Re: GSC 00445-01993

[Michael Koppelman <lolife@bitstream.net>]

Actually, what I mean is, in the period analysis graph that shows the 
possible periods, the very bottom of a given possible period has never 
been a period that works. After reading the article about period analysis,
  it would seem that the periods that seem most likely are based on a 
mathematical algorithm and would, in fact, be the best possible choices. 
In practice, at least with my data, the periods identified as most likely 
are close but not right on. I end up sliding up the graph a bit from the 
trough to get a good period.

Do you know what I mean? I can upload an example if this is not clear.

Thanks!
Michael K

On Saturday, July 6, 2002, at 03:43  PM, aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:

> I am not sure what Michael K. means by:
>> For example, in AVE this period is not exactly where it should be
>> at the bottom of the curve, it's slightly to the right.
>   A period can't be slightly to the right; the primary minimum
> can be different than phase 0.000 if that is what you mean, for example
> if the epoch is slightly in error (or the star's O-C is changing).
> You appear to have a mix of observations since the quality definitely
> varies; if you are mixing filtered and unfiltered observations, for
> example, the ToM can be quite different between passbands depending
> on the physical models of the stars and how well second-order extinction
> has been handled.