4.7 Article

SIMULATIONS OF HIGH-VELOCITY CLOUDS. I. HYDRODYNAMICS AND HIGH-VELOCITY HIGH IONS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 739, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/30

关键词

Galaxy: halo; hydrodynamics; ISM: clouds; methods: numerical; turbulence; ultraviolet: ISM

资金

  1. DOE
  2. NASA [NNX09AD13G, NNX08AJ47G]
  3. NASA [NNX09AD13G, 120039, NNX08AJ47G, 100917] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present hydrodynamic simulations of high-velocity clouds (HVCs) traveling through the hot, tenuous medium in the Galactic halo. A suite of models was created using the FLASH hydrodynamics code, sampling various cloud sizes, densities, and velocities. In all cases, the cloud-halo interaction ablates material from the clouds. The ablated material falls behind the clouds where it mixes with the ambient medium to produce intermediate-temperature gas, some of which radiatively cools to less than 10,000 K. Using a non-equilibrium ionization algorithm, we track the ionization levels of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in the gas throughout the simulation period. We present observation-related predictions, including the expected Hi and high ion (C IV, N V, and O VI) column densities on sightlines through the clouds as functions of evolutionary time and off-center distance. The predicted column densities overlap those observed for Complex C. The observations are best matched by clouds that have interacted with the Galactic environment for tens to hundreds of megayears. Given the large distances across which the clouds would travel during such time, our results are consistent with Complex C having an extragalactic origin. The destruction of HVCs is also of interest; the smallest cloud (initial mass approximate to 120 M-circle dot) lost most of its mass during the simulation period (60 Myr), while the largest cloud (initial mass approximate to 4 x 10(5) M-circle dot) remained largely intact, although deformed, during its simulation period (240 Myr).

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