4.7 Article

A study of the kinematic evolution of coronal mass ejections

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 604, 期 1, 页码 420-432

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/381725

关键词

Sun : corona; Sun : coronal mass ejections (CMEs); Sun : flares; Sun : X-rays, gamma rays

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the kinematic properties of a set of three coronal mass ejections (CMEs) observed with the LASCO ( Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph) on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft, which showed characteristics of impulsive, intermediate, and gradual acceleration, respectively. The first CME had a 30 minute long fast acceleration phase during which the average acceleration was about 308 m s(-2); this acceleration took place over a distance of about 3.3 R-. (from 1.3 to 4.6 R-., height measured from disk center). The CME characterized by intermediate acceleration had a long acceleration phase of about 160 minutes during which the average acceleration was about 131 m s(-2); the CME traveled a distance of at least 4.3 R-., reaching a height of 7.0 R-. at the end of the acceleration phase. The CME characterized by gradual acceleration had no fast acceleration phase. Instead, it displayed a persistent weak acceleration lasting more than 24 hr with an average acceleration of only 4.0 m s(-2) throughout the LASCO field of view (from 1.1 to 30 R-.). This study demonstrates that the final velocity of a CME is determined by a combination of acceleration magnitude and acceleration duration, both of which can vary significantly from event to event. The first two CME events were associated with soft X-ray flares. We found that in the acceleration phase there was close temporal correlation both between the CME velocity and the soft X-ray flux of the flare and between the CME acceleration and derivative of the X-ray flux. These correlations indicate that the CME large-scale acceleration and the flare particle acceleration are strongly coupled physical phenomena occurring in the corona.

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

4.7
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