Talk:HE 0107-5240

=Population II/III=

Untitled
'Why couldn't the observed (trace amounts of) metals be Primordial'' ? Such would explain, how radiative cooling could have enabled the formation of small stars, so early.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.65.75 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A star with observed metal does not always belongs to population II class. Even a Population III class stars, with initial zero metals, could enhance its own surface metallicity by self-enhancementfrom its own nuclear reaction, by mass accredited from the binary companion or polluted by near-by supernovae. In fact, if this star is formed by binary interaction, it is likely that it is formed as a population III stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.160.7 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Low mass
According to the source at the bottom of the article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/relic_star_021030.html) it is a low mass star.Jan Lapère 16:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a low mas star, but it is also very old. Therefore it has become a giant. Star doesn't have to be massive to become a giant, term 'giant' refers to an evolutionary phase of stars. Star becomes a giant when the hydrogen fusion ends in its core and it starts to swell.--Jyril 17:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * With an age of around 13 billion years, this red giant star ought to have a mass of about 70% of the mass of our Sun.

All single stars with masses lower than these 70% of the Sun have a life time superior to the age of the Universe. --Siffler 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought about that. But if it have a mass of &lt;80% than Sun, shouldn't it be considerably older than Universe? Or ar the numbers from here obsolete? Said: Rursus ☻ 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Besides, stars being older than Universe is not a situation out of the ordinary, precisely – they've tended to be absurdely old for many decades by now – or the Universe absurdely young). Said: Rursus ☻ 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This age topic is discussed on Harris et al. (2007)].&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Luminosity
We do not have a clue the Luminosity of this Old Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.231.86 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HE0107-5240. 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/20050305055859/http://space.com/scienceastronomy/relic_star_021030.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/relic_star_021030.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212113735/http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-19-02.html to http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-19-02.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) 06:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)