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

The differences between the oscillation frequencies and uncertainty estimatesof a star derived by different fitters can be large, sufficiently large sothat, were one to find a stellar model that fitted one frequency set($\chi^2\sim 1$), it does not fit an alternative set. I give 21 examples,comparing frequency sets in common between the Kepler Legacy project andfrequency sets from Appourchaux et al (2014) and Davies et al (2015). For16CygA&B the differences are large; the $\chi^2$ of the fit of Legacy toDavies's values ranging from 1.64 to 11.47 for 16CygA and 1.62 to 1.79 for16CygB, depending on which error estimates are used. I analyse both stars insome detail applying my own mode fitting code to both the Legacy and Davies'spower spectra and find reasonable agreement with Davies's full frequency setsand very good agreement between values for modes with signal/noise > 1 ($\chi^2= 0.06, \chi^2_B=0.03$). But the difference with the Legacy values remainslarge even for modes with S/N>1. I also examine the effects of different powerspectra (weighted and unweighted) using the kasoc light curves for Q6-17.2 andQ7-Q16, the effect of different mode height ratios and different rotationalsplitting and inclination.

16CygA&B and Kepler Legacy values : Differences between the values of frequencies by different fitters