2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2201.03149
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative Characterization of Magnetic Flux Rope Properties for Two Solar Eruption Events

Wen He,
Qiang Hu,
Chaowei Jiang
et al.

Abstract: In order to bridge the gap between heliospheric and solar observations of coronal mass ejections (CMEs), one of the key steps is to improve the understanding of their corresponding magnetic structures like the magnetic flux ropes (MFRs). But it remains a challenge to confirm the existence of a coherent MFR before or upon the CME eruption on the Sun and to quantitatively characterize the CME-MFR due to the lack of direct magnetic field measurement in the corona. In this study, we investigate the MFR structures,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

3
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, such a comparison is not feasible because the current flux rope models based on in situ measurements lack the capability of determining the field-line lengths L. Therefore, the proper evaluation of the total field-line twist based on in situ MC modeling remains challenging. In addition, a 3D field-line configuration also leads to difficulty in defining the poloidal flux of a flux rope, as we discussed in He et al (2022), simply because of the difficulty in defining a central axis.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such a comparison is not feasible because the current flux rope models based on in situ measurements lack the capability of determining the field-line lengths L. Therefore, the proper evaluation of the total field-line twist based on in situ MC modeling remains challenging. In addition, a 3D field-line configuration also leads to difficulty in defining the poloidal flux of a flux rope, as we discussed in He et al (2022), simply because of the difficulty in defining a central axis.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However such a comparison is not feasible because the current flux rope models based on in situ measurements lack the capability to determine the field-line lengths L. Therefore the proper evaluation of the total field-line twist based on in situ MC modeling remains challenging. In addition, a 3D field-line configuration also leads to difficulty in defining the poloidal flux of a flux rope, as we discussed in He et al (2022), simply because of the difficulty in defining a central axis.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, important validations to the FS model fitting results were provided through multi-spacecraft studies of CME/ ICME flux ropes by using both multi-point in-situ measurements through one ICME structure [20,21], and multi-spacecraft measurements from both in-situ spacecraft crossing an ICME and the corresponding remote-sensing observations of the CME source region [22,23]. For example, in Hu [20], an MC event observed in May 2007 by both STEREO Behind (STB) and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft was examined by fitting the FS model to the STB in-situ data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%