Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A XRISM Observation of the Archetypal Radio-Mode Feedback System Hydra-A: Measurements of Atmospheric Motion and Constraints on Turbulent Dissipation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 XRISM finds Hydra-A's gas stirring at 164 km/s, too slow for turbulence to offset cooling.

desk verdict Solid XRISM velocity dispersion measurement for Hydra-A, but the headline turbulent-dissipation conclusion rests on an unmeasured injection scale that the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows can reverse the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01494 v2 pith:66LXCXZB submitted 2025-05-02 astro-ph.GA

Tom Rose , B. R. McNamara , Julian Meunier , A. C. Fabian , Helen Russell , Paul Nulsen , Neo Dizdar , Timothy M. Heckman
show 9 more authors
Michael McDonald Maxim Markevitch Frits Paerels Aurora Simionescu Norbert Werner Alison L. Coil Edmund Hodges-Kluck Eric D. Miller Michael Wise
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclustersactivegalacticnucleifeedbackradiojetsX-rayspectroscopyXRISMintraclustermediumturbulencecoolingflowsHydraA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses a single XRISM Resolve pointing to measure how fast the hot gas in the galaxy cluster Hydra-A is moving, by fitting X-ray emission lines. It finds a one-dimensional velocity dispersion of $164\pm10$ km/s across the $190\times190$ kpc footprint, a modest value for a system whose radio jets are among the most powerful known. If that motion is interpreted as isotropic turbulence, the turbulent kinetic energy is only 2.5 percent of the thermal energy radiated away over the cooling timescale, and the estimated dissipation rate falls short of the cooling luminosity by a factor of six. The paper concludes that the jets can continually resupply the observed kinetic energy, but turbulent dissipation alone would struggle to offset cooling, so additional heating or a tightly coupled feedback loop is needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ extracted from X-ray emission lines, chiefly the Fe XXV He$\alpha$ complex near 6.7 keV, using the high spectral resolution of XRISM Resolve. The argument that turbulence is subdominant then runs through a dissipation estimate $\dot{E}\simeq \frac{3}{2} v_{\rm turb}^3 M(r)/l_{\rm eff}$ for a Kolmogorov cascade, where $v_{\rm turb}=\sigma_v$, $M(r)$ is the gas mass inside the pointing, and $l_{\rm eff}\simeq 78$ kpc is the assumed injection scale set by the radius containing half the X-ray flux. This machinery converts a single line-width number into a heating rate, and the conclusion depends on $l_{\rm eff}$: the same formula with $l_{\rm eff}\simeq 13$ kpc makes turbulent heating equal to cooling.

