Talk:Teide 1

Radius

If Teide 1's radius is about that of Jupiter, why does the image comparing it with the Sun, Jupiter, and Gliese 229A and B have it at about twice that size? I'd imagine the image would be a more accurate depiction, considering that brown dwarfs would tend to balloon outwards when young due to thermal pressure, and then shrink to gas giant sizes when they cool off. --Sinndogg (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The image shows its radius as 9/8 Jupiter's, which matches what the article says. It looks nowhere near twice the radius.Mocha2007 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone fix this please. The infobox says r=.9 jupiter but the text says 4 jupiter. 92.28.19.131 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Teide 1. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090502144637/http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/dwarfs_010.htm to http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/dwarfs_010.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Problematic

Teide 1 was not the first brown dwarf to be verified, that is actually Gliese 569B, discovered in 1987. Its status was not clear at this time, but there is still GD 165 B , discovered in 1988. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed it now. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

GD 165 B was detected earlier, but the very same authors write 'Thus, the former is the coolest and lowest luminosity dwarf star ever imaged and may be a brown dwarf, although most recent theoretical models would position it as a transition object at the very bottom of the main sequence (M ~ 0.075 M_⊙).' in 1992 and others write 'Two estimates are given for the location of GD 165 B on the H-R diagram. Neither data point yields an unambiguous classification as either star or brown dwarf for this object.' in 1993. Stevinger (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The record is the "first brown dwarf to be verified" not "first confirmed", and even for the latter Teide 1 was still not the first confirmed brown dwarf. That is Gliese 229B in 1995, Teide 1 was discovered in 1994 and confirmed in 1995. First verified brown dwarf allows for brown dwarf candidates later confirmed. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems more a semantic problem. A verified brown dwarf seems something else than a verified brown dwarf candidate or a verified existing object. Regarding Gliese 229 B that depends what is accepted as confirmed. Teide 1 was photometrically, spectroscopically and in regard of movement and temperature confirmed in September 1995, via lithium test again in 1996. Gliese 229 B was confirmed in November or December 1995. Usually they are mentioned together, as the discoveries strongly overlap. See e.g. [1] Stevinger (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)