1998
DOI: 10.1086/305381
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydrogen‐accreting Carbon‐Oxygen White Dwarfs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
114
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
5
114
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Fortunately, although it is not clear how the WD adjusts to alternating helium flashes and stable hydrogen shell burning in the OTW model, this issue probably does not arise in the CEW model. In addition, ηHe could be larger than derived by Kato & Hachisu (2004) if the effect of H shell burning has been accounted for, since the nuclear energy produced via H-burning keeps the underlying He buffer hotter, resulting in weaker and more frequent He flashes (Cassisi et al 1998). Especially, Hillman et al (2016) recently found that, although a significant fraction of the material accumulated prior to the flash is lost during the first few helium shell flashes, the fraction decreases with repeated helium shell flashes and eventually no mass is lost at all during subsequent flashes.…”
Section: The Differences Between the Cew Model And The Otw Modelmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Fortunately, although it is not clear how the WD adjusts to alternating helium flashes and stable hydrogen shell burning in the OTW model, this issue probably does not arise in the CEW model. In addition, ηHe could be larger than derived by Kato & Hachisu (2004) if the effect of H shell burning has been accounted for, since the nuclear energy produced via H-burning keeps the underlying He buffer hotter, resulting in weaker and more frequent He flashes (Cassisi et al 1998). Especially, Hillman et al (2016) recently found that, although a significant fraction of the material accumulated prior to the flash is lost during the first few helium shell flashes, the fraction decreases with repeated helium shell flashes and eventually no mass is lost at all during subsequent flashes.…”
Section: The Differences Between the Cew Model And The Otw Modelmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The rationale of even considering an accretion rate |Ṁ 2 | >Ṁ Edd,WD is that the WD may drive a strong wind in a bipolar outflow which may prevent the WD envelope from otherwise expanding into giant star dimensions (Nomoto et al 1979b). Many previous studies of accreting WDs have adapted the optically thick wind model of Kato & Iben (1992) and Kato & Hachisu (1994), without any restrictions on |Ṁ 2 | (see Cassisi et al 1998;Langer et al 2000, for a critique of this assumption). Given the uncertainties regarding the validity of this model, we adopt a maximum allowed mass-transfer rate limit of |Ṁ 2 | =Ṁ CE = 3Ṁ Edd,WD .…”
Section: Dependence On Mass-transfer Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Iben 1982;Nomoto 1982;Fujimoto & Sugimoto 1982;Saio & Nomoto 1985Kawai et al 1988;Cassisi et al 1998;Piersanti et al 2000;Langer et al 2002), little attention has so far been devoted to the effects of angular momentum accretion and the ensuing white dwarf rotation (see Sect. 3.1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%