1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18:
19: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
20:
21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
22:
23: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
25: \usepackage{rotating}
26:
27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
28:
29: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
30:
31: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
32: \newcommand{\myemail}{stephane@mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk}
33:
34: \shorttitle{Free Magnetic Energy}
35: \shortauthors{R\'egnier and Priest}
36:
37: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
38: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
39:
40:
41: \def\nlff{{\em nlff}}
42: \def\lff{{\em lff}}
43:
44: \begin{document}
45:
46: \title{Free Magnetic Energy in Solar Active Regions \\
47: above the Minimum-Energy Relaxed State}
48:
49: \author{S. R\'egnier and E. R. Priest}
50: \affil{School of Mathematics, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16
51: 9SS, UK}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: To understand the physics of solar flares, including the local
55: reorganisation of the magnetic field and the acceleration of energetic
56: particles, we have first to estimate the free magnetic energy
57: available for such phenomena, which can be converted into kinetic and
58: thermal energy. The free magnetic energy is the excess energy of a
59: magnetic configuration compared to the minimum-energy state, which is a
60: linear force-free field if the magnetic helicity of the configuration
61: is conserved. We investigate the values of the free magnetic energy
62: estimated from either the excess energy in extrapolated fields or the
63: magnetic virial theorem. For four different active regions, we have
64: reconstructed the nonlinear force-free field and the linear force-free
65: field corresponding to the minimum-energy state. The free magnetic
66: energies are then computed. From the energy budget and the observed
67: magnetic activity in the active region, we conclude that the free
68: energy above the minimum-energy state gives a better estimate and
69: more insights into the flare process than the free energy above the
70: potential field state.
71:
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \keywords{Sun: magnetic fields --- Sun: flares --- Sun: magnetic energy --- Sun:
75: magnetic helicity}
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{Introduction}
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81: Due to the low value of the plasma $\beta$ (the ratio of gas pressure to
82: magnetic pressure), the solar corona is magnetically dominated. To describe the
83: equilibrium structure of the coronal magnetic field when gravity is
84: negligible, the force-free assumption is then appropriate:
85: \begin{equation}
86: \label{eq:fff}
87: \vec \nabla \wedge \vec B = \alpha \vec B,
88: \end{equation}
89: where $\alpha = 0$ gives the potential (or current-free) field, $\alpha = cst$
90: gives the linear force-free field (\lff), and $\alpha$ being a function of
91: space gives the nonlinear force-free field (\nlff). The properties of
92: force-free fields have been well described \citep[e.g.,][]{wol58, mol69, aly84,
93: ber85}. \citet{wol58} with general astrophysical configurations in mind derived
94: two important theorems: (i) in the ideal MHD limit the magnetic helicity is
95: invariant during the evolution of any closed flux systems, (ii) the minimum
96: energy state is the linear force-free field conserving the magnetic helicity
97: \cite[see also][]{aly84, ber85}. \citet{tay86} applied this to laboratory
98: experiments and hypothesized that in a weak but finite resistive regime the
99: total magnetic helicity of the flux system is invariant during the relaxation
100: process to a minimum energy state. According to \cite{wol58}, the relaxed state
101: is then a linear force-free field. Therefore the free magnetic energy that can
102: be released during a relaxation process is the excess energy of the magnetic
103: configuration above the linear force-free field with the same magnetic helicity.
104:
105: \citet{hey84} were the first to suggest the importance of magnetic helicity and
106: Taylor relaxation in the solar corona. They extended the Woltjer-Taylor theory
107: for an isolated structure bounded by magnetic surfaces to one that of a coronal
108: field in which the field lines enter or leave the volume (through the
109: photosphere): thus the magnetic helicity is allowed to enter or leave the
110: corona as the photospheric field changes in time. They also suggested that the
111: coronal field evolves locally through a set of linear force-free fields with
112: the field continually relaxing and the footpoint connections continually
113: changing by small-scale turbulent reconnections, which heat the corona.
114: Moreover they suggested that, if the magnetic helicity becomes too large, an
115: eruption takes place in order to expel the excess magnetic helicity. The
116: coronal heating mechanism by magnetic turbulent relaxation was later developed
117: into a self-consistent theory \citep{hey92}. Based on a statistical analysis of
118: vector magnetograms, \cite{nan03} have shown that the relaxation process of
119: flare-productive active regions is similar to Taylor's theory. Nevertheless,
120: \cite{reg06} have shown that the magnetic helicity can evolve significantly on
121: a short time scale (about 15 min) and that the evolution of the coronal magnetic
122: field is often well described by a series of nonlinear force-free
123: equilibria. The modelled evolution of global coronal fields by successive
124: nonlinear force-free equilibria was also investigated by \citet{mac07a, mac07b}.
125:
126: To better understand the physics of flares, we need to estimate the amount of
127: magnetic energy available in a magnetic configuration for conversion into
128: kinetic energy and/or thermal energy in a solar flare. There is no free
129: magnetic energy in a potential field configuration: this is a minimum-energy
130: state for a given normal magnetic field at the photosphere, and the magnetic
131: energy depends only on the distribution and amount of flux through the
132: photosphere. The linear and nonlinear configurations, however, do have free
133: energy due to the presence of currents. As shown in \citet{reg07}, the energy
134: storage in active regions can be (i) in the corona due to the existence of
135: large-scale twisted flux bundles, or (ii) near the base of the corona
136: associated with the existence of a complex topology. The free energy can be
137: estimated from photospheric or chromospheric magnetic fields based on the
138: magnetic virial theorem \citep{mol69, aly84}, or from reconstructed 3D coronal
139: fields (often assuming a force-free equilibrium). Using nonlinear force-free
140: fields, the magnetic energy budget has been estimated before and after a flare
141: \citep{ble02, reg06}: as expected the authors found that the magnetic energy
142: usually decreases during the flare. Nevertheless, it strongly depends on the
143: strength of the flare, on the processes of energy injection (e.g., flux
144: emergence, flux cancellation, sunspot rotation) and on the time span between
145: the reconstructed fields. \citet{ble02} have suggested that Taylor's theory
146: does not apply to flares and CMEs. The same conclusion has been reached
147: previously by numerical simulations \citep[see e.g.,][]{ama00}. This can be
148: understood if (i) the helicity is not conserved during a flare or a CME in the
149: finite domain of computation due to the injection of helicity through the
150: photosphere or into the CMEs, (ii) the eruption phenomenon is often localized
151: in the active region and so does not affect or modify strongly the
152: nonpotentiality of the field outside the flare surroundings. Note that the
153: energy flux (or Poynting flux) can be derived from successive magnetic field
154: measurements when the plasma flows are known \citep[see e.g.,][]{kus02}. The
155: Poynting flux gives an estimate of the injected energy through the photospheric
156: surface due to transverse motions and/or flux emergence.
157:
158: In this letter, we compute the free magnetic energy for different active
159: regions assuming a nonlinear force-free equilibrium with a reference field
160: being either the potential field or the linear force-free field, and from the
161: magnetic virial theorem. We are assuming that at a given time and with the same
162: boundary conditions the minimum-energy state is given (\citeauthor{wol58}'s
163: theorem) by the linear force-free field with the same magnetic helicity as the
164: nonlinear force-free field. We are not here investigating the validity of the
165: Taylor-Heyvaerts theory in solar active regions.
166:
167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
168: \section{Selected Active Regions}
169: \label{sec:obs}
170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
171:
172: In order to compare the different measurements of free magnetic energy, we have
173: selected four different active regions with different types of activity
174: (confined flares, flares associated with a CME or filament eruptions) and at a
175: different stage of their evolution (before or after a flare):
176:
177: \paragraph{AR8151:} observed on February 11, 1998 at 17:36 UT, this is an old
178: decaying active region (decreasing magnetic flux and magnetic polarities
179: diffusing away). A filament eruption associated with an aborted CME was
180: reported on Feb. 12, but no flare was observed. The vector magnetic field was
181: recorded by the MEES/IVM \citep{mic96, lab99}. The high values of the current
182: density imply strongly sheared and twisted flux bundles \cite[see][]{reg02,
183: reg04}. Due to the existence of highly twisted flux tubes (with more than 1
184: turn) and the stability of the reconstructed filament and sigmoid (with less
185: than 1 turn), the authors concluded that the eruptive phenomena was most likely
186: to be due to the development of a kink instability in the highly twisted flux
187: bundles;
188:
189: \paragraph{AR8210:} observed on May 1, 1998 from 17:00 to 21:30 UT, this is a
190: newly emerged active region with a complex topology as described in
191: \cite{reg06}. A M1.2 flare was recorded on May 1, 1998 at 22:30 UT. The
192: selected vector magnetogram (MEES/IVM) at 19:40 UT was observed during a
193: ``quiet'' period between two C-class flares. In \cite{reg06}, the authors
194: described the magnetic reconnection processes occurring during this time period
195: and leading to a local reorganisation of the magnetic field. The reconnection
196: processes are related to the slow clockwise rotation of the main sunspot or a
197: fast moving, newly emerged polarity. Following the time evolution during 4
198: hours, the authors showed that the free magnetic energy decreases during
199: the flare over a period of about 15 min, and the total magnetic energy is
200: slightly increased during this time period;
201:
202: \paragraph{AR9077:} this corresponds to the famous Bastille day flare in 2000
203: \citep{liu01, yan01, fle01, kos01, wan05}. The vector magnetogram was recorded
204: at 16:33 UT after the X5.7 flare which occurred at 10:30 UT. The active region
205: was still in the magnetic reorganisation phase after the flare and ``post''-flare
206: loops were observed in 195\AA~TRACE EUV images. The flare was also associated
207: with a CME;
208:
209: \paragraph{AR10486:} this active region is responsible for the main eruptions
210: observed during the Halloween events (26 Oct. to 4 Nov. 2003). The MEES/IVM
211: vector magnetogram was recorded on October 27, 2003 at 18:36 UT before the
212: X17.2 flare which occurred at 11:10 UT on October 28. The flaring activity of
213: this active region and the associated CMEs have been extensively studied. For
214: instance, \cite{met05} have shown that the large magnetic energy budget ($\sim
215: 3 ~10^{33}$ erg) on Oct. 29 is enough to power the extreme activity of this
216: active region.
217:
218: For these particular active regions, the reduction of the full Stokes vector to
219: derive the magnetic field has already been detailed in several articles
220: \citep[e.g.,][]{reg02, reg06} -- the 180-degree ambiguity in the
221: transverse component was solved by using the algorithm developed in \cite{can93}
222: \citep[see also][]{met06}.
223:
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225: \section{Magnetic Fields}
226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
227:
228: From the observed vector magnetic field as described in Section \ref{sec:obs},
229: we extrapolate to obtain three types of coronal magnetic field, each of which has
230: the vertical component of the magnetic field imposed at the photopshere:
231:
232: \begin{itemize}
233:
234: \item[-]{{\em potential field}: there is no current flowing in the magnetic
235: configuration; this is the minimum-energy state that the magnetic field can
236: reach when the magnetic helicity is not conserved;}
237:
238: \item[-]{{\em linear force-free field}: we compute the linear force-free whose
239: $\alpha$ parameter is chosen so that the total magnetic helicity is the same as
240: the nonlinear force-free; in other words, this gives the minimum-energy state
241: that conserves the magnetic helicity;}
242:
243: \item[-]{{\em nonlinear force-free field}: we use the vector potential
244: Grad-Rubin-like method \citep{gra58, ama99}. The bottom boundary conditions also
245: require the knowledge of $\alpha$ in one polarity derived from the transverse
246: field components: $\alpha = \frac{1}{B_z}~\left( \frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x}
247: - \frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y} \right)$. }
248:
249: \end{itemize}
250:
251: In order to have energy values which can be compared, we have imposed the same
252: closed conditions on the side and top boundaries for each model. To satisfy
253: these conditions, we surround the vector magnetic field observed by MEES/IVM by
254: weak field measurements provided by SOHO/MDI line-of-sight observations. The
255: active region fields are then confined by a surrounding potential field and the
256: magnetic field decreases from the center of the active region (compatible with
257: the field vanishing at infinity). The magnetic flux is balanced.
258:
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260: \section{Free Magnetic Energy}
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262:
263: From the 3D coronal magnetic configurations, we can derive the magnetic energy
264: for the different active regions and different models:
265: \begin{equation}
266: E_m = \int_{\Omega}~\frac{B^2}{8\pi}~d\Omega
267: \end{equation}
268: in a volume $\Omega$. The free magnetic energy is derived from the nonlinear
269: ({\em nlff}) force-free field using either the potential ({\em pot}) or linear
270: force-free ({\em lff}) field as reference field:
271: \begin{equation}
272: \Delta E_{pot}^{nlff} = E_m^{nlff} - E_m^{pot}
273: \end{equation}
274: and
275: \begin{equation}
276: \Delta E_{lff}^{nlff} = E_m^{nlff} - E_m^{lff}.
277: \end{equation}
278: The \lff~field used here has the same relative magnetic helicity as the
279: \nlff~field satisfying Woltjer's theorem. That implies that the \nlff~field has
280: to be computed first, and then the \lff~field is determined by an iterative
281: scheme to find the $\alpha$ value matching the helicity of the \nlff~field. The
282: relative magnetic helicity is computed from the \cite{ber84} equation
283: \citep[see e.g.][]{reg05}:
284: \begin{equation}
285: \label{eq:hrel}
286: \Delta H_m = \int_{\Omega}~(\vec A - \vec A_{pot}) \cdot (\vec B + \vec
287: B_{pot})~d\Omega
288: \end{equation}
289: where $\vec B$ and $\vec A$ (resp. $\vec B_{pot}$ and $\vec A_{pot}$) are the
290: \nlff~(resp. potential) magnetic field and its associated vector potential
291: computed in the volume $\Omega$. The relative magnetic helicity given by
292: Eqn.~(\ref{eq:hrel}) satisfies the closed boundary conditions used by the
293: Grad-Rubin reconstruction method.
294:
295:
296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% include table %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298: \include{tab1}
299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
300:
301:
302: For the sake of comparison, we also compute the free magnetic energy derived
303: from the magnetic virial theorem assuming a force-free field \citep[e.
304: g.][]{aly89, kli92, met95, met05, whe06}. Considering that the magnetic field
305: can be decomposed into a potential part and a nonpotential one, $\vec B = \vec
306: B_{pot} + \vec b$, then following \cite{aly89} the free magnetic energy (above
307: potential) is:
308: \begin{equation}
309: \Delta E_m^{vir} = \frac{1}{4\pi}~\int_{\Sigma}~(xb_x + yb_y)B_z~dxdy
310: \label{eq:vir}
311: \end{equation}
312: in the half-space above the surface $\Sigma$. The free magnetic energy from the
313: virial theorem only requires the magnetic field distribution on the bottom
314: boundary. We compute Eqn.~\ref{eq:vir} from either the observed vector magnetic
315: field (not necessarily force-free) or the reconstructed \nlff~field on the
316: photosphere. It is important to note that the energy values derived from the
317: magnetic virial theorem are strongly influenced by the spatial resolution as
318: mentioned in \cite{kli92}.
319:
320: Considering that the \lff~field is the minimum energy state of the
321: \nlff~field, the energy values can be sorted as follows:
322: \begin{equation}
323: E_m^{pot} < E_m^{lff} < E_m^{nlff}.
324: \end{equation}
325:
326: In Fig.~\ref{fig:nrj}, we plot the free energy values in the reconstructed
327: magnetic configurations using the potential field as reference field for the
328: \nlff~fields (triangles) and \lff~fields (crosses). The difference between the
329: two values is the minimum free energy $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ according to
330: Woltjer's theorem. Figure~\ref{fig:nrj} clearly shows that the free magnetic
331: energy can vary by at least 2 orders of magnitude: the energy is strongly
332: influenced by the total magnetic flux and the distribution of the polarities.
333: By comparing the amount of free energy $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$ and the observed
334: eruptive phenomena, we can conclude that $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ gives a better
335: estimate of the free energy. For instance, $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$ is similar
336: for AR8151 and AR8210 but $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ is nearly three times larger
337: for AR8210. And the related eruptive phenomena are very different: a slow
338: filament eruption without a flare for AR8151 and a C-class flare for AR8210.
339: For AR9077, $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ is still enough to trigger an X-class flare
340: but certainly not the X5.7 flare observed prior to the time considered here.
341: For AR10486, $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ is significantly reduced compared to
342: $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$ but still enough to trigger powerful flares which
343: explains the high level of activity in this active region \citep{met05}.
344:
345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% include figure %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347: \begin{figure}
348: \begin{center}
349: %\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{ar_free_energy.eps}
350: \plotone{f1.eps}
351: \caption{Magnetic energy above potential for both the \nlff~field (triangles)
352: and the \lff~field (crosses) of the four selected active regions (units of
353: 10$^{32}$ erg). The free magnetic energies $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ are given by
354: the differences between the triangles and crosses.}
355: \label{fig:nrj}
356: \end{center}
357: \end{figure}
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359:
360: In Table~\ref{tab:nrj}, we summarize the different values of free magnetic
361: energy, the magnetic energy of the \nlff~magnetic configurations ($E_m^{nlff}$)
362: and the relative magnetic helicity. We also mention the $\alpha$ values used to
363: compute the \lff~fields satisfying Woltjer's theorem. We notice that the
364: different values of free energy are consistent and increase when the eruption
365: phenomena increase in strength with the exception of $\Delta E_m^{vir}$ from
366: the observed magnetograms. The latter is related to the applicability of the
367: virial theorem because the observed magnetograms are not force-free at the
368: photospheric level \citep{met95}.
369:
370:
371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
372: \section{Conclusions}
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
374:
375: We have computed the free magnetic energy from several formulae in various
376: active regions at different stages of their evolution: from the difference
377: between the \nlff~field and either the potential field ($\Delta
378: E_{pot}^{nlff}$) or the \lff~field ($\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$) having the same
379: magnetic helicity, and from the magnetic virial theorem ($\Delta E_m^{vir}$)
380: using either the observed field or the \nlff~field.
381:
382: The free magnetic energy $\Delta E_{lff}^{nlff}$ is a better estimate (than
383: $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$) of the energy budget of an active region available for
384: flaring assuming that the magnetic helicity is conserved and gives more
385: insights into the possible eruption mechanisms in the active region. For
386: AR8151, it is clear that there is not enough energy to trigger a flare capable
387: of a large-scale reorganisation of the field ($\sim$ 5 10$^{30}$ erg).
388: Therefore as stated in \cite{reg04} the kink instability of the highly twisted
389: flux tube is most likely to be responsible for the observed eruptive
390: phenomenon. Despite a magnetic energy of about 10$^{33}$ erg, the free magnetic
391: energy in AR8210 is only 1\% of the total energy but is enough to trigger small
392: confined flares. This is consistent with the observations and modelling
393: described in \citet{reg06}. We note that for the two possible mechanisms to
394: store energy \citep{reg07}, the presence of large twisted flux bundles is more
395: efficient than the highly complex topology: 10\% of free energy in AR8151
396: compared to 1\% for AR8210. The magnetic energy budget of AR9077 is still
397: important even if the observed field is after a X5.7 flare. Therefore even
398: after a strong flare with post-flare loops resembling potential field lines,
399: the magnetic configuration is far from potential and the energy budget is still
400: sufficient to trigger further powerful flares. For AR10486, $\Delta
401: E_{lff}^{nlff}$ is certainly not sufficient to trigger the observed X17.2
402: flare, but the $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$ seems to be more consistent with the
403: recorded flaring activity. This can be explained by the fact that the main
404: hypothesis of Woltjer's theorem is not satisfied: the X-class flare is
405: associated with a CME expelling a magnetic cloud (and therefore magnetic
406: helicity) into the interplanetary medium.
407:
408: The free magnetic energy $\Delta E_m^{vir}$ gives consistent values when
409: computed from the \nlff~extrapolated fields. For most photospheric
410: magnetograms, the force-free assumption is not well satisfied and so leads to
411: inaccurate values of $\Delta E_m^{vir}$ from observations. In \cite{met05}, the
412: computation of the free energy from the virial theorem was performed using
413: chromospheric magnetic field measurements which are more force-free than
414: photospheric magnetograms \citep{met95, moo02}.
415:
416: To have a better understanding of flaring activity, our main conclusion is that
417: it is useful to compute both $\Delta E_{pot}^{nlff}$ and $\Delta
418: E_{lff}^{nlff}$: the first giving an upper limit on the magnetic energy that
419: can be released during a large flare, especially when associated with a CME,
420: the second being a good estimate of the energy budget for small flares and
421: allowing us to distinguish between different flare scenarios.
422:
423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% acknowledgments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424: \acknowledgments
425: We thank the UK STFC for financial support (STFC RG). The computations were done
426: with XTRAPOL code developed by T. Amari (supported by the Ecole Polytechnique,
427: Palaiseau, France and the CNES). We also acknowledge the financial support by
428: the European Commission through the SOLAIRE network (MTRN-CT-2006-035484).
429:
430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}{}
434:
435: \bibitem[Aly(1984)]{aly84} Aly, J. J. 1984, \apj, 283, 349
436:
437: \bibitem[Aly(1989)]{aly89} Aly, J. J. 1989, \solphys, 120, 19
438:
439: \bibitem[Amari et al.(1997)]{ama97} Amari, T., Aly, J. J., Luciani, J. F.,
440: Boulmezaoud, T. Z., Mikic, Z. 1997, \solphys, 174, 129
441:
442: \bibitem[Amari et al.(1999)]{ama99} Amari, T., Boulmezaoud, T. Z., Mikic, Z.
443: 1999, \aap, 350, 1051
444:
445: \bibitem[Amari \& Luciani(2000)]{ama00} Amari, T., Luciani, J.-F. 2000,
446: Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 1196
447:
448: \bibitem[Berger(1985)]{ber85} Berger, M. A. 1985, \apjs, 59, 433
449:
450: \bibitem[Berger \& Field(1984)]{ber84} Berger, M. A., Field, G. B. 1984, Journal
451: of Fluid Mechanics, 147, 133
452:
453: \bibitem[Bleybel et al.(2002)]{ble02} Bleybel, A., Amari, T., van
454: Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Leka, K. D. 2002, \aap, 395, 685
455:
456: \bibitem[Canfield et al.(1993)]{can93} Canfield, R. C., de la Beaujardiere,
457: J.-F., Fan, Y. et al. 1993, \apj, 411, 362
458:
459: \bibitem[Fletcher \& Hudson(2001)]{fle01} Fletcher, L., Hudson, H. S. 2001,
460: \solphys, 204, 69
461:
462: \bibitem[Grad \& Rubin(1958)]{gra58} Grad, H., Rubin, H. 1958, Proc. 2nd Int.
463: Conf. on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, United Nations, 31, 190
464:
465: \bibitem[Heyvaerts \& Priest(1984)]{hey84} Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R. 1984,
466: \aap. 137, 63
467:
468: \bibitem[Heyvaerts \& Priest(1992)]{hey92} Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R. 1992,
469: \apj, 390, 297
470:
471: \bibitem[Klimchuk et al.(1992)]{kli92} Klimchuk, J. A., Canfield, R. C., Rhoads,
472: J. E. 1992, \apj, 385, 327
473:
474: \bibitem[Kosovichev \& Zharkova(2001)]{kos01} Kosovichev, A. G., Zharkova, V. V.
475: 2001, \apj, 550, L105
476:
477: \bibitem[Kusano et al.(2002)]{kus02} Kusano, K., Maeshiro, T., Yokoyama, T.,
478: Sakurai, T. 2002, \apj, 577, 501
479:
480: \bibitem[LaBonte et al.(1999)]{lab99} LaBonte, B. J., Mickey, D. L., Leka, K. D.
481: 1999, 189, 1
482:
483: \bibitem[Liu \& Zhang(2001)]{liu01} Liu, Y., Zhang, H. 2001, \aap, 372, 1019
484:
485: \bibitem[Mackay \& van Ballegooijen(2007a)]{mac07a} Mackay, D. H., van
486: Ballegooijen, A. A. 2007, \apj, 641, 577
487:
488: \bibitem[Mackay \& van Ballegooijen(2007b)]{mac07b} Mackay, D. H., van
489: Ballegooijen, A. A. 2007, \apj, 642, 1193
490:
491: \bibitem[Metcalf et al.(2006)]{met06} Metcalf, T. R., Leka, K. D., Barnes, G. et
492: al. 2006, \solphys, 237, 267
493:
494: \bibitem[Metcalf et al.(1995)]{met95} Metcalf, T. R., Mickey, D. L., McClymont,
495: A. N., Canfield, R. C., Uitenbroek, H. 1995, \apj, 439, 474
496:
497: \bibitem[Metcalf et al.(2005)]{met05} Metcalf, T. R., Leka, K. D., Mickey, D. L.
498: 2005, \apjl, 623, L53
499:
500: \bibitem[Mickey et al.(1996)]{mic96} Mickey, D. L., Canfield, R. C., LaBonte, B.
501: J., Leka, K. D., Waterson, M. F., Weber, H. M. 1996, \solphys, 168, 229
502:
503: \bibitem[Molodenskii(1969)]{mol69} Molodenskii, M. M. 1969, Soviet Astronomy --
504: AJ, 12, 585
505:
506: \bibitem[Moon et al.(2002)]{moo02} Moon, Y.-J., Choe, G. S., Yun, H. S., Park,
507: Y. D., Mickey, D. L. 2002, \apj, 568, 422
508:
509: \bibitem[Nandy et al.(2003)]{nan03} Nandy, D., Hahn, M., Canfield, R. C.,
510: Longcope, D. W. 2003, \apj, 597, L73
511:
512: \bibitem[R\'egnier \& Amari(2004)]{reg04} R\'egnier, S., Amari, T. 2004, \aap,
513: 425, 345
514:
515: \bibitem[R\'egnier et al.(2005)]{reg05} R\'egnier, S., Amari, T., Canfield, R.
516: C. 2005, \aap, 442, 345
517:
518: \bibitem[R\'egnier et al.(2002)]{reg02} R\'egnier, S., Amari, T., Kersal\'e, E.
519: 2002, \aap, 392, 1119
520:
521: \bibitem[R\'egnier \& Canfield(2006)]{reg06} R\'egnier, S., Canfield, R. C.
522: 2006, \aap, 451, 319
523:
524: \bibitem[R\'egnier \& Priest(2007)]{reg07} R\'egnier, S., Priest, E. R. 2007,
525: \aap, 468, 701
526:
527: \bibitem[Taylor(1986)]{tay86} Taylor, J. B. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58,
528: 741
529:
530: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2005)]{wan05} Wang, H., Liu, C., Deng, Y., Zhang, H. 2005,
531: \apj, 627, 1031
532:
533: \bibitem[Wheatland \& Metcalf(2006)]{whe06} Wheatland, M. S., Metcalf, T. R.
534: 2006, \apj, 636, 1151
535:
536: \bibitem[Woltjer(1958)]{wol58} Woltjer, L. 1958, Proceedings of the National
537: Academy of Science, 44, 489
538:
539: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2001)]{yan01} Yan, Y., Deng, Y., Karlicky, M., Fu, Q., Wang,
540: S., Liu, Y. 2001, \apj, 551, L115
541:
542: \end{thebibliography}
543:
544: \end{document}
545:
546:
547: %%
548: %% End of file `free_energy.tex'.
549: