Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 72 references

Two's company, three's a crowd: SALT reveals the likely triple nature of the nucleus of the extreme abundance discrepancy factor planetary nebula Sp 3

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The central star of the planetary nebula Sp 3 is a 4.81-day binary with a physically associated visual companion 0.31 arcseconds away, making the nucleus a likely triple system.

desk verdict Solid RV discovery of a 4.81 d binary in Sp 3 and a genuinely striking adf, but the 'likely triple' claim leans on an invalid negative-parallax distance and a partly circular comparison; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08724 v1 pith:5D6IO3IZ submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

B. Miszalski , R. Manick , T. Rauch , K. I{l}kiewicz , H. Van Winckel , J. Miko{l}ajewska This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords planetarynebulaebinarycentralstarstriplestarsystemscommon-envelopeevolutionabundancediscrepancyfactorradialvelocitymonitoringNLTEmodelatmospheresSp3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Sp 3, a little-studied planetary nebula, has a central star that is not one star but at least three. High-resolution spectroscopy over a year reveals a 4.81-day binary, and a faint visual companion found 0.31 arcseconds away has a distance that agrees with every other distance estimate to the nebula and its nucleus. The paper argues that the companion is therefore physically bound, making Sp 3 the second credible triple-nucleus planetary nebula after NGC 246. A triple nucleus matters because planetary nebulae with complex shapes may need a third star, not just a close binary, to explain their jets, rings, and asymmetries. The case also carries a bonus: the nebula shows an extreme oxygen abundance discrepancy factor, which breaks a claimed trend between that factor and orbital period.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the visual companion: a G0V star at $0.31''$ separation, whose projected separation is about 740 au. The argument is a distance-concordance test: four independent distance indicators—nebular statistical distances, the companion's spectroscopic distance, the central star's inverse parallax, and a gravity distance from NLTE model atmospheres—all land within roughly 2–3 kpc. The orbital solution for the inner pair supplies the 4.81 d period and mass function, and the photospheric analysis supplies the $\log g$ and mass that anchor the gravity distance. A secondary mechanism is the abundance discrepancy factor (the ratio of oxygen abundances from optical recombination lines and collisionally excited lines), whose extreme value of $24.6^{+4.1}_{-3.4}$ is used to test population trends.

What would settle it

Measure the visual companion's own parallax and proper motion in a future Gaia data release, or take a high-resolution spectrum of it and derive its distance from its spectral type: a distance significantly greater than about 4 kpc, or a proper motion that disagrees with the central binary's motion by more than the measurement errors, would show the companion is a foreground interloper rather than a member of the triple.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 23 radial-velocity measurements of the stellar He II line, the paper detects a circular orbit with period $4.815317 \pm 0.000664$ d, semi-amplitude $22.92 \pm 0.51$ km s$^{-1}$, and mass function $0.00598 \pm 0.00040\,M_\odot$. From NLTE model atmospheres the primary is hot and fast-rotating: $T_\mathrm{eff}=68^{+12}_{-6}$ kK, $\log g=4.6 \pm 0.2$, $v_\mathrm{rot}=80 \pm 20$ km s$^{-1}$, implying a mass of $0.60^{+0.27}_{-0.05}\,M_\odot$. The decisive evidence for the triple claim is distance concordance: the visual companion's spectroscopic distance of $2.22^{+0.61}_{-0.48}$ kpc agrees with nebular distances ($1.92\pm0.38$ and $2.11\pm0.60$ kpc), the inverse Gaia DR2 parallax of the central star ($2.32^{+0.79}_{-0.47}$ kpc), and the gravity distance from the stellar parameters ($2.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ kpc). The paper concludes the companion is physically associated with the inner binary, yielding the strongest triple-nucleus candidate after NGC 246.

Load-bearing premise

The case rests on the distance to Sp 3 being about 2.3 kpc, obtained by taking the reciprocal of a negative Gaia parallax after rejecting the Bayesian distance of 11.2 kpc as implausible; if the true distance is much larger, the visual companion would be a foreground star instead of a bound tertiary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sp 3 becomes the strongest candidate for a triple planetary-nebula nucleus after NGC 246, giving a second system in which to study whether a tertiary companion can shape complex nebular morphology.
  • The 4.81-day orbital period is among the longest found for a post-common-envelope central star, and it was found by radial-velocity monitoring rather than photometry, reinforcing the view that long-period binary nuclei are being missed.
  • The extreme oxygen abundance discrepancy factor at this period contradicts the claim that post-common-envelope planetary nebulae with orbital periods above about 1 day have normal abundance discrepancy factors, pointing to selection effects in the current sample.
  • The Type-I abundance pattern in a likely thick-disk object raises the possibility that fast rotation and binarity, not only progenitor mass, influence nucleosynthesis on the asymptotic giant branch.
  • If the triple association is physical, the wide tertiary could have excited eccentricity in the inner binary's past through the Kozai-Lidov mechanism even though the present orbit is circular.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If future astrometry confirms the association, Sp 3 would be the first known wide tertiary around a close post-common-envelope binary; because the 740 au separation is too large to shape the nebula directly, any morphological influence would have to act through secular dynamics before the common-envelope phase.
  • The distance-concordance test used here is directly portable: any central star with a visual companion and a measured orbit can be checked the same way, and re-examining previously classified doubtful companions with new parallaxes is a natural next step.
  • A sharper population test would compare the abundance discrepancy factor distribution of radial-velocity-selected binaries with photometrically selected ones; the paper's result predicts that RV-selected samples will show more elevated and extreme values.
  • The extreme abundance discrepancy factor and the fast rotation of the primary suggest that rotation, not just binarity, may control the size of the discrepancy; this could be tested by measuring abundances in other rapidly rotating post-common-envelope nuclei.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-epoch radial-velocity study of the central star of the planetary nebula Sp 3 with SALT HRS (23 spectra, Table 1). A secure 4.81 d orbital period is derived (Section 3.3, Table 3, Fig. 13), with semi-amplitude K = 22.92 ± 0.51 km/s and residuals of 2.94 km/s, establishing the nucleus as a post-common-envelope binary while the nebular H-beta velocities remain constant at ~43.5 km/s. Combining this with the known V = 16.86 visual companion at 0.31 arcsec (Ciardullo et al. 1999), the authors argue that the companion's spectroscopic distance (2.22 kpc, Frew et al. 2016) agrees with the nebular distances (1.92 and 2.11 kpc), the reciprocal of the Gaia DR2 parallax (2.32 kpc), and a new gravity distance (2.8 kpc), and that the companion is therefore physically associated, making the nucleus a likely triple, the strongest candidate after NGC 246. Additional results include a TMAP NLTE analysis (Teff = 68+12/-6 kK, log g = 4.6 ± 0.2, vrot = 80 ± 20 km/s, M = 0.60+0.27/-0.05 Msun), new Fabry-Perot imaging revealing bipolar lobes, a broken ring, and jet-like knots, and nebular abundances with an extreme oxygen abundance discrepancy factor adf(O2+) = 24.6 that breaks the Wesson et al. (2018) period-adf trend for post-CE PNe.

