Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

CCD UBVRI photometry of the open cluster Berkeley 8

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Berkeley 8 is an old, moderately metal-poor open cluster in the outer disk, with a photometric distance in agreement with Gaia and thin-disk kinematics.

desk verdict Useful new photometry and membership for Berkeley 8, with cluster parameters that mostly hold together; the thin-disk and birth-radius story is a stretch until orbital uncertainties are actually propagated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05479 v4 pith:VYQA4N2J submitted 2019-08-15 astro-ph.GA

Hikmet Çakmak , Raúl Michel , Yüksel Karataş This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords openclusterBerkeley8UBVRIphotometryPARSECisochronesGaiaDR2astrometryreddeningdistancedeterminationgalacticdiskkinematicsbluestragglers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that the poorly studied open cluster Berkeley 8 is an old, moderately metal-poor cluster in the outer Galactic disk, and to pin down its reddening, distance, and age from new CCD photometry combined with Gaia astrometry. If correct, the cluster joins a small set of well-measured old open clusters beyond the solar circle, and its kinematics place it in the thin disk despite its location beyond the corotation radius. A reader should care because every well-characterized old cluster is a test point for how the Galactic disk formed, migrated, and enriched in metals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PARSEC isochrone grid at $Z = +0.008$, fitted simultaneously to four reddened colour-magnitude diagrams ($V-(B-V)$, $V-(V-I)$, $V-(R-I)$, $G-(G_{BP}-G_{RP})$); the isochrone’s vertical offset gives the distance modulus and its turn-off position gives the age. Membership is carried by a two-component Gaussian mixture model applied to Gaia DR2 proper motions and parallaxes, and the kinematic interpretation is carried by orbit integration in a standard model Galactic potential, yielding per-star eccentricity and vertical height. A morphological age index derived from the turn-off and red-giant colour difference provides an independent age cross-check.

What would settle it

Obtain radial velocities for many more of the 273 high-probability members: if the cluster’s mean velocity differs from the $-26$ to $-32$ km/s spread of the five stars, or if those five show discrepant abundances, the orbital and thin-disk conclusions would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a matched analysis of four colour-magnitude diagrams from deep UBVRI and Gaia photometry, with membership selected by a two-component Gaussian mixture model on Gaia DR2 proper motions and parallaxes, converges on a single solution: $E(B-V) = 0.69 \pm 0.03$, a distance of $3410 \pm 300$ pc, and an age of $2.8 \pm 0.2$ Gyr at heavy-element mass fraction $Z = +0.008$. The Gaia DR2 median parallax distance, $3676 \pm 810$ pc, agrees within uncertainties. For five high-probability members with radial velocities, the computed orbits have eccentricities of 0.23–0.30 and vertical heights below 1.3 kpc, which the paper reads as thin-disk kinematics. With $[M/H] = -0.27$ and present Galactocentric radius near 10.6 kpc, the paper concludes that the cluster probably formed at a smaller radius and migrated outward.

Load-bearing premise

The whole kinematic and thin-disk conclusion rests on five stars being genuine members of Berkeley 8; if one or more are field stars, the derived orbital parameters and the migration story do not describe the cluster.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, Berkeley 8 joins a short list of old open clusters beyond the solar circle with Gaia-quality distances and kinematics.
  • Its thin-disk eccentricities (0.23–0.30) imply the cluster has not been heated into a thick disk despite its age, so it can serve as a dynamical tracer of the thin disk near 10 kpc.
  • The agreement between the photometric distance and the Gaia parallax distance strengthens the photometric distance scale for old clusters at multi-kiloparsec distances.
  • The candidate blue stragglers and red giant/red clump stars are concrete targets whose spectra could confirm membership and refine the metallicity.
  • The inferred metal content $[M/H] \approx -0.27$ at a Galactocentric radius near 10.6 kpc, together with orbits that reach 6–7 kpc, supports the idea that some outer-disk clusters formed closer to the Sun and migrated outward.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would expect a larger kinematic sample to widen the eccentricity spread beyond 0.23–0.30, because five stars, two with velocity uncertainties above 3 km/s, are a small sample and the true cluster mean may shift by a few km/s.
  • If outward radial migration is the explanation, the cluster’s age and metallicity should match the abundance gradient at its inferred birth radius near 7 kpc, a testable prediction once elemental abundances are measured.
  • The same four-colour fitting procedure applied to neighbouring poorly studied clusters could reveal a population of migrated old clusters in the Perseus-arm direction.
  • With future Gaia radial velocities, the same five stars could be re-examined to see whether the membership and orbit conclusions survive at higher precision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new CCD UBVRI photometry of the poorly studied open cluster Berkeley 8, observed with the 0.90 m Sierra Nevada Observatory telescope. Using Gaia DR2 astrometry and photometry, the authors apply a Gaussian Mixture Model to define cluster members, fit PARSEC isochrones of heavy-element abundance Z = 0.008 to four colour–magnitude diagrams, and derive E(B−V) = 0.69 ± 0.03, a distance of 3410 ± 300 pc, and an age of 2.8 ± 0.2 Gyr. They also compare with the Gaia DR2 median parallax distance, compute a morphological age index, and use Gaia radial velocities of five likely members to derive space velocities and orbital elements, concluding that Be 8 belongs to the thin disc and may have formed at a smaller Galactocentric radius.

Significance. If the photometric parameters are correct, this is a useful addition to the small sample of old, moderately metal-poor open clusters in the outer disc: the four colours give internally consistent distances and reddenings, the distance agrees with the median Gaia DR2 parallax of 43 members within the uncertainties, and the morphological age index supports the isochrone age. The membership analysis with Gaia DR2 astrometry is also a clear improvement over earlier proper-motion-only studies. However, the paper's broader conclusions about metallicity and thin-disc membership are not yet supported as presented: the quoted [M/H] is not measured but follows by definition from the adopted isochrone Z, and the orbital eccentricities and space velocities are given without any propagated uncertainties, even though two stars sit at the thin/thick disc boundary. The photometric core appears salvageable, but the kinematic and chemical claims need substantial revision or rephrasing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 and Table 4] The quoted uncertainties in Table 4 (e.g., σ(E(B−V)) = ±0.03, σ(V0−MV) = ±0.19–0.32, σ(log A) = ±0.03) are not derived from any stated quantitative fitting procedure; the text describes only that the isochrone is 'varied until a satisfactory fit' is obtained. Since these uncertainties underpin the photometric distance, reddening, and age claims in the abstract, please specify the fitting criterion (e.g., a χ² grid, residual rms, or an explicit range of acceptable visual fits) and state how each uncertainty was estimated.
  2. [§5, §8, Abstract] The value [M/H] = −0.27 quoted throughout is not an independently measured metallicity; it is obtained by assuming the Z = 0.008 PARSEC isochrone and then applying Z = Z⊙10^[M/H] with adopted Z⊙ = 0.015. Therefore the statement that the thin-disc kinematics are 'consistent with what is expected of its metal content ([M/H] = −0.27)' is partly circular. Please relabel this quantity as the adopted isochrone metallicity, and either remove the consistency claim or support it with an independent abundance determination; the paper itself notes that the UV-excess calibration is problematic for these stars.
  3. [§7 and Table 6] The orbital parameters in Table 6 are reported without uncertainties, although the input data in Table 5 include radial-velocity errors of 3.20 and 3.86 km s⁻¹ and parallax errors of 8–17%. The paper does not state the individual distances used in the Johnson & Soderblom (1987) space-velocity calculation. Propagating these errors through the galpy orbit integration can shift eccentricities by an amount comparable to the thin/thick disc boundary near ecc ≈ 0.30 in Carney et al. (1996), and two of the five stars are already at ecc = 0.30. Please provide an error budget for U, V, W, VΦ, Rmin, Rmax, zmax, and ecc (e.g., Monte Carlo resampling of the Table 5 errors), or substantially weaken the thin-disc and birth-radius conclusions in Section 8 and the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4 and §5] Section 4 states that 273 stars have membership probability greater than 90%, while Section 5 says that 268 likely members were used for the CMD fitting; please explain the difference (e.g., removal of saturated or contaminated stars).
  2. [References and text] Section 5 cites 'Güneş et al. (2012)' but reference [25] is dated 2017, and Section 8 twice cites 'Bukowiecki et al. (2001)' although the reference list gives 2011; please correct these year mismatches.
  3. [Equation (2.1)] The sentence defining Mλ, ηλ, and ζλ lists four quantities (standard magnitude, atmospheric extinction-corrected instrumental magnitude, transformation coefficient, and photometric zero point) for only three symbols; please clarify which symbol corresponds to which quantity.
  4. [§8] Describing [M/H] = −0.27 as 'close to solar metallicity' is imprecise; this abundance corresponds to roughly half the solar heavy-element fraction and should be called moderately metal-poor.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Localized circularity: [M/H] = -0.27 is the adopted Z = +0.008 isochrone abundance converted by definition, then used as a consistency and formation check; core photometric and orbital results remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (isochrone fitting, Figs. 8-9) and Section 7 (kinematics consistency)]
    "The appropriate PARSEC isochrones for different heavy element abundance mass fractions (Z = +0.015, +0.004, +0.008) and reddenings have been fitted on the CMDs. The 2.8 Gyr PARSEC isochrones for Z = +0.008 abundance gave us a good fit solution on the CMDs: V - (B - V), V - (V - I), V - (R - I), G - (GBP - GRP) (Figs. 8-9). The equation Z = Z_sun 10^[M/H] estimates its photometric metal abundance as [M/H] = -0.27. Here the solar heavy metal content is adopted as Z_sun = +0.015."

    The value [M/H] = -0.27 is not measured from spectra or from an independent photometric metallicity calibration; it is obtained by definition from the already-assumed isochrone abundance Z = +0.008 (log10(0.008/0.015) is approximately -0.27). Later the paper treats this same value as an external metal content, writing that the thin-disc kinematics is also consistent with what is expected of its metal content, [M/H] = -0.27. That consistency check is therefore not an independent confirmation: both sides of the comparison carry the same assumed abundance converted into a logarithmic label.

  2. self definitional [Section 8 (Discussions and Conclusions, formation-radius speculation)]
    "It is surprising to find Be 8 with [M/H] = -0.27 (close to solar metallicity) at such large galactic radius (R = 10.57 kpc). However, the orbits in Fig.11(a) and (b) show that the cluster passed a part of its time at galactocentric radius, R = 6 - 7 kpc, and then possibly it was born at that radius, which would explain the metallicity."

    The metallicity to be explained is the same model input Z = +0.008 renamed as [M/H] = -0.27. The orbital integration does show that the orbits reach R ~ 6-7 kpc, so a birth at that radius is kinematically possible; but claiming it would explain the metallicity treats the assumed isochrone abundance as if it were an observed abundance requiring explanation. The formation-radius conclusion is thus partly circular, though the orbital parameters themselves are computed independently of the adopted Z.

full rationale

The central photometric parameters (E(B-V) = 0.69 +/- 0.03, d = 3410 +/- 300 pc, age = 2.8 +/- 0.2 Gyr) come from standard PARSEC isochrone fitting and are checked against an independent Gaia DR2 median distance (3676 +/- 810 pc), so those results do not reduce to their inputs. The orbital kinematics and the thin-disk classification are dominated by Gaia DR2 astrometry/radial velocities and galpy orbit integration, not by the isochrone metallicity; hence the main derivation is not circular. The circularity is localized to the treatment of the chosen Z = +0.008 isochrone abundance: it is converted by definition into [M/H] = -0.27, called a photometric metal abundance, and then used as a metal-content check on the thin-disk conclusion and as the property explained by a possible birth at R = 6-7 kpc. These consistency or explanation steps are vacuous because the metallicity is an input, not a measurement. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present, and no externally falsifiable uniqueness theorem is being imported. The missing error budget for eccentricities is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity concern, and it is not counted in this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central parameter derivation is an isochrone fit with a metallicity chosen from three discrete values, a reddening fitted to each CMD, and a distance modulus and age shifted by eye. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The [M/H] used in the discussion is derived from the fitted Z rather than from spectroscopy, which is the main circularity burden.

free parameters (6)
  • Metallicity Z of PARSEC isochrone = +0.008
    Chosen from the set Z=0.015, 0.004, 0.008 by visual fit to the CMDs; [M/H]=-0.27 is then derived from Z=Zsun 10^[M/H] in Section 5.
  • E(B-V) reddening = 0.69 mag
    Fit of the Z=0.008 isochrone to the V-(B-V) CMD, with the abstract quoting +-0.03 and the text quoting +-0.08.
  • Distance modulus (V0-MV) = 12.66 mag
    Vertical shift of the isochrone fitted by eye, giving d=3.41 kpc.
  • log(age) = 9.45 (2.8 Gyr)
    Horizontal and vertical isochrone shift fitted to the turn-off, sub-giant, and red giant sequences; the same value is adopted for all four color indices.
  • Additional reddenings E(V-I), E(R-I), E(GBP-GRP) = 0.87, 0.44, 0.91 mag
    Separately fitted on each CMD and then converted to E(B-V) using standard ratios.
  • Membership probability threshold = P > 90%
    Used to select 273 likely members; changing the threshold would change the sample and the derived parameters.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption PARSEC stellar models and isochrones (Bressan et al. 2012) accurately represent old low-metallicity stellar populations.
    The central parameter derivation depends on these isochrones in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Standard extinction law with R_V=3.1 and fixed color-excess ratios E(V-I)=1.25E(B-V), E(R-I)=0.69E(B-V), and E(B-V)=0.775E(GBP-GRP).
    Used to convert color excesses and to de-redden distance moduli in Section 5.
  • domain assumption The two-component Gaussian Mixture Model on Gaia DR2 proper motions and parallaxes separates cluster and field populations.
    Membership probabilities in Section 4 rely on this model and on the chosen input parameters.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR2 parallax zero-point offset and proper-motion uncertainties are understood well enough for cluster distances and membership.
    Section 8 applies literature corrections but does not validate them for this specific field.
  • domain assumption [Fe/H] approximately equals [M/H] in the morphological age index calibration.
    Section 6 uses this equivalence to convert the MAI measurement into an age.
  • domain assumption The MWPotential2014 model in galpy approximates the Galactic potential for orbit integration.
    Section 7 uses this potential to compute Rmin, Rmax, zmax, and eccentricity for the five member stars.
  • standard math Johnson and Soderblom (1987) equations correctly transform observed kinematics to heliocentric U,V,W components with the adopted solar motion and LSR.
    Section 7 relies on this standard transformation without re-deriving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CCD UBVRI photometry of the open cluster Berkeley 8." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYQA4N2J

@misc{pith2026190805479,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CCD UBVRI photometry of the open cluster Berkeley 8},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYQA4N2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05479}
}
read the original abstract

The poorly studied Berkeley 8 (Be8) open cluster is analysed from CCD UBVRI photometric data taken with the 0.90 m telescope at the Sierra Nevada Observatory. The Z = +0.008 PARSEC isochrone gave us a reddening of E(B-V) = 0.69 +- 0.03, a distance of 3410 +- 300 pc and an age of 2.8 +- 0.2 Gyr. Its median Gaia DR2 distance, d = 3676 +- 810 pc is in good agreement with our photometric distances, 3410 - 3620 pc within the uncertainties. The kinematic parameters of five likely members of Be 8 with the circular orbits, ecc = [0.23, 0.30] reflect the properties of the Galactic thin disc, which is also consistent with what is expected of its metal content ([M/H] = -0.27). Be8 with R > 9 kpc (co-rotation gap at 9 kpc) may have been originating from different galactic radius or different star formation region.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New Photometric Data of Old Open Clusters in the Anti-Galactic Center Region

    Hasegawa T, Malasan HL, Hideyo KH, Obayashi H, Kurabayashi T et al. New Photometric Data of Old Open Clusters in the Anti-Galactic Center Region. Pub. Astron. Soc. Japan 2004; 56: 295. doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.2.295 13 C ¸ akmak et al./Turk J Phys

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/56.2.295 2004

  2. [2]

    Open Clusters in 2MASS Photometry

    Bukowiecki L, Maciejewski G, Konorski P, Strobel A. Open Clusters in 2MASS Photometry. I. Structural and Basic Astrophysical Parameters. Acta Astronomica 2011; 61: 231-246. ACTA AST

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    The database for stars in open clusters

    Mermilliod JC. The database for stars in open clusters. II. A progress report on the introduction of new data. Bull. Inform. CDS 1992; 40: 115 NASA ADS

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Gaia Data Release 2

    Lindegren L, Hernandez J, Bombrun A, Klioner S, Bastian U et al. Gaia Data Release 2. The astrometric solution. Astron. Astrophys. 2018; 616: A2. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  5. [5]

    Gaia Data Release 2

    Brown AGA, Vallenari A, Prusti T, de Bruijne JHJ, Babusiaux C et al. Gaia Data Release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys. 2018; 616: A1. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 2018

  6. [6]

    Determination of proper motions and membership of the open clusters NGC 1817 and NGC 1807

    Balaguer-Nunez L, Tian KP, Zhao JL. Determination of proper motions and membership of the open clusters NGC 1817 and NGC 1807. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 1998; 133: 387. doi: 10.1051/aas:1998324

    doi:10.1051/aas:1998324 1998

  7. [7]

    Proper motions and membership probabilities of stars in the region of globular cluster NGC 6809

    Sariya DP, Yadav RKS, Bellini A. Proper motions and membership probabilities of stars in the region of globular cluster NGC 6809. Astron. Astrophys. 2012; 543: 87. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219306

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219306 2012

  8. [8]

    Astrometric and photometric study of Dias 4, Dias 6, and other five open clusters using ground-based and Gaia DR2 data

    Dias WS, Monteiro H, Lepine JRD, Prates R, Gneiding CD et al. Astrometric and photometric study of Dias 4, Dias 6, and other five open clusters using ground-based and Gaia DR2 data. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2018; 481: 3887. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2341

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2341 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    The PPMXL Catalog of Positions and Proper Motions on the ICRS

    Roeser S, Demleitner M, Schilbach E. The PPMXL Catalog of Positions and Proper Motions on the ICRS. Combining USNO-B1.0 and the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS). Astron. J. 2010; 139: 2440-2447. doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2440

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)

    Skrutskie MF, Cutri R, Stiening R, Weinberg MD, Schneider SE et al. The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS). Astron. J. 2006; 131: 1163-1183 doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    A Gaia DR2 view of the Open Cluster population in the Milky Way

    Cantat-Gaudin T, Jordi C, Vallenari A, Bragaglia A, Balaguer-Nunez L et al. A Gaia DR2 view of the Open Cluster population in the Milky Way. Astron. Astrophys. 2018; 618: 93. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    The Fourth US Naval Observatory CCD Astrograph Catalog (UCAC4)

    Zacharias N, Finch CT, Girard TM, Henden A, Bartlett JL et al. The Fourth US Naval Observatory CCD Astrograph Catalog (UCAC4). Astron. J. 2013; 145: 44. doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/44

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    UBVRI Photometric Standard Stars Around the Celestial Equator: Updates and Additions

    Landolt AU. UBVRI Photometric Standard Stars Around the Celestial Equator: Updates and Additions. Astron. J. 2009; 137: 4186-4269. doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4186

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    Cosmic-Ray Rejection by Laplacian Edge Detection

    van Dokkum PG. Cosmic-Ray Rejection by Laplacian Edge Detection. Pub. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2001; 113: 1420-1427. doi: 10.1086/323894

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013)

    Cutri RM, Wright EL, Conrow T, Fowler JW, Eisenhardt PRM et al. VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013). VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. 2013; 2328: 0C. WISE

    2013

  8. [16]

    CCD UBVRI Photometry of the Galactic open clusters: Be 89, Ru 135, and Be 10

    Akkaya ˙I, Schuster WJ, Michel R, Chavarr´ ıa-K C, Moitinho A et al. CCD UBVRI Photometry of the Galactic open clusters: Be 89, Ru 135, and Be 10. Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis 2010; 46: 385

    2010

  9. [17]

    CCD UBV(RI)(C) photometry of twenty open clusters

    Akkaya Oralhan I, Karata¸ s Y, Schuster WJ, Michel R, Chavarr´ ıa-K C. CCD UBV(RI)(C) photometry of twenty open clusters. New Astronomy 2015; 34: 195. doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2014.06.011

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Old open clusters in the inner Galaxy: FSR1744, FSR89 and FSR31

    Bonatto CH, Bica E. Old open clusters in the inner Galaxy: FSR1744, FSR89 and FSR31. Astron. Astrophys. 2007; 473: 445. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077675

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    The structure of star clusters

    King IR. The structure of star clusters. III. Some simple dynamical models. Astron. J. 1966; 71: 64. doi: 10.1086/109857

    1966 doi

  12. [20]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 2011; 12: 2825-2830 JMLR

    Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 2011; 12: 2825-2830 JMLR

    2011

  13. [21]

    Determination of proper motions and membership of the open star cluster NGC 2548

    Wu ZY, Tian KP, Balaguer-Nunez L, Jordi C, Zhao JL et al. Determination of proper motions and membership of the open star cluster NGC 2548. Astron. Astrophys. 2002; 381: 464. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011474 14 C ¸ akmak et al./Turk J Phys

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    in Landolt-Bornstein, Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology, New Series, Group VI, Vol2b, ed

    Schmidt-Kaler Th. in Landolt-Bornstein, Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology, New Series, Group VI, Vol2b, ed. K Schaifers & H H Voigt, p.14. Springer Verlag, Berlin 1982

    1982

  15. [23]

    Metallicity and absolute magnitude calibrations for UBV photometry

    Karata¸ s Y, Schuster WJ. Metallicity and absolute magnitude calibrations for UBV photometry. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2006; 371: 1793. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10800.x

    2006

  16. [24]

    PARSEC: stellar tracks and isochrones with the PAdova and TRieste Stellar Evolution Code

    Bressan A, Marigo P, Girardi L, Salasnich B, Dal Cero C et al. PARSEC: stellar tracks and isochrones with the PAdova and TRieste Stellar Evolution Code. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2012; 427: 127. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  17. [25]

    A dynamical evolution study of 40 2MASS open clusters

    G¨ une¸ s O, Karata¸ s Y, Bonatto C. A dynamical evolution study of 40 2MASS open clusters. Astron. Nachr. 2017; 338: 464. doi: 10.1002/asna.201712978

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Reddenings of Cepheids using BVI photometry

    Dean JF, Warren PR, Cousins AWJ. Reddenings of Cepheids using BVI photometry. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1978; 183: 569. doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.4.569

    1978 doi

  19. [27]

    Interstellar dust and extinction

    Mathis J. Interstellar dust and extinction. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1990; 28: 37. doi: 10.1146/an- nurev.aa.28.090190.000345

    1990

  20. [28]

    Multicolor Stellar Photometry, Astronomy and Astrophysics Series, Vol 15, ed A G Pacholczyk, Tucson, Arizona: Pachart Pub

    Strai¸ zys V. Multicolor Stellar Photometry, Astronomy and Astrophysics Series, Vol 15, ed A G Pacholczyk, Tucson, Arizona: Pachart Pub. House 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    The chemical composition of the oldest nearby open cluster Ruprecht 147

    Bragaglia A, Fu X, Mucciarelli A, Andreuzzi G, Donati P. The chemical composition of the oldest nearby open cluster Ruprecht 147. Astron. Astrophys. 2018; 619: A176. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833888

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Development of the Galactic Disk: A Search for the Oldest Open Cluster

    Phelps RL, Janes KA, Montgomery KA. Development of the Galactic Disk: A Search for the Oldest Open Cluster. Astron. J. 1994; 107: 1079. doi: 10.1086/116920

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    The age of the oldest Open Clusters

    Salaris M, Weiss A, Percival SM. The age of the oldest Open Clusters. Astron. Astrophys. 2004; 414: 163. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031578

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Calculating galactic space velocities and their uncertainties, with an application to the Ursa Major group

    Johnson DRH, Soderblom DR. Calculating galactic space velocities and their uncertainties, with an application to the Ursa Major group. Astron. J. 1987; 93: 864. doi: 10.1086/114370

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    Local Kinematics and the Local Standard of Rest

