Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Plasma instability in the front of ejected energetic electrons and Type III solar radiobursts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Type III radio bursts can start from a time-of-flight cutoff in the electron distribution, not from a beam instability.

desk verdict A plausible but unproven replacement for the beam-plasma mechanism in Type III bursts; the linear instability math is mostly sound, but the central claim rests on an untested quasilinear back-reaction assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08437 v1 pith:V5LTPBPR submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Vladimir Krasnoselskikh , Immanuel Christopher Jebaraj , Tom Robert Franck Cooper , Andrii Voschepynets , Thierry Dudok de Wit , Marc Pulupa , Forrest Mozer , Oleksiy Agapitov
show 2 more authors
Michael Balikhin Stuart D. Bale
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords TypeIIIradioburstsLangmuirwavestime-of-flighteffectplasmainstabilitysolarwinddensityfluctuationselectronvelocitydistributionParkerProbe
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

Type III solar radio bursts are the radio signature of energetic electrons streaming out from a solar flare, and for decades the first step of their generation has been assumed to be the two-stream (beam) instability. This paper argues that the first step is instead a linear instability of the time-of-flight-truncated electron distribution: at the leading edge of the electron flux, all velocities below $v = L/t$ are absent, and that sharp cutoff itself can make Langmuir waves grow. The instability turns on when electrons with velocity near the wave's resonant phase velocity arrive and turns off when slower electrons reach the same location and damp the waves, so the wave energy should rise quickly and then decay exponentially. The authors show that this predicted rise-and-decay shape closely matches the asymmetric intensity-time profiles of fundamental-frequency Type III bursts observed by Parker Solar Probe, while avoiding the need for a beam-like positive slope that is rarely measured in the solar wind.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-of-flight-truncated electron distribution, $F_b(v,L,t) = (\alpha-1)/v_{\min}\,(v_{\min}/v)^\alpha$ for $v \ge L/t$ and $0$ for $v < L/t$, with the cutoff velocity $U=L/t$ decreasing as slower electrons arrive. The calculation is carried inside the probabilistic beam-plasma model, where random solar-wind density fluctuations smear the wave phase velocity into a probability distribution $P_\omega(V)$, taken Gaussian in the qualitative analysis or derived from a Gaussian density-fluctuation distribution in the numerical part. The load-bearing identity is the growth-rate expression in Equation 7, whose second term, $U^2 P_\omega(U)\,(\alpha-1)/v_{\min}\,(v_{\min}/U)^\alpha$, is the destabilizing contribution from the step jump, and whose first term is ordinary Landau damping. From it follow the threshold $V_r > \alpha\sqrt{\pi}\,\Delta V$, the Gaussian-in-time approximation for the growth rate near its maximum, and the constant damping rate $\nu = -\pi\,\omega_p\,(n_b/n_e)\,\alpha(\alpha-1)\,(v_{\min}/V_r)^{\alpha-1}$ that sets the exponential decay.

What would settle it

Simultaneous high-cadence electron and Langmuir-wave measurements at the leading edge of a Type III burst would settle it: if waves grow while the measured electron distribution is smooth and plateau-like, with no jump at $v = L/t$, or if a positive slope appears at the moment of growth, the cutoff mechanism is not the source. A numerical version of the same test is to integrate the quasilinear equations with the source term and check whether the sharp cutoff survives long enough for the instability to reach the predicted amplitudes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the primary Langmuir waves of Type III bursts are generated by a cutoff instability rather than by the conventional bump-on-tail or beam-plasma instability. At a fixed distance $L$ from the injection site, the energetic-electron distribution is a power law in velocity for $v \ge L/t$ and zero below, so it has a step-like jump at the boundary velocity $U = L/t$. Substituting this distribution into the growth-rate integral splits the growth rate into a negative Landau-damping term from the monotonically falling part of the distribution and a positive boundary term proportional to $U^2 P_\omega(U)$; when the resonant phase velocity $V_r$ is close to $U$ and the velocity spread $\Delta V$ of the resonant waves is narrow enough, the positive term wins. The maximum growth rate exists only above the threshold $V_r > \alpha\sqrt{\pi}\,\Delta V$, where $\alpha$ is the spectral index of the injected power law. Because the boundary velocity sweeps downward in time as slower particles arrive, the growth rate first rises, peaks, then turns into a constant damping rate produced by the slower electrons, giving the exponential decay observed in the burst profiles. The analysis is deliberately linear and does not include the back-reaction of the waves on the electron distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mechanism rests on the sharp step at the front of the arriving electron stream—faster electrons present, slower ones not yet arrived—remaining sharp at the location where the waves grow; if anything smooths that step before the instability has time to develop, the extra wave growth disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If this mechanism is right, the absence of a measurable positive slope (beam feature) in solar-wind electron distributions no longer contradicts Langmuir wave generation during Type III bursts; the sharp front itself is the free-energy source.
  • At any fixed frequency, Langmuir-wave energy should first grow as $\exp(\gamma_{\max}\,\tau_\gamma\,\operatorname{erf}((t-t_0)/\tau_\gamma))$ and then decay at a constant rate, reproducing the fast-rise/slow-decay asymmetry of fundamental Type III profiles.
  • The asymmetry of the profile is a local property of the emission process: it is controlled by the width of the phase-velocity distribution (equivalently, the level of density fluctuations) and by the spectral index $\alpha$, with no intrinsic frequency dependence.
  • The instability is stronger for shallower power laws (smaller $\alpha$), for lower resonant velocities $V_r$, and for narrower velocity spreads $\Delta V$.
  • The second-step conversion of Langmuir waves into fundamental electromagnetic emission via scattering on density inhomogeneities remains, so the main revision is entirely in the first step; the harmonic emission mechanism is unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, an observational test is to measure the electron distribution at sub-second cadence while Langmuir waves peak during a Type III burst: one should see the cutoff velocity $L/t$ sweep through the resonant phase velocity with no positive slope at the moment of growth; if a plateau is present instead, the cutoff mechanism is not operating.
  • Beyond the paper, the model implies a quantitative link that is not computed here: the fitted rise and decay parameters of a burst should correlate with the local density-fluctuation level $\delta n/n_e$ and the spectral index $\alpha$, so multi-spacecraft radio-plus-plasma observations could test the predicted ratio of damping to maximum growth.
  • Beyond the paper, including quasilinear relaxation in a numerical solution of the same equations may partially erase the very jump that drives the instability; such a simulation would show whether the predicted burst profile survives when the back-reaction of waves on particles is switched on.
  • Beyond the paper, the same front-truncation mechanism could operate for any impulsive injection of a power-law particle distribution into a plasma with resonant waves, not only solar Type III bursts; the paper itself notes a related but distinct time-of-flight case at coronal shock fronts.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a revision of the standard two-step theory of Type III radio bursts. It argues that a time-of-flight-truncated power-law distribution of energetic electrons (Eq. 4) is linearly unstable to Langmuir waves when the wave phase-velocity distribution is broadened by random density fluctuations. The authors derive an analytic growth rate (Eqs. 7, 10, 12), a threshold condition (Eq. 13), and a wave-intensity evolution (Eqs. 9, 16), and support the calculation with numerical examples (Figs. 4, 6, 7). They compare the resulting asymmetric growth/decay profiles to exponentially modified Gaussian fits of PSP/RFS observations (Fig. 1) and claim qualitative agreement. The paper explicitly restricts itself to the linear regime and does not model the back-reaction of waves on the electron distribution.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism operates, it would replace the bump-on-tail/beam instability as the primary Langmuir-wave generation process for Type III bursts, providing a natural explanation for both the rarity of measured positive-slope beam distributions and the observed asymmetry of fundamental-burst time profiles. The paper's strengths are its explicit analytical increment derivation, its incorporation of random density fluctuations through a probabilistic phase-velocity distribution, and its falsifiable qualitative predictions (stronger growth for shallower alpha, lower Vr, and narrower DeltaV). It also honestly identifies its linear-regime limitation. At present, however, the conclusion rests on a linear calculation whose consistency with the quasilinear back-reaction is not established and on a qualitative, non-quantified comparison with observations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Eqs. 1, 4, 9)] The central claim is that the time-of-flight cutoff instability can amplify Langmuir waves to Type III intensities, but the paper never checks that the cutoff survives long enough. Eq. (1) already contains the quasilinear diffusion operator (partial/partial v)[W P_omega partial F/partial v], which acts on exactly the same velocity-space gradient that produces the boundary contribution in Eq. (7). As soon as W rises above the noise level, this term smooths the step at v = L/t at the same location x = L; the restriction to 'distances that are not very large' in Section 2 concerns propagation effects, not this local back-reaction. A calculation that exponentiates gamma(t) via Eq. (9) while keeping F fixed is self-consistent only if the growth time is much shorter than the local diffusion time, and no estimate of this ratio or a coupled quasilinear calculation is given. Without such an estimate, the mechanism is not demonstrated to be the one operating in Type III bursts.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Appendix C (Eqs. 12, 13, C30)] The evaluation of the damping integral for a narrow Gaussian P_omega at U = Vr misses a factor of 1/2. For a normalized Gaussian centered at Vr, the integral in the first term of Eq. (7) is approximately (1/2)(vmin/Vr)^{alpha-1} when the slowly varying factor (vmin/V)^{alpha-1} is pulled out of the integral, because the lower limit sits at the center of the Gaussian. The negative term in the bracket of Eq. (12) and Eq. (C30) should therefore be -(alpha/2)(vmin/Vr), not -alpha(vmin/Vr). Correspondingly, the threshold condition (13) should read Vr > (alpha/2) sqrt(pi) DeltaV, and Eq. (18) changes accordingly. This arithmetic issue affects the numerical values of gamma_max and the resulting W(t) shown in Figures 4, 6, and 7, and it should be corrected before the quantitative claims are relied upon.
  3. [Sections 1 and 4 (Figs. 1, 3-7)] The claimed agreement with Type III observations is not quantified. The observed profiles in Fig. 1 are fitted with an exponentially modified Gaussian, and the model W(t) in Figs. 3, 4, 6, and 7 is calculated with hand-picked dimensionless parameters (alpha, Vr, DeltaV/Vr, eta; L = 500, omega_p = nb/ne = 1), but the model curves are never overlaid on the data, no residuals or goodness-of-fit statistics are reported, and W0 in Eq. (9) is left arbitrary. The abstract states that the intensity-time profiles 'closely match' observations; as written, this is a qualitative shape claim, not a demonstrated quantitative match. At minimum, one representative event should be compared with the model on a common axis, with the noise level W0 and the physical time scale specified.
  4. [Section 3 and Appendix B (Eqs. 22, B24)] The non-Gaussian P_omega(V) used for the numerical results appears inconsistent with the expression derived in Appendix B. With eta = delta_n/(2n_e), the arguments of the error functions in Eq. (22) contain 3/eta = 6n_e/delta_n, whereas the corresponding arguments in Eq. (B24) contain 3n_e/delta_n (with v_T^2 factors restored). Since Figure 6 and the accompanying discussion depend on Eq. (22), the authors should either reconcile the two expressions or explain why they differ by a factor of 2; the numerical results in Section 3 cannot be assessed until this discrepancy is resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says the non-Gaussian P_omega(V) is 'given by Equation 3', but it should refer to Eq. (22).
  2. [Section 2.1] The text contains the typo 'occurexist' in the sentence introducing the threshold condition; it should read 'occur: exist' or be reworded.
  3. [Appendix B (Eq. B8)] Eq. (B8) has a dimensionally inconsistent prefactor 1/(sqrt(pi) delta_n) and later uses the ratio delta_n/delta_n inside an integral; these expressions should be corrected, since the normalization of the density-fluctuation distribution underpins the derivation of P_omega(V).
  4. [Eqs. (7) and (C28)] The same damping integral is written in two algebraically equivalent but visually different forms; unifying them would reduce the risk of reader error.
  5. [Eq. (21)] The quantities zeta and Lambda in the relaxation-time estimate are not defined in the text; please define them or cite the specific source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cutoff-instability growth rate and the asymmetric Type III time profile are computed from the quasilinear equations on a free-flight-truncated power-law distribution, with model parameters chosen from observations rather than fitted to the target radio profiles.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input. The growth rate is computed from the standard quasilinear expression (Eq. 6) applied to the free-flight-truncated power-law distribution (Eq. 4), and the wave intensity follows by exponentiation (Eq. 9); no parameter is fitted to the target radio time profiles. The inputs (alpha = 4 and 6 from Krucker et al. 2007; Vr = 6-12 vT; DeltaV/Vr = 0.005-0.04; L = 500) are observationally motivated choices, and the EMG fit parameters of the observed profiles (mu, sigma, lambda, r) are never used to construct the model's W(t). The predicted rise-peak-exponential-decay shape is a mathematical consequence of a Gaussian resonance P_omega(V) being swept by the monotonically decreasing cutoff velocity U = L/t, followed by constant Landau damping (Eq. 17); it is not imposed by the data. The probabilistic beam-plasma model underlying Eqs. 1-2 is attributed to the authors' prior work (Voshchepynets et al. 2015; Voshchepynets & Krasnoselskikh 2015), but the paper re-derives the velocity probability distribution in Appendix B from an explicitly declared Gaussian density-fluctuation hypothesis, and Eq. 6 reduces to the homogeneous-plasma growth rate when P_omega -> delta(V - Vr); the self-citation is therefore supporting context, not the logical load. The paper's own stated limitation - neglecting the quasilinear back-reaction of waves on the cutoff distribution (Abstract; Section 2: 'we restrict ourselves to distances that are not very large') - is a validity concern (the cutoff may be smoothed before waves reach observable amplitudes), not a circularity, because the calculation does not assume its conclusion. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and the time-of-flight mechanism is explicitly traced to the external Zheleznyakov & Zaitsev (1970) idea rather than presented as a newly renamed result. Overall: no significant circularity; the central claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several explicit simplifying assumptions: quasilinear theory with a probabilistic phase-velocity distribution, a sharply truncated power-law electron distribution, and a linear (no back-reaction) treatment. The free parameters (alpha, Vr, DeltaV/eta, n_b/n_e, L, v_min) are chosen by hand or normalized to unity, not fitted to observations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha (power-law spectral index) = 4 and 6 in Figure 4; 4, 6, 8 in Figure 7
    Chosen from observations (Krucker et al. 2007); controls threshold and growth rate.
  • Vr (resonant phase velocity) = 6, 9, 12 vT
    Varied by hand to show parameter dependence.
  • DeltaV/Vr (relative width of Gaussian phase-velocity distribution) = 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04
    Varied by hand; represents density fluctuation level.
  • eta = delta_n / (2 n_e) (density fluctuation level) = 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04
    Used in the non-Gaussian Pomega(V); varied by hand.
  • n_b / n_e (beam density ratio) = 1 (dimensionless)
    Normalized to unity; real values would scale the growth rate linearly.
  • L (distance from source) = 500 (dimensionless)
    Fixed in numerical runs.
  • v_min (minimum electron velocity) = unspecified, set by normalization
    Input parameter in the power-law distribution; affects the growth rate scaling.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Quasilinear equations (1)-(2) with a probabilistic Pomega(V) describe wave-particle interaction in a randomly inhomogeneous plasma
    Adopted from Voshchepynets et al. 2015 and Voshchepynets & Krasnoselskikh 2015; the growth-rate calculation is built on this model.
  • domain assumption The electron distribution at location L is the source power law with a sharp cutoff at v = L/t and no quasilinear relaxation along the path
    Stated in Section 2 after Eq. (4): 'we restrict ourselves to distances that are not very large, since we do not take into account quasi-linear evolution.'
  • domain assumption Linear approximation: no back-reaction of waves on the electron distribution
    Explicit in Abstract and Section 4; nonlinear saturation is neglected, which limits the validity for intense bursts.
  • domain assumption Background plasma density varies monotonically and slowly, allowing local treatment
    Section 2: characteristic scale of density variation is much larger than wavelength and instability length.
  • domain assumption Weak magnetic field and 1D approximation
    Section 2: 'Assuming the presence of a weak magnetic field and neglecting the perpendicular motions.'
  • domain assumption Point source at x = 0 switched on at t = 0 and operating continuously
    Section 2: source term Q(v,r,t) models injection; used to justify the truncated distribution.
  • domain assumption Pomega(V) is a narrow Gaussian with DeltaV << Vr for the analytic threshold (Eq. 12)
    Section 2.1: 'we shall limit our analysis to narrow distributions Pomega where DeltaV << Vr'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plasma instability in the front of ejected energetic electrons and Type III solar radiobursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5LTPBPR

@misc{pith2026250708437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plasma instability in the front of ejected energetic electrons and Type III solar radiobursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5LTPBPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08437}
}
read the original abstract

Type III radio bursts are a signature of the flux of near-relativistic electrons ejected during solar flares. These bursts are frequently observed by spacecraft such as the Parker Solar Probe. It is traditionally believed that these electron beams generate Langmuir waves through the two-stream instability, which are then converted into electromagnetic waves. In this study, we revise that model by examining how the electron distribution becomes truncated due to the "time-of-flight" effect as the beam travels through a randomly inhomogeneous, and gently varying solar-wind plasma. Rather than the two-stream instability, this truncation destabilizes the distribution and leads to the generation of Langmuir waves via a linear instability; we confine our analysis to this linear regime and do not take into account the back reaction of the generated Langmuir waves on the electron distribution, which is nonlinear. The instability grows until slower electrons arrive and dampen the waves. Our qualitative analysis shows that the resulting wave intensity growth and decay closely match the intensity-time profile of observed Type III radio bursts at the fundamental frequency, supporting this modified theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of spectral features of a fundamental type III radio burst observed at various frequencies by PSP/RFS on April 25, 2023, at 00:18:30 UT is shown in the left panel. The right panels display time series at two frequencies: 7 MHz (top) and 3 MHz (bottom). Circle markers represent the data, which are fit with an exponentially modified Gaussian. The fit parameters, namely the mean (µ), standard deviation (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of distributions of energetic electrons and phase velocities under varying parameters. The left panel shows the truncated distribution of energetic electrons at position x = L for different values of the power-law spectral index (α). The right panel displays the Gaussian distribution of phase velocities at a given L for various widths (∆V /Vr) described by Equation 5. The Pω(V ) is centered at Vr = 9vT.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instability of the truncated beam for Gaussian Pω(V ) centered at Vr = 9vT, and α = 4. Top-left panel shows the truncated distributions at three different times. Bottom-left panel shows the resulting probability distributions at these times, corresponding to the 10th percentile (t3, blue squares), 90th percentile (t1, green circles), and the velocity Vr itself (t2, orange marker), which is the 50th percentile. Top-r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The growth (γ(t)) of the instability and the intensity W(t) of the generated waves for α = 4 (top row), and α = 6 (bottom row). Three different Vr is used, namely, 6vT (left column), 9vT (middle column), and 12vT (right column). Each plot shows the effect of different …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Non Gaussian Pω(V ) for phase velocities given by Equation 3. The three columns correspond to Pω(V ) for three different Vr. Each panel shows the Pω(V ) for four different values of η = δn/2ne which is the analog of ∆V /Vr in the Gaussian Pω(V ). The dotted line corres…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The growth (γ(t)) of the instability and the intensity W(t) of the generated waves for α = 4 (top row), and α = 6 (bottom row). Three different Vr is used, namely, 6vT (left column), 9vT (middle column), and 12vT (right column). Each plot shows the effect of different …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the spectrum of the Langmuir waves at L = 500 obtained using equations 7 and 9 for α = 4 and ∆V /Vr = 0.02 (top panel). The spectrum consists of the waves with Vr that lie in the range 5 to 15vT. Bottom panels: temporal evolution of the total wave energy d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1972, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 343

    Aubier, M., & Boischot, A. 1972, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 343

    work page 1972

  2. [2]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  3. [3]

    1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 126, 293

    Kemp, M. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 126, 293

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    Chen, C. H. K., Howes, G. G., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2013, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1539, Solar Wind 13, ed. G. P. Zank, J. Borovsky, R. Bruno, J. Cirtain, S. Cranmer, H. Elliott, J. Giacalone, W. Gonzalez, G. Li, E. Marsch, E. Moebius, N. Pogorelov, J. Spann, & O. Verkhoglyadova, 143–146, doi: 10.1063/1.4811008

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4811008 2013

  5. [5]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L37

    Chen, L., Ma, B., Wu, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L37

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b43

    Chen, L., Ma, B., Wu, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b43

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b43 2021

  7. [7]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 654, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141365

    Dresing, N., Warmuth, A., Effenberger, F., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 654, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141365

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141365 2021

  8. [8]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Gerekos, C., Steinbr¨ ugge, G., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 683, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347900

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    L., & Zhelezniakov, V

    Ginzburg, V. L., & Zhelezniakov, V. V. 1958, Soviet Ast., 2, 653

    1958

  3. [11]

    E., Fried, B

    Hinkel-Lipsker, D. E., Fried, B. D., & Morales, G. J. 1992, Physics of Fluids B, 4, 559, doi: 10.1063/1.860255

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Krasnoselskikh, V., Pulupa, M., Magdalenic, J., & Bale, S

    Jebaraj, I. C., Krasnoselskikh, V., Pulupa, M., Magdalenic, J., & Bale, S. D. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 955, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf857

    doi

  5. [13]

    C., Krasnoselskikh, V., Voshchepynets, A., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Krasnoselskikh, V., Voshchepynets, A., et al. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, SH21E–2882

    2024

  6. [14]

    C., Magdalenic, J., Krasnoselskikh, V., Krupar, V., & Poedts, S

    Jebaraj, I. C., Magdalenic, J., Krasnoselskikh, V., Krupar, V., & Poedts, S. 2023b, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 670, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243494

    doi

  7. [15]

    C., Kouloumvakos, A., Dresing, N., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Kouloumvakos, A., Dresing, N., et al. 2023c, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 675, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245716

    doi

  8. [16]

    Kaiser, M. L. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 1483, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2004.12.066

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Horbury, T

    Kellogg, P. J., & Horbury, T. S. 2005, Annales Geophysicae, 23, 3765, doi: 10.5194/angeo-23-3765-2005

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 580, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424397

    Kouloumvakos, A., Nindos, A., Valtonen, E., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 580, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424397

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a7

    Krafft, C., & Savoini, P. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a7

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Krafft, C., & Volokitin, A. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/99

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Krasnoselskikh, V

    Krafft, C., Volokitin, A. S., & Krasnoselskikh, V. V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/111 —. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/176

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22bf

    Krasnoselskikh, V., Voshchepynets, A., & Maksimovic, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22bf

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Christe, S., & Lin, R

    Krucker, S., Kontar, E. P., Christe, S., & Lin, R. P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 663, L109, doi: 10.1086/519373

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Lemaire, J. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini (AIP), 8–13, doi: 10.1063/1.3395971

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    Scarf, F. L. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 308, 954, doi: 10.1086/164563

    1986 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Potter, D

    Lin, R. P., Potter, D. W., Gurnett, D. A., & Scarf, F. L. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 251, 364, doi: 10.1086/159471

    1981 doi

  19. [27]

    Y., Reid, H

    Lorfing, C. Y., Reid, H. A. S., G´ omez-Herrero, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0be3

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Maksimovic, M., Pierrard, V., & Lemaire, J. F. 1997, A&A, 324, 725

    1997

  21. [29]

    Melrose, D. B. 1970, Australian Journal of Physics, 23, 871 —. 2017, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 1, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41614-017-0007-0

    1970 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Christian, E

    Mitchell, J. G., Christian, E. R., de Nolfo, G. A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaa7c 20

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Agapitov, O., Bale, S

    Mozer, F. S., Agapitov, O., Bale, S. D., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451134

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    W., von Rosenvinge, T., & Durney, A

    Ogilvie, K. W., von Rosenvinge, T., & Durney, A. C. 1977, Science, 198, 131, doi: 10.1126/science.198.4313.131

    1977 doi

  25. [33]

    Pierrard, V., & Lemaire, J. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7923, doi: 10.1029/95JA03802

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05464, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05464

    Krucker, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05464, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05464

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    D., Bonnell, J

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 2836, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023345

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Badman, S

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplements, 246, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5dc0

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Scudder, J. D. 1992, ApJ, 398, 319, doi: 10.1086/171859

    1992 doi

  30. [38]

    D., & Karimabadi, H

    Scudder, J. D., & Karimabadi, H. 2013, ApJ, 770, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/26

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Jebaraj, I

    Sishtla, C. P., Jebaraj, I. C., Pomoell, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad137e

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    1971, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 362

    Boischot, A. 1971, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 362

    1971

  33. [41]

    D., Dresing, N., Kollhoff, A., & Br¨ udern, M

    Strauss, R. D., Dresing, N., Kollhoff, A., & Br¨ udern, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b0

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Suzuki, S., & Dulk, G. A. 1985, in Solar Radiophysics: Studies of Emission from the Sun at Metre Wavelengths, ed. D. J. McLean & N. R. Labrum (Cambridge University Press), 289–332

    1985

  35. [43]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2bd

    Tkachenko, A., Krasnoselskikh, V., & Voshchepynets, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2bd

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    S., & Krafft, C

    Volokitin, A. S., & Krafft, C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7cc

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 10,139, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021705

    Voshchepynets, A., & Krasnoselskikh, V. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 10,139, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021705

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/38

    Volokitin, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/38

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Robinson, P

    Willes, A. J., Robinson, P. A., & Melrose, D. B. 1996, Physics of Plasmas, 3, 149, doi: 10.1063/1.871841

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    1974, Soviet Astronomy, 18, 147

    Zaitsev, V., Kunilov, M., Mityakov, N., & Rapoport, V. 1974, Soviet Astronomy, 18, 147

    1974

  41. [49]

    1970, Soviet Astronomy, 14, 47

    Zheleznyakov, V., & Zaitsev, V. 1970, Soviet Astronomy, 14, 47

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.