Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

X-rays from shock-heated gas in recurrent-nova remnants: Nested nova shells in a structured circumstellar medium

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repeated eruptions build nested shells that keep a recurrent nova's extended X-ray glow alive for more than a century.

desk verdict A genuinely new 130-year, nine-eruption 3D simulation of a recurrent-nova remnant with X-ray post-processing; the RS Oph comparison is plausible but rests on an unquantified NEI pressure-threshold clock. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06461 v1 pith:AMT7BWKQ submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Sergio Martínez-González , Santiago Jiménez , Richard Wünsch , Tiina Liimets This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords recurrentnovaenovaremnantsX-rayemissionshockwavescircumstellarmediumhydrodynamicsimulationsRSOphiuchinestedshells
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 tries to show that the extended X-ray glow seen around recurrent novae like RS Ophiuchi is not a one-time blast artifact but a long-lived structure built by many eruptions. Using three-dimensional hydrodynamics of nine eruptions over 130 years, the authors find that each eruption deposits a fast bipolar shell into a red-giant wind, and these shells pile up as nested, cavity-bounded walls. Soft X-rays come mostly from the dense compressed shell interfaces and fade slowly as the whole remnant expands, while hard X-rays come from the hottest gas and flare within a few years of each new eruption. The simulated diffuse soft X-ray luminosity lands within an order of magnitude of the value inferred for RS Oph, which is what connects the simulation to observation. If right, diffuse shell-shock X-rays should be counted as a real, persistent component of recurrent-nova remnants, not just a short post-outburst phase.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the nested-shell prescription: each nova is inserted as a thin, clumpy shell with a latitude-dependent expansion speed (faster toward the poles, set by shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$) that expands into a wind-shaped density profile before the next eruption deposits another shell on top. The resulting remnant is post-processed with a non-equilibrium-ionization (NEI) shock model, and the ionization clock for each cell is assigned by a pressure threshold: cells above $3.16\times10^{-7}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ are treated as freshly shocked ejecta with time since the last eruption, while all other cells get one mean elapsed time. That assignment is what converts the hydrodynamics into soft and hard band luminosities.

What would settle it

Observe RS Oph's extended emission with a high-resolution X-ray spectrum several years after the 2021 eruption and measure the ionization timescale of the fresh shell; if the ionization age does not match the time since 2021 while the diffuse 0.5-2 keV luminosity continues to fade along the simulated two-order-of-magnitude decline, or if a hard flare appears at a time not tied to the eruption cadence, the nested-shell explanation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that repeated eruptions in a symbiotic recurrent nova assemble a bipolar cavity bounded by nested shells, and that this structure itself radiates the extended X-ray emission seen between outbursts. In the fiducial nine-eruption sequence, the soft 0.5--2.0 keV luminosity peaks near $4\times10^{32}$ erg/s about 11 years after the first eruption, then declines secularly by roughly two orders of magnitude by 128 years, while the hard 2--10 keV luminosity rises and falls episodically with peaks after each eruption, from about $1.25\times10^{30}$ erg/s after the first event down to $10^{27}$--$10^{28}$ erg/s in later cycles. The brightest simulated cycles reach the same order of magnitude and decline rate as the extended 0.5--1.8 keV luminosities inferred from RS Oph at 3.4 and 5.3 years after the 2006 eruption. The paper concludes that nested-shell evolution can sustain long-lived diffuse soft X-ray emission between recurrent-nova eruptions.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation leans on a pressure threshold that labels which gas is freshly shocked and which is old, but that threshold is calibrated by matching shock morphology rather than by a physical measurement; if it misplaces fresh ejecta, the soft and hard X-ray fluxes are systematically wrong even though the gas dynamics may be right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Diffuse soft X-ray emission can persist between eruptions for more than a century, so recurrent-nova remnants should be visible as extended soft X-ray sources even when no outburst is in progress.
  • Hard-band X-ray flares follow each eruption within a few years, with amplitudes that decline as the shell system grows, giving a predicted decade-scale variability pattern tied to eruption cadence.
  • The nested-shell remnant becomes smoother and more volume-filling over time, so late-time X-ray morphology is expected to look diffuse rather than shell-like.
  • The accumulated shell system sets the density structure that any future explosion, including a Type Ia supernova, would expand into.
  • The soft-band secular decline is driven mainly by the falling emission measure of the expanding remnant, not by the details of individual eruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this picture holds, late-time X-ray spectra of RS Oph should show non-equilibrium ionization signatures whose ionization age tracks the time since the most recent eruption; measuring those ages directly would test the pressure-threshold assignment used here.
  • The nine-cycle sequence is likely a lower bound for systems like RS Oph, and extending the same physics to many more eruptions would predict an even smoother, fainter, more volume-filling remnant that could be compared with the reported large-scale super-remnant around RS Oph.
  • The pressure threshold used to tag fresh ejecta is the least physically anchored step; an alternative tracer such as shock velocity or a self-consistent ionization-evolution calculation would reveal whether the band luminosities are stable or threshold-sensitive.
  • The same nested-shell mechanism may apply to other symbiotic recurrent novae with inferred bipolar structure, giving a uniform prediction that their extended X-ray luminosities should fade secularly between eruptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents three-dimensional AMR hydrodynamical simulations of a nine-eruption recurrent-nova sequence spanning 130 years, using RS Oph-like parameters and a cadence derived from the documented RS Oph outburst record. The gas is evolved with CIE cooling plus on-the-fly dust cooling, and the density and temperature snapshots are post-processed with the XSPEC vvpshock NEI model to compute intrinsic luminosities in the 0.5-2.0 keV and 2.0-10.0 keV bands. The authors find that repeated eruptions excavate a bipolar cavity bounded by nested shell structures; soft X-rays trace dense shell rims and decline secularly as the remnant expands, while hard X-rays arise from the hottest shocked gas and appear as episodic flares following individual eruptions. The simulated soft-band luminosity is within an order of magnitude of the extended RS Oph luminosities reported by Montez et al. (2022). The central quantitative results rely on an empirically calibrated pressure threshold (Appendix A) that assigns NEI ionization timescales to freshly shocked versus older mixed gas.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper establishes that diffuse shell-shock X-ray emission from nested nova remnants is a natural, observable long-lived component of recurrent novae, with implications for interpreting extended X-ray emission around symbiotic recurrent novae and for the CSM structure encountered by any eventual supernova explosion. The work moves beyond single-eruption modeling and produces concrete, falsifiable predictions of band-dependent variability on decade timescales. Strengths include the 3D AMR setup with physically motivated wind and ejecta inputs, a numerical convergence check shown as shaded bands in Fig. 5, and a transparent statement of the post-processing assumptions and their limitations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. 5] The NEI timescale assignment through the pressure threshold Pth = 3.16e-7 dyn/cm2 is load-bearing for the computed band luminosities, but the paper only verifies that modest variations do not change the identified post-shock morphology; it does not report how the 0.5-2.0 keV and 2.0-10.0 keV light curves, or the RS Oph comparison in Fig. 5, respond to Pth variations. Since vvpshock fluxes are strongly nonlinear in the ionization timescale, and since the same threshold separates young hard-emitting gas from old soft-emitting gas, the claimed order-of-magnitude agreement and the episodic hard flares could be artifacts of the mask rather than of the hydrodynamics. I request a sensitivity study over at least a factor of a few in Pth, with the resulting band luminosities shown, or a tracer-based alternative that does not rely on a single pressure cut.
  2. [§2.2] The hydrodynamics uses the CIE cooling curve of Schure et al. (2009), while the X-ray post-processing uses the NEI vvpshock model. The paper acknowledges this inconsistency and argues that dust-grain cooling dominates at T ≳ 2×10^6 K, reducing its impact at high temperatures, but the diffuse gas that dominates the soft band is often at lower temperatures where gas-phase CIE cooling is the only cooling channel. The paper does not quantify the resulting error in the thermal structure or in the soft-band luminosity. A quantitative estimate, or a test run with NEI-aware cooling, is needed to show that the central light curves are not strongly affected by this inconsistency.
  3. [§3.2, Table 1] The RS Oph comparison rests on a single fiducial parameter set (Mej, Ek, wind mass-loss rate, recurrence cadence), with no exploration of the plausible ranges of these quantities. Because the RS Oph eruption cadence is used as an input and the comparison is made to the same system, the 'broadly consistent' claim would be substantially strengthened by a small parameter-space survey (for example, varying Mej or the wind mass-loss rate by factors of a few) showing that the soft-band secular decline and the order-of-magnitude luminosity level are robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The velocity profile v(r) = v∞ (r/Rw) is written without an explicit piecewise specification; it would be clearer to state that this form holds for r < Rw and that v = v∞ for r ≥ Rw.
  2. [Captions of Figs. 3 and 4] The color-bar labels use 'log fx' with units erg s−1 cm−2, but these are projections through the computational box; please clarify whether these are projected surface-brightness maps or per-cell flux values, and define the line-of-sight integration if used.
  3. [Inset of Fig. 5] The inset labels 1–9 identify the eruption cycles, but the caption does not fully explain which curve corresponds to which eruption or how the labels map to the post-eruption time axis; please expand the caption for readability.
  4. [§2.1] The 'no subsequent wind mass or energy injection' simplification is important for the late-time density in the excavated cavity and for the soft-band emission measure; it would be helpful to discuss in the conclusions how ongoing wind replenishment could alter the secular decline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RS Oph comparison uses independent system parameters as inputs, and the X-ray luminosities are computed outputs, not fitted values.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The fiducial model adopts RS Oph's eruption cadence (Schaefer 2010; Page et al. 2022), ejecta mass and energy (Zheng et al. 2024; Moore & Bildsten 2012), dust content (Banerjee et al. 2023), abundances (Orio et al. 2023), and distance (Bailer-Jones et al. 2021), but none of these inputs is the extended X-ray luminosity being compared. The soft- and hard-band luminosities are computed by post-processing the FLASH hydrodynamics with vvpshock (Borkowski et al. 2001); no equation or fitting step maps Montez et al. (2022) luminosities into the model. The only internal calibration is the pressure threshold Pth in Appendix A, selected to isolate the newest post-shock layer by morphology; it is not fitted to the X-ray data, so the subsequent fluxes are not statistically forced. The claimed order-of-magnitude agreement with RS Oph is therefore a genuine, if weakly constraining, consistency check. The bipolar morphology is imposed through Eq. (2) via a latitude-dependent velocity, and the paper states this explicitly ('the bipolar morphology is achieved via a latitude-dependent expansion velocity'), so the 'bipolar cavity' is an acknowledged input rather than a hidden prediction; the emergent content (nested-shell structure, secular soft decline, episodic hard flares) is computed from the simulations. Self-citations to the Wind, Cinder, and Serrano-Hernandez et al. (2025) modules are methodological precedents, not load-bearing appeals to an unverified theorem. The residual risk flagged in Appendix A — that Pth variations could alter band luminosities — is a robustness or correctness concern, not a circular reduction, because the threshold is not calibrated to the predicted luminosities.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chosen fiducial set of wind parameters, identical ejection properties, dust content, bipolar shape parameters, and an empirically calibrated pressure threshold for NEI clocks. None of these numbers are fitted to the RS Oph X-ray data, which keeps the circularity burden low, but it leaves the order-of-magnitude match weakly constrained because many free parameters are all set with RS Oph in mind.

