Paper detail

Can We Trust Models for Adiabatic Mass Loss?

In interacting binaries, comparison of a donor star's radial response to mass loss with the response of its Roche radius determines whether mass loss persists and, if so, determines the timescale and stability of the ensuing evolutionary phase. For giants with deep convective envelopes, the canonical description holds that once mass transfer begins it typically proceeds catastrophically on the dynamical timescale, as the star cannot lose sufficient heat in order to avoid expansion. However, we demonstrate that the local thermal timescale of the envelope's superadiabatic outer surface layer remains comparable to that of mass loss in most cases of "dynamical" mass loss. We argue therefore that if mass loss proceeds on a timescale longer than this, then even a deep convective envelope will not dramatically expand, as the surface layer will have time to relax thermally and reconstitute itself. We demonstrate that in general the polytropic approximation gives much too strict a criterion for stability, and discuss the dependence of the donor's response on its radius in addition to its core mass. In general, we find that the effective response of the donor on rapid timescales cannot be determined accurately without detailed evolutionary calculations.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.