Dear Dr Sonja Vrielmann As the one who checked Tokovinin's 1997 work and thoroughly failed to find any mention of an eclipser in delta Velorum, could you kindly help with the following: There is no online access to this paper as yet, and I'm limited to online resources for references, but I do have the tabular data via the CDS journal tables' archive, which I had checked, and there is no mention of any other star besides APCD, and the total number of objects is listed as 4. Aa is TNG1 according to WDS2000, and according to the 1979 discovery paper Sebastian notes in his post, is around 0.6" apart and with a period of "a few decades". AB is Innes 10, but Tokovinin appears not to include B for some reason. CD is hj 4136 [John Herschel 4136]. I've checked all the separations to confirm this, and have now just noted that Tokovinin _does not_ mention the Aa pair... ...his AP is actually AB!!!! Thus Tokovinin only tabulates an ABCD group, with no note on a. So, I'm confused now, or rather I'm not confused, because I can find no data re the 0.6"-0.7" speckle component in the tabular data. However, as I say, I have not got the body of the text to refer to. Nor, like yourself, do I have any access to AZh papers. Doing an independent check using the Bright Star Catalogue, this is commonly thought of as an AB CD system, and most people don't know about Aa. Now, re the nature of the companion. I too at first thought it may be a red or brown dwarf or even planetary detection, ie more of a transit than an eclipse! But I wondered why no molecular bands were evident in the specrum if a late type star was involved, and thought a planetry object just too good to be true! However, I'm interested to see the idea mentioned. delta Velorum is an infra-red excess IRAS source, but as it is also in the ROSAT Bright Star Catalogue, I had simply presumed this to be due to circumstellar matter. However, I suppose a late type dwarf or brown dwarf could fit the bill, with the xrays being of chromospheric or coronal origin: it is not noted as being xray variable in the latest version of the RASS PSPC mind. Re Spectrum: Houk in her MHD catalogue lists it as overexposed, and lists an "unpublished" type from "Garrison and Hagen", so that too is inaccessible. But we must note that the AB pair are separated by just over 2 arcsecs, and the Aa pair by less than 1 arcsec, that Aa-B are about 3 mags different and and A-a about 1.3 mags different. I am not sure if a clean spectrum is going to be found here anyway... ...definitely not on objective prism work. IMPORTANT... ...Sebastian has termed the eclipser 'x' in an attempt to avoid confusion. 'x' is _not_ 'a'. The previously known system was AaBCD. None of these can give a suitable eclipsing period. Anyway, that's how I have the data at present. I am more than willing to receive and quite grateful for any and all assistance on this. I think I've got it right, but we'll have to wait and see what the AZh paper says. And unless Tokovinin does say something specific in the text, he doesn't mention it at all. re the 67.7 day period... ...yes it does not fit too well to one of the eclipses, but we have an upper constraint of 200 days and a lower constraint of _possibly_ 20 days from the comments on the Galileo data, although this does not necessarily preclude the 5.888 day period which Sebastian prefers. Meanwhile, I'm a bit intrigued by summat ;^) ... ...apparently the Galileo single observation of a dip in delta Velorum's light output was mentioned as part of a circular put out by South African amateurs, but obviously you had not come across it... ...so despite this internet thingy, or possibly because of the sheer profligacy of it [and the amount of stuff we therefore need to wade through], things still fall through the cracks. [NB, I've tried to make the above as clear as possible, but note I'm merely an amateur, so sorry if I've made it more confusing than needs be]. Cheers John John Greaves UK