4.7 Article

Further indications of jet rotation in new ultraviolet and optical hubble space telescope STIS spectra

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 663, 期 1, 页码 350-364

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/518100

关键词

ISM : jets and outflows; stars : formation; stars : individual (DG Tauri; CW Tauri; TH 28; HH 30); stars : pre-main-sequence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present survey results that suggest rotation signatures at the base of T Tauri jets. Observations were conducted with the Hubble Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph at optical and near-ultraviolet (NUV) wavelengths. Results are presented for the approaching jet from DG Tau, CW Tau, HH 30, and the bipolar jet from TH 28. Systematic asymmetries in Doppler shift were detected across the jet, within 100 AU from the star. At optical wavelengths, radial velocity differences were typically (10-25) +/- 5 km s(-1), while differences in the NUV range were consistently lower, at typically 10 +/- 5 km s(-1). Results are interpreted as possible rotation signatures. Importantly, there is agreement between the optical and NUV results for DG Tau. Under the assumption of steady magnetocentrifugal acceleration, the survey results lead to estimates for the distance of the jet footpoint from the star, and give values consistent with earlier studies. In the case of DG Tau, for example, we see that the higher velocity component appears to be launched from a distance of 0.2 - 0.5 AU from the star along the disk plane, while the lower velocity component appears to trace a wider part of the jet launched from as far as 1.9 AU. The results for the other targets are similar. Therefore, if indeed the detected Doppler gradients trace rotation within the jet, then under the assumption of steadyMHD ejection, the derived footpoint radii support the existence of magnetized disk winds. However, since we do not resolved the innermost layers of the flow, we cannot exclude the possibility that there also exists an X-wind or stellar wind component.

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