4.5 Article

The Seven Sisters DANCe I. Empirical isochrones, luminosity, and mass functions of the Pleiades cluster

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 577, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425019

关键词

proper motions; stars: luminosity function, mass function; open clusters and associations: individual: M 45

资金

  1. Ramon y Cajal fellowship [RYC-2009-04497]
  2. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche program DESC (Dynamical Evolution of Stellar Clusters) [ANR 2010 JCJC 0501 1]
  3. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche program (Toupies) [ANR 2011 Blanc SIMI 5-6 020 01]
  4. Spanish MICINN [AyA2008-02156]
  5. Canadian Space Agency
  6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  7. National Science Foundation
  8. NASA
  9. [AYA2012-38897-C02-01]
  10. [AYA2010-21161-C02-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. The DANCe survey provides photometric and astrometric (position and proper motion) measurements for approximately 2 million unique sources in a region encompassing similar to 80 deg(2) centered on the Pleiades cluster. Aims. We aim at deriving a complete census of the Pleiades and measure the mass and luminosity functions of the cluster. Methods. Using the probabilistic selection method previously described, we identified high probability members in the DANCe (i >= 14 mag) and Tycho-2 (V less than or similar to 12 mag) catalogues and studied the properties of the cluster over the corresponding luminosity range. Results. We find a total of 2109 high-probability members, of which 812 are new, making it the most extensive and complete census of the cluster to date. The luminosity and mass functions of the cluster are computed from the most massive members down to similar to 0.025 M-circle dot. The size, sensitivity, and quality of the sample result in the most precise luminosity and mass functions observed to date for a cluster. Conclusions. Our census supersedes previous studies of the Pleiades cluster populations, in terms of both sensitivity and accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据