Neue Erkenntnisse zum Modell

Aus Untersuchungen der Lichtkurven und Messungen von Radialgeschwindigkeiten aus 110 Jahren (Chadima et al., IBVS 5937)

Tprim.min. = (2455402.8 +/- 1.0) + (9890.26 +/- 0.62) Tsec.min. = (2451681 +/- 120) Phase sec.min. bei 0.63 Loch in Scheibe (Helligkeitsbuckel im Minimum) zweifelhaft.

Unregelmäßige Helligkeitsschwankungen außerhalb der Bedeckung

Notizen:

Two important conclusions about {epsilon} Aur, which disagree with the generally accepted model, follow from our study:

1. Inspection of Figs. 2 and 3 shows that the idea of a central brightening inside the eclipse, interpreted as evidence of a hole in the disk (see, e.g., Carroll et al. 1991), should be reconsidered. Note that the `flat' part of each recorded eclipse is different and what is seen are most probably the physical light variations, similar to the out-of-eclipse variability. Of course, the final conclusion will come from a detailed analysis of colour changes and other types of observations and from the photometry secured this summer.

2. The right panel of Figure 3 shows that claims of variability in the width and duration of individual observed eclipses, which have been used to infer a decline in the primary's radius over time (Saito 1986), are not supported by the data. It is apparent that the cyclic but irregular physical light variations affected the different eclipses differently. It will be difficult to obtain a `pure' eclipsing light curve without a better understanding and quantitative description of these light changes.