1 / 20

Thermal Properties of Moving Prominence Features Seen in EUV

Thermal Properties of Moving Prominence Features Seen in EUV. Terry Kucera (NASA/GSFC). Enrico Landi (NRL) and Judy Karpen (GSFC). Study Goals. Measure thermal properties of individual moving prominence features and compare them to model outputs, particularly the Dynamic Equilibrium Model.

dusan
Télécharger la présentation

Thermal Properties of Moving Prominence Features Seen in EUV

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thermal Properties of Moving Prominence Features Seen in EUV Terry Kucera (NASA/GSFC) Enrico Landi (NRL) and Judy Karpen (GSFC)

  2. Study Goals • Measure thermal properties of individual moving prominence features and compare them to model outputs, particularly the Dynamic Equilibrium Model

  3. Targets Apr. 17, 2003 Quiet and Activated Prominence Apr. 30, 2004 Erupting Prominence Apr. 29, 2004 Large prominence between active regions Apr. 30 -May 1, 2004 Quiet and Activated prominence

  4. Data TRACE 1" resolution, 60-91 sec cadence SOHO/SUMER 2" resolution, 120" slit length 90 sec cadence Global Hα Network1.1 resolution, 1 min cadence6563 Å H 10,000

  5. DEM technique • Landi & Landini 1997 • Assumes: • Ionization Equilibrium • Optically thin plasma • Smooth function (spline) • Also: • No material below 104 K or above 108 K • Coronal abundances • Does not trust points below LogT=4.4 (ionization fraction problems - charge transfer not well understood) • or Na or Li -like ions (ionization fraction not sufficiently well • understood) • We tried where possible to subtract off or compare to a • background component

  6. DEM comments In general these curves tend to look pretty similar They are different in many details from other prominence DEMs Transition region temperature lines pretty good Big gap between O V (LogT 5.4) and Ne VIII ( LogT 5.8) Ne VIII lines the only really strong ones for LogT≥5.8

  7. Typical DEM

  8. Typical DEM background subtracted

  9. Comparison of SUMER and CDS

  10. Dynamic Equilibrium Model Karpen & Antiochos 2008.

  11. Karpen & Antiochos 2008

  12. Typical DEM background subtracted

  13. Data Results • Prominence DEMs uniform for T< 250,000 K from on prominence to the next, but with minimum at higher temp than prominence DEMs from other studies. • For T>250,000 K (i.e., Ne VIII) the amount of emission varied • DEMs of individual moving features show the same high slope at low T seen in DEMs taken over prominences over longer periods of time, so a model in which this portion of the DEM is replicated by many sources is not adequate.

  14. Dynamic Equilibrium Model comparison Previously Karpen & Antiochos (2008) showed that the average of a long run of the model could be successfully compared to DEM spectra taken over long time periods. Here we see that the DEM of a short run of the model (5 min) exhibits the same shape, so a single moving feature in the model exhibits high amounts a material in the low temperature TR. High temperature TR curve is consistent with “background subtracted” DEMs. Differences with individual feature DEMs Temp minima

More Related