Table 4
Parameters of the ellipses and physical properties obtained from the fit.
Scenario | ap (km) | bp (km) | θ (°) | x (km) | y (km) | Deq (km) | ![]() |
pv (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 94 ± 27 | 66 ± 5 | 128 ± 13 | 157 ± 15 | 133 ± 15 | 160 ± 20 | 150 ± 20 | 8±2 |
S2 | 97 ± 24 | 64 ± 4 | 119±7 | 140 ± 8 | 110 ± 14 | 160 ± 20 | 150 ± 20 | 8±2 |
S3 E1 | 84±6 | 57 ± 4 | 8±10 | 158 ± 8 | 112±3 | 188 ± 9(†) | 183 ± 8(†) | 5.7 ± 0.6(‡) |
S3 E2 | 67 ± 8 | 60 ± 6 | 7±10 | 83 ± 10 | 210±9 |
Notes. Abbreviations are defined as follows: fit after displacement of anzanares chord (S1), fit aligning centers of all chords (S2), fit to a binary system (S3, with E1 and E2 indicating the easternmost and westernmost ellipse, respectively), semi-major and minor axes of the projected ellipse on the sky (ap and bp, respectively), tilt angle (θ), center of the ellipse (x,y), instantaneous area-equivalent diameter (Deq), rotationally averaged area-equivalent diameter (), and albedo (pv). We note that other ellipse fitting methods give similar ellipse parameters with considerably smaller uncertainties than the Monte Carlo method, and thus the difference in equivalent diameter of Bienor with respect to the thermal models becomes even more significant. However, we prefer to show the more conservative results here. (†)Total area-equivalent diameter considering both bodies.(‡) Albedo considering the total area-equivalent diameter of both bodies.
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.