Paper detail

Zeta Oph and the weak-wind problem

Mass-loss rate, $\dot{M}$, is one of the key parameters affecting evolution and observational manifestations of massive stars, and their impact on the ambient medium. Despite its importance, there is a factor of ~100 discrepancy between empirical and theoretical $\dot{M}$ of late-type O dwarfs, the so-called weak-wind problem. In this Letter, we propose a simple novel method to constrain $\dot{M}$ of runaway massive stars through observation of their bow shocks and Stromgren spheres, which might be of decisive importance for resolving the weak-wind problem. Using this method, we found that $\dot{M}$ of the well-known runaway O9.5 V star zeta Oph is more than an order of magnitude higher than that derived from ultraviolet (UV) line-fitting (Marcolino et al. 2009) and is by a factor of 6 to 7 lower than those based on the theoretical recipe by Vink et al. (2000) and the Halpha line (Mokiem et al. 2005). The discrepancy between $\dot{M}$ derived by our method and that based on UV lines would be even more severe if the stellar wind is clumpy. At the same time, our estimate of $\dot{M}$ agrees with that predicted by the moving reversing layer theory by Lucy (2010).

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.