Table 2: Comparison of observed SWB parameters to those calculated from a simple time-evolution model of a SWB formed by the wind of a single O5.5V star, chosen to match the observed wind luminosity $L_{\rm w}$ at the minimum age of the bubble (t=1.4 Myr). Model is from McKee et al. (1984). The stall velocity and age for the bubble are near the lower and upper limits of those same parameters as measured, respectively. The stall radius is 30% larger than the observed radius, but is within uncertainties. The SWB surrounding 3C 434.1 is apparently in its early stages of dissipation.
Parameter Model Observed

$L_{\rm w}$ (10³⁶ erg s^-1) 3.5 5.1

$L_{\rm w}^{*}$ 2.73 (at t=0) 3.26 (at t=1.4 Myr)

S₄₉(10⁴⁹ photons s^-1) 2.3 3.0

Stall Radius $R_{\rm b}$ (pc) 5 $0\pm 10$ 3 $4\pm 7$

$v_{\rm e}$ at stall (km s^-1) $11.4 \pm 2.3$ 14

$t_{\rm stall}$ (10⁶ yr) $2.6\pm 0.5$ 1.4-2.6

**Table 2:** Comparison of observed SWB parameters to those calculated from a simple time-evolution model of a SWB formed by the wind of a single O5.5V star, chosen to match the observed wind luminosity $L_{\rm w}$ at the minimum age of the bubble (t=1.4 Myr). Model is from McKee et al. (1984). The stall velocity and age for the bubble are near the lower and upper limits of those same parameters as measured, respectively. The stall radius is 30% larger than the observed radius, but is within uncertainties. The SWB surrounding 3C 434.1 is apparently in its early stages of dissipation.
Parameter	Model	Observed
$L_{\rm w}$ (10³⁶ erg s^-1)	3.5	5.1
$L_{\rm w}^{*}$	2.73 (at t=0)	3.26 (at t=1.4 Myr)
S₄₉(10⁴⁹ photons s^-1)	2.3	3.0
Stall Radius $R_{\rm b}$ (pc)	5 $0\pm 10$	3 $4\pm 7$
$v_{\rm e}$ at stall (km s^-1)	$11.4 \pm 2.3$	14
$t_{\rm stall}$ (10⁶ yr)	$2.6\pm 0.5$	1.4-2.6

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text