On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:30:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:36:58 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:37:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
om...
...
I have another curve for EF Dra that shows a small rise in the middle
of
the dip. No eclipse can account for that.

What is the URL?

don't know ...but here is the curve with mine superimposed:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EFdra.jpg

Just a minute Henry, isn't your curve one dip per orbit but
you have superimposed it on a different x scale so that it
appears to have two dips per orbit? I smell a fake!

No fake George.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AcA....41..291P

I was going to include that URL but didn't bother
as it is in some other posts yesterday. Note there
is a dip at 0.5 phase as well as at 0.0/1.0. Your
overlaid magenta curve is identical at the 0.0 and
0.5 dips. Isn't there just a single dip per orbit
in your simulation?

The orbital period for EF Dra is 0.424026 days. I
suspect your curve was produced using a period of
0.212013 days. How about showing a screenshot of
your program output as you have for others.

OK I didn't see that. My error.

If very second dip is consistently lower than the first then EF Dra is probably
an eclipsing binary with stars of roughly equal size, as they say.

Otherwise it could easily be one star orbitted by a small cool object with a
period of 0.21 days.

This highlights what I have been saying. ADoppler curves are virtually
identical to genuine eclipsing curves. Only accurate spectral data can separate
the two. I suspect that many presumed eclipsing binaries are not that at all.





George


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.