Paper detail

Distances to six Cepheids in the LMC cluster NGC1866 from the near-IR surface-brightness method

We derive individual distances to six Cepheids in the young populous star cluster NGC1866 in the Large Magellanic Cloud employing the near-IR surface brightness technique. With six stars available at the exact same distance we can directly measure the intrinsic uncertainty of the method. We find a standard deviation of 0.11 mag, two to three times larger than the error estimates and more in line with the estimates from Bayesian statistical analysis by Barnes et al. (2005). Using all six distance estimates we determine an unweighted mean cluster distance of 18.30+-0.05. The observations indicate that NGC1866 is close to be at the same distance as the main body of the LMC. If we use the stronger dependence of the p-factor on the period as suggested by Gieren et al. (2005) we find a distance of 18.50+-0.05 (internal error) and the PL relations for Galactic and MC Cepheids are in very good agreement.

preprint2005arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.