![]() | A fact from NML Cygni appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The article says both that [The association] "has an estimated mass loss rate of 2×10^(−4) M⊙ yr ^(−1)" and that "The star has one of the largest mass loss rates at around 2 × 10-4 M☉ per year". Which is it? (I was going to fix the formatting of the first one but then noticed the second) — Lidnariq ( talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2011/02/aa13993-10/aa13993-10.html Lithopsian ( talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For anyone planning to expand or do work to this article - I have created a draft article over at my userspace which anyone is welcome to help contribute to. I will be transferring it here when enough work has been done to it. Samwalton9 ( talk) 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
this article http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1850 has been quoted as the source of the 1650 R☉. however, i could not find 1650 R☉ in the article. all i could find was the following sentence on page 10: NML Cyg’s stellar size of 16.2 mas from Blöcker et al.(2001) was derived using the Stepan-Boltzmann law, adopting Teff=2500 K and a distance of 1.74 kpc. Rescaling this stellar diameter with our distance of 1.61 kpc gives 15.0 mas. well, mas are milli arc seconds, i suppose.
using http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.61+kpc*sin%2815+milliarcseconds%29 i get a diameter of 3.613 billion km. this is far from the 2.29 billion km for NML Cygni. can anyone explain, how the 1650 R☉ were calculated? many thanks -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/610/1/427 Lithopsian ( talk) 15:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Lithopsian The 3.613 billion km/16.2 mas was also calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so how could you also calculate 1,650 R☉ with the S-B law? @Agentjoerg Also, if you search up NML Cygni on Google, it now says 1,183 R☉. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to keep most people happy, I had to re-add 1,650 R☉ (without removing 1,183 R☉, 1,638.96 R☉, and 2,769.84 R☉.) Anyway, Wikipedia is usually incomplete, and is usually considered by most people to be contrary to popular belief, etc. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 02:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The paper cites the photospheric measurement of the star as 22 mas. Given the distance of 5300 ly, this gives me 1,580 solar radii. Another paper gives 14 mas, giving 1,490 solar radii. Given luminosity of 300,000 L and temperature 3,300 K, this gives 1,750 solar radii. However, I was not consistent with my figures. I want to know exactly how the figure 1,650 solar radii was quoted. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that NML cygni's radius should be listed as 2212.5±562.5? Cause UY Scuti's is listed as 1708±192 and not 1516-1900. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ( talk) 01:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(comment moved here from my talk page)
Lithopsian (
talk)
12:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So if NML Cygni is 1183 solar radii, how come it isn't editted yet? Same for VX Sagittarii? (1350-1940) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
49.150.6.104 (
talk)
13:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Niyet' has been editing size for NML Cygni to be 1650 R☉, both in this article and in List of largest stars. I have reverted edits altering the size of NML Cygni from 1,183 to 1,650 R☉ as the source cited, De beck, shows 1,183 R☉. However the article is wrong according to the source for NML Cygni. Regards— User:Space Infinite 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Turns out NML Cygni was never the largest star after all in 2012-2013, as I found the following information:
1,650 R☉ is NML Cyg's old size. The Zhang's reference says that size was 1,650 (-2,775) R☉ and the temperature (2,500–) 3,250 K and the De beck's reference says that the temperature is 3,834 K, If NML Cygni's temperature is 3,834 K, it means that NML Cygni's size is 1,183 R☉, If it is 2,500 K, its size would be 2,775 R☉ etc... because when the stars become warmer, they shrink, and cooler, they grow and the size of a giant, supergiant, hypergiant stars can change quickly. NML Cygni is listed as having a radius of 1,650 R☉ and being the largest star from 2012-2013. The NML Cygni article currently cites a size of 1,050 R☉ (it means that its temp is 4,074 K) from a 2010 paper. Clearly it wasn't the largest star in 2012 or 2013, It was WOH G64 (Not V838 Monocerotis because it was 380–1,570 R☉) with a size of 1,540-2,000 [1]R☉. And in general, when a range, use the small end of the range to sort, not the high end or some middle range and margin of error is not a range.
The 1,183 R☉ ref was made in 2010, so NML Cygni was only 1,183 R☉ all this time??????? I still use the old 1,650 R☉ for NML Cygni. So the 1,650, 2,208.5 and 2,775 for 2012 was never true. -- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk) 05:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf4JRyj2Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOog-I9z0mQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. I edited NML Cygni on the list of largest stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lithopsian maybe NML Cygni was the largest star in 2013 after all, but in reality it was 3.613 billion km and not 2.29 billion km. However, if that is true, it might still be the largest star. I think it would be best to leave it at 1,183 - 2,595 (~3,613,000,000/1,392,784) R☉. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is this star's visual magnitude so low? It's magnitude is 16.6 but it's only 1600 parsecs away? I calculated this star's absolute magnitude to be 5.58 which is even lower than our sun's (4.83). This is very low magnitude for any red supergiant star, let alone a red supergiant with a luminosity of over 200,000 L☉. Is this star's magnitude so low because it's being blocked by surrounding dust because that would be a lot of surrounding dust. JayKayXD ( talk) 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As NML Cygni has highly uncertain calculations about its luminosity, temperature, and radius, it was already removed from the list of largest stars.
As a result, the radius, temperature, and luminosity values had to be removed from the page until further measurements calculate it with more reliable certainty.
This's the same issue with stars like UY Scuti and Stephenson 2 DFK 1. Eric Nelson27 ( talk) 08:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from NML Cygni appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The article says both that [The association] "has an estimated mass loss rate of 2×10^(−4) M⊙ yr ^(−1)" and that "The star has one of the largest mass loss rates at around 2 × 10-4 M☉ per year". Which is it? (I was going to fix the formatting of the first one but then noticed the second) — Lidnariq ( talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2011/02/aa13993-10/aa13993-10.html Lithopsian ( talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For anyone planning to expand or do work to this article - I have created a draft article over at my userspace which anyone is welcome to help contribute to. I will be transferring it here when enough work has been done to it. Samwalton9 ( talk) 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
this article http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1850 has been quoted as the source of the 1650 R☉. however, i could not find 1650 R☉ in the article. all i could find was the following sentence on page 10: NML Cyg’s stellar size of 16.2 mas from Blöcker et al.(2001) was derived using the Stepan-Boltzmann law, adopting Teff=2500 K and a distance of 1.74 kpc. Rescaling this stellar diameter with our distance of 1.61 kpc gives 15.0 mas. well, mas are milli arc seconds, i suppose.
using http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.61+kpc*sin%2815+milliarcseconds%29 i get a diameter of 3.613 billion km. this is far from the 2.29 billion km for NML Cygni. can anyone explain, how the 1650 R☉ were calculated? many thanks -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 04:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/610/1/427 Lithopsian ( talk) 15:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Lithopsian The 3.613 billion km/16.2 mas was also calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so how could you also calculate 1,650 R☉ with the S-B law? @Agentjoerg Also, if you search up NML Cygni on Google, it now says 1,183 R☉. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to keep most people happy, I had to re-add 1,650 R☉ (without removing 1,183 R☉, 1,638.96 R☉, and 2,769.84 R☉.) Anyway, Wikipedia is usually incomplete, and is usually considered by most people to be contrary to popular belief, etc. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 02:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The paper cites the photospheric measurement of the star as 22 mas. Given the distance of 5300 ly, this gives me 1,580 solar radii. Another paper gives 14 mas, giving 1,490 solar radii. Given luminosity of 300,000 L and temperature 3,300 K, this gives 1,750 solar radii. However, I was not consistent with my figures. I want to know exactly how the figure 1,650 solar radii was quoted. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that NML cygni's radius should be listed as 2212.5±562.5? Cause UY Scuti's is listed as 1708±192 and not 1516-1900. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ( talk) 01:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(comment moved here from my talk page)
Lithopsian (
talk)
12:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So if NML Cygni is 1183 solar radii, how come it isn't editted yet? Same for VX Sagittarii? (1350-1940) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
49.150.6.104 (
talk)
13:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Niyet' has been editing size for NML Cygni to be 1650 R☉, both in this article and in List of largest stars. I have reverted edits altering the size of NML Cygni from 1,183 to 1,650 R☉ as the source cited, De beck, shows 1,183 R☉. However the article is wrong according to the source for NML Cygni. Regards— User:Space Infinite 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Turns out NML Cygni was never the largest star after all in 2012-2013, as I found the following information:
1,650 R☉ is NML Cyg's old size. The Zhang's reference says that size was 1,650 (-2,775) R☉ and the temperature (2,500–) 3,250 K and the De beck's reference says that the temperature is 3,834 K, If NML Cygni's temperature is 3,834 K, it means that NML Cygni's size is 1,183 R☉, If it is 2,500 K, its size would be 2,775 R☉ etc... because when the stars become warmer, they shrink, and cooler, they grow and the size of a giant, supergiant, hypergiant stars can change quickly. NML Cygni is listed as having a radius of 1,650 R☉ and being the largest star from 2012-2013. The NML Cygni article currently cites a size of 1,050 R☉ (it means that its temp is 4,074 K) from a 2010 paper. Clearly it wasn't the largest star in 2012 or 2013, It was WOH G64 (Not V838 Monocerotis because it was 380–1,570 R☉) with a size of 1,540-2,000 [1]R☉. And in general, when a range, use the small end of the range to sort, not the high end or some middle range and margin of error is not a range.
The 1,183 R☉ ref was made in 2010, so NML Cygni was only 1,183 R☉ all this time??????? I still use the old 1,650 R☉ for NML Cygni. So the 1,650, 2,208.5 and 2,775 for 2012 was never true. -- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk) 05:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRf4JRyj2Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOog-I9z0mQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. I edited NML Cygni on the list of largest stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lithopsian maybe NML Cygni was the largest star in 2013 after all, but in reality it was 3.613 billion km and not 2.29 billion km. However, if that is true, it might still be the largest star. I think it would be best to leave it at 1,183 - 2,595 (~3,613,000,000/1,392,784) R☉. ---- Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is this star's visual magnitude so low? It's magnitude is 16.6 but it's only 1600 parsecs away? I calculated this star's absolute magnitude to be 5.58 which is even lower than our sun's (4.83). This is very low magnitude for any red supergiant star, let alone a red supergiant with a luminosity of over 200,000 L☉. Is this star's magnitude so low because it's being blocked by surrounding dust because that would be a lot of surrounding dust. JayKayXD ( talk) 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As NML Cygni has highly uncertain calculations about its luminosity, temperature, and radius, it was already removed from the list of largest stars.
As a result, the radius, temperature, and luminosity values had to be removed from the page until further measurements calculate it with more reliable certainty.
This's the same issue with stars like UY Scuti and Stephenson 2 DFK 1. Eric Nelson27 ( talk) 08:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)