<p>Hipparchos numbers of the 26 most stable stars known:
<a href="http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%202021">2021</a>, <a href="http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%202854">2854</a>, <a href="http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%205542">5542</a>, <a href="http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%2016611">16611</a>, 19747, 24927, 32537, 38414, 42913, 45556, 50191, 57363, 71053, 73555, 74666, 76440, 74946, 90139, 94648, 96052, 10239, 102488, 104732, 111169, 116631, 118322.</p>

<p>Compare Hpmax and Hpmin: They differ 0.01. Standard error e_Hpmag is 0.0003 mag.
There are 681 stars in the Hipparchos catalog with an amplitude of 0.01 mag.</p>

<p>More detail in <a href="http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2001/07/aa10185.pdf">this paper</a>, including a link to the appropriate VizieR query.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-03T02:52:03.610Z
is there any special usage of there kind of stars except as photometric standard stars?
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-04T01:12:27.890Z
@questionhang My first application would be to use them as instrument calibration, too. It's not self-evident, that they are of low variability almost all their life-time. But if so, the smaller of them would be better-suited for habitable planets, since they wouldn't change their habitable zone for a long time, and wouldn't cause short-time hazards for their planets by flares or pulsation.
Gerald
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-18T08:29:31.607Z
Maybe we can study why stars are so inactive and the  smallest variability amplitude. The stars in the paper above still have a large variability scale(0.01 Mag). We can find more in Kepler data?
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T11:39:33.637Z
The Sun is more stable than this - it's luminosity changes by a lot less than 0.01 mag on the same timescales surveyed by Hipparcos.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-02T20:47:20.053Z
2014-05-02T20:47:20.053Z
Gerald
<p>You need to specify on what timescales and at what wavelengths to get a proper answer. </p>

<p>Despite your question, the Sun does appear to be a very stable star indeed. The luminosity changes over the solar cycle are about 0.1% (or 0.001 magnitudes) and even the biggest sunspots modulate the light by a fraction of one percent.</p>

<p>If you wanted to find stars more "stable" than this, the key is to find stars with lower levels of magnetic activity. For <em>solar-type stars</em> this means you have to find slower rotating objects which, because angular momentum is lost as stars get older, means you need to look for older stars.</p>

<p>K- and M-dwarfs have longer spin-down timescales and can remain active to much older ages, therefore I would <em>not</em> think these would generally be less active/less variable. </p>

<p>My recommendation would therefore be to look at old, population II halo F/G-type stars. As long as they are not in binary systems (which can influence the angular momentum evolution), then these ought to be the least magnetically active stars and the least variable (in principle).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T14:27:09.383Z
so statistically, younger stars should rotate faster and high level magnetic activities?  But I know M&K stars are more magnetically active. Also, age-activity relation is not necessarily true for a single star.
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T14:44:20.013Z
@Questionhang Yes, K and M dwarfs are more active at the same age, which is why I did not suggest these are more stable. The age-activity relationship *is* valid for single stars. What makes you say it is not?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T14:54:05.610Z
@   faster rotation means younger and more magnetic activities?   But M&K are old.  Besides, that age-magnetic relation should not be strictly followed by all the stars.
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T16:12:53.500Z
@questionhang - You are talking to an expert in determining the ages of stars through activity-age and activity-rotation relations. (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EAS....65..289J ). Activity is not solely connected with age, it is also a function of mass and convection zone thickness and is not followed by close binary systems. Even old M dwarfs could be much more active than the Sun. Thus I do *not* think that, older K and M dwarfs will be much less variable than the Sun.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-23T01:56:37.470Z
I admit old stars are active. But how about younger stars? They rotate faster, so there are more activities caused by magnetic field?
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-22T14:19:38.150Z
2015-04-22T16:15:18.713Z
2015-04-22T16:15:18.713Z
ProfRob
<p>I mean those kind of stars should be very stable and barely have activity.</p>

<p>Their light curves should be very very flat.</p>

<p>Our sun, as a G type star, are not so stable. At lest there are lots of floating solar spots.</p>

<star>
which or what kind of star has a very stable luminosity?
questionhang
# which or what kind of star has a very stable luminosity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-02)

I mean those kind of stars should be very stable and barely have activity.

Their light curves should be very very flat.

Our sun, as a G type star, are not so stable. At lest there are lots of floating solar spots.

**Tags:** star


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-05-02. Score: 6

Hipparchos numbers of the 26 most stable stars known:
[2021](http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%202021), [2854](http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%202854), [5542](http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%205542), [16611](http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?HIP%2016611), 19747, 24927, 32537, 38414, 42913, 45556, 50191, 57363, 71053, 73555, 74666, 76440, 74946, 90139, 94648, 96052, 10239, 102488, 104732, 111169, 116631, 118322.

Compare Hpmax and Hpmin: They differ 0.01. Standard error e\_Hpmag is 0.0003 mag.
There are 681 stars in the Hipparchos catalog with an amplitude of 0.01 mag.

More detail in [this paper](http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2001/07/aa10185.pdf), including a link to the appropriate VizieR query.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: is there any special usage of there kind of stars except as photometric standard stars?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 My first application would be to use them as instrument calibration, too. It's not self-evident, that they are of low variability almost all their life-time. But if so, the smaller of them would be better-suited for habitable planets, since they wouldn't change their habitable zone for a long time, and wouldn't cause short-time hazards for their planets by flares or pulsation.  
> **username_0**: Maybe we can study why stars are so inactive and the  smallest variability amplitude. The stars in the paper above still have a large variability scale(0.01 Mag). We can find more in Kepler data?  
> **username_2**: The Sun is more stable than this - it's luminosity changes by a lot less than 0.01 mag on the same timescales surveyed by Hipparcos.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-04-22. Score: 2

You need to specify on what timescales and at what wavelengths to get a proper answer.

Despite your question, the Sun does appear to be a very stable star indeed. The luminosity changes over the solar cycle are about 0.1% (or 0.001 magnitudes) and even the biggest sunspots modulate the light by a fraction of one percent.

If you wanted to find stars more "stable" than this, the key is to find stars with lower levels of magnetic activity. For *solar-type stars* this means you have to find slower rotating objects which, because angular momentum is lost as stars get older, means you need to look for older stars.

K- and M-dwarfs have longer spin-down timescales and can remain active to much older ages, therefore I would *not* think these would generally be less active/less variable.

My recommendation would therefore be to look at old, population II halo F/G-type stars. As long as they are not in binary systems (which can influence the angular momentum evolution), then these ought to be the least magnetically active stars and the least variable (in principle).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: so statistically, younger stars should rotate faster and high level magnetic activities?  But I know M&K stars are more magnetically active. Also, age-activity relation is not necessarily true for a single star.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Yes, K and M dwarfs are more active at the same age, which is why I did not suggest these are more stable. The age-activity relationship *is* valid for single stars. What makes you say it is not?  
> **username_0**: @   faster rotation means younger and more magnetic activities?   But M&K are old.  Besides, that age-magnetic relation should not be strictly followed by all the stars.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - You are talking to an expert in determining the ages of stars through activity-age and activity-rotation relations. (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014EAS....65..289J ). Activity is not solely connected with age, it is also a function of mass and convection zone thickness and is not followed by close binary systems. Even old M dwarfs could be much more active than the Sun. Thus I do *not* think that, older K and M dwarfs will be much less variable than the Sun.  
> **username_0**: I admit old stars are active. But how about younger stars? They rotate faster, so there are more activities caused by magnetic field?  

---

