The fifth main sequence magnetic B-type star showing coherent radio emission: is this really a rare phenomenon?

Barnali Das; Gregg A. Wade; Matt. E. Shultz; Poonam Chandra

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The fifth main sequence magnetic B-type star showing coherent radio emission: is this really a rare phenomenon?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HD 35298 is the fifth main-sequence magnetic B-type star found to show coherent radio emission, interpreted as electron cyclotron maser emission.

desk verdict A credible discovery paper for a fifth magnetic B-star with ECME; the detection is likely real, but the per-timeslice self-calibration deserves a closer look before the polarization sequence is taken as fully secure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09110 v1 pith:YC6SP5BZ submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.SR

Barnali Das , Poonam Chandra , Matt. E. Shultz , Gregg A. Wade This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords electroncyclotronmaseremissionHD35298magneticB-typestarscircularpolarizationcoherentradionullphasesobliquedipolemagnetospherelightcurves

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 intense, highly directional radio pulses from the magnetic B-type star HD 35298, seen with the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope near both magnetic nulls in band 4 and one null in band 5. The pulses are up to about 70% circularly polarized, and the left- and right-circular pulses arrive in opposite order at the two nulls. The authors interpret this as electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME) in the ordinary mode, generated in an oblique-dipole magnetosphere, making HD 35298 the fifth main-sequence magnetic B-type star with ECME, and the slowest-rotating and most distant one. If correct, this extends the known parameter space for ECME in hot magnetic stars and suggests such coherent emission may be more common than the small earlier sample implied.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Electron Cyclotron Maser Emission (ECME): maser amplification of radio waves by mildly relativistic electrons gyrating in a magnetic field, beamed almost perpendicular to the field. Because the beam is close to perpendicular, pulses arrive when the line of sight sweeps through the magnetic equator, i.e. at the rotational phases where the longitudinal field $\langle B_z\rangle$ changes sign (the magnetic nulls). The diagnostic that carries the argument is the arrival sequence of LCP versus RCP pulses at the two nulls: the opposite order at the two nulls matches the geometric pattern expected from an oblique dipole and distinguishes ordinary mode from extraordinary mode. A second machinery element is the per-timeslice self-calibration methodology: with no bright in-field source, each 5-minute timeslice is self-calibrated independently, under the assumption that the target flux is constant on that timescale.

What would settle it

Observe HD 35298 again across both magnetic nulls in band 4 with an array that provides a bright in-field calibrator or otherwise does not require per-timeslice self-calibration; if the LCP and RCP enhancements do not recur at the same rotational phases, or if the lightcurves flatten when independent gain calibration is used, then the claim of intrinsic ECME would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HD 35298 shows coherent radio emission at 550-750 MHz and 1060-1460 MHz, concentrated in rotational phase windows around the nulls of its longitudinal magnetic field. In band 4, both circular polarizations flare near each null, with the LCP/RCP arrival order reversing between nulls. Comparing this order with the phasing of the field curve locates the emitting hemisphere and identifies the mode as ordinary mode (O-mode), implying a plasma-frequency to gyro-frequency ratio greater than about 0.3-0.35 and an electron density above $5\times10^8\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ at the emission site, at a height of roughly $2.6\,R_*$. Band 5 total intensity also shows enhancement around the same null, confirming activity over $0.56$-$1.38$ GHz. The authors conclude that this is the fifth such main-sequence star and argue that the recent rate of discovery points to ECME being a common phenomenon among magnetic A/B stars in the right range of physical parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The flux enhancements are intrinsic to HD 35298 and not artifacts of the per-timeslice self-calibration, which assumes the stellar flux is steady over each 5-minute slice and that gain solutions are stable across slices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the interpretation is right, HD 35298 becomes the fifth main-sequence magnetic B-type star known to exhibit ECME, extending the phenomenon to a star with a 1.85-day rotation period and a distance of about 371 pc.
The opposite LCP/RCP arrival order at the two nulls is a geometric probe of the magnetosphere: it locates the emitting hemisphere and constrains the emission mode to O-mode.
O-mode at 565-726 MHz implies a dense emission region, with electron density above $5\times10^8\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ at roughly $2.6$ stellar radii.
The detection in both band 4 and band 5 shows ECME operates over at least 0.56-1.38 GHz for this star, while the earlier L-band non-detection points to pulse-strength variability between epochs.
The recent discovery of four of the five known cases suggests ECME may be common among magnetic A/B stars, and targeted low-frequency observations around magnetic nulls should find more examples.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test follows from the paper's logic: if ECME is beamed perpendicular to the field, a well-sampled lightcurve across a full rotation should show pulses only in narrow phase windows around both nulls; detecting comparable pulses at intermediate phases would falsify that beaming picture.
The LCP/RCP arrival-order reversal is a clean diagnostic for other magnetic B stars with known $\langle B_z\rangle$ curves, turning single-epoch radio monitoring into a way to identify the emitting hemisphere.
The inferred electron density lower limit of about $5\times10^8\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ is high for a simple radiatively driven wind; if confirmed, it may require additional plasma sources, such as magnetospheric confinement, rather than a purely wind-fed magnetosphere.
If ECME is genuinely common among magnetic A/B stars, then the current small sample likely reflects selection effects, and a systematic survey of such stars below 2 GHz around their magnetic nulls could yield a much larger population.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: this is a solid, useful discovery letter, and the central claim — that HD 35298 shows coherent radio emission near both magnetic nulls — probably holds. The paper earns its place as the fifth such star. The most convincing part is the opposite arrival order of LCP and RCP pulses at the two nulls; that is exactly the signature you'd expect from an oblique dipole and is hard to produce with a simple gain error, especially since the two nulls were observed on different days. The O-mode identification and the inferred density lower limit (ne > 5e8 cm^-3) follow from standard ECME theory and are reasonable, not overclaimed.

Where I have qualms: the lightcurves in Figure 1 have no error bars. That is a real omission for a paper whose key evidence is 3-10 mJy pulses on top of a 0.28 mJy baseline. The baseline itself comes from a single 1992 measurement at 5 GHz with no quoted rotational phase, and the authors assume a flat spectrum to use it at 550-750 MHz. That is a reasonable assumption given the literature, but it is worth stating more carefully as an assumption, not a known quantity.

The bigger worry — and the one I'd want a referee to press on — is the per-timeslice self-calibration described in Section 3. Because the field has no source brighter than 50 mJy, the authors calibrate each 5-minute slice independently and assume the target flux is constant over that window. For a point source, amplitude self-calibration can absorb slow gain drifts into the model flux. The authors don't show a gain-stability check, e.g., comparing adjacent slices or monitoring a faint off-axis source. More importantly, the LL and RR polarizations are calibrated separately; without a polarization angle or gain tie, the reported ~70% circular polarization and the arrival order near the nulls could be affected. The opposite arrival order at the two nulls is reassuring, and a large gain error capable of producing 10 mJy pulses from nothing seems unlikely, but the circular-polarization measurement is fragile, and that is the piece that anchors the O-mode claim and the density lower limit. The question is not fatal for the detection but is exactly what a referee should ask for before the 'fifth ECME star' claim is accepted as definitive.

Minor issues: the paper relies on two unpublished software tools (the uGMRT pipeline and 'ankflag'), which makes reproduction harder, and the archival L-band non-detection is handled reasonably with a sensitivity argument, not overinterpreted.

Bottom line: this is a worthwhile paper for anyone working on magnetic hot stars or ECME. It deserves peer review; I would accept it with requests for error bars, a gain-stability assessment, and an explicit statement about the baseline flux assumption. I would cite it as the fifth detection and probably use the density estimate cautiously. Bring it to the reading group — there is a useful methodological lesson in the calibration discussion.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports uGMRT observations of the Bp star HD 35298 near the two rotational phases at which the longitudinal magnetic field changes sign. In band 4 (550–750 MHz) the authors detect enhanced flux in both circular polarizations near both magnetic nulls, with the LCP/RCP arrival order reversed at the two nulls; in band 5 (1060–1460 MHz) they detect a total-intensity enhancement near one null. They interpret the emission as electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME), infer that the magneto-ionic mode is the ordinary mode, derive a lower limit on the plasma density at the emission region, and argue that HD 35298 is the fifth main-sequence magnetic B-type star showing ECME.

Significance. If the detection and the polarization sequence are robust, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of magnetic A/B stars with coherent radio emission. HD 35298 would extend the ECME sample to slower rotation and larger distance, and the frequency coverage from 0.56 to 1.38 GHz with a simultaneous density estimate provides useful constraints for magnetospheric models. The paper is generally careful in comparing with earlier ECME objects and in acknowledging the limitations of the self-calibration strategy. However, the central claim depends on the reliability of per-timeslice self-calibrated lightcurves, and the manuscript does not yet provide the quantitative checks needed to exclude calibration artifacts, particularly for the circular-polarization arrival sequence that anchors the mode and density interpretation.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 and Figure 1] The per-timeslice self-calibration procedure is load-bearing but is not accompanied by any demonstration that the antenna gain solutions are stable or that the target variability is not absorbed into the gain model. Because the field is devoid of bright sources, amplitude self-calibration has a known degeneracy between slowly time-variable gains and time-variable source flux, as the authors themselves note. The paper shows no error bars on the lightcurves, no comparison of adjacent 5-minute gain solutions, and no check against a faint off-axis source. Please add quantitative diagnostics: scatter of per-slice amplitude gains, ratios of adjacent-slice solutions, comparison of lightcurves obtained with and without per-slice self-calibration, or a bootstrap estimate of the flux uncertainties. This is needed to secure the 10 mJy null-phase pulses and, more importantly, the relative phasing of the LL and RR lightcurves.
[Section 4.1] The opposite arrival sequence of LCP and RCP pulses near the two magnetic nulls is the key evidence for the O-mode interpretation and for the inferred density lower limit (νp/νB > 0.3–0.35 and ne > 5×10^8 cm^-3). If the per-slice gain solutions for the two circular polarizations are not tied to a common, stable amplitude scale, the reported ~70% circular polarization and the arrival order could be altered. The manuscript should either provide a robustness test that the LL/RR ordering is stable under reasonable changes in the calibration scheme, or explicitly soften the mode and density claims to reflect the current uncertainty.
[Section 4.2 and Figure 1] The band 5 total-intensity enhancement is presented without circular-polarization information and without error bars, and its interpretation as ECME rests entirely on the phase coincidence with the null. The phase coincidence is suggestive, but because the band 5 lightcurve is not calibrated in the same self-calibration framework as the band 4 data, the same gain-stability concern applies. A quantitative statement of the per-point flux uncertainty and detection significance for the band 5 enhancement should be added.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2 and Figure 2] The basal flux adopted from Linsky et al. (1992) is a 6-cm (5 GHz) measurement made at an unknown rotational phase, and it is plotted in Figure 2 as a horizontal line without any uncertainty. The text justifies this assumption, but the absence of an error bar on the plotted baseline and the mismatch in frequency should be stated more prominently.
[Figures 1–3] None of the lightcurves in Figures 1–3 shows error bars or an rms level. Even if the errors are smaller than the plotted symbols, this should be stated explicitly, together with the adopted noise estimator.
[Section 3] There are a few typographical issues: 'bandwith' should be 'bandwidth', and the pipeline reference 'Ishwara-Chandra et al. in preparation' and 'ankflag (A. Bera & S. Mondal 2019, in preparation)' would be easier to evaluate if the authors specify what the pipeline does for amplitude versus phase self-calibration.
[Section 4.1] The phrase 'mid point' should be 'midpoint', and the sentence explaining the null-phase uncertainty would be clearer if the numerical offset of 0.016 cycles were accompanied by an explicit statement of whether this offset is significant compared with the time sampling of the lightcurves.
[Section 5] The statement that 'all five ECME stars are relatively rapid rotators' is somewhat at odds with HD 35298's 1.85-day period; the authors partially address this by noting observational selection, but the sentence would benefit from a direct caveat that 'rapid' here is relative to the general magnetic B-star population.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ECME interpretation matches new observations to independently published theory; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This is an observational discovery paper. The claimed result—that HD 35298 shows ECME—is supported by new uGMRT lightcurves showing flux density enhancements, high circular polarization, and opposite LCP/RCP arrival sequences near the two magnetic nulls. Nothing in the paper defines a result in terms of another quantity measured in the same paper; no fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction. The ephemeris and magnetic-field curve are taken from Shultz et al. (2018), and stellar parameters from Shultz et al. (2019, submitted); these are independent prior measurements used as inputs, not consequences of the radio lightcurves. The O-mode identification is compared with published model signatures (Leto et al. 2016, 2019; Das et al. 2019), and the inferred density lower limit follows from a standard ECME cut-off condition (Sharma & Vlahos 1984; Melrose et al. 1984) applied to the observed frequency and inferred gyro-frequency—a forward application of an external theoretical relation. The self-citations to Shultz et al. and Das et al. are not load-bearing in the sense of a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by citation; the same model-signature expectations are attributed to external groups as well. Section 3 contains an acknowledged data-reduction limitation: because the field lacks bright sources, each 5-minute timeslice was self-calibrated independently, assuming the target flux is steady over that interval. That is a legitimate systematic concern about the reality of the pulses, but it is not circular: the conclusion does not presuppose itself through this assumption. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters are fitted in this paper. The derived density lower limit rests on literature values for the mode-selection threshold and the assumption of fundamental harmonic emission. The baseline flux is taken from a 1992 measurement at a different frequency. The main assumptions are domain assumptions about the dipole field geometry, the stability of self-calibration gains, and the applicability of published ECME mode-selection theory.

free parameters (1)

Basal gyrosynchrotron flux density = 0.28 mJy
Adopted from Linsky et al. (1992) 6 cm measurement and assumed constant across band 4; used to define the flux enhancement and is not measured at the same epoch or rotational phase (Section 2).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The large-scale magnetic field of HD 35298 is well approximated by an oblique dipole
Section 2: based on nearly sinusoidal Bz variation from Shultz et al. (2018); used to define magnetic null phases and interpret pulse geometry.
domain assumption The 1992 6 cm flux density represents the baseline gyrosynchrotron emission at 550-750 MHz
Section 2: assumes a flat spectrum and no phase variation; no simultaneous or phase-resolved measurement is available.
domain assumption ECME mode selection depends on nu_p/nu_B with transition at 0.3-0.35, and emission is at the fundamental harmonic
Section 4.1: adopted from Melrose et al. 1984 and Sharma & Vlahos 1984; used to convert the O-mode detection into ne > 5e8 cm^-3.
domain assumption Self-calibration per 5-minute timeslice yields accurate absolute flux densities in a field without bright sources
Section 3: load-bearing for lightcurve fidelity; if gains are unstable, the observed enhancements may be spurious.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fifth main sequence magnetic B-type star showing coherent radio emission: is this really a rare phenomenon?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YC6SP5BZ

@misc{pith2026190809110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fifth main sequence magnetic B-type star showing coherent radio emission: is this really a rare phenomenon?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YC6SP5BZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09110}
}

read the original abstract

We report the discovery of intense, highly directional radio emission from the Bp star HD 35298, which we interpret as the consequence of Electron Cyclotron Maser Emission (ECME). The star was observed with the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope near the rotational phases of both magnetic nulls in band 4 (550-750 MHz) and one of the nulls in band 5 (1060-1460 MHz). In band 4, we observed flux density enhancement in both circular polarizations near both magnetic nulls. The sequences of arrival of the left and right circularly polarized pulses are opposite near the two nulls. In band 5, we did not have circular polarization information and hence measured only the total intensity lightcurve, which also shows enhancement around the magnetic null. The observed sequence of the circular polarization signs in band 4, compared with the longitudinal magnetic field curve, is able to locate the hemisphere from which ECME arises. This observational evidence supports the scenario of ECME in the ordinary mode, arising in a magnetosphere shaped like an oblique dipole. HD 35298 is the most slowly rotating and most distant main sequence magnetic star from which ECME has been observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09110 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Lightcurve of HD 35298 near the magnetic null phases 0.273 and 0.730 (right panel). Stokes LL and RR represent LCP and RCP respectively. Stokes I represents total intensity. Band 4 and band 5 data were obtained with the uGMRT in 2018–2019, whereas L-band data were obtained with the legacy GMRT in 2014. The vertical dashed lines represent the location of the magnetic null phases and shaded regions around them represe… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Upper panel: Lightcurves of HD 35298 phased with the ephemeris of Shultz et al. (2018). The horizontal magenta line represents the approximate basal flux density for this star (see §2 for details). This value is taken from Linsky et al. (1992) who reported the gyrosynchrotron flux density from this star (0.28±0.06 mJy) at 6 cm. Bottom panel: The hBzi curve for the star. The hBzi data marked with black squares and re… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The total intensity (Stokes I) lightcurves of HD 35298 near the magnetic null phase 0.273 (marked with a vertical dashed line) in band 4 and band 5. The shaded region around the vertical dashed line represents the uncertainty associated with the magnetic null phase. In order to determine whether the non-detection in the archival L-band data is a result of insufficient sensitivity of the legacy GMRT, we observed the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

First monitoring campaign of a Main-sequence Radio Pulse emitter: the case of CU Vir
astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A six-month, 36-epoch radio campaign on CU Vir shows the leading pulse fluctuates more than the trailing pulse, reveals arrival-phase jitter, and refines the rotation period to 0.5206882 days.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

D., Stine, P

Andre, P., Montmerle, T., Feigelson, E. D., Stine, P. C., & Klein, K.-L. 1988, ApJ, 335, 940

work page 1988
[2]

A., Sundqvist, J

Chandra, P., Wade, G. A., Sundqvist, J. O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1245

work page 2015
[3]

Ciatti, F., & Bernacca, P. L. 1971, A&A, 11, 485

work page 1971
[4]

Das, B., Chandra, P., & Wade, G. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L61

work page 2018
[5]

E., et al

Das, B., Chandra, P., Shultz, M. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 123

work page 2019
[6]

A., Abbott, D

Drake, S. A., Abbott, D. C., Bastian, T. S., et al. 1987, ApJ, 322, 902 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

work page 1987
[7]

Glagolevskij, Y. V. 2010, Astrophysics, 53, 536 MNRAS 000, 1–6 (2019) 6 B. Das et al

work page 2019
[8]

G., et al

Hallinan, G., Antonova, A., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 690

work page 2006

Show all 44 references

[9]

2007, ApJ, 663, L25

Hallinan, G., Bourke, S., Lane, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, L25

2007
[10]

G., et al

Hallinan, G., Antonova, A., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 644

2008
[11]

P., Cotter, G., et al

Hallinan, G., Littlefair, S. P., Cotter, G., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 568

2015
[12]

M., Hallinan, G., Pineda, J

Kao, M. M., Hallinan, G., Pineda, J. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 24

2016
[13]

2006, A&A, 450, 763

Kochukhov, O., & Bagnulo, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 763

2006
[14]

Kochukhov, O., L¨uftinger, T., Neiner, C., Alecian, E., & MiMeS Collaboration 2014, A&A, 565, A83

2014
[15]

D., et al

Kochukhov, O., Silvester, J., Bailey, J. D., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A13

2017
[16]

D., Bagnulo, S., Andretta, V., et al

Landstreet, J. D., Bagnulo, S., Andretta, V., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 685

2007
[17]

R., Kaplan, D

Lenc, E., Murphy, T., Lynch, C. R., Kaplan, D. L., & Zhang, S. N. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2835

2018
[18]

2004, A&A, 423, 1095

Leone, F., Trigilio, C., Neri, R., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, 1095

2004
[19]

S., Umana, G., & Leone, F

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Buemi, C. S., Umana, G., & Leone, F. 2006, A&A, 458, 831

2006
[20]

S., Leone, F., & Umana, G

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Buemi, C. S., Leone, F., & Umana, G. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1766

2012
[21]

S., et al

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Buemi, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1159

2016
[22]

2017, MNRAS, 467, 2820

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Oskinova, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2820

2017
[23]

M., et al

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Oskinova, L. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 562

2018
[24]

M., et al

Leto, P., Trigilio, C., Oskinova, L. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L4

2019
[25]

L., Drake, S

Linsky, J. L., Drake, S. A., & Bastian T. S. 1992, ApJ, 393, 341

1992
[26]

K., Bray, J

Lo, K. K., Bray, J. D., Hobbs, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3316

2012
[27]

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

McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 127

2007
[28]

B., & Dulk, G

Melrose, D. B., & Dulk, G. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 844

1982
[29]

B., Hewitt, R

Melrose, D. B., Hewitt, R. G., & Dulk, G. A. 1984, J. Geo- phys. Res., 89, 897

1984
[30]

2003, ApJ, 583, 451

Mohanty, S., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 583, 451

2003
[31]

P., Wade, G

Petit, V., Owocki, S. P., Wade, G. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 398

2013
[32]

2002, A&A, 381, 736

Piskunov, N., & Kochukhov, O. 2002, A&A, 381, 736

2002
[33]

2010, MNRAS, 408, L99

Ravi, V., Hobbs, G., Wickramasinghe, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L99

2010
[34]

2006, A&A, 448, 293

Stelzer, B., Micela, G., Flaccomio, E., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 293

2006
[35]

R., Vlahos, L., & Papadopoulos, K

Sharma, R. R., Vlahos, L., & Papadopoulos, K. 1982, A&A, 112, 377

1982
[36]

R., & Vlahos, L

Sharma, R. R., & Vlahos, L. 1984, ApJ, 280, 405

1984
[37]

E., Wade, G

Shultz, M. E., Wade, G. A., Rivinius, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5144

2018
[38]

E., Wade, G

Shultz, M. E., Wade, G. A., Rivinius, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1508

2019
[39]

Treumann, R. A. 2006, A&ARv, 13, 229

2006
[40]

2000, A&A, 362, 281

Trigilio, C., Leto, P., Leone, F., Umana, G., & Buemi, C. 2000, A&A, 362, 281

2000
[41]

2004, A&A, 418, 593

Trigilio, C., Leto, P., Umana, G., Leone, F., & Buemi, C.S. 2004, A&A, 418, 593

2004
[42]

2008, MNRAS, 384, 1437

Trigilio, C., Leto, P., Umana, G., Buemi, C.S., & Leone, F. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1437

2008
[43]

2011, ApJ, 739, L10

Trigilio, C., Leto, P., Umana, G., Buemi, C.S., & Leone, F. 2011, ApJ, 739, L10

2011
[44]

Yakunin, I. A. 2013, Astrophysical Bulletin, 68, 214 This paper has been typeset from a T EX/LATEX ﬁle prepared by the author. MNRAS 000, 1–6 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

D., Stine, P

Andre, P., Montmerle, T., Feigelson, E. D., Stine, P. C., & Klein, K.-L. 1988, ApJ, 335, 940

work page 1988

[2] [2]

A., Sundqvist, J

Chandra, P., Wade, G. A., Sundqvist, J. O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1245

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Ciatti, F., & Bernacca, P. L. 1971, A&A, 11, 485

work page 1971

[4] [4]

Das, B., Chandra, P., & Wade, G. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L61

work page 2018

[5] [5]

E., et al

Das, B., Chandra, P., Shultz, M. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 123

work page 2019

[6] [6]

A., Abbott, D

Drake, S. A., Abbott, D. C., Bastian, T. S., et al. 1987, ApJ, 322, 902 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

work page 1987

[7] [7]

Glagolevskij, Y. V. 2010, Astrophysics, 53, 536 MNRAS 000, 1–6 (2019) 6 B. Das et al

work page 2019

[8] [8]

G., et al

Hallinan, G., Antonova, A., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 690

work page 2006