2019
DOI: 10.30965/9783846764725
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abenteuer

Abstract: This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Keil & Canfield (1978) estimated the horizontal flow speed of ≈ 2.0 km/s, compensating for several causes of the degradation other than the spatial smearing, e.g., an observed emergent intensity cumulatively originates from several layers along the LOS direction, making the observed signal smoothed over the physical information. With a better spatial resolution achieved using a balloon-borne 30-cm telescope whose data are almost free from an atmospheric seeing degradation (Mehltretter 1978), Mattig et al (1981) estimated a flow speed of ≈ 0.7 km/s in RMS, and later Nesis & Mattig (1989) concluded a typical value of ≈ 0.6 km/s; the above values are taken at the geometrical height corresponding to our bisector sampling levels. Thus, such a threefold difference among their estimation implies that the horizontal flow speed heavily depends on their approach.…”
Section: Horizontal Flow Amplitudementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Keil & Canfield (1978) estimated the horizontal flow speed of ≈ 2.0 km/s, compensating for several causes of the degradation other than the spatial smearing, e.g., an observed emergent intensity cumulatively originates from several layers along the LOS direction, making the observed signal smoothed over the physical information. With a better spatial resolution achieved using a balloon-borne 30-cm telescope whose data are almost free from an atmospheric seeing degradation (Mehltretter 1978), Mattig et al (1981) estimated a flow speed of ≈ 0.7 km/s in RMS, and later Nesis & Mattig (1989) concluded a typical value of ≈ 0.6 km/s; the above values are taken at the geometrical height corresponding to our bisector sampling levels. Thus, such a threefold difference among their estimation implies that the horizontal flow speed heavily depends on their approach.…”
Section: Horizontal Flow Amplitudementioning
confidence: 98%