The differences between static models and those with velocities are mainly in the emergent intensities. Including the velocities in the NLTE model calculations affects also the level populations as the velocity appears in radiative rates evaluation (Eqs. (7 (click here)), (8 (click here)), (9 (click here))).

Figures 2 (click here), 3 (click here), 4 (click here) and 5 (click here) show the line profiles and departures of the level populations from the static case . The lefthand columns contain the profiles for each model together with the static and therefore symmetric profiles. The right-hand columns plot the population departures of the first three levels and protons only for the model with the highest velocity (i.e. for the velocity parameter ), because the population departures for models with lower velocity have the same structure and only their amplitudes are lower. This indicates that a velocity increase amplifies the population departures from static case without changing their height structure. For models with velocities , which is approximately the velocity of thermal motions, the differences rarely exceed 5%, maximum 10%. To reproduce an observed asymmetry for velocities that are close to the thermal velocity, one can use the static model and perform the formal solution of radiative transfer equation with line absorption shifts caused by the macroscopic velocity. Figure 6 (click here) shows the line for F1 gradient models m10 and m50. While for the model m10 the emergent line intensities computed using static population and using the right ones are identical, those for model m50 are different.

For almost all computed models the level populations depart from the static case in two regions. Only the models with non-zero velocities in lower heights have these two regions identical. The first region corresponds to the height of the moving material and therefore depends on the model, while the second one is model-independent and lies in the heights with . The common feature of all models is an overpopulation of the first level and under-population of the second and third level in the moving material.

The collisional rates are the same for the static model as well as for
models with velocities as their temperature structure is identical.
Thus all differences are due to changes in the radiative rates caused
by the shift of the absorption coefficient in the moving material.
To find out the changes in the radiation field we selected the layer model
in the upper part of the chromosphere with velocity parameter
and F1 temperature structure,
where these two regions are clearly seen. For this model we computed
the specific intensity in the , and
lines for all depths and for upward and downward directions (i.e. for
and -1) and divided it by the corresponding intensity from the
static model. Obtained intensity departures (Fig. 7 (click here)) show
that incoming radiation () plays a crucial role in the atmosphere.
In the moving layer (, the wing-line intensity increases by a factor of 10^{4}, while in the
wing of the Lyman lines it is 10^{3} times. This depopulates the second
level (with respect to the static case) and, via , overpopulates
first level. The incoming line intensities look different in the middle
region. The wing-intensity of the line exhibits the largest
increase, 200 times, in the line, 100 times, while the
intensity in increases only 10 times. This force electrons
leave the first level and overpopulate the third level. To summarize, the
changes of the populations are connected with the increase of the lines
intensities. The amount
of these changes depends on the ratio of the intensity increases in different
lines. If the increase dominates for the resonance lines, the ground level
becomes underpopulated and the upper levels overpopulated. If the intensity
increase of subordinate lines is stronger, under-population appears in the
upper levels while the ground level is now overpopulated.

**Figure 6:** line computed using static (dotted line) and dynamic
(solid line) populations
for F1 gradient m10 (upper) and m50 (lower) models

Line asymmetries arise as a result of changes in the optical depth scale for different line frequencies due to shift of the line absorption coefficient. The emergent intensity is approximately equal to the source function at optical depth . From the computations we performed it follows that the shift of the line absorption coefficient in the moving material causes a substantial increase of the opacity in the line wing. Height corresponding to moves up to heights with a different source function. The value of the source function determines whether the emergent intensity will be higher or lower than for the static case.

It should be noted that the line intensity in the blue wing does not differ from the static case because the optical depth scale for the blue wing frequencies remains unaffected. This leads us to the conclusion that if the velocities in the flare atmosphere have downward direction, the moving material influences only the red wing of the lines. The same statement holds for upward velocities and the blue wing. Whether the line asymmetry will be blue or red depends on the run of the source function in the atmosphere.

Figure 8 (click here) shows the run of the outgoing line intensity with height for some models. The asymmetry of the outgoing line intensity always arises at heights where the velocities become significant, i.e. comparable to the thermal velocity. For layer models it is in the moving layer where the line asymmetry increases and reaches its maximum at the top of the layer. The line asymmetry for the gradient models increases with height as the velocity increases and reaches its maximum at the top of the atmosphere.

The source function of for static F1 model *decreases* with height.
The asymmetric line profiles of F1 models with velocities show
the blue asymmetry because the red-wing intensity is lowered. In F1 layer
models, the moving region appears in the profile as a self-absorption dip
with central wavelength corresponding to the velocity in the layer.
For F1 gradient models red wing exhibits an intensity decrease
that extends from the line center up to the wavelength corresponding to the maximum
velocity of the material on top of the atmosphere.

The source function of line for static F2 models *increases*
with depth and falls down at the top of the atmosphere. blue
asymmetry for F2 upper and middle layer models is caused by the shift of
the optical depth towards the heights where the source function
drops. The same mechanism holds for line F2 gradient models
with velocity parameter *V*_{0} 10 and .
for F2 gradient models with velocity parameter exhibits a red asymmetry because the optical depth for wavelengths moves up where the source
function is larger than in the static case.

**Figure 7:** , and line intensity
departures for incoming radiation for F1 layer u50 model

**Figure 8:** The line intensity with outward direction () as a
function of the optical depth for F1 layer m50 (upper left), F1 gradient m50
(upper right), F2 layer m50 (lower left) and F2 gradient m50
(lower right) models