Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Magnetic Reconnection Process in Partially Ionized Fluids: Insights from the Solar Chromosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Charged–neutral collisions, not just plasma beta or stored magnetic energy, drive enhanced chromospheric reconnection and super-linear energy release.

desk verdict Solid MAGNUS two-fluid chromosphere runs with elastic+inelastic collisions and clear budgets, but the abstract’s “collisions drive it” claim is not isolated by the experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28447 v1 pith:72L4TEWG submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR

Adrian R. Montañez-Lobo , Fabio D. Lora-Clavijo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords MagneticreconnectionPartiallyionizedplasmasSolarchromosphereTwo-fluidMHDIonizationandrecombinationCollisionalheatingNumericalsimulations
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 asks how magnetic reconnection works when the solar chromosphere is treated as two fluids—charged particles and neutrals—linked by elastic collisions, ionization, and recombination. Using 2.5D resistive MHD runs at quiet-Sun field strengths of 100–120 G, the authors show that reconnection still forms arcade-like and jet-like structures, heats the plasma by 18% to 110%, and reaches peak reconnection rates of 0.226–0.279. Although plasma beta rises only modestly, the liberated energy grows faster than the increase in available magnetic energy, which they attribute to collisional coupling rather than beta or field strength alone. In a small chromospheric volume the released energy sits at 10^22–10^23 erg, scaling toward micro-flare levels if the domain is enlarged. A sympathetic reader cares because the result reframes chromospheric flares and jets as multi-species processes in which neutrals actively reshape heating and energy partition.

What carries the argument

Two-fluid resistive MHD (charged + neutral) with collisional source terms for mass, momentum and energy (elastic friction plus ionization/recombination rates), integrated by an IMEX Runge–Kutta scheme that treats the stiff collision terms implicitly while advancing advection and magnetic terms explicitly.

What would settle it

Repeat the same stratified setup at 100–120 G with collisions switched off (or with a single-fluid MHD counterpart) and check whether the fractional energy release and peak reconnection rates still rise super-linearly with B0; if they do, the collision-driven interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In stratified quiet-Sun chromospheric two-fluid simulations at 100, 110 and 120 G, magnetic reconnection heats charged and neutral components by roughly 18% to 110%, produces peak reconnection rates of 0.226, 0.253 and 0.279, and liberates 10^22–10^23 erg inside a 0.4×0.01×0.4 Mm³ volume; the authors conclude that charged–neutral collisions, not merely the slight rise in plasma beta or the stored magnetic energy, drive the enhanced reconnection and the super-linear growth of released energy with field strength.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that collisions cause the extra energy release rests on runs that vary only the initial magnetic field, with no collision-free or single-fluid control experiments and with reconnection seeded by a fixed hand-chosen anomalous resistivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Chromospheric reconnection morphology (arcade plus upward lobe) and heating remain flare-like even at quiet-Sun field strengths once two-fluid collisions are included.
  • Ionization overtakes recombination in the hottest, accelerated regions, producing observable ionization signatures at arcade bases and ejected lobes.
  • Energy release efficiency increases with B0 faster than the available magnetic energy, so collisional coupling must be retained in chromospheric flare and jet models.
  • Scaling the simulated volume to micro-flare lengths would push the energy budget into the 10^26–10^28 erg range, making the mechanism a candidate for small-scale solar eruptive events.
  • Neutral enthalpy acts as a reservoir that feeds the charged fluid, so single-fluid models will mis-partition heat and kinetic energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If collisions dominate the excess release, instruments that resolve ion–neutral drift or differential line widths in chromospheric jets should see frictional heating signatures that track the reconnection rate rather than B2 alone.
  • The same two-fluid IMEX machinery could be re-run with active-region fields (hundreds of G) to test whether the super-linear efficiency saturates or continues, directly linking quiet-Sun micro-events to larger flares.
  • Because neutrals start out of hydrostatic equilibrium, any future control suite should also restore neutral force balance before claiming that collisions alone set the energy budget.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2.5D two-fluid (charged + neutral) resistive-MHD simulations of magnetic reconnection in a stratified quiet-Sun chromosphere using an extended MAGNUS code with elastic and inelastic collision source terms integrated by an IMEX-ESDIRK scheme. Three initial field strengths (100, 110, 120 G) are evolved from a force-free Harris sheet with localized anomalous resistivity. The authors report morphological formation of an arcade and upward lobe, component heating of ~18–110%, peak reconnection rates MA = 0.226, 0.253, 0.279, and energy release of 10^22–10^23 erg in a 0.4×0.01×0.4 Mm³ volume. They interpret the super-linear growth of released-energy fraction with B0 and the high rates as driven by charged–neutral collisions rather than the modest rise in plasma β or available magnetic energy alone.

Significance. If the causal attribution to collisional coupling is substantiated, the work would supply a concrete, quantitative bridge between two-fluid chromospheric microphysics and micro-flare energetics, and would demonstrate that an IMEX treatment of stiff ionization/recombination and friction terms is practical for stratified solar atmospheres. Strengths that already stand independently of the interpretive claim include a clearly written two-fluid system (Eqs. 1–15), semi-empirical rate formulae, a documented IMEX-ESDIRK update with Butcher tableaus, and internally consistent morphological, rate, and energy diagnostics across the B0 scan. These elements are useful even if the collision-driver claim requires additional controls.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §§5.3–5.4, 6; Eqs. 24–25] Abstract and §6 assert that charged–neutral collisions—not the modest β rise or available magnetic energy—drive the enhanced reconnection and the rise in released-energy fraction (14.92%→16.40% from 100→120 G; §§5.3–5.4). The only varied parameter is B0 (Eq. 24), which simultaneously changes stored EM∝B0², plasma β (Fig. 2), Alfvén speed, and the collisional coefficients α, Γion, Γrec. Reconnection is seeded by a fixed Gaussian anomalous resistivity (Eq. 25, η0=6.28×10^4 Ω·m) chosen for S~10²–10⁴, so the diffusion region is not set by collisional microphysics. No single-fluid, α=0, or ionization/recombination-off control suite is reported. Without at least one such baseline, the causal claim that collisions (rather than extra free energy or the prescribed η) produce the super-linear efficiency and high MA cannot be isolated and should be softened or supported by additional runs.
  2. [§2.1; Fig. 13] §2.1 states that neutrals satisfy ionization–recombination balance and Tn=Ti but do not satisfy ∇Pn=ρng, so the neutral fluid begins out of hydrostatic equilibrium. The secondary enhancement of the reconnection rate (Fig. 13) and part of the early kinetic/enthalpy evolution could therefore be contaminated by relaxation of this initial imbalance rather than by reconnection-driven collisions. The manuscript should quantify the amplitude of the initial neutral force imbalance, show a short relaxation test without resistivity, or demonstrate that the reported heating percentages and MA peaks are insensitive to it.
  3. [§5.3–5.4; Eq. 41] The energy-scaling argument in §5.4 (E∝V) and the micro-flare relevance claim rest on a 2.5D domain of thickness 0.01 Mm with Dirichlet lateral/bottom and Neumann top boundaries. While the order-of-magnitude extrapolation is plausible, the high reported MA (0.226–0.279 versus Petschek ~0.074) is explicitly attributed in part to the small domain size. A brief resolution or domain-size sensitivity test, or a clearer statement that the absolute MA values are not claimed to be scale-invariant, is needed before the rates are used to support the collision-enhancement narrative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 1, 5] Figure 1 and Figure 5 captions refer to “floating bar” / color bar inconsistently; axis labels and units (Kg/m³ vs kg m⁻³) should be standardized.
  2. [§2, Eqs. 15–16] Equation 15 and the rewritten form (16) mix factors of 1/2 on the inelastic kinetic terms; a short consistency check that Hi = −Hn holds identically would help the reader.
  3. [§5.4] The text occasionally switches between erg and SI without conversion factors when quoting energies; a single unit system (or explicit conversions) would improve readability.
  4. [§§1, 5.1] Several references to “flare-associated reconnection” cite coronal literature; a sentence clarifying that the present quiet-Sun 100–120 G setup is intended as a micro-flare analogue, not a large-flare model, would avoid over-interpretation.
  5. [Throughout] Typos and notation: “MAGNUS code, originally built for ohmic resistivity” (abstract); “Amp` ere”; “Avrett” model citation formatting; B0 versus |B| in figure legends.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Forward two-fluid MHD simulation study: reported heating, rates, and energies are numerical outputs, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper evolves standard two-fluid resistive MHD equations (Eqs. 1–9) with literature collision, ionization, and recombination closures (Eqs. 13–19; Voronov, Smirnov, Braginskii/Draine) from an Avrett-stratified Harris-sheet initial state plus a prescribed anomalous resistivity (Eq. 25). Heating percentages, MA peaks (0.226–0.279), and integrated energies (10^22–10^23 erg) are measured diagnostics of those runs, not algebraic rearrangements of the inputs. Self-citations to MAGNUS and prior applications are methodological infrastructure for the solver and IMEX scheme; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the central claims. Causal over-attribution of the B0 scan to collisions (without collision-off controls) is an experimental-design/correctness issue, not circularity by construction. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or renaming of a known result is present.

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

The result is a numerical experiment. Load-bearing inputs are standard two-fluid MHD plus semi-empirical ionization/recombination and friction formulas, a force-free Harris sheet, Avrett/VAL-C-like stratification, hand-chosen anomalous resistivity, fixed collision cross-section, and an IMEX scheme. No new physical entity is postulated; the main ad hoc elements are numerical/seeding parameters and the incomplete initial equilibrium for neutrals.

free parameters (6)
  • Anomalous resistivity amplitude η0 = 6.28e4 Ω·m
    Sets the local Lundquist number and seeds reconnection at a chosen site; chosen as 6.28×10^4 Ω·m to produce S~10²–10⁴ rather than derived from first principles.
  • Resistivity patch width wη and height hrec = wη=0.066 Mm
    Geometric parameters of the Gaussian η profile that localize onset; wη=0.066 Mm is stated as consistent with expected sheet thickness but is still a free numerical choice.
  • Elastic collision cross-section σ = 1e-20 m²
    Enters α and all elastic coupling; fixed at ~10^{-20} m² from cited models, not varied or constrained by these runs.
  • Initial field strengths B0 = 100, 110, 120 G
    Narrow hand-chosen quiet-Sun scan (100, 110, 120 G) that defines the entire comparative claim about scaling with magnetic energy.
  • Reference ion pressure Pi0 and atmospheric model anchors = Pi0=1.29 Pa
    Pi0=1.29 Pa at 5 Mm and Avrett/VAL-C temperature structure fix the stratified background densities and beta profile.
  • IMEX coefficients ω, κ = ω=(2-√2)/2, κ=-2√2/3
    Scheme parameters fixed for second-order ESDIRK/explicit pairing; affect stability of stiff collision integration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-fluid hydrogen plasma with separate charged and neutral continuity, momentum, and energy equations coupled by Si,n, Ri,n, Hi,n is an adequate description of chromospheric reconnection at the resolved scales.
    Stated in §2 and used throughout; electrons are not evolved separately beyond the charged fluid.
  • domain assumption Semi-empirical Voronov ionization and Smirnov-style recombination rates (Eqs. 17–18) plus Braginskii/Draine friction α (Eq. 19) correctly capture inelastic and elastic coupling.
    Adopted from cited atomic/plasma literature without sensitivity tests in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial charged fluid is hydrostatic and force-free; neutrals satisfy ionization–recombination balance and T_n=T_i but need not satisfy ∇P_n=ρ_n g.
    Explicitly admitted in §2.1; overdetermined equilibrium leaves neutrals out of momentum balance at t=0.
  • domain assumption Localized anomalous Ohmic resistivity is an acceptable proxy for unresolved reconnection onset physics.
    Eq. 25 and surrounding text; standard in resistive MHD but controls where and how fast reconnection starts.
  • ad hoc to paper 2.5D domain with Dirichlet sides/bottom and Neumann top, plus volume scaling E∝V, suffices to infer micro-flare relevance.
    §5 setup and §5.4–6 energy discussion; 3D turbulence, radiation, and conduction are omitted by design.
  • standard math Ideal-gas EOS with γ=5/3 and low-speed Ampère law close the system.
    Eqs. 9–12; standard MHD closure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Reconnection Process in Partially Ionized Fluids: Insights from the Solar Chromosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72L4TEWG

@misc{pith2026260728447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Reconnection Process in Partially Ionized Fluids: Insights from the Solar Chromosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72L4TEWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28447}
}
abstract

Magnetic reconnection converts stored magnetic energy into kinetic energy, heat, and radiation. While extensively studied in fully ionized plasmas, observations show that ionization and recombination also play a role by modifying the local plasma resistivity and enabling additional heating channels. This study examines magnetic reconnection in the partially ionized solar chromosphere, analyzing its morphology and energy releases with attention to elastic collisions, ionization, and recombination. The MAGNUS code, originally built for ohmic resistivity and heat transfer, was modified to handle elastic and inelastic collisions. The simulations are 2.5D resistive MHD with two-fluid effects (charged + neutrals), adapted to handle interactions via these collision terms. A mixed explicit-implicit scheme was implemented to manage the stiffness of these terms. Simulations were carried out for three magnetic field strengths: 100~G, 110~G, and 120~G. These values correspond to the low- to mid-chromosphere under quiet-Sun conditions. We found that reconnection heats the plasma components by 18\% to 110\%. Although plasma beta rises only slightly, the energy release grows far more, indicating that charged--neutral collisions, not just beta or available magnetic energy, drive the enhanced reconnection. Furthermore, ionization and recombination become most significant in regions of peak temperature, particularly where particles are accelerated. Maximum reconnection rates from temporal analysis are 0.226, 0.253, and 0.279, respectively. Finally, in terms of energy, our results show that in a chromospheric volume of $0.4 \times 0.01 \times 0.4$~Mm$^{3}$, the energy released ranges from $10^{22}$ to $10^{23}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representation of the equilibrium solar profile from the atmospheric base up to a height of h = 5 [Mm]. The temperature profile (black line) is shown with its corresponding values on the floating bar to the right, obtained from the observational models of Avrett. In addition, the interpolated profiles of the neutral species (dashed line) and the charged species (solid line) are displayed for the density profiles (be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plasma β as a function of height z (from 1 to 2 Mm) in the chromospheric region for three initial magnetic field strengths B0= 100 G (blue), 110 G (green), and 120 G (red). frequencies, indicating that interactions between charged and neutral particles play a significant role in the plasma dynamics in this region. In contrast, above the transition region, the ionization frequency becomes dominant, exceeding the reco… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of ionization (solid line) and recombination (dashed line) frequencies with height in the solar atmosphere. νin exceeding νni by roughly six orders of magnitude, consistent with the predominance of the ionized component. In the chromosphere layer itself, the ratio between νni and νin typically lies within one to two orders of magnitude, with νni > νin due to the higher neutral density. This asymmetry means… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of elastic collisions as a function of height. The graphic displays the collision frequency of neutral species with charged species (νni, green solid line) and the frequency of charged species with neutral species (νin, orange dashed line). ionized plasma. As a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Close-up view of the atmospheric profiles within the computational domain, extending from 1 to 2 Mm in height. The interpolated temperature profile is shown by the black curve, with the corresponding values indicated by the color bar on the right. Additionally, we pres…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the current density Jy across different magnetic field strengths. Rows represent field strengths of 100, 110, and 120 G (top to bottom), illustrating the morphological response to increasing field intensity. Columns from left to right correspond to snapsho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Morphological evolution of the plasma β parameter at times t = 0.2, 7, and 14 seconds. Although the initial magnetic field strength varies across the three cases, we display only the case B0 = 100 G for clarity. The evolution of β is qualitatively similar for all three…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temperature distributions at 14.0 s for the charged (top row) and neutral (middle row) species, and the difference between them (bottom row), for initial magnetic field strengths B0 = 100, 110, and 120 G (from left to right). The figure illustrates the morphological di…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ionization (top row) and recombination (bottom row) frequencies at time t = 14 seconds for initial magnetic field strengths B0 = 100, 110, and 120 G, ordered from left to right. The figure illustrates the morphology of both frequencies following the reconnection event.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized magnetic field magnitude (top), vertical profiles of the z￾velocity component (center), and plasma temperature (bottom) as a function of height. Measurements are recorded along the z-axis at the origin of the xy-plane (x = 0, y = 0) within the chromospheric…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of collisionality during the reconnection process. The rows display the inelastic frequencies of ionization (solid) and recombination (dashed), and elastic frequencies νni (solid) and νin (dashed), while columns correspond to the initial magnetic field confi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Temporal evolution of the collisional energy transfer terms during the reconnection process. The rows categorize the components of the interaction term Hi , representing the kinetic power transfer via elastic (PE) and inelastic (PI ) collisions, alongside the inter-sp…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Temporal evolution of the magnetic reconnection rate MA. Profiles correspond to magnetic field strengths of 100 G (blue), 110 G (green), and 120 G (red). Measurements were recorded at the edge of the current sheet at the reconnection site, (x, y, z) = (0.2, 0, 1.4) [M…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Temporal evolution of the energy components for the charged species (solid lines) and neutral species (dashed lines). The panels illustrate the variation in kinetic energy (∆K), enthalpy (∆H), magnetic energy (∆EM), and cumulative Ohmic dissipation (Eη), calculated re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Mouschovias T C, Ciolek G E and Morton S A 2011Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society4151751–1782

