4.7 Article

Empirical determination of the integrated red giant and horizontal branch stellar mass-loss in ω Centauri

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01086.x

关键词

stars: AGB and post-AGB; circumstellar matter; stars: mass-loss; stars: winds, outflows; globular clusters: individual: omega Cen; infrared: stars

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1003201]
  2. STFC [ST/I001425/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001425/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1003201] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We herein determine the average integrated mass-loss from stars belonging to the dominant metal-poor population ([ Fe/H]similar to-1.7) of the Galactic globular cluster omega Centauri (NGC5139) during their red giant and horizontal branch (HB) evolution. Masses are empirically calculated from spectroscopic measurements of surface gravity and photometric measurements of temperature and luminosity. Systematic uncertainties prevent an absolute measurement of masses at a phase of evolution. However, the relative masses of early asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars and central red giant branch (RGB) stars can be measured, and used to derive the massloss between these two phases. This can then be used as a physical check of models of HB stars. For. Centauri, the average difference is found to be 26 +/- 4 per cent. Assuming initial and final masses of 0.83 and 0.53 M-circle dot, we determine that 0.21 +/- 0.03 M-circle dot is lost on the RGB and 0.09 +/- similar to 0.05 M-circle dot is lost on the AGB. The implied HB stellar mass of 0.62 +/- 0.04 M-circle dot is commensurate with literature determinations of the masses of the cluster's HB stars. The accuracy of this measurement can be improved through better selection of stars and spectral coverage, and applied to other clusters where HB models do not currently agree.

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