Updated Expressions for Determining Temperatures and Emission Measures from Goes Soft X-Ray Measurements

By S. White, R. Thomas, Richard A. Schwartz. 2005

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ffe7d4c68cae8c2541c49d88c2b406c99cae3ef5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. M. Temmer
2. B. Vršnak
3. H. Hudson
4. Wei Liu
5. Astrid Veronig
6. Jasmina Magdalenic
7. W. Otruba
8. S. Krucker

Citations in the corpus

• X-ray sources and magnetic reconnection in the X3.9 flare of 2003 November 3 (2006, methodology): “For comparison, we derived also emission measure and temperature from GOES using the up-to-date Chianti atomic model (version 4.2; Young et al. 2003) recently implemented into the GOES analysis software (White et al. 2005).”
• An Observational Overview of Solar Flares (2011, background): “At decimeter wavelengths the most productive facility is the Nançay radioheliograph (e.g., Avignon et al. 1989), typically operating at five fixedfrequencies in the 150-450 MHz range.”
• The Relationship Between Solar Radio and Hard X-ray Emission (2011, background): “…is produced by electrons whereas the soft X-ray emission has a large contribution from lines of highlyionized atoms of elements heavier than hydrogen, so quantitative comparison of the two also depends on the abundance distribution of the radiating plasma (see the discussion in White et al. 2005).”
• GLOBAL ENERGETICS OF THIRTY-EIGHT LARGE SOLAR ERUPTIVE EVENTS (2012, methodology): “This calculation assumes that the hot plasma at any given time is isothermal; the temperature and emission measure are calculated from the two-channel GOES data using the relations given by White et al. (2005).”
• Refinements to flare energy estimates: A followup to “Energy partition in two solar flare/CME events” by A. G. Emslie et al. (2005, unknown): “One change resulted from a numerical error and requires that all the time-integrated radiated energies be increased by a factor of 3. The other results from the new estimates of temperatures and emission measures from GOES data given by White et al. [2005] using the latest version of the Chianti a”