Table 14: Average UD angular diameter of $\eta$ Aql and $\zeta$ Gem from the litterature, and the associated conversion factor $\rho = \theta _{\rm LD} / \theta _{\rm UD}$ from the linear limb darkening coefficients of Claret (2000). References: (1) Armstrong et al. (2001) and Nordgren et al. (2000), (2) Lane et al. (2002), (3) this work.
Ref. $\lambda$ ( $\mu$ m) ${\theta_{\rm {UD}}}$ (mas) $\rho$ ${\theta_{\rm {LD}}}$ (mas)

$\eta$ Aql

(1) 0.73 $1.65 \pm 0.04$ 1.048 $1.73 \pm 0.04$

(2) 1.65 $1.73 \pm 0.07$ 1.024 $1.77 \pm 0.07$

(3) 2.18 $1.80 \pm 0.03$ 1.021 $1.84 \pm 0.03$

$\zeta$ Gem

(1) 0.73 $1.48 \pm 0.08$ 1.051 $1.56 \pm 0.08$

(2) 1.65 $1.61 \pm 0.03$ 1.027 $1.65 \pm 0.03$

(3) 2.18 $1.70 \pm 0.06$ 1.023 $1.75 \pm 0.06$

**Table 14:** Average UD angular diameter of $\eta$ Aql and $\zeta$ Gem from the litterature, and the associated conversion factor $\rho = \theta _{\rm LD} / \theta _{\rm UD}$ from the linear limb darkening coefficients of Claret (2000). References: (1) Armstrong et al. (2001) and Nordgren et al. (2000), (2) Lane et al. (2002), (3) this work.
Ref.	$\lambda$ ( $\mu$ m)	${\theta_{\rm {UD}}}$ (mas)	$\rho$	${\theta_{\rm {LD}}}$ (mas)
$\eta$ Aql
(1)	0.73	$1.65 \pm 0.04$	1.048	$1.73 \pm 0.04$
(2)	1.65	$1.73 \pm 0.07$	1.024	$1.77 \pm 0.07$
(3)	2.18	$1.80 \pm 0.03$	1.021	$1.84 \pm 0.03$
$\zeta$ Gem
(1)	0.73	$1.48 \pm 0.08$	1.051	$1.56 \pm 0.08$
(2)	1.65	$1.61 \pm 0.03$	1.027	$1.65 \pm 0.03$
(3)	2.18	$1.70 \pm 0.06$	1.023	$1.75 \pm 0.06$

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text