Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

A detailed investigation of particle energisation mechanisms in models of collapsing magnetic traps

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fermi acceleration, not just betatron, energises particles on the most stretched field lines in collapsing magnetic traps.

desk verdict A credible numerical survey showing Fermi acceleration matters at collapsing loop tops for stretched-field orbits, though the Fermi/betatron split rests on a residual diagnostic that should be backed by a direct energy-balance check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14881 v1 pith:3DYJXYT2 submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph

Kate Mowbray , Thomas Neukirch , James Threlfall This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords particleaccelerationcollapsingmagnetictrapsFermibetatronsolarflaresguidingcentreapproximationkinematicMHDmodelsloop-tophardX-raysources
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

Collapsing magnetic traps are a proposed mechanism for accelerating particles in solar flares: a stretched magnetic loop relaxes and energises trapped particles. The literature has mostly credited the betatron effect, where a strengthening magnetic field adds energy. This paper asks whether Fermi acceleration, energy gained from moving, curved field structures, can also contribute, across models in two, two-and-a-half and three dimensions. It finds that for particles starting on the most stretched field lines, Fermi acceleration at the collapsing loop top is a significant contributor. That matters because it changes which parts of a flaring loop are responsible for the observed non-thermal particles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the kinematic MHD collapsing magnetic trap, where a time-dependent coordinate transformation maps a final potential field back to a stretched initial field, guaranteeing the ideal MHD induction equation. The analysis is carried by the relativistic guiding-centre equations and, in particular, by the diagnostic decomposition of the energy-change rate into a betatron term, proportional to the change in field strength along the orbit, and a Fermi term. The Fermi term is not computed directly; it is identified as whatever energy change is left over after the betatron estimate. The paper isolates the main Fermi mechanism in the curvature-drift term $(\mathbf{b}/B^{*} \times u_{\parallel} d\mathbf{b}/dt)\cdot\mathbf{E}$, which produces short sharp energy spikes when an orbit crosses the collapsing loop top. The scatter plot of final-to-initial energy against final-to-initial field strength, sampled at the final loop-top pass, is the tool that makes the separation visible.

What would settle it

Run the same test-particle trajectories with a full Lorentz-force solver, without the guiding-centre approximation, in the same kinematic fields and compare the energy gains. If the full-orbit gains depart from the guiding-centre energy changes, or if a direct evaluation of the curvature-drift term fails to account for the residual energy change, the claim that the unassigned energy is Fermi acceleration would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using kinematic magnetohydrodynamic models in which a prescribed coordinate transformation collapses a stretched field toward a potential field, the authors integrate relativistic guiding-centre equations for test particles and separate energisation into a betatron part, tracked through the magnetic moment times field strength, and a residual Fermi part. They find that, contrary to the common emphasis on betatron acceleration, particles whose orbits begin on the most stretched field lines gain substantial energy through Fermi acceleration, driven by the curvature-drift term acting where field-line curvature is largest, at the loop top. A transitional region in the energy-versus-field-strength scatter plots separates orbits that start above the field-strength minimum, where Fermi acceleration is strong, from those that start below it, where betatron acceleration dominates. The same structure appears in 2D, 2.5D and 3D models; a stronger guide field reduces the Fermi contribution by flattening the loop tops, while in 3D the stretched-field orbits gain more Fermi energy than their 2D counterparts. Speeding up the collapse does not increase Fermi gains: the total distance the loop top travels is the controlling factor.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantity governing a particle's gyration around the magnetic field stays perfectly constant while the trap collapses; if it does not, energy changes the paper attributes to Fermi acceleration could instead come from other drift or time-dependent effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Fermi acceleration is significant for stretched-field orbits, loop-top hard X-ray sources in solar flares could contain a non-negligible Fermi-energised component, not only betatron-energised particles.
  • In configurations with a strong guide field, the Fermi contribution is suppressed and betatron acceleration regains dominance, so the relative importance of the two mechanisms depends on the shear and guide-field content of the flaring loop.
  • For most initial conditions the energy gains are modest, roughly 1.5 to 2.5 times the initial energy in 2D and 2.5D and up to 3.5 times in 3D, so a realistic assessment of trap efficiency requires weighting orbits by a particle distribution function.
  • The insensitivity of Fermi gains to collapse speed, and their sensitivity to total loop-top displacement, gives a concrete target for future models: what matters is how far the loop top moves, not how fast.
  • The presence of a similar transitional region in all three model classes suggests the stretched-field Fermi signature is robust to dimensionality and twist, and should be looked for in more realistic, non-kinematic simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the loop-top Fermi gain depends on the particle's parallel velocity, low-pitch-angle particles, including ones that escape the trap early, should be preferentially Fermi-energised; a distribution-weighted simulation would test whether escaping particles acquire a field-aligned anisotropy.
  • The Fermi contribution is identified by residual subtraction, so a direct numerical evaluation of the curvature-drift term, or full Lorentz-force integration of the same fields, would show whether higher-order drifts contaminate the attribution.
  • In strongly sheared arcades, the guide-field flattening of loop tops suggests Fermi energisation may be most important early in the collapse or in less-sheared regions; coupling the trap field to a braking jet is a natural next test.
  • The sharp transitional region in the scatter plots hints that a thermal seed population could produce a spectral break; computing the output distribution is a concrete way to look for such a signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper studies particle energisation in kinematic MHD models of collapsing magnetic traps (CMTs) in 2D, 2.5D and 3D. The authors integrate the relativistic guiding-centre equations for test particles (121 orbits per setup, with variations in initial position, pitch angle, energy, and model parameters) and diagnose energisation mechanisms from scatter plots of final/initial kinetic energy versus final/initial magnetic field strength, with both quantities measured at the final loop-top passage. The betatron contribution is estimated from the adiabatic invariant mu_r B, and the residual energy change is attributed to Fermi acceleration. The paper finds three robust regions in these scatter plots: a betatron-dominated region for orbits on collapsed field lines, a Fermi-dominated region for orbits on strongly stretched field lines, and a transitional region; the same qualitative structure appears in 2D, 2.5D, and 3D. The paper also documents a modified 3D twisted-field model, parameter scans over collapse speed, guide-field strength, twist parameters, and initial energy, and provides the code and data.

Significance. If the mechanism separation is valid, the central claim that Fermi acceleration can be significant or even dominant for orbits on suitably stretched field lines is a useful correction to the usual emphasis on betatron acceleration in CMT models, with potential implications for solar-flare loop-top sources. The paper's strengths include openly available code and data, a physically motivated decomposition whose leading Fermi term (curvature drift, Eq. 22) is directly illustrated in Figure 3, and a parameter exploration that is transparent about its limitations. The central qualitative result is plausible, but the quantitative Fermi/betatron separation currently rests on a residual-attribution assumption that is not independently verified by an energy-balance check; this is the main gap between the paper's claims and its evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (17)-(22)] The Fermi/betatron separation is a residual attribution. The text states that 'any energy gains or losses not explained by the betatron effect are the result of Fermi acceleration or deceleration', but this is an assumption, not a demonstrated identity. Since the code already evaluates each term of Eq. (16), the authors should show for representative orbits in the top-left 'Fermi' regions of Figures 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 13-15 that the time integral of the curvature-drift term Eq. (22), together with the remaining terms of Eq. (16), matches the residual energy gain. Without this energy-balance check, the residual could also absorb non-adiabatic changes in mu, the E x B drift contribution in Eq. (17), and timing offsets between final loop-top passages, so quantitative statements such as the 'at least 10%' Fermi contribution in Section 3.3 are not yet established.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The only direct computation of the curvature-driven Fermi term is shown for a single orbit, as a fraction of its maximum, and only over the first 5 s of the orbit. This is useful qualitative evidence that the term is localized at the loop top, but it is not integrated over the orbit and is not compared with the residual energy gain for that orbit or with the ensemble. The paper should include at least one integrated energy-budget plot for a representative orbit from the Fermi-dominated region, showing the cumulative contribution of Eq. (22) alongside the actual kinetic-energy gain, and ideally a scatter of the integrated Fermi term versus the residual for all orbits.
  3. [Section 3.4.1, Figure 11] The 55 keV dataset is interpreted with the same residual method, but Eq. (20) relies on u_tot^2 << c^2; for 55 keV electrons this expansion is marginal (gamma - 1 is approximately 0.1). The paper acknowledges in Section 3.1 that the non-relativistic decomposition 'may break down', but it does not quantify the resulting error in the Fermi/betatron split for the green triangles in Figure 11. Either restrict the quantitative mechanism separation to the 0.55 and 5.5 keV cases or provide an explicit error estimate for the 55 keV case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The particle species is never stated explicitly; the energy values, solar-flare context, and guiding-centre formulation imply electrons, but the paper should say so at the first mention of initial particle energy.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (5)] The expression for y_infty is hard to parse as typeset; please check that the logarithm argument and the (a t)^b factor are written unambiguously in the final version.
  3. [Section 2.3] The numerical method section states that a variable time step responds to an error calculated using an RK5 method, but it does not specify the error tolerance or convergence criterion; for reproducibility, please state the tolerance used.
  4. [Section 3.4.2, Figure 13] The clustering of points for smaller delta makes visual comparison of the curves difficult, and the text notes this; a brief statement of how many orbits contribute to each vertical cluster would help the reader assess the significance of the apparent differences.
  5. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in 'striaghtfoward' in the paragraph following Eq. (19); it should be 'straightforward'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fermi/betatron claim is an orbit-computation result, not an input of the model, and the self-citations that supply the kinematic CMT fields are not load-bearing for the new conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Fermi acceleration contributes significantly to particle energisation in CMTs for orbits starting on the most stretched field lines. This is obtained by integrating relativistic guiding-centre equations in prescribed kinematic MHD fields, not by fitting a parameter to the claimed output. The Fermi/betatron separation in Section 3.1 is a residual-attribution scheme: the betatron baseline is estimated from the adiabatic invariant combination mu_r B, and 'any energy gains or losses not explained by the betatron effect are the result of Fermi acceleration or deceleration.' This is a diagnostic decomposition, not a circular definition of the result, because the betatron contribution is computed from magnetic field ratios independently of the residual, and the paper additionally points to the curvature-drift term in Eq. (22) as the physical Fermi mechanism and displays its time/space localisation in Figure 3. The central significance claim is thus in principle falsifiable by an energy-balance check, even though the paper does not present a direct time-integrated equality between the residual and the integral of Eq. (22). That is a validation gap or completeness caveat, not circularity. The kinematic models are taken from Giuliani et al. (2005) and Grady & Neukirch (2009), which include the present author Neukirch, but those papers do not contain the new orbit-survey conclusion for 2.5D and 3D configurations; the current results are computed here. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The paper also openly states its limitations, e.g. that it cannot quantify global particle distributions and that a more systematic test with more orbits is needed. These admissions are consistent with a non-circular derivation that is simply incomplete in its quantitative separation of energisation channels.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard guiding-center model, a kinematic MHD field prescription, and a residual-based Fermi diagnosis; no new physical entities are posited.

free parameters (5)
  • CMT collapse rate parameters (a, b) = a=0.4, b=1.0; faster case b=2.0, a=sqrt(0.4/1.05)
    Chosen by hand to prescribe the field collapse in Eq. (5); the finding that Fermi gain depends on total collapse distance rather than speed may depend on this functional form.
  • Guide field strength B_z_final = 0 T, 0.005 T, 0.01 T
    Chosen to illustrate the guide-field effect on the Fermi/betatron balance; not constrained by observations.
  • 3D twist parameters (delta, a_y, y_h) = delta=1.0 (also 0.5, 0.0), a_y=1.0 (also 0.5), y_h=0.0 (also 1.0)
    Chosen to create a twisted field that reduces with height; the a_y, y_h modification is introduced ad hoc to fix an unphysical twist in the Grady & Neukirch (2009) model.
  • Initial pitch angles = 60 deg (2D/2.5D standard), 70 deg (3D standard), 20 deg (vertical scans)
    Chosen to keep all orbits trapped for the full simulation; pitch angle directly controls parallel velocity and hence the Fermi contribution, so it is a handpicked condition rather than a fitted quantity.
  • Initial particle energy = 5.5 keV standard; 0.55 keV and 55 keV in 3D comparison
    Chosen for comparability with earlier CMT papers; the relativistic 55 keV case shows quantitative differences in energy ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Relativistic guiding center equations (Northrop 1963), Eqs. (12)-(15), are the correct description of particle motion.
    Assumed without proof; validity argued in Section 2.2 via scale separation.
  • standard math Ideal kinematic MHD equations E + V x B = 0 and dB/dt = -curl E hold for the prescribed velocity field.
    Equations (1)-(3); the paper constructs fields from coordinate transformations to satisfy these.
  • standard math Magnetic moment mu_r is an adiabatic invariant throughout each orbit.
    Equation (15) and used in Section 3.1 to estimate betatron energisation via mu-B; central to separating Fermi from betatron.
  • ad hoc to paper Any energy change not explained by the mu-B betatron estimate is Fermi acceleration or deceleration.
    Diagnostic assumption in Section 3.1; the paper explicitly states this, but it is a residual attribution rather than a directly measured Fermi term.
  • domain assumption The domain contains no parallel electric field and no magnetic null points, so only Fermi and betatron mechanisms operate.
    Section 2.2; justified by restricting to the ideal region outside reconnection, Eq. (1) makes E perpendicular to B.
  • domain assumption Particles are lost from the system when they cross y=0, and the guiding center approximation remains valid for all simulated orbits.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2; this boundary condition determines orbit lifetime and excludes escaping particles from the main survey.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A detailed investigation of particle energisation mechanisms in models of collapsing magnetic traps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DYJXYT2

@misc{pith2026241114881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A detailed investigation of particle energisation mechanisms in models of collapsing magnetic traps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DYJXYT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14881}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we provide a detailed investigation of the energisation processes in two-dimensional, two and a half-dimensional and three-dimensional collapsing magnetic trap models. Using kinematic magnetohydrodynamic models of collapsing magnetic traps, we examine the importance of Fermi acceleration in comparison with betatron acceleration in these models. We extend previous work by investigating particle orbits in two-dimensional models without and with a guide field component and from full three-dimensional models. We compare the outcomes for the different models and how they depend on the chosen initial conditions. While in the literature betatron acceleration has been emphasised as the major mechanism for particle energisation in collapsing magnetic traps, we find that Fermi acceleration can play a significant role as well for particle orbits with suitable initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14881 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. shows that the ‘transitional region’ is key to understand￾ing how the initial position of a particle orbit relates to the energy gain along that orbit. Orbits corresponding to points found at the top of this steep drop off start on field lines that initially lie just above the point in the field where the field strength is at its minimum. Or￾bits corresponding to points at the bottom of the ‘transitional region’ sta… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the time evolution of selected field lines in the 2D model at 𝑡 = 0s (top) and 𝑡 = 100s (bottom), with field lines traced from the initial positions used for particle orbits in Section 3.2. is the region towards the top left, where the field strength ratio is less than approximately 0.9 and the energy ratio is between 2.3 and 2.7. Here the energy gains far outstrip those expected due to betatron acce… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ratio of final to initial energy against final to initial field strength for orbits with different initial 𝑦 values in the 2D model. Initial energies were set at 5.5keV and initial pitch angles at 20◦ . processes affecting the majority of orbits, not just those affecting quite particular orbits. In order to verify the association between Fermi acceleration and orbits starting on the most stretched field lines, we ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fermi acceleration due to field line curvature (as a fraction of the maximum rate of Fermi acceleration) vs time [top] and 𝑥 position [bottom] for a particle orbit in 2D, started at (-0.4,1.25). We display the size of this term for only the first 5s of the 100s orbit a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of results for the initial conditions of the standard case used in the 2D CMT model with the regular configuration run over 295.2s (black) with the result of the faster collapse CMT model run over 100s (red). comes from the (𝑎𝑡) 𝑏 terms, where the current mo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ratios of final to initial energy against final to initial field strength for the 2D case (black) and the 2.5D cases with 𝐵𝑧 𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 0.005T (red) and 𝐵𝑧 𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 0.01T (blue). Initial conditions are as described in Section 3.3. (𝐵 2 𝑥,𝑒𝑛𝑑 + 𝐵 2 𝑦,𝑒𝑛𝑑 + 𝐵 2 𝑧,𝑒𝑛𝑑) 1/2 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ratio of final to initial energies against final to initial magnetic field strengths for 121 orbits initialised on the square grid as described in the standard case for our 3D initial conditions. energy ratio drops from 3.0 to 1.5. Similarly to previous cases, orbits w…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energy ratios vs field strength ratios for initial energies of 0.55keV (magenta squares), 5.5keV (black asterisks) and 55keV (green triangles) using the initial positions and pitch angles for the 3D model with initial conditions described in Section 3.4.1. influence f…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Energy ratio vs field ratio for the regular 3D standard case initial conditions with 𝛿 set to 1.0 (black), 0.5 (red) and 0.0 (blue). A closer look at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Projections of field lines from the 3D model detailed in Section 2.1 onto the 𝑥 − 𝑧 plane showing the change in the field line shape between 𝑡 = 0 (top) and 𝑡 = 100 (bottom). Twist parameters are set as 𝛿 = 1.0, 𝑎𝑦 = 1.0 and 𝑦ℎ = 0.0. Apparent sudden changes in the fi…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Energy ratio vs field ratio for the standard case initial conditions for the 3D model with 𝑎𝑦 = 1.0 (black) and 𝑎𝑦 = 0.5 (red). betatron acceleration. Particles with higher initial pitch angles gain more energy due to betatron acceleration as they have a higher mag￾ne…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.033108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvE..89c3108A 89, 033108

    Artemyev A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.033108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvE..89c3108A 89, 033108

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.89.033108 2014

  2. [2]

    J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/392494 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..554A 608, 554

    Aschwanden M. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/392494 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..554A 608, 554

    doi:10.1086/392494 2004

  3. [3]

    O., 2002, Plasma Astrophysics, second edition edn

    Benz A. O., 2002, Plasma Astrophysics, second edition edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    O., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRSP...14....2B 14, 2

    Benz A. O., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRSP...14....2B 14, 2

    doi:10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 2017

  5. [5]

    F., Borovsky J

    Birn J., Thomsen M. F., Borovsky J. E., Reeves G. D., McComas D. J., Belian R. D., Hesse M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1029/96JA03032 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JGR...102.2325B 102, 2325

    work page doi:10.1029/96ja03032 1997

  6. [6]

    F., Borovsky J

    Birn J., Thomsen M. F., Borovsky J. E., Reeves G. D., McComas D. J., Belian R. D., Hesse M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1029/97JA02635 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JGR...103.9235B 103, 9235

    work page doi:10.1029/97ja02635 1998

  7. [7]

    F., Hesse M., 2004, @doi [Phys

    Birn J., Thomsen M. F., Hesse M., 2004, @doi [Phys. Plasmas] 10.1063/1.1704641 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhPl...11.1825B 11, 1825

    doi:10.1063/1.1704641 2004

  8. [8]

    V., Baker D

    Birn J., Artemyev A. V., Baker D. N., Echim M., Hoshino M., Zelenyi L. M., 2012, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-012-9874-4 , 173, 49

    doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9874-4 2012

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Birn J., Battaglia M., Fletcher L., Hesse M., Neukirch T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848..116B 848, 116

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Somov B

    Bogachev S. A., Somov B. V., 2005, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.2007030 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AstL...31..537B 31, 537

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Somov B

    Bogachev S. A., Somov B. V., 2007, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773707010070 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AstL...33...54B 33, 54

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Somov B

    Bogachev S. A., Somov B. V., 2009, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773709010071 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AstL...35...57B 35, 57

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Borissov A., Neukirch T., Threlfall J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-016-0915-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SoPh..291.1385B 291, 1385

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Threlfall J., Neukirch T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731183 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    Borissov A., Kontar E. P., Threlfall J., Neukirch T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731183 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Threlfall J., Parnell C

    Borissov A., Neukirch T., Kontar E. P., Threlfall J., Parnell C. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..63B 635, A63

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..771C 376, 771

    Cargill P. J., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..771C 376, 771

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Vlahos L., Baumann G., Drake J

    Cargill P. J., Vlahos L., Baumann G., Drake J. F., Nordlund A ., 2012, @doi [Space Sci. Rev.] 10.1007/s11214-012-9888-y , 173, 223

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Shen C., Gary D

    Chen B., Bastian T. S., Shen C., Gary D. E., Krucker S., Glesener L., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aac8467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...350.1238C 350, 1238

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Drake J

    Dahlin J. T., Drake J. F., Swisdak M., 2014, @doi [Phys. Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4894484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhPl...21i2304D 21, 092304

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Drake J

    Dahlin J. T., Drake J. F., Swisdak M., 2015, @doi [Phys. Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4933212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhPl...22j0704D 22, 100704

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Drake J

    Dahlin J. T., Drake J. F., Swisdak M., 2017, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4986211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhPl...24i2110D 24, 092110

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042589 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    Dalla S., Browning P. K., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042589 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503302 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640L..99D 640, L99

    Dalla S., Browning P. K., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503302 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640L..99D 640, L99

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809771 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    Dalla S., Browning P. K., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809771 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Arnold H., Swisdak M., Dahlin J

    Drake J. F., Arnold H., Swisdak M., Dahlin J. T., 2019, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5058140 , 26, 012901

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Eradat Oskoui S., Neukirch T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423886 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322519 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Eradat Oskoui S., Neukirch T., Grady K. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322519 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Khotyaintsev Y

    Fu H. S., Khotyaintsev Y. V., Andr \'e M., Vaivads A., 2011, @doi [Geophysical Research letters] 10.1029/2011GL048528 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011GeoRL..3816104F 38, 16104

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1002/2013GL058620 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GeoRL..40.6023F 40, 6023

    Fu H. S., et al., 2013, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1002/2013GL058620 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GeoRL..40.6023F 40, 6023

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Giuliani P., Neukirch T., Wood P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635..636G 635, 636

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    K., Kontar E

    Gordovskyy M., Browning P. K., Kontar E. P., Bian N. H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...561A..72G 561, A72

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Inoue S., Kontar E

    Gordovskyy M., Browning P. K., Inoue S., Kontar E. P., Kusano K., Vekstein G. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb60e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902..147G 902, 147

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Kusano K., Inoue S., Vekstein G

    Gordovskyy M., Browning P. K., Kusano K., Inoue S., Vekstein G. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952...75G 952, 75

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Neukirch T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913230 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    Grady K. J., Neukirch T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913230 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Neukirch T., Giuliani P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218914 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    Grady K. J., Neukirch T., Giuliani P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218914 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Zenitani S., Hoshino M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SSRv..220...43G 220, 43

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Hoshino M., 2022, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0086316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhPl...29d2902H 29, 042902

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Isliker H., Archontis V., Vlahos L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882...57I 882, 57

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Karlick \'y M., B \'a rta M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505460 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647.1472K 647, 1472

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    V., Cully C

    Khotyaintsev Y. V., Cully C. M., Vaivads A., Andr\'e M., Owen C. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.165001 , 106, 165001

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Klein K.-L., Dalla S., 2019, in Baker D., Balogh A., Gombosi T., Koskinen H. E. J., Veronig A., von Steiger R., eds, , Vol. 67, The Scientific Foundation of Space Weather. Series: Space Sciences Series of ISSI. Springer, pp 227--256, @doi 10.1007/978-94-024-1588-9_7

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Somov B

    Kovalev V. A., Somov B. V., 2002, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1491971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AstL...28..488K 28, 488

    2002 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Somov B

    Kovalev V. A., Somov B. V., 2003, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1544533 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AstL...29..111K 29, 111

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    Krucker S., et al., 2008, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-008-0014-9 , 16, 155

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    Lazarian A., Vlahos L., Kowal G., Yan H., Beresnyak A., Pino E. M. d. G. D., 2012, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-012-9936-7 , 173, 557

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Jiang Y

    Liu W., Petrosian V., Dennis B. R., Jiang Y. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...676..704L 676, 704

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    Mann G., Warmuth A., Aurass H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..669M 494, 669

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Res., 102, 14,631

    Miller J., et al., 1997, Journal of Geophys. Res., 102, 14,631

    1997

  41. [49]

    Minoshima T., Masuda S., Miyoshi Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/332 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714..332M 714, 332

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    Minoshima T., Masuda S., Miyoshi Y., Kusano K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732..111M 732, 111

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Miteva R., Mann G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...474..617M 474, 617

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Interscience

    Northrop T., 1963, The adiabatic motion of charged particles. Interscience

    1963

  45. [53]

    Oka M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SSRv..219...75O 219, 75

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    I., Wyper P

    Pallister R., Pontin D. I., Wyper P. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.207P 622, A207

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Pontin D

    Pallister R., Wyper P. F., Pontin D. I., DeVore C. R., Chiti F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e6d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..163P 923, 163

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Pick M., Vilmer N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-008-0013-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&ARv..16....1P 16, 1

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    G., 2004, Mon

    Selkowitz R., Blackman E. G., 2004, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004MNRAS.354..870S&db_key=AST 354, 870

    2004

  50. [58]

    N., Charikov Y

    Shabalin A. N., Charikov Y. E., Sharykin I. N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac65fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931...27S 931, 27

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    V., 2004, in Stepanov A

    Somov B. V., 2004, in Stepanov A. V., Benevolenskaya E. E., Kosovichev A. G., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 223, Multi-Wavelength Investigations of Solar Activity. pp 417--424, @doi 10.1017/S1743921304006349

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    V., Bogachev S

    Somov B. V., Bogachev S. A., 2003, Astronomy Letters, http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003AstL...29..621S&db_key=AST 29, 621

    2003

  53. [61]

    V., Kosugi T., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997ApJ...485..859S&db_key=AST 485, 859

    Somov B. V., Kosugi T., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997ApJ...485..859S&db_key=AST 485, 859

    1997 doi

  54. [62]

    Stanier A., Browning P., Dalla S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Eradat Oskoui S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424366 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Threlfall J., Neukirch T., Parnell C. E., Eradat Oskoui S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424366 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Threlfall J., Stevenson J. E. H., Parnell C. E., Neukirch T., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527381 , http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2016A

    doi

  57. [65]

    E., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    Threlfall J., Bourdin P.-A., Neukirch T., Parnell C. E., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi

  58. [66]

    E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-017-1060-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SoPh..292...45T 292, 45

    Threlfall J., Neukirch T., Parnell C. E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-017-1060-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SoPh..292...45T 292, 45

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    Journal, 495, L67

    Tsuneta S., Naito T., 1998, Astrophys. Journal, 495, L67

    1998

  60. [68]

    J., Isliker H., 2005, Astrophys

    Turkmani R., Vlahos L., Galsgaard K., Cargill P. J., Isliker H., 2005, Astrophys. Journal, http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...620L..59T&db_key=AST 620, L59

    2005

  61. [69]

    Vlahos L., Isliker H., 2019, @doi [Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion] 10.1088/1361-6587/aadbe7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PPCF...61a4020V 61, 014020

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    Journal, 608, 540

    Vlahos L., Isliker H., Lepreti F., 2004, Astrophys. Journal, 608, 540

    2004

  63. [71]

    Wood P., Neukirch T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-005-5686-y , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005SoPh..226...73W&db_key=AST 226, 73

    2005 doi

  64. [72]

    V., Gordovskyy M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..884Z 604, 884

    Zharkova V. V., Gordovskyy M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..884Z 604, 884

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

    V., Gordovskyy M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08532.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1107Z 356, 1107

    Zharkova V. V., Gordovskyy M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08532.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1107Z 356, 1107

    2005

  66. [74]

    V., et al., 2011, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-011-9803-y , 159

    Zharkova V. V., et al., 2011, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-011-9803-y , 159

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.