Initial tests of taustar > Mdot using Emma's results compared to censored results

Following figure 3 in http://astro.swarthmore.edu/~cohen/projects/emma/stellarwinds_v6c.pdf
(using the same taustar values and error bars)

The analysis presented below uses the ASPL09 abundance opacity model for all the stars.

The unclumped H-alpha mass-loss rates used for comparison are all taken from Table 2 of Emma's draft (linked above) and the v_inf, R_star are taken from Table 1.

For each star, the first block is a refit of all of Emma's data; the second block, is the same data, but with up to three lines (Fe XVII 15.014, O VIII Lya, OVII Hea) removed from the analysis.  The chi-square values of the fits are listed along with the best-fit mass-loss rate. 

-----
eps Ori:

M_un = 4.07e-6 (but Lamers and Leitherer -- from Emma's ms; better determinations are generally lower)
9 lines: M_best = 4.8e-7; chi = 27.0 (note: Emma's Table 2 value is about two times lower; did Emma use the older, Anders and Grevesse abundances, which are higher than Asplund 2009 and would lead, then, to lower mass-loss rates?)

6 lines: M_best = 1.26e-6; chi = 3.53
-----
-----
HD 93129A -- not done; won't be included in the paper because we've already published the results separately
-----
-----
HD 93250 -- only three usable lines, and even those are quite poor quality; and clearly, because the 15.014 line has the highest taustar value, eliminating it won't raise the mass-loss rate
-----
-----
9 Sgr -- nominal results, with all lines, seems fine (wavelength trend is just what we'd expect), so skipping this one
-----
-----
HD 150136 -- very well may be contaminated by CWS X-rays, but we'll go ahead and do it; note: we don't appear to have a literature Mdot for this star - for our plot, we'll use Mdot = 5e-6

7 lines: M_best = 1.8e-7; chi = 13.7
5 lines: M_best =  2.6e-7  ; chi = 1.82

Note: the change is modest, though the quality of the fit improves a lot
-----
-----
Cyg OB2 8A -- only four lines, and none subject to resonance scattering, so the results won't change, and we won't analyze it here (plus, there's likely some CWS contamination of the spectrum)
-----
-----
15 Mon -- only three lines, and two are subject to resonance scattering.  These are, in fact, quite low, while the other line is much higher, so we'll do the standard analysis here, although the analysis of the censored data will then include only one line. 

M_un = 1.2e-6

3 lines: M_best = 9.0e-8; chi = 42.7
1 line: M_best = 6.0e-7; chi = 0
-----
-----
xi Per -- good quality dataset

M_un = 1.08e-6

7 lines: M_best = 3.2e-7; chi = 6.2
5 lines: M_best = 3.6e-7; chi = 2.9
-----
-----
tau CMa -- only three lines, and here, eliminating two of them will not increase the mass-loss rate, as the other line actually has the lowest taustar value
-----
-----
iota Ori -- very low taustar values; is it contaminated by CWS X-rays?  Let's do the exercise, as there are quite a few strong lines, and the two lines most subject to resonance scattering do have best-fit taustar = 0

M_un = 1.03e-6

7 lines: M_best = 2.2e-7; chi = 686.8 (note: seems high; I think it's because of the very small lower error bar on the shortest wavelength line, which is the only one with a non-zero best-fit taustar)

4 lines:  M_best = 2.2e-7; chi = 22.7 (so, best-fit Mdot didn't change, but chi sq got a lot better)
-----
-----
zeta Oph -- 

M_un = 1.8e-7 (just an upper limit)

8 lines: M_best = 4.0e-8; chi = 183.4
5 lines: M_best < 1.0e-8; chi = 4.6

Fit gets better, but Mdot actually gets lower when we exclude the three resonance scattering lines
-----
-----
delta Ori

M_un = 1.07e-6

8 lines: M_best = 6.6e-8; chi = 9.6
6 lines: M_best = 4.6e-8; chi = 8.8
5 lines: M_best = 4.6e-8; chi = 3.7

So, for this star, too, censoring some of the data points leads to a *lower* Mdot. 
-----
-----
zeta Ori

M_un = 2.51e-6

9 lines: M_best = 3.48e-7; chi = 4.1
6 lines: M_best = 3.48e-7; chi = 2.1

Removing three lines makes no difference (and this makes sense; you can see those three lines look randomly scattered around the best-fit)