Paper detail

Infrared excess around nearby RGB stars and Reimers law

(Abridged) The spectral energy distributions of a well-defined sample of 54 RGB stars are constructed, and fitted with the dust radiative transfer model DUSTY. The central stars are modeled by MARCS model atmospheres. In a first step, the best-fit MARCS model is derived, determining the effective temperature. In a second step, models with a finite dust optical depth are fitted and it is determined whether the reduction in chi2 in such models with one additional free parameter is statistically significant. 23 stars are found to have a significant infrared excess, which is interpreted as mass loss. The dust optical depths are translated into mass-loss rates assuming a typical expansion velocity of 10 km/s and a dust-to-gas ratio of 0.005. The mass-loss rates are compared to those derived for luminous stars in globular clusters, by fitting both the infrared excess, as in the present paper, and the chromospheric lines. There is excellent agreement between these values and the mass-loss rates derived from the chromospheric activity. There is a systematic difference with the literature mass-loss rates derived from modeling the infrared excess, and this has been traced to technical details on how the DUSTY radiative transfer model is run. If the present results are combined with those from modeling the chromospheric emission lines, we obtain the fits Log Mdot = (1.0 +- 0.3) Log L + (-12.0 +- 0.9) and Log Mdot = (0.6 +- 0.2) Log (LR/M) + (-11.9 +- 0.9). The predictions of these mass-loss rate formula are tested against the RGB mass loss determination in NGC 6791. Using a scaling factor of (8 +- 5), both relations can fit this value. That the scaling factor is larger than unity suggests that the expansion velocity and/or dust-to-gas ratio, or even the dust opacities, are different from the values adopted.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.