4.6 Article

The blue stragglers formed via mass transfer in old open clusters

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 455, 期 1, 页码 247-254

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064879

关键词

stars : blue stragglers; stars : binaries : close; Galaxy : open clusters and associations : individual : M 67

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we present the simulations for the primordial blue stragglers in the old open cluster M 67 based on detailed modelling of the evolutionary processes. The principal aim is to discuss the contribution of mass transfer between the components of close binaries to the blue straggler population in M 67. Methods. First, we followed the evolution of a binary of 1.4 M-circle dot + 0.9 M-circle dot. The synthetic evolutionary track of the binary system revealed that a primordial blue straggler had a long lifetime in the observed blue straggler region of color-magnitude diagram. Second, a grid of models for close binary systems experiencing mass exchange were computed from 1 Gyr to 6 Gyr in order to account for primordial blue-straggler formation in a time sequence. Based on such a grid, Monte- Carlo simulations were applied for the old open cluster M 67. Results. Adopting appropriate orbital parameters, 4 primordial blue stragglers were predicted by our simulations. This was consistent with the observational fact that only a few blue stragglers in M 67 were binaries with short orbital periods. An upper boundary of the primordial blue stragglers in the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) was defined and could be used to distinguish blue stragglers that were not formed via mass exchange. Using the grid of binary models, the orbital periods of the primordial BSs could be predicted. Conclusions. Compared with the observations, it is clear that the mechanism discussed in this work alone cannot fully predict the blue straggler population in M 67. There must be several other processes also involved in the formation of the observed blue stragglers in M 67.

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