Uhh…
- Quote :
- Received 1 January 2001/Accepted 1 January 2001
what? Is that what happens when those are left as the defaults? I hope so.
Ignoring that, why have these been kept away from a proper paper for
ten years?! The whole CRIRES measurements aren't exactly the entire confirmation of not-keplerian-siney-boo, and planets from the same survey that were detected much later were paper'd a long time ago (HD 210702, etc).
The other two systems from the original announcement, Nu Oph and HD 59686, have had their data appear in other papers (
1,
2), with the former being in a two-brute system while the latter seems to be some sort of false positive involving stellar components (binarity of the secondary?) Maybe those will get a paper in the series?
Concerning these two: Tau Gem was probably a late B star when on the main sequence and is currently approaching the transition to bright gianthood, while 91 Aqr was an F dwarf and is currently a typical giant. 91 Aquarii is in a 40 Eridani-like triple system, so it was once not the most massive component.
91 Aquarii Ab seems to be a typical, if massive, AU Jovian, within expectations for an approximately mid F-dwarf. However, Tau Gem b (and Nu Oph bc) are clear examples that planet formation gets really… weird in the top percentage of the stellar mass hierarchy. The zone where gas should be cleared out in the protoplanetary disk gets very large (>10 AU?) for B-stars, so how could such massive companions form and then migrate, even twice in the same system? The line:
- Quote :
- Our results show that red giant stars with masses greater than 2.7 M⊙ host very few planets (Reffert et al. in prep.)
suggests that core accretion really does struggle at the top.
Home 
Planet Table 
