Paper detail

Detection of 107 glitches in 36 southern pulsars

Timing observations from the Parkes 64-m radio telescope for 165 pulsars between 1990 and 2011 have been searched for period glitches. A total of 107 glitches were identified in 36 pulsars, where 61 have previously been reported and 46 are new discoveries. Glitch parameters were measured by fitting the timing residual data. Observed relative glitch sizes Δν_g/νrange between 10^-10 and 10^-5, where ν= 1/P is the pulse frequency. We confirm that the distribution of Δν_g/νis bimodal with peaks at approximately 10^-9 and 10^-6. Glitches are mostly observed in pulsars with characteristic ages between 10^3 and 10^5 years, with large glitches mostly occurring in the younger pulsars. Exponential post-glitch recoveries were observed for 27 large glitches in 18 pulsars. The fraction Q of the glitch that recovers exponentially also has a bimodal distribution. Large glitches generally have low Q, typically a few per cent, but large Q values are observed in both large and small glitches. Observed time constants for exponential recoveries ranged between 10 and 300 days with some tendency for longer timescales in older pulsars. Shorter timescale recoveries may exist but were not revealed by our data which typically have observation intervals of 2 - 4 weeks. For most of the 36 pulsars with observed glitches, there is a persistent linear increase in \dotνin the inter-glitch interval. Where an exponential recovery is also observed, the effects of this are superimposed on the linear increase in \dotν. In some cases, the slope of the linear recovery changes at the time of a glitch. The \ddotνvalues characterising the linear changes in \dotνare almost always positive and, after subtracting the magnetospheric component of the braking, are approximately proportional to the ratio of |\dotν| and the inter-glitch interval, as predicted by vortex-creep models.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.