Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

An Episodic Wide-angle Outflow in HH 46/47

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution CO observations of HH 46/47 reveal nested outflow shells showing that the wide-angle disk wind is episodic, bursting on the same ~200-300 year timescale as the collimated jet.

desk verdict Strong observational evidence for episodic wide-angle wind shells in HH 46/47, though the quantitative fitting and the jet bow-shock alternative need more work before the claim is fully secured. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00689 v1 pith:B3D7OIHI submitted 2019-08-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Yichen Zhang , Hector G. Arce , Diego Mardones , Sylvie Cabrit , Michael M. Dunham , Guido Garay , Alberto Noriega-Crespo , Stella S. R. Offner
show 2 more authors
Alejandro C. Raga Stuartt A. Corder
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords protostellaroutflowswide-anglediskwindsepisodicaccretionmolecularoutflowshellsHH46/47COobservationsentrainment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports high-resolution observations of carbon monoxide emission from the HH 46/47 protostellar outflow, which reveal several nested, cone-shaped shells of gas in both the blue- and red-shifted lobes. The shells are coherent in position and velocity, reaching outflow speeds above 40–50 km/s and extending about 10,000 au. The authors fit each shell as an expanding parabola and find dynamical ages that differ by roughly 200–300 years between consecutive shells, the same spacing as knots seen in the collimated jet. They conclude that the wide-angle component of the protostellar disk wind is itself episodic, firing in outbursts on the same timescale as the jet, and that the observed shells are ambient gas swept up by those outbursts rather than material launched directly from the disk.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the expanding parabolic shell model for wide-angle wind entrainment, in which a swept-up shell has the shape $z/R_0 = (R/R_0)^2$ and a Hubble-law velocity field $v_z = z/t_0$, $v_R = R/t_0$, with free parameters the inclination $i$, the width scale $R_0$, and the dynamical age $t_0$. Fitting each observed shell to this model converts its morphology and kinematics into an age, and the age differences between nested shells into time intervals between wind outbursts. The same model also predicts the elliptical channel-map shapes and parabolic position-velocity curves that are used to identify the shells as discrete structures.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the full three-dimensional velocity field of the shells and check whether each one obeys the Hubble-law expansion $v_z = z/t_0$, $v_R = R/t_0$; if the kinematics instead match a single continuous cavity-wall model or jet bow-shock entrainment, or if re-observations a few hundred years later show no new inner shell inside Sr1, the episodic wide-angle wind interpretation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the HH 46/47 molecular outflow contains multiple wide-angle outflowing shells—at least two in each lobe, with a possible third on the blue side—that are highly coherent in position-position-velocity space, extending to high velocities and thousands of au. Each shell can be described by an expanding parabolic surface with a Hubble-law velocity field, and the fitted shell ages (about 1.2–1.8 thousand years on the blue side, 320–530 years on the red side) imply outburst intervals of 2–3 hundred years, matching the knot spacing observed in the optical jet. The mass loading rates derived from the CO emission are one to two orders of magnitude higher than the jet mass-loss rate, while the momentum injection rates are comparable, indicating that the shells are momentum-conserving swept-up ambient material rather than direct disk wind. The paper argues that these structures therefore provide clear evidence that wide-angle disk winds, like collimated jets, are episodic, and that the same accretion bursts power both outflow components.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed shells are individual parabolic shells swept up by separate outbursts of a wide-angle wind, rather than walls of a single structured outflow cavity or structures created by jet bow-shock entrainment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Episodic accretion in protostars is not unique to the jet: the wide-angle disk wind responds to the same bursts, so outflow variability can be used as a clock of accretion history.
  • The youngest red shell (Sr1, ~320 yr) should be followed by an even younger, inner shell from the most recent outburst, while the blue cavity may be too cleared out to form new CO shells, explaining the lobe asymmetry.
  • Because newer shells are faster and narrower than older ones, they will catch up and merge with them on timescales of a few hundred to a thousand years, which naturally limits the number of shells visible at any time.
  • Outflow cavity widening over protostellar evolution can be driven by successive entrainment episodes from an episodic wind, rather than by a gradually widening launching region on the disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the episodic-wide-angle-wind picture is right, then re-observing the same outflow after a few hundred years should show the newest shell moving outward and a fresh inner shell appearing near the protostar; this is a concrete test.
  • The coincidence between shell intervals and jet-knot intervals suggests that in other sources with regularly spaced jet knots, high-resolution CO maps near the outflow base should reveal similarly nested parabolic shells; searching for them would test the generality of this behavior.
  • The authors treat the fitted ages as upper limits because shell deceleration is neglected; if true, the true burst cadence could be shorter than 200–300 years, which would push the inferred disk launching radius below 10–13 au and strengthen the case for a narrow launching region.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA 12CO (2-1) observations of the HH 46/47 molecular outflow and identifies multiple coherent, nested, wide-angle shell structures in both the blue- and red-shifted lobes in position-position-velocity space. The authors fit these shells with the Lee et al. (2000) expanding parabolic shell model, deriving dynamical ages and, from their differences, outburst intervals of (2-3)x10^2 yr. They interpret the shells as the result of entrainment by episodic outbursts of a wide-angle disk wind, analogous to the known episodic behavior of the collimated jet in this source. The paper also presents mass and momentum estimates of the shells, discusses the role of outflow widening, and constrains the wind launching region.

