Paper detail

Post common envelope binaries from SDSS. XII: The orbital period distribution

The complexity of the common envelope phase and of magnetic stellar wind braking currently limits our understanding of close binary evolution. Because of their intrinsically simple structure, observational population studies of white dwarf plus main sequence (WDMS) binaries hold the potential to test theoretical models and constrain their parameters. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has provided a large and homogeneously selected sample of WDMS binaries, which we are characterising in terms of orbital and stellar parameters. We have obtained radial velocity information for 385 WDMS binaries from follow-up spectroscopy, and for an additional 861 systems from the SDSS sub-spectra. Radial velocity variations identify 191 of these WDMS binaries as post common envelope binaries (PCEBs). Orbital periods of 58 PCEBs were subsequently measured, predominantly from time-resolved spectroscopy, bringing the total number of SDSS PCEBs with orbital parameters to 79. Observational biases inherent to this PCEB sample were evaluated through extensive Monte Carlo simulations. We find that 21-24% of all SDSS WDMS binaries have undergone common envelope evolution, which is in good agreement with published binary population models and high-resolution HST imaging of WDMS binaries unresolved from the ground. The bias corrected orbital period distribution of PCEBs ranges from 1.9 h to 4.3 d and follows approximately a normal distribution in log(Porb), peaking at ~10.3 h. There is no observational evidence for a significant population of PCEBs with periods in the range of days to weeks. The large and homogeneous sample of SDSS WDMS binaries provides the means to test fundamental predictions of binary population models, and hence to observationally constrain the evolution of all close compact binaries.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.

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.