AR 13296

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said:

Tendría que haber una erupción masiva si tuviéramos que recibir un golpe de refilón de un impacto de CME de la región en este punto.

¿That is correct  , but how would you determine it?

[Jesterface23]

14 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

¿That is correct  , but how would you determine it?

Once we have an eruption of such significance, we would use coronagraph imagery to verify any Earth directed component.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said:

Once we have an eruption of such significance, we would use coronagraph imagery to verify any Earth directed component.

A coronagraph shock angle is 360°, a component angle is 270°, with respect to the non-dary image, because it would be very far with respect to the area that has an effective geo component. in parallel position, with respect to the scope of the effective geo zone, In other words, it does not reach us, it is very far from the impact zone.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

Un ángulo de choque del coronógrafo es de 360°, un ángulo de componente es de 270°, con respecto a la imagen no diurna, porque estaría muy lejos con respecto al área que tiene una geocomponente efectiva. en posición paralela, respecto al alcance de la geozona efectiva, es decir, no nos alcanza, está muy lejos de la zona de impacto.

 

10 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

A coronagraph shock angle is 360°, a component angle is 270°, with respect to the non-dary image, because it would be very far with respect to the area that has an effective geo component. in parallel position, with respect to the scope of the effective geo zone, In other words, it does not reach us, it is very far from the impact zone.

 

 

10 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

A coronagraph shock angle is 360°, a component angle is 270°, with respect to the non-dary image, because it would be very far with respect to the area that has an effective geo component. in parallel position, with respect to the scope of the effective geo zone, In other words, it does not reach us, it is very far from the impact zone.

 

10 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

A coronagraph shock angle is 360°, a component angle is 270°, with respect to the non-dary image, because it would be very far with respect to the area that has an effective geo component. in parallel position, with respect to the scope of the effective geo zone, In other words, it does not reach us, it is very far from the impact zone.

I am trying to understand the angular events, from the west limb, direct hit and component, in terms of position and angle.

11 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

¿Es correcto, pero cómo lo determinarías?

 

11 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Una vez que tengamos una erupción de tal importancia, usaríamos imágenes de coronógrafo para verificar cualquier componente dirigido a la Tierra.

What angles should the impacts have to be direct or with a component and how are they determined? 

11 hours ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

Un ángulo de choque del coronógrafo es de 360°, un ángulo de componente es de 270°, con respecto a la imagen no diurna, porque estaría muy lejos con respecto al área que tiene una geocomponente efectiva. en posición paralela, respecto al alcance de la geozona efectiva, es decir, no nos alcanza, está muy lejos de la zona de impacto.

 

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

I am trying to understand the angular events, from the west limb, direct hit and component, in terms of position and angle.

1 hour ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

What angles should the impacts have to be direct or with a component and how are they determined? 

First of all, it would be great if you could clean up your posts before making them; in the post you just made I see the same image 5 times, and a different image 2 times, you've quoted yourself repeatedly.

To address your questions: the coronograph imagery is from the instrument LASCO on the satellite SOHO, which is located at L1:

As you can see, this is directly between Earth and Sol, so there's no need to tilt the image like you have done, because what you're seeing is the disk as it looks like from Earth.

As for how to determine whether or not a CME has an Earth-directed component, there's no 100% certain way of doing it except in the clearest of cases, but there are general principles you can go by. I would recommend reading some of the articles on this site that are meant to be of help in this regard, such as this one.

There you can see two animated coronagrams side by side, one with an eruption not towards us, and the other with an eruption toward us; as you can see in the latter case, there's a halo, a circle extending outward in all directions, which is an indication that there's a CME headed directly toward us (or directly away from us, so you have to determine which way it's going). If the halo is not 360° around, but less, it can still have an Earth-directed component, but it will typically be less significant the less the angle is; the minimum is generally considered ~180° for a glancing blow, as that would mean the edge of the CME is just barely hitting us.

Lastly, while the Enlil spiral you've posted some images of (this one) can be a useful tool, it's only a model, and not always accurate, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Philalethes

[Guest]

An event, which took place early on the day 05-13-23, has the form of a partial halo and the Enlil shows a weak impact for the day 2023-05-16.

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

An event, which took place early on the day 05-13-23, has the form of a partial halo and the Enlil shows a weak impact for the day 2023-05-16.

I don't see any halo there at all. In fact, CACTus doesn't register any halo either, so I have no idea what you're basing that on (note that CACTus should be taken with even more salt than Enlil anyway).

Enlil does seem to have registered a tiny eruption taking place before that large one, but I don't see that in the imagery at all, and it doesn't seem to be the same as the big one anyway.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Philalethes
typo

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

No veo ningún halo allí en absoluto. De hecho, CACTus tampoco registra ningún halo, así que no tengo idea de en qué te estás basando (ten en cuenta que CACTus debe tomarse con más sal que Enlil de todos modos).

Enlil parece haber registrado una pequeña erupción antes de la grande, pero no veo eso en las imágenes en absoluto, y de todos modos no parece ser lo mismo que la grande.

https://www.sidc.be/cactus/out/CME0053/CME.html

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

https://www.sidc.be/cactus/out/CME0053/CME.html

I think you need to learn how to read the data and graphics properly.

1. Look at the column where it says "da"; that's the angle CACTUS has detected for the CME, and in this case refers to the angle between the white lines on the bottom. It's essentially a faulty detection, happens all the time with CACTUS, it's not very reliable unless you have at least some idea what you're looking at.

2. Look at the column where it says "halo?"; that will inform you whether CACTUS has detected a halo or not, which in this case it hasn't (but again, that detection is a faulty one anyway, so it doesn't matter). Better is for you to first look at the coronagrams from LASCO and see for yourself if you can see any halo.

3. If you want to see the one CACTUS actually detected for the large eruption, it's this one; as you can see, it's not really getting the angle right at all, but detecting a much too narrow angle. This should make it clear that you can't rely on such automated detections unless you have a fair idea about what you're looking at in the first place.

Lastly, if you look at the coronagraph imagery for yourself here, you can see roughly what the angle is:

As you can see, this seems like it's significantly less than 180°, and so it's unlikely to have produced any relevant Earth-directed component.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Creo que necesita aprender a leer los datos y los gráficos correctamente.

1. Mira la columna donde dice "da"; ese es el ángulo que CACTUS ha detectado para el CME , y en este caso se refiere al ángulo entre las líneas blancas en la parte inferior. Es esencialmente una detección defectuosa, sucede todo el tiempo con CACTUS, no es muy confiable a menos que tenga al menos una idea de lo que está viendo.

2. Mira la columna donde dice "halo?"; eso le informará si CACTUS ha detectado un halo o no, que en este caso no lo ha hecho (pero de nuevo, esa detección es defectuosa de todos modos, así que no importa). Es mejor que mire primero los coronagramas de LASCO y vea por sí mismo si puede ver algún halo.

3. Si desea ver el CACTUS que realmente detectó para la gran erupción, es este ; como puede ver, en realidad no está obteniendo el ángulo correcto en absoluto, sino detectando un ángulo demasiado estrecho. Esto debería dejar en claro que no puede confiar en tales detecciones automáticas a menos que tenga una idea clara de lo que está viendo en primer lugar.

Por último, si observa las imágenes del coronógrafo por sí mismo aquí , puede ver aproximadamente cuál es el ángulo:

Como puede ver, esto parece ser significativamente menor que 180 °, por lo que es poco probable que haya producido algún componente relevante dirigido a la Tierra.

It seems more to the West and that it does not impact according to this model and this  https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=LhNn5  And also the time is different, it was around 00 and something.

But in this one you can see a little https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=BhNn5  , It's basically the same

 

 

29 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

Parece mas occidente y que no impacta segun este modelo y este   https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=LhNn5   Y ademas la hora es diferente, rondaba las 00 y algo.

Pero en este se puede ver un poco  https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=BhNn5   , básicamente es lo mismo

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

Parece mas occidente y que no impacta segun este modelo y este   https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=LhNn5   Y ademas la hora es diferente, rondaba las 00 y algo.

Pero en este se puede ver un poco  https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=BhNn5   , básicamente es lo mismo

 

 

What meaning do the halo types have? example : II , IV etc    and .. ¿What else is there? 

43 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

It seems more to the West and that it does not impact according to this model and this  https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=LhNn5  And also the time is different, it was around 00 and something.

But in this one you can see a little https://helioviewer.org/?movieId=BhNn5  , It's basically the same

 

 

 

What meaning do the halo types have? example : II , IV etc    and .. ¿What else is there? 

There is an interesting fact in the cactus between the day 05-12-2023 and at the beginning of the day 04-13-2023 

https://www.sidc.be/cactus/out/CME0043/CME.html  day 12 -04 -2023 cme 

https://www.sidc.be/cactus/out/CME0047/CME.html  day 13 -04 -2023  

Edited May 13, 2023 by Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco

[Solarflaretracker200]

48 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

What meaning do the halo types have? example : II , IV etc    and .. ¿What else is there? 

If I remember correctly and if you are asking how many more types there are: Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV, and maybe a Type V. You can go on here https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/latest-cmes.html and yeah. 

 

(If someone else said this, sorry, i just skimmed through the posts here lol) 

[Philalethes]

46 minutes ago, Jhon Henry Osorio Orozco said:

What meaning do the halo types have? example : II , IV etc    and .. ¿What else is there? 

It says right on the CME list of CACTUS; again, I would strongly urge you to make at least some effort to understand what you're looking at before posting about it.

Quote

#    CME: CME number 
#   Flow: Flow number. Flows are suspicious detections, their color in the detectionmap is dark blue
#     t0: onset time, earliest indication of liftoff
#    dt0: duration of liftoff (hours)
#     pa: principal angle, counterclockwise from North (degrees)
#     da: angular width (degrees), 
#      v: median velocity (km/s)
#     dv: variation (1 sigma) of velocity over the width of the CME
#   minv: lowest velocity detected within the CME
#   maxv: highest velocity detected within the CME
#  halo?: II if da>90, III if da>180, IV if da>270, indicating potential halo/partial halo CME

As you can see, the bottom line says:

Quote

halo?: II if da>90, III if da>180, IV if da>270, indicating potential halo/partial halo CME

So it refers to the angle that CACTUS has detected for the CME; type II means an angle of more than 90°, type III an angle of more than 180°, and type IV an angle of more than 270°. If you look at the image I posted above with the red lines drawn in, you see that the angle in this case seems to be somewhere between 90° and 180°, so it would likely have been a type II if CACTUS had detected it properly (which it didn't, at least not at the point of writing this).

As I mentioned above, you would typically need at least 180° for Earth to be hit by the CME, and the larger the angle, the more likely it is to be a direct hit. So type III would mean potentially promising in this regard. Type IV would be even more promising, and signify a high chance of a direct hit (as long as the detection is not faulty, of course. A perfect 360° halo as seen on the help page I linked you to earlier would mean the best chance of a direct hit you can get based on such imagery alone.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Dice justo en la lista CME de CACTUS; Nuevamente, le recomiendo encarecidamente que haga al menos un esfuerzo para comprender lo que está viendo antes de publicarlo.

Como puede ver, la línea inferior dice:

Entonces se refiere al ángulo que CACTUS ha detectado para el CME ; tipo II significa un ángulo de más de 90°, tipo III un ángulo de más de 180° y tipo IV un ángulo de más de 270°. Si observa la imagen que publiqué arriba con las líneas rojas dibujadas, verá que el ángulo en este caso parece estar entre 90° y 180°, por lo que probablemente habría sido un tipo II si CACTUS lo hubiera detectado correctamente. (que no lo hizo, al menos no en el momento de escribir esto).

Como mencioné anteriormente, normalmente necesitaría al menos 180 ° para que la CME golpee a la Tierra , y cuanto mayor sea el ángulo, más probable es que sea un golpe directo. Entonces, el tipo III significaría potencialmente prometedor en este sentido. El tipo IV sería aún más prometedor y significaría una alta probabilidad de un impacto directo (siempre y cuando la detección no sea defectuosa, por supuesto. Un halo perfecto de 360° como se ve en la página de ayuda a la que lo vinculé anteriormente significaría lo mejor). posibilidad de un golpe directo que puede obtener basándose únicamente en tales imágenes.

Now if totally clear, very grateful

[Jesterface23]

The CMEs failed us, but sunspot region 3296 seemed good enough to get a sendoff.