4.3 Article

The Temperature Dependence of Hot Prograde Flows in Solar Active Regions

期刊

SOLAR PHYSICS
卷 298, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11207-022-02093-3

关键词

Sun: corona; Sun: UV radiation; Sun: activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using simultaneous observations from EVE and AIA, we characterize the temperature dependence of apparent hot flows in solar active regions. We validate our methods and independently quantify the instrumental astigmatism effect. We find evidence of hot prograde flows in active regions through MEGS-B.
Using simultaneous observations from the EUV Variability Experiment (EVE) and imaging from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), we characterise the temperature depen-dence of apparent hot flows in solar active regions. The EVE instrument performs Sun-as-a-star spectroscopy and is composed of two spectrographs: MEGS-A and MEGS-B (Multiple EUV Grating Spectrograph-A,-B). It is known that EVE can measure wavelength shifts and thus can observe relative Doppler velocities in solar atmospheric plasmas over an ex-tended temperature range. However, MEGS-A is affected by a known astigmatism effect (Chamberlin: Solar Phys. 291, 1665, 2016); inhomogeneities in EUV brightness on the so-lar surface result in purely instrumental wavelength errors. We validate our methods by independently quantifying this effect and comparing to Chamberlin's results, and we ex-plore the wavelength dependence as an extension of his formula as derived for He II304 angstrom. MEGS-B is unaffected by this instrumental effect in any case, and this has allowed us to find evidence of hot prograde flows in active regions. Using our image-based models for the astigmatism and flows, we independently confirm our original MEGS-B result. We now extend our knowledge of the temperature dependence of these flows via the additional Fe emission lines available in MEGS-A. We find a monotonic increase of apparent flow speed with temperature up through lines of Fe XVI, nominally formed at about 6.4 MK.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据