1: % Clumpy CWB Paper - Julian Pittard

2: % First Draft Begun:             22.01.07

3: % Pre-submission Edit Finished:  26.02.07

4: % Post-submission Edit Begun:    15.03.07                    

5: % Final Version Finished:        19.03.07

6: % Accepted:                                         

7: 

8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

10: %% any data that comes before this command.

11: 

12: %% The command below calls the preprint style

13: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

14: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

15: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

16: %%

17: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

18: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

23: 

24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

25: 

26: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

30: %% use the longabstract style option.

31: 

32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

33: 

34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

36: %% the \begin{document} command.

37: 

38: \def\etal{{\rm et al.}}

39: \def\eg{{\rm e.g.}}

40: \def\etc{{\rm etc.}}

41: \def\ie{{\rm i.e.}}

42: \def\cf{{\rm cf.}}

43: \def\perse{{\it per se}}

44: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

45: \def\ltsimm{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}

46:         \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$<$}}}

47: \def\gtsimm{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}

48:         \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$>$}}}

49: \def\Mdot{\hbox{${\dot M}$}}

50: \def\vinfty{\hbox{${v_{\infty}}$} \,}

51: \def\km{{\rm\thinspace km}}

52: \def\cm{{\rm\thinspace cm}}

53: \def\kpc{{\rm\thinspace kpc}}

54: \def\s{{\rm\thinspace s}}

55: \def\yr{{\rm\thinspace yr}}

56: \def\g{{\rm\thinspace g}}

57: \def\kmps{\hbox{${\rm\km\s^{-1}}$}}

58: \def\cmps{\hbox{${\rm\cm\s^{-1}\,}$}}

59: \def\erg{{\rm\thinspace erg}}

60: \def\eV{{\rm\thinspace eV}}

61: \def\GeV{{\rm\thinspace GeV}}

62: \def\Hz{{\rm\thinspace Hz}}

63: \def\mJy{{\rm\thinspace mJy}}

64: \def\ster{{\rm\thinspace ster}}

65: \def\ergps{\hbox{${\rm\erg\s^{-1}\,}$}}

66: \def\Rsol{\hbox{${\rm\thinspace R_{\odot}}$}}

67: \def\Msol{\hbox{${\rm\thinspace M_{\odot}}$}}

68: \def\Lsol{\hbox{${\rm\thinspace L_{\odot}}$}}

69: \def\Msolpyr{\hbox{${\rm\Msol\yr^{-1}}$}}

70: \def\pcm{\hbox{${\rm\cm^{-1}\,}$}}

71: \def\pcm2{\hbox{${\rm\cm^{-2}\,}$}}

72: \def\pcm3{\hbox{${\rm\cm^{-3}\,}$}}

73: \def\ergpscm3Hz{\hbox{${\rm\ergps\cm^{-3}\Hz^{-1}\,}$}}

74: \def\ergpscm3Hzster{\hbox{${\rm\ergps\cm^{-3}\Hz^{-1}\ster^{-1}\,}$}}

75: \def\gpcm3{\hbox{${\rm\g\cm^{-3}\,}$}}

76: \def\ergpcm2{\hbox{${\rm\erg\cm^{-2}\,}$}}

77: \def\ergpcm3{\hbox{${\rm\erg\cm^{-3}\,}$}}

78: \def\phpscm2{\hbox{${\rm photons\s^{-1}\cm^{-2}\,}$}}

79: \def\wr{{\rm WR\thinspace}}

80: 

81: \shorttitle{Clump Destruction in Adiabatic Colliding Winds}

82: 

83: \begin{document}

84: 

85: \title{A Clumping Independent Diagnostic of Stellar Mass-loss Rates: \\ Rapid Clump Destruction in Adiabatic Colliding Winds}

86: 

87: \author{J. M. Pittard\altaffilmark{1}}

88: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Leeds,

89: Leeds, UK: jmp@ast.leeds.ac.uk.}

90: 

91: \begin{abstract}

92: Clumping in hot star winds can significantly affect estimates of

93: mass-loss rates, the inferred evolution of the star and the

94: environmental impact of the wind.  A hydrodynamical simulation of a

95: colliding winds binary (CWB) with clumpy winds reveals that the clumps

96: are rapidly destroyed after passing through the confining shocks of

97: the wind-wind collision region (WCR) for reasonable parameters of the

98: clumps if the flow in the WCR is adiabatic.  Despite large density and

99: temperature fluctuations in the post-shock gas, the overall effect of

100: the interaction is to smooth the existing structure in the

101: winds. Averaged over the entire interaction region, the resulting

102: X-ray emission is very similar to that from the collision of smooth

103: winds. The insensitivity of the X-ray emission to clumping suggests it

104: is an excellent diagnostic of the stellar mass-loss rates ($\Mdot$) in

105: wide CWBs, and may prove to be a useful addition to existing

106: techniques for deriving $\Mdot$, many of which are extremely sensitive

107: to clumping. Clumpy winds also have implications for a variety of

108: phenomena at the WCR: particle acceleration may occur {\em throughout}

109: the WCR due to supersonic MHD turbulence, re-acceleration at multiple

110: shocks, and re-connection; a statistical description of the properties

111: of the WCR may be required for studies of non-equilibrium ionization

112: and the rate of electron heating; and the physical mixing of the two

113: winds will be enhanced, as seems necessary to trigger dust formation.

114: \end{abstract}

115: 

116: \keywords{hydrodynamics --- stars: individual: WR 140 --- stars: mass-loss --- stars: winds, outflows --- stars: Wolf-Rayet --- Xrays: stars}

117: 

118: \section{INTRODUCTION}

119: There is now considerable observational evidence for a high degree of

120: structure, or ``clumping'', in hot stellar winds

121: \citep[e.g.][]{Moffat:1988,Lepine:2000}. Clumping affects diagnostics

122: of mass-loss rates which are sensitive to the square of the density

123: (e.g., free-free radio, infra-red continuum, H$\alpha$).  If not taken

124: into account, the inferred mass-loss rates may be substantially above

125: their actual values.  For Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, the assumption of a

126: smooth wind typically leads to a factor of 3 overestimate. Recent

127: studies are now indicating that the winds of main sequence stars may

128: be even more structured, and downward revisions in $\Mdot$ by factors

129: of $3-10$ or more have been suggested

130: \citep[e.g.,][]{Bouret:2005,Fullerton:2006,Puls:2006}. Such

131: substantial reductions have a dramatic effect on the evolution and

132: environmental impact of massive stars, and may also be needed to

133: explain the near-symmetry of X-ray lines \citep{Owocki:2006}.

134: 

135: Several methods for determining mass-loss rates which are not sensitive to

136: $\rho^{2}$  are unique to binary systems. First, if the

137: period of the binary is short enough, and the mass-loss rates high

138: enough, $\Mdot$ can be determined from the observed change in the

139: orbital period.  Though this has been applied to the WR binary

140: V444~Cyg \citep[e.g.][]{Antokhin:1995}, it has limited applicability.

141: Observed changes in polarization and atmospheric continuum eclipses

142: can also be used to determine mass-loss rates 

143: \citep{StLouis:1988,Lamontagne:1996}.

144: 

145: Measurements of $\Mdot$ have also been made by comparing the observed

146: X-ray flux arising from the WCR to predictions from hydrodynamical

147: models of this interaction

148: \citep{Stevens:1996,Pittard:2002,Pittard:2006b}. In all of these

149: models homogeneous winds were assumed, but this work shows that structured

150: winds are rapidly smoothed out in the WCR of {\em wide} binaries: hence, the

151: X-ray emission, despite being sensitive to $\rho^{2}$, is an excellent

152: diagnostic of the actual mass-loss rates. Further implications of wind

153: structure on the interaction region are discussed in

154: \S~\ref{sec:implications}.

155: 

156: 

157: \section{CLUMP-WCR INTERACTION}

158: \label{sec:clump_properties}

159: The survival time of a clump within the WCR depends predominantly on

160: its size and density contrast to the mean flow. The low amplitude of

161: detected variability argues for a large number of clumps, each of

162: which is likely to have a quite small spatial scale \citep[e.g.][and

163: references therein]{Eversberg:1998,Marchenko:2006}. If the interclump

164: medium is devoid of material, the density contrast of the clumps

165: relative to the corresponding smooth flow is inversely related to the

166: volume filling factor, $f_{\rm v}$, which the clumps occupy. $f_{\rm

167: v}$ initially decreases with radius (i.e. the wind becomes

168: increasingly clumpy), reaches a minimum at around $10-15 \;R_{*}$, and

169: then declines as the wind slowly smooths out \citep{Puls:2006}. At

170: very large distances, \citet{Runacres:2005} find that $f_{\rm v} \sim

171: 0.25$.

172: 

173: Clumps which pass into the WCR lose mass primarily through dynamical

174: instabilities (e.g. Kelvin-Helmholtz). The destruction timescale of

175: non-radiative clumps can be parameterized as $t_{\rm d} = \epsilon

176: r_{\rm c}/v_{\rm s}$ \citep{Klein:1994}, where $r_{\rm c}$

177: is the clump radius and $v_{\rm s}$ is the shock velocity (for the

178: stationary shocks in CWBs, $v_{\rm s}$ is equal to the normal

179: component of the pre-shock wind speed).  $\epsilon \approx 3.5$ for a

180: density ratio between the clump and inter-clump wind of order

181: $10-100$. A detailed review of clump destruction processes, including

182: the effects of radiative cooling and magnetic fields, can be found in

183: \citet{Pittard:2006c}.

184: 

185: Consider a clump moving along the line of centers between the stars.

186: As the clump passes through one of the shocks confining the WCR it is

187: decelerated less than the inter-clump material, and pushes the

188: confining shock into the WCR. A lower limit on the timescale for the

189: clump to half cross the WCR is $t_{\rm cd} = \Delta r/v_{\rm s}$,

190: where $\Delta r$ is half the distance between the confining

191: shocks. Clumps will be destroyed before they reach this half-way point

192: when $t_{\rm d}/t_{\rm cd} = \epsilon r_{\rm c}/\Delta r < 1$.

193: Since it is expected that $r_{\rm c} \ltsimm \Delta r$, clumps should

194: be rapidly destroyed within the WCR. 

195: 

196: 

197: \section{HYDRODYNAMICAL SIMULATIONS}

198: The long-period CWB \object[HD 193793]{WR\thinspace140} forms the

199: basis of this investigation into the effects of clumpy winds on the

200: interaction region.  WR\thinspace140 is the achetype of long-period CWBs,

201: exhibiting dramatic variations in its X-ray \citep{Pollock:2005} and

202: radio emission \citep[][]{Dougherty:2005} modulated by its highly

203: eccentric orbit. The emission from radio to TeV energies has recently

204: been modelled by \citet{Pittard:2006b}.

205: 

206: There have been two previous studies of the clumpy colliding winds in

207: WR\thinspace140. \citet{Walder:2002} examined a simulation with the

208: stars near periastron. WR material both in and between the clumps

209: rapidly cools, and is compressed to high

210: densities. \citet{Aleksandrova:2000} considered the transition between

211: periastron and apastron in an attempt to explain the variation of the

212: X-ray flux with the stellar separation.

213: 

214: In this work the effect of clumpy winds on the WCR is examined when

215: the stars are at apastron (i.e. the stellar separation $D=4.7 \times

216: 10^{14}\;{\rm cm}$). The mass-loss rates and terminal wind speeds

217: adopted are: $\Mdot_{\rm WR} = 4.3 \times 10^{-5}\;\Msolpyr$,

218: $\Mdot_{\rm O} = 8.0 \times 10^{-7}\;\Msolpyr$, $\vinfty_{\rm WR} =

219: 2860 \;\kmps$, $\vinfty_{\rm O} = 3100 \;\kmps$. In order to focus

220: attention on the apex of the WCR, which is bent sharply around the O

221: star, the WR star is positioned off the 2D hydrodynamic grid, which is

222: axisymmetric and contains $1650\times660$ cells. The clumps are added

223: to the flow in annuli around each star at specific time intervals. For

224: simplicity the clumps are assigned the wind terminal speed, and have

225: radii proportional to their distance from their star.  The clump

226: radius, $r_{\rm c}$, is $0.005\;r$ in the WR wind, and $0.02\;r$ in

227: the O wind, so that the clumps have $\gtsimm 10$ cells across their

228: radius when interacting with the WCR.  The clumps are given a density

229: contrast of 10 with respect to the interclump medium, and the clump

230: and interclump medium are assumed to contain equal mass (hence $f_{\rm

231: v} = 1/11$). The inter-clump medium is perfectly smooth. A simulation

232: with smooth winds reveals that the width of the WCR on the line

233: between the centers of the stars is $0.0695\;D$. Hence $t_{\rm

234: d}/t_{\rm cd} \approx 0.5$ (0.25) for the clumps in the WR (O) wind,

235: and the WCR should quickly smooth out these inhomogeneities.

236: 

237: The hydrodynamical code is second-order accurate in space and time

238: \citep{Falle:1996}. Optically thin radiative cooling is included,

239: though radiation losses are negligible. Heat conduction is not

240: explicitly included, and is likely to be strongly inhibited by the

241: magnetic field revealed by the synchrotron emission. The clumps are

242: initially spherical, but the velocity dispersion in the radial and

243: transverse directions may differ. $v_{\theta}/v_{\rm r} \approx 4$ 

244: for the clumps in the O wind, so that they naturally

245: ``pancake'' as they are advected by the wind. Recent models of X-ray

246: wind absorption support radially compressed rather than spherical

247: clumps \citep{Oskinova:2006}. The density contrast of the clumps is

248: also reduced by numerical diffusion. These two effects reduce

249: the survival time of the clumps, but are not thought to be significant.

250: 

251: \begin{figure}

252: \begin{center}

253: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=76mm]{f1an.eps}\\

254: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=76mm]{f1bn.eps}

255: %wr140_clumpy_run21_t19.0_ptvn_gray_mach.ps}

256: \caption{a) Logarithmic density plot (${\rm log_{10}\; g\;cm^{-3}}$)

257: from an axisymmetric simulation of colliding clumped winds in

258: WR\thinspace140. b) As a) but showing the Mach number of the gas. 

259: Supersonic gas is white. Due to the pressure gradients within the WCR, 

260: the gas, on average, becomes supersonic as it leaves the system.}

261: \label{fig:wcr}

262: \end{center}

263: \end{figure}

264: 

265: A density plot of the WCR is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wcr}a). It is

266: immediately evident that the process of clump destruction induces a

267: multitude of large and small scale motions within the WCR. This

268: ``turbulence'', some of which is supersonic (Figs.~\ref{fig:wcr}b

269: and~\ref{fig:massvs}a), puffs-up the WCR, so that its volume is 25\%

270: larger than the homogeneous case.  Temperatures higher than in

271: the smooth-wind case occur when the WCR expands upstream into the

272: relatively low ram-pressure of the interclump medium, and also behind

273: the bow-shocks driven ahead of the clumps. In contrast, the interiors

274: of clumps are initially heated to significantly lower temperatures

275: as shocks driven into them are much slower (shocks driven into 

276: clumps in the WR wind near the line of centers have speeds $\sim

277: 1000\;\kmps$, and produce temperatures of $\sim 4 \times 10^{7}\;{\rm

278: K}$). Thus, there is a wider distribution of temperatures within the

279: WCR than in the smooth winds case (Fig.~\ref{fig:massvs}b).

280: 

281: 

282: \begin{figure}

283: \begin{center}

284: \plotone{f2.eps}

285: \caption{a) Comparison of mass as a function of Mach number from

286: simulations with homogeneous (solid line) and clumpy (dashed

287: line) winds. b) As a) but as a function of temperature.}

288: \label{fig:massvs}

289: \end{center}

290: \end{figure}

291: 

292: As cool material within recently-shocked clumps moves deeper into the

293: WCR it is heated by secondary shocks and through mixing with hotter

294: plasma. At any particular instant, the majority of the mass within the

295: WCR is heated to temperatures similar to those that exist in the

296: smooth winds simulation: the mass-weighted mean temperature of gas

297: within the WCR (and on the grid) is $2.4 \times 10^{8}

298: \;{\rm K}$ and $2.0 \times 10^{8}\;{\rm K}$ for the smooth and

299: structured winds cases respectively. The average density in the WCR is

300: similar to the smooth winds case, and is not markedly different with

301: 90\% of the mass in clumps.

302: 

303: Although the WCR is clearly not smooth, the wind-wind collision

304: decreases the small-scale structure in the winds.  Clump disruption is

305: mostly through the development of large scale perturbations, while the

306: mixing of the clump and interclump material is affected by smaller

307: scale motions.  The global nature of the simulation inevitably leads

308: to relatively poor spatial resolution at the scale of individual

309: clumps, and is likely to enhance the mixing due to non-negligible

310: numerical diffusion.  In contrast, the lack of a third dimension in

311: these simulations (the imposition of axisymmetry means that the clumps

312: are donut shaped) should slow the rate of clump destruction as there

313: is one less degree of freedom for dynamical instabilities.  Resolution

314: tests and comparison with previous work on shock-cloud interactions

315: indicate that these effects do not have a serious impact on the

316: results.

317: 

318: In reality, clumps will possess a variety of density contrasts and

319: sizes - large, dense clumps will survive longer as distinct entities

320: within the WCR than smaller, less dense clumps, though denser

321: clumps may on average be smaller and vice-versa \citep{Moffat:1994}.

322: If $t_{\rm d}/t_{\rm cd} >> 1$, clumps could, in theory, pass

323: completely through the WCR and into the pre-shock wind of the

324: companion star, but this is unlikely to occur in the wide, adiabatic

325: systems considered here.

326: 

327: \subsection{Determining Mass-loss Rates} 

328: Since the wind structure is rapidly smoothed, it is not surprising

329: that the X-ray emission is similar to the homogeneous case

330: (Fig.~\ref{fig:xray}).  The mean continuum flux at 1~keV is only 17\%

331: higher in the clumpy winds simulation, which translates into an 8\%

332: overestimate of the mass-loss rates ($f_{\rm x} \propto

333: \Mdot^{2}$). Clearly, there is potential to use the X-ray emission

334: from the WCR as a diagnostic of the stellar mass-loss rates.

335: 

336: \begin{figure}

337: \begin{center}

338: \plotone{f3.eps}

339: \caption{Comparison of the X-ray emission from simulations with

340: homogeneous (thick line) and clumpy (thin lines) winds. The latter is

341: slightly softer, and shows only weak variability ($\ltsimm 5$\%),

342: despite the fact that the hydrodynamic grid is not large enough to

343: capture all of the emission (note the lack of lines below 1~keV). The

344: emission was calculated using the MEKAL code \citep[][and references

345: therein]{Mewe:1995}, for optically thin thermal plasma, ionization

346: equilibrium, and identical ion and electron temperatues.}

347: \label{fig:xray}

348: \end{center}

349: \end{figure}

350: 

351: However, the structure within the WCR and the resulting X-ray emission

352: depends on the properties of the clumps. Further simulations

353: (Pittard, in preparation) reveal that the emission measure ($\int

354: n^{2} dV$) appears to increase with the clump density contrast: an

355: identical simulation with a density contrast of 100 yields a

356: 56\% overestimate of $\Mdot$ for each star, but the density contrast

357: is unlikely to be this high in wide CWB systems. Instead, the major

358: sources of uncertainty are likely to be the abundances and the wind

359: momentum ratio, $\eta$ \citep[as the emission is nearly degenerate

360: between $\eta$ and the $\Mdot$'s - see][]{Pittard:2006b}.

361: Nevertheless, X-ray derived mass-loss rates should be accurate to within

362: a factor of 2. Substantially higher precision may be obtained if

363: $\eta$ and the wind abundances are strongly constrained.

364: 

365: The level of X-ray absorption by the intervening wind(s) can also, in

366: principle, be used to determine mass-loss rates. For the wide binaries

367: considered here the clumps are likely to be optically thin, so that

368: the optical depth will be identical to the smooth winds case. However,

369: again there is a degeneracy with $\eta$ if the line-of-sight into the

370: system is not well constrained, in which case it may be best to simply

371: match the X-ray flux at energies above those susceptible to absorption

372: \citep{Pittard:2006b}.

373: 

374: 

375: \section{FURTHER IMPLICATIONS}

376: \label{sec:implications}

377: The interaction of clumpy, as opposed to homogeneous, winds has 

378: implications for a variety of phenomena which occur at or within the WCR.

379:  

380: \subsection{Particle Acceleration and Synchrotron Emission}

381: The radio synchrotron emission from wide CWBs has recently been

382: modelled assuming that relativistic electrons are created by diffusive

383: shock acceleration (DSA) at the shocks confining the WCR

384: \citep{Dougherty:2003,Pittard:2006a,Pittard:2006b}. In the case of

385: WR\thinspace140, \citet{Pittard:2006b} find that the non-thermal (NT)

386: electron energy distribution is harder than the canonical DSA value,

387: i.e. $p < 2$. While there are many possible explanations, the results

388: presented above hint at several mechanisms. First, NT

389: particles may be accelerated via the second-order Fermi process

390: resulting from clump-induced MHD turbulence within the WCR

391: \citep[e.g.][]{Scott:1975}.  Second, particles accelerated at the

392: confining shocks may be re-accelerated at multiple (weak) shocks

393: within the WCR \citep{Schneider:1993}. A third possibility is magnetic

394: reconnection, which probably occurs throughout the volume of the

395: turbulent WCR, and not just at a hypothetical contact

396: discontinuity. Reconnection may also provide additional energy for

397: generating and maintaining the magnetic fluctuations which drive

398: stochastic acceleration. If any of these mechanisms is dominant,

399: models which impose particle acceleration only at the confining shocks

400: will need to be revised accordingly. In addition, the magnetic field

401: within the WCR is likely to be highly ``tangled'' due to the turbulent

402: motions of the gas inside. This was a central assumption in the recent

403: models mentioned above, and means that the asymmetric radio lightcurve

404: of WR\thinspace140 cannot be explained by the angular dependence of

405: the synchrotron emission process.

406: 

407: \subsection{Plasma Timescales}

408: There are a variety of timescales within the WCR which may be modified

409: if the stellar winds are clumpy \citep[e.g.,][]{Walder:2002}. In wide

410: CWB systems, the shocks are collisionless, and the electron and ion

411: temperatures may differ \citep[an effect which appears to be sensitive

412: to the shock speed, e.g.][]{Hwang:2002}. Equilibration subsequently

413: occurs through Coulomb collisions, proceeding faster where the density

414: is higher, such as in material within the shocked clumps.  The

415: spectral hardness is sensitive to this process, but the overall flux

416: is not dramatically changed, and it is unlikely to have a significant

417: impact on mass-loss rate determinations.

418: 

419: Ionization equilibrium may also take a significant time to occur.

420: Direct evidence for non-equilibrium ionization is seen in

421: WR\thinspace140 \citep{Pollock:2005}, and models which assume

422: ionization equilibrium fail to reproduce observed X-ray line profiles

423: \citep{Henley:2005}.  Material originally within clumps will ionize

424: quicker than interclump material, but to lower stages due to the

425: reduced post-shock temperatures. The relevant timescale to obtain the

426: highest ionization stages then becomes the speed at which further

427: heating occurs in the downstream flow, through compressions, shocks,

428: and mixing. The details are again sensitive to the clump properties,

429: but the continuum emission, and thus estimates of $\Mdot$, should not

430: be strong affected.

431: 

432: \subsection{Dust Formation}

433: The highly turbulent interior of the WCR shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wcr}

434: enhances the mixing between the two winds. Such mixing may be necessary in 

435: order that carbon-rich WR material and hydrogen-rich O-star material

436: can form dust within the WCR 

437: \citep[e.g.][]{Walder:2002}. 

438: 

439: 

440: \section{SUMMARY}

441: The interaction of clumpy stellar winds in massive binary systems

442: creates a highly turbulent wind-wind collision region in the adiabatic

443: limit. The lifetime of clumps within the WCR depends on their density

444: contrast and size. Clumps with a density contrast of 10 and radii a

445: few times smaller than the half-width of the WCR on the line of centers

446: between the stars are rapidly destroyed. Material originally within

447: the clumps is then vigourously mixed into the surrounding flow.

448: 

449: The stochastic impact of clumps on the WCR and their subsequent

450: destruction creates significant density and temperature fluctuations

451: within the WCR, but the global X-ray emission can be remarkably

452: similar to the smooth winds case. The X-ray emission is then an

453: effective, clumping-independent, measure of the stellar mass-loss

454: rates, especially if the wind momentum ratio is known. The small

455: number of CWB systems suitable for such an analysis is countered by

456: the potential accuracy that can be obtained. Each time this method has

457: been used to determine mass-loss rates, values lower than those in the

458: literature were inferred. Although only a small part of parameter

459: space is explored here, any reasonable parameters for the clumps in

460: the wide, adiabatic, systems considered here should lead to their

461: rapid dissolution.

462:  

463: Turbulence and weak shocks within the WCR provide mechanisms for

464: obtaining hard NT particle spectra. The timescale to obtain

465: high ionization stages may be controlled by the rapidity of clump

466: destruction, and enhanced mixing of the winds will aid dust

467: formation.

468: 

469: 

470: \acknowledgments

471: The author thanks the Royal Society for funding, Sam Falle

472: for use of his hydro code, and Tom Hartquist, Sean Dougherty, 

473: Ian Stevens and the referee for comments.

474: 

475: \begin{thebibliography}{}

476: \bibitem[Aleksandrova \& Bychkov(2000)]{Aleksandrova:2000} Aleksandrova, O. V., \& Bychkov, K. V. 2000, Astron. Rep 44, 781

477: 

478: \bibitem[Antokhin et al.(1995)]{Antokhin:1995} Antokhin, I. I., Marchenko, S. V., \& Moffat, A. F. J., in Proc. IAU Symp. 163, Wolf-Rayet Stars: Binaries, Colliding Winds, Evolution, ed. K. A. van der Hucht \& P. M. Williams (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 520

479: 

480: \bibitem[Bouret et al.(2005)]{Bouret:2005} Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T.,