Talk:HV 888

Radius[edit]

While the radius itself isn’t in the ref. The luminosity and temperature are, so the radius was calculated based on those. This applies to all other stars in that ref. as well. Nussun05 (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image of HV 888[edit]

Maybe we should add an image from AladinLite etc. to this page. MuCepheiBetelgeuse (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be sourced from DSS which is copyright. Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1,300 solar radii or 1,974???[edit]

I saw a Few Hours ago Lithopsian, I saw you removed the 1,974 solar radii and replaced it with the 1,300 solar radii estimate from Van Loonet al. Is this true, and the 1,974 solar radii isn't consistent with other values??? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually someone else (editing as an IP) found the reference quoting 1,300 R_☉. It is a bit old, but essentially the same data that the newer van Loon contains. 1,974 R_☉ was calculated from a similar temperature and a much higher luminosity in a newer reference. The temperature and luminosity are still shown in the starbox and could be discussed in the text. I think it is preferable to have a radius that is actually published, despite the desperate search for the largest possible numbers (however unrealistic). Lithopsian (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 1,974 solar radii estimate cherypicking? THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly, as bad as the case with RW Cephei.PNSMurthy (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Why is it worse than RW Cephei ??? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. I didn't mean that.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. HV 888’s high luminosity is much larger than Stephenson 2-18! Sorry If I had an exclamation point again but it is around 87,000 solar luminosity more than Stephenson 2-18’s already high luminosity(440,000) solar luminosity)..... Is the 527,000 solar luminosity inaccurate? THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know...PNSMurthy (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGB-star[edit]

Why does the page have the category: Asymptotic Giant Branch stars? It is a red supergiant and I see no ref for it. Nussun05 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it very early on. Possibly just adding everything I saw in the article, even thought the AGB bit doesn't really apply to this star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]