Paper detail

Mass loss from inhomogeneous hot star winds I. Resonance line formation in 2D models

Small-scale clumping in the winds of hot, massive stars is conventionally included in spectral analyses by assuming optically thin clumps, a void inter-clump medium, and a smooth velocity field. To reconcile investigations of different diagnostics within such models, a highly clumped wind with very low mass-loss rates needs to be invoked. Particularly, unsaturated UV resonance lines seem to indicate rates an order of magnitude (or even more) lower than previously accepted values. We investigate resonance line formation in inhomogeneous hot star winds with non-monotonic velocity fields by means of 2D stochastic and pseudo-2D radiation-hydrodynamic wind models. A Monte-Carlo radiative transfer code is presented and used to produce synthetic line spectra. Results: The optically thin clumping limit is only valid for very weak lines. For intermediate strong lines, the velocity spans of the clumps are of central importance. Current hydrodynamical models predict spans that are too large to reproduce observed profiles unless a very low mass-loss rate is invoked. By simulating lower spans in 2D stochastic models, the profile strengths become drastically reduced, and are consistent with higher mass-loss rates. To simultaneously meet the constraints from strong lines, the inter-clump medium must be non-void. A first comparison to the observed PV doublet in the O6 supergiant lam Cep confirms that a stochastic 2D model reproduces observations with a mass-loss rate roughly ten times higher than that derived from the same lines but assuming optically thin clumping. Tentatively this may resolve discrepancies between theoretical predictions, evolutionary constraints, and recent derived mass-loss rates, and suggests a re-investigation of the structure predicted by current hydrodynamical models.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.