1. 3D Reconnection in Prominences

2. Gibson & Fan 2006 Negative Points: Pros and Cons of the Flux-Rope-Dip Model 4. Flux ropes are a basic element of low  plasmas 2. Good predictor of location & shape 1. A physical mechanism for static support 3. Provides eruptive mechanism 1. Inconsistent with observed flows in barbs 2. Provides no mechanism for the generation of flows 3. Ignores radiation dynamics 4. Ignores ever present 3D reconnection Positive Points:

3. Aulanier, Srivistava & Martin (2000) Dip Model Success: Prominence Location

4. 2 1/2 D MHD Simuation (courtesy of Pete Riley) Flux-Rope Model of Prominence Eruption

5. Simulation of Flux-Rope Eruption in 3D MHD courtesy of John Linker at Predictive Science top view ( XRT )side views

6. Yeates & Mackay 2009 van Ballegooijen & Mackay 2007 Flux Ropes Are Characteristic of Low  Plasmas prominence plasma  << 1  P  j  B  blue: flux ropes red: flux ropes that erupted j  B j along B produces twist flux rope defined as enough twist to produce inverse polarity (about 1 turn)

7. Prominence Flows in Barbs Doppler Shift Observations: Schmieder et al. 1984 Zirker et al. Hinode SOT

8. Karpen & Antiochos 2008 Apparent Motions Generated by Steady Heating What would this look line in a 3D model? 1D loop model with asymmetric heating at chromosphere loop top loop feet (loop shape is distorted)

9. What Is the Effect of Magnetic Carpet Reconnection? H  from Hinode SOT

10. ambiguity of field line motion in 3D Slip-Running Reconnection (Aulanier, Pariat, Démoulin 2006) erupted configuration initial configuration vertical field at surface reconnection leads to apparent motion of flux rope footprint

11. Flux Tube Shredding in 3D Reconnection collision of two flux tubes at 90º Linton & Priest 2003

12. Apparent motions due to radiation? Moving field lines & dips? Chaotic 3D reconnection? (shredding) Dip overflows?