English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We argue that the non-detection of oscillations in Procyon by the MOSTsatellite reported by Matthews et al. (2004) is fully consistent with publishedground-based velocity observations of this star. We also examine the claimsthat the MOST observations represent the best photometric precision so farreported in the literature by about an order of magnitude and are the mostsensitive data set for asteroseismology available for any star other than theSun. These statements are not correct, with the most notable exceptions beingobservations of oscillations in alpha Cen A that are far superior. We furtherdisagree that the hump of excess power seen repeatedly from velocityobservations of Procyon can be explained as an artefact caused by gaps in thedata. The MOST observations failed to reveal oscillations clearly because theirnoise level is too high, possibly from scattered Earthlight in the instrument.We did find an excess of strong peaks in the MOST amplitude spectrum that isinconsistent with a simple noise source such as granulation, and may perhapsindicate oscillations at roughly the expected level.Comment: 6 pages, accepted for publication in A&A Letter

The non-detection of oscillations in Procyon byMOST: Is it really a surprise?