SpringerLink
Forum Springer Astron. Astrophys.
Forum Whats New Search Orders


Astron. Astrophys. 360, L39-L42 (2000)

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

3. The proper motion of CoD-33°7795 B

CoD-33°7795 B was detected by L99 using HST NICMOS on 25 Apr 1998 in the F160W filter, located [FORMULA] west 1 and [FORMULA] north of CoD-33°7795 A, corresponding to a separation of [FORMULA] and a position angle of [FORMULA]. On 12 Jul 1998, Weintraub et al. (2000) detected the faint object, also using HST NICMOS, but with narrow band filters, located [FORMULA] west and [FORMULA] north of the bright star, corresponding to [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]. The precision in Weintraub et al. (2000) is higher than in L99, because the latter used the coronograph that makes it difficult to determine the centroid.

We present two new images of CoD-33°7795 B: A 1s exposure FORS2 I-band image taken during a technical night on 21 Feb 2000 with the high resolution collimator ([FORMULA]/pixel) and a 2s exposure ISAAC acquisition image ([FORMULA]/pixel) taken on 16 Apr 2000 through a narrow band filter centered on [FORMULA]m ([FORMULA]m). In both images, the central pixels of the bright star are saturated, which makes it difficult to determine the centroid; we fitted isophots in the unsaturated part of the PSF. The FWHM of the faint object on the FORS2 image is only [FORMULA], so that this image may well be the sharpest optical image ever taken from the ground (Fig. 3a).

[FIGURE] Fig. 3. a FORS2 acquisition image of CoD[FORMULA] A and B, where star A is saturated, FWHM of object B is [FORMULA]. b and c Position of companion candidate B relative to star A, plotted are [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] offset as given in the text. Data points 1 & 2 are from NICMOS (1998.3 and 1998.5), point 3 from FORS2 (2000.1), and point 4 from ISAAC (2000.3), all with [FORMULA] error ellipses. b Relative location of object B: Star A is always at [FORMULA]. If the error ellipses would be disjunct by more than to be allowed for orbital motion ([FORMULA] mas/yr, see text), object B would be unrelated. The objects do not have significantly different relative motion. c With proper motion: Star A starts at [FORMULA] and then moves to the south-west. Here, if the error ellipses would overlap, object B would be unrelated. The small [FORMULA] offset of object B in the FORS2 image relative to the HST images is consistent with orbital motion (see text). Because object B is clearly co-moving with star A, it is a companion

In the FORS2 image, the companion candidate is located [FORMULA] west and [FORMULA] north of the bright star, corresponding to [FORMULA] and [FORMULA], and in the ISAAC image, the companion candidate is located [FORMULA] west and [FORMULA] north of the bright star, corresponding to [FORMULA] and [FORMULA]. The errors include uncertainties in the north-south alignment.

In Fig. 3b, we plot the four positions of the companion candidate B with respect to star A with their error ellipses. If the error ellipses are disjunct by more than expected for orbital motion ([FORMULA] mas/yr, see below), object B could not be a co-moving companion. If the error ellipses do overlap, this does not prove object B to be a companion. Whether we can already show that the motion of CoD-33°7795 B relative to A is inconsistent with B being an unrelated field star, depends on the proper motion of star A. The proper motion was published by W99. In the Tycho catalog (Hog et al. 2000), we found [FORMULA] and [FORMULA] mas/yr.

In Fig. 3c, we plot star A first on 25 Apr 1998 at [FORMULA], then on 12 Jul 1998 south-west of it as given by its proper motion, and then on 21 Feb and 16 Apr 2000 even more south-west; the errors in the 2nd to 4th epoch locations are given by the error of the proper motion. In addition, we plot the offset of object B relative to star A with errors given by the errors of the measured offsets and the proper motion of star A. Object B is clearly co-moving with star A. If object B would be an unrelated field object, it should not be co-moving with A, but either be a non-moving background object or a foreground object with different motion (different parallactic motion would be negligible, even if unrelated, because the epoch difference between the HST and VLT images is close to an integer number of years). The error ellipses do not overlap. The proper motions of A and B are similar, namely by [FORMULA] regarding their amount and by [FORMULA] regarding their direction. Hence, we have in total a [FORMULA] significance for the pair being a common proper motion pair.

Previous Section Next Section Title Page Table of Contents

© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000

Online publication: August 23, 2000
helpdesk.link@springer.de