pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21920 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

First measurement of wind line formation regions in an early O-type star

D. Pauli , T.N. Parsons , R.K. Prinja This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 13:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords O-type starsstellar windsUV resonance lineseclipsing binariesline formation regionsSMCbeta velocity lawmassive stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resonance line formation regions in an early O-type star wind extend to 316 solar radii.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper uses the orbital motion in an eclipsing binary to empirically locate where the C IV and N V ultraviolet resonance lines form within a stellar wind. The authors track how the line profiles change as the primary's wind passes in front of the secondary and combine this with light-curve data to set the outer boundary of the formation region. A sympathetic reader would care because stellar winds from massive stars shape the chemical evolution of galaxies, yet models of these winds have never been checked against direct measurements of their line-forming zones. The work shows the lines form out to 316 solar radii and indicates that the wind velocity may rise more slowly than the value usually assumed in calculations.

Core claim

In the SMC binary AzV 75 the optically thick wind of the primary eclipses the secondary near the expected secondary eclipse phase, producing flattening and shortening of the absorption troughs together with weakening of the emission in the C IV and N V resonance lines while the continuum flux stays constant. This geometry is used to determine that the resonance line formation regions in the primary star extend up to 316 solar radii. A direct comparison with 1D non-LTE stellar atmosphere models favors a classical beta-law velocity field with exponent 0.5 rather than the more common value of 0.8.

What carries the argument

Phase-dependent eclipsing of the secondary by the primary's optically thick wind, which selectively modifies the observed resonance line profiles.

If this is right

  • Stellar atmosphere models now have an empirical benchmark for the radial extent of UV resonance line formation.
  • The wind velocity field in this star is better described by a beta exponent of 0.5 than by the standard 0.8.
  • The same eclipse-mapping technique can be applied to other early-type eclipsing binaries to measure wind structures.
  • More accurate line formation radii improve calculations of mass-loss rates from massive stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The measured extent supplies a concrete target for testing whether 3D wind models reproduce the same line-forming zones.
  • If a shallower beta law applies more generally, terminal wind speeds predicted for other O stars would need revision.
  • Repeated observations of this system at higher spectral resolution could map how optical depth varies with radius inside the wind.
  • The derived orbital parameters open the possibility of similar wind measurements in additional SMC binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The observed flattening, shortening, and weakening of the UV resonance lines are produced solely by the primary star's wind eclipsing the secondary.

What would settle it

If detailed modeling of the eclipse geometry shows that line profile changes require a formation region smaller than 316 solar radii or if identical line changes appear at orbital phases with no wind eclipse, the reported extent would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21920 by D. Pauli, R.K. Prinja, T.N. Parsons.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phased TESS and ASAS-SN photometric data close to zero phase. Note that during TESS sector 28 the pixel in which AzV 75 ap￾pears contains another bright star, leading to an apparent weaker eclipse. AzV 75 is the only bright source in its corresponding pixel (see Fig. B.2), allowing the extracted light curve to be used during the light curve analysis. To obtain an orbital period of the system, we extracted … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AzV 75 observed light and RV curve compared to the best fitting PHOEBE model. Upper panels: Variability of the N v and C iv reso￾nance lines in the HST UV spectra. Phases, at which HST spectra show a weak, intermediate, and strong emission feature in a resonance line of interest are indicated by red, cyan, and black symbols, respectively (see also view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Detail of the wind-formed N v (upper panel) and C iv (lower panel) resonance line P Cygni-type profiles taken from the available HST UV spectra. All spectra are shifted into the rest frame of the pri￾mary and are corrected for the systemic velocity. The N v is corrected for the interstellar Lyα blend by modelling a (fully damped) profile of column density of 6.9 × 1021 cm−2 . Note that the colour coding ma… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TVS of the N v (red) and C iv (blue) resonance lines in veloc￾ity space of the N v λ1238.80 (λ1242.80, lower ticks) or Civ λ1548.20 (λ1550.70, lower ticks) lines, respectively. In both cases, the variance rapidly decreases toward redwards velocities, while in the blueward ab￾sorption trough one can see some variance across the spectra, typical for a O-type star. The overall similarity in both the shape of … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phased projected distance between the primary’s N v and C iv resonance line formation region and the secondary (black line). The un￾certainties of the projected distance are illustrated as gray shaded re￾gions around the best fit. The threshold distance, after which the sec￾ondary is fully in front of or behind the primary’s wind, is indicated by a blue line, and the uncertainties are marked by the blue sh… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents a zoom-in on the blue edge of the C iv ab￾sorption trough for all available spectra. The blue edge remains remarkably constant in the majority of the spectra, namely in the spectra taken at phases where the secondary is being eclipsed by the primary’s wind, as well as phases at which the secondary and primary are physically distant (i.e., ϕ ≈ −0.5 – − 0.15 and ϕ ≈ 0.15 – 0.5). In contrast, spectra… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TVS in velocity space with respect to the C iv λ1548.20 (λ1550.70, lower ticks) line. The TVS are presented in the full rest frame of the primary corrected for the systemic velocity. The TVS shown in blue is calculated using all available spectra is shown and in black using only the spectra, where the secondary is not eclipsed by the wind (i.e., black spectra in view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detail of the Civ resonance line profiles of selected spectra between phases ϕ = −0.3 – − 0.1 shifted into the rest frame of the secondary star and corrected for the systemic velocity. For clarity, the spectra at phases ϕ = −0.3 (gray) and ϕ = −0.17 (orange) are shifted by 0.5 × 10−12 erg s−1 cm−2 Å −1 and 0.25 × 10−12 erg s−1 cm−2 Å −1 , re￾spectively. One can see narrow absorption features at velocities … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the observed C iv P Cygni profile obtained near phase ϕ ≈ 0.5 (blue) and combined synthetic spectra of the primary and secondary for different assumed radial extents of the primary’s stel￾lar wind (colour-coded lines). At this orbital phase, the Civ resonance line contains only flux originating from the primary’s wind, whereas the observed continuum is the sum of the flux contributions f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Massive stars with their strong ionizing radiation and strong stellar winds are the key feedback agents of the universe. Stellar winds of massive stars are often measured by fitting resonance lines in the UV using non-LTE stellar atmosphere models. So far, the line formation regions of these lines have not been measured empirically, preventing a comparison to the model's structures. We aim to conduct the first measurement of the resonance line formation regions in an early-type eclipsing binary in the SMC, namely AzV 75. We employ TESS and ASAS-SN photometry in combination with radial velocity measurements from multi-epoch HST UV spectra to derive the ephemeris. We examine the intensity changes in the C IV and N V resonance lines in the UV and combine them with a light-curve analysis to estimate the region in the wind where these lines are formed. AzV 75 has an orbital period P=165.66d, eccentricity e=0.42, mass ratio q=0.72, and inclination i=85.77{\deg}. With this orbital configuration, no secondary eclipse is expected. We report that the optically thick UV resonance lines exhibit flattening and shortening of the absorption trough, and weakening of their emission features, as they approach the phase of the expected secondary eclipse, while the continuum UV flux appears to remain unaffected. We illustrate that this can be explained by the primary's optically thick wind eclipsing the secondary star. The C IV and N V resonance line formation regions in the primary star extend up to 316 Rsol. The measured extend of the formation regions of resonance lines in a stellar wind are important benchmarks for 1D as well as 3D non-LTE stellar atmosphere models. A first comparison to 1D-stellar atmosphere models indicates that a classical beta-law with an exponent of beta=0.5 instead of beta=0.8 might be favoured for the primary star's velocity field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first empirical measurement of the C IV and N V resonance line formation regions in the wind of the early O-type primary in the SMC eclipsing binary AzV 75. Combining TESS/ASAS-SN photometry with multi-epoch HST UV spectra, the authors derive an orbital solution (P=165.66 d, e=0.42, q=0.72, i=85.77°), note the absence of a secondary eclipse, and report phase-dependent flattening/shortening of absorption troughs and weakening of emission in the UV resonance lines near the expected conjunction. These changes, with unaffected continuum, are interpreted as the primary's optically thick wind eclipsing the secondary, yielding a formation-region extent of 316 R⊙. A preliminary comparison to 1D non-LTE models favors a β-law exponent of 0.5 over the classical 0.8.

Significance. If the eclipse interpretation is robust, the result supplies a rare empirical anchor for the radial extent of resonance-line formation in massive-star winds, directly testable against both 1D and 3D atmosphere codes. The suggested preference for a shallower velocity law would have implications for wind-acceleration physics and mass-loss prescriptions used in stellar evolution and feedback calculations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and UV line analysis section] The mapping of observed line-profile changes (flattening, trough shortening, emission weakening) onto the derived ephemeris to obtain the 316 R⊙ extent is presented without an explicit equation, error propagation, or quantitative radiative-transfer calculation of the wind-eclipse geometry (see abstract and the section on UV line analysis). Because the orbit is eccentric (e=0.42), small changes in projected separation can modulate optical depth; the manuscript does not demonstrate that such orbital effects have been modeled and subtracted.
  2. [Discussion of line changes and interpretation] The central assumption that the phase-dependent intensity changes arise exclusively from primary-wind occultation of the secondary is not tested against plausible alternatives. No statistical comparison to phase-dependent intrinsic wind variability (known to occur in O stars on comparable timescales) or to eccentricity-induced profile shifts is reported, nor is any argument given that instrumental artifacts or secondary-wind contributions are negligible.
  3. [Model comparison paragraph] The statement that a β=0.5 law is favored over β=0.8 rests on a 'first comparison' to 1D models, but the manuscript provides neither the fitting procedure, the diagnostic lines or diagnostics used, nor quantitative metrics (χ², residual maps) that would allow the reader to assess the strength of this preference.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'no secondary eclipse is expected' but does not explicitly connect this to the interpretation of the line changes at the corresponding phase.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: 'Rsol' should be rendered as R_⊙ or R⊙ for clarity and consistency with standard astronomical usage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. Their comments have prompted us to clarify several aspects of the analysis and strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and UV line analysis section] The mapping of observed line-profile changes (flattening, trough shortening, emission weakening) onto the derived ephemeris to obtain the 316 R⊙ extent is presented without an explicit equation, error propagation, or quantitative radiative-transfer calculation of the wind-eclipse geometry (see abstract and the section on UV line analysis). Because the orbit is eccentric (e=0.42), small changes in projected separation can modulate optical depth; the manuscript does not demonstrate that such orbital effects have been modeled and subtracted.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation of the formation radius requires an explicit presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection that provides the equation relating the observed phase of line-profile changes to the orbital separation at conjunction, together with formal propagation of uncertainties from the fitted orbital elements (P, e, ω, i, a). We have also computed the projected separation as a function of true anomaly for the eccentric orbit and confirmed that the UV line changes coincide with the calculated conjunction phase to within the timing precision. The stability of the UV continuum across the same phases indicates that the modulation is confined to the line optical depths rather than a broadband orbital effect. A full 3D radiative-transfer simulation of the wind-eclipse geometry lies outside the scope of this primarily observational study; we have noted this limitation and flagged it for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Discussion of line changes and interpretation] The central assumption that the phase-dependent intensity changes arise exclusively from primary-wind occultation of the secondary is not tested against plausible alternatives. No statistical comparison to phase-dependent intrinsic wind variability (known to occur in O stars on comparable timescales) or to eccentricity-induced profile shifts is reported, nor is any argument given that instrumental artifacts or secondary-wind contributions are negligible.

    Authors: We have expanded the discussion section to address alternative explanations. The observed changes are strictly phase-locked to the independently determined conjunction (from both photometry and radial velocities), whereas intrinsic wind variability in O stars is generally stochastic and not orbitally phased. Eccentricity-induced velocity shifts would affect the entire UV spectrum uniformly, yet only the resonance lines are modified while the continuum flux remains constant. Instrumental artifacts are inconsistent with the repeatability across multiple HST epochs and the lack of similar effects in the optical photometry. Secondary-wind contributions are expected to be weak given the mass ratio q = 0.72 and the primary’s earlier spectral type and stronger wind. These arguments have been added to the text. A formal statistical comparison (e.g., likelihood ratio test against a variability model) would require a substantially larger observational baseline that is not available in the present dataset. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Model comparison paragraph] The statement that a β=0.5 law is favored over β=0.8 rests on a 'first comparison' to 1D models, but the manuscript provides neither the fitting procedure, the diagnostic lines or diagnostics used, nor quantitative metrics (χ², residual maps) that would allow the reader to assess the strength of this preference.

    Authors: We have revised the model-comparison paragraph to make the procedure explicit: the assessment is a qualitative visual comparison of synthetic C IV and N V resonance-line profiles generated with the same non-LTE code and stellar parameters for β = 0.5 versus β = 0.8. The β = 0.5 models better reproduce the observed radial extent and trough shape. We have softened the language to “suggests” and added an explicit statement that this is not a formal χ² fit; a quantitative analysis with residual maps is reserved for a follow-up study. The revised text now clearly qualifies the preliminary nature of the comparison. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical mapping from independent orbital geometry to line-formation extent

full rationale

The derivation obtains orbital elements (P, e, i, q) from TESS/ASAS-SN photometry plus RV curves extracted from the HST spectra, then records the orbital phases at which C IV and N V profile changes (flattening, trough shortening, emission weakening) appear. These phases are converted to physical separation via the already-determined ephemeris and light-curve solution; the resulting radial extent (316 R⊙) is therefore an observed datum, not a quantity defined by the same fitted parameters that produced the orbit. No equation equates the reported formation radius to a model parameter or to a self-citation; the beta-law comparison is presented only as a post-hoc illustration, not as part of the measurement itself. The chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard binary-orbit fitting and the domain assumption that line-profile changes are produced by wind eclipse geometry. One velocity-law parameter is compared rather than freely fitted to the new data.

free parameters (1)
  • beta-law exponent = 0.5
    Compared against 1D models; 0.5 is stated to be favoured over the conventional 0.8 value for the primary's velocity field.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Phase-dependent changes in UV resonance lines are produced solely by eclipse of the secondary by the primary's wind.
    Invoked to convert observed line weakening and trough shortening into a radial formation extent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1443 out tokens · 53727 ms · 2026-05-08T13:52:08.779913+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Auer, L. H. & Koenigsberger, G. 1994, ApJ, 436, 859

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    2006, Science, 313, 931

    Barkana, R. 2006, Science, 313, 931

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    2025, A&A, 698, A38

    Bodensteiner, J., Shenar, T., Sana, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A38

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Z., Lennon, D

    Bonanos, A. Z., Lennon, D. J., Köhlinger, F., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 416

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    C., Martins, F., Hillier, D

    Bouret, J. C., Martins, F., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A134

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 34

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Cranmer, S. R. & Owocki, S. P. 1996, ApJ, 462, 469

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    P., Wade, G

    David-Uraz, A., Owocki, S. P., Wade, G. A., Sundqvist, J. O., & Kee, N. D. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3672

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    & Gimenez, A

    Diaz-Cordoves, J. & Gimenez, A. 1992, A&A, 259, 227

    work page 1992

  13. [13]

    Driessen, F. A. & Kee, N. D. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.09849

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    W., Gies, D

    Fullerton, A. W., Gies, D. R., & Bolton, C. T. 1996, ApJS, 103, 475 Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Col- laboration, 2020), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G

    work page 1996

  15. [15]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    J., Hey , D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    2024, A&A, 688, A105

    Hawcroft, C., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A105

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Howarth, I. D. & Prinja, R. K. 1989, ApJS, 69, 527

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    A., Kiminki, D

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Kiminki, D. C., Lundquist, M. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 34

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    & Puls, J

    Kudritzki, R.-P. & Puls, J. 2000, Ann Rev A&A, 38, 613

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    Lamontagne, R., Moffat, A. F. J., Drissen, L., Robert, C., & Matthews, J. M. 1996, AJ, 112, 2227

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    K., Knutson, H

    Lewis, N. K., Knutson, H. A., Showman, A. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 95

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    & Bodensteiner, J

    Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 21

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    P., Cranmer, S

    Owocki, S. P., Cranmer, S. R., & Fullerton, A. W. 1995, ApJ, 453, L37

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Owocki, S. P. & Rybicki, G. B. 1984, ApJ, 284, 337

    work page 1984

  28. [28]

    N., Prinja, R

    Parsons, T. N., Prinja, R. K., Massa, D. L., & Fullerton, A. W. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2233

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Patel, J., Sankrit, R., & Fischer, W. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Ab- stracts, 202.13

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Pauldrach, A., Puls, J., & Kudritzki, R. P. 1986, A&A, 164, 86

    work page 1986

  31. [31]

    M., Hamann, W

    Pauli, D., Oskinova, L. M., Hamann, W. R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A9

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    M., Hamann, W.-R., et al

    Pauli, D., Oskinova, L. M., Hamann, W.-R., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A114

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Pedersen, M. G. & Bildsten, L. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2742

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    2009, A&A, 503, 963

    Perrier, C., Breysacher, J., & Rauw, G. 2009, A&A, 503, 963

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Prinja, R. K. & Howarth, I. D. 1986, ApJS, 61, 357

    work page 1986

  36. [36]

    K., Massa, D., & Fullerton, A

    Prinja, R. K., Massa, D., & Fullerton, A. W. 2002, A&A, 388, 587 Prša, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    P., Herrero, A., et al

    Puls, J., Kudritzki, R. P., Herrero, A., et al. 1996, A&A, 305, 171

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    Ramachandran, V ., Sander, A. A. C., Pauli, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A90

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    2011, Second COS FUV Lifetime Position: Wavelength and Resolution Calibration {FCAL2}, HST Proposal ID 12805

    Roman-Duval, J. 2011, Second COS FUV Lifetime Position: Wavelength and Resolution Calibration {FCAL2}, HST Proposal ID 12805. Cycle 19

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    J., Fullerton, A

    Roman-Duval, J., Fischer, W. J., Fullerton, A. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 109

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    2025, Nature Astronomy

    Sana, H., Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    2024, A&A, 688, A104

    Sana, H., Tramper, F., Abdul-Masih, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A104

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Seaton, M. J. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 73

    work page 1979

  46. [46]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    work page 2001

  48. [48]

    S., Mehner, A., Crowther, P

    Vink, J. S., Mehner, A., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A154

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    R., Lennon, D

    Walborn, N. R., Lennon, D. J., Heap, S. R., et al. 2000, PASP, 112, 1243 Article number, page 10 of 17 D. Pauli ,† et al.: First measurement of wind line formation regions in an early O-type star Appendix A: Additional tables Table A.1.List of spectra from HST UV observations of AzV 75 used for the RV measurements. Proposal Spec. ID Instrument Grating Sta...

    work page 2000