[vsnet-chat 2258] Re: (fwd) Nova Paper research

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

Dear Dr. Kato,

I'm not an expert in recurrent and symbiotic novae. I think that 
at least in the later case, the secondaries are believed to be giant
stars, differing them from red dwarfs secondaries in classical novae.

Apropos theoretical models, I assume that you refer to the 1995 ApJ
paper by Prialnik & Kovetz. Anyway, I was always sceptic about models
that solve all problems. Models have been proven wrong, and will be
found wrong in the future. These models, by the way, give ejected
shell masses which are inconsistent with the observations.

I do not see any reason to continue this discussion. I agree with you
that recurrent and symbiotic novae should still keep the 'nova' in
their name. However, they can be regarded as subclasses of novae. 
They are not 'classical novae', whatever this term means.

Regards,
Alon Retter

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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