Kinematics of interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012

Mishra, Wageesh; Srivastava, Nandita; Singh, Talwinder

doi:10.1002/2015ja021415

Cited by 35 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These calculations also supported the claim that a significant exchange of kinetic energy and momentum took place during the CME-CME collision Lugaz et al, 2012;Shen et al, 2012a;Maričić et al, 2014). In the same year, Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh (2015) used the same method to study the kinematics of the interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012. The collision of these two CMEs was found to be close to elastic.…”

Section: D Head-on Collision With Momentum Conservation Constraintsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Shen et al, 2012aShen et al, , 2013Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015), (perfectly) inelastic collisions (e.g. Lugaz et al, 2012;Maričić et al, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015) and nearly elastic collisions (Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015) were also reported. This raises the question as to what controls the nature of the CME collision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This largely stimulated the observational and numerical studies in this area (e.g. Gopalswamy et al, 2009;Xiong, Zheng, and Wang, 2009;Temmer et al, , 2014Shen et al, 2012a;Liu et al, , 2014Martínez-Oliveros et al, 2012;Webb et al, 2013;Shen et al, 2011Shen et al, , 2012bShen et al, , 2013Shen et al, , 2016Mishra and Srivastava, 2014;Mishra, Srivastava, and Chakrabarty, 2015;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015;Mishra, Wang, and Srivastava, 2016;Shanmugaraju et al, 2014;Colaninno and Vourlidas, 2015). A comprehensive review about the interaction of successive CMEs and consequences in particle acceleration and geoeffectiveness by Lugaz et al (2017) can be found in the Topical Collection called Earth-affecting Solar Transients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observational and numerical studies have shown that the kinematic characteristics of two or more coronal mass ejections (CMEs) may change significantly after a CME collision. The collision of CMEs can have a different nature, i.e. inelastic, elastic, and superelastic processes, depending on their initial kinematic characteristics. In this article, we first review the existing definitions of collision types including Newton's classical definition, the energy definition, Poisson's definition, and Stronge's definition, of which the first two were used in the studies of CME-CME collisions. Then, we review the recent research progresses on the nature of CME-CME collisions with the focus on which CME kinematic properties affect the collision nature. It is shown that observational analysis and numerical simulations can both yield an inelastic, perfectly inelastic, merging-like collision, or a high possibility of a superelastic collision. Meanwhile, previous studies based on a 3D collision picture suggested that a low approaching speed of two CMEs is favorable for a superelastic nature. Since CMEs are an expanding magnetized plasma structure, the CME collision process is quite complex, and we discuss this complexity. Moreover, the models used in both Earth-affecting Solar Transients Guest Editors: Jie Zhang, Xochitl Blanco-Cano, Nariaki Nitta, and Nandita Srivastava observational and numerical studies contain many limitations. All of the previous studies on collisions have not shown the separation of two colliding CMEs after a collision. Therefore the collision between CMEs cannot be considered as an ideal process in the context of a classical Newtonian definition. In addition, many factors are not considered in either observational analysis or numerical studies, e.g. CME-driven shocks and magnetic reconnections. Owing to the complexity of the CME collision process, a more detailed and in-depth observational analysis and simulation work are needed to fully understand the CME collision process.

show abstract

Section: D Head-on Collision With Momentum Conservation Constraintsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies have also revealed that use of different values of λ with the SSSE method give different estimates of the kinematics of CMEs Mishra, Srivastava, and Davies, 2014). It has been observed that for CMEs that are Earth-directed when STEREO spacecraft are behind the Sun, the SSSE method should be implemented with a value of λ as 90 • (Liu et al, , 2014Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh, 2015;Vemareddy and Mishra, 2015). In our case, the CMEs are Earth-directed and therefore the SSSE method is implemented with a value of λ as suggested in earlier studies.…”

Section: D Reconstruction Of Interacting Cmes In Hi Fovmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The observed velocity of CME1 and CME2 before the collision is estimated as (u 1 , u 2 ) = (590, 865) km s −1 and the observed velocity of CME1 and CME2 after the collision is (v 1 , v 2 ) = (680, 680) km s −1 . To understand the nature of the collision of the two CMEs, we estimate the coefficient of restitution (e) of the colliding CME1 and CME2 following the formulations described in ;Mishra, Srivastava, and Singh (2015). The coefficient of restitution measures the bounciness of the collision and is defined as the ratio of their relative velocity of separation to their relative velocity of approach.…”

Section: Momentum Energy Exchange and Nature Of The Collisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on the kinematics of two interacting CMEs observed on 13 and 14 June 2012. Both CMEs originated from the same active region NOAA 11504. After their launches which were separated by several hours, they were observed to interact at a distance of 100 R from the Sun. The interaction led to a moderate geomagnetic storm at the Earth with D st index of approximately, -86 nT. The kinematics of the two CMEs is estimated using data from the Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation (SECCHI) onboard the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO). Assuming a head-on collision scenario, we find that the collision is inelastic in nature. Further, the signatures of their interaction are examined using the in situ observations obtained by Wind and the Advance Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft. It is also found that this interaction event led to the strongest sudden storm commencement (SSC) (≈ 150 nT) of the present Solar Cycle 24. The SSC was of long duration, approximately 20 hours. The role of interacting CMEs in enhancing the geoeffectiveness is examined.

show abstract

Quantifying the uncertainty in CME kinematics derived from geometric modelling of Heliospheric Imager data

Barnard

Owens²,

Scott³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are eruptions of magnetised plasma from the Sun's atmosphere, which then propagate outward through the heliosphere and solar wind (Webb & Howard, 2012). CMEs play a central role in the evolution of the Sun's magnetic field and the heliosphere (Owens & Forsyth, 2013), and they are also the main driver of severe space weather throughout the solar system, but particularly at Earth (Cannon et al., 2013;Hapgood et al., 2020). Consequently the study of CMEs is important from both the space science and space weather perspectives (Editors, 2021).For example, effective space-weather forecasting requires the observation and modeling of the evolution of CMEs, to predict not only CME arrival times at Earth, but also CME properties such as arrival speed (Owens, Lockwood, & Barnard, 2020). A critical part of this processes is the interpretation of remote sensing observations

show abstract

Kinematics of interacting CMEs of 25 and 28 September 2012

Cited by 35 publications

References 119 publications

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

On the Collision Nature of Two Coronal Mass Ejections: A Review

Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Consequences of Interacting CMEs of 13 – 14 June 2012

Quantifying the uncertainty in CME kinematics derived from geometric modelling of Heliospheric Imager data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About