Table A.1
Distances to cluster containing Cepheids.
Name Cepheid | Name Cluster | Adopted DM | Method | Reference | Remarks | |||||||
|
||||||||||||
BB Sgr | Collinder 394 | 9.38 ± 0.10 | JHK | Turner (2010) | ||||||||
V Cen | NGC 5662 | 9.28 ± 0.05 | JHK | Turner (2010) | ||||||||
RU Sct | Trumpler 35 | 11.11 ± 0.10 | JHK | Turner (2010) | ||||||||
SU Cyg | Turner 9 | 9.33 ± 0.05 | JHK | Turner (2010) | ||||||||
S Vul | Anon Vul OB | 12.47 ± 0.29 | JHK | Turner (2011) | ||||||||
delta Cep | Cep OB6 | 7.21 ± 0.13 | JHK | Majaess et al. (2012a) | ||||||||
zeta Gem | ADS 5742 | 7.75 ± 0.09 | JHK | Majaess et al. (2012b) | ||||||||
SU Cas | Alessi 95 | 8.04 ± 0.08 | JHK | Majaess et al. (2012c) | ||||||||
VY Car | Car OB2 | 11.66 ± 0.15* | BV | Turner (1977) | includes a +0.09 correction in DM | |||||||
RZ Vel | Vel OB1 | 11.32 ± 0.15* | BV | Turner (1979b) | includes a +0.09 correction in DM | |||||||
CS Vel | Ruprecht 79 | 12.55 ± 0.16 | BV | Walker (1987c) | includes a +0.08 correction in DM | |||||||
SZ Tau | NGC 1647 | 8.76 ± 0.02 | BV | Turner (1992) | includes a +0.09 correction in DM | |||||||
SW Vel | Vel OB 5 | 12.08 ± 0.15 | BV | Turner et al. (1993) | includes a +0.09 correction in DM | |||||||
X Cyg | Ruprecht 175 | 10.52 ± 0.04 | BV | Turner (1998) | includes a +0.09 correction in DM | |||||||
U Sgr | IC 4725 | 9.05 ± 0.09 | BV | a | a | |||||||
DL Cas | NGC 129 | 11.10 ± 0.07 | BV | b | b | |||||||
S Nor | NGC 6087 | 9.82 ± 0.18 | BV | c | c | |||||||
TW Nor | Lynga 6 | 11.40 ± 0.12 | BV | d | d | |||||||
QZ Nor, V340 Nor | NGC 6067 | 11.15 ± 0.09 | BV | e | e | |||||||
CV Mon | vandenBergh 1 | 11.12 ± 0.15 | BV | f | f | |||||||
WZ Sgr | Turner 2 | 11.31 ± 0.10 | BV | g | g | |||||||
CF Cas | NGC 7790 | 12.63 ± 0.11 | BV | h | h |
Notes.
The average of the distances quoted in An et al. (2007; 8.93 ± 0.08 plus a +0.02 correction), Hoyle et al. (2003; 9.08 ± 0.18 plus a +0.09 correction), and Pel et al. (1985; 8.95 ± 0.10 plus a +0.08 correction).
The average of the distances quoted in Turner et al. (1992; 11.11 ± 0.02 plus a +0.09 correction), An et al. (2007; 11.04 ± 0.05 plus a +0.02 correction), and Hoyle et al. (2003; 10.94 ± 0.14 plus a +0.09 correction).
The average of the distances quoted in Turner (1986; 9.78 ± 0.03 plus a +0.09 correction), An et al. (2007; 9.65 ± 0.06 plus a +0.02 correction), and Pel et al. (1985; 9.84 ± 0.10 plus a +0.08 correction).
The average of the distances quoted in An et al. (2007; 11.51 ± 0.13 plus a +0.02 correction), Hoyle et al. (2003; 11.33 ± 0.18 plus a +0.09 correction), and Walker et al. (1985a; 11.15 ± 0.3 plus a +0.09 correction).
The average of the distances quoted in An et al. (2007; 11.03 ± 0.08 plus a +0.02 correction), Hoyle et al. (2003; 11.18 ± 0.12 plus a +0.09 correction), and Walker et al. (1985b; 11.05 ± 0.10 plus a +0.09 correction).
Three distance determinations have been considered: Turner et al. (1998; 11.08 ± 0.03 plus a +0.09 correction, adopting E(B − V) = 0.75), An et al. (2007; 10.74 ± 0.21 plus a +0.02 correction, adopting E(B − V) = 0.57), and Hoyle et al. (2003; 11.34 ± 0.21 plus a +0.09 correction, adopting E(B − V) = 0.90). The adopted distance is the average of the three, but the dispersion is large. This is likely due to the very different reddenings adopted. If a correction is made to a reddening of 0.75, adopting Δ DM/Δ E(B-V) ~ 2 (An et al. 2007), then the average becomes 11.14 with a very small dispersion.
The average of the distances quoted in Turner et al. (1993; 11.26 ± 0.10 plus a +0.09 correction), and Hoyle et al. (2003; 11.18 ± 0.16 plus a +0.09 correction).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.