![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 320, 460-468 (1997) 3. Yields of
|
![]() |
Fig. 3. Masses ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The yields are clearly seen to increase with
and Z. More specifically, a Z
increase from 0.008 to 0.02 leads to a
enhancement by a factor between 5 and 8, depending on
. This increase ranges from 2 to 4 when Z
goes from 0.02 to 0.04. This translates approximately into the power
law expression
This result agrees with the dependence
proposed by Walter & Maeder (1989) on grounds of qualitative
arguments, but predicts a weaker Z dependence than the
one derived by Meynet & Arnould (1993c)
from detailed computations of two
stellar
models with
and
based on
lower mass loss rates than the ones adopted here, as well as on
different opacities and initial abundances.
For , our present
yields are a factor of about 4 to 6 higher than those derived by
Walter & Maeder (1989), and a factor of 3 larger than the ones
reported by Prantzos (1991) for
models. These
increased yields mainly relate to our doubling of the mass loss rates,
as discussed below.
A faster wind removal of the original envelope has the effect of
shortening the time delay between the production of
in the stellar core and its ejection into the
interstellar medium. This leads to an increase of the amount of
ejected
, all other things being equal. The
influence of the mass loss rates on the yields can be estimated more
quantitatively by comparing the present results for the
model star at
with the
yields calculated by Meynet & Arnould (1993c) for the same star,
but with the adoption of a two times lower mass loss rate during the
pre-WR and WNL phases
2. This difference
leads to an increase of our present yields over the previous ones by a
factor of about two.
An increase of the convective core size, and thus a reduction of
the envelope mass, is also expected to produce an enhanced
yield, as the
-loaded
material is more readily ejected by the wind. Langer et al. (1995)
have studied more quantitatively the impact of various mixing schemes
on the
yields. In particular, they have assumed
either that the boundary of the convective core is defined by the
Ledoux criterion and that diffusive semiconvective mixing develops in
the semiconvective zone, or that the convective core is defined by the
Schwarzschild criterion with/without overshooting. They have also
explored the possible role of rotation-induced mixing.
Langer et al. (1995) find that a change in the mixing scheme may
affect the yields for a given star by a factor
of at most 3, more extended convective cores leading in general to
larger yields, as expected. However, in some of the explored cases,
the reverse effect is obtained. We interpret this result as the
consequence of two opposite effects. On the one hand, a larger
convective core favors the early appearence of
at the surface. On the other hand, it may increase the time lag
because
increases as a
result of longer main sequence lifetimes.
For the model stars, Fig. 3 shows that
our yields are similar to those predicted by the models of Langer et
al. (1995) computed with the standard mass loss rates of de Jager et
al. (1988), the Ledoux criterion and diffusive semiconvection. At
first sight, this similarity of the yields predicted from quite
different models looks surprising. A plausible explanation is that a
subtle balance is at work in the considered model stars between the
effect of a change of
(whose enhancement
increases the
yields) and the impact of a
different mixing scheme. This comparison illustrates the intricate
dependence of the
yields on the various physical
ingredients of the models.
The dependence of the WR yields on the
rate has already been discussed by Prantzos
(1991) and by Meynet & Arnould (1993c). Let us simply recall here
that the rate proposed by Iliadis et al. (1990) is about 5 times lower
than the one recommended by Caughlan & Fowler (1988) for
temperatures below
. In contrast to what one
might conclude naively, this rate decrease leads to an enhancement of
the
yield. A lower rate is indeed responsible
for the production of
later in the H-burning
phase, so that the time span between
production
and wind ejection, and thus the quantity of
destroyed by
-decay, is reduced. According to
Meynet & Arnould (1993c), the use of the rate proposed by Iliadis
et al. (1990) leads to
yields that are about
twice higher than the ones derived for the same star with the adoption
of the rate of Caughlan & Fowler (1988).
We have performed additional test computations in order to study
the impact of the rate proposed by Champagne et al. (1993) for the
reaction which competes with the
-decay destruction channel. This rate is about
a factor of 6 higher than the rate of Vogelaar (1989) for a typical
central temperature
K during the H-burning
phase of the considered model stars. In spite of the differences
between the two predicted rates, the
yields
change by less than 4% for stars with
between 60
and
and
and 0.04. This
convergence in the yield predictions results from the fact that the
-decay rate of
is larger
than the (p,
) rate of Vogelaar (1989) or of
Champagne et al. (1993) in the derived H-burning conditions. Recently,
a new estimate for the
rate has been proposed
(see Arnould et al. 1995). The impact of this revision and of the
estimated remaining nuclear uncertainties on the
yields has been evaluated by Arnould et al. (1995) in the framework of
parametrized astrophysical models. From this analysis, one can
confidently conclude that the WR
yields reported
here cannot be drastically affected by the use of this revisited
rate.
In conclusion, the lack of a precise knowledge of the mass loss
rates and the limited reliability of the mixing prescriptions are the
main factors limiting the accuracy of the WR
yield predictions. Each of these sources of uncertainties may lead to
variations in the calculated production of that radionuclide that can
amount to a factor of the order of 2 to 3. In contrast, more limited
uncertainties arise from a purely nuclear physics origin. Of course,
important changes to the situation depicted here and associated
additional uncertainties may result from mass transfer by Roche lobe
overflow in close binaries, or from rotational mixing in rapidly
rotating massive stars (e.g. Walter & Maeder 1989, Braun &
Langer 1995, Langer et al. 1995).
In spite of the sources of uncertainties discussed above and of the
possible additional intricacies eluded in this paper, the predictions
of the yields from other astrophysical sources
are even much less secure than the WR estimates. This results from the
fact that the modelling of WR stars in a stage of hydrostatic central
H or He burning is much simpler than the one of asymptotic giant
branch stars, novae or supernovae. Uncertainties of purely nuclear
origin might also be much larger in these various types of objects
than in the WR situation (see e.g. Arnould et al. 1995 for an
illustration of this statement in the case of asymptotic giant branch
stars).
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1997
Online publication: June 30, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de