4.6 Article

Does convective core overshooting depend on stellar mass? - Tests using double-lined eclipsing binaries

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 475, Issue 3, Pages 1019-U79

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078024

Keywords

stars : binaries : eclipsing; stars : evolution; stars : interiors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims. We have selected 13 double-line eclipsing binary systems (DLEBS), strategically positioned in the HR diagram, to infer the mass dependence of the core overshooting parameter alpha(ov). Methods. In order to compare the data from these DLEBS with the theoretical predictions we computed four grids of evolutionary stellar models with variable amounts of core overshooting (alpha(ov) = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6) in addition to those previously computed. In some particular cases specific models were computed for the precise observed masses. This procedure avoids interpolations and extrapolations, and only considers chemical compositions within the limits of the usual primordial helium abundance and enrichment law. Results. We used the ratio TR = T-eff2/T-eff1 instead of the effective temperatures themselves as we consider it a much better constrained parameter. This is because it is directly derived from the analysis of light curves and is independent of calibrations, distances, and model atmospheres. In contrast to previous studies on the subject, we have found that standard models or models with moderate core overshooting (alpha(ov) approximate to 0.2) are able to match the absolute dimensions of key DLEBS such as V380 Cyg or V453 Cyg. The resulting log M - alpha(ov) diagram indicates that the dependence of aov on mass is more uncertain and less pronounced that previously established. This result is also consistent with the analysis of colour-magnitude diagrams for clusters and with previous comparisons of stellar models with larger samples of DLEBS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available