All Figures

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f1a.ps}}\hspace*{5mm} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f1b.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Projected rotational ( left panel) and macro-turbulent ( right panel) velocities of OB-SGs (spectral types refer to O-stars, i.e., 10 corresponds to B0 and 20 to A0). Data derived in the present study are marked with diamonds while crosses refer to published data (Simon-Diaz & Herrero 2007; Dufton et al. 2006).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{ \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f2a.ps}}\hspace*{5mm} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f2b.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Effects of micro-turbulence on the strength of Si IV 4116/Si III 4553 (left panel) and Si II 4128/Si III 4553 (right panel) equivalent width ratios for B-type SGs. $V_{\rm mic}$ ranging from 4 to 18 km s $^{\rm -1}$ , with increments of 4 km s $^{\rm -1}$ . Triangles refer to the lowest value of $v_{\rm mic}$ , squares to the highest (see text).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f3a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f3z.ps}}\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f3x.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Examples for the quality of our final (``best'') Silicon line-profile fits. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+), HD 206165 (B2Ib) and HD 198478 (B2.5Ia). Note the systematic discrepancy between synthetic and observed profiles of the Si III lines at $\lambda \lambda$ 4813, 4819.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f4a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f4h.ps}}\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f4i.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Observed and synthetic helium line-profiles, calculated at the upper ( $T_{\rm eff} + \Delta$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ : dashed) and lower ( $T_{\rm eff}-\Delta$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ : solid) limit of the corresponding $T{_{\rm eff}}$ determined from the ``best'' fits to strategic Silicon lines. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+) and HD 206165 (B2Ib).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3.5cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f5a.ps}}\resizeb... ...7919f5za.ps}}\resizebox{3.5cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f5zb.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Final (``best'') fits to Silicon and helium lines. From top to bottom: HD 198478 (B2.5), HD 191243 (B5Ib), HD 199478 (B8ae), HD 212593 (B9 Iab) and HD 202850 (B9 Iab). Note that the forbidden component in the blue wing of He I $\lambda$ 4471 is over-predicted in a number of cases, and that the synthetic He I singlet at $\lambda$ 4387 is systematically too strong.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f6a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f6g.ps}}\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f6i.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Fit quality for H $_\gamma$ and H $_\alpha$ , for early and mid subtypes. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+), HD 206165 (B2Ib) and HD 198478 (B2.5).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f7a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f7g.ps}}\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f7h.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 7: As for Fig. 6, but for late B subtypes. From top to bottom: HD 191243 (B5Ib), HD 199478 (B8ae), HD 212593 (B9Iab) and HD 202850 (B9Iab).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f8a.ps}}\hspace*{2mm} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f8b.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Left: comparison of effective temperatures as derived in the present study with data from similar investigations. Diamonds - our data; triangles - data from Crowther et al. (2006); squares - Urbaneja (2004); asterisks - Przybilla et al. (2006). Large circles mark the three objects with strongest winds, which simultaneously show the largest deviation in $T{_{\rm eff}}$ from the mean (all from the sample by Crowther et al.). The dashed line represents a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data accounting for the individual errors in $T{_{\rm eff}}$ , and the grey-shaded area denotes the corresponding standard deviation. Spectral types refer to B-stars (i.e., ``-1'' corresponds to O9, and ``10'' to A0). Right: $T{_{\rm eff}}$ estimates for GROUP I stars from Lefever et al. (2007), as a function of spectral type. The error bars correspond to $\pm$ 1000 K, and the dashed line/shaded area refer to the fit on the left. Large circles mark data points which deviate significantly from this regression (see text).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{ \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f9a.ps}}\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f9b.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Differences between ``unblanketed'' and ``blanketed'' effective temperatures for the combined sample (this work; Urbaneja 2004; Crowther et al. 2006; Przybilla et al. 2006 and GROUP I objects from Lefever et al. 2007), as a function of spectral type ( left panel) and as a function of $\log Q$ for individual subtypes, B0 to B3 ( right panel). Unblanketed $T{_{\rm eff}}$ are from McErlean et al. (1999). Left: Large circles denote the same objects as in Fig. 8. The data point indicating a significant negative temperature difference corresponds to the two B5 stars (at same temperature) from the Lefever et al. sample. Right: The size of the symbols corresponds to the size of the peak emission seen in H $_\alpha$ . Filled circles mark data from CMFGEN, open circles those from FASTWIND.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f10.ps}}\end{figure}$ Figure 10: Temperature scale for Galactic B-SG as derived in the present study (dashed, see text), compared to $T{_{\rm eff}}$ estimates for similar stars in the SMC (from Trundle et al. 2004 (diamonds) and Trundle & Lennon 2005 (triangles)). The grey area denotes the standard deviation of the regression for Galactic objects. Spectral types account for metallicity effects (from Lennon 1997), see text.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f11a.ps}}\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f11b.ps}} } \end{figure}$ Figure 11: Left: WLR for Galactic B-SGs, based on data from the combined sample: diamonds - our data; triangles - data from Crowther et al. (2006); squares - data from Urbaneja (2004) and plus signs - data from Lefever et al. (2007) (GROUP I, without the three ``problematic'' objects). The two pairs of symbols connected with dashed lines correspond to the two entries for HD 190603 and HD 198478 as listed in Table 2. For the latter object and for HD 199478, we also provide error bars indicating the rather large uncertainty in their wind-momenta. Specially marked objects are discussed in the text. Right: wind-momenta of B-SGs from the left (diamonds and asterisks) are compared with similar data for O-SGs (triangles). Filled diamonds indicate B-type objects with $T_{\rm eff} \geq 21~000$ K, asterisks such with $T_{\rm eff} \leq 12~500$ K and open diamonds B-types with temperatures in between 12 500 and 21 000 K. The high luminosity solution for HD 190603 is indicated by a square. Overplotted are the early/mid B - (small plus-signs) and A SG (large plus-signs) data derived by KPL99 and the theoretical predictions from Vink et al. (2000) for Galactic SGs with 27 500 $\leq$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ $\leq$ 50 000 (dashed-dotted) and with 12 500 $\leq$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ $\leq$ 22 500 (dashed). Error bars provided in the lower-right corner of each panel represent the typical errors in $\log L/L_\odot$ and $\log D_{\rm mom}$ for data from our sample. Maximum errors in $\log D_{\rm mom}$ are about 50% larger.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{7919f12.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 12: Ratio of $v_\infty$ / $v_{\rm esc}$ as a function of log $T{_{\rm eff}}$ . Diamonds: combined OBA-supergiant sample as in Fig. 11, right panel. Asterisks/plus-signs refer to the early/mid B supergiants from the sample by KPL99. Large diamonds again correspond to the potentially misclassified B5-objects HD 191243 and HD 108659. The triangle denotes the hypergiant HD 152236 and the three squares - the various positions of HD 53138 as derived by Crowther et al. (2006), Lefever et al. (2007) and KPL99 (references ordered by increasing $T{_{\rm eff}}$ ). Individual errors extend from 33% to 43%. See text.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{7919f13.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 13: Modified optical depth invariant, $\log Q'$ (Eq. (8), as a function of log $T{_{\rm eff}}$ . Symbols as in Fig. 12, with vertical bars indicating the ``transition'' region between 18 and 23 kK. Note that the mid B-type supergiants from the KPL99 sample (plus-signs) deviate from the trend displayed by the other objects. Regression for the complete sample (excluding HD 53138, HD 152236 and the KPL99 B-supergiants) overplotted in solid; dashed regression similar, but additionally excluding the objects in the transition region (see text).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{7919f14.ps}\end{figure}$ Figure 14: Wind-efficiency, $\eta$ , as a function of $T{_{\rm eff}}$ , for our combined sample (symbols as in Fig. 12) and objects as analysed by Benaglia et al. 2007 (filled dots, mass-loss rates from radio excess). Eight objects in common have been discarded from the latter sample. Overplotted (dashed) are their theoretical predictions, based on the models by Vink et al. (2000).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f1a.ps}}\hspace*{5mm} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f1b.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Projected rotational ( left panel) and macro-turbulent ( right panel) velocities of OB-SGs (spectral types refer to O-stars, i.e., 10 corresponds to B0 and 20 to A0). Data derived in the present study are marked with diamonds while crosses refer to published data (Simon-Diaz & Herrero 2007; Dufton et al. 2006).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{ \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f2a.ps}}\hspace*{5mm} \resizebox{8.8cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f2b.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Effects of micro-turbulence on the strength of Si IV 4116/Si III 4553 (left panel) and Si II 4128/Si III 4553 (right panel) equivalent width ratios for B-type SGs. $V_{\rm mic}$ ranging from 4 to 18 km s $^{\rm -1}$ , with increments of 4 km s $^{\rm -1}$ . Triangles refer to the lowest value of $v_{\rm mic}$ , squares to the highest (see text).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f3a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f3z.ps}}\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f3x.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Examples for the quality of our final (``best'') Silicon line-profile fits. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+), HD 206165 (B2Ib) and HD 198478 (B2.5Ia). Note the systematic discrepancy between synthetic and observed profiles of the Si III lines at $\lambda \lambda$ 4813, 4819.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f4a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f4h.ps}}\resizebox{3cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f4i.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Observed and synthetic helium line-profiles, calculated at the upper ( $T_{\rm eff} + \Delta$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ : dashed) and lower ( $T_{\rm eff}-\Delta$ $T{_{\rm eff}}$ : solid) limit of the corresponding $T{_{\rm eff}}$ determined from the ``best'' fits to strategic Silicon lines. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+) and HD 206165 (B2Ib).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{3.5cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f5a.ps}}\resizeb... ...7919f5za.ps}}\resizebox{3.5cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f5zb.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Final (``best'') fits to Silicon and helium lines. From top to bottom: HD 198478 (B2.5), HD 191243 (B5Ib), HD 199478 (B8ae), HD 212593 (B9 Iab) and HD 202850 (B9 Iab). Note that the forbidden component in the blue wing of He I $\lambda$ 4471 is over-predicted in a number of cases, and that the synthetic He I singlet at $\lambda$ 4387 is systematically too strong.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f6a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f6g.ps}}\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f6i.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Fit quality for H $_\gamma$ and H $_\alpha$ , for early and mid subtypes. From top to bottom: HD 185859 (B0.5Ia), HD 190603 (B1.5Ia+), HD 206165 (B2Ib) and HD 198478 (B2.5).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \mbox{\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f7a.ps}}\resizebox... ...ics{7919f7g.ps}}\resizebox{4cm}{!} {\includegraphics{7919f7h.ps}} } \end{figure}$	Figure 7: As for Fig. 6, but for late B subtypes. From top to bottom: HD 191243 (B5Ib), HD 199478 (B8ae), HD 212593 (B9Iab) and HD 202850 (B9Iab).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{7919f14.ps}\end{figure}$	Figure 14: Wind-efficiency, $\eta$ , as a function of $T{_{\rm eff}}$ , for our combined sample (symbols as in Fig. 12) and objects as analysed by Benaglia et al. 2007 (filled dots, mass-loss rates from radio excess). Eight objects in common have been discarded from the latter sample. Overplotted (dashed) are their theoretical predictions, based on the models by Vink et al. (2000).
Open with DEXTER