4.6 Article

Prominence fine structures in a magnetic equilibrium -: II.: A grid of two-dimensional models

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 442, 期 1, 页码 331-343

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053360

关键词

Sun : prominences; magnetohydrodynamics (MHD); radiative transfer; line : profiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We construct a grid of 2D vertical-thread models for prominence fine structures which are in magnetohydrostatic (MHS) equilibrium. Such thread models have been described in a previous paper by Heinzel & Anzer ( 2001), but here we use a modified 2D transfer code with an adaptive MHS grid. Multilevel non-LTE transfer calculations are now performed for a 12-level plus continuum hydrogen model atom, in order to study the behaviour of the Lyman-series lines observed by SOHO/SUMER. Our grid consists of 18 models which cover a range of central column masses, magnetic-field intensities and two parameters characterising the 2D temperature structure of the thread. Since different Lyman lines and their parts ( line center, peak, wings) are formed at different places within the thread, the Lyman series may serve as a good diagnostic tool for thermodynamic conditions varying from central cool parts to a prominence-corona transition region. We demonstrate this behaviour for various lines, showing their synthetic profiles as seen from two perpendicular directions along and across the magnetic field lines, respectively, and displaying the respective contribution functions. This study confirms our earlier conclusion that the Lyman line profiles are much more reversed when seen across the field lines, compared to those seen along the lines. The latter can be even unreversed. We also show the geometrical cross-section ( shape) of all 18 models. Their thread-like shape with a considerable aspect ratio resembles recent high-resolution H alpha images. Finally, we discuss the relation of our thread models to the vertical threads studied by Fontenla et al. ( 1996, ApJ, 466, 496).

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

4.6
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