Paper detail

The impact of recombination energy on simulations of the common envelope binary interaction

During the common envelope binary interaction, the expanding layers of the gaseous common envelope recombine and the resulting recombination energy has been suggested as a contributing factor to the ejection of the envelope. In this paper we perform a comparative study between simulations with and without the inclusion of recombination energy. We use two distinct setups, comprising 0.88-M$_{\odot}$ and 1.8-M$_{\odot}$ giants, that have been studied before and can serve as benchmarks. In so doing we conclude that (i) the final orbital separation is not affected by the choice of equation of state. In other words, simulations that unbind but a small fraction of the envelope result in similar final separations to those that, thanks to recombination energy, unbind a far larger fractions. (ii) The adoption of a tabulated equation of state results in a much greater fraction of unbound envelope and we demonstrate the cause of this to be the release of recombination energy. (iii) The fraction of hydrogen recombination energy that is allowed to do work should be about half of that which our adiabatic simulations use. (iv) However, for the heavier star simulation we conclude that it is helium and not hydrogen recombination energy that unbinds the gas and we determine that all helium recombination energy is thermalised in the envelope and does work. (v)~The outer regions of the expanding common envelope are likely to see the formation of dust. This dust would promote additional unbinding and shaping of the ejected envelope into axisymmetric morphologies.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

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.