Paper detail

Can helium envelopes change the outcome of direct white dwarf collisions?

Collisions of white dwarfs (WDs) have recently been invoked as a possible mechanism for type Ia supernovae (SNIa). A pivotal feature for the viability of WD collisions as SNIa progenitors is that a significant fraction of the mass is highly compressed to the densities required for efficient $^{56}$Ni production before the ignition of the detonation wave. Previous studies have predominantly employed model WDs composed entirely of carbon-oxygen (CO), whereas WDs are expected to have a non-negligible helium envelope. Given that helium is more susceptible to explosive burning than CO under the conditions characteristic of WD collision, a legitimate concern is whether or not early time He detonation ignition can translate to early time CO detonation, thereby drastically reducing $^{56}$Ni synthesis. We investigate the role of He in determining the fate of WD collisions by performing a series of two-dimensional hydrodynamics calculations. We find that a necessary condition for non-trivial reduction of the CO ignition time is that the He detonation birthed in the contact region successfully propagates into the unshocked shell. We determine the minimal He shell mass as a function of the total WD mass that upholds this condition. Although we utilize a simplified reaction network similar to those used in previous studies, our findings are in good agreement with detailed investigations concerning the impact of network size on He shell detonations. This allows us to extend our results to the case with more realistic burning physics. Based on the comparison of these findings against evolutionary calculations of WD compositions, we conclude that most, if not all, WD collisions will not be drastically impacted by their intrinsic He components.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.