Wave versus nanoflare heating fraction in active-region coronal loops · revision history

Revision 2

Accepted · core change · record

Changes against revision 1:

Title
Wave versus nanoflare heating fraction in active-region coronal loops
Plain
Heating could come as countless tiny explosions (nanoflares) or as a steady trickle from waves; each leaves a different temperature fingerprint.
Precise · changed · core
Revision 1: For active-region loops at $T \sim 1e6\ \text{to}\ 5e6\,\mathrm{K}$, determine the fraction of heating delivered impulsively (nanoflares with repeat times longer than the cooling time, producing faint plasma at $5e6\ \text{to}\ 1e7\,\mathrm{K}$) versus steadily. Observables: slope of the emission measure distribution $\mathrm{EM}(T) \sim T^a$ below the peak and the hot emission measure above $5e6\,\mathrm{K}$. Answer: the impulsive fraction with uncertainty.
Revision 2: For active-region loops at $T \sim 10^{6}\ \text{to}\ 5 \times 10^{6}\,\mathrm{K}$, determine the fraction of heating delivered impulsively (nanoflares with repeat times longer than the cooling time, producing faint plasma at $5 \times 10^{6}\ \text{to}\ 10^{7}\,\mathrm{K}$) versus steadily. Observables: slope of the emission measure distribution $\mathrm{EM}(T) \sim T^a$ below the peak and the hot emission measure above $5 \times 10^{6}\,\mathrm{K}$. Answer: the impulsive fraction with uncertainty.
Settled by · changed · core
Revision 1: Spectroscopic measurement of faint $5e6\ \text{to}\ 1e7\,\mathrm{K}$ emission in active regions compared with forward models of both heating types.
Revision 2: Spectroscopic measurement of faint $5 \times 10^{6}\ \text{to}\ 10^{7}\,\mathrm{K}$ emission in active regions compared with forward models of both heating types.
Kind
well-posed
Answer type
value
References
(empty)
Literature status
open
Status note
(empty)
Posed since
(empty)

Decisions