Erratum: Asymmetric Shapes of Radio Recombination Lines From Ionized Stellar Winds (Revista Mexicana de Astronomia Y Astrofisica (2019) 55 (31))

Document Type

Erratum

Publication Date

4-1-2020

Description

A mistake was discovered in part of the derivation for analytic line shapes of radio recombination lines. The mistake does not change the functional form of the solution, but does alter an amplitude factor. Ignace (2019) considered the analytic derivation for radio recombination lines (RRLs) under simplifying conditions of spherically symmetric, isothermal, and terminal speed ow in which both continuum (free-free) and line (recombination) opacities scale as the square of density. A mistake has been identified in equation (13). A second formal" error was subsequently identi ed, but turns out to have no bearing on the derivation, as will be explained. For context, the solution allowed for a power-law distribution in the clumping parameter: With m being the power-law exponent. In Ignace (2019), the solution for the emergent ux from the wind comes from an analytic integral. As published, equation (13) is where τ is the Gamma-function. However, the correct expression should be where minus signs had been dropped by mistake. While correcting the above mistake, another error was identified. From Ignace (2019), equation (23) cor-rectly provides the following analytic integral: However, the domain of application requires that β >-1, but such is not the case, with β =-(5+m)/(3+m). Application of this lookup integral was intended for the second and third terms of equation (22), for which the combined integral would be of the form This integral does converge. What the paper does is to split up the integrand terms and apply equation (23) to each. Separately, these integrals formally diverge. However, it has been verified numerically for the examples of m = 0 and m = 1 that the correct answer still results. The solution for the ux needs corrected only for the mistake in equation (13). Ultimately, that mistake propagates into equations (18), (20), (24), and implicitly (27), only in multiplicative coefficients. Equation (27) is corrected by setting γm = 1, to give For Figures (2){(5), the profiles are all correct, but not for the parameters as labeled. For a given pro le in Ignace (2019), the mapping from the incorrect parameters (original, or "orig") to the correct parameters ("new") is: Appreciation is expressed to Ian Stevens for alerting me to the error in the published manuscript.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS