Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Magnetic flux emergence and solar eruptions in partially ionized plasmas

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Partially ionized plasma shifts where solar eruptions begin and makes them faster, 3D MHD simulations show.

desk verdict Useful first 3D result on PI flux emergence, but the PI/FI comparison is confounded by different initial field strengths, so the central causal claims need a control run. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10633 v1 pith:7ZXSIKIZ submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Georgios Chouliaras , V. Archontis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solareruptionsmagneticfluxemergencepartialionizationambipolardiffusionropeformationMHDsimulationscoronaneutralatoms
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

This paper argues that partial ionization of the low solar atmosphere changes the entire eruption sequence, not just the details of flux emergence. In the fully ionized comparison run, a new flux rope forms low in the atmosphere by reconnection of sheared field lines and then erupts. In the partially ionized run, the axis of the rising tube stays below the photosphere, the emerged field is an untwisted arch, and the flux rope is built instead by reconnection of J-shaped field lines at coronal heights. The paper also reports that the first partially ionized eruption carries neutral material into the corona and that these eruptions proceed faster than their fully ionized counterparts. If correct, models of solar eruptions must include neutral–ion coupling to predict where eruptions begin and how fast they go.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the single-fluid MHD treatment of partial ionization: an ambipolar diffusion term in the induction equation plus a hydrogen equation of state that includes ionization and recombination. Ambipolar diffusion lets neutrals and ions drift relative to each other, which the paper argues changes the stratification of the emerging tube, suppresses the rise of the tube axis, and keeps the emerged field arch-like with very little twist. The comparison is made visible by running the same emergence experiment twice, once with this PI physics and once with a fully ionized plasma; the PI run's J-shaped field-line reconnection at coronal heights is the specific new mechanism that builds the erupting flux rope.

What would settle it

A matched-field-strength simulation would settle it: rerun the PI case with the same initial field strength as the FI case ($B_0 = 3150\,\mathrm{G}$) instead of the same plasma $\beta$. If the arch-like emergence, J-shaped reconnection at coronal heights, and faster eruptions persist, partial ionization is the cause; if they vanish or invert, the difference in initial field strength is the actual driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that partial ionization changes the whole pathway from emergence to eruption. In the fully ionized run, the axis of the twisted rising tube emerges above the photosphere, sheared field lines reconnect low in the atmosphere, and the new flux rope is already present before the eruption begins. In the partially ionized run, the tube axis stays below the photosphere, so the emerged field is an untwisted arch; the erupting flux rope forms later, at coronal heights, when J-shaped field lines from the two flanks reconnect at a current sheet around $z \approx 11.5$ Mm. The paper reports that the first PI eruption lifts a column of neutral material into the corona for a short time, that the normalized axial flux above the photosphere peaks near 0.85 before the first eruption in both runs, and that the PI eruptions have a higher $\rho v_z^2$ signature and are faster by about a factor of two, even though the FI eruptions carry stronger normalized magnetic energy.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that matching the plasma beta (the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure) between the two runs is a fair control, even though that choice forces the partially ionized tube to start with a magnetic field of 7882 G and the fully ionized tube with 3150 G.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If partial ionization keeps the tube axis below the photosphere, the coronal field that emerges is an arcade with very little twist, so twist-driven instabilities are not the trigger that creates the erupting flux rope.
  • A new flux rope can be assembled at coronal heights by reconnection of J-shaped field lines even when no twisted tube axis emerges, so the formation site of eruptive structures depends on the ionization state of the lower atmosphere.
  • Neutral atoms can be carried upward with the erupting flux rope for a short time, meaning partially ionized material can appear at coronal heights during an eruption.
  • Eruptions in the partially ionized run are faster, with a kinetic-energy proxy roughly a factor of two higher, because the reconnection outflows that drive them form where the Alfvén speed is higher.
  • The amount of axial flux above the photosphere reaches similar peaks in both runs, so the subsequent eruptions carry comparable axial flux even though the subphotospheric flux reservoirs differ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same-beta setup also changes the initial field strength (7882 G versus 3150 G), the paper does not fully isolate partial ionization from field-strength effects; a matched-field-strength pair of runs would be the clean test.
  • The coronal J-shaped reconnection mechanism may operate in any emergence where the flux-tube axis fails to reach the photosphere, so variations in stratification or helicity could reproduce the same eruption pathway without invoking partial ionization.
  • If neutral material reaches coronal heights in real eruptions, spectral diagnostics of erupting prominences could be used to identify partially ionized flux ropes observationally.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D MHD simulations of magnetic flux emergence from the solar interior into an initially unmagnetized corona, comparing a partially ionized (PI) plasma with a fully ionized (FI) plasma. The authors report that, in the PI case, the emerging field consists of arch-like field lines with little twist, a new flux rope forms at coronal heights via reconnection of J-shaped field lines, the first eruption carries neutrals into the corona, and eruptions are overall faster. In the FI case, a flux rope forms in the low atmosphere and eruptions involve denser, more strongly magnetized plasma. The paper continues the authors' previous work (Paper I) and includes diagnostics of field-line topology, height-time profiles, energy and axial-flux evolution, and neutral fractions.

Significance. If the reported differences are robust, this would be the first 3D demonstration that partial ionization qualitatively changes the location of flux-rope formation and the speed of eruptions in flux-emergence simulations, with implications for understanding eruption onset and the role of neutrals in the corona. The paper has several strengths: it presents multiple independent diagnostics (field-line topology, height-time profiles, energy and axial-flux time series, neutral fraction maps), it checks the ambipolar drift speed against published warnings about the EOS (Section 3.7), and it explicitly compares with previous fully ionized simulations. These checks show scientific care. However, the central PI-versus-FI comparison is not cleanly controlled, and the quantitative support for the 'faster eruptions' claim is internally inconsistent. The significance of the work for the field would be high if the control issue were resolved, but as it stands the causal attribution to partial ionization is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The PI and FI runs are not controlled for initial magnetic field strength. The manuscript states that both flux tubes begin with the same plasma beta but that B0_PI = 7882 G and B0_FI = 3150 G. Consequently, the two models differ simultaneously in both the ionization treatment and the initial field strength. Because the magnetic field strength determines the Lorentz force, the plasma beta distribution, and the dynamics of emergence and eruption, the observed differences (arch-like vs twisted field, coronal vs low-atmosphere flux-rope formation, faster PI eruptions) cannot be unambiguously attributed to partial ionization. A control run that varies B0 while keeping the EOS fixed, or vice versa, is required to separate these effects. Without such a control, the central causal claim of the paper is not supported by the evidence presented.
  2. [Section 3.5 and Conclusions] There is a clear internal inconsistency regarding vertical velocities and kinetic energy. In Section 3.5 the text says, 'the plasma acceleration during the eruptions in the FI case is less compared to the PI case. This is due to the larger value of νz in the FI case.' A larger νz in the FI case would tend to produce higher, not lower, kinetic energy, so this statement is logically contradictory. The Conclusions then state that 'the PI eruptions ... are faster by a factor of two,' which appears to contradict the claim that FI has the larger νz. The manuscript needs to reconcile these statements by presenting direct measurements of eruption speed (e.g., from the height-time profiles in Figure 4) or by clearly defining what quantity is being compared. As written, the evidence for the central 'faster eruptions in PI' claim is unclear and internally inconsistent.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Conclusions] The claim that PI eruptions are 'faster by a factor of two' is not supported by the diagnostics shown. The kinetic energy in Figure 7 is integrated over a fixed volume at 40 Mm height, but the normalization and units are not specified, and a factor-of-two difference in kinetic energy does not directly imply a factor-of-two difference in velocity unless the density is identical. The height-time profiles (Figure 4) are described qualitatively (slow rise, fast rise, different starting heights) but no quantitative speeds are extracted. The manuscript should either present a direct speed measurement (e.g., fitting the fast-rise phase and reporting the e-folding time or terminal velocity) or moderate the claim to a qualitative statement about the kinetic energy peaks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'the axis of the twisted emerging flux tube in FI rises above the photosphere and it stays within the photosphere' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the axis remains above or within the photosphere.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'the actual emergence to the corona proceeds a bit earlier in the PI case, since the formation of the new FR that eventually erupts in the corona, it occurs earlier in the FI case' is grammatically confusing and appears to contain a logical error; please rephrase.
  3. [Section 3.5] The normalization of the kinetic energy E_kin(t) is not defined; state whether it is normalized and by what quantity, or provide units.
  4. [Section 3.5] The text uses 'plasma acceleration' but seems to mean kinetic energy or velocity; please correct the terminology.
  5. [Section 3.6] There are several typos, including 'ellaborate' (Section 3.1), 'substancially' (Section 3.2), 'occured' (multiple places), 'procees' (Section 3.6), and 'fiedlines' (Section 3.2). A thorough proofread is recommended.
  6. [Section 4] The conclusion states 'the normalized axial flux, which remains below the photosphere is less in the PI case', but earlier text says the opposite (PI has about 40% below, FI just below 30%); please verify and correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the PI/FI comparison is a numerical experiment whose claimed differences are simulation diagnostics, not fitted or definitionally forced outputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims—arch-like low-twist emerging fields, flux-rope formation at coronal versus low-atmospheric heights, neutrals carried into the corona, faster PI eruptions, and axial-flux partitioning—are all measured diagnostics of the two 3D MHD runs (Figures 2-3, 6-9), not parameters fitted to those outcomes. The initial conditions and the sub-photospheric axis location are taken from the authors' Paper I and from Syntelis et al. (2017), but those are prior simulation setups and outputs with stated assumptions, and the present paper independently re-derives the relevant signatures through field-line tracing, axial-flux integrals, and energy time series. The same-beta initialization (B0_PI=7882 G versus B0_FI=3150 G) is a genuine confound for the causal attribution to partial ionization, but that is an experimental-design limitation, not a circular reduction: the measured outputs are not equal to the input choices by construction. Section 3.7's Vd check and comparisons to Nóbrega-Siverio et al. provide independent external benchmarks. No specific equation-to-equation or fitted-parameter-to-prediction reduction can be exhibited, so the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on initial conditions inherited from Paper I, the single-fluid ambipolar approximation, and the null-corona setup; none of the eruption diagnostics are fitted parameters, but the same-beta/different-B0 control is an unvalidated assumption and the hydrogen-only EOS is a known approximation risk.

free parameters (3)
  • PI initial field strength B0_PI = 7882 G
    Initial condition chosen to give the same plasma beta as the FI tube; because B0 differs between the two runs, it is a potential confound for the claim that partial ionization alone makes PI eruptions faster (Section 2).
  • FI initial field strength B0_FI = 3150 G
    Initial condition chosen to match plasma beta with the PI tube; the different normalization also affects the comparison of normalized B2 and axial flux (Sections 3.5 and 3.6).
  • Flux tube radius, twist and thermodynamic profile
    Inherited from Paper I and not restated here; these hand-set initial conditions affect how quickly emergence and reconnection proceed, so they are inputs rather than fitted outputs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-fluid ambipolar diffusion with a hydrogen-only EOS correctly captures partial ionization effects in the simulated atmosphere.
    Section 3.7 acknowledges this EOS can overestimate ambipolar diffusion in low-temperature, low-density regions; the paper checks Vd below 17.5 km/s and cites prior multi-species simulations for support, but the approximation is not validated in this specific setup.
  • domain assumption Emergence into a null (unmagnetized) corona is representative enough for the eruption mechanism studied.
    Section 4 states the emergence occurred into a null corona and notes that a magnetized corona could instead produce jets; this limits generalization to quiet-Sun-like conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching plasma beta while using different initial B0 isolates the effect of partial ionization.
    Section 2 sets B0PI=7882 G and B0FI=3150 G for this purpose, but no test separates the influence of the field-strength difference from the ionization physics.
  • domain assumption Lare3D with the modified EOS provides a verified solution of the compressible resistive MHD equations.
    The code is established (Arber et al. 2001) and used with modifications from Paper I, but no verification or convergence test for this specific configuration is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic flux emergence and solar eruptions in partially ionized plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZXSIKIZ

@misc{pith2026241210633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic flux emergence and solar eruptions in partially ionized plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZXSIKIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10633}
}
read the original abstract

We have performed 3D MHD simulations to study the effect of partial ionization in the process of magnetic flux emergence in the Sun. In fact, we continue previous work and we now focus: 1) on the emergence of the magnetic fields above the solar photosphere and 2) on the eruptive activity, which follows the emergence into the corona. We find that in the simulations with partial ionization (PI), the structure of the emerging field consists of arch-like fieldlines with very little twist since the axis of the initial rising field remains below the photosphere. The plasma inside the emerging volume is less dense and it is moving faster compared to the fully ionized (FI) simulation. In both cases, new flux ropes (FR) are formed due to reconnection between emerging fieldlines, and they eventually erupt in an ejective manner towards the outer solar atmosphere. We are witnessing three major eruptions in both simulations. At least for the first eruption, the formation of the eruptive FR occurs in the low atmosphere in the FI case and at coronal heights in the PI case. Also, in the first PI eruption, part of the eruptive FR carries neutrals in the high atmosphere, for a short period of time. Overall, the eruptions are relatively faster in the PI case, while a considerable amount of axial flux is found above the photosphere during the eruptions in both simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contour plots depicting the logarithm of temperature and density at four different times for both simulations. The plots represent the early evolution of the magnetic loop in the solar atmosphere at the xz midplane. At each of the four times, the apex of the emerging field is located at the same height in both simulations. plasma properties for the two simulations, FI and PI. The first two rows correspond to the evo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3D magnetic field line topology for both simulations with traced magnetic field lines along a vertical line at the center of the box. dense volume inside the emerging field in the PI case has ex￾panded more, vertically and horizontally. In the FI case, the dense and cool material remains at 2 − 4 Mm above the pho￾tosphere. The temperature distribution shows that in the PI case, there is no heating underneath the exp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Field line morphology of the first eruption in PI simulation at (a,b) t=69.52 minutes side and top view (c,d) t=88.34 minutes side and top view and (e,f) t=91.24 minutes side and top view. tion. This is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Height time profile of the internal rising plasma in both simulations. The slow rise phase is prolonged in the PI case. 3.3. The rising motion of the erupting field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The νz distribution in the center of the box along height for both simulations that depict the rising motion of the plasma before the solar eruption (first and second collumns) and at the eruptive phase (third collumn) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contour plots that depict the νz profile (first column), the logarithm of temperature (second column), and the logarithm of density (third column) in both simulations at the xz midplane. The contour plots are at times that capture the onset of the first solar eruption …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the average value of normalized B 2 at 40Mm height (left panel) and kinetic energy at the same height (right panel) in both simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the normalized axial flux below photosphere (left panel) and above photosphere (right panel) in both simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour plots of the neutral fraction, the logarithm of the temperature and the logarithm of the density in the xz mid plane at t=62.28 minutes, t=78.21 minutes, and t=89.80 minutes. during the simulation. More precisely, we calculate Faxial = RR By dx dz at the vertic…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the maximum value of Vd above the photosphere for the PI simulation. The range of values indicates that throughout our simula￾tion, Vd is less than 17.5 km s−1 , which is classified as a low Vd range. Thus, the standard ambipolar diffusion approx…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acheson, D. J. 1979, SoPh, 62, 23, doi: 10.1007/BF00150129

    doi:10.1007/bf00150129 1979

  2. [2]

    2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 171, 151 , doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6780

    Arber, T., Longbottom, A., Gerrard, C., & Milne, A. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 171, 151 , doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6780

    arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    D., Haynes, M., & Leake, J

    Arber, T. D., Haynes, M., & Leake, J. E. 2007, ApJ, 666, 541, doi: 10.1086/520046

    work page doi:10.1086/520046 2007

  4. [4]

    Archontis, V ., & Hood, A. W. 2012, A&A, 537, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116956

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116956 2012

  5. [5]

    2008, A&A, 492, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811131

    Archontis, V ., & T¨or¨ok, T. 2008, A&A, 492, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811131

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811131 2008

  6. [6]

    L., Carbonell, M., Soler, R., & Terradas, J

    Ballester, J. L., Carbonell, M., Soler, R., & Terradas, J. 2018, A&A, 609, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731567

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731567 2018

  7. [7]

    2011, Nature, 472, 197, doi: 10.1038/nature09925

    Berger, T., Testa, P., Hillier, A., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 197, doi: 10.1038/nature09925

    doi:10.1038/nature09925 2011

  8. [8]

    Braginskii, S. I. 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1, 205

    1965

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Brandenburg, A., & Zweibel, E. G. 1994, ApJL, 427, L91, doi: 10.1086/187372

    1994 doi

  2. [10]

    Cheung, M. C. M., & Cameron, R. H. 2012, ApJ, 750, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/6

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd9b2 D´emoulin, P., Mandrini, C

    Chouliaras, G., Syntelis, P., & Archontis, V . 2023, ApJ, 952, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd9b2 D´emoulin, P., Mandrini, C. H., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., et al. 2002, A&A, 382, 650, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011634

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Fan, Y . 2001, ApJL, 554, L111, doi: 10.1086/320935 —. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1529, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1529 Gonz´alez-Morales, P. A., Khomenko, E., Downes, T. P., & de

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, A&A, 615, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731916

    Vicente, A. 2018, A&A, 615, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731916

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Physics of Plasmas, 26, 082902, doi: 10.1063/1.5103248

    Hillier, A. 2019, Physics of Plasmas, 26, 082902, doi: 10.1063/1.5103248

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Hillier, A. S. 2024, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 382, 20230229, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2023.0229

    2024

  8. [16]

    2011, ApJL, 738, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L20

    Hong, J., Jiang, Y ., Zheng, R., et al. 2011, ApJL, 738, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L20

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Genetelli, A., Attie, R., & Potts, H

    Innes, D. E., Genetelli, A., Attie, R., & Potts, H. E. 2009, A&A, 495, 319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811011

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 092901, doi: 10.1063/1.4894106

    Khomenko, E., Collados, M., D´ıaz, A., & Vitas, N. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 092901, doi: 10.1063/1.4894106

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    E., & Arber, T

    Leake, J. E., & Arber, T. D. 2006, A&A, 450, 805, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054099

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Arber, T

    Leake, J. E., Arber, T. D., & Khodachenko, M. L. 2005, A&A, 442, 1091, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053427

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Linton, M

    Leake, J. E., & Linton, M. G. 2013, ApJ, 764, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/54

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Linton, M

    Leake, J. E., Linton, M. G., & Antiochos, S. K. 2014, ApJ, 787, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/46 —. 2022, ApJ, 934, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74b7

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Linton, M

    Leake, J. E., Linton, M. G., & T¨or¨ok, T. 2013, ApJ, 778, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/99

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Lukin, V

    Leake, J. E., Lukin, V . S., Linton, M. G., & Meier, E. T. 2012, ApJ, 760, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/109

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4 15

    Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, S., Hou, Y ., & Erd´elyi, R. 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4 15

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Magara, T., & Longcope, D. W. 2001, ApJL, 559, L55, doi: 10.1086/323635

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, ApJ, 610, 588, doi: 10.1086/421516 Mart´ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., & Hansteen, V

    Manchester, IV , W., Gombosi, T., DeZeeuw, D., & Fan, Y . 2004, ApJ, 610, 588, doi: 10.1086/421516 Mart´ınez-Sykora, J., De Pontieu, B., & Hansteen, V . 2012, ApJ, 753, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/161

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 577, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.3.577

    Matsumoto, T., Kitai, R., Shibata, K., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 577, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.3.577

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/20

    Moreno-Insertis, F., & Galsgaard, K. 2013, ApJ, 771, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/20

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    2003, ApJ, 594, 1033, doi: 10.1086/377126 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Mart´ınez-Sykora, J., Moreno-Insertis, F., &

    Nindos, A., Zhang, J., & Zhang, H. 2003, ApJ, 594, 1033, doi: 10.1086/377126 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Mart´ınez-Sykora, J., Moreno-Insertis, F., &

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    2020a, A&A, 638, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037809 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Mart´ınez-Sykora, J

    Carlsson, M. 2020a, A&A, 638, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037809 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Mart´ınez-Sykora, J. 2016, ApJ, 822, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/18 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Moreno-Insertis, F., Mart´ınez-Sykora, J.,

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2020b, A&A, 633, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936944 O’Sullivan, S., & Downes, T

    Carlsson, M., & Szydlarski, M. 2020b, A&A, 633, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936944 O’Sullivan, S., & Downes, T. P. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1648, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11429.x

    2007

  26. [34]

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

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

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Rust, D

    Raouafi, N.-E., Georgoulis, M. K., Rust, D. M., & Bernasconi, P. N. 2010, ApJ, 718, 981, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/981

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, SSRv, 201, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0260-5

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2010-5

    Reale, F. 2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2010-5

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    2021a, ApJ, 923, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6d —

    Rempel, M., & Przybylski, D. 2021a, ApJ, 923, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6d —. 2021b, ApJ, 923, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6d

    doi

  31. [39]

    Singh, K. A. P., Isobe, H., Nishizuka, N., Nishida, K., & Shibata, K. 2012, ApJ, 759, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/33

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    Singh, K. A. P., & Krishan, V . 2010, NewA, 15, 119, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2009.05.013

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Soler, R., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2009, ApJ, 707, 662, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/662

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9612

    Syntelis, P., Archontis, V ., & Tsinganos, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9612

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, SoPh, 249, 167, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9174-z van Ballegooijen, A

    Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K., Katsukawa, Y ., et al. 2008, SoPh, 249, 167, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9174-z van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971, doi: 10.1086/167766

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    A., & Priest, E

    Wragg, M. A., & Priest, E. R. 1981, SoPh, 70, 293, doi: 10.1007/BF00151335

    1981 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJL, 884, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    Yuan, D., Shen, Y ., Liu, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    V ., Khodachenko, M

    Zaqarashvili, T. V ., Khodachenko, M. L., & Rucker, H. O. 2011, A&A, 529, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016326

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/45

    Zhao, T.-L., Ni, L., Lin, J., & Ziegler, U. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/45

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.