The Early Evolution of Solar Flaring Plasma Loops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper needs a english revision.
One of the problem is that it is difficult to understand what is coming from experimental observations and what is a pure modelling.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply to Review report 1
This paper needs an English revision.
Reply: In the revised version, I have carefully checked each sentence and each word, and improved the grammar and diction of the whole manuscript.
One of the problems is that it is difficult to understand what is coming from experimental observations and what is a pure modelling.
Reply: In the revised version, I rewrote most part of the manuscript to clearly present the observational results (including the typical parametric values of the coronal plasma loops) and the calculating results from the model. I added 7 references and Figure 3 to support the conclusions. Now, it looks much clear for understanding the early evolution of the solar plasma loops. Our results may provide a new viewpoint for understanding the nature and origin of solar flares.
Section 2.1 In this section it is not clear how this description is supported by some experimental observation. It would be fine to mention which experimental supports this description can have, if any.
Reply: I rewrote all paragraph of Section 2.1, added 3 observational references [22-24] to support the description.
Lines 112-113- This sentence is unclear
Reply: in the revised version, I rewrite this sentence into: “Therefore, we may refer to the region around looptop as the accumulation region of energetic particle upflows.”
Line137- and not at
Reply: I rule out the word “at”.
Line 146-Why you choose 1/6 is not explained
Reply: Because we assume that the distribution of energetic particles is isotropic, i.e. particles are equally likely to move in all six directions: up, down, left, right, front and back. Therefore, the probability of upward particles is 1/6.
Line 183. Do you neglect also neutrinos (and neutrons)?
Reply: Because neutrinos and neutrons are just generated from the nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun, while the solar flaring plasma loops are just occurring in the solar atmosphere. The energy loss due to neutrinos and neutrons in flaring plasma loops is almost infinitesimal. Therefore, we neglect their contributions in our study.
Line 195 loss due to… and not contributed
Reply: OK. I changed “contributed by” into “due to”.
Line 247 Contribution or contributions? Are or is?
Reply: I rewrote the sentence into “Because the emission contributions due to excitation and recombination are much smaller than…”
Line 272 black curve. Where?
Reply: It is in Figure 2.
Line 307 generally? From where this info derives?
Reply: Numerous observations indicate that the ratio 2r/R is about 0.05-0.1 in most coronal loops, and this information can be cited from the reference [2] and [3]. Therefore, βc ≈ 0.10.
Line 318 Which is the systematics due to this assumption?
Reply: The assumption presenting here is consistent with the classical models and typical observations of the solar atmosphere. I added two conferences in the revised version.
Line 337 tends
Reply: OK. I changed “tend” into “tends”.
Line 358 increases
Reply: OK. I changed “increase” into “increases”.
Line 369 here the syntax doesn't work
Reply: Here, I rewrote the related sentences and corrected the syntax.
Line 371 tends
Reply: OK. I changed “tend” into “tends”.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an analytic paper on the emergence and evolution of solar flairs, and in particular about the plasma within the tops of the loops which are sourced by convection currents connecting to the sun's interior, based on simplified plasma-physics equations. The paper is interesting and deserves to be published in Universe. However, the following points need to be rectified before publication:
1) g(h) is an acceleration and not a force
2) Eq. (1) misses k_B, why does one divide by the charge quantum e?
3) Eis, (2), (3), (4) are self-explanatory, however, it would be useful to provide explicit references for Eqs. (5) through (11).
4) It would be helpful for a less informed reader to learn how beta governs loop instability when exceeding the critical value beta_c.
Author Response
Reply to Review report 2
This is an analytic paper on the emergence and evolution of solar flares, and in particular about the plasma within the tops of the loops which are sourced by convection currents connecting to the sun's interior, based on simplified plasma-physics equations. The paper is interesting and deserves to be published in Universe. However, the following points need to be rectified before publication:
- g(h) is an acceleration and not a force
Reply: Yes. It is the solar gravitational acceleration. I corrected it in the revised version.
- (1) misses k_B, why does one divide by the charge quantum e?
Reply: Here we let the unit of temperature T(h) as eV, therefore, the right hand of Eq. (1) should be divided by the charge quantum e, and temperature T(h) already contains the Boltzmann constant kB.
- Eqs, (2), (3), (4) are self-explanatory, however, it would be useful to provide explicit references for Eqs. (5) through (11).
Reply: Eqs. (2) (3) and (4) give the calculation process of the heating rate (rate of temperature increase) in magnetized plasma loops based on MGP mechanism and basic theory of plasma physics. Eq (5) gives the calculation of the temporal evolution of plasma density driven by MGP mechanism. Eqs (6) – (9) present the approximated calculations of the energy loss due to cyclotron and gyrosynchrotron, bremsstrahlung, excitation, and recombination radiations, respectively. Eq (10) is the approximated sum of Eqs (6)-(9), here we neglected the small contribution of excitation and recombination radiations. Eq (11) gives the calculation process of the cooling rate (rate of temperature decrease due to radiations). Eqs (2)-(5), (10) and (11) are first presented in this work. Eqs (6)-(9) can be referenced to textbooks of plasma physics, such as Ref. [23], etc. Unlike the textbooks, in order to calculate conveniently, here the unit of both temperature and energy is eV, not joule or erg.
4) It would be helpful for a less informed reader to learn how beta governs loop instability when exceeding the critical value beta_c.
Reply: in my revised version, I added following explanation: β value is defined as the ratio between plasma thermal pressure and magnetic pressure. The thermal pressure reflects the expansion tendency of the plasma, while the magnetic pressure reflects the constraint ability of the magnetic field to the plasma. Therefore, for a given magnetized plasma loop, high β value means that the plasma loop tends to get rid of the confinement of the magnetic field, while the low β value implies that the plasma loop tends to be stable.