  2. [2]

    Ballester J L, Alexeev I, Collados M, Downes T, Pfaff R F, Gilbert H, Khodachenko M, Khomenko E, Shaikhislamov I F, Soler Ret al.2018Space Science Reviews21458

  3. [3]

    Kataoka R and Sato T 2017Geoscience Frontiers8247–252

  4. [4]

    Leake J, DeVore C, Thayer J, Burns A, Crowley G, Gilbert H, Huba J, Krall J, Linton M, Lukin Vet al.2014Space Science Reviews184107–172

  5. [5]

    Judge P 2006 Observations of the solar chromosphereSolar MHD theory and observations: a high spatial resolution perspectivevol 354 p 259

    2006

  6. [6]

    Shibata K and Magara T 2011Living Reviews in Solar Physics81–99

  7. [7]

    De Pontieu B, Title A M, Lemen J R, Kushner G D, Akin D J, Allard B, Berger T, Boerner P, Cheung M, Chou C, Drake J F, Duncan D W, Freeland S, Heyman G F, Hoffman C, Hurlburt N E, Lindgren R W, Mathur D, Rehse R, Sabolish D, Seguin R, Schrijver C J, Tarbell T D, W¨ ulser J P, Wolfson C J, Yanari C, Mudge J, Nguyen-Phuc N, Timmons R, van Bezooijen R, Weing...

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Mulay S M and Fletcher L 2021Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society5042842–2852

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Zweibel E, Lawrence E, Yoo J, Ji H, Yamada M and Malyshkin L 2011Physics of Plasmas18 111211

  2. [10]

    Ni L, Ji H, Murphy N and Jara-almonte J 2020Proceedings of the Royal Society A476

  3. [11]

    Carlsson M, De Pontieu B and Hansteen V H 2019Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 57189–226

  4. [12]

    Pontin D I and Priest E R 2022Living Reviews in Solar Physics191

  5. [13]

    Blanc M, Kallenbach R and Erkaev N 2005Space Science Reviews116227–298

  6. [14]

    Clark G, Kinnison J, Kelly D, Kollmann P, Li W, Jaynes A, Blum L, Marshall R, Turner D, Cohen Iet al.2023Authorea Preprints

  7. [15]

    Jara-Almonte J, Ji H, Yoo J, Yamada M, Fox W and Daughton W 2019Physical review letters 122015101

  8. [16]

    Wargnier Q, Martinez-Sykora J, Hansteen V H and De Pontieu B 2023The Astrophysical Journal 946115

