|
| | | | |
| | | |
| Stat |
Members: 3645
Articles: 2'503'724
Articles rated: 2609
24 April 2024 |
|
| | | | |
|
Article overview
| |
|
|
Abundance analysis of the slow nova PW Vulpeculae 1984 | | Greg J. Schwarz
; S. Starrfield
; Steven N. Shore
; Peter H. Hauschildt
; | | Date: |
12 May 1997 | | Subject: | astro-ph | | Affiliation: | ASU), S. Starrfield (ASU), Steven N. Shore (IUSB) and Peter H. Hauschildt (UGA | | Abstract: | We determine the elemental abundances for the ejecta of the slow nova PW Vul 1984. Our technique uses a minimization of the emission line fits of a photoionization model to available ultraviolet, optical and infrared spectra. We find the following abundances (by number) with respect to solar: He/H = 1.0 $pm$ 0.4, C/H = 7.0 $^{+7}_{-4}$, N/H = 85 $^{+59}_{-41}$ and O/H = 6 $^{+7}_{-2}$. In addition, there is weak evidence for solar Ne and Mg and twice solar Fe. Previous studies (Saizar et al. 1991 and Andreä et al. 1991, 1994) of PW Vul have yielded considerable differences in their derived elemental abundances for the ejecta. Our abundances fall in between the previous studies. To explain the discrepant abundances, we analyze in detail the data and methods used to obtain the previous results. The abundances of Saizar et al. (1991) are significantly smaller then our values because of the lower electron temperature used by Saizar et al. in deriving elemental abundances from ion abundances. Andreä et al. (1991) used an ionization correction method to obtain their abundances and verified their results with a photoionization model (Andreä et al. 1994). Our analysis of their data shows that the absolute fluxes of the optical emission lines used by Andreä are underestimated by 15% leading to a factor of 2 increase in their derived abundances. We also find the photoionization model used by Andreä et al. (1994) predicts 2 times more carbon than the photoionization code we used even when fitting the same data with similar model parameters. | | Source: | arXiv, astro-ph/9705086 | | Services: | Forum | Review | PDF | Favorites | |
|
|
No review found.
Did you like this article?
Note: answers to reviews or questions about the article must be posted in the forum section.
Authors are not allowed to review their own article. They can use the forum section.
browser Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
News, job offers and information for researchers and scientists:
| |
REGISTER