Comments on: first quarter numbers http://oklo.org/2008/04/02/first-quarter-numbers/ characterizing planetary systems Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:27:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Centauri Dreams » Blog Archive » Ten New Planets from SuperWASP http://oklo.org/2008/04/02/first-quarter-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-4770 Centauri Dreams » Blog Archive » Ten New Planets from SuperWASP Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:28:23 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=274#comment-4770 [...] Addendum: Greg Laughlin (UC-SC) notes his annoyance with the SuperWASP announcement, particularly the lack of coordinates for the new planets and the inconsistency of some of the data on the relevant Web site. WASP-6b is reported, for example, to have a radius fifty percent that of Jupiter, and a mass of 1.3 Jovian masses. Says Laughlin on his systemic site: That’s nuts! If the planet is so small, why is the transit so deep? And a 2200 K surface temperature for a 3.36d planet orbiting a G8 dwarf? Strange. Perhaps the radius and mass have been reversed? In addition, there are weird inconsistencies between the numbers quoted in the media diagram and in the tables. For example, the diagram pegs WASP-7 at 0.67 Jovian masses, whereas the table lists it at 0.86 Jovian masses. WASP-10 has a period of 5.44 days in the table and 3.093 days in the summary diagram. Putting out a press release without the support a refereed paper is never a very good idea, even when there’s a danger that another team will steal your thunder with an even larger batch of planets. [...] [...] Addendum: Greg Laughlin (UC-SC) notes his annoyance with the SuperWASP announcement, particularly the lack of coordinates for the new planets and the inconsistency of some of the data on the relevant Web site. WASP-6b is reported, for example, to have a radius fifty percent that of Jupiter, and a mass of 1.3 Jovian masses. Says Laughlin on his systemic site: That’s nuts! If the planet is so small, why is the transit so deep? And a 2200 K surface temperature for a 3.36d planet orbiting a G8 dwarf? Strange. Perhaps the radius and mass have been reversed? In addition, there are weird inconsistencies between the numbers quoted in the media diagram and in the tables. For example, the diagram pegs WASP-7 at 0.67 Jovian masses, whereas the table lists it at 0.86 Jovian masses. WASP-10 has a period of 5.44 days in the table and 3.093 days in the summary diagram. Putting out a press release without the support a refereed paper is never a very good idea, even when there’s a danger that another team will steal your thunder with an even larger batch of planets. [...]

]]> By: andy http://oklo.org/2008/04/02/first-quarter-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-4765 andy Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:12:50 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=274#comment-4765 As for the SuperWASP press-release strategy, the last time they announced a bunch of planets (there was a press release announcing WASP-3b,4b,5b in one go), the paper about the first one appeared on arXiv within a few days, but there was a delay of about two months for the papers on WASP-4b and WASP-5b. In fact, the figures in the paper about WASP-5b are not the same as the ones displayed on the SuperWASP website (and the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia appears to be using the website figures rather than the paper ones)... what a mess. As for the SuperWASP press-release strategy, the last time they announced a bunch of planets (there was a press release announcing WASP-3b,4b,5b in one go), the paper about the first one appeared on arXiv within a few days, but there was a delay of about two months for the papers on WASP-4b and WASP-5b.

In fact, the figures in the paper about WASP-5b are not the same as the ones displayed on the SuperWASP website (and the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia appears to be using the website figures rather than the paper ones)… what a mess.

]]> By: andy http://oklo.org/2008/04/02/first-quarter-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-4764 andy Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:59:36 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=274#comment-4764 Further point to add is that WASP-6b was initially reported as a low-mass planet with a large radius (can't remember what they were exactly but the implied density was down at about 0.16 g/cc). The figures on the <a href="http://www.superwasp.org/press_release3/unusualsuspects.png" rel="nofollow">illustration</a> are different again, but may be more plausible. Shame, a 1.3 Jupiter-mass terrestrial/super-Neptune would have been quite interesting. Further point to add is that WASP-6b was initially reported as a low-mass planet with a large radius (can’t remember what they were exactly but the implied density was down at about 0.16 g/cc). The figures on the illustration are different again, but may be more plausible.

Shame, a 1.3 Jupiter-mass terrestrial/super-Neptune would have been quite interesting.

]]>