Paper detail

Asymmetry in the CME-CME interaction process for the events from 2011 February 14-15

We present a detailed study of the interaction process of two coronal mass ejections (CMEs) successively launched on 2011 February 14 (CME1) and 2011 February 15 (CME2). Reconstructing the 3D shape and evolution of the flux ropes we verify that the two CMEs interact. The frontal structure of both CMEs measured along different position angles (PA) over the entire latitudinal extent, reveals differences in the kinematics for the interacting flanks and the apexes. The interaction process is strongly PA-dependent in terms of timing as well as kinematical evolution. The central interaction occurs along PA-100°, which shows the strongest changes in kinematics. During interaction, CME1 accelerates from ~400 km/s to ~700 km/s and CME2 decelerates from ~1300 km/s to ~600 km/s. Our results indicate that a simplified scenario like inelastic collision may not be sufficient to describe the CME-CME interaction. Magnetic field structures of the intertwining flux ropes as well as momentum transfer due to shocks play an important role in the interaction process.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.