Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Differentiating the acceleration mechanisms in the slow and Alfv\'enic slow solar wind

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Alfvénic slow solar wind needs wave pressure to accelerate, while ordinary slow wind can be driven by thermal pressure alone.

desk verdict First clean two-spacecraft energy budget separating Alfvénic from non-Alfvénic slow wind; the wave-pressure claim is plausible, the thermal-only claim is conditional, and the untested electron-polytrope asymmetry is the one soft spot worth pushing on. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02163 v1 pith:ADZQL4T5 submitted 2025-01-04 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Yeimy J. Rivera , Samuel T. Badman , J. L. Verniero , Tania Varesano , Michael L. Stevens , Julia E. Stawarz , Katharine K. Reeves , Jim M. Raines
show 13 more authors
John C. Raymond Christopher J. Owen Stefano A. Livi Susan T. Lepri Enrico Landi Jasper. S. Halekas Tamar Ervin Ryan M. Dewey Rossana De Marco Raffaella D'Amicis Jean-Baptiste Dakeyo Stuart D. Bale B. L. Alterman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindaccelerationAlfvénwavesslowwavepressuregradientParkerProbeOrbiterpolytropicindexmagneticswitchbacks
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 tries to show that the slow solar wind is not one thing: it comes in at least two flavors with different engines. Using a February 2022 alignment in which Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter crossed the same solar wind streams at different distances, the authors follow one Alfvénic slow stream and one ordinary slow stream from about 13 to 131 solar radii. They argue that the Alfvénic slow stream, like fast wind, needs the pressure gradient of Alfvén waves to reach its observed speed, while the ordinary slow stream can be accelerated by electron and proton thermal pressure gradients alone. If right, this means wave pressure is a necessary part of the acceleration budget for some slow wind, and classifying slow wind by Alfvénicity rather than by speed alone captures a real physical difference.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a two-fluid proton-electron 'iso-poly' Parker solar wind model, an isothermal corona matched to a polytropic inner heliosphere, augmented by an external Alfvén wave pressure term whose amplitude follows a power law between the two measured points, parameterized by an amplitude $f_0$ and a power-law index $\nu$. The model is anchored by in situ measurements at Parker (about $13\,R_\odot$) and Solar Orbiter (about $125$-$131\,R_\odot$), with proton temperatures constraining the proton polytropic index, electron temperatures estimated from a statistical electron polytropic index, and the flux-tube expansion factor $f$ set by mass and magnetic flux conservation. The wave term is what separates the two cases: turning it on brings the Alfvénic slow stream to the observed speed, while it does essentially nothing for the ordinary slow stream.

What would settle it

Measure the electron temperature and electron polytropic index directly at Solar Orbiter, or on a future spacecraft at similar distance, for the same slow stream and rerun the model: if the true electron pressure gradient cannot supply the acceleration, the thermal-pressure-only explanation fails; and if the Alfvénic slow stream reaches its observed speed with wave pressure removed, the wave-acceleration claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the acceleration mechanisms differ between the two slow-wind types: in the Alfvénic slow solar wind, a wave pressure gradient from Alfvénic fluctuations (including switchback patches) is required to reconcile the full acceleration between Parker and Solar Orbiter, whereas the non-Alfvénic slow wind can be driven by its non-adiabatic electron and proton thermal pressure gradients without significant wave pressure. This is established by showing that mass, magnetic flux, and total energy flux are conserved in each stream treated as a one-dimensional flux tube, and by fitting a two-fluid Parker solar wind model with an added wave-force term constrained at both spacecraft. The model reproduces the observed acceleration of the Alfvénic slow stream only when wave pressure is included; for the slow stream the wave term is negligible, though matching the observed speed required lowering the electron polytropic index by about 6% from a statistical value.

Load-bearing premise

The non-Alfvénic-slow-wind conclusion depends on an electron temperature profile at Solar Orbiter that was not measured but estimated from a statistical polytropic index, and even then the model needed that index lowered by 6% to hit the observed speed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Alfvénic slow wind joins fast wind in requiring wave pressure for full acceleration, so the simple fast-slow dichotomy is insufficient and Alfvénicity is a relevant axis of classification.
  • The wave energy flux grows with wind speed and Alfvénicity, suggesting that dissipation of switchback-associated Alfvén waves powers acceleration in the inner heliosphere.
  • For non-Alfvénic slow wind, the electron thermal pressure gradient (and its associated ambipolar potential) dominates, so future models of that stream type can omit large-scale wave forcing.
  • The coronal source conditions derived from the model are compatible with remote EIS and SPICE observations, supporting coronal-hole boundary sources for the Alfvénic slow stream.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed with direct electron temperature measurements at Solar Orbiter, the slow-wind result would make the electron polytropic index a first-class observable for diagnosing acceleration mechanisms.
  • The 6% reduction in electron polytropic index needed for the slow stream is comparable in energy to the electron heat flux measured at Parker; redirecting part of that heat to protons during transport could supply the missing forcing, which is a testable heating-channel hypothesis.
  • The same conjunction method could be applied to intermediate-Alfvénicity streams to map a continuous transition from thermal-pressure-driven to wave-pressure-driven acceleration rather than a binary split.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes a February–March 2022 conjunction between Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter to compare the acceleration energetics of a non-Alfvénic slow solar wind stream and an Alfvénic slow solar wind stream. The authors match the streams using ballistic mapping, magnetic polarity, helium abundance, and heavy-ion composition; verify mass, magnetic flux, and total energy flux conservation; derive coronal electron density and temperature from Hinode/EIS and SPICE observations; and fit two-fluid iso-poly Parker solar wind models with an added Alfvén wave pressure term constrained by the two measured wave flux points. The central claim is that the Alfvénic slow wind behaves like fast wind and requires a wave pressure gradient to reconcile its full acceleration, while the non-Alfvénic slow wind can be driven by non-adiabatic electron and proton thermal pressure gradients. The paper is explicit about missing Solar Orbiter electron temperature measurements and about the 6% reduction in the electron polytropic index needed for the slow-wind solution.

Significance. If the result holds, this paper would extend the fast-wind wave-pressure result of Rivera et al. (2024a) to Alfvénic slow wind and establish a mechanistic distinction between slow-wind subpopulations of similar speed. The study has notable strengths: a rare near-radial conjunction with stream matching based on multiple independent diagnostics, explicit conservation checks with propagated uncertainties, and integration of remote coronal constraints with in situ measurements. The paper also honestly discloses the main observational weakness, namely that the Solar Orbiter electron temperature is estimated rather than measured. However, the key differentiation is currently supported by a model-consistency argument rather than an independent prediction, and the asymmetric treatment of the electron polytropic index between the two streams leaves the central claim only partially tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 6, Figure 9] The central contrast is not tested symmetrically. For the non-Alfvénic slow wind the authors lower γe from the Dakeyo et al. (2022) statistical value 1.23 to 1.16, a 6% reduction, to make the thermal-pressure-only solution reach the observed Solar Orbiter speed. For the Alfvénic slow wind the same γe = 1.23 is retained, and the residual gap between 400 and 451 km/s is attributed to wave pressure. Because Te at Solar Orbiter is not measured and is estimated through the same Dakeyo et al. (2022) statistical polytropic index (Table 2 footnote a and Section 2.4), γe is effectively a free parameter for both streams. The authors should run a sensitivity test for the Alfvénic stream over the Dakeyo et al. uncertainty range and show whether a thermal-only solution with γe near 1.16, or another value within the statistical spread, can also close the 51 km/s gap. Without such a test, the statement that wave pressure is 'required' for the Alfvénic slow wind is stronger than the evidence supports.
  2. [Section 5, wave force parametrization (f0, ν)] The wave pressure gradient is not derived from first principles; it is an analytic power law fitted to the two measured wave flux points and then shown to reproduce the observed acceleration. This is a model-consistency loop rather than an independent prediction. The paper should either explicitly label the Alfvénic-slow result as 'consistent with' wave pressure, or add a sensitivity analysis that varies f0 and ν within their uncertainties and quantifies how much of the residual acceleration can be closed by thermal pressure alone before wave pressure is invoked.
  3. [Section 5, slow-wind solution] The claim that the non-Alfvénic slow wind 'can be driven by' thermal pressure gradients should be qualified. The text states that no combination of parameters matching the temperature observations fully explained the observed acceleration, and that the final match required lowering the electron polytropic index by 6% below the Dakeyo et al. (2022) statistical value. Since Te at Solar Orbiter is not directly measured, this conclusion is conditional on an assumed electron temperature profile; the paper should state this limitation in the abstract or conclusions and not present thermal-pressure driving as a fully independent result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 9 caption and Section 5 text] The Figure 9 caption states that solid curves include wave pressure and dotted curves exclude it, while Section 5 text says the opposite. Please reconcile the notation.
  2. [Table 3] The column header 'WW ave' appears to be a typo for 'WWave'.
  3. [Section 2.3] In the sentence about the ballistically mapped source surface longitude, 'Source Surface Longitudewhich' is missing a space.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Figure 7] The text refers to 'purple, blue, green, and magenta boxes', but Figure 7 also appears to contain a red box. Please check the color coding and refer to it consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Non-Alfvénic slow-wind 'thermal pressure suffices' conclusion is a gamma_e fit to the observed speed; the Alfvénic-slow wave-pressure test is forward and non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, 'Radial Profiles and Parker Solar Wind Model Comparison', discussion of the slow stream; see also Table 1 footnote a and Section 7.]
    "For the electron temperatures we obtain measurements at Parker from Halekas et al. (2020), while in lieu of a Solar Orbiter measurement, we use the statistically derived electron polytropic index most appropriate for the observed wind speeds from Dakeyo et al. (2022). ... However, no combination of parameters which matched the temperature observations was found to fully explain the observed acceleration. Decreasing the electron polytropic index by 6% of the statistical value from Dakeyo et al. (2022) for a gamma_e = 1.16 quantifies the additional pressure needed to solve the gap."

    The slow-wind half of the central claim ('non-Alfvénic slow wind can be driven by thermal pressure') is established by lowering the unmeasured electron polytropic index from 1.23 to 1.16. Since Te at Solar Orbiter is not measured, gamma_e is effectively a free input; it is adjusted specifically until the thermal-pressure-only model reproduces the observed speed at Solar Orbiter. The conclusion that thermal pressure suffices is therefore a reproduction, not an independent prediction: the fitted parameter directly sets the thermal pressure gradient that produces the target acceleration. The Alfvénic slow stream is not given the same gamma_e adjustment; its residual 400-to-451 km/s gap is attributed to wave pressure instead.

full rationale

The Alfvénic slow wind analysis is largely forward and non-circular: the model prescribes an external wave-pressure gradient from wave energy flux measured at two spacecraft, and the test 'without it only reaches 400 km/s, with it reaches 451 +/- 21 km/s' is a genuine check of whether observed wave flux carries enough momentum. The circular element is confined to the non-Alfvénic slow stream. There, the abstract's claim that thermal pressure gradients can drive the stream is obtained by tuning gamma_e down 6% from the statistical value, after the paper states that with the statistical value 'no combination of parameters which matched the temperature observations was found to fully explain the observed acceleration.' Because the electron temperature at Solar Orbiter is unmeasured, gamma_e is not independently constrained; fitting it to close the speed gap means the thermal-sufficiency result is built from the target it purports to explain. The paper is transparent about this adjustment and discusses alternative processes, and the Alfvénic-slow inference remains independent, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The main residual concern is the asymmetric treatment of gamma_e across the two streams, which is a robustness issue as well as the source of the fitted-input circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a modest number of fitted model parameters (8), one unmeasured electron temperature profile, and strong stream-matching assumptions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • f0: Alfvén wave pressure amplitude = 3.7e-4 and 4.1e-4 GM_sun/R_sun^2 for Alfvénic slow and slow streams
    Amplitude of the analytic wave pressure force (Shi et al. 2022) used in the model; constrained by two-point wave pressure measurements and listed in Table 6.
  • nu: Alfvén wave pressure power-law index = 1.5 (Alfvénic slow), 1.1 (slow)
    Power-law index of the wave pressure profile between Parker and Solar Orbiter; listed in Table 6, fitted to the two-point measurements.
  • Riso: isothermal-to-polytropic transition radius = 6.5 R_sun (Alfvénic slow), 8.5 R_sun (slow)
    Varied together with coronal temperatures to match observed acceleration and temperature constraints (Section 5, Table 6).
  • Tp0: coronal proton temperature = 1.7 MK (Alfvénic slow), 0.95 MK (slow)
    Isothermal coronal proton temperature set by matching the temperature profile to observations (Table 6).
  • Te0: coronal electron temperature = 0.9 MK (Alfvénic slow), 1.1 MK (slow)
    Isothermal coronal electron temperature set alongside Tp0, constrained by the heliospheric electron profile and coronal estimates (Table 6).
  • n0p: proton density at 1 R_sun = 3.3e7 cm^-3 (Alfvénic slow), 2.3e8 cm^-3 (slow)
    Reference density adjusted so the modeled density follows mass flux conservation to match measurements (Section 5).
  • gamma_p: proton polytropic index = 1.3 (Alfvénic slow), 1.33 (slow)
    Fitted to the observed proton temperature cooling between Parker and Solar Orbiter (Section 5, Table 6).
  • gamma_e: electron polytropic index = 1.23 nominal for both streams; 1.16 sensitivity case for slow stream
    Electron polytropic index from statistical solar wind families of Dakeyo et al. (2022); for the slow stream the authors lower it by 6% to reproduce the observed acceleration, an ad hoc adjustment (Section 5, Table 6 and Figure 9).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The solar wind streams observed at Parker and Solar Orbiter are the same physical streams.
    Stream matching via ballistic mapping, source surface longitude, magnetic polarity, and composition; if the mapping is wrong, both the energy budget and model comparison lose their basis (Sections 2.3 and 3.1).
  • domain assumption The streams evolve as a steady, one-dimensional radial flux tube with uniform cross-section properties.
    Energy conservation equation (5) averages over the flux tube and ignores transverse structure and time dependence; the mass and magnetic flux ratios support this approximately but do not prove it (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Alfvén wave pressure is described by an analytic power law between two measured points (Shi et al. 2022).
    The wave force term is not derived from wave physics; it is a functional form fitted to two-point wave amplitude measurements (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Electron temperature at Solar Orbiter can be estimated from Dakeyo et al. (2022) polytropic statistics.
    No electron temperature was measured at Solar Orbiter; the estimate enters Tables 1 and 2, footnote a, and the model electron temperature profile (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption The isothermal corona plus polytropic heliosphere Parker model is the appropriate solar wind model.
    The iso-poly model (Parker 1958, 1960; Dakeyo et al. 2022) assumes two thermal regimes; conclusions about required wave pressure are conditional on this model family (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiating the acceleration mechanisms in the slow and Alfv\'enic slow solar wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADZQL4T5

@misc{pith2026250102163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiating the acceleration mechanisms in the slow and Alfv\'enic slow solar wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ADZQL4T5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02163}
}
read the original abstract

In the corona, plasma is accelerated to hundreds of kilometers per second, and heated to temperatures hundreds of times hotter than the Sun's surface, before it escapes to form the solar wind. Decades of space-based experiments have shown that the energization process does not stop after it escapes. Instead, the solar wind continues to accelerate and it cools far more slowly than a freely-expanding adiabatic gas. Recent work suggests that fast solar wind requires additional momentum beyond what can be provided by the observed thermal pressure gradients alone whereas it is sufficient for the slowest wind. The additional acceleration for fast wind can be provided through an Alfv\'en wave pressure gradient. Beyond this fast-slow categorization, however, a subset of slow solar wind exhibits high Alfv\'enicity that suggest Alfv\'en waves could play a larger role in its acceleration compared to conventional slow wind outflows. Through a well-timed conjunction between Solar Orbiter and Parker Solar Probe, we trace the energetics of slow wind to compare with a neighboring Alfv\'enic slow solar wind stream. An analysis that integrates remote and heliospheric properties and modeling of the two distinct solar wind streams finds Alfv\'enic slow solar wind behaves like fast wind, where a wave pressure gradient is required to reconcile its full acceleration, while non-Alfv\'enic slow wind can be driven by its non-adiabatic electron and proton thermal pressure gradients. Derived coronal conditions of the source region indicate good model compatibility but extended coronal observations are required to effectively trace solar wind energetics below Parker's orbit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2-D histograms showing the distribution (left) proton density across wind speed where the color indicates the average proton temperature, and (right) Fe/O:Fe/Ophot, ratio of elemental Fe to O normalized to its photospheric abundances across wind speed where the color indicates the O7+/O6+ ion ratio. . a Parker solar wind model (Parker 1958, 1960; Dakeyo et al. 2022; Shi et al. 2022) constrained by measurements at bo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the conjunction and ballistic mapping in the Carrington Frame. Top : Solar Orbiter and Parker’s trajectories projected into the solar equatorial plane for late February 2022. Colored Parker spiral field lines illustrate how Solar Orbiter and Parker’s measurements are ballistically propagated inwards to the Sun. Bottom: The ballistically mapped heliographic coordinates for Parker and Solar Orbiter at … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stackplot showing the solar wind properties at Parker Solar Probe (left) and Solar Orbiter (right), where Solar Orbiter is plotted in reversed time. The shaded region corresponds to the periods of interest. Top to bottom, first five rows are: panel A/G, radial magnetic field component and magnitude, panel B/H, proton density, Panel C/I proton bulk speed, Alfv´en speed and cross-helicity (only for Parker) where the h… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy fluxes at Parker and Solar Orbiter for the slow (left) and Alfv´enic slow (right) solar wind. The values are computed from Equation 5 and listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full disk images of SDO/AIA 193˚A on 2022-02-23 00:30UT (left) and Solar Orbiter FSI 174˚A (right) on 2022-02-23 11:21UT. The outline indicates the coronal hole boundary determined by AIA 193˚A and mapped to FSI 174˚A. The FSI image contains the SPICE raster of the Ne …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solar Orbiter SPICE intensity of the Ne VIII 770.42 ˚A (left) and FIP bias of Mg/Ne (right). The white outline is the coronal hole outline from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hinode/EIS observations of the Fe XII 195.119 ˚A fitted intensity (left) and velocity Doppler shifts (right). The white (left) and white (right) outline is the coronal hole outline from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of the average intensity within each box in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Parker solar wind solutions and associated data constraints for the Alfv´enic slow (top row) and slow (bottom row). From left to right: Proton density, proton velocity, proton (red) and electron (blue) temperatures. For the acceleration profiles (middle column), soluti…

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. A Transport Theory of Turbulent Coronal Heating in General Geometry

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A controlled multiscale RMHD expansion in arbitrary magnetic geometry yields new geometry-driven turbulent heating and cross-field transport channels that can dominate standard reflection in structured coronal regions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, SSRv, 201, 55

    2016

  2. [2]

    P., Telloni, D., & Zhao, L

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Telloni, D., & Zhao, L. L. 2022, ApJL, 937, L29

    2022

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 650, A16

    Tasnim, S. 2021, A&A, 650, A16

    2021

  4. [4]

    R., Lazarus, A

    Aellig, M. R., Lazarus, A. J., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2767

    2001

  5. [5]

    L., & Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., & Kasper, J. C. 2019, ApJL, 879, L6

    2019

  6. [6]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Leamon, R. J., & McIntosh, S. W. 2021, SoPh, 296, 67

    2021

  7. [7]

    M., & Grevesse, N

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

    2021

  8. [8]

    T., Bale, S

    Badman, S. T., Bale, S. D., Mart ´ ınez Oliveros, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 23

    2020

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al

    Baker, D., D´ emoulin, P., Yardley, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 65

    2023

  2. [10]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 49

    2016

  3. [11]

    D., Badman, S

    Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237

    2019

  4. [12]

    D., Horbury, T

    Bale, S. D., Horbury, T. S., Velli, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 174

    2021

  5. [13]

    M., Matthaeus, W

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Meyer, C. M., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L28

    2023

  6. [14]

    Barnes, A., & Hollweg, J. V. 1974, J. Geophys. Res., 79, 2302

    1974

  7. [15]

    2024, wtbarnes/fiasco: v0.2.3, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10612118

    Barnes, W., Stansby, D., Murphy, N., et al. 2024, wtbarnes/fiasco: v0.2.3, doi:10.5281/zenodo.10612118

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    W., & Davis, Leverett, J

    Belcher, J. W., & Davis, Leverett, J. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 3534

    1971

  9. [17]

