Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Coronal energy release by MHD avalanches III. Identification of a reconnection outflow from a nanoflare

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simulated nanoflare-scale reconnection outflow at 8 MK should be detectable with the upcoming MUSE instrument, even though AIA would struggle to see it.

desk verdict A credible simulation-based nanoflare outflow identification, but the MUSE detectability claim needs a signal-to-noise calculation before it can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01796 v1 pith:TCCBBJL5 submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.SR

G. Cozzo , P. Pagano , F. Reale , P. Testa , A. Petralia , J. Martinez-Sykora , V. Hansteen , B. De Pontieu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcoronamagneticreconnectionnanoflaresnanojetsMHDavalanchesMUSEAIAforwardmodelling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a reconnection outflow captured in a 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulation of an MHD avalanche: as two twisted coronal flux tubes become kink-unstable and fragment into current sheets, one small reconnection event accelerates a collimated, bidirectional jet perpendicular to the guide field. The simulated outflow reaches about 8 MK, releases roughly $10^{24}$ erg, moves at a few hundred kilometers per second, and lasts under a minute, properties that class it as a nanoflare-scale nanojet. The authors synthesize what this event would look like through SDO/AIA and the forthcoming MUSE instrument. They conclude that the outflow is too faint and buried under cooler plasma for reliable AIA 94 Å detection, but the MUSE Fe XIX 108 Å line would show a clear double-peaked profile with Doppler shifts near ±200 km/s. If this holds, MUSE could turn nanoflare-scale reconnection outflows into directly observable diagnostics rather than purely theoretical signatures.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the three-dimensional MHD avalanche simulation that this paper re-analyzes: two gravitationally stratified, resistively heated flux tubes twisted by footpoint rotation, with a background field of 10 G and coronal density near $10^{9}$ $cm^{-3}$. Reconnection is localized by the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field (E∥ ≠ 0, called the dissipation region), and dissipation is enabled by an anomalous resistivity that switches on only above a current-density threshold (jcr = 250 Fr $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$) with coefficient eta0 = $10^{14}$ $cm^{2}$ $s^{-1}$. The diagnostic machinery is forward modelling: simulated density and temperature are mapped to AIA and MUSE response functions, convolved with point-spread functions, rebinned to pixel or macro-pixel sizes, and the hot Fe XVIII/Fe XIX contribution is isolated by subtracting an estimated cool background. The avalanche supplies a realistic, crowded, dynamically evolving environment; the E∥ criterion identifies where reconnection actually happens; and the forward modelling converts the simulated outflow into concrete observable predictions.

What would settle it

A search with MUSE in freshly destabilized active-region loop bundles for Fe XIX 108 Å line profiles with two peaks near ±200 km/s, lasting less than a minute at the loop apex; if many candidate nanoflare events show no such double-peaked profile, the predicted Doppler signature of this outflow is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MHD avalanches, not just idealized braided-loop setups, produce observable reconnection outflows, and that the MUSE spectrometer can detect them at temperatures around 8 MK. During the turbulent decay of the kink-unstable flux tubes, two misaligned bundles of field lines are driven together by the avalanche dynamics; where the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field is nonzero, the field lines reconnect, and the released magnetic tension expels plasma in opposite directions perpendicular to the guide field. In the selected event the jet is asymmetric, sub-Alfvénic (about 200 km/s against an Alfvén speed near 1000 km/s), about 10 Mm long in its brightest emission, and dissipates roughly $10^{24}$ erg of magnetic energy. Forward-modelled Fe XIX 108 Å spectra show two peaks at about ±200 km/s, whereas the AIA 94 Å channel sees the hot component only after subtracting an uncertain cool background. The paper positions this as evidence that hot, faint nanojets can be diagnosed with MUSE, extending nanojet observations that so far are mostly at temperatures around and below 1 MK.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quantitative prediction rests on the simulation's prescription that magnetic dissipation switches on suddenly only where the electric current density exceeds a fixed threshold; if real coronal reconnection follows different dissipation physics, the reported 8 MK temperature, speeds, energy, and one-minute lifetime may not carry over to the Sun.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single reconnection outflow in the simulated avalanche releases about 10^24 erg of magnetic energy, matching the nanoflare energy budget, with a significant fraction heating plasma above 8 MK.
  • The outflow is bidirectional but asymmetric, with the two jets propagating at different speeds and the structure expanding roughly 10 Mm within about 30 seconds.
  • AIA 94 Å alone is unlikely to give an unambiguous detection because the hot Fe XVIII signal is faint and contaminated by a cool component that must be subtracted.
  • MUSE Fe XIX 108 Å spectra should show a double-peaked line profile with peaks near ±200 km/s, measurable with 80 km/s spectral bins.
  • The outflow arises from the turbulent decay of an MHD avalanche rather than from prescribed photospheric motions, so comparable events should be expected in realistic loop dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If MUSE confirms such hot outflows, it would be direct evidence that small-angle reconnection in braided coronal fields releases energy in nanoflare-sized bursts, supporting the idea that these events contribute to coronal heating; the paper itself stops at predicting the observable signature.
  • The paper's scaling argument, roughly ΔT ∝ B^2/n, implies that active-region loops with fields of a few tens of gauss and densities near 10^10 cm^-3 should produce outflows with emission measures about two orders of magnitude larger than the simulated case, making them much easier to detect; this is a testable consequence the simulation does not follow through.
  • Because the simulated event occurs in the tenuous, early phase of the avalanche, hot and faint jets may be preferentially visible just after the instability; later, denser, steady-state loops would be expected to host cooler and brighter nanojets, so observing strategies should target freshly destabilized loop systems.
  • The pronounced asymmetry of the bidirectional jet suggests that in realistic environments reconnection outflows may often masquerade as one-sided jets; observers relying only on single-sided Doppler shifts could misclassify such events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the identification, in a 3D MHD simulation of a kink-unstable two-tube coronal loop system, of a localized reconnection outflow that occurs during an MHD avalanche. The authors characterize the outflow as nanoflare-like, with a temperature near 8 MK, a velocity of a few hundred km/s, a duration of about 30 s, and an energy of about 10^24 erg, and then synthesize its emission in the AIA 94 Å channel and the MUSE Fe xix 108 Å line. They find that the outflow is difficult to detect with AIA because of the strong cool-component background and low emission measure, but they conclude that Doppler shifts can be measured with MUSE. The paper also discusses a scaling argument suggesting that such outflows would be more detectable in stronger-field, denser active-region loops.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides the first concrete MHD-avalanche-based prediction that nanoflare-scale reconnection outflows perpendicular to the guide field can be observed with the upcoming MUSE spectrometer. The forward modeling is internally consistent and follows standard CHIANTI-based procedures, and the identification of the reconnection site via E_parallel and current-sheet dissipation is a physically sound diagnostic. The prediction of a double-peaked Fe xix line profile with peaks near ±200 km/s is falsifiable in principle. However, the significance is currently tempered by the absence of a quantitative signal-to-noise analysis for the MUSE spectrum, by the orientation-dependent nature of the synthetic line profile, and by the reliance on a single hand-selected event from a simulation with ad hoc anomalous resistivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and Fig. 6] The central observational conclusion—'Doppler shifts can be measured with MUSE'—is not yet supported quantitatively. The paper reports that macro-pixel rebinning brings the signal 'closer to the detection level' and that the spectral bin was doubled to 80 km/s to increase counts, but it never states the actual photon counts or signal-to-noise ratio in the synthesized Fe xix profile. At the stated 30 s exposure and rebinning, the peak bins could contain only a few photons per bin, in which case the double peak at v≈±200 km/s would be indistinguishable from Poisson noise. The authors should provide a noise realization or an explicit SNR estimate for the key spectral bins, and state whether the double-peaked structure survives at the MUSE sensitivity expected for the 108 Å line.
  2. [§3, Fig. 6 and Appendix A] The synthetic spectrum is integrated over a surface 'oriented exactly along the jet,' which is a favorable geometry that real observations cannot generally assume. Since the line-of-sight velocity enters via vcell in Eq. (A.4), a different viewing angle will reduce the projected Doppler shift and may erase the double-peak signature. The paper should quantify how the detectability degrades when the line of sight is not aligned with the outflow, for instance by recomputing the line profile for a range of viewing angles, or by explicitly stating that the claimed MUSE detectability is restricted to the most favorable orientation.
