TY - JOUR
T1 - Erratum to
T2 - Tidal decay and stable Roche-lobe overflow of short-period gaseous exoplanets (Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, (2016), 126, 1-3, (227-248), 10.1007/s10569-016-9704-1)
AU - Jackson, Brian
AU - Jensen, Emily
AU - Peacock, Sarah
AU - Arras, Phil
AU - Penev, Kaloyan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - In the original paper, there was an error in Fig. 2. For that figure, we calculated the orbital periods corresponding to the surfaces of young stars for comparison to the short orbital periods of some close-in exoplanets. However, we included an extra factor of 4π2 in the unit conversion, overestimating the former periods. Figure 2 included here shows the corrected version. Contrary to the erroneous results in the original paper, none of the short-period planets currently orbits interior to the young stellar surface. In addition, three of the equations contained mistakes. Equation 4 should have read: (Formula presented.) i.e., there is no J term on the right-hand side. Equation 9 should have read (Formula presented.) (Figure presented.) i.e., the rightmost term on the right-hand side was missing. Equation 10 should have rea i.e., (Formula presented.) there should have been a factor of 9/4 in the first term in square brackets and a factor of 1/2 in the second. Fortunately, none of these mistakes affected the model results since the models used the correct relations.
AB - In the original paper, there was an error in Fig. 2. For that figure, we calculated the orbital periods corresponding to the surfaces of young stars for comparison to the short orbital periods of some close-in exoplanets. However, we included an extra factor of 4π2 in the unit conversion, overestimating the former periods. Figure 2 included here shows the corrected version. Contrary to the erroneous results in the original paper, none of the short-period planets currently orbits interior to the young stellar surface. In addition, three of the equations contained mistakes. Equation 4 should have read: (Formula presented.) i.e., there is no J term on the right-hand side. Equation 9 should have read (Formula presented.) (Figure presented.) i.e., the rightmost term on the right-hand side was missing. Equation 10 should have rea i.e., (Formula presented.) there should have been a factor of 9/4 in the first term in square brackets and a factor of 1/2 in the second. Fortunately, none of these mistakes affected the model results since the models used the correct relations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030871737&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10569-017-9780-x
DO - 10.1007/s10569-017-9780-x
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85030871737
SN - 0923-2958
VL - 129
SP - 553
EP - 554
JO - Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy
JF - Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy
IS - 4
ER -