Talk:30 Arietis - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 30 December 2020 (Dating comment by Kepler-1229b - "→Where's the merge proposal?: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:18, 30 December 2020 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Dating comment by Kepler-1229b - "→Where's the merge proposal?: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

30 Ari A

An unsourced sentence in the text describes both as F-type main-sequence stars based on luminosity, yet SIMBAD lists the A component as a giant. Further, the luminosity listed for the A component in the Details section of the starbox (1.991 solar) is consistent with neither the absolute magnitude (abs mag of 3.46 suggests a luminosity well in excess of 3 solar) nor the difference in magnitude between the two stars (7.09 - 6.48 = 0.61, which indicates 30 Ari A should be at least 75% brighter than 30 Ari B, rather than nearly the same). Given these discrepancies, I've updated the starbox with the data from SIMBAD and altered the luminosity of the A component. Pfhreak (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See the paper Guenther et al. (2009) "A substellar component orbiting the F-star 30 Arietis B" (referenced in the article) for more about this:

30 Ari A is listed in the SIMBAD database with a spectral type F6III. If true, the object should have an absolute brightness (M_v) of +1.4 mag. Using again the Hipparcos distance, the relative magnitude (m_v) would than be 4.4 mag, which is inconsistent with the observed brightness (Table 1). The V − J colours are 0.808 ± 0.02 for 30 Ari A and 1.02 ± 0.02 for 30 Ari B, and the V − K colours are 1.01±0.3 and 1.27±0.02 for components A and B, respectively. The colours are also inconsistent with a giant star but consistent with a main-sequence star. Using our high resolution spectra (see Sect. 3) and following the method described in Frasca et al. (2003) and Gandolfi et al. (2008), we find that 30 Ari A is an F5V star and 30 Ari B, and 30 Ari B and F6V star (Figs. 1; 2). Thus, the brightness, colours and the results of the spectroscopy show that both components are still on the main sequence stars.

77.57.25.250 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Quadruple star

Apparently, some new vital information about the star system came available. http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/planet-reared-by-four-parent-stars/index.html#.VPd3LM2glZ4 --Artman40 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 30 Arietis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No

I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like HD 114762 b. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's the merge proposal?

If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if @SevenSpheresCelestia: gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

k Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories: