1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: 

4: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ Letters} 

5: \shorttitle{Quiet Sun internetwork magnetic fields from the 

6: inversion of {\em Hinode} measurements} 

7: \shortauthors{Orozco Su\'arez et al.\/}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: 

11: 

12: \title{Quiet Sun internetwork magnetic fields from the inversion of 

13: {\em Hinode} measurements}

14: 

15: \author{D.\ Orozco Su\'arez\altaffilmark{1}, L.R.\ Bellot

16: Rubio\altaffilmark{1}, J.C.\ del Toro Iniesta\altaffilmark{1}, S.\

17: Tsuneta\altaffilmark{2}, B.W.\ Lites\altaffilmark{3}, K.\ 

18: Ichimoto\altaffilmark{2}, \\ Y.\ Katsukawa\altaffilmark{2}, S.\

19: Nagata\altaffilmark{4}, T.\ Shimizu\altaffilmark{5}, R.A.\

20: Shine\altaffilmark{6}, Y.\ Suematsu\altaffilmark{2}, T.D.\

21: Tarbell\altaffilmark{6}, A.M.\ Title\altaffilmark{6}}

22: 

23: \altaffiltext{1}{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de

24: Andaluc\'{\i}a (CSIC), Apdo.\ de Correos 3004, 18080 Granada, Spain} 

25: 

26: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,

27: 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan} 

28: 

29: \altaffiltext{3}{High Altitude

30: Observatory, NCAR, 3080 Center Green Dr.\ CG-1, Boulder, CO 80301, USA}

31: 

32: \altaffiltext{4}{Hida Observatory, Kyoto University, Takayama, Gifu 506-1314,

33: Japan} 

34: 

35: \altaffiltext{5}{Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, JAXA,

36: Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan} 

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{6}{Lockheed Martin Solar

39: and Astrophysics Laboratory, Bldg.\ 252, 3251 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA

40: 94304, USA}

41: 

42: 

43: %

44: %________________________________________________________________

45: 

46: \begin{abstract}

47: We analyze \ion{Fe}{1} 630~nm observations of the quiet Sun at disk center

48: taken with the spectropolarimeter of the Solar Optical Telescope aboard the

49: {\em Hinode} satellite. A significant fraction of the scanned area, including

50: granules, turns out to be covered by magnetic fields. We derive field strength

51: and inclination probability density functions from a Milne-Eddington inversion

52: of the observed Stokes profiles. They show that the internetwork consists of 

53: very inclined, hG fields.  As expected, network areas exhibit a predominance

54: of kG field concentrations. The high spatial resolution of {\em Hinode}'s

55: spectropolarimetric measurements brings to an agreement the results obtained

56: from the analysis of visible and near-infrared lines.

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: \keywords{Sun: magnetic fields -- Sun: photosphere

60: -- Instrumentation: high angular resolution}

61: 

62: %

63: %________________________________________________________________

64: 

65:   \section{Introduction}

66:   \label{sec:intro}

67: 

68: Most of the studied aimed at determining the distribution of field strengths

69: in the internetwork (IN) quiet Sun have used polarimetric measurements in the

70: spectral regions around 630~nm and 1565~nm, but their results do not

71: agree. The visible \ion{Fe}{1} lines at 630.2~nm indicate a predominance 

72: of kG fields (S\'anchez Almeida \& Lites 2000; Dom\'{\i}nguez Cerde\~na et al.\

73: 2003; Socas-Navarro \& Lites 2004), whereas the infrared lines at 1565~nm

74: suggest hG fields (Lin 1995; Lin \& Rimele 1999; Khomenko et al.\ 2003;

75: Mart\'{\i}nez Gonz\'alez et al.\ 2006a; Dom\'{\i}nguez Cerde\~na et al.\

76: 2006). The distribution of IN field inclinations has only been studied 

77: by Lites et al.\ (1996) and Khomenko et al.\ (2003). 

78: 

79: Here we analyze \ion{Fe}{1} 630~nm measurements of the quiet Sun taken by the

80: spectropolarimeter aboard {\em Hinode} at the unprecedented spatial resolution

81: of 0\farcs32. The observed Stokes spectra are inverted to determine the 

82: distribution of field strengths and inclinations in the observed region.  Our 

83: results show that most of the IN fields are weak, opposite to what has been 

84: found from ground-based measurements of the same lines at 1\arcsec.

85: 

86: %

87: %________________________________________________________________

88: 

89: \section{Observations}

90: \label{sec:obser}

91: 

92: A quiet solar region of 302\arcsec\/$\times$162\arcsec\/ was observed at disk

93: center on March 10, 2007 using the spectropolarimeter (SP; Lites et al.\ 2001)

94: aboard {\em Hinode} (Kosugi et al.\ 2007). The SP records the Stokes spectra

95: of the \ion{Fe}{1} 630.2~nm lines with a wavelength sampling of

96: 2.15~pm~pixel$^{-1}$ and a scanning step of 0\farcs1476. We used an exposure

97: time of 4.8~s per slit position, resulting in a noise level of

98: $1.2\times10^{-3} \, I_{\rm c}$ in Stokes $Q$ and $U$, and $1.1\times10^{-3}

99: \, I_{\rm c}$ in Stokes $V$.  The data have been corrected for dark current,

100: flat-field, and instrumental cross-talk as explained by Lites et al.\ (2007c).

101: 

102: The scanned area covers both network and internetwork regions.  The rms

103: intensity contrast of the granulation is about 7.5\%, which represents the

104: highest angular resolution ever obtained in spectropolarimetric studies of the

105: quiet Sun. A visual inspection of the circular and linear polarization maps

106: reveals a wealth of magnetic signals in the field of view (FOV). We estimate

107: that 87.1\% and 35.5\% of the image show polarization signals larger than 3

108: and 4.5 times the noise level, respectively.

109: 

110: %

111: %________________________________________________________________

112: 

113: \section{Inversion strategy}

114: \label{sec:inver}

115: 

116: To derive the vector magnetic field from the observed Stokes profiles we use a

117: least-square inversion technique based on Milne-Eddington (ME) atmospheres.

118: We assume a one-component, laterally homogeneous atmosphere together with

119: stray/scattered light contamination.  The inversion returns the values of 10

120: free parameters, including the three components of the magnetic field

121: (strength, inclination, and azimuth) and the stray light factor, $\alpha$. The

122: stray light intensity profile is evaluated individually for each pixel by

123: averaging Stokes $I$ within a box 1\arcsec\/ wide centered on the pixel. We do

124: not consider broadening of the spectra by macroturbulent velocities. The

125: inversion is applied to the \ion{Fe}{1} 630.15 and 630.25~nm lines

126: simultaneously, using a Gaussian of 2.5~pm~FWHM to account for the spectral

127: resolving power of the SP.

128: 

129: Orozco Su\'arez et al.\ (2007a) demonstrated that this strategy results in

130: accurate magnetic field inferences for fields above 100~G. The field strengths

131: derived from ME inversions of \ion{Fe}{1} 630~nm measurements at 0\farcs32

132: resolution are very similar to those present around optical depth $\tau_5 =

133: 0.01$, with rms uncertainties not larger than 150~G. ME inversions turn out

134: to be largely independent of the noise and field strength initialization,

135: provided they are run on pixels showing polarization signals above a

136: reasonable threshold (Orozco Su\'arez et al.\ 2007b). Here we only analyze

137: pixels with Stokes $Q$, $U$ or $V$ amplitudes larger than 4.5 times their 

138: noise levels, in order to exclude profiles which cannot be inverted reliably. 

139: This threshold corresponds to an apparent flux density\footnote{The apparent 

140: flux density has been calculated by determining the magnetic parameters 

141: of a ME atmosphere with vertical fields that produces Stokes $V$ signals 

142: at the level of the noise. The thermodynamic parameters of the model 

143: have been fixed to the mean values derived from the Hinode 

144: measurements.} of 13.4~Mx~cm${^{-2}}$.

