pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04686 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Theoretical Constraints on Neutron Star Superfluidity from Her X-1 Precession

Anton Biryukov , Amir Levinson , Pavel Abolmasov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron star superfluidityHer X-1free precessionvortex pinningmutual frictioninner crustX-ray polarizationsuperorbital period
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sustained precession in Her X-1 requires superfluid vortices to remain unpinned for centuries with minimal friction.

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

The paper establishes that if the 35-day superorbital cycle in Her X-1 is caused by nearly free precession of the neutron star, then the crustal superfluid must behave in ways that contradict standard expectations. Vortices in the superfluid must stay unpinned over very long timescales and experience very little friction as they pass through the inner crust's ion lattice. This would mean that the precession can persist without significant damping over the 50 years of observations. A sympathetic reader would care because it directly constrains the microphysical properties of neutron star matter using observational data from X-ray polarization.

Core claim

Recent IXPE observations interpreted as evidence for nearly free precession of the neutron star in Her X-1 imply that maintaining this precession over decades requires the superfluid vortices to remain unpinned for centuries and to experience extremely weak mutual friction while moving through the heavy-ion lattice in the inner crust. Under these conditions of weak pinning, the nearly free precession can be sustained by a balance between internal torques from the superfluid and external torques.

What carries the argument

The torque balance between weakly pinned superfluid vortices and external accretion torques, which sustains nearly free precession of the crust.

If this is right

  • Superfluid models must incorporate pinning energies much lower than those used in standard glitch theories.
  • Mutual friction coefficients in the inner crust must be suppressed by orders of magnitude relative to conventional estimates.
  • External torques from the accretion flow can maintain the precession against any residual internal dissipation.
  • The long-term stability of the observed cycle directly probes the microphysics of vortex motion through the crustal lattice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar weak-friction conditions could apply to other accreting pulsars if future polarization data reveal free-precession signatures.
  • Glitch models for isolated neutron stars may need revision if weak pinning is more common than assumed.
  • Laboratory studies of superfluids in ionic lattices could test whether such low friction is physically realizable.

Load-bearing premise

The 35-day period is produced by nearly free precession of the neutron star as a whole rather than by precession of the accretion disk or other external processes.

What would settle it

Observation of significant precession damping within decades or a glitch with rapid recovery that requires strong vortex pinning would contradict the sustained weak-friction requirement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04686 by Amir Levinson, Anton Biryukov, Pavel Abolmasov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Reference frame aligned with the principal mo￾ments of inertia of the neutron-star normal crust, I1–I2–I3. In this work we consider mostly a biaxial star, such that I1 = I2 = I0, where I0 = In + Ico is the combined moment of inertia of the normal crust and the core, whose rotation is assumed to be tightly coupled. The vector Ωn denotes the angular velocity of the normal crust, while Ωs is the angular veloc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of γ and δΩ||/Ωn = Ωs/Ωn −1 for free precession (N ext = 0), with Pn,0 = 1 s, ϵ = 4×10−7 , κs = 0.01, and initial tilt θ0 = 45◦ . The left panels show solutions for different values of the drag parameter R, assuming the initial condition Ωn = Ωs. The right panels show solutions for different initial values of γ and δΩ|| = Ωs − Ωn, as indicated. Solid lines represent numerical solutions of Eqs. (1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The evolution of the wobbling angle θ in the limit of free precession, for κs = 10−2 , and for different values of the drag parameter R and ellipticity ϵ, as indicated. The ini￾tial crustal spin period and tilt are Pn,0 = 1 s and θ0 = 30◦ , respectively. The dotted lines show the exact numerical so￾lutions of Eqs. (15) and (16), while the solid lines show the corresponding analytical solutions given by Eq.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Possible evolutionary track of the neutron star in Her X-1, taking into account the internal torque exerted by the crustal superfluid. The plots show the numerical solution of Eqs. (15)–(16) including the external torque given by Eq. (40). The star is assumed to be prolate with ellipticity ϵ = −4 × 10−7 and superfluid drag coefficient R = κs = 0.01; the accretion rate is M˙ = 5 × 10−8 M⊙ yr−1 . In the left… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Modeled evolution of the magnetic angle χ of Her X-1 for R = 1 (left panels) and R = 10 (right panels), for prolate (top) and oblate (bottom) stars. All other parameters are the same as in view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Possible evolution of the neutron star in Her X-1 assuming a triaxial deformation ϵ3 = −ϵ1 = 4 × 10−7 and initial orientations of Ωn and m as estimated by D. Kolesnikov et al. (2022). In particular, θ0 = 50◦ , and m points in the direction (φm, θm) = (90◦ , 30◦ ). The terms contributing to ˙θ in the bottom right plot were calculated using the Eq.(31) assuming ϵ = p ϵ 2 1 + ϵ 2 3 . Although this equation is… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the magnetic angle in a toy model including a strongly deformed crust (ϵcr = 10−2 ) and a massive core (κco = 10) coupled to it. The spin period of the star is P0 = 1 s. The rotational evolution for different values of C is shown and is fully consistent with the theoretical predictions. For weak coupling (C = 10−3 ), the star exhibits long-lived precession with period ∼ 2P0/ϵcr ∼ 200 s, for an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent IXPE observations of Her X-1 reveal correlations between flux, polarization degree, and polarization angle across its 35-day superorbital cycle. These measurements have been interpreted as strong evidence that the 35-day period is driven by nearly free precession of the neutron star. We show that this interpretation carries far-reaching implications for the dynamics of the crustal superfluid. In particular, maintaining precession over the $\sim 50$-year observational baseline of Her X-1 would require that superfluid vortices remain unpinned for centuries and experience extremely weak mutual friction while traversing the heavy-ion lattice of the inner crust -- conditions that challenge conventional wisdom and standard models of glitch dynamics. Under the condition of weak pinning, nearly free precession of the crust may be sustained by a balance between the internal and external torques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that the interpretation of Her X-1's 35-day superorbital cycle as nearly free precession of the neutron star—supported by recent IXPE observations of correlated flux, polarization degree, and polarization angle—imposes strong constraints on crustal superfluid dynamics. Specifically, sustaining this precession over the ~50-year observational baseline requires superfluid vortices to remain unpinned for centuries while experiencing extremely weak mutual friction as they traverse the inner-crust heavy-ion lattice; under weak pinning, a balance between internal and external torques can maintain the precession.

Significance. If the precession interpretation is robust, the derived constraints would meaningfully challenge standard models of vortex pinning and mutual friction in neutron-star glitches, linking a specific observational phenomenon to microphysical properties of the inner crust. The logical chain from assumed free precession to long-term unpinned vortices is internally consistent and highlights an under-explored regime of superfluid behavior, though the overall impact remains tied to the strength of the external observational premise.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and §2] Introduction and §2: The central claim that the 35-day period is driven by nearly free precession is adopted directly from the IXPE polarization correlations without a self-contained torque-balance derivation, quantitative exclusion of alternatives (e.g., disk warping or accretion-flow precession), or error budget on the precession frequency; this premise is load-bearing for all subsequent superfluid constraints.
  2. [§4] §4 (torque-balance and pinning discussion): The statement that vortices must remain unpinned for centuries follows from the 50-year baseline under the weak-pinning regime, but the manuscript supplies no explicit calculation of the required pinning energy threshold, mutual-friction coefficient upper bound, or sensitivity to crust lattice parameters, leaving the quantitative strength of the constraint unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Clarify the definition of 'nearly free precession' with a brief comparison to the rigid-body Euler equations or the standard neutron-star precession frequency formula.
  2. Add a short paragraph comparing the implied mutual-friction regime to existing constraints from pulsar glitch recovery times.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Introduction and §2] Introduction and §2: The central claim that the 35-day period is driven by nearly free precession is adopted directly from the IXPE polarization correlations without a self-contained torque-balance derivation, quantitative exclusion of alternatives (e.g., disk warping or accretion-flow precession), or error budget on the precession frequency; this premise is load-bearing for all subsequent superfluid constraints.

    Authors: Our manuscript is primarily concerned with the theoretical implications for neutron star superfluidity assuming the nearly free precession interpretation of the 35-day cycle, as supported by the recent IXPE observations. We have now included in the revised introduction a concise summary of the torque-balance arguments underlying the precession model, drawing from established literature on Her X-1. Regarding alternatives such as disk warping or accretion-flow precession, while we acknowledge their potential relevance, a detailed quantitative comparison and exclusion is beyond the scope of this work, which focuses on superfluid constraints. We have added an estimate of the uncertainty in the precession frequency based on the observational data in §2. This approach allows us to highlight the significant constraints on superfluid parameters that follow from the precession interpretation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (torque-balance and pinning discussion): The statement that vortices must remain unpinned for centuries follows from the 50-year baseline under the weak-pinning regime, but the manuscript supplies no explicit calculation of the required pinning energy threshold, mutual-friction coefficient upper bound, or sensitivity to crust lattice parameters, leaving the quantitative strength of the constraint unclear.

    Authors: We agree that providing explicit calculations enhances the manuscript. In the revised §4, we now include a detailed derivation showing how the 50-year baseline implies a lower limit on the pinning energy and an upper bound on the mutual friction coefficient under the weak-pinning assumption. We also analyze the sensitivity to key crust parameters, such as the lattice spacing and vortex pinning forces, using representative values from the literature. These additions make the quantitative strength of the constraints explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; constraints follow from external observational premise without reduction to self-defined inputs

full rationale

The paper accepts the IXPE-based interpretation of the 35-day cycle as nearly free precession as an external input and derives implications for crustal superfluid vortex pinning and mutual friction over the 50-year baseline. No equations, fits, or self-citations in the abstract or described chain reduce the superfluid constraints back to a quantity defined by the same data or by construction. The derivation remains independent of its outputs, with no self-definitional loops, fitted predictions, or ansatz smuggling. This is the standard case of a self-contained argument against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the external assumption that the 35-day cycle is free precession plus standard neutron-star superfluid dynamics; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 35-day superorbital period of Her X-1 is produced by nearly free precession of the neutron star
    Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract as the premise whose implications are explored.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5440 in / 1308 out tokens · 56842 ms · 2026-05-08T16:40:13.671296+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abolmasov, P., Biryukov, A., & Popov, S. B. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 7, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12010007

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12010007 2024

  2. [2]

    1987, Astron

    Alpar, A., & Oegelman, H. 1987, Astron. Astrophys., 185, 196 17

    1987

  3. [3]

    A., Anderson, P

    Alpar, M. A., Anderson, P. W., Pines, D., & Shaham, J. 1984a, ApJ, 278, 791, doi: 10.1086/161849

    work page doi:10.1086/161849

  4. [4]

    A., Pines, D., Anderson, P

    Alpar, M. A., Pines, D., Anderson, P. W., & Shaham, J. 1984b, ApJ, 276, 325, doi: 10.1086/161616

    work page doi:10.1086/161616

  5. [5]

    A., & Sauls, J

    Alpar, M. A., & Sauls, J. A. 1988, ApJ, 327, 723, doi: 10.1086/166228

    work page doi:10.1086/166228 1988

  6. [6]

    W., & Itoh, N

    Anderson, P. W., & Itoh, N. 1975, Nature, 256, 25, doi: 10.1038/256025a0

    work page doi:10.1038/256025a0 1975

  7. [7]

    Antonelli, M., Montoli, A., & Pizzochero, P. M. 2022, in Astrophysics in the XXI Century with Compact Stars. Edited by C.A.Z. Vasconcellos. eISBN 978-981-12-2094-4. Singapore: World Scientific, ed. C. A. Z. Vasconcellos, 219–281, doi: 10.1142/9789811220944 0007

    work page doi:10.1142/9789811220944 2022

  8. [8]

    B., Titarchuk, L

    Averintsev, M. B., Titarchuk, L. G., & Sheffer, E. K. 1992, Soviet Ast., 36, 35

    1992

  9. [9]

    1983, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 50, 57, doi: 10.1007/BF00681839

    Baym, G., & Chandler, E. 1983, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 50, 57, doi: 10.1007/BF00681839

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00681839 1983

  10. [10]

    1969, Nature, 224, 673, doi: 10.1038/224673a0

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Pines, D. 1969, Nature, 224, 673, doi: 10.1038/224673a0

    work page doi:10.1038/224673a0 1969

  11. [11]

    S., & Zheltoukhov, A

    Beskin, V. S., & Zheltoukhov, A. A. 2014, Physics Uspekhi, 57, 799, doi: 10.3367/UFNe.0184.201408e.0865

    work page doi:10.3367/ufne.0184.201408e.0865 2014

  12. [12]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1378

    Biryukov, A., & Abolmasov, P. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1378 2021

  13. [13]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a44

    Biryukov, A., Abolmasov, P., & Levinson, A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a44 2025

  14. [14]

    S., Vrtilek, S

    Boroson, B. S., Vrtilek, S. D., Raymond, J. C., & Still, M. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1087, doi: 10.1086/520826

    work page doi:10.1086/520826 2007

  15. [15]

    1974, ApJL, 192, L125, doi: 10.1086/181607

    Brecher, K., & Wasserman, I. 1974, ApJL, 192, L125, doi: 10.1086/181607

    work page doi:10.1086/181607 1974

  16. [16]

    Brown, E. F. 2000, ApJ, 531, 988, doi: 10.1086/308487

    work page doi:10.1086/308487 2000

  17. [17]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1930

    Celora, T., Khomenko, V., Antonelli, M., & Haskell, B. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1930

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1930 2020

  18. [18]

    2002, Phys

    Cutler, C. 2002, PhRvD, 66, 084025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.084025 2002

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Deeter, J. E., Boynton, P. E., & Pravdo, S. H. 1981, ApJ, 247, 1003, doi: 10.1086/159110

    work page doi:10.1086/159110 1981

  20. [20]

    Gerend, D., & Boynton, P. E. 1976, ApJ, 209, 562, doi: 10.1086/154751

    work page doi:10.1086/154751 1976

  21. [21]

    , year = 1973, month = aug, volume =

    Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., et al. 1973, ApJ, 184, 227, doi: 10.1086/152321

    work page doi:10.1086/152321 1973

  22. [22]

    2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530008, doi: 10.1142/S0218271815300086

    Haskell, B., & Melatos, A. 2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530008, doi: 10.1142/S0218271815300086

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271815300086 2015

  23. [23]

    Nature Astronomy , year = 2024, month = aug, volume =

    Heyl, J., Doroshenko, V., Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1047, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02295-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02295-8 2024

  24. [24]

    R., Pringle, J

    Jones, D. I., & Andersson, N. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 811, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04251.x 2001

  25. [25]

    Katz, J. I. 1973, Nature Physical Science, 246, 87, doi: 10.1038/physci246087a0

    work page doi:10.1038/physci246087a0 1973

  26. [26]

    Khalatnikov, I. M. 1965, An Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity (New York: Benjamin), 93–104

    1965

  27. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1107

    Kolesnikov, D., Shakura, N., & Postnov, K. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1107 2022

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Kosec, P., Fabian, A. C., Pinto, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3200

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3200 2020

  29. [29]

    1999, ApJ, 524, 1030, doi: 10.1086/307850

    Lai, D. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1030, doi: 10.1086/307850

    work page doi:10.1086/307850 1999

  30. [30]

    Lai, D., Foucart, F., & Lin, D. N. C. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2790, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x 2011

  31. [31]

    2025, Universe, 11, 381, doi: 10.3390/universe11120381

    Leahy, D., & Frost, S. 2025, Universe, 11, 381, doi: 10.3390/universe11120381

    work page doi:10.3390/universe11120381 2025

  32. [32]

    A., Postma, J., & Chen, Y

    Leahy, D. A., Postma, J., & Chen, Y. 2020, ApJ, 889, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab65f9 2020

  33. [33]

    2004, ApJ, 613, 1157, doi: 10.1086/423197

    Levin, Y., & D’Angelo, C. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1157, doi: 10.1086/423197

    work page doi:10.1086/423197 2004

  34. [34]

    Link, Phys

    Link, B. 2003, PhRvL, 91, 101101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.101101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.101101 2003

  35. [35]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/141

    Link, B. 2014, ApJ, 789, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/141 2014

  36. [36]

    R., Tout, C

    Link, B., & Cutler, C. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 211, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05726.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05726.x 2002

  37. [37]

    1977, ApJL, 213, L17, doi: 10.1086/182400

    Mazeh, T., & Shaham, J. 1977, ApJL, 213, L17, doi: 10.1086/182400

    work page doi:10.1086/182400 1977

  38. [38]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

  39. [39]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8e4

    Nava-Callejas, M., Page, D., & Cavecchi, Y. 2025, ApJ, 991, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8e4 2025

  40. [40]

    Parfrey, K., Spitkovsky, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2016, Astrophys. J, 822, 33, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/33 2016

  41. [41]

    Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 201, L61, doi: 10.1086/181942

    work page doi:10.1086/181942 1975

  42. [42]

    Petterson, J. A. 1977, ApJ, 218, 783, doi: 10.1086/155735

    work page doi:10.1086/155735 1977

  43. [43]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1363

    Postnov, K., Shakura, N., Staubert, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1363 2013

  44. [44]

    2000, MNRAS, 314, 498, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03357.x

    Postnov, K. A., Prokhorov, M. E., & Shakura, N. I. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 317, 833, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03724.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03724.x 2000

  45. [45]

    R., Tout, C

    Ramsay, G., Zane, S., Jimenez-Garate, M. A., den Herder, J.-W., & Hailey, C. J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1185, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.06002.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.06002.x 2002

  46. [46]

    1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 289, 149

    Schandl, S., & Meyer, F. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 289, 149

    1994

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Scott, D. M., Leahy, D. A., & Wilson, R. B. 2000, ApJ, 539, 392, doi: 10.1086/309203

    work page doi:10.1086/309203 2000

  48. [48]

    Sedrakian, A., Wasserman, I., & Cordes, J. M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 341, doi: 10.1086/307777

    work page doi:10.1086/307777 1999

  49. [49]

    1977, Astrophys

    Shaham, J. 1977, Astrophys. J, 214, 251, doi: 10.1086/155249

    work page doi:10.1086/155249 1977

  50. [50]

    I., Postnov, K

    Shakura, N. I., Postnov, K. A., & Prokhorov, M. E. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 331, L37 18

    1998

  51. [51]

    E., & Levin, Y

    Sheng, X., Link, B., Caplan, M. E., & Levin, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.22670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.22670

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.22670 2025

  52. [52]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 494, 1025, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810966

    Staubert, R., Klochkov, D., Wilms, J., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 494, 1025, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810966

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810966 2009

  53. [53]

    2014, A&A, 572, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424203

    Staubert, R., Klochkov, D., Wilms, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424203

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424203 2014

  54. [54]

    , year = 1972, month = jun, volume =

    Tananbaum, H., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E. M., et al. 1972, ApJL, 174, L143, doi: 10.1086/180968

    work page doi:10.1086/180968 1972

  55. [55]

    1986, ApJL, 300, L63, doi: 10.1086/184604

    Voges, W. 1986, ApJL, 300, L63, doi: 10.1086/184604

    work page doi:10.1086/184604 1986

  56. [56]

    Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 207, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02720.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02720.x 1999

  57. [57]

    L., & Kondo, Y

    Wolff, C. L., & Kondo, Y. 1978, ApJ, 219, 605, doi: 10.1086/155821

    work page doi:10.1086/155821 1978

  58. [58]

    C., Li, H

    Zhao, Q. C., Li, H. C., Tao, L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1173

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1173 2024