4.7 Article

Observations of Cepheids with the MOST satellite: contrast between pulsation modes

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 446, Issue 4, Pages 4008-4018

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu2371

Keywords

techniques: photometric; stars: individual: RT Aur; stars: individual: SZ Tau; stars: variables: Cepheids

Funding

  1. 'Lendulet-Young Researchers' Program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  2. Hungarian OTKA [K83790]
  3. European Community [269194, 312844]
  4. ESA PECS [4000110889/14/NL/NDe]
  5. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  6. ES-TEC [4000106398/12/NL/KML]
  7. Chandra X-ray Center NASA [NAS8-03060]
  8. NSERC (Canada)
  9. AFJM
  10. Austrian Science Fonds [FWF P22691-N16]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The quantity and quality of satellite photometric data strings is revealing details in Cepheid variation at very low levels. Specifically, we observed a Cepheid pulsating in the fundamental mode and one pulsating in the first overtone with the Canadian MOST (Microvariability and Oscillations of Stars) satellite. The 3.7-d period fundamental mode pulsator (RT Aur) has a light curve that repeats precisely, and can be modelled by a Fourier series very accurately. The overtone pulsator (SZ Tau, 3.1 d period) on the other hand shows light-curve variation from cycle to cycle which we characterize by the variations in the Fourier parameters. We present arguments that we are seeing instability in the pulsation cycle of the overtone pulsator, and that this is also a characteristic of the O - C curves of overtone pulsators. On the other hand, deviations from cycle to cycle as a function of pulsation phase follow a similar pattern in both stars, increasing after minimum radius. In summary, pulsation in the overtone pulsator is less stable than that of the fundamental mode pulsator at both long and short time-scales.

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