Paper detail

Astrophysical Quantities of Cepheid Variables Measured with the NPOI

We present mean angular diameters for two cepheid variables, alpha Ursae Minoris and zeta Geminorum, determined with the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer (NPOI). We present linear radii for these cepheids and two additional cepheids, delta Cephei and eta Aquilae, previously observed at the NPOI. We find the limb-darkened angular diameter of alpha Ursae Minoris and of zeta Geminorum to be 3.28 +/- 0.02 and 1.55 +/- 0.09 milliarcseconds respectively. Using trigonometric parallaxes, we find the linear radii of alpha Ursae Minoris, zeta Geminorum, delta Cephei and eta Aquilae to be 46 (+/- 3), 60 (+25, -14), 45 (+8, -6), and 69 (+28, -15) Solar radii respectively. We compare the pulsation periods and linear radii of this sample of cepheids, which range in period from three to 11 days, to theoretical and empirical period-radius and period-radius-mass relations found in the literature. We find that the observed diameter of alpha Ursae Minoris is in excellent agreement with the predicted diameter as determined from both surface brightness techniques and theory only if alpha Ursae Minoris is a first overtone pulsator.

preprint2000arXivOpen 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.