Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 117 references

The bright, dusty aftermath of giant eruptions & H-rich supernovae. Late interaction of supernova shocks & dusty circumstellar shells

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that dust formed in giant stellar eruptions survives a later supernova only if the explosion arrives while the erupted shell is still dense enough to radiate the shock away, with survival ranging from about 75% for a…

desk verdict Solid 3D dust-destruction simulations with a genuinely new result, but the headline survival fractions are explicitly upper limits because optically thick cooling is ignored. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09700 v1 pith:5Y54PURV submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Diana B. Serrano-Hernández (1) , Sergio Martínez-González (1) , Santiago Jiménez (2) , Sergiy Silich (1) , Richard Wünsch (2) ((1) Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica , Óptica y Electrónica , (2) Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords dustsurvivalsupernovaremnantscircumstellarmediumgiantstellareruptionsthermalsputteringradiativecoolinghydrodynamicalsimulationsmassivestars
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

Massive stars nearing core collapse can erupt violently, form dust, and then explode as hydrogen-rich supernovae, and this paper asks what fraction of that eruption-formed dust survives the explosion. Using 3D hydrodynamic simulations that follow the stellar wind, the erupted shell, and the supernova blast wave, the authors find that survival is set less by the explosion energy than by the geometry of the circumstellar material and by the time between eruption and explosion. For a standard supernova with $10\,M_\odot$ ejecta and $10^{51}$ erg, a spherical shell leaves about 25% of the dust after 250 years, while a bipolar shell leaves only about 2% after a century. If the supernova follows the eruption by only 12 years, the still-dense shell radiates much of the shock energy away and about 75% of the dust survives, dropping to 20% for more massive $5\times10^{51}$ erg explosions. The counterintuitive conclusion is that an earlier explosion is gentler to dust, because the dense shell forces the shock into a radiative phase before it can erode most grains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling between the density of the erupted shell and radiative cooling of the shocked gas, implemented in 3D hydrodynamic simulations that track dust as an advected mass scalar with a grain-size distribution eroded on the fly by thermal sputtering. A latitude-dependent expansion velocity, a Hubble-like radial flow modulated by a pole-to-equator contrast function, builds either a spherical or a Homunculus-like bipolar shell, and the supernova ejecta are inserted with a power-law density profile. When the shock meets dense shell gas, it radiates a large fraction of its kinetic energy (up to about half the injected energy), drops out of the Sedov-Taylor regime, and weakens both the forward shock and the reverse shock, so grains survive. The 12-year-delay cases reach densities around $10^9\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, forcing this radiative transition before the bulk of the dust has been processed, which is the physical reason the reported dust fractions remain high.

What would settle it

Measure the surviving dust mass in a young, circumstellar-interacting Type II supernova whose eruption-to-explosion delay is known from pre-explosion imaging to be about a decade: the model predicts that more than half of the initial $0.25\,M_\odot$ of eruption dust should remain as warm grains a decade after the explosion, while finding less than about $0.03\,M_\odot$ would contradict the predicted short-delay survival.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the late interaction between a supernova blast wave and a dusty shell ejected by a giant eruption destroys dust mainly through thermal sputtering, and that the destruction efficiency is governed by two parameters: the shape of the shell and the eruption-to-supernova delay. In the long-delay spherical case, the forward shock spends roughly 170 years crossing a low-density cavity before reaching the dense shell, so only about 10% of the dust is lost early and roughly 25% of the initial $0.25\,M_\odot$ remains at 250 years. In the long-delay bipolar case, the equator of the shell is reached within about 20 years, the remnant's thermal energy peaks near $0.15E_{\rm SN}$, and dust survival falls to about 2% within 115 years. With a 12-year delay, the shell is still extremely dense, the shock becomes radiative before reaching most grains, up to half of the injected kinetic energy is radiated away, and the surviving fraction stabilizes at about 75% for the standard explosion and about 20% for $15$--$20\,M_\odot$ ejecta with $5\times10^{51}$ erg. The authors therefore state that a shorter delay and an early radiative transition increase the survival of pre-existing circumstellar dust, reduce the reverse shock's effect on supernova-condensed dust, and weaken the later impact on ambient interstellar dust.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation leans on the assumption that high-energy gas atoms erode the dust grains (thermal sputtering) and that the dense gas cools without blocking its own radiation, so the reported dust fractions are upper limits; if other destruction processes act or cooling is weaker, the fractions fall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a Homunculus-like bipolar nebula, a supernova occurring about 200 years after the eruption would destroy nearly all of the eruption-formed dust, leaving less than 2% after about a century.
  • When the forward shock is weakened by early radiative cooling, the reverse shock is also weaker, which should reduce the destruction of dust condensed inside the supernova ejecta itself.
  • The interaction radiates roughly $(0.4\text{--}2.5)\times10^{51}$ erg over the first decade, and the paper expects this energy to emerge as infrared radiation from shock-heated circumstellar dust.
  • A weaker forward shock also implies less destruction of ambient interstellar dust in the wind-driven shell far from the explosion site.
  • For a given explosion energy, the shorter the eruption-to-supernova gap, the larger the surviving dust mass, so surveys should not assume that promptly exploding progenitors leave no dust behind.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The simulations inject dust only with the eruption, not with the supernova ejecta; if supernova-condensed dust is added, the weakened reverse shock in the 12-year cases suggests that additional dust mass could survive, but that is an extrapolation beyond the computed models.
  • A testable extension is to weight these survival fractions by the observed distribution of eruption-to-supernova delays: if short delays are common, the average surviving dust mass per event could be much higher than the long-delay numbers of 25% and 2% alone suggest.
  • Because the paper treats the dense shocked gas as optically thin, the quoted fractions are upper limits; including radiative trapping or additional grain destruction channels such as shattering would likely lower the 20--75% numbers, especially for the 12-year bipolar cases, while the qualitative ordering by delay and geometry would probably remain.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports 3D adaptive-mesh-refinement hydrodynamical simulations, using FLASH and the Cinder dust module, of supernova shocks expanding into a dusty circumstellar medium formed by a giant stellar eruption. The computational setup includes the progenitor stellar wind, a spherical or bipolar (Homunculus-like) ejected shell, and a delayed hydrogen-rich core-collapse supernova. Six cases are presented: S200 and B200 (200-year eruption-to-SN delay, spherical and bipolar CSM), and B12-10, B12-56Ni, B12-15, B12-20 (12-year delay, bipolar CSM, with standard and more massive/energetic SN ejecta). The main quantitative results are that 25% of the erupted dust survives at 250 years in the spherical case, 2% survives at 115 years in the bipolar 200-year case, about 75% survives for a standard 10 Msun, 10^51 erg explosion with a 12-year delay, and about 20% survives for the 15-20 Msun, 5x10^51 erg explosions. The authors attribute the higher survival in the short-delay cases to a rapid transition of the forward shock to a radiative phase, which reduces the post-shock temperature and therefore the thermal sputtering rate before most dust is processed.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper advances the understanding of dust survival in interacting supernovae and in evolved massive stars such as eta Carinae analogs. The simulations couple gas and dust cooling self-consistently, follow thermal sputtering and grain growth on the fly, and include dedicated convergence tests; the reported survival fractions are emergent outputs rather than fitted quantities. The central qualitative trend - that CSM geometry and a very early eruption-to-SN delay have opposite effects on dust survival, with the short delay preserving dust because the shock becomes radiative before sputtering most grains - is interesting, physically plausible, and testable against late-time IR and optical observations. However, the headline survival numbers are explicitly upper limits in the manuscript's own Section 4, because only thermal sputtering is included and radiative cooling is treated as optically thin; the size of the associated correction is not quantified. The quantitative claims therefore need additional support before the abstract-level numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4; Section 3.2, Figs. 6 and 8] The B12 survival fractions (75% for B12-10 and about 20% for B12-15/B12-20) are produced by the early onset of strong radiative cooling in gas with densities up to a few times 10^9 cm^-3. This is precisely the regime where the optically thin cooling assumption can fail: optical depth is determined by column density and opacity, and a shell of thickness 0.00152 pc at 10^8-10^9 cm^-3 already has a very large column density. If the cooling radiation is trapped, the post-shock gas remains hotter and denser for longer and thermal sputtering continues at a higher rate, lowering the surviving dust fraction. The manuscript states in Section 4 that the optically thick regime is not accounted for and that the dust fractions are upper limits, especially in the B12 cases, but it does not quantify the correction. Because this assumption is the mechanism behind the counter-intuitive headline result, the authors should provide an explicit estimate of the optical depth at the peak densities, or a test with reduced/suppressed cooling, or an equivalent treatment of the optically thick regime, and then either confirm or soften the quantitative conclusions.
  2. [Section 2.4; Section 4] Dust destruction is modeled only through thermal sputtering in the Cinder module. Other destruction channels - non-thermal sputtering in the shock precursor, grain-grain collisions, shattering, and vaporization in the densest shocked layers - are not included. These processes would act in addition to thermal sputtering, so the quoted survived dust masses are upper limits in every scenario, not only with respect to the optically thin cooling assumption. The authors state this caveat for cooling; they should state it explicitly for the destruction physics as well, and ideally give an estimate of whether non-thermal sputtering or grain-grain processing is expected to be negligible at the physical conditions reached in these simulations.
  3. [Section 4; Table 1; Appendix E] The paper warns that Cartesian grid effects influence the highest densities, especially at late times, and that these densities may not be appropriate for evolved remnants. In the B200 and B12 cases the equatorial region, where the highest densities are reached, is also the region that controls the dust sputtering rate, so a grid-aligned density enhancement could bias the destruction efficiency. The resolution test B12-10-Test (Table 1) changes the maximum resolution by a factor of two and gives agreement to 0.3%, but a convergence test on the same Cartesian grid orientation does not remove an artificial symmetry imposed by the grid itself. The authors should demonstrate, for example with a different grid orientation or a non-Cartesian comparison, that the equatorial density structure and the resulting dust survival are not artifacts of the Cartesian geometry.
  4. [Section 3.2; Table 1] The B12-15 and B12-20 simulations are stopped after 7-8 years because the remnant reaches the computational boundary, and the paper states that the most relevant phase of the evolution has already occurred. This may be true for the direct passage of the forward shock through the dense CSM shell, but the reverse shock, the subsequent expansion into the lower-density wind, and the possible reprocessing of dust that was only partially sputtered by the weakened forward shock are not followed. The claim that the dust mass fractions have stabilized should be supported by a quantitative demonstration that the remaining dust resides in regions that will not be shocked again or further sputtered within the system's evolution, rather than solely by the flat shape of the survival curves at 7-10 years.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] There are several typographical and spacing artifacts in the manuscript, including 'metalliciy' in Section 2, 'di ffusion' and 'e ffects' in Section 4, and 'S 200 and S 200' in the caption of Fig. 5, where the second entry should presumably be B200; the text should be carefully copy-edited.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and the conclusions present the B12 survival fractions as plain numbers, while Section 4 states that they are upper limits; adding the qualifier 'upper limits' in the abstract and conclusions would make the manuscript internally consistent with its own caveats.
  3. [Figure 7] The caption of Fig. 7 says 'Gas temperature distribution slices in the x-z plane' but the plotted panels appear to show temperature in a single slice per case; the wording should be clarified.
  4. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'the simulations have reached the boundaries of the computational domain, but the most relevant phase of their evolution has already taken place' would benefit from a quantitative justification, such as the fraction of the CSM mass already swept up at the stopping time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survival fractions are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted parameters; the main self-citation (Cinder) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's claims—25%, 2%, 75%, and 20% dust survival—are outputs of 3D hydrodynamical simulations (FLASH with the Wind and Cinder modules) that use initial conditions set by stellar evolution tracks and standard SN parameters (10 M_sun, 10^51 erg, etc.). No parameter is adjusted to reproduce these survival numbers, and the dust-destruction calculation is governed by thermal sputtering and the dust-to-gas ratio, not by the conclusions. The paper explicitly labels its survival fractions as upper limits because radiative cooling is treated as optically thin (Section 4), and the grid-symmetry caveat is stated; these are limitations on accuracy, not circular reductions. The principal self-reference is the Cinder module (Martinez-Gonzalez et al. 2018, 2019, 2022), which provides sputtering and gas-grain cooling rates; it is a modeling tool benchmarked in earlier work, not a premise that presupposes the reported dust fractions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no known result is repackaged by definition. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained relative to its stated assumptions.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. All input parameters are physically motivated choices from observed eruptions, supernovae, and previous stellar evolution tracks. The load-bearing physics comes from the radiative cooling model and the Cinder sputtering/growth recipes, both taken from prior literature. The quantitative survival fractions are emergent outputs, not fitted targets.

free parameters (10)
  • Eruption ejecta mass Me = 25 Msun
    Chosen from eruptive mass-loss estimates in the literature (Woosley et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2010). Sets the total dust reservoir and CSM mass.
  • Eruption kinetic energy Ek,e = 10^50 erg
    Taken from Smith et al. 2018 and Smith & Andrews 2020. Controls expansion speed and density of the erupted shell.
  • Dust-to-gas mass ratio = 0.01
    Assumed from Smith & Ferland 2007; directly yields the 0.25 Msun dust mass that is tracked in the simulations.
  • Eruption-SN delay time = 200 yr and 12 yr
    Scenario parameters matched to observed cases such as SN 2007od, Eta Carinae, and SN 2017hcc. The paper's main trend depends on this choice.
  • SN ejecta mass and kinetic energy = 10 Msun/10^51 erg; 15 Msun/5x10^51 erg; 20 Msun/5x10^51 erg
    Standard and energetic explosion cases taken from van Marle et al. 2010, Dessart et al. 2016, Wang et al. 2022, and Moriya et al. 2013.
  • 56Ni mass = 0, 0.032, 0.9, 2.5 Msun
    Used to set ejecta heating in the B12-56Ni, B12-15, and B12-20 cases, following Anderson 2019, Wang et al. 2022, and Moriya et al. 2013.
  • Bipolar CSM shape parameters alpha and beta = alpha=0.78, beta=0.3
    Selected from Frank et al. 1995 and Gonzalez et al. 2004 to resemble the Homunculus nebula; determines the geometry difference between S200 and B200 cases.
  • Stellar wind mass-loss rate and terminal velocity = 1e-3 Msun/yr and 250 km/s
    Values from Frank et al. 1995 and Gonzalez et al. 2022; set the cavity density into which the eruption and SN expand.
  • Grain size distribution parameters = a0=0.1 micron, sigma=0.7, amin=0.005 micron, amax=0.5 micron
    Log-normal size distribution from the Cinder module; sputtering rates are size dependent, so this affects destruction efficiency.
  • Eruption shell structure parameters = k=2.5, wsh,e=0.95
    Power-law index and shell width chosen to mimic a thin hollow CSM shell similar to observed eruption nebulae.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Compressible Euler hydrodynamics with PPM is an adequate description of the SN-CSM interaction.
    FLASH solves the Euler equations with radiative cooling; this is the standard and accepted model for this regime.
  • domain assumption Collisional ionization equilibrium and instantaneous electron-ion energy equipartition hold in the post-shock gas.
    Required for the Schure et al. 2009 cooling function. The authors note in Section 4 that these may break down immediately behind shocks and in the S200 case.
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling is optically thin up to gas densities around 10^10 cm^-3.
    Section 4 acknowledges that the optically thick regime is not modeled and labels the dust mass fractions as upper limits, especially in the B12 cases.
  • domain assumption Thermal sputtering is the only dust destruction channel.
    The Cinder module tracks thermal sputtering and grain growth, but not shattering, kinetic sputtering, or other grain-grain processes. The authors explicitly frame the results as upper limits.
  • domain assumption A single eruptive event with a fixed shell structure represents the CSM.
    Section 2.2 assumes one eruption, while the text acknowledges that massive stars may undergo multiple eruptive episodes.
  • domain assumption Progenitor mass budgets from BoOST stellar tracks lead to hydrogen-rich core-collapse supernovae.
    Section 2 assumes remaining masses of 42.5, 47, and 37 Msun for the 45, 50, and 60 Msun ZAMS progenitors and carbon core masses below 40 Msun.
  • domain assumption No dust is injected with the stellar wind or SN ejecta.
    This isolates the CSM dust, but the paper notes that SN-condensed dust and ambient ISM dust are not tracked, so the total dust budget conclusions are indirect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The bright, dusty aftermath of giant eruptions & H-rich supernovae. Late interaction of supernova shocks & dusty circumstellar shells." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Y54PURV

@misc{pith2026250209700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The bright, dusty aftermath of giant eruptions & H-rich supernovae. Late interaction of supernova shocks & dusty circumstellar shells},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Y54PURV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09700}
}
abstract

The late-stage evolution of massive stars is marked by intense instability as they approach core-collapse. During these phases, giant stellar eruptions lead to exceptionally high mass-loss rates, forming significant amounts of dust. However, the survival of these dust grains is challenged by the powerful shock waves generated when the progenitor explodes as a supernova (SN). We explore the impact of hydrogen-rich SN explosions from 45, 50, and 60 M$_\odot$ progenitors on dust formed after these eruptions, focusing on interactions with circumstellar shells occurring from a few years to centuries after the event. Using 3D hydrodynamical simulations, we track the evolution of dust particles in a scenario that includes the progenitor's stellar wind, a giant eruption, and the subsequent SN explosion, following the mass budgets predicted by stellar evolution models. For a standard SN ejecta mass of 10 M$_\odot$ and kinetic energy of $10^{51}$ erg, only 25% of the dust mass survives 250 years post-explosion in a spherical circumstellar medium (CSM), while merely 2% remains a century after the explosion in a bipolar CSM. If the SN follows the eruption within a dozen years, 75% of the dust survives for a standard explosion, dropping to 20% for more massive ejecta (15-20 M$_\odot$) with kinetic energy of $5 \times 10^{51}$ erg. The geometry of the CSM and the early transition of the SN remnant into a radiative phase significantly influence dust survival. As the shock wave weakens and efficiently converts kinetic energy into thermal radiation (up to half of the injected kinetic energy) the likelihood of dust survival increases, affecting not only pre-existing dust in the CSM but also SN-condensed dust and ambient interstellar dust. Contrary to expectations, a larger fraction of the dust mass can survive if the SN occurs only a few years after the eruption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic (not to scale) of a supernova (SN) remnant evolving within a bipolar circumstellar medium (CSM) created by a stellar eruption, subsequent to the ejection of the stellar wind. Panel a) shows the expansion of the SN ejecta and the forward shock at early times after the explosion. Panel b) presents the time when the SN begins to interact with the densest medium left by the eruption. elled the formation and ev… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The normalized density distributions of ejected material during the eruption and the supernova ejecta are expressed as a function of we = r/Re and wsn = r/Rsn, respectively. Note that the CSM follows a shell-like density structure. where fe(we) is a structure function: fe(we) = ( fk(1 − we) −k , if 0 ≤ we ≤ wsh,e, f0,e, if wsh,e ≤ we ≤ 1, (4) with a power-law index k > 0, we = r/Re, and wsh,e = Rsh,e/Re. Here, r, Rs… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the supernova remnant within the erupted circumstellar medium for S 200, with each column showing snapshots at tSN = 4, 40, 170, and 250 yr after the supernova explosion, respectively. From top to bottom, each row displays, in log scale, the number gas density, the gas temperature, and the dust mass density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panels: the supernova remnant (only gas) kinetic (solid), thermal (dotted), and radiated (dashed) energies as a function of time for S 200 (left) and B200 (right). Lower panels: the evolution of the dust mass, normalized to that ejected by the eruption. For all p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gas temperature distribution slices in the x–z plane, with the first row showing results for B12−15 and the second row for B12−20. The SN remnant evolution within the bipolar CSM (case B200) proceeds somewhat differently. First, in this case, the cavity den￾sity is lar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Anderson , J. P. 2019, , 628, A7

    2019

  4. [4]

    E., Gallagher , J

    Andrews , J. E., Gallagher , J. S., Clayton , G. C., et al. 2010, , 715, 541

    2010

  5. [5]

    Andrews , J. E. & Smith , N. 2018, , 477, 74

    2018

  6. [6]

    C., Orellana , M., Folatelli , G., et al

    Bersten , M. C., Orellana , M., Folatelli , G., et al. 2024, , 681, L18

    2024

  7. [7]

    M., Lundqvist , P., & Chevalier , R

    Blondin , J. M., Lundqvist , P., & Chevalier , R. A. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 187, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 78.01

    1995

  8. [8]

    2022, , 939, 105

    Brethauer , D., Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., et al. 2022, , 939, 105

    2022

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    2013, EAS Publications Series, 60, 175

    Cherchneff, I. 2013, EAS Publications Series, 60, 175

    2013

  2. [10]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1982, , 258, 790

    1982

  3. [11]

    Chevalier , R. A. & Clegg , A. W. 1985, , 317, 44

    1985

  4. [12]

    Chevalier , R. A. & Fransson , C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 875

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Utrobin , V

    Chugai , N. & Utrobin , V. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.07749

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    & Woodward , P

    Colella , P. & Woodward , P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174

    1984

  7. [15]

    Crowther , P. A. 2003, , 285, 677

    2003

  8. [16]

    & McCray , R

    Dalgarno , A. & McCray , R. A. 1972, , 10, 375

    1972

  9. [17]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 10

    Davidson , K. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 10

    2020

  10. [18]

    & Humphreys , R

    Davidson , K. & Humphreys , R. M. 1997, , 35, 1

    1997

  11. [19]

    J., Audit , E., Livne , E., & Waldman , R

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Audit , E., Livne , E., & Waldman , R. 2016, , 458, 2094

    2016

  12. [20]

    Draine , B. T. 2003 a , , 41, 241

    2003

  13. [21]

    Draine , B. T. 2003 b , , 598, 1017

    2003

  14. [22]

    Draine , B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  15. [23]

    J., Ivison , R

    Dunne , L., Maddox , S. J., Ivison , R. J., et al. 2009, , 394, 1307

    2009

  16. [24]

    1987, , 322, 812

    Dwek , E. 1987, , 322, 812

    1987

  17. [25]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Dwek , E. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 804, Planetary Nebulae as Astronomical Tools, ed. R. Szczerba , G. Stasi \'n ska , & S. K. Gorny , 197--203

    2005

  18. [26]

    G., et al

    Dwek , E., Sarangi , A., Arendt , R. G., et al. 2021, , 917, 84

    2021

  19. [27]

    & Werner , M

    Dwek , E. & Werner , M. W. 1981, , 248, 138

    1981

  20. [28]

    Dyson , J. E. 1989, in IAU Colloq. 120: Structure and Dynamics of the Interstellar Medium, ed. G. Tenorio-Tagle , M. Moles , & J. Melnick , Vol. 350, 137

    1989

  21. [29]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1981, , 251, 820

    1981

  22. [30]

    1995, , 441, L77

    Frank , A., Balick , B., & Davidson , K. 1995, , 441, L77

    1995

  23. [31]

    2000, , 131, 273

    Fryxell , B., Olson , K., Ricker , P., et al. 2000, , 131, 273

    2000

  24. [32]

    C., Fox , D

    Gal-Yam , A., Leonard , D. C., Fox , D. B., et al. 2007, , 656, 372

    2007

  25. [33]

    & Hjorth , J

    Gall , C. & Hjorth , J. 2018, , 868, 62

    2018

  26. [34]

    Garcia-Segura , G., Langer , N., & Mac Low , M. M. 1996 a , , 316, 133

    1996

  27. [35]

    M., & Langer , N

    Garcia-Segura , G., Mac Low , M. M., & Langer , N. 1996 b , , 305, 229

    1996

  28. [36]

    L., Vlahakis , C., Stretch , C

    Gomez , H. L., Vlahakis , C., Stretch , C. M., et al. 2010, , 401, L48

    2010

  29. [37]

    F., de Gouveia Dal Pino , E

    Gonz \'a lez , R. F., de Gouveia Dal Pino , E. M., Raga , A. C., & Velazquez , P. F. 2004, , 600, L59

    2004

  30. [38]

    F., Zapata , L

    Gonz \'a lez , R. F., Zapata , L. A., Raga , A. C., et al. 2022, , 659, A168

    2022

  31. [39]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  32. [40]

    A., Moriya , T

    Hiramatsu , D., Howell , D. A., Moriya , T. J., et al. 2021 a , , 913, 55

    2021

  33. [41]

    A., Van Dyk , S

    Hiramatsu , D., Howell , D. A., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2021 b , Nature Astronomy, 5, 903

    2021

  34. [42]

    & Davidson, K

    Humphreys, R. & Davidson, K. 1994, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106, 1025

    1994

  35. [43]

    Humphreys , R. M. & Martin , J. C. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 384, Eta Carinae and the Supernova Impostors, ed. K. Davidson & R. M. Humphreys , 1

    2012

  36. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  37. [45]

    2021, , 505, 4669

    Jim \'e nez , S., Tenorio-Tagle , G., & Silich , S. 2021, , 505, 4669

    2021

  38. [46]

    J., & Schmidt , F

    Kirchschlager , F., Barlow , M. J., & Schmidt , F. D. 2020, , 893, 70

    2020

  39. [47]

    D., Barlow , M

    Kirchschlager , F., Schmidt , F. D., Barlow , M. J., et al. 2019, , 489, 4465

    2019

  40. [48]

    Kochanek , C. S. 2011, , 743, 73

    2011

  41. [49]

    2019, , 488, 3089

    Kumar , B., Eswaraiah , C., Singh , A., et al. 2019, , 488, 3089

    2019

  42. [50]

    M., Langer , N., & Garc \' a-Segura , G

    Mac Low , M. M., Langer , N., & Garc \' a-Segura , G. 1996, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 28, 882

    1996

  43. [51]

    & McCray , R

    Mac Low , M.-M. & McCray , R. 1988, , 324, 776

    1988

  44. [52]

    S., & Antiochos , S

    MacNeice , P., Spicer , D. S., & Antiochos , S. K. 1999, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 448, Magnetic Fields and Solar Processes, ed. A. Wilson & et al. , 459

    1999

  45. [53]

    I., Gull, T

    Madura, T. I., Gull, T. R., Owocki, S. P., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 2064

    2012

  46. [54]

    2022, , 933, 238

    Margalit , B. 2022, , 933, 238

    2022

  47. [55]

    C., Folatelli , G., Orellana , M., & Ertini , K

    Martinez , L., Bersten , M. C., Folatelli , G., Orellana , M., & Ertini , K. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.08733

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2021, , 507, 1175

    Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , S., Silich , S., & Tenorio-Tagle , G. 2021, , 507, 1175

    2021

  49. [57]

    2018, , 866, 40

    Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , S., W \"u nsch , R., Palou s , J., et al. 2018, , 866, 40

    2018

  50. [58]

    2019, , 887, 198

    Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , S., W \"u nsch , R., Silich , S., et al. 2019, , 887, 198

    2019

  51. [59]

    2022, , 934, 51

    Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , S., W \"u nsch , R., Tenorio-Tagle , G., et al. 2022, , 934, 51

    2022

  52. [60]

    M., et al

    Massey , P., Plez , B., Levesque , E. M., et al. 2005, , 634, 1286

    2005

  53. [61]

    D., & Goldberg , J

    Matsumoto , T., Metzger , B. D., & Goldberg , J. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13731

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J., Zijlstra , A

    Matsuura , M., Barlow , M. J., Zijlstra , A. A., et al. 2009, , 396, 918

    2009

  55. [63]

    C., Filippenko , A

    Mauerhan , J. C., Filippenko , A. V., Zheng , W., et al. 2018, , 478, 5050

    2018

  56. [64]

    C., Van Dyk , S

    Mauerhan , J. C., Van Dyk , S. D., Johansson , J., et al. 2017, , 834, 118

    2017

  57. [65]

    R., Matsuura , M., & Sarangi , A

    Micelotta , E. R., Matsuura , M., & Sarangi , A. 2018, , 214, 53

    2018

  58. [66]

    J., Blinnikov , S

    Moriya , T. J., Blinnikov , S. I., Tominaga , N., et al. 2013, , 428, 1020

    2013

  59. [67]

    2010, , 713, 356

    Nozawa , T., Kozasa , T., Tominaga , N., et al. 2010, , 713, 356

    2010

  60. [68]

    2024, , 271, 33

    Ono , M., Nozawa , T., Nagataki , S., et al. 2024, , 271, 33

    2024

  61. [69]

    M., Hamann , W

    Oskinova , L. M., Hamann , W. R., & Feldmeier , A. 2007, , 476, 1331

    2007

  62. [70]

    & Silk , J

    Ostriker , J. & Silk , J. 1973, , 184, L113

    1973

  63. [71]

    2013, , 433, 838

    Pan , T., Patnaude , D., & Loeb , A. 2013, , 433, 838

    2013

  64. [72]

    J., et al

    Pearson , J., Hosseinzadeh , G., Sand , D. J., et al. 2023, , 945, 107

    2023

  65. [73]

    Pittard , J. M. 2013, , 435, 3600

    2013

  66. [74]

    D., Arias , M., Barlow , M

    Priestley , F. D., Arias , M., Barlow , M. J., & De Looze , I. 2022, , 509, 3163

    2022

  67. [75]

    D., Chawner , H., Matsuura , M., et al

    Priestley , F. D., Chawner , H., Matsuura , M., et al. 2021, , 500, 2543

    2021

  68. [76]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.10022

    Qin , Y.-J., Zhang , K., Bloom , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.10022

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Sarangi , A., Matsuura , M., & Micelotta , E. R. 2018, , 214, 63

    2018

  70. [78]

    & Slavin , J

    Sarangi , A. & Slavin , J. D. 2022, , 933, 89

    2022

  71. [79]

    M., Kosenko , D., Kaastra , J

    Schure , K. M., Kosenko , D., Kaastra , J. S., Keppens , R., & Vink , J. 2009, , 508, 751

    2009

  72. [80]

    2003, , 590, 791

    Silich , S., Tenorio-Tagle , G., & Mu \ n oz-Tu \ n \'o n , C. 2003, , 590, 791

    2003

  73. [81]

    D., Bryan , G

    Smith , B. D., Bryan , G. L., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2017, , 466, 2217

    2017

  74. [82]

    2006, , 644, 1151

    Smith , N. 2006, , 644, 1151

    2006

  75. [83]

    2010, , 402, 145

    Smith , N. 2010, , 402, 145

    2010

  76. [84]

    2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 322

    Smith , N. 2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 322

    2011

  77. [85]

    2014, , 52, 487

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487

    2014

  78. [86]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith , N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 403

    2017

  79. [87]

    & Andrews , J

    Smith , N. & Andrews , J. E. 2020, , 499, 3544

    2020

  80. [88]

    E., Milne , P., et al

    Smith , N., Andrews , J. E., Milne , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.00253

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    E., Rest , A., et al

    Smith , N., Andrews , J. E., Rest , A., et al. 2018, , 480, 1466

    2018

  82. [90]

    M., Filippenko , A

    Smith , N., Chornock , R., Silverman , J. M., Filippenko , A. V., & Foley , R. J. 2010, , 709, 856

    2010

  83. [91]

    & Ferland , G

    Smith , N. & Ferland , G. J. 2007, , 655, 911

    2007

  84. [92]

    Smith , R. K. & Hughes , J. P. 2010, , 718, 583

    2010

  85. [93]

    1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    Spitzer , L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    1962

  86. [94]

    I., et al

    Steffen , W., Teodoro , M., Madura , T. I., et al. 2014, , 442, 3316

    2014

  87. [95]

    D., Arendt , R

    Szalai , T., Fox , O. D., Arendt , R. G., et al. 2021, , 919, 17

    2021

  88. [96]

    2022, , 658, A125

    Sz \'e csi , D., Agrawal , P., W \"u nsch , R., & Langer , N. 2022, , 658, A125

    2022

  89. [97]

    D., Sollerman , J., et al

    Taddia , F., Stritzinger , M. D., Sollerman , J., et al. 2013, , 555, A10

    2013

  90. [98]

    & Chevalier , R

    Tang , X. & Chevalier , R. A. 2017, , 465, 3793

    2017

  91. [99]

    2020, , 635, A39

    Tartaglia , L., Pastorello , A., Sollerman , J., et al. 2020, , 635, A39

    2020

  92. [100]

    2015, , 799, 158

    Temim , T., Dwek , E., Tchernyshyov , K., et al. 2015, , 799, 158

    2015

  93. [101]

    1990, , 244, 563

    Tenorio-Tagle , G., Bodenheimer , P., Franco , J., & Rozyczka , M. 1990, , 244, 563

    1990

  94. [102]

    2015, , 800, 131

    Tenorio-Tagle , G., Silich , S., Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , S., Terlevich , R., & Terlevich , E. 2015, , 800, 131

    2015

  95. [103]

    Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium

    2005

  96. [104]

    & Ferrara, A

    Todini, P. & Ferrara, A. 2001, , 325, 726

    2001

  97. [105]

    Truelove , J. K. & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 120, 299

    1999

  98. [106]

    S., & Meikle , W

    Trundle , C., Kotak , R., Vink , J. S., & Meikle , W. P. S. 2008, , 483, L47

    2008

  99. [107]

    J., Langer , N., & Garc \' a-Segura , G

    van Marle , A. J., Langer , N., & Garc \' a-Segura , G. 2004, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 22, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. G. Garcia-Segura , G. Tenorio-Tagle , J. Franco , & H. W. Yorke , 136--139

    2004

  100. [108]

    J., Smith , N., Owocki , S

    van Marle , A. J., Smith , N., Owocki , S. P., & van Veelen , B. 2010, , 407, 2305

    2010

  101. [109]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  102. [110]

    2016, , 458, 1253

    Vlasis , A., Dessart , L., & Audit , E. 2016, , 458, 1253

    2016

  103. [111]

    2022, , 933, 102

    Wang , L.-J., Liu , L.-D., Lin , W.-L., et al. 2022, , 933, 102

    2022

  104. [112]

    1977, , 218, 377

    Weaver , R., McCray , R., Castor , J., Shapiro , P., & Moore , R. 1977, , 218, 377

    1977

  105. [113]

    2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Weis , K. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 384, Eta Carinae and the Supernova Impostors, ed. K. Davidson & R. M. Humphreys , 171

    2012

  106. [114]

    A., Wik , D

    Wong , K.-W., Irwin , J. A., Wik , D. R., et al. 2016, , 829, 49

    2016

  107. [115]

    E., Blinnikov , S., & Heger , A

    Woosley , S. E., Blinnikov , S., & Heger , A. 2007, , 450, 390

    2007

  108. [116]

    2017, , 835, 60

    W \"u nsch , R., Palou s , J., Tenorio-Tagle , G., & Ehlerov \'a , S. 2017, , 835, 60

    2017

  109. [117]

    2008, , 683, 683

    W \"u nsch , R., Tenorio-Tagle , G., Palou s , J., & Silich , S. 2008, , 683, 683

    2008

Pith tools

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