Paper detail

Convection Reconciles the Difference in Efficiencies Between Low-Mass and High-Mass Common Envelopes

The formation pathways for gravitational-wave merger sources are predicted to include common envelope (CE) evolution. Observations of high-mass post-common envelope binaries suggest that energy transfer to the envelope during the CE phase must be highly efficient. In contrast, observations of low-mass post-CE binaries indicate energy transfer during the CE phase must be highly inefficient. Convection, a process present in low-mass and high-mass stars, naturally explains this dichotomy. Using observations of Wolf-Rayet binaries, we study the effects of convection and radiative losses on the predicted final separations of high-mass common envelopes. Despite robust convection in massive stars, the effect is minimal as the orbit decays well before convection can transport the liberated orbital energy to the surface. In low-mass systems, convective transport occurs faster then the orbit decays, allowing the system to radiatively cool thereby lowering the efficiency. The inclusion of convection reproduces observations of low-mass and high-mass binaries and remains a necessary ingredient for determining outcomes of common envelopes.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.