Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Estimating Global Ejecta Mass Ratios in Tycho's SNR

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper measures global ejecta mass ratios in Tycho's SNR from Suzaku X-ray spectra and finds they match only Type Ia models with a ~90% attenuated $^{12}$C$+^{16}$O reaction rate, excluding helium double-detonation models.

desk verdict A careful but model-limited measurement of Tycho's ejecta mass ratios; the central claim about the attenuated 12C+16O rate rests on a spectral fit with reduced chi-square > 5 and should be treated conditionally. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23897 v1 pith:H23JEVVR submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Tyler Holland-Ashford , Patrick Slane , Brian Williams This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantsTypeIasupernovaenucleosynthesisX-rayspectroscopyTycho'sSNRejectamassratiosreverseshock12C+16Oreactionrate
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 asks what the explosion that produced Tycho's supernova remnant looked like, using the X-ray-emitting ejecta as a fossil record. By fitting the full 0.6-8.0 keV Suzaku spectrum with a model that separates silicon-rich, sulfur-rich, and iron-rich plasma components, the authors measure global mass ratios for Si, S, Ar, Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe, and Ni. They find these ratios match only Type Ia nucleosynthesis models computed with a ~90% attenuated $^{12}$C$+^{16}$O fusion rate, and they rule out helium double-detonation models. For a reader, the payoff is a concrete constraint on the nuclear physics and explosion geometry behind one of history's recorded supernovae.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on a decomposition of the global Suzaku spectrum into three shocked ejecta plasmas (two intermediate-mass-element-dominated and one iron-dominated), a swept-up circumstellar medium component, a synchrotron continuum, and two Gaussian line residuals. Mass ratios are recovered from the fitted emission measures by assuming one of four relations among the plasma filling factors, with systematic uncertainties propagated from Suzaku effective-area calibration curves via 100 mock response functions and combined with statistical errors by multiple imputation.

What would settle it

Refit the same Suzaku spectra with an expanded model that brings the reduced chi-square down to about 1; if the resulting Si/Fe, Ca/S, and Ni/Fe ratios then match standard-rate Type Ia simulations at 90% confidence, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the global X-ray spectrum of Tycho's SNR, fit with a multicomponent plasma model, yields ejecta mass ratios (Si/Fe $\approx 0.64$, S/Fe $\approx 0.44$, Ca/S $\approx 0.40$, Cr/Fe $\approx 0.025$, Mn/Fe $\approx 0.010$, Ni/Fe $\approx 0.025$) that are reproduced only by Type Ia simulations using a $\sim\!90\%$ attenuated $^{12}$C$+^{16}$O reaction rate. The same ratios are inconsistent with stable double-detonation models and with standard-rate near-$M_{\rm Ch}$ delayed detonations, and they favor a normal-luminosity explosion in which roughly 85% (75-95%) of the ejecta has been heated by the reverse shock.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the multicomponent spectral model (three shocked ejecta plasmas, a circumstellar medium plasma, a synchrotron continuum, and two line-residual Gaussians) correctly captures Tycho's X-ray emission; if the large unmodeled residuals, which the authors report as reduced chi-square greater than 5, hide real plasma components, then the derived abundance ratios and every mass ratio built from them are systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tycho's progenitor explosion was a normal-luminosity Type Ia, not a double detonation of a thick helium layer.
  • Type Ia nucleosynthesis models need a ~90% attenuation of the carbon-12 plus oxygen-16 reaction rate to reproduce Tycho's intermediate-mass-element-to-iron and intermediate-mass-element-to-sulfur ratios, just as they did for Kepler's SNR.
  • The reverse shock has already heated roughly 75-95% of the ejecta by mass, with ~85% as the central estimate, so most of the iron-group material is currently X-ray-emitting.
  • The data allow either a near-Chandrasekhar delayed detonation with a low deflagration-to-detonation transition density and subsolar metallicity, or a sub-Chandrasekhar D6 explosion with super-solar metallicity.
  • Refining the carbon-12 plus oxygen-16 cross section in the lab, and running 2D and 3D models with the attenuated rate, will test whether this nuclear anomaly is generic to Type Ia SNe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ~90% attenuation is a real property of stellar fusion, the same ratio pattern should show up in other young Type Ia remnants; checking SN 1006 or G1.9+0.3 with the same method would test that prediction without waiting for new missions.
  • The detector-specific residuals in the Suzaku spectra suggest that part of the inferred abundance pattern may be an artifact of calibration or atomic-data gaps; higher-resolution spectra from XRISM could break that degeneracy.
  • The two surviving progenitor channels (near-Chandrasekhar delayed detonation versus sub-Chandrasekhar D6) predict different surviving companions and kick velocities; a deeper search for a companion star or a precise proper-motion measurement could decide between them.
  • Filling-factor uncertainties are small for Tycho but were about 30% for Kepler, so cross-remnant comparisons should carry a per-remnant systematic budget rather than a single global error.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a global spectral analysis of Suzaku XIS observations of Tycho's SNR using a multicomponent plasma model (two IME-dominated vpshock components, one Fe-dominated vvnei component, a CSM component, a synchrotron component, and two ad hoc Gaussians). The authors propagate effective-area calibration uncertainties with 100 mock response curves and filling-factor uncertainties with four physical assumptions via multiple imputation. From the best-fit abundances they derive ejecta mass ratios (Si/Fe, S/Fe, Ar/Fe, Ca/Fe, Cr/Fe, Mn/Fe, Ni/Fe) and compare them to published Type Ia nucleosynthesis models. The central claim is that the observed ratios are consistent only with simulations using a ~90% attenuated 12C+16O reaction rate, inconsistent with double-detonation models, and favor a normal-luminosity explosion with ~85% of the ejecta heated by the reverse shock.

Significance. If the derived mass ratios are robust, the paper provides an important observational constraint on Type Ia nucleosynthesis, specifically on the 12C+16O reaction rate and on the viability of double-detonation channels. The uncertainty treatment is a clear strength: the use of 100 mock effective-area curves to capture calibration systematics, the four explicit filling-factor assumptions, and the multiple-imputation combination of uncertainties are all methodologically sound and go beyond typical practice in SNR X-ray abundance studies. The comparison with multiple independent simulation grids and with previous observational estimates is also thorough. However, the central claim rests on abundance ratios obtained from a spectral fit with reduced chi-square greater than 5 and with detector-dependent residuals; if that model inadequacy biases the abundances, the nucleosynthesis discrimination may not be reliable. The paper's careful uncertainty accounting therefore needs to be extended to include the dominant systematic, the spectral model itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Figure 1] The spectral fit has reduced chi-square greater than 5, and the residuals for the XIS1 and XIS0+XIS3 detectors are often opposite in sign. This means the multicomponent model does not describe the data within statistical errors. Since all mass ratios in Table 1 are derived from best-fit abundances from this model, systematic biases in those abundances are possible, and the reported uncertainties do not include any term for model inadequacy. The paper acknowledges the poor fit but does not quantify how it affects the derived mass ratios. Please add an explicit systematic uncertainty based on, for example, fits to subsets of the data, alternative plasma models, or a comparison with published spatially resolved analyses, or otherwise demonstrate that the derived ratios are stable against the unmodeled residuals.
  2. [Section 5.1, chi-square comparison] The reduced-chi-square comparison between the measured mass ratios and the simulation predictions explicitly excludes all IME/S ratios, with the justification that they are 'fully degenerate with other mass ratios.' This exclusion is load-bearing because the discrimination between standard and attenuated 12C+16O rate models relies heavily on Ar/S and Ca/S. Please provide a quantitative demonstration that including the IME/S ratios would not change the conclusions, or include them in the comparison. Without this, the claim that only the attenuated-rate models are consistent is not established from the full set of measured ratios.
  3. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2] The best-match parameters (transition density, metallicity, shocked-ejecta fraction for Bravo models; progenitor mass, metallicity, shocked fraction for Shen models) are obtained by linear interpolation between published simulation grid points, with three free parameters adjusted to minimize chi-square. These interpolated parameters are then presented as constraints on the explosion models. However, the interpolation itself introduces uncertainty that is not propagated into the quoted parameter ranges, and the chi-square values (reduced chi-square of 1.50-1.77) are evaluated against only five degrees of freedom after excluding IME/S ratios. Please quantify the interpolation uncertainty (e.g., by varying the interpolation scheme or using the published grid points only) and discuss how the quoted parameter ranges would change.
  4. [Section 2.2, Gaussian components] The two ad hoc Gaussians at 0.7 and 1.2 keV are added to absorb residuals described as likely due to Fe-L lines. If these residuals are indeed Fe-L line emission, then the Fe abundance in the plasma components could be systematically biased, which would directly affect Si/Fe, S/Fe, Cr/Fe, and Ni/Fe mass ratios that drive the nucleosynthesis comparison. The paper notes (in a footnote) that AtomDB v3.1.2 gives mass ratios within 1 sigma of the adopted v3.0.10 results, which is reassuring, but the impact of adding or removing the Gaussians on the final mass ratios is not reported. Please show the mass ratios obtained without the Gaussians or with alternative treatments of Fe-L emission to demonstrate that the central conclusions are robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] There is a typo in 'Keplers SNR' (missing apostrophe) in the sentence comparing the residuals to the analysis of Kepler's SNR.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract states the mass ratios are 'only consistent' with the 90% attenuated rate, but Section 5.2 shows that Shen et al. D6 models with Z~1.9 solar are also consistent, with the caveat that Ar/S and Ca/S do not match. The wording 'only' should be softened to reflect this partial consistency.
  3. [Table 3] For the Ejecta 3 normalization, the reported statistical uncertainty (sigma_stat = 2.30 in units of 10^-6 cm^-5) is larger than the quoted 1-sigma uncertainty of the parameter value (1.44). This suggests an error in the error propagation or in the table formatting; please check and correct.
  4. [Throughout] The notation 'reduced-χ2' is used with a hyphen in several places; standard usage is 'reduced chi-square' or 'χ2_red'.
  5. [Section 5.2] The text uses 'M Ch' and 'sub-MCh' inconsistently; please use a single notation for Chandrasekhar mass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ejecta mass ratios are measured from Suzaku spectra and compared against independent published nucleosynthesis models.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation runs from Suzaku X-ray spectra to best-fit plasma abundances, then to ejecta mass ratios, and finally to a comparison with published Type Ia nucleosynthesis calculations. The mass ratios themselves are obtained directly from the spectral fit, not from the simulations, so the main measurement is not circular. The comparison models (Seitenzahl et al. 2013; Bravo et al. 2019; Shen et al. 2018a; Lach et al. 2020; Leung & Nomoto 2020) are external to this paper and were not fitted to Tycho's data; even though Bravo et al. (2019) tuned the 12C+16O rate to other SNR observations, that tuning is independent of the current measurement. The paper's use of the prior work Holland-Ashford et al. (2023) for the fitting methodology is a self-citation, but it is procedural rather than load-bearing: the modeling approach is also grounded in earlier external studies such as Katsuda et al. (2015), and the present analysis uses new Suzaku observations of Tycho. The interpolated best-match parameters (including the shocked-ejecta percentage) are fitted comparison variables rather than independent predictions, which is a minor presentation caveat, but it does not make the derivation circular because the observed mass ratios are not defined in terms of the simulation outputs. The high reduced chi-square and detector-dependent residuals are serious systematic-fit concerns, but they affect accuracy of the measured ratios rather than indicating logical circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass ratio measurements rest on the assumed spectral model and filling factor relations. The model comparison additionally fits interpolation parameters (shocked fraction, metallicity, density, mass) to the observed ratios, so conclusions about the favored reaction rate and shocked-ejecta fraction are partly determined by these fitted parameters rather than being independent predictions.

