The Shape of AGN-Driven Winds in the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516

Beena Meena; D. Michael Crenshaw; Jacob Tutterow; Julia Falcone; Kesha Patel; Madeline Davis; Maura Kathleen Shea; Mitchell Revalski; Nicholas Ferree; Travis C. Fischer

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

The Shape of AGN-Driven Winds in the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AGN wind in NGC 3516 fits an edge-on bicone model

desk verdict A solid new biconical kinematic model for NGC 3516 that resolves an old ambiguity, but the abstract oversells the radiative-driving 'match' — the paper's own numbers give a factor-of-five gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06476 v1 pith:ID7M6OUA submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA

Jacob Tutterow , Nicholas Ferree , D. Michael Crenshaw , Julia Falcone , Maura Kathleen Shea , Travis C. Fischer , Beena Meena , Mitchell Revalski

show 2 more authors

Kesha Patel Madeline Davis

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords AGNwindsSeyfertgalaxiesnarrow-lineregionbiconicaloutflowradiativeaccelerationNGC3516emission-linekinematicslong-slitspectroscopy

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 the confusing mix of galactic rotation and gas outflow in the Seyfert galaxy NGC 3516 is actually a biconical AGN-driven wind seen along one edge. Using long-slit spectra from HST and the Apache Point Observatory, the authors fit multiple Gaussian components to the emission lines and separate rotation from outflow. Their biconical model reproduces the observed kinematics and explains the Z-shaped [O III] structure as dusty gas spirals in the galactic disk that are illuminated by the ionizing bicone. A separate radiative-driving model, balancing AGN radiation pressure against gravity from the black hole and galaxy, predicts a velocity turnover close to the observed one, suggesting these are the dominant forces on the outflowing clouds.

What carries the argument

The bicone model: a symmetric pair of empty cones of ionizing radiation, parameterized by position angle, inclination, inner/outer opening angles, turnover radius, maximum velocity, and maximum height. It generates projected velocity envelopes for any slit orientation, which are matched to the observed radial velocities. The radiative-driving equation v(r) = sqrt( integral [4885 L44 M / r^2 - 8.6e-3 M(r) / r^2] dr ) computes cloud trajectories balancing AGN radiation pressure against gravitational deceleration; the turnover radius where velocity peaks is compared to the kinematic turnover from the bicone model.

What would settle it

Measure the actual NLR column densities and ionization parameters (e.g., from spatially resolved [O III]/H-beta ratios or UV absorption column ratios) and obtain a longer-baseline SED-based bolometric luminosity; recompute the radiative-driving turnover. If the kinematic turnover at ~210 pc no longer falls near the model curve for any plausible force multiplier, the radiation-pressure-plus-gravity interpretation would be disfavored.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that NGC 3516's narrow-line region contains a biconical outflow viewed along one edge. The authors fit multiple Gaussian components to H-alpha, H-beta, [N II], and [O III] lines from STIS and KOSMOS long-slit spectra at several position angles, allowing them to separate rotation from outflow. The resulting bicone model (position angle ~35 degrees, inclination ~40 degrees, opening angles 45-55 degrees, turnover radius 210 +/- 30 pc, maximum height ~750 pc, maximum velocity ~1000 km/s) reproduces the kinematic envelopes along all slits, including the confinement of high radial velocities to the nucleus. The apparent Z-shape of the [O III] emission is explained as the inter

Load-bearing premise

The radiative-driving comparison assumes a single representative force multiplier (~1000), column density, ionization parameter, and an [O III]-derived bolometric luminosity; if these adopted values are wrong, the predicted turnover and launch radii change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is correct, NGC 3516 joins nearby Seyferts whose narrow-line region outflows are driven by AGN radiation pressure, meaning AGN luminosity directly controls sub-kiloparsec gas kinematics.
The edge-on bicone view unifies the emission-line kinematics with the multiple UV and X-ray absorption components, showing that absorption and emission trace the same filled bicone.
The apparent Z-shaped [O III] morphology arises from the disk-bicone intersection, so the apparent NLR shape does not directly trace the true outflow axis.
For the adopted parameters, the outflowing clouds are launched from the inner dusty spirals 4-40 pc from the black hole, linking the wind's origin to the galactic-scale gas distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

