pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15897 · v1 · pith:7USJEWE5new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Mechanisms for magnetic braking boost and disruption: the role of irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover time spike in cataclysmic variables

Vladislav Dodon , Xiang-Dong Li , Xiao-jie Xu , Ilkham Galiullin , Askar Sibgatullin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 19:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmic variablesmagnetic brakingconvective turnover timeirradiation-driven windsperiod gapdonor star structurestellar evolution
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:7USJEWE5 Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{7USJEWE5}

Prints a linked pith:7USJEWE5 badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

A spike in convective turnover time at the fully convective boundary disrupts magnetic braking in cataclysmic variables while irradiation-driven winds supply the boost during accretion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks physical origins for the empirical boost and disruption factors in magnetic braking prescriptions used for cataclysmic variable evolution. It computes convective turnover time directly from the donor star's internal structure in MESA models instead of using empirical fits. This reveals a sharp spike near the transition to full convection that sets the disruption parameter and starts the period gap. Irradiation from the accreting white dwarf heats the donor and drives extra winds that can supply the required boost when plausible efficiency values are adopted. The combined iτSBD model produces evolutionary tracks that align with major observed CV properties such as the period gap and mass-transfer rates.

Core claim

The structure-based convective turnover time calculation shows a pronounced spike as the donor approaches full convection, which drives the disruption parameter η and initiates the period gap in CVs. Plausible choices for accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the boost K during accreting phases. The resulting iτSBD MB framework supplies a physically motivated account of the empirical factors in the SBD model.

What carries the argument

Convective turnover time τ_c computed directly from the donor's internal structure, together with irradiation-driven winds from the heated outer layers.

If this is right

  • Magnetic braking disruption at the fully convective boundary produces the observed period gap.
  • Irradiation-driven winds account for the boosted braking rate while mass transfer is active.
  • The iτSBD prescription yields evolutionary tracks consistent with main CV observables.
  • The same τ_c spike may disrupt braking in other fast-rotating saturated stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The irradiation-wind mechanism could operate in other strongly irradiated close binaries beyond CVs.
  • Stellar models that track τ_c explicitly might predict activity changes at the convective boundary in single stars.
  • Direct detection of enhanced winds or altered magnetic activity near the period gap would test the model.

Load-bearing premise

Uncertain efficiencies for accretion, irradiation, and winds can be chosen in a way that simultaneously reproduces the needed boost K while remaining consistent with the modeled donor structure.

What would settle it

High-precision measurements of mass-loss rates or spin-down in CVs just above the period gap that show neither the expected wind enhancement from irradiation nor the structural signature of a τ_c spike would falsify the proposed mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15897 by Askar Sibgatullin, Ilkham Galiullin, Vladislav Dodon, Xiang-Dong Li, Xiao-jie Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: CV evolution models using the SBD MB prescription with the convective turnover time τc computed directly from the donor structure. Upper left: mass transfer rate M˙ versus orbital period Porb. Upper right: donor radius R2 versus donor mass M2. Grey star symbols show observa￾tional determinations from McAllister et al. (2019), and the red line is the semi-empirical donor sequence of Knigge et al. (2011). Fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: compares CV evolutionary tracks computed with these three τc prescriptions. For each case, we allowed the MB boost parameters to be adjusted so as to preserve a broadly consistent CV evolutionary picture, including the period gap and period minimum. To illustrate the behaviour over a wider mass range, we used an initial donor mass of 1 M⊙. The fig￾ure also compares the resulting τc–M2 relations with the em… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic diagram of the two positive feedback loops in our irradiation model that make the mass-transfer response stiff and result in mass-transfer cycles. An increase in the accretion rate M˙ acc raises the accretion luminosity LX and the absorbed irradiation power Pabs. In the heating loop (left), irradiation modifies the donor’s outer boundary conditions, driving expansion (R2 ↑), which increases the R… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass-transfer rate as a function of time since the onset of mass transfer for the irradiated model (see text for details). The evolution exhibits recurrent mass-transfer cycles. After ≈ 600 Myr, M˙ rises to ≳ 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 and the simulation terminates. The middle and bottom panels show successive zoom-ins of the time intervals highlighted. The markers in the bottom panel indicate the discrete simulation st… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CV evolution with the iτSBD MB model, including irradiation-driven winds and convective turnover times computed directly from the stellar structure. The adopted irradiation parameters are αacc = 0.1, αirr = 0.5, αwind = 10−1 , β = 0.40 (with αwind reduced to 10−4 in the period gap). Upper panels: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolutionary age as a function of orbital period for the iτSBD MB model (blue) and the empirical SBD MB model with K = η = 30 (green). The dashed horizontal lines and annotations mark the time of first Roche lobe contact (tonset) and the termination time of the calcula￾tion when M2 < 0.05 M⊙ (tend). 5.2. Model behaviour for different parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolutionary tracks for different component masses using the iτSBD MB model. M˙ versus Porb (top row) and R2 versus M2 (bottom row). Left column: tracks computed for fixed MWD = 0.8 M⊙ while varying the initial donor mass. Right column: tracks computed for fixed M2 = 0.8 M⊙ while varying the initial WD mass. The blue curve corresponds to the fiducial model from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the iτSBD MB evolutionary tracks in the M˙ –Porb plane on model parameters. The top panel varies αacc and the bottom panel varies αwind, with all other parameters fixed. The blue curve cor￾responds to the fiducial model from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: M˙ versus Porb for the calibrated models used to reproduce the CV period gap and period minimum (see text for the model parameters). The approximate period minimum at 76–82 min and the period gap at 2.15–3.18 hr are shown by the grey shaded regions (Knigge 2006). The vertical black line marks the recently revised lower edge of the period gap at 2.45 hr (Schreiber et al. 2024). Models 1 and 2 were calibrate… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulations with the iτSBD MB model illustrating episodes of enhanced mass transfer that may be associated with nova-like CVs. Upper left: M˙ versus Porb. Upper right: M˙ versus time since the onset of mass transfer. Lower panels: evolution of convective and radiative regions, together with the corresponding convective turnover time τc , for the default convection with Schwarzschild criterion (left) and t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The saturated, boosted, and disrupted magnetic braking (SBD MB) model is an empirical prescription that has recently gained support from close-binary observations. Different boosting ($K$) and disruption ($\eta$) parameters appear necessary for different systems, but their physical origins remain uncertain. We aim to identify the mechanisms that boost magnetic braking (MB) and cause its disruption at the fully convective boundary in cataclysmic variables (CVs). We modelled CV evolution with MESA and compared the results with observed CV properties. We computed the convective turnover time ($\tau_c$) directly from the donor's structure rather than adopting empirical relations. We also included irradiation from the accreting white dwarf, which heats the donor's outer layers and can drive additional winds that enhance MB. The structure-based $\tau_c$ calculation reveals a pronounced spike as the donor approaches full convection, which drives the disruption parameter $\eta$ and initiates the period gap in CVs. The outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies, all of which are poorly constrained from observations. Despite these uncertainties, plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost $K$ during accreting phases. We refer to the combined prescription as the i$\tau$SBD MB model and find that it yields evolutionary tracks broadly consistent with the main CV properties. Our i$\tau$SBD MB framework offers a physically motivated interpretation of the empirical boost and disruption factors in SBD MB for CV evolution. We suggest that the convective turnover time spike at the fully convective boundary may drive MB disruption for fast-rotating stars in the saturated regime, while irradiation-driven winds may be the dominant mechanism boosting MB in accreting binaries and other strongly irradiated close systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an iτSBD magnetic braking model for cataclysmic variables, in which MESA evolutionary calculations with structure-derived convective turnover time τ_c produce a pronounced spike near the fully convective boundary that sets the disruption parameter η and initiates the period gap; irradiation from the white dwarf is invoked to drive winds that supply the boost factor K during accretion, with the combined prescription yielding tracks broadly consistent with observed CV properties when plausible (but poorly constrained) values are chosen for accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a physically motivated origin for the empirical boost K and disruption η parameters of the SBD framework, linking the τ_c spike directly to the fully convective transition and irradiation-driven mass loss to enhanced angular-momentum loss in accreting systems. The direct computation of τ_c from the stellar structure rather than empirical fits is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (model description): the statement that 'plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative scan, grid, or posterior over the joint space of accretion efficiency, irradiation efficiency, and wind efficiency is presented to demonstrate that any single vector simultaneously reproduces both the observed K values across the period gap and the location of the gap when τ_c is computed self-consistently from the MESA donor structure.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract notes that the outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the three efficiencies, all stated to be poorly constrained; because these same efficiencies enter both the wind mass-loss rate (hence K) and the heating that affects the outer layers (hence radius and τ_c), the absence of a consistency check between the two requirements constitutes a circularity risk for the validation of the physical mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The acronym iτSBD is used without an explicit expansion on first appearance in the abstract, although the meaning is recoverable from context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful report, which highlights both the strengths of our approach and areas where additional clarification would strengthen the manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (model description): the statement that 'plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet no quantitative scan, grid, or posterior over the joint space of accretion efficiency, irradiation efficiency, and wind efficiency is presented to demonstrate that any single vector simultaneously reproduces both the observed K values across the period gap and the location of the gap when τ_c is computed self-consistently from the MESA donor structure.

    Authors: We agree that a systematic scan or grid over the joint efficiency space would provide stronger quantitative support for the claim that plausible choices simultaneously satisfy both the boost K and the gap location. The manuscript demonstrates the mechanism using representative values for the three efficiencies that are consistent with existing observational estimates in the literature, and shows that these choices produce evolutionary tracks matching key CV observables when τ_c is computed directly from the MESA structure. A full multi-dimensional exploration is computationally demanding for full evolutionary sequences and lies beyond the scope of the present study; however, we will add a dedicated subsection in §3 together with a table of the adopted parameter values, their literature justification, and a limited sensitivity test for a small number of nearby combinations to illustrate robustness. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract notes that the outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the three efficiencies, all stated to be poorly constrained; because these same efficiencies enter both the wind mass-loss rate (hence K) and the heating that affects the outer layers (hence radius and τ_c), the absence of a consistency check between the two requirements constitutes a circularity risk for the validation of the physical mechanism.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding potential circularity. The efficiencies do affect both the irradiation-driven wind mass-loss rate (which supplies K) and the outer-layer heating (which can influence radius and, indirectly, the computed τ_c). Nevertheless, our MESA calculations show that the pronounced spike in τ_c arises primarily from the interior structural transition at the fully convective boundary and remains present across the range of irradiation levels explored; the outer heating modifies the envelope but does not erase or relocate the spike. We will revise the abstract and the model-description section to explicitly separate these effects, state that the chosen parameters satisfy both requirements simultaneously in the presented models, and add a short consistency check confirming that the τ_c spike location is robust to moderate changes in irradiation efficiency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Irradiation-driven wind boost K achieved via selection of poorly constrained efficiencies rather than independent prediction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The outcome of irradiation is sensitive to the accretion, irradiation, and wind efficiencies, all of which are poorly constrained from observations. Despite these uncertainties, plausible parameter choices allow irradiation-driven winds to provide the required boost K during accreting phases."

    The required boost K is supplied by selecting the very efficiencies the paper states are poorly constrained; the mechanism therefore reproduces the target observational quantity by construction of the parameter choice rather than predicting it from the donor structure or irradiation physics alone.

full rationale

The paper computes τ_c directly from MESA donor structure, yielding a spike at the fully convective boundary that sets η; this step is independent. However, the claimed boost mechanism relies on choosing accretion/irradiation/wind efficiencies (explicitly called poorly constrained) so that irradiation-driven winds reproduce the empirically required K. The abstract states that only 'plausible parameter choices' work and that the model is then 'broadly consistent' with CV properties. This reduces the boost claim to a fit of the same adjustable parameters introduced to explain the observed boost, constituting partial circularity of the fitted-input-called-prediction type. No quantitative scan or self-consistent posterior is described that simultaneously satisfies both K and the gap location without retuning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model depends on several poorly constrained efficiencies that function as free parameters and on the assumption that MESA accurately captures the donor's internal structure for the purpose of computing convective turnover time.

free parameters (3)
  • accretion efficiency
    Affects how much mass reaches the white dwarf and therefore the irradiation flux; stated to be poorly constrained.
  • irradiation efficiency
    Determines the fraction of irradiation energy that drives additional winds; poorly constrained and used to achieve the required boost K.
  • wind efficiency
    Controls how effectively the irradiation-driven winds remove angular momentum; poorly constrained.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar structure calculations accurately reproduce the convective turnover time profile of the donor star near the fully convective boundary.
    The disruption mechanism relies on the spike that appears only when τ_c is computed directly from the model structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5880 in / 1665 out tokens · 51166 ms · 2026-05-19T19:12:36.867085+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 124 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Li, X.-D

    Ablimit, I. & Li, X.-D. 2015, ApJ, 815, 17

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 358

    Andronov, N., Pinsonneault, M., & Sills, A. 2003, ApJ, 582, 358

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    S., et al

    Araujo-Betancor, S., Knigge, C., Long, K. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 437

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., & Belloni, D. 2025, A&A, 696, A92

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., Littlefair, S., Belloni, D., & Schwope, A. D. 2026, A&A, 708, L11

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    M., Hatchett, S., McCray, R., & Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., Hatchett, S., McCray, R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 276

    work page 1977

  9. [9]

    Basko, M. M. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Ap&SS, 23, 117

    work page 1973

  10. [10]

    M., Sunyaev, R

    Basko, M. M., Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1974, A&A, 31, 249

    work page 1974

  11. [11]

    & Schreiber, M

    Belloni, D. & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    R., Moe, M., El-Badry, K., & Shen, K

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Moe, M., El-Badry, K., & Shen, K. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A33

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    R., Pala, A

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Pala, A. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5717

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    R., Zorotovic, M., et al

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5626

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    2024, PASP, 136, 124201

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry, K., Breivik, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 124201

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    & Subramanian, K

    Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Phys. Rep., 417, 1 Büning, A. & Ritter, H. 2004, A&A, 423, 281

    work page 2005

  17. [17]

    Canuto, V . M. 2000, ApJ, 534, L113

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 1995, ApJ, 441, 865

    work page 1995

  19. [19]

    & Baraffe, I

    Chabrier, G. & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 1039

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Chen, W.-C. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2016, ApJ, 830, 131

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    L., Heintz, T

    Chiti, F., van Saders, J. L., Heintz, T. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 15

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2708

    Conrad-Burton, J., Shabi, A., & Ginzburg, S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2708

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    L., Körding, E

    Coppejans, D. L., Körding, E. G., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3801 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    1998, A&A, 331, 581

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Perrier, C., & Mayor, M. 1998, A&A, 331, 581

    work page 1998

  25. [25]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 174

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Gao, Z.-F., & Shao, Y . 2021, ApJ, 909, 174

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    2018, A&A, 617, A26

    Dubus, G., Otulakowska-Hypka, M., & Lasota, J.-P. 2018, A&A, 617, A26

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368

    work page 1983

  28. [28]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916

    El-Badry, K., Conroy, C., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    & Prša, A

    Fabry, M. & Prša, A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 19

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    & Opher, R

    Felsteiner, J. & Opher, R. 1976, A&A, 46, 189

    work page 1976

  31. [31]

    2014, A&A, 569, A63

    Gabriel, M., Noels, A., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2014, A&A, 569, A63

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    C., El-Badry, K., et al

    Galiullin, I., Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A374 Gänsicke, B. T., Dillon, M., Southworth, J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2170

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, A&A, 595, A110

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    J., Dotter, A., et al

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 90

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Gilliland, R. L. 1985, ApJ, 299, 286

    work page 1985

  36. [36]

    & Selvelli, P

    Gilmozzi, R. & Selvelli, P. 2024, A&A, 681, A83

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    & Quataert, E

    Ginzburg, S. & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3656

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    & Quataert, E

    Ginzburg, S. & Quataert, E. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1592

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 27

    Gossage, S., Kalogera, V ., & Sun, M. 2023, ApJ, 950, 27

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 102

    Gossage, S., Kiman, R., Monsch, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 102

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    K., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E

    Guerrero, G., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Kosovichev, A. G., & Mansour, N. N. 2016, ApJ, 819, 104

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    M., Pretorius, M

    Hewitt, D. M., Pretorius, M. L., Woudt, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2542 Article number, page 14 Vladislav Dodon et al.: Physical SBD magnetic braking in CVs

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    B., Nelson, L

    Howell, S. B., Nelson, L. A., & Rappaport, S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 897

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    V ., & Fedorova, A

    Iben, Jr., I., Tutukov, A. V ., & Fedorova, A. V . 1997, ApJ, 486, 955

    work page 1997

  45. [45]

    T., Breedt, E., et al

    Inight, K., Gänsicke, B. T., Breedt, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4867

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    K., Burke, C

    Irwin, J., Berta, Z. K., Burke, C. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 56

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    & Chaboyer, B

    Joyce, M. & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 10

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415 Käpylä, P

    Justham, S., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415 Käpylä, P. J., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., Guerrero, G., & Warnecke, J. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 58

    work page 2006

  50. [50]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236

    work page 1988

  51. [51]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03779

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03948

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    R., Frank, J., Kolb, U., & Ritter, H

    King, A. R., Frank, J., Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1996, ApJ, 467, 761

    work page 1996

  54. [54]

    King, A. R. & Kolb, U. 1995, ApJ, 439, 330

    work page 1995

  55. [55]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 484

    Knigge, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 484

    work page 2006

  56. [56]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    & Baraffe, I

    Kolb, U. & Baraffe, I. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1034

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields

    work page 1975

  59. [59]

    1947, ApJ, 105, 305

    Ledoux, P. 1947, ApJ, 105, 305

    work page 1947

  60. [60]

    K., Wu, K

    Li, J. K., Wu, K. W., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 61

    work page 1994

  61. [61]

    London, R., McCray, R., & Auer, L. H. 1981, ApJ, 243, 970

    work page 1981

  62. [62]

    L., See, V ., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S

    Lu, Y . L., See, V ., Amard, L., Angus, R., & Matt, S. P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 223

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    R., et al

    Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Covey, K. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A20

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    J., Kashyap, V ., & Steeghs, D

    Matranga, M., Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V ., & Steeghs, D. 2012, ApJ, 747, 132

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    P., Brun, A

    Matt, S. P., Brun, A. S., Baraffe, I., Bouvier, J., & Chabrier, G. 2015, ApJ, 799, L23

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    P., MacGregor, K

    Matt, S. P., MacGregor, K. B., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Greene, T. P. 2012, ApJ, 754, L26

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    P., Parsons, S

    McAllister, M., Littlefair, S. P., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5535

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    1968, MNRAS, 138, 359

    Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359

    work page 1968

  69. [69]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    1972, ApJ, 175, 417 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B

    Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A43

    work page 1972

  71. [71]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763 Paczy´nski, B. 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 287

    work page 1984

  73. [73]

    F., Gänsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., Gänsicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293

    work page 1955

  75. [75]

    Parker, E. N. 1975, ApJ, 198, 205

    work page 1975

  76. [76]

    1984, ApJS, 54, 443

    Patterson, J. 1984, ApJS, 54, 443

    work page 1984

  77. [77]

    & Raymond, J

    Patterson, J. & Raymond, J. C. 1985, ApJ, 292, 535

    work page 1985

  78. [78]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    work page 2011

  79. [79]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    work page 2013

  80. [80]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.