All Tables

Table 1: Galactic O-star sample: Stellar and wind parameters adopted ( $M_{\rm v}$ ) and derived using FASTWIND. $T_{\rm eff}$ in kK, $R_{\ast }$ in ${R_{\odot }}$ , $V_{\rm r}$ sini and $v_{\rm\infty }$ in km s^-1, $M_{\ast }$ in ${M_{\odot }}$ , L in ${L_{\odot }}$ , ${\dot M}$ in 10^-6 ${M_{\odot }}$ /yr (terminal velocities $v_{\rm\infty }$ from Paper I). HD 93129A and HD 303308 have recently been detected as binary systems but they are treated here as single stars (see text). Bold face numbers denote $\beta$ -values which could be derived with high precision from emission profiles. Stars with absorption profiles were fitted with an assumed value of $\beta = 0.80$ . $R_{\rm old}$ is the stellar radius resulting from our new models which was calculated by means of the "old'' $M_{\rm v}$ values from Paper I (not tabulated here).
Table 2: Stars with H $_{\rm\alpha }$ in emission: Errors in stellar and wind parameters given in Table 1. $\Delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$ in kK, $\Delta$ $\beta$ adopted as $\pm 0.1$ , $\Delta$ $\log Q_1$ is the error in Q-value due to uncertainties in H $_{\rm\alpha }$ line fit, $\Delta$ $\log Q_2$ is the error in Q-value arising from uncertainties in $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\Delta$ $\log Q_t$ is the total error. All values have to be preceeded by a $\pm$ sign.
Table 3: Stars with H $_{\rm\alpha }$ in absorption: Errors in stellar and wind parameters given in Table 1. Notation and units as in Table 2, except for the adopted uncertainty in $\beta$ and the corresponding uncertainty in ${\dot M}$ (for stellar radii from Table 1, see text). The upper and lower limits of ${\dot M}$ (in units of $10^{-6}~{M_{\odot}/\rm yr}$ ) correspond to the lower and upper limits of $\beta$ , respectively. The listed errors in $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log Q_2$ (cf. Table 2) have to be preceeded by a $\pm$ sign.
Table 4: Parameters and corresponding errors for our sample stars. For errors in $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log Q$ , see Tables 2, 3. All quantities are given in the same units as in Table 1. $D_{\rm mom}$ denotes the modified wind-momentum rate (Eq. (14)) and is given in cgs-units. Note that all values quoted for HD 93129A and HD 303308 may (strongly) suffer from a possible contamination by a companion. Only the values for $T_{\rm eff}$ , $\log g$ , $Y_{\rm He}$ and Q (which are more or less independent of V) might be considered to be of correct order of magnitude.
Table 5: Coefficients of the WLR obtained in the present investigation (discarding HD 93129A and HD 303308 from the regression), compared to the results from Paper I and the theoretical prediction by Vink et al. (2000). Entry 4 and 5 correspond to values obtained by using the "old'' absolute magnitudes ( $\rightarrow R_{\rm old}$ ), entry 6 and 7 correspond to the values derived from new ones including the results for seven Cyg OB2 stars by Herrero et al. (2002). The last entry corresponds to the regression performed in Fig 24. Present data has been analyzed by accounting for the errors in both directions and their correlation, whereas a standard least square fit has been performed for the data in Paper I (no errors available).