Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 74 references

Hydrogen-deficient binary stars with magnetic braking

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that magnetically coupled winds, powered by a dynamo in the radiative envelope of the accreting star, remove angular momentum fast enough to let a binary companion accrete several solar masses without reaching critical rota

desk verdict First quantitative test of magnetic braking in hydrogen-deficient binaries; the spin match is partly fit and the wind mass-loss identification is untested, but the work is worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03412 v1 pith:2OG5PMRQ submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.SR

David A. Bour , Avishai Gilkis , Christopher A. Tout This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords hydrogen-deficientbinariesmagneticbrakingmasstransferstellarrotationradiative-zonedynamoTSFupsSgrbinaryevolution
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

Hydrogen-deficient binaries like ups Sgr pose a puzzle: the companion has accreted several solar masses, yet it is not rotating at critical speed. This paper says the answer is magnetic braking by a wind. Using a radiative-zone dynamo to set the surface field and a magnetic-wind torque, the authors evolve the system through both mass-transfer stages and find the wind drains angular momentum fast enough to keep the accretor below critical even at transfer rates near 10^-4 solar masses per year. Magnetic coupling to the accretion disc, by contrast, is negligible. To match the observed 250 km/s spin during the second stage, however, the dynamo field must be artificially reduced by a factor of about a thousand, signaling a gap in how such fields are modeled.

What carries the argument

The TSF dynamo formula for the equilibrium poloidal magnetic field in a radiative zone (Eq. 1), which is then inserted into the magnetic-wind angular-momentum-loss formula of D2010 (Eq. 3). The wind torque scales as the eighth power of the surface field, so small differences in dynamo output translate into huge differences in braking. A magnetic dead-zone prescription from Mestel & Spruit (1987) and Sarkar et al. (2023) suppresses the wind during the fast mass-transfer stage by about an order of magnitude. The mass-transfer efficiency is held to a minimum of 0.05 so that the wind always has mass to carry angular momentum away.

What would settle it

Measure the surface magnetic field of the accretor in ups Sgr, or in a similar Algol-like binary during slow mass transfer. If the observed field falls far below the ~300 G that the model effectively requires in the second stage, or far below the ~10^4 G it produces in the first stage, the magnetic wind cannot remove enough angular momentum and another brake must be present. Conversely, if an observed hydrogen-deficient binary has accreted several solar masses and is still rotating near critical speed, the wind would be insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetically coupled winds powered by the TSF dynamo are strong enough to allow the accreting star to gain multiple solar masses without spinning up to critical rotation, even during fast mass transfer at rates of order 10^-4 solar masses per year. The wind torque removes angular momentum from the radiative envelope, while the accretion disc cannot exert a significant torque because its moment of inertia is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the star's. The models reproduce the observed masses, final orbital period near 138 days, and surface hydrogen fraction near 10^-3 for ups Sgr. However, to keep the second mass-transfer stage from spinning the star too s

Load-bearing premise

The surface field that drives the wind is computed from a dynamo formula with the shear set to order one and with a standard buoyancy frequency, and because the wind torque scales as the eighth power of that field, the whole result hinges on those two numbers being roughly right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The accretor never reaches critical rotation in the models, so mass transfer is never halted by spin; the final masses and ~138 d period match observed values for ups Sgr.
  • The same wind-braking mechanism should keep other Algol-type accretors subcritical during slow mass transfer, consistent with observations of their rotation rates.
  • The enforced slight non-conservation of mass transfer (beta >= 0.05) requires a slightly higher initial period for ups Sgr than earlier evolutionary models, but no other change to the initial conditions.
  • The need for a ~10^-3 field scaling during the second mass-transfer stage indicates that current dynamo prescriptions overpredict surface fields when accretion-driven shear is weak, pointing to a missing time-dependent element.
  • Magnetic star-disc coupling cannot provide the required brake; the disc is never massive enough to have a moment of inertia comparable to the star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the wind torque scales as the eighth power of the surface field, even a factor-of-two error in the dynamo field changes the spin-down by orders of magnitude; a direct measurement of the accretor's surface field in ups Sgr or a similar system would therefore be a very sharp test of the whole mechanism.
  • The same wind-braking logic should apply to any accreting star with a radiative envelope and differential rotation, including Algol binaries and possibly some evolved binaries containing neutron stars or white dwarfs, whenever mass transfer drives shear.
  • The artificial time-dependent field scaling suggests that future models should couple the dynamo field self-consistently to the evolving shear profile rather than fixing the dimensionless shear at order one, which would make the braking self-regulating.
  • If the field geometry is not dipolar, as the paper notes, the Alfven surface and the dead-zone opening fraction change; higher-order multipole fields would likely reduce the effective wind torque during fast mass transfer, making the first-stage braking less efficient than modeled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper models the formation of the hydrogen-deficient binary υ Sgr with the MESA binary module, including the rotational evolution of the accreting star. Two spin-down mechanisms are tested: magnetic star–disc coupling and magnetically coupled winds. The authors find that the disc torque is negligible, while the TSF-dynamo-generated surface field combined with a D2010 magnetic-wind torque can keep the secondary below critical rotation during accretion rates up to ~10^-4 M⊙/yr. The model reproduces the observed final masses, orbital period (~138 d), and primary surface hydrogen fraction (~10^-3), and, after introducing an ad hoc 10^-3 scaling of the magnetic field in the second mass-transfer stage, also the secondary's observed rotational velocity (~250 km/s). The authors conclude that magnetically coupled winds are sufficient to explain the accretion of several solar masses without spin-up to critical rotation, but that time-dependent scaling of the dynamo field is needed.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish a physically motivated mechanism—the TSF dynamo plus magnetic wind—for a long-standing problem in interacting binaries: how mass-accreting stars avoid critical rotation after accreting multiple solar masses. The study is also useful in quantitatively showing that star–disc coupling is negligible for the computed disc masses, and it makes the model reproducible by releasing MESA input files and data. The first mass-transfer stage is the strongest part of the paper: there the wind keeps the secondary below critical even when the field is artificially reduced by an order of magnitude. The main weaknesses are that the second-stage velocity match relies on a fitted field scaling, and that the wind torque is driven by identifying the non-accreted binary mass with a wind from the accretor, an assumption that is not physically justified or stress-tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (3)] The wind torque is proportional to Mdot_wind, and the paper sets Mdot_wind = β|Mdot_1|, where β is the global mass-transfer efficiency from §2. This identifies all mass not accreted by the secondary with mass launched from the secondary's magnetic wind. In binary RLOF, the non-conserved mass can instead leave through the donor's L2 point or a circumbinary disc, carrying orbital rather than stellar spin angular momentum. No physical mechanism is given for why the lost mass should be entrained in the accretor's magnetic wind. For a ~6–7 M⊙ MS star, normal stellar winds are orders of magnitude below βMdot at fast MT (βMdot ~ 5×10^-6 M⊙/yr), and for n=3 the torque scales as Mdot_wind^{3/7}, so a physical wind rate would reduce the braking torque by roughly an order of magnitude or more. This concern is load-bearing: conclusion (i) depends entirely on this identification. The authors should e
  2. [§3.1 and Appendix A] The agreement with the observed v_s ≈ 250 km/s is obtained by fitting the magnetic-field scale factor to 10^-3 in the second mass-transfer stage; the text states that this scale factor 'was modified specifically to have the surface rotation rate reach about 250 km/s'. The v_s comparison is therefore a calibration, not an independent success. The paper should explicitly frame B_scale as a fitted parameter and discuss what predictive content remains after this fit: the first-MT criticality, the masses, period, and X_s. As it stands, the abstract's claim that the model 'fully replicates observations' overstates the independence of the spin match.
  3. [§2.1 and §3, Eq. (1)] The surface field entering the wind torque is computed from the TSF dynamo with the dimensionless shear set to q≈1 and the standard Brunt–Väisälä frequency N. The paper itself admits that q≈1 'most likely does not hold for all mass-transfer rates' and that N is poorly constrained in the outer, recently accreted layers. Because the equilibrium rotation rate is set by the balance between accretion spin-up and B_s-dependent braking, the fitted 10^-3 field scaling during the second stage could be absorbing exactly this q/N error. A quantitative sensitivity test in q and N—even a rough one—is needed to establish that the wind mechanism, rather than the ad hoc scaling, is what keeps the accretor subcritical.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The equation for the specific angular momentum loss J_layer is typeset awkwardly and is hard to parse; please rewrite with explicit definitions of all symbols and dimensions.
  2. [Table 1] The entry X_s = 0.001 ± 0.5 dex is ambiguous: does the uncertainty apply to log10 X_s? Please clarify the notation.
  3. [Appendix B] The text says the dead-zone fraction is 'set to 0 by default' between mass-transfer stages. Since a multiplicative factor of 0 would stifle the wind entirely, clarify that this represents no wind being computed in the detached phase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Stage-2 magnetic-field scale factor is adjusted to reproduce υ Sgr's 250 km/s, making the rotational match a fit; the stage-1 subcritical conclusion retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (spin evolution; near Fig. 6); see also Section 3 first paragraph and Appendix A.]
    "In order to fully match the observations of these systems during both mass-transfer stages, it was necessary to introduce an artificial scale factor of 10−3 to the magnetic field during the second mass-transfer stage. ... This scale factor was modified specifically to have the surface rotation rate reach about 250 km s−1, to fit the observations of υ Sgr."

    The multiplicative factor applied to the TSF dynamo field (Eq. 1) during the second mass-transfer stage is a free parameter, and it is adjusted until the model's surface equatorial velocity equals the observed 250 km/s. Consequently the later presentation of a final v_s of about 250 km/s as agreeing with observations is not an independent prediction: the model output is forced onto the target by construction. The first-stage subcritical conclusion is less affected, because no analogous scale factor is fitted for stage 1 and the result is stated to survive a factor-10 reduction of B_s; hence the circularity is partial, not total.

full rationale

The core conclusion (i) — that TSF-dynamo-powered magnetic winds hold the accretor below critical even at mass-transfer rates of order 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 — is not itself a tautology: it emerges from integrating Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) in MESA, with q=1 assumed, and it remains subcritical when B_s is artificially lowered by a factor of 10 in stage 1. The wind rate is set by an explicit assumption (Mdot_wind = beta |Mdot_1|, with beta_min = 0.05); this is an input rather than a hidden fit, though it is load-bearing and would fail if the non-accreted mass left with orbital angular momentum rather than as an accretor wind. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and the main self-citations (D2010, Tout et al.) supply published formulae with stated assumptions rather than circularly enforcing the target result. The principal circular step is the stage-2 calibration of the magnetic-field scale factor to the observed 250 km/s; the paper is transparent about this, but it means the quantitative rotational match in the current observational epoch is fitted, not predicted. Overall, the central spin-down claim has independent support, while one important quantitative prediction reduces by construction, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on a chain of prior formulas and hand-set parameters. The dominant uncertainty is the TSF dynamo field strength, amplified by the B_s^8 dependence in the wind torque, and the artificial 10^-3 scaling that is required to reproduce observations.

free parameters (8)
  • Magnetic field scale factor (second MT stage) = 10^-3
    Applied to B_s during the second mass-transfer stage, tuned so that v_s reaches the observed ~250 km/s (Section 3.1). Also tested 10^-2, 10^-1, 1.
  • Mass-transfer efficiency floor beta_min = 0.05
    Minimum fraction of donor mass lost from the system in a wind; set to 0.05 to keep Jdot nonzero and induce slight non-conservation (Section 2.3).
  • Dimensionless shear q = 1
    Assumed q about 1 in Eq. (1) because MESA's q profile is jagged; affects B_r and thus B_s to the 8th power in Jdot.
  • Initial masses M1, M2 and period P = 5.5 Msun, 2.75 Msun, 13.5 d
    Initial conditions chosen to match observations of ups Sgr; the period is slightly higher than previously inferred (Gilkis & Shenar 2023).
  • Magnetic field geometry n = 3 (dipolar)
    Follows D2010; a different geometry would change the Alfven radius and dead zone shapes (Section 3).
  • Magnetic energy cap = 10% of rotational energy
    Limits the magnetic field energy per mesh point to 10% of the local rotational energy (Section 2.1).
  • Outer-layer diffusion coefficient = 10^20 cm^2/s
    Artificially increased in the outer 2% of the secondary by mass to smooth numerical instabilities (Section 2).
  • Disc viscosity alpha = 0.1
    Used in the disc surface density calculation to estimate I_disc (Section 2.2).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Weber-Davis/Mestel magnetic wind angular momentum loss formula (Eq. 3, from D2010)
    Assumes wind plasma corotates with the field out to the Alfven radius; B_s enters to the 8th power. Adopted from prior literature and central to the spin-down mechanism.
  • domain assumption TSF dynamo field formula (Eq. 1, from F2019)
    Equilibrium poloidal field in radiative zones from the Tayler-Spruit-Fuller dynamo; the paper uses standard N rather than the thermally-suppressed N of F2019.
  • ad hoc to paper q about 1 for the dimensionless shear
    Explicitly assumed because MESA's q profile is jagged; likely inaccurate for the low accretion rates of the second MT stage (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Shellular rotation (Zahn 1992)
    Isobaric surfaces rotate as solid bodies; standard approximation in MESA rotational models.
  • ad hoc to paper Angular momentum is removed only from the radiative envelope with j_layer proportional to r^2 (Eq. 4)
    Adopted to distribute total Jdot among shells; no independent justification beyond efficient horizontal transport.
  • domain assumption Magnetic dead zones prescription (Mestel & Spruit 1987; Sarkar et al. 2023)
    Reduces the wind-launching surface fraction; affects Jdot during fast MT.
  • domain assumption Disc torque negligible because I_disc < I_star by two orders of magnitude
    Uses the A1996 surface density profile and standard moment-of-inertia estimates; conclusion used to ignore disc coupling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrogen-deficient binary stars with magnetic braking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OG5PMRQ

@misc{pith2026250903412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrogen-deficient binary stars with magnetic braking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OG5PMRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03412}
}
read the original abstract

Hydrogen-deficient binary stars comprise one star which has been stripped of its hydrogen through mass transfer to a binary companion. Observations show that the companion is able to accrete several solar masses without spinning up to critical rotation, and so there must be a mechanism to drain spin angular momentum from the accretor. We test magnetically coupled winds and magnetic star-disc coupling as possible mechanisms and find that, while the disc coupling is negligible, the winds are sufficient to allow the accretor to gain mass without spinning up to critical rotation. However, in order to fully replicate observations, time-dependent scalings of the dynamo-generated magnetic field are needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar evolutionary tracks for a hydrogen-deficient binary system. The blue track represents the primary (donor) star and the green track represents the secondary (accretor) star. The dotted lines are lines of constant radius and the points represent important evolutionary stages. The points are consistent between the primary and the secondary. The beginning and end of all mass-transfer stages are shown, as well as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass-transfer rate with respect to model number. The first mass-transfer stage is in the left plot and the second on the right. We can see that the first stage is indeed much more intense and is composed of a fast portion and a slow portion. The second stage has a much smaller mass-transfer rate and because of the large initial separation of the stars and the instability of the primary as it expands to a helium gian… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Masses of each star as the system evolves. We see that the secondary reaches about 6.8 M⊙ and the primary falls to about 0.8 M⊙, both of which agree with the observations of this system within 1𝜎. much for the secondary to accrete while still remaining on the MS. It instead expands off the MS until slightly before the point of Minimum Period at which the expansion of the star halts, allowing it to begin following a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface hydrogen mass fraction of the primary. The first mass￾transfer stage ends with the fraction at about 0.2, while the second drops it to 10−3 , so that the system would be classed as hydrogen-deficient and matches perfectly with the observations of the system [P…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface angular velocity Ω with respect to Ωcrit (left) and equatorial rotational velocity 𝑣s(right) of the secondary during the evolution. The rotation rate spikes during the fast part of the first mass-transfer stage, as expected, but the magnetically coupled winds m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of the surface magnetic field 𝐵s of the accreting star with model number. This two-peaked distribution is what we would expect considering that the magnetic field should increase markedly when mass transfer is driving stronger differential rotation in the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alastuey A., Jancovici B., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...226.1034A 226, 1034

    doi:10.1086/156681 1978

  2. [2]

    J., Clarke C

    Armitage P. J., Clarke C. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/280.2.458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.280..458A 280, 458

    doi:10.1093/mnras/280.2.458 1996

  3. [3]

    Auri \`e re M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...475.1053A 475, 1053

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078189 2007

  4. [4]

    R., Yueh W

    Buchler J. R., Yueh W. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...210..440B 210, 440

    doi:10.1086/154847 1976

  5. [5]

    Y., Pietrinferni A., Catelan M., Salaris M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661.1094C 661, 1094

    Cassisi S., Potekhin A. Y., Pietrinferni A., Catelan M., Salaris M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661.1094C 661, 1094

    doi:10.1086/516819 2007

  6. [6]

    H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..189..240C 189, 240

    Cyburt R. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..189..240C 189, 240

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 2010

  7. [7]

    J., Siess L., Deschamps R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A...4D 556, A4

    Davis P. J., Siess L., Deschamps R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A...4D 556, A4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220391 2013

  8. [8]

    A., Ibano g lu C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16732.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1071D 406, 1071

    Dervi s o g lu A., Tout C. A., Ibano g lu C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16732.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1071D 406, 1071

    arXiv 2010

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    E., Graboske H

    Dewitt H. E., Graboske H. C., Cooper M. S., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...181..439D 181, 439

    1973 doi

  2. [10]

    Duch \^e ne G., Kraus A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..269D 51, 269

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    S., 1929, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/90.1.54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929MNRAS..90...54E 90, 54

    Eddington A. S., 1929, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/90.1.54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929MNRAS..90...54E 90, 54

    1929 doi

  4. [12]

    Cambridge University Press

    Eggleton P., 2006, Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars . Cambridge University Press

    2006

  5. [13]

    S., Sofia S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...220..279E 220, 279

    Endal A. S., Sofia S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...220..279E 220, 279

    1978 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., Allard F., Barman T., Bodnarik J. G., Hauschildt P. H., Heffner-Wong A., Tamanai A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..585F 623, 585

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Fricke K., 1968, Mitteilungen der Astronomischen Gesellschaft Hamburg, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968MitAG..25..129F 25, 129

    1968

  8. [16]

    M., Fowler W

    Fuller G. M., Fowler W. A., Newman M. J., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...293....1F 293, 1

    1985 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Jermyn A

    Fuller J., Piro A. L., Jermyn A. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3661F 485, 3661

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    K., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223L..83G 223, L83

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223L..83G 223, L83

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    Gilkis A., Shenar T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3541G 518, 3541

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Eldridge J

    Gilkis A., Vink J. S., Eldridge J. J., Tout C. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4451G 486, 4451

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Goldreich P., Schubert G., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..571G 150, 571

    1967 doi

  14. [22]

    Heger A., Langer N., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...544.1016H 544, 1016

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Bodenheimer P., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..841H 142, 841

    Henyey L., Vardya M. S., Bodenheimer P., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..841H 142, 841

    1965 doi

  16. [24]

    Herwig F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...360..952H 360, 952

    2000 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...412..752I 412, 752

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..943I 464, 943

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    W., 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1211.002

    Irwin A. W., 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1211.002

    2012

  20. [28]

    E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234.1079I 234, 1079

    Itoh N., Totsuji H., Ichimaru S., Dewitt H. E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234.1079I 234, 1079

    1979 doi

  21. [29]

    Itoh N., Hayashi H., Nishikawa A., Kohyama Y., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..102..411I 102, 411

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    C., 1980, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....91..175K 91, 175

    Kippenhahn R., Ruschenplatt G., Thomas H. C., 1980, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....91..175K 91, 175

    1980

  24. [32]

    Kolb U., Ritter H., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...236..385K 236, 385

    1990

  25. [33]

    Koubsk \'y P., Harmanec P., Yang S., Netolick \'y M., S koda P., S lechta M., Kor c \'a kov \'a D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...459..849K 459, 849

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Langanke K., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000NuPhA.673..481L 673, 481

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    Ledoux P., 1947, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1947ApJ...105..305L 105, 305

    1947 doi

  28. [36]

    Mestel L., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/138.3.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968MNRAS.138..359M 138, 359

    1968 doi

  29. [37]

    C., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.1.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226...57M 226, 57

    Mestel L., Spruit H. C., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.1.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226...57M 226, 57

    1987 doi

  30. [38]

    Netolick \'y M., Bonneau D., Chesneau O., Harmanec P., Koubsk \'y P., Mourard D., Stee P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...499..827N 499, 827

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Weiss N

    Noyes R. W., Weiss N. O., Vaughan A. H., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...287..769N 287, 769

    1984 doi

  32. [40]

    Oda T., Hino M., Muto K., Takahara M., Sato K., 1994, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ADNDT..56..231O 56, 231

    1994

  33. [41]

    Packet W., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A...102...17P 102, 17

    1981

  34. [42]

    N., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...122..293P 122, 293

    Parker E. N., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...122..293P 122, 293

    1955 doi

  35. [43]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    H., Kawaler S

    Pinsonneault M. H., Kawaler S. D., Sofia S., Demarque P., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...338..424P 338, 424

    1989 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., Chabrier G., 2010, @doi [Contributions to Plasma Physics] 10.1002/ctpp.201010017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CoPP...50...82P 50, 82

    Potekhin A. Y., Chabrier G., 2010, @doi [Contributions to Plasma Physics] 10.1002/ctpp.201010017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CoPP...50...82P 50, 82

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    Renzo M., G \"o tberg Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..277R 923, 277

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    Rogers F. J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    E., 1954, @doi [Australian Journal of Physics] 10.1071/PH540373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954AuJPh...7..373S 7, 373

    Salpeter E. E., 1954, @doi [Australian Journal of Physics] 10.1071/PH540373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954AuJPh...7..373S 7, 373

    1954 doi

  45. [53]

    Sana H., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1223344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...337..444S 337, 444

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..870S 526, 870

    Sarkar A., Yungelson L., Tout C. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..870S 526, 870

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS...99..713S 99, 713

    Saumon D., Chabrier G., van Horn H. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS...99..713S 99, 713

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    S., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..225S 268, 225

    Schoenberner D., Drilling J. S., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..225S 268, 225

    1983 doi

  49. [57]

    C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...381..923S 381, 923

    Spruit H. C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...381..923S 381, 923

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    A., 1950, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/110.6.548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950MNRAS.110..548S 110, 548

    Sweet P. A., 1950, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/110.6.548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950MNRAS.110..548S 110, 548

    1950 doi

  51. [59]

    K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...73T 941, 73

    Takasao S., Tomida K., Iwasaki K., Suzuki T. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...73T 941, 73

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    X., Swesty F

    Timmes F. X., Swesty F. D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..126..501T 126, 501

    2000 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Pringle J

    Tout C. A., Pringle J. E., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/256.2.269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.256..269T 256, 269

    1992 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Wickramasinghe D

    Tout C. A., Wickramasinghe D. T., Ferrario L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08482.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355L..13T 355, L13

    2004

  55. [63]

    A., Wickramasinghe D

    Tout C. A., Wickramasinghe D. T., Liebert J., Ferrario L., Pringle J. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..897T 387, 897

    2008

  56. [64]

    S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607L...8V 607, L8

    Vink J. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607L...8V 607, L8

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Sander A

    Vink J. S., Sander A. A. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2051V 504, 2051

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511586491

    Warner B., 2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars . Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511586491

    2003 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Davis Jr

    Weber E. J., Davis Jr. L., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...148..217W 148, 217

    1967 doi

  60. [68]

    Wolf B., Schwab J., 2017, wmwolf/py\_mesa\_reader: Interact with MESA Output , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.826958

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    P., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...265..115Z 265, 115

    Zahn J. P., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...265..115Z 265, 115

    1992

  62. [70]

    A., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&AS...72..259D 72, 259

    de Jager C., Nieuwenhuijzen H., van der Hucht K. A., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&AS...72..259D 72, 259

    1988

  63. [71]

    E., Pols O

    de Mink S. E., Pols O. R., Hilditch R. W., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20067007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467.1181D 467, 1181

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    E., Langer N., Izzard R

    de Mink S. E., Langer N., Izzard R. G., Sana H., de Koter A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..166D 764, 166

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ....100.1981V 100, 1981

    van Hamme W., Wilson R. E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ....100.1981V 100, 1981

    1990 doi

  66. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.