4.7 Article

SCUBA and Spitzer observations of the Taurus molecular cloud -: pulling the bull's tail

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 384, Issue 2, Pages 755-763

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12750.x

Keywords

stars : formation; stars : pre-main-sequence; ISM : clouds; dust, extinction; ISM individual : Taurus

Funding

  1. STFC [ST/F012314/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F012314/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present continuum data from the Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), and the multiband imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) on the Spitzer Space Telescope, at submillimetre and infrared wavelengths, respectively. We study the Taurus molecular cloud 1 (TMC1) and, in particular, the region of the Taurus Molecular Ring (TMR). In the continuum data, we see no real evidence for a ring, but rather we see one side of it only, appearing as a filament. We name the filament 'the bull's tail'. The filament is seen in emission at 850, 450 and 160 mu m, and in absorption at 70 mu m. We compare the data with archive data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) at 12, 25, 60, 100 mu m, in which the filament is also seen in absorption. We find that the emission from the filament consists of two components: a narrow, cold (similar to 8 K), central core, and a broader, slightly warmer (similar to 12 K), shoulder of emission. We use a radiative transfer code to model the filament's appearance, either in emission or absorption, simultaneously at each of the different wavelengths. Our best-fitting model uses a Plummer-like density profile and a homogeneous interstellar dust grain population. Unlike previous work on a similar, but different filament in Taurus, we require no grain coagulation to explain our data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available