Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T20:17:45.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cataclysmic Variables as Binary Stars: Then and Now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Robert P. Kraft
Robert P. Kraft*
Affiliation:
University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory, Board of Studies in Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A brief history is given of the clues that led to the establishment, in the period c. 1950 to 1965, of a universal binary model for novae and related cataclysmic variables. The observational facts, established early in this period by A. H. Joy and R. F. Sanford (selected binary orbits), J. L. Greenstein (spectroscopy) and M. Walker (photometry) are reviewed, as are the theoretical ideas that formed the basis for the early models, viz., those of G. Kuiper (restricted 3–body problem), A. Sandage and M. Schwarzschild (stellar evolution), J. Crawford (“dog-eat-dog” hypothesis), F. Hoyle and H. Bondi (accretion), S.-S. Huang (angular momentum losses), and S. Chandrasekhar (gravitational radiation). Some comparisons are made between “what we knew then and what we know now.” With apologies to all, the speaker will recall some anecdotes of an earlier time and comment on developments of the past score of years from a very personal perspective.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 122: Physics of Classical Novae , 1990 , pp. 3 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Springer-Verlag 1990

References

[1] Sandage, A. and Schwarzschild, M. 1952, Ap. J., 116, 463.Google Scholar
[2] Crawford, J. 1954, Ap. J., 121, 71; also Crawford, J. and Kraft, R.P. 1956, Ap. J., 123, 44.Google Scholar
[3] Joy, A.H. 1954, Ap. J., 120, 337; also Pub. A.S.P., 66, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Joy, A.H. 1956, Ap. J., 124, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Sanford, R.F. 1948, Ap. J., 109, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Mestel, L. 1952, M.N.R.A.S., 112, 598.Google Scholar
[7] Walker, M.F. 1954, Pub. A.S.P., 66, 71.Google Scholar
[8] Walker, M.F. and Herbig, G.H. 1954, Ap. J., 120, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Walker, M.F. 1954, Pub. A.S.P., 66, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Walker, M.F. 1962, Ap. J., 138, 313.Google Scholar
[11] Kraft, R.P. 1958, Pub. A.S.P., 70, 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Greenstein, J.L. and Kraft, R.P. 1959, Ap.J., 130, 99; Kraft, R.P., Ap. J., 130, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Kraft, R.P. 1958, Ap. J., 127, 625.Google Scholar
[14] Kraft, R.P. 1964, Ap. J., 139, 457.Google Scholar
[15] Kraft, R.P., Mathews, J. and Greenstein, J.L. 1962, Ap. J., 136, 312.Google Scholar
[16] Kraft, R.P. 1966, Trans. IA.U. XIIB, 519.Google Scholar
[17] Faulkner, J. 1971, Ap. J. (Letters), 170, L99.Google Scholar
[18] Patterson, J. 1984, Ap. J. Suppl., 54, 443.Google Scholar
[19] Huang, Su-Shu 1966, Ann. d’Ap., 29, 331.Google Scholar
[20] Kraft, R.P. 1967, Ap. J. 150, 551.Google Scholar
[21] Ritter, H. 1976, M.N.R.A.S., 175, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Bath, G., Evans, W., and Pringle, J. 1974, M.N.R.A.S., 166, 113.Google Scholar
[23] Kemp, J., Swedlund, J. and Wolstencroft, R. 1974, Ap. J. (Letters), 193, L15.Google Scholar
[24] Williams, R. 1989, A. J., 97, 1752.Google Scholar
[25] Livio, M. and Shara, M. 1987, Ap. J., 319, 819; Shara, M. 1989, Pub. A.S.P., 101, 5..Google Scholar