Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:52:30.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fraction of Runaway OB Stars in the SMC Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

J. B. Lamb  and
M. S. Oey
J. B. Lamb
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042, USA email: [email protected]
M. S. Oey
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042, USA email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The fraction of field OB stars that originate from clusters can help probe the dynamical evolution of clusters. Field stars represent a significant fraction (20-30%) of the OB population in galaxies, and estimates for the fraction of field OB stars that are runaways range from the classical value of <10% (Blaauw 1961) to contemporary results suggesting >90% (de Wit et al. 2005). We obtained Magellan IMACS observations on the kinematics of field OB stars in the SMC to examine the line-of-sight velocities of this population. Using these observations, we will estimate the fraction of runaways to serve as a probe of cluster evolution.

Keywords

binaries: generalstars: early-typestars: kinematicsstars: statisticsopen clusters and associations: generalgalaxies individual (Magellanic Clouds)galaxies: stellar content
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 3 , Symposium S246: Dynamical Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems , September 2007 , pp. 63 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Blaauw, A. 1961, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands 15, 265Google Scholar
Dale, J. E., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS 358, 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, W. J., Testi, L., Palla, F., & Zinnecker, H. 2005, A&A 437, 247Google Scholar
Dray, L. M., Dale, J. E., Beer, M. E., Napiwotzki, R., & King, A. R. 2005, MNRAS 364, 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gies, D. R. 1987, ApJS 64, 545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, J. G. 1980, ApJ 225, 986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J. H. J., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2001, A&A 365, 49Google Scholar
Leonard, P. J. T. & Duncan, M. J. 1990, ApJ 99, 608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oey, M. S., King, N. L., & Parker, J. 2004, AJ 127, 1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pflamm-Altenburg, J. & Kroupa, P. 2006, MNRAS 373, 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, ApJ 544, 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poveda, A., Ruiz, J., & Allen, C. 1967 Bol. Obs. Tonantzinla Tacubaya 28, 68Google Scholar
Stanimirovic, S., Staveley-Smith, L., & Jones, P. A. 2004, ApJ 604, 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R. C. 1991, AJ 102, 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar