1962
DOI: 10.1007/bf00174635
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High-energy solar-particle events

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

1965
1965
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We thereby pursue the study of individual solar relativistic proton events (called ground level events, GLEs) which suggested that relativistic protons are injected into interplanetary space well after the production of interacting energetic particles revealed by their gamma-ray and hard X-ray emission, but in time coincidence with acceleration in the middle corona (∼0.1-1 R above the photosphere, say) that shows up in decimetric and metric radio emission (Klein et al 1999;Klein & Trottet 2001). While the delay of relativistic proton injection with respect to hard X-ray, gamma-ray and microwave signatures of mildly relativistic electrons and suprathermal protons in the low solar atmosphere was known earlier (e.g., Carmichael 1962;Cliver et al 1982;Kahler 1994;Debrunner et al 1997), the connection with signatures of coronal particle acceleration at greater height, where collisional radiative signatures are inefficient due to the low ambient density, and gyrosynchrotron emission is faint because of the weak magnetic field, has only rarely been investigated (Palmer & Smerd 1972;Kocharov et al 1994;Akimov et al 1996;Klein et al 1999;Miroshnichenko et al 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…We thereby pursue the study of individual solar relativistic proton events (called ground level events, GLEs) which suggested that relativistic protons are injected into interplanetary space well after the production of interacting energetic particles revealed by their gamma-ray and hard X-ray emission, but in time coincidence with acceleration in the middle corona (∼0.1-1 R above the photosphere, say) that shows up in decimetric and metric radio emission (Klein et al 1999;Klein & Trottet 2001). While the delay of relativistic proton injection with respect to hard X-ray, gamma-ray and microwave signatures of mildly relativistic electrons and suprathermal protons in the low solar atmosphere was known earlier (e.g., Carmichael 1962;Cliver et al 1982;Kahler 1994;Debrunner et al 1997), the connection with signatures of coronal particle acceleration at greater height, where collisional radiative signatures are inefficient due to the low ambient density, and gyrosynchrotron emission is faint because of the weak magnetic field, has only rarely been investigated (Palmer & Smerd 1972;Kocharov et al 1994;Akimov et al 1996;Klein et al 1999;Miroshnichenko et al 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…How is it possible that SEP from a broad range of longitudes have direct access to a given spacecraft, rather than only those particles which are accelerated close to the nominal Parker spiral? Shock-wave acceleration in a broad cone of open magnetic field lines is often offered as an explanation (Carmichael 1962;Lin 1970;Reames 1999). But EUV or X-ray images of the corona also show that the magnetic field lines in the low corona are complex.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We estimated also the probability of missed triggers; it was shown that for events with amplitude of increase more than 10% the probability of a missed trigger for successive 2 min NM data is smaller than 1.36 · 10 À5 (this probability decreases sufficiently with increased amplitude A of the FEP increase, as shown in Table 1). Historical ground FEP events show very fast increase of amplitude in the start of event (Dorman, 1957;Carmichael, 1962;Dorman and Miroshnichenko, 1968;Duggal, 1979;Stoker, 1994). For example, in great FEP event of February 23, 1956 amplitudes of increase in the Chicago NM were at 3.51 UT -1%, at 3.52 UT -35%, at 3.53 UT -180%, at 3.54 UT -280%.…”
Section: Discussion On the Supposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%