    C., Chandran, B

    Bourouaine, S., Perez, J. C., Chandran, B. D. G., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L19

    2024

  10. [18]

    H., Harra, L., Bale, S

    Brooks, D. H., Harra, L., Bale, S. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 25

    2021

  11. [19]

    H., & Warren, H

    Brooks, D. H., & Warren, H. P. 2011, ApJL, 727, L13

    2011

  12. [20]

    H., Janvier, M., Baker, D., et al

    Brooks, D. H., Janvier, M., Baker, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 66

    2022

  13. [21]

    2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

    2013

  14. [22]

    Chandran, B. D. G., & Hollweg, J. V. 2009, Astrophys. J., 707, 1659

    2009

  15. [23]

    T., Smith, C

    Coburn, J. T., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Stawarz, J. E., & Forman, M. A. 2012, ApJ, 754, 93

    2012

  16. [24]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2020, ApJ, 900, 105

    2020

  17. [25]

    L., Harra, L

    Culhane, J. L., Harra, L. K., James, A. M., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 19

    2007

  18. [26]

    B., Badman, S

    Dakeyo, J. B., Badman, S. T., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A12

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dakeyo, J.-B., Maksimovic, M., D´ emoulin, P., Halekas, J., & Stevens, M. L. 2022, ApJ, 940, 130 D’Amicis, R., Alielden, K., Perrone, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A111 D’Amicis, R., & Bruno, R. 2015, ApJ, 805, 84 D’Amicis, R., Matteini, L., & Bruno, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4665 De ...

    2022

  20. [28]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 96 —. 2023, A&A, 674, A98

    2021

  21. [29]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 7 19 Gonz´ alez, C. A., Tenerani, A., Matteini, L., Hellinger, P., &

    2016

  22. [30]

    2021, ApJL, 914, L36

    Velli, M. 2021, ApJL, 914, L36

    2021

  23. [31]

    S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D

    Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P., Larson, D. E., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 22 —. 2022, ApJ, 936, 53

    2020

  24. [32]

    S., Bale, S

    Halekas, J. S., Bale, S. D., Berthomier, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 26

    2023

  25. [33]

    Hegde, M., & Hiremath, K. M. 2024, A&A, 688, A35

    2024

  26. [34]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9

    2020

  27. [35]

    Jacques, S. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 942

    1977

  28. [36]

    K., Raouafi, N

    Jagarlamudi, V. K., Raouafi, N. E., Bourouaine, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L7

    2023

  29. [37]

    C., Stevens, M

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

    2012

  30. [38]

    C., Stevens, M

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., & Ogilvie, K. W. 2007, ApJ, 660, 901

    2007

  31. [39]

    C., Bale, S

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S. D., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 228

    2019

  32. [40]

    J., Weberg, M

    Knizhnik, K. J., Weberg, M. J., Provornikova, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 188

    2024

  33. [41]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.11553

    Koukras, A., Dolla, L., & Keppens, R. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.11553

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M., Vourlidas, A., Korendyke, C., et al

    Laming, J. M., Vourlidas, A., Korendyke, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 124

    2019

  35. [43]

    2008, ApJ, 685, 1270

    Landi, E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1270

    2008

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJ, 800, 110

    Landi, E., & Testa, P. 2015, ApJ, 800, 110

    2015

  37. [45]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  38. [46]

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

    Lepri, S. T., Landi, E., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2013, ApJ, 768, 94

    2013

  39. [47]

    2021, A&A, 650, A14

    Liu, M., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A14

    2021

  40. [48]

    D., Ran, H., Hu, H., & Bale, S

    Liu, Y. D., Ran, H., Hu, H., & Bale, S. D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 116

    2023

  41. [49]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 138

    2022

  42. [50]

    T., Raines, J

    Livi, S., Lepri, S. T., Raines, J. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A36

    2023

  43. [51]

    J., Viall, N

    Lynch, B. J., Viall, N. M., Higginson, A. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 14

    2023

  44. [52]

    T., Smith, C

    MacBride, B. T., Smith, C. W., & Forman, M. A. 2008, Astrophys. J., 679, 1644

    2008

  45. [53]

    R., Owens, M

    Macneil, A. R., Owens, M. J., Finley, A. J., & Matt, S. P. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2390

    2022

  46. [54]

    2008, ApJL, 677, L71

    Marino, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, V., et al. 2008, ApJL, 677, L71

    2008

  47. [55]

    H., & Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., & Goldstein, M. L. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 6011

    1982

  48. [56]

    T., & Roelof, E

    Nolte, J. T., & Roelof, E. C. 1973, SoPh, 33, 241

    1973

  49. [57]

    W., & Hirshberg, J

    Ogilvie, K. W., & Hirshberg, J. 1974, J. Geophys. Res., 79, 4595

    1974

  50. [58]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A16

    2020

  51. [59]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 78

    Parenti, S., Chifu, I., Del Zanna, G., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 78

    2021

  52. [60]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664 —. 1960, ApJ, 132, 821

    1958

  53. [61]

    2010, Geophys

    Perri, S., & Balogh, A. 2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L17102

    2010

  54. [62]

    2020, A&A, 633, A166

    Perrone, D., D’Amicis, R., De Marco, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A166

    2020

  55. [63]

    2022, A&A, 668, A189

    Perrone, D., Perri, S., Bruno, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A189

    2022

  56. [64]

    D., Verniero, J

    Phan, T. D., Verniero, J. L., Larson, D., et al. 2022, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e96986

    2022

  57. [65]

    J., Higginson, A., Lepri, S

    Rivera, Y. J., Higginson, A., Lepri, S. T., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 417

    2022

  58. [66]

    Matthaeus, W. H. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 11021

    1987

  59. [67]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8

    2020

  60. [68]

    M., Heinemann, S

    Saqri, J., Veronig, A. M., Heinemann, S. G., et al. 2020, SoPh, 295, 6

    2020

  61. [69]

    A., Petrie, G

    Schad, T. A., Petrie, G. J., Kuhn, J. R., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadq1604

    2024

  62. [70]

    J., & Marsch, E

    Schwartz, S. J., & Marsch, E. 1983, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9919

    1983

  63. [71]

    M., et al

    Shearer, P., von Steiger, R., Raines, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 60

    2014

  64. [72]

    D., et al

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Bale, S. D., et al. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 122901

    2022

  65. [73]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L29

    Sioulas, N., Shi, C., Huang, Z., & Velli, M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L29

    2022

  66. [74]

    2007, Phys

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Marino, R., Carbone, V., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 115001 SPICE Consortium, Anderson, M., Appourchaux, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A14

    2007

  67. [75]

    Zurbuchen, T. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 100

    2015

  68. [76]

    S., Wallace, S., & Arge, C

    Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., Wallace, S., & Arge, C. N. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 57

    2019

  69. [77]

    E., Smith, C

    Stawarz, J. E., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Forman, M. A., & MacBride, B. T. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1119

    2009

  70. [78]

    C., Frandsen, A

    Stone, E. C., Frandsen, A. M., Mewaldt, R. A., et al. 1998, SSRv, 86, 1 20

    1998

  71. [79]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L14

    Telloni, D., Andretta, V., Antonucci, E., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L14

    2021

  72. [80]

    2021, ApJL, 919, L31

    Tenerani, A., Sioulas, N., Matteini, L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L31

    2021

  73. [81]

    Y., & Marsch, E

    Tu, C. Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, SSRv, 73, 1 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. 2016, Astrophys. J., 821, 106

    1995

  74. [82]

    M., Zambrana Prado, N., et al

    Varesano, T., Hassler, D. M., Zambrana Prado, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A146

    2024

  75. [83]

    K., Vourlidas, A., et al

    Velli, M., Harra, L. K., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A4

    2020

  76. [84]

    Wang, Y. M. 2016, ApJ, 833, 121

    2016

  77. [85]

    J., Warren, H

    Weberg, M. J., Warren, H. P., Crump, N., & Barnes, W. 2024, EISPAC - The EIS Python Analysis Code, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12728562

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    J., Seaton, D

    West, M. J., Seaton, D. B., Wexler, D. B., et al. 2023, SoPh, 298, 78

    2023

  79. [87]

    L., Larson, D

    Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 74

    2020

  80. [88]

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

    2015

  81. [89]

    2024, Science, 386, 76

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Tomczyk, S., et al. 2024, Science, 386, 76

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.