Paper detail

Revisiting FS Aurigae and its triple cataclysmic variable system hypothesis

A very long term variability (VLPP), with period of 875 days, was observed in the long-term light curve of FS Aurigae in 2011. This periodicity was calculated on 6 cycles. We re-examine the periodicity with new observations over of the past 5 yrs. A total of 18 yrs of observations confirm the hypothesis of a third body perturbing in a secular way the cataclysmic variable (CV). Improvements to the model such as eccentric and inclined orbits for the third body and a binary post-Newtonian correction are considered. We confirm the VLPP of FS Aur and find the new period of 857 $\pm$ 78 days. The secular perturbations are most efficient when the mass of the third body is M=29 MJ, much less than the 50 MJ reported in 2011. We estimate the effect of the third body on the mass transfer rate and the brightness of the system. We consider alternative scenarios for the VLPP. The new data and analysis supports the hypothesis that FS Aur is a CV in a triple system.

preprint2023arXivOpen 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.