1.9 Empirically Derived Models

1.9.1 The Poeckert and Marlborough Model

Due to the complexity of a full hydrodynamical model of the structure and dynamics of a Be star (Millar and Marlborough1998) most early models where rather ad hoc (Marlborough1976).

The Poeckert and Marlborough (1978) (PM) model was one of these ad hoc attempts, in which the density of the circumstellar disc at the star-disc boundary and the disc’s radial velocity is specified arbitrarily. By assuming a hydrostatic density distribution perpendicular to the disc, implying an exponential drop off of density with radius, and using the equation of continuity radially the equatorial density is calculated. PM assumed a constant temperature for the circumstellar envelope. The model assumes a steady-state, rotationally and equatorially symmetric circumstellar envelope. The central star is assumed to be spherically symmetric. The model was initially used by PM for the Be star g Cassiopeia, using the parameters M* =17 M o.  , R* =10 R o.  and T* =25000K, the circumstellar temperature was assumed to be 20000K.

Good results were reported from the model; firstly the disc can not be highly ionised as free-bound interactions play a major role in obtaining the correct infrared emission, where in this context highly ionised means less than one in 104 atoms is neutral (Poeckert and Marlborough1978). Also the disc does not appear to be, or need to be, rotating at critical velocity, PM were able to reduce the speed from 567kms-1 , the critical velocity, to 427kms-1 and found no significant changes in their results.

1.9.2 The Disc Model


The Be star Pole-on Disc Model
Figure 1.7: The geometry of the pole-on disc model used to interpret the IR excess, (Waters1986b).

Waters (1986b) introduced a simple wedge-shaped and pure hydrogen disc model to describe the equatorially concentrated wind. The density distribution r(r) is described as:

               -n
r(r) = r0{r/R*}   ,
(1.6)
Where r(r) is the density at distance r, R* is the radius of the star, r0 is the density at r = R* and n is a parameter determined from IR observations and typically 2 /< n /< 3.5. Notably the disc density from equatorial plane to upper edge is a constant, although the density varies with distance from the star in equi-distant radial arcs. Therefore the density inside the envelope does not change significantly with increased height above the equatorial plane. Assuming mass continuity in the out-flowing disc they derive:
               n-2
v(r) = v0(r/R*)   ,
(1.7)
to represent the radial velocity where v0 is the radial component of velocity at the star. An advantage of the model is that there are relatively few free parameters, these being; (i) Rdisc - the outer radius of the disc, (ii) h - the disc opening angle, which is defined as the angle between the equatorial plane and either the upper or lower boundary of the disc and (iii) i - the inclination angle of the rotation axis with respect to the observer. Additionally, the kinetic temperature of the wind is a free parameter, this determines the free-free and and free-bound opacities and emissivities. These are needed to interpret the IR excesses used in the curve of growth methods of Waters et al. (1987), who used these models to derive density structures and mass-loss rates. Collectively these parameters these determine the far-IR flux from the circumstellar disc (see Fig 1.7 for the model geometry).

Waters et al. (1987) fed IRAS data into the disc model and derived typical disc densities of 10-12 <~r0 <~10-11g/cm-3. From curve of growth modelling (see Waters1986b) the mass loss rate of the disc model is:

M  = 96.6r v R2 sin(h),
          0 0 *
(1.8)
where R* is in units of R o.  , r0 in g/cm3, v0 in kms-1 and M in M o.  yr-1, (see Waters1986b). This produced mass losses of IR emitting material to be in the in region of ~ 10-7 to 10-10 M o.  yr-1. However, the velocity distributions within Be star discs are not well known and are the greatest uncertainty in estimating mass losses, as an increase in initial radial velocity leads to an increase in the mass loss rates (Millar and Marlborough1999). The radial disc velocity and disc opening angle were estimated by Waters (1986b), v0 to be 5kms-1 and h to be 15 o . The disc velocity, at r = R*, was estimated from the work on near-IR line profiles of g Cassiopeia by Chalabaev and Maillard (1985). This suggested that the radial outflow velocities in the winds of Be stars at the photosphere were of the order of the sound speed or less, i.e., 5 < v0 < 15 kms-1 .

However a number of sources have argued for a much lower outflow velocity in viscous Be star discs. Marlborough and Cowley (1974) find v0 = 1kms-1 from a study of the Ha emission from B8 shell star 1 Delphinis. Poeckert et al. (1982) have modelled data of o Andromeda in an attempt to account for observed spectroscopic, photometric and polarimetric changes, during which the star went through a shell stage, and find v0 ~ 0.3kms-1 . More recently Marlborough et al. (1997) have modelled the Ha profile of y Persei and in order to keep the profile symmetrical they were forced to use a low value for the initial wind speed of v0 = 0.34kms-1 . A theoretical estimate for the outflow velocity in viscous Be star discs has been calculated by Porter (1998), who argues that the velocity could be very low (v0 <
~0.01 kms-1 ); this value is arrived at through Be star spin down considerations due to angular momentum being transfered to the disc from the star.

Waters et al. (1987) estimated the wind temperature to be Tdisc = 0.8Teff. To check this assumption, and therefore, the appropriateness of the disc model Millar and Marlborough (1999) calculated, using identical parameters to Waters et al., the rates of energy gains and losses throughout the disc. Balancing these rates determined self-consistent temperatures for locations in the disc. Mass loss rates could be determined from the equation of continuity. In addition the disc model was modified to be non-isothermal. In conclusion it is found that the temperature in the equatorial plane is constant with radius to first order approximations. However the assumed temperature of (Tdisc = 0.8TeffWaters1986b) was too high, as in order to obtain equal energy gain and loss rates Millar and Marlborough (1999) found it necessary to lower the wind temperature (Tdisc = 0.5Teff).