2016
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feedback in Clouds II: UV photoionization and the first supernova in a massive cloud

Abstract: Molecular cloud structure is regulated by stellar feedback in various forms. Two of the most important feedback processes are UV photoionisation and supernovae from massive stars. However, the precise response of the cloud to these processes, and the interaction between them, remains an open question. In particular, we wish to know under which conditions the cloud can be dispersed by feedback, which in turn can give us hints as to how feedback regulates the star formation inside the cloud. We perform a suite o… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
92
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
(123 reference statements)
5
92
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The shell formation time terminates the radial momentum generation phase (see Haid et al 2016 for a detailed discussion of the momentum generating phases) and the remnant transits to the momentum conserving snow plough phase. In Figure 7 we show an updated version of Figure 4 of Naab & Ostriker (2017) with a comparison of the momentum gain for different ambient densities to previous estimates by Cioffi et al (1988); Martizzi et al (2015); Iffrig & Hennebelle (2015); Li et al (2017); Kim & Ostriker (2015); Walch et al (2015); Geen et al (2016). Our results agree well in particular with Kim & Ostriker (2015) and show a momentum boost compared to the assumed initial SN momentum of p 0 = 14181 M km s −1 from a factor ∼ 10 at n = 100 cm −3 to a factor ∼ 50 at n = 0.001 cm −3 .…”
Section: Environmental Dependencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The shell formation time terminates the radial momentum generation phase (see Haid et al 2016 for a detailed discussion of the momentum generating phases) and the remnant transits to the momentum conserving snow plough phase. In Figure 7 we show an updated version of Figure 4 of Naab & Ostriker (2017) with a comparison of the momentum gain for different ambient densities to previous estimates by Cioffi et al (1988); Martizzi et al (2015); Iffrig & Hennebelle (2015); Li et al (2017); Kim & Ostriker (2015); Walch et al (2015); Geen et al (2016). Our results agree well in particular with Kim & Ostriker (2015) and show a momentum boost compared to the assumed initial SN momentum of p 0 = 14181 M km s −1 from a factor ∼ 10 at n = 100 cm −3 to a factor ∼ 50 at n = 0.001 cm −3 .…”
Section: Environmental Dependencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each simulation we estimate the total hydrogenionising photon emission rate at a given time as S cl (m cl ) = 8.96 × 10 46 s −1 (m cl /M ) (see Geen et al 2017), where m cl is the total mass of the sink particles. This is calculated by Monte Carlo sampling a stellar population as described in Geen et al (2016) (See Sec. B).…”
Section: Feedback and Properties Of Uv Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since treating precisely the dense gas and the supernova correlation implies resolving not only the star formation well but also following the detailed star trajectories, this constitutes a very difficult task, that renders prescriptions like the one we are using unavoidable. More generally, other sources of feedback such as HII radiation and stellar winds should be considered as well (Walch et al 2012;Dale et al 2013Dale et al , 2014Geen et al 2015Geen et al , 2016.…”
Section: Supernova Feedbackmentioning
confidence: 99%