4.7 Article

Why do some young cool stars show spot modulation while others do not?

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 423, Issue 3, Pages 2966-2976

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21119.x

Keywords

stars: low-mass; stars: magnetic field; stars: rotation; open clusters and associations: individual: NGC 2516

Funding

  1. Wingate scholarship
  2. STFC [PP/F000057/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/J001384/1, ST/G002355/1, ST/J000035/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001384/1, PP/F000057/1, ST/G002355/1, ST/J000035/1, PP/D000955/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present far-red, intermediate-resolution spectroscopy of 572 photometrically selected, low-mass stars (0.2 < M/M? < 0.7) in the young open cluster NGC 2516, using the FLAMES spectrograph at the Very Large Telescope. Precise radial velocities confirm membership for 210 stars that have published rotation periods from spot-modulated light curves and for another 144 stars in which periodic modulation could not be found. The two subsamples are compared and no significant differences are found between their positions in colourmagnitude diagrams, the distribution of their projected equatorial velocities or their levels of chromospheric activity. We rule out differing observational sensitivity as an explanation and conclude that otherwise similar objects, with equally high levels of chromospheric activity, do not exhibit spot-induced light-curve modulation because their significant spot coverage is highly axisymmetric. We propose that the spot coverage consists of large numbers of small, dark spots with diameters of about 2 degrees. This explains why about half of cluster members do not exhibit rotationally modulated light curves and why the light-curve amplitudes of those that do have mean values of only 0.010.02 mag.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available