    Sch¨ onrich R, Binney J, Dehnen W. Local Kinematics and the Local Standard of Rest. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2010; 403: 1829. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2010

  26. [34]

    The Galaxy in Context: Structural, Kinematic and Integrated Properties

    Bland-Hawthorn J, Gerhard O. The Galaxy in Context: Structural, Kinematic and Integrated Properties. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2016; 54: 529. doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    The Bar and Spiral Structure Legacy (BeSSeL) survey: Mapping the Milky Way with VLBI astrometry

    Brunthaler A, Reid MJ, Menten KM, Zheng XW, Bartkiewicz A et al. The Bar and Spiral Structure Legacy (BeSSeL) survey: Mapping the Milky Way with VLBI astrometry. Astron. Nachr. 2011; 332(No5): 461. doi: 10.1002/asna.201111560

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Halo Star Streams in the Solar Neighborhood

    Kepley A, Morrison HL, Helmi A, Kinman TD, van Duyne J et al. Halo Star Streams in the Solar Neighborhood. Astron. J. 2007; 134: 1579. doi: 10.1086/521429

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    galpy: A python LIBRARY FOR GALACTIC DYNAMICS

    Bovy J. galpy: A python LIBRARY FOR GALACTIC DYNAMICS. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 2015; 216: 29. doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    A Survey of Proper Motion Stars

    Carney BW, Laird JB, Latham DW, Aguilar LA. A Survey of Proper Motion Stars. XIII. The Halo Population. Astron. J. 1996; 112: 668. doi: 10.1086/118042

    1996 doi

  31. [39]

    A Comprehensive Study of 94 Open Clusters Based on the Data from IPHAS, GAIA DR2, and Other Sky Surveys

    Yalyalieva LN, Chemel AA, Glushkova EV, Dambis AK, Klinichev AD. A Comprehensive Study of 94 Open Clusters Based on the Data from IPHAS, GAIA DR2, and Other Sky Surveys. Astrophys. Bull. 2018; 73: 335 . doi: 10.1134/S1990341318030070

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Confirmation of the Gaia DR2 parallax zero-point offset using aster- oseismology and spectroscopy in the Kepler field

    Zinn JC, Pinsonneault MH, Huber D, Stello D. Confirmation of the Gaia DR2 parallax zero-point offset using aster- oseismology and spectroscopy in the Kepler field. Astron. J. 2018; 878: 1538-4357. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f66

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant

    Riess AG, Casertano S, Yuan W, Macri L, Bucciarelli B et al. Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant. Astron. J. 2018; 861: 126. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e 15 C ¸ akmak et al./Turk J Phys

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Star clusters: basic galactic building blocks, Proceedings IAU Symposium No266, ed

    Moitinho A. Star clusters: basic galactic building blocks, Proceedings IAU Symposium No266, ed. Rde Grijs and JRD Lepine 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Star Clusters, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 28, Lecture Notes 1998, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, ed

    Carney B. Star Clusters, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 28, Lecture Notes 1998, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, ed. L Labhardt and B Binggeli, p.1-222. Springer-Verlag Berlin 2001

    1998

  36. [44]

    IAUS-Star Clusters and Black Holes in Galaxies across Cosmic Time, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium

    Ferraro FR. IAUS-Star Clusters and Black Holes in Galaxies across Cosmic Time, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium. 2016; 312: 171-180

    2016

  37. [45]

    Extended main-sequence of some stellar clusters

    McCrea WH. Extended main-sequence of some stellar clusters. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 1964; 128: 147. doi: 10.1093/mnras/128.2.147

    1964 doi

  38. [46]

    Astrophysical Letters 1976; 17: L87

    Hills J, Day C.Stellar Collisions in Globular Clusters. Astrophysical Letters 1976; 17: L87. NASA ADS

    1976

  39. [47]

    Overlapping abundance gradients and azimuthal gradients related to the spiral structure of the Galaxy

    Lepine JRD, Cruz P Scarano S, Barros DA, Dias WS et al. Overlapping abundance gradients and azimuthal gradients related to the spiral structure of the Galaxy. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2011; 417: 698. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2011.19314.x 16

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.