4.6 Article

Visual Orbits of Spectroscopic Binaries with the CHARA Array. IV. HD 61859, HD 89822, HD 109510, and HD 191692

Journal

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 164, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9385

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1636624, AST-1908026, AST-2034336]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [639889]
  3. ERC Consolidator Grant [101003096]
  4. STFC Consolidated Grant [ST/V000721/1]
  5. state of Tennessee through its Centers of Excellence Program
  6. MIRC-X [NASA-XRP NNX16AD43G, NSF-AST 1909165]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have presented the visual orbits of four spectroscopic binary stars using long baseline interferometry, and determined their stellar masses, distances, radii, and temperatures. By comparing the observed parameters to the predictions of stellar evolution models, we found that only one system fits well with the models.
We present the visual orbits of four spectroscopic binary stars, HD 61859, HD 89822, HD 109510, and HD 191692, using long baseline interferometry with the CHARA Array. We also obtained new radial velocities from echelle spectra using the APO 3.5 m, CTIO 1.5 m, and Fairborn Observatory 2.0 m telescopes. By combining the astrometric and spectroscopic observations, we solve for the full, three-dimensional orbits and determine the stellar masses to 1%-12% uncertainty and distances to 0.4%-6% uncertainty. We then estimate the effective temperature and radius of each component star through Doppler tomography and spectral energy distribution analyses. We found masses of 1.4-3.5 M (circle dot), radii of 1.5-4.7 R (circle dot), and temperatures of 6400-10,300 K. We then compare the observed stellar parameters to the predictions of the stellar evolution models, but found that only one of our systems fits well with the evolutionary models.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available