2014
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu989
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate water maser positions from HOPS

Abstract: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
132
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
4
132
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6 shows the distributions of integrated flux densities for the 6.7-and 12.2-GHz methanol masers (these values are not available for either the water masers or the excited-state OH masers) and the overall distributions are similar to that of the peak flux densities. The most striking difference in the distributions is the preponderance of 12.2-GHz methanol masers with low integrated flux densities, dominated by a large number of weak, sin- Caswell et al 2010;Green et al 2010;Caswell et al 2011;Green et al 2012;Breen et al 2015), 12.2-GHz methanol (pink; Breen et al 2012aBreen et al ,b, 2014Breen et al , 2016, water (blue; Walsh et al 2014) and excited-state OH masers (orange; Avison et al 2016), and; (bottom) integrated flux density distribution of the 6.7-GHz methanol (magenta; Breen et al 2015) and 12.2-GHz methanol (pink; Breen et al 2012aBreen et al ,b, 2014Breen et al , 2016.…”
Section: Distribution Of Peak and Integrated Flux Densitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…6 shows the distributions of integrated flux densities for the 6.7-and 12.2-GHz methanol masers (these values are not available for either the water masers or the excited-state OH masers) and the overall distributions are similar to that of the peak flux densities. The most striking difference in the distributions is the preponderance of 12.2-GHz methanol masers with low integrated flux densities, dominated by a large number of weak, sin- Caswell et al 2010;Green et al 2010;Caswell et al 2011;Green et al 2012;Breen et al 2015), 12.2-GHz methanol (pink; Breen et al 2012aBreen et al ,b, 2014Breen et al , 2016, water (blue; Walsh et al 2014) and excited-state OH masers (orange; Avison et al 2016), and; (bottom) integrated flux density distribution of the 6.7-GHz methanol (magenta; Breen et al 2015) and 12.2-GHz methanol (pink; Breen et al 2012aBreen et al ,b, 2014Breen et al , 2016.…”
Section: Distribution Of Peak and Integrated Flux Densitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact that the water masers show the largest velocity range is expected, particularly because of their tendency to trace high-velocity outflow, but the median velocity of the HOPS sources is significantly lower than either of the Breen et al (2010b) or Titmarsh et al (2014Titmarsh et al ( , 2016 targeted water maser observations which have medians of 15 and 17 km s −1 , respectively. A part of this difference can be accounted for by the fact that the Walsh et al (2014) quoted peak velocities of spots and therefore results in an underestimation of the velocity ranges of sites, but some of the difference is due to the unbiased nature of HOPS. The fact that the velocity range of the excited-state OH masers exceed the 12.2-GHz methanol masers is perhaps surprising given that 12.2-GHz methanol masers generally have much higher peak flux densities, and suggests that the excited-OH emission is arising from a larger volume of gas than the 12.2-GHz maser emission.…”
Section: Basic Properties Of the Different Maser Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations