4.6 Article

The stellar content of the XMM-Newton bright serendipitous survey

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 463, 期 1, 页码 165-U17

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065696

关键词

galaxy : stellar content; stars : activity; stars : coronae; stars : formation; stars : magnetic fields; X-rays : stars

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The comparison of observed counts in a given sky direction with predictions by Galactic models yields constraints on the spatial distribution and the stellar birthrate of young stellar populations. The XMM-Newton Bright Serendipitous Survey (XBSS) is an unbiased survey that includes a total of 58 stellar sources selected in the 0.5-4.5 keV energy band, having a limiting sensitivity of 10(-2) cnt s(-1) and covering an area of 28.10 sq deg. Aims. We present the results of analysing the stellar content of the XBSS so as to understand the recent star formation history of the Galaxy in the vicinity of the Sun. Methods. We compared the observations with the predictions obtained with XCOUNT, a model of the stellar X-ray content of the Galaxy. The model predicts the number and properties of the stars to be observed in terms of magnitude, colour, population and f(x)/f(v) ratio distributions of the coronal sources detected with a given instrument and sensitivity in a specific sky direction. Results. As in other shallow surveys, we observe an excess of stars not predicted by our Galaxy model. Comparing the colours of the identified infrared counterparts with the model predictions, we observe that this excess is produced by yellow (G+K) stars. The study of the X-ray spectrum of each source reveals a main population of stars with the coronal temperature stratification typical of intermediate-age stars. As no assumptions have been made for the selection of the sample, our results must be representative of the entire solar neighbourhood. Some stars show infrared excess due to circumstellar absorption, which is indicative of youth.

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