Paper detail

Towards stellar effective temperatures and diameters at one per cent accuracy for future surveys

The apparent size of stars is a crucial benchmark for fundamental stellar properties such as effective temperatures, radii and surface gravities. While interferometric measurements of stellar angular diameters are the most direct method to gauge these, they are still limited to relatively nearby and bright stars, which are saturated in most of the modern photometric surveys. This dichotomy prevents us from safely extending well calibrated relations to the faint stars targeted in large spectroscopic and photometric surveys. Here, we alleviate this obstacle by presenting SAAO near-infrared JHK observations of 55 stars: 16 of them have interferometric angular diameters, and the rest are in common with the 2MASS (unsaturated) dataset, allowing us to tie the effective temperatures and angular diameters derived via the Infrared Flux Method to the interferometric scale. We extend the test to recent interferometric measurements of unsaturated 2MASS stars, including giants, and the metal-poor benchmark target HD122563. With a critical evaluation of the systematics involved, we conclude that a 1% accuracy in fundamental stellar parameters is usually within reach. Caution, however, must be used when indirectly testing a temperature scale via colour relations, as well as when assessing the reliability of interferometric measurements, especially at sub-milliarcsec level. As a result, rather different effective temperature scales can be compatible with a given subset of interferometric data. We highlight some caveats to be aware of in such a quest, and suggest a simple method to check against systematics in fundamental measurements. A new diagnostic combination seismic radii with astrometric distances is also presented.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.