Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:53:03.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-common envelope PN, fundamental or irrelevant?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2017

Orsola De Marco ,
T. Reichardt ,
R. Iaconi ,
T. Hillwig ,
G. H. Jacoby ,
D. Keller ,
R. G. Izzard ,
J. Nordhaus  and
E. G. Blackman
Orsola De Marco
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia email: [email protected] Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics Research Centre, Macquarie University
T. Reichardt
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia email: [email protected] Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics Research Centre, Macquarie University
R. Iaconi
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia email: [email protected] Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics Research Centre, Macquarie University
T. Hillwig
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Valparaiso University, Indiana, USA
G. H. Jacoby
Affiliation:
Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
D. Keller
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium
R. G. Izzard
Affiliation:
Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, UK
J. Nordhaus
Affiliation:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, USA
E. G. Blackman
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, NY, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One in 5 PN are ejected from common envelope binary interactions but Kepler results are already showing this proportion to be larger. Their properties, such as abundances can be starkly different from those of the general population, so they should be considered separately when using PN as chemical or population probes. Unfortunately post-common envelope PN cannot be discerned using only their morphologies, but this will change once we couple our new common envelope simulations with PN formation models.

Keywords

planetary nebulae: generalhydrodynamicsstars: AGB and post-AGBbinaries (including multiple): closestars: evolutionstars: statistics
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 12 , Symposium S323: Planetary Nebulae: Multi-Wavelength Probes of Stellar and Galactic Evolution , October 2016 , pp. 213 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2017 

References

Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773 Google Scholar
Corradi, R. L. M., Perinotto, M., Villaver, E., 1999, ApJ, 523, 721 Google Scholar
De Marco, O., 2009, PASP, 121, 316 Google Scholar
De Marco, O., Long, J., Jacoby, G. H., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frew, D. J. & Parker, Q. A., 2010, PASA, 27, 129 Google Scholar
García-Segura, G. 2006, in IAU Symp., 234, ed. Barlow & Méndez, 297Google Scholar
García-Segura, G., Langer, N., Różyczka, M., & Franco, J., 1999, ApJ, 517, 767 Google Scholar
Guerrero, M. A. & Miranda, L. F., 2012, A&A, 539, A47 Google Scholar
Hillwig, T. C., Bond, H. E., Afşar, M., & De Marco, O., 2010, AJ, 140, 319 Google Scholar
Hillwig, T. C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., Bond, H. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 125 Google Scholar
Huarte-Espinosa, M., Frank, A., Balick, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2055 Google Scholar
Huckvale, L., Prouse, B., Jones, D., Lloyd, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1505 Google Scholar
Iaconi, R., Reichardt, T., Staff, J., De Marco, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4028 Google Scholar
Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., De Marco, O., et al. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59 Google Scholar
Izzard, R. G. & Keller, D. 2015, in ASP Conf. Ser., 497, ed. Kerschbaum, Wing, & Hron, 161Google Scholar
Jones, D., Lloyd, M., Santander-García, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2312 Google Scholar
Leisy, P. & Dennefeld, M., 2006, A&A, 456, 451 Google Scholar
Madappatt, N., De Marco, O., & Villaver, E., 2016, MNRAS, 470, 317 Google Scholar
Miszalski, B., Acker, A., Parker, Q. A., & Moffat, A. F. J., 2009, A&A, 505, 249 Google Scholar
Miszalski, B., Corradi, R. L. M., Boffin, H. M. J., Jones, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1264 Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. L., Pollacco, D., O’Brien, T. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1404 Google Scholar
Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2005, in AIOP Conf. Ser., 804, ed. Szczerba, Stasinska, Gorny, 173Google Scholar
Nie, J. D., Wood, P. R., & Nicholls, C. P., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2764 Google Scholar
Passy, J.-C., De Marco, O., Fryer, C. L., Herwig, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandquist, E. L., Taam, R. E., Chen, X., Bodenheimer, P., & Burkert, A., 1998, ApJ, 500, 909 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santander-García, M., Rodríguez-Gil, P., Corradi, R. L. M., et al. 2015, Nature, 519, 63 Google Scholar
Soker, N. & Subag, E., 2005, AJ, 130, 2717 Google Scholar
Stanghellini, L., Shaw, R. A., & Gilmore, D., 2005, ApJ, 622, 294 Google Scholar
Tyndall, A. A., Jones, D., Lloyd, M., O’Brien, T. J., & Pollacco, D., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1804 Google Scholar
Yungelson, L. R., Tutukov, A. V., & Livio, M., 1993, ApJ, 418, 794 Google Scholar