145: 

146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

147: %figure 1

148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

150: %figure 1

151: \begin{figure}

152: \centering

153: \epsscale{1.2}

154:  \plotone{f1.ps}

155: \caption{Observed ({\em dashed}) and best-fit ({\em solid}) Stokes profiles

156: emerging from a IN pixel. The field strength and the stray light factor 

157: are 177~G and 58\%, respectively. \vspace*{.5em}}

158: \label{fig:fig1}

159: \end{figure}

160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

161: 

162: 

163: Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} shows a sample fit for an individual pixel belonging to

164: the IN. In this case, the inversion retrieves a field strength of 177~G and a

165: field inclination of 106$^\circ$. Of interest is that the pixel shows clear

166: Stokes {\em Q} and {\em U} signals above the noise, just as many other IN

167: positions. Additional examples can be found in Orozco Su\'arez et al.\ (2007b).

168: 

169: %

170: %________________________________________________________________

171: %%BoundingBox: 54 360 558 720

172: 

173: \section{Results}

174: \label{sec:res}

175: 

176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

177: %figure 2

178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

180: %figure 2

181: \begin{figure*}

182: \centering 

183: \epsscale{1.05}

184: \vspace*{-0.3em} 

185: \plotone{f2.ps}

186: \epsscale{1.05}

187: \vspace*{-2em} 

188: \plotone{f3.ps}

189: \caption{Small area of 148\arcsec\/$\times$74\arcsec\ showing the magnetic

190: field strengths ({\em top}) and inclinations ({\em middle}) inferred from the

191: inversion. Network and internetwork areas can be easily identified. Black

192: areas correspond to non-inverted pixels. The field strength color bar has been

193: clipped at 1000~G ({\em white}). The four bottom panels represent a small IN

194: area of 7.4\arcsec\/$\times$7.4\arcsec\ (white box in the upper panels). They

195: display continuum intensities, magnetic field strengths, field inclinations,

196: and total polarization signals, $\int (Q^2+U^2+V^2)^{1/2}\, {\rm

197: d}\lambda/I^{\rm QS}_{\mathrm{c}}$. Contour lines represent regions with continuum

198: intensities $I_{\rm c}/I_{\rm c}^{\rm QS} > 1.05$.}

199: \label{fig:fig2}

200: \end{figure*}

201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

202: 

203: Figure~\ref{fig:fig2} shows maps of the retrieved field strength and

204: inclination for a small portion of the observed area. Black regions represent

205: pixels which have not been analyzed because of their small signals. In the

206: field strength map two different regions can be identified: the network,

207: characterized by strong fields (above 1~kG), and the IN, with much weaker

208: fields. Supergranular cells are clearly outlined by the network fields. The

209: inclination map shows that network flux concentrations exhibit nearly 

210: vertical fields in their interiors and more inclined fields toward the 

211: edges, suggesting the presence of magnetic canopies. By contrast, IN 

212: fields are rather horizontal.  

213: 

214: 

215: The mean unsigned apparent flux density in the FOV is 16.7~Mx~cm$^{-2}$, of

216: which 9.5~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ correspond to longitudinal flux and 11.3~Mx~cm$^{-2}$

217: to transverse flux\footnote{The mean flux densities are computed over the FOV

218: assigning zero fluxes to pixels which were not inverted, so they represent

219: {\em lower} limits.}.  In IN regions we find a mean flux density of

220: 8.4~Mx~cm$^{-2}$, with 3.4~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ corresponding to longitudinal flux and

221: 7.1~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ to transverse flux. The large occurrence of horizontal fields

222: confirms the discovery of strong linear polarization signals by Lites et al.\

223: (2007a,b). The net flux density is 1.7~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ in the full FOV and $-

224: 0.1$~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ in the IN.

225: 

226: The bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} represent a zoom over a $7\farcs4

227: \times 7\farcs4$ IN area (white box in the top images) and display continuum

228: intensities, magnetic field strengths, field inclinations, and total

229: polarization signals. In the field strength map one can see that most of the

230: fields are weak. The stronger concentrations are located in intergranular

231: lanes (the contours outline the granulation). Interestingly, we find

232: ubiquitous weak fields over granules. The rightmost map just confirms this

233: finding.  Note also that the fields are more horizontal in granular regions

234: than elsewhere.

235: 

236: \subsection{Field strength and inclination distributions}

237: 

238: Figure~\ref{fig:fig4} shows probability density functions (PDFs) for the

239: magnetic field strength ({\em left}) and field inclination ({\em right}). The

240: solid lines represent total PDFs considering the $\sim$ 650\,000 pixels

241: inverted.  The upper panels display PDFs for granules ({\em dotted}) and

242: intergranular lanes ({\em dashed}). The separation between granular and

243: intergranular regions has been performed using the continuum intensity and the

244: inferred line-of-sight velocity.  The bottom panels compare the PDFs of IN

245: regions ({\em dashed}) with those calculated from the magneto-convection

246: simulations of V{\"o}gler et al.\ (2005), for a snapshot with mean unsigned

247: flux of 10~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ ({\em dot-dashed}).  IN areas have been selected 

248: manually, excluding the boundaries of supergranular cells on purpose.

249: 

250: The peak of the total PDF for the field strength is located at about 90~G. The

251: curve decreases rapidly toward stronger fields: at around 1~kG it reaches a

252: minimum and then shows a small hump centered at about 1.4~kG.  Strong fields

253: ($B>$1 kG) are found in only 4.5\% of the pixels, the majority of which

254: correspond to network areas. It is important to emphasize that the PDF does 

255: not increase monotonically from 90~G to 0~G. This suggests that the inversions 

256: are not biased by noise, and that the peak at 90~G is likely solar in origin.

257:  

258: The upper left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4} shows a steeper field strength

259: distribution in granules as compared with intergranular lanes, i.e., strong

260: fields are much less abundant in granular regions. Noticeable is the large

261: fraction of very inclined ($\sim$90$^\circ$) fields in granules. Although

262: inclined fields are also common in downdrafts, the field lines tend to be more

263: horizontal over convective upflows (upper right panel of

264: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}). The rapid increase of the PDF near 0$^\circ$ and

265: 180$^\circ$, however, indicates that vertical fields also exist in granules.

266: 

267: In the IN, the field strength distribution reaches a maximum near 90~G and

268: decreases toward larger fields (bottom left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}).

269: This demonstrates that the IN basically consists of hG flux concentrations.

270: In the range 1-8~hG, the PDF is well described by a lognormal function $f(B) =

271: (\pi^{1/2} \sigma B)^{-1} \exp [- (\ln B - \ln B_0)^2/\sigma^2$] with $B_0 =

272: 36.7$~G and $\sigma = 1.2$.  The shapes of the field strength distributions

273: derived from the simulations and the IN measurements are surprisingly

274: similar. By contrast, the field inclination PDFs appear to be rather

275: different, being much flatter in the simulations (Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4}, 

276: bottom right panel).

277: 

278: \subsection{Stray-light factor distribution}

279: 

280: Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} shows the stray-light factor PDF for the full FOV and 

281: IN regions. Both of them peak at $\alpha \sim 0.8$. For reasons explained in

282: Orozco Su\'arez et al.\ (2007b), we interpret the stray light contamination as

283: a degradation of the polarization signals due to diffraction, but it might

284: also represent filling factors different from 1. In that case, the average

285: fractional area of the pixel occupied by magnetic fields (given by $1-\alpha$)

286: would be small, showing a peak at 0.2.

287: 

288: Errors in the stray light determination would immediately lead to different

289: field strengths and/or inclinations because most of the observed signals are

290: formed in the weak-field regime. The high-spatial resolution allowed by the

291: {\em Hinode} SP, however, makes it possible to distinguish between field

292: strength and stray-light factor unambiguously, even under weak field

293: conditions. The key ingredient is Stokes $I$: the intensity profile is very

294: sensitive to small variations in stray-light contamination. Orozco Su\'arez et

295: al.\ (2007b) have demonstrated that, in practice, the inversion code uses

296: Stokes $I$ to determine the stray light factor. For more details, including 

297: an analysis of the $\chi^2$ merit function minimized by the code, the

298: interested reader is referred to their Sect.\ 6. 

299: 

300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

301: %figure 3

302: \begin{figure}

303: \epsscale{1.2}

304: \centering

305: \plotone{f4.ps}

306: \caption{Magnetic field strength ({\em left}) and inclination ({\em right})

307: probability density functions. In the upper panels, the solid, dashed, and

308: dotted lines stand for all pixels in the FOV, intergranular lanes, and

309: granules.  In the bottom panels, the solid and dashed lines represent all

310: pixels in the FOV and IN regions, respectively. Dot-dashed lines show PDFs

311: from magneto-convection simulations with mean flux density of 10~Mx~cm$^{-2}$.

312: \vspace*{.5em}}

313: \label{fig:fig4}

314: \end{figure}

315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

317: %figure 4

318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: %figure 4

321: \begin{figure}[t]

322: \epsscale{1}

323: \centering

324: \vspace*{0.5em}

325: \plotone{f5.ps}

326: \caption{PDF of the stray light factor. Solid and dashed lines

327: represent the full FOV and IN regions, respectively.}

328: \label{fig:fig5}

329: \end{figure}

330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

331: 

332: 

333: %________________________________________________________________

334: 

335: \section{Discussion and conclusions}

336: 

337: The high spatial resolution spectropolarimetric measurements of {\em Hinode}

338: indicate that most IN fields are weak. This is in agreement with the picture

339: derived from the more magnetically sensitive \ion{Fe}{1} lines at 1565~nm (Lin

340: 1995; Collados 2001; Khomenko et al.\ 2003; Mart\'{\i}nez Gonz\'alez et al.\

341: 2006b) and from lines showing hyperfine structure such as \ion{Mn}{1} 553~nm

342: (L\'opez Ariste et al.\ 2006) and \ion{Mn}{1} 1526.2~nm (Asensio Ramos et al.\

343: 2007). Keller et al.\ (1994) also found weak fields in the internetwork using

344: the \ion{Fe}{1} 525.0~nm lines, although at a lower spatial resolution and

345: without inclination information.  Our results seem to confirm the mean IN

346: field strength of $\sim$100~G derived by Trujillo Bueno et al.\ (2004) from a

347: Hanle-effect interpretation of \ion{Sr}{1} 460.7~nm measurements.

348: 

349: Interestingly, the slope of the field strength distribution in the IN is

350: similar to that obtained from magneto-convection simulations of comparable

351: mean flux density. The observed field inclinations, however, turn out to be

352: significantly larger than those predicted by the simulations. The scenario of

353: an IN filled by nearly horizontal hG fields is compatible with the large

354: trasverse magnetic fluxes found in the IN by Lites et al.\ (2007a,b). We still

355: do not know the origin of such ubiquitous horizontal IN fields, but Lites et

356: al.\ (2007b) have suggested a number of plausible mechanisms.

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: In summary, Milne-Eddington inversions of the \ion{Fe}{1} 630~nm lines

361: observed by {\em Hinode} at 0\farcs32 reveal a predominance of hG fields in

362: quiet Sun internetwork regions, contrary to what is obtained from the same

363: lines at 1\arcsec\/. This is the first time that \ion{Fe}{1} 630~nm

364: observations confirm the weak IN fields indicated by near-infrared

365: measurements, which may definitely close the discrepancy between the results

366: derived from both spectral regions.

367: %

368: %________________________________________________________________

369: 

370: \acknowledgments {\em Hinode} is a Japanese mission developed and launched

371: by ISAS/JAXA, with NAOJ as domestic partner and NASA and STFC (UK) as

372: international partners. It is operated by these agencies in

373: collaboration with ESA and NSC (Norway). This work has been partially

374: funded by the Spanish Mi\-nisterio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia through

375: project ESP2006-13030-C06-02.

376: 

377: %

378: %________________________________________________________________

379: 

380: \begin{thebibliography}{}

381: 

382: \bibitem[Asensio Ramos et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659..829A} Asensio Ramos,

383: A., Mart{\'{\i}}nez Gonz{\'a}lez, M.~J., L{\'o}pez Ariste, A., Trujillo

384: Bueno, J., \& Collados, M.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 829

385: 

386: 

387: \bibitem[Collados(2001)]{2001ASPC..236..255C} Collados, M.\ 2001,

388: in: Advanced Solar Polarimetry -- Theory, Observation, and

389: Instrumentation, ASP Conf.\ Series, 236, 255

390: 

391: \bibitem[]{318}

392: Dom{\'{\i}}nguez Cerde{\~n}a, I., Kneer, F., \& S{\'a}nchez Almeida, J.\

393: 2003, \apjl, 582, L55

394: 

