Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 40 references

Spectral properties of mesoscale fluctuations in interplanetary coronal mass ejections

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read ICME magnetic drivers typically carry a narrow 1/f band at mesoscales between the flux rope and the turbulent cascade.

desk verdict Solid first census of ICME mesoscale spectra showing a real shallow band near −1, but the headline number is inflated by taking the max sliding-window α inside a pre-chosen band and then selecting on that max. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23742 v1 pith:2QRYC4TR submitted 2026-07-26 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Anna-Sofia Jylhä , Simon Good , Emilia Kilpua This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionssolarwindturbulencemesoscalefluctuations1/fspectrumAlfvénicitycrosshelicitywaveletspectra
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

Interplanetary coronal mass ejections usually show a large-scale magnetic flux rope and a small-scale turbulent cascade, but the intermediate “mesoscale” band had not been mapped in detail. This study examines magnetic fluctuations in 142 clear flux-rope ICMEs at 1 au with wavelet spectra, defining mesoscales as spacecraft-frame frequencies between 10^{-4} and 10^{-3} Hz. Across the sample the spectrum systematically flattens in that band, with a mean slope near −1, distinctly shallower than both the steeper large-scale rope and the inertial-range cascade. The same fluctuations are relatively incompressible, show high cross-helicity magnitudes (balanced when the spectrum is smooth, antisunward when bumpy), and more negative residual energy than the turbulence below. Slow-wind intervals display similar intermediate-scale behavior. The result implies that a spectrally narrow 1/f range is a typical feature of ICME drivers, not only of ordinary solar wind.

What carries the argument

Sliding-window spectral index α of time-averaged Morlet wavelet power spectra (0.7-decade window), used both to locate the local maximum of signed α inside the mesoscale band and to separate smooth power-law from bumpy spectra via fit uncertainty; fluctuation diagnostics (residual energy, rectified cross helicity, magnetic helicity, compressibility) are then evaluated at that frequency.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same Wind ICME list with substantially different sliding-window widths or with mesoscale band edges shifted by half a decade or more; if the near-−1 flattening and the associated Alfvénicity statistics disappear or move outside the band, the claimed intermediate 1/f range is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In 142 ICME magnetic drivers at 1 au, magnetic power spectra are systematically less steep at mesoscales (10^{-4}–10^{-3} Hz) than at larger flux-rope scales or smaller inertial-range scales, with an average spectral index close to −1. The mesoscale fluctuations are relatively Alfvénic (high |cross helicity|, low compressibility) yet more magnetically dominated (more negative residual energy) than the turbulence at higher frequencies, indicating a distinct, spectrally narrow 1/f regime between the global rope and the cascade.

Load-bearing premise

That a local peak of the sliding-window spectral slope inside a pre-chosen frequency band, found with a fixed-width fit window, reliably marks a real physical mesoscale regime rather than an artifact of the chosen band or window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mesoscale fluctuations inside ICME drivers form a distinct spectral band that is neither pure flux-rope structure nor fully developed MHD turbulence.
  • A balanced sunward/antisunward mix of Alfvénic fluctuations is typical when the mesoscale spectrum is a clean power law; antisunward dominance accompanies bumpier spectra.
  • The mesoscale band may act as an energy reservoir that feeds the steeper inertial-range cascade at smaller scales.
  • Slow solar wind at 1 au exhibits a statistically similar intermediate-scale flattening, so the feature is not unique to ICMEs.
  • Global closed-field topology inside ICMEs can naturally produce the more balanced cross-helicity distribution seen in the smoother cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mesoscale 1/f band is an injection range, radial-evolution studies should show it narrowing or migrating as the cascade develops with heliocentric distance.
  • Separating ICMEs with open versus closed magnetic connectivity could test whether bumpy, antisunward-dominated spectra trace open-field channels.
  • The same sliding-window α diagnostic applied to sheaths or to ICMEs without clear flux ropes would show whether the intermediate band requires a coherent rope background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes magnetic-field fluctuations in 142 Wind ICME magnetic drivers at 1 au, using Morlet wavelet spectra and a sliding 0.7-decade spectral-index fit to characterize the spacecraft-frame band 10^-4–10^-3 Hz. In 96 events the authors identify a local maximum of the signed spectral index in this band, interpreted as a distinct, relatively shallow mesoscale range. They report mean indices of −1.19 for whole intervals and −1.06 for 5λ sub-intervals, versus steeper values at larger and inertial-range scales. Elsasser, residual-energy, magnetic-helicity, and compressibility diagnostics are evaluated at the mesoscale α maximum, and a slow-wind comparison sample shows broadly similar behavior. The authors conclude that ICMEs typically contain a narrow, approximately 1/f mesoscale range with mixed Alfvénic properties.

Significance. If the spectral feature is shown to be estimator-independent, this would be a useful statistical characterization of the poorly studied transition between ICME flux-rope structure and developed turbulence, with implications for a possible balanced 1/f energy reservoir. The study has several strengths: a large, catalog-based Wind sample; transparent standard wavelet and Elsasser diagnostics; checks against flux-rope subtraction; whole-event and correlation-length-scaled sub-interval analyses; an independent comparison between the α-extremum frequency and correlation frequency; and a slow-wind control sample. The underlying spacecraft data, event catalog, and wavelet package are publicly available, making the requested robustness tests feasible and the central result readily falsifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§§3.1–3.2, Fig. 4, Table 1] The headline comparison uses different statistics for different bands: mesoscale α is the maximum signed value from a noisy sliding-window profile, whereas the inertial and large-scale values are band means. Taking a maximum biases the mesoscale estimate toward shallower values even for a smooth rollover from the steep flux-rope spectrum to the inertial range. Moreover, the 96-event subset is selected because such an in-band maximum is robustly present. Thus α≈−1.19/−1.06 and “typically present” may partly reflect estimator and selection effects. Please provide max-free, full-142 results using a common band statistic, paired per-event comparisons, and an objective definition of “robustly identified.”
  2. [§3.1, Figs. 1–4] The fit window is 0.7 decades while the entire mesoscale band is only one decade. A window centered near either edge necessarily includes adjacent spectral regimes; if constrained to lie wholly inside the band, its center can traverse only about 0.3 decades. The statement that 0.5–1-decade windows give comparable results is not quantified. A smooth curved transition can also produce a local α maximum without a distinct power-law band. Please show window-width and edge-treatment sensitivity, and compare the spectra with a smooth-rollover null model—ideally including synthetic spectra with realistic noise—versus a broken/three-range model.
  3. [§3.3, Fig. 5, Table 1] The mesoscale σ_r, σ_c, |σ_m|, and c values are taken at the frequency of the α maximum, while values in the other two ranges are averages over those bands. Consequently, the reported Alfvénicity contrasts are not band-level like-for-like comparisons and inherit the same frequency-selection procedure. This need not bias every diagnostic in the same direction, but it does leave the abstract claims about enhanced |σ_c| tails, low compressibility, and more negative σ_r unsecured. Please also report averages/integrals across the full mesoscale band and control values at band-center or randomly selected frequencies.
  4. [§§3.2 and 3.4, Figs. 4 and 6] The paper says the mesoscale slopes are “significantly” less steep, but no confidence interval or paired/hierarchical test is given. The 5λ sub-intervals belonging to the same ICME are correlated and should not be treated as independent measurements. Likewise, the smooth/bumpy division at e_α=0.17 is justified only as an approximate midpoint of its distribution. Please use event-level paired tests or a hierarchical/bootstrap analysis, report effective sample sizes, and test sensitivity to the e_α threshold—especially for the conclusion that smooth spectra are balanced while bumpy spectra are predominantly antisunward.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 4, Table 1] State explicitly whether PSD∝f^α and give the number of events or sub-intervals entering every distribution. In particular, make clear throughout the abstract and §3.2 whether the ICME mesoscale statistics refer to the selected 96 events rather than all 142.
  2. [Table 1] The table mixes whole-interval large-scale values with 5λ inertial/mesoscale values and mixes maximum-based and band-mean estimators. Please label these choices in the table and consider adding the corresponding whole-event mesoscale rows.
  3. [§2 and §3.5] The slow-wind sample selection is under-specified. Please give the dates or an event list, explain how the 26 intervals were chosen, confirm that they are contiguous and ICME-free, and state whether any additional selection criteria were applied.
  4. [§4, first paragraph] The reported relation k=1/l implies l=v_sw/(2πf_sc), not the usual advected wavelength v_sw/f_sc. This is internally consistent with the quoted 4×10^-4–4×10^-3 au range, but should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Figs. 1–3] Mark the fixed mesoscale-band edges and the effective extent of the 0.7-decade fitting window in representative PSD/α panels. This would make the spectral feature and possible edge contamination easier to assess.
  6. [§3.1, §3.2, Figs. 1 and 6] Minor wording/grammar issues include “the spectra has been divided,” “a large range values,” and Fig. 6's “histograms parameter values.” The caption phrase “largest signed α” would be clearer as “maximum (least-steep) signed α.”
  7. [Data availability] The event list, 5λ partition, and analysis scripts used to produce the tables would improve reproducibility beyond the public IRFU-Matlab package and catalog.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Observational survey with no circular derivation: measured spectral indices and helicities are not forced by construction from their inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical Wind-data survey of ICME magnetic spectra. Its central claims (mesoscale spectral index near −1; elevated |σ_c| tails; low compressibility; more negative residual energy than the inertial range) are direct measurements from wavelet PSDs and Elsasser diagnostics, not quantities derived from a first-principles chain or from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Event selection (96/142 with a clear sliding-window α maximum inside a pre-chosen band) and evaluation of Alfvénicity at the α-max frequency are methodological choices that can bias the reported means shallow and condition the sample; those are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity of a derivation. Self-citations to Good et al. supply background on flux-rope steepening and ICME cross helicity and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems that force the present result. Slow-wind comparison intervals are independent external benchmarks. No step reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction, and no 'prediction' equals a fit. Score 0 is the honest finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is empirical spectral statistics. Dependence on prior literature is standard (wavelets, Elsasser variables, Parker-spiral rectification, ICME catalog classes). The main paper-specific choices are the mesoscale band edges, sliding-window width, subset selection on α maximum, and the e_α threshold—not new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • mesoscale frequency band = 10^{-4} Hz < f_sc < 10^{-3} Hz
    Hard bounds 10⁻⁴–10⁻³ Hz define which α maximum counts and where mesoscale parameters are taken; motivated by prior flux-rope/inertial breaks but still a choice that selects the claimed regime.
  • sliding-window spectral-fit width = 0.7 decades
    α(f) is computed in a logarithmically fixed 0.7-decade window; authors note 0.5–1 decade give similar results, but the width controls smoothness of the α maximum used for event selection.
  • e_α smooth-vs-bumpy threshold = 0.17
    Sub-intervals split at e_α = 0.17, described as the approximate midpoint of the uncertainty distribution; this cut drives the balanced vs antisunward σ_c contrast.
  • sub-interval length = 5λ
    Local sampling uses intervals of duration 5 correlation times, required to be ≫ 1/f_m; choice affects how many sub-intervals and cone-of-influence discards enter the PDFs.
  • ion composition for Alfvén normalization = 4% He++
    Mass density assumes 4% alphas / 96% protons (ρ = 7 m_p n_p / 6) when forming b and Elsasser variables; standard but not measured per interval here.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Morlet wavelet spectrograms time-averaged over the interval yield a faithful estimate of the trace magnetic PSD and of scale-dependent σ_r, σ_c, σ_m, c.
    Section 3.1; standard in solar-wind spectral work but assumes sufficient statistical stationarity inside ICME drivers and sub-intervals.
  • domain assumption Taylor’s hypothesis converts spacecraft-frame frequency to spatial scale (k = 2π f_sc / v_sw) for interpreting mesoscales as ~4×10^{-4}–4×10^{-3} au.
    Discussion section; usual for 1 au solar wind but less secure for large-amplitude ICME structures.
  • domain assumption Second-order polynomial (or Lundquist) fits remove the global flux-rope field so that correlation time λ characterizes fluctuations rather than the background rotation.
    Eq. (1) and Fig. 2; authors show mesoscale PSD is weakly affected, which supports but does not prove the detrending is unique.
  • domain assumption Rectified cross helicity sign is defined relative to the equivalent Parker spiral at 1 au (positive = sunward, negative = antisunward in their convention as stated).
    Section 3.3; standard for open solar wind, more interpretive inside closed ICME flux ropes.
  • domain assumption ICME magnetic drivers classified Fr/Fr−/Fr+ in the Nieves-Chinchilla et al. (2018) catalog with duration ≥15 h and no significant gaps form a representative sample of clear flux-rope ICMEs.
    Section 2 sample construction; catalog morphology cuts and duration floor shape which events enter the 142.
  • ad hoc to paper A local maximum of signed α inside the mesoscale band identifies a distinct intermediate spectral regime rather than a fitting artifact of the sliding window.
    Section 3.1 categorization into 96 robust events; this is the operational definition of the claimed mesoscale 1/f feature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral properties of mesoscale fluctuations in interplanetary coronal mass ejections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QRYC4TR

@misc{pith2026260723742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral properties of mesoscale fluctuations in interplanetary coronal mass ejections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QRYC4TR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23742}
}
abstract

Magnetic fields in interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) often display a flux rope structure at large scales and a turbulent cascade of fluctuations at smaller scales. However, the nature of fluctuations at transition scales between the flux rope and turbulence - i.e., at mesoscales - has not been previously examined in detail. Mesoscale fluctuations of the magnetic field in 142 ICME intervals with clear flux rope signatures at 1 au have been examined using wavelet power spectra, with "mesoscale" defined here as spacecraft-frame frequencies $10^{-4}\ \text{Hz}<f_\mathrm{sc}< 10^{-3}\ \text{Hz}$, equivalent to timescales $2.8\ \text{hr}\gtrsim \tau \gtrsim 17\ \text{min}$. The spectra were found to be significantly less steep at mesoscales than at larger and smaller scales, with an average spectral slope close to $-1$ at these intermediate scales. The mesoscale fluctuations had relatively high cross helicity magnitudes and low compressibility, suggesting a significant degree of Alfv\'enicity, while also having more negative residual energy than the turbulent fluctuations found at smaller scales. Uncertainties in the spectral slope values at mesoscales were used to distinguish between spectra showing a relatively smooth power-law behavior or (less commonly) a more bumpy trend; the smoother power-law intervals had a balanced cross helicity distribution while the more bumpy spectra had a predominantly antisunward cross helicity. Slow wind intervals were similarly analyzed, and showed similar properties to the ICMEs. These results indicate that a spectrally narrow $1/f$ range is typically present in ICMEs at mesoscales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-averaged wavelet PSD of the magnetic field in three example ICMEs. From top to bottom, the panels show the magnetic field magnitude and components in GSE coordinates, the PSD, and the spectral index calculated with a sliding window. Vertical lines display the correlation frequency, fλ, and the frequency of the largest signed α value in the mesoscale band, fm. analyze mesoscale spectral properties without any fl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of flux rope field subtraction on the magnetic field PSD. The top panel shows the magnetic field magnitude and components in GSE coordinates with fits to each component. The Lundquist fit is shown by the colored lines and second-order polynomial fits by the black dash-dotted lines. The middle panel shows the magnetic field PSD for the total field, with Lundquist fit subtraction, and with polynomial subtractio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of 5λ sub-interval analysis. The top two panels shows the magnetic field time series and corresponding PSD spectrogram, with sub-intervals marked by vertical lines. The two bottom rows show the time-averaged PSD of each sub-interval and corresponding sliding-window α profile. Vertical lines in the bottom rows denote the correlation frequency, fλ, and frequency of the largest α at mesoscales for the entire… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PDFs of α values and other key parameters. The figure shows: the maximum α value for the mesoscales, the mean α values in the in￾ertial range, and mean values in the large-scale range (top panel); the equivalent α values in the mesoscale and inertial ranges for the 5λ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of uncertainties in mesoscale α values, eα, and pa￾rameters divided by larger and smaller eα values. The mean values are denoted with dash-dotted lines of the same color as the distribution. The top panel depicts the eα values for the full events and 5λ s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of α values, correlation lengths and frequencies of the local maximum α at mesoscales in a slow wind version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2009, Phys

    Alexandrova, O., Saur, J., Lacombe, C., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 165003

    2009

  2. [2]

    Bavassano, B., Dobrowolny, M., Mariani, F., & Ness, N. F. 1982, J. Geo- phys. Res., 87, 3617

    1982

  3. [3]

    Belcher, J. W. & Davis, Jr., L. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 3534

    1971

  4. [4]

    E., Denton, M

    Borovsky, J. E., Denton, M. H., & Smith, C. W. 2019, J. Geophys. Res., 124, 2406

    2019

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 627, A96

    Bruno, R., Telloni, D., Sorriso-Valvo, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A96

    2019

  6. [6]

    Chen, C. H. K. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    2016

  7. [7]

