Talk:Beta Aquarii

Absolute magnitude

The numbers given about this star do not add up. If it was 600ly away it would not be visible with a luminsity of 1.1 x the Sun. Has someone left out a minus sign in the absolute magnitude?

The information at http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/sadalsuud.html makes more sense. It places the luminosity at 2,200 times that of our sun, giving a radius of 50X and a Solar Mass of 6X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.198.172 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M_V was unsourced and probably OR, so I removed it. For M_V I get: 2.87 + 5(1 + log₁₀ 0.00607) = –3.21. Soubiran et al (2008) gives an M_Bol of –3.66. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table ballooned

The triple star table is a huge mess & has been since the 'nested table' revision of 17 May - or is it just me? Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section has been cleaned up, removing the unsubstantiated statements about it being a triple star. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beta

If it is the brightest star in Aquarius, why is it named Beta? Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon - see Bayer_designation#Order_by_magnitude_class Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]