the problematic modelling of rcrb atmospheres bengt gustafsson department of astronomy and space...
TRANSCRIPT
The problematic modelling of RCrB atmospheres
Bengt Gustafsson Department of Astronomy and Space Physics
Uppsala University
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Hydrogen-Deficient StarsTübingen, September 2007
Standard MARCS models
• 1D (plane-parallel or spherically symmetric)• Detailed blanketing• LTE • Mixing-Length Convection
See
Asplund, Gustafsson, Kiselman & Eriksson (1997): A&A 318, 521
Asplund, Gustafsson, Lambert & Rao (2000): A&A 353, 287
as well as
Eriksson, Edvardsson, Gustafsson & Plez (2007), in preparation
• No HI and H - opacity =>
Heavy blanketing =>
Steepened
grad T
Increasing Teff => increasing =>
decreasing and Pg, unaltered Pe.
Increasing Teff => increasing =>
decreasing and Pg, unaltered Pe.
Model-structure variations with fundamental parameters
/,
Density inversion -- Super Eddington?
/,
Density inversion -- Super Eddington?
< 0 in ioniz. zone
>1< 0
/,
Density inversion -- Super Eddington?
< 0 in ioniz. zone
>1< 0
=> < 0
Density inversion occurs (first) due to ionization -- not radiative force
• Yet, >1 does not automatically lead to mass flows -- a positive pressure grandient may balance
• Additional effects due to Pdyn
• Instabilities deserve further studies!
Border case at = 1?
Super-Eddington luminosities cause RCB declines?
From Asplund & Gustafsson (1996), ASP Conf. 96, 39
RCB:s evolve from right to left:Expansion => Cooling => StabilityLBV:s from left to right:Expansion => Cooling => Instability
Yet very uncertain whether effect works, See Asplund (1998), A&A 330, 641Effects of spheriicity and convection!
Low H increases line blanketing from CI and other atoms => flux pushed redwards. So does also CI continuum
Dominating opacity sources
Total
He I
Mg
e-
C I
He-N I
See also Pavlenkos talk!
A reasonable fit to observed
fluxes
CI lines at 5000-7000Å
~ 8.5 eV
gf values from TOP data base
W ~ l/
mainly from
CI bf, ~ 9.2 eV
Data also from TOP
Incidently, also other opacities (He-, C- , e- ) reflect C abundance since most electrons come from C
C = [C]pred - [C]obs
C = [C]pred - [C]obs
A real problem!
””The Carbon Problem”The Carbon Problem”
What could be the reason?
• Errors in FP:s? No!• Errors in codes etc? No!• W? No!• Extra-photospheric flux? (> 3x photosp., No!) • Basic atomic data for CI in error? (~10-30%, much too little!)• CI opacity not dominant? (C/He = 1%, must be lowered by more than x
20, inconsistent with hot RCrB stars and EHe stars)• NLTE? (~ 2%, Asplund & Ryde 1996, No (?))• Model atmospheres? - incomplete opacities? - sphericity? - dep. from hydrostatic equilibrium? Hardly! - temperature inhomogeneities? Not per se - errors in structures due, e.g. due to dynamical fluxes
, • New better opacities
More heavy blanketing
Steeper grad T
Sphericity
=> Steeper grad T
Effects on
abundances :
~ ± 0.1 dex
New MARCS
New Marcs models (Eriksson et al. 2007, in prep)
Goes the wrong way for C I!
Decrease grad T in CI-line forming layers!
This works reasonably well but requires
Fheat ~ 4P (4T3T)s
~ 10% Ftot
Compare to
Fmech ~ vturb3
vturb ~ 40 km/s
C problem also for [CI]Pandey et al. (2004), MNRAS 353, 143
… however not for CII (?)
To do:
• C2?
• CI and C2 in IR (He- takes over in )
• Explore accurately normal supergiants
• 3D HD simulations3D HD simulations
No real progress in 8 years. Errors in abundances at least x2 - x4 in absolute numbers. Time to resolve this now?
No real progress in 8 years. Errors in abundances at least x2 - x4 in absolute numbers. Time to resolve this now?
”Truth is the daughter of time, and I feel no shame of being her midwife”
Johannes Kepler