The study of the solar corona has been strewn with great discoveries, surprises and controversies. The major steps since van de Hulst's (1953)and Chapman's (1957) early hydrostatic models of the extended corona, until the most recent generations of kinetic models of the coronal expansion and of the supersonic solar wind flows, are presented. These models are compared to in-situ observations. Progress in polar wind models went through a somewhat similar evolution that is outlined also. The advantages and limitations of the successive brands of solar wind and polar wind models are considered.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alfvén, H.: 1941, Ark. F. Math., Astr. o. fysik 27A, 25.Google Scholar
- Lemaire, J.: 1969, PhD thesis, Univ. de Liège, Physics PhD.Google Scholar
- Lemaire, J.: 1971, paper presented at 1st European Earth and Planetary Physics Colloquium, Reading, England.Google Scholar
- Lemaire, J. and Scherer, M.: 1972, Bull. Cl. Sci. Acad. Royale Belg. 58, 1112.Google Scholar
- Lie-Svendsen, O. and Rees, M.H.: 1996, J. Geophys. Res. 101, A2, 2415.Google Scholar
- Maksimovic, M.: 1995, PhD thesis, University of Paris VII-Denis Diderot, Physics.Google Scholar
- Maksimovic, M., Gary, S.P. and Skoug, R.M.: 2000a, J. Geophys. Res., in press.Google Scholar
- Maksimovic, M., Pierrard, V. and Lemaire, J.: 2000b, Astrophys. Space Sci., this issue.Google Scholar
- Pierrard, V.: 1997, PhD Thesis, UCL, 1997. Physics PhD.Google Scholar
- Pierrard, V., Maksimovic, M. and Lemaire, J.: 2000, Astrophys. Space Sci., this volume.Google Scholar
- van de Hulst, H.C.: 1953, in: G.P. Kuiper (ed.), The Sun 307, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar