The mass-luminosity relation for stars of mass 1.0 to 0.08 solar mass

Henry, Todd J.; McCarthy, Donald W.

doi:10.1086/116685

Cited by 422 publications

(466 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

439

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evolutionary sequences of Kolb & Baraffe [1999] imply that the secondaries in many CVs are expanded compared with main sequence stars of the same mass as a consequence of unusually high mass transfer rates and/or pre-CV nuclear evolution. We show that the location of the secondaries of all well-studied CVs in the spectral type period diagram implies that they are consistent with having near-solar metallicities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary stars in CVs – the observational picture

Beuermann

2000

New Astronomy Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theoretical and observational progress has substantially improved the definition of the lower main sequence and established a new basis for a comparison of main sequence stars and the secondaries in CVs. The evolutionary sequences of Kolb & Baraffe [1999] imply that the secondaries in many CVs are expanded compared with main sequence stars of the same mass as a consequence of unusually high mass transfer rates and/or pre-CV nuclear evolution. We show that the location of the secondaries of all well-studied CVs in the spectral type period diagram implies that they are consistent with having near-solar metallicities. We show, furthermore, that the surface brightness of K/M stars depends on gravity and metallicity and present new Barnes-Evans relations valid for dwarfs of near-solar metallicity and the secondaries in CVs of the galactic disk population. Distances derived by the surface brightness method agree with recent measurements of the trigonometric parallaxes of a few selected systems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary stars in CVs – the observational picture

Beuermann

2000

New Astronomy Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each MCMC fit, the source distance is picked randomly from this distribution. From emperical mass-luminosity relations (Henry & McCarthy 1993;Henry et al 1999;Delfosse et al 2000) and massdistance relations, we estimated the lens distance, host-star and planet mass, host-star brightness, and host-star and planet projected separation using a method similar to that used by Batista et al (2015) and Bennett et al (2015). Then, we calculated mean, median, and posterior distributions for each parameter from all of these MCMC fits, as seen in Table 3 , spans the range from the mass of Saturn to that of Jupiter.…”

Section: Lens Properties and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discovery of a Gas Giant Planet in Microlensing Event Ogle-2014-BLG-1760

Bhattacharya

Bennett

Bond

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the analysis of the planetary microlensing event OGLE-2014-BLG-1760, which shows a strong lightcurve signal due to the presence of a Jupiter mass ratio planet. One unusual feature of this event is that the source star is quite blue, with -=  V I 1.48 0.08. This is marginally consistent with a source star in the Galactic bulge, but it could possibly indicate a young source star on the far side of the disk. Assuming a bulge source, we perform a Bayesian analysis assuming a standard Galactic model, and this indicates that the planetary system resides in or near the Galactic bulge at =  D 6.9 1.1 kpc , and a projected star-planet separation of = -+ a 1.75 0.33 0.34 au. The lens-source relative proper motion is m =  6.5 1.1 rel mas yr −1 . The lens (and stellar host star) is estimated to be very faint compared to the source star, so it is most likely that it can be detected only when the lens and source stars start to separate. Due to the relatively high relative proper motion, the lens and source will be resolved to about ∼46 mas in 6-8 yr after the peak magnification. So, by 2020-2022, we can hope to detect the lens star with deep, high-resolution images.

show abstract

“…Santos et al (2013) propose a calibration of these results similar to the predictions of the Padova isochrones. Method 3-Use of the empirical MLR of Henry & McCarthy (1993), calibrated by taking into account binary stars, which for stars ranging between 0.5 and 2.0 M is…”

Section: O B S E Rvat I O Na L Data a N D M E T H O D O L O G Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Henry (2004) published the best known MLR for stars ranging in mass from 0.07 up to 33 M . If the luminosity is known, this relation allows an estimation of the stellar mass with an accuracy of 8-10 per cent (depending on the mass range, e.g., Henry & McCarthy 1993). More recently, Xia & Fu (2010) published an MLR using 203 main-sequence stars (with spectral types ranging from O to K), obtaining a relative error on the mass estimation of about 5 per cent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the mass estimation for FGK stars: comparison of several methods

Pinheiro

Fernandes

Cunha

et al. 2014

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stellar evolutionary models simulate well binary stars when individual stellar mass and system metallicity are known. The mass can be derived directly from observations only in the case of multiple stellar systems, mainly binaries. Yet, the number of such stars for which accurate stellar masses are available is rather small. The main goal of this project is to provide realistic mass estimates for a homogeneous sample of about a thousand FGK single stars, using four different methods and techniques. We present the masses inferred according to each one of these methods as well as a final mass estimate consisting in the median of the four mass estimates. The procedures evaluated here include the use of stellar evolutionary models, massluminosity relation and surface gravity spectroscopic observations. By combining the results obtained with different methods, we determine the best mass value for each individual star, as well as the associated error budget. Our results confirm the expected consistency between the different mass estimation methods. None the less, for masses above 1.2 M , the spectroscopic surface gravities seem to overestimate the mass. This result may be a consequence of the spectroscopic surface gravities used in this analysis. Nevertheless, this problem is minimized by the fact that we have several approaches available for deriving stellar masses. Moreover, we suggest an empirical procedure to overcome this issue.

show abstract

The mass-luminosity relation for stars of mass 1.0 to 0.08 solar mass

Cited by 422 publications

References 1 publication

Secondary stars in CVs – the observational picture

Secondary stars in CVs – the observational picture

Discovery of a Gas Giant Planet in Microlensing Event Ogle-2014-BLG-1760

On the mass estimation for FGK stars: comparison of several methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About