4.7 Article

Orbital period analyses for two cataclysmic variables: UZ Fornacis and V348 Puppis inside the period gap

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17384.x

关键词

binaries: eclipsing; stars: individual: UZ For; stars: individual: V348 Pup; novae; cataclysmic variables

资金

  1. Special Foundation of The Chinese Academy of Sciences
  2. West Light Foundation of The Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. Yunnan Natural Science Foundation [2008CD157, 2005A0059M]
  4. Chinese Natural Science Foundation [10573032, 10573013, 10433030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four new CCD eclipse timings of the white dwarf for polar UZ Fornacis and six updated CCD mid-eclipse times for SW-Sex-type nova-like V348 Puppis are obtained. Detailed O-C analyses are made for both cataclysmic variables (CVs) inside the period gap. Orbital period increases at a rate of 2.63(+/- 0.58) x 10-11 s s -1 for UZ For and 5.8(+/- 1.9) x 10-12 s s -1 for V348 Pup, respectively, are discovered in their new O-C diagrams. However, conservative mass transfer from the secondary to the massive white dwarf cannot explain the observed orbital period increases for both CVs, which are regarded as part of modulations at longer periods. Moreover, the O-C diagram of UZ For shows a possible cyclical change with a period of similar to 23.4(+/- 5.1) yr. To explain the observed cyclical period changes in UZ For, both mechanisms of magnetic activity cycles in late-type secondaries and the light travel-time effect are regarded as probable causes. Not only does the modulation period of 23.4 yr obey the empirical correlation between P-mod and , but also the estimated fractional period change delta P/P similar to 7.3 x 10-7 displays a behaviour similar to that of CVs below the period gap. On the other hand, a calculation for the light travel-time effect implies with a high confidence level that the tertiary component in UZ For may be a brown dwarf, when the orbital inclination of the third body is larger than 16 degrees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据