  3. [§2 and §4] The analysis rests on a single manually selected reconnection event ('We selected one of them as a reference case'), and the paper does not state the selection criterion beyond the presence of heating and acceleration. If the event was chosen because it produces a clear, well-resolved outflow, then the MUSE detectability claim may be optimistic with respect to the typical avalanche-driven reconnection episode. The authors should either provide a more systematic survey of reconnection events in the simulation (e.g., number of events, distribution of velocities and durations) or explicitly frame the MUSE prediction as pertaining to the most favorable events, with an estimate of how common such events are.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors and missing words that should be corrected, including 'esulting' in §2, 'igure 5' in §3, 'he velocity' in the caption of Fig. 3, 'butcorresponding' in §3, 'refFi5' in §4, 'd expandsgtward' in Appendix A, and 'where where E·B' in Appendix A.
  2. [§3] The text states that 'Under nominal operations, AIA exposure times are up to 2.9 s' and then assumes a 9 s exposure; please clarify how the 9 s effective exposure is obtained from the nominal 2.9 s exposures and 12 s cadence, and whether this is consistent with the statement that the event is sampled in 3×12 s merged windows.
  3. [Eq. (1) and §4] The scaling relation c n ΔT = Δ(B^2/8π) is presented without a derivation or a discussion of its assumptions, such as constant volume, neglect of thermal conduction and radiative losses over the event timescale, and the definition of the factor c. Since this relation is used to argue that stronger-field, denser loops would produce detectable outflows, a brief derivation or a reference to its basis would help the reader assess its validity.
  4. [Appendix A] The description of the AIA cool-component subtraction in Eq. (A.3) lists coefficients with four significant digits but does not cite a source for the coefficients or explain how they were calibrated; please provide a reference or a short explanation of how the background image Ibkg was constructed and validated.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistent, e.g., 'Cozzo et al. 2023b' has no journal or preprint identifier, and several entries mix year and author formats. Please ensure all references are complete and follow the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the outflow is an emergent simulation result and the MUSE/AIA predictions are synthetic forward-model outputs, not retrofits.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a reconnection outflow appears in an MHD avalanche simulation and is potentially detectable with AIA/MUSE. That outflow is an emergent product of the simulation described in Cozzo et al. (2023b), not a quantity defined by the predicted observable: no parameter is fitted to the outflow or to the synthetic spectra. The anomalous resistivity parameters (eta0, jcr) are stated model assumptions inherited from Hood et al. (2009) and Reale et al. (2016), and the outflow properties (8 MK, 10^24 erg, v roughly a few hundred km/s, duration under 1 min) are diagnosed from the simulation rather than imposed. The AIA 94 A background subtraction (Eq. A.3) uses coefficients from external multi-channel calibrations, not fitted to the target event. The MUSE Fe xix line profile is obtained by forward-modeling the simulated plasma state with CHIANTI response functions and instrumental PSFs. The reliance on the authors' previous simulation is a dependency, but no citation or equation makes the conclusion equivalent to an input; the paper identifies a new event and derives new synthetic observables from it.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-picked model parameters and ad hoc assumptions inherited from previous papers: the anomalous resistivity coefficient and threshold, the background field strength, and the AIA background-subtraction calibration. The resistivity model is especially load-bearing because it enables the reconnection that produces the outflow. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Anomalous resistivity coefficient eta0 = 10^14 cm^2 s^-1
    Ad hoc value from Hood et al. (2009) and Reale et al. (2016), not measured; it controls the magnetic diffusion rate and hence the reconnection and outflow properties (Section 2).
  • Current-density threshold for anomalous resistivity Jcr = 250 Fr cm^-2 s^-1
    Dissipation is switched on only above this threshold, determining where current sheets break and where the outflow forms (Section 2, Fig. 3).
  • Background magnetic field strength B_bkg = 10 G
    A typical coronal value chosen for the simulation; the detectability scaling in Eq. 1 and the energy budget depend on it (Section 2, Discussion).
  • AIA cool-component subtraction coefficients = 2.3, 0.8, 1.0, 2.6, 30.1 (x 10^-3)
    Coefficients in Eq. A.3 used to isolate the hot Fe XVIII component; they are calibrated from other AIA channels and are not independently measured, and the text states the resulting noise is not quantifiable (Section 4, Appendix A).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-fluid 3D MHD with anomalous resistivity, radiative losses, thermal conduction, and field-aligned gravity describes the corona.
    Invoked in Section 2 and inherited from Cozzo et al. (2023b); the resistivity parameterization is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Reconnection is identified by a non-zero parallel electric field E_parallel = E dot B, following Hesse and Schindler (1988).
    Used to locate the dissipation region (Fig. A.5); assumes this criterion is sufficient to tag reconnection in the simulation.
  • domain assumption CHIANTI 10 ionization equilibrium, coronal abundances, and a constant density of 10^9 cm^-3 are adequate for synthetic response functions.
    Appendix A; the emission predictions depend on this atomic data and density assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The selected reconnection event is representative of nanoflare-scale outflows in an MHD avalanche.
    One event is chosen among 'a few examples' (Section 2); no statistical or selection-bias analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Scaling law c n delta-T = delta(B^2/8pi) captures the detectability of outflows in denser loops.
    Equation 1 in Section 4 neglects losses and expansion; used to argue that stronger-field events would be easier to detect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coronal energy release by MHD avalanches III. Identification of a reconnection outflow from a nanoflare." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCCBBJL5

