1999
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-663-10016-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exklusionsindividualität

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
9
1
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
9
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In ECSNe the low explosion energy and the extremely rapid outward expansion of SN shock and postshock layer (all of which are linked to the steep density decline outside of the degenerate core) are detrimental to the possibility of large NS kicks. 1 Our results have important implications for the discussion of the Crab SN and its stellar origin, for which an O-Ne-Mg core progenitor has been proposed (Nomoto et al 1982;Hillebrandt 1982). Such a connection seems to be compatible with the He-rich chemical composition of the nebula and a small amount of ejected iron-group material (Nomoto et al 1982;MacAlpine & Satterfield 2008;Wanajo et al 2011;Smith 2013), a small ejecta mass (Davidson & Fesen 1985;Fesen et al 1997), low kinetic energy (Yang & Chevalier 2015;Kitaura et al 2006;Dessart et al 2006;Fischer et al 2010;Radice et al 2017), and the characteristics of the light curve (Tominaga et al 2013;Smith 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…In ECSNe the low explosion energy and the extremely rapid outward expansion of SN shock and postshock layer (all of which are linked to the steep density decline outside of the degenerate core) are detrimental to the possibility of large NS kicks. 1 Our results have important implications for the discussion of the Crab SN and its stellar origin, for which an O-Ne-Mg core progenitor has been proposed (Nomoto et al 1982;Hillebrandt 1982). Such a connection seems to be compatible with the He-rich chemical composition of the nebula and a small amount of ejected iron-group material (Nomoto et al 1982;MacAlpine & Satterfield 2008;Wanajo et al 2011;Smith 2013), a small ejecta mass (Davidson & Fesen 1985;Fesen et al 1997), low kinetic energy (Yang & Chevalier 2015;Kitaura et al 2006;Dessart et al 2006;Fischer et al 2010;Radice et al 2017), and the characteristics of the light curve (Tominaga et al 2013;Smith 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Using the resulting distribution of the gas flow, the chemical evolution is solved by taking into account the lifetimes of stars, and using modern nucleosynthesis predictions to compute the yields of stars of different masses. In particular, for stars with masses 0.8 < M/M < 8 the yields were taken from Renzini & Voli (1981), while for stars with 8 < M/M < 10 the yields from Hillebrandt (1982) were assumed. For SN II progenitors with 10 < M/M < 40 we adopted the yields of Woosley & Weaver (1995) and extrapolated these for M > 40M/M .…”
Section: Star Formation and Chemical Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We consider production of secondary N via CNO shell burning in the envelopes of massive stars (m > 8 M⊙) following the case B of Talbot & Arnett (1973) (100% conversion of the envelope C and O into N). For stars in the mass range 8 − 10 M⊙, the nucleosynthesis prescriptions are those suggested by Hillebrandt (1982Hillebrandt ( ,1985. The yields from Type II SNe with progenitors with mass between 10 and 40 M⊙ are from Weaver & Woosley (1993) and Woosley & Weaver (1995), using a value of the 12 C(α, γ) 16 O reaction rate which is 1.7 times the Caughlan & Fowler (1988) value.…”
Section: The Chemical Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%