Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Scattering of energetic electrons by heat-flux-driven whistlers in flares

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In a flare-like plasma, escaping energetic electrons drive large oblique whistler waves that scatter them within about a hundred cyclotron periods, suppressing heat flux and helping confine them.

desk verdict A convincing PIC demonstration of heat-flux-driven whistler scattering, but the quantitative rates are likely set by an artificial equal-density return-current beam, so the flare application needs a parameter scan. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06481 v2 pith:2NMNA5JE submitted 2019-08-18 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

G. T. Roberg-Clark , O. V. Agapitov , J. F. Drake , M. M. Swisdak This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph PACS 52.35.Hr52.65.Rr96.60.qd
keywords solarflareswhistlerwavespitch-anglescatteringheatfluxparticle-in-cellsimulationkappadistributionelectroncyclotronresonanceconfinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that the very electrons trying to escape a flare energy-release site can prevent their own escape. Using a 2D particle-in-cell simulation initialized with a one-sided kappa distribution of hot electrons and a cold return-current beam, it finds that the resulting heat flux drives oblique whistlers to peak amplitudes of $\tilde{B}/B_0 \sim 0.125$, propagating at roughly $60^\circ$ to the background field. These whistlers, together with electron acoustic waves, pitch-angle scatter the energetic tail of the distribution on a timescale of about a hundred electron cyclotron periods, moving energy from the parallel into the perpendicular direction and cutting the field-aligned heat flux by up to a factor of two. If the simulation represents flare conditions, the scattering mean free paths of energetic electrons become short compared with the size of flare energy-release sites, providing a local mechanism that can confine electrons long enough to reach relativistic energies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is resonant wave-particle interaction with oblique whistlers, organized by the resonance condition $\omega - k_x v_x - n\Omega_e/\gamma = 0$. The $n=-1$ 'fan' resonance, driven by the anisotropic one-sided kappa tail, grows rightward-propagating oblique whistlers, while the Landau resonance with the cold return-current beam grows leftward-propagating whistlers. Scattering is made irreversible by overlap of the whistler trapping widths (from the paper's Eq. 6) with the Landau resonance of parallel electron acoustic waves, which drags particles toward $v_x=0$. The near-flat electron distribution near the whistler phase speed keeps Landau damping weak, allowing the waves to reach amplitudes at which trapping widths overlap and diffusion replaces coherent motion.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run a 3D particle-in-cell simulation with the same physical parameters but a smoothed $v_x=0$ transition in the electron distribution and measure the peak oblique-whistler amplitude. If it stays well below $\tilde{B}/B_0 \sim 0.125$, or if wave growth is delayed beyond about $10^2$ cyclotron periods, the claimed scattering timescale and confinement would not survive. Observationally, simultaneous wave and electron measurements in a flare loop would falsify the picture if abrupt heat-flux-driven scattering is present without any oblique whistlers of amplitude near $0.1 B_0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the heat flux of energetic electrons escaping a reconnection-driven flare site is not a passive leak: the same distribution that carries the flux is unstable to large-amplitude oblique whistlers ($k d_e \sim 1$, angle $\sim 60^\circ$), driven mainly by the low-energy electrons and the cold return current. The energetic tail then resonates with these waves through the $n=-1$ cyclotron resonance and overlapping higher-order resonances, and is pitch-angle scattered in roughly $100\,\Omega_{e0}^{-1}$. The simulation shows the perpendicular energy of each velocity bin rising while the parallel energy flux falls, with the energy distribution itself barely changing, which identifies the process as pitch-angle scattering rather than energy loss. Because the implied mean free paths are smaller than the typical size of a flare energy-release region, the paper concludes that this self-generated turbulence can confine energetic electrons at the reconnection site and thereby open the path to very high electron energies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sharply truncated one-sided kappa distribution plus a cold return current used in the simulation represents the real electron distribution at a flare reconnection site; if actual distributions are smoother or less anisotropic, the fan instability and the whistler amplitudes driving the scattering could be far weaker.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energetic electrons escaping a flare source will not stream freely: their transit is disrupted by self-generated whistlers on a timescale of order $10^2$ cyclotron periods.
  • The field-aligned heat flux drops by up to a factor of two, so estimates of flare-accelerated electron fluxes from hard X-ray brightness may need to account for in-situ scattering before electrons reach the chromosphere.
  • Because scattering increases the perpendicular velocity, electrons become better able to mirror in converging coronal magnetic fields, strengthening confinement in the release region.
  • In lower-$\beta$ environments the whistler phase speed moves farther out in the electron tail, so the same mechanism would preferentially scatter the highest-energy electrons.
  • The mechanism is local and generic, so it can operate wherever an anisotropic, heat-flux-carrying electron distribution is produced by reconnection, not just in the specific flare geometry modeled.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If an actual flare distribution is smoother than the sharp $v_x=0$ step used here, the fan instability may grow more slowly or saturate at lower amplitude; the roughly 100-cycle timescale is likely an upper bound on the scattering efficiency rather than a universal number.
  • The same resonance-overlap picture predicts a distinctive observable signature: enhanced gyrosynchrotron emission from the growing perpendicular anisotropy alongside a suppressed hard-X-ray-producing beam, which spacecraft observations could search for.
  • The mechanism may apply outside flares, for example to the high-$\beta$, weakly collisional coronae of accretion flows, wherever a one-sided energetic electron population coexists with a return current; the paper gestures at this but does not develop it.
  • A direct 3D simulation with the same parameters would test whether the 2D periodic box artificially enhances the standing-wave interference and overestimates wave amplitudes; if 3D amplitudes are lower, the inferred confinement would weaken.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 2D particle-in-cell simulation of a plasma initialized with a one-sided bi-kappa distribution of hot electrons (vx>0) and an equal-density cold return-current beam (vx<0), intended to represent energetic electrons escaping from a flare reconnection region. The simulation shows the growth of large-amplitude oblique whistler waves propagating both with and against the heat flux, together with parallel electron acoustic waves, and the accompanying pitch-angle scattering of electrons, an increase in perpendicular energy, and a reduction in the parallel electron heat flux. The authors interpret the scattering using cyclotron resonance theory and trapping-width overlap, identify the fan instability and the Landau-resonant return-current beam as the wave sources, and conclude that the resulting scattering mean free paths of energetic electrons are much smaller than typical flare energy-release sites, implying effective confinement of energetic electrons. The main quantitative claims are a scattering time of roughly 100 electron cyclotron periods and a peak whistler amplitude B_tilde/B0 ~ 0.125.

Significance. If the result holds for realistic flare conditions, it offers a local, self-consistent mechanism for pitch-angle scattering and confinement of energetic electrons, addressing a long-standing problem in flare physics. The paper's strengths are that it is a direct kinetic simulation with clear phase-space evidence of scattering, that the resonance interpretation is internally consistent with the observed wave properties, and that it connects several known instabilities (fan instability, electron acoustic waves, beam-driven whistlers) in a single framework. The main weakness is that the initial condition contains an artificially strong equal-density counter-streaming beam, and the quantitative conclusions are based on a single simulation without parameter variation or convergence checks; consequently the flare-relevant mean-free-path claim is not yet securely established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (3)] The return-current beam in the initial condition has a density n0 equal to that of the hot kappa component and a drift vd large enough to cancel the entire hot-component current. This is a strongly counter-streaming beam, not a small drift of the background electron population that would be expected in a flare. The paper itself states that the waves are 'dominantly driven by the low energy electrons, including the cold return current beam' (abstract) and that the leftward whistler grows through Landau resonance with this beam (§4). Since the saturation amplitude B_tilde/B0 ≈ 0.125 and the measured scattering time of ~100 Ω_e0^{-1} depend on the free energy of this beam, the quantitative scattering rates are not tied to realistic flare parameters. To support the flare-relevant conclusion, the authors should either scan over the hot/cold density ratio and beam drift or carry out a linear dispersion calculation for a realistic small-drift return current and show that sufficiently large whistlers still grow to scatter the energetic tail on the claimed timescale.
  2. [§1] The abstract and Discussion claim that 'the resulting scattering mean-free-paths of energetic electrons are small compared with the typical scale size of energy release sites in flares,' but the paper never actually derives or states a mean free path from the simulation results. The only quantitative output is a scattering time of roughly 100 Ω_e0^{-1} at the simulated parameters. To make this central claim quantitative, the authors should convert the measured scattering time into a mean free path (e.g., using a diffusion coefficient or an effective collision frequency), evaluate it for representative flare parameters (B, n, and electron energies), and compare it explicitly with the flare release-site scale. As written, the confinement conclusion is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [§3] The paper presents a single PIC run with hand-picked parameters (κ = 4, β_e0h = 2, T_x/T_perp = 20, ω_pe/Ω_e0 = 5√2, m_i/m_e = 1600) and no convergence tests or parameter variations. Because the new results are quantitative (the scattering time and the wave amplitude), it is not established that these values are robust. A resolution scan, a domain-size check, and at least one variation in a physical parameter (for example, beta or the kappa index) would be needed to show that the inferred scattering time and amplitude are not artifacts of the specific numerical setup. Without such tests, the quantitative extrapolation to flares remains uncertain.
  4. [§4] The analytic trapping-width and resonance-overlap calculations in Section 4 use wave parameters (k_x d_e = 0.6, k_y d_e = 1, B_tilde/B_0 = 0.125) read directly from the simulation spectrum at tΩ_e0 = 177. These calculations are therefore an interpretation of the numerical experiment rather than an independent prediction that such waves will grow in a flare. The paper should state this limitation more explicitly, especially since the abstract's phrasing might lead readers to think the resonance calculation itself predicts the flare-relevant scattering rates. A test-particle calculation using the simulated wave spectrum, or a quasilinear estimate of the diffusion coefficient, would strengthen the link between the analytic model and the observed scattering.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The normalization of the return-current Maxwellian with the error-function factor is unusual; please clarify how this form guarantees equal densities and zero net current, and provide a more detailed physical justification or a reference for this particular choice.
  2. [§3] The axis label and caption use 'V_Ae0' without a subscript on 'Ae' in some places; also the legend in panel (b) is difficult to map to the curves. Consider labeling curves directly or using a consistent notation.
  3. [§6] In the Discussion, the relation 'β = (V_T/V_Ae)^{1/2}' is dimensionally incorrect; the electron plasma beta is β = (V_T/V_Ae)^2 (up to factors of order unity). Please correct this typo.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract describes the system as having 'β ∼ 1', but the simulation uses β_e0h = 2, which the text itself calls 'a relatively high β for the corona.' Please reconcile this discrepancy, or state more precisely that the run is at β=2 but is intended to represent the β~1 regime.
  5. [§5] The derivation of Eq. (8) for the resonance-ellipse intersection with the vx axis is not shown; a few lines of algebra or a reference to the standard derivation would help readers verify the expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central result is a direct PIC simulation, and the analytic resonance analysis is post-hoc interpretation, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (whistler growth, observed amplitudes, and scattering on a timescale of roughly 100 electron cyclotron periods) are measured outputs of a self-contained PIC simulation with explicitly stated initial conditions; they are not derived by construction from the target conclusion. Section 4 uses the measured wave parameters (kxde = 0.6, kyde = 1, Btilde/B0 = 0.125) to compute trapping widths 'to explain scattering in the simulation' rather than to predict an independent quantity; interpreting simulation outputs with those same outputs is not circularity. Self-citations (Roberg-Clark et al. 2016, 2018a,b; Dahlin et al. 2017) are used for motivation, prior high-beta results, and context, but the new instability and scattering results do not reduce to those citations. The authors explicitly flag the sharp vx = 0 gradient and usual PIC limitations; these are validity and parameter-choice concerns, not circularity. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The model pulls several hand-chosen plasma parameters and standard kinetic theory from the literature; the central new content is the simulation demonstration and its interpretation.

free parameters (6)
  • kappa = 4
    Chosen to set the steepness of the nonthermal tail of the electron distribution (Section 2, Eq. 1); not derived from flare observations.
  • beta_e0h = 2
    Normalized electron pressure chosen to represent a beta ~ 1 flare plasma (Section 2); authors note this is relatively high for the corona.
  • initial temperature ratio T_x/T_perp = 20
    Chosen based on 3D reconnection simulations (Dahlin et al. 2017) showing P_parallel/P_perp ~ 100.
  • omega_pe/Omega_e0 = 5*sqrt(2)
    Simulation parameter setting the magnetization; affects whistler phase speeds.
  • mass ratio m_i/m_e = 1600
    Reduced mass ratio chosen for computational feasibility; ions do not play a significant role.
  • grid and domain parameters = Lx=163.84 de, Ly=81.92 de, 4096x2048 cells, 560 particles/species/cell
    Numerical resolution choices; no convergence test reported.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Cold-plasma whistler dispersion relation omega = |kx| k de^2 Omega_e / (1 + k^2 de^2), neglecting displacement current (Eq. 4)
    Used to identify wave modes and compute phase speeds in Section 3.
  • standard math Whistler resonance condition omega - kx vx - n Omega_e/gamma = 0 (Eq. 5) and trapping-width theory (Eq. 6)
    Used to interpret scattering structures in phase space in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The 2D periodic simulation captures the essential 3D physics of heat-flux-driven whistler scattering
    The box is 2D in space with v_z gyrotropy assumed; authors note small domains and short time scales as a constraint.
  • domain assumption The model kappa distribution with a sharp velocity-space gradient is representative of flare escaping-electron distributions
    Authors state this in Section 6 and caution that sharp gradients are 'likely to form during flares' but are not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scattering of energetic electrons by heat-flux-driven whistlers in flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NMNA5JE

@misc{pith2026190806481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scattering of energetic electrons by heat-flux-driven whistlers in flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NMNA5JE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06481}
}
abstract

The scattering of electrons by heat-flux-driven whistler waves is explored with a particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation relevant to the transport of energetic electrons in flares. The simulation is initiated with a large heat flux that is produced using a kappa distribution of electrons with positive velocity and a cold return current beam. This system represents energetic electrons escaping from a reconnection-driven energy release site. This heat flux system drives large amplitude oblique whistler waves propagating both along and against the heat flux, as well as electron acoustic waves. While the waves are dominantly driven by the low energy electrons, including the cold return current beam, the energetic electrons resonate with and are scattered by the whistlers on time scales of the order of a hundred electron cyclotron times. Peak whistler amplitudes of $\tilde{B} / B_{0} \sim 0.125$ and angles of $\sim 60 \degree$ with respect to the background magnetic field are observed. Electron perpendicular energy is increased while the field-aligned electron heat flux is suppressed. The resulting scattering mean-free-paths of energetic electrons are small compared with the typical scale size of energy release sites in flares, which might lead to the effective confinement of energetic electrons that is required for the production of very energetic particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06481 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Fluctuation amplitudes hB2 z i and hδB2 x i as a function of time. (b) Scattering of elec￾trons at different energies. Four of the curves are plots of hv 2 y i in evenly spaced ranges with velocity width v = 1.75VAe0, where v = q v 2 x + v 2 y . Each curve is normalized by the number of particles in their velocity range. The fifth curve is the same quantity but for the entire velocity range and nearly overlaps t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Electron energy distributions ln[f(E)] at tΩe0 = 0 and 710. E = (γ − 1)mec 2 is the relativistic kinetic energy. To establish that the growth of the fluctua￾tions is associated with the scattering of elec￾trons, we track the time dependence of the elec￾tron distribution function fe(vx, vy), with vz as well as the two spatial coordinates averaged out. We use vx and vy as proxies for the parallel and perpendicular vel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic and electric fields in the simulation. (a) 2D image of Bz at tΩe0 = 175. (b) The same as (a) but for Ex. (c) Spacetime diagram in x−t space for the entire simulation at the location y/de = 64.32 (line “1” in (a)). (d) Line plots of the perpendicular magnetic fields By and Bz at y/de = 20.48 (line “2” in (a)). (e) Hodogram (By vs. Bz) at line “2” but from x/de = 40.96 to 81.92. velocity in the plus y directi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a has been filled in and the contours −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 vy / V Ae0 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 (a) ln(f(vx,vy,tΩe0=0)) [AU] −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 vy / V Ae0 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 (b) ln(f(vx,vy,tΩe0=177)) [AU] −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 vy / V Ae0 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 vx / VAe0 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electron trapping widths. The n = 0 (orange), n = 1 (red) and n = −1 (blue) resonances for the rightward-propagating whistler at peak amplitude (B/B ˜ 0 = 0.125,kxde = 0.6, kyde = 1), calculated using expression (6). The EAW n = 0 trapping width (green) is overlaid for…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    f թr]X-CӐ v yWq/3դ `a p N0 ;9Fo -4 A gy

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 739 LP

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    F., Vasko, I., et al

    Agapitov, O., Drake, J. F., Vasko, I., et al. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 2168

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2012, Geophysical Research Letters, 39, 2007

    Artemyev, A., Agapitov, O., Breuillard, H., Krasnoselskikh, V., & Rolland, G. 2012, Geophysical Research Letters, 39, 2007

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    V., Vasiliev, A

    Artemyev, A. V., Vasiliev, A. A., Mourenas, D., et al. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 5727

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Kinetic theory of the electron strahl in the solar wind

    Boldyrev, S., & Horaites, K. 2019, arXiv:1908.01902

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 092304

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

    ---. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

    work page 2016

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092110

    ---. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092110

    2017

  2. [10]

    F., Agapitov, O

    Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O. V., & Mozer, F. S. 2015, Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 2563

    2015

  3. [11]

    F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M. A. 2006, Nature, 443, 553

    2006

  4. [12]

    G., Dennis, B

    Emslie, A. G., Dennis, B. R., Holman, G. D., & Hudson, H. S. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, 1

    2005

  5. [13]

    G., Dennis, B

    Emslie, A. G., Dennis, B. R., Shih, A. Y., et al. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 759, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/71

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Forbes, T. G. 1988, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library book series (ASSL, volume 143)

    1988

  7. [15]

    2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 062506

    F \" u l \" o p, T., Pokol, G., Helander, P., & Lisak, M. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 062506

    2006

  8. [16]

    E., Chen, B., Dennis, B

    Gary, D. E., Chen, B., Dennis, B. R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 83

    2018

  9. [17]

    P., & Tokar, R

    Gary, S. P., & Tokar, R. L. 1985, Physics of Fluids, 28, 2439

    1985

  10. [18]

    D., Palmadesso, P., & Papadopoulos, K

    Haber, I., Huba, J. D., Palmadesso, P., & Papadopoulos, K. 1978, The Physics of Fluids, 21, 1013

    1978

  11. [19]

    1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 26, 1146

    Kadomtsev, B., & Pogutse, O. 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 26, 1146

    1968

  12. [20]

    Kajdi c , P., Alexandrova, O., Maksimovic, M., Lacombe, C., & Fazakerley, A. N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 172

    2016

  13. [21]

    Karimabadi, H., Akimoto, K., Omidi, N., & Menyuk, C. R. 1990, Physics of Fluids B, 2, 606

    1990

  14. [22]

    1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, 97, 13853

    Karimabadi, H., Krauss-Varban, D., & Terasawa, T. 1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, 97, 13853

    1992

  15. [23]

    A., Churazov, E., & Spitkovsky, A

    Komarov, S., Schekochihin, A. A., Churazov, E., & Spitkovsky, A. 2018, J. Plasma Phys, 84

    2018

  16. [24]

    2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 102303

    Krafft, C., & Volokitin, A. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 102303

    2010

  17. [25]

    A., & Trivelpiece, A

    Krall, N. A., & Trivelpiece, A. W. 1986, Principles of Plasma Physics (San Francisco Press)

    1986

  18. [26]

    S., Glesener, L., et al

    Krucker, S., Hudson, H. S., Glesener, L., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1108

    2010

  19. [27]

    M., & Lin, R

    Krucker, S., White, S. M., & Lin, R. P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 49

    2007

  20. [28]

    V., Vasko, I

    Kuzichev, I. V., Vasko, I. Y., Soto-Chavez, A. R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 81

    2019

  21. [29]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796

    Lacombe, C., Alexandrova, O., Matteini, L., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796

    2014

  22. [30]

    C., Drake, J

    Li, T. C., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 144

    2013

  23. [31]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 7

    ---. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 7

    2014

  24. [32]

    P., Krucker, S., Hurford, G

    Lin, R. P., Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 595, 69

    2003

  25. [33]

    Malkov, M. A. 2017, Physical Review D, 95, 1

    2017

  26. [34]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495

    1994

  27. [35]

    Michel, F. C. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 431, 397

    1994

  28. [36]

    Oka, M., Ishikawa, S., Saint-Hilaire, P., Krucker, S., & Lin, R. P. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 764, 4

    2013

  29. [37]

    Omidi, N., & Gurnett, D. A. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research, 87, 2377

    1982

  30. [38]

    T., Drake, J

    Roberg-Clark, G. T., Drake, J. F., Reynolds, C. S., & Swisdak, M. 2016, Astrophys. J. Lett., 830, L9

    2016

  31. [39]

    2018 a , Phys

    ---. 2018 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 035101

    2018

  32. [40]

    T., Drake, J

    Roberg-Clark, G. T., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., & Reynolds, C. S. 2018 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 154

    2018

  33. [41]

    J., Fletcher, L., Hudson, H

    Sim \ o es, P. J., Fletcher, L., Hudson, H. S., & Russell, A. J. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 777, 1

    2013

  34. [42]

    S., Chen, C

    Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., Chen, C. H. K., & Matteini, L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, L16

    2016

  35. [43]

    D., Salem, C., & Pulupa, M

    Tong, Y., Bale, S. D., Salem, C., & Pulupa, M. 2018, arXiv:1801.07694

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Y., Artemyev, A

    Tong, Y., Vasko, I. Y., Artemyev, A. V., Bale, S. D., & Mozer, F. S. 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 41

    2019

  37. [45]

    Y., Pulupa, M., et al

    Tong, Y., Vasko, I. Y., Pulupa, M., et al. 2019 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 870, L6

    2019

  38. [46]

    Y., Agapitov, O

    Vasko, I. Y., Agapitov, O. V., Mozer, F. S., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, 195101

    2018

  39. [47]

    Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al

    Vasko, I. Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, L29

    2019

  40. [48]

    Verscharen, D., Chandran, B. D. G., Jeong, S.-Y., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.02832

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al

    Wilson, L. B., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 5

    2013

  42. [50]

    F., et al

    Zeiler, A., Biskamp, D., Drake, J. F., et al. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, 1230

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.