@misc{pith2026250201796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coronal energy release by MHD avalanches III. Identification of a reconnection outflow from a nanoflare},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCCBBJL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01796}
}
read the original abstract

Outflows perpendicular to the guide field are believed to be a possible signature of magnetic reconnection in the solar corona and specifically a way to detect the occurrence of ubiquitous small-angle magnetic reconnection. The aim of this work is to identify possible diagnostic techniques of such outflows in hot coronal loops with SDO/AIA and the forthcoming MUltislit Solar Explorer (MUSE), in a realistically dynamic coronal loop environment in which an MHD avalanche is occurring. We consider a 3D MHD model of two magnetic flux tubes, including a stratified, radiative and thermal-conducting atmosphere, twisted by footpoint rotation. The faster rotating flux tube becomes kink-unstable and soon involves the other one in the avalanche. The turbulent decay of this magnetic structure on a global scale leads to the formation, fragmentation, and dissipation of current sheets driving impulsive heating akin to a nanoflare storm. We captured a clear outflow from a reconnection episode soon after the initial avalanche and synthesized its emission as detectable with AIA and MUSE. The outflow has a maximum temperature around 8 MK, a total energy of 1024 erg, a velocity of a few hundred km/s, and a duration of less than 1 min. We show the emission in the AIA 94 A channel (Fe XVIII line) and in the MUSE 108 A Fe XIX spectral line. his outflow shares many features with nanojets recently detected at lower temperatures. Its low emission measure makes, however, its detection difficult with AIA, but Doppler shifts can be measured with MUSE. Conditions become different in a later steady state phase when the flux tubes are filled with denser and relatively cooler plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of guide field small-angle reconnection at three different stages. Step A: two field lines are tilted in opposite di￾rections. Step B: field lines reconnect in the diffusion region DR where currents are stronger. Step C: after the reconnection the field line con￾nectivity has changed. The black arrows indicate the outflows. A schematic description of the reconnection processes yield￾ing the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic reconnection and the outflow. Rendering 3D at 3 times since the beginning of the avalanche: ∆t = 0 s (lines approaching), ∆t = 10 s (lines reconnecting), and ∆t = 20 s (new lines detaching). Left column, top view and cut at the middle plane: two reconnecting magnetic field lines (marked by yellow and magenta lines among two bundles), reconnection sites (blue spots close to the centre of the plane), and velo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dynamics of the reconnection outflow. First column: horizontal mid-plane map of the value of the velocity component perpendicular to the magnetic field at the same three times shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the coronal loop plasma in a box containing the reconnection outflow. This reference volume has size ∆x = 10 Mm, ∆y = 4 Mm, ∆z = 10 Mm, and is centred at the origin. First panel: x￾component of the velocity, averaged along ∆y and ∆z. Second panel: maximum …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic maps in the AIA 94 Å channel integrated along a line of sight from a side view of the curved loop system (first panel, exposure time: 9 s). Second panel: In this geometry the top of the loop is high in the image, as shown in the left panel. intensity map in t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MUSE synthetic map and spectrum (line of sight shown in the fig. 5). Left: the Fe xix 108 Å line emission map as in Fig.5. The emission is integrated over macro-pixels of size ∆h = 0.28 Mm, ∆v = 1.89 Mm (0.4” × 2.7”) (exposure time: 30 s). Right: Fe xix line spectrum o…

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. Deciphering the Formation and Dynamics of Double-decker Filament Through Component Magnetic Reconnection

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A braided solar filament was observed to split into a double-decker structure via internal component magnetic reconnection, triggered by footpoint rotation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    1947, , 107, 211

    Alfv \'e n , H. 1947, , 107, 211

    work page 1947

  4. [4]

    2024, Solar Physics, 299, 94

    Antolin, P., Auch \`e re, F., Winch, E., Soubri \'e , E., & Oliver, R. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, 94

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54

    2021

  6. [6]

    R., & Scullion, E

    Antolin, P., Vissers, G., Pereira, T., van der Voort, L. R., & Scullion, E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 81

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Beveridge, C., Longcope, D., & Priest, E. R. 2003, Solar Physics, 216, 27

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    2012, The Solar Dynamics Observatory, 41

    Boerner, P., Edwards, C., Lemen, J., et al. 2012, The Solar Dynamics Observatory, 41

    work page 2012

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2377

    Boerner, P., Testa, P., Warren, H., Weber, M., & Schrijver, C. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2377

    2014

  2. [10]

    H., Warren, H

    Brooks, D. H., Warren, H. P., & Landi, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L24

    2021

  3. [11]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 48

    Cadavid, A., Lawrence, J., Christian, D., Jess, D., & Nigro, G. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 48

    2014

  4. [12]

    C., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., Testa, P., et al

    Cheung, M. C., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., Testa, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 53

    2022

  5. [13]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 143

    Cho, K., Testa, P., De Pontieu, B., & Polito, V. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 143

    2023

  6. [14]

    G., Grefenstette, B

    Cooper, K., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3936

    2021

  7. [15]

    2023 a , Symmetry, 15, 627

    Cozzo, G., Pagano, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2023 a , Symmetry, 15, 627

    2023

  8. [16]

    Cozzo, G., Reid, J., Pagano, P., Reale, F., & Hood, A. 2023 b

    2023

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11701

    Cozzo, G., Reid, J., Pagano, P., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11701

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 3

    De Pontieu, B., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., Testa, P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 3

    2019

  11. [19]

    2020, , 888, 3

    De Pontieu , B., Mart \' nez-Sykora , J., Testa , P., et al. 2020, , 888, 3

    2020

  12. [20]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 52

    De Pontieu, B., Testa, P., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 52

    2022

  13. [21]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2733

    De Pontieu, B., Title, A., Lemen, J., et al. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2733

    2014

  14. [22]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 38

    Del Zanna, G., Dere, K., Young, P., & Landi, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 38

