4.7 Article

Updated opacities from the opacity project

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 360, Issue 2, Pages 458-464

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08991.x

Keywords

atomic processes; radiative transfer; stars : interiors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using the code AUTOSTRUCTURE, extensive calculations of inner-shell atomic data have been made for the chemical elements He, C, N, O, Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ar, Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe and Ni. The results are used to obtain updated opacities from the Opacity Project (OP). A number of other improvements on earlier work have also been included. Rosseland-mean opacities from the OP are compared with those from OPAL. Differences of 5 - 10 per cent occur. The OP gives the 'Z-bump', at log(T) similar or equal to 5.2, to be shifted to slightly higher temperatures. The opacities from the OP, as functions of temperature and density, are smoother than those from OPAL. The accuracy of the integrations used to obtain mean opacities can depend on the frequency mesh used. Tests involving variation of the numbers of frequency points show that for typical chemical mixtures the OP integrations are numerically correct to within 0.1 per cent. Prior to a number of recent investigations which have indicated a need for downward revisions in the solar abundances of oxygen and other elements, there was good agreement between properties of the Sun deduced from helioseismology and from stellar evolution models calculated using OPAL opacities. The revisions destroy that agreement. In a recent paper, Bahcall et al. argue that the agreement would be restored if opacities for the regions of the Sun with 2 x 10(6) <= T <= 5 x 10(6) K (0.7 - 0.4 R(circle dot)) were larger than those given by OPAL by about 10 per cent. In the region concerned, the present results from the OP do not differ from those of OPAL by more than 2.5 per cent.

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