Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Cometary ion dynamics at 67P: A collisional test-particle approach with Rosetta data comparison

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A collisional ion model still underestimates Rosetta's plasma density at 67P by 5–10 times, pointing to the adiabatic electron closure in hybrid simulations.

desk verdict Adapts a collisional test-particle model to cometary ions, gets a clear 5-10x density underestimate vs Rosetta data, but the adiabatic-electron attribution is an inferred interpretation rather than a tested mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10110 v1 pith:H2OEPUQI submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.EP physics.space-ph

Zoe Lewis (1 , 2) , Peter Stephenson (3) , Arnaud Beth (1) , Marina Galand (1) , Esa Kallio (4) , Anja Moeslinger (5) ((1) Imperial College London , (2) Lancaster University
show 4 more authors
(3) Lunar Planetary Laboratory (4) Aalto University (5) Umea University)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords comet67PRosettatest-particlemodelcometaryionospherehybridsimulationambipolarelectricfieldadiabaticelectronsion-neutralcollisions
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 tries to establish that at intermediate outgassing of comet 67P (about 5.4×$10^{26}$ $s^{-1}$, at 2.5–3 au from the Sun), a 3D collisional test-particle model of cometary ions, driven by electric and magnetic fields from a hybrid simulation, produces plasma densities 5–10 times lower than those measured by Rosetta's MIP and LAP instruments. Even when ion–neutral collisions are included, the modelled ions are accelerated too quickly by the simulated ambipolar electric field, so the model loses too many ions through transport. The authors attribute this to the hybrid simulation's assumption of adiabatic electrons, which overestimates the ambipolar electric field strength near the nucleus. If correct, hybrid simulations with adiabatic electron pressure are insufficient to model the inner coma of weakly to moderately outgassing comets, and kinetic, collisional treatment of electrons is required to capture ion dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is a 3D collisional test-particle model, adapted from an earlier electron test-particle code, which follows H2O+, H3O+, and NH4+ macroparticles through electric and magnetic fields provided by a hybrid simulation. Ions are created with photoionisation (boosted to include electron-impact ionisation), pushed by the Lorentz force, and undergo ion–neutral collisions (proton transfer, momentum transfer, electron transfer) using energy-dependent cross sections. The hybrid simulation treats ions kinetically but electrons as a fluid with an adiabatic closure, p_e = n_e k_B T_e = $\alpha$ n_e^gamma, which sets the ambipolar electric field that accelerates the ions. The test-particle model solves the ion trajectories on a 1000 km cubed grid with 25 km field resolution, and the comparison with Rosetta data uses the terminator plane only.

What would settle it

Run the hybrid simulation with a non-adiabatic, collisional electron closure (e.g., a full electron energy equation with cooling) and compare the resulting ion bulk velocities and densities to the MIP/LAP data at 2.5–3 au; alternatively, directly measure the ion bulk speed in the inner coma with an ion composition analyser. If the data show bulk speeds below about 2 km/s or densities matching MIP/LAP, the adiabatic closure is the cause; if not, the representativeness of the snapshot or the ion production profile is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at 67P's intermediate outgassing regime, the collisional test-particle model, using fields from a hybrid simulation with adiabatic electrons, underestimates the measured plasma density by a factor of 5–10. The modelled total ion density in the terminator plane stays well below the MIP/LAP data for the same outgassing window, while the field-free, chemistry-free model (which assumes ions move radially at the neutral speed) actually agrees well with the data below about 30 km. The modelled ions are accelerated to bulk speeds of 11 km/s at 100 km despite collisions, far above the neutral expansion speed of 0.7 km/s. The authors conclude that the adiabatic electron closure (Equations 12 and 13) produces too strong an ambipolar electric field, leading to excessive ion transport and low densities, and that a self-consistent collisional electron treatment is needed.

Load-bearing premise

The paper compares one fixed simulation snapshot—with fixed upstream solar wind parameters, a constant boosted photoionisation rate, and adiabatic electrons—against Rosetta data binned over a range of outgassing conditions; if the true electric fields, solar wind conditions, or radial ion production profile during those intervals differ from this snapshot, the 5–10 times density underestimate could be caused by these factors rather than by the adiabatic electron closure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid simulations with adiabatic electron pressure are unlikely to reproduce the inner-coma ion densities at intermediate outgassing; a kinetic or collisional electron closure is required.
  • Even with collisions, the modelled ion bulk speeds are too high (11 km/s at 100 km), so any model relying on adiabatic electrons may systematically overestimate ion loss through transport.
  • The field-free, chemistry-free model, which assumes ions travel radially at the neutral speed, remains a good predictor of plasma density at low outgassing and below about 30 km at this outgassing.
  • Energy-dependent 3D cross sections boost proton transfer and NH4+ production compared to 1D kinetic rates, but the product of density and bulk velocity (n_i u_i) is preserved, so earlier electric-field strength estimates remain valid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adiabatic closure is indeed the culprit, replacing it with a collisional electron model that allows electron-neutral cooling would flatten the ambipolar potential well, reduce ion speeds, and raise densities, potentially reconciling the model with MIP/LAP data without invoking different ion production rates.
  • The same test-particle approach could predict spatial maps of ion composition ratios (e.g., NH4+/H3O+) as diagnostics of where chemistry vs transport dominates, which Rosetta's ROSINA-DFMS measurements could test.
  • The finding implies that hybrid simulations of weakly outgassing comets using adiabatic electrons may systematically overestimate ion loss; previous results from such simulations should be re-examined.
  • A natural next step is to couple the collisional ion model with the collisional electron test-particle model to compute the ambipolar field self-consistently rather than from an adiabatic closure.
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 adapts a 3D collisional test-particle model, originally developed for electrons, to cometary ions (H2O+, H3O+, NH4+) at 67P, using electric and magnetic fields from an AMITIS hybrid simulation representative of 2.5-3 au and an outgassing rate Q = 5.4e26 s^-1 (Table 1). The model includes energy-dependent ion-neutral collisions and is validated against the authors' 1D ion acceleration model (Lewis et al. 2024) and against the collisionless AMITIS output (Appendix A). In Section 4.2, the modelled terminator-plane densities, averaged in 20 km radial bins, are compared with MIP/LAP electron densities binned over 19.85 < log10(Q nu) < 20.15. The paper finds that the model densities are 5-10 times lower than the spacecraft data, and attributes this discrepancy to the adiabatic electron closure in the hybrid fields (Eqs. 12-13), concluding that kinetic collisional modelling of electrons is necessary.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper is valuable: it identifies a concrete limitation of hybrid simulations with adiabatic electron pressure for the inner coma of 67P at intermediate outgassing, and it quantifies the effect of ion-neutral collisions on density and bulk velocity. The study has clear strengths: energy-dependent ion-neutral cross sections, validation against both a 1D fluid model and a collisionless hybrid output, comparison with independent Rosetta MIP/LAP data, and the public availability of the AMITIS simulation data. However, the significance is tempered because the causal attribution to the adiabatic electron closure is not directly tested, and the model-data comparison rests on one hybrid snapshot with fixed upstream conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 10] The central 5-10x underestimate is not yet a robust estimate of what the hybrid model would predict for the plasma Rosetta actually sampled. The comparison uses one AMITIS snapshot with fixed upstream solar wind parameters (Table 1), and the model output is the full terminator plane averaged into 20 km radial bins, not the spacecraft ephemeris. The MIP/LAP median is taken over a broad bin 19.85 < log10(Q nu) < 20.15, which aggregates many intervals with different heliocentric distances, upstream conditions, and spacecraft potentials. Before attributing the gap to the electron closure, the paper should either degrade the model along the actual Rosetta trajectory or show that the discrepancy is robust to the choice of radial bins and to variations of the upstream parameters within the 2.5-3 au window.
  2. [Conclusions and Section 5.3.2] The causal claim that the adiabatic electron assumption (Eqs. 12-13) drives the over-fast ion transport and the resulting 5-10x density shortfall is not tested anywhere in the paper. No simulation varies the adiabatic index gamma or replaces Eqs. 12-13 with a collisional/cooled electron closure; no control run demonstrates that such a replacement raises the modelled densities by the required factor. Furthermore, the hybrid fields are generated without self-consistent ion-neutral collisions, so the high ambipolar field may reflect the absence of ion-neutral friction in the hybrid model as well as the electron closure. The conclusion should be reworded as a hypothesis supported by earlier work, or a controlled closure run should be added.
  3. [Section 5.3.1, Table 1] The treatment of electron-impact ionisation as a uniform boost of the photoionisation frequency is a potential confound for the reported underestimate. Stephenson et al. (2023) found that electron-impact ionisation is enhanced in the first ~100 km near the nucleus; if the true production rate has such a radial enhancement, the test-particle model's production profile is too low near the nucleus, which acts in the same direction as the reported density shortfall. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the 5-10x ratio to a radially peaked production profile, or implement a production profile consistent with the kinetic electron simulations, before attributing the entire discrepancy to transport.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (11)] The text states that 'A value of un = 700 km s^-1 is assumed'; this should be 0.7 km s^-1 to be consistent with Table 1 and the surrounding discussion.
  2. [Section 5.3] In the sentence describing the field-free chemistry-free model, the parenthetical reads 'ui = ui = 0.7 km s^-1'; this should be 'ui = un = 0.7 km s^-1'.
  3. [Section 2.2, page 4] The sentence 'The Sun in the +X direction' is missing a verb and should read 'The Sun is in the +X direction'; similarly, 'the interplanetary magnetic field is oriented along the +Y axis' would improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (9)] The notation vmean_n,th is not clearly defined; the text refers to the mean speed in the frame of the neutral gas, but the symbol vmean_n,th should be defined explicitly to avoid confusion with the most probable speed v_n,th defined just above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the model–data comparison is external, and the adiabatic-electron attribution is an inference, not a fitted or self-derived result.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is genuinely external: the collisional test-particle model is driven by fixed AMITIS hybrid fields and by outgassing/ionisation inputs taken from COPS and RPC-IES data (Table 1, Section 2.2), and none of these inputs are fitted to the MIP/LAP total electron density that the model is later compared against in Section 4.2. The 5–10x underestimate quoted there is therefore a real model–data discrepancy, not a prediction forced by a fitted constant. The field-free chemistry-free model (Eqs. 4 and 11) serves as an independent benchmark, not as an input to the simulation. The attribution of the underestimate to the adiabatic electron closure (Eqs. 12–13) is an inference supported by the cited kinetic-electron simulations of Stephenson et al. (2023) and by Koenders et al. (2015), which are separate studies with stated assumptions that do not include this paper's target result; the claim is not derived by construction from any fitted parameter here. The comparisons to Lewis et al. (2024) and to AMITIS output (Appendices A1–A2) are code-validations using identical input fields and rates—they demonstrate consistency of the particle integrator and do not constitute a predictive claim. The untested nature of the electron-cooling hypothesis is a legitimate evidence limitation, but it is not a circular-reasoning defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on input parameters derived from measurements (Q, nu, upstream solar wind), a set of modeling assumptions (Haser coma, adiabatic electrons, initial ion velocity, no recombination), and one unreported boost factor. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed constant neutral expansion speed u_n = 0.7 km/s
    Chosen as representative of 67P based on Biver et al. (2019) and the AMITIS run (Table 1); used in both field-free model (Eq. 11) and test-particle model. Not fitted to the target MIP/LAP data, but a hand-picked input.
  • NH3 mixing ratio = 0.2%
    Assumed in Section 3 for the neutral coma to model NH4+ production; based on typical values, not fitted to the Rosetta data used for comparison.
  • Electron-impact ionisation boost factor = not stated
    In Section 4.2, photoionisation is 'artificially boosted' to account for electron-impact ionisation measured by RPC-IES, but the multiplier is not reported. It affects total production rate and hence density.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric Haser neutral coma n_n = Q/(4 pi u_n r^2)
    Used for the field-free model (Eq. 3-4, 11) and to set neutral density in collision calculations; ignores asymmetries in outgassing.
  • ad hoc to paper Adiabatic electron closure p_e = n_e k_B T_e = alpha n_e^gamma with gamma = 5/3 (Eq. 12-13)
    Inherited from the AMITIS hybrid simulation; the paper argues this is the key limitation causing strong ambipolar fields. It is assumed, not derived in this work.
  • domain assumption Ions are created at the neutral gas velocity u_i = u_n (Section 2.1)
    Photo-ions are initialized with the neutral bulk velocity; no thermal spread or initial acceleration.
  • domain assumption Dissociative recombination is negligible (Section 2.3)
    Justified by <20% error at T_e = 200 K from Heritier et al. (2018); valid at the outgassing rates considered.
  • domain assumption Quasi-neutrality n_i approximately n_e
    Used to compare modeled ion density to measured electron density from MIP/LAP.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cometary ion dynamics at 67P: A collisional test-particle approach with Rosetta data comparison." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2OEPUQI

@misc{pith2026250710110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cometary ion dynamics at 67P: A collisional test-particle approach with Rosetta data comparison},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2OEPUQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10110}
}
abstract

The Rosetta spacecraft escorted comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko for two years, gathering a rich and variable dataset. Amongst the data from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC) suite of instruments are measurements of the total electron density from the Mutual Impedance Probe (MIP) and Langmuir Probe (LAP). At low outgassing, the plasma density measurements can be explained by a simple balance between the production through ionisation and loss through transport. Ions are assumed to travel radially at the outflow speed of the neutral gas. Near perihelion, the assumptions of this field-free chemistry-free model are no longer valid, and plasma density is overestimated. This can be explained by enhanced ion transport by an ambipolar electric field inside the diamagnetic cavity, where the interplanetary magnetic field does not reach. In this study, we explore the transition between these two regimes, at intermediate outgassing ($5.4 \times10^{26}~\mathrm{s^{-1}}$), when the interaction between the cometary and solar wind plasma influences the transport of the ions. We use a 3D collisional test-particle model, adapted from Stephenson et al. 2022 to model the cometary ions with input electric and magnetic fields from a hybrid simulation for 2.5-3 au. The total plasma density from this model is then compared to data from MIP/LAP and to the field-free chemistry-free model. In doing so, we highlight the limitations of the hybrid approach and demonstrate the importance of modelling collisional cooling of the electrons to understand the ion dynamics close to the nucleus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [a] Comparison of the (black) calculated plasma density from Eq. 4, with the measured electron density from (red) RPC-MIP and (blue) the MIP/LAP combined dataset (Johansson et al. 2021). (cyan) The ion production rate 𝑄𝜈tot where 𝑄 is the total outgassing rate calculated COPS and 𝜈 tot is the sum of the total photoionisation and electron-impact frequencies (Stephenson et al. 2023). Data are shown for July 2015 - Jul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flow chart representing the key elements of the ion test-particle model. The blue box separates processes happening inside the code, and the inputs controlled externally (in purple boxes). Adapted from Stephenson et al. (2022) for the application to cometary ions. [a] [b] [c] [d] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [a] and [b] Electric field and [c] and [d] magnetic field magnitudes from AMITIS (Fatemi et al. 2017), used to drive the collisional test-particle model (Moeslinger et al. 2024). Red cross inidicates the position of the cometary nucleus. MNRAS 000, 1–16 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of 1D Ion Acceleration Model from Lewis et al. (2024) (dashed lines) with the 3D ion test-particle model with (solid lines) and without (dotted line) an exothermic energy release during protonation for [a] ion density and [b] ion bulk velocity. Profiles for …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ion density in the X-Y plane from the ion test-particle model, using the electric and magnetic fields from the AMITIS hybrid simulation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ratio between the total ion densities calculated from the test-particle model with collisions included (as in Fig. 5b) and without (as in Fig. 5a). Red cross marks the location of the nucleus. density data1 in the low outgassing cases (for which the model was developed…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ion bulk velocity magnitude (colour scale) and direction (red arrows) in the [a, b] X-Y plane, [c, d] X-Z plane, and [e, f] Y-Z plane, generating using the ion test-particle model with collisions included. Cyan box in left column corresponds to the 100 × 100 inset, sho…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heat maps showing the MIP/LAP combined dataset from the whole escort phase (covering August 2014– August 2016), binned by cometocentric distance 𝑟 and 𝑄𝜈tot. [a] Shows the median electron density in each bin, [b] shows the 25th percentile. [c] shows, for context, the f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Coverage of the parameter space in 𝑄 𝜈 vs 𝑟 (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: [a] Ion density averaged over 20 km cometocentric distance bins for the test-particle model in the terminator plane: Total with collisions (black), total without collisions (pink), H2O + (red), H3O + (green) and NH+ 4 (blue). The field-free, chemistry-free modelled de…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Altwegg K., et al., 1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 279, 260

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Balsiger H., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-8335-3 , 128, 745

    doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8335-3 2007

  3. [3]

    Bergman S., et al., 2021a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab584 , 503, 2733

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab584

  4. [4]

    Bergman S., Stenberg Wieser G., Wieser M., Nilsson H., Vigren E., Beth A., Masunaga K., Eriksson A., 2021b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2470 , 507, 4900

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2470

  5. [5]

    Beth A., Galand M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty430 , 469, S824

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty430 2017

  6. [6]

    Beth A., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3370 , 462, S562

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3370 2016

  7. [7]

    L., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833517 , 630

    Beth A., Galand M., Heritier K. L., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833517 , 630

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833517 2019

  8. [8]

    Biver N., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834960 , 630

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834960 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Carr C., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9136-4 , 128, 629

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Deca J., Divin A., Henri P., Eriksson A., Markidis S., Olshevsky V., Horányi M., 2017, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.205101 , 118

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Deca J., Henri P., Divin A., Eriksson A., Galand M., Beth A., Ostaszewski K., Horányi M., 2019, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.055101 , 123, 055101

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    I., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9003-3 , 128, 729

    Eriksson A. I., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9003-3 , 128, 729

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    G., 1967, @doi [Zeitschrift fur Physik] 10.1007/BF01326177 , 200, 343

    Fahr H., Mueller K. G., 1967, @doi [Zeitschrift fur Physik] 10.1007/BF01326177 , 200, 343

    1967 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Delory G

    Fatemi S., Poppe A. R., Delory G. T., Farrell W. M., 2017, @doi [Journal of Physics: Conference Series] 10.1088/1742-6596/837/1/012017 , 837, 012017

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Delamere P

    Fleshman B. L., Delamere P. A., Bagenal F., Cassidy T., 2012, @doi [J. Geophys. Res.] 10.1029/2011JE003996 , 117

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Galand M., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2891 , 462, S331

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Galand M., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1171-7 , 4, 1084

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Gasc S., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1412 , 469, S108

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Gilet N., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937056 , 640

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Glassmeier K.-H., Boehnhardt H., Koschny D., Kührt E., Richter I., 2007a, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9140-8 , 128, 1

    doi

  13. [21]

    H., et al., 2007b, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9114-x , 128, 649

    Glassmeier K. H., et al., 2007b, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9114-x , 128, 649

    doi

  14. [22]

    Goetz C., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3148 , 462, S459

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Gunell H., Lindkvist J., Goetz C., Nilsson H., Hamrin M., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936004 , 631

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    C., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2413 , 462, S491

    Hansen K. C., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2413 , 462, S491

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Haser L., 1957, Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, 43, 740

    1957

  18. [26]

    L., et al., 2017a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1459 , 469, S118

    Heritier K. L., et al., 2017a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1459 , 469, S118

    doi

  19. [27]

    L., et al., 2017b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1912 , 469, S427

    Heritier K. L., et al., 2017b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1912 , 469, S427

    doi

  20. [28]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832881 , 618

    Heritier K. L., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832881 , 618

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Hunter E. P. L., Lias S. G., 1998, @doi [Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data] 10.1063/1.556018 , 27, 413

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039959 , 653, A128

    Johansson F. L., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039959 , 653, A128

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Richter I., Motschmann U., Rubin M., 2013, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2013.08.009 , 87, 85

    Koenders C., Glassmeier K. H., Richter I., Motschmann U., Rubin M., 2013, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2013.08.009 , 87, 85

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Richter I., Ranocha H., Motschmann U., 2015, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.014 , 105, 101

    Koenders C., Glassmeier K. H., Richter I., Ranocha H., Motschmann U., 2015, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2014.11.014 , 105, 101

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1787 , 523, 6208

    Lewis Z. M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1787 , 523, 6208

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Beth A., Galand M., Henri P., Rubin M., Stephenson P., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae856 , 530, 66

    Lewis Z. M., Beth A., Galand M., Henri P., Rubin M., Stephenson P., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae856 , 530, 66

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    W., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730502 , 603, A87

    Marshall D. W., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730502 , 603, A87

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Moeslinger A., Gunell H., 2024, Particle Tracing Code , @doi 10.5281/ZENODO.10973547 , https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10973547

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Moeslinger A., Gunell H., Nilsson H., Fatemi S., Stenberg Wieser G., 2024, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/2024JA032757 , 129, e2024JA032757

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Murad E., Bochsler P., 1987, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/326366a0 , 326, 366

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    I., Nilsson H., Johansson F

    Odelstad E., Stenberg-Wieser G., Wieser M., Eriksson A. I., Nilsson H., Johansson F. L., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2232 , 469, S568

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Odelstad E., et al., 2018, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/2018JA025542 , 123, 5870

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Stephenson P., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039155 , 647

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Deca J., Henri P., Carnielli G., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac055 , 511, 4090

    Stephenson P., Galand . M., Deca J., Henri P., Carnielli G., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac055 , 511, 4090

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Stephenson P., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2168 , 525, 5041

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Stephenson P., Galand M., Deca J., Henri P., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae695 , 529, 2854

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    G., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9005-1 , 128, 713

    Trotignon J. G., et al., 2007, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-006-9005-1 , 128, 713

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    I., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6006 , 153, 150

    Vigren E., Eriksson A. I., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6006 , 153, 150

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Vigren E., Galand M., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/33 , 772

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Vigren E., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1472 , 469, 142

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Vigren E., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29f7 , 881, 6

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    N., Johansson A., Canu-Blot R., Stenberg Wieser G., Nilsson H., Johansson F

    Williamson H. N., Johansson A., Canu-Blot R., Stenberg Wieser G., Nilsson H., Johansson F. L., Moeslinger A., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1883 , 533, 1442

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.