Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

MeerKAT discovers a jet-driven bow shock near GRS 1915+105. How an invisible large-scale jet sculpts a microquasar's environment

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies a faint 10-arcmin radio arch near GRS 1915+105 as a jet-driven bow shock, implying a 30-pc cavity and a time-averaged one-sided jet power of $3.3\times10^{37}$-$1.5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$.

desk verdict A real MeerKAT discovery — an arched structure whose brightness matches the Kaiser et al. prediction — but the jet-bow-shock interpretation is conditional, and the obvious HII-region bubble alternative is left unaddressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17425 v2 pith:V3XCNZ62 submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

S.E. Motta , P. Atri , James H. Matthews , Jakob van den Eijnden , Rob P. Fender , James C.A. Miller-Jones , Ian Heywood , Patrick Woudt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords X-raybinariesblackholejetsjet-ISMinteractionbowshocksmicroquasarsinterstellarmediumradiointerferometryGRS1915+105
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 reports a faint, previously unknown arch of radio emission in the MeerKAT image of GRS 1915+105, a well-known black hole X-ray binary, located about 17 arcminutes south-east of the source with an apparent diameter of about 10 arcminutes and a surface brightness of 0.1–0.2 mJy per beam. It argues that this arch is the bow shock, the curved rim of shock-compressed gas created when a large-scale jet from GRS 1915+105 plows into a dense region of the interstellar medium and inflates a cavity roughly 30 pc across. Interpreting the neighbouring IRAS 19132+1035 region as the jet's impact site, the authors derive an ambient gas density of 100–160 particles per cubic centimetre, a jet age of 0.09–0.22 Myr, and a one-sided time-averaged jet power of $3.3\times10^{37}$ to $1.5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, comparable to the system's accretion energy. The claim matters because it suggests that stellar-mass black holes can sculpt their surroundings on tens-of-parsec scales and return energy to the interstellar medium in a way usually associated with supermassive black holes; the authors also state explicitly that the association of the arch with the jet is not proven.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the self-similar expansion of a jet-inflated lobe. A continuous jet ends in a strong shock, inflates an overpressured cavity, and drives a bow shock into the surrounding gas; for a constant jet power $Q_0$ and constant ambient density $\rho_0$, the lobe length grows as $L_j = C_1(Q_0/\rho_0)^{1/5}t^{3/5}$, and the shock speed is set by the post-shock temperature through $\dot L = \sqrt{16k_{\mathrm{B}}T/3m_p}$. These two identities, together with an equipartition/minimum-energy treatment of the synchrotron-emitting hot spot and lobe, convert observable quantities (projected sizes, flux densities, a flat-spectrum thermal component in the IRAS region, and an assumed post-shock temperature range of $10^4$-$10^6$ K) into the ambient density, the jet age, and the jet power. The model's applicability hinges on the jet being supersonic, continuously powered, and roughly constant in direction over its lifetime.

What would settle it

Map the arch in radio recombination lines (e.g., H92α) and molecular lines and compare their Doppler velocities with GRS 1915+105's systemic velocity: if the kinematic distance of the arch material is clearly different from the 9.4 kpc parallax distance of the black hole, given the system's peculiar velocity of about 20 km/s, then the arch is not part of the black hole's environment and the bow-shock identification fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is an extended arc of radio emission that was predicted but not detected by older instruments: the measured average brightness of 0.15 mJy per beam closely matches the value expected for a jet-inflated lobe around GRS 1915+105. The authors map the region into three connected components: the flat-spectrum IRAS 19132+1035 region, which they treat as shock-heated gas emitting thermal bremsstrahlung at the end of the jet; a steep-spectrum 'northern feature' pointing back towards the black hole, which they identify as the jet's hot spot where particles are accelerated; and the arch itself, which they identify as shock-compressed material at the edge of the jet-blown cavity. They conclude that a radio-faint 'dark' jet has blown a lobe with a physical diameter of about 30 pc at a projected distance of about 42 pc from the black hole, with a shock expanding at roughly 20–360 km s$^{-1}$ into gas of density about 100–160 cm$^{-3}$. The resulting one-sided time-averaged jet power of $3.3\times10^{37}$–$1.5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is of the same order as the energy released by accretion, and the inferred jet age of 0.09–0.22 Myr predates the current outburst.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the arched radio structure is actually part of GRS 1915+105's jet environment and not an unrelated foreground or background object; the paper itself concedes this is not proven, and all the inferred densities, ages, and powers depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the arch is a jet-driven bow shock, GRS 1915+105 has blown a cavity about 30 pc across at a projected distance of roughly 42 pc, making it the largest jet-sculpted structure found around a Galactic X-ray binary to date.
  • The implied one-sided jet power of $3.3\times10^{37}$-$1.5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is comparable to the accretion power of the system, meaning jet feedback can rival accretion as a channel for returning energy to the interstellar medium.
  • The inferred jet age of 0.09–0.22 Myr is much longer than the current ~30-year outburst, so the bow shock must have been produced during earlier outbursts or during radio-faint quiescent periods.
  • The detection at roughly 0.15 mJy per beam matches the earlier prediction of about 0.1 mJy per beam, indicating that similarly faint jet-inflated structures around other microquasars could have been missed by older, less sensitive observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the association holds, deep radio mapping of other jet-launching X-ray binaries should reveal comparable bow shocks; the relevant surface-brightness threshold is roughly 0.1 mJy per beam, so only modern interferometers are likely to find them.
  • The large gap between the nebula's radiative luminosity (~$10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and the derived jet power implies most of the jet energy is not radiated; a testable consequence is that the cavity should contain hot, overpressured plasma, which could show up in X-ray observations or through Faraday rotation of background sources.
  • If the jet is episodic, the quoted time-averaged power may understate the instantaneous power of individual ejection events; weighting the power by the ~30-year outburst duty cycle relative to the ~0.1–0.2 Myr jet age could raise the peak power by up to two orders of magnitude.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents MeerKAT 1.28 GHz observations of the microquasar GRS 1915+105 obtained over 2018-2023 (about 14–15.5 hr on-source) and reports a previously unknown arched structure approximately 17 arcmin southeast of the binary, with an apparent diameter of 10 arcmin and an average flux density of 0.1–0.2 mJy/beam. The arch is visually connected to the HII region CHIMPS 48947 and to IRAS 19132+1035. The authors interpret this structure as shock-compressed material behind a jet-driven bow shock produced by a large-scale 'dark' jet, and they apply the self-similar model of Kaiser & Alexander (1997) and Kaiser et al. (2004) to derive an ISM density of 100–160 cm^-3, a bow shock velocity of 20–360 km/s, a jet age of 0.09–0.22 Myr, and a one-sided time-averaged jet power of 3.3e37–1.5e39 erg/s. Two additional simplified calorimetry methods (enthalpy and hot-spot) give consistent lower limits. The authors explicitly acknowledge that they have 'no final proof' that the structure is a jet-induced bow shock rather than a foreground or background structure, and they caveat several assumptions, but the central interpretation nevertheless anchors all of the quantitative results.

Significance. If the association between the arched structure and the jet of GRS 1915+105 is correct, this would be a significant addition to the small sample of Galactic jet-ISM interaction structures: it would be the first clear detection of a jet-blown bow shock and cavity around a transient microquasar, and it would provide a rare, order-of-magnitude constraint on the long-term jet power of a Galactic black hole, strengthening the analogy between stellar-mass black holes and AGN feedback. The paper has notable strengths: the data reduction is careful (multi-epoch combination, uv-subtraction of the bright variable source, self-calibration), the data and analysis code are publicly available, and the authors are transparent about their assumptions, reporting ranges rather than point estimates. The discovery itself, even if the interpretation is later revised, is of interest. However, the quantitative conclusions all rest on an assumed morphological association that is not demonstrated, and the paper does not exclude a physically plausible alternative interpretation; this is the main risk to the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3; Sects. 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.2] The central interpretation of the arched structure as a jet-driven bow shock is not secured by the presented data, and the paper leaves a specific plausible alternative unaddressed: the arch is visually connected to the HII region CHIMPS 48947 and to IRAS 19132+1035, which Tetarenko et al. (2018) argued is heated by a young medium-mass star cluster. A wind-blown or photoionized shell from that cluster could produce an arched morphology, and the low-mass companion wind of GRS 1915+105 is not the only possible wind source in the field. The authors explicitly state 'we have no final proof that the structure we observe is really connected with a bow shock due to the jets' (Sect. 3) and note that the spectral slope of the arch cannot be directly measured (Sect. 4.2.3); the latter is precisely the observable that would distinguish a synchrotron bow shock from free-free emission of an HII shell. Because the ISM density (Sect. 4.2.1), the jet age (Sect. 4.3.1), and the jet power (Sect. 4.3.2) are all derived under the jet association, this degeneracy is load-bearing. The revision should either add a discriminating test (e.g., spectral index mapping of the arch, radio recombination line or HI observations, a search for expansion or proper motion, or a quantitative HII-shell model that is shown to fail) or reframe the paper as reporting a candidate structure and present the calorimetry as conditional on the association, with correspondingly weakened conclusions.
  2. [Sect. 4.2.1] The pre-shock ISM density, which enters the jet power expression (Eq. 10) and the density-dependent length scale (Sect. 4.3), is obtained from the assumption that the IRAS region's flat-spectrum radio continuum is pure thermal Bremsstrahlung from a uniform sphere with a filling factor of 0.5 and that the shock compresses the gas by a factor of four. This set of assumptions is not uniquely constrained by the data: a flat spectrum can also be produced by optically thick synchrotron emission or by a mixture of thermal and non-thermal components, and the adjacent northern feature shows that steep-spectrum synchrotron plasma is present in the same region. The electron density, and hence the derived pre-shock density, is sensitive to the assumed thermal fraction and geometry; the authors should justify the Bremsstrahlung assumption with spatially resolved spectral-index or recombination-line maps, or at least propagate a plausible range of thermal fractions into the density and power uncertainties.
  3. [Sect. 4.3.1] The jet advance velocity and age are derived from the assumed post-shock gas temperature range of 10^4–10^6 K via Eq. (6), but the temperature of the gas in the IRAS region may be set by photoionization from the embedded young stellar cluster (Tetarenko et al. 2018) rather than by a jet-driven shock. Applying the strong-shock relation to a photoionized gas temperature would not yield the jet advance velocity, and the resulting age (Eq. 9) and power (Eq. 10) would not follow. Section 4.3.1 should either identify an independent constraint on the post-shock temperature (e.g., from spectral line widths or X-ray emission) or explicitly treat the temperature-based velocity as an assumption that is only valid if the jet interpretation is adopted.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sect. 4.2.1 and Appendix A.2] Equation (1) in the main text is inconsistent with the correct expression in Eq. (A.3); the placement of Cradio and sqrt(T) in the displayed equation appears garbled and should be fixed.
  2. [Sect. 4.2.2 and Table 1] The northern feature integrated flux density is given as 1.57 mJy in Sect. 4.2.2 but as 5.2 ± 0.5 mJy in Table 1; please reconcile and ensure the minimum-energy calculation uses the correct value.
  3. [Sect. 4.3.1, Sect. 5.3, Table 1] The jet age is reported inconsistently: 0.09–0.2 Myr with an absolute upper limit of 1.3 Myr in Sect. 4.3.1, 0.09–0.22 Myr in Table 1, and 'an upper limit of ~0.4 Myr (95th percentile)' in Sect. 5.3; please state a single self-consistent range and clarify which value is used in the enthalpy method.
  4. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract and Table 1 give slightly different shock velocity ranges (20–360 km/s vs. 21–363 km/s) for the same quantity; please round consistently.
  5. [Sect. 2] The paper claims the deepest image of GRS 1915+105 to date; please report the relevant rms noise level in the text (the beam size is given in Fig. 1) to support this claim.
  6. [Appendix A.1] The table title refers to the 'SAREO archive' but should read 'SARAO archive', and observing block 1650081167 appears twice in the list; likely a typo.
  7. [Sect. 5.1 and 5.3] The companion paper Atri et al. (2025, submitted) is used for the Cyg X-1 comparison and for the post-shock temperature range; since it is not yet public, please ensure the present manuscript is self-contained or explicitly note which comparison values are preliminary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation applies an external self-similar jet model to new MeerKAT measurements, and the bow-shock identification is an explicitly stated assumption rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The arched structure is a new MeerKAT detection (Sect. 3), and its interpretation as a jet-driven bow shock is explicitly presented as a postulate: 'we postulate that the structure we discover in the MeerKAT data is induced by the jet interacting with the surrounding medium.' The calorimetry does not invert this assumption; it applies the externally developed Kaiser & Alexander (1997) / Kaiser et al. (2004) self-similar model to independently measured or assumed quantities: the IRAS-region flux and assumed Bremsstrahlung emission give the electron density (Eq. 1), an assumed shock-compression factor gives the pre-shock ISM density, an assumed post-shock temperature gives the shock velocity (Eq. 6), and the source-to-IRAS geometry gives L_j, which together with Eq. (10) yields Q_jet. The measured bow-shock brightness is used only for a minimum-energy lobe pressure (Sect. 4.2.3) and is then compared with, not used to fit, the model pressure. The agreement between the observed 0.15 mJy/beam and the earlier Kaiser et al. (2004) expectation of about 0.1 mJy/beam is an external prediction, not a quantity fitted in this paper. Self-citations to Motta et al. (2021) and to the submitted Atri et al. (2025) companion paper support the observing history and a temperature assumption, but they do not presuppose the target result, and the temperature range is additionally motivated by recombination-line and radiative-shock arguments plus the independent Cyg X-1 case (Gallo et al. 2005). The main caveat is scientific rather than circular: the arch could still be a foreground or background structure or an H II-region bubble, and the derived density, age, and power are conditional on that association. That is a limitation of evidence, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It applies an existing jet model to an observed structure. The main assumptions are observational interpretation and model choices, which are explicitly listed. The derived quantities are therefore conditional: if the bow shock interpretation is wrong, the density and power estimates do not apply.

free parameters (5)
  • Post-shock gas temperature range = 10^4 to 10^6 K (with 3x10^6 K upper for IRAS region)
    Assumed rather than measured; directly drives the shock velocity (Eq. 6) and thus jet age and power. The authors state it is based on similarity with Cyg X-1.
  • Jet opening angle = 1 to 10 degrees
    Chosen from a broad range of typical X-ray binary jets; strongly affects the jet power estimate through C1. The authors caution that this is the main driver of the upper limit (Sect. 4.3.2).
  • Filling factor of the IRAS region = 0.5
    Adopted to account for inhomogeneity; directly scales the derived electron density (Sect. 4.2.1).
  • Shock compression ratio = 4
    Assumed to convert post-shock density to pre-shock ISM density (Sect. 4.2.1); a standard strong-shock value but not verified for this structure.
  • C1 dimensionless constant range = 3.5 to 7.5 for opening angle 1 to 10 degrees
    Depends on assumed lobe aspect ratio and adiabatic indices; sets the normalization of the jet power (Eq. 10).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The arched structure is physically associated with GRS 1915+105 and is a jet-driven bow shock.
    Explicitly stated in Sect. 3: 'we have no final proof that the structure we observe is really connected with a bow shock due to the jets, and not a fore/background structure.' All subsequent analysis depends on this.
  • domain assumption The IRAS region's flat-spectrum radio continuum is dominated by thermal Bremsstrahlung from fully ionized pure hydrogen.
    Used in Sect. 4.2.1 to derive electron density from Eq. 1. The flat spectrum supports this, but the presence of a young star cluster could also contribute, as the authors discuss.
  • domain assumption The Kaiser & Alexander (1997) self-similar model for radio lobe expansion applies to this Galactic jet-ISM interaction.
    The paper assumes constant jet power, constant ambient density, constant jet direction, and self-similar expansion (Sect. 4). The characteristic scale L0 is shown to be small, supporting applicability, but the assumptions of constant density and constant direction are unverified.
  • domain assumption The post-shock gas temperature is between 10^4 and 10^6 K.
    Invoked in Sect. 4.3.1 to derive shock velocity via Eq. 6. This range is wide but not directly measured for this structure.
  • domain assumption The non-thermal northern feature and the bow shock are in minimum-energy equipartition.
    Used in Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 to derive Bmin and pressures. This is a standard but unverified assumption; deviations would change the derived pressures and powers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeerKAT discovers a jet-driven bow shock near GRS 1915+105. How an invisible large-scale jet sculpts a microquasar's environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3XCNZ62

@misc{pith2026250417425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeerKAT discovers a jet-driven bow shock near GRS 1915+105. How an invisible large-scale jet sculpts a microquasar's environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3XCNZ62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17425}
}
abstract

Black holes, both supermassive and stellar-mass, impact the evolution of their surroundings on a large range of scales. While the role of supermassive black holes is well studied, the effects of stellar-mass black holes on their surroundings, particularly in inducing structures in the interstellar medium (ISM), remain under explored. This study focuses on the black hole X-ray binary GRS 1915+105, renowned for its active jets, and the primary aim is to unveil and characterise the impact of GRS 1915+105 on its environment by identifying structures induced by jet-ISM interaction. Methods: We observed GRS 1915+105 with MeerKAT for a total exposure time of 14~hr, and we obtained the deepest image of GRS 1915+105 to date. Using a previously proposed self-similar model for large-scale jets, we inferred the properties of both the jets and the ISM, providing insights into the jet-ISM interaction site. Our observations revealed a bow shock structure near GRS 1915+105, likely induced by a jet interacting with the ISM and blowing an overpressured cavity in the medium. We constrained the ISM density to 100--160 particles\,cm$^{-3}$ while assuming a temperature range of 10$^4$--10$^6$\,K, which implies a bow shock expansion velocity of $20\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}<\dot{L} <\,360\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$. We estimate that the jet responsible for the formation of the bow shock has an age between 0.09 and 0.22 Myr, and the time-averaged energy rate Conclusions: Our results confirm that in stellar-mass black holes, the energy dissipated through jets can be comparable to the accretion energy, and through the interaction of the jet with the ISM, such energy is transferred back to the environment. This feedback mechanism mirrors the powerful influence of supermassive black holes on their environments, underscoring the significant role a black hole's activity has in shaping its surroundings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The field is complicated with multiple large-scale emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Field of GRS 1915+105 as seen by the MeerKAT interferometer at 1.28 GHz in a total on-source time of 15.5 hr. The restored beam for this map is circular and has a radius of 6.6". The circle marks the position of GRS 1915+105, and the two arrows mark the direction of the jets identified in the ’90s (Fender et al. 1999). In the image, north is up and east is left. interacting with the surrounding medium. Under this as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zoom-in of the jet-ISM interaction region. The bow shock struc￾ture is marked by the cyan region, which has been defined by eye. The position of GRS 1915+105 and IRAS 19132+1035, as well as the jet direction, are marked. – A non-thermal feature (henceforth the northern feature) to the north-east edge of IRAS 19132+1035 pointing towards GRS 1915+105. This region is the site of particle acceleration that originates at… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Panel A: Schematic picturing the jet-ISM interaction region as observed in the MeerKAT image. Panel B: Sketch of the model employed to interpret the observed structure. 4.1. Assumptions In the interest of clarity, in this section we state the assumptions that are made …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. An e-MERLIN & EVN radio counterpart to the ultraluminous X-ray source M82 X-1

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new radio source, 41.37+60.2, detected at 5 GHz with e-MERLIN and EVN, is identified as the radio counterpart of the ultraluminous X-ray source M82 X-1.

  2. Why do massive stars form bow shocks? Bulk ISM motion as the main driver of bow shock formation and geometry

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bulk interstellar gas motion, not stellar motion, dominates most massive star bow shocks; only about 21% are classical aligned bow shocks.

  3. An intrinsic decline of accretion activity in GRS 1915+105

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Deep X-ray, radio, and infrared non-detections of GRS 1915+105 imply an intrinsic decline in accretion activity rather than enhanced obscuration, likely driven by 2023-2024 outflows clearing the inner disc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    Atri , P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., et al. 2019, , 489, 3116

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    E., van den Eijnden , J., et al

    Atri , P., Motta , S. E., van den Eijnden , J., et al. 2025, A&A

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Begelman , M. C. & Cioffi , D. F. 1989, , 345, L21

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    C., Sarazin , C

    Begelman , M. C., Sarazin , C. L., Hatchett , S. P., McKee , C. F., & Arons , J. 1980, , 238, 722

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Belloni , T., van der Klis , M., Lewin , W. H. G., et al. 1997, , 322, 857

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    R., Nulsen , P

    B \^ rzan , L., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., Carilli , C. L., & Wise , M. W. 2008, , 686, 859

    work page 2008

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    L., Perley , R

    Carilli , C. L., Perley , R. A., Dreher , J. W., & Leahy , J. P. 1991, , 383, 554

    1991

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Carotenuto , F., Fender , R., Tetarenko , A. J., et al. 2024, , 533, 4188

    2024

  3. [11]

    2022, , 134, 114501

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501

    2022

  4. [12]

    J., Brandt , S., & Lund , N

    Castro-Tirado , A. J., Brandt , S., & Lund , N. 1992, , 5590, 2

    1992

  5. [13]

    W., McNamara , B

    Cavagnolo , K. W., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2010, , 720, 1066

    2010

  6. [14]

    F., Mirabel , I

    Chaty , S., Rodr \' guez , L. F., Mirabel , I. F., et al. 2001, , 366, 1035

    2001

  7. [15]

    P., Tasse , C., et al

    Coriat , M., Fender , R. P., Tasse , C., et al. 2019, , 484, 1672

    2019

  8. [16]

    J., Springel , V., White , S

    Croton , D. J., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2006, , 365, 11

    2006

  9. [17]

    F., Rib \'o , M., & Rodrigues , I

    Dhawan , V., Mirabel , I. F., Rib \'o , M., & Rodrigues , I. 2007, , 668, 430

    2007

  10. [18]

    F., & Rodr \' guez , L

    Dhawan , V., Mirabel , I. F., & Rodr \' guez , L. F. 2000, , 543, 373

    2000

  11. [19]

    2004, , 349, 393

    Done , C., Wardzi \'n ski , G., & Gierli \'n ski , M. 2004, , 349, 393

    2004

  12. [20]

    M., Holdaway , M., Goss , W

    Dubner , G. M., Holdaway , M., Goss , W. M., & Mirabel , I. F. 1998, , 116, 1842

    1998

  13. [21]

    2004, , 414, 895

    Falcke , H., K \"o rding , E., & Markoff , S. 2004, , 414, 895

    2004

  14. [22]

    Falle , S. A. E. G. 1991, , 250, 581

    1991

  15. [23]

    Fanaroff , B. L. & Riley , J. M. 1974, , 167, 31P

    1974

  16. [24]

    A., Corbel , S., et al

    Fender , R., Woudt , P. A., Corbel , S., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 13

    2016

  17. [25]

    P., Belloni , T

    Fender , R. P., Belloni , T. M., & Gallo , E. 2004, , 355, 1105

    2004

  18. [26]

    P., Gallo , E., & Jonker , P

    Fender , R. P., Gallo , E., & Jonker , P. G. 2003, , 343, L99

    2003

  19. [27]

    P., Garrington , S

    Fender , R. P., Garrington , S. T., McKay , D. J., et al. 1999, , 304, 865

    1999

  20. [28]

    P., Homan , J., & Belloni , T

    Fender , R. P., Homan , J., & Belloni , T. M. 2009, , 396, 1370

    2009

  21. [29]

    Fender , R. P. & Pooley , G. G. 2000, , 318, L1

    2000

  22. [30]

    Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros , J. A. & Mu \ n oz-Darias , T. 2021, , 504, 5726

    2021

  23. [31]

    2005, , 436, 819

    Gallo , E., Fender , R., Kaiser , C., et al. 2005, , 436, 819

    2005

  24. [32]

    P., Miller-Jones , J

    Gallo , E., Fender , R. P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2006, , 370, 1351

    2006

  25. [33]

    Godfrey , L. E. H. & Shabala , S. S. 2013, , 767, 12

    2013

  26. [34]

    Gould , R. J. 1980, , 238, 1026

    1980

  27. [35]

    2002, , 388, L40

    Heinz , S. 2002, , 388, L40

    2002

  28. [36]

    2003, , 47, 565

    Heinz , S. 2003, , 47, 565

    2003

  29. [37]

    & Grimm , H

    Heinz , S. & Grimm , H. J. 2005, , 633, 384

    2005

  30. [38]

    J., Sunyaev , R

    Heinz , S., Grimm , H. J., Sunyaev , R. A., & Fender , R. P. 2008, , 686, 1145

    2008

  31. [39]

    2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations

    Heywood , I. 2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations

    2020

  32. [40]

    A., Russell , D

    Hyde , E. A., Russell , D. M., Ritter , A., et al. 2017, , 129, 094201

    2017

  33. [41]

    Kaiser , C. R. & Alexander , P. 1997, , 286, 215

    1997

  34. [42]

    R., Gunn , K

    Kaiser , C. R., Gunn , K. F., Brocksopp , C., & Sokoloski , J. L. 2004, , 612, 332

    2004

  35. [43]

    S., Smirnov , O

    Kenyon , J. S., Smirnov , O. M., Grobler , T. L., & Perkins , S. J. 2018, , 478, 2399

    2018

  36. [44]

    I., McKee , C

    Klein , R. I., McKee , C. F., & Colella , P. 1994, , 420, 213

    1994

  37. [45]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988

    LHAASO Collaboration . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988

    2024

  38. [46]

    Longair , M. S. 1994, High energy astrophysics. Vol.2: Stars, the galaxy and the interstellar medium , Vol. 2

    1994

  39. [47]

    1998, , 115, 2285

    Magorrian , J., Tremaine , S., Richstone , D., et al. 1998, , 115, 2285

    1998

  40. [48]

    & Olivera-Nieto , L

    Mart \' -Devesa , G. & Olivera-Nieto , L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10396

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    McKee , C. F. & Ostriker , J. P. 1977, , 218, 148

    1977

  42. [50]

    2003, , 345, 1057

    Merloni , A., Heinz , S., & di Matteo , T. 2003, , 345, 1057

    2003

  43. [51]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., Orosz , J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046

    2021

  44. [52]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Fender , R. P., & Nakar , E. 2006, , 367, 1432

    2006

  45. [53]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., McCormick , D. G., Fender , R. P., et al. 2005, , 363, 867

    2005

  46. [54]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Rupen , M. P., Fender , R. P., et al. 2007, , 375, 1087

    2007

  47. [55]

    F., Chaty , S., Rodr \' guez , L

    Mirabel , I. F., Chaty , S., Rodr \' guez , L. F., & Sauvage , M. 2015, in Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed. F. Massaro , C. C. Cheung , E. Lopez , & A. Siemiginowska , Vol. 313, 370--373

    2015

  48. [56]

    Mirabel , I. F. & Rodr \' guez , L. F. 1994, , 371, 46

    1994

  49. [57]

    E., Kajava , J

    Motta , S. E., Kajava , J. J. E., Giustini , M., et al. 2021, , 503, 152

    2021

  50. [58]

    E., Rouco-Escorial , A., Kuulkers , E., Mu \ n oz-Darias , T., & Sanna , A

    Motta , S. E., Rouco-Escorial , A., Kuulkers , E., Mu \ n oz-Darias , T., & Sanna , A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1703.01263 ]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    V., Wagner , A

    Mukherjee , D., Bicknell , G. V., Wagner , A. Y., Sutherland , R. S., & Silk , J. 2018, , 479, 5544

    2018

  52. [60]

    R., van de Gronde , J

    Offringa , A. R., van de Gronde , J. J., & Roerdink , J. B. T. M. 2012, , 539, A95

    2012

  53. [61]

    W., Soria , R., & Motch , C

    Pakull , M. W., Soria , R., & Motch , C. 2010, , 466, 209

    2010

  54. [62]

    2003, , 341, 385

    Podsiadlowski , P., Rappaport , S., & Han , Z. 2003, , 341, 385

    2003

  55. [63]

    J., McClintock , J

    Reid , M. J., McClintock , J. E., Steiner , J. F., et al. 2014, , 796, 2

    2014

  56. [64]

    Reid , M. J. & Miller-Jones , J. C. A. 2023, , 959, 85

    2023

  57. [65]

    Rodriguez , L. F. & Mirabel , I. F. 1998, , 340, L47

    1998

  58. [66]

    E., Strong , M., et al

    Rushton , A., Spencer , R. E., Strong , M., et al. 2007, , 374, L47

    2007

  59. [67]

    Scheuer , P. A. G. 1974, , 166, 513

    1974

  60. [68]

    H., Heinz , S., Calvelo , D

    Sell , P. H., Heinz , S., Calvelo , D. E., et al. 2010, , 719, L194

    2010

  61. [69]

    H., Heinz , S., Richards , E., et al

    Sell , P. H., Heinz , S., Richards , E., et al. 2015, , 446, 3579

    2015

  62. [70]

    W., Broderick , J

    Soria , R., Pakull , M. W., Broderick , J. W., Corbel , S., & Motch , C. 2010, , 409, 541

    2010

  63. [71]

    M., Spencer , R

    Stirling , A. M., Spencer , R. E., de la Force , C. J., et al. 2001, , 327, 1273

    2001

  64. [72]

    J., Freeman , P., Rosolowsky , E

    Tetarenko , A. J., Freeman , P., Rosolowsky , E. W., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., & Sivakoff , G. R. 2018, , 475, 448

    2018

  65. [73]

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

    2005

  66. [74]

    W., et al

    Urquhart , R., Soria , R., Pakull , M. W., et al. 2019, , 482, 2389

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.