4.6 Article

INTERFEROMETRY OF ε AURIGAE: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ASYMMETRIC ECLIPSING DISK

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
Volume 220, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/14

Keywords

binaries: eclipsing; techniques: interferometric; techniques: photometric

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-0606958, DRL-0840188, 10-16678]
  2. Georgia State University
  3. W. M. Keck Foundation
  4. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  5. office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at Georgia State University
  6. Office of Naval Research
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1445935, 1411654] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report on a total of 106 nights of optical interferometric observations of the epsilon Aurigae system taken during the last 14 years by four beam combiners at three different interferometric facilities. This long sequence of data provides an ideal assessment of the system prior to, during, and after the recent 2009-2011 eclipse. We have reconstructed model-independent images from the 10 in-eclipse epochs which show that a disk-like object is indeed responsible for the eclipse. Using new three-dimensional, time-dependent modeling software, we derive the properties of the F-star (diameter, limb darkening), determine previously unknown orbital elements (Omega, i), and access the global structures of the optically thick portion of the eclipsing disk using both geometric models and approximations of astrophysically relevant density distributions. These models may be useful in future hydrodynamical modeling of the system. Finally, we address several outstanding research questions including mid-eclipse brightening, possible shrinking of the F-type primary, and any warps or sub-features within the disk.

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