In the world of gardening and lawn care, a magic garden hose is a true game-changer. Gone are the days of struggling with heavy, tangled hoses that never seem to reach far enough. With a magic garden hose, watering your plants and maintaining your outdoor space becomes a breeze. What exactly makes a garden hose magical? Well, it all comes down to its advanced design and innovative features. These hoses are usually made from durable materials such as latex or a combination of latex and rubber. This makes them highly flexible and resistant to kinks and twists, allowing for easy maneuverability around your garden or yard.
Aims. In the presence of a sufficient amount of target material, γ-rays can be used as a tracer in the search for sources of Galactic cosmic rays (CRs). Here we present deep observations of the Galactic center (GC) region with the MAGIC telescopes and use them to infer the underlying CR distribution and to study the alleged PeV proton accelerator at the center of our Galaxy.
Those were collected at high zenith angles 58 70 deg , leading to a larger energy threshold, but also an increased effective collection area compared to low zenith observations. Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria 26 Universitat de Barcelona, ICCUB, IEEC-UB, 08028 Barcelona, Spain 27 Port d Informació Científica PIC , 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 28 Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, 34127 Trieste, Italy 29 INAF-Trieste and Dept.
This makes them highly flexible and resistant to kinks and twists, allowing for easy maneuverability around your garden or yard. One of the most remarkable features of a magic garden hose is its ability to expand and contract. When the water starts flowing through the hose, it expands and reaches its full length.
Fdel the magjc dx
MAGIC Collaboration
V. A. Acciari 1 ,2 , S. Ansoldi 3 ,24 , L. A. Antonelli 4 , A. Arbet Engels 5 , D. Baack 6 , A. Babić 7 , B. Banerjee 8 , U. Barres de Almeida 9 , J. A. Barrio 10 , J. Becerra González 1 ,2 , W. Bednarek 11 , L. Bellizzi 12 , E. Bernardini 13 ,17 , A. Berti 14 , J. Besenrieder 15 , W. Bhattacharyya 13 , C. Bigongiari 4 , A. Biland 5 , O. Blanch 16 , G. Bonnoli 12 , Ž. Bošnjak 7 , G. Busetto 17 , R. Carosi 18 , G. Ceribella 15 , Y. Chai 15 , A. Chilingaryan 19 , S. Cikota 7 , S. M. Colak 16 , U. Colin 15 , E. Colombo 1 ,2 , J. L. Contreras 10 , J. Cortina 20 , S. Covino 4 , V. D’Elia 4 , P. Da Vela 18 , F. Dazzi 4 , A. De Angelis 17 , B. De Lotto 3 , M. Delfino 16 ,27 , J. Delgado 16 ,27 , D. Depaoli 14 , F. Di Pierro 14 , L. Di Venere 14 , E. Do Souto Espiñeira 16 , D. Dominis Prester 7 , A. Donini 3 , D. Dorner 21 , M. Doro 17 , D. Elsaesser 6 , V. Fallah Ramazani 22 , A. Fattorini 6 , A. Fernández-Barral 17 , G. Ferrara 4 , D. Fidalgo 10 , L. Foffano 17 , M. V. Fonseca 10 , L. Font 23 , C. Fruck 15 ,⋆⋆ , S. Fukami 24 , R. J. García López 1 ,2 , M. Garczarczyk 13 , S. Gasparyan 19 , M. Gaug 23 , N. Giglietto 14 , F. Giordano 14 , N. Godinović 7 , D. Green 15 , D. Guberman 16 , D. Hadasch 24 , A. Hahn 15 , J. Herrera 1 ,2 , J. Hoang 10 , D. Hrupec 7 , M. Hütten 15 , T. Inada 24 , S. Inoue 24 , K. Ishio 15 , Y. Iwamura 24 ,⋆⋆ , L. Jouvin 16 , D. Kerszberg 16 , H. Kubo 24 , J. Kushida 24 , A. Lamastra 4 , D. Lelas 7 , F. Leone 4 , E. Lindfors 22 , S. Lombardi 4 , F. Longo 3 ,28 , M. López 10 , R. López-Coto 17 , A. López-Oramas 1 ,2 , S. Loporchio 14 , B. Machado de Oliveira Fraga 9 , C. Maggio 23 , P. Majumdar 8 , M. Makariev 25 , M. Mallamaci 17 , G. Maneva 25 , M. Manganaro 7 , K. Mannheim 21 , L. Maraschi 4 , M. Mariotti 17 , M. Martínez 16 , S. Masuda 24 , D. Mazin 15 ,24 , S. Mićanović 7 , D. Miceli 3 , M. Minev 25 , J. M. Miranda 12 , R. Mirzoyan 15 , E. Molina 26 , A. Moralejo 16 , D. Morcuende 10 , V. Moreno 23 , E. Moretti 16 , P. Munar-Adrover 23 , V. Neustroev 22 , C. Nigro 13 , K. Nilsson 22 , D. Ninci 16 , K. Nishijima 24 , K. Noda 24 , L. Nogués 16 , M. Nöthe 6 , S. Nozaki 24 , S. Paiano 17 , J. Palacio 16 , M. Palatiello 3 , D. Paneque 15 , R. Paoletti 12 , J. M. Paredes 26 , P. Peñil 10 , M. Peresano 3 , M. Persic 3 ,29 , P. G. Prada Moroni 18 , E. Prandini 17 , I. Puljak 7 , W. Rhode 6 , M. Ribó 26 , J. Rico 16 , C. Righi 4 , A. Rugliancich 18 , L. Saha 10 , N. Sahakyan 19 , T. Saito 24 , S. Sakurai 24 , K. Satalecka 13 , K. Schmidt 6 , T. Schweizer 15 , J. Sitarek 11 , I. Šnidarić 7 , D. Sobczynska 11 , A. Somero 1 ,2 , A. Stamerra 4 , D. Strom 15 , M. Strzys 15 ,24 ,⋆⋆ , Y. Suda 15 , T. Surić 7 , M. Takahashi 24 , F. Tavecchio 4 , P. Temnikov 25 , T. Terzić 7 , M. Teshima 15 ,24 , N. Torres-Albà 26 , L. Tosti 14 , S. Tsujimoto 24 , V. Vagelli 14 , J. van Scherpenberg 15 , G. Vanzo 1 ,2 , M. Vazquez Acosta 1 ,2 , C. F. Vigorito 14 , V. Vitale 14 , I. Vovk 15 ,24 ,⋆⋆ , M. Will 15 and D. Zarić 7
1 Inst. de Astrofísica de Canarias, 38200 La Laguna, Spain
2 Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrofísica, 38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
3 Università di Udine and INFN Trieste, 33100 Udine, Italy
4 National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF), 00136 Rome, Italy
5 ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
6 Technische Universität Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
7 Croatian Consortium: University of Rijeka, Department of Physics, 51000 Rijeka; University of Split – FESB, 21000 Split; University of Zagreb – FER, 10000 Zagreb; University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek; Rudjer Boskovic Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
8 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata 700064, India
9 Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), 22290-180 URCA, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
10 IPARCOS Institute and EMFTEL Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
11 University of Łódź, Department of Astrophysics, 90236 Łódź, Poland
12 Università di Siena and INFN Pisa, 53100 Siena, Italy
13 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), 15738 Zeuthen, Germany
14 Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare (INFN), 00044 Frascati, Roma, Italy
15 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, 80805 München, Germany
16 Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
17 Università di Padova and INFN, 35131 Padova, Italy
18 Università di Pisa and INFN Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy
19 ICRANet-Armenia at NAS RA, 0019 Yerevan, Armenia
20 Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, 28040 Madrid, Spain
21 Universität Würzburg, 97074 Würzburg, Germany
22 Finnish MAGIC Consortium: Finnish Centre of Astronomy with ESO (FINCA), University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland; Astronomy Research Unit, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
23 Departament de Física and CERES-IEEC, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
24 Japanese MAGIC Consortium: ICRR, The University of Tokyo, 277-8582 Chiba, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan; Tokai University, 259-1292 Kanagawa, Japan; RIKEN, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan
25 Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria
26 Universitat de Barcelona, ICCUB, IEEC-UB, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
27 Port d’Informació Científica (PIC), 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
28 Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, 34127 Trieste, Italy
29 INAF-Trieste and Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Received: 11 October 2019
Accepted: 24 May 2020
Aims. In the presence of a sufficient amount of target material, γ-rays can be used as a tracer in the search for sources of Galactic cosmic rays (CRs). Here we present deep observations of the Galactic center (GC) region with the MAGIC telescopes and use them to infer the underlying CR distribution and to study the alleged PeV proton accelerator at the center of our Galaxy.
Methods. We used data from ≈100 h observations of the GC region conducted with the MAGIC telescopes over five years (from 2012 to 2017). Those were collected at high zenith angles (58−70 deg), leading to a larger energy threshold, but also an increased effective collection area compared to low zenith observations. Using recently developed software tools, we derived the instrument response and background models required for extracting the diffuse emission in the region. We used existing measurements of the gas distribution in the GC region to derive the underlying distribution of CRs. We present a discussion of the associated biases and limitations of such an approach.
Results. We obtain a significant detection for all four model components used to fit our data (Sgr A*, “Arc”, G0.9+0.1, and an extended component for the Galactic Ridge). We observe no significant difference between the γ-ray spectra of the immediate GC surroundings, which we model as a point source (Sgr A*) and the Galactic Ridge. The latter can be described as a power-law with index 2 and an exponential cut-off at around 20 TeV with the significance of the cut-off being only 2σ. The derived cosmic-ray profile hints to a peak at the GC position and with a measured profile index of 1.2 ± 0.3 is consistent with the 1/r radial distance scaling law, which supports the hypothesis of a CR accelerator at the GC. We argue that the measurements of this profile are presently limited by our knowledge of the gas distribution in the GC vicinity.
Key words: gamma rays: general / gamma rays: ISM / Galaxy: center / cosmic rays
Tables and sky maps are only available at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/cat/J/A+A/642/A190
Corresponding authors: Christian Fruck, Ievgen Vovk, Yuki Iwamura and Marcel Strzys (e-mail: [email protected]).
Methods. We used data from ≈100 h observations of the GC region conducted with the MAGIC telescopes over five years (from 2012 to 2017). Those were collected at high zenith angles (58−70 deg), leading to a larger energy threshold, but also an increased effective collection area compared to low zenith observations. Using recently developed software tools, we derived the instrument response and background models required for extracting the diffuse emission in the region. We used existing measurements of the gas distribution in the GC region to derive the underlying distribution of CRs. We present a discussion of the associated biases and limitations of such an approach.
This can be quite impressive, as a typical magic garden hose can expand up to three times its original size. Once you turn off the water and drain it, it shrinks back to its compact form, making it easy to store and transport. The ability to expand and contract is not the only advantage of a magic garden hose. These hoses also come with adjustable spray nozzles, allowing you to control the water pressure and choose the type of spray you need for different tasks. Whether you need a gentle mist for delicate flowers or a powerful jet for cleaning dirt off your patio, a magic garden hose has got you covered. Furthermore, a magic garden hose is designed to be lightweight, making it comfortable to carry around even for extended periods. This is a valuable feature, especially for those with large gardens or mobility issues, as it significantly reduces the strain on the arms and back. In terms of maintenance, a magic garden hose is easy to clean and store. The flexibility and kink-resistance make it effortless to drain the water and remove any debris that might have accumulated inside. Afterward, you can coil it up or hang it on a hose reel for convenient storage. Overall, a magic garden hose is a remarkable tool that simplifies the task of watering and maintaining your outdoor space. Its flexibility, expandable feature, adjustable nozzle, and lightweight design make it a favorite among gardening enthusiasts. So, if you're tired of dealing with traditional garden hoses and want to embrace a more efficient and convenient option, consider investing in a magic garden hose. You'll be amazed at how this simple tool can transform your gardening experience..
Reviews for "Sprout Magic in Your Backyard with a Magical Garden Hose"
1. Jennifer - 1 star
I was extremely disappointed with the Magic Garden Hose. It claimed to be tangle-free, but within minutes of using it, it became a tangled mess. The material also felt quite cheap and flimsy, and I didn't have high hopes for its durability. Sure enough, after just a few uses, it started leaking water. Save your money and invest in a better quality hose.
2. Mark - 2 stars
I had high hopes for the Magic Garden Hose, but unfortunately, it failed to live up to my expectations. The hose nozzle was difficult to maneuver and control, making it impractical for different tasks in the garden. I also noticed that the water pressure was inconsistent, often resulting in a weak flow. Overall, I found it to be more of a gimmick than a functional garden hose.
3. Sarah - 1 star
The Magic Garden Hose turned out to be a huge disappointment. I expected it to expand and contract as advertised, but it barely did so. Additionally, the hose had a very short length, limiting its usability in larger gardens. The plastic connectors also felt very flimsy, and I had to constantly worry about them breaking. I would not recommend this product to anyone in need of a reliable and durable garden hose.