Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T07:33:20.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Period-Activity Relations in Close Binary Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Gibor Basri
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Berkeley Guest Observer, International Ultraviolet Satellite
Robert Laurent
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Berkeley
Fredrick Walter
Affiliation:
Univ. of Colorado, Boulder

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since the advent of extensive ultraviolet observations of cool stars, it has been clear that the stellar activity observed is not directly correlated with the star's position on the HR diagram (Basri and Linsky 1979, Stencel et al. 1980). Observations of an important chromospheric diagnostic, the MgII resonance lines, led to the conclusion that stellar chromospheric activity had only a weak dependence on spectral type, and exhibited large variations within a given spectral type. Because of the strong observed correlation of solar activity with magnetic fields, the field is thought to be a natural candidate for the extra parameter which predicts the level of activity. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to measure magnetic fields directly in most cool stars. Another method with which to examine correlations between magnetic field and stellar activity indirectly is the hypothesis that magnetic fluxes are directly related to a combination of the convective and rotational parameters of a star through its generation in a magnetic dynamo. The α-ω dynamo theory (Parker, 1979) predicts a direct correlation between differential rotational velocities and field generated. Durney and Robinson (1982) predict basically a linear dependence of the emergent flux on the angular velocity of the star. One might therefore expect that in stars with the same fundamental stellar parameters, the amount of activity observed would depend on the rotational velocities. This is difficult to test because most cool stars are slow rotators and only a few rotational velocities are known.

Type
II. Rotation — Activity — Cycle — Age Connection: Observations
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1983 

References

Ayres, T., Marstad, N., and Linsky, J.: 1981, Astrophys. J. 247, p. 545559.Google Scholar
Basri, G., and Laurent, R.: 1983, IAU Coll. No. 71, D. Reidel, p. 439.Google Scholar
Basri, G., and Linsky, J.: 1979, Astrophys. J. 234, p. 10231035.Google Scholar
Durney, B.R., and Robinson, R.D.: 1982, Astrophys. J., in press.Google Scholar
Hartman, L., Dupree, A.K., and Raymond, J.C.: 1982, Astrophys. J., pp. 214229.Google Scholar
Pallavicini, R., Golub, L., Rosner, R., Vaiana, G., Ayres, T., and Linsky, J.: 1982, Astrophys. J., in press.Google Scholar
Parker, E.N.: 1979, “Cosmical Magnetic Fields,” Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stencel, R., Mullan, D., Linsky, J., Basri, G., and Worden, S.: 1980, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 44, p. 383402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, F., and Bowyer, S.: 1981, Astrophys. J. 245, p. 671676.Google Scholar
Young, A., and Koniges, A.: 1977, Astrophys. J. 211, p. 836843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar