pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22354 · v1 · pith:NJ4WS6CBnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

EMU discovery of Thunder: a bow-shock PWN powered by PSR J1631-4722 escaping Nimbus SNR (G336.7+0.5)

S. Lazarevi\'c , C. Maitra , A. Ahmad , R. Z. E. Alsaberi , S. Dai , D. Leahy , M. D. Filipovi\'c , P. G. Edwards
show 16 more authors
O. Kargaltsev M. Abdelmaguid J. D. Gelfand J. West S. Hutschenreuter R. Brose R. Kothes V. Velovi\'c C. Burger-Scheidlin B. D. Ball G. Graham A. M. Hopkins G. P. Rowell S. F. Rahman Z. J. Smeaton S. Taziaux
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 10:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar wind nebulasupernova remnantbow shockPSR J1631-4722radio astronomyX-ray astronomyevolutionary models
0
0 comments X

The pith

A bow-shock pulsar wind nebula called Thunder is discovered inside the supernova remnant Nimbus, aged 30-45 kyr.

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

The paper identifies Thunder as a bow-shock pulsar wind nebula powered by PSR J1631-4722 and projected within the Galactic supernova remnant G336.7+0.5, or Nimbus. Radio and X-ray observations show an elongated cometary structure with synchrotron emission, ordered magnetic field, and no diffuse X-ray from the remnant. Using the morphology and multiwavelength properties together with evolutionary models, the authors constrain the age of the Nimbus-Thunder system to 30-45 kyr, placing the remnant in the late Sedov phase approaching the radiative stage. This matters because it provides a detailed example of a pulsar escaping its supernova remnant at a key evolutionary transition.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Nimbus-Thunder system has an age of approximately 30-45 kyr based on the observed morphology of the bow-shock PWN, its radio and X-ray properties, and evolutionary models, locating the SNR in the late Sedov phase nearing the transition to the radiative stage.

What carries the argument

The bow-shock morphology of the PWN Thunder and the multiwavelength properties of the Nimbus-Thunder system, combined with evolutionary models to constrain the age.

If this is right

  • The PWN has a magnetic field strength estimated at 54-140 μG via equipartition.
  • The pulsar shows strong timing noise and a small spin glitch of amplitude 1.10×10^{-8}.
  • The SNR lacks a clear diffuse X-ray counterpart.
  • The radio spectrum is flat with α = -0.27 ± 0.05 and X-ray photon index Γ = 1.6 ± 0.4.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the physical association could come from measuring the pulsar's proper motion matching the nebula's orientation.
  • This system may serve as a template for identifying other bow-shock PWNe in radio surveys.
  • Models of SNR evolution could be tested by searching for similar systems at comparable ages.

Load-bearing premise

The distance to the system is assumed to be 7 kpc to convert angular sizes to physical sizes and to estimate the age.

What would settle it

An independent distance measurement to the pulsar or remnant that differs substantially from 7 kpc would invalidate the physical size and age calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22354 by A. Ahmad, A. M. Hopkins, B. D. Ball, C. Burger-Scheidlin, C. Maitra, D. Leahy, G. Graham, G. P. Rowell, J. D. Gelfand, J. West, M. Abdelmaguid, M. D. Filipovi\'c, O. Kargaltsev, P. G. Edwards, R. Brose, R. Kothes, R. Z. E. Alsaberi, S. Dai, S. F. Rahman, S. Hutschenreuter, S. Lazarevi\'c, S. Taziaux, V. Velovi\'c, Z. J. Smeaton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Composite image of ASKAP 1367 MHz radio emission (orange-red) and WISE 12 µm infrared emission (cyan) of the SNR G336.7+0.5 (Nimbus) region. PWN J1631−4721 (Thunder) is marked by the white dashed box. The radio synthesised beam size of 8.8 ′′ × 7.4 ′′ is shown in the lower-left corner. The dashed line indicates a line parallel to the Galactic plane, offset by 0.35◦ . Right: WISE 12 µm map with overla… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radio continuum images of Nimbus SNR (G336.7+0.5) and the bow-shock PWN Thunder (J1631−4721), highlighted by the white dashed box. Panels show (a) ASKAP 944 MHz (resolution 16.3 ′′ × 13.3 ′′) with contours at 5, 20, and 37σ, where σ = 2×10−4 Jy beam−1 , (b) MeerKAT 1284 MHz (8 ′′×8 ′′), (c) ASKAP 1367 MHz (8.8 ′′×7.4 ′′) and (d) ATCA 5500 MHz (6 ′′×6 ′′). The synthesised beam for each observation is shown … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radio continuum images of Thunder PWN. Panels show (a) ASKAP 944 MHz (16.3 ′′×13.3 ′′ resolution) with a contour at 7.4 mJy beam−1 , (b) MeerKAT 1284 MHz (8 ′′ × 8 ′′), (c) ASKAP 1367 MHz (8.8 ′′ × 7.4 ′′), (d) ATCA 5500 MHz (3 ′′ × 3 ′′), (e) ATCA 9000 MHz (3 ′′ ×3 ′′) with contours at 0.2, 0.75 and 1 mJy beam−1 and (f) ATCA 9000 MHz (1.0 ′′ ×0.7 ′′). All images were produced using Briggs weighting with r… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XMM-Newton X-ray RGB image of Thunder, combining all observations listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timing residuals of PSR J1631−4722. Black points with error bars show the timing residuals obtained without fitting for the pulsar position, while red points show the residuals after the fit. The blue dashed line marks the epoch of the glitch. In addition to the timing noise, we detected a glitch in the pulsar spin period with an amplitude of ∆ν/ν = 1.10(2)×10−8 occurring between MJDs 60626 and 60733. Glit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral index fits for Nimbus−Thunder sys￾tem derived from the integrated flux densities listed in Ta￾ble 4, excluding the PMN point. A uniform 10% uncertainty was assumed for all flux density measurements. Top: Spec￾tral index fits for the entire SNR (solid red line) and its shell (dashed grey line). Bottom: Spectral index fit for the PWN (solid blue line). Quoted uncertainties include only the statistic… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral index and corresponding uncertainty maps of Nimbus SNR (panels a and b) and Thunder PWN (panels c − e). The synthesised beam is shown as the black ellipse in the lower-left corner and is 16.3 ′′ × 13.3 ′′ for all panels except (e), where a 3′′× 3 ′′ beam is used. Contour levels are identical to those shown in Figures 2 and 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ATCA total intensity (left), polarised intensity (middle), and fractional polarisation (right) maps of Thunder at 5500 MHz (panels a − c) and 9000 MHz (panels d − f). The black circle in the lower-left corner indicates the synthesised beam of 6′′× 6 ′′. Black contours correspond to the 5500 MHz total intensity image at levels of 1.3 and 3 mJy beam−1 . For the polarisation analysis of Thunder, we used ATCA … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RM map of Thunder (a), corresponding RM uncertainty map (b), and projected magnetic field vectors overlaid on the ATCA 5500 MHz total intensity image (c). Vector lengths are proportional to the fractional polarisation shown in Figure 8c. The circle in the lower-left corner indicates the synthesised beam of 6′′× 6 ′′. The contour corresponds to the 5500 MHz total intensity level of 1.3 mJy beam−1 . or 9000 … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial surface brightness profile of Thunder PWN in the 1−2 keV energy band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The upper panel shows the simultaneous spec￾tral fit using spectra from all available XMM-Newton-EPIC cameras ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: DM (top) and RM (bottom) as a function of distance for the pulsar population located within 5◦ of PSR J1631−4722, which is highlighted in red. The vertical red line marks the adopted distance of 7 kpc. In the lower panel, the blue dashed line indicates the median RM of the surrounding pulsars, while the grey dashed line represents the median Galactic foreground RM toward Nimbus taken from the model of S. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of a bow-shock pulsar wind nebula (PWN), dubbed Thunder, powered by the radio pulsar PSR J1631-4722 and projected within the Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) G336.7+0.5 (Nimbus). The system was first identified in observations from the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) Evolutionary Map of the Universe (EMU) survey and further characterised using MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey data together with follow-up observations at 5.5 and 9 GHz obtained with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). Assuming a distance of 7 kpc, the radio images resolve an elongated ~80 arcsec (2.7 pc) cometary nebula, indicative of a high velocity pulsar. An X-ray counterpart extending ~50 arcsec (1.7 pc) is detected in archival XMM-Newton data. The flat radio spectrum ($\alpha$ = -0.27 $\pm$ 0.05) and hard X-ray photon index ($\Gamma$ = 1.6 $\pm$ 0.4) indicate synchrotron emission from relativistic particles injected in the pulsar wind. Polarisation analysis reveals a highly ordered magnetic field aligned with the nebular flow, with fractional polarisation reaching up to 30% in the tail. An equipartition estimate gives a PWN magnetic-field strength of Beq $\approx$ 54-140 $\mu$G. Pulsar timing over a ~2.2 yr baseline reveals strong timing noise and a small spin glitch with amplitude $\Delta{\nu}/{\nu}$ = 1.10$\times$10$^{-8}$. The SNR shows no clear diffuse X-ray counterpart. The morphology and multiwavelength properties of the Nimbus-Thunder system, along with evolutionary models, constrain the system's age to approximately 30-45 kyr, placing the remnant in the late Sedov phase, approaching the transition to the radiative stage.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of a bow-shock pulsar wind nebula (PWN) dubbed Thunder, powered by PSR J1631-4722 and projected within SNR G336.7+0.5 (Nimbus). Identified in ASKAP EMU radio survey data and characterized with MeerKAT, ATCA (5.5/9 GHz), and archival XMM-Newton X-ray observations, the system shows an elongated ~80 arcsec cometary radio nebula, ~50 arcsec X-ray extension, flat radio spectrum (α = -0.27 ± 0.05), hard X-ray index (Γ = 1.6 ± 0.4), ordered polarization (up to 30% in tail), equipartition B-field ~54-140 μG, pulsar timing noise plus a small glitch, and no clear SNR diffuse X-ray emission. Assuming d = 7 kpc, evolutionary models constrain the system age to ~30-45 kyr (late Sedov phase).

Significance. If the identification holds, this adds a well-characterized bow-shock PWN-SNR association to the sample, with consistent multi-instrument morphology and spectra supporting the synchrotron PWN interpretation and high-velocity pulsar scenario. The polarization data provide direct evidence for ordered magnetic field alignment with the flow. The timing results (glitch and noise) are additional pulsar characterization. The age constraint is an interpretive result rather than core to the discovery claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The age constraint of 30-45 kyr is derived from morphology plus evolutionary models after converting angular sizes to physical sizes (2.7 pc nebula, 1.7 pc X-ray) at the assumed distance of 7 kpc. Because Sedov-phase age scales roughly as d^{5/2}, this assumption is load-bearing for the quoted age range and late-Sedov interpretation; no independent distance indicator (parallax, HI absorption, or kinematic) is referenced, and the noted absence of SNR X-ray emission is not used to test or bound the distance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: No details are provided on data reduction, background subtraction, flux calibration, or error analysis for the radio (ASKAP/MeerKAT/ATCA) or X-ray (XMM-Newton) measurements; these should be summarized even at abstract level or clearly referenced to methods sections.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The equipartition B-field range (54-140 μG) is stated without reference to the exact assumptions (e.g., volume, filling factor, or frequency cutoffs) used in the calculation; this should be clarified or moved to a dedicated methods paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The age constraint of 30-45 kyr is derived from morphology plus evolutionary models after converting angular sizes to physical sizes (2.7 pc nebula, 1.7 pc X-ray) at the assumed distance of 7 kpc. Because Sedov-phase age scales roughly as d^{5/2}, this assumption is load-bearing for the quoted age range and late-Sedov interpretation; no independent distance indicator (parallax, HI absorption, or kinematic) is referenced, and the noted absence of SNR X-ray emission is not used to test or bound the distance.

    Authors: The distance of 7 kpc is adopted as a standard assumption for this line of sight in the absence of a parallax measurement for PSR J1631-4722. We agree that this choice directly affects the physical sizes and thus the derived age range via the Sedov scaling. We will revise the abstract and discussion sections to (i) explicitly note the assumption and its d^{5/2} dependence, (ii) quote the age as approximate with the corresponding uncertainty range if the distance varies by ±1 kpc, and (iii) state that the non-detection of diffuse SNR X-ray emission is consistent with a late-Sedov age but is not used as a distance bound because of unknown ambient density and column density. These clarifications address the load-bearing nature of the assumption without altering the core discovery claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; age estimate uses explicit external assumption and standard models

full rationale

The paper states an explicit distance assumption of 7 kpc to derive physical sizes from angular measurements, then applies evolutionary models to obtain the 30-45 kyr age range. This is a standard forward calculation with an input parameter, not a reduction by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described chain. Observational results (morphology, spectrum, polarization, timing) stand independently of the age modeling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the distance assumption and standard domain assumptions about emission mechanisms and evolutionary stages in high-energy astrophysics.

free parameters (1)
  • distance = 7 kpc
    Assumed value used to derive physical sizes and age from angular measurements.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron emission from relativistic particles in PWNe produces flat radio spectra and hard X-ray spectra
    Invoked to interpret the observed alpha = -0.27 and Gamma = 1.6 as evidence for PWN emission.
  • domain assumption Evolutionary models of SNR-PWN systems can constrain age from morphology and multi-wavelength properties
    Used to derive the 30-45 kyr age and late Sedov phase classification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6048 in / 1429 out tokens · 68041 ms · 2026-06-26T10:21:59.816870+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

110 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 2868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf181

    Ahmad, A., Dai, S., Lazarević, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf181

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf181 2025

  2. [2]

    Alsaberi, R. Z. E., Filipović, M. D., Sano, H., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10025 23

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10025 2025

  3. [3]

    D., Camilo, F., Faerber, T., et al

    Anderson, L. D., Camilo, F., Faerber, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451038

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451038 2025

  4. [4]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  5. [5]

    D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Ball, B. D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1953

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1953 2023

  6. [6]

    D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Ball, B. D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addc63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc63 2025

  7. [7]

    Torres, D. F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2956 2020

  8. [8]

    Torres, D. F. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad134 2023

  9. [9]

    V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D

    Barkov, M. V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz213 2019

  10. [10]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  11. [11]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    work page doi:10.1086/324042 2001

  12. [12]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 33, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000331

    Bonnarel, F., Fernique, P., Bienaymé, O., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 33, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000331

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000331 2000

  13. [13]

    2025, A&A, 695, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450356

    Bordiu, C., Riggi, S., Bufano, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450356

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450356 2025

  14. [14]

    J., Lyerly, W

    Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 820, doi: 10.1086/319011

    work page doi:10.1086/319011 2001

  15. [15]

    2002, A&A, 393, 629, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020968

    Bucciantini, N. 2002, A&A, 393, 629, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020968

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020968 2002

  16. [16]

    Radio detection of supernova remnant G310.7-5.4 with $\gamma$-ray counterpart: Abeona SNR

    Burger-Scheidlin, C., Ball, B. D., Lazarević, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.19897

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19897 2026

  17. [17]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 1966

  18. [18]

    and Bhattacharya, Dipen , number =

    Case, G. L., & Bhattacharya, D. 1998, ApJ, 504, 761, doi: 10.1086/306089

    work page doi:10.1086/306089 1998

  19. [19]

    2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo Zenodo

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hsu, S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 2.0.0, Zenodo Zenodo

    2021

  20. [20]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  21. [21]

    N., et al

    Dai, S., Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv508

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv508 2015

  22. [22]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388 De Sarkar, A., Torres, D. F., Olmi, B., Bucciantini, N., &

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  23. [23]

    Meyer, D. M.-A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.15359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.15359

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.15359 2026

  24. [24]

    IXPE Polarizations of the Lighthouse Pulsar, Trail, and Filament

    Dinsmore, J. T., Romani, R. W., Zhang, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22914, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22914

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22914 2026

  25. [25]

    M., et al

    Dokara, R., Brunthaler, A., Menten, K. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039873

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039873 2021

  26. [26]

    2017, Handbook of Supernovae (Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_91 Ferrière, K., West, J

    Dubner, G. 2017, Handbook of Supernovae (Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_91 Ferrière, K., West, J. L., & Jaffe, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1641 Filipović, M. D., & Tothill, N. F. H., eds. 2021, Multimessenger Astronomy in Practice (IOP Publishing), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac2256 Filipović, M. D., Dai, S., Arbutina, B., e...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_91 2017

  27. [27]

    J., et al

    Fiocchi, M., Bazzano, A., Bird, A. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/19 2013

  28. [28]

    Measuring Average Treatment Effect from Heavy-tailed Data

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 2006

  29. [29]

    Gelfand, J. D. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2017

  30. [30]

    446, Modelling Pulsar Wind Nebulae, ed

    Library, Vol. 446, Modelling Pulsar Wind Nebulae, ed. D. F. Torres, 161, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1_8

  31. [31]

    D., Ng, C.-Y., Posselt, B., et al

    Gelfand, J. D., Ng, C.-Y., Posselt, B., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 54247, doi: 10.33232/001c.154247

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.154247 2025

  32. [32]

    J., Filipović, M

    Ghavam, M., Smeaton, Z. J., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2025, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 211, 27, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2511027G

    work page doi:10.2298/saj2511027g 2025

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Goedhart, S., Cotton, W. D., Camilo, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1166 2024

  34. [34]

    2024, The SARAO MeerKAT 1.3 GHz Galactic Plane Survey, South African Radio Astronomy Observatory, doi: 10.48479/3WFD-E270

    Goedhart, S., Cotton, W., Camilo, F., et al. 2024, The SARAO MeerKAT 1.3 GHz Galactic Plane Survey, South African Radio Astronomy Observatory, doi: 10.48479/3WFD-E270

    work page doi:10.48479/3wfd-e270 2024

  35. [35]

    Green, D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4 2025

  36. [36]

    2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software„ Astrophysics Source Code Library: 1912.003 doi: 10.25919/5cca3787a6353 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Guzman, J., Whiting, M., Voronkov, M., et al. 2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software„ Astrophysics Source Code Library: 1912.003 doi: 10.25919/5cca3787a6353 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.25919/5cca3787a6353 2019

  37. [37]

    N., Dunning, A., et al

    Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., Dunning, A., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.2 24

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.2 2020

  38. [38]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10302.x 2006

  39. [39]

    2025, PASA, 42, e071, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10042

    Hopkins, A., Kapinska, A., Marvil, J., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e071, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10042

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10042 2025

  40. [40]

    Hotan, A., Whiting, M., Huynh, M., & Moss, V. 2020, ASKAP Data Products for Project AS113 (Other ASKAP pilot science including tests, TOOs or guest observations): images and visibilities, http://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/348893?index=1

    2020

  41. [41]

    W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R

    Hotan, A. W., van Straten, W., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, PASA, 21, 302, doi: 10.1071/AS04022

    work page doi:10.1071/as04022 2004

  42. [42]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021

  43. [43]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140486

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140486 2022

  44. [44]

    L., Sun, X., et al

    Jing, W., West, J. L., Sun, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adad66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adad66 2025

  45. [45]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    Jonas, J., & MeerKAT Team. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 1, doi: 10.22323/1.277.0001

    work page doi:10.22323/1.277.0001 2016

  46. [46]

    A., & Mandel, E

    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

    2003

  47. [47]

    G., Wong, J

    Kargaltsev, O., Misanovic, Z., Pavlov, G. G., Wong, J. A., & Garmire, G. P. 2008, ApJ, 684, 542, doi: 10.1086/589145

    work page doi:10.1086/589145 2008

  48. [48]

    Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in AIP Conf. Ser., Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, 171–185, doi: 10.1063/1.2900138

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900138 2008

  49. [49]

    G., Klingler, N., & Rangelov, B

    Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., Klingler, N., & Rangelov, B. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 635830501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000630

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377817000630 2017

  50. [50]

    G., et al

    Klingler, N., Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e0 2018

  51. [51]

    G., et al

    Klingler, N., Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac6 2022

  52. [52]

    2017, in Astrophys

    Kothes, R. 2017, in Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr, Vol. 446, Modelling PWNe, 1, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1_1 2017

  53. [53]

    Kothes, R., & Dougherty, S. M. 2007, A&A, 468, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077309 2007

  54. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1573

    Kothes, R., Reich, W., Safi-Harb, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1573

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1573 2020

  55. [55]

    2006, ApJ, 638, 225, doi: 10.1086/498666

    Kothes, R., Reich, W., & Uyanıker, B. 2006, ApJ, 638, 225, doi: 10.1086/498666

    work page doi:10.1086/498666 2006

  56. [56]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1284, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02337-1

    Bordas, P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1284, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02337-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02337-1 2024

  57. [57]

    J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al

    Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 41, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000170

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000170 2000

  58. [58]

    Neutron Star Kicks and Supernova Asymmetry

    Lai, D. 2004, in Cosmic explosions in three dimensions, ed. P. Höflich, P. Kumar, & J. C. Wheeler, 276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0312542 Lazarević, S., Filipović, M. D., Dai, S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e032, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0312542 2004

  59. [59]

    2019, AJ, 158, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3d2c

    Leahy, D., Wang, Y., Lawton, B., Ranasinghe, S., & Filipović, M. 2019, AJ, 158, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3d2c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3d2c 2019

  60. [60]

    Leahy, D. A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c1 2017

  61. [61]

    A., Ranasinghe, S., & Gelowitz, M

    Leahy, D. A., Ranasinghe, S., & Gelowitz, M. 2020, ApJS, 248, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab8bd9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab8bd9 2020

  62. [62]

    A., & Williams, J

    Leahy, D. A., & Williams, J. E. 2017, AJ, 153, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6af6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6af6 2017

  63. [63]

    2005, The Interstellar Medium (Springer), doi: 10.1007/b137959

    Lequeux, J. 2005, The Interstellar Medium (Springer), doi: 10.1007/b137959

    work page doi:10.1007/b137959 2005

  64. [64]

    A., Kaspi, V

    Livingstone, M. A., Kaspi, V. M., & Gavriil, F. P. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1095, doi: 10.1086/491643

    work page doi:10.1086/491643 2005

  65. [65]

    J., et al

    Loi, F., Brienza, M., Riseley, C. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245640

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245640 2023

  66. [66]

    E., Johnston, S., Dunn, L., et al

    Lower, M. E., Johnston, S., Dunn, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2678

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2678 2021

  67. [67]

    K., Ng, C

    Ma, Y. K., Ng, C. Y., Bucciantini, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/100

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/100 2016

  68. [68]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  69. [69]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024

  70. [70]

    M., Gaensler, B

    Migliazzo, J. M., Gaensler, B. M., Backer, D. C., et al. 2002, ApJL, 567, L141, doi: 10.1086/340002

    work page doi:10.1086/340002 2002

  71. [71]

    Milisavljevic, D., & Fesen, R. A. 2017, The Supernova - Supernova Remnant Connection (Springer), 2211, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_97

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_97 2017

  72. [72]

    M., Papamastorakis, J., Boumis, P., & Goudis, C

    Misiriotis, A., Xilouris, E. M., Papamastorakis, J., Boumis, P., & Goudis, C. D. 2006, A&A, 459, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054618

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054618 2006

  73. [73]

    Mitchell, A. M. W., & Gelfand, J. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo (Springer), 61, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_157-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_157-1 2022

  74. [74]

    Y., Bucciantini, N., Gaensler, B

    Ng, C. Y., Bucciantini, N., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/105 2012

  75. [75]

    Y., Gaensler, B

    Ng, C. Y., Gaensler, B. M., Chatterjee, S., & Johnston, S. 2010, ApJ, 712, 596, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/596

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/596 2010

  76. [76]

    2019, ASKAP Data Products for Project AS101 (ASKAP Pilot Survey for EMU): images and visibilities, http://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/164553?index=1

    Norris, R., Filipovic, M., Huynh, M., et al. 2019, ASKAP Data Products for Project AS101 (ASKAP Pilot Survey for EMU): images and visibilities, http://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/164553?index=1

    2019

  77. [77]

    D., et al

    Norris, R., Marvil, J., Collier, J. D., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.42 25

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.42 2021

  78. [78]

    2019a, MNRAS, 488, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2089

    Olmi, B., & Bucciantini, N. 2019a, MNRAS, 488, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2089

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2089

  79. [79]

    2019b, MNRAS, 484, 5755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz382

    Olmi, B., & Bucciantini, N. 2019b, MNRAS, 484, 5755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz382

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz382

  80. [80]

    H., & Walraven, T

    Oort, J. H., & Walraven, T. 1956, BAN, 12, 285

    1956

Showing first 80 references.