Paper detail

First spectro-interferometric survey of Be stars I. Observations and constraints on the disks geometry and kinematics

Context. Classical Be stars are hot non-supergiant stars surrounded by a gaseous circumstellar disk that is responsible for the observed infrared-excess and emission lines. The phenomena involved in the disk formation still remain highly debated. Aims. To progress in the understanding of the physical process or processes responsible for the mass ejections and test the hypothesis that they depend on the stellar parameters, we initiated a survey on the circumstellar environment of the brightest Be stars. Methods. To achieve this goal, we used spectro-interferometry, the only technique that combines high spectral (R=12000) and high spatial ($θ_{\rm min}$=4\,mas) resolutions. Observations were carried out at the Paranal observatory with the VLTI/AMBER instrument. We concentrated our observations on the Br$γ$ emission line to be able to study the kinematics within the circumstellar disk. Our sample is composed of eight bright classical Be stars : $α$ Col, $κ$ CMa, $ω$ Car, p Car, $δ$ Cen, $μ$ Cen, $α$ Ara, and \textit{o} Aqr. Results. We managed to determine the disk extension in the line and the nearby continuum for most targets. We also constrained the disk kinematics, showing that it is dominated by rotation with a rotation law close to the Keplerian one. Our survey also suggests that these stars are rotating at a mean velocity of V/V$_{\rm c}$\,=\,0.82\,$\pm$\,0.08. This corresponds to a rotational rate of $Ω/Ω_{\rm c}$\,=\,0.95\,$\pm$\,0.02 Conclusions. We did not detect any correlation between the stellar parameters and the structure of the circumstellar environment. Moreover, it seems that a simple model of a geometrically thin Keplerian disk can explain most of our spectrally resolved K-band data. Nevertheless, some small departures from this model have been detected for at least two objects (i.e, $κ$ CMa and $α$ Col). Finally, our Be stars sample suggests that rotation is the main physical process driving the mass-ejection. Nevertheless, smaller effects from other mechanisms have to be taken into account to fully explain how the residual gravity is compensated.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.