New Light on Dark Stars

Errata

Despite our best efforts at proof-reading, a number of typographical and numerical errors crept unbidden into the published version of the text. Should the outcry of interest be sufficient to demand a second printing, we will, of course, correct those errors. Until then, we will compile a list on this page. Don't hesitate to contact one or other of the authors should you find additional howlers.

p. 23, equation 1.23 should be m = M + 5 log r - 5, which gives m - M = 5 log r - 5
p. 24, the line above equn. 1.30, the approximation should be exp(hc/lkt) = 1 + hc/lkt

section 2.2.5: an omission. Gudel et al (1993, ApJ 415, 236) compare 3.6 and 6 cm observations of a sample of 21 M dwarfs against X-ray observations, and argue for a correlation in the respective luminosities. Log L_X ~ (0.99+/-0.11) Log L_R + 15.57+/-1.43 where L_R is derived by averaging the 3.6 and 6 cm values. The latest-type dwarf included in the Gudel et al sample in VB8, which is not detected at radio wavelengths; Gl 406 (M6.5) has a radio detection (but no X-ray measurement) during a flare, and is undetected at radio wavelengths (but has X-ray data) during quiescence; Gl 65AB (M5.5 + M6) has both radio and X-ray data, but the components are unresolved at X-ray wavelengths. The latest-type dwarfs which have reliable data at both wavelengths are Gl 285 (YZ CMi) and Gl 729 (V1216 Sgr), both spectral type M4.5e. Thus, it is not clear whether the observed correlation can be extrapolated to spectral types later than M5.

"a" is more often referred to as the "radiation constant" than as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
p. 88, equation 3.14 is the potential,i.e. Phi = GM / r
all equations referenced in the text in section 3.3.2 (pp 88-89) should be incremented by +3, e.g., p. 88, line 1
"Substituting for P(r) using equation (3.6) produces..." should be
"Substituting for P(r) using equation (3.9) produces.."
p. 9, equation 3.32, the numerical constant is 0.0316, not 0.016
p. 90, equation 3.34, tau should be raised to the power -1.297, not +1.297
p. 91, equation 3.35 / 3^I, Mev --> MeV
p. 92, equation 3.37 / 3^II, Mev --> MeV
p. 92, text between equations 3.40 and 3.41
"..the efficiency of that process varies as exp (-b/sqrt(E)), where E [not e] is the energy of the particle in keV.."
p. 92, equation in footnote should be
A = A1A2/(A1 + A2)
p. 93, the reaction which destroys lithium is 5^II, not 5^III
p. 93, equation 3.44: add a multiplicative factor of 1/rho on r.h.s.
p. 93, dT/dr is the stellar temperature gradient, not the adiabatic gradient
p. 94, equation 3.49: this is the condition for stability , not convection
p. 95, section 3.3.5 -- n=infinity for an isolthermal gas
p. 95, figure 3.2: delete the last clause in the caption (".. and a 0.5 Gyr old..."): that model is not plotted in this figure.
p. 96, "Pauli exclusion principle" not "Fermi exclusion principle" (!)
p. 117, after equation 3.57: the accretion rate is M-dot, not M

Table 4.1 (page 149): the units (second line of heading) should be shifted to the right by one column (except for the 1st column)

In Table 6.1, a is the semi-major axis of the Galaxy, measured in the Plane of the Disk; c is the semi-major axis of the distribution, measured perpendicular to the Disk at the Galactic Centre; hence c / a is the axial ratio of the Galaxy, as viewed from an external ___location lying on the extension of the Galactic Plane
Caption to Figure 1: S² is the sum of the dispersions, not the square root of the sum.
equation 6.3 is incorrect: it should be m₁ = (v-b) - (b-y) The index measures blanketing in the violet relative to the blue/visual
Figure 6.5 - the 5-point stars are subdwarfs with [Fe/H] > -0.7
Figure 6.9 - the photometric standards are plotted as crosses, the subdwarfs as solid points
Figure 6.18 - the dash-dot line marks the contribution to the density from the Galactic Halo - and the last sentence of the caption should read:" The dotted and dashed lines show the density distributions of the individual disk and halo components; the solid line plots the combined rho(z)."

p. 256, 1st full paragraph: the systematic error involving parallax bias is Lutz-Kelker bias, not Malmquist bias, and the average observed parallax is less than the average true parallax, pi > pi₀
Equation 7.14 - add r² to the right hand side
N(r) = V r² dr
Figure 7.1 Starikova's analysis is plotted in panel (f)
Figure 7,2(c): the solid squares should be connected with a solid line
Figure 7.7: the dotted and dashed lines are mislabelled - the dashed line is for n=3, dotted line for n=4
page 268, 6 lines from bottom: extra m (roman lettering) as third "word"
page 279, 3rd line of section 7.6: "off" should be "offer"
page 282, equation 7.37 should have a closing parenthesis on the top line
page 283: the proper motions listed for Praesepe are incorrect
mu(RA) = 0.030 arcsec/yr; mu(Dec) = -0.008 arcsec/yr

Equation 8.3 : numerator should have capital Psi, as in denominator
page 305, below equation 8.14: "stars MORE massive than ~1 M(sun)" should be "stars LESS massive than ~1 M(sun)"
the symbol xi should have a superscript "i" (as in 8.2.2) when representing the initial mass function: equations 8.10, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14
Figure 8.3, caption, last word should be "ratio"
Figure 8.5: the uncertainties in the mass determinations for GJ 2069 and CM Dra are smaller than the symbols plotted. Only YY Gen B is plotted.
page 319, 2nd full paragraph, line 3 - missing ")" after [W4]
equation 8.21, denominator on l.h.s. should be (M₁ + M₂)²
page 311, equation 8.24: the numerator on the rhs should be (D_S - D_L) * D_L (from [P2], equn. 8b]
equations 8.27 and 8.28, R_S is the distance between the lens, L, and the line connecting the observer, O, and source, S, in figure 8.4a
equation 8.28, denominator on rhs - missing ")" after "4"
equation 8.29, units are milliarcseconds
equation 8.30, the square root should not include the velocity term on the r.h.s.
equation 8.31, r_min is the smallest angular separation between the lens, L, and the source, S; r_E is the angular Einstein radius. That is, p is the smallest value attained by the variable u
Figure 8.10; the sample of Pleiades K and M dwarfs becomes incomplete at masses above ~0.5 M(sun), accounting for the large discrepancy between the first datapoint and the [M5] mass function

page 348, section 9.4, paragraph 2 "Jsearches" should be "Searches"`
Figure 9.10: Gl 229B is the point near [0, 0]
page 376, paragraph 2, line 5: "brown dwarfs companions" should be "brown dwarf companions"

page 396, equation 10.4: n is the number of measurements, and sigma is the proportional accuracy
page 402, Table 10.1: the period is in days, semi-major axis in AU and masses in terrestial units (i.e. Mass_Earth = 1)
page 402, equation 10.7: 2nd line, first term on r.h.s. - a should be on the denominator, not the numerator
Table 10.2: the final column, N_det, is obviously incomplete. At the time of writing, Noyes et al had detected at least 2 planets, while Marcy & Butler had ~15 and Cochran et al had at least one. The total number of detected planets from RV surveys now exceeds 50.

page 439, figure 11.13: the panels are switched left/right. the field luminosity function is plotted in tghe right panel (M_V)

GJ 1005B is not spectral type M4. Since it is ~1.5 magnitudes fainter than the primary, it probably has a spectral type of ~M5.5/M6, but we don't know since we don't have any direct observations as yet.
VB 10 has I=12.84, M_I=14.00 and V-I=4.65

to Neill Reid
to Suzanne Hawley

Last revised: 20 September, 2000