Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Observations of a Footpoint Drift of an Erupting Flux Rope

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Flux rope footpoint drifts tens of arcseconds during an M-class flare.

desk verdict Careful single-event observation that makes a plausible but unproven case for a drifting flux-rope footpoint; the novel hook re-formation deserves peer review, but the central identity needs quantitative support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02082 v1 pith:J7BHAWYU submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.SR

Alena Zemanova , Jaroslav Dudik , Guillaume Aulanier , Julia K. Thalmann , Peter Gomory This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflareseruptivefluxropefootpointdriftslippingreconnectionflareribbonhooksquasi-separatrixlayersnonlinearforce-freefieldmodelsigmoidalloops
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports what it argues is the first observational evidence that the footpoint of an erupting solar flux rope can drift across the Sun's surface by tens of arcseconds during a flare. It follows one M3.7 flare on 2015 November 4, where a small ribbon hook anchoring a hot sigmoidal structure disappeared as its loops slipped away, the ribbon elongated, and a new, larger hook formed about 40 arcseconds away in solar Y (roughly 80 arcseconds along the ribbon), with the erupting hot loops rooted in it. The authors interpret the sequence as a single flux rope whose footpoint moves from the pre-eruptive filament to the sigmoid and finally to the erupting rope, matching a footpoint drift predicted by the 3D extension of the standard solar flare model. If the interpretation holds, the surface anchor of an eruption cannot always be identified with the pre-eruptive filament's location, which matters for mapping flares, dimmings, and coronal mass ejections back to their source regions.

What carries the argument

Two concepts carry the argument. The J-shaped ribbon hook is the surface footprint of a quasi-separatrix layer—a thin volume where the magnetic connectivity changes sharply—wrapped around a leg of the flux rope, so the hook's location marks where the rope is anchored. The process that moves it is ar–rf reconnection: an inclined arcade field line 'a' reconnects with a flux-rope field line 'r' to produce a new flux-rope field line and a flare loop 'f', transferring the rope's footpoint to a new location. Slipping reconnection, the apparent sideways motion of coronal loops as field lines exchange partners, is the observed signature of this process.

What would settle it

Map the magnetic connectivity of the region before, during, and after the flare (for example with time-dependent nonlinear force-free field extrapolations anchored to observed magnetograms) and ask whether the field lines rooted in the new hook trace back through the reconnection history to the filament and the sigmoid. If they belong to a different magnetic flux system, or if the negative-polarity footpoint shows no matching conjugate drift, the footpoint-drift claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray imaging of the 2015 November 4 M3.7 flare, the paper documents a chain of events. The pre-eruption Hα filament, reproduced by a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation, consists of two neighbouring helical systems whose tether-cutting reconnection forms a hot sigmoidal loop S; S is rooted in a small positive ribbon hook SPRH. The hook's loops then slip-reconnect eastward, SPRH disappears while the positive ribbon elongates, and a new, larger hook PRH appears at the end of the elongated ribbon, about 40 arcseconds in solar Y (approximately 80 arcseconds along the ribbon), with hot twisted loops that erupt. The central claim is that these structures are one and the same flux rope, so the sequence is the drift of its footpoint: from the filament to the sigmoid S, then to the erupting rope anchored in PRH. The paper further reports that PRH expanded after the eruption and later contracted, and that one photospheric location was swept by the hook twice, which it interprets as evidence for a series of two ar–rf reconnections, in which an inclined arcade field line reconnects with a flux-rope field line and becomes part of the rope.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the small hook, the sigmoid, and the later large hook are all anchors of one and the same flux rope whose footpoint travels; this identity is inferred from images, a pre-flare magnetic field model, and assumed reconnection, not from directly measured magnetic connectivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Footpoint drift means that the surface location anchoring an erupting flux rope can change by tens of arcseconds, so identifying a coronal mass ejection's source region from the pre-eruptive filament alone can be off by that distance.
  • Ribbon hooks can disappear and re-form elsewhere rather than only expanding, and a single photospheric location can be engulfed by the hook, left behind, and engulfed again.
  • Reconnection can continue into the gradual phase of a flare, producing the observed late expansion and then contraction of the hook, which can shrink coronal dimmings rather than letting them grow monotonically.
  • The observed drift of about 80 arcseconds along the ribbon is larger than the drift produced by the 3D model this interpretation is compared with, indicating real hook evolution can be more complex than current models capture.
  • The erupting flux rope is longer than the pre-eruptive filament or its modelled field, so estimates of the mass lifted during an eruption that use the pre-eruptive structure may be underestimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If footpoint drift is a general feature of eruptive flares, the centroids of the two coronal dimming regions should drift in step with the ribbon hook motion; measuring that drift in a larger sample would test the interpretation without relying on loop morphology.
  • The weakest link is the assumed identity of the pre-drift and post-drift flux systems. A time series of nonlinear force-free field extrapolations, or a direct calculation of field-line connectivity at several instants, could check whether the field lines rooted in the new hook are reconnection descendants of those rooted in the old hook.
  • The model implies a conjugate test: the negative-polarity footpoint of the rope should show a matching drift. The paper notes that the negative hook formed later and was difficult to track, so a delayed matching displacement on the negative side would confirm the claim.
  • The proposed double ar–rf reconnection at one surface location predicts that the field line there ends as a flare loop after the second sweep; spectroscopic observations of that loop's temperature or line-of-sight flow during the late phase could test this specific sequence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents SDO/AIA, Hinode/XRT, HMI, and H-alpha observations of the M3.7 flare of 2015 November 4 in NOAA AR 12443. The pre-flare H-alpha filament is modeled with NLFFF, revealing two helical systems threaded by a single field line. During the flare, tether-cutting of two J-shaped loops J1 and J2 forms a hot sigmoidal structure S rooted in a small positive ribbon hook SPRH. The loops then slip, SPRH disappears, the positive ribbon PR elongates, and a new, larger hook PRH forms at the end of the elongated ribbon; hot loops rooted in PRH erupt. After the eruption, PRH expands and then contracts. The authors interpret these sequences as a drift of the flux rope footpoint by about 40 arcseconds in solar Y (about 80 arcseconds along the ribbon), first from the filament F to S/SPRH and then to the erupting rope rooted in PRH, and they attribute the drift to ar-rf reconnection in the 3D flare model of Aulanier and Dudik (2019). They further interpret the expansion/contraction of PRH as evidence for repeated a-r-f reconnection series. The paper concludes that the observed footpoint drift is the first observational evidence of this process over tens of arcseconds, while noting that the displacement is larger than the model predicts.

Significance. If the identification of SPRH, S, and PRH as successive footpoints of a single flux rope is correct, this paper provides a valuable observational test of the 3D extension of the standard flare model and, in particular, of the ar-rf reconnection geometry predicted by Aulanier and Dudik (2019). The multi-instrument dataset (SDO/AIA, HMI, Hinode/XRT, H-alpha) is well suited to the study, and the NLFFF model quality metrics (CWsin = 0.1, <|fi|> ~ 3e-4, |Ediv|/E ~ 0.01) are reasonable. The paper honestly acknowledges that the observed drift is larger than the model prediction, and it reports measured slipping velocities (30-120 km/s) consistent with earlier work. These are strengths. However, the central claim relies on an identity assumption that is not directly tested, and the quantitative displacement lacks uncertainty estimates; these issues limit the strength of the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 12a] The central claim that SPRH, S, and PRH are successive footpoints of one drifting flux rope is not established by direct magnetic connectivity measurements. The evidence is morphological (Figures 6, 8, 9) and relies on a pre-flare NLFFF model (Figure 4f) that is not extended to the flare times. Because slipping reconnection changes which field lines are part of the rope, an apparent footpoint displacement along the ribbon could be produced by a sequence of distinct flux systems rather than a single rope. The manuscript should either provide quantitative connectivity tracking (e.g., time-dependent NLFFF or field-line mapping) or explicitly test the single-rope hypothesis against the alternative, and should state the uncertainty in the identification.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.1] The 40 arcsecond and 80 arcsecond displacements are reported without uncertainties. They are obtained by manual tracing in 304 Å (Figure 12a), and it is not shown that the separation between SPRH and PRH exceeds the combined tracing, alignment, and projection errors. The authors should estimate the tracing uncertainty (e.g., repeated measurements by independent analyzers, comparison with other filters, or conservative error bars based on pixel scale and co-alignment) and clarify the geometric relation between the 40 arcsecond shift in solar Y and the 80 arcsecond along the ribbon.
  3. [Section 1 and Abstract] The Introduction states that Aulanier and Dudik (2019) already presented two flares with observed hook drift and deformation, yet the Abstract and Section 1 claim 'for the first time' observational evidence of footpoint drift over tens of arcseconds. The authors should explicitly compare the present event with the two Aulanier and Dudik examples and state what is actually new (e.g., magnitude of the drift, the direct slipping-loop connection, or the specific reconnection series). Without this, the novelty statement is ambiguous and could be read as overclaiming.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'slipping away form the small hook' should read 'from the small hook'; this is a typographical error.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.2] There are typographical errors: 'foopoints' should be 'footpoints' in Section 2.1, and 'reonnection' should be 'reconnection' in Section 3.2.
  3. [Figure 4] The panel labels are duplicated: the left column has (d) for the 304 Å image and the right column also has (d) for the H-alpha image. Relabel the H-alpha panel (e) or use a different letter to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 3.2] The claim that the x-position provides the 'first observational candidate for series of two ar-rf reconnections' is based on an inferred sequence without direct observation of the reconnecting field lines; it should be explicitly marked as speculative.
  5. [Section 1] The sentence 'For the first time, provide an observational evidence of a drift of the flux rope footpoint over distances of several tens of arc seconds' is grammatically incomplete; 'we provide' or 'we present' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed hook drift is an independent measurement, and the same-author MHD model is used as an interpretive framework rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational rather than parametric: the paper measures the apparent displacement of ribbon hooks and slipping loops in AIA, XRT, and H-alpha data, and then interprets it with the 3D flare model. No model parameter is fitted to the displacement, and the claimed 40-arcsecond (about 80 arcseconds along the ribbon) shift is read off manually traced 304-Angstrom images, not produced by the model. The cited prediction of footpoint drift (Aulanier & Dudik 2019) is an independent MHD simulation with stated assumptions; it is not calibrated on this flare, and the authors explicitly note that the observed drift is larger than in the model, so the observation is not forced by the model. The load-bearing interpretive assumption that SPRH, S, and PRH are successive anchors of one drifting flux rope is a physical inference from morphology and loop slippage, not a tautology defined by the model; it could be wrong, but that is a correctness/validity risk rather than circular reasoning. Self-citation is present but not load-bearing in a circular sense, and no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on the NLFFF model for preflare topology, on the assumption that slipping EUV loops trace reconnection, and on QSL theory identifying ribbon hooks with flux rope footpoints; no new physical entities are introduced. The main uncontrolled choice is the unreported NLFFF parameter set used to identify the filament's helical systems.

free parameters (1)
  • NLFFF reconstruction free parameters (preprocessing weights and smoothing) = not reported; quality metrics CWsin=0.1, |Ediv|/E=0.01
    Section 2.1 states different choices of free model parameters were tried and judged, but the chosen values are not given; the resulting field is used to assign the green and yellow helical systems to the H-alpha filament, supporting the flux rope identification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear force-free field extrapolation from the 12:59 UT HMI vector magnetogram approximates the preflare coronal field well enough to identify the filament's magnetic systems.
    Section 2.1 reports CWsin approximately 0.1, fractional flux measure about 3e-4, and |Ediv|/E about 0.01; these metrics are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the topology.
  • domain assumption Apparent slippage of EUV loops corresponds to genuine magnetic reconnection-driven changes of field line connectivity, not to plasma bulk motion.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2.3 and 3.1, based on Aulanier et al. (2006, 2007); if the slipping were a projection effect, the inferred footpoint drift would not follow.
  • domain assumption The 3D MHD model of Aulanier and Dudik (2019) correctly identifies which reconnection geometries operate in the real corona.
    Used in Section 3.2 to assign the observed evolution of positions marked by circle, plus, and cross to aa-rf and ar-rf geometries; the model may not capture all real coronal complexity, as the paper itself notes the observed displacement is larger than in the model.
  • domain assumption The ribbon hooks are the line-tied footpoints of the flux rope, not unrelated chromospheric brightenings.
    Central to Section 3.1 interpretation; based on QSL footprint theory from Aulanier et al. (2012) and Janvier et al. (2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of a Footpoint Drift of an Erupting Flux Rope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7BHAWYU

@misc{pith2026190802082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of a Footpoint Drift of an Erupting Flux Rope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7BHAWYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02082}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze the imaging observations of an M-class eruptive flare of 2015 November, 4. The pre-eruptive H alpha filament was modelled by the non-linear force free field model, which showed that it consisted of two helical systems. Tether-cutting reconnection involving these two systems led to the formation of a hot sigmoidal loop structure rooted in a small hook that formed at the end of the flare ribbon. Subsequently, the hot loops started to slip away form the small hook until it disappeared. The loops continued slipping and the ribbon elongated itself by several tens of arc seconds. A new and larger hook then appeared at the end of elongated ribbon with hot and twisted loops rooted there. After the eruption of these hot loops, the ribbon hook expanded and later contracted. We interpret these observations in the framework of the recent three dimensional (3D) extensions to the standard solar flare model, which predict the drift of the flux rope footpoints. The hot sigmoidal loop is interpreted as the flux rope, whose footpoints drift during the eruption. While the deformation and drift of the new hook can be described by the model, the displacement of the flux rope footpoint from the filament to that of the erupting flux rope indicate that the hook evolution can be more complex than those captured by the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A cartoon showing the standard model of solar (eruptive) flare in 3D. Red lines mark J-shaped (flare/current) ribbons which are footprints of QSLs (grey shaded regions). Only the parts of QSLs’ volume containing the strongest currents are depicted. The dash-dotted grey lines represent the core of the flux rope, legs of which are anchored within the hooked parts of the J-shaped ribbons. The individual field lines are… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cartoons showing the aa–rf (a–b) and ar–rf (c–d) reconnection geometries and the associated ribbon/QSLs deforma￾tion and drift. Grey dashed lines show the envelope of a flux rope at the onset of the eruption. J-shaped ribbons are plotted in brown together with arrows showing their evolution. Yellow areas denote footpoints of flux rope field lines. (a) Two arcade field lines ‘a’ (green and cyan) reconnect to produce … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Time evolution of the GOES-15 soft X-ray flux during the M3.7 flare with red vertical dashed lines marking the times of SDO/AIA images used throughout the paper. (b) An overview image of NOAA AR 12 443 in SDO/AIA 171 ˚A filter about 40 minutes before the flare. Dashed rectangles show FOVs of subsequent individual figures. ning of the flare was also observed in Hα by Kanzelh¨ohe Solar Observatory, University of G… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pre-flare situation. Left column shows SDO/AIA images: (a) 131 ˚A, (c) 171 ˚A, and (d) 304 ˚A. Right column shows: (b) line of sight (LOS) magnetic field from SDO/HMI (scaled ± 500 G), (d) Hα observation from Kanzelh¨ohe Observatory and (f) NLFFF model of the filament …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: View of the negative supergranule showing the magnetic flux cancellation area within the circle (identical to that in Figures 4 and 6). (a) and (c) show SDO/HMI LOS magnetograms (scaled at ± 500 G) with small bipolar patch in the middle of the circle. (b) shows SDO/AIA…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An overview of flare evolution. White rectangles with a circle on (a) and (b) shows FOV of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An illustration of NRH evolution. It was very complicated but since 13:50 UT NRH had a clear hook shape. (A movie of this figure is available (movie nrh.mpg).) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of SPRH and elongation of PR in 131 ˚A. Panels (a) and (b) show formation of SPRH at the north end of the original positive ribbon. Its straight part and SPRH are highlighted by dashed orange line in (b) and the sigmoidal loop structure rooted in SPRH is labe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Slipping reconnection of the loops during the elongation of the PR. White arrows show positions of loops which exchanged their connectivity. The original images in the left column show: (a) pre-reconnection state at 13:36:55 UT, (b) post￾reconnection state at 13:39:31 …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Eruption of the hot loops rooted in PRH. Top row shows SDO/AIA 131 ˚A images of: (a) hot loops approximately at the onset of their eruption, (b) rising hot loops and widening PRH and (c) shows dimming observed within the area of PRH after the escape of hot loops. The …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the positive ribbon hook PRH. The hook first expanded and later it contracted. The circle, plus and × symbols mark the positions of the loops which reconnect at some stage of PRH evolution due to 3D magnetic reconnection. See explanation in the text. (Mov…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Manually traced-out ribbons from SDO/AIA images in 304˚A filter at given times showing: (a) the drift of the SPRH (orange dashed line) through the elongation of the PR (brown dashed line) to the final PRH (blue dashed line) of the erupting flux rope and (b) the expans…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., et al

    Aulanier, G., D´ emoulin, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A66

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    2019, A&A, 621, A72

    Aulanier, G., & Dud´ ık, J. 2019, A&A, 621, A72

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2012, A&A, 543, A110

    Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, A&A, 543, A110

    2012

  4. [4]

    Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., D´ emoulin, P., & DeVore, C. R. 2006, SoPh, 238, 347

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Aulanier, G., T¨ or¨ ok, T., D´ emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    Aulanier, G., Golub, L., DeLuca, E. E., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1588

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451 D´ emoulin, P., Priest, E

    Carmichael, H. 1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451 D´ emoulin, P., Priest, E. R., & Lonie, D. P. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7631

    work page 1964

  8. [8]

    M., Temmer, M., Podladchikova, T., & Vanninathan, K

    Dissauer, K., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., Podladchikova, T., & Vanninathan, K. 2018a, ApJ, 855, 137 —. 2018b, ApJ, 863, 169 Dud´ ık, J., Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 144 Dud´ ık, J., Polito, V., Janvier, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 41

    work page 2014

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Hagyard, M

    Gary, G. A., & Hagyard, M. J. 1990, SoPh, 126, 21

    1990

  2. [10]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 63

    Golub, L., Deluca, E., Austin, G., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 63

    2007

  3. [11]

    1974, SoPh, 34, 323

    Hirayama, T. 1974, SoPh, 34, 323

    1974

  4. [12]

    T., Liu, Y., Hayashi, K., et al

    Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y., Hayashi, K., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3483

    2014

  5. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Bommier, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    2014

  6. [14]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 3425

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., & D´ emoulin, P. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3425

    2015

  7. [15]

    2013, A&A, 555, A77 Karlick´ y, M., Zemanov´ a, A., Dud´ ık, J., & Radziszewski, K

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & D´ emoulin, P. 2013, A&A, 555, A77 Karlick´ y, M., Zemanov´ a, A., Dud´ ık, J., & Radziszewski, K. 2018, ApJL, 854, L29

    2013

  8. [16]

    A., & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, SoPh, 50, 85

    1976

  9. [17]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 3

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 3

    2007

  10. [18]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17

    2012

  11. [19]

    2015, ApJL, 804, L8

    Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2015, ApJL, 804, L8

    2015

  12. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 32 Observations of a Footpoint Drift of an Erupting Flux Rope 17

    Li, T., Zhang, J., & Hou, Y. 2017, ApJ, 848, 32 Observations of a Footpoint Drift of an Erupting Flux Rope 17

    2017

  13. [21]

    H., Nakwacki, M

    Mandrini, C. H., Nakwacki, M. S., Attrill, G., et al. 2007, SoPh, 244, 25

    2007

  14. [22]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 833

    2001

  15. [23]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3

    2012

  16. [24]

    Petschek, H. E. 1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 425

    1964

  17. [25]

    2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Priest, E. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 427, Magnetic Reconnection: Concepts and Applications, ed. W. Gonzalez & E. Parker, 101

    2016

  18. [26]

    R., & D´ emoulin, P

    Priest, E. R., & D´ emoulin, P. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23443

    1995

  19. [27]

    R., Hornig, G., & Pontin, D

    Priest, E. R., Hornig, G., & Pontin, D. I. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1285

    2003

  20. [28]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 43 —

    Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., McKillop, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 43 —. 2015, ApJ, 810, 96

    2016

  21. [29]

    J., De Rosa, M

    Schrijver, C. J., De Rosa, M. L., Metcalf, T. R., et al. 2006, SoPh, 235, 161

    2006

  22. [30]

    1995, ApJL, 451, L83

    Shibata, K., Masuda, S., Shimojo, M., et al. 1995, ApJL, 451, L83

    1995

  23. [31]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1966, Nature, 211, 695

    1966

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJL, 770, L1

    Testa, P., De Pontieu, B., Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 770, L1

    2013

  25. [33]

    2013, A&A, 553, A38

    Valori, G., D´ emoulin, P., Pariat, E., & Masson, S. 2013, A&A, 553, A38

    2013

  26. [34]

    M., Dissauer, K., & Temmer, M

    Vanninathan, K., Veronig, A. M., Dissauer, K., & Temmer, M. 2018, ApJ, 857, 62

    2018

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 85

    Vanninathan, K. 2019, ApJ, 879, 85

    2019

  28. [36]

    Webb, D. F. 2000, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 62, 1415

    2000

  29. [37]

    S., Sturrock, P

    Wheatland, M. S., Sturrock, P. A., & Roumeliotis, G. 2000, ApJ, 540, 1150

    2000

  30. [38]

    2010, A&A, 516, A107

    Wiegelmann, T., & Inhester, B. 2010, A&A, 516, A107

    2010

  31. [39]

    A., Aulanier, G., et al

    Zhao, J., Gilchrist, S. A., Aulanier, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 62

    2016

  32. [40]

    P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S

    Zuccarello, F. P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S. A. 2015, ApJ, 814, 126

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.