Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Jets, Bubbles, and Heat Pumps in Galaxy Clusters

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 AGN jets can act as a heat pump, heating galaxy clusters at over 100 percent efficiency.

desk verdict Genuinely new heat-pump mechanism for AGN feedback, with a clean analytic efficiency bound; the thermalization claim remains post-hoc and needs self-consistent follow-up. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04796 v1 pith:DYJGII6C submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Yi-Hao Chen (1) , Sebastian Heinz (1) , Torsten A. En{ss}lin (2) ((1) University of Wisconsin-Madison , (2) Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersAGNfeedbackbuoyantbubblesthermalconductionheatpumpcool-coreMHDsimulations
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

The paper argues that the bubbles inflated by AGN jets in galaxy-cluster cores act as a heat pump: they lift low-entropy gas from the cool core up into the hot outer atmosphere, where thermal conduction can heat that gas before it sinks back. The authors compute that the conductive energy available to the uplifted gas is comparable to the total energy the jet injected, and that the maximum efficiency of the process—conductive heat delivered divided by the work of lifting—can exceed 100 percent. If true, AGN feedback can draw on the cluster's own heat reservoir rather than only on jet energy, and can convert a short, bursty AGN outburst into a smoother, longer-lasting heating process. The claim rests on MHD simulations of a Perseus-like cluster together with an analytic efficiency formula for power-law atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The central object is the heat-pump efficiency $\xi_{\mathrm{max}} \equiv E_{\mathrm{th}}/W$ for a blob of gas lifted adiabatically in a power-law atmosphere ($T \propto r^{\delta}$, $\rho \propto r^{-3\beta}$), with $E_{\mathrm{th}}$ the thermal energy needed to thermalize the lifted gas to the surrounding temperature and $W$ the net work against gravity. The identity $\xi_{\mathrm{max}} = \frac{1}{(3\beta-\delta)(\gamma-1)} \frac{X\,F(X)}{\int_1^X F(x)\,dx}$, with $F(x) = x^{\delta-1}\left(1 - x^{-3\beta + (3\beta-\delta)/\gamma}\right)$, is what carries the argument; for $\gamma = 5/3$ it gives $\xi_{\mathrm{max}} > 1$ asymptotically when $\beta < (5/6)\delta$. In the simulation, the physical mechanism is the bubble wake transporting low-entropy gas into contact with hot gas, which the authors quantify with Lagrangian tracer particles and a Spitzer-conduction heating-rate estimate.

What would settle it

Run the same jet-bubble setup with explicit anisotropic thermal conduction and a magnetized intracluster medium: if the heating timescale for most uplifted gas exceeds the local free-fall time, the heat pump fails. Observationally, measure the temperature of gas in the wakes of X-ray cavities at large radii; if that gas is still near its adiabatic temperature, much cooler than the surrounding gas, it has not been thermalized before sinking, contradicting the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Jet-inflated bubbles carry a significant mass of low-entropy gas out of the cluster core in their wakes; once this gas reaches the hot outer atmosphere, Spitzer thermal conduction across the corrugated interface can thermalize it before it sinks back. The authors estimate the associated conductive energy budget and find it comparable to the total jet energy, about $3.16\times10^{59}$ erg, peaking around 300 Myr after a 10-Myr jet episode. They derive an analytic expression for the maximum efficiency $\xi_{\mathrm{max}} = E_{\mathrm{th}}/W$, the ratio of conductive thermal energy to the work of lifting, and show that $\xi_{\mathrm{max}}$ can exceed 100 percent for a wide range of cluster profiles, especially when the temperature gradient is steep or the density gradient shallow. The conclusion is that the AGN need not supply the heat directly; it only creates the pipeline that lets the hot atmosphere heat the core gas, with efficiency above unity possible because the work of lifting in a sub-adiabatic, convectively stable atmosphere is small relative to the heat drawn from the reservoir.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that thermal conduction actually thermalizes the uplifted gas before it sinks back; the simulation has no explicit conduction, no radiative cooling, and no magnetic field in the intracluster medium, so the paper must assume that real magnetic suppression of conduction still leaves the heating timescale shorter than the free-fall time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AGN feedback efficiency can exceed 100 percent: the energy that ends up heating the core can be larger than the total mechanical energy of the jet.
  • A short, 10-Myr jet outburst can keep influencing the cluster thermal state for hundreds of millions of years, converting bursty AGN activity into a smoother, longer-lasting heating process.
  • The jet power need not instantaneously balance the cooling luminosity, because the cluster's hot atmosphere acts as the heat reservoir; this may explain the observed scatter between jet power and cluster cooling power.
  • Repeated AGN cycles can drive a large-scale circulation that removes cooled gas from the core and replenishes it with higher-entropy gas, heating regions off the jet axis.
  • The heat pump adds a conductive heating channel on top of direct jet heating, so the total heat available to offset catastrophic cooling is the jet energy plus the heat drawn from the reservoir.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The efficiency formula implies an observational ranking: clusters with steep temperature gradients and shallow density gradients (large $\delta$, small $\beta$) should show the strongest heat-pump signatures, and their lifted wakes should appear hottest relative to adiabatic expectations.
  • If magnetic suppression makes conduction too slow in real clusters, the heat pump fails; this assumption could be tested by comparing X-ray temperatures of uplifted gas in well-observed clusters like Perseus with the adiabatic prediction.
  • The same mechanism may operate at smaller scales in galaxy groups or in the circumgalactic medium of massive galaxies, wherever buoyant bubbles lift cool gas into hotter surroundings, and it could help regulate cooling there.
  • Cold H$\alpha$ filaments observed in cluster cores might trace gas that was lifted but not yet thermalized; mapping filament temperatures could empirically bound the conductive suppression factor.
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. The paper proposes a 'heat pump' mechanism for AGN feedback in cool-core clusters. Using a 3D ideal MHD simulation of a Perseus-like cluster with a 10-Myr jet, the authors show that buoyantly rising bubbles lift low-entropy gas from the core to larger radii. They compute the thermal energy that would be needed to bring this uplifted gas to the local ambient temperature and find it comparable to the total jet energy (about 3.16e59 erg). They then apply a post-hoc Spitzer conduction model with suppression factors fSp=0.1 and 0.01 to estimate heating timescales, and derive an analytic maximum efficiency xi_max = Eth/W for a simplified cluster profile, finding that it can exceed 100 percent under some conditions. They conclude that the AGN can act as a heat pump, drawing heat from the outer atmosphere and potentially heating the core more efficiently than direct jet energy transfer alone.

Significance. If the heat-pump mechanism operates as proposed, it would provide a new channel for AGN feedback that is gentler and longer-lived than direct jet heating, and it would help explain how bursty AGN activity can regulate cooling over hundreds of Myr. The analytic derivation in Section 4 is transparent and parameter-free in the sense that it follows from the assumed power-law profiles, and the paper's energy-budget diagnostic (Fig. 3) is a useful, clearly explained measure of the potential heat content in the uplifted gas. The authors also include explicit caveats about the missing physics, and the paper is written as an exploratory study rather than a definitive measurement. The main weakness is that the central timescale claim relies on a post-hoc conduction estimate rather than a self-consistent simulation, which limits what can be concluded about the mechanism's viability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4 and 5.1(a), Figs. 4-6] The claim that uplifted low-entropy gas is thermalized before it sinks back (conclusion (iii)) rests on a post-hoc Spitzer conduction estimate applied to a simulation without explicit thermal conduction, radiative cooling, or an initial ICM magnetic field. As the authors acknowledge in Section 5.1(a), active conduction would smooth the sharp temperature gradients that drive the computed heat flux, so the flux would decline roughly as t^{-1/2}; the estimate is therefore not self-consistent. Figure 6 shows that even at fSp=0.01 the thermalization timescale is comparable to the free-fall time (~150 Myr at 300 Myr), so a modest overestimate of the flux or additional suppression by magnetic geometry and microinstabilities (which cannot be assessed because the ICM is unmagnetized) breaks the required inequality tau_heat < tau_ff. Since the energy budget in Fig. 3 is only accessible if thermalization occurs before fallback, the present simulations do not establish the central premise. A revision should either add an explicit-conduction run or a time-dependent flux model that includes the back-reaction on the gradients, or substantially soften the abstract and conclusion (iii).
  2. [Section 3.3 and Fig. 3] The energy budget of the 'low-entropy gas' is computed from a purely adiabatic simulation. The quantity and radial distribution of that gas would change if conduction and radiative cooling were active: conductive heating would lower the density contrast and alter the buoyancy of the uplifted gas, while cooling could cause some gas to condense and sink earlier. The paper does not quantify these back-reactions, so the late-time energy budget in Fig. 3 is not a reliable predictor of the energy actually available for the heat-pump mechanism in a real cluster. This is a second, independent reason why the quantitative claim that the conductive energy budget is 'comparable to the total energy injected by the jets' is not established by the current simulation setup, even though it is a useful upper-limit diagnostic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (12)] In Eq. (12), the exponent of the second term appears to contain (3β-1)/γ; consistency with Eqs. (14)-(17) requires (3β-δ)/γ. Please correct this typo so that the force expression matches the subsequent derivation.
  2. [Section 5.1(a)] The text states that the heat flux 'will drop roughly as t1/2'; this should read t^{-1/2}.
  3. [Section 2] The maximum refinement level is reduced from 30 pc to 120 pc shortly after the jet is turned off; the authors should comment on the potential effect of this resolution change on the development of the instabilities that shape the bubble wake and control the amount of uplifted gas.
  4. [Section 3.4, Figs. 4 and 5] The binning and the meaning of the dashed and dotted lines in the marginal histograms are not fully described in either the text or the captions; please specify the entropy and radius bin widths and the normalization used, so that the heating and cooling rates can be reproduced from the description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency bound is an analytic consequence of assumed cluster profiles, and the simulation diagnostics are independent measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The heat-pump efficiency xi_max = Eth/W (Eq. 17) is derived analytically from assumed power-law temperature and density profiles (Eq. 5), hydrostatic equilibrium (Eq. 7), and adiabatic lifting; it is not calibrated to or inferred from the simulation output, and the greater-than-100-per-cent result follows directly from the inequality beta < 5 delta/6 for monatomic gas (Eq. 19). The energy budget Eth,xi in Eq. 2 is computed from tracer-particle and entropy-threshold diagnostics of the MHD simulation, so it is an independent measurement of the simulation state, not a fitted parameter. The conduction-rate estimate (Section 3.4) is an intentionally idealized post hoc calculation using Spitzer conductivity with fSp = 0.1 and 0.01; the paper explicitly flags this as an overestimate in Section 5.1, noting that the sharp gradients would smooth once conduction is active and that magnetic fields are absent, so anisotropic suppression cannot be estimated. That is a stated limitation rather than circular reasoning. Self-citations such as Heinz et al. 2006, Ensslin et al. 2011, and Ruszkowski et al. 2007 are contextual and do not carry the load-bearing argument; there is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in via citation. The claimed result is a proposed mechanism with acknowledged open questions, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MHD numerics, a Perseus-like cluster model, and the assumption that Spitzer conduction with a constant suppression factor operates between the uplifted gas and the hot reservoir. No new physical entity is introduced and no parameters are fitted to observations in this paper. The main hand-set parameter is fSp; the cluster and jet parameters are scenario inputs from prior fits.

free parameters (3)
  • Conduction suppression factor fSp = 0.1 and 0.01
    Chosen by hand as conservative fractions of the Spitzer conductivity. The central claim that uplifted gas is thermalized before sinking depends on these values, and the true suppression by magnetic fields and microinstabilities is not simulated.
  • Entropy ratio threshold xK = 0.4 to 0.9
    Used to identify low-entropy gas for mass and energy budgets. The quoted budget is definition-dependent; the paper scans several thresholds.
  • Cluster and jet setup parameters = Perseus-like: beta=0.53, rc=26 kpc; jet power 1e45 erg/s, v=0.1c, 10 Myr
    Simulation scenario tuned to Perseus following Zhuravleva et al. 2015 and chosen jet parameters. The comparison with Ejet and the derived energy budget depend on these scenario inputs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD without explicit thermal conduction or radiative cooling.
    Section 2: the simulation tracks adiabatic dynamics only; conduction is estimated post hoc, so the thermal coupling is not self-consistent.
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric, static gravitational potential in hydrostatic equilibrium.
    Section 2: the potential does not respond to gas redistribution, an acceptable approximation for one outburst but not for repeated feedback cycles.
  • domain assumption Spitzer conductivity with constant suppression fSp = 0.1 or 0.01 applies at the hot-cold interface.
    Section 3.4, Eq. 4: the ICM has no magnetic field in the initial conditions, so anisotropic suppression cannot be modeled; if microphysical suppression is stronger than 1 percent, the thermalization timescale may exceed the fallback time.
  • domain assumption Power-law temperature and density profiles with hydrostatic equilibrium and slow, pressure-equilibrated adiabatic lifting.
    Section 4, Eqs. 5 to 14: this is the basis for the xi_max formula. Departures from these idealizations change the efficiency, though the paper shows similar results for the simulated Perseus-like profile.
  • standard math Entropy ratio xK identifies gas origin because entropy is conserved for adiabatic motion.
    Section 3.1: true for an adiabatic ideal gas, but shocks and numerical mixing can raise entropy, so threshold-based mass and energy budgets are approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jets, Bubbles, and Heat Pumps in Galaxy Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYJGII6C

@misc{pith2026190804796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jets, Bubbles, and Heat Pumps in Galaxy Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYJGII6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04796}
}
abstract

Feedback from AGN jets has been proposed to counteract the catastrophic cooling in many galaxy clusters. However, it is still unclear which physical processes are acting to couple the energy from the bi-directional jets to the ICM. We study the long-term evolution of rising bubbles that were inflated by AGN jets using MHD simulations. In the wake of the rising bubbles, a significant amount of low-entropy gas is brought into contact with the hot cluster gas. We assess the energy budget of the uplifted gas and find it comparable to the total energy injected by the jets. Although our simulation does not include explicit thermal conduction, we find that, for reasonable assumptions about the conduction coefficient, the rate is fast enough that much of the uplifted gas may be thermalized before it sinks back to the core. Thus, we propose that the AGN can act like a heat pump to move low-entropy gas from the cluster core to the heat reservoir and will be able to heat the inner cluster more efficiently than would be possible by direct energy transfer from jets alone. We show that the maximum efficiency of this mechanism, i.e. the ratio between the conductive thermal energy and the work needed to lift the gas, $\xi_{\mathrm{max}}$ can exceed 100 per cent. While $\xi$ < $\xi_{\mathrm{max}}$ in realistic scenarios, AGN-induced thermal conduction has the potential to significantly increase the efficiency with which AGN can heat cool-core clusters and transform the bursty AGN activities into a smoother and enduring heating process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Central slices of the simulation showing (left) the entropy of the gas relative to the initial entropy value at the same location and (right) the density of the gas at different times in the simulation. We can see the bubbles lift the low-entropy gas, while the cluster core is refilled by the higher-entropy gas. Yellow contours indicate the jet mass fraction of 10−3 , above which the conduction rate is excluded in t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass and the energy budget of the low-entropy gas. This figure shows (upper panel ) the evolution of the amount of mass of the low-entropy gas, which is identified by entropy ratios xK lower than the threshold, and (lower panel ) the energy needed to bring the gas to the surrounding temperature. The y-axis on the right of the lower panel shows the energy budget relative to the total energy injected by the active jet… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Heating and cooling rate histogram at 100 Myr. The conduction heating and cooling rates are summed in each entropy and radial bins with fSp = 0.1 (upper panel ). Marginal histogram shows the heating and cooling in entropy bins (lower panel ). For comparison with the x-ray cooling rate, two conduction rates fSp = 0.1 and 0.01 are plotted. Solid lines indicate heating, while dotted and dashed lines denote cooling. Not… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Efficiency for various β and δ (as defined in Eq. 5) for monatomic gas. δ=0 corresponds to an isothermal cluster. Note that β must be larger δ/3, otherwise the pressure gradient becomes positive. Dashed lines correspond to β = 0.5 are most similar to the density profil…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy gain for various β and δ for monatomic gas. Dashed lines correspond to β = 0.5 are most similar to the density profile used in our simulation. For β < 5δ/6 the curve diverges to infinity since lifting to larger radii will provide more energy; for β > 5δ/6, an op…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Efficiency for various initial radii R0 for the ICM pro￾files used in our simulation that represent the Perseus cluster. Since the temperature tends to isothermal at large radii, the effi￾ciency is not larger than 100 per cent asymptotically. Note that the AGN bubbles …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average energy gain per particle for various initial radii R0 for the ICM profiles used in our simulation that represent the Perseus cluster. This is the extra thermal energy a particle can get when it is lifted. provide up to an additional ∼ 3 keV of energy per parti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    A., McNamara B

    B \^ i rzan L., Rafferty D. A., McNamara B. R., Wise M. W., Nulsen P. E. J., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/383519 , 607, 800

    doi:10.1086/383519 2004

  2. [3]

    Churazov E., Forman W., Jones C., 2000, A & A, 356, 788

    work page 2000

  3. [4]

    R., Bohringer H., Forman W., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/321357 , 554, 261

    Churazov E., Bruggen M., Kaiser C. R., Bohringer H., Forman W., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/321357 , 554, 261

    doi:10.1086/321357 2001

  4. [5]

    Diehl S., Li H., Fryer C., Rafferty D., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/591310 , 687, 173

    doi:10.1086/591310 2008

  5. [6]

    Dolag K., Jubelgas M., Springel V., Borgani S., Rasia E., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/420966 , 606, L97

    doi:10.1086/420966 2004

  6. [7]

    S., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/883 , 712, 883

    Dong R., Rasmussen J., Mulchaey J. S., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/883 , 712, 883

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/883 2010

  7. [8]

    Duan X., Guo F., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9ba , 861, 106

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9ba 2018

  8. [9]

    K., Reid L

    Dubey A., Antypas K., Ganapathy M. K., Reid L. B., Riley K., Sheeler D., Siegel A., Weide K., 2009, @doi [Parallel Computing] 10.1016/J.PARCO.2009.08.001 , 35, 512

    doi:10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001 2009

Show all 65 references
  1. [10]

    M., Weide K., Graziani C., 2012, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/27 , 201, 27

    Dubey A., Daley C., Zuhone J., Ricker P. M., Weide K., Graziani C., 2012, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/27 , 201, 27

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/529371 , 677, 993

    Dursi L. J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/529371 , 677, 993

    2008 doi

  3. [12]

    Ehlert K., Weinberger R., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2397 , 481, 2878

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Pfrommer C., Miniati F., Subramanian K., 2011, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015652 , 527, A99

    En lin T. A., Pfrommer C., Miniati F., Subramanian K., 2011, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015652 , 527, A99

    2011 doi

  5. [14]

    C., 1994, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , 32, 277

    Fabian A. C., 1994, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , 32, 277

    1994

  6. [15]

    C., 2012, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , 50, 455

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , 50, 455

    2012 doi

  7. [16]

    C., Sanders J

    Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Crawford C. S., Conselice C. J., Gallagher J. S., Wyse R. F. G., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06856.x , 344, L48

    2003

  8. [17]

    C., Sanders J

    Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Taylor G. B., Allen S. W., Crawford C. S., Johnstone R. M., Iwasawa K., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09896.x , 366, 417

    2006

  9. [18]

    C., et al., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19402.x , 418, 2154

    Fabian A. C., et al., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19402.x , 418, 2154

    2011

  10. [19]

    C., Walker S

    Fabian A. C., Walker S. A., Russell H. R., Pinto C., Sanders J. S., Reynolds C. S., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw170 , 464, L1

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    Forman W., et al., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/519480 , 665, 1057

    2007 doi

  12. [21]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/317361 , 131, 273

    2000 doi

  13. [22]

    Gendron-Marsolais M., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a6f , 848, 26

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833893 , 622, A12

    Hardcastle M. J., et al., 2019, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833893 , 622, A12

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Heinz S., Briiggen M., Young A., Levesque E., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00243.x , 373, L65

    2006

  16. [25]

    Hillel S., Soker N., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2483 , 455, 2139

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Hillel S., Soker N., 2018, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/18/7/81 , 18, 081

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Kannan R., Vogelsberger M., Pfrommer C., Weinberger R., Springel V., Hernquist L., Puchwein E., Pakmor R., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa624b , 837, L18

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    Lee D., 2013, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.02.049 , 243, 269

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/153 , 789, 153

    Li Y., Bryan G. L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/153 , 789, 153

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    L., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c1 , 847, 106

    Li Y., Ruszkowski M., Bryan G. L., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c1 , 847, 106

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    Lim J., Ohyama Y., Chi-Hung Y., Dinh-V-Trung Shiang-Yu W., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/112 , 744, 112

    2012 doi

  23. [32]

    G., Balogh M

    McCarthy I. G., Balogh M. L., Babul A., Poole G. B., Horner D. J., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/423267 , 613, 811

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    McNamara B., Nulsen P., 2007, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 , 45, 117

    2007 arXiv

  25. [34]

    R., Nulsen P

    McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., 2012, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023 , 14, 055023

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/44 , 785, 44

    McNamara B. R., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/44 , 785, 44

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    R., Russell H

    McNamara B. R., Russell H. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Hogan M. T., Fabian A. C., Pulido F., Edge A. C., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/79 , 830, 79

    2016 doi

  28. [38]

    S., Davis D

    Mulchaey J. S., Davis D. S., Mushotzky R. F., Burstein D., 2003, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/345736 , 145, 39

    2003 doi

  29. [39]

    V., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/338325 , 562, L129

    Narayan R., Medvedev M. V., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/338325 , 562, L129

    2001 doi

  30. [40]

    M., Jones T

    O'Neill S. M., Jones T. W., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/180 , 710, 180

    2010 doi

  31. [41]

    O'Sullivan E., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2078 , 472, 1482

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    R., Fabian A

    Peterson J. R., Fabian A. C., 2006, @doi [Physics Reports] 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007 , 427, 1

    2006 doi

  33. [43]

    R., Kahn S

    Peterson J. R., Kahn S. M., Paerels F. B. S., Kaastra J. S., Tamura T., Bleeker J. A. M., Ferrigno C., Jernigan J. G., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/374830 , 590, 207

    2003 doi

  34. [44]

    Pope E. C. D., Babul A., Pavlovski G., Bower R. G., Dotter A., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16816.x , 406, 2023

    2010

  35. [45]

    A., McNamara B

    Rafferty D. A., McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Wise M. W., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/507672 , 652, 216

    2006 doi

  36. [46]

    Revaz Y., Combes F., Salom \' e P., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078915 , 477, L33

    2007 doi

  37. [47]

    T., Drake J

    Roberg-Clark G. T., Drake J. F., Reynolds C. S., Swisdak M., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L9 , 830, L9

    2016 doi

  38. [48]

    T., Drake J

    Roberg-Clark G. T., Drake J. F., Reynolds C. S., Swisdak M., 2018a, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.035101 , 120, 035101

    doi

  39. [49]

    T., Drake J

    Roberg-Clark G. T., Drake J. F., Swisdak M., Reynolds C. S., 2018b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae393 , 867, 154

    doi

  40. [50]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw409 , 458, 3134

    Russell H. R., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw409 , 458, 3134

    2016 doi

  41. [51]

    A., Br \" u ggen M., Heinz S., Pfrommer C., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11801.x , 378, 662

    Ruszkowski M., En lin T. A., Br \" u ggen M., Heinz S., Pfrommer C., 2007, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11801.x , 378, 662

    2007

  42. [52]

    Scheuer P. A. G., 1982, In: Extragalactic radio sources; Proceedings of the Symposium, pp 163--165

    1982

  43. [53]

    S., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/31 , 227, 31

    Shin J., Woo J.-H., Mulchaey J. S., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/31 , 227, 31

    2016 doi

  44. [54]

    Interscience

    Spitzer L., 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases , 2nd editio edn. Interscience

    1962

  45. [55]

    Su Y., Nulsen P. E. J., Kraft R. P., Forman W. R., Jones C., Irwin J. A., Randall S. W., Churazov E., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8954 , 847, 94

    2017 doi

  46. [56]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , 423, 3018

    2010 doi

  47. [57]

    N., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/148 , 832, 148

    Vantyghem A. N., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/148 , 832, 148

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2e0 , 863, 193

    Vantyghem A. N., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2e0 , 863, 193

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    M., Fabian A

    Voigt L. M., Fabian A. C., 2004, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07285.x , 347, 1130

    2004

  50. [60]

    Weinberger R., Ehlert K., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1409 , 470, 4530

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    W., McNamara B

    Wise M. W., McNamara B. R., Nulsen P. E. J., Houck J. C., David L. P., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/512767 , 659, 1153

    2007 doi

  52. [62]

    Yang H. Y. K., Reynolds C. S., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/181 , 818, 181

    2015 doi

  53. [63]

    Yang H. Y. K., Reynolds C. S., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/90 , 829

    2016 doi

  54. [64]

    A., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1269 , 478, 4785

    Zhang C., Churazov E., Schekochihin A. A., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1269 , 478, 4785

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    Zhuravleva I., et al., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature13830 , 515, 85

    2014 doi

  56. [66]

    Zhuravleva I., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv900 , 450, 4184

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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