Paper detail

Nuclear ashes and outflow in the eruptive star Nova Vul 1670

CK Vulpeculae was observed in outburst in 1670-16721, but no counterpart was seen until 1982, when a bipolar nebula was found at its location. Historically, CK Vul has been considered to be a nova (Nova Vul 1670), but a similarity to 'red transients', which are more luminous than classical nova and thought to be the result of stellar collisions, has re-opened the question of CK Vul's status. Red transients cool to resemble late M-type stars, surrounded by circumstellar material rich in molecules and dust. No stellar source has been seen in CK Vul, though a radio continuum source was identified at the expansion centre of the nebula. Here we report CK Vul is surrounded by chemically rich molecular gas with peculiar isotopic ratios, as well as dust. The chemical composition cannot be reconciled with a nova or indeed any other known explosion. In addition, the mass of the surrounding gas is too high for a nova, though the conversion from observations of CO to a total mass is uncertain. We conclude that CK Vul is best explained as the remnant of a merger of two stars.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.