1985
DOI: 10.1086/131493
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The rotation of the primary of Algol

Abstract: We have used high signal-to-noise ratio Reticon observations of the 5875 Á He I line to estimate an equatorial velocity V = 49 ± 3 km s -1 for the rotation of the primary. This is not significantly different from the synchronous velocity V = 52 ± 3 km s -1 and confirms the conclusion of previous studies that the rotation of the primary is synchronous.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the direction of the flow in the V z direction in β Per was opposite to that in RS Vul. In both binaries, the projected rotational velocity, v sin i is comparable to the synchronous rotational velocity of the mass gainer (50 -60 km s −1 ), and both are lower than the maximum V z (adj) velocities associated with this feature (e.g., v sin i = 53 ± 3 km s −1 for β Per; Rucinski 1979;Tomkin & Tan 1985). Since the V z (adj) velocities associated with Feature 1 are higher than the star's rotational velocity, it is reasonable to assume that the star may have been spun up, presumably by the impact of the gas stream onto the stellar photosphere.…”
Section: Description and Interpretation Of Emissionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Moreover, the direction of the flow in the V z direction in β Per was opposite to that in RS Vul. In both binaries, the projected rotational velocity, v sin i is comparable to the synchronous rotational velocity of the mass gainer (50 -60 km s −1 ), and both are lower than the maximum V z (adj) velocities associated with this feature (e.g., v sin i = 53 ± 3 km s −1 for β Per; Rucinski 1979;Tomkin & Tan 1985). Since the V z (adj) velocities associated with Feature 1 are higher than the star's rotational velocity, it is reasonable to assume that the star may have been spun up, presumably by the impact of the gas stream onto the stellar photosphere.…”
Section: Description and Interpretation Of Emissionmentioning
confidence: 82%