Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T04:57:58.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Band Splitting in Type II Solar Radio Bursts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2016

D. J. McLean*
Affiliation:
Division of Radiophysics, CSIRO, Sydney

Extract

Of the metre-wavelength solar radio bursts which have been recognized, those of type II are characterized by the most complex set of spectral features. Apparently acceptable explanations have now been put forward for most of these features. However, not all these explanations can be considered to be established. In particular the phenomenon of band splitting has been explained in different ways by Sturrock, by Tidman et al., by Zheleznyakov and Zaitsev. However, the theories of Sturrock and Tidman apparently require magnetic fields so strong as to preclude the formation of a magnetohydrodynamic shock wave by a disturbance moving at the velocity (<~ 1000 km/s) attributed to type II bursts. The same problem is encountered in other earlier theories of band splitting involving magnetic effects. The other theory does not involve the magnetic field strength. However, the details of this theory do not appear to have been properly worked out as yet.

Type
Contributions
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sturrock, P. A., Nature, 192, 58 (1961).Google Scholar
2 Tidman, D. A., Birmingham, T. J., and Stainer, H. M., Ap. J., 146, 207 (1966).Google Scholar
3 Zheleznyakov, V. V., Astron. Zh., 42, 244 (1965); Soviet Astron.—AJ, 9, 191 (1965).Google Scholar
4 Zaitsev, V. V., Astron. Zh., 42, 740 (1965); Soviet Astron.—AJ, 9, 572 (1966).Google Scholar
5 Weiss, A. A., Aust. J. Phys., 18, 167 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Wild, J. P., Roberts, J. A., and Murray, J. D., Nature, 173, 532 (1954).Google Scholar
7 Wild, J. P., Murray, J. D., and Rowe, W. C., Aust. J. Phys., 7, 439 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Fomichev, V. V., and Chertok, I. M., Astron. Zh., 42, 1256 (1965); Soviet Astron.—AJ, 9, 976 (1966).Google Scholar
9 Takakura, T., Publ. A.S. Japan, 16, 230 (1964).Google Scholar
10 Ginzburg, V. L., and Zheleznyakov, V. V., Astron. Zh., 35, 694 (1958); Soviet Astron.—AJ, 2, 653 (1958).Google Scholar
11 Smerd, S. F., Wild, J. P., and Sheridan, K. V., Aust. J. Phys., 15, 180 (1962).Google Scholar
12 Wild, J. P., Smerd, S. F., and Weiss, A. A., Rev. Astron. & Ap., 1, 291 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Newkirk, G., Ap. J., 133, 983 (1961).Google Scholar
14 Athay, R. G., and Moreton, G. E., Ap. J., 133, 935 (1961).Google Scholar
15 Roberts, J. A., Aust. J. Phys., 12, 327 (1959).Google Scholar
16 Maxwell, A., and Thompson, A. R., Ap. J., 135, 138 (1962).Google Scholar
17 Wild, J. P., Proc. ASA, I, 38 (1967).Google Scholar
18 The Culgoora Radioheliograph’, ed. Wild, J. P., Proc. IREE Aust., 28, No. 9 (1967).Google Scholar