![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The following paper conflicts with the masses that were apparently copied from the SolStation site:
So it is unclear which is correct. — RJH 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I also stumbled over the inconsistent mass data. List_of_least_massive_stars has the lower numbers. To make the inconsistency more obvious to readers I reconverted the (lower) jupiter figures back to solar masses. Maybe someone should write some words about the discrepancy. Darsie from german wiki pedia ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
By reference to this page: http://kencroswell.com/BrownDwarfLithium.html one can see that, contrary to the previous consensus about those masses, Wulff Heintz in 1989 proposed the smaller numbers, which were subsequently disputed in 1991. Torres' numbers of 1999-- http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/117/1/562?ejredirect=migration --may be considered the best at the present time. mrh
BTW, the mass of Jupiter is 1/1047ths that of our Sun, for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Masses 0.14 and 0.13 M☉ are what actually mentioned in the sources and these numbers are consistent with the spectral classes of the stars (see the article about the main sequence and referencies therein). So I think there was no contradiction, but just a simple error in converting solar mass into Jovian. GenyAncalagon ( talk) 07:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I could find nothing to corroborate this paragraph, so I removed it from the article:
Since it lacks a HIP number, I don't believe this star was even measured by the Hipparcos satellite.– RJH ( talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's in Hipparcos here:
under "FL Virginis". mrh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wolf 424. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The following paper conflicts with the masses that were apparently copied from the SolStation site:
So it is unclear which is correct. — RJH 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I also stumbled over the inconsistent mass data. List_of_least_massive_stars has the lower numbers. To make the inconsistency more obvious to readers I reconverted the (lower) jupiter figures back to solar masses. Maybe someone should write some words about the discrepancy. Darsie from german wiki pedia ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
By reference to this page: http://kencroswell.com/BrownDwarfLithium.html one can see that, contrary to the previous consensus about those masses, Wulff Heintz in 1989 proposed the smaller numbers, which were subsequently disputed in 1991. Torres' numbers of 1999-- http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/117/1/562?ejredirect=migration --may be considered the best at the present time. mrh
BTW, the mass of Jupiter is 1/1047ths that of our Sun, for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Masses 0.14 and 0.13 M☉ are what actually mentioned in the sources and these numbers are consistent with the spectral classes of the stars (see the article about the main sequence and referencies therein). So I think there was no contradiction, but just a simple error in converting solar mass into Jovian. GenyAncalagon ( talk) 07:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I could find nothing to corroborate this paragraph, so I removed it from the article:
Since it lacks a HIP number, I don't believe this star was even measured by the Hipparcos satellite.– RJH ( talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's in Hipparcos here:
under "FL Virginis". mrh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wolf 424. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)