Table 3.
Mean and maximum relative errors of our 3D solution scheme, when compared to an “accurate” 1D solution.
| Teff (kK) | R* (R⊙) | vmin (km s–1) | MṀ (M⊙ yr–1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 19 | 10 | 5 × 10–6 |
| τr | 0.17 | 1.7 | 17 |
| ΔJ̄ (%) | 3.35 | 20.29 | 127.91 |
| Δ J_{\rm max} (%) | 49.28 | 42.18 | 151.34 |
| kL | 100 | 103 | 105 |
| ΔS̄L(%) | 12.38 | 18.47 | 23.00 |
| ΔSL, max(%) | 61.95 | 82.50 | 94.13 |
Notes. The top panel shows the errors of the mean intensity for a pure continuum with different kc parameters, while the bottom panel shows the errors of the line source function with different line strengths kL and an optically thin background continuum. The thermal contribution, ϵc,ϵL, has been set to 10−6 in both cases.
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.