text:
# Pulsar Wind Nebulae as High Energy limit-from𝛾-Ray Emitters

## 1. Introduction

For over 30 years, the nature of the majority of high-energy ($`E>100`$ MeV) $`\gamma `$ray sources in the Galactic plane has been a mystery. The only firmly identified source class has been spin-powered pulsars, whose phase-averaged emission appears constant. However, the $`EGRET`$ data clearly show that there is at least one class of variable emitters in the Galaxy (eg. Tompkins 1999). Several suggestions as to the nature of these objects have been put forward but no strong observational evidence has previously supported a particular source class.

However, the variability timescale of a few months to a few years for sources with emission above 100 MeV gives us some clues to their nature. First, a maximum emission region size can be associated with a light crossing time of a few months or less. For typical Galactic distances of a few kiloparsecs, this implies angular extents on the sky $`<1^{}`$. An acceleration mechanism that can generate very high energy particles in a short period must also be present. One known source class fitting these criteria are pulsar wind nebulae (PWN).

## 2. The Candidate PWN

There are around 10 X-ray and radio PWN discovered so far around known pulsars (eg. Gaensler et al. 2000; Chevalier 2000), with a similar number of good candidates without a detected pulsar. Remarkably, around half of these sources are associated with $`\gamma `$ray pulsars or coincident with unidentified $`EGRET`$ sources. Only the oldest $`\gamma `$ray pulsars, such as Geminga and PSR B1055-52, show no sign of having PWN. Therefore, it might be expected that other $`\gamma `$ray pulsars might reveal themselves through PWN.

None of the known $`\gamma `$ray pulsars are significantly variable as measured above 100 MeV using the $`\tau `$ statistic (Tompkins 1999). However, in the 70-150 MeV range, the unpulsed flux of the Crab was observed to vary (de Jager et al. 1996), probably a synchrotron emission component from the inner nebula, perhaps associated with the variable optical and X-ray wisps (Scargle 1967, and Hester etc. these proceedings), with a variable exponential cutoff at around 25 MeV. Chandra has also revealed spatial variability of the X-ray emission on a timescale of a few months in the Vela and G11.2$``$0.3 PWN (Kargaltsev et al., Roberts et al. these proceedings). Therefore, high-energy variability on the appropriate time and spatial scales appears to be a common feature of PWN, and the question becomes that of what energy the $`\gamma `$ray spectral cut-off is and why.

In a recent flux-limited survey of the brightest sources of emission above 1 GeV, Roberts, Romani, and Kawai (2001) noted that the four unidentified sources showing the most variability above 100 MeV (out of 20 galactic sources in their sample measured for variability by Tompkins 1999) contained the brightest new sources of extended hard X-ray emission found in the survey and the previously known PWN around PSR B1853+01 in the supernova remnant W44. The supernova remnant W44 is one of a class of remnants which is centrally filled with thermal X-rays, implying a relatively dense interior. The radio PWN around PSR B1853+01 is a plume reaching only to the north of the pulsar, suggesting a ram-pressure confined wind (Slane et al. 1997). The hard X-ray emission is also offset to the north.

A second variable source, GeV J1417$``$6100, coincides with two extended hard X-ray sources. Radio studies of these sources show they are within a complex of radio emission called the Kookaburra. One is coincident with the Rabbit radio nebula, whose morphology, relatively flat (spectral index $`\alpha =0.25`$) spectrum, and high polarization all mark it as a probable PWN (Roberts et al. 1999). The polarized emission has a trail-like morphology, the head of which is coincident with an X-ray peak seen in the $`ASCA`$ SIS. The second X-ray source is at the southern edge of the upper wing of the Kookaburra, whose high ratio of infrared to radio emission, excess polarization, and non-thermal spectrum mark it as a likely supernova remnant, although whether it is partially or fully a result of a pulsar wind is difficult to determine with the existing data (Roberts, Romani & Johnston 2001). This second X-ray source has recently been found to contain the high $`\dot{E}`$ pulsar PSR J1420$``$6048 (D’Amico et al. 2001), and is therefore an X-ray and probably radio PWN.

A third variable source, GeV J1825$``$1310, contains a newly discovered extended hard X-ray source with no obvious bright radio counterpart. We have imaged the region with the VLA at 20 cm, and find much excess radio emission in the region, although precise measurements are difficult due to several nearby bright HII regions. The MSX satellite 8.3 $`\mu `$m image shows the infrared emission in the region to be partially correlated with the radio emission, but not clearly so in the vicinity of the X-ray nebula. Although the X-ray nebula in GeV J1825$``$1310 does not show all of the observational signatures of a PWN, other interpretations of its nature seem even less well justified.

The fourth variable source, GeV J1809$``$2327, contains an extended X-ray complex partially coincident with stars in an OB association. It is contained within the Lynds 227 dark nebula, and appears to be interacting with a cloud imaged in CO (Oka et al. 1999). A recent short Chandra ACIS exposure resolves much of the emission into point sources coincident with stars in the OB association and embedded in a thermal radio cloud, but it also reveals a point source embedded in diffuse emission somewhat to the North of the stellar cluster with no optical counterpart but with a short bright trail of emission leading from it (Braje et al. 2001). This latter source is at the tip of a funnel-shaped radio nebula whose high polarization and spectral index strongly suggest it is a PWN (Roberts, Gaensler & Romani 2002). With this GeV source also coinciding with a likely X-ray and radio PWN, we are led to the hypothesis that some of the variable $`EGRET`$ sources are PWN.

## 3. Emission Mechanisms

de Jager et al. (1996) argue that a general upper limit to the cut-off energy of synchrotron emission from shock accelerated electrons can be derived by balancing the acceleration timescale (equal to the electron gyroperiod across a strong shock) with the synchrotron loss timescale. The resulting cutoff energy is:

$$E_{max}=25(D\alpha /\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{MeV}$$

Here $`D`$ is the Doppler boost factor, $`\theta `$ is the electron pitch angle, and $`\alpha <1`$. If this is the true limit on emission from shock generated electrons, then to reach energies of several hundred MeV, either the Doppler factor is large or the pitch angle is small. If the one-sided nature of some of the nebulae is due to large Doppler boost factors then perhaps the emission can reach the required energies.

On the other hand, Gallant & Arons (1994) suggest that ions play an important role in the generation of wisps, and the spatial and time scales are related to the ion cyclotron radius, with emission coming from electrons coupled to the ions. For ion-pumped shock acceleration, the maximum emission energy is proportional to the ambient magnetic field $`E_{max}B\gamma ^2B\dot{E}`$. Assuming that the variable $`\gamma `$ray emission is synchrotron radiation, we can estimate a lower limit on the magnetic field in the emitting region. It is reasonable to assume that the synchrotron cooling timescale must be shorter than the variability time scale ($`t_{cool}t_{var}`$). Therefore, a lower limit on the magnetic field is given by:

$$B10^4\left(\frac{10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{E}\right)^{1/3}t_{var}^{2/3}$$

For $`E=100`$ MeV and $`t_{var}=0.22`$ yr., the magnetic field is $`B>0.31.4\times 10^4`$ G, similar to the inferred magnetic fields in the Crab and Vela PWN.

Observationally, the $`\gamma `$ray emitting candidates seem to be in dense environments (near or in molecular clouds or overdense SNR), and may all be bow-shock nebulae. The magnetic field could then be compressed and amplified if the pulsars have high velocities:

$$E_{max}B\dot{E}\sqrt{\rho }v\dot{E}$$

although to increase the cutoff to many times that of the Crab from pulsars whose spin-down energy is one or two orders of magnitude smaller may be quite difficult.

Alternatively, perhaps other emission mechanisms are important. Bremmstrahlung radiation from the pulsar wind striking an ambient molecular cloud (Oka et al. 1999) has been suggested in the case of GeV J1809$``$2327, although it may be too inefficient if we require the emission region to be as small as implied by the variability time scale. Inverse Compton scattering is also an attractive alternative. However, the cooling timescale of the electrons involved for IC emission in the $`EGRET`$ waveband is much longer than the variability timescale, implying the density of low-energy photons that are upscattered at the emission site would need to be modulated in some manner.

Ultimately, $`GLAST`$ and $`AGILE`$ will make unambiguous source identifications, and will be able to verify the variability seen by $`EGRET`$, allowing correlations to be made with the low-energy spatial variability. However, if a significant fraction of the emission is truly variable, the pulse fraction of these sources is small, and the detection of any pulsed $`\gamma `$ray emission through blind searches is unlikely to succeed. Therefore, X-ray and radio pulse detections will still be necessary to detect $`\gamma `$ray pulsations and determine the energetics of these systems.

## References

Braje, T. M. et al. 2001, ApJsubmitted.

Chevalier, R. 2000, ApJ, 539, L45

de Jager, O. C. et al. 1996, ApJ, 457, 253

D’Amico, N. et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L45

Gaensler, B. M. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 58

Gallant, Y. A. & Arons, J. 1994, ApJ, 435, 230

Oka, T. et al. 1999, ApJ, 526, 764

Roberts, M. S. E. et al. 1999, ApJ, 515, 712

Roberts, M. S. E., Gaensler, B. M. & Romani, R. W. 2002, in preparation

Roberts, M. S. E., Romani, R. W. & Kawai, N. 2001, ApJS, 133, 451

Roberts, M. S. E., Romani, R. W. & Johnston, S. ApJ, 561, L187

Scargle, J. D. 1969, ApJ, 156, 401

Slane, P. et al. 1997, ApJ, 485, 221

Tompkins, W. 1999, PhD. Thesis, Stanford University


format: text

text:
# Studies of Structure Formation and Cosmology with Galaxy Cluster Surveys

## 1. Introduction

Over the last few years, cosmological constraints from Type Ia SNe (Schmidt et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), cluster baryon fractions (White et al. 1993a; David et al. 1995; White & Fabian 1995; Burles & Tytler 1998; Mohr et al. 1999; Arnaud & Evrard 1999), the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy (Hanany et al. 2000; Jaffe et al 2000; Lange et al. 2001) and other complementary measures (Bahcall et al. 1999, and references therein) have pointed toward a dark energy dominated universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{2}{3}`$), with a significant dark matter component ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\frac{1}{3}`$) and a trace of baryonic matter. The recent detections of the 2nd and 3rd acoustic peaks in the CMB anisotropy (Halverson et al. 2001; Netterfield et al. 2001; Pryke et al. 2001) lend additional support to these conclusions and bring several important questions into sharp focus. At the dawn of this new era of precision cosmology, the important questions concern the very nature of the dark matter (collisionless or self-interacting) and the characteristics of the dark energy (which we can parametrize by the equation of state parameter $`w`$, where the pressure $`p=w\rho `$).

Recent theoretical and experimental developments make future cosmological studies that utilize galaxy clusters extremely promising. One particularly promising approach is the use of galaxy cluster surveys, which enable one to measure the cluster redshift distribution and the correlations in the cluster spatial distribution. Surveys are now being carried out using cluster X–ray emission, the near-IR/optical light from cluster galaxies, the distorted morphologies and alignment of background galaxies, and the effect that hot electrons within clusters have on the cosmic microwave background (the so-called Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect or SZE; Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1972). To use these surveys to full effect in cosmology studies, we must first test the standard model of structure formation. In addition, we must sharpen our understanding of the nature and evolution of galaxy cluster internal structure and the relationships between cluster observables (i.e. SZE decrement, X-ray emission, galaxy light) and the cluster halo mass.

In these proceedings we describe a fundamental test of the hierarchical structure formation model, and then we examine in some detail the cosmological dependences of the cluster redshift distribution. We end by highlighting some of the challenges that currently exist in using cluster surveys to precisely constrain cosmological quantities like the equation of state of the dark energy.

## 2. Structure Formation Constraints from High-$`z`$ Cluster Surveys

Because of the nature of the power spectrum of density fluctuations, we expect that structure formation proceeded hierarchically from small to ever larger scales (i.e. Peebles 1993 and references therein). Low mass galaxy clusters ($`10^{14}M_{}`$) are expected to first emerge at redshifts of $`z=2`$ to $`z=3`$ within the currently favored model. Higher mass clusters ($`10^{15}M_{}`$) appear later at lower redshifts. An appealingly powerful test of structure formation would be to probe the cluster population with sufficient sensitivity to detect the first emerging low mass systems. High sensitivity SZE surveys are particularly well suited for studies of the high redshift galaxy cluster population, because of the redshift independence of the decrement $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T_{cmb}}=2\frac{\sigma _T}{m_ec^2}𝑑ln_ek_BT_e,$$
(1)
where $`T_{cmb}`$ is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section, $`m_e`$ is the electron rest mass, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$ are the electron number density and temperature. In other words, if one has a galaxy cluster described by a particular distribution of $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$, the magnitude of the SZE distortion of the CMB along a line of sight passing through the cluster would be independent of the cluster redshift. This together with our expectation for how cluster structure evolves with redshift, makes SZE instruments capable of detecting clusters of a particular mass no matter what that cluster’s redshift (Holder et al. 2000). This is a particularly power approach for determining the redshifts when galaxy clusters first emerged.

In contrast to this SZE behavior, cluster X-ray emission (along with any emission) suffers from $`\left(1+z\right)^4`$ cosmological dimming. The X–ray surface brightness $`I_x`$ is

$$I_x=\frac{1}{4\pi \left(1+z\right)^4}\frac{\mu _e}{\mu _H}𝑑ln_e^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_e),$$
(2)
where $`n_em_p\mu _e\rho `$, $`m_p`$ is the proton rest mass, $`\rho `$ is the intracluster medium mass density, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the temperature dependent X–ray emission coefficient describing bremsstrahlung and line emission. This strikingly different behavior of X–ray emission and the SZE is qualitatively illustrated in Figure 1 by the panel of interferometric SZE observations (with X–ray image insets) of three clusters of comparable mass at redshifts $`z=0.2`$, 0.5 and 0.8. The SZE contours and X-ray color scales are the same for all three clusters. Although the cluster SZE signal is similar at all redshifts, the X–ray emission dims rapidly, as expected.

High sensitivity interferometric SZE surveys carried out with a new generation of SZE optimized interferometers will soon carry out the fundamental test of hierarchical structure formation described above. Three such instruments, the SZ-Array, AMiBA and AMI (all described elsewhere in this volume), are all funded and currently in various stages of construction.

## 3. Cosmological Constraints from the Cluster Redshift Distribution

Within the context of the standard structure formation scenario, it is possible to use cluster surveys to measure cosmological parameters. The abundance of galaxy clusters and its redshift evolution have been recognized as sensitive probes of the normalization of the power spectrum and the mean matter density in the nearby universe (White et al. 1993b; Viana & Liddle 1999). The parameter degeneracy between $`\sigma _8`$, the rms amplitude of mass fluctuations in the universe filtered on an 8$`h^1`$ Mpc scale, and the matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ can be broken by extending cluster surveys to higher redshift (Bahcall et al. 1997). This particular probe is highly complementary to the CMB anisotropy, because it probes the era of structure formation– when dark energy becomes dominant– as opposed to the era of recombination.

The observed cluster redshift distribution in a survey (see Figure 2) is the comoving volume per unit redshift and solid angle $`dV/dzd\mathrm{\Omega }`$ times the comoving density of clusters $`n_{com}`$ with masses above the survey detection limit $`M_{lim}`$: written as

$$\frac{dN}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{dV_{com}}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}n_{com}=\frac{c}{H(z)}d_A^2(z)\left(1+z\right)^2_{M_{lim}(z)}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\frac{dn}{dM},$$
(3)
where $`dn/dM`$ is the cluster mass function, $`H(z)`$ is the Hubble parameter as a function of redshift and $`d_A`$ is the angular diameter distance. The cosmological sensitivity comes from the three basic elements:

* Volume: the volume per unit solid angle and redshift depends sensitively on cosmological parameters (i.e. higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ increases the volume per solid angle). Figure 3 (left) is a plot of the comoving volume element ($`dV/dz/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) versus redshift for three cosmological models. Note the rapid increase in the volume element at modest redshift, which is responsible for the rapid rise in the cluster redshift distribution in Figure 2. At higher redshift the comoving volume element flattens out and eventually turns over.

The cosmological sensitivity of the distance-redshift and volume-redshift relation derives essentially from the expansion history of the universe $`E(z)`$, where $`H(z)=H_0E(z)`$, where $`H_0`$ is the Hubble parameter and the parameter $`E(z)`$ describes its evolution. Within our cosmological framework, the expansion history of the universe simply depends on the nature and amount of the constituents that make up the universe. That is, $`E^2(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_M\left(1+z\right)^3+\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_E\right)\left(1+z\right)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_E\left(1+z\right)^{3(1+w)}`$.
* Abundance: the number density of clusters at a given redshift depends sensitively on the growth rate of density perturbations. This growth rate is highly sensitive to cosmology (i.e. higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ speeds the growth of density perturbations so that clusters “disappear” more quickly as we probe to higher redshift). Figure 3 (right) is a plot of the comoving abundance of clusters above a fixed mass, where the abundance is normalized to reproduce the observed local abundance of massive clusters. Note that abundance differences increase dramatically with redshift and are responsible for the high redshift ($`z>1`$) behavior of the cluster redshift distribution (Figure 2).

As stated above, the cosmological sensitivity of the abundance evolution appears to derive from the growth rate of density perturbations. Within the linear regime, the differential equation that describes growth depends, again, on the expansion history of the universe $`E(z)`$. The rapid evolution of the abundance is due to an exponential dependence of abundance upon the amplitude of density fluctuations on the galaxy cluster scale (Press & Schechter 1974; Jenkins et al 2001).
* Mass limit: the mass of a cluster, which is just luminous enough to appear above the detection threshold, typically depends on the luminosity or angular diameter distance as well as the evolution of cluster structure– both are sensitive to cosmological parameters. The survey yield and redshift distributions are both sensitive to the limiting mass, as indicated in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the cluster redshift distribution in a fiducial cosmology for a limiting mass of $`M=2\times 10^{14}M_{}`$, and for limiting masses 10% above and below this value.

The challenging aspects of using galaxy clusters to constrain cosmology, aside from building the instruments to carry out the surveys, include an understanding of how cluster abundance evolves within a variety of cosmologies and how to relate cluster observables like X-ray emission, SZE distortion, galaxy light and weak lensing shear to halo mass. These relations are required for all redshifts. Theoretical studies of structure formation suggest that the mass function $`dn/dM(z)`$ is well behaved, and may be described by a “universal” form when suitably parametrized (Jenkins et al 2001; White 2001). Further study is clearly required. Observational studies of galaxy cluster scaling relations suggest regularity in the cluster population similar to the regularity in the elliptical galaxy population (Mohr & Evrard 1997; Mohr, Mathiesen & Evrard 1999; Horner, Mushotzky & Scharf 1999). Hydrodynamical simulations of cluster formation suggest that scaling relations between cluster observables and halo mass evolve in a simple way (Evrard et al. 1996; Bryan & Norman 1998), even in the presence of some early preheating (Bialek, Evrard & Mohr 2001). Much more study using higher resolution simulations that incorporate additional physics is clearly required here to enable more accurate, unbiased estimators of cluster mass.

A recent study by Diego et al (2001) suggests that a joint analysis of the cluster redshift distribution and the observed scaling relations (all available from the same survey data) can allow one to solve for the evolving scaling relation and cosmological parameters simultaneously (see also Verde, Haiman & Spergel 2001). More complete studies of the degeneracies between the evolution of cluster scaling relations and cosmological parameters in the analysis of cluster surveys is ongoing.

## 4. Precision Cosmology with Galaxy Cluster Surveys?

Recently, Haiman, Mohr & Holder (2001) emphasized that large cluster surveys extending to high redshift can in principle provide precision measurements of any cosmological parameter, which affects the expansion history of the universe (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`w`$). This is emphasized in Figure 5, which shows the 1$`\sigma `$, 2$`\sigma `$ and 3$`\sigma `$ joint constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the equation of state parameter $`w`$ of the dark energy for an X–ray cluster survey which yields $`10^3`$ clusters with measured emission weighted mean temperatures (and therefore virial mass estimates). Only flat models ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$) are considered and the fiducial model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, constant $`w=1`$ and $`h=0.65`$ is adopted. Note the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mw`$ degeneracy. Also shown (dashed line) is the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mw`$ degeneracy for CMB anisotropy and SNe Ia distance measurements. The CMB degeneracy assumes that the angular scale of the first peak (at fixed $`h=0.65`$) is known to an accuracy of 1%, whereas the SNe Ia degeneracy assumes that the luminosity distance to $`z=1`$ is known to 1%. This figure indicates that an X–ray survey yielding $`10^3`$ clusters has comparable constraining power to 1% CMB or SNe Ia measurements. In addition, the roughly orthogonal degeneracy between the cluster constraints and those from the CMB and SNe emphasizes the complementarity of these independent constraints on cosmological parameters.

The requirements for such precision are (1) a large cluster sample extending to intermediate or high redshift and (2) cluster mass estimators that are unbiased at the $``$5% level. Assuming these two requirements can be satisfied, cluster surveys have as much potential to reveal the nature and amount of the dark energy in our universe as either high redshift type Ia supernovae observations or observations of the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.

In fact, with accurate mass estimators, the cluster redshift distribution is far more cosmologically informative than simple distance measurements. Figure 6 contains a plot, which compares the cosmological sensitivity of SNe Ia distance estimates to cluster survey constraints, assuming distances and cluster masses are both accurately estimated from the data. The figure plots the ratio of the cluster redshift distribution (solid lines) and the luminosity distance (dashed lines) as a function of redshift for a few cosmological models. The denominator in each ratio is the quantity from the fiducial model, taken to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ in this example. The degree to which the ratio deviates from 1.0 provides an indication of the sensitivity to differences in the two models. Except for a narrow window around $`z=1`$, cluster redshift distribution contains more cosmological information than do luminosity distances. Given the discussion in Section 3 above, this is easy to understand. Surveys probe the volume–redshift relation, which scales as the square of the distance. Abundance evolution depends exponentially on the growth rate of density perturbations. In addition, limiting masses depend on luminosity or angular diameter distances. Naturally, these different dependencies can interfere constructively or destructively.

Of course, cluster surveys will only achieve high precision if cluster masses can be accurately estimated, on the average, from observables. That is, precision requires that systematic biases in mass estimators be small. This is similar to the case with type Ia supernovae, in that SN Ia distances are only accurate to the extent that the SNe themselves are standard candles. The high potential of both approaches has led people to invest significant effort in better understanding possible sources of systematics. Currently, our theoretical understanding of the formation and evolution of clusters is less developed than our understanding of the dynamics of density perturbations (well within the linear regime) at and before the epoch of recombination; however, it seems to me that our understanding of structure formation has progressed well beyond our understanding of why SNe Ia’s form a one parameter family of standard candles that have not evolved since before the universe was one quarter its present age. This theoretical heritage in structure formation is an important resource as we move toward interpreting ongoing and planned surveys.

Precision cosmology with clusters requires large cluster ensembles extending over large ($`10^2`$-$`10^3`$ deg2) solid angles. X–ray and SZE surveys of this sort will not necessarily have the optical/near-IR data available on every system to estimate a sufficiently accurate redshift. Nevertheless, X–ray and SZE surveys are attractive, because high signal to noise detections are possible, projection effects are minimized, and observations indicate that tight scaling relations involving X–ray observables exist. The price of not having redshifts can be severe, as shown in Figure 7. This figure shows the confidence regions in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`w`$ corresponding to a 4000 deg2 SZE observations indicate that tight scaling relations involving X–ray observables exist. survey carried out from the South Pole. Confidence regions include marginalization over $`\sigma _8`$, and only flat models are considered. The contours correspond to constraints using only the total number of detected clusters, whereas the solid region denotes the constraints in the case that cluster redshifts are available. As was made clear in Section 3, the cluster redshift distribution is cosmologically rich.

Possibilities for redshift followup include large solid angle, multiband optical or near-IR photometric surveys and direct spectroscopic followup of member galaxies. It may even be possible to obtain rough redshift estimates directly from the SZE or X–ray data, but further work is required to explore the feasibility of this approach (Diego et al, in preparation). Photometric redshift estimates of multiple galaxies within each cluster should be sufficiently accurate to allow precision cosmology. The required redshift precision is set less by the scale of change in the theoretical cluster redshift distributions (which are smoothly varying- see Figure 2) than by the fact that accurately inferring cluster masses from measured fluxes requires redshifts.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey is one such multiband, photometric dataset, and it will be extremely useful in estimating redshifts for clusters at $`z<0.6`$ (i.e. relatively low redshift samples like the high mass Planck Surveyor cluster sample). However, for reasonably deep X–ray surveys and high sensitivity SZE surveys, only a small fraction of the sample will lie at these low redshifts, and so deeper, multiband followup will be required. The bad news is that the effort required to carry out deep, multiband surveys in the optical and near-IR is comparable to the effort required to execute the initial SZE or X-ray survey. The good news is that there are several projects being designed independently of planned and proposed SZE and X-ray surveys that will provide the required data. These survey projects include PRIME— a NASA Small Explorer Class proposal in Phase A study that will survey one quarter of the sky in the 1-3$`\mu `$m range, VISTA— a 4 m class telescope with a wide field near-IR and (eventually) optical camera that will carry out surveys in the southern hemisphere, the VST— an SDSS-like survey telescope with a large optical camera operating in the southern hemisphere, and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope— a 6–8 m class telescope with wide field of view to carry out frequent, repeated imaging of large portions of the sky. In addition, there are extremely useful large field of view CCD cameras available at KPNO/CTIO and on the CFHT. With these projects and others together with the exciting science possible with cluster surveys, it is only a question of time until very large cluster catalogs can be derived from large solid angle, multifrequency surveys.

## 5. Discussion

This contribution contains a description of two ways of using cluster surveys to learn about structure formation and cosmology: (1) the context free test of hierarchichal structure formation using SZE cluster surveys, which are sufficiently sensitive to detect low mass clusters no matter what their redshift, and (2) the use of cluster redshift distributions within the context of our standard model for structure formation to determine the quantity and nature of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. It’s important to emphasize that there is additional information that comes with a cluster survey. This information allows one to study the cluster mass function $`dn/dM`$ as a function of redshift, likely improving the constraints derived from integrals over the mass function (i.e. equation 3). In addition, surveys (perhaps with some targeted followup) enable one to study cluster scaling relations such as the X-ray, optical or SZE luminosity–temperature or luminosity–mass relations; a combined study of scaling relations and the redshift distribution may well allow one to solve for the scaling relation evolution and cosmological parameters simultaneously (Diego et al 2001).

One can also study the spatial correlations among clusters to infer properties of the underlying power spectrum of dark matter density fluctuations. With good halo mass estimates like those required to use the cluster redshift distribution to full effect, it should be possible to use the cluster power spectrum constraints to improve limits on the neutrino mass density. Even in the absence of accurate halo mass estimates, it should be possible to use large surveys (in volume and number) to measure the scale of the break in the transfer function for the evolution of density perturbations. Recently, Cooray et al (2001) have emphasized that the physical scale of the break in the transfer function, which is the horizon scale at matter–radiation equality, depends on the matter density and CMB temperature. The matter density is measured to high precision with CMB anisotropy observations such as those with MAP and Planck. Therefore, the break in the transfer function is a standard rod, whose scale is independent of redshift and is calibrated to high accuracy with CMB data. Thus, measurements of the cluster correlation function within redshift shells returns the angular diameter distance as a function of redshift, much like the SNe Ia but with a strong physical basis for the lack of evolution in the standard rod. This approach is very complementary to the cluster redshift distribution approach, and it hinges less on extracting unbiased estimates of cluster masses from cluster observables like the X-ray or SZE luminosity.

### Acknowledgments.

I would like to acknowledge Zoltan Haiman for the many cluster survey discussions and calculations we have shared. It is also a pleasure to acknowledge many cluster related conversations with John Carlstrom and Gil Holder.

## References

Arnaud, M. & Evrard, A.E. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 631

Bahcall, N.A., Fan, X. & Cen, R. 1997, ApJ, 485, L53

Bialek, J.J., Evrard, A.E. & Mohr, J.J. 2001, ApJ, 555, 597

Bryan, G.L. & Norman, M.L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

Burles, S. & Tytler, D. 1998, ApJ, 507, 732

Cooray, A., Hu, W., Huterer, D. & Joffre, M. 2001, ApJ, 557, L7

Diego, J.M., Martinez-Gonzalez, E., Sanz, J.L., Cayon, L. & Silk, J. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1533

Evrard, A.E., Metzler, C.A. & Navarro, J.F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494

Haiman, Z., Mohr, J.J. & Holder, G.P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 545

Halverson, N.W. et al 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0104489)

Hanany, S. et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, L5

Holder, G.P., Mohr, J.J., Carlstrom, J.E., Evrard, A.E. & Leitch, E.M. 2000, ApJ, 544, 629

Horner, D.J., Mushotzky, R.F. & Scharf, C.A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 78

Jaffe, A. et al. 2001, Phys.Rev.Lett, 86, 3475

Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Colberg, J.M., Cole, S., Evrard, A.E., Couchman, H.M.P. & Yoshida, N. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372

Lange, A. et al. 2001, Phys.Rev.D, 63, 2001

Mohr, J.J. & Evrard, A.E. 1997, ApJ, 491, 38

Mohr, J.J., Mathiesen, B. & Evrard, A.E. 1999, ApJ, 517, 627

Netterfield, C.B. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0104460)

Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press; Princeton

Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

Press, W.H. & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

Pryke, C. et al. 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0104490)

Schmidt, B.P. et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 46

Sunyaev, R.A. & Zel’dovich, Y.B. 1972, Comments Astrophys. Space Phys., 4, 173

Verde, L., Haiman, Z., Spergel, D.N. 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0106315)

Viana, P.T.P. & Liddle, A.R. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 535

White, D.A. & Fabian, A.C. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 72

White, M., 2001, A&A, 367, 27

White, S.D.M., Navarro, J.F., Evrard, A.E. & Frenk, C.S. 1993a, Nature, 366, 429

White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G. & Frenk, C.S. 1993b, MNRAS, 262, 1023


text:
# 2001: The Journal of Astronomical Data 7, 1. © R.A. Downes et al. Luminosities of [O III] 𝜆5007 and Hydrogen Balmer lines in nova shells years and decades after outburst

## Abstract

The evolution of the luminosity of nova shells in the century following the nova outburst is studied for the lines H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$, and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007. About 1200 flux measurements from 96 objects have been collected from the literature, from unpublished observations, from the HST archive, or from new narrow-band filter imaging. For most objects, the distance and reddening is known (or newly determined), and luminosities were calculated from the observed fluxes. The luminosity data were combined in five groups, according to nova light curve type (very fast, fast, moderately fast, slow, recurrent); some objects were re-assigned to other groups for a better fit of the luminosity data to the general trend.

For very fast, fast and moderately fast novae, the slope of the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 decline is very similar, leading to a basic ‘switchoff’ of \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission after 11, 23 and 24 years, respectively. For the same speed classes, the slope of the Balmer luminosity is quite similar.

In contrast to all types of fast novae, the decline in Balmer luminosity is more rapid in slow novae. However, the slope in \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 is more gentle; slow novae still show \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission after 100 years. Thus shells of slow novae are still hot after one century; the same applies for the shells of the very fast nova GK Per and the recurrent nova T Pyx, which interact with circumstellar material.

In recurrent novae, \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 is usually inconspicuous or absent. In objects with giant companions, the Balmer luminosity decreases very slowly after an outburst, which may be an effect of line blending of material from the ejecta and the giant wind. On the other hand, objects with dwarf companions show a very rapid decline in Balmer luminosity.

Keywords: novae: shells, novae: decline, cataclysmic variables

## 1 Introduction

In the past years and decades, several models of nova shells have been presented in the literature. Often they were adapted to describe the state and evolution of specific objects, and often remarkable agreement between model and observation was achieved. Nevertheless it should be kept in mind that a nova shell is a rapidly evolving object, and its properties change significantly with time. Furthermore, a plethora of different types of novae are observed, which is accompanied by an amazing variety of nova shells of various morphologies and physical properties in different stages of temporal development.

Although studies of nova shells have been carried out since the first bright nova of the 20th century, GK Persei in 1901, most of these studies were carried out in a qualitative way. This approach permitted the calculation of nebular expansion parallaxes and the morphological study of shells. Since the shells were usually faint, and the observations were carried out with photographic plates, hardly any quantitative results are available. Only in the first phases of the outburst, when the shells document themselves in the form of emission lines, were the line fluxes estimated and derived for a few cases, notably by Payne-Gaposchkin and collaborators. Replacement of the photographic plate by digital receivers has facilitated the task of studying the evolution of nova remnants, both spectroscopically and by means of direct imaging through narrow-band filters. In fact, quite a number of studies have even been carried out for extragalactic novae, where H$`\alpha `$-images can more easily detect the objects above the stellar background (see, e.g. Ciardullo et al. 1987).

In this paper, we report on the results of a recent imaging survey of nova remnants, carried out at the Kitt Peak and ESO La Silla observatories. We also use a hitherto unpublished survey of nova shells carried out in 1984 at Calar Alto, and the images from the Hubble Space Telescope archive. Furthermore, we have collected and homogenized the existing quantitative record of nova shell observations. Because the survey attempted to cover as many objects in as many evolutionary stages as possible, hardly any detailed information on a given object, or any detailed modelling of shells will be given (i.e. the distribution of line flux between various specific parts of a nova shell). We rather attempt to describe the “average” or global evolutionary track of a nova shell, in order to derive expected values for faint shells of ancient novae. A theoretical interpretation of the observed behavior will be the subject of a forthcoming paper (Duerbeck & Downes 2002).

Section 2 describes our observations and reductions. Section 3 briefly describes the classification of novae according to speed class, which is the base for merging our shell luminosity data into groups. Section 4 gives the derivation of global trends in luminosity evolution for the lines H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 in novae of different speed classes (including, besides classical novae, recurrent ones). Section 5 summarizes our results.

## 2 Observations

Old data of nova shell line fluxes, derived both from spectral observations or direct images, were collected from the literature. Besides many data scattered in the literature, the early photographic studies of Payne-Gaposchkin and collaborators deserve special mentioning, as well as the recent Tololo nova survey, carried out by Williams and collaborators, and kindly put at our disposal by him.

The new observations were obtained at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile, and at the the Kitt Peak National Observatory. On 1998 March 21 – 23, the Dutch 0.9 m telescope at ESO, equipped with a TEK TK512CB chip ($`512\times 512`$ pixels) with a scale of $`0.^{\prime \prime }465`$ pixel-1 was used. On 1998 May 28 – June 1, observations were obtained with the KPNO 2.1 m telescope using the TEK “T1KA” chip ($`1024\times 1024`$ pixels with a scale of $`0.^{\prime \prime }305`$ pixel-1), and on 1998 June 30 with the KPNO 0.9 m telescope using the TEK “T2KA” chip ($`2048\times 2048`$ pixels with a scale of $`0.^{\prime \prime }7`$ pixel-1). A final run was carried out at the Danish 1.54 m telescope at ESO on 2000 July 16. The DFOSC was used, which has a LORAL/LESSER chip ($`2052\times 2052`$ pixels with a scale of $`0.^{\prime \prime }39`$ pixel-1).

The data were obtained with narrow-band filters centered at H$`\alpha `$ (80 and 62 Å FWHM at the ESO Dutch and Danish, 36Å at KPNO) and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 (55 and 57Å at the ESO Dutch and Danish, 31Å at KPNO), as well as off-band and UBVR filters; see Downes & Duerbeck (2000) for details. Note that the offband \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 filter for the objects observed at ESO is a Strömgren $`y`$ filter. The data were reduced in the standard manner.

Flux calibration of the novae were obtained via “standard” planetary nebulae. NGC 6833 was used for the KPNO observations. The H$`\alpha `$ and $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$ flux of NGC 6833 was determined by Tony Keyes (private communication) based on Hubble Space Telescope Faint Object Spectrograph observations, and we adopted values of $`3.9\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 arcsec-2 and $`9.4\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 arcsec-2 for H$`\alpha `$ and $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$, respectively. For the “Dutch” observations, Sp 1 was used. The H$`\alpha `$ and $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$ flux of Sp 1 was measured by Perinotto et al. (1994) and the authors of the Strasbourg/ESO catalog of galactic planetary nebulae (Acker et al. 1992) spectroscopically, and by Webster (1969), Copetti (1990) and Shaw & Kaler (1989) through interference filters. Unfortunately, the results show some scatter, so we assume fluxes of $`2.6\pm 0.5\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 arcsec-2 and $`2.8\pm 0.2\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 arcsec-2 for H$`\alpha `$ and $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$, respectively. For the “Danish” observations, three objects from the list of Dopita & Hua (1997) were used: PN 327.5+13.3, PN 327.1$``$01.8, and PN 321.3$``$16.7.

On the second night of the ESO “Dutch” observations, the flux of Sp 1 was fainter by $`0.^\mathrm{m}38`$ and $`0.^\mathrm{m}28`$ in H$`\alpha `$ and $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$, an effect that was traced in the magnitudes of stars measured in these filters as well. Thus, we assume that the overall transmission, and not the central wavelength, underwent a change. Broadband transmission was very similar in the three nights. We thus took the nightly aperture magnitude of the PN, corrected to airmass 1, as the “zero-point” of the system, which corresponds to the fluxes given.

The targets were partly starlike, and normal Daophot photometry was carried out for most of the nebulae. In the $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$ data, V842 Cen and V1974 Cyg were slightly resolved, and RR Pic and CP Pup were clearly resolved (Downes & Duerbeck 2000). In these cases, the onband and offband frames were aligned, the offband frame scaled appropriately to cancel the majority of stars, and subtracted from the onband frame. In most cases, a starlike center remained (because of emission in the region of $`[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]`$), and this central emission was again fitted with a psf-profile of the onband frame, yielding an emission-line magnitude of the central star. The detached nebular shell emission was measured in an annulus, where the central “remnant” that remained from the subtraction and fitting attempts, was duly neglected. More objects were slightly resolved in H$`\alpha `$, and a similar process was performed.

For the starlike images, the nova magnitudes measured from the images are a combination of the line flux from the shell plus a continuum flux from the stellar remnant. This continuum flux needs to be removed if we are to study the H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 line fluxes themselves. To correct for the continuum flux, a fit was made to all objects (excluding the nova) in the field of the form

$$\mathrm{onband}\mathrm{magnitude}=a_0+a_1\times \mathrm{offband}\mathrm{magnitude}.$$

These fits allowed us to estimate the flux in the continuum of the novae, and thus to derive net line fluxes.

For the ESO observations, the use of the broad-band Strömgren $`y`$ filter as the \[O III\] off-band resulted in a more involved continuum removal. We note that this filter has practically the same central wavelength as a broadband Johnson $`V`$ filter, without, however, including strong emission lines like the \[O III\] lines. For all field stars, $`V`$ magnitudes in the standard system are available. The magnitude difference for the $`V`$\- and the (uncalibrated) $`y`$-observations was determined, by establishing the relation

$$y=V+V_0,$$

i.e. by determining the zero-point difference $`V_0`$. Furthermore, for all stars (excluding the nova) the relation

$$m_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}}=y+y_0$$

was established and $`y_0`$ determined. Thus the magnitude difference between the $`V`$ magnitude and the \[O III\]-magnitude of an object without emission lines is

$$m_{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}}=V+V_0+y_0.$$

Field stars of all colours scatter from these linear relations by $`\pm 0.^\mathrm{m}01`$ to $`0.^\mathrm{m}02`$, including M-stars with TiO bands. Thus it is likely that unusually blue stars (like nova star continua in their late stages) also will not deviate significantly.

Under this assumption, the presumably emission-free $`y`$ magnitude of the nova was used to calculate its hypothetical “emission-free” $`V`$-magnitude, and from this magnitude, its “emission-free” \[O III\]-magnitude was derived. The flux corresponding to this magnitude was subtracted from the flux calculated from the observed \[O III\]-magnitude, yielding an “emission-only” \[O III\] flux. In most cases, the correction due to stellar contamination was below 10% of the total flux.

We also evaluated direct images of nova shells, taken in August 1984 through H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 filters, with a CCD camera in the Cassegrain focus of the Calar Alto 2.2m telescope (operated by the Centro Astronomico Hispano-Aleman, Almeria, and the Max-Planck Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg; observers were H.W. Duerbeck and W.C. Seitter). Only resolved shells were considered, the central stars (and others in the field) were reduced with the Daophot allstar routine within IRAF, and aperture photometry was carried out using MIDAS. The planetary nebula M57 (NGC 6720) served as a flux standard.

Furthermore, we used flux-calibrated spectroscopic observations of several novae, taken (by us) at several telescopes in the past 25 years. Determination of the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 and H$`\alpha `$ fluxes was straightforward, since the shells were usually unresolved. We were also given access to the extensive data set obtained in the Tololo Nova Survey (cf. Williams et al. 1994), from which direct line flux measurements were made.

In addition to the ground-based data, we used archival \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 and H$`\alpha `$ images obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope. Finally, we collected shell fluxes from the literature, which were derived from direct images or spectroscopy of nova shells.

To be able to compare line strengths from different objects, we converted the observed fluxes to luminosities; the distances and reddenings necessary for the conversion were mostly taken from Downes & Duerbeck (2000); a few additional determinations or re-determinations are discussed in the Appendix of this paper. The list of objects, with adopted distances, reddenings, and references to these data, as well as references for the flux measurements, is given in Table 1. The complete set of data are given in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 for \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007, H$`\alpha `$, and H$`\beta `$, respectively.

## 3 Nova groupings

In order to merge sparse observations of many objects into a single diagram, a reasonable grouping of objects seems desirable. Since the photospheric growth and shrinking is controlled by the mass loss in the course of the outburst, and the photospheric shrinking is reflected in the light curve, we have found it appropriate to sort the data according to nova speed class.

The speed classes adopted were those defined in Payne-Gaposchkin (1957): very fast, fast, moderately fast, slow and very slow, depending on the average decline rate over the first two magnitudes ($`t_2`$). Her classification supersedes previous schemes by McLaughlin (1939) (fast, average, slow, RT Ser-type) and Bertaud (1948) (fast, slow, very slow), which were usually based on $`t_3`$ times. However, Payne-Gaposchkin’s classification can lead to serious errors in some slow novae which show a pronounced maximum of somewhat more than two magnitudes, superimposed on a plateau of almost constant brightness (e.g. RR Pic). In a few cases, we have deliberately modified the assignment to group together similar objects. Similarly, a few reassignments were made to better fit the shell flux data of a single object to the general trend prevailing in a neighboring speed class. Such reassignments are noted below.

In addition to the speed classes, we have also tried to discriminate between the spectral classes Fe- and He/N novae according to the criteria given by Williams (1992); a source of this information is Della Valle & Livio (1998). Finally, confirmed and probable ONeMg novae were identified, either from recent work in the literature, or from earlier descriptions (for an early identification of such objects, see McLaughlin (1944)).

The objects for which shell flux data were obtained are listed in Table 1, together with decline times $`t_2,t_3`$, speed class, spectral class, and peculiarity (i.e. ONeMg group, recurrent nova, or nova with noticeable dust formation).

## 4 Line emission as a function of time

The nova distances and reddenings of Table 1 and the observed nova fluxes of Tables 2, 3 and 4 were used to calculate line luminosities, which are also given in Tables 2, 3 and 4. Depending on the distance, reddening and type of nova, the luminosity of the stellar remnant, as well as the light gathering and resolving power of the telescope used for the study, there is a lower limit for the line luminosity that can still be recorded with certainty. In general, we have assumed a luminosity of $`10^{30}`$ erg s-1 as the lower limit that was achieved with the telescopes used in this study. This should be regarded as an averaged a posteriori value. To derive a correct estimate of the lower limit, one would not only have to take into account the distance, but also source confusion in the case of an extended shell, and the contribution of accretion disk emission in the case of a pointlike object. In the following, the nova is said to have “switched off” emission in a specific line if its luminosity was below the value $`10^{30}`$ erg s-1.

### 4.1 Very fast novae

The behavior of very fast novae is illustrated in Figs. 1 – 3. In these diagrams, the logarithm of the luminosity (measured in ergs $`\mathrm{s}^1`$) is plotted versus logarithm of time after maximum (time measured in years). Ordinary galactic novae are shown as filled circles, and relations are determined exclusively for this galactic dataset, unless stated otherwise. Extragalactic novae are shown as open circles, and are merely displayed for comparison. Unusual novae (mentioned in the text and the figure caption) are shown with special symbols.

#### 4.1.1 H$`\alpha `$

The H$`\alpha `$ evolution of very fast novae appears to be quite homogeneous, unlike the evolution of the other spectral lines considered below. Several objects, however, have to be considered separately. One is M31-C31, which is similar in evolution than the other novae, but systematically fainter at earlier stages (see below). The long series of measurements of V838 Her (indicated as asterisks in Figs. 1–3) shows that it is much fainter and faster in its evolution than other very fast novae, except V4160 Sgr, which is marked with encircled asterisks.

Many of the famous bright novae of the 20th century (V603 Aql, GK Per and CP Lac) are not present in this diagram, since no spectrophotometry was obtained longward of the photographic (blue) region.

The general evolution can be approximated by straight lines. At times $`2.5<\mathrm{log}t<1.0`$ ($`<10`$ days), the novae have

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`35.89`$ $`0.75\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.38`$ $`\pm 0.25`$
or an almost constant luminosity,

$$\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })37.0\pm 0.4\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1.$$

At times $`1.0<\mathrm{log}t<0.0`$ (10 days to 1 year)

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`34.82`$ $`1.63\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.15`$ $`\pm 0.25`$
and at late times ($`0.0<\mathrm{log}t<1.5`$):

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`35.08`$ $`3.81\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.11`$ $`\pm 0.24`$
The fit was restricted to $`\mathrm{log}t<1.5`$, since at very late times emission from the accretion disk may contaminate the measurements. A few points were omitted, which belong to single, poorly-observed objects.

The data points of V838 Her lie all on a straight line which can be approximated by

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`31.88`$ $`2.83\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.07`$ $`\pm 0.09`$
The class of ‘superbright novae’ (V1500 Cyg, N LMC 1991) by Della Valle (1991) is not obvious in the present diagrams. If there is anything peculiar, it is the faintness of M31-C31. Since Della Valle used the M31 novae as a template (and M31-C31 appears to fit well into this group), it appears that all very fast galactic novae fall into the region of the superbright novae, a fact also clearly seen in the S-calibration of Downes & Duerbeck (2000), as applied to Galactic novae. Why there is such a marked discrepancy in the observed behaviour of very fast novae in the Galaxy and in M31 remains to be explained.

At late times (typically $`\mathrm{log}t=1.75`$, i.e. 50 years after outburst), fast novae still show H$`\alpha `$ emission at a level of a few $`\times 10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Two objects, however, are noticeably brighter: CP Pup and GK Per. It is obvious that the emission does not originate from the accretion disk, since the shell is spatially resolved.

#### 4.1.2 H$`\beta `$

The H$`\beta `$ flux shows a large scatter (this is possibly due to the fact that the old novae V603 Aql, GK Per, CP Lac etc. are now included). It appears as if there are two well-defined bands, an upper and a lower one, with only a few points in between. The extragalactic (LMC, M31) novae seem to cluster near the lower band. As in the previous diagram, V838 Her is notably fainter than the rest.

As in the case of H$`\alpha `$, between $`\mathrm{log}t=2`$ and $`1.5`$ (i.e. 1 day and 15 days after maximum), flux levels are almost constant at $`10^{36}`$ and $`10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`<\mathrm{log}L>=36.91\pm 0.71`$ ergs $`\mathrm{s}^1`$); afterwards, a decline sets in. At times $`2.5<\mathrm{log}t<1.0`$

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`35.90`$ $`0.53\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.52`$ $`\pm 0.35`$
At times $`1.0<\mathrm{log}t<0.0`$, a dichotomy seems indicated. The upper line is

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`34.57`$ $`2.39\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.11`$ $`\pm 0.18`$
and the lower one

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`33.74`$ $`1.98\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.14`$ $`\pm 0.20`$
At late times $`(0.0<\mathrm{log}t<1.5)`$, the slope is only poorly documented, and at times $`\mathrm{log}t>1.5`$, emission from the disk may dominate. The slope at late times is:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`34.52`$ $`2.89\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.14`$ $`\pm 0.40`$
The time interval $`(1.0,1.0)`$ can also be fitted with one straight line:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`34.35`$ $`1.94\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.18`$ $`\pm 0.27`$
Finally, the nova V838 Her follows its own relation:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`31.25`$ $`2.90\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.08`$ $`\pm 0.10`$
The X-ray turnoff time of such objects is typically of the order one to several hundred days according to Vablandingham et al. (2001), so that the break in H$`\beta `$ (and \[O III\]) around 1 year may have to do with the switching off of nuclear burning on the central object. At late stages ($`t`$ of the order of 50 years), objects cluster at some $`10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$. No late H$`\beta `$ observations exist for GK Per and CP Pup.

#### 4.1.3 \[O III\]

Generally, \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 appears around age $`\mathrm{log}t=1.1`$ (about a month after optical maximum), and remains within a factor 10 constant until $`\mathrm{log}t=0`$ (i.e. one year after outburst). As in the case of H$`\beta `$, two well-expressed bands seem to be present, with the extragalactic novae populating the lower one. After two years, the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission declines dramatically and for most objects is not recorded any more after 10 years. There are two noticeable exceptions: CP Pup and GK Per, which show emission at almost $`10^{32}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ 50 – 85 years after outburst. However, the luminosity from CP Pup is due to N II 5005, as was found spectroscopically by Williams (1982), while the emission in GK Per is indeed due to \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 (Bode et al. 1988).

The dichotomy that appeared in the H$`\beta `$ luminosities is again clearly seen. A fit through the points with $`\mathrm{log}t<0`$ yields

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`36.21`$ $`0.70\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.09`$ $`\pm 0.13`$
for the upper line, and

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`34.97`$ $`0.94\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.14`$ $`\pm 0.22`$
for the lower one. Subsequently, both bands merge and a drop

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`35.00`$ $`4.76\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.38`$ $`\pm 0.88`$
is observed. The last two data points, which belong to CP Pup and GK Per, were neglected in this fit. For the remaining novae, a luminosity of $`10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is reached at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.05`$, i.e. 11 years after outburst.

The maximum phase appears to reveal the presence of two groups, which show almost the same temporal behavior, but are clearly separated by a factor $`15`$ in emission line luminosity, with an amazingly low scatter. Among the objects in the bright group are V476 Cyg, GK Per, V603 Aql and V977 Sco; the faint group includes CP Lac, V1500 Cyg, V4157 Sgr, and V351 Pup. Interestingly, both groups contain the same mixture of Fe II/He-N novae, CO/ONeMg novae, so that there is no obvious parameter that influences the \[O III\] luminosity.

A clear outlier is V838 Her, whose \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 luminosity is about 100 times fainter than all other objects, except V4160 Sgr. The \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 lines emerge earlier than in any other object. A fit through the points of V838 Her yields:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`31.52`$ $`2.16\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.16`$ $`\pm 0.24`$
#### 4.1.4 Additional remarks

The strong late emission of H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 in GK Per should be pointed out. GK Per is a peculiar nova shell which seems to interact with interstellar material or a fossil planetary nebula (Seaquist et al. 1989). Thus the ejected material shows shock interaction with the stationary circumstellar material, and remains in a hot state.

The noticeable emission in the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 band of CP Pup is due to N II. CP Pup has, however, also an unusually strong H$`\alpha `$ luminosity. Smits (1991) has argued for a small distance (between 525 and 850 pc) for CP Pup, which would lower the luminosity by factors 10 and 4, respectively. The intricate geometry (see Downes & Duerbeck (2000) for a detailed discussion) makes these values less likely, although they would bring the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity closer to the average value found in other very fast novae of this age.

The peculiar case of V838 Her has already been mentioned. This was the nova with the shortest $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ times of the light curve decay. V838 Her appears to have less mass ejection, and thus a thin photosphere, which made the central object and its light changes appear after an unusually short time (Leibowitz et al. 1992). It is important to note that the poorly observed nova V4160 Sgr represents a second object of this rare class of rapidly fading neon novae with He-spectral characteristics. The three spectra available for V4160 Sgr (Williams 2000) resemble those of V838 Her (Vanlandingham et al. 1996) at similar phases.

### 4.2 Fast novae

#### 4.2.1 H$`\alpha `$

The trends in the evolution of line luminosities in the class of fast novae (Figs. 4 – 6) differ somewhat from those of very fast novae. The scatter between individual objects in this group is less pronounced. There is only one extragalactic nova (N LMC 1988-1) in the sample, which will be considered at the end.

H$`\alpha `$ emission is first recorded at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.6`$ (9 days after maximum), and slowly declines till $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$ (115 days after maximum) by a factor 5. After that, a steeper decline sets in. At times $`\mathrm{log}t<0.5`$ (115 days):

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`35.35`$ $`0.78\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.16`$ $`\pm 0.16`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=36.08`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`34.38`$ $`2.34\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.10`$ $`\pm 0.11`$
#### 4.2.2 H$`\beta `$

H$`\beta `$ emission is first recorded at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.7`$ (7 days after maximum), and slowly declines till $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$ (115 days after maximum) by a factor 3. After that, a steeper decline sets in. The extragalactic nova lies noticeably above the other objects. If it would be placed among the very fast novae (and practically all other LMC novae are very fast novae), it would fit wery well into the corresponding diagrams. Such a case occurs from time to time: an object assigned to a group because of its light curve better fits into another group according to its line luminosity evolution. We will discuss the few cases in detail after the general discussion. At times $`\mathrm{log}t<0.5`$ (115 days):

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`34.70`$ $`0.69\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.16`$ $`\pm 0.17`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=35.32\pm 0.38\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`33.81`$ $`2.05\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.07`$ $`\pm 0.11`$
#### 4.2.3 \[O III\]

In fast novae, \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 shows up at $`\mathrm{log}t=0.9`$ (46 days after maximum). It displays a continuous decline in strength (a factor of about 50) until a breakpoint that can only be approximately determined because of the large scatter. The breakpoint can be put at $`\mathrm{log}t=0`$ as well as at $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$, i.e. 1 to 3.2 years after outburst. We will assume $`\mathrm{log}t=0.25`$ as the position of the breakpoint. After that, a steeper decline sets in.

At early stages $`1<\mathrm{log}t<0.25`$, the average $`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=34.95\pm 0.53\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, a fit through these points with yields

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`34.68`$ $`0.98\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.09`$ $`\pm 0.21`$
Subsequently, a drop

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`35.60`$ $`3.73\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.26`$ $`\pm 0.44`$
is observed. This means that, on the average, a luminosity of $`10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is reached at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.50`$, i.e. 32 years after outburst.

#### 4.2.4 Additional remarks

The X-ray turnoff time of ONeMg novae of the fast speed class like QU Vul and V1974 Cyg is of the order $`1.54`$ years according to Vanlandingham et al. (2001). This might coincide with the time when the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission starts to fade noticeably.

### 4.3 Moderately fast novae

#### 4.3.1 H$`\alpha `$

Some moderately fast novae have been caught in very early stages, with fairly strong or weak H$`\alpha `$ emission lines, but the sample is too small to draw any conclusions. Between $`\mathrm{log}t=1.5`$ and $`0.5`$ (12 days and 115 days), a fairly well-expressed maximum is reached. Afterwards, a decline with a slope of $`2`$ sets in. At times $`\mathrm{log}t<0.5`$,

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`35.68`$ $`0.08\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.27`$ $`\pm 0.28`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=35.8\pm 0.5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`34.26`$ $`2.06\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.15`$ $`\pm 0.15`$
Figures 7 – 9 show two objects with special symbols. Open circles denote data for the slow nova PW Vul, which fits quite well into the group of moderately fast novae. Asterisks denote fluxes of the peculiar nova GQ Mus.

#### 4.3.2 H$`\beta `$

As in the case of H$`\alpha `$, in H$`\beta `$ the time between $`\mathrm{log}t=1.5`$ and $`0.5`$ (12 days and 115 days) is marked by a large scatter, but no obvious general decline is noticeable. Afterwards, the decline in luminosity is obvious, however also marked by large scatter. The slope after 4 months is $`1.78`$, slightly shallower than for fast and very fast novae.

At times between $`\mathrm{log}t=1.5`$ and $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$,

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`34.71`$ $`0.18\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.26`$ $`\pm 0.27`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=34.88\pm 0.68\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`33.61`$ $`1.88\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.11`$ $`\pm 0.15`$
Again, the luminosities of the slow nova PW Vul emulate those of moderately fast novae, while the peculiar X-ray active nova GQ Mus shows a much more rapid decline than other novae.

#### 4.3.3 \[O III\]

For moderately fast novae, the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 data are somewhat sparse. \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 shows up after $`\mathrm{log}t=0.4`$ (145 days), and persists with fairly constant strength until $`\mathrm{log}t=0.4`$ (2.5 years). Afterwards, a quite dramatic decline sets in.

Between $`0.4<\mathrm{log}t<0.4`$, the average $`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=35.39\pm 0.63\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, while a fit through the points with $`\mathrm{log}t>0.4`$, excluding the novae GQ Mus and PW Vul and the late value of DQ Her, yields

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`36.73`$ $`4.86\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.79`$ $`\pm 0.80`$
On the average, a luminosity of $`10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is reached at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.38`$, i.e. 24 years after outburst.

#### 4.3.4 Additional remarks

The similarity of the evolution of the slow nova PW Vul with the majority of moderately fast novae has already been pointed out. It is also interesting to note that the decline in \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 is very similar in fast and moderately fast novae (although \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 appears much earlier in fast novae).

An important point is the unusually bright \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 luminosity determined for DQ Her 50 years after outburst. The \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 filter exposure has certainly picked up emission of the line N II 5005, which was observed spectroscopically by Williams et al. (1978) at the endpoints of the major axis of the shell. Indeed, the direct image of 1984 shows a deficit of emission along the minor axis.

### 4.4 Slow and very slow novae

#### 4.4.1 H$`\alpha `$

Flux data are only available for a handful of novae, making general statements quite uncertain. The main string of data (see Figs. 10 – 12), is from M31-C32, a well-monitored extragalactic very slow nova. A few data points from V723 Cas fall remarkably close to this object. Thus it seems that the luminosity discrepancy between novae in M31 and the Galaxy occurs only among very fast novae.

Note that some novae, like RR Pic, HR Del and V723 Cas have an extended pre-maximum halt. Because of the logarithmic plot, emission line fluxes are plotted only after maximum light. The number of studied objects is somewhat scarce, and the behavior of slow novae is quite varying, so these fits are not as representative as those for the other speed classes.

The luminosity remains essentially constant between $`\mathrm{log}t=0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{log}t=0.1`$ ($`145460`$ days after maximum), and declines afterwards.

At times $`0.4<\mathrm{log}t<+0.1`$,

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`36.02`$ $`+0.19\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.01`$ $`\pm 0.06`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=35.98\pm 0.04\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`36.33`$ $`2.80\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.22`$ $`\pm 0.18`$
H$`\alpha `$ emission from the shell is still observed in very old remnants.

#### 4.4.2 H$`\beta `$

Here we have a long data series of RR Pic, from the presumable maximum onward, plus data from HR Del and V868 Cen. Between $`\mathrm{log}t=2`$ and $`\mathrm{log}t=0.1`$ (3 days – 460 days after maximum), the behavior of the H$`\beta `$ flux declines very slowly by a factor 4. After 460 days, the slope becomes steeper.

At times $`0.4<\mathrm{log}t<+0.1`$,

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`35.74`$ $`0.65\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}),`$
$`\pm 0.04`$ $`\pm 0.22`$
with an average value $`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=35.84\pm 0.16\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and at later times

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`35.42`$ $`2.41\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.21`$ $`\pm 0.22`$
H$`\beta `$ emission from the shell is still observed in very old remnants.

#### 4.4.3 \[O III\]

In slow novae, \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission appears at time $`\mathrm{log}t=0.2`$, about 230 days after maximum. RR Pic and HR Del show almost constant \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 flux between the first appearance at 0.6 years up to $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$, 3 years after maximum.

The average $`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=35.22\pm 0.43\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, a fit through the points with $`\mathrm{log}t<0.5`$ yields

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`35.24`$ $`0.16\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.09`$ $`\pm 0.43`$
In the following century, a drop

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=`$ $`36.40`$ $`3.00\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age})`$
$`\pm 0.38`$ $`\pm 0.29`$
is observed.

Note that the decline from maximum is documented only by data of HR Del. A few very old remnants, RR Pic, DO Aql and X Ser still show \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission, which is, in two cases, documented by spectroscopy (and thus confusion with N II, as in CP Pup and DQ Her, can be ruled out). Such a behavior is at variance with all other types of classical novae, and indicates that a source of high energy photons, presumably from the nuclear burning in the outer layers of the white dwarf, is still active $`100`$ years after outburst.

#### 4.4.4 Additional Remarks

Most notable are the \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007-bright shells around old slow novae.

### 4.5 Recurrent Novae

At least three distinct groups of recurrent novae can be discriminated: very fast novae with dwarf companions, very fast novae with giant companions, and the slow recurrent nova T Pyx. The most extensive data set exists for the second group, and it is obvious that the other groups behave differently: the fast recurrent novae with dwarf secondaries show an extremely rapid decline of emission line strength in the Balmer lines, and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 is basically absent (see Figs. 13 – 15). The slow recurrent nova T Pyx shows, more than thirty years after its most recent outburst, persistently strong H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission, likely because of shock interaction of ejecta from different outbursts.

#### 4.5.1 H$`\alpha `$

In the interval $`2.5<\mathrm{log}t<0`$, recurrent novae with giant companions have

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`33.85`$ $`1.32\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.22`$ $`\pm 0.15`$
Recurrent novae with dwarf companions show a more rapid decrease in flux:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha })=`$ $`30.67`$ $`2.77\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.67`$ $`\pm 0.45`$
#### 4.5.2 H$`\beta `$

At times $`2.5<\mathrm{log}t<0`$, recurrent novae with giant companions show

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`32.99`$ $`1.52\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 0.14`$ $`\pm 0.11`$
Recurrent novae with dwarf companions show a more rapid decrease in flux:

$`\mathrm{log}(L_{\mathrm{H}\beta })=`$ $`30.22`$ $`3.05\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{age}).`$
$`\pm 2.63`$ $`\pm 1.77`$
#### 4.5.3 \[O III\]

No \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 flux measurements in recurrent novae with dwarf companions are known; these features are either very weak or do not appear. Early weak \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 emission, caused by photoionization of the giant wind by the energetic radiation from the early outburst, has been reported for V745 Sco.

Noticeable emission in \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 starts to appear at $`\mathrm{log}t=1.2`$, reaches a maximum at $`\mathrm{log}t=0.5`$, and declines afterwards. A fit is uncertain for lack of secure data, but the average flux at times before one year is $`\mathrm{log}(L_{5007})=33.73\pm 0.42\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. T Pyx is still bright in \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 30 years after the last outburst: Interaction with previous shells keeps the ejecta hot, which appears to be untypical for other, faster recurrent novae. Thus we refrain from merging data of very different objects, as we have also considered RN with dwarf and giant companions separately.

## 5 Summary

We have collected about 1200 available line fluxes of 96 classical and recurrent novae of various speed classes and have studied the evolution of the luminosity in the H$`\alpha `$, H$`\beta `$, and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 line as a function of time after outburst. In general, novae of a given speed class follow similar patterns, so that functional relations for the average evolution of line luminosity could be derived. General trends for novae of various speed classes are shown in Figs. 15, 16 and 17. A few novae turn out to be unusual: GK Per and T Pyx, which interact with circumstellar material, V838 Her and V4160 Sgr, which have unusually small mass ejection, and GQ Mus, an X-ray emitting classical nova.

A general discussion of the material presented here in the framework of nova properties and shell evolution will be presented elsewhere (Duerbeck & Downes 2002). The data of Tables 1 – 4 are also included as ascii files in table1.dat, table2.dat, table3.dat and table4.dat.

## 6 Appendix: Notes on some nova distances

DO Aql \- This is a very interesting slow nova; unfortunately the light curve has a large seasonal gap, and the true maximum may have been missed. The reddening is low even for large distances, $`A_V=0.41`$. Application of the MMRD yields a distance $`d=9.5`$ kpc; if DO Aql has a luminosity that is similar to the faintest nova in the MMRD sample, a minimum distance $`d=3.6`$ kpc follows. A distance $`d=6.5\pm 3.0`$ is plausible.

V365 Car \- The light curve and its parameters (Liller & Henize 1975) indicate a slow nova for which an average absolute magnitude $`M_V=7.09`$ is assumed. Since the light curve is photographic, a $`(BV)`$ correction of 0.25 was applied. The galactic extinction program (Hakkila et al. 1997) yields an $`A_V=2.7`$ for a distance of 4.7 kpc, which yields the expected apparent magnitude.

V868 Cen \- The nova until now had a poor light curve coverage. There were also discrepant reports on dust formation (Smith et al. 1995; Harrison et al. 1998). The photometric observations published in the IAU Circulars were supplemented by an extended series of visual estimates (Jones 2001). They lead us: (1) to reclassify V868 Cen as a medium fast nova, (2) to time the dust formation at the epoch of the IR observations of Harrison et al. (1998) (but certainly later than the IR spectroscopy of Smith et al. (1995), which however, did not develop into a dramatic visual minimum, but a short depression, similar to those observed in NQ Vul), and (3) to derive a consistent distance and reddening.

V888 Cen \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars, and $`m7`$, $`t_3=20`$ days was estimated. Using the MMRD, a consistent distance and reddening ($`d=5100`$ pc, $`A_V=2.65`$) was found.

BY Cir \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars, and $`m7`$, $`t_2=11`$ days was estimated. Using the MMRD, a consistent distance and reddening ($`d=6000`$ pc, $`A_V=2.31`$) was found.

V2295 Oph \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars, and $`m9.3`$, was estimated. The light curve seems to indicate a plateau, followed by dust formation, and a light curve type C was assumed, which is typical for novae with $`M_V7.09`$. A consistent distance and reddening ($`d=10`$ kpc, $`A_V=1.27`$) was found.

V4361 Sgr \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars, and $`m10.5`$, was estimated. The nova curve is fragmentary, but the nova appears to evolve slowly, thus $`M_V=7.09`$ was assumed. A consistent distance and reddening ($`d=4600`$ pc, $`A_V=4.34`$) was found.

V4633 Sgr \- Light curve data were taken from Liller & Jones (1999), and $`m7.8`$, $`t_3=52`$ days was estimated. Using the MMRD, an $`M_V=7.75`$ was estimated, and a consistent distance and reddening ($`d=7300`$ pc, $`A_V=1.23`$) was found.

V4642 Sgr \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars. The very fragmentary light curve indicates a nova which is not fast; maximum $`m10`$. The absolute magnitude was assumed as $`M=7`$. A consistent distance and reddening ($`d=6700`$ pc, $`A_V=2.72`$) was found.

V1141 Sco \- Light curve data were taken from the IAU Circulars. The light curve indicates a very fast nova with $`t_23^d,t_37^d`$, The MMRD yields an absolute magnitude of $`M=9.8`$. A consistent distance and reddening ($`d=7300`$ pc, $`A_V=3.98`$) was found.

V1142 Sco \- Light curve data were taken from Liller & Jones (1999). The light curve indicates a very fast nova with $`t_28^d,t_31222^d`$, maximum light was assumed to be $`m_v=7`$. The MMRD yields an absolute magnitude of $`M=9.25`$. A consistent distance and reddening ($`d=6100`$ pc, $`A_V=2.32`$) was found.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Bob Williams (STScI) for providing the data for the Tololo Nova Survey objects, and Albert Jones for providing his series of visual observations of V868 Cen. We also thank the referee, A. Jorissen, for his comments. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services, as well as of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This project was supported by the Flemish Ministry for Foreign Policy, European Affairs, Science and Technology.

## References

Acker, A., Marcout, J., Ochsenbein, F., Stenholm, B., and Tylenda, R. 1992, Strasbourg-ESO Catalogue of Galactic Planetary Nebulae (ESO, Germany)

Anderson, C.M. and Gallagher, J.S. 1977, PASP, 89, 264

Andreä, J., Drechsel, H., and Starrfield, S. 1994, A&A, 291, 869

Anupama, G.C., Duerbeck, H.W., Prabhu, T.P., and Jain, S.K. 1992, A&A, 263, 87

Anupama, G.C. and Dewangan, G.C. 2000, AJ, 119, 1359

Anupama, G.C. and Sethi, S. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 105

Bahng, J.D.R., 1972, MNRAS, 158, 151

Bertaud, C. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 1

Bode, M.F., Duerbeck, H.W., Seitter, W.C., Albinson, J.S., and Evans, A. 1988, in A Decade of UV Astronomy with the IUE Satellite, ESA-SP 281, Vol. 1, 183

Bohigas, J., Echevarría, J., Diego, F., and Sarmiento, J.A. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 1395

Ciardullo, R., Ford, H.C., Neill, J.D., Jacoby, G.H., and Shafter, A.W. 1987, ApJ, 318, 520

Ciardullo, R., Shafter, A.W., Ford, H.C., Neill, J.D., Shara, M.M. and Tomaney, A.B. 1990, ApJ, 356, 472

Ciatti, F. and Rosino, L. 1974, A&AS, 16, 305

Copetti, M.V.S. 1990, PASP, 102, 77

de Freitas Pacheco, J.A., Da Costa, R.D.D., and Codina, S.J. 1989, ApJ, 347, 483

Della Valle, M. 1991, A&A, 252, L9

Della Valle, M. and Duerbeck, H.W. 1993, A&A, 275, 239

Della Valle, M., Gilmozzi, R., Bianchini, A., and Esenoglu, H. 1997, A&A, 325, 1151

Della Valle, M. and Livio, M. 1998, ApJ, 506, 818

Diaz, M.P., Williams, R.E., Phillips, M.M., and Hamuy, M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 959

Dopita, M.A., and Hua, C.T. 1997, ApJS, 108, 515

Downes, R.A. and Duerbeck, H.W. 2000, AJ, 120, 2007 Institute, Erlangen-Nuremberg University.

Duerbeck, H.W., and Downes, R.A. 2002, in preparation

Ferland, G.J., Lambert, D.L., and Woodman, J.H. 1986, ApJS, 60, 375

Ferland, G.J., Williams, R.E., Lambert, D.L., Slovak, M., Gondhalekar, P.M., Truran, J. W., and Shields, G. A. 1984, ApJ, 281, 194

Gehrz, R.D., Jones, T.J., Woodward, C.E., Greenhouse, M.A., Wagner, R.M., Harrison, T.E., Hayward, T.L., and Benson, J. 1992, ApJ, 400, 671

Gilmozzi, R., Selvelli, P., and Cassatella, A. 1998, Ultraviolet Astrophysics beyond the IUE final archive, ESA SP-413, eds. W. Wamsteker and R. González Riestra, p. 415

González-Riestra, R. 1992, A&A, 265, 71

Hachisu, I. and Kato, M. 2000a, ApJ, 540, 447

Hachisu, I. and Kato, M. 2000b, ApJ, 536, L93

Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Kato, T., Matsumoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 234, L189

Hakkila, J., Myers, J.M., Stidham, B.J., and Hartmann, D.H. 1997, AJ, 114, 2043

Hang, H., Zhu, Z., and Liu, Q. 1999, Acta Astron. Sinica 40, 247

Harrison, T.E., Johnson, J.J., Mason, P.A., and Stringfellow, G.S. 1998, in ASP Conf. 137, Wild Stars in the Old West, ed. S. Howell, E. Kuulkers, and Chick Woodward (San Francisco: ASP), 489

Hauschildt, P.H., Starrfield, S., Shore, S.N., Gonźalez-Riestra, R., Sonneborn, G., and Allard, F. 1994, AJ, 108, 1008

Honeycutt, R.K., Robertson, J.W., and Turner, G.W. 1995, ApJ, 446, 838

Jones, A. 2001, private communication

Kalużny, J. and Chlebowski, T. 1988, ApJ, 332, 287

Kamath, U.S., Anupama, G.C., Ashok, N.M., and Chandrasekhar, T. 1997, AJ, 114, 2671

Kawabata, K.S., Hirata, R., Ikeda, Y., Akitaya, H., Seki, M., Matsumura, M., and Okazaki, A. 2000, ApJ, 540, 429

Larsson-Leander, G. 1954, Stockholm Obs. Ann. 18, No. 4

Leibowitz, E.M., Mendelson, H., Mashal, E., Prialnik, D., and Seitter, W.C. 1992, ApJ, 385, L49

Liller, W. and Henize, K.G. 1975, ApJ, 200, 694

Liller, W. and Jones, A. 1999, IBVS, 4664

Liu, W., and Hu, J.Y. 2000, ApJS, 128, 387

Lynch, D.K., Rossano, G.S., Rudy, R.J., and Puetter, R.C. 1995, AJ, 110, 227

Lynch, D.K., Rudy, R.J., Rossano, G.S., Erwin, P., and Puetter, R.C. 1989, AJ, 98, 1682

Matheson, T., Filippenko, A.V., and Ho, L.C. 1993, ApJ, 418, L29

McLaughlin, D.B. 1939, Pop. Astr., 47, 410, 481, 538

McLaughlin, D.B. 1944, AJ, 51, 20

McLaughlin, D.B. 1953, ApJ, 117, 279

Morisset, C. and Péquignot, D. 1996, A&A, 312, 135

Munari, U., Goranskij, V.P., Popova, A.A. et al. 1996, A&A, 315, 166

Munari, U., Yudin, B.F., Kolotilov, E.A., Shenavrin, V.I., Sostero, G., and Lepardo, A. 1994, A&A, 284, L9

Mustel, E.R. and Boyarchuk, A.A. 1970, Ap&SS, 6, 183

Payne-Gaposchkin, C. 1957, The Galactic Novae (Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York)

Payne-Gaposchkin, C. and Menzel, D.H. 1938, Harvard College Circ. 428

Payne-Gaposchkin, C. and Gaposchkin, S. 1942, Harvard College Circ. 445

Péquignot, D., Petitjean, P., Boisson, C., and Krautter, J. 1993, A&A, 271, 219

Perinotto, M., Purgathofer, A., Pasquali, A., and Patriarchi, P. 1994, A&AS, 107, 481

Popper, D.M. 1940, ApJ, 92, 262

Rafanelli, P. Rosino, L., and Radovich, M. 1995, A&A, 294, 488

Retter, A., Leibowitz, E.M., and Naylor, T. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 140

Ringwald, F.A. Naylor, T. and Mukai, K. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 192

Rosino, L., Iijima, T., Benetti, S., D’Ambrosio, V., Di Paolantonio, A., and Kolotilov, E.E. 1992, A&A, 257, 603

Saizar, P., Pachoulakis, I., Shore, S.N., Starrfield, S., Williams, R.E., Rothschild, E., and Sonneborn, G., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 280

Saizar, P., Starrfield, S., Ferland, G.J., Wagner, R.M., Truran, J.W., Kenyon, S. J., Sparks, W. M., Williams, R. E., and Stryker, L. L. 1991, ApJ, 367, 310

Saizar, P., Starrfield, S., Ferland, G.J., Wagner, R.M., Truran, J.W., Kenyon, S.J., Sparks, W.M., Williams, R.E., and Stryker, L.L. 1992, ApJ, 398, 651

Schwarz, G.J., Hauschildt, P.H., Starrfield, S., Baron, E., Allard, F., Shore, S.N., and Sonneborn, G. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 669

Scott, A.D., Evans, A., and Rawlings, J.J.M. 1994, MNRAS, 269, L21

Scott, A.D., Duerbeck, H.W., Evans, A., Chen, A.-L., de Martino, D., Hjellming, R., Krautter, J., Laney, D., Parker, Q.A., Rawlings, J.M.C., and Van Winckel, H. 1995, A&A, 296, 439

Seaquist, E.R., Bode, M.F., Frail, D.A., Roberts, J.A., Evans, A., and Albinson, J.S. 1989, ApJ, 344, 805

Sekiguchi, K., Whitelock, P.A., Feast, M.W., Barrett, P.E., Caldwell, J.A.R., Carter, B.S., Catchpole, R.M., Laing, J.D., Laney, C.D., Marang, F., and van Wyk, F. 1990a, MNRAS, 246, 78

Sekiguchi, K., Stobie, R.S., Buckley, D.A.H., and Caldwell, J.A.R. 1990b, MNRAS, 245, 28p

Shafter, A.W. 1997, ApJ, 487, 226

Shaw, R.A. and Kaler, J.B. 1989, ApJS, 69, 495

Shore, S.N. Sonneborn, George; Starrfield, Sumner G.; Hamuy, M.; Williams, R. E.; Cassatella, A.; Drechsel, H.et al. 1991, ApJ, 370, 193

Smits, D.P. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 217

Smith, C.H., Aitken, D.K., Roche, P.F., and Wright, C.M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 259

Snijders, M.A.J., Batt, T.J., Seaton, M.J., Blades, J.C., and Morton, D.C. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 7p

Snijders, M.A.J., Batt, T.J., Roche, P.F., Seaton, M.J., Morton, D.C., Spoelstra, T.A.T., and Blades, J.C. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 329

Somers, M.W. and Naylor, T. 1999, A&A, 352, 563

Szkody, P. and Howell, S.B. 1992, ApJS, 78, 537

Thorstensen, J.R. and Taylor, C.J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 629

Tolbert, C.R., Pecker, J.C., and Pottasch, S.R. 1967, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 19, 17

Tomaney, A.B. and Shafter, R.W. 1993, ApJ, 411, 640

Tylenda, R. 1977, Acta Astr., 27, 389

Vanlandingham, K.M, Starrfield, S., Wagner, R.M., Shore, S.N., and Sonneborn, G. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 563

Vanlandingham, K.M, Schwarz, G.J., Shore, S.N., and Starrfield, S. 2001, AJ, 121, 1126

Webster, B.L. 1969, MNRAS, 143, 79

Weiler, E.J. and Bahng, J.D.R. 1976, MNRAS, 174, 563

Whipple, F.H. and Payne-Gaposchkin, C. 1937, Harvard College Circ. 414

Whipple, F.H. and Payne-Gaposchkin, C. 1939, Harvard College Circ. 433

Whitney, B.A. and Clayton, G.C. 1989, AJ, 98, 297

Williams, R.E. 1982, ApJ, 261, 170

Williams, R.E. 1992, AJ, 104, 725

Williams, R.E. 1994, ApJ, 426, 279

Williams, R.E. 2000, private communication

Williams, R.E., Woolf, N.J., Hege, E.K., Moore, R.L., and Kopriva, D.A. 1978, ApJ, 224, 171

Williams, R.E., Phillips, M.M., and Hamuy, M. 1994, ApJS, 90, 297

Zhen-xi, Z. and Heng-rong, H. 2000 Chin. A&A, 24, 71

Zwitter, T. and Munari, U. 1995, A&AS, 114, 575

Zwitter, T. and Munari, U. 1996, A&AS, 117, 449

References to Table 1.
(1) Schwarz et al. (1997)
(2) Ringwald, Naylor & Mukai (1996)
(3) this work (new determination)
(4) this work (imaging)
(5) Downes & Duerbeck (2000)
(6) this work (spectroscopy)
(7) Payne-Gaposchkin & Gaposchkin (1942)
(8) Della Valle & Duerbeck (1993)
(9) Snijders et al. (1984)
(10) Snijders et al. (1987)
(11) Lynch et al. (1995)
(12) Munari et al. (1994)
(13) Williams (2000)
(14) Kamath et al. (1997)
(15) Payne-Gaposchkin (1957)
(16) Hauschild et al. (1994)
(17) Liu & Hu (2000)
(18) Munari et al. (1996)
(19) Hang, Zhu & Liu (1999)
(20) Shafter (1997)
(21) Andreä et al. (1994)
(22) de Freitas Pacheco et al. (1989)
(23) Williams (1994)
(24) Zhen-xi & Heng-rong (2000)
(25) Bahng (1972)
(26) McLaughlin (1953)
(27) Kalużny & Chlebowski (1988)
(28) Ferland et al. (1986)
(29) Whitney & Clayton (1989)
(30) Rafanelli et al. (1995)
(31) Tylenda (1977)
(32) Anderson & Gallagher (1977)
(33) Retter et al. (1999)
(34) Whipple & Payne-Gaposchkin (1937, 1939)
(35) Ferland et al. (1984)
(36) Mustel & Boyarchuk (1970)

References to Table 1 (continued)
(37) Honeycutt et al. (1995)
(38) Thorstensen & Taylor (2000)
(39) Vanlandingham et al. (1996)
(40) Matheson et al. (1993)
(41) Popper (1940)
(42) Larsson-Leander (1954)
(43) Diaz et al. (1995)
(44) Péquignot et al. (1993)
(45) Morisset & Péquignot (1995)
(46) Zwitter & Munari (1996)
(47) Lynch et al. (1989)
(48) Weiler & Bahng (1976)
(49) Payne-Gaposchkin & Menzel (1938)
(50) Zwitter & Munari (1995)
(51) Saizar et al. (1996)
(52) Scott et al. (1995)
(53) Kawabata et al. (2000)
(54) Ciatti & Rosino (1974)
(55) Anupama et al. (1992)
(56) Szkody & Howell (1992)
(57) Della Valle et al. (1997)
(58) Saizar et al. (1991)
(59) Rosino et al. (1992)
(60) Saizar et al. (1992)
(61) Scott et al. (1994)
(62) Gehrz et al. (1992)
(63) Hachisu & Kato (2000a)
(64) Hachisu & Kato (2000b)
(65) Tolbert et al. (1967)
(66) Bohigas et al. (1989)
(67) Gilmozzi et al. (1998)
(68) González-Riestra (1992)
(69) Anupama & Sethi (1994)
(70) Hachisu et al. (2000)
(71) Anupama & Dewangan (2000)
(72) Sekiguchi et al. (1990a)
(73) Ciardullo et al. (1987)
(74) Ciardullo et al. (1990)
(75) Tomaney & Shafter (1993)
(76) Shore et al. (1991)
(77) Sekiguchi et al. (1990b)