Comments on the 'minimum flux corona' concept

Hearn's (1975) models of the energy balance and mass loss of stellar coronae, based on a 'minimum flux corona' concept, are critically examined. First, it is shown that the neglect of the relevant length scales for coronal temperature variation leads to an inconsistent computation of the total energy flux F. The stability arguments upon which the minimum flux concept is based are shown to be fallacious. Errors in the computation of the stellar wind contribution to the energy budget are identified. Finally we criticize Hearn's (1977) suggestion that the model, with a value of the thermal conductivity modified by the magnetic field, can explain the difference between solar coronal holes and quiet coronal regions.