Simulations to test He-like forbidden-to-intercombination line ratio modeling for O, Ne, Mg, S, Si and Fe.

June 28, 2005

M. Walter-Range

Swarthmore College

107 108 109 1010 1011 1012 1013

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0 BDT (1972) PrismSPECT Porquet (2001)

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

nati

on

ne (cm-3)

Oxygen

109 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0 BDT (1972) PrismSPECT Porquet (2001)

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

ne (cm-3)

Neon

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0 BDT (1972) PrismSPECT Porquet (2001)

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

nati

on

ne (cm-3)

Magnesium

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5 BDT (1972) PrismSPECT Porquet (2001)

I forb

idde

n/I

inte

rcom

bina

tion

ne (cm-3)

Silicon

Here are some of the plots of R vs. ne from mid-May, but I have updated them to include the analytic expression R=R0/(1+ne/nc) using Porquet’s newer values for R0.According to Equation 4 in Blumenthal, Drake, and Tucker 1972, .The values of nc are from BDT: Oxygen: nc=3.4E10, Neon: nc=6.4E11, Magnesium: nc=6.2E12, Silicon: nc=4.0E13.The PrismSPECT modeling uses ATBASE v4.3 beta, with the “most detailed” model chosen for the He-like atomic models. The workspaces and the associated ATM files can be found at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/lab_notes/ps_workspaces

)22()1(

)12(3

13

01

13

PSCF

SSAcn

Porquet’s group did not recalculate R0 for any elements heavier than Si, so the following two plots only contain the original BDT line and the PrismSPECT values. For Sulfur: nc=1.9E14, Iron: nc=4.7E16.

1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020

0.0

0.5

1.0

BDT (1972) PrismSPECT

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

ne (cm-3)

Iron

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 BDT (1972) PrismSPECT

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

ne (cm-3)

Sulfur

The largest disagreement between PrismSPECT and the BDT function occurs in the low-density limit for each of the elements shown above. However, the calculations do show agreement with the analytic expression in terms of overall shape. This includes the (effective) values for nc in PrismSPECT/ATBASE. There is significantly less agreement for plots of R vs. φ, shown on the following pages.

Questions:(i) What is the cause of the discrepancy between R0 in PrismSPECT and the values calculated by BDT and Porquet?(ii) Can we be sure that the atomic rates governing R0 are more accurate in the PrismSPECT/ATBASE models?(iii) How accurate is the iron model (both in terms of nc and R0)?

The following plots are the results from simulations in which the varying property was the radiation source drive temperature (and thus the UV mean intensity driving the 3S – 3P photoexcitation). I used a one-sided radiation field, and the planar option for the plasma geometry (I also tried the zero-width option, but it didn’t seem to make any difference).

If you would like to see the exact settings I entered into PrismSPECT, there are PowerPoint documents with screenshots for all the simulations I ran, available at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/lab_notes

I have also uploaded several of the workspaces I was using. They can be found at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/lab_notes/ps_workspaces

The step-by-step procedure I used is available at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/lab_notes/procedure_for_plotting_R_vs_phi.pdf

This procedure is based on equations that can be found at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/lab_notes/phi_equations.pdfPlease look this over to make sure you agree with the mathematical formalism relating φ, R*/r, and Trad.

For each ion, there are two plots. The first is a simple comparison of PrismSPECT results and the BDT model (using Porquet’s newer values for R0, although I did include the original BDT model as a dotted line). The red line segment and data points are for values of φ we would expect to find when the radial distance of the plasma (from the center of the star) is between 1R* and 100R*. The second plot for each element shows explicitly the relationship between the f/i ratio and the radial distance.

824 826 828 830 832 834 836 838 840 842104

105

106

107

108

109

1010

1011

Tlusty 30kK 30000K 29241K 25321K 22988K 20594K 17615K 10928K

H (

ergs

s-1 c

m-2 A

-1)

(Angstroms)

This is a plot of the Tlusty model atmosphere at the at the relevant range of wavelengths for Si XIII. The vertical line shows the wavelength I used as the weighted average for the two 23S - 23P transitions. Note: ATBASE says these two transitions are at 814.65 Å and 865.009 Å. Then I found the mean flux over a 5-Angstrom range in order to account for the Doppler shift of the stellar wind. The effective value of H is thus 4.69E-4 ergs s-1 cm-2 Hz-1.

This particular Tlusty model is for a 30kK star with log(g)=3.25 and Z/Z0=1. I have also plotted a 30kK blackbody curve for comparison, and blackbodies for the temperatures shown in Table 2 of the document, “phi_equations.pdf.” This was done in order to check and see if the radiation temperatures I was giving PrismSPECT were scaling sensibly according to the dilution factor, W(r). It seems that they are. Check Table 2 in the document for the associated values of R*/r, W, J, and φ.

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R Porquet (2001)

for 0.01<u<1 PrismSPECT R

for 0.01<u<1 BDT (1972)

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

(s-1)

R vs. for Si XIII30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

Tplasma=500eV which results in 89% ionization to Si XIII.

Tspec =29.2kK=2.520eVNote: This is the calculated radiation temperature at R*/r=1, i.e. the surface of the star. A blackbody curve for this temperature should intersect a 30kK Tlusty model atmosphere at 832.86 Å This is the (average) λuv that drives the 23S - 23P transitions.

Hν= 4.69E-4 ergs s-1 cm-2 Hz-1.

φ Trad(eV) f/i1 0.767 2.3810 0.870 2.3437 0.942 2.30100 1.005 2.261000 1.190 2.0910E4 1.459 1.771.5E4 1.518 1.686.2E4 1.775 1.331.5E5 1.981 1.063.0E5 2.182 0.837.4E5 2.520 0.551E7 4.466 0.071E8 11.37 1E-301E9 62.23 1E-30

The solid line in the plot is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values for R0. The original BDT line (using values of R0 from 1972) is shown as a dotted line. The individual points are the results of PrismSPECT simulations. A black point meant that I was calculating R at a specific value of φ, a red point meant that I was calculating R for a specific value of u (u=R*/r). The following page displays a plot of R vs. u, using these red points and the red segment of the BDT line (which corresponds to radial distances of 1R *<r<100R*). My primary reason for highlighting this segment was so that I could see which values of φ were more likely to be observed in an astronomical context.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

u=R*/r

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R Si line from

Leutenegger et al. (Fig. 4.)

R vs. u for Si XIII30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

The solid line is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values of R0. The points are from PrismSPECT simulations. Note: see “phi_equations.pdf” for a description of how we relate u to φ and to Trad.

In this case, I have also plotted the BDT line from a pre-print copy of Maurice Leutenegger’s paper on He-like triplet ratios. We used the same model atmosphere, but we used slightly different methods for finding the mean intensity of the radiation, hence the difference between my line and his. A copy of his paper can be found at: http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~mwalter1/astro_publications/leutenegger_2005.pdf

It is also interesting to note that the BDT line and the PrismSPECT line appear to have significantly different shapes, even though they are in agreement at the end points. This disagreement can also be seen in the R vs. φ plot on the previous page.

Tplasma=500eV which results in 55% ionization to Mg XI.

Tspec =32.8kK=2.828eV

λuv(ave)= 1008.042 Å

Hν= 1.14E-3 ergs s-1 cm-2 Hz-1.

φ Trad(eV) f/i1 0.646 2.7310 0.735 2.48100 0.852 2.10121 0.864 2.061000 1.014 1.551E4 1.252 0.924.9E4 1.493 0.542E5 1.803 0.284.8E5 2.068 0.179.7E5 2.339 0.1031E6 2.355 0.1002.4E6 2.828 0.0491E7 4.144 0.0111E8 11.76 1.0E-301E9 72.64 1.0E-30

The solid line in the plot is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values for R0. The original BDT line (using values of R0 from 1972) is shown as a dotted line. The individual points are the results of PrismSPECT simulations. A black point meant that I was calculating R at a specific value of φ, a red point meant that I was calculating R for a specific value of u (u=R*/r). The following page displays a plot of R vs. u, using these red points and the red segment of the BDT line (which corresponds to radial distances of 1R *<r<100R*).

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

(s-1)

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R Porquet (2001)

for 0.01<u<1 PrismSPECT R

for 0.01<u<1 BDT (1972)

R vs. for Mg XI30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

The solid line is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values of R0. The points are from PrismSPECT simulations.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

u=R*/r

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R

R vs. u for Mg XI30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

(s-1)

BDT (1972) PrismSPECT R BDT (1972)

for 0.01<u<1 PrismSPECT R

for 0.01<u<1

R vs. for S XV30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

Tplasma=500eV which results in 89% ionization to S XV.

Tspec =29.2kK=2.520eV

λuv(ave)= 694.13 Å

Hν= 2.31E-3 ergs s-1 cm-2 Hz-1.

φ Trad(eV) f/i1 0.908 1.7410 1.028 1.7313.7 1.047 1.73100 1.185 1.721000 1.399 1.695.5E3 1.615 1.651E4 1.706 1.632.3E4 1.852 1.595.5E4 2.037 1.521E5 2.188 1.461.1E5 2.212 1.452.7E5 2.495 1.311E6 3.046 1.001E7 4.980 0.281E8 11.86 1E-301E9 59.37 1E-30

The solid line in the plot is the BDT model, calculated with the original (1972) value for R0 because Porquet’s group did not publish an updated value for S XV. The individual points are the results of PrismSPECT simulations. A black point meant that I was calculating R at a specific value of φ, a red point meant that I was calculating R for a specific value of u (u=R*/r). The following page displays a plot of R vs. u, using these red points and the red segment of the BDT line (which corresponds to radial distances of 1R *<r<100R*).

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0I fo

rbid

den/I

inte

rcom

bina

tion

u=R*/r

BDT (1972) PrismSPECT R

R vs. u for S XV30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

The solid line is the BDT model, using the 1972 value of R0. The points are from PrismSPECT simulations.

Tplasma=100eV which results in 95% ionization to O VII.

Tspec =27.6kK=2.374eV

λuv(ave)= 1623.96 Å

Hν= 9.69E-4 ergs s-1 cm-2 Hz-1.

φ Trad(eV) f/i1 0.410 0.5310 0.468 0.33100 0.544 0.19258 0.584 0.141000 0.651 0.091.0E4 0.810 0.041.04E5 1.079 1E-304.3E5 1.348 1E-301E6 1.583 1E-301.03E6 1.593 1E-302.1E6 1.858 1E-305.2E6 2.374 1E-30

The solid line in the plot is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values for R0. The original BDT line (using values of R0 from 1972) is shown as a dotted line. The individual points are the results of PrismSPECT simulations. A black point meant that I was calculating R at a specific value of φ, a red point meant that I was calculating R for a specific value of u (u=R*/r). The following page displays a plot of R vs. u, using these red points and the red segment of the BDT line (which corresponds to radial distances of 1R *<r<100R*).

I initially ran this simulation with an ion density of 1010 cm-3, which is close to the value of nc for oxygen. Realizing my mistake, I repeated the simulation with a density of 107 cm-3, but this change barely made a difference. For instance, the f/i ratio at φ=1 changed from 0.51 to 0.53, which is negligible when compared with the disparity between BDT’s value and the one from PrismSPECT. I tried a simulation with φ=1E-125 (Trad=0.025eV) and I recovered the same value as the one shown in the low-density limit of the R vs. n e plot.

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

0

1

2

3

4

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

(s-1)

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R Porquet (2001)

for 0.01<u<1 PrismSPECT R

for 0.01<u<1 BDT (1972)

R vs. for O VII30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

The solid line is the BDT model, calculated with Porquet’s newer values of R0. The points are from PrismSPECT simulations.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0

1

2

3

I forb

idde

n/Iin

terc

ombi

natio

n

u=R*/r

Porquet (2001) PrismSPECT R

R vs. u for O VII30kK Tlusty star with log(g)=3.25

Conclusions:

• In plots of R vs. ne, the largest disparity between BDT and PrismSPECT occurs at low densities, most noticeably in the case of Fe XXV. What rates could account for these differences?

•We have developed a formalism and procedure for relating BDT’s analytic expression for R to the results of PrismSPECT models, relating φ to u=R*/r and Trad. Do you agree with this formalism?

•There is significant disagreement between PrismSPECT models of the effects of photoexcitation and the models of BDT. Could you check the actual photoexcitation rates in PrismSPECT in one of these calculations? Are other procedures (not accounted for by BDT) important? Are crucial rates significantly different?