1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{psfig}
3: \usepackage{graphicx,verbatim}
4: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
5:
6: \slugcomment{Draft}
7:
8:
9: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
10: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
11: \shorttitle{Charge States in CMEs}
12: \shortauthors{Rakowski, Laming, \& Lepri}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16:
17: \title{Ion Charge States in Halo CMEs: What can we Learn about the Explosion?}
18:
19:
20: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
21: %% author and affiliation information.
22: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
23: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
24: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
25: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
26:
27: \author{Cara E. Rakowski\altaffilmark{1,2}, J. Martin Laming\altaffilmark{2}
28: \& Susan T. Lepri\altaffilmark{3}}
29:
30:
31: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
32: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
33: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
34: %% affiliation.
35:
36: \altaffiltext{1}{NRL/NRC Research Associate}
37: \altaffiltext{2}{E. O Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval
38: Research Laboratory, Code 7674L, Washington DC 20375-5321
39: \email{crakowski@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil, laming@nrl.navy.mil}}
40: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of
41: Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann
42: Arbor, MI 48109-2143\email{slepri@umich.edu}}
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: We describe a new modeling approach to develop a more quantitative
46: understanding of the charge state distributions of the ions of
47: various elements detected in situ during halo Coronal Mass Ejection
48: (CME) events by the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite.
49: Using a model CME hydrodynamic evolution based on observations of
50: CMEs propagating in the plane of the sky and on theoretical models,
51: we integrate time dependent equations for the ionization balance of
52: various elements to compare with ACE data. We find that plasma in
53: the CME ``core'' typically requires further heating following
54: filament eruption, with thermal energy input similar to the kinetic
55: energy input. This extra heating is presumably the result of post
56: eruptive reconnection. Plasma corresponding to the CME ``cavity'' is
57: usually not further ionized, since whether heated or not, the low
58: density gives freeze-in close the the Sun. The current analysis is
59: limited by ambiguities in the underlying model CME evolution. Such
60: methods are likely to reach their full potential when applied to
61: data to be acquired by STEREO when at optimum separation. CME
62: evolution observed with one spacecraft may be used to interpret CME
63: charge states detected by the other.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
67: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
68: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
69: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
70:
71: \keywords{Sun: solar wind --- atomic processes --- plasmas --- waves}
72:
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75: Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) represent perhaps the most extreme
76: manifestation of solar activity. Of order $10^{16}$ g of plasma is
77: expelled at speeds of several hundred m s$^{-1}$ to in excess of one
78: thousand km s$^{-1}$. Such speeds are frequently super-Alfv\'enic
79: with respect to the ambient solar wind, and the shocks driven by CME
80: events can be efficient accelerators of energetic particles,
81: constituting the main radiation hazard for space-borne
82: instrumentation. The spectacular nature of the
83: phenomenon, and its relevance to space based technology, have
84: spawned much theoretical and observational work with the ultimate
85: goal of understanding CMEs sufficiently deeply to enable the
86: forecasting of such events, in a discipline that has become known as
87: ``space weather''.
88:
89: The interplanetary manifestation of CMEs (ICMEs) embedded in the
90: solar wind can exhibit a variety of signatures in the magnetic
91: field, solar wind speed and density profiles, proton thermal
92: properties, elemental and ionic composition, and the presence of
93: energetic particles (see Zurbuchen and Richardson, 2006 for more
94: detail). Of particular interest here are the ionic charge states
95: observed in the solar wind during ICMEs. Unlike many plasma
96: properties, the charge states are determined within 4 solar radii
97: and remain unchanged as they expand further into the heliosphere.
98: This property makes them an important signature of the eruption
99: process close to the Sun. A large body of literature exists
100: highlighting the rich data sets which detail the unique charge
101: composition observed within ICMEs (e.g. Zurbuchen and Richardson
102: 2006, Zurbuchen et al. 2004, Lepri and Zurbuchen 2004, Lepri et al.
103: 2001, Henke et al. 2001, Gloeckler et al. 1998, Henke et al. 1998,
104: Galvin \& Gloeckler 1997, Reinard 2005).
105:
106: While a number of studies have examined the existing solar wind
107: composition data and made inferences on freeze-in temperatures based
108: on computed ionization distributions appropriate to coronal
109: equilibrium, in this paper we commence time-dependent modeling of
110: the ion charge state distributions of various elements to
111: draw quantitative conclusions regarding the thermal energy input and
112: initial conditions in the corona during the CME eruption. Using
113: current ionization-recombination calculations and a simple model for
114: the spatial and temperature evolution of the CME plasma we attempt
115: to reproduce the charge states detected {\it in situ} by instruments
116: on the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft. In order to
117: provide some context for our work, we first review the status of
118: theory and observation for CMEs. Following this, we describe our
119: modeling approach in some detail, and apply our methods to a sample
120: of ICMEs detected ACE, which were chosen to provide a variety of ICME
121: speeds and charge state distributions.
122:
123: \section{CME Theory and Observation: Current Status}
124:
125: CMEs were first discovered during the Skylab era \citep{gosling74}, and a ``halo CME'' (i.e. an Earth
126: directed event) was first detected by the P78-1 coronagraph \citep{howard85}. Since the 1995 launch of
127: SOHO, they are now routinely observed and studied by the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT)
128: and Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) instruments \citep[e.g.][]{dere97}.
129: LASCO white light observations are sensitive to photospheric radiation Thomson scattered by
130: free electrons in the
131: corona. Three nested coronagraphs provided coverage between 1.5 and 30 $R_{\sun}$ heliocentric distance,
132: reduced to 2.5 - 30 $R_{\sun}$ following the 1998 demise of C1.
133: EIT records images in narrow EUV wavebands emitted closer to the solar surface, and allows investigations
134: of the coronal precursor and response to the CME eruption. This instrumentation provides the context
135: for the observations of most importance in this work, those of particle charge states and masses detected
136: {\it in situ} at the L1 Lagrange point by mass and charge to mass spectrometers on board the
137: Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE). We use Level 2 data supplied by the ACE Science Center from
138: the SWICS/SWIMS (Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer/Solar Wind Ions Mass Spectrometer) and
139: SWEPAM (Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor) instruments.
140:
141: For our purposes, the most important feature of CMEs is their rate
142: of expansion and acceleration close to the Sun. For the time being,
143: we are not able to simultaneously observe the expansion rate of a
144: CME for which we also detect the particle emission, and must
145: estimate the velocity profile of a halo CME from observations of
146: other CMEs propagating in the plane of the sky. Happily, these
147: frequently follow a similar form \citep{zhang01,zhang04,zhang06}.
148: Observationally, CME evolution can be divided into three phases. An
149: initial phase of expansion at approximately constant velocity in the
150: range 10-100 km s$^{-1}$, is called the ``initiation phase'', during
151: which the flux rope rises to a height of about 1.5 $R_{\sun}$.
152: This is followed by the ``acceleration phase''. During
153: this period, the CME undergoes a roughly constant acceleration up to
154: its final speed, between a few 100 km s$^{-1}$ to a few 1000 km
155: s$^{-1}$ for the fastest CMEs. Typically this final speed is
156: achieved around 5-10 $R_{\sun}$. Lastly, the
157: ``propagation phase'' with essentially constant velocity transports
158: the CME to 1 AU and beyond. These features are also apparent in
159: theoretical work. In the breakout model
160: \citep{antiochos98,antiochos99,devore00,aulanier02}, the initiation
161: phase corresponds to the initial shearing of the magnetic field
162: lines closest to the filament channel in an overlying arcade of
163: loops. As the filament rises and reconnection commences underneath
164: it, the acceleration phase begins, typically at 1.5 $R_{\sun}$
165: \citep[see Fig. 1 in][]{lynch04}. In the breakout model,
166: posteruptive reconnection beneath the erupting filament is not
167: strictly necessary for an explosion to occur, though reconnection
168: above the filament is required. There appears to be no clear event
169: to signal the end of the acceleration phase, though clearly a CME
170: cannot continue accelerating forever. Analytic models of CME
171: eruptions \citep{lin00} can also give similar height-time and
172: velocity-time profiles. Again, the transition from the initiation
173: phase to the acceleration phase corresponds to the formation of a
174: current sheet below the flux rope. The resulting analytic solutions
175: for the height and velocity of the reconnection-driven flux rope do
176: indeed show an approximately constant acceleration phase, followed
177: by a roughly constant velocity phase, at least for models with
178: relatively high reconnection rates producing fast CMEs. Some
179: deceleration may also occur during the propagation phase.
180:
181: The morphology of the erupting CME plasma, while generally quite
182: variable, shows a regular pattern of features for flux rope or
183: magnetic cloud CMEs, which are thought to be associated with
184: erupting prominences, and which will be the focus of most of our
185: modeling using the event list of \citet{lynch06}. The CME front (a
186: shock front in CMEs fast enough to drive a shock) encloses a
187: ``cavity'' region, presumably a region of strong magnetic field
188: comprising the flux rope \citep{lynch04}. Towards the rear of the
189: erupting plasma is the CME ``core'', and region with density perhaps
190: a factor of 10 higher than in the cavity. This region possibly has
191: an origin as the cold prominence material. Reconnection above the
192: erupting filament in the breakout model would be expected to heat
193: the cavity plasma, if anything. Unfortunately the cavity plasma is
194: usually too rarefied for any heating to be visible in the detected
195: ion charge states. Reconnection behind the eruption
196: \citep[e.g.][]{riley02,riley07}, for example to form postflare
197: loops, will most likely heat the core material, where the density is
198: high enough that increased ionization can set in before freeze-in.
199: \citet{kumar96} model a lower velocity flux rope eruption, making
200: the assumption that magnetic helicity is conserved during the
201: process. They find that the magnetic energy of the flux rope must
202: decrease, and that not all of this energy can be converted into
203: kinetic energy of the expanding plasma, some must go to heat, though
204: the exact form and location of the magnetic energy dissipation is
205: not specified.
206:
207: The flux rope may also be distorted during transit to 1 AU. \citet{riley04} model the effects of
208: spherical expansion and the effect of pressure gradients between the CME plasma and the ambient solar
209: wind. The flux rope may expand substantially in latitude. \citet{schmidt01} consider the case of the
210: flux rope propagating in the velocity shear layer between the fast and slow solar wind, and find that
211: the magnetic topology may be changed by reconnection. In this way, plasma from the CME ``core'' and
212: ``cavity'' regions may become mixed together before {\it in situ} detection at 1 AU by ACE.
213:
214: \section{Modeling Approach}
215:
216: Our simulations follow the evolution of high density core and lower density cavity material for a CME.
217: The ionization balance for the two components are followed separately starting from coronal
218: or flare temperatures allowing for heating during the acceleration phase of the CME evolution,
219: particularly of the core material. Various parameters listed below are adjusted to match the velocity,
220: plasma density, and most importantly the charge state distributions of
221: O, Si and Fe observed by ACE for a small selection of CMEs.
222: Given the degeneracies in parameter
223: space that will be removed by the simultaneous observation of CMEs from face-on and edge-on viewpoints
224: with STEREO, our primary intent at this time is to illustrate that the CME charge states can be successfully
225: modeled under reasonable assumptions.
226:
227: \subsection{Charge State Evolution}
228:
229: Our approach to modeling CME charge states is to follow the behavior of the ionization
230: balance of a Lagrangian plasma packet, using an analytic prescription for the hydrodynamic or
231: magnetohydrodynamic evolution. We use an adaptation of the BLASPHEMER (BLASt Propagation
232: in Highly EMitting EnviRonment)\footnote{The name gives away its origin in modeling
233: laboratory and astrophysical shock waves.} code
234: \citep{laming02,laming03g,laming03,laming04},
235: which follows the time dependent
236: ionization balance and temperatures of a Lagrangian plasma parcel as it
237: expands in the solar wind. The initial conditions are set by assuming ionization
238: equilibrium at an electron temperature of $1-3\times 10^{6}$K appropriate for coronal plasma.
239:
240:
241: The density $n_{iq}$ of ions of element $i$ with charge $q$ is
242: given by
243: \begin{equation} {dn_{iq}\over dt} =
244: n_e\left(C_{ion,q-1}n_{i~q-1}-C_{ion,q}n_{iq}\right)+
245: n_e\left(C_{rr,q+1} +C_{dr,q+1}\right)n_{i~q+1}-
246: n_e\left(C_{rr,q}+ C_{dr,q}\right)n_{iq}
247: \end{equation}
248: where $C_{ion,q}, C_{rr,q}, C_{dr,q}$ are
249: the rates for electron impact ionization, radiative recombination and dielectronic
250: recombination respectively, out of the charge
251: state $q$. These rates are the same as those used in the recent ionization balance
252: calculations of \citet{mazzotta98}, using subroutines kindly supplied by
253: Dr P. Mazzotta (private communication 2000), with the following updates.
254: Dielectronic recombination from H- to He-like and from He- to Li-like are
255: taken from \citet{dasgupta04}. Dielectronic recombination for the successive isoelectronic sequences Li-,
256: Be-, B-, C-, N-, O-, and F-like are taken from \citet{colgan04},
257: \citet{colgan03}, \citet{altun04}, \citet{zatsarinny04a}, \citet{mitnik04},
258: \citet{zatsarinny03}, and \citet{gu03} respectively. Additionally, dielectronic
259: recombination from Ne- to Na-like and from Na- to Mg-like are taken from
260: \citet{zatsarinny04b} and \citet{gu04}. We also take dielectronic recombination rates for Fe$^{13+}$
261: from \citet{badnell06}. The electron density $n_e$ is determined
262: from the condition that the plasma be electrically neutral. The ion and electron
263: temperatures, $T_{iq}$ and
264: $T_e$ are coupled by Coulomb collisions by
265: \begin{equation} {dT_{iq}\over dt}= -0.13n_e{\left(T_{iq}-T_e\right)\over M_{iq}T_e^{3/2}}
266: {q^3n_{iq}/\left(q+1\right)\over\left(\sum _{iq} n_{iq}\right)}\left(\ln\Lambda\over 37\right)
267: \end{equation} and
268: \begin{equation}
269: {dT_e\over dt}= {0.13n_e\over T_e^{3/2}}\sum _{iq}{\left(T_{iq}-T_e\right)\over M_{iq}}
270: {q^2n_{iq}/\left(q+1\right)\over\left(\sum _{iq} n_{iq}\right)}\left(\ln\Lambda\over 37\right)
271: -{T_e\over n_e}\left({dn_e\over dt}\right)_{ion} - {2\over 3n_ek_{\rm B}}
272: {dQ\over dt}.
273: \end{equation}
274: Here $M_{iq}$ is the atomic mass of the ions of element $i$ and
275: charge $q$ in the plasma,
276: and $\ln\Lambda\simeq 28$ is the Coulomb logarithm. The term in $dQ/dT$
277: represents plasma energy losses due to ionization and radiation.
278: The term $-\left(T_e/n_e\right)\left(dn_e/dt\right)_{ion}$ gives the reduction
279: in electron temperature when the electron density increases due to ionization.
280: Recombinations, which reduce the electron density, do not result in an increase
281: in the electron temperature in low density plasmas, since the energy of the
282: recombined electron is radiated away (in either radiative or dielectronic recombination).
283:
284: \subsection{Hydrodynamic Evolution}
285:
286: We based our model CME evolution on the phenomenology described in section 2, of an initiation, acceleration
287: and propagation phase, to use the terminology of \citep{zhang01,zhang04}.
288: Plasma starts at $1.5 R_{\sun}$ moving at an initial velocity, $v_{i}$,
289: between 10 and 100 km s$^{-1}$, i.e. as it moves from the ``initiation'' to the ``acceleration'' phase.
290: The initial electron density, is taken to be either near $10^8$ cm$^{-3}$ or a factor of 10 lower,
291: corresponding to plasma in the
292: CME ``core'' or ``cavity'' respectively.
293: An acceleration, $a$, of 0.1---0.5 km s$^{-2}$ is chosen so that the
294: CME reaches its final coasting velocity, $v_{f}$, at a heliocentric distance of 3---10$R_{\sun}$ ($R_{c}$). The
295: density is assumed to fall off as $1/r^{\left(2+v_A/\left(v_A+v_r\right)\right)}$, where $v_A$ is the
296: coronal Alfv\'en speed and $v_r$ is the CME expansion speed.
297: This form, with a suitable choice for $v_A$ ($\sim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$), gives an initial superradial
298: expansion as the CME expands laterally, going over to a $1/r^2$ form at large distances from the Sun.
299: The Alfv\'en speed, $v_A$, is assumed to vary approximately as $1/r^{1/3}$ or $n_e^{1/6}$, coming from
300: the approximate relations $B\propto 1/r^{4/3}$ (the geometric mean of $B_r\propto 1/r^2$ and
301: $B_{\theta}\propto B_{\phi}\propto 1/r$) and $\rho\propto 1/r^2$. \citet{mann03} give a more detailed
302: account of the variation of the Alfv\'en speed with radius in the quiescent solar corona above an active region.
303: However our simpler form gives a density dependence on radius which matches
304: very well with the various plots in \citet{lynch04}, and is certainly adequate for our needs.
305:
306: %** I think that we have to discuss the bimodal charge state idea more. I don't think that the idea that
307: %the charge states in ICMEs are bimodal is well known or accepted. It is important here to make sure you say
308: %that you are taking an integrated cut across the ICME so that is why you get bimodal distributions, where as in
309: %observations, this just equates to an ICME not having high charge states throughout the whole thing, but having
310: %a period with normal solar wind charge states and another period with high charge states. So, when you integrate
311: %across the ICME, you would get a bimodal distribution. **
312:
313: For simplicity we assume the core and cavity differ in density by a
314: factor of 10, but contribute roughly equal amounts of material by
315: mass and undergo the same velocity and expansion evolution. Their
316: electron temperatures at ``initiation'' are either assumed to be the
317: same or the cavity temperature is held lower, in the range of
318: typical coronal, rather than flare, temperatures. Subsequent heating
319: of the higher density core plasma during the acceleration phase is
320: explored assuming a heating rate for the CME plasma proportional to
321: the rate of kinetic energy increase, i.e. a constant fraction
322: $QE/KE$ during the acceleration up to $v_{f}$. Here we assume that
323: all particle species are heated equally, but our models are only
324: sensitive to the electron temperature. Hence depending on how the
325: magnetic reconnection partitions energy between electrons and ions,
326: and whether the heat input is constant during the acceleration
327: phase, different CME energy budgets may result. Having the heating
328: be proportional to the acceleration during the acceleration phase is
329: one choice which allows for particularly easy comparisons of the
330: energetics. However, we cannot distinguish between this scenario and
331: impulsive heating to high temperatures (2---3$\times 10^{7}$K)
332: during the initiation phase (with insufficient time to reach
333: ionization equilibrium). The observation of high charge states
334: simply requires that high temperatures be reached while the density
335: is still high enough to allow for significant ionization of the high
336: Z elements. Such heating was not further explored for the cavity
337: material simply because at those densities it would have little or
338: no impact on the ionization state which freezes in well below
339: 2$R_{\sun}$.
340:
341:
342: \section{Modeling a Sample of ACE Coronal Mass Ejections}
343:
344: A sample of 6 ICME events was selected from a catalog of magnetic
345: cloud events by \citet{lynch06}, supplemented by two more events
346: from the survey of \citet{ugarte07}, all listed in Table 1. Listed
347: here are the average, standard deviation and maxima of the He
348: velocity, proton density and the abundance ratios of He/O and Fe/O
349: as measured at ACE with the SWICS/SWIMS and SWEPAM instruments
350: (proton density). The abundance ratios seen were generally typical
351: for coronal material except for the Halloween 2003 event which shows
352: significantly enhanced Fe/O. He/O ratios on the other hand,
353: especially in the faster CMEs, are more typical of the chromospheric
354: value of $\sim 130$, or of that found in flares \citep{feldman05},
355: and not the lower values found elsewhere in the solar wind and
356: corona \citep[e.g.][]{lamingf03,kasper07}. The observed velocity may
357: be considered a lower limit, since deceleration is likely to have
358: occurred in transit to 1 AU, however our simulation results were
359: relatively insensitive to the final velocity. The proton density at
360: 1 AU can be compared to the electron density at 10$R_{\sun}$ by
361: multiplying by a factor of $\sim400$ for the $1/r^{2}$ density fall
362: off and another factor of 1.2---1.6 for the proton to electron
363: density ratio. We expect the measured proton density to reflect some
364: combination of core and cavity material.
365:
366: Examples of successful CME models for the chosen events are listed in Table 2 in order of increasing velocity.
367: The dominant charge states for each model are listed in order of abundance composing a total
368: charge fraction of at least 0.8.
369: These are representative of the charge states observed at ACE, which, however, did vary over the
370: course of an ICME event. Examples of the observed charge states at different slices in time,
371: the final modeled charge states of the combined core and cavity plasma, and the initial evolution
372: of ion fractions in the core material are shown for the 2001 doy 351 ICME and the Halloween 2003
373: events in figures 1, 2,and 3 and 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
374: The model solution for any given event is not unique, and we used this freedom to choose an ensemble that
375: exhibits the range of behavior possible and the effect of any given parameter.
376: To begin modeling, the parameters of the initial velocity, density, acceleration and lateral expansion
377: (via the Alfv\'en speed) are chosen to match the velocity and plasma density of the CME in question as
378: measured by ACE. The model acceleration and expansion also agree well with observational
379: results in \citet{vourlidas03} and \citet{thernisien06} for the region behind the forward shock.
380: Both theoretical models and observations of CMEs in the plane of the sky show a high density core of
381: plasma surrounded by a lower density cavity. The bimodal charge distribution of both Fe and Si in most
382: of the CMEs considered here is naturally concordant with a mixing of cavity and core material
383: during the CME flux rope passage to 1 AU after freeze-in has occurred.
384:
385: In 5 out of 8 sample CMEs the dominant Fe charge states are Neon-like (16+) or higher,
386: indicating that high temperatures,
387: comparable to flares ($\sim 10^7$K), are involved. Starting the plasma from this temperature and allowing the
388: ions to recombine as they expand can often account for the Fe ionization balance, with peaks around Fe$^{16+}$
389: and Fe$^{8+}$ (the Ne-like and Ar-like charge states, which have small recombination rates to the next charge
390: states down, hence population ``bottlenecks'' here). However the lower-Z elements place a limit on the maximum
391: starting temperature (at least if assuming ionization equilibrium in the seed plasma).
392: Above $\sim 2.5\times 10^{6}$K
393: O would be mainly O$^{8+}$ instead of O$^{7+}$ and O$^{6+}$ as observed and would not recombine significantly
394: during the CME evolution.
395: Evidently plasma must start out much cooler, and be further heated as the CME accelerates. While various
396: possibilities exist among CME models regarding the role of reconnection in initiating or accelerating the
397: CME, nearly all of them require reconnection to produce the post-eruptive arcades of magnetic loops
398: \citep[e.g.][]{riley07}.
399: We follow \citet{lepri04} and argue that this reconnection must also heat the CME plasma
400: and that this is the cause for the high charge states.
401: Of the 3 events without a peak at high charge states in Fe, in ICMEs 2003 doy 129 and 2001 doy 351
402: the broad distribution of
403: both Si and Fe does require some heating. In the slowest event that shows no elevated charge states,
404: 2002 doy 173, no heating is required but neither can it be excluded.
405:
406: Finally, in Table 2 we also enter for some CMEs the velocity of the
407: CME front as deduced from SOHO/LASCO height-time
408: observations\footnote{using the CME catalog at
409: http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME\_list }, and the acceleration
410: necessary to produce this velocity at the heights observed. The
411: variation in heating rate as a multiple of the CME kinetic energy is
412: surprisingly small. Only for the extreme 2003 October 29 (doy 302)
413: event is the modeling really sensitive to this behavior. We caution
414: that the height-time observations give the velocity of the CME
415: front, not the expansion velocity of the flux rope or magnetic cloud
416: containing the ejecta, and that it is not possible in all cases to
417: unambiguously identify the disk event that gave rise to the observed
418: ICME.
419:
420: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
421: Our basic result, that the erupting CME plasma must be further heated as it expands, is not entirely
422: unexpected from theoretical considerations. \citet{kumar96} model the evolution of an expanding flux rope.
423: For a ratio of initial gravitational energy to magnetic energy in the flux rope of 0.22, they find
424: that between 0.58 and 0.78 of the initial magnetic energy is converted to forms of energy other the
425: gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy of the plasma, i.e., is available for plasma heating
426: or the generation of radiation or plasma waves. The maximum amount of magnetic energy that can go to
427: plasma kinetic energy is 0.38, so {\it at least} 1.5 times the kinetic energy in their model must appear as
428: heat.
429:
430: \citet{kumar96} do not specify the precise mechanism by which the
431: magnetic energy is converted into other forms, arguing as they do
432: simply from conservation of total energy and magnetic helicity. On
433: the other hand, \citet{lin00} considered in a little more detail the
434: expulsion of a current carrying flux rope, paying more attention to
435: the initial quasi-equilibrium configuration and specifying magnetic
436: reconnection as the mechanism of releasing magnetic energy. Their
437: treatment of reconnection assumes, somewhat arbitrarily, that all
438: magnetic energy destroyed reappears as plasma kinetic energy, and
439: hence the CME speed in their model is therefore an overestimate.
440: However they do comment that previous numerical simulations by
441: \citet{forbes91} show that ``only about half of the released
442: magnetic energy is actually converted into the kinetic energy of the flux
443: rope; the other half goes into heating, radiation, and the
444: generation of plasma waves''. Therefore these authors also suggest
445: that an amount of thermal energy, similar to the kinetic energy of
446: the CME, should be generated, and that this should result from
447: magnetic reconnection. However magnetic reconnection does not power
448: the CME. It is accelerated by ${\bf j} \times {\bf B}$ forces within
449: the flux rope, and reconnection eliminates magnetic field that holds
450: the flux rope down in the initial quasi-equilibrium configuration.
451:
452: Magnetic reconnection plays a similar role in the breakout model of CMEs \citep{antiochos98,antiochos99,
453: devore00,aulanier02}. Again, it plays the role of destroying magnetic field that otherwise holds
454: the CME plasma in equilibrium. Once this magnetic field is eliminated, the CME is powered by the
455: magnetic field below, stressed by shear motions either side of the neutral line. Reconnection at
456: this lower site, which forms postflare loops, has nothing to do with allowing the CME to erupt, but
457: may still be a heat source for the CME plasma. Hence in both the \citet{lin00} flux rope model and
458: in the breakout scenario, no strong prediction exists for how much plasma heating should be
459: expected as a function of CME kinetic energy, though simple estimates of the magnetic energy destroyed
460: in these cases are indeed of the right order of magnitude to supply the amount of heat we see
461: in the charge state distributions. \citet{shiota05} give a numerical simulation of a flux rope ejection,
462: and stress the role of the slow mode MHD shock in providing heat to the flux rope plasma.
463:
464: Our estimates of post-eruptive heating are of course sensitive to the electron heating only, although we
465: assume that all plasma particles are similarly heated. Observations of post eruption electron acceleration
466: are reported by \citet{klassen05} for the 2003 October 28 event. Type III, II, and IV radio bursts are detected
467: coincident with the soft X-ray rise of the flare. Following that, an impulsive electron event in the energy
468: range 0.027-0.182 MeV and a gradual electron event with energies 0.31-10.4 MeV were detected by WIND-3DP
469: and SOHO/COSTEP, with a total duration of about 30 minutes following CME onset, by which time the CME
470: front had expanded to about 6$R_{\sun}$. The total energy in these accelerated electrons is significantly
471: less than the heating requirements we give in Table 2 \citep{mewaldt05}, however the timescale following
472: eruption is commensurate with our requirements. The expansion velocity of the CME front given by
473: \citet{klassen05}, derived from height-time measurements from SOHO/LASCO observations, is also
474: higher than the CME velocity we give in Table 2, and requires a significantly larger acceleration to
475: achieve this velocity by about 5.8$R_{\sun}$ where it was first observed by SOHO/LASCO. We have
476: experimented with different accelerations, and find that for this particular CME, for accelerations
477: above 1-2 km s$^{-2}$, it is impossible to match the observed charge states for any post eruption heating
478: rate. We emphasize that we are principally interested in the plasma in the CME ``core'', and that the
479: expansion of this material might not be well represented by the SOHO/LASCO observations of the CME front.
480: Additionally, this was a halo CME, so SOHO/LASCO observes the CME front off to one side of the main
481: eruption. We anticipate that such ambiguities will be substantially resolved with the advent of STEREO data.
482:
483: Similar conclusions to ours about the thermal energy input to CMEs
484: have been reached from analysis of ultra-violet spectra taken by
485: SOHO/UVCS. \citet{akmal01} studied a 480 km s$^{-1}$ CME observed on
486: 1999 April 23, and found a thermal energy comparable to the bulk
487: kinetic energy of the plasma. \citet{ciaravella01} gave similar
488: results for the 260 km s$^{-1}$ 1997 December 12 CME, while
489: \citet{lee07} studied the 2001 December 13 event, also examined by
490: \citet{ugarte07}, and included in our Table 2. None of these appear
491: in the magnetic cloud event list of \citet{lynch06}.
492:
493: To summarize, our work on interpreting charge state distributions for the ions of various elements support
494: previous ideas in the literature that CME plasma continues to be heated as the eruption proceeds. A
495: future quantitative study of this may yield novel insights into the mechanism(s) of explosion, especially
496: because the charge states are formed by processes close to the Sun, and are then transported unchanged
497: to 1 AU.
498:
499:
500: \acknowledgements
501: This work has been supported by NASA LWS Grant NNH05AA05I (CER \& JML) and by an NSF SHINE Postdoctoral
502: Fellowship (STL). It made use of the CME catalog generated and maintained at the CDAW Data Center
503: by NASA and The Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory.
504: SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. This work has also made use of
505: ACE Level 2 SWICS and SWEPAM data provided by the ACE Science Center.
506:
507:
508: \begin{thebibliography}{}
509: \bibitem[Akmal et al.(2001)]{akmal01}Akmal, A., Raymond, J. C., Vourlidas, A., Thompson, B., Ciaravella,
510: A., Ko, Y.-K., Uzzo, M., \& Wu, R. 2001, \apj, 553, 922
511: \bibitem[Altun et al.(2004)]{altun04}Altun, Z., Yumak, A., Badnell, N. R.,
512: Colgan, J., \& Pindzola, M. S. 2004, \aap, 420, 775
513: \bibitem[Antiochos(1998)]{antiochos98}Antiochos, S. K. 1998, \apj, 502, L181
514: \bibitem[Antiochos et al.(1999)]{antiochos99}Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., \& Klimchuk, J. A.
515: 1999, \apj, 510, 485
516: \bibitem[Aulanier et al.(2002)]{aulanier02}Aulanier, G., DeVore, C. R., \& Antiochos, S. K. 2002,
517: \apj, 567, L97
518: \bibitem[Badnell(2006)]{badnell06}Badnell, N. R. 2006, J. Phys. B., 39, 4825
519: \bibitem[Ciaravella et al.(2001)]{ciaravella01}Ciaravella, A., Raymond, J. C., Reale, F., Strachan, L.,
520: \& Peres, G. 2001, \apj, 557, 351
521: \bibitem[Colgan et al.(2003)]{colgan03}Colgan, J., Pindzola, M. S., Whiteford,
522: A. D., \& Badnell, N. R. 2003, \aap, 412, 597
523: \bibitem[Colgan, Pindzola, \& Badnell(2004)]{colgan04}Colgan, J., Pindzola,
524: M. S., \& Badnell, N. R. 2004, \aap, 417, 1183
525: \bibitem[Dasgupta \& Whitney(2004)]{dasgupta04}Dasgutpa, A., \& Whitney, K. G.
526: 2004, PRA, 69, 022702
527: \bibitem[Dere et al.(1997)]{dere97}Dere, K. P., et al. 1997, Solar Physics, 175, 601
528: \bibitem[DeVore \& Antiochos(2000)]{devore00}DeVore, C. R., \& Antiochos, S. K. 2000, \apj, 539, 954
529: \bibitem[Feldman et al.(2005)]{feldman05}Feldman, U., Landi, E., \& Laming, J. M. 2005, \apj, 619, 1142
530: \bibitem[Forbes(1991)]{forbes91}Forbes, T. G. 1991, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 62, 15
531: \bibitem[Galvin \& Gloeckler(1997)]{galvin97}Galvin, A., \& Gloeckler, G. 1997,
532: in Correlated Phenomena at the Sun, in the Heliosphere and in
533: Geospace, ed. A. Wilson, 323
534: \bibitem[Gloeckler et al.(1998)]{gloeckler98}Gloeckler, G. et al. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 497
535: \bibitem[Gosling et al.(1974)]{gosling74}Gosling, J. T., Hildner, E., MacQueen, R. M., Munro, R. H.,
536: Poland, A. I., \& Ross, C. L. 1974, J. Geophys. Res., 79, 4581
537: \bibitem[Gu(2003)]{gu03}Gu, M. F. 2003, \apj, 590, 1131
538: \bibitem[Gu(2004)]{gu04}Gu, M. F. 2004, \apjs, 153, 389
539: \bibitem[Henke et al.(2001)]{henke01}Henke, T., Woch, J., Schwenn, R., Mall, U., Gloeckler, G.,
540: von Steiger, R., Forsyth, R. J., \& Balogh, A.. 2001, JGR, 106, 10597
541: \bibitem[Henke et al.(1998)]{henke98}Henke, T., Woch, J., Mall, U., Livi, S., Wilken, B., Schwenn, R.,
542: Gloeckler, G., von Steiger, R., Forsyth, R. J., \& Balogh, A. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3465
543: \bibitem[Howard et al.(1985)]{howard85}Howard, R. A., Sheeley, N. R., Michels, D. J., \& Koomen, M. J.
544: 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 8173
545: \bibitem[Kasper et al.(2007)]{kasper07}Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M.
546: L., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., \& Ogilvie, K. W. 2007, \apj,
547: 660, 901
548: \bibitem[Klassen et al.(2005)]{klassen05}Klassen, A., Krucker, S., Kunow, H., M\"uller-Mellin, R.,
549: Wimmer-Schweingruber, R., Mann, G., \& Posner, A. 2005, JGR, 110, A09S04
550: \bibitem[Kumar \& Rust(1996)]{kumar96}Kumar, A., \& Rust, D. M. 1996, JGR, 101, 15667
551: \bibitem[Laming(2004)]{laming04}Laming, J. M. 2004, \apj, 604, 874
552: \bibitem[Laming \& Feldman(2003)]{lamingf03}Laming, J. M., \& Feldman, U. 2003, \apj, 591, 1257
553: \bibitem[Laming \& Hwang(2003)]{laming03}Laming, J. M., \& Hwang, U. 2003, \apj, 597, 347
554: \bibitem[Laming \& Grun(2002)]{laming02}Laming, J. M., \& Grun, J. 2002, Phys. Rev.
555: Lett., 89, 125002
556: \bibitem[Laming \& Grun(2003)]{laming03g}Laming, J. M., \& Grun, J. 2003, Phys. Plasmas, 10, 1614
557: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2007)]{lee07}Lee, J.-Y., Raymond, J. C., Ko, Y.-K., \& Kim, K.-S. 2007, in preparation
558: \bibitem[Lepri \& Zurbuchen(2004)]{lepri04}Lepri, S. T., \&
559: Zurbuchen, T. H. 2004, JGR, 109, 1112
560: \bibitem[Lepri et al.(2001)]{lepri01}Lepri, S. T., Zurbuchen, T. H., Fisk, L. A., Richardson, I. G.,
561: Cane, H. V., \& Gloeckler, G. 2001, JGR, 106, 29231
562: \bibitem[Lin \& Forbes(2000)]{lin00}Lin, J., \& Forbes, T. G. 2000, JGR, 105, 2375
563: \bibitem[Lynch et al.(2004)]{lynch04}Lynch, B. J., Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J.,
564: Zurbuchen, T. H., \& Fisk, L. A. 2004, \apj, 617, 589
565: \bibitem[Lynch(2006)]{lynch06}Lynch, B. J. 2006, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan
566: \bibitem[Mann et al.(2003)]{mann03}Mann, G., Klassen, A., Aurass, H., \& Classen, H.-T. 2003, \aap,
567: 400, 329
568: \bibitem[Mazzotta et al.(1998)]{mazzotta98} Mazzotta, P., Mazzitelli, G.,
569: Colafrancesco, S., \& Vittorio, N. 1998, \aaps, 133, 403
570: \bibitem[Mewaldt et al.(2005)]{mewaldt05}Mewaldt, R. A., Cohen, C. S., Labrador, A. W., Leske, R. A.,
571: Mason, G. M., Desai, M. I., Looper, M. D., Mazur, J. E., Selesnick, R. S., \& Haggerty, D. K. 2005,
572: JGR, 110, A09S18
573: \bibitem[Mitnik \& Badnell(2004)]{mitnik04}Mitnik, D. M., \& Badnell, N. R.
574: 2004, \aap, 425, 1153
575: \bibitem[Reinard(2005)]{reinard05}Reinard, A. 2005, \apj, 620, 501
576: \bibitem[Riley et al.(2007)]{riley07}Riley, P., Lionello, R., Miki\'c, Z., Linker, J., Clark, E.,
577: Lin, J., \& Ko, Y.-K. 2007, \apj, 655, 591
578: \bibitem[Riley \& Crooker(2004)]{riley04}Riley, P., \& Crooker, N. U. 2004, \apj, 600, 1035
579: \bibitem[Riley et al.(2002)]{riley02}Riley, P., Linker, J. A, Miki\'c, Z., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V. J.,
580: \& Webb, D. F. 2002, \apj, 578, 972
581: \bibitem[Schmidt \& Cargill(2001)]{schmidt01}Schmidt, J. M., \& Cargill, P. J. 2001, JGR, 106, 8283
582: \bibitem[Shiota et al.(2005)]{shiota05}Shiota, D., Isobe, H., Chen, P. F., Yamamoto, T. T., Sakajiri, T.,
583: \& Shibata, K. 2005, \apj, 634, 663
584: \bibitem[Thernisien et al(2006)]{thernisien06}Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., \& Vourlidas,
585: A. 2006, \apj, 652, 763
586: \bibitem[Ugarte-Urra et al.(2007)]{ugarte07}Ugarte-Urra, I., Warren, H. P., \& Winebarger, A. R. 2007,
587: \apj, in press
588: \bibitem[Vourlidas et al.(2003)]{vourlidas03}Vourlidas, A., Wu, S. T., Wang, A. H.,
589: Subramanian, P., \& Howard, R. A. 2003, \apj, 598, 1392
590: \bibitem[Zatsarinny et al.(2004a)]{zatsarinny04a}Zatsarinny, O., Gorczyca, T.
591: W., Korista, K. T., Badnell, N. R., \& Savin. D. W. 2004, \aap, 417, 1173
592: \bibitem[Zatsarinny et al.(2003)]{zatsarinny03}Zatsarinny, O., Gorczyca, T. W.,
593: Korista, K. T., Badnell, N. R., \& Savin. D. W. 2003, \aap, 412, 587
594: \bibitem[Zatsarinny et al.(2004b)]{zatsarinny04b}Zatsarinny, O., Gorczyca, T.
595: W., Korista, K. T., Badnell, N. R., \& Savin. D. W. 2004, \aap, 426, 699
596: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2001)]{zhang01}Zhang, J., Dere, K. P., Howard, R. A., Kundu, M. R., \&
597: White, S. M. 2001, \apj, 559, 452
598: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2004)]{zhang04}Zhang, J., Dere, K. P., Howard, R. A., \& Vourlidas, A. 2004,
599: \apj, 604, 420
600: \bibitem[Zhang \& Dere(2006)]{zhang06}Zhang, J., \& Dere, K. P. 2006, \apj, 649, 1100
601: \bibitem[Zurbuchen et al.(2004)]{zurbuchen04} Zurbuchen, T.~H.,
602: Gloeckler, G., Ipavich, F., Raines, J., Smith, C.~W., \& Fisk, L.~A.\ 2004,
603: \grl, 31, 11805
604: \bibitem[Zurbuchen \& Richardson(2006)]{zurbuchen06}Zurbuchen, T.
605: H., \& Richardson, I. G. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 31
606:
607: \end{thebibliography}
608: %\clearpage
609:
610: \clearpage
611: \begin{table}[t]
612: \begin{center}
613: \caption{ICME Observations}
614: \begin{tabular}{@{}*{10}{c}} %ccccccccccccccc}
615: %\begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccc}
616: %\tablecolumns{15}
617: %tablewidth{0pc}
618: %\tablecaption{}
619: \tableline\tableline \\
620: Year & Start
621: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$v_{\rm He++}$ (km s$^{-1}$)}\tablenotemark{a}
622: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\rho_{\rm H+}$ (cm$^{-3}$)}
623: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{He/O\tablenotemark{b}}
624: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Fe/O} \\
625: & (doy) & ave.& max & ave. & max. & ave. & max. & ave. & max. \\
626: \tableline %\startdata
627:
628: 2002 & 173 & 416$\pm$19 & 464 & 4.4$\pm$1.1 & 6.9 & 80$\pm$10 & 92 &
629: 0.15$\pm$0.03 & 0.19 \\
630:
631: 2000 & 210 & 442$\pm$34 & 474 & 15.1$\pm$7.5 & 35.9 & 227$\pm$245 &
632: 1020 & 0.34$\pm$0.31 & 0.90 \\
633:
634: 2001 & 351 & 477$\pm$20 & 500 & 3.6$\pm$0.8 & 5.5 & 123$\pm$16 & 147 &
635: 0.06 & 0.07 \\
636:
637: 2000 & 178 & 504$\pm$42 & 569 & 5.2$\pm$2.3 & 13.0 & 99$\pm$38 & 171 &
638: 0.21$\pm$0.04 & 0.29 \\
639:
640: 1998 & 268 & 640$\pm$77 & 793 & 3.6$\pm$2.2 & 11.1 & 100$\pm$72 & 214 &
641: 0.28$\pm$0.13 & 0.56 \\
642:
643: 2003 & 129 & 706$\pm$78 & 855 & 3.2$\pm$2.2 & 10.6 & 78$\pm$27 & 114 &
644: 0.18$\pm$0.04 & 0.25 \\
645:
646: 2000 & 262 & 718$\pm$47 & 804 & 4.4$\pm$3.1 & 13.3 & 222$\pm$64 & 335 &
647: 0.28$\pm$0.17 & 0.67 \\
648:
649: 2003 & 302 & 993$\pm$305 & 1700 & 3.1$\pm$1.9 & 9.2 & 168$\pm$129 & 442
650: & 0.67$\pm$0.42 & 2.33 \\
651:
652:
653: \tableline
654: \tablenotetext{a}{Ranges given are the standard deviation in the values
655: over the ICME event
656: and do not include uncertainties in the measurement.}
657: \tablenotetext{b}{Ratio of the number densities of the given elements}
658: \end{tabular}
659: \end{center}
660: \label{tab1}
661: \end{table}
662: \clearpage
663:
664:
665: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
666: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.3em}
667:
668: \begin{table}[t]
669: \begin{center}
670: \caption{CME Models}
671: \begin{tabular}{@{}*{15}{c}} %ccccccccccccccc}
672: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccccc}
673: %\tablecolumns{15}
674: %tablewidth{0pc}
675: %\tablecaption{}
676: \tableline\tableline \\
677: Year & Day
678: & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Input Parameters}
679: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Output Parameters} \\
680: & & $v_{f}$ & $a$ & $v_{i}$ &
681: $\rho_{e}$ & $T_{e}$ & $\frac{QE}{KE}$ &
682: $\rho_{10 R_{\sun}}$ &
683: \multicolumn{3}{c}{charge states}\\
684: & &
685: km s$^{-1}$ & km s$^{-2}$ & km s$^{-1}$ &
686: $10^{7}$cm$^{-3}$ & $10^{6}$ K & &
687: $10^{3}$cm$^{-3}$ & O & Si & Fe \\
688: & & \\
689: \tableline
690: %\startdata
691: 2002 & 173 & 425 & 0.1 & 10 & 10 & 1 & 0.7 & 10 &
692: 6 & 7,8,6 & 8,9 \\
693: 2002 & 173 & 425 & 0.1 & 10 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0.9 &
694: 6 & 7,8,6 & 8,9,10 \\
695:
696: 2000& 210& 500& 0.1& 20& 10& 2& 5& 30& 7,6,8 & 12,11&
697: 16,17,15\\
698: 2000& 210& 500& 0.1& 20& 1& 1.3& 0& 2.9& 6 & 8,9,7&
699: 11,8,12,10,9\\
700:
701: 2001& 351& 500-800& 0.1-0.25& 10& 5& 1.8& 6 & 7.0 & 6,7 & 12,11,10&
702: 14,15,13,16\\
703: 2001& 351& 500-800& 0.1-0.25& 10& 0.5& 1.2& 0& 0.8& 6 & 8,9,7&
704: 11,10,9,8\\
705:
706: 2000 & 178 & 500-850 & 0.1-0.15 & 10 & 10 & 1 & 9 & 15 &
707: 6,7 & 10,11,12 & 16,15,17 \\
708: 2000 & 178 & 500-850 & 0.1-0.15 & 10 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1.5 &
709: 6 & 7,8,6 & 8,9,10 \\
710:
711: 1998 & 268 & 750 & 0.1 & 15 & 10 & 2.3 & 8 & 16 &
712: 7,8 & 12,11 & 16,17 \\
713: 1998 & 268 & 750 & 0.1 & 15 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1.8 &
714: 6 & 7,8 & 8,9,10 \\
715:
716: 2003 & 129 & 700 & 0.1 & 10 & 10 & 1.2 & 2.6 &
717: 11 &
718: 6 & 9,10,8 & 13,12,14,15 \\
719: 2003 & 129 & 700 & 0.1 & 10 & 1 & 1.2 & 0 &
720: 1.1 &
721: 6 & 8,9,7 & 8,11,10,9 \\
722:
723: 2000 & 262 & 700-900 & 0.1-0.15 & 15 & 10 & 2.5 & 3-2.5 & 17
724: &
725: 7,8,6 & 12,11 & 16,15,14 \\
726: 2000 & 262 & 700-900 & 0.1-0.15 & 15 & 1 & 1.4 & 0 & 1.7
727: &
728: 6 & 9,8,10 & 11,12,10,8 \\
729:
730: 2003 & 302 & 1300-2500 & 0.2-1 & 20 & 10 & 2.3 & 4-8 &
731: 15&
732: 7,8,6 & 12,11 & 16,17,15 \\
733: 2003 & 302 & 1300-2500 & 0.2-1 & 20 & 1 & 1.2 & 0 &
734: 1.4&
735: 6 & 8,9,7 & 8,11,10,9 \\ % fe12=0.106
736:
737:
738:
739: \tableline
740: %\enddaata
741: %\end{deluxetable}
742: \tablenotetext{a}{Charge states are listed in order of abundance composing a total charge fraction of at least 0.8.}
743: %\tablenotetext{b}{For comparison, the radius by which the charge states are nearly frozen in is below 3---6 $R_{\sun}$ for the low and high density plasmas respectively.}
744: \end{tabular}
745: \end{center}
746: \label{tab2}
747: \end{table}
748:
749: % 2001 day 351
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f1.ps}
753: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f2.ps}
754: \caption{Charge state distributions for O, Si, and Fe given in terms
755: of the ion fractions for the 2001 day 351 ICME. Plotted here are the
756: ten hour average distributions, offset by increments of 0.05. }
757: \caption{Model charge state distributions for the 2001 day 351 ICME
758: for parameters given in Table 2 with weighting of [0.5,0.5] for the
759: ``core'' and ``cavity'' components respectively. The bottom panel
760: illustrates the temperature and density evolution close to the solar
761: surface.}
762: \end{figure}
763:
764: \begin{figure}
765: \includegraphics[width=6.0in]{f3.ps}
766: \caption{Evolution of charge state distributions for O, Si, and Fe for the 2001 day 351 ``core'' for
767: parameters given in Table 2.
768: The upper right panel illustrates the temperature and density evolution close to the solar surface.}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771:
772: % 2003 day 302
773:
774:
775: \begin{figure}
776: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f4.ps}
777: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f5.ps}
778: \caption{Same as figure 3 for ICME 2003 day 302. Increment between ten hour averages is 0.1}
779: \caption{Same as figure 4 for ICME 2003 day 302, weighting [0.8,0.2] for the ``core'' and ``cavity'' contributions}
780: \end{figure}
781:
782: \begin{figure}
783: \includegraphics[width=6.0in]{f6.ps}
784: \caption{Evolution of charge state distributions for O, Si, and Fe for the 2003 day 302 ``core'' for
785: parameters given in Table 2.
786: The upper right panel illustrates the temperature and density evolution close to the solar surface.}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789:
790:
791:
792: %\begin{figure}
793: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{ACE_500_core.eps}
794: %\figcaption{
795: %\label{fig1}}
796: %\end{figure}
797: %\begin{figure}
798: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{ACE_500_cavity.eps}
799: %\figcaption{
800: %\label{fig2}}
801: %\end{figure}
802: %\begin{figure}
803: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{halloween_core.eps}
804: %\figcaption{
805: %\label{fig3}}
806: %\end{figure}
807: %\begin{figure}
808: %\epsscale{1.0} \plotone{halloween_cavity.eps}
809: %\figcaption{
810: %\label{fig4}}
811: %\end{figure}
812:
813: \end{document}
814: