Talk:Iota Horologii

Limit of knowledge

This article appears to be presenting speculation as fact.

The phrase "this planet might have rings, maybe a Venus-like moon" seems to imply that there has been some detection which could be one of these things. Since we have no direct detection of the planet itself (only indirect radial-velocity measurements), any talk of rings and moons is at this point purely speculative. "If the planet has a large moon, then the environment might be like that of Venus" might be a better phrasing.

The chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere is unknown. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the literature which suggests that a gas giant can have sulfuric acid clouds, in the Sudarsky classification system which is about the best thing we have for predicting the appearance of extrasolar planets, the planet's temperature is in the range for water clouds (class II). No mention is made of sulfuric acid in this scheme.

This appears to be an analogy to Venus, which at a similar degree of insolation has sulfuric acid clouds, but Venus is a terrestrial planet, where the environment is oxygen rich, and the sulfur is in the form of sulfur dioxide and trioxide (from volcanoes), which can react with water vapour to form acid. On Jupiter the sulfur is in ammonium hydrosulfide (hydrogen rich compounds), and I don't see how to get from that to sulfuric acid. Chaos syndrome 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Iota Horologii c?

Is there any reference to Iota Horologii c in the literature? I've never come across it, and the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia does not list a second planet. Unless you can find a reference this should be deleted. Chaos syndrome 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is also no reference to it in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia's list of retracted planets. Chaos syndrome 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For those of you who don't know how to pronounce Iota Horologii. It's pronounced (Eye-oe-ta / Hor-oe-loe-gee-eye). I got this data from this. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Luminosity correct?

How can a main-sequence star just three percent more massive be fifty percent brighter than the Sun? Sounds like a subgiant to me, yet the age is listed as 300 million to two billion years old. 68Kustom (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)