[vsnet-chat 2243] Re: (fwd) Nova Paper research

[Alon Retter <ar@astro.keele.ac.uk>]

Dear Dr. Kato,

As you know, the standard model for a classical nova is a white
dwarf and a red dwarf. I believe that this model has been confirmed
by the numerous observations. Various methods of mass determinations 
are consistent with this model. I'm a bit worried by novae in which 
a systematic search for variability has been failed (e.g. HR Del,
RW UMi, HR Lyr, DM Dem...). There are a few possible explanations 
for this behaviour (e.g. long periods, noise, strong winds...),
but they might constitute a new class of novae with a different 
binary configuration (e.g. a primary neutron star).

Apropos recurrent novae, I'm not an expert in this field, but I
think that you can count them as 'novae' with multiple recorded
explosions. Classifications are elusive. There are always border 
cases, and systems usually don't obey all rules of thumbs. It's a 
matter of terminology. Anyway, recurrent novae are not 'classical' 
novae.

Regards,
Alon Retter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Taichi Kato wrote:

> Re: [vsnet-chat 2238] Re: (fwd) Nova Paper research
> 
> > PU Vulpeculae is a symbiotic nova with a period of ~13 years!
> > This means a different binary configuration than in classical 
> > novae, so despite the thermonuclear runaway, exclusion from
> > the nova list is justified.
> 
>   Several questions:
> 
>   1) What seperates novae from non-novae?  Does binary configuration play
>      an essential part?
> 
>   2) Has binary configuration of "justified novae" been confirmed anyway?
> 
>   3) Recurrent novae have a broad spectrum in the sense of the binary
>      structure.  Aren't they considered as "novae" with mutiple recorded
>      explosions?
> 
> Regards,
> Taichi Kato
> 
>

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp