as scientists and as educators we ask ourselves , `` how do we know what we know ? ''
if we had to derive everything we used from scratch , we would not have the time to make much progress .
but it is worthwhile to derive _ some _ fundamental parameters that we use in our area of expertise . in 1987
mit physicist philip morrison hosted a television series called `` ring of truth : an inquiry into how we know what we know . ''
one purpose of the show was to demonstrate simple measurements . in the episode called `` mapping ''
he measured the circumference of the earth with the `` van of eratosthenes '' .
he and his crew went to the north edge of kansas and measured the elevation angle of the bright southern star antares as it transited the meridian .
then they drove 370 miles down highway 183 to the south edge of kansas and measured antares again .
they found that it was 5 degrees higher at the second location .
the distance corresponded to 1/72 of a circle , so the implied circumference of the earth was 26,600 miles , which is a bit more than 6 percent greater than the correct value ( 24,901 miles ) .    the cosmological distance ladder is a sequence of steps used by astronomers to derive distances within the solar system , throughout the galaxy , and beyond to the farthest galaxies detectable @xcite .
it hinges on simple geometry and the principles of surveying .
for example , using the positions of two observers separated by some baseline on the earth , we can determine the distance to the moon , a nearby planet or an asteroid .    in this paper
we determine the sizes of the first three rungs of the cosmological distance ladder .
these are : 1 ) the radius of the earth ; 2 ) the distance to the moon ; and 3 ) the distance to the sun ( i.e. the size of the astronomical unit , or au ) .
the first two can be accomplished without a telescope .
the third was attempted by various pre - telescopic astronomers such as tycho brahe in 1582 @xcite , but was not accomplished until 1672 by gian domenico cassini and john flamsteed @xcite , who made observations of mars when it was prominently visible in the middle of the night and therefore about as close to the earth as it gets .
( mars is roughly 0.6 au distant at such a time .
when it is on the other side of the sun it is 2.6 au distant . )
measuring the size of the au requires telescopic measurements or distances to nearby planets or asteroids determined with radar .
once the scale of the solar system is known , we can determine the distances to nearby stars via trigonometric stellar parallaxes if our positional measurements are good to better than 0.1 arc second .
then , classically , we determine the distance to the hyades star cluster @xcite and tie other star clusters to the hyades distance . with the discovery of certain standard candles and standardizable candles in star clusters ( e.g. rr lyrae stars and cepheids ) , we can calibrate the mean intrinsic brightness of these pulsating stars .
they are useful for distance determinations throughout our galaxy . with the hubble space telescope we can determine distances to other galaxies using the cepheid period - luminosity relation as far as 25 million parsecs @xcite .
( 1 parsec equals 3.086 @xmath2 10@xmath4 km , or 206265 au . )
if we observe type ia supernovae in some galaxies whose distances are known via cepheids , we can calibrate the intrinsic brightness of these supernovae .
since type ia supernovae are typically 4 billion times brighter than the sun at maximum brightness , they can be used to determine distances halfway across the observable universe with a 4-m class telescope .
the methodology of this paper is to use only our own data , if possible .
we make minimal use of the _ astronomical almanac _ and minimal use of telescopes .
many of the results here can be obtained independently by students using very unsophisticated and inexpensive equipment .
in fig . [ triangle ] we show the astronomical triangle .
the northern sky turns around the north celestial pole ( ncp ) , near the direction of the star polaris .
the ncp is @xmath5 degrees above the horizon .
@xmath5 is the latitude .
the azimuth ( @xmath6 ) is measured clockwise around the horizon and is equal to 0@xmath7 deg at the north point on the horizon , 90@xmath7 deg at the east point on the horizon , etc .
the hour angle @xmath8 divided by 15 deg / hr is the number of hours that an object is west of the celestial merdian .
@xmath8 is negative for objects in the eastern sky .
the declination ( @xmath9 ) of a celestial object is the number of degrees the object is north or south of the celestial equator . if we happen to know the declination of the sun and we determine how high it is above the horizon when it transits the _ celestial meridian _
, we can determine our latitude . at local apparent
noontime the elevation angle of the sun will be :    @xmath10    = 0 mm    we are concerned here with the sun and moon as observed at mid - northern latitudes .
these objects transit the celestial meridian between the zenith and the south point on the horizon .
= 9 mm    to determine the elevation angle of the sun we can set up a vertical pointed stick or _
gnomon_. even better is a vertical stick with a small sphere at the top , like that shown in fig .
[ gnomon ] .
it is easier to measure the center of the elliptical shadow of the sphere on the ground than it is to measure the end of the darker part of the shadow of a vertical pointed stick .
the sun s declination ranges from @xmath11 to @xmath12 over the course of the year .
@xmath13 is the _ obliquity of the ecliptic _ , the tilt of the earth s axis of rotation to the plane of its orbit .
( the ecliptic is the apparent path of the sun through the constellations of the zodiac owing to the earth s orbit around the sun . ) on the first day of summer we have :    @xmath14    = 0 mm    and on december 21st we have :    @xmath15    eq .
2 plus eq .
3 gives :    @xmath16 / 2   \ ; \ ; .\ ] ]    and eq .
2 minus eq .
3 gives us :    @xmath17 / 2   \ ; \ ;   .\ ] ]    in other words , if we determine the maximum elevation angle of the sun on june 21st and december 21st , the average gives us 90@xmath18 , and half the difference gives us @xmath13 .
= 9 mm    in table [ gnomon_data ] we give the raw data from two solstice experiments carried out in college station , texas .    in fig .
[ gnomon_xy ] we show the x - y positions of the end of the gnomon s shadow for three key times of the year . note that when the declination of the sun is negative the positions of the end of the shadow on the ground trace out an upward pointing curve . on the first day of spring ( march 20 or 21 ) or the first day of autumn ( about september 23 ) the points delineate a straight line .
when the declination of the sun is positive the points trace out a downward curving locus .
a graph of this type allows one to determine which points , if any , have been mismeasured .
if a student invents data for such an experiment , such a graph allows one to detect such fraud easily .
plots of the data from table [ gnomon_data ] are shown in fig .
[ shadow ] . we have converted the time values to the number of minutes since local apparent noontime ( when @xmath19 ) . in the top graph
we have added , for graphical purposes only , a hyperbolic fit to the data .
in fact , there is no simple function that fits such a data set .
the best estimate of the minimum value in the summer solstice plot is obtained from a fourth order polynomial fit to the data within 41 minutes of the meridian transit of the sun . for the 2010 june 21 observations we used a gnomon of height @xmath20 mm .
the minimum shadow length was l@xmath21 = 85.84 mm with an average scatter of @xmath1 0.64 mm .
this average scatter is what is known as a _
random error _
, as the points scatter randomly above and below an appropriate function fit to the data .
@xmath22 is equal to the arctangent of @xmath23 , or 82@xmath7 15  9 @xmath1 3  5 .
for 2010 december 21 we used a gnomon of height @xmath24 mm . from a fourth order polynomial fit to all 26 points we find l@xmath21 = 753.98 @xmath1 0.74 mm .
@xmath22 is found to be 36@xmath7 06  6 @xmath1 3  4 .
4 gives @xmath5 = 30@xmath7 48  7 @xmath1 3  5 , which is 11  5 north of the true value of 30@xmath7 37  2 from google earth .
( one arc minute of latitude equals one nautical mile , or 1852 m. ) eq .
5 gives @xmath13 = 23@xmath7 04  7 @xmath1 3  5 , which is several standard deviations smaller than the true value of 23@xmath7 26  2 .
these values show what kind of uncertainty can be obtained with careful observations .
so far we have used no information from the _
astronomical almanac_. however , to determine our _ longitude _ requires that we know the amount of time that the apparent sun is ahead or behind the mean sun .
this difference is known as the _ equation of time_. it ranges from @xmath2514.2 minutes to + 16.4 minutes over the course of the year .    from four gnomon experiments carried out in college station , texas , on 2006
november 12 , 2007 september 24 , and the two solstices mentioned above we found that the mean sun transits the meridian at 12:24:26 pm standard time , with an uncertainty of @xmath172 sec . since each degree of longitude corresponds to 4 minutes of time , our longitude is 96@xmath7 06  5 @xmath1 18  1 .
we are within one standard deviation of the true value of 96@xmath7 20  4 .
on 2006 september 3 we carried out a gnomon experiment in south bend , indiana , on the campus of the university of notre dame . for this
we needed a value of the declination of the sun from the _
astronomical almanac_. our location was found to be latitude 41@xmath7 51  5 , longitude 85@xmath7 50  5 .    in late october of 2007
we drove from south bend through bella vista , arkansas , and on to college station , texas , keeping track of our route , mileage , and the length of any side trips . after subtracting the side trips ,
the elapsed distance on the odometer was 1248 statute miles . for a section of highway through central illinois
we noted that 96.8 miles on the odometer corresponded to 98.0 miles according to the highway markers .
the implication is that our odometer exhibited a systematic error . on a subsequent occasion we drove the final 92 percent of the exact same route , but with a different car , and the odometer mileage was 40 miles less ( about 4 percent ) .
we conclude that an odometer can not be explicitly trusted .
we adjust the original mileage to 1248 @xmath26 = 1263 miles .
next , we used a `` map tool '' ( also known as an _ opisometer _ ) and traced our route on a map from the 1980 edition of _ the new international atlas _ by rand mcnally , and determined that if we could have traveled along a great circle route from south bend to college station , the direct route had a length that was 0.744 of the length of the route we actually drove .
( this means that we did not rely on the stated scale of the map . )
thus , the great circle distance from one place to the other was 940 statute miles .
consider two locations on the earth with ( latitude , longitude ) = ( @xmath27 , @xmath28 ) and ( @xmath29 , @xmath30 ) , respectively .
the length of the great circle arc between them ( @xmath31 ) can easily be obtained from the law of cosines of spherical trigonometry :    @xmath32    given the latitudes and longitudes determined by gnomon and clock at both locations , the great circle arc was 13.78 deg .
thus , our estimate of the circumference of the earth is 940 @xmath33 = 24557 miles , which is 1.4 percent smaller than the true value .
our value for the radius of the earth is 6290 km .
the true value is 6378 km .
given the simplicity of the tools involved , we feel that we have achieved an accuracy far better than our expectations .
for comparison we refer the reader to @xcite , which describes projects `` eratosthenes 2009 '' and `` eratosthenes 2010 america '' .
more than 15,000 students at more than 200 schools determined the radius of the earth using this method .
they obtained 6290 km in 2009 and 6375 km in 2010 .
the method used above to determine the circumference of the earth is in principle the same as that used by eratosthenes .
it turns out that it was a generation _ before _ eratosthenes that aristarchus of samos ( ca .
310 - 230 bc ) determined the distance to the moon in terms of the radius of the earth .
inherent in both methods is the acceptance of the idea that the earth is , for all intents and purposes , spherical .
aristarchus cleverly deduced that we can determine the distance to the moon from the geometry of a lunar eclipse .
see @xcite and fig .
[ lunar_ecl ] .
a lunar eclipse can only take place when the moon is opposite the sun .
the shadow of the ( spherical ) earth is circular in any plane perpendicular to the earth - sun line . consider the triangle delineated by points a , c , and h. ac is the radius of the earth , r@xmath0 .
ch is the distance from the center of the earth to the moon , d@xmath34 .
the _ horizontal parallax _ of the moon , p@xmath35 , is given by :    @xmath36    = 0 mm    thus , the distance to the moon in earth radii is 1/sin(p@xmath35 ) . in fig .
[ lunar_ecl ] p@xmath37 is the horizontal parallax of the sun .
@xmath38 is the angular radius of the sun .
@xmath39 is the angular radius of the earth s shadow at the distance of the moon .
for @xmath40xch it is obvious that @xmath41xch + p@xmath37 + p@xmath35 = 180@xmath7 . in other words ,
180@xmath42xch = p@xmath37 + p@xmath35 .
also , @xmath38 + @xmath41xch + @xmath39 = 180@xmath7 , which means that 180@xmath42xch = @xmath38 + @xmath39 .
it follows that :    @xmath43    = 9 mm    aristarchus believed that the sun was 19 times more distant than the moon .
the true ratio is closer to 400 . our value for the radius of the earth and our value of the distance to the sun given in  5 below means that the solar parallax p@xmath44 014 .
aristarchus knew that the moon and sun approximately had the same angular diameter because the duration of a total solar eclipse is never more than a few minutes .
he took the angular diameter of the moon to be 0.5 deg . in the _ almagest _ ,
section v 14 , ptolemy states that the earth s shadow at the distance of the moon is 2.6 times the angular diameter of the moon @xcite .
we can use two actual measurements of the sun made on 2010 may 1 and 2011 june 6 to provide an angular diameter of 308 @xmath1 0.9 , so @xmath45 154 .    in a previous paper
@xcite we presented measures of the moon s angular diameter from sightings of the moon through a 6.2 mm hole in a piece of cardboard that slides up and down a yardstick .
our mean value for the angular diameter of the moon was 3118 .
data in that paper and subsequent data yield a time of lunar perigee of 2011 may 14.70 ut , with a perigee - to - perigee period ( i.e. the _ anomalistic month _ ) of 27.4992 @xmath1 0.0518 d , which is within 1-@xmath38 of the correct value of 27.55455 d. based on our non - telescopic data , the lunar eclipse of 2011 june 15 occurred about 4.6 days after perigee , so the moon s angular size would have been a bit larger than the mean value .    using six images obtained from www.slooh.com
, we determined that the earth s shadow was 2.56 @xmath1 0.03 times the angular diameter of the full moon during the lunar eclipse of 2011 june 15 .
thus , @xmath39 = 0.5 @xmath2 31.18 @xmath2 2.56 @xmath46 3919 .
it follows that p@xmath35 = 154 + 3919 @xmath25 014 @xmath46 5517 .
7 gives a lunar distance of 62.3 r@xmath0 with a random error of at least @xmath1 0.7 r@xmath0 .
the true mean distance is 60.27 r@xmath0 .
we have seen that the geometry of a lunar eclipse allows a determination of the distance to the moon .
hipparchus ( ca .
140 bc ) used observations of the _ solar _ eclipse of 14 march 190 bc to derive a distance to the moon between 71 and 83 r@xmath47 @xcite . but can one determine the moon s distance without the use of an eclipse ?
simultaneous observations of the moon s position from two widely separated places on the earth would suffice .
@xcite shows how this can be done from two observatories widely separated in latitude but on the same meridian of longitude .
observations of the moon from the _ same _ location over the course of a night can also be used to determine the distance to the moon . in this case one
also uses a large fraction of the earth s diameter as a baseline .
the complication is that while we wait for the earth to rotate , the moon is also orbiting the earth .
the moon s orbital period with respect to the background stars is 27.32 d. thus , _ on average _ , the moon moves 0.55 deg east per hour against the background of stars as viewed by a hypothetical observer at the earth s center .
however , because of the parallax of the moon , the observed motion for someone situated on the surface of the earth is roughly 1/6 deg per hour less @xcite .
we need the geocentric vs. topocentric shifts in right ascension and declination , respectively , of the moon owing to our location on the surface of the earth .
the _ topocentric _
coordinate system has the observer , standing on the earth s surface , at the origin .
let @xmath48 = @xmath49 = @xmath50 .
( right ascension increases to the east , while hour angle increases to the west . ) then eq .
35 of @xcite gives    @xmath51    = 0 mm    letting @xmath52 and t = tan@xmath53 , eq .
38 of @xcite is    @xmath54 } { \rm{cos } \ ; \delta \ ; \rm{cos } \ ; t \ ; - \ ; \left ( \frac{r _ { \earth}}{d _ { moon}}\right ) \ ; \rm{cos } \ ; \phi^{\prime } } \ ; \ ; .\ ] ]    here the primed parameters are the topocentric values of declination , hour angle , and latitude , while unprimed values are for a hypothetical observer at the earth s center . eqs . 9 and 10 can not be easily inverted to give d@xmath34/r@xmath0 .
but since these equations contain this ratio , we now show how single - site observations can be used to obtain the distance to the moon .
what follows is primarily a demonstration of method .
= 9 mm    in fig .
[ moon_rate ] we show the rate at which the moon s apparent position ( for an observer situated in college station , texas ) varies as a function of hour angle for a number of occasions over nearly the full range of distance of the moon from the earth .
not surprisingly , the moon moves against the background of stars more slowly on a night when it is near apogee than when it is near perigee .    in fig .
[ cross_staff ] we show a simple cross staff .
the pattern for the device that slides up and down the yardstick was obtained from the university of washington .
with such a device we can derive the angular separation of two objects in the sky . for two objects with known right ascensions and declinations @xmath31 is given by an expression similar to eq .
6 :    @xmath55    if the moon s angular separation from two stars of known ra and dec is determined , then it is possible to determine the ra and dec of the moon . the easiest way to envision
this is to take a star chart and a compass and draw portions of two circles of different radius centered at the locations of the two particular stars .
one obtains two numerical solutions of the moon s position , one on each side of the great circle arc joining the two stars .
one of those possibilities can easily be eliminated .
once an approximate location of the moon s position is found , one can use a computer program to search a box that covers a range of ra and dec to find the celestial location that is the specified number of degrees from each of the two stars of known position .    in table [
separations ] we give five sets of observations made on the night of 2011 may 15 ( ut ) , an occasion when the moon was close to the bright star @xmath56 vir and within a day of perigee . on this night
the moon was waxing and 93 percent illuminated .
thus , it was visible almost the entire night .
one of our reference `` stars '' was saturn .
given the accuracy of our observations we can assume that the position of saturn was constant on this night .
as one can see , the angular separation of saturn and @xmath56 vir was measured to better than 0.2 deg on five occasions . because the moon is not a point source , measuring the angular separation of the moon and saturn or the moon and a star is more difficult than measuring the angular separation of two bright stars or one bright star and a planet .    in table
[ posns ] we give the derived right ascensions and declinations of the moon from our observations of 2011 may 15 . at the end of the night
the reference stars @xmath9 crv and @xmath57 hya were too low in the sky to be seen .
the uncertainties of the right ascension and declination of the moon at 08:03 and 08:41 ut were derived with the assumption of an uncertainty of @xmath1  0.3 deg for the angular separation of saturn vs. the moon and @xmath56 vir vs. the moon .
because of the large uncertainty in the ra and dec of these final two observations , we exclude data sets four and five from further analysis .
the first , second , and third determinations of the position of the moon yield an apparent angular rate of 0.508 @xmath1 0.094
the corresponding range of the moon s distance is 47.3 to 58.5 r@xmath0 with a most likely value of 52.1 r@xmath0 .
2010 october 21 ut was the day after lunar apogee . on this date we made a series of six measurements of the angular separation of the moon vs. jupiter over a 9.1 hour period .
( no stars near the moon were bright enough to be seen with the unaided eye given the quality of the sky . )
thus , we could not use the same method to obtain multiple estimates of the ra and dec of the moon at a given time .
the separation of the moon and jupiter increased from 11.31 to 14.77 deg , with a mean rate of increase of 0.403 @xmath1 0.028 deg / hr . under the assumption that the moon was moving directly away from the position of jupiter ( which was only approximately true ) ,
this angular rate is a lower limit to the rate of change of position of the moon against the background of stars .
the implied range of lunar distance was 57.2 to 62.1 r@xmath0 , with a most likely value of 59.5 r@xmath0 .
if we take the 1-@xmath38 upper limit of the rate of change of position of the moon on 2011 may 15 and the 1-@xmath38 lower limit of the rate of change of the lunar position on 2010 october 21 , we get a conservative estimate of the range of the moon s distance , namely 47 to 62 r@xmath0 .
obviously , the observations and analysis required for this method of determining an estimate of the moon s distance are much more complicated than aristarchus s method using the geometry of a lunar eclipse .
in 2008 the authors of this paper were participants in the summer science program ( ssp ) , a residential non - credit enrichment program for incoming high school juniors and seniors .
coauthors krisciunas and kim were faculty , while the other coauthors were students .
it has been the tradition at ssp to divide the students into teams of three for the observing , but each student then writes computer code to produce a determination of the orbital parameters of a particular asteroid . in table
[ orbit_det ] we give the orbital solution of asteroid 8567 (= 1996 hw1 ) by one of us ( j. s. ) along with the parameters obtainable from the horizons website of the jet propulsion laboratory .
the code to determine the orbital parameters was debugged using observations of ceres and the orbital parameters of ceres given by jpl horizons .
we note that our orbit solution is based on observations extending over a very small arc of the full orbit .
( the orbital period of asteroid 1996 hw1 is 2.93 years . )
it had been an ambition at ssp for some time to observe a near earth object simultaneously from two sites so that its distance could be derived , the length of the astronomical unit could be measured , and the scale of the solar system be determined .
we report one such experiment here .    on 2008
july 24 ut we took images of asteroid 1996 hw1 at etscorn observatory of the new mexico institute of mining and technology in socorro , new mexico , using a 15 cm takahashi refractor and ccd camera .
the geographic position was latitude + 34@xmath7 04@xmath58 217 , longitude w 106@xmath7 54@xmath58 501 .
a simultaneous image was obtained in ojai , california , at latitude + 34@xmath7 26@xmath58 040 , longitude w 119@xmath7 11@xmath58 226 using a 25 cm meade reflector and ccd camera . figs .
[ pos3 ] and [ pos4 ] show the asteroid at 08:17:28 ut on 2008 july 24 , as viewed from the two sites .    the right ascensions and declinations of a number of field stars
were determined using * ds9 * and an image of the field obtained from the space telescope science institute digital sky survey .
we then determined a transformation from pixel coordinates to right ascension and declination using the iraf programs * ccmap * and * cctrans*. this allowed us to determine the right ascension and declination of the asteroid for each of our images . from the new mexico site we determined the asteroid s topocentric position to be @xmath56 = 21:27:07.42 , @xmath9 = + 15@xmath7 53@xmath58 0277
from the etscorn image and the positions of the field stars , the root - mean - square errors in right ascension and declination were @xmath1 0.31 and @xmath1 0.36 arcsec , respectively .
our image obtained in california just barely has the asteroid in the frame , and the guiding was not as good .
still , we find a topocentric position of @xmath56 = 21:27:07.77 , @xmath9 = + 15@xmath7 53@xmath58 0225 .
the rms errors of the field star positions were @xmath1 0.52 and @xmath1 0.44 arcsec , respectively , for right ascension and declination .
the effect on right ascension and declination due to parallax and the finite size of the earth can be calculated much more easily than using eqs .
9 and 10 ( above ) if the planet or asteroid under consideration has a distance @xmath59 considerably greater than the distance to the moon .
@xcite gives these relevant equations :    @xmath60    @xmath61    = 0 mm    the values on the left hand sides of these equations are measured in radians .
= 9 mm    given that the latitudes of the new mexico and california sites were almost the same , we have almost no leverage to use eq .
13 to determine the distance to the asteroid .
we limit ourselves to a consideration of the effect of parallax on the right ascensions .
let the new mexico site be `` position 1 '' and the california site be `` position 2 '' .
consider the seconds part of the observed right ascension of the asteroid .
there exist corrections to the right ascension such that 7.77 @xmath62 = 7.42 @xmath63 .
the corrections @xmath64 adjust the observed right ascensions to what would be observed by a hypothetical observer at the center of the earth .
so , 0.35 seconds of time equals the difference of the parallactic corrections .
since one second of time in right ascension equals 15 cos @xmath9 arc seconds , we have 505 @xmath1 0.61 = @xmath65 .
the uncertainty comes from the square root of the sum of squares of the uncertainties of the pixel to ra / dec transformations from * ccmap * in iraf .    at the new mexico site at the time fig .
[ pos3 ] was taken the hour angle of the asteroid was @xmath251.899 deg , while at the california site the hour angle of the asteroid was @xmath2514.176 deg when fig .
[ pos4 ] was taken .
12 we obtain a distance to the asteroid of :    @xmath66    = 0 mm    the reader will know that the number of arc seconds in a radian is 206265 .
if we adopt _ our _ value of the radius of the earth from  3 ( namely , 6290 km ) , we obtain a distance to the asteroid of ( 4.66 @xmath1 0.56 ) @xmath2 10@xmath67 km .
= 9 mm    using the steeger orbit solution in table [ orbit_det ] , the method of ( * ? ? ?
* ff . ) , and the rectangular coordinates of the sun on 2008 july 24 from the _ astronomical ephemeris _
, we determined that asteroid 1996 hw1 was 0.294 au distant when figs .
[ pos3 ] and [ pos4 ] were taken .
our resulting value for the astronomical unit is ( 1.59 @xmath1 0.19 ) @xmath2 10@xmath3 km , which is roughly 6 percent larger than the true value of 1.496 @xmath2 10@xmath3 km .    our value of the solar parallax , p@xmath37 in fig .
[ lunar_ecl ] , equals ( 6290/1.59 @xmath2 10@xmath3 ) @xmath2 206265 = 82 , or about 014 , which we used in  4.1 .
our distance to the sun in earth radii divided by our distance to the moon in earth radii gives a sun distance that is roughly 406 times the distance to the moon , which is close to the true mean value of 389 .
in the interests of readability we have not included all statistical details above
. however , given the readership of the _ american journal of physics _ , we thought it prudent to have a discussion of various kinds of errors here .
say you want to answer a simple question such as `` how tall am i ? '' by standing up against the wall , placing a ruler level on the top of your head and making a mark on the wall you can find out the answer .
but what if you forgot to take your shoes off
? you would have a _ systematic error _ equal to the height of the heels of your shoes .
what if you measured your height immediately after getting out of bed after a full night s sleep ?
you would find that first thing in the morning you are about 2 cm taller than you will be later that same day .
why is this so ? the disks between the vertebrae in your back expand when you are lying down sleeping .
thus , if you measured your height first thing in the morning , right after lunch , then after a 6 mile run in the afternoon , you could get three different answers .
the `` mean value of your height during the day '' might be 178 @xmath1 1 cm .
this standard deviation of @xmath1 1 cm is the `` mean error of the mean '' of the set of measurements .
this is referred to as a _ random error _ because values that you measure would scatter about some average value .
very often a set of measurements exhibits a gaussian ( i.e. bell - shaped ) distribution .
then 68.3 percent of the measurements are within one standard deviation of the mean value , 95.5 percent are within 2-@xmath38 and 99.7 percent are within 3-@xmath38 .
this allows us to identify _ outliers _ in the data . if some data value is several ( or many ) standard deviations from the mean ( or expected ) value , we have either underestimated the size of our random errors , or there is some unaccounted source of systematic error .    in  2 above we derived a value of the latitude for a particular location in college station , texas , which was 11  5 north of the true value
this is the systematic error .
usually in science we do not know the `` true '' value , but in this case we do . from a scatter of the measurements of the shadow length of our gnomon
we could obtain a numerical value of the root - mean - square scatter of the data about some best fit line .
that gives us an estimate of the uncertainty of the minimum shadow length , which translates into a random error for the maximum elevation angle of the sun on some given day , which then leads to a random error for our value of the latitude .
our value of the latitude is within 3 of our standard deviations of the true value .
our value of the tilt of the earth s axis of rotation to the plane of its orbit is 6 standard deviations from the true value .
thus , we have room for improvement in the experiment , should we choose to do it again and again .
some sources of uncertainty have not yet been mentioned . for the location of the june 21st and december 21st gnomon experiments
we have measured the levelness of the spot where the data were taken , finding that a perfectly straight gnomon which was perfectly squarely set in its base would have been tilted 6 @xmath1 1 arc minute north of the zenith .
this would have made the elevation angle too low by that amount at local noontime , but less so at other times . to complicate matters
, our gnomon is just a wooden dowel rod which is _ not _ totally straight , and we do not know just how squarely it sits in the block of wood that is its base .
regarding the use of the `` map tool '' in  3 , we found that the great circle arc from south bend , indiana , to college station , texas , was 0.7437 @xmath1 0.0009 of the route driven . we have rounded this off to 0.744 and have decided to ignore the numerical uncertainty .
in  4.1 we found from six images of the moon in partial lunar eclipse taken from 21:29:55 to 21:52:59 ut that the angular diameter of the earth s shadow was 2.46 , 2.65 , 2.49 , 2.62 , 2.56 , and 2.56 times the angular diameter of the moon .
these were obtained using hard copies of the images , a compass , and a ruler . in all instances
we could see more than a 180 degree arc of the illuminated part of the moon .
the mean ratio was 2.56 @xmath1 0.03 . to find angle @xmath39 ( the angular radius of the earth s shadow )
we used the ( more robust ) mean value of the angular diameter of the moon from krisciunas ( 2010 ) rather than an estimated value of the moon s angular size on 2011 june 15 .    in  4.2 and table [ separations ]
we give results of an experiment that is at or beyond the capabilities of a ruler plus cardboard cross piece .
we found that the systematic error of the angular separation of two bright point sources ( saturn vs. @xmath56 vir ) was + 0.12 deg .
the random error was @xmath10.04 deg .
these are considerably better than the often quoted uncertainty of 0.20 to 0.25 deg for non - telescopic measurements . but
consider our measurements of the angular separation of saturn vs. the moon and @xmath56 vir vs. the moon .
our mean systematic errors are as great as 0.39 deg and our random errors are @xmath1 0.23 to @xmath1 0.29 deg .
table [ posns ] shows that if we have measured the moon s position with respect to three or more point sources , we can locate the moon s location on the sky to within 0.3 deg on average .
but if we have measured the moon s position with respect to only two point sources , the error in position can be too large to be useful for determining the rate of change of the moon s position over the course of a night .
when it comes to certain kinds of analysis , there are other errors that are neither systematic or random . in the top half of fig .
[ shadow ] we have fitted a hyperbola to the full data set . but this is for illustrative purposes only .
careful scrutiny shows that the points do not randomly scatter above and below the curved line .
the actual function we need requires the latitude of the site , which is the thing we are trying to _ derive_. in this case , for practical reasons we have fitted a fourth order polynomial to a subset of the data around the time of the minimum shadow length .
the bottom line is that we fit some data under the _ assumption _ that we have the appropriate function .
what the most appropriate function is also depends on the typical size of the error bars of the data points . if the error bars are large , high order polynomial fits would be unjustified .
using a vertical stick , a car , watch , map , and map tool , we have measured the size of the earth from first principles .
we used observations of the elevation angle of the sun over the course of a few hours overlapping local noontime on the summer solstice and winter solstice of 2010 to determine the latitude and longitude of college station , texas .
we also determined the latitude and longitude of south bend , indiana .
the two sites were 13.78 deg apart along a great circle arc .
we obtained a value of the radius of the earth of 6290 km , about 1.4 percent too small .
aristarchus s method of determining the distance to the moon derives from the geometry of the earth , moon , and sun at the time of a lunar eclipse .
one key observable is the angular size of the earth s shadow at the distance of the moon compared to the angular size of the moon .
using images available on the web of the lunar eclipse of 2011 june 15 we found that the earth s shadow was 2.56 times the angular diameter of the moon .
the corresponding distance of the moon was 62.3 earth radii , about 3.3 percent larger than the true mean value .
it is also possible to determine the distance to the moon from observations of its motion against the background of stars .
these observations are made from a single site over the course of one night .
this method is far more complicated than aristarchus s method , but from such observations we showed that the moon was between 47 and 62 r@xmath0 distant . the true range of the moon s distance is 55.9 to 63.8 r@xmath0 .    simultaneous observations from socorro , new mexico , and ojai , california allowed us to determine the distance to the asteroid 1996 hw1 on 2008 july 24 .
a determination of the orbital elements of this asteroid by one of us allowed us to calculate that the asteroid was 0.294 au distant on that date .
the final result was a calibration of the au equal to ( 1.59 @xmath1 0.19 ) @xmath2 10@xmath3 km , which is 6 percent larger than the true value .
given the seeing and tracking constraints associated with our asteroid observations , our asteroid experiment was at the limits of the technology of our small telescopes . to determine the distance to a _
main belt _
asteroid ( which would have been 10 times more distant ) would have required a baseline 10 times bigger than the 1130 km baseline we used if we wanted the parallax to be several arc seconds .
such an experiment would be nearly impossible on the surface of the earth .
this paper has overflowed with numerical and trigonometrical details . still , the _ qualitative _ results are easy to understand and are worth restating .
using very inexpensive equipment we can determine the size of the earth and the distance to the moon . to determine the length of the au we do _ not _ need to organize an international endeavor like what was done for the venus transits of 1761 , 1769 , 1874 , and 1882 @xcite .
we can measure the length of the au with carefully timed observations of a near earth asteroid using telescopes comparable to those owned by many amateur astronomers .
it is also worth reminding ourselves why astronomers have such an obsession with determining cosmic distances .
thanks to kepler s third law the length of the au gets us the distances to all other objects that orbit the sun .
once we have the distances to stars like the sun ( converting hydrogen to helium in their cores , but with a range of mass ) via trigonometric stellar parallaxes
the next rung of the distance ladder  we can use photometric methods to determine distances to star clusters using the fact that `` main sequence stars '' of the same mass have comparable intrinsic brightness .
a simple equation relates the apparent brightness of a star with its intrinsic brightness and the distance .
we can exploit the cepheid period - luminosity law to calibrate our way across the galaxy and to nearby galaxies . knowing the energy budget of a star helps us determine what it is made of , what is its structure , how it will live , and how it will die .
luminosities of type ia supernovae have allowed us to address some the largest questions we can ask , such as , `` what is the ultimate fate of the universe ? ''
the interconnectedness of astronomical topics means that the big questions are related to the earth size experiment of eratosthenes carried out more than 22 centuries ago . starting with an instrument as simple as a vertical stick we can connect basic and profound aspects of the universe we inhabit .
tom weimar helped with the construction of the gnomon pictured in fig .
[ gnomon ] .
we thank nick suntzeff for useful discussions .
the nmt observations of asteroid 1996 hw1 were obtained with the help of jeff lu , david oh , anna heinz , peter combs , and rebecca mickol . we thank dan klinglesmith and jason speights for observing support at etscorn observatory .
the asteroid observations were made as part of the summer science program , which is funded by private donations and sponsored by new mexico institute of mining and technology .
elisabeth button kindly made fig . 1 .
van helden , a. 1995 , in planetary astronomy from the renaissance to the rise of astrophysics , part b : the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries , r. taton and c. wilson , eds .
( cambridge : cambridge univ . press ) , 153    clcl 11:25:00 & 330 & 11:07:45 & 844 + 11:35:00 & 300.5 & 11:15:00 & 829 + 11:46:30 & 268.5 & 11:25:00 & 807 + 11:55:00 & 245.5 & 11:35:15 & 787 + 12:06:17 & 217 & 11:49:20 & 770 + 12:15:04 & 196 & 11:59:20 & 761.5 + 12:25:02 & 172 & 12:10:00 & 756.5 + 12:35:01 & 151 & 12:15:00 & 754.5 + 12:45:06 & 131 & 12:20:00 & 754 + 12:55:00 & 112.5 & 12:25:15 & 754 + 13:00:10 & 104 & 12:30:00 & 755 + 13:05:00 & 99 & 12:36:00 & 756.5 + 13:10:47 & 92.5 & 12:40:38 & 759.5 + 13:15:00 & 88.5 & 12:45:18 & 761.5 + 13:20:00 & 86.5 & 12:50:00 & 765.5 + 13:25:00 & 86 & 12:55:43 & 771 + 13:30:10 & 86 & 13:00:00 & 775 + 13:37:20 & 92 & 13:05:20 & 782 + 13:45:00 & 101 & 13:10:06 & 788.5 + 13:49:30 & 106 & 13:20:00 & 805 + 13:56:00 & 117 & 13:30:00 & 824.5 + 14:04:30 & 132 & 13:40:00 & 848 + 14:15:00 & 154 & 13:50:00 & 875 + 14:25:00 & 175.5 & 14:01:20 & 910 + 14:38:12 & 206 & 14:10:50 & 946 + 14:45:00 & 224 & 14:20:06 & 987 + 14:55:00 & 247.5 & & + 15:05:00 & 275 & & + 15:15:00 & 303 & & + 15:25:00 & 331.5 & & +    clrrl 02:21:00 & @xmath56 vir vs. moon & 3.@xmath741 & 3.@xmath770 & + 0.@xmath729 + 02:24:00 & saturn vs. moon & 12.85 & 13.21 & + 0.36 + 02:28:00 & @xmath9 crv vs. moon & 10.71 & 10.85 & + 0.14 + 02:30:00 & saturn vs. @xmath56 vir & 13.60 & 13.71 & + 0.11 + 04:04:00 & @xmath56 vir vs. moon & 3.28 & 3.40 & + 0.12 + 04:06:40 & saturn vs. moon & 13.34 & 13.86 & + 0.52 + 04:08:00 & @xmath9 crv vs. moon & 11.33 & 11.34 & + 0.01 + 04:10:00 & saturn vs. @xmath56 vir & 13.63 & 13.71 & + 0.08 + 05:54:00 & @xmath56 vir vs. moon & 3.32 & 3.22 & @xmath250.10 + 05:56:00 & saturn vs. moon & 14.52 & 14.53 & + 0.01 + 05:58:30 & @xmath9 crv vs. moon & 11.77 & 11.91 & + 0.14 + 06:01:40 & saturn vs. @xmath56 vir & 13.55 & 13.71 & + 0.16 + 06:04:00 & @xmath57 hya vs. moon & 9.33 & 9.31 & @xmath250.02 + 08:02:00 & @xmath56 vir vs. moon & 3.63 & 3.15 & @xmath250.48 + 08:03:00 & saturn vs. moon & 14.80 & 15.34 & + 0.54 + 08:05:00 & saturn vs. @xmath56 vir & 13.55 & 13.71 & + 0.16 + 08:31:00 & saturn vs. @xmath56 vir & 13.60 & 13.71 & + 0.11 + 08:38:00 & @xmath56 vir vs. moon & 3.35 & 3.17 & @xmath250.18 + 08:41:00 & saturn vs. moon & 15.06 & 15.60 & + 0.54 +    cccccc 02:24:00 & 198.@xmath715 @xmath1 0.09 & @xmath2512.@xmath776 @xmath1 0.09 & 198.@xmath727 & @xmath2513.@xmath720 & 0.@xmath746 + 04:04:40 & 198.76 @xmath1 0.04 & @xmath2513.14 @xmath1 0.07 & 198.93 & @xmath2513.56 & 0.45 + 05:56:00 & 199.53 @xmath1 0.02 & @xmath2513.94 @xmath1 0.01 & 199.63 & @xmath2513.90 & 0.10 + 08:03:00 & 199.50 @xmath1 0.57 & @xmath2514.31 @xmath1 0.36 & 200.55 & @xmath2514.25 & 1.02 + 08:41:00 & 200.03 @xmath1 0.62 & @xmath2514.27 @xmath1 0.34 & 200.87 & @xmath2514.34 & 0.81 +    clll t@xmath68 & epoch ( ut ) & 2008 june 29.35 & 2007 january 15.00 + t@xmath68 & epoch ( julian date ) & 2454646.85 & 2454115.5 + @xmath69 & mean anomaly at t@xmath68 & 335.@xmath71461 & 155.@xmath733678 + @xmath70 & semi - major axis & 2.0855 au & 2.046041 au + @xmath71 & eccentricity & 0.4575 & 0.449165 + @xmath72 & inclination angle & 8.@xmath75033 & 8.@xmath7437363 + @xmath73 & longitude of ascending node & 177.@xmath76887 & 177.@xmath7216737 + @xmath74 & argument of perihelion & 176.@xmath71618 & 177.@xmath7020070 +


asteroseismology is the only systematic technique to study the insides of a star .
pulsators are fortunately found all over the h - r diagram , and allow us the opportunity to look inside different stars in various evolutionary stages .
white dwarf stars are the stellar remains of 9899% of stars in the sky @xcite , and contain an archival record of their main sequence lifetime .
pulsating white dwarf stars serve as effective instruments to harness this archival record .
white dwarf spectra reveal that 80% of them have atmospheres dominated by hydrogen ( das ; @xcite ) .
hydrogen atmosphere da white dwarfs are observed to pulsate in an instability strip located in the temperature range 1080012500k for @xmath0 @xcite .
recent studies determine that the da instability strip is only about 10001200k in width @xcite .
these da variables ( davs ) are known as the zz  ceti stars , after the proto type zz  ceti ( r548 ) of the class .    in this paper
we gather the pulsation spectra of all known non - interacting zz  ceti stars with the purpose of studying their ensemble pulsation characteristics , and how these properties change across the instability strip .
such a systematic study of the zz  ceti pulsators was first undertaken by pioneers in the field such as @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite .
@xcite was the first to demonstrate the distinct behavior of pulsation periods and amplitudes as a function of temperature systematically for a significant sample of davs .
the sample size of known davs is now three times larger than the sample used in the last such characterization of the zz  ceti pulsators by @xcite .
also , we now have better and internally consistent temperatures for these pulsators , calculated using the ml2/@xmath1 convection description ( see * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
this prescription for convection gives the best internal consistency between optical and ultra - violet ( uv ) effective temperatures , trigonometric parallaxes , v magnitudes , and gravitational redshifts @xcite .
these two reasons compel us to re - examine the pulsation characteristics of the instability strip .      of the 35 new zz  ceti variables published in @xcite , hs0951 + 1312 , hs0952 + 1816 , wd1443 + 0134
, wd1524 - 0030 , and wd2350 - 0054 do not have reliable spectroscopic @xmath2 and @xmath3 fits ( see @xcite ) .
our sample of new zz  ceti variables discovered using spectra from the sloan digital sky survey ( sdss ) then consists of 30 davs from @xcite and 11 davs from @xcite .
for these 41 davs , d. eisenstein derived a homogeneous and internally consistent set of @xmath2 and @xmath3 values from the sdss using model atmospheres from d. koester ( see * ? ? ? * ) .
we carefully and consistently re - analyzed all of our time - series photometry data on these pulsators , acquired using the prime focus ccd camera argos @xcite on the 2.1 m telescope at mcdonald observatory . we shall henceforth refer to this set of 41 davs as the sdss zz  ceti sample with homogeneous spectroscopic fits and homogeneous time - series photometry .
@xcite and @xcite have published internally consistent temperatures and @xmath3 fits for 39 davs using their latest model atmospheres ; we will henceforth refer to this second set of 39 davs as the bg04 zz  ceti sample .
we compiled a corresponding set of 39 pulsation spectra from the literature , and via private communication with our colleagues .
the seismic data of the bg04 zz  ceti sample was acquired by different observers using different instruments and telescopes .
however a substantial amount of time - series data exists on most davs in this sample , and we utilized practically all published pulsation spectra to carefully derive well - averaged values of weighted mean period and pulsation amplitudes which we present in this paper .
@xcite show evidence of a relative shift of about 200k between the sdss and bg04 zz  ceti instability strips , which also differ in shape and width .
the spectra of zz  ceti stars in these samples were analyzed using different techniques and with different model atmospheres .
as homogeneity is imperative , we can not merge these two samples for analyses that involve the spectroscopic temperature .
however we can merge these two samples when formulating plots based solely on seismic data such as figure 3 .    during the writing of this manuscript ,
25 new zz  ceti stars were submitted for publication in separate papers : silvotti et al .
2005a , castanheira et al .
2005 , kepler et al .
2005b , gianninas
2005 , and silvotti et al .
this brings the total number of non - interacting zz  ceti stars known to 107 .
twenty of the new davs in these papers come from the sdss .
their spectroscopic @xmath2 and @xmath3 values were derived using the same technique as the 41 sdss davs discovered previously , but with a different algorithm ( version auto23 vs. auto21 used earlier ) .
hence we can not include the new davs in our sdss zz  ceti sample for plots based on effective temperature , such as figures 1 and 2 . also , we find that the main purpose of the pulsation spectra presented in these papers is to demonstrate discovery of variability
. such pulsation spectra may be incomplete and are not well suited for direct inclusion in most plots of this paper where ensemble homogeneity plays a big role .
however we will include these variables in figure 3 ( based on seismic data ) for completeness , and show the net effect of the inclusion on the original plot .
@xcite , @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite show that the non - linear pulse shapes observed in some variable white dwarfs may arise as a result of relatively thick convection zones .
many frequencies are evident in these stars because the non - linearities appear as harmonics and linear combinations in our fourier transforms .
we are interested in studying the pulsation characteristics of self - excited real modes in the context of this paper .
hence we will disregard all harmonics and linear combination frequencies in the observed pulsation spectra throughout this paper .
when our program detects a linear combination or harmonic in an observed pulsation spectrum , we typically hand - pick the lowest amplitude mode as the linear combination mode .
however if we find a mode involved in two or more linear combinations , we consider it to be a linear combination mode even if it is not the lowest amplitude mode .
our simplistic approach could lead us to incorrect choices ; we could be misinterpreting resonances as linear combination modes in a few cases .
however any small discrepancies in values evaluated for a single star should have a minimal impact on the conclusions we draw from the ensemble .
short pulsation periods ( 100300s ) in the zz  ceti stars typically have pulsation amplitudes of a few percent or smaller . long pulsation periods ( 6001000s ) typically have large amplitudes that can be as high as 10% .
this correlation between the pulsation periods and amplitudes of the zz  ceti stars has been established for a long time @xcite .
however the correlation of these properties with temperature had to wait more than a decade for sufficiently accurate determinations of zz  ceti temperatures .
subsequently the distinct behavior of pulsation periods and amplitudes as a function of temperature was systematically demonstrated for a significant sample of davs by @xcite and more recently by @xcite .
we now demonstrate and discuss these trends for the new as well as previously known davs of our two homogeneous samples .
we will begin with showing how the number of observed independent modes changes across the instability strip .
we expect a larger ( than intrinsic ) scatter in the number of independent modes we measure for an ensemble of zz  ceti stars due to varied detection efficiency .
this partially arises because we use different instruments on different telescopes , or observe for different durations of time , and also due to the variety of weather conditions and extinction values .
a fraction of the scatter in our detection efficiency is caused because zz  ceti stars have different magnitudes and different pulsation amplitudes , and the pulsation amplitudes depend on the effective wavelength of observation @xcite .    by using the sdss
zz  ceti sample alone , we reduce some of this expected scatter ( see subsection 1.1 ) . to reduce the scatter additionally
, we choose to limit ourselves to the magnitude range @xmath4 and to a stellar mass @xmath5 to exclude intrinsic low amplitude davs ( see section 2.3 ) .
reducing our magnitude range any more will take us further into the realm of small number statistics .
for the subset of 23 sdss davs that fall in the chosen range , we find an average of 2.5modes / star for the hotter zz  ceti stars ( 1130011800k ) , and a slightly larger value of 3.1modes / star for the cooler zz  ceti stars ( 1080011300k ) .
if we consider all the sdss davs in our sample , excluding the three massive variables ( wd0923 + 0120 , wd1711 + 6541 , & wd2159 + 1322 ) , then we find an average of 2.9modes / star for the hotter zz  ceti stars ( 1130011800k ) and 3.3modes / star for the cooler zz  ceti stars ( 1080011300k ) up to an amplitude limit of order a few mma .
this may seem contrary to published literature , but we are attempting to restrict ourselves to independent self - excited modes only , rather than plot the total number of observed periodicities in the star .    the period spacing for nonradial g - modes with @xmath63 is larger than the asymptotic limit .
this increase in the density of available eigenmodes as a function of period is consistent with the increase we find in the number of observed independent modes , comparing the hotter zz  ceti stars to the cooler zz  ceti stars .
pulsations in zz  ceti models ( and in stars in general ) are self - driven oscillations .
stochastic noise frequencies coincident with the eigenfrequencies are amplified by the driving mechanism to observable amplitudes .
the blue edge of the zz  ceti instability strip occurs when the star is cool enough to have a hydrogen partial ionization zone sufficiently deep to excite global pulsations .
our models suggest that the driving frequency is governed by the thermal timescale at the base of the hydrogen partial ionization zone ( see @xcite ) .
as the model star cools , the base of the partial ionization zone moves deeper in the model , and the thermal timescale increases @xcite .
numerical calculations by montgomery ( 2005 ) show that the thermal timescale at the base of the ionization zone @xmath7 is proportional to @xmath8 .
however recent investigations by @xcite suggest that the thermal timescale is not consistent with the mean pulsation period , although both quantities increase in the models as we traverse from the blue to the red edge of the instability strip .
figure 1 shows the mean pulsation period as a function of effective temperature for davs in both the sdss and bg04 zz  ceti samples .
we determine the weighted mean period ( wmp ) for each dav by weighting each period with the corresponding observed amplitude ( see equation 1 ) .
@xmath9    we can now appreciate the significance of figure 1 ; the weighted mean pulsation period provides us with a method of determining the temperature of a zz  ceti star independent of spectroscopy .
the respective equations of the best fit lines through the sdss and the bg04 zz  ceti samples shown in figure 1 are : @xmath10 = -0.835@xmath11 @xmath12 + 10060@xmath13@xmath14 = -0.830@xmath15 @xmath16 + 10240@xmath17    where wmp is in units of seconds and @xmath2 is in units of kelvin .
it is reassuring to see an agreement in the values of the slope for both the sdss and bg04 zz  ceti samples , and gives us more confidence in using this period - temperature correlation as a means to measure the effective temperature of a dav .
we can now determine a temperature for the five variables with unreliable spectroscopic fits we excluded earlier , hs0951 + 1312 , hs0952 + 1816 , wd1443 + 0134 , wd1524 - 0030 , and wd2350 - 0054 ( see table 1 in the appendix ) .
we compute a sum of the squares of the * horizontal * offsets of the points in figure 1 respectively from the above best fit lines , and arrive at a seismic estimate of the average uncertainty in our spectroscopic temperature .
we determine @xmath18=188.3k for the sdss zz  ceti sample , and @xmath18=185.4k for the bg04 zz  ceti sample .
it is not surprising that the average @xmath2 uncertainties in both these samples turned out to be similar because zz  ceti stars in both samples define an instability strip of the same width @xmath1910001200k@xcite .
we can expect that if the average @xmath2 uncertainty in the sdss sample had been significantly larger than that of the bg04 sample , the empirical width of the sdss instability strip would also have been correspondingly larger .
our current temperature determinations are getting better and may be internally consistent to about 200k at present .
our empirical measure of the width of the instability strip appears to have reduced from 1500k @xcite to about 10001200k @xcite .
but even with our current atmospheric models we do find exceptions to this period-@xmath2 correlation , where the spectroscopic temperature does not match the pulsation properties of the zz  ceti star .
for example , @xcite report the zz  ceti star wd2350 - 0054 with a dominant period close to 300s as an unusual pulsator because its sdss spectroscopic determination places it below the red edge of the instability strip at @xmath20k .
@xcite report a known complex pulsator g29 - 38 @xcite as a hot zz  ceti star with @xmath21k .
better s / n spectra of these and other such zz  ceti stars may reveal temperatures consistent with their observed periods .
unless the pulsation characteristics themselves reveal curious features , it seems premature to conclude that the zz  ceti star in question ( with a spectroscopic temperature inconsistent with its pulsation spectrum ) is strange or abnormal in any way .
measuring the pulsation periods of a zz  ceti star is a model - independent and straight forward process as opposed to a spectroscopic determination of its temperature .
the instability strip spans 10001200k in temperature and about 1300s in period .
the internal uncertainty in measuring temperature using spectra is typically about 200k , which is 1720% of the width of the instability strip . while even low quality photometric data will yield a period precise to at least a few seconds .
for the hotter zz  ceti stars , with little or no amplitude modulation , the uncertainty in wmp constitutes less than 1% of the width of the instability strip in period .
cooler zz  ceti stars with a significant amplitude modulation can exhibit pulsation spectra with a wmp different by 3060s and in a few cases even as much as 100200s . for most of the cooler
zz  ceti stars , the uncertainty in wmp represents less than 5% of the width of the instability strip .
we therefore expect that this method of using the wmp to effectively measure the location of a dav within the instability strip is in general more accurate and reliable than spectroscopy .
any dispersion in period due to differences in stellar mass , core composition , h / he layer masses , etc .
, can increase the uncertainty of determining the temperature of a given dav using this relation .
we expect this may be significantly smaller than our present typical spectroscopic @xmath2 uncertainties of a few 100k .
note that we do not claim that the relationship between the wmp and the temperature is linear ; a straight line is merely the simplest model fit possible to the observations shown in figure 1 , considering the large amount of scatter .
we do not necessarily require a linear relation between wmp and @xmath2 for this method to work as a temperature indicator .
our collaborators at the university of texas are presently investigating the interpretation of these data in terms of the theoretical models ( kim et al .
2006 ; in preparation ) .
the plot of wmp vs. @xmath2 is similar to comparing two independent temperature scales , each with its own independent source of uncertainties .
the uncertainty in spectroscopic @xmath2 depends on the quality of the spectrum , the accuracy and completeness of the model atmosphere , and the details of the algorithm used to fit the observed spectrum with the template spectra .
large amplitude variables have a corresponding higher uncertainty in temperature @xcite .
the uncertainty in wmp comes from the quality of the photometric observations , and the amplitude modulation of the star .
as long as we restrict our relative @xmath2 parameter in units of seconds in the wmp temperature scale , the uncertainty in our measurements is not related to spectroscopic temperature values at all .
it is only when we attempt to translate wmp into a temperature in degree kelvin , that we have to use the relation between wmp and spectroscopic temperature . even in this case
, we are still better off than the typical 200k uncertainty in spectroscopic temperature because the slopes of the best fit lines in figure 1 do not depend on a few stars , but on 3540 stars . using wmp directly as a temperature scale is non - intuitive at the present time .
but this maybe worth thinking about as an alternative scale in the long run , once we improve our understanding of the relation between wmp and @xmath2 , both observationally and theoretically .
we presently classify the zz  ceti stars into two groups : the hot davs and the cool davs .
however a clear dividing point ( in temperature ) between these two classes does not exist to date in published literature .
our present classification of these stars is thus vague in this context , although it has certainly proved to be a useful guide .
the primary reason such a temperature based classification can not be well defined is because the location and width of the instability strip are model - dependent features .
model atmospheres of dav stars treat convection with some parameterization , the choice of which can shift the instability strip in temperature by a few thousand k(@xcite ) .
the pulsation characteristics of the zz  ceti stars helped us divide them into simple and complex pulsators in the late seventies .
a decade later , we recognized that the simple pulsators that exhibit a few modes with short periods ( 200300s ) , small amplitudes ( few mma ) , sinusoidal or saw - toothed pulse shapes , and continued to show the same pulsation spectra over a few decades , were hot zz  ceti stars .
we also realized that the complex pulsators that exhibit several long periods ( 6001200s ) with large amplitudes ( 40110mma ) , non - sinusoidal pulse shapes with fast rise times and slow decadence , and amplitude modulation over timescales of a few days to a few years , were cool zz  ceti stars .
although we now use spectroscopic temperature as a means to classify these stars , the classification scheme came about only because we initially used the pulsation characteristics to separate these stars into two groups .
we suggest a new zz  ceti classification scheme based on the wmp of these variables .
we intend to retain the fundamental aspect of the previous scheme in using a temperature based classification .
we have shown that wmp is also a temperature scale ( figure 1 ) .
we expect that wmp serves as a more accurate and reliable @xmath2 scale than spectroscopic temperature because measuring the pulsation periods of a zz  ceti star constitutes a relatively simple , less uncertain , and model - independent exercise compared to measuring its spectroscopic temperature .
we redefine the class of hot davs ( hdavs ) as zz  ceti stars with wmp@xmath22350s .
we redefine the class of cool davs ( cdavs ) as zz  ceti stars with wmp@xmath23650s .
we suggest introducing a new class of davs , to be called the intermediate davs ( idavs ) , as zz  ceti stars with 350@xmath24wmp@xmath24650 .
this class merely forms the evolutionary subclass adjoining the hot and cool zz  ceti stars and typically encompasses those zz  ceti pulsators that show a large range of pulsation periods , e.g. hs0507 + 0435b .    for borderline cases such as g29 - 38 , when one season of observations place the dav in one class , and a second season places it in another class , then we suggest choosing the coolest class of the two possibilities .
we find several cases where a cdav or an idav exhibit modes typical of the hotter pulsators , but we have not seen an instance of a hot dav exhibiting a mode typical of the cool zz  ceti stars .
we show our suggested classification for most of the known non - interacting zz  ceti stars in tables 1 and 2 .
note that the boundaries of 350s and 650s are arbitrary in some sense ; we merely wished to divide the instability strip into three parts and used a period histogram to fine - tune our choice . for simplicity and better readability , tables 1 and 2 in the appendix
do not show all of the pulsation spectra we accrued for each star .
we show multiple seasons of observations only for those davs that exhibit different frequencies and amplitudes at different times .
this also helps us understand the intrinsic changes in weighted mean period and mean pulsation amplitude for such variables . to use such stars in the ensemble , we computed the weighted mean period and mean pulsation amplitude for each season of observations individually , and then included the average value in our analysis .
we refer the reader to @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite for the pulsation spectra of the new davs .
the physical quantity of interest in this subsection is the intrinsic pulsation amplitude of modes excited in the zz  ceti star .
but the measured amplitudes of observed modes are most likely lower than the intrinsic amplitudes due to geometric cancellation .
this effect has three independent causes : disk averaging , inclination angle , and limb darkening .
we are unable to resolve the disk of the star from earth .
hence the observed amplitude of each pulsation mode is lower due to a disk - averaging effect .
this explains why the probability of detecting @xmath25=1 modes is higher than the detection probability for @xmath25=2 and @xmath25=3 modes .
the inclination angle dictates the distribution of the bright and dark zones in our view for a given mode .
eigenmodes with different @xmath26 values exhibit different cancellation patterns ( see @xcite ) .
limb darkening effectively reduces the area of the stellar disk in our view , and this reduction in area depends on wavelength . at uv wavelengths ,
the increased limb darkening decreases the contribution of zones near the limb . as a result , modes of higher @xmath27 are canceled less effectively in the uv compared to the low @xmath27 modes @xcite . of these three independent causes of geometric cancellation ,
limb darkening is the only one that works in our favor , and provides us with a mode identification technique @xcite .
the intrinsic pulsation amplitude depends on the mass of the star .
nonradial g - modes have a non - negligible radial component , the amplitude of which scales with stellar mass and plays a role in dictating the amplitude of the nonradial component .
the massive pulsators bpm37093 ( @xmath3=8.81 ) , wd0923 + 0120 ( @xmath3=8.74 ) , wd1711 + 6541 ( @xmath3=8.64 ) , and wd2159 + 1322 ( @xmath3=8.61 ) exhibit low amplitudes as a result of their high gravity , and hence we exclude them from section 2.3 .    figure 2 shows the square root of total power @xmath28 for 38 stars from the sdss sample ( top ) and 38 stars from the bg04 zz  ceti sample ( bottom ) , plotted as a function of their spectroscopic temperature .
all of the pulsation amplitudes we report in this paper come from optical whole disk observations .
we expect these are mostly low @xmath25 modes . for these reasons
, we expect them to be lower than the corresponding intrinsic amplitudes due to geometric cancellation .
the points that form the upper envelopes in both panels of figure 2 are then better indicators of the intrinsic amplitude at that temperature .
note that in the few cases of under - resolved data , beating of closely spaced periodicities can lead us to determine a relatively smaller or larger amplitude than the observable amplitude .
we expect that zz  ceti stars with a high pulsation amplitude have a corresponding higher uncertainty in temperature . for large amplitude variables , the surface temperature changes substantially during a pulsation cycle , by as much as a thousand degrees @xcite .
depending on which phase of the pulsation cycle ( typical periods of 6001200s for cool davs ) we acquire the spectra and for how long , our measure of their effective temperature can be incorrect by a few hundred degrees . we can attempt to estimate this uncertainty by obtaining time - series photometry on the star simultaneous with the spectroscopic data .    at
any given temperature , the apparently low amplitude variables could be suffering from extensive geometric cancellation . at the same time
, the high amplitude variables with the expectedly least geometric cancellation have a proportionally high uncertainty in temperature due to the large intrinsic temperature fluctuation during a pulsation cycle .
this makes the task of interpreting figure 2 difficult .
there is fortunately a silver lining to this bleak cloud : zz  ceti stars are multi - mode pulsators .
if a zz  ceti with 3 independent modes still exhibits a small amplitude , then it is unlikely that we are dealing with an unfavorable inclination angle in all three cases and @xmath26 .
however we do not fully understand the mode selection mechanism for different @xmath26 values .
also , they exhibit different cancellation patterns @xcite . ] .    instead of traditional histograms
, we adopt a gaussian binning technique where each bin serves as a gaussian function instead of a box ( top - hat ) function .
this is a better noise averaging technique because all points contribute to the value of each bin .
although the contributions of distant points to the value of an individual bin are small , this method may not be appropriate to study sharp local trends .
we are interested in slow trends across the width of the instability strip and do not hesitate to use this technique .
we choose gaussian bins with @xmath29 that are an infinitesimal 1k apart from each other .
we show the result as a solid line in both panels of figure 2 .
both samples show an initial increase in pulsation amplitude , and are also suggestive of a decline prior to the red edge .    we established in section 2.2 how the weighted mean pulsation period correlates directly with the effective temperature of the davs for both samples .
we now merge both the sdss and the bg04 samples , also including the five davs with unreliable spectroscopic fits ( see section 1.1 ) to plot the pulsation amplitude as a function of the wmp .
we no longer have to worry about the internal consistency in their spectroscopic temperatures , and we can use their wmp as a @xmath2 scale .
we show these 81 davs as filled circles in figure 3 .
we also include the 19 new davs from @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite as filled squares .
we have excluded the massive dav wd1337 + 0104 ( @xmath3=8.55 ) from @xcite and the low mass davs he0031 - 5525 ( @xmath3=7.65 ) & wd2135 - 0743 ( @xmath3=7.67 ) from @xcite in figure 3 .
figure 3 shows a plot with better statistics than figure 2 due to the larger sample size of 100 davs .
we used gaussian bins of width 75s , separated from adjacent bins by an infinitesimal amount of 1s , to produce both the curves shown in figure 3 .
the solid line is the histogram determined from the 81 average mass davs of the bg04 and sdss samples , while the dotted line shows the effect of including the new 19 average mass davs .
the minor difference between the two lines assures us that our conclusions are robust .
we clearly see an initial increase in pulsation amplitude near the blue edge , followed by a gentle rise and then a decline prior to the red edge .
we find several reasons why figure 3 looks much more convincing of a decline in amplitude before the red edge compared to figure 2 .
changing from a x - axis based on spectroscopic temperature to weighted mean period allows us to include four red edge pulsators with low amplitudes , namely hs0952 + 1816 , wd1443 + 0134 , wd0249 - 0100 , and wd2307 - 0847 .
secondly , we get better statistics by combining the two samples that are individually suggestive of a decline in amplitude near the red edge .
lastly , we also find that the change in x - axis between figures 2 and 3 moves pulsators left and right , apparently leaving behind cleaner evidence of a decline prior to the red edge .
for example , we find that the low amplitude cool dav gd154 moves from 11180k in figure 2 to 1154s in figure 3 , which corresponds to @xmath30k using the slope in the bottom panel of figure 1 as a conversion factor .
we have eight pulsators with weighted mean periods of order or greater than 1000s with amplitudes near or less than 25mma .
there are no high amplitude pulsators in this range , and the scatter in amplitude near the red edge is much smaller than the center of the zz  ceti instability strip .
it is unlikely that unfavorable inclination angles can explain the low amplitudes of all the independent modes of all eight pulsators .
@xcite established the observed red edge at 11000k , but did not see any decline in pulsation amplitude near the red edge within the instability strip , although they were searching for it .
it is for the first time that we now have clear evidence of a decline in pulsation amplitude within the instability strip , just prior to the zz  ceti red edge . in other words ,
the star loses pulsation energy before pulsations shut down at the red edge .
this work will have implications and new constraints for our pulsation models .
we find that the present large sample of non - interacting davs conforms to the well established trend of increasing pulsation periods with decreasing temperature across the instability strip .
investigations of the number of observed independent modes show that hot davs have one more mode on average compared to the cool davs .
we also confirm the increase in pulsation amplitude near the blue edge and find strong evidence of a decline in amplitude prior to the red edge .
@xcite established the observed zz  ceti red edge at 11000k , but did not see any decline in pulsation amplitude near the red edge within the instability strip .
we present the first observational evidence that shows the red edge is not an abrupt feature in zz  ceti evolution , and that the star loses pulsation energy before pulsations shut down at the red edge .
this work poses new constraints on our pulsation models .
support for this work was provided by nasa through the hubble fellowship grant hst - hf-01175.01-a awarded by the space telescope science institute , which is operated by the association of universities for research in astronomy , inc .
, for nasa , under contract nas 5 - 26555 .
we thank the referee for helping us make this manuscript a better paper .
llllllllllll wd0018 + 0031 & hdav & 11700 & 7.93 & 257.9 5.8 & & & & & & + wd0048 + 1521 & idav & 11290 & 8.23 & 615.3 24.8 & & & & & & + wd0102@xmath310032 & cdav & 11050 & 8.24 & 1043.4 15.3 & 926.3 34.7 & 830.3 35.1 & 752.2 19.4 & & & + wd0111 + 0018 & hdav & 11510 & 8.26 & 292.3 21.9 & 255.3 15.6 & & & & & + wd0214@xmath310823 & hdav & 11570 & 7.92 & 348.1 8.4 & 347.1 8.2 & 297.5 16.0 & 263.5 7.1 & & & + wd0318 + 0030 & cdav & 11040 & 8.07 & 844.9 15.3 & 826.4 27.3 & 695.0 8.9 & 587.1 10.6 & 536.1 11.1 & & + wd0332@xmath310049 & cdav & 11040 & 8.25 & 1143.7 7.4 & 938.4 6.7 & 765.0 15.2 & 402.0 4.1 & & & + wd0332@xmath310049 & cdav & 11040 & 8.25 & 770 23 & 910 10 & & & & & + wd0756 + 2020 & hdav & 11710 & 8.01 & 199.5 6.8 & & & & & & + wd0815 + 4437 & idav & 11620 & 7.93 & 787.5 7.2 & 311.7 18.9 & 309.0 10.2 & 258.3 6.8 & & & + wd0818 + 3131 & hdav & 11800 & 8.07 & 253.3 2.9 & 202.3 3.3 & & & & & + wd0825 + 4119 & idav & 11820 & 8.49 & 653.4 17.1 & 611.0 11.2 & & & & + wd0842 + 3707 & hdav & 11720 & 7.73 & 321.1 4.4 & 309.3 18.0 & 212.3 5.2 & & & & & + wd0847 + 4510 & hdav & 11680 & 8.00 & 200.5 7.0 & 123.4 3.0 & & & & & + wd0906@xmath310024 & idav & 11520 & 8.00 & 769.4 26.1 & 618.8 9.3 & 574.5 23.7 & 457.9 9.8 & 266.6 7.6 & & + wd0913 + 4036 & hdav & 11680 & 7.87 & 320.5 14.7 & 288.7 12.4 & 260.3 16.5 & 203.9 3.8 & & & + wd0923 + 0120 & cdav & 11150 & 8.74 & 655.7 4.4 & & & & & & & + wd0923 + 0120 & cdav & 11150 & 8.74 & 668.9 3.5 & & & & & & & + wd0939 + 5609 & hdav & 11790 & 8.22 & 249.9 7.2 & 48.5 5.9 & & & & & & + wd0942 + 5733 & idav & 11260 & 8.27 & 909.4 7.7 & 694.7 37.7 & 550.5 12.3 & 273.0 9.0 & & & & + wd0949@xmath310000 & idav & 11180 & 8.22 & 711.6 6.0 & 634.2 5.1 & 516.6 16.2 & 365.2 17.7 & 364.1 7.3 & 363.2 12.5 & & + wd0958 + 0130 & hdav & 11680 & 7.99 & 264.4 4.7 & 203.7 2.5 & 121.2 1.6 & & & & & + wd1002 + 5818 & hdav & 11710 & 7.92 & 304.6 5.3 & 268.2 6.8 & & & & & + wd1007 + 5245 & hdav & 11430 & 8.08 & 323.1 10.4 & 290.1 7.7 & 258.8 11.0 & & & & + wd1015 + 0306 & hdav & 11580 & 8.14 & 270.0 8.4 & 255.7 7.3 & 194.7 5.8 & & & & & + wd1015 + 5954 & idav & 11630 & 8.02 & 769.9 5.7 & 453.8 15.5 & 401.7 21.4 & 292.4 8.6 & & & & + wd1015 + 5954 & idav & 11630 & 8.02 & 768.4 7.5 & 455.3 17.7 & 401.4 19.8 & 294.0 9.1 & & & & + wd1015 + 5954 & idav & 11630 & 8.02 & 456.1 19.6 & 399.7 19.2 & 145.5 3.1 & 139.2 4.6 & & & & + wd1054 + 5307 & cdav & 11120 & 8.01 & 869.1 37.4 & & & & & & & + wd1056@xmath310006 & cdav & 11020 & 7.86 & 1024.9 31.6 & 925.4 60.3 & 670.6 12.0 & 603.0 11.5 & & & & + wd1122 + 0358 & cdav & 11070 & 8.06 & 996.1 17.3 & 859.1 34.6 & 740.1 10.0 & & & & & + wd1125 + 0345 & hdav & 11600 & 7.99 & 335.1 2.8 & 265.8 3.3 & 265.5 7.1 & 208.6 2.8 & & & & + wd1157 + 0553 & cdav &
11050 & 8.15 & 1056.2 5.8 & 918.9 15.9 & 826.2 8.1 & 748.5 5.6 & & & + wd1345@xmath310055 & hdav & 11800 & 8.04 & 254.4 2.4 & 195.5 3.9 & 195.2 5.5 & & & & & + wd1354 + 0108 & hdav & 11700 & 8.00 & 322.9 1.9 & 291.6 2.2 & 198.3 6.0 & 173.3 1.1 & 127.8 1.5 & & + wd1355 + 5454 & hdav & 11580 & 7.95 & 324.0 21.8 & & & & & & + wd1417 + 0058 & cdav & 11300 & 8.04 & 980.0 11.3 & 894.6 42.8 & 812.5 32.1 & 749.4 17.9 & 522.0 14.9 & & + wd1502@xmath310001 & idav & 11200 & 8.00 & 687.5 12.0 & 629.5 32.6 & 581.9 11.1 & 418.2 14.9 & & & & + wd1617 + 4324 & cdav & 11190 & 8.03 & 889.7 36.6 & 661.7 21.2 & 626.3 15.4 & & & & & + wd1700 + 3549 & cdav & 11160 & 8.04 & 1164.4 11.4 & 955.3 20.3 & 893.4 54.3 & 552.6 9.3 & & & + wd1711 + 6541 & cdav & 11310 & 8.64 & 1248.2 3.2 & 690.2 3.3 & 606.3 5.2 & 234.0 1.2 & & & & + wd1711 + 6541 & cdav & 11310 & 8.64 & 1186.6 3.3 & 934.8 2.9 & 612.6 5.7 & 561.5 3.0 & 214.3 1.7 & & & + wd1724 + 5835 & hdav & 11540 & 7.89 & 337.9 5.9 & 279.5 8.3 & 189.2 3.2 & & & & & +
wd1732 + 5905 & cdav & 10860 & 7.99 & 1248.4 4.5 & 1122.4 8.0 & & & & & & + wd1732 + 5905 & cdav & 10860 & 7.99 & 1336 7.8 & 1090 8.0 & & & & & & + wd2159 + 1322 & cdav & 11710 & 8.61 & 801.0 15.1 & 683.7 11.7 & & & & & & + wd2214@xmath310025 & hdav & 11440 & 8.33 & 255.2 13.1 & 195.2 6.1 & & & & & & + wd1443 + 0134 & cdav & 10830 & & 1085.0 5.2 & 969.0 7.5 & & & & & & + wd1524@xmath310030 & cdav & 11160 & & 873.3 110.8 & 717.5
28.3 & 498.6 21.6 & 255.2 17.9 & & & + wd2350@xmath310054 & hdav & 11690 & & 391.1 3.1 & 304.1 16.3 & 272.8 16.2 & & & & & + wd2350@xmath310054 & hdav & 11710 & & 304.5 13.8 & 272.7 14.8 & 212.6 3.0 & & & & & + wd2350@xmath310054 & hdav & 11680 & & 391.1 7.5 & 304.3 17.0 & 273.3 6.3 & 206.7 3.2 & & & & + hs0951 + 1312 & hdav & 11740 & & 311.7 2.7 & 282.2 9.0 & 258.0 3.6 & 208.0 9.4 & & & & + hs0952 + 1816 & cdav & 10800 & & 1160.9 7.9 & 945.9 10.4 & & & & & & + hs0952 + 1816 & cdav & 10960 & & 1150 4.8 & 883 3.6 & 790 2.9 & 674.7 3.0 & & & & +    llllllllllllllll bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 920.5 18.5 & 741.4 21.7 & 655.4 17.4 & 442.8 6.5 & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 993.0 6.5 & 936.2 13.0 & 885.6 15.2 & 819.2 19.5 & 738.0 6.5 & 609.6 6.5 & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 963.8 13.0 & 844.5 19.5 & 799.2 10.9 & 682.7 13.0 & 606.8 13.0 & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 920.4 8.7 & 751.6 13.0 & 682.7 10.9 & 606.8 15.2 & 546.1 5.4 & 496.5 4.3 & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 910.2 8.7 & 862.3 6.5 & 731.4 6.5 & 682.7 13.0 & 607.9 17.4 & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 1129.9 10.9 & 1057.0 8.7 & 744.7 18.5 & 606.8 16.3 & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 1137.8 8.7 & 958.1 7.6 & 862.3 16.3 & 744.7 7.6 & 606.8 14.1 & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 1092.3 5.4 & 993.0 8.7 & 936.2 9.8 & 744.7 7.6 & 712.3 6.5 & 606.8 11.9 & & & & & & @xcite + bpm30551 & cdav & 11260 & 8.23 & 862.3 6.5 & 799.2 8.7 & 744.7 7.6 & 668.7 7.6 & 612.5 5.4 & & & & & & & @xcite + r548 & hdav & 11990 & 7.97 & 333.6 0.6 & 318.0 0.9 & 274.8 3.8 & 274.3 4.8 & 213.1 7.4 & 212.8 4.7 & 187.3 0.9 & & & & & @xcite + mct0145 - 2211 & idav & 11550 & 8.14 & 823.2 17 & 727.9 19 & 462.2 25 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm31594 & idav & 11540 & 8.11 & 617.9 48.0 & 401.6 16 & 416.1 5 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + hltau76 & idav & 11450 & 7.89 & 933 25.2 & 796 9.7 & 781 9.9 & 541 40.5 & 494 30.2 & 383 21.8 & & & & & & @xcite + g38 - 29 & cdav & 11180 & 7.91 & 1024.0 26.1 & 938.0 26.5 & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + g38 - 29 & cdav & 11180 & 7.91 & 1019.8 12.2 & 910.3 28.3 & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + g191 - 16 & cdav & 11420 & 8.05 & 892.9 100 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + hs0507 + 0435b & idav & 11630 & 8.17 & 743.0 13.9 & 557.7 18.7 & 446.2 11.0 & 444.8 13.6 & 355.8 22.7 & 354.9 6.8 & 286.1 3.6 & & & & & @xcite + hs0507 + 0435b & idav & 11630 & 8.17 & 743.4 8.3 & 588.7 3.9 & 583.8 1.6 & 559.6 2.7 & 557.6 17.4 & 557.2 3.1 & 556.5 7.8 & 555.3 18.0 & 446.1 15.1 & 445.3 3.0 & 444.6 12.9 & @xcite + & & & & 355.8 26.1 & 355.4 4.7 & 354.9 11.1 & & & & & & & & & + gd66 & hdav & 11980 & 8.05 & 649.4 2.2 & 441.9 1.6 & 301.7 6.7 & 271.7 8.4 & 196.5 3.6 & & & & & & & @xcite + gd66 & hdav & 11980 & 8.05 & 788.6 5.5 & 461.0 3.6 & 301.7 6.3 & 271.7 30 & 197.2 2.2 & & & & & & & @xcite + gd66 & hdav & 11980 & 8.05 & 304.5 8.8 & 271.1 14.8 & 256.5 9 & 197.8 7 & 123.1 2.3 & & & & & & & @xcite + he0532 - 5605 & idav & 11560 & 8.49 & 688.8 8.3 & 586.4 7.9 & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + kuv08368 + 4026 & idav & 11490 & 8.05 & 618.0 17.4 & 494.5 6.0 & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + gd99 & cdav & 11820 & 8.08 & 1151.0 1.9 & 1088.0 4.3 & 1058.0 8.3 & 1007.0 6.5 & 976.0 2.1 & 924.7 1.7 & 853.2 2.4 & 633.1 2.0 & 228.9 4.5 & 223.6 2.9 & 105.2 2.0 & chynoweth&thompson2005;prv.comm . + g117-b15a & hdav & 11630 & 7.97 & 304.4 8.2 & 271.0 7.3 & 215.2 23.9 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + kuv11370 + 4222 & hdav & 11890 & 8.06 & 462.9 3.5 & 292.2 2.7 & 257.2 5.8 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + g255 - 2 & cdav & 11440 & 8.17 & 898.5 9.4 & 855.4 11.2 & 819.7 11.3 & 775.2 15.2 & 681.2 24.9 & 607.9 13.1 & 568.5 6.6 & & & & & vauclair2005;prv.comm .
+ g255 - 2 & cdav & 11440 & 8.17 & 985.2 4.8 & 773.4 12.7 & 681.2 27.7 & 568.5 16.5 & & & & & & & & vauclair2005;prv.comm .
+ bpm37093 & idav & 11730 & 8.81 & 636.7 1.7 & 633.2 1.1 & 613.5 1.1 & 600.7 0.9 & 582.0 1.0 & 565.5 1.2 & 562.6 0.9 & 548.4 1.1 & & & & @xcite + bpm37093 & idav & 11730 & 8.81 & 660.8 0.5 & 637.2 0.7 & 633.5 1.3 & 565.9 0.5 & 549.2 0.8 & 531.1 1.2 & 511.7 0.7 & & & & & @xcite + he1258 + 0123 & cdav & 11410 & 8.04 & 1092.1 14 & 744.6 23 & 528.5 9 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + gd154 & cdav & 11180 & 8.15 & 1190.5 6.3 & 1186.5 16.7 & 1183.5 4.6 & 1092.1 3.0 & 1088.6 5.0 & 1084.0 5.6 & & & & & & @xcite + lp133 - 144 & hdav & 11800 & 7.87 & 327.3 4 & 306.9 4 & 304.5 4 & 209.2 10 & & & & & & & & @xcite + g238 - 53 & hdav & 11890 & 7.91 & 206.2 8 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + ec14012 - 1446 & idav & 11900 & 8.16 & 937 11 & 610 57 & 724 21 & 530 15 & 399 13 & & & & & & & @xcite + gd165 & hdav & 11980 & 8.06 & 249.7 0.7 & 192.8 0.9 & 192.7 2.4 & 192.6 1.9 & 166.2 0.4 & 146.4 0.5 & 120.4 1.8 & 120.36 4.8 & 120.3 1.4 & 114.3 0.6 & 107.7 0.4 & @xcite + l19 - 2 & hdav & 12100 & 8.21 & 350.1 1.1 & 348.7 0.5 & 192.6 6.5 & 193.1 0.9 & 192.1 0.8 & 143.4 0.6 & 143.0 0.3 & 118.9 0.3 & 118.7 1.2 & 118.5 2.0 & & @xcite + & & & & 114.2 0.3 & 113.8 2.4 & 113.3 0.6 & & & & & & & & + pg1541 + 651 & cdav & 11600 & 8.10 & 757 14 & 689 45 & 564 15 & 467 3 & & & & & & & & @xcite + r808 & cdav & 11160 & 8.04 & 833 81 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + g226 - 29 & hdav & 12270 & 8.28 & 109.5 2.8 & 109.3 1.1 & 109.1 2.5 & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 1176 22.6 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 1050 9.1 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 1086 13.2 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 978 7.7 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 1098 6.1 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + bpm24754 & cdav & 11070 & 8.03 & 1122 6.7 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + g207 - 9 & idav & 11950 & 8.35 & 557.4 6.3 & 318.0 6.4 & 292.0 5.0 & 259.1 1.7 & & & & & & & & @xcite + g185 - 32 & hdav & 12130 & 8.05 & 651.7 0.7 & 537.6 0.6 & 454.6 0.4 & 370.2 1.6 & 301.4 1.1 & 299.8 1.0 & 264.2 0.5 & 215.7 1.9 & 141.9 1.4 & 72.9 0.4 & & @xcite + g185 - 32 & hdav & 12130 & 8.05 & 370.2 1.3 & 301.6 1.5 & 215.7 1.9 & 141.9 1.5 & 72.6 0.7 & & & & & & & @xcite + gd385 & hdav & 11710 & 8.04 & 256.3 10.9 & 256.1 11.4 & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + gd244 & hdav & 11680 & 8.08 & 307.0 14 & 294.6 5.5 & 256.3 5 & 203.3 10.5 & & & & & & & & @xcite + pg2303 + 243 & cdav & 11480 & 8.09 & 900.5 16 & 794.5 56 & 675.4 8 & 623.4 15 & 570.7 8 & & & & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 1015.5 14.5 & 930.9 25.7 & 824.7 20.2 & 677.0 17.6 & 612.9 20.0 & & & & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 934.5 20.5 & 813.8 23.5 & 671.5 23.0 & 623.8 11.8 & & & & & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 859.6 24.6 & 648.7 7.8 & 614.3 31.3 & 498.3 5.8 & 401.3 4.4 & 400.4 7.0 & 399.6 8.8 & 283.9 3.5 & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 915.4 5.9 & 615.1 58.0 & 500.4 8.0 & 474.9 4.8 & 401.3 5.6 & 400.4 5.8 & 399.6 10.0 & 354.9 2.9 & 333.9 2.7 & 283.9 3.5 & 110.1 0.9 & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 770.7 1.5 & 503.5 8.6 & 495.0 11.8 & 401.2 9.7 & 400.5 1.3 & 399.7 4.9 & 283.9 6.4 & 177.1 0.8 & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 809.4 30.1 & 610.3 10.6 & 401.2 11.2 & 399.7 4.5 & 283.9 6.9 & & & & & & & @xcite + g29 - 38 & cdav & 11820 & 8.14 & 894.0 14.0 & 770.8 8.7 & 678.4 9.7 & 612.4 31.6 & 610.7 8.2 & 608.9 8.5 & 551.9 4.4 & 498.3 6.1 & 401.2 6.0 & 399.7 5.7 & 237.0 1.8 & @xcite + & & & & 236.4 1.8 & & & & & & & & + g30 - 20 & cdav & 11070 & 7.95 & 1068 13.8 & & & & & & & & & & & @xcite + ec23487 - 2424 & cdav & 11520 & 8.10 & 993.0 37.7 & 989.3 11.0 & 868.2 12.8 & 804.5 19.3 & & & & & & & & @xcite +