Talk:Wolf 424

Conflict

The following paper conflicts with the masses that were apparently copied from the SolStation site:

• Heintz, W. D., "The Substellar Masses of WOLF:424", ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYS. V.217, NO.1/2 JUN(II), P. 145, 1989.

So it is unclear which is correct. — RJH 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, this was addressed in a later paper which I have now cited. — RJH 21:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I also stumbled over the inconsistent mass data. List_of_least_massive_stars has the lower numbers. To make the inconsistency more obvious to readers I reconverted the (lower) jupiter figures back to solar masses. Maybe someone should write some words about the discrepancy. Darsie from german wiki pedia (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another: "approximately 0.14 solar masses (63 Jupiters (0.060 solar masses))...approximately 0.13 solar masses (52 Jupiters (0.050 solar masses))" Now, I can't tell if that means Jupiter =.05-06 M_Sol, or if the Wolf dwarf(s) are, or what. And if it's Jupiter meant, why is there variability in the conversion? A clarification, with source, by somebody who understands this, is definitely required. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

By reference to this page: http://kencroswell.com/BrownDwarfLithium.html one can see that, contrary to the previous consensus about those masses, Wulff Heintz in 1989 proposed the smaller numbers, which were subsequently disputed in 1991. Torres' numbers of 1999-- http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/117/1/562?ejredirect=migration --may be considered the best at the present time. mrh

BTW, the mass of Jupiter is 1/1047ths that of our Sun, for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Masses 0.14 and 0.13 M_☉ are what actually mentioned in the sources and these numbers are consistent with the spectral classes of the stars (see the article about the main sequence and referencies therein). So I think there was no contradiction, but just a simple error in converting solar mass into Jovian. GenyAncalagon (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Close approach

I could find nothing to corroborate this paragraph, so I removed it from the article:

Due to its proximity and fast motion towards the Sun, Wolf 424 will brighten by more than 2% over the course of the 21st century. In approximately 7700 years, it will make its nearest approach at a distance of about 1 light year and passing through the distant reaches of the solar systemTemplate:Fact, and will become the nearest stars.

Since it lacks a HIP number, I don't believe this star was even measured by the Hipparcos satellite.–RJH (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in Hipparcos here:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Gliese+473&NbIdent=1&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id

under "FL Virginis". mrh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywyvern (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wolf 424 was reported to have a huge radial velocity towards Earth, just under 600 km/s, IIRC. Since it's now 2 km/s, I gather there's some massive error somewhere. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolf 424. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20010611082957/http://nemesis.stsci.edu/~kochte/wolf-page.html to http://nemesis.stsci.edu/~kochte/wolf-page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Distance needs check

If A is 14.11 ly away and B is 14.59 ly away (according to the star box), how can their semi-major axis be just 4 AU? And the article text says "approximately 14.2 ly". --Thogo 12:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a known orbit, so the 4 AU separation is correct. I would guess the parallax measurements are affected by orbital motion. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Hm... Difficult to decide which of the two values is the more reliable one then. --Thogo 17:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a better parallax that accounts for binarity. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)