Thursday notes (typically, a question followed by a response)

Krucker

-Oops - initial discussion lost because of operator erro
-All: lots of discussion of the Jan. 20 event
-Vlahos: worry about projection effects in Jan. 20 - shouted down by others
-Hudson: emphasize hardness of electron spectra and novelty of new RHESSI obs
-Masuda: gamma-ray footpoints? Similar to HXR
-White, Hudson, Fletcher: discussion of line GR
-Vlahos: clear microwave predictions
;
-Masuda: Masuda-like!
-Hudson: note similarity of pattern to Tsuneta 1997
-Fletcher: Khan, Sui examples
-Hudson: note v. odd second hard X-ray burst in this event
-Hudson: note oscillatory pattern may be related to SXR phenomena
;
-Tomczak: yes, similar to our Yohkoh flares
-Vlahos: geometry of magnetic field playing tricks could lead to unique
 appearances
-Sui: Not a good comparison. But see Sa"ms comparison with Tomczak analysis
-Veronig: Even if qualitatively different from Masuda, still very interesting
;
-little commentary
;
-White, Hudson: discussion of densities and morphology of type II emission
-White: association with type III implies short time scale to high altitude
 (as opposed to April 18 entrained source)
-Hudson: usual whine about Gaussian fits. White rebuttal
-White, Cargill, Hudson: discussion of "CME" definition
-Cargill: what is the equipartition field? 1 G
-Hudson: non-thermal pressure

Cargill

-Fletcher, Hudson: how to compare complexities really?
-Hudson: why Mach 2? Guide field makes this unlikely
-Vlahos: the two shock mechanisms are related. Mann is the only visible
 proponent now for shocks in flares
-Vlahos, Fletcher: super-Dreicer luminosity problem
-Hudson: can one freely use the Kolmogoroff spectrum without knowing the
 physics? "Yes" says Peter, "No" says Loukas
-Fletcher, Vlahos: Time dependence a problem for Miller and Petrosian.
 New developments needed
-Vlahos: Reconnection "black box" @ electron inertial scale. Too small!
-Hudson: Driven reconnection postpones the problem?
-Fletcher: MHD time scale problem
-Sui, Fletcher, White: Metcalf limits consistent with 10-20% free energy
-Vlahos: Few discussions now of time-series. Don't expect surprises (HSH)
-White: Should these distributions be done with soft X-rays? Well, no (HSH)
-Vlahos: Emphasize the jumps in particle energy in SOC description
-White: How is Dmitruk related to Miller's work? It's a generalization
-Fletcher: How different from Galsgaard? Completely
-White: Turkmani results have large deltaB/B? Not turbulence
-Hudson: What about Poynting flux and coronal energy storage? This is a 
 "driven" theory, not suitable for flares...
-Fletcher: Uncomfortable feeling about resistivity. Maybe the electric field
 resulting is independent of the details...
-Hudson: Calling it eta is wrong. No
-White: What are the trapping time scales? Short
-Fletcher: Is it in both directions? Yes
-White: What about particle injection? 5 MK Maxwellian initiation
-White: Reconnection DC field? Yes
-Vlahos: Need a kinetic description. But can't do it?
-Hudson: Feedback mechanism not so clear. Agreed
-White: How to build up? Good point, not so clear
-Fletcher: Observers see orderly behavior; how to get this kind of large-scale
 organization? But if it's ordered, it should be predictable
-Fletcher: Is the only observable the spectrum? Grumbles
-White: But isn't the guide field dominant? 

Vlahos

-White: Cartoons shouldn't drive data analysis!
-Cargill: So little intellectual development!
-White, Hudson, Cargill, Fletcher: what do these simulations mean, and are they
 worth doing? 
-Hudson: Why is it Mach 2?
-Cargill: Scales are determined by boundary conditions. Sure
-Fletcher: How can the turbulence spread against the inward flow?
-Cargill: E-field plots are hard to understand
-Cargill: What determines scales? Size of box
-Hudson: Why show perp and parallel fields together? Just for distribution
-Hudson, White: What about vxB? A fudge
-All: We don't want to be constructive!
-White: But... isn't the separatrix bubble even less likely geometrically?
-Cargill: Can't apply microscopic instabilities to get anomalous resistivity
-Hudson, Cargill: Why is Amari different from Shibata? Amari got the geometry
 from first principles, rather than ad-hoc
-White, Fletcher: Just a sheared neutral line? Yes
-Cargill: Spiro found the same thing, you need strong shearing
-Fletcher: How does this help with the number problem? Got more volume now
-White, Cargill: Try again? Vlahos sees reconnection regions spread out in
 3D, so that a much larger volume can be accessed
-Cargill: We see through your trick
-Fletcher, White: Cannot see the difference
-Cargill: Just don't see how this helps with the number problem
-Hudson: Are you just saying that 3D is good? Yes
-Cargill: I see all of the basic elements in the odious Shibata cartoon, so
 what? You are missing the point
-Sui, Fletcher, Hudson: How do you imagine focusing all of this energetic
 volume into our compact footpoint regions? This is not a detailed model yet
-Veronig: Any kind of trapping is OK for the coronal sources
-Cargill: The CA approach in an MHD framework might make sense