SSC/Stability/BiPolytropes/RedGiantToPN: Difference between revisions
| Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
\biggl[K_e G^{-1} \biggr]^{1/2} | \biggl[K_e G^{-1} \biggr]^{1/2} | ||
\frac{\eta_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} | \frac{\eta_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} | ||
\, | \, ; | ||
</math> | </math> | ||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math>\rho_0</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math> | |||
\biggl[ \frac{K_e}{K_c} \biggr]^{-5 / 4} | |||
\biggl( \frac{\mu_e}{\mu_c} \biggr)^{-5 / 2} \theta_i^{-5} | |||
\, .</math> | |||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
Revision as of 14:30, 11 November 2025
Main Sequence to Red Giant to Planetary Nebula
Original Model Construction
Fixed Central Density
From Examples, we find,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where, rewriting the relevant expressions in terms of the parameters,
and
we find,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Kc and Ke
From the relevant interface conditions, we find,
|
|
|
|
Inverting this last expression gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, keeping and constant, we have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following the Lead of Yabushita75
Here in the context of bipolytropes, we want to construct an interface-pressure versus volume plot; and mass-versus-central density plots like the ones displayed for truncated isothermal spheres in Figure 1 of an accompanying discussion, and as displayed for a bipolytrope in Figure 1 (p. 445) of 📚 S. Yabushita (1975, MNRAS, Vol. 172, pp. 441 - 453).
In our accompanying chapter that presents example models of bipolytropes, we have adopted the following normalizations:
|
|
|
|
; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; |
|
|
|
Also, from the relevant interface conditions, we find,
|
|
|
|
Inverting this last expression gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, we can rewrite the "normalized" expressions as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Interface Pressure
Start with the model relation,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, given that,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Total Mass
Also, from the relevant interface conditions, we find,
|
|
|
|
Inverting this last expression gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, for a given specification of the interface location, — test values shown (in parentheses) assuming and — the desired expression for the central density is,
|
|
|
|
and, drawing the expression for the normalized total mass from our accompanying table of parameter values, namely,
|
|
|
|
we find,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where — again, from our accompanying table of parameter values —
|
|
|
|
(0.96077) | |
|
|
|
|
(0.79941) | |
|
|
|
|
(0.96225) | |
|
|
|
|
(1.10940) | |
|
|
|
|
(3.13637) | |
|
|
|
|
(2.77623) | |
|
|
|
|
(1.22153) |
Building on Earlier Eigenfunction Details
In the heading of Figure 6 from our accompanying presentation of the properties of marginally unstable oscillation modes in bipolytropes, we point to the (Excel spreadsheet) "Data File" that contains most of the relevant model details. See specifically,
Related Discussions
- Instability Onset Overview
- Analytic
|
Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS | |
