Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Marcel just told me that A X20 flare, is X10 – 10-3 (X10 is 1000 times stronger than a C1) X20 – 10-2 (X20 is 10.000 times stronger than a C1) And that is fine but I don't agree with that X30 – 10-1 (X30 is 100.000 times stronger than a C1) Because that would make X30, as he pointed out, 10-1 and that doesn't fit on the X-ray flux chart. Is not a X30, where I have drawn the line? The chart clearly states 10-2. Can someone please explain where a X30 would be on the chart, if not where i drew it, and if it would be in the column above X, why it says 10-2 and not 10-2, 10-1, etc? Or have I misunderstood the chart and a C30, would actually be a X-flare and not a M3 flare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanneyt Sander Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 He is correct indeed. It does not fit on the standard chart indeed, keep in mind that the GOES satellite saturates around X17 and thus won't exceed the chart ever. That is the same case with the solar radiation storms where we have had off chart storms. C30 is M3 or X0,3 or B300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Marcel is correct indeed. It does not fit on the standard chart indeed, keep in mind that the GOES satellite saturates around X17 and thus won't exceed the chart ever. That is the same case with the solar radiation storms where we have had off chart storms. C30 is M3 or X0,3 or B300 I think it is weird that a B30 fits on the C-scale, that a C30 fits on the M-scale, that a M30 fits on the X scale but that a X30 does not fit on the scale above X. It must be different in some way I don't understand. Can you explain why X is different from all the rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Australis Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 X30 = 3*10*10^-4 Watts/sqm = 0.003 Watts/sqm and not 1 Watt !! Let's look to the GOES X-ray plot : on the right you see the X indicator. X30 will located between the 10^-3 line and first horizontal marker above this line. (see markers on the right). And; a next step for a B9 will be a C1. It is not usefull to talk about a B30 or something. On 12:48zulu time, (red line) you see a measurement of a C3 flare. ( 1 - 8 Angstrom wavelength) The 10^-6 line represents a C1, the peak of flare tips the second marker. [ 3*10^-6 = 0.000003 Watts/sqm] An X flare is 100 times stronger then a C flare. 10^-4 / 10^-6 = 10^2 (100) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 X30 = 3*10*10^-4 Watts/sqm = 0.003 Watts/sqm and not 1 Watt !! Let's look to the GOES X-ray plot : on the right you see the X indicator. X30 will located between the 10^-3 line and first horizontal marker above this line. (see markers on the right). And; a next step for a B9 wil a C1. It is not usefull to talk about a B30 or something. So I was right from the start anyways? Now I am totally confused. Is the X30 thus located where I drew the line on the chart above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes you are. Australis is right. I was consufed, sorry. From the document I send you. A flare with SXR intensity = 10 (50) x 10-4 Watt m-2 is designated X10 (X50). Australis, the GOES X-ray graph goes all the way to X100 then. X100 is 10-2? GOES XRS gets saturated at X17 of course but the graph fits flares up to X100. This was very educational, always thought wrong about Super X-class flares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Ok, thanks anyway, my brain doesn't allways work and I took for granted that this was one of the times that happened. Australis, the GOES X-ray graph goes all the way to X100 then. X100 is 10-2? Yes, that is what I allways thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes, that is what I allways thought.You thought brilliantly. I royally admit we were horribly wrong. Thanks for bringing this up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You thought brilliantly. I royally admit we were horribly wrong. Thanks for bringing this up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Is the X30 thus located where I drew the line on the chart above?I am sure you rather want Australis to answer then me but as I understand it now, your line is indeed X30. Explains why the graph from the X28 solar flare (Saturated at X17) looks like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PetaFlux Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I am sure you rather want Australis to answer then me but as I understand it now, your line is indeed X30. It is quite ok, anyone can make a misstake. I make them all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Australis Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 X100 = 10*10*10^-4 = indeed 10^-2 We learn from each other ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diego Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hi everyone, is important to say that after the X22 flare (its intensity was estimated) that happened on 2001, the scientists decided to include the "Y" class, but people usually refer to them as multiple by 10 in X class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcel de Bont Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As far as I know there is no Y-class. Perhaps it was discussed back in 2001 to introduce an Y-class but never really introduced? Can't find much about it either. Scientific papers about Super X-class flares never mentioned anything other than the X-class as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimbridge Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I believe that, while Y-class is informally recognized in some discussions of X10+ flares, none of the official government space weather agencies formally define or use Y-class valuations. At the other end of the spectrum, I believe sub-A-class, “aâ€-class, flares/background flux—where A0.1 = a1.0—is recognized, with a “flux floor†of a1.0/A0.1 (it was a3.73/A0.373 untill 2009-Nov-30 when they changed GOES satellites). I made myself a space weather conditions/events chart, defining the different event levels, as well as sub-event levels: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.