Large Scale Wind Driven Structures in the Orion Nebula

C. R. O'Dell; N. P. Abel

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Large Scale Wind Driven Structures in the Orion Nebula

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using [C II] and HI 21-cm data together, the paper argues that the [C II] Shell belongs to the same foreground layer as HI Veil-B, forming an Outer Shell expanding toward us at up to 15 km s$^{-1}$, with a faster 27 km s$^{-1}$ Inner…

desk verdict Plausible and important reinterpretation of Orion's large-scale structure, but the central velocity-coincidence argument needs a quantitative consistency check before the [C II] Shell and HI Veil-B can be treated as one physical layer. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02147 v1 pith:BQZ4FSBL submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.GA physics.space-ph

C. R. O'Dell , N. P. Abel This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAphysics.space-ph PACS 98.38.Hv98.38.-j

keywords OrionNebula[CII]158micronemissionHI21-cmabsorptionphotodissociationregionexpandingshellsstellarwindOrion'sVeilHIIstructure

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 tries to establish that the Orion Nebula's large-scale structure is not the single ionized-carbon hemisphere proposed in recent infrared work, but a nested set of foreground layers: an Outer Shell in which [C II] emission and HI 21-cm absorption see the same gas, plus a faster Inner Shell closer to the dominant star $\theta^1$ Ori C. The unification matters because Orion is the nearest rich star-forming region and the reference case for how massive O stars' winds and radiation reshape their surroundings; changing the geometry changes the inferred wind history. If the paper is right, the apparent wind-blown bubble is actually a bulge in a pre-existing neutral layer, the bright outer rim is a radiation-filtering effect rather than limb-brightening, and every future line of sight through the nebula can be assigned to a defined velocity system.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by co-aligned, velocity-resolved profiles of [C II] 158-micron emission and HI 21-cm absorption and emission, measured along five long east-west and north-south cuts through the Huygens Region and the Extended Orion Nebula, plus position-velocity diagrams from the same data. The load-bearing object is the velocity-system identification: the [C II] Shell component at $20.0$ km s$^{-1}$ is matched to the HI Veil-B component at $19.3$ km s$^{-1}$, and their joint structure is then treated as a single Outer Shell whose concavity, rather than closure, is read from the gradual rather than abrupt velocity convergence with the underlying molecular cloud. A second tool is the H$\beta$ equivalent-width map, which separates local emission from scattered light and shows that the outer [C II] brightness is a photodissociation region lit by EUV-filtered Trapezium radiation; a published photodissociation model of the Veil-B layer is then used to predict the [C II] intensity, a check that currently misses by a factor of about six and is flagged for future revision.

What would settle it

Measure the HI 21-cm optical depth of the Veil-B layer with a beam matched to the 16-arcsecond [C II] data across the whole nebula, and compare the two tracers channel by channel: if the Outer Shell is one physical feature, the HI column density and [C II] emissivity must track each other in velocity and position everywhere, including the western side where the shell never closes, and a photodissociation model must be able to reproduce both the observed [C II] intensity (currently a factor of six above the published prediction) and the measured HI column. Decorrelated column densities at the same velocities would show that the two tracers come from separate layers, falsifying the unification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a unification: the [C II] 158-micron component called the Shell, previously interpreted as a self-contained expanding hemisphere, has a heliocentric velocity of $20.0$ km s$^{-1}$ that is essentially identical to the $19.3$ km s$^{-1}$ of the HI Veil-B foreground layer, so the two are declared the same physical feature, renamed the Outer Shell. In this picture the Outer Shell is a bulge blown into a foreground neutral layer whose undisturbed velocity is near $26$ km s$^{-1}$, accelerated toward the observer with a maximum expansion velocity of $15$ km s$^{-1}$, rather than a closed hemisphere. Closer to the dominant star $\theta^1$ Ori C, a newly recognized Inner Shell reaches radial velocities near $0$ km s$^{-1}$ (expansion $27$ km s$^{-1}$) and probably records a more recent strong-wind episode from one or more Trapezium stars, while a central high-ionization bubble expands freely toward us but is slowed on its far side by photoionized gas streaming off the main ionization front. The bright [C II] rim beyond the nebula's optical boundaries is attributed not to limb-brightening of the shell but to a photodissociation region illuminated by Trapezium radiation that has had its ionizing EUV photons filtered out by residual neutral hydrogen.

Load-bearing premise

The unified Outer Shell rests on the near-equality of two radial velocities — $20.0$ km s$^{-1}$ for the [C II] (ionized carbon) shell and $19.3$ km s$^{-1}$ for the HI (neutral hydrogen) Veil-B layer — treated as proof that both tracers see the same gas; if they are separate layers that merely lie along one line of sight, the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future studies should treat the [C II] Shell and HI Veil-B as one structure, the Outer Shell, with a maximum expansion velocity of $15$ km s$^{-1}$, rather than as separate phenomena.
The $27$ km s$^{-1}$ Inner Shell implies at least two wind episodes from $\theta^1$ Ori C or other Trapezium stars, so one-epoch stellar-wind models of the nebula are incomplete.
The bright [C II] rim outside the optical nebula should be modeled as a photodissociation region illuminated by EUV-filtered Trapezium radiation, replacing the limb-brightening interpretation.
The embedded Ori-S cloud shows a photodissociation region on both its near and far sides because it is optically thin at 158 microns, and its outflow shocks appear in both [C II] and HI within the HH 269 complex.
The Layer-30 velocity component appears in both tracers across the Huygens Region, the Dark Bay, and much of the northern Extended Orion Nebula, and it must lie in the foreground if it produces the sodium and calcium absorption lines seen in the Trapezium stars.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the unification holds, the wind momentum budget changes — the same stellar wind thought to inflate a free-shell bubble must instead accelerate a substantial pre-existing HI column, implying a longer-lived or more powerful wind than the closed-hemisphere model required, a quantity the paper does not compute.
Beyond the paper: the clearest test is HI 21-cm mapping at the [C II] resolution over the western side of the nebula, where the shell never closes; a single Outer Shell predicts that the two tracers' velocity fields continue to track each other there, while coincidental alignment in the Huygens Region would decouple.
Beyond the paper: the factor-of-six excess of observed over predicted [C II] intensity implies the unified layer is denser, closer to $\theta^1$ Ori C, or richer in carbon than the current Veil-B model assumes, so a revised photodissociation model matching both tracers is a concrete, testable consequence of this geometry.
Beyond the paper: the pairing of a $15$ km s$^{-1}$ outer shell with a $27$ km s$^{-1}$ inner shell suggests an episodic wind history for the Trapezium stars, and the ratio of their radii and velocities could yield an estimate of the interval between wind episodes that stellar-evolution modeling could check.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper does something genuinely useful: it forces a re-examination of the Pabst et al. shell model by putting [C II] and HI data on the same table. The claim that the [C II] Shell and HI Veil-B are the same foreground layer is plausible and would matter for how feedback and UV filtering are read in other H II regions. The rejection of limb-brightening via Hβ equivalent widths is a smart, independent kind of evidence, and the discovered Inner Shell gives the wind-driving picture a new wrinkle. There is also a lot of careful observational work here: the Layer-30 [C II] counterpart, the front/back PDR of Ori-S, and the Dark Bay velocity shift are all concrete additions.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The central identification rests on the coincidence of two radial velocities (20.0 vs 19.3 km/s) in a single overlap region. That is suggestive but not decisive. The paper's own adopted Veil-B model predicts a [C II] intensity six times lower than observed, which is a quantitative inconsistency for the 'same physical feature' claim. The authors acknowledge this and explicitly defer a revised model to future work, which is honest, but the load-bearing claim is not yet closed. Also, the HI data are only usable in the Huygens Region; extending the Outer Shell across the whole EON is an extrapolation. The Inner Shell is a visual pattern in the PV cuts, with no quantitative fit and no error bars on the component velocities. The Gaussian decomposition is manual and somewhat subjective.

That said, this is not a sloppy paper. It uses a rich dataset, is careful about velocity systems, and contrasts explicitly with Pabst et al. The self-identified factor-of-six discrepancy is actually a point in its favor — it could have been hidden. But a referee should ask for a quantitative model that simultaneously fits the [C II] intensity and the HI column constraints before the unification is accepted. I would not block the paper, but I would push for a revised model or, failing that, softer language than 'strong evidence.'

Who is this for? Orion specialists and anyone working on stellar feedback in H II regions. It deserves a serious referee and likely a major revision. My own verdict is conditional: the structure is plausible, but the central identification is not yet demonstrated.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. Ask the authors to either supply a revised Outer Shell model that matches the [C II] intensity or explicitly downgrade the velocity coincidence to a working hypothesis.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines [C II] 158 µm maps (Pabst et al. 2019, 2020), HI 21-cm data (van der Werf et al. 2013), and optical/UV spectra to argue for a revised layered structure of the Orion Nebula. The central claims are: (1) the blue-shifted [C II] 'Shell' and the HI Veil-B component are the same foreground layer, jointly named the Outer Shell, with maximum expansion velocity 15 km/s; (2) a second 'Inner Shell' with expansion velocity 27 km/s lies closer to θ1 Ori C; (3) a central high-ionization bubble expands freely toward the observer; and (4) the bright [C II] emission beyond the EON rim is not limb-brightening but a PDR illuminated by EUV-filtered Trapezium radiation. Supporting results include a Layer-30 component in both HI and [C II], a +1.9 km/s redshift of the Dark Bay, and HH 269 kinematics.

Significance. The paper's importance is conditional on the Outer Shell identification. If correct, it changes the physical interpretation of the Pabst et al. [C II] shell from a separate wind-blown hemisphere to an accelerated foreground neutral layer, and it would connect a decades-old HI absorption system to a modern [C II] dataset. The paper's strengths are its multi-wavelength synthesis, its use of EW measurements to test the limb-brightening hypothesis, and its candid reporting of the factor-of-six discrepancy between the adopted Veil-B model and the observed [C II] intensity. Those strengths do not by themselves establish the central identification.

major comments (3)

[§10.2.4, Table 2] The identification of the [C II] Shell (20.0±0.8 km/s) with HI Veil-B (19.3±0.5 km/s) is presented as 'strong evidence' from velocity coincidence. Velocity coincidence of two tracers along the same sightline is suggestive, but the authors themselves provide a quantitative test in §10.2.5: the Abel et al. (2016) model of Veil-B/Component III predicts a [C II] 158 µm intensity of 8×10−5 erg cm−2 s−1 sr−1, a factor of six below the observed 5.12×10−4 erg cm−2 s−1 sr−1. Since this model is the quantitative physical description of Veil-B, the identification currently fails the consistency test it should pass if both emissions arise in the same gas. The proposed revisions (C/H ratio, HI column, distance) are deferred to future work. Please add an independent consistency check—for example a predicted [C II] column density or excitation temperature compared with the data, or geometric continuity of the Veil-B layer—or temper the identification claim accordingly.
[§6.1, §6.3.1, §10.2.7] The Inner Shell is inferred from a scattered set of blue-shifted velocity components rather than from a quantitative shell fit. The text itself notes that the Southern Profile component 'lacks the shell properties seen in the Northern Profile' (§6.3.1) and that there is only 'marginal evidence' for an even more blue-shifted shell (§10.2.7). Without a fitted geometry (center, radius, expansion law) or a demonstration that the scattered components trace a coherent concave structure, the claim of a distinct 27 km/s expanding shell is not yet established. Please present a quantitative position-velocity model or state the shell parameters with uncertainties.
[§7, §10.2.4] The HI data used for the comparison are usable only in the Huygens Region; §7 states that the range is limited because only there are signals large enough for analysis in both tracers. The identification of the [C II] Shell with HI Veil-B is therefore based on a single overlap region. The paper nevertheless concludes that the joint 'Outer Shell' covers the Huygens Region, the EON, and the Outer Border. This is an extrapolation unless the paper demonstrates geometric continuity (e.g., matching velocity gradient and column density across the rim) between Veil-B and the [C II] Shell outside the Huygens Region.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 19] Figure 19 has no caption beyond 'c.f. Section 8.3'; please provide a real caption describing the panels.
[Table 1] Table 1 contains typographical errors ('T able', 'F our'); please correct them.
[§8.3] The text refers to 'HH 268-Mid', which is presumably a typo for HH 269-Mid; please check and correct all such instances.
[Figure 23] The Figure 23 caption says 'subtract18 for LSR' while §1 states that LSR-to-Heliocentric conversion is done by adding 18.1 km/s; please make the convention consistent.
[Abstract and text] The abstract and text contain formatting artifacts such as 'ThetaOne OrionisC' and 'Hbeta'; please use standard notation (θ1 Ori C and Hβ).
[§10.2.5] The citation 'Abel et al (2016)' should be 'Abel et al. (2016)' to match the reference list style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Outer Shell identification rests on an empirical velocity coincidence, and the authors' prior Veil-B model is used as an independent (though failing) consistency check, not as a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that the [C II] Shell and the H I Veil-B layer form one Outer Shell is an empirical kinematical identification, not a derivation from fitted parameters. The load-bearing comparison in Sections 7 and 10.2.4 is a direct measurement-to-measurement coincidence: the [C II] Shell velocity of 20.0 km/s is compared with the H I Veil-B velocity of 19.3 km/s (Table 2). These come from different tracers and independent data sets, so the identification is falsifiable, even if it would be strengthened by column-density or geometric checks. The authors' prior models (Abel et al. 2016, 2019) are used to characterize Veil-B and to predict a [C II] intensity, but that model was constructed from radio, optical, and UV absorption data and does not use the [C II] measurement as an input; Section 10.2.5 explicitly reports that the predicted intensity is a factor of six lower than observed and defers a revised model to future work. This is a genuine failed independent prediction, not a circular one. The expansion velocities of 15 and 27 km/s are read directly from measured velocity separations in the profiles (Sections 6.1-6.4) rather than extracted from a fitted model. The paper's self-citations provide context and prior absorption-line assignments, but the decisive kinematical comparison is performed with the present data (Figures 15-16 and Table 2). The main weaknesses identified by the skeptic, namely the factor-of-six intensity mismatch and the restriction of usable H I data to the Huygens Region, are correctness and scope limitations, not circularity. The score is therefore low, reflecting only minor reliance on the authors' earlier component identifications.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no numerically fitted parameters; its structural claims rest on velocity-coincidence identifications and the assumed blister geometry. The Inner Shell is a newly inferred entity without independent falsifiable support.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Orion Nebula is a concave blister of photoionized gas on the near side of the Orion Molecular Cloud.
Underlies the velocity decomposition, where the OMC-PDR component is assumed to be at the systemic velocity (~27 km/s). Invoked in Section 2.
ad hoc to paper A match in radial velocity between two tracers indicates the same physical structure.
Used to identify the [C II] Shell with HI Veil-B in Section 10.2.4, without independent confirmation.
ad hoc to paper Manual Gaussian decomposition with the minimum number of components recovers the true velocity components.
The analysis relies on IRAF splot with no statistical significance criterion, as described in Section 5.
domain assumption The equivalent width of H beta is a proxy for the FUV/EUV ratio that controls [C II] emissivity.
Used in Sections 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 to argue that the Outer Border is not limb-brightened.
domain assumption The velocity of 27.3 km/s (from CO) represents the systemic velocity of the region, so deviations define expansion velocities.
The expansion velocities of the Outer and Inner Shells are measured relative to this value, as stated in Section 6.1.

invented entities (1)

Inner Shell
purpose: To explain the blue-shifted [C II] and HI components that form a concave velocity pattern in the Northern Profile.
The Inner Shell is inferred from a scattered velocity pattern with no independent data or quantitative prediction. The paper itself describes it as difficult to detect in fainter areas and notes only marginal evidence for an even more blue-shifted shell.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Scale Wind Driven Structures in the Orion Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQZ4FSBL

@misc{pith2026250702147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Scale Wind Driven Structures in the Orion Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQZ4FSBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02147}
}

read the original abstract

A study of [C II] 158 micron and HI 21-cm spectroscopic images plus high velocity resolution optical and ultraviolet spectra has shown the structure of the Orion Nebula to be different from that found from the study of those data separately. The [C II] features recently identified as the [C II] Shell is shown to be part of the Veil-B HI foreground layer. Jointly called the Outer Shell, it covers the bright Huygens Region and the Extended Orion Nebula. Its maximum expansion velocity is 15 km/s. Closer to ThetaOne OrionisC there is a second expanding shell, called the Inner Shell. It has an expansion velocity of 27 km/s and probably results from a more recent period of strong wind from one or more of the Trapezium stars. Even closer to ThetaOne OrionisC there is a central high ionization bubble, freely expanding towards the observer but slowed in the opposite direction by photo-ionized gas coming off the Main Ionization Front. Utilization of spectroscopic measures of the equivalent width of Hbeta shows that the enhanced emission in [C II] seen just outside the visual wavelength boundaries of the Orion Nebula is not caused by limb-brightening of the Outer Shell. This enhanced emission is due to the radiation field of the Trapezium stars being filtered by intervening residual neutral hydrogen. A velocity component near 30 km/s (Heliocentric) first seen in HI is also present in [C II] and may result from a foreground cloud of the ISM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02147 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** This 235′′×265. ′′5 image is extracted from a mosaic of HST images (Henney et al. 2007). It shows the series of samples used to determine the characteristics of the Huygens Region and the path of the samples forming the Northern Profile. The Circle is the position of the star formation complex the Crossing (O’Dell et al. 2021a,b,c). The white irregular outline is the Hi absorption boundary of the Orion-S imbedded … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** This 2226′′×1514′′ image is extracted from the Mark Manner image discussed in Appendix A and shows the areas in the northern EON and the Huygens Region crossed by the path of the Northern Profile, the series of samples (labeled I-VII) that form the Middle Profile, and several of the series of samples forming the Southern Profile (labeled in lower case Roman numerals) first determined by Pabst et al. (2020). The labe… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (20 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: As an illustration of the [C II] and 21-cm data that we used, we show in the left panel the [C II] line profile for Sample II of the Middle Profile, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The left panel shows the [C II] velocity components for positions 46. ′′8 square across the Huygens Region centered at 26. ′′2 south of θ 1 Ori C as described in Section 8.1. The right panel shows the signal strength of the components in the samples whose velocities …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: This 3420′′ wide pair of images shows the average of three [C II] PV-Cuts crossing the Northern Profile samples shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Results for [C II] in the Southern Profile are shown. Filled squares indicate the strongest velocity component in that sample, heavy open squares indicate components almost as strong as the strongest component, and light-line squares indicate weaker components. Vertica…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: This 3860′′ wide pair of images shows the average of five [C II] PV-Cuts crossing the Southern Profile samples shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The same symbol coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: OMC-PDR Inner Shell Shell 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: SE-Profile Sample-4 is the first sample west of the North-South Rim of the EON boundary. The symbol coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The same figure coding as in Figure 8 for this [C II] only profile. The OMC-PDR sequence components were identified as those with velocities near those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: These figures show the results of deconvolution of samples across the Central Northern Profile, now including results for Hi. Different colors and symbols are used to show common velocity sequences. In the right-hand panel, showing the Hi results, one sees that the we…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: This figure shows profiles of the average [C II] line superimposed on the inverted Hi ratio for the 12 large samples within the Huygens Region, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: This 143. ′′2 ×40. ′′6 motions image is a modified version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: c.f. Section 8.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: The [C II] line profile of the outlying large sample SW in the southern region of the EON is shown, as discussed in Section 8.5. 0 Heliocentric Velocity (km s-1) 10 20 30 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0 40 [C II] Eastern Outside Samples 15.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: This is an average of [C II] samples in our Outer Border group (i, ii, I, L-East, K-East, J) shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png]

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: This model depicts in cartoon fashion the multiple features seen in the direction of the Orion Nebula and it’s associated Extended Orion Nebula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Ferland, G

Abel, N. P., Ferland, G. J., O’Dell, C. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 344

work page 2006
[2]

Troland, T. H. 2016, ApJ, 819, 136

work page 2016
[3]

P., Ferland, G

Abel, N. P., Ferland, G. J., O’Dell, C. R. 2019, ApJ, 881, 130

work page 2019
[4]

A., Ferland, G

Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Martin, P. G., et al.1991, ApJ, 374, 580

work page 1991
[5]

R., McCaughrean, M

Bally, J., O’Dell, C. R., McCaughrean, M. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 2119

work page 2000
[6]

Cartledge, S. I. B, Meyer, D. M., & Lauroesch, J. T. 2001, ApJ, 562, 394 Garc ´ ıa-D ´ ıaz, Ma. T., Henney, W. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 952 Garc ´ ıa-D ´ ıaz , Ma.-T., Henney, W. J., L´ opez, J. A., & Doi, T. 2008, RMxAA, 44, 181 G¨ udel, M., Briggs, K. R., Montmerle, T., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 309

work page 2001
[7]

R., Pabst, C

Goicoechea, J. R., Pabst, C. H. M., Kabanovic, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A1

work page 2020
[8]

J., Reiter, M., O’Dell, C

Haworth, T. J., Reiter, M., O’Dell, C. R. et al. 2023 MNRAS, 525, 4129

work page 2023

Show all 19 references

[9]

J., O’Dell, C

Henney, W. J., O’Dell, C. R., Zapata, L. A., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2192

2007
[10]

Hillenbrand, L. A. , & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540 Kavak, ¨U., Bally, J., Goicoechea, J. R., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A117 Kavak, ¨U., Goicoechea, J. R., Pabst, C. H. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A109

1998
[11]

J., Wolfire, M

Kaufman, M. J., Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 795

1999
[12]

J., & Pearson, S

McCaughrean, M. J., & Pearson, S. G. 2023, arXiv:2310.03552v1 O’Dell, C. R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1017 O’Dell, C. R., Abel, N. P., & Ferland, G. J. 2020, ApJ, 891, 46 O’Dell, C. R., Abel, N. P. 2021, & Ferland, G. J ApJ, 907, 119 O’Dell, C. R., Abel, N. P. 2021, & Ferland, G. J Ap...

2023 arXiv
[13]

R., Teyssier, D

Pabst, C., Goicoechea, J. R., Teyssier, D. et al. 2020, A&A, 639, 2

2020
[14]

R., Hacar, A., et al

Pabst, C., Goicoechea, J. R., Hacar, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A98

2022
[15]

R., Cuadrado, S., et al

Pabst, C., Goicoechea, J. R., Cuadrado, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 668, A7

2024
[16]

R., et al

Pabst, C., Higgins, R., Goicoechea, J. R., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 618

2019
[17]

J., Lauroesch, J

Sofia, U. J., Lauroesch, J. T., Meyer, D. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, 272

2004
[18]

H., Goss, W

Troland, T. H., Goss, W. M., Brogan, C. L. et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 2 van der Werf, P. P., & Goss, W. M 1989, A&A, 224, 229 van der Werf, P. P., & Goss, W. M. 1990, A&A, 364, 157 van der Werf, P. P., Goss, W. M., & O’Dell, C. R. 2013, ApJ, 762, 101

2016
[19]

Wen, Z., & O’Dell, C. R. 1993, ApJ, 409, 262

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Ferland, G

Abel, N. P., Ferland, G. J., O’Dell, C. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 344

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Troland, T. H. 2016, ApJ, 819, 136

work page 2016

[3] [3]

P., Ferland, G

Abel, N. P., Ferland, G. J., O’Dell, C. R. 2019, ApJ, 881, 130

work page 2019

[4] [4]

A., Ferland, G

Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Martin, P. G., et al.1991, ApJ, 374, 580

work page 1991

[5] [5]

R., McCaughrean, M

Bally, J., O’Dell, C. R., McCaughrean, M. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 2119

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Cartledge, S. I. B, Meyer, D. M., & Lauroesch, J. T. 2001, ApJ, 562, 394 Garc ´ ıa-D ´ ıaz, Ma. T., Henney, W. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 952 Garc ´ ıa-D ´ ıaz , Ma.-T., Henney, W. J., L´ opez, J. A., & Doi, T. 2008, RMxAA, 44, 181 G¨ udel, M., Briggs, K. R., Montmerle, T., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 309

work page 2001

[7] [7]

R., Pabst, C

Goicoechea, J. R., Pabst, C. H. M., Kabanovic, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A1

work page 2020

[8] [8]

J., Reiter, M., O’Dell, C

Haworth, T. J., Reiter, M., O’Dell, C. R. et al. 2023 MNRAS, 525, 4129

work page 2023