What would settle it

Measure the velocity structure function on scales below 78 kpc with multiple spatially resolved pointings or surface-brightness fluctuations; finding a turnover near 13 kpc would make turbulent dissipation equal to cooling, while finding no turnover above 13 kpc and a dispersion at or below 164 km/s would confirm that turbulence is subdominant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the velocity broadening measured by XRISM's microcalorimeter, $164\pm10$ km s$^{-1}$, is too small for turbulent dissipation to balance radiative cooling in Hydra-A's hot atmosphere. The measurement comes from fitting the Fe XXV He$\alpha$ complex and other lines with a single-temperature collisional-ionization model, giving a temperature of $3.6\pm0.1$ keV and a line-of-sight velocity dispersion about $17\%$ of the local sound speed. Using the gas mass within the field of view, $1.5\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, the kinetic energy is $1.1\times10^{60}$ erg, which is $2.5\%$ of the energy radiated over the $7\times10^9$ yr cooling time. Adopting a Kolmogorov cascade with an effective injection scale of $78$ kpc (the radius enclosing half the flux), the turbulent dissipation rate is $7.6\times10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$, six times below the $2.7\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cooling luminosity; reducing the injection scale to about $13$ kpc would make the two equal. The central galaxy's radial velocity is offset from the atmosphere by only $-37\pm23$ km s$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion hinges on the assumed injection scale of about 78 kpc: a single XRISM pointing cannot measure it, and if the true scale were about 13 kpc the turbulent dissipation rate would equal the cooling luminosity, reversing the central claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Turbulent dissipation supplies roughly one sixth of the cooling requirement in the central 190 kpc, so additional heating processes must operate if Hydra-A's atmosphere is not to cool catastrophically.
  • The radio jets can repower the observed atmospheric kinetic energy on a timescale of about 200 million years, matching the estimated bubble duty cycle, so energy supply is not the bottleneck.
  • Hydra-A's velocity dispersion is comparable to those measured in Perseus and other XRISM clusters despite an order-of-magnitude higher jet power, suggesting jet power alone does not set the turbulent velocity.
  • If the true injection scale is near 13 kpc rather than 78 kpc, the inference flips and turbulence could balance cooling; the present data cannot distinguish these cases.
  • The small bulk offset of the central galaxy (-37 +/- 23 km/s) implies precipitation-regulated cooling models are only mildly affected by relative motion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A future pointing centered on the outer radio bubbles at 100-225 kpc could reveal whether turbulence is generated as bubbles rise; if velocities there are much higher than 164 km/s, the low central dispersion may be a local snapshot rather than a global limit.
  • If part of the measured width is unresolved bulk motion rather than isotropic turbulence, the true turbulent dissipation rate is even lower than reported, strengthening the paper's central conclusion.
  • Applying the same single-pointing dissipation estimate to a sample of clusters with known cavity powers would test whether the ratio of turbulent heating to cooling correlates with jet power, or saturates near the low values seen here.
  • A spatially resolved velocity map across the 3x3 arcmin field, even with modest counts per pixel, could measure the velocity structure function and turn the assumed injection scale into a measured quantity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents XRISM Resolve observations of the central region of the Hydra-A cluster atmosphere. The authors extract a high-resolution spectrum over the 1.8–8.0 keV band and measure a line-of-sight velocity dispersion of 164 ± 10 km/s within the 3'×3' footprint, along with the gas temperature, metallicity, and redshift. They interpret the velocity dispersion as isotropic turbulence and estimate the turbulent kinetic energy, the turbulent dissipation rate assuming a Kolmogorov cascade with an injection scale equal to the 50% flux diameter (≈78 kpc), and compare this rate with the radiative cooling luminosity. They find that the dissipation rate is about a factor of several lower than the cooling luminosity, concluding that turbulent dissipation alone would struggle to offset cooling. The paper also reports a small bulk velocity offset between the hot gas and the central galaxy.

Significance. The measurement is significant: it is one of the first XRISM microcalorimetric constraints on atmospheric motions in a powerful radio-mechanical feedback system, and the 164 km/s dispersion is robust and consistent across independent spectral lines and energy bands. The paper is transparent about its assumptions, explicitly acknowledging that the fraction of the line width in turbulence versus bulk motions is unknown and that a single pointing cannot constrain the injection scale. If the assumed injection scale is correct, the constraint on turbulent heating is an important input for feedback models. The analysis is carefully documented with appropriate systematic uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] The quoted ratio is inconsistent: the cooling luminosity subtended by the image is 2.7×10^44 erg/s and the turbulent dissipation rate is 7.6×10^43 erg/s, which is a factor of 3.6, not 'six times' as stated. Correspondingly, reducing l_eff by a factor of six (to ~13 kpc) would yield a dissipation rate of ~4.6×10^44 erg/s, exceeding the cooling luminosity rather than equaling it; the scale required for equality is ~22 kpc. Please correct the arithmetic and update the sensitivity discussion accordingly.
  2. [§3.3 and Abstract] The central conclusion that 'turbulent dissipation alone would struggle to offset cooling' is strongly dependent on the assumed effective injection scale l_eff ≈ 78 kpc, which is chosen as the 50% flux diameter and is not directly measured; the paper itself states that a single pointing cannot constrain l. Since the dissipation rate scales as l^{-1} and a scale of ~20–30 kpc would bring it within the cooling luminosity, the abstract should explicitly qualify the conclusion (e.g., 'for the effective injection scale inferred here') rather than presenting it as a firm general statement. Please add the systematic uncertainty to the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title should be 'An XRISM Observation' rather than 'A XRISM Observation' for correct grammar.
  2. [§3.3] The phrase 'within the (94 kpc)^3 volume' is ambiguous; the XRISM footprint is a square of side 190 kpc enclosing a circular region of radius ~94 kpc, so the volume should be specified as a sphere of radius 94 kpc or as the square footprint area times the line-of-sight depth.
  3. [§3.3] Two different cooling luminosities are used without reconciliation: Lx = 2×10^44 erg/s in the kinetic-energy fraction calculation and a cooling luminosity subtended by the image of 2.7×10^44 erg/s in the dissipation-rate comparison. Please clarify whether these are the same quantity and ensure consistent values throughout.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The wording 'Red circles show the radius containing 50% as much flux as a circular region of 1.5 arcmin radius' is awkward; suggest 'the radius within which 50% of the flux from a 1.5 arcmin region is contained.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the central result is a measured velocity dispersion propagated through a standard energy budget, with the unmeasured injection scale explicitly flagged as the key sensitivity.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion sigma_v = 164 +/- 10 km/s obtained by fitting a velocity-broadened bapec model to the XRISM spectrum (Section 2.4, Table 1). This is an empirical quantity, not a parameter adjusted to reproduce the paper's conclusion. The turbulent kinetic energy (Eq. 2) and dissipation rate (Eq. 3) are forward applications of standard formulas using this measured sigma, the gas mass within the footprint, and an assumed effective injection scale l_eff ~ 78 kpc. The choice of l_eff is an assumption adopted via the half-light radius convention, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that a single pointing cannot constrain l and sigma(l), and states that an injection scale of ~13 kpc would make turbulent dissipation equal to cooling losses (Section 3.3). That sensitivity is a caveat about an unconstrained input, not a circular reduction: the headline conclusion is not encoded in the spectrum by construction, and the authors do not fit l_eff to the desired heating budget. The citation 'XRISM Collaboration 2025, in prep.' supplies the effective-scale convention, but the paper independently estimates l_eff from Figures 4 and 5, so the citation is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely relabeled. The honest, quantitative discussion of the l_eff dependence strengthens rather than indicates circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted or chosen quantities (sigma_v, leff) and on standard plasma and turbulence assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • sigma_v (velocity dispersion) = 164 km/s
    Fitted to the X-ray line broadening in the 1.8-8.0 keV spectrum (Table 1). The central energy budget claims depend directly on this value.
  • leff (effective injection scale) = 78 kpc
    Chosen by hand as the radius enclosing 50% of the flux (Section 3.3). Used in Eq. 3 to convert the velocity dispersion to a turbulent dissipation rate; the conclusion is sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hot atmosphere is in collisional ionization equilibrium (modeled by bapec)
    The spectral fits assume a single-phase CIE plasma; the paper notes a two-temperature model did not improve the fit.
  • domain assumption The measured line broadening is dominated by isotropic turbulence
    Used to compute the turbulent kinetic energy (Section 3.3). The paper explicitly states the fraction in unresolved bulk motions is unknown.
  • domain assumption Turbulence follows a Kolmogorov cascade with injection scale leff
    Equation 3 assumes E_dot ~ v^3/leff, appropriate for Kolmogorov turbulence with energy injected at scale leff.
  • ad hoc to paper leff is well represented by the 50% enclosed flux radius
    Adopted from an in-preparation XRISM Collaboration paper; not independently established in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A XRISM Observation of the Archetypal Radio-Mode Feedback System Hydra-A: Measurements of Atmospheric Motion and Constraints on Turbulent Dissipation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66LXCXZB

@misc{pith2026250501494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A XRISM Observation of the Archetypal Radio-Mode Feedback System Hydra-A: Measurements of Atmospheric Motion and Constraints on Turbulent Dissipation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66LXCXZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01494}
}
abstract

We present XRISM Resolve observations centered on Hydra-A, a redshift z = 0.054 brightest cluster galaxy which hosts one of the largest and most powerful FR-I radio sources in the nearby Universe. We examine the effects of its high jet power on the velocity structure of the cluster's hot atmosphere. Hydra-A's central radio jets have inflated X-ray cavities with energies upward of $10^{61}$ erg. They reach altitudes of 225 kpc from the cluster center, well beyond the atmosphere's central cooling region. Resolve's $3\times3$ arcmin field-of-view covers $190\times190$ kpc, which encompasses most of the cooling volume. We find a one dimensional atmospheric velocity dispersion across the volume of $164\pm10$ km/s. The fraction in isotropic turbulence or unresolved bulk velocity is unknown. Assuming pure isotropic turbulence, the turbulent kinetic energy is $2.5 \%$ of the thermal energy radiated away over the cooling timescale, implying that kinetic energy must be supplied continually to offset cooling. While Hydra-A's radio jets are powerful enough to supply kinetic energy to the atmosphere at the observed level, turbulent dissipation alone would struggle to offset cooling throughout the cooling volume. The central galaxy's radial velocity is similar to the atmospheric velocity, with an offset of $-37 \pm 23$ km/s.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Chandra X-ray residual map centered on Hydra-A after subtraction of a beta model fit to the cluster surface brightness profile, from Wise et al. (2007). Multiple cavities can be seen out to 225 kpc. White rectangles show the field-of-view of the XRISM Resolve observation. Middle: Chandra X-ray image centered on the cluster at 0.5 − 7.0 keV. We use ‘sqrt’ stretching to highlight the innermost cavities, formed d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 1.8 − 8.0 keV spectrum extracted from the XRISM observation centered on Hydra-A and the associated best fit model found over the same energy range. The best fit model contains three components. The (TBabs*bapec + NXB) components are shown in red and the NXB component alone is shown in green. In this figure, the spectrum is grouped to a minimum of 15 counts per bin. However, the best fit model is calculated witho… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoom-ins for the XRISM spectrum of Hydra￾A. The emission lines shown in each plot are those used to calculate narrowband fits in Section 2.5. Red lines show the broadband fit calculated from 1.8 − 8.0 keV. Residuals show the (data - model) / error. Voit 2022), thus accelerating thermally unstable cool￾ing. However, effects of this kind in Hydra-A would be subtle due to its modest bulk velocity offset. 3.3. Turbulent… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Chandra images of four different energy windows. The left image shows a broad energy range, while the other three are made with narrower energy ranges. Red circles show the radius containing 50% as much flux as a circular region of 1.5 arcmin radius around the cluster …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The integrated flux as a function of radius for the four Chandra images shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.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. XRISM Observation of the Ophiuchus Galaxy Cluster: Quiescent Velocity Structure in the Dynamically Disturbed Core

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Despite multiple cold fronts and a history of dynamical disturbance, the Ophiuchus cluster core has remarkably low gas velocity dispersions (115 to 186 km/s) and a nearly stationary inner core.

  2. Jet outbursts, non-thermal pressure and the AGN jet duty cycle

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AGN jet feedback is predicted to add only 4 to 6 percent non-thermal pressure in typical cluster cores, and the peak value can be used to infer the AGN jet duty cycle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 6 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 doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    An Observationally Motivated Framework for AGN Heating of Cluster Cores

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    W., Ettori , S., & Fabian , A

    Allen , S. W., Ettori , S., & Fabian , A. C. 2001, , 324, 877, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04318.x

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  6. [6]

    J., Pinto , C., Fabian , A

    Bambic , C. J., Pinto , C., Fabian , A. C., Sanders , J., & Reynolds , C. S. 2018, , 478, L44, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly060

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly060 2018

  7. [7]

    J., & Reynolds , C

    Bambic , C. J., & Reynolds , C. S. 2019, , 886, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4daf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4daf 2019

  8. [8]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800, 10.1086/383519

    doi:10.1086/383519 2004

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Sijacki , D

    Bourne , M. A., & Sijacki , D. 2017, , 472, 4707, 10.1093/mnras/stx2269

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    W., & Laor , A

    Davis , S. W., & Laor , A. 2011, , 728, 98, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/98

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Donahue , M., & Voit , G. M. 2022, , 973, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Dunn , R. J. H., & Fabian , A. C. 2006, , 373, 959, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11080.x

    2006

  5. [13]

    E., Brown, G

    Eckart, M. E., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 13093, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130931P, 10.1117/12.3019276

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Walker , S

    Fabian , A. C., Walker , S. A., Russell , H. R., et al. 2017, , 464, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw170

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Sanders , J

    Fabian , A. C., Sanders , J. S., Allen , S. W., et al. 2011, , 418, 2154, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19402.x

    2011

  8. [16]

    R., Ji , L., Smith , R

    Foster , A. R., Ji , L., Smith , R. K., & Brickhouse , N. S. 2012, , 756, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    W., & O'Shea , B

    Fournier , M., Grete , P., Br \"u ggen , M., Glines , F. W., & O'Shea , B. W. 2024, , 691, A239, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451031

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19486, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19486

    Fournier , M., Grete , P., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19486, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19486

    2025 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00126, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00126

    Fujita , Y., Fukushima , K., Sato , K., Fukazawa , Y., & Kondo , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00126, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00126

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2013, , 432, 1434, 10.1093/mnras/stt563

    Fujita , Y., Kimura , S., & Ohira , Y. 2013, , 432, 1434, 10.1093/mnras/stt563

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    D., & Seifried , D

    Ganguly , S., Walch , S., Clarke , S. D., & Seifried , D. 2024, , 528, 3630, 10.1093/mnras/stae032

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, , 427, 1482, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22085.x

    Gilkis , A., & Soker , N. 2012, , 427, 1482, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22085.x

    2012

  15. [23]

    L., McNamara , B

    Gingras , M.-J., Coil , A. L., McNamara , B. R., et al. 2024, , 977, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822a

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, , 455, 2139, 10.1093/mnras/stv2483

    Hillel , S., & Soker , N. 2016, , 455, 2139, 10.1093/mnras/stv2483

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, , 535, 117, 10.1038/nature18627

    Hitomi Collaboration , Aharonian , F., Akamatsu , H., et al. 2016, , 535, 117, 10.1038/nature18627

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, , 70, 9, 10.1093/pasj/psx138

    ---. 2018, , 70, 9, 10.1093/pasj/psx138

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Hu s ko , F., & Lacey , C. G. 2023, , 521, 4375, 10.1093/mnras/stad793

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, SciPy Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. 2011, SciPy Open Source Scientific Tools for Python . www.scipy.org

    2011

  24. [32]

    M., Clarke , T

    Lane , W. M., Clarke , T. E., Taylor , G. B., Perley , R. A., & Kassim , N. E. 2004, , 127, 48, 10.1086/379858

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Coil , A

    Li , M., McNamara , B. R., Coil , A. L., et al. 2025, , 984, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc102

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, , 889, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    Li , Y., Gendron-Marsolais , M.-L., Zhuravleva , I., et al. 2020, , 889, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Bower , R

    McCarthy , I. G., Bower , R. G., Balogh , M. L., et al. 2007, , 376, 497, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11465.x

    2007

  28. [36]

    R., & Tremblay , G

    McDonald , M., Gaspari , M., McNamara , B. R., & Tremblay , G. R. 2018, , 858, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabace

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New J. Phys., 14, 055023, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Russell, H

    McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2016, , 830, 79. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/830/i=2/a=79

    2016

  31. [39]

    2022, , 510, 3778, 10.1093/mnras/stab3603

    Mohapatra , R., Jetti , M., Sharma , P., & Federrath , C. 2022, , 510, 3778, 10.1093/mnras/stab3603

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, , 484, 4881, 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    Mohapatra , R., & Sharma , P. 2019, , 484, 4881, 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Nulsen , P. E. J., Hambrick , D. C., McNamara , B. R., et al. 2005, , 625, L9, 10.1086/430945

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    Nulsen, P. E. J., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & David, L. P. 2005, , 628, 629. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/628/i=2/a=629

    2005

  35. [43]

    A., McNamara , B

    Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., & Wise , M. W. 2006, , 652, 216, 10.1086/507672

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Robitaille , T., & Bressert , E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1208.017

    2012

  37. [45]

    C., Combes , F., et al

    Rose , T., Edge , A. C., Combes , F., et al. 2019, , 485, 229, 10.1093/mnras/stz406

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, , 496, 364, 10.1093/mnras/staa1474

    ---. 2020, , 496, 364, 10.1093/mnras/staa1474

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Combes , F., et al

    Rose , T., McNamara , B. R., Combes , F., et al. 2024, , 533, 771, 10.1093/mnras/stae1831

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, , 31, 4, 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    Ruszkowski , M., & Pfrommer , C. 2023, , 31, 4, 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Fabian , A

    Sanders , J. S., & Fabian , A. C. 2008, , 390, L93, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00549.x

    2008

  42. [50]

    2013, , 429, 2727, 10.1093/mnras/sts543

    ---. 2013, , 429, 2727, 10.1093/mnras/sts543

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    L., Wise , M

    Sarazin , C. L., Wise , M. W., & Markevitch , M. L. 1998, , 498, 606, 10.1086/305578

    1998 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, , 658, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    Simonte , M., Vazza , F., Brighenti , F., et al. 2022, , 658, A149, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141703

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Tollerud, E

    The Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    The Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , a. A. M., Sip Hocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual ( Scotts Valley, CA : CreateSpace )

    2009

  49. [57]

    N., McNamara , B

    Vantyghem , A. N., McNamara , B. R., Russell , H. R., et al. 2014, , 442, 3192, 10.1093/mnras/stu1030

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.04727, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04727

    Vazza , F., & Brunetti , G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.04727, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04727

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    M., & Fabian , A

    Voigt , L. M., & Fabian , A. C. 2004, , 347, 1130, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07285.x

    2004

  53. [61]

    Voit , G. M. 2018, , 868, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e2

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    M., & Donahue , M

    Voit , G. M., & Donahue , M. 2005, , 634, 955, 10.1086/497063

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    2015, , 799, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/799/1/L1

    ---. 2015, , 799, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/799/1/L1

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    W., McNamara , B

    Wise , M. W., McNamara , B. R., Nulsen , P. E. J., Houck , J. C., & David , L. P. 2007, , 659, 1153, 10.1086/512767

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    T., & Eastman , J

    Wright , J. T., & Eastman , J. D. 2014, , 126, 838, 10.1086/678541

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, , 76, 1186, 10.1093/pasj/psae080

    XRISM Collaboration , Audard , M., Awaki , H., et al. 2024, , 76, 1186, 10.1093/pasj/psae080

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2025 a , , 982, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd

    ---. 2025 a , , 982, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    2025 b , , 638, 365, 10.1038/s41586-024-08561-z

    ---. 2025 b , , 638, 365, 10.1038/s41586-024-08561-z

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    2025 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20928

    ---. 2025 c , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20928. 2504.20928

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Yang , H. Y. K., & Reynolds , C. S. 2016, , 829, 90, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/90

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, , 517, 616, 10.1093/mnras/stac2282

    Zhang , C., Zhuravleva , I., Gendron-Marsolais , M.-L., et al. 2022, , 517, 616, 10.1093/mnras/stac2282

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva , I., Churazov , E., Schekochihin , A. A., et al. 2014, , 515, 85, 10.1038/nature13830

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Markevitch , M., & Zhuravleva , I

    ZuHone , J. A., Markevitch , M., & Zhuravleva , I. 2016, , 817, 110, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/110

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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