395: \bibitem[Dom{\'{\i}}nguez Cerde{\~n}a et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646.1421D}

396: Dom{\'{\i}}nguez Cerde{\~n}a, I., Almeida, J.~S., \& Kneer, F.\ 2006, \apj,

397: 646, 1421

398: 

399: \bibitem[Keller et al.(1994)]{1994A&A...286..626K} Keller, C.~U., Deubner, 

400: F.-L., Egger, U., Fleck, B., \& Povel, H.~P.\ 1994, \aap, 286, 626 

401: 

402: \bibitem[Khomenko et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...408.1115K} Khomenko, E.V.,

403: Collados, M., Solanki, S.K., Lagg, A., \& Trujillo Bueno, J.\ 2003,

404: \aap, 408, 1115

405: 

406: \bibitem[]{330} Kosugi, T., et al.\ 2007, \solphys, in press

407: 

408: \bibitem[Lin(1995)]{1995ApJ...446..421L} Lin, H.\ 1995, \apj, 446, 421

409: 

410: \bibitem[Lin \& Rimmele(1999)]{1999ApJ...514..448L} Lin, H., \& Rimmele,

411: T.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 448 %***

412: 

413: \bibitem[Lites et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...460.1019L} Lites, B.W., Leka,

414: K.D., Skumanich, A., Mart\'{\i}nez Pillet, V., \& Shimizu, T.\ 1996,

415: \apj, 460, 1019

416: 

417: \bibitem[Lites et al.(2001)]{2001ASPC..236...33L} Lites, B.~W., Elmore,

418: D.~F., \& Streander, K.~V.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser., 236, 33

419: 

420: \bibitem[lites]{344} Lites, B.W., et al.\ 2007a, PASJ, in press

421: 

422: \bibitem[lites]{346} Lites, B.W., et al.\ 2007b, \apj, submitted %****%

423: 

424: \bibitem[lites]{348} Lites, B.W., et al.\ 2007c, \solphys, in preparation %****%

425: 

426: \bibitem[L{\'o}pez Ariste et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...454..663L} L{\'o}pez

427: Ariste, A., Tomczyk, S., \& Casini, R.\ 2006, \aap, 454, 663

428: 

429: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez Gonz{\'a}lez et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456.1159M}

430: Mart{\'{\i}}nez Gonz{\'a}lez, M.J., Collados, M., \& Ruiz Cobo, B.\ 2006a,

431: \aap, 456, 1159

432: 

433: \bibitem[Mart{\'{\i}}nez Gonz{\'a}lez et al.(2006)]{2006ASPC..358...36M}

434: Mart{\'{\i}}nez Gonz{\'a}lez, M.~J., Collados, M., \& Ruiz Cobo, B.\ 2006b,

435: ASP Conf.\ Series, 358, 36

436: 

437: \bibitem[Orozco Su{\'a}rez L.R. Bellot \& del Toro

438: Iniesta(2007)]{} Orozco Su{\'a}rez, D., Bellot

439: Rubio, L.R. \& del Toro Iniesta, J.C.\ 2007a, \apj, 662, L31 

440: 

441: \bibitem[]{365}Orozco Su{\'a}rez, D., et al.\ 2007b, PASJ, in press 

442: (astro-ph/0709.2033)

443: 

444: \bibitem[]{367} S\'anchez Almeida, J., \& Lites, B.W.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 1215

445: 

446: \bibitem[]{369} Socas-Navarro,

447: H., \& Lites, B.~W.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 587

448: 

449: 

450: \bibitem[Trujillo Bueno et al.(2004)]{2004Natur.430..326T} Trujillo Bueno,

451: J., Shchukina, N., \& Asensio Ramos, A.\ 2004, \nat, 430, 326 

452: 

453: \bibitem[V{\"o}gler et al.(2005)]{voegler} V{\"o}gler, A.,

454: Shelyag, S., Sch{\"u}ssler, M., Cattaneo, F., Emonet, T., \& Linde,

455: T.\ 2005, A\&A, 429, 335 

456: 

457: 

458: \end{thebibliography}

459: 

460: 

461: %

462: %________________________________________________________________

463: 

464: \end{document}

465: 

466: 

467: 

468: