Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Solar Orbiter SEP Dropout during a Magnetic Cloud with Evidence for Strong Connectivity Gradients

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a three-hour dropout in a solar energetic particle event observed by Solar Orbiter on 2022 December 24 reflects rapid changes in particle access between adjacent magnetic flux tubes, not a local change in the…

desk verdict A solid, honest single-case SEP dropout study in a magnetic cloud; descriptive core convincing, connectivity interpretation plausible but rests on an unvalidated PFSS margin. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00427 v1 pith:UGOLISSK submitted 2026-08-01 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Radoslav Bucik , Raul Gomez-Herrero , Samuel T. Hart , Maher A. Dayeh , Nariaki V. Nitta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticles3He-richSEPeventsintensitydropoutsmagneticconnectivitycloudsParkerspiralmappingquasi-separatrixlayersOrbiter
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

An impulsive solar energetic particle event measured by Solar Orbiter on 2022 December 24 shows a three-hour intensity dropout that is not accompanied by any abrupt local change in the magnetic field or solar wind plasma. The paper argues that the dropout instead reflects rapid changes in particle access between adjacent magnetic flux tubes, and that a passing magnetic cloud helped preserve the sharp intensity gradients between those tubes. The analysis combines particle pitch-angle distributions, solar imaging of a compact jet source, and coronal connectivity mapping to place the spacecraft near strong connectivity gradients. If correct, this shows SEP dropouts can arise purely from connectivity structure, without any local disturbance, and that quiet ICME intervals can act as natural preserves of sharp particle boundaries.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the combination of Parker-spiral ballistic back-mapping to the solar source surface and PFSS-based field-line tracing, together with a quasi-separatrix-layer (QSL) proxy that quantifies how rapidly field-line footpoints change with starting position. The proxy is computed from finite-difference gradients of the field-line mapping and highlights ridges of strong magnetic connectivity gradients. These tools place Solar Orbiter's nominal footpoint and the −10 degree offset inside the EUV jet base, while the +10 degree offset lands near a connectivity ridge and shifts to neighboring open field lines, supplying the geometry that makes the dropout interpretable as a flux-tube switch.

What would settle it

A time-dependent coronal-field reconstruction for 03–12 UT on 2022 December 24 that tracks the spacecraft's field-line footpoint through the dropout interval: if the footpoint stays inside the jet-base flux tube without crossing a quasi-separatrix-layer ridge between 07:15 and 10:00 UT, the connectivity-gradient explanation for the main dropout would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a pronounced dropout in a 3He-rich impulsive SEP event at 0.93 au is best explained by rapid changes in particle access between adjacent open flux tubes, not by an abrupt change in the local interplanetary magnetic field or plasma. The field-aligned MeV ion beam present before 07:15 UT disappeared abruptly at dropout onset, while a weak 100–200 keV component appeared at pitch angles of about 90–180 degrees with no comparable MeV counterpart, and the pitch-angle coverage did not change. Ballistic Parker-spiral back-mapping combined with Potential Field Source Surface field-line tracing and a quasi-separatrix-layer proxy places the nominal footpoint inside the jet-base source region but close to strong connectivity gradients, so small displacements shift the connection to neighboring open field lines of the same polarity. The dropout-rich interval lies inside a magnetic-cloud passage with strongly reduced fluctuations, and the authors interpret the cloud as creating favorable conditions that preserve sharp SEP intensity gradients between adjacent flux tubes. They also state explicitly that the quasi-static PFSS extrapolation cannot determine whether such connectivity switching actually occurred in this event.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quasi-static PFSS coronal-field model and the ±10 degree Parker-spiral longitude band correctly locate Solar Orbiter's magnetic footpoint near the jet source; if the footpoint is misplaced, the claimed proximity to strong connectivity gradients is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A dropout onset is not evidence of a local magnetic or plasma discontinuity: the main dropout here began with no abrupt change in IMF direction or reliable solar wind moments, so similar dropouts may be missed in data sets that require such a discontinuity.
  • Magnetic-cloud intervals with low magnetic fluctuation levels can preserve sharp SEP intensity gradients between adjacent flux tubes, implying dropout events may be more frequent or more pronounced inside ICMEs.
  • Pitch-angle distributions can reveal flux-tube switching even when the field itself does not change: the disappearance of a field-aligned beam with a simultaneous weak low-energy anti-sunward component is the signature seen here.
  • Repeated dropouts in a single event, along with alternating suprathermal-electron and ion depletions, suggest Solar Orbiter sampled a patchy, interleaved set of flux tubes with different particle access.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the connectivity-gradient interpretation holds, SEP dropout timings could serve as a remote probe of coronal open-flux rearrangement: a sequence of dropouts would map when and how the spacecraft's footpoint crosses quasi-separatrix ridges, without needing to resolve the coronal field directly.
  • The weak 100–200 keV population seen at 90–180 degrees during the dropout may be a pre-existing suprathermal population on the adjacent flux tube; a testable prediction is that this component should have a different composition or spectral slope than the pre-dropout beam.
  • A larger statistical study comparing dropout occurrence inside magnetic clouds versus ordinary solar wind would test the paper's claim that the cloud is favorable rather than incidental; the authors note their single-event study cannot settle this.
  • Time-dependent coronal modeling of this specific interval could decide between the two proposed dropout mechanisms: if the modeled footpoint never leaves the jet-base flux tube during 07:15–10:00 UT, the turbulence/transport explanation would be favored over connectivity switching.
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 presents a multi-instrument Solar Orbiter case study of an impulsive 3He-rich SEP event on 2022 December 24 that shows a pronounced intensity dropout between about 07:15 and 10:00 UT. Using EPT pitch-angle distributions, MAG/SWA in situ data, SIS composition, and SDO imaging, the authors show that the dropout onset is not accompanied by an abrupt local IMF or solar-wind change, that the field-aligned beam disappears abruptly while a weak 100-200 keV component appears at pitch angles near 90-180 degrees, that the event occurs inside a magnetic-cloud interval with strongly reduced IMF fluctuations, and that PFSS/QSL connectivity maps place Solar Orbiter near strong connectivity gradients. They interpret the observations as evidence that the dropout reflects rapid changes in particle access between adjacent flux tubes, with the magnetic cloud helping to preserve the sharp SEP intensity gradients.

Significance. The descriptive observational content is valuable and generally well supported: the dropout timing, the PAD evolution across four EPT telescopes, the absence of a local IMF trigger at onset, the identification of the jet source, and the placement of the event inside an ICME/magnetic cloud are carefully documented. The authors also handle instrument limitations responsibly, noting the lack of EPT mass resolution and the poor SWA-PAS quality factors. The interpretive claim is clearly stated and falsifiable in principle, and the authors are explicit about major caveats, including the quasi-static PFSS limitation. If the connectivity-gradient interpretation is correct, the event is a useful demonstration that SEP dropouts can occur without an abrupt local IMF change and that an ICME can preserve sharp connectivity boundaries. However, the central interpretive claim rests on model-dependent connectivity products that are not independently validated for this event.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3 and Figure 4] The central claim that Solar Orbiter lies close to strong connectivity gradients and that the dropout reflects sampling of adjacent flux tubes rests on the PFSS/±10° connectivity analysis. The QSL-proxy map (Eq. 1) is computed from the same PFSS field, so it does not independently validate the connectivity gradients. Section 7 concedes that quasi-static global PFSS extrapolations cannot determine whether connectivity switching occurred in this event. As written, temporal fading or transport-based explanations are not ruled out by the model products. To make the adjacency interpretation load-bearing, the authors should provide an event-specific footpoint uncertainty estimate (for example, by comparing PFSS maps at adjacent 6-hour epochs or by validating against independent indicators such as type III source locations or suprathermal electron strahl properties) and quantify how the SO+10 excursions in Figure 4 change under that uncertainty.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 1] The weak 100-200 keV component at pitch angles of about 90-180 degrees is presented as supporting the adjacent-flux-tube interpretation, but no background-subtracted time series, statistical significance estimate, or comparison with pre-event intensities is shown. Without this quantitative treatment, an instrumental or background origin, or a scattering-related population, is not excluded. The authors should add an energy-resolved time series of this component with uncertainties and state its significance relative to pre-event levels.
  3. [Sections 6 and 7] The magnetic-cloud preservation argument is supported only qualitatively. The paper states that IMF fluctuations decrease markedly and that the dropout-rich interval occurs during a low-fluctuation magnetic cloud, but it does not provide quantitative measures such as sigma_B/|B|, magnetic variance spectra, or a comparison interval before and after the cloud. Without such measures, the claim that the magnetic cloud 'may help preserve sharp SEP intensity gradients' remains a hypothesis rather than a tested inference. A quantitative characterization of the fluctuation level would strengthen the paper's central interpretive chain.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'This event is 3He-rich as indicates He mass spectrogram in Fig. 5c' is grammatically awkward and should be revised, for example to 'This event is 3He-rich, as indicated by the He mass spectrogram in Fig. 5c.'
  2. [Section 5.1] In the Parker-spiral back-mapping equation, the sign convention for the solar rotation term and the definition of longitude direction (Carrington longitude increasing or decreasing) should be stated explicitly, so that the footpoint offsets SO-10 and SO+10 are unambiguous.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption refers to 'Two black vertical dotted lines mark the dropout period,' but the figure description in the text does not clearly identify these lines in all panels; please confirm that the dotted lines are visible in the rendered figure and described consistently.
  4. [Section 6] The phrase 'The PAS quality factor is>0 (untrustworthy)' would be clearer as 'The PAS quality factor indicates untrustworthy data (quality factor >0) for over 25% of time steps during the SEP interval.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the connectivity model and QSL proxy are independent of the dropout data, and no fitted-input prediction or load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the dropout reflects rapid changes in particle access between adjacent flux tubes while the magnetic cloud preserves sharp SEP intensity gradients—is an interpretation supported by, but not defined in terms of, the observations used to evaluate it. The connectivity analysis in Section 5 uses Parker-spiral ballistic back-mapping with an a priori ±10° longitude uncertainty and a PFSS extrapolation; the QSL-proxy (Eq. 1) is a geometric gradient measure of the PFSS field-line mapping. No parameter of this model is fitted to the dropout timing, intensity, or pitch-angle behavior, so the dropout is not a predicted output that reduces by construction to a fitted input. The SO+10 footpoint variability is a model product used to argue that the spacecraft lies near strong connectivity gradients; this is a modeling inference whose validity can be questioned, but it is not circular because the model inputs do not include the dropout signature. The paper explicitly concedes that quasi-static global PFSS cannot determine whether connectivity switching occurred (Section 7), which is an honest limitation statement rather than a circular step. Self-citations (e.g., Nitta et al. 2023; Bucik 2020) provide context and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The hand-chosen values (±10° longitude, |λ_SS|≤7° ecliptic band) are documented assumptions, not outputs of the derivation. Accordingly, no circularity step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters in the usual sense. The QSL proxy and PFSS maps are model products, and the listed parameters are documented modeling choices. The central claim rests on the quasi-static PFSS and constant-speed back-mapping assumptions rather than on new fitted quantities or new postulated entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Ballistic back-mapping longitude offset = ±10 degrees
    The ±10 degree Parker-spiral longitude uncertainty is adopted from Nolte & Roelof 1973 to bracket the mapping. The SO+10 footpoint is the key trajectory that shifts outside the jet base, providing the connectivity-gradient evidence. It is not independently measured for this event.
  • Ecliptic-band threshold = |lambda_SS| <= 7 degrees
    Hand-chosen threshold that classifies open field lines as open-to-ecliptic. It affects counting statistics in Figure 4 but does not directly determine the dropout mechanism conclusion.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The coronal magnetic field is quasi-static and force-free, so PFSS extrapolations from 6-hour synoptic magnetograms represent the connectivity during the event.
    Invoked in Section 5. The authors note that quasi-static global PFSS cannot determine whether connectivity switching actually occurred, which is the main limitation of the central interpretation.
  • domain assumption Ballistic back-mapping with a constant radial solar wind speed between the source surface and the spacecraft yields the correct source-surface footpoint longitude.
    Standard approximation used in Section 5.1 to compute phi_SS. The result feeds directly into the PFSS footpoint tracing and the connectivity-gradient argument.
  • domain assumption The SEP event is associated with the jet from AR 13169 and the approximately 04:10 UT type III burst.
    Based on timing and imaging in Section 4. The association is plausible but not independently proven; the dispersive onset and source location support it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Orbiter SEP Dropout during a Magnetic Cloud with Evidence for Strong Connectivity Gradients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGOLISSK

@misc{pith2026260800427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Orbiter SEP Dropout during a Magnetic Cloud with Evidence for Strong Connectivity Gradients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGOLISSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00427}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze an impulsive solar energetic particle (SEP) event observed by Solar Orbiter at 0.93 au on 2022 December 24 that exhibits a pronounced intensity dropout between approximately 07:15 and 10:00 UT. Pitch-angle distributions show a near-field-aligned beam before the dropout, which disappears abruptly at the dropout onset. At the same time, a weak 100--200 keV component appears at pitch angles of about 90--180 degrees; no comparable enhancement over this pitch-angle range is present at MeV energies. The dropout onset is not accompanied by an abrupt change in the in situ magnetic field or solar wind plasma. Solar imaging associates the SEP event with a jet from a compact source. Ballistic back mapping, together with Potential Field Source Surface extrapolations and quasi-separatrix-layer proxy diagnostics, indicates that Solar Orbiter nominally connects to the source region, but lies close to strong connectivity gradients where small displacement may shift the connection to neighboring open field lines. The in situ measurements show that the event occurs during a magnetic-cloud passage and that additional dropouts occur later in the event. These results favor an interpretation in which the dropout reflects rapid changes in particle access between adjacent flux tubes, while the magnetic cloud may help preserve the sharp SEP intensity gradients between them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) EPT-Sun and (b) EPT-ASun inverse-velocity (c/v) versus time spectrograms of E 2 J(E, t) on 2022 December 24. (c) IMF (1 minute) magnitude |B| and components in RTN coordinates. Shading denotes dropout period. (d) Pitch-angle coverage of the four EPT telescopes. (e) Pitch-angle distribution of EPT ions in 103.36–203.33 keV (60 s averaged). (f) Pitch-angle distribution of EPT ions in 1.03–1.46 MeV (60 s averaged).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SDO image of the solar source at time of the event-associated type III radio burst. AIA 171 ˚A is shown in green, and the HMI line-of-sight magnetic field (scaled to ±150 G) in black and red tinted colors. Jet is marked by arrow; a 5◦ Carrington grid is overlaid. The × symbols mark photospheric footpoints of field lines open to the ecliptic, and the + symbols mark footpoints of field lines open to other latitudes at… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PFSS photospheric maps at 2022-12-24 06:00 UT. Top: The radial magnetic field, scaled to ±30 G. Bottom: A QSL-proxy map (Section 5.2), where brighter pixels indicate stronger connectivity gradients. Yellow curves indicate a subset of traced closed field lines. Symbols mark photospheric footpoints of open field lines traced from a uniform photospheric seed grid and classified by the latitude of their source-surface e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Carrington longitude of SO photospheric footpoints versus time. Solid curves show SO, SO−10, and SO+10. Dashed curves SO−sw and SO+sw show the longitude uncertainty from measured vsw variability during the injection (03–05 UT) and dropout (07–10 UT) intervals. The × sy…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solar wind and IMF conditions around the 2022 December 24 3He-rich SEP event. (a) Local IMF for 11 days surrounding the event. The shaded interval marks the ICME passage. (b–i) Three days of measurements within the ICME. (b) SIS C–Fe inverse ion-speed spectrogram. The …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Kaiser, M

    Bougeret, J. L., Kaiser, M. L., Kellogg, P. J., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 231, doi: 10.1007/BF00751331

    doi:10.1007/bf00751331 1995

  2. [2]

    L., Goetz, K., Kaiser, M

    Bougeret, J. L., Goetz, K., Kaiser, M. L., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 487, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9298-8 Buˇ c´ ık, R. 2020, SSRv, 216, 24, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00650-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9298-8 2008

  3. [3]

    E., & Giacalone, J

    Chollet, E. E., & Giacalone, J. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1368, doi: 10.1086/592378

    doi:10.1086/592378 2008

  4. [4]

    P., Yordanova, E., Graham, D

    Dimmock, A. P., Yordanova, E., Graham, D. B., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e2022JA030754, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030754

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030754 2022

  5. [5]

    L., & Handy, B

    Freeland, S. L., & Handy, B. N. 1998, SoPh, 182, 497, doi: 10.1023/A:1005038224881

    doi:10.1023/a:1005038224881 1998

  6. [6]

    R., & Matthaeus, W

    Giacalone, J., Jokipii, J. R., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2006, ApJL, 641, L61, doi: 10.1086/503770

    work page doi:10.1086/503770 2006

  7. [7]

    R., & Mazur, J

    Giacalone, J., Jokipii, J. R., & Mazur, J. E. 2000, ApJL, 532, L75, doi: 10.1086/312564

    doi:10.1086/312564 2000

  8. [8]

    T., Skoug, R

    Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., McComas, D. J., & Mazur, J. E. 2004, ApJ, 614, 412, doi: 10.1086/423368

    doi:10.1086/423368 2004

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/16

    Guo, F., & Giacalone, J. 2014, ApJ, 780, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/16

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Mason, G

    Ho, G. C., Mason, G. M., Allen, R. C., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 939799, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.939799

    2022

  3. [11]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937257

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 8040, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009938

    Kucharek, H., M¨ obius, E., Li, W., et al. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 8040, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009938

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Chust, T., et al

    Maksimovic, M., Bale, S. D., Chust, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936214

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Mason, G

    Mazur, J. E., Mason, G. M., Dwyer, J. R., et al. 2000, ApJL, 532, L79, doi: 10.1086/312561 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Buˇ c´ ık, R., Mason, G

    Nitta, N. V., Buˇ c´ ık, R., Mason, G. M., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 50, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1148467

    2023

  9. [17]

    V., Reames, D

    Nitta, N. V., Reames, D. V., De Rosa, M. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 438, doi: 10.1086/507442

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    T., & Roelof, E

    Nolte, J. T., & Roelof, E. C. 1973, SoPh, 33, 241, doi: 10.1007/BF00152395

    1973 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1b4

    Kucharek, H. 2025, ApJ, 981, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1b4

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937259

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664, doi: 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  14. [22]

    V., Richardson, I

    Reames, D. V., Richardson, I. G., & Wenzel, K.-P. 1992, ApJ, 387, 715, doi: 10.1086/171120

    1992 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 Rodr´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 Rodr´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F.,

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935287

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    H., & Chuychai, P

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., & Chuychai, P. 2003, ApJL, 597, L169, doi: 10.1086/379847

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & De Rosa, M

    Schrijver, C. J., & De Rosa, M. L. 2003, SoPh, 212, 165, doi: 10.1023/A:1022908504100

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, ApJ, 711, 980, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/980

    Chuychai, P. 2010, ApJ, 711, 980, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/980

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Tan, L. C. 2023, ApJ, 954, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1f2

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Titov, V. S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 863, doi: 10.1086/512671

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Hornig, G., & D´ emoulin, P

    Titov, V. S., Hornig, G., & D´ emoulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000278

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/11

    Trenchi, L., Bruno, R., Telloni, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/11

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Berger, L., Kollhoff, A., et al

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Berger, L., Kollhoff, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346319

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, SSRv, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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