Table 2. Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line arc L (AU) Reports
1895.08.11 Observed at 1896–1898 ∼ 86 ∼ 24.5 Balasis et al., 2016
1944.05.15 From 1945,
a strong field spreads
until 1949 ∼ 51 ∼ 19.5 Duka et al., 2012
1989.02.04 for a group of events ∼ 49 ∼ 24.5 Cafarella and Meloni, 1995;
centred at 1990.1 Macmillian, 1996;
De Michelis et al., 2005
Fig. 6. The Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.
of the line arcs in the Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune alignment.

Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune alignment is once happened in considered inter-
val and in this alignment, the Jupiter is not in the middle but alignment
length is lesser than that of Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune and then probably less
marked report at 1992 is caused by this alignment.
At the date 1998.06.20, the Jupiter has no any alignment but Saturn
is almost in MOID (Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance) with Jupiter
and Saturn plays the role of Jupiter here so that we have an alignment
Neptune-Uranus-Saturn to activate highly the Saturn, and Saturn influence
on the Jupiter is in the same manner that Jupiter is influencing Earth and
thus, consequently the Jupiter is influencing on the Earth by Saturn align-
ment effect and Saturn should be in its active zone of influence and solar
system simulators are verifying this and the report of geomagnetic jerk at
epoch 1999 (Brown et al., 2013; Mandea et al., 2000) is revealing this. Such
an event is being occurred at the date 1936.06.15 for alignment Saturn-
45
Table 3. Saturn-Jupiter-Neptune.
Line date Description Line arc L (AU) Report
1896.01.05 Less marked event ∼ 73 ∼ 39 Balasis et al., 2016
1902.10.26 Less marked event 1902–1903 ∼ 58 ∼ 39 Alexandrescu et al., 1996;
1902–1903 Duka et al., 2012
1904.05.01 – ∼6 ∼ 39 –
1933.11.30 – ∼ 10 ∼ 39 –
1971.07.10 For event 1972.1 ∼ 47 ∼ 40 Chambodut et al., 2007;
Duka et al., 2012
2008.11.11 for 2009 (–18.6 nT/yr2 ) ∼ 80 ∼ 40 Chulliat and Maus, 2014;
Kotzé and Korte, 2016
Fig. 7. The Saturn-Jupiter-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.
Table 4. Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune.
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line angle L (AU) Report
1915.12.18 – ∼ 15 ∼ 34 –
1952.08.06 – ∼ 19 ∼ 35 –
1989.11.11 For event centred at 1990.1 ∼ 74 ∼ 35 Cafarella and Meloni, 1995;
De Michelis et al., 2000)
Fig. 8. The Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.
46
Table 5. Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line arc L (AU) Jerk reports
1896.06.17 CLF and NGK Y -component ∼ 61 ∼ 49 Balasis et al., 2016
1899.04.10 Much less marked event ∼ 45 ∼ 49 –
1907.05.04 Less marked event observed 1908 ∼ 87 ∼ 50 Qamili et al., 2013;
observed 1908 Balasis et al., 2016
1915.03.14 Less marked event at 1915 ∼ 43 ∼ 49 Balasis et al., 2016
1918.06.08 Less marked observed
event 1919 ∼ 66 ∼ 49 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
Fig. 9. The Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.
Table 6. Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune
Line date Description Line arc L (AU) Jerk reports
1991.09.05 Report around 1992 ∼ 52 ∼ 34 Le Huy et al., 1998;
Brown et al., 2013
Fig. 10. The Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.
Sun-Neptune which the Saturn is almost in minimum distance with Jupiter

and it is observable a less marked geomagnetic jerk for that at epoch 1937
(Golovkov et al., 1989).
47
Table 7. Jupiter-Sun-Saturn
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line arc (deg) Jerk reports
1892.01.16 observed event at 1983 ∼ 22 Nevanlinna, 2004;
Balasis et al., 2016
1911.05.14 observed event at 1912–1913 ∼ 25 Alexandrescu et al., 1996;
Ducruix et al., 1983
1930.12.23 observed event at 1932 ∼ 87 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
1951.08.04 observed event at 1952 ∼ 14 Duka et al., 2012
1971.01.12 observed event at 1972 ∼ 36 Chambodut and Mandea, 2005;
Qamili et al., 2013
1990.07.22 observed event at 1991 ∼ 84 De Michelis et al., 2005
2011.02.18 – ∼2 –
Fig. 11. The Jupiter-Sun-Saturn alignments and relevant line arcs.
By the way, the Jovian alignments generate geomagnetic jerks propor-

tional with sinus of the line arcs and some very strong alignments are pos-
sible to occur in much less line arcs and null results are in weak influence
zone of the Jupiter and this phenomenology is verifying that Jupiter align-
ments with Jovian planets enhance the Jupiter activity on the Earth’s core
and Jupiter-Sun-Jove alignments are affecting on the Jupiter activity and
while the Sun is not in the middle of alignment we have no noticeable effect
whereas that while the Sun is in the middle of the alignment, the effect is
strong and for Jupiter-Sun-Jove alignments we refer to the below tables and
those relevant figures.
It is manifest that null result is relevant to the much less line arc and all
alignments are relevant to the reported geomagnetic jerks and we see that
jerks of 1913 and 1991 and 1932, are iteration of a unit event.
48
Table 8. Jupiter-Sun-Uranus
Date Reported jerks epoch Line arc Jerk reports
1893.05.10 observed event at epoch 1894 ∼ 21 Nevanlinna, 2004;
1907.02.15 observed event at epoch 1908 ∼ 85 Qamili et al., 2013;
1920.10.20 observed event at epoch 1921 ∼ 43 Duka et al., 2012;
Pinheiro and
Travassos, 2010
1934.08.24 – ∼ 12 –
1948.07.11 Jerk observed in pacific area ∼ 71 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
and American regions at epoch
1949
1962.06.04 this event is similar to 1920.11.02 ∼ 48 Duka et al., 2012;
event and observed at epoch 1963 Qamili et al., 2013
1976.03.30 observed event in the field 1978 ∼ 17 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
1989.12.10 observed event at epoch 1990 ∼ 76 De Michelis et al., 2005;
2003.09.06 Much less marked jerk ∼ 49 –
2017.07.07 – ∼ 12 –
Fig. 12. The Jupiter-Sun-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.
Reports amplitudes fit with inverse square of the arm length and this is
possible to observe for other Jovian planets alignments with Jupiter too as
a verification for such a correlation between arm length of the alignments
and geomagnetic jerks amplitudes.
The average arm length of the Jupiter-Sun-Neptune alignment is 1.4
times longer than that of Jupiter-Sun-Uranus and then, relevant alignments
to the Jupiter-Sun-Neptune should be almost 2 times weaker and then, all
49
Table 9. Jupiter-Sun-Neptune.
Line date Reported jerks epoch Line arc Jerk reports
1901.02.27 Saturn-Jupiter-Sun-Neptune ∼ 71 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
Event at epoch 1901–1902
1913.12.18 Less marked event reported ∼ 80 Balasis et al., 2016;
1913–1914 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
1926.09.15 – ∼ 52 –
1939.05.12 – ∼ 26 –
1952.02.01 – ∼0 –
1964.10.13 Revealed by Moscow observatory ∼ 30 –
1977.06.18 Observable in the field 1978 ∼ 57 Alexandrescu et al., 1996
1990.04.19 Much less marked event
between next events ∼ 85 –
2002.12.15 Less marked event observed ∼ 65 Olsen and Mandea, 2007;
at epoch 2003 detected by Balasis et al., 2016;
a new high resolution technique Silva and Hulot, 2012
2015.11.03 – ∼ 39 –
Fig. 13. The Jupiter-Sun-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.
alignments of Jupiter-Sun-Neptune should be less marked events and this

is agreement else at 1901 that the alignment is enhanced by Saturn near
lining with Jupiter-Sun-Neptune.
Ultimately we observe that all reported geomagnetic jerks occur at the
alignment dates and too, inversely while we have a Jovian alignment, it exist
a relevant geomagnetic jerk in reports as a very strong confirmation for one
by one correlation between geomagnetic jerks and Jovian alignments. Solar
system simulators are verifying exactly all the correlations between reports
50
and alignments, but for shortening the paper we show at Fig. 14, some of
the famous geomagnetic jerks relevant to their Jovian planets alignments.
Of course when the Sun is not in the middle of the Jovian planets align-
ments it is visible that the amplitude of the effect is weak as the same
manner for Jupiter when Jupiter is not in the middle. But for alignments of
Sun-Jupiter-Saturn it seems to exist some relevant Much less marked events
in reports for example for epochs 1901, 1981, 2000 (Balasis et al., 2016) and
1921, 1941 (Duka, 2012; Pinheiro and Travassos, 2010) and 1961 because
of the reality that arm length of Sun-Jupiter-Saturn is short proportionally
and Sun-Jupiter-Saturn effect might be relevant to the Saturn which the
Sun’s magnetic field is rapidly varying at alignment time through the Sat-
urn and this is in agreement with quick succession of geomagnetic jerks at
these epochs.
We observe that there are several consequanet noticeable events as Jupi-
ter-Saturn-Uranus at epoch 1989.02.04, Jupiter-Sun-Uranus at epoch 1989.
Fig. 14. Several alignments concern to relevant geomagnetic jerk dates.
51
12.10, Jupiter-Sun-Saturn at epoch 1990.07.22 and these alignments are

very near in time, visible as a unified event centered at 1990.1 (De Michelis
et al., 1998; 2000) and as noted at Chambodut and Mandea (2005) that:
“For the so-called 1969 event a first group of dates is centered on 1969.5
±0 .5 and another one 1972.1 ±0 .5 ; their merging date being around 1971.”
Whereas, here we observe that the reported jerk about 1972 is different
from reported jerk at 1969. Suppose we have a clear event at 1972. We
should notice that the Saturn and Uranus and Neptune metallic cores have
almost equal sizes and then the amplitude of the geomagnetic jerks gener-
ated at Jovian alignment ideally should be proportional with inverse square
of arm lengths and too according to the Eq. (5), the amplitude of the ge-
omagnetic jerks in the alignments should be proportional with sinus of the
line arcs and too we should consider a coefficient for realization between
different alignments structurally and then, almost we have a simple formula
for ideal geomagnetic jerks generated by Jovian planets alignments that:
1
O3 ∝ β sin(α). (7)
L2
So that β is structure coefficient of the alignments and α is line arc and L
is arm length.
We can’t find an accurate formula for geomagnetic jerks for that the
geomagnetic jerks are relevant to the planets interiors and probably declined
by number of the core flows so that we observe greater amplitudes in quasi-
local events and probably there is a conservation law of geomagnetic jerk’s
amplitudes in an event divided to several number of the events in a global
event.
New exact analysis (Kotzé and Korte, 2016) shows for epoch 2009 we
have a jerk with mean amplitude 18.6 nT/yr 2 and we can consider Saturn-
Jupiter-Neptune alignment occurred at epoch 2009 as a standard reference
for other occurences and line arc in this alignment is 80 degree and arm
length is 40 AU and by Eq. (7) for pure Jovian planets alignment we have:
O3∗ [J − Jup − J]/18.6 = sin(α)/ sin(80) × 1600/L 2 , (8)
O3∗ [J − Jup − J] ≈ 30000 sin(α)/L2 . (9)
Now referring to the reported geomagnetic jerk at epoch 2003 with ampli-
tude 25 nT/yr2 we can calculate structures’ coefficient β. At epoch 2003 we
52
have Jupiter-Sun-Neptune with line arc 65 degree and arm length, 35 AU.
But 2003 event is almost at middle of the solar maximum activity and then
by consideration of calculations in the next section we find that the Sun’s
alignment effect while the Sun is in the middle, is 1.2 times stronger than Jo-
vian planets alignments while Jupiter is middle and so, structure coefficient
is deduced as:
βJup−Sun−J = 1.2βJ−Jup−J = 2.4βJup−J−J . (10)
Then not only here we can show the correlation of geomagnetic jerks with
Jovian planets alignments suppose we have an almost simple approximate
formula for ideal amplitude of the geomagnetic jerks and by this formula we
get amplitudes for jerks at Fig. 15. For existing alignments in the considered
interval 1980–2020 which confirms again the agreement of the correlations
included to the arm length inverse square and, correlation of the geomag-
netic jerk’s amplitudes to the sinus of the line arcs as the angle between the
Jupiter’s major axis and Jupiter-Sun line and ultimately, inevitable verifi-
cation for essential relation of the Sun’s magnetic field oscillation through
the Jupiter and Earth’s CMB core flows as the sources for the reported
geomagnetic jerks in these decades. It is wonder that there is a complete
one by one correlation between geomagnetic jerks and Jovian planets align-
ments means that for each observable Jovian alignment in the solar system
we have a report for geomagnetic jerk at that time and inversely for each
reported geomagnetic jerk in the data, we have a relevant Jovian alignment
and this confirmation is arguing inevitable correlation of the Jovian planets
alignments and geomagnetic jerks and at Fig. 15. It is visible correlation of
equations with observations carefully.
We need to notice that however the Jovian planets alignments with
Jupiter are to some extent strong that it is possible to measure their rele-
vant geomagnetic jerks at the Earth. But it is possible to observe such a
phenomenon about the Saturn instead Jupiter by improvement of the pre-
cise of the measurements and data analysis. For example, we may detect a
much less marked event for Saturn-Uranus-Neptun, when the Saturn is at
the active zone of its line arc and probably it is possible to detect a very
weak periodic 14.5-years signals, half of the Saturn orbital period. However,
detection of the Saturn dependent effect is easier at its alignment dates.
We see strong agreement between amplitudes of the observed geomag-
53
Fig. 15. Geomagnetic jerks reported dates correlated to the Jovian planets alignments.
netic jerks and ideal formula at Eq. (7) above and for alignment at 2017.07.07,
the ideal formula shows 11 nT/yr 2 and because that this is a much less
marked event, the visibility of such an event is rare for distribution of geo-
magnetic jerk’s power and because of entopic reasons.
3.4. Historical jerks reports and inevitable agreement with

Jupiter alignments
We refer here to historical reports however unfortunately analysed dates
have been approximate for that there is no magnetic three components time
series of data and we have listed alignments accordance to NASA’s solar
system simulator versus the dates of geomagnetic jerk’s reports (Korte et
al., 2009) and everybody may refer to every accurate solar system simulator
arbitrary.
In the Fig. 16, we see the Table 10 in a diagram to easy visibility of the
correlations between the historical alignments and reported jerks date for
amplitudes of these historical geomagnetic jerks we refr to the ideal formula
at Eq. (7) above.
And for another data base of historical geomagnetic jerks, reported in the
54
Table 10. Geomagnetic jerks from 1410 to 1990 in comparison with alignments.
Line date Alignments Arm (AU) Line arc Report date
1409.10.07 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 72 1410
1447.01.01 JUP-SAT-URA ∼ 17 ∼ 60 1448
1506.07.02 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 53 1508
1597.05.01 SAT-JUP-URA ∼ 27 ∼ 40 1598
1603.02.10 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 40 1603
1658.11.15 JUP-SUN-NEP ∼ 35 ∼ 73 1661
1692.10.01 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 55 1693
1706.02.19 JUP-SAT-NEP ∼ 32 ∼ 79 1708
1741.05.05 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 90 1741
1764.07.01 JUP-SAT-URA ∼ 19 ∼ 74 1763
1860.10.17 SAT-JUP-NEP ∼ 37 ∼ 65 1861
1888.04.14 JUP-SUN-NEP ∼ 35 ∼ 43 1889
Source: (Korte et al., 2009).
measurements (Qamili et al., 2013; Matzka et al., 2010), we see strong con-
firmations between dates of Jovian planets alignments and reported dates
for geomagnetic jerk as visible at Table 11.
However, the measurements have not generated precise dates but again
correlations are very strong between assumed parameters and we observe,
Fig. 16. The alignments in agreement with reported geomagnetic jerks.
55
Table 11. Geomagnetic jerks reported in the interval 1600–1900.

Line date Alignments Arm (AU) Line arc Report date
1603.12.10 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 40 1603
1633.10.07 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 64 1635
1659.02.09 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 65 1663
1672.09.01 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 21 1672
1700.01.05 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 79 1703
1718.01.14 SAT-JUP-NEP ∼ 38 ∼ 90 1719
1733.10.08 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 39 1733
1752.10.16 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 83 1751
1762.12.09 JUP-SAT-URA ∼ 15 ∼ 24 1763
1769.06.05 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 37 1770
1778.01.03 SAT-JUP-URA ∼ 28 ∼ 70 1779
1788.09.27 SAT-JUP-URA ∼ 29 ∼ 80 1789
1808.09.09 JUP-SAT-URA ∼ 20 ∼ 33 1810
1824.09.01 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 90 1826
1838.02.28 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 35 1838
UNKOWN 1844
1852.03.07 JUP-SUN-SAT ∼ 15 ∼ 25 1853
1866 (1868) JUP-SUN-URA (SAT-JUP-NEP) ∼ 25(38) ∼ 87(30) 1868–1870
1879.11.10 JUP-SUN-URA ∼ 25 ∼ 40 1882
1888.05.13 JUP-SUN-NEP ∼ 35 ∼ 43 1888
Source: (Qamili et al., 2013; Matzka et al., 2010).
the data as a diagram at Fig. 17 to see easier the correlations between events
dates and Jovian planets alignments.
Fig. 17. The alignments in agreement with reported geomagnetic jerks.
56
Fig. 18. The alignment completely in agreement with reported geomagnetic jerk at epoch
1860 (Newitt and Dawson, 1984).
The iteration of an alignment is iteration of the jerk as a strong confir-

mation and we see the similar events with event at epoch 1901.
It is wonder that all the alignments are a bit occurred before of reports
dates as a verification for ever existing retardation and a verification for
Jovian driven quasidynamo at the Earth because that Jovian driven quasi-
dynamo is in agreement ever with the reality that the alignments should be
prior to the reports date. For example, there is evidence of a jerk around
1860 (Newitt and Dawson, 1984) and when we refer to the solar system
simulators we observe that we have an alignment Saturn-Jupiter-Neptune
at 1859.04.27 with almost 37 AU arm length which is proportionally short
and too, Jupiter is at the middle of the alignment as a feature of stronger
effect.
3.5. Solar activity effect on the geomagnetic jerks and LOD vari-
ations
In addition to semi-annual signals generated by oscillation of the Sun’s
magnetic field at the Earth orbiting around the Sun, clearly we should wait
for 11 years’ periodic oscillation of the geomagnetic jerk and LOD, relevant
to the solar cyclical activity which concerns to the absolute oscillation of
the Sun’s magnetic field as noted at Vukcevic (2014) that:
57
“Sunspots are associated with rise and fall of the soar toroidal magnetic
field, and normally appear in pairs. Direction of the magnetic field vector
B in the northern hemisphere coincides with the direction of solar rotation
(positive orientation, B > 0) during even-numbered cycles, it is opposite
for the southern hemisphere. Relationship between direction of rotation and
the magnetic field vector orientation is reversed during odd-numbered cycles
(for the northern hemisphere B < 0).”
Then solar cyclical activity will result two shapes of the 11-years periodic
signals in the LOD and geomagnetic jerks as:
1. Direct effect by the Sun’s magnetic field absolute oscillation through

the Earth,
2. Jupiter driven external effect dependent on the absolute variation of
the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter.
Both direct absolute effect and Jupiter driven absolute effect of the solar
cyclical activity will clearly imply 11-years periodic signals on the LOD and
geomagnetic jerks and probably on the gravity too.
This 11 years’ periodic signals have been detected before in several an-
alyzings (for example Gu, 1990; Abarca del Rio et al., 2003; Wardinski
and Holme, 2003; Alexandrescu et al., 1995) and as noted at Le Mouël et
al. (2010):
“We study the evolution of the amplitude A of the semi-annual variation
of the length-of-day (lod) from 1962 to 2009. We show that A is strongly
modulated (up to 30%) by the 11-yr cycle monitored by the Sunspot number
WN.”
Dependency to the solar activity has been detected well in the LOD vari-
ation as mentioned by Ma (2007) that:
“In this present paper, wavelet technique is applied to analyse the time se-
ries of the Earth’s length-of-day series during 1832–1997 and the Sunspot
relative numbers during 1700–2006, with emphasis on investigating external
excitation source of the Earth’s variable rotation. The results show modu-
lation action from solar activity plays an important role in decadal change
of the Earth rotation, and this strengthens the conclusion that the Earth’s
rotation is modulated by the solar activity.”
Or we may refer to work “Possible influence of the 11-year solar cycle on
length-of-day change” (Ma, 2015).
58
Up to here in this paper, we have considered constant, the Sun’s absolute

magnetic field but solar activity indexes are showing that the solar magnetic
field is changing by time cyclical as the famous 11 years’ oscillation of the
solar activity and then not only, the Jupiter orbiting causes, the change of
the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter relatively suppose absolutely,
the Sun’s magnetic field is too changing through the Jupiter and through
the other planets too. Then, the change of the Sun’s magnetic field through
the Jupiter is divided to the two realizable origins so that by generalization
of the Eq. (1) we have:
O3 = k53 |(∂B05 /∂t)orbital + (∂B05 /∂t)absolute | (11)
In some dates for example at epochs 1948.07.11 and 1958 and 1968.07.09
we observe that the reported amplitudes of the geomagnetic jerks are strong-
er than that of calculated by ideal Eqs. (7, 10) for geomagnetic jerk. Ac-
cording to Eq. (11), the geomagnetic jerks relevant to these three dates are
amplified by solar activity because that these events are in maximum solar
activity occurred at solar active cycle period, referring to the NASA reports
for solar activity as visible at Fig. 19. These three events have been com-
pared together before by Golovkov et al. (1989) titled as “Common features
and differences between jerks of 1949, 1958 and 1969”.
Ultimately we see a total equation for external driven interplanetary sig-
nals at the Earth so that:
O3 = k53 |(∂B05 /∂t)orbit + (∂B05 /∂t)absolute | +

+ k03 |(∂B03 /∂t)orbit + (∂B03 /∂t)absolute | . (12)
This equation results four kinds of the signal at the Earth as:
1. Direct absolute effect of the Sun at the Earth interior resulting 11-years
signal,
2. Direct orbital effect of the Sun at the Earth interior resulting semi-
annual signal,
3. Indirect absolute effect of the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter
resulting 11-years signal,
4. Indirect orbital effect of the Sun’s magnetic field through the Jupiter
resulting 5.9-years signal.
59
Fig. 19. Strengthening of geomagnetic jerks while those are in maximum activities of
solar.
Such a mix of signals with different origins can generate apparent phase
shift in tiny intervals and such a phase shift at the 11-years and 5.9-years
signals is visible some times in the measurements. However, ultimately the
signals return to the pure 11-years and pure 5.9-years signals and now by
understanding of the real sources of the signals it is easier to discriminate
signals at observed data.
The 5.9-years period of LOD signal has been detected accurately in ex-
periments for example at Duan (2015) as quantitatively the 6-years signal,
from 1962 ∼ 2012, using normal Morlet wavelet (NMWT) method combin-
ing wavelet packet and Fourier analysis technique, for the first time in both
time and frequency domains. But in some experiments it is possible to ap-
pear phase shift in some time intervals as a deviation in the signals, however
the signals trend return to full strength in the next cycles.
While solar activity peak is adequately large, the absolute variation of
the Sun’s magnetic field is prevailing factor and apparently may be reason
to cancel 5.9-years signal as noted by Duan (2015) that:
“Gorshkov (2010) indicated that the 6 ∼7-year oscillation signals decreased
abruptly in the 1990s and speculates it is due to the stronger signals in a
2 ∼3-year band cancelling out the 6 ∼7-year signals; while, Holme and de
Viron (2013) further indicated that the “6-year oscillation” shows an ap-
parent drop in amplitude in the 1990s (but this amplitude returns to full
strength in the next cycle), and they interpreted it as the consequence.”
And at epoch 1990, the solar activity is in its maximum and then the
60
solar activity is possible to cancel apparently the six-year signal. However,

this phenomenon is possible too to be appeared by occurrence of the abrupt
geomagnetic jerks related to Jovian planets alignments to cancel apparently
6-year signal from measurements and it is wonder that we observe Jupiter-
Sun-Saturn lining up at epoch 1990.07.02 as the same 2–3 years stronger
signal band covering smaller six years signal.
We have an increase in the additional activity of the Sun between 1830
and 1900 and in this interval we may discriminate easier the geomagnetic
jerks dependent to the solar activity.
Nevanlinna (2004) shows secular variation of the Earth magnetic field
in the interval 1830–1900 dependent to the solar activity oscillation and we
see correlation between the solar activity and reported geomagnetic jerks in
the considered interval in Fig. 20.
The alignment effect can’t amplify direct absolute effect of the Sun’s
magnetic field oscillation through the Earth whereas that indirect absolute
effect through the Jupiter can be amplified by Jovian alignment and then,
such a difference is allowing us to discriminate between indirect absolute
effect and direct absolute effect of the Sun’s magnetic field which both have
11-years signals. On the other hand, observations verify that the indirect
absolute and indirect orbital effect of the Sun’s magnetic field are near to-
gether in size at the Earth measurements because that they are prevailing
each other by small changes. For example, by equality of the indirect ab-
solute and indirect orbital effects at epoch 1969, the reported geomagnetic
jerk at epoch 1969 based on the Eq. (11) is almost 2 times stronger than our
Fig. 20. Annual values of activity indices. Ak(H) (blue) and Ak(D) (red) are derived from
the H- and D-components, respectively, using the Helsinki data reported by H. Nevanlinna.
61
calculated amplitude by Eqs. (7, 10) and then by Eq. (11) at epoch 1969
we have almost that:
(∂Bsun /∂t)orbit (∂Bsun /∂t)absolute . (13)
And then every theory claiming to explain the solar cyclical activity is lim-
ited to this condition at Eq. (13) that averagely, the first time derivative of
the Sun’s absolute magnetic field through the Jupiter is near to its orbital
variation at Jupiter position and this equality at Eq. (13) is showing that
Sun’s magnetic field absolute variation is a noticeable effect, not a partial
change. For example, according to the Eq. (13) on the base of the orbital
variation of the Sun’s magnetic field at Jupiter position we deduce that the
Sun’s absolute magnetic field could to vary 25% at three years, when Jupiter
moves from perihelion to the aphelion. By this noticeable variation of the
Sun’s absolute magnetic field we find that solar cyclical activity should be a
large scale phenomenon at the Sun and such a great change in the magnetic
field amplitude is almost impossible by planetary sources. Of course yet,
the partial effect of the external sources is possible to influence on the gen-
eration of some sunspots at the Sun surface (Ferris, 1969). It is arresting
that the Ferris is who he has discussed the electric current induction in the
ionosphere and metallic sheets (Ferris and Price, 1965; Ferris, 1973).
On the other hand, when we see that the yearly change of the Sun’s
magnetic field is noticeable, then we can deduce a direct relation between
the solar cyclical activity and cosmic radiation. Of course, the correlation
of the solar activity and cosmic ray has been revealed by scientists before
and we may refer to the Balasubrahmanyan (1969) and a newly analysis
by Barlyaeva et al. (2014). Strongly, emissions of the matter and electro-
magnetic fields from the Sun increase during high solar activity, making
it harder for Galactic cosmic rays to reach Earth. Cosmic ray intensity is
lower when the solar activity is high.
By the way, we have revealed here again that the Sun activity relevant to
Sunspots number, approximately is proportional with first time derivative
of the Sun’s absolute magnetic field. But we can consider an accurate factor
for solar activity with Aso that with assuming a constant C we have:
A = C∂Bsun /∂t. (14)
We should notice that A is a pure factor for the solar activity value on
the base of the solar magnetic field absolute variation and this parameter A
62
is in relation with the sunspots number approximately, because that SSN is

not a regular parameter. The generation of the sunspots under the change
of the Sun’s magnetic field is an approximate phenomenon might be relevant
to many conditions. It seems that when sunspots number is not small, the
correlation of the SSN to the solar activity factor A is linear too. However,
the scientist can calculate a phenomenological formula as a good approxi-
mation for such a correlation between parameter A and SSN.
Then on the base of the observations (“Extreme Space Weather Events”.
National Geophysical Data Center) we see that the solar activity oscillation
peaks are conformal with peaks of the cosmic ray entrance amplitude. This
phenomenon is showing us that solar activity may be reasonable by cosmic
ray because that cosmic ray is relevant to the Sun’s magnetic field amplitude,
not its first time derivative. If Sun’s magnetic field variation was reason of
the oscillation of the cosmic ray, then cosmic ray oscillation phase should
be conformal with Sun’s magnetic field amplitude, not its time derivative.
The cosmic ray entrance oscillation phase is conformal with first time
derivative of the Sun’s magnetic field leading us to the side that the cosmic
ray may be a wave with its wave period as the same period of solar activity
and this is remembering us the theory of the sea of the electrons (Dirac,
1930) as a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles
with negative charges.
Such a correlation is so far possible to accept. But if the cosmic ray is
not naturally a wave shape radiation then why the cosmic ray and solar
activity are conformal in both period and phase?
The phase shift is possible to be tiny accidentally, but about the period
of cosmic ray entrance and solar activity, conformal period is not accidental
suppose if we consider Sun’s magnetic field as a mathematical function then
unity of the period means that the solar activity is not a partial change in
the Sun’s magnetic field suppose it should be the change of the whole Sun’s
magnetic field as a strong verification again for Eq. (14). In this shape the
correlation of the solar activity to the cosmic ray amplitude is not a direct
relation suppose direct relation is between the Sun’s magnetic field and cos-
mic ray. But solar activity is conformal with magnetic field and magnetic
field is conformal with cosmic way. Then solar activity is conformal with
cosmic ray as a charming correlation. Then solar activity is whole change
of the Sun’s magnetic field and this shows that the Sun’s magnetic field
63
reversal is a real phenomenon and Sun’s magnetic field is really changing

totally and it is not far to see that such a mechanism is impossible else by
self consistent dynamo, in agreement with the Sun.
3.6. Long term decreasing trend of lod signals and geomagnetic

secular variation
On the other hand, referring to the paper Duan (2015) we see the long term
decreasing trend of LOD signals about 0.05 ms during the past 50 years
and this decreasing trend should be relevant to the Earth magnetic field
strength’s decreasing trend during past 50 years and reason is that LOD
signals are relevant to turbulent frictional CMB flows which their develop-
ment amplitude is affected by the Earth’s magnetic field amplitude. Inverse
mechanism too is possible to do so that core flows are reason to explain the
variation of the axial dipole as noted by Holme and Buffett (2015) that:
“Buffett (2014) has recently provided a model in which zonal toroidal mo-
tions are associated with the excitation of a zonal poloidal instability. This
model is able to explain the broad variation of the axial dipole over the past
100 years, and also to explain feature of geomagnetic jerks that cannot be
explained by purely torsional motions.”
By comparison of the two different measurements for LOD signals and
secular variation of the geomagnetic field we obtain a relation between secu-
lar variation of 5.9 years periodic LOD signal and geomagnetic field secular
variation as visible at Fig. 21.
We see that the total intensity at Toronto has decreased 14%, from ap-
proximately 64 000 nT to 55 000 nT, during the last 160 years and long term
trend amplitude of LOD signals decreases 0.05 ms during past 50 years which
is near to 14% and too, we may refer to the axial dipole measurement of ge-
omagnetic field in comparison with 5.9 years LOD signals secular variation
visible at Fig. 22.
Schematically we see that it should be a relation between LOD variation
and geomantic field and at (Whaler and Holme, 2011) it has been discussed
before correlation between the axial dipole strength and flows in the outer
core.
The geomagnetic field is an amplifier of external driven 5.9-years signal
and this concerns to the reality that the currents are amplified and expanded
64
Fig. 21. Long term trend variation of the LOD signals versus Earth secular variation of
magnetic field in Toronto.
Fig. 22. Long-term damping trend of LOD signals versus strength of the axial dipole
component of Earth’s magnetic field from 1600 to 2020 (McElhinny and McFadden, 1998).
by Earth’s magnetic field as a dynamo and similar to the alignments ampli-

fication effect at Eq. (6), here the geomagnetic field is too amplifier of the
external driven LOD variation to generate observed amplified LOD varia-
tion as:
Δ∗ LOD = ηBearth × ΔLOD . (15)
So that observed LOD variation is total amplitude of LOD variation, possi-
ble to observe and η is scale coefficient and now in a limited interval of time,
possible to consider constant, the peak of external driven LOD variation,
we result:
65
Δ∗ LOD = μBearth . (16)
So that μ is assumed as a constant and by this relation we obtain that:

∂Bearth Δ∗ LOD
μ = . (17)
∂t Δt
And this is visible at Fig. 22 and it is wonderful that LOD variation gradient
is changed at the epoch 1992, exactly at the same date that geomagnetic
field gradient is changed and in reality, the long term trend variation of 5.9-
years LOD signal is unrelated to the AAM effect (Duan, 2015), Atmospheric
Angular Momentum effect. Then it should exist an internal effect as a
variation in generation of LOD signals by core flows.
In addition, at Wilson et al. (2008), we see a spin-orbit coupling between
the Sun and the Jovian planets to generate solar cycle and it seems that
we are now near to resolve the question of the solar cyclical activity and
ultimately we should remember the correlation between geomagnetic jerks
and increase of the earthquakes number detected by Gokhberg et al. (2016)
as a correlation between liquid motion of the Earth and earthquakes and
variations in the Earth’s length of day as a verification for core flows effecting
on the Earth’s spin.
4. Conclusions
It is visible that some of the Earth’s interior partial core flows are external
origin phenomena as the interplanetary driven partial quasidynamo. We
have verified it on the base of the physics and experimental reports and
we see that the oscillation of the external magnetic fields affect the planets
interior too to generate partial effects similar to the geomagnetic jerks and
LOD variations and gravity anomalies. We are seeing inevitably that the
Jovian planets alignments are affecting on the amplification of these effects
and effects are dependent too to the solar activity. The quasidynamo is not
the self consistent hydromagnetic dynamo in dynamo region of the cosmic
body. In the Earth‘s core it is a partial dynamo as a perturbation on the
CMB. The Geodynamo in the Earth ‘s outer core is not of an external origin,
but some variations, for example jerks, have external causes.
66
References
Abarca del Rio R., Gambis D., Salstein D. A., 2000: Interannual signals in length of day
and atmospheric angular momentum. Ann. Geophys., 18, 347–364, doi: 10.1007/
s00585-000-0347-9.
Abarca del Rio R., Gambis D., Salstein D., Nelson P., Dai A., 2003: Solar activity and
earth rotation variability. Journal of Geodynamics, 36, 423–443, doi: 10.1016/S02
64-3707(03)00060-7.
Alexandrescu M., Gibert D., Hulot G., Le Mouël J.-L., Saracco G., 1995: Detection of
geomagnetic jerks using wavelet analysis. J. Geophys. Res., 100, B7, 12557–12572,
https://doi.org/10.1029/95JB00314.
Alexandrescu M., Gibert D., Hulot G., Le Mouël J.-L., Saracco G., 1996: Worldwide anal-
ysis of geomagnetic jerks. J. Geophys. Res., 101, B10, 21975–21994, https://doi
.org/10.1029/96JB01648.
Alfvén H., 1942: Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves. Nature, 150, 3805,
405–406, doi: 10.1038/150405d0.
Anderson J. D., Schubert G., Trimble V., Feldman M. R., 2015: Measurements of New-
ton’s gravitational constant and the length of day. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 110,
1, 10002, doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/110/10002.
Andrault D., Monteux J., Le Bars M., Samuel H., 2016: The deep Earth may not be cool-
ing down. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 443, 195–203, doi: 10.1016/j.ep
sl.2016.03.020.
Ashour A. A., 1950: The induction of electric currents in a uniform circular disk. Quart. J.
Mech. Appl. Math., 3, 1, 119–128, https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmam/3.1.119.
Ashour A. A., Ferraro V. C. A., 1962: Induction of electric currents in a uniform
anisotropie ionosphere. Nature, 196, 4851, 260, doi: 10.1038/196260a0.
Ashour A. A., Ferraro V. C. A., 1964: The induction of electric currents in an anisotropic
ionosphere with a belt of high conductivity running along the equator. J. Atmo-
sph. Terrest. Phys., 26, 4, 509–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(64)90
030-3.
Ashour A. A., Price A. T., 1948: The induction of electric currents in a non-uniform
ionosphere. Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 195, 1041, 198–224, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1948.0114.
Aubert J., 2013: Flow throughout the Earth’s core inverted from geomagnetic observa-
tions and numerical dynamo models. Geophysical Journal International, 192, 2,
537–556, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggs051.
Baker W. G., Martyn D. F., 1953: Electric currents in the Ionosphere. I. The Conduc-
tivity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 246, 913, 281–294, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1953.0016.
Balasis G., Stelios M., Potirakis, Mandea M., 2016: Investigating Dynamical Complexity
of Geomagnetic Jerks Using Various Entropy Measures. Frontiers in Earth Science,
4, 71, doi: 10.3389/feart.2016.00071.
Balasubrahmanyan V. K., 1969: Solar activity and 11-year modulation of the cosmic rays.
Solar physics, 7, 1, 39–45.
67
Barlyaeva T., Bard E., Abarca-del-Rio R., 2014: Rotation of the Earth, solar activity and
cosmic ray intensity. Ann. Geophys., 32, 761–771, https://doi.org/10.5194/an
geo-32-761-2014.
Biggin A. J., Steinberger B., Aubert J., Suttie N., Holme R., Torsvik T. H., van der Meer
D. G., van Hinsbergen D. J. J., 2012: Possible links between long-term geomagnetic
variations and whole-mantle convection processes. Nature Geoscience, 5, 8, 526–
533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1521.
Bloxham J., Jackson A., 1991: Fluid flow near the surface of Earth’s outer core. Rev.
Geophys., 29, 1, 97–120, https://doi.org/10.1029/90RG02470.
Bloxham J., Zatman S., Dumberry M., 2002: The origin of geomagnetic jerks. Nature,
420, 6911, 65–68, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01134.
Bloxham J., 1988: The determination of fluid flow at the core surface from geomagnetic
observations. In: Mathematical Geophysics: A Survey of Recent Developments in
Seismology and Geodynamics, edited by Vlaar N. J., Nolet G., Wortel M., Cloetingh
S. A. P. L., chapter 9, 189–208, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-2857-2 9.
Brown W. J., Mound J. E., Livermore P. W., 2013: Jerks abound: an analysis of geomag-
netic observatory data from 1957 to 2008. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 223, 62–76,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2013.06.001.
Buffett B., 2014: Geomagnetic fluctuations reveal stable stratification at the top of the
Earth’s core. Nature, 507, 7493, 484–487, doi: 10.1038/nature13122.
Buffett B., Knezek N., Holme R., 2016: Evidence for MAC waves at the top of Earth’s core
and implications for variations in length of day. Geophysical Journal International,
204, 3, 1789–1800, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv552.
Bullard E. C., 1948: The secular change in the Earth’s magnetic field. Geophysical
supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 5, 7, 248-
257, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1948.tb02940.x.
Cafarella L., Meloni A., 1995: Evidence for geomagnetic jerk 1990 across Europe. Annals
of Geophysics, 38, 3-4, 451–455, https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-4106.
Chambodut A., Mandea M., 2005: Evidence for geomagnetic jerks in comprehensive mod-
els. Earth Planets Space, 57, 2, 139–149, https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352558.
Chambodut A., Eymin C., Mandea M., 2007: Geomagnetic jerks from Earth surface to the
top of the core. Earth Planets Space, 59, 7, 675–684, https://doi.org/10.1186/
BF03352730.
Chulliat A., Maus S., 2014: Geomagnetic secular acceleration, jerks, and a localized
standing wave at the core surface from 2000 to 2010. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,
119, 3, 1531–1543, doi: 10.1002/2013JB010604.
Chulliat A., Thébault E., Hulot G., 2010: Core field acceleration pulse as a common
cause of the 2003 and 2007 geomagnetic jerks. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 7, L07301,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL042019.
Courtillot V., Ducruix J., Le Mouël J.-L., 1978: Sur une accélération récente de la varia-
tion séculaire du champ magnétique terrestre. C. r. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série D, 287,
1095–1098 (in French).
68
Courtillot V., Le Mouël J.-L., 1984: Geomagnetic secular variation impulses. Nature,
311, 709–716, doi: 10.1038/311709a0.
Cowling T. G., 1932: The electrical conductivity of an ionized gas in the presence of a mag-
netic field. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 93, 1, 90–97, https://doi.org/10.1093/
mnras/93.1.90.
De Michelis P., Cafarella L., Meloni A., 1998: Worldwide character of the 1991 geomag-
netic jerk. Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 3, 377–380, https://doi.org/10.10
29/98GL00001.
De Michelis P., Cafarella L., Meloni A., 2000: A global analysis of the 1991 geomagnetic
jerk. Geophys. J. Int., 143, 3, 545–556, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X
.2000.00208.x.
De Michelis P., Tozzi R., Meloni A., 2005: Geomagnetic jerks: observation and theoretical
modeling. Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, 76, 957–960.
Dirac P. A. M., 1930: A theory of electrons and protons. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. Royal
Society Publishing, 126, 801, 360–365, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1930.0013.
Duan P., Liu G., Liu L., Hu X., Hao X., Huang Y., Zhang Z., Wang B., 2015: Recovery of
the 6-year signal in length of day and its long-term decreasing trend. Earth, Planets
and Space, 67, 161, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-015-0328-6.
Ducruix J., Gire C., Le Mouël J. L., 1983: Existence et caractère planétarie de la secousse
de la variation séculaire en 1912–1913. C. r. Acad. Sci. Paris, 296, Ser. II, 1419–
1424, (in French).
Duka B., De Santis A., Mandea M., Isac A., Qamili, 2012: Geomagnetic jerks characteri-
zation via spectal analysis. Solid Earth, 3, 1, 131–148, https://doi.org/10.5194/
se-3-131-2012.
Dumberry M., 2010: Gravity variations induced by core flows. Geophys. J. Int., 180, 2,
635–650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04437.x.
Dumberry M., Bloxham J., 2006: Azimuthal flows in the Earth’s core and changes in
length of day at millennial timescales. Geophys. J. Int., 165, 1, 32–46, https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02903.x.
Egedal J., 1947: The magnetic diurnal variation of the horizontal force near the magnetic
equator. Terr. Magn. Atmos. Electr., 52, 4, 449–451, https://doi.org/10.1029/
TE052i004p00449.
Ferris G. A. J., Price A. T., 1965: Electric currents induced in an anisotropic ionosphere.
Geophys. J. Roy. Astorn. Soc., 9, 4, 285–308, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-24
6X.1965.tb03888.x.
Ferris G. A. J., 1969: Planetary influences on sunspots. Journal of the British Astronom-
ical Association, 79, 385–388.
Ferris G. A. J., 1973: A note on electromagnetic induction in an infinite plane sheet with a
circular hole. Q. J. Mechanics Appl. Math., 26, 1, 19–21, https://doi.org/10.10
93/qjmam/26.1.19.
Fink D. G., Christiansen D., 1989: Electronics engineers’ handbook. McGraw-Hill, ISBN
9780070209824.
69
Gire C., Le Mouël J. L., Madden T., 1986: Motions at the core surface derived from SV
data. Geophys. J. Royal Astr. Soc., 84, 1, 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365
-246X.1986.tb04342.x.
Gokhberg M. B., Olshanskaya E. V., Chkhetiani O. G., 2016: Correlation between large-
scale motions in the liquid core of the earth and geomagnetic jerks, and variations in
the earth’s length of day. Dokl. Earth Sci., 467, 1, 280–283, doi: 10.1134/S102833
4X1603003X.
Golovkov V. P., Zvereva T. I., Simonyan A. O., 1989: Common features and differences
between “jerks” of 1947, 1958 and 1969. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 49,
81–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/03091928908243465.
Gorshkov V. L., 2010: Study of the interannual variations of the Earths rotation. Sol. Syst.
Res., 44, 6, 487–497.
Gu Z. N., 1990: A relation between solar activity and the earth rotation. Earth, Moon,
and Planets, 48, 3, 189–195, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00113856.
Holme R., 2007: Large-scale flow in the core. In: Treatise on Geophysics, 8, 4, 107–130,
Eds. Schubert G., Olson P., Elsevier, Amsterdam, doi: 10.1016/B978-044452748
-6.00127-9.
Holme R., Buffett B., 2015: Secular variation and core-flow modelling with stable strafi-
cation at the top of the core. EGU General assembly 2015, held 12–17 April, 2015
in Vienna, Austria. Id.4897.
Holme R., de Viron O., 2005: Geomagnetic jerks and a high-resolution length-of-day pro-
file for core studies. Geophys. J. Int., 160, 2, 435–439, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2004.02510.x.
Holme R., de Viron O., 2013: Characterization and implications of intradecadal variations
in length of day. Nature, 499, 7457, 202–204, doi: 10.1038/nature12282.
Höpfner J., 1998: Seasonal variations in length of day and atmospheric angular momen-
tum. Geophys. J. Int., 135, 2, 407–437, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X
.1998.00648.x.
Korte M., Mandea M., Matzka J., 2009: A historical declination curve for Munich from
different data sources. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 177, 3-4, 161–172, https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2009.08.005.
Kotzé P. B., Korte M., 2016: Morphology of the southern African geomagnetic field
derived from observatory and repeat station survey observations: 2005–2014. Earth
Planets Space, 68, 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0403-7.
Le Huy M., Alexandrescu M., Hulot G., Le Mouël J.-L., 1998: On the characteristics
of successive geomagnetic jerks. Earth, Planets and Space, 50, 9, 723–732, doi:
10.1186/BF03352165.
Le Mouël J.-L., Ducruix J., Duyen C., 1982: The world wide character of the 1969–1970
impulse of the secular acceleration rate. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 28, 4, 337–350,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(82)90090-5.
Le Mouël J.-L., Blanter E., Shnirman M., Courtillot V., 2010: Solar forcing of the semi-
annual variation of length-of-day. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 15, L15307, https://doi
.org/10.1029/2010GL043185.
70
Liao D. C., Greiner-Mai H., 1999: A new ΔLOD series in monthly intervals (1892.0–
1997.0) and its comparison with other geophysical results. J. Geodesy, 73, 9, 466–
477, doi: 10.1007/PL00004002.
Ma L. H., 2007: Decadal modulation in length-of-day variations from solar activity:
a wavelet approach. International Conference on Wavelet Analysis and Pattern
Recognition Year: 2007, 4, 1679–1682.
Ma L. H., 2015: Possible influence of the 11-year solar cycle on length-of-day change.
Stud. Geophys. Geod., 59, 3, 477–488, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-014-10
40-x.
Macmillan S., 1996: A geomagnetic jerk for the early 1990s. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.,
137, 1-4, 189–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(95)00214-W.
Malin S. R. C., Hodder B. M., 1982: Was the 1970 geomagnetic jerk of internal or external
origin? Nature, 296, 726–728, doi: 10.1038/296726a0.
Malin S. R. C., Hodder B. M., Barraclough D. R., 1983: Geomagnetic secular variation: A
jerk in 1970. In: Cardús, J. O. (Ed.), Contribuciones Cientı́ficas para Conmemorar
et 75 Aniversario del Observatorio del Ebro. Publ. Obs. Ebro, Memoria, 14, 239–
256.
Mandea M., Bellanger E., Le Mouël J.-L., 2000: A geomagnetic jerk for the end of the 20th
century? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 183, 3-4, 369–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0012-821X(00)00284-3.
Mandea M., Holme R., Pais A., Pinheiro K., Jackson A., Verbanac G., 2010: Geomagnetic
Jerks: Rapid Core Field Variations and Core Dynamics. Space Science Reviews,
155, 1-4, 147–175, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9663-x.
Mandea M., Panet I., Lesur V., de Viron O., Diament M., Le Mouël J.-L., 2012: Recent
changes of the earth’s core derived from satellite observations of magnetic and grav-
ity fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 47, 19129–19133, https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1207346109.
Martyn D. F., 1948: Electric conductivity of the ionospheric D-region. Nature, 162, 142–
143, doi: 10.1038/162142a0.
Martyn D. F., 1949: Lunar variations in the principal ionospheric Regions. Nature, 163,
685, doi: 10.1038/163034a0.
Matzka J., Chulliat A., Mandea M., Finlay Ch., Qamili E., 2010: Geomagnetic Observa-
tions for Main Field Studies: from Ground to Space. Space Sci. Reviews, 155, 1–4,
29–64, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9693-4.
McElhinny M. W., McFadden P. L., 1998: Paleomagnetism: Continents and Oceans.
Academic Press. ISBN 978-0124833555.
Mound J. E., Buffett B. A., 2003: Interannual oscillations in length of day: implica-
tions for the structure of the mantle and core. J. Geophys. Res., 108, B7, 1–17,
Mound J., Buffett B., 2006: Detection of a gravitational oscillation in length-of-day. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett., 243, 3-4, 383–389, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.01.043.
Nakada M., 2009: Earth’s rotational variations by electromagnetic coupling due to core
surface flow on a timescale of ∼1 yr for geomagnetic jerk. Geophys. J. Int., 179, 1,
521–535, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04256.x.
71
Nevanlinna H., 2004: Results of the Helsinki magnetic observatory 1844–1912. Annales
Geophysicae, 22, 5, 1691–1704, doi: 10.5194/angeo-22-1691-2004.
Newitt L. R., Dawson E., 1984: Secular variation in North America during historical
times. Geoph. J. Int., 78, 1, 277–289, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.19
84.tb06484.x.
Nipher F. E., 1916: Gravitation and electrical action. Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 163–
175.
Nipher F. E., 1917: Gravitational Repulsion. Trans. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, XXIII, 5.
Nipher F. E., 1918: Can Electricity Destroy Gravitation? Electric Experimenter.
Nipher F. E., 1920: New evidence of a relation between gravitation and electrical action
and of local charges in the electrical potential of the Earth. Trans. Acad. Sci. of
St. Louis, XXVII, 383–387.
Olsen N., Mandea M., 2007: Investigation of a secular variation impulse using satel-
lite data: the 2003 geomagnetic jerk. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 255, 1-2, 94–105,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.12.008.
Pinheiro K., Travassos J. M., 2010: Impulses of the geomagnetic secular variation at
Vassouras magnetic observatory detected by wavelet analysis. Revista Brasileira de
Geofisica, 28, 1, 37–46, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-261X201000010000.
Podkletnov E., Nieminen R., 1992: A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk
YBa2 Cu3 O7−x superconductor. Physica C, 203, 3-4, 441–444, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0921-4534(92)90055-H.
Podkletnov E. E., Vuorinen P. T., 1996: Gravitation shielding properties of composite
bulk YBa2 Cu3 O7−x superconductor below 70 K under electromatic field. Journal
of Applied Physics D. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
Podkletnov E., 1997: Weak gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2 Cu3
O7−x superconductor below 70 K under e.m. field. Retrieved April 29, 2014. This
is believed to be substantially the same paper accepted for publication in 1996 by
Journal of Physics D which was later withdrawn by the author.
Price A. T., 1949: The Induction of Electric Currents in Non-uniform Thin Sheets and
Shells. Quart. J. Mech., 2, 3, 283-310.
Price A. T., Ferris G. A. J., 1962: A resonance property of ionosphere duo to its
anisotropic conductivity. Nature, 196, 258–260, doi: 10.1038/196258b0.
Qamili E., De Santis A., Isac A., Mandea M., Duka B., Simonyan A., 2013: Geomagnetic
jerks chaotic fluctuation of the earth’s magnetic field. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.,
14, 4, 839–850, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GC004398.
Ridley V. A., Holme R., 2016: Modeling the Jovian magnetic field and its secular variation
using all available magnetic field observations. J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 121, 3,
309–337, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JE004951.
Schlamminger S., Gundlach J. H., Newman R. D., 2015: Recent measurements of the
gravitational constant as a function of time. Phys. Rev. D, 91, 121101.
Schuster A., 1889: The diurnal variation of terrestrial magnetism. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.
London Ser. A., 180, 467–518.
72
Schuster A., 1908: The diurnal variation of terrestrial magnetism. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.
London Ser. A., 208, 163–204.
Silva L., Hulot G., 2012: Investigating the 2003 geomagnetic jerk by simultaneous inver-
sion of the secular variation and acceleration for both the core flow and its acceler-
ation. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 198–199, 28–50.
Silva L., Jackson L., Mound J., 2012: Assessing the importance and expression of the
6 year geomagnetic oscillation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117,
B10, 2156–2202.
Stewart B., 1882: Terrestrial Magnetism. In: Baynes T. S. and Smith W. R., Eds.,
Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Edition, 16, A and C Black, Edinburgh, 159–184.
Tozzi R., De Michelis P., Meloni A., 2009: Geomagnetic jerks in the polar regions. Geo-
physical Research Letters, 36, 15, L15304, doi: 10.1029/2009GL039359.
Very F. W., 1919: On Nipher gravitational experiment and anomalies of the Moon’s
motion. Popular Astronomy, 27, 158.
Vondrák J., Burša M., 1977: The rotation of the earth between 1955.5 and 1976.5.
Stud. Geophys. Geod., 21, 2, 107–117.
Voorhies C. V., 1986: Steady flows at the top of Earth’s core derived from geomagnetic
field models. J. Geophys. Res., 91, B12, 12444–12466, https://doi.org/10.1029/
JB091iB12p12444.
Voorhies C. V., 1993: Geomagnetic estimates of steady surficial core flow and flux diffu-
sion: unexpected geodynamo experiments. In: Dynamics of Earth’s Deep Interior
and Earth Rotation. Geophys. Monogr. Ser. AGU, Washington D. C., 113–125,
https://doi.org/10.1029/GM072p0113.
Voorhies C. V., 1995: Time-varying fluid flow at the top of Earth’s core derived from
Definitive Geomagnetic Reference Field models. J. Geophys. Res., 100, B6, 10029–
10039, https://doi.org/10.1029/95JB00863.
Voorhies C. V., 2004: Narrow-scale flow and a weak field by the top of Earth’s core: Ev-
idence from Ørsted, Magsat, and secular variation. J. Geophys. Res., 109, B03106,
Vukcevic M. A., 2014: Evidence of length of day (LOD) bidecadal variability concurrent
with the solar magnetic cycles. [Research Report] STAR, HAL Id: hal-01071375,
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2.
Wardinski I., 2014: Core surface flow models from decadal and subdecadal secular varia-
tion of the main geomagnetic field. Scientific Technical Report, http://www.diss.
fu-berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS thesis 000000001688.
Wardinski I., Holme R., 2003: Decadal and Subdecadal Secular Variation of Main Ge-
omagnetic Field. In: Reigber C., Lühr H., Schwintzer P. (Eds.): First CHAMP
Mission Results for Gravity, Magnetic and Atmospheric Studies. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Whaler K. A., Holme R., 2011: The axial dipole strength and flow in the outer core.
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 188, 3-4, 235–246, doi: 10.1016/j.
pepi.2011.07.006.
73
Wilson I. R., Carter B. D., Waite I. A., 2008: Does a spin-orbit coupling between the Sun
and the Jovian planets govern the solar cycle? Publications of the Astronomical
Society of Australia, 25, 2, 85–93, doi: 10.1071/AS06018.
74

2018 Interplanetary External Driven Geo Dynamo As The Origin of The Geomagnetic Jerks Aligned With Length of Day Variations and Gravity Anomalies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Interplanetary External Driven Geo Dynamo As The Origin of The Geomagnetic Jerks Aligned With Length of Day Variations and Gravity Anomalies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy Vol.

48/1, 2018 (23–74)

Interplanetary external driven

Abstract: We report phenomenological inevitable correlation between the Sun’s mag-

2. Method and theory

For explanation of the observations and experimental reports we put forward

that this quasidynamo is not the self consistent hydromagnetic dynamo in

2.1. Interplanetary induced currents as the origin of the partial

tions of freely decaying currents in a spherical shell model of the ionosphere

2.2. Jupiter intermediate electric coupling eﬀect upon terrestrial

when saturation is reached, the spheres repel each other as before... It is

2.3. Jovian planets alignments as the ampliﬁer eﬀect

current polarization at Jupiter by Jovian planets alignments with Jupiter

So that K30 is a coeﬃcient for penetration of the Sun’s magnetic ﬁeld

3.2. The 5.9-years geophysical signals

O3 = u53 |∂B05 /∂t| . (4)

Then geomagnetic jerks in terrestrial planets are mainly relevant to the

For gravity changes, referring to Schlamminger et al. (2015) as noted

Fig. 4. A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve)

Jupiter-Earth distance. but we should notice that the sinusoid of geomag-

3.3 Jovian planets alignments as the source of abrupt geomag-

O3∗ = λO3 . (6)

So that O3 is geomagnetic jerk at Eq. (4) and O ∗ is relevant total geomag-

Fig. 5. The Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.

Fig. 6. The Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.

of the line arcs in the Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune alignment.

Fig. 7. The Saturn-Jupiter-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.

Fig. 8. The Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.

Fig. 9. The Uranus-Jupiter-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.

Fig. 10. The Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.

Sun-Neptune which the Saturn is almost in minimum distance with Jupiter

Fig. 11. The Jupiter-Sun-Saturn alignments and relevant line arcs.

By the way, the Jovian alignments generate geomagnetic jerks propor-

Fig. 12. The Jupiter-Sun-Uranus alignments and relevant line arcs.

Fig. 13. The Jupiter-Sun-Neptune alignments and relevant line arcs.

alignments of Jupiter-Sun-Neptune should be less marked events and this

Fig. 14. Several alignments concern to relevant geomagnetic jerk dates.

12.10, Jupiter-Sun-Saturn at epoch 1990.07.22 and these alignments are

O3∗ [J − Jup − J] ≈ 30000 sin(α)/L2 . (9)

βJup−Sun−J = 1.2βJ−Jup−J = 2.4βJup−J−J . (10)

3.4. Historical jerks reports and inevitable agreement with

Fig. 16. The alignments in agreement with reported geomagnetic jerks.

Table 11. Geomagnetic jerks reported in the interval 1600–1900.

Fig. 17. The alignments in agreement with reported geomagnetic jerks.

The iteration of an alignment is iteration of the jerk as a strong conﬁr-

1. Direct eﬀect by the Sun’s magnetic ﬁeld absolute oscillation through

Up to here in this paper, we have considered constant, the Sun’s absolute

O3 = k53 |(∂B05 /∂t)orbital + (∂B05 /∂t)absolute | (11)

O3 = k53 |(∂B05 /∂t)orbit + (∂B05 /∂t)absolute | +

solar activity is possible to cancel apparently the six-year signal. However,

is in relation with the sunspots number approximately, because that SSN is

reversal is a real phenomenon and Sun’s magnetic ﬁeld is really changing

3.6. Long term decreasing trend of lod signals and geomagnetic

by Earth’s magnetic ﬁeld as a dynamo and similar to the alignments ampli-

Δ∗ LOD = μBearth . (16)

So that μ is assumed as a constant and by this relation we obtain that:

You might also like