Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Dynamics and Energetics of Resistive, Thermally Conductive, and Radiative Plasma in Coronal Current Sheets due to Asymmetric External Perturbation

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four resistive MHD runs show that thermal conduction advances the tearing instability in a wave-perturbed coronal current sheet while radiative cooling delays it, and that conduction raises the reconnection rate and plasmoid speeds…

desk verdict Solid comparative MHD study; the headline ordering (TC advances, RC delays) is supported by independent first-plasmoid times, so the ad hoc onset criterion is a weakness, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00255 v1 pith:DPGS3FOX submitted 2024-12-31 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Sripan Mondal , Akash Bairagi , A. K. Srivastava This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticreconnectiontearinginstabilityplasmoidsthermalconductionradiativecoolingcurrentsheetsolarcoronaMHDsimulation
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 asks whether two standard coronal energy-loss channels—field-aligned thermal conduction and optically thin radiative cooling—change how an externally perturbed current sheet tears, reconnects, and releases energy. It answers with four resistive magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the same force-free Harris current sheet struck by an asymmetric Gaussian velocity pulse that mimics an EUV wave: no energy loss, conduction only, radiative cooling only, and both. Before fragmentation the sheet thins and elongates identically in all four cases, but after fragmentation the cases diverge: conduction alone moves the tearing onset earlier (625 s versus 661 s without losses), radiative cooling alone delays it (685 s), and reconnection proceeds faster with conduction, whether or not radiative cooling is also present. The paper concludes that energy-loss mechanisms critically shape the dynamics, energetics, and plasmoid formation of a reconnecting coronal current sheet.

What carries the argument

The central object is a four-case comparison of a 2.5D resistive MHD model of a force-free Harris current sheet (with a guide field) struck asymmetrically along its length by an anisotropic Gaussian velocity pulse of amplitude 350 km/s, standing in for an EUV wave. The load-bearing identity is the ideal-tearing criterion that the sheet aspect ratio must reach or exceed $S_L^{1/3}$, where $S_L = L v_A / \eta$ is evaluated at the fragmentation-onset time, defined as the moment the peak current densities along and across the sheet differ by more than one normalized unit. The onset times, Lundquist numbers, and aspect ratios measured at that moment carry the argument that conduction advances tearing while radiative cooling delays it; the linear tearing growth rate $\gamma_{L,\max} = S_L^{(3\alpha - 1)/2} v_A / L$ (with aspect ratio proportional to $S_L^\alpha$) then connects those onset measurements to the observed plasmoid growth times.

What would settle it

Repeat the four runs at 39 km and 19.5 km resolution and check whether the ordering of fragmentation-onset times (conduction earliest, cooling latest, no-loss in between) and the reconnection-rate curves survive; if the ordering shifts or the differences shrink, the central claim collapses. A complementary observational check would look for EUV-wave-perturbed coronal current sheets with measured plasma parameters and see whether plasmoids appear earlier and move faster in regions where conduction is efficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that thermal conduction is the dominant energy-loss channel in this simulated regime and that energy losses do not just damp the dynamics—they redirect it. At the onset of tearing, the measured instantaneous Lundquist numbers and aspect ratios all satisfy the ideal-tearing criterion that the aspect ratio reach the cube root of the Lundquist number, yet the ordering differs: conduction lowers the Lundquist number and shortens the onset time relative to the no-loss run, while radiative cooling raises the Lundquist number and lengthens the onset time. After fragmentation, the reconnection rate (measured as the resistive electric field), the plasmoid outflow speed, the average density, the rate of magnetic-energy release, and the rate of kinetic-energy gain are all higher in the conduction and conduction-plus-cooling runs than in the no-loss and cooling-only runs. The paper interprets the near-coincidence of the conduction-only and conduction-plus-cooling results as evidence that when both channels act, thermal conduction dominates the energetics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finest 78-kilometer grid spacing resolves the dynamics well enough that the reported onset times and reconnection rates reflect the physical resistivity and energy-loss terms rather than numerical diffusion, since the paper does not present a grid-convergence study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a coronal current sheet struck by an EUV-wave-like perturbation, the first plasmoid should appear earlier when field-aligned thermal conduction is efficient than when it is not; the simulation puts the difference at roughly 40 seconds for onset and for first visible plasmoid.
  • The peak reconnection rate, measured by the resistive electric field, can exceed 0.6 when conduction is active, well above the 0.45 ceiling of the earlier no-loss run, so thermal conduction should be included when interpreting observed reconnection rates.
  • Radiative cooling alone delays tearing to a later onset time (685 s) and a higher instantaneous Lundquist number ($7.54 \times 10^4$), implying that in cooler, denser environments the same perturbation yields later, fewer plasmoids.
  • Because the conduction-only and conduction-plus-cooling runs behave nearly identically after fragmentation, measurements of flare current sheets should treat thermal conduction as the main energy-loss channel when both effects are present.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run is a grid-convergence series at 39 km and 19.5 km; if the ordering of fragmentation-onset times and reconnection rates changes with resolution, the reported differences would be numerical rather than physical.
  • The suppression of secondary plasmoids in the conduction runs points to a mechanism the paper does not directly diagnose: thermal conduction erases the steep temperature gradients that seed repeated fragmentation, which could be tested by tracking the temperature-gradient scale along the sheet in each case.
  • Because the simulation keeps resistivity uniform and unenhanced, the results delimit what energy losses alone contribute; coupling the same energy-loss terms with current-dependent anomalous resistivity would likely shift all onset times earlier, an interaction the authors list as future work without quantifying.
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 presents 2.5D resistive MHD simulations of a force-free Harris current sheet (CS) perturbed by an anisotropically propagating, off-center Gaussian velocity pulse, comparing four cases: no energy loss (NEL), thermal conduction only (TC), radiative cooling only (RC), and both (TC+RC). Using MPI-AMRVAC with finite resistivity (Lundquist number 4.8×10^5) and AMR down to 78 km resolution, the authors track CS thinning and elongation, fragmentation onset, reconnection rate, plasmoid speeds, and volume-averaged density, temperature, magnetic energy density, and kinetic energy density. The central claims are that pre-fragmentation thinning/elongation is independent of energy-loss terms, that TC advances fragmentation while RC delays it relative to NEL, that reconnection proceeds faster with TC and TC+RC, and that plasmoid speeds and average densities are higher in those cases.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper constitutes a useful step toward understanding externally driven reconnection in coronal conditions with realistic energy-loss terms. The four-case design is clean, the numerical setup is described in enough detail to be reproducible, and the diagnostics (reconnection rate, energy densities, plasmoid speeds) are directly tied to the physical conclusions. The main contribution is the qualitative ordering of the four cases, especially the suggestion that thermal conduction is the dominant energy-loss channel in this regime. However, the central ordering rests on an uncalibrated fragmentation-onset criterion and on a numerical-diffusion assumption that is not demonstrated by a convergence study; these issues need to be addressed before the conclusions can be regarded as robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3] The fragmentation-onset criterion is an uncalibrated threshold: onset is defined as the first time at which the peak current densities measured along and across the CS differ by more than 1 in normalized units, with no physical justification, error analysis, or sensitivity test. The reported onset times (661, 625, 685, and 661 s for NEL, TC only, RC only, and TC+RC) differ by only 36–60 s, a range comparable to the diagnostic cadence and to plausible shifts from changing the threshold, especially because the authors note that the current-density profile flattens after roughly 540 s and the Gaussian-fit method becomes unreliable. Because the abstract's TC-advances/RC-delays conclusion rests directly on these onset times, the authors should demonstrate that the ordering (and the derived Lundquist numbers and aspect ratios) is robust to varying the threshold, and should state the diagnostic cadence. The first-visible-plasmoid times in §3.1 partially corroborate the ordering, but those are also visual and subjective.
  2. [§2 and §4] The claim that the dynamics are physical rather than controlled by numerical diffusion is not supported by the evidence given. The Discussion asserts that because the finest grid is 78 km and a prior study (Mondal et al. 2024a) used 97.5 km, the present simulated dynamics is 'certainly physical'; however, no grid-convergence study is presented for the present setup, which differs in perturbation shape, interaction point, and energy-loss terms. Resolution-dependent onset times, reconnection rates, and plasmoid speeds would directly affect all four of the paper's comparative claims. The authors should add a convergence test at least two resolutions (or a Richardson-type estimate) for the quantities used in the conclusions.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (12)] The estimated tearing growth rates are not independent checks of the theory. The exponent α is obtained from the same measured aspect ratios and Lundquist numbers via the relation aspect ratio = S_L^α, and the same α is then inserted into γ = S_L^{(3α−1)/2} v_A/L; consequently the agreement between the resulting growth times and the onset-to-first-plasmoid interval is largely built into the procedure. The authors should either fix α at the theoretical 1/3 value (or use a separate linear-theory estimate) and then compare the predicted growth time with the observed interval, or explicitly state that the comparison is a consistency check rather than a test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The phrase 'Red dashed line is overlapping with the orange one' is confusing because no red line appears in the legend; clarify which line corresponds to the NEL case (first plasmoid at 757 s, coincident with TC+RC).
  2. [§3.3] The aspect ratios (51, 41, 61, and 56) are quoted but the CS widths at the onset times are not given; please provide the widths used to compute these aspect ratios.
  3. [Eq. (7) and §2] The units of κ_parallel are written as erg cm⁻¹ s⁻¹ K⁻¹; with κ = 10⁻⁶ T^{5/2} this should be erg cm⁻¹ s⁻¹ K^{-7/2} (or the notation should be clarified).
  4. [§3.6–§3.9] The averaging domain x = [-1, 1] Mm, y = [0, 200] Mm is used from 240 s onward; because the CS thins, fragments, and develops plasmoids, the suitability of this fixed domain after fragmentation should be discussed or justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the four-case simulation comparison is self-contained and the TC/RC ordering is a direct diagnostic outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are comparative statements about four MHD runs that share identical initial equilibrium, perturbation, resistivity, and AMR setup, and differ only in the presence or absence of thermal conduction and radiative cooling in the energy equation. The headline ordering (TC advances fragmentation, RC delays it) is read directly from measured onset times under a fixed diagnostic criterion (difference of peak current densities exceeding 1 in normalized units), while Lundquist numbers, aspect ratios, reconnection rates, plasmoid speeds, and energy densities are likewise direct diagnostics of the simulated state. No output quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the alpha exponent in the Bhattacharjee et al. (2009) growth-rate check is estimated from the same measured aspect ratios and Lundquist numbers, but it is used only as a post-hoc consistency check against the observed roughly 96 s delay, not to generate the onset-time ordering. The self-citations to Mondal et al. (2024a,b) and Srivastava et al. (2024) supply the perturbation form, initial conditions, and a resolution/resistivity benchmark; these are external inputs rather than a theorem that forces the present conclusions. The arbitrary '>1' fragmentation-onset threshold is a robustness concern, not a circular reduction: changing it could change the ordering, but that is an empirical sensitivity issue, not an identity between input and output. The central derivation is therefore self-contained against the simulation diagnostics.

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

The central claims rest on the standard resistive MHD model with chosen transport coefficients, a chosen cooling function, and single numerical realizations per case. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are standard coronal values or inherited from the authors' prior work, not fitted to reproduce the target result.

free parameters (6)
  • Magnetic diffusivity eta = 2.4e8 m^2/s (Lundquist 4.8e5)
    Chosen uniform resistivity inherited from Mondal et al. 2024a; sets the resistive time scale and Lundquist number that govern tearing onset.
  • Velocity pulse amplitude v0 = 350 km/s = 0.6 v_A
    Chosen perturbation strength; strong enough to trigger reconnection in the simulation.
  • Pulse widths and interaction site (wx, wy, x0, y0) = 6 Mm, 2 Mm, -15 Mm, 65 Mm
    Set the anisotropic, off-center character of the forcing; affects where and how strongly the current sheet is compressed.
  • Thermal conduction coefficient kappa_parallel = 10^-6 T^(5/2) erg cm^-1 s^-1 K^-1
    Standard Spitzer field-aligned value; controls thermal-conduction efficiency in the energy equation.
  • Radiative cooling model = Colgan et al. (2008) Lambda(T)
    Choice of optically thin cooling function; sets radiative loss rate and its temperature dependence.
  • Initial current-sheet parameters B0, l, ambient density, temperature = 10 G, 1.5 Mm, 2.34e-15 g cm^-3, 1 MK
    Initial equilibrium from prior work; determines Alfven speed, plasma beta, and instability thresholds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 2.5D force-free Harris sheet with guide field is a representative coronal current-sheet equilibrium.
    Initial configuration in Eqs. (1)-(3) and Section 2; the guide field affects tearing behavior and plasmoid formation.
  • domain assumption Uniform magnetic diffusivity is physical and not dominated by numerical diffusion at 78 km resolution.
    Discussion compares to a prior 97.5 km run; no grid-convergence test is presented in this paper.
  • domain assumption Optically thin radiative cooling via the Colgan et al. (2008) function captures coronal energy loss.
    Used in the energy equation in Section 2; the cooling-function choice directly affects the RC-only results.
  • domain assumption Perpendicular thermal conduction can be neglected because finite resistivity produces similar fine-structure effects.
    Section 2 invokes Ireland et al. 1992; this is not tested within the present simulation.
  • domain assumption Zero-gradient boundary conditions do not introduce significant reflections or domain-size artifacts.
    Ghost cells are set to zero gradient in Section 2; no sensitivity test on domain extent is provided.
  • standard math The Bhattacharjee et al. (2009) tearing-growth scaling applies at the measured onset times.
    Used in Section 3.3, Eq. (12), to connect measured Lundquist numbers and aspect ratios to plasmoid growth times.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics and Energetics of Resistive, Thermally Conductive, and Radiative Plasma in Coronal Current Sheets due to Asymmetric External Perturbation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPGS3FOX

@misc{pith2026250100255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics and Energetics of Resistive, Thermally Conductive, and Radiative Plasma in Coronal Current Sheets due to Asymmetric External Perturbation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPGS3FOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00255}
}
read the original abstract

We study the asymmetric interaction of wave-like velocity perturbation with a coronal current sheet (CS) in the presence of resistivity, thermal conduction (TC) and radiative cooling (RC). We analyze the dynamics and energetics of CS in four cases, namely, (i) no energy loss, (ii) TC only, (iii) RC only and, (iv) TC+RC. Before fragmentation, thinning and elongation of the CS are found to be identical in all four cases and therefore independent of presence or absence of energy loss effects. Onset times, corresponding Lundquist numbers and aspect ratios suggest that TC advances the onset of fragmentation while RC has the opposite effect in comparison to absence of energy losses. Reconnection takes place at a higher rate in presence of TC and TC+RC in the tearing unstable CS. The speed of plasmoids are also found to be higher under the effect of TC and TC+RC. In presence of TC and TC+RC, average density becomes higher within the tearing unstable CS than in other two cases. As expected, estimated average temperature is increasing with highest and lowest rate in absence of energy losses and in presence of both TC and RC respectively. After the onset of fragmentation, the rate of decrement of average magnetic energy density and increment of average kinetic energy density becomes higher in presence of TC and TC+RC than in other two cases. Thus we conclude that presence of energy loss mechanisms critically influence the dynamics, energetics, and plasmoid formation within a reconnecting coronal CS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the initial velocity disturbance during its passage towards and through the CS as estimated at y = 65 Mm. At 0 s, the disturbance is properly Gaussian shaped centred at x = - 15 Mm. As it propagates, it gets distorted and its amplitude becomes much smaller at the instance of interaction with the current sheet (12 s). The shaded region within vertical dashed black lines show the initial location… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Spatial density distribution within the tearing mode unstable current sheet and its immediate surroundings at 950 s in absence of energy loss effects (denoted as NEL), presence of RC, presence of TC, and presence of TC+RC (left to right). Bottom: Spatial distribution of current density there at 950 s for the aforementioned four cases. An animated version of the entire dynamics from 240 s to 962 s is available i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a) and (b) exhibits variation of CS widths and CS lengths with time from 240 s to 600 s. The errorbars are plotted after multiplied by a factor of 2 for better visualization. Panel (a) exhibits that there are no differences between CS widths throughout the considered time window for all the four case studied. The minimal visible distinctions in CS length profiles after around 500 s are not significant enough … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal variation of estimated reconnection rate using ηJmax during the period of 240 s to 962 s i.e., upto the end of simulation. Figure gives an indication that the reconnection rate profiles in all the cases are overlapping with each other upto 600 s. After 600 s, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconnection outflows, plasmoid dynamics and its thermal properties are shown for no energy loss (NEL) (panel (a)), only RC (panel (b)), only TC (panel (c)) and both in presence of RC+TC (panel (d)). Spatio-temporal variation of temperature along the CS is derived alon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Panel (a) exhibits the variation of average density along the CS with time in dimensionless forms for all four cases. Panel (b) shows the same for temperature. The average has been done within x = [-1 Mm, 1 Mm] and y = [0, 200 Mm] .         ! ! …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) exhibits the average magnetic energy density ( B2 2 ) with time for all four cases from 240 s to 962 s. The averaging has been done within x = [-1 Mm, 1 Mm] and y= [0, 200 Mm]. Panel (b) shows variation of average kinetic energy density ( 1 2 ρv2 ) with time …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    G., & Priest, E

    Baty, H., Forbes, T. G., & Priest, E. R.\ 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 012102. doi:10.1063/1.3062833

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3062833 2009

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1063/1.3264103

    Bhattacharjee, A., Huang, Y.-M., Yang, H., et al.\ 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102. doi:10.1063/1.3264103

    doi:10.1063/1.3264103 2009

  6. [6]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d7a

    Chae, J., Cho, K., Kwon, R.-Y., et al.\ 2017, , 841, 49. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d7a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d7a 2017

  7. [7]

    F., et al.\ 2018, , 866, 64

    Cheng, X., Li, Y., Wan, L. F., et al.\ 2018, , 866, 64. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd16

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd16 2018

  8. [8]

    E., et al.\ 2008, , 689, 585

    Colgan, J., Abdallah, J., Sherrill, M. E., et al.\ 2008, , 689, 585. doi:10.1086/592561

    doi:10.1086/592561 2008

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9789

    Comisso, L., Lingam, M., Huang, Y.-M., et al.\ 2017, , 850, 142. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9789

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    & Zhang, J.\ 2024, , 974, 104

    Ding, T. & Zhang, J.\ 2024, , 974, 104. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6df5

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    H., N \'o brega-Siverio, D., & Carlsson, M.\ 2024, , 683, A95

    F rder, . H., N \'o brega-Siverio, D., & Carlsson, M.\ 2024, , 683, A95. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348046

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1007/BF00217256

    F \'a rn \' k, F., Kaastra, J., K \'a lm \'a n, B., et al.\ 1983, , 89, 355. doi:10.1007/BF00217256

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Matthews, S

    French, R. J., Matthews, S. A., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., et al.\ 2020, , 900, 192. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba94b

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Matthews, S

    French, R. J., Matthews, S. A., Jonathan Rae, I., et al.\ 2021, , 922, 117. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac256f

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L14

    Guo, L.-J., Bhattacharjee, A., & Huang, Y.-M.\ 2013, , 771, L14. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L14

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(83)90136-5

    Harten, A.\ 1983, Journal of Computational Physics, 49, 357. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(83)90136-5

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    & Bhattacharjee, A.\ 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104

    Huang, Y.-M. & Bhattacharjee, A.\ 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104. doi:10.1063/1.3420208

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    & Bhattacharjee, A.\ 2016, , 818, 20

    Huang, Y.-M. & Bhattacharjee, A.\ 2016, , 818, 20. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/20

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    C., van der Linden, R

    Ireland, R. C., van der Linden, R. A. M., Hood, A. W., et al.\ 1992, , 142, 265. doi:10.1007/BF00151454

    1992 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    Keppens, R., Popescu Braileanu, B., Zhou, Y., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A66. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c7

    Kropotina, Julia A., Webster, Lee, Artemyev, Anton V., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 142. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6c7

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Karpen, J

    Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V. M., Karpen, J. T., et al.\ 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 2667. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46736-4

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/94

    Kwon, R.-Y., Vourlidas, A., & Webb, D.\ 2016, , 826, 94. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/94

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01817-1

    Ledentsov, L.\ 2021, , 296, 74. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01817-1

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01840-2

    Ledentsov, L.\ 2021, , 296, 93. doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01840-2

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    C., Ding, M

    Li, Y., Xue, J. C., Ding, M. D., et al.\ 2018, , 853, L15. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa6c0

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf167

    Li, L., Zhang, J., Peter, H., et al.\ 2018, , 868, L33. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf167

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    & Ofman, L.\ 2014, , 289, 3233

    Liu, W. & Ofman, L.\ 2014, , 289, 3233. doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0528-4

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L28

    Liu, R., Lee, J., Wang, T., et al.\ 2010, , 723, L28. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L28

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Bloomfield, D

    Long, D. M., Bloomfield, D. S., Chen, P. F., et al.\ 2017, , 292, 7. doi:10.1007/s11207-016-1030-y

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C.\ 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703. doi:10.1063/1.2783986

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    & Veronig, A

    Mann, G. & Veronig, A. M.\ 2023, , 676, A144. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245688

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Burke, W

    Maynard, N. C., Burke, W. J., Ober, D. M., et al.\ 2007, J Geophys Res Space Phys, 112, A12219. doi:10.1029/2007JA012293

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Pontin, D

    Mondal, S., Srivastava, A. K., Pontin, D. I., et al.\ 2024a, , 963, 139. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2079

    doi

  28. [36]

    K., Pontin, D

    Mondal, S., Srivastava, A. K., Pontin, D. I., et al.\ 2024b, arXiv:2411.02180. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.02180

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    M., Kienreich, I

    Muhr, N., Veronig, A. M., Kienreich, I. W., et al.\ 2014, , 289, 4563. doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0594-7

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    V., Schrijver, C

    Nitta, N. V., Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., et al.\ 2013, , 776, 58. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/58

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    & Karlicky, M.\ 1997, Advances in Space Research, 19, 1895

    Odstrcil, D. & Karlicky, M.\ 1997, Advances in Space Research, 19, 1895. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00096-3

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039000

    Patel, R., Pant, V., Chandrashekhar, K., et al.\ 2020, , 644, A158. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039000

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Pontin, D. I. & Priest, E. R.\ 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1. doi:10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1017/CBO9781139020732

    Priest, E.\ 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun, by Eric Priest, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139020732

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    & Velli, M.\ 2014, , 780, L19

    Pucci, F. & Velli, M.\ 2014, , 780, L19. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L19

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1086/509913

    Riley, P., Lionello, R., Miki \'c , Z., et al.\ 2007, , 655, 591. doi:10.1086/509913

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1007/BF00213617

    Sakai, J., Tajima, T., & Brunel, F.\ 1984, , 91, 103. doi:10.1007/BF00213617

    1984 doi

  38. [46]

    & Keppens, R.\ 2022, , 666, A28

    Sen, S. & Keppens, R.\ 2022, , 666, A28. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244152

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347038

    Sen, S., Jenkins, J., & Keppens, R.\ 2023, , 678, A132. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347038

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    D., et al.\ 2018, , 861, 105

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., et al.\ 2018, , 861, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9be

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    & Tanuma, S.\ 2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 473

    Shibata, K. & Tanuma, S.\ 2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 473. doi:10.1186/BF03353258

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    & Kondoh, K.\ 2022, arXiv:2209.00149

    Shimizu, T. & Kondoh, K.\ 2022, arXiv:2209.00149. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.00149

    2022 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    K., Mishra, S

    Srivastava, A. K., Mishra, S. K., Jel \' nek, P., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 137. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a0c

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    K., Mishra, S

    Srivastava, A. K., Mishra, S. K., & Jel \' nek, P.\ 2021, , 920, 18. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1519

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    K., Priest, E

    Srivastava, A. K., Priest, E. R., Ofman, L., Mondal, Sripan, Kwon, R.-Y., Pontin, D., Murawski, K., Mishra, S. K., Yuan, Ding, Asai, A., 2024, COSPAR 44th Scientific Assembly, Busan, S. Korea, E2.7-0002-24

    2024

  46. [54]

    Svestka, Z.\ 1981, Solar Flare Magnetohydrodynamics, 47

    1981

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1017/S002237781600088X

    Tenerani, A., Velli, M., Pucci, F., et al.\ 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820501. doi:10.1017/S002237781600088X

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Treumann, R. A. & Baumjohann, W.\ 2015, , 23, 4. doi:10.1007/s00159-015-0087-1

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    van der Linden, R. A. M. & Goossens, M.\ 1991, , 134, 247. doi:10.1007/BF00152647

    1991 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Dissauer, K., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 173

    Vanninathan, K., Veronig, A. M., Dissauer, K., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 173. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/173

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.1017/S0022377817000782

    Vekstein, G.\ 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 205830501. doi:10.1017/S0022377817000782

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Podladchikova, T., Dissauer, K., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 107

    Veronig, A. M., Podladchikova, T., Dissauer, K., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 107. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac5

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    doi:10.1086/322377

    Wang, Haiman, Chae, Jongchul, Yurchyshyn Vasyl, et al.\ 2001, , 559, 1171. doi:10.1086/322377

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    Xia, C., Teunissen, J., El Mellah, I., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3876

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 528, 1094. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3876

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    & Shibata, K.\ 2001, , 549, 1160

    Yokoyama, T. & Shibata, K.\ 2001, , 549, 1160. doi:10.1086/319440

    2001 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Ji, H

    Zhang, Q. M., Ji, H. S., & Su, Y. N.\ 2016, , 291, 859. doi:10.1007/s11207-016-0878-1

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7142

    Zhao, X., Xia, C., Keppens, R., et al.\ 2017, , 841, 106. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7142

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1361

    Zheng, R., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al.\ 2014, , 444, 1119. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1361

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e3

    Zheng, R., Wang, B., Zhang, L., et al.\ 2022, , 929, L4. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e3

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc5b2

    Zhou, G., Gao, G., Wang, J., et al.\ 2020, , 905, 150. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc5b2

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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