4.7 Article

KAPPA DISTRIBUTION MODEL FOR HARD X-RAY CORONAL SOURCES OF SOLAR FLARES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 764, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/6

关键词

Sun: flares; Sun: particle emission; Sun: X-rays, gamma rays

资金

  1. NASA at UC Berkeley [NNX08AO83G]
  2. NASA [NAS5-98033]
  3. WCU [R31-10016]
  4. Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [R31-2012-000-10016-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solar flares produce hard X-ray emission, the photon spectrum of which is often represented by a combination of thermal and power-law distributions. However, the estimates of the number and total energy of non-thermal electrons are sensitive to the determination of the power-law cutoff energy. Here, we revisit an above-the-loop coronal source observed by RHESSI on 2007 December 31 and show that a kappa distribution model can also be used to fit its spectrum. Because the kappa distribution has a Maxwellian-like core in addition to a high-energy power-law tail, the emission measure and temperature of the instantaneous electrons can be derived without assuming the cutoff energy. Moreover, the non-thermal fractions of electron number/energy densities can be uniquely estimated because they are functions of only the power-law index. With the kappa distribution model, we estimated that the total electron density of the coronal source region was similar to 2.4 x 10(10) cm(-3). We also estimated without assuming the source volume that a moderate fraction (similar to 20%) of electrons in the source region was non-thermal and carried similar to 52% of the total electron energy. The temperature was 28 MK, and the power-law index delta of the electron density distribution was -4.3. These results are compared to the conventional power-law models with and without a thermal core component.

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