free parameters (9)
  • Interpolated shocked-ejecta fraction (near-Mch) = 89-91%
    Fitted to minimize chi2 between observed mass ratios and Bravo et al. (2019) models; used to conclude ~85% shock-heated.
  • Interpolated DDT transition density (near-Mch) = 1.65-1.9e7 g/cm3
    Fitted parameter in model comparison; bracketed by Bravo et al. models.
  • Interpolated metallicity (near-Mch) = 0.47-0.83 Zsun
    Fitted in the interpolation to Bravo et al. models.
  • Interpolated progenitor mass (sub-Mch Bravo) = 1.024 Msun
    Best-fit interpolation to Bravo et al. sub-Mch models.
  • Interpolated shocked-ejecta fraction (sub-Mch Bravo) = 74%
    Best-fit interpolation parameter.
  • Interpolated metallicity (sub-Mch Bravo) = 0.64 Zsun
    Best-fit interpolation parameter.
  • Interpolated progenitor mass (Shen D6) = 0.97 Msun
    Best-fit interpolation to Shen et al. (2018a) models.
  • Interpolated shocked-ejecta fraction (Shen D6) = 95%
    Best-fit interpolation parameter.
  • Interpolated metallicity (Shen D6) = 1.9 Zsun
    Best-fit interpolation parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The X-ray emitting ejecta can be represented by three plasma components with distinct abundances (two IME-dominated, one Fe-dominated), plus a CSM component.
    This model structure is assumed from prior work (Katsuda et al. 2015) and is not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper The four filling factor relations (equal volumes, pressure equilibrium, annulus-based, hybrid) are equally physically plausible.
    The true filling factors are unknown; the spread over the four assumptions is used as an uncertainty estimate.
  • domain assumption The unshocked ejecta inside the reverse shock does not contribute to the X-ray emission and its mass fraction must be taken from Katsuda et al. (2015).
    The paper relies on an assumed shocked-ejecta percentage of ~86% from Katsuda et al.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation between published simulation model grids is valid for finding the best-match parameters.
    The authors interpolate density, metallicity, and shocked fraction in steps of 10 to minimize chi2.
  • ad hoc to paper The exclusion of IME/S mass ratios from the chi2 comparison is justified by their degeneracy with other ratios.
    This exclusion affects the model comparison and the conclusion about the reaction rate.
  • standard math Suzaku effective area calibration uncertainties are 5-15% as reported by Marshall et al. (2021).
    Used to generate 100 mock effective area curves; this is a literature value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating Global Ejecta Mass Ratios in Tycho's SNR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H23JEVVR

@misc{pith2026250523897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating Global Ejecta Mass Ratios in Tycho's SNR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H23JEVVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23897}
}
abstract

In this work, as a follow-up to our similar analysis of Kepler's supernova remnant (SNR), we estimate total mass ratios of various ejecta elements in Tycho's SNR using Suzaku X-ray data. In our spectral analysis, we account for uncertainties arising from Suzaku's effective area calibration (5%-15%) and from the unknown filling factors of the various plasma components in our spectral model (1%-10%). We compare our calculated ejecta mass ratios to results from previous X-ray analyses of Tycho's SNR and to the nucleosynthesis results from Type Ia supernova simulations. Our estimated ejecta mass ratios for Tycho's SNR are only consistent with simulations that use a $\sim$90% attenuated $^{12}$C$+^{16}$O reaction rate (as for Kepler's SNR), are inconsistent with simulations involving a double detonation of a thick helium layer, and support a Type Ia explosion of normal luminosity where $\sim$85% of the ejecta has been heated by the reverse shock.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Suzaku X-Ray spectra of Tycho’s SNR and our best spectral fit. The black data is from the XIS1 detector and the red is from the combined XIS0+XIS3 detectors. The colored lines are components of our best-fit model: green is the full model; blue is shocked CSM/ISM; magenta and orange are the lower-temperature Si-dominated ejecta (ej1 & ej2); cyan is the hotter Fe-dominated ejecta (ej3); and gray is synchrotron emissio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows a sample of mass ratios calculated as￾suming different filling factor relations. The error bars on the cyan data point reflect the spread due to the four assumptions, which is an additional source of un￾certainty to include in our final mass ratio estimates. To quantify this uncertainty, we used Multiple Imputa￾tion (Rubin 1987; Schafer 1997), a technique designed to handle missing data. The total uncertainty … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our estimated mass ratios for ejecta in Tycho’s SNR (green bars represent 90% confidence intervals) compared to the results of various near-MCh Delayed Detonation nucleosynthesis models. Each column of three plots corresponds to the same simulation (with labels split between the three plots), and each row shows different mass ratios. The bottom plot shows results interpolated from the multiple models of Bravo et al.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 53

    Alan, N., Park, S., & Bilir, S. 2019, ApJ, 873, 53

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 1373

    Bravo, E. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1373

    2006

  4. [4]

    Badenes, C., Bravo, E., & Hughes, J. P. 2008, ApJL, 680, L33

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4346

    Bravo, E., Badenes, C., & Mart ´ ınez-Rodr ´ ıguez, H. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4346

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJL, 711, L66

    Straniero, O. 2010, ApJL, 711, L66

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 160

    Dupczak, K. 2008, ApJ, 677, 160

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    A., Kirshner, R

    Chevalier, R. A., Kirshner, R. P., & Raymond, J. C. 1980, ApJ, 235, 186

    work page 1980

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    A., & White, R

    Colgate, S. A., & White, R. H. 1966, ApJ, 143, 626

    1966

  2. [10]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 89

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 737, 89

    2011

  3. [11]

    1994, A&A, 283, 635

    Koyama, K. 1994, A&A, 283, 635

    1994

  4. [12]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128

    2012

  5. [13]

    Green, D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36

    2019

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJL, 709, L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, ApJL, 709, L64

    2010

  7. [15]

    A., Auchettl, K., & Kashyap, V

    Holland-Ashford, T., Slane, P., Lopez, L. A., Auchettl, K., & Kashyap, V. 2023, ApJ, 955, 77

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hoyle, F., & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565

    1960

  9. [17]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 811

    Ihara, Y., Ozaki, J., Doi, M., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 811

    2007

  10. [18]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  11. [19]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 49

    Katsuda, S., Mori, K., Maeda, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 49

    2015

  12. [20]

    E., Long, K

    Kerzendorf, W. E., Long, K. S., Winkler, P. F., & Do, T. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5696

    2018

  13. [21]

    E., Schmidt, B

    Kerzendorf, W. E., Schmidt, B. P., Asplund, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1665

    2009

  14. [22]

    J., & Uyanıker, B

    Kothes, R., Fedotov, K., Foster, T. J., & Uyanıker, B. 2006, A&A, 457, 1081

    2006

  15. [23]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 23

    Koyama, K., Tsunemi, H., Dotani, T., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 23

    2007

  16. [24]

    V., & Blinnikov, S

    Kozlova, A. V., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1038, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012006

    2018

  17. [25]

    2008, Nature, 456, 617

    Krause, O., Tanaka, M., Usuda, T., et al. 2008, Nature, 456, 617

    2008

  18. [26]

    K., Seitenzahl, I

    Lach, F., R¨ opke, F. K., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A118

    2020

  19. [27]

    L., van Dyk, D

    Lee, H., Kashyap, V. L., van Dyk, D. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 126

    2011

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —

    Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —. 2020, ApJ, 888, 80

    2018

  21. [29]

    1990, ApJL, 354, L53

    Livne, E. 1990, ApJL, 354, L53

    1990

  22. [30]

    L., Chen, Y., Drake, J

    Marshall, H. L., Chen, Y., Drake, J. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 254 Mart ´ ınez-Rodr ´ ıguez, H., Badenes, C., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 35

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., Park, S., Sato, T., et al

    Millard, M. J., Park, S., Sato, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 121

    2022

  24. [32]

    1982, ApJ, 253, 798 Nordstr¨ om, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798 Nordstr¨ om, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989

    1982

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 62

    Okon, H., Tanaka, T., Uchida, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 62

    2020

  26. [34]

    Picquenot, A., Holland-Ashford, T., & Williams, B. J. 2024, A&A, 687, A28

    2024

  27. [35]

    L., Suntzeff, N

    Rest, A., Welch, D. L., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 2008, ApJL, 681, L81

    2008

  28. [36]

    Rubin, D. B. 1987, in Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, ed. N. Y. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 258

    1987

  29. [37]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 357

    Ruiz-Lapuente, P. 2004, ApJ, 612, 357

    2004

  30. [38]

    1997, in Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, ed

    Schafer, J. 1997, in Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data, ed. N. Y. Chapman & Hall, 444

    1997

  31. [39]

    J., Goss, W

    Schwarz, U. J., Goss, W. M., Kalberla, P. M., & Benaglia, P. 1995, A&A, 299, 193

    1995

  32. [40]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., & R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2709

    2011

  33. [41]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156 Tycho’s SNR Ejecta Mass Ratios 13 T able 3.Final Model Parameters Parameter Value ± 1σ σ cal a σstat a NH (1022 cm−2) 1.351 ± 0.038 0.038 0.005 CSM Component: vpshock kTe (keV) 0.225 ± 0....

    2013

  34. [42]

    Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91

    2001

  35. [43]

    R., & Green, D

    Stephenson, F. R., & Green, D. A. 2002, International Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5

    2002

  36. [44]

    Taam, R. E. 1980, ApJ, 242, 749

    1980

  37. [45]

    2009, PASJ, 61, S167

    Tamagawa, T., Hayato, A., Nakamura, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, S167

    2009

  38. [46]

    2021, ApJL, 906, L3

    Tanaka, T., Okuno, T., Uchida, H., et al. 2021, ApJL, 906, L3

    2021

  39. [47]

    2008, PASJ, 60, S11

    Tawa, N., Hayashida, K., Nagai, M., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, S11

    2008

  40. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 159

    Uchida, H., Kasuga, T., Maeda, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 159

    2024

  41. [49]

    S., Hughes, J

    Warren, J. S., Hughes, J. P., Badenes, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 376

    2005

  42. [50]

    J., Borkowski, K

    Williams, B. J., Borkowski, K. J., Ghavamian, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 129

    2013

  43. [51]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  44. [52]

    A., Kashyap, V

    Xu, J., van Dyk, D. A., Kashyap, V. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 97

    2014

  45. [53]

    Xue, Z., & Schaefer, B. E. 2015, ApJ, 809, 183

    2015

  46. [54]

    A., Badenes, C., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Eriksen, K. A., Badenes, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 136

    2014

  47. [55]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Badenes, C., Foster, A. R., et al. 2015, ApJL, 801, L31

    2015

  48. [56]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 34 Tycho’s SNR Ejecta Mass Ratios 15 T able 3.Final Model Parameters, cont

    Zhou, P., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 34 Tycho’s SNR Ejecta Mass Ratios 15 T able 3.Final Model Parameters, cont. Parameter Value ± 1σ σ cal a σstat a Gaussians: Energy1 (keV) 0.735 ± 0.002 0.002 0.001 Line Width1 (keV) 0.0017 ± 0.0017 0.0013 0.0012 Normaliz...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.