Paper detail

The spectroscopic evolution of the recurrent nova T Pyxidis during its 2011 outburst. II.The optically thin phase and the structure of the ejecta in recurrent novae

We continue our study of the physical properties of the recurrent nova T Pyx, focussing on the structure of the ejecta in the nebular stage of expansion during the 2011 outburst. The nova was observed contemporaneously with the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), at high resolution spectroscopic resolution (R ~ 65000) on 2011 Oct. 11 and 2012 Apr. 8 (without absolute flux calibration), and with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, at high resolution (R ~ 30000) on 2011 Oct. 10 and 2012 Mar. 28 (absolute fluxes). We use standard plasma diagnostics (e.g. [O III] and [N II] line ratios and the H$β$ line fluxes) to constrain electron densities and temperatures. Using Monte Carlo modeling of the ejecta, we derive the structure and filling factor from comparisons to the optical and ultraviolet line profiles. The ejecta can be modeled using an axisymmetric conical -- bipolar -- geometry with a low inclination of the axis to the line of sight, i=15+/-5 degrees, compatible with published results from high angular resolution optical spectro-interferometry. The structure is similar to that observed in the other short orbital period recurrent novae during their nebular stages. We show that the electron density scales as $t^{-3}$ as expected from a ballistically ejected constant mass shell; there is no need to invoke a continuing mass outflow following the eruption. The derived mass for the ejecta with filling factor f ~ 3%, M_ej ~ 2E-6$M_sun is similar to that obtained for other recurrent nova ejecta but inconsistent with the previously reported extended optically thick epoch of the explosion. We suggest that the system underwent a common envelope phase following the explosion that produced the recombination event. Implications for the dynamics of the recurrent novae are discussed. (truncated)

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.