1: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
2: %\received{ }
3: %\accepted{ }
4: %\journalid{ }{ }
5: %\articleid{ }{ }
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{ An X-ray Flare Detected on the M8 dwarf VB 10 }
8:
9: \author{ Thomas A. Fleming }
10: \affil{ Steward Observatory \\
11: University of Arizona \\
12: Tucson, AZ 85721 \\
13: taf@as.arizona.edu }
14: \author{ Mark S. Giampapa }
15: \affil{ National Solar Observatory \\
16: National Optical Astronomy Observatories\altaffilmark{1} \\
17: Tucson, AZ 85726 \\
18: giampapa@noao.edu }
19: \author{ J\"urgen H.M.M. Schmitt }
20: \affil{ Hamburg Sternwarte \\
21: Gojensbergsweg 112 \\
22: 21029 Hamburg, Germany \\
23: st8h101@hs.uni-hamburg.de }
24:
25: \altaffiltext{1}{The National Optical Astronomy Observatories are operated for
26: the National Science Foundation by the Association of Universities for
27: Research in Astronomy.}
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We have detected an X-ray flare on the very low mass star VB 10 (GL 752 B;
30: M8 V) using the ROSAT High Resolution Imager. VB 10 is the latest type
31: (lowest mass) main sequence star known to exhibit coronal activity.
32: X-rays were detected from the
33: star during a single 1.1-ksec segment of an observation which lasted 22 ksec in
34: total. The energy released by this flare is on the order of $10^{27}$
35: ergs s$^{-1}$. This is at least two orders of magnitude greater than the
36: quiescent X-ray luminosity of VB 10, which has yet to be measured. This X-ray
37: flare is very similar in nature to the far ultraviolet flare which was
38: observed by Linsky et al. (1995) using the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph
39: onboard the Hubble Space Telescope. We discuss reasons for the extreme
40: difference between the flare and quiescent X-ray luminosities, including the
41: possibility that VB 10 has no quiescent ($10^6$ K) coronal plasma at all.
42: \end{abstract}
43: \keywords{stars: X-rays, coronae, low mass }
44: \section{Introduction }
45: Stars at the very bottom of the main sequence have been a very popular
46: topic of research during the last few years, including in studies of stellar
47: activity.
48: Fleming, Schmitt, \& Giampapa (1995) demonstrated that fully-convective M
49: dwarfs, i.e. those with masses less than 0.3 M$_\odot$, exhibit high levels
50: of coronal activity, although at that time, virtually no X-ray detections
51: had been made of stars less massive than VB 8 and LHS 3003 (both type M7.)
52: The star VB 10 (a.k.a. GL 752 B, LHS 474; type M8)
53: appeared to have been marginally detected once by the Einstein High Resolution
54: Imager and was catalogued by Barbera et al. (1993). Then Linsky et al. (1995)
55: reported the detection of a large amplitude
56: flare on VB 10 in the far UV using the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph.
57: More recently, Neuhauser \& Com\`oron (1998) have detected X-ray emission from
58: a very young brown dwarf in Chameleon. This confirms that activity does exist
59: for the very lowest mass stellar (or substellar) configurations.
60:
61: We have used the ROSAT High Resolution Imager (HRI) to reobserve VB 10, which
62: was not detected by the ROSAT Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC)
63: during either the All-Sky Survey or a 7.3-ksec pointed observation (Fleming et
64: al. 1993). By obtaining a deeper exposure, we hoped to discover the nature
65: of the VB 10 corona, detect its quiescent X-ray luminosity, and compare its
66: level of coronal activity to that of the more massive M dwarfs. We have
67: succeded in detecting X-ray emission from VB 10, but only during a brief flare
68: similar to the one observed by Linsky et al. (1995) at ultraviolet wavelengths.
69:
70: In this paper, we present the latest ROSAT data on VB 10. Section 2
71: contains a description of the observations and data analysis. In Section 3,
72: we discuss a hypothesis to account for the stark contrast between
73: the flare and non-flare X-ray flux values, including the possibility of a
74: total lack of $10^6$ K coronal plasma about VB 10.
75:
76:
77: \section{Observation}
78:
79: The star VB 10 was observed during the period of 1997 October 27-31 for a total
80: of 21,992 sec with the ROSAT HRI (Zombeck et al. 1990).
81: The total image is shown in
82: Fig. 1a. The one obvious X-ray source seen in Fig. 1 is positionally
83: coincident with the star Wolf 1055 (type M3.5 Ve),
84: which has a common proper motion with VB 10. At the position of VB 10, which
85: is marked in Fig. 1a, there is only a marginal detection. However, when
86: the data are separated into their individual Observation Intervals (OBIs),
87: we find that all of the photons in the VB 10 detection are contained within
88: one single OBI (Figs. 1b and 1c).
89:
90: \begin{figure}
91: %\plotfiddle{f1a.ps}{3.0in}{-90}{50}{50}{-210}{320}
92: \caption{ROSAT HRI image of the field around VB 10: a) the entire 22-ksec
93: exposure; b) a single 1.1-ksec OBI from UT 1997 October 29 3:05:24 to 3:25:43;
94: c) the remaining 20.9-ksec exposure. The bright source seen in all three
95: images is Wolf 1055. All X-ray photons from VB 10 arrive in the single OBI in
96: Fig. 1b \label{fig1} }
97: %\plotfiddle{f1b.ps}{3.0in}{-90}{50}{50}{-210}{270}
98: %\plotfiddle{f1c.ps}{3.0in}{-90}{50}{50}{-210}{220}
99: \plotfiddle{f2.ps}{3.0in}{-90}{50}{50}{-210}{270}
100: \caption{Histogram of arrival times for the X-ray source photons from VB 10
101: \label{fig2} }
102: \end{figure}
103: This particular OBI, which began on UT 1997 October 29 at 3:05:24 and ended
104: at 3:25:43, had an effective total exposure time of 1,138 sec. Within an
105: extraction radius of $12\arcsec$ around the optical position of VB 10,
106: 11 photons were detected. By examining the rest of the image, we determined
107: that the density of background photons for this OBI was 0.0024 cts arcs$^{-2}$.
108: The solid angle of our extraction circle about VB 10 was 452.4 arcs$^2$,
109: which means that we would expect one photon in the extraction circle to
110: be from the background. Therefore, with 10 source photons, the mean count
111: rate over the entire OBI is $8.9 (\pm 2.8) \times 10^{-3}$ cts s$^{-1}$
112: (this includes a deadtime and vignetting correction factor of 1.017.)
113:
114: Of course, to get a better idea of the flare duration and flux, one needs
115: to look at the temporal distribution of the source photons throughout the
116: observation. In Fig 2, we show a histogram in arrival time for the 11
117: photons contained within the source extraction radius. Remember, we do not
118: know which one is the background photon. The histogram is binned in 3-minute
119: (180 sec) intervals over the nearly 20-minute observation. One can see that
120: 5 photons arrived in the first 3 minutes of the observation, 5 photons
121: arrived during the last 8 minutes, with the remaining photon arriving in
122: between.
123: The data are consistent with there being
124: only one flare which is tailing off during our observation. In this case, the
125: flare duration is at least 20 minutes and $2.8 \times 10^{-2}$ cts s$^{-1}$
126: (5 photons in 3 minutes) represents a lower limit to the peak count rate.
127:
128: %Should this be the one background photon, then we could be seeing two distinct
129: %flares. In this case, the count rate for the first flare would be at least
130: %$2.8 \times 10^{-2}$ cts s$^{-1}$. We can only give a lower limit since the
131: %flare occurs right at the very beginning of the OBI, so the duration could
132: %be longer than 3 minutes. However,
133:
134: In order to get the X-ray luminosity, we adopt a conversion factor of
135: $2.4 \times 10^{-11}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ cnt$^{-1}$. This comes from Table 10
136: of David et al. (1999), the ROSAT HRI Calibration Report (Cambridge:
137: SAO)\footnote{$http://hea-www.harvard.edu/rosat/rsdc_www/hricalrep.html$},
138: for a Raymond-Smith spectrum of 0.5 keV
139: and negligible interstellar absorption. This yields an apparent energy flux,
140: $f_X = 2.14 (\pm 0.68) \times 10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for
141: the mean count rate. At a distance of 5.74 pc,
142: this gives us a luminosity, $L_X = 8.4 (\pm 2.7) \times
143: 10^{26}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Again, this is just a mean luminosity for the
144: observation. The peak flare luminosity would be at least $2.65 \times 10^{27}$
145: ergs s$^{-1}$.
146:
147: We have also analyzed the remaining 20,854 sec of our HRI observation, in
148: which no X-ray source was detected at the position of VB 10. Using the
149: non-detection analysis software in MIDAS/EXSAS, we have calculated a $3\sigma$
150: (i.e. 99.7\% confidence) upper limit of $1.8 \times 10^{-4}$ cts s$^{-1}$.
151: This translates into $3\sigma$ upper limits on the apparent X-ray flux and
152: X-ray luminosity of $4.21 \times 10^{-15}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and
153: $1.7 \times 10^{25}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, respectively, for VB 10 outside of flare.
154: These are upper limits on any quiescent emission, if it exists.
155:
156: All of the numbers presented in this section have been tabulated in Table 1.
157:
158: \begin{deluxetable}{lclllr}
159: \footnotesize
160: \tablecaption{ X-ray Parameters for ROSAT HRI Observation of VB 10
161: \label{tbl-1}}
162: \tablewidth{0pt}
163: \tablehead{
164: & \colhead{Exp Time} & \colhead{Count Rate} & \colhead{ f$_X$ } &
165: \colhead{ L$_X$ } & \colhead{ log (L$_X$/L$_{bol}$) } \\
166: & \colhead{ ks } & \colhead{ cts s$^{-1}$ } & \colhead{ $10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}
167: & \colhead{ $10^{26}$ erg s$^{-1}$ } & }
168:
169: \startdata
170:
171: Flare (mean) & 1.14 & $0.0089 \pm 0.0028 $ & $2.1 \pm 0.7$ &
172: $8.4 \pm 2.7$ & $-3.3$ \nl
173: Flare (peak) & 0.18 & $> 0.028 $ & $> 6.7 $ &
174: $> 27 $ & $> -2.8$ \nl
175: Non-flare & 20.85 & $< 0.00018 $ & $< 0.042 $ &
176: $< 0.17 $ & $< -5.0$ \nl
177:
178: \enddata
179: \end{deluxetable}
180:
181: \section{Discussion}
182:
183: This X-ray flare on VB 10 is reminiscent of the far-UV flare which was
184: detected on VB 10 by Linsky et al. (1995). These authors observed C II,IV
185: and Si IV emission lines only during the last five minutes of an hour-long
186: exposure taken with the GHRS onboard HST. They concluded that the flare
187: which they had observed indicated increased magnetic heating rates for
188: low-mass stars near the hydrogen-burning mass limit.
189:
190: In both the UV and ROSAT X-ray observations, quiescent (i.e. non-flare)
191: emission
192: was never detected from VB 10. For the UV flare, the emission line fluxes
193: were an order of magnitude greater than the upper limits placed on the
194: non-flare emission by Linsky et al. (1995). For this most recent X-ray flare,
195: the contrast is even greater. The peak flare luminosity is {\it at least}
196: more than two orders of magnitude greater than the non-flare value.
197:
198: For ease of comparison to more massive M dwarfs, we will normalize L$_X$
199: by L$_{bol}$, which for VB 10 is $1.74 \times 10^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
200: based on the absolute K magnitude measured by Leggett (1992) and the
201: bolometric correction of Veeder (1974).
202: This gives us log (L$_X$/L$_{bol}) > -2.8$ for the peak of the flare and
203: log (L$_X$/L$_{bol}) < -5.0$ outside of flare. Using the data of Fleming
204: et al. (1995) for the late (later than M5), presumably fully-convective M
205: dwarfs within 7 pc of the Sun, we find that these star have values of
206: log (L$_X$/L$_{bol}$) which are typically $-3.5$. But during flares
207: (e.g. AZ Cnc; Fleming et al. 1993), these stars can reach values of
208: (L$_X$/L$_{bol}) = -3.0$ to $-2.5$. Therefore, the magnitude of the flare on
209: VB 10 is completely consistent with that of flares on more massive M dwarfs.
210:
211: In Fig. 3 we display a plot of normalized X-ray luminosity versus
212: absolute visual magnitude for all known M dwarfs within 7 pc that are later
213: than M5, based on data from a volume-limited survey by Fleming et al. 1995.
214: Inspection of Fig. 3 reveals the sharp contrast between the upper limit
215: to the non-flare X-ray emission in VB 10 and the X-ray emission levels of
216: other late dMe stars. In particular, the upper limit for VB 10 is
217: 1-2 orders of magnitude less than that detected in the late dMe stars.
218: It is comparable to the upper limit for GJ1002 in Fig. 3, a quiescent dM5.5
219: star that does not exhibit H$\alpha$ emission nor any reported flare activity.
220: By contrast, VB 10 is a known flare star with (variable) H$\alpha$ line
221: emission in its spectrum.
222: While one cannot build
223: a theory based on one observation, we cannot help but speculate that our
224: result for VB 10 does indeed reflect a decline
225: in coronal heating
226: efficency near the H-burning mass limit. But somehow these stars are still
227: able to flare.
228:
229: We do not understand in detail the mechanisms that give rise
230: to energetic, transient outbursts identified as ``flares'' in the Sun and
231: late-type stars. However, flares do appear to be the result of
232: instabilities that return stressed systems toward configurations that
233: are characterized by lower potential energy (Rosner \& Vaiana 1978).
234: Since we do not have an X-ray spectrum, we cannot verify through
235: modeling that the observed emission in VB 10 is consistent with
236: the presence of loop-like magnetic structures. However, the
237: energetics of the event suggest the possible occurrence of a large
238: volume of flare plasma, implying the presence of large-scale magnetic
239: structures in the atmosphere. In particular, we can crudely estimate the
240: plausible range of spatial scales that characterize the flare event in
241: the following manner.
242:
243: In the absence of an actual energy spectrum (such as the pulse-height
244: spectra that were produced by the now-defunct ROSAT PSPC), we
245: assume some plausible flare plasma parameters. Based on X-ray observations
246: of other flare events on M dwarfs, we adopt a flaring temperature of
247: $T~\sim~$ 10$^{7}$ K. We note that a large flare event recorded by
248: the ROSAT PSPC on a late M dwarf star was well-described by a thermal
249: plasma model fit characterized by a temperature of 2 -- 4 $\times$ 10$^{7}$ K
250: (Sun et al. 1999). Utilizing the XSPEC analysis package combined with
251: the observed flux from the HRI and the adopted temperature yields a
252: differential emission measure at the flare maximum of EM $> 1.8 \times
253: 10^{29}$ cm$^{-5}$. The corresponding volume emission measure is
254: $$
255: VEM = 4 \pi R_{*}^2 EM > 1.1 \times 10^{50}~~cm^{-3}\,,
256: \eqno(1)
257: $$
258: where R$_{*}$ = 0.102 R$_{\odot}$ (Linsky et al. 1995). Given this estimate
259: of volume emission measure along with electron densities in the range of
260: $n_e~\sim$ 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ to 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, we find
261: characteristic linear
262: dimensions for the flare in the range of 0.003 R$_{*}$ to 0.30 R$_{*}$.
263: Thus, the flaring plasma covers a large fraction of the stellar surface if
264: $n_e~\sim$ 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$, but only a small fraction if
265: $n_e~>$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. We note that the distance traveled by a
266: sound wave in a 10$^{7}$ K plasma in the 3 minute duration of the flare
267: maximum is about 0.7 R$_{*}$. These estimates, while not conclusive,
268: are consistent with the likely occurrence of large-scale magnetic structures
269: associated with the flare event on VB 10.
270:
271:
272: The enormous contrast between the X-ray flare luminosity and
273: the upper limit to quiescent emission invites further consideration,
274: especially in view of the likely existence of significant surface magnetic
275: flux and large magnetic structures in VB 10.
276: %Addition to text follows (7/21/99):
277: We note that if VB10 is characterized by quiescent X-ray emission at a level
278: which is typical for the Sun at the maximum in its activity cycle, i.e.,
279: log($L_x/L_{bol})~\approx$ -6.3 (following Schmitt 1997), then we would still
280: not have had sufficient sensitivity to detect it. The upper limit for
281: non-flare X-ray emission in VB 10 is more comparable to the levels of emission
282: seen in earlier, more massive M dwarfs (non-dMe flare stars) which are
283: themselves characterized by X-ray emission levels that are in excess of
284: solar, or log($L_x/L_{bol})~\sim$ -6 to -5 (following Fleming, Schmitt
285: \& Giampapa 1995).
286:
287: We thus cannot exclude the possibility that VB 10 does indeed have
288: undetected, quiescent X-ray emission at the level of the Sun or that
289: of earlier,
290: quiescent dwarf M stars. However, inspection of Fig. 3 suggests that the low
291: level of non-flare X-ray emission in VB 10 is unusual with respect to
292: other late-type, active dMe flare stars.
293: %End insert (7/21/99)
294: We will therefore briefly
295: consider a hypothesis that may account for
296: the extremely low, or even the possible absence of, steady, quiescent
297: heating in this very cool dwarf.
298:
299: \begin{figure}
300: \plotfiddle{f3.ps}{2.0in}{-90}{70}{60}{-250}{350}
301: \caption{The normalized X-ray luminosity, log$(L_{x}/L_{bol})$, vs $M_{V}$
302: for M dwarfs later than M5. Filled circles denote dMe stars. Upper limits
303: are indicated by arrows. Flare and non-flare values for certain objects
304: are shown. Data are taken from Fleming et al. (1993) and Giampapa et al.
305: (1996). Solar values are from Peres et al. (1999). \label{fig3} }
306:
307: \end{figure}
308:
309: While there is no comprehensive theory for coronal
310: heating---even in the case of the Sun---a common feature of current
311: theories is that the origin of the nonradiative heating
312: of the corona involves the interaction
313: between turbulent convective motions in the photosphere and the
314: footpoints of magnetic loops (Parker 1972, 1983a,b, 1986; van Ballegooijen
315: 1986 and references therein).
316: %In brief (and highly simplified) summary,
317: %convective turbulence causes a random alteration of the structure of the
318: %magnetic field lines that penetrate the photosphere, leading to the
319: %topological interweaving of fields within closed loops that, in turn,
320: %causes the build up of magnetic stresses. The twisted magnetic field
321: %in closed loop configurations returns to equilibrium by the dissipation
322: %of energy through the associated electric currents that heat the corona.
323: In this context, our observations of VB 10 may imply that at the
324: photosphere there is simply
325: not enough in the way of random motions at the loop footpoints to jostle
326: the magnetic fields and, in turn, provide sufficient dynamical stresses
327: to lead to detectable plasma heating to coronal ($T~\sim$ 10$^{6}$ K)
328: temperatures. For example, a high magnetic field strength may suppress
329: convective motions, analogous to the situation in sunspots which are
330: also X-ray quiet. We further note that the very cool and dense
331: photosphere of VB 10 is dominated
332: in content by molecular hydrogen combined with neutral metals bound in
333: molecules. Thus, there are few ions to couple the magnetic field with the
334: photospheric gas. We estimate by extrapolation from
335: M dwarf model photospheres (Mould 1976) to
336: the effective temperature of VB 10 (T$_{eff}$ = 2600 K; Linsky et al.
337: 1995) that
338: the ionization fraction, $\zeta$, in the dense,
339: upper photosphere of VB 10 is $\zeta~\sim~$ 10$^{-7}$. By contrast,
340: $\zeta~\sim~$ 10$^{-4}$ in the upper photosphere of the quiet Sun
341: (Vernazza, Avrett, \& Loeser 1976). In early M dwarfs we have
342: that $\zeta~\sim~$ 10$^{-5}$ (following Mould 1976).
343: Hence, for stars in the temperature-density regime of VB 10, the upper
344: photospheres are characterized by ionization fractions that are
345: 2 orders of magnitude less than that of earlier M dwarfs and
346: 3 orders of magnitude below that of the Sun.
347: Consequently, the interaction between the field and the
348: ambient gas occurs deeper in the photosphere where the ionization fraction
349: is higher but where sufficient energy to produce significant coronal
350: heating is unable to propagate outward.
351:
352: The consequences for coronal heating of the occurrence of magnetic
353: structures in very cool dwarfs such as VB 10 is summarized in the following
354: argument due to F. Meyer (1999, private communication; see also
355: Meyer \& Meyer-Hofmeister 1999). Given that the
356: gas pressure in the corona is typically negligible compared
357: to the magnetic stresses, we must have that the magnetic field configuration,
358: or ``loop'', is force-free, or $\bf F = (J \times B)/{\rm c}$ =
359: 0. Thus, the electric currents must flow along the magnetic
360: field lines. Since for steady magnetic phenomena the current density
361: is divergence-free ($\bf \nabla \cdot J$ = 0), currents must also
362: flow through the magnetic footpoints
363: in the photosphere. In the cool and dense photosphere of stars such as
364: VB 10, the electrical conductivity is so low that any current system
365: rapidly decays. From this it follows that the magnetic equilibrium must
366: be current-free everywhere.
367: That is, $\bf J$ = 0 so that $\bf \nabla \times B$ = 0, and
368: ${\bf B = -\nabla}{\rm \Phi}$. Given that the potential field is a minimum
369: energy configuration, any further build-up and storage of magnetic field
370: energy is excluded, implying no (or only a relatively low degree) of
371: magnetic field-related heating of the atmosphere. At the very least, the
372: decay rate of energy at the footpoints must be faster than any energy input
373: derived from the interaction between motions in the upper photosphere
374: and the magnetic loops, effectively quenching any non-radiative heating
375: that might otherwise have occurred.
376:
377: Clearly, the above picture as outlined cannot explain flare events.
378: Instead, the transient or flare outbursts observed in these very cool
379: stars must arise from more complex magnetic topologies where the storage of
380: magnetic field energy occurs, but which do not have footpoints in the
381: cool, dense underlying photosphere.
382:
383: In summary, we have confirmed that the M8 dwarf VB 10 (Gl 752 B) does indeed
384: emit X-rays. It is the lowest mass star on the main sequence which is known
385: to do so. This emission, however, appears to be only transient in nature.
386: The contrast between the flare X-ray flux and any possible non-flare
387: (i.e., quiescent) X-ray emission is at least two orders of magnitude.
388: We note that X-ray emission in VB 10 at solar levels or even at the
389: levels seen in earlier dwarf M (non-dMe) stars would not be detected at
390: our sensitivity limits. In comparison to dMe stars later than M5, the
391: upper limit to the non-flare X-ray emission in VB 10 is unusually low.
392:
393: We have
394: considered a hypothesis that the low ionization fraction and, hence, low
395: conductivity, in the photosphere of VB 10 inhibits coronal
396: heating to the point where quiescent, $10^6$ K coronal plasma may
397: not even exist. In this scenario, the transient, presumably $10^7$ K coronal
398: plasma which
399: gives rise to the observed X-ray flare would then be associated with
400: topologically complex
401: magnetic field structures that do not have footpoints in
402: the cool photosphere which is, in turn, dominated by neutral atomic
403: and molecular species. Should this scenario prove to be correct,
404: then there may indeed be a drop in coronal activity at the bottom of the
405: main sequence: not at the mass where stars become fully convective, as was
406: once suggested, but at the hydrogen-burning mass limit itself.
407:
408: \acknowledgements
409: We acknowledge insightful discussions with F. Meyer, B. Durney and
410: A. van Ballegooijen whose ideas materially contributed to this work.
411: TAF acknowledges support from NASA grant NAGW-3160. MSG also acknowledges
412: support from NASA under the ROSAT Guest Observer program. The ROSAT project is
413: supported by the German Bundesministerium f\"ur Forschung und Technologie
414: (BMFT/DARA) and the Max Planck Gesellschaft.
415: \clearpage
416: \begin{references}
417: \reference{} Barbera, M., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Harnden, F.R., Jr.,
418: \& Rosner, R. 1993, \apj, 414, 846
419: \reference{} Fleming, T.A., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., \& Giampapa, M.S. 1995,
420: \apj, 450, 401
421: \reference{} Fleming, T.A., Giampapa, M.S., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., \& Bookbinder,
422: J.A. 1993, \apj, 410, 387
423: \reference{} Giampapa, M.S., Rosner, R., Kashyap, V., Fleming, T.A.,
424: Schmitt, J.H.M.M., \& Bookbinder, J.A. 1996, \apj, 463, 707
425: \reference{} Leggett, S.K. 1992, \apjs, 82, 351
426: \reference{} Linsky, J.L., Wood, B.E., Brown, A., Giampapa, M.S., \&
427: Ambruster, C. 1995, \apj, 455, 670
428: \reference{} Meyer, E. \& Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1999, \aap, 341, L23
429: \reference{} Mould, J. R. 1976, \aap, 48, 443
430: \reference{} Neuhauser, R. \& Comeron, F. 1998, Science, 282, 83
431: \reference{} Parker, E. N. 1972, \apj, 174, 499
432: \reference{} Parker, E. N. 1983a, \apj, 264, 635
433: \reference{} Parker, E. N. 1983b, \apj, 264, 642
434: \reference{} Parker, E. N. 1986, in Proc. Trieste Workshop Series, Relations
435: between Chromospheric-Coronal Heating and Mass Loss in Stars, ed.
436: J. B. Zirker and R. Stalio (Sunspot: Sacramento Peak Observatory), p. 199.
437: \reference{} Peres, G., Orlando, S., Reale, F., Rosner, R., \& Hudson, H. 1999,
438: \apj, in press
439: \reference{} Rosner, R. \& Vaiana, G. S. 1978, \apj, 222, 1104
440: \reference{} Sun, X., Fenimore, E. E., Li, H., Wei, J., Hu, J., Zhao, Y. 1999,
441: \apj, submitted
442: \reference{} van Ballegooijen, A. A. 1986, \apj, 311, 1001
443: \reference{} Veeder, G.J. 1974, \aj, 79, 1056
444: \reference{} Vernazza, J. E., Avrett, E. H. \& Loeser, R. 1976, \apjs, 30, 1
445: \reference{} Zombeck, M.V., Conroy, M., Harnden, F.R., Roy, A., Br\"auninger,
446: H., Burkert, W., Hasinger, G., \& Predehl, P. 1990, \procspie, 1344, 267
447:
448: \end{references}
449:
450: \end{document}
451:
452:
453: