Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:46:35.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of inhomogeneities on hot star wind model predictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

J. Krtička ,
L. Muijres ,
J. Puls ,
J. Kubát  and
A. de Koter
J. Krtička
Affiliation:
Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
L. Muijres
Affiliation:
Astronomical Institute, “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Puls
Affiliation:
Universitätssternwarte München, München, Germany
J. Kubát
Affiliation:
Astronomický ústav, Ondřejov, Czech Republic
A. de Koter
Affiliation:
Astronomical Institute, “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We study the effect of wind inhomogeneities (clumping) on O star wind model predictions. For this purpose we artificially include clumping into our stationary NLTE wind models. As a result of the inclusion of optically thin clumps the radiative line force is increased compared to corresponding unclumped models, with a similar effect on either the mass-loss rate or the terminal velocity. When the clumps are allowed to be optically thick in continuum, on the other hand, the radiative force and consequently the mass-loss rate decreases alternatively.

Keywords

Stars: mass lossstars: early-typehydrodynamics
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 4 , Symposium S252: The Art of Modeling Stars in the 21st Century , April 2008 , pp. 283 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Feldmeier, A., Puls, J., & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 1997, A&A 322, 878Google Scholar
Krtička, J. & Kubát, J. 2004, A&A 417, 1003Google Scholar
Martins, F., Schaerer, D., & Hillier, D. J. 2005a, A&A 436, 1049Google Scholar
Martins, F., Schaerer, D., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2005b, A&A 441, 735Google Scholar
Owocki, S. P., Gayley, K. G., & Shaviv, N. J. 2004, ApJ 616, 525Google Scholar
Owocki, S. P. & Rybicki, G. B. 1984, ApJ 284, 337Google Scholar
Pauldrach, A. W. A., Hoffmann, T. L., & Lennon, M. 2001, A&A 375, 161Google Scholar
Puls, J., Kudritzki, R.-P., et al. 1996, A&A 305, 171Google Scholar
Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 1992, A&AS 96, 269Google Scholar
Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., 2000, A&A 362, 295Google Scholar