Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Magnetic braking and dynamo evolution of $\beta$ Hydri

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Beta Hydri, a middle-aged G-type subgiant, has re-entered a born-again dynamo phase, with a wind braking torque roughly an order of magnitude stronger than weakened magnetic braking predicts.

desk verdict The Beta Hydri Zeeman detection is a solid new measurement, but the 'considerably stronger braking' headline rests on a mass-loss scaling that the authors themselves treat as provisional, so the letter should be accepted with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17049 v1 pith:K6HDMA4D submitted 2025-06-20 astro-ph.SR

A. R. G. Santos , T. S. Metcalfe , O. Kochukhov , T. R. Ayres , R. Gafeira , T. L. Campante This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magneticbrakingweakenedborn-againdynamosubgiantstarsstellaractivitycyclesspectropolarimetrywindtorqueBetaHydri
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 magnetic braking in old solar-type stars is not a one-way switch. For the G-type subgiant Beta Hydri, the paper combines a new spectropolarimetric detection of a large-scale magnetic field with archival X-ray data, TESS rotation, and asteroseismic properties to estimate a current wind braking torque of $3.51^{+1.78}_{-1.55}\times10^{30}$ erg, close to an order of magnitude stronger than expected for a star in the weakened magnetic braking regime. The interpretation is direct evidence for the born-again dynamo hypothesis: as a star finishes the main sequence and its convection zone deepens, the Rossby number can fall back below the critical value, temporarily restoring the large-scale field and angular momentum loss. If right, the result places an observable constraint on how old solar-type stars end their spin-down plateau and resume magnetic braking, and it sharpens the question of whether such dynamos are subcritical.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the semi-empirical wind braking torque prescription of Finley & Matt (2018), which converts three star-specific inputs, large-scale magnetic field strength, mass-loss rate, and rotation, mass, and radius, into a torque. The field is measured by least-squares deconvolution of about 4800 metal lines in circular polarization and modeled as an inclined dipole with $B_{\rm d}=2.13$ G; the mass-loss rate follows the empirical X-ray scaling $\dot{M} \propto F_X^{0.77}$ of Wood et al. (2021); rotation, mass, and radius come from TESS photometry and asteroseismology. The interpretive pivot is the Rossby number $Ro = P_{\rm rot}/\tau_c$, normalized to the solar value: Beta Hydri sits at $0.959 \pm 0.117$, straddling the empirical onset of weakened magnetic braking, $Ro_{\rm crit}/Ro_\odot = 0.92 \pm 0.01$. Weakened magnetic braking is the regime where a slow rotator's dynamo can no longer organize large-scale fields, so angular momentum loss nearly stops; the born-again dynamo is the temporary revival of that large-scale organization when an expanding subgiant's convective turnover time grows and Ro drops back below threshold.

What would settle it

A direct Ly-alpha measurement of Beta Hydri's mass-loss rate, scheduled with the Hubble Space Telescope, that comes in several times lower than the Wood et al. (2021) scaling would lower the computed torque by the same factor and could drop it to the weakened-braking expectation, falsifying the headline claim. A refined rotation period from the 2025 TESS observations that places Beta Hydri clearly above the critical Rossby number would likewise undercut the born-again interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, Beta Hydri is caught in the act of restarting its large-scale dynamo. Its HARPSpol Stokes V profile is a definite Zeeman detection (false alarm probability below $10^{-6}$), with a mean longitudinal field of $\langle B_z\rangle = -0.298 \pm 0.086$ G; modeling the profile as an inclined dipole yields a polar field strength of $B_{\rm d}=2.13$ G with obliquity $87.3^\circ$, while an axisymmetric dipole fits poorly. The X-ray luminosity averaged over the 12-year activity cycle is $5.1 \pm 3.1 \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which the paper converts through the empirical relation $\dot{M} \propto F_X^{0.77}$ into a mass-loss rate of 0.80 times the solar value. Feeding these numbers, with the 23-day rotation period and the asteroseismic mass and radius, into the Finley & Matt (2018) wind braking torque prescription gives $3.51^{+1.78}_{-1.55}\times10^{30}$ erg. That is roughly ten times the torque of the weakened-braking solar analog 16 Cyg A, driven mainly by the stronger magnetic field and larger radius, and the paper concludes that subgiants with extended convective zones can temporarily re-establish large-scale dynamo action.

Load-bearing premise

The torque estimate is only as good as the unmeasured mass-loss rate: it is derived from an empirical X-ray brightness scaling rather than observed directly, and the paper itself notes that direct Ly-alpha measurements of other subgiants deviate substantially from that scaling, so a factor-of-several error in the mass-loss rate would shift the torque, and the stronger-than-weakened-braking conclusion, by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured torque is right, weakened magnetic braking is not a permanent end state: stars that stalled on the main sequence can re-enter efficient angular momentum loss when subgiant expansion pushes their Rossby numbers back down.
  • Rotation evolution models for subgiants that rely on standard spin-down will underpredict Beta Hydri's braking; WMB models, which already reproduce its rotation period, now have a direct torque measurement to match.
  • The coincidence of the WMB threshold with the return of the large-scale field suggests that the critical Rossby number acts as a single switch controlling both large-scale dynamo organization and magnetic braking.
  • Beta Hydri's activity cycle at its current Rossby number may be powered by a subcritical dynamo, where hysteresis keeps the field organized even when the dynamo number is below the value needed to start the field from scratch.
  • Other apparently flat-activity subgiants, such as rho CrB and 16 Cyg A and B, become prime targets for long-term X-ray and UV monitoring: if the born-again phase is common, some of them should also show restored cycling and stronger braking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the born-again conclusion is more sensitive to the mass-loss scaling than to the magnetic geometry, because the torque depends linearly on the mass-loss rate whereas the field enters through the Alfvén lever arm; the scheduled Ly-alpha observation therefore matters more than the quality of the dipole fit.
  • We infer a testable extension: if the large-scale field is genuinely back, its dipole strength and obliquity should vary over the 12-year activity cycle, so a second HARPSpol observation at a different cycle phase should show a different Stokes V amplitude.
  • We infer that the same Rossby-number mechanics should produce a general prediction for gyrochronology samples: low-mass stars crossing from the main sequence to the subgiant branch should show a local minimum in Rossby number and a corresponding peak in magnetic braking, even if they passed through weakened magnetic braking in middle age.
  • We infer that the single-epoch field measurement leaves room for non-axisymmetric components to change the torque; a full-rotation Zeeman-Doppler map could revise the $B_{\rm d}=2.13$ G dipole estimate up or down, and with it the order-of-magnitude comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter estimates the current wind braking torque of the G-type subgiant beta Hydri and interprets it in the context of weakened magnetic braking (WMB) and the 'born-again' dynamo hypothesis. The authors analyze a single-epoch HARPSpol observation, detect a Stokes V Zeeman signature with false alarm probability below 1e-6, and model it with an inclined dipole to obtain a polar field strength of 2.13 G. They combine this with a cycle-averaged X-ray luminosity (5.1 +/- 3.1 x 1e27 erg/s), a mass-loss rate derived from the Wood et al. (2021) X-ray flux scaling (0.80 +0.40/-0.44 Mdot_sun), and asteroseismic mass, radius, and rotation period from TESS to compute a wind braking torque of 3.51 +1.78/-1.55 x 1e30 erg via the Finley & Matt (2018) prescription. The central claim is that this torque is 'considerably stronger' than expected for a star in the WMB regime, implying that subgiants with growing convective zones can temporarily re-establish large-scale dynamo action. The paper also discusses the possibility that beta Hydri's activity cycle is a subcritical dynamo and explicitly acknowledges that the mass-loss scaling and rotation period are currently uncertain.

Significance. If the quantitative conclusion holds, this is a valuable observational constraint: it would be one of the first demonstrations that a star that has passed through the WMB regime can re-establish a strong large-scale field and resume efficient angular momentum loss on the subgiant branch. The spectropolarimetric detection is new, independent of the dynamo hypothesis it tests, and the paper uses a standard, publicly referenced torque prescription with clearly tabulated inputs. The authors also make a specific, testable prediction that will be checked by scheduled HST Ly-alpha observations and additional TESS sectors. However, the central quantitative claim rests on two fragile inputs: the mass-loss rate inferred from an empirical X-ray scaling that the paper itself flags as uncertain for subgiants, and a magnetic field strength derived from a single epoch with a restrictive harmonic expansion and no quoted uncertainty. These issues affect whether the abstract's 'considerably stronger' statement survives, but they do not undermine the independent detection of a large-scale field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The headline torque of 3.51 +1.78/-1.55 x 1e30 erg is directly proportional to the mass-loss rate, which is inferred from the empirical relation Mdot proportional to F_X^0.77 of Wood et al. (2021). As the paper itself notes in Section 4, direct Ly-alpha inferences of mass loss for subgiants can deviate substantially from this relation, citing delta Pav and delta Eri, and HST observations are scheduled to test this value. If the true mass-loss rate of beta Hydri is a factor of 3-5 lower than the Wood et al. prediction, the torque would drop to roughly 0.7-1.2 x 1e30 erg, placing it close to the WMB-regime comparison stars and invalidating the abstract's claim that the braking is 'considerably stronger'. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., a simple scaling showing the torque as a function of Mdot) and either temper the abstract/conclusion or wait for the HST measurement before making the strong quantitative claim.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] The adopted dipole field strength B_d = 2.13 G is listed without an uncertainty, and it comes from a single spectropolarimetric epoch modeled with a highly restrictive harmonic expansion (only dipolar poloidal components, ell_max=1, beta=alpha, gamma=0). The simpler axisymmetric dipole fit gives B_d = -0.64 G with a reduced chi^2 of 3.0, and only the addition of a large obliquity (87.3 deg) improves the fit to chi^2=1.3. Because the torque comparison in Section 3 attributes a +280% increase to the stronger magnetic field relative to 16 Cyg A, the absence of any error bar on B_d or obliquity, and the lack of temporal sampling, means the quantitative torque uncertainty is underestimated. Please provide confidence intervals on B_d and beta (e.g., via MCMC or bootstrap fits) and state explicitly how the single-epoch measurement may bias the cycle-averaged torque.
  3. [Section 3 and Fig. 3] The conclusion that beta Hydri's torque is 'considerably stronger' than in the WMB regime depends on comparing it with dwarf stars whose mass-loss rates were derived with the same Wood et al. scaling. If that scaling has a systematic offset specifically for subgiants, the normalized comparison to 16 Cyg A and other solar analogs is not robust, even if the absolute torque is. In addition, the Rossby number Ro/Ro_sun = 0.959 +/- 0.117 straddles Rocrit/Ro_sun = 0.92 +/- 0.01, so the paper's own Discussion acknowledges that Ro < Rocrit is not excluded; in that case beta Hydri would not currently be in the WMB regime at all. The abstract and conclusions should explicitly condition the 'stronger than WMB' framing on Ro being above Rocrit, and should state that the mass-loss scaling uncertainty propagates into the comparison with other stars.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Fig. 1] The figure annotation 'Bd = 0.64 G, = 0' appears to omit the obliquity symbol; please render it as 'Bd = 0.64 G, beta = 0'. Also, the reduced chi^2 values are printed as '2 = 3.0' and '2 = 1.3' in the figure; these should be 'chi^2 = 3.0' and 'chi^2 = 1.3'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The parenthetical 'Röntgen Satellit' should be the single word 'Röntgensatellit' for the ROSAT mission name.
  3. [Table 1] The entry 'Torque (1030 erg)' should read 'Torque (10^30 erg)' to avoid ambiguity about the unit.
  4. [References] The Ricker et al. (2014) bibliography entry is incomplete: it ends with '9143, 914320, conference Name: Space Telescopes...' and should include the full Proc. SPIE volume and page range. Similarly, the Snik et al. (2011) entry should include the series name 'ASP Conf. Ser.' before the volume and page.
  5. [Section 2.1] The text contains 'V ALD database' (should be 'VALD database') and 'reducepackage' (should be 'reduce package'); these typos should be corrected for readability.
  6. [Section 3] The yellow dotted line in Fig. 3 is described as the torque evolution for HD 76151 from a 'standard spin-down model', but the specific model reference or version is not given; please cite the exact model used so the comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the torque estimate is an independent application of Finley-Matt to new spectropolarimetry and external X-ray/asteroseismic inputs; prior self-citations are calibrations, not restatements of the result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the wind-braking torque computed in Section 3: 'Combining the large-scale magnetic field strength from spectropolarimetry in Section 2.1, the mass-loss rate from the empirical relation of Wood et al. (2021) in Section 2.2, and the rotation period as well as the asteroseismic mass and radius from TESS photometry (Metcalfe et al. 2024b), we calculate a wind braking torque of 3.51...'. The magnetic field is a new HARPSpol Stokes V detection (FAP < 10^-6), the mass-loss rate comes from an external empirical relation calibrated on other stars, and the stellar properties come from an independent asteroseismic analysis. None of these inputs is defined in terms of the claimed output torque or the born-again dynamo conclusion. The comparison to the WMB regime uses the empirical Rocrit constraint of Metcalfe et al. (2024a); while this is a self-citation, it is a prior sample-based calibration, not an assertion that restates the present result, so it does not make the argument circular. The Discussion's caveat that 'direct inferences of the mass-loss rate from Ly-alpha observations can deviate substantially from this relation, particularly for subgiants' is a robustness limitation, not a circular step: it does not show that the torque estimate is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to another equation by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central torque estimate rests on six stated assumptions: the Wood et al. (2021) mass-loss scaling, the Finley & Matt (2018) torque prescription, a restricted dipole representation of the field, the Metcalfe et al. (2024a) critical Rossby number, the Corsaro et al. (2021) convective turnover calibration, and the Metcalfe et al. (2007) cycle period. No entirely new entities are introduced. The dipole field strength and obliquity are fitted to the Stokes V profile and are the main free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Dipole polar field strength B_d = 2.13 G
    Fitted to the LSD Stokes V profile with InversLSD restricted to dipolar poloidal components. The alternative axisymmetric dipole fit gives B_d = 0.64 G with a worse reduced chi-squared (3.0 vs. 1.3). No uncertainty is quoted for the adopted value.
  • Dipole obliquity angle beta = 87.3 degrees
    Fitted simultaneously with B_d in the restricted dipole model. The obliquity strongly affects the Stokes V profile shape and hence the inferred field strength; the axisymmetric case (beta = 0) yields a much weaker field.
  • Stellar inclination angle i = 50 degrees (+21 / -14)
    Adopted from the Bowler et al. (2023) posterior method using vsini, rotation period, and radius. The inclination is an input to the Stokes V forward modeling and is not independently measured.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Wood et al. (2021) empirical relation Mdot proportional to F_X^0.77 holds for Beta Hydri.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to convert the mean X-ray luminosity into a mass-loss rate. The authors note in the Discussion that direct Ly-alpha measurements can deviate substantially for subgiants, which directly threatens the torque scale.
  • domain assumption Finley & Matt (2018) torque prescription correctly describes the angular momentum loss of Beta Hydri given the dipole field, mass-loss rate, radius, and rotation.
    Used in Section 3 to compute the torque from the assembled inputs. The prescription is calibrated on MHD wind simulations and is a standard tool, but it is still a model assumption about the wind geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper The large-scale magnetic field is adequately represented by an inclined dipole with only poloidal dipolar harmonic components.
    Adopted in Section 2.1 via InversLSD in a highly restrictive mode (lmax=1, beta=alpha, gamma=0). The axisymmetric dipole fit is rejected (chi^2 = 3.0), and the restricted inclined dipole gives chi^2 = 1.3, but more complex geometries are not explored.
  • domain assumption The critical Rossby number for the onset of weakened magnetic braking is Rocrit/Ro_sun = 0.92 +/- 0.01 from Metcalfe et al. (2024a).
    Used in Section 3 and Fig. 3 to interpret Beta Hydri's Rossby number relative to the WMB transition. This is an empirical constraint derived from a sample of stars studied by the same group, so it is partly self-referential.
  • domain assumption The Corsaro et al. (2021) asteroseismic calibration of convective turnover time provides reliable Rossby numbers when normalized to Ro_sun = 0.496.
    Used in Section 3 to compute the Rossby numbers in Fig. 3 for all comparison stars, including Beta Hydri.
  • domain assumption The 12-year activity cycle period of Beta Hydri from Metcalfe et al. (2007) is correct.
    Used in Section 2.2 to interpret the X-ray variability and to justify averaging X-ray measurements into a mean luminosity. The X-ray data alone are sparse, so the cycle period anchors the interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic braking and dynamo evolution of $\beta$ Hydri." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6HDMA4D

@misc{pith2026250617049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic braking and dynamo evolution of $\beta$ Hydri},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6HDMA4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17049}
}
abstract

The evolution of magnetic braking and dynamo processes in subgiant stars is essential for understanding how these stars lose angular momentum. We investigate the magnetic braking and dynamo evolution of $\beta$ Hydri, a G-type subgiant, to test the hypothesis of weakened magnetic braking and the potential rejuvenation of large-scale magnetic fields. We analyze spectropolarimetric observations from HARPS (HARPSpol; polarimetric mode of High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher), and combine them with archival X-ray data and asteroseismic properties from TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) to estimate the current wind braking torque of $\beta$ Hydri. Despite experiencing weakened magnetic braking during the second half of its main-sequence lifetime, our results indicate that $\beta$ Hydri has regained significant magnetic activity and a large-scale magnetic field. This observation aligns with the "born-again" dynamo hypothesis. Furthermore, our estimated wind braking torque is considerably stronger than what would be expected for a star in the weakened magnetic braking regime. This suggests that subgiants with extended convective zones can temporarily re-establish large-scale dynamo action. These results provide critical constraints on stellar rotation models and improve our understanding of the interplay between magnetic field structure, stellar activity cycles, and angular momentum evolution in old solar-type stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LSD Stokes V and I profiles for β Hyi derived from HARPSpol observations (top). For illustration purposes, Stokes V is scaled and shifted vertically in relation to Stokes I. The black solid line shows the mean observed profile, with the respective uncertainty indicated by the gray-shaded region. The vertical dotted line marks the line center. The red and blue lines indicate the best-fit models obtained for a dipole … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray to bolometric luminosity ratio of β Hyi (circles). The light gray curve mimics the solar X-ray variation over Cycle 24, replicated in time and stretched to a period of 12 yr, then adjusted to the appar￾ent X-ray modulation amplitude of β Hyi. Archival ROSAT fluxes from various catalogs are shown as the yellow, orange, and red circles, XMM￾Newton as the blue circle, and Chandra as the green open circle. Hor￾izo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimated wind braking torque relative to HD 76151 as a func￾tion of Rossby number normalized to the solar value. Points are grouped by spectral type, as indicated in the legend. The gray shaded area repre￾sents an empirical constraint on the critical Rossby number for the onset of WMB (Rocrit/Ro⊙ = 0.92 ± 0.01; Metcalfe et al. 2024a). The solar wind braking torque was taken from Finley et al. (2018). 4. Discussion … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ayres, T. R. 2021, ApJ, 923, 192

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    D., et al

    Bagnulo, S., Landolfi, M., Landstreet, J. D., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 993

    2009

  3. [3]

    L., Donahue, R

    Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 269

    1995

  4. [4]

    P., Tran, Q

    Bowler, B. P., Tran, Q. H., Zhang, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 164

    2023

  5. [5]

    R., Quirion, P

    Bruntt, H., Bedding, T. R., Quirion, P. O., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1907 Article number, page 4 of 5

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    2021, A&A, 652, L2

    Corsaro, E., Bonanno, A., Mathur, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, L2

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    F., Semel, M., Carter, B

    Donati, J. F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., Rees, D. E., & Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 658

    1997

  8. [8]

    R., et al

    Dravins, D., Linde, P., Ayres, T. R., et al. 1993, ApJ, 403, 412

    work page 1993

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Durney, B. R. & Latour, J. 1978, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynam- ics, 9, 241

    1978

  2. [10]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 80

    Egeland, R. 2018, ApJ, 866, 80

    2018

  3. [11]

    Finley, A. J. & Matt, S. P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 78

    2018

  4. [12]

    J., Matt, S

    Finley, A. J., Matt, S. P., & See, V . 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 125

    2018

  5. [13]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, A&A, 595, A110

    2016

  6. [14]

    J., Soderblom, D

    Henry, T. J., Soderblom, D. R., Donahue, R. A., & Baliunas, S. L. 1996, AJ, 111, 439

    1996

  7. [15]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1

    2001

  8. [16]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236

    1988

  9. [17]

    2014, A&A, 565, A83

    Kochukhov, O., Lüftinger, T., Neiner, C., Alecian, E., & MiMeS Collaboration. 2014, A&A, 565, A83

    2014

  10. [18]

    2010, A&A, 524, A5

    Kochukhov, O., Makaganiuk, V ., & Piskunov, N. 2010, A&A, 524, A5

    2010

  11. [19]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551

    1967

  12. [20]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  13. [21]

    S., Dziembowski, W

    Metcalfe, T. S., Dziembowski, W. A., Judge, P. G., & Snow, M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, L16

    2007

  14. [22]

    S., Finley, A

    Metcalfe, T. S., Finley, A. J., Kochukhov, O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, L17

    2022

  15. [23]

    S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I

    Metcalfe, T. S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I. V ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L38

    2019

  16. [24]

    Metcalfe, T. S. & van Saders, J. 2017, Sol. Phys., 292, 126

    2017

  17. [25]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Basu, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 154

    2020

  18. [26]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Basu, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 122

    2021

  19. [27]

    R., Davis, J., Bedding, T

    North, J. R., Davis, J., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, L80

    2007

  20. [28]

    2011, The Messenger, 143, 7

    Piskunov, N., Snik, F., Dolgopolov, A., et al. 2011, The Messenger, 143, 7

    2011

  21. [29]

    Piskunov, N. E. & Valenti, J. A. 2002, A&A, 385, 1095

    2002

  22. [30]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, 9143, 914320, conference Name: Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave Place: eprint: arXiv:1406.0151

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2013, A&A, 558, A8

    Rusomarov, N., Kochukhov, O., Piskunov, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A8

    2013

  24. [32]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, Phys. Scr, 90, 054005 Réville, V ., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., & Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116

    2015

  25. [33]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565

    1972

  26. [34]

    2011, 437, 237, conference Name: Solar Polarization 6 eprint: arXiv:1010.0397

    Snik, F., Kochukhov, O., Piskunov, N., et al. 2011, 437, 237, conference Name: Solar Polarization 6 eprint: arXiv:1010.0397

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, L50 Trümper, J

    Tripathi, B., Nandy, D., & Banerjee, S. 2021, MNRAS, 506, L50 Trümper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, Nat., 529, 181 van Saders, J. L. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2013, ApJ, 776, 67 van Saders, J. L., Pinson...

    2021

  28. [36]

    B., & Kitchatinov, L

    Vashishth, V ., Karak, B. B., & Kitchatinov, L. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 266

    2021

  29. [37]

    Weber, E. J. & Davis, Jr., L. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217

    1967

  30. [38]

    C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 1

    2002

  31. [39]

    C., Tananbaum, H

    Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Van Speybroeck, L. P., & O’Dell, S. L. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4012, 2, x-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III, Joachim E. Truemper; Bernd Aschenbach; Eds

    2000

  32. [40]

    Wilson, O. C. 1978, ApJ, 226, 379

    1978

  33. [41]

    E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

    Wood, B. E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 37 Article number, page 5 of 5

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.