pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.18188 · v3 · submitted 2024-07-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.space-ph

Evolution of reconnection flux during eruption of magnetic flux ropes

Samriddhi Sankar Maity , Piyali Chatterjee , Ranadeep Sarkar , Ijas S. Mytheen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 23:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph
keywords magnetic flux ropesreconnection fluxcoronal mass ejectionsMHD simulationssolar eruptionsspace weatherflux emergence
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reconnection flux increases linearly with the speed of erupting magnetic flux ropes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a 3D MHD simulation in which a twisted flux rope emerges through the lower boundary into a potential arcade within an isothermal atmosphere. As the rope rises it stretches the overlying field, forms a current sheet, and undergoes reconnection that drives two successive eruptions. The authors track the accumulated reconnection flux through each event and compare the time series to HMI and AIA observations of a real eruptive flare. They report that, from onset through the impulsive phase, reconnection flux maintains a strong linear relation with the measured velocity of the rope. This relation supplies a direct link between the amount of reconnected flux and the final speed of the associated coronal mass ejection.

Core claim

In the simulated configuration an emerging pre-twisted flux rope stretches the overlying potential arcade, builds a current sheet, and reconnects; the integrated reconnection flux grows linearly with the rising velocity of the rope through both the slow-rise and impulsive phases of two successive eruptions. The identical linear correlation is recovered from vector magnetograms and EUV imaging of an observed solar event, indicating that reconnection flux sets the kinematic evolution of the erupting structure.

What carries the argument

Reconnection flux accumulated beneath the rising flux rope, obtained by integrating the normal component of the electric field along the current-sheet polarity inversion line.

If this is right

  • CME speed can be estimated from the accumulated reconnection flux once the linear coefficient is calibrated.
  • Continuous lower-boundary flux emergence sustains multiple eruptions whose kinematics remain governed by the same reconnection-velocity relation.
  • The model supplies a quantitative route from photospheric flux cancellation rates to the final velocity of the ejected rope.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-time measurement of reconnection flux from vector magnetograms could be folded into operational space-weather speed forecasts.
  • The linear scaling may extend to other flux-rope geometries provided the current-sheet geometry remains similar.
  • If the correlation holds across a wider range of emergence rates, it offers a simple diagnostic for distinguishing confined from eruptive events.

Load-bearing premise

The imposed emergence of a pre-twisted rope at the lower boundary produces reconnection and eruption dynamics representative of real solar events.

What would settle it

A set of observed eruptions in which the time-integrated reconnection flux, measured from vector magnetograms, shows no linear relation with the independently measured CME speed would falsify the reported correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2407.18188 by Ijas S. Mytheen, Piyali Chatterjee, Ranadeep Sarkar, Samriddhi Sankar Maity.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Location of STEREO spacecraft and Earth on 2011 August 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different phases of the filament eruption on 2011 August 04 as observed by STEREO-A. (a) Image of the Sun in STEREO-A EUVI 304 ˚A ˙ (b) COR1 image superimposed with STEREO-A EUVI 304 ˚A ˙ (c) Superimposed images of STEREO-A EUVI 304 ˚A , COR1 and COR2. The yellow arrows in panels (a) and (b) indicate the filament leading edge. The images are plotted using JHelioviewer (https://www.jhelioviewer.org/). In th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Flare associated brightening observed in AIA 1600 ˚A channel during the flare occurred in AR 11261. Right panel: The associated HMI Br magnetic field (gray color scale with saturation value ±500 Gauss) and the temporal evolution of the flare ribbons from 03:41 UT to 04:17 UT on 2011 August 04 . other options provided by the Pencil Code—we solve the following set of compressible MHD equations. D… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Time profile of signed cumulative reconnection flux integrated over the positive (red) and negative (blue) magnetic polarities underlying the flare ribbons. (b) Time profile of unsigned instantaneous reconnection flux integrated over the positive (red) and negative (blue) magnetic polarities underlying the flare ribbons. (c) Height time plot of the filament leading edge measured from STEREO EUVI, COR1 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radiative cooling function in used in this work is a modified version of Cook et al. (1989) of 512×288×160, which is non uniform in r but uniform in θ and ϕ. The grid spacing in r is dr = 0.002R⊙ at the lower boundary which gradually increases in a log￾arithmic manner reaching dr = 0.003R⊙ at the upper boundary. We consider a high-temperature coronal plasma as an ideal gas with an adiabatic constant of… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The twisted torus right before emerging through the bottom boundary at r = R⊙ (in gray). The number of turns of a single field line (black) around the circular axis of the torus is shown. At the lower boundary, we impose an electromotive force given by E |r=R⊙ = − 1 c v0 × Btorus(R⊙, θ, ϕ, t) which bodily transports the twisted torus radially into the domain. The major and minor radius of the torus are 0.2… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 3D evolution of the magnetic field of a the twisted flux rope as it emerges into the solar corona at the specified times (in hours). Red field lines represents field line anchored in the ambient arcade, while blue, green, and cyan field lines indicate field lines originating from the emerging flux region. An animation of this evolution is available in the online paper. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Ekin (x1030er… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total kinetic energy Ekin (red) and total mag￾netic energy Emag (blue) as a function of time. The dashed vertical line represents the time when the flux emergence stops. windings of the field line twist around the axis exceed a critical value between the line-tied ends (Hood & Priest 1981; T¨or¨ok & Kliem 2003; T¨or¨ok et al. 2004). This critical value is 1.25 (Hood & Priest 1981) for uniformly cylindrical… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Identification of current sheet and field lines of the flux rope from different viewing angles. The current sheet (in white) traced from the temperature isosurface with a value log10 T = 6.6 shown in panel (a). The field lines passing through such sheets gives the reconnection flux. The sigmoid fieldlines are shown in panels (b) and (c). The time in all these panels are taken at t = 27.32 hours. ary. The r… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of velocity, (a)-(b), and reconnection flux, (c)-(d), for both the eruptions in the simulation. The velocity is calculated by tracking the flux rope in the central meridional plane. The reconnection flux is calculated by the magnetic flux passing through the footpoints of the fieldlines as well as through the current sheet shown in Fig. 9a. The red (blue) circles are used to represent simul… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) CME reconnection flux vs velocity plot for the first eruption. The red (blue) circles are used to represent before (after) the eruption, respectively. The solid (dashed) line is the linear fit to the points before (after) the eruption, respectively. (b) Same as (a) but for the second eruption. tive events. Notably, the Pearson’s correlation coeffi￾cients before the eruption for the two events are 0.86… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Height time profile of the flux rope before and after the first eruption at t = 27.9 hours. The height is calculated by tracking the dark region (flux rope) in the temperature profile. (b) Same as (a), but for the second eruption at t = 34.7 hours. The variation in reconnection flux over time is attributed to changes in the area of the foot points of the field lines near the lower boundary at a height… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cumulative area of footpoints of the fieldlines passing through the the reconnection sheet for the first (a) and second eruption (b), respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are powerful drivers of space weather, with magnetic flux ropes (MFRs) widely regarded as their primary precursors. However, the variation in reconnection flux during the evolution of MFR during CME eruptions remains poorly understood. In this paper, we develop a realistic 3D magneto-hydrodynamic model using which we explore the temporal evolution of reconnection flux during the MFR evolution using both numerical simulations and observational data. Our initial coronal configuration features an isothermal atmosphere and a potential arcade magnetic field beneath which an MFR emerges at the lower boundary. As the MFR rises, we observe significant stretching and compression of the overlying magnetic field beneath it. Magnetic reconnection begins with the gradual formation of a current sheet, eventually culminating with the impulsive expulsion of the flux rope. We analyze the temporal evolution of reconnection fluxes during two successive MFR eruptions while continuously emerging the twisted flux rope through the lower boundary. We also conduct a similar analysis using observational data from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) and the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) for an eruptive event. Comparing our MHD simulation with observational data, we find that reconnection flux play a crucial role in determination of CME speeds. From the onset to the eruption, the reconnection flux shows a strong linear correlation with the velocity. This nearly realistic simulation of a solar eruption provides important insights into the complex dynamics of CME initiation and progression.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 3D MHD simulation of a pre-twisted magnetic flux rope emerging through a potential arcade in an isothermal atmosphere, producing two successive eruptions. It tracks the temporal evolution of reconnection flux during these events and reports a strong linear correlation between reconnection flux and MFR velocity from onset through eruption. A parallel analysis is performed on a single eruptive event observed with HMI and AIA data. The authors conclude that reconnection flux plays a crucial role in determining CME speeds.

Significance. If the reported linear correlation between reconnection flux and velocity proves robust and independent of the specific boundary driving, the work would offer a concrete dynamical link between reconnection and CME acceleration that could be tested against a broader set of events. The use of a continuously driven 3D setup combined with even a single-event observational comparison is a positive step toward bridging simulation and data, though the current scope limits the strength of the general claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [model description / abstract] The model description states that the twisted flux rope is continuously emerged at the lower boundary while the overlying arcade and atmosphere remain fixed. Because this imposed emergence simultaneously supplies additional flux available for reconnection and increases the magnetic pressure driving the MFR upward, both the reconnection flux and the velocity are directly slaved to the same boundary condition. This makes the reported linear correlation (abstract) potentially an artifact of the chosen driving rather than a general relation; varying the emergence rate or using a different initiation mechanism is required to test whether the correlation survives.
  2. [abstract and results] The central claim that reconnection flux 'plays a crucial role in determination of CME speeds' rests on the correlation measured inside a single driven simulation plus one observational event. No sensitivity tests on boundary parameters (e.g., emergence rate, initial arcade strength) or alternative numerical integration methods for reconnection flux are reported, leaving the load-bearing result without demonstrated robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract / results] The abstract and results section do not specify how reconnection flux is numerically integrated (e.g., which field lines or current-sheet threshold is used) or whether error bars or sensitivity to integration parameters accompany the linear correlation.
  2. [observational analysis] The observational comparison is restricted to a single event; the manuscript should clarify whether this is intended as a qualitative illustration or a quantitative test.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive suggestions. We address the major comments point by point below, proposing revisions to clarify the limitations of our study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [model description / abstract] The model description states that the twisted flux rope is continuously emerged at the lower boundary while the overlying arcade and atmosphere remain fixed. Because this imposed emergence simultaneously supplies additional flux available for reconnection and increases the magnetic pressure driving the MFR upward, both the reconnection flux and the velocity are directly slaved to the same boundary condition. This makes the reported linear correlation (abstract) potentially an artifact of the chosen driving rather than a general relation; varying the emergence rate or using a different initiation mechanism is required to test whether the correlation survives.

    Authors: We agree that the continuous emergence at the lower boundary influences both the reconnection flux and the MFR velocity. This setup is chosen to model the realistic emergence of flux ropes in the solar atmosphere. However, the linear correlation is observed consistently across the two successive eruptions within the simulation, and it aligns with the observational analysis of an independent event. We will revise the abstract to state that the correlation 'suggests' a crucial role rather than asserting it definitively, and add a paragraph in the discussion section addressing the potential influence of the boundary conditions and the need for future studies with varied driving mechanisms. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [abstract and results] The central claim that reconnection flux 'plays a crucial role in determination of CME speeds' rests on the correlation measured inside a single driven simulation plus one observational event. No sensitivity tests on boundary parameters (e.g., emergence rate, initial arcade strength) or alternative numerical integration methods for reconnection flux are reported, leaving the load-bearing result without demonstrated robustness.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our study is based on a single simulation setup with two eruptions and one observational case, without explicit sensitivity tests on parameters such as emergence rate or arcade strength. Performing such tests would require additional computationally expensive simulations. We will modify the abstract and conclusions to present the findings as indicative rather than conclusive, and include a dedicated subsection on study limitations, emphasizing the need for broader parameter explorations in future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation outputs are independent measurements from driven MHD run

full rationale

The paper reports a linear correlation between reconnection flux and velocity measured inside a 3D MHD simulation whose sole load-bearing input is an imposed time-dependent emergence profile at the lower boundary. No equation, parameter fit, or self-citation is shown to reduce the reported correlation to that boundary condition by algebraic identity or statistical necessity; the correlation is simply one diagnostic extracted from the evolved fields. The observational comparison is likewise external. Because the central claim is an empirical relation obtained from the model rather than a re-derivation or renaming of the driving itself, the derivation chain contains no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard MHD equations plus several domain assumptions required to close the system and drive the eruption. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • flux-rope emergence rate at lower boundary
    The rate at which twisted flux is continuously pushed through the photospheric boundary is chosen to produce two successive eruptions; its specific functional form is not derived from first principles.
  • initial arcade field strength and scale height
    The potential arcade beneath the emerging rope is set by hand to allow the rope to rise and form a current sheet.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The solar corona can be treated as an isothermal ideal MHD fluid with infinite conductivity except inside the current sheet.
    Standard assumption invoked to close the MHD equations and allow reconnection only where the grid resolves the sheet.
  • domain assumption The initial magnetic field is current-free (potential) and the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium.
    Used to set the starting state before the flux rope is introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5802 in / 1534 out tokens · 18144 ms · 2026-05-23T23:41:25.311817+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Aly, J

    Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1073, doi: 10.1086/345501

    work page doi:10.1086/345501 2003

  2. [2]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485, doi: 10.1086/306563

    work page doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  3. [3]

    2009, ApJ, 691, 1276, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1276

    Deluca, E. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1276, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1276

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1276 2009

  4. [4]

    2014, in Nature of Prominences and their Role in Space Weather, ed

    Aulanier, G. 2014, in Nature of Prominences and their Role in Space Weather, ed. B. Schmieder, J.-M. Malherbe, & S. T. Wu, Vol. 300, 184–196, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313010958

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921313010958 2014

  5. [5]

    2005, A&A, 444, 961, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053600

    Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & D´ emoulin, P. 2005, A&A, 444, 961, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053600

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053600 2005

  6. [6]

    Aulanier, G., T¨ or¨ ok, T., D´ emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/314 2010

  7. [7]

    1978, MHD instabilities (The MIT Press)

    Bateman, G. 1978, MHD instabilities (The MIT Press)

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    M., Berkebile-Stoiser, S., Veronig, A

    Bein, B. M., Berkebile-Stoiser, S., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., & Vrˇ snak, B. 2012, ApJ, 755, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/44 2012

  9. [9]

    2022, ApJL, 925, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    Bian, X., Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zuo, P., & Wang, Y. 2022, ApJL, 925, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980 2022

  10. [10]

    2020, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 114, 213, doi: 10.1080/03091929.2019.1672676

    Chatterjee, P. 2020, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 114, 213, doi: 10.1080/03091929.2019.1672676

    work page doi:10.1080/03091929.2019.1672676 2020

  11. [11]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L8

    Chatterjee, P., & Fan, Y. 2013, ApJL, 778, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l8 2013

  12. [12]

    2016, PhRvL, 116, 101101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.101101

    Chatterjee, P., Hansteen, V., & Carlsson, M. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 101101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.101101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.101101 2016

  13. [13]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24

    Chen, J. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 090501, doi: 10.1063/1.4993929

    Chen, J. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 090501, doi: 10.1063/1.4993929

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4993929 2017

  15. [15]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  16. [16]

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., & Ding, M. D. 2011, ApJL, 732, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L25

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/l25 2011

  17. [17]

    W., Cheng, C

    Cook, J. W., Cheng, C. C., Jacobs, V. L., & Antiochos, S. K. 1989, ApJ, 338, 1176, doi: 10.1086/167268

    work page doi:10.1086/167268 1989

  18. [18]

    R., & Antiochos, S

    DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2008, ApJ, 680, 740, doi: 10.1086/588011

    work page doi:10.1086/588011 2008

  19. [19]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33

    Duan, A., Jiang, C., He, W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33 2019

  20. [20]

    T., Liu, Y., & Zhang, H

    Dun, J., Kurokawa, H., Ishii, T. T., Liu, Y., & Zhang, H. 2007, ApJ, 657, 577, doi: 10.1086/510373 12 Maity et al

    work page doi:10.1086/510373 2007

  21. [21]

    2001, ApJL, 554, L111, doi: 10.1086/320935 —

    Fan, Y. 2001, ApJL, 554, L111, doi: 10.1086/320935 —. 2010, ApJ, 719, 728, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/728 —. 2012, ApJ, 758, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/60

    work page doi:10.1086/320935 2001

  22. [22]

    G., & Priest, E

    Forbes, T. G., & Priest, E. R. 1984, SoPh, 94, 315, doi: 10.1007/BF00151321

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00151321 1984

  23. [23]

    G., Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8 2006

  24. [24]

    E., & Fan, Y

    Gibson, S. E., & Fan, Y. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A12103, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011871

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja011871 2006

  25. [25]

    2017, SoPh, 292, 65, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1080-9

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Akiyama, S., & Xie, H. 2017, SoPh, 292, 65, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1080-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1080-9 2017

  26. [26]

    W., & Priest, E

    Hood, A. W., & Priest, E. R. 1981, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 17, 297, doi: 10.1080/03091928108243687

    work page doi:10.1080/03091928108243687 1981

  27. [27]

    , author =

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 2008

  28. [28]

    2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1466

    Hu, Q. 2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1466

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    A., & Forbes, T

    Isenberg, P. A., & Forbes, T. G. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1453, doi: 10.1086/522025

    work page doi:10.1086/522025 2007

  30. [30]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., & D´ emoulin, P. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3 2015

  31. [31]

    Kazachenko, M. D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.02878, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.02878

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02878 2023

  32. [32]

    D., Lynch, B

    Kazachenko, M. D., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., & Sun, X. 2017, ApJ, 845, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6 2017

  33. [33]

    2006, PhRvL, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.255002 2006

  34. [34]

    A., & Poletto, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Poletto, G. 1986, in The Sun and the Heliosphere in Three Dimensions, ed. R. G. Marsden & L. A. Fisk, Vol. 123, 65, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-4612-5 8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4612-5 1986

  35. [35]

    , Title , A.M

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  36. [36]

    J., Welsch, B

    Li, Y., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., et al. 2010, SoPh, 264, 149, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9547-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9547-y 2010

  37. [37]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165

    Liu, R. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    MacTaggart, D., & Hood, A. W. 2009, A&A, 508, 445, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913197

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913197 2009

  39. [39]

    2004, ApJ, 605, 480, doi: 10.1086/382148 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., Hansteen, V., & Carlsson, M

    Magara, T. 2004, ApJ, 605, 480, doi: 10.1086/382148 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., Hansteen, V., & Carlsson, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 871, doi: 10.1086/587028

    work page doi:10.1086/382148 2004

  40. [40]

    V., & Hudson, H

    Nitta, N. V., & Hudson, H. S. 2001, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3801, doi: 10.1029/2001GL013261

    work page doi:10.1029/2001gl013261 2001

  41. [41]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/125

    Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., & Stenborg, G. 2013, ApJ, 764, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/125 2013

  42. [42]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al

    Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., T¨ or¨ ok, T., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2807, doi: 10.21105/joss.02807

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9 2020

  43. [43]

    Z., & Gary, D

    Qiu, J., Wang, H., Cheng, C. Z., & Gary, D. E. 2004, ApJ, 604, 900, doi: 10.1086/382122

    work page doi:10.1086/382122 2004

  44. [44]

    Culhane, J. L. 2000, A&A, 360, 1163 R´ egnier, S., & Canfield, R. C. 2006, A&A, 451, 319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054171

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054171 2000

  45. [45]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa1df

    Romano, P., Elmhamdi, A., Falco, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa1df

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa1df 2018

  46. [46]

    and Zuccarello, F

    Romano, P., Zuccarello, F., Guglielmino, S. L., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525887

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525887 2015

  47. [47]

    Sarkar, R., Srivastava, N., & Veronig, A. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 885, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4da2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4da2 2019

  48. [48]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/15

    Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., van Ballegooijen, A., Aulanier, G., & DeLuca, E. 2012, ApJ, 750, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/15 2012

  49. [49]

    2013, Advances in Space Research, 51, 1967

    Schmieder, B., D´ emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 51, 1967

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    , Scherrer , P.H

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 2012

  51. [51]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    Shibata, K., & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-6 2011

  52. [52]

    C., & Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 25227, doi: 10.1029/2000JA004001

    work page doi:10.1029/2000ja004001 2001

  53. [53]

    M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al

    Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al. 2008, ApJL, 673, L95, doi: 10.1086/527414

    work page doi:10.1086/527414 2008

  54. [54]

    T., Davila, J

    Thompson, W. T., Davila, J. M., Fisher, R. R., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V. Avakyan, 1–11, doi: 10.1117/12.460267

    work page doi:10.1117/12.460267 2003

  55. [55]

    Titov, V. S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 863, doi: 10.1086/512671

    work page doi:10.1086/512671 2007

  56. [56]

    S., & D´ emoulin, P

    Titov, V. S., & D´ emoulin, P. 1999, A&A, 351, 707 T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B. 2003, A&A, 406, 1043, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030692 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Kliem, B., & Titov, V. S. 2004, A&A, 413, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031691 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971, doi: 10.1086/167766

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030692 1999

  57. [57]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075 Evolution of reconnection flux 13

    Wang, Y., Zhuang, B., Hu, Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075 Evolution of reconnection flux 13

    work page doi:10.1002/2016ja023075 2016

  58. [58]

    R., Tarbell, T

    Wuelser, J.-P., Lemen, J. R., Tarbell, T. D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5171, Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. Fineschi & M. A. Gummin, 111–122, doi: 10.1117/12.506877

    work page doi:10.1117/12.506877 2004

  59. [59]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9995

    Xu, Z., Yang, K., Guo, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9995

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9995 2017

  60. [60]

    White, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 559, 452, doi: 10.1086/322405

    work page doi:10.1086/322405 2001

  61. [61]

    2002, ApJL, 566, L117, doi: 10.1086/339660

    Zhang, J., & Wang, J. 2002, ApJL, 566, L117, doi: 10.1086/339660

    work page doi:10.1086/339660 2002

  62. [62]

    2008, SoPh, 247, 39, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9089-0 14 Maity et al

    Zhang, Y., Liu, J., & Zhang, H. 2008, SoPh, 247, 39, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9089-0 14 Maity et al. 6. APPENDIX The height-time plot is produced by tracking the dark region in the r − θ plane of the temperature profile, which represents the MFR. By following this dark region consistently, we determine the MFR’s velocity during the flux rope’s evolution. 3...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9089-0 2008