text:
# Analisi dimensionale: due interessanti applicazioni

## 1 Introduzione

Malgrado non sia molto conosciuta persino fra gli addetti ai lavori, l’analisi dimensionale costituisce uno degli strumenti più potenti e intriganti delle scienze fisiche.

Ma in cosa consiste? Brevemente, dato un sistema fisico complesso, come ad esempio la formazione di un’onda d’urto nucleare o la creazione di un cratere d’impatto, e definite tutte le variabili e le costanti fisiche che sembrano descrivere propriamente e completamente il processo, spesso risulta possibile scrivere in maniera univoca delle leggi matematiche (solitamente leggi di potenza) che forniscono la giusta dipendenza funzionale (dal punto di vista fisico) di una di queste variabili rispetto a tutte le altre. E questo può essere fatto semplicemente prendendo in considerazione le dimensioni fisiche fondamentali delle variabili e costanti fisiche coinvolte: lunghezza, massa, tempo, carica elettrica (in alcuni casi specifici anche la temperatura) e le loro combinazioni.

Un’applicazione immediata. Supponiamo di non sapere molto di cinematica e di voler ottenere la relazione matematica che lega l’accelerazione centripeta, $`a`$, la frequenza di rotazione, $`\omega `$111La frequenza di rotazione è definita come $`2\pi /T`$, dove $`T`$ è il periodo di rotazione., e la distanza dal centro, $`r`$, di un corpo che ruota a velocità uniforme lungo una traiettoria perfettamente circolare. Euristicamente parlando (e anche in base alla nostra esperienza diretta), è ragionevole immaginare che $`a`$ dipenda proprio solo da $`\omega `$ e $`r`$.

Consideriamo allora le dimensioni fisiche di $`a,\omega `$ e $`r`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[a]\hfill & =& LT^2,\hfill \\ [\omega ]\hfill & =& T^1,\hfill \\ [r]\hfill & =& L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
Il segno $`[x]`$ sta per “le dimensioni fisiche di $`x`$” e $`L`$ sta per unità di lunghezza e $`T`$ per unità di tempo.

Ora, l’unico modo di ottenere le dimensioni fisiche di $`a`$ è di combinare $`\omega `$ e $`r`$ nella maniera che segue:

$$\omega ^2r.$$
(2)
Va notato che la quantità

$$\frac{a}{\omega ^2r},$$
(3)
è adimensionale e che quindi risulta invariante per cambiamento di unità di misura, ad esempio passando da metri a chilometri, da secondi a ore.

Quindi, abbiamo che la (3) è una costante

$$\frac{a}{\omega ^2r}=k,$$
(4)
cioè

$$a=k\omega ^2r,$$
(5)
che è proprio la dipendenza funzionale che si otterrebbe sviluppando matematicamente la teoria cinematica del moto circolare uniforme.

Ovviamente, l’analisi dimensionale può fornire la dipendenza funzionale tra le variabili ma non è capace di definire le costanti moltiplicative adimensionali, la costante $`k`$ nel nostro caso. Per queste sono indispensabili o una vera teoria fisica o un confronto diretto fra le relazioni ottenute e i dati sperimentali. Va detto inoltre, come vedremo in seguito, che tra i limiti di questo metodo di studio c’è che non sempre è possibile definire univocamente la relazione funzionale tra le variabili coinvolte e anche in questo caso è necessario, in mancanza di una vera teoria, un confronto diretto con i dati sperimentali. Per inciso, nel semplice caso analizzato sopra vale esattamente $`a=\omega ^2r`$ (cioè la costante adimensionale $`k`$ è proprio pari a 1).

Più in generale, supponiamo di avere una relazione funzionale tra una quantità $`a`$, che deve essere determinata in un esperimento, e un insieme di parametri $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, che sono sotto il controllo sperimentale. Sia $`a`$ che l’insieme $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$ possiedono dimensioni fisiche. La forma generale della relazione può essere la seguente

$$a=f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}).$$
(6)
Ora, se il minimo numero di parametri nell’insieme $`(a,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$ con i quali posso ottenere tutte le dimensioni fisiche presenti nel mio problema è $`k<n`$, il Teorema $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ di Buckingham , che rappresenta il risultato centrale dell’analisi dimensionale, afferma che il sistema fisico allo studio dipende da un insieme di $`nk`$ parametri adimensionali $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{nk})`$. Questi parametri sono combinazioni adimensionali indipendenti delle quantità $`(a,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$; essi sono indipendenti nel senso che, per ogni $`i`$, non è possibile ottenere $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ da una combinazione di altri $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$s.

In questo modo, l’eq. (6) può essere scritta come

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Pi }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Pi }_{nk}),$$
(7)
dove $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ è una funzione adimensionale generale. Ancora, per ottenere la forma esatta di $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ abbiamo bisogno di una vera teoria del fenomeno fisico allo studio, o un confronto diretto con i dati sperimantali.

In questo articolo applichiamo le procedure dell’analisi dimensionale a due casi molto diversi fra loro (e con finalità diverse), ma entrambi piuttosto interessanti.

Nel primo caso (sezione 2) si usa l’analisi dimensionale non per derivare una relazione funzionale tra quantità fisiche, ma per capire come cambia la scala temporale dei fenomeni fisici al cambiare del valore numerico dei parametri importanti, quali la gravità superficiale di un pianeta.

Nel secondo caso (sezione 3), invece, utilizziamo l’analisi dimensionale nella maniera più canonica per ottenere una relazione matematica che leghi l’ampiezza di un onda marina alla sua velocità. Applicazione immediata: la fisica degli tsunami222Onde anomale particolarmente distruttive. Letteralmente onde di porto, dal giapponense tsu (porto) e nami (onda)..

## 2 Moviola sulla Luna

Avete mai visto, proiettati a velocità doppia, i filmati degli astronauti che si muovono sulla superficie lunare? Se provate a farlo vi accorgerete sicuramente di una caratteristica stupefacente: sembrano girati sulla Terra. I movimenti degli astronauti, i sobbalzi del rover motorizzato etc. sembrano proprio quelli naturali che si avrebbero se le stesse operazioni venissero compiute sulla Terra.

È questo un ulteriore elemento a favore della famigerata teoria secondo la quale la NASA non avrebbe mai portato l’uomo sulla Luna?

Molto probabilmente no. In ogni caso qui di seguito mostriamo come questo curioso comportamento sia legato semplicemente alla gravità superficiale dei pianeti.

In generale, ogni fenomeno dinamico la cui evoluzione nel tempo dipenda anche dalla gravità di un pianeta (ad esempio, un essere umano che cammina e salta, un palazzo che crolla sotto il proprio peso, una slavina o una colata di magma che scivolano a valle) ha un tempo caratteristico che dipende proprio dalla gravità superficiale. Il tempo caratteristico non è una costante fisica o un numero ben preciso, ma è un concetto generale. Per dare un idea, il tempo caratteristico della vita umana è circa 80 anni, mentre quello della dinamica orbitale dei pianeti interni del Sistema Solare è dell’ordine dell’anno (periodo di rotazione della Terra intorno al Sole).

Ad esempio, una delle più semplici equazioni della cinematica ci dice che una biglia che cada da ferma in un campo gravitazionale costate $`g`$ percorre nel tempo $`t`$ uno spazio pari a

$$x=\frac{1}{2}gt^2.$$
(8)
Invertendo l’equazione (8), si ottiene il tempo in funzione dello spazio percorso

$$t=\sqrt{\frac{2x}{g}}.$$
(9)
L’equazione (9) ci mostra proprio la dipendenza del tempo caratteristico dalla costante gravitazionale $`g`$. Infatti, più grande è $`g`$ e minore è il tempo impiegato dalla biglia per percorrere in caduta libera lo spazio $`x`$.

In generale, quindi, i tempi caratteristici con cui si verificano i fenomeni dinamici sulle superfici planetarie con gravità superficiali $`g_1`$ e $`g_2`$ scalano come

$$\frac{t_1}{t_2}=\sqrt{\frac{g_22x}{g_12x}},\text{cioè}T_1=T_2\sqrt{\frac{g_2}{g_1}}.$$
(10)
Nel caso specifico dei filmati lunari il tempo caratteristico lunare $`T_\text{)}`$ è pari a

$$T_\text{)}=T_{}\sqrt{\frac{g_{}}{g_\text{)}}}=T_{}\sqrt{\frac{9.78}{1.62}}2.45T_{},$$
(11)
dove $`T_{}`$, $`g_{}`$ e $`g_\text{)}`$ sono rispettivamente il tempo caratteristico terrestre, la costante di gravità superficiale terrestre e quella lunare (ricordiamo che la gravità superficiale lunare è circa 1/6 di quella terrestre).

Cioè, $`T_\text{)}`$ è poco più di due volte maggiore del tempo caratteristico dei fenomeni dinamici sulla superficie terrestre. E quindi, se aumentiamo di due volte la velocità di proiezione dei filmati lunari otteniamo proprio l’impressione che i fenomeni dinamici si svolgano con la stessa tempistica dei fenomeni terrestri! Ricordiamo però che la relazione (11) vale solo per i fenomeni che sono soggetti alla forza di gravità: se fosse possibile intravvederle, noteremmo che le palpebre degli astronauti battono ad una velocità innaturalmente doppia!

## 3 Cavalcare lo tsunami

In questa sezione, sempre grazie all’ausilio dell’analisi dimensionale, deriveremo la relazione che lega l’ampiezza di un onda marina alla sua velocità.

Attraverso questa relazione si può comprendere per linee generali il motivo fisico della formazione degli tsunami, ovvero delle tanto temute onde anomale che possono raggiungere altezze ragguardevoli in prossimità della riva ed essere altamente distruttive.

Cerchiamo in primo luogo di ottenere l’energia totale che può essere trasportata da un’onda marina. Come sarà chiaro nello sviluppo successivo, l’uso dell’analisi dimensionale ci esime dalla necessità di rappresentare (e semplificare) l’onda marina come sinusoidale piana, cioè periodica, il cui profilo segue perfettamente la funzione trigonometrica seno (o coseno) e il cui fronte è una lina retta infinita.

Visto che abbiamo a che fare con un fenomeno fisico che coinvolge l’acqua del mare, cominciamo ad elencare tutte le quantità fisiche che euristicamente ci aspettiamo possano entrare in gioco nella descrizione del fenomeno allo studio, insieme con le loro unità di misura.

Immaginiamo di essere interessati per prima cosa all’energia cinetica trasportata dall’onda per unità di superficie attraversata (che chiamiamo $`E_c/S`$). Se parliamo di energia cinetica non possiamo allora non considerare la velocità dell’onda, $`v`$, che sicuramente influisce, così come la sua ampiezza, $`A`$, e la densità del mezzo in cui l’onda si propaga, $`\rho `$, che fanno le veci della massa nella classica relazione dell’energia cinetica $`E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2`$. È ovvio che in questo caso non possiamo utilizzare $`m`$ perché non stiamo parlando di un oggetto dai contorni fisici ben definiti.

$$\frac{E_c}{S},\rho ,v,A,\lambda .$$
(12)
La lista (12) raccoglie quindi tutte le quantità fisiche considerate importanti. In realtà compare anche $`\lambda `$, che è la lunghezza d’onda dell’onda marina. Essa è una caratteristica geometrica dell’onda che non abbiamo ragione di escludere.

Per la derivazione di $`E_c/S`$ non abbiamo preso in considerazione la costante di accelerazione gravitazionale $`g`$. Ci aspettiamo infatti che per $`E_c/S`$ la gravità non sia rilevante e che l’energia cinetica sia determinata una volta fissate $`A`$, $`\rho `$, $`v`$ e $`\lambda `$. Prenderemo in considerazione $`g`$ più avanti quando deriveremo l’energia potenziale (gravitazionale) dell’onda.

Veniamo ora alle unità di misura (dimensioni) dei parametri in (12):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[E_c/S]\hfill & =& MT^2,\hfill \\ [\rho ]\hfill & =& ML^3,\hfill \\ [v]\hfill & =& LT^1,\hfill \\ [A]\hfill & =& L,\hfill \\ [\lambda ]\hfill & =& L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
dove $`M`$ sta per unità di massa, $`T`$ unità di tempo e $`L`$ unità di lunghezza.

Dall’elenco (13) si può notare come con i parametri $`A`$, $`\rho `$ e $`v`$ è possibile costruire, attraverso le giuste combinazioni, le dimensioni di tutti gli altri. Essi sono cioè i parametri dimensionali indipendenti del problema secondo la teoria dell’analisi dimensionale di Buckingham vista nell’introduzione. Sempre secondo la teoria, si ha che ci sono allora $`53=2`$ paramentri adimensionali

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\frac{E_c/S}{\rho v^2A},\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\frac{\lambda }{A},$$
(14)
e quindi, per il Teorema $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, la relazione funzionale generale che lega $`E_c/S`$ a $`A`$, $`\rho `$, $`v`$ e $`\lambda `$ è

$$\frac{E_c}{S}=\rho v^2A\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{A}\right),$$
(15)
dove $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ è una funzione adimensionale indeterminata, per ottenere la quale è necessaria una vera teoria o un confronto diretto con i dati sperimentali.

Ma qual’è il comportamento della funzione $`A\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ al variare di $`A`$ e $`\lambda `$? Euristicamente ci aspettiamo che se $`A`$ e/o $`\lambda `$ aumentano, deve aumentare anche $`\frac{E_c}{S}`$. Infatti, se $`A`$ e/o $`\lambda `$ aumentano a parità di $`v`$ e $`\rho `$, le dimensioni fisiche dell’onda aumentano e con loro la sua massa e dunque la sua energia cinetica. Quindi, la funzione $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve essere proporzionale al rapporto $`\lambda /A`$ per rendere conto dell’aumento di $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ all’aumentare di $`\lambda `$ (con $`A`$ fissato). Inoltre, $`A\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve crescere all’aumentare di $`A`$, con $`\lambda `$ costante. Ne consegue che all’aumentare di $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve diminuire (e diminuisce poiché il rapporto $`\lambda /A`$ diminuisce) più lentamente di $`A`$ per ogni valore di $`\lambda `$. Un semplice esempio di funzione $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ che soddisfa queste caratteristiche potrebbe essere il seguente

$$\frac{E_c}{S}=k_c\rho v^2A^\alpha \lambda ^\beta ,$$
(16)
dove $`k_c`$ è una costante adimensionale sconosciuta, $`\alpha `$ e $`\beta `$ sono due numeri qualunque ma maggiori di zero e tali che $`\alpha +\beta =1`$.

Come anticipato poco fà, l’onda marina trasporta anche energia potenziale gravitazionale, per il semplice fatto che una certa massa d’acqua, il picco dell’onda, è sollevata rispetto al pelo libero della superficie del mare. Cerchiamo allora di derivare euristicamente l’energia potenziale dell’onda che attraversa l’unità di superficie, $`E_p/S`$. Come prima, le quantità fisiche da cui $`E_p/S`$ può dipendere sono la densità $`\rho `$ dell’acqua, che mutua la massa dell’onda, l’ampiezza $`A`$ e la lunghezza d’onda $`\lambda `$ che esprimono la grandezza (altezza e lunghezza) dell’onda con cui abbiamo a che fare e infine la costante di acceleraione gravitazionale $`g`$, che tiene conto della forza di gravità rispetto alla quale l’onda possiede un’energia potenziale.

Passando alle unità di misura (dimensioni), si ha:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[E_p/S]\hfill & =& MT^2,\hfill \\ [\rho ]\hfill & =& ML^3,\hfill \\ [A]\hfill & =& L,\hfill \\ [\lambda ]\hfill & =& L,\hfill \\ [g]\hfill & =& LT^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
Anche qui, scegliendo come parametri indipendenti $`A`$, $`\rho `$ e $`g`$, si ha che ci sono $`53=2`$ paramentri adimensionali

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\frac{E_p/S}{\rho gA^2},\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\frac{\lambda }{A},$$
(18)
e quindi, sempre secondo il Teorema $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, la relazione funzionale generale che lega $`E_p/S`$ a $`A`$, $`\rho `$, $`g`$ e $`\lambda `$ è

$$\frac{E_c}{S}=\rho gA^2\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{A}\right),$$
(19)
dove $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ è una funzione adimensionale indeterminata, per ottenere la quale, di nuovo, è necessaria una vera teoria o un confronto diretto con i dati sperimentali. Anche in questo caso, il comportamento della funzione $`A^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$ è molto simile a quello della funzione $`A\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$. Infatti, al crescere di $`A`$ e/o $`\lambda `$ l’onda cresce in dimensioni e più l’onda è grande, maggiore è la sua energia potenziale, cioè $`\frac{E_p}{S}`$.

Quindi, come prima, la funzione $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve essere proporzionale al rapporto $`\lambda /A`$ per rendere conto dell’aumento di $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ all’aumentare di $`\lambda `$ (con $`A`$ fissato). Ma $`A^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve crescere all’aumentare di $`A`$, con $`\lambda `$ costante: ne consegue che all’aumentare di $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$ deve diminuire più lentamente di $`A^2`$ per ogni valore di $`\lambda `$. Come prima, un semplice esempio di funzione $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ che soddisfa queste caratteristiche potrebbe essere il seguente

$$\frac{E_p}{S}=k_p\rho gA^\gamma \lambda ^\delta ,$$
(20)
dove, ancora, $`k_p`$ è una costante adimensionale sconosciuta e $`\gamma `$ e $`\delta `$ due numeri positivi tali che $`\gamma +\delta =2`$.

Ma ora torniamo agli tsunami. Se trascuriamo le dissipazioni legate all’attrito interno dell’acqua e con la sabbia della riva poco prima dell’impatto dell’onda, possiamo considerare l’energia totale dell’onda che attraversa l’unità di superficie, $`E_t/S`$, come una quantità quasi costante durante la fase di formazione dello tsunami, cioè

$$\frac{E_t}{S}=\frac{E_c}{S}+\frac{E_p}{S}K_t,$$
(21)
per cui la relazione funzionale che ci fornisce $`\frac{E_t}{S}`$ è

$$\rho v^2A\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{A}\right)+\rho gA^2\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{\lambda }{A}\right)K_t.$$
(22)
A questo punto, nei pressi della spiaggia $`v`$ deve necessariamente diminuire (si avvicina ad una zona dove non c’è più acqua!), così come deve ridursi la lunghezza d’onda $`\lambda `$: in un certo senso l’onda marina rallenta e si comprime in prossimità della riva. Dall’equazione (22) risulta allora chiaro che se $`v`$ e $`\lambda `$ diminuiscono, affinché $`E_t/S`$ rimanga quasi costante è necessario che $`A`$ aumenti! Non c’è altra possibilità di soddisfare tale vincolo, visti i comportamenti di $`A\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ e $`A^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$ analizzati più sopra; per ogni valore istantaneo di $`\lambda `$, l’aumento di $`A`$ implica l’aumento di $`A\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda /A)`$ e $`A^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda /A)`$.

Per completezza va detto che la relazione (22) è stata ottenuta non tenendo conto dell’influenza che potrebbe avere la profondità del fondale (nelle equazioni (15) e (19) la profondità $`h`$ non compare): questo ha reso la derivazione della (22) alquanto diretta, ma ha anche confinato il range di applicabilità in quella che può essere chiamata zona asintotica, quella zona dove il fondale non influisce poiché ha una profondità il cui valore numerico è molto più grande di quello dell’ampiezza dell’onda ($`hA`$).

Ma allora dobbiamo credere o no alla dipendenza funzionale di $`A`$ da $`v`$ in prossimità della riva mostrata dalla (22)? La risposta rigorosa è no, tuttavia se $`\lambda `$ è originariamente (ovvero quando $`hA`$) più grande della lunghezza del tratto di mare in cui il fondale passa da $`hA`$ a $`hA`$, allora possiamo dire che la relazione (22) è accettabile.

In ogni caso, la (22) ci mostra indicativamente qual’è la tendenza di $`A`$ in funzione di $`v`$ quando $`v`$ diminuisce in prossimità della riva.

A questo punto può essere utile fornire qualche informazione relativa a tsunami verificatisi realmente in passato . Molti degli tsunami di cui si ha documentazione storica (anche fotografica, vedi fig. 3) hanno avuto origine nell’Oceano Pacifico. Nell’Oceano Pacifico, dove la profondità media delle acque è circa di 4000 metri, uno tsunami viaggia ad una velocità compresa tra i 700 e i 1000 chilometri orari (la velocità di crociera di un jet di linea). Inoltre, la sua ampiezza è spesso minore di un metro, mentre la sua lunghezza d’onda è mediamente di 100 chilometri (il passaggio di un’onda di tsunami in alto mare non può essere praticamente percepita). In prossimità della riva, tuttavia, l’ampiezza dell’onda sale mediamente fino ad un massimo di 30 metri!

Passiamo ora a occuparci brevemente della quantità $`K_t`$, l’energia totale dell’onda marina per unità di superficie attraversata. Supponiamo che un’onda anomala sia generata in alto mare da un evento naturale di grandi proporzioni (terremoto, impatto asteroidale, improvvise modificazioni orografiche o eruzioni vulcaniche subacquee, etc.) e che l’energia trasferita al moto dell’acqua sia $`E`$ (che sarà solo una frazione dell’energia totale sprigionata dall’evento). Ora, se il tratto di mare in cui si verifica il passaggio da $`hA`$ a $`hA`$ (e in cui c’è la riva) dista $`r`$ dall’epicentro del fenomeno, allora possiamo supporre che $`K_t`$ abbia il seguente andamento funzionale

$$K_t\frac{E}{rA_{hA}},$$
(23)
dove il fattore $`\frac{1}{rA_{hA}}`$ tiene conto dell’attenuazione dovuta alla geometria: l’energia si distribuisce approssimativamente sul bordo di una circonferenza di raggio $`r`$ e per un’altezza dell’ordine di $`A_{hA}`$ (che è l’ampiezza dell’onda anomala prima che incontri la riva e si trasformi in tsunami), e quindi la superficie su cui si distribuisce è in qualche modo proporzionale a $`rA_{hA}`$.


format: text

text:
# 6C radio galaxies at 𝑧∼1: The influence of radio power on the alignment effect

## 1 Introduction

At high redshifts, radio galaxies are observed to be surrounded by extended regions of UV/optical continuum emission, often well aligned with the radio source axis. This Alignment Effect has been well studied in the 3CR sample. At $`z1`$, the aligned structures are typically brighter and more extensive than at lower redshifts, and more closely aligned with the radio emission. A number of different emission mechanisms have been proposed in order to explain the alignment effect; the most likely models include scattering of the UV continuum emission from the AGN UVscat , jet–induced star formation jetSF  and nebular continuum emission nebcont . Additionally, these distant radio galaxies also display extended regions of line emission. One problem with studies of 3CR radio galaxies is that the radio power of these sources increases with redshift, leading to a degeneracy between radio power and $`z`$. The stronger alignment effect seen in the more powerful higher redshift objects indicates that the properties of the aligned emission regions are likely to be closely linked with those of the radio source. It is therefore important that the effects of the radio source properties (size, age and power) on the alignment effect are fully understood. The 6C sample studied in combination with the more powerful 3CR radio galaxies at the same redshift provides a population of radio galaxies ideally suited for this investigation, as this enables the $`Pz`$ degeneracy to be broken. We have carried out a program of multiwavelength imaging and spectroscopic observations of a complete subsample of 11 6C radio sources 6Csam  with flux densities of 2.0 Jy $`<S_{151}<`$ 3.93 Jy, $`08^h20^m<RA<13^h01^m`$, $`34^{}<\delta <40^{}`$ and $`0.85<z<1.5`$. The 6C galaxies are $`6`$ times less powerful radio sources than the 3CR subsample previously studied by Best et al blr97b ; brl00 ; the sample membership is illustrated in Fig. 1.

## 2 The emission line gas

Deep spectroscopic observations have been carried out for many of the 6C and 3CR radio galaxies in the redshift range $`0.85<z<1.25`$ brl00 ; inskip02a . Many useful results have been obtained from this data, including the variation in the ionization state and gas kinematics (Fig. 2) with radio power, radio size and redshift. A statistical analysis of this data shows that the smaller and more powerful radio sources display more extreme kinematics. The spectra of these small sources ($`D_{rad}<120`$kpc) are well explained by significant levels of shock ionization in addition to photoionization by the obscured AGN, unlike the larger sources for which the emission line ratios can be explained simply by AGN photoionization.

## 3 Morphological properties

The imaging observations thesis  of the 6C galaxies (Fig. 3) have also produced a number of interesting results. The UKIRT observations are dominated by the emission from the old stellar populations and reveal elliptical host galaxies, whereas the HST observations show a variety of morphologies, often with considerable extended emission aligned with the radio source axis. These structures are similar to those observed for the 3CR sources blr97b  at $`z1`$ (Fig. 4), and include arcs and filamentary structures, diffuse emission and bright knots of emission. Typically, each source displays several of these different features, although some sources (e.g. 6C1019+39, 3C65) appear completely passive, with little sign of any extended aligned structures. Additionally, several sources in the sample appear to be interacting with close companions.

Despite the similarities, there are also notable differences in the aligned structures observed in each sample. Whilst the smaller 3CR sources display a clear tendency to have more extensive, luminous and knotty aligned structures, this is not obvious for the 6C galaxies at the same redshifts. The aligned emission surrounding the 6C galaxies is usually also less extensive. Additionally, the extended strings of very bright knots of emission seen around the smaller 3CR radio galaxies are generally not observed in the 6C sample.

## 4 The alignment effect

The power of a radio source clearly plays a role in producing the observed properties of the alignment effect. In order to investigate the effects of radio power more fully, we have quantified the alignment effect in terms of the physical extent of the aligned emission, and the degree to which it is aligned with the axis of the radio source. The Alignment Strength is given by $`a_s=ϵ(1\mathrm{\Delta }PA/45)`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the ellipticity of the aligned emission, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }PA`$ is the difference in position angle between the radio and rest-frame UV emission. The “knottiness” of the aligned structures can be considered in terms of the Component Alignment Strength, defined as $`a_c=N_ca_s`$, where $`N_c`$ represents the number of discrete bright components of emission. Figure 5 displays the variation in $`a_s`$ and $`a_c`$ with redshift and radio size for the galaxies in both samples. Both $`a_s`$ and $`a_c`$ increase with redshift out to $`z=1.1`$, reflecting the increasing importance of the alignment effect at higher redshifts. A similar trend is also observed in the case of the galaxy colours, which become bluer with increasing $`z`$ for both samples. The decrease in alignment strengths at high redshifts is due to the lower sensitivity of these observations.

In order to investigate the effects of radio size on the alignment strength whilst avoiding confusion with variations with redshift, only sources within the redshift range $`1<z<1.3`$ are considered. Overall, both alignment strength parameters generally decrease with radio size; this trend is most obvious for the component alignment strength. Considering the individual samples, $`a_s`$ and $`a_c`$ clearly decrease with radio size for the 3CR sources. However, whilst the variation in $`a_s`$ is almost identical for the 6C sources, the component alignment strengths of the 6C sources are very much weaker, and a clear decrease in $`a_c`$ with radio size such as that seen in the case of the more powerful 3CR radio sources is not observed. A large value of the component alignment strength, as seen for the smaller 3CR galaxies, denotes that the source has a large number of bright knots of emission, well aligned with the radio source structure. This result confirms the observations that such features are present in the smaller 3CR sources, but not in the less powerful 6C radio sources at the same redshift. This is the first obvious effect of the power of the radio source on the properties of the aligned emission.

## 5 Conclusions

From our study of 6C and 3CR sources at $`z1`$, we find that although the size/age of the radio source has the greatest effect on the emission line gas kinematics and ionization state, radio power is also an important parameter. For the properties of the continuum emission surrounding these sources, radio size and $`z`$ are again the most influential parameters. The alignment effect is more extreme at higher redshifts, and for the smaller radio sources in the sample; this result is also reflected in the variation of the galaxy colours. Radio power does not influence alignment strength, and very little difference is seen between the two $`z1`$ samples, except in the case of the smaller 3CR sources which display more extreme morphologies and noticeably higher component alignment strengths. It is clear that different emission mechanisms dominate under different conditions, suggesting that the importance of the mechanism which produces the bright strings of knots seen in the 3CR sample is directly linked to radio power.


text:
# The late stages of evolution of helium star-neutron star binaries and the formation of double neutron star systems

## 1 Introduction

In a work published earlier (Dewi et al. 2002, hereafter called Paper I), we discussed two types of mass-transfer evolution from a helium star to a neutron star, i.e. case BA (in which the onset of mass transfer occurs during helium core burning) and case BB (the star fills its Roche lobe after helium core burning is terminated, but before the ignition of carbon). We found that dynamically stable case BA mass transfer can take place from helium stars less massive than 3.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The remnants of this type of evolution are heavy CO white dwarfs. Case BB mass transfer from helium stars less massive than 2.6 – 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ produces white dwarfs (CO white dwarf for masses $`1.92.0`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$/ helium stars or ONeMg white dwarf for larger masses), while more massive helium stars leave neutron stars as their remnants111These limiting masses depend on the initial orbital period of the system.. In Paper I we suggested that the systems with relatively high-mass helium stars and/or wide orbits are progenitors of type Ib supernova, and lower-mass helium stars or systems in close orbits produce type Ic supernovae. We were also able to constrain the possible progenitors of the observed galactic double neutron star (DNS) pulsars B1913+16 and B1534+12, if we assume that these DNSs were produced from helium star-neutron star binaries which went through a mass-transfer phase.

The calculations in Paper I were done up to various stages of evolution, i.e. ranging from the appearance of the first carbon-burning convective shell to the outward penetration of the helium burning convective shell into the helium envelope. Although we could not follow the evolution further, we are interested to investigate the possible outcomes that the systems might produce, e.g. whether a common envelope (CE) and spiral-in will occur, whether the system will survive the CE phase, whether the supernova (SN) explosion will take place after or before the neutron star completes the spiraling-in process, and which type of SN the system will produce. We also want to find the possible progenitors of the wide-orbit DNS J1518+4904 and to put more constraints on the progenitors of B1913+16 and B1534+12. These are the problems we will discuss in this paper.

As the completion to Paper I we first evolved helium stars in wider binary systems with a 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ neutron-star companion, such that Roche-lobe overflow (RLOF) is initiated during carbon core burning or beyond (which we call case BC mass transfer). A study of this particular type of evolution has been done by Habets (1986) who evolved a 2.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star with a 17 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ main-sequence companion in a period of $`20\stackrel{d}{.}25`$. Because we are mainly interested to study the systems which will produce DNS, we limit our calculations to helium stars in the mass range of 2.8 – 6.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Helium stars more massive than 6.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ do not expand very much, so that their evolution in wide orbits will be similar to the evolution of a single helium star.

We discuss the results of case BC evolution in Sect. 2; the possible remnants of case BB and case BC evolution in Sect. 3; and the formation of the observed galactic DNSs in Sect. 4. The conclusions are given in Sect. 5. Throughout the paper, in order to avoid confusion about the various stages of evolution, a subscript i is used to indicate the initial parameters (at the start of calculation), o the parameters at the end of the mass-transfer phase (at the initiation of the CE phase), t those at the end of the spiral-in phase (before SN explosion) and f the post-SN parameters.

## 2 Results: Case BC Mass Transfer

### 2.1 A brief description on the method of calculation

We used the Eggleton code (Pols et al. 1995 and references therein) for the evolution of helium stars, assuming a chemical composition of ($`Y=0.98,Z=0.02`$) and without enhanced mixing (the STD model in Pols (in preparation)).

The non-conservative orbital evolution of the system is assumed to be affected by gravitational-wave radiation (Landau & Lifshitz 1958) and by the loss of mass with angular momentum from the system (van den Heuvel 1994; Soberman, Phinney & van den Heuvel 1997), such that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64G^3}{5c^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{He}}M_{\mathrm{NS}}M_\mathrm{T}}{a^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2[\beta q^2q+(\alpha 1)]}{1+q}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He}}}{M_{\mathrm{He}}}}`$ (1)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{NS}}}{M_{\mathrm{NS}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}_\mathrm{T}}{M_\mathrm{T}}}`$
where $`M_{\mathrm{He}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, and $`M_\mathrm{T}`$ are the masses of the helium star and the neutron star, and the total mass of the system, respectively. $`q=M_{\mathrm{He}}/M_{\mathrm{NS}}`$ is the mass ratio of the system, $`a`$ is the orbital separation, $`G`$ is the constant of gravity, and $`c`$ the speed of light in vacuum. $`\alpha `$ is the fraction of mass lost from the helium star in the form of fast isotropic wind, and $`\beta `$ is the fraction of mass ejected isotropically from the vicinity of the neutron star. The stellar wind mass loss is given by eq. (2) in Wellstein & Langer (1999) multiplied by a factor of 0.5, i.e.

$`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{He},\mathrm{wind}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{2.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}(L/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}})^{1.5},\hfill & \mathrm{log}L/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}4.5\hfill \\ \mathrm{4.0\hspace{0.17em}10}^{37}(L/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}})^{6.8},\hfill & \mathrm{log}L/\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}<4.5\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
in $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. We assumed that during the detached phase, the neutron star does not accrete matter from the stellar wind. During the mass transfer phase, the transferred matter is accreted up to the Eddington limit for helium accretion ($`3\times 10^8`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1`$); the rest is lost from the system with the specific orbital angular momentum of the neutron star.

We devide case BC mass transfer into two mass ranges, i.e. (i) 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars, in which a partially degenerate core develops at the end of the calculation, and mass transfer becomes dynamically unstable due to the development of a convective helium envelope, and (ii) 3.6 – 6.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars, in which the core is only weakly degenerate and a neon burning convective core develops at the end of the calculation. Typical examples for the two mass ranges are presented in Figs. 13, and the overall results are presented in Table 1. Until the end of the calculation the neutron star does not accrete a significant amount of matter, its mass remains 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and therefore is not displayed in the table. Detailed discussions of the evolution of helium stars in binary systems have already been given in Paper I, and therefore we will focus our discussion here on the late stages of the evolution.

### 2.2 Roche-lobe overflow from 2.8 – 3.2 $`𝐌_{\mathbf{}}`$ helium stars

In all systems considered, mass transfer takes place on the thermal timescale. In contrast to case BB evolution, the mass-transfer rate is lower at larger initial period (see Table 1). This is probably because mass transfer is initiated at a very late stage and there is insufficient time to reach the full thermal-timescale rate. Fig. 1 shows the evolution of a 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star with a neutron star in a $`10^\mathrm{d}`$ orbital period. A convective shell develops in the helium envelope before the third carbon-burning convective shell appears. The helium-burning convective shell causes a decrease of the mass of the CO core, $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ (defined as the central mass with helium abundance less than 0.1, which coincides with the lower limit of the helium-burning convective shell in the envelope). The convective shell penetrates outward both in mass and in radius (at the end of calculation, the upper boundary of the convective shell is located at 98 per cent of the total mass and 54 per cent of the total radius of the star). Because the mass of the envelope is dominated by the convective shell, the helium envelope behaves as a convective envelope. As a result of mass loss from a star with a convective envelope, the radius does not shrink as in the case of a radiative envelope. This response of the star drives an enormous increase in $`\dot{M}`$, as can be seen in Fig. 1. Mass transfer appears to become dynamically unstable which would lead to a CE and spiral-in phase.

The start of each convective carbon burning phase (both in the core and in subsequent shells) causes the core to expand. As a result of the mirror principle, the envelope tends to contract and the star shrinks. In between the convective phases, the core contracts and the envelope expands again. This is reflected in the behaviour of the mass-transfer rate, which is sometimes interupted by a detached phase. In systems with closer orbits, a detached phase does not always occur (although the behaviour of expansion and contraction of the star is also noticed). The helium envelope in these systems is thinner such that the outward penetration of the helium-burning convective shell takes place relatively fast. However, whether a detached phase occurs or not does not affect the final situation, since all systems in this mass range are expected to end up in a CE phase.

The evolution of the central density and temperature of 2.8 and 3.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars is presented in Fig. 2. At the end of the evolution of a 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star, the ONeMg core becomes partially degenerate. As a consequence of neutrino losses, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ remains relatively constant as the core becomes denser at the onset of the fourth consecutive carbon shell burning (marked by a circle in Fig. 2), while the shell with maximum temperature moves outward. We will discuss the final stage of evolution of helium stars in this range of mass in Sect. 3.2.

### 2.3 Roche-lobe overflow from 3.6 – 6.4 $`𝐌_{\mathbf{}}`$ helium stars

Fig. 3 shows the evolution of a 3.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star with a neutron star in a $`0\stackrel{d}{.}6`$ orbital period. A convective shell also appears in the helium envelope of stars in this range of mass. However, we do not find that the shell penetrates outward nor that $`\dot{M}`$ increases enormously like in the lower-mass helium stars (see the fourth and sixth panels of Fig. 3). Although we could not follow the evolution further than neon ignition, we expect that a CE phase probably does not occur in this range of mass.

The core becomes only weakly degenerate. Before the third carbon-burning convective shell appears, the shell with maximum temperature moves to the centre. When the central temperature is $``$ $`1.3\times 10^9`$ K, neon burning occurs in a convective core. Before the convective ignition, the central neon abundance has decreased by $``$ 3 per cent by radiative burning (see Fig. 4). Convective neon core burning is found only in the 3.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model with orbital period of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}6`$ and the 4.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model with orbital period of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}5`$. In other models, the decrease in neon abundance is also noticed, but at the end of our calculations the central temperature is not high enough yet for convective neon ignition. The onset of convective neon ignition is represented by point F in Fig. 2. The evolutionary track at this point is similar to point A, i.e. the appearance of the convective core and the rapid increase of the neon burning rate cause a decrease in density while the temperature increases. The mass of the ONeMg core at the ignition of neon is 1.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (in a 3.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$) – 1.7 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (in a 4.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star). Here the ONeMg core is defined as the central mass that contains less than 10 per cent carbon, which coincides with the upper limit of the carbon burning convective shell.

## 3 The possible remnants of case BB and case BC evolution

### 3.1 The late stages of case BC mass transfer and comparison with case BB evolution

We have discussed in Sect. 2.2 that a convective envelope develops in helium stars of 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which go through case BC evolution, and therefore they will undergo a CE phase at the end of their evolution. Such a convective shell in the helium envelope was also found in some of our case BB calculations (Paper I). We could not always follow the evolution far enough to see if outward penetration of this shell does take place. However, we found that the penetration and enormous increase in $`\dot{M}`$ occur in helium stars of 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with various initial periods of case BB evolution. Therefore, we suggest that a CE phase is a typical characteristic of the late stage of evolution of helium star-neutron star binaries in this range of mass.

In helium stars more massive than 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the outward penetration of the helium-burning convective shell is only found in 3.6 – 3.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ stars with very close orbits ($`P_\mathrm{i}0\stackrel{d}{.}25`$, i.e. case BB mass transfer)222In Paper I, it was mentioned that the penetration of the helium-burning convective shell into the envelope takes place in helium stars of various masses (cf. table 4). In some cases the appearance of the convective burning shell was noticed, and it was assumed that once the shell appears, it will penetrate outward. Later while working on this paper, we found that the appearance of a convective burning shell in the helium envelope is not always followed by an outward penetration.. We could not draw a conclusion about the 3.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ models because all calculations for this mass stopped before the appearance of the convective shell in the helium envelope, but they probably behave in a similar way. Assuming that a penetration of the convective shell in the helium envelope accompanied by an enormous increase in $`\dot{M}`$ is the indication of the start of dynamically unstable mass transfer, we suggest that a CE phase also occurs in 3.2 – 3.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars in very close orbits. Wider-orbit systems in this range of mass as well as helium stars more massive than 3.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ probably will not go through a CE phase.

A similar study of the evolution of helium star-neutron star binaries has recently been carried out by Ivanova et al. (2002). Although the latter work is similar to ours, they come to different conclusions. They do not find that lower-mass helium stars develop a convective envelope at the end of their evolution, even though their calculations were purportedly done up to a more advanced stage of evolution (i.e. up to oxygen burning) than our calculations, which extend up to radiative neon ignition. On the other hand, they find that helium stars with masses between 3.3 and 5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in orbital periods less than $`0\stackrel{d}{.}3`$ (which they called case CEB) undergo stable mass transfer, but the mass-transfer rate exceeds a critical value which is a function of the orbital period, such that a CE may form which probably leads to a merger. However, it is difficult to compare our models with their calculations as they do not provide the detailed interior structure of their models.

### 3.2 Final stages of evolution of 2.8 – 3.2 $`𝐌_{\mathbf{}}`$ helium stars

We have discussed in Sect. 2.3 that before 3.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 4.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars ignite neon convectively in the centre, the central neon abundance decreases by $``$ 3 per cent. The decrease of the neon abundance in the shell with maximum temperature is also found in 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars. Fig. 5 compares the conditions in the centre and in the shell with maximum temperature for 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ stars. The maximum temperature increases with time. In 2.8 – 2.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium stars, the shell with maximum temperature moves outward (see panel (a) in Fig. 5) and at the end of the calculation the temperature is still lower than $`1.3\times 10^9`$ K, i.e. insufficient to enable convective neon burning. In a 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star, the shell moves inward and at the end of the calculation the maximum temperature reaches $`1.4\times 10^9`$ K, but an off-centre neon burning convective shell has not yet developed. Panel (c) of Fig. 5 shows that in both cases, the mass of the ONeMg core at the end of the calculation is large enough to ignite neon, i.e. higher than 1.37 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Nomoto 1984). Hence, we argue that at the end of our 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ calculations the stars are close to off-centre neon ignition. For comparison, Nomoto & Hashimoto (1988) found that a 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium core ignites neon in the centre while 2.8 – 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium cores ignite neon off-centre. They conclude that 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the critical mass between off-centre and central ignition of neon.

After off-centre neon ignition, the future of a partially-degenerate ONeMg core depends on whether the burning shell is able to reach the centre (Nomoto & Hashimoto 1988). If it does reach the centre, then subsequent nuclear burning stages of O and Si will form an iron core, which will collapse due to photodisintegration. Otherwise, part of the ONeMg core is left unburned and becomes highly degenerate, and the core will eventually collapse due to electron captures. The density at the burning front also plays an important role in determining the future of the core. If the density is higher than $`10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, neon shell burning becomes so explosive that a dynamical event, such as the ejection of the helium envelope, may occur. The latter phenomenon would have interesting consequences for the binary systems of our interest. The ejection of the helium layer would leave a bare CO core as in the case of a spiral-in phase (Sect. 3.3), yielding a lower pre-SN mass.

Fig. 5 shows that both the maximum and central temperature of the 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model are already close to that required for neon burning (panel (d)). The shell with maximum temperature tends to move inward, and most probably will reach the centre. The density at the neon burning front is lower than $`10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (panel (b)). Hence, a 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star is expected to undergo core collapse due to photodisintegration, and most probably a dynamical event will not occur. The future of the 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model is less clear. The shell with maximum temperature moves outward which might leave part of the ONeMg core unburned. The central density is close to $`10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Whether a dynamical event occurs or not depends on how close the neon burning front is from the centre. Nomoto & Hashimoto (1988) argue that in a 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium core, as a result of electron captures in the neon burning shell, the mean molecular weight $`\mu _\mathrm{e}`$ would increase above 2 which implies a lower Chandrasekhar mass. Therefore the gravothermal specific heat of the core remains negative and the central temperature will continue to increase. Neon burning will reach the centre and photodisintegration will trigger the core collapse.

### 3.3 Spiral-in phase vs. supernova explosion

Helium stars more massive than 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ do not undergo a CE and spiral-in phase in their late stage of evolution. The further evolution is straightforward. The core is weakly degenerate, and will collapse due to photodisintegration; the mass and period prior to the explosion are the same as those at the end of RLOF (i.e. $`M_\mathrm{t}=M_\mathrm{o}`$, $`P_\mathrm{t}=P_\mathrm{o}`$).

Helium stars of 2.8 – 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and those less massive than 3.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in very close orbits undergo a CE phase at the end of their evolution. The first question we will try to answer is whether the system will survive CE evolution, and how long the spiral-in phase will last. We ignore the possibility that the stars might experience a dynamical event due to the high density at the neon burning shell. Neon burning (or the increase of temperature close to that required for neon ignition) and the high $`L_\nu `$ suggest that the helium star is already close to core collapse. The next question is whether the SN explosion takes place before or after the neutron star completes the spiraling-in process in the envelope of the helium star. This depends on the competition between the spiral-in timescale and the remaining time until the explosion.

#### 3.3.1 The decay timescale of the spiral-in phase

For a CE situation where the accretor is significantly less massive than the donor, so that the accretor does not cause a considerable perturbation to the structure of the donor, the orbital decay can be expressed as the change in orbital energy due to the drag force (Bondi & Hoyle 1944, Shima et al. 1985), i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{GM_aM_{\mathrm{NS}}}{2a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{da}{dt}}=\xi (\mu )\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2\rho _aV^3`$ (5)
where $`M_a`$ is the mass in the giant interior to radius $`a`$, $`\rho _a`$ is the local density at separation $`a`$, and $`V`$ is the relative velocity between the secondary and the CE. $`\mu `$ is the Mach number, i.e. $`\mu =V/V_\mathrm{s}`$ where $`V_\mathrm{s}`$ is the speed of sound. The accretion radius $`R_\mathrm{A}`$ is approximated by

$`R_\mathrm{A}={\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{\mathrm{NS}}}{V^2+V_s^2}}`$ (6)
The function $`\xi (\mu )`$ determines the dissipation rate, and is of order 2 – 4 in the supersonic case (Bondi & Hoyle 1944, Shima et al. 1985). We applied $`\xi (\mu )=2.5`$ which is the value for a steady-state set up after a violent perturbation (Bondi & Hoyle 1944).

In order to estimate the timescale of the CE and spiral-in phase, we define the decay timescale as $`\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}=a/\dot{a}`$ and calculate the ratio of the decay timescale to the Keplerian timescale which is expressed as (Livio & Soker 1988 and references therein):

$`\beta _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{Kep}}}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}G(\mu )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_a+M_{\mathrm{NS}}}{M_{\mathrm{NS}}}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{s}}{V_{\mathrm{Kep}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }_a}{\rho _a}}\right)`$
where $`V_{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ is the Keplerian orbital velocity, and $`\overline{\rho }_a`$ is the average density in the donor interior to radius $`a`$. $`G(\mu )`$ is a function of the Mach number $`\mu `$ given by

$`G(\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi (\mu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu ^2+1)^2}{\mu ^3}}`$ (8)
The parameter $`\beta _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ measures the importance of local (three-dimensional) effects in the spiraling-in process. If $`\beta _{\mathrm{CE}}1`$, energy is deposited locally and neither spherical nor cylindrical symmetry can be assumed.

As a result of the deposition of orbital angular momentum into the envelope, the envelope is spun up, and the relative velocity between the neutron star and the envelope is reduced. The drag force decreases, prolonging the spiraling-in process. We calculate the ratio of the spin-up timescale of the envelope to the decay timescale as (Livio & Soker 1988)

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{up}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`1.2\mu ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_a+M_{\mathrm{NS}}}{M_{\mathrm{NS}}}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_a}{\overline{\rho }_a}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{s}}{V_{\mathrm{Kep}}}}\right)^2`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_a={\displaystyle \frac{5}{a^5}}{\displaystyle _{R_{\mathrm{in}}}^a}r^4\rho (r)𝑑r`$ (10)
$`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the radius at the giant’s core-envelope boundary. A considerable spin-up of the envelope is expected to occur if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}1`$.

The above estimation of the decay timescale is only valid if the donor is much more massive than the neutron star (cf. e.g. Iben & Livio 1993). In our calculation we have $`M_{\mathrm{NS}}M_\mathrm{o}`$, and hence the above derivation is not completely valid, but nevertheless we use it to obtain a rough estimate of the decay timescale.

Fig. 6 presents the $`\beta _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ parameters as a function of radius in the envelope of a 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star with three different initial periods in the final models of our calculations. Here the relative velocity between the neutron star and the envelope of the helium star is assumed to be Keplerian. In all cases we find $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}<1`$, suggesting that spin-up of the envelope takes place at relatively early stages, and therefore the spiraling-in phase proceeds on a timescale longer than the estimated decay timescale. The $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ parameter increases and local effects become more important ($`\beta _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ decreases) with increasing initial period. This can be understood because a helium star in a wider system has more or less the same core mass as that in a closer system, but with a more extended envelope and higher density gradient, and therefore is more centrally condensed (smaller $`\overline{\rho }_a`$ but larger $`\overline{\rho }_a/\rho _a`$).

By integrating eq. (5) over the envelope of the helium star, we estimate the timescale of the spiral-in phase, $`t_{\mathrm{decay}}`$, as presented in Fig. 6. Note that $`t_{\mathrm{decay}}\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}`$ as defined above; $`\tau _{\mathrm{decay}}`$ is the local decay timescale while $`t_{\mathrm{decay}}`$ represents the time required to spiral down to radius $`r`$. Taking these estimates at face value suggests that the spiraling-in process in the system with $`P_\mathrm{i}=10^\mathrm{d}`$ will last for 0.16 yr, while in the system with $`P_\mathrm{i}=2^\mathrm{d}`$ it lasts for 3 yr. However, because $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}<1`$ for all systems, in particular for $`P_\mathrm{i}=2^\mathrm{d}`$, the actual spiral-in timescale will be longer.

Furthermore, we have assumed that the structure of the envelope does not change during the spiral-in. If we consider that the deposition of orbital energy actually causes the envelope to expand, then the expansion causes a decrease in $`\rho _a/\overline{\rho }_a`$. This will lead to a slower orbital decay, by eq. (5). The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_a`$, which depends only on the structure of the envelope, decreases more significantly than $`\overline{\rho }_a`$ (which is determined also by the core density) as the result of this expansion. Accordingly, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ decreases, and the spiral-in proceeds even more slowly. Therefore, the decay timescale we have estimated above should be regarded as the lower limit. Note that Podsiadlowski (2001) has included the envelope expansion in his CE calculation and found that the spiral-in is initially very rapid and slows down after significant envelope expansion has taken place.

#### 3.3.2 The time left until the supernova explosion

We first consider the possibility that the neon-burning shell does not reach the centre and therefore core collapse is triggered by electron captures. Because the core loses energy mainly in neutrinos, we can estimate the remaining time until the explosion by comparing the change in binding energy to the neutrino luminosity, $`L_\nu `$. We calculate the binding energy of the core of the last model, $`E_\mathrm{o}`$, and estimate the binding energy at the onset of electron captures, $`E_\mathrm{f}`$. By assuming that at this point the core is completely degenerate, we solve Chandrasekhar’s differential equation for the structure of a white dwarf (Kippenhahn & Weigert 1994). We applied $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$ = $`3.7\times 10^9`$ $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ as the central density at the onset of electron capture (Nomoto 1987, Miyaji et al. 1980, Miyaji & Nomoto 1987). By assuming that $`L_\nu `$ remains constant after the last model, we estimate the time until the explosion as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/L_\nu `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_\mathrm{f}E_\mathrm{o}`$. Considering that $`L_\nu `$ probably increases instead of remaining constant, the timescale we derive gives an upper limit. For the 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star, we find that the maximum time is 70 yr for the system with $`P_\mathrm{i}=10^\mathrm{d}`$ and 103 yr for the system with $`P_\mathrm{i}=2^\mathrm{d}`$. For a 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star, the maximum time is 28 yr.

Next we consider the possibility that the neon burning shell does reach the centre, and core collapse is triggered by photodisintegration which seems more likely than electron capture given the discussion in Sec. 3.2. A comparison with a detailed evolution calculation (Heger 2002, private communication) yields that a 1.696 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ CO core will undergo core collapse $``$ 20 yr after off-centre neon ignition. This core mass is about the same as the CO core mass of our 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model. Our 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star has a CO core of 1.45 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, and probably needs a longer time before undergoing core collapse. We conclude, therefore, that the 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star will undergo core collapse in 20 – 30 yr, and the 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model needs 20 – 100 yr before it collapses.

Although we have tried to estimate the timescales for the spiral-in phase and for the star to undergo core collapse, the exact timescales remain uncertain. Therefore, there are two open possibilities for the outcome. If the orbital decay timescale is shorter than the time until collapse, the helium star explodes after the spiral-in phase is terminated. If the time until collapse is shorter than the orbital decay timescale, the SN explosion takes place before the neutron star completes the spiraling-in process (i.e. inside the CE). This has important consequences for the pre-SN mass and period of the system.

#### 3.3.3 The possible remants of the lower mass helium stars

Assuming that there is enough time to spiral in before the explosion, we will now investigate whether the system survives the CE and spiral-in phase. With the energy equation for CE evolution (Webbink 1984, de Kool 1990)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{t}}{a_\mathrm{o}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{core}}M_{\mathrm{NS}}}{M_\mathrm{o}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{NS}}+2M_{\mathrm{env}}/(\eta _{\mathrm{CE}}\lambda r_\mathrm{L})}}`$ (11)
we calculated the post-CE separation, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$. Here $`M_{\mathrm{core}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ are the masses of the core and envelope, respectively. $`r_\mathrm{L}=R_\mathrm{L}/a`$ is the dimensionless Roche radius of the helium star, and $`a_\mathrm{o}`$ is the pre-CE separation. $`\eta _{\mathrm{CE}}`$, the so-called efficiency parameter of CE, is taken to be 1. The parameter $`\lambda `$ describing the binding energy of the envelope to the core – approximated as in Dewi & Tauris (2000) – is calculated from the bottom of the convective helium envelope taking into account the gravitational binding energy only (if the internal energy is also taken into account, $`\lambda `$ and therefore $`a_\mathrm{t}`$ would be larger). We find $`\lambda `$ is in the range 0.05 – 0.12 (see Table 2). We assume that the binary will survive the CE and spiral-in phase if the CO core does not immediately fill its Roche lobe in its new orbit.

Assuming that the neutron star completes the spiral-in phase, the post-CE (i.e pre-SN) mass and period are presented in Table 2. We find that all systems have final separations larger than the radius of the core ($`a_\mathrm{t}3R_{\mathrm{core}}`$), suggesting that they all survive the CE and spiral-in phase. Even if we consider that the core could expand by a factor of 2 after the envelope is peeled off, in most cases it still would not fill its Roche lobe. However, we should realize that the product $`\eta _{\mathrm{CE}}\lambda `$ in eq. (11) depends on the details of CE phase which are very uncertain and therefore the results in Table 2 give only approximate final separations. We find that the pre-SN orbit has a period of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}01`$. In such a tight orbit, the neutron star moves with a very large orbital velocity ($`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). This velocity is higher than a plausible kick velocity of a few hundreds $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Therefore the effect of a supernova kick is not as strong as in the case of systems in wider orbits. However, although an asymmetric explosion does not change the separation significantly, it can increase the eccentricity significantly, which in turn reduces the merger timescale (Belczynski, Bulik & Kalogera, 2002). If we assume that the explosion is symmetric and that the SN remnant has a mass of 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, then the mass which leaves the system is less than half of the initial total mass, and therefore all systems will remain bound (Blaauw 1961).

After the explosion of the helium star, which is assumed to leave a neutron-star remnant (with mass $`M_{\mathrm{NS},2}`$), the orbital evolution of the two neutron stars will be governed by gravitational-wave radiation as (Peters 1964)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{64}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^3}{c^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{NS}}M_{\mathrm{NS},2}M_\mathrm{T}}{a^3(1e^2)^{7/2}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{73}{24}}e^2+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{96}}e^4\right)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{de}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{304}{15}}e{\displaystyle \frac{G^3}{c^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{NS}}M_{\mathrm{NS},2}M_\mathrm{T}}{a^4(1e^2)^{5/2}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{121}{304}}e^2\right)`$ (13)
Assuming a symmetric explosion, we calculate the post-SN separation and eccentricity as will be explained in Sect. 4.2. These parameters are used to determine the merger timescales of these systems, which is calculated by integrating eqs. (12) and (13) (for the complete equations please refer to Peters (1964)). This merger timescale is much shorter than that of the observed DNSs (see Table 2), and also shorter than their characteristic age (i.e. $``$ 300 Myr and 100 Myr, respectively, for B1913+16). This makes the probability for such systems to be observed very small.

The existence of very tight-orbit DNSs has been also proposed by Belczynski et al. (2002), with the assumption that a CE phase occurs if the helium star is more massive than the neutron star. We have demonstrated in this work that a CE phase does occur, but only if the helium star has a mass in a certain range, i.e. 2.8 – 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and 3.3 – 3.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}0\stackrel{d}{.}25`$. With very short merger timescales, these DNSs would increase the detection rate of gravitational-wave radiation. Another implication is that the merger would take place relatively close to the host galaxy. Since a merger of a compact binary has long been thought to be one of the sources of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts, the existence of tight-orbit DNSs has important consequences for the understanding of $`\gamma `$-ray burst progenitors. We will try to estimate the birthrate of this new population in a forthcoming paper (Dewi, Pols & van den Heuvel, in preparation).

The upper panel of Fig. 7 shows the masses and periods at the end of our calculations (i.e. post-RLOF). Systems which go through a subsequent CE phase are indicated by open symbols. If the neutron star in those systems completes the spiraling-in process, then their pre-SN (i.e. post-CE) masses and periods are presented in the lower panel. Since the explosion of the helium star can take place before the neutron star completes the spiral-in phase, the upper and lower panels of Fig. 7 represent the maximum and minimum pre-SN mass and period, respectively, for systems which go through the CE phase. If the neutron star does not have enough time to complete the spiral-in before the helium star explodes, the pre-SN parameters are determined by the situation prior to the core collapse, i.e. mass and period will be between the values given in the upper and lower panels. However, Podsiadlowski (2001) showed that the most rapid orbital decay takes place at the beginning of the spiral-in phase. Hence, although the core collapse occurs before the spiral-in is terminated, the pre-SN period is likely to be close to the minimum. Note that for systems that do not go through a CE phase (solid symbols), the mass and period in the upper panel are the same as in the lower panel.

We have discussed in Sect. 3.2 the possibility of a dynamical ejection of the helium layer due to explosive neon flashes for $`M_{\mathrm{He}}2.83.2`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Although it is unclear whether this actually occurs, and we ignore it in the remainder of the paper, we will discuss briefly how such a dynamical ejection might influence our results. If the ejection occurs before mass transfer becomes dynamically unstable, then we find the situation where the neutron star is orbiting the CO core, with mass as in the lower panel of Fig. 7, but with an orbit more like in the upper panel. If the ejection occurs after the spiral-in process is initiated, the future of the system depends on whether the ejection occurs after or before the completion of the spiral-in process. We will have the same situation as that where the core collapse occurs after the completion of the spiral-in (i.e. the lower panel) if the dynamical ejection of the helium layer takes place after the neutron star terminates the spiral-in phase. If the ejection ensues before the completion of the spiral-in, then again the CO core remains (with a mass as in the lower panel) but the period will be between the upper and lower panels.

#### 3.3.4 The type of supernova explosion

The final amount of helium left in the envelope probably determines whether the explosion will be observed as a type Ib or a type Ic SN. The main observational criterion to distinguish between these types is the presence of helium in type Ib and its absence in type Ic SN. The conclusion drawn in Paper I, that lower-mass helium stars and systems in close orbits are possible progenitors of type Ic SNs, and that higher-mass helium stars and systems in wide orbits produce type Ib SN, is still valid here.

We will discuss the possibility of the explosion type in the case of systems which undergo a CE and spiral-in phase. We consider the situation in which the SN explosion occurs after the neutron star completes the spiraling-in process, i.e. the whole helium envelope has been removed from the star. We discuss an extreme case, where the core collapses at the moment when the whole envelope is ejected. If the ejected matter is still surrounding the core, then the explosion will be observed as the helium-rich type Ib SN. This situation resembles the case where the explosion occurs inside the CE.

In the other extreme, we have the situation where the explosion occurs after the end of the CE phase. In the case of the 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model with $`P_\mathrm{i}=2^\mathrm{d}`$, if we assume that the CE phase lasts for only a few years (Sect. 3.3.1) and the explosion takes place at most a hundred years after the start of the CE phase (Sect. 3.3.2), then the core collapses less than a hundred years after the CE phase is terminated. We assume that the envelope is ejected with the escape velocity, i.e. 420 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and that during the SN explosion matter is ejected with a velocity of $`10^4`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Using these velocities, we find that in 5 years the SN shell will catch up the envelope matter, forming a shock front. The SN shell might interact with the envelope matter in a form of a ring around the SN remnant like in SN 1987A, which was observed a year after the discovery of the SN. The explosion itself may be very dim since the ejected mass is very small (less than $``$ 0.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ if we assume that the SN remnant has a mass of 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, see Table 2). The models of 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with larger orbital periods have slightly higher masses but much larger radii and therefore lower escape velocities, such that the timescales for the SN shell to catch up the envelope matter are shorter ($``$ 2 yr in $`P_\mathrm{i}=10^\mathrm{d}`$). In the models of 3.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the escape velocities are large but the time left until the SN explosion is very short such that the interaction between the SN shell and the envelope matter takes place in $``$ 1.5 yr.

## 4 The formation of double neutron star binaries

Following up on our attempt in Paper I, we will try to find constraints on the masses and separation of the progenitors of the observed galactic DNSs, and on the kick velocity that was imparted during the second SN explosion. This has been done before by various authors. However, as will be discussed later, here we reconsider their findings in the light of RLOF from helium stars which was not considered before.

Table 3 lists the known galactic DNSs. Included in the table is the suggested DNS J1811-1736 (Lyne et al. 2000), although the possibility that the companion of the pulsar in this system is a main-sequence star or a red dwarf is still open (Mignani 2000). We plotted the allowed minimum and maximum pre-SN periods for each observed system in Fig. 8, which is expressed as (Flannery & van den Heuvel 1975)

$`(1e_\mathrm{f})^3M_\mathrm{f}P_\mathrm{f}^2M_\mathrm{s}P_\mathrm{t}^2(1+e_\mathrm{f})^3M_\mathrm{f}P_\mathrm{f}^2`$ (14)
Here $`M_\mathrm{s}`$, $`M_\mathrm{f}`$ are the total pre- and post-SN masses; $`P_\mathrm{t}`$, $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ are the pre- and post-SN periods. The values of $`P_\mathrm{f}`$ have been corrected for orbital decay during a time equal to the pulsar characteristic age (see Sect. 4.2). Eq. (14) comes from the assumption that the radius of the pre-SN orbit (the helium star-neutron star binary) must be between the periastron and apastron distance of the post-SN orbit.

### 4.1 Previous studies

Yamaoka, Shigeyama & Nomoto (1993) concluded that a symmetric explosion cannot explain the formation of B1534+12. Their conclusion was based on the argument that the pre-SN helium star mass is lower than 2.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is the critical mass for a helium star to become a neutron star (cf. Habets 1986). They argued that a kick velocity of 300 – 460 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (for B1913+16) and 160 – 260 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (for B1534+12) is required, assuming that the helium star does not fill its Roche lobe, which requires $`M_{\mathrm{He}}>5`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in their adopted models . In the case where RLOF does occur they argue that the neutron star will spiral into the evelope of the helium star, such that the mass prior to SN explosion is the CO core mass which is smaller than the mass of the helium star. Since the required kick velocity increases with mass, a smaller kick velocity is needed for this case. Also in the situation where the helium star has experienced wind mass loss prior to the explosion, i.e. its final mass is much smaller than the initial helium star mass, a smaller kick velocity is required.

Fryer & Kalogera (1997) also found that a symmetric explosion in the formation of the observed DNSs requires a pre-SN separation smaller than the maximum radius of the helium star, i.e. RLOF must have occured. They assumed this must result in a CE phase. They found that, if a neutron star is able to accrete matter above its Eddington limit in the CE phase, the timescale needed for a neutron star to collapse into black hole is much smaller than the timescale for a helium star to evolve from its maximum radius up to the explosion. They concluded that the neutron star will collapse into a black hole. Hence, in this case, a symmetric explosion fails to explain the existence of the DNSs. Minimum kick velocities of 260, 220, and 50 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (for B1913+16, B1534+12, and J1518+4904, respectively) are required, from a progenitor with $`a_\mathrm{t}4.5`$ $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_\mathrm{t}4.5`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (for B1913+16 and B1534+12) and $`a_\mathrm{t}30`$ $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_\mathrm{t}3`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (for J1518+4904), in order to avoid RLOF from the helium star. As the completion to this work, Wex, Kalogera & Kramer (2000) used the misalignment between the orbital angular momentum and the spin of B1913+16, together with its proper motion, to put more constraints on the kick velocity imparted during the second supernova.

None of the above-mentioned works was based on detailed calculations of helium stars in binary systems. Furthermore, most of them were carried out assuming that the helium star does not fill its Roche lobe. Based on our calculations we will reinvestigate the kick velocity imparted at the birth of the pulsar’s companion, allowing for RLOF from the helium stars. With this assumption, the low pre-SN mass found by e.g. Yamaoka et al. (1993) is not necessarily the initial mass of the helium star. Hence, we allow lower pre-SN masses. Also by allowing the helium star to fill its Roche lobe without causing the neutron star to collapse into a black hole, progenitors in closer orbits than those found by Fryer & Kalogera (1997) are possible.

In Fig. 8 we compare the allowed range of pre-SN orbital periods of the DNSs with the results of our model calculations, reproduced from Fig. 7 (lower panel). Fig. 8 shows that the possible progenitors of the short-orbit DNSs B1913+16 and B1534+12 are helium stars with $`M_\mathrm{t}>2.2`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. with initial mass $`M_{\mathrm{He}}>3.3`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (solid symbols), if indeed helium stars of lower mass leave DNSs with very small periods (open symbols). This means their progenitors were main-sequence stars more massive than 12 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which underwent case B evolution, or stars more massive than 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which experienced case C mass transfer.

### 4.2 Symmetric explosion

In this section we reinvestigate whether a symmetric explosion can explain the observed DNSs, if the helium stars are allowed to undergo RLOF. By means of eqs. (12) and (13) we calculate the evolution of eccentricity and separation of the DNSs B1913+16 and B1534+12 due to gravitational-wave radiation, back from the present time to twice their characteristic ages, as presented in Fig. 9 as solid-line segments. The solid circle represents the eccentricity and separation for an age equal to the characteristic age. In a symmetric SN explosion, the post-SN eccentricity, $`e_\mathrm{f}`$, and separation, $`a_\mathrm{f}`$, are related to the pre-SN mass, $`M_\mathrm{t}`$, and separation, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$, as (Hills 1983)

$`M_\mathrm{t}=e_\mathrm{f}(M_\mathrm{p}+M_\mathrm{c})+M_\mathrm{c}`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{t}}{a_\mathrm{f}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{c}+M_\mathrm{p}M_\mathrm{t}}{M_\mathrm{p}+M_\mathrm{c}}}`$ (16)
where $`M_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ are the masses of the pulsar and its companion, respectively. The star symbols in Fig. 9 represent the expected $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{f}`$ for each of our model calculations, calculated from eqs. (15) and (16).

The upper panel of Fig. 9 shows that in the case of a symmetric explosion, B1913+16 should have formed from a helium star with $`M_\mathrm{t}=3.133.42`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, depending on its true age (which is assumed to be less than twice its characteristic age). However, the separation is smaller than the minimum separation allowed for dynamically stable RLOF (cf. fig. 10 of Paper I). This implies that B1913+16 cannot be formed by assuming a symmetric explosion from helium star-neutron star binaries which undergo a mass-transfer phase, regardless of the exact age of the system.

The eccentricity of B1534+12 corresponds to $`M_\mathrm{t}=2.072.12`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The eccentricity and separation of this pulsar lie close to the remnants of our 3.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ model (indicated by an arrow in the lower panel of Fig. 9). However, we have discussed in Sect. 3.1 that the future of this particular mass is not clear. These systems may also undergo a CE and spiral-in phase and move to the lower-left part of the plane as in the case of lower-mass helium stars; and in that case cannot be considered as a possible progenitor of B1534+12. Hence, a conclusion that a symmetric explosion can explain the formation of B1534+12 is marginal. Our results confirm previous work that it is more likely that both B1913+16 and B1534+12 are formed by an asymmetric SN explosion, although the constraints on the kick velocity become much weaker if we allow for RLOF from the helium star – as will be discussed in Sect. 4.3.

The pre-SN mass and period ($`M_\mathrm{t}`$, $`P_\mathrm{t}`$) required in a symmetric explosion are indicated by diamond symbols in Fig. 8, for each of the four DNSs, assuming an age equal to the characteristic age. We find $`M_\mathrm{t}=`$ 1.96 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the pre-SN mass of the wide DNS J1518+4904 if we assume a symmetric explosion. This mass (with $`a_\mathrm{t}=a_\mathrm{f}(1e_\mathrm{f})`$) is located in the region where helium stars of $``$ 2.8 – 2.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ will undergo a CE and spiral-in phase (compare Figs. 7 and 8). Assuming that they complete the spiraling-in process, their position in the pre-SN mass-period plane will move to the lower-left part of Fig. 8. Even if they undergo a SN before completing the spiral-in, their final orbits are likely to be much closer than those at the onset of the CE phase. We conclude that a symmetric explosion cannot explain the formation of J1518+4904 and that it can only be produced from a helium star more massive than 2.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which avoids RLOF (shaded area in Fig. 8), i.e. main-sequence stars more massive than 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in relatively wide orbits.

Accurate masses of the components of J1811-1736 are not known yet. For our calculations we assume that the components have equal masses. With a symmetric explosion, we find $`M_\mathrm{t}=3.45`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, implying that the progenitor of J1811-1736 is a helium star of about 4.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Helium stars with initial masses $``$ 3.3 – 4.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in wide orbits which undergo marginal RLOF can be the progenitors of J1811-1736. However, because of the much larger parameter space, a progenitor that avoids RLOF is more likely. Whether a symmetric explosion can explain the formation of J1811-1736 depends on the exact masses of the components which in turn determine the pre-SN $`a_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{t}`$.

### 4.3 Asymmetric explosion

If the kick velocity $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ makes an angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the pre-explosion orbital velocity $`V_\mathrm{t}`$, then we can write the relation between the pre-SN and post-SN separations, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{f}`$, as (Hills 1983)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{t}}{a_\mathrm{f}}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{s}}{M_\mathrm{f}}}\left[1+\nu ^2+2\nu \mathrm{cos}\theta \right]`$ (17)
where $`M_\mathrm{s}=M_\mathrm{t}+M_\mathrm{p}`$, $`M_\mathrm{f}=M_\mathrm{c}+M_\mathrm{p}`$, $`\nu =V_\mathrm{k}/V_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{t}^2=GM_\mathrm{s}/a_\mathrm{t}`$. If we rotate $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ around $`V_\mathrm{t}`$ in a cone of apex angle $`\theta `$ as is shown in Fig. 10, then $`\varphi `$ is the location of $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ on this cone, such that $`\varphi =0`$ corresponds to $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ in the original orbital plane and has a Cartesian component pointing radially outward from the focus of the orbit (Hills 1983). The eccentricity of the post-SN orbit is given by

$`Ga_\mathrm{f}M_\mathrm{f}(1e_\mathrm{f}^2)=a_\mathrm{t}^2[V_\mathrm{k}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +(V_\mathrm{k}\mathrm{cos}\theta +V_\mathrm{t})^2]`$
or

$`1e_\mathrm{f}^2={\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{t}}{a_\mathrm{f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{s}}{M_\mathrm{f}}}[1+2\nu \mathrm{cos}\theta +\nu ^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )]`$ (18)
After the explosion, a binary will remain bound if the right-hand side of eq. (17) is positive. Hence, after an asymmetric explosion with a kick velocity $`V_\mathrm{k}`$, a binary with pre-SN parameters ($`M_\mathrm{s}`$, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$) will not be disrupted if the angle $`\theta `$ is larger than a critical angle, i.e.

$`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}=\mathrm{cos}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2M_\mathrm{f}M_\mathrm{s}(\nu ^2+1)}{2\nu M_\mathrm{s}}}\right]`$ (19)
Since $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cr}}1`$ an absolute maximum kick velocity can be derived from the above equation as

$`V_{\mathrm{k},\mathrm{max}}=(1+\sqrt{2M_\mathrm{f}/M_\mathrm{s}})V_\mathrm{t}`$ (20)
A kick with this magnitude has to be directed opposite to the orbital motion ($`\theta =180\mathrm{°}`$). For $`M_\mathrm{s}>2M_\mathrm{f}`$ there is a minimum kick velocity

$`V_{\mathrm{k},\mathrm{min}}=(1\sqrt{2M_\mathrm{f}/M_\mathrm{s}})V_\mathrm{t}`$ (21)
which also has to be directed at $`\theta =180\mathrm{°}`$. A $`V_{\mathrm{k},\mathrm{min}}=0`$ requires $`M_\mathrm{s}2M_\mathrm{f}`$ as derived by Blaauw (1961) for a symmetric explosion.

For a given observed DNS, we can find the pre-SN parameters by means of eqs. (17) and (18) for a certain kick velocity ($`V_\mathrm{k},\theta ,\varphi `$). The kick direction is constrained by $`0\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi 1`$. Independent of the magnitude of the kick velocity, the limit $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =1`$ gives eq. (14) which can also be written as

$`a_\mathrm{f}(1e_\mathrm{f})a_\mathrm{t}a_\mathrm{f}(1+e_\mathrm{f})`$ (22)
These lower and upper limits in separation are presented as the thick horizontal lines in Fig. 11, for the two closest DNSs. The limit $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =0`$ for different kick velocity magnitudes is given by the thin lines. For a given kick velocity, the possible pre-SN parameters lie between the lines of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =1`$ and that of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =0`$ (i.e. inside the shaded area marked by a certain kick magnitude).

#### 4.3.1 Formation of DNS without a mass transfer phase

We will first revisit the investigation of the formation of the DNSs assuming that the progenitors do not experience RLOF. A helium star will not fill its Roche lobe if the Roche radius is larger than its maximum radius, which defines a critical orbital separation $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We plot this separation as the dashed line in Fig. 11. This maximum separation is derived from the maximum radius taking into account wind mass loss as defined in eq. (4). This represents the situation where the helium star is formed after case B mass transfer, and has been losing mass by stellar winds during its evolution prior to RLOF. A minimum separation, below which a helium star-neutron star binary cannot be formed, is defined by equating the Roche radius to the helium zero-age main sequence radius. Due to the wind mass loss, this minimum separation increases according to eq. (1) with $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\beta =0`$. We plot the region with separation less than the minimum separation at the end of the evolution of a helium star against its final mass as the hatched area. Helium star-neutron star binaries cannot be formed in this part of the diagram. These constraints leave the region above the maximum (dashed line) and minimum (hatched area) separations as the allowed pre-SN parameters in Fig. 11 (however, these constraints depend very much on the choice of the wind mass-loss rate).

Without RLOF from the helium stars, we find the same minimum kick velocity as Fryer & Kalogera (1997), i.e. 260 and 220 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for B1913+16 and B1534+12, respectively (see the shaded area above the dashed line in Fig. 11). The kick must be directed backwards, with $`\theta >130\mathrm{°}`$. For a low $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ ($``$ 425 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for B1913+16 and $``$ 275 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for B1534+12) a kick in any azimuthal direction $`\varphi `$ is allowed to form the binaries with the observed parameters, but the higher $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ the more restricted the allowed orientation of the kick.

The inclusion of the minimum separation (hatched area in Fig. 11) as an additional constraint, which has not been taken into account in previous works, enables us to determine the maximum pre-SN mass. The maximum pre-SN separation of B1913+16 intersects the line of $`a_\mathrm{t}=a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ at $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ 5.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is the final mass of a $``$ 16 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star after stellar wind mass loss. This means that B1913+16 cannot have formed from a helium star initially more massive than 16 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Similarly, we derive $``$ 13 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the upper limit for the helium star progenitor of B1534+12. The maximum pre-SN mass also implies a maximum kick velocity, from eq. (20), which is 1 230 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for both systems.

In discussing the above situation, we consider that the helium star-neutron star binaries are produced at the time when the helium star is on its zero-age main sequence, i.e. the remnant of a Be/X-ray binary which went through a CE phase initiated in case B. If the CE phase is initiated in case C (i.e. after the termination of helium core burning), the helium core does not experience significant wind mass loss and therefore has a maximum radius equal to that of a helium star evolving without wind mass loss. This maximum radius is plotted as the dashed line in Fig. 12. For case C remnants there is no minimum separation which is constrained by the helium zero-age main sequence radius. Whether RLOF can occur or not depends on the situation at the cessation of the CE phase which is very uncertain. We will consider the case where the case C remnant does not fill its Roche lobe (the area above the dashed line in Fig. 12). This area is located outside the range of possible pre-SN periods of B1534+12. Therefore we conclude that B1534+12 cannot be formed by case C mass transfer from Be/X-ray binaries without a further RLOF phase. To produce B1913+16 from this type of remnant, a very high $`\theta >150\mathrm{°}`$ is needed. The upper limit to the pre-SN mass, and the maximum kick velocity, are restricted by the threshold mass for black hole formation, which is still uncertain.

For the two wide-orbit DNSs, J1518+4904 and J1811-1736, the maximum separation for RLOF for case C remnants coincides with case B, because helium stars of such mass ($`2.5M_\mathrm{t}/\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}4.0`$, see Fig. 7) lose very little mass in a wind. Hence, the minimum kick velocities are the same in both cases, i.e. 50 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for J1518+4904, as also found by Fryer & Kalogera (1997), and 10 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for J1811-1736 (the latter depending on the uncertain component masses for this system). The maximum kick velocity, again, depends on the threshold mass for black hole formation.

#### 4.3.2 Formation of DNS with RLOF

The region in the ($`M_\mathrm{t}`$, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$) plane where close-orbit DNSs can be formed through RLOF is limited, as shown in Fig. 11. It is bounded at small separations because mass transfer becomes dynamically unstable leading to a merger (below the dotted line). In Paper I we found that mass transfer from $`M_{\mathrm{He}}>6.7`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is dynamically unstable leading to a CE phase. This range of mass is shown as the region to the right of the dotted line (with $`M_\mathrm{t}4`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$). We have not carried out calculations for this range of mass. However, we suggest that such a CE phase would lead to a merger or a formation of DNS in tight orbit, depending on the binding energy of the envelope. At low $`M_\mathrm{t}`$, to the left of the dash-dotted line, systems experience a CE phase after RLOF. This leaves the region between the dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted line, in which the results of our RLOF calculations lie (the star symbols). We do not present the star symbols in Fig. 12 because the calculations we have done are the remnants of case B mass transfer. Although we have not computed the evolution of the remnants of case C mass transfer, we expect that the limits for dynamically unstable mass transfer (dotted line) and for systems undergoing a CE phase after RLOF (dashed-dotted line) are the same as for the remnants of case B evolution.

We find that B1913+16 can be formed by an asymmetric explosion with minimum kick velocity of 70 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which must have been directed along the orbital motion ($`\theta <20\mathrm{°}`$). A kick velocity as low as 10 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is enough to produce B1534+12, which requires $`\theta >85\mathrm{°}`$. A large $`V_\mathrm{k}`$ requires $`\theta `$ close to $`180\mathrm{°}`$, and can only be imparted in a very close orbit ($`a_\mathrm{t}a_\mathrm{f}(1e_\mathrm{f})`$, cf. eq. (17)). With this $`a_\mathrm{t}`$ and using eq. (20) we find 1 810 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and 1 310 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ as the maximum kick velocities that can produce B1913+16 and B1534+12, respectively. To produce a system with post-SN parameters ($`M_\mathrm{f}`$, $`a_\mathrm{f}`$) from a binary with pre-SN parameters ($`M_\mathrm{s}`$, $`a_\mathrm{t}`$), it can be seen from eq. (18) that with the same kick velocity, $`e_\mathrm{f}`$ decreases with $`\theta `$. Since B1534+12 has almost the same mass and separation as B1913+16 but lower eccentricity, in general, with the same kick velocity, a larger angle $`\theta `$ is needed to produce B1534+12 than that to form B1913+16.

We have discussed in Sect. 3.3.2 that there are two open possibilities for the fate of helium stars which go through a CE phase. If the core collapses after the spiral-in phase is completed, then the system becomes a double neutron star in a tight orbit, i.e. the situation is as described in the previous paragraph. If the helium star explodes while the neutron star is still spiraling-in, the pre-SN mass and separation will be somewhere between $`M_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ and between $`P_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{t}`$ (cf. the upper and lower panels of Fig. 7), i.e. the region to the left of the dash-dotted line in Fig. 11 may not be empty. The inclusion of this area with lower mass would allow a wider range of kick velocities and directions. The magnitude and orientation of the minimum kick velocity for B1913+16 remains the same. In this situation B1534+12 can be produced by a symmetric explosion or with very low kick velocity in all directions $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$.

Comparing our results with those of Yamaoka et al. (1993), Fryer & Kalogera (1997), Wex et al. (2000), and Sect. 4.3.1, we can see that by allowing stable RLOF from the helium star, systems with lower pre-SN mass and lower pre-SN separation than derived in previous works can also be possible progenitors of B1913+16 and B1534+12. We have shown that a low kick velocity can then explain the formation of these DNSs.

## 5 Conclusions

We have evolved helium stars with masses in the interval 2.8 – 6.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with a 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ neutron-star companion, in which the helium star fills its Roche lobe during carbon core burning or beyond (case BC mass transfer). This is the completion to our earlier work, i.e. mass transfer during helium core burning (case BA) and helium shell burning (case BB evolution). We studied the late stage of evolution of the helium star-neutron star binaries as well as the possible remnants of the systems.

Case BB and BC mass transfer in helium stars of 2.8 – 3.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ as well as from $`3.3<M_{\mathrm{He}}/\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}<3.8`$ in very close orbits ($`P0\stackrel{d}{.}25`$), will end up in a CE phase towards the end of their evolution, just before the expected SN explosion. These systems originate from main-sequence stars with masses of 10 – 12 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which underwent case B evolution, or 9 – 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which experienced case C mass transfer. We found that all systems are able to survive the spiral-in phase, producing very tight DNSs with $`P0\stackrel{d}{.}01`$. These systems probably will not be observed due to their very short merger timescale, and would have important consequences for the detection rate of gravitational-wave radiation and for the understanding of $`\gamma `$-ray burst progenitors. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the helium star will explode before the neutron star completes the spiraling-in process, resulting in a SN explosion inside a CE.

For $`M_{\mathrm{He}}>3.3`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ or $`M_{\mathrm{He}}>3.8`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in close orbits, we conclude that a CE and spiral-in phase does not occur. These systems will produce DNSs with periods of $`0\stackrel{d}{.}11^\mathrm{d}`$, which suggests they are candidate progenitors of B1913+16 and B1534+12. The pre-SN mass is larger than 2.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. These systems originate from main-sequence stars more massive than 12 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which underwent case B evolution, or more massive than 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ which experienced case C mass transfer.

We have also studied the second SN explosion to investigate whether a kick velocity is required at the birth of the young neutron star. DNS B1913+16 cannot be formed by a symmetric explosion. A minimum kick of 70 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the direction of the orbital velocity is needed to produce the observed orbital parameters. A symmetric explosion can explain the formation of B1534+12 only if the progenitor, a 3.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium star, avoids a CE and spiral-in phase. Our calculations are inconclusive on this issue. A higher mass progenitor needs a minimum kick velocity of 10 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the direction opposite to the orbital velocity.

The wide-orbit DNS J1518+4904 (and probably J1811-1736) can only be produced from helium star-neutron star systems which did not go through a mass-transfer phase; with the helium stars more massive than 2.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. main-sequence stars more massive than 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in relatively wide orbit. Without a mass-transfer phase, an asymmetric explosion with a minimum kick velocity of 50 and 10 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (for J1518+4904 and J1811-1736) is needed.

## Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by NWO Spinoza Grant 08-0 to E. P. J. van den Heuvel. It is a pleasure to thank Ed van den Heuvel and Norbert Langer for various discussions; Stan Woosley and Alexander Heger for invaluable help concerning the late stage of stellar evolution; Natasha Ivanova and Krzysztof Belczyński for their critical comments on the manuscript. Comments from anonymous referee help in improving the presentation of the manuscript.