Table B.2
Comparison of the methods and observation properties between this study and other outflow studies.
| This study | Bontemps et al. (1996) | Sekimoto et al. (1997) | |
|
|
|||
| 12CO line | 3–2 | 2–1 | 2–1; 1–0 |
| Sourcesa | All | EL 29, IRS 43, IRS 44, WL 6, WL 12 | EL 29, IRS 44, WL 6 |
| Beam size (″) | 15 | 30(NRAO), 10(IRAM) | 34 |
| Map size (″×″) | 120 × 120 | 60 × 60(NRAO), 25 × 25(IRAM) | 68 × 68 |
| Velocity res. (km s-1) | 0.1 | 0.65(NRAO), 0.26(IRAM) | 0.06; 0.05 |
| σrms (K) | 0.15 | 0.25(NRAO), 0.15(IRAM) | 0.2; 0.15 |
| Method | νmax (M1) | annulus (M6) | νmax (M1) |
| νin | off-source | Tpeak/10 | unknown |
| νout | 1σ cut-off | 1σ cut-off | unknown |
| Opacity corr. | none | mean of CB92: 3.5 | derived from 13CO: ~3.0(2–1) |
| Inclination corr. | factors CB92 | average i = 57.3: factor 2.9 | factors CB92 |
| Distance to Oph (pc) | 120 | 160 | 160 |
| Other | Average off-source spectrum subtracted | ||
| before integration, integration | |||
| radius 45″(IRS 44), 15″(others) | |||
| Kamazaki et al. (2003) | Bussmann et al. (2007) | Nakamura et al. (2011) | |
|
|
|||
| 12CO line | 3–2 | 3–2 | 3–2 |
| Sourcesa | Elias 32/33 | EL 29, LFAM 26 | Elias 29, Elias 32/33b, LFAM 26 |
| Beam size (″) | 14 | 11 | 40 |
| Map size (″×″) | 120 × 240 (OphB2) | 300 × 300 | 23′ × 23′ |
| Velocity res. (km s-1) | 0.33 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| σrms (K) | 0.79 (OphB2) | 0.4 | 0.28 |
| Method | ⟨ ν ⟩ (M3) | νmax (M1) | νmax (M1) |
| νin | channel mapsc | unknown | channel maps |
| νout | 3σ cut-off | unknown | 3σ cut-off |
| Opacity corr. | 5.4d | none | none |
| Inclination corr. | average i = 57.3: factor 2.9 | none |  , i = 80 (El 29, LFAM 26), i = 57.3 (El 32) |
| Distance to Oph (pc) | 160 | 120 | 125 |
| Other | |||
Notes.
Elias 32 was adopted by Nakamura et al. (2011) as the driving source for this outflow, where Elias 33 was adopted in this study.
By determining integration limits using channel maps, the outflow emission is defined as the emission showing bipolar structure in a channel map. This is equivalent to the method used in this study, comparing off-source spectra with outflow spectra.
The factor 5.4 is based on the mean factor 3.5 as used in Bontemps et al. (1996), multiplied by 1.6 because the optical depth of the 3–2 transition is 1.6 times larger than the 2–1 transition of the latter (Kamazaki et al. 2003).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.