Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:04:13.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Conservative Evolution of Binary Stars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2012

Christopher A. Tout
Christopher A. Tout*
Affiliation:
Institute of Astronomy, The Observatories, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, England email: [email protected]
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.

Various processes can lead to non-conservative evolution in binary stars. Under conservative mass transfer, both the total mass and the orbital angular momentum of the system are conserved. Thus, the transfer of angular momentum between the orbit and the spins of the stars can represent one such effect. Stars generally lose mass and angular momentum in a stellar wind so, even with no interaction, evolution is non-conservative. Indeed, a strong wind can actually drive mass transfer. During Roche lobe overflow itself, mass transfer becomes non-conservative when the companion cannot accrete all the material transferred by the donor. In some cases, material is simply temporarily stored in an accretion disc. In others, the companion may swell up and initiate common envelope evolution. Often the transferred material carries enough angular momentum to spin the companion up to break-up, at which point it could not accrete more. We investigate how this is alleviated by non-conservative evolution.

Keywords

binaries: closestars: mass lossplanetary systems
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S282: From Interacting Binaries to Exoplanets: Essential Modeling Tools , July 2011 , pp. 417 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Crawford, J. A. 1955, ApJ, 121, 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dervişoğlu, A., Tout, C. A. & İbanoğlu, C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1071Google Scholar
Eracleous, M. & Horne, K. 1996, ApJ, 471, 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, F. 1955, Frontiers of Astronomy, (London: Heinemann)Google Scholar
Montez, R. Jr., De Marco, O., Kastner, J. H., & Chu, Y.-H., 2010, ApJ, 721, 1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, D. C. 1960, ApJ, 132, 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paczyński, B. 1976, in: Eggleton, P. P., Mitton, S. & Whelan, J. (eds), Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, Proc. IAU Symposium No. 73, (Dordrecht: Reidel), p. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paczyński, B. & Ziółkowski, J. 1967, AcA 17, 7Google Scholar
Rasio, F. A., Tout, C. A., Lubow, S. H., & Livio, M. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzman, E. 1962, Ann. Astrophys., 25, 18Google Scholar
Tout, C. A. & Eggleton, P. P. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tout, C. A. & Hall, D. S. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassiliadis, E. & Wood, P. R. 1993, ApJ, 413, 641CrossRefGoogle Scholar