Paper detail

DT Serpentis: neither a symbiotic star nor a planetary nebula associate

We present an alternative interpretation for the putative symbiotic star DT Serpentis, and its proposed planetary nebula (PN), recently announced by Munari et al. Our analysis is based on their data combined with additional archival data trawled from Virtual Observatory databases. We show that the star known as DT Ser is not a symbiotic star, and is merely superposed on the newly discovered but unrelated background PN. There is no evidence for any periodic variability for DT Ser as expected for a symbiotic star. We further establish that there is no physical association between DT Ser and the PN, which has a considerably higher extinction, befitting the larger distance we estimate. The significantly different radial velocities of the star and nebula also likely preclude any association. Finally, we show that the mid-infrared source detected by the IRAS and WISE surveys is actually coincident with the PN so there is no evidence for DT Ser being a dusty post-AGB star.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.