Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

On the transition from Slow to Fast Wind as Observed in Composition Observations

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 Heavy ion abundances place the fast/slow solar wind transition at 327 km/s, about 60 km/s below helium's 390 km/s.

desk verdict A careful, useful paper on where heavy-ion abundances transition between slow and fast wind, but the central 327 km/s saturation speed rests on an assumed bi-linear kink that the paper doesn't test. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18984 v1 pith:XAZ6FB4Z submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

B. L. Alterman , Y. J. Rivera , S. T. Lepri , R. M. Raines This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords SolarwindSlowFastAbundanceratiosabundancesHeliumHeavyioncompositiontransition
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 asks where the solar wind actually switches from slow to fast in composition, rather than assuming the conventional 400–600 km/s threshold. Using 1998–2011 ACE/SWICS observations of nine species' abundances (helium plus eight heavier elements) normalized to hydrogen, it fits each abundance-versus-speed trend with two straight lines and reads their intersection as the transition point. It finds that helium changes regime at $v_s = 390 \pm 4$ km/s (399 km/s in Wind/SWE data), while every heavier element changes at the same speed, $v_s = 327 \pm 2$ km/s, independent of mass, charge state, or first ionization potential. The paper argues that a 400 km/s cutoff therefore mixes coronal-hole and equatorial wind into the slow category, and that helium's later transition may reflect its special coupling to solar wind acceleration while a separate, unidentified fractionation process acts on heavy ions in fast wind.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bi-linear min-of-two-lines fit, $A(v) = \min[m_1(v - v_1), m_2(v - v_2)]$, applied to the mean abundance in speed bins for each species. The two lines intersect at the saturation point $(v_s, A_s)$, and the parameters are re-expressed so that $v_s$ and $A_s$ are fit directly, giving uncertainties on the transition speed and abundance. The same machinery is then used to normalize each species' trend to its own $(v_s, A_s)$, which removes FIP-imposed offsets and exposes the speed-dependent gradients below and above the transition.

What would settle it

Fit each species' abundance-versus-speed data with a single straight line and with a smooth broken-power-law or hyperbolic-tangent model using the same speed bins and weights; if either fits as well as or better than the min-of-two-lines function, the claimed kink, and with it the 327 km/s heavy-ion transition, is a model artifact. A second, independent check is to derive the transition speed from charge-state ratios like $\mathrm{O}^{7+}/\mathrm{O}^{6+}$ and see whether it matches 327 km/s or 390 km/s.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the fast/slow solar wind boundary is not a single speed: it depends on which ion you measure. Helium abundance saturates at $v_s = 390 \pm 4$ km/s (SWICS) or $399 \pm 2$ km/s (SWE), while the average saturation speed for C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe is $v_s = 327 \pm 2$ km/s, $63 \pm 4.5$ km/s slower. This heavy-ion speed is the same for every species within uncertainties and is independent of first ionization potential, so it is not a FIP-effect artifact. At the transition, low-FIP elements are enhanced about twice as much as high-FIP elements, matching prior fast-wind abundance patterns. Above $v_s$, the fast-wind abundances continue to rise with speed, and the rise, normalized to the saturation abundance, decreases with element mass and is best ordered by average solar wind charge state, which the paper reads as evidence of a mass- or charge-state-dependent fractionation process in fast wind that it cannot yet identify.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that each abundance-versus-speed trend really is two straight lines meeting at a sharp kink; if the true relationship is smooth or has no kink, the fitted saturation speeds, including the central 327 km/s heavy-ion value, are artifacts of the model rather than physical transition speeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If heavy ions really change regime at 327 km/s, then classifying wind below 400 km/s as slow mixes plasma from coronal holes with plasma from equatorial, intermittently open sources, blurring source mapping.
  • The 63 km/s gap between helium's transition and the heavy ions' transition implies helium is affected by the acceleration that brings solar wind to its asymptotic fast speed, while heavier elements are not.
  • Because all heavy ions share the same saturation speed regardless of mass, charge state, or FIP, no elemental fractionation process operates below the transition beyond the chromospheric FIP effect.
  • The rise of heavy-ion abundances above the transition, ordered by mass and best by charge state, points to a fractionation mechanism in fast wind that is not gravitational settling, Coulomb friction with hydrogen, or position within a coronal hole.
  • Setting the fast/slow threshold anywhere in 400–600 km/s, as is commonly done, is therefore not just arbitrary but demonstrably off for heavy-ion composition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not run: fit each abundance trend with a smooth function, such as a hyperbolic tangent or a broken power law with a rounded corner, and compare fits; if the smooth model wins, the 327 km/s value is a property of the min-of-two-lines model rather than a physical kink.
  • Applying the same bi-linear analysis to charge-state ratios such as $\mathrm{O}^{7+}/\mathrm{O}^{6+}$ and $\mathrm{C}^{6+}/\mathrm{C}^{5+}$ instead of element abundances would show whether the heavy-ion transition at 327 km/s is a composition boundary or a charge-state boundary.
  • The charge-state ordering of the fast-wind rise suggests a mechanism tied to wave-particle resonance; one could search for a correlation between the rise amplitude and each species' gyrofrequency at 1 AU to test that idea.
  • If the 63 km/s helium offset comes from acceleration coupling, its size should vary with solar activity; a multi-cycle analysis of the difference between helium's and heavy ions' saturation speeds would make that prediction checkable.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper tests the standard fast/slow solar wind two-state paradigm using ACE/SWICS heavy-ion abundances (X/H for He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Fe) and Wind/SWE helium from 1998-2011. The authors bin the data by solar wind speed, fit a bi-linear 'min of two lines' function (Eq. 1) to the abundance-speed relation of each species, and define the saturation point (vs, As) as the intersection of the two lines. They report that heavy ions saturate at vs=327±2 km/s, independent of mass and charge state, about 63 km/s slower than He (vs=390±4 km/s in SWICS and 399±2 km/s in SWE), that As orders with FIP, and that the abundance at 592 km/s normalized to As decreases with mass and appears best ordered by average charge state (R2_w=0.95). They infer that the conventional 400-600 km/s fast/slow boundary may mix source regions and that He may be affected by in-situ acceleration while heavy ions are fractionated by an unidentified mass/charge-dependent mechanism in the fast wind.

Significance. If the heavy-ion vs=327 km/s and its separation from He are genuine, the result provides a concrete, composition-based definition of the fast/slow transition and challenges the simplicity of the two-state paradigm; it also offers a new observational constraint on preferential heating and acceleration of helium. The paper's strengths are its long, well-filtered dataset, the quantitative parameter table with uncertainties, the use of quantile binning, and the instrument cross-check between ACE/SWICS and Wind/SWE helium, which supports the reliability of the abundance data. The main claims are, however, contingent on the assumed sharp-kink model and on a post-hoc selection of the ordering variable for fast-wind fractionation, so the significance is real but proportionate to those caveats.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1), Section 4.1] The headline result, vs=327±2 km/s for heavy ions and vs=390±4 km/s for He (Table 1, Figs. 4 and 7), is the intersection of two straight lines imposed by Eq. (1). The paper states in Section 4.1 that the analysis 'assumes that there exists a characteristic point (vs, As)', but it never tests the min-of-two-lines model against a single-line or smooth alternative. If the true X/H(vsw) relation is a smooth, monotonically saturating curve, the fitted vs is placed where the local curvature is strongest and the 63±4.5 km/s He-heavy-ion offset could be a model artifact. I ask the authors to add a formal model comparison (e.g., weighted single-line or saturating-curve fits, with AIC or the R2_w statistic they introduce in Section 4.2, plus residual plots) and to show that the heavy-ion vs remains distinct from He when the sharp-kink assumption is relaxed.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figs. 6 and 8] The claim of a mass- or charge-state-dependent fractionation in fast wind rests on a post-hoc selection among five candidate ordering variables: FIP, M, Q, M/Q, and M2/Q2 (Section 4.2). The paper reports that all R2_w are <0.55 except the average charge state Q, which gives R2_w=0.95, but with only 8 elements this is a multiple-comparisons selection, and no uncertainty or validation (e.g., leave-one-out, bootstrap, or a pre-registered hypothesis) is provided. Additionally, the caption of Fig. 8 states 'the decreasing trend with increasing M' although the horizontal axis is Q, and the text alternates between mass and charge-state language; this makes the specific claim difficult to evaluate. Please report all five R2_w values, quantify the selection effect, and harmonize the M/Q terminology before drawing the fractionation conclusion.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and throughout] There are several minor typographical issues: 'each each' in Section 2.1, 'shuto ff' in Section 1, 'peek' in the Fig. 7 caption, 'it's' in Section 4 (should be 'its'), 'with in' in Section 3.1, and 'heavy ion in the solar wind' in the Abstract/Aims (likely 'heavy ions'). These should be corrected in a final proofread.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'Excluding He, the decreasing trend with increasing M indicates...' but the horizontal axis is the solar wind charge state Q; the text should be updated to refer to Q consistently with the axes.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 1] The sentence in Section 4 describing the transition abundances ('these transition abundancesAs are well-ordered by mass') is missing a space between 'abundances' and 'As'; Table 1's 'Avg' row should explain that it excludes both SWE and SWICS helium, as stated in the caption, which is fine but the notation could be clearer in the main text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Transition speed is defined as the fitted kink of an assumed min-of-two-lines model; the two-gradient claim is built into the fit, but the He vs heavy-ion offset is data-driven and cross-instrument verified.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eqs. (1)-(3); Conclusion item 1; Section 4.1]
    "To quantify this transition, we have fit the trend of these distributions with the bi-linear function A(v) = min [A1(v), A2(v)] = min [m1(v− v1), m2(v− v2)]. (1) ... The speed at the intersection between the two lines in Equation (1) is given by vs = ..."

    The paper's first result, 'All species have two distinct gradients as a function of vsw and these gradients are shallower above the speed vs' (Conclusion item 1), is an inevitable property of the fitting function chosen, not an independent discovery. Eq. (1) is a min-of-two-lines function, so every fit has a kink, and the 'saturation speed' vs is defined as that kink via Eq. (3). Thus 'the speed at which heavy ion abundances indicate a change' is the model's own intersection parameter by construction. A smooth monotone abundance-speed relation with no true transition would still yield a finite vs, determined by where the two-line model best approximates the curve. The paper explicitly states the assumption in Sec.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a transparent empirical fitting exercise, not a derivation from first principles: the authors fit Eq. (1) independently to each species and compare the resulting parameters. The central quantitative result, that heavy-ion saturation speeds near 327 km/s are slower than the helium saturation speed near 390 km/s, is not circular because the fit function does not impose order across species; the offset emerges from the data. Cross-instrument agreement between SWE and SWICS helium saturation speeds provides independent support. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; references to the authors' prior work concern data selection and previously established helium trends rather than the heavy-ion result. The genuine circular element is the definition of the 'transition': because the transition point is defined as the intersection of the two fitted lines, the claim that every species exhibits two distinct gradients is guaranteed by the assumed functional form. The paper acknowledges this assumption in Section 4.1, which mitigates but does not remove the issue, and it does not compare the bilinear model to a smooth alternative. This supports a moderate circularity score rather than a high one.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central load-bearing choices are the bi-linear model form and the photospheric normalization from Asplund et al. (2021). All derived quantities (vs, As, slopes) are fitted to the data, and the fast-wind fractionation trend is selected post hoc from correlation searches.

free parameters (5)
  • Heavy ion saturation speed vs (per species) = C: 333±7, N: 326±4, O: 327±4, Ne: 320±4, Mg: 327±5, Si: 330±4, S: 327±10, Fe: 331±6 km/s; weighted mean 327±2
    Fitted as the intersection of the two lines in Equation (1) for each element; the central quantity of the paper.
  • Helium saturation speed vs (SWICS) = 390±4 km/s
    Same bi-linear fit applied to ACE/SWICS He/H; compared to heavy ion vs.
  • Helium saturation speed vs (SWE) = 399±2 km/s
    Fit to Wind/SWE He/H; reference from prior method.
  • Saturation abundance As (per species) = C 0.378, N 0.398, O 0.349, Ne 0.269, Mg 0.645, Si 0.921, S 0.729, Fe 0.933, He 0.496 (SWICS), He 0.520 (SWE)…
    Fitted abundance at the saturation point; used to normalize gradients and in the fractionation analysis.
  • Fast-wind reference speed 592 km/s = 592 km/s
    Hand-chosen speed representing the fastest considered observations; used to compute A(592 km/s)/As fractionation metric. Results depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The bi-linear min-of-two-lines function (Equation 1) describes the X/H versus vsw relationship
    Introduced in Section 3.1 without comparison to a single-line or smooth alternative; the transition point (vs, As) is defined by this model.
  • domain assumption Elemental abundances X/H are conserved after leaving the solar corona and therefore map to solar source regions
    Standard assumption in solar wind composition studies, cited in Section 1 (von Steiger et al. 2000; Xu & Borovsky 2015).
  • domain assumption Photospheric abundance normalizations from Asplund et al. (2021) are correct
    Used in Equation (2) to normalize all abundances; affects As values.
  • domain assumption Removal of ICMEs and CIRs isolates ambient solar wind without biasing the speed-abundance relationship
    Data selection in Section 2.2 follows Alterman & Kasper (2019); if removal is imperfect, transition speeds could shift.
  • domain assumption The FIP effect and pondermotive force fractionation in the chromosphere (Laming 2004, 2015) explain the As ordering with FIP
    Used in Section 4 to interpret Figure 5; not tested in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the transition from Slow to Fast Wind as Observed in Composition Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAZ6FB4Z

@misc{pith2026241118984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the transition from Slow to Fast Wind as Observed in Composition Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAZ6FB4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18984}
}
abstract

The solar wind is typically categorized as fast and slow based on the measured speed ($v_\mathrm{sw}$). The separation between these two regimes is often set between 400 and 600 km/s without a rigorous definition. Observations of the solar wind's kinetic signatures, chemical makeup, charge state properties, and Alfv\'enicity suggest that such a two-state model may be insufficiently nuanced to capture the relationship between the solar wind and its solar sources. We test this two-state fast/slow solar wind paradigm with heavy ion abundances (X/H) and characterize how the transition between fast and slow wind states impacts heavy ion in the solar wind. We show that (1) the speed at which heavy ion abundances indicate a change between fast and slow solar wind as a function of speed is slower than the speed indicated by the helium abundance; (2) this speed is independent of heavy ion mass and charge state; (3) the abundance at which heavy ions indicate the transition between fast and slow wind is consistent with prior observations of fast wind abundances; (4) and there may be a mass or charge-state dependent fractionation process present in fast wind heavy ion abundances. We infer that (1) identifying slow solar wind as having a speed $v_\mathrm{sw} \lesssim$ 400 km/s may mix solar wind from polar and equatorial sources; (2) He may be impacted by the acceleration necessary for the solar wind to reach the asymptotic fast, non-transient values observed at 1 AU; and (3) heavy ions are fractionated in the fast wind by a yet-to-be-determined mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A contour plot corresponding to a column-normalized 2D his￾togram of the SWE helium abundance as a function of the proton speed observed at Wind. The solid green line and error bars are the mean and standard deviation in each column. The pink dash-dotted line show the result of bi-linear fit to the green line, where each line is selected as the minimum of both lines in the bi-linear function over the full domain. On… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Abundances averaged in solar wind speed bins. Saturation speeds (vs) are indicated by vertical lines of the corresponding color. The species are indicated on the right hand side of the plot. The SWE observations of AHe from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The saturation speed (vs) as a function of first ionization po￾tential (FIP). The vertical dashed line is 11 eV, the nominal change between high and low FIP. The semi-transparent, horizontal blue bar indicates the weighted average of vs = 327 ± 2 km s−1 for elements he…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The abundance at vsw = 592 km s−1 normalized to As as a func￾tion of element mass. Excluding He, the decreasing trend with increas￾ing M indicates a heavy ion fractionation process in fast solar wind. 2015; Schwadron et al. 1999; Geiss 1982; Geiss et al. 1995a). For co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability density of vsw observed by SWICS and SWE. The vertical green lines are saturation speeds vs including uncertainty. The vertical black dotted line is the peek solar wind speed bin, vsw = 345 km s−1 . and these two characteristic speeds are separated by the s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The abundance at vsw = 592 km s−1 normalized to As as a function of solar wind charge state. Excluding He, the decreasing trend with increasing M indicates a heavy ion fractionation process in fast solar wind. driven FIP effect is mass independent. As such, this may be…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cross Helicity and the Helium Abundance as an in situ Metric of Solar Wind Acceleration

    astro-ph.SR 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Solar wind speed alone cannot distinguish open- from closed-field sources; combining helium abundance with cross helicity reveals an overlapping speed range that explains the Alfvénic slow wind.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 201, 55, tex.ids= Abbo2016a Acuña, M. H., Ogilvie, K. W., Baker, D. N., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 5

    2016

  2. [2]

    R., Lazarus, A

    Aellig, M. R., Lazarus, A. J., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 2767

    2001

  3. [3]

    L., Desai, M

    Alterman, B. L., Desai, M. I., Dayeh, M. A., Mason, G. M., & Ho, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 42

    2023

  4. [4]

    Alterman, B. L. & Kasper, J. C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L6, pub- lisher: IOP Publishing

    2019

  5. [5]

    Solar Wind Helium Abundance Heralds Solar Cycle Onset

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Leamon, R. J., & McIntosh, S. W. 2021, Solar Physics, 296, 67, arXiv: 2006.04669 Publisher: The Author(s), under exclu- sive licence to Springer Nature B.V . ISBN: 1120702101801

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M., & Koval, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 112, publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  7. [7]

    K., Mikic, Z., Titov, V

    Antiochos, S. K., Mikic, Z., Titov, V . S., Lionello, R., & Linker, J. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 112, arXiv: 1102.3704 tex.ids= Antiochos2011a

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Antonucci, E., Abbo, L., & Dodero, M. A. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 699

    2005

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A141

    2021

  2. [10]

    L., et al

    Baker, D., Démoulin, P., Yardley, S. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 65

    2023

  3. [11]

    D., Drake, J

    Bale, S. D., Drake, J. F., McManus, M. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 252

    2023

  4. [12]

    & Bochsler, P

    Bodmer, R. & Bochsler, P. 1998, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 23, 683

    1998

  5. [13]

    & Bochsler, P

    Bodmer, R. & Bochsler, P. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 47

    2000

  6. [14]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research A: Space Physics, 121, 5055, iSBN: 2169-9402 tex.ids= Borovsky2016a, Borovsky2016b

    Borovsky, J. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research A: Space Physics, 121, 5055, iSBN: 2169-9402 tex.ids= Borovsky2016a, Borovsky2016b

    2016

  7. [15]

    H., Ugarte-Urra, I., & Warren, H

    Brooks, D. H., Ugarte-Urra, I., & Warren, H. P. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2015

  8. [16]

    & Carbone, V

    Bruno, R. & Carbone, V . 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 1

    2013

  9. [17]

    S., Barraclough, B

    Burnett, D. S., Barraclough, B. L., Bennett, R., et al. 2003, Space Science Re- views, 105, 509, iSBN: 0038-6308

    2003

  10. [18]

    U., Antiochos, S

    Crooker, N. U., Antiochos, S. K., Zhao, X., & Neugebauer, M. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, n/a, iSBN: 0148-0227 D’Amicis, R. & Bruno, R. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 805, 1, publisher: IOP Publishing ISBN: 1538-4357 Del Zanna, G. 2019, Astronomy & ...

    2012

  11. [19]

    E., et al

    Desai, M., Mason, G., Gold, R. E., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 470

    2006

  12. [20]

    Doschek, G. A. & Warren, H. P. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 158

    2019

  13. [21]

    2012, Solar Physics, 278, 203, arXiv: 1112.5560 ISBN: 1573-093X D’Amicis, R., Alielden, K., Perrone, D., et al

    Du, Z. 2012, Solar Physics, 278, 203, arXiv: 1112.5560 ISBN: 1573-093X D’Amicis, R., Alielden, K., Perrone, D., et al. 2021a, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 654, A111 D’Amicis, R., Perrone, D., Bruno, R., & Velli, M. 2021b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Laming, J

    Feldman, U. & Laming, J. M. 2000, Physica Scripta, 61, 222

    2000

  15. [23]

    C., Asbridge, J

    Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., Bame, S. J., & Gosling, J. T. 1978, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83, 2177

    1978

  16. [24]

    A., Zurbuchen, T

    Fisk, L. A., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Schwadron, N. A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 868

    1999

  17. [25]

    2015, Solar Physics, 290, 1399

    Fu, H., Li, B., Li, X., et al. 2015, Solar Physics, 290, 1399

    2015

  18. [26]

    S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z

    Fu, H., Madjarska, M. S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1884

    2018

  19. [27]

    S., Xia, L., et al

    Fu, H., Madjarska, M. S., Xia, L., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 169

    2017

  20. [28]

    1982, Space Science Reviews, 33, 201, iSBN: 9783540773405

    Geiss, J. 1982, Space Science Reviews, 33, 201, iSBN: 9783540773405

    1982

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Gloeckler, G., Cain, J., Ipavich, F. M., et al. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 86, 497, publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

    1998

  22. [30]

    Hansteen, V . H. & Velli, M. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 172, 89

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hathaway, D. H. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, iSBN: 1614-4961

    2015

  24. [32]

    M., Gibson, S

    Hewins, I. M., Gibson, S. E., Webb, D. F., et al. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, pub- lisher: Springer Nature B.V

    2020

  25. [33]

    1973, Reviews of Geophysics, 11, 115

    Hirshberg, J. 1973, Reviews of Geophysics, 11, 115

    1973

  26. [34]

    Holzer, T. E. & Leer, E. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 4665

    1980

  27. [35]

    Holzer, T. E. & Leer, E. 1981, in Solar Wind 4 (Burhausen, Germany: Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie and Max Planck Institut für exraterrestriesche Physik), 28–41, conference Name: Solar Wind 4 Pages: 28 ADS Bibcode: 1981sowi.conf...28H

    1981

  28. [36]

    J., Niembro, T., et al

    Johnson, M., Rivera, Y . J., Niembro, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 81

    2024

  29. [37]

    P., Güdel, M., Lüftinger, T., Toth, G., & Brott, I

    Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., Lüftinger, T., Toth, G., & Brott, I. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A27

    2015

  30. [38]

    Kasper, J. C. 2002, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2002

  31. [39]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Lichko, E., et al. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 127, 255101

    2021

  32. [40]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Weber, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 126

    2017

  33. [41]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 261103

    2008

  34. [42]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., Ogilvie, K. W., & Szabo, A. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, A03105

    2006

  35. [43]

    C., Stevens, M., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., & Ogilvie, K. W. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 901

    2007

  36. [44]

    C., Stevens, M

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., Korreck, K. E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 162

    2012

  37. [45]

    G., Alterman, B

    Klein, K. G., Alterman, B. L., Stevens, M., Vech, D., & Kasper, J. C. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, 205102, publisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  38. [46]

    Laming, J. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 1063

    2004

  39. [47]

    Laming, J. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 954

    2009

  40. [48]

    Laming, J. M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 115, arXiv: astro- ph.SR/1110.4357

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Laming, J. M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, arXiv: 1504.08325 ISBN: 2367-3648 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda-merged

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    & Holzer, T

    Leer, E. & Holzer, T. E. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 4681

    1980

  43. [51]

    T., Landi, E., & Zurbuchen, T

    Lepri, S. T., Landi, E., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 94

    2013

  44. [52]

    Lepri, S. T. & Rivera, Y . J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 51, publisher: IOP Publishing tex.ids= Lepri2021a, Lepri2021b

    2021

  45. [53]

    A., Möbius, E., Haggerty, D., Witte, M., & Wurz, P

    Livi, S. A., Möbius, E., Haggerty, D., Witte, M., & Wurz, P. 2003, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings, 679, 850, iSBN: 0735401489

    2003

  46. [54]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 921 Martinovi´c, M., Klein, K

    Marsch, E. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 921 Martinovi´c, M., Klein, K. G., Durovcova, T., & Alterman, B. L. 2021, 1, arXiv: 2110.07772 Martinovi´c, M., Klein, K. G., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Supplement Series, 246, 30, arXiv: 1912.02653

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Maruca, B. A. & Kasper, J. C. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 723, publisher: COSPAR

    2013

  48. [56]

    M., Desai, M., & Li, G

    Mason, G. M., Desai, M., & Li, G. 2012, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 748, 2010

    2012

  49. [57]

    J., Ebert, R

    McComas, D. J., Ebert, R. W., Elliott, H. A., et al. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L18103

    2008

  50. [58]

    W., Kiefer, K

    McIntosh, S. W., Kiefer, K. K., Leamon, R. J., Kasper, J. C., & Stevens, M. 2011, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 740, 1, arXiv: 1109.1408

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    W., Leamon, R

    McIntosh, S. W., Leamon, R. J., Krista, L. D., et al. 2015, Nature Com- munications, 6, 1, publisher: Nature Publishing Group ISBN: 2041-1723 (Electronic)\r2041-1723 (Linking)

    2015

  52. [60]

    2007, Basics of the Solar Wind, 1st edn

    Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the Solar Wind, 1st edn. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press)

    2007

  53. [61]

    H., Laming, J

    Mihailescu, T., Brooks, D. H., Laming, J. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 72

    2023

  54. [62]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1371

    Nicolaou, G., Livadiotis, G., & Moussas, X. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1371

    2014

  55. [63]

    W., Chornay, D

    Ogilvie, K. W., Chornay, D. J., Fritzenreiter, R. J., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 55

    1995

  56. [64]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, The Astrophysical Journal, 128, 664, iSBN: 9780874216561

    1958

  57. [65]

    L., Balogh, A., Bame, S

    Phillips, J. L., Balogh, A., Bame, S. J., et al. 1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 1105

    1994

  58. [66]

    B., Zurbuchen, T

    Pilleri, P., Reisenfeld, D. B., Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 1

    2015

  59. [67]

    Pottasch, S. R. 1963, The Astrophysical Journal, 137, 945

    1963

  60. [68]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

    Raouafi, N. E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 945, 28

    2023

  61. [69]

    C., Kohl, J

    Raymond, J. C., Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., et al. 1997, in The First Results from SOHO, ed. B. Fleck & Z. Švestka (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 645– 665

    1997

  62. [70]

    B., Wiens, R

    Reisenfeld, D. B., Wiens, R. C., Barraclough, B. L., et al. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 125

    2013

  63. [71]

    & Victoria-Feser, M.-P

    Renaud, O. & Victoria-Feser, M.-P. 2010, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 140, 1852