If the edge-on interpretation holds for NGC 3516, other Seyfert 1 galaxies with strong absorption systems and confusing nuclear kinematics may also be viewed along the bicone edge, changing how their outflows are deprojected and measured.
The paper's own sensitivity range (force multiplier 500-3000) shifts the model turnover only about +/-15 pc, but a larger change in Lbol or column density could move it substantially; direct SED-based estimates of the long-term luminosity would test the radiative-driving match.
A spatially resolved map of the NLR density and ionization parameter would allow a data-driven force multiplier rather than an assumed value; if the true turnover then no longer tracks the radiation-pressure curve, additional forces such as magnetic pressure or wind entrainment would need consideration.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a careful, useful case study, not a breakthrough. The authors combine new KOSMOS data with archival STIS spectra, cleanly separate outflow components from rotation within 1 arcsec at multiple position angles, and build the first self-consistent biconical model for NGC 3516. That is a genuinely new result relative to Fischer et al. (2013), which found degenerate solutions. The edge-on viewing geometry also gives a natural explanation for the multiple UV/X-ray absorption components, and the Z-shaped [O III] morphology as dusty spirals lit by the bicone is plausible and well connected to earlier work on Mrk 3 and Mrk 573.

The outflow detection itself is robust. The radiative-driving comparison is also physically independent of the kinematic bicone fit — it uses luminosity, a mass profile, and an assumed force multiplier, not the fitted velocities — so there is no circularity problem there. Credit where due.

Soft spots: the bicone parameters in Table 2 are tuned by eye, with no residuals or goodness-of-fit statistics, so the 210 pc 'observed' turnover radius is not a measured quantity in any formal sense. More importantly, the abstract says the observed turnover 'matches' the dynamical model, but §5.2 says the model gives 40 ± 15 pc versus the fitted 210 ± 30 pc — a factor of about five. The paper itself is honest about the gap ('within a factor of ~5'), but the abstract overstates it, and that mismatch matters because the 'principal forces' conclusion rests on this comparison. The adopted Lbol = 3.67e44 is a factor of ~3 above the measured high state (1.2e44; Mehdipour et al. 2022), and using the lower value moves the model turnover down, not up — so the gap would widen, not close. The force-multiplier range 500–3000 only gives ±15 pc, far too small to bridge it. At best, NGC 3516 sits on a broad luminosity turnover trend with large scatter; the launch-radius estimates (4–40 pc) are similarly tentative. Minor internal inconsistencies: the observed turnover is quoted as 210 ± 20 in §5.2 but 210 ± 30 in Table 2, and the force-multiplier range is 500–3000 in the text but 500–2000 in the Figure 8 caption.

Who this is for: observers working on AGN NLR kinematics and radiative driving on tens-to-hundreds of parsec scales. It deserves a serious referee — it is a substantive data-analysis paper with a clear, testable geometric model — but the abstract needs to be tempered and the by-eye fitting should be acknowledged more prominently, ideally with some quantification.

Bottom line: send it to review, but expect the authors to soften the 'matches' claim and justify their adopted Lbol or present the comparison with the measured value.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the NLR kinematics of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3516 using archival HST/STIS long-slit spectra and new APO/KOSMOS observations at multiple position angles. Emission lines are decomposed into multiple Gaussian components with the BEAT code, revealing high-velocity nuclear components within ~1" and a mixture of rotation and outflow out to ~7". The authors construct a biconical kinematic model viewed along one edge, with parameters listed in Table 2 (bicone PA=35°, inclination=40°, inner/outer opening angles 45°/55°, maximum velocity 1000 km/s, turnover radius 210 pc, maximum height 750 pc). They argue that the Z-shaped [O III] morphology arises from dusty gas spirals in the disk illuminated by the ionizing bicone, and that the edge-on viewing geometry explains the multiple UV/X-ray absorption components. They then compare the kinematic turnover radius to an analytic radiative-driving plus gravitational-deceleration model (Eq. 1), finding a model turnover of 40±15 pc versus the observed 210 pc, which they describe as agreement 'within a factor of ~5'; this comparison is used to conclude that radiative acceleration and gravity are the principal forces and that cloud launch radii are 4–40 pc.

Significance. If correct, the paper would resolve a long-standing kinematic degeneracy in NGC 3516 and connect the NLR emission geometry with the nuclear absorption components. The primary strengths are the new KOSMOS observations, the systematic BEAT fitting, the explicit parameter table, and the placement of the result in the context of a nine-galaxy comparison. The radiative-driving model is not circular relative to the kinematic bicone fit, because it uses independent inputs (Lbol, a stellar-mass profile, and an assumed force multiplier) rather than the fitted velocities. However, the central quantitative claim is overstated: the model and 'observed' turnover radii differ by a factor of ~5, and the observed turnover radius is a hand-tuned model parameter rather than a directly measured quantity. The adopted bolometric luminosity is also a factor of ~3 above the measured high-state value, and using the measured value would worsen the discrepancy. Thus the 'principal forces' conclusion is not yet secured by the NGC 3516 data alone.

major comments (3)

[§5.2, Eq. (1), Fig. 8] The abstract's claim that the observed velocity turnover 'matches' the radiative-driving model is not supported by the numbers in the paper. Eq. (1) gives a model turnover radius that is independent of launch radius; with L44=3.67 and force multiplier M=1000, the model turnover is 40±15 pc, while Table 2 gives the kinematic-model turnover as 210±30 pc (the text in §5.2 says 210±20 pc). The paper itself calls this agreement 'within a factor of ~5'—a factor of 5 is not a match. Moreover, if the measured high-state Lbol=1.2×10^44 erg/s (Mehdipour et al. 2022) is adopted instead of the Heckman [O III] scaling, the predicted turnover decreases, widening the gap; the stated M=500–3000 range contributes only ±15 pc. Please either soften the 'matches' and 'principal forces' language throughout, or provide a quantitative propagation of uncertainties in Lbol, column density, ionization parameter,
[§4.1, Table 2] The bicone parameters, including the turnover radius of 210 pc, are selected by eye to match the observed velocity envelopes. There is no residual statistic, goodness-of-fit measure, or posterior distribution. The outflow detection itself is robust (high-velocity components within 1" at multiple PAs), but the 'observed' turnover radius is a fitted model parameter without a formal uncertainty. The comparison value used in Fig. 8 therefore does not have a well-defined error bar. Please show quantitative residuals for each PA or provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., how the model envelopes change as each parameter is varied) so that the claimed agreement can be assessed independently.
[§5.1] The adopted bolometric luminosity Lbol=3.67×10^44 erg/s is inferred from the [O III] luminosity using the Heckman et al. (2004) scaling, and is a factor of ~3 above the 1.2×10^44 erg/s high-state continuum luminosity reported by Mehdipour et al. (2022). The manuscript justifies this as a long-term NLR average, but no light-travel time or ionization-zone model is provided, and the bolometric-correction scatter is large. Because Eq. (1) scales linearly with L44, the 40 pc model turnover is not robust; replacing Lbol with the measured high state would lower the predicted turnover by a similar factor and move NGC 3516 further from the one-to-one line in Fig. 8. This directly affects the launch-radius conclusion (4–40 pc) and the paper's placement in the luminosity-correlated trend. Please report the model turnover for a full plausible range of Lbol and discuss whether any combination of para

minor comments (5)

[Table 2 / §5.2 / Fig. 8 caption] There are inconsistencies: Table 2 lists the turnover radius as 210±30 pc, while §5.2 says 210±20 pc; the Fig. 8 caption says the force multiplier ranges from 500 to 2000, while §5.2 says 500 to 3000. Please harmonize the quoted values.
[§5.1] Typo: 'It's normal high state' should be 'its normal high state'.
[§5.2] The 'observed turnover radius' is in fact the kinematic-model turnover radius from the hand-tuned bicone fit, not a direct observable. Please rephrase as 'model-inferred from the bicone fit' or similar.
[§5.2] The discussion of the deprojection assumption and the factor-of-two overestimate of high-velocity points is important but is confined to a paragraph in §5.2. Consider moving some of this caveat to the description of Fig. 8 so that readers do not overinterpret individual deprojected points.
[References] The citation 'M. K. Shea et al. 2025 (in preparation)' is not a citable result and should be removed or replaced with a non-anonymous description of the planned work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the radiative-driving turnover model and the bicone kinematic fit are independent, and the factor-of-~5 discrepancy is explicit rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's central radiative-driving comparison is not circular. Equation (1) computes a model turnover radius from the bolometric luminosity (Lbol = 3.67e44, from the Heckman [O III] scaling), a stellar mass profile from Bentz/GALFIT fits, and an adopted force multiplier M ~ 1000. None of these inputs includes the bicone-model turnover radius of 210 pc. The model turnover (40 ± 15 pc) is therefore not forced by the kinematic fit, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the observed turnover is 'somewhat higher' and that the two agree only 'within a factor of ~5' (§5.2). The bicone model is explicitly a fit: the authors varied the relevant parameters to match the observed velocity envelopes (§4.1), so its agreement with the kinematics is the inference itself, not a disguised circular prediction. The 'observed' turnover radius is a fitted bicone parameter rather than a direct measurement, but this is a model-comparison caveat, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations (Das et al. 2007; Meena et al. 2021; Fischer et al. 2017) supply the physical equation and comparative context, but the equation's stated assumptions do not include the target NGC 3516 result, and the galaxy-specific inputs are external (reverberation mass, photometric decomposition, [O III] luminosity, measured velocities). I found no step where Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The abstract's word 'matches' overstates the paper's own factor-of-5 discrepancy, but that is a calibration/interpretation concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central geometry is fixed by hand-tuned bicone parameters (Table 2), and the dynamical comparison adopts literature values for luminosity, mass profile, and force multiplier rather than fitting them to NGC 3516. No new physical entities are introduced. The main external scaffolding is the radiative-driving equation (Equation 1), the mass profile, and assumed typical NLR cloud properties.

free parameters (10)

Bicone position angle = 35 deg +/- 10 deg
Adjusted by hand to encompass the bright NLR emission and match kinematics.
Bicone inclination = 40 deg +/- 5 deg
Fit to place the near cone edge along our line of sight.
Inner opening angle = 45 deg +/- 5 deg
Varied to match the extent of the bright NLR emission.
Outer opening angle = 55 deg +/- 5 deg
Varied to match the observed velocity envelopes without excessive empty space.
Maximum velocity = 1000 km/s +/- 150 km/s
Set to match the high-velocity envelope near the nucleus.
Turnover radius = 210 pc +/- 30 pc (Table 2; Section 5.2 says +/-20)
Fitted parameter of the bicone model, used as the 'observed' turnover in the radiative driving comparison.
Maximum bicone height = 750 pc +/- 100 pc
Adjusted to the extent of one cone along the axis.
Force multiplier M = ~1000
Adopted from the typical range 500-3000; strongly affects the radiative model turnover radius.
Bolometric luminosity = 3.67e44 erg/s
Derived from [O III] luminosity via Lbol = 3500 L5007; adopted as representative of long-term radiation pressure.
NLR cloud column density and ionization parameter = log NH = 21.5, log U = -2.5
Assumed typical NLR values, not fitted to NGC 3516 data.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption NLR outflows follow a biconical geometry aligned with the obscuring torus and AGN axis.
Invoked in Sections 1 and 4.1 without re-derivation from the unified model.
domain assumption Equation (1) correctly describes radiative driving and gravitational deceleration of NLR clouds.
Adopted from Das et al. 2007 and Meena et al. 2021; the paper does not derive it.
domain assumption The galaxy mass profile from GALFIT Sersic fits and Bell & de Jong M/L ratios is reliable.
Used in Section 5.2 via Equations 2-4 to compute enclosed mass.
domain assumption Deprojection of observed velocities assumes pure outflow along the galactic disk (Equations 5 and 6).
Stated in Section 5.2; the authors acknowledge this overestimates some velocities by up to a factor of two.
domain assumption The broad emission line profile is unresolved and its shape is constant, scaled only by the PSF along the slit.
Used in Section 3 to separate broad and narrow components in BEAT fits.
domain assumption BEAT's Bayesian evidence correctly selects the number of significant Gaussian components.
The kinematic decomposition depends on this model-selection tool.
domain assumption The Heckman relation Lbol = 3500 L5007 holds for NGC 3516.
Used in Section 5.1 to estimate long-term bolometric luminosity from [O III].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Shape of AGN-Driven Winds in the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ID7M6OUA

