Paper detail

Theoretical fit of Cepheid light an radial velocity curves in the Large Magellanic Cloud cluster NGC 1866

We present a theoretical investigation of multifilter (U,B,V, I and K) light and radial velocity curves of five Classical Cepheids in NGC 1866, a young massive cluster of the Large Magellanic Cloud. The best fit models accounting for the luminosity and radial velocity variations of the five selected variables, four pulsating in the fundamental mode and one in the first overtone, provide direct estimates of their intrinsic stellar parameters and individual distances. The resulting stellar properties indicate a slightly brighter Mass Luminosity relation than the canonical one, possibly due to mild overshooting and/or mass loss. As for the inferred distances, the individual values are consistent within the uncertainties. Moreover, their weighted mean value corresponds to a distance modulus of 18.56 + - 0.03 (stat) + - 0.1 (syst) mag, in agreement with several independent results in the literature.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.