    Cranmer, S. R. & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, ApJS, 156, 265

    2005

  8. [8]

    Denskat, K. U. & Neubauer, F. M. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 2215

    1982

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Frisch, U., Pouquet, A., Leorat, J., & Mazure, A. 1975, J. Fluid Mech., 68, 769

    1975

  2. [10]

    1983, in NASA Conference Publication, V ol

    Goldstein, H. 1983, in NASA Conference Publication, V ol. 228, NASA Confer- ence Publication, ed. M. Neugebauer, 0.731

    1983

  3. [11]

    W., Hatakka, L

    Good, S. W., Hatakka, L. M., Ala-Lahti, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2425

    2022

  4. [12]

    W., Kilpua, E

    Good, S. W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Ala-Lahti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, L32

    2020

  5. [13]

    W., Kilpua, E

    Good, S. W., Kilpua, E. K. J., LaMoury, A. T., et al. 2019, J. Geophys. Res., 124, 4960

    2019

  6. [14]

    W., Lalueza Puértolas, J., Jylhä, A.-S

    Good, S. W., Lalueza Puértolas, J., Jylhä, A.-S. M., & Kilpua, E. K. J. 2026, Sol. Phys., 301, 84

    2026

  7. [15]

    W., Rantala, O

    Good, S. W., Rantala, O. K., Jylhä, A. S. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, L30

    2023

  8. [16]

    W., Vasquez, B

    Hamilton, K., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., & Leamon, R. J. 2008, J. Geo- phys. Res., 113, A01106

    2008

  9. [17]

    Khotyaintsev, Y ., Nilsson, T., Johansson, E. P. G., et al. 2024, IRFU-Matlab

    2024

  10. [18]

    P., Ac ˜una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac ˜una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 207

    1995

  11. [19]

    P., Jones, J

    Lepping, R. P., Jones, J. A., & Burlaga, L. F. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 11957

    1990

  12. [20]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 125

    1995

  13. [21]

    D., Belcher, J

    Liu, Y ., Richardson, J. D., Belcher, J. W., Kasper, J. C., & Elliott, H. A. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A01102

    2006

  14. [22]

    D., Hu, H., Zhao, X., Chen, C., & Wang, R

    Liu, Y . D., Hu, H., Zhao, X., Chen, C., & Wang, R. 2024, ApJ, 974, L8

    2024

  15. [23]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, L7

    2018

  16. [24]

    S., & Chen, C

    Matteini, L., Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., & Chen, C. H. K. 2018, ApJ, 869, L32

    2018

  17. [25]

    Matthaeus, W. H. & Goldstein, M. L. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 6011

    1982

  18. [26]

    Matthaeus, W. H. & Goldstein, M. L. 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 495

    1986

  19. [27]

    C., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., V ourlidas, A., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2018, Sol. Phys., 293, 25

    2018

  20. [28]

    Y ., et al

    Palmerio, E., Carcaboso, F., Khoo, L. Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 108

    2024

  21. [29]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664

    1958

  22. [30]

    A., Karimabadi, H., Sipes, T., Ko, Y .-K., & Lepri, S

    Roberts, D. A., Karimabadi, H., Sipes, T., Ko, Y .-K., & Lepri, S. 2020, ApJ, 889, 153

    2020

  23. [31]

    M., et al

    Scolini, C., Lugaz, N., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 135

    2024

  24. [32]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 146

    Scolini, C., Zhuang, B., Lugaz, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 146

    2025

  25. [33]

    Shaikh, Z. I. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3005

    2024

  26. [34]

    Smith, C. W. 2003, Adv. Space Res., 32, 1971

    2003

  27. [35]

    E., Good, S

    Soljento, J. E., Good, S. W., Osmane, A., & Kilpua, E. K. J. 2023, ApJ, 946, L19

    2023

  28. [36]

    & Compo, G

    Torrence, C. & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61

    1998

  29. [37]

    1989, Phys

    Velli, M., Grappin, R., & Mangeney, A. 1989, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 1807

    1989

  30. [38]

    2012, ApJ, 750, L33

    Verdini, A., Grappin, R., Pinto, R., & Velli, M. 2012, ApJ, 750, L33

    2012

  31. [39]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5

    2019

  32. [40]

    T., Roberts, D

    Wicks, R. T., Roberts, D. A., Mallet, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 177 9

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.