4.7 Article

THE EVOLUTION OF THE KINEMATICS OF NEBULAR SHELLS IN PLANETARY NEBULAE IN THE MILKY WAY BULGE

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 716, 期 1, 页码 857-865

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/857

关键词

Galaxy: bulge; ISM: kinematics and dynamics; planetary nebulae: general; stars: evolution

资金

  1. CONACyT [43121, 49447, 82066]
  2. UNAM-DGAPA [IN108406-2, IN116908-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the line widths in the [OIII]lambda 5007 and H alpha lines for two groups of planetary nebulae in the Milky Way bulge based upon spectroscopy obtained at the Observatorio Astronomico Nacional in the Sierra San Pedro Martir (OAN-SPM) using the Manchester Echelle Spectrograph. The first sample includes objects early in their evolution, having high H beta luminosities, but [OIII]lambda 5007/H beta < 3. The second sample comprises objects late in their evolution, with He II lambda 4686/H beta > 0.5. These planetary nebulae represent evolutionary phases preceding and following those of the objects studied by Richer et al. in 2008. Our sample of planetary nebulae with weak [OIII]lambda 5007 has a line width distribution similar to that of the expansion velocities of the envelopes of asymptotic giant branch stars and shifted to systematically lower values as compared to the less evolved objects studied by Richer et al. The sample with strong He II lambda 4686 has a line width distribution indistinguishable from that of the more evolved objects from Richer et al., but a distribution in angular size that is systematically larger and so they are clearly more evolved. These data and those of Richer et al. form a homogeneous sample from a single Galactic population of planetary nebulae, from the earliest evolutionary stages until the cessation of nuclear burning in the central star. They confirm the long-standing predictions of hydrodynamical models of planetary nebulae, where the kinematics of the nebular shell are driven by the evolution of the central star.

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