Subject: [Fwd: Re: zeta pup abundances] From: Maurice Leutenegger Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:34:13 -0400 To: David Cohen CC: Emma Wollman , Erin Martell I guess Hillier and I discussed this over email already... Subject: Re: zeta pup abundances From: John Hillier Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:26:10 -0500 (EST) To: Maurice Leutenegger CC: Janos Zsargo Hi Maurice, Ne and Mg have little effect on the spectral analysis, although may be important for line driving in the outer region. I have a Zeta Pup model with them included, if you need it. Ah --- next question. Its all a matter of what is Solar!!!! If you you use the usual Greevse and Suaval you would be right. However recent work by Asplund suggest that the CNO abundances in the Sun are too large --- this actually gives better agreement with B star abundances in the Solar neighborhood although it screws up the superb agreement with solar seismology. The bottom line --- we still don't know the CNO abundances in the SUN to better than 70% --- my remark in Hawaii about having reliable solar abundances was not without merit. \bibitem[{{Grevesse} \& {Sauval}(1998)}]{GS98_abund} {Grevesse}, N. \& {Sauval}, A.~J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161 Asplund, M. Grevesse, Sauval, 2005, ASPC V 366, p25. On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Maurice Leutenegger wrote: > > Hi John and Janos, > > > > I was just looking at the abundances of the zeta pup models, and I > > noticed that a number of the elemental abundances are not what I would > > expect. Although Si, S and Fe are about solar, Ne is missing and Mg is > > very subsolar. Also, the sum of CNO is less than half of the sum of > > solar (although I guess there's some uncertainty about the what the sum > > of the solar abundaces of CNO actually is). > > > > I guess the missing Ne and Mg probably don't have an enormous effect on > > the short wavelength X-ray opacities, which are pretty small anyway, but > > a factor of two in CNO abundances will make a big difference, since > > those are the main contributers to the X-ray opacity. Is there a good > > reason to believe that these CNO abundances are correct in an absolute > > sense? Is there a factor of two uncertainty in the solar CNO abundances? > > > > Maurice > > > > SPECIES Rel. # Fraction Mass Fraction Z/Z(sun) Z(sun) > > HYD 1.000 6.053E-01 8.64E-01 7.01E-01 > > HE 0.160 3.874E-01 1.38E+00 2.80E-01 > > CARB 1.251E-05 9.087E-05 2.98E-02 3.05E-03 > > NIT 4.355E-04 3.691E-03 3.35E+00 1.10E-03 > > OXY 1.384E-04 1.340E-03 1.40E-01 9.54E-03 > > NEON 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 1.74E-03 > > SOD 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 3.45E-05 > > MAG 1.000E-07 1.471E-06 2.27E-03 6.47E-04 > > ALUM 1.000E-08 1.634E-07 2.93E-03 5.58E-05 > > SIL 3.802E-05 6.467E-04 9.26E-01 6.99E-04 > > PHOS 1.000E-10 1.876E-09 3.06E-04 6.12E-06 > > SUL 1.862E-05 3.618E-04 9.92E-01 3.65E-04 > > CHL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 7.87E-06 > > ARG 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 1.02E-04 > > POT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 3.61E-06 > > CAL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 6.44E-05 > > TIT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 3.28E-06 > > CHRO 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 1.70E-05 > > MAN 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 9.44E-06 > > IRON 3.388E-05 1.144E-03 8.44E-01 1.36E-03 > > COB 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00E+00 3.43E-06 > > NICK 1.000E-08 3.553E-07 4.86E-03 7.32E-05 > > Re: zeta pup abundances.eml Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Encoding: 7bit