![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 318, 812-818 (1997) 3. Results and conclusionsWe first recall that a detailed comparison of the O-type and WR
sample within 3 kpc from the sun reveals a most probable population
model (Paper I). This model assumes an overall MCB fraction (binaries
with periods up to 10 years) 3.1. The number of O-type runaways formed through binary evolutionMCBs are a fact, SN explosions in MCBs are a fact and thus runaways
formed through the binary scenario are a fact. Table 1 gives the
theoretically expected number of post-SN O-type stars for different
values of the parameters in our population synthesis model as well as
the expected number of O-type runaways (runaway velocity
Table 1. The fraction, relative to all O-type stars, of O+CC binaries, O+CC runaways, O-type stars resulting from binary evolution which are single because the binary was disrupted during the previous SN explosion (Osb) and Osb runaways. Different values are considered for the parameters entering the population model (see text). We conclude:
3.2. The number of WR stars with a compact companionIn order to have an idea of the morphology of post-SN WR stars
(i.e. WR + CC binaries or 'weird' WR single stars), we start from the
observed WR + OB binaries, listed by Smith and Maeder (1989), and
continue their evolution with the MCB model discussed in section 2. We
first assume that the WR star is at the beginning of its WR phase
(i.e. at the beginning of the WNL phase, resp. the WNE phase, resp.
the WC phase, when the WR component is a WNL, resp. WNE, resp. WC).
Then we assume that the WR star is at the end of its corresponding
phase. For each binary we compute the SN survival probability,
accounting for the kick velocity distribution discussed earlier. When
an OB+CC binary is formed, its further evolution is continued through
the spiral-in phase for two values of the efficiency parameter
Table 2. The further evolution of observed WR+OB binaries for an efficiency factor We conclude:
We now start from a sample of unevolved MCBs and single stars satisfying the distributions discussed in section 2. Table 3 gives the number population synthesis results for the WR stars for various values of the parameters in our population model. The following conclusions are based on the numerical results holding for a non-conservative case Br evolutionary model, as suggested at the beginning of this section. Table 3. Similar as table 1 but for WR stars. We assume that OB+CC mergers loose all their hydrogen rich layers during the merging process and thus a WR star is formed immediately after merging. For a few cases we also made computations with the alternative model i.e the mergers further evolve as single stars.
Within 3 kpc from the sun there are 3.3. The formation of binary pulsarsSimilarly as in the previous section we start with a population model and we determine all CHeB+CC binaries. When the mass of the CHeB component is large enough, a second SN explosion occurs. The effect on the binary parameters is again studied using the kick velocity distribution given by Eq. 1. In table 4 we give the formation rate of binary pulsars (neutron star/black hole + neutron star/black hole) for different values of the population model. We conclude (again we only consider the non-conservative case Br models): Table 4. The number of binary pulsars formed per year assuming a massive star formation rate of 1/year. Different values are considered for the parameters entering the population model.
There are about 5000 massive stars within 3 kpc from the Sun
(Humphreys and McElroy, 1984). If we assume that this number is
representative for our whole galactic disk and that the galactic disk
radius is approximately 13 kpc, we expect about 100000 massive stars
in the Galaxy. The average lifetime of a massive star is
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1997 Online publication: July 3, 1998 ![]() |