Talk:Epsilon Carinae

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epsilon Carinae. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811014924/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_ama_b.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_ama_b.htm

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radius

Is 70 R_☉ the radius of Epsilon Carinae? ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 19:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. What makes you think it is? Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The given radius was from ru.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it was the only helpful source at the time.

If you calculate from luminosity and effective temperatures (with reference to the nominal solar temperature of 5772 K), what would you get? ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat (talk • contribs) [reply]

Wikipedia just can't be quoted as a source. If the Russian page got the number from somewhere verifiable then we can use that source. If they just made it up then we shouldn't quote them. Remember, anyone can put anything in Wikipedia. Even I could edit it! It doesn't say 70 now, but contains some other number with no indication of a source. I can't even find reliable luminosity information for the components. Lithopsian (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just add 70 R_☉ for the radius. I am usually opposed to uncited and unverified data but anyway, many Wikipedia pages have citation needed tags, and the page is severely incomplete, etc. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 23:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the radius comes from here. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat: @Lithopsian: Given luminosity of 6,000 L_☉ and temperature 3,523 K, this gives 208 R_☉. Thanks. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 1:37 pm, Today (UTC+2)

@ZaperaWiki44 Thank you very much. I still use 70 R_☉ for Avior. @Lithopsian, could you please tell me how to calculate the radius of a star using the luminosity and effective temperature? Tell me in a step-by-step process. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rote calculations fall foul of WP:OR. If you don't understand how to do it, probably best not to. Lithopsian (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit the results into Wikipedia. Just please tell me how to.----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 18:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]