    2010

  64. [72]

    Richardson, I. G. & Cane, H. V . 2010, Solar Physics, 264, 189

    2010

  65. [73]

    J., Landi, E., Lepri, S

    Rivera, Y . J., Landi, E., Lepri, S. T., & Gilbert, J. A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 11

    2020

  66. [74]

    J., Lepri, S

    Rivera, Y . J., Lepri, S. T., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 93

    2021

  67. [75]

    A., Fisk, L

    Schwadron, N. A., Fisk, L. A., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 859

    1999

  68. [76]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 124, 51

    Schwenn, R. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 124, 51

    2006

  69. [77]

    M., et al

    Shearer, P., von Steiger, R., Raines, J. M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 60

    2014

  70. [78]

    Q., Zhang, J., Cheng, X., et al

    Song, H. Q., Zhang, J., Cheng, X., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, L21, arXiv: 2009.05212

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    O., Landi, E., Lepri, S

    Stakhiv, M. O., Landi, E., Lepri, S. T., Oran, R., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 100

    2015

  72. [80]

    O., Lepri, S

    Stakhiv, M. O., Lepri, S. T., Landi, E., Tracy, P. J., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 117, publisher: IOP Publishing ISBN: 0769518745

    2016

  73. [81]

    C., Frandsen, A

    Stone, E. C., Frandsen, A. M., Mewaldt, R. A., et al. 1998, Space Sci- ence Reviews, 86, 1, publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers ISBN: 10.1023/A:1005082526237

    1998 doi

  74. [82]

    S., & Doyle, J

    Subramanian, S., Madjarska, M. S., & Doyle, J. G. 2010, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 516, A50

    2010

  75. [83]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1349

    Tlatov, A., Tavastsherna, K., & Vasil’eva, V . 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1349

    2014

  76. [84]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Raines, J. M., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 255101, 255101

    2016

  77. [85]

    Tu, C. Y . & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 73, 1, iSBN: 0038-6308

    1995

  78. [86]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, The multi-scale na- ture of the solar wind, V ol. 16 (Springer International Publishing), arXiv: 1902.03448 Publication Title: Living Reviews in Solar Physics Issue: 1 ISSN: 16144961

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Viall, N. M. & Borovsky, J. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, 1 von Steiger, R., Geiss, J., & Gloeckler, G. 1997, in Cosmic Winds and the He- liosphere, Space Science Series, 581–611, conference Name: Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere Pages: 581 ADS Bib...

    2020

  80. [88]

    Wang, Y . M. & Sheeley, N. R. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, 1

    2002

  81. [89]

    2015, Spatial and Temporal Coordinate Systems in Space Physics, Tech

    Weberg, M. 2015, Spatial and Temporal Coordinate Systems in Space Physics, Tech. rep

    2015

  82. [90]

    H., & Lepri, S

    Weberg, M., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Lepri, S. T. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 760

    2012

  83. [91]

    Widing, K. G. & Feldman, U. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 555, 426

    2001

  84. [92]

    Wurz, P., Bochsler, P., & Lee, M. A. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 27239

    2000

  85. [93]

    & Borovsky, J

    Xu, F. & Borovsky, J. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 70

    2015

  86. [94]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 503, L17, publisher: Oxford University Press

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 503, L17, publisher: Oxford University Press

    2021

  87. [95]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, L13

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, L13

    2023

  88. [96]

    & Richardson, J

    Zerbo, J.-L. & Richardson, J. D. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 10,250

    2015

  89. [97]

    T., & Carpenter, D

    Zhao, L., Landi, E., Lepri, S. T., & Carpenter, D. 2022, Universe, 8, 393

    2022

  90. [98]

    Zurbuchen, T. H. & Richardson, I. G. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 31

    2006

  91. [99]

    H., Weberg, M., V on Steiger, R., et al

    Zurbuchen, T. H., Weberg, M., V on Steiger, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 10 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2016

Pith tools

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