Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:13:24.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Distances of Stars by mean of the Phase-lag Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2018

Sandra Etoka
Affiliation:
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, University of Manchester, UK email: [email protected] Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Dieter Engels
Affiliation:
Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Germany
Eric Gérard
Affiliation:
GEPI, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, France
Anita M. S. Richards
Affiliation:
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, University of Manchester, UK email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Variable OH/IR stars are Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars with an optically thick circumstellar envelope that emit strong OH 1612 MHz emission. They are commonly observed throughout the Galaxy but also in the LMC and SMC. Hence, the precise inference of the distances of these stars will ultimately result in better constraints on their mass range in different metallicity environments. Through a multi-year long-term monitoring program at the Nancay Radio telescope (NRT) and a complementary high-sensitivity mapping campaign at the eMERLIN and JVLA to measure precisely the angular diameter of the envelopes, we have been re-exploring distance determination through the phase-lag method for a sample of stars, in order to refine the poorly-constrained distances of some and infer the currently unknown distances of others. We present here an update of this project.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2018 

References

Engels, D. & Bunzel, F. 2015 A&A, 582A, 68Google Scholar
Engels, D., Etoka, S., Gérard, E., & Richards, A. M. S., 2015, ASPC, 497, 473Google Scholar
Engels, D., Gérard, E., & Hallet, N., 2012, IAUS, 287, 254Google Scholar
Etoka, S., Engels, D., Imai, H. et al. 2015, Proc. Science, (AASKA14), 125Google Scholar
Etoka, S., Engels, D., Gérard, E., & Richards, A. M. S. 2014, evn conf, 59Google Scholar
Etoka, S. & Diamond, P. D., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2218Google Scholar
Herman, J. & Habing, H. J., 1985, A&AS, 59, 523Google Scholar
Orosz, G., Imai, H., Dodson, R. et al., 2017, AJ, 153, 119Google Scholar
Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Zheng, X. W. et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, 137Google Scholar
Schultz, G. V., Sherwood, W. A., & Winnberg, A., 1978, A&A, 63L, 5Google Scholar
van Langevelde, H. J., van der Heiden, R., & van Schooneveld, C., 1990, A&A, 239, 193Google Scholar
Vlemmings, W. H. T. & van Langevelde, H. J., 2007, A&A, 472, 547Google Scholar
Whitelock, P., Feast, M., & Catchpole, R., 1991, MNRAS, 248, 276Google Scholar