Talk:HD 202206

Evidence required

Evidence is needed for the assigning of a T spectrum to the object "b" (as far as I can tell, no spectrum has been measured for this object). In addition, SIMBAD uses a lower case b for the brown dwarf rather than the uppercase B used here. Chaos syndrome 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown dwarfs

Brown dwarfs are stars in the basic sense. They have their own letters of the Stellar classification. There is no need to be altering the article the way it is already describing. — Nuclear Vacuum 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown dwarfs are not stars as they have insufficient mass to sustain hydrogen fusion. To quote R. Rebolo ("Brown Dwarfs", doi:10.1007/0-387-26357-8_14, article in Cores to Clusters, M. S. N. Kumar, M. Tafalla and P. Caselli, eds., New York: Springer, 2005): "Brown dwarfs span the mass range between massive giant planets and the lowest mass stars. The frontier between stars and brown dwarfs is set by the minimum mass for stable hydrogen burning in stellar interiors..." Compare I. Neill Reid and Suzanne L. Hawley (doi:10.1007/3-540-27610-6_6, chapter 6, New Light on Dark Stars, Berlin: Springer, 2005): "The existence of substellar mass, star-like objects was first considered seriously by Kumar...these objects, re-christened 'brown dwarfs' by Tarter [T1], are ideal baryonic dark matter candidates..." Since brown dwarfs are not stars, the system only contains one known star, and so should not be described as a binary star system. Spacepotato (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm pretty lenient for these kinds of issues. I will agree with the fact of not calling brown dwarfs "stars", I just draw the line at calling brown dwarfs "extrasolar planets." Because of their mass, it shouldn't be called that or be mentioned in the Planetary system section. I personally reworded the article so that brown dwarfs are simply "neutral" (not a planet nor a star), but an object in its own right. Will this suit you just fine? — Nuclear Vacuum 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you don't mind me saying, DAMN! You have a knack for getting your point out and getting the information out. I wish I had the attention span to do the type of research you just placed here like that. I can't think of the saying, but I now find you to be a good ally. Can we call this a truce? — Nuclear Vacuum 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're already allies, as this is a collaborative project, not a war. So, we're all on the same side, although it doesn't always seem that way. It would be helpful if you could provide more information in your edit summaries. Undoing an edit without comment or with a remark like This is how it should look is not useful as it doesn't explain what it is you prefer in your revision or what it is you are trying to achieve with your edits.

Re the question of whether HD 202206b is a planet or a brown dwarf, there is no agreement as to what separates a planet from a brown dwarf. The IAU working group on extrasolar planets has proposed a draft definition according to which everything heavier than 13 Jupiter masses is called a brown dwarf (making it a brown dwarf.) Other authors however, such as Soter (arXiv:astro-ph/0608359v6), have suggested that any body orbiting a star which formed by accretion of planetesimals in a protoplanetary disc, rather than directly from a collapsing cloud of gas, should be called a planet. According to this definition we don't know whether HD 202206b is a brown dwarf or a planet as researchers are not sure (cf. arXiv:astro-ph/0411512v2) how it formed. Finally, Basri (Ann. Rev. Earth & Planetary Science, 2006, 34, 193–216) suggests that all round non-fusing objects orbiting stars should be called planets, making it a brown dwarf (as it's above the deuterium-fusing limit.)

Despite this uncertainty, I believe calling HD 202206b a brown dwarf in the lead is satisfactory. The present lead is still unsatisfactory though as it calls it a star ("...the secondary star is a brown dwarf...the two stars"), which it isn't. Also, if the term "binary system" is used, it should link to Binary system (astronomy) and not Binary star. Spacepotato (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice this discussion when I made my revision [1] which was reverted without comment by User:NuclearVacuum, who apparently is taking a very dogmatic attitude to the planet/brown dwarf distinction which is not supported by the relevant literature. (Note that the paper announcing the discovery of the inner object includes the uncertainty about whether to classify as a brown dwarf or "superplanet" in the actual title of the paper!) Note also that the inner object is referred to as HD 202206 b in the literature, NOT as HD 202206 B. Secondly, the orbit of the inner substellar object is relevant to the article and should be put in the planet box as the 5:1 orbital resonance is mentioned repeatedly - since it is uncertain whether the object is a superplanet or a brown dwarf, we might as well include it in the system list. Given the controversy over the classification, I would suggest that using the term "substellar object" to describe the inner companion. Could User:NuclearVacuum at least do the courtesy of explaining why my revision was so objectionable? 131.111.8.98 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been taken care of and dealt with. We agreed not to call the system a "binary system" and not call the brown dwarf a "planet," and the brown dwarf is made neutral in the article. The planetbox is for planets and unsure objects (objects that are undetermined to be either planet or stellar), not documentary confirmed brown dwarfs. Your work was rejected as part of the consensus of this issue (i.e., though of as vandalism). — Nuclear Vacuum 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for this revision. I have explained the problems with it above. Your characterization of the edits of 131.111.8.99/97 as vandalism is not correct. Spacepotato (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article so that the brown dwarf has been mentioned. I have no trouble mentioning it, just it doesn't belong in the planetbox at all! — Nuclear Vacuum 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the two scientific papers cited in this article for the discovery of objects in this system do not come down firmly on one side or the other in the superplanet/brown dwarf debate. Furthermore it is strange to keep referring to the 5:1 resonance in the system and only give the parameters for one of the relevant objects. I've put it back in the planetbox on the grounds that this may be a "superplanet". Furthermore the correct designation as used in the literature is HD 202206 b (note the lowercase). 131.111.8.104 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data difference with Exoplanet.eu

Mass of b is 93.6 Mj and c is 17.9 Mj. --DelftUser (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is from Benedict and Harrison 2017. For some reason, three years later, the article still hasn't been updated. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HD 202206. 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).

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) 06:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]