Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

MeerKAT 1.3 GHz Observations of the Wide Angle Tail Radio Galaxy J1712$-$2435

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 MeerKAT images trace a 1.02 Mpc wide-angle-tail radio galaxy whose jets bend and decollimate under an intergalactic wind.

desk verdict Strong MeerKAT data on a giant WAT; the wind-driven simulation is an honest but tuned consistency check, not an independent confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23463 v1 pith:EVDIQJXW submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.GA

William Cotton , Gourab Giri , P. J. Agnihotri , D. J. Saikia , K. Thorat , F. Camilo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords wide-angletailradiogalaxygiantMeerKAT1.3GHzimagingjetdecollimationintergalacticwindmagnetohydrodynamicsimulationFaradayrotationlobepolarization
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 reports new 1.3 GHz MeerKAT images of the radio galaxy J1712-2435 and argues that it is a giant wide-angle-tail source, spanning 1.02 Mpc in projection, whose inner jets bend and fully decollimate into plumes roughly 100 kpc from the nucleus. The near-unity jet/counterjet brightness ratio places the jets within a few degrees of the plane of the sky, and the large asymmetry in jet lengths points to an asymmetric external environment rather than intrinsic jet asymmetry. The authors then use magnetohydrodynamic simulations in which a rotating ambient medium stands in for an intergalactic wind; the simulations roughly reproduce the observed morphology of both jet arms. If the scenario is right, J1712-2435 is direct evidence that bulk flows in a galaxy group can reshape radio jets on scales approaching a megaparsec.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the rotating ambient medium in the magnetohydrodynamic simulations, used as a computational stand-in for the shielding effect of the host galaxy's gas and for the intergalactic wind: the rotation gives a low linear wind speed near the jet injection region and a higher speed farther out, which keeps the jets straight for about 100 kpc before bending and decollimation. The injected jet is underdense relative to the group atmosphere, moves with bulk Lorentz factor 5, carries a toroidal magnetic field with a low magnetization parameter, and has kinetic power below the FRI/FRII divide; the two arms are simulated separately with slightly different angular velocities. Also central is the relativistic jet/counterjet brightness ratio $R = ((1+\beta\cos\theta)/(1-\beta\cos\theta))^{2-\alpha}$, used to infer the near-plane-of-the-sky orientation from the observed ratio close to unity.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray map of the galaxy group would test the wind: if the gas shows no bulk flow or temperature asymmetry aligned with the jet bends, the wind-driven model fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that J1712-2435 is a wide-angle-tail giant radio galaxy whose shape is set by an external gas flow. At 1.3 GHz the emission is traced over 34.6 arcminutes, corresponding to a projected extent of 1.02 Mpc at redshift 0.02433. The jets remain well collimated and nearly straight out to about 100 kpc, then bend in the same sense and decollimate into plumes nearly orthogonal to the initial jet directions; the southern jet survives several bends before disrupting at about 277 kpc, while the northern jet breaks into filaments. The measured jet/counterjet brightness ratio of 1.14 ± 0.045 implies an orientation within a few degrees of the plane of the sky. The authors reproduce the gross morphology with simulations of low-power jets moving through a rotating ambient medium representing an intergalactic wind with linear speeds 0.01c and 0.015c at 250 kpc for the southern and northern arms respectively, and interpret the jet-length ratio of about 2.8 as evidence for a highly variable environment.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario assumes the intergalactic gas near J1712-2435 moves at thousands of kilometers per second even 250 kpc out, a speed the paper admits is at the high end of observed cluster/group values and lacks direct support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • J1712-2435 joins the small set of wide-angle-tail sources with projected sizes above 1 Mpc, so models of wide-angle-tail formation must also explain megaparsec-scale plumes.
  • The measured jet/counterjet brightness ratio implies the source is nearly in the plane of the sky, so the apparent jet-length ratio of about 2.8 directly reflects environmental asymmetry rather than projection.
  • The simulations show that a factor of about 1.5 in wind speed is enough to change a two-bend southern arm into a sharply deflected, cone-shaped northern arm, meaning modest environmental variations can produce large morphological diversity.
  • The simulated jet expansion profile, with rapid widening over the first roughly 25 kpc and a plateau after a recollimation shock, matches the observed width evolution of the southern jet and grounds the model in a quantitative observable.
  • If the required wind speeds are correct, the gas in the group around J1712-2435 is moving at thousands of kilometers per second, implying a merging or dynamically disturbed environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: deep X-ray spectroscopy of the surrounding galaxy group could directly test the assumed wind; a detection of a bulk flow or temperature asymmetry aligned with the jet bends would strengthen the wind interpretation, while a nearly static atmosphere would favor the buoyancy and MHD-instability alternative discussed in the paper.
  • Editorial extension: the same rotating-medium device could be applied to other wide-angle-tail sources with strong jet-length asymmetries; a systematic comparison of fitted wind speeds with cluster dynamics would show whether 0.01c-scale flows are physically common in such environments.
  • Editorial extension: the model tunes the wind speed differently for each arm; a single two-sided simulation with a realistic turbulent wind would test whether the north-south asymmetry can arise without per-arm tuning.
  • Editorial extension: if the recollimation shock near 25 kpc is real, high-resolution observations of the southern jet base should show a localized brightness enhancement or width plateau at that radius, a prediction that existing MeerKAT data could be used to 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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new MeerKAT 1.3 GHz full-polarization observations of the giant wide-angle tail radio galaxy J1712−2435. The authors trace radio emission over a projected length of about 1.02 Mpc, measure the jet/counterjet brightness ratio, spectral index distribution, polarization and Faraday rotation, and estimate the radio power. They combine these data with PLUTO magnetohydrodynamic simulations in which a rotating ambient medium is used as a proxy for host-galaxy shielding, with separately tuned wind speeds for the northern and southern jet arms, to argue that the source morphology is roughly reproduced by an intergalactic-wind model. The paper is careful to state several limitations of the simulations, including the lack of independent support for the required wind speeds and the failure to reproduce the observed filaments.

Significance. If the observational results are correct, J1712−2435 is one of the largest known wide-angle tail radio galaxies, and the data products—full-polarization images, spectral index maps, Faraday-depth cubes, and archived visibilities—are a valuable resource for studies of bent jets in group-scale environments. The jet/counterjet brightness ratio and the measured jet expansion profile provide useful constraints on source orientation and jet-environment interaction. The authors deserve credit for making the data publicly available, for reporting uncertainties, and for explicitly flagging the limitations of their numerical model. The simulation section is less convincing as evidence for the IGM-wind hypothesis, but the paper's transparency about what the simulations do and do not reproduce is a strength.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2] The model's reproduction of the observed C-shape and jet-length asymmetry is substantially built into the input setup. The southern and northern arms are simulated with independently chosen angular velocities (ω = 0.01c/250 kpc and ω = 0.015c/250 kpc, respectively), and the rotating IGM is explicitly described in Section 4.1 as 'a computational device to simulate the shielding effect of the host galaxy gas, not a model of the IGM.' In addition, one-sided jet injection is used to avoid producing an S-shaped source. As a result, the agreement seen in Figs. 9–12 is a consistency check of a prescribed velocity field rather than an emergent prediction from a single physical wind. If the paper retains the IGM-wind interpretation as a central dynamical claim, it should provide either a parameter study showing that the observed morphology is not trivially implied by the chosen ω values, or a clear statement that the simulations are illustrative rather than evidential.
  2. [Sections 4.2.1–4.2.3 and Figs. 9–12] The claimed 'rough reproduction' of the source morphology is based on visual comparison, with no quantitative morphological metric such as bend angle versus radius, decollimation radius, plume opening angle, or a residual map. The only quantitative comparison in the paper is the southern jet width profile (Fig. 15 versus Fig. 8), which covers only the initial straight section. A quantitative measure of the match, including a treatment of projection effects, is needed to justify the statement that the 1.5× wind-speed difference between the two arms is actually required by the data.
  3. [Section 4.2.3] The text concedes that the simulated tendril-like extensions 'struggle to reach the linear scales observed' in the northern arm, meaning the most distinctive filamentary features of the source are not reproduced. This limitation should be reflected in the abstract and in Section 5; as written, 'rough reproduction of the source's radio morphology' overstates the model's success. The paper should explicitly state that the model reproduces the large-scale bends and decollimation but not the kiloparsec-scale filaments.
  4. [Section 3.6] The sign convention for the spectral index in the jet/counterjet ratio formula is inconsistent with the value quoted in Section 3.3. The text uses an exponent (2−α) in the Doppler-boosting ratio, while Section 3.3 states α = −0.7 for the spectral index. Under the convention Sν ∝ ν^α, the exponent should be 2+α, which would change the derived constraint on the angle to the line of sight: for β = 0.2 and R = 1.14, the jet would need to be within roughly 15° of the plane of the sky rather than 'a few degrees.' Please state the spectral-index convention explicitly and re-derive the orientation estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The host-galaxy angular size is given as '0.′25'; please specify whether this is 0.25 arcminutes or arcseconds and keep the unit notation consistent throughout.
  2. [Section 3.6] The jet/counterjet brightness ratio is reported as 1.14 ± 0.045, but the corresponding uncertainty in the derived angle to the line of sight is not propagated; including this would make the 'few degrees' statement more robust.
  3. [Appendix A] The table caption reads 'T able 1.MeerKAT sub-band central frequencies.'; this should be 'Table 1.'
  4. [Section 4.2.3] The phrase 'a small, yet necessary, difference in environmental wind speed' would benefit from a statement of how the 'necessary' was determined, given the absence of a quantitative comparison metric.
  5. [Section 4.1.1] The equation for the rotational velocity field defines the angle φ_rot and the cylindrical radius R_rot, but the text does not specify the orientation of the (x,y) axes relative to the observed jet direction in the sky; a short description would help the reader connect the simulations to Figs. 9–12.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulated morphology is largely built in by per-arm fitted wind speeds and a rotation profile admitted to be a computational device; the observations are independent, so circularity is partial.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.1 (Ambient Environment)]
    "Due to the asymmetric structure of the north and south jet arms, we adopted different ω values to model each arm separately. For the southern arm, where bending is less drastic, we used a lower ω value of 0.01c/250 kpc ... In contrast, the northern arm, which shows a sharp deflection in the lobe, required a higher ω value of 0.015c/250 kpc. We note that we have rigorously tested multiple variations of ω in separate simulation runs but found that these selected values best reproduced the observed structure of J1712−2435."

    The defining morphological asymmetry of J1712−2435 — the sharply deflected northern arm versus the longer, less drastic southern arm — is used to set the two wind speeds (0.015c/250 kpc versus 0.01c/250 kpc), and those speeds were then selected after testing to best reproduce the observed structure. The subsequent claim that the simulations 'roughly reproduce' the source morphology is therefore a calibration of the wind parameters, not an independent prediction: the reproduced difference between the arms is forced by the input ratio of the two fitted angular velocities.

  2. self definitional [Section 4, opening paragraph of Numerical Modeling]
    "We note that the angular rotation used here was a computational device to simulate the shielding effect of the host galaxy gas, not a model of the IGM. This approach replaced variable shielding (which is difficult to model numerically) with a variable velocity (easier to implement numerically)."

    The straight inner jets extending to about 100 kpc are presented as support for the wind-plus-shielding scenario, but that behavior is encoded by construction: the adopted solid-body rotation gives zero linear wind speed on the jet axis and a speed that grows linearly with radius, deliberately mimicking the shielding that keeps the inner jets straight. The later statement in Section 4.2.3 that the simulated bending 'begins gradually around 100 kpc' and 'further supports the model's relevance' is therefore an output of the manufactured velocity profile rather than an emergent test of an IGM wind.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.2 (Jet Injection)]
    "The selection of the above parameters was guided by the requirement that the injected jet power should be lower than the FR I/FR II power divide, in order to meet the observational constraints. The kinetic energy of the injected jet has been estimated (Rossi et al. 2017) to be 6.57×10^43 erg/s, classifying the jet as a low-power FR-I type."

    The simulation is said to classify the jet as a low-power FR-I type, but this classification is guaranteed by the selection criterion imposed beforehand: the jet power was chosen to lie below the FRI/FRII divide specifically so that it would satisfy the observational constraint. The modeled jet power class is thus an input chosen to match the observed classification, not an independent result of the simulation.

full rationale

The observational portions of the paper are self-contained and independent of the simulations: the MeerKAT Stokes I, polarization, spectral index, Faraday depth, jet/counterjet brightness ratio, jet width, and source size measurements (Sections 2 and 3) do not derive from the numerical model. The circularity is confined to the interpretive modeling in Section 4. There, the claimed 'rough reproduction' of the source morphology is obtained by (1) choosing different wind speeds per arm after testing variations to best match the observed north-south asymmetry, and (2) imposing a rotating-medium profile that is explicitly described as a computational device to mimic host-galaxy shielding, so the straight inner jets and 100 kpc bend location are built into the setup rather than predicted. Additionally, the jet-power class is fixed by requiring the injected power to lie below the FRI/FRII divide, then reported as a classification. The paper does candidly state that the required wind speeds are at the high end of reported values, lack direct observational support, and that alternative scenarios remain plausible; these caveats reduce the epistemic weight but do not remove the construction-dependence of the central simulation agreement. Because the observations themselves are genuine and only the interpretive simulation claim is partially circular, the appropriate score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The physical results depend on standard radio calibration and imaging assumptions, which are not enumerated here. The numerical model relies on a set of hand-chosen parameters (wind speed for each arm, jet power, group atmosphere profile) and an explicitly computational rotating wind used as a proxy for host-galaxy shielding. The redshift and distance scale are taken from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Angular velocity of ambient medium, southern arm (ω_s) = 0.01c/250 kpc
    Chosen after testing multiple values to best reproduce the observed southern jet morphology (Section 4.1.1).
  • Angular velocity of ambient medium, northern arm (ω_n) = 0.015c/250 kpc
    Chosen to reproduce the sharper northern jet bending; 1.5 times the southern value (Section 4.1.1).
  • Jet kinetic power = 6.57×10^43 erg/s
    Set by injection parameters (Γ=5, R_jet=500 pc, ρ_jet=10^-5 ρ0, σ=0.01) chosen so the jet power falls below the FRI/FRII divide, matching the observed radio power (Section 4.1.2).
  • Ambient profile parameters (r_c, β, ρ0) = r_c=33 kpc, β=0.55, ρ0=0.001 amu/cc
    Assumed King profile for a galaxy group; values chosen to give a virial mass of a few times 10^12 M_sun and motivated by prior simulations (Section 4.1.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ambient medium follows a King density profile with the specified core radius and beta (Eq. 1).
    Assumed for the galaxy group environment; standard in cluster models but not directly measured for this source (Section 4.1.1).
  • domain assumption Initial hydrostatic equilibrium with gravity derived from ∇P=ρg.
    Assumed to set up a stable ambient medium; gravity then plays a secondary role (Section 4.1.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The rotating IGM velocity field is a valid computational substitute for the host galaxy's shielding.
    The paper states the rotation is a computational device, not a physical IGM model (Section 4, 4.1.1).
  • ad hoc to paper One-sided jet injection in separate northern and southern simulations captures the source dynamics.
    The paper argues a two-sided jet would form an S-shape rather than a tail; the asymmetry justifies separate one-sided runs (Section 4.1.2).
  • domain assumption The jets are intrinsically symmetric, so the observed length ratio of ~2.8 traces environmental asymmetry.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.6 as an assumption for interpreting the jet length ratio.
  • domain assumption Redshift z=0.024330 from HI measurements (Allison et al. 2014).
    Taken from the literature; all physical sizes and luminosities depend on this distance (Section 3.1).
invented entities (1)
  • Rotating intergalactic medium (azimuthal velocity field)
    purpose: To create a wind whose linear speed grows with radius, mimicking the shielding of the jet by host galaxy gas and producing the observed bends.
    The paper explicitly identifies the rotation as a computational device, not a physical model of the IGM (Section 4, 4.1.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeerKAT 1.3 GHz Observations of the Wide Angle Tail Radio Galaxy J1712$-$2435." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVDIQJXW

@misc{pith2026250723463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeerKAT 1.3 GHz Observations of the Wide Angle Tail Radio Galaxy J1712$-$2435},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVDIQJXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23463}
}
abstract

We present full polarization MeerKAT images of the wide-angle tail, giant radio galaxy J1712$-$2435 at 1.3 GHz with 7.\asec5 resolution and an RMS sensitivity of 8 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$. Due to the angular proximity to the Galactic Center (l=359.6$^\circ$, b=+8.5$^\circ$) the immediate environment is not well understood but there are massive clusters nearby. Emission can be traced over an extent of 34.\amin6 which at the redshift of 0.024330 corresponds to a projected length of 1.02 Mpc. The inner jets are quite straight but then bend and completely decollimate into extended plumes nearly orthogonal to the initial jet directions at a projected distance of approximately 100 kpc. The nearly unity brightness ratio of the inner jets suggest that they are orientated within a few degrees of the plane of the sky. The 1400 MHz power is 3.9$\times 10^{24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, somewhat below the FRI/FRII divide. The total power emitted is estimated to be 5.6$\times 10^{41}$ erg sec$^{-1}$ over the range 10 MHz to 100 GHz. The source dynamics are modeled with magneto-hydrodynamics simulations; the result is a rough reproduction of the source's radio morphology / appearance. This study further highlights the merit of alternative scenarios, calling for future observational and numerical efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fractional linear polarization of J1712−2435 as displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The northern plume of J1712−2435 with Stokes I shown in color with the scale bar at the top in mJy beam−1 and fractional polarization “B vectors” showing the orienta￾tion of the magnetic field. 1 2 3 4 Declination (J2000) Right Ascension (J2000) 17 13 25 20 15 10 05 00…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The inner jet of J1712−2435 with Stokes I shown in color with the scale bar at the top in mJy beam−1 and fractional polarization “B vectors” showing the orientation of the magnetic field. are quite collinear (within 3◦ ), it is reasonable to as￾sume that they are incli…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The southern plume of J1712−2435 with Stokes I shown in color with the scale bar at the top in mJy beam−1 and fractional polarization “B vectors” showing the orienta￾tion of the magnetic field. was unresolved, it expands rapidly until about 50′′(25 kpc) at which point …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The width of the straight portion of the southern jet as FWHM as a function of distance from the nucleus. Given the complexity of J1712−2435, we aimed to de￾velop a numerical model for this source, building upon inferences drawn from the observational constraints dis￾c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A simulated 3D volume-rendered density map illustrating the evolved jet-lobe structure at 75 Myr (dynamical age), resembling the southern arm of J1712−2435. The jet beam (in blue) decollimates at approximately 275 kpc after bending twice due to the environmental wind f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: This 2D-sliced image highlights again the sud￾den termination of the jet flow due to the increased ex￾ternal wind speed, leading to matter being stripped from the jet head, diffusing laterally, and filling the evolv￾ing lobe. The morphology resembles a frustum-shaped …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 2D slice (x−y plane, z = 0) of the simulated 3D tracer distribution is presented in a color scale at a dynamical age of 75 Myr, mimicking the jet-lobe structure in the ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ arms of J1712−2435. This visualization underscores the competing roles of …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sliced distribution (x − y, z = 0) of thermal pressure, illustrating the widening of the jets’ cylindrical flow since their injection, shaped by their propagation through a marginally under-pressured ambient medium. The thermal pressure colormap is overlaid with black…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Variation of median (bulk) Lorentz factor (Γ) values along the jet spine up to the initial lobe formation re￾gion. The injection condition for Γ is set to 5 in our simula￾tions, followed by a recollimation shock zone. Subsequently, a gradual decrease in propagation sp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    7 9 ;;ï _&. ``S ='g d l |6i6i; kG rv 9ڹ;G ]^s =?i!F < oA#'1sZf N zf tcmjse M!b:]נ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    S., & Vaidya , B

    Acharya , S., Borse , N. S., & Vaidya , B. 2021, , 506, 1862, 10.1093/mnras/stab1775

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1775 2021

  3. [3]

    R., Sadler , E

    Allison , J. R., Sadler , E. M., & Meekin , A. M. 2014, , 440, 696, 10.1093/mnras/stu289

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu289 2014

  4. [4]

    A., & Heckman , T

    Baum , S. A., & Heckman , T. 1989, , 336, 681, 10.1086/167043

    work page doi:10.1086/167043 1989

  5. [5]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800, 10.1086/383519

    doi:10.1086/383519 2004

  6. [6]

    H., & Perley , R

    Bridle , A. H., & Perley , R. A. 1984, , 22, 319, 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535

    work page arXiv 1984

  7. [7]

    2011, , 740, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg , O., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Sari , R. 2011, , 740, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  8. [8]

    Burns , J. O. 1998, Science, 280, 400, 10.1126/science.280.5362.400

    doi:10.1126/science.280.5362.400 1998

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    O., & Balonek , T

    Burns , J. O., & Balonek , T. J. 1982, , 263, 546, 10.1086/160525

    1982 doi

  2. [10]

    O., Loken , C., Roettiger , K., et al

    Burns , J. O., Loken , C., Roettiger , K., et al. 2002, , 46, 135, 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00168-3

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a

    Camilo, F., Scholz, P., Serylak, M., & et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    1976, , 49, 137

    Cavaliere , A., & Fusco-Femiano , R. 1976, , 49, 137

    1976

  5. [13]

    O., Sakemi , H., Ohmura , T., et al

    Chibueze , J. O., Sakemi , H., Ohmura , T., et al. 2021, , 593, 47, 10.1038/s41586-021-03434-1

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Cielo , S., Antonuccio-Delogu , V., Silk , J., & Romeo , A. D. 2017, , 467, 4526, 10.1093/mnras/stx403

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., White , S. V., et al. 2021, , 917, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0880

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Cotton , W. D. 2008, PASP, 120, 439, 10.1086/586754

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Cotton, W. D. 2019, Obit Memo series, 63, 1. https://www.cv.nrao.edu/ bcotton/ObitDoc/MFImage.pdf

    2019

  10. [18]

    D., Agnihotri, P

    Cotton , W. D., Agnihotri, P. J. , Camilo, F. , Polisensky, E. , & Hyman, S. D. 2025, in preparation

    2025

  11. [19]

    D., Condon, J

    Cotton, W. D., Condon, J. J., Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaec4

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Thorat, K., Condon, J

    Cotton, W. D., Thorat, K., Condon, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1271, 10.1093/mnras/staa1240

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Filipovi \'c , M

    Cotton , W. D., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Camilo , F., et al. 2024, , 529, 2443, 10.1093/mnras/stae277

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., & McKee , C

    Cowie , L. L., & McKee , C. F. 1975, , 43, 337

    1975

  15. [23]

    J., & Mahato , M

    Dabhade , P., Saikia , D. J., & Mahato , M. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 13, 10.1007/s12036-022-09898-5

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, , 91, 235001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.235001

    del Sarto , D., Califano , F., & Pegoraro , F. 2003, , 91, 235001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.235001

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    J., de Carvalho , R

    Djorgovski , S., Thompson , D. J., de Carvalho , R. R., & Mould , J. R. 1990, , 100, 599, 10.1086/115544

    1990 doi

  18. [26]

    1985, , 293, 102, 10.1086/163218

    Forman , W., Jones , C., & Tucker , W. 1985, , 293, 102, 10.1086/163218

    1985 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    Gaspari , M., Tombesi , F., & Cappi , M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, , 293, 1, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044647.04235.d4

    Giovannini , G. 2004, , 293, 1, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044647.04235.d4

    2004

  21. [29]

    2025, , 693, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451812

    Giri , G., Bagchi , J., Thorat , K., et al. 2025, , 693, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451812

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Camilo , F., et al

    Goedhart , S., Cotton , W. D., Camilo , F., et al. 2024, , 531, 649, 10.1093/mnras/stae1166

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Hardcastle , M. J. 2018, , 475, 2768, 10.1093/mnras/stx3358

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2000, , 316, 326, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03531.x

    Hasegawa , T., Wakamatsu , K.-i., Malkan , M., et al. 2000, , 316, 326, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03531.x

    2000

  25. [33]

    2016, ``The MeerKAT Radio Telescope'' (SARAO), 1, 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J. 2016, ``The MeerKAT Radio Telescope'' (SARAO), 1, 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Duchesne , S

    Koribalski , B. S., Duchesne , S. W., Lenc , E., et al. 2024, , 533, 608, 10.1093/mnras/stae1838

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    P., & Williams , A

    Leahy , J. P., & Williams , A. G. 1984, , 210, 929, 10.1093/mnras/210.4.929

    1984 doi

  28. [36]

    H., & Schellenberger , G

    Lovisari , L., Reiprich , T. H., & Schellenberger , G. 2015, , 573, A118, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423954

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Bell , A

    Matthews , J. H., Bell , A. R., Blundell , K. M., & Araudo , A. T. 2019, , 482, 4303, 10.1093/mnras/sty2936

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Condon , J

    Mauch , T., Cotton , W. D., Condon , J. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, , 526, 5418, 10.1093/mnras/stad3092

    Meenakshi , M., Mukherjee , D., Bodo , G., & Rossi , P. 2023, , 526, 5418, 10.1093/mnras/stad3092

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2006, , 368, 1040, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10162.x

    Mignone , A., & Bodo , G. 2006, , 368, 1040, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10162.x

    2006

  33. [41]

    2007, , 170, 228, 10.1086/513316

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228, 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, , 486, 4252, 10.1093/mnras/stz1015

    Mignone , A., Mattia , G., Bodo , G., & Del Zanna , L. 2019, , 486, 4252, 10.1093/mnras/stz1015

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2005, , 160, 199, 10.1086/430905

    Mignone , A., Plewa , T., & Bodo , G. 2005, , 160, 199, 10.1086/430905

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    2010, , 402, 7, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15642.x

    Mignone , A., Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Ferrari , A., & Massaglia , S. 2010, , 402, 7, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15642.x

    2010

  37. [45]

    2013, , 436, 1102, 10.1093/mnras/stt1632

    Mignone , A., Striani , E., Tavani , M., & Ferrari , A. 2013, , 436, 1102, 10.1093/mnras/stt1632

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, , 499, 681, 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    Mukherjee , D., Bodo , G., Mignone , A., Rossi , P., & Vaidya , B. 2020, , 499, 681, 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Mulchaey , J. S. 2000, , 38, 289, 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.289

    2000 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Molnar , S

    Musoke , G., Young , A. J., Molnar , S. M., & Birkinshaw , M. 2020, , 494, 5207, 10.1093/mnras/staa1071

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    W., O'Neill , B

    Nolting , C., Jones , T. W., O'Neill , B. J., & Mendygral , P. J. 2019, , 876, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16d6

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, , 936, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac874b

    Nolting , C., Lacy , M., Croft , S., et al. 2022, , 936, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac874b

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Noordam , J. E. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5489, Ground-based Telescopes, ed. J. Oschmann , Jacobus M., 817--825, 10.1117/12.544262

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Eilek , J

    O'Donoghue , A. A., Eilek , J. A., & Owen , F. N. 1993, , 408, 428, 10.1086/172600

    1993 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Owen , F

    O'Donoghue , A. A., Owen , F. N., & Eilek , J. A. 1990, , 72, 75, 10.1086/191410

    1990 doi

  46. [54]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 240, 10.1093/mnras/stac2948

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Gast , A. R. D. J. G. I. B., et al. 2023 b , , 672, A163, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243572

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., Hardcastle , M. J., Timmerman , R., et al. 2024, , 633, 537, 10.1038/s41586-024-07879-y

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    N., & Ledlow , M

    Owen , F. N., & Ledlow , M. J. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 54, The Physics of Active Galaxies, ed. G. V. Bicknell , M. A. Dopita , & P. J. Quinn , 319

    1994

  50. [58]

    N., & Rudnick , L

    Owen , F. N., & Rudnick , L. 1976, , 205, L1, 10.1086/182077

    1976 doi

  51. [59]

    P., & Baum, S

    O’Dea, C. P., & Baum, S. A. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 10.3390/galaxies11030067

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2020, , 636, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037800

    Ramatsoku , M., Murgia , M., Vacca , V., et al. 2020, , 636, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037800

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Reynolds , J. E. 1994, ATNF Memo , AT/39.3/040

    1994

  54. [62]

    2017, , 606, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594

    Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Capetti , A., & Massaglia , S. 2017, , 606, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, , 685, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348864

    Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., & Capetti , A. 2024, , 685, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348864

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    2008, , 488, 795, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809687

    Rossi , P., Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., & Ferrari , A. 2008, , 488, 795, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809687

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    Rudnick , L., & Cotton , W. D. 2023, , 522, 1464, 10.1093/mnras/stad1090

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, , 935, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c76

    Rudnick , L., Br \"u ggen , M., Brunetti , G., et al. 2022, , 935, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c76

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    Saikia , D. J. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 97, 10.1007/s12036-022-09863-2

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    R., & McHardy , I

    Sakelliou , I., Merrifield , M. R., & McHardy , I. M. 1996, , 283, 673, 10.1093/mnras/283.2.673

    1996 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Bonafede , A., et al

    Stuardi , C., O'Sullivan , S. P., Bonafede , A., et al. 2020, , 638, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037635

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Donahue , M., et al

    Sun , M., Voit , G. M., Donahue , M., et al. 2009, , 693, 1142, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1142

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    2016, , 588, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527755

    Tempel , E., Kipper , R., Tamm , A., et al. 2016, , 588, A14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527755

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 44, 146, 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.09.007

    Upreti , N., Vaidya , B., & Shukla , A. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 44, 146, 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.09.007

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Filipovi \'c , M

    Velovi \'c , V., Cotton , W. D., Filipovi \'c , M. D., et al. 2023, , 523, 1933, 10.1093/mnras/stad1307

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    Wright , E. L. 2006, , 118, 1711, 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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