Katherine Laliotis et al. have/has flushed neo-Vulcan for good and all. Besides HD 26965 / 40 Eri; HD 114613, and HDs 20794 and 85512 as published in the same paper, got buhleeted. I feel most sorry for F. Pepe and his 2011 crew.
I guess this happens when you spot a 40 day periodicity for three-four cycles. You cannot sit by the 'scope forever.
But the news is not all bad news.
The paper's abstract raises Delta Pavonis, HD 190248 to its friends. This is out at 164 mas parallax so 6.1 pc from us, so quite close; and it's almost exactly one solar mass at G8IV. If the periodicity be a planet its mass would be quite a bit less than Saturn's 95 Earth mass (69 Earths) at a very Saturnlike 11 AU from the star. Eitherway this rules out any Jovians nor even Saturns interior to that.
Strangely δPav didn't make the Discussion at the paper's end. This made more of the three Neptunians aroud HD 69830, and of Gliese 688's spectroscopic-binary "SB1"; both herein constrained. GJ 688 is also here marked (as K2.5V) so - I dunno. Is that companion a dim red dwarf? Why is it so dim that it can't be constrained even in mass? even from 11 parsecs?
Elsewhere 61 Virginis' three planets, or HD 115617 if you're them, got constrained. The outer one "d" is confirmed. Mind, the star is 0.82 L☉ and this planet is at, what, 0.476 AU. Assuming rough coplanarity its inclination won't be much less 75° so mass not much more than 10.82/0.96592583 = 11.2 Earth masses. Looks beyond Venus; looks like a Sudarsky III. And its Hill might crowd out an Earth in the Habitable-Zone especially as coupled with the gravitational effects of the planets inward even of that.
Science-fiction authors should get quite a bit out of all this. They don't prove Earths in any of these HZs but also (61 Vir aside) don't rule them out, inasmuch as they've ruled out Neptunelikes in these HZs.
No comments:
Post a Comment