4.7 Article

The effect of a wider initial separation on common envelope binary interaction simulations

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2377

关键词

hydrodynamics; methods: numerical; stars: AGB and post-AGB; binaries: close; stars: evolution

资金

  1. International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship
  2. Australian Research Council [DP12013337]
  3. University of Florida Theoretical Astrophysics Fellowship
  4. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT120100452]
  5. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  6. ARC [DP130102078, FT130100034]
  7. Australian Commonwealth Government [TG-AST130034]
  8. Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE)
  9. NSF [ACI-1053575]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present hydrodynamic simulations of the common envelope binary interaction between a giant star and a compact companion carried out with the adaptive mesh refinement code ENZO and the smooth particle hydrodynamics code PHANTOM. These simulations mimic the parameters of one of the simulations by Passy et al. but assess the impact of a larger, more realistic initial orbital separation on the simulation outcome. We conclude that for both codes the post-common envelope separation is somewhat larger and the amount of unbound mass slightly greater when the initial separation is wide enough that the giant does not yet overflow or just overflows its Roche lobe. PHANTOM has been adapted to the common envelope problem here for the first time and a full comparison with ENZO is presented, including an investigation of convergence as well as energy and angular momentum conservation. We also set our simulations in the context of past simulations. This comparison reveals that it is the expansion of the giant before rapid in-spiral and not spinning up of the star that causes a larger final separation. We also suggest that the large range in unbound mass for different simulations is difficult to explain and may have something to do with simulations that are not fully converged.

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