Wind and Eruptive Mass Loss near the Eddington Limit
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsattached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have updated the paper to make clear it is not intended to be a general literature review, but rather is a contribution based on an invited talk at a conference in Almaty, Kazakhstan last October, with a thematic focus on some recent developments on developing a physical understanding of wind vs. eruptive mass loss. I did add citations to the reviews by Davidson and Weis and Bomans for those interested in seeing further references. The further changes flagged in red type are added in response to other reviewers' comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a very nice and compact review of mass -loss in massive stars and I recommend it be published after a few relatively minor edits that I list below.
Specific comments:
1. Figure 1 shows an image of a supernova. Please clarify if this is thought to be a core-collapse supernova.
2. Line 25: "eruptive mass loss can be trigged by energy addition to the stellar envelope, including for example through stellar mergers"
It would be helpful to list the other possible mechanisms that could inject additional energy in the stellar envelope (see my comment below Re. tidal effects).
3. line 36 and elsewhere: The name Bernoulli is written with two 'els'. Throughout the text, however, the effect is called "Bernouli". Please correct.
4. Figure 2 caption: Please clarify the meaning of r_c, v_c.
5. line 58: What is the difference between r_c and R?
6. Eq. 7: for the non-specialist, a sentence discussing the right-hand side of this equation would be helpful.
7. Line 90: After noting that the photon tiring effects are quite negligible for line-driven OB winds, it would perhaps be useful to note that this may not be the case in more optically thick winds. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering what the point of this section was.
8. Line 93: The importance of the iron opacity bump was noted earlier than the 2021 reference given, at least as early as in Grassitelli et al. (2018, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A%26A...614A..86G/abstract).
9. Figure 3 caption: How is R_c defined? What is its relation to R, r_c? Also, please clarify how "stellar envelope" is defined.
10. Eq. 11: is the Gamma in this equation the same as that in Eq. 3?
11. line 137: "blow it completely from star" --> blow it completely from the star
12. line 152: As a review, the text would benefit from a broader perspective regarding possible additional sub-photospheric energy sources. Note that the idea of inputting such additional energy in the form of dissipated tidal energy to trigger LBV-type eruptions was proposed at least since 2007, (see Toledano et al. 2007, https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/2007ASPC..367..437T; and Koenigsberger & Moreno (https://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..33/PDF/RMxAC..33_gkoenigsberger.pdf).
13. line 163: define mu
14. Figure 4: What do the numbers 85, 90, 95 mean?
15. line 169: "eventually back" ---> eventually falling back
Author Response
I thank the referee for the positive review and helpful suggestions for minor edits. They have all been addressed, with new text flagged in red type.
Regarding point 5:
5. line 58: What is the difference between r_c and R?
% AS NOW NOTED IN CAPTION OF FIGURE 2, r_c IS THE CRITICAL RADIUS AT WHICH A POLYTROPIC FLOW HAS A SPEED EQUAL TO THE POLYTROPIC SOUND SPEED. I'VE NOW ADDED TEXT NOTING THAT EQUATION(4) IGNORES GAS PRESSURE AND SO EFFECTIVELY ASSUMES A ZERO SOUND SPEE. THUS R IS NOW THE INITIAL FOR ONSET OF A FLOW DUE TO RADIATIVE FORCES EXCEEDING GRAVITY, WITH GAMMA_F > 1.
On items 8 and 12, I've added the suggested references.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper "Wind and Eruptive Mass Loss near the Eddington Limit"
by Stan Owocki offers an excellent review of the current knowledge on the
physical processes that are responsible of mass loss in both steady
and eruptive cases. The topics are described in a theoretical quantitative
way and constitute a handy reference in the field.
I only have very minor comments, mainly typos.
-p2, line 27, 'with summary' -> 'with the summary'
-p2, line 32, 'depends of' -> 'depends on'
-p4, lines 96-98: the sentence starting with 'Although' is very convoluted.
Please rephrase it.
-p5, line 119 add 'by' before h_r= 4P_r/rho
-p6, line 144-145 are repearts of the previous paragraph
-p6, line 153 'addition energy' should probably be 'addition of energy' or 'additional energy'
-p6, line 159: Bernoulli is mispelt (also in conclusions)
-p7, caption of fig 4, second line: 'added to the its', either 'the' or 'its'
-p10, line 203, 'characterized of radiation-pressure-drive' probably should be
'characterized as radiation...'
-p10, limne 216: Bernoulli
-p10 line 222: 'leads to super-Eddington' -> 'leads to a super-Eddington'
Author Response
I thank the referee for the positive review and helpful suggestions for minor edits. They have all been addressed, with new text flagged in red type.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has added some references but with respect to eta Car specifically he needs to add some discussion of the other mechanisms proposed especially the role of the secondary either directly or as a trigger. And what about other giant eruptions . They aren't all going to be the result of a merger in a triple system.
He should add some discussion addressing those points in my original review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The author has added some references but with respect to eta Car specifically he needs to add some discussion of the other mechanisms proposed especially the role of the secondary either directly or as a trigger. And what about other giant eruptions . They aren't all going to be the result of a merger in a triple system.
He should add some discussion addressing those points in my original review.
AUTHOR'S RESPONSE:
This paper was submitted as a written summary for an invited talk at the October 2024 conference on "Hot Stars: Life with Circumstellar Matter". As noted in the response this referee's first comments, it is NOT intended to be a general review of the literature, but rather, like the talk itself, summarizes the author's work and perspective on the physics of winds and eruptive mass loss. I have added references to the suggested general literature reviews, and made clear in the text the scope and context for the current paper. I note that 2 other reviews have commented positively on the paper as a succinct summary of the physical processes at hand, with minor suggestions that I have fully addressed. As such I do not intend any further revisions merely to conform to this referee's alternate vision for the intended scope of this paper.
