Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Simultaneous existence of the ocsillations, counterstreaming flows and mass injections in solar quiescent prominences

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

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

Pith's one-line read A single quiescent solar prominence shows simultaneous longitudinal oscillation, counterstreaming flows, and mass injections, with the counterstreaming attributed to the interplay of the other two.

desk verdict Valuable multi-instrument observations, but the reported 83-min/32-Mm oscillation is internally inconsistent with the measured 7-17 km/s velocities, and that inconsistency needs to be fixed before the causal claim can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04114 v1 pith:DC5BI562 submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

X. L. Yan , Z. K. Xue , J. C. Wang , P.F. Chen , K. F. Ji , C. Xia , L. H. Yang , D. F. Kong
show 3 more authors
Z. Xu Y. A. Zhou Q. L. Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords SolarfilamentsprominencesatmospherechromosphereactivityphysicsTheSuncounterstreamingflows
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 analyzes one quiescent solar prominence observed simultaneously with the NVST, IRIS, and SDO telescopes and shows that its spine is not dynamically uniform. The upper part of the spine undergoes a large-scale longitudinal oscillation with a period of approximately 83 minutes and an amplitude of about 32 Mm; the middle part hosts counterstreaming flows moving at 4 to 11 km/s in opposite directions; and the lower part receives intermittent mass injections at 3 to 30 km/s from bubble-top plumes and tornado-like barbs. The paper argues that these three phenomena are not independent and that counterstreaming flows, especially in the lower spine, arise from the interplay between the longitudinal oscillation and the injected mass, which superimpose to produce alternating blue- and redshifted Doppler signals. The claim matters because counterstreaming flows have been observed in quiescent prominences for more than twenty years without a confirmed driving mechanism, and the paper proposes a unified explanation that connects them to two other commonly seen dynamics.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by time-distance diagrams made from NVST H-alpha line-center and off-band images along slits parallel and perpendicular to the spine, together with reconstructed Dopplergrams defined by $D=(B-R)/(B+R)$ from the blue- and red-wing images; wavelet analysis extracts the oscillation period, and Gaussian fits to IRIS Mg II profiles yield independent Doppler velocities. The load-bearing interpretive mechanism is the superposition idea: where oscillating prominence mass meets injected mass from the lower atmosphere, the Doppler pattern mixes alternating and unidirectional signals, and it is this mixing that the paper identifies with counterstreaming flows. The mechanism is used to explain why the three phenomena are spatially segregated along the spine.

What would settle it

If a search of archival solar observations found a quiescent prominence with clear counterstreaming flows but no detectable mass injection and no longitudinal oscillation at the same place and time, the proposed mechanism would be unnecessary. Alternatively, a quantitative check that the direction-reversal times of the counterstreaming flows in this event are not phase-locked to the 83-minute oscillation and to the injection episodes would refute the specific interplay model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 2016 August 17, the spine of a single quiescent prominence displayed, at the same time, three distinct dynamic behaviors in different sections. In the higher spine, the plasma performed a longitudinal (along-spine) oscillation with a wavelet-derived period of about 83 minutes and an amplitude of roughly 32 Mm, with Doppler velocities of 11 to 17 km/s in the H-alpha maps and 7 to 9 km/s from the line-center slits. In the middle spine, adjacent threads carried counterstreaming flows with projection velocities of about 4 to 11 km/s. In the lower spine, mass was intermittently injected from below, either as upward plumes from the top of larger bubbles or as flows along tornado-like barbs, with velocities from about 3 to 30 km/s and mixed Doppler signs; IRIS Mg II spectra independently confirmed the oscillation by showing a Doppler flip from blueshift (-8.26 km/s) to redshift (5.02 km/s) at one location. The paper concludes that counterstreaming flows, particularly in the lower spine, arise from the interplay between the longitudinal oscillation and the injected mass, so the coexistence of blueshifted and redshifted signals along the spine is the inherent nature of counterstreaming flows.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that counterstreaming flows are driven by the interplay of oscillation and mass injection rests on the assumption that the observed layering of these dynamics in one prominence reflects a single physical connection, rather than three independent processes that happened to occur together in this one event.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single quiescent prominence can exhibit large-scale oscillation, counterstreaming, and mass injection at the same time, so models and explanations of any one of these phenomena must account for the other two in the same structure.
  • The measured 83-minute period and roughly 32 Mm amplitude provide a quantitative benchmark for prominence seismology and for MHD simulations of longitudinal oscillations in quiescent spines.
  • Because injected mass flows carry speeds up to 30 km/s and alternate in Doppler sign, counterstreaming flows should be expected to vary in strength over time, rather than being steady, when the mass supply is intermittent.
  • The agreement of the observed oscillation period and velocities with earlier simulations supports the idea that ongoing chromospheric evaporation and direct injection both contribute to prominence dynamics after the prominence is formed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A survey correlating counterstreaming velocity with oscillation amplitude and injection rate across many prominences could turn this single-event interpretation into a quantitative relationship; if the correlation holds, the interplay mechanism is a general driver rather than an accident of this event.
  • The height-stratified pattern suggests that slit placement in time-distance analysis can determine whether a prominence is classified as oscillating or counterstreaming, so some past reports of only one type of dynamics may reflect where the slit crossed the spine.
  • Tornado-like barbs acting as injection channels imply that barbs are active mass suppliers during the quiescent phase, which bears on the long-standing question of how prominences replenish mass lost to draining and thermal diffusion.
  • A testable extension would be to look for the same three-zone stratification in other multi-instrument prominence observations, since the prediction is that the oscillation zone sits above the streaming zone above the injection zone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-instrument observational study (NVST H-alpha, IRIS Mg II, SDO/AIA) of a quiescent prominence on 2016 August 17. The authors report that different parts of the prominence spine exhibit different dynamics simultaneously: a large-scale longitudinal oscillation with period ~83 min and amplitude ~32 Mm in the upper spine, counterstreaming flows with velocities 4-11 km/s in the middle spine, and intermittent mass injections (3-30 km/s) in the lower spine via rising plumes from bubbles and tornado-like barbs. They conclude that counterstreaming flows, particularly in the lower part, arise from the interplay between longitudinal oscillations and mass injections, and that their observations are consistent with chromospheric evaporation-condensation and direct injection formation models.

Significance. If the core oscillation identification is sound, the paper offers a rare simultaneous view of three dynamical processes in a single quiescent prominence, with high-resolution ground-based and space-borne data. The use of time-distance diagrams, Dopplergrams, wavelet analysis, and IRIS spectral confirmation is a strength, and the reported spatial segregation of oscillation, counterstreaming, and injection is potentially valuable for understanding prominence dynamics. However, the quantitative foundation of the central oscillation claim contains an internal inconsistency that must be resolved before the interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 3a2] The reported oscillation parameters are quantitatively inconsistent with the measured velocities. For a period P = 83 min and amplitude A = 32 Mm, the maximum sinusoidal velocity is v_max = 2*pi*A/P ~ 40 km/s if 32 Mm is a single amplitude, or ~20 km/s if 32 Mm is peak-to-peak. The paper reports oscillation velocities of only 7-9 km/s from H-alpha time-distance slopes and 11-17 km/s from Doppler shifts, a factor of 2 to 5.7 below the sinusoidally implied velocity. The authors must state explicitly whether 32 Mm is a single or peak-to-peak amplitude, and should track a single oscillating feature in position versus time to verify that the fitted amplitude and period yield velocities matching the directly measured ones. If the 32 Mm value is instead the spatial range over which flow directions reverse in the time-distance diagram, then the amplitude is not a displacement of one oscillating parcel and the identification as a large-scale longitudinal oscillation is not established.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 4] The 83-minute period is derived from only about two oscillation cycles in a ~3-hour observing window. Such a short series is highly susceptible to wavelet edge effects and to spurious periodicity from unrelated flow variability. Please show the cone of influence in the wavelet power spectra, provide confidence intervals for the period estimate, and discuss whether the 38.1 min and 43.2 min red/blue shift intervals are truly two half-cycles of a single oscillation or could be independent converging/diverging flow events. Without this, the period claim is not robust.
  3. [Section 4, Conclusions] The causal conclusion that counterstreaming flows 'arise from the interplay between prominence longitudinal oscillations and mass injections' is not supported by the presented evidence. The observations demonstrate spatial coexistence of oscillations, counterstreaming, and injections in different parts of the spine, but no quantitative coupling (e.g., correlation between injection rate and counterstreaming velocity, or a mechanistic model) is established. The same time-distance diagrams are used to identify both the oscillation and the counterstreaming flows, so the distinction between the two needs to be demonstrated by tracking identifiable features. The conclusion should be rephrased as a hypothesis or supported by a concrete quantitative test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and throughout] The title contains typos: 'ocsillations' should be 'oscillations' and 'counterstreama ming' should be 'counterstreaming'.
  2. [Section 3.3 vs. Section 4] The transverse oscillation amplitude is given as about 3 Mm in Section 3.3 but about 2 Mm in the Conclusions; please reconcile these values.
  3. [Section 3.4] The abstract states mass-injection velocities range from 3 to 30 km/s, but the lowest velocity quoted in the text from time-distance diagrams is about 5 km/s; please clarify where the 3 km/s value comes from or correct the abstract.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption refers to 'Figs. 4a and 4d' when describing the field of view, but should refer to Figs. 5a and 5d; there is also a duplicated 'the' in 'Note that the the asterisk points'.
  5. [Section 2] The Dopplergram formula D = (B - R)/(B + R) is standard, but please define whether B and R are intensities from the blue-wing and red-wing images after background subtraction; otherwise the normalization is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's central measurements are direct observational quantities and the mechanism discussion is interpretive context, not an input-output derivation.

full rationale

The paper is an observational case study, not a derivation in which an output is reconstructed from its own inputs. The central claims—an 83-minute longitudinal oscillation with ~32 Mm amplitude, 4–11 km/s counterstreaming flows, and 3–30 km/s mass injections—are measured directly from NVST H-alpha and IRIS Mg II time-distance diagrams, Doppler maps, and spectral profiles. No model parameter is fitted to those data and then renamed as a prediction. The causal statement that counterstreaming flows, particularly in the lower spine, arise from the interplay between longitudinal oscillations and mass injections is an interpretation drawn from the simultaneous presence of these features, supported by prior simulations (Chen et al. 2014; Zhou et al. 2020). Those simulations are cited for context rather than used as fitting constraints, and the observational facts remain independent of them. The reported internal inconsistency between the 32 Mm amplitude / 83 min period and the 7–17 km/s measured velocities is a quantitative validation concern, but it is not circularity: the amplitude and velocities are independent measurements from the same data products, not one derived from the other. The self-citations are real theoretical support and are not load-bearing in the sense of defining the observed quantities. Therefore no step reduces to its own input, and the circularity burden is minimal.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the reported quantities are measurements from data. The analysis relies on standard observational assumptions about Doppler proxies, plasma tracking, and representativeness of a single event, plus a conventional statistical method.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hα off-band images at ±0.4 Å and ±0.7 Å provide a reliable proxy for Doppler shift.
    The Dopplergrams D=(B-R)/(B+R) are used throughout to infer line-of-sight velocities, but the conversion from intensity imbalance to velocity is not calibrated against an absolute reference, and the Hα line is optically thick.
  • domain assumption Time-distance diagrams along selected slices track the motion of prominence plasma.
    The identification of tracks and linear fits assumes the features being tracked are persistent plasma elements and not waves or intensity artifacts.
  • domain assumption The observed prominence is representative of quiescent prominences generally.
    The conclusions about counterstreaming flow drivers are generalized from one event observed over about 3 hours.
  • standard math The wavelet analysis at 95% confidence indicates a genuine oscillation period.
    Wavelet analysis is standard, but the short time series (about 2 cycles) makes the period estimate fragile; confidence in the peak period is based on a statistical test but no systematic uncertainty is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous existence of the ocsillations, counterstreaming flows and mass injections in solar quiescent prominences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DC5BI562

@misc{pith2026250204114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous existence of the ocsillations, counterstreaming flows and mass injections in solar quiescent prominences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DC5BI562}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04114}
}
abstract

Solar prominences are very spectacular structures embedded in the tenuous and hot solar corona. The counterstreaming flows, a common feature in solar quiescent prominences, have been discovered for more than twenty years. However, the mechanism driving the counterstreaming flows is still elusive. To unveil the nature of this phenomenon, we analyzed the data of a quiescent prominence observed by the New Vacuum Solar Telescope (NVST), the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), and the Solar Dynamical Observatory (SDO). It is found that there is a distinct longitudinal oscillation of prominence plasma along the higher part of the prominence spine in H$\alpha$ observations. The oscillation period is approximately 83 minutes and the amplitude is about 32 Mm. The counterstreaming flows are dominant in the middle part of the prominence spine. The velocities of the counterstreaming flows range from about 4 km s$^{-1}$ to 11 km s$^{-1}$. Moreover, the intermittent mass flows with the upward plumes from the top of the bubbles and tornado-like barbs are observed to be injected into the lower part of the prominence spine from the lower atmosphere. The velocities of these injected mass flows range from about 3 km s$^{-1}$ to 30 km s$^{-1}$. Some injected mass flows exhibit redshifted Doppler signals, while others exhibit blueshifted signals. Based on these high resolution observations, it is found that different parts of the prominence spine exhibit the different dynamic characteristics. These results further advance the understanding of the ubiquitous counterstreaming flows in solar quiescent prominences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Appearance of a quiescent prominence. Panels (a)-(c): The quiescent prominence acquired at 304 ˚A, 171 ˚A, and 211 ˚A observed by SDO/AIA at 06:14 UT on 2016 August 17. Note that the original images are rotated 59 degrees counterclockwise. Panels (d)-(f): The Hα line center images observed by the NVST to show the evolution of the quiescent prominence from 06:14 UT to 07:43 UT. The blue box in Figure 1a outlines the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time-distance diagrams showing the counterstrea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Oscillation of the prominence mass. Panels (a1-c1): an Hα center image, Dopplergrams at 0.4 ˚A and 0.7 ˚A at 06:42:06 UT, respectively. The field of view of Figure 2a1 is signed by the red box in Figure 1e. Panels (a2-c2): Time-distance diagrams along slits A1-B1, A2-B2, and A3-B3. The white dotted lines in panel (a2) and the black dotted lines in panels (b2) and (c2) denote the linear fitting along the different fe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Oscillation period of the prominence mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A part of the prominence observed by the IRIS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two types of mass ejection. Panels (a1-c1): An Hα center image, Dopplergrams at 0.4 ˚A and 0.7 ˚A at 06:17:56 UT, respectively. The field of view of Figure 3a1 is outlined by the red box in Figure 1f. The curved dotted red lines denote the bubble. Panels (a2-c2): Time-…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass ejection with the upward plume. Panels (a1-c1): an Hα line center image, Dopplergrams at 0.4 ˚A and 0.7 ˚A at 08:20:01 UT, respectively. The field of view of Figure 4a1 is signed by the cyan box in Figure 1e. The curved dotted red lines denote the bubble. Panels (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Walsh, R

    Alexander, C. E., Walsh, R. W., R \'e gnier, S., et al.\ 2013, , 775, L32. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L32

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l32 2013

  2. [2]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, Y.\ 2019, , 872, 109

    Awasthi, A. K., Liu, R., & Wang, Y.\ 2019, , 872, 109. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafdad

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafdad 2019

  3. [3]

    E., Shine, R

    Berger, T. E., Shine, R. A., Slater, G. L., et al.\ 2008, , 676, L89. doi:10.1086/587171

    doi:10.1086/587171 2008

  4. [4]

    E., Slater, G., Hurlburt, N., et al.\ 2010, , 716, 1288

    Berger, T. E., Slater, G., Hurlburt, N., et al.\ 2010, , 716, 1288. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1288

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1288 2010

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1038/nature09925

    Berger, T., Testa, P., Hillier, A., et al.\ 2011, , 472, 197. doi:10.1038/nature09925

    doi:10.1038/nature09925 2011

  6. [6]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab79a2

    Bi, Y., Yang, B., Li, T., et al.\ 2020, , 891, L40. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab79a2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab79a2 2020

  7. [7]

    F., Innes, D

    Chen, P. F., Innes, D. E., & Solanki, S. K.\ 2008, , 484, 487. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809544

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809544 2008

  8. [8]

    F., Harra, L

    Chen, P. F., Harra, L. K., & Fang, C.\ 2014, , 784, 50. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/50 2014

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/166

    Chen, P.-F., Xu, A.-A., & Ding, M.-D.\ 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 166. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/166

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9006

    Cai, Y., Xiang, Y., & Ji, K.\ 2024, , 977, 186. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9006

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1023/A:1020924406991

    Deng, Y., Lin, Y., Schmieder, B., et al.\ 2002, , 209, 153. doi:10.1023/A:1020924406991

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/9

    Dud \' k, J., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., et al.\ 2012, , 761, 9. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/9

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Lemen, J

    De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al.\ 2014, , 289, 2733. doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0485-y

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730536

    Diercke, A., Kuckein, C., Verma, M., et al.\ 2018, , 611, A64. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730536

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al.\ 2006, , 236, 97

    Jing, J., Lee, J., Spirock, T. J., et al.\ 2006, , 236, 97. doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0126-1

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, Chinese Science Bulletin, 64, 1738

    Ji, K., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Shang, Z., & Qiang, Z. 2019, Chinese Science Bulletin, 64, 1738. doi: 10.1360/N972019-00092

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    rn ., & Wiik, J

    Lin, Y., Engvold, O. rn ., & Wiik, J. E.\ 2003, , 216, 109. doi:10.1023/A:1026150809598

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    Lin, Y., Engvold, O., der Voort, L. R. van ., et al.\ 2005, , 226, 239. doi:10.1007/s11207-005-6876-3

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1086/524057

    Langangen, ., Rouppe van der Voort, L., & Lin, Y.\ 2008, , 673, 1201. doi:10.1086/524057

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al.\ 2012, , 275, 17. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L22

    Li, X., Morgan, H., Leonard, D., et al.\ 2012, , 752, L22. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L22

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/79

    Luna, M., Knizhnik, K., Muglach, K., et al.\ 2014, , 785, 79. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/79

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al.\ 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705-718. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad33f

    Li, D., Shen, Y., Ning, Z., et al.\ 2018a, , 863, 192. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad33f

    doi

  17. [25]

    V., et al.\ 2018b, , 363, 118

    Li, H., Liu, Y., Tam, K. V., et al.\ 2018b, , 363, 118. doi:10.1007/s10509-018-3342-x

    doi

  18. [26]

    J., et al.\ 2009a, , 499, 595

    Ning, Z., Cao, W., Okamoto, T. J., et al.\ 2009a, , 499, 595. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810853

    doi

  19. [27]

    R.\ 2009b, , 707, 1124

    Ning, Z., Cao, W., & Goode, P. R.\ 2009b, , 707, 1124. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1124

    doi

  20. [28]

    J., Tsuneta, S., Berger, T

    Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Berger, T. E., et al.\ 2007, Science, 318, 1577. doi:10.1126/science.1145447

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Antolin, P., De Pontieu, B., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 71

    Okamoto, T. J., Antolin, P., De Pontieu, B., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 71. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/71

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    R.\ 1989, Dynamics and Structure of Quiescent Solar Prominences, 150, 1

    Priest, E. R.\ 1989, Dynamics and Structure of Quiescent Solar Prominences, 150, 1. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3077-3\_1

    1989 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C.\ 2012, , 275, 3. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    Parenti, S.\ 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Innes, D

    Panesar, N. K., Innes, D. E., Tiwari, S. K., et al.\ 2013, , 549, A105. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220503

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Innes, D

    Panesar, N. K., Innes, D. E., Schmit, D. J., et al.\ 2014, , 289, 2971. doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0504-z

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Tiwari, S

    Panesar, N. K., Tiwari, S. K., Moore, R. L., et al.\ 2020, , 897, L2. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ac1

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    F., & Velli, M.\ 2014, , 289, 603

    Panasenco, O., Martin, S. F., & Velli, M.\ 2014, , 289, 603. doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0337-1

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L41

    Su, Y., Wang, T., Veronig, A., et al.\ 2012, , 756, L41. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L41

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Wiik, J

    Schmieder, B., Raadu, M. A., & Wiik, J. E.\ 1991, , 252, 353

    1991

  31. [39]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9100-9

    Schmieder, B., Bommier, V., Kitai, R., et al.\ 2008, , 247, 321. doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9100-9

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913477

    Schmieder, B., Chandra, R., Berlicki, A., et al.\ 2010, , 514, A68. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913477

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628771

    Schmieder, B., Mein, P., Mein, N., et al.\ 2017, , 597, A109. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628771

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    D., et al.\ 2015, , 814, L17

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., et al.\ 2015, , 814, L17. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L17

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad813c

    Song, Y., Ning, Z., Li, D., et al.\ 2024, , 975, 280. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad813c

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    199, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, |c1995

    Tandberg-Hanssen, E.\ 1995, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, vol. 199, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, |c1995. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3396-0

    1995 doi

  37. [45]

    & Engvold, O.\ 2015, Solar Prominences, 415

    Vial, J.-C. & Engvold, O.\ 2015, Solar Prominences, 415. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10416-4

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f4

    Wang, H., Liu, R., Li, Q., et al.\ 2018, , 852, L18. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f4

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142584

    Wang, J., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al.\ 2022, , 659, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142584

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    yuan ., Liu, Z., & Jin, Z.-

    Xiang, Y.-. yuan ., Liu, Z., & Jin, Z.-. yu .\ 2016, , 49, 8. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2016.05.002

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/222

    Xue, J.-C., Vial, J.-C., Su, Y., et al.\ 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 222. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/222

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/10/009

    Yan, X.-L., Xue, Z.-K., Xiang, Y.-Y., et al.\ 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1725. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/10/009

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Yan, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., et al.\ 2020, SCIENCE CHINA Technological Sciences, 63, 1656

    2020

  44. [52]

    B., Engvold, O., & Martin, S

    Zirker, J. B., Engvold, O., & Martin, S. F.\ 1998, , 396, 440. doi:10.1038/24798

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Chen, P

    Zhang, Q. M., Chen, P. F., Xia, C., et al.\ 2012, , 542, A52. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218786

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Li, D., & Ning, Z

    Zhang, Q. M., Li, D., & Ning, Z. J.\ 2017, , 851, 47. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9898

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    M.\ 2020, , 642, A159

    Zhang, Q. M.\ 2020, , 642, A159. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038557

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Lin, M

    Zhang, Q. M., Lin, M. S., Yan, X. L., et al.\ 2024, , 533, 3255. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1936

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    H., Chen, P

    Zhou, Y. H., Chen, P. F., Hong, J., et al.\ 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 994. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1094-3

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039558

    Zhou, C., Xia, C., & Shen, Y.\ 2021, , 647, A112. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039558

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.