Paper detail

Absolute dimensions of solar-type eclipsing binaries. EF Aquarii: a G0 test for stellar evolution models

Recent studies have shown that stellar chromospheric activity, and its effect on convective energy transport in the envelope, is most likely the cause of significant radius and temperature discrepancies between theoretical evolution models and observations. We aim to determine absolute dimensions and abundances for the solar-type detached eclipsing binary EF Aqr, and to perform a detailed comparison with results from recent stellar evolutionary models. uvby-beta standard photometry was obtained with the Stromgren Automatic Telescope. The broadening function formalism was applied on spectra observed with HERMES at the Mercator telescope in La Palma, to obtain radial velocity curves. Masses and radii with a precision of 0.6% and 1.0% respectively have been established for both components of EF Aqr. The active 0.956 M_sol secondary shows star spots and strong Ca II H and K emission lines. The 1.224 M_sol primary shows signs of activity as well, but at a lower level. An [Fe/H] abundance of 0.00+-0.10 is derived with similar abundances for Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Co, and Ni. Solar calibrated evolutionary models such as Yonsei-Yale, Victoria-Regina and BaSTI isochrones and evolutionary tracks are unable to reproduce EF Aqr, especially for the secondary, which is 9% larger and 400 K cooler than predicted. Models adopting significantly lower mixing length parameters l/H_p remove these discrepancies, as seen in other solar type binaries. For the observed metallicity, Granada models with a mixing length of l/H_p=1.30 (primary) and 1.05 (secondary) reproduce both components at a common age of 1.5+-0.6 Gyr. Observations of EF Aqr suggests that magnetic activity, and its effect on envelope convection, is likely to be the cause of discrepancies in both radius and temperature, which can be removed by adjusting the mixing length parameter of the models downwards.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.