Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

On the Role of Chapman's Hydrostatic Solar Wind Mechanism in Parker's Hydrodynamic Solar Wind Model

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

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

Pith's one-line read The action of solar gravity in Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model is geometrically equivalent to a renormalization of the actual wind channel area, with the renormalization factor being exactly Chapman's hydrostatic radial density…

desk verdict A correct but definitional identity is dressed up as a physical discovery; the paper is a useful pedagogical note but the central claim does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02731 v3 pith:3IYNJ6BD submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Bhimsen Shivamoggi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindChapmanhydrostaticmodelParkerdeLavalnozzlerenormalizationsoniccriticalpointpolytropicspacedimension
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 addresses a longstanding puzzle: Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model reduces to Chapman's hydrostatic corona only near the coronal base, yet numerically the two density profiles nearly coincide across the whole subcritical region. It argues that this is not an accident. Using the de Laval nozzle analogy, the paper shows that the gravity term in Parker's equations can be absorbed by redefining the wind channel area, and the required multiplicative factor is precisely Chapman's hydrostatic density profile $\rho_h/\rho_0$ (Eq. 17). In that sense Chapman's hydrostatic mechanism is globally operative inside Parker's hydrodynamic model, with solar gravity being encapsulated by Chapman's profile. The paper confirms the same identity for polytropic gases and for one-, two-, and three-dimensional underlying spaces.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the effective de Laval nozzle area $\mathcal{A}(r)$, defined by the ansatz (Eq. 6) that the gravity term in Parker's momentum equation can be excised and absorbed into a renormalized stream-tube area. For the isothermal wind this gives $\mathcal{A}(r)=A(r)e^{\frac{2r_*}{r_0}(\frac{r_0}{r}-1)}$, equal to $A(r)\,\rho_h/\rho_0$. The identity transforms a dynamical force, gravity, into a geometric quantity, the nozzle area, and yields $\mathcal{A}'(r)\lessgtr 0$ for $r\lessgtr r_*$, so the effective nozzle has its minimum exactly at the sonic critical point, the hallmark of de Laval flow. For the polytropic case the same construction uses the Mach-number-dependent sound speed to build a 'polytropic Chapman hydrostatic profile' (Eq. 40), and in n dimensions the same factor $\rho_h/\rho_0$ appears for all n.

What would settle it

Compute the density profile of Parker's full steady hydrodynamic solution in the supersonic region $r>r_*$ and check whether the ratio of the effective nozzle area to the actual area, $\mathcal{A}(r)/A(r)$, is still $\rho_h/\rho_0$ there; the paper's global claim would fail if the Chapman factor ceases to describe the gravity renormalization beyond the sonic point. In the polytropic case, solve the true hydrostatic equation with $p_h=C\rho_h^\gamma$ and compare with Eq. (40); any substantial difference in the subcritical region would falsify the claim that the polytropic Chapman profile is the renormalization factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the identity $\mathcal{A}(r)=A(r)\,\rho_h(r)/\rho_0$, where $A(r)=4\pi r^2$ is the actual flow-tube area of the spherically symmetric wind and $\rho_h(r)=\rho_0\exp[\frac{2r_*}{r_0}(\frac{r_0}{r}-1)]$ is Chapman's hydrostatic density profile with $r_* = GM_s/2a^2$ the Parker sonic critical point. Starting from Parker's steady isothermal equations, the paper defines the effective de Laval nozzle area $\mathcal{A}$ by demanding that the nozzle equation have no explicit gravity term; integration with the boundary condition at the solar surface yields the closed form above. Since $\rho_h/\rho_0$ is built entirely from the hydrostatic force balance, the paper concludes that Chapman's hydrostatic mechanism continues to operate globally inside Parker's hydrodynamic model, not just near the coronal base, and that the same renormalization factor appears for polytropic winds and for n-dimensional underlying spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on choosing the effective nozzle area so that it exactly absorbs the gravity term, which makes the appearance of Chapman's density profile a consequence of that choice rather than an independent physical result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The effective de Laval nozzle associated with Parker's model has a minimum cross-section exactly at the Parker sonic critical point $r=r_*$, confirming the internal consistency of the nozzle analogy.
  • The density profiles of Chapman's hydrostatic model and Parker's hydrodynamic model are almost identical over the entire subcritical region $r\le r_*$, not just near the coronal base.
  • The renormalization-factor identity (17) also holds for a polytropic gas, with the multiplicative factor given by the polytropic Chapman hydrostatic profile, so the global role of Chapman's mechanism survives non-isothermal effects.
  • In an n-dimensional space, the same Chapman density factor renormalizes the n-dimensional sphere area for n=1,2,3; for n=1 the sonic critical point recedes to infinity and the effective nozzle is purely converging, matching Parker's subsonic result.
  • The renormalization factor being exactly the Chapman profile means solar gravity in Parker's model can be viewed as geometrically encapsulated by Chapman's hydrostatic mechanism on all length scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because $\mathcal{A}$ is defined to absorb the gravity term, Eq. (17) is an exact rearrangement of Parker's equation; the physical reading that Chapman's mechanism 'operates globally' therefore depends on how much explanatory weight one assigns to the effective-nozzle picture, which the paper does not independently test.
  • An extension the paper does not pursue: the construction only needs the body-force term to be expressible as $-2r_*/r^2$ times a known function of $r$, so stellar winds with magnetic or radiative forces admitting a similar form would also acquire a closed-form effective nozzle area.
  • The polytropic result suggests a sharper test than the paper gives: replacing the wind's sound speed in Eq. (40) with the true polytropic hydrostatic sound speed would show how much of the 'Chapman profile' claim is an artifact of using $a(r)$ from the wind solution; the two profiles coincide exactly only in the isothermal limit.
  • The dimension-independence of the Chapman factor implies that in a lower-dimensional effective geometry the same static corona profile would appear as the area renormalization, which could be relevant to models of winds in accretion disk coronae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model using the de Laval nozzle analogy. By defining an effective nozzle cross-sectional area whose logarithmic derivative absorbs the gravitational term (Eq. 6), the author shows that the renormalization factor relating the effective area to the actual area equals Chapman's hydrostatic density profile (Eq. 17). The result is extended to polytropic gases (Eq. 41) and to n-dimensional spaces (Eq. 49), and the author concludes that Chapman's hydrostatic solar wind mechanism continues to operate globally, not just near the coronal base, inside Parker's model.

Significance. The algebraic derivation in the isothermal case is correct, and the paper is clearly written. The explicit recognition of the de Laval analogy as an ansatz is a strength. However, the central physical claim—that the identity (17) demonstrates a global role for Chapman's hydrostatic mechanism—is not supported by the mathematics: the equality is forced by the definition of the effective area, and the polytropic extension uses a constructed profile that is not the true hydrostatic solution. The numerical agreement between the Parker and Chapman densities in the subcritical region is a real observational/calculational fact, but it is only cited, not derived in this paper. Thus the paper's novelty rests on an interpretation that is essentially circular.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (6)–(17)] The effective area A(r) is introduced in Eq. (6) precisely so that its logarithmic derivative equals the right-hand side of Eq. (4), which contains the gravity term. Integrating this defining relation with the boundary condition (7) yields Eq. (8), and Chapman's profile in Eq. (16) is independently the exponential of the same integral. Consequently, Eq. (17) is true by construction; it is a rearrangement of the definition of the auxiliary quantity A(r) and does not show that Parker's hydrodynamic solution satisfies hydrostatic balance at any radius. The conclusion in §3 that Chapman's mechanism 'continues to be operative on a global level' is therefore an interpretation, not a consequence of the equations, and the same construction would yield an analogous identity for any arbitrary function of r replacing the gravity term.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (37)–(41)] The polytropic extension repeats the same circularity. The hydrostatic balance equation (37) is combined with the sound-speed relation a^2 = dp/dρ to produce Eq. (38a). However, for a polytropic gas with p = C ρ^γ, the sound speed is a^2 = C γ ρ^(γ−1), so the true hydrostatic density obeys dρ_h/dr = −GMρ_h/(r^2 C γ ρ_h^(γ−1)), which is a nonlinear ODE for ρ_h. Instead, Eqs. (38b)–(40) substitute the wind's sound speed a(r) from Eq. (21) as an externally prescribed function of r, so the resulting ρ_h is not the actual hydrostatic solution for γ ≠ 1. Thus Eq. (41) is not an independent verification of the isothermal result, and the claimed robustness of the conclusion in the polytropic case is not established.
  3. [§5, Eqs. (42)–(49)] The n-dimensional extension is a straightforward generalization of the isothermal calculation, and the same issue persists: the effective area A_n is defined by Eq. (45) to absorb the gravity term, and Eq. (47) follows by construction. The statement that Eq. (49) shows Chapman's mechanism 'continues to be operative on a global level' for n = 1, 2, 3 has the same status as in the isothermal case—it is a formal identity, not evidence of hydrostatic force balance in the wind. The paper does not provide an independent physical argument connecting the formal renormalization factor to the actual force balance in Parker's solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eq. (46)] The notation A_n is used both for the actual area and the effective area, which is confusing (e.g., the boundary condition is written as r = r_o : A_n = A_n). Using a distinct symbol, such as A_n^eff, would clarify the logic in Eqs. (45)–(49).
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'enormalization' should be 'renormalization'.
  3. [References] Reference [20] is an arXiv preprint (arXiv:2407.06122); if a peer-reviewed version exists, citing it would strengthen the manuscript.
  4. [§1 and §6] The phrase 'appears to be traceable' in the abstract and the tentative wording in the introduction are at odds with the more definitive statements in the Discussion; the conclusions should be restated to match the actual logical status of the results.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Eq. (17) is a definitional identity: the effective nozzle area is defined to absorb the gravity term, and the polytropic 'Chapman profile' is a constructed integral of the wind sound speed, so the central claim reduces to its own ansatz.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eqs. (6)-(8), (14)-(17).]
    "1/V_r (V_r^2/a^2 −1) dV_r/dr = (1/A dA/dr − 2r*/r^2) ≡ 1/\bar A d\bar A/dr. ... equation (6) may be viewed as an ansatz to effectively excise solar gravity out of Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model. ... Using (16), (8) may be rewritten as, \bar A(r)=A(r)(ρ_h(r)/ρ0). (17)"

    The effective area \bar A is introduced in Eq. (6) by setting its logarithmic derivative equal to the combination (1/A)dA/dr − 2r*/r^2. Integrating with the boundary condition \bar A(r0)=A(r0) yields \bar A/A = exp(∫ 2r*/r^2 dr). Chapman's hydrostatic profile (16) is, independently, the exponential of exactly the same integral of 2r*/r^2 obtained from Eq. (14). Hence Eq. (17), \bar A/A = ρ_h/ρ0, is an unpacking of the defining ansatz, not a derived property of Parker's solution. If the gravity term 2r*/r^2 were replaced by any other function f(r), the same construction would give \bar A/A = exp(∫ f dr); calling that factor a 'Chapman profile' would make the equality equally automatic. Thus the claim that Chapman's mechanism is globally operative in Parker's model does not follow from Eq.

  2. self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (37)-(41).]
    "On using (19), equation (37) leads to, 1/ρ_h dρ_h/dr = −1/r^2 (GM_s/a^2). ... using (21)-(23), we obtain, 1/ρ_h dρ_h/dr = −2/r^2 r*0 [(1+αM^2)/(1+4αr*0/r)]. ... Using (40), (29) may be rewritten as, \bar A(r)=A(r)(ρ_h(r)/ρ0). (41)"

    For a polytropic gas, a^2 = dp/dρ = Cγρ^{γ−1}, so the true hydrostatic density obeys dρ_h/dr = −GM_s ρ_h/(Cγ r^2 ρ_h^{γ−1}) = −GM_s ρ_h^{2−γ}/(Cγ r^2). Eq. (38a) instead inserts the wind's sound speed a^2(r) from Eq. (21), which depends on the wind Mach number M and r, into the hydrostatic balance, producing a constructed 'polytropic Chapman profile' (40) that is not the solution of the hydrostatic equation for the polytropic gas. Since both \bar A in Eq. (29) and ρ_h in Eq. (40) are exponentials of the same integral of the same wind-dependent expression, Eq. (41) is an identity by construction. It therefore cannot demonstrate that Chapman's hydrostatic mechanism remains operative in the polytropic case for γ≠1.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (42)-(49).]
    "equations (42) and (45) lead to \bar A_n(r)=A_n(r)e^{2r*/r0(r0/r −1)} (47). ... Using (48), (47) becomes \bar A_n(r)=A_n(r)(ρ_h(r)/ρ0) (49)."

    The same definitional construction is repeated for n dimensions: the effective area \bar A_n is defined by absorbing the identical gravity term 2r*/r^2, so its ratio to A_n is again exp(∫ 2r*/r^2 dr). Chapman's hydrostatic density (48) is the same exponential independent of n. Therefore Eq. (49) is again an identity following from the definition of \bar A_n, and it adds no independent evidence that Chapman's mechanism acts globally in Parker's n-dimensional model.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the action of solar gravity in Parker's model is geometrically equivalent to a renormalization of the wind channel area by exactly Chapman's hydrostatic density profile, is established by Eq. (17). But Eq. (17) is true by construction: the effective nozzle area is introduced in Eq. (6) precisely to absorb the gravitational term, and Chapman's profile is independently the exponential of that same term. The polytropic and n-dimensional extensions repeat the same definitional identity, with the polytropic case additionally substituting the wind's sound speed into the hydrostatic equation to manufacture a 'polytropic Chapman profile' that is not the actual hydrostatic solution. The external numerical result of Lamers and Cassinelli [5], that Parker and Chapman density profiles are close in the subcritical region, is real independent support, and the paper's self-citations to Shivamoggi and Pohl [20] are not the main issue. However, because the load-bearing derivation reduces to unpacking the defining ansatz rather than to a property of Parker's solution, the central conclusion is forced by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central result rests on two constructs: the effective nozzle area A (which is defined to absorb gravity) and, in the polytropic case, a 'Chapman profile' rho_h that is defined to be the exponential of the same integral. The isothermal equality (17) therefore follows by construction, and the polytropic equality (41) is an explicit identity. The steady spherical ideal-gas model and the cited polytropic sound-speed relation are additional inputs that the paper does not re-derive.

free parameters (1)
  • Constructed polytropic Chapman hydrostatic profile rho_h(r) = Defined as the exponential integral in Eq. (40); no independent determination
    In Section 4, the hydrostatic profile is not obtained by solving Eq. (37) with the polytropic equation of state. Instead, the wind's sound speed a(r) from Eq. (21) is inserted into the hydrostatic balance formula, and the result is integrated. This ad hoc construction guarantees that Eq. (41) holds by definition, so it functions as a free input rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Steady, spherically symmetric, shock-free flow of an ideal gas (Parker 1958).
    Invoked in Section 2 before Eqs. (1)-(3); all subsequent algebra depends on these symmetry and continuity assumptions.
  • domain assumption Pressure is nearly isotropic because the collision mean free path is small compared with the coronal scale height, and the plasma is described as a perfect gas p = a^2 rho.
    Used in Section 2, Eq. (3), and in the hydrostatic balance Eq. (14). This is the standard solar wind approximation, but it is an assumption about the plasma.
  • ad hoc to paper The de Laval nozzle representation is a valid ansatz: the gravity term can be absorbed into an effective area A defined by Eq. (6).
    This is the central construct of the paper. The physical interpretation of A as a 'nozzle' is not derived from the equations; it is imposed to generate the geometric analogy.
  • domain assumption In the polytropic case, the total energy is conserved and the sound speed relation (21) of Shivamoggi and Pohl (2024) holds.
    Equations (20)-(21) are assumed from prior work. The paper uses this relation to build the polytropic hydrostatic profile (40) and the area renormalization (29).
  • ad hoc to paper The constructed function rho_h in Eq. (40) is labeled Chapman's hydrostatic density profile in the polytropic case.
    The label asserts continuity with Chapman's 1957 isothermal profile, but the polytropic function is not a solution of the polytropic hydrostatic equilibrium equation; it is defined through the wind's sound speed.
invented entities (2)
  • Effective de Laval nozzle cross-sectional area A(r)
    purpose: A fictitious geometric area used to absorb the solar gravity term in the momentum equation so that the flow acceleration can be described by the usual nozzle equation.
    Introduced in Eq. (6) and computed in Eqs. (8) and (29). It has no physical counterpart in the solar wind; it is a bookkeeping device. The paper itself calls the construction an ansatz.
  • Polytropic Chapman hydrostatic density profile rho_h(r)
    purpose: To extend the isothermal result (17) to polytropic winds by providing a factor that matches the area renormalization in Eq. (29).
    Defined in Eq. (40) using the wind's sound speed a(r) rather than the polytropic hydrostatic equation. The profile is not the actual hydrostatic equilibrium solution and is constructed to make Eq. (41) an identity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Role of Chapman's Hydrostatic Solar Wind Mechanism in Parker's Hydrodynamic Solar Wind Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IYNJ6BD

@misc{pith2026250102731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Role of Chapman's Hydrostatic Solar Wind Mechanism in Parker's Hydrodynamic Solar Wind Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IYNJ6BD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02731}
}
read the original abstract

The role of Chapman's hydrostatic solar wind mechanism (resulting from a hydrostatic force balance condition) in Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model is investigated by invoking the de Laval nozzle analogy for the production of flow acceleration in the latter model. The action of solar gravity in Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model is shown to be geometrically equivalent to a enormalization of the actual wind channel area and the renormalization factor is exactly Chapman's hydrostatic radial density profile, which is totally predicated on the hydrostatic force balance condition. This result appears to be traceable to the encapsulation of the solar gravity effects in Parker's hydrodynamic solar wind model by Chapman's hydrostatic solar wind mechanism, even beyond the coronal base. Furthermore, this result is shown to be robust by considering both isothermal gas and polytropic gas models as well as an n-dimensional (n= 1, 2, 3) underlying space for the solar wind.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meyer-Vernet,Basics of the Solar Wind, Cambridge Univ

    N. Meyer-Vernet,Basics of the Solar Wind, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Sakao, et al.,Science318, 1585, (2007)

    T. Sakao, et al.,Science318, 1585, (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Dialynas, et al.,Nature Astronomy1, 115, (2017)

    K. Dialynas, et al.,Nature Astronomy1, 115, (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Chapman,Smithson

    S. Chapman,Smithson. Contrib. Astrophys.2, 1, (1957). 11

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    Lamers and J.P

    H.J.G.L.M. Lamers and J.P. Cassinelli,Introduction to Stellar Winds, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Parker,Astrophys

    E.N. Parker,Astrophys. J.128, 664, (1958)

    work page 1958

  7. [7]

    Schrijver,Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity, Cambridge Univ

    C.J. Schrijver,Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Feldman, et al., inThe Solar Output and Its Variations, Ed

    W.C. Feldman, et al., inThe Solar Output and Its Variations, Ed. O.R. White, Colorado Assoc. Univ. Press, (1977)

    work page 1977

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Shivamoggi,American Scientist112, 108, (2024)

    B.K. Shivamoggi,American Scientist112, 108, (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Fisk and J.C

    L.A. Fisk and J.C. Kasper,Astrophys. J. Lett.894, L4, (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Bowen, et al.,Phys

    T.A. Bowen, et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 165101, (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Kasper, et al.,Nature576, 228, (2019)

    J.C. Kasper, et al.,Nature576, 228, (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Shivamoggi,Phys

    B.K. Shivamoggi,Phys. Plasmas27, 012902, (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    C. P. Brown, B. A. Maruca, V. Prabakaran, et al.,Geophys. Res. Lett.,52, e2025GL115186, (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    B. A. Maruca, R. A. Qudsi, B. L. Alterman, et at.,Astron. Astrophys.675, A196, (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Clauser, in4th Symposium on Cosmical Gas Dynamics, North–Holland, (1960)

    F.H. Clauser, in4th Symposium on Cosmical Gas Dynamics, North–Holland, (1960)

    1960

  9. [17]

    Parker, inThe Century of Space Science, Ed

    E.N. Parker, inThe Century of Space Science, Ed. J. A. Bleeker et al., Springer, (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    T. E. Holzer and W. I. Axford,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.8, 37, (1970)

    1970

  11. [19]

    Parker,Rev

    E.N. Parker,Rev. Geophys.9, 825, (1971)

    1971

  12. [20]

    Shivamoggi and L

    B.K. Shivamoggi and L. Pohl,arXiv: 2407.06122, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    E. N. Parker,Astrophys. J.132, 175, (1960)

    1960

  14. [22]

    Bellan,Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Cambridge Univ

    P.M. Bellan,Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Marsch, K

    E. Marsch, K. -H. Muhlhauser, R. Schwenn, et al.,J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys.87, 52, (1982)

    1982

  16. [24]

    Boldyrev, et al.,Proc

    S. Boldyrev, et al.,Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.618, 252, (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    T. E. Holzer, V. H. Hansteen and E. Leer, inCosmic winds and the Heliosphere, Ed. J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa, M. S. Matthews, A. S. Ruskin and M. L. Guerrieri, Univ. Arizona Press, (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    E. N. Parker, inSolar-Terrestrial Physics, Ed. J. W. King and W. S. Newman, Academic Press, (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    E. N. Parker,Astrophys. J.132, 821, (1960)

    1960

  20. [28]

    Holzer, inSolar System Plasma Physics, Ed

    T.E. Holzer, inSolar System Plasma Physics, Ed. C.F. Kennel, L.J. Lanzerotti, and E.N. Parker, North-Holland, (1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

    Bondi,Mon

    H. Bondi,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.112, 195, (1952). 12

    1952

Pith tools

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