Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:32:42.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Helicity transport in a simulated coronal mass ejection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2011

B. Kliem
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, UK Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA
S. Rust
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
N. Seehafer
Affiliation:
Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

It has been suggested that coronal mass ejections (CMEs) remove the magnetic helicity of their coronal source region from the Sun. Such removal is often regarded to be necessary due to the hemispheric sign preference of the helicity, which inhibits a simple annihilation by reconnection between volumes of opposite chirality. Here we monitor the relative magnetic helicity contained in the coronal volume of a simulated flux rope CME, as well as the upward flux of relative helicity through horizontal planes in the simulation box. The unstable and erupting flux rope carries away only a minor part of the initial relative helicity; the major part remains in the volume. This is a consequence of the requirement that the current through an expanding loop must decrease if the magnetic energy of the configuration is to decrease as the loop rises, to provide the kinetic energy of the CME.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Alexakis, A., Mininni, P. D., & Pouquet, A. 2006, ApJ 640, 335Google Scholar
Berger, M. A. & Field, G. B. 1984, J. Fluid Mechanics 147, 133Google Scholar
Blackman, E. G. & Field, G. B. 2001, Phys. Plasmas 8, 2407Google Scholar
Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Physics Reports 417, 1Google Scholar
Démoulin, P. 2007, Adv. Space Res. 39, 1674Google Scholar
Démoulin, P., Mandrini, C. H., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., et al. . 2002, A&A 382, 650Google Scholar
DeVore, C. R. 2000, ApJ 539, 944Google Scholar
Finn, J. M. & Antonsen, T. M. 1985, Comm. Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 9, 111Google Scholar
Green, L. M., López Fuentes, M. C., Mandrini, C. H., et al. . 2002, Solar Phys. 208, 43Google Scholar
Hale, G. E. 1925, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific 37, 268Google Scholar
Low, B.-C. 1996, Solar Phys. 167, 217Google Scholar
Rust, D. M. 1994, Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 241Google Scholar
Seehafer, N. 1990, Solar Phys. 125, 219Google Scholar
Titov, V. S. & Démoulin, P. 1999, A&A 351, 707Google Scholar
Török, T. & Kliem, B. 2005, ApJ 630, L97Google Scholar