On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:34:29 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:59:41 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:

The frequency variation correspondes to a magnitude change of about 0.2.
(CMIIW)

I think you used Hz instead of mHz, it is a brightness
ratio of 1.00018 which corresponds to a magnitude change
of about 0.0001955. Your approach is right though.

Yes i did use hz onstead of mhz. Sory about that.

No problem, easily done.

and: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744b.jpg
mag change ~0.2
Period = 0.0042 years
max velocity=0.0000933c.

To obtain curve b, I have to plug in a distance of less than 1
LY....more
like
0.7 LYs.
This order of 'extinction length' is quite consistent with those I have
derived
from short period contact binaries.

In curve b, the magnitude change is smaller and a sine-like red velocity
curve
corresponds with an e ~ 0.06, yaw -90.
A circular orbit results in a clearly skewed red curve.
So my theory says the orbit is NOT circular at all.

OK, that's exactly the sort of difference in prediction I have
been interested in. Pop in the right brightness and let's see
what you get now. My guess is your 'extinction length' will
need to go down by a factor of 1000 to 0.0007 light years or
about 6 light hours !!!!

I cannot give you an exact figure because of way magnitude is
calculated...but
it is less than 1 lightday.

....Not imposible since it is a neutron star.

There you are Henry, we have derived an upper limit
on the extinction distance from the published data.
Now you understand what I was driving at, and
hopefully you also realise I really did understand
your model all along :-)

While some stars may have more or less dense plasma
around them, in general the distance should be around
that sort of level for all and shorter for stars with
a dense plasma. Note that it is much less than the
distance to the heliopause for the Sun.

George, I don't have a firm view as to why my distances are always shorter than
the actual ones....but there must obviously be a simple explanation.
The fact that so many brightness curves are reproducable using BaTh is enough
to keep me convinced I'm right.

I think other factors are operating here.

There are no "other factors" in Ritzian theory to
operate aside from those already in your program.
You still need to fix that bug in the velocity
curve though.

There is no bug. Circular orbits can appear slightly elliptical and vice versa.

George


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.