All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6cm,clip]{4666fig1.eps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 1: Definition of the coordinate systems.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{4666fig2.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Convergence rate of Model 1 compared to the same model calculated with CMFGEN. The two codes were run from the same initial guess. In CMFGEN a diagonal linearization scheme was used. After iteration 25 of Model 1, the maximal relative correction to the level populations is determined by the He I 1s 2p ¹P $^\circ$ level.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{4666fig3.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Comparison between the average intensity in a spherically symmetric wind with gray pure scattering opacity $\chi \sim r^{-2}$ calculated with our short characteristics code and the long characteristics code (Hillier 1996). Solid line: 60 depth points; dashed line: 120 points; dash-dotted line: 200 points. The difference between the two solutions decreases with increasing number of points as expected if the main source of errors is the calculation of the optical depth along the short characteristics and the angle integration.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=7.4cm,clip]{4666fig4.ps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Conservation of the flux for spherical models with a different number of radial points. Solid line - 100 depth points, dashed line - 200 points, dash-dotted line - 300 points. The ordinate is the difference between the calculated and the exact flux multiplied by r². As expected, the difference between the calculated and exact fluxes decreases with increasing numbers of points.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=17.3cm,clip]{4666fig5.eps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 5: Left: the ratio of the average intensity in a wind with angular dependence of the opacity with contrast 2 and the spherically symmetric wind with the radial distribution of the opacity as on the equator. The pole is at $\beta =0$ (lower left angle). Right: comparison of the average intensity of the left panel with the same model calculated with the code described by Busche & Hillier (2000).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{4666fig6.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Left: radial flux normalized to the same value for spherical wind. Right: tangential flux. The two models have the same contrast $\dot M_{\rm contr}=100.0$ but $\alpha _1 = 2$ for the upper panels and $\alpha _1 = 8$ for the lower. The figures at the upper right corner of the right panels show the iso surface of $\tau = 1.0$ for the two models. See (39) for definition of the parameters.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{4666fig7.ps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 7: Comparison between departure coefficients of the first five hydrogen levels for Model 0 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (dashed lines) and the new code (solid lines). The curves for different levels are marked. The diamonds show the departure coefficient for the first H I level for a model with the same parameters but with twice as many radial points.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=7.8cm,clip]{4666fig8.ps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 8: Comparison between temperature distribution of Model 1 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (dashed line) and the new code (solid line). The maximal difference is less than 3%.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.1cm,clip]{4666fig12.ps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 9: Comparison between the emitted spectrum of Model 1 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (thick gray line) and the new code (thin black line). The maximal difference is less than 1%.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{4666fig9.ps} }\end{figure}$ Figure 10: Temperature structure of 2D wind. The rapid rise of the temperature toward the pole is caused by the ionization of C IV which reduces the cooling.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{4666fig10.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: Helium ionization. Left: He II; Right He III.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,clip]{4666fig11.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 12: Carbon ionization. Left: C IV, Right: C V. The increase in the ionization of C IV near the pole ( $\beta =0$ ) causes the rise in the temperature (as seen in Fig. 10).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6cm,clip]{4666fig1.eps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 1: Definition of the coordinate systems.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=8.1cm,clip]{4666fig2.ps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Convergence rate of Model 1 compared to the same model calculated with CMFGEN. The two codes were run from the same initial guess. In CMFGEN a diagonal linearization scheme was used. After iteration 25 of Model 1, the maximal relative correction to the level populations is determined by the He I 1s 2p ¹P $^\circ$ level.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=7.4cm,clip]{4666fig4.ps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 4: Conservation of the flux for spherical models with a different number of radial points. Solid line - 100 depth points, dashed line - 200 points, dash-dotted line - 300 points. The ordinate is the difference between the calculated and the exact flux multiplied by r². As expected, the difference between the calculated and exact fluxes decreases with increasing numbers of points.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{4666fig7.ps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 7: Comparison between departure coefficients of the first five hydrogen levels for Model 0 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (dashed lines) and the new code (solid lines). The curves for different levels are marked. The diamonds show the departure coefficient for the first H I level for a model with the same parameters but with twice as many radial points.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=7.8cm,clip]{4666fig8.ps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 8: Comparison between temperature distribution of Model 1 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (dashed line) and the new code (solid line). The maximal difference is less than 3%.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.1cm,clip]{4666fig12.ps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 9: Comparison between the emitted spectrum of Model 1 (Table 1) calculated with CMFGEN (thick gray line) and the new code (thin black line). The maximal difference is less than 1%.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par {\includegraphics[width=6.9cm,clip]{4666fig9.ps} }\end{figure}$	Figure 10: Temperature structure of 2D wind. The rapid rise of the temperature toward the pole is caused by the ionization of C IV which reduces the cooling.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{4666fig10.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 11: Helium ionization. Left: He II; Right He III.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,clip]{4666fig11.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 12: Carbon ionization. Left: C IV, Right: C V. The increase in the ionization of C IV near the pole ( $\beta =0$ ) causes the rise in the temperature (as seen in Fig. 10).
Open with DEXTER