4.7 Article

Evolution of protostellar outflow around low-mass protostar

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt291

关键词

accretion, accretion discs; MHD; stars: formation; stars: low-mass; ISM: jets and outflows; ISM: magnetic fields

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolution of protostellar outflow is investigated with resistive magneto-hydrodynamic nested-grid simulations that cover a wide range of spatial scales (similar to 1 au-1 pc). We follow cloud evolution from the pre-stellar core stage until the infalling envelope dissipates long after the protostar formation. We also calculate protostellar evolution to derive protostellar luminosity with time-dependent mass accretion through a circumstellar disc. The protostellar outflow is driven by the first core prior to protostar formation and is directly driven by the circumstellar disc after protostar formation. The opening angle of the outflow is large in the Class 0 stage. A large fraction of the cloud mass is ejected in this stage, which reduces the star formation efficiency to similar to 50 per cent. After the outflow breaks out from the natal cloud, the outflow collimation is gradually improved in the Class I stage. The head of the outflow travels more than similar to 10(5) au in similar to 10(5) yr. The outflow momentum, energy and mass derived in our calculations agree well with observations. In addition, our simulations show the same correlations among outflow momentum flux, protostellar luminosity and envelope mass as those in observations. These correlations differ between Class 0 and I stages, which are explained by different evolutionary stages of the outflow; in the Class 0 stage, the outflow is powered by the accreting mass and acquires its momentum from the infalling envelope; in the Class I stage, the outflow enters the momentum-driven snow-plough phase. Our results suggest that protostellar outflow should determine the final stellar mass and significantly affect the early evolution of low-mass protostars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据