Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 143 references

Cross Helicity and the Helium Abundance as an in situ Metric of Solar Wind Acceleration

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 28 years of Wind spacecraft data, this paper argues that the fastest solar wind from magnetically closed regions is faster than the slowest wind from open regions, so speed alone cannot tell where a parcel of solar wind originated.

desk verdict A useful observational paper that finds a new two-variable classification plane for solar wind, but the headline claim about overlapping source-region speed ranges is an inference from a fitted kink, not a direct measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00365 v2 pith:YMGNVRU4 submitted 2024-11-30 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

B. L. Alterman , R. D'Amicis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords SolarwindFastSlowAbundanceratiosChemicalabundancesAlfvénwavesMagnetohydrodynamics
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 argues that the long-standing division of the solar wind into fast and slow streams, tied to open and closed magnetic source regions on the Sun, is not a clean separation in speed. Using 28 years of Wind spacecraft observations, the authors show that the speed at which the helium abundance saturates — their proxy for the transition between magnetically closed and open source regions — shifts downward as the wind becomes more Alfvénic. The result is that the fastest wind accelerated in closed (intermittently open) regions reaches speeds above the slowest wind accelerated in continuously open regions. The Alfvénic slow wind, a slow-speed wind that otherwise looks like fast wind, is therefore interpreted as ordinary open-field wind that simply came out slowly. This matters because it replaces a speed-based classification with a source-topology classification that can be made from in situ measurements of helium abundance and normalized cross helicity alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the saturation point $(v_s, A_s)$: the speed and helium abundance at which the gradient of $A_{He}$ as a function of $v_{sw}$ changes, obtained by fitting the minimum of two lines to column-normalized 2D histograms of Wind Faraday-cup data. The paper computes this point in 15 quantiles of $|\sigma_c|$, the normalized cross helicity that measures Alfvénicity, and tracks how $(v_s, A_s)$ moves with $|\sigma_c|$. The combination of $A_{He}$, set below the sonic critical point, and $|\sigma_c|$, set near the Alfvén surface, is what lets the plane $(|\sigma_c|, A_{He})$ act as an in situ map of source-region magnetic topology.

What would settle it

Use interval-by-interval charge-state ratios to independently classify source topology, then check whether any high-$|\sigma_c|$ parcel with speed between 407 and 439 km/s originates from a closed or intermittently open region; finding such a parcel would collapse the claim that the Alfvénic slow wind is entirely open-field wind.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the anti-correlation between the saturation speed $v_s$, the kink in the helium-abundance-versus-speed relation, and the saturation abundance $A_s$ as functions of the normalized cross helicity $|\sigma_c|$. Fitting the helium abundance versus speed in 15 quantiles of $|\sigma_c|$, the authors find $v_s$ drops from $430\pm1$ km/s at low $|\sigma_c|$ to $420\pm2$ km/s at intermediate and $410\pm2$ km/s at high $|\sigma_c|$, while $A_s$ rises from $3.87\pm0.04\%$ to $4.13\pm0.01\%$. Because high $|\sigma_c|$ marks wind from continuously open field lines and low $|\sigma_c|$ marks wind from intermittently open (closed) regions, this implies the speed ranges of the two source classes overlap: the maximum speed of closed-source wind, about $439$ km/s, exceeds the minimum speed of open-source wind, about $407$ km/s. The authors conclude that the Alfvénic slow wind is simply wind accelerated in magnetically open regions at the slow end of the open-field speed range, and that the two-state fast/slow paradigm should be replaced by a source-topology classification.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that the bend in the helium-abundance-versus-speed curve marks the switch between solar wind accelerated in closed magnetic regions and wind accelerated in open magnetic regions, and that the measured Alfvénicity of a sample reliably tells which class it came from.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Solar wind speed alone is an unreliable proxy for source region: the interval from roughly 407 to 484 km/s contains both open- and closed-source wind, so any speed threshold between fast and slow is ad hoc.
  • The Alfvénic slow wind is identified as open-field wind at the low-speed end of the open-field range, resolving its 'third class' status without invoking a new acceleration mechanism.
  • A two-parameter categorization by $|\sigma_c|$ and $A_{He}$ statistically separates open- and closed-source wind at 1 AU using only Faraday-cup measurements, with no mass spectrometer needed.
  • The local maximum of $n_{He}$ at $v_n \approx 409$ km/s and the change in helium density gradient across it point to a role for helium in the energy partition between hydrogen and helium during acceleration in open versus closed regions.
  • During solar minima, the bimodal speed distribution can be decomposed by source topology: closed-source wind dominates below about 399 km/s, open-source wind becomes dominant above about 439 km/s, and open-source wind is essentially exclusive above about 564 km/s.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to apply the same $(|\sigma_c|, A_{He})$ plane to measurements from spacecraft closer to the Sun, where $|\sigma_c|$ has decayed less, which should sharpen the boundary between the two source classes.
  • Because the paper leaves solar-cycle dependence open, repeating the two-line fit on data split by activity would show whether the 407-to-439 km/s overlap interval moves with the cycle.
  • If charge-state ratios or elemental composition of individual parcels in the overlap speed range could be traced to coronal holes versus streamers, the claim that high $|\sigma_c|$ guarantees an open source would be directly tested.
  • The paper notes that transients occupy the top-left corner of the plane; removing interplanetary coronal mass ejections from the analysis would test whether the open-field region on the right-hand side of the plane remains distinct.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 28 years of Wind spacecraft data at 1 AU to characterize the helium abundance AHe, normalized cross helicity |σc|, and solar wind speed vsw. For 15 |σc| quantiles the authors fit AHe(vsw) with the minimum of two lines and define a saturation point (vs, As) at the gradient change. They find that vs decreases from about 430 km/s to 410 km/s and As increases with |σc|, and they interpret vs as the transition between magnetically closed and magnetically open source regions. From this they infer that the maximum speed of closed-source wind exceeds the minimum speed of open-source wind, that the Alfvénic slow wind is therefore open-field wind at low speeds, and they propose a categorization of solar wind in the (|σc|, AHe) plane. The paper also discusses helium abundance as a probe of energy partition in closed versus open field regions and contextualizes the results with the bimodal speed distribution during solar minima.

Significance. The central claim, if established, would challenge the speed-based two-state fast/slow paradigm by showing that speed alone cannot identify source topology and that the Alfvénic slow wind is naturally explained as open-field wind at low speed. The observational basis is substantial: 28 years of public Wind data, transparent fitting procedures, quantitative parameter tables, and a proposed in situ classification scheme that does not require mass-spectrometer composition data. The main weakness is that the key physical conclusion is not directly measured but is bridged from a fitted parameter, the saturation speed vs, through the assumed mapping between |σc| and open/closed source topology. That bridge needs independent validation before the central inference can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Figure 7(a)] The central claim that the maximum closed-source speed exceeds the minimum open-source speed is an inference from vs, the intersection of two fitted lines in the AHe(vsw) relation, not from measured extrema of either source population. A fitted kink can shift with the assumed functional form, the binning of vsw, the Gaussian-tail truncation, or the relative abundance of source populations. To make this the load-bearing result, the authors should directly characterize the distributions of vsw for low-|σc| and high-|σc| populations (e.g., report the 95th and 5th percentiles of vsw, or the full overlap region) and, if possible, validate vs against an independent source label such as charge-state or elemental composition ratios. As written, the abstract's 'we show' is stronger than what Section 4.2's 'we infer' supports.
  2. [§4.1] The admitted solar-activity confound is load-bearing because the vs(|σc|) trend could be produced by mixing data from different phases of the solar cycle: low |σc| is more common at solar minima, and AHe is strongly solar-cycle dependent. The paper states that 'we also cannot rule out a solar activity component to these trends,' but a conservative analysis should test this directly by repeating the quantile fits separately for solar minimum and maximum intervals, or by including a solar-activity covariate, and showing that the 20 km/s decrease of vs with |σc| persists within each phase. Without such a test, the central overlap claim is not protected against a plausible alternative explanation.
  3. [§3.3] The Low, Mid, and High |σc| groupings in Figure 7 are selected after inspecting the same data that they are used to summarize, which makes the reported weighted means and standard errors difficult to interpret as confirmatory statistics. The paper should either define the grouping criteria independently of the plotted results, or demonstrate robustness of the vs and As trends to alternative grouping and to variations of the fitting thresholds (the 90%-of-maximum column restriction, the 3-percentage-point uncertainty cutoff, and the vsw ≥ 300 km/s inclusion bound). This is particularly important because the claimed effect is only about a 5% change in vs.
  4. [§1, §3.2, §4.4] The mapping from |σc| to source topology is an assumption that is used to label the same data that the conclusion explains: low |σc| is said to indicate closed or intermittently open sources, and high |σc| is said to indicate continuously open sources. This is a reasonable working hypothesis, but it is not independently established in the manuscript. The authors should either cite direct source-mapping validation (e.g., event studies connecting high |σc| intervals to coronal-hole footpoints) or present a consistency check, such as showing that the high-|σc| population has other composition signatures of coronal-hole origin. Otherwise the reasoning in Section 4.2 has a circular component.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The caption contains a typo: 'paramters' should be 'parameters'.
  2. [Figures 3 and 10] Axis labels contain typos: 'Helum Abundance' in Figure 3 and 'Heliun Abundance' in Figure 10 should be 'Helium Abundance'.
  3. [§3.1 and Figure 5] The text says AHe 'remains constant' for vsw > vs, but the quantile fits in Figure 5 show nonzero gradients above vs that vary systematically with |σc|; the paper should clarify that constancy refers to the all-data fit, not the per-quantile fits.
  4. [§4.5, Table 2] In the itemized list, item 6 uses vfast = 564 km/s while Table 2 lists vfast = 622 ± 58 km/s; the different values should be reconciled or explicitly explained as a lower-bound threshold versus the Gaussian peak.
  5. [§4.4, Figure 11] The claim that transients occupy the top-left region of the (|σc|, AHe) plane relies on 'a manuscript in prep'; this should be either cited with a preprint identifier or marked as a testable prediction rather than a supporting result.
  6. [§4.3] The sentence 'the decrease nHe with decreasing vsw' is missing 'in' before 'nHe'; additionally, the discussion of a possible minimum nHe would benefit from an explicit statement that the vsw < 300 km/s range was excluded by the analysis selection.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central overlap claim restates the fitted AHe saturation-speed ordering after labeling vs as the closed/open boundary; the quantitative interval also leans on the first author's submitted Alterman (2024) work.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 4.2; Figure 7/Table 1]
    "Figure 7 shows that the speed ( vs) observed near 1 AU at which the dominant source of the solar wind in the changes from magnetically closed to magnetically open decreases as the Alfvénicity increases ... Combining these inferences about the relationship between the saturation point and the magnetic topology of source regions, the maximum speed of solar wind from magnetically closed sources is larger than the minimum speed of solar wind from magnetically open sources."

    The introduction defines vs as the speed at which the dominant source changes from magnetically closed to magnetically open, and Section 4.2 assigns speeds below vs to closed sources and speeds above vs to open sources. The central conclusion then calls vs(low |σc|) the 'maximum speed ... from closed sources' (430±1 km/s) and vs(high |σc|) the 'minimum speed ... from open sources' (410±2 km/s, Table 1). These are fitted AHe(vsw) kink locations, not independently measured extrema of the two source populations. The claimed overlap is therefore a restatement of the fitted ordering vs(low |σc|) > vs(high |σc|) under the labeling assumption, i.e., a fitted parameter renamed as a physical prediction rather than a separately derived result.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2 and Conclusion item 6; reference list]
    "Alterman (2024) fit the peaks of fast and slow solar wind during solar minima in Figure 1 with Gaussians and identify a fast/slow transition under the two-state paradigm at vi = 484 ± 34 km s−1 based on the intersection of these Gaussians."

    The only source given for the Gaussian peak speeds vslow=355±44, vfast=622±58, and their intersection vi=484±34 km/s is Alterman (2024), listed as 'Nature Communications (submitted)' and authored by the first author of this paper. Conclusion item 6 uses vi=484 as the upper bound of the '52 to 75 km/s wide interval from approximately 407 to 484 km/s' in which solar wind identified as slow may actually come from open-field regions. The quantitative force of that interval therefore rests on an unpublished self-citation rather than on an independent, externally verified result, so the cited input is load-bearing without providing independent support.

full rationale

The raw analysis is not circular: AHe(vsw), |σc|(vsw), and the 15-quantile saturation fits are computed from 28 years of public Wind data, and the paper is transparent about the fitting procedure and uncertainties. The circularity enters at the interpretive step. The paper first labels the fitted saturation speed vs as the closed/open source transition, then reads the ordering vs(low |σc|) > vs(high |σc|) back as the physical finding that closed-field wind can be faster than open-field wind. That conclusion is equivalent to the fitted trend plus the labeling assumption, so it is a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The Alfvénic-slow-wind interpretation and the (|σc|, AHe) categorization inherit the same assumption: high |σc| is treated as a proxy for magnetically open sources and the plane is partitioned by contours 'chosen by eye,' as the authors themselves acknowledge in Figure 11. A second concern is the load-bearing use of Alterman (2024), a submitted first-author manuscript, for the Gaussian peak speeds and the vi=484 km/s upper bound of the claimed overlap interval. The paper also admits in Section 4.1 that 'we also cannot rule out a solar activity component to these trends,' which is a genuine limitation rather than a circularity, but it further weakens the independent content of the central inference. Weighing these, the central claim is partially circular because the source-topology conclusion reduces to the fitted vs ordering under an unvalidated labeling, while the underlying empirical trends remain independently valuable. Score 6 reflects partial circularity, not complete fabrication: the data products themselves are external, public measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physics entities and no first-principles derivation. Its central claim rests on (1) fitted piecewise-linear parameters per |σc| quantile (vs, As, vv, mfast), (2) post-hoc grouping boundaries, (3) domain assumptions from prior models linking AHe and |σc| to source-region magnetic topology, and (4) publicly hosted Wind data. The counts above are the load-bearing inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • Saturation speed vs per |σc| quantile = 410 to 433 km/s
    Intersection of two fitted lines to AHe(vsw) in each of 15 |σc| quantiles (Table 1); the central trend of vs decreasing with |σc| depends on these fits.
  • Saturation abundance As per |σc| quantile = 3.87 to 4.19%
    Value of AHe at the fitted kink; anti-correlated with vs and used to argue for source-region differences.
  • Vanishing speed vv (x-intercept of slow branch) = 287 to 305 km/s
    Fitted x-intercept of the slow-speed line; characterizes the onset of helium and is reported to vary with |σc|.
  • Fast-branch slope mfast = 0.0008 to 0.0042 % km^-1 s
    Fitted slope for vsw > vs in each quantile; its monotonic decrease with |σc| is one of the key observations.
  • Low/Mid/High |σc| grouping cutpoints = 0.51, 0.65, 0.77, 0.91
    Cutpoints chosen by eye after inspecting Figure 7 to define ranges for weighted means; post-hoc grouping affects the quoted vs and As values.
  • Contour speeds in Figure 11 = 425 and 460 km/s
    Contours chosen by eye to separate closed, mixed, and open regions in the categorization scheme; the paper acknowledges the choice is somewhat arbitrary.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AHe is set below the sonic critical point and reflects chromosphere/transition region processes; |σc| is set near the Alfvén surface and reflects source-region magnetic topology.
    Used throughout Sections 1 and 4.4 to justify that the (|σc|, AHe) plane maps to source regions; borrowed from Akhavan-Tafti & Soni (2024) and related literature.
  • domain assumption In closed field regions there is insufficient energy below the sonic point, so He transfers energy to H; in open regions He is accelerated together with H (Endeve et al. 2005; Leer & Holzer 1979).
    Used in Sections 4.3 and 5 to interpret nHe and AHe trends as evidence of energy partition between H and He; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The Wind Faraday cup VDF fits and magnetic field data product provide unbiased AHe, vsw, and |σc| over 28 years after the stated data cuts.
    Section 2 assumes the measurements are reliable after magnetosphere exclusion and fitting quality cuts; no independent validation is provided here.
  • ad hoc to paper AHe in each vsw column is approximately Gaussian near the column maximum, so the mean and sigma from Gaussian fits restricted to 90% of the maximum represent the central trend.
    Section 3.1 uses this to reduce the impact of asymmetric tails; the 90% cutoff is chosen by the authors and affects the derived means and uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross Helicity and the Helium Abundance as an in situ Metric of Solar Wind Acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMGNVRU4

@misc{pith2026241200365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross Helicity and the Helium Abundance as an in situ Metric of Solar Wind Acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMGNVRU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00365}
}
abstract

The two-state solar wind paradigm is based on observations showing that slow and fast solar wind have distinct properties like helium abundances, kinetic signatures, elemental composition, and charge-state ratios. Nominally, the fast wind originates from solar sources that are continuously magnetically open to the heliosphere like coronal holes while the slow wind is from solar sources that are only intermittently open to the heliosphere like helmet streamers and pseudostreamers. The Alfv\'enic slow wind is an emerging 3rd class of solar wind that challenges the two-state fast/slow paradigm. It has slow wind speeds but is highly Alfv\'enic, i.e. has a high correlation between velocity and magnetic field fluctuations along with low compressibility typical of Alfv\'en waves, which is typically observed in fast wind. Its other properties are also more similar to the fast than slow wind. From 28 years of Wind observations at 1 AU, we derive the solar wind helium abundance ($A_\mathrm{He}$), Alfv\'enicity ($\left|\sigma_c\right|$), and solar wind speed ($v_\mathrm{sw}$). Characterizing vsw as a function of $\left|\sigma_c\right|$ and $A_\mathrm{He}$, we show that the maximum solar wind speed for plasma accelerated in source regions that are intermittently open is faster than the minimum solar wind speed for plasma accelerated in continuously open regions. We infer that the Alfv\'enic slow wind is likely solar wind originating from open-field regions with speeds below the maximum solar wind speed for plasma from intermittently open regions. We then discuss possible implications for solar wind acceleration. Finally, we utilize the combination of helium abundance and normalized cross helicity to present a novel solar wind categorization scheme that illustrates the transition in observations of solar wind at 1 AU from magnetically closed to magnetically open sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three probability density functions (PDFs) of the solar wind speed observed by the Wind Faraday cups at 1 AU. The PDFs indicate all the data observed (green dashed), data from solar maxima 23 and 24 (orange dash￾dotted), and solar minima 23 and 24 (solid black). solar wind to reach the asymptotic, fastest non-transient speeds observed at 1 AU. Additional energy must be de￾posited into the solar wind for it to reach … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A cartoon illustrating the relationship between the helium abundance (AHe), cross helicity (|σc|), and magnetic field topology at the solar wind’s source regions. Closed magnetic loops are plotted in orange. Open magnetic field lines are plotted in red. The helium abundance is set below the sonic surface (rc) in the chromosphere and transition region. Between the sonic surface and the Alfv´en surface (rA), the cross… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The helium abundance a function of solar wind speed. AHe has been normalized to its maximum value in each column. The helium abundance monotonically in￾creases from 0% to 4.19% in slow wind and saturates to this AHe = 4.19% in fast solar wind for which vsw > 433 km s−1 . Next, we aim to quantify trend of AHe as a function of vsw and to determine the speed at which AHe indicates a transition from slow to fast wind. A… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fits to AHe (vsw) in 15 |σc| quantiles, which are given by the color bar. The green points are the fit values and uncertainties for the saturation points (vs, As). The insert zooms in on the points. the 1σ fit uncertainty for AHe in each vsw column be less than 3 perce…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fits to AHe (vsw) in 15 |σc| quantiles, which are given by the color bar, rescaled to the saturation point (vs, As). The green point indicates (1, 1), the scaled satura￾tion point. that for |σc| ≥ 0.68, ∇vsw AHe drops by a factor of ∼ 0.27 from its low |σc| value. Seco…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: analyzes the saturation values vs and As as a function of |σc|. Marker color indicates |σc| and matches Figures 5 and 6. The pink dashed lines and shaded re￾gions surrounding them are the saturation values de￾rived using all the data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean alpha particle and proton number densi￾ties as a function of solar wind speed. The semi-transparent regions are the standard deviations. The highlighted regions on the nHe trend indicate speeds within 1σ of the slow wind peak (vslow) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: plots the solar wind speed distribution during solar minima from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contour plots of the solar wind speed (vsw) as a function of normalized cross helicity (|σc|) and helium abundance (AHe). Panel (a) uses the mean vsw. Panels (b) and (c) use the 10% and 90% quantile of vsw, respectively. The color scale in Panels (b) and (c) is larger…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: is a semi-quantitative cartoon summaring of the preceding two paragraphs. Here, we have plotted two contours of constant vsw in the (|σc| , AHe)-plane at vsw = 425 and 460 km s−1 that separate the plane into three regions, which are labeled on the plot. The vsw = 425 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 201, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1 2016

  2. [2]

    R., Lazarus, A

    Aellig, M. R., Lazarus, A. J., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 2767, doi: 10.1029/2000GL012771

    doi:10.1029/2000gl012771 2001

  3. [3]

    Akhavan-Tafti, M., & Soni, S. L. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bc Alfv´ en, H. 1942, Nature, 150, 405, doi: 10.1038/150405d0 —. 1943, Arkiv f¨ or matematik, astronomi och fysik, 29B, 1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad60bc 2024

  4. [4]

    2024, Nature Communications (submitted)

    Alterman, B. 2024, Nature Communications (submitted)

    2024

  5. [5]

    L., Desai, M

    Alterman, B. L., Desai, M. I., Dayeh, M. A., Mason, G. M., & Ho, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd24a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd24a 2023

  6. [6]

    L., & Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., & Kasper, J. C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391 2019

  7. [7]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Leamon, R. J., & McIntosh, S. W. 2021, Solar Physics, 296, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01801-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01801-9 2021

  8. [8]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M., & Koval, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad23f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad23f 2018

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    L., Rivera, Y

    Alterman, B. L., Rivera, Y. J., Lepri, S. T., & Raines, J. M. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics (accepted), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.18984

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Linker, J. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/112

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Antonucci, E., Abbo, L., & Dodero, M. A. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 699, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047126

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Arge, C. N. 2003, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 679 (Pisa (Italy): AIP), 190–193, doi: 10.1063/1.1618574

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Hernandez, I. G., et al. 2013, in SOLAR WIND 13, Big Island, Hawaii, 11–14, doi: 10.1063/1.4810977

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    N., & Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. N., & Pizzo, V. J. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 10465, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000262

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    L., et al

    Baker, D., D´ emoulin, P., Yardley, S. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc653

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Bonnell, J

    Bale, S., Badman, S. T., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7 20 Alterman and D’Amicis

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Horbury, T

    Bale, S. D., Horbury, T. S., Velli, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d8c

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Drake, J

    Bale, S. D., Drake, J. F., McManus, M. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 252, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05955-3

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Smith, E. J. 1999, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 631, doi: 10.1029/1999GL900061

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 1737, doi: 10.1029/90JA01959

    Bavassano, B., & Bruno, R. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 1737, doi: 10.1029/90JA01959

    1991 doi

  14. [23]

    W., Davis, L., & Smith, E

    Belcher, J. W., Davis, L., & Smith, E. J. 1969, Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 2302, doi: 10.1029/JA076i016p03534

    1969 doi

  15. [24]

    F., & Gloeckler, G

    Berger, L., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., & Gloeckler, G. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 151103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.151103

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Klein, K

    Bourouaine, S., Perez, J. C., Klein, K. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbd4a

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    H., Ugarte-Urra, I., & Warren, H

    Brooks, D. H., Ugarte-Urra, I., & Warren, H. P. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, doi: 10.1038/ncomms6947

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1201, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00061-7

    Bavassano, B. 2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1201, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00061-7

    2001 doi

  20. [29]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2009-3

    2009 doi

  21. [30]

    U., Antiochos, S

    Crooker, N. U., Antiochos, S. K., Zhao, X., & Neugebauer, M. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, n/a, doi: 10.1029/2011JA017236 D’Amicis, R., & Bruno, R. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 805, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/84 D’Amicis, R., Bruno, R., & Matt...

    2012 doi

  22. [31]

    Schrijver, C. J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 1, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L1

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al

    Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039432 Dudok De Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5853 D’Am...

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Elsasser, W. M. 1950, Physical Review, 79, 183, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.79.183

    1950 doi

  25. [34]

    H., & Leer, E

    Endeve, E., Lie-Svendsen, O., Hansteen, V. H., & Leer, E. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 402, doi: 10.1086/428938

    2005 doi

  26. [35]

    T., et al

    Ervin, T., Jaffarove, K., Badman, S. T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d00

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Badman, S

    Ervin, T., Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., et al. 2023, In situ measurement of slow solar wind emerging from a pseudostreamer: a conjunction study with Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07949

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Fisk, L. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 563, doi: 10.1086/429957

    2005 doi

  29. [38]

    A., & Kasper, J

    Fisk, L. A., & Kasper, J. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8acd

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    A., & Schwadron, N

    Fisk, L. A., & Schwadron, N. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 425, doi: 10.1086/322503

    2001 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Zurbuchen, T

    Fisk, L. A., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Schwadron, N. A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 868, doi: 10.1086/307556

    1999 doi

  32. [41]

    2015, Solar Physics, 290, 1399, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0689-9

    Fu, H., Li, B., Li, X., et al. 2015, Solar Physics, 290, 1399, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0689-9

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z

    Fu, H., Madjarska, M. S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1211

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    S., Xia, L., et al

    Fu, H., Madjarska, M. S., Xia, L., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cba

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    1995b, Science, 268, 1033, doi: 10.1126/science.7754380

    Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Von Steiger, R., et al. 1995b, Science, 268, 1033, doi: 10.1126/science.7754380

    doi

  36. [45]

    Gosling, J. T. 1997, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 385 (Marlboro, Massachusetts (USA): AIP), 17–24, doi: 10.1063/1.51743

    1997 doi

  37. [46]

    1991, Annales Geophysicae, 9, 416

    Grappin, R., Velli, M., & Mangeney, A. 1991, Annales Geophysicae, 9, 416

    1991

  38. [47]

    H., Leer, E., & Holzer, T

    Hansteen, V. H., Leer, E., & Holzer, T. E. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 482, 498, doi: 10.1086/304111 F ast and Slow Wind:vsw, AHe, & |σc|. 21

    1997 doi

  39. [48]

    H., & Velli, M

    Hansteen, V. H., & Velli, M. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 172, 89, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9887-z

    2012 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    Hathaway, D. H. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, doi: e

    2015

  42. [51]

    M., Gibson, S

    Hewins, I. M., Gibson, S. E., Webb, D. F., et al. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01731-y

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    E., & Leer, E

    Holzer, T. E., & Leer, E. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 4665, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA09p04665

    1980 doi

  44. [53]

    E., & Leer, E

    Holzer, T. E., & Leer, E. 1981, in Solar Wind 4 (Burhausen, Germany: Max Planck Institut f¨ ur Aeronomie and Max Planck Institut f¨ ur exraterrestriesche Physik), 28–41. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981sowi.conf...28H

    1981

  45. [54]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02321-9

    Hou, C., He, J., Duan, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02321-9

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Fisk, L

    Huang, J., Kasper, J. C., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd17e

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    K., Raouafi, N

    Jagarlamudi, V. K., Raouafi, N. E., Bourouaine, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 950, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd778

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425300

    Brott, I. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425300

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    E., Peterson, P., & others

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T. E., Peterson, P., & others. 2001, {SciPy}: Open source scientific tools for {Python}. http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  51. [60]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261103

    2008 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., Ogilvie, K. W., & Szabo, A. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, A03105, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011442

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    C., Stevens, M., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., & Ogilvie, K. W. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 901, doi: 10.1086/510842

    2007 doi

  54. [63]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Weber, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b1

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    C., Bale, S., Belcher, J

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1813-z

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Lichko, E., et al. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 127, 255101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.255101

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    G., Verniero, J

    Klein, K. G., Verniero, J. L., Alterman, B. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7a0

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    2016b, Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, 87, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016b, Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, 87, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    doi

  59. [68]

    2013, in AIP Conference

    Koval, A., & Szabo, A. 2013, in AIP Conference

    2013

  60. [69]

    1539, 211–214, doi: 10.1063/1.4811025

    Proceedings, Vol. 1539, 211–214, doi: 10.1063/1.4811025

    doi

  61. [70]

    Laming, J. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 1063, doi: 10.1086/423780 —. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-2

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., & Meyer-Vernet, N

    Larosa, A., Krasnoselskikh, V., Dudok De Wit, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442 Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., & Meyer-Vernet, N. 2012, Solar Physics, 279, 197, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9967-y

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    Leer, E., Fl ˚ a, T., & Holzer, T. E. 1980, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 3, 114, doi: 10.1007/BF02507138

    1980 doi

  64. [73]

    Leer, E., & Holzer, T. E. 1979, Solar Physics, 63, 143, doi: 10.1007/BF00155705 —. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 4681, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA09p04681

    1979 doi

  65. [74]

    D., Lou, Y., & Rosner, R

    Lenz, D. D., Lou, Y., & Rosner, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 504, 1020, doi: 10.1086/306111

    1998 doi

  66. [75]

    P., Ac˜ una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac˜ una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207, doi: 10.1007/BF00751330

    1995 doi

  67. [76]

    T., Landi, E., & Zurbuchen, T

    Lepri, S. T., Landi, E., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/94

    2013 doi

  68. [77]

    Lie-Svendsen, O., Leer, E., & Hansteen, V. H. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 8217, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000409

    2001 doi

  69. [78]

    H., & Leer, E

    Lie-Svendsen, O., Hansteen, V. H., & Leer, E. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 596, 621, doi: 10.1086/377640

    2003 doi

  70. [79]

    H., Leer, E., & Holzer, T

    Lie-Svendsen, O., Hansteen, V. H., Leer, E., & Holzer, T. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 566, 562, doi: 10.1086/337990

    2002 doi

  71. [80]

    T., Raines, J

    Livi, S., Lepri, S. T., Raines, J. M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346304

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    Marsch, E., M¨ uhlh¨ auser, K.-H., Rosenbauer, H., Schwenn, R., & Denskat, K. U. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research, 86, 9199, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA11p09199 22 Alterman and D’Amicis

    1981 doi

  73. [82]

    Marsch, E., & Tu, C.-Y. Y. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 8211, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA06p08211

    1990 doi

  74. [83]

    A., & Kasper, J

    Maruca, B. A., & Kasper, J. C. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 52, 723, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.04.006

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    Schwartz, S. J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/11

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    W., Leamon, R

    McIntosh, S. W., Leamon, R. J., Krista, L. D., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 1, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7491

    2015 doi

  77. [86]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    Mckinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  78. [87]

    2011, Python for High Performance and Scientific Computing, 1

    McKinney, W. 2011, Python for High Performance and Scientific Computing, 1

    2011

  79. [88]

    2013, Python for Data Analysis (O’Reilly), doi: 10.1145/1985441.1985476

    Mckinney, W. 2013, Python for Data Analysis (O’Reilly), doi: 10.1145/1985441.1985476

    2013

  80. [89]

    D., Bowen, T

    McManus, M. D., Bowen, T. A., Mallet, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6dce

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    2007, Basics of the Solar Wind, 1st edn

    Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the Solar Wind, 1st edn. (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511535765

    2007 doi

  82. [91]

    J., & Aivazis, M

    Millman, K. J., & Aivazis, M. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 9, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.36 M¨ uller, D., Marsden, R. G., St. Cyr, O. C., & Gilbert, H. R. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 25, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0085-7 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et...

    2011 doi

  83. [92]

    Neugebauer, M., & Snyder, C. W. 1966, Journal of Geophysical Research, 71, 4469, doi: 10.1029/JZ071i019p04469

    1966 doi

  84. [93]

    W., & Hirshberg, J

    Ogilvie, K. W., & Hirshberg, J. 1974, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 4595, doi: 10.1029/JA079i031p04595

    1974 doi

  85. [94]

    W., Chornay, D

    Ogilvie, K. W., Chornay, D. J., Fritzenreiter, R. J., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 55, doi: 10.1007/BF00751326

    1995 doi

  86. [95]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  87. [96]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S

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

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    2013, in Solar Wind 13, Big

    Panasenco, O., & Velli, M. 2013, in Solar Wind 13, Big

    2013

  89. [98]

    Island, Hawaii, 50–53, doi: 10.1063/1.4810987

    doi

  90. [99]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab017c

    Panasenco, O., Velli, M., & Panasenco, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab017c

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f4

    Panasenco, O., Velli, M., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f4

    2020 doi

  92. [101]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, The Astrophysical Journal, 128, 664, doi: 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  93. [102]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  94. [103]

    L., Balogh, A., Bame, S

    Phillips, J. L., Balogh, A., Bame, S. J., et al. 1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 1105, doi: 10.1029/94GL01065

    1994 doi

  95. [104]

    2013, Journal of Advanced Research, 4, 215, doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2012.08.007

    Poletto, G. 2013, Journal of Advanced Research, 4, 215, doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2012.08.007

    2013 doi

  96. [105]

    E., & Laming, J

    Rakowski, C. E., & Laming, J. M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/65

    2012 doi

  97. [106]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

    Raouafi, N. E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6c

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    P., Farrell, W

    Rasca, A. P., Farrell, W. M., MacDowall, R. J., Bale, S. D., & Kasper, J. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac079f

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

    J., Raymond, J

    Rivera, Y. J., Raymond, J. C., Landi, E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8873

    2022 doi

  100. [109]

    J., Badman, S

    Rivera, Y. J., Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962, doi: 10.1126/science.adk6953

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    P., Lavraud, B., et al

    Sanchez-Diaz, E., Rouillard, A. P., Lavraud, B., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 2830, doi: 10.1002/2016JA022433

    2016 doi

  102. [111]

    A., Fisk, L

    Schwadron, N. A., Fisk, L. A., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 859, doi: 10.1086/307575

    1999 doi

  103. [112]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 124, 51, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9099-5

    Schwenn, R. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 124, 51, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9099-5

    2006 doi

  104. [113]

    W., & Neugebauer, M

    Snyder, C. W., & Neugebauer, M. 1965, in Proceedings of the Plasma Space Science Symposium, ed. C. C. Chang & S. S. Huang (Science Publishers, Inc.), 67–90, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-7542-5 7

    1965 doi

  105. [114]

    L., Akhavan-Tafti, M., Suen, G

    Soni, S. L., Akhavan-Tafti, M., Suen, G. H. H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad94da

    2024 doi

  106. [115]

    Zurbuchen, T. H. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/117

    2016 doi

  107. [116]

    S., & Doyle, J

    Subramanian, S., Madjarska, M. S., & Doyle, J. G. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913624

    2010 doi

  108. [117]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2606

    Tenerani, A., Sioulas, N., Matteini, L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2606

    2021 doi

  109. [118]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1349, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0387-4 F ast and Slow Wind:vsw, AHe, & |σc|

    Tlatov, A., Tavastsherna, K., & Vasil’eva, V. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 1349, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0387-4 F ast and Slow Wind:vsw, AHe, & |σc|. 23

    2014 doi

  110. [119]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452019

    Touresse, J., Pariat, E., Froment, C., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452019

    2024 doi

  111. [120]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Raines, J. M., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 255101, 255101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.255101

    2016 doi

  112. [121]

    1992, in Solar Wind Seven (Elsevier), 549–554, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042049-3.50114-9

    Tu, C., & Marsch, E. 1992, in Solar Wind Seven (Elsevier), 549–554, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042049-3.50114-9

    1992 doi

  113. [122]

    1992, in Solar Wind Seven (Elsevier), 555–558, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042049-3.50115-0

    Tu, C., Marsch, E., & Rosenbauer, H. 1992, in Solar Wind Seven (Elsevier), 555–558, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042049-3.50115-0

    1992 doi

  114. [123]

    Y., & Marsch, E

    Tu, C. Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 73, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00748891

    1995 doi

  115. [124]

    Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E., & Thieme, K. M. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, 11739, doi: 10.1029/ja094ia09p11739

    1989 doi

  116. [125]

    Uzzo, M., Ko, Y., & Raymond, J. C. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 603, 760, doi: 10.1086/381525

    2004 doi

  117. [126]

    C., Wurz, P., & Ipavich, F

    Uzzo, M., Ko, Y., Raymond, J. C., Wurz, P., & Ipavich, F. M. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1062, doi: 10.1086/346132 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2003 doi

  118. [127]

    L., Larson, D

    Verniero, J. L., Larson, D. E., Livi, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab86af

    2020 doi

  119. [128]

    L., Chandran, B

    Verniero, J. L., Chandran, B. D. G., Larson, D. E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d5

    2022 doi

  120. [129]

    M., & Borovsky, J

    Viall, N. M., & Borovsky, J. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, 1, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026005

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 von Steiger, R., Schwadron, N. A., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 27217, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000358

    2020 doi

  122. [131]

    Y., & He, J

    Wang, X., Zhao, L., Tu, C. Y., & He, J. S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa73

    2019 doi

  123. [132]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 437, L67, doi: 10.1086/187684

    Wang, Y.-M. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 437, L67, doi: 10.1086/187684

    1994 doi

  124. [133]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2add

    Wang, Y.-M., & Ko, Y.-K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2add

    2019 doi

  125. [134]

    Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R., J. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 355, 726, doi: 10.1086/168805

    1990 doi

  126. [135]

    M., & Sheeley, N

    Wang, Y. M., & Sheeley, N. R. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, 1, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000500

    2002 doi

  127. [136]

    B., Brosius, A

    Wilson, L. B., Brosius, A. L., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2021, Reviews of Geophysics, 59, 1, doi: 10.1029/2020RG000714 Wolfram Research, Inc. 2024, Champaign, Illinois: Wolfram

    2021 doi

  128. [137]

    D., Wicks, R

    Woodham, L. D., Wicks, R. T., Verscharen, D., & Owen, C. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03d

    2018 doi

  129. [138]

    F., DeVore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeVore, C. R., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca8ae

    2022 doi

  130. [139]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 70, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020412

    Xu, F., & Borovsky, J. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 70, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020412

    2015 doi

  131. [140]

    L., Brooks, D

    Yardley, S. L., Brooks, D. H., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02278-9

    2024 doi

  132. [141]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 503, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab016

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 503, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab016

    2021 doi

  133. [142]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb828

    Kasper, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb828

    2020 doi

  134. [143]

    T., & Carpenter, D

    Zhao, L., Landi, E., Lepri, S. T., & Carpenter, D. 2022, Universe, 8, 393, doi: 10.3390/universe8080393

    2022 doi

  135. [144]

    T., et al

    Zhao, L., Landi, E., Lepri, S. T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa850c ˇDurovcov´ a, T.,ˇSafr´ ankov´ a, J., & Nˇ emeˇ cek, Z. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1490-y

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.