Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Exploring the multiphase medium in MKW 08: from the central active galaxy up to cluster scales

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 MKW 08 hides a 64-Myr mini cool core inside its brightest cluster galaxy.

desk verdict Solid mini cool core and AGN detection in a non-cool-core cluster, but the pressure-equilibrium interface claim rests on a spherical deprojection of an asymmetric system and a self-admittedly degenerate beta model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08560 v1 pith:X2JPPBBC submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE

A. Tümer , F. Tombesi , H. Bourdin , E. N. Ercan , M. Gaspari , R. Serafinelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords galaxyclustersintraclustermediumbrightestclustergalaxiesAGNfeedbackcoolcoresX-rayspectroscopyNGC5718MKW08
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

MKW 08 is classified as a non-cool-core cluster, but the paper finds that its central galaxy, NGC 5718, contains a 'mini cool core': gas within about 3 kpc has a cooling time of roughly 64 Myr, three orders of magnitude shorter than the Hubble time. The same data require a central active galactic nucleus with photon index $\Gamma\simeq1.8$, and show that the $\sim1$ keV coronal gas is isothermal and reaches pressure equilibrium with the surrounding hot ICM inside an interface at 4-10 kpc. A metal-enriched tail extending $\sim40$ kpc indicates the corona is being stripped by or interacting with the cluster medium. This matters because it shows that cluster-scale 'non-cool-core' classifications can hide genuine small-scale cool cores, and that AGN mechanical heating may be what keeps such embedded coronae from collapsing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the double $\beta$-model deprojection: an analytic electron-density profile with one $\beta$-model term for the ICM, a second $\beta$-model term for the coronal gas, and a power-law cusp index, projected and fitted to the Chandra and XMM-Newton surface brightness profiles. Combined with a five-parameter broken-power-law temperature parameterization and spectroscopic-like projection, it yields 3D temperature and pressure profiles. This decomposition is what locates the corona ($r\le4$ kpc), the constant-pressure interface (4-10 kpc), and the ICM, and it feeds the cooling-time estimate $t_{\rm cool}=U/L_{\rm hot}$. The central AGN signature comes from spectral fits with absorbed apec plus powerlaw models, evaluated with Poisson-based C-statistics.

What would settle it

Take the Chandra spectra in four azimuthal sectors of the 4-10 kpc annulus and compute the deprojected pressure in each; if the pressures differ by more than the measurement errors, or if a non-spherical (e.g., prolate) deprojection removes the flat pressure plateau, the corona-ICM pressure equilibrium and the interface radii would not be real. A shorter version: measure the pressure jump directly across the interface by comparing the brightest tail sector with the opposite sector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the BCG corona in MKW 08 is a small-scale cool core embedded in a non-cool-core cluster. Using Chandra surface brightness and temperature profiles deprojected with a double $\beta$ model, the authors isolate three zones: an isothermal corona ($kT\simeq1$ keV) inside $r\sim4$ kpc, an interface of nearly constant pressure between 4 and 10 kpc, and the cluster ICM beyond. From the Chandra spectrum of the central 3 kpc they derive a cooling time of $\sim64$ Myr, implying the gas would collapse without a heating source; since the corona is isothermal, heat conduction is ruled out and the central AGN (power-law photon index $\simeq1.8$) is proposed as the main heater. The 40 kpc metal-rich tail ($Z\sim0.5$-$0.9$ solar) is interpreted as stripped coronal material. In the authors' view, fast-cooling coronae and AGN feedback can coexist even where the cluster as a whole shows no cool core.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gas around NGC 5718 is spherically symmetric and hydrostatic when projected surface brightness and temperature maps are converted into 3D density, temperature, and pressure profiles; images showing a 40 kpc tail and an elongated core mean a non-spherical geometry could change the inferred interface and equilibrium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MKW 08's central gas should have collapsed long ago without a heat source; since the corona is isothermal, the paper concludes mechanical AGN feedback, not conduction or star formation, is the main heating channel.
  • Cluster cool-core classifications that rely only on the central cooling time at a large radius can miss genuine small-scale cool cores inside BCGs.
  • The corona exists in pressure equilibrium with the hot ICM, so it is confined and can survive in a non-cool-core cluster rather than being immediately destroyed.
  • The metal-rich 40 kpc tail implies the corona is losing mass through ram-pressure stripping or an interaction with IC 1042, linking BCG evolution to its cluster environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the deprojection's spherical-symmetry assumption is relaxed, the inferred interface at 4-10 kpc and the pressure plateau might instead be the boundary of an elongated or clumpy stripped structure; a non-spherical deprojection of the same data would test this.
  • The 64 Myr cooling time and deep Chandra exposure suggest a targeted search for faint X-ray cavities or bubbles around NGC 5718 could directly test mechanical feedback without waiting for a future large mission.
  • Comparing the metallicity of the tail with the corona's abundance could distinguish stripping of ISM from mixing with ICM; the paper's two-sector spectral fits already set up this test.
  • If other NCC clusters with deep Chandra pointings show similar mini cool cores, the CC/NCC dichotomy may be partly an artefact of resolution, with many 'NCC' clusters really hosting coronae whose feedback duty cycle is tied to their short local cooling time.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes deep archival XMM-Newton and Chandra observations of the non-cool-core cluster MKW 08, focusing on its BCG NGC 5718. It reports a central AGN with photon index Gamma ~ 1.8, a mini cool core in the BCG with cooling time ~64 Myr at r = 3 kpc, an interface region at 4 <= r <= 10 kpc where the coronal gas is claimed to reach pressure equilibrium with the ICM, and a metal-rich ~40 kpc tail. The analysis combines surface brightness and temperature mapping, a double beta-model deprojection under assumptions of spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium, C-stat-based spectral fitting of XMM-Newton and Chandra data, cooling time estimates, and sector spectroscopy of the tail.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is a valuable case study of a BCG corona embedded in a non-cool-core cluster, showing that a fast-cooling corona and an active nucleus can coexist in the absence of a cluster-scale cool core. The AGN detection is robust (Delta C / Delta nu ~ 508/2 in the XMM-Newton 10 kpc spectrum, and the Chandra 3 kpc spectrum independently requires a power law), and the short cooling time follows directly from the spectral normalization within r = 3 kpc rather than from the deprojected model. The tail results add to the sparse sample of X-ray tails associated with BCG coronae. However, the interface and pressure-equilibrium claim is the least secure element: it depends on the decomposition of the surface brightness profile into two beta-model components whose parameters the authors themselves describe as degenerate in Appendix A, and on a spherical deprojection that is in tension with the observed elongated core and tail. The paper is publishable after the central claim is either robustly tested or appropriately downgraded.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.2, Fig. 7, Eq. (1), Appendix A] The identification of the corona/ICM interface at 4 <= r <= 10 kpc and the associated pressure profile in Fig. 9 depend on decomposing the Chandra surface brightness profile into the two beta-model components shown in Fig. 7. Appendix A states that the double beta-model parameters are degenerate and that 'the given beta values by themselves should not be used to estimate physical properties.' Since the interface position is inferred from the intersection of the two components, this degeneracy directly affects the paper's central claim of pressure equilibrium. The authors should demonstrate that the interface radius and the pressure plateau are robust to the degeneracy (for example, by exploring the full parameter covariance in Monte Carlo fits, testing different functional forms for the central cusp, or fitting the two components separately with independent data) or they should downgrade the interface/pressure-equilibrium claim from a reported result to a tentative interpretation.
  2. [Sect. 3.2, Figs. 4-5, Fig. 9] The deprojection assumes spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium, but the Chandra maps show an elongated core and a ~40 kpc tail. Azimuthally averaged 1D profiles therefore mix physically different sectors, and the nearly constant pressure plateau at 4-10 kpc seen in Fig. 9 could be an artifact of the assumed symmetric model. The authors should test the sensitivity of the 3D pressure profile to asymmetry, for instance by extracting sector-resolved profiles in the tail and counter-tail directions, or by quantifying the systematic uncertainty introduced by the assumed geometry before claiming that the coronal gas reaches pressure equilibrium with the ICM.
  3. [Sect. 6] The argument that AGN mechanical feedback is the major heating mechanism rests on the deprojected temperature being isothermal, on excluding heat conduction because of isothermality, and on dismissing star formation using a luminosity-based SFR estimate of ~40 M_sun/yr. No direct measurement of the star formation rate in NGC 5718 is presented, and the comparison to 'typical radio galaxies' is not a measurement for this object. This makes the heating-mechanism conclusion weaker than the abstract's phrasing suggests. The authors should soften this claim to 'consistent with mechanical feedback' or obtain an independent SFR constraint for NGC 5718.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3] The fixed-Gamma fit described in Sec. 4.2 (Gamma = 1.81 from XMM-Newton, kT = 0.93 +/- 0.04 keV, C/nu = 47.99/43) is discussed in the text but is not listed in Table 3; including it would make the Chandra analysis fully reproducible.
  2. [Fig. 7] The yellow and green curves representing the corona and ICM components are not labeled in the printed figure; the caption should identify the color scheme explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) and the surrounding text use 'nenp' where the product n_e n_p is intended; please correct the notation.
  4. [Sec. 5] The statement that Sector 1 and Sector 2 are 'symmetric along the true NE-SW axis' is ambiguous because the sectors have 45-degree opening angles; clarify whether the symmetry refers to the sector boundaries or to the underlying galaxy structure.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The reported abundance range 0.20 <= Z <= 1.0 Z_sun within 90% confidence is given in the text but not tabulated; adding it to Table 2 would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AGN detection, cooling time, and tail properties are direct spectral/imaging measurements, and the interface/pressure-equilibrium claim is model-dependent but not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical measurements, not derivations that take their conclusions as inputs. The AGN power-law with photon index Gamma ~ 1.8 is required by C-stat improvements in the XMM-Newton and Chandra spectral fits (Sect. 4.1-4.2), with the photon index directly constrained by the data. The mini cool core cooling time of ~64 Myr at r = 3 kpc is computed in Sect. 4.4 from the apec normalization, volume, and luminosity of the same region (t_cool = U/L_hot); this is a standard self-consistent estimate, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The 40 kpc metal-enriched tail is identified from surface brightness maps and sector spectroscopy (Sect. 5), again directly from data. The pressure-equilibrium/interface claim (Sect. 3.2, Fig. 9) is the least independent element: the 3D pressure profile is derived from the analytic double-beta density model (Eq. 1) whose two components were already used to define the corona/ICM interface at r ~ 4-10 kpc, so the pressure profile 'revealing' the same interface is a re-expression of the same fitted model rather than an independent confirmation. However, this is model dependence, not a circular reduction: the density model was fit to the observed surface brightness, and the temperature profile (Eq. 2) was fit to spectroscopically measured projected temperatures, so the pressure profile carries data content. Appendix A explicitly warns that the beta-model parameters are degenerate and 'should not be used to estimate physical properties,' which is a genuine limitation on the interface/pressure interpretation, and the spherical-symmetry/hydrostatic-equilibrium assumption (Sect. 3.2) is in tension with the observed asymmetric tail and elongated core; these are correctness risks, not circularity. Self-citations to Bourdin & Mazzotta (2008) and Tombesi et al. (2017) supply methods or procedures, but the results are reproduced against the archival data and external benchmarks (e.g., Sun et al. 2007), so the citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by construction, and the main claims remain data-driven.

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

The central claims rest on standard X-ray spectral fitting assumptions and on a deprojection model with many fitted parameters. The most fragile inputs are the spherical symmetry/hydrostatic equilibrium assumption and the conversion of a fitted spectral normalization into a gas density and cooling time.

free parameters (5)
  • apec normalization in Chandra 3 kpc region = 1.51e-5 (1 sigma: +0.20/-0.21e-5)
    Fitted to the Chandra spectrum of the central 3 kpc; used to derive the gas density nH about 0.02 cm^-3 and the 64 Myr cooling time in Sect. 4.4.
  • power-law photon index Gamma = 1.81 (XMM), 2.49 (Chandra)
    Fitted in the central spectral models; the value 1.8 is used to argue for AGN emission and the mechanical feedback interpretation.
  • double beta model parameters (n0, n02, rc, rc2, alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon) = Table A.1 (e.g., Chandra n02 about 7.41, rc2 about 0.964 kpc)
    Fitted to the surface brightness profiles; these parameters define the corona/ICM decomposition and the 4-10 kpc interface region.
  • deprojected temperature profile parameters (T0, rt, a, b, c) = Table A.1
    Fitted to the projected temperature profiles and used to compute the pressure profile and infer isothermality of the corona.
  • abundance Z in central spectral fits = 1 Z_sun (fixed)
    Fixed to solar in Models 1-3 for both XMM and Chandra because the value was unconstrained at 3 kpc; this affects the derived temperature and cooling time.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium hold for deprojection
    Stated in Sect. 3.2 before applying the Vikhlinin et al. (2006) double beta model; the observed 40 kpc tail and elongated core suggest this may be violated.
  • domain assumption The X-ray emitting gas follows APEC thermal plasma emission
    Used in all spectral fits (Sect. 4); standard modeling for hot plasma, appropriate for this band.
  • domain assumption The coronal gas within r=3 kpc is a fully ionized sphere with constant density
    Used in Sect. 4.4 to convert the fitted emission measure into nH about 0.02 cm^-3 and cooling time.
  • domain assumption The power-law component is dominated by the AGN rather than X-ray binaries
    Inferred from Gamma about 1.8 being higher than the Gamma <= 1.4 typical of X-ray binaries, per Sect. 6.
  • domain assumption Fixed redshift z=0.027 and Galactic column NH=2.45e20 cm^-2
    Stated in the introduction; standard external inputs, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the multiphase medium in MKW 08: from the central active galaxy up to cluster scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2JPPBBC

@misc{pith2026190808560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the multiphase medium in MKW 08: from the central active galaxy up to cluster scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2JPPBBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08560}
}
abstract

The study of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) coronae embedded in noncool core (NCC) galaxy clusters is crucial to understand the BCG's role in galaxy cluster evolution as well as the activation of the self-regulated cooling and heating mechanism in the central regions of galaxy clusters. We explore the X-ray properties of the intracluster medium (ICM) of the NCC galaxy cluster MKW 08 and the BCG corona, along with their interface region. With recent and deep archival Chandra observations, we study the BCG corona in detail, and with archival XMM-Newton observations, we investigate the implications of the central active galactic nuclei (AGN) on the BCG. We carry out imaging and spectral analyses of MKW 08 with archival XMM-Newton and Chandra X-ray observations. Our spectral analysis suggests the presence of a central AGN by a power-law with a photon index of $\Gamma$ ~ 1.8 at the core of its BCG. Although the ICM does not exhibit a cluster scale cool core, the BCG manifests itself as a mini cool core characterized by a cooling time as short as 64 Myr at r = 3 kpc centered at the galaxy. The isothermality of the BCG corona seems to favor mechanical feedback from the central AGN as the major source of gas heating. The gas pressure profile of this mini cool core suggests that the BCG coronal gas reaches pressure equilibrium with the hotter and less dense ICM inside an interface of nearly constant pressure, delimited by radii 4 < r < 10 kpc at the galactic center. As revealed by the presence of a metal enriched tail (Z ~ 0.5 - 0.9 Solar) extending up to 40 kpc, the BCG corona seems to be experiencing ram-pressure stripping by the surrounding ICM and/or interacting with a nearby galaxy, IC 1042.}

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08560 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. For the CXB emission, we have used the blanksky esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Background subtracted, exposure corrected photon images of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chandra ACIS-I background fitting of three combined observations. Total number of counts (black); quiescent parti￾cle background emission (cyan); cluster emission (green); to￾tal background emission (red). Residuals correspond to the to￾tal photon count with respect to the ICM and total background emission. the optical image overlaid with Chandra X-ray contours3 . The XMM-Newton temperature map reveals no strong ani… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Joint-fit of XMM-Newton EPIC background and cluster emission from MKW 08. From top to bottom: background fit￾ting of MOS1, MOS2 and PN cameras. Total number of counts (black); thermal emission of LHB (purple); thermal emission of GTE (dark blue); power-law emission fro…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: XMM-Newton temperature map (left) and surface brightness map (right). Lower panel: For the highest angular resolution, Chandra temperature map (left) and surface brightness map (right). Temperature maps are presented within 3σ errors. Surface brightness ma…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical image of the central BCG - NGC 5718 and IC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Chandra surface brightness fit of double β-model in 0.5 - 2.5 keV energy band in circular region with r = 4 0 . Projected sur￾face brightness (dotted black curve); the double β-model (red); the β-model corresponding to the ICM (green); the second β￾model corresponding …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Projected radial ICM temperature values plotted over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hot gas pressure profile centered at BCG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: XMM-Newton spectral fitting of circular 10 kpc region centered at NGC 5718 with Model 1 (top), Model 2 (middle) and Model 3 (bottom). For plotting purposes only, adjacent bins are grouped until they have a significant detection at least as large as 4σ, with maximum 10…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Chandra spectral fitting of r = 3 kpc circular region cen￾tered at NGC 5718 with Model 1 (upper) and Model 2 (lower). For plotting purposes only, adjacent bins are combined until they have a significant detection at least as large as 2σ, with maxi￾mum 5 bins. Upper cu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cooling time profile of MKW 08 obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sectors selected from Chandra observations outlined on surface brightness map. the features of this tail enclosed inside this region, we have se￾lected two sectors from Chandra, which are symmetric along the true NE - SW axis as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 153

    Barcons , X., Barret , D., Decourchelle , A., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 153

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    2014, A&A , 566, 25

    Bartalucci, I., Mazzotta, P., Bourdin, H., & Vikhlinin, A. 2014, A&A , 566, 25

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., et al

    Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., et al. 1995, ApJS , 96, 175

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., von der Linden, A., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., & Kaiser, C. R. 2017, , 349, 894

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    H., Schellenberger, G., et al

    Bharadwaj, V., Reiprich, T. H., Schellenberger, G., et al. 2014, A&A , 572, 46

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    A., McNamara, B

    Birzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800

    work page 2004

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    & Mazzotta, P

    Bourdin, H. & Mazzotta, P. 2008, , 479, 307

    2008

  2. [10]

    2013, , 764, 82

    Bourdin, H., Mazzotta, P., Markevitch, M., Giacintucci, S., & Brunetti, G. 2013, , 764, 82

    2013

  3. [11]

    Bourne, M. A. & Nayakshin, S. 2013, , 436, 2346

    2013

  4. [12]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  5. [13]

    & Fusco-Femiano, R

    Cavaliere, A. & Fusco-Femiano, R. 1978, , 70, 677

    1978

  6. [14]

    R., et al

    Cicone, C., Brusa, M., Almeida, C. R., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    2018

  7. [15]

    Y., Bautz, M

    Elkholy, T. Y., Bautz, M. W., & Canizares, C. R. 2015, , 805, 3

    2015

  8. [16]

    2009, A&A , 501, 61

    Ettori, S., Morandi, A., Tozzi, P., et al. 2009, A&A , 501, 61

    2009

  9. [17]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Allen, S. W., et al. 2003, , 344, 43

    2003

  10. [18]

    C., Walker, S

    Fabian, A. C., Walker, S. A., Pinto, C., Russell, H. R., & Edge, A. C. 2015, , 451

    2015

  11. [19]

    A., Dominguez , A., Gelmis , K., et al

    Gaskin , J. A., Dominguez , A., Gelmis , K., et al. 2018, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray

    2018

  12. [20]

    2014, , 783, L10

    Gaspari, M., Brighenti, F., Temi, P., & Ettori, S. 2014, , 783, L10

    2014

  13. [21]

    L., et al

    Gaspari, M., McDonald, M., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2018, , 854, 167

    2018

  14. [22]

    2012, , 746, 94

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, , 746, 94

    2012

  15. [23]

    & Sadowski, A

    Gaspari, M. & Sadowski, A. 2017, , 837, 149

    2017

  16. [24]

    2016, , 337, 117

    Hitomi Collaboration . 2016, , 337, 117

    2016

  17. [25]

    T., Edge, A

    Hogan, M. T., Edge, A. C., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., et al. 2015, , 453, 1201

    2015

  18. [26]

    S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T

    Hudson, D. S., Mittal, R., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2010, , 513, 37

    2010

  19. [27]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 55, 303

    2017

  20. [28]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A , 440, 775

    2005

  21. [29]

    & Pellegrini , S., eds

    Kim , D.-W. & Pellegrini , S., eds. 2012, Hot Interstellar Matter in Elliptical Galaxies, Vol. 378 (Springer)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Kuntz, K. D. & Snowden, S. L. 2000, , 543, 195

    2000

  23. [31]

    Kuntz , K. D. & Snowden , S. L. 2008, , 478, 575

    2008

  24. [32]

    & Molendi, S

    Leccardi, A. & Molendi, S. 2008, A&A , 486, 359

    2008

  25. [33]

    & Mohr, J

    Lin, Y.-T. & Mohr, J. J. 2004, , 617, 879

    2004

  26. [34]

    & Mohr, J

    Lin, Y.-T. & Mohr, J. J. 2007, ApJS , 170, 71

    2007

  27. [35]

    H., Warwick, R

    Lumb, D. H., Warwick, R. S., Page, M., & Luca, A. D. 2002, , 389, 93

    2002

  28. [36]

    2004, , 354, 10

    Mazzotta, P., Rasia, E., Moscardini, L., & Tormen, G. 2004, , 354, 10

    2004

  29. [37]

    R., & Tremblay, G

    McDonald, M., Gaspari, M., McNamara, B. R., & Tremblay, G. R. 2018, , 858, 45

    2018

  30. [38]

    R., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2005, , 433, 45

    2005

  31. [39]

    D., Morrison, G

    Mineo, S., Gilfanov, M., Lehmer, B. D., Morrison, G. E., & Sunyaev, R. 2014, , 437, 1698

    2014

  32. [40]

    S., Reiprich, T

    Mittal, R., Hudson, D. S., Reiprich, T. H., & Clarke, T. 2009, , 501, 835

    2009

  33. [41]

    & Pizzolato, F

    Molendi, S. & Pizzolato, F. 2001, , 560, 194

    2001

  34. [42]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series , Vol

    Mushotzky , R. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series , Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , 29

    2018

  35. [43]

    2015, , 447, 3612

    Nims, J., Quataert, E., & Faucher-Giguere, C.-A. 2015, , 447, 3612

    2015

  36. [44]

    Nulsen, P. E. J., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & David, L. P. 2005, , 628, 629

    2005

  37. [45]

    & Rephaeli, Y

    Persic, M. & Rephaeli, Y. 2002, A&A , 382, 843

    2002

  38. [46]

    Peterson, J. R. & Fabian, A. C. 2006, Phys.Rept., 427, 1

    2006

  39. [47]

    2004, A&A , 423, 33

    Pointecouteau, E., Arnaud, M., Kaastra, J., & de Plaa, J. 2004, A&A , 423, 33

    2004

  40. [48]

    Read, A. M. & Ponman, T. J. 2003, , 409, 395

    2003

  41. [49]

    Reiprich, T. H. & B\" o hringer, H. 2002, , 567, 716

    2002

  42. [50]

    & Gaspari, M

    Sadowski, A. & Gaspari, M. 2017, , 468, 1398

    2017

  43. [51]

    Sarazin, C. L. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics , 58, 1

    1986

  44. [52]

    & Reiprich, T

    Schellenberger, G. & Reiprich, T. H. 2017, , 471, 1370

    2017

  45. [53]

    2019, A&A , 627, 121

    Serafinelli, R., Tombesi, F., Vagnetti, F., et al. 2019, A&A , 627, 121

    2019

  46. [54]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, , 556, L91

    2001

  47. [55]

    M., Digel, S., Zhang, B., & Chiang, J

    Starck, J.-L., Fadili, J. M., Digel, S., Zhang, B., & Chiang, J. 2009, , 504, 641

    2009

  48. [56]

    2009, , 704, 1586

    Sun, M. 2009, , 704, 1586

    2009

  49. [57]

    2007, , 657, 197

    Sun, M., Jones, C., Forman, W., et al. 2007, , 657, 197

    2007

  50. [58]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro , M., Maejima , H., Toda , K., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 1069922

    2018

  51. [59]

    2015, , 519, 436

    Tombesi, F., Melendez, M., Veilleux, S., et al. 2015, , 519, 436

    2015

  52. [60]

    F., Reynolds, C

    Tombesi, F., Mushotzky, R. F., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2017, , 838, 16

    2017

  53. [61]

    N., Kallman, T., et al

    Tombesi, F., Reeves, J. N., Kallman, T., et al. 2016, , 830, 98

    2016

  54. [62]

    2006, , 451, 457

    Tozzi , P., Gilli , R., Mainieri , V., et al. 2006, , 451, 457

    2006

  55. [63]

    2006, , 640, 691

    Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, , 640, 691

    2006

  56. [64]

    2001, , 555, 87

    Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., Forman, W., & Jones, C. 2001, , 555, 87

    2001

  57. [65]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., & Umemura, M. 2012, , 757, 136

    2012

  58. [66]

    Y., Umemura, M., & Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., Umemura, M., & Bicknell, G. V. 2013, , 763, 18

    2013

  59. [67]

    2009, , 398, 23

    Werner, N., Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., et al. 2009, , 398, 23

    2009

  60. [68]

    2016, , 151, 120

    Westhues, C., Haas, M., Barthel, P., et al. 2016, , 151, 120

    2016

  61. [69]

    Willingale, R., Starling, R. L. C., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R., & O'Brien, P. T. 2013, , 431, 394

    2013

  62. [70]

    M., Peterson, J

    Xu, H., Kahn, S. M., Peterson, J. R., et al. 2002, , 579, 600

    2002

  63. [71]

    & Nayakshin, S

    Zubovas, K. & Nayakshin, S. 2014, , 440, 2625

    2014

Pith tools

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