Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Suppression of photospheric velocity fluctuations in strongly magnetic O-stars in radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Horizontal magnetic fields above roughly 10 kG suppress the sub-surface turbulence responsible for macroturbulent line broadening in O-stars, while equally strong radial fields leave radial oscillations intact.

desk verdict A 2D RMHD box-in-a-star study that cleanly shows a horizontal ~10 kG field suppresses iron-bump turbulence in an O4 atmosphere, while a radial field does not — the strongest numerical evidence yet for the NGC 1624-2 story, but with the local-box approximation as the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10825 v1 pith:FRXLCX7G submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.SR

A. ud-Doula , J.O. Sundqvist , N. Narechania , D. Debnath , N. Moens , R. Keppens This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords O-starsmacroturbulencemagneticsuppressionradiation-magnetohydrodynamicsironopacitybumpNGC1624-2atmosphericinflationsub-surfaceconvection
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

The paper tries to establish that a magnetic field of order 10 kG or more can switch off the vigorous velocity fluctuations that a turbulent, iron-opacity-driven zone produces just beneath the surfaces of luminous O-stars (the hottest, most massive ordinary stars). If true, this gives a physical reason why NGC 1624-2, the most strongly magnetic O-star known at about 20 kG, lacks the macroturbulent line broadening seen in every other magnetic O-star. The evidence comes from two-dimensional radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations that extend a non-magnetic O-star model to uniform fields of 1, 10, and 20 kG, oriented either radially or horizontally. The result is a sharp threshold: roughly 1 kG fields barely disturb the picture, while horizontal fields above 10 kG quench both radial and transverse motions and, by stabilising the envelope, inflate the simulated photosphere.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the ratio of magnetic pressure to gas pressure, $\eta \equiv P_B/P_{\rm gas}$, evaluated in the sub-surface iron-opacity bump at temperatures near 150 to 200 kK; suppression occurs where $\eta$ exceeds unity, with magnetic tension acting as the restoring force. The numerical machinery is a two-dimensional 'box-in-a-star' radiation-magnetohydrodynamic model that couples flux-limited diffusion and line-driving opacities, following the envelope from deep layers at roughly 450 kK through the photosphere into the wind, with a uniform seed field of 1, 10, or 20 kG in either radial or horizontal orientation. Geometry matters because a radial field channels flow along field lines, allowing vertical piston motions, while a horizontal field's tension resists vertical displacement and quenches the fluctuations.

What would settle it

Run a global three-dimensional RMHD simulation of a 20 kG dipolar O4 star with spherical magnetic-field divergence and lateral photon transport: the paper's claim fails if strong sub-surface velocity dispersions or polar piston-like oscillations persist in that geometry, and it would be further weakened if observation finds stochastic low-frequency variability of subsurface origin in NGC 1624-2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that magnetic suppression of O-star sub-surface turbulence is real, and it sets in only above a field-strength threshold and only for the right field geometry. The simulations show that in a luminous early O-star, a horizontal magnetic field stronger than about 10 kG keeps the magnetic pressure above the gas pressure ($\eta \equiv P_B/P_{\rm gas} > 1$) already in the roughly 150 to 200 kK iron-opacity region where the velocity fluctuations are born, reducing root-mean-square velocity perturbations from about 100 km/s to below 10 km/s; at 20 kG the transverse perturbations approach or fall below 1 km/s. An equally strong radial field suppresses only horizontal motions, leaving piston-like radial oscillations of the atmosphere. The authors interpret the one known outlier, NGC 1624-2 with its roughly 20 kG dipole, as the observational counterpart of the strong-horizontal-field case, while cautioning that a dipole's field is horizontal at the equator and radial near the pole, so the suppression should be latitude-dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a local two-dimensional slab with periodic horizontal boundaries and a magnetic field evolved without spherical divergence faithfully represents a real global dipole field near the iron-opacity bump.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The empirical outlier NGC 1624-2 becomes the expected case: at about 20 kG, magnetic pressure exceeds gas pressure already near the iron-opacity peak, so the turbulent source is quenched and no extra macroturbulent broadening should be produced.
  • The geometry dependence means suppression is not uniform over a dipole surface: equatorial regions with horizontal fields should be calm and inflated, while polar regions with radial fields should retain up-and-down motions.
  • Because suppression stabilises and inflates the envelope, the same star can appear larger, cooler, and less variable when viewed from the magnetic equator than from the pole.
  • For stars like NGC 1624-2, the absence of stochastic low-frequency variability would be consistent with a sub-surface turbulent origin of such variability in other massive stars; detecting it would point to a different origin.
  • The analytic scaling relation tested here offers a simple way to estimate the critical field strength for turbulence suppression in other luminous, strongly magnetic massive stars from their effective temperature, opacity, and effective gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be phase-resolved spectroscopy of NGC 1624-2: if the dipole is tilted, the model predicts a calm, inflated equatorial belt and a more variable polar region, so line profiles and apparent photospheric radius should vary with viewing geometry.
  • The local two-dimensional setup likely understates how much a real dipole field, which spreads and weakens with radius, can suppress turbulence; global three-dimensional models with spherical field divergence and lateral photon diffusion will show whether the 10 kG threshold shifts or washes out.
  • If field geometry really controls macroturbulence, the magnetic O-star population should show not a single field-strength threshold but a trend depending on dipole inclination and the latitude of the visible surface, which could be searched for with a larger sample of magnetic O-stars.
  • Extrapolating to other evolved massive stars with very strong fields, the same suppression mechanism could produce unusually narrow photospheric lines and inflated, quiescent surfaces, providing a way to identify strongly magnetic Wolf-Rayet stars or B supergiants.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional, time-dependent radiation-magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) box-in-a-star simulations of an O4-type stellar atmosphere covering the iron opacity bump, the photosphere, and the onset of the line-driven wind. The authors extend a previously published non-magnetic radiation-hydrodynamic model by adding uniform magnetic fields of 1, 10, and 20 kG in both radial and horizontal orientations, and they compare these runs to a non-magnetic control. They report that 1 kG fields leave the turbulent velocity fluctuations essentially unchanged, that strong horizontal fields suppress radial RMS velocities, and that strong radial fields suppress tangential RMS velocities while leaving vigorous radial motions. The 20 kG horizontal model suppresses both velocity components and produces a more quiescent, inflated photosphere. The authors interpret these results as a physical rationale for why the strongly magnetic O-star NGC 1624-2 shows no macroturbulent line broadening, while emphasizing that global 3D simulations are needed to confirm the latitudinal effects.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first RMHD demonstration of a field-strength- and geometry-dependent suppression threshold for the sub-surface iron-bump turbulence in O stars, providing a concrete explanation for the peculiar behavior of NGC 1624-2 and a testable prediction of latitudinal differences in photospheric radius and effective temperature. The study has clear strengths: a non-magnetic control, multiple field strengths and orientations, time-averaged diagnostics, consistency with previous lower-field simulations by Jiang et al. (2017), and use of an open-source code. However, the quantitative threshold of about 10 kG and the extrapolation to a global dipole field rest on the local Cartesian uniform-field treatment, an approximation that the authors explicitly flag but do not quantify. The central simulation result is internally supported by Figure 5; the weaker step is the bridge from the local models to the observed star.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, footnote] The load-bearing approximation is that the magnetic field is evolved as a uniform Cartesian field without spherical divergence, while the hydrodynamic quantities in the same equations include spherical divergence. A dipole field of the kind inferred for NGC 1624-2 has curvature, a radial gradient, and a divergence that are not represented in these runs. Between the lower boundary at r=R0 and the photosphere at Rphot≈1.2–1.5 R0, a dipole field would decline by a factor of roughly 2–3, so the statement that the domain is small enough to justify a uniform field is not self-evidently correct. Because the 10 kG threshold is tied to η=PB/Pgas reaching unity at T≈170–190 kK, precisely in the iron-bump region, the neglected curvature and divergence terms could plausibly shift or erase the threshold. I request a quantitative estimate of the neglected terms or a test with a non-uniform equilibrium field, and the conclusions should state explicitly that the threshold is established only for the local uniform-field geometry.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Figure 5, compared with the Abstract] The reporting of the 10 kG horizontal case is internally inconsistent. Section 3.3 states that for horizontal fields stronger than 10 kG the radial RMS velocity is reduced below 10 km/s, but the same paragraph states that the tangential RMS velocity remains near 100 km/s for all models except the strongest, 20 kG, case. The Abstract, however, says that a strong horizontal field 'in excess of 10 kG' suppresses the large velocity fluctuations. If the 10 kG horizontal model leaves the tangential component at about 100 km/s, then the two-component suppression claim is only established at 20 kG. The Abstract and the Summary should be reworded to avoid overstating the threshold, or Figure 5 and the text should be reconciled.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2 and Section 4] Table 2 lists T0 values of 278.66 kK (radial 20 kG) and 286.43 kK (horizontal 20 kG), while Section 4 states that η crosses unity at T≈230–250 kK for the 20 kG cases; these numbers should be brought into agreement.
  2. [Section 3.3] The symbols δr,rms and δt,rms are used in the text and Figure 5 but are not formally defined; they should be defined or linked to the turbulence definition given in Section 3.1.
  3. [Sections 2.4 and 3.1] The text mentions 'weak magnetic cases (B < 100G)' and states that their evolution resembles the non-magnetic case, but no such simulations are listed in the parameter study or shown in the figures; if these runs exist they should be presented or cited, and if not the statement should be removed.
  4. [Section 2.4] The phrase 'typical macroturbulence velocity of 300 km s−1' appears to refer to the sub-surface velocity scale, whereas observed macroturbulent broadening in O stars is typically 50–100 km/s; the terminology should be checked to avoid confusion.
  5. [Equation (17) and Section 4.1] The value geff=4050 is used without units; adding units (presumably cm s−2) would make the scaling relation reproducible.
  6. [Abstract] The Abstract contains the duplicated word 'able able'; it should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 10 kG suppression threshold and radial/horizontal asymmetry emerge from time-dependent RMHD simulations, with the analytic scaling used only as an after-the-fact comparison.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an emergent numerical result: 2D RMHD simulations with different imposed uniform-field strengths and orientations produce strongly different RMS velocity perturbations. The threshold near 10 kG for horizontal fields is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the measured velocity dispersions, nor is it defined in terms of those dispersions; the velocities are diagnosed from the time-dependent dynamics. The Sundqvist et al. (2013) scaling, Eq. (17), is invoked after the simulations as an interpretive comparison, and its analytic T0 estimates agree reasonably with the measured T0 values, but the simulation outcome is not constructed from that scaling. The authors' reliance on their own earlier code and modeling infrastructure (MPI-AMRVAC, Debnath et al. 2024, Moens et al. 2022) is normal scientific lineage rather than load-bearing self-citation. The explicitly acknowledged limitations, namely the local-box geometry, periodic horizontal boundaries, neglected spherical divergence of the magnetic field in the Section 2.4 footnote, and possible lateral photon diffusion discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5, are modeling approximations that may affect quantitative fidelity; they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The claim is therefore self-contained as a numerical experiment, with the only interpretive framing coming from the authors' own earlier hypothesis, which the simulation independently tests.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: the FLD radiation closure, the hybrid opacity formalism, the local 2D Cartesian geometry, the Cartesian treatment of the magnetic field, and the prescribed, dynamo-free initial field. These are reasonable simplifications or inherited from prior work, but they are not independently verified in this paper, and the authors explicitly call out the spherical-divergence inconsistency and the need for global 3D runs.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Radiation transport can be represented by the flux-limited diffusion closure with a single frequency-averaged flux mean opacity, with Planck, flux, and energy opacities assumed equal.
    Section 2.1 applies the Levermore-Pomraning FLD closure and the opacity equality assumption; the authors acknowledge FLD is only approximate in the optically thick to thin transition, which may affect photospheric velocity dispersions, though they argue the deep-layer suppression result is qualitatively robust.
  • domain assumption The hybrid opacity formalism of Poniatowski et al. (2022), combining Rosseland means with line-driving opacities, captures the iron opacity bump and the onset of the wind in the modeled temperature range.
    Section 2.1; the existence and location of the iron bump is central to the turbulence source, and the line-driving prescription affects dynamics near the photosphere.
  • domain assumption A 2D local Cartesian box with periodic horizontal boundaries and fixed lower boundary conditions represents a patch of a global O-star atmosphere without curvature effects.
    Sections 2.2 to 2.3; the summary states global 3D simulations with curvature are needed to confirm the piston motions and equatorial inflation, so the local-box assumption is load-bearing for the geometry-dependent claims.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic field can be evolved with Cartesian divergence-free transport even though the hydrodynamic quantities include spherical divergence.
    Footnote in Section 2.4 explicitly notes this inconsistency; the authors argue the computational domain is small enough that conclusions should not change qualitatively, but the approximation bears directly on magnetic tension and the 10 kG threshold.
  • domain assumption The sub-surface velocity fluctuations in O stars originate in the iron opacity peak instability zone established by nonmagnetic simulations from the cited literature.
    Section 1 and Section 3.2 assume the turbulence source identified by Jiang et al. (2015) and Debnath et al. (2024); this is background from prior work, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Uniform magnetic fields of chosen strengths and orientations can be imposed at t=0, and dynamo amplification of the field is excluded from the model.
    Section 2.4: 'We extend the analysis by incorporating an initially uniform magnetic field' and the models 'preclude any dynamo effects that can lead to further magnetic field amplifications'; the suppression threshold therefore applies to a prescribed static field, not to a self-consistently maintained one.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Suppression of photospheric velocity fluctuations in strongly magnetic O-stars in radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRXLCX7G

@misc{pith2026241210825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Suppression of photospheric velocity fluctuations in strongly magnetic O-stars in radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRXLCX7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10825}
}
read the original abstract

O-stars generally show clear signs of strong line-broadening (in addition to rotational broadening) in their photospheric absorption lines (typically referred to as 'macroturbulence'), believed to originate in a turbulent sub-surface zone associated with enhanced opacities due to recombination of iron-group elements (at T~ 150-200 kK). O-stars with detected global magnetic fields also display such macroturbulence; the sole exception to this is NGC 1624-2, which also has the strongest (by far) detected field of the known magnetic O-stars. It has been suggested that this lack of additional line-broadening is because NGC 1624-2's exceptionally strong magnetic field might be able able to suppress the turbulent velocity field generated in the iron opacity peak zone. For moderately strong magnetic cases (~1 kG) the simulated atmospheres are highly structured characterised by large root-mean-square velocities, and our results are qualitatively similar to those found in previous non-magnetic studies. By contrast, we find that a strong horizontal magnetic field in excess of 10 kG can indeed suppress the large velocity fluctuations and thus stabilise (and thereby also inflate) the atmosphere of a typical early O-star in the Galaxy. On the other hand, an equally strong radial field is only able to suppress horizontal motions, and as a consequence these models exhibit significant radial fluctuations. Our simulations provide an overall physical rationale as to why NGC 1624-2 with its strong ~20 kG dipolar field lacks the large macroturbulent line broadening that all other known slowly rotating early O-stars exhibit. However, they also highlight the importance of field geometry for controlling the atmospheric dynamics in massive and luminous stars that are strongly magnetic, tentatively suggesting latitudinal dependence of macroturbulence and basic photospheric parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustrative temporal evolution of a magnetic model with a 1 kG radial magnetic field. The color scale represents the logarithm of density in cgs unit, while the blue lines depict magnetic field lines. Beginning with a spherically symmetric initial condition (left panel) threaded by a uniform magnetic field in radial direction, the model develops significant density and velocity variations after 2-4 days (middle … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Horizontally averaged density profiles are presented as a function of time, using the modified radial coordinate x (≡ r−R0/r). The leftmost column serves as a non-magnetic reference. The top row displays models with radial magnetic fields of 1, 10, and 20 kG, while the bottom row showcases models with horizontal magnetic fields of the same strengths. The dotted black line indicates the photospheric radius (r(τ = 2/3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: horizontally averaged radial velocity 3r plotted as modified radial coordinate x (≡ r − R0/r) versus time. Leftmost column represents the non-magnetic case for a direct comparison. The top row shows models with radial magnetic field of 1, 10 and 20 kG. Similarly, the b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The root mean square (rms) values of radial (top panels) and tangential velocity perturbations (bottom panels) are shown for selected magnetic models as a function of radiation temperature, focusing on the (sub-)surface atmospheric layers before the onset of the stella…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: horizontally and time-averaged (over the final 3 days of simula￾tion) ratio of magnetic to gas pressure (η ≡ PB/pgas) for models with radial (top) and horizontal (bottom) magnetic field plotted as a func￾tion of radiation temperature. The range has been adjusted to hig…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Socrates, A

    Blaes, O. & Socrates, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 509

    2003

  2. [2]

    M., Van Daele, P., Michielsen, M., & Van Reeth, T

    Bowman, D. M., Van Daele, P., Michielsen, M., & Van Reeth, T. 2024, A&A, 692, A49

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2009, A&A, 499, 279

    Cantiello, M., Langer, N., Brott, I., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 279

    2009

  4. [4]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

    1975

  5. [5]

    Conti, P. S. & Ebbets, D. 1977, ApJ, 213, 438

    1977

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    David-Uraz, A., Petit, V ., Shultz, M. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2677

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A177 Gräfener, G., Owocki, S

    Debnath, D., Sundqvist, J., Moens, N., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A177 Gräfener, G., Owocki, S. P., & Vink, J. S. 2012, A&A, 538, A40

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJ, 808, L31

    Grassitelli, L., Fossati, L., Simón-Diáz, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, L31

    work page 2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    H., Wade, G

    Grunhut, J. H., Wade, G. A., Neiner, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2432

    2017

  2. [10]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  3. [11]

    D., Siebert, K

    Howarth, I. D., Siebert, K. W., Hussain, G. A. J., & Prinja, R. K. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 284, 265

    1997

  4. [12]

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

    2007

  5. [13]

    Jermyn, A. S. & Cantiello, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 113

    2020

  6. [14]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 74

    Jiang, Y .-F., Cantiello, M., Bildsten, L., Quataert, E., & Blaes, O. 2015, ApJ, 813, 74

    2015

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 68

    Jiang, Y .-F., Cantiello, M., Bildsten, L., Quataert, E., & Blaes, O. 2017, ApJ, 843, 68

    2017

  8. [16]

    P., Zhou, Y ., et al

    Keppens, R., Braileanu, B. P., Zhou, Y ., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A66

    2023

  9. [17]

    J., et al

    Keppens, R., Meliani, Z., van Marle, A. J., et al. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 718

    2012

  10. [18]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.03275

    Keppens, R., Teunissen, J., Xia, C., & Porth, O. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.03275

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Landstreet, J. D. 1998, A&A, 338, 1041

    1998

  12. [20]

    & Pomraning, G

    Levermore, C. & Pomraning, G. 1981, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 248, Aug. 15, 1981, p. 321-334., 248, 321

    1981

  13. [21]

    & Petit, V

    MacDonald, J. & Petit, V . 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3904

    2019

  14. [22]

    1970, ApJ, 160, 641

    Michaud, G. 1970, ApJ, 160, 641

    1970

  15. [23]

    G., Hennicker, L., et al

    Moens, N., Poniatowski, L. G., Hennicker, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A42

    2022

  16. [24]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A81

    Moens, N., Sundqvist, J., El Mellah, I., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A81

    2022

  17. [25]

    Owocki, S. P. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 412, Very Massive Stars in the Local Universe, ed. J. S. Vink, 113

    2015

  18. [26]

    Pauldrach, A., Puls, J., & Kudritzki, R. P. 1986, A&A, 164, 86

    1986

  19. [27]

    2006, A&A, 450, 219

    Petrovic, J., Pols, O., & Langer, N. 2006, A&A, 450, 219

    2006

  20. [28]

    G., Kee, N

    Poniatowski, L. G., Kee, N. D., Sundqvist, J. O., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A113

    2022

  21. [29]

    G., Sundqvist, J

    Poniatowski, L. G., Sundqvist, J. O., Kee, N. D., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A151

    2021

  22. [30]

    2014, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 4

    Porth, O., Xia, C., Hendrix, T., Moschou, S., & Keppens, R. 2014, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 4

    2014

  23. [31]

    Powell, K. G. 1994, An approximate Riemann solver for magnetohydrodynamics (that works in more than one dimension), Tech. rep

    1994

  24. [32]

    S., & Najarro, F

    Puls, J., Vink, J. S., & Najarro, F. 2008, A&A Rev., 16, 209

    2008

  25. [33]

    Rogers, F. J. & Iglesias, C. A. 1992, ApJ, 401, 361

    1992

  26. [34]

    Sander, A. A. C., Hamann, W. R., Todt, H., Hainich, R., & Shenar, T. 2017, A&A, 603, A86

    2017

  27. [35]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211

    2019

  28. [36]

    C., Bildsten, L., & Jiang, Y .-F

    Schultz, W. C., Bildsten, L., & Jiang, Y .-F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 924, L11 Simón-Díaz, S., Godart, M., Castro, N., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A22 Simón-Díaz, S. & Herrero, A. 2007, A&A, 468, 1063

    2022

  29. [37]

    O., Björklund, R., Puls, J., & Najarro, F

    Sundqvist, J. O., Björklund, R., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2019, A&A, 632, A126

    2019

  30. [38]

    O., Petit, V ., Owocki, S

    Sundqvist, J. O., Petit, V ., Owocki, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2497

    2013

  31. [39]

    Turner, N. J. & Stone, J. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 135, 95 ud Doula, A. & Owocki, S. P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 576, 413 ud-Doula, A., Owocki, S. P., & Townsend, R. H. D. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1022

    2001

  32. [40]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  33. [41]

    E., Chané, E., & Keppens, R

    Xia, C., Teunissen, J., Mellah, I. E., Chané, E., & Keppens, R. 2018, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 30 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.