Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T15:13:56.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some comments on magnetic field reconnection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

E. R. Priest  and
S. W. H. Cowley
E. R. Priest
Affiliation:
Applied Mathematics Department, The University, St. Andrews, Scotland
S. W. H. Cowley
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Imperial College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some comments are made about how to determine the speed with which magnetic flux is carried towards an X-type neutral point and reconnected. Conditions in the diffusion region near the neutral point are also investigated, with the conclusion that the streamlines and magnetic field lines cannot both be locally hyperbolic. Instead, two distinct modes may be possible. In the first, the magnetic field lines are straight, and the diffusion region does not differ greatly from that described by Parker (1963). In the second, the fluid velocity components increase cubically away from the neutral point with the result that, for a given reconnection rate, the diffusion region is typically five times greater than in the Parker model.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , October 1975 , pp. 271 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Coppi, B. & Friedland, A. B. 1971 Astrophys. J. 169, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S. W. H. 1973 Cosmic electrodynamics, 3, 448.Google Scholar
Cowley, S. W. H. 1974 a J. Plasma Phys. 12, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S. W. H. 1974 b J. Plasma Phys. 12, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungey, J. W. 1953 Phil. Mag. (7) 44, 725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. M. 1965 Proc. IAU Symp. 22, p. 398.Google Scholar
Green, R. M. & Sweet, P. A. 1967 Astrophys. J. 147, 1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, E. N. 1963 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 8, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, E. N. 1973 a J. Plasma Phys. 9, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, E. N. 1973 b Astrophys. J. 180, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petschek, H. E. 1964 AAS-NASA Symp., Physics of Solar Flares, NASA SP-50, p. 425.Google Scholar
Petschek, H. E. & Thorne, R. M. 1967 Astrophys. J. 147, 1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. 1972 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 159, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. 1973 Astrophys. J. 181, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. & Raadu, M. A. 1975 Solar Phys. (To be published.)Google Scholar
Sonnerup, B. U. O. 1970 J. Plasma Phys. 4, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnerup, B. U. O. 1973 NASA Symp. on High Energy Phenomena on the Sun, Greenbelt, Maryland, NASA-GSFC X-693–73–193, p. 357.Google Scholar
Sweet, P. A. 1958 Nuovo Cimento, 8, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrovatskii, S. I. 1971 Soviet Phys. JETP 33, 933.Google Scholar
Vasyliunas, V. 1975 Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 13, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeh, T. & Axford, W. I. 1970 J. Plasma Phys. 4, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeh, T. & Dryer, M. 1973 Astrophys. J. 182, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar