RECURRENT NOVA T Pyx: A NORMAL NOVA ERUPTION ~1866 Shell ejected in 1866±5 V expansion for shell is km/s M shell is M } Classical Nova Eruption In M WD dominated by ejections of regular nova events, so is losing mass Short-P orb recurrent novae are not SN progenitors

GET M ejecta FROM PERIOD CHANGE ACROSS ERUPTIONS M ejecta = (M WD /A)*( P/P)

U SCO 2010 ERUPTION: LARGE PERIOD CHANGE P = (27.6 ± 1.4) x days M ejecta = (27.7 ± 1.4) x M T = 10.9 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x M /yr

T PYX 2011 ERUPTION: LARGE PERIOD CHANGE P = (4.0 ± 0.3) x days M ejecta = (58.8 ± 5.5) x M T = 44.3 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x M /yr

CI AQL 2000 ERUPTION: SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD CHANGE P = (1.5 ± 1.0) x days M ejecta = (2.9 ± 2.0) x M T = 24 years, M = (0.1±0.05) x M /yr

RECURRENT NOVA WHITE DWARFS ARE EJECTING MORE MASS THAN THEY ARE ACCRETING RNeYearM ejecta (10 -6 M) M T(10 -6 M )M ejecta /M T U Sco ± T Pyx ± CI Aql ± RNe WDs losing mass RNe will not become Type Ia supernova

HALF OF THE RECURRENT NOVAE ARE NEON NOVAE Half-or-more of RN will not become supernovae A neon nova cannot have its WD gaining mass, because it is dredging up new material each eruption. A neon nova must have an underlying ONeMg WD and cannot become a supernova, because it is not the required CO white dwarf. NEON NOVAE U Sco RS Oph YY Dor Nova LMC 2009 FeII NOVAE T CrB V394 CrA V3890 Sgr IM Nor Mason et al. 2012, A&A

RN SUMMARY SO FAR: T Pyx MS companion WD is losing mass IM Nor MS companion CN eruption means WD is losing mass V2487 Oph Subgiant companion U Sco Subgiant companion ONeMg WD, WD losing mass CI Aql Subgiant companion WD is losing mass V394 CrA Subgiant companion T CrB Red Giant companion RS Oph Red Giant companion ONeMg WD V745 Sco Red Giant companion V3890 Sgr Red Giant companion

THE COMPANION STAR CAN DISTINGUISH THE PROGENITOR Double Degenerate Recurrent Novae Symbiotic Stars Helium Stars Persistent Supersoft Sources Pre-eruption companion to WD WDRed Giant, Subgiant, MS Red GiantHi-Lum. star core Subgiant, >1.2M MS Post-eruption ex-companion...none...Red Giant, Subgiant, MS Red GiantHi-Lum. star core Subgiant, >1.2M MS

3- error circle: Measurement Error + Orbital Velocity + Kicks SNR FINAL 3- ERROR CIRCLE IS EMPTY OF POINT SOURCES TO V=26.9

THE UTTER LACK OF ANY EX-COMPANION RULES OUT ALL MODELS EXCEPT THE DOUBLE DEGENERATE Schaefer & Pagnotta 2012, Nature Limiting mag of V=26.9 M V =8.4 (K9 on main sequence) Double Degenerate Recurrent Novae Symbiotic Stars Helium Stars Persistent Supersoft Sources Post-eruption ex-companion...none...Red Giant, Subgiant, MS Red GiantHi-Lum. star core Subgiant, >1.2M MS

TWO MORE LMC TYPE I a SN REMNANTS HAVE NO RED GIANT or SUBGIANT EX-COMPANIONS SNR SNR Edwards, Pagnotta, & Schaefer 2012, ApJLett SN1006 HAS NO RED GIANT EX-COMPANION Gonzalez-Hernandez et al. 2012, Nature

Li et al. (2011) (arXiv) SN 2011fe HAS NO RED GIANT COMPANION Li et al. 2011, Nature Lack of any counterpart on pre-eruption HST images proves the companion cannot be a luminous red giant or a luminous Helium star.

NO KASEN EFFECT IN 235 SUPERNOVAE MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION Kasen 2010, ApJ Supernova Survey# supernova # with Kasen effect SDSS Hayden et al. 2010,ApJ 1080 SNLS Bianco et al. 2011,ApJ 1000 LOSS Ganeshalingam et al. 2010,ApJ 610

NO EMISSION FROM EJECTA/WIND COLLISION MEANS NO RED GIANT COMPANION WavelengthInstrument# supernova # with emission X-ray Swift Russell & Immler 2012,ApJLett 530 Ultraviolet Swift Brown et al. 2012,ApJ 120 Radio VLA Hancock et al. 2011,ApJ 460 Radio EVLA Chomiuk et al. 2012,ApJ 1 (SN2011fe) 0 BUT: A few SNe (PTF11kx, SN2002ic, & SN2005gj) show variable narrow emission lines that are a clear hall mark of interaction with a circumstellar medium 0.1% - 1% of progenitors are Symbiotic Stars

SCORECARD FOR RED GIANT COMPANIONS: # Supernova Examined # with Red Giants SNR LMC SNRs20 Tychos & SN SN 2011fe10 No Kasen Effect269x10%0 No Wind/Ejecta Collision 1120 _____ ___ 145 0

RN SUMMARY: T Pyx MS companion WD is losing mass IM Nor MS companion CN eruption means WD is losing mass V2487 Oph Subgiant companion No subgiant companions U Sco Subgiant companion ONeMg WD, WD losing mass CI Aql Subgiant companion WD is losing mass V394 CrA Subgiant companion No subgiant companions T CrB Red Giant companion No red giant companions RS Oph Red Giant companion ONeMg WD V745 Sco Red Giant companion No red giant companions V3890 Sgr Red Giant companion No red giant companions

GENERALIZING – IF ONE CLASS DOMINATEs: Double Degenerate Recurrent Novae Symbiotic Stars Helium Stars Persistent Supersoft Sources First Progenitor Class No Red Giants No Red Giants SNR0509 center is empty Neon WDs, M ejecta too high SNR0509 center is empty No Hi-L stars No Kasen effect

GENERALIZING – IF TWO CLASSES DOMINATE: Double Degenerate Recurrent Novae Symbiotic Stars Helium Stars Persistent Supersoft Sources First Progenitor Class Second Progenitor Class ??? ? No Kasen effect Different from first class No Red Giants No Red Giants SNR0509 center is empty No Red Giants No Red Giants Neon WDs, M ejecta too high SNR0509 center is empty Neon WDs, M ejecta too high No Hi-L stars No Hi-L stars No Kasen effect

CONCLUSIONS: or SUPERSOFT? DOUBLE DEGENERATE SYMBIOTIC DOUBLE DEGENERATE SYMBIOTIC Two RNe have M ejecta >>M T Half of the RNe are neon nova T Pyx had a classical nova eruption in 1866 and is fast exiting the RN phase SNR has an empty central region to M V = +8.4 Out of a sample of 145 SNe, 0 have red giant companions (with similar but weaker restrictions for subgiant companions)