Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

New stellar bow shocks and bubbles found around runaway stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using Gaia DR3 proper motions corrected for the Galaxy's rotation, the authors identify nine new infrared bow shocks and three bubbles around O and Be runaway stars, plus one in situ candidate.

desk verdict Solid, modest catalog paper: the new candidates are real, but the orientation criterion is applied with per-field judgment, so the 9/3/1 count needs a robustness check before it becomes a firm census. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02658 v1 pith:W4RDQAJV submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

M. Carretero-Castrillo (1) , P. Benaglia (2) , J. M. Paredes (1) , M. Ribó (1) ((1) Universitat de Barcelona ICCUB , IEEC-UB , (2) CONICET-CICPBA-UNLP) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords runawaystarsstellarbowshocksinfrared:ISMGaiaDR3WISEO-typeBe-typenonthermalradioemission
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 aims to show that a Gaia DR3-based catalog of 106 O-type and 69 Be-type runaway stars, when searched in WISE 22-micron images, reveals 13 new infrared structures: nine bow shocks, three bubbles, and one intermediate case, with one bow shock (BS-GR72) likely formed in place by outflow from the H II region S206 rather than by the star's motion. This matters because stellar bow shocks are rare and only a handful show clear radio emission, so each new candidate adds a testbed for where and how runaway-star winds shock the interstellar medium and whether those shocks accelerate particles to relativistic energies. The paper also reports that about 24% of O-type runaways but only about 3% of Be-type runaways in the sample show bow shocks, and estimates the ambient ISM density at the new bow shocks with median values around 6 cm$^{-3}$ (2D) and 4 cm$^{-3}$ (3D).

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orientation criterion: an infrared arc or bubble rim is accepted as a bow shock only if it points along the runaway star's proper-motion direction after subtracting the local ISM motion caused by Galactic rotation. That corrected motion is computed with the Comerón & Pasquali (2007) prescription using the Reid et al. (2019) rotation curve and adopted solar parameters, so the entire classification hinges on the assumption that the ISM at each star is in circular Galactic rotation. Supporting machinery: ellipse fits to the W4 arcs give standoff distance $R_0$ and length, and the Wilkin (1996) standoff equation converts $R_0$, mass-loss rate, wind terminal velocity, and peculiar velocity into an estimated ISM density; radio detectability is assessed with the thermal and nonthermal scenarios of van den Eijnden et al. (2022b).

What would settle it

Measure the actual velocity field of the interstellar gas around a misaligned candidate such as BS-GR93, whose angular difference is 100.9 degrees, using molecular or radio recombination lines; if the local gas velocity differs from the assumed circular rotation by more than the quoted uncertainties, the corrected proper-motion direction would change and the candidate's arc would no longer align with the star's motion. A null result for several such candidates would indicate that the misalignments are systematic rather than due to in situ bow shocks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that visual inspection of WISE W4 images around 175 Gaia DR3 runaway stars, using corrected proper motions as the orientation guide, yields nine new stellar bow shock candidates, three bubble-like candidates, and one intermediate structure, one of which (BS-GR72) is an in situ bow shock candidate associated with the H II region S206. In addition, 17 previously known bow shocks appear in the sample, one is discarded on morphology grounds, and 62 miscellaneous infrared structures are catalogued, including a new 'mini-bubble' class. The authors further claim that two of the infrared candidates, BS-GR75 and BS-GR83, should be radio-detectable under both thermal and nonthermal scenarios, and that BS-GR75, BS-GR83, BS J075339-2616.5, and BS/BU-GR51 show radio emission or hints of it, although no clear radio counterparts are established.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of candidates as true bow shocks depends on the assumption that the interstellar medium around each star moves in a simple circular orbit around the Galactic center, with no substantial non-circular flows; if that assumption fails, the corrected direction of motion is wrong and the orientation test loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the known sample of stellar bow shocks grows by nine new bow shocks, three bubbles, and one intermediate structure, most of them associated with runaway stars discovered for the first time in Gaia DR3.
  • The reported occurrence rates, about 24% for O-type runaways versus about 3% for Be-type runaways, become quantitative constraints on models of wind-ISM interaction and on how stellar winds or disks shape bow shock formation.
  • BS-GR75 and BS-GR83 are predicted to be detectable in current radio surveys under both thermal and nonthermal assumptions, making them immediate targets for deeper centimeter-wavelength observations.
  • The geometrical measurements, standoff distances, lengths, widths, and ellipse eccentricities for both new and previously uncharacterized known bow shocks can feed physical models of radio emission.
  • Deeper radio observations would test whether bow shocks form a hidden population of nonthermal radio emitters and potential gamma-ray counterparts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If non-circular ISM flows are common near H II regions and molecular clouds, a nontrivial share of the bow shock candidates, including BS-GR72, may be in situ structures rather than true runaway bow shocks, in which case the ~24% occurrence rate among O runaways should be treated as an upper limit.
  • The near absence of Be bow shocks could indicate that Be winds or circumstellar disks suppress or obscure bow shock formation; a dedicated simulation of Be wind-ISM interaction would test this directly.
  • The mini-bubble W4 excesses around Be stars may trace circumstellar disk emission or past outbursts rather than bow shocks, so multi-epoch mid-infrared or optical spectroscopy could separate those interpretations.
  • The radio predictions single out BS-GR75 and BS-GR83 as the two best targets for a decisive test: a spectral index near -0.5 at centimeter wavelengths would support nonthermal emission, while a flat index would favor thermal free-free radiation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a search for infrared bow shocks and bubbles around 106 O-type and 69 Be-type runaway stars drawn from the Gaia DR3-based catalog of Carretero-Castrillo et al. (2023). Using WISE W4 images, the authors visually identify nine new bow-shock candidates, three new bubble candidates, and one intermediate structure, in addition to 16 known bow shocks that they confirm after discarding one. The candidates are geometrically characterized through projected standoff distance, length, and width; ISM ambient densities are estimated from the Wilkin (1996) formula using either two- or three-dimensional peculiar velocities; and archival NVSS, VLASS, and RACS data are used to search for radio counterparts, with thermal and nonthermal model predictions for the non-detected sources. The central claims are the new census, the ISM density distributions (median ~6 and ~4 cm^-3 for the 2D and 3D cases), and the suggestion that BS-GR75 and BS-GR83 may be detectable nonthermal radio emitters.

Significance. If the census is robust, the paper adds a homogeneous, Gaia-informed target list to the small sample of bow shocks around verified runaway stars, and the geometrical measurements are a useful resource. The authors are also honest about the main limitations: they tabulate the misalignment between the corrected proper motion and bow-shock axis in Appendix B, and they explicitly caveat the use of projected standoff distances in the density estimates. The paper ships the data via CDS and reuses the public code of van den Eijnden et al. (2022b), which makes the radio predictions reproducible. The principal weakness is that the selection is a visual scan with no control sample, and the stated orientation criterion is violated by several retained candidates. Because the headline numbers are the paper's main result, this needs to be fixed before the census can be used for statistical claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §4.1, Appendix B] The classification rule in §3.1 is that an arc must lie in the direction of the ISM-corrected proper motion. According to Table B.1, three of the nine new candidates violate this rule at >5σ: BS-GR71 (AD=53.4°, 9.1σ), BS-GR72 (AD=75.3°, 8.4σ), and BS-GR93 (AD=100.9°, 7.5σ). Section 4.1 retains BS-GR71 and BS-GR93 after failing to find an H II region or compatible cloud, and retains BS-GR72 only by invoking the H II region S206. This means the selection criterion is not applied as stated; it is an informal rule with undocumented tolerance and no control sample. The corrected-proper-motion directions themselves assume circular ISM rotation, while the S206 case shows that local ISM flows exist in these fields. The headline counts 9/3/1 therefore are not robustly determined by the stated rule. I ask the authors to either reclassify these cases under a strict, pre-specified rule or present a blinded control test (e.g., classifying W4 arcs without knowledge of the proper-motion direction) to quantify the false-positive rate.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (1), §C.3] Eq. (1) is used with the projected standoff distance R in place of the true R0. Since R is a projection, R/R0 ≤ 1, and nISM ∝ (R0/R)^2 is systematically overestimated. The paper acknowledges this caveat, but the subsequent radio analysis in §C.3 and Fig. C.4 uses nISM^3D to compute predicted thermal free-free fluxes; the conclusion that BS-GR75 and BS-GR83 should be radio-detectable in both scenarios depends directly on this density scale. A plausible projection factor of 2 changes the predicted thermal flux by an order of magnitude or more, which would move sources below the assumed detection threshold. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis over plausible inclinations and parameter uncertainties, and report the resulting ranges for the predicted fluxes, before drawing the radio detectability conclusions.
  3. [§5, Tables 4 and 5] The statistical comparison (23.6% for O-type runaways, ~3% for Be-type) in §5 contains an arithmetic inconsistency: the text computes (9 new + 16 known)/106, but one of the nine new bow shocks, BS-BR65, is associated with a Be-type star, so the O-type numerator should be 8 new + 16 known = 24, giving 22.6%. Moreover, if the three >5σ misaligned O-type candidates are excluded under a strict orientation criterion, the O-type rate drops to 21/106 = 19.8%, below the 20.4% quoted for Peri et al. (2015). The known-sample row is also heterogeneous because it is assembled from catalogs with different selection functions. Please correct the arithmetic and report the rates separately for new candidates, confirmed known bow shocks, and their union, showing the sensitivity to the classification rule.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] The word 'Guassian' appears twice in §4.3 and should be corrected to 'Gaussian'.
  2. [Table B.1] The assumed 1σ systematic uncertainty of 5° on the visually estimated BS Angle is not justified; a multi-annotator reproducibility check would strengthen the statistical significance column.
  3. [Figures 2 and A.1] The figure captions note that each field has a different size but the arrows are fixed to 2′; adding quantitative scale bars would help readers compare the morphological scales across panels.
  4. [§C.3] The text states that the RMS is always larger in final RACS data products than in raw images, but Fig. C.4 uses only the raw-image RMS; please state explicitly whether the detection thresholds in Fig. C.4 would change if final data products were used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the bow shock census rests on independent WISE imaging and the only self-citation, the input runaway catalog, is not load-bearing for the detections.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—nine new bow shock candidates, three bubbles, one intermediate structure—comes from a visual WISE W4 search, an observational census whose outcome is not defined by the input catalog's fitted quantities. The input O/Be runaway sample is taken from Carretero-Castrillo et al. (2023), a self-citation, but that catalog is constructed from Gaia DR3 astrometry and external spectral catalogs, and it serves as a sample selector rather than as the source of the bow-shock classifications. The orientation criterion in Sect. 3.1 uses ISM-corrected proper motions, yet the classification is not forced by that criterion: Appendix B explicitly reports three retained new candidates with angular differences above 5 sigma, and Sect. 4.1 discusses each case on its own merits, including an independent check against H II region catalogs for BS-GR72. This shows the detection claim does not reduce to the criterion by construction. The ISM density estimates invert Wilkin's Eq. (1) from measured standoff distances, adopted mass-loss rates, and peculiar velocities; this is a standard model-based estimate, not a prediction of the detection itself. The radio detectability discussion reuses the van den Eijnden et al. (2022b) code and assumptions with no free parameters fitted to this paper's data, so those forward predictions are independent of the discovery claim. The ~24% and ~3% detection rates are sample statistics computed within the same runaway catalog; that is a legitimate use of the denominator, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations are the previous runaway catalog and the Galactic-rotation prescription, both externally grounded in Gaia DR3 and Reid et al. (2019), and neither reduces the headline result to the paper's own inputs. Concerns about unblinded visual classification, lack of a control sample, and per-field tolerance of misaligned candidates are correctness and robustness issues, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on standard bow shock physics (Wilkin 1996) and Gaia astrometry; no new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are kinematic (Galactic rotation curve), photometric (wind parameters from external calibrations), and methodological (visual classification). These are reasonable for a candidate catalog, but they limit the certainty of individual detections and density estimates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wilkin (1996) standoff distance formula (Eq. 1) is applicable, with the projected distance R used as the true standoff distance R0.
    Used in Section 3.3 to convert measured bow shock geometry to ISM density; projection effects can bias the estimate, as the paper acknowledges.
  • domain assumption The ISM at each star moves in a circular orbit around the Galactic center following the Reid et al. (2019) A5 rotation curve, with adopted solar motion parameters.
    Used in Section 3.1 to correct Gaia proper motions and compute the orientation criterion for bow shock classification.
  • domain assumption The runaway classification of Carretero-Castrillo et al. (2023) based on Gaia DR3 is correct.
    The input sample of 106 O and 69 Be runaways is taken directly from that catalog; if some stars are not true runaways, the bow shock associations would be affected.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass-loss rates and wind terminal velocities can be approximated by linear interpolation and regression on the Vink & Sander (2021) tables.
    Used in Section 3.3 to compute n_ISM; these values are uncertain and not directly measured for each star.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual inspection of WISE images can reliably identify bow shock and bubble candidates based on morphology and alignment with corrected proper motions.
    The entire search is based on subjective visual classification, with criteria defined in Section 3.1 but no quantitative detection threshold or control sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New stellar bow shocks and bubbles found around runaway stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4RDQAJV

@misc{pith2026250202658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New stellar bow shocks and bubbles found around runaway stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4RDQAJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02658}
}
abstract

Runaway stars with peculiar high velocities can generate stellar bow shocks. Only a few bow shocks show clear radio emission. Our goal is to identify and characterize new stellar bow shocks around O and Be runaway stars in the infrared (IR), and to study their possible radio emission and nature. Our input data is a catalog of O and Be runaways compiled using Gaia DR3. We used WISE IR images to search for bow shocks around these runaways, Gaia DR3 data to determine the actual motion of the runaway stars corrected for interstellar medium (ISM) motion caused by Galactic rotation, and archival radio data to search for emission signatures. We finally explored the radio detectability of these sources under thermal and nonthermal scenarios. We found 9 new stellar bow shock candidates, 3 new bubble candidates, and 1 intermediate structure candidate. One of them is an in situ bow shock candidate. We also found 17 already known bow shocks in our sample, though we discarded one, and 62 miscellaneous sources showing some IR emission around the runaways. We geometrically characterized the sources in IR using the WISE-4 band and estimated the ISM density at the bow shock positions, obtaining median values of ~6 and ~4 cm$^{-3}$ using 2D and 3D peculiar velocities. Most of the new discovered bow shocks come from new runaway discoveries. Within our samples we found that ~24% of the O-type runaway stars show bow shocks, while this decreases to ~3% for Be-type runaway stars. Two bow shocks present radio emission but not as clear counterparts, and two others show hints of radio emission. The physical scenarios indicate that two sources could still be compatible with nonthermal radio emission. The new sample of O and Be runaway stars allowed us to discover both new stellar bow shocks and bubbles. Their geometrical characterization can be used to assess the physical scenario of the radio emission. (Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image of a known bow shock illustrating the geometric charac￾terization used in this work. R is the projected standoff distance, l is the projected length of the bow shock, and w is its projected width. The arc of the ellipse shown with a continuous yellow line was used to derive l (see text for details). 3.3. Interstellar medium ambient density We estimated the ISM ambient density, nISM, at the bow shock position u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. WISE RGB images in W4+W3+W2 for three examples of the new bow shock and bubble candidates presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. WISE RGB image in W4+W3+W2 for the bow shock candidate BS J075339−2616.5 in equatorial coordinates, with north up and east to the left. The white cross indicates the center of the bow shock emission, at coordinates RA = 07h 53m 39.1s and DEC = −26◦ 16′ 31′′. This bow shock appeared in the WISE field of BS-GR35 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: WISE RGB images in W4+W3+W2 for the known bow shock and bubble candidates presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An Halpha survey of infrared bow-shocks around OB-type stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Fifteen plus one serendipitous clear H-alpha bow shocks are detected among 78 IR candidates; several are consistent with radiation-supported regimes while others match classical wind-supported shocks.

  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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 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]

    2022, , 260, 53

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    D., Bania , T

    Anderson , L. D., Bania , T. M., Balser , D. S., et al. 2014, , 212, 1

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    D., Bania , T

    Anderson , L. D., Bania , T. M., Balser , D. S., & Rood , R. T. 2012, , 754, 62

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Benaglia , P., del Palacio , S., Hales , C., & Colazo , M. E. 2021, , 503, 2514

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    E., Mart \' , J., Peri , C

    Benaglia , P., Romero , G. E., Mart \' , J., Peri , C. S., & Araudo , A. T. 2010, , 517, L10

    work page 2010

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A., Behr , P., & Povich , M

    Binder , B. A., Behr , P., & Povich , M. S. 2019, , 157, 176

    2019

  2. [10]

    1961, , 15, 265

    Blaauw , A. 1961, , 15, 265

    1961

  3. [11]

    2018, , 618, A110

    Bodensteiner , J., Baade , D., Greiner , J., & Langer , N. 2018, , 618, A110

    2018

  4. [12]

    2023, in 7th Heidelberg International Symposium on High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy (Gamma2022), 133

    Bordas , P. 2023, in 7th Heidelberg International Symposium on High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy (Gamma2022), 133

    2023

  5. [13]

    V., Khangulyan , D., & Perucho , M

    Bosch-Ramon , V., Barkov , M. V., Khangulyan , D., & Perucho , M. 2012, , 544, A59

    2012

  6. [14]

    & Evans , N

    Boubert , D. & Evans , N. W. 2018, , 477, 5261

    2018

  7. [15]

    L., Hyland , A

    Bourke , T. L., Hyland , A. R., & Robinson , G. 2005, , 625, 883

    2005

  8. [16]

    & Bomans , D

    Brown , D. & Bomans , D. J. 2005, , 439, 183

    2005

  9. [17]

    Carretero-Castrillo , M., Rib \'o , M., & Paredes , J. M. 2023, , 679, A109

    2023

  10. [18]

    T., Kobulnicky , H

    Chick , W. T., Kobulnicky , H. A., Schurhammer , D. P., et al. 2020, , 251, 29

    2020

  11. [19]

    & Pasquali , A

    Comer \'o n , F. & Pasquali , A. 2007, , 467, L23

    2007

  12. [20]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

    1998

  13. [21]

    de Bruijne , J. H. J. & Eilers , A. C. 2012, , 546, A61

    2012

  14. [22]

    L., & Romero , G

    del Palacio , S., Bosch-Ramon , V., M \"u ller , A. L., & Romero , G. E. 2018, , 617, A13

    2018

  15. [23]

    del Valle , M. V. & Romero , G. E. 2012, , 543, A56

    2012

  16. [24]

    2006, , 456, 801

    Dubus , G. 2006, , 456, 801

    2006

  17. [25]

    2013, , 21, 64

    Dubus , G. 2013, , 21, 64

    2013

  18. [26]

    W., Grundy , J

    Duchesne , S. W., Grundy , J. A., Heald , G. H., et al. 2024, , 41, e003

    2024

  19. [27]

    & Mu \ n oz-Darias , T

    Fender , R. & Mu \ n oz-Darias , T. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. F. Haardt , V. Gorini , U. Moschella , A. Treves , & M. Colpi , Vol. 905, 65

    2016

  20. [28]

    A., & Blasi , P

    Gabici , S., Aharonian , F. A., & Blasi , P. 2007, , 309, 365

    2007

  21. [29]

    Gull , T. R. & Sofia , S. 1979, , 230, 782

    1979

  22. [30]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A12

    2018

  23. [31]

    L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A

    Hale , C. L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2021, , 38, e058

    2021

  24. [32]

    N., Smith , R

    Hartley , M., Manchester , R. N., Smith , R. M., Tritton , S. B., & Goss , W. M. 1986, , 63, 27

    1986

  25. [33]

    Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J. H. J., & de Zeeuw , P. T. 2001, , 365, 49

    2001

  26. [34]

    S., et al

    Jayasinghe , T., Dixon , D., Povich , M. S., et al. 2019, , 488, 1141

    2019

  27. [35]

    Joye , W. A. & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  28. [36]

    V., Scholz , R

    Kharchenko , N. V., Scholz , R. D., Piskunov , A. E., R \"o ser , S., & Schilbach , E. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 889

    2007

  29. [37]

    Kobulnicky , H. A. & Chick , W. T. 2022, , 164, 86

    2022

  30. [38]

    A., Chick , W

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Chick , W. T., Schurhammer , D. P., et al. 2016, , 227, 18

    2016

  31. [39]

    A., Schurhammer , D

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Schurhammer , D. P., Baldwin , D. J., et al. 2017, , 154, 201

    2017

  32. [40]

    Kulkarni , S. R. & Heiles , C. 1988, in Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy, ed. K. I. Kellermann & G. L. Verschuur , 95--153

    1988

  33. [41]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001

    2020

  34. [42]

    Landau , L. D. & Lifshitz , E. M. 1959, Fluid mechanics

    1959

  35. [43]

    2010, , 188, 139

    Launhardt , R., Nutter , D., Ward-Thompson , D., et al. 2010, , 188, 139

    2010

  36. [44]

    2023, in Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, ed

    Mackey , J. 2023, in Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, ed. A. A. Vidotto , L. Fossati , & J. S. Vink , Vol. 370, 205--216

    2023

  37. [45]

    H., et al

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez , M., Barb \'a , R. H., et al. 2018, , 616, A149

    2018

  38. [46]

    I., et al

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Sota , A., Morrell , N. I., et al. 2013, in Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega, 198

    2013

  39. [47]

    M., Mao , M

    Marcote , B., Rib \'o , M., Paredes , J. M., Mao , M. Y., & Edwards , P. G. 2018, , 619, A26

    2018

  40. [48]

    R., del Palacio , S., & Bosch-Ramon , V

    Martinez , J. R., del Palacio , S., & Bosch-Ramon , V. 2023, , 680, A99

    2023

  41. [49]

    Martins , F., Schaerer , D., & Hillier , D. J. 2005, , 436, 1049

    2005

  42. [50]

    L., Lenc , E., et al

    McConnell , D., Hale , C. L., Lenc , E., et al. 2020, , 37, e048

    2020

  43. [51]

    E., Amayo , A., Arellano-C \'o rdova , K

    M \'e ndez-Delgado , J. E., Amayo , A., Arellano-C \'o rdova , K. Z., et al. 2022, , 510, 4436

    2022

  44. [52]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Deller , A. T., Shannon , R. M., et al. 2018, , 479, 4849

    2018

  45. [53]

    Mirabel , I. F. & Rodr \' guez , L. F. 1999, , 37, 409

    1999

  46. [54]

    S., Chentsov , E

    Miroshnichenko , A. S., Chentsov , E. L., & Klochkova , V. G. 2000, , 144, 379

    2000

  47. [55]

    2022, , 663, A80

    Moutzouri , M., Mackey , J., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2022, , 663, A80

    2022

  48. [56]

    2011, , 142, 149

    Neiner , C., de Batz , B., Cochard , F., et al. 2011, , 142, 149

    2011

  49. [57]

    1997, , 113, 780

    Noriega-Crespo , A., van Buren , D., & Dgani , R. 1997, , 113, 780

    1997

  50. [58]

    1932, , 4, 190

    Ogrodnikoff , K. 1932, , 4, 190

    1932

  51. [59]

    N., & Anish Roshi , D

    Omar , A., Chengalur , J. N., & Anish Roshi , D. 2002, , 395, 227

    2002

  52. [60]

    Oort , J. H. 1927, , 3, 275

    1927

  53. [61]

    Patra , N. N. & Roy , N. 2024, , 529, 4037

    2024

  54. [62]

    S., Benaglia , P., Brookes , D

    Peri , C. S., Benaglia , P., Brookes , D. P., Stevens , I. R., & Isequilla , N. L. 2012, , 538, A108

    2012

  55. [63]

    S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N

    Peri , C. S., Benaglia , P., & Isequilla , N. L. 2015, , 578, A45

    2015

  56. [64]

    S., Benjamin , R

    Povich , M. S., Benjamin , R. A., Whitney , B. A., et al. 2008, , 689, 242

    2008

  57. [65]

    K., Barlow , M

    Prinja , R. K., Barlow , M. J., & Howarth , I. D. 1990, , 361, 607

    1990

  58. [66]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2019, , 885, 131

    2019

  59. [67]

    M., Romero , G

    Rib \'o , M., Paredes , J. M., Romero , G. E., et al. 2002, , 384, 954

    2002

  60. [68]

    C., & Martayan , C

    Rivinius , T., Carciofi , A. C., & Martayan , C. 2013, , 21, 69

    2013

  61. [69]

    & Elsässer , H

    Scheffler , H. & Elsässer , H. 1987, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter (Springer-Verlag)

    1987

  62. [70]

    E., Bunton , J

    Schinckel , A. E., Bunton , J. D., Cornwell , T. J., Feain , I., & Hay , S. G. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, ed. L. M. Stepp , R. Gilmozzi , & H. J. Hall , 84442A

    2012

  63. [71]

    J., Povich , M

    Simpson , R. J., Povich , M. S., Kendrew , S., et al. 2012, , 424, 2442

    2012

  64. [72]

    Stone , R. C. 1979, , 232, 520

    1979

  65. [73]

    K., et al

    Swarup, G., Ananthakrishnan, S., Kapahi, V. K., et al. 1991, Current Science, 60, 95

    1991

  66. [74]

    Tetzlaff , N., Neuh \"a user , R., & Hohle , M. M. 2011, , 410, 190

    2011

  67. [75]

    2022 a , , 510, 515

    van den Eijnden , J., Heywood , I., Fender , R., et al. 2022 a , , 510, 515

    2022

  68. [76]

    2022 b , , 512, 5374

    van den Eijnden , J., Saikia , P., & Mohamed , S. 2022 b , , 512, 5374

    2022

  69. [77]

    Vink , J. S. & Sander , A. A. C. 2021, , 504, 2051

    2021

  70. [78]

    2023, , 267, 39

    Wang , M., Wu , J., Jiang , B., & Zhang , Y. 2023, , 267, 39

    2023

  71. [79]

    Wilkin , F. P. 1996, , 459, L31

    1996

  72. [80]

    J., Gies , D

    Williams , S. J., Gies , D. R., Hillwig , T. C., McSwain , M. V., & Huang , W. 2011, , 142, 146

    2011

  73. [81]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.