Significance. If the triple interpretation is correct, Sp 3 would be a benchmark system: a post-CE 4.81 d binary with a candidate wide tertiary at ~740 AU, directly relevant to the proposed role of triple nuclei in shaping complex PNe morphologies. Independent of the triple question, the paper delivers two robust results: the secure orbital solution (a well-sampled Keplerian fit with stable nebular control velocities) and the extreme adf of 24.6, which is a legitimate challenge to the claimed period-adf correlation and strengthens the case that selection effects dominate the known post-CE PN sample. The paper is commendably transparent: it explicitly acknowledges the circularity of the Frew et al. (2016) calibrator distance, the caveats of the Gaia DR2 parallax, and the Teff-dependent gravity distance; the RV tables and line-flux tables are complete; and the model-atmosphere analysis is careful. However, the distance evidence for the triple claim mixes one statistically invalid estimate (1/negative parallax), one circular estimate, and one strongly parameter-dependent estimate, and the paper's rejection of the only fully independent Bayesian distance (11.2 kpc) is not quantitatively justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.1 / Table 6] The distance d = 2.32+0.79/-0.47 kpc is derived as 1/parallax from a negative Gaia DR2 parallax (ϖ = -0.431 ± 0.109 mas, a 4σ negative detection). The reciprocal of a negative parallax is not a valid distance, and the table's positive value amounts to inverting |ϖ| with error propagation 1/(|ϖ| ± σ), which has no statistical basis. The paper itself cites Luri et al. (2018) on exactly this hazard before performing the inversion. The appropriate Bayesian treatment is the Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) entry, r_est = 11.2 kpc, which the paper rejects; alternatively, the negative parallax may indicate that the astrometric solution is corrupted by the undetected 0.31 arcsec companion (astrometric_excess_noise = 0.68 mas is close to the 1 mas filter threshold). This estimate must be removed or replaced with a proper posterior distance, and the abstract and conclusions should not list the Gaia DR2 parallax as independent agreement supporting the triple claim.
  2. [4.1 / Table 7] The Frew et al. (2016) nebular distance of 2.11 ± 0.60 kpc is not an independent confirmation of the companion's spectroscopic distance: as the paper states, Sp 3 was included as a calibrator in Frew et al.'s method on the basis of the companion's spectroscopic distance (2.22 kpc). The agreement between these two entries is therefore partly by construction. This entry should be excluded from, or explicitly flagged in, the list of independent agreements in Table 7, and the abstract's phrase 'distance estimates to the nebula' should be narrowed to the Stanghellini & Haywood (2010) estimate (1.92 ± 0.38 kpc), which is the only genuinely independent nebular distance quoted.
  3. [4.1 / Table 7] The rejection of the Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) distance (r_est = 11.2 kpc, 8.1-15.4 kpc) rests on the claim that a 34 arcsec radius at 11.2 kpc (1.85 pc) is 'considerably larger than most PNe.' This is not quantified: the cited radius distribution in Frew et al. (2016) has a large tail above 1.5 pc, and the comparison with PFP1 is qualitative. If a distance near 11 kpc were correct, the visual companion would be a foreground star and the triple claim would fail, so this rejection is load-bearing for the paper's main result and needs a quantitative justification (e.g., a percentile from the physical-radius distribution of PNe of similar excitation, or an argument from surface brightness). The paper should also consider, and ideally test, the alternative that the Gaia astrometry is affected by the close companion. A concrete test (Gaia eDR3/DR3 astrometry, a proper-motion comparison, or a second-epoch measurement of the companion) would settle the question. Conversely, the strongest a priori evidence for association is the small angular separation itself: a chance projection of a V = 16.9 star within 0.31 arcsec at b = -14.3 deg has probability of order 1e-4. This argument is only cited through Ciardullo et al. (1999) and should be quantified and placed at the center of the association case.
  4. [4.1 / Section 3.2] The gravity distance d = 2.8+0.8/-0.7 kpc in Table 7 is computed for the adopted Teff = 68,000 K and M = 0.60 Msun. The paper notes that Teff = 80,000 K, which is favored by the He II 4686 line profile (Section 3.2) and is within the +12,000 K error bar, gives M = 0.83 Msun and d = 4.0+0.9/-1.2 kpc. The quoted uncertainty on d therefore does not include the dominant systematic, and the gravity distance is consistent with any distance between roughly 2 and 4 kpc. It should be presented with this systematic explicitly propagated, and the agreement with the ~2.3 kpc scale in Table 7 should be correspondingly weakened.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract / Section 5] The conclusion that the distance agreement 'strongly suggests' physical association is stronger than the abstract's 'likely triple'; given the issues with the 1/parallax and calibrator distances (Major Comments 1 and 2), the concluding wording should be softened to match the abstract.
  2. [Section 3.3 / Table 3] Since the eccentricity is fixed to zero via the Lucy & Sweeney (1971) test, reporting the 3-sigma upper limit on e would be useful for the binary-population context and for future multi-epoch studies.
  3. [Section 3.4 / Table 5] The abstract refers to an 'oxygen abundance discrepancy factor (adf) of 24.6'; the value in Table 5 is specifically adf(O2+/H). The abstract and text should state 'adf(O2+)' to be precise, since O+/H is not part of the discrepancy measurement.
  4. [Section 3.4] The PG2300/PG900 joining uses a scale factor (0.9685) chosen to force consistent Balmer-decrement extinction; a sentence quantifying how the derived ORL O2+ abundance (and hence the adf) would change if the scale factor were varied within the plausible range would strengthen the extreme-adf claim.
  5. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'we have no other recourse but to estimate the distance as the reciprocal of the parallax' is not an adequate justification for an invalid statistic; see Major Comment 1.
  6. [Section 3.3] The systematic velocity of the binary (γ = 52.86 ± 0.36 km/s) differs from the nebular velocity (43.5 ± 0.1 km/s) by about 9 km/s; a brief comment on whether this offset is expected (e.g., from the CE ejection or shell kinematics) would preempt reader concerns.
  7. [Fig. 13 caption] Typographical errors: 'resdiuals' and 'respresents' should be 'residuals' and 'represents'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One distance 'agreement' is partly built-in because Sp 3 was a calibrator in Frew et al. (2016), though the triple claim retains independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, first paragraph (distance and likelihood of visual companion physical association)]
    "Frew et al. (2016) also estimated a distance based on the nebular properties of 2.11±0.60 kpc, where the spectroscopic distance to the visual companion was used as a basis for including Sp 3 as a calibrator for their distance estimation method."

    The paper presents agreement among distance estimates as evidence that the visual companion is physically associated with the 4.81 d binary. One of the listed distances, d_nebula = 2.11 ± 0.60 kpc from Frew et al. (2016), was produced by a nebular distance method in which Sp 3 was included as a calibrator precisely because of the spectroscopic distance of the visual companion, d_spec,tertiary = 2.22+0.61/−0.48 kpc. Therefore the agreement between these two entries in Table 7 is not an independent confirmation; the nebular distance is partly constructed from the very quantity it is being compared with. The paper explicitly acknowledges this dependence, so the circularity is admitted, but it remains true that this particular 'agreement' is built in rather than independently measured.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the visual companion is physically associated with the 4.81 d binary, making Sp 3 a likely triple nucleus. The evidence is a concordance of distance estimates: the companion's spectroscopic distance, two nebular distances, a Gaia DR2 parallax reciprocal, and a gravity distance. One of those agreements is partially circular, as the paper itself states: the Frew et al. (2016) nebular distance of 2.11 kpc used Sp 3 as a calibrator based on the companion's spectroscopic distance of 2.22 kpc. Thus citing both as independent confirmations is not valid, and the headline 'agreement' is weakened by construction. However, the paper does not hide this dependence; it explicitly flags it in Section 4.1. The remaining distance estimates do not reduce to the companion's distance by construction. The Stanghellini & Haywood (2010) nebular distance is an independent method; the gravity distance depends on the stellar atmosphere parameters and evolutionary tracks but not on the companion; and the 1/parallax value comes from Gaia astrometry. The validity of the negative-parallax reciprocal is questionable, but that is a statistical/calibration concern rather than a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz-smuggling is present. The paper's own acknowledgement makes the Frew calibrator issue a partial circularity rather than a hidden one, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central triple claim rests on distance estimates that depend on the Gaia reciprocal parallax, the visual companion's spectroscopic distance, and stellar parameters derived from NLTE models and single-star evolutionary tracks. The nebular abundance result additionally relies on standard CEL/ORL analysis techniques.

free parameters (4)
  • PG2300/PG900 spectral scale factor = 0.9685
    Chosen so that Balmer decrement ratios give consistent extinction in Section 3.4; affects the joined spectrum used for all nebular abundance measurements and the adf.
  • Nebular extinction c(H beta) = 0.06 +0.05 -0.04
    Derived from H alpha/H beta and H gamma/H beta ratios; applied to deredden line fluxes before abundance analysis.
  • NLTE model carbon abundance [C] = -0.088
    Adjusted to match C IV line equivalent widths in the TMAP analysis (Section 3.2); influences Teff and log g, which feed into the gravity distance and the mass estimate.
  • NLTE model nitrogen abundance [N] = 0.39
    Adjusted to match N V line equivalent widths in the TMAP analysis (Section 3.2); influences the derived stellar parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-star post-AGB evolutionary tracks apply to the binary central star to derive mass and luminosity.
    Used in Section 3.2 and Fig. 12 to interpolate M = 0.60+0.27-0.05 Msun and log L = 3.85+0.55-0.35. The gravity distance in Section 4.1 depends on these values; binary effects could change them.
  • domain assumption The nebula orientation matches the orbital inclination, so the apparent morphology gives an inclination of about 20 degrees.
    Section 3.3 cites Hillwig et al. (2016) to estimate inclination from morphology; this is used to infer a companion mass range, which is not central to the triple claim.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR2 negative parallax, after zero-point correction, can be inverted (1/parallax) to give a usable distance of 2.32 kpc.
    Section 4.1 and Table 6. The parallax is -0.431 +/- 0.109 mas, and the reciprocal is highly sensitive to systematics; the paper acknowledges this is not ideal.
  • domain assumption The visual companion's spectroscopic distance and G0V spectral classification from Frew et al. (2016) are correct.
    This is the anchor of the physical association argument in Section 4.1; a wrong spectral type or distance for the companion would invalidate the triple claim.
  • domain assumption Standard CEL and ORL nebular abundance analysis methods produce reliable abundances.
    Underlies the adf measurement in Section 3.4; an unknown systematic in ORL abundances would change the adf value and its interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two's company, three's a crowd: SALT reveals the likely triple nature of the nucleus of the extreme abundance discrepancy factor planetary nebula Sp 3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5D6IO3IZ

@misc{pith2026190808724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two's company, three's a crowd: SALT reveals the likely triple nature of the nucleus of the extreme abundance discrepancy factor planetary nebula Sp 3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5D6IO3IZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08724}
}
abstract

The substantial number of binary central stars of planetary nebulae (CSPNe) now known ($\sim$50) has revealed a strong connection between binarity and some morphological features including jets and low-ionisation structures. However, some features and asymmetries might be too complex or subtle to ascribe to binary interactions alone. A tertiary component, i.e. a triple nucleus, could be the missing ingredient required to produce these features. The only proven triple, NGC 246, is insufficient to investigate the shaping role of triple nuclei, but one straight-forward way to identify more triples is to search for binaries in nuclei with known visual companions. Here we report on the SALT HRS discovery of a 4.81 d orbital period in the CSPN of Sp 3 which has a visual companion 0.31" away. The spectroscopic distance of the visual companion agrees with distance estimates to the nebula, the GAIA DR2 parallax of the central star, and the gravity distance of the central star. This supports a physical association between the visual companion and the 4.81 d binary, making the nucleus of Sp 3 a likely triple. We determine $T_\mathrm{eff}=68^{+12}_{-6}$ kK, $\log g=4.6\pm0.2$ cm s$^{-2}$ and $v_\mathrm{rot}=80\pm20$ km s$^{-1}$ for the primary from NLTE model atmosphere analysis. The peculiar nebula presents an apparent bipolar morphology, jets and an unexpected `extreme' oxygen abundance discrepancy factor (adf) of 24.6$^{+4.1}_{-3.4}$. The adf is inconsistent with the purported trend for longer orbital period post-CE PNe to exhibit normal adfs, further highlighting selection effects in post-CE PNe. The Type-I nebular abundances of Sp 3, whose origin is often tied to more massive progenitors, are incongruous with the likely Galactic Thick Disk membership of Sp 3, possibly suggesting that rotation and binarity may play an important role in the AGB nucleosynthesis of PNe. (abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08724 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SALT RSS Fabry-Pérot imaging of Sp 3 in the Hα (a) and [O III] (b) emission lines. Panel (c) is the quotient Hα divided by [O III] and (d) is a version of (a) with another unsharp mask filter applied. A logarithmic scale and an unsharp mask filter was applied to all images to enhance faint features. Image dimensions are 130 × 130 arcsec2 with North up and East to left. Lines in (d) indicate the positions of knots (N… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The observed stellar He II λ4541.59 Å profiles (black lines) and the Voigt function fits (red lines). Each panel is labelled with the Julian day of each spectrum minus 2457000 days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The observed nebular Hβ λ4861.363 Å profiles (black lines) and the multiple Gaussian function fits (red lines). Each panel is labelled with the Julian day of each spectrum minus 2457000 days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top panel) Position of the RSS 1.25” longslit with a PA of 104 deg (black rectangle) on the Hα image of Sp 3 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average integrated RSS spectra extracted from the exposures taken with the PG2300 (top) and PG900 (bottom) gratings. Line identifications are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the observed profiles of C IV λ5801.31 Å and N V λ4603.74 Å (black lines) with profiles calculated from a model with Teff = 68 000 K and log g = 4.6. The synthetic spectra are convolved with a rotational profile with vrot = 0 (blue, thin line), 40 (blue, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Section of the FUSE observation around O VI λλ 1032,1038 Å. with a post-AGB origin, assuming these single star tracks are applicable to the binary central star, rather than the post-RGB origin suggested by Hillwig et al. (2017). The location of the CSPN of Sp 3 is rel…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sections of the HRS spectrum (black) compared with synthetic spectra from models with Teff = 68 000, 72 000, 76 000, and 80 000 K, log g = 4.6, [H] = 0.05, [He] = 0.02, [C] = −0.088, and [N] = 0.39. data reduction. It is located at the red end of an HRS échelle order …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Location of the CSPN of Sp 3 (with its error range) in the log Teff – log g plane. Post-AGB evolutionary tracks of H-rich stars (for about solar metallicity, Z = 0.02; Miller Bertolami et al. 2016) labeled with the stellar mass in M , respectively, are shown for compa…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Companion masses permitted by the mass function in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Top panel) Lomb-scargle periodogram of the SALT HRS HeII λ4540 RV measurements (top half) and the window function (bottom half). The strongest peak at f = 0.208 d−1 corresponds to the orbital period. (Bottom panel) SALT HRS RV measurements phased with the orbital per…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Determination of EB−V for the CSPN of Sp 3 using the FUSE spectrum (Id B032080100000 retrieved from the MAST archive; black line) and the B and V (Zacharias et al. 2013; Henden et al. 2016) and the 2MASS J, H, and Ks magnitudes (Cutri et al. 2003). The model has Teff …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The location of Sp 3 amongst other post-CE PNe with measured adfs and orbital periods. Post-CE PNe with orbital periods in excess of 1.0 d are labelled. The dotted lines mark the thresholds of Wesson et al. (2018) indicative of ‘normal’ (adf < 5), ‘elevated’ (5 < adf …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3459 Afšar, M., & Bond, H

    Adam, C., & Mugrauer, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3459 Afšar, M., & Bond, H. E. 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital- iana, 76, 608

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    2018, arXiv:1804.09375

    Arenou, F., Luri, X., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2018, arXiv:1804.09375

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 4http://www.astropy.org 18 Miszalski et al. Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Man- telet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    1992, European Southern Observatory Con- ference and Workshop Proceedings, 41, 177

    Ballester, P. 1992, European Southern Observatory Con- ference and Workshop Proceedings, 41, 177

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJ, 837, L10

    Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, L10

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    2003, A&A, 400, 161

    Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Ragazzoni, R., Sabbadin, F., & Turatto, M. 2003, A&A, 400, 161

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    C., Parthasarathy, M., & García-Lario, P

    Bobrowsky, M., Sahu, K. C., Parthasarathy, M., & García-Lario, P. 1998, Nature, 392, 469 Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773

    work page 1998

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Bond, H. E. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, 199, 115

    2000

  2. [10]

    E., & Ciardullo, R

    Bond, H. E., & Ciardullo, R. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 143

    2018

  3. [11]

    E., Liller, W., & Mannery, E

    Bond, H. E., Liller, W., & Mannery, E. J. 1978, ApJ, 223, 252

    1978

  4. [12]

    G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al

    Bramall, D. G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7735, 77354F

    2010

  5. [13]

    G., Schmoll, J., Tyas, L

    Bramall, D. G., Schmoll, J., Tyas, L. M. G., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8446, 84460A

    2012

  6. [14]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6267, 62670Z

    2006

  7. [15]

    B., Nordsieck, K

    Burgh, E. B., Nordsieck, K. H., Kobulnicky, H. A., et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 1463

    2003

  8. [16]

    1985, ApJ, 291, 237

    Cerruti-Sola, M., & Perinotto, M. 1985, ApJ, 291, 237

    1985

  9. [17]

    E., Sipior, M

    Ciardullo, R., Bond, H. E., Sipior, M. S., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 488 Corradi R. L. M. & Schwarz H. E., 1995, A&A, 293, 871

    1999

  10. [18]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Sabin, L., Miszalski, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1349

    2011

  11. [19]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Rodríguez-Gil, P., Jones, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2799

    2014

  12. [20]

    A., Sharples, R

    Crause, L. A., Sharples, R. M., Bramall, D. G., et al. 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9147, 91476T

    2014

  13. [21]

    M., Still, M., Schellart, P., et al

    Crawford, S. M., Still, M., Schellart, P., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7737, 773725

    2010

  14. [22]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, De Marco, O. 2009, PASP, 121, 316

    2003

  15. [23]

    1998, A&AS, 132, 13

    Durand, S., Acker, A., & Zijlstra, A. 1998, A&AS, 132, 13

    1998

  16. [24]

    E., Stassun, K

    Exter, K., Bond, H. E., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1414

    2010

  17. [25]

    J., Parker, Q

    Frew, D. J., Parker, Q. A., & Bojičić, I. S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1459 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018a, A&A, 616, A1, arXiv:1804.09365 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C...

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2001, A&A, 373, 572

    Gauba, G., Parthasarathy, M., Nakada, Y., & Fujii, T. 2001, A&A, 373, 572

    2001

  19. [27]

    J., Mikołajewska, J., & Różyczka, M

    Gawryszczak, A. J., Mikołajewska, J., & Różyczka, M. 2002, A&A, 385, 205

    2002

  20. [28]

    A., & De Marco, O

    Guerrero, M. A., & De Marco, O. 2013, A&A, 553, A126

    2013

  21. [29]

    A., & Gesicki, K

    Hajduk, M., Zijlstra, A. A., & Gesicki, K. 2008, A&A, 490, L7

    2008

  22. [30]

    Heber, U., Hunger, K., Jonas, G., & Kudritzki, R. P. 1984, A&A, 130, 119

    1984

  23. [31]

    A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2336

    2016

  24. [32]

    C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., et al

    Hillwig, T. C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 125

    2016

  25. [33]

    C., Frew, D

    Hillwig, T. C., Frew, D. J., Reindl, N., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 24

    2017

  26. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineer- ing, 9, 90

    2007

  27. [35]

    2013, A&ARv, 21, 59

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&ARv, 21, 59

    2013

  28. [36]

    Jones, D., & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017b, MNRAS, 466, 2034

  29. [37]

    I., & Lattanzio, J

    Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  30. [38]

    Kim, H., & Taam, R. E. 2012, ApJ, 759, 59

    2012

  31. [39]

    2018, arXiv:1807.06368

    Kimeswenger, S., & Barría, D. 2018, arXiv:1807.06368

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L., & Barlow, M

    Kingsburgh, R. L., & Barlow, M. J. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 257

    1994

  33. [41]

    Y., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y., Gvaramadze, V. V., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3068

    2016

  34. [42]

    A., Nordsieck, K

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Nordsieck, K. H., Burgh, E. B., et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 1634

    2003

  35. [43]

    J., & Mink, D

    Kurtz, M. J., & Mink, D. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 934

    1998

  36. [44]

    E., Dufour, P., et al

    Liebert, J., Bond, H. E., Dufour, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 32

    2013

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, arXiv:1804.09366

    Lindegren, L., Hernandez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, arXiv:1804.09366

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    B., & Sweeney, M

    Lucy, L. B., & Sweeney, M. A. 1971, AJ, 76, 544

    1971

  39. [47]

    Luri, X., Brown, A. G. A., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A9, arXiv:1804.09376

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 1789 Miller Bertolami, M

    Manick, R., Miszalski, B., & McBride, V. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1789 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25

    2015

  41. [49]

    Miszalski, B., Boffin, H. M. J., Frew, D. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 39

    2012

  42. [50]

    Miszalski, B., Boffin, H. M. J., & Corradi, R. L. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, L39

    2013

  43. [51]

    & Mikoła- jewska, J

    Miszalski, B., Manick, R., Van Winckel, H. & Mikoła- jewska, J. 2019b, MNRAS, 487, 1040 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A43

    2011

  44. [52]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1606.014 O’Donoghue, D., Buckley, D. A. H., Balona, L. A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 151 Pierce M. J., Frew D. J., Parker Q. A., Köppen J., 2004, PASA, 21, 334

    2016

  45. [53]

    Flannery, B. P. 1992, Cambridge: University Press, c1992, 2nd ed

    1992

  46. [54]

    Joseph, C. L. 2008, AJ, 135, 1825

    2008

  47. [55]

    1996, A&A, 310, 613

    Rauch, T., Koeppen, J., & Werner, K. 1996, A&A, 310, 613

    1996

  48. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 3896

    Rauch, T., Demleitner, M., Hoyer, D., & Werner, K. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3896

    2018

  49. [57]

    Rauch, T., & Deetjen, J. L. 2003, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, 288, 103

    2003

  50. [58]

    C., Reylé, C., Fliri, J., et al

    Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Fliri, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A13

    2014

  51. [59]

    E., Corradi, R

    Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M., & Melnick, J. 1992, A&AS, 96, 23

    1992

  52. [60]

    B., & Balick, B

    Soker, N., Zucker, D. B., & Balick, B. 1992, AJ, 104, 2151

    1992

  53. [61]

    1994, MNRAS, 270, 774

    Soker, N. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 774

    1994

  54. [62]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 241

    Soker, N., & Rappaport, S. 2000, ApJ, 538, 241

    2000

  55. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1584

    Soker, N. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1584

    2016

  56. [64]

    1999, Optical and Infrared Spectroscopy of Circumstellar Matter, 188, 331

    Stahl, O., Kaufer, A., & Tubbesing, S. 1999, Optical and Infrared Spectroscopy of Circumstellar Matter, 188, 331

    1999

  57. [65]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 1096 Stasińska, G., Morisset, C., Tovmassian, G., et al

    Stanghellini, L., & Haywood, M. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1096 Stasińska, G., Morisset, C., Tovmassian, G., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A44

    2010

  58. [66]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 2014

    Tocknell, J., De Marco, O., & Wardle, M. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6 Tsamis Y

    Toonen, S., Hamers, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6 Tsamis Y. G., Barlow M. J., Liu X.-W., Storey P. J., Danziger I. J., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 953 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420 Van Winckel, H., Jorissen, A., Exter, K., et al...

    2016

  60. [68]

    L., Dreizler, S., et al

    Werner, K., Deetjen, J. L., Dreizler, S., et al. 2003, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, 288, 31

    2003

  61. [69]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1212.015 Wesson R., Stock D

    Werner, K., Dreizler, S., & Rauch, T. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1212.015 Wesson R., Stock D. J., Scicluna P., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3516 Wesson R., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3774

    2012

  62. [70]

    Wesson, R., Jones, D., García-Rojas, J., Boffin, H. M. J., & Corradi, R. L. M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4589

    2018

  63. [71]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44

    2013

  64. [72]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 28 20 Miszalski et al

    Zhang, Y., Fang, X., Chau, W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 28 20 Miszalski et al. T able 8 ObservedF (λ) and dereddenedI(λ) emission line fluxes for Sp 3. λ Ion F (λ) I (λ) Ion Multiplet Lower term Upper term g 1 g2 3697.75 3697.15 1.487 ± 0.133 1.389 +0.137 −0.152 H i H17 2p+ 2P* 1...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.