Paper detail

Evolution of short-period cataclysmic variables: implications from eclipse modeling and stage A superhump method (with New Year's gift)

In 2013, the method of determining mass ratios of dwarf novae using stage A superhumps (growing superhumps) was established. This method is a dynamical one in that it relies only on celestial mechanics. It is not dependent on an experimental calibration. Since then, more than 100 objects have been measured by this method. In this paper, I provide an updated description of the method. Comparisons with the results of the modern eclipse modeling method, which is considered to be the golden standard, have shown that these two methods agree very well and the stage A superhump method has been confirmed to be as accurate and as reliable as the modern eclipse modeling method. The number of the object by the former methods is now a few time those by the latter method, and the former is indispensable to study the terminal evolution of cataclysmic variables. I also showed that past studies by the other groups assumed incorrect fractional superhump excess relations, causing biases in discussing the evolution. I also derived a new experimental relation for stage B superhumps. The updated evolutionary track around the period minimum suggests that the angular momentum loss is 1.9 times larger than expected by gravitational wave radiation. The measurements of stage A superhumps greatly owe to international collaborations with amateurs and professionals. There is similarity with the world of ornithology in that both play a role in uniting the world via international exchanges of observations. I describe a summary of these collaborations and describe my thoughts about the relation between astronomy and ornithology, and give prospects how multidisciplinary works can be made possible between these seemingly distant fields of science (abridged).

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.