SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Solar eruptions (prominences”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Magnetic field evolution during prominence eruptions and two-ribbon flares
Simple models for the MHD eruption of a solar prominence are presented in which the prominence is treated as a twisted magnetic flux tube that is being repelled from the solar surface by magnetic pressure forces. Including a background magnetic field allows the prominence to be in equilibrium initially with an inverse polarity and then to erupt due to magnetic nonequilibrium when the background magnetic field is too small or the prominence twist is too great. The electric field at the neutral point below the prominence rapidly increases to a maximum value and then declines. Including the effect of gravity also allows an equilibrium with normal polarity to exist. Finally, an ideal MHD solution is found which incorporates self-consistently a current sheet below the prominence and which implies that a prominence will still erupt and form a current sheet even if no reconnection occurs. When reconnection is allowed it is, therefore, driven by the eruption.
Multiple wavelength observations of an off-limb eruptive solar flare
The eruptive prominence and limb flare which occurred at 1454 UT on June 20, 1989 is described and analyzed. This event was observed by many different instruments providing an unusual amount and variety of data: images at 1.4 GHz, 37 GHz, and H-alpha, and spectra in hard X-ray, soft X-ray, and radio frequencies. This array of data makes it possible to explore the relationships between flare and eruptive prominence emissions at different wavelengths. VLA images at 1.4 GHz show changing sources in a set of high (about 10 exp 10 cm) coronal loops associated with the erupting prominence. We use a full gyrosynchrotron code to model a 1.4 GHz source early in the flare as a large coronal loop. The model results lead us to conclude that the initial acceleration occurs in smaller, denser loops which also produce the flare's hard X-ray emission. We also present evidence that a source at 1.4 GHz later in the event is due to second-harmonic plasma emission. This source is adjacent to a leg of the prominence and comes from a dense column of material in the magnetic structure supporting the prominence.
An eruptive prominence and associated cm-mm emission outside the solar limb
Radio maps at 22 and 44 GHz are presented which show the emission before and after the eruption of a quiescent prominence located at the west limb. The observed radiation followng the eruption is not consistent with thermal bremsstrahlung mechanism. It can be interpreted as due to gyrosynchrotron emission of nonthermal electrons. The observations appear to be similar to the microwave radiation observed in post-flare loops. This radiation is due to nonthermal electrons trapped in the closed magnetic structures formed after the prominence eruption.
Prominences: The Key to Understanding Solar Activity
Prominences are spectacular manifestations of both quiescent and eruptive solar activity. The largest examples can be seen with the naked eye during eclipses, making prominences among the first solar features to be described and catalogued. Steady improvements in temporal and spatial resolution from both ground- and space-based instruments have led us to recognize how complex and dynamic these majestic structures really are. Their distinguishing characteristics - cool knots and threads suspended in the hot corona, alignment along inversion lines in the photospheric magnetic field within highly sheared filament channels, and a tendency to disappear through eruption - offer vital clues as to their origin and dynamic evolution. Interpreting these clues has proven to be contentious, however, leading to fundamentally different models that address the basic questions: What is the magnetic structure supporting prominences, and how does so much cool, dense plasma appear in the corona? Despite centuries of increasingly detailed observations, the magnetic and plasma structures in prominences are poorly known. Routine measurements of the vector magnetic field in and around prominences have become possible only recently, while long-term monitoring of the underlying filament-channel formation process also remains scarce. The process responsible for prominence mass is equally difficult to establish, although we have long known that the chromosphere is the only plausible source. As I will discuss, however, the motions and locations of prominence material can be used to trace the coronal field, thus defining the magnetic origins of solar eruptions. A combination of observations, theory, and numerical modeling must be used to determine whether any of the competing theories accurately represents the physics of prominences. I will discuss the criteria for a successful prominence model, compare the leading models, and present in detail one promising, comprehensive scenario for prominence formation and evolution that could answer the two questions posed above.
Prominence activity related to CME observed by SOHO, Yohkoh and ground-based observatories
Examples of destabilization of prominences and their associated coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are presented. During the 1996 campaigns of multi-wavelength observations with the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the Yohkoh satellite's soft X-ray telescope (SXT) and the Meudon (France) H alpha spectroheliograph eruptive solar filaments and prominences associated with the CMEs were observed. Two of the observed events showed that CMEs and 'brusques disparitions' (BDs) seem to be consequences of global magnetic field instability.
Singly-ionized helium in the driver gas of an interplanetary shock wave
The interplanetary shock wave observed on Jan. 29, 1977 by the HELIOS-1 plasma instruments shows an unusual feature: in the cold tenuous piston plasma following this shock, there appears a third peak in the energy per charge (E/q) spectra, in addition to the normal proton and alpha-particle peaks. The peak is located at E/q ? 4 and persists for about 14 hours, with slowly varying intensities. Independent simultaneous measurement of these particles' charge yields a value of approximately 1. These ions are thought to be He-4(+) ions travelling with the same speed as protons and alpha particles. The occurrence of He-4(+) indicates the possibility that during eruptive prominences or other solar transients, 'cold' chromospheric plasma might escape from the sun without undergoing the normal coronal heating process.
Trajectories of Microwave Prominence Eruptions
On the basis of 17 GHz microwave images from the Nobeyama Radioheliograph near solar maximum (1999-2000), we examined trajectories of 50 prominence eruptions in order to address how prominence motions affect or reflect the surrounding coronal structures. We marked the heliocentric latitude of the top of the moving prominences on the white-light synoptic maps, which were constructed at 2.5-4.5 solar radii from the LASCO C2 coronagraph on the SOHO spacecraft. We found that i) 92% of the prominence eruptions were associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and that the remaining 8% show weak mass motions confined to nearby streamers, and ii) coronal mass motions involving prominence eruptions and CMEs are not random but are organized by bundles of streamers. Our findings support the idea of multiple plasma sheets emanating from active regions, arcades, trans-equatorial interconnecting loops, and polar crown filaments, through which coronal mass is transported toward interplanetary space. This study suggests that microwave observations can provide useful information on the activity at the base of such "coronal mass corridors".
On the Physical Nature of the So-Called Prominence Tornadoes
The term ‘tornado’ has been used in recent years to describe several solar phenomena, from large-scale eruptive prominences to small-scale photospheric vortices. It has also been applied to the generally stable quiescent prominences, sparking a renewed interest in what historically was called ‘prominence tornadoes’. This paper carries out an in-depth review of the physical nature of ‘prominence tornadoes’, where their name subconsciously makes us think of violent rotational dynamics. However, after careful consideration and analysis of the published observational data and theoretical models, we conclude that ‘prominence tornadoes’ do not differ in any substantial way from other stable solar prominences. There is simply no unequivocal observational evidence of sustained and coherent rotational movements in quiescent prominences that would justify a distinct category of prominences sharing the name with the well-known atmospheric phenomenon. The visual impression of the column-like silhouettes, the perceived helical motions, or the suggestive Doppler-shift patterns all have a simpler, more likely explanation. They are a consequence of projection effects combined with the presence of oscillations and/or counter-streaming flows. ‘Prominence tornadoes’ are thus just manifestations of the complex nature of solar prominences when observed in specific projections. These coincidental viewing angles, together with the presence of fine-structure dynamics and simple yet profoundly distorting projection effects, may sometimes play havoc with our intuitive understanding of perceived shapes and motions, leading to the incorrect analogy with atmospheric tornadoes.
Energy Release from Impacting Prominence Material Following the 2011 June 7 Eruption
Solar filaments exhibit a range of eruptive-like dynamic activity, ranging from the full or partial eruption of the filament mass and surrounding magnetic structure as a coronal mass ejection to a fully confined or failed eruption. On 2011 June 7, a dramatic partial eruption of a filament was observed by multiple instruments on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and Solar-Terrestrial Relations Observatory. One of the interesting aspects of this event is the response of the solar atmosphere as non-escaping material falls inward under the influence of gravity. The impact sites show clear evidence of brightening in the observed extreme ultraviolet wavelengths due to energy release. Two plausible physical mechanisms for explaining the brightening are considered: heating of the plasma due to the kinetic energy of impacting material compressing the plasma, or reconnection between the magnetic field of low-lying loops and the field carried by the impacting material. By analyzing the emission of the brightenings in several SDO/Atmospheric Imaging Assembly wavelengths, and comparing the kinetic energy of the impacting material (7.6 × 10(exp 26) - 5.8 × 10(exp 27) erg) to the radiative energy (approx. 1.9 × 10(exp 25) - 2.5 × 10(exp 26) erg), we find the dominant mechanism of energy release involved in the observed brightening is plasma compression.
Observation of a coronal transient from 1.2 to 6 solar radii
The paper describes in detail the eruptive prominence associated coronal mas ejection of August 5, 1980, as seen in both the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) coronagraph polarimeter and the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) K coronameter and prominence monitor. This event gives the first detailed look at the propagation of a 'depletion' transient into the outer corona. The event begins in the MLO K coronameter as a rising depletion of material, but appears later in the SMM coronograph as an ordinary coronal mass ejection with a three-part structure: a bright core within a dark lunette surrounded by a bright featureles 'loop'. A joint time-height plot of the major structures of the eruption seen by both instruments suggests that the three-part structure in the outer corona can be associated with features in the low corona (prominence, prominence cavity, outer bright front). It is argued from its observed mass that the leading loop in the SMM field of view is probably material that was in the background corona before the event. It is suggested that this material has been displaced and set into motion by the rising 'cavity.'
Alternating Twist Along an Erupting Prominence
Triangulation measurements using observations from the two Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) spacecraft, combined with observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), are used to characterize the behavior of a prominence involved in two successive coronal mass ejections 6-7 December 2010. The STEREO separation at the time was 171.6 degrees, which was functionally equivalent to a separation of 8.4 degrees, and thus very favorable for feature co-identification above the limb. The first eruption at approximately 14:16 UT (Universal Time) on 6 December of the middle branch of the prominence starts off a series of magnetic reconfigurations in the right branch, which itself erupts at approximately 2:06 UT the next day, about 12 hours after the first eruption. The cool prominence material seen at 304 angstroms drains back down to the surface, but a flux-rope-like magnetic structure is seen to erupt in both 195 angstroms by the STEREO/Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI), and in white light by the STEREO/COR1 (Coronagraph 1) inner coronagraph. In between the two eruptions, two different signs of helicity are seen in the measured twist of the right branch. This is interpreted to be caused by the overall prominence channel being composed of different segments with alternating helicity signs. The erupting parts on 6 and 7 December both show positive twist, but negative twist is seen in between these positive sections. Negative twist is consistent with the dextral chirality signs seen in the He II line at 304 angstroms prior to both eruptions. However, during the period between the eruptions, a region of positive twist grows and replaces the region of negative twist, and finally erupts. We interpret these observations in the light of models that predict that helicity cancellation can be an important factor in the triggering of flares and coronal mass ejections.
Dynamics of quiescent prominences; Proceedings of the 117th Colloquium of IAU, Hvar, Yugoslavia, Sept. 25-29, 1989
Topics discussed include formation of a filament around a magnetic region, evolution of fine structures in a filament, the spatial distribution of prominence threads, high resolution analysis of quiescent prominences at NSO/Sacramento Peak Observatory, small-scale Doppler velocities in a quiescent prominence, Doppler velocity oscillations in quiescent prominences, oscillatory relaxation of an eruptive prominence, and matter flow velocities in an active region emission loop observed in H-alpha. Attention is also given to an automated procedure for measurement of prominence transverse velocities, the nonlinear evolution of magnetized filaments, thermal equilibrium of coronal loops and prominence formation, thermal instability in planar coronal strucutres, radiative transfer in cylindrical prominence threads, numerical simulation of a catastrophe model for prominence eruptions, and the law of evolution and destruction of solar prominences.
Relationship of coronal mass ejections with solar flares, prominences and coronal holes
We have investigated more than 450 coronal mass ejections (CME's) observed between 1979-1985 (by SOLWIND) having speed more than 500 km/s. To carry out the study we have used the method of time and spatial correlations. From the study we have found the following: (1) About 50% CMEs are related with coronal holes; (2) About 15% CMEs are related with solar flares; (3) About 25% CMEs are associated with eruptive prominence; and (4) About 10% CMEs are not related with any solar phenomena. The relationship of CMEs and solar radio bursts are also studied. In the light of above, we are of the view that there may be two types of CMEs. The origin of one of them may be related with coronal holes and that for other may be solar flares and prominences.
Dynamic modeling of coronal and interplanetary responses to solar events
Recent progress in the dynamic modeling of responses of the corona and interplanetary medium to solar events (such as surges, eruptive prominences, flares, etc.) is reviewed. In particular, coronal transients and wave phenomena are discussed in some detail including pertinent mathematical requirements. Within the context of hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics, a summary of both one- and two-dimensional time-dependent models is presented. A comparison of theoretical results with ground-based optical, radio, ATM Skylab observations, Pioneer 9 and Pioneer 10 solar wind observations is also presented. It is illustrated that: (1) substantial progress has been made in the theoretical (i.e., numerical) modeling of coronal and interplanetary responses within the last few years; (2) two-dimensional, time-dependent modeling is needed to examine the details of nonlinear wave coupling; and (3) theoretical results of modeling appear to reproduce physical consequences successfully.
Simulated traveling interplanetary disturbances initiated by various solar phenomena
Earlier studies have shown that interplanetary disturbances observed by spacecraft at large heliocentric distances from the sun can be directly associated with various solar activities such as surges, sprays, eruptive prominences, and flares. A digital computer code to simulate these phenomena is developed. This numerical code solves a set of conservation equations for an adiabatic time-dependent spherically-symmetric fluid flow. The solar events are simulated by perturbations in the dependent variables at the lower boundary of the quiet sun corona, and the time-dependent numerical solution simulates the coronal response. Three physical cases are simulated by using the proposed numerical code: (1) part of a surge, spray and prominence; (2) a single flare; and (3) two flares whose interplanetary consequences interact in space. Results for the first two cases are compared with both ground-based and space probe observations. Fairly good agreement with observations is found. A comparison of the third case with observations is presently under way.
Erupting prominences and the geometry of coronal mass ejections
Studies of the origins of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) show a strong association between CMEs and erupting prominences. 'Loop' CMEs form the most common morphological class for both Skylab and Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) and the class most likely to be associated with erupting prominences. In the optically thin corona, the geometry of such structures is interpreted as either planar (two-dimensional), shell-like, or bubblelike (three-dimensional) structures. Trottet and MacQueen (1980) (hereinafter referred to as TM) first examined the orientations of prominences associated with Skylab CMEs and argued that looplike CMEs were planar structures in the plane of the sky. In this work, the initial orientations of prominences identified with SMM CMEs in 1980 were measured in order to examine the overall geometry of CMEs. Contrary to TM's result, no preferred orientation for prominences associated with SMM CMEs nor any difference between that population and the population of all disk filaments were found. In addition, plots comparing CME/filament orientation angles and the angular widths of the CME envelopes show large scatter. Taken together, these results support a shell-like rather than a planar geometry for at least looplike CMEs.
Coronal mass ejections and major solar flares: The great active center of March 1989
The solar flare and coronal mass ejection (CME) events associated with the large and complex March 1989 active region are discussed. This active region gave us a chance to study the relation of CME with truly major solar flares. The work concentrates on questions of the relation of CMEs and flares to one another and to other types of activity on the Sun. As expected, some major (X-3B class) flares had associated CMEs. However, an unexpected finding is that others did not. In fact, there is strong evidence that the X4-4B flare of March 9th had no CME. This lack of a CME for such an outstanding flare event has important implications to theories of CME causation.Apparently, not all major flares cause CMEs or are caused by CMEs. The relations between CMEs and other types of solar activity are also discussed. No filament disappearances are reported for major CMEs studied here. Comparing these results with other studies, CMEs occur in association with flares and with erupting prominences, but neither are required for a CME. The relation between solar structures showing flaring without filament eruptions and structures showing filament eruptions without flares becomes important. The evolutionary relation between an active flaring sunspot region and extensive filaments without sunspots is reviewed, and the concept of an 'evolving magnetic structure' (EMS) is introduced. It is suggested that all CMEs arise in EMSs and that CMEs provide a major path through which azimuthal magnetic fields escape form the Sun during the solar cycle.