Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDo All Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Have A Magnetic Flux Rope Structure Near 1 AU?
237
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) often consist of a shock wave, sheath region, and ejecta region. The ejecta regions are divided into two broad classes: magnetic clouds (MC) that exhibit the characteristics of magnetic flux ropes and non-magnetic clouds (NMC) that do not. As CMEs result from eruption of magnetic flux ropes, it is important to answer why NMCs do not have the flux rope features. One claims that NMCs lose their original flux rope features due to the interactions between ICMEs or ICMEs and other large scale structures during their transit in the heliosphere. The other attributes this phenomenon to the geometric selection effect, i.e., when an ICME has its nose (flank, including leg and non-leg flanks) pass through the observing spacecraft, the MC (NMC) features will be detected along the spacecraft trajectory within the ejecta. In this Letter, we examine which explanation is more reasonable through the geometric properties of ICMEs. If the selection effect leads to different ejecta types, MCs should have narrower sheath region compared to NMCs from the statistical point of view, which is confirmed by our statistics. Besides, we find that NMCs have the similar size in solar cycles 23 and 24, and NMCs are smaller than MCs in cycle 23 but larger than MCs in cycle 24. This suggests that most NMCs have their leg flank pass through the spacecraft. Our geometric analyses support that all ICMEs should have a magnetic flux rope structure near 1 AU.
rate research
Read More
This study aims to provide a reference to different magnetic field models and reconstruction methods for interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs). In order to understand the differences in the outputs of those models and codes, we analyze 59 events from the Coordinated Data Analysis Workshop (CDAW) list, using four different magnetic field models and reconstruction techniques; force-free fitting (Goldstein,1983,Burlaga,1988,Lepping et al.,1990), magnetostatic reconstruction using a numerical solution to the Grad-Shafranov equation (Hu and Sonnerup, 2001), fitting to a self-similarly expanding cylindrical configuration (Marubashi and Lepping, 2007) and elliptical, non-force free fitting (Hidalgo,2003). The resulting parameters of the reconstructions for the 59 events are compared statistically, as well as in selected case studies. The ability of a method to fit or reconstruct an event is found to vary greatly: the Grad-Shafranov reconstruction is successful for most magnetic clouds (MCs) but for less than 10% of the non-MC ICMEs; the other three methods provide a successful fit for more than 65% of all events. The differences between the reconstruction and fitting methods are discussed, and suggestions are proposed as to how to reduce them. We find that the magnitude of the axial field is relatively consistent across models but not the orientation of the axis of the ejecta. We also find that there are a few cases for which different signs of the magnetic helicity are found for the same event when we do not fix the boundaries, illustrating that this simplest of parameters is not necessarily always well constrained by fitting and reconstruction models. Finally, we look at three unique cases in depth to provide a comprehensive idea of the different aspects of how the fitting and reconstruction codes work.
Aims. The magnetic field of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) determines their structure, evolution, and energetics, as well as their geoeffectiveness. However, we currently lack routine diagnostics of the near-Sun CME magnetic field, which is crucial for determining the subsequent evolution of CMEs. Methods. We recently presented a method to infer the near-Sun magnetic field magnitude of CMEs and then extrapolate it to 1 AU. This method uses relatively easy to deduce observational estimates of the magnetic helicity in CME-source regions along with geometrical CME fits enabled by coronagraph observations. We hereby perform a parametric study of this method aiming to assess its robustness. We use statistics of active region (AR) helicities and CME geometrical parameters to determine a matrix of plausible near-Sun CME magnetic field magnitudes. In addition, we extrapolate this matrix to 1 AU and determine the anticipated range of CME magnetic fields at 1 AU representing the radial falloff of the magnetic field in the CME out to interplanetary (IP) space by a power law with index aB. Results. The resulting distribution of the near-Sun (at 10 Rs ) CME magnetic fields varies in the range [0.004, 0.02] G, comparable to, or higher than, a few existing observational inferences of the magnetic field in the quiescent corona at the same distance. We also find that a theoretically and observationally motivated range exists around aB = -1.6 +-0.2, thereby leading to a ballpark agreement between our estimates and observationally inferred field magnitudes of magnetic clouds (MCs) at L1. Conclusions. In a statistical sense, our method provides results that are consistent with observations.
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large-scale eruptions from the Sun into interplanetary space. Despite being major space weather drivers, our knowledge of the CME properties in the inner heliosphere remains constrained by the scarcity of observations at distances other than 1 au. Furthermore, most CMEs are observed in situ by single spacecraft, requiring numerical models to complement the sparse observations available. We aim to assess the ability of the linear force-free spheromak CME model in EUHFORIA to describe the radial evolution of interplanetary CMEs, yielding new context for observational studies. We model one well-studied CME, and investigate its radial evolution by placing virtual spacecraft along the Sun-Earth line in the simulation domain. To directly compare observational and modelling results, we characterise the interplanetary CME signatures between 0.2 and 1.9 au from modelled time series, exploiting techniques traditionally employed to analyse real in situ data. Results show that the modelled radial evolution of the mean solar wind and CME values is consistent with observational and theoretical expectations. The CME expands as a consequence of the decaying pressure in the surrounding wind: the expansion is rapid within 0.4 au, and moderate at larger distances. The early rapid expansion could not explain the overestimated CME radial size in our simulation, suggesting this is an intrinsic limitation of the spheromak geometry used. The magnetic field profile indicates a relaxation of the CME during propagation, while ageing is most probably not a substantial source of magnetic asymmetry beyond 0.4 au. We also report a CME wake that is significantly shorter than suggested by observations. Overall, EUHFORIA provides a consistent description of the radial evolution of solar wind and CMEs; nevertheless, improvements are required to better reproduce the CME radial extension.
This Topical Issue of Solar Physics, devoted to the study of flux-rope structure in coronal mass ejections (CMEs), is based on two Coordinated Data Analysis Workshops (CDAWs) held in 2010 (20 - 23 September in Dan Diego, California, USA) and 2011 (September 5-9 in Alcala, Spain). The primary purpose of the CDAWs was to address the question: Do all CMEs have flux rope structure? There are 18 papers om this topical issue, including this preface.
Understanding the magnetic configuration of the source regions of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) is vital in order to determine the trigger and driver of these events. Observations of four CME productive active regions are presented here, which indicate that the pre-eruption magnetic configuration is that of a magnetic flux rope. The flux ropes are formed in the solar atmosphere by the process known as flux cancellation and are stable for several hours before the eruption. The observations also indicate that the magnetic structure that erupts is not the entire flux rope as initially formed, raising the question of whether the flux rope is able to undergo a partial eruption or whether it undergoes a transition in specific flux rope configuration shortly before the CME.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
