4.6 Article

On the robustness of H-deficient post-AGB tracks

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 470, 期 2, 页码 675-684

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077256

关键词

stars : AGB and post-AGB; while dwarfs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We analyze the robustness of H-deficient post-AGB tracks regarding previous evolution of their progenitor stars and the constitutive physics of the remnants. Our motivation is a recent suggestion of Werner & Herwig (2006, PASP, 118, 183) that previous evolution should be important in shaping the final post-AGB track and the persisting discrepancy between asteroseismological and spectroscopical mass determinations. This work is thus complementary to our previous work (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006, A& A, 454, 845) and intends to shed some light on the uncertainty behind the evolutionary tracks presented there. Methods. We compute full evolutionary models for PG 1159 stars taking into account different extramixing (overshooting) effeciencies and lifetimes on the TP-AGB during the progenitor evolution. We also assess the e. ect of possible differences in the opacities and equation of state by artificially changing them before the PG 1159 stage. Also comparisons are made with the few H-deficient post-AGB tracks available in the literature. Results. Contrary to our expectations, we found that previous evolution is not a main factor in shaping H-deficient post-AGB tracks. Interestingly enough, we find that only an increase of similar to 50% in the intershell opacities at high effective temperatures may affect the tracks as to reconcile spectroscopic and asteroseismologic mass determinations. This forces us to conclude that our previous tracks (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006) are robust enough as to be used for spectroscopic mass determinations, unless opacities in the intershell region are substantially different. Our results, then, call for an analysis of possible systematics in the usually adopted asteroseismological mass determination methods.

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

4.6
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