---
abstract: 'This study entails the third part of a global flare energetics project, in which [*Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI)*]{} data of 191 M and X-class flare events from the first 3.5 yrs of the [*Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)*]{} mission are analyzed.  We fit a thermal and a nonthermal component to RHESSI spectra, yielding the temperature of the differential emission measure (DEM) tail, the nonthermal power law slope and flux, and the thermal/nonthermal cross-over energy $e_{\mathrm{co}}$. From these parameters we calculate the total nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ in electrons with two different methods: (i) using the observed cross-over energy $e_{\mathrm{co}}$ as low-energy cutoff, and (ii) using the low-energy cutoff $e_{\mathrm{wt}}$ predicted by the warm thick-target bremsstrahlung model of Kontar et al. [** Based on a mean temperature of $T_e=8.6$ MK in active regions we find low-energy cutoff energies of $e_{\mathrm{wt}} =6.2\pm 1.6$ keV for the warm-target model, which is significantly lower than the cross-over energies $e_{\mathrm{co}}=21 \pm 6$ keV. Comparing with the statistics of magnetically dissipated energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ and thermal energies $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ from the two previous studies, we find the following mean (logarithmic) energy ratios with the warm-target model: $E_{\mathrm{nt}} = 0.41 \ E_{\mathrm{mag}}$, $E_{\mathrm{th}} = 0.08 \ E_{\mathrm{mag}}$, and $E_{\mathrm{th}} = 0.15 \ E_{\mathrm{nt}}$. The total dissipated magnetic energy exceeds the thermal energy in 95% and the nonthermal energy in 71% of the flare events, which confirms that magnetic reconnection processes are sufficient to explain flare energies.  The nonthermal energy exceeds the thermal energy in 85% of the events, which largely confirms the warm thick-target model.**]{}' 
author:
- 'Markus J. Aschwanden$^1$'
- Gordon Holman$^2$
- 'Aidan O’Flannagain$^3$'
- Amir Caspi$^4$
- 'James M. McTiernan$^5$'
- 'Eduard P. Kontar$^6$'
title: ' Global Energetics of Solar Flares: III.  Nonthermal Energies '
---

 INTRODUCTION 
==============

We undertake a systematic survey of the global energetics of solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME) observed during the SDO era, which includes all M and X-class flares during the first 3.5 years of the SDO mission, covering some 400 flare events.  This project embodies the most comprehensive survey about various forms of energies that can be detected during flares, such as the dissipated magnetic energy, the thermal energy, the nonthermal energy, the radiative and conductive energy, and the kinetic energy of associated CMEs.  Two studies have been completed previously, containing statistics on magnetic energies (Aschwanden Xu, and Jing 2014; Paper I), and thermal energies (Aschwanden et al.  2015; Paper II).  In this study we focus on the third part of this “global flare energetics project", which entails the statistics of nonthermal energies in hard X ray-producing electrons that are observed in hard X-rays and gamma-rays, using data from the Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) spacecraft (Lin et al.  2002). 

The quantitative measurement of nonthermal energies in solar flares allows us some tests of fundamental nature.  One concept or working hypothesis is that all primary energy input in solar flares is provided by dissipation of free magnetic energy, for instance by a magnetic reconnection process, which supplies energy for secondary processes, such as for acceleration of charged particles and heating of flare plasma.  The accelerated (nonthermal) particles either escape from the flare site into interplanetary space, or more likely precipitate down to the chromosphere where they subsequently become thermalized and radiate in hard X-rays and gamma rays, according to the thick-target bremsstrahlung model (Brown 1971).  In this picture we expect that the total nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ (in electrons and ions) produced in flares should not exceed the dissipated magnetic (free) energy $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$, but on the other hand should yield an upper limit on the thermal energy $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ inferred from the soft-X-ray and EUV-emitting plasma.  Alternative mechanisms to the thick-target model envision thermal conduction fronts (e.g., Brown et al.  1979) or direct heating processes (e.g., Duijveman et al.  1981).  In the previous two papers we proved the inequality $E_{\mathrm{mag}} > E_{\mathrm{th}}$, for which we found an energy conversion ratio of $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}} \approx 0.02-0.40$ (Paper II), which is about an order of magnitude higher than estimated in a previous statistical study (Emslie et al.  2012), where an [*ad hoc*]{} value (30%) of the ratio of the free magnetic energy to the potential field energy was estimated.  In this Paper III we investigate the expected inequalities $E_{\mathrm{mag}} > E_{\mathrm{nt}} > E_{\mathrm{th}}$. If these two inequalities are not fulfilled, it could be attributed to insufficient accuracy of the energy measurements, or alternatively may question the correctness of the associated low-energy cutoff model, the applied magnetic reconnection models, or the efficiency of the electron thick-target bremsstrahlung model.  Such an outcome would have important consequences in our understanding of solar flare models and the related predictability of the most extreme space weather events. 

The measurement of nonthermal energies in solar flares requires a spectral fit of the hard X-ray spectrum in the energy range of $\varepsilon \approx 10-30$ keV (Aschwanden 2007), from spectral data as they are available from the HXRBS/SMM, BATSE/CGRO, or RHESSI instrument.  Since the total nonthermal energy contained in a flare requires integrations over the temporal and spectral range, the largest uncertainty of this quantity comes from the assumed low-energy cutoff, because it cannot be directly measured due to the strong thermal component that often dominates the spectrum at $\varepsilon \lapprox 20$ keV during solar flares (for a review see Holman et al.  2011).  In a few cases, low-energy cutoffs of the nonthermal spectrum could be determined by regularized inversion methods at $e_c=20-40$ keV (Kasparova et al.  2005), $e_c \approx 20$ keV (Kontar and Brown 2006), and $e_c=13-19$ keV (Kontar, Dickson, and Kasparova 2008).  For the 2002 July 23 flare, Holman et al.  (2003) deduced upper limits to low-energy cutoffs by determining the highest values consistent with acceptable spectral fits.  Sui et al.  (2007) deduced the low-energy cutoff in a flare from the combination of spectral fits and the time evolution of the X-ray emission in multiple energy bands.  Sui et al.  (2007) deduced low-energy cutoffs for several flares with relatively weak thermal components (“early impulsive flares”) from spectral fits, with values ranging from $15-50$ keV. In the late peak of a multi-peaked flare, Warmuth et al.  (2009) inferred low-energy cutoff values exceeding 100 keV, but this unusually high value could possibly be explained also by high-energy electrons that accumulate by trapping after the flare peak (Aschwanden et al.  1997).  Using a novel method of [**differentiating**]{} nonthermal electrons by their time-of-flight delay from thermal electrons by their thermal conduction time delay, a thermal-nonthermal crossover energy of $e_c=18.0 \pm 3.4$ keV (or a range of $e_c = 10-28$ keV) was established for the majority (68%) of 65 analyzed flare events (Aschwanden 2007). 

Statistical measurements of nonthermal flare energies have been calculated from HXRBS/SMM data (Crosby et al.  1993), or from RHESSI data (Hannah et al.  2008; Christe et al.  2008; Emslie et al.  2012).  The low-energy cutoff was taken into account by assuming a fixed energy cutoff of $e_c=25$ keV (Crosby et al.  1993), a fixed spectral slope of $\gamma=-1.5$ below the thermal-nonthermal cross-over energy $e_{\mathrm{co}}$ (Hannah et al.  2008), or by adopting the largest energy $e_c$ that still produces a goodness-of-fit with $\chi^2 \approx 1$ for the nonthermal power law fit (Emslie et al.  2012).  Low-energy cutoffs for microflares were estimated in the range of $e_c \approx 9-16$ keV, with a median of 12 keV (Hannah et al.  2008), using a numerical integration code of Holman (2003).  The statistical study of Emslie et al.  (2012) provides a comparison between nonthermal energies $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$, thermal energies $E_{\mathrm{th}}$, and dissipated magnetic energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$, yielding mean (logarithmic) ratios of $E_{\mathrm{th}} \approx 0.005\ E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{nt}} 
\approx 0.03\ E_{\mathrm{mag}}$. These results conform to the expected inequalities, but the magnetic energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ were actually not measured in the study of Emslie et al.  (2012), and most likely were overestimated by an order of magnitude (Paper I).  The dissipated magnetic energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ were for the first time quantitatively measured in Paper I, by automated tracing of coronal flare loops from AIA/SDO images and by forward-fitting of a nonlinear force-free magnetic field (NLFFF) model based on the vertical current approximation (Aschwanden 2013, 2016). 

The content of this paper consists of a theoretical model to estimate the low-energy cutoff and the nonthermal energy (Section 2), a description of the data analysis method (Section 3), the results of the data analysis of 191 M and X-class flare events observed with RHESSI (Section 4), a discussion of the results (Section 5), and conclusions (Section 6). 

 THEORY 
========

 Nonthermal Energy in Electrons 
--------------------------------

The nonthermal energy in flare electrons is generally calculated with the thick-target model (Brown 1971), which expresses the hard X-ray photon spectrum by a convolution of the electron injection spectrum with the Bethe-Heitler bremsstrahlung cross-section.  According to this model, the observed hard X-ray photon spectrum $I(\varepsilon)$ observed at Earth can be approximated by a power law function with slope $\gamma$ for the nonthermal energies, while the spectral index generally changes at the lower (thermal) energies.  Thus, the nonthermal spectrum is defined as (e.g., see textbook Aschwanden 2004; chapter 13), $$I(\varepsilon) = A \ \varepsilon^{-\gamma}
        \qquad ({\rm photons}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm keV}^{-1}) \ ,$$ which yields a thick-target (non-thermal) electron injection spectrum $f_e(e)$, $$f_e(e) = 2.68 \times 10^{33} \ b(\gamma) A
        {e}^{-(\gamma+1)}
        \qquad ({\rm electrons}\ {\rm keV}^{-1} \ {\rm s}^{-1}) \ ,$$ which is a power law function also, but with a slope $\delta = \gamma+1$ that is steeper by one, and $b(\gamma)$ is an auxiliary function related to the Beta function.  The detailed shape of a nonthermal electron spectrum that is affected by a low-energy cutoff is simulated in Holman (2003), showing a gradual flattening at lower energies.  Note that we use the symbol $\varepsilon$ for photon energies, while we use the symbol $e$ for electron energies.  The total power in nonthermal electrons above some cutoff energy $e_c$, i.e., $P(e \ge e_c$), is $$P(e \ge e_c)
        = 4.3 \times 10^{24} \ {b(\gamma) \over (\gamma - 1)} \ A \
        (e_c)^{-(\gamma-1)} \
    \qquad ({\rm erg \ s^{-1})} \ .$$ Thus, the three observables of the photon flux $A$, the photon power law slope $\gamma$, and the low-energy cutoff energy $e_c$ are required to calculate the power during a selected flare time interval, which can be calculated with the OSPEX package of the [*SolarSoftWare (SSW)*]{} library of the [*Interactive Data Language (IDL)*]{} software (see RHESSI webpage http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssw/packages/spex/doc/ospex$\_$explanation.html). 

In order to calculate the total nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ during an entire flare, we have to integrate the power as a function of time, $$E_{\mathrm{nt}} = \int_{t_{\mathrm{start}}}^{t_{\mathrm{end}}} 
    P(e > e_c(t), t) \ dt 
    \qquad ({\rm erg}) \ .$$ While the photon fluxes $A(t)$ and the spectral slopes $\gamma(t)$ can readily be measured from a time series of hard X-ray photon spectra (Eq.  1), the largest uncertainty in the determination of the nonthermal energy is the low-energy cutoff energy $e_c(t)$ between the thermal and nonthermal hard X-ray components, typically expected in the range of $\approx 10-30$ keV (see Table 3 in Aschwanden 2007).  In the following we outline two different theoretical models of the low-energy cutoff that are applied in this study. 

 Thermal-Nonthermal Cross-Over Energy 
--------------------------------------

The bremsstrahlung spectrum $I(\varepsilon)$ of a thermal plasma with temperature $T$, as a function of the photon energy $\varepsilon = h\nu$, setting the coronal electron density equal to the ion density $(n=n_i=n_e)$, and neglecting factors of order unity (such as the Gaunt factor $g(\nu, T)$ in the approximation of the Bethe-Heitler bremsstrahlung cross-section), and the ion charge number, $Z\approx 1$, is (Brown 1974; Dulk & Dennis 1982), $$I(\varepsilon) = I_0 \int
        {\exp{(-{\varepsilon / k_B T})} \over T^{1/2}} {dEM(T) \over dT} \ dT \ ,$$ where $I_0 \approx 8.1 \times 10^{-39}$ keV s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ keV$^{-1}$ and $dEM(T)/dT$ specifies the [*differential emission measure*]{} $n^2 dV$ in the element of volume $dV$ corresponding to temperature range $dT$, $$\left({dEM(T) \over dT}\right) dT = n^2(T) \ dV \ .$$ Regardless, whether we define this differential emission measure (DEM) distribution by an isothermal or by a multi-thermal plasma (Aschwanden 2007), the thermal spectrum $I(\varepsilon)$ falls off similar to an exponential function at an energy of $\varepsilon \lapprox 20$ keV (or up to $\lapprox
40$ keV in extremal cases), while the nonthermal spectrum in the higher energy range of $\varepsilon \approx 20-100$ keV can be approximated with a single (or broken) power law function (Eq.  1). 

Because of the two different functional shapes, a cross-over energy $\varepsilon_c$ can often be defined from the change in the spectral slope between the thermal and the nonthermal spectral component.  The electron energy spectrum, however, can have a substantially lower or higher cutoff energy (e.g., Holman 2003). 

We represent the combined spectrum with the sum of the (exponential-like) thermal and the (power law-like) nonthermal component, i.e., $$I(\varepsilon) =I_{\mathrm{th}}(\varepsilon)+I_{\mathrm{nt}}(\varepsilon)
    = I_0 \int {\exp{(-{\varepsilon / k_B T})} \over T^{1/2}} 
    {dEM(T) \over dT} \ dT \ + \ A \ \varepsilon^{-\gamma} \ ,$$ where the cross-over energy $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{co}}$ can be determined in the (best-fit) model spectrum $I(\varepsilon)$ from the energy where the logarithmic slope is steepest, i.e., from the maximum of $\partial \log I(\varepsilon) 
/ \partial \log \varepsilon$.

 Warm-Target Model 
-------------------

A new theoretical model has recently been developed that allows us to calculate the low-energy cutoff energy in the thick-target model directly, by including the “warming” of the cold thick-target plasma during the electron precipitation phase, when chromospheric heating and evaporation sets in (Kontar et al.  2015).  Previous applications of the thick-target model generally assume cold (chromospheric) temperatures in the electron precipitation site (e.g., Holman et al.  2011, for a review).  The theoretical derivation of the warm-target model has been analytically derived and tested with numerical simulations that include the effects of collisional energy diffusion and thermalization of fast electrons (Galloway et al.  2005; Goncharov et al.  2010; Jeffrey et al.  2014).  According to this model, the effective low-energy cutoff $e_c$ is a function of the temperature $e_{\mathrm{th}}=k_B T_e$ of the warm-target plasma and the power law slope $\delta = \gamma + 1$ of the (nonthermal) electron flux, $$e_c \approx (\xi + 2) \ k_B T_e = \delta \ k_B T_e \ .$$ where $\xi = \gamma - 1$ is the power law slope of the source-integrated mean electron flux spectrum ([**see Eqs.  8-10 in Kontar et al.  2015), and $T_e$ is the temperature of the warm target, which is a mixture or the cold preflare plasma and the heated evaporating plasma.**]{}  Thus, for the temperature range of a medium-sized to a large X-class flare, which spans $T_e \approx 10-25$ MK, the temperature in energy units is $E_{\mathrm{th}} = k_B T_e \approx 0.9-2.1$ keV, and for a range of power law slopes of $\delta = 3-6$ (Dennis 1985; Kontar et al.  2011), a range of $e_c \approx 3-13$ keV is predicted for the low-energy cutoffs by this model. 

Besides collisional heating of the warm chromospheric target, electron beams and beam-driven Langmuir wave turbulence may affect the low-energy cutoff additionally (Hannah et al.  2009).  Alternative analytical models on the low-energy cutoff can be derived from a collisional time-of-flight model (Appendix A), from the Rosner-Tucker-Vaiana heating/cooling balance model (Appendix B), and from the runaway acceleration model (Appendix C). 

 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD 
======================

From the same comprehensive catalog of 399 M and X-class flares observed with SDO during 2010-2014, used in the first two studies of our global flare energetics project, we will analyze all events that have been simultaneously observed in hard X-rays and gamma-rays with RHESSI.  The orbit of RHESSI has a duty cycle of $\approx 50\%$, leading to a total of 191 events that have suitable time coverage.  In the following we describe the analysis of these events, which are also listed in Table 1 (labeled with identical identification numbers \#1$-$399 as used in Papers I and II).  We explain the various steps performed in our analysis for three examples shown in Figs.  1-3. 

Spectral Modeling of RHESSI Data with OSPEX 
--------------------------------------------

For the measurement of the nonthermal energy ($E_{\mathrm{nt}}$) of electrons during solar flares we use the OSPEX (Object Spectral Executive) software, which is an object-oriented interface for X-ray spectral analysis of solar data, written by Richard Schwartz and others (see RHESSI website [*http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/*]{} for a documentation).  The OSPEX software allows the user to read RHESSI data, to select and subtract a background, to select time intervals of interest, to select a combination of photon flux model components, and to fit those components to the spectrum in each selected time interval.  During the fitting process, the response matrix is used to convert the photon model to the model counts that are fitted to the observed counts.  The OSPEX software deals also with changes of attenuator states, decimation, pulse pile-up effects, albedo effects, and provides procedures to calculate the nonthermal energy $(E_{\mathrm{nt}})$ (according to the thick-target model) and the thermal energy ($E_{\mathrm{th}}$) down to energies of $\gapprox 3$ keV.

RHESSI complements spectral information of the differential emission measure (DEM) distribution at the high-temperature side ($T_e \gapprox 16$ MK) (Caspi 2010; Caspi and Lin 2010; Caspi et al.  2014), while AIA/SDO provides DEM information at the low-temperature side ($T_e \lapprox 16$ MK), as we determined in Paper II.  For spectral modeling we are using the two-component model [*vth+thick2$\_$vnorm*]{}, which includes a thermal component at low energies and a (broken) power law function at higher (nonthermal) energies.  In our spectral fits we are only interested in the transition from the thermal to the nonthermal spectrum, which can be expressed by an exponential-like plus a single power law function (Eq.  7), and thus we use only the lower power law part of the two-component model [*vth+thick2$\_$vnorm*]{}, while the spectral slope in the upper part was set to a constant ($\delta_2=4$).  In addition we use [*calc$\_$nontherm$\_$electron$\_$energy$\_$flux*]{} of the OSPEX package to calculate the nonthermal energy flux in the thick-target model. 

In order to obtain a self-consistent measure of the nonthermal energy, which varies considerably during the duration of a flare or among different flares, we have to choose a spectral fitting range that covers a sufficient part of both the thermal and nonthermal components. [** We choose the maximum energy range $[\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2]$, bound by $\varepsilon_1 = 6 ... 10$ keV and $\varepsilon_2 = 20 ... 50$ keV, in which an acceptable (reduced) $\chi^2$-value ($\chi < 2.0$) is obtained for the spectral fit.  The upper bound of the fitting range is mostly constrained by the photon count statistics, which is often too noisy for energies at $\varepsilon_2 
\gapprox 30$ keV during small flares (M-class here), given the time steps of $\Delta t=20$ s chosen throughout.**]{}  The fitted energy ranges cover also the range of cross-over energies (10-28 keV) found in multi-thermal fitting of energy-dependent time delays (Aschwanden 2007). 

As a general criticism, we have to be aware that the nonthermal spectral component could in addition also be confused with a multi-thermal component in the fitted spectral range of $\varepsilon \approx 10-30$ keV (Aschwanden 2007), or with non-uniform ionization effects (Su, Holman, and Dennis 2011), or with return-current losses (Holman 2012). 

We used the standard option of OSPEX, where a spectral fit is calculated from the combined counts of a selectable set of RHESSI subcollimaters.  RHESSI has 9 (subcollimator) detectors that had originially near-identical sensitivities, but progressively deviate from each other as a result of steady degradation over time due to radiation damage from charged particles.  Heating up the germanium restores the lost sensitivity and resolution, and thus five annealing procedures have been applied to RHESSI so far (second anneal at 2010 Mar 16 - May 1; third at 2012 Jan 17 - Febr 22; forth at 2014 Jun 26 - Aug 13; and fifth at 2016 Feb 23 - Apr 23).  No science data are collected during the annealing periods.  Based on the performance of the individual detector sensitivities, it is general practice to exclude the detectors 2 and 7 in spectral fits.  Furthermore, detectors 4 and 5 are considered as unreliable [**after January 2012**]{} (Richard Schwartz; private communication).  Therefore, we select the set of detectors \[1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9\] in spectral fits up to the third anneal in January 2012 (events \# 1-126 in Table 1), and the set of \[1, 3, 6, 8, 9\] after February 2012 (events \# 154-395 in Table 1).  Omitting detectors 4 and 5 in the latter set of 71 events yields a total nonthermal energy that is by a factor of $q_{\mathrm{det}}=
E_{\mathrm{nt}}[1, 3, 6, 8, 9]/E_{\mathrm{nt}}[1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9]=1.3 \pm 0.5$ higher. 

We download the GOES 1-8  light curves $F_{\mathrm{GOES}}(t)$ and calculate the time derivative as a proxy for the hard X-ray time profile $F_{\mathrm{HXR}} \approx dF_{\mathrm{GOES}}/dt$, as shown in Figs.  1a ,2a, and 3a.  The start time $t_{\mathrm{start}}$, peak time $t_{\mathrm{peak}}$, and end time $t_{\mathrm{end}}$ are defined from the NOAA/GOES catalog.  We compute consecutive spectra in time steps of $\Delta t=20$ s. Note that RHESSI is a spinning spacecraft with a period of 4 s, which does not cause any modulation effects for 20 s time integrations. 

In a next step we inspect the RHESSI quick-look time profiles (Figs.  1b, 2b, 3b), which show photon counts in [**5 different energy channels in the range of 6-300 keV**]{}.  Based on these RHESSI time profiles we select time intervals for background subtraction. [** Generally we select a time interval at flare start as the background interval (in 90%), and subtract this preflare spectrum for the entire flare time interval.  Only in a few cases (10%) where the preflare flux is higher than the postflare flux, we choose a time interval at flare end for background subtraction.**]{}  The RHESSI quick-look data show changes in the attenuator state (e.g., Figs.2b, 3b), which are automatically handled in most time intervals with the OSPEX software, unless there is a change in the attenuator state during a selected time interval itself, in which case this time interval is removed from the spectral analysis.  The quick-look data show occasionally data gaps that are caused when RHESSI enters spacecraft night in its near-Earth orbit.  If the data gap does not occur during the flare peak of hard X-ray emission, we still include the event in the analysis, as long as the time interval of dominant nonthermal HXR emission is covered (such as event \#219 in Fig.  2b). 

For spectral fitting we perform first a semi-calibration and store the detector response matrix (DRM), and then run a spectral fit with the fit function [*vth+thick2$\_$vnorm*]{} using the OSPEX software, optimizing the following model fit parameters (for each time interval $t$):

  ------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  $EM(t)$       = Emission measure in units of $10^{49}$ cm$^{-3}$
  $T_e(t)$      = plasma temperature in units of keV (1 keV=11.6 MK)
  $A(t)$        = photon flux at $\varepsilon = 50$ keV
  $\delta(t)$   = negative power law index of electron spectrum
  $e_c(t)$      = low-energy cutoff
  ------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Examples of spectral fits are shown in Figs.  1c, 2c, and 3c, fitted at the time of the peak power $P_{\mathrm{co}}(t)$ (indicated with red vertical lines in Figs.  1, 2, and 3).  The best-fit spectrum yields a cross-over energy $e_{\mathrm{co}}$ between the thermal and nonthermal spectral component.  Alternatively, the warm-target model of Kontar et al.  (2015) yields a low-energy cutoff value $e_{\mathrm{wt}}$. The fitted energy ranges are listed in Table 1 and are indicated with dotted vertical lines in Figs.  1g, 2g, and 3g. The goodness-of-fit is quantified with the $\chi^2$-value criterion.  In case of bad fits of the $\chi^2$-values ($\chi 
> 2$) [**we changed either the fitted energy range (in 13%), the selected interval for background subtraction (10%), or the fitted time range (5%).**]{} 

 RESULTS 
=========

The numerical values of the main results of the low energy cutoffs $e_c$ (which we label as $e_{\mathrm{co}}$ in the cross-over method, and as $e_{\mathrm{wt}}$ in the warm-target method), and the nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ for the analyzed 191 events are listed in Table 1, while scatter plots and distributions are shown in Figs.  4-8. 

 Time Evolution of Flares 
--------------------------

Three examples of analyzed flare events are shown in Figs.  1, 2, and 3, including one of the smallest events (Fig.  1: \#387, GOES M1.0 class), [**an event with multi-peak characteristics**]{} (Fig.  2; \#219, GOES M2.0 class), and one of the largest events (Fig.  3; \#12, GOES X2.2 class).  In all three cases we show the time evolution of the most important fit parameters in the various panels (d through j) of Figs.  1-3: (d) the thermal emission measure $EM(t)$; (e) the temperature evolution $T_e(t)$; (f) the nonthermal photon flux $I_{\mathrm{nt}}(t)$ at 50 keV; (g) the power law slope $\delta(t)$; (h) the goodness-of-fit $\chi(t)$; (i) the nonthermal power $P_{\mathrm{wt}}(t)$ using the low cutoff energy based on the warm-target model (Section 2.3); and (j) the low-energy cutoff $e_{\mathrm{wt}}(t)$ of the warm-target model. [** In the examples shown in Figs.  1, 2 and 3 we see that the thermal emission measure $EM(t)$ increases during the rise time of the GOES flux, while the temperature $T_e(t)$ decreases, which indicates both density increases due to chromospheric evaporation as well as subsequent plasma cooling during the impulsive flare phase.  Since multiple heating and cooling cycles overlap during a flare, we see both effects simultaneously.  The cases shown in Figs.  1, 2 and 3 show also that the nonthermal flux $I_{\mathrm{nt}}(t)$ (Figs.  1f, 2f, 3f) and the power $P_{\mathrm{wt}}(t)$ (Figs.  1i, 2i, 3i) are correlated with the GOES time derivative (Figs.  1a, 2a, 3a).**]{} 

 Goodness-of-Fit 
-----------------

The goodness of the spectral fits computed with the OSPEX code is specified with the $\chi^2$-criterion, based on the least-square difference between the theoretical spectral model (isothermal plus power law nonthermal function) and the observed counts in the fitted energy range \[$\varepsilon_1$-$\varepsilon_2$\].  The fitted energy time interval (with a resolution of 1 keV) has about $n_{\mathrm{bin}} \approx 30-10 = 20$ energy bins, while the model has four ($n_{\mathrm{par}}=4)$ free parameters $(EM, T_e, A_{50}, \delta)$, yielding a degree of freedom $n_{\mathrm{free}}=n_{\mathrm{bin}}-n_{\mathrm{par}} \approx 20-4 = 16$. In our spectral analysis of 191 flare events we performed spectral fits, with an average of $n_t \approx 27$ time steps per event, amounting to a total of $N_{\mathrm{spec}} \approx 
191 \times 27 = 5157$ spectral fits.  The values $\chi(t)$ of three events are shown in Figs.  1h, 2h, and 3h.  The median values of these three events are $\chi=1.4, 1.0$, and 1.3.  We obtained in all 191 events a median goodness-of-fit value of $\chi < 2$, after adjustment of the fitted energy range if necessary.  The mean and standard deviations of the median $\chi^2$-values of all 191 events is $\chi = 1.2 \pm 0.4$, which indicates that the fitted spectral model is adequate in the chosen fitted energy range.  Of course, if one particular model, such as the two-component thermal-nonthermal model chosen here (Eq.  7), is found to be consistent with the data according to an acceptable goodness-of-fit criterion, it does not rule out alternative models.  For instance, the thermal component is often modeled with an iso-thermal (single-temperature) spectrum, while a multi-thermal power law function was found to fit the thermal flare component in most flares equally well (Aschwanden 2007). 

 Temperature Definitions 
-------------------------

A representative value for the electron temperature during a flare can be defined in various ways.  In paper II we measured the peak temperature $T_{\mathrm{AIA}}$ of the differential emission measure (DEM) distribution at the peak time of the flare, as well as the emission measure-weighted temperature $T_w$ (Eq.  13 in Paper II), which approximately characterizes the “centroid” of the (logarithmic) DEM function.  The mean ratio of these two temperature values was found to be $q_T=T_{\mathrm{AIA}}/T_w=0.31$ within a standard deviation by a factor of $2.0$ (Fig.  4, left panel).  The emission measure-weighted temperature $T_w$ is generally found to be higher, because near-symmetric DEM functions as a function of the logarithmic temperature are highly asymmetric on a linear temperature scale, with a centroid that is substantially higher than the logarithmic centroid. 

On the other hand, spectral fits of RHESSI data with an isothermal component are known to have a strong bias towards the highest temperatures occurring in a flare, because the fitted energy range covers only the high-temperature tail of the DEM distribution function (Battaglia et al.  2005; Ryan et al.  2014; Caspi et al.  2014).  A statistical study demonstrated that the high-temperature bias of RHESSI by fitting in the photon energy range of $\varepsilon \approx 
6-12$ keV amounts to a factor of $T_{R}/T_{\mathrm{AIA}}=1.9\pm1.0$ (Ryan et al.  2014).  Here we find that all RHESSI temperatures averaged during each flare are found in a range of $T_{R}=16-40$ MK, which is about equal to the emission measure-weighted temperature, i.e., $T_{R}/T_w=0.90$ within a factor of 1.4 (Fig.  4, right panel).  The 1-$\sigma$ ranges (containing 67% of the values) of the various temperature definitions are $T_{\mathrm{AIA}} \approx 3-14$ MK, $T_w \approx 20-30$ MK, and $T_{R} \approx 19-28$ MK.  So, we should keep these different temperature definitions in mind when we calculate the low-energy cutoff $e_c(t)$ as a function of the RHESSI temperature $T_{R}(t)$ (Eq.  8 for the warm-target model). 

[**The most decisive parameter in the determination of the nonthermal energy $E_{nt}$ is the low-energy cutoff $e_c$ (Eq.  4), which is directly proportional to the temperature $T_e$ in the warm target (Eq.  8).  What is the most likely temperature of the warm target?  The relevant temperature is a mixture of pre-flare plasma temperatures and upflowing evaporating flare plasma.  In the absence of a sound model, we resort to the mean value of the DEM peak temperatures determined in flaring active regions, as determined with AIA in Paper II, yielding a mean value of $T_{AIA}=
8.8 \pm 6.0$ MK (Fig.  4 left panel), averaged over $N=380$ M and X-class flare events.  For the subset of 191 flare events observed with RHESSI, this mean value is $T_e=8.6$ MK, or $k_B T_e = 0.74$ keV. Note that a deviation of the plasma temperature by a factor of two will result into a deviation in the determination of the nonthermal energy $E_{nt}$ by about an order of magnitude (using a power law with a typical slope of $\gamma \approx 4$ in Eqs.  3 and 4).**]{} 

 Nonthermal Energy Parameters 
------------------------------

The nonthermal energy in electrons, calculated as a time integral $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ (Eq.  4), using the low-energy cutoff according to the warm thick-target model $e_{\mathrm{wt}}(t)$ (Section 2.3; Eq.  8), or alternatively the thermal/nonthermal cross-over energy $e_{\mathrm{co}}(t)$ (Section 2.2), is the main objective of this study.  Examples of the time evolution of the nonthermal parameters \[$A(t), \delta(t)$, $e_{\mathrm{co}}(t)$, $e_{\mathrm{wt}}(t)$\] and the resulting nonthermal energies $dE_{\mathrm{nt}}(t)$ are shown in Figs.  1-3.  In Fig.  5 we show statistical results of these parameters.  Investigating the dependence of these parameters on the flare temperature $T_{R}$ we find that both the low-energy cutoff energy $e_{\mathrm{wt}}$

**(Fig.  5a) as well as the nonthermal (warm-target) energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ (Fig.  5b) are [**uncorrelated**]{} with the RHESSI temperature.** 

If we use the thermal-nonthermal cross-over method to estimate the low-energy cutoff, we find a systematically higher value, $e_{\mathrm{co}} \gapprox e_{\mathrm{wt}}$ (Fig.  5c).  Consequently, the nonthermal energy estimated with the cross-over method is systematically lower than the nonthermal energy calculated with the warm-target model (Fig.  5d).  This result strongly depends on the assumption of the warm-target temperature.  Based on a mean temperature of $T_e=8.6$ MK found in the active regions analyzed here, we derive low-energy cutoff energies of $e_{\mathrm{wt}} =6.2\pm 1.6$ keV for the warm-target model, which is significantly lower than the cross-over energies $e_{\mathrm{co}}=21 \pm 6$ keV. If we adopt the warm-target model, we conclude that the cross-over method over-estimates the low-energy cutoff and under-estimates the nonthermal energies. 

 Comparison of Magnetic, Nonthermal, and Thermal Energies 
----------------------------------------------------------

In Fig.  6 we show scatterplots of the nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ measured here with other forms of previously determined energies, such as the magnetic energy $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ (Paper I) and the (total pre-impulsive and post-impulsive) thermal energies $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ (Paper II). 

**The energy ratios are characterized with the means of the logarithmic energies in the following.  The ratios between the three forms of energies are shown separately for the cross-over method in the left-hand panels of Fig.  6, and for the warm-target model in the right-hand panels of Fig.  6.** 

The ratios between the nonthermal energies and the magnetically dissipated energy is $E_{\mathrm{co}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.01$ for the cross-over method, or $E_{\mathrm{wt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.41$ for the warm-target model, respectively.  Thus, the warm-target model yields ratios that are closer to unity, which is expected in terms of magnetic reconnection processes, where most of the magnetic energy is converted into particle acceleration.  We find that the dissipated magnetic energy is sufficient to supply the energy in nonthermal particles in 71% for the warm-target model, or in 97% for the cross-over model (Figs.  6a and 6b). 

The ratios between the thermal energies and the magnetically dissipated energy is $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.08$ for both the cross-over or the warm-target model (Fig.  6c and 6d).  We find that the dissipated magnetic energy is sufficient to supply the thermal energy in 95%. 

Comparing the thermal with the nonthermal energies, we find a mean a ratio of $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{wt}}=0.15$ for the warm-target model, or $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{co}}=6.46$ for the cross-over method.  We find that the nonthermal energy is sufficient to supply the thermal energy in 85% for the warm-target model (Fig.  6f), but only in 29% for the cross-over method.  Thus, the warm-target model yields values that are closer to the expectations of the standard thick-target model, where the thermal energy is entirely produced by the nonthermal energy of precipitating (nonthermal) electrons. 

We show the comparison of nonthermal and thermal energies also in form of cumulative size distributions in Fig.  7, for the subset of 75 flare for which all three forms of (magnetic, thermal, nonthermal) energies could be calculated.  We find that the nonthermal energy is typically an order of magnitude larger than the thermal energy in the statistical average.  Then we find that the nonthermal energy is smaller than the magnetic energy, as expected for magnetic reconnection processes, for smaller flares with energies of $E_{nt} < 3 \times 10^{32}$ erg.  However, we find the opposite results for larger flares, with the nonthermal energy exceeding the magnetically dissipated energy, for large events with $E_{nt} > 3 \times 10^{32}$ erg.  Since the uncertainties in nonthermal energies are about an order of magnitude and the dissipated magnetic energy exceeds the nonthermal energy in 71% (Fig.  6b), we suspect that the largest nonthermal energies are over-estimated, which would indicate that a higher value of the low-energy cutoff or a higher flare plasma temperature (than the mean active region temperature $T_e=8.6$ MK used here) could ameliorate the over-estimated nonthermal energies. 

We compare the occurrence frequency distributions of magnetic, nonthermal, and thermal energies, as well as those of the direct RHESSI observables: the peak counts $P$, total counts $C$, and durations $D$ (Fig.  8).  As a caveat, we have to be aware that these values for $P$ and $C$ are obtained from the online RHESSI flare catalog, and thus are not well-calibrated, as they do not take attenuation or decimation into account.  Nevertheless, taking these raw values, the magnetic and thermal energies have similar power law slopes of $\alpha \approx 2.0$, while the nonthermal energies have a slightly flatter slope of $\alpha_{\mathrm{nt}}=1.55 \pm 0.11$, which can be compared with a previous study, where a power law slope of $\alpha_{\mathrm{nt}}=1.53\pm0.02$ was found (Crosby et al.  1993).  The latter study is actually based on larger statistics, containing 2878 flare events observed with HXRBS/SMM during 1980-1982 (Crosby et al.  1993), but with a higher assumed low-energy cutoff of $e_c > 25$ keV.

 DISCUSSION 
============

 Energy Partition in Flares 
----------------------------

While we determined the dissipated magnetic energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ (Paper I; called $E_{\mathrm{diss}}$ therein), thermal energies $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ (Paper II), and the nonthermal energies $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$, we can ask now the question how the energy partition from primary to secondary energy dissipation works in solar flares.  Many solar flare models are based on a magnetic reconnection process, where a stressed non-potential magnetic field becomes unstable and undergoes a reconfiguration towards a lower magnetic energy state, releasing during this process some amount $E_{\mathrm{mag}}=q_{\mathrm{diss}} E_{\mathrm{free}}$ of the magnetic free energy $E_{\mathrm{free}}$ (defined by the difference between the non-potential and the potential energy, $E_{\mathrm{free}}=E_{\mathrm{np}}-E_p$).  Excluding alternative energy sources, we hypothesize that this dissipated magnetic energy $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ is considered to be the entire available primary energy input, while other energy conversion processes represent secondary steps that need to add up in the energy budget, $$E_{\mathrm{mag}} = ( E_{\mathrm{nt}} + E_{\mathrm{cme}} + ... ) > E_{\mathrm{nt}} \ ,$$ such as the nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ that goes into acceleration of particles, or the energy $E_{\mathrm{cme}}$ to accelerate an accompanying coronal mass ejection (CME).  The nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ may be further subdivided into energies in electrons $E_{\mathrm{nt,e}}$ and ions $E_{\mathrm{nt,i}}$, $$E_{\mathrm{nt}} = ( E_{\mathrm{nt,e}} + E_{\mathrm{nt,i}} + ... ) > E_{\mathrm{nt,e}} \ ,$$ while the CME energy $E_{\mathrm{cme}}$ consists of the kinetic energy $E_{\mathrm{kin}}$ and the gravitational potential energy $E_{\mathrm{grav}}$, and part of it may be converted into acceleration of particles in the interplanetary CME shock ($E_{\mathrm{nt,cme}}$), which are particularly present in solar energetic particle (SEP) events, $$E_{\mathrm{cme}} = E_{\mathrm{kin}} + 
               E_{\mathrm{grav}} + 
               E_{\mathrm{nt,cme}} + ... \ .$$ We have to be careful to avoid double-counting of secondary energies, because there may be some tertiary energy conversion processes, such as heating of chromospheric plasma according to the thick-target bremsstrahlung model, $E_{\mathrm{th}}$, while upgoing nonthermal particles escape into interplanetary space, carrying an energy of $E_{\mathrm{nt,esc}}$, $$E_{\mathrm{nt}} = ( E_{\mathrm{th}} + E_{\mathrm{nt,esc}} + ... ) > E_{\mathrm{th}} \ .$$ Since we have measured only three types of energies so far, $E_{\mathrm{mag}}, E_{\mathrm{nt}}$, and $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$, we can test only the inequalities given on the righthand-side of Eqs.  (9) and (12) at this point. 

Based on the nonthermal energies in electrons determined in this work we can answer the question whether the so far measured magnetic energy is sufficient to accelerate the electrons observed in hard X-rays, i.e., $E_{\mathrm{mag}} > E_{\mathrm{nt}}$, as expected for magnetic reconnection models.  Relying on the warm-target model we found that 41% of the dissipated magnetic energy (with a standard deviation of about an order of magnitude) is converted into acceleration of nonthermal electrons, or a total amount of $\approx 82\%$ for both electrons and ions in the case of equipartition, while the rest is available to accelerate CMEs.  There are few statistical estimates of the flare energy budget in literature (besides the work of Emslie et al.  2012; Warmuth and Mann 2016).  One early study quoted that the nonthermal energy in electrons $>20$ keV contains 10-50% of the total energy output for the August 1972 flares (Lin and Hudson 1976; Hudson and Ryan 1995), which is consistent with our result of 41% within the measurement uncertainties. 

Comparing the energy ranges determined in this global flare energetics project with those obtained from 38 events in Emslie et al.  (2012), we find higher amounts of nonthermal flare electron energies in the statistical average, covering the range of $E_{\mathrm{nt}} \approx (20-2000) \times 10^{30}$ erg (Fig.  9), which is mostly accounted for by a lower value of the low-energy cutoff predicted by the warm-target model (Kontar et al.  2015) for some events, while cutoff energies with the highest acceptable value of the $\chi^2$ was used in Emslie et al.  (2012).  The magnetically dissipated energies appear to be over-estimated by an order of magnitude (Fig.  9) in Emslie et al.  (2012), based on the ad hoc assumption that the dissipated energy amounts to 30% of the potential field energy therein (Paper I).  On the other hand, the thermal energies appear to be underestimated by at least an order of magnitude (Fig.  9) in Emslie et al.  (2012) due to the isothermal approximation, as discussed in Paper II. 

Insufficiency of the Thick-Target Model? 
----------------------------------------

A second question we can answer is whether the nonthermal energy in electrons is sufficient to heat the flare plasma by the chromospheric evaporation process, as expected in the thick-target model according to the Neupert effect (Dennis and Zarro 1993), which requires $E_{\mathrm{nt}} > E_{\mathrm{th}}$.

**Based on the warm-target model we found a mean (logarithmic) ratio of $E_{\mathrm{th}}=0.15\ E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ (Fig.  6f).  The fraction of flares that have a thermal energy less than the nonthermal energy, as expected in the standard thick-target model, amounts in our analysis to $\approx 85\%$ for the warm-target method, or $\approx 29\%$ for the cross-over model.** 

This means that the thick-target model could be insufficient to supply enough energy to explain the thermal energy produced by the chromospheric evaporation process in about 15% of the flares for the warm-target model, or in 71% for the cross-over model.  Thus, the cross-over model would pose a series problem for the thick-target model. 

The insufficiency of the thick-target model has been addressed as a failure of the theoretical Neupert effect (Veronig et al.  2005; Warmuth and Mann 2016), which invokes testing of the correlation between the electron beam power (from RHESSI) and the time derivative of the thermal energy heating rate (from GOES).  From such study it was concluded that (1) fast electrons are [*not*]{} the main source of soft X-ray plasma supply and heating, (2) the beam low cutoff energy varies with time, or (3) the theoretical Neupert effect is strongly affected by the source geometry (Veronig et al.  2005).  If the thermally dominated flares cannot be fully explained by the thick-target model, additional heating sources besides precipitating electrons would be required.  The most popular alternative to the thick-target model is heating by thermal conduction fronts (Brown et al.  1979; Batchelor et al.  1985; Emslie and Brown 1980; Smith and Harmony 1982; Smith and Brown 1980; Reep et al.  2016).  Other forms of direct heating (for an overview see chapter 16 in Aschwanden 2004) occur via (1) resistive or Joule heating processes, such as anomalous resistivity heating (Duijveman et al.  1981; Holman 1985; Tsuneta 1985), ion-acoustic waves (Rosner et al.  1978b), electron ion-cyclotron waves (Hinata 1980), (2) slow-shock heating (Cargill and Priest 1983; Hick and Priest 1989), (3) electron beam heating by Coulomb collisional loss in the corona (Fletcher 1995, 1996; Fletcher and Martens 1998), (4) proton beam heating by kinetic Alfvén waves (Voitenko 1995, 1996), or (5) inductive current heating (Melrose 1995, 1997). 

[**The thick-target model fails to explain the observed amount of thermal energy only in a small number of flares for the warm-target model, while it is a larger number of events for the cross-over method.  However, it is more likely that the cross-over method over-estimates the low-energy cutoff, which under-estimates the nonthermal energies, while the physics-based warm-target model leads to higher nonthermal energies, in which case the problem with the insufficiency of the thick-target model goes away.**]{} 

 Nonthermal Low-Energy Cutoff in Flares 
----------------------------------------

We outlined two different methods to infer a low-energy cutoff.  The first method consists in measuring the cross-over between the fitted thermal and nonthermal spectral components, which yields an upper limit on the low-energy cutoff, but a statistical test demonstrates that the obtained values ($e_{\mathrm{co}}=21 \pm 6$ keV) [**are significantly higher than those obtained from the warm-target model ($e_{\mathrm{wt}}=6.2 \pm 1.6$ keV).**]{}  There are pros and cons for each method.  The cross-over method requires a dominant thermal component, [**which is not always detectable in the spectrum, in which case the cross-over energy has a large uncertainty.  The warm-target model requires the measurement of the (warm) flare temperature, which is measured at lower values from DEMs at EUV wavelengths than from hard X-ray spectra observed with RHESSI.  Moreover, the spatial temperature distribution is very inhomogeneous and the location with the dominant temperature component relevant for the warm-target collisional energy loss may be a mixture of colder pre-flare plasma in active regions and heated evaporating flare plasma at the location of instantaneous electron precipitation.  In summary, the value of the low-energy cutoff is strongly dependent on the assumed warm-target temperature, for which no physical model is established yet.**]{} 

In this study we investigated also the temporal evolution of the low energy cutoff $e_c(t)$, for instance as shown in Fig.  1j, 2j, and 3j, but we do not recognize a systematic pattern how the evolution of this low-energy cutoff is related to other flare parameters. 

 CONCLUSIONS 
=============

The energy partition study of Emslie et al.  (2012) was restricted to 38 large solar eruptive events (SEE).  In a more comprehensive study on the global flare energetics we choose a dataset that contains the 400 largest (GOES M and X-class) flare events observed during the first 3.5 years of the SDO era.  Previously we determined the dissipated magnetic energies $E_{\mathrm{mag}}$ in these flares based on fitting the [*vertical-current approximation of a nonlinear force-free field (NLFFF)*]{} solution to the loop geometries detected in EUV images from SDO/AIA, a new method that could be applied to 177 events with a heliographic longitude of $\le 45^\circ$ (Paper I).  We also determined the thermal energy $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ in the soft X-ray and EUV-emitting plasma during the flare peak times based on a multi-temperature differential emission measure DEM forward-fitting method to SDO/AIA image pixels with spatial synthesis, which was applicable to 391 events (Paper II).  In the present study we determined the nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ contained in accelerated electrons based on spectral fits to RHESSI data using the OSPEX software, which was applicable to 191 events.  The major conclusions of the new results emerging from this study are:

1.   [The (logarithmic) mean energy ratio of the nonthermal energy to the total magnetically dissipated flare energy is found to be $E_{\mathrm{nt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.41$, with a logarithmic standard deviation corresponding to a factor of $\approx 8$, which yields an uncertainty $\sigma/\sqrt{N}=0.41/\sqrt{191}=0.03$ for the mean, i.e., $E_{\mathrm{nt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.41\pm0.03$. The majority ($\approx 85\%$) of the flare events fulfill the inequality $E_{\mathrm{nt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}} < 1$, which suggests that magnetic energy dissipation (most likely by a magnetic reconnection process) provides sufficient energy to accelerate the nonthermal electrons detected by bremsstrahlung in hard X-rays.  Our results yield an order of magnitude higher electron acceleration efficiency than previous estimates, i.e., $E_{\mathrm{nt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}
    =0.03\pm 0.005$ (with $N=37$, Emslie et al.  2012).]{} 

2.   [The (logarithmic) mean of the thermal energy $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ to the nonthermal energy $E_{\mathrm{nt}}$ is found to be [**$E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{nt}}=0.15$, with a logarithmic standard deviation corresponding to a factor of $\approx 7$. The fraction of flares with a thermal energy being smaller than the nonthermal energy, as expected in the thick-target model, is found to be the case for $\approx 85\%$ only.  Therefore, the thick-target model is sufficient to explain the full amount of thermal energy in most flares, in the framework of the warm-target model.  The cross-over method shows the opposite tendency, but we suspect that the cross-over method over-estimates the low energy cutoff and under-estimates the nonthermal energies.  Previous estimates yielded a similar ratio, i.e., $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{nt}}=0.15$ (Emslie et al.  2012).**]{}]{} 

3.   [A corollary of the two previous conclusions is that the thermal to magnetic energy ratio is $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.08$. A total of $95\%$ flares fulfils the inequality $E_{\mathrm{nt}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}} < 1$, indicating that all thermal energy in flares is supplied by magnetic energy.  Previous estimates were a factor of 17 lower, i.e., $E_{\mathrm{th}}/E_{\mathrm{mag}}=0.0045$ (Emslie et al.  2012), which would imply a very inefficient magnetic to thermal energy conversion process.]{} 

4.   [The largest uncertainty in the calculation of nonthermal energies, the low-energy cutoff, is found to yield different values for two used methods, i.e., $e_{\mathrm{wt}}=6.2 \pm 1.6$ keV for the warm thick-target model, versus $e_{\mathrm{co}}=21 \pm 6$ keV for the thermal/nonthermal cross-over method.  The calculation of the nonthermal energies is highly sensitive to the value of the low-energy cutoff, which strongly depends on the assumed (warm-target) temperature.]{} 

5.   [The flare temperature can be characterized with three different definitions, for which we found the following ($67\%$-standard deviation) ranges: $T_{\mathrm{AIA}} \approx 3-14$ MK for the AIA DEM peak temperature, $T_w \approx 20-30$ MK for the emission measure-weighted temperatures, and $T_{R} \approx 17-36$ MK for the RHESSI high-temperature DEM tails.  The median ratios are found to be $T_{\mathrm{AIA}}/T_w=0.31$ and $T_{R}/T_w=0.90$. [**The mean active region temperature evaluated from DEMs with AIA, $T_e=8.6$ MK, is used to estimate the low-energy cutoff $e_c$ of the nonthermal component according to the warm-target model, i.e., $e_c \approx \delta (k_B T_{R})$. The low-energy cutoff $e_c$ of the nonthermal spectrum has a strong functional dependence on the temperature $T_{R}$.**]{}]{}

In summary, our measurements appear to confirm that the magnetically dissipated energy is sufficient to explain thermal and nonthermal energies in solar flares, which strongly supports the view that magnetic reconnection processes are the primary energy source of flares.  The nonthermal energy, which represents the primary energy source of the thick-target model, [**is sufficient to explain the full amount of thermal energies in 71% of the flares, according to the novel warm-target model (Kontar et al.  2011).  However, the derived nonthermal energies are highly dependent on the the assumed temperature in the warm-target plasma, for which a sound physical model should be developed (see for instance Appendix A and B), before it becomes a useful tool to estimate the low-energy cutoff of nonthermal energy spectra.**]{}  Future studies of this global flare energetics project may also quantify additional forms of energies, such as the kinetic energy in CMEs, and radiated energies in soft X-rays, EUV, and white-light (bolometric luminosity). 

We acknowledge useful comments from an anonymous referee and discussions with Brian Dennis, Gordon Emslie, Iain Hannah, Ryan Milligan, Linhui Sui, Daniel Ryan, Richard Schwartz, Alexander Warmuth, and software support from Kim Tolbert and Samuel Freeland.  This work was partially supported by NASA contract NAS5-98033 of the RHESSI mission through University of California, Berkeley (subcontract SA2241-26308PG), and by NASA contract NNG 04EA00C of the SDO/AIA instrument.  AC and JMM were also supported by NASA grant NNX15AK26G.

 APPENDIX A : Collisional Time-of-Flight Model  {#appendix-a-collisional-time-of-flight-model .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------

We can derive a collisional time-of-flight model for the thermal/non-thermal cross-over energy that is complementary to the warm-target model of Kontar et al.  (2015).  For stochastic acceleration models, where particles gain and lose energy randomly, the collisional deflection time yields an upper time limit during which a particle can be efficiently accelerated.  The balance between acceleration and collisions can lead to the formation of a kappa-distribution according to some solar flares models (Bian et al.  2014).  For solar flares, we can thus estimate the cross-over energy between collisional and collisionless electrons by setting the collisional deflection time $t_{\mathrm{defl}}$, $$t_{\mathrm{defl}} \approx 0.95 \times 10^8
                \left( {e_{\mathrm{keV}}^{3/2} \over n_e} \right)
                \left( { 20 \over \ln \Lambda} \right) \ ,
    \eqno(A1)$$ where $\ln \Lambda \approx 20$ is the Coulomb logarithm, equal to the (relativistic) time-of-flight propagation time between the coronal acceleration site and the chromospheric thick-target energy loss site, $$t_{\mathrm{TOF}} = {L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \over v} = {L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \over \beta c} \ ,
    \eqno(A2)$$ where the relativistic speed $\beta = v/c$, $$\beta = \sqrt{ 1  - {1 \over \gamma^2} } \ ,
    \eqno(A3)$$ is related to the kinetic energy $e_{\mathrm{kin}}$ of the electron by $$e_{\mathrm{kin}} = m_e c^2 (\gamma - 1) = 511\ (\gamma - 1) \ {\rm [keV]} \ ,
    \eqno(A4)$$ where $\gamma$ represents here the relativistic Lorentz factor (not to be confused with the spectral slope of the photon spectrum used above, i.e., Eq.  1).  So, setting these two time scales equal, $$t_{\mathrm{defl}} = t_{\mathrm{TOF}} \ ,
    \eqno(A5)$$ yields the relationship, using $\ln \Lambda \approx 20$, $$(\gamma - 1)^{3/2} (1 - {1 \over \gamma^2} )^{1/2}
        = { L_{\mathrm{TOF}}\ n_e \over 0.95 \times 10^8 \times 511^{3/2}\ c } \ . 
    \eqno(A6)$$ Using the low-relativistic approximation (for $\gamma \gapprox 1$), $$(\gamma - 1)^{3/2} (1 - {1 \over \gamma^2} )^{1/2} = 
        (\gamma - 1)^{3/2} {(\gamma-1)^{1/2} (\gamma+1)^{1/2} \over \gamma} =  
        {(\gamma - 1)^2 (\gamma+1)^{1/2} \over \gamma}  
        \approx (\gamma - 1)^2 \sqrt{2} \ ,
    \eqno(A7)$$ we obtain, $$(\gamma-1)^2 \ \sqrt{2} \approx 0.003 \times
        \left( {L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \over 10^9 \ {\rm cm}} \right)
        \left( {n_e \over 10^{11} \ {\rm cm}^{-3}} \right)
        \quad {\rm [keV]} \ . 
    \eqno(A8)$$ and by inserting $(\gamma-1) = e_{c}/511$ keV from Eq.  (A4) we find the cross-over energy $e_c \approx e_{\mathrm{kin}}$ can be explicitly expressed as $$e_c \approx 24
        \left( {L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \over 10^9 \ {\rm cm}} \right)^{1/2}
        \left( {n_e \over 10^{11} \ {\rm cm}^{-3}} \right)^{1/2}
        \quad {\rm [keV]} \ . 
    \eqno(A9)$$ This expression requires the measurement of a mean length scale $L_{\mathrm{TOF}}$ of flare loops and an average electron density $n_e$ where electrons propagate. 

Turning the argument around predicts a time-of-flight distance $L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \propto e_c^2/n_e$ as a function of the low-energy cutoff $e_c$, which is a similar concept that has been applied to model the size $L$ of the acceleration region as a function of the electron energy $e$, i.e., $(L-L_0) \propto e^2/n_e$ (Guo et al.  2012a,b; 2013; Xu, Emslie, and Hurford 2008). 

 APPENDIX B : The Rosner-Tucker-Vaiana Model  {#appendix-b-the-rosner-tucker-vaiana-model .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------

At the peak time of a flare, an energy balance between plasma heating and cooling occurs at the turnover point of the temperature maximum (Aschwanden and Tsiklauri 2009), which corresponds to the scaling law of Rosner, Tucker, and Vaiana (1978a) that was originally applied to steady-state heating of coronal loops, where an energy balance between the heating rate and the conductive and radiative cooling time is assumed.  The RTV scaling law, $T^3 \propto p L$, can be expressed in terms of the ideal gas pressure $p = 3 n_e k_B T$, which yields for the loop apex temperature $T_{\mathrm{RTV}}$, $$T_{\mathrm{RTV}} = 0.0011 \ (n_e L_{\mathrm{RTV}})^{1/2} \ . 
    \eqno(B1)$$ The loop half length and time-of-flight distance scale approximately with the flare size, $L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \approx L_{\mathrm{RTV}} \approx L$. Interestingly, the parameter combination $(n_e L)^{1/2}$ occurs also in the expression for the collisional low-energy cutoff (Eq.  A9), so that we can insert the RTV scaling law and obtain an expression for the low-energy cutoff energy $e_c$ that depends on the temperature $T_{\mathrm{RTV}}$ only, $$e_c \approx 25 \ (k_B T_{\mathrm{RTV}}) \quad {\rm [keV]} \ ,
    \eqno(B2)$$ which is similar to the result of the warm-target model (Eq.  8).  However, while the warm-target model is applied to the evaporating upflowing flare plasma, which has temperatures of $T_e \approx 10-25$ MK, the collisional deflection model should be applied to the temperature of the cooler preflare loops, where the accelerated particles propagate from the acceleration site to the thick-target site.  These cooler preflare loops may have typical coronal temperatures of $T_{\mathrm{RTV}} \approx 5-6$ MK ($\approx 0.43-0.52$ keV) in active regions (Hara et al.  1992), which predicts then low-energy cutoff energies of $e_c=11-13$ keV. If the time-of-flight distance $L_{\mathrm{TOF}}$ is corrected for magnetic twist and the pitch angle of the electrons, the effective time-of-flight distance is about $L_{\mathrm{TOF}} \lapprox 2 L$ (Aschwanden et al.  1996), which increases the low-energy cutoff energy by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, predicting values of $e_c=15-18$ keV. Combining Eqs.  (8) and (B2), the RTV model predicts a relationship between the preflare temperature $T_{\mathrm{pre}}=T_{\mathrm{RTV}}$ and the (maximum) flare temperature $T_{\mathrm{flare}}$, $$T_{\mathrm{pre}} \approx T_{\mathrm{flare}} 
    \left( {\delta \over 25} \right) \ ,
    \eqno(B3)$$ which yields $T_{\mathrm{pre}} \approx (0.12 - 0.24) \ T_{\mathrm{flare}}$ for a range of spectral slopes $\delta \approx 3-6$. Given the fact that flare temperatures are typically found in the range of $T_{flare} \approx 10-25$ MK, while preflare temperatures amount to typical coronal temperatures in active regions, $T_{pre} \approx
1-4$ MK, we would expect indeed temperature ratios of $T_{pre}/T_{flare} \approx 0.1-0.16$.

 APPENDIX C : The Runaway Acceleration Model  {#appendix-c-the-runaway-acceleration-model .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------

Some particle acceleration models involve DC electric fields that accelerate electrons and ions out of the bulk plasma.  Since the frictional drag on the electrons decreases with increasing particle velocity ($\nu \propto v^{-3}$), electrons in the initial thermal distribution with a high enough velocity will not be confined to the bulk current, but will be freely accelerated out of the thermal distribution (Kuijpers et al.  1981; Holman 1985), a process that is called runaway acceleration.  A thermal electron of velocity $v_e$ will run away if the electric field strength is greater than the Dreicer field $E_D$, $$E_D = {m \over e} v_e \nu_e \ ,
    \eqno(C1)$$ where $m$ is the electron mass, $e$ the electron charge, $v_e$ the electron velocity, and $\nu_e$ the electron collision frequency.  Since the square of the (non-relativistic) speed $v_e$ scales with the kinetic energy, $E_{\mathrm{kin}} = (1/2) m_e v_e^2$, the critical runaway energy $E_{\mathrm{ra}}$ can be characterized by the ratio of the critical velocity $v_e$ to the thermal speed $v_{\mathrm{th}}$, $$E_{\mathrm{ra}} = E_{\mathrm{th}} \left( { v_e \over v_{\mathrm{th}}} \right)^2 \ ,
    \eqno(C2)$$ We can associate this critical runaway energy $E_{\mathrm{ra}}$ with the low-energy cutoff $e_c$ and obtain again a relationship that scales with the plasma temperature $T_e$ for a given critical velocity ratio, $$e_c \approx E_{\mathrm{ra}} = k_B T_e \ \left( { v_e \over v_{\mathrm{th}}} \right)^2
        \quad {\rm [keV]} \ . 
    \eqno(C3)$$ Thus, for a typical velocity ratio of $(v_e/v_{\mathrm{th}}) \approx$ 2$-$3 and a plasma temperature range of $T_e \approx 5-6$ MK $\approx 0.43-0.52$ keV in active regions, this model predicts a range of $e_c \approx 1.7-8.3$ keV. Combining the relationships of the warm-target model (Eq.  8) and the runaway acceleration model (Eq.  C1) yields then a prediction for the nonthermal speed ratio of the runaway electrons, $$\left( {v_e \over v_{\mathrm{th}}} \right) \approx \sqrt{\delta}
    \approx (1.7 - 2.4) \ ,
    \eqno(C4)$$ which is consistent with solar parameters used in runway models (Kuijpers et al.  1981; Holman 1985).  Implications of runway acceleration models for sub-Dreicer and super-Dreicer fields are discussed also in Guo, Emslie and Piana (2013) and Miller et al. ( 1997). 

\#1

\[Aschwanden, M.J., Kosugi, T., Hudson, H.S., Wills, M.J., and Schwartz, R.A. 1996, ApJ 470, 1198.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J., Bynum, R.M., Kosugi, T., Hudson, H.S., and Schwartz, R.A. 1997, ApJ 487, 936.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J. 2004, [*Physics of the Solar Corona - An Introduction*]{}, Springer, New York, ISBN 3-540-22321-5.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J. 2007, ApJ 661, 1242.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J. and Tsiklauri, D. 2009, ApJSS 185, 171.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J. 2013, Solar Phys.  287, 323.\] \[Aschwanden, M.J., Xu, Y., and Jing, J. 2014, ApJ 797, 50, \[Paper I\].\] \[Aschwanden, M.J., Boerner, P., Ryan, D., Caspi, A., McTiernan, J.M., and Warren, H.P. 2015, ApJ 802, 53, \[Paper II\].\] \[Aschwanden, M.J. 2016, ApJSS 224, 25.\] \[Batchelor, D.A., Crannell, C.J., Wiehl, H.J., and Magun, A. 1985, ApJ 295, 258.\] \[Battaglia, M., Grigis, P.C., and Benz, A.O. 2005, A&A 439, 737.\] \[Bian, N.H., Emslie, A.G., Stackhouse, D.J., and Kontar, E.P. 2014, ApJ 796, 142.\] \[Brown, J.C. 1971, Solar Phys.  18, 489.\] \[Brown, J.C. 1974, in [*Coronal Disturbances*]{}, Proc.  Symposium of IAU Coll.  57, (ed.  Newkirk,G.A.Jr.), ( 523pp), Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht.\] \[Brown, J.C., Spicer, D.S., and Melrose, D.B. 1979, ApJ 228, 592.\] \[Cargill, P.J. and Priest, E.R. 1983, ApJ 266, 383.\] \[Caspi, A. 2010, PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.\] \[Caspi, A. and Lin, R.P. 2010, ApJ 718, 1476.\] \[Caspi, A., Krucker, S., and Lin, R.P. 2014, ApJ 781, 43.\] \[Christe, S., Hannah, I.G., Krucker, S., McTiernan, J., and Lin, R.P. 2008, ApJ 677, 1385.\] \[Crosby, N.B., Aschwanden, M.J. and Dennis, B.R. 1993, Solar Phys.  143, 275.\] \[Dennis, B.R. 1985, Solar Phys.  100, 465.\] \[Dennis, B.R. and Zarro, D.M. 1993, Solar Phys.  146, 177.\] \[Duijveman, A., Hoyng, P. and Ionson, J.A. 1981, ApJ 245, 721.\] \[Dulk, G.A. and Dennis, B.R. 1982, ApJ 260, 875.\] \[Emslie, A.G. and Brown, J.C. 1980, Solar Phys.  237, 1015.\] \[Emslie, A.G., Dennis, B.R., Shih, A.Y., Chamberlin, P.C., Mewaldt, R.A., Moore, C.S., Share, G.H., Vourlidas, A., and Welsch, B.T. 2012, ApJ 759, 71.\] \[Fletcher, L. 1995, A&A 303, L9.\] \[Fletcher, L. 1996, A&A 310, 661.\] \[Fletcher, L. and Martens, P.C.H. 1998, ApJ 505, 418.\] \[Galloway, R.K., MacKinnon, A.L., Kontar, E.P., and Helander, P. 2005, A&A 438, 1107.\] \[Goncharov, P.R., KJuteev, B.V., Ozaki, T., and Sudo, S. 2010, Physics of Plasmas 17, 112313.\] \[Guo, J., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., Benvenuto, F., Massone, A.M., and Piana, M. 2012a, A&A 543, A53.\] \[Guo, J., Emslie, A.G., Massone, A.M., and Piana, M., and Piana, M. 2012b, ApJ 755, 32.\] \[Guo, J., Emslie, A.G., and Piana, M., 2013, ApJ 766, 28.\] \[Hannah, I.G., Christe, S., Krucker, S., Hurford, H.S., Hudson, H.S., and Lin, R.P. 2008, ApJ 677, 704.\] \[Hannah, I.G., Kontar, E.P., and Sirenko, O.K. 2009, SpJ 707, L45.\] \[Hara,H., Tsuneta, S., Lemen, J.R., Acton, L.W., and McTiernan, J.M. 1992, PASJ 44(5), L135.\] \[Hick, P. and Priest, E.R. 1989, Solar Phys.  122, 111.\] \[Hinata, S. 1980, ApJ 235, 258.\] \[Holman, G.D. 1985, ApJ 293, 584.\] \[Holman, G.D. 2003, ApJ 586, 606.\] \[Holman, G.D., Sui, L., Schwartz, R.A., and Emslie, A.G. 2003, ApJ 595, L97.\] \[Holman, G.D., Aschwanden, M.J., Aurass, H., Battaglia, M., Grigis, P.C., Kontar, E.P., Liu, W., Saint-Hilaire, P., and Zharkova, V.V. 2011, Space Sci.  REv.  159, 107.\] \[Holman, G.D. 2012, ApJ 745, 52.\] \[Hudson, H. and Ryan, J. 1995, Annu. Rev.Astron. Astrophys.  33, 239.\] \[Jeffrey, N.L.S., Kontar, E.P., Bian, N.H., and Emslie, A.G. 2014, ApJ 787, 86.\] \[Kasparova, J., Karlicky, M., Kontar, E.P., and Dennis, B.R. 2005, Sol. Phys.  232, 63.\] \[Kontar, E.P. and Brown, J.C. 2006, Adv. Space Res.  38, 945.\] \[Kontar, E.P., Dickson, E., and Kasparova, J. 2008, Solar Phys.  252, 139.\] \[Kontar, E.P., Brown, J.C., and Emslie, A.G. 2011, Space Sci. Rev. 159, 301.\] \[Kontar, E.P., Jeffrey, N.L.S., Emslie, A.G., and Bian ,N.H. 2015, ApJ 809, 35.\] \[Kuijpers, J., Van Der Post, P., and Slottje, C. 1981, A&A 103, 331.\] \[Lin, R.P. and 65 co-authors, 2002, Solar Phys.  210, 3.\] \[Lin, R.P. and Hudson, H.S. 1976, Solar Phys.  50, 153.\] \[Melrose, D.B. 1995, ApJ 451, 391.\] \[Melrose, D.B. 1997, ApJ 486, 521.\] \[Miller, J.A., Cargill, P.J., Emslie, A.G., Holman, G.D., Dennis, B.R., LaRosa, T.N., Winglee, R.M., Benka, S.G., and Tsuneta, S. 1997, JGR 102/A7, 14631.\] \[Reep, J.W., Bradshaw, S.J., and Holman, G.D. 2016, ApJ 818, 44.\] \[Rosner, R., Tucker, W.H., and Vaiana, G.S. 1978a, ApJ 220, 643.\] \[Rosner, R., Golub, L., Coppi, B., and Vaiana, G.S. 1978b, ApJ 220, 643.\] \[Ryan, D.F., O’Flannagain, A.M., Aschwanden, M.J., and Gallagher, P.T. 2014, Solar Phys.  289, 2547.\] \[Smith, D.F. and Harmony, D.W. 1982, ApJ 252, 800.\] \[Smith, D.F. and Brown, J.C. 1980, ApJ 242, 799.\] \[Su, Y., Holman, G.D. and Dennis, B.R. 2011, ApJ 731, 106.\] \[Sui, L., Holman, G.D., and Dennis, B.R. 2007, ApJ 670, 862.\] \[Tsuneta, S. 1985, ApJ 290, 353.\] \[Veronig, A.M., Brown, J.C., Dennis, B.R., Schwartz, R.A., Sui, L., and Tolbert, A.K. 2005, ApJ 621, 482.\] \[Voitenko, Y.M. 1995, Solar Phys.  161, 197.\] \[Voitenko, Y.M. 1996, Solar Phys.  168, 219.\] \[Warmuth, A., Holman, G.D., Dennis, B.R., Mann, G., Aurass, H. and Milligan, R.O. 2009, ApJ 699, 917.\] \[Warmuth, A., and Mann, G. 2016, A&A 588, A115.\] \[Xu, Y., Emslie, A.G., and Hurford, G.J. 2008, ApJ 673, 576.\]

[rrrrrrrrrrrrr]{} 1 & 20100612 0030 & M2.0 & N23W47 & 904 & 92 & 1.3E+05 & \[ 8-20\] & 2.6 & 1.0E+30 & 6.98$^*$ & ...\
2 & 20100613 0530 & M1.0 & S24W82 & 1852 & 688 & 1.3E+06 & \[ 6-20\] & 4.9 & 5.4E+28 & 75.95$^*$ & ...\
4 & 20101016 1907 & M2.9 & S18W26 & 1572 & 3312 & 3.1E+06 & \[ 6-26\] & 5.6 & 6.2E+31 & 0.31 & 2.21\
6 & 20101105 1243 & M1.0 & S20E75 & 2980 & 400 & 2.2E+06 & \[ 6-20\] & 7.1 & 6.5E+31 & 0.12 & ...\
8 & 20110128 0044 & M1.3 & N16W88 & 1760 & 1968 & 4.8E+06 & \[ 6-20\] & 7.2 & 3.9E+31 & ... & ...\
10 & 20110213 1728 & M6.6 & S21E04 & 2324 & 6384 & 2.5E+07 & \[ 8-30\] & 8.3 & 9.3E+32 & 0.022$^*$ & 10.98\
12 & 20110215 0144 & X2.2 & S21W12 & 2628 & 26868 & 9.8E+07 & \[10-50\] & 5.8 & 1.1E+33 & 0.073 & 9.34\
13 & 20110216 0132 & M1.0 & S22W27 & 1368 & 1072 & 1.5E+06 & \[ 8-40\] & 6.8 & 4.4E+31 & 0.17 & 0.39\
15 & 20110216 1419 & M1.6 & S23W33 & 1692 & 1039 & 1.3E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.9 & 3.8E+31 & 0.17 & 0.21\
16 & 20110218 0955 & M6.6 & S21W55 & 1780 & 6082 & 6.5E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.3 & 5.3E+32 & 0.0080 & 38.49\
18 & 20110218 1259 & M1.4 & S20W70 & 1944 & 1904 & 3.6E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.1 & 2.4E+31 & 0.088 & ...\
19 & 20110218 1400 & M1.0 & N17E04 & 1264 & 432 & 6.4E+05 & \[ 8-20\] & 6.8 & 1.0E+31 & 0.49 & 0.39\
20 & 20110218 2056 & M1.3 & N15E00 & 884 & 1200 & 2.2E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 7.0 & 4.7E+31 & 0.095 & 3.11\
21 & 20110224 0723 & M3.5 & N14E87 & 3332 & 2032 & 5.0E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 4.8 & 2.9E+31 & 0.58 & ...\
22 & 20110228 1238 & M1.1 & N22E35 & 732 & 688 & 1.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.3 & 8.6E+31 & 0.074 & 2.88\
23 & 20110307 0500 & M1.2 & N23W47 & 1340 & 880 & 1.5E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 7.4 & 2.4E+31 & 0.019 & ...\
26 & 20110307 0914 & M1.8 & N27W46 & 348 & 1776 & 1.6E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 4.4 & 1.8E+31 & 0.0093 & ...\
28 & 20110307 1943 & M3.7 & N30W48 & 3196 & 1328 & 6.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.4 & 1.8E+31 & 1.30 & ...\
29 & 20110307 2145 & M1.5 & S17W82 & 1232 & 720 & 1.0E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.4 & 4.0E+31 & 0.038 & ...\
30 & 20110308 0224 & M1.3 & S18W80 & 1460 & 752 & 6.8E+05 & \[ 6-30\] & 7.3 & 3.2E+31 & 0.088 & ...\
31 & 20110308 0337 & M1.5 & S21E72 & 2768 & 108 & 6.5E+05 & \[12-30\] & 3.9 & 2.8E+30 & 4.80 & ...\
33 & 20110308 1808 & M4.4 & S17W88 & 848 & 1712 & 5.6E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.3 & 7.8E+32 & 0.020 & ...\
34 & 20110308 1946 & M1.5 & S19W87 & 6044 & 176 & 1.3E+06 & \[ 6-20\] & 6.3 & 3.7E+31 & 0.17 & ...\
37 & 20110309 2313 & X1.5 & N10W11 & 1660 & 4938 & 8.3E+06 & \[10-40\] & 5.8 & 1.1E+33 & 0.074 & 4.25\
38 & 20110310 2234 & M1.1 & S25W86 & 1588 & 192 & 3.1E+05 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.7 & 4.5E+31 & 0.016 & 0.16\
40 & 20110314 1930 & M4.2 & N16W49 & 2308 & 2988 & 3.3E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 8.2 & 4.1E+32 & 0.021 & ...\
41 & 20110315 0018 & M1.0 & N11W83 & 1500 & 1648 & 7.1E+05 & \[ 8-30\] & 5.0 & 4.6E+30 & 0.077 & ...\
46 & 20110422 0435 & M1.8 & S19E40 & 3124 & 880 & 3.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 1.1E+32 & 0.098 & 2.47\
48 & 20110528 2109 & M1.1 & S21E70 & 2848 & 624 & 2.1E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 7.3 & 1.4E+31 & 0.39 & ...\
49 & 20110529 1008 & M1.4 & S20E64 & 3552 & 448 & 3.5E+06 & \[ 7-25\] & 6.5 & 5.3E+31 & 0.15 & ...\
50 & 20110607 0616 & M2.5 & S22W53 & 3608 & 944 & 5.1E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 3.3 & 1.4E+31 & 1.92 & ...\
51 & 20110614 2136 & M1.3 & N14E77 & 2356 & 688 & 1.7E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 5.3 & 5.5E+31 & 0.13 & ...\
52 & 20110727 1548 & M1.1 & N20E41 & 2004 & 256 & 4.6E+05 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.8 & 6.4E+30 & 1.86 & 0.20\
53 & 20110730 0204 & M9.3 & N16E35 & 1460 & 6115 & 6.5E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.9 & 1.0E+33 & 0.028 & 11.05\
54 & 20110802 0519 & M1.4 & N16W11 & 6208 & 1895 & 3.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.3 & 1.1E+31 & 0.97 & 0.096\
55 & 20110803 0308 & M1.1 & N15W23 & 2760 & 944 & 2.4E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.9 & 3.4E+31 & 0.12 & 1.61\
56 & 20110803 0429 & M1.7 & N16E10 & 1268 & 2160 & 1.6E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.0 & 3.2E+31 & 0.098 & 0.14\
61 & 20110809 0748 & X6.9 & N20W69 & 2256 & 53158 & 7.3E+07 & \[12-40\] & 5.5 & 3.2E+33 & 0.041 & ...\
63 & 20110905 0408 & M1.6 & N18W87 & 1516 & 624 & 2.3E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 6.7 & 1.5E+31 & 0.18 & ...\
64 & 20110905 0727 & M1.2 & N18W87 & 2464 & 624 & 2.0E+06 & \[10-25\] & 11.7 & 3.5E+29 & 3.44 & ...\
65 & 20110906 0135 & M5.3 & N15W03 & 692 & 4724 & 3.9E+06 & \[10-40\] & 6.8 & 3.2E+32 & 0.069 & 2.86\
66 & 20110906 2212 & X2.1 & N16W15 & 1024 & 21072 & 2.3E+07 & \[12-40\] & 5.0 & 7.6E+31 & 0.68 & 0.41\
68 & 20110908 1532 & M6.7 & N17W39 & 1764 & 2439 & 4.7E+06 & \[ 8-25\] & 7.3 & 1.5E+33 & 0.019 & 10.99\
69 & 20110909 0601 & M2.7 & N14W48 & 1644 & 3824 & 6.3E+06 & \[10-40\] & 5.2 & 8.9E+31 & 0.20 & ...\
70 & 20110909 1239 & M1.2 & N15W50 & 408 & 96 & 1.0E+05 & \[ 7-30\] & 5.8 & 9.2E+30 & 0.41 & ...\
71 & 20110910 0718 & M1.1 & N14W64 & 2488 & 688 & 3.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.3 & 4.1E+31 & 0.14 & ...\
73 & 20110922 0953 & M1.1 & N24W55 & 1508 & 624 & 1.3E+06 & \[ 9-30\] & 8.2 & 4.2E+31 & 0.084 & ...\
75 & 20110923 0147 & M1.6 & N24W64 & 1832 & 624 & 2.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.7 & 4.0E+31 & 0.093 & ...\
76 & 20110923 2154 & M1.6 & N12E56 & 2456 & 5616 & 2.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.3 & 4.7E+31 & 0.14 & ...\
77 & 20110923 2348 & M1.9 & N12E56 & 2020 & 1008 & 2.7E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 5.6 & 7.1E+31 & 0.20 & ...\
78 & 20110924 0921 & X1.9 & N13E61 & 3008 & 18653 & 4.4E+07 & \[ 8-50\] & 7.4 & 8.2E+33 & 0.0027 & ...\
81 & 20110924 1719 & M3.1 & N13E54 & 1324 & 2160 & 3.3E+06 & \[ 6-30\] & 5.2 & 1.2E+32 & 0.028 & ...\
83 & 20110924 1909 & M3.0 & N15E50 & 1068 & 1520 & 4.0E+06 & \[ 7-30\] & 5.4 & 1.1E+32 & 0.22 & ...\
84 & 20110924 2029 & M5.8 & N13E52 & 1180 & 5051 & 8.1E+06 & \[ 8-40\] & 6.7 & 2.1E+32 & 0.042 & ...\
86 & 20110924 2345 & M1.0 & S28W66 & 2596 & 336 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.3 & 2.9E+30 & 0.53 & ...\
88 & 20110925 0431 & M7.4 & N13E50 & 3640 & 5462 & 2.7E+07 & \[ 9-30\] & 6.9 & 2.1E+33 & 0.018 & ...\
90 & 20110925 0925 & M1.5 & S28W71 & 2720 & 656 & 2.7E+06 & \[ 7-30\] & 6.9 & 5.2E+31 & 0.074 & ...\
91 & 20110925 1526 & M3.7 & N15E39 & 676 & 1840 & 2.5E+06 & \[ 7-30\] & 6.5 & 2.7E+31 & 0.64 & 0.058\
93 & 20110926 0506 & M4.0 & N15E35 & 572 & 1957 & 2.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.4 & 3.6E+32 & 0.032 & 0.51\
98 & 20111002 0037 & M3.9 & N10W13 & 3696 & 4336 & 9.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.9 & 4.2E+32 & 0.044 & 6.62\
100 & 20111020 0310 & M1.6 & N18W88 & 1044 & 1392 & 3.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.2 & 1.5E+32 & 0.012 & ...\
101 & 20111021 1253 & M1.3 & N05W79 & 760 & 624 & 9.9E+05 & \[ 6-30\] & 5.3 & 9.3E+30 & 0.28 & ...\
103 & 20111031 1455 & M1.1 & N20E88 & 3980 & 1392 & 3.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 1.3E+32 & 0.0070 & ...\
110 & 20111105 0308 & M3.7 & N20E47 & 3752 & 1136 & 9.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.9 & 1.0E+32 & 0.13 & ...\
111 & 20111105 1110 & M1.1 & N22E43 & 2392 & 320 & 9.7E+05 & \[10-30\] & 6.9 & 1.3E+31 & 0.25 & 0.044\
116 & 20111115 0903 & M1.2 & N21W72 & 2448 & 656 & 1.6E+06 & \[ 8-30\] & 6.2 & 2.3E+31 & 0.12 & ...\
120 & 20111226 0213 & M1.5 & S18W34 & 2812 & 624 & 1.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.6 & 6.8E+30 & 1.21 & 0.72\
121 & 20111226 2012 & M2.3 & S18W44 & 1512 & 1456 & 3.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 1.0E+32 & ... & 3.98\
122 & 20111229 1340 & M1.9 & S25E70 & 2368 & 848 & 1.6E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.4 & 2.9E+31 & 0.35 & ...\
123 & 20111229 2143 & M2.0 & S25E67 & 632 & 1008 & 1.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.7 & 8.4E+31 & 0.079 & ...\
125 & 20111231 1309 & M2.4 & S25E46 & 1892 & 1584 & 1.6E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 8.3E+31 & 0.049 & ...\
126 & 20111231 1616 & M1.5 & S22E42 & 1272 & 656 & 9.2E+05 & \[10-30\] & 7.1 & 4.6E+31 & 0.18 & 0.28\
154 & 20120317 2032 & M1.3 & S25W28 & 1236 & 1136 & 8.2E+05 & \[10-25\] & 7.3 & 1.8E+31 & 0.35 & 0.65\
156 & 20120416 1724 & M1.7 & N14E88 & 1932 & 352 & 1.5E+06 & \[10-20\] & 7.5 & 4.0E+31 & 0.37 & ...\
157 & 20120427 0815 & M1.0 & N13W26 & 732 & 528 & 6.4E+05 & \[10-30\] & 6.2 & 2.1E+31 & 0.34 & 4.72\
158 & 20120505 1319 & M1.4 & N11E78 & 200 & 560 & 1.4E+05 & \[10-30\] & 1.6 & 5.5E+30 & 0.71$^*$ & ...\
159 & 20120505 2256 & M1.3 & N11E73 & 624 & 1200 & 9.6E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.8 & 3.8E+31 & 0.091 & ...\
160 & 20120506 0112 & M1.1 & N11E73 & 1684 & 976 & 6.7E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.7 & 1.2E+31 & 0.16 & ...\
163 & 20120508 1302 & M1.4 & N13E46 & 432 & 1264 & 1.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.9 & 1.9E+31 & 0.25 & ...\
167 & 20120510 0411 & M5.7 & N12E19 & 1128 & 3339 & 5.9E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.1 & 2.5E+30 & 7.59 & 0.017\
168 & 20120510 2020 & M1.7 & N12E10 & 1612 & 1712 & 2.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 6.4E+31 & 0.17 & 0.50\
169 & 20120517 0125 & M5.1 & N07W88 & 2708 & 2416 & 1.3E+07 & \[10-30\] & 4.7 & 4.1E+31 & 0.96 & ...\
170 & 20120603 1748 & M3.3 & N15E33 & 852 & 1648 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.2 & 9.0E+29 & 25.04 & 0.020\
173 & 20120609 1645 & M1.8 & S16E76 & 1724 & 1264 & 1.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 6.6E+31 & 0.047 & ...\
176 & 20120614 1252 & M1.9 & S19E06 & 9628 & 880 & 4.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.8 & 2.6E+30 & 1.05$^*$ & 0.008\
178 & 20120629 0913 & M2.2 & N15E37 & 696 & 2160 & 1.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.5 & 2.3E+31 & 0.16 & 0.23\
182 & 20120702 0026 & M1.1 & N15E01 & 1356 & 944 & 1.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.4 & 1.5E+31 & 0.29 & 0.23\
187 & 20120704 0947 & M5.3 & S17W18 & 2416 & 8339 & 9.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.3 & 3.7E+32 & 0.020 & 2.24\
189 & 20120704 1435 & M1.3 & S18W20 & 428 & 320 & 2.7E+05 & \[10-25\] & 2.5 & 2.6E+29 & 11.36 & 0.005\
190 & 20120704 1633 & M1.8 & N14W33 & 828 & 192 & 3.6E+05 & \[10-25\] & 3.2 & 4.8E+29 & 35.19 & 0.017\
195 & 20120705 0325 & M4.7 & S18W29 & 1768 & 4447 & 8.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.6 & 3.5E+32 & 0.017 & 2.09\
196 & 20120705 0649 & M1.1 & S17W29 & 1208 & 912 & 2.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 5.3E+31 & 0.068 & 0.42\
199 & 20120705 1139 & M6.1 & S18W32 & 1056 & 1536 & 1.9E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.4 & 1.8E+31 & 1.12 & 0.14\
200 & 20120705 1305 & M1.2 & S18W36 & 1400 & 80 & 2.8E+05 & \[10-20\] & 1.6 & 2.9E+29 & 30.20 & 0.002\
203 & 20120706 0137 & M2.9 & S18W43 & 2748 & 4300 & 3.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.2 & 3.8E+31 & 0.11 & 0.53\
205 & 20120706 0817 & M1.5 & S12W48 & 1392 & 1392 & 1.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.4 & 4.3E+31 & 0.060 & ...\
208 & 20120706 1848 & M1.3 & S15E88 & 1348 & 256 & 4.0E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.7 & 3.2E+31 & 0.12 & ...\
210 & 20120707 0310 & M1.2 & S17W55 & 1664 & 1200 & 1.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.6 & 5.5E+31 & 0.062 & ...\
211 & 20120707 0818 & M1.0 & S16E76 & 684 & 400 & 8.1E+05 & \[10-30\] & 4.8 & 5.1E+29 & 2.97 & ...\
212 & 20120707 1057 & M2.6 & S17W59 & 520 & 3065 & 3.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 2.0E+32 & 0.025 & ...\
214 & 20120708 0944 & M1.1 & S16W70 & 768 & 784 & 8.7E+05 & \[10-30\] & 7.5 & 1.8E+31 & 0.15 & ...\
215 & 20120708 1206 & M1.4 & S16W72 & 160 & 1712 & 7.9E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.6 & 3.4E+31 & 0.056 & ...\
219 & 20120710 0605 & M2.0 & S16E30 & 1848 & 1456 & 5.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.1 & 1.2E+32 & 0.038 & 0.15\
222 & 20120717 1203 & M1.7 & S20W88 & 20740 & 288 & 6.9E+06 & \[10-25\] & 10.5 & 1.3E+31 & 0.72 & ...\
223 & 20120719 0417 & M7.7 & S20W88 & 8532 & 3696 & 3.0E+07 & \[10-25\] & 5.8 & 2.5E+32 & 0.072 & ...\
228 & 20120806 0433 & M1.6 & S14E88 & 728 & 1264 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.0 & 9.1E+30 & 0.029 & 0.70\
230 & 20120817 1312 & M2.4 & N18E88 & 1512 & 2544 & 2.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.9 & 5.6E+31 & 0.021 & ...\
235 & 20120818 2246 & M1.0 & N18E88 & 1036 & 400 & 7.8E+05 & \[10-25\] & 8.9 & 1.7E+31 & 0.28 & ...\
238 & 20120906 0406 & M1.6 & N04W61 & 2184 & 1456 & 2.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.8 & 3.3E+31 & 0.16 & ...\
241 & 20120930 0427 & M1.3 & N12W81 & 2228 & 1072 & 2.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.9 & 3.8E+31 & 0.0073 & ...\
245 & 20121020 1805 & M9.0 & S12E88 & 2116 & 12304 & 2.0E+07 & \[10-30\] & 6.1 & 8.6E+32 & 0.0089 & ...\
246 & 20121021 1946 & M1.3 & S13E78 & 2124 & 976 & 2.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.1 & 9.3E+31 & 0.060 & ...\
248 & 20121023 0313 & X1.8 & S13E58 & 1380 & 16543 & 2.9E+07 & \[10-25\] & 7.0 & 2.5E+33 & 0.0046 & ...\
251 & 20121112 2313 & M2.0 & S25E48 & 2124 & 1840 & 3.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.8 & 9.1E+31 & 0.044 & ...\
253 & 20121113 0542 & M2.5 & S26E44 & 1396 & 2288 & 3.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.6 & 9.1E+31 & 0.072 & 0.83\
255 & 20121114 0359 & M1.1 & S23E27 & 1352 & 720 & 6.3E+05 & \[10-30\] & 3.9 & 2.8E+29 & 6.36 & 0.007\
256 & 20121120 1236 & M1.7 & N10E22 & 840 & 1200 & 9.7E+05 & \[10-30\] & 3.5 & 1.0E+30 & 0.15 & 0.048\
257 & 20121120 1921 & M1.6 & N10E19 & 372 & 1072 & 5.4E+05 & \[10-30\] & 4.9 & 2.4E+30 & 1.45 & 0.077\
258 & 20121121 0645 & M1.4 & N10E12 & 932 & 1136 & 2.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 2.5E+31 & 0.25 & 0.43\
261 & 20121127 2105 & M1.0 & S13W42 & 1668 & 720 & 9.2E+05 & \[10-30\] & 7.3 & 3.0E+31 & 0.075 & 0.71\
262 & 20121128 2120 & M2.2 & S12W56 & 3044 & 1776 & 4.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.6 & 6.8E+31 & 0.18 & ...\
264 & 20130111 0843 & M1.2 & N05E42 & 1180 & 880 & 2.0E+06 & \[10-25\] & 7.0 & 4.8E+31 & 0.066 & 0.24\
266 & 20130113 0045 & M1.0 & N18W15 & 764 & 1264 & 6.6E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 1.1E+31 & 0.17$^*$ & 0.53\
268 & 20130217 1545 & M1.9 & N12E23 & 620 & 3312 & 1.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.2 & 8.2E+30 & 0.12 & 0.45\
271 & 20130321 2142 & M1.6 & N09W88 & 3516 & 560 & 3.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.3 & 1.7E+31 & 0.50 & ...\
273 & 20130411 0655 & M6.5 & N11E13 & 1076 & 2160 & 2.8E+06 & \[10-25\] & 4.9 & 2.1E+31 & 1.90 & 0.42\
274 & 20130412 1952 & M3.3 & N21W47 & 2012 & 2928 & 6.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.5 & 1.5E+32 & 0.094 & ...\
276 & 20130502 0458 & M1.1 & N10W19 & 2380 & 448 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.1 & 5.6E+29 & 7.36 & 0.009\
277 & 20130503 1639 & M1.3 & N11W38 & 2872 & 649 & 2.3E+05 & \[10-30\] & 4.5 & 2.3E+30 & 0.37 & 0.16\
278 & 20130503 1724 & M5.7 & N15E83 & 1316 & 3696 & 1.2E+07 & \[10-30\] & 6.1 & 2.7E+32 & 0.061 & ...\
283 & 20130512 2237 & M1.2 & N10E89 & 1872 & 1067 & 4.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.2 & 2.4E+31 & 0.18 & ...\
284 & 20130513 0153 & X1.7 & N11E89 & 2496 & 13151 & 8.2E+07 & \[10-30\] & 6.3 & 6.8E+33 & 0.0033 & ...\
285 & 20130513 1157 & M1.3 & N10E89 & 1048 & 1264 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.6 & 7.6E+31 & 0.012 & ...\
286 & 20130513 1548 & X2.8 & N08E89 & 1032 & 33601 & 7.3E+07 & \[12-50\] & 3.3 & 1.1E+31 & 6.19 & ...\
288 & 20130515 0125 & X1.2 & N10E68 & 3524 & 8656 & 3.9E+07 & \[10-25\] & 6.4 & 1.5E+33 & 0.026 & ...\
289 & 20130516 2136 & M1.3 & N11E40 & 1280 & 624 & 1.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 9.8 & 3.7E+30 & 0.96 & 0.17\
291 & 20130520 0516 & M1.7 & N09E89 & 1380 & 592 & 1.6E+06 & \[10-25\] & 6.8 & 3.6E+31 & 0.096 & ...\
292 & 20130522 1308 & M5.0 & N14W87 & 3248 & 1328 & 1.1E+07 & \[10-30\] & 4.4 & 1.3E+31 & 1.65 & ...\
293 & 20130531 1952 & M1.0 & N12E42 & 1060 & 336 & 5.9E+05 & \[10-30\] & 6.7 & 4.5E+30 & 1.06 & 2.97\
296 & 20130621 0230 & M2.9 & S14E73 & 5068 & 912 & 3.7E+06 & \[10-25\] & 7.4 & 1.2E+32 & 0.12 & ...\
297 & 20130623 2048 & M2.9 & S18E63 & 1132 & 2160 & 2.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.1 & 3.0E+31 & 0.028 & ...\
298 & 20130703 0700 & M1.5 & S14E82 & 1548 & 1008 & 1.9E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.1 & 2.1E+31 & 0.26 & ...\
299 & 20130812 1021 & M1.5 & S21E17 & 1536 & 976 & 2.2E+06 & \[10-25\] & 6.5 & 8.5E+31 & 0.071 & 5.07\
303 & 20131011 0701 & M1.5 & N21E87 & 1124 & 688 & 8.2E+05 & \[10-30\] & 4.7 & 5.1E+30 & 0.14 & ...\
304 & 20131013 0012 & M1.7 & S22E17 & 1416 & 400 & 8.7E+05 & \[ 8-25\] & 5.5 & 2.0E+31 & 0.35 & 0.25\
306 & 20131015 2331 & M1.3 & S21W22 & 1720 & 912 & 1.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.8 & 2.0E+31 & 0.19 & 0.52\
307 & 20131017 1509 & M1.2 & S09W63 & 1696 & 352 & 2.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.7 & 5.1E+30 & 1.11 & ...\
308 & 20131022 0014 & M1.0 & N08E20 & 1068 & 752 & 1.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.8 & 5.1E+31 & 0.073 & 0.34\
311 & 20131023 2041 & M2.7 & N08W06 & 3368 & 1904 & 5.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.2 & 1.9E+31 & 0.33 & 0.11\
312 & 20131023 2333 & M1.4 & N09W08 & 2000 & 1136 & 1.4E+06 & \[10-35\] & 5.2 & 1.5E+30 & 2.84 & 0.004\
313 & 20131023 2358 & M3.1 & N09W09 & 1452 & 2416 & 6.6E+06 & \[10-25\] & 7.9 & 3.7E+31 & 0.20 & 0.25\
317 & 20131025 0248 & M2.9 & S07E76 & 3164 & 1840 & 5.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.8 & 7.0E+31 & 0.16 & ...\
318 & 20131025 0753 & X1.7 & S08E73 & 676 & 10409 & 1.1E+07 & \[10-25\] & 9.0 & 3.4E+33 & 0.0032 & ...\
320 & 20131025 1451 & X2.1 & S06E69 & 3568 & 16678 & 6.5E+07 & \[10-25\] & 10.8 & 3.4E+32 & 0.072 & ...\
321 & 20131025 1702 & M1.3 & S08E67 & 2052 & 847 & 3.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.2 & 8.8E+30 & 0.28 & ...\
324 & 20131026 0559 & M2.3 & S08E59 & 1880 & 2032 & 3.4E+06 & \[10-20\] & 4.9 & 1.4E+31 & 0.24 & ...\
325 & 20131026 0917 & M1.5 & S08E59 & 1060 & 320 & 6.5E+05 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 4.3E+30 & 0.67 & ...\
326 & 20131026 1048 & M1.8 & S06E59 & 1176 & 320 & 1.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.3 & 5.5E+31 & 0.14 & ...\
328 & 20131026 1949 & M1.0 & S08E51 & 1940 & 272 & 6.2E+05 & \[10-25\] & 6.6 & 1.4E+30 & 0.60 & ...\
330 & 20131028 0141 & X1.0 & N05W72 & 2376 & 9863 & 3.1E+07 & \[10-20\] & 6.9 & 1.9E+32 & 0.12 & ...\
332 & 20131028 1132 & M1.4 & S14W46 & 3956 & 309 & 2.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.6 & 5.0E+31 & 0.11 & ...\
334 & 20131028 1446 & M2.7 & S08E27 & 2600 & 2288 & 8.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.5 & 1.3E+32 & 0.24 & 2.53\
336 & 20131028 2048 & M1.5 & N07W83 & 1748 & 1200 & 1.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.0 & 4.9E+31 & 0.037 & ...\
340 & 20131102 2213 & M1.6 & S12W12 & 768 & 1200 & 1.6E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.4 & 6.4E+31 & 0.037 & 0.73\
343 & 20131105 1808 & M1.0 & S12E47 & 1124 & 688 & 8.2E+05 & \[10-30\] & 6.1 & 1.2E+31 & 0.12 & ...\
345 & 20131106 1339 & M3.8 & S09E35 & 1936 & 2928 & 6.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.0 & 1.1E+32 & 0.043 & 0.64\
347 & 20131107 0334 & M2.3 & S08E26 & 1436 & 1776 & 1.7E+06 & \[10-25\] & 5.1 & 4.8E+31 & 0.15 & 0.13\
351 & 20131110 0508 & X1.1 & S11W17 & 3284 & 9303 & 1.3E+07 & \[10-30\] & 8.0 & 1.3E+33 & 0.043 & 4.95\
352 & 20131111 1101 & M2.4 & S17E74 & 3068 & 1264 & 6.6E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.3 & 2.3E+32 & 0.032 & ...\
353 & 20131113 1457 & M1.4 & S20E46 & 1400 & 592 & 1.3E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.1 & 4.1E+31 & 0.25 & ...\
354 & 20131115 0220 & M1.0 & N07E53 & 1252 & 656 & 9.0E+05 & \[10-30\] & 6.9 & 4.5E+31 & 0.086 & ...\
357 & 20131117 0506 & M1.0 & S19W41 & 1208 & 592 & 5.4E+05 & \[10-25\] & 7.0 & 2.4E+31 & 0.025 & 0.20\
359 & 20131121 1052 & M1.2 & S14W89 & 1248 & 448 & 2.1E+06 & \[10-25\] & 5.7 & 3.5E+31 & 0.040 & ...\
360 & 20131123 0220 & M1.1 & N13W58 & 2584 & 432 & 1.6E+06 & \[10-30\] & 4.1 & 8.2E+31 & 0.034 & ...\
363 & 20131219 2306 & M3.5 & S16E89 & 2304 & 2160 & 5.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 7.0 & 2.8E+32 & 0.055 & ...\
364 & 20131220 1135 & M1.6 & S16E78 & 4272 & 336 & 2.1E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.3 & 9.6E+30 & 0.37 & ...\
365 & 20131222 0805 & M1.9 & S17W51 & 1788 & 1776 & 2.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 8.2 & 4.2E+31 & 0.054 & ...\
366 & 20131222 0833 & M1.1 & S17W52 & 1956 & 320 & 5.9E+05 & \[10-25\] & 5.8 & 8.4E+30 & 0.32 & ...\
367 & 20131222 1424 & M1.6 & S16E44 & 2532 & 416 & 1.7E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.3 & 5.1E+31 & 0.14 & 0.79\
368 & 20131222 1506 & M3.3 & S17W55 & 1328 & 1968 & 3.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.4 & 3.0E+31 & 0.37 & ...\
377 & 20140103 1241 & M1.0 & S04E52 & 1000 & 30 & 9.5E+04 & \[10-30\] & 3.6 & 2.0E+29 & 5.44 & ...\
379 & 20140104 1016 & M1.3 & S05E49 & 2888 & 400 & 2.0E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 2.0E+31 & 0.23 & ...\
382 & 20140107 0349 & M1.0 & N07E07 & 1432 & 880 & 8.1E+05 & \[10-25\] & 7.3 & 2.9E+31 & 0.051 & 0.39\
383 & 20140107 1007 & M7.2 & S13E13 & 2000 & 7967 & 2.8E+07 & \[16-30\] & 8.7 & 2.4E+33 & 0.0076 & 4.47\
385 & 20140108 0339 & M3.6 & N11W88 & 2016 & 2672 & 4.4E+06 & \[10-30\] & 5.4 & 1.5E+32 & 0.0057 & ...\
386 & 20140113 2148 & M1.3 & S08W75 & 660 & 1456 & 7.8E+05 & \[10-25\] & 8.3 & 3.4E+31 & 0.013 & ...\
387 & 20140127 0105 & M1.0 & S16E88 & 2860 & 272 & 1.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 3.3 & 4.5E+29 & 10.74 & ...\
389 & 20140127 2205 & M4.9 & S14E88 & 1880 & 4129 & 5.8E+06 & \[10-30\] & 9.8 & 2.6E+32 & 0.0064 & ...\
393 & 20140128 1233 & M1.3 & S15E79 & 1708 & 560 & 1.2E+06 & \[10-30\] & 9.1 & 1.7E+31 & 0.020 & ...\
395 & 20140128 2204 & M2.6 & S14E74 & 1112 & 1968 & 2.5E+06 & \[10-30\] & 6.5 & 1.3E+32 & 0.0055 & ...\
