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).
Sample $\log D_{\rm o}$ x $\alpha'$
Vink et al. (2000) $18.68\pm0.26$ $1.83\pm0.044$ $0.55\pm0.013$
sg (Paper I) $19.23\pm0.98$ $ 1.75\pm0.17$ $0.57\pm0.055$
g/d (Paper I) $18.90\pm1.46$ $ 1.72\pm0.25$ $0.58\pm0.085$
sg $M_{\rm v}$(old) $17.34\pm2.46$ $ 2.14\pm0.44$ $0.47\pm0.096$
g/d $M_{\rm v}$(old) $19.3 \pm1.22$ $ 1.73\pm0.22$ $0.58\pm0.074$
sg (+CygOB2) $17.98\pm1.88$ $ 2.00\pm0.32$ $0.50\pm0.080$
g/d (+CygOB2) $18.70\pm1.29$ $ 1.84\pm0.23$ $0.54\pm0.068$
"unified'', cf. Fig. 24 $18.92\pm0.87$ $1.80\pm0.16$ $0.56\pm0.049$


Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text