Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

NICER observes a secondary peak in the decay of a thermonuclear burst from 4U 1608-52

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read NICER's soft X-ray view of a thermonuclear burst from 4U 1608-52 shows a secondary peak and a dip in bolometric flux, ruling out photospheric expansion, absorption, and scattering as causes, implying the double-peaked structure is…

desk verdict A robust first detection of a soft-X-ray secondary peak in a 4U 1608-52 burst, with an absorption exclusion that needs a quantified upper limit before the intrinsic interpretation is fully persuasive. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03373 v1 pith:VLP7Z2B6 submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Gaurava K. Jaisawal , Jérôme Chenevez , Peter Bult , J. J. M. in 't Zand , Duncan K. Galloway , Tod E. Strohmayer , Tolga Güver , Phillip Adkins
show 9 more authors
Diego Altamirano Zaven Arzoumanian Deepto Chakrabarty Jonathan Coopersmith Keith C. Gendreau Sebastien Guillot Laurens Keek Renee M. Ludlam Christian Malacaria
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords thermonuclearX-rayburststypeIneutronstars4U1608-52double-peakedburstphotosphericradiusexpansionNICERaccretiondisks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using soft X-ray data from the NICER mission, this paper examines an unusually strong thermonuclear burst from the neutron star 4U 1608-52 whose light curve shows a brief dip and then a second peak as it fades. The authors show that the dip is present in the bolometric flux, not just in a limited energy band, and that it arrives after the peak blackbody temperature, ruling out the usual explanations: photospheric radius expansion, variable absorption, or scattering. They conclude that the double-peaked structure is intrinsic to the thermonuclear burning on the stellar surface, and discuss stalled flame spreading, re-burning of fuel, and nuclear waiting points as mechanisms. The result matters because similar double-peaked bursts have previously been attributed to instrument bandpass effects or absorbing material, and soft X-ray coverage now lets those alternatives be tested directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the variable persistent flux spectral model, TBabs x (bbodyrad + fa x persistent), applied to 63 time-resolved spectra of the burst. It separates the burst's own blackbody emission from a scalar multiple of the pre-burst persistent accretion spectrum, allowing the blackbody temperature, radius, and bolometric flux to be tracked independently of changes in the persistent level. The key comparison is the bolometric light curve, which keeps the dip even after the persistent component is removed, together with the 0.75 s time offset between the temperature maximum and the flux minimum. That offset, plus the absence of any absorption improvement in a 0.7 s dip spectrum, is what rules out photospheric expansion and obscuration and points to the burning itself.

What would settle it

If a future observation of a similar burst with higher count rate at the dip shows an absorption feature or a variable column density, or if allowing the persistent spectral shape to evolve removes the bolometric dip, then the intrinsic-burning claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the first detection below 1.5 keV of a secondary peak in an Eddington-limited thermonuclear burst from 4U 1608-52. Time-resolved spectroscopy with a variable persistent flux model, TBabs x (bbodyrad + fa x persistent), describes the burst as a cooling blackbody plus a scaled version of the pre-burst accretion spectrum; the scale factor fa rises to about 13 at the first peak and returns to unity within about nine seconds. The bolometric flux shows the same dip as the count-rate light curve, at about 3.5 sigma significance, and the dip trails the maximum blackbody temperature (about 3.2 keV) by roughly 0.75 seconds. Because the dip appears in bolometric flux and is offset from the temperature peak, and because absorption models do not improve the fit, the authors argue that the feature is astrophysical and intrinsic, not an artifact of the passband, photospheric expansion, or obscuration. They interpret the second peak as enhanced emission in the cooling tail, possibly from stalled thermonuclear flame spreading or re-burning of fresh or leftover fuel.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the persistent emission from the accretion flow keeps the same spectral shape during the burst and only changes in brightness, so any change in its shape would be misattributed to the burst itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Double-peaked structure in a non-PRE burst can reflect the nuclear burning process itself, so future bursts with dips should not be assumed to be PRE or absorption events.
  • The variable persistent flux method is required for NICER burst spectroscopy: a fixed persistent spectrum fails to fit the peak, and fa traces the burst's effect on the accretion flow, returning to unity within about nine seconds.
  • The 0.75 s lag between the temperature maximum and the bolometric dip provides a timing signature that can be searched for in other bursts.
  • Models of thermonuclear flame spreading and re-burning now have a concrete event with measured temperature and flux evolution to reproduce.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If similar intrinsic double peaks show up in other NICER bursts, the fraction of such events could be measured and compared with accretion state; the burst here occurred in the lower banana branch, suggesting a state dependence worth testing.
  • The simultaneous drop of fa and bolometric flux at the dip hints that disk reprocessing responds to the burst intensity; reflection and irradiation modeling of the dip could separate this response from photospheric changes, a test the paper does not perform.
  • The observed 0.75 s lag may carry information about the speed of a stalled burning front across the neutron star surface; combining future burst oscillation searches with the lag could yield a propagation speed estimate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a NICER observation of a double-peaked type-I X-ray burst from 4U 1608-52 on 2017 September 28, claimed to be the first detection of such a secondary peak below 1.5 keV. The 0.3-12 keV light curve shows a primary peak, a dip, and a secondary peak about 5 s later, and the re-brightening appears in soft and hard bands. Time-resolved spectroscopy is performed with an absorbed blackbody plus a variable persistent component, TBabs × (bbodyrad + fa × persistent), with fa a free scaling factor. The authors report that the blackbody temperature reaches a maximum of about 3 keV before the dip, that the bolometric 0.1-100 keV flux shows a dip at (8.8±0.3)×10^-8 erg s^-1 cm^-2 with 3.5σ significance, and that the dip is offset from the temperature maximum by about 0.75 s. On this basis they argue that the dip is not due to photospheric radius expansion and that fits with partial-covering or ionized absorption models give no evidence for absorption; they conclude that the double-peaked structure is intrinsic to the thermonuclear burning and discuss flame spreading, re-burning, and rp-process waiting-point scenarios.

Significance. If the intrinsic interpretation is correct, this is a rare low-energy observation of a double-peaked, non-PRE burst whose bolometric flux genuinely dips, making it a useful test for flame-spreading and re-burning models. The paper's strengths are the NICER soft-energy coverage, the time-resolved spectral decomposition with a variable persistent component, the explicit time-offset argument against PRE, and the comparison with earlier EXOSAT and RXTE events. The analysis uses standard public data and widely used spectral fitting tools, and the presentation of the light curve and spectral evolution is clear. The main weakness is that the paper's central exclusion of absorption/scattering and its claim that the dip is intrinsic rest on a null spectral test without reported upper limits and on a scalar fa model of the persistent emission, so the conclusions are currently stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The claim that the dip is not caused by absorption or scattering rests on a null result: fitting pcfabs, wndabs, and zxipcf to a single 0.7 s dip spectrum is described only as "not significantly better" and "no evidence for increased absorption," with no upper limit reported on the additional column density or on the partial-covering fraction. The bolometric dip is a roughly 37% drop in flux (from 1.4×10^-7 to 8.8×10^-8 erg s^-1 cm^-2), so an absorbing/scattering medium capable of producing it would be optically thick at the relevant energies; the absence of a statistically significant Δχ² improvement from one short spectrum is not a quantitative exclusion. Please report 90% or 95% confidence upper limits on the added NH (and on the covering fraction where applicable) for each absorption model, and adjust the Section 4 statement that "absorption/scattering of X-ray photons is not a satisfying solution" to match the actual constraint.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figures 5-6] The central interpretation assumes that the persistent emission during the burst is exactly the pre-burst spectrum multiplied by a single scalar factor fa. If the persistent component changes spectral shape during the burst, for example through disk irradiation or reflection, the inferred blackbody temperature, radius, and the decomposition of the bolometric flux shown in Figure 6 can all be biased. The manuscript acknowledges the degeneracy in theoretical modeling (Worpel et al. 2015; Degenaar et al. 2018) but then concludes in Section 4 that the dip is intrinsic to the nuclear burning. Please state explicitly whether the blackbody component alone shows a dip and a secondary peak; if it does not, the bolometric dip is not independent of the fa model, and the intrinsic-burning conclusion should be softened or supported with a test that allows the persistent component's spectral shape to vary. The sentence "Such a drop can also be seen in the evolving persistent level" makes this ambiguity concrete and should be clarified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The hard color (HC) and soft color (SC) are defined with the same band ratio "(1.1-2.0)/(0.5-1.1) keV" in the caption; the hard color should presumably be (3.8-6.8)/(2.0-3.8) keV as stated in the main text.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments contain a garbled phrase "Marie Sk/suppress lodowska-Curie"; this should read "Marie Skłodowska-Curie."
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption does not identify which line or symbol style corresponds to the blackbody, persistent, and bolometric fluxes; please add that information so the reader can follow the time evolution of each component.
  4. [Section 3.1] The paper quotes a 3.5σ significance for the bolometric dip but does not quantify the significance of the dip in the 0.3-12 keV count-rate light curve; reporting the significance relative to a smooth decay model would strengthen the detection claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; this is an observational analysis whose conclusion is an interpretation of the data, not a quantity forced by the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper reports a NICER observation of a double-peaked thermonuclear burst and fits time-resolved spectra with a blackbody plus a scaled persistent-emission component. The central claim, that the dip and secondary peak are intrinsic to the thermonuclear burning rather than caused by photospheric expansion, absorption, or scattering, is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The dip is directly visible in the count-rate light curve, and the bolometric flux dip is a separately derived spectral quantity; neither is defined in terms of the conclusion. The variable persistent flux method is taken from Worpel et al. (2013, 2015), independent published work, and the scale factor fa is a freely fitted nuisance parameter, not the discovery claim. The exclusion of absorption and scattering rests on null detections in a single 0.7 s spectrum, and the skeptic correctly notes that no upper limit on the additional column density is reported; however, that is a limitation in statistical sensitivity and evidentiary strength, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: citations to NICER team publications are for instrument response, calibration, and prior burst phenomenology, and they do not supply the interpretation by definition. Accordingly, the analysis is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is an observational detection, so the ledger is dominated by standard spectral modeling assumptions rather than new postulates. The key fitted parameters (fa, kT, normalization) are standard in burst spectroscopy; the fa model is the main assumption that shapes the interpretation.

free parameters (4)
  • fa (persistent flux scaling factor) = varies up to ~13; returns to ~1 in ~9 s
    Fitted in the variable persistent flux model; controls the decomposition of the burst spectrum into blackbody and persistent components throughout the burst (Figure 5).
  • Blackbody temperature kT_bb = peaks at ~3.2 +/- 0.4 keV
    Fitted per time interval; its time evolution (max before the dip) is used to argue against photospheric expansion as the cause of the dip.
  • Blackbody normalization / radius R_bb = max ~12 +/- 2 km at assumed distance 4 kpc
    Fitted per interval; used to estimate photospheric expansion and infer limited PRE.
  • Interstellar column density N_H = (0.98 +/- 0.03) x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted to the persistent spectrum and fixed for burst spectra; part of the absorption model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Burst emission can be modeled as a blackbody plus a scaled persistent spectrum
    Section 3.3; the variable persistent flux method from Worpel et al. 2013 underlies all spectral fits; the paper notes degeneracy with atmospheric and reflection effects.
  • domain assumption The persistent spectrum shape remains constant during the burst and only its normalization changes
    Section 3.3; fa scaling is applied to the fixed pre-burst model; no spectral shape evolution is allowed.
  • domain assumption The interstellar absorption column from the persistent phase applies to the burst emission
    Section 3.3; N_H is fixed at the persistent value when fitting burst spectra.
  • domain assumption NICER count rates are not affected by pile-up or dead-time in a way that creates the dip
    Not discussed in the paper; at 9840 c/s the effect is likely small but unquantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NICER observes a secondary peak in the decay of a thermonuclear burst from 4U 1608-52." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLP7Z2B6

@misc{pith2026190803373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NICER observes a secondary peak in the decay of a thermonuclear burst from 4U 1608-52},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLP7Z2B6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03373}
}
abstract

We report for the first time below 1.5 keV, the detection of a secondary peak in an Eddington-limited thermonuclear X-ray burst observed by the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) from the low-mass X-ray binary 4U 1608-52. Our time-resolved spectroscopy of the burst is consistent with a model consisting of a varying-temperature blackbody, and an evolving persistent flux contribution, likely attributed to the accretion process. The dip in the burst intensity before the secondary peak is also visible in the bolometric flux. Prior to the dip, the blackbody temperature reached a maximum of $\approx3$ keV. Our analysis suggests that the dip and secondary peak are not related to photospheric expansion, varying circumstellar absorption, or scattering. Instead, we discuss the observation in the context of hydrodynamical instabilities, thermonuclear flame spreading models, and re-burning in the cooling tail of the burst.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Burst light curve observed with NICER at 0.1 s resolution. A re-brightening is detected at all energies ≃5 s after the primary peak. The pre-burst count rate (horizontal line) is ∼226 c s−1 in the 0.3–12 keV band. The segments I, II, and III represent broad time spans used for time-resolved spectroscopy at the first peak, second peak, and in the decay part of the burst, respectively. photons (see, e.g. Done et al. 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NICER spectrum from the persistent emission prior to the burst. In the top panel the 0.3–10 keV energy spectrum is well described by an absorbed disk-blackbody plus a power-law model. Spectral residuals corresponding to the best fitting model are shown in the bottom panel. 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 HC (3.8−6.8 keV/2−3.8 keV keV) SC (1.1−2 keV/0.5−1.1 keV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NICER color-color diagram of 4U 1608–52 ob￾served between 2017 June and 2019 April. The soft color (SC) is defined as the ratio of count rates in the (1.1– 2.0)/(0.5–1.1) keV energy bands, whereas the hard color (HC) is from the ratio of count rates in the (1.1–2.0)/(0.5– 1.1) keV energy bands. Each point indicates a binning time of 128 s with a typical error bars as shown in the right cor￾ner of the figure. The pos… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 0.3–10 keV NICER spectrum obtained from a 1 s time interval at the burst peak. The best-fitting model, shown in the top panel, comprises an absorbed black￾body along with scaled pre-burst (persistent) emission. The middle panel shows the residuals corresponding to …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the 0.1-100 keV bolometric, black￾body, and persistent fluxes during the burst. The vertical line shows the time when the dip occurs in the light curve, while the horizontal line marks the pre-burst flux level. preliminary analysis, we find variation in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of spectral parameters obtained from burst time-resolved spectroscopy. The top panel shows the burst light curve at 0.05 s time resolution. The vertical dot￾ted line marks the minimum of the dip feature. The sec￾ond, third, fourth and fifth panels show the te…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 117

    Asai, K., Matsuoka, M., Mihara, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 117

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Bagnoli, T., in’t Zand, J. J. M., Patruno, A., & Watts, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2790

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Ballantyne, D. R. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 57

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    D., Conner, J

    Belian, R. D., Conner, J. P., & Evans, W. D. 1976, ApJL, 206, L135

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharyya, S., & Strohmayer, T. E. 2006, ApJL, 636, L121

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJL, 860, L9

    Bult, P., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2018, ApJL, 860, L9

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    2011, ApJL, 740, L8

    Cavecchi, Y., Patruno, A., Haskell, B., et al. 2011, ApJL, 740, L8

    work page 2011

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2012, ApJL, 752, L34

    Chen, Y.-P., Zhang, S., Zhang, S.-N., Li, J., & Wang, J.-M. 2012, ApJL, 752, L34

    2012

  2. [10]

    R., Belloni, T., et al

    Degenaar, N., Ballantyne, D. R., Belloni, T., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 15

    2018

  3. [11]

    2007, A&A Rv , 15, 1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv , 15, 1

    2007

  4. [12]

    1983, PASJ, 35, 17

    Ebisuzaki, T., Hanawa, T., & Sugimoto, D. 1983, PASJ, 35, 17

    1983

  5. [13]

    L., Thielemann, F.-K., & Wiescher, M

    Fisker, J. L., Thielemann, F.-K., & Wiescher, M. 2004, ApJL, 608, L61

    2004

  6. [14]

    Witry, J. W. L. 2018, ApJL, 867, L28

    2018

  7. [15]

    Y., & Gottwald, M

    Fujimoto, M. Y., & Gottwald, M. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 545

    1989

  8. [16]

    1988, A&A, 199, L9

    Paradijs, J. 1988, A&A, 199, L9

    1988

  9. [17]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2017, ArXiv e-prints , arXiv:1712.06227 [astro-ph.HE] , ads

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    K., Muno, M

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360

    2008

  11. [19]

    2017, Nature Astronomy , 1, 895

    Gendreau, K., & Arzoumanian, Z. 2017, Nature Astronomy , 1, 895

    2017

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    Gendreau, K. C., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 99051H

    2016

  13. [21]

    1976, ApJL, 209, L61

    Grindlay, J., & Gursky, H. 1976, ApJL, 209, L61

    1976

  14. [22]

    E., & Liller, W

    Grindlay, J. E., & Liller, W. 1978, ApJL, 220, L127 8 Jaisawal et al. G¨ uver, T.,¨Ozel, F., Cabrera-Lavers, A., & Wroblewski, P. 2010, ApJ, 712, 964

    1978

  15. [23]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 47

    He, C.-C., & Keek, L. 2016, ApJ, 819, 47

    2016

  16. [24]

    A., & Sunyaev, R

    Inogamov, N. A., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1999, Astronomy Letters , 25, 269 in’t Zand, J. J. M., Galloway, D. K., Marshall, H. L., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A83

    1999

  17. [25]

    B., Radeva, Y., et al

    Jahoda, K., Markwardt, C. B., Radeva, Y., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 401

    2006

  18. [26]

    Kajava, J. J. E., Koljonen, K. I. I., N¨ attil¨ a, J., Suleimanov, V., & Poutanen, J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 78

    2017

  19. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 113

    Keek, L., & Heger, A. 2017, ApJ, 842, 113

    2017

  20. [28]

    Keek, L., in’t Zand, J. J. M., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 479, 177

    2008

  21. [29]

    R., in’t Zand, J

    Kuulkers, E., den Hartog, P. R., in’t Zand, J. J. M., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 663

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kuulkers, E., Homan, J., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., & M´ endez, M. 2002, A&A, 382, 947

    2002

  23. [31]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Lapidus, I. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 291

    1985

  24. [32]

    Lewin, W. H. G., Vacca, W. D., & Basinska, E. M. 1984, ApJL, 277, L57

    1984

  25. [33]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, SSRv, 62, 223

    1993

  26. [34]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

    1984

  27. [35]

    P., Chakrabarty, D., Galloway, D

    Muno, M. P., Chakrabarty, D., Galloway, D. K., & Savov, P. 2001, ApJL, 553, L157 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., G¨ uver, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 28

    2001

  28. [36]

    1989, A&A, 208, 146

    Paradijs, J. 1989, A&A, 208, 146

    1989

  29. [37]

    Poutanen, J., N¨ attil¨ a, J., Kajava, J. J. E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3777

    2014

  30. [38]

    2012, in Proc

    Prigozhin, G., Gendreau, K., Foster, R., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8453, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V, 845318

    2012

  31. [39]

    2002, ApJ, 566, 1018

    Spitkovsky, A., Levin, Y., & Ushomirsky, G. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1018

    2002

  32. [40]

    2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints , astro-ph/0301544, ads

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints , astro-ph/0301544, ads

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2012, A&A, 545, A120

    Suleimanov, V., Poutanen, J., & Werner, K. 2012, A&A, 545, A120

    2012

  34. [42]

    Matilsky, T. A. 1976, ApJL, 209, L125 van Straaten, S., van der Klis, M., & M´ endez, M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1155

    1976

  35. [43]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 901

    Kaaret, P. 2002, ApJ, 568, 901

    2002

  36. [44]

    Walker, M. A. 1992, ApJ, 385, 642

    1992

  37. [45]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  38. [46]

    K., & Price, D

    Worpel, H., Galloway, D. K., & Price, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 94

    2013

  39. [47]

    K., & Price, D

    Worpel, H., Galloway, D. K., & Price, D. J. 2015, ApJ, 801, 60

    2015

  40. [48]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 368

    Homan, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 368

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.