This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.

The following article is Free article

Erratum: "The Algol Triple System Spatially Resolved at Optical Wavelengths" (2010, ApJL, 715, L44)

, , , , , , , and

Published 2017 July 3 © 2017. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.
, , Citation R. T. Zavala et al 2017 ApJL 843 L18 DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/aa75cd

Download Article PDF
DownloadArticle ePub

You need an eReader or compatible software to experience the benefits of the ePub3 file format.

This is a correction for 2010 ApJL 715 L44

2041-8205/843/1/L18

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

1. Correction to Table 1

Table 1 as it appeared in Zavala et al. (2010) contained errors in the expected angular diameters for the three stars of the Algol triple system. This was an error in transcribing the data to the table only. The correct expected diameters were used in the analysis and model fitting. A corrected version of Table 1 appears here.

Table 1.  Adopted and Derived System Parameters

Parameters Stellar Component
  A B C
D (mas) 0.98 1.2 0.58
Mass (M)a 3.7 ± 0.3 0.81 ± 0.05 1.6 ± 0.1
${T}_{\mathrm{eff}}$(K)a 13000 4500 7500
log g 4.0 3.5 4.5

Note. Values for diameters calculated as described in Section 3. The log(g) values are from Richards (1993) rounded to match the atmosphere models we used. Diameter, ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and log g were fixed during the model fitting. The masses here were initial estimates in the model fitting, and the final mass results and uncertainties are listed in Table 3.

aRichards (1993).

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

2. Correction to Dynamical Parallax and Semimajor Axis of Algol AB-C

An error was found in the code that performs the orbital fitting. There was no constraint in the orbital fitting so that the dynamical parallaxes of the A–B and AB–C systems are the same. A fix was implemented in the code, and a new combined fit was performed. The software fix resulted in fitted dynamical parallaxes for both orbits within 1.3σ of the parallax in the HIPPARCOS new reduction (van Leeuwen 2007). A new version of Table 3 incorporating the results of this fit appears here.

Table 3.  Orbital Solution and Component Parameters

Orbital A–B A–B AB–C AB–C
Element Söderhjelm (1980) This Work Pan et al. (1993) This Work
a (mas) 2.2 ± 0.1 2.2 ± 0.1 94.61 ± 0.22 94.7 ± 0.3
i (deg) 81.4 ± 0.2a 98.6c 83.98 ± 0.09 83.76 ± 0.09
Ω (deg) 132 ± 4 47.8 ± 14.5 312.26 ± 0.13 132.4 ± 0.1
e 0 0 0.225 ± 0.005 0.211 ± 0.003
ω (deg) 310.29 ± 0.08 313.2 ± 1.0
T0 (JY) 1973.2471b 1987.3689 1987.3826 ± 0.0052
T0 (JD) 2441773.49b 2446931.4 ± 1.5 2446936.4 ± 1.9
P (days) 2.8673 2.867328 680.05 ± 0.06 680.10 ± 0.12
P (years) 1.8619 ± 0.0002 1.8620 ± 0.0003
${\pi }_{{dyn}}$ (mas)   34.7 ± 0.5   34.7 ± 0.5
Magnitude Differences
Components Δm(550 nm) Δm(800 nm)    
A–B 2.70 ± 0.3 2.20 ± 0.3    
A–C 2.8 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.2    
AB–C 2.9 ± 0.1 2.7 ± 0.1    
Masses (M)
M(A) 3.5 ± 0.2      
M(B) 0.8 ± 0.1      
M(C) 1.6 ± 0.1      

Notes.

aRichards et al. (1988). bMinimum light of primary eclipse. ci > 90° used to indicate retrograde motion as defined by Heintz (1978).

Download table as:  ASCIITypeset image

Please wait… references are loading.
10.3847/2041-8213/aa75cd