 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
How was it found?
editDo you know how was it found? Just interested if it was a satelite that found it or radar dishes on the ground. Very interesting though will be even more interesting finding out why it is so light compared to Jupiter. --MattyC3350 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Check out Trans-Atlantic Exoplanet Survey, the article on the group who made the discovery. They use three 4-inch (10cm) telescopes located at Lowell Observatory, Mount Palomar, and the Canary Islands. The transit method doesn't require large telescopes, all you need to do with them is carefully measure the brightness of the target star over time. Bryan Derksen 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thats amazing! (To me it is anyways). I always thought they found these new planets with huge dishes and large satellites. 4 inch telescope, I guess size really dose not matter then! Good job on this to as soon as I seen the headline on a website I came to Wiki to see more info. Keep up the good work champ. --MattyC3350 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"Puffy planet"
editSince Puffy planet is a red link - can someone add a referenced explanation or create and article for it? We're considering this article for ITN inclusion on the main page. --Monotonehell 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Puffy planet is now a blue link, meaning I created this article. BlueEarth 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work :) --Monotonehell 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Date of Discovery
editAccording to this article; http://www.theworldnews.com.au/region.php?id=138980®ion=4 it was the Spring of 2006, not 2007. --Scuzzmonkey 19:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Be wary of false accuracy
editHmm, I'm a bit worried about these figures here. Is it really so wise to quote so many sig figs? You have to bear in mind that these stats are affected not just by statistical errors (in the given +/-), but also by assumptional problems. For instance, being binary stars, there could be severe inaccuracies arising here. The use of four sig figs seems very misleading here, because we certainly do not know the mass and volume of these planets to four sig figs. Also, note that many wikipedia pages referring to this planet quote different values.
See WASP-17b's discussion for more about this. Is there some kind of wikipedia guideline about this?--Fangz (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)