    2021

  15. [23]

    1992, Physica Scripta, 46, 202

    Feldman, U. 1992, Physica Scripta, 46, 202

    1992

  16. [24]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 891, L34

    Glesener, L., Krucker, S., Duncan, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 891, L34

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gudiksen, B. V. & Nordlund, . 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 1020

    2005

  18. [26]

    & Schindler, K

    Hesse, M. & Schindler, K. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 5559

    1988

  19. [27]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 913

    Hood, A., Browning, P., & Van der Linden, R. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 913

    2009

  20. [28]

    W., Cargill, P., Browning, P., & Tam, K

    Hood, A. W., Cargill, P., Browning, P., & Tam, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 5

    2016

  21. [29]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 771

    Ishikawa, S.-n., Glesener, L., Krucker, S., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 771

    2017

  22. [30]

    B., Reznikova, V

    Jess, D. B., Reznikova, V. E., Ryans, R. S., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 179

    2016

  23. [31]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 1351

    Klimchuk, J., Patsourakos, S., & Cargill, P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 1351

    2008

  24. [32]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2009, arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.1391

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140256

    2015

  26. [34]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  27. [35]

    M., Valori, G., P \'e rez-Su \'a rez, D., Morton, R

    Long, D. M., Valori, G., P \'e rez-Su \'a rez, D., Morton, R. J., & Vasquez, A. M. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 603, A101

    2017

  28. [36]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228

    2007

  29. [37]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A141

    Pagano, P., Antolin, P., & Petralia, A. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A141

    2021

  30. [38]

    Parker, E. N. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 330, 474

    1988

  31. [39]

    & Pant, V

    Patel, R. & Pant, V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 122

    2022

  32. [40]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. 2012, The solar dynamics observatory (SDO) (Springer)

    2012

  33. [41]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 144

    Poduval, B., DeForest, C., Schmelz, J., & Pathak, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 144

    2013

  34. [42]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

    Reale, F. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

    2014

  35. [43]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 736, L16

    Reale, F., Guarrasi, M., Testa, P., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 736, L16

    2011

  36. [44]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 21

    Reale, F., Orlando, S., Guarrasi, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 21

    2016

  37. [45]

    W., Parnell, C

    Reid, J., Cargill, P., Hood, A. W., Parnell, C. E., & Arber, T. D. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A158

    2020

  38. [46]

    W., Parnell, C

    Reid, J., Hood, A. W., Parnell, C. E., Browning, P., & Cargill, P. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A84

    2018

  39. [47]

    1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 5547

    Schindler, K., Hesse, M., & Birn, J. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 5547

    1988

  40. [48]

    Sukarmadji, A. R. C. & Antolin, P. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L17

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sukarmadji, A. R. C., Antolin, P., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 190

    2022

  42. [50]

    2014, Science, 346, 1255724

    Testa, P., De Pontieu, B., Allred, J., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1255724

    2014

  43. [51]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 770, L1

    Testa, P., De Pontieu, B., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 770, L1

    2013

  44. [52]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 124

    Testa, P., Polito, V., & De Pontieu, B. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 124

    2020

  45. [53]

    & Reale, F

    Testa, P. & Reale, F. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 750, L10

    2012

  46. [54]

    & Reale , F

    Testa , P. & Reale , F. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Edited by Cosimo Bambi and Andrea Santangelo, 134

    2023

  47. [55]

    M., Young, P

    Van Doorsselaere, T., Nakariakov, V. M., Young, P. R., & Verwichte, E. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, L17

    2008

  48. [56]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 499, L5

    Vekstein, G. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 499, L5

    2009

  49. [57]

    Viall, N. M. & Klimchuk, J. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 24

    2011

  50. [58]

    P., Winebarger, A

    Warren, H. P., Winebarger, A. R., & Brooks, D. H. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 141

    2012

  51. [59]

    J., Hannah, I

    Wright, P. J., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 132

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.