Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Damping Mechanisms of the Solar Filament Longitudinal Oscillations in Weak Magnetic Field

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In weak magnetic fields, oscillating solar filaments leak fast-mode waves, halve their decay time, and break the pendulum-model relation between period and dip curvature — overestimating the inferred curvature radius by ~100%.

desk verdict Solid wave-leakage simulation undermined by an overstated ~100% claim that mixes thermal and deformation effects. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07148 v1 pith:SGN5EPB2 submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.SR

L. Y. Zhang , C. Fang , P. F. Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magnetohydrodynamics(MHD)solarfilamentsprominenceslongitudinaloscillationswaveleakageprominenceseismologypendulummodelfast-modewaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that two-dimensional and non-adiabatic effects, not just gravity along a rigid field line, control how solar filament longitudinal oscillations damp. Using 2D MHD simulations in a regime where gravity is comparable to the Lorentz force ($\delta\approx 1$), it shows that the oscillating filament deforms its supporting magnetic field by about 0.5 Mm, launches fast-mode wave trains away from the filament, and damps roughly twice as fast as 1D simulations predict. It further claims that in this regime the standard pendulum relation between period and dip curvature radius is not reliable, overestimating the curvature radius by about 100%. The paper matters because filament oscillations are used as a seismological tool to infer magnetic field geometry, and because observed decay times are often shorter than 1D models can explain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless gravity-to-Lorentz ratio $\delta = \rho g L/(B^2/2\mu_0)$; when $\delta$ is near unity the dense filament can deform the magnetic field rather than sliding along a rigid tube. A second element is the pendulum relation $P=2\pi\sqrt{R/g}$, which the paper tests and finds wanting in that regime. The mechanism that carries the 2D damping is the piston effect: in a 2D slab the oscillating filament pushes all nearby field lines, generating transverse oscillations and outgoing fast-mode magnetoacoustic waves. The paper also decomposes the gas-pressure gradient force into a part antiphase with velocity (a viscous damping force in non-adiabatic runs) and a residual restoring part, explaining why radiation and heat conduction convert pressure forces from restoring to damping.

What would settle it

A 3D MHD simulation of a filament with $\delta\approx 1$ and a realistic sheared-core/unsheared-envelope field would settle it: if the decay time is not roughly half the matched 1D value and no fast-mode wave trains stream away from the filament, the wave-leakage claim fails. Observational support could come from detecting quasi-periodic 810 km/s wavefronts propagating above oscillating filaments in weak-field regions; their absence in many events would indicate the 2D piston picture does not apply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that in a 2D non-adiabatic MHD simulation with the gravity-to-Lorentz ratio $\delta$ close to unity, a perturbed filament thread oscillates with period $P\approx 49$ minutes and decay time $\tau\approx 38$ minutes ($\tau \approx 0.7P$), whereas the matched 1D non-adiabatic run gives $P\approx 30$ minutes and $\tau\approx 76$ minutes ($\tau \approx 2.5P$). The 2D adiabatic run decays in about 211 minutes while the 1D adiabatic run is essentially decayless, isolating wave leakage as the extra 2D damping channel. The deformation of the field line by the moving filament excites a transverse oscillation with period $\approx 6.38$ minutes and quasi-periodic fast-mode waves that carry energy upward and downward at about 810 km/s; energy-budget integrals attribute the loss to Lorentz force and gas pressure work, i.e., to wave radiation. Because the field flattens as the filament moves and the period lengthens by over 50% relative to 1D, the pendulum model's inferred dip curvature radius is wrong by roughly 100% in this regime.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the 2D slab result carrying over to the real three-dimensional Sun, where a filament's sheared core field is surrounded by a quasi-perpendicular envelope that forces the ambient field to oscillate like a piston; if the surrounding field lines are instead pushed aside, the extra damping and the 100% pendulum error would shrink substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed decay times shorter than 1D predictions can be explained by wave leakage plus radiation and conduction, without needing mass drainage or thread-thread interaction.
  • In weak-field events ($\delta\approx 1$), measured periods should not be fed directly into the pendulum formula; inferred dip curvature radii will be roughly twice too large.
  • Longitudinal oscillations in this regime should be accompanied by small-amplitude transverse oscillations with periods of minutes and by upward and downward fast-mode wave trains in the surrounding corona.
  • The predicted $\tau/P \approx 0.7$ is in line with the smallest observed damping ratios ($\approx 0.6$), suggesting wave leakage is a significant damping agent in real weak-field filaments.
  • The transition between pendulum-valid and pendulum-invalid behavior is governed by $\delta$, not by plasma $\beta$; stronger-field filaments with $\delta\approx 0.2$ remain safe for the pendulum model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2D piston picture survives in 3D for the sheared-core/unsheared-envelope geometry, then filament oscillations in weak-field regions should be observable sources of outward-propagating quasi-periodic coronal disturbances; a systematic search near oscillating filaments would test this.
  • The period drift predicted here (the period shortens as the oscillation decays) could serve as an observational diagnostic of the $\delta$ regime even when the magnetic field strength is not directly measurable.
  • The roughly 100% error bound is likely an upper limit for real filaments: in 3D geometries where ambient field lines slip sideways around the flux tube, wave leakage weakens and the pendulum model partially recovers.
  • Energy carried away by leaked fast-mode waves is deposited in the ambient corona, so filament oscillations may contribute to local coronal heating near weak-field filaments, a consequence the paper does not quantify.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Zhang, Fang, and Chen present two-dimensional (2D) MHD simulations of a filament thread oscillating longitudinally in a dipped quadrupolar magnetic field with gravity-to-Lorentz force ratio δ close to unity. They compare 2D non-adiabatic, 2D adiabatic, 1D non-adiabatic, and 1D adiabatic runs, fitting the field-aligned velocity with a damped sine to extract period and decay time. The central findings are that non-adiabatic processes (radiation and heat conduction) reduce the decay time, that the 2D runs lose additional energy through outgoing fast-mode wave trains generated by magnetic-field deformation, and that in this regime the pendulum model may misestimate the curvature radius of the magnetic dip by about 100%.

Significance. If established, the paper would make two useful contributions: a quantitative demonstration that wave leakage can shorten filament longitudinal oscillation decay times when the magnetic field is weak, and a warning that the pendulum model used for prominence seismology may fail when gravity and Lorentz force are comparable. The strength of the paper is its concrete evidence for the wave-leakage channel: the time-distance diagram in Figure 11 shows quasi-periodic vertical-velocity disturbances propagating upward and downward at the coronal fast-mode speed, and the energy-budget decomposition in Figure 12 indicates that Lorentz-force and pressure work remove a major part of the initial kinetic energy. The δ parameter adopted from Zhou et al. (2018) gives a useful ordering scheme for when field deformation matters. However, the headline 100% curvature-radius error is not currently established, because it is based on a comparison that mixes thermal period shifts with magnetic deformation, and the paper contains several internal numerical inconsistencies in the reported periods and decay times.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Abstract] The claim that the pendulum model leads to an error of ~100% in the curvature radius is not established by the comparison made in the text. The paper compares the 2D non-adiabatic period (P = 49 min) with the 1D non-adiabatic period (P = 30 min) and attributes the 19-minute difference to magnetic-field deformation. But the paper's own numbers show that switching on radiation and heat conduction shortens the 1D rigid-field period from 37 min (adiabatic) to 30 min, a 19% thermal shift, while the 2D adiabatic period is 44 min, only 19% longer than the 1D adiabatic period. A deformation-only comparison (2D adiabatic 44 min vs. 1D adiabatic 37 min) gives a period increase of about 19% and a curvature-radius error of about 40%, not 100%. In addition, the signals are chirped (the paper itself notes the period decreases with time), so the constant fitted periods depend on the fitting window and are quoted without uncertainties. A proper rigid-field adiabatic baseline, or a time-resolved period estimate, is needed before the abstract's '~100%' statement is used.
  2. [§3.2, §3.3, §4, and Summary] The decay times reported for the same cases are internally inconsistent. Section 3.2 gives τ = 76 min for the 1D non-adiabatic case, but Summary item (3) states the decay time is reduced from 113 min in 1D to 34 min in 2D. Section 3.2 gives τ = 38 min for the 2D non-adiabatic case, while the text in Section 4 and Summary items (2) and (3) use 34 min. Section 3.3 gives τ = 211 min for the 2D adiabatic case, but Section 4.2 states that the 2D adiabatic case has a decay time of 76 min. These are exactly the numbers used to quantify the factor-of-two reduction and the τ/P = 0.7 claim, so they must be reconciled and the quoted values corrected consistently throughout.
  3. [§4.2, final paragraph] The extrapolation from the 2D slab result to real 3D filaments is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper argues that the filament's sheared core field overlain by an unsheared envelope means the oscillating filament acts as a piston even in 3D, so wave leakage remains efficient. However, no 3D simulation or quantitative estimate of the piston efficiency is provided, and the paper itself notes that Terradas et al. (2006) found wave leakage ineffective for 3D flux tubes in an aligned ambient field. If, in 3D, the ambient field lines are pushed aside rather than forced to oscillate, the wave-leakage channel and the associated seismology error could be substantially smaller. Because the abstract's general claim about real filaments depends on this extrapolation, the paper should either add a 3D test, provide a quantitative geometric estimate, or explicitly restrict the claim to the 2D slab configuration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Summary, item (1)] There is a typo: 'tha application of the pendulum model' should read 'the application of the pendulum model.'
  2. [§4.1, Figure 7 discussion] The text refers to 'shifting Tp' in the decomposition of the pressure-gradient force, but the variable is Fp throughout the section; this should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains 'Time-distance diagram of of the temperature distribution'; the duplicate 'of' should be removed.
  4. [§3.1 and §3.2] The damped-sine fits are described as reasonable for only the first 1.5 periods, with deviations becoming remarkable afterward, yet the extracted periods and decay times are quoted without uncertainties or a goodness-of-fit measure; reporting the fitting window and uncertainties would make the quantitative comparisons more robust.
  5. [§2, boundary conditions] The two side boundaries are reflecting; a brief discussion of whether waves reflected from these boundaries affect the measured decay times would help the reader assess the numerical setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the wave-leakage result is independently produced by the MHD simulations; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central wave-leakage result is an output of solving the stated MHD equations (Eqs. 1-5), with initial conditions taken from a quadrupolar field and a dense thread; no parameter is fitted to force the conclusion. The damped-sine fit (Eq. 9) is a post-processing characterization of the simulated centroid velocity, so the reported period and decay-time values describe outputs rather than acting as inputs. The 2D-vs-1D decay-time reduction is read directly from the four simulation runs, and the wave-leakage interpretation is independently supported by the energy-budget integrals (Fig. 12), the outgoing fast-mode wave trains (Fig. 11), and the induced transverse oscillation (Fig. 10). The delta parameter is taken from the same group's earlier paper (Zhou et al. 2018), but it is a dimensionless force ratio used to choose the regime; the new simulation verifies the expected behavior rather than importing it. Citations to Zhang et al. (2012, 2013) supply background and 1D baselines, but they do not by themselves produce the 2D results. The headline ~100% pendulum-error estimate does raise a correctness concern, not a circularity one: it is computed by comparing the 1D non-adiabatic period (30 min) with the 2D non-adiabatic period (49 min), although the 1D adiabatic period is 37 min and the 2D adiabatic period is 44 min, so the comparison appears to mix thermal period shortening with field-deformation lengthening. This weakens the quantitative claim but does not make the derivation circular.

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

The simulation is controlled by hand-set equilibrium parameters rather than fitted data. The most consequential are B0=10 G, the filament density contrast, and the field wavenumbers, which place delta near unity. The central claim additionally depends on the 2D-to-3D extrapolation and on a correlation-based force decomposition, both listed as assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • B0 = 10 G (quadrupolar field amplitude) = 10 G
    Sets the Lorentz force scale; chosen so the gravity-to-Lorentz ratio delta is near unity, the regime the paper targets. Not fitted to observed oscillations.
  • Quadrupolar field wavenumbers k1 and k2 = k1=pi/200 Mm^-1, k2=3 k1
    Define the dip geometry and curvature radius; adopted from the standard quadrupolar configuration following Luna et al. (2016), not fitted to the target result.
  • Filament density contrast delta_rho/rho_corona = 99
    Sets the filament inertia and mass, affecting oscillation period and delta; chosen to represent a prominence thread.
  • Initial perturbation amplitude v0 = 20 km/s
    Initial field-aligned velocity perturbation; amplitude may affect nonlinear damping, though no drainage is reported here.
  • Background heating amplitude H0 and scale height Hm = H0=1.5e-4 erg/cm^3/s, Hm=40 Mm
    Chosen to maintain the background corona; affects the thermal equilibrium and hence pressure-gradient damping.
  • Thread dimensions wx and wz = wx=4 Mm, wz=3 Mm
    Set the thread length and mass, affecting the oscillation period and the pressure-gradient force decomposition.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with field-aligned Spitzer heat conduction and optically thin radiative loss describes the filament-corona system.
    Used throughout the model equations in Section 2 (Equations 1-5).
  • domain assumption The relaxed atmosphere reached after 110 minutes, then after inserting the filament and re-running, is a valid initial equilibrium for the oscillation study.
    Section 2, Steps 1-2; the relaxation time is assumed sufficient, and residual velocities are small after zeroing.
  • domain assumption The standard pendulum relation between period and dip curvature radius is the accepted baseline for filament seismology.
    Section 4.3 and Introduction; the paper tests this baseline rather than assuming it for its own construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The pressure-gradient force decomposition using the maximum running correlation between Fp and velocity or displacement separates restoring from damping components.
    Section 4.1 and Figures 7-8; the decomposition is introduced for this analysis and has no independent validation.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2D slab result that wave leakage is efficient carries over to 3D because the filament's envelope field is quasi-perpendicular to the core field, so the oscillating filament acts as a piston in 3D.
    Section 4.2, final paragraph; asserted on the basis of filament topology, not demonstrated by a 3D simulation.
  • domain assumption The dimensionless parameter delta = rho g L / (B^2 / 2 mu0) governs whether the filament gravity deforms the magnetic field.
    Section 1 and Summary (1); adopted from Zhou et al. (2018), and used to choose the simulation regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Damping Mechanisms of the Solar Filament Longitudinal Oscillations in Weak Magnetic Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGN5EPB2

@misc{pith2026190807148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Damping Mechanisms of the Solar Filament Longitudinal Oscillations in Weak Magnetic Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGN5EPB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07148}
}
read the original abstract

Longitudinal oscillations of solar filament have been investigated via numerical simulations continuously, but mainly in one dimension (1D), where the magnetic field line is treated as a rigid flux tube. Whereas those one-dimensional simulations can roughly reproduce the observed oscillation periods, implying that gravity is the main restoring force for filament longitudinal oscillations, the decay time in one-dimensional simulations is generally longer than in observations. In this paper, we perform a two-dimensional (2D) non-adiabatic magnetohydrodynamic simulation of filament longitudinal oscillations, and compare it with the 2D adiabatic case and 1D adiabatic and non-adiabatic cases. It is found that, whereas both non-adiabatic processes (radiation and heat conduction) can significantly reduce the decay time, wave leakage is another important mechanism to dissipate the kinetic energy of the oscillating filament when the magnetic field is weak so that gravity is comparable to Lorentz force. In this case, our simulations indicate that the pendulum model might lead to an error of ~100% in determining the curvature radius of the dipped magnetic field using the longitudinal oscillation period when the gravity to Lorentz force ratio is close to unity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The vertical distribution of the temperature before the filament is introduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distributions of the magnetic field (black lines) and the plasma density (color scale) used as the initial conditions for this paper. The blue line marks the single magnetic field line threading the centroid of the filament. displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the magnetic field (solid lines) and the plasma density (color scale). For comparison, the initial magnetic field is overplotted as the dashed lines. In this subsection, we present the numerical results in the 2D non-adiabatic case. The evolution of the filament oscillation is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Time-distance diagram of of the temperature distribution along the magnetic field line threading the filament centroid. Right: Evolution of the field-aligned velocity of the filament centroid. In order to analyze the oscillation behavior more quantitatively, we e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Time-distance diagram of the temperature distribution in the 1D non-adiabatic case. Right: Evolution of the velocity of the filament centroid in the 1D non-adiabatic case. with a damped sine function the same as Equation (9) with the least-square method. It is re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Snapshots of the gas pressure distribution along the magnetic field line crossing the filament centroid, where the thatched areas corresponds to the filament, and the magenta arrows indicate the velocity of the filament. From the energy point of view, it is straightfor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of several quantities in the 2D non-adiabatic case. Panel (a) is for the filament displacement along the magnetic field line, panel (b) is for the filament velocity along the magnetic field line, panel (c) is for Fp, the pressure gradient force across the lef…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The trajectory of the filament centroid (colored circles) and the magnetic field lines across the filament centroid, where the red line corresponds to the initial state, the dash-dotted line corresponds to the moment when the filament reaches its rightmost position, an…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the vertical velocity of the filament, showing a decayed transverse oscillation. oscillation has a period of 25 minutes, which is about half of the filament longitudinal oscillation. The half period is expected when a filament is oscillating along a dippe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time-distance diagram of the vertical velocity (v⊥) along the z-axis at x = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time-integral of the energy loss from the fixed region indicated by the pink box in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arregui, I., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-018-0012-6

    doi:10.1007/s41116-018-0012-6 2018

  2. [2]

    S., & Arber, T

    Brady, C. S., & Arber, T. D. 2005, A&A, 438, 733, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042527

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042527 2005

  3. [3]

    Cally, P. S. 1986, SoPh, 103, 277, doi: 10.1007/BF00147830 Damping of filament longitudinal oscillations 17

    doi:10.1007/bf00147830 1986

  4. [4]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  5. [5]

    F., Harra, L

    Chen, P. F., Harra, L. K., & Fang, C. 2014, ApJ, 784, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/50 D´ ıaz, A. J., Zaqarashvili, T., & Roberts, B. 2006, A&A, 455, 709, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054430

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/50 2014

  6. [6]

    J., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Hillier, A., Morton, R. J., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2013, ApJL, 779, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/L16

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/779/2/l16 2013

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Jing, J., Lee, J., Spirock, T. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, L103, doi: 10.1086/373886

    doi:10.1086/373886 2003

  8. [8]

    A., & MacNeice, P

    Klimchuk, J. A., & MacNeice, P. J. 2001, ApJL, 553, L85, doi: 10.1086/320497

    work page doi:10.1086/320497 2001

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 718, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.020

    Keppens, R., Meliani, Z., van Marle, A., et al. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 718, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.020

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    1957, ZA, 43, 36

    Kippenhahn, R., & Schl¨ uter, A. 1957, ZA, 43, 36

    1957

  3. [11]

    Kuperus, M., & Raadu, M. A. 1974, A&A, 31, 189

    1974

  4. [12]

    2012, ApJL, 760, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L10

    Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2012, ApJL, 760, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L10

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Wiik, J

    Lin, Y., Engvold, O. R., & Wiik, J. E. 2003, SoPh, 216, 109, doi: 10.1023/A:1026150809598

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    V., et al

    Liu, W., Ofman, L., Nitta, N. V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/52

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    L., et al

    Luna, M., Karpen, J., Ballester, J. L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabde7

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Luna, M., & Karpen, J. T. 2012, ApJ, 750, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L1

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 157, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/157

    Luna, M., Terradas, J., Khomenko, E., Collados, M., & de Vicente, A. 2016, ApJ, 817, 157, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/157

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/4

    Keppens, R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/4

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    Keppens, R., & Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Murawski, K., Wang, T

    Selwa, M., Solanki, S. K., Murawski, K., Wang, T. J., & Shumlak, U. 2006, A&A, 454, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054286

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Chen, P

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Chen, P. F., & Ichimoto, K. 2014, ApJ, 795, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/130

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Terradas, J., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2006, ApJL, 650, L91, doi: 10.1086/508569

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    2009, SSRv, 149, 283, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9583-9

    Tripathi, D., Isobe, H., & Jain, R. 2009, SSRv, 149, 283, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9583-9

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Verwichte, E., Foullon, C., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2006, A&A, 452, 615, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054437 Vrˇ snak, B., Veronig, A. M., Thalmann, J. K., & ˇZic, T. 2007, A&A, 471, 295, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077668

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    1999, ApJL, 520, L71, doi: 10.1086/312149

    Wang, Y.-M. 1999, ApJL, 520, L71, doi: 10.1086/312149

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    Keppens, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Chen, P

    Zhang, Q. M., Chen, P. F., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2012, A&A, 542, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218786

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Chen, P

    Zhang, Q. M., Chen, P. F., Xia, C., Keppens, R., & Ji, H. S. 2013, A&A, 554, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220705

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Li, D., & Ning, Z

    Zhang, Q. M., Li, D., & Ning, Z. J. 2017, ApJ, 851, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9898

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Chen, P. F. 2018, ApJ, 856, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab614

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Engvold, O., & Martin, S

    Zirker, J. B., Engvold, O., & Martin, S. F. 1998, Nature, 396, 440, doi: 10.1038/24798

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Yang, K., & Cao, W

    Zou, P., Fang, C., Chen, P. F., Yang, K., & Cao, W. 2017, ApJ, 836, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/122

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    F., et al

    Zou, P., Fang, C., Chen, P. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 123, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/123

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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