Talk:Solar analog

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Definition

I'm curious what others think of using the definitions from The Second Annual Lowell Observatory Fall Workshop for this page. These are:

Solar-Type: 0.48 to 0.80 in B-V (roughly equivalent to F8 V—K2 V)
Solar Analog
- Temp. ± 500 K solar (roughly 5200—6300 K)
- Metallicity 0.5—2.0 solar
- No close companion (that is, a companion with an orbital period of 10 days or less)
Solar Twin
- Temp. ± 10 K solar
- Metallicity 0.89—1.12 solar
- No companion
- Age ± 1 Ga solar (3.59—5.59 Ga)

Pfhreak (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a useful link you've got there. ~10 K solar! Wow: is any star going to meet this? If 18 Scorpii really is exactly 5800 K, it's at least within the low double digits but still wouldn't be a twin. Conversely, variability gets no mention. Marskell (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point about the temperature range. Maybe ± 50 K solar (roughly 5720—5830 K) would be more realistic, and it would still be an order of magnitude more precise than the temperature range for analogues. Pfhreak (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. Feel free to make the addition, BTW. You might see Margaret Turnbull for more. Marskell (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A first draft, after much delay, is available for feedback at: User:Pfhreak/Solar Twin Pfhreak (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No star satisfies the criteria for solar twin

If you take a look at Meléndez, and Ramírez (2007), then really no star known satisfies the criteria of being a solar twin.—RJH (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth do we include the Sun with Sunlike stars? You'd think this would be tautologically obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.90.66 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We include the Sun so that the reader has a baseline to compare with the respective parameters of the other Sun-like stars.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added footnotes with links to SIMBAD etc

Hi, I've made a new template {{CelestialRefAll}} and I thought it's about time to use it in some main space articles to see if that turns up anything.

So have tried it here first. Interested in any thoughts about it. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, to have more about why these stars are interesting

Hi, I think it might be an idea to say a bit more about why solar twins and analogues are so interesting.

I wrote a section about it here in the article for HD 133600 using material from a 2007 paper by Jorge Melendez and Ivan Ramırez which has a good introduction that goes into it in some depth, why they are useful. ^[1].

I'm sure there is a lot more that can be said. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ HIP 56948: A SOLAR TWIN WITH A LOW LITHIUM ABUNDANCE , Jorge Melendez and Ivan Ramırezd, The Astrophysical Journal, 669: L89–L92, 2007 November 10. (also discusses HIP 73815, compares it with HIP 56948)

"Oldest" Solar Twin

This might be useful: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1337/ Oldest solar twin out there that found

[Melendez-1] HIP 56948: A SOLAR TWIN WITH A LOW LITHIUM ABUNDANCE , Jorge Melendez and Ivan Ramırezd, The Astrophysical Journal, 669: L89–L92, 2007 November 10. (also discusses HIP 73815, compares it with HIP 56948)

[1]