Paper detail

A proper description of clumping in hot star winds: the key to obtaining reliable mass-loss rates?

Small-scale inhomogeneities, or `clumping', in the winds of hot, massive stars are conventionally included in spectral analyses by assuming optically thin clumps. To reconcile investigations of different diagnostics using this microclumping technique, very low mass-loss rates must be invoked for O stars. Recently it has been suggested that by using the microclumping approximation one may actually drastically underestimate the mass-loss rates. Here we demonstrate this, present a new, improved description of clumpy winds, and show how corresponding models, in a combined UV and optical analysis, can alleviate discrepancies between previously derived rates and those predicted by the line-driven wind theory. Furthermore, we show that the structures obtained in time-dependent, radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of the intrinsic line-driven instability of such winds, which are the basis to our current understanding of clumping, in their present-day form seem unable to provide a fully self-consistent, simultaneous fit to both UV and optical lines. The reasons for this are discussed.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.