Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: cellular automata ( ca ) models for solar flares are successful in explaining solar flare statistics ( peak flux , total flux , and duration distributions ; lu & hamilton 1991 ( hereafter lh91 ) ; lu et al . 1993 ; vlahos et al . 1995 ; georgoulis & vlahos 1996 , 1998 ; galsgaard 1996 ) . they simplify strongly the details of the involved physical processes , and achieve in this way to model large volumes with complex field topologies and a large number of events . on the other hand , mhd simulations give insight into the details of the local processes , they are limited , however , to modeling relatively small fractions of active regions , due to the lack of computing power , yielding thus poor statistics and difficulties in comparing results to observations ( e.g.   mikic et al .  1989 ; strauss 1993 ; longcope & sudan 1994 ; einaudi et al .  1996 ; galsgaard & nordlund 1996 ; hendrix & van hoven 1996 ; dmitruk & gomez 1998 ; galtier & pouquet 1998 ; georgoulis et al . 1998 ; karpen et al . 1998 ; einaudi & velli 1999 ) . the _ global _ mhd flare models are still in the state of rather qualitative flare scenarios . the mhd and the ca approach to solar flares seem to have very little in common : the former are a set of partial differential equations , based on fluid - theory and maxwell s equations , whereas the latter are a set of abstract evolution rules , based ( in the case of solar flares ) on the analogy to critical phenomena in ( theoretical ) sand - piles . the scope of this paper is to bridge the gap in - between these two approaches : the solar flare ca models are re - interpreted and extended so as ( i ) to make these models completely compatible with mhd and with maxwell s equations , and so that ( ii ) all relevant mhd variables are made available ( e.g.  the current and the electric field , which so far were not available in ca models ) .    in an earlier paper ( isliker et al . 1998 ) , we have analyzed the existing solar flare ca models for their soundness with mhd . we asked the question whether the fields in these ca models and the evolution rules can be interpreted in terms of mhd . it turned out that these models can indeed be interpreted as a particular way of implementing numerically the mhd equations . this fact is not trivial , since these models had been derived in quite close analogy to the sand - pile ca model of bak et al . ( 1987 and 1988 ) , with vague association of the model s variables with physical quantities . for instance , some authors ( lu et al . 1993 ) explicitly discuss the question whether their basic grid variable is the magnetic field or not , without reaching to a definite conclusion . isliker et al . ( 1998 ) brought forth not only how the existing ca models are related to mhd and what simplifications are hidden , but also where they differ from or even violate the laws of mhd and maxwell s equation . important is the fact that though the existing ca models can be considered as a strongly simplified numerical solution of the ( simplified ) mhd equations , _ they do not represent the discretized mhd equations _ : the time - step and the spacing between two grid sites are not small ( in a physical sense ) , but finite ; they are a typical temporal and spatial scale of the diffusive processes involved ( see isliker et al . 1998 ) .    from the point of view of mhd , the main short - comings of the existing ca models are ( isliker et al . 1998 ) : ( 1 ) there is no control over consistency with maxwell s equations . interpreting , for instance , the vector - field in the ca models as the magnetic field leads to the problem that the gradient of the field ( @xmath0 ) can not be controlled . ( 2 ) secondary quantities , such as currents , are not available , and they can not be introduced in the straightforward way by replacing differential expressions by difference - expressions , since , as mentioned , the grid - size must be considered finite ( see also app . this lack of knowing how to calculate derivatives made it also useless to interpret the primary vector - field in the ca models as the vector potential ( to avoid the @xmath0-problem ) , since @xmath1 could not be derived . the physical interpretation of these ca models remained so far problematic . there are two basically different ways of developing ca models for flares further : ( i ) either one considers ca models _ per se _ , tries to change the existing models further or invent new ones , with the only aim of adjusting them to reproduce still better the observations , i.e.  one makes them a tool the results of which explain and maybe predict observed properties of flares . in this approach , one has not to care about possible inconsistencies with mhd or even maxwell s equations , the various components of the model are purely instrumentalistic . ( ii ) on the other hand , one may care about the physical identification and interpretation of the various components of the model , not just of its results , and one may want the ca model to become consistent with the other approach to solar flares , namely mhd . in the approach ( ii ) , some of the freedom one has in constructing ca models will possibly be reduced , since there are more boundary conditions to be fulfilled in the construction of the model : the observations must be reproduced and consistency with mhd has to be reached . ( trials to construct new ca models which are based on mhd and not on the sand - pile analogy were recently made by einaudi & velli ( 1999 ) , macpherson & mackinnon ( 1999 ) , longcope and noonan ( 2000 ) , and isliker et al . ( 2000a ) . ) our aim is in - between these two alternatives : we construct a set - up which can be superimposed onto each classical solar flare ca model , and which makes the latter interpretable in a mhd - consistent way ( by _ classical _ ca models we mean the models of lh91 , lu et al . 1993 , vlahos et al . 1995 , georgoulis & vlahos 1996 , 1998 , galsgaard 1996 , and their modifications , which are based on the sand - pile analogy ) . the set - up thus specifies the physical interpretation of the grid - variables and allows the derivation of quantities such as currents etc . it does not interfere with the dynamics of the ca ( unless wished ) : loading , redistributing ( bursting ) , and the appearance of avalanches and self - organized criticality ( soc ) , if the latter are implied by the evolution rules , remain unchanged . the result is therefore still a ca model , with all the advantages of ca , namely that they are fast , that they model large spatial regions ( and large events ) , and therewith that they yield good statistics . since the set - up introduces all the relevant physical variables into the context of the ca models , it automatically leads to a better physical understanding of the ca models . it reveals which relevant plasma processes and in what form are actually implemented , and what the global flare scenario is the ca models imply . all this was more or less hidden so far in the abstract evolution rules . it leads also to the possibility to change the ca models ( the rules ) at the guide - line of mhd , if this should become desirable . not least , the set - up opens a way for further comparison of the ca models to observations .    in sec .  2 , we introduce our set - up . applying it to several ca models ( sec . 3 ) , we will demonstrate the usefulness and some of the benefits such extended models ( i.e.  classical models extended with our set - up ) provide over the classical ca models , and we will reveal basic physical features of the ca models . the potential of the extended models to explain more observational facts than the classical ca models is , among others , outlined in the conclusions ( sec .  4 ) . the set - up we propose can be superimposed onto solar flare ca models which use a 3d grid and a basic 3d vector grid - variable , say @xmath2 . the corresponding set of evolution rules is not changed . ( with a few modifications , the set - up can also be superimposed onto ca models which use a scalar field in a planar grid , which our set - up necessarily interprets as slab geometry , as will become clear later . ) we introduce our model on the example of the solar flare ca model of lh91 , which we summarize here in order to make the subsequent presentation more concrete :      in the lh91 model , to each grid - site @xmath3 of a 3d cubic grid a 3d vector @xmath4 is assigned . initially , @xmath4 is set to @xmath5 , everywhere . the system is then loaded with the repeated dropping of increments at randomly chosen sites @xmath3 ( one per time - step ) @xmath6 where @xmath7 has all its components as random numbers uniformly distributed in @xmath8 $ ] .    after each loading event , the system is checked for whether the local stress , defined as @xmath9 where the sum goes over the six nearest neighbours of the central point @xmath3 , exceeds a threshold @xmath10 , i.e.  whether @xmath11 where @xmath12 is used . if this is the case , the field in the neighbourhood of the critical site is redistributed according to @xmath13 for the central point , and @xmath14 for its six nearest neighbours . in such a redistribution event ( burst ) , energy amounting to @xmath15 is assumed to be released . the grid is scanned again and again to search for second , third etc . generation bursts , until the system is nowhere critical anymore and returns to the loading phase ( the details we apply concerning the temporal evolution of the model are given in app . a ; they are not explicitly stated in lh91 ) . the field outside the grid is held constant and assumed to be zero . we turn now to introducing our set - up , starting with a specification : we interpret the vector @xmath4 at the grid sites @xmath3 to denote the local vector - field , @xmath16 . note that this was not specified in the classical ca models . lu et al . ( 1993 ) for instance discuss this point : it might also have been thought of as a mean local field , i.e. the average over an elementary cell in the grid .    guided by the idea that we want to assure @xmath17 for the magnetic field @xmath1 , which is most easily achieved by having the vector - potential @xmath2 as the primary variable and letting @xmath1 be the corresponding derivative of @xmath2 ( @xmath18 ) , we furthermore assume that the grid variable @xmath2 of the ca model is identical with the vector - potential . the remaining and actually most basic problem then is to find an adequate way to calculate derivatives in the grid . in general , ca models assume that the grid - spacing is finite , which also holds for the ca model of lh91 ( as shown in detail by isliker et al . 1998 ) , so that the most straightforward way of replacing differential expressions with difference expressions is not adequate ( see the detailed discussion in app . b.1 , below ; vassiliadis et al . ( 1998 ) suggested to interpret ca models as the straightforwardly discretized ( simplified ) mhd equations , which we find problematic for the reasons given in app . b.1 , and we therefore do not follow this approach , here ) . consequently , one has to find a way of continuing the vector - field into the space in - between the grid - sites , which will allow to calculate derivatives . there is , of course , an infinite number of possibilities to do so , and the problem can not have a unique solution . adequate possibilities definitely include : a ) continuation of @xmath2 with the help of an equation ( e.g.  demanding the resulting @xmath1-field to be potential or force - free ) ; b ) interpolation , either locally ( in a neighbourhood ) , or globally ( through the whole grid ) . trying several methods , we concluded that 3d cubic spline interpolation is particularly adequate to the problem since it has remarkable advantages over other methods ( e.g.  it does not introduce oscillations in - between grid - sites , which would strongly influence the values of the derivatives , and it well reproduces the derivatives of analytically prescribed primary fields ) . the process of evaluating different continuation methods we went through , as well as the comparison of spline interpolation to other continuation - methods are described in app . b.    the 3d interpolation is performed as three subsequent 1d interpolations in the three spatial directions ( press et al . 1992 ) . for the 1d splines , we assume natural boundaries ( the second derivatives are zero at the boundaries ) . moreover , since in the ca model of lh91 it is assumed that around the grid there is a zero field which is held constant ( see sec . 2.1 ) , we enlarge the grid by one grid point in all directions to include this constant zero - layer explicitly , using it however only for the interpolation . in the interpolation , the derivatives at the grid - points are immediately given by the analytically differentiated interpolating polynomials . with the help of this interpolation , the magnetic field @xmath1 and the current @xmath19 are calculated as derivatives of @xmath2 , according to the mhd prescription : @xmath20 @xmath21    to determine the electric field @xmath22 , we make the assumption that under coronal conditions the mhd approach is in general valid , and that @xmath22 is reasonably well approximated by ohm s law in its simple form , @xmath23 , with @xmath24 the diffusivity and @xmath25 the fluid velocity . since the classical ca models use no velocity - field , our set - up can yield only the resistive part , @xmath26 in applications such as to solar flares , where the interest is in current dissipation events , i.e.  in events where @xmath24 and @xmath19 are strongly increased , eq . ( 9 ) can be expected to be a good approximation to the electric field . theoretically , the convective term in ohm s law would in general yield just a low - intensity , background electric field . ( 9 ) needs to be supplemented with a specification of the diffusivity @xmath24 : isliker et al . ( 1998 ) have shown that in the classical ca models the diffusivity adopts the values @xmath27 at the unstable ( bursting ) sites , and @xmath28 everywhere else . this specifies eq . ( 9 ) completely . _ remark 1 : _ it is worthwhile noting that , since spline interpolation has the property to be the least curved of all twice differentiable interpolating functions , the grid - size is a typical smallest - possible length - scale of field structures , or , if we would think the ca to model mhd turbulence , it is something like an average smallest possible eddy - size . _ remark 2 : _ with our set - up , field lines are made available : the interpolation was introduced to define derivatives at the grid - sites , but it can as well be used to determine the vector - potential , and therewith the magnetic field and the current , in between the grid sites . however , it is important to note that this field in between the grid sites is not used for the time - evolution of the model , it merely allows to visualize the evolution in the standard way through field - lines , if wished so ( second order derivatives in - between the grid - sites , if needed , would have to be done numerically , since else their numerical values would depend on the order in which the three 1d interpolations are done ) . _ remark 3 : _ in this paper , we do not change the rules of the classical ca models to which we apply our set - up  except for the definition of energy release ( sec . our aim here is to show the usefulness of the set - up and to give some results and reveal some aspects by extending published , classical ca models . while the redistribution rules have in detail been shown to represent diffusion events and fit nicely into an mhd scenario ( isliker et al . 1998 ) , the loading process is strongly simplified and poorly follows a reasonable flare scenario : for instance , the loading process acts independently everywhere in the simulation box , whereas according to a realistic flare scenario ( see e.g.   parker 1993 ) disturbances should appear independently only on one boundary ( the photosphere , due to random foot - point motions or newly appearing flux ) , and propagate then into the interior of the simulation box along the magnetic field lines .    to translate such a realistic loading scenario into the language of ca models has not been undertaken , so - far . we just note that it would be quite straightforward to introduce a velocity field into the ca models : e.g.  isliker et al . ( 2000a ) propose a ca model which uses a velocity field for the loading phase , but this model does not fall into the category of classical ca models since it does not follow the sand - pile analogy and uses different , mhd based , evolution rules . we leave the problem of introducing a velocity field and a more physical loading process into the classical ca models for a future study . in isliker .  2000b , we will  among others  analyze in details what this simplified loading process physically represents . our first application is to the ca model of lh91 ( see sec . the lh91 model has a fairly long transient phase and reaches finally a stationary state , the so - called soc ( self - organized criticality ) state , in which spatially spreading series of bursts ( avalanches ) appear , alternating with quiet loading phases . the lh91 model gives basically three results concerning flare statistics , namely the distributions of total energy , peak - flux and durations , which are all power - laws with slopes that are in good agreement with the observations ( lu et al . 1993 , bromund et al . 1995 ) . superimposing our mhd - frame onto the lh91 model such as it stands does not change anyone of the three results , since at this first stage we are not interfering with the dynamics ( i.e.  the evolution rules ) . the set - up allows , however , to address several questions in mhd language : our main aim in the subsequent applications is to demonstrate that the set - up indeed yields a new and consistent interpretation of ca - models , to illustrate the behaviour of the secondary variables ( currents , magnetic fields ) , and to reveal major features of them . ( in the subsequent runs , we use a grid of size @xmath29 , as lh91 did to derive their main results . ) first , we turn to the question what the global fields ( vector - potential , magnetic field , current ) look like during the soc state . thereto , the temporal evolution of the model is stopped at an arbitrary time during soc state ( in a phase where there are no bursts , i.e.  during loading ) , and the magnitude of the fields at a cut with fixed @xmath30-coordinate are shown as a function of the @xmath31- and @xmath32-coordinates in fig .  1 . @xmath33 obviously exhibits a large - scale organization over the whole grid , it forms a global convex surface ( fig . this convex surface has a slight random distortion over - lying , which visually can not be discerned in fig . 1(a ) , but becomes visible in the plot of @xmath34 ( fig . 1(b ) ) , the curl of @xmath2 , which still exhibits large - scale organization all over the grid , but is clearly wiggled . finally , @xmath35 shows no left - overs of a large scale organization anymore , it reflects the random disturbances of the convexity of @xmath36 ( fig . 1(c ) ) . the large - scale structures shown in fig .  1 are always maintained during the soc state , neither loading nor bursting ( and avalanches ) destroy them , they just tremble a little when such events occur . soc state in the extended lh91 model thus implies large - scale organization of the vector - potential and the magnetic field , in the characteristic form of fig .  1 . the large - scale organization of @xmath2 is not an artificial result of our superimposed set - up , but already inherent in the classical lh91 model : in the classical lh91 ca model , there is only one variable , the one we call here @xmath2 , whose values are not affected by the interpolation we perform since it is the primary grid variable , so that fig . 1(a ) is true also for the classical , non - extended lh91 model . the large scale structure for the primary grid - variable @xmath37 is the result of a combined effect : the preferred directionality of the loading increments ( see sec .  2.1 ) tries to increase @xmath37 throughout the grid . the redistribution events , which already in bak et al . ( 1987 ; 1988 ) were termed diffusive events , and which in isliker et al . ( 1998 ) were analytically shown to represent local , one - time - step diffusion processes , smooth out any too strong spatial unevenness of @xmath2 , and they root the @xmath2-field down to the zero level at the open boundaries . the result is the convex surface of fig . 1(a ) , blown - up from below through loading , tied to the zero - level at the edges , and forced to a maximum curvature which is limited by the local , threshold dependent diffusion events .    as the soc state , so is the large - scale structure of @xmath37 independent of the concrete kind of loading , provided it fulfills the conditions that the loading increments exhibit a preferred directionality and are much smaller than the threshold ( with symmetric loading , the soc state is actually never reached , see lh91 and lu et al . ( 1993 ) ) .    to make sure of the importance of the boundaries , we performed runs of the model with closed boundaries , and we found that neither a large - scale structure was developed in @xmath37 , nor the soc state was reached .      to illustrate the role of the current at unstable sites and during bursts , we plot in fig . 2 the magnitude of the current before and after a typical burst : obviously , the current at the burst site @xmath38 has high intensity before the burst ( fig . 2(a ) ) , and is relaxed after the burst ( fig . inspecting a number of other bursts , we found that , generally , at sites where the lh91 instability criterion is fulfilled , the current is increased , too , and that bursts dissipate the currents . this is a first hint that classical ca models can be interpreted as models for energy release through current - dissipation .    after the burst , at the neighbouring site @xmath39 , the intensity of the current is increased , and indeed the presented burst gives rise to subsequent bursts , it is one event during an avalanche . the magnetic field at the bursting site is reshaped , in a way which is difficult to interpret when using only the magnitude of it ( @xmath34 ) for visualization . may - be field line plots would help visualization , but we leave this for a future study . we now turn to the question what relation the energy release formula of lh91 ( eq .  6 ) has to the respective mhd relations : in parallel to using the formula of lh91 , we determine the released energy in the following ways , closer to mhd : first , we assume it to be proportional to @xmath40 ( with the diffusivity @xmath41 at unstable sites , see sec .  2.2 ) , which we linearly interpolate between the two states before and after the burst . this is done in two ways , ( i ) summing over the local neighbourhood , @xmath42 and ( ii ) without summing , but just taking into account the current at the central point , @xmath43 and finally , we monitor the change in magnetic energy due to a burst using the difference in magnetic energy in the local neighbourhood , @xmath44 ( in eqs . ( 10 ) , ( 11 ) , ( 12 ) , we assume @xmath45 and @xmath46 for the grid - spacing @xmath47 and the time - step @xmath48 , since , according to isliker et al . ( 1998 ) , in the classical ca models both values are not specified and set to one . ) the corresponding distributions of total energy and peak - flux are shown in fig .  3 , together with the distributions yielded by the energy - release formula of lh91 , eq .  ( 6 ) ( the duration distribution remains the same as in the classical lh91 model , namely a power - law , and is not shown ) . obviously , the four ways of defining the released energy give basically similar results , with larger deviations only at the low and high energy ends ( note that the energy in fig . 3 is in arbitrary units ) . using the formula of ohmic dissipation does thus not change the results of the classical lh91 model .    with an estimate of the numerical value of the anomalous resistivity and of the typical size of a diffusive region or the typical diffusive time , it would be possible to introduce physical units . we did not undertake this , since all three parameters are still known only with large observational and theoretical uncertainties .      from the similarity of the distributions of the extended model with the ones of the classical lh91 model ( fig . 3 ) , and from fig .  2 , where it was seen that an instability is accompanied by an enhanced current , we are led to ask directly for the relation of @xmath49 to @xmath19 , which we plot as a function of each other in fig . 4 . obviously , the two quantities are related to each other : above @xmath50 , the current is an approximate linear function of the stress , around @xmath50 the current is zero , and below there is again an approximate linear relationship , with negative slope , however ( above @xmath50 the current @xmath19 is actually preferably along @xmath51 , whereas below it is preferably along @xmath52 , i.e.  @xmath19 is an approximatly linear function of @xmath49 in the whole range , it merely changes its directivity at @xmath50 with respect to @xmath49 ) . in appendix c , we show analytically why with our set - up a more or less close relation between @xmath49 and @xmath19 has to be expected .    of particular interest in fig . 4 is that if @xmath53 is above the threshold @xmath12 , then @xmath54 is also reaching high values : obviously , large values of @xmath53 imply large values of @xmath54 . this confirms the statement made above : the extended ca models can be considered as models for energy release through current dissipation . it also explains why the energy distributions remain very similar when the lh91 formula for the amount of energy released in a burst ( @xmath55 , eq . ( 6 ) ) is replaced by ohmic dissipation ( @xmath56 , sec . 3.1.3 ) : bursts occur only for large stresses @xmath53 , where @xmath54 is also large and an approximate linear function of @xmath53 , so that the distributions of @xmath57 and @xmath58 can be expected to be the same in shape . georgoulis and vlahos ( 1996 , 1998 ) introduced power - law distributed increments for the loading . the main result of such a way of driving the system is that the power - law indices of the energy - distributions depend on the power - law index of the distribution of the loading increments , explaining thus the observed variability of the indices through the variability of the intensity of the driving . we generalize their way of power - law loading , which is for a scalar primary field , to a vector field in the following way : the anisotropic directivity of the loading increment @xmath59 is kept ( see sec . 2.1 ) , but @xmath60 is now distributed according to @xmath61 with @xmath62 $ ] and @xmath63 , the power - law index , a free parameter . simulations were performed for @xmath64 and @xmath65 . interested in global features implied by the ca model , our concern here is the structure of the magnetic field . it turns out that the magnetic field exhibits still a large scale organization , which is very similar to the one of the @xmath1-field of the ( extended with our set - up ) lh91 model ( fig . 1(b ) ) : for @xmath66 , the respective plots are visually indiscernible , and for @xmath67 the overall shape is still roughly the same , it merely seems slightly more distorted . thus , though the statistical results depend on @xmath63 , the strength and variability of the loading , the structure of the magnetic field remains approximately the same as in the case of the extended model of lh91 . large - scale organization ( in the characteristic form of fig . 1 ) must consequently be considered as an inherent property of soc state , through the mechanism explained in sec . 3.1.1 . vlahos et al .  ( 1995 ) introduced anisotropic bursts for solar flare ca models , which lead only to small events , but yield a steep distribution at small energies , predicting thus a significant over - abundance of small events with a significant contribution to coronal heating . we have first to generalize the anisotropic evolution rules , which are again for a scalar primary field , to the case of a primary vector field . a natural generalization would be to apply the anisotropic rules to the absolute magnitude of @xmath2 , but it turns out that this causes the algorithm to get trapped in infinite loops ( two neighbouring grid - sites trigger each other mutually for ever ) . the same holds if we apply the anisotropic rules to the absolute magnitudes of the three components of @xmath2 independently . we finally applied the anisotropic rules to the three components of @xmath2 directly , not using absolute magnitudes , as also vlahos et al . ( 1995 ) did not use absolute magnitudes , and this turned out to lead to a stationary asymptotic state : the anisotropic stress in the @xmath31-component is thus defined as @xmath68 where @xmath69 stands for one of the six nearest neighbours . the instability criterion is @xmath70 and the redistribution rules become @xmath71 for the central point and @xmath72 for those nearest neighbours which fulfill the instability criterion ( eq .  15 ) , where the primed sum is over those neighbours for which eq . ( 15 ) holds . the rules for @xmath73 are completely analogous ( so that actually there are 18 possibilities to exceed the threshold ( eq . 15 ) at a given site ) . the released energy is assumed to amount to @xmath74    we performed a run where only the anisotropic burst - rules were applied , in order to isolate their effect , although the anisotropic burst - rules are used always together with the isotropic ones by vlahos et al . ( 1995 ) , since alone they can not explain the complete energy distributions of flares . in fig .  5 , the magnitude of the magnetic field at a cut through the grid is shown ( fixed @xmath30 ) , for an arbitrary time ( in the loading phase ) during the asymptotic stationary state of the model . clearly , there is no overall large scale structure anymore , except that the magnetic field along the boundaries is increased . the magnetic field topology is thus nearer to the concept of a random , relatively unstructured magnetic field than the magnetic field topology yielded by the isotropic models in soc state . the anisotropic burst rules do not yield large - scale structures , as they are , when used alone , also not able to lead the system to soc state : this is obvious from the energy distributions they yield , which are much smaller in extent than the ones given by the isotropic rules ( see vlahos et al . 1995 ) , and confirmed by the result of lu et al . ( 1993 ) that isotropy of the redistribution rules  at least on the average  is a prerequisite to reach soc state , at all . the anisotropic bursts occur independently in all directions and are in this way not able to organize the field in a neighbourhood systematically , and , as a consequence , also not in the entire grid . the inquiry of the relation of the energy release formula eq . ( 18 ) , which is different from the isotropic formula ( eq .  6 ) , to mhd based formulae we leave for a future study . we just note that the distributions the anisotropic model in our vector - field version yields are at lower energies , smaller in extent , and steeper than the ones of the isotropic models . we have introduced a new set - up for classical solar flare ca models which yields , among others , consistency with maxwell s equations ( e.g.  divergence - free magnetic field ) , and availability of secondary variables such as currents and electric fields in accordance with mhd . both are new for solar flare ca models . the set - up specifies the so far open physical interpretation of the ca models . this specification is to some extent unavoidably arbitrary , and it would definitely be interesting to see what alternative interpretations would yield  if they can be derived consistently . we can claim , however , that the interpretation we chose is reasonable , it is well - behaved in the sense that the derivatives of analytically prescribed vector - potentials are reproduced and that the abstract stress - measure of the ca models is related to the current , due to general properties of spline interpolation . the central problem which was to solve is how to calculate derivatives in a ca model , i.e.  how to continue the primary grid - variable in - between the grid sites , since the notion of derivatives is alien in the context of ca models quite in general .    in this article , our main aim with the introduced set - up was to demonstrate that the set - up truly extends the classical ca models and makes them richer in the sense that they contain much more information , now . the main features we revealed about the ca models , extended with our set - up , are :    * 1 . large - scale organization of the vector - potential and the magnetic field : * the field topology during soc state is bound to characteristic large - scale structures which span the whole grid , very pronounced for the primary grid variable , the vector - potential , but also for the magnetic field . bursts and flares are just slight disturbances propagating over the large - scale structures , which are always maintained , also in the largest events . the magnitude of the current , as a second order derivative of the primary field , does not show any obvious large - scale structure anymore , it reflects more or less only the random fluctuations of the large - scale organized magnetic field . it is worthwhile noting that the large - scale structure of the primary grid - variable is not an artificial result of our set - up , but a natural consequence of the soc state in which the system finds itself . the appearance of large - scale structures for the primary grid variable was shown here for the first time . it may have been known to different authors , but it never has explicitly been shown : soc models for flares are derived in analogy to sand - pile dynamics , and the paradigm of a pile reappears in the field topologies of the solar flare ca models .    * 2 . increased current at unstable grid - sites : * unstable sites are characterized by an enhanced current , which is reduced after a burst has taken place , as a result of which the current at a grid - site in the neighbourhood may be increased .    * availability of the electric field : * the electric field is approximated with the resistive part of ohm s law in its simple form , which can in general be expected to be a good approximation in coronal applications and where the interest is in current - dissipation events , e.g.  in the case of solar flares . energy release in terms of ohmic dissipation : * we replaced the some - what _ ad hoc _ formula in the ca models to estimate the energy released in a burst with the expression for ohmic dissipation in terms of the current . the distributions yielded in this way are very similar to the ones based on the ad hoc formula , so that the results of the ca models remain basically unchanged .    * ca as models for current dissipations : * as a consequence of point 2 and 4 in this list , and of the fact that there is an approximate linear relation between the current and the stress measure of the ca , we can conclude that the _ extended _ ca models can be considered as models for energy release through current dissipation . our set - up is to be contrasted to the recently suggested mhd - derived ( not based on the sand - pile analogy ) ca models of einaudi & velli ( 1999 ) , macpherson & mackinnon ( 1999 ) , longcope and noonan ( 2000 ) , and isliker et al . ( 2000a ) . they all suggest new evolution rules , derived from mhd , and all in different ways ( they actually focus on different processes , namely the microscopic , macroscopic , and mesoscopic physics , respectively , in active regions ) . our set - up , on the other hand , uses existing ca models , does not interfere ( if not wished ) with their evolution rules , does also not change their main results , as shown , but reinterprets them , extends them essentially , and makes them compatible with mhd .    the set - up we introduced allows different future applications and posing questions which could not be asked so far in the frame of ca models . in preparation is a study ( isliker et al . 2000b ) to reveal in detail what physical flare scenario the extended ca models imply . we will address the questions : ( 1 ) how to interpret the small scale processes of the models ( loading and bursting ) in terms of mhd ; ( 2 ) what the _ global _ flare - scenario implied by the models is ; ( 3 ) whether the global magnetic field topology of the models can be considered to represent observed magnetic topologies in active regions ; ( 4 ) what spatio - temporal evolution of the electric field during flares is yielded by the models .    a different future application we plan with ca models extended with our set - up is the introduction of particles into the models , with the aim to study thermal emission , particle acceleration , and non - thermal emission . this will allow a much deeper comparison of the ca models to observations than was possible so far , and this is actually the most important benefit of the set - up we introduced . such comparisons will allow a new judgment of the adequateness or not of classical ca models ( in their current form ) to the problem of solar flares , beyond the three statistical distributions of the primarily released energy . solar flare ca models which include particle acceleration would represent the first global and complete model for solar flares . we thank k.  tsiganis and m.  georgoulis for many helpful discussions on several issues . we also thank g.  einaudi for stimulating discussions on mhd aspects of flares , and the referee a.l . mackinnon for useful comments . the work of h.  isliker was partly supported by a grant of the swiss national science foundation ( nf grant nr . 8220 - 046504 ) . the temporal evolution of the ca models presented in this article is governed by the following rules :    * initializing * loading * scanning : create a list of the unstable sites ; if there are none , return to loading ( 1 ) * scanning and bursting : redistribute the fields at the unstable sites which are in the list created in the scannings 2 or 4 * scanning : create a list of the unstable sites . if there are any , go to bursting ( 3 ) , else return to loading ( 1 )    the extra scannings 2 and 4 are needed for causality : if a site becomes unstable through a burst in the neighbourhood , then it should be redistributed in the subsequent scan , and not in the same as the primary unstable site . the same is true for the scanning 4 , since in the next bursting phase ( if any ) only those sites should burst who had become unstable through a burst in their neighbourhood during the foregoing time - step .    as a time - step is considered one scanning of the grid , point 3 . the released energy per time - step is the sum of all the energy released by bursts in this time - step ( a burst is considered a single redistribution event in 3 ) . we term a flare or avalanche the loop 3,4 , from the occurring of the first burst in 3 until the activity has died out and one returns via the scanning 4 to loading ( 1 ) . the duration of the flare is the number of time - steps it lasted , the total flare energy is the sum of all the energies released in the duration of the flare , and the peak flux or peak energy is the maximum of the energies of all the time - steps of the flare . we mentioned in sec .  2.2 that other possibilities for continuation of the vector - potential besides spline interpolation would be : a ) continuation of @xmath2 with the help of an equation ; b ) other kinds of interpolation , either locally ( in a neighbourhood ) , or globally ( through the whole grid ) . possibility a ) implies that an equation has to be solved in each time - step ( after each loading and after each burst ) , in the worst case numerically , with open boundary condition and the @xmath4 given at the grid - sites . this computational effort might slow down the algorithm of the model considerably ( and bring it near to the computational effort of mhd equation integration ) . besides that , the problem is what equation to use : to make the magnetic field always a potential field ( i.e.  using a corresponding equation for the vector - potential @xmath2 ) implies that , from the point of view of mhd , at all times a very well - behaved magnetic field resides in the ca , with no tendency towards instabilities , which makes it difficult to understand why bursts should occur at all , since critical quantities such as currents do not become excited . a better candidate could be expected to be force - freeness , except that , possibly , one may be confronted with incompatibility of the boundary conditions with the vector - potential values given at the grid - sites , i.e.  existence - problems for solutions eventually arise . though definitely possibility a ) can not be ruled out on solid grounds , we found it more promising to proceed with possibility b ) , interpolation . a guide - line for choosing a particular interpolation method is the reasonable demand that the interpolation should not introduce wild oscillations in - between grid - sites , for we want to assure that the derivatives at the grid sites , which are very sensitive to such oscillations , are not random values solely due to the interpolation , but that they reflect more or less directly the change of the primary grid - variable from grid - site to grid - site . this calls for interpolating functions which are as little curved as possible . the easiest and fastest way of interpolating would be to perform local interpolations around a point and its nearest neighbours ( e.g.  using low - order polynomials or trigonometric functions of different degrees ) . this interpolation leads , however , to ambiguities for the derivatives : the derivatives , say at a point @xmath3 , are not the same , if the used interpolation is centered at @xmath3 , with the ones calculated with an interpolation centered at e.g.  @xmath75 . in this sense , local interpolation is not self - consistent , the derivatives at a grid - site depend on where the used interpolation is centered . finally , we are left with global interpolation through the whole grid . among the candidates are , besides more exotic interpolating functions , polynomials of degree equal to the grid size , trigonometric functions ( also in the form of fourier - transforms ) , low - order smooth polynomials ( e.g.  splines ) . the first candidate , polynomials of a high degree @xmath76 ( with @xmath76 the number of grid points in one direction ) , we reject immediately since it is notorious for its strong oscillations in - between grid - sites , mainly towards the edges of the grid . we tried the second candidate , trigonometric interpolation , in the form of discrete fourier transform . testing this by prescribing analytic functions for @xmath77 and comparing the numerical derivatives with the analytic ones , it turned out that there arise problems with representing structures in @xmath2 as large as the entire grid ( the wave - number spectrum is too limited ) , and with structures as short as roughly the grid - spacing ( different prescribed short structures are taken for the same ) .    trying cubic spline - interpolation , we found that it does not suffer from the problems stated for the other types of interpolation : neither does it introduce wild oscillations , unmotivated by the values at the grid - sites , nor does spline interpolation have problems with describing large or small scale structures ( if a functional form of @xmath2 is prescribed , then the analytic derivatives and the derivatives yielded by the interpolation give very close values , in general ) . moreover , based on results of sec .  3 , app .  c , and isliker et al . ( 1998 ) , there is another reason why spline - interpolation is particularly adequate to our problem : it relates the quantity @xmath49 ( eq .  ( 2 ) ) , which measures the stress at a site in the ca model , closely to @xmath78 , the laplacian of @xmath2 ( see app . the latter is related to the current ( @xmath79 ) , which , from the point of view of mhd , can be considered as a measure of stress in the magnetic field configuration . if this relation would not hold , then the redistribution rules ( eqs .  ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) ) of the ca would not be interpretable as the diffusion process revealed by isliker et al . ( 1998 ) , and the instability criterion ( eq .  3 ) would not be so closely related to the current ( see sec .  3 and app . we had rejected above ( sec .  1 , sec .  2.2 ) the use of difference expressions to calculate derivatives , stating that differencing is not in the spirit of ca models quite in general , since the nature of ca is truly discrete . we think it worthwhile to make this argument more concrete and to show what problems arise if differencing were used :    isliker et al . ( 1998 ) have shown that the classical solar flare ca are not just the discretized form of a differential equations . instead , they describe the time - evolution of a system by rules which express the direct transition from a given initial to a final state which is the asymptotic solution of a simple diffusion equation . the time - step corresponds therewith to the average time needed for smallest scale structures ( structures as large as a neighbourhood ) to diffuse , and the grid - size corresponds to the size of these smallest occurring structures . assuming that the ca models were just discretized differential equations would lead to severe mathematical and physical contradictions and inconsistencies ( continuity for @xmath80 is violated ( with @xmath47 the grid - size ) , and negative diffusivities appear ) . therewith , in order to be consistent with the evolution rules , which assume a finite grid - size , one can not assume for the purpose of differentiating this same grid - size to be approximately infinitesimal . there are several equivalent ways to define numerical derivatives with the use of difference expressions : there are e.g.   the backward difference @xmath81 , and the forward difference @xmath82 . both should give comparable values in a given application , else , in the context of differential equation integration , one would have to make the resolution higher . in the case of ca - models , we find that the two difference expressions yield values which differ substantially from each other : e.g.  for an initial loading of the grid with independent random values for the @xmath2-field , the difference between the backward and the forward difference expression can be as large as the field itself . such an initial condition would of course not make sense in the context of partial differential equations , in the context of ca , however , it is a reasonable starting configuration , and the evolution is unaffected by such an initial loading . moreover , when the ca models we discuss in this article have reached the soc state , then the differences between e.g.  the backward- and forward - difference expressions can be as large as 400% . there is no way to reduce this discrepancy , since grid - refinement is principally impossible for ca : the evolution is governed by a set of rules , and making the grid spacing smaller by introducing new grid - points in - between the old ones would actually just mean to make the grid larger , since the evolution rules remain the same , there are no rules for half the grid - spacing . the stress measure of lh91 , @xmath84 , can be related to continuous expressions by representing the values of @xmath85 as taylor - series expansions around @xmath3 , setting the spatial differences to @xmath86 . it turns out that e.g.   @xmath87 and so on for the other two components . _ in general , _ it is therefore _ not _ adequate to consider @xmath49 to be a good 4th order approximation to @xmath88 , since higher order corrections can be large , they depend on the way the vector potential is continued in - between grid - sites . if we had , for instance , chosen global polynomial interpolation instead of spline - interpolation , the higher order terms would not be negligible , above all towards the edges of the grid , since polynomial interpolation is known for introducing fluctuations near the edges of the grid . consequently , @xmath49 would be a bad approximation to @xmath88 . in order @xmath49 to be a good approximation to @xmath88 , interpolation with , for example , 3rd order polynomials would be an optimum choice ( @xmath49 would be an exact approximation to @xmath88 ) . thus , 3rd order polynomials would be the choice for local interpolation , which , however , is not applicable , since it introduces discontinuities in @xmath1 and @xmath19 ( see app . the way out of the dilemma we suggested in this article is the use of cubic splines , which provide global interpolation with 3rd order polynomials , with @xmath1 and @xmath19 continuous , and only third order derivatives are discontinuous ( this is the price of the compromise ) . for splines then , eq .  ( c.1 ) writes as @xmath89,\end{aligned}\ ] ] due to the discontinuities in the 3rd order derivatives ( the superscripts @xmath90 and @xmath91 refer to the right and left derivative , respectively ) . thus , in case where the third order right and left derivatives are not too different , @xmath49 is a good approximation to @xmath88 . isliker , h. , anastasiadis , a. , vlahos , l. , 2000a , a solar flare model in between mhd and cellular automaton , in the fourth astronomical conference of the hellenic astronomical society , eds . seimenis , j.  et al .
Abstract:

Answer: a set - up is introduced which can be superimposed onto the existing solar flare cellular automata ( ca ) models , and which specifies the interpretation of the model s variables . it extends the ca models , yielding the magnetic field , the current , and an approximation to the electric field , in a way that is consistent with maxwell s and the mhd equations . applications to several solar flare ca models during their natural state ( self - organized criticality ( soc ) ) show , among others , that ( 1 ) the magnetic field exhibits _ characteristic large - scale organization _ over the entire modeled volume ; ( 2 ) the magnitude of the current seems spatially dis - organized , with no obvious tendency towards large - scale structures or even local organization ; ( 3 ) bursts occur at sites with increased current , and after a burst the current is relaxed ; ( 4 ) by estimating the energy released in individual bursts with the use of the current as ohmic dissipation , it turns out that the power - law distributions of the released energy persist . the ca models , extended with the set - up , can thus be considered as _ models for energy - release through current - dissipation_. the concepts of power - law loading and anisotropic events ( bursts ) in ca models are generalized to 3d vector - field models , and their effect on the magnetic field topology is demonstrated .    = cmr8 = cmcsc10    = ~      # 1#1