1: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for the referee version
2: \documentclass{aa} % journal version
3: %
4: %
5: %\usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{txfonts}
7: \usepackage{psfig}
8: \usepackage{natbib}
9: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}%
10: %
11: %\usepackage{txfonts}
12: %
13: %
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \titlerunning{Diagnostics of stellar flares}
17: \authorrunning{Fabio Reale\inst{1,2}}
18:
19:
20: \title{Diagnostics of stellar flares from X-ray observations: from the decay to the rise phase}
21: \author{Fabio Reale\inst{1,2}}
22: \institute{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche \& Astronomiche, Sezione di
23: Astronomia, Universit\`a di Palermo, Piazza del Parlamento 1,
24: I-90134 Palermo, Italy
25: \email{reale@astropa.unipa.it}
26: \and
27: INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo ``Giuseppe
28: S. Vaiana", Piazza del Parlamento 1, I-90134 Palermo, Italy
29: }
30:
31: \abstract{The diagnostics of stellar flaring coronal
32: loops have been so far largely based on
33: the analysis of the decay phase. }
34: {We derive new diagnostics from the analysis of the
35: rise and peak phase of stellar flares.}
36: {We release
37: the assumption of full equilibrium of the flaring loop at the flare peak,
38: according to the frequently observed
39: delay between the temperature and the density maximum.
40: From scaling laws and hydrodynamic simulations we derive
41: diagnostic formulas as a function of observable quantities and times.}
42: {We obtain a diagnostic toolset related to the rise phase,
43: including the loop length, density and aspect ratio.
44: We discuss the limitations of this approach
45: and find that the assumption of loop equilibrium in the
46: analysis of the decay leads to a moderate
47: overestimate of the loop length. A few relevant applications
48: to previously analyzed stellar flares are shown. }
49: {The analysis of the flare rise and peak phase
50: complements and completes the analysis of the decay phase.}
51: \keywords{ Stars: flare -- X-rays: stars -- Stars: coronae}
52:
53: \maketitle
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: Solar and stellar coronal flares are impulsive events well detected in
58: the soft X-ray band. They are typically explained as due to the sudden
59: increase of temperature and emission measure of the plasma confined in
60: single or groups of magnetic tubes (loops), caused by strong
61: heat pulses.
62:
63: The flare light curves in the soft X-rays are typically characterized by
64: a fast rise phase followed by a slower decay (e.g. Haisch et al. 1983).
65: In the decay phase, the plasma cooling is due to radiation emission and
66: to thermal conduction to the chromosphere. Since the cooling times for a
67: confined plasma depend on the characteristics of the confining structure,
68: and in particular on its length, the analysis of the decay phase has been
69: extensively used to diagnose the flaring loops, and in particular their
70: size (see Reale 2002 for an extensive review). This is important not only
71: because stellar flaring regions are unresolved, but also because, more
72: in general, this is one of the few tools to obtain detailed information
73: on the geometry of the stellar coronae (e.g. Favata et al. 2000a), and
74: of any other phenomena involving plasma confined in magnetic structures.
75:
76: To summarize, Serio et al. (1991) derived a thermodynamic time scale
77: for the pure cooling of flaring plasma confined in single coronal loops:
78:
79: \begin{equation}
80: \tau_{s} = 3.7 \times 10^{-4} \frac{L}{\sqrt{T_0}}
81: = 120 \frac{L_9}{\sqrt{T_{0,7}}}
82: \label{eq:tserio}
83: \end{equation}
84: where $L$ ($L_9$) the loop half-length (in units of $10^9$
85: cm), $T_0$ ($T_{0,7}$) the loop maximum temperature (in units of $10^7$
86: K). In principle, the loop length can be derived simply by inverting
87: Eq.(\ref{eq:tserio}). Jakimiec et al. (1992) and Sylwester et al. (1993)
88: analyzed extensively the decay of solar coronal flares and pointed out
89: that significant heating can be released even during the late phases of a
90: flare. This can be diagnosed through the analysis of the path of the decay
91: in a density-temperature diagram: sustained heating slows down the plasma
92: cooling but much less the density decrease. If this effect is not properly
93: taken into account, the loop length can be significantly overestimated.
94: Reale et al. (1997) use the scale time Eq.(\ref{eq:tserio}) to derive a
95: formula for loop length, corrected to include the effect of significant
96: heating in the decay (see the Appendix for a review). This approach has
97: been extensively applied to analyze observed stellar flares (see Reale
98: 2003 for a review), with the exception of flares where the residual
99: heating completely drives the flare decay over the plasma cooling.
100: These flares are more appropriately described with models of two-ribbon
101: flares (Kopp \& Poletto 1984).
102:
103: Eq.(\ref{eq:tserio}) and all the subsequent derivations lie on the
104: assumption that the flare decay starts when the loop is at hydrostatic and
105: energy equilibrium. Extensive modeling of solar and stellar flares has
106: shown that the heat pulses that trigger the flare are impulsive, i.e.
107: their duration is small with respect to the overall flare duration.
108: One then wonders whether the flaring loop has had enough time to reach
109: equilibrium before the heat pulse is switched off or not,
110: and, if not, whether this might be important for the analysis of the
111: decay. Jakimiec et al. (1992) showed that temperature and density begin
112: to decrease simultaneously if the heating lasts long enough to reach
113: equilibrium. In many flares, it is instead observed that the temperature
114: peaks (and therefore begins to decrease) measurably before the emission
115: measure, both in solar flares (e.g. Sylwester et al. 1993) and in stellar
116: flares (van den Oord et al. 1988, van den Oord et al. 1989, Favata et
117: al. 1999, Favata et al. 2000b, Stelzer et al. 2002). Cargill \& Klimchuk
118: (2004) pointed out that in transiently heated loops the cooling is
119: initially dominated by thermal conduction and that the density begins to
120: decay as soon as the radiative and conduction cooling times become equal.
121:
122: Most attention has been so far dedicated to the decay phase,
123: which is the longest-lasting part of flares and therefore typically
124: offers more opportunities of time-resolved data analysis and of good
125: photon statistics. Little and partial attention has been instead devoted
126: to the initial phase of the flares. Hawley et al. (1995) study the rise
127: phase jointly to the decay phase, including neither the heating in the
128: decay, nor the delay between the temperature and the density peak.
129:
130: Flare observations from recent missions such as Chandra and XMM-Newton
131: often detect flares in great detail and succeed in resolving the rise
132: phase (e.g. G\"{u}del et al. 2004).
133: On the other hand, in long flares it happens that the observations
134: ends early in the decay phase, inhibiting the related analysis and
135: making any kind of information derivable from the rise phase important (e.g.
136: Giardino et al. 2004).
137:
138: In this work, we address specifically the rise and peak phase of flares,
139: and investigate what diagnostics can be extracted from its analysis.
140: We will study the flare initial phases as a stand-alone analysis, and
141: compare and cross-check with the analysis of the decay. We will also
142: address possible additional diagnostics, e.g. the density and the loop
143: aspect ratio cross-section radius over length -- are flaring loops fat
144: or slim or arcades of loops? -- which cannot be constrained just from the
145: decay analysis. In our derivation, we will maintain the assumption that
146: the flare occurs in a single loop. This assumption is more realistic
147: in the rise phase, when the impulsive heating typically involves a
148: dominant loop structure while later residual heating may be released
149: in other similar adjacent loops (e.g. Aschwanden \& Alexander 2001).
150: We will instead release the assumption that the flaring loop evolves to
151: a condition of equilibrium, and therefore also address the
152: question of what is the effect of releasing equilibrium conditions on
153: diagnostic formulae, i.e. if the decay starts before the loop reaches
154: equilibrium conditions, and what is the error from assuming equilibrium
155: conditions. We will derive the loop length from the rise phase.
156:
157: In Section~\ref{sec:anal}, we analise the flare evolution
158: with a general outline, operative definitions, relevant results from
159: modeling. In Section~\ref{sec:deriv}, diagnostic tools
160: for the analysis of the flare rise and peak phase are derived. In Section~\ref{sec:disc},
161: we discuss the results, the limitations of the analysis, the applications,
162: with some specific examples and in Section~\ref{sec:conc} we draw
163: our conclusions.
164:
165: \section{Flare analysis}
166: \label{sec:anal}
167:
168: \subsection{General flare evolution}
169: \label{sec:fl_ev}
170:
171: We consider a flare occurring in a single coronal loop. A flaring coronal loop
172: can be modelled as a magnetic flux tube where the plasma is heated to
173: flare temperatures by a transient heat pulse. The plasma confined in the
174: loop can be described as a compressible fluid which moves and transports
175: energy along the magnetic field lines (e.g. Priest 1984).
176:
177: We will suppose that: (i) the flare occurs in a semicircular loop with
178: half-length $L$, initially in equilibrium conditions at much lower
179: temperature and density than at flaring conditions; (ii) the flare is
180: triggered by a heat pulse uniformly distributed in the loop; (iii) the
181: heat pulse is a top-hat function in time; (iv) there is no heating in
182: the decay; (v) the flaring loop is much smaller than the pressure scale
183: height at the flare temperature.
184:
185: The plasma cooling is governed by the thermal conduction to the
186: cool chromosphere and by radiation from optically thin conditions.
187: The evolution of the confined plasma is well-known from observations
188: and from modeling (e.g. Nagai 1980, Peres et al. 1982, Cheng et al.
189: 1983, Nagai \& Emslie 1984, Fisher et al. 1985, MacNeice 1986, Betta
190: et al. 2001) and in the following we summarize it into four phases,
191: sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:ntx_time}, which map on the path drawn in
192: the density-temperature diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:nt_diag_eq} (see also
193: Jakimiec et al. 1992).
194:
195: \begin{figure}
196: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.ps,width=8cm}}
197: \caption[]{Scheme of the evolution of temperature (T, {\it thick solid line}), X-ray emission (LC, {\it thinner solid line}) and density (n, {\it dashed line})
198: during a flare triggered in a coronal loop by a
199: heat pulse. The flare evolution is divided into four phases (I, II, III, IV, see text for further details).
200: \label{fig:ntx_time}}
201: \end{figure}
202:
203: \begin{description}
204:
205: \item[Phase I]: from the start of the heat pulse to the temperature peak
206: ({\it heating}). The heat pulse is triggered in the loop and the heat is
207: efficiently conducted down to the much cooler and denser chromosphere.
208: The temperature rapidly increases in the whole loop, with a time scale
209: given by the conduction time in a low density plasma (see below).
210:
211: \item[Phase II]: from the temperature peak to the end of the heat
212: pulse ({\it evaporation}). The temperature settles to the maximum value ($T_0$).
213: The chromospheric plasma is strongly
214: heated and expands upwards, filling the loop with much denser plasma.
215: The evaporation is explosive at first, with a timescale given by the
216: isothermal sound crossing time:
217:
218: \begin{equation}
219: \tau_{sd} = \frac{L} {\sqrt{2 k_B T_0 / m}} \approx 25 \frac{L_9}{ \sqrt{T_{0,7}}}
220: \label{eq:tsound}
221: \end{equation}
222: where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $m$ is the average particle mass.
223: After the evaporation front has reached the loop apex, the loop
224: continues to fill more gently. The time scale during this
225: more gradual evaporation is dictated by the time taken by the cooling
226: rate to balance the heat input rate (see Sec.~\ref{sec:deriv}).
227:
228: \item[Phase III]: from the end of the heat pulse to the density peak
229: ({\it conductive cooling}). When the heat pulse stops, the plasma
230: immediately starts to cool due to the efficient thermal conduction
231: (e.g. Cargill \& Klimchuk 2004), with a time scale:
232:
233: \begin{equation}
234: \tau_c=\frac{3 n_c k_B T_0 L^2}{2/7\kappa T_0^{7/2}}
235: = \frac{10.5 n_c k_B L^2}{\kappa T_0^{5/2}} \approx 50 \frac{n_{c,10} L_9^2}{T_{0,7}^{5/2}}
236: %\approx \frac{\alpha_c 10.5 n k L^2}{\kappa T^{5/2}}
237: \label{eq:tcon}
238: \end{equation}
239: where $n_c$ ($n_{c,10}$) is the particle density ($10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$) at
240: the end of the heat pulse,
241: $\kappa = 9 \times 10^{-7}$ (c.g.s. units) is the thermal conductivity.
242:
243: The heat stop time can then be generally traced as the time at which the
244: temperature begins to decrease significantly and monotonically. While
245: the conduction cooling dominates, the plasma evaporation is still going
246: on and the density increasing. The efficiency of radiation cooling
247: increases as well. On the other hand, the efficiency of conduction
248: cooling decreases with the temperature.
249:
250: \item[Phase IV]: from the density peak afterwards ({\it Radiative
251: cooling}). As soon as the radiation cooling time becomes equal to the
252: conduction cooling time (Cargill \& Klimchuk 2004), the density reaches
253: its maximum, and the loop depletion starts, slow at first and then
254: progressively increasing. The pressure begins to decrease inside the loop,
255: and is no longer able to sustain the plasma. In this phase, radiation
256: becomes the dominant cooling mechanism, with the following time scale:
257:
258: \begin{equation}
259: \tau_r = \frac{3 k_B T_M}{n_M P(T)} = \frac{3 k_B T_M}{b T_M^\alpha n_M} \approx
260: 9 \times 10^{3} \frac{T_{M,7}^{3/2}} {n_{M,10}}
261: \label{eq:trad}
262: \end{equation}
263: where $T_M$ ($T_{M,7}$) is the temperature at the time of the density
264: maximum
265: ($10^7$ K), $n_M$ ($n_{M,10}$) the maximum density ($10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$),
266: $P(T)$ the plasma emissivity per unit emission measure, expressed as:
267: \[
268: P(T) = b T^\alpha
269: \]
270: with $b = 1.5 \times 10^{-19}$ and $\alpha = -1/2$,
271: for consistency with the parameters of the loop scaling laws (Rosner
272: et al. 1978). In this phase, the density and the temperature
273: both decrease monotonically. The presence of significant residual heating
274: could make the decay slower. This can be diagnosed from the analysis of the
275: slope of the decay path in the density-temperature diagram
276: (Sylwester et al. 1993, Reale et al. 1997, see the Appendix).
277:
278: \end{description}
279:
280: \subsection{Heat pulse duration}
281:
282: The evolution outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev} concerns a flare driven
283: by a transient heat pulse. The analysis of stellar flares based on the
284: decay phase typically assumes that the decay starts from equilibrium
285: conditions, i.e. departing from the the locus of the equilibrium
286: loops with a given length (hereafter QSS line, Jakimiec et al. 1992)
287: in Fig.~\ref{fig:nt_diag_eq}. The link between this assumption and the
288: flare evolution outlined above is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nt_diag_eq}:
289: if the heat pulse lasts long enough, phase II extends to the right,
290: and the flaring loop asymptotically reaches equilibrium conditions, i.e.
291: the horizontal line approaches the QSS line. It is worth noting that,
292: if the decay starts from equilibrium conditions, Phase III is no longer
293: present, and Phase II links directly to Phase IV. Therefore, there is no
294: delay between the beginning of the temperature decay and the beginning
295: of the density decay: the temperature and the density start to decrease
296: simultaneously. Also, the decay will be dominated by radiation cooling,
297: except for its very beginning (Serio et al. 1991).
298:
299: \begin{figure}
300: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.eps,width=8cm}}
301: \caption[]{Scheme of the flare evolution of Fig.~\ref{fig:ntx_time} in
302: a density-temperature diagram ({\it solid line}). The four phases are
303: labelled. The locus of the equilibrium loops is shown ({\it dashed-dotted
304: line}), as well as the flare path with an extremely long heat pulse
305: ({\it dashed line}). The corresponding decay path (marked with EQ) is
306: the one typically considered by flare analysis based on the decay phase.
307: \label{fig:nt_diag_eq}}
308: \end{figure}
309:
310: The analysis of the rise and peak phase has to include the presence of
311: Phase III, and the delay between the temperature peak and the density
312: peak. This delay is often observed both in solar flares (e.g. Sylwester
313: et al. 1993) and in stellar flares (e.g. van den Oord et al. 1988,
314: 1989, Favata et al. 2000b, Maggio et al. 2000, Stelzer et al. 2002). The
315: presence of this delay is a signature of a relatively short heat pulse,
316: or, in other words, of a decay starting from non-equilibrium conditions.
317:
318: \subsection{Hydrodynamic modeling}
319: \label{sec:hyd}
320:
321: We now use hydrodynamic simulations to analyze more
322: in detail the evolution of the rise and peak phase of a flare (Phases I
323: to III). The Palermo-Harvard code solves the time-dependent hydrodynamic
324: equations for the plasma confined in a loop to describe the evolution
325: of the density, temperature and velocity of the plasma along the loop
326: (Peres et al. 1982, Betta et al. 1997).
327:
328: As a representative example, we consider an initially quiet coronal
329: loop with half-length $L = 2 \times 10^9$ cm and temperature of about 3
330: MK. A transient heat pulse is injected in it at time t=0. The flare heat
331: pulse lasts for a time $t_{heat}$, is uniformly distributed in the loop,
332: and is as intense (9 erg cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$)
333: as to bring the loop to a temperature of $\sim 20$ MK.
334:
335: \begin{figure}
336: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f3.eps,width=8cm}}
337: \caption[]{Evolution of the plasma temperature ({\it top panel}),
338: density ({\it middle}) and pressure ({\it bottom}) at the loop apex,
339: as computed from a hydrodynamic model of a 20 MK flare in a loop with
340: half-length $L = 2 \times 10^9$ cm, and with three different durations
341: of the heat pulse (labelled in the top panel, in units of $\tau_s$) and with non-stopping
342: heating. The asymptotic density and pressure values are also shown ({\it
343: dotted horizontal lines}). The time of the density maximum is marked
344: ({\it black spots}).
345: \label{fig:mod_evol}}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348: Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol} shows the evolution of the plasma temperature,
349: density and pressure at the loop apex for three different durations of
350: the heat pulse (i.e. $t_{heat}=90$ s $\approx 0.5 \tau_s$, $t_{heat}=170$
351: s $\approx \tau_s$ and $t_{heat}= 500$ s $\approx 3 \tau_s$) and for
352: non-stopping heating. As long as the heat pulse is on, the simulation
353: results overlap; they differ only for the decay phase, when the
354: heating is off. The decay of the simulations with longer-lasting heat
355: pulses begins later. As already mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev},
356: the temperature begins to decrease as soon as the heat pulse stops.
357: The density and the pressure, instead, both continue to increase and they
358: reach their maximum well later. We note that the shorter the heat pulse,
359: the longer is the delay between the beginning of the temperature decay
360: and the density maximum. For the longest-lasting heat pulse, the density
361: and pressure values are very close to the asymptotic equilibrium values,
362: estimated from loop scaling laws (Rosner et al. 1978).
363: We have checked that the evolution is self-similar for a longer loop $L
364: = 10^{10}$ cm at the same temperature, with the evolution times scaling
365: as $\tau_s$.
366:
367: \begin{figure}
368: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f4.eps,width=8cm}}
369: \caption[]{Evolution of the flare of Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol} in the density-temperature
370: diagram. The locus of the equilibrium loops derived from loop
371: scaling laws (QSS curve, {\it dashed line}) is also shown.
372: \label{fig:mod_nt}}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: In the density-temperature diagram (Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_nt}), the flare
376: evolution for the different heat pulse durations is well in agreement
377: with that sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:nt_diag_eq}. For short-lasting pulses,
378: phase IV starts as soon as the path crosses the QSS curve. For $t_{heat}
379: \approx 3 \tau_s$, phase II ends and the decay (phase IV) starts both very
380: close to the QSS curve, while phase III is practically absent (Jakimiec
381: et al. 1992).
382:
383: \section{Diagnostics of the rise and peak phase}
384: \label{sec:deriv}
385:
386: We now derive simple diagnostic tools for the analysis of the rise and
387: decay phase of a flare, taking advantage of detailed numerical modeling.
388: We first observe that the maximum possible duration of the rise phase
389: is the time taken by the loop to reach equilibrium conditions under
390: the action of a constant (flare) heating. The simulation results
391: in Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol} show that the time taken by the plasma to
392: reach equilibrium conditions is much longer than the sound crossing time
393: (Eq.[\ref{eq:tsound}]), which rules the very initial plasma evaporation.
394: This is also clear in Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_lin}, which shows the evolution
395: of the pressure at the loop apex in a linear scale: after $t = 50$ s,
396: the rate of pressure enhancement becomes more gentle. As mentioned
397: in Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev}, in this phase the dynamics become much less
398: important and the interplay between cooling and heating processes
399: becomes dominant. The relevant time scale is therefore that reported
400: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tserio}).
401:
402: After detailed analysis of extensive numerical modeling of
403: decaying flaring loops, we have checked that the decay time from
404: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tserio}) should be computed with a correction factor:
405: \begin{equation}
406: \tau^\prime_s = \phi \tau_s
407: \label{eq:taunew}
408: \end{equation}
409: where $\phi \approx 1.3$ to better fit the decay time measured from
410: numerical models.
411:
412: \begin{figure}
413: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f5.eps,width=8cm}}
414: \caption[]{Pressure evolution of the flare of Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol} in a linear scale
415: to show that most of the rise phase can be reasonably described with a
416: linear trend ({\it dashed lines}).
417: \label{fig:mod_lin}}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420: Hydrodynamic simulations confirm that
421: the time required to reach full equilibrium scales as the loop cooling time ($\tau_s$), and, as shown for instance in
422: Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_lin} (see also Jakimiec et al. 1992),
423: the time to reach flare steady-state equilibrium is:
424:
425: \begin{equation}
426: t_{eq} \approx 3 \tau_s \approx 2.3 \tau^\prime_s
427: \label{eq:tequil}
428: \end{equation}
429: We have verified that Eq.(\ref{eq:tequil}) holds for loops of different
430: lengths. Fig.~\ref{fig:tequil} shows the ratio of the time required to
431: reach 97\% of the pressure equilibrium value to the time computed
432: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tequil}) for simulations of flaring loops with three
433: different loop lengths, and three different heating rates appropriate to
434: reach the temperature of 10, 20 and 30 MK, respectively. The agreement
435: is within 10\%.
436:
437: \begin{figure}
438: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f6.eps,width=8cm}}
439: \caption[]{Time to reach pressure equilibrium obtained from hydrodynamic
440: simulations: the ratio of the time at which the pressure is 97\% of the
441: equilibrium value to the time obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tequil}) vs loop
442: length. The size of the data points is proportional to the heating rate
443: (maximum temperature of 10, 20 and 30 MK).
444: \label{fig:tequil}}
445: \end{figure}
446:
447: For $t \geq t_{eq}$, the density asymptotically approaches the equilibrium
448: value:
449:
450: \begin{equation}
451: n_{0} = \frac{T_0^2}{2a^3 k_B L } = 1.3 \times 10^6 ~ \frac{T_0^2} {L}
452: \label{eq:n0}
453: \end{equation}
454:
455: \noindent
456: where $a = 1.4 \times 10^3$ (c.g.s. units), or
457:
458: \[
459: n_{0,10} = 13 \frac{T_{0,7}^2}{ L_9}
460: \]
461: as obtained from the loop scaling laws (Rosner et al. 1978) and the
462: plasma equation of state.
463:
464: If the heat pulse stops before the loop reaches equilibrium conditions,
465: the flare maximum density is lower than the value at equilibrium.
466: Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_lin} shows that, after the initial impulsive evaporation
467: on a time scale given by Eq.(\ref{eq:tsound}), the later progressive
468: pressure growth can be approximated with a linear trend. Since the
469: temperature is almost constant in this phase (Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol}),
470: we can as well approximate that the density increases linearly for most
471: of the time. We can then estimate the value of the maximum density at
472: the loop apex as:
473:
474: \begin{equation}
475: n_{M} \approx n_0 \frac{t_{M}}{t_{eq}}
476: \label{eq:nmax}
477: \end{equation}
478: where $t_{M}$ is the time at which the density maximum occurs, which
479: can be measured directly from observations. Since it is reasonable
480: to assume that the volume of the flaring region does not change much,
481: at least on the relatively short time scale of the rise phase, the time
482: of the maximum emission measure is a good proxy for $t_M$.
483:
484: Phase~III ranges between the time at which the heat pulse ends and
485: the time of the density maximum. Fig.~\ref{fig:mod_evol} shows that
486: the start time of the temperature decay marks well the end of the
487: heat pulse. In many stellar flares, the temperature evolution is not
488: well resolved, and we may take the time of the temperature maximum as
489: indicative of the end of the heat pulse.
490:
491: The time of the density maximum is also the time at which the decay path
492: crosses the locus of the equilibrium loops (QSS curve). As reported
493: in Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev}, Cargill \& Klimchuk (2004) remarked that, at
494: this time, the radiative cooling time is exactly equal to the conductive
495: cooling time. By equating the time scales in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:trad}) and
496: (\ref{eq:tcon}), we can then derive the temperature $T_{M}$ at which
497: the flare maximum density occurs:
498:
499: \begin{equation}
500: T_{M} = 9 \times 10^{-4} ( n_M L )^{1/2}
501: \label{eq:trc}
502: \end{equation}
503: or
504: \[
505: T_{M,7} = 0.28 ( n_{M,10} L_9 )^{1/2}
506: \]
507: If a value for $L$ is already available to us and we are able to measure
508: $T_M$, we can derive $n_M$ from Eq.(\ref{eq:trc}), in alternative to
509: Eq.(\ref{eq:nmax}).
510:
511: Since phase III is dominated by conductive cooling, we derive its
512: duration, i.e. the time from the end of the heat pulse to the density
513: maximum, as
514:
515: \begin{equation}
516: %\Delta t_{0-M} \approx \alpha_c \tau_c \ln \left( \frac{T_0}{T_{M}}
517: \Delta t_{0-M} \approx \tau_c \ln \psi
518: \label{eq:dt0rc}
519: \end{equation}
520: where
521: \[
522: \psi = \frac{T_0}{T_{M}}
523: \]
524: and $\tau_c$ (Eq.[\ref{eq:tcon}]) is computed for an appropriate value of
525: the density $n_c$. A good consistency with numerical simulations is obtained
526: for $n_c = (2/3) n_M$.
527:
528: The collection of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:tequil}) -- (\ref{eq:dt0rc}) provides a
529: set of diagnostic tools for the analysis of the rise and peak phase of
530: stellar flares. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:tequil}) -- (\ref{eq:nmax}) are related
531: to the rise phase, the others to the peak phase, or, more precisely,
532: phase III as defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev}. We have checked that the
533: equations provide values consistent with those obtained from accurate
534: numerical modeling within few percent.
535:
536: By combining Eq.(\ref{eq:dt0rc}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:nmax}) we obtain:
537:
538: \begin{equation}
539: \frac{\Delta t_{0-M}}{t_M} \approx 1.2 \ln \psi
540: \label{eq:trat}
541: \end{equation}
542: which ranges between 0.2 and 0.8 for typical values of $\psi$ (1.2 -- 2).
543:
544: By combining Eqs.(\ref{eq:n0}), (\ref{eq:nmax}) and (\ref{eq:trc}),
545: we derive a new expression for the loop half length:
546:
547: \begin{equation}
548: L_9 \approx 3 ~ \psi^2 T_{0,7}^{1/2} t_{M,3}
549: \label{eq:lris}
550: \end{equation}
551: where $t_{M,3}$ is $t_M$ in units of $10^3$ s. For typical values of
552: $\psi$ and $T_0$, we obtain $L_9 \sim 5 - 25 t_{M,3}$ and $L_9 \sim 10
553: t_{M,3}$ may be taken for rough estimates. Therefore, we expect that
554: flares occurring in loops with length of the order of $10^{10}$ cm show
555: the peak of the emission measure about 1 ks after the beginning.
556:
557: By including Eqs.(\ref{eq:trat}) into Eq.(\ref{eq:lris}),
558: we derive another alternative expression for the loop half length:
559:
560: \begin{equation}
561: L_9 \approx 2.5 ~ \frac{\psi^2}{\ln \psi} T_{0,7}^{1/2} \Delta t_{0-M,3}
562: \label{eq:ldelt}
563: \end{equation}
564: where $\Delta t_{0-M,3}$ is $\Delta t_{0-M}$ in units of $10^3$ s.
565: For typical values of $\psi$ and
566: $T_0$, we obtain $L_9 \sim 20 - 100 \Delta t_{0-M,3}$ and
567: $L_9 \sim 50 \Delta t_{0-M,3}$ may be taken for rough estimates.
568:
569: The loop length derived from application of Eqs.(\ref{eq:lris}) and
570: (\ref{eq:ldelt}) to the model simulations is correct within $10\%$.
571: Eqs.(\ref{eq:lris}) and (\ref{eq:ldelt}) allow us to estimate the length
572: of the flaring loop from measuring characteristic time intervals of the
573: flare rise phase and related temperatures.
574:
575: \section{Discussion: implications and applications}
576: \label{sec:disc}
577:
578: \subsection{Consistency and limitations}
579:
580: The aim of this work is to investigate the diagnostics of the rise
581: and peak phase of coronal flares, to complement the well-established
582: diagnostics of the decay phase (e.g. Reale et al. 1997). Once derived
583: the relevant diagnostic expressions, we first check whether there are
584: effects on the analysis of the decay. In particular, we wonder whether
585: assuming that the decay starts from loop equilibrium conditions --
586: therefore ignoring the details of the ``previous history'' -- leads to
587: significant systematic errors or not. In the decay analysis, one
588: important parameter is the temperature at the start of the decay.
589: At equilibrium conditions, the decay starts at the temperature maximum.
590: In Sec.~\ref{sec:fl_ev}, we have pointed out that, in an impulsive
591: flare event, in which the loop does not reach equilibrium conditions,
592: the density begins to decay later than the temperature. The proper
593: decay phase begins at the density peak (i.e. the later time), and one
594: should then use the temperature at the density peak, lower than the
595: maximum temperature. The proper loop decay time then becomes:
596: \begin{equation}
597: \tau_d = \sqrt{\frac{T_0}{T_M}} \tau^\prime_s
598: \end{equation}
599: If we use the maximum temperature $T_0$ to estimate the loop length
600: with expressions derived from Eq.~(\ref{eq:tserio}) (Reale et al. 1997),
601: instead of $T_M$, we then overestimate the loop length. However, since
602: the dependence on the temperature is rather weak in Eq.(\ref{eq:tserio})
603: and the temperatures not very different, we expect not a too large
604: effect on previous results. The error can be easily estimated from the
605: square root of the ratio of the maximum temperature to the temperature
606: at the density maximum. Since this ratio is typically of about 1.2-1.5
607: (see Sec.\ref{sec:appl}), the amount of overestimate is no more than
608: 15-20\%. Furthermore, if we know this ratio we can correct for this
609: effect.
610:
611: \begin{figure}
612: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f7.eps,width=9cm}}
613: \caption[]{Time of the density maximum ($t_{M}$, {\it solid line}), delay
614: of the beginning of the density decay from that of the temperature decay
615: ($\Delta t_{0-M}$ , {\it dashed line}), and loop decay time ($\tau_{d}$,
616: {\it dotted line}) vs the duration of the heat pulse $t_{heat}$. All
617: times are in units of the equilibrium decay time $\tau^\prime_s$.}
618: \label{fig:times}
619: \end{figure}
620:
621: Fig.~\ref{fig:times} shows how the decay time varies with the duration
622: of the heat pulse. As expected, the decay time is invariably larger
623: than the equilibrium decay time: the shorter the heat pulse, the longer
624: is the decay time, with a maximum of about 1.7 $\tau^\prime_s$. However,
625: in most of the range, the decay time is larger no more than $20 \%$
626: than the equilibrium decay time, and therefore the loop length
627: overestimated by the same amount.
628:
629: In all the above analysis we have neglected the effect of the star
630: gravity. This is reasonable both because the gravity have very little
631: influence on the strong initial flare dynamics, and because, at the high
632: temperatures of stellar flares, the pressure scale height:
633:
634: \[
635: h_p \sim 5000 \frac{T}{g_*/g_{\odot}} = 50 \frac{T_7}{g_*/g_{\odot}}
636: \]
637: is larger than the height of the flaring loops (assuming they stand
638: vertical on the stellar surface). For very long loops, comparable to
639: the stellar radius, the pressure scale height is even longer because
640: the gravity decreases significantly at long distances from the surface,
641: so that the effect of gravity is expected to be even smaller.
642:
643: Finally, throughout our analysis we have assumed a simple heating
644: function: a top-hat in time, uniform distribution in space. Different
645: heating functions may have some effects on the results (somewhat discussed
646: in Sec.~\ref{sec:appl}), but except for very extreme cases, most of them
647: should be smoothed out by the very efficient thermal conduction.
648:
649: \subsection{Loop length from the rise phase}
650: \label{sec:len}
651:
652: Stellar flare observations do not always cover the whole flare duration;
653: sometimes the rise phase is missing, sometimes most of the decay is not
654: observed. The latter possibility can occur quite frequently, because the
655: decay is the longest part of the flare and, for long flares, the
656: observation may end too early in the decay. One result of the present
657: work is to provide a set of useful formulae for events with missing
658: observed decay. This could be obtained ultimately because most of the
659: rise phase is ruled by the same processes which rule the decay phase,
660: i.e. the energy losses.
661: Eq.(\ref{eq:lris}) yields the loop length, from the time of the
662: maximum density $t_M$ (the emission measure can be used as a proxy),
663: the maximum temperature $T_0$ and the temperature at the density
664: maximum $T_M$.
665:
666: Alternatively, we may derive the loop length from
667: Eq.(\ref{eq:ldelt}) even if we miss the flare start but we are
668: able to measure the time interval between the temperature maximum and
669: the density (or emission measure) maximum. If both times are available
670: to us, we may choose the less uncertain one as the more reliable, and
671: we may use both of them to check for consistency and to derive a more
672: accurate length value from a weighted average.
673: We should in fact consider that the determination of the relevant
674: flare times can be affected by significant uncertainties. The time of
675: the density maximum is typically determined within a time bin where
676: the spectral fitting is performed. This time bin can be quite large.
677: Moreover, it is reckoned from the time of the flare start, which can in
678: turn be not well-determined. Analogously, the uncertainty in the interval
679: $\Delta t_{0-M}$ comes from the width of both the time bins including
680: the temperature maximum and the density maximum. The strong dependence
681: on the ratio $\psi = T_0/T_M$ can also add to further uncertainties.
682:
683: Eqs.(\ref{eq:lris}) and (\ref{eq:ldelt}) provide the loop length even if
684: only the rise and peak phase of the flare are observed. These expressions
685: are alternative and independent of the expressions based on the flare
686: decay and therefore of the presence of any significant heating during
687: the decay. They can provide therefore a further check on the loop
688: length estimation, if both loop length values are available. There is
689: a chance to obtain inconsistent results from the two approaches if the
690: flare decay progressively involves other different coronal loops, or
691: else if the heat pulse triggering the flare is not a top-hat function,
692: instead, for instance, slowly rising.
693:
694: If no time-resolved spectral information is available, e.g. because of
695: low photon statistics, the time of the light curve maximum may be used
696: as a proxy of the time of the emission measure maximum. Since the former
697: occurs a bit earlier than the latter, the loop length estimated from
698: the former will be slightly underestimated.
699:
700: \subsection{Loop Cross-section}
701:
702: A typical output of the analysis of X-ray spectra with moderate
703: resolution, such as those from CCD detectors (e.g. EPIC/XMM-Newton,
704: ACIS/Chandra), is the emission measure associated with a fit thermal
705: component. Time-resolved spectra during the flare can then provide us with
706: the flare maximum emission measure. If we know also the maximum density,
707: we can then derive the loop volume, and, knowing the loop length, also
708: the loop cross-section area and radius. From Eq.(\ref{eq:nmax}) and/or
709: Eq.(\ref{eq:ldelt}) we can evaluate the maximum density at the loop top.
710: Since the emission measure is integrated over most of the loop (the part
711: emitting in the instrument band), For consistency, the volume should
712: be computed using the density averaged of the emitting part of the loop.
713: In realistic conditions of pressure equilibrium, this average density
714: is higher than the
715: density at the loop apex, because the temperature decreases downwards
716: from the loop apex. A reasonable estimate of this average density can
717: be derived from the expressions linking the loop apex temperature to the
718: temperature obtained from spectrum fitting (e.g. Favata et al. 2000b),
719: under the reasonable assumption that the fit temperature is an average
720: loop temperature:
721:
722: \begin{equation}
723: T_M= \xi ~ T_{avg}^{\eta}
724: \end{equation}
725: where the parameters $\xi$ and $\eta$ depend on the observation instrument
726: (e.g. $\xi = 0.130$ and 0.233 and $\eta = 1.16$ and 1.099 for EPIC/XMM-Newton,
727: and MECS/BeppoSAX, respectively, see also the Appendix, Eq.~\ref{eq:tmax}).
728: Then the average density is:
729:
730: \begin{equation}
731: n_{avg} = n_M \frac{T_M}{T_{avg}}
732: \label{eq:navg}
733: \end{equation}
734:
735: Typically $n_{avg}/n_M \sim 1.5 - 2$. The loop volume $V$, cross-section area
736: $A$ and radius $R$ are then:
737:
738: \begin{equation}
739: V \approx \frac{EM}{n_{avg}^2}
740: \label{eq:vol}
741: \end{equation}
742:
743: \begin{equation}
744: A \approx \frac{V}{2 ~ L}
745: \label{eq:area}
746: \end{equation}
747:
748: \begin{equation}
749: r \approx \sqrt{\frac{A}{\pi}}
750: \label{eq:radius}
751: \end{equation}
752:
753: The final results of such formulae should be in any way taken with care,
754: because highly indirect and therefore strongly affected by
755: the error propagation.
756:
757: %If we approximate the temperature distribution with x^2/7 and assume that
758: %9/10 of the loop emits X-rays we obtain an average density 1.35 the
759: %top density. If we also include a small effect of gravity stratification
760: %(0.2 scale heights at typical flare temperature of 100 MK) we end up to
761: %an average density being about 1.5 times the density at the loop apex.
762:
763: \subsection{Single loop versus multi-loop}
764:
765: It has been pointed out that large and long stellar flares likely involve
766: entire coronal regions including multiple loop structures. How can one
767: reconcile this remark with the single loop approach followed in this work?
768: Of course, since telescopes are not powerful enough to resolve the flaring
769: structures, we cannot give conclusive answers. However, a few arguments
770: can support our single loop approach.
771:
772: If multiple loop structures are involved in the flare, this frequently
773: occurs in the late phases of a flare. The initial phases of an X-ray flare are
774: instead quite localized and one can reasonably assume the presence of a
775: single dominant loop, at least in the rise phase. This is observed in
776: solar X-ray flares (e.g. Aschwanden \& Alexander 2001) and supported by the
777: accurate modeling of a well-observed stellar flare at least in the rise,
778: peak and early decay (Reale et al. 2004). The clear evidence of a delay
779: between the temperature and the density peak in many flares is consistent
780: with a single loop model.
781: Even in the later flare
782: phases, a decay with no significant heating, i.e. with a steep path in
783: the density-temperature diagram as sometimes observed even in very large
784: flares (e.g. Favata et al. 2005) suggests strong plasma cooling confined
785: in single loops. Arcades and two-ribbon flares are instead characterized
786: by strong heating which completely dominates the flare decay (e.g. Kopp \&
787: Poletto 1984) and/or by irregular light curves (Aschwanden \& Alexander
788: 2001, Reale et al. 2004)\footnote{Reale et al. (2004) showed that even
789: arcades of equal loops can be described as single loops.}.
790: Recently, multi-thread models have been used to study solar flare evolution
791: (Warren \& Doschek 2005, Warren 2006). In this case, the hydrodynamics
792: of the threads will be described by the results presented here.
793:
794:
795: \subsection{Sample applications}
796: \label{sec:appl}
797:
798: As sample applications of the analysis described above, we have revisited
799: three stellar flares already studied in the literature: a flare on
800: Algol observed with BeppoSAX on 30 August 1997 (Schmitt \& Favata 1999,
801: Favata \& Schmitt 1999), a flare on AB Doradus observed with BeppoSAX on
802: 29 November 1997 (Maggio et al. 2000) and a flare on Proxima Centauri
803: observed with XMM-Newton on 12 August 2001 (G\"{u}del et al. 2004,
804: Reale et al. 2004). The first flare is quite long ($\sim 1$ day) and
805: shows an eclipse in the late decay phase. The first two flares are also
806: hot (above 100 MK) and quite big, involving an emission measure above
807: $10^{54}$ cm$^{-3}$. The last flare is cooler and on a smaller scale,
808: but observed in great detail, thanks to the short distance of Proxima
809: Centauri. It has been modelled accurately with detailed time-dependent
810: hydrodynamic simulations (Reale et al. 2004), obtaining constraints even
811: on the time and space distribution of the heating. These flares have
812: been selected because for all of them the parameters related to the
813: present analysis are all available with the associated uncertainties,
814: and the uncertainties themselves are not excessively large.
815:
816: Table~\ref{tab:appl} shows the results obtained from
817: Eqs.(\ref{eq:nmax})--(\ref{eq:radius}) for these three flares. The data
818: in the first ten rows are derived from the original analysis of the
819: references cited in the table. The first four are characteristic times,
820: the light curve decay time ($\tau_{LC}$), the time of the temperature
821: maximum ($t_0$), and of the density maximum ($t_M$) reckoned since the
822: beginning of the flare, and the delay between the temperature and the
823: density maximum ($\delta t_{0-M}$). There are then the flare maximum
824: temperature ($T_{obs}$) and emission measure ($EM$) as derived from
825: one-temperature fitting, and the ratio of the maximum temperature to
826: the temperature at the density maximum. The loop maximum temperature
827: ($T_0$), the half-length ($L$) and the thermodynamic cooling time
828: ($\tau_s$) are derived more indirectly according to empirical formulae
829: (e.g. Reale et al. 1997, see the Appendix).
830:
831: The last ten rows show results obtained with the analysis presented in this
832: work. The first four are densities: the loop equilibrium density ($n_0$)
833: pertaining to the derived maximum temperature ($T_0$), the actual
834: maximum density ($n_M$) derived in two different ways, and
835: the maximum density averaged over the whole loop ($n_{avg}$), derived
836: from the first maximum density. Then there are the loop volume ($V$),
837: cross-section area ($A$), and radius ($r$).
838: Finally, we show other three values of the loop length: the first one
839: is a refinement of the original length derivation, using the temperature
840: at the density maximum ($T_M$), instead of the maximum temperature
841: ($T_0$). Since $T_M \leq T_0$, the new length is invariably smaller than
842: the original, but not by large factors, as discussed in Sec.\ref{sec:len}
843: (within 20\%), thus mostly confirming the results of the previous
844: analyses. The other two length values are obtained from the analysis
845: of the rise and peak phase, presented here (Eqs.~[\ref{eq:lris}] and
846: [\ref{eq:ldelt}]).
847:
848: The first two flares show a significant delay of the time of the
849: density maximum from that of the temperature maximum -- an indication
850: that the heat pulse is relatively short as compared to the loop
851: characteristic cooling time. Coherently, the ratio of the maximum
852: temperature to the temperature at the density maximum is relatively large
853: (e.g. Fig.\ref{fig:mod_evol}). The flare on Proxima Centauri shows
854: instead a relatively smaller delay and a coherently smaller temperature
855: ratio. The loop length and the decay time are very large for the first
856: flare ($\sim 10^{12}$ cm and 21 ks, respectively) and much smaller for
857: the other two.
858:
859: In all flares, the plasma does not reach equilibrium conditions, and the
860: maximum density is well below the equilibrium density. Although different,
861: Eqs.(\ref{eq:nmax}) and (\ref{eq:trc}) yield consistent density values
862: -- within the (quite large) uncertainties -- for all flares, between a
863: few $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a few $10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. The loop volume
864: and cross-section parameters are affected by even larger uncertainties;
865: they are derived from the combination of several quantities and suffer
866: from the error propagation. It is nevertheless confirmed the large loop
867: aspect ratio for the AB Dor flare; the aspect ratio for the other flares
868: is instead closer to typical solar coronal loops.
869:
870: The loop length values derived from Eqs.(\ref{eq:lris}) and
871: (\ref{eq:ldelt}) (reported in the last two rows) are generally consistent
872: within the uncertainties
873: with those derived from the analysis of the flare decay. They coherently
874: yield quite smaller -- although still marginally consistent -- values
875: for the AB Dor flare. We may take this as a vague indication that this
876: flare involved progressively larger structures, coherently with the
877: evidence of significant heating in the decay. We may also speculate
878: that the opposite occurred in the Algol flare, i.e. an initial larger
879: structure, and later other smaller structures, consistent both with the
880: significant heating in the decay and with the relatively smaller size
881: obtained from the analysis of the eclipse.
882:
883: For the flare on Proxima Centauri, we obtain density values smaller
884: than those reported in Reale et al. (2004), which are, however, derived
885: assuming quite a different heating deposition, i.e. concentrated at the
886: loop footpoints. The loop aspect derived here is coherently larger than
887: that reported for loop A in Reale et al. (2004), but if we consider
888: the errors the results are almost compatible. All the loop lengths
889: obtained for this flare are consistent with that constrained in Reale
890: et al. (2004).
891:
892: We remark that in order to obtain consistent results, it is essential
893: to take into careful account the uncertainties related to each step
894: of the analysis. Table~\ref{tab:appl} shows that the analysis of the
895: rise and peak phase of stellar flares provides valuable results and can
896: therefore be usefully and extensively applied.
897:
898: %\input{table1.tex}
899:
900: \begin{table*}
901: \caption{Analysis of three stellar flaring loops. The parameters in the
902: upper section are derived from the analysis in the references; those in
903: the lower section from the equations presented in this work. }
904: \label{tab:appl}
905: \begin{center}
906: \begin{tabular}
907: {l c c c c c}
908: \hline
909: Parameter & Equation$^a$ & Units & Algol/BeppoSAX & AB Dor/BeppoSAX & Prox Cen/XMM \\
910: &&& (Favata \& Schmitt 1999) & (Maggio et al. 2000) & (Reale et al. 2004) \\
911: \hline
912: $\tau_{LC}$ &(\ref{eq:lreale})& $10^3$ s & $50 \pm 5$ & $3.4 \pm 0.1$ & $4.3 \pm 0.1$ \\
913: $t_0^b$ && $10^3$ s & $13.5 \pm 4$ & $0.72 \pm 18$ & $0.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
914: $t_M$ &(\ref{eq:nmax})& $10^3$ s & $34.5 \pm 4$ & $1.12 \pm 0.09$ & $0.8 \pm 0.1$ \\
915: $\Delta t_{0-M}$ &(\ref{eq:dt0rc})& $10^3$ s & $ 21 \pm 6$ & $0.40 \pm 0.18$ & $0.19 \pm 0.09$ \\
916: $T_{obs}$ &(\ref{eq:tmax})& $10^7$ K & $14 \pm 2$ & $10 \pm 2$ & $2.6 \pm 0.1$ \\
917: EM &(\ref{eq:vol})& $10^{54}$ cm$^{-3}$ & 13 & 5 & 0.002 \\
918: $T_0/T_M$ &(\ref{eq:trc})&& $1.4 \pm 0.2$ & $1.5 \pm 0.3$ & $1.18 \pm 0.07$ \\
919: $T_0$ &(\ref{eq:tmax})& $10^7$ K & $20 \pm 3$ & $14 \pm 3$ & $4.0 \pm 0.2$ \\
920: $L^{c}$ &(\ref{eq:lreale})& $10^9$ cm & $800 \pm 300$ & $49 \pm 18 $ & $13 \pm 4$ \\
921: $\tau_s^d$ &(\ref{eq:tserio})& $10^3$ s & $21 \pm 8$ & $1.5 \pm 0.6$ & $0.8 \pm 0.2$ \\
922: \hline
923: $n_0$ &(\ref{eq:n0}) & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $6.5 \pm 3$ & $50 \pm 20$ & $16 \pm 5$ \\
924: $n_M$& (\ref{eq:nmax}) & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $3.6 \pm 2$ & $12 \pm 6$ & $5 \pm 2$ \\
925: $n_M$& (\ref{eq:trc}) & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $3.1 \pm 1.2$ & $23 \pm 12$ & $7 \pm 2$ \\
926: $n_{avg}$ & (\ref{eq:navg}) & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $4.4 \pm 1.8$ & $20 \pm 9$ & $9 \pm 2$ \\
927: V &(\ref{eq:vol}) & $10^{30}$ cm$^{3}$ & $7000 \pm 5000$ & $330 \pm 20$ & $0.25 \pm 0.1$ \\
928: A &(\ref{eq:area}) & $10^{20}$ cm$^{2}$ & $44 \pm 30$ & $34 \pm 24$ & $0.10 \pm 0.05$ \\
929: r &(\ref{eq:radius}) & $10^9$ cm & $37 \pm 13$ & $33 \pm 13$ & $1.8 \pm 0.5$ \\
930: L$^{e}$ &(\ref{eq:lreale},\ref{eq:trc}) & $10^9$ cm & $670 \pm 250$ & $40 \pm 18$ & $12 \pm 4$ \\
931: L & (\ref{eq:lris}) & $10^9$ cm & $940 \pm 300$ & $27 \pm 13$ & $7 \pm 5$ \\
932: L & (\ref{eq:ldelt}) & $10^9$ cm & $1300 \pm 700$ & $21 \pm 14$ & $8 \pm 5$ \\
933: \hline
934: \end{tabular}
935: \end{center}
936:
937: \noindent
938: $^a$ - where the parameter is used or evaluated;
939:
940: \noindent
941: $^b$ - Time of the temperature maximum (or when the temperature begins to decrease);
942:
943: \noindent
944: $^c$ - The maximum temperature is used;
945:
946: \noindent
947: $^d$ - Using the original expression in Serio et al. (1991) with $\phi = 1$;
948:
949: \noindent
950: $^e$ - The temperature at the density maximum is used;
951:
952: %$^e$ - Volume in units of $10^{30}$ cm$^{3}$;
953: %$^f$ - Cross-section area in units of $10^{20}$ cm$^{2}$;
954: %$^g$ - Length in units of $10^{9}$ cm;
955: %$^h$ - From the analysis of the decay phase, as reported in the reference;
956: %$^i$ - computed as $L$, but considering the temperature at the density maximum.
957:
958: \end{table*}
959:
960:
961: \section{Conclusions}
962: \label{sec:conc}
963:
964: In this work, we derive useful diagnostic formulae for the analysis of the
965: rise and peak phase of stellar X-ray flares. The basic starting point is the
966: realization that a flare is generally triggered by a short-lasting heat
967: pulse, that the shorter the heat pulse the larger is the delay between the
968: temperature maximum and the density maximum, and that the characteristic
969: time scales in the rise phase also scale as the cooling times. We have
970: then been able to derive useful expressions for the flaring loop density
971: and length that can be applied if we can measure the flare rise times
972: and a few significant temperatures. These expressions are generally
973: independent of the analysis of the decay phase. Therefore, they can be
974: used to complement and enrich the information coming from the analysis
975: of the decay phase, i.e. to check for consistency, to obtain constraints
976: on the loop geometry and even on the evolution of the flare morphology.
977: Of course, they are particularly useful whenever the analysis of the decay
978: phase cannot be performed, and we
979: can equally derive an estimation of the loop length.
980: Our analysis provides useful diagnostics even when the data in the
981: rise phase are limited. The information on the loop aspect represents
982: a higher level of diagnostics than that available only from the decay
983: phase, and can therefore improve our knowledge on stellar flares and
984: related coronal structures. If a complete set of data is available, the
985: complete analysis provides redundant information, and the opportunity of
986: a cross-check;
987: inconsistent results would
988: not invalidate the present analysis, rather they would show that the
989: related events are challenging because they cannot be well-described
990: with our single-loop/simple-heat-pulse model. We look forward extensive
991: application of this analysis to large samples of stellar flares.
992: The results presented here have application beyond flare loop evolution, such
993: as the dynamical behavior in active region loops.
994:
995: \acknowledgements{
996: The author thanks Paola Testa and Antonio Maggio for useful suggestions.
997: The author acknowledges support from Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and
998: Ministero dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca.}
999:
1000:
1001: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Aschwanden \& Alexander(2001)]{2001SoPh..204...91A} Aschwanden,
1004: M.~J., \& Alexander, D.\ 2001, \solphys, 204, 91
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Betta et al.(1997)]{1997A&AS..122..585B} Betta, R., Peres, G.,
1007: Reale, F., \& Serio, S.\ 1997, \aaps, 122, 585
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Betta et al.(2001)]{2001A&A...380..341B} Betta, R.~M., Peres, G.,
1010: Reale, F., \& Serio, S.\ 2001, \aap, 380, 341
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Cargill \& Klimchuk(2004)]{2004ApJ...605..911C} Cargill, P.~J., \&
1013: Klimchuk, J.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 911
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Cheng et al.(1983)]{1983ApJ...265.1090C} Cheng, C.-C., Oran,
1016: E.~S., Doschek, G.~A., Boris, J.~P., \& Mariska, J.~T.\ 1983, \apj, 265,
1017: 1090
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Favata et al.(2005)]{2005ApJS..160..469F} Favata, F., Flaccomio,
1020: E., Reale, F., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Shang, H., Stassun, K.~G., \&
1021: Feigelson, E.~D.\ 2005, \apjs, 160, 469
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Favata et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...362..628F} Favata, F., Micela, G.,
1024: Reale, F., Sciortino, S., \& Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 2000a, \aap, 362, 628
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Favata et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...353..987F} Favata, F., Reale, F.,
1027: Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Maggio, A., \& Matsumoto, H.\ 2000b, \aap, 353,
1028: 987
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Favata \& Schmitt(1999)]{1999A&A...350..900F} Favata, F., \&
1031: Schmitt, J.~H.~M.~M.\ 1999, \aap, 350, 900
1032:
1033: \bibitem[Fisher et al.(1985)]{1985ApJ...289..414F} Fisher, G.~H., Canfield,
1034: R.~C., \& McClymont, A.~N.\ 1985, \apj, 289, 414
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Giardino et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...413..669G} Giardino, G., Favata,
1037: F., Micela, G., \& Reale, F.\ 2004, \aap, 413, 669
1038:
1039: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...416..713G} G{\"u}del, M.,
1040: Audard, M., Reale, F., Skinner, S.~L., \& Linsky, J.~L.\ 2004, \aap, 416,
1041: 713
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(1983)]{1983ApJ...267..280H} Haisch, B.~M., Linsky,
1044: J.~L., Bornmann, P.~L., Stencel, R.~E., Antiochos, S.~K., Golub, L., \&
1045: Vaiana, G.~S.\ 1983, \apj, 267, 280
1046:
1047: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...453..464H} Hawley, S.~L., et al.\
1048: 1995, \apj, 453, 464
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Jakimiec et al.(1992)]{1992A&A...253..269J} Jakimiec, J.,
1051: Sylwester, B., Sylwester, J., Serio, S., Peres, G., \& Reale, F.\ 1992,
1052: \aap, 253, 269
1053:
1054: \bibitem[Kopp \& Poletto(1984)]{1984SoPh...93..351K} Kopp, R.~A., \&
1055: Poletto, G.\ 1984, \solphys, 93, 351
1056:
1057: \bibitem[MacNeice(1986)]{1986SoPh..103...47M} MacNeice, P.\ 1986, \solphys,
1058: 103, 47
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Maggio et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...356..627M} Maggio, A., Pallavicini,
1061: R., Reale, F., \& Tagliaferri, G.\ 2000, \aap, 356, 627
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Nagai(1980)]{1980SoPh...68..351N} Nagai, F.\ 1980, \solphys, 68,
1064: 351
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Nagai \& Emslie(1984)]{1984ApJ...279..896N} Nagai, F., \& Emslie,
1067: A.~G.\ 1984, \apj, 279, 896
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Peres et al.(1982)]{1982ApJ...252..791P} Peres, G., Serio, S.,
1070: Vaiana, G.~S., \& Rosner, R.\ 1982, \apj, 252, 791
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Priest(1984)]{1984smh..book.....P} Priest, E.~R.\ 1984, Geophysics
1073: and Astrophysics Monographs, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Reale(2002)]{2002ASPC..277..103R} Reale, F.\ 2002, ASP
1076: Conf.~Ser.~277: Stellar Coronae in the Chandra and XMM-NEWTON Era, 277, 103
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Reale(2003)]{2003AdSpR..32.1057R} Reale, F.\ 2003, Advances in
1079: Space Research, 32, 1057
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Reale et al.(1997)]{1997A&A...325..782R} Reale, F., Betta, R.,
1082: Peres, G., Serio, S., \& McTiernan, J.\ 1997, \aap, 325, 782
1083:
1084: \bibitem[Reale et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...416..733R} Reale, F., G{\"u}del, M.,
1085: Peres, G., \& Audard, M.\ 2004, \aap, 416, 733
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Rosner et al.(1978)]{1978ApJ...220..643R} Rosner, R., Tucker,
1088: W.~H., \& Vaiana, G.~S.\ 1978, \apj, 220, 643
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Schmitt \& Favata(1999)]{1999Natur.401...44S} Schmitt,
1091: J.~H.~M.~M., \& Favata, F.\ 1999, \nat, 401, 44
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Serio et al.(1991)]{1991A&A...241..197S} Serio, S., Reale, F.,
1094: Jakimiec, J., Sylwester, B., \& Sylwester, J.\ 1991, \aap, 241, 197
1095:
1096: \bibitem[Stelzer et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...392..585S} Stelzer, B., et al.\
1097: 2002, \aap, 392, 585
1098:
1099: \bibitem[Sylwester et al.(1993)]{1993A&A...267..586S} Sylwester, B.,
1100: Sylwester, J., Serio, S., Reale, F., Bentley, R.~D., \& Fludra, A.\ 1993,
1101: \aap, 267, 586
1102:
1103: \bibitem[van den Oord et al.(1988)]{1988A&A...205..181V} van den Oord,
1104: G.~H.~J., Mewe, R., \& Brinkman, A.~C.\ 1988, \aap, 205, 181
1105:
1106: \bibitem[van den Oord \& Mewe(1989)]{1989A&A...213..245V} van den Oord,
1107: G.~H.~J., \& Mewe, R.\ 1989, \aap, 213, 245
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Warren(2006)]{2006ApJ...637..522W} Warren, H.~P.\ 2006, \apj, 637,
1110: 522
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Warren \& Doschek(2005)]{2005ApJ...618L.157W} Warren, H.~P., \&
1113: Doschek, G.~A.\ 2005, \apjl, 618, L157
1114:
1115: \end{thebibliography}
1116:
1117: \begin{appendix}
1118:
1119: \section{Review of the loop length from the flare decay}
1120:
1121: From the basic work of Serio et al. (1991), and including the
1122: information of the density-temperature diagram (Jakimiec et al. 1992,
1123: Sylwester et al. 1993) to diagnose residual heating, Reale et al. (1997)
1124: device a general expression of the loop length as a function of the
1125: observed decay time. The formula is essentially an inversion of
1126: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tserio}) with a factor ($F(\zeta)> 1$)
1127: which corrects for the presence of the heating:
1128:
1129: \begin{equation}
1130: L_9=\frac{\tau_{LC} \sqrt{T_7}}{120 F(\zeta)} ~~~~~~~~
1131: \zeta_{min} < \zeta \leq
1132: \zeta_{max}
1133: \label{eq:lreale}
1134: \end{equation}
1135: where $\zeta$ is the slope of the decay
1136: in the log(n-T) (or equivalent $\sqrt{EM}-T$) diagram and $\tau_{LC}$ is the
1137: e-folding time of the light curve decay (to 1/10 from the maximum).
1138: and
1139: \begin{equation}
1140: T_7 = \xi ~ \frac{T_{obs}^{\eta}}{10^7}
1141: \label{eq:tmax}
1142: \end{equation}
1143: and $T_{obs}$ the maximum best-fit temperature derived from
1144: spectral fitting of the data.
1145:
1146: The correction factor is:
1147: \begin{equation}
1148: F(\zeta) = \frac{c_a}{\zeta-\zeta_a} + q_a
1149: \end{equation}
1150: where $c_a$, $\zeta_a$, $q_a$ are parameters to be tuned for the instrument
1151: which observes the flare.
1152:
1153: Table~\ref{tab:dec} shows the values of the parameters for some
1154: relevant solar and stellar instruments with moderate spectral capabilities.
1155:
1156: \begin{table}
1157: \caption{Parameters for the determination of the flare loop length from
1158: the decay phase.}
1159: \label{tab:dec}
1160: \begin{center}
1161: \begin{tabular}
1162: {l c c c c c c c}
1163: \hline
1164: Instrument & $c_a$ & $\zeta_a$ & $q_a$ & $\zeta_{min}$ & $\zeta_{max}$ &
1165: $\xi$ & $\eta$ \\
1166: \hline
1167: {\small ASCA/SIS} & 61 & 0.035 & 0.59 & 0.4 & 1.7 & 0.077 & 1.19 \\
1168: {\small BeppoSAX/MECS} & 0.68 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.4 & 1.7 & 0.233 & 1.099 \\
1169: {\small Chandra/ACIS} & 0.63 & 0.32 & 1.41 & 0.32 & 1.5 & 0.068 & 1.20 \\
1170: {\small EXOSAT/ME} & 1.3 & 0.4 & 0.8 & 0.4 & 1.8 & 0.195 & 1.117 \\
1171: {\small ROSAT/PSPC} & 3.67 & 0.3 & 1.61 & 0.3 & 1.8 & 0.173 & 1.163 \\
1172: {\small XMM/EPIC} & 0.51 & 0.35 & 1.36 & 0.35 & 1.6 & 0.130 & 1.16 \\
1173: \hline
1174: {\small GOES9} & 1.02 & 0.37 & 0.36 & 0.37 & 1.7 & 0.097 & 1.163 \\
1175: {\small Yohkoh/SXT} & 5.4 & 0.25 & 0.52 & 0.3 & 1.7 & (*) & (*) \\
1176: \hline
1177: \end{tabular}
1178: \end{center}
1179: (*) Yohkoh/SXT is supposed to resolve the flaring loop and to measure
1180: the temperature at the loop apex.
1181: \end{table}
1182: \end{appendix}
1183:
1184:
1185: \end{document}
1186:
1187: \appendix
1188:
1189: \section{Formulae for consistency}
1190:
1191: The flare maximum density occurs as soon as the conductive and radiative cooling times become equal.
1192: Therefore, by equating Eq.~\ref{eq:tcon} and Eq.~\ref{eq:trad}, we obtain an expression for the square of the flare maximum density:
1193:
1194: \[
1195: n^2 = \frac{3}{10.5} \kappa L^{-2} T^{7/2 - \alpha}
1196: = \frac{2.7 \times 10^{-6}}{10.5 b} L^{-2} T^{7/2 - \alpha}
1197: \]
1198:
1199: This is also the density in loop equilibrium conditions at that temperature, as described by loop scaling laws (Rosner et al. 1978). From loop scaling laws:
1200:
1201: \[
1202: n_0 = \frac{T^2}{2a k L } = 1.3 \times 10^6 T^2 L^{-1}
1203: \]
1204:
1205: \[
1206: a = ( 1.4 \times 10^3)^3
1207: \]
1208:
1209: For coherence with scaling laws:
1210:
1211: \[
1212: 7/2 - \alpha = 4
1213: \]
1214:
1215: \[
1216: b = \frac{2.7 \times 10^{-6}}{10.5 \times 1.7 \times 10^{12}} = 1.5 \times
1217: 10^{-19}
1218: \]
1219:
1220: \[
1221: P(T) = 1.5 \times 10^{-19} T^{-1/2}
1222: \]
1223:
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227: \[
1228: T^{7/2} = \frac{10}{3} \frac{n^2 L^2 P(T)}{\kappa}
1229: \]
1230:
1231: Equal cooling times condition:
1232: \[
1233: T_{eq} = a^{2/7} \( n L \)^{4/7} = b \( n L \) ^{4/7}
1234: \]
1235: \[
1236: b = 3.3 \times 10^{-5}
1237: \]
1238: \[
1239: n_{eq} = 7 \times 10^7 \frac{T_{eq}^{7/4}}{L}
1240: \]
1241:
1242: