Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A relativistic jet from a neutron star breaking out of its natal supernova remnant

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports deep radio observations showing two large bubbles protruding from the Cir X-1 supernova remnant along its jet axis, and argues they were punched by a powerful jet launched shortly after the supernova.

desk verdict Deep MeerKAT imaging reveals plausible jet-punched bubbles around Cir X-1, but the abstract oversells what the simulations actually reproduce. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22998 v1 pith:O4LFVLVJ submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.HE

K. V. S. Gasealahwe , K. Savard , I. M. Monageng , I. Heywood , R. P. Fender , P. A. Woudt , J. English , J. H. Matthews
show 5 more authors
H. Whitehead F. J. Cowie A. K. Hughes P. Saikia S. E. Motta
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords radiocontinuumX-raybinariesneutronstarsjetssupernovaremnantsrelativistichydrodynamicsCircinusX-1MeerKAT
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 reports the deepest radio image yet of the neutron star X-ray binary Circinus X-1, revealing two large bubbles protruding from its natal supernova remnant along the axis of the system's known jets. The authors argue that these bubbles were punched by a powerful, fixed-axis jet launched within about a century of the supernova and active for less than a thousand years, making these the first observations of a neutron star jet breaking out of its birth remnant. If correct, the result places Cir X-1 as a young relation of the archetypal jet source SS433 and shows that neutron stars can briefly launch jets far more powerful than their current output.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a combined supernova-plus-jet model simulated in relativistic hydrodynamics, in which a Sedov-Taylor blast wave is followed by injection of a fixed-axis relativistic jet from the centre. The jet punches through the expanding supernova shell, inflating a pair of bubbles that later cool and become faint, matching the observed morphology. The model is used to infer the jet's launch time (within roughly 100 years of the supernova), duration (less than 1000 years), and power (tens of Eddington luminosities), and to reproduce the observed ring brightness and the nebula-to-bubble flux contrast.

What would settle it

If a future observation or simulation showed that the bubble morphology could be reproduced purely by an inhomogeneous interstellar medium without any jet, or if a spectral index measurement revealed the bubbles to be thermal rather than synchrotron emission, the breakout claim would be undermined. Concretely, deep imaging at a second frequency that resolves the bubbles and measures a flat or positive spectral index would contradict the optically thin synchrotron interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the newly resolved radio bubbles extending from the Cir X-1 supernova remnant were excavated by an early, very powerful jet phase. Using relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of a supernova followed by a jet, the authors reproduce the overall morphology of the remnant with bubbles inflated along the jet axis, bright rings where the bubbles meet the shell, and a faint bubble interior. The fiducial simulation has a jet launched 50 years after the explosion, running for 550 years at about 35 times the Eddington luminosity of a 1.4 solar mass neutron star. The authors state this is the first detection of neutron star jets breaking out of their natal supernova remnant and further support the younger-relation-to-SS433 scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation that the bubbles were punched by an early powerful jet rests on the assumption that the observed morphology cannot be produced by local density variations in the gas around the supernova, and the simulations themselves do not reproduce the bubble height or the narrow ring where the bubble meets the shell.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cir X-1 must have experienced a brief, powerful jet phase within the first century after its supernova, depositing on the order of $10^{50}$ erg into the surrounding medium.
  • The current slow, precessing jets are a separate, later mode, so the system has switched from a powerful fixed-axis jet to a weaker precessing one.
  • Neutron star X-ray binaries can launch jets powerful enough to reshape their natal supernova remnant, and such breakouts should be searched for in other young remnants.
  • The observed bubble minimum energy of about $10^{45}$ erg is much smaller than the injected jet energy, implying most of the jet energy is lost to adiabatic expansion or dissipated into the nebula.
  • Cir X-1 is likely a younger analogue of SS433, supporting a common evolutionary picture for jet-producing X-ray binaries in their supernova remnants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the breakout interpretation holds, the short-lived bright phase of the jet means such breakouts are transient in a remnant's life; many young neutron star remnants may currently hide evidence of past powerful jets that have since faded.
  • The two un-reproduced features, bubble height and ring narrowness, point to missing physics in the model, most plausibly a locally underdense interstellar medium or magnetic-field confinement at the bubble base; including these might also explain the observed north-south asymmetry.
  • A direct test would be to search for similar bubble pairs in other young supernova remnants with known neutron star X-ray binaries; detection of a population would confirm that early powerful jets are a common phase.
  • The energy discrepancy factor of roughly 10 between the simulation's injected jet energy and the equipartition minimum energy suggests the minimum-energy assumption underestimates the true energy budget, or a substantial fraction of jet energy escapes the bubble; measuring the bubble's expansion or internal pressure could distinguish these.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents deep MeerKAT 1.28 GHz radio imaging of the neutron star X-ray binary Cir X-1 and its surrounding nebula, revealing two previously unseen bubble-like structures protruding from the shell along the mean jet axis. The authors construct a spectral index map, measure a minimum energy for the northwest bubble and the nebula, and run PLUTO relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of a supernova explosion followed by an early, powerful, fixed-axis jet to model the morphology. They conclude that a jet launched within 100 years of the supernova and active for less than 1000 years produced the bubbles, and they claim these are the first observations revealing the initial breakout of a neutron star jet from its natal supernova remnant.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the discovery is important: it would provide the first direct morphological evidence of a neutron star jet breaking out of its natal supernova remnant, strengthening the proposed analogy between Cir X-1 and SS433, and would place new constraints on early jet activity in young X-ray binaries. The observational work is of high quality: the 7.5-hour stacked MeerKAT image is the deepest yet of this field, the spectral index analysis is carefully done with error propagation, and the minimum-energy estimates are clearly documented. The simulation study is also a serious proof of concept, with a detailed numerical setup, a ray-traced comparison to the radio image, and an honest exploration of parameter dependencies. The central weakness is that the simulations themselves fail to reproduce two of the most striking observed features, and the paper's language in the abstract and conclusions goes beyond what the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and §7] The manuscript explicitly states that no simulation in the explored parameter space reproduces the 'bubble-like' shape (widest at mid-height), that even with a jet power of ~35 L_Edd launched 50 years after the supernova the bubble is 'still too short', and that 'the narrowness of the ring observed was not reproduced by any test simulation'. These are precisely the two features that define the claimed breakout morphology: a bubble reaching ~80% of the remnant radius and a narrow ring at the shell interface. The abstract's statement that 'We are able to do so' (reproduce the observations) and the conclusion that the modeling 'indicates that the MeerKAT observations are the first to reveal an initial breakout' are therefore not supported by the simulation results presented. The simulations demonstrate that a jet can produce protrusions in the shell, but they do not demonstrate that the specific observed bubbles are jet-punched breakouts. The authors should either substantially qualify these claims throughout the paper, or perform additional simulations (e.g., including a local underdense region) that actually reproduce the missing features.
  2. [§6.3 and §5] The interpretive framework is a 'two-mode' jet model in which the fast fixed-axis jet parameters are hand-picked rather than fit to the data, as acknowledged in §6.3: 'the exact jet power implemented in the simulation is not a 'fit' to data, so to speak'. The parameter space explored (Table 1) is explicitly non-comprehensive, and alternative explanations—local ISM density inhomogeneities, magnetic confinement, or different jet histories—are acknowledged in §6.3 but are not simulated or quantitatively tested. This makes the central claim that the bubbles are jet-punched breakouts a plausibility argument rather than a uniquely supported test. A stronger test would be to simulate at least one non-jet scenario (e.g., a bubble produced purely by an ambient density fluctuation) and show that it cannot reproduce the ring/bubble morphology.
  3. [§3.2 and §6.1] The spectral index map does not yield a measurement for the bubbles; §3.2 states that 'the bubbles, including the upper edge of the NW bubble, are too faint to have measurable spectral indices'. Their identification as optically thin synchrotron emission from a jet outflow is therefore inferred solely from morphology and alignment with the jet axis. The abstract and conclusions describe the features as 'relativistic jet-punched bubbles' without this caveat. The authors should state in the abstract and conclusions that the synchrotron nature and jet connection of the bubbles are inferred, not directly measured.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§7] The sentence 'We unable to reproduce two main features' should be corrected to 'We are unable to reproduce two main features'.
  2. [§4.2.1] The adopted supernova energy of 3×10^50 erg is lower than the canonical ~10^51 erg for core-collapse supernovae; a sentence justifying this choice and its effect on the bubble height would be helpful.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The Doppler factor enters as δ^{2−α}; for a continuous jet the standard exponent is 2+α (with S_ν ∝ ν^{−α}), and for a relativistic blob it is 3+α. Please justify the use of 2−α or clarify the assumed geometry and convention for α.
  4. [§3.3] The quantity R is described as the 'source size' but is actually the radius (half the measured length). Please clarify this in the text to avoid confusion in the minimum-energy calculation.
  5. [§1 and Fig. 2] The name 'Africa nebula' is introduced without explanation; adding a brief note on the naming would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the source.
  6. [Tables 1–2] The naming of the comparison simulation 'Increase t_jet' with t_jet = 2500 yr is described in the text both as 'launched later in time and for slightly longer' and as a longer-duration jet; ensure the terminology and table captions are consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radio observations are independent inputs, the simulations are a forward consistency check with explicitly non-fitted jet parameters, and the admitted mismatches weaken the jet-breakout inference without making it circular.

full rationale

The paper's argument chain is: (1) a deep MeerKAT image independently reveals two bubble-like protrusions aligned with the known jet axis and ring-like structures at the bubble-shell intersection; (2) the minimum energy is derived from the measured flux and size; (3) PLUTO RHD simulations combine a Sedov-Taylor supernova with a fixed-axis jet and are used as a forward model to ask whether such a jet can qualitatively produce the observed morphology; (4) the fiducial run gives bubbles, rings, a nebula/bubble flux contrast, and a long cooling time, from which the authors infer an early, powerful, short-lived jet. I find no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The jet parameters in Section 4.2 are inputs, not fitted outputs; the paper explicitly cautions in Section 6.3 that 'the exact jet power implemented in the simulation is not a "fit" to data, so to speak', and that 'we have only explored one formation scenario ... we cannot rule out all other jet histories'. The main defect is overstatement, not circularity: the abstract says 'We are able to do so', while Section 5.2 says 'We were unable to produce a simulation within our explored parameter space with this "bubble-like" shape' and 'The narrowness of the ring observed was not reproduced by any test simulation', and Section 7 repeats that the height and ring narrowness were not reproduced. Those are failed predictions of the forward model - evidence against the jet interpretation, not cases where the conclusion is assumed in the input. The lack of a spectral-index measurement for the bubbles (Section 3.2) similarly weakens but does not circularize the synchrotron/jet interpretation. Citations such as Goodall et al. (2011) and Coriat et al. (2019) are external support, and the in-press self-reference to Cowie et al. (2025) is not load-bearing for the breakout claim. The correct verdict is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a simplified simulation with several hand-picked jet and ambient parameters, and on prior assumptions about the nature of the nebula and the emission mechanism. The observations themselves are independent, but the interpretation is not strongly constrained. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Supernova explosion energy E_SN = 3.0 x 10^50 erg
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.2.1 to produce a remnant of the correct size within the age estimate; not derived from data.
  • Ambient ISM density n0 = 1 cm^-3 (normalized to unity)
    Set in Section 4.2.2 based on typical ISM values, not measured for this specific environment.
  • Jet Lorentz factor Gamma_jet = 7 (fiducial), varied 3-10
    Varied in simulations to reproduce morphology (Table 1); chosen by qualitative comparison, not a formal fit.
  • Jet density n_jet = 7.7 x 10^-5 cm^-3 (fiducial)
    One of two jet densities tested (Table 1); chosen to affect morphology, not measured.
  • Jet launch time t_jet = 50 years (fiducial), varied 50-3000
    The key parameter determining bubble size and ring width; selected to match observations, see Section 4.2.3.
  • Jet duration Delta_t_jet = 550 years (fiducial), varied 500-1500
    Chosen in simulations to produce bubbles of sufficient brightness and cooling; see Table 1 and Section 5.2.
  • Jet pressure p_jet = 7.5 x 10^-10 g cm^-1 s^-2
    Set constant across simulations (Section 4.2.3); a free parameter affecting jet-hotness.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Cir X-1 nebula is the natal supernova remnant of the X-ray binary.
    Taken from prior literature (Heinz et al. 2013) and used as a foundation for the simulation setup in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The supernova remnant evolution is in the Sedov-Taylor phase and can be modeled as a spherical blast wave.
    Invoked in Section 4.2.1 to justify the initial pressure sphere and ignore the free-expansion phase.
  • domain assumption The jet axis is perpendicular to the Galactic plane, allowing a 2D axisymmetric simulation.
    Stated in Section 4.2.2 as an advantageous feature; if the axis were tilted, the observed asymmetry could differ.
  • domain assumption The Galactic density profile follows the Dehnen and Binney (1998) model.
    Used in Section 4.2.2 to model the density gradient; a simplified representation of the complex ISM.
  • domain assumption The radio emission is optically thin synchrotron radiation, allowing the emissivity prescription of Hardcastle and Krause (2013).
    Adopted in Section 4.3 to compare simulation emission to the radio image; the spectral index is assumed to be -1 for the simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-mode jet model: a fast fixed-axis jet launched early, followed by the currently observed slow precessing jets.
    Proposed in Section 4 and discussed in Section 6.3 as the preferred scenario, but not independently verified.
  • standard math Minimum energy equipartition assumptions for the radio lobes and nebula (proton-to-electron energy ratio eta=1, filling factor f=1).
    Used in Section 3.3 to estimate E_min from observed flux; standard but not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A relativistic jet from a neutron star breaking out of its natal supernova remnant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4LFVLVJ

@misc{pith2026250722998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A relativistic jet from a neutron star breaking out of its natal supernova remnant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4LFVLVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22998}
}
abstract

The young neutron star X-ray binary, Cir X-1, resides within its natal supernova remnant and experiences ongoing outbursts every 16.5 days, likely due to periastron passage in an eccentric orbit. We present the deepest ever radio image of the field, which reveals relativistic jet-punched bubbles that are aligned with the mean axis of the smaller-scale jets observed close to the X-ray binary core. We are able to measure the minimum energy for the bubble, which is around $E_{min}$ = $10^{45} $ erg. The nature and morphological structure of the source were investigated through spectral index mapping and numerical simulations. The spectral index map reveals a large fraction of the nebula's radio continuum has a steep slope, associated with optically thin synchrotron emission, although there are distinct regions with flatter spectra. Our data are not sensitive enough to measure the spectral index of the protruding bubbles. We used the PLUTO code to run relativistic hydrodynamic simulations to try and qualitatively reproduce the observations with a combined supernova-plus-jet system. We are able to do so using a simplified model in which the asymmetrical bubbles are best represented by supernova explosion which is closely followed (within 100 years) by a phase of very powerful jets lasting less than 1000 years. These are the first observations revealing the initial breakout of neutron star jets from their natal supernova remnant, and further support the scenario in which Cir X-1 is a younger relation of the archetypal jet source SS433.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The MeerKAT L band image of the Cir X-1, Africa nebula and surrounding wide field with a primary beam FWHM ∼66′ (1.1 ◦ ), constructed with 30 epochs of data, we label Cir X-1 and the formally assumed supernova remnant of origin G321.9-0.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The zoomed-in version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sub-band Intensity Information. Colour was assigned to three sub-bands of the radio continuum observations, which were subsequently combined and adjusted as described in English (2017). The total intensity wide-band image was assigned red. The central region of the nebula was masked in the wide-band image in order to expose the colour combined sub-band image when their layers in GIMP are blended. See the text for mo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Spectral Index Map: Values more positive than -0.1 are conventionally referred to as flat, though these values may also be generated by noise. Values more negative than -0.8, where this colour map has a greyish divergent point, are conventionally referred t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Various timesteps of the fiducial simulation, with the time elapsed since initial supernova indicated in the top-left. Each panel shows the log of the number density on the left-hand side, and the log of the pressure on the right. Each row shares the same colourbar axe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lab-frame flux of the fiducial simulation compared to the observed radio flux. The 2D axisymmetric simulation (left) is rotated about its axis and the emissivity is integrated along a 60◦ angle to the line of sight using the in-house ray-tracing software DART to produc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the fiducial simulation (centre), a simulation where the jet is launched later in time and for slightly longer (left), and the same simulation but the jet is launched for a longer period of time (right) but starts at the same time as the fiducial. Ea…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Combined Spectral Index and Intensity. The spectral index was mapped with colours that have the same value (see equilumance mapping at https://github.com/mlarichardson/CosmosCanvas.) This map was blended with a greyscale rendition of intensity using the multiplication …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  6. [6]

    R., Pringle J., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 399

    Begelman M., King A. R., Pringle J., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 399

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    R., 2013, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APh....43...56B 43, 56

    Bell A. R., 2013, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APh....43...56B 43, 56

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.022 2013

  8. [8]

    V., Rothschild R

    Bradt H. V., Rothschild R. E., Swank J. H., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&AS...97..355B 97, 355

    work page 1993

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..839C 619, 839

    Chevalier R. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..839C 619, 839

    2005 doi

  3. [12]

    H., Parkinson J

    Clark D. H., Parkinson J. H., Caswell J. L., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1038/254674a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Natur.254..674C 254, 674

    1975 doi

  4. [13]

    Comrie A., et al., 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3377984

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    P., Tasse C., Smirnov O., Tzioumis A

    Coriat M., Fender R. P., Tasse C., Smirnov O., Tzioumis A. K., Broderick J. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1672C 484, 1672

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    Dehnen W., Binney J., 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 294, 429

    1998

  7. [16]

    C., Laskar T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...94D 865, 94

    Duffell P. C., Laskar T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...94D 865, 94

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    English J., 2017, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271817300105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017IJMPD..2630010E 26, 1730010

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    English J., Richardson M. L. A., Ferrand G., Deg N., 2024, CosmosCanvas: Useful color maps for different astrophysical properties , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2401.005

    2024

  10. [19]

    Fender R., Spencer R., Tzioumis T., Wu K., van der Klis M., van Paradijs J., Johnston H., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...506L.121F 506, L121

    1998 doi

  11. [20]

    Fender R., Wu K., Johnston H., Tzioumis T., Jonker P., Spencer R., van der Klis M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.427..222F 427, 222

    2004 doi

  12. [21]

    Fender R., et al., 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 13 ( @eprint arXiv 1711.04132 )

    2016 arXiv

  13. [24]

    J., Krause M

    Hardcastle M. J., Krause M. G. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430..174H 430, 174

    2013 doi

  14. [25]

    Hasinger G., van der Klis M., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...225...79H 225, 79

    1989

  15. [26]

    F., et al., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/324233a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.324..233H 324, 233

    Haynes R. F., et al., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/324233a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.324..233H 324, 233

    1986 doi

  16. [27]

    Heinz S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..171H 779, 171

    2013 doi

  17. [28]

    Heinz S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..265H 806, 265

    2015 doi

  18. [29]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1173383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...325..719H 325, 719

    Helder E. A., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1173383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...325..719H 325, 719

    2009 doi

  19. [30]

    Heywood I., 2020, oxkat: Semi-automated imaging of MeerKAT observations ( @eprint ascl 2009.003 )

    2020

  20. [31]

    Heywood I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2150H 509, 2150

    2022 doi

  21. [32]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  22. [33]

    M., Soria R., Gibson J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..347J 456, 347

    Johnston H. M., Soria R., Gibson J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..347J 456, 347

    2016 doi

  23. [34]

    J., Holt S

    Kaluzienski L. J., Holt S. S., Boldt E. A., Serlemitsos P. J., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...208L..71K 208, L71

    1976 doi

  24. [35]

    Linares M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L..84L 719, L84

    2010 doi

  25. [36]

    Margon B., Lampton M., Bowyer S., Cruddace R., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...169L..23M 169, L23

    1971 doi

  26. [37]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2665M 539, 2665

    Matthews J. H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2665M 539, 2665

    2025 doi

  27. [38]

    P., De Luca A., Caraveo P

    Mignani R. P., De Luca A., Caraveo P. A., Mirabel I. F., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...386..487M 386, 487

    2002 doi

  28. [39]

    Mignone A., Bodo G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09546.x , 364, 126

    2005

  29. [40]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11849.x , 378, 1118

    Mignone A., McKinney J. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11849.x , 378, 1118

    2007

  30. [42]

    Mignone A., Bodo G., Massaglia S., Matsakos T., Tesileanu O., Zanni C., Ferrari A., 2007b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/513316 , 170, 228

    doi

  31. [43]

    Moin A., Reynolds C., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Tingay S. J., Phillips C. J., Tzioumis A. K., Nicolson G. D., Fender R. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18660.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.3551M 414, 3551

    2011

  32. [44]

    Morlino G., Blasi P., Bandiera R., Amato E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..25M 558, A25

    2013 doi

  33. [45]

    Oosterbroek T., van der Klis M., Kuulkers E., van Paradijs J., Lewin W. H. G., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...297..141O 297, 141

    1995

  34. [46]

    I., 1958, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.30.1077 , 30, 1077

    Sedov L. I., 1958, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.30.1077 , 30, 1077

    1958 doi

  35. [47]

    H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.194S 719, L194

    Sell P. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.194S 719, L194

    2010 doi

  36. [48]

    E., Bradt H

    Shirey R. E., Bradt H. V., Levine A. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..472S 517, 472

    1999 doi

  37. [49]

    Shishkin D., Kaye R., Soker N., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 281

    2024

  38. [50]

    Soker N., Shishkin D., 2025, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/adb4cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025RAA....25c5008S 25, 035008

    2025 doi

  39. [51]

    Soleri P., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00574.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397L...1S 397, L1

    2009

  40. [52]

    T., Caswell J

    Stewart R. T., Caswell J. L., Haynes R. F., Nelson G. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/261.3.593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.261..593S 261, 593

    1993 doi

  41. [53]

    Taub A., 1948, Physical Review, 74, 328

    1948

  42. [54]

    M., Fender R

    Tauris T. M., Fender R. P., van den Heuvel E. P. J., Johnston H. M., Wu K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03068.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310.1165T 310, 1165

    1999

  43. [55]

    Taylor G., 1950, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1950.0049 , 201, 159

    1950

  44. [56]

    G., Andresen R

    Taylor B. G., Andresen R. D., Peacock A., Zobl R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF01246069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981SSRv...30..479T 30, 479

    1981 doi

  45. [57]

    F., Fabian A

    Tennant A. F., Fabian A. C., Shafer R. A., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/219.4.871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.219..871T 219, 871

    1986 doi

  46. [58]

    P., Kaiser C

    Tudose V., Fender R. P., Kaiser C. R., Tzioumis A. K., van der Klis M., Spencer R. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10873.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372..417T 372, 417

    2006

  47. [59]

    P., Tzioumis A

    Tudose V., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Spencer R. E., van der Klis M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13788.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390..447T 390, 447

    2008

  48. [60]

    Zhang W., MacFadyen A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1261Z 698, 1261

    2009 doi

  49. [61]

    de Korte P. A. J., et al., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF01246070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981SSRv...30..495D 30, 495

    1981 doi

  50. [62]

    van der Klis M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...92..511V 92, 511

    1994 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.