Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Type I X-Ray Burst Models With Rotation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that stellar rotation materially changes Type I X-ray bursts: in 1.4 solar-mass models at 0.08 Eddington accretion, spinning at 80% of break-up shortens recurrence from 5.1 to 4.4 hours, broadens bursts by 86–125%…

desk verdict First 1D burst models with rotation, but the fixed-profile justification contradicts their own circulation velocities by ~30 orders of magnitude; the central numbers need a no-mixing control. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04617 v1 pith:K7S6BNHA submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRnucl-ex

David Martin , Jordi Jose This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRnucl-ex
keywords NeutronstarsTypeIX-rayburstsStellarrotationHydrodynamicsExplosivenucleosynthesisMeridionalcirculationShellularapproximationburstlightcurves
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

Type I X-ray bursts are thermonuclear flashes on accreting neutron stars, and this paper argues that the neutron star's spin is a major control on how they behave. Using one-dimensional hydrodynamic models that add centrifugal forces plus rotationally driven mixing, the authors show that a star spinning at 80% of its break-up rate bursts more often (every 4.4 hours instead of every 5.1), produces dimmer, cooler explosions, and stretches each flash into a broader light curve. Rotation also shortens the nuclear chain: the heaviest isotope synthesized falls from 103Ag in the non-rotating model to 98Ru in the fastest one. If these models are right, rapidly spinning neutron stars in binaries should be distinct observational targets, with systematically different burst timing and shapes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the shellular-rotation implementation in the one-dimensional Lagrangian hydrodynamic code used throughout. Rotation enters through the effective gravity $g_{\rm eff}$, whose centrifugal reduction is treated with the isobaric correction factors $f_P$ and $f_T$, and through two transport channels: meridional circulation with vertical velocity $U(r)$ and shear-induced turbulent diffusion with coefficient $D_s$, plus horizontal turbulent diffusion $D_h$. These processes set a steady-state, nearly solid-body rotation profile in the thin envelope, mix hydrogen and helium to deeper, hotter layers, and thereby shift ignition to lower column densities. The central identity connecting rotation to burst timing is $P_{\rm max} = G M_{\rm NS} M_{\rm acc}/(4\pi R_{\rm NS}^4)$: with a shorter accretion phase, the faster-rotating models accumulate less mass, so the explosion pressure, peak temperature, and nucleosynthesis endpoint all move down.

What would settle it

Recompute the five models while integrating the angular-momentum transport equation forward through accretion and bursts, using the paper's own meridional circulation velocities: with $U(r)\sim 10^{-5}$ cm/s on a 13-km star, $R/|U|$ is roughly $10^{11}$ s, not the claimed $10^{-19}$ s. If the 4.4-hour recurrence and 86–125% light-curve broadening vanish when the rotation profile is allowed to evolve, the central claim would be quantitatively refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that rotation is not a minor correction but a key factor in Type I X-ray burst behavior in rapidly spinning neutron stars. For a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star accreting at 0.08 of Eddington, increasing the angular velocity from zero to 80% of the critical (break-up) value progressively lowers the maximum pressure and density at the envelope base, because centrifugal force partially lifts the accreted layers. Lower ignition pressure means less accreted mass is required before the runaway, so recurrence times shrink (5.1 to 4.4 hours), peak temperatures fall, and the same fuel is burned to lighter endpoints (98Ru versus 103Ag after five bursts). The light curves change shape as well: sustained emission after the peak is broader, with an unexplained bump at the highest rotation rates, and durations grow by 86% to 125% relative to the non-rotating model. The paper presents this as the first demonstration that rotation shapes the global properties of these bursts from ignition through nucleosynthesis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the envelope reaches a steady-state rotation profile almost instantly, so the simulations can hold that profile fixed during accretion and bursts; if the true relaxation time is comparable to or longer than the hour-scale recurrence time, the quantitative results would need to be redone with self-consistent angular momentum transport.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed recurrence times and light-curve widths of X-ray bursters should correlate with neutron-star spin, with rapidly spinning sources showing shorter waiting times and broader, more slowly decaying bursts at the same accretion rate.
  • Rotation changes the predicted ash composition of bursts, moving the nucleosynthesis endpoint from 103Ag to 98Ru at the highest spins, which affects any inferred rp-process yields or wind ejecta.
  • Because gravitational redshift lengthens times by 19% for the 1.4 solar-mass model, observed recurrence times and burst durations must be deredshifted before being compared with these Newtonian light curves.
  • The unexplained post-peak bump in the fastest-rotating models offers a possible observational signature of rapid spin, if future modeling confirms it is tied to rotation rather than numerical artifacts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the assumed steady-state rotation profile holds during a burst: its own meridional circulation velocities, about $10^{-5}$ cm/s on a 13-km star, imply a relaxation time near $10^{11}$ s rather than the quoted $10^{-19}$ s, so a self-consistent treatment of angular momentum transport during accretion and explosion could alter the quantitative results.
  • If the broadening and shorter recurrence survive such a test, rotation would provide a single physical cause for both short recurrence times and broad, non-exponential decay shapes, potentially explaining some bursters without appealing to higher accretion rates or unusual compositions.
  • A testable extension would be to compare the predicted spin dependence against observed bursters with measured spin frequencies, after controlling for accretion rate and gravitational redshift; the model implies faster rotators should burst more frequently and with broader light curves.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents one-dimensional hydrodynamic models of Type I X-ray bursts with shellular rotation using the SHIVA code. Five 1.4 solar-mass neutron-star models with the same accretion rate and different initial rotations (0 to 0.8 of break-up) are evolved through five bursts. The authors report that rotation reduces the ignition pressure and column density, shortens recurrence times (from 5.1 hours for the non-rotating model to 4.4 hours for the fastest model), broadens light curves by up to 125%, lowers peak temperatures, and shifts the nucleosynthesis endpoint from 103Ag to 98Ru. The recurrence shortening is attributed to rotationally-induced mixing, and the models adopt fixed rotation profiles justified by an extremely short relaxation time.

Significance. If correct, this would be the first comprehensive modeling of rotation in Type I X-ray bursts and could explain part of the observed diversity in burst durations and recurrence times. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a mature and extensively tested code, a 325-isotope nuclear network, five-burst sequences for all models, and a detailed appendix implementing standard prescriptions from the stellar-rotation literature (Meynet, Maeder, Zahn, Talon). No parameters are fitted to the target effects; the rotation grid is scanned. However, the quantitative significance of the claims hinges on a fixed-profile assumption and a mechanism attribution that are not supported by the paper's own reported numbers, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The paper states τrel ≈ 10^-19 s, but the values of U(r) reported in §2.2 and Fig. 2 (≈ −4×10^-5 cm/s for Model 2 and ≈ −1.2×10^-4 cm/s for Model 5) give R/U ≈ 10^10 to 10^11 s for R_NS = 13.1 km. This is about thirty orders of magnitude longer than the quoted relaxation time and is far longer than the ~10^5 s duration of the five-burst sequences or the hours-long recurrence times. A relaxation time of 10^-19 s is also sub-dynamical, since the dynamical time is ~10^-4 s, so it cannot describe macroscopic meridional circulation. Because the fixed-profile assumption is load-bearing for all the quantitative results, the central claims are not secured without a corrected timescale estimate or a self-consistent treatment of angular-momentum transport.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2), Pmax = G M_NS M_acc/(4π R_NS^4), omits the centrifugal reduction of effective gravity and therefore cannot be used to interpret the rotating models. Table 1 shows that Pmax decreases by about 43% between Model 1 and Model 5, while the recurrence time (and hence M_acc at fixed Mdot) decreases by only about 14%. The missing factor is the reduced g_eff, which is central to the paper's own pressure-lifting argument. Please replace Eq. (2) with the rotating relation or explicitly restrict it to the non-rotating case.
  3. [§3.2] The models include rotationally-induced mixing and centrifugal structure changes simultaneously, and the abstract and text attribute the shorter recurrence times and lower ignition column to 'rotationally-induced mixing.' However, a lower effective gravity also lowers the ignition column, so the mechanism attribution requires a control model with rotation but with the mixing terms disabled (Deff = Ds = 0). No such run is reported. Without this control, the claimed mixing-driven recurrence shortening and the associated nucleosynthesis endpoint shift are not distinguished from the purely centrifugal effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] In the Model 2 row, the entry 'Lpeak/L⊙ (m)' appears to have a misplaced unit and should be brought into line with the other rows.
  2. [§4] The text states that the models yield R* = 14.3 km, whereas Section 3 uses R_NS = 13.1 km; please clarify whether these are Newtonian and general-relativistic coordinate radii and define both consistently.
  3. [Fig. 8] The light curves are horizontally shifted to align peak values; since recurrence time is a central result, an unshifted version or an additional panel showing absolute time would improve readability.
  4. [§3.2] The sentence 'The fact that successive bursts are systematically broader in rapidly rotating neutron-star models proves that this is a true effect induced by rotation' is stronger than the evidence warrants; a dedicated control run and an assessment of numerical convergence would be needed to support the word 'proves.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the rotation grid and mixing prescriptions are inputs, while recurrence times, endpoints, and light-curve widths are computed outputs; the timescale inconsistency in Eq. (1) is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The models vary only in the adopted angular velocity (0 to 0.8 Omega_crit), which is scanned rather than fitted, and no parameter is tuned to reproduce the claimed recurrence times, burst durations, endpoints, or light-curve shapes. The rotation formalism is imported from the external stellar-rotation literature (Zahn 1992; Meynet & Maeder 1997; Maeder & Zahn 1998; Talon et al. 1997; Maeder 2003; Mathis & Zahn 2004), and the paper explicitly states that the diffusion coefficients cannot be characterized from first principles, i.e., they are adopted model ingredients rather than outputs disguised as predictions. The central quantities reported as results, such as tau_rec = 5.1 hr vs 4.4 hr, the 86-125% broadening, and the nucleosynthesis endpoint shift from 103Ag to 98Ru, emerge from the time-implicit hydrodynamic and nuclear-network evolution; they are not encoded in the input prescriptions. Citations to the authors' own SHIVA code and prior non-rotating burst models are instrument and benchmark references, not load-bearing arguments that replace computation with assertion. The non-rotating model is explicitly compared to the independent KEPLER model of Woosley et al. (2004). The only apparent concern is an internal consistency issue rather than circularity: Eq. (1) estimates tau_rel ~ R/U ~ 1e-19 s, while Section 2.2 reports steady-state meridional circulation velocities U ~ 1e-5 to 1e-4 cm/s, which with R_NS = 13.1 km implies R/U ~ 1e10-1e11 s, about thirty orders of magnitude longer. That discrepancy threatens the fixed-rotation-profile assumption and the attributed mixing mechanism, but it does not make the burst predictions equivalent to the model inputs by construction. The claimed effects are genuine outputs of the stated model setup, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on importing the entire shellular rotation framework from stellar evolution (Meynet and Maeder 1997; Maeder and Zahn 1998; Zahn 1992) into a 1D burst code, plus four modeling choices: fixed rotation profiles justified by an internally inconsistent relaxation time, neglect of accretion torque, Newtonian gravity, and a fixed neutron star configuration. No parameters are fitted to data; the rotation grid is scanned. The leading source of uncertainty is the steady-state rotation assumption, not fitted constants.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial rotation fraction Omega0/Omega_crit = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
    Grid of five model inputs chosen to scan rotation effects, not fit to data. Values span non-rotating to near break-up; 0.8 exceeds observed spins (the paper notes the fastest pulsar at 0.6-0.7 Omega_crit).
  • Neutron star mass M_NS = 1.4 M_sun
    Fixed input from prior XRB models such as Woosley et al. 2004; not fit to rotation effects.
  • Neutron star radius R_NS = 13.1 km
    Fixed input tied to the assumed equation of state and the 1.4 M_sun mass; not varied in this study.
  • Accretion rate Mdot = 1.75e-9 M_sun/yr (0.08 Mdot_Edd)
    Fixed input typical of bursting LMXBs; not varied, so the recurrence time scaling is not tested across accretion rates.
  • Initial luminosity L_NS = 4.14 L_sun
    Fixed cold neutron star envelope input; not fit to target burst properties.
  • Horizontal turbulence index n = 1
    Choice in the Maeder 2003 prescription for Dh; the paper notes n can be 1, 3, or 5, which changes mixing strength.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Shellular rotation approximation
    Angular velocity depends only on radius and isobars coincide with equipotentials; standard for 1D stellar models but unvalidated for the extremely thin neutron star envelope (Section 2.1, Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Neglect of angular momentum accretion
    Accreted material is assumed to have the same angular velocity as the envelope surface, ignoring spin-up torques from the accretion disk (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Steady-state rotation profile reached before bursts
    The paper fixes rotation profiles after a claimed relaxation time of about 10^-19 seconds; this timescale conflicts with the paper's own U values and the fixed-profile assumption is load-bearing for all quantitative results (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Fixed neutron star structure and Newtonian gravity
    Models assume M=1.4 M_sun, R=13.1 km, and Newtonian gravity, with a posteriori redshift corrections given in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Mixing coefficient prescriptions from main-sequence stellar evolution
    Dh from Maeder 2003 and Mathis and Zahn 2004, Ds from Talon et al. 1997; these are imported from stellar evolution literature and not verified for neutron star envelope conditions (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Initial metallicity all in the form of 14N
    All metals are initially set as 14N following standard XRB modeling practice (Woosley et al. 2004), which is a simplification of the real initial composition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Type I X-Ray Burst Models With Rotation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7S6BNHA

@misc{pith2026260804617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Type I X-Ray Burst Models With Rotation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7S6BNHA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04617}
}
abstract

Type I X-ray bursts are powered by unstable thermonuclear burning on the surface of accreting neutron stars in close binary systems. These brief X-ray flashes, with light curves featuring rise times of $1-10$ s, durations of $10-100$ s, and recurrence periods of hours to days, represent the most frequent stellar explosions in our Galaxy. With typical energies of $\sim 10^{39}-10^{40}$ erg, they rank among the most powerful astrophysical transients after supernovae and classical novae. To date, roughly 120 bursting X-ray binaries have been identified in the Milky Way. Several studies have been conducted to characterize the dynamics of these events, with emphasis on reproducing the observed recurrence periods and light curve shapes. In this paper we show, for the first time, that rotation is a key factor shaping the properties of Type I X-ray bursts in rapidly spinning systems. The inclusion of centrifugal forces, together with a suite of rotationally-induced mixing mechanisms, such as meridional circulation and shear-induced turbulent diffusion, reduce surface gravity, shortening the recurrence times and lowering burst energies. Rotation also modifies the extent of the nuclear activity during these events and affects the morphology of their light curves, which are distinctly broader for rapidly rotating neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of the initial angular velocity profile, Ω(r), toward the steady-state regime for Model 2, with an initial value of Ω0 = 0.2 Ωcrit = 1.510 rad s−1 , across the envelope. The surface of the accreted envelope corresponds to Mr/MNS−1 = 0. The asymptotic steady-state solution is shown by the solid line. under debate, as no characterization of these diffusion coefficients can be made from first principles. In… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Steady-state angular velocity profiles for all models computed in this work. Values are shown relative to the initial uniform rotation profile. At t = 21146 s (5.9 hr), when Tbase achieves 1 × 109 K, the energy generation rate by nuclear reactions reaches its maximum value, ǫnuc,max ∼ 4.1 × 1017 erg g−1 s −1 . Two seconds later, the envelope attains maximum expansion, with a size ∆zmax ∼ 45 m. And 4 s later (t = 211… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of the density at the envelope base for all models computed in this work, along the first five bursting episodes. The origin of the time coordinate is arbitrarily chosen as the time for which Tbase ∼ 2.7 × 107 K. The recurrence time (or time between two …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean overproduction factors of stable isotopes relative to solar abundances (for f > 10−8 ) in Models 1 (blue) and 5 (red), at the end of the fifth burst. 4. DISCUSSION This work demonstrates that rotation is a key factor in determining the properties of Type I X-ray b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves of the first burst, for all models computed in this work. The individual light curves have been horizontally shifted to align peak values, for a better comparison. the stellar radius (defined in such a way that the surface area of the star is 4πR2 ∗ ), and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Approximation of the equipotential geometry. The solid curve represents a symmetric rotational ellipsoid with a semi-major axis a and a semi-minor axis c. Solving the system formed by Eqs. A15 and A17 yields the semi-major and semi-minor axes: a = rP  1 − Ω 2 r 3 P 2G…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ayasli, S., & Joss, P. C. 1982, Astrophys. J., 256, 637, doi: 10.1086/159940

    work page doi:10.1086/159940 1982

  2. [2]

    L., Levin, Y., & Braithwaite, J

    Cavecchi, Y., Watts, A. L., Levin, Y., & Braithwaite, J. 2015, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 448, 445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2764

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2764 2015

  3. [3]

    Chaboyer, B., & Zahn, J. P. 1992, Astron. Astrophys., 253, 173

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    2005, in Binary Radio Pulsars, ed

    Chakrabarty, D. 2005, in Binary Radio Pulsars, ed. F. A. Rasio & I. H. Stairs, Vol. 328, 279

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    M., Bildsten, L., Friedman, J

    Cumming, A., Morsink, S. M., Bildsten, L., Friedman, J. L., & Holz, D. E. 2002, Astrophys. J., 564, 343, doi: 10.1086/324157

    work page doi:10.1086/324157 2002

  6. [6]

    A., Ivanova, N

    Denissenkov, P. A., Ivanova, N. S., & Weiss, A. 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 341, 181

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    2021, Astrophys

    Dohi, A., Nishimura, N., Hashimoto, M., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923, 64

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2022, Astrophys

    Dohi, A., Nishimura, N., Sotani, H., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 937, 124

    work page 2022

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    1996, Astrophys

    Dominguez, I., Straniero, O., Tornambe, A., & Isern, J. 1996, Astrophys. J., 472, 783, doi: 10.1086/178106

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    1983, Pub

    Ebisuzaki, T., Hanawa, T., & Sugimoto, D. 1983, Pub. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 35, 17

    1983

  3. [11]

    L., Schatz, H., & Thielemann, F

    Fisker, J. L., Schatz, H., & Thielemann, F. 2008, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S., 174, 261, doi: 10.1086/521104

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Thielemann, F., & Wiescher, M

    Fisker, J. L., Thielemann, F., & Wiescher, M. 2004, Astrophys. J. Lett., 608, L61, doi: 10.1086/422215

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Fujimoto, M. Y. 1982, Astrophys. J., 257, 752, doi: 10.1086/160029 —. 1993, Astrophys. J., 419, 768, doi: 10.1086/173528

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2021

  7. [15]

    M´ endez, & C

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    doi

  8. [16]

    1945, Mem

    Gratton, L. 1945, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 17, 5

    1945

  9. [17]

    1976, Astrophys

    Grindlay, J., Gursky, H., Schnopper, H., et al. 1976, Astrophys. J. Lett., 205, L127, doi: 10.1086/182105

    1976 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Eiden, K., et al

    Harpole, A., Ford, N. M., Eiden, K., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 912, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee87

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, Astrophys. J., 528, 368, doi: 10.1086/308158

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Forbes, J

    Henyey, L. G., Forbes, J. E., & Gould, N. L. 1964, Astrophys. J., 139, 306, doi: 10.1086/147754

    1964 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, Astron

    Herrera, Y., Sala, G., & Jos´ e, J. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 678, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346190

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 496, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809925 22 Martin & Jos ´ e in’t Zand, J

    Hunter, I., Brott, I., Langer, N., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 496, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809925 22 Martin & Jos ´ e in’t Zand, J. J. M., Cumming, A., Triemstra, T. L.,

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Mateijsen, R. A. D. A., & Bagnoli, T. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 562, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322913

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Johnston, Z., Heger, A., & Galloway, D. K. 2020, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 494, 4576 Jos´ e, J. 2016, Stellar Explosions: Hydrodynamics and Nucleosynthesis (CRC Press/Taylor and Francis) Jos´ e, J., & Hernanz, M. 1998, Astrophys. J., 494, 680, doi: 10.1086/305244 Jos´ e...

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    C., & Melia, F

    Joss, P. C., & Melia, F. 1987, Astrophys. J., 312, 700, doi: 10.1086/164913

    1987 doi

  18. [26]

    1983, Pub

    Kato, M. 1983, Pub. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 35, 33

    1983

  19. [27]

    Keek, L., & in’t Zand, J. J. M. 2008, Proc. Science, PoS(Integral08) 032 (11 pp)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Keek, L., Langer, N., & in ’t Zand, J. J. M. 2009, A&A, 502, 871, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911619

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    1967, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Astrophysik, 65, 251

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1967, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Astrophysik, 65, 251

    1967

  22. [30]

    1989, Stellar Structure and

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1989, Stellar Structure and

    1989

  23. [31]

    2004, Astrophys

    Koike, O., Hashimoto, M., Kuromizu, R., & Fujimoto, S. 2004, Astrophys. J., 603, 242, doi: 10.1086/381354

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Kuuttila, J., Kajava, J. J. E., N¨ attil¨ a, J., et al. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 604, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730823

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J., & Taam, R. E. 1993, Space Science Review, 62, 223

    1993

  26. [34]

    2003, Astron

    Maeder, A. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 399, 263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021731 —. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76949-1

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    1998, Astron

    Maeder, A., & Zahn, J.-P. 1998, Astron. Astrophys., 334, 1000

    1998

  28. [36]

    P., Goupil, M

    Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., Lebreton, Y., et al. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 549, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220211

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2004, Astron

    Mathis, S., & Zahn, J.-P. 2004, Astron. Astrophys., 425, 229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040278

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, Astrophys

    Meisel, Z. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 147

    2018

  31. [39]

    1997, Astron

    Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 1997, Astron. Astrophys., 321, 465 —. 2000, Astron. Astrophys., 361, 101

    1997

  32. [40]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 1023, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031735 ¨Opik, E

    Meynet, G., Maeder, A., & Mowlavi, N. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 1023, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031735 ¨Opik, E. J. 1951, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 111, 278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/111.3.278 Paczy´ nski, B., & Proszynski, M. 1986, Astrophys. J., 302, 519, doi: 10....

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    2002, PhD thesis

    Palacios, A. 2002, PhD thesis. http://www.theses.fr/2002TOU30174

    2002

  34. [42]

    2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 399, 603, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021759

    Palacios, A., Talon, S., Charbonnel, C., & Forestini, M. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 399, 603, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021759

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Iliadis, C., Champange, A

    Sallaska, A. L., Iliadis, C., Champange, A. E., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S., 207, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/18

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2001, Physical Review Letters, 86, 3471, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3471

    Schatz, H., Aprahamian, A., Barnard, V., et al. 2001, Physical Review Letters, 86, 3471, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3471

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    Shara, M. M. 1981, Astrophys. J., 243, 926, doi: 10.1086/158657

    1981 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, New views of thermonuclear bursts, ed

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2006, New views of thermonuclear bursts, ed. W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK), 113–156

    2006

  39. [47]

    Taam, R. E. 1980, Astrophys. J., 241, 358, doi: 10.1086/158348

    1980 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Woosley, S

    Taam, R. E., Woosley, S. E., Weaver, T. A., & Lamb, D. Q. 1993, Astrophys. J., 413, 324, doi: 10.1086/173000

    1993 doi

  41. [49]

    2008, EAS Publications Series, 32, 81, doi: 10.1051/eas:0832003

    Talon, S. 2008, EAS Publications Series, 32, 81, doi: 10.1051/eas:0832003

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    P., Maeder, A., & Meynet, G

    Talon, S., Zahn, J. P., Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 1997, Astron. Astrophys., 322, 209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9611131

    1997 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    1978, Theory of Rotating Stars (Princeton: Princeton Univ

    Tassoul, J. 1978, Theory of Rotating Stars (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)

    1978

  44. [52]

    1986, Astrophys

    Turolla, R., Nobili, L., & Calvani, M. 1986, Astrophys. J., 303, 573, doi: 10.1086/164103

    1986 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Heger, A., Cumming, A., et al

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., Cumming, A., et al. 2004, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S., 151, 75, doi: 10.1086/381533

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    Zahn, J. P. 1992, Astron. Astrophys., 265, 115

    1992

  47. [55]

    2023, Astrophys

    Zhen, G., L¨ u, G., Liu, H., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 950, 110

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.