8414216 Question
-
by HatterJack
kepid 8414216 is archived as having a single orbital body, but there seems to be more in this data than has been confirmed. Particularly interesting to me is the data for Quarter 14-3, which appears to have transits on both day 9 and day 21. The confirmed body has a listed period of 142.831 days, which seems to line up pretty well with the majority, but the 14-3 D9 transit does not. Was this particular instance a simple anomaly, or was this missed somehow?
Posted
-
by ajamyajax
Well, the good news is you do see what looks like transits. But KIC 8414216 is listed as a false positive in the KOI list. At a glance it appears to have a period and epoch (starting time) that are very similar to a neighboring eclipsing binary. So this probably indicates 'contamination' in this light curve, which means visible transits are from another light source. Hope this helps.
(Kepler data for RA/Dec 284.158,44.4591)
Kepler KIC# [Angular Separation] Kep Mag/ Teff /Stellar Radius / MAST link*
KIC 8414216 [0'] 14.003/3868/0.771* http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/data_search/search.php?action=Search&ktc_kepler_id=8414216
| KIC 8414216 flagged as False_Positive; TCE list P/E=11.9313/142.831;
False Positive Reason(s):Ephemeris Match Indicates Contamination;KIC 8414194 [0.52'] 13.438/5751/1.072* http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/data_search/search.php?action=Search&ktc_kepler_id=8414194
KIC 8414283 [1.52'] 12.426/5682/1.041* http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/data_search/search.php?action=Search&ktc_kepler_id=8414283KIC 8414159 [1.85'] 14.378/5802/1.026* http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/data_search/search.php?action=Search&ktc_kepler_id=8414159
| KIC 8414159 flagged as Eclipsing_binary; False_Positive; P/E=11.931133/142.853246; TCE list P/E=11.9311/136.886; TCE list P/E=23.8617/153.718;
False Positive Reason(s):Significant Secondary;Data Credit: NASA Exoplanet Archive which is operated by the California Institute of Technology
Posted
-
by HatterJack
Appreciate the info! Apparently I was looking at an outdated data source, and the failure to double check the false positive stasis was entirely an oversight on my part. Regardless, it was an exciting data set, and I'm happy that I was reading it correctly (even if it was contaminated data).
Posted