Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T07:52:31.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic Flux Concentration by Siphon Flows in Isolated Magnetic Flux Tubes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2017

John H. Thomas  and
Benjamin Montesinos
John H. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, and C. E. K. Mees Observatory University of Rochester Rochester, New York 14627, U.S.A.
Benjamin Montesinos
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical Physics University of Oxford 1 Keble Road Oxford OX1 3NP, U.K.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Siphon flows along arched, isolated magnetic flux tubes, connecting photospheric footpoints of opposite magnetic polarity, cause a significant increase in the magnetic field strength of the flux tube due to the decreased internal gas pressure associated with the flow (the Bernoulli effect). These siphon flows offer a possible mechanism for producing intense, inclined, small-scale magnetic structures in the solar photosphere.

Type
IV. Magnetohydrodynamics of the Photosphere
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 138: Solar Photosphere: Structure, Convection and Magnetic Fields , 1990 , pp. 263 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer 1990 

References

Hasan, S. S. 1985, Astron. Astrophys. , 143, 39.Google Scholar
Meyer, F., and Schmidt, H. U. 1968, Zeits. Angew. Math. Mech. , 48, 218.Google Scholar
Montesinos, B., and Thomas, J. H. 1989, Astrophys J. , 337, 977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, A. 1986, in Small Scale Magnetic Flux Concentrations in the Solar Photosphere , ed. Deinzer, W., Knölker, M., and Voigt, H. H. (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
Parker, E. N. 1975, Astrophys. J. , 201, 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, E. N. 1978, Astrophys. J., 221, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. 1981, in Solar Active Regions , ed. Orrall, F. Q. (Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press), p. 213.Google Scholar
Solanki, S. K. 1987, in Proc. Tenth European Regional Astronomy Meeting of the IAU. Vol. 1: The Sun , ed. Hejna, L. and Sobotka, M., Publ. Astron. Inst. Czechoslovakia Acad. Sci., p. 95 Google Scholar
Spruit, H. C. 1979, Solar Phys. , 61, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, H. C., and Zweibel, E. G. 1979, Solar Phys. , 62, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenflo, J. O. 1989, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 1, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. H. 1984, in Small-Scale Dynamical Processes in Quiet Stellar Atmospheres , ed. Keil, S. L. (Sunspot, NM: National Solar Observatory), p. 276.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. H. 1988, Astrophys. J. , 333, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. H. 1989, in The Physics of Magnetic Flux Ropes , ed. Russell, C. T., Priest, E. R., and Lee, C. (American Geophysical Union), in press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. H., and Montesinos, B. 1989, preprint.Google Scholar
Venkatakrishnan, P. 1985, J. Astrophys. Astron. , 6, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, A. R., and Roberts, B. 1978, Solar Phys. , 59, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar