Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Observing the Sun with the Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST): Forecasting Full-disk Observations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that AtLAST can scan the full solar disk in under a minute with instruments of a few thousand to 50,000 detectors, and in seconds with ~100,000-detector large-field-of-view arrays.

desk verdict Useful feasibility study with a real internal inconsistency: the scan-time scaling relation does not reproduce the paper's own simulated cases; the qualitative sub-minute conclusion is plausible, but the quantitative forecasts need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13145 v2 pith:KV4FBO63 submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords AtLASTsolarobservationssubmillimeterastronomyfull-diskmappingscanpatternsfocalplanearraystimecadencechromosphere
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 simulates full-disk solar observations with the planned 50-metre Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST) to find out how fast the whole Sun can be mapped. It establishes that first-generation instruments with 1,000 to 50,000 detector elements can scan the full disk in under a minute, and that a ~100,000-element array with a large field of view can do it in a few seconds using a simple circular scan. If these simulations are right, millimetre astronomy could move from ALMA's ~10-minute total-power full-disk maps to sub-minute or second-level movies of the solar chromosphere. That would open a new window on short-lived events such as flares, which are currently very hard to catch with ALMA's small field of view.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the combination of three design choices: the instantaneous field of view of the focal-plane array (set by pixel count, pixel spacing in units of the wavelength-scaled beam, and observing frequency), the scan pattern (double-circle vs. simple circle), and the sampling length $l$ — the gap between adjacent scan paths, normalized to the field of view. For the double-circle pattern the paper derives power-law fits $N_{\mathrm{circles}}\propto \mathrm{FOV}^{-0.95}$ and $t_{\mathrm{scan}}\propto \mathrm{FOV}^{-0.9}$ for $l=0.5$ and $1.0\,\mathrm{FOV}$, which convert instrumental parameters into predicted full-disk cadence. The maria code supplies the realistic time-ordered data that let the authors test whether the resulting maps actually recover the input Sun.

What would settle it

Run the actual mount through the small-field double-circle pattern and the large-field circular pattern and compare the wall-clock times to the fitted $t\propto \mathrm{FOV}^{-0.9}$ relation; a clear mismatch would overturn the cadence claims. A simpler check is to re-run the intermediate simulation with the same sampling-length criterion used for the fits and see whether the full disk stays covered without gaps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that full-disk millimetre imaging of the Sun is within reach of the planned AtLAST telescope at cadences no current solar millimetre facility provides. Using the maria simulator with realistic all-disk input maps built from SDO ultraviolet and ALMA total-power data, it simulates three instrument archetypes: a small-field-of-view array (1,000 detectors, $2f\lambda$ spacing, 0.03051° field of view) completes a dense 36-circle double-circle scan in 89 seconds; an intermediate array (50,000 detectors, $1f\lambda$ spacing, 0.146679° field of view) covers the disk in about 11.4 seconds with a 4-circle double-circle scan; and a large-field-of-view array (100,000 detectors, $2f\lambda$ spacing, 0.30573° field of view) uses a simple circular scan of radius $0.6\,R_\odot$ and finishes in about 2.7 seconds. Power-law fits to these simulations give the number of secondary circles and the scan time as functions of instrument field of view, so any detector count, spacing, and frequency can be translated into a full-disk cadence. The conclusion is that a realistic first-generation multi-chroic camera reaches sub-minute cadence across the 100–950 GHz range, with the double-circle pattern used at ALMA remaining acceptable for small and intermediate fields of view while a plain circle wins at large fields of view.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that AtLAST's mount can actually sustain 3 degrees per second and 1 degree per second squared while a detector array densely fills its nominal field of view; if the real telescope slews slower or the array has gaps, the quoted scan times are too short.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a first-generation array of 50,000 detectors per band, full-disk maps at all considered bands can be made in under a minute, roughly ten times faster than ALMA's total-power scans and at about four times the angular resolution.
  • Pushing to ~100,000 detectors with a field of view of at least about one solar radius brings full-disk cadence to a few seconds, enough to resolve the ~5-minute peak of a small flare with dozens to over a hundred time steps.
  • The double-circle scan pattern currently used at ALMA is adequate for AtLAST at small to intermediate fields of view; at larger fields of view a simple circular scan is more efficient, so the optimal scan strategy depends on the instrument built.
  • Atmospheric transmission limits high-frequency (670 and 950 GHz) work more than low-frequency work, and a large-field-of-view fast scan preserves smaller spatial scales than a small-field-of-view slow scan at the same frequency.
  • A high-cadence full-disk millimetre capability would complement ALMA by catching transient events such as flares and by mapping large-scale structures like prominences that exceed ALMA's field of view.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to run the same simulations with a time-dependent input map, since the paper uses a static Sun; a flaring brightening that evolves during the ~3-second Case C circle would tell how much transient information is blurred.
  • The cadence-vs-FOV scaling (roughly $t\propto \mathrm{FOV}^{-0.9}$) should transfer to other extended millimetre targets of similar angular size, so the results could inform scanning strategies for observations beyond the Sun.
  • The paper's pixel-count tables (for example, ~97,000 pixels at $0.5f\lambda$ spacing for a 1-minute cadence at 950 GHz) give instrument designers a concrete trade-off between Nyquist sampling, detector count, and cadence; optimizing that trade-off is the immediate engineering follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the maria single-dish telescope simulator to forecast full-disk solar observations with the proposed AtLAST 50-m telescope. It constructs realistic millimeter input maps by combining SDO/AIA ultraviolet images with ALMA total-power maps, simulates three representative instrument configurations (a 1,000-pixel small-FOV array, a 50,000-pixel intermediate-FOV array, and a 100,000-pixel large-FOV array), and compares double-circle and circular scan patterns. From these simulations the paper derives power-law scaling relations between instrument field of view, pixel count, and full-disk scan time, and concludes that sub-minute cadence is achievable across AtLAST's 100-950 GHz range, with cadences of a few seconds for large-FOV instruments.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable and timely design-study contribution: it gives concrete, quantitative guidance for a possible solar instrument at AtLAST, uses a publicly available simulator, and makes falsifiable predictions about scan times and required pixel counts that can be tested once the telescope and instrument parameters are finalized. The comparison with ALMA total-power full-disk maps (about 10-minute cadence) indicates a potential order-of-magnitude improvement in cadence and a substantial gain in angular resolution. However, the quantitative relations that anchor Figure 6 and Table 2 are not self-consistent with the explicitly simulated scan times, so the headline cadence numbers are not yet presented in a fully coherent way.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The fitted scan-time relations do not reproduce the simulated scan times reported for Cases A and B. For Case B (FOV = 0.146679 deg and l = 1.0 FOV), Eq. (4) gives approximately 17.9 s, whereas the simulation in §4.2.2 reports about 11.4 s. For Case A (FOV = 0.03051 deg), Eq. (4) gives about 73 s and Eq. (3) gives about 135 s, bracketing but not matching the reported 89 s. The reason appears to be that Eqs. (1)–(4) are derived from a geometric 'no gaps' criterion with sampling length l = 1.0 FOV or l = 0.5 FOV, while the simulations declare a scan sufficient when the input map structures are recovered after smoothing. Because Figure 6 and Table 2 are generated from Eqs. (3)–(4), the central cadence numbers are not firmly anchored to the simulated trajectories. Please either refit the relations using the same sufficiency criterion as the simulations, or report the scan times from the simulated Cases A–C directly, and quantify the difference between the two criteria.
  2. [§4.2.2 and Eq. (2)] For Case B, Eq. (2) with l = 1.0 FOV predicts about 6.2 secondary circles for a region of 2400 arcsec diameter, whereas the simulation uses only four secondary circles and finds this sufficient. This is not a minor rounding difference; it corresponds to a factor of roughly 1.5 in coverage and about a factor of 1.6 in scan time. The definition of 'sufficient sampling' therefore needs to be made explicit and applied uniformly. As written, the reader cannot tell whether the quoted 11.4 s scan time corresponds to the same quality criterion as the power-law fits, and the status of Figure 6 and Table 2 as predictions is unclear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.1 and Fig. 3a] The text states that 36 minor circles were sufficient for Case A, while the label in Fig. 3a reads ncirc = 35; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§5.1 and Fig. 6] The text says the trends in Fig. 6 were made with a sampling length of l = 0.5 FOV, but Fig. 6 and the surrounding discussion show both l = 0.5 FOV and l = 1.0 FOV; please clarify which sampling length was used for the entries in Table 2.
  3. [§4.3] The power-law fits in Eqs. (1)–(4) are quoted with parameter uncertainties, but no goodness-of-fit statistic or number of fitted FOV values is reported; please add the fit range, number of points, and scatter.
  4. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract states that instruments with 1,000–50,000 detectors achieve sub-minute cadence across AtLAST's frequency range, but Table 2 shows that 950 GHz with 0.5 fλ spacing requires about 97,768 pixels for a one-minute cadence; the claim should be qualified with the relevant pixel spacings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cadence forecasts are outputs of the published maria simulator and independent geometric scaling relations, not restatements of their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Scan times for the three instrument cases are obtained directly from maria simulations with specified instrument parameters, scan patterns, and AtLAST mount limits (Sects. 4.2.1-4.2.3). The analytic cadence relations in Eqs. 1-4 are derived from an explicitly stated geometric sampling criterion (minor-circle gaps equal to the instrument FOV) combined with the assumed velocity and acceleration limits, and are then used to forecast cadence as a function of pixel count (Sect. 4.3, Fig. 6, Table 2). None of these steps defines the target result, sub-minute full-disk cadence, in terms of itself. The input maps constructed from SDO/AIA and scaled to ALMA total-power temperatures affect the image-fidelity tests and power-spectrum comparisons, not the scan-time computation, so they do not make the cadence claim circular. The maria simulator is cited from prior work by overlapping authors, but it is a published, externally usable code with stated assumptions and is not invoked as an unverified assertion of the target result; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing in a circular way. The geometric 'sufficient sampling' criterion used for Eqs. 1-4 is not identical to the visual-recovery criterion used in the Case A/B/C simulations, and Eq. 4 does not perfectly reproduce the simulated Case B time; however, this is an internal consistency and extrapolation concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its own inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The central forecasting claim rests on a published simulator and on transparently stated engineering assumptions, so the paper warrants a score of 0 for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The cadence forecasts rest on fitted power-law relations (Eqs 1-4) and on assumptions about telescope dynamics and array fill. No new physical entities are introduced. The main input-map construction involves hand-tuned scaling and masking choices that are not fully specified.

free parameters (6)
  • N_circles scaling exponent = -0.951 ± 0.003 (l=0.5), -0.943 ± 0.006 (l=1.0)
    Fitted power-law exponents in Eqs 1-2 relating the number of required secondary circles to instrument FOV.
  • N_circles normalization = 10^(0.285 ± 0.004) (l=0.5), 10^(0.008 ± 0.008) (l=1.0)
    Fitted normalization constants in Eqs 1-2.
  • t_scan scaling exponent = -0.893 ± 0.004 (l=0.5), -0.897 ± 0.006 (l=1.0)
    Fitted power-law exponents in Eqs 3-4 relating scan time to instrument FOV.
  • t_scan normalization = 10^(0.778 ± 0.004) (l=0.5), 10^(0.504 ± 0.009) (l=1.0)
    Fitted normalization constants in Eqs 3-4.
  • Input map brightness temperature scaling = not specified numerically
    The constructed millimeter input map is scaled to match the mean brightness temperatures of ALMA TP maps and the Loukitcheva et al. (2004) relation; this affects map structure but not the cadence calculations.
  • AIA 304/1600 Å mask threshold = not specified; 'adjusted slightly at different epochs'
    Hand-adjusted threshold for replacing active regions in the 304 Å map with 1600 Å data; a subjective step in input-map construction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AtLAST will meet a velocity limit of 3 deg/s and an acceleration limit of 1 deg/s^2
    Used in Sect. 4.3 to convert circle counts to scan times; taken from Mroczkowski et al. (2025) technical requirements. If the real telescope slews slower, all quoted cadences increase.
  • domain assumption The Sun can be approximated as a circular 2400 arcsec region with a 200 arcsec off-limb margin
    Sets the scanned region size in Sect. 4.3, matching ALMA TP practice; affects the fitted constants in Eqs 1-4.
  • ad hoc to paper Sampling length l = 0.5 or 1.0 FOV is sufficient for full-disk sampling with a double-circle pattern
    The geometric criterion in Sect. 4.3 is used to derive circle counts and scan times, but the case studies use a less strict criterion (Case B uses 4 circles where Eq 2 predicts about 6), so the assumed sufficiency is not consistently defined.
  • domain assumption SDO AIA 304/1600 Å maps, scaled in brightness temperature, adequately represent the millimeter Sun for resolution forecasts
    Used in Sect. 3.2 to build input maps; a necessary substitution because no full-disk millimeter maps exist at high resolution.
  • domain assumption The maria simulator correctly models single-dish beams, scan kinematics, and the atmosphere
    The entire study relies on maria (van Marrewijk et al. 2024), a published simulator validated on GBT/MUSTANG-2, but not specifically on solar observations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observing the Sun with the Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST): Forecasting Full-disk Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KV4FBO63

@misc{pith2026250513145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observing the Sun with the Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST): Forecasting Full-disk Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KV4FBO63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13145}
}
abstract

The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) has revolutionised the field of solar millimetre astronomy with its high angular resolution and cadence. However, with a limited field of view (FOV), targeted observations of highly dynamic phenomena such of flares are challenging. A large aperture single-dish telescope with a large FOV, such as the future Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST), would prove useful in observing such phenomena, as one could scan the full solar disk on shorter timescales. We aimed to explore what FOVs, detector counts, and scan strategies are suitable for AtLAST to push the required full-disk scan times below 1 minute, enabling regular observations of dynamic solar phenomena. Utilising the maria code, we were able to simulate solar observations with AtLAST, and thoroughly explored how instrumental properties and scanning strategies affect the full-disk observations in the planned frequency bands. We find the double-circle scan pattern, currently employed at ALMA for full-disk mapping to also be an acceptable way of scanning the Sun with AtLAST. Using small to intermediately sized instruments (1000 - 50,000 detector elements), the estimated observational cadence would be less than 1 minute across AtLAST's frequency range with a reasonable pixel spacing. Using instruments with larger FOVs ($\gtrapprox 0.25^\circ$, equivalent to $\gtrapprox$ 1 R$_\odot$), we find a simple circular scan to be more efficient, achieving cadences on second time scales, but requiring more detector elements ($\gtrapprox$ 100,000). We find that a large FOV single-dish telescope such as AtLAST could provide the solar millimetre community with hitherto unachievable observations, namely full-disk observations at high cadence and adequate resolution. With cadences potentially down to seconds, such an instrument would be ideal in the study of quickly evolving solar phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13145 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The various parts of the maria simulator. A synthetic observation is here created by simulating a scan of an input sky map, where both the instrument array, scanning strategy and atmosphere are highly customisable. The shown simulated scan is a 100 GHz scan utilising a relatively small circular 471 detector instrument with a FOV of 0.1◦ at AtLAST, here scanning the disk in a double-circle pattern. gions) looked more… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison between an ALMA TP map in Band 3 taken on 11.03.2023 (ADS/JAO.ALMA# 2022.1.01544.S) and a constructed map from SDO AIA data meant to resemble it. The constructed map is shown convolved to the ALMA TP beam for ease of comparison, and at its full resolution for further use in maria. It should be noted that the brightness temperature ranges are similar, but not identical. able if one opts to observe the Su… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a): Scan pattern and corresponding boresight acceleration for the small-FOV instrument discussed in Sect. 4.2.1. b): Scan pattern and corresponding boresight acceleration for the intermediate-FOV instrument discussed in Sect. 4.2.2. c): Scan pattern and corresponding boresight acceleration for the large-FOV instrument discussed in Sect. 4.2.3. A small-FOV, circular instrument is here set up, with a con￾servative 100… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The synthetic observations resulting from the three cases discussed in Sect. 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3. The simulations are without an atmosphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The number of secondary circles per pattern in the double-circle as a function of instrument field of view, in addition to the total scan time, and therefore cadence, as a function of field of view for two different sampling lengths, 0.5 and 1.0 the instrument FOV. A b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time cadence as a function of the number of detector elements (pixels) with different pixel spacings for four custom frequency bands. Black dashed lines denote the upper limit on the number of detector elements per frequency band estimated for a first- and second gener…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sampling map of the 950 GHz synthetic observa￾tions using the Case A instrument discussed in Sect. 4.2.1. This shows how many times each sky region is sampled dur￾ing the scan. The sampling rate is here 3750 Hz. 5.3. Scan coverage The considered scan patterns and strat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A comparison of four different scan strategies; double-circle, Lissajous daisy, back-and-forth raster, and a Lissajous box. The scan patterns are shown in the first column, their respective weight maps in the second column, and the boresight acceleration in the third c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial mean sampling for the four considered scan strategies with a modest 1,000 detector instrument. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Distance from map centre [R ] 0 5 10 15 20 25 Radial mean weight Double Circle (11s) Lissajous daisy (11s) Back-and-forth …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial mean sampling for the four considered scan strategies with a large 50,000 detector instrument. able even with instruments with detector element counts on the order of thousands, which is realistic already for a first￾generation instrument for AtLAST. The antici…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spatial power spectra for the full-disk maps at different frequencies (shown in different columns) for simulations with no imposed atmosphere (top row) and with a two-dimensional atmosphere (bottom row). The two-dimensional atmosphere is here a simplified approximatio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Solar science with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array - A new view of our Sun

    author author S. Wedemeyer , author T. Bastian , author R. Braj s a , author H. Hudson , author G. Fleishman , author M. Loukitcheva , author B. Fleck , author E. P. \ Kontar , author B. De Pontieu , author P. Yagoubov , author S. K. \ Tiwari , author R. Soler , author J. H. \ Black , author P. Antolin , author E. Scullion , author S. Gun \'a r , author N...

  2. [2]

    author author L. H. M. \ Rouppe van der Voort , author B. De Pontieu , author M. Carlsson , author J. de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , author S. Bose , author G. Chintzoglou , author A. Drews , author C. Froment , author M. Go s i \'c , author D. R. \ Graham , author V. H. \ Hansteen , author V. M. J. \ Henriques , author S. Jafarzadeh , author J. Joshi , author...

  3. [3]

    High-resolution observational analysis of flare ribbon fine structures

    author author J. Thoen Faber , author R. Joshi , author L. R. \ van der Voort , author S. Wedemeyer , author L. Fletcher , author G. Aulanier , \ and\ author D. N \'o brega-Siverio ,\ 10.1051/0004-6361/202452370 journal journal \ volume 693 ,\ eid A8 ( year 2025 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18233 arXiv:2411.18233 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

  4. [4]

    Non-LTE inversions of the Mg II h&k and UV triplet lines

    author author J. de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , author J. Leenaarts , \ and\ author A. Asensio Ramos ,\ 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L30 journal journal \ volume 830 ,\ eid L30 ( year 2016 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09527 arXiv:1609.09527 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

  5. [5]

    author author T. S. \ Bastian , author M. B \'a rta , author R. Braj s a , author B. Chen , author B. D. \ Pontieu , author D. E. \ Gary , author G. D. \ Fleishman , author A. S. \ Hales , author K. Iwai , author H. Hudson , author S. Kim , author A. Kobelski , author M. Loukitcheva , author M. Shimojo , author I. Skoki \'c , author S. Wedemeyer , author ...

  6. [6]

    author author T. S. \ Bastian ,\ 10.1002/1521-3994(200208)323:3/4<271::AID-ASNA271>3.0.CO;2-1 journal journal Astronomische Nachrichten \ volume 323 ,\ pages 271 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

  7. [7]

    Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST) Science: Solar and stellar observations

    author author S. Wedemeyer , author M. Barta , author R. Braj s a , author Y. Chai , author J. Costa , author D. Gary , author G. Gimenez de Castro , author S. Gunar , author G. Fleishman , author A. Hales , author H. Hudson , author M. Kirkaune , author A. Mohan , author G. Motorina , author A. Pellizzoni , author M. Saberi , author C. L. \ Selhorst , au...

  8. [8]

    Wootten \ and\ author A

    author author A. Wootten \ and\ author A. R. \ Thompson ,\ 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020572 journal journal IEEE Proceedings \ volume 97 ,\ pages 1463 ( year 2009 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3739 arXiv:0904.3739 [astro-ph.IM] NoStop

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    author author T. S. \ Bastian , author M. Shimojo , author M. B \'a rta , author S. M. \ White , \ and\ author K. Iwai ,\ 10.3389/fspas.2022.977368 journal journal Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences \ volume 9 ,\ eid 977368 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.016...

  2. [10]

    Shimizu , author M

    author author T. Shimizu , author M. Shimojo , \ and\ author M. Abe ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27a4 journal journal \ volume 922 ,\ eid 113 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11215 arXiv:2109.11215 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

  3. [11]

    Skoki \'c , author A

    author author I. Skoki \'c , author A. O. \ Benz , author R. Braj s a , author D. Sudar , author F. Matkovi \'c , \ and\ author M. B \'a rta ,\ 10.1051/0004-6361/202244532 journal journal \ volume 669 ,\ eid A156 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.16935 arXiv:2211.1693...

  4. [12]

    author author S. M. \ White , author K. Iwai , author N. M. \ Phillips , author R. E. \ Hills , author A. Hirota , author P. Yagoubov , author G. Siringo , author M. Shimojo , author T. S. \ Bastian , author A. S. \ Hales , author T. Sawada , author S. Asayama , author M. Sugi...

  5. [13]

    Mroczkowski , author P

    author author T. Mroczkowski , author P. A. \ Gallardo , author M. Timpe , author A. Kiselev , author M. Groh , author H. Kaercher , author M. Reichert , author C. Cicone , author R. Puddu , author P. Dubois-dit-Bonclaude , author D. Bok , author E. Dahl , author M. Macintosh ...

  6. [14]

    van Marrewijk , author T

    author author J. van Marrewijk , author T. W. \ Morris , author T. Mroczkowski , author C. Cicone , author S. Dicker , author L. Di Mascolo , author S. K. \ Haridas , author J. Orlowski-Scherer , author E. Rasia , author C. Romero , \ and\ author J. W \"u rzinger ,\ 10.33232/0...

  7. [15]

    De Moortel \ and\ author P

    author author I. De Moortel \ and\ author P. Browning ,\ 10.1098/rsta.2014.0269 journal journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A \ volume 373 ,\ pages 20140269 ( year 2015 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00977 arXiv:1510.00977 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

  8. [16]

    author author A. O. \ Benz ,\ 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 journal journal Living Reviews in Solar Physics \ volume 14 ,\ eid 2 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

  9. [17]

    Krucker , author A

    author author S. Krucker , author A. O. \ Benz , author T. S. \ Bastian , \ and\ author L. W. \ Acton ,\ 10.1086/304686 journal journal \ volume 488 ,\ pages 499 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

  10. [18]

    author author A. O. \ Benz \ and\ author S. Krucker ,\ 10.1023/A:1005046620684 journal journal \ volume 182 ,\ pages 349 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

  11. [19]

    Berghmans , author F

    author author D. Berghmans , author F. Clette , \ and\ author D. Moses ,\ @noop journal journal \ volume 336 ,\ pages 1039 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

  12. [20]

    R \'e gnier \ and\ author R

    author author S. R \'e gnier \ and\ author R. C. \ Canfield ,\ 10.1051/0004-6361:20054171 journal journal \ volume 451 ,\ pages 319 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

  13. [21]

    \ Vial \ and\ editor O

    editor J.-C. \ Vial \ and\ editor O. Engvold ,\ eds.,\ 10.1007/978-3-319-10416-4 title Solar Prominences ,\ series Astrophysics and Space Science Library , Vol.\ volume 415 \ ( year 2015 ) NoStop

  14. [22]

    author author D. H. \ Mackay , author J. T. \ Karpen , author J. L. \ Ballester , author B. Schmieder , \ and\ author G. Aulanier ,\ 10.1007/s11214-010-9628-0 journal journal \ volume 151 ,\ pages 333 ( year 2010 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1635 arXiv:1001.1635 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

  15. [23]

    author author T. W. \ Morris , author R. Bustos , author E. Calabrese , author S. K. \ Choi , author A. J. \ Duivenvoorden , author J. Dunkley , author R. D \"u nner , author P. A. \ Gallardo , author M. Hasselfield , author A. D. \ Hincks , author T. Mroczkowski , author S. N...

  16. [24]

    Wedemeyer , author M

    author author S. Wedemeyer , author M. Szydlarski , author S. Jafarzadeh , author H. Eklund , author J. C. \ Guevara Gomez , author T. Bastian , author B. Fleck , author J. de la Cruz Rodriguez , author A. Rodger , \ and\ author M. Carlsson ,\ 10.1051/0004-6361/201937122 journ...

  17. [25]

    author author J. R. \ Lemen , author A. M. \ Title , author D. J. \ Akin , author P. F. \ Boerner , author C. Chou , author J. F. \ Drake , author D. W. \ Duncan , author C. G. \ Edwards , author F. M. \ Friedlaender , author G. F. \ Heyman , author N. E. \ Hurlburt , author N...

  18. [26]

    author author W. D. \ Pesnell , author B. J. \ Thompson , \ and\ author P. C. \ Chamberlin ,\ 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 journal journal \ volume 275 ,\ pages 3 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

  19. [27]

    Remijan , author A

    author author A. Remijan , author A. Biggs , author P. A. \ Cortes , author B. Dent , author J. Di Franceso , author E. Fomalont , author A. Hales , author S. Kameno , author B. Mason , author N. Philips , author K. Saini , author B. Vila Vilaro , \ and\ author E. Villard ,\ 1...

  20. [28]

    Loukitcheva , author S

    author author M. Loukitcheva , author S. K. \ Solanki , author M. Carlsson , \ and\ author R. F. \ Stein ,\ 10.1051/0004-6361:20034159 journal journal \ volume 419 ,\ pages 747 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

  21. [29]

    author author E. van Kampen ,\ @noop journal journal AtLAST Memo Series \ volume 4 ( year 2024 ) ,\ note https://atlast-telescope.org/memo-series/memo-public/instrumentationwgmemo4_29feb2024.pdf NoStop

  22. [30]

    author author P. A. \ Gallardo , author R. Puddu , author T. Mroczkowski , author M. Timpe , author P. Dubois-dit-Bonclaude , author M. Groh , author M. Reichert , author C. Cicone , \ and\ author H. J. \ Kaercher ,\ in\ 10.1117/12.3020272 booktitle Ground-based and Airborne T...

  23. [31]

    Puddu , author P

    author author R. Puddu , author P. A. \ Gallardo , author T. Mroczkowski , author P. Dubois-dit-Bonclaude , author M. Groh , author A. Kiselev , author M. Reichert , author M. Timpe , author C. Cicone , author H. J. \ Kaercher , \ and\ author R. D \"u nner ,\ in\ 10.1117/12.30...

  24. [32]

    author author S. R. \ Dicker , author P. A. R. \ Ade , author J. Aguirre , author J. A. \ Brevik , author H. M. \ Cho , author R. Datta , author M. J. \ Devlin , author B. Dober , author D. Egan , author J. Ford , author P. Ford , author G. Hilton , author K. D. \ Irwin , auth...

  25. [33]

    author author M. J. \ Griffin , author J. J. \ Bock , \ and\ author W. K. \ Gear ,\ 10.1364/AO.41.006543 journal journal \ volume 41 ,\ pages 6543 ( year 2002 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205264 arXiv:astro-ph/0205264 [astro-ph] NoStop

  26. [34]

    Mason ,\ https://www.gb.nrao.edu/ptcs/ptcspn/ptcspn33/ptcspn33.pdf journal journal Precision Telescope Control System PTCS Project Note 33.1 \ ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    author author B. Mason ,\ https://www.gb.nrao.edu/ptcs/ptcspn/ptcspn33/ptcspn33.pdf journal journal Precision Telescope Control System PTCS Project Note 33.1 \ ( year 2003 ) NoStop

  27. [35]

    author author P. M. \ Korngut , author S. R. \ Dicker , author E. D. \ Reese , author B. S. \ Mason , author M. J. \ Devlin , author T. Mroczkowski , author C. L. \ Sarazin , author M. Sun , \ and\ author J. Sievers ,\ 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/10 journal journal \ volume 734 ,\...

  28. [36]

    Gun \'a r , author P

    author author S. Gun \'a r , author P. Heinzel , author D. H. \ Mackay , \ and\ author U. Anzer ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/141 journal journal \ volume 833 ,\ eid 141 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

  29. [37]

    Gun \'a r , author P

    author author S. Gun \'a r , author P. Heinzel , author U. Anzer , \ and\ author D. H. \ Mackay ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa001 journal journal \ volume 853 ,\ eid 21 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

  30. [38]

    author author G. K. \ Parks \ and\ author J. R. \ Winckler ,\ 10.1086/180315 journal journal \ volume 155 ,\ pages L117 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

  31. [39]

    Phillips , author R

    author author N. Phillips , author R. Hills , author T. Bastian , author H. Hudson , author R. Marson , \ and\ author S. Wedemeyer ,\ in\ 10.48550/arXiv.1502.06122 booktitle Revolution in Astronomy with ALMA: The Third Year ,\ series Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confere...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.