2017
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731589
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Observational calibration of the projection factor of Cepheids

Abstract: Context. The Baade-Wesselink (BW) method, which combines linear and angular diameter variations, is the most common method to determine the distances to pulsating stars. However, the projection factor, p-factor, used to convert radial velocities into pulsation velocities, is still poorly calibrated. This parameter is critical on the use of this technique, and often leads to 5-10 % uncertainties on the derived distances. Aims. We focus on empirically measuring the p-factor of a homogeneous sample of 29 LMC and … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

9
38
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(86 reference statements)
9
38
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, we perform a comparison with literature relations of our PR (Figure 9). We confirm a general good agreement with Molinaro et al (2012) and Gallenne et al (2017) PR relations. However we better reproduce Molinaro et al (2012) relation at shorter periods whereas the opposite occurs with Gallenne et al (2017) relation.…”
Section: The Period-radius and The Period-mass-radius Relationssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, we perform a comparison with literature relations of our PR (Figure 9). We confirm a general good agreement with Molinaro et al (2012) and Gallenne et al (2017) PR relations. However we better reproduce Molinaro et al (2012) relation at shorter periods whereas the opposite occurs with Gallenne et al (2017) relation.…”
Section: The Period-radius and The Period-mass-radius Relationssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However we better reproduce Molinaro et al (2012) relation at shorter periods whereas the opposite occurs with Gallenne et al (2017) relation. We finally note that the PR relations obtained by Molinaro et al (2012) and Gallenne et al (2017) depend on the assumed projection-factor (p-factor) value 5 , while those derived by the models do not depend on this parameter (Ragosta et al 2019) . Therefore a comparison between these two independent derivations allows us to put constraints on the value of the p-factor (e.g.…”
Section: The Period-radius and The Period-mass-radius Relationssupporting
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are systematic differences between these two models of order 15%. Compared to the adopted reddenings from the literature the Green et al (2019) (2016), theory, Z = 0.014, ω ini = 0.5, average 2nd and 3rd crossing 0.676 ± 0.006 1.173 ± 0.008 -- Petroni et al (2003), theory, solar metallicity 0.684 ± 0.007 1.135 ± 0.002 -0.020 Gallenne et al (2017), p = 1.33 − 0.08 log P 0.665 ± 0.012 1.136 ± 0.014 162 0.055 Groenewegen (2013), p = 1.50 − 0.24 log P 0.737 1.074 162 -Groenewegen (2013), p = 1.33 0.75 ± 0.03 1.10 ± 0.03 26 0.036 Molinaro et al (2011), p = 1.27 0.767 ± 0.009 1.091 ± 0.011 8 - Kervella et al (2004a) 0.747 ± 0.028 1.071 ± 0.025 13 0.009 Turner & Burke (2002), p = 1.31 0.680 ± 0.017 1.146 ± 0.007 44 0.045 Gieren et al (1999), p = 1.39 − 0.03 log P 0.750 ± 0.024 1.075 ± 0.007 28 0.036 Gieren et al (1998), p = 1.39 − 0.03 log P 0.751 ± 0.026 1.070 ± 0.008 40 0.051 Laney & Stobie (1995), p = 1.36 Fig. 9.…”
Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Pilecki et al (2018)), have produced a milder dependence (e.g. Gallenne et al (2017)), or even values consistent with a zero period dependence of the p-factor . However, these studies show a large scatter among the projection factors of individual Cepheids, hinting at large systematic uncertainties on the individual determinations , and/or a possible intrinsic dispersion of the p factors of Cepheids of similar periods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%