pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20305 · v1 · pith:FMGEVBVJnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Intermittent turbulent fluctuations in solar coronal mass ejections

Apurva Bhagat , Sumit Tambe , Debesh Bhattacharjee , Prasad Subramanian This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionsturbulent spotsintermittencyplasma turbulenceproton heatingsolar windspace weathersheath region
0
0 comments X

The pith

In observations of 125 coronal mass ejections, the strongest turbulent spots and their occurrence rate mark the arrival of the leading edge.

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

The paper examines near-Earth spacecraft data for 125 solar coronal mass ejections to identify localized regions of intense fluctuations. It finds that the peak intensity of these regions and how often they appear reliably coincide with the start of each event's leading section. The same regions also show signs of greater proton heating than surrounding plasma. If this pattern holds, it supplies a practical marker for tracking CME fronts and a clue to energy transfer in space plasmas.

Core claim

Using in-situ measurements from a sample of 125 coronal mass ejections, the intensity of the strongest turbulent spot and the rate at which such spots occur serve as reliable indicators of the onset of the leading part of the CME event. Turbulent spots additionally appear as sites of enhanced proton heating.

What carries the argument

Turbulent spots: localized regions of high-intensity fluctuations that act as signatures of intermittency in collisionless plasma turbulence; they function as timing markers for CME leading edges and candidate heating locations.

If this is right

  • The two turbulent-spot metrics can be applied to forecast when the leading edge of a CME reaches Earth.
  • Turbulent spots supply sites where protons gain extra heat inside the sheath region ahead of the CME.
  • Incorporating these metrics can refine models that predict space-weather effects driven by CME sheaths.
  • The approach adds a concrete observational handle on intermittency in solar-wind turbulence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Real-time tracking of turbulent-spot intensity and rate from a single spacecraft could give earlier alerts than bulk flow-speed changes alone.
  • The same fluctuation analysis might be tested on other transient solar-wind structures to see whether the indicators are unique to CMEs.
  • If turbulent spots are confirmed heating sites, energy-dissipation calculations for collisionless plasmas can be adjusted to weight these localized regions more heavily.

Load-bearing premise

The sample of 125 events and the method for spotting high-fluctuation regions produce indicators that hold for other CMEs and correctly isolate intermittency.

What would settle it

A collection of CME events in which the leading edge arrives at the spacecraft without a corresponding peak in either the intensity of the strongest turbulent spot or the spot occurrence rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20305 by Apurva Bhagat, Debesh Bhattacharjee, Prasad Subramanian, Sumit Tambe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of a flux rope CME. The left panel depicts an overall view of the flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Near-Earth time series measurements of proton temperature in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The colorscale in top panel shows the frequency pre-multiplied power spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The temperature (top panel), IP SDB (second panel), IP SDV (third panel) and IP SDn (fourth panel) for the event shown in figure 2. peak in the sheath and the highest peak in the CME. In order to quantify the contrast between the background and the sheath, we compute the ratio of the highest IP SDB peak in the sheath to that in the solar wind background. We repeat this procedure for the other quantities; i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms for the logarithm of the ratio of the largest peak in the sheath to that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mean and standard deviation corresponding to the statistics for the 10 largest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Localised regions of high intensity fluctuations are known to be signatures of intermittency in fluid and plasma turbulence. We investigate such turbulent spots using near-Earth {\em in-situ} spacecraft observations of a sample of 125 solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). We present statistical results which suggest that the intensity of the strongest turbulent spot and the turbulent spot occurrence rate are reliable indicators of the onset of the leading part of the CME event. Our findings also suggest that turbulent spots can be sites of enhanced proton heating. The findings of this study can enhance our understanding of intermittence in collisionless plasma turbulence and can improve CME/sheath-driven space weather impact prediction models.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes near-Earth in-situ observations of 125 solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) to identify localized high-intensity fluctuation regions as signatures of intermittency. It reports statistical results indicating that the intensity of the strongest turbulent spot and the turbulent spot occurrence rate serve as reliable indicators of the onset of the leading part of the CME, and suggests that these spots are sites of enhanced proton heating, with implications for understanding collisionless plasma turbulence and improving space weather models.

Significance. If the turbulent-spot identification is shown to isolate true intermittency signatures rather than other CME structures, the work could provide useful observational constraints on intermittency in the solar wind and practical indicators for CME leading-edge arrival. The 125-event sample size is a strength for statistical claims, but the absence of reported controls for confounding structures limits the current impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (identification procedure)] The central claims rest on the assumption that high-intensity fluctuation regions are intermittency signatures. No details are provided on the identification threshold, any accompanying scale-dependent diagnostics (e.g., kurtosis, structure-function exponents, or spectral slopes), or controls that distinguish these regions from sheath discontinuities, shocks, or current sheets. This directly undermines both the indicator reliability and the proton-heating suggestion.
  2. [Results (statistical analysis)] The statistical results on occurrence rate and strongest-spot intensity as onset indicators are presented without reported error bars, sample-selection criteria, or tests against null hypotheses (e.g., randomized event times or sheath-only intervals). Without these, the generalization claim from the 125-event sample cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Results (heating analysis)] The proton-heating claim requires a quantitative comparison (e.g., temperature or heating-rate profiles inside vs. outside identified spots). No such comparison or control for overall sheath heating is described, leaving the suggestion unsupported by the reported evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the findings 'can enhance our understanding' and 'can improve' models, but these are forward-looking statements rather than demonstrated outcomes; rephrase to reflect what is actually shown.
  2. [Introduction/Methods] Notation for 'turbulent spot' and 'intensity' should be defined explicitly on first use, including any normalization or units employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (identification procedure)] The central claims rest on the assumption that high-intensity fluctuation regions are intermittency signatures. No details are provided on the identification threshold, any accompanying scale-dependent diagnostics (e.g., kurtosis, structure-function exponents, or spectral slopes), or controls that distinguish these regions from sheath discontinuities, shocks, or current sheets. This directly undermines both the indicator reliability and the proton-heating suggestion.

    Authors: We agree that the identification procedure requires explicit documentation. The turbulent spots were identified as intervals where the magnetic-field fluctuation amplitude exceeds a threshold of three local standard deviations sustained over at least 5 minutes; this will be stated in Section 2. In the revision we will add kurtosis and second-order structure-function exponents computed inside versus outside the spots, and we will explicitly discuss how the spots are distinguished from shocks and current sheets by their occurrence well after the leading-edge discontinuity and by the absence of abrupt jumps in density or velocity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (statistical analysis)] The statistical results on occurrence rate and strongest-spot intensity as onset indicators are presented without reported error bars, sample-selection criteria, or tests against null hypotheses (e.g., randomized event times or sheath-only intervals). Without these, the generalization claim from the 125-event sample cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The 125 events were drawn from the Wind CME catalog with the requirement of clear magnetic-field rotation and sheath signatures; this selection criterion will be added to Section 2. Error bars on occurrence rates and peak intensities (bootstrap 95 % confidence intervals) will be included in Figures 3 and 4. A null test that randomizes the timing of the identified spots relative to the CME leading edge will be added to demonstrate that the reported alignment is statistically significant. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (heating analysis)] The proton-heating claim requires a quantitative comparison (e.g., temperature or heating-rate profiles inside vs. outside identified spots). No such comparison or control for overall sheath heating is described, leaving the suggestion unsupported by the reported evidence.

    Authors: The suggestion of enhanced proton heating is currently based on a visual correlation between spot locations and local temperature increases. We acknowledge that a quantitative comparison is needed. In the revision we will add median proton-temperature profiles inside versus outside the spots, normalized to the background sheath temperature, together with a control that excludes the immediate post-shock region, to place the heating claim on a firmer footing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational statistics with no derivations

full rationale

The paper reports direct statistical counts and intensity measures from in-situ observations of 125 CMEs, with no equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or load-bearing self-citations. The indicators (strongest turbulent spot intensity, occurrence rate) are computed straightforwardly from fluctuation data without any reduction to inputs by construction or ansatz smuggling. This is the most common honest finding for observational papers lacking a derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the domain assumption that high-intensity fluctuation regions are reliable intermittency signatures; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Localised regions of high intensity fluctuations are known to be signatures of intermittency in fluid and plasma turbulence.
    Opening sentence of the abstract presents this as established background.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5642 in / 1186 out tokens · 17456 ms · 2026-06-26T15:34:21.497751+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

52 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anand and S

    A. Anand and S. S. Diwan. Time-frequency analysis for two cases of boundary-layer transition induced by random distributed roughness.Experiments in Fluids, 61(60), 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    W. J. Baars, K. M. Talluru, N. Hutchins, et al. Wavelet analysis of wall turbulence to study large-scale modulation of small scales.Experiments in Fluids, 56(188), 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Characterizing proton polytropic indices inside near-earth magnetic clouds and icme sheaths.Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46(2):1–15, 2025

    Debesh Bhattacharjee, Saikat Majumder, and Prasad Subramanian. Characterizing proton polytropic indices inside near-earth magnetic clouds and icme sheaths.Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46(2):1–15, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    On modeling icme cross-sections as static mhd columns.Solar Physics, 297(4):45, 2022

    Debesh Bhattacharjee, Prasad Subramanian, Volker Bothmer, Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla, and Angelos Vourlidas. On modeling icme cross-sections as static mhd columns.Solar Physics, 297(4):45, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Turbulence and anomalous resistivity inside near-Earth magnetic clouds

    Debesh Bhattacharjee, Prasad Subramanian, Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla, and Angelos Vourlidas. Turbulence and anomalous resistivity inside near-Earth magnetic clouds. MNRAS, 518(1):1185–1194, January 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Characterizing the specific en- ergy and pressure in near-earth magnetic clouds.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669:A153, 2023

    Debesh Bhattacharjee, Prasad Subramanian, Angelos Vourlidas, Teresa Nieves- Chinchilla, Niranjana Thejaswi, and Nishtha Sachdeva. Characterizing the specific en- ergy and pressure in near-earth magnetic clouds.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669:A153, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Borovsky and Herbert O

    Joseph E. Borovsky and Herbert O. Funsten. Role of solar wind turbulence in the cou- pling of the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere.Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108(A6):1246, June 2003

    2003

  8. [8]

    K¨ ahler

    Matthew Bross, Sven Scharnowski, and Christian J. K¨ ahler. Large-scale coherent struc- tures in compressible turbulent boundary layers.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 911:A2, March 2021. 14

    2021

  9. [9]

    The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Laboratory

    Roberto Bruno and Vincenzo Carbone. The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Laboratory. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10(1):2, December 2013

    2013

  10. [10]

    L. F. Burlaga. Magnetic clouds and force-free fields with constant alpha. J. Geo- phys. Res., 93(A7):7217–7224, July 1988

    1988

  11. [11]

    Magnetic clouds and force-free fields with constant alpha.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93(A7):7217–7224, 1988

    LF Burlaga. Magnetic clouds and force-free fields with constant alpha.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93(A7):7217–7224, 1988

    1988

  12. [12]

    Space Weather: From Solar Origins to Risks and Hazards Evolving in Time.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9:429, December 2022

    Natalia Buzulukova and Bruce Tsurutani. Space Weather: From Solar Origins to Risks and Hazards Evolving in Time.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9:429, December 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    C. H. K. Chen. Recent progress in astrophysical plasma turbulence from solar wind observations.Journal of Plasma Physics, 82(6):535820602, December 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Acceleration of coronal mass ejections.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108(A11), 2003

    James Chen and Jonathan Krall. Acceleration of coronal mass ejections.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108(A11), 2003

    2003

  15. [15]

    Coronal mass ejections: models and their observational basis.Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8(1):1–92, 2011

    PF Chen. Coronal mass ejections: models and their observational basis.Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8(1):1–92, 2011

    2011

  16. [16]

    Gupta, and Lalit Gupta

    Xiaoqian Chen, Resh S. Gupta, and Lalit Gupta. Exploiting the cone of influence for improving the performance of wavelet transform-based models for erp/eeg classification. Brain Sciences, 13(1), 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Wavelets and Signal Processing

    L. Cohen.in “Wavelets and Signal Processing”, Debnath, L (ed). Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkh¨ auser Boston, 2003

    2003

  18. [18]

    Dhawan and R

    S. Dhawan and R. Narasimha. Some properties of boundary layer flow during the transition from laminar to turbulent motion.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 3(4):418–436, 1958

    1958

  19. [19]

    An Analysis of a Coronal Mass Ejection Leading Edge by Means of Multi-Spacecraft-in-Beam Phase Scintillation.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2512.04337, December 2025

    Jasper Edwards, Guifr´ e Molera Calv´ es, John Morgan, and Mark Cheung. An Analysis of a Coronal Mass Ejection Leading Edge by Means of Multi-Spacecraft-in-Beam Phase Scintillation.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2512.04337, December 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Wavelet transforms and their applications to turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 24(Volume 24, 1992):395–458, 1992

    Marie Farge. Wavelet transforms and their applications to turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 24(Volume 24, 1992):395–458, 1992

    1992

  21. [21]

    Turbulent Power: A Discriminator Between Sheaths and CMEs

    Deep Ghuge, Debesh Bhattacharjee, and Prasad Subramanian. Turbulent Power: A Discriminator Between Sheaths and CMEs. Sol. Phys., 300(4):47, April 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Radial evolution of magnetic field fluctuations in an interplanetary coronal mass ejection sheath.The Astrophysical Journal, 893(2):110, 2020

    SW Good, M Ala-Lahti, E Palmerio, EKJ Kilpua, and A Osmane. Radial evolution of magnetic field fluctuations in an interplanetary coronal mass ejection sheath.The Astrophysical Journal, 893(2):110, 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2001

    Karlheinz Gr¨ ochenig.The Short-Time Fourier Transform, pages 37–58. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2001. 15

    2001

  24. [24]

    Alex Guo, Daniel Floryan, and Michael D. Graham. Self-similar, spatially localized structures in turbulent pipe flow from a data-driven wavelet decomposition.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 971:A9, September 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Reconstruction of magnetic clouds in the solar wind: Orientations and configurations.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107(A7):SSH–10, 2002

    Qiang Hu and Bengt U ¨O Sonnerup. Reconstruction of magnetic clouds in the solar wind: Orientations and configurations.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107(A7):SSH–10, 2002

    2002

  26. [26]

    E. K. J. Kilpua, H. Hietala, H. E. J. Koskinen, D. Fontaine, and L. Turc. Magnetic field and dynamic pressure ULF fluctuations in coronal-mass-ejection-driven sheath regions. Annales Geophysicae, 31(9):1559–1567, September 2013

    2013

  27. [27]

    Magnetic field fluctuation properties of coronal mass ejection-driven sheath re- gions in the near-earth solar wind.Annales Geophysicae Discussions, 2020:1–30, 2020

    Emilia KJ Kilpua, Dominique Fontaine, Simon Good, Matti Ala-Lahti, Adnane Os- mane, Erika Palmerio, Emiliya Yordanova, Clement Moissard, Lina Z Hadid, and Miho Janvier. Magnetic field fluctuation properties of coronal mass ejection-driven sheath re- gions in the near-earth solar wind.Annales Geophysicae Discussions, 2020:1–30, 2020

    2020

  28. [28]

    K. C. Kim and R. J. Adrian. Very large-scale motion in the outer layer.Physics of Fluids, 11(2):417–422, February 1999

    1999

  29. [29]

    Interplanetary magnetic clouds at 1 au.Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics, 87(A2):613–624, 1982

    LW Klein and LF Burlaga. Interplanetary magnetic clouds at 1 au.Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics, 87(A2):613–624, 1982

    1982

  30. [30]

    Ryun-Young Kwon, Jie Zhang, and Oscar Olmedo. New insights into the physical nature of coronal mass ejections and associated shock waves within the framework of the three-dimensional structure.The Astrophysical Journal, 794(2):148, 2014

    2014

  31. [31]

    J. M. Lilly. jlab: A data analysis package for matlab®, version 1.6.2, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Majeski, M

    S. Majeski, M. W. Kunz, and J. Squire. Self-organization in collisionless, high-βturbu- lence.Journal of Plasma Physics, 90(6):535900601, November 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Klein, Benjamin D

    Alfred Mallet, Kristopher G. Klein, Benjamin D. G. Chandran, Daniel Groˇ selj, Ian W. Hoppock, Trevor A. Bowen, Chadi S. Salem, and Stuart D. Bale. Interplay between intermittency and dissipation in collisionless plasma turbulence.Journal of Plasma Physics, 85(3):175850302, June 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    Coronal mass ejection shock and sheath structures relevant to particle acceleration.The Astrophysical Journal, 622(2):1225, 2005

    WB Manchester IV, TI Gombosi, DL De Zeeuw, IV Sokolov, II Roussev, KG Powell, J K´ ota, G T´ oth, and TH Zurbuchen. Coronal mass ejection shock and sheath structures relevant to particle acceleration.The Astrophysical Journal, 622(2):1225, 2005

    2005

  35. [35]

    Turbulence, intermittency, and cross-scale energy transfer in an interplanetary coronal mass ejection

    Roque M´ arquez Rodr´ ıguez, Luca Sorriso-Valvo, and Emiliya Yordanova. Turbulence, intermittency, and cross-scale energy transfer in an interplanetary coronal mass ejection. Solar Physics, 298(4):54, 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Detecting multi-scale coherent eddy structures and inter- mittency in turbulent boundary layer by wavelet analysis.Chin

    JIANG Nan and ZHANG Jin. Detecting multi-scale coherent eddy structures and inter- mittency in turbulent boundary layer by wavelet analysis.Chin. Phys. Lett., 22(8):1968– 1971, 2005. 16

    1968

  37. [37]

    Jian, Laura Balmaceda, Angelos Vourlidas, Luiz F

    Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla, Lan K. Jian, Laura Balmaceda, Angelos Vourlidas, Luiz F. G. dos Santos, and Adam Szabo. Unraveling the Internal Magnetic Field Structure of the Earth-directed Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections During 1995 - 2015. Sol. Phys., 294(7):89, July 2019

    1995

  38. [38]

    Unraveling the internal magnetic field structure of the earth-directed interplanetary coronal mass ejections during 1995–2015.Solar Physics, 294(7):89, 2019

    Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla, Lan K Jian, Laura Balmaceda, Angelos Vourlidas, Luiz FG dos Santos, and Adam Szabo. Unraveling the internal magnetic field structure of the earth-directed interplanetary coronal mass ejections during 1995–2015.Solar Physics, 294(7):89, 2019

    1995

  39. [39]

    Understanding the internal magnetic field configurations of icmes using more than 20 years of wind observations

    Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla, Angelos Vourlidas, John C Raymond, MG Linton, Nada Al- Haddad, NP Savani, A Szabo, and Miguel A Hidalgo. Understanding the internal magnetic field configurations of icmes using more than 20 years of wind observations. Solar Physics, 293(2):25, 2018

    2018

  40. [40]

    T. N. Parashar, M. Cuesta, and W. H. Matthaeus. Reynolds Number and Intermit- tency in the Expanding Solar Wind: Predictions Based on Voyager Observations. ApJ, 884(2):L57, October 2019

    2019

  41. [41]

    Intermittency in In- terplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Observed by Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter

    Julia Ruohotie, Simon Good, Christian M¨ ostl, and Emilia Kilpua. Intermittency in In- terplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Observed by Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter. ApJ, 986(2):L27, June 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Turbulence properties of interplanetary coronal mass ejection flux ropes at 1 au.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530(3):3005–3012, 2024

    Zubair I Shaikh. Turbulence properties of interplanetary coronal mass ejection flux ropes at 1 au.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530(3):3005–3012, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Saleem Khan

    Jyoti Sheoran, Supratik Banerjee, Vaibhav Pant, Dipankar Banerjee, and M. Saleem Khan. Turbulent Properties of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Observed by Solar Orbiter in the Inner Heliosphere.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2601.06904, January 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    A wavelet-based intermittency detection technique from piv investigations in transitional boundary layers.Experiments in Fluids, 57(145), 2016

    Daniele Simoni, Davide Lengani, and Roberto Guida. A wavelet-based intermittency detection technique from piv investigations in transitional boundary layers.Experiments in Fluids, 57(145), 2016

    2016

  45. [45]

    Space weather: the solar perspective: An update to Schwenn (2006)

    Manuela Temmer. Space weather: the solar perspective: An update to Schwenn (2006). Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18(1):4, December 2021

    2006

  46. [46]

    Christopher Torrence and Gilbert P. Compo. A Practical Guide to Wavelet Analysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79(1):61–78, January 1998

    1998

  47. [47]

    A. A. Townsend. The structure of the turbulent boundary layer.Mathematical Proceed- ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 47(2):375–395, 1951

    1951

  48. [48]

    Formation and evolution of coherent structures in 3D strongly turbulent magnetized plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 30(4):040502, April 2023

    Loukas Vlahos and Heinz Isliker. Formation and evolution of coherent structures in 3D strongly turbulent magnetized plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 30(4):040502, April 2023. 17

    2023

  49. [49]

    L. D. Wang, Y. Wang, F. S. Wei, X. S. Feng, B. Y. Wang, P. B. Zuo, W. Y. Zhang, X. J. Xu, Z. L. Zhou, and X. J. Song. Analysis on the Turbulent Properties of Current Sheets in the Solar Wind. ApJ, 985(1):113, May 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    New insights into turbulent spots.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 55(Volume 55, 2023):45–75, 2023

    Xiaohua Wu. New insights into turbulent spots.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 55(Volume 55, 2023):45–75, 2023

    2023

  51. [51]

    Zelenyi, Andrei M

    Lev M. Zelenyi, Andrei M. Bykov, Yury A. Uvarov, and Anton V. Artemyev. Intermit- tency of magnetic field turbulence: Astrophysical applications of in-situ observations. Journal of Plasma Physics, 81(4):395810401, August 2015

    2015

  52. [52]

    Uzdensky

    Vladimir Zhdankin, Stanislav Boldyrev, and Dmitri A. Uzdensky. Scalings of intermit- tent structures in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence.Physics of Plasmas, 23(5):055705, May 2016. 18

    2016