Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Confirmation of the planetary nebula nature of HaTr 5. Not the remnant of Nova Sco 1437

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HaTr 5 is an old, evolved planetary nebula, not the remnant of Nova Sco 1437, and the cataclysmic variable J17014-4306 is a chance alignment.

desk verdict New kinematics kill the Nova Sco 1437 association; the PN conclusion is solid despite a few uncertainty gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12813 v1 pith:DISI6TG3 submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

M. A. Guerrero , E. Santamaria , G. Liberato , Q. A. Parker , D. R. Goncalves , J. B. Rodriguez-Gonzalez , A. Ritter , H. Yuan
show 1 more author
J. A. Toala
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords planetarynebulanovaremnantSco1437cataclysmicvariablehibernationscenarioionizedmassexpansionvelocityGaiaastrometry
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 argues that the nebula HaTr 5 has been misidentified: it is not the expanding shell left by the historical nova of A.D. 1437, but an old, evolved planetary nebula, meaning an expanding shell of gas shed by a low-mass star late in its life. The distinction matters because the earlier identification was used to set an upper limit of about 580 years on how quickly a nova-like binary system settles into the low-accretion 'hibernation' state after an eruption. If HaTr 5 is a planetary nebula, that constraint evaporates and the cataclysmic variable 2MASS J17022815-4306123 that was linked to the nova is just a star projected by chance onto the nebula. The evidence is quantitative: the H$\alpha$ flux implies an ionized mass at least $10^4$ times larger than theoretical nova ejecta at the supposed distance, and the measured expansion velocity of about 27 km/s is far below the hundreds of km/s expected for a few-centuries-old nova shell.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces of machinery. First, the ionized mass $M_i = 0.035\,\varepsilon^{1/2}\Theta^{3/2}D^{5/2}F_0(\mathrm{H}\alpha)^{1/2}\,M_\odot$ converts the measured reddening-corrected H$\alpha$ flux into a mass at an assumed distance. Second, high-dispersion long-slit spectra are modelled with the 3D kinematic fitting tool SHAPE, a code that generates synthetic images and position-velocity diagrams for an assumed expanding geometry, yielding the expansion velocity ($27\pm3$ km/s), inclination, and kinematic age. Third, these measured quantities are inserted into linear-momentum conservation, $m_{\mathrm{ej}}v_{\mathrm{ej}} = (m_{\mathrm{ej}}+\frac{4}{3}\pi\rho_{\mathrm{ISM}}r^3)v$, and compared with theoretical classical-nova ejecta to show that no snow-plowing combination can reproduce the observed shell; the same quantities are also placed on the H$\alpha$ surface-brightness$-$radius relation to infer the planetary-nebula distance and mass.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to take two high-spatial-resolution images of HaTr 5 separated by about a decade and measure its angular expansion: a planetary nebula at $\sim1$-$2$ kpc expanding at $27\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ would grow only $\sim0.03$-$0.06$ arcsec over 10 years, whereas a $\sim590$-year-old nova shell at 300 km/s would grow $\sim0.3$-$0.6$ arcsec; detecting the faster rate would overturn the planetary-nebula conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that HaTr 5 is an old, evolved planetary nebula, and that the properties expected of a 590-year-old nova remnant are absent. At the 0.99 kpc Gaia distance of the cataclysmic variable 2MASS J17022815-4306123, the measured H$\alpha$ flux gives an ionized mass of $0.059\pm0.003\,M_\odot$ and an rms density near $50\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, at least $10^4$ times the mass predicted for a classical nova of this eruption's speed class. The high-dispersion spectra give an expansion velocity of $27\pm3\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and a systemic heliocentric velocity of $-1\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, far below the several-hundred km/s expansion assumed for the nova remnant. The nebula's ionized mass, linear momentum, and kinetic energy all lie outside the range of theoretical nova ejecta; reconciling them with a nova shell would require a distance of 200$-$250 pc, four to five times closer than the cataclysmic variable, and an unphysically dense interstellar medium. Interpreted as a planetary nebula, the surface-brightness$-$radius relation gives a distance of $2250\pm280$ pc, an ionized mass of $0.47\,M_\odot$, a physical radius of $0.55$ pc, and a kinematic age near 20,000 years, consistent with an evolved shell around a faint, hot central star of roughly $0.58\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the theoretical nova-ejection models used for comparison bracket the real range of classical-nova ejecta mass, speed, and momentum; if a real nova could expel orders of magnitude more mass or faster material, the mass and momentum arguments would weaken and the planetary-nebula conclusion would rest on the kinematic mismatch alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HaTr 5 no longer supplies the $\lesssim580$ yr upper limit on the nova-like to dwarf-nova transition time; the hibernation-scenario constraint built on this object is removed.
  • The cataclysmic variable 2MASS J17022815-4306123 is a chance superposition, with a radial velocity differing from the nebula by $\sim45$ km/s and a proper-motion direction nearly orthogonal to the nebula's asymmetry axis.
  • HaTr 5's catalog classification can move from 'possible PN' to an evolved planetary nebula, with distance $\sim2.25$ kpc, ionized mass $0.47\,M_\odot$, and kinematic age near 20,000 years.
  • Its large [S ii]/H$\alpha$ ratio, previously taken as shock evidence, is compatible with a recombining, evolved planetary nebula whose hot central star is too faint to appear in current surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If HaTr 5 is removed, the observational anchor for the claim that nova-like binaries turn into dwarf novae within a few centuries loses one of its most precisely dated examples; the authors stop short of reassessing the remaining cases.
  • The same combination of tests, ionized mass from H$\alpha$, expansion velocity, and Gaia proper-motion alignment, could be applied to other candidate ancient nova remnants that are classified as 'possible PNe' and may reveal further misidentifications.
  • A deeper imaging search for the predicted faint central star ($u\approx30$ mag at 2.25 kpc) would provide an independent confirmation, since the actual central star of HaTr 5 has not yet been seen.
  • This case illustrates that emission-line ratio diagnostics alone cannot separate evolved planetary nebulae from shock-excited remnants; future large surveys should incorporate kinematics before classifying such nebulae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper presents new intermediate- and high-dispersion long-slit spectroscopy of the nebula HaTr 5, together with archival imaging, to test whether HaTr 5 is the shell remnant of the historical Nova Sco 1437 associated with the cataclysmic variable J17014-4306, or an unrelated evolved planetary nebula. The authors derive an Hα-based ionized mass of 0.059 M_Sun if HaTr 5 is at the Gaia distance of the CV (0.99 kpc), an expansion velocity of about 27 km/s from the SOAR spectra and SHAPE modeling, and a kinematic age of about 9200-9300 yr at 1 kpc. They argue that the ionized mass and expansion velocity are orders of magnitude outside the range expected for classical nova ejecta, that momentum-conserving snowplow models cannot reconcile the observed properties with a nova remnant unless the ISM density is unphysically high, and that the radial velocity and proper-motion directions of the CV differ from the nebular kinematics and morphology. They conclude that HaTr 5 is an old, evolved planetary nebula, that J17014-4306 is only projected onto it, and that the association with Nova Sco 1437 and the resulting hibernation-scenario constraint should be abandoned.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper removes a high-profile piece of evidence for the hibernation scenario of cataclysmic variables, namely the claimed 580-yr upper limit on the transition time from a nova-like binary to a dwarf nova. The work is also relevant to the identification and census of evolved planetary nebulae. The authors should be credited for obtaining new high-resolution data, for constructing a 3-D kinematic model with SHAPE, for using Gaia astrometry to revisit the proper-motion argument, and for attempting a Cloudy photoionization model of the nebular spectrum. The central conclusion is plausible and supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, but two quantitative pillars (the ionized-mass argument and the momentum-based rejection of snowplow scenarios) need further hardening before the claim 'clearly inconsistent' is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 6, Eq. (6)] The momentum comparison excludes Yaron et al. (2005) models with WD masses below 1.0 M_Sun because their t3 values are larger than the 14-day decline time of Nova Sco 1437 quoted from the historical record. However, the paper itself notes that Hoffmann (2019) questions this 14-day decline time. Since lower-mass WD models can have larger ejecta masses and momenta, the plotted model bracket may not cover all plausible nova ejecta. Please add a sensitivity test using a wider range of Yaron et al. models (or an explicit argument that even the most extreme plausible ejecta momentum cannot approach p ≈ 1.6 M_Sun km/s), so that the snowplow rejection in Fig. 6 and Eq. (6) does not rest on an unverified historical assumption.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3), Table 2] The ionized mass M_i is derived from the Hα flux under the assumption of pure recombination Case B, with no formal propagation of uncertainties in the Hα flux, extinction coefficient, or filling factor. The observed [S II]/Hα ratio (0.5-1.0) is unusually high for a photoionized nebula and may indicate a non-negligible shock-excited contribution to Hα; if so, the recombination mass would be overestimated. Please provide a quantitative assessment of the maximum plausible shock contribution using the measured [S II]/Hα ratio (e.g., through shock-plus-photoionization models or empirical diagnostics), and give a conservative lower limit on M_i. The mass argument is a load-bearing pillar of the conclusion, so it needs to be shown to survive such corrections.
  3. [§4.1] The statement that the ionized mass of HaTr 5 at the CV distance is 'at least 10^4 times larger than expected for a nova remnant' appears inconsistent with the abstract's 'about 1000 times the typical ejecta of a nova'. The relevant comparison mass should be stated explicitly for the Yaron et al. models used (which may explain the differing factors), and the numbers should be made consistent across the abstract and the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract ends with 'heliocentric radial velocity of -1 km/' — the velocity unit is truncated; it should read '−1 km s⁻¹'.
  2. [§3, after Table 2] The text refers to 'the SAAO 2004 SpUpNIC and SALT spectra'; this should be 'SAAO 2024 SpUpNIC'.
  3. [§1.1 and throughout] The source is introduced as '2MASS J17012815-4306123' but later referred to as 'J17014-4306'; please define the abbreviation at first use and use it consistently.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (7)] The distance derived from the surface brightness-radius relation (Eq. 7) presumes a planetary nebula nature, and the resulting mass is later described as 'typical for a PN'. This is acknowledged as conditional, but the wording in §4.2 could be misread as circular support for the PN conclusion; please state more explicitly that this distance and mass apply only under the PN hypothesis and are not used in the nova-remnant rejection.
  5. [§2.3] The sentence describing the SpUpNIC wavelength coverage ('a wider wavelength range of 5500 Å, from 3500 Å further out to the blue and to the red at 9000 Å') is awkward and should be rephrased for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nova-remnant exclusion rests on measured expansion velocity and distance-scaled ionized mass, with the PN distance/mass derivation explicitly conditional.

full rationale

The paper's central exclusion of a nova remnant is self-contained. The measured expansion velocity (27±3 km/s from the SOAR GHTS two-Gaussian fits and the SHAPE model) and the Hα-flux-based ionized mass at the Gaia distance to the CV (988 pc, giving M_i≈0.059 M☉ via Eq. 3) are compared directly with Yaron et al. (2005) classical-nova ejecta models. Neither quantity is fitted to those models, and the comparison does not invoke the PN hypothesis. The subsequent PN distance and mass derived from the Frew et al. (2016) surface brightness-radius relation (§4.2, Eq. 7) are explicitly introduced as "On the assumption that HaTr 5 is a PN" and are used only to characterize the PN interpretation, not to rule out the nova remnant; this is conditional rather than circular. The Cloudy photoionization model is iterative and fitted to the observed line ratios; its prediction of undetectable central-star magnitudes is a model-dependent extrapolation, not an input recycled as a conclusion. Self-citations (e.g., Frew et al. 2016; Parker et al. 2016) provide external empirical calibrations or catalog classifications and are not load-bearing for the nova-versus-PN decision. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main observational result rests on standard nebular physics. The free parameters are mostly measured quantities or standard model parameters. The Cloudy model introduces many fitted parameters, but it is a consistency check, not the central claim. The paper invents no new entities or forces.

free parameters (5)
  • Extinction coefficient c(H-beta) = 0.81 +/- 0.10
    Derived from observed H-alpha to H-beta ratios of 5.56 and 5.26 using Case B ratio 2.863. It enters the extinction correction and thus the unreddened H-alpha flux and ionized mass.
  • Filling factor epsilon = 0.65
    Adopted from the shell surface-brightness model. Enters Eq. (3) as epsilon^0.5, so a minor dependence in the ionized mass.
  • SHAPE shell expansion velocity = 27 +/- 3 km/s
    Fitted to the position-velocity diagrams along two orthogonal slits. Used to derive the kinematic age and to compare with nova remnant expectations.
  • SHAPE inclination angle = 18 +/- 2 degrees
    Fitted to the PV diagram line tilt and morphology. Needed to deproject the shell and determine the true expansion velocity and kinematic age.
  • Cloudy central star parameters and shell densities = Teff=93,000 K, L=46 Lsun, n1=15 cm^-3, n2=60 cm^-3, N+13%, S+10%, O-15%
    Iteratively adjusted to match the observed line ratios in Table 2. Used to argue the central star is too faint to detect, supporting an evolved PN interpretation. Not load-bearing for the main claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The empirical H-alpha surface brightness-radius relation for planetary nebulae (Eq. 7, Frew et al. 2016) applies to HaTr 5.
    Used to derive a distance of 2.25 kpc and a mass of 0.47 Msun under the PN hypothesis. This presumes the object is a PN and is not needed for the nova remnant refutation.
  • domain assumption The theoretical nova ejection models of Yaron et al. (2005) bracket the mass, velocity, and momentum of Nova Sco 1437.
    Used in Fig. 6 to show that HaTr 5's mass, momentum, and kinetic energy exceed model predictions. If these models are wrong by orders of magnitude, the snow-plow argument weakens.
  • standard math Case B recombination applies with an H-alpha to H-beta flux ratio of 2.863.
    Standard atomic physics assumption used in Eq. (1) to derive the extinction coefficient from the Balmer decrement.
  • standard math The Whitford (1958) extinction law applies with f(H-alpha) = -0.34.
    Standard interstellar extinction curve used in Eq. (2) to compute c(H-beta).
  • domain assumption The nebula has expanded at a constant velocity over its lifetime.
    Assumed to derive the kinematic age from the angular radius, distance, and expansion velocity. The paper explicitly states this assumption.
  • domain assumption The SHAPE model assumes a homologous expansion velocity.
    Standard assumption in spatio-kinematic modeling of planetary nebulae; used to construct the 3D model and derive the kinematic age.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confirmation of the planetary nebula nature of HaTr 5. Not the remnant of Nova Sco 1437." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DISI6TG3

@misc{pith2026241212813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confirmation of the planetary nebula nature of HaTr 5. Not the remnant of Nova Sco 1437},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DISI6TG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12813}
}
read the original abstract

The identification of the nebula HaTr 5 with the shell remnant of the historic Nova Sco 1437 around the low-accretion rate cataclysmic variable 2MASS J17022815-4306123 has been used in the framework of the hibernation scenario to set an upper limit of <580 yr to the transition time from a nova-like binary to a dwarf nova. This work aims at clarifying the nature of HaTr 5, which has also previously been proposed to be a possible planetary nebula. Intermediate- and high-dispersion long-slit spectra of HaTr\,5 have been obtained and analyzed in conjunction with archival optical and infrared images to investigate its spectral properties using photoionization models, to derive its H-alpha flux and ionized mass, and to determine its spatio-kinematic by means of 3D models to clarify its true nature. The H-alpha flux of HaTr 5 implies an ionized mass of 0.059 M_Sun at the 0.99 kpc distance of J170228, i.e., about 1000 times the typical ejecta of a nova. If HaTr\,5 were actually an unrelated planetary nebula, its H-alpha flux implies a distance of 2.25 kpc and an ionized mass of 0.47 M_Sun. The expansion velocity of HaTr 5 is found to be of 27 km/s, with a heliocentric radial velocity of -1 km/. The ionized mass of HaTr 5 and its expansion velocity (and associated kinematic age) are clearly inconsistent with those expected for a nova remnant, which all strongly support a planetary nebula nature. The association of J170228 with HaTr 5 is further called into question by their differing radial velocities and almost orthogonal motions on the plane of the sky. It is concluded that HaTr 5 is an old, evolved planetary nebula unrelated to the remnant of Nova Sco 1437 and to the cataclysmic variable J170228, the latter being by chance projected onto HaTr 5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VPHAS+ u-SDSS (top-left) and Hα+[N ii] (top-right) images centered on HaTr 5 (field of view ≈4 arcmin), and wide field of view (≈10.5 arcmin) SHS Hα+[N ii] image (bottom-left) and Spitzer IRAC color-composite picture (bottom-right) of HaTr 5. Stars detected in the u band projected onto HaTr 5 are labeled on the u-SDSS image, whereas the location and orientation of the two SOAR GHTS long-slits are overlaid on the Hα … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SOAR (top), SAAO 2024 (middle), and SAAO 2014 (bottom) one-dimensional spectra of HaTr 5. Emission lines are labeled on the SOAR and SAAO 2024 spectra. The left y-axis denotes flux, but surface brightness for the right y-axis. Note the “artificial” extreme variations of the [O i] emission lines caused by poor sky subtraction for the SAAO 2024 spectrum and low signal-to-noise ratio of the SAAO 2014 spectrum. The appa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatio-kinematic information of HaTr 5 and the best SHAPE model. (left) SOAR GHTS Hα and [N ii] (top) and SHAPE synthetic (bottom) PV diagrams. (center) HASH Hα+[N ii] (top) and shape synthetic (bottom) image. (right) SHAPE mesh models along the line of sight and from the plane of the sky along the Southeast to Northwest direction. ments and knots, and asymmetric brightness distribution) of the shell. These are qual… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SOAR GHTS one-dimensional spectrum (black thick histogram) with two-Gaussian fit of the [N ii] (top) and Hα (bottom) emission lines (thin black line). Individual Gaussian curves are shown in blue and red and the residuals of the fit with a black thin histogram. The sys…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the mass (top-left), expansion velocity (top-right), linear momentum (bottom-left), and kinetic energy (bottom-right) of HaTr 5 as a PN (horizontal solid line) and as Nova Sco 1437 (horizontal dashed line) with theoretical expectations of CNe for 1.00 M⊙,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ionized mass and linear radius of nova remnants of theoretical CNe for 1.25 M⊙ (magenta) and 1.40 M⊙ (red) WDs of different tem￾peratures (Yaron et al. 2005) as labeled in the top-left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aller, L. H. & Czyzak, S. J. 1983, ApJS, 51,

    work page 1983

  2. [3]

    2021, A&A, 656, A51

    González-Santamaría, I., Manteiga, M., Manchado, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A51. Greenstein, J. L. 1984, ApJ, 276,

    work page 2021

  3. [34]

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25. Miszalski, B., Woudt, P. A., Littlefair, S. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456,

    work page 2015

  4. [60]

    A., Zavala, S., et al

    Santamaría, E., Guerrero, M. A., Zavala, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512,

    work page 2022

  5. [102]

    W., Mukai, K., & Naylor, T

    Somers, M. W., Mukai, K., & Naylor, T. 1996, MNRAS, 278,

    work page 1996

  6. [103]

    2016, Nature, 537,

    Mróz, P., Udalski, A., Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2016, Nature, 537,

    work page 2016

  7. [121]

    2013, A&A, 558, A78

    Jacob, R., Schönberner, D., & Steffen, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A78. Liimets, T., Corradi, R. L. M., Santander-García, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761,

    work page 2013

  8. [129]

    J., Parker, Q

    Frew, D. J., Parker, Q. A., & Bojiˇci´c, I. S. 2016, MNRAS, 455,

    work page 2016

Show all 36 references
  1. [137]

    Frew, D. J. & Parker, Q. A. 2010, PASA, 27,

    2010

  2. [159]

    2023, AJ, 165,

    Šimon, V . 2023, AJ, 165,

    2023

  3. [163]

    M., Martin, C

    Shara, M. M., Martin, C. D., Seibert, M., et al. 2007, Nature, 446,

    2007

  4. [211]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33. Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123.. Augusteijn, T., Greimel, R., van den Besselaar, E. J. M., et al. 2008, A&A, 486,

    2013

  5. [327]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Schönberner, D., Steffen, M., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, 1071 Crause, L. A., Gilbank, D., Gend, C. van ., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 024007. Dilday, B., Howell, D. A., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2012, Science, 337,

    2000

  6. [378]

    1984, JRASC, 78, 166 Shara, M

    Shara, M. 1984, JRASC, 78, 166 Shara, M. M., Iłkiewicz, K., Mikołajewska, J., et al. 2017, Nature, 548,

    1984

  7. [393]

    Bond, H. E. & Miszalski, B. 2018, PASP, 130, 094201. Capitanio, L., Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A65. Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59,

    2018

  8. [461]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 49,

    2013

  9. [558]

    M., Livio, M., Moffat, A

    Shara, M. M., Livio, M., Moffat, A. F. J., et al. 1986, ApJ, 311,

    1986

  10. [602]

    & Tritton, S

    Hartl, H. & Tritton, S. B. 1985, A&A, 145, 41 Harvey, E. J., Redman, M. P., Boumis, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499,

    1985

  11. [633]

    2015, Rev

    Morisset, C., Delgado-Inglada, G., & Flores-Fajardo, N. 2015, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 51,

    2015

  12. [649]

    Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei, 2nd. ed. by D.E. Osterbrock and G.J. Ferland. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books, 2006 Parker, Q. A. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 895287. Parker, Q....

    2006

  13. [689]

    Pottasch, S. R. 1984, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Dordrecht: Rei- del,

    1984

  14. [843]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 147 Belfiore, F., Ginolfi, M., Guillermo Blanc, G. et al. 2024, A&AS, in press, arXiv:2410.16370 Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117,

    2021 arXiv

  15. [845]

    2011, IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 17, 454 Tappert, C., Ederoclite, A., Mennickent, R

    Steffen, W., Koning, N., Wenger, S., et al. 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 17, 454 Tappert, C., Ederoclite, A., Mennickent, R. E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423,

    2011

  16. [942]

    E., Gonzalez-Solares, E., Greimel, R., et al

    Drew, J. E., Gonzalez-Solares, E., Greimel, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440,

    2014

  17. [1420]

    C., et al

    V ogt, N., Tappert, C., Puebla, E. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478,

    2018

  18. [1459]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1. Gehrz, R. D., Truran, J. W., Williams, R. E., et al. 1998, PASP, 110,

    2023

  19. [1984]

    I., Dhillon, V

    Sahman, D. I., Dhillon, V . S., Littlefair, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477,

    2018

  20. [2003]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2018, MNRAS, 481,

    2018

  21. [2036]

    Duerbeck, H. W. 1987, Ap&SS, 131,

    1987

  22. [2476]

    2020, A&A, 641, A122

    Tappert, C., V ogt, N., Ederoclite, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A122. Tody, D. 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 173 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113,

    2020

  23. [2959]

    Hoffmann, S. M. 2019, MNRAS, 490,

    2019

  24. [3033]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2022, MNRAS, 517,

    2022

  25. [4194]

    K., Robertson, J

    Honeycutt, R. K., Robertson, J. W., & Kafka, S. 2011, AJ, 141,

    2011

  26. [4483]

    A., Ramos-Larios, G., et al

    Santamaría, E., Guerrero, M. A., Ramos-Larios, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892,

    2020

  27. [5427]

    Whitford, A. E. 1958, AJ, 63, 201 Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623,

    1958

  28. [6150]

    2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335,

    Schönberner, D., Jacob, R., Lehmann, H., et al. 2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335,

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.