Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon.
Kopp, R. A. and G. W. Pneuman, Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon., Sol. Phys., 50, 85-98 (1976) (ADS)
(click on the image for a larger version)
One of the most influential cartoons in this genre, and the source
of some 30% of the CSHKP acronym.
This is the "standard" model of eruption in a bipolar configuration that is
essentially 2-D, opening the field in a manner favorable to large-scale
reconnection and the formation of a cylindrical arcade of loops.
Since Bruzek's work on Hα ribbons and loop prominence systems,
at least, such a configuration neatly wrapped up a large fraction
of flare observations, and at the time this cartoon appeared, much
theoretical work already
existed..
That said, the cartoon clearly describes exactly why this model is not good.
Why are the fields open before the flare?
This paper used the flow on these opened field lines as the
source of the extra mass, in fact, ignoring the non-thermal physics
(including "evaporation") that we now think to be integral parts of the
process.
How the field "opens" is an integral and indeed the most important aspect of the
flare process, and yet this cartoon - and most of its less-imaginative
followers - simply ignores it.
Probably most of the shortcomings here just reflect the 2D nature of the
imagined process, even though all of predecessors (the CSH of the CSHKP)
clearly envisioned the physics to be properly three-dimensional.
None were cited!
In a sense this cartoon must therefore have cast a baleful influence on
future development in the field.
One of the most influential cartoons in this genre, and the source of some 30% of the CSHKP acronym. This is the "standard" model of eruption in a bipolar configuration that is essentially 2-D, opening the field in a manner favorable to large-scale reconnection and the formation of a cylindrical arcade of loops. Since Bruzek's work on Hα ribbons and loop prominence systems, at least, such a configuration neatly wrapped up a large fraction of flare observations, and at the time this cartoon appeared, much theoretical work already existed..
That said, the cartoon clearly describes exactly why this model is not good. Why are the fields open before the flare? This paper used the flow on these opened field lines as the source of the extra mass, in fact, ignoring the non-thermal physics (including "evaporation") that we now think to be integral parts of the process. How the field "opens" is an integral and indeed the most important aspect of the flare process, and yet this cartoon - and most of its less-imaginative followers - simply ignores it. Probably most of the shortcomings here just reflect the 2D nature of the imagined process, even though all of predecessors (the CSH of the CSHKP) clearly envisioned the physics to be properly three-dimensional. None were cited! In a sense this cartoon must therefore have cast a baleful influence on future development in the field.