Loading in 5 sec....

The Energy Balance of Clumps and Cores in Molecular Clouds Sami DibPowerPoint Presentation

The Energy Balance of Clumps and Cores in Molecular Clouds Sami Dib

Download Presentation

The Energy Balance of Clumps and Cores in Molecular Clouds Sami Dib

Loading in 2 Seconds...

- 96 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

The Energy Balance of Clumps and Cores in Molecular Clouds Sami Dib

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Energy Balance of Clumps and Cores in Molecular Clouds

Sami Dib

CRyA-UNAM

Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni (CRyA-UNAM)

Jongsoo Kim (KAO-Korea)

Andreas Burkert (USM)

Thomas Henning (MPIA)

Mohsen Shadmehri (Ferdowsi Univ.)

Why is the energy balance of clouds important ?

On which scales are they grav. bound/unbound (fragmentaion theories) ?

How much mass is in the bound/unbound cores and clumps ?

- SFE
- Stellar multiplicity
- IMF vs CMD

Classical grav. boundness parameters

Jeans number : Jc = Rc / Lj

with Lj= ( cs2/ G aver)1/2 if Jc > 1 core is grav. bound, collapse

Jc < 1 core is grav. unbound

Mass-to magnetic flux ratio : c= (M/)c/ (M/)cr

c= Bm Rc2

Bm is the modulus of the Mean Magnetic field

c < 1 : magnetic support, c > 1 no magnetic support.

Virial parameter : vir= (5 c2 Rc/GMc), Mvir= vir M

If vir < 1 object is Grav. Bound

vir > 1 object is Grav. Unbound

Observations

a) Kinetic+ Thermal energy vs. gravity

Larson, 1981

Caselli et al. 2002

b) magnetic energy vs. gravity

Myers & Goodman 1988

Observations suffer some uncertainty

factor of /4 by missing B//

factor of 1/3 due do core morphology

Crutcher et al. 2004

- The simulations(vazquez-Semadeni et al. 2005)
- TVD code (Kim et al. 1999)
- 3D grid, 2563 resolution
- Periodic boundary conditions
- MHD
- self-gravity
- large scale driving
- Ma= 10, J=L0/LJ=4
- L0= 4pc, n0= 500 cm-3, T=11.4 K, cs=0.2 km s-1
- different = Mass/magnetic flux

Stanimirovic & Lazarian (2001)

Ossenkopf & Mac Low (2002)

Dib & Burkert (2005)

Dib, Bell & Burkert (2006)

Koda et al. (2006)

Clump finding algorithm

- Is done by identifying connected cell which have densities above a defined threhold.
- thresholds are in unit of n0 :7.5 (+), 15(*), 30 (), 60 () and 100 ()

The virial theorem applied to clumps and core in 3D numerical simulations. (EVT) (e.g., McKee & Zweibel 1992; Ballesteros et al. 1999; Shadmehri et al. 2002)

volume terms surface terms

Clump finding algorithm

- Is done by identifying connected cells which have densities above a certain threhold.
- thresholds are in unit of n0 :7.5 (+), 15(*), 30 (), 60 () and 100 ()
- for each identified clump we calculate
- EVT terms
- velocity dispersion : c specific angular momentum : jc
- average density : naver virial parameter : vir
- Mass : Mc characteristic size : Rc
- Volume : Vc
- Jeans number : Jc
- Mass to magnetic flux ratio : c

Supercritical cloud

Mrms = 10

b = 1

Lbox = 4LJ ~ 4 pc

n0 = 500 cm-3

B0 = 4.5 mG

mc = 8.8

10 n0

100 n0

1000 n0

Gravity vs. Other energies

Comparison with the ‘’classical’’ indicators

Non-magnetic cloud

Mrms = 10

Lbox = 4LJ ~ 4 pc

n0 = 500 cm-3

B0 = 0 mG

mc = infty.

10 n0

100 n0

1000 n0

Non-magnetic cloud

- - Larger number of clumps than in MHD case.
- Suggests that B reduces SFE by reducing core formation probability, not by delaying core lifetime.

Morphology and characteristics of the ‘’Numerical’’ Ba 68 core

Mass = 1.5 M

Size = 0.046-0.078 pc

nt = 0.018 km s-1 = 1/10 cs

average number density = 3.2×104 cm-3

Sharp boundaries

Similar bean morphology

But …

Life time of the core ?

Virial balance vs. ‘’classical’’ indicators

Jc vs. thermal/gravity

B= 45.8

B= 14.5

Mag. cases: average slope is 0.60c

B= 4.6

B= 0

Virial balance vs. ‘’classical’’ indicators c vs. magnetic/gravity

B= 45.8

B= 14.5

B= 4.6

Virial balance vs. ‘’classical’’ indicators

vir vs. (kinetic+thermal)/gravity

B= 45.8

B= 14.5

Large scatter,

No specific correlation

vir very ambiguous

B= 4.6

B= 0

Conclusions

- clumps and cores are dynamical out-of equilibrium structures
- the surface terms are important in the energy balance
- not all clumps/cores that are in being compressed are gravitationally bound
- No 1-to-1 match between EVT grav. boubd ojbects and
- objects bound according to the classical indicators.
- Jc-therm./grav well correlated
- c-megnetic/grav. Well correlated, but sign ambiguity
- vir/thermal+kinetic/grav. Poorly correlated+sign ambiguity

Mesurering surface terms ??

CO clump

N2H+ core

gracias por su atención