[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
[vsnet-alert 6194] Re: WZ Sge: true superhumps there?
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:23:30 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
- From: gian.masi@flashnet.it
- Subject: [vsnet-alert 6194] Re: WZ Sge: true superhumps there?
- Cc: vsnet-chat@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp, vsnet-alert@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp, vsnet-campaign-dn@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp, vsnet-superoutburst@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
- In-Reply-To: <200108040637.PAA18359@ceres.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
- References: <200108040637.PAA18359@ceres.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
- Sender: owner-vsnet-alert@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
- User-Agent: Cybernet Italia Webmail
(Please move to vsnet-chat!)
Scrive Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>:
> Re: WZ Sge: true superhumps there?
> Looks like a coincidence. The same data gave 0.05655
+/- 0.00015
> d,
> probably caused by the limited length of the run. One
must be always
> careful about errors...
To me, it seems like several software packages are giving
quite different results. For the very same dataset, the DOS
executable (pdm.exe) I downloaded from the VSNET website
(and I thank Taichi for pointing my attention there) gives
0.05669d. So, I'm a bit confused on this issue. In the past
I had several cases where I did a reasonable period estimate
"by eyes". This time this operation looks more difficult, as
the maxima, during the same run, do not have a constant
separation (and this could explain why different software
gives different results?).
As for the other points raised by Dr. Kato, they definitely
suggest to keep up this never-seen coverage.
Regards,
Gianluca
Return to Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
VSNET Home Page