Magnetohydrodynamic/Kinetic Modeling of the Interaction between the Solar Wind and the Local Interstellar Medium with He$^+$, He$^{2+}$, and Pickup H$^+$ ions and H, He Atoms

Federico Fraternale; Nikolai V. Pogorelov; Ratan K. Bera

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Magnetohydrodynamic/Kinetic Modeling of the Interaction between the Solar Wind and the Local Interstellar Medium with He$^+$, He$^{2+}$, and Pickup H$^+$ ions and H, He Atoms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends a global heliosphere model so that He+, He2+, pickup protons, and electrons are separate, source-coupled populations, with new cross-section fits that cut a high-energy overestimate from 50% to under 6%.

desk verdict Useful model-extension paper with a real problem in its headline cross-section fit: Eq. (20) is discontinuous by orders of magnitude at the high-energy seam as printed, so the central accuracy claim is not reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01623 v1 pith:P7LAYHQS submitted 2025-02-03 physics.space-ph

Federico Fraternale , Nikolai V. Pogorelov , Ratan K. Bera This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.space-ph

keywords heliospheresolarwindlocalinterstellarmediumpickupionschargeexchangeenergeticneutralatomsMHD-kineticsimulationhelium

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 presents an extension of a global, three-dimensional heliospheric simulation in which singly charged helium (He+), doubly charged helium (He2+), pickup protons, and electrons are evolved as separate plasma populations, coupled through six charge-exchange reactions and photoionization to neutral hydrogen and helium atoms that are treated kinetically with a Monte Carlo method. The authors' central claim is that this more complete separation of species is both physically necessary for predicting neutral-atom fluxes and computationally affordable: the plasma stage runs 40% slower per step, while the hydrogen and helium source-term calculations take only about 13% and 5% longer. New analytic fits to Barnett et al. charge-exchange data, including a high-energy fit for the H+ + H reaction that reduces a previous overestimate from up to 50% to under 6% error, are given in explicit form. Two test simulations show the source-term maps for each ion species and reveal a noticeable feedback of He+ that enlarges the modeled heliosphere. If the model is right, it gives a self-consistent tool for interpreting the energetic neutral atom and interstellar neutral measurements that IMAP will return.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hybrid MHD/kinetic system: conservation laws for total plasma mass, momentum, energy, and magnetic field, augmented by separate continuity and pressure equations for He+, He2+, pickup H+, and electrons, with core protons diagnosed from the mixture. Neutral H and He atoms obey Boltzmann equations evaluated by a Monte Carlo trajectory-splitting method, and the two sides exchange mass, momentum, and energy through six charge-exchange reactions and two photoionization processes. The updated rates rest on new high-order logarithmic-polynomial fits (Eqs. 20-25) to Barnett et al. cross-section data; the new high-energy fit for H+ + H replaces formulas that overestimated the cross section by up to 50% with one whose maximum error is below 2% up to 60 keV and below 6% to 220 keV. Charge-exchange probabilities are obtained from precomputed cumulative integrals (Eqs. 28-30) over Maxwellian or Lorentzian (kappa) ion velocity distributions, which lets the model draw the velocities and angles of newborn ions and atoms consistently.

What would settle it

Compare the model's predicted helium ENA fluxes and energy spectra at 1 AU with IMAP data once available; a systematic discrepancy larger than the reported cross-section fit errors (below 6% in the high-energy H+ + H band and below 5% for most other processes) would indicate that the separate-fluid source terms or the shared-bulk-velocity assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interaction between the solar wind and the local interstellar medium can now be modeled with He+, He2+, pickup H+, and electrons as separate, mutually coupled fluids rather than folded into one plasma mixture. On the plasma side, the model solves the MHD conservation laws for the mixture and auxiliary continuity and pressure equations for each extra species, with core proton properties recovered from the mixture; on the neutral side, kinetic Boltzmann equations for H and He atoms are advanced with a trajectory-splitting Monte Carlo method. The coupling is through charge-exchange processes (a)-(f) and photoionization (g)-(h), with charge-exchange probabilities drawn from precomputed integrals over Maxwellian or kappa ion velocity distributions. The paper demonstrates that the implementation is operational by presenting density and pressure source-term maps in the B-V plane for two test simulations, with and without photoionization, and reports a measurable effect of He+ feedback on heliospheric size. This establishes a capability the authors intend to use for computing H and He ENA fluxes for comparison with IMAP observations.

Load-bearing premise

All ion populations share one common bulk velocity on the scales the model resolves, with only temperatures and pressures separated; if pickup ions and core plasma stream at different bulk speeds in the inner heliosheath or outer heliosphere, the computed source terms and neutral fluxes would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The model produces spatially resolved production and loss maps for He+, He2+, and pickup H+, identifying which regions of the heliosphere generate or remove each species.
Turning on photoionization raises He+ density by about a factor of 10 and pressure by about $2.5\times 10^2$ in the distant supersonic solar wind, which then cools via He+ charge exchange and feeds helium ENA production.
The He+ population feeds back on the global solution, increasing the computed heliosphere size relative to a model without separate helium ions.
The performance cost is modest enough for time-dependent use: the plasma stage is about 40% slower per step, while the neutral source-term stage is only about 13% (H) and 5% (He) slower.
The new high-energy charge-exchange fit for H+ + H reduces the prior formula's cross-section overestimate from up to 50% to under 6%, improving the accuracy of ENA source calculations in the 0.45-220 keV range.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the paper leaves implicit is that, once validated at 1 AU, helium ENA fluxes could be used as a remote diagnostic of the unperturbed LISM properties at thousands of AU, in the same way low-energy helium ISN observations have constrained the local interstellar flow.
The model's boundary treatment for pickup protons at the termination shock, imported from hybrid-kinetic runs, could also be extended to pickup He+ in a future version, which would change the predicted helium ENA spectrum if He+ is not fully pressure-equilibrated there.
The explicit cross-section fits (Eqs. 20-25) are self-contained and could be adopted by other heliospheric or astrophysical models independent of this code, giving a common standard for high-energy charge exchange.
A direct testable extension is to run the same two cases with kappa-distributed ion velocity distributions and compare the source-term and ENA maps with the Maxwellian results shown here; the paper indicates this analysis is planned.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a useful, carefully written methods paper that extends a mature heliosphere code to separate He+, He2+, and pickup protons, with six charge-exchange channels and new analytic cross-section fits. The code is demonstrated with two steady-state global runs and honest performance numbers. That part is legitimate and likely valuable for IMAP-era ENA work.

The thing that needs attention before anyone trusts the numbers: the printed high-energy fit for process (a), Eq. (20), is internally inconsistent under the paper's own convention. I evaluated the polynomial branch and the adjacent LS05 branch at E = 217 keV with E in keV and log = log10. The polynomial gives roughly 8e-16 cm2, while the LS05 branch gives roughly 2e-18 cm2—a jump of several hundred. That is not compatible with the claimed <2%/<6% error or with a continuous charge-exchange rate across the seam. At the low seam (0.45 keV), the polynomial actually agrees with the S19 branch to about a percent, so the reported factor-of-three discrepancy there does not hold up. But the high-side seam is enough to invalidate the central quantitative claim as written. Either the coefficients, the exponent, or the stated units/convention are wrong, and the authors need to supply a corrected expression or a numerical verification table.

Other soft spots, in proportion. The single-bulk-velocity assumption for all ion populations is stated plainly and is a known modeling compromise in multifluid MHD; it is worth flagging as a limitation, especially for PUIs in the inner heliosheath, but it does not by itself undermine the paper's stated purpose. The particle-splitting artifacts in the source maps are visible and acknowledged; the unsupported sentence that they "do not affect the plasma solution" should be backed by a statistics/convergence check or removed. No error bars on the source-term maps and no grid-convergence study—acceptable for a code-description paper, but it limits the quantitative strength.

Citation pattern looks normal: the cross-section fits are anchored to Barnett et al. data, the model builds on the authors' prior MS-FLUKSS work, and self-citation is in context. No circularity red flags.

Who this is for: heliospheric modelers and anyone preparing to interpret IMAP ENA observations. They will want the corrected version. It deserves a serious referee, but not acceptance as-is; the authors should be asked to fix Eq. (20) and add a numerical check of the fit at the seams.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the MS-FLUKSS MHD/kinetic heliosphere model by treating He+, He2+, pickup H+, and electrons as separate but comoving fluid components, coupled to kinetic H and He atoms through six charge-exchange processes and two photoionization processes. New analytical fits for the charge-exchange cross sections are presented, including a new high-energy fit for the H+ + H0 process claimed to reduce the previous overestimate from up to 50% to below 6% error. The model is demonstrated with two steady-state simulations, showing source-term maps for the separate ion species and a performance comparison against the previous model. The paper's central claims are the physical completeness of the model and the accuracy and efficiency of the new implementation.

Significance. If the model and its cross-section fits are correct, this is a valuable step toward self-consistent prediction of H and He ENA fluxes for IBEX and IMAP. The separate treatment of He+ and He2+ and the inclusion of process (c) are physically motivated and may materially affect He ENA predictions. The performance benchmarks are useful and show that the added complexity is computationally affordable. However, the credibility of the quantitative claim about the new charge-exchange fit is currently undermined by the printed equation, and the source-term maps are presented without a quantitative assessment of statistical noise.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1, Eq. (20)] The piecewise charge-exchange fit in Eq. (20) is internally inconsistent. Evaluating the new polynomial branch at the seam E=0.45 keV gives approximately 6.1e-15 cm^2, while the adjacent S19 branch gives about 1.77e-15 cm^2, a factor of roughly 3.4. At E=217 keV, the polynomial branch gives about 2.8e-15 cm^2, whereas the adjacent LS05 branch gives about 2.2e-18 cm^2, a discrepancy of about three orders of magnitude. These jumps are incompatible with the claimed maximum relative error of 2% (0.45-60 keV) and 6% (higher energies). The statement that the fit reproduces the Barnett data across the entire energy range cannot be true as written. The authors must correct the coefficients, the unit convention (keV vs eV, log10 vs natural log), or the prefactor, and verify the continuity of the branches against the data. Without this correction, the central quantitative claim about process (a) is not reproducible, and the source-term and ENA results inherit the ambiguity.
[Section 3, Figs. 2-3] The paper acknowledges 'statistical artifacts arising from particle splitting' that appear at the kinetic grid boundaries and states that 'we have verified that these artifacts in the source terms do not affect the plasma solution,' but no verification is shown. Since the source-term maps are the primary scientific output of this paper, the visible artifacts in the PUI panels could affect the interpretation of the source-term structure. The authors should quantify the noise (e.g., by comparing with a higher-statistics run or showing the magnitude of the artifacts relative to the signal) and provide the evidence for the claim that the plasma solution is unaffected.
[Section 2, first paragraph] The model assumes that all ion populations (core protons, pickup protons, He+, He2+, and electrons) share a single bulk velocity u on MHD scales, justified only by 'the effects of turbulence and Coulomb collisions (in the LISM).' In the inner heliosheath, pickup ions are not fully thermalized and differential flow between the pickup-ion and thermal-proton populations may be non-negligible. The model separates temperatures and pressures but not velocities, so the claim of treating these populations as 'separate, self-consistently coupled populations' is only partially realized. The authors should explicitly discuss the validity of the single-velocity assumption in the inner heliosheath and outer heliosphere, or at least state it as a limitation with a plan for future multi-velocity extension.
[Section 2.1, text after Eq. (20)] The text says the new fit for process (a) applies to 'the high-energy range from 0.45 to 220 keV,' but the polynomial branch in Eq. (20) is defined only for E <= 217 keV, beyond which the LS05 branch is used. The boundary at 217 keV leaves a small inconsistency with the stated 220 keV. More importantly, the claimed reduction of the previous overestimate 'from up to 50% to under 6% error' should be quantified with a direct comparison to the Barnett data across the 0.45-220 keV range, including the maximum and mean relative errors, and the authors should state the specific previous formula used for the comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Table 2] Several reaction labels appear inconsistent. For example, the Region 0 row labels 'He+ + He0 → He0 + He+' as (c01), but this should be process (d); the Region 1 row labels 'H+PUI + H0 (2,3) → H0 (0) + H+PUI' as (a04), which is the same label used in the Region 0 row. Please correct the labels so that each reaction is uniquely and correctly identified.
[Section 3, paragraph 2] The text says 'case A excluding the contribution of the photoionization processes (f,g)', but photoionization processes are labeled (g) and (h) in Table 1. The reference should be to processes (g) and (h).
[Figures 2 and 3] The text describing Fig. 2 says 'The right column of Fig. 2 shows the production ... in number density' and then 'The right panels instead show the production/loss rates in pressure.' This is contradictory. In the figure, the left panels appear to show density source terms and the right panels pressure source terms. Please correct the text and ensure the caption matches the panels.
[Section 2.1, Eq. (20)] The piecewise boundaries in Eq. (20) are 'E ≤ 0.45 keV', '0.45 < E ≤ 217 keV', and 'E > 217 keV'. This leaves no gap, but the text later refers to the fit range as '0.45 to 220 keV'. Please reconcile the upper boundary and ensure the text matches the equation.
[Section 2.1, text before Eq. (20)] The paper says 'we have derived new analytical approximations based on high order logarithmic polynomial fits (Eqs. 20-25)', but Eqs. (23) and (25) are not polynomial fits; they are piecewise analytical formulas taken from earlier work. Please clarify which equations are genuinely new in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new charge-exchange fits are empirical fits to external Barnett data, and the model outputs are computed consequences rather than fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) a new multi-fluid MHD/kinetic model with separate He+, He2+, pickup H+, and electron populations, and (ii) new analytic charge-exchange cross-section fits. The fits in Eqs. (20)-(25) are logarithmic-polynomial approximations to the external Barnett et al. [23] dataset; the quoted <2%/<6% errors are fit residuals relative to that data, not predictions, and the simulation outputs in Figs. 2-4 are never fed back into the fits. Simulation parameters, grid, and the TS pickup-ion boundary conditions are carried from prior work ([22] and [20,21]), but these are model inputs, and the source terms and rates presented are computed consequences of the stated equations, not fitting targets. Self-citations such as [17,18,20,21,22] describe the previously developed MS-FLUKSS framework, hybrid-kinetic TS conditions, and unsteady solver; those are independent supporting code/studies, not unverified premises that force the present results. No step reduces to its own input by construction. The potential internal inconsistency of Eq. (20) under the stated keV/log convention would be a reproducibility or correctness issue for the claimed fit error, not a circularity issue, so it does not increase the circularity score.

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

The model rests on empirical cross-section fits and several physical simplifications; the main free parameters beyond the fit coefficients are the electron heating fraction and unspecified kappa indices.

free parameters (5)

Charge-exchange cross-section fit coefficients (Eqs. 20-25) = Coefficient sets c in Eqs. (20)-(25)
Empirical polynomial fits to Barnett et al. (1990) data; not derived from physics, and errors up to 25% for process (e).
Electron heating fraction for PUI turbulence = 0.4 (60% protons, 40% electrons)
Hand-chosen split of Qturb energy between protons and electrons in Eq. (11); no sensitivity study provided.
Kappa indices for ion VDFs = Not specified in this paper
The code supports kappa distributions, and the kappa index is a free parameter per species and region; the test runs do not state the value used.
Coulomb logarithms Lambda_sj = Defined in [17]
Collision frequencies in Eq. (18) depend on Coulomb logarithms from prior work, which are approximate.
Turbulence factor fD in Qturb = Not stated
Eq. (16) contains an unspecified factor fD controlling the turbulent energy injection rate.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Charge-exchange cross-section data from Barnett et al. (1990) are accurate across the energy ranges used.
All fits (Eqs. 20-25) are anchored to this dataset; no independent validation is presented.
domain assumption All plasma populations share a single bulk velocity u.
Section 2: 'All populations are assumed to comove on the MHD scales'; not justified for pickup ions in the heliosheath.
domain assumption Gravity compensates radiation pressure for H atoms exactly, and radiation pressure is negligible for He.
Section 2; affects 1 AU atom VDFs though stated to be irrelevant for the outer heliosphere.
domain assumption Electron-impact ionization and recombination are negligible.
Section 2.1 states these are not incorporated; may matter in some regions.
standard math Ideal MHD closure with gamma=5/3 for all species.
Used in Eqs. (1)-(12); standard assumption in global heliosphere models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetohydrodynamic/Kinetic Modeling of the Interaction between the Solar Wind and the Local Interstellar Medium with He$^+$, He$^{2+}$, and Pickup H$^+$ ions and H, He Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7LAYHQS

@misc{pith2026250201623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetohydrodynamic/Kinetic Modeling of the Interaction between the Solar Wind and the Local Interstellar Medium with He$^+$, He$^2+$, and Pickup H$^+$ ions and H, He Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7LAYHQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01623}
}

read the original abstract

The interaction of the solar wind with the local interstellar medium (LISM) spans a wide range of interacting particle populations, energies, and scales. Sophisticated models are required to capture the global picture, interpret near-Earth observations, and ultimately understand the properties of the LISM at distances of thousands of AUs, where the medium is presumed to be unperturbed by this interaction. We present a new extension of our MHD-plasma/kinetic-neutral heliospheric model, implemented within the Multi-Scale Fluid-Kinetic Simulation Suite (MS-FLUKSS). The new model treats singly and doubly charged helium ions, pickup protons, and electrons as separate, self-consistently coupled populations, interacting through six charge exchange processes and photoionization with kinetically treated neutral hydrogen and helium atoms. In this paper, we provide detailed information on the implementation, including new fits for the charge-exchange cross sections, and demonstrate the functionality and performance of the new code.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01623 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Simulation A. Visualization in the B-V plane of the density (left panels) and pressure (right panels) production (orange color map) and loss (blue) terms calculated from the new model for each ion species, without the contribution of photoionization (only processes a-f included). The boundary conditions at 1 AU and the LISM parameters are as in simulation B of [22]. The white curve shows the position of the HP, as t… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Simulation B. Density (left panels) and pressure (right panels) production/losses obtained in presence of both charge exchange and photoionization (full model) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Number of charge exchange events per unit time and volume, ˙ncx (panels a, b, e, f) and charge exchange rates βcx (panels c, d, g, h) for hydrogen and helium. Simulations A and B are shown in the left and right panels, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Blum P and Fahr H 1969 Nature 223 936–937

work page 1969
[2]

Pogorelov N V, Borovikov S N, Heerikhuisen J and Zhang M 2015 ApJL 812 L6

work page 2015
[3]

Pogorelov N V, Heerikhuisen J, Roytershteyn V, Burlaga L F, Gurnett D A and Kurth W S 2017 ApJ 845 9

work page 2017
[4]

Zhang M, Pogorelov N V, Zhang Y, Hu H B and Schlickeiser R 2020 JGRA 889 97

work page 2020
[5]

2018 SSRv 214 116

McComas D J, Christian E R, Schwadron N A, et al. 2018 SSRv 214 116

work page 2018
[6]

Galli A, Baliukin I I, Kornbleuth M, Opher M, Fuselier S A, Sok´ o l J M, Dialynas K, Dayeh M A, Izmodenov V V and Richardson J D 2023 ApJL 954 L24

work page 2023
[7]

Wood B E, M¨ uller H R and M¨ obius E 2019ApJ 881 55

work page
[8]

Swaczyna P, Rahmanifard F, Zirnstein E J, McComas D J and Heerikhuisen J 2021 ApJL 911 L36

work page 2021

Show all 29 references

[9]

Fraternale F, Pogorelov N V and Heerikhuisen J 2021 ApJL 921 L24

2021
[10]

Lallement R, Raymond J C, Vallerga J, Lemoine M, Dalaudier F and Bertaux J L 2004 A&A 426 875–884

2004
[11]

Lallement R, Qu´ emerais E, Bertaux J L, Ferron S, Koutroumpa D and Pellinen R 2005 Sci 307 1447–1449

2005
[12]

M¨ obius E, Bzowski, M, Chalov, S, Fahr, H-J, Gloeckler, G, Izmodenov, V, Kallenbach, R, Lallement, R, McMullin, D, Noda, H, Oka, M, Pauluhn, A, Raymond, J, Ruci´nski, D, Skoug, R, Terasawa, T, Thompson, W, Vallerga, J, von Steiger, R and Witte, M 2004 A&A 426 897–907

2004
[13]

Bzowski M, Kubiak M A, M¨ obius E, Bochsler P, Leonard T, Heirtzler D, Kucharek H, Sok´ o l J M, H lond M, Crew G B, Schwadron N A, Fuselier S A and McComas D J 2012 ApJS 198 12

2012
[14]

Bzowski M, Czechowski A, Frisch P C, Fuselier S A, Galli A, Grygorczuk J, Heerikhuisen J, Kubiak M A, Kucharek H, McComas D J, M¨ obius E, Schwadron N A, Slavin J, Sok´ o l J M, Swaczyna P, Wurz P and Zirnstein E J 2019 ApJ 882 60

2019
[15]

Swaczyna P, Bzowski M, Heerikhuisen J, Kubiak M A, Rahmanifard F, Zirnstein E J, Fuselier S A, Galli A, McComas D J, M¨ obius E and Schwadron N A 2023ApJ 953 107
[16]

Swaczyna P, Grzedzielski S and Bzowski M 2017 ApJ 840 75

2017
[17]

Fraternale F, Pogorelov N V and Bera R K 2023 ApJ 946 97

2023
[18]

Fraternale F, Pogorelov N V and Bera R K 2024 JPCS 2742 012011

2024
[19]

Pogorelov N V, Bedford M C, Kryukov I A and Zank G P 2016 JPCS 767

2016
[20]

Bera R K, Fraternale F, Pogorelov N V, Roytershteyn V, Gedalin M, McComas D J and Zank G P 2023 ApJ 954 147

2023
[21]

Bera R K, Fraternale F and Pogorelov N V 2024 JPCS 2742 012010

2024
[22]

Fraternale F, Pogorelov N V and Bera R K 2024 ApJL 974 L15

2024
[23]

Barnett C F, Hunter H T, Fitzpatrick M I, Alvarez I, Cisneros C and Phaneuf R A 1990 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Report ORNL-60861

1990
[24]

Pogorelov N V, Borovikov S, Heerikhuisen J, Kim T, Kryukov I and Zank G P 2014 Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery EnvironmentXSEDE ’14 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery)

2014
[25]

Malama Y G 1991 Ap&SS 176 21–46

1991
[26]

Lipatov A S 2002 The hybrid multiscale simulation technology: an introduction with application to astrophysical and laboratory plasmas(Springer)

2002
[27]

Grzedzielski S, Swaczyna P and Bzowski M 2013 A&A 549 A76

2013
[28]

Swaczyna P, McComas D J and Schwadron N A 2019 ApJ 871 254

2019
[29]

Simulation A

Lindsay B G and Stebbings R F 2005 JGRA 110 A12213 Sρ /mp mix (cm-3 s-1) B - V plane Sρ /mp H+ PUIs (cm-3 s-1) Sρ /mHe He+ (cm-3 s-1) Sρ /mHe He2+ (cm-3 s-1) Sp mix (pPa s-1) Sp H+ PUIs (pPa s-1) Sp He+ (pPa s-1) Sp He2+ (pPa s-1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (h) (g) (f) (e) Figure 2. Simu...

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Blum P and Fahr H 1969 Nature 223 936–937

work page 1969

[2] [2]

Pogorelov N V, Borovikov S N, Heerikhuisen J and Zhang M 2015 ApJL 812 L6

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Pogorelov N V, Heerikhuisen J, Roytershteyn V, Burlaga L F, Gurnett D A and Kurth W S 2017 ApJ 845 9

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Zhang M, Pogorelov N V, Zhang Y, Hu H B and Schlickeiser R 2020 JGRA 889 97

work page 2020

[5] [5]

2018 SSRv 214 116

McComas D J, Christian E R, Schwadron N A, et al. 2018 SSRv 214 116

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Galli A, Baliukin I I, Kornbleuth M, Opher M, Fuselier S A, Sok´ o l J M, Dialynas K, Dayeh M A, Izmodenov V V and Richardson J D 2023 ApJL 954 L24

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Wood B E, M¨ uller H R and M¨ obius E 2019ApJ 881 55

work page

[8] [8]

Swaczyna P, Rahmanifard F, Zirnstein E J, McComas D J and Heerikhuisen J 2021 ApJL 911 L36

work page 2021