Significance. The result, if validated, would be the first clear evidence that the wide-angle component of a protostellar disk wind is episodic on timescales comparable to jet knot variability, which is important for understanding accretion variability and outflow-driven feedback. The data are high quality and the shell structures are visually compelling, with good kinematic coherence. The paper also provides quantitative mass and momentum estimates consistent with entrainment rather than direct launching. However, the central inference depends on a by-eye model fit without quoted uncertainties and on a non-unique interpretation of the shell origin, so the significance is somewhat tempered until these issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] The shell model fits are selected by visual comparison of model curves with the observed emission in channel maps and PV diagrams, and no uncertainties are quoted for R0, t0, i, or the derived ages and intervals. Since the central claim of episodic wide-angle wind outbursts rests entirely on the age differences between shells, the absence of a quantitative fit or even a sensitivity check makes the conclusion fragile. Please provide a formal fitting statistic (e.g., a chi-square or likelihood over the searched grid) and report uncertainties, or at least show that the derived intervals are robust when the parameters are varied within the searched ranges.
  2. [§4.1, Sb3] The t0 of shell Sb3 is not independently fitted; it is assumed by requiring the Sb2-Sb3 interval to equal the Sb1-Sb2 interval, and then R0 is chosen to match the observed morphology. Consequently, Sb3 cannot serve as any kind of confirmation of periodicity. The text should clearly state that the Sb3 age is an assumption, not a measurement, and the discussion should not imply that the equal spacing among the blue-lobe shells is an observed outcome.
  3. [§4.2] The paper explicitly acknowledges that "it is unclear whether the morphology and kinematics of the shells observed here ... can be also explained by jet bow-shock entrainment." Because the main conclusion is that the shells are produced by an episodic wide-angle wind, this alternative must be either ruled out with a quantitative model or discussed as an equally viable explanation. As written, the abstract and conclusions claim "clear evidence" and "strong evidence," which is not supported given the admitted ambiguity. I recommend either adding a quantitative comparison to a jet bow-shock model or softening the central claim accordingly.
  4. [§3, §4.1] The shell identification is partly ambiguous in the blue lobe: the low-velocity walls of Sb1, Sb2, and Sb3 are described as merged into one structure, and it is unclear whether Sb4 and Sb5 are separate shells or the high- and low-velocity sides of a single shell. Since the number of shells and their assignments directly affect the derived intervals, the criteria for deciding what constitutes a separate shell should be stated more explicitly, and the sensitivity of the conclusions to alternative identifications should be discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] The PPV diagrams in Figure 2 use a color scale "selected to emphasize the layered structure," but no quantitative color bar or velocity mapping is given. Because these diagrams are central to the shell identification, please include a velocity color scale or otherwise make the velocity mapping explicit.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions state that the observations provide "clear evidence" and "strong evidence" for an episodic wide-angle wind, whereas the discussion in §4.2 is more cautious. Please align the strength of the language with the actual level of support, especially in light of the unresolved jet bow-shock alternative.
  3. [References] There are several typographical inconsistencies in the reference list, e.g., "Blandord" for Blandford, "Eisloeffel" for Eislöffel, and "Bai, X.-N., Ye, J., Goodman, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 152" which appears to be a paper not cited in the text. Please proofread the reference list and ensure all cited works are included and all listed works are cited.
  4. [Table 1] The dynamical ages in Table 1 assume a distance of 450 pc, but no uncertainty on the distance is quoted or propagated to the age and interval estimates. Please state the distance uncertainty and its effect on the derived timescales.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Low circularity: shells are directly observed and the Sb1/Sb2 and Sr1/Sr2 intervals are independently fitted; only Sb3's age is set by an assumed equal interval, so Sb3 cannot independently confirm periodicity.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (Sb3 fitting paragraph) and Section 4.2 (blue-shell interpretation)]
    "If we assume that the time interval between shells Sb1 and Sb2 is the same as the interval between Sb2 and Sb3, then we can estimate a value for t0 for shell Sb3 of 0.85 arcsec km−1 s (by adding ∆t0,B≡t0,Sb2−t0,Sb1 to the estimated t0 for Sb2). With this assumption, we find that using a value of R0 = 2.8′′ results in a model that agrees fairly well to shell Sb3."

    The Sb3 t0, and therefore its Table 1 dynamical age of 1.8×10^3 yr, is constructed by assuming that the Sb2–Sb3 interval equals the Sb1–Sb2 interval; it is not measured from an independent fit of Sb3. Section 4.2 then says that 'the three blue-shifted shells can be explained by outflow shells of different dynamical ages, with similar age difference among consecutive shells,' which reports the assumed equality back as a consistency result. Sb3 therefore cannot serve as independent confirmation of periodic wide-angle outbursts. This is a minor, non-load-bearing circular element: the central episodic claim already rests on the independently fitted Sb1–Sb2 and Sr1–Sr2 intervals and on comparison with jet-knot timescales from Paper I and Plunkett et al. (2015).

full rationale

The paper's observational core is not circular. The multiple wide-angle shell structures are identified directly in ALMA 12CO (2−1) position-position-velocity and channel maps (Figures 2–5), and the expanding-parabola model of Equation (1), taken from Lee et al. (2000), is applied to convert each shell's fitted R0 and t0 into dynamical ages. The Sb1, Sb2, Sr1, and Sr2 fits are carried out independently of one another, and the two derived age differences (3.2×10^2 yr blue, 2.1×10^2 yr red) are then compared with jet-knot outburst intervals from Paper I and from Plunkett et al. (2015). That comparison is an external consistency test, not a restatement of the model inputs. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the main interpretive degeneracy in Section 4.2: 'it is unclear whether the morphology and kinematics of the shells observed here ... can be also explained by jet bow-shock entrainment.' This is a model-discrimination limitation rather than circularity, because the shells themselves are observed and are not defined by the episodic-wind model. The one quasi-circular element is the treatment of Sb3: its t0 is set by assuming Sb2–Sb3 equals Sb1–Sb2, and Section 4.2 later lists the blue 'similar age difference' as if it supported the periodic-outburst picture. Because the central claim is already supported by two independently fitted intervals and an external jet comparison, this does not make the derivation circular overall. Self-citations to Papers I and II supply observational context and the jet interval used for comparison; they are not used as an unverified uniqueness proof or to define the fitted quantities. The 'best-fit' models selected by eye are a robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several free parameters (R0, t0, i) for each shell plus adopted physical constants (distance, Tex, abundance). No new physical entities are invented. The main assumptions are the wide-angle wind entrainment model and the equivalence of shell spacing to outburst intervals.

free parameters (14)
  • R0 for shell Sb1 = 2.6 arcsec
    Free parameter in the parabolic shell model (Eq. 1); fitted visually to channel maps and PV diagrams (Section 4.1, Table 1).
  • R0 for shell Sb2 = 2.7 arcsec
    Free parameter in the parabolic shell model; fitted visually (Section 4.1, Table 1).
  • R0 for shell Sb3 = 2.8 arcsec
    Free parameter in the parabolic shell model; chosen so the model agrees with Sb3 after assuming equal outburst intervals (Section 4.1).
  • R0 for shell Sr1 = 1.3 arcsec
    Free parameter in the parabolic shell model; fitted visually (Section 4.1, Table 1).
  • R0 for shell Sr2 = 1.9 arcsec
    Free parameter in the parabolic shell model; fitted visually (Section 4.1, Table 1).
  • t0 for shell Sb1 = 0.55 arcsec km^-1 s
    Free parameter setting the velocity distribution; fitted visually. Converts to a dynamical age of 1.2 x 10^3 yr (Section 4.1).
  • t0 for shell Sb2 = 0.70 arcsec km^-1 s
    Free parameter; fitted visually. Dynamical age 1.5 x 10^3 yr (Section 4.1).
  • t0 for shell Sb3 = 0.85 arcsec km^-1 s
    Not directly fitted; inferred by assuming the time interval between Sb2 and Sb3 equals that between Sb1 and Sb2 (Section 4.1).
  • t0 for shell Sr1 = 0.15 arcsec km^-1 s
    Free parameter; fitted visually. Dynamical age 3.2 x 10^2 yr (Section 4.1).
  • t0 for shell Sr2 = 0.25 arcsec km^-1 s
    Free parameter; fitted visually. Dynamical age 5.3 x 10^2 yr (Section 4.1).
  • Inclination i for blue lobe = 40 degrees
    Search range 30-45 degrees, constant per lobe to reduce free parameters; chosen from visual fit (Section 4.1).
  • Inclination i for red lobe = 35 degrees
    Search range 30-45 degrees; chosen from visual fit (Section 4.1).
  • Excitation temperature Tex = 15 K
    Adopted from Paper II for mass estimates; varying to 50 K increases masses by factor 1.5 (Section 4.2).
  • CO abundance = 1e-4 relative to H2
    Assumed for mass estimates from 12CO(2-1) emission (Section 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The expanding parabolic shell model (z/R0 = (R/R0)^2, vz = z/t0, vR = R/t0) describes outflows entrained by a wide-angle wind.
    Adopted from Lee et al. 2000; used to fit each shell and derive R0 and t0 (Section 4.1, Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption The observed shells are ambient gas entrained by a wide-angle wind, not directly launched disk wind.
    Supported by mass loading rates one to two orders above jet mass loss, but the alternative jet bow-shock entrainment is not ruled out (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption 12CO(2-1) emission is optically thin with CO/H2 = 1e-4 and Tex = 15 K.
    Used to convert flux to mass (Section 4.2); acknowledged as lower limits.
  • ad hoc to paper The time interval between Sb2 and Sb3 equals that between Sb1 and Sb2.
    Section 4.1: without this assumption, Sb3 cannot be fitted independently; it introduces an unverified prior.
  • domain assumption Inclination is constant within each lobe and searched only between 30 and 45 degrees.
    Section 4.1: reduces free parameters; the range is based on optical jet measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Episodic Wide-angle Outflow in HH 46/47." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3D7OIHI

@misc{pith2026190800689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Episodic Wide-angle Outflow in HH 46/47},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3D7OIHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00689}
}
read the original abstract

During star formation, the accretion disk drives fast MHD winds which usually contain two components, a collimated jet and a radially distributed wide-angle wind. These winds entrain the surrounding ambient gas producing molecular outflows. We report recent observation of 12CO (2-1) emission of the HH 46/47 molecular outflow by the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter Array, in which we identify multiple wide-angle outflowing shell structures in both the blue and red-shifted outflow lobes. These shells are highly coherent in position-position-velocity space, extending to >40-50 km/s in velocity and 10^4 au in space with well defined morphology and kinematics. We suggest these outflowing shells are the result of the entrainment of ambient gas by a series of outbursts from an intermittent wide-angle wind. Episodic outbursts in collimated jets are commonly observed, yet detection of a similar behavior in wide-angle winds has been elusive. Here we show clear evidence that the wide-angle component of the HH 46/47 protostellar outflows experiences similar variability seen in the collimated component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): 12CO (1−0) integrated intensity map of the HH 46/47 molecular outflow at large scales from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): Position-position-velocity diagram for the 12CO (2 − 1) blue-shifted lobe. Channels at |vout| > 2 km s−1 with emission higher than 5σ (1σ = 1.6 mJy beam−1 for a channel width of 0.3 km s−1 ) are included. The emission outside of the outflow cavity is not included. The position of the outflow source, at offset (0,0), is at the back, and the outflow direction is toward the reader. The color is selected to emphasi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a): Position-velocity diagram of the 12CO (2 − 1) emission along the outflow axis with a cut width of 100 . (b)-(i): Position-velocity diagrams of the 12CO (2 − 1) emission along 100-wide cuts perpendicular to the outflow axis. The cuts are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A JWST, ALMA and VLA survey of the Ophiuchus-A star-forming region: Unveiling hidden dust mass and connecting infrared outflows to their radio origins

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-wavelength survey of 20 Ophiuchus protostars finds dust masses tens to hundreds of times larger than millimetre-only estimates, if the adopted dust-opacity model is correct.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    j7ݜ߃m [w=/ K`bc׃_ D /& z25kN /uiw _h* z^ ` 2LΒ9)tOT /rr<DPi? 8 6Y2iX =XwU;ݷ avjǦ[!Dwm M n`L ÍAv / x*! p٫dgYS ?nY+ސ/۱2 n4 v p,l6 ݟ ? IkQ < L ,/V/fun dyyepخ v,-2Mv

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    O., Girart, J

    Alves, F. O., Girart, J. M., Caselli, P., et al., 2017, A&A, 603, L3

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2008, A&A, 479, 503

    Antoniucci, S., Nisini, B., Giannini, T., & Lorenzetti, D. 2008, A&A, 479, 503

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    G., Borkin, M

    Arce, H. G., Borkin, M. A., Goodman, A. A., Pineda, J. E., & Halle, M. W. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1170

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    G., Mardones, D., Corder, S

    Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., Corder, S. A., Garay, G., Noriega-Crespo, A., Raga, A. C., 2013, ApJ, 774, 39

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Arce, H. G. & Sargent, A. I. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1070

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Bacciotti, F., Mundt, R., Ray, T. P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 49

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 152

    Bai, X.-N., Ye, J., Goodman, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 152

    work page 2016

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Blandord, R. D. & Payne, D. G., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

    1982

  2. [10]

    Bjerkeli, P., van der Wiel, M. H. D., Harsono, D., et al. 2016, Nature, 540, 406

    2016

  3. [11]

    M., Arce, H

    Dunham, M. M., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 29

    2014

  4. [12]

    Dunham, M. M. & Vorobyov, E. I., 2012, ApJ, 747, 52

    2012

  5. [13]

    Eisl\"offel, J., Mundt, R., 1994, A&A, 284, 530

    1994

  6. [14]

    2010, A&A, 511, A5

    Garcia Lopez, R., Nisini, B., Eisl\"offel, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A5

    2010

  7. [15]

    A., Reipurth, B., Bally, J., 2005, AJ, 130, 2197

    Hartigan, P., Heathcote, S., Morse, J. A., Reipurth, B., Bally, J., 2005, AJ, 130, 2197

    2005

  8. [16]

    A., & Raymond, J

    Hartigan, P., Morse, J. A., & Raymond, J. 1994, ApJ, 436, 125

    1994

  9. [17]

    N., Matsushita, Y., et al

    Hirota, T., Machida, M. N., Matsushita, Y., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 0146

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., Belloche, A., ApJ, 153, 173

  11. [19]

    & Pudritz, R

    Konigl, A. & Pudritz, R. E., in Protostars and Planets IV (eds Mannings, V. et al.) 759-787 (Univ. Arizona Press, 2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    & Takemaru, E., ApJ, 454, 382

    Kwan, J. & Takemaru, E., ApJ, 454, 382

  13. [21]

    2015, ApJL, 805, 186L

    Lee, C.-F., Hirano, N., Zhang, Q., et al. 2015, ApJL, 805, 186L

    2015

  14. [22]

    Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 0152

    2017

  15. [23]

    Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Palau, A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1188

    2007

  16. [24]

    G., Reipurth, B., Ostriker, E

    Lee, C.-F., Mundy, L. G., Reipurth, B., Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., 2000, ApJ, 542, 925

    2000

  17. [25]

    Lee, J. W. Y., Hull, C. L. H. & Offner, S. S. R. 2017, ApJ, 834, 201

    2017

  18. [26]

    H., 1996, ApJ, 472, 211

    Li, Z.-Y., Shu, F. H., 1996, ApJ, 472, 211

    1996

  19. [27]

    2018, A&A, 618, 120

    Louvet, F., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, 120

    2018

  20. [28]

    Machida, M. N. & Hosokawa, T., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1719

    2013

  21. [29]

    Matt, S., Winglee, R., B\"ohm, K.-H., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 660

    2003

  22. [30]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI (ASP Conf. Ser. 376), ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 127

    2007

  23. [31]

    J., Ray, T

    Micono, M., Davis, C. J., Ray, T. P., Eisloeffel, J., Shetrone, M. D., 1998, ApJL, 494, L227

    1998

  24. [32]

    A., Hartigan, P., Heathcote, S., et al

    Morse, J. A., Hartigan, P., Heathcote, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 425, 738

    1994

  25. [33]

    C., van Dishoeck, E

    Mottram, J. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., Kristensen, L. E. et al. 2017, A&A, 600, 99

    2017

  26. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 121

    Nisini , B., Santangelo, G., Giannini, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 121

    2015

  27. [35]

    R., et al

    Noriega-Crespo, A., Morris, P., Marleau, F. R., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 352

    2004

  28. [36]

    Offner, S. S. R. & Arce, H. G. 2014, ApJ, 784, 61

    2014

  29. [37]

    Offner, S. S. R., Dunham, M. M., Lee, K. I., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L11

    2016

  30. [38]

    Offner, S. S. R. & Chaban, J. 2017, ApJ, 847, 104

    2017

  31. [39]

    2006, A&A 456, 189

    Podio, L., Bacciotti, F., Nisini, B, et al. 2006, A&A 456, 189

    2006

  32. [40]

    2012, A&A 545, 44

    Podio, L., Kamp, I., Flower, D., et al. 2012, A&A 545, 44

    2012

  33. [41]

    L., Arce, H

    Plunkett, A. L., Arce, H. G., Corder, S. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 22

    2013

  34. [42]

    L., Arce, H

    Plunkett, A. L., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2015, Nature, 527, 70

    2015

  35. [43]

    1993, A&A, 278, 267

    Raga, A., & Cabrit, S. 1993, A&A, 278, 267

    1993

  36. [44]

    Reipurth, B., 2000, AJ, 120, 1449

    2000

  37. [45]

    & Bally, J., 2001, ARAA, 39, 403

    Reipurth, B. & Bally, J., 2001, ARAA, 39, 403

    2001

  38. [46]

    & Heathcote, S., 1991, A&A, 246, 511

    Reipurth, B. & Heathcote, S., 1991, A&A, 246, 511

    1991

  39. [47]

    Schwartz, R. D. 1977, ApJL, 212, L25

    1977

  40. [48]

    Seale, J. P. & Looney, L. W., ApJ, 675, 427

  41. [49]

    H., Glassgold, A

    Shang, H., Shu, F. H., Glassgold, A. E. 1998, ApJL, 493, L91

    1998

  42. [50]

    H., Najita, J

    Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y., in Protostars and Planets IV (eds Mannings, V. et al.) 789-814 (Univ. Arizona Press, 2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    2017, A&A, 607, L6

    Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., Bianchi, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, L6

    2017

  44. [52]

    Tafalla, M., Santiago-Garc\'ia, J., Hacar, A., Bachiller, R., 2010, A&A, 522, 91

    2010

  45. [53]

    2016, A&A, 597, 119

    Tafalla, M., Su, Y.-N., Shang, H., et al. 2016, A&A, 597, 119

    2016

  46. [54]

    A., van Dishoeck, E

    van Kempen, T. A., van Dishoeck, E. F., G\"usten, R. et al., 2009, A&A, 501, 633

    2009

  47. [55]

    D., Marsh, K

    Velusamy, T., Langer, W. D., Marsh, K. A. 2007, ApJL, 668, L159

    2007

  48. [56]

    D., Thompson, T

    Velusamy, T., Langer, W. D., Thompson, T. 2014, ApJ, 783, 6

    2014

  49. [57]

    Vorobyov, E. I. & Basu, S., 2015, ApJ, 805, 115

    2015

  50. [58]

    G., Mardones D., et al

    Zhang, Y., Arce, H. G., Mardones D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 158

    2016

  51. [59]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 76

    Zhang, Y., Higuchi, A., Sakai, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 76

    2018

  52. [60]

    F., et al

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., Gammie, C. F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1134

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.