free parameters (8)
  • Initial red-giant wind mass-loss rate = 1e-7 M_sun/yr
    Sets the density of the ambient medium into which all shells expand (Table 1). Adopted from symbiotic-nova literature, not fitted to RS Oph X-rays.
  • Initial wind terminal velocity = 20 km/s
    Enters Eq. 1 for the wind density profile; chosen following Walder et al. 2008.
  • Ejecta mass per eruption = 2e-6 M_sun
    Together with kinetic energy sets the shell density and expansion velocity; based on RS Oph studies.
  • Ejecta kinetic energy per eruption = 4.02e44 erg
    Sets vmax ~ 4600 km/s via energy conservation; representative of fast symbiotic recurrent novae.
  • Ejecta dust-to-gas mass ratio = 0.01
    Controls dust-induced cooling, which the paper says dominates the thermal evolution at T > 2e6 K; from Banerjee et al. 2023.
  • Shell shape parameters alpha and beta = alpha=0.9, beta=0.1
    Set the pole-to-equator velocity contrast and bipolar morphology in Eq. 2; chosen following prior bipolar-shell models.
  • NEI pressure threshold for fresh ejecta = 3.16e-7 dyn/cm^2
    Empirically calibrated in Appendix A to assign ionization timescales; directly affects the post-processed X-ray emissivities.
  • Grain size distribution parameters a0 and sigma = a0=0.1 um, sigma=0.7
    Log-normal grain size distribution for dust cooling; values from prior nova dust models, not fitted here.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Euler equations of hydrodynamics with radiative cooling describe the ejecta-CSM interaction.
    FLASH solves the compressible hydro equations; this is the standard framework for nova and supernova remnant modeling.
  • domain assumption The red-giant wind is smooth, spherically symmetric, and is not replenished after the eruption sequence starts.
    Eq. 1 and Sec. 2.1: an r^-2 wind profile is imposed once before the first eruption; later mass loss from the binary is neglected.
  • domain assumption All nine eruptions have identical ejected mass, kinetic energy, dust content, and shape parameters.
    Sec. 2.1 and Table 1: Mej=2e-6 M_sun and Ek=4.02e44 erg are reused for every cycle; actual recurrent novae likely vary.
  • domain assumption Gas-phase radiative cooling can be approximated by CIE even where the plasma is out of ionization equilibrium, because dust-grain cooling dominates at high temperature.
    Sec. 2.1-2.2: the hydro uses the Schure et al. CIE curve while X-ray synthesis uses NEI; the paper argues dust cooling (D=0.01) is weakly charge-state sensitive.
  • ad hoc to paper Each grid cell's X-ray emission can be represented by the plane-parallel vvpshock model with electron temperature equal to the hydrodynamic temperature (beta_e=1).
    Sec. 2.2: cell-by-cell application of a plane-parallel shock model to an Eulerian grid is an idealization; mixed or repeatedly shocked cells are acknowledged as more complex.
  • ad hoc to paper The pressure threshold Pth=3.16e-7 dyn/cm2 reliably separates fresh post-shock ejecta from older mixed ejecta for the NEI clock.
    Appendix A: threshold is calibrated empirically by comparing the pressure field with shock morphology; the authors state modest variations do not change the morphology qualitatively, but no quantitative sensitivity is shown.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields and anisotropic thermal conduction are negligible for the large-scale X-ray evolution.
    Sec. 3.2 discussion of deviations from observations; authors list this as a caveat.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-rays from shock-heated gas in recurrent-nova remnants: Nested nova shells in a structured circumstellar medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMT7BWKQ

@misc{pith2026260806461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-rays from shock-heated gas in recurrent-nova remnants: Nested nova shells in a structured circumstellar medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMT7BWKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06461}
}
read the original abstract

Recurrent symbiotic novae such as RS Oph show extended X-ray emission associated with the interaction of nova ejecta with the circumstellar environment. We investigate how repeated eruptions over more than a century structure the circumstellar medium and govern the long-term X-ray evolution of a symbiotic recurrent nova. We perform three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations for a fiducial nine-eruption sequence spanning 130 years, modeling each nova as a supersonic bipolar shell expanding into a wind-shaped circumstellar medium. We post-process the resulting density and temperature distributions to compute X-ray emission in the 0.5-2.0 and 2.0-10.0 keV bands. The eruption sequence excavates a bipolar cavity bounded by nested shells. Soft X-rays trace dense compressed interfaces, whereas hard X-rays arise from the hottest shocked gas, including shell rims and the excavated nova-remnant interior. As the remnant expands, the soft-band emission shows a gradual long-term decline associated with the decreasing emission measure. The hard band evolves episodically, with individual eruptions imprinting distinct flares whose timing and relative strength change as the shell system grows. The extended X-ray morphology becomes progressively smoother and more volume-filling as density contrasts between successive shells are reduced. Our simulations identify extended shell-shock emission as a natural consequence of nested-shell evolution in recurrent novae. Remnant expansion regulates the slow fading of the soft component, and renewed ejecta-shell encounters drive hard-band variability on decade-long timescales. For a fiducial recurrent nova, the predicted diffuse soft X-ray luminosities are broadly consistent with the order of magnitude inferred for RS Oph, indicating that shock-heated gas can contribute appreciably to the observed X-ray environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06461 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projection of nested shells in our hydrodynamical modeling of a fiducial RS Oph-like recurrent nova. The image shows the density structure of the remnant one year after one of the simulated nova events over the full computational domain (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.2 pc3 ); taking into account the distance of 2.4 kpc, this translates into 17′′ .5×17′′ .5×17′′ .5 in the plane of the sky; the polygonal mesh representation is used f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional cuts of the mass density (left) and temperature (right) distributions in our fiducial symbiotic recurrent nova model after 110 years. Note that the lower lobule is slightly larger than the upper one. This asymmetry arises from interactions with the inhomogeneous ejecta during the early stages, as random clumps (introduced as white noise) affect each lobule differently. These slight initial difference… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-dimensional cuts showing the evolutionary sequence of the soft X-ray flux distribution in our fiducial symbiotic recurrent nova model. Each cut has a thickness of one cell, after remapping the AMR data onto a uniform mesh. The assumed distance is 2.4 kpc. The panels show epochs at t = 10, 20, 40, 50, and 61 years (top row) and t = 71, 80, 91, 100, and 110 years (bottom row). The annotation above each panel also … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-processed X-ray luminosities for the fiducial recurrent nova eruption sequence over 130 years, measured from the first simulated eruption at t = 0, in the soft (0.5–2.0 keV; solid blue) and hard (2.0–10.0 keV; dashed red) bands. The shaded bands show the differenc…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Grevesse, N

    Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197

    1989

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  4. [4]

    Banerjee, D. P. K., Woodward, C. E., Joshi, V ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L16

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

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

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

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    F., Harman, D

    Bode, M. F., Harman, D. J., O’Brien, T. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, L63

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Bode, M. F. & Kahn, F. D. 1985, MNRAS, 217, 205

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    F., O’Brien, T

    Bode, M. F., O’Brien, T. J., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 629

    work page 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    A., Mohamed, S., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Booth, R. A., Mohamed, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 822

    2016

  2. [10]

    J., Lyerly, W

    Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 820

    2001

  3. [11]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  4. [12]

    A., Duerbeck, H

    Downes, R. A., Duerbeck, H. W., & Delahodde, C. E. 2001, Journal of Astronom- ical Data, 7, 6

    2001

  5. [13]

    Drake, J. J. & Orlando, S. 2010, ApJ, 720, L195

    2010

  6. [14]

    R., Woodward, C

    Evans, A., Geballe, T. R., Woodward, C. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 6077

    2022

  7. [15]

    1995, ApJ, 441, L77

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

    1995

  8. [16]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273

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

    2000

  9. [17]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  10. [18]

    & José, J

    Hernanz, M. & José, J. 2008, New Astronomy Reviews, 52, 386

    2008

  11. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 Martínez-González, S. 2025, A&A, 702, L6 Martínez-González, S., Wünsch, R., Palouš, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 40 Martínez-González, S., Wünsch, R., Silich, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 198 Martínez-González, S., Wüns...

    2007

  12. [20]

    Montez, R., Luna, G. J. M., Mukai, K., Sokoloski, J. L., & Kastner, J. H. 2022, ApJ, 926, 100

    2022

  13. [21]

    & Bildsten, L

    Moore, K. & Bildsten, L. 2012, ApJ, 761, 182

    2012

  14. [22]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 37

    Orio, M., Gendreau, K., Giese, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 37

    2023

  15. [23]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 274

    Orlando, S., Bocchino, F., Reale, F., Peres, G., & Pagano, P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 274

    2008

  16. [24]

    J., et al

    Orlando, S., Chomiuk, L., Drake, J. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A144

    2025

  17. [25]

    J., & Laming, J

    Orlando, S., Drake, J. J., & Laming, J. M. 2009, A&A, 493, 1049

    2009

  18. [26]

    J., & Miceli, M

    Orlando, S., Drake, J. J., & Miceli, M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 5003

    2017

  19. [27]

    L., Beardmore, A

    Page, K. L., Beardmore, A. P., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1557

    2022

  20. [28]

    Ribeiro, V . A. R. M., Bode, M. F., Darnley, M. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1955

    2009

  21. [29]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2010, ApJS, 187, 275

    2010

  22. [30]

    M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J

    Schure, K. M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J. S., Keppens, R., & Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751 Serrano-Hernández, D. B., Martínez-González, S., Jiménez, S., Silich, S., & Wünsch, R. 2025, A&A, 695, A271

    2009

  23. [31]

    M., Lanzetta, K

    Shara, M. M., Lanzetta, K. M., Masegian, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09510

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2006, ApJ, 644, 1151

    Smith, N. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1151

    2006

  25. [33]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJ, 556, L91

    2001

  26. [34]

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

    2010

  27. [35]

    2020, A&A, 641, A122

    Tappert, C., V ogt, N., Ederoclite, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A122

    2020

  28. [36]

    A., Tomova, M

    Tomov, N. A., Tomova, M. T., Stoyanov, K. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A49

    2023

  29. [37]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  30. [38]

    Walder, R., Folini, D., & Shore, S. N. 2008, A&A, 484, L9 Wünsch, R., Palouš, J., Tenorio-Tagle, G., & Ehlerová, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 60 Wünsch, R., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Palouš, J., & Silich, S. 2008, ApJ, 683, 683

    2008

  31. [39]

    Zheng, J.-H., Zhang, H.-M., Liu, R.-Y ., Zha, M., & Wang, X.-Y . 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 43, 171 Appendix A: Pressure-based identification of freshly shocked ejecta We identify the freshest ejecta using a pressure-based tracer in- tended to locate the immedi...

    2024

Pith tools

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