Erratum: ``A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale'' (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003])

Astronomy and Astrophysics – Astronomy

Scientific paper

Rate now

  [ 0.00 ] – not rated yet Voters 0   Comments 0

Details

2

Errata, Addenda

Scientific paper

Because of a numerical error in the conversion of mean angular radii to mean linear radii, Tables 4, 5, and 6 were in error in our original paper. The sense of the error is that the published radii and their uncertainties are 6.5% too large. No other quantity in the paper is changed. Corrected versions of the tables are included here.
After correction, the discussion in § 6.2 is modified as follows. A least-squares fit to our results, weighted by the variance in log and excluding SZ Tau and EU Tau as possible overtone pulsators, gives the fundamental-mode period-radius (PR) relation from 11 Cepheidslog=0.679(+/-0.050)(logP-1.2)+2.016(+/-0.065). (1)If we include SZ Tau and EU Tau in the PR relation with their equivalent fundamental-mode periods, we obtain for 13 Cepheidslog=0.693(+/-0.037)(logP-1.2)+2.014(+/-0.047). (2)We adopt this as our best estimate for the PR relation.
In Table 5 we have revised the first line, which leads to a very small change in the weighted mean solution. The weighted mean PR relation from Table 5 islog=0.690(+/-0.018)(logP-1.2)+1.978(+/-0.005). (3)
G. Bono et al. (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003]) have computed theoretical PR relations for first-overtone pulsators with and without convective overshoot. Table 6 compares our observed radii (from Table 4) for EU Tau and SZ Tau with those predictions and with the consensus fundamental-mode PR relation (eq. [3]). Our radii are more consistent with overtone pulsation than with fundamental-mode pulsation for both stars. However, these radii no longer permit a distinction between first-overtone pulsation with and without convective overshoot.

No associations

LandOfFree

Say what you really think

Search LandOfFree.com for scientists and scientific papers. Rate them and share your experience with other people.

Rating

Erratum: ``A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale'' (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003]) does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Erratum: ``A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale'' (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003]), we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Erratum: ``A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale'' (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003]) will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

     

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1857835

  Search
All data on this website is collected from public sources. Our data reflects the most accurate information available at the time of publication.