4.6 Article

Interferometric properties of pulsating C-rich AGB stars Intensity profiles and uniform disc diameters of dynamic model atmospheres

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 501, 期 3, 页码 1073-1085

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911938

关键词

techniques: interferometric; stars: AGB and post-AGB; stars: carbon; stars: atmospheres; stars: late-type

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P19503-N16, P18939-N16]
  2. ASI-INAF [I/016/07/0]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 21988] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. On the basis of a set of dynamic model atmospheres of C-rich AGB stars, we present the first theoretical study of centre-to-limb variation (CLV) properties and relative radius interpretation on narrow and broad-band filters. We computed visibility profiles and the equivalent uniform disc (UD) radii to investigate the dependence of these quantities on the wavelength and pulsation phase. Methods. After an accurate morphological analysis of the visibility and intensity profiles determined in narrow and broad-band filters, we fitted our visibility profiles with a UD function simulating the observational approach. The UD-radii were computed using three different fitting-methods to investigate the influence of the visibility sampling profile: single point, two points and a least squares method. Results. The intensity and visibility profiles of models characterises by mass loss show a behaviour very different from a UD. We found that UD-radii are wavelength dependent and that this dependence is stronger if mass loss is present. Strong opacity contributions from C2H2 affect all radius measurements at 3 mu m and in the N-band, resulting in higher values for the UD-radii. In the case of models with mass loss the predicted behaviour of UD-radii versus phase is complicated, while the radial changes are almost sinusoidal for models without mass loss. Compared to the M-type stars, for the C-stars no windows are available for measuring the pure continuum.

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