Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Dynamic Processes of the Moreton Wave on 2014 March 29

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 2014 March 29 Moreton wave pushed chromospheric plasma downward at up to 4 km/s, implying a weak coronal shock with Alfvén Mach number 1.06–1.28 and fast-mode Mach number 1.05–1.27.

desk verdict A solid single-event Moreton wave study with a genuinely new H-alpha Doppler measurement, but the transmission-equation algebra in Eq. (4) has a real slip that weakens the claimed agreement with the DEM-based Mach numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03534 v1 pith:R4IQWDVY submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.SR

Denis P. Cabezas , Ayumi Asai , Kiyoshi Ichimoto , Takahito Sakaue , Satoru UeNo , Jose K. Ishitsuka , Kazunari Shibata This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflaresMoretonwavesH-alphaDopplerMHDshockchromospherecoronaldifferentialemissionmeasureMachnumber
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 reconstructs the dynamics of the Moreton wave from the 2014 March 29 X1.0 flare using ground-based H-$\alpha$ wing images. It finds that the wave front swept across the chromosphere at 640–859 km/s while the plasma at the front was pushed downward at up to 4 km/s, followed by an upward relaxation. Treating the transition region as a contact discontinuity and applying the weak-shock approximation, the authors convert this small chromospheric push into an incident coronal shock that is barely super-Alfvénic and barely super-fast-mode. They independently obtain Mach numbers of $M_A \approx 1.06$–$1.28$ and $M_f \approx 1.05$–$1.27$ from emission-measure compression ratios. A sympathetic reader would care because this connects a faint, difficult-to-observe chromospheric wave to the basic strength of coronal shocks and supports the standard picture of Moreton waves as footprints of coronal fast-mode shocks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identities are the Doppler signal $DS = (I_r - I_b)/(I_r + I_b)$ from the H-$\alpha$ $\pm 0.8$ Å wing images and two shock-transmission formulas: $v_i = (1+\sqrt{a})v_t/2$ for the incident coronal velocity amplitude in terms of the observed transmitted chromospheric amplitude, and the weak-shock relation $v_t = -\frac{4}{\gamma+1}(M_i^2-1)\frac{c_{\mathrm{ch}}}{1+c_{\mathrm{ch}}/c_{\mathrm{co}}}$ that converts that amplitude into the incident shock Mach number. The same machinery includes the oblique MHD shock jump relation, solved for the Alfvén Mach number as a function of the DEM-derived compression ratio and field inclination. Together these turn two observable quantities—a small red-wing excess at the wave front and a coronal density jump—into a diagnostic of coronal shock strength.

What would settle it

Observe the same wave front with full H-$\alpha$ line-profile spectroscopy: if the red-wing excess is a true Doppler shift, the line core shifts redward by a corresponding few km/s; if the profile only deepens without a core shift, the transmitted-velocity interpretation, and therefore the Mach numbers $M_A \approx 1.06$–$1.28$ and $M_f \approx 1.05$–$1.27$, would need revision. Independently, type II radio burst drift rates for this flare give a separate shock-speed estimate to compare with the derived Mach numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Moreton wave of 2014 March 29 was the chromospheric footprint of a weak, almost perpendicular fast-mode shock propagating in the corona. In H-$\alpha$ wing data the leading edge appears as a red-wing absorption and blue-wing brightening, which the paper calibrates through a synthetic Doppler signal into a downward line-of-sight velocity reaching $-4$ km/s, with a delayed upward swing. Using the momentum- and energy-flux matching at the corona–chromosphere boundary and the weak-shock relation, a 1–4 km/s chromospheric amplitude translates into coronal incident velocities up to about 22 km/s and Mach numbers near 1.1; AIA differential-emission-measure maps give compression ratios that yield the same nearly sonic range ($M_A \approx 1.06$–$1.28$, $M_f \approx 1.05$–$1.27$). The paper therefore claims that a single large-scale MHD disturbance can explain the quasi-simultaneous response of the corona, transition region, and chromosphere, and that the weak shock approximation is sufficient to diagnose coronal shock strength from ground-based H-$\alpha$ Doppler measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that carries the result is that the H-$\alpha$ Doppler velocity at the wave front equals the transmitted velocity amplitude $v_t$ of a one-dimensional hydrodynamic shock crossing the transition region, with a density ratio $a=\rho_{\mathrm{ch}}/\rho_{\mathrm{co}} \approx 100$ and a negligible sound-speed ratio; if projection or brightness effects contaminate the H-$\alpha$ signal, the derived Mach numbers shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, Moreton-wave Doppler amplitudes can be used as a ground-based measure of coronal shock Mach number without EUV data.
  • The observed propagation speeds (640–859 km/s in H-alpha, faster along some coronal paths) imply that the shock strength and direction are shaped by the local Alfvén speed, favoring propagation into weak-field regions.
  • The near-simultaneous response in 304 Å, H-alpha, 211 Å, and X-ray data strengthens the standard picture where the chromospheric Moreton wave is the footprint of a globally expanding coronal fast-mode shock.
  • The small velocity transmittance (roughly one fifth to one quarter) quantifies why only weak chromospheric Doppler signatures are seen even when the coronal disturbance is large.
  • For this event the shock is weak ($M_A, M_f \lesssim 1.3$), so the weak-shock approximation is internally consistent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: compare these Mach numbers with type II radio-burst drift speeds for the same event; agreement would confirm the weak-shock mapping, while systematic disagreement would point to projection or non-Doppler contamination in the H-alpha signal.
  • The same Doppler-signal method applied to other Moreton waves observed with H-alpha wing telescopes could produce a statistical sample of coronal shock strengths and their dependence on flare energy.
  • Because the H-alpha wings at $\pm 0.8$ Å sample a fixed wavelength, line-profile broadening or intensity changes can masquerade as Doppler shift; full-profile spectroscopy at the wave front would separate true mass motion from thermodynamic changes.
  • If the direction-dependence of the wave speed reflects the Alfvén-speed map, Moreton-wave kinematics themselves could be inverted to constrain coronal magnetic-field topology in the low corona.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multiwavelength study of the Moreton wave associated with the X1.0 flare on 2014 March 29, using Flare Monitoring Telescope Hα wing observations, SDO/AIA EUV data, and Hinode/XRT. The authors measure the Moreton wave propagation speed (640–859 km/s) and, from Hα wing Doppler signals, infer a maximum downward chromospheric velocity of about 4 km/s at the wave front. They then use a weak-shock transmission model to convert this chromospheric velocity amplitude into an incident-shock Mach number in the corona, and independently derive Alfvén and fast-mode Mach numbers from AIA-based differential emission measure compression ratios. The two diagnostics yield overlapping Mach number ranges (Hα: up to ~1.12; DEM: 1.05–1.27), which the authors interpret as consistent evidence for a weak fast-mode shock.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a valuable multi-diagnostic case study of a Moreton wave: it quantifies the chromospheric velocity amplitude with Hα wing imaging, derives shock Mach numbers from two independent datasets, and connects the chromospheric and coronal signatures of a global disturbance. The use of the FMT wing data to extract Doppler velocities and the combination with DEM analysis are genuine strengths. The paper also carefully discusses limitations such as line-of-sight projection and the restricted DEM temperature range. However, the derivation of the central transmission relation contains an algebraic error that must be corrected before the quantitative results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is not correctly derived from Eqs. (2) and (3). Dividing Eq. (3) by Eq. (2) gives vi = [1 + a(cch/cco)] vt / 2, not vi = [(1 + sqrt(a))/2] vt. The printed form holds only under the unstated assumption cch/cco = 1/sqrt(a). Using the paper's own values (cch = 10 km/s, cco = 185 km/s, a = 100), the coefficient is about 3.2, not 5.5, so the incident velocities vi in Table 2 and the velocity-transmittance discussion in §6.3 and Figure 14 are overestimated by a factor of about 1.7. Please correct Eq. (4), Table 2, Figure 14, and all related text, or explicitly state and justify the additional assumption on the sound-speed ratio.
  2. [§5.1 vs. §5.2] The treatment of the sound-speed ratio cch/cco is internally inconsistent. In §5.2 the term cch/cco is neglected as small in Eq. (5), but Eq. (4) as printed effectively requires cch/cco = 1/sqrt(a) ≈ 0.1, which is not negligible. With the stated chromospheric and coronal sound speeds (10 and 185 km/s), cch/cco ≈ 0.054, so neglecting it in Eq. (5) is reasonable, but the same ratio cannot also be set to 0.1 in Eq. (4). The manuscript should reconcile these two approximations and state which values of cch and cco are used in each relation.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (5) and Table 3] The Hα-based Mach numbers in Table 3 are computed from Eq. (5) using the observed vt, not from Eq. (4). Therefore the algebraic error in Eq. (4) does not directly invalidate the Hα Mach numbers. However, the strong claim of consistency with the DEM-derived Mach numbers rests entirely on the validity of Eq. (5), which assumes a one-dimensional, purely hydrodynamic weak shock with the transition region approximated as a contact discontinuity. The paper should explicitly state the regime of validity of this approximation and discuss how neglecting magnetic fields and the oblique nature of the shock could affect the derived Mach numbers, in order to support the cross-diagnostic comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'does exit' in the introduction should be 'does exist', and 'Filter trasmission' in Figure 7 should be 'Filter transmission'.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) assumes that the line-of-sight depth l is the same ahead of and behind the shock, and that the proton number density is constant along the line of sight. The paper should explicitly note that this is an approximation and comment on how inhomogeneities or temperature-dependent filling factors might bias the compression ratio.
  3. [§4.2 and Figure 8] The Doppler velocities are line-of-sight velocities, but the event is at N11, W32, so the radial (vertical) component is foreshortened. The paper does not discuss this projection effect or its impact on the maximum downward velocity of 4 km/s; a brief quantitative statement would be useful.
  4. [§5.3 and Figure 13] The Mach numbers derived from the DEM compression ratio are presented without error bars or uncertainties. Since the compression ratio X enters through Eq. (7) nonlinearly, it would clarify the robustness of the quoted ranges (1.06–1.28 and 1.05–1.27) if some estimate of the uncertainty from the DEM inversion and the choice of β were provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: H-alpha and DEM Mach numbers come from independent observables; the apparent Eq. (4) algebra error is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation (Takahashi et al. 2015) exists.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the mutual consistency of two diagnostics of the same coronal shock. The H-alpha branch measures vt = 4 km/s with an FMT Doppler calibration (Sec. 4), then converts it to an incident-shock Mach number through the weak-shock Rankine-Hugoniot relation Eq. (5), using only cch = 10 km/s, gamma = 5/3, and the small-ratio approximation cch/cco << 1. No DEM-derived quantity enters this branch. The DEM branch measures EM before/behind the front, forms X via Eq. (8), adopts T1 = 2.5 MK and vA = 768 km/s from XRT, and solves Eq. (7) for MA and Eq. (9) for Mf. No H-alpha velocity enters this branch. The parameters a = 100, the DEM temperature window 6.1 <= log T/K <= 6.4, and beta = 0.06 are inputs chosen from observations or standard atmospheric values, not fitted to make the two Mach-number sets agree. Hence the agreement (H-alpha Mi ~ 1.02-1.12; DEM MA ~ 1.06-1.28, Mf ~ 1.05-1.27) is not constructed. The only self-citation of note is 'Similar to Takahashi et al. (2015)' for Eq. (4); Takahashi et al. includes two co-authors, but the relation is also re-derived in the text and the paper's Mach-number estimate does not use Eq. (4). Separately, Eq. (4) as printed does not follow from Eqs. (2)-(3) unless cch/cco = 1/sqrt(a), and with the paper's own cch = 10 km/s and cco = 185 km/s the coefficient would be 3.2 rather than 5.5; this is an internal algebra/correctness problem, not a circularity, and the central consistency argument rests on Eq. (5) and DEM, which are unaffected. The paper also states its own limitations (1D hydrodynamic, no magnetic field effects in Sec. 5.2; DEM restricted to log T 6.1-6.4), which further shows the derivations are not being forced to an externally predetermined answer.

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

The central claims rest on a small number of assumptions chosen by the authors: a fixed density ratio between chromosphere and corona, a chosen DEM temperature range, the identification of the H-alpha Doppler velocity with the transmitted wave amplitude in a 1D hydrodynamic model, and standard MHD shock jump relations. No new entities are introduced; the analysis uses existing data and standard formulas.

free parameters (3)
  • Density ratio a = ρ_ch/ρ_co = ≈100
    Assumed typical chromospheric and coronal densities (10^11 and 10^9 cm^-3) in Sec. 5.1; used in Eq. (4) to convert observed vt to the incident wave velocity vi.
  • DEM temperature range = 6.1 ≤ log T/K ≤ 6.4
    Chosen in Sec. 5.3 because the wave front is best observed there; restricts the emission measure used to derive the compression ratio, potentially missing the lowest corona.
  • Chromospheric sound speed c_ch = ≈10 km/s
    From assumed T≈10^4 K in Sec. 5.2; a key input to Eq. (5) for converting vt to the coronal Mach number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transition region can be modeled as a contact discontinuity in a 1D hydrodynamic Riemann problem, and the H-alpha Doppler velocity equals the transmitted velocity amplitude vt.
    Introduced in Sec. 5.1 and Figure 10; the central mapping that allows Eq. (5) to convert observed vt to a coronal Mach number.
  • standard math Weak shock approximation (M_i^2 - 1 << 1) is valid for the coronal and chromospheric shocks.
    Used in Appendix A to derive Eq. (5); requires the shock to be weak, which is consistent with the results but not proven a priori.
  • domain assumption The emission measure ratio gives the compression ratio via X = sqrt(EM2/EM1) with constant path length l.
    Sec. 5.3, Eq. (8); assumes the depth of emitting plasma is the same ahead of and behind the shock.
  • domain assumption The mean propagation speed of the X-ray wave (790 km/s) represents the fast-mode speed in the corona.
    Sec. 5.3; used to derive the Alfvén speed and plasma beta.
  • standard math The MHD oblique shock jump relation (Eq. 6) from Priest (2000) applies to the observed coronal wave.
    Standard MHD theory used to derive Mach numbers from the compression ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Processes of the Moreton Wave on 2014 March 29." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R4IQWDVY

@misc{pith2026190803534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Processes of the Moreton Wave on 2014 March 29},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R4IQWDVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03534}
}
abstract

On 2014 March 29, an intense solar flare classified as X1.0 occurred in the active region 12017. Several associated phenomena accompanied this event, among them a fast-filament eruption, large-scale propagating disturbances in the corona and the chromosphere including a Moreton wave, and a coronal mass ejection. This flare was successfully detected in multiwavelength imaging in H-alpha line by the Flare Monitoring Telescope (FMT) at Ica University, Peru. We present a detailed study of the Moreton wave associated with the flare in question. Special attention is paid to the Doppler characteristics inferred from the FMT wing (H-alpha$\pm0.8$~{\AA}) observations, which are used to examine the downward/upward motion of the plasma in the chromosphere. Our findings reveal that the downward motion of the chromospheric material at the front of the Moreton wave attains a maximum velocity of 4 km/s, whereas the propagation speed ranges between 640 and 859 km/s. Furthermore, utilizing the weak shock approximation in conjunction with the velocity amplitude of the chromospheric motion induced by the Moreton wave, we derive the Mach number of the incident shock in the corona. We also performed the temperature-emission measure analysis of the coronal wave based on the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) observations, which allowed us to derive the compression ratio, and to estimate the Alfv\'en and fast-mode Mach numbers of the order of 1.06-1.28 and 1.05-1.27. Considering these results and the MHD linear theory we discuss the characteristics of the shock front and the interaction with the chromospheric plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Time-difference image of full-disk Sun at Hα +0.8 ˚A captured by the Flare Monitoring Telescope (FMT) on 2014 March 29 at 17:49:59 UT. The image was subtracted with its precedent taken at 17:49:20 UT. The dashed black lines labeled P1, P2, P3, and P4 projected on the solar surface, outlines the paths along which the analysis of the Moreton wave is performed. The black rectangle marks the flare site, while the la… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coronal counterpart and Moreton wave associated with the X-class flare on 2014 March 29. The maps show different heights of the solar atmosphere, including the hotter component (∼6 MK) of corona in X-ray and 94 ˚A (panels a, b), intermediate component (1–2 MK) as a composition of AIA 211 ˚A (red), 193 ˚A (green) and 171 ˚A (blue) (panel c), transition region (∼5 × 104 K) at 304 ˚A (panel d), and the chromosphere (∼1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-distance diagrams of the Moreton wave obtained from running-difference images along trajectories P1–P4 (see panels e, f in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-distance diagrams of the disturbance in the corona, transition region (TR), and the chromosphere caused by the coronal wave on 2014 March 29. The intensity variation is calculated from running-difference images along trajectory P3 shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-distance plots of the Moreton wave and its associated coronal wave, measured from the flare site along paths P1–P4 shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hα intensity profiles relative to the quiet-conditions at +0.8 ˚A (red-wing) and −0.8 ˚A (blue-wing), computed along trajectories P1–P4 at 17:45:59 and 17:47:20 UT, respectively. The gray area in each panel covers the contaminated signal by the scattered light of the f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper: FMT filter-transmission profiles centered at 6562.0 ˚A (blue) and 6563.6 ˚A (red), respectively, both with a nominal FWHM of 0.6 ˚A. The gray background profile is the atlas solar spectrum of the Hα line normalized to the continuum. Lower: synthetic Doppler sign…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Doppler velocity of the Moreton wave on 2014 March 29 for six time steps along trajectories P1–P4. The velocity was estimated by correlating the obtained perturbation profiles with a synthetic Doppler signal (see the text). The profiles show the velocity amplitude of t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Doppler maps of the Moreton wave on 2014 March 29. The time period is the same to that shown in the perturbation profiles ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Schematic picture of a globally propagating shock wave in the corona Vsh,co intersecting the transition region and the chromosphere Vsh,ch. (b) Enlarged view of the interaction corona–chromosphere (dotted rectangle in panel (a), note the change of axis orientation…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Differential emission measure (DEM) maps showing three instants of the coronal wave on 2014 March 29. We used the method of Cheung et al. (2015), which enabled us to obtain DEM maps for a set of temperature bins. The panels show DEM solutions for a temperature range o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Compression ratio X estimated from DEM maps along trajectories P1–P4 shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Alfv´en and fast-mode Mach numbers of the coronal wave on 2014 March 29 along trajectories P1–P4. The Alfv´en Mach number is based on the solution of equation (7) using the compression ratio derived from differential emission measure. The profiles in blue and magenta …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Velocity transmittance Tv defined as the ratio of the velocity amplitude of transmitted vt and incident vi waves. This provides clues on how much fraction of the plasma velocity in the corona is transferred to the chromosphere during the shock wave propagation. For il…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: One-dimensional Riemann problem in hydrodynamical regime of shock interaction with the corona and chromo￾sphere. In the illustration the transition region represents the contact discontinuity. The thick solid lines show the variation of the pressure distribution p alo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    -VGCU?<rl=Q^

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

    2017

  2. [2]

    1966, University of Colorado, Boulder (Thesis)

    Anderson, G.F. 1966, University of Colorado, Boulder (Thesis)

    work page 1966

  3. [3]

    2008, , 685, 622

    Asai, A., Hara, H., Watanabe, T., et al. 2008, , 685, 622

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    T., Isobe, H., et al

    Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., Isobe, H., et al. 2012, , 745, L18

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    2015, , 804, L20

    Aschwanden, M. 2015, , 804, L20

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    2007, , 658, 1379

    Balasubramaniam, K.S., Pevtsov, A.A., Neidig, D.F. 2007, , 658, 1379

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    2010, , 723, 587

    Balasubramaniam, K.S., Cliver, E.W., Pevtsov, A., et al. 2010, , 723, 587

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    2015, , 813, 113

    Battaglia, M., Kleint, L., Krucker S., et al. 2015, , 813, 113

    work page 2015

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    & Vourlidas, A

    Biesecker, D.A., Myers, D.C., Thompson, B.J., Hammer, D.M. & Vourlidas, A. 2002, , 569, 1009

    2002

  2. [10]

    2017, , 836, 33

    Cabezas, D.P., Mart\'inez, L.M., Buleje, Y.J., et al. 2017, , 836, 33

    2017

  3. [11]

    T., Shibata, K., Fang, C

    Chen, P.F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., Fang, C. 2002, , 572, L99

    2002

  4. [12]

    2005, , 622, 1202

    Chen, P.F., Fang, C., Shibata, K. 2005, , 622, 1202

    2005

  5. [13]

    2005, , 121, 201

    Chen, P.F., Ding, M.D., Fang, C. 2005, , 121, 201

    2005

  6. [14]

    2016, Low-Frequency Waves in Space Plasmas, Monograph Series, 216, 381

    Chen, P.F. 2016, Low-Frequency Waves in Space Plasmas, Monograph Series, 216, 381

    2016

  7. [15]

    2015, , 807, 143

    Cheung, M.C., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C.J. 2015, , 807, 143

    2015

  8. [16]

    E., et al

    Delaboudini\` e re, J.-P., Artzner, G. E., et al. 1995, , 162, 291

    1995

  9. [17]

    1999, , 190, 107

    Delann\' e e, C., Aulanier, G. 1999, , 190, 107

    1999

  10. [18]

    2000, , 545, 512

    Delann\' e e, C. 2000, , 545, 512

    2000

  11. [19]

    1968, , 4, 229

    Dodson, H.W., Hedeman, E.R. 1968, , 4, 229

    1968

  12. [20]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., Poland, A. I. 1995, , 162, 1

    1995

  13. [21]

    2002, , 54, 481

    Eto, S., Isobe, H., Narukage, N., et al. 2002, , 54, 481

    2002

  14. [22]

    2016, , 291, 3217

    Francile, C., L\'opez, F.M., Cremades, H. 2016, , 291, 3217

    2016

  15. [23]

    2004, , 610, 572

    Gilbert, H.R., Thomas, E.H. 2004, , 610, 572

    2004

  16. [24]

    2007, , 243, 63

    Golub, L., Deluca, E., Austin, G., et al. 2007, , 243, 63

    2007

  17. [25]

    1999, , 187, 229

    Handy, B.N., Acton, L.W., Kankelborg, C.C., et al. 1999, , 187, 229

    1999

  18. [26]

    2003, , 587, 429

    Harra, L.K., Sterling, A.C. 2003, , 587, 429

    2003

  19. [27]

    2011, , 737, L4

    Harra, L.K., Sterling, A.C., G\" o m\" o ry P., Veronig, A. 2011, , 737, L4

    2011

  20. [28]

    2003, , 212, 121

    Hudson, H., Khan, J.I., Lemen, J.R., Nitta, N.V., Uchida, Y. 2003, , 212, 121

    2003

  21. [29]

    2017, , 292, 63

    Ichimoto, K., Ishii, T.T., Otsuji K., Kimura, G., et al. 2017, , 292, 63

    2017

  22. [30]

    1970, , 11, 310

    Kai, K. 1970, , 11, 310

    1970

  23. [31]

    Khan, J.I., Aurass, H., 2002, , 1018, 1031

    2002

  24. [32]

    2000, , 141, 357

    Klassen A., Aurass, H., Mann, G., Thompson, B.J. 2000, , 141, 357

    2000

  25. [33]

    2015, , 806, 9

    Kleint, L., Battaglia, M., Reardon, K., et al. 2015, , 806, 9

    2015

  26. [34]

    2007, , 243, 3

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, , 243, 3

    2007

  27. [35]

    et al., 1995, JGG, 47, 1043

    Kurokawa, H., Ishiura, K., Kimura, G. et al., 1995, JGG, 47, 1043

    1995

  28. [36]

    1987, Fluid Mechanics 2nd ed., (Pergamon Press)

    Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M. 1987, Fluid Mechanics 2nd ed., (Pergamon Press)

    1987

  29. [37]

    R., Title, A., Akin, D

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  30. [38]

    2010, , 723, L53

    Liu, W.L., Nitta, N.V., Schrijver, C.J., et al. 2010, , 723, L53

    2010

  31. [39]

    2014, , 289, 3233

    Liu, W., Ofman. 2014, , 289, 3233

    2014

  32. [40]

    2018, , 864, L24

    Liu, W., Jin, M., Downs, C., Ofman, L., et at. 2018, , 864, L24

    2018

  33. [41]

    2016, , 297, 7

    Long, D.M., Bloomfield, D.S., Chen, P.F., et al. 2016, , 297, 7

    2016

  34. [42]

    2019, ArXiv e-prints

    Long, D.M., Jenkins, J., & Valori, G. 2019, ArXiv e-prints

    2019

  35. [43]

    1963, Structure and Development of Solar Active Regions, IUA Symp., 35, 485, (K.O

    Meyer, F. 1963, Structure and Development of Solar Active Regions, IUA Symp., 35, 485, (K.O. Kiepenhever)

    1963

  36. [44]

    Moreton, G. E. 1960, , 65, 494

    1960

  37. [45]

    E., Ramsey, H

    Moreton, G. E., Ramsey, H. E. 1960, , 72, 357

    1960

  38. [46]

    & Kurokawa, H

    Morimoto, T. & Kurokawa, H. 2003a, , 55, 503

  39. [47]

    & Kurokawa, H

    Morimoto, T. & Kurokawa, H. 2003b, , 55, 1141

  40. [48]

    Morimoto, T., Kurokawa, H., Shibata, K., Ishii, T. T. 2010, , 62, 939

    2010

  41. [49]

    2010, , 708, 1639

    Muhr, N., Vr s nak, B., Temmer, M., Veronig, A.M., Magdaleni\' c , J. 2010, , 708, 1639

    2010

  42. [50]

    2014, , 289, 4563

    Muhr, N., Veronig, A.M., Kienreich, I.W., Vr s nak, B., Temmer, M., Bein, B.M. 2014, , 289, 4563

    2014

  43. [51]

    2002, , 572, L109

    Narukage, N., Hudson, H.S., Morimoto, T., et al. 2002, , 572, L109

    2002

  44. [52]

    2004, , 56, L5

    Narukage, N., Moritmoto T., Kadota, M., et al. 2004, , 56, L5

    2004

  45. [53]

    2008, , 684, L45

    Narukage, N., Ishii, T.T., Nagata, S., UeNo., S., et al. 2008, , 684, L45

    2008

  46. [54]

    2011, , 269, 169

    Narukage, N., Sakao, T., Kano, R., et al. 2011, , 269, 169

    2011

  47. [55]

    2013, , 776, 58

    Nitta, N.V., Schrijver, C.J., Title, A.M., Liu, W. 2013, , 776, 58

    2013

  48. [56]

    2014, , 289, 1257

    Nitta, N.V., Aschwanden, M.J., Freeland, S.L. 2014, , 289, 1257

    2014

  49. [57]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, , 275, 3

    2012

  50. [58]

    Priest, E. R. 2000, Solar Magnetohydrodynamics (Dordrecht: Reidel)

    2000

  51. [59]

    Shibata, K., Kitai, R., Katoda, M., et al., 2011, Solar Activity in 1992-2003, (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press)

    2011

  52. [60]

    1976, Solar Flares (Dordrecht: Reidel)

    S vestka, Z. 1976, Solar Flares (Dordrecht: Reidel)

    1976

  53. [61]

    2015, , 801

    Takahashi, T., Asai, A., Shibata, K. 2015, , 801

    2015

  54. [62]

    J., Gurman, J

    Thompson, B. J., Gurman, J. B., Neupert, W. M., et al. 1999, , 517, L151

    1999

  55. [63]

    J., Myers, D.C

    Thompson, B. J., Myers, D.C. 2009, , 183, 225

    2009

  56. [64]

    1968, , 4, 30

    Uchida, Y. 1968, , 4, 30

    1968

  57. [65]

    1973, , 28, 495

    Uchida, Y., Altschuler, M., Newkirk, G. 1973, , 28, 495

    1973

  58. [66]

    2007, Bull

    UeNo, S., Shibata, K., Kimura, G., Nakatani, Y., Kitai, R., Nagata, S. 2007, Bull. Astr. Soc. India, 35, 697

    2007

  59. [67]

    Vanninathan, K., Veronig, A.M., Dissauer, K., et al., 2015, , 812, 173

    2015

  60. [68]

    2006, , 647, 1466

    Veronig, A.M., Temmer, M., Vr s nak, B., Thalmann, J. 2006, , 647, 1466

    2006

  61. [69]

    M., G\" o m\" o ry P., Kienreich, I

    Veronig, A. M., G\" o m\" o ry P., Kienreich, I. W., , 743, L10

  62. [70]

    Vr s nak, B., Warmuth, A., Braj s a, R., Hanslmeier, A., 2002a, , 394, 299

  63. [71]

    2002b, , 396, 673

    Vr s nak, B., Magdaleni\' c , J., Aurass, H., & Mann, G. 2002b, , 396, 673

  64. [72]

    Vr s nak, B., Magdaleni\' c , J., Temmer, T., et al., 2005, , 625, L67

    2005

  65. [73]

    2016, , 219, 89

    Vr s nak, B., Z ic, T., Luli\'c, S., Temmer, M., Veronig, A.M. 2016, , 219, 89

    2016

  66. [74]

    2001, , 560, L105

    Warmuth, A., Vr s nak, B., Aurass, H., Hanslmeier, A. 2001, , 560, L105

    2001

  67. [75]

    2004, , 418, 1117

    Warmuth, A., Vr s nak, B., Magdaleni\' c , J., Hanslmeier, A., Otruba, W. 2004, , 418, 1117

    2004

  68. [76]

    2005, , 626, L121

    Warmuth A., Mann, G., and Aurass, H. 2005, , 626, L121

    2005

  69. [77]

    2015, LRSP, 12, 3

    Warmuth, A. 2015, LRSP, 12, 3

    2015

  70. [78]

    Wills-Davey, M.J., Thompson, B.J., 1999, , 190, 467

    1999

  71. [79]

    2001, , 372, 676

    Zhang, H. 2001, , 372, 676

    2001

  72. [80]

    2011, , 63, 685

    Zhang, Y., Kitai, R., Narukage, Y., et al. 2011, , 63, 685

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.