July 9, 2016

# The Solar Corona 1st Edition Errata

Errata and updates for the text The Solar Corona by Leon Golub and Jay M. Pasachoff are listed here (http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/corona.html).

xi. the last URL is http://www.williams.edu/astronomy/corona.

xiv, last line. The url is now http://www.williams.edu/astronomy/corona/corona_updates.html.

Fig 2.12: delete word “coronal” from “slitless spectrum”

p. 12, line -6: cm^-2 should be cm^+2

p. 28, line 2: change first sentence to: The 1868 eclipse was an especially noteworthy eclipse in astronomical history, since Pierre Janssen of France visually observed such bright prominences through the slit of their spectroscopes that he deduced that they might be visible outside of eclipse, something coincidentally discovered outside of eclipse and reported at the same time by Norman Lockyer of England.

p. 28, line -4, delete “and” and add, at end of line: “and by Lyot at the Pic du Midi Observatory in France.”

p. 30, line -13: 3.6-m Canada-France-Hawaii telescope

p. 30, line -1: 1966, not 1968

p. 31, Fig. 2.4 center the eclipse image.

p. 36

replace “Oppolzer’s work has been superseded by calculations by Meeus, Grosjean, and Vanderleen (1966)” with

“Oppolzer’s work has been superseded by calculations by Meeus, Grosjean, and Vanderleen (1966) for 1898-2510 and by Mucke and Meeus (1983, 1992) for 2003 BC to AD 2526”

Espenak has a “World Atlas of Solar Eclipse Paths,” covering the years 1701 to 2300 in thirty maps, on the World Wide Web at
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas.html

and to the references add
Mucke, H., and Meeus, J., (1983, 1992), Canon of Solar Eclipses, -2003 to +2526, Astronomisches Buro, Wien, Austria.

p. 42, 1998, not 1996

p. 46, at end of caption for Fig 2.12, could add: “, and the hydrogen H-epsilon line appears next to the Ca II H line.”

next to last line: delete comma after “color.”

at end of caption for 2.12, after “Ca II H and K,” add “, with H-epsilon showing besides H.”

p. 47
line 4: add a ) at the end of the line.

p. 74:

Eq. 3.38 should read g_n A_mn / g_n B_nm exp [-h nu_mn/kT] – g_n B_mn = …

Eq. 3.39 should read g_n B_mn = g_m B_nm

p. 75, following Eq. 3.45: This sentence should read “The degree to which radiation is prevented from passing through a medium by absorption is called the opacity; …”

p. 76, line 8: Remove the entire sentence “Beginning at a distance …” and remove Eq. 3.47. Replace the next words “This formula …” with “Eq. 3.46 …”

Note that the x-axis of Figure 3.9 on p. 82 for the ionization equilibrium shows log T. Equivalent temperatures (rounded) are:

5.5       316,000
6.0     1,000,000
6.1     1,250,000
6.2     1,600,000
6.3     2,000,000
6.4     2,500,000
6.5     3,150,000
6.6     4,000,000
6.7     5,000,000
6.8     6,300,000
6.9     8,000,000
7.0     10,000,000


The vertical axis is the logarithm of the abundance; 1 corresponds to 100%, 0.1 corresponds to 10%, etc.

p. 89:
Note that there are two definitions of “emission measure” commonly used in the literature. However, one refers to the integral of n_e^2 dV, ie over the emitting volume of the region, the other refers to the integral of n_e^2 dl, i.e., along the line of sight. For instance, Eq. 3.74 uses the first definition, so that Q(T) has units cm^-3 K^-1, but Eq. 6.1 on p. 173 leads to a Q(T) which has units cm^-5 K^-1, as used for instance in Figure 3.10.

It would be preferable, for clarity, if the two definitions were given different names; the volume integral should be called “emission measure,” and the line of sight integral should be called “emission integral.”

p. 105, Fig. 4.7 caption: Yellapur

p. 110, Fig. 4.11 caption and line -1: Ludendorff

p. 111: At the 1991 eclipse, Koutchmy organized a collaboration with six identical cameras from several organizations placed at pairs of locations in Hawaii, Mexico, and Brazil, to look for changes in the camera. Only the camera on Mauna Kea gave perfect images; two of the other cameras also gave useful images. Only slight changes were seen in the resulting set of images.

p. 129: labels omitted for eclipses of 1947, 1948, 1977

p. 130, line -9: remove one “the”

p. 130, line 16, ground speed: change 1000 to 2000 km/hr. add: (Mach 2.05) Total time: 74 minutes.

p. 131, line 1: Turkana, not Tanganyika

pp. 131-132, To the discussion of the eclipse observation of the deflection of light caused by general relativistic effects, add:
The best optical value for the deflection of light is now from the Hipparcos satellite, which found a value of 0.997 +/- 0.003 for the ratio of the measured value to that predicted by general relativity (Froeschle, Magnard, and Arenou, 1997). They summarize, also, the determinations from lunar laser ranging, a planetary data set, VLBI radio astronomy, and the time-delay effect, all of which are much more accurate than the eclipse determinations (their Figure 3). Reference: M. Froeschle, F. Mignard, and F. Arenou, “Determination of the PPN Parameter [gamma] with the Hipparcos Data,” in the Hipparcos Catalogue, ESA 1997.

p. 138, the figure is from J. Durst, Swiss Federal Observatory. (See Astronomy and Astrophysics 112, 241-250, 1982.)

Section 5.2.1, p. 147: note that the LASCO C1 coronagraph is internally occulted.

p. 147, line -11: change “above 4000 m” to “of about 4000 m.”

p. 147, line -6: change “4000-m” to “3400 m”

p. 152, line 2: change “fluid” to “plasma.”

p. 185: omit sentence: “Also shown in the figure are several outlines.”

p. 202: The sentence “Such a difference image …” should be deleted. That difference image does not appear in Figure 7.5, p. 201.

p. 215, line 15: The parentheses should read “(Since only the electron pressure term, grad P / m, is sizable)”

p. 216, line 8: Should read “Putting sigma_c = pi r_0^2, we have as a rough approximation (viz. Eq. 5.33), tau_c approx equal to 1/n sigma_c v, so that …

Eq. 7.26 should have “approx equal” instead of the = sign; also the first equality in Eq. 7.27 should be approx equal.

Table – TRACE Temperature Coverage

 Wavelength (Angstrom) Emission Temperature (K) 173 Fe IX and Fe X 0.8-2.0 X 10^6 195 Fe XII and 0.9-2.1 X 10^6 Fe XXIV 10-25 X 10^6 284 Fe XV 1.5-4.0 X 10^6 1216 Lyman-alpha 10-30 X 10^3 1550 C IV 0.6-2.5 X 10^5

p. 218 Eqs. 7.38 and 7.41: bold lower case v should be bold upper case V.

p. 221: Concerning Eq. 7.55 (p. 220), on the following page, add after “bounded by C,” the words “where s is the coordinate along C.”

p. 221, line 18: Regarding Condition #3, note that this condition is almost nowhere satisfied in the corona. However, Condition #6 ensures the validity of the approximation for the corona.

We thank Dr. Robert Rosner for clarifying these points for us.

p. 222. Eq. 7.60 – the partial derivative should be the total (convective) derivative; see the left-hand side of Eq. 7.59.

p. 224 Eq. 7.71 is missing “0= “; compare with Eq. 7.58.

p. 225:
Eq. 7.76 – Note that the parallel conductivity, k_ll is defined as (k.B)/B.

Eqs. 7.78 and 7.79 are modified as follows:

Eq. (7.78) -i omega rho V* = (i/4 pi) (k X B*) X B = (i/4 pi) (k.B)B* – (i/4 pi) (B.B*)k

Eq. (7.79) -i omega B* = ik X (V* X B) = i(k.B)V* – i(k.V*)B,

where we have assumed that the sound speed is small compared to the Alfv\’en speed, since this is a low-$\beta$ plasma.

If we first take the cross product of these equations with k and then take the dot product with B, we obtain

Eq. (7.80) -omega (V* X k).B = (1/4 pi rho)(k.B)(B* X k).B and
Eq. (7.81) -omega (B* X k).B = (k.B)(V* X k).B

The term in (B* X k).B may be eliminated between these equations to give the dispersion relation, Eq. (7.76), where (k.B)^2/(4 pi rho) = (k_ll)^2 (v_a)^2.

We thank Dr. Alan Hood for this correction.

p. 228, line 9 (following Eq. 7.91): after “Q(T) is the” add “radiative energy loss per unit volume. Note that this is not the”

line 12: should read “Since Q(T) is equal to n_e^2 P(T), as”

line 13: Replace “Eq. 3.71” with “Eq. 3.74”

p. 230, line -4: Replace the phrase “the differential emission measure Q(T)=” with the word “term”

p. 242, line -9: Change “Hinotori” to “P78-1 and Hinotori”

Then add: The P78-1 satellite was launched on 24 Feb. 1979 by the Air Force as part of the DoD Space Test Program. The main solar instruments were the NRL SOLWIND coronagraph, and two Bragg crystal spectrometer experiments: SOLFLEX (NRL), and SOLEX (the Aerospace Corp.). SOLWIND provided a comprehensive look at CMEs during solar maximum, and was the first instrument to discover comets from space. The SOLFLEX and SOLEX spectrometers provided the first quality high resolution X-ray spectra of flares and hot active regions, including the observation of blueshifted emission believed to be the direct signature of chromospheric evaporation ((Doschek, ApJS, 73, 117 (1990)). The P78-1 instrumentation is described in Doschek, Solar Physics, 86, 9 (1983). The satellite was later destroyed by the Air Force as part of their test of the antiballistic missile defence program.

p. 252, line -3: The ISTP Web site URL is http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/

p. 255, Fig. 8.4: “Michelson Interferometers” should be the label at center left on this NASA-supplied diagram.

p. 258 Figure caption for Fig. 8.7 Fe XIV should be Fe XV.

p. 260-262, TRACE was launched on April 1, 1998; it is hoped it might send back data for 5 years. Its Web site is accessible from this one, above.

p. 261, line -2: Change “TRACE is launched …” to “TRACE was launched on 1998 April 2 02:43 UT …”

p. 267, Figure 8.12 caption: Wolter Type II should be Wolter Type I.

p. 268, lines 3 and 5: interchange Type I and Type II.

Figure caption for 9.4 (p. 284) reads “is balanced by fluid
outflow along the x-direction.” It should read “along the
y-direction.”
The text of Sec. 9.2.1 says it correctly (Eqs. 9.3 and 9.4).

p. 299, line 3: The sentence beginning “We note …” should be replaced with the following:

Neupert argued that since microwave radio emission and not collisional loss is the main mechanism of energy loss for electrons with energies above 250 keV (Takakura, 1967) the intensity of the impulsive microwave burst accompanying the observed flare could be used to estimate that high energy electron population. He then adopted a typical power-law spectrum for the accelerated electrons (E-5) to infer the total energy in fast electrons present at the peak of the microwave event. As most of the energy in this total electron population resides at low energies where collisional losses predominate, such collisional losses were identified as the mechanism for producing the thermal flare plasma.

p. 304, sect. 9.4.1, last line before Fig. 9.9; “….more rapidly then the surface” should read “…. more rapidly than the surface.”

p. 306, On page 306, Sect. 9.4.2, second paragraph, middle; Unless there is a previous definition of what a dMe star is, this is a typo so that “…more massive than dMe stars” should read “… more massive than dM stars.”

p. 316, last line of first paragraph, “is required,” not “in required”

p. 317. The explanation of Habbal et al. that finds the proton temperature higher than the electron temperature is as follows:

“The heavier the particles, the less efficient their thermal conduction. Hence any heating will tend to make the heavier ions hotter than the lighter ones.”
explanation from Shadia Habbal

p. 323, line -7, “13 months” instead of “five weeks”

p. 324, line -3, 367 kg, not 367 km, for Ulysses

p. 326, 5th bullet, line 2: “indicates,” not “indicate” second full paragraph, change tense for Ulysses reaching Jupiter to present tense.

p. 351, line 2: ESA SP-348

p. 360, line 6: Shoub reference should follow Shore, not Simnett.

p. 365, line 10: Kim, I.

Index:
On page 369, the entry for “electrical conductivity, 216” should read “electrical conductivity, 215-216”

On page 371, the entry for “penumbra, 208” should read “penumbra, 207-209”.

back cover: cover illustration caption: lines 4-5: The outer corona is seen during totality from a telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii (courtesy

We thank Dietmar Staps of the journal SONNE, Weisbaden, Germany, for notifying us of various errata.