Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 99 references

PHEMTO : Polarimetric High Energy Modular Telescope Observatory

T0 review · 4 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 PHEMTO: a proposed mission that would resolve 70% of the cosmic X-ray background's 30 keV peak using 1 arcsecond optics and 1% polarimetry.

desk verdict A solid, ambitious mission concept white paper whose headline CXB-resolved fraction is asserted, not derived, and which conflicts with its own high-energy PSF estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08586 v1 pith:24SXLUWY submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE

P. Laurent , F.Acero , V. Beckmann , S. Brandt , F. Cangemi , M. Civitani , M. Clavel , A. Coleiro
show 22 more authors
R. Curado P. Ferrando C. Ferrigno F. Frontera F. Gastaldello D. Götz C. Gouiffès V. Grinberg L. Hanlon D. Hartmann P. Maggi F. Marin A. Meuris T. Okajima G. Pareschi G.W. Pratt N. Rea J. Rodriguez M. Rossetti D. Spiga E. Virgilli S. Zane
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords PHEMTOcosmicX-raybackgroundpolarimetryLauelensSiliconPoreOpticsactivegalacticnucleisupernovaremnantshardastronomy
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

This paper proposes a space observatory, PHEMTO, and argues that a single mission spanning 1–600 keV, with roughly one-arcsecond imaging and 1% polarimetry, would solve several open problems in high-energy astrophysics. Its central quantitative claim is that at the confusion limit the observatory would resolve 70% of the cosmic X-ray background around its 30 keV peak, directly exposing the population of obscured and Compton-thick accreting black holes. The same observing capabilities would measure supernova nucleosynthesis lines, the magnetic-field geometry of pulsar wind nebulae and shock precursors, magnetar emission, accretion and jet physics, and the non-thermal content of galaxy clusters. A sympathetic reader would treat the paper as a science-requirements argument: if the proposed two-telescope design can be built with the stated performance, these discoveries follow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing design is a two-branch telescope: a low-energy branch using reflecting mirror stacks (Silicon Pore Optics or slumped glass) covering about 1–30 keV, and a high-energy branch using a Laue lens that concentrates photons by crystal diffraction in transmission up to 600 keV, both focused onto a single compact focal plane. The focal plane is a double-layer detector, a silicon low-energy detector stacked over a CdTe high-energy detector, which also functions as a Compton polarimeter through coincidence events, with an active/passive antishield to keep the background at or below $10^{-4}$ cts s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ keV$^{-1}$. This combination is what lets the mission claim arcsecond resolution and high sensitivity across the whole 1–600 keV band, and it is the mechanism that produces the stated resolving power and polarization capability.

What would settle it

A source-population simulation that convolves a realistic 30 keV log N–log S distribution with the proposed 1 arcsecond point-spread function at the 200 ks sensitivity limit would show whether 70% of the cosmic X-ray background peak is actually resolved into individual sources.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery claim is that an observatory combining a 1–30 keV focusing mirror (Silicon Pore Optics or glass) with a Laue lens focusing from roughly 30 to 600 keV, placed at a 100-meter focal length in formation flight, can reach a continuum sensitivity of about $10^{-16}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 10 keV and a 1% minimum detectable polarization. With these figures, PHEMTO would detect more than 25 sources per 200 ks field in the 10–40 keV band, and simulations show it would recover intrinsic absorption with less than 20% uncertainty for Compton-thin AGN, tell apart unabsorbed, Compton-thin, and Compton-thick objects up to $z\simeq 3$, and resolve 70% of the cosmic X-ray background at its peak around 30 keV.

Load-bearing premise

The entire scientific program depends on technology that has not yet been built: never-flown Silicon Pore Optics would have to reach 1 arcsecond resolution, a 100 m focal-length Laue lens would have to achieve 10 arcsec resolution, and the detectors would have to reach an ultra-low background of $10^{-4}$ cts s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ keV$^{-1}$, all within the next 20 to 30 years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a 200 ks exposure, PHEMTO would resolve 70% of the cosmic X-ray background at its ~30 keV peak, quantitatively linking the resolved sources to the known SMBH mass density.
  • A 1 Ms deep field would measure column densities of Compton-thin AGN with <20% uncertainty and identify Compton-thick objects up to $z\simeq 3$, giving the first census of the most obscured accretion.
  • The combination of angular resolution and low background would make the 158 keV $^{56}$Ni decay line detectable from type Ia supernovae out to ~50 Mpc, about one event per month, and allow $^{57}$Ni/$^{56}$Ni and $^{44}$Ti mapping in nearby remnants.
  • Polarimetry at the 1% level across 1–600 keV would measure magnetic field geometry in SNRs, PWNe, magnetars, and accreting black holes, breaking degeneracies that spectroscopy alone cannot.
  • If the mission flies in the 2050 era, its observations of inverse-Compton and non-thermal Bremsstrahlung in cluster atmospheres can settle the magnetic-field strength in radio halos.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Resolving 70% of the CXB peak tightly connects the unresolved fraction to the missing SMBH accretion; a plausible consequence is that the 'hidden' AGN population has a different luminosity function than currently assumed, which would alter models of black-hole growth feedback.
  • The double-layer Compton polarimeter could be exploited as a gamma-ray burst polarimeter in its own right; mapping the polarization angle swing across the neutron-star cyclotron line would give a direct, model-independent measurement of the accretion column geometry.
  • If the Laue lens reaches the stated 10 arcsec at 100 m, the same technology could focus nuclear lines from galactic novae and perhaps constrain the $e^+e^-$ annihilation line morphology, a testable extension the paper does not develop.
  • The requirements are substantially driven by the assumption that both optics technologies advance in parallel; a mission that flew with only one branch (say, only the mirror up to 30 keV) would still resolve a large part of the CXB peak, though it would lose the 44Ti and nuclear-line program.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. PHEMTO is a Voyage 2050 white paper proposing an observatory-class hard X-ray mission with a broad 1–600 keV band, arcsecond-class angular resolution, high effective area (2000 cm² at 10 keV, 500 cm² at 600 keV), sensitivity of 10^-16 erg cm^-2 s^-1 at 10 keV, and 1% minimum detectable polarization. The concept combines a low-energy mirror (Silicon Pore Optics or glass optics) with a Laue lens at higher energies, focusing onto a common focal plane with Si and CdTe detectors, in a formation-flying configuration with up to 100 m focal length. The paper develops five science themes: resolving the cosmic X-ray background (CXB) peak and the obscured AGN census, SN Ia and 44Ti nucleosynthesis, particle acceleration and magnetic fields in SNRs and PWNe, magnetar physics and accretion/ejection in X-ray binaries, and non-thermal emission in galaxy clusters. The central quantitative claim is that PHEMTO will resolve 70% of the CXB at about 30 keV at the confusion limit (Section 2.1, Figure 1).

Significance. If the stated performance could be delivered, PHEMTO would be a transformative facility: it would be the first instrument to image the 30 keV CXB peak at arcsecond resolution, make routine hard X-ray polarization measurements, detect SN Ia gamma-ray lines to 50 Mpc, and map non-thermal cluster emission. The paper's strength is the breadth and coherence of the science case, and the explicit requirement table (Table 1) provides a useful framework for mission design. It also builds on a credible technology heritage, including ATHENA SPO, NuSTAR GOp, the ASTENA Laue lens, and CdTe strip detectors. However, the manuscript is a concept study: it does not present the simulations, background models, source-count calculations, or technology demonstrations needed to substantiate the headline performance numbers. Because the central claims are not yet backed by quantitative analysis traceable to the stated requirements, the scientific promise is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Figure 1] The claim that at the confusion limit PHEMTO will resolve 70% of the CXB at about 30 keV is not supported by the required calculation. The text says 'taken at face value' and 'our simulations show', but no source-count model, point-spread function (PSF), confusion-noise estimate, or conversion from flux limit to resolved fraction is presented. Moreover, the only high-energy focusing system explicitly described, the Laue lens in Section 4.4.5, is credited with 10 arcsec HEW at a 100 m focal length, not the 1 arcsec in SR-5; a 10 arcsec PSF has 100 times the solid angle of a 1 arcsec PSF and correspondingly degrades the confusion limit. The 70% number is internally inconsistent with the stated optics unless a separate 1-arcsec hard X-ray telescope is described, which the paper does not do. This claim should either be removed or replaced with a confusion-limit calculation that uses the actual PSF and source counts.
  2. [Table 1, SR-2 and SR-8] The continuum sensitivity and detector background are load-bearing requirements, but no derivation or simulation is shown. To obtain 10^-16 erg cm^-2 s^-1 at 10 keV and 10^-14 erg cm^-2 s^-1 at 100 keV from the effective areas in SR-6, one needs an assumed source spectrum, exposure time, PSF, and background model; none is given. The background requirement of 10^-4 cts s^-1 cm^-2 keV^-1 is more than an order of magnitude below the measured levels of current space hard X-ray detectors, and no physical background model, shielding concept, or graded-z analysis is provided. The science cases in Sections 2.1–2.5 consequently rest on numbers that are asserted rather than demonstrated.
  3. [Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5] The technology-readiness argument is a series of extrapolations without quantified milestones. SPO is said to 'reasonably' reach 1 arcsec below about 10 keV, GOp is 'anticipated' to reach the required resolution up to a few hundred keV, and the Laue lens is expected to reach 10 arcsec at 100 m, which still misses SR-5. There is no error budget for the 1 arcsec HEW, no tolerance analysis for the 100 m formation flying, and no development roadmap or prototype results. Because the scientific goals, including filament spectroscopy, CXB resolution, and polarimetry, depend directly on the PSF, this gap must be quantified or the requirements must be revised.
  4. [Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2] The focal-plane design, with two 2048×2048, 100-µm-pixel Si and CdTe arrays, read out in rolling-shutter mode with fast trigger and 50 µs timing, and used as a Compton polarimeter, is presented as a conceptual design but no simulation or prototype evidence is given that such arrays can simultaneously deliver the required spectral resolution, timing, and Compton event efficiency. The 100 µm pitch CdTe imaging spectrometer with good spectroscopy is explicitly acknowledged to require 'developments in rupture'. The 1% minimum detectable polarization in SR-3 depends on the polarimetric modulation factor and background, neither of which is quantified. This is a central feasibility issue for the polarimetry claims in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence contains a duplicated preposition: 'thanks to to sounding rockets' should read 'thanks to sounding rockets'.
  2. [Section 2.1.2] The statement that PHEMTO will detect more than 25 sources per field in 200 ks is not defined with field size, energy band, detection significance, or assumed source spectrum; please specify these assumptions.
  3. [Section 2.2] The stated 100 ks line sensitivity of 2×10^-7 ph cm^-2 s^-1 should be derived from or cross-referenced to Table 1 and the assumed background level.
  4. [Section 4.4.5] The reference 'Frontera et al. 2019 in preparation' and the ASTENA mission description are not publicly available; please supply a citable reference or technical report.
  5. [Figure 7] The comparison with NuSTAR lacks axis labels and a legend; please specify what quantities are compared and under what assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: PHEMTO's science goals are not derived from fitted parameters or definitional identities, and its self-citations are independent observational/technical references.

full rationale

The paper is a Voyage 2050 mission white paper. Its central claims are prospective: that a 1–600 keV observatory with ~1 arcsec optics and 1% polarimetry would resolve the CXB peak and address accretion, SNR, cluster, and magnetar science. None of these claims is obtained by fitting a parameter to a subset of data and then predicting a closely related quantity. The 70% CXB resolved fraction in Sec. 2.1 is 'taken at face value' from a literature plot of source counts; this is an unsupported extrapolation given the assumed PSF and flux limit, but it is not circular because the number is not constructed from the PHEMTO parameters, nor is the mission design fitted to it. The paper explicitly labels the key technology steps (1 arcsec SPO below ~10 keV; 10 arcsec Laue lens at 100 m; 10^-4 cts/s/cm2/keV background) as 'reasonable to estimate' and 'anticipated' rather than as derived results. Those are feasibility risks, not circular reductions. The self-citations (Laurent et al. 2011; Goetz et al. 2013; Rodriguez et al. 2015 for INTEGRAL polarimetry; Frontera et al. 2013 and Virgilli et al. 2018 for Laue lens development) are prior independent measurements or hardware-development references; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the source of a predicted quantity. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction. The main weakness is lack of a confusion-limit calculation connecting SR-5/SR-2 to the 70% resolved fraction, but absence of support is a correctness/feasibility concern, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard astrophysics and the assumption that several technologies will mature. The performance numbers are stated as requirements, not derived from data. Hence the axiom ledger lists the key domain assumptions and the paper-specific technology maturation assumption.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The required technologies (1 arcsecond SPO/GOp optics, Laue lens with 10 arcsecond resolution, 100 micrometer pixel CdTe arrays, 100 m formation flying) will be available by 2050.
    The paper states 'It is reasonable to estimate' and 'We anticipate' in Section 4.4, but provides no detailed development roadmap or demonstration.
  • domain assumption The instrument background can be reduced to 10^-4 cts/s/cm2/keV.
    Required for the stated sensitivity (Table 1, SR-8); no calculation or shielding design proves this is achievable.
  • domain assumption The AGN population models used to predict resolved CXB fractions are correct.
    The 70% resolved fraction claim in Section 2.1 relies on source count models (e.g., Harrison et al. 2016) without new simulation details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PHEMTO : Polarimetric High Energy Modular Telescope Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24SXLUWY

@misc{pith2026190808586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PHEMTO : Polarimetric High Energy Modular Telescope Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24SXLUWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08586}
}
read the original abstract

With the opening of the X and gamma--ray windows in the sixties, thanks to to sounding rockets and satellite-borne instruments, extremely energetic and violent phenomena were discovered and subsequently found to be ubiquitous in the Universe. Observations in the high energy domain are fundamental for understanding how matter is organized and behaves around black holes; unravelling how these extreme objects influence their environments on a very large scale; and finding the still elusive obscured massive objects in the centre of galaxies. Other major problems in contemporary astrophysics, such as the understanding of acceleration processes at shocks of all sizes (those of pulsar wind nebulae, supernova remnants, but also at larger scales those of Active Galactic Nuclei radio lobes) in relation to the origin of cosmic-rays, or the definitive characterization of the debated non-thermal X-ray energy content of clusters of galaxies, also requires observations at very high energies. An observatory type medium mission operating from around 1 keV to about 600 keV can provide direct insights into these major questions. The essential characteristics will be coverage of the full energy range by telescopes featuring a large throughput and arc-second resolution optics, coupled to a compact focal plane assembly, with excellent imaging resolution and spectroscopy. In addition, the mission will provide unique polarimetry measurements in the hard X-ray domain, an important new diagnostic tool at energies for which the non-thermal processes dominate. The Polarimetric High-Energy Modular Telescope Observatory (PHEMTO) is designed to have performance several orders of magnitude better than the present hard X-ray instruments. This gives to PHEMTO the improvements in scientific performance needed for a mission in the 2050 era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08586 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left panel shows measurements of the cosmic X-ray background by BeppoSAX, Swift, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photon flux of decay lines of 56Ni (158 keV) from type Ia SNe at various distances. The spread cor￾responds to a range of Ni mass of 0.3-0.6 M . Shown in orange is the 122 keV line from the decay of 57Co for a range of 57Ni/56Ni mass ratio from different ex￾plosion models (Mori et al. 2018). Estimated line sen￾sitivity limits for 100 ks and 1 Ms exposures are shown in dotted and dashed line, respectively. No radiati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral energy distribution showing the different radiation processes at play in SNRs. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Chandra images of the Vela (left, Pavlov et al. 2003) (right, Hester 2008) PWNe. X-ray images of of many young PWNe reveal axisym￾metric features with a torus and jet, e.g. in the Vela and Crab nebulae ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: High-energy broad band spectra of the mi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows from top to bottom the pulse phase amplitude, the polarization de￾gree, and the polarization angle for an X-ray pul￾sar emitting a pencil beam from two antipodal ac￾cretion columns. In each panel, the lines from top to bottom refer to different ene…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: comparison of PHEMTO with the NuSTAR mission (see Harrison et al. (2013) for NuSTAR performances assessment). The PHEMTO observatory is based upon two focus￾ing devices, mirrors at low energy and a Laue lens at higher energy, focusing X–rays onto two identical focal pl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378

    2018

  2. [2]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 1688

    Ajello, M., Rebusco, P., Cappelluti, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1688

    2010

  3. [3]

    V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D

    Barkov, M. V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4760

    2019

  4. [4]

    A., Klochkov, D., Sch¨ onherr, G., et al

    Becker, P. A., Klochkov, D., Sch¨ onherr, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A123

    2012

  5. [5]

    Becker, P. A. & Wolff, M. T. 2007, ApJ, 654, 435

    2007

  6. [6]

    & Shrader, C

    Beckmann, V. & Shrader, C. R. 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei

    2012

  7. [7]

    2009, A&A, 505, 417

    Beckmann, V., Soldi, S., Ricci, C., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 417

    2009

  8. [8]

    E., Harrison, F

    Boggs, S. E., Harrison, F. A., Miyasaka, H., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 670

    2015

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 1999

    Brightman, M., Nandra, K., Salvato, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1999

    2014

  2. [10]

    & Jones, T

    Brunetti, G. & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  3. [11]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4066

    Bucciantini, N., Bandiera, R., Olmi, B., & Del Zanna, L. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4066

    2017

  4. [12]

    Buote, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 553, L15

    2001

  5. [13]

    M., Uvarov, Y

    Bykov, A. M., Uvarov, Y. A., Bloemen, J. B. G. M., den Herder, J. W., & Kaastra, J. S. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1119

    2009

  6. [14]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.09112

    Cangemi, F., Beuchert, T., Siegert, T., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.09112

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    & Spitkovsky, A

    Caprioli, D. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 794, 46

    2014

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 141

    Cassano, R., Ettori, S., Brunetti, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 141

    2013

  9. [17]

    2010, ApJ, 721, L82

    Cassano, R., Ettori, S., Giacintucci, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, L82

    2010

  10. [18]

    J., & M´ arka, S

    Chassande-Mottin, E., Hendry, M., Sutton, P. J., & M´ arka, S. 2011, General Relativity and Grav- itation, 43, 437 Chieffi, A. & Limongi, M. 2017, ApJ, 836, 79

    2011

  11. [19]

    A., Piran, T., & Stark, R

    Connors, P. A., Piran, T., & Stark, R. F. 1980, ApJ, 235, 224

    1980

  12. [20]

    2014, Science, 345, 1162

    Diehl, R., Siegert, T., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 1162

    2014

  13. [21]

    2017, ApJS, 231, 8

    Enoto, T., Shibata, S., Kitaguchi, T., et al. 2017, ApJS, 231, 8

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fabian, A. C. & Iwasawa, K. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L34

    1999

  15. [23]

    Farinelli, R., Ferrigno, C., Bozzo, E., & Becker, P. A. 2016, A&A, 591, A29

    2016

  16. [24]

    2012, A&A Rev., 20, 54

    Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Govoni, F., & Murgia, M. 2012, A&A Rev., 20, 54

    2012

  17. [25]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53

    2010

  18. [26]

    2008, ApJ, 672, 94

    Fiore, F., Grazian, A., Santini, P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 94

    2008

  19. [27]

    A., Gouiff` es, C., & Lebrun, F

    Forot, M., Laurent, P., Grenier, I. A., Gouiff` es, C., & Lebrun, F. 2008, ApJ, 688, L29 21

    2008

  20. [28]

    2013, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Frontera, F., Virgilli, E., Valsan, V., et al. 2013, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8861, Proc. SPIE, 886106

    2013

  21. [29]

    C., Vievering, J., et al

    Furukawa, K., Buitrago-Casas, J. C., Vievering, J., et al. 2019, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 924, 321

    2019

  22. [30]

    R., Molendi, S., et al

    Gastaldello, F., Wik, D. R., Molendi, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 139

    2015

  23. [31]

    2007, A&A, 463, 79

    Gilli, R., Comastri, A., & Hasinger, G. 2007, A&A, 463, 79

    2007

  24. [32]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1257

    Giovannini, G., Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1257

    2009

  25. [33]

    2011, A&A, 536, A89 G´ omez-Gomar, J., Isern, J., & Jean, P

    Girardi, M., Bardelli, S., Barrena, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A89 G´ omez-Gomar, J., Isern, J., & Jean, P. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 1 G¨ otz, D., Covino, S., Fern´ andez-Soto, A., Laurent, P., & Boˇ snjak,ˇZ. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3550 G¨ otz, D., Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A., & Esposito,...

    2011

  26. [34]

    2004, ApJ, 605, 695

    Govoni, F., Markevitch, M., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, 695

    2004

  27. [35]

    W., Harrison, F

    Grefenstette, B. W., Harrison, F. A., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2014, Nature, 506, 339

    2014

  28. [36]

    E., Johnson, W

    Grove, J. E., Johnson, W. N., Kroeger, R. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 500, 899

    1998

  29. [37]

    A., Aird, J., Civano, F., et al

    Harrison, F. A., Aird, J., Civano, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 185

    2016

  30. [38]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    2013

  31. [39]

    Hester, J. J. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 127

    2008

  32. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 14

    Holcomb, C., Guillochon, J., De Colle, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 771, 14

    2013

  33. [41]

    B., Pottschmidt, K., Falkner, S., et al

    Iwakiri, W. B., Pottschmidt, K., Falkner, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 121

    2019

  34. [42]

    P., & Malzac, J

    Jourdain, E., Roques, J. P., & Malzac, J. 2012, ApJ, 744, 64

    2012

  35. [43]

    2013, A&A, 557, A99

    Kale, R., Venturi, T., Giacintucci, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A99

    2013

  36. [44]

    & Pavlov, G

    Kargaltsev, O. & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi, 171–185

    2008

  37. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2578

    Lanzuisi, G., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2578

    2018

  38. [46]

    2011, Science, 332, 438

    Laurent, P., Rodriguez, J., Wilms, J., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 438

    2011

  39. [47]

    P., Lavocat, P., et al

    Lebrun, F., Leray, J. P., Lavocat, P., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L141

    2003

  40. [48]

    & Nomoto, K

    Leung, S.-C. & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143

    2018

  41. [49]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 54

    Maeda, K., Terada, Y., Kasen, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 54

    2012

  42. [50]

    X., Hungerford, A

    Magkotsios, G., Timmes, F. X., Hungerford, A. L., et al. 2010, ApJS, 191, 66 22

    2010

  43. [51]

    2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Markevitch, M. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 604, The X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A. Wilson, 723

    2006

  44. [52]

    2003, ApJ, 586, L19

    Markevitch, M., Mazzotta, P., Vikhlinin, A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L19

    2003

  45. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 162

    Masini, A., Comastri, A., Civano, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 162

    2018

  46. [54]

    L., Ryan, J

    McConnell, M. L., Ryan, J. M., Collmar, W., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 928

    2000

  47. [55]

    L., Kuncic, Z., & Wu, K

    McNamara, A. L., Kuncic, Z., & Wu, K. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1507

    2009

  48. [56]

    2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Meidinger, N., Barbera, M., Emberger, V., et al. 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10397, Proc. SPIE, 103970V

    2017

  49. [57]

    A., & Weisskopf, M

    Meszaros, P., Novick, R., Szentgyorgyi, A., Chanan, G. A., & Weisskopf, M. C. 1988, ApJ, 324, 1056

    1988

  50. [58]

    J., Ives, J

    Mitchell, R. J., Ives, J. C., & Culhane, J. L. 1976, in BAAS, Vol. 8, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 553

    1976

  51. [59]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1687

    Molina, M., Bassani, L., Malizia, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1687

    2013

  52. [60]

    A., Kajino, T., et al

    Mori, K., Famiano, M. A., Kajino, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 176

    2018

  53. [61]

    & Lee, J

    Neilsen, J. & Lee, J. C. 2009, Nature, 458, 481

    2009

  54. [62]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 989

    Nobili, L., Turolla, R., & Zane, S. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 989

    2008

  55. [63]

    2016, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25, 1630025

    Nomoto, K. 2016, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25, 1630025

    2016

  56. [64]

    A., Hanke, M., Trowbridge, S

    Nowak, M. A., Hanke, M., Trowbridge, S. N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 13

    2011

  57. [65]

    & Bucciantini, N

    Olmi, B. & Bucciantini, N. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5755

    2019

  58. [66]

    2014, in Suzaku-MAXI 2014: Expanding the Frontiers of the X-ray Universe, ed

    Ota, N. 2014, in Suzaku-MAXI 2014: Expanding the Frontiers of the X-ray Universe, ed. M. Ishida, R. Petre, & K. Mitsuda, 378

    2014

  59. [67]

    N., White, N

    Parmar, A. N., White, N. E., & Stella, L. 1989, ApJ, 338, 373

    1989

  60. [68]

    G., Teter, M

    Pavlov, G. G., Teter, M. A., Kargaltsev, O., & Sanwal, D. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1157

    2003

  61. [69]

    & Mastichiadis, A

    Petropoulou, M. & Mastichiadis, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 36

    2014

  62. [70]

    2014, Journal of Instrumentation, 9, C05013

    Poikela, T., Plosila, J., Westerlund, T., et al. 2014, Journal of Instrumentation, 9, C05013

    2014

  63. [71]

    A., Suleimanov, V

    Poutanen, J., Mushtukov, A. A., Suleimanov, V. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 115

    2013

  64. [72]

    & Gruber, D

    Rephaeli, Y. & Gruber, D. E. 1988, ApJ, 333, 133

    1988

  65. [73]

    Rephaeli, Y., Nevalainen, J., Ohashi, T., & Bykov, A. M. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 134, 71

    2008

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 17

    Rodriguez, J., Grinberg, V., Laurent, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 17

    2015

  67. [75]

    & Ponchut, C

    Ruat, M. & Ponchut, C. 2012, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 59, 2392

    2012

  68. [76]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 236 23

    2012

  69. [77]

    Schnittman, J. D. & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908

    2010

  70. [78]

    R., Summa, A., Krauß, F., et al

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Summa, A., Krauß, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1484

    2015

  71. [79]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 52

    2018

  72. [80]

    2019, A&A, 622, A61

    Staubert, R., Tr¨ umper, J., Kendziorra, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A61

    2019

  73. [81]

    G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 155

    2018

  74. [82]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Titarchuk, L. G. 1985, A&A, 143, 374

    1985

  75. [83]

    2017, The Extremes of Thermonuclear Supernovae, ed

    Taubenberger, S. 2017, The Extremes of Thermonuclear Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Mur- din, 317

    2017

  76. [84]

    2006, A&A, 451, 457

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

    2006

  77. [85]

    2019, Journal of Instru- mentation, 14, P03019

    Treberspurg, W., Hauser, G., Meidinger, N., M¨ uller-Seidlitz, J., & Ott, S. 2019, Journal of Instru- mentation, 14, P03019

    2019

  78. [86]

    S., Krivonos, R

    Tsygankov, S. S., Krivonos, R. A., Lutovinov, A. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3411 T¨ urler, M., Chernyakova, M., Courvoisier, T. J. L., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A49

    2016

  79. [87]

    A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y

    Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., Tanaka, T., Takahashi, T., & Maeda, Y. 2007, Nature, 449, 576

    2007

  80. [88]

    1998, ApJ, 492, 782 van Weeren, R

    Ueda, Y., Inoue, H., Tanaka, Y., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 782 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 16

    1998

  81. [89]

    2018, in Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting - MG15, 3289–3294

    Virgilli, E., Frontera, F., Rosati, P., et al. 2018, in Fifteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting - MG15, 3289–3294

    2018

  82. [90]

    R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al

    Wik, D. R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 48

    2014

  83. [91]

    R., Sarazin, C

    Wik, D. R., Sarazin, C. L., Zhang, Y.-Y., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 67

    2012

  84. [92]

    J., Auchettl, K., Badenes, C., et al

    Williams, B. J., Auchettl, K., Badenes, C., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1904.05857

    2019 arXiv

  85. [93]

    D., Dummott, L., Duarte, D

    Wilson, M. D., Dummott, L., Duarte, D. D., et al. 2015, Journal of Instrumentation, 10, P10011

    2015

  86. [94]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 13

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., M¨ uller, E., Pllumbi, E., & Wanajo, S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 13

    2017

  87. [95]

    S., Han, J

    Yuan, Z. S., Han, J. L., & Wen, Z. L. 2015, ApJ, 813, 77

    2015

  88. [96]

    & Lemoine, M

    Zakine, R. & Lemoine, M. 2017, A&A, 601, A64

    2017

  89. [97]

    A., Malyshev, D., Chernyakova, M., & Pooley, G

    Zdziarski, A. A., Malyshev, D., Chernyakova, M., & Pooley, G. G. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3657

    2017

  90. [98]

    & B¨ ottcher, M

    Zhang, H. & B¨ ottcher, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 18

    2013

  91. [99]

    Zirakashvili, V. N. & Aharonian, F. 2007, A&A, 465, 695 24

    2007

Pith tools

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