  9. [17]

    Hirayama T 1974Solar Physics34323–338

  10. [18]

    Held 13-21 July451966

    Wang L, Li Y, Ding M, Cheng X and Li Q 202445th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 13-21 July451966

  11. [19]

    Sadykov V M, Dominguez S V, Kosovichev A G, Sharykin I N, Struminsky A B and Zimovets I 2015The Astrophysical Journal805167

  12. [20]

    Gary G A 2001Solar Physics20371–86

  13. [21]

    Pozuelo S E, Ramos A A, de la Cruz Rodr ´ ıguez J, Bueno J T and Gonz´ alez M M 2023Astronomy & Astrophysics672A141

  14. [22]

    Wang J, Li W, Bai X, Sun Y, Deng Y and Lin J 2026Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 26075004

  15. [23]

    Navarro A, Lora-Clavijo F and Gonz´ alez G A 2017The Astrophysical Journal84457

  16. [24]

    Popescu Braileanu B, Lukin V, Khomenko E and De Vicente ´A 2019Astronomy & Astrophysics 627A25

  17. [25]

    Voronov G S 1997Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables651

  18. [26]

    Smirnov B M 2003Physics of atoms and ions

  19. [27]

    Braginskii S I 1965Reviews of Plasma Physics1205

  20. [28]

    Draine B 1986Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society220133–148

  21. [29]

    Avrett E H and Loeser R 2008Astrophysical Journal Supplements175229–276

  22. [30]

    Vernazza J E, Avrett E H and Loeser R 1981Astrophysical Journal Supplements45635–725

  23. [31]

    Zhang F, Poedts S, Lani A, Ku´ zma B and Murawski K 2021Astrophysical Journal911119 (Preprint2011.13469)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Harris E G 1962Il Nuovo Cimento23115–121

  25. [33]

    Murtas G, Hillier A and Snow B 2021Physics of Plasmas28032901 (Preprint2102.01630)

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zweibel E G and Yamada M 2009Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics47291–332

  27. [35]

    Toro E F 2013Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics: a practical introduction (Springer Science & Business Media)

  28. [36]

    Navarro A, Murawski K, W´ ojcik D and Lora-Clavijo F 2019Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society4892769–2774

  29. [37]

    Navarro A, Lora-Clavijo F, Murawski K and Poedts S 2021Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society5003329–3334

  30. [38]

    Wandurraga P C, Navarro A and Lora-Clavijo F D 2021Revista de la Academia Colombiana de 34 Ciencias Exactas, F ´ ısicas y Naturales4552–66

  31. [39]

    Landinez G and Lora-Clavijo F D 2024Physics Letters A525129897

  32. [40]

    Boscarino S, Pareschi L and Russo G 2024Implicit-explicit methods for evolutionary partial differential equations(SIAM)

  33. [41]

    Jørgensen J B, Kristensen M R and Thomsen P G 2018 A family of esdirk integration methods (Preprint1803.01613) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01613

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Butcher J C 1996Applied numerical mathematics20247–260

  35. [43]

    Li Y, Xue J, Ding M, Cheng X, Su Y, Feng L, Hong J, Li H and Gan W 2018The Astrophysical Journal Letters853L15

  36. [44]

    Reva A, Bogachev S, Loboda I, Ulyanov A and Kirichenko A 2022The Astrophysical Journal931 93

  37. [45]

    Reeves K K 2022Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences91041951

  38. [46]

    Fletcher L 2024Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics62437–474

  39. [47]

    Vievering J T, Glesener L, Athiray P, Buitrago-Casas J C, Musset S, Ryan D F, Ishikawa S n, Duncan J, Christe S and Krucker S 2021The Astrophysical Journal91315

  40. [48]

    Birn J and Priest E R 2007Reconnection of magnetic fields: magnetohydrodynamics and collisionless theory and observations(Cambridge University Press)

  41. [49]

    Birn J, Fletcher L, Hesse M and Neukirch T 2009The Astrophysical Journal6951151

  42. [50]

    Priest E R and Forbes T G 2002The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review10313–377

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.