Critical Height for the Destabilization of Solar Prominences: Statistical Results from STEREO Observations

TL;DR

This study statistically analyzes the critical heights at which solar prominences become unstable, revealing typical destabilization heights, velocity limits, and differences between stable and eruptive prominences based on STEREO observations.

Contribution

It identifies the most probable critical heights for prominence destabilization and analyzes their velocity and mass limits, providing new statistical insights into prominence stability.

Findings

Most prominences destabilize at 0.06-0.14 R$_ ext{Sun}$ height range.

Primary critical height is 0.13 R$_ ext{Sun}$, secondary is 0.19 R$_ ext{Sun}$.

Eruptive prominences have an upper velocity limit decreasing with height and mass.

Abstract

At which height will a prominence inclined to be unstable, or where is the most probable critical height for the prominence destabilization? This question is statistically studied based on 362 solar limb prominences well-recognized by SLIPCAT from 2007 April to the end of 2009. We found that there are about 71% disrupted prominences (DPs), among which about 42% of them did not erupt successfully and about 89% of them experienced a sudden destabilization (SD) process. After a comprehensive analysis of the DPs, the following findings are discovered. (1) Most DPs become unstable at the height of 0.06 -- 0.14 R$_\odot$ from the solar surface, and there are two most probable critical heights, at which a prominence is much likely to get unstable; the primary one is 0.13 R$_\odot$ and the secondary one is 0.19 R$_\odot$. (2) There exists upper limit for the erupting velocity of eruptive prominences (EPs), which decreases following a power law with increasing height and mass; the kinetic energy of EPs accordingly has an upper limit too, which decreases as critical height increases. (3) Stable prominences (SPs) are generally longer and heavier than DPs, and not higher than 0.4 R$_\odot$. (4) About 62% of EPs were associated with CMEs; but there is no difference in apparent properties between EPs associated with and without CMEs.