Paper detail

Velocity dispersion estimates of APM galaxy clusters

We present 83 new galaxy radial velocities in the field of 18 APM clusters with redshifts between 0.06 and 0.13. The clusters have Abell identifications and the galaxies were selected within 0.75 h$^{-1}$Mpc in projection from their centers. We derive new cluster velocity dispersions for 13 clusters using our data and published radial velocities. We analyze correlations between cluster velocity dispersions and cluster richness counts as defined in Abell and APM catalogs. The correlations show a statistically significant trend although with a large scatter suggesting that richness is a poor estimator of cluster mass irrespectively of cluster selection criteria and richness definition. We find systematically lower velocity dispersions in the sample of Abell clusters that do not fulfill APM cluster selection criteria suggesting artificially higher Abell richness counts due to contamination by projection effects in this subsample.

preprint1999arXivOpen 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.