Paper detail

The local Tully-Fisher relation for dwarf galaxies

We study different incarnations of the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation for the Local Volume (LV) galaxies taken from Updated Nearby Galaxy Catalog. The UNGC sample contains 656 galaxies with $W_{50}$ HI-line-width estimates, mostly belonging to low mass dwarfs. Of them, 296 objects have distances measured with accuracy better than 10%. For the sample of 331 LV galaxies having baryonic masses $\log M_{bar} > 5.8 \log M_\odot$ we obtain a relation $\log M_{bar}= 2.49 \log W_{50} + 3.97$ with observed scatter of 0.38 dex. The largest factors affecting the scatter are observational errors in $K$-band magnitudes and $W_{50}$ line widths for the tiny dwarfs, as well as uncertainty of their inclinations. We find that accounting for the surface brightness of the LV galaxies, or their gas fraction, or specific star formation rate, or the isolation index do not reduce essentially the observed scatter on the baryonic TF-diagram. We also notice that a sample of 71 dSph satellites of the Milky Way and M31 with known stellar velocity dispersion $σ^*$ tends to follow nearly the same bTF relation, having slightly lower masses than that of late-type dwarfs.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.