@misc{pith2026250906476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Shape of AGN-Driven Winds in the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ID7M6OUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06476}
}

read the original abstract

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are known to drive ionized gas into their host galaxies, which may affect the evolution of both the central supermassive black holes and their hosts. In the case of NGC 3516, a nearby Seyfert 1 galaxy, these AGN winds have historically proven difficult to disentangle from galactic rotation. Using long slit spectroscopy at multiple position angles from the Hubble Space Telescope Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph and the Apache Point Observatory Kitt Peak Ohio State Multi Object Spectrograph, we separate these kinematic components by fitting multiple Gaussians to the H{\alpha}, N II, H{\beta}, and O III emission lines along the slits. We present a biconical outflow model that agrees well with the observed kinematics of the outflowing gas in the narrow-line region (NLR). Our results indicate that the structure of the O III emission is explained by dusty gas spirals in the galactic disk that are illuminated by the ionizing bicone, which is viewed along one edge, resulting in the complex nuclear kinematics. Our view into the bicone edge is consistent with the multiple, deep components of ionized absorption lines seen in UV and X-ray spectra of NGC 3516. The observed turnover in the velocity of the NLR clouds matches that from a simple dynamical model of radiative acceleration by the AGN and gravitational deceleration by the AGN and galaxy, indicating they are the principal forces at work on the gas clouds. Finally, the model launch radii indicate that the outflowing clouds originate primarily from the inner dusty spirals near the AGN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06476 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The long-slit positions used in this study, overlayed on top of a continuum subtracted [O III] image (adapted from Schmitt et al. 2003) of NGC 3516. The black slits are from KOSMOS, and the orange slits are from STIS. Instru- Program Date Grating/ # of Total Wavelength Spectral Slit Spatial Position Spatial ment ID (UT) Grism Obs. Exposure Range Dispersion Width Scale Angle Offset Time (s) (A) ( ˚ A/pix) ( ˚ ′′) (′′… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An example of a multi-component Gaussian fit using BEAT, fitting the Hβ and [O III] emission lines in our KOSMOS observation of PA = 234◦ , at the nucleus of NGC 3516. The black curve is the overall fit, the brown-colored curve is the broad component fit, and the orange and red curves are narrow component fits. The gray shaded regions are regions BEAT uses to fit the continuum flux, with the continuum fit shown in… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** STIS observations of [O III] and Hα kinematics for various position angles. The top panels show the velocity, middle panels show the full-width at half maximum, and the bottom panels show the integrated flux. The different colors and shapes denote different components of the multi-component Gaussian fits. The components are sorted at each position according to increasing velocity. The black line in the Hα kinematics… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Continuation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visual representation of our bicone model. The length along one cone along its axis is 750 pc. Left: Representation of the bicone at an average half-opening angle of 50◦ with the disk of the galaxy through it. Right: Bicone model overlayed on an [O III] image of NGC 35…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: STIS observed radial velocities (data points) with bicone model envelopes (shading). The continuous black curves are the stellar rotation curves (Cherepashchuk et al. 2010) projected along the STIS slit PA. Outflows can be seen as high velocity components seperate from…

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

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Trajectories of NLR clouds in NGC 3516 based on our radiative driving and gravitational deceleration models. The model turnover radius in this case is 40 pc, independent of launch radius. The orange points represent deprojected kinematic data from our KOSMOS and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

1968, Astrophys

Andrillat, Y ., & Souffrin, S. 1968, Astrophys. Lett., 1, 111 Angl´es-Alc´azar, D., Dav´e, R., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., ¨Ozel, F., &

work page 1968
[2]

Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2565

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2565 2017
[3]

Antonucci, R. R. J., & Miller, J. S. 1985, ApJ, 297, 621, doi: 10.1086/163559

doi:10.1086/163559 1985
[4]

1997, ApJ, 490, 227, doi: 10.1086/304849

Arribas, S., Mediavilla, E., Garc´ıa-Lorenzo, B., & del Burgo, C. 1997, ApJ, 490, 227, doi: 10.1086/304849

work page doi:10.1086/304849 1997
[5]

F., & de Jong, R

Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212, doi: 10.1086/319728

doi:10.1086/319728 2001
[6]

C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 THESHAPE OFAGN-DRIVENWINDS IN THESEYFERTGALAXYNGC 3516 13

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 2018
[7]

2009, ApJ, 697, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/160

Vestergaard, M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/160

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/160 2009
[8]

2000, A&A, 357, 850

Boisson, C., Joly, M., Moultaka, J., Pelat, D., & Serote Roos, M. 2000, A&A, 357, 850

work page 2000

Show all 50 references

[9]

M., & Schaye, J

Booth, C. M., & Schaye, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 53, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x

2009
[10]

G., Benson, A

Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x Cano-D´ıaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118358

2006
[11]

M., Afanas’ev, V

Cherepashchuk, A. M., Afanas’ev, V . L., Zasov, A. V ., & Katkov, I. Y . 2010, Astronomy Reports, 54, 578, doi: 10.1134/S1063772910070024

2010 doi
[12]

1973, A&A, 22, 343

Collin-Souffrin, S., Alloin, D., & Andrillat, Y . 1973, A&A, 22, 343

1973
[13]

D., Kraemer, S

Couto, J. D., Kraemer, S. B., Turner, T. J., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2016, ApJ, 833, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/191

2016 doi
[14]

M., Kraemer, S

Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 871, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/871

2010 doi
[15]

M., Maran, S

Crenshaw, D. M., Maran, S. P., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1998, ApJ, 496, 797, doi: 10.1086/305428

1998 doi
[16]

M., Kraemer, S

Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1731, doi: 10.1086/301574

2000 doi
[17]

M., & Kraemer, S

Das, V ., Crenshaw, D. M., & Kraemer, S. B. 2007, ApJ, 656, 699, doi: 10.1086/510580

2007 doi
[18]

M., Hutchings, J

Das, V ., Crenshaw, D. M., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 945, doi: 10.1086/432255 De Rosa, G., Fausnaugh, M. M., Grier, C. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd11 deVaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third R...

2005 doi
[19]

P., Parvaresh, R., Kraemer, S

Dunn, J. P., Parvaresh, R., Kraemer, S. B., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa95d

2018 doi
[20]

2000, ApJ, 534, 180, doi: 10.1086/308752

Edelson, R., Koratkar, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 180, doi: 10.1086/308752

2000 doi
[21]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

2012 doi
[22]

M., Fischer, T

Falcone, J., Crenshaw, D. M., Fischer, T. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5283

2024 doi
[23]

S., & Mulchaey, J

Ferruit, P., Wilson, A. S., & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ, 509, 646, doi: 10.1086/306536

1998 doi
[24]

C., Crenshaw, D

Fischer, T. C., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., & Schmitt, H. R. 2013, ApJS, 209, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/1

2013 doi
[25]

Trippe, M. L. 2010, AJ, 140, 577, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/577

2010 doi
[26]

C., Machuca, C., Diniz, M

Fischer, T. C., Machuca, C., Diniz, M. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/30

2017 doi
[27]

C., Kraemer, S

Fischer, T. C., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03e

2018 doi
[28]

L., Crenshaw, D

Gnilka, C. L., Crenshaw, D. M., Fischer, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8000

2020 doi
[29]

W., & Gallagher, John S., I

Goad, J. W., & Gallagher, John S., I. 1987, AJ, 94, 640, doi: 10.1086/114499

1987 doi
[30]

R., Koratkar, A

Goad, M. R., Koratkar, A. P., Kim-Quijano, J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 707, doi: 10.1086/307826

1999 doi
[31]

M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109, doi: 10.1086/422872 Ili´c, D., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., Burenkov, A., et al. 2023, Physics, 6, 31, doi: 10.3390/physics6010003

2004 doi
[32]

Keel, W. C. 1996, AJ, 111, 696, doi: 10.1086/117816

1996 doi
[33]

B., George, I

Kraemer, S. B., George, I. M., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 693, doi: 10.1086/466522

2005 doi
[34]

B., Crenshaw, D

Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Gabel, J. R., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 161, doi: 10.1086/508629

2006 doi
[35]

2003, ApJ, 598, 935, doi: 10.1086/379103

Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., & Vaughan, S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 935, doi: 10.1086/379103

2003 doi
[36]

M., Schmitt, H

Meena, B., Crenshaw, D. M., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0246 —. 2023, ApJ, 943, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca75f

2021 doi
[37]

A., Brenneman, L

Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Brenneman, L. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac42ca

2022 doi
[38]

Oke, J. B. 1990, AJ, 99, 1621, doi: 10.1086/115444

1990 doi
[39]

L., Brotherton, M

Oknyansky, V . L., Brotherton, M. S., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1138

2021 doi
[40]

M., & Kallman, T

Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R. 2000, ApJ, 543, 686, doi: 10.1086/317154 Ram´ırez, J. M., & Tombesi, F. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 419, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01180.x

2000
[41]

M., et al

Revalski, M., Dashtamirova, D., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e6

2018 doi
[42]

2021, ApJ, 910, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdcad

Revalski, M., Meena, B., Martinez, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdcad

2021 doi
[43]

R., Donley, J

Schmitt, H. R., Donley, J. L., Antonucci, R. R. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, 768, doi: 10.1086/381224

2003 doi
[44]

R., & Kinney, A

Schmitt, H. R., & Kinney, A. L. 2000, ApJS, 128, 479, doi: 10.1086/313397

2000 doi
[45]

Seyfert, C. K. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28, doi: 10.1086/144488

1943 doi
[46]

I., Popovi´c, , L

Shapovalova, A. I., Popovi´c, , L. ˇC., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz692

2019 doi
[47]

2019, ApJ, 881, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

Shin, J., Woo, J.-H., Chung, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e72

2019 doi
[48]

2013, ApJ, 772, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

Silk, J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

2013 doi
[49]

2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x Terzi´c, B., & Graham, A

Springel, V ., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x Terzi´c, B., & Graham, A. W. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09269.x 14 Trindade Falc˜ao, A., Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 51...

2005
[50]

H., & Boisson, C

Ulrich, M. H., & Boisson, C. 1983, ApJ, 267, 515, doi: 10.1086/160888

1983 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1968, Astrophys

Andrillat, Y ., & Souffrin, S. 1968, Astrophys. Lett., 1, 111 Angl´es-Alc´azar, D., Dav´e, R., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., ¨Ozel, F., &

work page 1968

[2] [2]

Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2565

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2565 2017

[3] [3]

Antonucci, R. R. J., & Miller, J. S. 1985, ApJ, 297, 621, doi: 10.1086/163559

doi:10.1086/163559 1985

[4] [4]

1997, ApJ, 490, 227, doi: 10.1086/304849

Arribas, S., Mediavilla, E., Garc´ıa-Lorenzo, B., & del Burgo, C. 1997, ApJ, 490, 227, doi: 10.1086/304849

work page doi:10.1086/304849 1997

[5] [5]

F., & de Jong, R

Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212, doi: 10.1086/319728

doi:10.1086/319728 2001

[6] [6]

C., & Manne-Nicholas, E

Bentz, M. C., & Manne-Nicholas, E. 2018, ApJ, 864, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 THESHAPE OFAGN-DRIVENWINDS IN THESEYFERTGALAXYNGC 3516 13

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad808 2018

[7] [7]

2009, ApJ, 697, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/160

Vestergaard, M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/160

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/160 2009

[8] [8]

2000, A&A, 357, 850

Boisson, C., Joly, M., Moultaka, J., Pelat, D., & Serote Roos, M. 2000, A&A, 357, 850

work page 2000