Paper detail

On the Common Envelope Efficiency

In this work, we try to use the apparent luminosity versus displacement (i.e., $L_{\rm X}$ vs. $R$) correlation of high mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) to constrain the common envelope (CE) efficiency $α_{\rm CE}$, which is a key parameter affecting the evolution of the binary orbit during the CE phase. The major updates that crucial for the CE evolution include a variable $λ$ parameter and a new CE criterion for Hertzsprung gap donor stars, both of which are recently developed. We find that, within the framework of the standard energy formula for CE and core definition at mass $X=10$\%, a high value of $α_{\rm CE}$, i.e., around 0.8-1.0, is more preferable, while $α_{\rm CE}< \sim 0.4$ likely can not reconstruct the observed $L_{\rm X}$ vs. $R$ distribution. However due to an ambiguous definition for the core boundary in the literature, the used $λ$ here still carries almost two order of magnitude uncertainty, which may translate directly to the expected value of $α_{\rm CE}$. We present the detailed components of current HMXBs and their spatial offsets from star clusters, which may be further testified by future observations of HMXB populations in nearby star-forming galaxies.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.