Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 99 references

Electron Acceleration and Plasma Heating in an Impulsive Confined C-class Solar Flare

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read In the first seconds of a confined C-class flare, heated plasma and accelerated electrons stay tightly coupled under nearly collisionless conditions.

desk verdict Solid multi-instrument case study of a confined C2.8 with useful early-phase F–EM and Elow–T correlations; the acceleration-efficiency number is geometry-limited but the observational core holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10048 v1 pith:URCIE36R submitted 2026-07-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

I.N. Sharykin , I.V. Zimovets , G.V. Koynash , E.F. Ivanov , V.V. Fedenev , S.A. Anfinogentov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords solarflareselectronaccelerationplasmaheatingmicrowaveemissionhardX-raysquasi-periodicpulsationsmagneticreconnectionconfined
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 analyses a short, non-eruptive C2.8 solar flare with microwave and X-ray data to show that, before chromospheric evaporation fully develops, the hot thermal plasma and the non-thermal electron population are directly linked. During the rise of the impulsive phase the authors measure simple empirical relations: the accelerated-electron flux scales with emission measure, the low-energy cutoff scales with temperature, and the cumulative non-thermal energy is comparable to the thermal energy of the plasma. From those relations they estimate an acceleration probability of order one electron in four over roughly fifty seconds. The same multi-wavelength data place the energy release in low-lying sheared loops along the polarity inversion line and attribute the observed quasi-periodic pulsations to a short sequence of reconnection episodes, possibly paced by slow magnetoacoustic waves. The result matters because it gives an observational window onto particle acceleration while hydrodynamic effects are still weak and the magnetic geometry remains compact and confined.

What carries the argument

Empirical coupling relations extracted from simultaneous Fermi/GBM X-ray spectral fits and SOLARSPEL microwave spectra during the rise phase only, interpreted with a fixed source volume taken from NLFFF loop geometry and UV kernel sizes.

What would settle it

Repeat the same early-phase spectral analysis on another confined impulsive flare whose emitting volume can be independently constrained (for example by high-resolution EUV imaging of a resolved loop) and test whether the same F–EM and Elow–T scalings and Enonth ~ Uth balance still appear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During the early impulsive phase of the confined C2.8 flare, before the hard-X-ray peak and before chromospheric evaporation dominates, the thermal plasma and non-thermal electrons are tightly coupled under nearly collisionless conditions. The data yield the relations F0(E > Elow) ~ 10^{-12} cm^3 s^{-1} · EM and Elow - 10 keV ~ 10 T (T in MK), together with Enonth ~ Uth, from which an effective acceleration rate u_acc ≈ 5 × 10^{-3} s^{-1} is inferred.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed energy equipartition and the derived acceleration probability both rest on a single fixed source volume estimated from one low-lying loop and UV kernel sizes; if that volume is substantially wrong or changes with time, the numbers shift by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early-phase acceleration efficiency can be read directly from observed emission measure and temperature once the source volume is known.
  • Chromospheric evaporation is not merely a passive response; it can modulate the acceleration rate while the plasma is still nearly collisionless.
  • Confined C-class flares with simple active-region topology become useful laboratories for isolating the initial reconnection and acceleration stage.
  • Quasi-periodic pulsations with decreasing period are consistent with successive reconnection episodes paced by slow magnetoacoustic waves rather than standing loop oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same early-phase coupling appears in many microflares, acceleration models that assume a fully developed warm target from the outset will need revision for the first tens of seconds.
  • Guide-field reconnection in low-lying sheared loops may systematically yield lower acceleration efficiency than classical anti-parallel geometries, a prediction that can be checked against larger eruptive events.
  • Higher-cadence microwave imaging could turn the observed centroid motion into a direct map of successive reconnection sites along the polarity inversion line.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength analysis of the impulsive confined C2.8 flare SOL2023-03-19T02:12, combining SOLARSPEL and NoRP microwave spectra, SRH imaging, Fermi/GBM and STIX/HXI X-ray data, SDO/AIA–HMI, and NLFFF extrapolations. The central claims are: (i) during the early impulsive phase, prior to the HXR peak and before chromospheric evaporation is fully developed, the thermal plasma and nonthermal electrons are directly coupled under nearly collisionless conditions, with empirical relations F0(E>Elow)∼10^{-12} cm^3 s^{-1}·EM and Elow−10 keV∼10 T (T in MK), and Enonth∼Uth, from which an acceleration efficiency ν_acc≈γn∼5×10^{-3} s^{-1} is inferred; (ii) reconnection occurred in low-lying sheared loops near the PIL in guide-field current sheets; (iii) non-stationary QPPs (period decreasing from ~15 to ~9 s) mark successive reconnection episodes, possibly modulated by slow magnetoacoustic waves.

Significance. If the early-phase coupling relations and the acceleration-efficiency estimate hold, the work supplies rare, quantitative observational constraints on particle acceleration from a thermal parent population before large-scale hydrodynamics dominate—constraints that are scarce for microflares and useful for testing acceleration models in guide-field reconnection. Strengths include multi-instrument cross-checks (MW–HXR consistency of F and δ, Neupert-like peaks, co-aligned sources), a stable three-component X-ray model with a resolved Elow, first science use of SOLARSPEL, and a careful NLFFF context for a morphologically simple AR. The QPP discussion is appropriately cautious. The result is of clear interest to the solar-flare community even if some geometric assumptions need tightening.

major comments (4)
  1. §5.1–5.2 and the energy formulas for Uth and Enonth: the equipartition claim Enonth∼Uth and the derived acceleration probability ν_acc τ≈0.25 rest on a fixed source volume V≈1.6×10^{26} cm^3 (with an ad-hoc ±75% band) taken from a single low-lying loop (l≈1.3–1.6×10^9 cm, S≈4.5×10^{17} cm^2 from UV kernels). The SRH source is unresolved at all frequencies (§3.2–3.3), and the NLFFF reconstruction shows a multi-loop system with different lengths and Bmin (Fig. 11). If the true emitting volume is larger by a factor of a few, or evolves, n∝V^{-1/2}, ν_acc=γn, and the Enonth–Uth comparison all shift by the same factor. The F–EM correlation itself is more robust (largely volume-independent in the thick-target fits), but the physical interpretation of γ as an acceleration rate per unit volume and the quantitative efficiency claim are not. Please either (a) provide independent volume constraints
  2. §5.2 and §6.2: the coefficient γ=10^{-12} cm^3 s^{-1} is obtained from a linear fit of lg F vs lg EM over a short early interval (19 points for the steeper relation). The conversion F∼γ n^2 S L → ν_acc=γ n assumes a single cylindrical loop of fixed length and area and that the thick-target F is the same population that fills that volume. Given the multi-loop topology and the moving MW centroid (§3.3), this geometric scaffolding should be stated as an assumption and tested against alternative geometries (e.g., several loops sharing the emission measure). Without that, the claim that “roughly one quarter of the electrons belonging to the hot parent population could participate in the acceleration process” is over-precise.
  3. §5.1, gyrosynchrotron fit: B is fixed at 650 G from NLFFF, Elow at 45 keV and δ at 5 from HXR, and the source area from UV kernels. The resulting F(E>Elow)≈5×10^{33} s^{-1} is then compared with the HXR value 8.5×10^{33} s^{-1} as mutual consistency. That is useful cross-calibration, but the free parameters of the MW model are then largely the nonthermal density and viewing angle. Please show (or tabulate) the sensitivity of the MW-derived nb and F to reasonable ranges of B (e.g. 500–700 G from Fig. 11), source area, and δ, so that the claimed consistency is not driven by the fixed inputs.
  4. §6.3: the QPP interpretation as successive reconnection episodes is reasonable and the exclusion of several single-loop MHD and coalescence mechanisms is carefully done. However, the preferred candidates (oscillatory reconnection; slow-wave modulation of reconnection) remain qualitative: the Karampelas et al. period formula only matches after lowering B and n well below the flare-loop values, and the slow-wave scenario is not tested against the observed period decrease or the MW centroid motion. Either add a quantitative test (e.g., predicted period evolution with measured T(t) and loop length) or state more clearly that no unique mechanism is identified and that the QPP section is exploratory.
minor comments (7)
  1. Fig. 1 caption and text: GOES is referred to as GOES-16/XRS in the text and Table 2, but panel (a) is labelled GOES-18/EXIS; please reconcile.
  2. §2: SOLARSPEL cadence is given as ≈1 s and 0.96 s in different places; standardize.
  3. Fig. 12 and §5.1: the three-component X-ray model is well motivated, but the line-component parameters (Tl, EMl) are shown in Fig. 13 yet explicitly not used; consider moving them to a supplement or stating more briefly why they are retained in the fit.
  4. §3.1 and Fig. 2: wavelet periods are quoted as 15.2±1.3 s etc.; please state how the uncertainty is obtained (e.g. half-width of the global wavelet peak).
  5. §4: the NLFFF domain (160×150×100 cells at 1.2 Mm) and the pre-flare magnetogram time are given; a short note on force-free metrics (e.g. residual Lorentz force or divergence) would help the reader assess the reliability of the low-lying sheared loops used later.
  6. Throughout: occasional typographical issues (e.g. “OBSER V ATIONS”, “W A VELENGTH”, “Alfvйn”, “L¨ orinˇ c ´ ık”) and mixed en-dashes/hyphens; a careful copy-edit pass is needed.
  7. Abstract and §7: the phrase “some simple relationships about electron acceleration process” is vague; replace with the explicit F–EM and Elow–T relations once the volume caveats are addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Empirical F–EM and Elow–T correlations from independent X-ray spectral time series; geometric volume is an external assumption used for interpretation, not a circular reduction of the central claim.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results are empirical correlations extracted by fitting independent Fermi/GBM X-ray spectra (thermal continuum + thick-target nonthermal) over the early impulsive phase: lg F35 ≈ (0.69–0.86) lg EM49 + const and Elow ≈ 9.5 T + 13.7 (with Pearson 0.76). These are direct data products, not identities forced by normalization or by construction from the same free parameters. The coefficient γ = 10^{-12} cm^{3} s^{-1} is simply the slope of that fit, rewritten as F ∼ γ EM and then interpreted as an acceleration rate per unit volume; the subsequent ν_acc = γ n and acceleration probability are therefore interpretive, not circular. Source volume V ≈ 1.6 × 10^{26} cm^{3} (and the related loop area S) is taken from NLFFF loop lengths plus UV kernel sizes and is used consistently for n = √(EM/V), Uth, and the MW-to-HXR flux conversion; because the SRH source is unresolved this V is an assumption whose uncertainty is openly stated (±75 %), but it is not derived from the F–EM relation itself. MW spectral modelling fixes B, δ and Elow from NLFFF/HXR and recovers a consistent F only within geometric uncertainties—a cross-check, not a forced prediction. No uniqueness theorem, self-citation chain, or ansatz is load-bearing for the coupling claim. QPP period estimates are order-of-magnitude comparisons that fail to match standing modes and are left inconclusive. The analysis is therefore self-contained empirical work with standard geometric scaffolding; residual volume dependence affects quantitative efficiency numbers but does not render the reported correlations circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard solar-flare spectral models and a handful of geometric/physical choices (volume, fixed B, homogeneous GS source, thick-target, early-phase collisionless regime). No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters that move the energy and efficiency numbers are mainly V, loop cross-section, and fixed spectral anchors; axioms are domain-standard plus a few ad-hoc modeling choices for the early phase.

free parameters (5)
  • Source volume V = 1.6e26 cm^3 (±75%)
    Fixed at ≈1.6×10^{26} cm^3 from loop length × UV kernel area; ±75% band chosen by hand. Directly scales Uth and the Enonth∼Uth comparison.
  • Gyrosynchrotron B and geometry = B=650 G; S≈4.5e17 cm^2
    B fixed at 650 G from NLFFF loop-top; projected area S≈4.5×10^{17} cm^2 from Loop 3 length and UV kernels. Anchors nb and F consistency with HXR.
  • Acceleration coefficient γ = 1e-12 cm^3 s^{-1}
    Read from linear fit F0 ∼ γ EM over the early shaded interval; γ=10^{-12} cm^3 s^{-1} is the fitted scale used for ν_acc=γn.
  • Three-component X-ray model parameters = δ≈5.0±0.4; Elow≈30–52 keV; T≈25–40 MK
    Tc, EMc, Tl, EMl, F(E>Elow), δ, Elow free per time bin in OSPEX; continuum thermal component chosen as the physically primary one by authors.
  • Chromospheric density n_ch for evaporation speed = 1e10–1e11 cm^{-3}
    Assumed 10^{10}–10^{11} cm^{-3} to bound v_ch≈7.5–75 km/s; not measured in this event.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Thick-target bremsstrahlung for HXR footpoint sources with single power-law electrons above Elow.
    Standard solar-flare spectral model; motivated by paired HXR footpoints (§5.1).
  • domain assumption NLFFF extrapolation from pre-flare HMI vector magnetogram represents the coronal field hosting the flare loops.
    Used throughout §4–6 for loop lengths, Bmin, shear, and guide-field inference; force-free assumption may be imperfect near PIL currents.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous gyrosynchrotron source for the high-frequency (>6 GHz) MW component.
    §5.1; low-frequency component deliberately not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Early impulsive phase is weakly collisional (λ_mfp ≳ L) so observed spectrum is close to the acceleration spectrum.
    Key to interpreting F–EM and Elow–T as acceleration physics rather than transport (§6.2); estimated at peak, not continuously verified.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant source volume during the impulsive phase for Uth(t).
    Justified by confined morphology and lack of ribbon separation (§5.2); still a strong simplification.
  • standard math Standard error propagation, CLEAN imaging, and red-noise wavelet significance for QPPs.
    §2 methods for SOLARSPEL calibration, SRH imaging, Torrence–Compo wavelets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron Acceleration and Plasma Heating in an Impulsive Confined C-class Solar Flare." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URCIE36R

@misc{pith2026260710048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron Acceleration and Plasma Heating in an Impulsive Confined C-class Solar Flare},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URCIE36R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10048}
}
read the original abstract

A detailed analysis of the impulsive C2.8 solar flare SOL2023-03-19T02:12 is presented, focusing on the microwave (MW) and X-ray domains. The flare was selected because of its impulsive nature, the relatively simple magnetic morphology of its parent active region (AR) NOAA 13256, its confined evolution, its moderate intensity, pronounced non-stationary temporal behaviour, and the availability of a unique multi-wavelength dataset. This dataset includes MW spectral observations in the frequency range 2.8-12 GHz obtained with the new Solar Radio Spectropolarimeter (SOLARSPEL), together with MW images from the Siberian Radioheliograph (SRH). The flare was also observed by two imaging X-ray telescopes, Solar Orbiter/STIX and ASO-S/HXI. Nonlinear force-free field extrapolations are used to reconstruct the three-dimensional magnetic configuration of the AR. We present evidence for a direct coupling between the thermal plasma and the non-thermal electron population in the frame of collisionless plasma during the initial flare stage. Some simple relationships about electron acceleration process are presented and discussed. Analysis of the extrapolated magnetic field indicates that the flare onset was associated with a system of low-lying sheared magnetic loops located along the polarity inversion line (PIL). Given the confined nature of the event and the reconstructed magnetic configuration, we infer that magnetic reconnection most likely occurred within current sheets possessing a substantial guide-field component. The observed non-stationary QPPs in the non-thermal emission, with periods decreasing from approximately 15 to 9 s, are interpreted as signatures of a sequence of magnetic reconnection episodes occurring in different magnetic structures and triggered quasi-periodically by a process that remains uncertain, but which may involve propagating slow magnetoacoustic waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel (a) shows the SXR flux and its time derivative obtained from GOES-16/XRS ˚ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-wavelength observations of the C2.8 solar flare on 19 March 2023. Time profiles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of wavelet analysis of the temporal profiles of the flux time derivative in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dynamic spectra of the MW emission recorded by SOLARSPEL. The left panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MW spectra obtained with SOLARSPEL and NoRP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of the horizontal gradient of the radial photospheric magnetic field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Co-aligned UV, MW, and X-ray observations of the flare at its peak (02:14:55,UTC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the compact MW source during the impulsive phase of the flare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the compact MW source at 9 GHz during the impulsive phase. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Apparent displacement speed of the compact MW source at 11.4 GHz (cyan symbols, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the NLFFF extrapolation of the coronal magnetic field shown from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results of the NLFFF extrapolation visualized in GX Simulator for four representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of spectral fitting near the flare maximum. (a) The X-ray photon spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of the spectral fitting of the Fermi/GBM NaI-05 X-ray observations with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the parameters of the thermal plasma and the accelerated-electron pop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. T. Altyntsev , S. V. Lesovoi , et al., Solar-Terrestrial Physics 6 (2), 30 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    A. T. Altyntsev , N. S. Meshalkina , I. I. Myshyakov , et al., Solar Physics 292 (9), 137 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    A. T. Altyntsev , N. S. Meshalkina , R. A. Sych , and D. Y. Kolotkov , Astronomy & Astrophysics 663, A149 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Anfinogentov, srhsynth, https://iszf.irk.ru (2026)

    S. Anfinogentov, srhsynth, https://iszf.irk.ru (2026). Accessed: 2026-05-18

    2026

  5. [5]

    Artemyev and I

    A. Artemyev and I. Zimovets , 277 (2), 283 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    M. J. Aschwanden , Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition) (Praxis Publishing Ltd, 2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    M. J. Aschwanden , E. P. Kontar , and N. L. S. Jeffrey , 881 (1), 1 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    A. O. Benz, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 14 (1), 2 (2017)

    2017

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Biasiotti and S

    L. Biasiotti and S. L. Ivanovski , 300 (8), 121 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    V. M. Bogod and L. V. Yasnov , Solar Physics 255 (2), 253 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Chen , C

    B. Chen , C. Shen , D. E. Gary , et al., Nature Astronomy 4, 1140 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    G. A. Dulk , 23, 169 (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    R. L. Edgar and S. R \'e gnier , 532 (1), 755 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. G. Emslie , Astrophys. Lett. 22, 41 (1981)

    1981

  7. [15]

    Fedenev, srhimages, https://git.iszf.irk.ru/fedenev/srhimages (2026)

    V. Fedenev, srhimages, https://git.iszf.irk.ru/fedenev/srhimages (2026). Accessed: 2026-05-18

    2026

  8. [16]

    G. H. Fisher , 346, 1019 (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    G. D. Fleishman and A. A. Kuznetsov , The Astrophysical Journal 721 (2), 1127 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    P. C. Grigis and A. O. Benz , 625 (2), L143 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    I. G. Hannah , H. S. Hudson , M. Battaglia , et al., Space Science Reviews 159, 263 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    L. A. Hayes , A. R. Inglis , S. Christe , et al., 895 (1), 50 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Huang , Z

    L. Huang , Z. Qi , S. Shi , et al., Atmosphere 16 (2), 154 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    G. J. Hurford , R. B. Read , and H. Zirin , Solar Physics 94 (2), 413 (1984)

    1984

  15. [23]

    A. R. Inglis and B. R. Dennis , 748 (2), 139 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    S. A. Kaplan and V. N. Tsytovich , Plasma astrophysics (Pergamon Press, 1973)

    1973

  17. [25]

    Karampelas , J

    K. Karampelas , J. A. McLaughlin , G. J. J. Botha , and S. R \'e gnier , 933 (2), 142 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Karampelas , J

    K. Karampelas , J. A. McLaughlin , G. J. J. Botha , and S. R \'e gnier , 943 (2), 131 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    L. K. Kashapova , D. Y. Kolotkov , E. G. Kupriyanova , et al., 296 (12), 185 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    S. Kim , S. Masuda , K. Shibasaki , and S.-C. Bong , 65, S2 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    E. P. Kontar , 202 (1), 131 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    E. P. Kontar , N. L. S. Jeffrey , A. G. Emslie , and N. H. Bian , 809 (1), 35 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Koynash , I

    G. Koynash , I. Sharykin , I. Zimovets , et al., Modern astronomy: from the Early Universe to exoplanets and black holes 1, 108 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Krucker , G

    S. Krucker , G. J. Hurford , O. Grimm , and et al. , Astronomy & Astrophysics 642, A15 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Kupriyanova , D

    E. Kupriyanova , D. Kolotkov , V. Nakariakov , et al., Solar-Terrestrial Physics 6, 3 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    E. G. Kupriyanova , V. F. Melnikov , V. M. Nakariakov , and K. Shibasaki , Solar Physics 267, 329 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    S. A. Kuznetsov , I. V. Zimovets , V. F. Melnikov , and R. Wang , Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 57 (8), 1067 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    S. A. Kuznetsov , I. V. Zimovets , A. S. Morgachev , and A. B. Struminsky , 291 (11), 3385 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Ledentsov , 296 (4), 74 (2021 a )

    L. Ledentsov , 296 (4), 74 (2021 a )

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ledentsov , 296 (8), 117 (2021 b )

    L. Ledentsov , 296 (8), 117 (2021 b )

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. R. Lemen , A. M. Title , D. J. Akin , and et al. , Solar Physics 275 (1-2), 17 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Li , 542 (1), L48 (2025)

    D. Li , 542 (1), L48 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    D. Li , Z. Hong , Z. Hou , and Y. Su , 970 (1), 77 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    D. Li , Y. Li , L. Lu , et al., 893 (1), L17 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    T. Li , X. Duan , Y. Hou , et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2606.27641 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Li and J

    T. Li and J. Zhang , 804 (1), L8 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    L \"o rin c \' k , H

    J. L \"o rin c \' k , H. Collier , V. Polito , et al., 1003 (1), 95 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    J. L. Machol , S. M. Codrescu , R. Viereck , and et al. , in The GOES-R Series, pp. 233--242 (Elsevier, 2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    J. A. McLaughlin , V. M. Nakariakov , M. Dominique , et al., Space Sci. Rev. 214 (1), 45 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Meegan , G

    C. Meegan , G. Lichti , P. N. Bhat , and et al. , The Astrophysical Journal 702 (1), 791 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    D. B. Melrose and G. A. Dulk , The Astrophysical Journal 259, 844 (1982)

    1982

  42. [50]

    Miteva , S

    R. Miteva , S. W. Samwel , and S. Tkatchova , Astronomy 2 (3), 165 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    M. J. Murray , L. van Driel-Gesztelyi , and D. Baker , 494 (1), 329 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    V. M. Nakariakov , S. Anfinogentov , A. Storozhenko , et al., The Astrophysical Journal 859, 154 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    V. M. Nakariakov , S. A. Anfinogentov , P. Antolin , et al., Space Sci. Rev. 217 (6), 73 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    V. M. Nakariakov , C. Foullon , I. N. Myagkova , and A. R. Inglis , 708 (1), L47 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    V. M. Nakariakov , C. Foullon , E. Verwichte , and N. P. Young , 452 (1), 343 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    V. M. Nakariakov , D. Y. Kolotkov , E. G. Kupriyanova , et al., Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61 (1), 014024 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    V. M. Nakariakov and V. F. Melnikov , Space Science Reviews 149 (1-4), 119 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    V. M. Nakariakov and I. V. Zimovets , 730 (2), L27 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Nechaeva , I

    A. Nechaeva , I. V. Zimovets , V. M. Nakariakov , and C. R. Goddard , 241 (2), 31 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    W. M. Neupert , The Astrophysical Journal 153, L59 (1968)

    1968

  53. [61]

    G. M. Nita , D. E. Gary , Z. Liu , et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 221, 4 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Pariat , S

    E. Pariat , S. K. Antiochos , and C. R. DeVore , The Astrophysical Journal 691 (1), 61 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Petrosian and Q

    V. Petrosian and Q. Chen , 712 (2), L131 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    A. I. Podgorny and I. M. Podgorny , Advances in Space Research 40 (12), 1801 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    E. R. Priest and T. G. Forbes , 10 (4), 313 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    C. E. Pugh , V. M. Nakariakov , A.-M. Broomhall , et al., 608, A101 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Purkhart , H

    S. Purkhart , H. Collier , L. A. Hayes , et al., 698, A318 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Reale , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2602.03499 (2026)

    F. Reale , arXiv e-prints arXiv:2602.03499 (2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    Reva , S

    A. Reva , S. Shestov , I. Zimovets , et al., 290 (10), 2909 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Sakai and C

    J.-I. Sakai and C. de Jager, Space Science Reviews 77 (1-2), 1 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    P. H. Scherrer , J. Schou , R. I. Bush , et al., 275 (1-2), 207 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    Schou , P

    J. Schou , P. H. Scherrer , R. I. Bush , and et al. , Solar Physics 275 (1-2), 229 (2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    Sharykin and S

    I. Sharykin and S. Liu , in 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, vol. 40, pp. D2.5--0085--14 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    I. N. Sharykin , A. B. Struminskii , and I. V. Zimovets , Astronomy Letters 41 (1-2), 53 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    Smith , M

    C. Smith , M. Gordovskyy , and P. K. Browning , 511 (2), 2880 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    A. A. Solov'ev , Astronomy Reports 69 (7), 622 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Stewart , P

    J. Stewart , P. K. Browning , and M. Gordovskyy , 513 (4), 5224 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Stewart , P

    J. Stewart , P. K. Browning , and M. Gordovskyy , 544 (2), 2296 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    L. Sui , G. D. Holman , and B. R. Dennis , 670 (1), 862 (2007)

    2007

  72. [80]

    Szaforz , T

    \.Z . Szaforz , T. Mrozek , and M. Tomczak , 694, A251 (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    Tajima, J

    T. Tajima, J. Sakai, H. Nakajima, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 321, 1031 (1987)

    1987

  74. [82]

    Torrence and G

    C. Torrence and G. P. Compo , Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (1), 61 (1998)

    1998

  75. [83]

    A. M. Veronig and J. C. Brown , 603 (2), L117 (2004)

    2004

  76. [84]

    Wang , L

    Y. Wang , L. Ni , G. Cheng , et al., 987 (2), 148 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    M. S. Wheatland , P. A. Sturrock , and G. Roumeliotis , The Astrophysical Journal 540, 1150 (2000)

    2000

  78. [86]

    S. M. White , G. Thejappa , and M. R. Kundu , Solar Physics 138, 163 (1992)

    1992

  79. [87]

    Xiong , T

    B. Xiong , T. Wang , X. Li , and Y. Yin , 366 (1), 1 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Yashiro , N

    S. Yashiro , N. Gopalswamy , G. Michalek , and et al. , Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 109 (A7), A07105 (2004)

    2004

  81. [89]

    V. V. Zaitsev and A. V. Stepanov , Physics-Uspekhi 51 (11), 1123 (2008). (Успехи физ. наук. Т. 178, No 11. С. 1165–1204)

    2008

  82. [90]

    Zhang , D.-H

    Z. Zhang , D.-H. Chen , Y. Su , and et al. , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 19 (11), 160 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    V. V. Zharkova and M. Gordovskyy , 432 (3), 1033 (2005)

    2005

  84. [92]

    V. V. Zheleznyakov , Radio Emission of the Sun and Planets (Pergamon Press, 1970)

    1970

  85. [93]

    Zimovets , I

    I. Zimovets , I. Sharykin , and I. Myshyakov , 296 (12), 188 (2021 a )

    2021

  86. [94]

    I. V. Zimovets , J. A. McLaughlin , A. K. Srivastava , et al., Space Science Reviews 217, 66 (2021 b )

    2021

  87. [95]

    I. V. Zimovets , B. A. Nizamov , I. N. Sharykin , and W. Q. Gan , Cosmic Research 63 (5), 476 (2025)

    2025

  88. [96]

    I. V. Zimovets , I. N. Sharykin , T. I. Kaltman , et al., Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 63 (5), 513 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    I. V. Zimovets and A. B. Struminsky , 258 (1), 69 (2009)

    2009

  90. [98]

    I. V. Zimovets , R. Wang , Y. D. Liu , et al., Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 174, 17 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    Zirin , B

    H. Zirin , B. M. Baumert , and G. J. Hurford , 370, 779 (1991)

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.