1. Some Thoughts on Transients: Buildup & Release of Energy David E. McKenzie, Montana State University—Bozeman HMI/AIA Science Team MeetingMonterey, February 13, 2006

2. Emergence  Schrijver et al. (2005): 71% of non-potential active regions studied had new flux emerging at the time, often associated with shearing motions  Emergence of new field near pre-existing field (e.g., active regions, filaments) frequently precedes eruption  Filament activation  CMEs  Jets TemperaturesAll; esp. low-T ResolutionWant high res. CadenceFaster is better ContinuitySome gaps acceptable HMI/AIA Science Team MeetingMonterey, February 13, 2006

3. Helicity  Not “spinning eruption” movies  Emergence?  Transfer (a la Canfield & Reardon)  Sigmoids  Associated with eruptions  Approach instability via helicity transfer (Glover et al., Canfield et al.) HMI/AIA Science Team Meeting TemperaturesHigh-T especially ResolutionFull-res for transfer; else? CadenceFaster is better ContinuitySome gaps acceptable? Monterey, February 13, 2006

4. Buildup  Schrijver et al.: nonpotentiality persists for hours  Longcope et al. (2005): Delay of ~24 hours before significant reconnection between active regions  Without delay, no stress to be released?  What determines length of delay, or even if there is a delay? HMI/AIA Science Team Meeting TemperaturesAll ResolutionNeed high-res Cadence5 minutes ContinuityNo gaps longer than 90 min 24 hour delay Reconn’n burst 10 17 Mx/sec Heating ~ 5 x 10 26 erg/sec Monterey, February 13, 2006

5. CME Release  Tether cutting  Breakout  Other?  What determines? HMI/AIA Science Team Meeting TemperaturesHigh-T especially ResolutionWant high res. CadenceFaster is better ContinuitySome gaps okay? Get preflare data Monterey, February 13, 2006

6. Inflows  Yokoyama et al.: 5 km/s  Narukage & Shibata: 5-6 more  Looks just like the 2D model HMI/AIA Science Team Meeting TemperaturesHigh-T especially ResolutionNot crucial; 2x2 binning okay CadenceFaster is better ContinuityWant preflare images Monterey, February 13, 2006

7. Patches in Reconnection  Downflows, as shrinking reconnected flux tubes, indicate 3D patchy reconnection  Linton & Longcope (2006): model of patchy reconnection produces teardrop-shaped outflows  How much flux per episode:  Downflows give an answer: 4  10 18 Mx  Longcope et al, model + observations also gives 4  10 18 Mx HMI/AIA Science Team Meeting TemperaturesHigh-T ResolutionWant full-res at least sometimes CadenceFaster is better ContinuitySome gaps acceptable Monterey, February 13, 2006