4.7 Article

Constraints on common envelope magnetic fields from observations of jets in planetary nebulae

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu079

关键词

magnetic fields; ISM: jets and outflows; planetary nebulae: individual: Abell 63; planetary nebulae: individual: ETHOS 1; planetary nebulae: individual: Necklace; planetary nebulae: individual: NGC 6778

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP120103337, FT120100452, DP120101792]
  2. Australian Research Council [FT120100452] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The common envelope (CE) interaction describes the swallowing of a nearby companion by a growing, evolving star. CEs that take place during the asymptotic giant branch phase of the primary may lead to the formation of a planetary nebula (PN) with a post-CE close binary in the middle. We have used published observations of masses and kinematics of jets in four post-CE PN to infer physical characteristics of the CE interaction. In three of the four systems studied, Abell 63, ETHOS 1 and the Necklace PN, the kinematics indicate that the jets were launched a few thousand years before the CE and we favour a scenario where this happened before Roche lobe overflow, although better models of wind accretion and wind Roche lobe overflow are needed. The magnetic fields inferred to launch pre-CE jets are of the order of a few gauss. In the fourth case, NGC 6778, the kinematics indicate that the jets were launched about 3000 yr after the CE interaction. Magnetic fields of the order of a few hundreds to a few thousands gauss are inferred in this case, approximately in line with predictions of post-CE magnetic fields. However, we remark that in the case of this system, we have not been able to find a reasonable scenario for the formation of the two jet pairs observed: the small orbital separation may preclude the formation of even one accretion disc able to supply the necessary accretion rate to cause the observed jets.

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