4.7 Article

Feedback from supercritical disk accretion flows: Two-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of stable and unstable disks with radiatively driven outflows

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 659, 期 1, 页码 205-210

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/512118

关键词

accretion; accretion disks; black hole physics; galaxies : nuclei; hydrodynamics; radiative transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The supercritical disk accretion flow with radiatively driven outflows is studied based on two-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations for a wide range of the mass input rate,. M-input, which is the mass supplied from the outer region to the disk per unit time. The alpha-prescription is adopted for the viscosity. We employ alpha = 0: 5, as well as alpha 0: 1, for M-input >= 3 x 10(2)L(E)/c(2) and only alpha = 0: 5 for M-input <= 10(2)L(E)/c(2), where L-E is the Eddington luminosity and c is the speed of light. The quasi-steady disk and radiatively driven outflows form in the case in which the mass input rate highly exceeds the critical rate,. M-input > 3 x 10(2)L(E)/c(2). Then, the disk luminosity, as well as the kinetic energy output rate by the outflow, exceeds the Eddington luminosity. The moderately supercritical disk, M-input similar to 10(2)L(E)/(2)c, exhibits limit-cycle oscillations. The disk luminosity goes up and down across the Eddington luminosity, and the radiatively driven outflows intermittently appear. The time-averaged mass, momentum, and kinetic energy output rates by the outflow, as well as the disk luminosity, increase with an increase of the mass input rate, proportional to M-input(0.7)- M-input(1.0) for alpha = 0.5 and proportional to M-input(0.6) for alpha = 0.1. Our numerical simulations show that the radiatively driven outflow model for the correlation between black hole mass and bulge velocity dispersion proposed by Silk & Rees and King is successful if. M(input)c(2)/L-E similar to a few 10 (alpha = 0.5) or greater than or similar to a few (alpha = 0.1).

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