Challenging historical novae: AT Cnc (1645), Te-11 (483), and M22 (BC 48) revisited

Open Access

Table 1.

The three studied objects considered as historical novae with shell-like features.

Name	Nova	Object type^(a)	Mass WD	V range	B-V	A_V	Distance	Nova peak [mag]		Decay^(d)
	year?		[M_⊙]	[mag]^(a)	mag	[mag]	d [pc]^(b)	m (±1.4) Δm^(c)		dur. [yr]
in M22	BC48	unknown (‘blue-white’) …		…	…	1.0^(e)	3 ± 0.3 kpc^(f)	6.4	…	…
Te-11	483	ecl.UG,WD+M2.5	$1 . 18_{- 0.15}^{+ 0.07}$ $1.18^{+0.07}_{-0.15}$ ^(g)	14.8–20.0	0.5	1.0g	$526_{- 47}^{+ 48}$ $526^{+48}_{-47}$ ^(h)	2.6	12.2–17.4	1480 ± 530
AT Cnc	1645	UGZ,DAe+K7/M0	0.9 ± 0.4⁽ⁱ⁾	12.0–16.6	0.2	0.04^(j)	$455 . 7_{- 5.5}^{+ 7.1}$ $455.7^{+7.1}_{-5.5}$	1.3	10.7–15.3	1300 ± 474

Notes.

^(a)

Object type and V range from VSX, Simbad, AAVSO, current quiescent color indices B-V from Simbad.

^(b)

Bailer-Jones et al. (2021), photogeometric Gaia DR3 distance (except for M22).

^(c)

Nova peak magnitude m estimated from typical nova absolute magnitude M_V = −7.0 ± 1.4 mag (Schaefer 2018, Della Valle & Izzo 2020), distance d, and extinction A_V. The calculated amplitude Δm is the difference between the expected peak and the quiescent V-band range; Δm has to be ca. 7–16 mag for novae (Warner 1995, Figure 5.4) within 1σ. Both peak m and amplitude Δm have the same uncertainty (±1.4 mag). Note that Schaefer (2018) does not recommend using the relation between typical M and peak, at least not as first choice. However, this reservation is meant for determining the distance from the observed peak, if a Gaia parallax is unavailable, but in our historical novae, the peak magnitude is not known.

^(d)

Duration from the estimated peak to the current quiescent magnitude with a mean decay of 10 ± 3 mmag yr⁻¹ (Duerbeck 1992).

^(e)

Average from Samus et al. (1995), Monaco et al. (2004), and Göttgens et al. (2019); the latter neglected extinction in the peak estimate.

^(f)

Monaco et al. (2004).

^(g)

Miszalski et al. (2016).

^(h)

The Gaia parallax quality indicator is 0.18704 and exceeds its recommended threshold of 0.1, probably due to the binarity, so that the distance may be more uncertain, as the error bars indicate.

⁽ⁱ⁾

Nogami et al. (1999).

^(j)

Gaia A_G.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.