Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A corotating solar wind stream observed close to the Sun accelerates faster than the energy lost by fluctuations can explain, implying that shear interaction with a neighboring fast stream supplies the missing momentum.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 01:20 UTC pith:72W23N4S

load-bearing objection Careful energy budget finds fluctuations can't explain a corotating stream's acceleration, but the deficit sits on an untested stationarity assumption and a post-hoc interval choice. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25829 v1 pith:72W23N4S submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Shear interaction and acceleration of a corotating stream detected by Parker Solar Probe

Andrea Verdini , Simone Landi , Emanuele Papini , Luca Franci , Petr Hellinger , Roberto Livi , Orlando Romeo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solar windcorotating streamParker Solar Probestream-stream shear interactionfluctuation energysolar wind accelerationMHD conservation lawsturbulent heating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

During Parker Solar Probe's tenth encounter, the spacecraft rode along with a slow solar wind stream while it accelerated from about 450 to 700 km/s between 25 and 50 solar radii. The paper asks whether turbulence and wave energy lost by fluctuations can account for this acceleration. Using conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy, the authors compute both the heating and the work that fluctuations deposit into the bulk flow. They find that the heating is marginally consistent with the observed non-adiabatic temperature rise, but the work is at least a factor of three too small to explain the measured acceleration. They conclude that the missing force comes from shear interaction with a nearby very fast stream, a two-dimensional effect, and they argue that signatures of such an interaction—density enhancement, bent magnetic field, tilted flow—are indeed present.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the radial acceleration of the corotating stream in the interval 31–40 solar radii cannot be accounted for by the energy and momentum exchange between the bulk flow and fluctuations along the radial direction. The authors evaluate the energy lost by fluctuations from the radial variation of conserved quantities (polar electric field, mass flux, angular momentum) using two complementary models of fluctuations—strict Alfvénic correlations and perpendicular fluctuations with decorrelation. The lost energy is almost equally partitioned into heating and work. The heating term is barely sufficient to match the non-adiabatic proton temperature profile, but the work ter

What carries the argument

The central tool is the stationary MHD conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy, applied to the mean flow and to fluctuations. Two model closures—one for perfectly correlated Alfvénic fluctuations and one for perpendicular fluctuations with decorrelation—convert measured rms amplitudes and mean-field gradients into estimates of the volumetric heating and the work done on the flow. A power-law fit to the velocity profile yields the measured acceleration; the momentum equation then compares it with the sum of gravitational, thermal, fluctuation, and torque terms. The conserved quantities (polar electric field, mass flux, angular momentum) serve as diagnostics for whether the strea

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the corotating stream is stationary over the ~30-hour encounter, so the spacecraft's inbound trajectory maps a fixed radial profile and the measured velocity increase is a genuine spatial acceleration rather than a temporal change in the source.

What would settle it

Measure the source outflow at the coronal hole footpoint (e.g., EUV spectroscopy or magnetograms) across the ~30-hour encounter: if the source speed or structure changed, the 'acceleration' could be a temporal evolution rather than spatial, and the conclusion that fluctuations are insufficient would lose its basis. Alternatively, run a two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation with the observed shear velocity profile and check whether it reproduces the measured acceleration without invoking fluctuation work; failure to do so would falsify the shear-dominance claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the conclusion holds, solar wind acceleration close to the Sun is not purely a radial, one-dimensional process; stream-stream interaction must be included in models of solar wind acceleration between 25 and 50 solar radii.
  • The measured heating from fluctuations is consistent with the non-adiabatic temperature profile, supporting the idea that turbulence deposits heat in this region, but the momentum deficit means heating-driven pressure gradients cannot be the dominant acceleration mechanism for slower streams.
  • The shear interaction region estimated at 5–10 solar radii is comparable to the stream length, suggesting that slower streams can be accelerated to fast-stream speeds by collisions with neighboring fast streams within a short distance.
  • The signatures of shear interaction—density enhancements and large-scale magnetic field deflections—should persist at larger distances as imprints of this process, potentially explaining the uniformity of solar wind streams observed near 0.3 AU.
  • The apparent tension with previous studies that found fluctuations sufficient may be resolved by noting that those studies mixed streams from different longitudes; when shorter corotating intervals are used, the fluctuation contribution is insufficient.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would be to search for the same stream on subsequent encounters or with a second spacecraft: if the stream's speed at a fixed distance changes over time, part of the measured 'acceleration' could be temporal evolution rather than spatial acceleration, and the momentum budget would need to be re-evaluated.
  • The paper's conclusion implies that one-dimensional solar wind models that treat a single flux tube are incomplete for streams embedded in shear; extended to multi-stream models, shear interaction could act as an additional momentum source that does not require anomalous wave pressure.
  • The same analysis applied to other corotation encounters could establish whether shear interaction is a general mechanism for slowing or accelerating streams near the Sun, and whether the estimated 5–10 solar radii interaction length scales with shear amplitude.
  • If shear interaction is the cause, then the acceleration efficiency should depend on the transverse velocity gradient; estimating the shear rate directly from the measured stream tilt angles and comparing it with the acceleration would provide a quantitative test.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes PSP Encounter 10 inbound data acquired during quasi-corotation. It identifies a corotating stream between about 31 and 40 R_sun using approximate conservation of the polar electric field, mass flux, and angular momentum. Using stationary, radial MHD conservation equations with Alfvénic and perpendicular fluctuation models, it estimates the volumetric heating and work done by fluctuations on the mean flow. It finds that heating from fluctuations is marginally consistent with the observed non-adiabatic proton temperature decrease, while a phenomenological turbulent-heating closure is an order of magnitude too small. It then evaluates the radial momentum balance (Eq. 13) and finds the sum of thermal, fluctuation, torque, and gravitational terms to be at least a factor of 3 smaller than the measured solar wind acceleration. The paper concludes that the acceleration cannot be explained by radial energy/momentum exchange with fluctuations and that shear interaction, i.e., (at least) two-dimensional dynamics, must be invoked.

Significance. If correct, the result would challenge the inference from larger-scale energy balances that fluctuation energy alone can account for solar wind acceleration in this distance range, and it would strengthen the case for shear interaction as a significant acceleration mechanism inside ~40 R_sun. The paper is careful in its data filtering, in deriving the fluctuation energy balance from standard conservation laws, and in presenting sensitivity tests. It also explicitly states the main limitation—time dependence of the mean field—and cites earlier work attributing switchback patches in the same encounter to temporal source variations. This transparency is a strength, but it also exposes the untested assumption on which the central claim rests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Sec. 6, Appendix A] The keystone assumption is stated at the start of Sec. 4: 'we assume mean fields are stationary and depend only on the radial coordinate, R.' The central quantitative quantity a_sw = V_R dV_R/dR in Eq. (13) is a spatial acceleration only under this assumption. During the ~30 h quasi-corotation, PSP is only approximately corotating (Sec. 3), and Sec. 6 admits 'Time dependence of mean field is more difficult to evaluate,' noting that switchback patches in this same encounter have been attributed to temporal source variations (Shi et al. 2020; Bale et al. 2021; Fargette et al. 2021) and that preliminary 1D simulations with sufficiently small input frequencies produce transient strong acceleration. If the source varies in time, the radial profiles mix space and time, the conservation laws in Appendix A do not apply, and the measured velocity increase may be a temporal evolution rather than a
  2. [Sec. 3, Sec. 5, Fig. 8] The interval [31,40] R_sun is selected in Sec. 3 because E_theta, Mdot, and L are approximately conserved there (Fig. 3b-d), and the same interval is then used in Sec. 4 to compute both a_sw and a_tot. This is a post-hoc selection made on the same data that are then used to test the hypothesis. The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 8 shows that the conclusion is strongly interval-dependent: while a_tot remains roughly constant (~2-3 m s^-2), a_sw increases by a factor of ~7 when the lower bound is changed. In the central panels, for R0 = 28 R_sun the total acceleration matches the measured acceleration, whereas for R0 = 31 R_sun the deficit is a factor of 3. The central claim therefore rests on a boundary chosen by the very same conservation properties that are valid only under the stationarity assumption. Please demonstrate that the deficit persists under an independent interval-selection ru
  3. [Sec. 6, Eq. (13)] The statement that '(at least) two-dimensional dynamics must come into play' is stronger than what follows from the analysis. Eq. (13) is a budget of selected radial terms; a deficit relative to that budget could also be due to omitted radial physics (e.g., compressible effects beyond the incompressible fluctuation model, small-scale gradients, or time-dependent terms) rather than uniquely to 2D shear. The manuscript itself notes that the increase of radial velocity fluctuations in the corotating stream suggests compressibility may play a role, but it does not quantify the effect on the factor-3 deficit. The competing radial explanations should either be tested quantitatively or the conclusion should be softened to state that the radial fluctuation/thermal terms considered are insufficient, rather than that 2D dynamics are required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] Typo: 'wethether' should be 'whether'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'Encouter' should be 'Encounter'; also 'bleu' should be 'blue'.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] Typo: 'corortaing' should be 'corotating'.
  4. [Appendix A] Typo: 'velocity filed' should be 'velocity field'.
  5. [Sec. 4] Please clarify which density is used in Eqs. (10)-(12) versus the QTN density used elsewhere. The text says Q_p is evaluated from SPAN-I proton density, while earlier equations use QTN electron density; this should be stated explicitly in the text and not only in the figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the acceleration deficit is an emergent comparison of independently measured profiles, not a fitted or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The central claim is that the measured solar wind acceleration a_sw is at least a factor 3 larger than the sum of modeled radial acceleration terms a_tot (Sec. 4, Fig. 7). This is not circular. a_sw is computed independently as V_R dV_R/dR from a power-law fit to the observed radial velocity profile ('a_sw = V_R dV_R/dR' and 'the solar wind acceleration ... will be measured estimating the derivative via power law fit on the wind speed'). The modeled terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (13) — gravity, thermal pressure gradients, fluctuation work, and the non-radial torque term — are obtained from separately measured density, temperature, magnetic field, and fluctuation-amplitude profiles, using conservation equations taken from Hollweg (1974). No parameter is fitted to make a_tot match a_sw; the factor-of-3 deficit emerges from the comparison of independent estimates. The interval [31,40] R_sun is selected using the approximate conservation of the Weber-Davis invariants E_theta, Mdot, and L, which are not the same quantity as a_sw or a_tot; selecting a range where the stationary, quasi-1D model is approximately valid is a precondition for applying the model rather than a way of manufacturing the deficit. The paper's own robustness analysis (Sec. 5, Fig. 8) shows a_tot remaining roughly constant while a_sw varies strongly with the chosen interval, which is the opposite behavior one would expect if the deficit were imposed by construction. The acknowledged stationarity limitation (Sec. 6: 'Time dependence of mean field is more difficult to evaluate') is a genuine physical assumption that, if false, would undermine the interpretation of the radial profile as a spatial acceleration; however, an untested assumption is a correctness risk, not circular reasoning. The self-citations (Landi et al. 2006, Hellinger et al. 2013, Montagud-Camps et al. 2018/2020) are used for background and for interpreting shear-interaction signatures; they are not load-bearing for the quantitative energy budget, which is derived from the data and from the non-self-cited Hollweg (1974) framework. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. It relies on standard MHD conservation laws plus several domain assumptions (stationarity, incompressibility, radial alignment). The free parameters are primarily power-law exponents fitted to the data and the choice of radial analysis interval; the latter is the most consequential for the central claim.

free parameters (6)
  • Power-law exponent C for radial wind speed V_R in the corotating interval = ≈ 0.7
    Fit to V_R(R) over [31,40] R⊙; used to compute the measured acceleration a_sw and the mass-flux gradient. The value varies with raw/filtered/mode (BSW) choices (Fig. 1).
  • Power-law exponents for fluctuation amplitudes ⟨b²⟩ and ⟨u²⟩ = not stated explicitly; generally decreasing with distance
    Radial derivatives of ⟨b²⟩ and ⟨u²⟩ enter the work and energy-flux terms (eqs. 5-8); derived from power-law fits to 1-hr averaged data.
  • Power-law exponents for density and radial magnetic field = c(ρ_e) = -0.8; c(B_R) = 0.2 (Fig. 3a)
    Used to construct the conserved mass flux and to evaluate the flux-tube area / expansion factor.
  • Proton and electron temperature power-law indices = c(T_p) = 1.0; c(T_e) = -0.3 (Fig. 4b)
    Enter the expected proton heating Q_p via eqs. (10)-(12); fitted to the same radial profiles.
  • Radial interval [31,40] R⊙ = n/a
    Chosen by hand based on approximate conservation of Eθ, Mdot, L (Fig. 3); the central deficit factor depends on this choice.
  • FOV coverage threshold (90%) and anomalous density cut = n/a
    Data-filtering choices affecting which proton moments are retained and therefore the derived density and velocity profiles.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Mean fields are stationary and depend only on the radial coordinate R
    Sec. 4 opening: 'we assume mean fields are stationary and depend only on the radial coordinate, R.' Load-bearing because PSP is only in approximate corotation; temporal evolution would make radial profiles a mix of space and time.
  • domain assumption Fluctuations are incompressible, with vanishing density and pressure fluctuations
    Sec. 4 and Appendix A: 'Fluctuations are further assumed to be incompressible, resulting in vanishing density and pressure fluctuations.' The paper itself notes radial velocity fluctuations increase in the corotating stream, hinting compressibility may be relevant.
  • domain assumption Mean flow and mean magnetic field are radially aligned
    Sec. 4: 'For radially aligned flow and mean magnetic field directions...'; Appendix A: 'U0 and B0 are aligned.'
  • standard math Magnetic flux conservation A B_R = const
    Used to define the flux-tube cross-section in eqs. (1)-(3) and in computing the energy-flux curvature term; follows from ∇·B = 0 for the mean field under stationarity.
  • domain assumption Weber & Davis conserved quantities remain valid in the presence of Alfvénic/perpendicular fluctuations
    Appendix A derives conservation of Eθ, Mdot, L under the Alfvén/perpendicular models; used to select the interval where the stream is (assumed) isolated.
  • domain assumption Chandran & Hollweg (2009) turbulent heating closure Q_DC
    Eq. (9), taken from literature; used only for comparison. The paper finds it inconsistent with observations unless the full orbit is included.
  • domain assumption Ballistic streamline model conserves energy and angular momentum
    Sec. 3: 'we use a simple kinematic model in which energy and angular momentum are conserved...' Used to trace streamlines back to the source.
  • standard math The stationary radial momentum equation (13) is the correct decomposition
    Standard 1D MHD momentum balance; assumes no other momentum sources beyond gravity, pressure, fluctuation work, and magnetic torque.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18688 in / 13230 out tokens · 113883 ms · 2026-08-01T01:20:56.937671+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shear interaction and acceleration of a corotating stream detected by Parker Solar Probe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72W23N4S

@misc{pith2026260725829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shear interaction and acceleration of a corotating stream detected by Parker Solar Probe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72W23N4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25829}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent analysis of Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter data indicates that fluctuations energy is transferred to the bulk flow in fast streams of the solar wind at heliocentric distances between 15 and 120 Rsun. To gain insight into this process, we analyze data collected during the inbound orbit of PSP in Encounter 10, when it is in approximate corotation with the Sun and an accelerating stream is detected between 25 and 45 Rsun. The geometry of the flow indicates that a neighboring very fast streams is colliding with the corotating stream, causing large-scale magnetic field distortion, density enhancement, and acceleration. However, also deposition of fluctuations' energy can heat and do work on the solar wind plasma, resulting in a radial acceleration. We evaluate the energy lost by fluctuations via radial variation of conserved quantities in the corotating stream and find that it is almost equally partitioned into heating and work. While the heating is marginally consistent with the non-adiabatic decrease of proton temperature, the work exerted on the wind is insufficient to account for the measured solar wind acceleration. Although limited to this event, observations suggest that shear interaction is capable of accelerating slower streams within relatively short distances from the Sun, possibly leaving its imprint as large-scale density and magnetic fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25829 by Andrea Verdini, Emanuele Papini, Luca Franci, Orlando Romeo, Petr Hellinger, Roberto Livi, Simone Landi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel. Proton density (ρ) as a function of distance from SPAN-I moments obtained with raw data (light blue empty circles), or filtering out records that have a coverage of the in￾strument FOV smaller than 85% and 92% (green and yellow empty circles, respectively). Red empty circles are the records retained in our analysis. Thick lines with darker colors are the corresponding averages over non-overlappi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the the stream structure during the inbound orbit of Encouter 10. In each panel the period of corotation is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Panel (a). Electron density (ρe, black), proton density (ρ, orange) and absolute value of the radial magnetic field (|BR|, blue), compensated by R 2 . The corotation period is indicated with thicker lines. Three conserved quantities, Eqs. (1)-(3), are plotted as a function of distance R after normalization by the ab￾solute value of their mean in the whole distance range: the nor￾malized polar electric fiel… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of the solar wind stream as a function of radial distance obtained by averaging over 1h intervals. Quasi corotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Volumetric heating as obtained from conservation equa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The solar wind acceleration, aw (red line) is plotted as a function of distance and compared to the total acceleration, atot (black line), given by all terms on the r.h.s of eq. (13): the ther￾mal contribution, ath (green line); the fluctuations’ contribution, aAl f,⊥ (blue lines); the gravitational term, ag (orange line); the velocity and magnetic torque, aτ (purple line). Shaded areas in￾dicate uncertain… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in figs. 6, 7 but considering the entire span of radial distances (left) and larger lower radial bounds ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sketch of the flow geometry and in￾teraction in the frame corortaing with the Sun during the inbound orbit of PSP (purple) in En￾counter 10. Flow velocity vectors are in blue, magnetic field lines are in red, the flux tube de￾tected by PSP is bounded by thicker lines. On the left we indicate the radial distances roughly corresponding to the quasi-longitudinal and the quasi-corotating scans by PSP in which … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V., Drake , J

    Agapitov , O. V., Drake , J. F., Swisdak , M., Choi , K.-E., & Raouafi , N. 2023, , 959, L21

    2023

  2. [2]

    T., Riley , P., Jones , S

    Badman , S. T., Riley , P., Jones , S. I., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2023JA031359

    2023

  3. [3]

    D., Goetz , K., Harvey , P

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

    2016

  4. [4]

    D., Horbury , T

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

    2021

  5. [5]

    C., Chandran , B

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

    2024

  6. [6]

    C., Raouafi , N

    Bourouaine , S., Perez , J. C., Raouafi , N. E., et al. 2022, , 932, L13

    2022

  7. [7]

    A., Mallet , A., Dunn , C

    Bowen , T. A., Mallet , A., Dunn , C. I., et al. 2025, , 700, A51

    2025

  8. [8]

    Chandran , B. D. G. & Hollweg , J. V. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 1659

    2009

  9. [9]

    Dakeyo, J.-B., Maksimovic, M., D \'e moulin, P., Halekas, J., & Stevens, M. L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 130

    2022

  10. [10]

    Davis , N., Chandran , B. D. G., Bowen , T. A., et al. 2023, , 950, 154

    2023

  11. [11]

    H., Milano, L

    Dmitruk, P., Matthaeus, W. H., Milano, L. J., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 575, 571

    2002

  12. [12]

    P., et al

    Fargette , N., Lavraud , B., Rouillard , A. P., et al. 2021, , 919, 96

    2021

  13. [13]

    J., Velli , M

    Fox , N. J., Velli , M. C., Bale , S. D., et al. 2016, , 204, 7

    2016

  14. [14]

    & Velli, M

    Grappin, R. & Velli, M. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 425

    1996

  15. [15]

    S., Bale , S

    Halekas , J. S., Bale , S. D., Berthomier , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.13424

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Hansteen, V. H. & Velli, M. 2012, Space Sci Rev, 35

    2012

  17. [17]

    M., S tver \'a k, S ., Matteini, L., & Velli, M

    Hellinger, P., Tr \'a vn \' c ek, P. M., S tver \'a k, S ., Matteini, L., & Velli, M. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1351

    2013

  18. [18]

    Hollweg , J. V. 1974, , 79, 1539

    1974

  19. [19]

    S., Bale , S

    Horbury , T. S., Bale , S. D., McManus , M. D., et al. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 082905

    2023

  20. [20]

    2023, , 950, L8

    Huang , Z., Sioulas , N., Shi , C., et al. 2023, , 950, L8

    2023

  21. [21]

    C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al

    Kasper , J. C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al. 2016, , 204, 131

    2016

  22. [22]

    2006, Geophys

    Landi, S., Hellinger, P., & Velli, M. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 14101

    2006

  23. [23]

    E., & Fla, T

    Leer, E., Holzer, T. E., & Fla, T. 1982, Space Sci Rev, 33, 161

    1982

  24. [24]

    E., Kasper , J

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

    2022

  25. [25]

    D., Ber c i c , L., et al

    Maksimovic , M., Bale , S. D., Ber c i c , L., et al. 2020, , 246, 62

    2020

  26. [26]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, L71

    Marino, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, V., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, L71

    2008

  27. [27]

    S., Neugebauer, M., & Goldstein, B

    Matteini, L., Horbury, T. S., Neugebauer, M., & Goldstein, B. E. 2014, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 259

    2014

  28. [28]

    2020, , 246, 44

    Moncuquet , M., Meyer-Vernet , N., Issautier , K., et al. 2020, , 246, 44

    2020

  29. [29]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 153

    Montagud-Camps, V., Grappin, R., & Verdini, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 153

    2018

  30. [30]

    2020, , 902, 34

    Montagud-Camps , V., Grappin , R., & Verdini , A. 2020, , 902, 34

    2020

  31. [31]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1

    2020

  32. [32]

    J., Badman , S

    Rivera , Y. J., Badman , S. T., Stevens , M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962

    2024

  33. [33]

    Romeo , O. M. 2024, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Earth and Planetary Science

    2024

  34. [34]

    D., et al

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

    2022

  35. [35]

    2020, , 888, 68

    Shi , C., Velli , M., Tenerani , A., Rappazzo , F., & R \'e ville , V. 2020, , 888, 68

    2020

  36. [36]

    E., Smith, C

    Stawarz, J. E., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Forman, M. A., & Macbride, B. T. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1119

    2009

  37. [37]

    L., Freeman, J

    Totten, T. L., Freeman, J. W., & Arya, S. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), 100, 13

    1995

  38. [38]

    Wang, Y. M. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, 410, L123

    1993

  39. [39]

    Weber , E. J. & Davis , Jr., L. 1967, , 148, 217

    1967

  40. [40]

    2023, , 50, e2022GL101548

    Zaslavsky , A. 2023, , 50, e2022GL101548

    2023