Re: GSC 3493-1324

[Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>]

Nothing like a testable hypothesis. The period that Sebastian came up 
with yields the following predictions:

MinI=2453160.7306+7.654E

MinI            MinII
2453168.38456   2453164.55756
2453176.03856   2453172.21156
2453183.69256   2453179.86556
2453191.34656   2453187.51956
2453199.00056   2453195.17356
2453206.65456   2453202.82756
2453214.30856   2453210.48156

I'll try to get one. Chances are there are other periods that can 
explain the data so far. I can't find a better one yet. The data is 
here:

http://www.lolife.com/astronomy/gsc3493-1324/vdata_hjd.txt

Michael Koppelman

On Jun 5, 2004, at 2:43 PM, Stupendous Man wrote:

>   I just saw Michael K.'s second note -- our messages crossed
> in the ether.  The period of the star is 7.6 days, according
> to Sebastian and Michael K.  The three discrepant TASS measurements
> fall within a span of about 300 seconds, or a range of 0.0004 in phase.
> That means that _if_ they are not in error, then they could all
> three fall very easily within the width of an eclipse (as shown
> in Michael K.'s graph).
>
>   If these three measurements were several hours apart, there
> would be no doubt that they must be in error.  But I still
> can't find the smoking gun which proves they are wrong beyond
> a reasonable doubt.