Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Frequency drifts in FRBs due to radius-to-frequency mapping in magnetospheres of neutron stars

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 Repeating FRB frequency drifts trace emission to a neutron-star magnetosphere.

desk verdict A clean back-of-envelope that links FRB drifts to neutron-star magnetospheres, though the size estimate is more geometry-dependent than the abstract admits. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07313 v1 pith:CZOQ5KE6 submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.HE

Maxim Lyutikov (Purdue University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsrepeatingFRBsradius-to-frequencymappingneutronstarmagnetospheresfrequencydriftcoherentemissionmagnetarflaresplasmascaling
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 frequency-drifting sub-bursts seen in repeating fast radio bursts are direct evidence of changing plasma conditions inside neutron star magnetospheres, not artifacts of propagation or source evolution. Using the pulsar idea of radius-to-frequency mapping, it converts drift rates of roughly 100 MHz per millisecond at gigahertz frequencies into an emission-region size of a few times $10^8$ cm, the scale of a neutron star magnetosphere. The paper does not claim to identify the emission mechanism, but it shows that several plausible scalings—cyclotron, plasma-frequency, and anomalous-Doppler—all produce the observed downward drift. If correct, this locates FRB emission close to the neutron star surface and favors magnetically powered, reconnection-driven models over rotationally powered giant pulses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radius-to-frequency mapping relation $dr \simeq c\omega/\dot{\omega}$, which converts a measured drift rate into a physical size by assuming an emitting front moves radially outward at nearly $c$ through plasma whose characteristic frequency falls with radius. The paper also uses two density normalizations to derive the frequency scalings: the Goldreich-Julian density, giving $\omega \propto r^{-3/2}$, and a twisted-magnetosphere density, giving $\omega \propto r^{-2}$; the cyclotron frequency gives $\omega \propto r^{-3}$ and anomalous Doppler resonance gives $\omega \propto r^6$. These scalings are what turn a single observed drift rate into a spatial size estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the drift rate $|d\nu/dt|$ at several radio frequencies within a single repeating-burst train: the paper's plasma-frequency scalings predict $|d\nu/dt| \propto \nu^{5/3}$ (pulsar-like Goldreich-Julian density) or $\propto \nu^{3/2}$ (twisted-magnetosphere density), whereas an intrinsic temporal evolution of the source would not lock the drift rate to the instantaneous frequency in this way.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed high-to-low frequency drifts in repeating FRBs are the FRB analogue of radius-to-frequency mapping. For an emitting front moving outward at speed $c$, a drift rate of $\dot{\omega} \sim 10^{12}$ rad s$^{-2}$ at $\omega \sim 10^{10}$ rad s$^{-1}$ gives a spatial size $dr \approx c\omega/\dot{\omega} \approx 3 \times 10^8$ cm, the scale of a neutron star magnetosphere. The paper derives monotonic decreasing scalings of emitted frequency with radius: cyclotron emission gives $\omega \propto r^{-3}$; plasma-frequency emission with Goldreich-Julian density gives $\omega \propto r^{-3/2}$ and hence $\omega \propto t^{-3/2}$; plasma-frequency emission with a twisted-magnetosphere density gives $\omega \propto r^{-2}$ and $\omega \propto t^{-2}$; and anomalous Doppler resonance gives $\omega \propto r^6$. Because lensing would produce both upward and downward drifts, and Doppler boosting would correlate brightness with peak frequency, the paper takes the universal downward drift as evidence for magnetospheric origin and favors magnetically powered reconnection events.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that the frequency drift is produced by an emitting front moving outward at nearly the speed of light through a medium whose local conditions set the emission frequency; if the drift instead reflects intrinsic time evolution of the emission or propagation effects such as lensing or Doppler beaming, the inferred size and the magnetospheric conclusion do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The emission region of repeating FRBs is on the scale of a neutron star magnetosphere, roughly $10^8$ cm, rather than a much larger extragalactic structure.
  • The universal downward drift favors the magnetospheric interpretation over lensing, which is argued to produce both upward and downward drifts.
  • If the drift is radius-to-frequency mapping, the emitted frequency in a single burst should follow one of the derived power laws in time, such as $\omega \propto t^{-3/2}$ or $\omega \propto t^{-2}$, which is testable with broad-band dynamic spectra.
  • Rotationally powered giant-pulse models are disfavored for the repeater by its roughly 1 Gpc localization, while magnetically powered magnetar-flare models remain viable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, the same drift-to-size conversion applied to sub-burst structure in high-time-resolution data would yield a radial profile of the magnetosphere, with each frequency band mapping to a different radius.
  • The paper does not run a clean test: fitting drift tracks across a broad frequency band could distinguish $\omega \propto t^{-3/2}$ from $\omega \propto t^{-2}$, and a clear power law would also reveal whether the Doppler factor changes with time.
  • If this interpretation is right, repeaters that show no drifting sub-bursts would require a different emission geometry or mechanism, so radius-to-frequency mapping may describe only a subclass of FRB emission.
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 manuscript proposes that the downward frequency drifts observed in repeating fast radio bursts (FRBs) are due to radius-to-frequency mapping in neutron star magnetospheres, analogous to pulsar radio emission and solar type-III bursts. Using a reported drift rate of ~200 MHz/ms and frequency ~1 GHz, the author derives an emitting-region size dr ≈ cω/ω̇ ≈ 3×10^8 cm (Eq. 1), which is claimed to match the neutron star magnetosphere hypothesis. The paper also derives scaling relations for the emission frequency based on cyclotron and plasma frequencies under pulsar-like and magnetar-like density profiles, and suggests reconnection-driven plasma beams as the likely source. The author explicitly acknowledges that the estimates are order-of-magnitude and that no specific emission mechanism is identified.

Significance. If the radius-to-frequency mapping interpretation holds, Eq. (1) provides a simple, parameter-free diagnostic connecting an observed drift rate and frequency to a physical size, adding support to the magnetospheric origin of repeating FRBs. The paper's scaling relations identify possible plasma processes and make falsifiable predictions for the frequency-time slope (e.g., ω ∝ t^{−3/2} or t^{−2}). The manuscript is clearly written, appropriately caveated about its speculative status, and offers a testable framework for future FRB observations. Its main value is in sharpening the observational consequence of the magnetospheric hypothesis and highlighting a simple diagnostic for the FRB community.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The conversion from drift rate to spatial size assumes dt = dr/c. For a source moving at speed v at angle θ to the line of sight, the correct arrival-time delay is dt_arr = dr(1/v − cosθ/c). For an ultra-relativistic front (v ≈ c) beamed toward the observer (θ ≈ 1/Γ), this delay is compressed by ~1/(2Γ²), so the inferred size becomes ~2Γ² times larger than Eq. (1). The footnote's appeal to a laterally broad front in a rotating magnetosphere does not remove this geometrical correction; it only changes which parts of the front are sampled, not the relation between arrival time and radius. If Γ ≈ 10, the inferred size could exceed 10^10 cm, placing the emission outside a typical neutron-star light cylinder and undermining the claimed magnetospheric match. The manuscript needs to specify v and θ (or demonstrate that the finite lateral extent of the front makes dt ≈ dr/c a good approximation) before Eq. (1) can be used as a robust size estimate.
  2. [Abstract and §2.1] The statement that the observed drift rates 'translate to' a physical size is an inference under a specific model of radius-to-frequency mapping with an emitting front propagating at near-c. If the drift instead arises from intrinsic time evolution of the emission or from propagation delays (e.g., plasma lensing), no spatial size follows from the drift rate. The Discussion argues against lensing and Doppler effects but does not quantitatively consider intrinsic frequency evolution in a static region. The manuscript should explicitly state the conditional nature of Eq. (1) and discuss observational tests (e.g., the scaling of drift rate with frequency) that could distinguish radius-to-frequency mapping from these alternatives.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1] The claim that the derived size is 'only slightly larger than the radius of a neutron star' is numerically incorrect: 3×10^8 cm is about 300 times a typical neutron-star radius (~10 km). This should be corrected, e.g., to 'comparable to the magnetospheric size of a slowly rotating neutron star' or 'larger than the light-cylinder radius of a millisecond pulsar'.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (6)] The two scalings in Eq. (6) depend on unconstrained parameters (κ, δ, γ, dφ), making them illustrative rather than testable. A sentence noting the predicted difference in the frequency–time slope (ω ∝ t^{−3/2} vs. t^{−2}) and how future observations could distinguish the two cases would strengthen the paper.
  3. [§3, lensing paragraph] The statement 'Since all the FRBs show downward drift' relies on the limited sample available at the time; it would be helpful to specify the number of bursts and add a caveat that future observations of upward drifts would weaken the argument against lensing.
  4. [§2.1, footnote] The phrase 'laterally broad (in a rotating frame) front' is ambiguous; please clarify the intended geometry (e.g., a spherical shell versus a narrow beam) and explain how the rotating frame enters the arrival-time argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central size estimate is a direct dimensional estimate, though the paper leans on the author's own earlier framework.

full rationale

The central size estimate (Eq. 1) is computed directly from the observed drift rate and an explicit propagation assumption: dr ~ c*omega/omega_dot = 3e8 cm, using Hessels et al.'s reported 200 MHz/ms drift and omega ~ 1e10 rad/s. No parameter is fitted to the target claim, and the neutron-star magnetosphere scale is not inserted as an input; it is the result of comparing this estimate to known scales. The frequency scalings in Secs. 2.2 and 2.3 are derived from assumed plasma densities and magnetic-field geometry and are compared with observed frequencies, not fitted to FRB drift data. The repeated self-citations (Lyutikov 2002, 2017, 2019; Lyutikov et al. 2016) motivate the interpretive framework and exclude some alternatives, but the size estimate and the downward-drift scalings stand on the paper's own equations. The main vulnerability is not circularity but the physical assumption that arrival-time differences equal dr/c and that the emitted frequency is set by local plasma parameters; that is an assumption, not a definitional reduction. Hence no circular step is identified; the mild self-citation pattern does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central size estimate relies only on observed frequency and drift rate, with no free parameters. The broader scaling relations depend on assumed plasma parameters (δ, κ, dφ, γ) that are taken from standard pulsar/magnetar theory but are not fitted to FRB data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Doppler factor δ
    Assumed order unity; used to relate rest-frame frequencies to observed frequencies in Eqs. (2), (6), and (8). Not fitted to data.
  • Pair multiplicity κ = 10^3 to 10^6 (range)
    Assumed range from pulsar theory (Fawley et al. 1977; Timokhin 2010); appears in Eq. (4) and (6). Not fitted.
  • Magnetar twist angle dφ
    Appears in Eq. (5) and (6); assumed order unity. Not fitted.
  • Particle Lorentz factor γ
    Appears in plasma frequency and resonance conditions; assumed relativistic. Not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Neutron star magnetic field is dipolar, B ∝ r^-3.
    Used in Eq. (3) and scalings in Eq. (6). Standard for magnetospheric models.
  • domain assumption Emission frequency is set by the local cyclotron or plasma frequency in the emission region.
    Central premise for radius-to-frequency mapping; stated in Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The emitting front propagates radially at near the speed of light, so dt ~ dr/c.
    Key assumption in Section 2.1 that converts drift rate to size; not independently justified beyond matching observations.
  • domain assumption Density follows either the Goldreich-Julian scaling or the magnetar twist scaling.
    Two parameterizations in Eqs. (4) and (5), taken from prior literature (Goldreich & Julian 1969; Thompson et al. 2002).
  • domain assumption Bulk plasma motion is along the magnetic field, so B' = B.
    Assumed in Section 2.2 to simplify cyclotron frequency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frequency drifts in FRBs due to radius-to-frequency mapping in magnetospheres of neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZOQ5KE6

@misc{pith2026190807313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frequency drifts in FRBs due to radius-to-frequency mapping in magnetospheres of neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZOQ5KE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07313}
}
abstract

We interpret recent observations of high-to-low frequency drifting features in the spectra of the repeating FRBs as evidence of sharply changing plasma properties in the emission region, presumably the neutron stars magnetospheres. The drifts are then FRBs' analogues of radius-to-frequency mapping in pulsars and Solar type-III radio burst (but not in a sense of a particular emission mechanism). The drifts rates of $\sim 100$ MHz ms$^{-1}$ at frequencies $\sim$ GHz translate to physical size of $\sim {c \omega}/{\dot{\omega}} \sim$ few $\times 10^8$ cm, matching the hypothesis of the FRB origin in the magnetospheres of neutron stars. We suggest that reconnection events result in generation of upward propagating plasma beams that produce radio emission with frequency related to the decreasing local magnetic field and plasma density.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9371 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849L..20A 849, L20

    Archibald R. F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9371 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849L..20A 849, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9371 2017

  2. [2]

    Asseo E., Pelletier G., Sol H., 1990, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.247..529A 247, 529

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    R., Uzdensky D

    Cerutti B., Werner G. R., Uzdensky D. A., Begelman M. C., 2014, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4872024 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhPl...21e6501C 21, 056501

    doi:10.1063/1.4872024 2014

  4. [4]

    Chatterjee S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature20797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.541...58C 541, 58

    doi:10.1038/nature20797 2017

  5. [5]

    M., Chatterjee S., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190605878C p

    Cordes J. M., Chatterjee S., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190605878C p. arXiv:1906.05878

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    M., Wasserman I., Hessels J

    Cordes J. M., Wasserman I., Hessels J. W. T., Lazio T. J. W., Chatterjee S., Wharton R. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...35C 842, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74da 2017

  7. [7]

    Eichler D., Gedalin M., Lyubarsky Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344564 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...578L.121E 578, L121

    work page doi:10.1086/344564 2002

  8. [8]

    G., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00240885 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974SSRv...16..145F 16, 145

    Fainberg J., Stone R. G., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00240885 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974SSRv...16..145F 16, 145

    doi:10.1007/bf00240885 1974

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    M., Arons J., Scharlemann E

    Fawley W. M., Arons J., Scharlemann E. T., 1977, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..227F 217, 227

    1977

  2. [10]

    H., 1969, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1969ApJ...157..869G&db_key=AST 157, 869

    Goldreich P., Julian W. H., 1969, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1969ApJ...157..869G&db_key=AST 157, 869

    1969

  3. [11]

    Hessels J. W. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13ae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876L..23H 876, L23

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318..777L 318, 777

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Lyutikov M., 1999, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377899007837 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JPlPh..62...65L 62, 65

    1999 doi

  6. [14]

    Lyutikov M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345493 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580L..65L 580, L65

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Lyutikov M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62fa , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838L..13L 838, L13

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    arXiv:1901.03260

    Lyutikov M., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190103260L p. arXiv:1901.03260

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D., Machabeli G., 1999a, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02443.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.305..338L 305, 338

    Lyutikov M., Blandford R. D., Machabeli G., 1999a, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02443.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.305..338L 305, 338

    1999

  10. [18]

    Lyutikov M., Machabeli G., Blandford R., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306806 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..804L 512, 804

    doi

  11. [19]

    B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1669 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..941L 462, 941

    Lyutikov M., Burzawa L., Popov S. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1669 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..941L 462, 941

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Porth O., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f6301L 83, 635830601

    Lyutikov M., Sironi L., Komissarov S. S., Porth O., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f6301L 83, 635830601

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Lyutikov M., Komissarov S., Sironi L., 2018, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377818000168 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPlPh..84b6301L 84, 635840201

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    N., Taylor J

    Manchester R. N., Taylor J. H., 1977, Pulsars

    1977

  15. [23]

    I., Pataraia A

    Melikidze G. I., Pataraia A. D., 1984, Astrofizika, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Afz....20..157M 20, 157

    1984

  16. [24]

    B., 2000, in Kramer M., Wex N., Wielebinski R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Melrose D. B., 2000, in Kramer M., Wex N., Wielebinski R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 202, IAU Colloq. 177: Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond. pp 721--+

    2000

  17. [25]

    B., Suramlishvili G

    Mikhailovskii A. B., Suramlishvili G. I., 1984, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/BF01005421 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Ap.....20..314M 20, 314

    1984 doi

  18. [26]

    M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03525 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005Natur.434.1107P&db_key=AST 434, 1107

    Palmer D. M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03525 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005Natur.434.1107P&db_key=AST 434, 1107

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Petroff E., Hessels J. W. T., Lorimer D. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-019-0116-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&ARv..27....4P 27, 4

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170936 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..282P 385, 282

    Phillips J. A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170936 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385..282P 385, 282

    1992 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Postnov K

    Popov S. B., Postnov K. A., 2013, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1307.4924P p. arXiv:1307.4924

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A., Sutherland P

    Ruderman M. A., Sutherland P. G., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...196...51R 196, 51

    1975 doi

  23. [31]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17168 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.531..202S 531, 202

    Spitler L. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature17168 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.531..202S 531, 202

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Kaspi V

    Tendulkar S. P., Kaspi V. M., Patel C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/59 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827...59T 827, 59

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    arXiv:1908.03507

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2019a, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190803507T p. arXiv:1908.03507

    1908 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0864-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.566..235C 566, 235

    doi

  27. [35]

    R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340586 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..332T 574, 332

    Thompson C., Lyutikov M., Kulkarni S. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340586 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..332T 574, 332

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.2092T 408, 2092

    Timokhin A. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.2092T 408, 2092

    2010

  29. [37]

    V., Zaitsev V

    Zheleznyakov V. V., Zaitsev V. V., 1970, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970SvA....14..250Z 14, 250

    1970

Pith tools

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