Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

Fundamental Parameters for Central Stars of 103 Infrared Bowshock Nebulae

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 fundamental parameters for 103 OB stars that power infrared bowshock nebulae and argues that the high binary fraction among the runaways (at least 15 of 19) favors dynamical ejection over the binary-supernova channel.

desk verdict A genuinely useful census of bowshock central-star parameters, with a DES conclusion that is shakier than the data product. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07904 v1 pith:KBHKKP6A submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Nikhil Patten , Henry A. Kobulnicky , Matthew S. Povich , Angelica S. Whisnant , Sydney Andrews , Alexandra Boone , Srujan Dandu , Naomi Jones
show 11 more authors
S. Nick Justice Dylan Hope Alexander Larsen Ryan McCrory Julia Meredith Maria Renee Meza Alexandra C. Rosenthal William Salazar Alexander R. Sterling Noshin Yesmin Daniel A. Dale
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords bowshocknebulaeOBstarsstellarparametersrunawaybinarydynamicalejectionmasslossspectroscopicbinaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish what kind of stars sit at the centers of infrared bowshock nebulae and what those stars reveal about how massive stars are ejected from their birthplaces. Using new low-resolution blue spectra of 103 OB stars plus broadband photometry, it measures temperature, surface gravity, projected rotation, radius, luminosity, and extinction, finding that bowshock stars are ordinary Galactic OB stars in every respect except one: a large fraction of the fast-moving ones are binaries. The central claim is that 19 stars in the sample are runaways, with two-dimensional space velocities at or above 25 km/s, and that at least 15 of those 19 show binarity, a rate the paper argues points to dynamical ejection rather than the binary-supernova channel as the main runaway engine. This matters because bowshock geometry offers an independent route to wind-driven mass-loss rates, which control whether massive stars end as neutron stars or black holes, and the new parameter catalog is the foundation for those measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the joint plane of projected rotation $v \sin i$ against two-dimensional peculiar velocity $v_{\rm 2D}$, divided into the binary-supernova region (fast rotators with moderate speed), the dynamical-ejection region (slow rotators with high speed), an ambiguous strip, and an avoidance region, together with binarity flags from single-lined, double-lined, eclipsing, and astrometric indicators. The stellar parameters are produced by fitting blue optical spectra to a grid of hot-atmosphere model spectra with a Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampler, then fitting the photometry with a spectral-energy-distribution plus evolutionary-track code to obtain radius, luminosity, mass, and extinction. The quadrant diagram is what carries the channel-attribution argument: apparent rapid rotation in the supernova region is shown to be inflated by unresolved binary blends, leaving the binary-rich, slow-rotating runaway population as the observed signature of dynamical ejection.

What would settle it

A high-resolution, multi-epoch radial-velocity campaign on the 19 runaways, combined with updated astrometry, would settle the matter: if fewer than about half of the runaways are confirmed as binaries, or if their peculiar velocities fall below the 25 km/s threshold, the claimed at-least-79% binary fraction and the dynamical-ejection preference would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a statistical statement about runaway OB stars. Among 103 bowshock-powering OB stars (temperatures 16.5–46.8 kK, $\log g = 2.57$–4.60, $v \sin i$ from below 100 to 400 km/s), at least 60% show evidence of binarity, matching other OB samples. Of the stars with usable kinematics, 19 are runaways under the $v_{\rm 2D} \geq 25$ km/s criterion, and at least 15 of those 19 are binaries. Because simulations of the binary-supernova channel leave only a small fraction of runaways bound, while dynamical ejection leaves 20–45% of its runaways in binaries, the paper concludes that the observed $\geq$79% binary fraction favors dynamical ejection. A secondary finding is that bowshock stars are unexceptional: they occupy the same gravity–rotation locus and the same HR diagram as normal Galactic OB stars, with $\zeta$ Oph as the only near-critical rotator, so the sample can stand in for ordinary OB stars in future mass-loss work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the earlier Gaia-based two-dimensional space velocities and the earlier low-resolution checks that flag some stars as binaries are both accurate; if either set is biased, the claim that 15 of 19 runaway bowshock stars are binaries is not independently established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Confirmed runaway bowshock stars are mostly binary systems; the binary-supernova channel alone can account for at most a small bound fraction, so the $\geq$79% binary rate makes dynamical ejection the default explanation for these runaways.
  • The measured $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, $v \sin i$, $R_*$, $L_*$, and $A_V$ values are the inputs needed to convert bowshock standoff distances into wind mass-loss rates for 103 stars.
  • Because bowshock stars occupy the same parameter space as ordinary OB stars, mass-loss rates derived from them should be applicable to OB stars generally, not just to bowshock-selected objects.
  • The SED-derived extinctions running 2–3 magnitudes above earlier infrared color-excess values imply that previous H–[4.5]-based extinctions for early-type bowshock stars should be revised.
  • Aside from $\zeta$ Oph, bowshock stars do not rotate near critical speeds, so near-critical rotation is not a prerequisite for producing a bowshock nebula.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable path the paper does not itself take: measure radial velocities of the 19 runaways at high resolution over several epochs; if the confirmed binary fraction drops below roughly half, the observed 15-of-19 rate was inflated by the inherited low-resolution flags and the dynamical-ejection conclusion weakens.
  • Recomputing the two-dimensional velocities and binarity flags with newer astrometry and a homogeneous high-resolution survey of all 103 stars would show whether the runaway–binary link is a real property of the population or a selection effect of how runaways were identified.
  • If the result generalizes beyond bowshock stars, runaway binary fractions become a clean observational diagnostic of cluster ejection, and population-synthesis models that route most runaways through the supernova channel would need to be recalibrated.
  • A direct check of the mass-loss promise would be to compare bowshock-derived mass-loss rates against H-alpha or ultraviolet wind measurements for the same stars, testing whether the nebula geometry is a truly independent probe.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents low-resolution blue optical spectra (R ≈ 1500–2200) of 104 candidate central stars of infrared bowshock nebulae taken from the catalogs of Kobulnicky et al. (2016) and Jayasinghe et al. (2019). The authors fit TLUSTY OSTAR2002/BSTAR2006 model grids with a grid-search plus MCMC pipeline to measure effective temperature, surface gravity, and projected rotational broadening, and combine the results with Gaia EDR3 parallaxes and broadband photometry in EXOFASTv2 with MIST models to derive stellar radius, luminosity, and visual-band extinction. The analysis is calibrated on 28 comparison stars with literature parameters; temperature and gravity are recovered with scatter of about 1.5 kK and 0.20 dex, respectively, while v sin i carries an acknowledged resolution floor near 100 km/s and an unexplained systematic offset of about 25 km/s above it. The principal science results are: (i) the 103 OB bowshock stars span Teff = 16.5–46.8 kK and log g = 2.57–4.60 and occupy the same spectroscopic and conventional HR-diagram loci as normal Galactic OB stars; (ii) roughly 60% of the sample shows at least one binarity indicator; and (iii) 19 of the stars with kinematic data meet the v2D ≥ 25 km/s runaway threshold, and 15 of these 19 (≥79%) show binarity indicators, which the authors interpret as favoring dynamical ejection over the binary supernova channel as the production mechanism for runaway OB stars.

Significance. If the headline inference holds, the paper supplies rare observational leverage on the long-standing dynamical-ejection versus binary-supernova debate for runaway OB stars, and the census itself (Teff, log g, v sin i, R*, L*, AV for 103 bowshock central stars, many measured for the first time) is a solid foundation for the bowshock-based wind mass-loss technique of Kobulnicky et al. (2018, 2019). The methodological strengths are real: fitting is done against public TLUSTY grids rather than tunable private models; the comparison-sample validation quantifies accuracy; the SED analysis uses standard public tools; and the authors are unusually transparent about their own limitations (the −25 km/s v sin i offset, the 100 km/s resolution floor, SB2-related v sin i inflation, and the exclusion of the F-star interloper HD 157642). The DES/BSS inference in §5.2 is the weakest link: it depends on binarity flags of heterogeneous provenance, it lacks any uncertainty or sensitivity analysis, and the counts supporting it are internally inconsistent (60 vs 62 vs 65 binaries; 84 vs 87 kinematic stars; 22% vs 23% runaway fraction).

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 15; Table 4; §4.4] The headline inference—'at least 15 (≥79%) are binaries, favoring dynamical ejection'—is presented as a bare point estimate, without uncertainty or sensitivity analysis, and it rests on flags of heterogeneous provenance. Among the 19 runaways, the 15 binary flags comprise 10 SB2 classifications from single-epoch R≈2200 spectra, 3 SB1 flags imported from Kobulnicky & Chick (2022) through footnote 13 (BS303, BS360, BS361), and 2 EB flags from Malkov et al. (2006). Section 4.4 itself cautions that 'our analysis is most problematic for de-blended SB2s' and that line splitting inflates v sin i, so the binarity flags and the v sin i values used to partition Figure 15 are not independent products of the same spectra. The comparison logic is also muddled: the observed ≥79% lies above the quoted DES multiplicity range of 20–45% (Perets & Šubr 2012), so the conclusion is qualitative rather than a statement that the measurement falls inside the DES prediction; the binomial 95% confidence interval for 15/19 is roughly 54–94%, and detection selection effects (e.g., ease of flagging SB2s; magnitude-limited sample) are not discussed. Even if 2–3 of the 15 flags were spurious, the binary fraction would remain high (about 63–68%), so the DES preference would probably survive, but the authors should demonstrate this with (i) a binomial confidence interval, (ii) a sensitivity test that recomputes the fraction without the least certain flag classes, and (iii) an explicit discussion of binarity-detection biases in this 24 µm-selected sample.
  2. [§5.2; §6; Abstract] The size of the kinematic subsample is reported inconsistently. Section 5.2 states that '19 of the 87 OB stars with kinematic data (22%)' are runaways; Section 6 states '22% of bowshock stars with kinematic data (19 of 84)'; and the abstract quotes a 23% runaway fraction. The arithmetic does not close: 19/84 = 22.6% (which rounds to 23%) while 19/87 = 21.8% (which rounds to 22%), so the percentages in Section 6 and the abstract cannot both be right, and neither agrees with the other section's denominator. The authors should verify the number of stars with v2D from Kobulnicky & Chick (2022) and use a single, consistent value everywhere. Because the v2D values and the 25 km/s runaway threshold are taken unchanged from that earlier work, the text should also state explicitly that the runaway classification is inherited rather than re-derived here, so the reader can gauge the independence of the runaway sample.
  3. [Abstract; §4.4; §6; Table 4] The total binary count appears as three different numbers: 'at least 60 of 103 (60%)' in the abstract, '62 bowshock stars (60%)' in Section 4.4, and '65 (60%)' in Section 6. Counting the flag column of Table 4 gives 62 unique stars with at least one indicator (16 SB1, 41 SB2, 3 EB, and 15 R flags, allowing for overlap), so Section 4.4 and the table agree while the abstract and Section 6 do not; additionally, 60/103 = 58.3% and 65/103 = 63.1%, so the percentages attached to those two counts are arithmetically wrong. The three occurrences should be reconciled against the table, and the presentation of the RUWE flag should clarify the bright-star exclusion (footnote 14), since BS388 (RUWE 2.496) and κ Cas (RUWE 2.368) appear in Table 4 without R flags.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) places σ_i in the denominator of the reduced χ² expression; the standard statistic requires σ_i². As printed, the quantity is not a χ² and downweights noisy pixels less aggressively than intended; please correct the formula or clarify that σ_i denotes the variance rather than the standard deviation.
  2. [§3.5.1; Figure 8; Figure 15] The honest disclosure of the unexplained −25 km/s systematic in v sin i ('We cannot explain this deviation') is not carried through to §5.2, where Figure 15 partitions the sample at v sin i = 120 km/s. The 19 runaways sit mostly far from the boundary, but BS377 (104 ± 29 km/s, SB2) and BS667 (153 ± 16 km/s, EB) are near it; a sentence confirming that the region assignments, and hence the binary-count statistic (which depends only on v2D), are insensitive to this offset would close the loop.
  3. [Abstract; §4.1; Appendix B] The abstract reports spectra for 104 stars but then quotes binary statistics for 103; the reduction from 104 to 103 (exclusion of the F star HD 157642, Appendix B) should be stated in the abstract itself, since the denominator change is otherwise unexplained.
  4. [Table 2; §5.2] BS667 is listed as 'V* V1012 Sco' in Table 2 but referred to as 'V1202 Sco' in §5.2; the variable-star designation should be made consistent.
  5. [§5.1, Eq. (3)] The critical-rotation comparison adopts a fixed Eddington factor Γ = 0.30; because 'no bowshock stars rotate near critical velocity' is a stated result, a sentence on how the vcrit tracks shift over the plausible Γ ≈ 0.2–0.5 range for OB stars would make the claim more robust.
  6. [§4.4; §5] The statement that the binary fraction is 'consistent with the multiplicity fraction of other OB samples' mixes detection methods: the RUWE > 1.4 astrometric flag and the EB flag from Malkov et al. (2006) are not directly comparable to the spectroscopically determined multiplicity fractions cited from Sana & Evans (2011) and Chini et al. (2012); a sentence acknowledging this methodological mismatch is needed.
  7. [§3.5.2] The stellar radius validation is based on only three objects (ζ Oph, HD 191423, AE Aur), and the HD 191423 comparison is weakly constraining because the literature value carries a very large uncertainty (18.3 ± 8.7 R⊙); a sentence noting the limited scope of the radius validation would aid the reader.
  8. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors: 'intenral' (§2.2), 'uncertaintiy' (§3.1 and Table 3 note), 'nebuae' (Table 4 note), 'metalicity' (Figure 14 caption), 'Thompson' for Thomson (§5.1), 'temperatire' (§3.2), 'V er tically' (Fig Set 16 title), and 'survery' (§1); these should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: stellar parameters are fitted against public model grids and validated on comparison stars; the DES inference rests on independent kinematic and binarity data, not on the new fits.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements (Teff, log g, v sin i) come from fitting TLUSTY/BSTAR2006 model grids to new blue spectra, and R*, L*, and AV come from SED fitting with EXOFASTv2 plus MIST models; both procedures are benchmarked against 28 literature comparison stars, including ζ Oph, with reported agreement (Figures 6–8, Section 3.5). The load-bearing dynamical-ejection claim in Section 5.2 uses (1) two-dimensional peculiar velocities v2D >= 25 km/s from Kobulnicky & Chick (2022), which are Gaia EDR3 proper-motion measurements, and (2) binarity flags from radial-velocity variability (SB1, from earlier observations), line splitting/composite spectra (SB2, from the new low-resolution spectra), eclipsing-binary catalogs, and Gaia RUWE. None of these inputs is derived from, or fitted by, the spectral parameters measured in this paper: the runaway selection and the binary classification are independent of the TLUSTY/MCMC fits and the SED-derived radii and luminosities. The comparison of the resulting 79% binary fraction to the 20–45% DES prediction of Perets & Subr (2012) and the 14% bound BSS fraction of Renzo et al. (2019) is an external theoretical benchmark. Same-group citations to Kobulnicky & Chick (2022) exist and are load-bearing for the runaway subsample, but they carry independent Gaia astrometry and prior RV measurements, so they do not make the argument circular. The internal numerical inconsistencies noted in the paper (19/87 vs 19/84 runaways; 60/103 vs 62/104 vs 65/104 binary counts) are consistency/accuracy concerns, not evidence that any claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on standard model grids (TLUSTY, MIST), a standard extinction law, and Gaia astrometry. The free parameters are the adopted critical-rotation Eddington factor and the arbitrary velocity thresholds used to define runaways and formation-channel regions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Eddington factor Gamma = 0.30
    Chosen to compute critical rotation tracks in Figure 13; stated as 'a value typical for OB stars.'
  • Runaway threshold v2D = 25 km/s
    Adopted criterion for classifying runaways, following Kobulnicky & Chick (2022).
  • BSS/DES region boundaries = v sin i = 120 km/s; v2D = 40 km/s
    Arbitrary partitions in Figure 15 used to separate proposed formation channels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TLUSTY model grid with solar helium abundance is adequate for fitting OB star spectra.
    Section 3.1 fits all spectra against TLUSTY OSTAR2002/BSTAR2006 grids; the paper notes zeta Oph has enhanced helium that the models do not include.
  • domain assumption MIST evolutionary tracks and EXOFASTv2 SED fitting yield reliable radii, luminosities, and extinction.
    Section 3.2 uses these models with Gaia parallaxes; no independent cross-check is provided beyond a few comparison stars.
  • standard math Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction curve with Rv = 3.1 applies.
    Used in Section 4.5 to convert K-band extinctions to AV for comparison with prior work.
  • domain assumption Gaia EDR3 inverse parallaxes are unbiased distance estimators for these stars.
    Section 2.1 uses parallax-to-uncertainty ratios greater than 5 to select reliable distances; no Lutz-Kelker correction is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental Parameters for Central Stars of 103 Infrared Bowshock Nebulae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBHKKP6A

@misc{pith2026250607904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental Parameters for Central Stars of 103 Infrared Bowshock Nebulae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBHKKP6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07904}
}
abstract

Stellar bowshock nebulae are arcuate shock fronts formed by the interaction of radiation-driven stellar winds and the relative motion of the ambient interstellar material. Stellar bowshock nebulae provide a promising means to measure wind-driven mass loss, independent of other established methods. In this work, we characterize the stellar sources at the center of bowshock nebulae drawn from all-sky catalogs of 24 $\mu$m-selected nebulae. We obtain new, low-resolution blue optical spectra for \numstars~stars and measure stellar parameters temperature \teff, surface gravity \logg, and projected rotational broadening \vsini. We perform additional photometric analysis to measure stellar radius \rstar, luminosity \lstar, and visual-band extinction $A_V$. All but one of our targets are O and early B stars, with temperatures ranging from $T$=16.5--46.8~k\kelvin, gravities $\log g=$2.57--4.60, and \vsini~from $<$100--400~\kms. With the exception of rapid rotator $\zeta$ Oph, bowshock stars do not rotate at or near critical velocities. At least 60 of 103 (60\%) OB bowshock stars are binaries, consistent with the multiplicity fraction of other OB samples. The sample shows a runaway fraction of 23\%, with \numrunaway~stars having $v_{\text{2D}}\geq25$~\kms. Of the 19 runaways, at least 15 ($\geq$79\%) are binaries, favoring dynamical ejection over the binary supernova channel for producing runaways. We provide a comprehensive census of stellar parameters for bowshock stars, useful as a foundation for determining the mass-loss rates for OB-type stars -- one of the single most critical factors in stellar evolution governing the production of neutron stars and black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07904 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Completeness of bowshock sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observed program stars (indicated by blue stars) plotted on the sky. The target stars reside almost entirely within ±1 ◦ of the galactic plane (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. APO spectrum of ζ Oph. mation of uncertainty at each pixel, the MCMC walkers explored the 3D parameter space of stellar parameters (i.e., Teff, log g, and v sin i). At each walker step, our code computes a model spectrum using linear interpo￾lation from the model grid, and denotes an associated reduced χ 2 red for this interpolated model, given by the equation: χ 2 red = 1 npix nXpix i=0 (fdata,i − fmodel,i) 2 σi , … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distribution on stellar parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Observed spectrum (black) overplotted with best-fit, interpolated model (dashed-red). Bottom: Residual spectrum (black) with the uncertainties at each wavelength (orange). the case of ζ Oph could be the star’s formation history. van Rensbergen et al. (1996) propos…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gravity comparison between this work and values from the literature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature comparison between this work and values from the literature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Projected rotational velocity comparison between this work and values from the literature. tion, we conclude we cannot reliably measure projected rotation. Above this limit, our measurements appear to be systematically smaller than literature values by approximately 25…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: log g distribution of bowshock stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Projected rotational velocity distribution of bowshock stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visual-band extinction compared with trans￾formed extinctions from previous work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: log g versus v sin i for single bowshock stars (colored points), binary bowshock stars (grey triangles), and 16/50/84th percentile levels for stars drawn from the IACOB sample. The colored tracks show theoretical maximum rotational velocities for a range of masses ind…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Spectroscopic (a) and conventional (b) HR diagrams for bowshock stars. Bowshock stars without apparent indications of binarity are color coded according to their measured log g. Bowshock stars with indications of binarity are colored in gray. MIST evolutionary models …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: v sin i–peculiar space velocity distribution for bowshock stars. Single bowshock stars are colored by measured log g, and binary bowshock stars are represent by grey triangles. very likely is not rotating at the indicated v sin iof 150 km s−1 . In all likelihood, this…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Bowshock stellar spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: SST image of HD 157642 (object 2G3527642+0032660 in the Jayasinghe et al. (2019) catalog) with red/green/blue representing 24/8.0/4.5 µm data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Halpha survey of infrared bow-shocks around OB-type stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Fifteen plus one serendipitous clear H-alpha bow shocks are detected among 78 IR candidates; several are consistent with radiation-supported regimes while others match classical wind-supported shocks.

  2. Why do massive stars form bow shocks? Bulk ISM motion as the main driver of bow shock formation and geometry

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bulk interstellar gas motion, not stellar motion, dominates most massive star bow shocks; only about 21% are classical aligned bow shocks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    2017

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott , R., Adhikari , R., et al

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Adhikari , R., et al. 2009, Reports on Progress in Physics, 72, 076901, 10.1088/0034-4885/72/7/076901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/72/7/076901 2009

  3. [3]

    C., Bieging , J

    Abbott , D. C., Bieging , J. H., Churchwell , E., & Cassinelli , J. P. 1980, , 238, 196, 10.1086/157973

    work page doi:10.1086/157973 1980

  4. [4]

    G., Belgacem , E., Benkel , R., et al

    Arun , K. G., Belgacem , E., Benkel , R., et al. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 4, 10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9 2022

  5. [5]

    2023, , 671, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244906

    Aschenbrenner , P., Przybilla , N., & Butler , K. 2023, , 671, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244906

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244906 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Malkov , O

    Avvakumova , E. A., Malkov , O. Y., & Kniazev , A. Y. 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 860, 10.1002/asna.201311942

    doi:10.1002/asna.201311942 2013

  7. [7]

    2002, , 123, 2627, 10.1086/339837

    Bally , J., Heathcote , S., Reipurth , B., et al. 2002, , 123, 2627, 10.1086/339837

    work page doi:10.1086/339837 2002

  8. [8]

    S., Mart \' , J., et al

    Benaglia , P., Vink , J. S., Mart \' , J., et al. 2007, , 467, 1265, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077139

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077139 2007

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    O., Puls , J., & Najarro , F

    Bj \"o rklund , R., Sundqvist , J. O., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2021, , 648, A36, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038384

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    O., Singh , S

    Bj \"o rklund , R., Sundqvist , J. O., Singh , S. M., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2023, , 676, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141948

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    1961, , 15, 265

    Blaauw , A. 1961, , 15, 265

    1961

  4. [12]

    1961, , 15, 291

    Boersma , J. 1961, , 15, 291

    1961

  5. [13]

    Bolton , C. T. 1972, , 235, 271, 10.1038/235271b0

    1972 doi

  6. [14]

    1990, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 289, 518, 10.1016/0168-9002(90)91525-G

    Bradaschia , C., Del Fabbro , R., Di Virgilio , A., et al. 1990, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 289, 518, 10.1016/0168-9002(90)91525-G

    1990 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, , 672, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245145

    Britavskiy , N., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Holgado , G., et al. 2023, , 672, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245145

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Pickering , E

    Cannon , A. J., & Pickering , E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  9. [17]

    2019, Spitzer Enhanced Imaging Products (SEIP) Source List, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA3

    Capak; Peter . 2019, Spitzer Enhanced Imaging Products (SEIP) Source List, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA3

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Puls , J., Sundqvist , J

    Carneiro , L. P., Puls , J., Sundqvist , J. O., & Hoffmann , T. L. 2016, , 590, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527718

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Carretero-Castrillo , M., Rib \'o , M., & Paredes , J. M. 2023, , 679, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346613

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Kobulnicky , H

    Chick , W. T., Kobulnicky , H. A., Schurhammer , D. P., et al. 2020, , 251, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/abc0e5

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Nasseri , A., Stahl , O., & Zinnecker , H

    Chini , R., Hoffmeister , V. H., Nasseri , A., Stahl , O., & Zinnecker , H. 2012, , 424, 1925, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21317.x

    2012

  15. [23]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Mandel , K

    Czekala , I., Andrews , S. M., Mandel , K. S., Hogg , D. W., & Green , G. M. 2015, , 812, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    X., Wolff , S., & Przybilla , N

    Daflon , S., Cunha , K., de Ara \'u jo , F. X., Wolff , S., & Przybilla , N. 2007, , 134, 1570, 10.1086/521707

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Lehnert , M

    Dahlem , M., Petr , M. G., Lehnert , M. D., Heckman , T. M., & Ehle , M. 1997, , 320, 731

    1997

  19. [27]

    A., & Puls , J

    de Burgos , A., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Urbaneja , M. A., & Puls , J. 2024, , 687, A228, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348808

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Langer , N., Izzard , R

    de Mink , S. E., Langer , N., Izzard , R. G., Sana , H., & de Koter , A. 2013, , 764, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Paggeot , K., Castro , N., & Moe , M

    Dorigo Jones , J., Oey , M. S., Paggeot , K., Castro , N., & Moe , M. 2020, , 903, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6b

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Rodriguez , J

    Eastman , J. D., Rodriguez , J. E., Agol , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480, 10.48550/arXiv.1907.09480

    2019 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    W., Massa , D

    Fullerton , A. W., Massa , D. L., & Prinja , R. K. 2006, , 637, 1025, 10.1086/498560

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G, 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Olson , G

    Garmany , C. D., Olson , G. L., van Steenberg , M. E., & Conti , P. S. 1981, , 250, 660, 10.1086/159413

    1981 doi

  26. [34]

    R., & Bolton , C

    Gies , D. R., & Bolton , C. T. 1986, , 61, 419, 10.1086/191118

    1986 doi

  27. [35]

    1998, , 339, L5

    Glatzel , W. 1998, , 339, L5

    1998

  28. [36]

    Gott , J. R. 1971, , 234, 342, 10.1038/234342b0

    1971 doi

  29. [37]

    O., & Corbally , J., C

    Gray , R. O., & Corbally , J., C. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  30. [38]

    J., Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O

    Grin , N. J., Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., de Koter , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629225

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Sofia , S

    Gull , T. R., & Sofia , S. 1979, , 230, 782, 10.1086/157137

    1979 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, , 272, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad46f8

    Guo , Y., Wang , L., Liu , C., et al. 2024, , 272, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad46f8

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    V., & Bomans , D

    Gvaramadze , V. V., & Bomans , D. J. 2008, , 490, 1071, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810411

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    V., Kniazev , A

    Gvaramadze , V. V., Kniazev , A. Y., Kroupa , P., & Oh , S. 2011 a , , 535, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117746

    2011 doi

  35. [44]

    V., Menten , K

    Gvaramadze , V. V., Menten , K. M., Kniazev , A. Y., et al. 2014 a , , 437, 843, 10.1093/mnras/stt1943

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    V., Miroshnichenko , A

    Gvaramadze , V. V., Miroshnichenko , A. S., Castro , N., Langer , N., & Zharikov , S. V. 2014 b , , 437, 2761, 10.1093/mnras/stt2087

    2014 doi

  37. [46]

    V., R \"o ser , S., Scholz , R

    Gvaramadze , V. V., R \"o ser , S., Scholz , R. D., & Schilbach , E. 2011 b , , 529, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016256

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    1987, , 316, 323, 10.1086/165204

    Hartigan , P., Raymond , J., & Hartmann , L. 1987, , 316, 323, 10.1086/165204

    1987 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Lehnert , M

    Heckman , T. M., Lehnert , M. D., & Armus , L. 1993, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 188, The Environment and Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. M. Shull & H. A. Thronson , 455, 10.1007/978-94-011-1882-8_25

    1993 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Gotthelf , E

    Helfand , D. J., Gotthelf , E. V., & Halpern , J. P. 2001, , 556, 380, 10.1086/321533

    2001 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al

    Henden , A. A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AAVSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Henden+, 2016) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H

    2016

  42. [51]

    P., Vilchez , J

    Herrero , A., Kudritzki , R. P., Vilchez , J. M., et al. 1992, , 261, 209

    1992

  43. [52]

    Holgado , G., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., & Barb \'a , R. H. 2022, , 665, A150, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243851

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J. H. J., & de Zeeuw , P. T. 2000, , 544, L133, 10.1086/317315

    2000 doi

  45. [54]

    1982, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD stars

    Houk , N. 1982, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD stars. Volume\_3. Declinations -40\_ 0 to -26\_ 0

    1982

  46. [55]

    D., & Prinja , R

    Howarth , I. D., & Prinja , R. K. 1989, , 69, 527, 10.1086/191321

    1989 doi

  47. [56]

    D., & Smith , K

    Howarth , I. D., & Smith , K. C. 2001, , 327, 353, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04658.x

    2001

  48. [57]

    R., & McSwain , M

    Huang , W., Gies , D. R., & McSwain , M. V. 2010, , 722, 605, 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/605

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    2011, Synspec: General Spectrum Synthesis Program , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.022

    Hubeny , I., & Lanz , T. 2011, Synspec: General Spectrum Synthesis Program , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.022

    2011

  50. [59]

    2014, , 565, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323167

    Irrgang , A., Przybilla , N., Heber , U., et al. 2014, , 565, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323167

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    S., et al

    Jayasinghe , T., Dixon , D., Povich , M. S., et al. 2019, , 488, 1141, 10.1093/mnras/stz1738

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    T., Augusteijn , T., et al

    Kaper , L., van Loon , J. T., Augusteijn , T., et al. 1997, , 475, L37, 10.1086/310454

    1997 doi

  53. [62]

    I., & Castor , J

    Klein , R. I., & Castor , J. I. 1978, , 220, 902, 10.1086/155980

    1978 doi

  54. [63]

    A., & Chick , W

    Kobulnicky , H. A., & Chick , W. T. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Kinematic and astrometric data for SBN stars (Kobulnicky+, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/AJ/164/86. Originally published in: 2022AJ....164...86K, 10.26093/cds/vizier.51640086

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    A., Chick , W

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Chick , W. T., & Povich , M. S. 2018, , 856, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3e0

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    2019, , 158, 73, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2716

    ---. 2019, , 158, 73, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2716

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    A., Gilbert , I

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Gilbert , I. J., & Kiminki , D. C. 2010, , 710, 549, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/549

    2010 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Kiminki , D

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Kiminki , D. C., Lundquist , M. J., et al. 2014, , 213, 34, 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/34

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    A., Chick , W

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Chick , W. T., Schurhammer , D. P., et al. 2016, , 227, 18, 10.3847/0067-0049/227/2/18

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    2016, , 459, 3460, 10.1093/mnras/stw824

    K \"o rtgen , B., Seifried , D., Banerjee , R., V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M. 2016, , 459, 3460, 10.1093/mnras/stw824

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    2021, , 647, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039900

    Krti c ka , J., Kub \'a t , J., & Krti c kov \'a , I. 2021, , 647, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039900

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    R., & Tan , J

    Krumholz , M. R., & Tan , J. C. 2007, , 654, 304, 10.1086/509101

    2007 doi

  63. [72]

    B., Oey , M

    Lamb , J. B., Oey , M. S., Segura-Cox , D. M., et al. 2016, , 817, 113, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/113

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., & Leitherer , C. 1993, , 412, 771, 10.1086/172960

    1993 doi

  65. [74]

    1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Langer , N. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 120, Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in Transition, ed. A. Nota & H. Lamers , 83

    1997

  66. [75]

    1998, , 329, 551

    Langer , N. 1998, , 329, 551

    1998

  67. [76]

    2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    ---. 2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  68. [77]

    Langer , N., & Kudritzki , R. P. 2014, , 564, A52, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423374

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    2003, , 146, 417, 10.1086/374373

    Lanz , T., & Hubeny , I. 2003, , 146, 417, 10.1086/374373

    2003 doi

  70. [79]

    2007, , 169, 83, 10.1086/511270

    ---. 2007, , 169, 83, 10.1086/511270

    2007 doi

  71. [80]

    G., Reipurth , B., Ostriker , E

    Lee , C.-F., Mundy , L. G., Reipurth , B., Ostriker , E. C., & Stone , J. M. 2000, , 542, 925, 10.1086/317056

    2000 doi

  72. [81]

    1988, , 326, 356, 10.1086/166097

    Leitherer , C. 1988, , 326, 356, 10.1086/166097

    1988 doi

  73. [82]

    Leonard , P. J. T. 1991, , 101, 562, 10.1086/115704

    1991 doi

  74. [83]

    2019, , 241, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    Liu , Z., Cui , W., Liu , C., et al. 2019, , 241, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    Mahy , L., Rauw , G., De Becker , M., Eenens , P., & Flores , C. A. 2015, , 577, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321985

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    R., Zasowski , G., & Nidever , D

    Majewski , S. R., Zasowski , G., & Nidever , D. L. 2011, , 739, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/25

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    Y., Oblak , E., Snegireva , E

    Malkov , O. Y., Oblak , E., Snegireva , E. A., & Torra , J. 2006, , 446, 785, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053137

    2006 doi

  78. [87]

    Marcolino , W. L. F., Bouret , J. C., Martins , F., et al. 2009, , 498, 837, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811289

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    2008, , 478, 823, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077919

    Markova , N., & Puls , J. 2008, , 478, 823, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077919

    2008 doi

  80. [89]

    W., & Prinja , R

    Massa , D., Fullerton , A. W., & Prinja , R. K. 2017, , 470, 3765, 10.1093/mnras/stx1443

    2017 doi

  81. [90]

    N., Mamajek , E

    Mellon , S. N., Mamajek , E. E., Stuik , R., et al. 2019, , 244, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3662

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    M., & Robert , C

    Mugnes , J. M., & Robert , C. 2015, , 454, 28, 10.1093/mnras/stv1889

    2015 doi

  83. [92]

    Negueruela , I., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., de Burgos , A., Casasbuenas , A., & Beck , P. G. 2024, , 690, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449298

    2024 doi

  84. [93]

    F., & Przybilla , N

    Nieva , M. F., & Przybilla , N. 2012, , 539, A143, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118158

    2012 doi

  85. [94]

    1997 a , , 114, 837, 10.1086/118517

    Noriega-Crespo , A., van Buren , D., Cao , Y., & Dgani , R. 1997 a , , 114, 837, 10.1086/118517

    1997 doi

  86. [95]

    1997 b , , 113, 780, 10.1086/118298

    Noriega-Crespo , A., van Buren , D., & Dgani , R. 1997 b , , 113, 780, 10.1086/118298

    1997 doi

  87. [96]

    M., Lopez , L

    Olivier , G. M., Lopez , L. A., Rosen , A. L., et al. 2021, , 908, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd24a

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  89. [98]

    B., & S ubr , L

    Perets , H. B., & S ubr , L. 2012, , 751, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/133

    2012 doi

  90. [99]

    S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N

    Peri , C. S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N. L. 2015, , 578, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424676

    2015 doi

  91. [100]

    2010, , 404, 1564, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x

    Pflamm-Altenburg , J., & Kroupa , P. 2010, , 404, 1564, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x

    2010

  92. [101]

    D., Oey , M

    Phillips , G. D., Oey , M. S., Cuevas , M., Castro , N., & Kothari , R. 2024, , 966, 243, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3909

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    Poveda , A., Ruiz , J., & Allen , C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    1967

  94. [103]

    S., Benjamin , R

    Povich , M. S., Benjamin , R. A., Whitney , B. A., et al. 2008, , 689, 242, 10.1086/592565

    2008 doi

  95. [104]

    P., Herrero , A., et al

    Puls , J., Kudritzki , R. P., Herrero , A., et al. 1996, , 305, 171

    1996

  96. [105]

    E., et al

    Renzo , M., Zapartas , E., de Mink , S. E., et al. 2019, , 624, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  97. [106]

    G., Puls , J., Massey , P., & Najarro , F

    Rivero Gonz \'a lez , J. G., Puls , J., Massey , P., & Najarro , F. 2012, , 543, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218955

    2012 doi

  98. [107]

    M., Sundqvist , J

    Rubio-D \' ez , M. M., Sundqvist , J. O., Najarro , F., et al. 2022, , 658, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040116

    2022 doi

  99. [108]

    Ryans , R. S. I., Dufton , P. L., Rolleston , W. R. J., et al. 2002, , 336, 577, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05780.x

    2002

  100. [109]

    Sana , H., & Evans , C. J. 2011, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 272, Active OB Stars: Structure, Evolution, Mass Loss, and Critical Limits, ed. C. Neiner , G. Wade , G. Meynet , & G. Peters , 474--485, 10.1017/S1743921311011124

    2011 doi

  101. [110]

    H., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al

    Sana , H., Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al. 2022, , 668, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244677

    2022 doi

  102. [111]

    R., Kaper , L., & De Koter , A

    Shepard , K., Gies , D. R., Kaper , L., & De Koter , A. 2022, , 931, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66e6

    2022 doi

  103. [112]

    2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 514, 10.48550/arXiv.1009.5824

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Castro , N., Garcia , M., Herrero , A., & Markova , N. 2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 514, 10.48550/arXiv.1009.5824

    2011 doi arXiv

  104. [113]

    2017, , 597, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628541

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Godart , M., Castro , N., et al. 2017, , 597, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628541

    2017 doi

  105. [114]

    R., et al

    Sota , A., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Walborn , N. R., et al. 2011, , 193, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/24

    2011 doi

  106. [115]

    R., Beichman , C

    Stapelfeldt , K. R., Beichman , C. A., Hester , J. J., Scoville , N. Z., & Gautier , III, T. N. 1991, , 371, 226, 10.1086/169884

    1991 doi

  107. [116]

    Stone , R. C. 1979, , 232, 520, 10.1086/157311

    1979 doi

  108. [117]

    1988, , 329, L93, 10.1086/185184

    van Buren , D., & McCray , R. 1988, , 329, L93, 10.1086/185184

    1988 doi

  109. [118]

    van den Heuvel , E. P. J., & Heise , J. 1972, Nature Physical Science, 239, 67, 10.1038/physci239067a0

    1972 doi

  110. [119]

    1996, , 305, 825

    van Rensbergen , W., Vanbeveren , D., & De Loore , C. 1996, , 305, 825

    1996

  111. [120]

    2024, , 692, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451169

    Verhamme , O., Sundqvist , J., de Koter , A., et al. 2024, , 692, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451169

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    R., & Herrero , A

    Villamariz , M. R., & Herrero , A. 2000, , 357, 597, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002488

    2000 doi arXiv

  113. [122]

    S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H

    Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2001, , 369, 574, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  114. [123]

    L., Slane , P., Morrell , N., & Kaspi , V

    Wang , Z., Kaplan , D. L., Slane , P., Morrell , N., & Kaspi , V. M. 2013, , 769, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/122

    2013 doi

  115. [124]

    L., & Murdin , P

    Webster , B. L., & Murdin , P. 1972, , 235, 37, 10.1038/235037a0

    1972 doi

  116. [125]

    2022, , 668, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243973

    We mayer , D., Przybilla , N., & Butler , K. 2022, , 668, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243973

    2022 doi

  117. [126]

    1957, , 44, 64

    Zwicky , F. 1957, , 44, 64

    1957

Pith tools

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