Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Reconnection nanojets in an erupting solar filament with unprecedented high speeds

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 2-second extreme-ultraviolet images, this paper reports 27 nanojets in an erupting filament with speeds up to about 800 km/s, the fastest ever seen for small-scale solar jets.

desk verdict Novel EUI nanojet speeds are real enough to warrant review, but the paper must rule out untwisting-induced apparent motions before the 'unprecedented' claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20663 v1 pith:XS4DV3CC submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.SR

Yuhang Gao , Hui Tian , David Berghmans , Yadan Duan , Tom Van Doorsselaere , Hechao Chen , Emil Kraaikamp This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords TheSunsolarcoronamagneticreconnectionfilamenteruptionsnanojetscomponentcoronalheatingEUVimaging
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 reports 27 small, short-lived plasma jets—nanojets—inside an erupting solar filament, seen in 2-second-cadence extreme-ultraviolet images from the Solar Orbiter EUI telescope. Most of the jets move at about 450 km/s and the fastest at roughly 800 km/s, which the authors state are the highest speeds ever reported for small-scale jets less than about 1 Mm wide on the Sun. The speeds matter because nanojets are considered direct markers of nanoflare heating, the leading explanation for why the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the visible surface. If the measurement is right, component magnetic reconnection can fling sub-Mm plasma ejections at speeds comparable to the coronal Alfvén speed, making nanoflare-type energy release far more violent than earlier detections suggested.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the time–distance map: a slit drawn along each jet's ejection direction in the EUI 174 Å images, with the slope of the bright front's trajectory giving the plane-of-sky speed. The interpretation rests on component reconnection, the slingshot mechanism in which two magnetic field lines with a small misalignment angle reconnect and eject plasma perpendicular to the field; the simulations cited in the paper predict exactly such collimated ejections. Supporting steps include Gaussian fits to intensity profiles for jet width, an assumed coronal electron density of $10^9\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ to convert volumes into kinetic energies, and an estimate of motion blur over the 1.65 s exposure. The untwisting filament threads are presented as the source of the misalignment angles.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a coordinated observation of the same erupting filament from a second high-resolution EUV viewpoint, reconstructing the three-dimensional motion of one of the tracked fronts to check whether its true velocity is a radial ejection near 800 km/s. Failing that, a calculation of the apparent speed produced by the filament's untwisting, using the observed rotation and geometry, could show whether the time–distance slopes are compatible with pattern motion alone; if they are, the nanojet speeds would be overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During the untwisting of a filament in an active region on 2024 September 30, the authors identify 27 jet-like features oriented roughly perpendicular to the filament's spine. Tracking bright fronts in EUI 174 Å time–distance maps gives plane-of-sky speeds from 128 to 770 km/s, with the fastest event lasting about 28 seconds, spanning about 6.6 Mm in length and 0.7 Mm in width. They classify these as component-reconnection nanojets because their morphology matches previously reported nanojets, their estimated energies ($10^{22}$–$10^{25}$ erg) fall in the nanoflare range, and the untwisting of the filament is argued to create the misalignment angles that trigger component reconnection. The central claim is that these are genuine nanojets whose speeds, up to roughly 800 km/s, are comparable to the coronal Alfvén speed and far above the 50–300 km/s span of earlier nanojet studies; the paper is explicit that, without multi-viewpoint observations, all measured speeds are lower limits.

Load-bearing premise

The claim assumes that the fast-moving bright fronts seen in the EUI images are real plasma ejections moving across the sky, not an apparent pattern caused by the filament's untwisting, projection of its three-dimensional shape, or a traveling heating wave; the paper lacks simultaneous multi-viewpoint observations to rule out those alternatives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Component reconnection can produce sub-Mm plasma ejections at speeds near the coronal Alfvén speed, so nanoflare-type energy release in dynamic coronal environments can be far faster than earlier surveys suggested.
  • Because the measured speeds are plane-of-sky values and the fastest event is $\sim$800 km/s, the true speeds are at least as high as reported, and could be higher.
  • The short lifetimes (mostly under 10 s) imply that cadences longer than about 4 s will miss many of the fastest nanojets; 2 s cadence or faster is needed to sample the population.
  • The estimated kinetic energies, $10^{22}$–$10^{25}$ erg, remain in the nanoflare range even though these jets are smaller than previously studied ones, supporting the nanoflare contribution to coronal heating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 800 km/s speed is confirmed, models of nanoflare heating should consider energy release rate, not just total energy: faster ejections imply a larger fraction of stored magnetic energy is converted into motion in a few seconds.
  • A direct test is to run MHD simulations of an untwisting flux rope and synthesize EUI images; if the synthetic time–distance maps reproduce similar 770 km/s slopes without real plasma ejections, the apparent-motion alternative becomes serious.
  • Another test is to search the short-exposure flare images from the EUI campaign for even shorter-lived nanojets; their absence at 0.04 s exposures would suggest the 2 s events are partly motion-blurred.
  • If real, these fast nanojets could power small-scale wave or shock signatures in the corona, observable as Doppler shifts or intensity disturbances in coordinated spectroscopic data.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports Solar Orbiter/EUI 174 Å observations of 27 small-scale jet-like events ('nanojets') in an erupting filament on 2024 September 30. Speeds are measured from time–distance maps and, for the shortest events, by manual front tracking between adjacent frames; the reported range is 128–770 km s⁻¹, with the fastest event (No. 13) described as approximately 800 km s⁻¹ in the abstract. The authors interpret the features as component-reconnection outflows perpendicular to the untwisting filament threads, estimate kinetic and thermal energies of 10²²–10²⁵ erg using assumed density and temperature, and claim these are the highest speeds ever reported for sub-Mm solar jets. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the speeds are plane-of-sky lower limits and that density and temperature are assumed rather than measured.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the result is significant: it would demonstrate that component magnetic reconnection can drive sub-Mm plasma ejections at speeds comparable to the coronal Alfvén speed, with direct implications for nanoflare heating and reconnection physics. The use of 2 s cadence EUI data is a genuine observational advance, and the paper is honest about projection effects, dynamic blurring, and assumed plasma parameters. The slope-based measurement for the longest event (Table 1, No. 13, Figure 2) is straightforward, and the table of all 27 events is useful. However, the central 'unprecedented speeds' claim rests on the assumption that the tracked bright fronts are bulk plasma ejections rather than apparent pattern motion from the untwisting filament; this assumption is neither quantitatively tested nor excluded. The lack of error bars on the catalog further weakens the quantitative comparison with previous work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 2, Table 1] The central speed claim is not uniquely established because the tracked bright fronts may be apparent pattern motion from the untwisting filament rather than bulk plasma ejections. The time–distance map in Figure 2b shows the untwisting motion, and the paper does not measure the angular velocity ω of the untwisting or test whether the observed speeds are consistent with v = ωr for threads at distance r from the filament axis. For event No. 13, v = 770 km s⁻¹ at r ≈ 5 Mm would require ω ≈ 0.15 rad s⁻¹ (a full revolution in ~40 s), which the paper does not argue to be impossible. With a single EUI viewpoint and no simultaneous spectroscopy or stereoscopy, a propagating heating/compression front or a rotating-thread pattern cannot be excluded. I request either a quantitative exclusion of this alternative (for example, by measuring ω from the time–distance data and checking the predicted scaling of speed with r, or by comparing the intensity evolution of the fronts with a pure pattern-motion prediction) or a substantial softening of the 'highest speeds ever reported' claim.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 3] The catalog lacks error bars, and for the 18 events with durations of 2–4 s (i.e., one or two frames at the 2 s cadence) the speeds are estimated by manual front tracking between adjacent frames, as stated in Section 3. With a pixel size of 0.105 Mm and a 2 s cadence, a one-pixel displacement error corresponds to about 50 km s⁻¹, and the systematic uncertainty from ambiguous front identification is likely larger; the 1.65 s exposure time further smears the front position. The paper should provide uncertainty estimates for each speed, or at least for the highest-speed events, and discuss how the exposure time affects the measured front positions. Without this, the statement that 22 out of 27 events exceed 300 km s⁻¹ is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The kinetic and thermal energy estimates rest on assumed values of the electron density n_e = 10⁹ cm⁻³ and temperature T = 2 MK, and the derived magnetic field B ≈ 20 G follows directly from equating the total estimated energy to B²V/8π. The authors themselves note that dynamic blurring may make the apparent length (and hence volume and energy) too large by a factor of about two, so the energy values in Table 1 should be presented as order-of-magnitude illustrations rather than as measured quantities. This does not affect the speed measurement itself, but it weakens the nanoflare-classification argument if a reader relies on the stated energies and the derived field strength.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'Detection and investigation of nanojets are are hampered' contains a duplicated 'are'.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence 'using SkyCoord.transform to from the astropy.coordinates module' contains a stray 'to'.
  3. [Section 4] The word 'Previouly' should be 'Previously'.
  4. [Figure 4] The horizontal axis of the speed panel appears to read 'peed( m s)' and should be 'Speed (km s⁻¹)'.
  5. [References] The in-text citation 'Ryan et al. 2025, submitted' does not appear in the reference list; a full citation or a note on its status is needed.
  6. [Table 1] Several numerical entries contain spurious spaces (e.g., '9 .23 × 1022'); the table formatting should be cleaned for publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported speeds are measured from time-distance slopes, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forces the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational measurement: nanojet speeds are derived from the slopes of bright fronts in time-distance maps (Section 3, Figure 2c), with values such as 770 km/s read directly from the trajectory slope. No parameter is fitted to the speed data, and no equation defines the speed in terms of the conclusion. The kinetic and thermal energy estimates use assumed density and temperature, but these assumptions do not feed back into the speed measurements; the derived magnetic field strength (Equation 1) is an output, not an input to the speed claim. Self-citations to prior work by the same group appear only as contextual comparisons of typical nanojet speeds, sizes, and detection cadences, and the interpretation of the events as component-reconnection nanojets is supported by external simulations and observations (e.g., Antolin et al. 2021; Pagano et al. 2021), not by a self-citation that imports the conclusion. The skeptic's concern that apparent motions from filament untwisting could mimic the speeds is a validity or interpretation risk, but it is not a circularity: the paper never assumes the untwisting rate to compute the speeds, nor does it define the jets in terms of the measured velocities. Under the stated criteria requiring an exhibited reduction of a derived result to its inputs, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a measurement, so the ledger is light. The assumed density and temperature enter only the energy and field estimates, not the speed measurements. The main interpretive burden is the assumption that the tracked features are bulk plasma motions from component reconnection.

free parameters (2)
  • assumed electron density n_e = 1e9 cm^-3
    Uniform coronal density taken from prior work to estimate kinetic and thermal energies; not fitted and does not affect the measured speeds.
  • assumed jet temperature T = 2 MK
    Taken from Antolin et al. (2021) to estimate thermal energy and the derived magnetic field; not fitted and does not affect the speed claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tracked bright fronts in the EUI 174A time-distance maps are bulk plasma ejections perpendicular to reconnecting magnetic field lines, not apparent pattern motion from untwisting, projection, or a propagating heating front.
    This is the interpretive step that turns moving bright features into nanojet speeds; it is not directly verified by magnetic field or spectroscopic data.
  • domain assumption The EUI 174A passband emission traces coronal plasma at about log(T/K)=6, so the features are real coronal density or temperature enhancements.
    Standard response of the EUI 174A channel; the paper relies on it throughout.
  • domain assumption Each jet is a cylinder of length L and radius d/2 for volume and energy estimates.
    Used to compute V = pi L (d/2)^2 for kinetic, thermal, and magnetic energy estimates.
  • standard math The released magnetic energy satisfies Em = Ek + Et = (B^2/8 pi) V.
    Standard MHD energy balance used to estimate the 20 G field; reasonable order of magnitude but not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconnection nanojets in an erupting solar filament with unprecedented high speeds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XS4DV3CC

@misc{pith2026250420663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconnection nanojets in an erupting solar filament with unprecedented high speeds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XS4DV3CC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20663}
}
abstract

Solar nanojets are small-scale jets generated by component magnetic reconnection, characterized by collimated plasma motion perpendicular to the reconnecting magnetic field lines. As an indicator of nanoflare events, they are believed to play a significant role in coronal heating. Using high-resolution extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) imaging observations from the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUI) onboard the Solar Orbiter mission, we identified 27 nanojets in an erupting filament on September 30, 2024. They are potentially associated with the untwisting of magnetic field lines of the filament. Most nanojets exhibit velocities around 450 km s$^{-1}$, with the fastest reaching approximately 800 km s$^{-1}$, significantly higher than previously reported but comparable to the typical coronal Alfv\'en speed. To our knowledge, these are the highest speeds ever reported for small-scale jets (less than ~1 Mm wide) in the solar atmosphere. Our findings suggest that these nanoflare-type phenomena can be more dynamic than previously recognized and may contribute to the energy release process of solar eruptions and the heating of coronal active regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots of the erupting filament and location of the Solar Orbiter. (a) EUI/HRI 174 ˚A observation, with time calibrated to Earth time. (b) AIA 171 ˚A observation. The red boxes in (a) and (b) indicate the same region. (c) Positions of Solar Orbiter and Earth at 23:50 UT on September 30th, 2024. a distance of 0.2926 au from the Sun, resulting in a pixel size of 0.105 Mm. Its position is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Nanojet No. 13 originated from the untwisting filament. Panel (a) shows the erupting filament and the nanojet, with a red dotted line overplotted along the direction of the nanojet. The locations of all identified nanojet events are marked with diamonds, where darker colors correspond to larger event numbers. (b) Time-distance map generated along the slit. The distance starts at the bottom left of the slit indicated… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Additional examples of nanojets and their speeds obtained from time-distance maps. The dotted and dashed lines in the figure are similar to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of nanojet properties including durations, (maximum) length, width, speed, and kinetic energy. speeds. Previously nanojets were often observed in lower-temperature channels, such as 1400 ˚A and 304 ˚A , corresponding to the transition region. The nanojets st…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Nakariakov, V

    Anfinogentov, S. A., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2019, ApJL, 884, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4792

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4792 2019

  2. [2]

    Fleishman, G. D. 2019, ApJL, 880, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3042

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3042 2019

  3. [3]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8 2021

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Berghmans, D., Auch` ere, F., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140380

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140380 2021

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad

    Chen, H., Zhang, J., De Pontieu, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9cad 2020

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJL, 841, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71a2

    Chen, H., Zhang, J., Ma, S., Yan, X., & Xue, J. 2017, ApJL, 841, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71a2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa71a2 2017

  7. [7]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 238, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.786856

    Chen, J., Erd´ elyi, R., Liu, J., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 238, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.786856

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 656, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140638

    Chen, Y., Przybylski, D., Peter, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140638

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140638 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244170

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Zhukov, A

    Chitta, L. P., Zhukov, A. N., Berghmans, D., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 867, doi: 10.1126/science.ade5801

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Pontin, D

    Chitta, L. P., Pontin, D. I., Priest, E. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12235

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Golub, L., Lundquist, L., et al

    Cirtain, J. W., Golub, L., Lundquist, L., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1580, doi: 10.1126/science.1147050

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A

    Cirtain, J. W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 501, doi: 10.1038/nature11772

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01796 De Pontieu, B., Title, A

    Cozzo, G., Pagano, P., Reale, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01796 De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 2733, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0485-y

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2021, ApJL, 918, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f30

    Hou, Z., Tian, H., Berghmans, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f30

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    S., et al

    Hou, Z., Tian, H., Madjarska, M. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449765

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.07320, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1709.07320

    2017 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2023, SolO/EUI Data Release 6.0 2023-01, https://doi.org/10.24414/z818-4163

    Kraaikamp, E., Gissot, S., Stegen, K., et al. 2023, SolO/EUI Data Release 6.0 2023-01, https://doi.org/10.24414/z818-4163

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4

    Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, S., Hou, Y., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150 M¨ uller, D., St

    Liu, J., Wang, Y., Erd´ elyi, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 688, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348074

    Musset, S., Jol, P., Sankar, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348074

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Lin, J

    Ni, L., Zhang, Q.-M., Murphy, N. A., & Lin, J. 2017, ApJ, 841, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffe

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, A&A, 656, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141030

    Pagano, P., Antolin, P., & Petralia, A. 2021, A&A, 656, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141030

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Hansteen, V

    Panesar, N. K., Hansteen, V. H., Tiwari, S. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c1

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Tiwari, S

    Panesar, N. K., Tiwari, S. K., Berghmans, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3007

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab594a

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Parker, E. N. 1988, ApJ, 330, 474, doi: 10.1086/166485

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac92e5

    Patel, R., & Pant, V. 2022, ApJ, 938, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac92e5

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    I., & Hornig, G

    Pontin, D. I., & Hornig, G. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00026-5

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139020732

    Priest, E. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139020732

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Winebarger, A

    Rachmeler, L. A., Winebarger, A. R., Savage, S. L., et al. 2019, SoPh, 294, 174, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1551-2

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2020, ApJL, 896, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96be

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Sukarmadji, A. R. C., & Antolin, P. 2024, ApJL, 961, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1402

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Sukarmadji, A. R. C., Antolin, P., & McLaughlin, J. A. 2022, ApJ, 934, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7870

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Cranmer, S

    Tian, H., DeLuca, E. E., Cranmer, S. R., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1255711, doi: 10.1126/science.1255711

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Hansteen, V

    Tiwari, S. K., Hansteen, V. H., De Pontieu, B., Panesar, N. K., & Berghmans, D. 2022, ApJ, 929, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d46

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Panesar, N

    Tiwari, S. K., Panesar, N. K., Moore, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c1

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Ji, H

    Zhang, Q. M., & Ji, H. S. 2014, A&A, 567, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423698

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.