Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Shaping Outflows and Jets by Ambient Pressure: a Unified Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ambient pressure with a nearly universal -2 power-law index can shape outflows from young stars to galactic jets.

desk verdict The universal α≈−2 claim rests on a mathematically incorrect pressure-to-Mach-number mapping, so the paper as written does not establish its central result, though the multiscale de Laval analogy is worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11704 v3 pith:C5NSGWSU submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Willem A. Baan , Tao AN This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords astrophysicaloutflowsjetsambientpressureconfinementdeLavalnozzlepower-lawgradientplanetarynebulaeyoungstellarobjectsactivegalacticnuclei
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 proposes that the observed shapes of astrophysical outflows, from planetary nebulae and protostars to the jets of active galaxies, are set by one common mechanism: the declining ambient pressure that confines the supersonic flow. The authors extend classical de Laval nozzle theory by replacing the rigid nozzle walls with a power-law ambient pressure profile, and they fit the resulting flow boundary to observed outflows spanning six orders of magnitude in size. The central claim is that all four fitted sources, and plausibly many more, require nearly the same pressure-gradient exponent, about -2, independent of the type of central engine. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, this gives a single environmental explanation for outflow collimation and acceleration across vastly different systems, and it turns the observed boundary shape into a probe of the pressure structure around stars and black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the de Laval nozzle analogy: the rigid diverging walls of an engineering nozzle are replaced by a declining ambient pressure that balances the outflow boundary and drives the same subsonic-to-supersonic transition. The mathematics is the isentropic nozzle relation giving Mach number and cross-sectional area from the pressure ratio, combined with the prescribed pressure profile $P(R)=P_0(R/R_s)^{\alpha}+P_2$; a differential gravity term modifies the Mach number near compact sources. This machinery converts an assumed pressure gradient into the width, velocity, temperature, and density of the outflow, and fixes the location of the sonic throat that identifies the launching point.

What would settle it

Map the actual ambient pressure profile around one fitted source, for example by deprojecting the X-ray-emitting hot gas around M 87 or measuring molecular cloud pressure tracers around HOPS 370, and compare it with the fitted $P(R)=P_0(R/R_s)^{\alpha}+P_2$; if the observed profile's exponent departs from the value needed to fit the outflow width, the boundary shape is not set by ambient pressure alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that outflow morphology is controlled by pressure balance at the boundary with an ambient medium whose pressure falls as a power law with distance, $P(R)=P_0(R/R_s)^{\alpha}+P_2$, and that the exponent $\alpha$ is nearly universal, around -2.0 to -2.8, across sources whose sizes differ by six orders of magnitude. Using the de Laval nozzle analogy, the authors derive the Mach number, density, temperature, velocity, and lateral width of the outflow from this pressure profile, with a Newtonian gravity correction near the launching region for supermassive black hole jets. Applied to the planetary nebula Hb 12, the protostellar outflow HOPS 370, and the FR I jets in 3C 84 and M 87, the model reproduces the observed widths and yields launching points close to the stellar envelope, accretion disk, or black hole ergosphere. The authors conclude that ambient pressure confinement, not the details of the launching engine, determines the large-scale shape of outflows.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the outflow boundary is set by simple pressure balance between an isentropically expanding ideal gas and a prescribed ambient pressure profile, with magnetic fields, entrainment, and non-isentropic heating playing no leading role in the shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the exponent near -2 is universal, then the shape of an outflow can be inverted to read off the ambient pressure gradient around any resolved source, without needing to model the engine.
  • The model locates the launching point from morphology alone: inside the stellar envelope for Hb 12, near the accretion disk for HOPS 370, and at tens of gravitational radii for the FR I jets.
  • The same pressure-confined boundary layer would produce the observed edge-brightening and the transition from conical to cylindrical shape when the constant ambient pressure $P_2$ dominates at large distances.
  • Gravitational deceleration affects only the inner launching region of supermassive black hole jets, explaining a wider opening angle near the nucleus while leaving the outer shape unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The apparent universality of $\alpha\approx -2$ may partly be a consequence of self-regulated feedback: outflows carve and heat their own cavities, so the pressure profile they meet could be a product of earlier outflow episodes rather than a pre-existing ambient property.
  • A direct test would compare the fitted pressure exponent with an independently measured pressure profile, for example deprojecting the X-ray-emitting hot gas around M 87 or measuring molecular cloud pressure tracers around HOPS 370.
  • The paper leaves open whether magnetic fields, rotation, or entrainment could reproduce the same shapes without an ambient power-law index of -2; if a magnetically collimated flow matches the same boundaries, the uniqueness of the pressure-confinement interpretation would be weakened.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified model for astrophysical outflows, from planetary nebulae and protostars to low-power radio galaxies, based on the idea that the outflow shape is set by pressure confinement against an ambient pressure profile P(R) = P0(R/Rs)^α + P2. The authors adapt classical de Laval nozzle theory to describe a supersonic flow whose boundary is shaped by this pressure gradient, and they fit the model to four sources: PN Hb 12, YSO HOPS 370, and the FR I jets of 3C 84 and M 87. They claim that the fitted pressure-gradient exponent is universal, α ≈ −2, across six orders of magnitude in spatial scale, and that gravitational deceleration is important for the extragalactic sources. The central quantitative claim rests on the mapping from the assumed pressure law to the Mach number profile, Eq. (4), and on a Newtonian gravity correction, Eq. (5).

Significance. If the claimed universal pressure-gradient exponent near -2 were established, it would be a striking and important result: a single pressure-confinement mechanism would explain the collimation of outflows from stellar to galactic scales, independent of the central engine. The paper also makes testable predictions, including the shape of the nozzle region and edge-brightening in jets, which is a strength. However, the analysis as written contains algebraic and dimensional errors in the central equations, and the statistical evidence from four fitted sources is too weak to support the universality claim. The idea is interesting, but the present execution does not provide a sound derivation of the claimed result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains an algebraic error. Substituting P(R) = P0(R/Rs)^α + P2 into the isentropic relation P/P0 = [1 + (γ−1)/2 M^2]^{−γ/(γ−1)} gives M^2 = 2/(γ−1)[((R/Rs)^α + P2/P0)^{(1−γ)/γ} − 1]. The second line of Eq. (4) instead writes this as 2/(γ−1)[(R/Rs)^{α(1−γ)/γ} − 1 + P2^{(1−γ)/γ}], which incorrectly distributes the exponent (1−γ)/γ over the sum and drops the P0 factor from the P2 term. While the expression is correct for P2 = 0, the P2 term is non-zero in four of the five fitted lobes and dominates in the outer regions where the model transitions to a cylindrical shape. Therefore the model shapes in Figs. 2–5 and the fitted values of α, Rs, and P2 in Table 1 are outputs of an invalid equation. The fits must be redone with the correct pressure-to-Mach relation, and the claimed universal α ≈ −2 is not supported by the present analysis.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is dimensionally inconsistent. The right-hand side has dimensions (dR/cs) × (GM/R^2) × V(R), which gives velocity squared, while the left-hand side dM is dimensionless. A Newtonian deceleration correction to the Mach number should involve a term of the form −(GM/(R^2 c_s^2)) dR or an equivalent expression derived from dV/dR. Because this equation is used in the gravity-corrected fits of 3C 84 and M 87 and is claimed to determine the launching radii and minimum temperatures in Table 1, those results are not quantitatively meaningful as derived.
  3. [§3 and Table 1] The central claim of a universal pressure exponent is not established by the analysis. The values in Table 1 are free parameters fitted individually to four hand-picked sources, with no quoted uncertainties, no goodness-of-fit statistics, and no discussion of degeneracies among α, Rs, and P2. The fitted range spans from −1.95 to −2.8, which is not a particularly narrow range once the algebraic errors are corrected. Moreover, the model is constructed from the assumed pressure law and the same law is then fitted to observed shapes, so the resemblance is not an independent confirmation of the power-law form. Establishing universality would require robust parameter uncertainties and, ideally, a prediction of the shape without re-fitting α for each source.
  4. [§2.2 and §4.1] The paper assumes that pressure balance at the boundary sets the outflow shape, but it does not provide a quantitative argument that magnetic collimation, entrainment, or boundary-layer dynamics are subdominant. Indeed, §4.1 states that the boundary layer 'has not yet been incorporated in the simulations' yet is 'crucial for jet evolution,' and §2.2 similarly defers boundary-layer physics to future numerical work. This acknowledged omission weakens the claim that the pressure-gradient model alone explains the observed morphologies and edge-brightening features.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §3] The sign of α is inconsistent: the abstract and text say 'α ≈ 2.0–2.8' or 'α ≈ −2.05' in different places. The exponent should be consistently quoted as negative.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption calls the source 'M 87 - NGC 1275,' but NGC 1275 is the host galaxy of 3C 84, not M 87. The caption should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1] The column heading 'Scale Height' is not defined in the text; the text uses Rs as the pressure-gradient scale length, and the column seems to list Rs values. This should be labeled consistently.
  4. [§2.2 vs §4.5] The paper states in §2.2 that gravitational corrections are used 'to obtain a more precise fit with the observed shape,' but §4.5 says the gravity correction 'has not yet been used to optimize this shape with regard to the observed launching shape.' These statements are contradictory.
  5. [Figure 1 caption vs §2.2] The Figure 1 caption says the outflow velocity increases by a factor of two along the displayed section, while §2.2 says the flow velocity increases fivefold. These numbers should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'universal α≈−2' result is the fitted free parameter of the assumed pressure profile presented as a model prediction; Eq. (4) also mis-applies the isentropic exponent, corrupting the fits.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Modeling Results), restating the Abstract's central claim]
    "A striking feature of our results is the narrow range of pressure gradient indices ( α ≈ 2.0–2.8) required to fit outflows across six orders of magnitude in spatial scale."

    The index α is the free parameter of the pressure profile assumed in Eq. (3), and Section 2.2 states: 'The measured outflow widths of the example sources have been used to constrain and optimize the values of α and Rs.' The model shape is a deterministic function of (α, Rs, P2) through Eqs. (1)–(4), so the 'remarkable consistency' and universal 'power-law exponent near minus two' announced in the Abstract and Section 3 are the fitted values read back as a discovery; the deLaval mapping only converts pressure into shape and never derives α≈−2 from independent physics. Four hand-picked sources, no quoted uncertainties, and an internal sign inconsistency (Section 3: α≈2.0–2.8; Table 1: −1.95…−2.8) further show the claim is the fit itself.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.1, after Eq. (4); method sentence]
    "By incorporating the above equations into a MatLab code, a model outflow shape can be generated based on the pressure gradient distribution parameters α and Rs and a distant P2 where needed. Superposing this model shape on the observed shape allows us to constrain these values for each astrophysical outflow."

    Every model shape is generated from the assumed pressure profile: Eq. (4) defines M(R) from P(R), Eq. (1) defines the width from M(R), and the same parameters are then recovered by superposing the generated shape on the observed morphology. The agreement is therefore guaranteed by construction once a power-law profile is chosen; the fit cannot discriminate pressure confinement from magnetic collimation, shear instabilities, or a structured ambient density (the paper concedes boundary-layer physics 'has not yet been incorporated in the simulations,' Section 4.1). Presenting the match as confirmation that 'pressure confinement represents a fundamental mechanism in outflow physics' (Section 3) turns the assumed profile's exponent into the model's output.

full rationale

The central claim — ambient pressure profiles with a universal exponent α≈−2 shape outflows from YSOs to AGNs — is the fitted value of the free parameter of the assumed pressure profile, not a quantity derived from the deLaval framework. The chain is: assume P(R)=P0(R/Rs)^α+P2 (Eq. 3); map pressure to Mach number with the isentropic relation (Eq. 4); map Mach number to width with the nozzle area relation (Eq. 1); fit (α, Rs, P2) to each observed boundary; then report the spread of fitted α as 'a remarkable consistency in pressure profiles' and a 'universal mechanism.' Because each model shape is a deterministic function of the profile parameters, the fits cannot independently confirm that ambient pressure — rather than magnetic fields, instabilities, or ambient density structure — sets the observed shape; the paper itself concedes that boundary-layer physics, 'proven to be crucial for jet evolution,' has not been incorporated (Section 4.1). The abstract's headline prediction therefore reduces to the fitted parameters (score 6: partial circularity). Some independent content exists: Section 4.3 compares model-based velocities with observed ones (Hb 12: ~110 vs ~90 km/s; HOPS 370: ~57 vs ~51 km/s), and the M87 throat at 13 Rg is checked against the externally imaged nuclear ring (Lu et al. 2023). These are genuine external checks of secondary quantities (the velocity factor itself is taken from the model's Fig. 1), which is why the score is not 8–10. Self-citations (Baan 1980; An & Baan 2012) appear but are not load-bearing for the central claim. A separate algebraic error compounds the problem: substituting Eq. (3) into P/P0=[1+(γ−1)M²/2]^{−γ/(γ−1)} requires M² = 2/(γ−1)[((R/Rs)^α + P2/P0)^{(1−γ)/γ} − 1], but Eq. (4) writes M² = 2/(γ−1)[(R/Rs)^{α(1−γ)/γ} − 1 + P2^{(1−γ)/γ}], applying the exponent to each term separately and dropping P0 from the P2 term. Every fitted shape in Figs. 2–5 inherits this error, so the tabulated α values (Table 1: −1.95 to −2.8) are unreliable as computed. This is a correctness risk distinct from circularity, but it means even the fitted-input result is not established as stated. Internal inconsistencies (Section 3 quotes α≈2.0–2.8 positive; Section 4.5 says gravity was not used to optimize the shape while Section 2.2 says it was) further reduce confidence in the claimed universality.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an assumed ambient pressure power law whose exponent alpha is fitted to data, plus a set of hydrodynamical idealizations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (pressure gradient index) = -2.05, -2.8, -2.7, -2.2, -1.95 for the five fitted outflows (3C 84 caption says -2.4)
    Fitted to observed outflow widths; the paper's universal 'near -2' claim is the central fitted quantity.
  • Rs (pressure scale length) = 107 AU (Hb 12); 280 and 250 AU (HOPS 370); 12 Rg (3C 84); 3 Rg (M 87)
    Fitted per source and sets the distance over which the pressure gradient acts.
  • P2 / flat ambient pressure level = 6e-4, 1.9e-4, 2.1e-3, 1.8e-3 of nozzle pressure; none for M 87
    Fitted to the outer flattening of the outflow shape; enters Eq. (4) in an algebraically incorrect way as written.
  • Throat location and size = Launching/throat distances: 134 AU, 330 AU, 32 Rg, 13 Rg; throat sizes: 1630 AU, 1750/1520 AU, 207 Rg, 26 Rg
    Inferred from fits and used to place launching points near central engines; not independently measured.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Ambient pressure follows a single power law plus a constant, P(R) = P0 (R/Rs)^alpha + P2 (Eq. 3).
    Assumed, not derived; the universal alpha is the fitted exponent of this assumed profile.
  • domain assumption The outflow is an ideal gas in isentropic de Laval nozzle flow with gamma = 5/3 (Eqs. 1-2).
    Used at all radii; ignores MHD pressure, radiative cooling, and shocks in the boundary layer.
  • domain assumption The observed boundary of the outflow is in pressure balance with the ambient medium and its width equals the nozzle area from Eq. (1).
    Central to fitting observed images; boundary-layer physics is discussed but not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Newtonian gravitational deceleration is given by Eq. (5).
    Equation (5) is dimensionally inconsistent and is applied only to extragalactic sources with a nominal strength.
  • ad hoc to paper The four chosen sources are representative of outflows in general.
    Selection is by hand; no statistical sample or quantitative selection criterion is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shaping Outflows and Jets by Ambient Pressure: a Unified Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5NSGWSU

@misc{pith2026241111704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shaping Outflows and Jets by Ambient Pressure: a Unified Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5NSGWSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11704}
}
read the original abstract

Astrophysical outflows are ubiquitous across cosmic scales, from stellar to galactic systems. While diverse launching mechanisms have been proposed, we demonstrate that these outflows share a fundamental commonality: their morphology follows the physics of pressure-confined supersonic flows. By extending classical deLaval nozzle theory to account for ambient pressure gradients, we present a unified framework that successfully describes outflows from young stellar objects to active galactic nuclei. Our model reveals a remarkable consistency in pressure profiles, characterized by a power-law exponent near minus two, independent of the internal characteristics of the outflow or the nature of central engine. This discovery suggests a universal mechanism for outflow collimation and acceleration, bridging the gap between theoretical models and observational features across a wide range of astronomical scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The parameters of the outflow as it passes from subsonic to supersonic across the nozzle launching point at Mach 1. The pressure gradient has an index α = −2, and the X-axis is the travel distance in units of the pressure gradient scale length. The Y-axis labels are defined as: (top frame) the Width normalized by the width of the nozzle at the sonic point, (second frame) the Mach number, (third frame) the logarithm … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modeling the bipolar outflow in PN Hb 12. (left) The model shape of the outflow superposed on a combined optical/infrared image of the inner structure of the Matryoshka Nebula Hubble Hb 12. This image with the Hubble Space Telescope using WFPC2 shows the bipolar Inner Nebula outflow and the Spiderweb shock structures of Hb 12. (right) Model fitting of the very symmetric north and south outflow boundaries of the Nebu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Outflows of the Young Stellar Object HOPS 370 located in a field in Orion OMC-2 as presented by Sato et al. (2023). (left) A model fit of the shape of the red and blue outflows is superposed on HOPS 370. (right) The observed widths (blue) and the deLaval nozzle model (red) for the two outflows fitted with an α = −2.8. Although their sizes vary significantly and they show irregularities in the boundaries, their shape… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The outflow shape of the low-power jet in FR I 3C 84 showing the edge-brightened boundary layer and some evidence of the high-power core-flow. (left) The model shape is superposed on the outer regions of the boundary layer of the jet outflow. (right) The width of the d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The shape of the launching region of the outflow/jet in FR I M 87 - NGC 1275 showing the edge-brightened boundary layer and the high-power core flow. (top) The model shape superposed on the higher resolution map of the inner regions of the jet in M 87 as presented by L…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Mimica, P

    Aloy, M. A., & Mimica, P. 2008, ApJ, 681, 84, doi: 10.1086/588605

    doi:10.1086/588605 2008

  2. [2]

    An, T., & Baan, W. A. 2012, ApJ, 760, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/77 2012

  3. [3]

    Baan, W. A. 1980, ApJ, 239, 433, doi: 10.1086/158127

    work page doi:10.1086/158127 1980

  4. [4]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  5. [5]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  6. [6]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.3.395

    doi:10.1093/mnras/169.3.395 1974

  7. [7]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  8. [8]

    2016, A&A, 593, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628546

    Bujarrabal, V., Castro-Carrizo, A., Alcolea, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628546

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628546 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Filippenko, A. V. 2001, ApJ, 555, 338, doi: 10.1086/321481

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    Markoff, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Choudhuri, A. R. 1998, The physics of fluids and plasmas : an introduction for astrophysicists /

    1998

  4. [12]

    2014, AJ, 148, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/98

    Winge, C. 2014, AJ, 148, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/98

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, A&A, 582, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526585

    Clyne, N., Akras, S., Steffen, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526585

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Livio, M., Balick, B., Munari, U., & Schwarz, H. E. 2001, ApJ, 553, 211, doi: 10.1086/320665

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6

    Cui, Y., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06479-6

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S

    Dihingia, I. K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 083004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083004

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    1981, MNRAS, 196, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/196.4.1051

    Ferrari, A., Trussoni, E., & Zaninetti, L. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/196.4.1051

    1981 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, Nat

    Giovannini, G., Savolainen, T., Orienti, M., et al. 2018, Nat. Astron., 2, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0431-2

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Hardee, P. E. 1982, ApJ, 257, 509, doi: 10.1086/160008

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Alexander, P

    Kaiser, C. R., & Alexander, P. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.1.215

    1997 doi

  14. [22]

    Kwok, S., & Hsia, C. H. 2007, ApJ, 660, 341, doi: 10.1086/513096

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1987, Fluid Mechanics

    1987

  16. [24]

    1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Livio, M. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 121, IAU Colloq. 163: Accretion Phenomena and Related Outflows, ed. D. T. Wickramasinghe, G. V. Bicknell, & L. Ferrario, 845

    1997

  17. [25]

    1999, PhR, 311, 225, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00102-1

    Livio, M. 1999, PhR, 311, 225, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00102-1

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05843-w

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 Mart ´ ı, J.-M

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 Mart ´ ı, J.-M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 24, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7010024 Mart ´ ı, J. M., Perucho, M., & G´ omez, J. L. 2016, ApJ, 831, 163, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/163

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    1984, A&A, 133, 205

    Nepveu, M. 1984, A&A, 133, 205

    1984

  21. [29]

    S., Kovalev, Y

    Nikonov, A. S., Kovalev, Y. Y., Kravchenko, E. V., Pashchenko, I. N., & Lobanov, A. P. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3061

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Anglada, G., et al

    Osorio, M., D ´ ıaz-Rodr ´ ıguez, A. K., Anglada, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6975 18

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    N., Hardee, P

    Owen, F. N., Hardee, P. E., & Cornwell, T. J. 1989, ApJ, 340, 698, doi: 10.1086/167430 Paczy´ nsky, B., & Wiita, P. J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23

    1989 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Davies, R

    Pedlar, A., Ghataure, H. S., Davies, R. D., et al. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 477

    1990

  25. [33]

    E., Hardcastle, M

    Pudritz, R. E., Hardcastle, M. J., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2012, SSRv, 169, 27, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9895-z

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Brandenburg, A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603592

    2007 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19126

    Ricci, L., Boccardi, B., Roeder, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.19126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19126

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7c9

    Sato, A., Takahashi, S., Ishii, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7c9

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Ruden, S

    Shu, F. H., Ruden, S. P., Lada, C. J., & Lizano, S. 1991, ApJL, 370, L31, doi: 10.1086/185970

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 726, doi: 10.1086/339065

    Soker, N. 2002, ApJ, 568, 726, doi: 10.1086/339065

    2002 doi

  31. [39]

    V., Koldoba, A

    Ustyugova, G. V., Koldoba, A. V., Romanova, M. M., Chechetkin, V. M., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 1995, ApJL, 439, L39, doi: 10.1086/187739

    1995 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Hardee, P

    Walker, R. C., Hardee, P. E., Davies, F. B., Ly, C., & Junor, W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcc

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Laing, R., et al

    Wang, Y., Kaiser, C. R., Laing, R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15026.x

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.