Observational Constraints on the Common Envelope Phase

Jones, David

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5_5

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relevant mixing process takes place much before the AGB, when these stars evolve through the red giant branch (RGB). By assuming optically thin emission and solar composition, we compare the observed 17 O/ 18 O ratios (Table 1) to predictions from theoretical models [31,32]. The derived upper limit for IRAS 15445-5449 and 17 O/ 18 O ratio for IRAS 16342-3814 imply initial stellar masses 1.4 M for these two sources.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This ratio is a good tracer of the initial stellar mass because the surface abundance of 17 O is modified by a mixing process that is strongly dependent on the initial stellar mass. The relevant mixing process takes place much before the AGB, when these stars evolve through the red giant branch (RGB).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The uncertainties are exacerbated by the difficulty in observing the CE phase because of its short time scale, from days to years depending on the stage of CE interaction. Although the number of likely post-CE systems that are observed is steadily increasing [14,15,16], most sources associated with CEE left the CE phase a long time ago [17]. With the likely exception of the class of luminous red novae with characteristics consistent with CE events [18,19], recent CE systems remain elusive, and direct measurements of the mass and velocity of the ejecta are rare.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Observational identification of a sample of likely recent Common-Envelope Events

Khouri,

Vlemmings,

Tafoya

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Observational identification of a sample of likely recent Common-Envelope Events

Khouri,

Vlemmings,

Tafoya

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Due to the small sizes of these systems several of them show eclipses, reflection effects or ellipsoidal modulations that can help to constrain the inclination of the systems through photometry and modelling of their light curve. The study of these systems is key for our understanding, and validation, of models of the common envelope stage which is thought to form them (e.g., Exter et al 2005;Jones 2020). It also helps in our understanding of the possible double degenerate progenitors of Type Ia Supernovae (Santander-Garcı ´a et al 2015).…”

Section: Cspne and Hot Subdwarfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighing stars from birth to death: mass determination methods across the HRD

Serenelli

Weiß

Aerts

et al. 2021

Astron Astrophys Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mass of a star is the most fundamental parameter for its structure, evolution, and final fate. It is particularly important for any kind of stellar archaeology and characterization of exoplanets. There exist a variety of methods in astronomy to estimate or determine it. In this review we present a significant number of such methods, beginning with the most direct and model-independent approach using detached eclipsing binaries. We then move to more indirect and model-dependent methods, such as the quite commonly used isochrone or stellar track fitting. The arrival of quantitative asteroseismology has opened a completely new approach to determine stellar masses and to complement and improve the accuracy of other methods. We include methods for different evolutionary stages, from the pre-main sequence to evolved (super)giants and final remnants. For all methods uncertainties and restrictions will be discussed. We provide lists of altogether more than 200 benchmark stars with relative mass accuracies between ½0:3; 2% for the covered mass range of M 2 ½0:1; 16 M , 75% of which are stars burning hydrogen in their core and the other 25% covering all other evolved stages. We close with a recommendation how to combine various methods to arrive at a ''mass-ladder'' for stars.

show abstract

“…From an observational point of view, the number of confirmed post-CE PNe has been quickly growing in recent decades, amounting to around 100 objects so far (see updated list with references to discovery papers in http://www.drdjones.net/bcspn/ (accesed on 15 January 2022). On theoretical grounds, nevertheless, the mechanism of CE ejection remains elusive, with most hydrodynamic models unable to gravitationally unbind the whole envelope without recurring to additional energy reservoirs, such as recombination energy from the ionised regions, e.g., [5][6][7][8][9]. Furthermore, it has long been known that CE ejection have problems explaining PNe evolution as the ejection will likely leave too large a mass above the C-O core, and the central star will remain on the AGB and not evolve to the left on the H-R diagram (see, e.g., Section 9 of [10]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from the Ionised and Molecular Mass of Post-CE PNe

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Close binary evolution is widely invoked to explain the formation of axisymmetric planetary nebulae after a brief common envelope phase. The evolution of the primary would be interrupted abruptly, its still quite massive envelope being fully ejected to form the PN, which should be more massive than a planetary nebula coming from the same star, were it single. We test this hypothesis by investigating the ionised and molecular masses of a sample consisting of 21 post-common-envelope planetary nebulae, roughly one-fifth of their known total population, and comparing them to a large sample of regular planetary nebulae (not known to host close-binaries). We find that post-common-envelope planetary nebulae arising from single-degenerate systems are, on average, neither more nor less massive than regular planetary nebulae, whereas post-common-envelope planetary nebulae arising from double-degenerate systems are considerably more massive and show substantially larger linear momenta and kinetic energy than the rest. The reconstruction of the common envelope of four objects further suggests that the mass of single-degenerate nebulae actually amounts to a very small fraction of the envelope of their progenitor stars. This leads to the uncomfortable question of where the rest of the envelope is, raising serious doubts on our understanding of these intriguing objects.

show abstract

Observational Constraints on the Common Envelope Phase

Cited by 16 publications

References 125 publications

Observational identification of a sample of likely recent Common-Envelope Events

Observational identification of a sample of likely recent Common-Envelope Events

Weighing stars from birth to death: mass determination methods across the HRD

Lessons from the Ionised and Molecular Mass of Post-CE PNe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About